Attachment B Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

September 2019

Table of Contents

1.0 Noise Technical Analysis ...... 1 2.0 Fundamental Concepts of Noise ...... 3 3.0 Fundamental Concepts of Vibration ...... 7 4.0 Regulatory Setting ...... 8 5.0 Environmental Setting ...... 14 6.0 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis ...... 17 7.0 References ...... 26

Appendix A Noise Measurements

List of Figures

Figure 1. FTA Noise Impact Guidelines ...... 10 Figure 2. Noise Monitoring and Receptor Locations ...... 16

List of Tables

Table 1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ...... 5 Table 2. Human Response to Continuous Vibration ...... 8 Table 3. Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage to Buildings...... 8 Table 4. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria ...... 11 Table 5. Washington Administrative Code Maximum Allowable Sound Levels ...... 12 Table 6. Allowable Short-Term Exceedances of Maximum Allowable Levels ...... 13 Table 7. Summary of Noise Monitoring Results ...... 15 Table 8. Commonly Used Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ...... 18 Table 9. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ...... 19 Table 10. FTA Noise Impact Assessment of Operation of the Proposed Parking Garage and Bus Layover Facility ...... 20 Table 11. City of Kent Code Impact Assessment of Operation of the Proposed Parking Garage and Bus Layover Facility ...... 21 Table 12. Traffic Noise Levels due to Realignment of Railroad Avenue N ...... 21 Table 13. Predicted Noise Levels from Construction Activitiesa ...... 22 Table 14. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels by Distance ...... 24

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent i Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Kent CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DNL Day/Night Level FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTA Manual FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Hz Hertz kHz kilohertz

Ldn Day/Night Level

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Leq(h) Equivalent Sound Level occurring during a 1-hour period

Lmax Maximum Sound Level

Lxx Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level mPa micropascals NAC Noise Abatement Criteria PPV peak particle velocity Project Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project SPL sound pressure level VdB vibration decibels WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent ii Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

1.0 Noise Technical Analysis Summary This report evaluates noise levels associated with construction and operation of access improvements for the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project). Improvements include a new parking garage, bicycle lockers, crosswalks, proximate bus stop accommodations, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) features. The analysis found that operation of the Project would not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or City of Kent (City) noise thresholds. Construction of the Project is anticipated to exceed FTA daytime noise guidelines. To address these potential impacts during construction, a noise control plan is recommended to be in place prior to construction. The plan would include best practices to reduce equipment noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers during construction of the Project. Construction during nighttime hours would be minimized or avoided to reduce the potential for negative community reaction during construction. Introduction Sound Transit, in cooperation with the City, is proposing to construct and operate parking and access improvements for the Kent Station in the City of Kent, Washington. The purpose of this report is to describe the existing noise environment in the area and evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts based on construction and operation of the Project. Based on findings of the impact assessment, recommendations for noise abatement measures are discussed.

The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) (Federal Transit Administration 2018) provides FTA guidance for assessment of noise and vibration impacts from construction and operation of transit, parking, and associated facilities. The guidance outlines the requirements for preparation of technical reports. The City regulations and the Sound Transit Design Criteria Manual were also used in the analysis. Project Description

The Project would include a new parking garage serving patrons of the Sounder South Rail system at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east. Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street. The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls.

The Project would also include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to the Kent Station and improve safety. As part of final design, the following amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. The following are the proposed amenities:

▪ Adjacent to the project site, amenities would include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 1 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

▪ At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities would include a painted curb extension,1 new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid-flashing beacons. Sound Transit and the City will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

▪ Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements:

• At Railroad Avenue N and E James Street:

o Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop- off loop.

o Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases.

• At Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street:

o Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed.

• At Central Avenue N/E James Street:

o Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property.

• At E James Street west of Central Avenue N:

o Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

▪ At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities would include installing a painted curb extension, rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are ADA compliant.

▪ At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements would include adding smart lockers2 and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, an ADA-compliant crosswalk, a painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N.

▪ On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit- owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses. The layover area would include approximately eight bus bays and a bus operator rest stop.

1 Painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds. 2 Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 2 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station-dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411, including the 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue N and approximately 534 parking spaces at the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements. These include areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage. The staging area is currently identified as Sound Transit owned parcel 9179601585.

In support of sustainability, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages, such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array, and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City’s design goals of providing an aesthetically pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside construction dollars for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart) would manage the integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide stormwater runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. Traffic improvement measures would also be included. As part of final design and the City’s permitting and approval process, identified traffic improvements would be refined in collaboration with the City. 2.0 Fundamental Concepts of Noise Sound, Noise, and Acoustics Sound can be described as what is heard when a vibrating object generates pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air). Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound.

In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The perceived loudness of the noise source and the obstructions or atmospheric factors that affect the propagation path to the receiver determine the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the listener. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound. Frequency Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (perceived loudness). A low-frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 3 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 and 20,000 Hz. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the perceived loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micropascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one-hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of sound environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this huge range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe the sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of hearing for young people is about 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 mPa. Addition of Decibels Because dBs are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same perceived loudness, the resulting sound level at any given distance would be 3 dB higher than a single source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal perceived loudness together produce a sound level 5 dB louder than one source. A-Weighted Decibels The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive sound. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the perceived loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human auditory system.

Human hearing is limited in its range of audible frequencies as well as the way in which it perceives the SPL in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000 to 8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human auditory system, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “A-weighted” sound level can be computed based on this information.

The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people judge the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with A-weighted sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks (e.g., B, C, and D scales) have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems, but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with transit- or highway- related noise. Noise levels for technical reports related to transit or traffic noise are typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Table 1 describes typical A-weighted noise levels for various noise sources.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 4 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table 1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities or Noise Level Common Indoor Activities or Locations Conditions (dBA) — 110 — Rock band Jet flying at 1,000 feet — 100 — Gas lawn mower at 3 feet — 90 — Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet — 80 — Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 — Large business office Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Dishwasher next room

Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 30 — Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert — 20 — Broadcast/recording studio — 10 —

Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation 2013 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels As discussed under Addition of Decibels, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human auditory system is able to discern 1 dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 to 8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound-level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3 dB increase in sound would generally be perceived as barely detectable. Noise Descriptors Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time-varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors most commonly used in transit noise analysis.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 5 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

▪ Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring

over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period.

The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level, or Leq(h), is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.

▪ Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level (Lxx): Lxx represents the sound level exceeded for a

given percentage of a specified period (e.g., L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time,

and L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time).

▪ Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period.

▪ Day/Night Level (DNL or Ldn): Ldn is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

▪ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 5 dB penalty applied to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Sound Propagation When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors. Geometric Spreading Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Roadways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and, hence, can be treated as a line source, which is essentially the effect of numerous point sources forming a line. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. Ground Absorption The propagation path of noise from a roadway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, excess attenuation has been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., sites with an absorptive ground surface, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees between the source and the receiver), an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 6 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric Effects Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lower noise levels. Sound levels can increase at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from a roadway because of atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors, such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence, can also have significant effects. Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver for the specific purpose of reducing noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. Vegetation between a roadway and receiver is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier. 3.0 Fundamental Concepts of Vibration This section describes basic concepts related to groundborne vibration. In contrast to airborne sound, groundborne vibration is not a phenomenon that most people experience every day. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually much lower than the threshold of human perception. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as mechanical equipment while in operation, people moving, or doors slamming. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and method used. Equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, and hydraulic loaders generate little or no ground vibration. Pile drivers, vibratory compactors, and demolition equipment have the potential to generate substantial vibration, which may present a concern if close to buildings (Federal Transit Administration 2018).

Dynamic construction equipment, such as pile drivers, can create vibrations that radiate along the surface and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as groundborne vibration. Vibration can result in effects that range from annoyance to structural damage. Variations in geology and distance result in different vibration levels with different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increased distance from the vibration source.

As vibration waves travel outward from a source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 7 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

(in inches per second) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted definition of vibration amplitude, referred to as peak particle velocity (PPV).

Groundborne vibration can also be expressed in terms of root-mean-square vibration velocity to evaluate human response to vibration levels. Root-mean-square is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the vibration signal. The vibration amplitude is expressed in terms of vibration decibels (VdB), which use a reference level of 1 micro-inch per second. Typical outdoor background groundborne vibration levels are below 50 VdB. The threshold of perception for most people is around 65 VdB. Intermittent vibration levels in the 70 to 80 VdB range are often noticeable but acceptable, while a level of 88 VdB begins to annoy most people. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs. Historic structures, however, may have a damage threshold as low as 90 VdB, depending on individual structural characteristics and materials.

The potential for annoyance and physical damage to buildings from vibration are the two primary issues associated with groundborne vibration. The human response to continuous groundborne vibration is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Human Response to Continuous Vibration Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Maximum Vibration Human Response (inches/second) Level (VdB) 0.4–0.6 100–104 Unpleasant 0.2 94 Annoying 0.1 88 Begins to annoy 0.08 86 Readily perceptible 0.006–0.019 64–74 Threshold of perception Source: Whiffen and Leonard 1971 VdB = root-mean-square velocity in decibels (1 micro-inch/second)

The damage potential thresholds associated with vibration generated by construction activities are shown in Table 3. For purposes of the vibration analysis, structures potentially affected by the Project are assumed to be “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.”

Table 3. Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage to Buildings Limiting Velocity Approximate Building Category (PPV in inches/ Maximum Vibration second) Level (VdB) Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 Buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018 PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = root-mean-square velocity in decibels (1 micro-inch/second) 4.0 Regulatory Setting The Sound Transit Design Criteria Manual contains guidance for analysis of noise and vibration from park and rides and new roadway alignments (Sound Transit 2018). Park and rides are

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 8 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum analyzed using FTA guidance and new roadway alignments are analyzed using FHWA guidance. Both are discussed below. FTA Noise Regulations FTA has the following separate guidance for construction and operation noise. Noise—Construction FTA has developed methods for evaluating construction noise levels. These methods are not standardized criteria, but they include noise impact guidelines for sensitive land uses that describe levels having the potential to result in a negative community reaction. These are discussed in Chapter 7 of the FTA Manual. Based on FTA’s general assessment methodology, for residences, the guideline is 90 dBA Leq (1-hour) during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 80 dBA Leq (1-hour) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Noise—Operation Noise impacts associated with operation of the Project are evaluated based on guidance in the FTA Manual. The FTA Manual describes noise impact guidelines that have been adopted to assess noise contributions and potential impacts on the existing environment from transit and associated noise sources. The impact guidelines defined in the FTA Manual are based on an objective that calls for maintaining a noise environment that is considered acceptable for noise-sensitive land uses.

For assessing noise from transit operations, FTA defines three land use categories.

▪ Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose, such as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, and national historic landmarks with significant outdoor use.

▪ Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including homes, hospitals, and hotels.

▪ Category 3: Institutional land uses that are typically available during daytime and evening hours (e.g., schools, places of worship, libraries). Other uses in this category can include medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios, concert halls, cemeteries, monuments, museums, historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities.

Noise exposure values are reported as the Ldn average sound level for residential land uses

(Category 2) or Leq, the equivalent sound level over 1 hour, for other land uses (Categories 1 and 3).

In the FTA Manual, the noise impact guidelines for operation of transit facilities consider a project’s contribution to existing noise levels using a sliding scale according to the land uses affected. The impact guidelines correspond to potential for increased community annoyance due to the introduction of a new transit facility relative to existing ambient noise conditions.

Noise impacts are assessed by comparing existing outdoor exposures with future project-related outdoor noise levels, as illustrated in Figure 1. The guideline for each degree of impact is based

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 9 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum on a sliding scale that is dependent on the existing noise exposure and the increase in noise exposure due to a project.

Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018 Figure 1. FTA Noise Impact Guidelines The noise impact categories are as follows.

▪ No Impact: Project-generated noise is not likely to cause community annoyance. Noise projections in this range are considered acceptable by FTA and mitigation is not required.

▪ Moderate Impact: Project-generated noise in this range is considered to cause impact at the threshold of measurable annoyance. Moderate impacts serve as an alert to project planners for potential adverse impacts and complaints from the community.

▪ Severe Impact: Project-generated noise in this range is likely to cause a high level of community annoyance. The project sponsor should first evaluate alternative locations/alignments to determine whether it is feasible to avoid severe impacts altogether.

Note that a project’s contribution relative to the existing noise levels shown in Figure 1 differs according to the level of existing noise exposure. For example, a project contribution of 59 dBA

Ldn would be considered a severe impact at a Category 2 receiver that has an existing noise exposure of up to 50 dBA Ldn (a difference of 9 dB), whereas a project contribution of 69 dBA Ldn would result in a severe impact at a Category 2 receiver with an existing noise exposure of up to

70 dBA Ldn (a difference of 1 dB). The justification for the sliding scale depicted in these figures recognizes that people who are already exposed to high levels of noise in the ambient environment are expected to tolerate smaller increases in noise in their community according to the level of their existing noise exposure.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 10 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Noise—Traffic Procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and federal-aid highway projects are provided in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772. Under 23 CFR 772.7, projects are categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III projects.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines a Type I project as a proposed federal or federal-aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. A Type II project is a noise barrier retrofit project that involves no changes to highway capacity or alignment. A Type III project is a project that does not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. Type III projects do not require a noise analysis.

The Project is considered to be a Type I project because it involves changing the horizontal alignment of an existing road.

Traffic noise impacts, as defined in 23 CFR 772.5, result when the predicted noise level in the design year approaches or exceeds the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) specified in 23 CFR 772, or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. The terms “substantial increase” or “approach” are not specifically defined under 23 CFR 772; these criteria are defined in the state policy, as described further in this section.

Table 4 summarizes the NAC corresponding to various land use activity categories. Activity categories and related traffic noise impacts are determined based on the actual or permitted land use in a given area.

Table 4. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Activity L Evaluation eq Description of Activities Category (1-hour)a Location A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Bb 67 Exterior Residential. Cb 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D or F. F -- Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 11 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Activity Activity L Evaluation eq Description of Activities Category (1-hour)a Location G -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. a The Leq(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values are A-weighted decibels (dBA). b Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Source: 23 CFR 772

Under 23 CFR 772.11, noise abatement must be considered for Type I projects if the project is predicted to result in a traffic noise impact.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Traffic Noise Policy and Procedures guidance specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies that sponsor new construction or reconstruction of federal or federal-aid highway projects. The guidance defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with project implementation exceed existing noise levels by 10 dBA or more. The policy also states that a sound level is considered to approach an NAC level when the sound level is within 1 dB of the NAC identified in 23 CFR 772 (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to approach the NAC of 67 dBA, but 65 dBA is not). FTA Vibration Thresholds Vibration impact thresholds are discussed in Chapter 6 of the FTA Manual. A vibration impact due to construction is considered to occur if vibration levels from construction equipment are perceptible at a receiving land use (i.e., a level of 75 VdB described as the annoyance impact criterion for “occasional events”). A vibration impact potentially resulting in building damage could occur at a PPV of 0.20 inch per second. This is based on the FTA criterion for non- engineered timber and masonry buildings. Sound Transit Vibration Performance Standards Sound Transit projects have vibration performance standards, which are outlined in the Design Criteria Manual (Sound Transit 2018). For groundborne vibration, construction activities are required to be conducted so as not to exceed vibration limits in Sound Transit Construction Specification 01 57 15. The specification indicates that transient vibration from construction (less than 1 hour per day) is not permitted to exceed a PPV level of 0.12 inch per second. State Regulations and Local Noise Ordinances Washington Administrative Code Noise Maximum permissible environmental sound levels are set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-60, shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Washington Administrative Code Maximum Allowable Sound Levels Receiver of Noise (Maximum Allowable Sound Level, dBA) Source of Noise Residential Commercial Industrial Residential 55a 57 60 Commercial 57a 60 65

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 12 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Industrial 60a 65 70 a During nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. maximum allowable levels are reduced by 10 dBA. dBA = A-weighted decibels Source: WAC 173-60

WAC 173-60 further sets limits of short-term exceedances of maximum allowable levels in Table 5. Allowable short-term exceedances are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Allowable Short-Term Exceedances of Maximum Allowable Levels Minutes per Hour Adjustment to Maximum Allowable Levels 15 + 5 dBA 5 + 10 dBA 1.5 + 15 dBA dBA = A-weighted decibels Source: WAC 173-60

The proposed parking and access improvements would be consistent with commercial use; as such, noise source limits associated with commercial use in Table 5 would be relevant to this Project. WAC 173-60-050 (3)(a) indicates that construction activity is exempt from WAC noise limits specified in Table 5, except for residential uses between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (nighttime hours). WAC 173-60-050 (4)(a) indicates that operation of motor vehicles is exempt from WAC noise limits.

Vibration There are no vibration limits specified in the WAC. Kent City Code Noise Chapter 8.05 Noise Control of the City code includes limits for noise emissions from commercial uses to residential use, based on limits established in WAC 173-60. The parking garage would be considered a commercial use. As such, maximum allowable noise levels would be specified by noise produced by a commercial source and received by a residential source. Based on WAC standards (Table 5), the limits would be 57 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (daytime hours) and 47 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (nighttime hours).

The code regulates construction noise occurring before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. all days of the week except Sunday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. Construction noise is not regulated during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), on Mondays through Saturdays. On Sundays, construction noise is not regulated during daytime hours (9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Section 8.05.170 of the City code indicates that, “The noise control office shall have the authority to grant a variance where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general purposes of this noise control code might result from the strict application of its provisions.”

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 13 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Vibration Noise, vibration, and glare are defined as “dangerous or objectionable elements” of operational aspects of land uses (KMC 15.08.050 (A)(1)). Operational vibration that is “discernible without instruments” is not permitted under Section 15.08.050 (D). 5.0 Environmental Setting Existing Noise Environment in the Project Area The project site and associated access improvements would be located in a developed area with several commercial uses. The project site would be about 200 feet east of the railroad tracks at the Kent Station. Existing noise sources in the area consist of freight and commuter trains and automobiles and buses on local roads, including the existing park-and-ride facilities at the station. Near the project site, there are at-grade crossings where the tracks cross Smith Street and James Street. Trains are required to sound their horns as they pass within 0.25 mile of each crossing. During train passbys, horns are substantially louder than other surrounding noise sources, overshadowing local traffic. Existing noise sources in the project area consist primarily of car and truck traffic on local streets. Aircraft overflights also contribute to the noise environment in the area. Surrounding Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses The project site is located in a densely populated urban setting. Land use surrounding the parking and access improvements areas consist of commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and school use. FTA defines residential and mixed use as Category 2 land uses. Institutional and school use are Category 3 land uses. No Category 1 land uses were identified in the project area. Land use adjacent to the project site consists of a mix of residences and commercial use, including single-family residences converted to commercial use. There are also residences with outdoor use areas approximately 300 feet to the north of the project site. The Scenic Hill community lies about 1,000 feet east of the project site. Mill Creek Middle School is located about 200 feet east of the project site. Condominium buildings are located near the Kent Station just south of the project site, but these buildings do not appear to include outdoor areas of frequent human use. Noise Monitoring Results and Existing Noise Levels Long-term monitoring was conducted at three locations in the vicinity of the project site. Each of these locations was monitored for a minimum of 48 hours to document day-night trends in traffic noise levels within the project area. Long-term monitors were mounted on utility poles about 10 feet above the ground. Long-term sound level data were collected from Wednesday, November 14, through Saturday, November 17, 2018. Monitoring data are shown in Appendix A. Day-night average noise levels had a maximum value of 82 Ldn and a minimum value of 78 Ldn. These levels are high for an urban environment and are primarily due to horn soundings at the station.

Measured levels are up to 27 dBA higher in terms of Ldn, compared to typical ambient noise levels of a “normal” urban setting (Cowan 1994). Average measured daytime hourly Leq values ranged from 72 to 76 dBA 1-hour Leq (Leq[1-hour]) and nighttime hourly Leq values ranged from 67 to

71 dBA Leq (1-hour). Noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 7. The locations of the measurement sites are shown in Figure 2.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 14 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table 7. Summary of Noise Monitoring Results Peak Hour Average Total Measurement Noise Average Daytime L Location Dates Duration of Peak Hour eq Site Level, dBA L /Nighttime Measurement dn Leq (1-hour) Leq dBA LT-1 East Pioneer November 70 hours 79 7:00 p.m., 78 72/67 Street, between 14–17, (November Railroad Avenue 2018 14, 2018) N and Central Avenue N LT-2 Mill Creek November 70 hours 79 2:00 p.m., 79 73/68 Middle School, 14–17, (November Central Avenue 2018 14, 2018) N LT-3 1st Avenue N, November 70 hours 83 2:00 p.m., 82 76/71 between W 14–17, (November James Street 2018 16, 2018) and W Cloudy Street dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq (1-hour) = 1-hour equivalent sound level, LT = long-term

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 15 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Figure 2. Noise Monitoring and Receptor Locations

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 16 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

6.0 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis This section describes the potential noise and vibration impacts of the Project on sensitive receivers. The section also describes thresholds used to determine whether an impact would result based on FTA guidance and local jurisdictional codes. Applicable mitigation measures to reduce levels of noise and vibration are discussed following the impact analysis. Analysis Methods The process of assessing noise impacts associated with a proposed project starts by establishing thresholds at which potential impacts are considered to occur. Next, noise levels associated with project-related activities are predicted and compared to thresholds. An impact is considered to occur when a predicted noise level exceeds a threshold. Operation Noise Operation of the Project would include use of the parking garage, bus layover facility, RapidRide stop, pedestrian safety improvements, accessibility enhancements, and bicycle facilities. Existing noise from bus service and vehicles accessing park-and-ride lots would continue. The new RapidRide bus stop would not result in a noticeable increase in noise from idling buses at the nearest receivers. Noise from the parking garage and bus layover facility is based on the number of vehicles accessing each facility during peak hours. Noise impacts from parking garage and bus layover facility operations is based on FTA impact assessment of noise levels from the Project. To calculate worst-case hourly noise emissions from the garage, noise level predictions assumed that future PM peak-hour traffic volumes on the roadway segment of Railroad Avenue N next to the project site would access the corresponding entry point of the garage. Worst-case hourly noise emissions from the layover facility assumed a maximum of 26 bus movements in a given hour. King County Metro transit facilities guidelines indicate that diesel buses should idle their engines for 3 minutes before shutting off (King County Metro 2018). As such, the model assumes that up to eight buses in a given hour may idle engines at the layover facility.

For assessment of noise impacts, FTA noise impact guidelines in terms of Ldn for Category 2 land use and hourly Leq for Category 3 land use describe worst-case noise levels from the Project. The project-related increase in noise levels is compared to average Ldn or daytime hourly Leq obtained from monitoring as applicable. For Category 2 uses, the lowest Ldn value measured during field monitoring was assumed for ambient day-night levels. The lowest Ldn value measured was 78 dBA

Ldn, as shown in Table 7. For Category 3 uses (e.g., Mill Creek Middle School), the lowest average hourly level of 72 dBA Leq for daytime hours was applied to the project site as a conservative assumption. Project noise levels were also evaluated using City noise thresholds for residential exposure from commercial use. Traffic Noise Noise from traffic on the realigned section of Railroad Avenue N was evaluated under existing and future with-project conditions. The Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 was used to predict future traffic noise levels due to vehicles accessing the road segment at the garage entrance. Projected worst-case noise levels were calculated along road segments adjacent to the project site associated with operation of the Project. Traffic noise impacts are considered to occur at receptor locations where predicted future with-project noise levels

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 17 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum increase by 10 dB or more compared to existing noise levels, or where predicted design year noise levels approach or exceed the NAC for the applicable activity category. Where traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement must be considered for reasonableness and feasibility as required by 23 CFR 772 and the WSDOT Traffic Noise Policy. Construction Noise and Vibration The assessment of potential construction noise levels was based on the general assessment methodology developed by FTA (Federal Transit Administration 2018). Potential effects associated with construction of the Project would be temporary and intermittent. Table 8 summarizes noise levels produced by commonly used construction equipment. Individual types of construction equipment are expected to generate maximum noise levels ranging from 80 to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The construction noise level at a given receiver location depends on the type of construction activity and the distance and shielding between the activity and noise-sensitive receivers.

Table 8. Commonly Used Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 Feet from Source Impact hammer pile driver 101 Vibratory hammer pile driver 95 Truck 88 Loader 80 Crawler crane 80 Roller 80 Skid steer 85 Auger drill rig (for drilled piles) 85 Crane, derrick 88 Excavator 85 Paver 89 Air compressor 81 Pump 76 Grader 89 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018 dBA = A-weighted decibel

Construction would involve using primarily crawler cranes, rollers, and haul trucks. The source levels are based on similar or equivalent equipment emission levels developed by FTA shown in Table 8.

The use of high-impact equipment types such as impact-hammer pile drivers may be used during construction of the Project. Alternative pile-driving methods such as vibratory-hammer pile driving or predrilling holes for column installation may also be used.

To characterize the source level of the worst-case noise condition during a given phase of construction, the two loudest pieces of equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously at a perimeter location with a receiver distance of 50 feet. For residences, impacts would occur if

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 18 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

equipment noise levels exceed 90 dBA Leq (1-hour) during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to

10:00 p.m.) or 80 dBA Leq (1-hour) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)

Groundborne vibration during project construction was analyzed using the methodology discussed in Chapter 7 of the FTA Manual. The vibration source levels for typical construction equipment types, as shown in Table 9, are expressed in terms of PPV in inches per second at a reference distance of 25 feet from the source and root-mean-square VdB at 25 feet. Among equipment types to be used for construction of the Project, impact pile drivers produce the highest levels of vibration, at up to 1.518 inch per second PPV. For this analysis, a vibratory roller (source vibration level of 0.210 inch per second PPV) was identified as the piece of nonimpact equipment that would potentially produce the highest vibration levels.

Table 9. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels PPV at 25 feet Vibration level at 25 feet, Equipment (inches/second) VdB (approx.)a Pile driver (Impact) Upper range 1.518 112 Typical 0.644 104 Pile driver (Vibratory) Upper range 0.734 105 Typical 0.170 93 Vibratory roller — 0.210 94 Hoe ram — 0.089 87 Large bulldozer — 0.089 87 Caisson drilling — 0.089 87 Loaded trucks — 0.076 86 Jackhammer — 0.035 79 Small bulldozer — 0.003 58 a Root mean square VdB reference of 1 micro-inch per second. Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018 PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = velocity in decibels

With respect to Table 9, Sound Transit Construction Specification 01 57 15 indicates that transient vibration from construction (less than 1 hour per day) is not permitted to exceed a PPV level of 0.12 inch per second. Impact Analysis Operation Noise The proposed parking garage would be located near the corner of Railroad Avenue N and E James Street, adjacent to existing surface parking lots. The proposed bus layover facility would be located in an existing parking area between the railroad tracks and 1st Avenue N. For purposes of this analysis, the model assumed an average peak hour volume of 878 vehicles and a maximum of 26 bus movements from the layover facility during the PM peak hour under worst-case future build conditions. The model also assumed that up to eight buses may idle engines for up to 3 minutes each in a given hour.

Noise analysis results are shown in Table 10. The highest predicted noise level due to the Project would occur at receiver R1, where noise levels from project operation would be about 63 dBA Ldn.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 19 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

However, this would be overshadowed by the existing ambient level of 78 dBA Ldn, resulting in an overall increase of approximately 0 dB. The Project would result in a noise level increase of about 0 dB at other surrounding receivers and would not exceed FTA guidelines for moderate impact. Locations of noise sensitive receivers and land uses are shown in Figure 2.

Table 10. FTA Noise Impact Assessment of Operation of the Proposed Parking Garage and Bus Layover Facility Existing Plus Moderate Severe Existing Project Impact Impact Existing Plus Increase Project Project Measured Project Project over Noise Noise FTA Receiver Land Use Ambient Noise Noise Existing, Impact Impact Impact No. Location Category Levela Levela Levela dB Levela Levela Categoryb

R1 Residences, Category 2 78 dBA Ldn 63 dBA 78 dBA 0 66 dBA Ldn 75 dBA Ldn No Impact 1st Avenue Ldn Ldn N

R2 Residences Category 2 78 dBA Ldn 60 dBA 78 dBA 0 66 dBA Ldn 75 dBA Ldn No Impact /Commercia Ldn Ldn l Use, Central Avenue N

R3 Residences, Category 2 78 dBA Ldn 63 dBA 78 dBA 0 66 dBA Ldn 75 dBA Ldn No Impact corner of E Ldn Ldn Pioneer Street and Railroad Avenue N

R4 Mill Creek Category 3 72 dBA Leq 51 dBA 72 dBA 0 71 dBA Leq 76 dBA Leq No Impact Middle Leq Leq School, Central Avenue N a Project noise levels and thresholds are based on FTA impact guidelines for Category 2 (Ldn) or Category 3 (Leq) Allowable Project Noise Exposure Allowed by Criteria for Project Transit Sources, shown in Figure 1. b FTA Impact Categories: No Impact: A project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number of instances where people are “highly annoyed” by new noise. Moderate Impact: The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people but may not be enough to cause negative community reaction. Leq = Hourly Average sound level; Ldn = Day-Night Average sound level; dB = decibel; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; dBA = A-weighted decibel

Table 11 shows noise levels from project operation compared to the City code maximum allowable level. The results in this table indicate worst-case hourly conditions for the Project. Operation of the Project would result in an exceedance of City thresholds at residences on 1st Avenue N; however, operation of motor vehicles such as movement and idling of buses in the layover facility would be considered exempt under WAC 173-60-050 (4)(a), as described in Section 4.0, Regulatory Setting. FTA noise impact guidelines would be applicable to assessment of noise impacts due to project operations. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to operation of the proposed parking garage and bus layover facility.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 20 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table 11. City of Kent Code Impact Assessment of Operation of the Proposed Parking Garage and Bus Layover Facility Project Noise City Code Maximum Receiver Exceed City Noise Location a Allowable Levelb No. Level Threshold? Leq (1-hour) Leq (1-hour) R1 Residences, 1st Avenue N 60 57 Yes R2 Residences/commercial 56 57 No use, Central Avenue N R3 Residences, corner of E 57 57 No Pioneer Street and Railroad Avenue N R4 Mill Creek Middle School, 51 57 No Central Avenue N a Operation of motor vehicles (e.g., bus movements and idling buses) is exempt from WAC noise limits under WAC 173-60-050 (4)(a). b Project thresholds are based on City of Kent maximum allowable level for residential noise exposure from commercial use. Leq = Hourly Average sound level Traffic Noise The Project is anticipated to generate traffic under future build conditions, as commuters become users of the new facilities and access improvements.

The Project would include realignment of Railroad Avenue N to the east, combining it with the existing alley that parallels Railroad Avenue N. Three residential units would potentially be exposed to increased traffic noise from the realignment of Railroad Avenue N. These units are represented by receiver location R2 in Figure 2.

Modeling results are shown in Table 12. The results indicate that traffic noise levels of up to

63 dBA Leq are predicted under future conditions with the Project. This would not approach or exceed the WSDOT noise standard of 66 dBA Leq for residential land use.

Table 12. Traffic Noise Levels due to Realignment of Railroad Avenue N Future Future No- Existing With- Project WSDOT Traffic Project Receiver Traffic Impact Location Noise Traffic Impact? No. Noise Threshold, Level, L Noise eq Level, L (1-hour) (1-hour) Level, L eq L (1-hour) eq eq (1-hour) R2 Residences/Commercial 60 61 63 66 No Impact Use, Central Avenue N

The increase in noise levels due to the realignment would not be noticeable above the existing ambient level (78 Ldn), due to existing noise from arterial traffic on Central Avenue N, and existing transit and horn noise. The increase in overall ambient noise due to the realignment of Railroad Avenue N is predicted to be less than 1 dB. Therefore, there would be no impact due to traffic noise as a result of the Project.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 21 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Other proposed access improvements would involve temporary construction noise. These improvements, however, are not anticipated to be a significant source of operation noise, and they would not result in an exceedance of FTA noise impact guidelines or City thresholds. Operation Vibration Rubber-tired vehicles are not a source of significant vibration. Transit projects that involve rubber-tired vehicles rarely show potential for vibration impacts. Vehicles accessing the garage are not anticipated to generate perceptible levels of vibration at surrounding land uses. As such, no vibration impacts are anticipated during operation of the Project. Operation Mitigation Measures Based on this analysis, noise and vibration levels are not expected to exceed FTA guidelines or criteria or local limits during operation of the Project. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Construction Noise Potential noise levels resulting from construction of the Project were evaluated by combining the noise levels of the two loudest pieces of equipment that would likely operate at the same time to characterize a worst-case operating condition. Estimated sound levels from construction activities as a function of distance are shown in Table 13, based on calculated point-source attenuation over hard (i.e., acoustically reflective) ground. Project construction noise would be temporary and intermittent, and would cease once construction is complete.

Table 13. Predicted Noise Levels from Construction Activitiesa Construction Noise Levels during Construction Noise Levels during Distance between Source and Pile Driving, Calculated Use of Non-Impact Equipment, Receiver (feet) dBA Leq (1-hour) Calculated dBA Leq (1-hour) 50 101 92 100 95 86 120 93 84 200 89 79 400 83 73 500 81 72 750 77 68 1000 75 66 1500 71 62 2000 69 59 a Calculations are based on FTA methodology (Federal Transit Administration 2018). Calculations do not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography, or other barriers that may reduce sound levels further. Leq (1-hour) = hourly-equivalent sound level (over 1 hour); dBA = A-weighted decibel; FTA = Federal Transit Administration

When used, the impact-hammer pile driver would produce the loudest noise levels. If used during operation of a truck, the combined worst-case noise level may be up to 101 dBA Leq (1-hour) at 50 feet. The results in Table 13 indicate that receivers located up to about 180 feet of an active construction site during periods of impact-hammer pile driving could be exposed to worst-case noise levels exceeding the FTA guideline for daytime noise limit of 90 dBA Leq. The nearest sensitive receivers would be single-family residences located approximately 120 feet east of the

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 22 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

project site. The worst-case noise level at this location could be up to 93 dBA Leq (1-hour) during impact-hammer pile driving. For non-impact equipment, such as simultaneous use of a grader and a truck, the worst-case noise level at a distance of 120 feet could be up to 84 dBA Leq (1-hour). Other sensitive receivers located within 180 feet of the project site would include single-family residences on 1st Avenue N, about 180 feet away. Mill Creek Middle School, located approximately 275 feet away from the project site, would not be expected to receive noise levels exceeding the FTA daytime standard during construction.

Construction work would generally be done during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Use of pile driving would be restricted to daytime hours. However, depending on site conditions, some nighttime construction between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. may be necessary. A variance from the City noise limits would be required for construction during regulated nighttime hours. With a variance, FTA nighttime impact guidelines would be applicable for evaluation of noise impacts. Sensitive receivers located up to 200 feet from the project site during use of nonimpact equipment may be exposed to worst-case noise levels exceeding the FTA nighttime noise impact guideline of 80 dBA Leq (1-hour) as shown in Table 13.

Construction noise levels are expected to exceed FTA daytime and nighttime impact guidelines at noise-sensitive receivers, resulting in noise impacts on residences within 200 feet of the project site. Impacts would not be adverse with the implementation of an updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan described below. Construction Vibration Construction of the Project would result in temporary vibration from the use of heavy equipment and machinery. The Project may use impact pile-driving methods during construction, which would potentially produce the highest levels of vibration at sensitive receivers, depending on the locations of pile installations. Vibration levels from construction activities were estimated using the equipment data provided in Table 9. Potential vibration levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 14.

As shown in Table 14, vibration levels from an impact hammer may vary depending on equipment used and ground conditions. Vibration levels may exceed the FTA criterion of 0.20 inch per second PPV at a distance of between approximately 55 feet (for typical conditions) and 100 feet (worst-case conditions). This may occur on an intermittent basis. The nearest buildings to the project site are commercial and residential buildings, located about 120 feet east of the project site. In general, vibration would be localized around the construction site, and no vibration impacts are expected during construction. No mitigation for construction vibration is required.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 23 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table 14. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels by Distance Impact Hammer Impact Hammer Bulldozer Vibratory Roller Truck Distance (upper range) (typical) (feet) VdBa PPVb VdBa PPVb VdBa PPVb VdBa PPVb VdBa PPVb 10 124 6.000 116 2.546 99 0.352 106 0.830 98 0.300 15 118 3.266 111 1.386 94 0.191 101 0.452 92 0.164 20 114 2.121 107 0.900 90 0.124 97 0.293 88 0.106 25 112 1.518 104 0.644 87 0.089 94 0.210 86 0.076 30 109 1.155 102 0.490 85 0.068 92 0.160 83 0.058 35 107 0.916 100 0.389 83 0.054 90 0.127 81 0.046 40 105 0.750 98 0.318 81 0.044 88 0.104 79 0.038 50 103 0.537 95 0.228 78 0.031 85 0.074 77 0.027 60 100 0.408 93 0.173 76 0.024 83 0.056 74 0.020 75 97 0.292 90 0.124 73 0.017 80 0.040 71 0.015 85 96 0.242 88 0.103 71 0.014 78 0.033 70 0.012 100 94 0.190 86 0.081 69 0.011 76 0.026 68 0.010 135 90 0.121 82 0.051 65 0.007 72 0.017 64 0.006 150 88 0.103 81 0.044 64 0.006 71 0.014 62 0.005 a Root-mean-square velocity level are 1 micro-inch/second. b Damage assessment criterion based on nonengineered timber and masonry buildings. Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018 VdB = velocity in decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity Construction Mitigation With implementation of the following measures, construction noise and vibration impacts would not be adverse.

Prior to construction as part of final design, Sound Transit will revise the noise and vibration analysis with updated design and construction information. The revised analysis will be presented as part of an updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan, which will specify methods that the contractor will implement to minimize construction equipment noise and vibration levels at sensitive receivers.

If the updated analysis indicates a potential exceedance of FTA noise impact guidelines, measures and best practices will be identified in the updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan and implemented to minimize noise levels. These measures could include but would not be limited to the following.

▪ Constructing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses. Barriers will be designed to obstruct line of sight between the noise-sensitive land use and construction equipment on site.

▪ Using noise-reducing shrouds on pile drivers.

▪ Using alternative pile driving methods such as vibratory hammers, hydraulic press-in driving, auger, or pre-drilled pile holes.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 24 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

▪ Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment.

▪ Locating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, cement mixers, idling trucks) as far as possible from noise-sensitive land uses.

▪ Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust.

▪ Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound-control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.

▪ Using smart backup alarms on heavy equipment that automatically adjust the alarm sound level to be audible above background levels or using spotters instead of backup alarms.

▪ Preventing excessive noise by shutting down idle vehicles or equipment.

The updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan will include best practices to reduce construction groundborne vibration at adjacent sensitive buildings so that vibration will not exceed FTA’s vibration criterion. In addition, given the proximity of sensitive uses and the length of pile driving, Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual provides that a reasonable threshold for annoyance from groundborne vibration should be developed on a project-specific basis. This threshold will consider the type of land use, the nature of the construction activities, and the time of day.

Mitigation measures to address groundborne vibration from pile driving could include the following.

▪ Locating vibration-generating equipment as far as practical from vibration-sensitive (and noise-sensitive) buildings.

▪ Using smaller, lower vibration generating equipment within 100 feet of potentially impacted buildings.

▪ Using alternative pile driving methods such as vibratory hammers, hydraulic press-in driving, or use of pre-drilled pile holes.

▪ Conducting vibration monitoring at potentially affected buildings to measure levels from vibration producing activities such as pile driving.

▪ Prepare a building conditions report prior to and after construction for potentially affected buildings. If new cracks or damages are found, Sound Transit will remediate building damages found to occur during construction.

The applicability of measures will vary based on the location, timing, nature, and feasibility of each activity.

Sound Transit will prepare a community outreach plan that will include, and not be limited to, the following.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 25 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

▪ Provide advance notice of construction activities to occupants of potentially impacted buildings.

▪ Identify a point of contact responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the notification of the construction schedule. 7.0 References California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf. Accessed: October 25, 2018.

Cowan, J. P. 1994. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Accessed: October 31, 2018.

King County Metro. 2018. King County Metro Transit Facilities Guidelines. April.

Sound Transit. 2018. Link Design Criteria Manual. Revision 5. June 2018.

Whiffen, A. C., and D. R. Leonard. 1971. A Survey of Traffic-Induced Vibrations. Road Research Laboratory, Department of the Environment. Report LR 418. Crowthrone, Berkshire, United Kingdom.

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 26 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Appendix A Noise Measurements

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 27 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table A-1. LT-1: East Pioneer Street, between Railroad Avenue N and Central Avenue N (Ldn = 78.2)

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/14/18 11:00 AM 68.5 11/14/18 12:00 PM 73.6 11/14/18 1:00 PM 73.9 11/14/18 2:00 PM 76.7 11/14/18 3:00 PM 78.3 11/14/18 4:00 PM 73.2 11/14/18 5:00 PM 74.0 11/14/18 6:00 PM 71.5 11/14/18 7:00 PM 78.8 11/14/18 8:00 PM 63.6 11/14/18 9:00 PM 61.6 11/14/18 10:00 PM 65.8 11/14/18 11:00 PM 67.5 11/15/18 12:00 AM 60.2 11/15/18 1:00 AM 73.9 11/15/18 2:00 AM 56.0 11/15/18 3:00 AM 59.5 11/15/18 4:00 AM 74.9 11/15/18 5:00 AM 69.5 11/15/18 6:00 AM 70.0 11/15/18 7:00 AM 75.4 11/15/18 8:00 AM 71.9 11/15/18 9:00 AM 66.4 11/15/18 10:00 AM 74.8 11/15/18 11:00 AM 78.0 11/15/18 12:00 PM 70.0 11/15/18 1:00 PM 73.2 11/15/18 2:00 PM 77.1 11/15/18 3:00 PM 70.8 11/15/18 4:00 PM 72.5 11/15/18 5:00 PM 72.1 11/15/18 6:00 PM 71.5 11/15/18 7:00 PM 72.8 11/15/18 8:00 PM 72.7 11/15/18 9:00 PM 71.3 11/15/18 10:00 PM 72.2 11/15/18 11:00 PM 72.8 11/16/18 12:00 AM 73.1 11/16/18 1:00 AM 75.5 11/16/18 2:00 AM 76.1 11/16/18 3:00 AM 61.0

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 28 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/16/18 4:00 AM 63.5 11/16/18 5:00 AM 70.1 11/16/18 6:00 AM 71.6 11/16/18 7:00 AM 70.7 11/16/18 8:00 AM 74.7 11/16/18 9:00 AM 75.0 11/16/18 10:00 AM 73.3 11/16/18 11:00 AM 75.0 11/16/18 12:00 PM 76.3 11/16/18 1:00 PM 67.1 11/16/18 2:00 PM 74.6 11/16/18 3:00 PM 74.5 11/16/18 4:00 PM 76.8 11/16/18 5:00 PM 70.2 11/16/18 6:00 PM 70.7 11/16/18 7:00 PM 76.7 11/16/18 8:00 PM 64.7 11/16/18 9:00 PM 64.3 11/16/18 10:00 PM 67.4 11/16/18 11:00 PM 65.1 11/17/18 12:00 AM 71.2 11/17/18 1:00 AM 75.4 11/17/18 2:00 AM 74.4 11/17/18 3:00 AM 68.5 11/17/18 4:00 AM 61.1 11/17/18 5:00 AM 61.5 11/17/18 6:00 AM 74.1 11/17/18 7:00 AM 72.7 11/17/18 8:00 AM 66.6 11/17/18 9:00 AM 74.4

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 29 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

90

80

70

60 Hourly Leq, dBA Leq, Hourly

50

40

30 11/14/18 12:00 AM 11/15/18 12:00 AM 11/16/18 12:00 AM 11/17/18 12:00 AM 11/18/18 12:00 AM

Figure A-1. Kent Site LT-1, East Pioneer Street

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 30 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table A-2. LT-2: Mill Creek Middle School, Central Avenue N (Ldn = 79.1)

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/14/18 11:00 AM 74.3 11/14/18 12:00 PM 74.4 11/14/18 1:00 PM 75.4 11/14/18 2:00 PM 79.3 11/14/18 3:00 PM 74.0 11/14/18 4:00 PM 73.8 11/14/18 5:00 PM 78.4 11/14/18 6:00 PM 73.4 11/14/18 7:00 PM 74.8 11/14/18 8:00 PM 72.5 11/14/18 9:00 PM 71.1 11/14/18 10:00 PM 70.0 11/14/18 11:00 PM 69.8 11/15/18 12:00 AM 68.7 11/15/18 1:00 AM 70.4 11/15/18 2:00 AM 67.4 11/15/18 3:00 AM 67.7 11/15/18 4:00 AM 73.8 11/15/18 5:00 AM 73.8 11/15/18 6:00 AM 75.2 11/15/18 7:00 AM 75.5 11/15/18 8:00 AM 77.9 11/15/18 9:00 AM 74.2 11/15/18 10:00 AM 74.5 11/15/18 11:00 AM 78.8 11/15/18 12:00 PM 73.4 11/15/18 1:00 PM 74.8 11/15/18 2:00 PM 73.8 11/15/18 3:00 PM 77.2 11/15/18 4:00 PM 77.0 11/15/18 5:00 PM 73.5 11/15/18 6:00 PM 72.9 11/15/18 7:00 PM 76.9 11/15/18 8:00 PM 75.9 11/15/18 9:00 PM 72.6 11/15/18 10:00 PM 71.3 11/15/18 11:00 PM 71.2 11/16/18 12:00 AM 71.3 11/16/18 1:00 AM 72.4 11/16/18 2:00 AM 74.0 11/16/18 3:00 AM 69.1

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 31 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/16/18 4:00 AM 71.8 11/16/18 5:00 AM 74.7 11/16/18 6:00 AM 75.3 11/16/18 7:00 AM 75.3 11/16/18 8:00 AM 76.2 11/16/18 9:00 AM 75.2 11/16/18 10:00 AM 74.4 11/16/18 11:00 AM 77.7 11/16/18 12:00 PM 75.2 11/16/18 1:00 PM 78.7 11/16/18 2:00 PM 74.4 11/16/18 3:00 PM 73.8 11/16/18 4:00 PM 75.1 11/16/18 5:00 PM 73.3 11/16/18 6:00 PM 73.8 11/16/18 7:00 PM 74.3 11/16/18 8:00 PM 73.5 11/16/18 9:00 PM 72.1 11/16/18 10:00 PM 72.2 11/16/18 11:00 PM 70.7 11/17/18 12:00 AM 71.7 11/17/18 1:00 AM 71.8 11/17/18 2:00 AM 71.3 11/17/18 3:00 AM 69.3 11/17/18 4:00 AM 70.4 11/17/18 5:00 AM 69.3 11/17/18 6:00 AM 73.0 11/17/18 7:00 AM 73.0 11/17/18 8:00 AM 78.6

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 32 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

90

80

70

60 Hourly Leq, dBA Hourly

50

40

30 11/14/18 12:00 AM 11/15/18 12:00 AM 11/16/18 12:00 AM 11/17/18 12:00 AM 11/18/18 12:00 AM

Figure A-2. Kent Site LT-2: Mill Creek Middle School, Central Avenue N

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 33 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Table A-3. LT-3: 1st Avenue N, between W James Street and W Cloudy Street (Ldn = 81.8)

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/14/18 12:00 PM 71.6 11/14/18 1:00 PM 71.2 11/14/18 2:00 PM 78.2 11/14/18 3:00 PM 82.1 11/14/18 4:00 PM 81.3 11/14/18 5:00 PM 77.8 11/14/18 6:00 PM 77.4 11/14/18 7:00 PM 81.6 11/14/18 8:00 PM 58.4 11/14/18 9:00 PM 58.7 11/14/18 10:00 PM 65.3 11/14/18 11:00 PM 67.3 11/15/18 12:00 AM 53.9 11/15/18 1:00 AM 80.2 11/15/18 2:00 AM 51.0 11/15/18 3:00 AM 52.8 11/15/18 4:00 AM 79.0 11/15/18 5:00 AM 68.6 11/15/18 6:00 AM 77.9 11/15/18 7:00 AM 74.3 11/15/18 8:00 AM 76.2 11/15/18 9:00 AM 67.5 11/15/18 10:00 AM 78.9 11/15/18 11:00 AM 81.3 11/15/18 12:00 PM 71.9 11/15/18 1:00 PM 75.8 11/15/18 2:00 PM 80.6 11/15/18 3:00 PM 73.9 11/15/18 4:00 PM 82.2 11/15/18 5:00 PM 78.5 11/15/18 6:00 PM 79.8 11/15/18 7:00 PM 78.4 11/15/18 8:00 PM 73.0 11/15/18 9:00 PM 70.9 11/15/18 10:00 PM 68.7 11/15/18 11:00 PM 66.9 11/16/18 12:00 AM 74.7 11/16/18 1:00 AM 77.2 11/16/18 2:00 AM 78.2 11/16/18 3:00 AM 53.1

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 34 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

Date/Time Leq (1-hour) 11/16/18 4:00 AM 55.9 11/16/18 5:00 AM 69.7 11/16/18 6:00 AM 77.5 11/16/18 7:00 AM 72.5 11/16/18 8:00 AM 75.7 11/16/18 9:00 AM 78.8 11/16/18 10:00 AM 72.9 11/16/18 11:00 AM 74.8 11/16/18 12:00 PM 79.1 11/16/18 1:00 PM 68.7 11/16/18 2:00 PM 82.7 11/16/18 3:00 PM 73.4 11/16/18 4:00 PM 80.0 11/16/18 5:00 PM 79.2 11/16/18 6:00 PM 75.2 11/16/18 7:00 PM 81.0 11/16/18 8:00 PM 62.9 11/16/18 9:00 PM 62.9 11/16/18 10:00 PM 68.5 11/16/18 11:00 PM 62.8 11/17/18 12:00 AM 77.8 11/17/18 1:00 AM 78.3 11/17/18 2:00 AM 79.2 11/17/18 3:00 AM 76.6 11/17/18 4:00 AM 60.9 11/17/18 5:00 AM 61.7 11/17/18 6:00 AM 77.2 11/17/18 7:00 AM 77.1 11/17/18 8:00 AM 77.9 11/17/18 9:00 AM 78.7 11/17/18 10:00 AM 77.6

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 35 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum

90

80

70

60

50 Hourly Leq, dBA Leq, Hourly

40

30 11/14/18 12:00 AM 11/15/18 12:00 AM 11/16/18 12:00 AM 11/17/18 12:00 AM 11/18/18 12:00 AM

Figure A-3. Kent Site LT-3: 1st Avenue N, between W James Street and W Cloudy Street

Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum - Kent 36

Attachment C Visual Impact Assessment

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Visual Impact Assessment

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

September 2019

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Project Description ...... 1 3.0 Regulatory Context ...... 5 3.1 City of Kent Design Policies ...... 5 3.2 Analysis Process ...... 5 4.0 Affected Environment ...... 6 4.1 Area of Visual Effect ...... 7 4.2 Visual Character and Quality of the Cultural Environment ...... 9 5.0 Potential Impacts ...... 11 5.1 Operational Impacts ...... 12 5.2 Construction Impacts ...... 19 6.0 Conclusion ...... 19

List of Figures

Figure 1 Proposed Garage Site Vicinity Map ...... 1 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ...... 3 Figure 3 Area of Visual Effect and Key View Locations of the Kent Station Access Project ...... 8 Figure 4 Key View Location 1 from West James Street west of 1st Avenue Looking Southeast ...... 13 Figure 5 Key View Location 1 Rendering from West James Street west of 1st Avenue Looking Southeast ...... 14 Figure 6 Key View Location 2 from East James Street east of Central Avenue Looking Southwest ..... 16 Figure 7 Key View Location 2 Rendering from East James Street east of Central Avenue Looking Southwest ...... 17

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent i Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

1.0 Introduction This memorandum provides a visual assessment of the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project). 2.0 Project Description The Project includes a new parking garage serving the patrons of the Sounder South Rail system at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by East Pioneer Street on the south, East James Street on the north, the BNSF Railway on the west and a realigned Railroad Avenue North on the east. Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Ave North between East Pioneer Street and East James Street. The proposed parking garage would have approximately three levels and approximately 534 parking stalls. The proposed garage site vicinity map is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Proposed Garage Site Vicinity Map

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 1 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

The proposed parking garage would be a three-level concrete structure with exterior architectural screening, which would create visual interest while maintaining views from within the garage. Features, such as canopies, awnings, or building overhangs would be provided at street level for weather protection and pedestrian orientation. Vertical circulation would help to signify entries and exits and these would be enhanced with transparent materials to help with pedestrian orientation and safety. Exterior and interior light fixtures would be shielded from producing off-site glare. Landscaping would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City of Kent’s requirements.

The Project also includes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety (see Figure 2). As part of final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. Following are the proposed amenities:

▪ Adjacent to the project site, amenities include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage.

▪ At the intersection of West James Street and 2nd Avenue North, amenities include a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Sound Transit and the City of Kent will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

▪ At Railroad Avenue North and West Smith Street, amenities include installing a painted curb extension, rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are ADA compliant.

▪ At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue North including a new sidewalk, ADA compliant crosswalk, a painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue North.

▪ On 1st Avenue North, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses. The layover area would include approximately eight bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements:

▪ At Railroad Avenue North and East James Street:

• Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop-off loop.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 2 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 3 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

• Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue North/East Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases.

▪ At Railroad Avenue North/East Smith Street:

• Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed.

▪ At Central Avenue North/East James Street:

• Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property.

▪ At East James Street west of Central Avenue North:

• Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on East James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411 spaces, including 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue North and approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements. These include transportation routes to and from the staging area, areas of roadway demolition and construction, areas of utility removal and relocation and areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage.

In support of sustainability goals, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and to provide an aesthetically pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside construction dollars for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart), will manage the integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide storm-water runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. As part of final design and the City’s permitting and approval process, identified traffic improvements will be refined in collaboration with the City of Kent.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 4 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

3.0 Regulatory Context This visual assessment provides supporting information for Sound Transit’s threshold determination under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For this transit project, Sound Transit used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (January, 2015), hereafter referred to as the “FHWA guidelines,” methodology as a guide for assessing potential visual impacts. 3.1 City of Kent Design Policies The Project would comply with the City of Kent standards for landscaping and design, including requirements set forth in the Municipal Code for site landscaping and screening requirements (Section 15.07), Kent Design and Construction Standards for landscaping in the public-right-of- way (Section 6.13.A), and the Downtown Overlay Industrial/Commercial/Local Street Standard Plan (Standard Plan 6-10) for street design. Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 15.15, which addresses High Capacity Transit Facilities and City of Kent Downtown Design Standards adopted in 2014.

The Project is located in the City of Kent Downtown Subarea, within which proposed projects must also adhere to the City of Kent Downtown Design Guidelines. The intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines is to establish a consensus of quality, unity and conformity that contributes to making the Downtown a livable, vibrant, pedestrian-friendly mixed-use community that complements transit with office, commercial and residential uses. The goals include supporting a pedestrian oriented development, constructing a visually attractive and economically vibrant urban center, and assuring that new development relates to downtown and is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 3.2 Analysis Process This visual and aesthetics analysis is based on, but does not strictly follow, the FHWA guidelines. This visual analysis first assesses the visual character and visual quality of the landscape, and then takes into consideration how typical viewers may respond to what they see around them. This assessment uses a professional observational approach that involves using projections about the visual preferences of viewers from certain locations as characterized in the FHWA guidelines. Viewer preferences are discussed where the affected population is described within the landscape unit identified and discussed in the section below.

Visual quality addresses aesthetics, which is the study of perceptual experiences that are pleasing to people. Visual quality is, therefore, the experience of having pleasing visual perceptions. Although background and former experiences make each individual’s experience of visual quality unique, human perception of what constitutes a pleasing landscape is remarkably consistent, not only within a society but across cultures.

A viewer observing an existing scene has a range of available responses that are inherent to all human beings. The FHWA guidelines recognize three types of visual perception, corresponding to three general types of visual resources:

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 5 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

▪ Natural environment (a landscape devoid of built elements): viewers inherently evaluate the natural harmony of the existing scene, determining if the composition is harmonious or inharmonious.

▪ Cultural environment (a landscape composed of built elements or that is otherwise highly manipulated): viewers evaluate the scene’s cultural order, determining if the composition is orderly or disorderly.

▪ Project environment (landscape within the project area, whether it is a natural or cultural environment): viewers evaluate the coherence of the project components, determining if the project’s composition is coherent or incoherent.

This visual assessment was conducted and the Project impacts were identified by considering these elements. This visual assessment describes the existing conditions and impacts of the Project in the foreground view where observers can see the highest element of the proposed parking garage and where that element is larger in scale than immediately visible elements of the existing scene. Views beyond the foreground are generally limited due to the existing built environment and large trees. 4.0 Affected Environment The project site is located in the northeastern corner of the City of Kent’s Downtown. The City’s downtown includes a mix of professional services, commercial activities, and civic and residential uses with a variety of building types and ages, as well as varied building heights and densities.

The project site is located north of the South Sounder Kent Station and east of the railroad tracks. A surface parking lot is also located to the south of the project site. To the north of the project site, opposite East James Street, are a vacant lot and commercial uses including a gas station and small coffee shop. To the east are commercial uses including a gas station and barber shop. Residential uses are located approximately 300 feet northwest of the project site, west of the railroad tracks and north of West James Street, and 400 feet northeast of the project site opposite East James Street. Additionally, several single-family homes are located approximately 180 feet to the south, many of which have been converted to commercial uses. Mill Creek Middle School is located to the east, on the eastern side of Central Avenue. Existing uses at the project site include a cold storage building, existing Sound Transit surface parking, and parking and several small structures to the south of the Sound Transit surface parking, including a single-family home. The cold storage building is a large concrete structure that is approximately 38 feet in height with no windows.

The adjacent buildings are a mix of building heights. The buildings to the west and southwest are similar in height to the proposed garage, including the existing Sounder Station parking garage at West Smith Street and Ramsey Way, which is five levels with approximately 877 parking stalls, and the Kent Station retail center. The majority of buildings near the garage to the north, south and east are one or two stories in height.

Landscaping in the area consists primarily of ornamental landscaping of varying quality in planters and along site perimeters. Deciduous trees are prevalent, including within the existing

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 6 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

South Transit surface parking lot. Distant views of tree-lined hills are available to the west and east.

Currently the site occupies two different zoning districts, the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning district and the General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) district. The City of Kent will require a development agreement with Sound Transit to include modifications to the current zoning of the site. DCE is the preferred zoning district based on the allowable coverage of the site. 4.1 Area of Visual Effect The area of Project visibility is referred to as the Area of Visual Effect (AVE). It is determined by the physical constraints of the environment and the physiological limits of human sight. For this Project, the AVE is the area in which observers can see the highest element of the proposed parking garage and where that element is larger in scale than immediately visible elements of the existing scene. The AVE generally consists of the foreground. Views beyond the foreground and many within the foreground are blocked by the existing built environment and landscaping. As shown in Figure 3, the AVE is bound by the area approximately one block north of East and West James Street to the north, the area north of the existing Sound Transit parking garage to the south, the area approximately one block west of the BNSF railroad to the west, and the area west of Woodruff Avenue to the east.

A landscape unit can be conceived of as a spatially defined landscape with a particular visual identity—a distinctive “outdoor room.” The AVE described above constitutes the landscape unit defined for this project area.

Consistent with the FHWA Visual Impact Assessment Guidelines Section 4.4.3, because the visual character and visual impacts of the surrounding visual landscape are similar, the AVE forms a single landscape unit. Minor variations created by visually unique areas within the landscape unit are identified and described where applicable.

Coordination with Sound Transit resulted in identifying two key view locations of the Project (see arrows on Figure 3).

The two key view locations for the Project are:

▪ Key View Location 1 – West James Street west of 1st Avenue North looking southeast

▪ Key View Location 2 – East James Street east of Central Avenue North looking southwest

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 7 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Figure 3 Area of Visual Effect and Key View Locations of the Kent Station Access Project

These two key view locations are representative of the residential areas northwest and northeast of the proposed parking garage, which were determined to be the areas with the most sensitive viewers. Viewer sensitivity addresses the degree to which viewers are sensitive to changes in the visual character of visual resources. It is the consequence of viewer exposure and viewer awareness. Viewer exposure is related to proximity (distance between viewer and visual resource being viewed) and extent (number of viewers viewing the visual resource). Viewer awareness pertains to attention (level of observation based on routine and familiarity) and protection (legal and social constraints on the use of visual resources). The greater the attention, the more viewers will be concerned about visual impacts.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 8 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

4.2 Visual Character and Quality of the Cultural Environment An area’s buildings, infrastructure, structures, art, and landscaping create the character of the visual environment. The visual character and quality vary as represented by the two key view locations identified in Figure 3 above and described in greater detail below. The viewer population in the AVE includes residents, retail, commercial and institutional workers and users, commuters, and people passing through the area.

Viewer preferences identified below are based on the viewer categories and visual preferences identified in the FHWA guidelines. Within the viewing population, residents in the developments located north of the project site are considered to be the most sensitive viewers.

The proposed parking garage location is bounded by the BNSF railroad line on the west (Figure 3). The Downtown area west of the proposed parking garage includes Kent Station retail center, an active commercial area with surface parking on West James Street west of 1st Avenue North. Many of the retail buildings are approximately 20 feet tall (similar to a two-story building) with taller elements such as towers. A movie theater located west of the BNSF tracks is approximately 40 feet tall, which is comparable to the proposed parking garage. The buildings in this commercial center have various exterior finishes to set apart the independent commercial businesses while maintaining a commercial visual order and unity. The buildings are located on the outside edge of the site and face inward toward the surface parking lot, which is accessed from West James Street. East of the retail center, between 1st Avenue North and the BNSF tracks, is a surface parking lot for Sounder patrons, which would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses. Ornamental landscaping, including trees, is located on the western perimeter of the parking lot. The existing Sounder Station parking garage is located further south, outside of the AVE.

On the north side of West James Street (west of the tracks), are one- and two-story single-family residences, as well as a single-story multi-family residential building at the northwest corner of West James Street and 1st Avenue North. The buildings are generally wood framed structures with landscaped yards set back approximately 15 feet from the sidewalk. The residences generally appear to have been constructed in the early to middle 20th century. Due to the flat elevation, presence of two-story structures, and mature landscaping within the residential neighborhood, views of the project site are only available along West James Street and near 1st Avenue. On the north side of East James Street (east of the BNSF railroad tracks) is a vacant lot immediately to the north of the project site. Further to the east is Central Avenue, which is lined on both sides with commercial businesses including a funeral home, gas stations/convenience stores, and other auto-related businesses with individual parking lots. This adds a commercial character to the area. Residential uses, primarily two-story multi-family developments, are located to east on State Avenue and the western side of Woodruff Avenue. Single family residences are located to the east of the AVE.

South of East James Street, the area immediately east of the project site on the west side of Central Avenue has several one and two-story single-family structures that have largely been converted to commercial uses. On the east side of Central Avenue is Mill Creek Middle School. The main entrance to the school is located at Central Avenue and Pioneer Street, southeast of the project site. The school baseball field is at Central Avenue and East James Street. The school

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 9 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment buildings have varying building heights, some reaching slightly two-stories, including an approximately 30-foot gymnasium located on East James Street east of baseball field.

To the south of the project site are a surface parking lot enclosed by fencing, commercial uses, and single-family residences. South of the project site along the BNSF railroad tracks is the Kent Sounder Station, including surface parking, platforms and pedestrian bridge.

While many of the single-family structures to the east and south of the project site have been converted to commercial uses, approximately one to three structures may still be used for residential uses. These units are surrounded by, and in some cases, connected to, commercial businesses. Because of the small number of residences and the surrounding commercial uses, these residential viewers are considered less sensitive than the residential viewers located in the residential developments to the north of East and West James Street.

Viewers have a concept of what constitutes visual order; the greater degree to which visual resources of a project environment meet the viewers preferred concept of visual order, the higher the value placed on the visual resources by the viewer. Similarly, viewers have a concept of what constitutes project cohesion and interpret visual resource of a project environment as being either coherent or incoherent. The greater degree to which visual resources of a project environment meet the viewers preferred concept of project coherence, the higher the value placed on the visual resources by the viewer.

The affected populations in the AVE unit include residents, merchants, shoppers, workers, and institutional workers and users. The FHWA guidelines describe the following preferences for different categories of viewer groups in the affected population.

▪ Residents - tend towards a desire to maintain the existing landscape as it is and are typically interested in visual order and coherence.

▪ Merchants - tend to be more permanent and prefer heightened visibility, free of competing visual intrusions.

▪ Shoppers - prefer visual clarity to guide them to their destination; once at their destination, they prefer to concentrate on the shopping experience with few distractions.

▪ Workers in retail and office buildings - often permanent and have similar visual preferences to merchants.

▪ Institutional workers and users (Mill Creek Middle School) - institutional workers tend to be permanent viewers, while users (i.e., students) are more transitory viewers. The presentation of the building and grounds is critical to the impression institutions are trying to convey.

All of these populations have preferences for good visual cultural order and project coherence with its surroundings.

The AVE also has a substantial number of commuters who access the rail station by driving and then parking on site, or by bus, walking or bicycling. Commuters take a regular pattern of trips on

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 10 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment a routine or daily basis. Commuters, like all travelers, are particularly interested in project coherence. They are also interested in visual order and consistency to the extent that it contributes to wayfinding. Commuter rail users would experience direct views of the station and the proposed parking garage. Their perception of the site, however, is likely to be largely influenced and limited by the station’s usefulness in meeting their needs; transportation and parking would be regarded positively as facilities that support their commuting activities.

Persons traveling to and from local neighborhoods to downtown for non-commuting trips, such as trips to the store, school, or for other activities, also pass near the site on surrounding streets. These travelers form an impression of the area from frequent viewing that likely emphasizes cultural order to the extent that it contributes to wayfinding. 5.0 Potential Impacts Visual impacts are changes to the environment (measured by the change in the compatibility of the impact to the surrounding areas) or to viewers (measured by sensitivity to the impacts). Together, the compatibility of the impact and the sensitivity of the impact yield the degree of the impact to visual quality. These impacts are defined below:

▪ Compatibility of the change is defined as the ability of the environment to absorb the proposed project within the surrounding environment by having compatible visual characters. The proposed project can be considered compatible or incompatible.

▪ Sensitivity to the change is defined by the ability of viewers to be affected (either negatively or positively) by the changed setting. The sensitivity to impact is based on viewer sensitivity to changes in the visual character of visual resources. Viewers are either sensitive or insensitive to impacts. By itself, the sensitivity of the impact should not be confused or conflated with the value of the impact.

▪ Degree of the impact is defined as either a beneficial, adverse, or neutral change to visual quality. A proposed project may benefit visual quality by either enhancing visual resources or by creating better views of those resources and improving the experience of visual quality by viewers. Similarly, it may adversely affect visual quality by degrading visual resources or obstructing or altering desired views.

Potential impacts of the Project are associated with the most prominent element, which is the parking garage itself. The parking garage is anticipated to be approximately 36 feet tall with a stair tower and elevator control room that would extend to approximately 50 feet. It would have three levels of parking and be composed of concrete with exterior architectural features. The maximum building height allowed by the DCE zoning district is 65 feet. The parking garage would be roughly twice the footprint as the existing cold storage building on the project site, but comparable in height. Other Project features, including the realigned Railroad Avenue and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities, would be low profile and consistent with existing features in the urban environment and thereby would not be visually prominent. The bus layover area for King County Metro buses would include a bus operator rest stop building. The building would be small (approximately 16 by 20 feet) and low profile (approximately 11 feet tall) and would not be a visually prominent element.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 11 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Impacts would vary for the neighboring areas, as well as for persons traveling on the commuter trains or on local roads, as discussed below. 5.1 Operational Impacts The proposed parking garage would be visible as one of a variety of buildings on opposite sides of the railroad tracks. This area is characterized by buildings of various sizes, ranging from one- to three-stories in height, with similar building materials and surface parking lots. It would be similar in height as the existing cold storage building it would be replacing, and also to commercial buildings to its west, including the movie theater which is the approximately height of a three-story building, the existing five level Sounder Station parking garage, and Mill Creek Middle School gymnasium to the east.

The parking garage would include exterior architectural screening, which would create visual interest while maintaining views from within the garage. Features, such as canopies, awnings, or building overhangs would be provided at street level for weather protection and pedestrian orientation. Vertical circulation would help to signify entries and exits and these would be enhanced with transparent materials to help with pedestrian orientation and safety. Landscaping would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City of Kent’s requirements. The Project would be composed primarily of concrete and is not anticipated to contain reflective surfaces; it would therefore not produce glare that would affect adjacent properties.

There would be exterior lighting associated with the proposed parking garage for pedestrians and safety along sidewalks or walkways adjacent to the project site, as well as lighting associated with the bus layover area and bus operator rest stop. This lighting would be detectable primarily during nighttime hours. The project site is within an urban setting with existing streetlights located along the area roadways. Exterior lighting on the new building, public spaces, and parking areas would be shielded and directed downward to minimize stray illumination of offsite areas. Any garage, bus layover area, and bus operator rest stop lighting would be directed downward. Therefore, lighting associated with the Project would not result in an adverse impact. The proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities may include traffic signals, lighting, and flashing beacons at crosswalks designed to improve safety and visibility. This lighting would be in an urbanized area and would be consistent with existing lighting that serves similar purposes. This lighting would be detectable primarily during nighttime hours.

Figure 4 shows the existing view from West James Street west of 1st Avenue looking southeast at the proposed parking garage location. This is a typical view from the edge of the residential neighborhood west of the BNSF tracks along West James Street. Centered in the figure is the existing two-story cold storage building that the proposed parking garage would replace. To the left of the cold storage building is the northeast corner of the Kent Station retail center located west of 1st Avenue. Vehicles using the surface parking east of 1st Avenue are also visible. The one-story multi-family residential development is visible in the center right of the figure. Hills to the east can be seen in the distance.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 12 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Source: CDM Smith, 2018 Figure 4 Key View Location 1 from West James Street west of 1st Avenue Looking Southeast

Figure 5 shows a rendering of the parking garage from this location. While larger in scale than the existing single-family dwellings to the west, the garage is similar in height to the existing cold storage building and from this perspective, appears similar in height to the retail center. The proposed parking garage would be located approximately one block southeast of the first row of homes. Given its proximity and height, the proposed parking garage would be a prominent feature visible along this block, similar to the existing cold storage building.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 13 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Proposed Parking Garage

The rendering is for analysis purposes only and is not intended to be the final design. Sound Transit will engage the community as the design progresses beyond the current conceptual design.

Source: CDM Smith, 2019 Figure 5 Key View Location 1 Rendering from West James Street west of 1st Avenue Looking Southeast

While the building scale and materials, including concrete and screens, would contrast with the building scale and materials of the residential neighborhood, the proposed parking garage is similar in height as the existing cold storage building being displaced and would be visually compatible with the mixed-use commercial setting that forms the view south of East and West James Street from this location. Additionally, the proposed parking garage would be set back further from East James Street than the existing cold storage building. The proposed parking garage would likely be perceived by viewers as being a part of the cultural environment comprised of mixed uses, rather than as part of the residential neighborhood. In other words, the parking garage would be compatible with the surrounding land uses with regards to existing and planned comprehensive plan uses. Further, views of the proposed parking garage from the residential neighborhood would only occur along West James Street near 1st Avenue.

The architectural screening and landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed parking garage would add visual interest and screening; however, several years would be required before the landscaping would reach maturity. An addition of a photo-voltaic array on the top level of the parking garage could occur in the future. The photo-voltaic array is not depicted in Figure 5. The top of the panels would likely be visible from this location; however, it would be designed to be

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 14 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment integrated into the overall structure and would not create a new intrusive visual element. Light fixtures at the exterior and interior of the proposed parking garage would be shielded from producing off-site glare and would therefore not adversely affect the surrounding development.

While the precise location of the proposed bus operator rest stop building at the existing surface parking lot east of North 1st Avenue has not been determined, should the building be located adjacent to West James Street, it would be visible from Key View Location 1 between the trees east of North 1st Avenue and the proposed parking garage (the rest stop building is not depicted in Figure 5). The existing trees along the western edge of the existing surface parking lot, including the trees visible from Key View Location 1, would be retained or new landscaping would replace the trees depending on the final design. The proposed bus operator rest stop would be both substantially lower in height and smaller in size than the proposed parking garage and the commercial building shown in Figure 5 and as such would be a minor element in the visual landscape. It would visually blend with the structures located along West James Street and would be perceived by viewers as being a part of the cultural environment. If the bus operator rest stop is located at the southern end of the existing surface parking lot, it would not be visible from Key View Location 1.

Because the Project would be compatible with the visual character of the downtown setting and would likely be viewed as part of this expected cultural environment of mixed uses, it would have a neutral change in visual quality from this location. The viewing population in the residential area would be expected to have a low sensitivity to the change because it is similar in height as the existing buildings being displaced and the scale of other existing development in the area.

Only a few of the residences would have this direct view of the Project. Most other residents and persons traveling to or through the residential neighborhood would not have views of the garage, except through momentary gaps between buildings and trees. The proposed parking garage would likely be viewed as part of the expected cultural environment of the rail corridor and the commercial core on the southern side of East and West James Street, rather than part of the residential neighborhood.

Figure 6 shows the existing view from East James Street east of Central Avenue looking southwest at the proposed parking garage location. This is a typical view from the northeast and illustrates the relative scale of the area as observed from this location. Near the center right of the figure is the existing cold storage building that the proposed parking garage would replace. To the left of center, the existing gas station/convenience store is visible. Further to the left, the fence surrounding the baseball field at the Mill Creek School can be seen above the vehicles on East James Street. On the right, perimeter landscaping and temporary signage at the gas station located northeast of the project site is visible. Limited distant views of the hills to the west are available from this location.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 15 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Source: CDM Smith, 2018 Figure 6 Key View Location 2 from East James Street east of Central Avenue Looking Southwest

Figure 7 shows a rendering of the proposed parking garage from this location. The proposed garage has the same height but a larger footprint than the cold storage building. However, while the proposed parking garage would be a prominent feature visible along this block, in contrast to the existing structure, it would be set further back from East James Street, and include screening, architectural variation, and a uniform top-level facade. Therefore, it would provide more visual interest and would be more consistent with the existing structures in the area than the existing structure. As with viewers from the west, the proposed parking garage would likely be perceived as being a part of the cultural environment comprised of mixed uses, rather than as part of the residential development.

The realigned Railroad Avenue and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities, including sidewalk and roadway markings and bicycle racks and lockers, (not shown in Figures 5 or 7) would be minor features of the visual setting. These features would be consistent with the existing urban setting which has similar existing features.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 16 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

Proposed Parking Garage

The rendering is for analysis purposes only and is not intended to be the final design. Sound Transit will engage the community as the design progresses beyond the current conceptual design.

Source: CDM Smith, 2019 Figure 7 Key View Location 2 Rendering from East James Street east of Central Avenue Looking Southwest

While the precise location of the proposed bus operator rest stop building at the existing surface parking lot east of North 1st Avenue has not been determined, should the building be located adjacent to James Street, the front of the building may be visible from Key View Location 2 beyond the parking garage. Because of the distance and small size of the building from Key View Location 2, the proposed structure would blend with the landscaping and commercial buildings west of the proposed parking garage and would not be visually distinguishable from this location. If the bus operator rest stop is located at the southern end of the existing surface parking lot, it would not be visible from Key View Location 2.

The Project would also be visible from the downtown area south of East James Street, including the single-family residences to the east and south of the project site. As previously described, these structures have largely been converted to commercial uses, and the residential uses that remain are surrounded by commercial buildings with varying heights and materials. The residential units on Central Avenue have asphalt parking in the rear of the lots that would back-up to the re-aligned Railroad Avenue. While there would be views of the Project from the rear and side yards, the existing views are of a contrasting visual environment, consisting

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 17 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment primarily of neighboring parking lots, chain link fencing and the cold storage building. The proposed parking garage would replace the cold storage building with a building that provides more visual interest and it would be part of the expected visual context associated with the rail corridor and downtown setting.

The proposed parking garage would comply with the maximum height requirements and would be similar in size and scale to other structures in Downtown Kent, including the existing parking garage and movie theater located to the west (not shown in Figures 5) and school gymnasium to the east (not shown in Figure 7). Similarly, for merchants, shoppers, visitors, and institutional workers and users, the Project would be consistent in visual character with other structures within the downtown area.

As described in Section 3.1 above, the Project would comply with the City of Kent standards. Compliance with these standards and requirements would result in the Project not adversely affecting aesthetics. The design of the Project would comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines and although the proposed parking garage would have a larger footprint than the existing cold storage building, it would be set further back from East James Street and have architectural features, providing visual interest and greater visual continuity with the existing structures in the area such as the existing parking garage, retail center, and school. The proposed bus operator rest stop building is smaller and lower profile than surrounding buildings and would not change the existing downtown visual character. For merchants, shoppers, visitors, and institutional workers and users, the Project is likely to be considered part of the expected cultural environment of the rail corridor and the commercial core south of East and West James Street. The proposed parking garage and the bus operator rest stop building are not likely to be considered an intrusion into the downtown character of the area. Therefore, the Project would have a compatible visual character and would have a neutral change in visual quality. The viewing population in and adjacent to the downtown area would have low sensitivity to the change in visual setting and the visual quality impact would be neutral.

Persons who pass by or through the site on local streets would perceive the proposed parking garage as a normal part of the commuter station. Commuters using the station are likely to regard the proposed parking garage positively as contributing to the convenience of their commute trip. Train travelers are likely to see it as a normal element in the rail corridor, similar to existing parking garages near the Kent and Auburn stations. Amtrak passengers, who do not stop and have a fleeting view of only a few seconds, likely would regard the proposed parking garage as similar to urban features found at multiple locations along the route. The Project would have a compatible visual character and would have a neutral change in visual quality. Travelers generally can be expected to not be sensitive to this change in visual setting and regard the proposed parking garage as having a low visual impact.

As described above, the building materials and features would be in accordance with Kent design codes and Downtown Design Guidelines and would add unity to the downtown area. The viewing population would have a neutral visual quality impact.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 18 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment

5.2 Construction Impacts Construction impacts, although temporary, are expected to last up to 24 months and would involve the soonest and most noticeable visual change associated with the Project. Site clearing and demolition would remove the existing building, landscaping, and existing surface parking. Other sources of visual effects could include construction staging areas, detours or temporary roadways, lighting, signage, heavy equipment, trailers, fences, scaffolding, cranes, and material storage.

This construction work would result in visual clutter and a temporary disruption to visual unity given the variety of construction activities, equipment, and stored materials that would be present throughout the construction period. The construction and staging areas would lack visual cohesion and have low visual quality compared with the existing conditions or the expected visual character after construction. However, Sound Transit may place construction screens or barriers to limit the visibility of work areas. There may be nighttime construction activities, which would warrant directional lighting away from adjacent residents. Therefore, construction- related visual impacts would be low. 6.0 Conclusion Foreground views from residential and commercial areas, as well as views available to travelers would be altered by the new parking garage. The Project’s visual character, however, would be compatible with the visual character of the existing cultural environment of the rail corridor and the downtown commercial core of the community. Given the overall conformity of the Project with the downtown setting, the Project is expected to result in a neutral visual impact to the surrounding area.

While the building scale and materials, including concrete and screens would contrast with the building scale and materials of the residential neighborhood to the north, the Project would be visually compatible with the mixed-use commercial setting that forms the view south of East and West James Street from this location. The proposed parking garage would likely be viewed as part of this expected cultural environment of mixed uses, rather than part of the residential neighborhood. The parking garage would be compatible with the surrounding land uses regarding existing and planned comprehensive plan uses.

While the proposed parking garage would be visible along the edges of residential community to the north and from rear yards of a small number of residential units to the southeast, it would have a compatible visual character with the downtown setting south of East and West James Street, and, while larger in size than the existing cold storage building, the height would be similar, and it would have more visual interest and a greater visual continuity with other buildings in the area. Additionally, the proposed parking garage would be set further back from East James Street than the existing cold storage building, thereby reducing the visual prominence to viewers traveling along westbound on East James Street and residential viewers to the north. The proposed bus operator rest stop building located east of North 1st Avenue would be small (approximately 16 by 20 feet) and of low profile (approximately 11 feet tall) and would not be a visually intrusive element. The Project would be compatible with the existing visual character and quality of its surroundings and would have a neutral (no) visual quality impact. Since the Project

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 19 Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements: Visual Impact Assessment would have no visual impact, the viewer population is expected to have low sensitivity to the visual change created by the Project.

During construction, the presence of construction equipment, materials and activities would have a temporary disruption the typical visual environment. However, Sound Transit may place construction screens or barriers to limit the visibility of work areas. With implementation of best practices to reduce the temporary disruption to the visual environment, construction impacts would not be adverse.

Visual Impact Assessment - Kent 20

Attachment D Cultural Resources Technical Report

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Cultural Resources Technical Report

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

September 2019

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... ES-1 Section 1 Introduction and Project Description ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Technical Report ...... 1-3 1.2 Regulatory Context ...... 1-3 1.2.1 State ...... 1-3 1.2.1.1 State Environmental Policy Act ...... 1-3 1.2.1.2 Other State Archaeological Resource Laws...... 1-4 1.2.2 Local ...... 1-4 1.3 Study Area ...... 1-5 Section 2 Research Methods and Results ...... 2-1 2.1 Record Search Findings ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources ...... 2-2 2.2.3 Previously Recorded Cemeteries ...... 2-2 2.2.4 Previously Recorded Historic-Age Properties ...... 2-2 2.2.5 Archival Research ...... 2-2 2.2.6 DAHP WSAPM Predictive Model ...... 2-3 2.3 Correspondence with Interested Parties ...... 2-3 2.3.1 State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribes, and Other Interested Parties ...... 2-3 Section 3 Environmental Context ...... 3-1 3.1 Geology ...... 3-1 3.2 Flora and Fauna ...... 3-1 Section 4 Cultural Context ...... 4-1 4.1 Prehistoric Background ...... 4-1 4.2 Ethnographic Background ...... 4-3 4.3 Historic Context ...... 4-3 Section 5 Expectations for Prehistoric, Ethnographic Period and Historic-Era Archaeological Resources ...... 5-1 Section 6 Geotechnical Bore Sampling and Analysis ...... 6-1 6.1 Geotechnical Bore Sample Methods ...... 6-1 6.2 Geotechnical Bore Sample Analysis Results ...... 6-1 Section 7 Historic-Era Architectural Resources ...... 7-1 7.1 Architectural Inventory Methods ...... 7-1 7.2 Architectural Inventory Results ...... 7-1 7.3 Register Criteria ...... 7-5 7.3.1 National Register of Historic Places ...... 7-5 7.3.2 Integrity ...... 7-5 7.3.3 Washington Heritage Register ...... 7-6 7.3.4 King County Landmarks Designation Criteria ...... 7-7

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent i Table of Contents•

7.4 Architectural Resource Evaluation ...... 7-7 7.4.1 Discussion of Washington Cold Storage Building ...... 7-8 7.4.1.1 Significance ...... 7-8 7.4.1.2 Integrity ...... 7-9 7.4.2 Eligibility of Washington Cold Storage Building within the Study Area ...... 7-10 7.4.3 Discussion of 603 Central Avenue N ...... 7-10 7.4.3.1 Significance ...... 7-10 7.4.3.2 Integrity ...... 7-11 7.4.4 Eligibility of 603 Central Avenue N within the Study Area ...... 7-12 7.4.5 Discussion of BNSF Railway Segment ...... 7-12 7.4.5.1 Significance ...... 7-12 7.4.5.2 Integrity ...... 7-13 7.4.6 Eligibility of BNSF Railway Segment within the Study Area ...... 7-14 7.5 Determination of Effects to Historic Properties during Construction and Operation ...... 7-15 Section 8 Summary ...... 8-1 8.1 Archaeological Resources ...... 8-1 8.2 Historic-Era Architectural Resources...... 8-1 Section 9 References Cited ...... 9-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map ...... 1-6 Figure 1-2 Study Area Map ...... 1-7 Figure 6-1 Geotechnical Borehole Locations ...... 6-2 Figure 7-1 Built Historic Resources Study Area ...... 7-3

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located within .25 Miles of the Study Area . 2-1 Table 6-1 Deposits Identified within the Study Area and Their Inferred Depositional Environment ...... 6-3 Table 7-1 Summary of Historic-age Property Architectural Inventory Results ...... 7-2 Table 7-2 Summary of Parcels Excluded from Architectural Inventory ...... 7-4

ii Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Table of Contents •

Appendices

Appendix A DAHP Statewide Predictive Model Appendix B Previously Recorded Historic-age Properties Located within 0.25 mile of the Study Area Appendix C Geotechnical Bore Logs Appendix D Inadvertent Discovery Plan

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent iii Table of Contents•

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE area of potential effects ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BP before present DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation HPI Washington State Historic Property Inventory IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan NRHP National Register of Historic Places RCW Revised Code of Washington SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act Sound Transit Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Start Sound Transit Public Art Program WAC Washington Administrative Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database WSAPM Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model WWII Second World War

iv Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent

Executive Summary

The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) is proposing the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project), which includes a new parking garage to better serve the Sounder South Rail system patrons at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east. Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street. The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls. The Project also includes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety. As part of final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process.

Sound Transit conducted a landscape history analysis, literature reviews, geotechnical monitoring, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and reconnaissance-level built environment survey of the study area. The purpose of this analysis was to identify archaeological and built environment resources within the study area, analyze the project’s effects on such resources, and assess the potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological sites within the study area.

To determine the potential for encountering archaeological resources, geotechnical boring samples were observed within the area of direct ground disturbance. No buried archaeological deposits or terrestrial surfaces warranting additional inspection were identified (Figure 6-1). Therefore, Project-related ground-disturbing activities appear to have low potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological sites within the project site or areas where roadway realignment would occur. In the event of the discovery of archaeological deposits or human remains during Project-related ground disturbance, the Project’s inadvertent discovery plan (Appendix D, Inadvertent Discovery Plan) will be followed. This protocol provides guidance for identifying archaeological resources and procedures for responding to inadvertent discoveries, including the responsibilities of Sound Transit and their consulting archaeologist, as well as the process for outreach to consulting tribes and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP).

Eighteen historic-age properties within the study area were surveyed and documented in February and March 2017 and July 2018, and ultimately recommended that none of them have sufficient significance or maintain sufficient integrity to merit eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Washington Heritage Register (WHR). Seven properties documented and evaluated in 2017 remain in the current study area. Sound Transit reviewed the eligibility analysis for each of these properties and corresponded with DAHP to receive feedback on the in consultant’s “not eligible” recommendations in 2017. DAHP found two properties—the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N), and 603 Central Avenue N—to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Given the consultant’s research indicated the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N) construction post-dated the period of significance for the cold storage industry in Kent and the surrounding region (and did not appear to have

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent ES-1 Executive Summary • significance under any NRHP Criterion A, B, C, or D), and the 603 Central Avenue N residence had been altered such that it no longer embodied the distinctive characteristics of its style (and did not appear to have significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D), Sound Transit supports the consultant’s “not eligible” recommendation for all nine of the properties evaluated in 2017.

For the 2018 Cultural Resources Technical Report, the study area was delineated to include seven of the nine properties evaluated in 2017. A second reconnaissance-level built environment survey was conducted to document and evaluate an additional 11 historic-age properties in the new study area. None of the 11 additional properties were previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or the WHR. ICF recommended none of the properties had sufficient significance under NRHP Criterion A, B, C, or D (as well as WHR significance areas that align with NRHP Criteria) and integrity to convey significance to merit eligibility for listing in the NRHP or WHR. Sound Transit reviewed eligibility recommendations for the 11 properties evaluated in 2018 and supports the consultant’s “not eligible” recommendations for these properties.

Given there are no cultural resources recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP or in the WHR within the study area, the consultant recommends a finding of “no historic properties affected” for the Project.

ES-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent

Section 1 Introduction and Project Description

The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) is proposing the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project), which includes a new parking garage to serve the Sounder South Rail system patrons at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east. Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street. The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls.

The parking garage site would include 621 Railroad Avenue N, including the parking lot immediately to the south, and the northern portion of Railroad Avenue. Construction of the proposed Project would require demolition of the building at 621 Railroad Avenue N.

The Project would also include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to the Kent Station and improve safety. As part of final design, the following amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent (City) and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. The following are the proposed amenities:

▪ Adjacent to the project site, amenities would include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage.

▪ At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities would include a painted curb extension,1 new crosswalk, curbs that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and rectangular rapid-flashing beacons. Sound Transit and the City will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

▪ Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements:

• At Railroad Avenue N and E James Street:

o Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop- off loop.

o Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases.

1 Painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 1-1 Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description

• At Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street:

o Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed.

• At Central Avenue N/E James Street:

o Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property.

• At E James Street west of Central Avenue N:

o Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

▪ At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities would include installing a painted curb extension, rapid-flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are ADA-compliant.

▪ At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements would include smart lockers2 and bike racks, as well as a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, ADA-compliant crosswalk, painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N.

▪ On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses. The layover area would include approximately eight bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. The rest stop would be a small prefab building with slab on grade foundation (approximately 16 by 20 feet and 11 feet in height) in a location where there has been past ground disturbance. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411 spaces, including 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue N and approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements. These include areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage. The staging area is currently identified as Sound Transit owned parcel 9179601585.

In support of sustainability, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array, and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in

2 Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers.

1-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City’s design goals of providing an aesthetically pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside construction dollars for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart), will manage the integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide storm-water runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. Traffic improvement measures would also be included. Final traffic improvements will be identified in collaboration with the City as part of final design. 1.1 Purpose of Technical Report The purpose of the cultural resources investigations presented in this report was to record and evaluate cultural resources within the study area. This technical report presents environmental and cultural contexts, the methods and findings of the cultural resources studies, and archaeological recommendations. 1.2 Regulatory Context Federal, state, and local agency regulations recognize the public’s interest in cultural resources and the public benefit of preserving these resources. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a project might affect significant cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or minimize potential damage. A cultural resource is considered to be any building, structure, object, site, landscape, or district associated with human manipulation of the environment. These resources are often valued by a particular group of people (monetarily, aesthetically, or religiously), and can be historic in character or date to the prehistoric past (i.e., the time prior to written records). Resource types referred to in this report include archaeological resources, historic resources, and culturally significant properties.

The Project will receive no federal funding, will not occur on federal lands, and will not require a federal permit; therefore, it will not be required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Project will be required to comply with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as well as other applicable state regulations. Key applicable state laws and regulations are summarized in this section. 1.2.1 State The Project must be performed in compliance with SEPA and other state and local cultural resources requirements, as appropriate. The key applicable laws and regulations are described in this section. 1.2.1.1 State Environmental Policy Act SEPA (Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington [RCW]) requires that project effects on historic properties must be considered in weighing the overall effect of the project on the environment. SEPA requires the consideration of significant impacts on cultural and historic resources and requires that effects on cultural and historic resources be taken into account in the threshold determination process (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-330). Under

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 1-3 Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description

SEPA, the DAHP is the specified agency with special expertise relating to archaeological and historic resources.

1.2.1.2 Washington Heritage Register

The WHR is an official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Further details regarding WHR evaluation criteria are included in Section 7.3, Register Criteria. 1.2.1.2 Other State Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include the following.

▪ RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites.

▪ RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations.

▪ RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. 1.2.2 Local King County Code provides for the protection and preservation of recognized cultural resources, including designated buildings, sites, objects, and districts (Title 20.62). King County, Washington, has a Historic Preservation Program and a Landmarks Commission. The King County Landmarks and Heritage Commission is designated and empowered to act as the landmarks commission for the City of Kent (Kent City Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.12. 020 and King County Code, Title 20, Chapter 20.62).

The mayor of Kent shall, subject to confirmation by the city council, appoint one individual to act as a special member of the King County Landmarks and Heritage Commission (King County Code Title 20, Section 20.62.030). The Landmarks Commission follows procedures as established by King County which include nominations, economic impact evaluations, penalty for violations, and special valuation for historic properties (Kent City Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.12 and King County Code, Title 20, Chapter 20.62). The Landmarks Commission is responsible for the administration and oversight of these regulations.

Properties may only be considered for King County landmark designation through a formal nomination process (King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.050). Properties that are more than 40 years old may be considered (King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.040). The City adopts the designation procedures for landmarks and for the certificate of appropriateness procedure for landmarks as contained in King County Code Section 20.62.080 (Kent City Code Title 14 Chapter 14.12.050 and 14.12.060). No property may proceed through the King County

1-4 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description landmarks nomination procedures until the Kent city council has approved the historic resource nomination. 1.3 Study Area The Project would occur on a series of parcels that measure approximately 6.5 acres in size within the City (Township 22N, Range 4E, NE corner of NE corner of Section 24) (Figure 1-1).

The study area has been horizontally delineated by parcel (Figure 1-2). Parcels and adjacent locations in the public right-of-way have been included in the study area if they meet the following criteria.

▪ The parcel or location in the public right-of-way intersects with the proposed project site or locations of other proposed improvements, with the potential to have direct impacts on historic properties or cultural resources.

▪ The parcel or location in the public right-of-way is adjacent to a proposed project activity with the potential to have indirect impacts on historic properties or cultural resources.

In addition, the area of potential effects (APE) has been delineated to include the locations where pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities are proposed. These include locations of pedestrian safety and traffic-calming measures at the at the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N and the intersection of Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street; bicycle, pedestrian safety and traffic-calming improvements at Kent Station; and bus bays and a bus operator rest stop in the Sound Transit-owned parking lot on 1st Avenue N, adjacent to the railroad.

All the areas identified within the study area are outside an established historic district. Therefore, the improvements would not affect any historic features that contribute to a historic district.

The Project’s current foundation design includes driving 384 piles at depths of approximately 100 feet. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities would disturb up to approximately 3 feet deep. As part of the geotechnical borings, an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) was prepared in the event of the discovery of archaeological deposits or human remains during geotechnical borings work (Appendix D, Inadvertent Discovery Plan). As part of final design, Sound Transit would prepare an IDP for project construction, incorporating updates to the project design and extent of ground disturbance.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 1-5 Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

1-6 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 1 • Introduction and Project Description

Figure 1-2 Study Area Map

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 1-7

Section 2 Research Methods and Results

This section outlines the methods used to identify cultural resources within the study area. The consultant reviewed records available in the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD), and conducted general and property-specific archival research to identify previously documented archeological and historic resources within 0.25 mile of the study area. They also applied the DAHP Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model (WSAPM) (Appendix A, DAHP Statewide Predictive Model) and performed a desktop-based buried archaeological site sensitivity analysis to assess the potential for encountering archaeological resources. In addition, the consultant supported Sound Transit correspondence with interested parties and incorporated applicable feedback. 2.1 Record Search Findings A WISAARD record search was conducted to identify previously documented archeological and historic resources within 0.25 mile of the study area. WISAARD contains all cultural resources records and reports written since 1995 that are on file with DAHP. The findings of this record search for previously recorded cultural resources studies, archaeological resources, cemeteries, and historic-age properties are included herein. 2.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies The WISAARD record search identified two previous cultural resource studies within the study area. The first study is a road improvement project that was conducted in 2004 (Jones & Stokes 2004), while the second is a study that preceded a project for proposed pedestrian improvements (Cooper 2006). No new or previously recorded archaeological sites are present in these studies.

Three additional studies are present within 0.25 mile of the study area. One study is an assessment of the U.S. Postal Service station in Kent (Cutler 2008). A second study outlines the replacement of sidewalks on 2nd Avenue between W Gowe and W Willis Streets in downtown Kent (Hetzel 2009). The final study detailed the results of a survey conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for six proposed levee rehabilitation projects in the Kent and Auburn area (Kelly 2008). No new or previously recorded archaeological sites are present in these studies.

Table 2-1 summarizes the key attributes of each of the studies and their findings as recorded in WISAARD.

Table 2-1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located within .25 Miles of the Study Area Reference Distance to Study Area Location Cultural Materials Identified Jones & Stokes 2004 Within study area None Cooper 2006 Within study area None Cutler 2008 0.25 mile from study area None Hetzel 2009 0.25 mile from study area None Kelly 2008 0.25 mile from study area None

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 2-1 Section 2 • Research Methods and Results

2.2.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources There are no previously recorded archaeological resources located in the study area. The WISAARD search identified one archaeological site previously documented within 0.25 mile of the study area. Archaeological site 45KI503 is located on the floodplain of the Green River in downtown Kent on the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks north of State Route 516, situated between 1st and 2nd Avenues N and between W Smith Street and W Temperance Streets. The site consists of historic artifacts identified during the Sounder Commuter Rail Kent Station garage construction in 2001. The artifacts date from the early to mid-20th century and were observed and recovered from backhoe excavations and an in situ pit feature (LeTourneau 2001). 2.2.3 Previously Recorded Cemeteries No previously recorded cemeteries were identified within 0.25 mile of the study area. The nearest cemeteries are St. James Episcopal Church Columbarium, located 0.7 mile from the study area, and Hillcrest Burial Park, located 0.9 mile from the study area. Hillcrest Burial Park includes re-interred early pioneer and Japanese burials from two cemeteries: an unnamed early cemetery located in low-lying ground in the valley and the Auburn Pioneer Cemetery (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2016a and 2016b). 2.2.4 Previously Recorded Historic-Age Properties The WISAARD record search identified 54 previously recorded buildings within 0.25 mile of the study area. Five of the properties are recorded as eligible for listing in either the WHR or the NRHP. None of the 54 buildings within 0.25 mile of the study area are listed in the NRHP. Only one of the buildings is listed in the WHR. None of the 54 previously recorded buildings within 0.25 mile of the study area are located within the study area boundary. Details about each of these properties are summarized in Appendix B, Previously Recorded Historic-age Properties. The table located in the appendix includes WISAARD HPI number/property ID; property address; historic or common name; property type; year built; NRHP eligibility/listed status; WHR eligibility/listed status; and local register listed status. While none of these previously recorded properties are located in the study area, details about their eligibility provided context to inform the evaluation of the historic-age properties within the study area, which are analyzed in this report, and provide data required to identify the presence or absence of a previously unidentified historic district. 2.2.5 Archival Research General and property-specific archival research was conducted to establish precontact, ethnographic, and historic contexts for the study area. Materials examined included the previous cultural resources studies found during the record search, as well as primary and secondary resources from local repositories. A review of existing cultural resources studies performed within or directly adjacent to the study areas was performed and the methods used for these studies and any possible data gaps were considered. Research materials were reviewed. Materials, including historic maps and local property records, were obtained from the following repositories:

2-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 2 • Research Methods and Results

▪ King County Archives, Records and Licensing Services Collection

▪ Sanborn Maps ranging from 1890 to 1944

▪ Historic Aerials (http://www.historicaerials.com)

▪ Puget Sound Regional Branch Archives 2.2.6 DAHP WSAPM Predictive Model The WSAPM, maintained by DAHP, is used to determine whether a given location has sensitivity for containing archaeological sites. The WSAPM correlates several environmental datasets (elevation, slope, aspect, distance to water, geology, soils, and landforms) and cultural datasets (archaeological sites recorded with DAHP, archaeological survey locations, General Land Office sites) to generate predictions on where archaeological sites might be on a landscape. Based on this information, DAHP generated five management categories (very high, high, moderate, low, and very low potential for archaeological sites) to assess the potential for archaeological deposits and the necessity of archaeological survey within Washington State.

The WSAPM identifies the study area as very high risk, with the completion of an archaeological survey highly advised (Appendix A, DAHP Statewide Predictive Model). It is primarily identified as such because of its low elevation, nearly imperceptible slope, and relatively close distance to water. To more precisely determine the need for further archaeological studies, geotechnical bore sampling analysis was performed to consider other factors not included in the WSAPM and to consider the nature of project-related ground-disturbing activities. The findings of this analysis are presented in Section 6, Geotechnical Bore Sampling Analysis. 2.3 Correspondence with Interested Parties 2.3.1 State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribes, and Other Interested Parties Sound Transit is the SEPA lead agency which, in consultation with DAHP, determines whether a resource is eligible for listing in the NRHP or the WHR. Sound Transit reviewed the eligibility analysis for seven properties in the current study area that were documented and evaluated in 2017. During that same year, Sound Transit corresponded with DAHP to receive feedback on the “not eligible” recommendations for two additional properties. DAHP found these two properties—the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N), and 603 Central Avenue N—to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Given that Sound Transit’s research indicated that the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N) construction post-dated the period of significance for the cold storage industry in Kent and the surrounding region (and did not appear to have significance under any NRHP Criterion A, B, C, or D), and the 603 Central Avenue N residence had been altered such that it no longer embodied the distinctive characteristics of its style (and did not appear to have significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D), Sound Transit determined the nine properties to be “not eligible”. DAHP will be provided the final Cultural Resources Report, environmental checklist, and Sound Transit threshold determination for review. Other interested parties Sound Transit will engage during the duration of the process are the City and tribes.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 2-3

Section 3 Environmental Context

3.1 Geology The study area is located within the Puget Lowland geographic province, a north-to-south oriented depression situated between the Olympic mountain range to the west and the Cascade range to the east (Schuster 2009:2). The concave shape of the Puget Lowland is the result of tectonic pressure, caused by the subduction of the Juan De Fuca plate under the North American plate (Haugerud 2004). During the Pleistocene epoch (2.588 million to 12,000 years before present (BP), the Puget Lowland was intermittently covered by glacial ice, which advanced southward from British Columbia. Each glacial advance scoured and reshaped the topography created by the previous glacial advance and deposited debris. The current topography of the lowland is primarily the result of surface scouring, subglacial trough erosion, and sedimentary deposition from the most recent glacial advance, known as the Vashon stage of the Fraser glaciation (18,750 and 16,950 years ago), followed by the deposition of sediments and channel incision during glacial retreat (16,950 and 16,400 years ago) (Goldstein 1994 Porter and Swanson 1998).

The study area is located on the floor of the Duwamish Valley. Prior to around 5,700 years ago, the area north of Auburn in the Duwamish Valley was a marine embayment. At that time, the northeastern portion of Mount Rainier’s composite crater collapsed. This resulted in a mud and debris flow—termed the Osceola Mudflow—that proceeded down the Duwamish Valley and rapidly infilled the remainder of the embayment, with mudflow deposits extending into the study area vicinity. The availability of new sediment sources, and subsequent smaller mudflows, resulted in the rapid infilling of the remainder of the valley as the river delta prograded (or grew outward) nearly 22 miles to its near-present location at the beginning of the 20th century (Dragovich et al. 1994). The ground surface of the study area is currently composed of Holocene-aged alluvial sediments at the ground surface (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2018). As indicated in Chapter 7, Geotechnical Bore Sampling and Analysis, the local depth of these sediments exceeds 40 feet below ground surface. 3.2 Flora and Fauna The study area is located in the Puget Sound area subtype of the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone. Softwoods such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region, while hardwoods such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found near water courses or riparian habitats. Understory shrubs with potential food and resource value in the western hemlock zone include, but are not limited to, swordfern (Polystichum muritum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), vine maple (Acer circinatum), blackberry (Rubus spp.), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Wapato (Sagittaria latifolia), another traditionally

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 3-1 Section 3 • Environmental Context important plant resource, would have been available in wetland areas along stream margins during the prehistoric period.

Terrestrial faunal resources of value in the region historically include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatra sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Dalquest 1948). Ducks and geese (Family Anatidae) are seasonally abundant in the area (Kruckeberg 1995).

3-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent

Section 4 Cultural Context

4.1 Prehistoric Background Archaeological cultural chronologies of the Pacific Northwest and the Puget Sound area have been summarized by numerous archaeologists (including, but not limited to, Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Greengo and Houston 1970; Kidd 1964; Matson and Coupland 1995; and Nelson 1990). Studies of the archaeology and prehistory of the Puget Sound and surrounding areas typically divide the prehistoric cultural sequence into multiple phases or periods from about 12,500 to 225 BP. These phases are delineated by changes in regional patterns of land use, subsistence, and tool types over time. Archaeological cultural chronologies provide a useful framework for analysis but do not necessarily reflect tribal views of history, cultural boundaries, affiliations, and time. This document uses the archaeological cultural chronology developed by Ames and Maschner (1999) for the Pacific Northwest coast to help describe the patterns in precontact cultural developments in the Puget Sound. The sequence includes five periods, which are briefly summarized in this section.

Paleo-Indian (prior to 12,500 BP). The Paleo-Indian period is characterized by sparse and highly mobile groups that primarily used terrestrial resources. Assemblages include large stone bifaces and bone technology. A majority of Puget Sound sites dated to this period consist of isolated large-fluted stone bifaces attributed to the Clovis culture, and are typically located on upland glacial plains. The use of bone technology in the region during this period was recently confirmed during a recent re-analysis of the Manis mastodon site (45CCA218) assemblage (Waters et al. 2011).

Archaic (12,500–6,400 BP). The Archaic period is characterized by increased technological diversity relative to the Paleo-Indian period. Typically located on alluvial terraces, assemblages include leaf-shaped bifaces, cobble and cobble-flake tools, and bone tools. Evidence of littoral resource use begins to appear during this period in the larger Pacific Northwest region, but not within the Puget Sound.

Early Pacific (6,400–3,800 BP). The Early Pacific period is characterized by expanded use of intertidal resources and increased dependence on bone and antler tools relative to the Archaic period. Assemblages include bone points, barbs, and harpoons; ground stone points and celts; and shell middens. Although evidence for the use of upland and riverine resources continued, the earliest evidence for littoral resource use in the Puget Sound also occurs during this period.

Middle Pacific (3,800 to 1,800–1,500 BP). The Middle Pacific period is characterized by the first evidence of permanent social inequality, as well as a shifting emphasis to a storage-based economy, intensification of salmon fishing, an increase in the variety of bone and antler tools, and near-modern art styling. Assemblages include artifacts similar to those associated with the Early Pacific period, as well as plank house remains, wooden boxes, toggling harpoons, fish hooks, and fish rakes. Sites situated along the littoral zone become prevalent during this period.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 4-1 Section 4 • Cultural Context

Late Pacific (1,800–1,500 to around 225 BP). The Late Pacific period is characterized by the emergence of extremely large houses, heavy-duty woodworking tools, and a decreased reliance on chipped stone tools. Assemblages include artifacts similar to those associated with the Middle Pacific period. The archaeological record from this period is comprised primarily of littoral sites and riverine sites.

The study area is located within a riverine environment on a landform that was most likely formed during the late Holocene, which is roughly contemporaneous with the Middle and Late Pacific periods. Several extensively studied riverine archaeological sites are located in the eastern portion of the central Puget Sound, like the study area, and provide insight into the types of precontact activities that occurred in these environments.

Analysis of the content of two sites from the Middle Pacific period indicates that the precontact peoples of the region used riverine environments to procure and process faunal resources. One of the sites, 45KI11, is situated near the northeastern edge of Lake Washington, along what used to be the Sammamish River. The site contained abundant fire modified rock, calcined bone, and lithic tools, including bifaces, projectile points, scrapers, micro-blades, and a hammerstone. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal obtained from the site’s cultural materials-bearing deposit indicates that it dates to approximately 2,700 years ago. However, patinated lithic materials and obsidian microblades, typically associated with earlier periods, were recovered during excavations (Shong et al. 2007; Shantry et al. 2008). Excavations along Bear Creek at Marymoor (45KI9) yielded similar materials dated to approximately this period as well. Highly fragmented and calcined faunal remains and a high frequency of large choppers, hammerstones, and scrapers suggest the site was used as a processing location (Greengo and Houston 1970).

Analysis of sites from the Late Pacific period provides evidence to indicate that riverine environments were also used for habitation, and that the precontact peoples from this period relied extensively on aquatic resources. Tualdad Altu (Site 45KI59) or "King Salmon's House," located in Renton, was a village that contained several nearly 60-foot longhouses, which were occupied year-round starting 1,500 years ago and ending just a few decades later (Chatters 1987). The site takes its name from a nearby Duwamish fishing location; its location on the Black River floodplain allowed occupants access to Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss), which in typical Northwest Coast fashion they dried and preserved for winter consumption. The site also contains an elaborate modified bone and antler assemblage which includes multivalve harpoon points, unilaterally barbed points, and zoomorphic effigies.

Other riverine sites dated to the Late Pacific period also suggest a heavy reliance on salmon by native peoples. Sbabadid (Site 45KI51) (Larson and Lewarch 1995), the Renton High School site (Site 45KI501), and the Allentown and White Lake sites (Site 45KI438 and Site 45KI438A) were used approximately within the last 500 years and are ideally located for salmon exploitation and processing. These sites are dominated by salmon remains and reflect seasonally occupied fishing camps. Such sites would have been necessary to support the subsistence pattern of the area as currently understood and likely provided a great deal of the food for the population that reached its highest density in the region during this late period (Chatters 1987).

4-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 4 • Cultural Context

4.2 Ethnographic Background The Native American group and place names discussed in this section are taken from different sources and have slightly variable orthographic recordation and associated translations. Place names offered by Buerge (1984, 1985) have translations that vary slightly from those recorded by Waterman (in Hilbert et al. 2001) and further translated by Hilbert et al. (2001).

Southern Puget Sound is the home of Southern Lushootseed speakers (Hess 1977). The study area is located within lands that are traditionally ascribed to Duwamish peoples, who are commonly associated with Lake Washington. According to Buerge (1985:34) the Duwamish draw their name from the word Duw used to describe the rivers now known as the Duwamish, Cedar, and Black rivers. In Southern Lushootseed, Duw, means “inside” (part of t-hw-duw [going up inside]). The peoples who lived in the area were the “people of the inside” of the du-AHBUSH (Buerge 1984). However, as with other Puget Sound groups, the name Duwamish is an encapsulating name given to the peoples of the area by European American settlers (Buerge 1984; Castille 1985; Smith 1940).

According to Eells (in Castille 1985) the Duwamish could also be found on the islands of Puget Sound and the group was divided into a number of “bands.” These bands included groups such as the Sawamish, Samamish, Skopahmis, Sk’telmist and St’hahmish (Castille 1985:20). The Suquamish are commonly cited as a western extension or very close ally of the Duwamish (Castille 1985 Haeberlin and Gunther 1930).

T.T. Waterman’s ethnographic manuscript titled Geography of Puget Sound, with recent translations into today’s Lushootseed alphabet by Vi Hilbert and Zahir Zalmai, mentions three ethnographic place names within a mile of the study area. South of the Project area within the 0.25-mile buffer is Kwa’botcele, which translates to “’a vine of some sort,’ for the ‘Nose of the hill’ near Kent.” Southwest of the study area is spEdgwEs, which translates to “a long object the middle of which is buried” indicates “a point just below the old wagon bridge which crosses the Duwamish at Alvord’s place.” (Waterman 2001; 141–142) Southeast of the study area within the mile buffer is bstL³a’kwawats, which translates to “where there is a certain edible plant.” This was an area on the river bank close by the town of Kent where native peoples gathered a plant called tsla’gwEts. 4.3 Historic Context Early Development of Kent Pioneers began arriving to the King County region overland across the mountain via Naches and Snoqualmie Passes in the 1850s. Attracted by fertile land where they could grow a wide variety of crops, they settled in areas that included land near the White River (Kent-Auburn) (Payton 2006: 7–8). The town of Kent was incorporated in 1890 as the first municipality in King County outside the City of Seattle (Lentz 1990: 28). Although it was first known as Titusville during the 1880s, the town was renamed “Kent” by 1888. While the origin of the new name is unclear, John Alexander and Ida Guiberson filed the first plat—which extended three blocks south of Willis Street and three blocks east of what would become the railroad right-of-way—for the town under the name Kent in 1888 (Lentz 1990: 30). Other early settlers of Kent included Robert Ramsay, who contributed $250 for construction of the town’s first railway depot between

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 4-3 Section 4 • Cultural Context

Gowe and Meeker streets; Henry Yesler, whose early town of Yesler incorporated portions of what would become downtown Kent; James Henry Titus, settler whose sale of lots from his 100-acre property yielded development of a store, saloon, post office, hotel and the town’s early “Titusville” name; owners of the Kent Land Company, Captain James Jeremiah Crow, J.C. Merrifield, M.M. Morrill, and William J. Shinn; Elbridge A. Stuart (Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Company); and Albert E. and Lysander Smith (The Kent Mill Company). Kent’s first government officers included the mayor, Aaron T. Van de Vante, and council members, William C. Faulkner, Charles E. Guiberson, James C. Merrifield, Robert Ramsay, and Dr. Julien Soule (Lentz 1990: 28–31).

The Role of Railroad Infrastructure in Kent’s Early Development Despite the fertility of land in the valley, population and economic growth was slow in King County until development of local railroads allowed for easier transport of people and goods. The territorial governor Isaac Stevens recognized in 1853 that a northern railroad route was necessary for the expansion of the area (Cameron 1978). Nevertheless, it was not until 1883 that the Northern Pacific Railroad was able to complete its through road to the west, connecting Seattle with the Midwest, and creating the first northern transcontinental railroads (Hubbard 1981: 143). That same year, work began on a railroad between Seattle and Tacoma that ran through Kent. Soon after, however, the Northern Pacific Railroad came under new control interested in moving the main hub of transportation from Seattle to Tacoma. Service between Seattle and Tacoma became intermittent and unreliable and the railroad through Kent became known as the Orphan Line. It was not until King County threatened to revoke the railroad’s land grants that the terminus was again moved from Tacoma back to Seattle (Stein 2001).

The Northern Pacific Railroad, which followed the modern BNSF Railroad right-of-way, along with the Puget Sound Shoreline Railroad, began regular service through the heart of Kent by 1886 (Lentz 1990: 27–28). Only 7 years later, following the panic of 1893, the Northern Pacific Railroad came under receivership for 3 years. During that time, James Hill, owner of the Great Northern Railway, bought all available stock in Northern Pacific and by 1901 had won leading control of the company. The railroad made a recovery under Hill and by the end of that year Northern Pacific stock had risen 200 times its previous value (Hubbard 1981: 142–143). In September 1902, the Puget Sound Electric Railway established is operating headquarters in Kent. All train cars on the Puget Sound Electric Railway Interurban route from Seattle to Tacoma route originated in Kent. By 1906, there were 34 trips made daily from the town’s depot. Not only did the Kent train yards offer stable employment for the community, but they also provided passenger service and hauled freight (Lentz 1990: 40).

The earliest Sanborn map to show the Northern Pacific Railroad that ran through the City was published in 1890. This map shows a split track merged into one track between Gowe Street to the north, Titus Street to the south, 1st Street to the west, and Railroad Avenue to the east. The 1890 Sanborn map identifies a freight/passenger depot station located just east of the railroad tracks, between Meeker and Gowe streets, along with platforms to the east and west of the tracks (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1890: Sheet 1). The surrounding land included some development, which was mostly commercial buildings of one to two stories, but the majority of the surrounding land was vacant. In 1892, a third track was added. This additional track merged with the original two tracks between Gowe and Titus streets. By 1892, a spur identified as “R.R.

4-4 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 4 • Cultural Context

Switch Track,” was located along Smith Street. By 1894, this spur is noted as being associated with the Kent Mill Company sawmill. During this period, the railroad alignment was consistent, and the depot building (with planked platform) retained its configuration on the east side of the main line south of Meeker Street (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1892: Sheets 1 and 2; Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1894: Sheets 3).

Kent in the Early 20th Century Modernization during the early 20th century included mainstream use of automobiles and increasing demand for a more extensive road system in the region. By 1916 there were 54 miles of paved road in the county, and more than 1,400 miles of gravel or dirt roads (Payton 2006: 15–16). Transportation improvements, including auto travel, interurban railways, commuter trains, and improved ferry service during the 1920s spurred residential development in the Shoreline, Eastside, Burien, and Green River Valley areas (Payton 2006: 17).

By the turn of the 20th century, the village of Kent had evolved into a town and featured a commercial core adjacent to the Northern Pacific right-of-way on 1st Avenue between Gowe and Titus streets, as well as a regularized rectangular street grid. The town was 1 square mile in size in 1910 and was bounded by James Street in the north, 259th Street in the south, the Interurban right-of-way on the west, and the lower slope of East Hill in the east (Lentz 1990: 49–50). By 1910, the Northern Pacific Railroad expanded to include a parallel side track between the main line and Railroad Avenue, along with additional spurs at the Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Company’s Milk Canneries and Can Factory between Shinn Avenue in the north and Meeker Street in the south (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1910: Sheets 4). In the years prior to World War I, a housing boom in Kent resulted in significant amounts of new home construction. Popular styles of new homes included foursquare homes with expansive hipped roofs, revival style residences, and Craftsman bungalows (Lentz 1990: 49).

Kent’s Agricultural Production Through WWII World War I (1914–1918) was the catalyst for increased agricultural production in King County (Payton 2006: 15). This included the local dairy industry, which grew to national prominence in the 1910s and 1920s. In Kent, the Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Company bought most local milk for production of “Carnation Cream.” The company, which was founded by Elbridge Amos Stuart and originally opened in 1899, grew to employ 250 people by 1910 and later became a nationwide brand, Carnation Milk Products. The plant occupied two city blocks, bounded by 1st and 2nd streets on the east and west, and Meeker and Smith streets in the south and north. The plant complex included a lab, solder house, office, can plant, and warehouse. A 1916 strike forced the Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Company to close milk processing operations in Kent. The company changed its name to Carnation Milk Products that year, and continued to manufacture tin cans in Kent for condenseries located throughout the Pacific northwest into the 1920s (Long: 1999; Lentz 1990: 34–35, 41–42).

Kent, located at the geographic center of the valley, became the focal point for the food packaging and processing industry. Local packers began to produce agricultural specialties, eggs, poultry, and canned fruits and vegetables for national and world markets during this period (Payton 2006: 15). Much of the produce grown in the valley was processed in Kent at the Libby, McNeill and Libby canning and preserving factory. Headquartered in Chicago, the company first

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 4-5 Section 4 • Cultural Context began preserving berries in jams and jellies in Kent in 1917 (Lentz 1990: 51–52). Farm production remained strong during the 1920s as packers shipped from Vashon, Sammamish Valley, Green River Valley, and the Snoqualmie Valley. Libby, NcNeill and Libby, and Stokely Van Camp were among the national distributors operating in King County (Payton 2006: 16). By the mid-1920s, six lettuce packing houses were located at the north end of town between the railroad rights-of-way (Lentz 1990: 52). During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Kent-Auburn area was known as the “lettuce capital of the world,” with trainloads of lettuce being shipped from the Green Valley (Payton 2006: 18–19). Companies including F.H. Hogue Company Frosted Foods, Washington Frosted Foods, and Stokely Van Camp Frozen Foods opened plants in Kent (Lentz 1990: 55).

While ramifications of the Great Depression were felt throughout the county during the 1930s, the agriculture industry of the Puget Sound region, along with the lumber industry, attracted people fleeing Depression-era dust bowl conditions in the mid-west (Payton 2010). During this period, the Northern Pacific Railroad was immediately associated with local industry. Businesses such as the Washington Pea Growers Association, a lettuce packing building, and a baled hay and grain warehouse between James Street and E Smith Street were located adjacent to the railroad (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1929-1944: Sheets 1 and 14). Food production remained the valley’s primary priority during World War II, despite mass enlistment and internment of Japanese farmers resulting in field labor shortages. The war resulted in expansion of production in the aviation, shipbuilding, and automotive industries in King County (Payton 2010; Payton 2006: 19), and defense industry employment included Kent’s Northwest Metal Products Company, which manufactured rifle clips, and the Howard Manufacturing Company, which produced parts for portable military structures. In addition, many Kent residents commuted to Renton for work at the Boeing Company plant (Lentz 1990: 65–67). As military contracts expanded, the local shipbuilding industry grew. Embarkation depots, which were used to store military supplies and provide boat slots and docking space for military ships, formed in nearby Auburn. Following the war, Boeing expanded, opening plants located in South Seattle, Renton, and Everett. Associated employment opportunities attracted military defense workers to King County and thus increased the local population (BOLA Architecture + Planning 2017:12).

Post-World War II Development and Population Growth The post-World War II era of 1945 through the 1970s featured road improvement projects in the region, such as construction of Interstate 5, State Route 167, and the Howard Hanson Dam. Increased transportation access, along with the reduction of flood risk in the Green River Valley during this time, resulted in further expansion of residential development, as well as the relocation of industry from Seattle to Tukwila, Auburn, and Kent (Payton 2006: 21–22). An increasingly mobile, commuting population spurred another residential building boom in the outlying areas of Kent—the lower slopes of East Hill and the bench lands of West Hill—in the 1950s. From 1953 to 1960, the city spread from 1 square mile to 12.7 square miles (Lentz 1990: 61).

4-6 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 4 • Cultural Context

This post-war population growth spurred the need for new businesses and commerce. Shopping malls and strip malls that catered to the automobile developed throughout the county during the 1950s and 60s. As noted in Mid-Century King County: A Context Statement on Post-War Residential Development, “drive-in everything” became the new commerce building typology in the mid-century era (BOLA Architecture + Planning 2017:13). This development model often included adequate parking on paved surface lots, with stores that catered towards upwardly mobile and affluent customers. Traditional downtown retail shifted to expanding suburban shopping centers during this time. Commercial and residential development maintained trends of low-density build out beginning in the early 20th century through the post-World War II period.

Post- World War II Era Industry and Transportation in Kent From the mid-1950s, Kent’s economy transitioned from one focused on agriculture to one dependent on industry. Evidence of this shift included the departure of Libby, McNeill and Libby, which left the valley in the 1960s when agriculture production declined (Lentz 1990: 52). A warehouse in Andover Park, in Tukwila, was the first major, large-scale industrial space built in the valley in 1961. Post-war population growth put pressure on the city of Kent, leading it to embrace industrial expansion within its city limits. In 1965, Boeing established Kent Aerospace Center north of downtown, which was Kent’s first major industrial plant (Lentz 1990: 75). In Kent, Valley of Opportunity: An Illustrated History, Lentz explains, “The rampant growth brought on by this transformation forced Kent and other valley communities to leave behind their small-town ways, and, almost overnight, to seek urban solutions to urban dilemmas” (Lentz 1990: 75).

One of these solutions was expansion of passenger rail. A merger between Northern Pacific and Burlington Railroads was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme court in 1970. In 1971, passenger train operations through Kent received a boost with the establishment of AMTRAK (Cameron 1978). By 1998, Kent was identified as a station location for the Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Sound Transit 1998). Today, Sound Transit manages the commuter rail system within this railway right-of-way, but the parcel and track remain owned by BNSF Railway.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 4-7

Section 5 Expectations for Prehistoric, Ethnographic Period and Historic-Era Archaeological Resources

Review of the background information provided in Sections 3 through 5 revealed the following expectations.

▪ The study area is located on the floor of the Duwamish Valley, a Holocene-aged alluvial plain. Prior to 5,700 years ago, the study area vicinity would have been submerged as it was a marine embayment. Thereafter, following the Osceola mudflow, the Duwamish Valley rapidly infilled with alluvial sediments, resulting in the study area becoming subaerially exposed during the middle to late Holocene. Two expectations can be drawn from this geologic context - (1) human occupation of the landform that the study area is situated upon would only have been possible during the middle to late Holocene and (2) the conditions in the study area vicinity are appropriate for the burial of archaeological deposits.

▪ Review of previous archaeological and ethnographic research indicates that precontact Native Americans inhabited and used the study area vicinity as indicated by the presence of several prehistoric archaeological sites and ethnographically named places on the floor of the Duwamish Valley. Therefore, archaeological deposits associated with precontact land use activities are possible.

▪ Review of the local historic context reveals that the study area was subject to widespread development. Agricultural land use, starting in the mid-19th century, transitioned to agricultural production with the accessibility afforded by the Northern Pacific Railroad. Residential areas grew as people moved to Kent for work at packaging and processing factories, shipbuilding, automotive, and aviation industries. The landscape history suggests that historical archaeological deposits could be present, but due to the extent of development which has occurred in the vicinity, there is also increased likelihood that any intact deposits have been disturbed.

Based on this examination of the existing data, there is potential for encountering archaeological deposits in the study area. The conditions are appropriate for finding buried prehistoric sites, likely from the middle to late Holocene; the history is such that it’s possible that historical deposits could be present; but the nature of the development is such that any near-surface deposits (prehistoric or historical) have limited potential to be in primary depositional context. To more precisely determine the need for further archaeological studies, a geotechnical bore sampling analysis was performed. The findings of this analysis are presented in Section 6, Geotechnical Bore Sampling Analysis.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 5-1

Section 6 Geotechnical Bore Sampling and Analysis

6.1 Geotechnical Bore Sample Methods Geotechnical investigations were monitored to determine depositional context and to look for deeply buried terrestrial surfaces and/or archaeological resources. Geotechnical boring was conducted using a truck mounted drill rig and samples were collected every 2.5 feet (0.76 meters) for the first 25 feet (7.6 meters), followed by every 5 feet (1.7 meters) after reaching 25 feet (7.6 meters) below ground surface. Samples were collected using an 18-inch-long by 4-inch internal diameter (46 centimeter-long by 10 centimeter internal diameter) split-spoon sample tube. The sample tube was advanced into the ground using a 140- or 300-pound auto hammer. A mud augur setup was used once the samples were too saturated to accurately collect; this process involved letting the water equalize before adding the mud shoring tube, changing the drill bit, and adding the basin to catch overflow and screen the excess material exiting the drilling chamber.

A detailed analysis was performed for each sediment sample. Sample attributes—such as color, grain size, gravel angularity, compaction, structure, and notable inclusions—were recorded and used to determine depositional context. These attributes were documented on bore log forms (Appendix C, Geotechnical Bore Logs), and photographed, and the samples were then collected. Upon completion, all boring holes were refilled using a structurally appropriate substrate as directed by the onsite geotechnical engineer. 6.2 Geotechnical Bore Sample Analysis Results Archaeological monitoring was conducted for excavation of five geotechnical borings within the study area between August 8 and August 14, 2018 (Figure 6-1). Four of these borings terminated at depths greater than 40 feet (13 meters) below the ground surface, while one of the borings terminated at around 5 feet (1.5 meters) below the ground surface due to the presence of a cement water filtration tank.

No buried terrestrial surfaces or archaeological deposits were identified during the archaeological monitoring effort. Review of the sedimentary and stratigraphic data obtained during the archaeological monitoring effort revealed five types of deposits. These deposits are described in Table 6-1 in the vertical sequence in which they were encountered.

Artificial Fill was located at the ground surface, beneath the asphalt of the current parking lot, across the study area in every boring. Artificial Fill thickness ranged from 2 feet (0. 61 meters) to 5 feet (1.5 meters) and varied across the study area. This pattern was likely a function of previous deep disturbance in the study area for development, or wide ranging fill sources and methods over time.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 6-1 Section 6 • Geotechnical Bore Sampling and Analysis

Figure 6-1 Geotechnical Borehole Locations

6-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 6 • Geotechnical Bore Sampling and Analysis

Table 6-1 Deposits Identified within the Study Area and Their Inferred Depositional Environment Field Designation Description Inferred Depositional Environment Artificial Fill Loosely compacted brown silty sand with high A combination of mass and regrade (Af) angular and subangular gravel content. filling in the 19th and 20th centuries. Modified Land Fill and/or graded natural deposits that obscure Grading and fill activities from 19th and (ml) the original depositional environment 20th centuries Holocene Alluvium Sandy silt with little to no gravel content with River and stream flood event where Floodplain (Qa) loose to moderate compaction. Possible presence overbank flows result in settling of fine of wood and other organic debris. grained sediments. Holocene Alluvium Medium to coarse sand with high rounded to sub Consistent high energy water movement Channel rounded gravel content. Wood debris also present within the stream or river, resulting in (Qa) in this deposit. the settling of only the courser grains and sediments. Lahar Deposits Black medium gray sand with flecks of red Osceola mudflow and subsequent (Qv) andesite, low gravel content. smaller mudflows.

Artificial Fill deposits were underlain by Modified Land deposits at three probe locations, spread throughout the study area. It was found at varying depths of 2.5 feet (0.76 meters) to 5 feet (1.5 meters) below ground surface and had a thickness of approximately 18 inches (45 centimeters), present in only one sample in each boring. Modified Land deposits were found in borings BK1, BK4, and BK5 but were absent in borings BK2 and BK3. In the case of BK3, this absence was likely due to the premature termination of the probe due to the presence of a concrete tank at 4 feet 9 inches (1.5 meters) below the ground surface.

Modified Land deposits were underlain by Holocene Alluvium Floodplain deposits at borings BK1, BK4, and BK5. At boring BK2 the Artificial Fill deposit was underlain by Holocene Alluvium Floodplain. The only boring where this deposit was not present was BK3 due to the early termination of the boring. This floodplain deposit had thicknesses ranging from 9 inches (23 centimeters) to 19 feet (5.8 meters) across the study area. This pattern is likely a function of various flooding events and the extent of deposition of each of these events.

In borings BK1, BK2, and BK4 the Holocene Alluvium Floodplain deposit was underlain by Holocene Alluvium Channel deposits. Boring BK5 did not have Holocene Alluvium Channel present. Where present, these channel deposits had thicknesses ranging from 5 feet (1.5 meters) to 21 feet (6.4 meters). The differences in thickness and lack of channel deposits at boring BK5 were likely a function of stream channel migration and the duration for which the stream channel was in that location.

In one instance the Holocene Alluvium Channel deposit was bisected by a Lahar Deposit. Boring BK5 had the only documentation of Lahar deposit by archaeologists. The thickness of this deposit was approximately 20 feet (6 meters). The presence or absence of this deposit was likely a function of the extent of a lahar event and the possible erosion of this deposit by nearby streams and rivers.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 6-3

Section 7 Historic-Era Architectural Resources

7.1 Architectural Inventory Methods A historic resources survey was performed within the study area. The survey involved examining and evaluating all buildings and structures in the study area determined to be 40 years of age or older. Buildings and structures less than 40 years old were not evaluated to determine NRHP and WHR eligibility. The target age of 40 years old was selected to include all resources 50 years old at time of survey, plus any that might become 50 years old through the course of the site development, and to accommodate for the 40-year age threshold associated with King County landmark eligibility.

Construction dates were established using data from the King County Tax Assessor records and confirmed based on visual inspection. Properties built on or before 1977 were identified and information collected about their physical characteristics. The data collected included one or more photographs of each property from the public right-of-way, the architectural style of each resource (if identifiable), the type and materials of significant features, and the existence of alterations and overall physical integrity.

A parcel-by-parcel, field survey of properties in the study area was conducted in two phases. The first phase, conducted in February and March 2017, documented nine historic-age properties in the vicinity of the project site. A WISAARD record search indicated none of these properties were previously evaluated for NRHP or WHR eligibility. None of these properties are designated as King County Landmarks.

For the 2018 Cultural Resources Technical Report, the study area was delineated to include seven of the nine properties surveyed in 2017. An additional 11 historic-age properties were included within an expanded study area. A WISAARD record search indicated none of the 11 additional historic-age properties were previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or the WHR. None of these properties are designated as King County Landmarks. A second reconnaissance- level built environment survey was conducted to document these additional 11 properties.

The 18 properties identified as 40 years of age or older and surveyed in 2017 and 2018 were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP and WHR, and recorded in the Washington State Historic Property Inventory (HPI) Form Database, per DAHP reporting standards. 7.2 Architectural Inventory Results Table 7-1 summarizes details for each of the 18 historic-age properties documented as part of the field survey, including Map Number (corresponding with Figure 7-1), HPI Property ID, Assessor Parcel Number, Property Address, Property Name/Type, Year Built, and Eligibility Finding.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-1 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

None of the historic-age properties summarized in Table 7-1 are included as contributors within any existing local, state, or nationally recognized historic district. In addition, the cluster of properties evaluated herein do not appear to represent a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are unified historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.

Table 7-1 Summary of Historic-age Property Architectural Inventory Results HPI Assessor Map Property Year Eligibility Property Parcel Property Address Number Name/Type Built Recommendation ID Number 1 333545 6146600220 209 W James Street James Street 1943 Not Eligible commercial 2 716469 2422049011/ 301 Railroad Avenue N BNSF rail segment 1926 Not Eligible 1322049040 3 709768 1849700005 621 Railroad Avenue N Cold storage building 1954 Not Eligible 4 716800 1322049028 713 Central Avenue N Funeral home 1966 Not Eligible 5 716468 1322049185 711 Central Avenue N Gas station 1970 Not Eligible 6 709780 1849700225 607 Central Avenue N All City Bail Bonds 1924 Not Eligible 7 709781 1849700215 603 Central Avenue N Farmers Insurance 1928 Not Eligible agency 8 709782 1849700206 529 Central Avenue N Single-family 1909 Not Eligible residence converted to business with apartment 9 709783 1849700205 525 Central Avenue N Office space 1947 Not Eligible 10 709849 1849700190 521 Central Avenue N Rough Elegance 1924 Not Eligible 11 709848 1849700185 517 Central Avenue N Gary Fox Plumbing 1924 Not Eligible 12 336416 1849700175 507–511 Central Retail (line/strip) 1922 Not Eligible Avenue N 13 344429 1849700165 503–505 Central Retail/apartments 1922 Not Eligible Avenue N 14 46571 1849700155 501 Central Avenue N Fast food restaurant 1964 Not Eligible 15 339440 1849700145/ 502–510 Railroad Includes two 1968 Not Eligible 1849700135 Avenue N buildings: the residence on the corner of Railroad Avenue N and E Pioneer Street, and the mini warehouse. 16 398586 9179601656 210 E Pioneer Street Pioneer properties 1909 Not Eligible Kent LLC; Unknown use, may be residential or office 17 339509 9179601655 204 E Pioneer Street Pioneer properties 1918 Not Eligible Kent LLC; office building 18 342550 9179601610 322 Railroad Avenue N Torquelift; 1954 Not Eligible industrial/general purpose

7-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

Figure 7-1 Built Historic Resources Study Area

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-3 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

Table 7-2 summarizes parcels in the study area that were not evaluated for NRHP and WHR eligibility. These properties were excluded from eligibility evaluation because one of the following conditions apply:

▪ The property is historic-age, but there is no potential for proposed project activities to affect the buildings or structures

▪ The buildings or structures on the property are not historic-age (less than 40 years old)

▪ The property does not contain buildings or structures, is used for parking, or is a vacant lot

Table 7-2 Summary of Parcels Excluded from Architectural Inventory Map Assessor Parcel Year Reason for Property Address Property Name/Type Number Number Built Exclusion 19 1322049077 119 E James Street Vacant lot N/A No building or structure 20 1849700050 200 E James Street Sound Transit parking N/A No building or lot structure 21 1849700265 631 Central Avenue N Gas station 1996 Not Historic-Age 22 1849700115 North of 504 Railroad Parking lot (potential N/A No building or Avenue N staging area) structure 23 2422049167 East of railroad ROW; Sound transit ADA N/A No building or West of Railroad parking structure Avenue; South of 621 Railroad Avenue N 24 9179601670 415 Central Avenue N Restaurant 1984 Not Historic-Age 25 9179601691 405 Central Avenue N Restaurant 1958 No potential effect 26 9179601705 325 Central Avenue N Office building 1956 No potential effect 27 9179601725 315 Central Avenue N Service building 1965 No potential effect 28 9179601735 305 Central Avenue N Restaurant 1985 Not Historic-Age 29 9179601745 215 E Smith Street Parking lot adjacent to N/A No building or 305 Central Avenue structure restaurant 30 9179601585 South of 322 Railroad Sound Transit gravel lot N/A No building or Avenue N (potential staging area) structure 31 9179601625 South of 406 Railroad Torquelift parking lot N/A No building or Avenue structure 32 9179601635 406 Railroad Avenue Service building 1978 No potential effect 33 2422049002 400 1st Avenue N Sound transit parking N/A No building or lot structure 34 3830970020 N/A Kent Station Retail 2006 Not Historic-Age 35 3830970030 N/A Kent Station Retail 2005 Not Historic-Age 36 3830970080 N/A Kent Station Retail 2006 Not Historic-Age

7-4 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

7.3 Register Criteria This technical report assumes application of historic background and associated property type information will be applied to evaluating eligibility for listing in national, state, and local registers. As such, guidance within this document is consistent with following criteria for evaluating eligibility. 7.3.1 National Register of Historic Places The criteria for evaluating the eligibility of a historic property for listing in the NRHP are defined in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36, Section 60.4. To be listed in the NRHP, a property should generally be at least 50 years old (or be of exceptional historic significance if less than 50 years old) and meet one or more NRHP criteria. To qualify for listing, a historic property must represent a significant theme or pattern in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture at the local, state, or national level. It must meet one or more of the four significance criteria listed below and have sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.

▪ Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

▪ Criterion B: Association with the lives of persons significant to our past.

▪ Criterion C: Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

▪ Criterion D: Resources that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory. 7.3.2 Integrity In addition to meeting the significance criteria, a historic property must possess sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Integrity is composed of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To be considered a significant historic property, a resource must possess several, and usually retain most, of these aspects of integrity, depending on the context and the reasons the property is judged to be significant (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995:44). The National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995:44–45), discusses the aspects of integrity as follows.

▪ Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place.

▪ Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

▪ Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-5 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

▪ Materials: The physical environments were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

▪ Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

▪ Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

▪ Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 7.3.3 Washington Heritage Register The WHR is the official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the state of Washington. Maintained by the DAHP, this register includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. WHR eligibility criteria require the following.

▪ A building, site, structure, or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance.

▪ The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity; i.e., it should retain important character-defining features from its historic period of construction.

▪ The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state, or federal level.

▪ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation review and listing requires the consent of the owner.

In addition, WHR recognizes nine areas of significance (Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation 2017). A property can be listed in the WHR if:

▪ the property belongs to the early settlement, commercial development, or original native occupation of a community or region;

▪ the property is directly connected to a movement, organization, institution, religion, or club which served as a focal point for a community group;

▪ the property is directly connected to specific activities or events which have had a lasting impact on the community or region;

▪ the property is associated with legends, spiritual or religious practices, or lifeways which are uniquely related to a piece of land or to a natural feature;

▪ the property displays strong patterns of land use or alterations of the environment which occurred during the historic period (cultivation, landscaping, industry, mining, irrigation, recreation);

7-6 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

▪ the property is directly associated with an individual who made an important contribution to a community or to a group of people;

▪ the property has strong artistic, architectural, or engineering qualities, or displays unusual materials or craftwork belonging to a historic era;

▪ the property was designed or built by an influential architect, or reflects the work of an important artisan; or

▪ archaeological investigation of the property has increased or will increase our understanding of past cultures or life ways. 7.3.4 King County Landmarks Designation Criteria Designation criteria for King County Landmarks are similar to those of NRHP, but a property may also be designated, as per the following:

…because it is an easily identifiable visual feature of a neighborhood or the county and contributes to the distinctive quality or identify of such neighborhood or county or because of its association with significant historical events or historic themes, association with important prominent persons in the community or county or recognition by local citizens for substantial contribution to the neighborhood or community. (King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.040). 7.4 Architectural Resource Evaluation Eighteen historic-age properties within the study area were surveyed, documented, and evaluated as part of this study (see Table 7-1 for complete list). None of the properties evaluated during phase 1 were found to have associations with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; to have associations with the lives of people significant to history; to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or to have yielded or be likely to yield information important to history. During phase 2, none of the properties had sufficient significance under NRHP Criterion A, B, C, or D (as well as WHR significance areas that align with NRHP Criteria), or sufficient retention of integrity to convey that significance. As such, none of the eighteen properties evaluated were recommended by the consultant to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR.

DAHP found two properties—Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N) and 603 Central Avenue N—to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, the consultant’s research indicated the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N) construction post-dated the period of significance for the cold storage industry in Kent and the surrounding region (and did not appear to have significance under any NRHP Criterion A, B, C, or D) and the 603 Central Avenue N residence had been altered such that it no longer embodied the distinctive characteristics of its style (and did not appear to have significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D). Thus, as lead agency under SEPA, Sound Transit supports the consultant’s “not eligible for listing in the NRHP” recommendation for all eighteen properties evaluated.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-7 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

Given DAHP did not concur with the consultant eligibility recommendation for 621 Railroad Avenue N and 603 Central Avenue N, NRHP evaluations for those properties are discussed in detail. In addition, given the complexity of the eligibility finding for the BNSF Railway Segment of the Seattle-Tacoma rail system, discussion of that property is also addressed in detail. 7.4.1 Discussion of Washington Cold Storage Building The following discussion of the Washington Cold Storage Building (621 Railroad Avenue N) describes the property’s significance and integrity, and summarizes the property’s eligibility status. 7.4.1.1 Significance The Washington Cold Storage Building was evaluated for under NRHP Significance Criteria A, B, C, and D, and related WHR significance areas, as follows.

NRHP Criterion A While the warehouse at 621 Railroad Avenue N appears to have been constructed in response to a trend in industrialization in Kent during the post-World War II era, the warehouse does not appear to have direct associations with events, trends, or activities significant in the history of Kent, King County, or the surrounding region that would warrant recognition. While this structure was associated with food packaging and cold storage, which were important industries for the Kent economy through 1948 (Scott 2008), the period of greatest growth for that industry—from 1917 to the 1930s coinciding with the presence of Libby, McNeill and Libby and Stokely Van Camp Inc. in Kent—pre-dates construction of this warehouse. As such, the warehouse at 621 Railroad Avenue N, is not considered historically significant under NRHP Criterion A. In addition, it is also not considered significant for the purposes of WHR.

NRHP Criterion B Research did not identify any individuals associated with this property who had a significant role in national, regional, or local history. The property is not considered to be directly associated with any individual who made an important contribution to a community or to a group of people. Therefore, the Washington Cold Storage Building is not considered individually significant under NRHP Criterion B or within the context of WHR significance categories.

NRHP Criterion C While no known architect or builder is associated with the warehouse at 621 Railroad Avenue N, the building, which was constructed 1954, is a modest example of utilitarian mid-century warehouse design (Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection 1954). The warehouse building design type was developed in the mid-19th century, with structures typically characterized by large footprints and multiple-stories. Enclosed office areas were usually present in a portion of the ground floor, with the rest of the floor space open for use as storage or for manufacturing. While this type is typically utilitarian in design, exceptional examples include stylistic embellishments on the street level or at the main entrance. Heavy timber framing was the primary structural support for early warehouses. Early warehouses typically featured large windows located around the exterior, along with rooftop light monitors placed to allow daylight penetration into interior open spaces. Other features of historic warehouses include water towers used for fire suppression, elevators, stair towers,

7-8 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources loading docks, bays for trucks and freight trains, and adjacent rail spurs. Innovation during the early 20th-century included use of iron, steel, and reinforced concrete as main structural materials. Warehouses are typically located in industrial areas on the periphery of urban areas near rail lines or roadways to facilitate easy acquisition of materials and distribution of products (Utah Division of State History 2015).

The building is not an exceptional example of mid-century utilitarian warehouse design and does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction or represent an artistic example. Given that no architect or builder is associated with the property, it also cannot be considered significant for representing the work of a master. As such, the property at 621 Railroad Avenue N is not considered individually significant under NRHP Criterion C. Similarly, it does not appear to be significant as defined by WHR areas of significance aligned with NRHP Criterion C.

NRHP Criterion D The Washington Cold Storage Building is a common example of an industrial building type that provides no important information about industrial architecture in general or information that would expand understanding of the property’s history or that of Kent or other surrounding communities in King County that cannot be obtained through documentary sources. Therefore, the Washington Cold Storage Building has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. For this reason, the Washington Cold Storage Building is not considered significant under NRHP Criterion D. Given archaeological investigation of the property has not and would not increase our understanding of past cultures or life ways, this property also is not considered significant for the purposes of the WHR. 7.4.1.2 Integrity While aerial images from 1964 through 2013 show that the building footprint has remained consistent over time, it appears there may have been alterations to the loading dock (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 1964, 1968, 1969, 1980, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2013). Assessor’s records dating to 1975 indicate there were improvements made to the concrete loading dock consisting of 2,220 square feet and 1,365 square feet made in 1960. A King County Assessor’s record dating from 1985 includes a sketch of the building’s plan at that time. In the illustration, the loading dock on the south elevation is shown to extend out 34 feet along the full width of the structure; there is also a 24-foot-wide by 65-foot-long projection from the southwest corner of the loading dock which is no longer present (Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection 1985).

There is no fenestration on the east or west elevations, and a single door is located on the north elevation. The building’s overall scale, as well as the loading dock, match that of train cars or semi-trucks. Human-scale entrances are present on the loading dock shed and as access into the main structure from the loading dock. Although these are not described in assessor’s records and additional research did not provide further details, these entrance placements and sizes appear to be original to the structure.

This structure’s most distinctive details are its vaulted roof shape, with stepped parapets on the south façade and spanning from east to west across the center of the roof. Like most buildings of

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-9 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources utilitarian style, this structure drew its design from function, was constructed of inexpensive materials with limited applied detail, and represents a modest example of a mid-century warehouse design. 7.4.2 Eligibility of Washington Cold Storage Building within the Study Area The current study finds that the Washington Cold Storage Building does not have sufficient significance to merit eligibility. Without significance, the question of integrity is moot. While consultation with DAHP did not yield concurrence, Sound Transit has determined that the Washington Cold Storage Building is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR.

While King County Landmark eligibility evaluation was not recorded in WISAARD documentation prepared for this property, based on NRHP and WHR evaluation and consideration of designation criteria specified in King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.040, this property is also not considered eligible for designation as a King County Landmark. 7.4.3 Discussion of 603 Central Avenue N The following discussion of the 603 Central Avenue N describes the property’s significance and integrity, and summarizes the property’s eligibility status. 7.4.3.1 Significance The property at 603 Central Avenue N was evaluated for significance under NRHP Criteria A, B, C, and D and related WHR significance areas as follows.

NRHP Criterion A Despite historic trends of transportation infrastructure expansion, agricultural and industrial growth, and residential housing development, the property at 603 Central Avenue N, does not appear to have direct associations with events, trends, or activities significant to this time period in the history of Kent, King County, or the surrounding region that would warrant recognition. While construction of the building seems to be a result of population growth that occurred in Kent in the early 20th century, this property is not directly associated with specific events considered to be individually significant to expressing the history of development prior to and following World War I as a national, regional, or local trend. As such, the residence at 603 Central Avenue N is not considered historically significant under NRHP Criterion A.

NRHP Criterion B Research did not identify any individuals associated with this property who had a significant role in national, regional, or local history. The property is not considered to be directly associated with any individual who made an important contribution to a community or to a group of people. Therefore, 603 Central Avenue N is not considered individually significant under NRHP Criterion B or within the context of WHR significance categories.

NRHP Criterion C No architect or builder is recorded in the King County Assessor’s records for this property, but the building’s architectural details are consistent with a modest example of the Cape Cod Revival/Minimal Traditional style (Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection 1938). Colonial Revival style houses were popular

7-10 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources throughout the United States from 1880 to 1955. High-style versions of Colonial Revival homes accentuated the front door with a decorative pediment supported by pilasters or extended forward and supported by columns to form an entry porch. Doors frequently featured overhead fanlights or sidelights, and the façade fenestration typically centered the door and positioned windows symmetrically. A variety of roof forms were common, but approximately one third of the Colonial Revival examples were simple two-story rectangular blocks with side-gabled roofs. The Colonial Revival style included an important sub-style, the single-story Cape Cod Revival or Cape Cod cottage. This sub-style was popular in Washington from 1925 to 1955. While it was one of the last house types from the American colonial era to be revived as a building form, the Cape Cod became the most common form of one-story Colonial Revival house. Popular building magazines helped promote the ubiquity of this style during the 1920s and 1930s, with simplified versions also treated as side-gabled Minimal Traditional style homes. These residences featured a basic rectangular footprint, one- or one-and-one-half story height, pitched roofs with little or no overhanging eaves, multi-pane windows, decorative shutters, brick chimneys, and wood clapboard cladding. Dormers are not typical (McAlester 2015: 409-414, 592-593; Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation n.d.).

Modest examples of Colonial Revival style homes from this period are ubiquitous in residential areas in King County. While the structure at 603 Central Avenue N displays elements of the Cape Cod Revival/Minimal Traditional style, it is not an exceptional example. Given that it does not embody distinctive characteristics or represent an artistic example, and is not associated with a known master architect or builder, the property is not considered significant under NRHP Criterion C. Similarly, it does not appear to be significant as defined by WHR areas of significance aligned with NRHP Criterion C.

NRHP Criterion D The property at 603 Central Avenue N is a common example of a Cape Code residence that provides no important information about residential architecture in general or information that would expand understanding of the property’s history or that of Kent or other surrounding communities in King County that cannot be obtained through documentary sources. Therefore, 603 Central Avenue N has not yielded, and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. For this reason, 603 Central Avenue N is not considered significant under NRHP Criterion D. Given archaeological investigation of the property has not and would not increase our understanding of past cultures or life ways, this property also is not considered significant for the purposes of the WHR. 7.4.3.2 Integrity The structure appears to retain the footprint shown in the 1929 Sanborn map, consisting of a rectangular plan (and is approximately 1,140 square feet) made irregular by an entry porch, rear porch, and small projection on the north side of the building. While the structure continues to feature a front gable roof, a historic image of the building from 1938 King County Assessor’s records shows two eyebrow dormers placed symmetrically on the roof’s east side. These dormers are no longer extant (Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection 1938). The main entrance remains centered on the east façade facing Central Avenue, though the original door has been replaced. The porch on the main (east) façade retains its triangular hood with simple decorative arch and braces at main roof-wall junctions.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-11 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

The first floor windows on the main (east) façade have been replaced with vinyl, though the shape and location of the windows remains intact. Additional windows on secondary elevations appear to be vinyl replacement windows, though they are double-hung with simple surround trim, which is consistent with the original wooden windows. The property is no longer a single-family dwelling; it has been converted into commercial use as an insurance company office. According to assessor’s records, the property originally included a 1-car garage, which the 1929 Sanborn Fire Insurance map depicts as located off the northwest corner of the main building (Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection 1938; Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1929). The detached garage has been demolished and a paved parking lot is located in its place. 7.4.4 Eligibility of 603 Central Avenue N within the Study Area The current study finds that 603 Central Avenue N does not have sufficient significance to merit eligibility. Without significance, the question of integrity is moot, but the property has also been altered, including removal of its most distinctive eyebrow dormer features. While consultation with DAHP did not yield concurrence, Sound Transit has determined that 603 Central Avenue N is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR.

While King County Landmark eligibility evaluation was not recorded in WISAARD documentation prepared for this property, based on NRHP and WHR evaluation and consideration of designation criteria specified in King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.040, this property is also not considered eligible for designation as a King County Landmark. 7.4.5 Discussion of BNSF Railway Segment The following discussion of the BNSF Railway Segment describes the property’s significance and integrity, and summarizes the property’s eligibility status. 7.4.5.1 Significance The BNSF Railway Segment was evaluated for significance under NRHP Criteria A, B, C, and D, and related WHR significance areas, as follows.

NRHP Criterion A Throughout the history of Kent, the Seattle-Tacoma rail system has played a major part in the city’s development and growth. While the entirety of the Seattle-Tacoma rail system has not been formally evaluated for NRHP eligibility, the rail alignment does appear to be historically significant for its role in facilitating early development of Kent and supporting regional agricultural and industrial commerce from 1886, when the Northern Pacific Railroad first began regular service in Kent, through 1948, which corresponds with the conclusion of Kent’s significance as a center of agricultural protection and processing and the end of the rail’s role in facilitating that economic activity (Lentz 1990: 27–28; Scott 2008). For the purpose of this study, ICF has assumed the alignment to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for association with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of history at a regional and local level and for listing in the WHR because “the property belongs to the early settlement, commercial development, or original native occupation of a community or region.” Given that the segment, historically composed of rail grade (ballasted track structure, which includes ballast, ties, and rails), is located in the unincorporated railroad parcels between E James

7-12 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

Street and E Smith Street in Kent, it could not independently fulfill the role of facilitating early development of Kent or supporting regional agricultural and industrial commerce. Therefore, the segment would not be considered individually significant under Criterion A for the purposes of the WHR. Given that the segment represents a portion of the Seattle-Tacoma alignment, it can be said to share the same historic associations that make that system significant.

NRHP Criterion B Research did not identify any individuals associated with this property who had a significant role in national, regional, or local history. The property is not considered to be directly associated with any individual who made an important contribution to a community or to a group of people. Therefore, the BNSF Railroad segment is not considered individually significant under NRHP Criterion B or within the context of WHR significance categories.

NRHP Criterion C The BNSF Railroad segment cannot be said to convey historic significance under NRHP Criterion C. Historically, the BNSF Railroad segment in this location consisted of the grade, or ballasted track structure, including ballast, wooden ties, and standard gauge rails with the spacing of 4 feet 8.5 inches. This track segment does not appear to display distinctive characteristics that differentiate it from other rail segments that have been used to support transportation of freight and passengers across the region. Given that this railway segment cannot be described as a feature that embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction, and that it is not associated with a known master architect or builder, and does not possess high artistic value, it cannot be considered significant under NRHP Criterion C. Similarly, it does not appear to be significant as defined by WHR areas of significance aligned with NRHP Criterion C.

NRHP Criterion D The BNSF Railway segment is a common example of railway infrastructure that provides no important information about the Seattle-Tacoma rail system or about railways in general, that cannot be obtained through documentary sources. Therefore, the BNSF Railway segment has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. For this reason, the BNSF Railway segment is not considered significant under NRHP Criterion D. Given that archaeological investigation of the property has not and would not increase our understanding of past cultures or life ways, this property also is not considered significant for the purposes of the WHR. 7.4.5.2 Integrity While the entirety of the Seattle-Tacoma rail alignment has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, the following evaluation of integrity assumes the system to be eligible for listing under NRHP Criterion A and for listing in the WHR because “the property belongs to the early settlement, commercial development, or original native occupation of a community or region.” To determine if a portion of a significant linear resource retains sufficient integrity to be considered a contributing component of that linear resource, evaluation of the segment’s integrity should include assessment of the degree to which the component retains the following attributes as they relate to expressing integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-13 Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources

▪ Original alignment or location.

▪ Exhibition of construction materials and workmanship, or engineering design, associated with the resource’s period of significance.

▪ In cases where railroad features (such as bridges, culverts, or tunnels) originally included architectural details as design features, exhibition of most architectural design associated with the resource’s period of significance.

▪ Setting consistent with that which was present during period of significance.

▪ Continued function as a railroad resource such that feeling and association are conveyed.

A review of historic Sanborn maps dating from 1890 to 1944 and historic aerial photographs from 1936, 1964, 1980, and 2002 revealed the track alignment has changed little throughout the last century. In terms of integrity of location, the BNSF Railway segment within parcels 2422049011 and 1322049040 retains its original location and orientation north-south between 1st Avenue N and Railroad Avenue N in Kent, Washington (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1890: Sheet 1, 1892: Sheets 1 and 2, 1894: Sheets 3; 1910: Sheets 4, 1929-1944: Sheets 1 and 14; Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 1936, 1964, 1980, and 2002). In terms of integrity of design, the configuration continues to be straight double track, with some curvature as it runs north. The general configuration, with wooden ties placed perpendicular to the rails at regular intervals and standard trail gauge (spacing of 4 feet 8.5 inches), has been retained. The gradient in this location has remained relatively flat atop a small berm. The rail segment’s integrity of materials and workmanship appear to have been modified substantially through general maintenance and introduction of improvements such as updated track technology. The grade, or ballasted track structure, which includes ballast (track-bed composed of stone), ties, and rails, appears to have been upgraded over time. While numerous roads have consistently intersected perpendicularly with the rail segment since it was constructed, the width and character of those roads have changed and new rail crossing infrastructure has been added over time. Within these rail crossings, the tracks are now embedded in cement and sensored rail crossing guards have been installed. The character of adjacent development in this section has been altered since the period when the Seattle-Tacoma line facilitated the early development of Kent and provided the infrastructure needed to support growth of the agriculture economy and industry. Few of the buildings adjacent to the segment remain in industrial use, with the majority of the adjacent development in the immediate vicinity associated with the Kent Sounder Station for commuter rail in the east and modern commercial development with surface parking in the west. Additional changes to setting include construction of a large nearby overpass for State Route 167. Given that the rail segment retains its original use, it can be considered to retain integrity of association. Therefore, while the rail segment retains location, design, and association, its integrity of materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association no longer continue to convey a historic significance consistent with that of the Seattle-Tacoma rail system. As such, it cannot be considered a contributing component of the historic Seattle-Tacoma rail system. 7.4.6 Eligibility of BNSF Railway Segment within the Study Area While the Seattle-Tacoma rail system may be considered historically significant for its role in facilitating the early development of Kent and supporting regional agricultural and industrial

7-14 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 7 • Historic-Era Architectural Resources commerce, the BNSF Railway segment located within the study area does not retain sufficient integrity to contribute meaningfully to conveying that significance. As such, the segment cannot be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A and it cannot be considered eligible for listing in the WHR as a contributing component of the Seattle-Tacoma rail system.

While King County Landmark eligibility evaluation was not recorded in WISAARD documentation prepared for this property, based on NRHP and WHR evaluation and consideration of designation criteria specified in King County Code Title 20, Chapter 20.62.040, this property is also not considered eligible for designation as a King County Landmark. 7.5 Determination of Effects to Historic Properties during Construction and Operation There are no historic resources eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or eligible for designation as a King County Landmark, within the study area. Therefore, the consultant recommends there are “no historic properties affected” during construction and operation of the Project.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 7-15

Section 8 Summary

8.1 Archaeological Resources No previously documented archaeological resources are located within the project site. In July of 2018, ICF archaeologists monitored five geotechnical borings within the area of direct ground disturbance were monitored to the anticipated depth of project-related ground disturbance. For this work, an IDP was prepared in the event of the discovery of archaeological deposits or human remains during geotechnical borings work (Appendix D, Inadvertent Discovery Plan). The IDP provides guidance for identifying archaeological resources and procedures for responding to inadvertent discoveries, including the responsibilities of Sound Transit and their consulting archaeologist, as well as the process for outreach to consulting tribes and DAHP. If additional geotechnical borings, potholing, or other preconstruction exploration are needed as the design progresses, protocols in this IDP would be followed.

While the WSAPM indicates the study area has high archaeological sensitivity, and background data summarized in Sections 3 through 5 indicate there is potential to encounter archaeological resources within the study area, based on archaeological inspection of the Project’s geotechnical work, no buried archaeological deposits or terrestrial surfaces warranting additional inspection were identified. Therefore, project-related ground-disturbing activities appear to have low potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological sites within the project site.

The structural foundation design for the Project would include ground-disturbing excavation and foundation-installation activities, such as setting pilings as deep as 100 feet below surface, installing piling caps, setting grade beams, and placing the initial floor slab of the garage structure. As part of final design, Sound Transit would prepare the IDP, which will include any refinements to the project design, construction means and methods, and recommendations for appropriate protocols in the event archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction. 8.2 Historic-Era Architectural Resources A WISAARD record search of documented properties within 0.25 mile of the study area did not identify any NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible properties within the study area. Eighteen historic-age properties within the study area were surveyed and documented in February and March 2017 and July 2018. Based on architectural resource evaluation, Sound Transit determines these eighteen properties are not eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, and are not eligible for designation as King County Landmarks. Given there are no cultural resources recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP or in the WHR, or designation as King County Landmarks, within the study area, Sound Transit recommends a finding of “no historic properties affected” for the Project.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 8-1

Section 9 References Cited

Ames, K.M. and H.D.G. Maschner. 1999 . Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, England.

Blukis Onat, Astrida R., Maury E. Morgenstein, Philippe D. LeTourneau, Robert P. Stone, Jerre Kosta, and Paula Johnson. 2001. Archaeological Investigations at stuwe’yuqw – Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Seattle Public Utilities. Contract No. DC 98097.

BOLA Architecture + Planning. 2017. Mid-Century King County: A Context Statement on Post-War Residential Development. Final. August. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, Washington, D.C.

Buerge, D. 1984. The Lost Tribes of Lake Washington: Reconstructing the prehistoric world of the Lake People. The Weekly. 1:29–33.

Buerge, D. 1985. Requiem for a River. The Weekly. 16:33–38, 47–49.

Cameron, C. E. 1978. History of Kent, Washington and its Heritage. Ballard Printing and Publishing, Seattle, Washington.

Castille, G.P. (editor) 1985. The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Myron Eells. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Chatters, J.C. 1987. Tualdad Altu (45KI59): A 4th Century Village on the Black River, King County, Washington. First City Equities, Seattle, Washington.

Cooper, Jason. 2006. City of Kent 2nd Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project Historic Building Identification, King County, Washington. Memo correspondence with Phil Segami, WSDOT Northwest Region.

Cutler, Leigh. 2008. Cultural Resources Assessment of the USPS Kent Station Kent, King County, Washington. Prepared for the United States Postal Service.

Dalquest, Walter. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publishing. The Museum of Natural History. No. 2.

Dragovich, J.D., P.T. Pringle, and T.J. Walsh. 1994. Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland – Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology 2(3): 3-26.

Goldstein. 1994. Drumlins of the Puget Lowland, Washington State, USA. In Subglacial Processes, Sediments, and Landforms, Vol. 91. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 9-1 Section 9 • References Cited

Greengo, R.E. and R. Houston. 1970. Excavations at the Marymoor site (45KI9). University of Washington, Department of Anthropology. Seattle, Washington.

Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther. 1930. The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Haugerud. 2004. CASCADIA–PHYSIOGRAPHY. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (prepared in cooperation with the Geological Survey of Canada), Denver, Colorado. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2689/i2689.pdf.

Hess. 1977. Lushootseed Dialects. Anthropological Linguistics 19(9):403–419.

Hetzel, Christopher. 2009. Cultural Resources Survey for Kent Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project, 2nd Avenue S between W Gowe Street and Willis Street. Prepared for the City of Kent.

Hilbert et al. 2001. Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way, Washington.

Hubbard, Freeman. 1981. Encyclopedia of North American Railroading: 150 Years of Railroading in the United States and Canada. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Jones & Stokes. 2004. Cultural Resources Study City of Kent Downtown Improvement Project, King County, Washington. Prepared for City of Kent Department of Public Works.

Kelly, Katherine. 2008. Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Six 2008 Green River Levee Rehabilitation Projects in King County, Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Kidd, Robert S. 1964. A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupational Sites. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Kruckeberg, A. 1998. The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington press, Seattle, Washington.

Larson, L.L. and D.L. Lewarch. 1995. The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound, Volume 1, Part 1. Submitted to CH2M Hill, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared for King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle, Washington. Larson Anthropological Archeological Services, Ltd, Gig Harbor, Washington. Report on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Lentz, Florence K. 1990. Kent, Valley of Opportunity: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California.

LeTourneau, Philippe D. 2001. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form 45KI503. DAHP WISAARD System record search conducted May 2018.

9-2 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 9 • References

Long, Priscilla. 1999. Carnation Condensed Milk First Manufactured in Kent on September 6, 1899. August 6, 1999. HistoryLink.org. Available at: http://www.historylink.org/File/1608. Accessed April 16, 2017.

Matson, R.G. and G. Coupland. 1995. The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1936. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1964. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1968. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1969. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1980. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2002. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2006. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2011.Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2013. Kent, Washington, aerial photograph. HistoricAerials.com. Online resource: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2017.

Nelson, Charles M. 1990. Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481–484. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Payton, Charles. 2006. Overview of King County History, Historical Paper No. 1. Heritage 4 Culture Program. Available: http://www.4culture.org/research/documents/OVERVIEW_OF_KING_COUNTY_HISTORY.pd f Accessed: March 17, 2017.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 9-3 Section 9 • References Cited

Payton, Charles. 2010. Incorporations in King County, Historical Paper No. 2. Heritage 4Culture Program. Available: http://www.4culture.org/research/documents/INCORPORATIONS_IN_KING_COUNTY.pdf. Accessed: March 17, 2017.

Porter and Swanson. 1998. Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet during the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205–213.

Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection. 1938. Property card, Parcel 184970-0215, January 1, 1938, King County, Washington. King County Recorder's Office, Auburn, Washington.

Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection. 1954. Property card, Parcel 184970-0005, March 17, 1954, King County, Washington. King County Assessor Office, Auburn, Washington.

Puget Sound Regional Branch, Washington State Archives, King County Property Records Collection. 1985. King County Assessor’s Office Folio, Parcel 184970-0005, Folio 90883, August 1, 1985, King County, Washington. King County Assessor Office, Auburn, Washington.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1890. Insurance Maps of Kent, Washington. Digital Sanborn Maps, Sanborn Map Company, Sanborn Library, LLC. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1892. Insurance Maps of Kent, Washington. Digital Sanborn Maps, Sanborn Map Company, Sanborn Library, LLC. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1894. Insurance Maps of Kent, Washington. Map on file, Seattle Public Library, Seattle, Washington.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1910. Insurance Maps of Kent, Washington. Digital Sanborn Maps, Sanborn Map Company, Sanborn Library, LLC. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1929–1944. Insurance Maps of Kent, Washington. Digital Sanborn Maps, Sanborn Map Company, Sanborn Library, LLC. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Schuster. 2009. Geologic Map of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Scott. 2008. Historic Resources Survey & Inventory, Kent, Washington. King County Historic Preservation Program, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for City of Kent. August 28, 2008. Available: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/home-property/historic- preservation/documents/resources/Kent08.ashx?la=en. Accessed: October 19, 2018.

9-4 Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Section 9 • References

Shantry, K., B. Rinck, M.V. Shong, and C.J. Miss. 2008. Archaeological Resource Damage Assessment for Site 45KI11, Woodinville, King County. Submitted to Woodinville Village Associates and MJR Development, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. Report on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Shong, M.V., C.J. Miss, M.E. Parvey, A.E. Stevenson, and S. Tallman. 2007. Results of Archaeological Testing at 45KI11 for the Woodinville Village Development, King County, Washington. Submitted to Woodinville Village Associates and MJR Development, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. Report on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Smith, M.W. 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually. Volume 32: Columbia University Press. New York.

Sound Transit. 1998. Sound Transit Motion No. M98-43. Available: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/about/board/motions/1 998/motion20no20m98-43.pdf. Accessed: August 23, 2018.

Stein, Alan J. 2001. Kent—Thumbnail History. Essay 3587, Historylink.org. Accessed: August 15, 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.

Utah Division of State History. 2015. Utah’s Historic Architecture Guide: Commercial, Public & Industrial Building Types. Utah Division of State History. Available: https://heritage.utah.gov/history/commercial-public-industrial-building-types. Accessed: April 17, 2017.

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2016a. Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Cemetery Report KI00869. DAHP WISAARD System record search conducted December 2016.

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2016b. Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Cemetery Report KI01029. DAHP WISAARD System record search conducted December 2016.

Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Washington Heritage Register Application Guidebook. March 2017. Available: https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/WHR%20APPLICATION%20COMPLETEguide_0 .pdf. Accessed: October 23, 2018.

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Online database. Available: https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/. Accessed: September 19, 2018.

Waterman, T.T., Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir. 2001. Puget Sound geography.

Waters, M.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.G. McDonald, C. Gustafson, M. Rasmussen, E. Cappellini, J.V. Olsen, D. Szklarczyk, L.J. Jensen, M.T.P. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev. 2011. Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site, Washington. Science 334 (21): 351-353.

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent 9-5

Appendix A

DAHP Statewide Predictive Model

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Project Footprint

Study Area

Archaeological Sensitivity High-Survey Highly Advised

Very High-Survey Highly Advised

0 250 Feet Meters 0 50 ± Source: ESRI 2018

Appendix B Previously Recorded Historic-Age Properties

Located Within 0.25 Mile of the Study Area

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Previously Recorded Historic-age Properties Located within 0.25 miles of the Study Area Historic or NRHP WHR Local HPI Number Year Property Address Common Type Eligible or Eligible or Register (Property ID) Built Name Listed? Listed? Listed? 96246 316 2nd Ave. S., N/A Domestic 1910 N N N Kent, WA 98032 96247 414 2nd Ave. S., N/A Domestic 1931 N N N Kent, WA 98032 96248 302 W. Gowe St., N/A Commercial 1961 N N N Kent, WA 98032 96249 302 W. Saar, N/A Religion 1910, N N N Kent, WA 98032 1918 674391 503 4th Ave. S., King County Domestic 1961 N N N Kent, WA 98031 Housing Authority 88183 233A Railroad Ave. Kent Grain Industrial 1917 Not Not N S., Kent, WA 98032 Elevator determined determined 88216 315 W. Meeker St., Amy Brown Commercial 1927 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 Fantasy Art determined determined 88223 201–215 E. Meeker Puget Sound Commercial 1929 Not Not N St., Kent, WA Power and determined determined 98032 Light/The Pasttime/Kent Tailors 51204 220–224 W. Stewarts Commercial 1938 Not Not N Meeker St., Jewelers determined determined Kent, WA 98031 Building 51205 302 W. Meeker St., Site of Page's Commercial 1943 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 Hotel determined determined 88153 617 Temperance, Armstrong Domestic 1909– Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 House 1910 determined determined 88155 732 5th Ave. N., N/A Domestic 1908 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88156 411 1st Ave. S., Mabel Reynolds Domestic 1919 N N N Kent, WA 98032 House/Carlson House 88167 407 2nd Ave. S., Evans House Domestic 1912 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88168 421 2nd Ave. S., Ekstrom House Domestic 1919 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88170 422 3rd Ave. S., Shoff House Domestic 1938 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88175 317 4th Ave. S., Valley Education 1938 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 Elementary determined determined School 88178 623 E. Smith St., N/A Domestic 1903 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88179 226 S. Kensington, McKellar- Domestic 1916 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 Frisbie House determined determined 88181 218 State Ave. S., Unity Church Religion 1919, Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 1926 determined determined Previously Recorded Historic-age Properties Located within 0.25 miles of the Study Area Historic or NRHP WHR Local HPI Number Year Property Address Common Type Eligible or Eligible or Register (Property ID) Built Name Listed? Listed? Listed? 88182 816 N. Central, Byers House Domestic 1924 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88184 322 Railroad Ave. Robertson Domestic 1908 Not Not N S., Kent, WA 98032 House determined determined 88185 302 W. Saar, First Christian Religion 1910 N N N Kent, WA 98032 Church Rectory 88186 333 5th Ave. S., Leander House Domestic 1929 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88187 626 W. Titus, Lee House Domestic 1903 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88189 412 N. Clark St., Dunbar House Domestic 1908 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88190 425 N. Clark St., Pays House Domestic 1930 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88191 436 N. Jason St., Mergens Home Domestic 1941 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88192 413 N. Prospect, Calhoun House Domestic 1904 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88196 419 1st Ave. S., Reynolds House Domestic 1902 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88197 410 2nd Ave. S., Barnes-Merritt Domestic 1904 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 House determined determined 88198 420 2nd Ave. S., Moe-Anderson Domestic 1905 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 House determined determined 88199 310 3rd Ave. S., St. Anthony's Religion 1923, Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 Chapel 1925 determined determined 88209 743 4th Ave. N., N/A Domestic 1902 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88210 719 4th Ave. N., Stark Duplex Domestic 1908 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88211 304 Scenic Way, Morrill House Domestic 1913 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88212 310 Scenic Way, Turner House Domestic 1910 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88213 406 Scenic Way, Bertha Overlock Domestic 1907 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 House determined determined 88214 425 Scenic Way, Hoffman House Domestic 1910 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 determined determined 88215 435 Scenic Way, L. D. Berlin Domestic 1927 Not Not N Kent, WA 98030 House determined determined 88217 340 1st Ave. S., Adams House Domestic 1905 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined 88218 403 1st Ave. S., Berryman Domestic 1910 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 House determined determined 88219 321 1st Ave. S., Balzer House Domestic 1910 Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 determined determined Previously Recorded Historic-age Properties Located within 0.25 miles of the Study Area Historic or NRHP WHR Local HPI Number Year Property Address Common Type Eligible or Eligible or Register (Property ID) Built Name Listed? Listed? Listed? 88220 220 Railroad Ave. City Water Government 1932 Not Not N S., Kent, WA 98032 Department determined determined 88221 206 Railroad Ave. Associated Commercial 1939 Not Not N S., Kent, WA 98032 Service Station determined determined 88222 108–112 Railroad N/A Commercial 1915 Not Not N Ave. S., determined determined Kent, WA 98032 88226 422 W. Willis St., Emil Johnson Domestic 1890, Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 House 1900 determined determined 88228 624 W. Willis St., Thomas House Domestic 1896, Not Not N Kent, WA 98032 1900 determined determined 700050/ 203 W. Meeker St., Carnation Milk Agriculture ca. Eligible Listed N KI00203 Kent, WA 98032 Factory 1889 41005 101 Railroad Ave., Burlington Transportation 1920 Eligible Eligible N Kent, WA 98031 Northern Santa Fe Railroad Depot 46574 331 3rd Ave. S., Chicago Transportation 1908, Eligible Eligible N Kent, WA 98031 Milwaukee St. 1985 Paul & Pacific Depot 88152 216 W. Gowe St., Kent Post Office Government 1939 Eligible Eligible N Kent, WA 98032 96245 233 2nd Ave. S., N/A Domestic 1946 Eligible Eligible N Kent, WA 98032

Appendix C

Geotechnical Bore Logs

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent Location Bore # Depth Blows Description Date Comment

Kent BK4 0‐2' Vac Gravel fill material. 8/7/2018 2.5' Vac Mottled light brown sandy 8/7/2018 silt, redeposited alluvium. 5' Vac Mottled black and brown 8/7/2018 sandy silt, alluvium. 7‐9' 12, 5, 14 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand, alluvium. 10‐11.5' 2, 3, 4 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand, alluvium. Ground water present. 12.5‐14' 1, 2, 2 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand, alluvium. Getting darker with depth. 15‐16.5' 5, 4, 4 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand with rounded limestone gravel inclusions, lots of wood and wood pulp starting at around 15.5' bs, alluvium. 17.5‐19' 8, 3, 3 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand, top third of sample was wood debris, alluvium. 20‐21.5' 2, 3, 4 Dark brown medium coarse 8/7/2018 sand, wood debris beginning to thin out, alluvium. 22.5‐24' 1, 2, 4 Mottled brown and grey fine 8/7/2018 silt,very little wood and gravel inclusions. 30‐31' 8, 10, 12 Dark brown/black fine grained 8/7/2018 silty sand. 35‐36.5 12, 16, 25 Top half of sample: Dark 8/7/2018 brown/black fine grained silty sand. Abrupt transition to heavily compacted fine‐ grained brown sandy silt. 40‐41.5 10, 14, Black medium‐grained sand 8/7/2018 18' with gravel inclusions. Kent BK1 0' Vac Gravel fill material. 8/7/2018 2.5' Vac Light brown sand with gravel 8/7/2018 inclusions, alluvium. 5' Vac Dark brown sand with 8/7/2018 rounded gravel and cobble inclusion. 7.5‐9' 3, 3, 3 Top half of sample: brown 8/8/2018 sandy silt. Transitioned gradually into brown medium‐ coarse sand in bottom half. Alluviums. 10‐11.5' 3, 3, 2 Brown medium‐coarse sand, 8/8/2018 alluvium. Water table at around 11' bs. 12.5‐14' 2, 2, 2 Brown medium‐coarse sand, 8/8/2018 alluvium. Sample was only half‐full. 15‐16.5' 3, 3, 4 Dark brown coarse‐grained 8/8/2018 sand with small gravel inclusions, alluvium. 17.5‐19' 3, 4, 5 Dark brown coarse‐grained 8/8/2018 sand with small gravel inclusions, alluvium. 20‐21.5' 3, 4, 6 Dark brown coarse‐grained 8/8/2018 sand with small gravel inclusions, alluvium. Gravels increasing in number and size. 25‐26.5' 4, 6, 7 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. 30‐31.5' 6, 7, 8 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. 35‐36.5' 3, 4, 6 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. 40‐41.5' 9, 11, 12 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. 45‐46.5' 8, 11, 11 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. 50‐51.5' 6, 7, 8 Black medium‐grained sand 8/8/2018 with flecks of red andesite, few gravles. Alluvium. Kent BK5 0‐2.5' Vac asphalt over sandy silt fill with 8/9/2018 Encountered wires at gravels, road fill. 2ft bgs, moved probe south. 2.5' Vac sandy silt with gravels, road 8/9/2018 Relocated hole to SE of fill. Encounteded pipe after original location. moving S at 3ft bgs. 2.5' Vac sandy silt with gravels, road 8/9/2018 fill. At new SE location. 5' Vac saturated silt, no gravels. 8/9/2018 7.5' 6 2 3 semi saturated grayish brown 8/13/2018 silty sand. Little to no gravels 10' 1 0 1 saturated grayish brown silty 8/13/2018 sand 12.5' 2 2 5 saturated brown silty clay, 8/13/2018 lower 4" of probe back to grayish brown silty sand. 15' 3 6 8 saturated grayish brown silty 8/13/2018 sand 17.5' 4 5 6 saturated gray brown silty 8/13/2018 switched to mud setup sand at 15' 20' 2 2 6 saturated gray brown silty 8/13/2018 sand 25' 1 1 4 saturated gray brown silty 8/13/2018 sand, lat 8" of sample reddish brown clayey silt with lots of woody debris 30' 7 10 11 saturated gray brown silty 8/13/2018 sand, no woody debris Kent BK3 0‐2.5' Vac brown silty sand with high 8/9/2018 gravel content, Fill. 4'9" Vac impaced piece of concrete. 8/9/2018 Hole abandoned until could find out what this concrete was in plans. hole abandoned. 2 water tanks 3 feet bgs. Kent BK2 0‐2.5' Vac brown silty sand with high 8/9/2018 gravel content, Fill. 5' Vac brown silty sand with high 8/9/2018 gravel content, Fill. Saturated. 7.5' 1 1 1 brown clayey silt 8/10/2018 10' 0 0 0 brown clayey silt, heavily 8/10/2018 saturated 12.5' 3 3 2 brown clayey silt, heavily 8/10/2018 saturated 15' 1 0 1 brown clayey silt, heavily 8/10/2018 More saturated than saturated. previous samples 17.5' 2 2 3 brown clayey silt, little to no 8/10/2018 gravels. Not saturated. 20' 5 4 5 brown clayey silt until lower 8/10/2018 6". Lower 6"‐4" a reddish brown silty sand. 4" to tip of sample brown clayey silt. 22.5' 4 6 8 brown clayey silt, out of 8/10/2018 reddish brown pocket. Moist. 25' 4 7 11 saturated brown silty sand 8/10/2018

Appendix D Inadvertent Discovery Plan

Cultural Resources Technical Report - Kent

INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN

SOUND TRANSIT KENT STATION PARKING AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

P REPARED FOR:

Sound Transit Union Station 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Elma Borbe, Senior Environmental Planner 206.398.5410

P REPARED BY:

ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98105 Contact: J. Tait Elder 360.920.8959

July 2018

ICF. 2018. Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Sound Transit Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project, King County, Washington. July. Prepared for Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington.

Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ii

Page

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1‐1 Chapter 2 Archaeological Resources ...... 2‐1 Precontact ...... 2‐1 Artifacts ...... 2‐1 Features and Deposits ...... 2‐2 Historic...... 2‐3 Artifacts ...... 2‐4 Features and Deposits ...... 2‐5 Chapter 3 Inadvertent Discoveries...... 3‐1 Archaeological Resources ...... 3‐1 Human Skeletal Remains ...... 3‐2

Appendix A Contact List

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 i Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Acronyms and Abbreviations

DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FTA Federal Transit Administration Project Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 ii Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Chapter 1 Introduction

Sound Transit plans to perform geotechnical investigations, as well as other potential as‐yet unidentified project‐related ground disturbing activities at the Sound Transit Kent Station as part of the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvement Project (Project). The Project must satisfy cultural resources obligations under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.

An initial cultural resources records search and buried archaeological resource sensitivity analysis revealed no archaeological resources in the Kent study area, but the area retained the potential to contain buried archaeological resources. In order to better define archaeological sensitivity, additional archaeological investigations will include archaeological monitoring of selected geotechnical bores. As the project progresses, additional project‐related ground disturbing activities have the potential to encounter cultural resources as well. This inadvertent discovery plan was prepared for use during geotechnical investigations and any subsequent project‐related ground disturbing activity that could encounter archaeological resources. It was developed to guide the identification and protection of archaeological resources and outlines the procedures to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human skeletal remains.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 1‐1 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Chapter 2 Archaeological Resources

State and federal regulations recognize the public’s interest in cultural resources and the benefit in preserving them. These laws and regulations require agencies to consider how a project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce potential damages to them. The first line of defense in meeting these requirements and protecting cultural resources is their identification. Often, cultural resources are not initially recognized—they could appear like just another piece of gravel or a bottle someone tossed out the window last week—when they could be, in fact, be an item of historical, traditional, or cultural importance.

The following provides a guide to aid in the identification of these resources. While it is not intended to depict all potential resources that could be found, the types provided are typical of those expected for the Pacific Northwest. If, at any time, there is any uncertainty as to the relevance of an item found during construction, a cultural resources professional should be contacted.

Precontact Precontact items, deposits, and features that could be found include habitation, food capture, and food processing related materials. Below are selected examples and photos depicting these resources. Artifacts Stone tools are typically fine‐grained rocks (i.e., basalt, obsidian, dacite, chert) that have been modified by the removal of pieces of material to obtain a desired shape or edge. They can be identified by the presence of multiple “scars” where material has been removed, particularly if they are concentrated along one or two edges or ends of the rock. Often, the material of a stone tool is finer‐grained than the unmodified rocks that naturally occur in the vicinity.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐1 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Features and Deposits Hearths are characterized by an accumulation of thermally altered rocks, charcoal or very dark brown, tan, and red stained sediments. Occasionally, they may contain other cultural materials, such as stone tools or food related materials.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐2 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Shell middens are characterized by an accumulation of dark – sometimes greasy – soil with abundant shell. Shell middens often contain other cultural materials, such as stone tools and animal bone.

Fish capture and processing sites are characterized by the presence of wood weirs, stone traps, basket traps, fish hooks, netting, net weights, and spears. Pictured at the right is an example of a wooden fish weir in profile.

Historic Historic items, deposits, and features that could be found on the project would date from the late‐ nineteenth century to middle‐twentieth century. Items from this time period include a wide array of consumer goods and industrial products, so it is impossible to predict or describe every potential cultural resource. However, the selected examples and photos below depict common examples of such resources.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐3 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Artifacts Nails can be square (machine cut) or round (wire) and come in a variety of sizes (large to small), depending on their function. Square nails, commonly referred to as machine‐cut nails, were widely used until the early 1900s.

Glass bottles can come in a variety of shapes (from large to small) and colors (amber, green, blue, aqua, amethyst, or clear). Often, old bottles are hard to distinguish from modern bottles so it is always a good idea to check with a cultural resources professional—the bottle to the right dates from 1845‐1880!

Ceramic items are usually white, but can also include a rainbow of colors including, more commonly, yellow or grey. They can often have maker’s marks (such as in the picture to the right) or have decoration (stamped, hand‐ painted) and come in a variety of forms including tableware (cups, plates, bowls), doorknobs, electrical insulators, and tobacco pipes.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐4 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Faunal remains can range from small (fowl, domesticated cats and dogs), to medium (pig), to large (cattle, elk). Historic faunal remains are often saw‐cut, as in the picture to the right.

Features and Deposits Architectural features can be identified by the presence of foundations, walls, floors, pads, piers, footings, “robber trenches” (where footings once lay), or any other extant architectural elements.

Refuse scatters can be large quantities of stratified artifacts, identified as 1‐inch thick or more, that accumulated over a period of time.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐5 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Hollow‐filled features can be pits, privies, and/or wells, and are identified by an abrupt lining of wood, brick, or dirt contrasted by stratified archaeological deposits.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 2‐6 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Chapter 3 Inadvertent Discoveries

Archaeological Resources In the event that potential archaeological resources are identified during project‐related ground disturbance, the following procedures, including outreach (reference Appendix A Contacts List), will be followed: 1. If Sound Transit or their contractors believe that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all work at the location of ground disturbance will cease immediately. The area of work stoppage will be large enough to adequately provide for the security and protection of the discovery. No vehicle, equipment, or foot traffic will be permitting in the vicinity of the discovery, except that which is needed to vacate the immediate vicinity, until a qualified archaeologist has inspected the discovery. Upon discovery, Sound Transit or their contractor will immediately contact the Sound Transit environmental planner (contact #1) and the consulting archaeologist (contact #2). 2. The consulting archaeologist will photograph and describe the discovery and document its location. The discovery will be analyzed to determine whether it is in primary depositional context, is an isolated find, and if it is – in fact – an archaeological resource. Based on this analysis, the consulting archaeologist will implement one of the following procedures: a. If the discovery is determined to not be an archaeological resource by the consulting archaeologist, project‐related ground disturbance may continue in the location of the discovery. b. If the discovery is determined to be in disturbed depositional context (i.e., located within fill or the area was previously mixed), and/or an isolated find by the consulting archaeologist, the artifact’s location will be recorded. The artifact will then be collected, and ground disturbance may continue at the location of the discovery. Under this IDP, an isolated archaeological find is defined as a single artifact in primary depositional context that is not associated with an archaeological feature or located within two meters of another artifact or archaeological feature. c. If the discovery is determined to be an archaeological resource, the consulting archaeologist will take the appropriate steps to protect the discovery and immediately contact the Sound Transit environmental planner (contact #1). Sound Transit will promptly call the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (contact #3) and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) (contact #4). FTA will contact the consulting tribes (contacts #7 through #10) and parties. Ground disturbing excavations shall not continue at the location of the discovery until after the appropriate consultation between DAHP and affected tribes has occurred and the necessary permissions from the FTA are obtained. Ground disturbing excavations may resume within 50‐feet of the discovery, if monitored by an archaeologist.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 3‐1 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Sound Transit

Human Skeletal Remains In the event that potential human skeletal remains are identified during project‐related ground disturbance, the following procedures will be followed: 1. If Sound Transit or their contractors believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law (RCW 27.44 and 68.50). The Sound Transit environmental planner (contact #1) and consulting archaeologist (contact #2) will be contacted. 2. Sound Transit will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery, with assistance from the consultant archaeologist. Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during the project will be treated with dignity and respect. At minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of 30 feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. No unauthorized photographs of any human remains should be taken or distributed. 3. Sound Transit, or, if requested, the consulting archaeologist will immediately call the King County Medical Examiner (contact #5) and the King County Sheriff’s office (contact #6). The medical examiner will determine if the remains are forensic (related to a modern crime) or non‐ forensic. The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. 4. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non‐forensic, the King County Medical Examiner will notify DAHP (contact #4) and DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non‐Native American. DAHP will identify the affected tribes and handle all consultation with the tribes as to the treatment of the remains.

Inadvertent Discovery Plan: Kent Station Parking and Access July 2018 3‐2 Improvements Project, King County, Washington

Appendix A Contact List

Contact List

1. Elma Borbe, Senior Environmental 8. Steve Mullen‐Moses, Director of Planner Archaeology and Historic Sound Transit Preservation Union Station Snoqualmie Tribe 401 South Jackson Street P O Box 969 Seattle, WA 98104 8130 Railroad Avenue, Suite 103 206.398.5410 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 425.495.6097 2. J. Tait Elder, Archaeologist ICF– Consulting 9. Johnson Meninick, Cultural Resources 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Seattle, WA 98105 Yakama Nation 360.920.8959 PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 3. Mark Assam, Transportation Program 509.685.7203 Specialist, FTA Region 10 Federal Transit Administration 10. Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142 4705 W. Marginal Way S.W. Seattle, WA 98174 Seattle, WA 98106‐1514 206.220.7954 206.431.1582

4. Matthew Sterner, Transportation Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98504‐8343 360.586.3082

5. King County Medical Examiner 908 Jefferson St. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 206.731.3232

6. King County Sheriff’s Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W‐150 Seattle, WA 98104 206.296.4155 (non‐emergency)

7. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Cultural Resources Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 253.876.3272

Attachment E Transportation Technical Report

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Transportation Technical Report

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

August 2019

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of Technical Report ...... 1-3 1.3 Organization of Technical Report ...... 1-3 Section 2 Methodology and Assumptions ...... 2-1 Section 3 Relevant Plans, Policies and Coordination ...... 3-1 Section 4 Affected Environment ...... 4-1 4.1 Study Area ...... 4-1 4.2 Existing Transportation Conditions ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Roadway Network ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Traffic Operations ...... 4-3 4.2.3 Bus Routes ...... 4-8 4.2.4 Freight ...... 4-10 4.2.5 Rail Transportation ...... 4-10 4.2.6 Non-motorized Transportation ...... 4-10 4.2.7 Parking ...... 4-12 4.2.8 Safety ...... 4-14 Section 5 Long-Term Impacts ...... 5-1 5.1 Roadway Network ...... 5-1 5.2 Traffic Volumes ...... 5-1 5.2.1 Traffic Operations ...... 5-5 5.2.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 5-10 5.2.3 Bus Routes ...... 5-10 5.2.4 Freight ...... 5-10 5.2.5 Rail Transportation ...... 5-10 5.2.6 Non-motorized Transportation ...... 5-11 5.2.7 Parking ...... 5-11 5.2.8 Safety ...... 5-12 Section 6 Construction Sequencing and Impacts ...... 6-1 6.1 Construction Duration and Phasing ...... 6-1 6.2 Construction Impacts ...... 6-1 Section 7 Indirect and Secondary Impacts ...... 7-1 Section 8 Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 8-1 8.1 Potential Traffic Improvement Measures ...... 8-1 8.2 Other Mitigation Measures ...... 8-8 8.3 Construction Mitigation ...... 8-8 8.3.1 Traffic Operations ...... 8-8 8.3.2 Parking ...... 8-9 8.3.3 Summary ...... 8-10 Section 9 Reference List ...... 9-1

Transportation Technical Report - Kent i Table of Contents •

List of Figures

Figure 1 Study Intersections ...... 4-2 Figure 2 Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions ...... 4-7 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service ...... 4-9 Figure 4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 4-11 Figure 5 Garage Concept Layout ...... 5-2 Figure 6 Parking Garage Trip Distribution ...... 5-4 Figure 7 Intersection Level of Service – No Build Alternative (2037) ...... 5-8 Figure 8 Intersection Level of Service – Build Alternative (2037) ...... 5-9 Figure 9 Potential Mitigation Measures and Mobility Enhancements ...... 8-3 Figure 10 Intersection Level of Service – Build Alternative with Mitigation ...... 8-7

List of Tables

Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ...... 4-4 Table 2 Study Intersections ...... 4-5 Table 3 Intersection Level of Service – Existing AM and PM Peak 15-Minute Period ...... 4-6 Table 4 Existing Bus Routes Serving Kent Station ...... 4-8 Table 5 Existing Parking Conditions within Half Mile of Kent Station – Unrestricted Parking ...... 4-12 Table 6 Intersection Crashes by Severity (January 2015-December 2017) ...... 4-14 Table 7 Roadway Segment Crashes by Severity (January 2015-December 2017) ...... 4-15 Table 8 Sounder Passenger Mode of Access – 2037 No Build and Build Alternatives ...... 5-3 Table 9 Intersection Level of Service – No Build and Build Alternatives – AM Peak Period ...... 5-6 Table 10 Intersection Level of Service – No Build and Build Alternatives – PM Peak Period ...... 5-7 Table 11 2037 Parking Demand ...... 5-12 Table 12 Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 8-2 Table 13 Intersection Level of Service – Mitigated Build Alternative – AM Peak Period ...... 8-5 Table 14 Intersection Level of Service – Mitigated Build Alternative – PM Peak Period ...... 8-6

Appendices

Appendix A Transportation Methodology Technical Memorandum Appendix B Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum Appendix C Queuing Reports Appendix D VMT Evaluation Appendix E Synchro Worksheets

ii Transportation Technical Report - Kent

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description

The Project consists of a new parking garage and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities serving patrons of the Sounder South Rail system at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east (SEPA Checklist, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street (SEPA Checklist, Figure 2). The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls.

Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities are located adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety. As part of the final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent (City) and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. The following are the proposed amenities:

Adjacent to the project site, amenities include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage (Civil Roadway Plan and Architectural Garage Site Plan – Overall in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities include installing a painted curb extension,1 rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Smith Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers2 and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, ADA compliant crosswalk, painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N (Bicycle Improvements and RapidRide Station in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities include a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (James Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). Sound Transit and the City will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements (see SEPA Checklist, Figure 7):

1 Painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds. 2 Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 1-1 Section 1 • Introduction

• At Railroad Avenue N and E James Street: o Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop-off loop. o Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases. • At Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street: o Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed. • At Central Avenue N/E James Street: o Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property. • At E James Street west of Central Avenue N: o Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

Sound Transit would provide mitigation through these traffic improvements or may come to agreement with the City to implement other improvements or contribute to a City project as mitigation in lieu of the traffic improvements identified.

On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses (King County Metro Layovers in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). The layover area would include approximately 8 bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411 spaces, including 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue N and approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements (SEPA Checklist, Figure 3). These include areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage. The staging area is currently identified as Sound Transit owned parcel 9179601585.

In support of sustainability, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array, and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City’s design goals of providing an aesthetically pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside a portion of construction

1-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 1 • Introduction funding for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart) would manage the integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide storm-water runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. Traffic improvement measures are described in Section B.14.h of the SEPA checklist. As part of the final design and the City’s permitting and approval process, identified traffic improvements will be refined in collaboration with the City.

Environmental commitments of the Project are listed in the SEPA Checklist, Attachment F, Environmental Commitments. 1.2 Purpose of Technical Report This transportation technical report presents the transportation analysis findings conducted as part of the environmental review for the Project. The report summarizes potential transportation impacts and provides recommendations to mitigate impacts where warranted. 1.3 Organization of Technical Report The technical report contains the following sections:

▪ Section 1: Introduction – provides project background information and the purpose and organization of this Technical Report.

▪ Section 2: Methodology and Assumptions – summarizes the analysis methods used to evaluate the No Build and Build alternatives.

▪ Section 3: Relevant Plans, Policies, and Coordination – provides information regarding guiding regulations, plans, and policies in in the planning and analysis processes.

▪ Section 4: Affected Environment – discusses current transportation conditions.

▪ Section 5: Long‐Term Impacts – describes anticipated long-term transportation impacts on all modes of travel, with and without the Project.

▪ Section 6: Construction Sequencing and Impacts – discusses the sequence of construction activities and expected short-term transportation impacts during project construction.

▪ Section 7: Indirect and Secondary Impacts – describes the potential effects that may occur later in time or removed in distance from the Project.

▪ Section 8: Potential Mitigation Measures – describes the potential measures that could be implemented to eliminate or reduce the impacts of the Project.

▪ Section 9: Reference List.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 1-3

Section 2 Methodology and Assumptions

The methodology and assumptions used to analyze the transportation impacts of the Project are described in two documents: Transportation Methodology Technical Memorandum (Appendix A), and Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum (Appendix B). These documents provide details regarding the methodology and assumptions used to analyze the alternatives, including:

▪ Study Area – intersections selected for operations analysis.

▪ Data Collection – existing characteristics of transportation network and service for all modes; intersection turning movement volumes including vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles; parking data collection; and collision data.

▪ Analysis Techniques and Models – analysis years; study time periods; modes studied; traffic operations software, inputs, and outputs; and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) evaluation approach.

▪ Measures of Effectiveness – agency thresholds for traffic operations.

▪ Future Ridership Projections, Distribution and Mode of Access – existing ridership and mode of access; Sound Transit’s ST Incremental Ridership Model forecasted ridership; forecasted mode of access for each alternative; and projected trips generated by mode for each alternative.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 2-1

Section 3 Relevant Plans, Policies and Coordination

Transportation facilities and functions are governed by national, state, regional, and local laws, plans, and policies. These regulations identify goals, infrastructure needs, and performance standards for transportation. This analysis considered the following laws, regulations, and plans.

▪ State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), (Washington State Legislature, 2018).

▪ ST2 Plan, approved November 4, 2008, (Sound Transit, 2008).

▪ City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, (City of Kent, 2008).

▪ City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, (City of Kent, 2015).

▪ City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan, (City of Kent, 2013).

▪ City of Kent Transportation Improvement Program 2018 – 2023, (City of Kent, 2018).

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 3-1

Section 4 Affected Environment

This section describes the affected environment which includes the study area definition and existing (2018) transportation conditions within the study area. 4.1 Study Area The Project would build a new parking garage at Kent Station. Kent Station is located along Railroad Avenue North between East James Street and East Smith Street. The transportation study area is shown on Figure 1, and includes Kent Station, the existing parking garage, the proposed new parking garage site, and key roadway corridors that provide access to and from the Station. 4.2 Existing Transportation Conditions This section describes the transportation facilities, service types, and conditions as present in the study area in 2018. This includes summaries of the following elements of the transportation system within the study area:

▪ Roadway Network: Roadway type and facilities

▪ Traffic Operations: Intersection level of service and average vehicle delay

▪ Public Transportation: Transit routes and stops

▪ Freight: Freight routes and volumes

▪ Rail Transportation: Rail facilities and users

▪ Non‐motorized Transportation: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

▪ Parking: Parking facility supply and utilization

▪ Safety: Collision history at intersections and along segments

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-1 Section 4 • Affected Environment

Figure 1 Study Intersections

4-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

4.2.1 Roadway Network The study area is served by a grid network of roadways consisting of principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets, as defined in the City’s Functional Classifications of Public Roads map (City of Kent, 2016). State Route (SR) 516 runs through the study area along Central Avenue North and East Smith Street.

Central Avenue North and 4th Avenue North are the main north-south arterials through the study area; Central Avenue North is a Principal Arterial and 4th Avenue North is a Minor Arterial. Both roadways are five lanes wide through the study area with additional turn lanes at key intersections. The primary east-west arterials are East Smith Street and East James Street. East Smith Street is five lanes wide and classified as a Minor Arterial west of Central Avenue North and a Principal Arterial east of Central Avenue North where it is also SR 516. East James Street, classified as a Minor Arterial, is four to five lanes wide through the study area with additional turn lanes at key intersections. The key roadways in the immediate vicinity of Kent Station are Railroad Avenue North and East Pioneer Street. Railroad Avenue North is two lanes wide between East James Street and East Smith Street with side-street stop control at both ends. East Pioneer Street is located approximately midway between East James Street and East Pioneer Street providing a direct east-west connection between Kent Station and the signalized intersection at Central Avenue North.

Fifteen intersections were selected for analysis in coordination with City staff, shown on Figure 1. The study intersections are those most likely to be affected by the Project or critical for a robust microsimulation model. Likely corridors to be used by Project-generated traffic were determined based on license plate survey data collected by Sound Transit in 2014 at the existing Kent Station garage (discussed in more detail in Section 5). 4.2.2 Traffic Operations The Synchro/SimTraffic software package (Version 10) was used to analyze the traffic operational impacts of the Project. SimTraffic is a A queue is a line of microsimulation model that reflects the roadway network, signal vehicles waiting to timings, and passenger vehicle, heavy vehicle, pedestrian, and proceed through the bicycle volumes throughout the study network. This tool allowed for roadway network. A modeling of the short duration volume surges, railroad crossing queue can form when effects, and queues that are expected to occur, taking into account vehicles encounter a the closely spaced intersections in the study area. To provide a delay such as a traffic conservative analysis, the model simulation was conducted for the signal, railroad crossing gate, or waiting for a gap 15-minute period immediately following a train arrival, with queues in traffic to complete a on East James Street and East Smith Street formed due to the turn movement. railroad gate closures. The use of SimTraffic is consistent with the City’s approach to modeling traffic operations in the study area.

The existing conditions SimTraffic model was calibrated to reflect observed conditions in the study area. SimTraffic provides intersection delay and LOS results consistent with methodologies established in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-3 Section 4 • Affected Environment

Intersection Operations Level of service (LOS) is the qualitative description of traffic operations from the driver’s perspective and is defined by intersection delay. LOS ranges from A with no congestion and little delay, to F with substantial congestion and delay. This evaluation uses the HCM 6th Edition methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 1 summarizes the intersection LOS delay thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, LOS is based on the average delay of all vehicles entering the intersection. For unsignalized (side-street stop-controlled) intersections, LOS is based on the highest delay for any vehicle approach.

Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) Intersection ID Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0 B 10.1 – 20.0 10.1 – 15.0 C 20.1 – 35.0 15.1 – 25.0 D 35.1 – 55.0 25.1 – 35.0 E 55.1 – 80.0 35.1 – 50.0 F ≥ 80.1 ≥ 50.1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016.

LOS Standard Cities, counties, and the state establish LOS standards—which are measures of the minimum level of operation that meet that community’s needs and expectations— for the roadways that are under their jurisdiction. In the study area, the LOS standard for most intersections have been established by the City, but the LOS standards for the SR 516 intersections are set by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City calculates LOS for key intersections within Downtown and calculates an average delay based on weight of the intersection volumes. The Downtown zone is allowed to operate at LOS F. The study area intersections located along SR 516 have a standard of LOS E. The LOS standard and existing traffic control for each study intersection is shown in Table 2.

4-4 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Table 2 Study Intersections Intersection ID Location Traffic Control LOS Standard 1 4th Ave N & W James St Signal F 2 1st Ave N & W James St Side-street stop F 3 Railroad Ave N & E James St Side-street stop F 4 Central Ave N & E James St Signal F 5 Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer St Side-street stop F 6 Central Ave N & E Pioneer St Signal F 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St Signal F 8 Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N & W Smith St Signal F 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St Side-street stop F 10 Railroad Ave N & E Smith St Side-street stop F 11 Central Ave N & E Smith St (SR 516) Signal E 12 State Ave N & E Smith St (SR 516) Signal E 13 E Titus St & E Smith St (SR 516) Signal E 14 Central Ave N (SR 516) & E Meeker St Signal E 15 Central Ave N (SR 516) & E Gowe St Signal E Sources: City of Kent, 2015. WSDOT, 2005.

Intersection Operations Results Intersection LOS and delay were evaluated for the morning and evening peak 15-minute period. The existing AM and PM peak period delay for the study intersections are summarized in Table 3 and the peak 15-minute LOS is shown on Figure 2. One intersection currently falls below its LOS standard: State Avenue North & East Smith Street. This intersection is located along SR 516 with a LOS E standard, but currently operates at a LOS F during the AM peak 15-minute period. This reflects the heavy westbound volumes along E Smith St during the morning commute. During field observations, westbound queues were observed along East Smith Street extending from Central Avenue North, through the State Avenue North intersection and beyond. One other intersection operates at LOS F during the AM peak 15-minute period: Central Avenue North & East James Street. This is due to the same travel pattern as discussed above.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-5 Section 4 • Affected Environment

Table 3 Intersection Level of Service – Existing AM and PM Peak 15-Minute Period Existing AM Existing PM LOS ID Location Traffic Control Peak Peak Standard LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 4th Ave N & W James St Signal F C 24 C 27 2 1st Ave N & W James St Side-street stop F B 15 D 30 3 Railroad Ave N & E James St Side-street stop F A 2 A 3 4 Central Ave N & E James St Signal F F 92 E 61 5 Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer St Side-street stop F A 4 A 5 6 Central Ave N & E Pioneer St Signal F A 8 A 7 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St Signal F C 24 C 22 8 Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N & W Smith St Signal F B 12 C 22 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St Side-street stop F A 5 A 6 10 Railroad Ave N & E Smith St Side-street stop F C 25 D 26 11 Central Ave N & E Smith St Signal E D 44 D 51 12 State Ave N & E Smith St Signal E F 84 B 10 13 E Titus St & E Smith St Signal E C 26 B 18 14 Central Ave N & E Meeker St Signal E A 8 B 13 15 Central Ave N & E Gowe St Signal E C 31 B 17 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Notes: Delay presented in average seconds per vehicle. Cells in bold denote an intersection that exceeds its LOS standard.

4-6 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Figure 2 Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-7 Section 4 • Affected Environment

4.2.3 Bus Routes In addition to serving Sounder commuter rail, Kent Station has a transit center that serves 14 King County Metro and Sound Transit fixed-route bus routes. Table 4 summarizes the bus routes serving Kent Station. Bus stops are also located along some of the roadways within the project study area, as shown on Figure 3.

Table 4 Existing Bus Routes Serving Kent Station Service Provider Frequency Notes and Route (in minutes) KCM 150 12-15 Kent Station to Southcenter to Downtown Seattle KCM 153 20-40 Kent Station to Renton Transit Center KCM 158 30-60 Timberlane to Kent Station to Downtown Seattle KCM 159 20-40 Timberlane to Kent Station to Downtown Seattle KCM 164 20-60 Green River College to Kent Station Kent Station to Highline College to Des Moines to Burien Transit KCM 166 30-60 Center KCM 168 30-60 Maple Valley to Kent Station KCM 169 25-60 Kent Station to Renton Transit Center Southeast Auburn to Kent Station to Sea-Tac Airport to Burien KCM 180 30-60 Transit Center KCM 183 30-60 Federal Way Transit Center to Star Lake to Kent Station KCM 913 30-50 DART: Kent, Northwest Kent, North Kent KCM 952 25-35 Auburn Park & Ride to Kennydale to Boeing Everett ST 566 10-20 Auburn to Bellevue to Overlake ST 567 20-30 Kent to Bellevue to Overlake Sources: King County Metro, 2018a and Sound Transit, 2018. Note: KCM = King County Metro Route; ST = Sound Transit Route.

DART (Dial-A-Ride Transit) routes 914 and 916, which provide service between Downtown Kent and East Hill, also stop at Kent Station Transit Center. DART service uses smaller vehicles to allow flexibility to perform some off-route deviations upon request.

4-8 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Figure 3 Existing Transit Service

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-9 Section 4 • Affected Environment

4.2.4 Freight The Washington State Freight and Goods Tonnage System (FGTS) is used to classify roadways, railways, and waterways based on the typical annual freight tonnage transported on each facility. Roadway classifications range from T-1 (facilities that carry more than 10 million tons annually) to T-5 (facilities that carry at least 20,000 tons in 60 days). In the vicinity of the study area, SR 167 (located about one-half mile west of the study area) is a T-1 freight corridor and SR 516 is a T-2 freight corridor (WSDOT, 2017). The BNSF railway is classified as a R-1 railway, indicating it carries more than five million tons of freight annually (WSDOT, 2016). 4.2.5 Rail Transportation The BNSF railroad line travels north-south through the study area, west of and paralleling Railroad Avenue North. These tracks are used by the Sounder commuter train, Amtrak passenger trains, and freight trains. On a typical weekday, approximately 26 Sounder trains and 12 Amtrak trains travel along the BNSF railroad. A 2013 count available from the Federal Railway Administration indicates approximately 64 total trains travel through daily. At-grade crossings within the study area are located at East James Street and East Smith Street. Roadway traffic is halted at both of these crossings for the duration of a Sounder train stop at Kent Station, and when Amtrak or freight trains travel through. 4.2.6 Non-motorized Transportation Figure 4 shows the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the study area. Downtown Kent, the area immediately south of Kent Station, has a complete sidewalk network and marked crosswalks across most intersections. Pedestrian facilities to the north, west, and east are more variable particularly in the residential areas where sidewalks may be absent or narrow. Crossing arterials, such as East James Street and East Smith Street, can be challenging in some areas that lack marked crosswalks for several blocks. In the immediate vicinity of Kent Station, there are stretches along Railroad Avenue North without any pedestrian facilities. A pedestrian bridge connects the platforms on both sides of the BNSF railroad tracks.

Eastbound bicycle lanes are present on West James Street west of 1st Avenue North, and on East Smith Street east of East Titus Street. There are no other dedicated bicycle facilities within the study area.

4-10 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Figure 4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-11 Section 4 • Affected Environment

4.2.7 Parking In 2017, nearly 1,900 passengers boarded the Sounder commuter train at Kent Station each weekday (Sound Transit, 2018b). The existing park-and-ride garage capacity is 877 spaces and the surface lot capacity is 119 spaces for a total of 996 parking spaces. The parking spaces typically fill early during the morning commute period.

Baseline parking occupancy data were collected along block faces within one-half mile of the station with unrestricted parking. With input from the City, the one-half mile distance was identified to capture the area where future hide-and-ride activity is most likely to occur with increasing ridership. One-half mile distance equates to 10 minutes of walk time at 3 miles per hour. A public surface lot located less than one-half mile to the southwest of Kent Station was also included in the parking study area.

Parking occupancy counts were conducted between 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. on a weekday in June 2018. This time period is based on peak downtown parking occupancy reported in the Right Size Parking Kent Policy Pilot Project – Parking Management Technical Memo (City of Kent, 2014), summarized in the Kent Auburn Station Access Improvements, Baseline Conditions Summary (Sound Transit, 2017). Table 5 presents the parking inventory by block face, parking occupancy, available parking, and the distance from the station platform entrance on Railroad Avenue North. The block faces are sorted by distance to the Sounder Station entrance.

Table 5 Existing Parking Conditions within Half Mile of Kent Station – Unrestricted Parking Distance Number Parking from of % Street Street Segment Blockface Spaces Station Parking Occupied Available (miles) Spaces W 9 2 78% State Ave N E Smith St to E Pioneer St 0.23 E 12 1 92%

State Ave N to N Kennebeck S 11 2 82% Ward St 0.28 Ave N 9 0 100%

State Ave N to N Kennebeck S 13 3 77% E Meeker St 0.33 Ave N 13 3 77% Railroad Ave S E Saar St to E Titus St 0.34 E 25 10 60% W 14 4 71% N State Ave E James St to E George St 0.34 E 14 3 79%

N Kennebeck Ave to Clark Ave S 12 1 92% E Temperance St 0.36 N N 4 4 0% W 4 2 50% Clark Ave N E Smith St to E Temperance St 0.36 E 4 2 50% Public Lot 2nd Ave/W Titus St/1st Ave S 0.38 86 8 91% 1st Ave S W Saar St to W Titus St 0.39 W 13 3 77%

4-12 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Table 5 Existing Parking Conditions within Half Mile of Kent Station – Unrestricted Parking Distance Number Parking from of % Street Street Segment Blockface Spaces Station Parking Occupied Available (miles) Spaces E 10 5 50% W 15 13 13% Woodford Ave N E James St to E George St 0.40 E 11 9 18%

N State Ave to Woodford Ave S 8 5 38% E George St 0.41 N N 8 7 13% W 16 12 25% Clark Ave N E Temperance St to Cedar St 0.43 E 15 10 33% W 13 2 85% 2nd Ave S W Saar St to W Titus St 0.45 E 7 1 86% S 18 10 44% W Saar St 2nd Ave S to 1st Ave S 0.47 N 14 13 7% W 7 6 14% Woodford Ave N E George St to baseball field 0.47 E 0 0 W 12 5 58% Clark Ave N Cedar St to E James St 0.48 E 22 17 23% S 6 0 100% W Gowe St 5th/6th Ave S to 4th Ave S 0.49 N 11 3 73% S 5 4 20% W Saar St 3rd Ave S to 2nd Ave S 0.53 N 27 24 11% Total 468 194 Source: Transportation Consulting Services, 2018. Note: Parking inventory and occupancy collected June 21, 2018 on block faces selected by City of Kent.

There are a total of 274 occupied and 194 unoccupied parking spaces for these unrestricted parking spaces during the period of peak parking occupancy.

Based on the existing Sounder ridership and estimated mode of access data as presented in Appendix B, Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum, total Sounder parking demand is approximately 1,110 vehicles. With the 996 parking spaces provided for Sound Transit use, roughly 114 vehicles belonging to Sounder riders are estimated to be parked on nearby streets or non-Sound Transit parking lots.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-13 Section 4 • Affected Environment

4.2.8 Safety Crash data were obtained from WSDOT for the study area for the three years between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Intersection crash rates are calculated as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) and segment crash rates are calculated as the number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). The locations, volumes, crash severity, and crash rates are summarized for intersections in Table 6 and for segments in Table 7. The majority of crashes on segments and intersections resulted in property damage only. There were no fatalities during the three year time period in the study area.

The busy intersections of Central Avenue North & East Smith Street, Central Avenue North & East James Street, and 4th Avenue North & West James Street had the highest crash rates over the three-year period.

Within the study area, the segments with the highest crash rates are Railroad Avenue North between East Pioneer Street and East Smith Street, and Central Avenue North between East James Street and East George Street.

Table 6 Intersection Crashes by Severity (January 2015-December 2017) Intersection Number of Crashes by Severity Average Crash Daily Property Rate per ID Location Traffic Fatality Injuries Damage Total MEV Only 1 4th Ave N & W James St 26,240 0 20 32 52 1.81 2 1st Ave N & W James St 16,330 0 1 8 9 0.50 3 Railroad Ave N & E James St 19,250 0 0 0 0 0.00 4 Central Ave N & E James St 38,860 0 31 64 95 2.23 5 Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer St 3,750 0 1 0 1 0.24 6 Central Ave N & E Pioneer St 17,520 0 10 10 20 1.04 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St 32,280 0 13 17 30 0.85 8 Ramsay Way & W Smith St 18,100 0 6 14 20 1.01 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St 16,120 0 0 7 7 0.40 10 Railroad Ave N & E Smith St 14,100 0 4 12 16 1.04 11 Central Ave N & E Smith St 29,180 0 10 65 75 2.35 12 State Ave N & E Smith St 21,780 0 10 12 22 0.92 13 E Titus St & E Smith St 29,170 0 17 32 49 1.53 14 Central Ave N & E Meeker St 16,160 0 6 15 21 1.19 15 Central Ave N & E Gowe St 21,880 0 4 14 18 0.75 Source: Fehr & Peers analysis of WSDOT data, 2018. Note: Under Section 409 of Title 23 of the United State Code, crash data is prohibited from use in any litigation against state, tribal, or local government that invoices the location(s) mentioned in the crash data.

4-14 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 4 • Affected Environment

Table 7 Roadway Segment Crashes by Severity (January 2015-December 2017) Number of Crashes by Severity Average Crash Rate Roadway Segment Daily Property per MVMT Traffic Fatality Injuries Damage Total Only W James St between 5th Ave N and 4th Ave N 13,030 0 1 6 7 8.18 W James St between 4th Ave N and 1st Ave N 13,650 0 2 5 7 2.46 E James St between Railroad Ave N and Central Ave N 18,540 0 0 1 1 0.82 E James St between Central Ave N and State Ave N 21,930 0 0 3 3 2.08 E Pioneer St between Railroad Ave N and Central Ave N 1,620 0 0 1 1 9.40 W Smith St between 6th Ave N and 4th Ave N 9,060 0 0 2 2 1.34 W Smith St between 4th Ave N and Ramsay Way 11,990 0 0 3 3 1.90 W Smith St between Ramsay Way and 1st Ave N 15,490 0 0 1 1 0.98 E Smith St between 1st Ave N and Railroad Ave N 14,070 0 0 2 2 2.16 E Smith St between Railroad Ave N and Central Ave N 12,810 0 0 3 3 3.56 E Smith St between Central Ave N and State Ave N 18,400 0 1 1 2 1.65 E Smith St between State Ave N and E Titus St 22,300 0 12 31 43 9.27 E Smith St between E Titus St and Hazel Ave 27,700 0 3 5 8 2.40 4th Ave N between W Smith St and W James St 21,790 0 2 8 10 1.68 1st Ave N between W Smith St and W James St 2,310 0 0 1 1 1.65 Railroad Ave N between E Pioneer St and E Smith St 1,500 0 0 2 2 11.07 Central Ave N between E James St and E George St 22,190 0 7 13 20 10.29 Central Ave N between E James St and E Pioneer St 17,010 0 1 3 4 1.79 Central Ave N between E Smith St and E Pioneer St 13,910 0 2 7 9 5.37 Central Ave N between E Smith St and E Meeker St 12,290 0 3 3 6 3.72 Central Ave S between E Meeker St and E Gowe St 13,160 0 1 3 4 5.55 Central Ave S between E Gowe St and E Titus St 16,730 0 1 3 4 2.73 Source: Fehr & Peers analysis of WSDOT data, 2018. Note: Under Section 409 of Title 23 of the United State Code, crash data is prohibited from use in any litigation against state, tribal, or local government that invoices the location(s) mentioned in the crash data.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 4-15

Section 5 Long-Term Impacts

This section describes the Project’s impacts to the transportation services and facility conditions in the horizon year of 2037. The No Build Alternative serves as the baseline against which impacts of the Build Alternative are assessed. Potential mitigation measures to address identified impacts for the Build Alternative and are described in Section 8. 5.1 Roadway Network Under the 2037 No Build Alternative, the roadway configuration of the 15 study intersections would remain the same as existing conditions. Under the Build Alternative, the construction of the proposed parking garage would result in several key changes to the roadway network, as shown on Figure 5. Railroad Avenue North would be realigned to the east. This would result in shifting the intersection of Railroad Avenue North & East James Street to the east. It would also include slightly shifting and rotating the intersection of Railroad Avenue North & East Pioneer Street such that the egress from the Kent Station bus loop would connect as a fourth west leg of the intersection. A small loop would be constructed directly south of the garage to facilitate ADA-compliant parking and pick-up/drop-off activities; this roadway would be privately owned by Sound Transit. 5.2 Traffic Volumes Traffic volume forecasts were developed for the No Build and Build Alternatives based on background growth, forecasted Sounder ridership, and mode of access to Kent Station. This process included review of the Sound Transit Incremental Ridership Model which assumes buildout of the ST3 light rail network and implementation of METRO CONNECTS, King County Metro’s Long Range Plan (King County Metro, 2017; Sound Transit, 2016). Mode of access assumptions were developed using input from the ST Incremental Ridership Model, the PSRC regional travel demand model, and the limitations on certain modes, i.e. the off-street and on-street parking supply. This process is described in detail in Appendix B, Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum.

Background traffic growth was estimated using the City travel demand model. The model projects that background traffic (i.e. growth unrelated to the Project) will increase an average of one percent per year. This growth was applied to the existing traffic volumes that are unrelated to the existing Kent Station parking facility.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-1 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts

Figure 5 Garage Concept Layout

5-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 5 • Long Term Impacts

Table 8 summarizes the 2037 mode of access shares for each alternative. Because additional parking would be provided under the Build Alternative, more riders could access the station by vehicle and therefore the drive alone mode share is expected to increase compared to the No Build Alternative. Due to that mode shift, the percentage shares of carpool, pick-up/drop-off, transit, walking, and biking would decrease though the actual change in magnitude of trips for any one mode would remain fairly similar between No Build and Build. This is discussed in detail in Appendix B, Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum. These mode shares were applied to the 2037 ridership forecasts and the resulting trip generation by mode was added to the 2037 background traffic.

Table 8 Sounder Passenger Mode of Access – 2037 No Build and Build Alternatives Access Mode 2037 No Build 2037 Build Drive Alone 35% 46% Carpool/Vanpool 13% 11% Pick-up/Drop-off (by vehicle) 14% 11% Transit 20% 16% Pedestrians 14% 12% Bicycles 5% 4% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Vehicle trip distribution was developed using license plate survey data collected by Sound Transit in 2014 at the existing Kent Station garage as well as traffic count comparisons. The resulting distribution is displayed in Figure 6. Traffic assignment was further refined for each garage to recognize that riders to the east would be more likely to choose the garage on the east side of the railroad tracks while riders to the west would be more likely to choose the garage on the west side of the railroad tracks.

The volume forecasts were prepared prior to the decision to convert the 49-space surface parking lot on 1st Avenue North to bus layover. King County Metro estimates a maximum of 26 hourly bus movements in and out of the layover space. The traffic generated by the Sounder users who would have otherwise used the parking lot is estimated to be slightly lower (about 18 total hourly in and out movements). Some of the displaced Sounder riders would continue to drive but would park elsewhere (off-street or on-street) while others would shift modes to pickup/dropoff, transit, walking, or biking.

While the change in use would result in slightly different travel patterns immediately surrounding the Kent Station, the difference is expected to be very minimal, particularly over the course of an hour and in comparison to the overall traffic volumes. Therefore, the traffic operations findings described in the following section are expected to be representative of conditions with the surface parking lot converted to bus layover.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-3 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts

Figure 6 Parking Garage Trip Distribution

5-4 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 5 • Long Term Impacts

5.2.1 Traffic Operations Consistent with the existing conditions analysis, the traffic operations analyses for the Build and No Build Alternatives were conducted for the peak 15 minutes of the AM and PM peak periods, representing a worst-case condition associated with the arrival of a Sounder train.

A traffic operations impact is identified if:

▪ at non-SR 516 intersections, the Build Alternative operates at LOS F and causes an increase of delay of more than 10 seconds compared to the No Build Alternative; or

▪ at SR 516 intersections, the Build Alternative exceeds WSDOT’s LOS E standard where the No Build meets the LOS E standard, or the Build Alternative causes an increase in delay of more than 10 seconds where the No Build operates below LOS E.

The Build and No Build AM peak period intersection LOS and average delay are shown in Table 9. The Project is not expected to result in any traffic impacts during the AM 15-minute peak period. Although two intersections are projected to operate at LOS F under the Build Alternative, these do not constitute impacts because the increase in delay compared to the No Build Alternative does not exceed the 10 second threshold. At Central Avenue North & East James Street, the SimTraffic microsimulation model suggests that the average peak period queue of westbound vehicles waiting to turn left onto southbound Central Avenue North would extend past the turn lane which is about 270 feet in length. This would be exacerbated due to increased demand from vehicles from the residential areas to the east destined to the new garage. Although operation at this intersection does not meet the threshold for a project impact, potential improvements to address this queuing are identified in Section 8, Potential Mitigation Measures because the queuing would affect operations along the East James St corridor. Additional queuing information for the Build Alternative is provided in Appendix C, Queuing Reports.

The Build and No Build PM peak period intersection LOS and average delay are shown in Table 10. During the PM 15-minute peak period, four study intersections as well as the new driveways and pick-up/drop-off loop intersections are projected to operate at LOS F. However, the only location that would meet the impact threshold would be the intersection of Railroad Avenue North & East James Street. Similar to the existing intersection, the analysis assumes that the northbound approach of the realigned intersection would be restricted to right-turn-only, so the additional delay is attributed entirely to the increase in northbound right turning vehicles that would occur with the Project. The other intersections are projected to operate at LOS F under the No Build Alternative, with average delay higher than or similar to the Build Alternative.

The main areas of congestion are expected to occur along northbound and southbound Railroad Avenue North, as traffic exiting the garage travels through side-street stop controlled intersections to turn onto East James Street and East Smith Street. Although operation at the Railroad Avenue North & East Smith Street intersection does not meet the threshold for a project impact, potential improvements to reduce queues on Railroad Avenue North are identified in Section 8. Potential Mitigation Measures because the queuing would affect operations at the transit center, and garage and business access driveways along this segment. Additional queuing information for the Build Alternative is provided in Appendix C, Queuing Reports. Information on lane geometries and signal timing may be found in Appendix E, Synchro Worksheets.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-5 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts

The realignment of Railroad Avenue North to the east would shorten the distance between its intersection with East James Street and the Central Avenue North intersection. Some vehicles making the northbound right turn from Railroad Avenue North onto East James Street would attempt to merge into the eastbound through lanes, and perhaps the eastbound left turn lane, rather than stay in the eastbound right turn lane. Shifting the Railroad Avenue North/East James Street intersection to the east would shorten the distance available to vehicles to make that lane change. This could cause operational concerns, particularly during the PM peak period.

Table 9 Intersection Level of Service – No Build and Build Alternatives – AM Peak Period 2037 No LOS Existing 2037 Build ID Location Traffic Control Build Standard LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 4th Ave N & W James St Signal F C 24 C 22 C 31 2 1st Ave N & W James St Side-street stop F B 15 B 11 B 11 Railroad Ave N & E 3 Side-street stop F A 2 A 3 C 20 James St Central Ave N & E 4 Signal F F 92 F 124 F 125 James St Railroad Ave N & E Side-street stop 5 F A 4 A 7 A 7 Pioneer St (All-way stop in Build) Central Ave N & E 6 Signal F A 8 A 7 A 8 Pioneer St 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St Signal F C 24 C 25 C 23 Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N 8 Signal F B 12 B 20 B 19 & W Smith St 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St Side-street stop F A 5 A 6 A 6 Railroad Ave N & E 10 Side-street stop F C 25 E 36 D 30 Smith St Central Ave N & E Smith 11 Signal E D 44 E 55 E 61 St (SR 516) State Ave N & E Smith 12 Signal E F 84 F 95 F 83 St (SR 516) E Titus St & E Smith St 13 Signal E C 26 C 31 C 34 (SR 516) Central Ave N (SR 516) 14 Signal E A 8 B 18 C 28 & E Meeker St Central Ave N (SR 516) 15 Signal E C 31 C 29 D 53 & E Gowe St New Garage Eastern 16 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A A 8 Driveway New Garage Southern 17 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A A 1 Driveway Railroad Ave N & 18 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A A 6 Garage Loop Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Notes: Delay presented in average seconds per vehicle. Cells highlighted in grey denote an impact.

5-6 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 5 • Long Term Impacts

Table 10 Intersection Level of Service – No Build and Build Alternatives – PM Peak Period 2037 No LOS Existing 2037 Build ID Location Traffic Control Build Standard LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 4th Ave N & W James 1 Signal F C 27 E 58 D 45 St 1st Ave N & W James 2 Side-street stop F D 30 D 34 C 20 St Railroad Ave N & E 3 Side-street stop F A 3 A 6 F >150 James St Central Ave N & E 4 Signal F E 61 F 106 F 103 James St Side-street stop Railroad Ave N & E 5 (All-way stop in F A 5 F 108 F 91 Pioneer St Build) Central Ave N & E 6 Signal F A 7 C 29 C 34 Pioneer St 4th Ave N & W Smith 7 Signal F C 22 C 26 C 27 St Ramsay Way/2nd Ave 8 Signal F C 22 C 21 C 24 N & W Smith St 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St Side-street stop F A 6 A 7 A 8 Railroad Ave N & E 10 Side-street stop F D 26 F >150 F >150 Smith St Central Ave N & E 11 Signal E D 51 E 67 E 56 Smith St (SR 516) State Ave N & E Smith 12 Signal E B 10 C 25 C 24 St (SR 516) E Titus St & E Smith St 13 Signal E B 18 C 27 C 26 (SR 516) Central Ave N (SR 516) 14 Signal E B 13 C 23 C 25 & E Meeker St Central Ave N (SR 516) 15 Signal E B 17 C 24 C 35 & E Gowe St New Garage Eastern 16 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A F >150 Driveway New Garage Southern 17 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A F >150 Driveway Railroad Ave N & 18 Side-street stop N/A N/A N/A F 67 Garage Loop Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Notes: Delay presented in average seconds per vehicle. Cells highlighted in grey denote an impact.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 display the LOS results for No Build and Build, respectively.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-7 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts

Figure 7 Intersection Level of Service – No Build Alternative (2037)

5-8 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 5 • Long Term Impacts

Figure 8 Intersection Level of Service – Build Alternative (2037)

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-9 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts

5.2.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled The Project’s effect on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was evaluated based on the vehicle trip generation forecasts and the average distance of each type of trip. Details of this evaluation are included in Appendix D, VMT Evaluation. There are two types of changes that were considered:

▪ Increase in vehicle trips accessing Kent Station – the Build Alternative would result in a net increase of vehicle trips to Kent Station from the surrounding area due to the increased parking supply. Using the 2014 Sound Transit license plate survey data, the average distance for these types of trips was estimated to be 4.3 miles. Due to the projected increase in vehicle trips accessing Kent Station (approximately 710 trips per day), the Project is estimated to result in an increase of approximately 3,040 VMT.

▪ Shift from vehicle to Sounder trips – due to the increased parking supply, the Build Alternative would result in a net increase in riders using the Sounder from Kent Station rather than traveling to and from their destinations in another way such as driving. Using the most recent Sound Transit rider survey data, the average distance for these types of trips was estimated to be 19.7 miles. Due to the projected shift in trips from vehicles to Sounder trains (approximately 275 trips per day), the Project is estimated to result in a decrease of 5,420 VMT.

Combining the opposing effects described above, the Build Alternative is expected to result in a net decrease of 2,380 VMT. Therefore, the Build Alternative is not expected to result in impacts to regional VMT. 5.2.3 Bus Routes The Project is not expected to affect the routes or frequencies of bus service provided at Kent Station. Although the Project would result in a minor reconfiguration of the transit center bus loop, the number of active bus bays and layover spaces expected to remain the same. As described in Section 5.2.1, Traffic Operations, the Project is expected to result in a traffic operational impact during the PM peak period at Railroad Avenue North & East James Street in the vicinity of the transit center, and therefore could result in impacts to bus speed and reliability at this location. Mitigation measures presented in Section 8 to improve traffic operations would also benefit buses that travel through the improved locations. 5.2.4 Freight As described in Section 5.2.1, Traffic Operations, no operational impacts are identified along the classified freight corridor (SR 516, a T-2 freight corridor) located within the study area. The Project is expected to result in a traffic operational impact during the PM peak period at Railroad Avenue North & East James Street, and therefore could result in impacts to freight speed and reliability at this location. Mitigation measures presented in Section 8 to improve traffic operations would also benefit freight trucks that travel through the improved locations. The Project would have no effect on freight rail operation. 5.2.5 Rail Transportation No changes to rail transportation are expected as a result of the Build Alternative.

5-10 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 5 • Long Term Impacts

5.2.6 Non-motorized Transportation Pedestrian access modifications would be made as part of the realignment of Railroad Avenue North and construction of the pick-up/drop-off loop. All pedestrian facilities within the reconstructed area would be designed to meet ADA requirements. This would include improvements along the west side of Railroad Avenue North between East James Street and East Pioneer Street and the east side of Railroad Avenue North between East Pioneer Street and East Smith Street which do not currently have sidewalks. The Project would also generate increased vehicle volumes to and from Kent Station. However, with the pedestrian-oriented design and improvements, it is expected that the pedestrian environment at Kent Station would improve and no impacts to pedestrians are expected.

The Project also includes a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curb ramps that are ADA compliant, and rapid flashing beacons at the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N. At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, improvements include installing a painted curb extension, rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median in W Smith Street with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are ADA compliant. These projects would allow pedestrians to cross at these locations more safely; however, they also have an impact on vehicle traffic. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) can be activated at any time by a pedestrian, temporarily stopping the flow of traffic while the pedestrian crosses the roadway. Because the RRFBs are pedestrian-activated, they cannot be coordinated with adjacent traffic signals. Therefore, the RRFBs could be activated when traffic on W Smith Street or W James Street is already stopped by signals, but other times could stop the flow of moving traffic adding delay to cars and buses.

At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers and bike racks. Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers and tend to have higher utilization than bike lockers. In collaboration with King County Metro, bus shelters would be installed in certain locations where there are high ridership boardings. These projects are not expected to result in any impacts. 5.2.7 Parking The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the new garage would have approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage, an increase of approximately 415 off-street designated Sound Transit spaces.

A small number of on-street spaces along Railroad Avenue North may be replaced by bus bays or layover spaces. Approximately seven parking spaces on northbound Railroad Avenue North between East Pioneer Street and the Sound Transit parking lot would be lost due to realignment of Railroad Avenue North (not because of bus bays or layover). Approximately eight additional spaces on northbound Railroad Avenue North between East Smith Street and East Pioneer Street would be lost if King County decides to include a northbound RapidRide stop in this location. Note that most businesses in this area have off-street parking lots.

Parking demand was estimated based on the forecasted ridership and modes of access. A comparison of existing and forecasted parking demand with parking supply at Kent Station facilities is presented in Table 11. The parking demand is based on the vehicle trip generation

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 5-11 Section 5 • Long-Term Impacts estimates relative to ridership, mode split, and survey information about how transit riders shift their travel modes if they are unable to find parking at their preferred location. See Appendix B, Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum for more detailed discussion.

Table 11 2037 Parking Demand 2037 2018 No Build Alternative Build Alternative Sounder Parking Demand 1,110 1,160 1,559 Sound Transit Parking Facility Supply 996 996 1,411 Excess Parking Demand (spillover to 114 164 148 streets) Source: Existing data collected by Transportation Consulting Services, 2018.

Under the No Build Alternative, on-street parking demand generated by Sounder riders is expected to be approximately 164 vehicles. Under the Build Alternative, on-street parking demand is expected to be approximately 148 vehicles. Although the new garage would provide capacity that exceeds the No Build on-street parking demand, it is assumed that there would still be Sounder riders that use nearby on-street parking because it may be more convenient than other access options and the garage is expected to be at capacity.

Future excess parking demand from Sounder riders is expected to be 34 to 50 spaces (for Build and No Build, respectively) higher than existing excess demand. This demand increase could be absorbed by the approximately 194 unoccupied unrestricted parking spaces on the studied block faces. However, as changes in city land use increases demand of the on-street unrestricted parking spaces, the occupancy of on-street unrestricted spaces would increase and there would be more competition for those spaces.

Because the demand for on-street parking is expected to be less under the Build Alternative than under the No Build Alternative, the Project is not expected to result in an impact to parking. 5.2.8 Safety The creation of new driveways and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the garage would introduce new potential conflict points in the study area. However, the Railroad Avenue realignment, driveway intersections, and mitigation improvements would be built according to City design standards and no other changes to the study area roadways would occur. Statistically, increases in traffic volumes also increase the number of potential vehicle conflicts, which in turn may increase the potential for crashes, but all project elements would be designed to meet safety standards and collision rates themselves are not expected to increase as a result of the garage. Therefore, crash rates at the 15 study intersections are expected to be similar between the No Build and Build Alternatives. With project elements designed to meet safety standards coupled with the proposed pedestrians improvements, the project is not expected to result in safety impacts.

5-12 Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Section 6 Construction Sequencing and Impacts

This section discusses potential transportation mobility impacts resulting from the construction of the Project. The construction approach would be refined as the design evolves. Construction impacts identified in this section are estimated based on the level of design completed to date. 6.1 Construction Duration and Phasing Construction of the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project is estimated to last for approximately 18 to 24 months. Realignment of Railroad Avenue North and demolition of existing structures would take approximately 6 to 8 months. Construction of the garage would take approximately 12 to 16 months.

A one-block section of Railroad Avenue North would first be realigned to accommodate sufficient space for the new parking garage and to facilitate traffic flow and maintain local traffic patterns. Once this is accomplished, site preparation would occur. Following this, excavation would occur and foundation installation activities would take place. Above-ground levels of the parking structure would then be constructed.

Typical equipment operating during the construction process would include graders, excavators, backhoes, loaders, drill rigs, cranes, dump trucks, concrete trucks, delivery trucks, compactors, and demolition equipment. Intermittent closures of adjacent sidewalks and roads, and detours, likely would be required. Closures and detours of Railroad Avenue North from East Pioneer Street to East James Street would be likely for the realignment. In addition, intermittent lane closures on East James Street could be required. 6.2 Construction Impacts As part of construction planning and permitting, Sound Transit and the City would work to minimize the duration and impact of lane closures and reductions by (a) maintaining through- traffic, where practical; (b) establishing detour routes on nearby arterials for short-duration closures; and (c) maintaining traffic management systems.

Construction activities could result in vehicle trips and parking generated by construction employees, vehicle trips and parking generated by construction activities, and lane and/or sidewalk closures adjacent to construction activities. Most construction-related truck trips are expected to travel to and from the study area from SR 167 or SR 516 and then use city streets to access the Project site. Mitigation measures to address construction-related impacts are discussed in Section 8.3 Construction Mitigation.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 6-1 Section 6 • Construction Sequencing and Impacts

Construction activity for the new parking garage would displace the existing 70 parking spaces on the Sound Transit owned surface parking lot just east of Railroad Avenue North, the 7 ADA parking spaces immediately north of the platform, and existing on-street parking along Railroad Avenue North between East James Street and East Pioneer Street. Impacts on parking during construction would be minimized through construction phasing and provision of temporary parking. As part of project requirements, parking for construction workers would be provided by the contractor at an off-site, off-street location. Mitigation measures to address construction- related parking impacts are discussed in Section 8.3 Construction Mitigation.

6-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Section 7 Indirect and Secondary Impacts

Indirect impacts are “caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”

The completion of the Project would improve access to Kent Station. The increase in parking spaces would make using Kent Station more convenient and, thus, would result in an increase in ridership on the Sounder commuter train. More people riding the train could result in less growth in commuter‐related congestion on roads that serve employment centers, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions related to commuter-trips would also be reduced compared to the condition without the project.

One of the purposes of the Project is to alleviate parking issues at the Kent Sounder Station, which could result in a beneficial indirect impact with regards to parking in the surrounding area. Therefore, no indirect impacts are expected from the Project.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 7-1

Section 8 Potential Mitigation Measures

This section describes the potential mitigation measures to reduce transportation impacts resulting from the Project. 8.1 Potential Traffic Improvement Measures As described in Section 5, the following long-term operations impacts are expected to be caused by the Project:

▪ Traffic Operations – PM peak period intersection impact at the Railroad Avenue North & East James St intersection. A secondary effect would be a long northbound queue that could extend beyond the garage driveways and interfere with their operation.

This impact would affect bus and freight traffic along with general purpose traffic. In addition to the above impact, the analysis identified potential queuing effects at the westbound left turn pocket at East James Street & Central Avenue North during the AM peak period, and southbound on Railroad Avenue North at East Smith Street during the PM peak period. Lastly, the analysis identified a potential issue caused by the short weave section on eastbound East James Street resulting from the Railroad Avenue North realignment. Table 12 and Figure 9 summarize mitigation measures to improve operations and queuing conditions at these locations. Final mitigation for all traffic impacts would be determined in conjunction with the City.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 8-1 Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Table 12 Potential Mitigation Measures LOS Impact Mitigation Measure

Prohibit eastbound left turns from the garage’s eastern driveway and pick- up/drop-off loop and reconfigure the east and west legs of Central Ave PM peak period intersection North/East Pioneer St to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared impact at Railroad Ave North & through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective+permissive East James St intersection eastbound and westbound left-turn phases. This would address the Railroad Ave North/East James St impact by rerouting northbound garage-generated and pick-up/drop-off traffic to East Pioneer St/Central Ave North.

Traffic Operations Concern Mobility Enhancement

Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements from Southbound queuing on Railroad Railroad Ave North/East Smith St, which would reduce the southbound Ave N approaching East Smith St queue on Railroad Ave North. Depending on King County Metro’s preferred routing, buses could be excluded from this turn prohibition. Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length at Central Ave North/East James St as much as possible without taking property. Along with signal timing changes, this would help accommodate the increase in westbound left Westbound queuing on East James turns generated by the Project. Potential restrictions to turn movements at St approaching Central Ave North State Ave North and the Mill Creek Middle School parking lot would need to be considered. Based upon a review of aerial imagery, an additional 55 feet of turn pocket length was tested in the microsimulation, but the specific distance that could be added is unknown pending further design review.

Install a “type c” curb on East James St between the eastbound left turn pocket and the adjacent through lane. With the relocation of Railroad Ave Short weave section created by North closer to the Central Ave North intersection, c-curb would prohibit shifting Railroad Ave North closer northbound right turning traffic from Railroad Ave North from attempting to to East James St/Central Ave North weave across multiple lanes of traffic to the left-turn lane. Station-generated intersection traffic destined for Central Ave North to the north of East James Street would need to exit the station area via Pioneer Street.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.

8-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Figure 9 Potential Mitigation Measures and Mobility Enhancements

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 8-3 Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Microsimulation modeling was conducted evaluate traffic operations with these mitigation measures and mobility enhancements in place. Those results are summarized in Table 13 and Table 14 as well as Figure 10. With the recommended measures in place, the modeling indicates that the traffic impact would be mitigated. Key locations are described below:

▪ East James Street/Railroad Avenue North – the PM peak period LOS would improve from LOS F to LOS E and the average northbound queue would decrease from 375 feet to 100 feet which would eliminate blocking of the garage entrance and drop-off/pick-up access points. The rerouted traffic would travel via East Pioneer Street to Central Avenue North. During the PM peak period, eastbound East Pioneer Street is expected to queue back to Railroad Avenue North. The delays stemming from that queue are captured in the simulation results which indicate the East Pioneer Street/Railroad Avenue North intersection would operate at LOS E. Although increased volumes of traffic would travel through the East Pioneer Street/Central Avenue North intersection, with the proposed modifications (exclusive left turn lanes with protected and permissive left turn phases) in place, only a one second increase in delay is expected compared to the No Build.

▪ East Smith Street/Railroad Avenue North – the average southbound queue would decrease from 450 feet to 150 feet which would eliminate blocking of the bus loop entrance. Note that for side street stop control intersections, the results for the approach with the highest delay is reported. Because the northbound approach would still operate with high delay (unrelated to the project), the PM peak period LOS is reported as LOS F with greater than 150 seconds.

▪ East James Street/Central Avenue North – the percentage of time the westbound left turn pocket would be blocked by westbound through traffic or that westbound through traffic would be blocked by spillback from the left turn pocket would decrease.

Additional queuing information for the Build and Mitigated Build Alternatives may be found in Appendix C, Queuing Reports. Information on lane geometries and signal timing may be found in Appendix E, Synchro Worksheets.

8-4 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Table 13 Intersection Level of Service – Mitigated Build Alternative – AM Peak Period 2037 2037 No Traffic LOS 2037 Build Mitigated ID Location Build Control Standard Build LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 4th Ave N & W James St Signal F C 22 C 31 C 30 Side-street 2 1st Ave N & W James St F B 11 B 11 B 12 stop Side-street 3 Railroad Ave N & E James St F A 3 C 20 B 14 stop 4 Central Ave N & E James St Signal F F 124 F 125 F 131 Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer All-way 5 F A 7 A 7 A 10 St stop Central Ave N & E Pioneer 6 Signal F A 7 A 8 B 19 St 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St Signal F C 25 C 23 C 24 Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N & 8 Signal F B 20 B 19 B 18 W Smith St Side-street 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St F A 6 A 6 A 6 stop Side-street 10 Railroad Ave N & E Smith St F E 36 D 30 C 24 stop 11 Central Ave N & E Smith St Signal E E 55 E 61 E 61 12 State Ave N & E Smith St Signal E F 95 F 83 F 86 13 E Titus St & E Smith St Signal E C 31 C 34 C 31 Central Ave N & E Meeker 14 Signal E B 18 C 28 C 22 St 15 Central Ave N & E Gowe St Signal E C 29 D 53 D 48 New Garage Eastern Side-street 16 N/A N/A A 8 A 2 Driveway stop New Garage Southern Side-street 17 N/A N/A A 1 A 5 Driveway stop Railroad Ave N & Garage Side-street 18 N/A N/A A 6 A 3 Loop stop Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Notes: 1. Delay presented in average seconds per vehicle. 2. For intersection 6, the results shown above reflect improvements to only the west leg of the intersection. Improving the east leg in the same manner was negotiated with the City of Kent following this analysis.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 8-5 Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Table 14 Intersection Level of Service – Mitigated Build Alternative – PM Peak Period 2037 2037 No Traffic LOS 2037 Build Mitigated ID Location Build Control Standard Build LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 4th Ave N & W James St Signal F E 58 D 45 D 40 Side-street 2 1st Ave N & W James St F D 34 C 20 C 19 stop Side-street 3 Railroad Ave N & E James St F A 6 F >150 E 40 stop 4 Central Ave N & E James St Signal F F 106 F 103 F 81 All-way 5 Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer St F F 108 F 91 E 47 stop 6 Central Ave N & E Pioneer St Signal F C 29 C 34 C 35 7 4th Ave N & W Smith St Signal F C 26 C 27 C 26 Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N & W 8 Signal F C 21 C 24 C 22 Smith St Side-street 9 1st Ave N & W Smith St F A 7 A 8 A 9 stop Side-street 10 Railroad Ave N & E Smith St F F >150 F >150 F >1502 stop 11 Central Ave N & E Smith St Signal E E 67 E 56 E 61 12 State Ave N & E Smith St Signal E C 25 C 24 C 32 13 E Titus St & E Smith St Signal E C 27 C 26 C 27 14 Central Ave N & E Meeker St Signal E C 23 C 25 C 30 15 Central Ave N & E Gowe St Signal E C 24 C 35 D 55 Side-street 16 New Garage Eastern Driveway N/A N/A F >150 C 23 stop New Garage Southern Side-street 17 N/A N/A F >150 E 42 Driveway stop Side-street 18 Railroad Ave N & Garage Loop N/A N/A F 67 D 26 stop Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Notes: 1. Delay presented in average seconds per vehicle. Cells highlighted in grey denote an impact. 2. For side street stop control intersections, the results for the approach with the highest delay is reported. In the No Build and Build scenarios, both northbound and southbound delay is expected to exceed 150 seconds. With mitigation, the southbound queue and delay would decrease substantially. However, because the northbound approach would still operate with high delay (unrelated to the project), the PM peak period LOS is reported as LOS F with greater than 150 seconds. 3. For intersection 6, the results shown above reflect changes to only the west leg of the intersection. Improving the east leg in the same manner was negotiated with the City of Kent following this analysis.

8-6 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

Figure 10 Intersection Level of Service – Build Alternative with Mitigation

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 8-7 Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

8.2 Other Mitigation Measures No additional long-term impacts beyond the traffic operations impacts described above were identified for transit, freight, rail transportation, non-motorized transportation, parking, or safety. Therefore, no further mitigation is required. 8.3 Construction Mitigation Sound Transit would finalize construction plans in coordination with the City during the final design and permitting phases of the Project. All construction mitigation measures would comply with local regulations governing construction traffic control and construction truck routing. Potential mitigation measures for all modes during construction could include the following practices: 8.3.1 Traffic Operations ▪ Develop the Maintenance of Traffic Plan to conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2012) and to jurisdictional agency requirements for traffic control. The Maintenance of Traffic Plan would be required as part of contract specifications and would address all travel modes (motorized, non-motorized, transit) at final design for approval and implementation during construction. This plan would include construction drawings establishing physical and operating characteristics for staging, access, lane or shoulder closures and transitions; haul routes, traffic management, detours, lane modifications, and other construction zones or activities; outreach; change management; communication between Sound Transit, the City, and the contractor; emergency notifications; contractor parking; and movement between the work area and the staging area. The plan would incorporate established guidance for best practices to be applied during construction periods, many of which would be focused on reducing congestion impacts and minimizing safety hazards. For example, typical measures would include providing signage, communicating traveler advisories, installing special lighting for work zones and travel lanes, scheduling work during reduced travel periods, and establishing contractor requirements. Should there be construction activities within 25 feet of the railway, the plan will address rail operations and coordination.

▪ Use lighted or reflective signage to direct drivers to truck haul routes to ensure visibility during nighttime work hours.

▪ Communicate public information about construction activities via print, radio, posted signs, websites, email, and direct communication with other agencies and affected parties to provide information regarding any required street closures, hours of construction, business access, and parking impacts.

▪ Coordinate access closures with affected businesses and residents. The contractor would be required to perform this task in coordination with Sound Transit staff. If access closures are required, then property access to residences and businesses would be maintained to the extent possible. If access to the property could not be maintained, the specific construction activity would be reviewed to determine if it could occur during non-business hours, or if

8-8 Transportation Technical Report – Kent Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

the parking spaces and users of the affected access (for example, deliveries) could be provided at an alternative location.

▪ Provide detour, open for business, and other signage as appropriate.

▪ Post advance notice signs prior to construction in areas where surface construction activities would affect access to surrounding businesses.

▪ Provide regular updates to schools, in particular Mill Creek Middle School which is located just east of the Project site. Assist public school officials in providing advance and ongoing notice to students and parents concerning construction activity near schools. Mill Creek Middle School is bounded by East James St, Central Avenue North, and East Pioneer Street, some of which could be affected by traffic mitigation projects.

▪ Provide regular updates to emergency service providers, local agencies, solid waste utilities, and postal services.

▪ Schedule traffic lane closures and high volumes of construction truck traffic during off-peak hours to minimize delays during periods of higher traffic volumes as much as possible.

▪ Cover potholes and open trenches, where possible, and use protective barriers to protect drivers from open trenches. 8.3.2 Parking Construction activity for the new parking garage would displace the existing 70 parking spaces on the Sound Transit owned surface parking lot just east of Railroad Avenue North, the existing 49 parking spaces on the Sound Transit owned surface parking lot just east of 1st Avenue North, and the 7 ADA parking spaces immediately north of the platform. To mitigate the temporary loss of Sounder parking spaces during construction, Sound Transit would coordinate with the City and transit providers to develop and implement plans for replacement parking and alternative access measures. Mitigation measures would include the following, as appropriate or other measures developed in coordination with the City and Sound Transit:

▪ Lease parking lots and/or new parking areas near Kent Station. Potential replacement lots would be within walking distance of transit to access Kent Station.

▪ Redirect transit riders who use the Sounder surface lots to nearby park-and-ride lots. In particular, the King County James Street Park & Ride, located a half mile west of Kent Station, has more than 700 spaces, providing opportunities to park, on a typical day.

▪ Inform passengers about changes to parking space by using signage, website information, rider information systems, emails, and agency mailing lists.

▪ Require the contractor to provide off-street parking areas for construction workers. This may include providing remote parking with shuttle service to and from the construction site if sufficient on-site parking cannot be provided.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 8-9 Section 8 • Potential Mitigation Measures

8.3.3 Summary With implementation of best practices to reduce the temporary disruption to the transportation system, construction impacts would not be adverse.

8-10 Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Section 9 Reference List

City of Kent. 2008. Transportation Master Plan. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=3338.

City of Kent. 2013. Downtown Subarea Action Plan. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=4854.

City of Kent. 2014. Right Size Parking Kent Policy Pilot Project – Parking Management Technical Memo.

City of Kent. 2015. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=6393.

City of Kent. 2016. City of Kent Functional Classification of Public Roads. Accessed: October 24, 2018. Available at: https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=4038.

City of Kent. 2018. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2018-2023. Accessed: May 17, 2018. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kent/.

Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf.

King County Metro. 2017. Metro Connects Long-Range Plan. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B44RYEx3kgpoZUJqbXVScnR4cjg/view.

King County Metro. 2018. Schedules & Maps webpage. Accessed: May 16, 2018. Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/schedules-maps.aspx.

Sound Transit. 2008. Sound Transit 2, A Mass Transit Guide, The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/sound-transit-2.

Sound Transit. 2016. Sound Transit 3, The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20Library%20Featured/8- 22-16/ST3_System-Plan_2016_web.pdf.

Sound Transit. 2017. Kent Auburn Station Access Improvements, Baseline Conditions Summary.

Sound Transit. 2018a. Routes & Schedules webpage. Accessed: May 16, 2018. Available at: https://www.soundtransit.org/schedules.

Sound Transit. 2018b. 2018 Service Implementation Plan. Accessed: June 21, 2018. Available at: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2018-service-implementation-plan.pdf.

Transportation Technical Report – Kent 9-1 Section 9 • Reference List

Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2005. Development Services Manual, Appendix 29, LOS Standards Set By MPOs/RTPOs for Regionally Significant (non-HSS) State Highways. Accessed: August 31, 2018. Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M3007/Appendix29.pdf.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2016. Rail Freight Corridors in Washington State map. Accessed: January 16, 2019. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/29A80533-2502-4FEA-B4B8- C66A4B87181B/0/FGTSCorridorsRailFreightCorridorsWashingtonState.pdf.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2017. Truck Freight Corridors 2017 Puget Sound Area map. Accessed: October 15, 2018. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/80F3A548-DB02-4B27-AF01- 46E656C5DCC9/0/FGTSCorridorsTruckFreightCorridorsPugetSound.pdf.

Washington State Legislature. State Environmental Policy Act. Accessed: February 1, 2019. Available at: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.21C.

9-2 Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Appendix A Transportation Methodology Technical Memorandum

Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Transportation Methodology Memo

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

September 2019

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Section 2 Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology ...... 2-1 2.1 Summary of Phase 1 Evaluation ...... 2-1 2.2 Phase 2 Transportation Analysis - Kent Station Study Area ...... 2-2 2.3 Data Collection ...... 2-2 2.4 Analysis Techniques and Models ...... 2-3 2.4.1 Overview ...... 2-3 2.4.2 Analysis Years and Scenarios ...... 2-4 2.4.3 Study Time Periods ...... 2-4 2.4.4 Travel Modes ...... 2-4 2.4.5 Ridership and Mode Split ...... 2-6 2.4.6 Traffic Volume Development ...... 2-6 2.4.7 Traffic Operations ...... 2-7 2.4.8 Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) ...... 2-8 2.4.9 Measures of Effectiveness ...... 2-8 2.4.10 Identification of Operational and Construction Impacts ...... 2-8 2.5 Documentation ...... 2-9

List of Figures

Figure 1 Kent Study Area ...... 1-4

List of Tables

Table 1 Existing Bus Routes Serving the Kent Station ...... 2-5 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ...... 2-7

Appendices

Appendix A Sounder Access Modes at Kent Station

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent i

Section 1 Introduction

This technical memorandum describes the methods that will be used in the transportation operations and construction analysis to be conducted as part of the environmental review for the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project).

The Project consists of a new parking garage and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities serving patrons of the Sounder South Rail system at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east (SEPA Checklist, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street (SEPA Checklist, Figure 2). The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls.

Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities are located adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety. As part of the final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent (City) and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. The following are the proposed amenities:

Adjacent to the project site, amenities include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage (Civil Roadway Plan and Architectural Garage Site Plan – Overall in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities include installing a painted curb extension,1 rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Smith Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers2 and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, ADA compliant crosswalk, painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N (Bicycle Improvements and RapidRide Station in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities include a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (James Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). Sound Transit and the City will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

1 Painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds. 2 Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers.

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 1-1 Section 1 • Introduction

Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements (see SEPA Checklist, Figure 7):

• At Railroad Avenue N and E James Street: o Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop-off loop. o Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases. • At Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street: o Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed. • At Central Avenue N/E James Street: o Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property. • At E James Street west of Central Avenue N: o Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses (King County Metro Layovers in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). The layover area would include approximately 8 bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411 spaces, including 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue N and approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements (SEPA Checklist, Figure 3). These include areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage. The staging area is currently identified as Sound Transit owned parcel 9179601585.

In support of sustainability, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array, and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City’s design goals of providing an aesthetically pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside a portion of construction funding for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart) would manage the

1-2 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 1 • Introduction integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide storm-water runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. Traffic improvement measures are described in Section B.14.h of the SEPA checklist. As part of the final design and the City’s permitting and approval process, identified traffic improvements will be refined in collaboration with the City.

Environmental commitments of the Project are listed in the SEPA Checklist, Attachment F, Environmental Commitments.

1-3 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 1 • Introduction

Figure 1 Kent Study Area

1-4 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 1 • Introduction

This memorandum describes the analysis used to identify potential transportation and parking impacts associated with the new parking garage along with mitigation measures, as needed. In addition to vehicular modes, impacts to other modes will be analyzed including pedestrians, bicyclists, freight, rail, and transit. Based on the analysis, proposed measures would be developed to mitigate impacts, as needed.

The analysis performed during Phase 1 led to the parking and access improvement site alternatives that were advanced to the Sound Transit Board for identification of a preferred site. On November 16, 2017, the Board considered four project site alternatives. The Board identified site 3 bounded by East Pioneer St to the south, East James St on the north, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway on the west and Central Ave North on the east as the preferred site. The preferred alternative for site 3 was selected during Phase 2. The approximate footprint of the preferred alternative is shown as the proposed parking garage in Figure 1 and is bounded on the east by a realigned Railroad Ave North which is not shown. The Board also identified that the Project would include a range of non-motorized access improvements.

Section 2 of this document focuses on the methodology to be applied for the Kent station transportation analysis. It provides information about the geographic boundaries of the study area, the data collection effort, evaluation approach for each travel mode, traffic operational analysis techniques and models, performance measures, intersection levels of service, and documentation. The operations analysis focuses on the long-term impacts of the project; it will compare the existing conditions, 2037 No-Build alternative, 2037 Build alternative, and 2037 Build alternative with mitigation. Short-term impacts that may occur during construction will be addressed qualitatively.

1-5 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent

Section 2 Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

2.1 Summary of Phase 1 Evaluation During Phase 1 of the project, four locations for the new parking structure near the Kent station were identified and evaluated. The transportation analysis focused on evaluating access and intersection level of service for existing conditions and 2023 No-Build and Build conditions. Kent Site #3 was identified as the preferred site by the Sound Transit Board on November 16, 2017.

Five intersections were identified as those most likely to be affected by construction of a new garage. Those intersections were selected based on the four garage locations under consideration during Phase 1 and included:

▪ Central Ave N & E James St

▪ Central Ave N & E Pioneer St

▪ Ramsay Way/2nd Ave N & W Smith St

▪ Railroad Ave N & E Smith St

▪ Central Ave N & E Smith St

The traffic analysis used SimTraffic 9 microsimulation software (the most recent version of the software available at the time the work was completed) and modeled the afternoon peak 15-minute period. Future trip generation combined background traffic volumes with traffic generated by the new garage. The background traffic, which would be in place independent of the new garage, was derived based on a review of the City’s travel demand model. Traffic volumes and routes for trips generated by the new garage were estimated based on the capacity of the future garage, share of vehicle unloading that occurs during the afternoon peak 15-minute period, egress routes, and regional distribution derived from a 2014 license plate survey at Sound Transit’s existing Kent garage.

Under the No-Build alternative, the intersection of Central Ave N/E James St would operate at LOS F (same as in existing conditions). The other four intersections would operate at LOS E or better. Two options were considered for Site #3 (the preferred site): one with a single access point on Railroad Ave N and one with two access points − one to Railroad Ave N and one to Central Ave N. Under both options, the most notable change to delay occurred at Railroad Ave N and E Smith St where the increase in southbound traffic would change operations from LOS E to LOS F. The model also indicated there would be queuing on northbound Railroad Ave N due to traffic trying to enter the congested E James St approach to the E James St and Central Ave N intersection. It is likely that some of those drivers would instead choose to exit the area via the Central Ave N and E Pioneer St intersection which could accommodate increased volumes while maintaining acceptable operations.

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 2-1 Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

2.2 Phase 2 Transportation Analysis - Kent Station Study Area The Kent station is located along Railroad Ave N between E James St and E Smith St, as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project would build a new parking garage north of the Kent Sounder station on the west side of a realigned Railroad Ave N.

Roadway intersections to be analyzed were developed in coordination with City staff. In addition to the roadway network near the existing and proposed station area parking garages, several other intersections are included in the traffic operations model to adequately simulate queue lengths and delays. These include the parking garage driveways’ intersections withroadways in the study area, and the railroad crossings at Smith and James Streets. The study intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 1:

1. 4th Ave N & W James St

2. 1st Ave N & W James St

3. Railroad Ave N & E James St

4. Central Ave N & E James St

5. Railroad Ave N & E Pioneer St

6. Central Ave N & E Pioneer St

7. 4th Ave N & W Smith St

8. Ramsay Way / 2nd Ave N & W Smith St

9. 1st Ave N & W Smith St

10. Railroad Ave N & E Smith St

11. Central Ave N & E Smith St

12. State Ave N & E Smith St

13. E Titus St & E Smith St

14. Central Ave N & E Meeker St

15. Central Ave N & E Gowe St 2.3 Data Collection The purpose of the data collection effort is to understand the elements that affect the operational characteristics of the transportation network. This includes physical elements such as the number of travel lanes, traffic control (e.g., stop signs or traffic signals), non-motorized amenities, and non-physical elements such as speed and the vehicular volumes on the road at a given time. Data will be collected for the following components of the project:

2-2 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

▪ Physical characteristics of the existing transportation network, including roadway geometry, intersection control, traffic signal timing and phasing patterns, speed limits, bus stop locations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and on-street parking. Traffic signal information will be obtained from the City of Kent. All other physical characteristics of the transportation network will be obtained through a combination of aerial imagery and field observation.

▪ Turning movement counts will be collected at the study intersection locations identified in Figure 1. Counts will be collected from 6:00 to 8:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Counts will include the total number of vehicles and heavy vehicles, pedestrian crossing volumes, and bicycles by approach. Typically, turning movements are aggregated into 15-minute periods, but because the Sounder train-related traffic fluctuates in shorter durations, traffic volumes will be collected in 1-minute intervals.

▪ Parking data collection will be conducted on up to 15 blocks within a roughly half-mile radius of the station to determine baseline on-street parking occupancies on blocks that are identified by city staff as currently experiencing or likely to experience hide-and-ride parking.

▪ Existing transit routes and schedules that operate in the study area will be compiled.

▪ Gate closure time that occurs when a Sounder train stops at the Kent station will be collected through field observations during both the AM and PM peak periods.

▪ Collision data for the past three years will be summarized for all study intersections and connecting segments.

▪ Funded improvements to the transportation network in the study area will be identified in coordination with the City, and transit agencies and applied to the 2037 analysis.

▪ Existing and forecast Sounder train ridership and mode of access data will be obtained from Sound Transit. 2.4 Analysis Techniques and Models 2.4.1 Overview The existing elements of the transportation network described above will be used to analyze the existing transportation system. Forecasts of 2037 conditions will be developed to analyze how the proposed project will affect the transportation system in the long term. Traffic operations models will be used to determine specific, measurable impacts to the 2037 transportation system. After the specific impacts are understood, mitigation measures will be developed to address impacts, and the traffic operations models will be used to confirm that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective. In addition to identification of long-term impacts, short-term construction impacts will also be evaluated at a qualitative level. The following sections describe the methodology used to determine direct and cumulative impacts on transportation.

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 2-3 Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

2.4.2 Analysis Years and Scenarios The transportation analysis will focus on the following time periods and scenarios:

▪ Existing Conditions – 2018

▪ Design Year – 2037

• No-Build Alternative

• Build Alternative

• Build Alternative with Mitigation 2.4.3 Study Time Periods The analysis will include both the morning and evening commute periods. The project is likely to cause greater impacts to the local transportation system during the evening commute period than during the morning commute period. This is because vehicle traffic exiting the station in the evening increases substantially for short periods, following the arrival of each Sounder train as many passengers disembark from the train at one time, walk to their vehicles, and exit the garage. Moreover, during the evening commute period, background traffic is greater, leaving less capacity for project-related traffic. However, the inbound travel patterns differ from the outbound travel patterns, so this study will include both time periods.

Turning movement counts will be collected at the study intersections shown in Figure 1 from 6:00 to 8:00 am and from 4:00 to 6:00 pm. The turning movement counts and data collected in 2017 at the existing Kent garage will be used to compare the peak 15-minute periods of each commute period. Based on the 2017 garage data, the AM garage peak is 20 minutes earlier than the background traffic peak. However, the decrease in garage activity is minor, so the AM peak period will focus on the time of highest background traffic. The PM peaks for both background traffic and garage traffic occur at roughly the same time. For design year conditions, the peak of the background traffic will be combined with the peak of the garage to provide a conservative estimate of traffic operations. 2.4.4 Travel Modes The transportation networks near the Kent station support a variety of travel modes, including passenger cars, freight, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles. The rail lines support Sounder train service, freight trains, and Amtrak service. The following travel modes are included as part of this study:

▪ Vehicular traffic – traffic operations will be evaluated using microsimulation; this is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections. Travel patterns associated with the following trip types will be included in the travel forecasts:

• Background traffic – passenger and freight vehicles on the roadway network that do not access the Kent station or its garages.

2-4 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

• Park-and-ride traffic – vehicles on the roadway network that park at one of the designated Kent station parking lots.

• Kiss-and-ride or transportation network company (TNC) traffic – vehicles on the roadway network that drop-off or pick-up passengers at Kent station.

▪ Bus transit – King County Metro and Sound Transit Express bus routes that provide access to the Kent station during the morning and evening peak periods are listed in Table 1. Impacts to 2037 bus operations will be determined based on the traffic simulation findings and any effects to existing bus bay or layover space.

Table 1 Existing Bus Routes Serving the Kent Station Service Provider and Route Frequency (in minutes) Notes KCM 150 12-15 Kent Station to Southcenter to Downtown Seattle KCM 153 20-40 Kent Station to Renton TC KCM 158 30-60 Timberlane to Kent Station to Downtown Seattle KCM 159 20-40 Timberlane to Kent Station to Downtown Seattle KCM 164 20-60 Green River College to Kent Station Kent Station to Highline College to Des Moines to KCM 166 30-60 Burien TC KCM 168 30-60 Maple Valley to Kent Station KCM 169 25-60 Kent Station to Renton TC Southeast Auburn to Kent Station to Sea-Tac KCM 180 30-60 Airport to Burien TC KCM 183 30-60 Federal Way TC to Star Lake to Kent Station KCM 913 30-50 DART: Kent, Northwest Kent, North Kent KCM 952 25-35 Auburn P&R to Kennydale to Boeing Everett ST 566 10-20 Auburn to Bellevue to Overlake ST 567 20-30 Kent to Bellevue to Overlake Source: King County Metro and Sound Transit, 2018.

▪ Rail traffic – the rail lines used by the Sounder train also support freight train and Amtrak passenger service. Rail traffic delays vehicles at the Smith and James St crossings, causing congestion. Impacts to rail traffic will be discussed qualitatively.

▪ Pedestrian and bicycle travel – non-motorized transportation modes will also be included in the analysis at the study intersections. Impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel will be informed by the traffic simulation findings as well as discussed qualitatively.

In addition to the travel modes listed above, parking and safety will be addressed. On-street parking impacts will be evaluated based on the existing and forecasted demand patterns. Existing safety conditions will be documented using collision data for the past three years at all study

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 2-5 Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology intersections and connecting segments. Potential safety impacts will be evaluated based on forecasted changes in volumes at those locations. 2.4.5 Ridership and Mode Split Appendix A summarizes the data related to existing ridership volumes and the mode by which riders access the Kent station. This data, in combination with outputs from the Sound Transit Incremental Ridership model, will be used to develop ridership, mode of access, and traffic volume forecasts for the 2037 scenarios.

In 2016, roughly 1,900 passengers boarded and alighted at the Kent station each weekday. The existing park-and-ride garage typically fills early in the morning commute period. In addition to driving and parking at the station, riders also arrive to the Kent Station by several other modes of access: bus, walk, bike, and drop-off.

Based on the Sounder Access Study (2012), Sound Transit Origin & Destination Survey (2015) and ORCA transfer data (2016), Appendix A was developed showing the share of each access mode used by Sounder passengers at the Kent station. 2.4.6 Traffic Volume Development This section describes the strategy for developing traffic volumes for the study area for the existing year (2018) and future year (2037) No-Build and Build alternatives. Existing Volumes Existing year traffic volumes will be based on the turning movement counts collected in the study area. Counts collected at the driveways of the existing park-and-ride garage will be used to model the surge in traffic volumes that occur on the local system as the Sounder trains arrive and depart. 2037 Volumes Background Traffic – Traffic volumes for 2037 will be developed for a No-Build alternative and a Build alternative. The assumed growth in traffic volume of 1 percent annually (for trips unrelated to the station) will be the same for the No-Build and Build alternatives based on growth rates from the City of Kent travel demand model.

Station-Related Traffic – The Sounder train-related traffic volumes will be different between the No-Build and Build alternatives because the proposed project would increase parking capacity and traffic activity near the Kent station. For purposes of traffic analysis, all available parking in the garages will be assumed to be utilized in 2037.

Train Traffic – Currently, Sounder trains run in the peak direction at roughly 20-minute headways during the morning and evening commute periods. Sound Transit’s Incremental Ridership Model will be used to develop ridership forecasts for Sounder trains (boardings and alightings) in 2037 at the Kent station. These ridership forecasts are provided in the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum.

Pedestrian Traffic – Currently, it is estimated that 12 percent of Sounder riders access Kent Station by walking (see Appendix A). Mode of access shares for 2037 will be developed based on

2-6 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology the ST Incremental Ridership Model, the PSRC regional travel demand model, as well as inherent limitations associated with certain modes such as parking supply. These forecasts are discussed in more detail in the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum.

Bus Traffic – Currently, it is estimated that 14 percent of Sounder riders access Kent Station by bus (see Appendix A.) Mode of access shares for 2037 will be developed based on the ST Incremental Ridership Model (which is consistent with the increased bus service outlined in METRO CONNECTS, King County Metro’s Long Range Plan), the PSRC regional travel demand model, as well as inherent limitations associated with certain modes such as parking supply. These forecasts are discussed in more detail in the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum. The Project will ensure that the number of bus bays at Kent Station will maintain the existing service levels and will also strive to increase the number of bays included in the design to the extent possible. 2.4.7 Traffic Operations Level of service (LOS) is the qualitative description of traffic operations from the driver’s perspective and is defined by intersection delay. LOS ranges from A with no congestion and little delay, to F with excessive congestion and delays. This evaluation uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2 displays the intersection LOS delay thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, LOS is calculated based on the average delay of all vehicles entering the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is calculated based on the highest delay for any vehicle movement.

Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Average Delay (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0 B 10.1 – 20.0 10.1 – 15.0 C 20.1 – 35.0 15.1 – 25.0 D 35.1 – 55.0 25.1 – 35.0 E 55.1 – 80.0 35.1 – 50.0 F ≥ 80.1 ≥ 50.1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016.

Agency Thresholds The City of Kent calculates LOS for key intersections within Downtown and calculates an average delay based on weighting of the intersection volumes. Per Kent’s policy, the Downtown zone is allowed to operate at LOS F. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) sets the LOS standard for intersections along state routes. In the study area, this includes Intersections 11 through 15 which are located along SR 516 and have a LOS E standard:

▪ Central Ave N & E Smith St

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 2-7 Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

▪ State Ave N & E Smith St

▪ E Titus St & E Smith St

▪ Central Ave N & E Meeker St

▪ Central Ave N & E Gowe St

The Identification of Operational and Construction Impacts section below describes how this will translate into a threshold to determine when mitigation will be considered. Analysis Tools This study will use the SimTraffic software package (version 10) to capture the impacts of the proposed project. SimTraffic is a microsimulation model that reflects the roadway network, signal timings, and passenger vehicle, heavy vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes throughout the network. This tool allows modeling of the short duration volume surges, railroad crossings, and queue spillbacks that may occur due to the closely spaced intersections in the study area. Traffic signal timing plans will be obtained from the City of Kent and coded in the model.

The existing conditions SimTraffic model will be calibrated to reflect observed conditions in the study area. The adjusted parameters used to calibrate the existing conditions in the SimTraffic model will be held constant in the 2037 models. However, signal timings will be optimized for 2037 traffic volumes. SimTraffic provides intersection delay and LOS results. 2.4.8 Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) The effect of the Project on regional VMT (and consequently emissions) will be evaluated. Two types of changes are anticipated:

▪ A decrease in Build VMT, compared to No Build VMT, stemming from the people who would shift from driving to their destination to taking the train. This will be estimated with an average trip distance based off the license plate survey data.

▪ An increase in Build VMT, compared to No Build VMT, stemming from the additional trips between people’s homes and the new garage, also estimated based off the license plate survey data.

These changes in VMT, and the extent to which they offset one another, will be summarized to estimate the net change in regional VMT resulting from the Project. 2.4.9 Measures of Effectiveness Intersection LOS and control delay will be summarized for the morning and evening peak 15-minute period operational analyses. The difference in VMT between the No Build and Build alternatives will be evaluated. 2.4.10 Identification of Operational and Construction Impacts The following criteria will be used to identify impacts caused by the implementation of the Build alternative.

2-8 Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Section 2 • Kent Station Transportation Analysis Methodology

Operational Impacts For vehicular traffic, operational impacts will be determined by comparing LOS for the No-Build and Build alternatives during the morning and evening peak periods. Mitigation measures for the Build alternative would be evaluated if its projected level of service would do the following compared to the No-Build alternative:

▪ At non-SR 516 intersections, the Build alternative causes an increase in delay of more than 10 seconds at an intersection that operates at LOS F in the No-Build alternative for 2037; or

▪ At SR 516 intersections, the Build alternative exceeds WSDOT’s LOS E standard where the No-Build meets the LOS E standard or the Build alternative causes an increase in delay of more than 10 seconds where the No-Build operates below LOS E.

Impacts to other travel modes will be informed by the traffic operations analysis (for example, buses, TNCs, freight trucks, pedestrians and cyclists will also be affected by increased intersection delay) as well as evaluated qualitatively. Impacts to safety, parking, and VMT will also be evaluated. Construction Impacts Construction impacts on the transportation system will be evaluated qualitatively. This will include consideration of potential impacts to traffic operations, non-motorized transportation, public transportation, safety, and parking. The evaluation will consider the construction duration, volume of construction-related truck trips, and elements of the transportation system that may be affected or displaced by construction activities. Mitigation measures will be considered for any identified impacts. 2.5 Documentation This analysis will provide information about the project’s potential transportation impacts (construction, operation, and cumulative), and potential mitigation measures to address impacts associated with the Build alternative. This information will be documented through the following deliverables:

▪ LOS summaries (tables and maps) for AM and PM peak periods for four scenarios: existing conditions, 2037 No-Build alternative, 2037 Build alternative, and 2037 Build alternative with mitigation.

▪ Transportation technical report which will include the following attachments:

• Ridership/trip generation technical memorandum,

• On-street parking study summarizing parking occupancy data collected and potential future on-street parking impacts, and

• SimTraffic outputs.

▪ Environmental SEPA checklist section.

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent 2-9

Appendix A Sounder Access Modes at Kent Station

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent Appendix A • Sounder Access Modes at Kent Station

Access Mode Kent Station

Walked/Wheelchair 12% Drove Alone 51% Dropped Off 9% Carpool or Vanpool 9% Bicycled 4% Transit 14% Other 1% Source: Fehr & Peers analysis of Sounder Access Study 2012, Sound Transit Origin & Destination Survey 2015, and ORCA transfer data.

Transportation Methodology Memo - Kent

Appendix B Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum

Transportation Technical Report – Kent

Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum

401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826

September 2019

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Section 2 Existing Transportation Characteristics ...... 2-1 2.1 Existing Ridership ...... 2-1 2.2 Existing Mode of Access ...... 2-1 2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 2-2 Section 3 Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037 ...... 3-1 3.1 2037 Ridership ...... 3-1 3.2 2037 Mode of Access and Trip Generation ...... 3-1 3.2.1 2037 Build ...... 3-2 3.2.2 2037 No Build ...... 3-2 3.3 Development of Traffic Forecasts ...... 3-4 3.3.1 2037 No Build ...... 3-4 3.3.2 2037 Build ...... 3-5

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2017 ...... 2-1 Table 2-2 Sounder Access Modes at Kent Station - Existing ...... 2-2 Table 3-1 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2037 Build ...... 3-1 Table 3-2 Sounder Access Modes and Trip Generation at Kent Station – 2037 Build ...... 3-2 Table 3-3 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2037 No Build ...... 3-3 Table 3-4 Sounder Access Modes and Trip Generation at Kent Station – 2037 No Build ...... 3-3

Appendices

Appendix A Existing Turning Movement Counts Appendix B PM Trip Distribution (Phase 1)

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent i

Section 1 Introduction

This technical memorandum describes the methodology used to forecast Sounder ridership, mode of access, and trip generation for the 2037 No Build and 2037 Build scenarios for the Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project (Project). The ridership and trip generation forecasts will form the basis for the 2037 traffic analysis. Trip generation is provided for the following modes: drive alone, carpool/vanpool, pickup/dropoff, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.

The Project consists of a new parking garage and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities serving patrons of the Sounder South Rail system at the Kent Station in Kent, Washington. The site of the proposed garage (project site) is bounded by E Pioneer Street on the south, E James Street on the north, BNSF Railway on the west, and a realigned Railroad Avenue N on the east (SEPA Checklist, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Construction of the parking garage would require realignment of a portion of Railroad Avenue N between E Pioneer Street and E James Street (SEPA Checklist, Figure 2). The parking garage would have 3 levels and approximately 534 parking stalls.

Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities are located adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety. As part of the final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent (City) and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process. The following are the proposed amenities:

Adjacent to the project site, amenities include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage (Civil Roadway Plan and Architectural Garage Site Plan – Overall in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities include installing a painted curb extension,1 rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Smith Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers2 and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, ADA compliant crosswalk, painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N (Bicycle Improvements and RapidRide Station in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A).

At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities include a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (James Street Pedestrian Crossing in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). Sound Transit and the City

1 Painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds. 2 Smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 1-1 Section 1 • Introduction will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently selected to receive Sound Transit System Access Funds for these improvements.

Sound Transit proposes the following traffic-related improvements (see SEPA Checklist, Figure 7):

• At Railroad Avenue N and E James Street: o Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop-off loop. o Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases. • At Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street: o Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements except for buses if needed. • At Central Avenue N/E James Street: o Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length as much as possible without taking property. • At E James Street west of Central Avenue N: o Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane.

On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses (King County Metro Layovers in SEPA Checklist, Attachment A). The layover area would include approximately 8 bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot.

The garage would displace 70 existing surface parking spaces, and the bus layover would displace 49 existing surface parking spaces, which are both used by Sounder commuter riders. Upon completion of the Project, the total Kent Station dedicated parking spaces would be approximately 1,411 spaces, including 877 parking spaces provided at the existing station parking structure located at 301 Railroad Avenue N and approximately 534 parking spaces in the new garage.

Temporary construction easements near the project site would be required to facilitate construction of the proposed improvements (SEPA Checklist, Figure 3). These include areas where overhead airspace would be required for the movement of cranes during construction of the garage. The staging area is currently identified as Sound Transit owned parcel 9179601585.

In support of sustainability, Sound Transit is committed to environmentally sustainable features in the design and building of its parking garages such as charging stations for electric vehicles, photo-voltaic array, and materials choices, which may be included in the design or be added in the future. Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage, would be incorporated into the site design and would be consistent with the City’s design goals of providing an aesthetically

1-2 Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent "Click here to type section #" • "Click here to type title of section" pleasing, functional building that integrates well with its surroundings. Sound Transit is committed to the communities within its service area and sets aside a portion of construction funding for public art. The Sound Transit Public Art Program (STart) would manage the integration and maintenance of art into the new facility. The Project would provide storm-water runoff control and treatment per applicable design standards. The final control method would be determined during final design phase. Traffic improvement measures are described in Section B.14.h of the SEPA checklist. As part of the final design and the City’s permitting and approval process, identified traffic improvements will be refined in collaboration with the City.

Environmental commitments of the Project are listed in the SEPA Checklist, Attachment F, Environmental Commitments.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 1-3

Section 2 Existing Transportation Characteristics

This section summarizes the key characteristics of current travel behavior in the vicinity of Kent Station. This includes existing Sounder ridership, mode of access, and traffic volumes. 2.1 Existing Ridership The Sound Transit (ST) 2018 Service Implementation Plan provides daily Sounder boardings and alightings at Kent Station. As summarized in Table 2-1, 1,855 passengers board and 2,010 passengers alight at Kent Station each day. To translate these daily volumes to the AM and PM peak hours, the ST Incremental Ridership Model was used to estimate the portion of daily boardings and alightings that occur during the peak hours. Specifically, a 35.5 percent factor was applied to the model’s 3.5 hour peak period ridership to estimate the peak hour ridership (this factor is based on direction received from ST modeling staff). This method suggests that roughly 25 percent of Kent Station’s daily Sounder alightings occur during the PM peak hour and roughly 11 percent of Kent Station’s daily Sounder boardings occur during the PM peak hour. The inverse is used for the AM peak hour. All ridership estimates in this memo are rounded to the nearest five.

As expected, the Sounder activity at Kent Station is predominantly boardings in the morning and alightings in the afternoon. This pattern is indicative of travel patterns that are oriented to the north in the AM and south in the PM (i.e., people traveling toward Seattle in the morning and returning in the evening).

Table 2-1 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2017 Time Period Boardings Alightings Daily 1,855 2,010 AM Peak Hour 460 215 PM Peak Hour 200 495 Note: All values rounded to the nearest 5. Source: 2018 Sound Transit Service Implementation Plan, ST Incremental Ridership Model.

2.2 Existing Mode of Access Existing mode of access estimates at Kent Station were developed during Phase 1 of the Project using several sources: the 2012 Sounder Access Study, the 2015 Sound Transit Origin & Destination Survey, and ORCA (One Regional Card for All) regional transit pass transfer data. The resulting mode of access shares are summarized in Table 2-2. Just over half of Sounder riders access Kent Station by driving alone and another 9 percent arrive by carpool or vanpool for a total of 60 percent of riders using parking spaces on a typical day.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 2-1 Section 2 • Existing Transportation Characteristics

Table 2-2 Sounder Access Modes at Kent Station - Existing Access Mode Kent Station Drove Alone 51% Carpool or Vanpool 9% Dropped Off 9% Transit 14% Pedestrians 12% Bicycles 4% Other 1% Source: Fehr & Peers analysis of Sounder Access Study 2012, Sound Transit Origin & Destination Survey 2015, and ORCA transfer data.

2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Turning movement counts were collected in May and June 2018 at 15 study intersections in the vicinity of Kent Station during the AM and PM peak periods. The counts include volumes for passenger vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrian crossing volumes, and bicycles by approach. This data reflects the existing background traffic in the vicinity of the Project as well as traffic generated by Kent Station including vehicles that park at the existing garage and surface lots and pickup/dropoff activity. Based on the counts, the AM and PM 15-minute peak periods were identified as 6:37-6:52AM and 4:38-4:53PM, respectively. The turning movement count reports may be found in Appendix A and additional information regarding the traffic volume data collection and analysis may be found in the Transportation Methodology Memo for Kent Station.

2-2 Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent

Section 3 Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037

This section summarizes the ridership and mode of access forecasts developed for 2037. These key assumptions are used to estimate trip generation by mode for Kent Station. 3.1 2037 Ridership The consultant team reviewed the ST Incremental Ridership Model which uses the EMME software package. The model has peak and off-peak transit networks and assignments: the 3.5-hour PM peak period (the inverse of which reflects the AM peak period) and the 17-hour off-peak period. Per Sound Transit guidance, it is assumed that 35.5 percent of the peak period ridership occurs during the peak hour. The model uses the current regional land use forecast (LUV.2) published by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). In particular, the ST model assumes buildout of the ST 3 light rail network and implementation of METRO CONNECTS, King County Metro’s Long Range Plan. Because the horizon year for this study is 2037, both the Future Year Base Forecast Scenario Stage 3 (representing 2040) and Future Year Low Forecast Scenario Stage 3 (representing 2035) databanks were examined and linear interpolation was used to develop 2037 forecasts.

Table 3-1 summarizes daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour Sounder boardings and alightings at Kent Station based on the future ridership growth predicted by the ST Incremental Ridership Model. Daily boardings are expected to increase by 58 percent and daily alightings are expected to increase by 54 percent compared to existing conditions. The ST model assumes unconstrained park-and-ride capacity at Kent Station so the model is most analogous to the 2037 Build condition.

Table 3-1 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2037 Build Time Period Boardings Alightings Daily 2,940 3,090 AM Peak Hour 715 345 PM Peak Hour 330 750 Note: All values rounded to the nearest 5. Source: ST Incremental Ridership Model, 2018.

3.2 2037 Mode of Access and Trip Generation Estimating mode of access to Kent Station is the first step of determining trip generation. To do so, the consultant team reviewed the projected mode of access shares predicted by the ST Incremental Ridership Model and the PSRC regional travel demand model to inform trends for the future. Most importantly, the limitations on certain modes were considered; the off-street and on-street parking supply is the main factor limiting how many riders can reasonably access the station by vehicle.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 3-1 Section 3 • Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037

3.2.1 2037 Build Using the data mentioned above, mode of access was first estimated for the 2037 Build scenario because the ST model’s assumption of unconstrained park-and-ride capacity is most analogous to the 2037 Build condition. This scenario assumes that all riders forecasted by the ST Incremental Ridership Model to use Kent Station do so and that both the existing and new ST garages would fill to capacity.

The predicted mode of access is summarized in Table 3-2 by mode and by time period. The numbers shown for drive alone, carpool/vanpool, and pickup/dropoff represent the number of vehicles accessing the station. Using professional judgment based on transportation modeling experience, an average vehicle occupancy of 2.2 is assumed for carpool/vanpool. While the mode of access shown below holds the pedestrian and bicycle mode shares at the same proportion as existing conditions, this does result in an increase in pedestrians and bicycles because the total ridership would increase. Transit use, carpool/vanpool, and pickup/dropoff are expected to increase their shares slightly, while drive alone would drop by five percent. However, with the ridership increase, this equates to roughly 600 more vehicles (including pickup/dropoff vehicles, not just those that park) accessing Kent Station daily compared to current conditions.

Table 3-2 Sounder Access Modes and Trip Generation at Kent Station – 2037 Build

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Access Mode Percentage Arriving Leaving Arriving Leaving Arriving Leaving at Station Station at Station Station at Station Station Drive Alone 46% 330 160 150 345 1,350 1,420 (vehicles) Carpool/Vanpool 11% 35 15 15 40 145 155 (vehicles) Pickup/Dropoff 11% 80 40 35 85 325 340 (vehicles) Transit 16% 115 55 55 120 470 495 Pedestrians 12% 85 40 40 90 355 370 Bicycles 4% 30 15 15 30 120 125 Note: All values rounded to the nearest 5. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.

3.2.2 2037 No Build To develop mode of access assumptions for the 2037 No Build scenario, the consultant team considered two local data sources: the 2015 ST Parking Management Pilot Project Evaluation Report and the 2018 King County Metro Park-and-Ride Paid Permit Parking Analysis Report. Both of these reports contain survey information about how transit riders shift their travel modes if they are unable to find parking at their preferred location. This information was considered as well as the unique characteristics of Kent to develop the following assumptions about the riders who would not be able to use the 464 net new garage spaces that are available under the 2037 Build scenario:

3-2 Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent Section 3 • Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037

▪ 55 percent would find another way to their destination (driving, shifting to a different transit route, or boarding at a different Sounder station).

▪ 15 percent would park on-street or at a nearby non-ST lot or garage.

▪ 30 percent would shift to other access modes.

The first assumption would result in fewer Sounder boardings at Kent Station than under the 2037 Build scenario. The 2037 No Build forecasts are summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Sounder Boardings and Alightings at Kent Station – 2037 No Build Time Period Boardings Alightings Daily 2,685 2,835 AM Peak Hour 665 305 PM Peak Hour 290 700 Note: All values rounded to the nearest 5. Source: ST Incremental Ridership Model, 2018, Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Using the 2037 No Build boarding and alighting forecasts and the assumptions described above regarding behavior changes if less parking capacity is provided, mode of access shares were developed for the 2037 No Build scenario as shown in Table 3-4. With parking capacity remaining the same as current conditions, the drive alone rate would have to drop considerably in the future because there would not be enough parking capacity to serve the demand. It is assumed more riders would reach the station by carpool/vanpool and pickup/dropoff. The share of access by transit, pedestrians, and bicycles would also increase under this scenario.

Table 3-4 Sounder Access Modes and Trip Generation at Kent Station – 2037 No Build

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Access Mode Percentage Arriving Leaving Arriving Leaving Arriving Leaving at Station Station at Station Station at Station Station Drive Alone 35% 235 105 100 245 940 995 (vehicles) Carpool/Vanpool 13% 40 20 15 40 160 170 (vehicles) Pickup/Dropoff 14% 95 45 40 100 375 395 (vehicles) Transit 20% 135 60 60 140 535 565 Pedestrians 14% 90 40 40 95 360 385 Bicycles 5% 30 15 15 30 120 130 Note: All values rounded to the nearest 5. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 3-3 Section 3 • Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037

It should be noted that the mode of access estimates are based on the current pattern of private car ownership and free access to park-and-ride facilities. These patterns are changing; however, the impacts of these changes cannot be predicted with certainty. Below are some items to consider when evaluating park-and-ride demand:

▪ Sound Transit is planning to introduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) parking permits to high-demand lots in the near future. Depending on the price of the SOV permits, there could be a reduced demand for park-and-ride access. Sound Transit could even use the price of the permits to manage demand to ensure that demand and supply are in balance.

▪ Ride sharing through Transportation Network Company (TNC) service has gained considerable popularity in recent years and it could play an even more important role to provide travelers to and from the station in the future. The change in usage rate of TNC service may affect the carpool/vanpool mode of access percentage in the future.

▪ Future autonomous vehicles (AV) could greatly reduce the demand for parking. If AVs are operated as large pooled fleets (where most people do not own a car), the AV would be in use most of the time and the need to park would be reduced; however, there still may be a need to park vehicles at transit stations to wait for inbound trains (although the demand for parking would be much lower – no more than the capacity of the train). If AVs are privately owned, parking demand could still be lower since the vehicle can travel independently to another location to park. However, regulations to reduce zero occupant vehicle trips could discourage this type of travel, resulting in a less substantial reduction in parking demand.

These trends may contribute to reducing the demand for parking. However, improved rail and transit service as well as population and employment growth will increase parking demand. 3.3 Development of Traffic Forecasts The trip generation shown in Table 3-2 and Table 3-4 will be translated into traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes for use in the microsimulation analysis described in the Transportation Methodology Memo for Kent Station. The trip distribution developed during Phase 1 of the Project will be used during this process though access in the immediate vicinity of the new garage may be refined depending on the final alignment of Railroad Ave N and location of the garage driveways. Appendix B includes the Phase 1 PM trip distribution and route assignment. Route assignment for the AM peak period will be determined after the site layout for the new garage is finalized. The traffic assignment process is described below for each scenario. 3.3.1 2037 No Build ▪ Determine existing AM and PM peak 15-minute volumes for all study intersections.

▪ Subtract existing ST garage traffic – this will be done using 2017 driveway counts at the existing garage and assuming the trip distribution shown in Appendix B.

▪ Apply 1 percent annual growth rate to remaining background traffic to estimate 2037 background traffic – this annual growth rate was estimated during Phase 1 work using the City of Kent model and has been confirmed for Phase 2 use by ST and City of Kent.

3-4 Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent Section 3 • Ridership and Trip Generation Estimates for 2037

▪ Add existing ST garage traffic onto 2037 background traffic – the growth rate is not applied to existing ST garage traffic because it will remain constant as the garage capacity will not change.

▪ Add pickup/dropoff traffic – this will be done based on the trip generation shown in Table 3-4 (factored to the 15-minute peak). Routing through study intersections will depend on the proposed realignment of Railroad Ave and designated pickup/dropoff locations.

▪ Increase bus, pedestrian and bicycle volumes at key intersections – this will be estimated based on the trip generation shown in Table 3-4 and forecasted increase in bus frequency and ridership at Kent Station (factored to the 15-minute peak). 3.3.2 2037 Build ▪ Begin with the 2037 No Build assignment as described above.

▪ Subtract appropriate volumes from No Build assignment for modes that would decrease – this would include pickup/dropoff, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.

▪ Add vehicles for modes that would increase – this would be the net increase of drive alone and carpool/vanpool trips.

The traffic assignments for each scenario will be summarized in spreadsheet format once the underlying ridership and mode of access assumptions have been approved.

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum – Kent 3-5

Appendix A Existing Turning Movement Counts

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent www.idaxdata.com 1

4TH AVE N W JAMES ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 24 314

0 9 6 9 0 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH W JAMES ST

110 0 1 244 304 0 5 TEV: 655 182 1 PHF: 0.25 12 0 66 55 70 2 6 0 0

W JAMES ST 6 0 0 56

199 HV %: PHF

EB 7.6% 0.25 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH WB 2.0% 0.25 27 261 NB 2.7% 0.25 SB 12.5% 0.25 TOTAL 3.2% 0.25

Count Summaries W JAMES ST W JAMES ST 4TH AVE N 4TH AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 5 55 6 0 12 182 110 0 56 199 6 0 9 9 6 655 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 5 55 6 0 12 182 110 0 56 199 6 0 9 9 6 655 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 5 6 7 3 21 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 5 6 7 3 21 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 2

1ST AVE N W JAMES ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 4 7

0 0 3 1 0 1ST AVE N AVE1ST W JAMES ST

7 0 1 348 351 0 0 TEV: 460 344 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 94 87 98 0 7 0 1

W JAMES ST

1 0 0 0 10 HV %: PHF EB 9.6% 0.25 1ST AVE N AVE1ST WB 1.7% 0.25 7 11 NB 9.1% 0.25 SB 25.0% 0.25 TOTAL 3.7% 0.25

Count Summaries W JAMES ST W JAMES ST 1ST AVE N 1ST AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 0 87 7 0 0 344 7 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 3 460 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 87 7 0 0 344 7 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 3 460 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 9 6 1 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 9 6 1 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 3 3 0

0 Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 3 0 0 0 0 Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM Driveway1 Driveway1

0

E JAMES ST 0 0 0 0 RAILROAD AVE N 341 338 E JAMES ST 0 0 0 0 Peak 15 Minutes 338 98 86 105 TEV: 458 0 12 PHF: 0.25 0 0 E JAMES ST

0 HV %: PHF EB 10.2% 0.25 N WB 1.8% 0.25 NB 0.0% 0.25 0 0 0 0

SB 0.0% 0.25 19

SEB - - 0 TOTAL 3.5% 0.25 RAILROAD AVE N AVE RAILROAD 12 19

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 4

CENTRAL AVE N E JAMES ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM

134 319 0 77 23 34 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E JAMES ST

81 0 0 317 370 0 27 TEV: 875 247 0 PHF: 0.25 42 0 101 57 103 0 17 0 0

E JAMES ST N 0 0 12 47

211 HV %: PHF EB 5.0% 0.25 WB 2.2% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 136 270 NB 6.7% 0.25 SB 6.0% 0.25 TOTAL 4.5% 0.25

Count Summaries E JAMES ST E JAMES ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 27 57 17 0 42 247 81 0 47 211 12 0 34 77 23 875 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 27 57 17 0 42 247 81 0 47 211 12 0 34 77 23 875 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 5 8 18 8 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 5 8 18 8 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 5

RAILROAD AVE N E PIONEER ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 12 21

1 10 0 1 0 RAILROAD N AVE E PIONEER ST

6 0 0 0 23 0 0 TEV: 63 0 0 PHF: 0.25 16 0 7 5 14 0 2 1 0

KENT STATION

DWY 7 0 0 0 14

AVE N AVE HV %: PHF EB 85.7% 0.25 RAILROAD WB 26.1% 0.25 28 21 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 33.3% 0.25 TOTAL 25.4% 0.25

Count Summaries KENT STATION DWY E PIONEER ST RAILROAD AVE N RAILROAD AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 0 5 2 1 16 0 6 0 0 14 7 1 1 10 0 63 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 5 2 1 16 0 6 0 0 14 7 1 1 10 0 63 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 6 6 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 6 6 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 6

CENTRAL AVE N E PIONEER ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM

144 266 0 121 18 5 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E PIONEER ST

31 1 0 21 31 0 6 TEV: 419 0 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 13 1 6 0 5 0 0

E PIONEER ST N 0 2 0 0

229 HV %: PHF EB 38.5% 0.25 WB 6.5% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 126 231 NB 5.6% 0.25 SB 8.3% 0.25 TOTAL 7.6% 0.25

Count Summaries E PIONEER ST E PIONEER ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 1 6 1 5 0 0 0 31 0 2 229 0 0 5 121 18 419 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 6 1 5 0 0 0 31 0 2 229 0 0 5 121 18 419 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 5 2 13 12 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 5 2 13 12 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 7

4TH AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 35 272

0 22 8 5 0 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH W SMITH ST

122 0 0 107 224 0 8 TEV: 462 97 0 PHF: 0.25 5 0 52 44 56 0 0 0 0

W SMITH ST 7 2 0 0

142 HV %: PHF

EB 0.0% 0.25 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH WB 2.2% 0.25 27 151 NB 1.3% 0.25 SB 8.6% 0.25 TOTAL 2.2% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST W SMITH ST 4TH AVE N 4TH AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 8 44 0 0 5 97 122 0 2 142 7 0 5 22 8 462 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 8 44 0 0 5 97 122 0 2 142 7 0 5 22 8 462 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 0 5 2 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 5 2 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 8

2ND AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 7 81

0 4 3 0 0 RAMSAY WY RAMSAY W SMITH ST

24 0 0 224 244 0 21 TEV: 350 216 0 PHF: 0.25 4 0 56 35 37 0 0 0 0

W SMITH ST 2 5 0 0 36 HV %: PHF

EB 5.4% 0.25 2ND AVE N AVE 2ND WB 2.0% 0.25 8 43 NB 2.3% 0.25 SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 2.6% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST W SMITH ST 2ND AVE N RAMSAY WY Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 21 35 0 0 4 216 24 0 5 36 2 0 0 4 3 350 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 21 35 0 0 4 216 24 0 5 36 2 0 0 4 3 350 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 3 5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3 5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 9

1ST AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 1 101 0 1 0 0 1ST AVE N AVE 1ST E SMITH ST

101 0 238 338 0 0 TEV: 376 237 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 37 0 37 0 37 0 W SMITH ST HV %: PHF EB 8.1% 0.25 WB 1.8% 0.25 NB - - SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 2.4% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST E SMITH ST 0 1ST AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 0 37 0 0 0 237 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 376 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 37 0 0 0 237 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 376 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 3 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 10

RAILROAD AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 18 21

0 0 16 2 0 RAILROAD N AVE E SMITH ST

17 0 0 332 334 0 3 TEV: 390 316 0 PHF: 0.25 1 0 37 34 36 0 0 0 0

E SMITH ST

0 0 1 0 0

AVE N AVE HV %: PHF EB 10.8% 0.25 RAILROAD WB 0.9% 0.25 1 1 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 22.2% 0.25 TOTAL 2.8% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST RAILROAD AVE N RAILROAD AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 3 34 0 0 1 316 17 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 16 390 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 3 34 0 0 1 316 17 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 16 390 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 4 3 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 4 3 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 11

CENTRAL AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM

122 236 0 42 16 64 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E SMITH ST

87 0 0 333 394 0 3 TEV: 730 295 0 PHF: 0.25 12 0 39 36 107 0 0 0 0

E SMITH ST N 7 0 0 22

146 HV %: PHF EB 7.7% 0.25 WB 1.5% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 54 175 NB 5.1% 0.25 SB 5.7% 0.25 TOTAL 3.4% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 3 36 0 0 12 295 87 0 22 146 7 0 64 42 16 730 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 3 36 0 0 12 295 87 0 22 146 7 0 64 42 16 730 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 3 6 9 7 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3 6 9 7 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 12

STATE AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 3 40

0 1 0 2 0 STATE AVE N AVE STATE E SMITH ST

38 0 0 387 429 0 0 TEV: 536 387 0 PHF: 0.25 4 0 99 98 103 0 1 0 0

E SMITH ST 3 0 2 0 0 HV %: PHF

EB 8.1% 0.25 WB 2.6% 0.25 STATE AVE N AVE STATE 6 5 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 66.7% 0.25 TOTAL 3.9% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST STATE AVE N STATE AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 0 98 1 0 4 387 38 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 536 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 98 1 0 4 387 38 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 536 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 8 11 0 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 8 11 0 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 13

E TITUS ST E SMITH ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM 16 15

0 11 3 2 0 JASON AVE N AVE JASON E SMITH ST

10 0 0 454 507 0 1 TEV: 668 440 0 PHF: 0.25 57 0 100 98 130 0 1 0 0

E SMITH ST 4 0 0 30 11 HV %: PHF

EB 9.0% 0.25 E TITUS ST TITUS E WB 2.4% 0.25 69 45 NB 2.2% 0.25 SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 3.3% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST E TITUS ST JASON AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 1 98 1 0 57 440 10 0 11 4 30 0 2 11 3 668 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1 98 1 0 57 440 10 0 11 4 30 0 2 11 3 668 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 9 12 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 9 12 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 14

CENTRAL AVE S E MEEKER ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM

54 185 0 46 5 3 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E MEEKER ST

9 0 0 52 31 0 4 TEV: 302 14 0 PHF: 0.25 8 0 10 2 7 0 4 0 0

E MEEKER ST S 2 0 0 33

172 HV %: PHF EB 0.0% 0.25 WB 3.2% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 58 207 NB 4.3% 0.25 SB 3.7% 0.25 TOTAL 4.0% 0.25

Count Summaries E MEEKER ST E MEEKER ST CENTRAL AVE S CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 4 2 4 0 8 14 9 0 33 172 2 0 3 46 5 302 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 4 2 4 0 8 14 9 0 33 172 2 0 3 46 5 302 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 0 1 9 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1 9 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 15

CENTRAL AVE S E GOWE ST

Date: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 6:37 AM to 6:52 AM

60 201 0 60 0 0 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL S E GOWE ST

6 0 0 79 120 0 1 TEV: 461 34 0 PHF: 0.25 80 0 5 2 39 0 2 0 0

E GOWE ST S 0 0 37 45

194 HV %: PHF EB 0.0% 0.25 WB 2.5% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 142 276 NB 2.9% 0.25 SB 3.3% 0.25 TOTAL 2.8% 0.25

Count Summaries E GOWE ST E GOWE ST CENTRAL AVE S CENTRAL AVE S Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 6:37 AM 0 1 2 2 0 80 34 6 0 45 194 37 0 0 60 0 461 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1 2 2 0 80 34 6 0 45 194 37 0 0 60 0 461 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 6:37 AM 0 3 8 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 3 8 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 1

4TH AVE N W JAMES ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 68 276

0 176 13 87 2 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH W JAMES ST

13 0 1 135 126 0 6 TEV: 732 89 0 PHF: 0.25 24 0 227 170 278 0 51 0 0

W JAMES ST 0 0 21 33 49 HV %: PHF

EB 1.8% 0.25 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH WB 3.2% 0.25 251 103 NB 8.7% 0.25 SB 0.7% 0.25 TOTAL 2.6% 0.25

Count Summaries W JAMES ST W JAMES ST 4TH AVE N 4TH AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 6 170 51 0 24 89 13 0 33 49 21 0 87 176 13 732 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 6 170 51 0 24 89 13 0 33 49 21 0 87 176 13 732 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 4 4 9 2 19 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 4 4 9 2 19 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 1

4TH AVE N W JAMES ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 68 276

0 176 13 87 2 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH W JAMES ST

13 0 1 135 126 0 6 TEV: 732 89 0 PHF: 0.25 24 0 227 170 278 0 51 0 0

W JAMES ST 0 0 21 33 49 HV %: PHF

EB 1.8% 0.25 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH WB 3.2% 0.25 251 103 NB 8.7% 0.25 SB 0.7% 0.25 TOTAL 2.6% 0.25

Count Summaries W JAMES ST W JAMES ST 4TH AVE N 4TH AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 6 170 51 0 24 89 13 0 33 49 21 0 87 176 13 732 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 6 170 51 0 24 89 13 0 33 49 21 0 87 176 13 732 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 4 4 9 2 19 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 4 4 9 2 19 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 2

1ST AVE N W JAMES ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 3 0

0 0 3 0 0 1ST AVE N AVE1ST W JAMES ST

0 0 0 162 159 0 0 TEV: 451 159 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 253 250 286 0 3 0 1

W JAMES ST

0 0 0 0 36 HV %: PHF EB 1.6% 0.25 1ST AVE N AVE1ST WB 1.9% 0.25 3 36 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 1.6% 0.25

Count Summaries W JAMES ST W JAMES ST 1ST AVE N 1ST AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 0 250 3 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 3 451 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 250 3 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 3 451 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 4 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 4 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 3 2 0

1 Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 2 0 0 0 0 Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM Driveway1 Driveway1

0

E JAMES ST 0 0 0 0 RAILROAD AVE N 160 158 E JAMES ST 0 0 0 0 Peak 15 Minutes 158 288 281 299 TEV: 466 0 7 PHF: 0.25 0 0 E JAMES ST

1 HV %: PHF EB 1.4% 0.25 N WB 1.9% 0.25 NB 0.0% 0.25 0 0 0 0

SB 0.0% 0.25 18

SEB - - 0 TOTAL 1.5% 0.25 RAILROAD AVE N AVE RAILROAD 7 18

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 4

CENTRAL AVE N E JAMES ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM

384 232 0 222 33 129 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E JAMES ST

76 0 0 151 204 0 36 TEV: 1,074 96 0 PHF: 0.25 32 1 305 232 400 0 37 0 1

E JAMES ST N 0 0 39 22

120 HV %: PHF EB 0.3% 0.25 WB 2.5% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 291 181 NB 2.2% 0.25 SB 2.1% 0.25 TOTAL 1.7% 0.25

Count Summaries E JAMES ST E JAMES ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 36 232 37 0 32 96 76 0 22 120 39 0 129 222 33 1,074 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 36 232 37 0 32 96 76 0 22 120 39 0 129 222 33 1,074 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 1 5 4 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 5 4 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 5

RAILROAD AVE N E PIONEER ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 15 20

0 10 0 5 0 RAILROAD N AVE E PIONEER ST

8 0 0 0 25 0 0 TEV: 65 0 0 PHF: 0.25 17 0 4 3 17 0 1 0 0

KENT STATION

DWY 9 0 0 0 12

AVE N AVE HV %: PHF EB 100.0% 0.25 RAILROAD WB 20.0% 0.25 28 21 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 20.0% 0.25 TOTAL 18.5% 0.25

Count Summaries KENT STATION DWY E PIONEER ST RAILROAD AVE N RAILROAD AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 0 3 1 0 17 0 8 0 0 12 9 0 5 10 0 65 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 3 1 0 17 0 8 0 0 12 9 0 5 10 0 65 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 4 5 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 4 5 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 6

CENTRAL AVE N E PIONEER ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM

292 177 0 252 23 17 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E PIONEER ST

37 0 0 27 37 0 12 TEV: 488 0 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 27 8 25 0 7 0 0

E PIONEER ST N 0 4 0 0

128 HV %: PHF EB 11.1% 0.25 WB 0.0% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 259 132 NB 1.5% 0.25 SB 2.4% 0.25 TOTAL 2.5% 0.25

Count Summaries E PIONEER ST E PIONEER ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 12 8 7 0 0 0 37 0 4 128 0 0 17 252 23 488 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 12 8 7 0 0 0 37 0 4 128 0 0 17 252 23 488 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 3 0 2 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3 0 2 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 7

4TH AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 260 121

0 191 14 55 0 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH W SMITH ST

26 0 0 128 175 0 25 TEV: 652 101 1 PHF: 0.25 48 0 119 80 150 0 14 0 1

W SMITH ST 0 0 15 13 70 HV %: PHF

EB 0.0% 0.25 4TH AVE N AVE 4TH WB 4.0% 0.25 253 98 NB 6.1% 0.25 SB 1.2% 0.25 TOTAL 2.5% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST W SMITH ST 4TH AVE N 4TH AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 25 80 14 0 48 101 26 0 13 70 15 0 55 191 14 652 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 25 80 14 0 48 101 26 0 13 70 15 0 55 191 14 652 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 0 7 6 3 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 7 6 3 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 8

2ND AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 51 115

0 41 18 56 0 RAMSAY WY RAMSAY W SMITH ST

31 0 0 172 197 0 13 TEV: 499 148 0 PHF: 0.25 17 0 158 136 209 0 9 1 0

W SMITH ST 6 7 0 0 16 HV %: PHF

EB 0.0% 0.25 2ND AVE N AVE 2ND WB 3.6% 0.25 67 29 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 1.4% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST W SMITH ST 2ND AVE N RAMSAY WY Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 13 136 9 1 17 148 31 0 6 7 16 0 56 41 18 499 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 13 136 9 1 17 148 31 0 6 7 16 0 56 41 18 499 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 9

1ST AVE N W SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 27 17 0 27 0 0 1ST AVE N AVE 1ST E SMITH ST

17 0 197 187 0 0 TEV: 445 170 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 231 0 231 0 231 0 W SMITH ST HV %: PHF EB 0.0% 0.25 WB 3.7% 0.25 NB - - SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 1.6% 0.25

Count Summaries W SMITH ST E SMITH ST 0 1ST AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 0 231 0 0 0 170 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 445 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 231 0 0 0 170 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 445 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 10

RAILROAD AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 25 25

0 3 21 1 0 RAILROAD N AVE E SMITH ST

16 1 0 185 179 0 8 TEV: 433 163 0 PHF: 0.25 0 0 225 216 220 0 0 0 1

E SMITH ST

3 0 1 0 0

AVE N AVE HV %: PHF EB 0.4% 0.25 RAILROAD WB 1.1% 0.25 3 4 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 20.0% 0.25 TOTAL 1.8% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST RAILROAD AVE N RAILROAD AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 1 8 216 0 0 0 163 16 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 21 433 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 8 216 0 0 0 163 16 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 21 433 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 1 2 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 2 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 11

CENTRAL AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM

252 140 0 144 10 98 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E SMITH ST

35 0 0 165 195 0 19 TEV: 802 127 0 PHF: 0.25 33 0 191 164 312 0 8 0 1

E SMITH ST N 0 0 50 28 86 HV %: PHF EB 0.0% 0.25 WB 1.0% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 185 164 NB 1.8% 0.25 SB 1.6% 0.25 TOTAL 1.1% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST CENTRAL AVE N CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 19 164 8 0 33 127 35 0 28 86 50 0 98 144 10 802 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 19 164 8 0 33 127 35 0 28 86 50 0 98 144 10 802 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 0 2 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 2 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 12

STATE AVE N E SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 39 43

0 10 4 25 0 STATE AVE N AVE STATE E SMITH ST

30 0 1 177 217 0 8 TEV: 599 171 0 PHF: 0.25 16 1 309 300 352 0 1 0 2

E SMITH ST 2 5 0 0 27 HV %: PHF

EB 0.6% 0.25 WB 1.8% 0.25 STATE AVE N AVE STATE 27 34 NB 0.0% 0.25 SB 2.6% 0.25 TOTAL 1.2% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST STATE AVE N STATE AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 8 300 1 0 16 171 30 0 2 5 27 0 25 10 4 599 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 8 300 1 0 16 171 30 0 2 5 27 0 25 10 4 599 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 2 4 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 2 4 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 13

E TITUS ST E SMITH ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM 30 12

0 20 2 8 0 JASON AVE N AVE JASON E SMITH ST

3 0 0 230 255 0 2 TEV: 805 225 0 PHF: 0.25 27 0 396 387 509 0 7 0 2

E SMITH ST 3 7 0 0

114 HV %: PHF

EB 0.8% 0.25 E TITUS ST TITUS E WB 2.7% 0.25 54 124 NB 0.8% 0.25 SB 3.3% 0.25 TOTAL 1.5% 0.25

Count Summaries E SMITH ST E SMITH ST E TITUS ST JASON AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 2 387 7 0 27 225 3 0 3 7 114 0 8 20 2 805 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 2 387 7 0 27 225 3 0 3 7 114 0 8 20 2 805 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 3 7 1 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 3 7 1 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 14

CENTRAL AVE S E MEEKER ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM

175 157 0 162 10 3 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL N E MEEKER ST

4 0 0 31 34 0 17 TEV: 444 18 0 PHF: 0.25 12 0 83 42 58 0 24 0 0

E MEEKER ST S 3 0 0 13

136 HV %: PHF EB 0.0% 0.25 WB 0.0% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 198 152 NB 2.0% 0.25 SB 1.1% 0.25 TOTAL 1.1% 0.25

Count Summaries E MEEKER ST E MEEKER ST CENTRAL AVE S CENTRAL AVE N Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 17 42 24 0 12 18 4 0 3 136 13 0 3 162 10 444 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 17 42 24 0 12 18 4 0 3 136 13 0 3 162 10 444 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com 15

CENTRAL AVE S E GOWE ST

Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 N Peak 15 Minutes Count Period: 4:38 PM to 4:53 PM

212 156 0 205 5 2 0 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL S E GOWE ST

5 0 0 26 62 0 12 TEV: 602 13 0 PHF: 0.25 44 0 102 65 146 0 25 0 0

E GOWE ST S 8 0 0 79

139 HV %: PHF EB 1.0% 0.25 WB 0.0% 0.25 CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL 274 226 NB 1.3% 0.25 SB 1.4% 0.25 TOTAL 1.2% 0.25

Count Summaries E GOWE ST E GOWE ST CENTRAL AVE S CENTRAL AVE S Interval 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:38 PM 0 12 65 25 0 44 13 5 0 8 139 79 0 2 205 5 602 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 12 65 25 0 44 13 5 0 8 139 79 0 2 205 5 602 0 Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:38 PM 1 0 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 0 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [email protected]

Appendix B PM Trip Distribution (Phase 1)

Ridership and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum - Kent 91

7 93 CONCORD 10% COLE

STETSON

VALLEY

CLOUDY ALVORD

CENTRAL

HILLTOP

STATE

2ND AVE 2ND AVE N 4TH AVE N

5TH AVE N 5TH AVE 3RD AVE N

1ST AVE NAVE 1ST PROSPECT

WOODFORD

ADAMS

LENORA JAMES 40% 30 G Note: Only Option 3B includes a garage access driveway onto Central Ave KENT STATION SAM CEDAR SUMMIT RAMSAY

JASON PIONEER SPRING

CLARK KENNEBECK

WASHINGTON TEMPERANCE MCMILLAN TEMPERANCE 20% 15 HAZEL

LINCOLN SMITH SMITH 25% 19

STATE WARD HARRISON HARRISON CANYON

MADISON

THOMPSON MEEKER

KENNEBECK

GOWE OLYMPIC WEILAND 4 KENSINGTON RAILROAD 5%

NADEN

SR 167 SR KENOSIA TACOMA TITUS TITUS CHERRY HILL DEAN DEAN

6TH AVE S 5TH AVE S

1ST AVE 1ST AVE S

2ND AVE S

3RD AVE S 3RDAVE MACLYN

ALLEY SCENIC SAAR SAAR ALPINE KENT-DES MOINES GUIBERSON

SR 167 WILLIS WILLIS

I ALEXANDER

VAN DEVAN VANTER

6TH AVE 6TH SAVE SEATTLE VIEW

CROW REITEN

BRIDGES

RAILROAD 0 400 800 Feet RACHAEL Legend Figure 5: Site 3 Trip Distribution – Kent Kent Station Sounder Alignment 15-min peak garage volume Egress Route with Percent of Trip Distribution Studied Intersection Kent and Auburn Station Access Improvements – May 2017

Sources: CDM Smith and Fehr & Peers, May 2017

Appendix C Queuing Reports

Transportation Technical Report – Kent SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 1 4th Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 14 100 24 Through 75 14 125 29 Right Turn 25 5 50 10 EB

Left Turn 175 34 275 16 Through 275 49 425 95 Right Turn 50 22 150 52 NB

Left Turn 75 15 125 23 Through 50 8 100 22 Through/Right 50 10 75 11 SB

Left Turn 50 15 100 68 Through 300 35 450 37 Through/Right 375 32 450 45 WB

Intersection 2 1st Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 25 16 25 39 Through/Right 25 5 25 28

EB

Shared 50 9 75 11

NB

Shared 25 7 75 13

SB

Through/Right 25 0 25 0

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 3 Railroad Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 100 83 200 116 Through/Right 50 19 100 23

EB

Right Turn 225 33 350 43

NB

Through 25 0 25 0

WB

0

Intersection 4 Central Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 225 43 275 39 Through 325 74 425 99 Right Turn 150 22 225 30 EB

Left Turn 250 52 275 26 Through 350 145 450 145 Right Turn 50 25 100 71 NB

Left Turn 175 30 275 50 Through 350 146 500 193 Through/Right 375 136 550 179 SB

Left Turn 275 18 300 28 Through 1,925 13 1,950 20 Right Turn 125 7 175 17 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 5 Railroad Ave/E Pioneer St All‐way Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 10 75 14

EB

Through 25 0 25 0 Through/Right 50 9 100 13

NB

Left/Through 125 12 150 23 Through 25 0 25 0

SB

Shared 125 19 200 34

WB

Intersection 6 Central Ave/E Pioneer St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 100 28 150 48 Right Turn 50 13 100 24

EB

Left Turn 75 13 125 32 Through 50 40 125 76 Through/Right 50 33 125 75 NB

Left Turn 25 6 75 8 Through 25 20 75 60 Through/Right 50 18 125 34 SB

Shared 125 19 200 37

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 7 4th Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 6 75 9 Through 75 13 125 18 Through/Right 25 9 75 26 EB

Left Turn 50 16 125 54 Through 275 21 375 29 Through/Right 225 26 325 33 NB

Left Turn 50 11 75 18 Through 50 15 100 26 Through/Right 75 13 100 24 SB

Left Turn 25 6 50 11 Through 125 29 200 56 Through/Right 225 43 350 59 WB

Intersection 8 Ramsay Way/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 75 13 125 37 Through 50 11 75 16 Through/Right 50 11 75 20 EB

Left Turn 50 17 125 34 Through/Right 125 22 200 44

NB

Left Turn 25 7 50 15 Through/Right 75 9 125 14

SB

Left Turn 25 4 50 8 Through 200 28 300 59 Through/Right 225 36 350 60 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 9 1st Avenue/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 25 3 25 18

EB

Right Turn 25 6 50 11

SB

Through 25 3 25 13 Through/Right 25 10 50 31

WB

0

Intersection 10 Railroad Ave/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 12 75 14 Through 25 6 25 27 Through/Right 25 4 25 20 EB

Shared 25 9 75 15

NB

Left/Through 100 13 200 38 Right Turn 50 6 75 6 SB

Left/Through 25 4 25 13 Through/Right 25 6 50 24 WB

Note: The southbound approach of Railroad Ave/Smith St is striped as a single shared lane. However, drivers delayed behind a vehicle waiting to make a left or through movement were often observed to pull around the waiting vehicle to make a right turn. To reflect this driver behavior, the Synchro network was coded to allow the second car in the queue to pull around a waiting vehicle, but cars farther back in the queue are not permitted to make that movement because a bus may be occupying the adjacent bus stop.

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 11 Central Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 25 11 75 17 Through 100 17 175 31 Through/Right 125 11 175 16 EB

Left Turn 200 35 325 26 Through 525 37 550 13 Through/Right 525 39 550 15 NB

Left Turn 125 29 200 44 Left/Through 175 53 275 120 Through/Right 175 34 275 50 SB

Left Turn 75 26 150 58 Through 250 10 300 14 Through/Right 275 5 275 11 WB

Intersection 12 State Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 25 7 25 20 Through 50 33 125 86 Through/Right 50 34 100 86 EB

Shared 50 11 75 20

NB

Shared 75 24 150 42

SB

Left Turn 25 11 50 50 Through 1,025 59 1,050 49 Through/Right 1,050 37 1,050 40 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 13 Jason Ave/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 12 75 21 Through 75 18 125 34 Through/Right 50 16 125 42 EB

Left/Through 100 18 150 36 Right Turn 25 6 25 23

NB

Shared 50 9 75 14

SB

Left Turn 150 33 225 68 Through 350 36 425 55 Through/Right 575 48 775 61 WB

Intersection 14 Central Avenue/Meeker St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 75 15 125 32

EB

Left Turn 75 17 125 14 Through 200 29 250 25 Through/Right 175 32 225 19 NB

Left Turn 25 6 50 14 Through 25 15 75 36 Through/Right 50 18 75 39 SB

Shared 125 14 175 12

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 15 Central Avenue/Gowe St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 150 27 200 23 Through/Right 75 47 125 74

EB

Left Turn 125 24 200 19 Through 450 166 825 354 Right Turn 100 32 175 26 NB

Left Turn 25 4 25 13 Through 25 11 50 34 Through/Right 50 13 75 26 SB

Left Turn 250 20 350 17 Shared 275 16 350 12

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour Intersection 16 Railroad/Park & Ride East Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 7 75 10

EB

Left/Through 25 12 50 35

NB

Through/Right 25 0 25 0

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 17 Park and Ride South/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through

0

Shared 25 0 25 0

SB

Through/Right 25 0 25 0

WB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length AM Peak Hour Intersection 18 Railroad Avenue/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 100 13 125 24

EB

Left/Through 50 21 125 35

NB

Through/Right 25 2 25 10

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 1 4th Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 25 125 88 Through 275 55 375 85 Right Turn 100 20 150 32 EB

Left Turn 150 34 225 47 Through 125 24 225 70 Right Turn 75 18 150 49 NB

Left Turn 375 44 450 42 Through 500 128 625 122 Through/Right 450 123 625 141 SB

Left Turn 100 20 175 42 Through 350 102 525 141 Through/Right 250 37 350 62 WB

Intersection 2 1st Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 375 7 375 16 Through/Right 375 4 375 12

EB

Right Turn 50 9 75 17

NB

Right Turn 25 8 50 10

SB

Through 25 5 25 18 Through/Right 25 0 25 0

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 3 Railroad Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 250 24 275 33 Through/Right 75 8 100 14

EB

Right Turn 375 46 525 60

NB

Through 25 11 50 43

WB

0

Intersection 4 Central Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 200 26 325 33 Through 875 13 875 23 Right Turn 200 19 250 24 EB

Left Turn 175 49 250 52 Through 250 60 350 80 Right Turn 150 23 200 16 NB

Left Turn 275 47 300 31 Through 900 4 900 12 Through/Right 875 22 900 22 SB

Left Turn 275 47 275 19 Through 625 225 875 270 Right Turn 125 11 150 14 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 5 Railroad Ave/E Pioneer St All‐way Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 27 125 61

EB

Through 25 0 25 0 Through/Right 125 37 200 80

NB

Left/Through 350 53 450 62 Through 25 0 25 0

SB

Shared 200 60 275 71

WB

Intersection 6 Central Ave/E Pioneer St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 200 58 325 48 Right Turn 100 40 200 59

EB

Left Turn 50 16 100 34 Through 75 26 150 49 Through/Right 100 28 175 39 NB

Left Turn 50 25 100 66 Through 275 133 475 236 Through/Right 250 141 475 247 SB

Shared 225 18 300 26

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 7 4th Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 100 20 150 32 Through 175 19 250 26 Through/Right 175 32 250 44 EB

Left Turn 75 19 125 33 Through 150 24 225 39 Through/Right 125 28 200 39 NB

Left Turn 125 26 225 46 Through 175 21 250 34 Through/Right 175 26 275 38 SB

Left Turn 175 22 275 40 Through 200 38 350 88 Through/Right 225 20 350 63 WB

Intersection 8 Ramsay Way/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 75 13 125 42 Through 175 33 250 36 Through/Right 175 28 275 34 EB

Left Turn 50 11 75 24 Through/Right 75 10 125 24

NB

Left Turn 125 19 200 27 Through/Right 250 16 325 21

SB

Left Turn 50 15 125 49 Through 300 29 450 61 Through/Right 200 30 350 44 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 9 1st Avenue/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 50 39 125 93

EB

Right Turn 50 5 100 23

SB

Through 25 3 25 15 Through/Right 25 8 50 26

WB

0

Intersection 10 Railroad Ave/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 11 75 19 Through 50 29 125 57 Through/Right 75 31 150 52 EB

Shared 75 25 125 47

NB

Left/Through 450 52 625 49 Right Turn 50 9 75 8 SB

Left/Through 25 0 25 0 Through/Right 25 7 50 30 WB

Note: The southbound approach of Railroad Ave/Smith St is striped as a single shared lane. However, drivers delayed behind a vehicle waiting to make a left or through movement were often observed to pull around the waiting vehicle to make a right turn. To reflect this driver behavior, the Synchro network was coded to allow the second car in the queue to pull around a waiting vehicle, but cars farther back in the queue are not permitted to make that movement because a bus may be occupying the adjacent bus stop.

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 11 Central Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 125 26 225 27 Through 500 50 575 66 Through/Right 525 67 600 89 EB

Left Turn 150 17 275 26 Through 350 65 575 86 Through/Right 500 48 550 20 NB

Left Turn 175 28 225 21 Left/Through 350 89 500 42 Through/Right 325 78 500 94 SB

Left Turn 125 28 200 21 Through 250 19 300 14 Through/Right 250 18 275 26 WB

Intersection 12 State Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 10 75 9 Through 100 21 200 38 Through/Right 125 22 225 38 EB

Shared 125 28 225 41

NB

Shared 175 33 250 55

SB

Left Turn 100 28 175 46 Through 425 106 625 80 Through/Right 475 101 625 74 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 13 Jason Ave/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 21 100 68 Through 375 21 450 29 Through/Right 400 19 525 27 EB

Left/Through 350 55 500 68 Right Turn 250 11 275 17

NB

Shared 75 16 125 29

SB

Left Turn 125 15 200 33 Through 150 55 300 94 Through/Right 225 63 450 148 WB

Intersection 14 Central Avenue/Meeker St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 275 18 350 29

EB

Left Turn 25 9 50 21 Through 150 54 225 65 Through/Right 150 48 225 51 NB

Left Turn 25 9 50 15 Through 125 42 200 58 Through/Right 125 43 225 57 SB

Shared 125 10 175 11

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 15 Central Avenue/Gowe St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 225 27 300 21 Through/Right 175 26 275 54

EB

Left Turn 50 21 75 47 Through 325 254 575 394 Right Turn 125 22 200 19 NB

Left Turn 25 13 75 24 Through 100 17 200 28 Through/Right 125 16 225 21 SB

Left Turn 150 25 225 47 Shared 150 62 225 57

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour Intersection 16 Railroad Avenue/Park and Ride East Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 325 119 600 175

EB

Left/Through 75 27 150 42

NB

Through/Right 50 40 75 65

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 17 Park and Ride South/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 525 313 875 532

SB

Through/Right 25 4 25 12

WB

0

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Build Queue Length PM Peak Hour Intersection 18 Railroad Avenue/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 125 7 125 12

EB

Left/Through 75 47 175 87

NB

Through/Right 75 43 150 52

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 1 4th Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 10 75 15 Through 75 15 150 25 Right Turn 25 6 50 10 EB

Left Turn 200 24 300 22 Through 300 46 475 85 Right Turn 50 18 125 61 NB

Left Turn 75 19 125 39 Through 50 10 125 23 Through/Right 50 10 75 16 SB

Left Turn 50 13 75 31 Through 300 40 450 46 Through/Right 325 63 475 70 WB

Intersection 2 1st Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 50 51 75 99 Through/Right 25 23 50 85

EB

Shared 50 9 75 15

NB

Shared 25 9 75 17

SB

Through/Right 25 2 25 8

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 3 Railroad Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 100 79 200 116 Through/Right 50 17 100 15

EB

Right Turn 100 16 175 36

NB

Through 25 0 25 0

WB

0

Intersection 4 Central Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 250 32 300 34 Through 350 80 500 115 Right Turn 125 22 225 25 EB

Left Turn 250 27 300 17 Through 450 113 600 76 Right Turn 100 35 200 24 NB

Left Turn 200 38 300 31 Through 400 107 625 173 Through/Right 450 103 650 142 SB

Left Turn 325 12 375 35 Through 1,850 72 2,000 69 Right Turn 100 12 175 10 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 5 Railroad Ave/E Pioneer St All‐way Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 17 100 31

EB

Through 25 0 25 0 Through/Right 75 13 100 25

NB

Left/Through 100 25 150 32 Through 100 7 100 14

SB

Shared 125 17 200 30

WB

Intersection 6 Central Ave/E Pioneer St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 175 47 250 53 Through/Right 100 22 175 33

EB

Left Turn 100 19 175 51 Through 150 102 300 177 Through/Right 150 104 300 169 NB

Left Turn 25 11 75 31 Through 75 15 175 21 Through/Right 100 27 200 52 SB

Shared 150 32 225 50

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 7 4th Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 10 75 13 Through 75 15 125 25 Through/Right 25 14 75 32 EB

Left Turn 50 21 100 69 Through 275 29 375 52 Through/Right 225 26 300 49 NB

Left Turn 50 5 75 14 Through 50 11 100 21 Through/Right 75 13 125 22 SB

Left Turn 25 5 75 11 Through 125 31 200 45 Through/Right 200 28 325 32 WB

Intersection 8 Ramsay Way/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 75 11 100 18 Through 50 10 75 16 Through/Right 50 11 75 23 EB

Left Turn 50 15 100 35 Through/Right 150 28 225 58

NB

Left Turn 25 10 50 17 Through/Right 50 15 75 25

SB

Left Turn 25 3 50 6 Through 200 27 325 41 Through/Right 250 31 400 60 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 9 1st Avenue/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 25 2 25 8

EB

Right Turn 25 7 50 17

SB

Through 25 4 25 21 Through/Right 25 5 50 22

WB

0

Intersection 10 Railroad Ave/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 8 75 15 Through 25 10 50 38 Through/Right 25 0 25 0 EB

Shared 25 6 50 9

NB

Right Turn 75 8 100 25

SB

Left/Through 25 11 50 49 Through/Right 25 6 50 21 WB

Note: The southbound approach of Railroad Ave/Smith St is striped as a single shared lane. However, drivers delayed behind a vehicle waiting to make a left or through movement were often observed to pull around the waiting vehicle to make a right turn. To reflect this driver behavior, the Synchro network was coded to allow the second car in the queue to pull around a waiting vehicle, but cars farther back in the queue are not permitted to make that movement because a bus may be occupying the adjacent bus stop.

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 11 Central Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 13 75 27 Through 100 18 175 35 Through/Right 75 16 125 31 EB

Left Turn 200 22 325 20 Through 525 21 575 19 Through/Right 525 27 550 10 NB

Left Turn 150 24 225 20 Left/Through 200 33 275 65 Through/Right 175 28 275 41 SB

Left Turn 50 11 100 36 Through 250 14 300 17 Through/Right 275 3 275 7 WB

Intersection 12 State Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 25 4 25 15 Through 25 25 75 69 Through/Right 50 28 100 73 EB

Shared 50 9 75 22

NB

Shared 75 40 150 73

SB

Left Turn 25 15 50 54 Through 950 17 1,025 21 Through/Right 975 11 1,050 17 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 13 Jason Ave/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 25 6 75 13 Through 75 8 150 17 Through/Right 50 17 125 47 EB

Left/Through 100 18 150 39 Right Turn 25 13 50 54

NB

Shared 50 8 75 12

SB

Left Turn 150 14 225 44 Through 350 29 425 28 Through/Right 550 56 750 40 WB

Intersection 14 Central Avenue/Meeker St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 9 100 20

EB

Left Turn 75 18 125 21 Through 150 54 225 40 Through/Right 150 49 225 44 NB

Left Turn 25 6 50 16 Through 25 11 75 26 Through/Right 50 21 75 35 SB

Shared 125 9 150 9

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 15 Central Avenue/Gowe St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 125 30 200 33 Through/Right 50 32 125 49

EB

Left Turn 100 16 200 26 Through 375 236 750 436 Right Turn 75 40 150 44 NB

Left Turn 25 3 25 12 Through 25 12 75 26 Through/Right 50 11 100 24 SB

Left Turn 250 12 350 21 Shared 275 27 350 36

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour Intersection 16 Railroad/Park & Ride East Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 25 11 50 16

EB

Left/Through 25 4 50 15

NB

Through/Right 25 1 25 7

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour

Intersection 17 Park and Ride South/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 25 9 50 15

SB

Through/Right 25 1 25 5

WB

0

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length AM Peak Hour Intersection 18 Railroad Avenue/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 75 5 75 14

EB

Left/Through 75 15 125 37

NB

Through/Right 25 7 25 21

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 1 4th Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 12 150 62 Through 250 35 350 60 Right Turn 125 21 175 44 EB

Left Turn 150 30 250 26 Through 125 26 225 75 Right Turn 75 13 125 43 NB

Left Turn 300 74 425 42 Through 400 127 575 163 Through/Right 375 124 500 132 SB

Left Turn 125 57 200 73 Through 225 87 300 106 Through/Right 225 24 300 41 WB

Intersection 2 1st Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 250 123 350 116 Through/Right 275 117 375 115

EB

Right Turn 50 11 75 16

NB

Right Turn 25 7 50 9

SB

Through 25 8 25 22 Through/Right 25 0 25 0

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 3 Railroad Ave/James St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 225 34 275 30 Through/Right 75 13 100 14

EB

Right Turn 100 17 175 38

NB

Through 25 4 25 21

WB

0

Intersection 4 Central Ave/James St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 225 23 325 32 Through 750 67 850 65 Right Turn 200 16 250 21 EB

Left Turn 225 52 275 27 Through 325 88 475 115 Right Turn 175 4 175 6 NB

Left Turn 275 13 275 13 Through 900 19 925 16 Through/Right 850 39 925 18 SB

Left Turn 300 52 325 15 Through 425 253 600 306 Right Turn 125 7 150 16 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 5 Railroad Ave/E Pioneer St All‐way Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 50 10 100 17

EB

Through 25 0 25 0 Through/Right 75 16 100 31

NB

Left/Through 200 6 200 8 Through 250 30 300 25

SB

Shared 100 32 175 65

WB

Intersection 6 Central Ave/E Pioneer St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 275 10 300 20 Through/Right 150 16 225 12

EB

Left Turn 50 34 100 48 Through 100 23 225 54 Through/Right 150 26 250 38 NB

Left Turn 75 25 175 50 Through 400 52 575 50 Through/Right 375 58 575 57 SB

Shared 225 32 275 15

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 7 4th Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 100 34 150 66 Through 175 20 250 39 Through/Right 150 25 225 45 EB

Left Turn 75 21 125 44 Through 150 24 200 44 Through/Right 125 23 200 41 NB

Left Turn 125 38 200 53 Through 150 38 225 59 Through/Right 175 36 275 52 SB

Left Turn 150 35 250 56 Through 200 34 375 88 Through/Right 250 28 375 48 WB

Intersection 8 Ramsay Way/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 75 18 150 62 Through 175 31 250 39 Through/Right 200 27 275 27 EB

Left Turn 50 12 75 31 Through/Right 75 22 150 42

NB

Left Turn 100 22 175 30 Through/Right 225 21 300 23

SB

Left Turn 75 20 150 65 Through 200 44 325 71 Through/Right 200 49 325 79 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 9 1st Avenue/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Through 25 12 50 48

EB

Right Turn 50 10 100 23

SB

Through 25 4 25 18 Through/Right 25 8 25 24

WB

0

Intersection 10 Railroad Ave/Smith St Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 11 100 20 Through 100 39 175 19 Through/Right 100 44 200 32 EB

Shared 150 66 225 79

NB

Right Turn 150 21 250 49

SB

Left/Through 25 1 25 5 Through/Right 25 8 50 31 WB

Note: The southbound approach of Railroad Ave/Smith St is striped as a single shared lane. However, drivers delayed behind a vehicle waiting to make a left or through movement were often observed to pull around the waiting vehicle to make a right turn. To reflect this driver behavior, the Synchro network was coded to allow the second car in the queue to pull around a waiting vehicle, but cars farther back in the queue are not permitted to make that movement because a bus may be occupying the adjacent bus stop.

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 11 Central Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 150 13 225 15 Through 450 45 525 55 Through/Right 475 51 525 71 EB

Left Turn 150 34 275 51 Through 400 42 625 35 Through/Right 525 15 550 24 NB

Left Turn 175 22 225 16 Left/Through 375 54 525 39 Through/Right 350 58 525 57 SB

Left Turn 125 26 200 21 Through 250 12 300 16 Through/Right 250 5 275 10 WB

Intersection 12 State Avenue/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 9 75 16 Through 100 19 200 34 Through/Right 125 24 225 41 EB

Shared 150 29 250 45

NB

Shared 175 18 250 25

SB

Left Turn 125 16 200 18 Through 550 85 675 48 Through/Right 600 87 725 69 WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 13 Jason Ave/Smith St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 50 17 100 67 Through 400 13 525 33 Through/Right 425 13 550 42 EB

Left/Through 375 38 450 55 Right Turn 250 5 275 14

NB

Shared 75 10 100 19

SB

Left Turn 150 34 200 56 Through 125 47 300 103 Through/Right 200 59 375 137 WB

Intersection 14 Central Avenue/Meeker St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 250 31 350 25

EB

Left Turn 25 11 50 31 Through 175 37 275 28 Through/Right 200 25 225 22 NB

Left Turn 25 11 75 38 Through 150 32 250 35 Through/Right 175 40 250 37 SB

Shared 125 12 150 15

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 15 Central Avenue/Gowe St Signal

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Left/Through 250 22 300 12 Through/Right 200 46 300 34

EB

Left Turn 50 21 100 52 Through 575 320 875 484 Right Turn 150 19 200 24 NB

Left Turn 25 7 75 21 Through 125 16 200 26 Through/Right 125 13 225 22 SB

Left Turn 150 29 275 48 Shared 200 70 300 73

WB

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour Intersection 16 Railroad Avenue/Park and Ride East Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 100 74 175 144

EB

Left/Through 25 6 25 20

NB

Through/Right 50 36 100 56

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour

Intersection 17 Park and Ride South/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 125 103 200 138

SB

Through/Right 25 0 25 0

WB

0

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018 SimTraffic Post‐Processor KASAI Average Results from 10 Runs Mitigation Queue Length PM Peak Hour Intersection 18 Railroad Avenue/PUDO Side‐street Stop

Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Direction Lane Group Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Shared 125 8 150 19

EB

Left/Through 50 16 100 36

NB

Through/Right 125 27 200 12

SB

0

Fehr & Peers 11/21/2018

Appendix D VMT Evaluation

Transportation Technical Report – Kent Kent Station Access Improvements VMT Evaluation

2037 Daily Build Trip Generation 2037 Daily No Build Trip Generation Total Daily Change in Trips Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings (Build - No Build) Notes

255 people that would ride Sounder under Build would Kent Station 2,940 3,092 2,685 2,837 510 reach their destination in a different way (driving or shifting to different transit route/Sounder station) under No Build.

Access Mode Arriving at Station Leaving Station Arriving at Station Leaving Station Walked/Wheelchair 353 371 362 383 -22 Drove Alone (Veh) 1,352 1,422 940 993 842 Dropoff/Pickup (Veh) 323 340 376 397 -110 Carpool or Vanpool (Veh) 147 155 159 168 -25 Note this equates to -54 person trips Bicycles 118 124 121 128 -7 Transit 470 495 537 567 -139 Source: Trip Generation spreadsheet.

Increase in Vehicle Trips Accessing Kent Station Total Daily Change Access Mode in Trips by Mode VMT per Trip (Build - No Build) Notes Walked/Wheelchair -22 0 Drove Alone (Veh) 842 4.3 Based on average trip distance from license plate survey results. Note that the dropoff/pickup distance assumption is likely low because some Dropoff/Pickup (Veh) -110 4.3 trips may return to their origin rather than being a pass-by trip. However, because there are more pickup/dropoff trips under No Build than Carpool or Vanpool (Veh) -25 4.3 Build, this results in a conservatively high result for the VMT increase associated with the Build scenario. Bicycles -7 0 Transit -139 0 Kent Station Net Change in VMT (Build-No Build) 3,044

Shift from Vehicle to Sounder Trips Estimated VMT for the 255 riders who would not use Kent Station under No Build Assumptions Notes Average trip distance 19.7 Percent of riders that would drive to their destination Based on KCM Park-and-Ride Paid Permit Parking Analysis, February 2018, page 7. See next tab. 54% Percent of riders that would shift to a different transit route This analysis assumes the change to VMT associated with traveling to a different transit route would be negligible. 46% Calculations

Net increase in No Build vehicle trips between home locations and ultimate destination 275 Non-Kent Station Net Change in VMT (Build-No Build) (5,424)

Total Net Change in VMT (Build-No Build) (2,379)

Appendix E Synchro Worksheets

Transportation Technical Report – Kent Existing Conditions Lanes and Geometrics Existing 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 230 713 360 0 220 160 370 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.981 0.850 0.990 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1752 3431 0 1656 3312 1482 1787 3534 0 Flt Permitted 0.505 0.248 0.249 0.443 Satd. Flow (perm) 938 3539 1583 457 3431 0 434 3312 1482 833 3534 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 204 16 139 7 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 1187 440 573 657 Travel Time (s) 23.1 8.6 13.0 68.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 2: 1st Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.865 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1611 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1611 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 336 94 890 330 Travel Time (s) 6.5 1.8 24.3 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 3: Railroad Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.993 0.850 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3521 0 0 3539 1863 1404 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3521 0 0 3539 1863 1404 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 170 307 660 Travel Time (s) 3.3 6.0 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 270 200 245 100 245 140 240 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.981 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3173 1425 1577 3037 1411 1593 3067 1425 3077 3034 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 3173 1406 1577 3037 1411 1593 3067 1406 3077 3034 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 104 173 114 16 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 307 1345 649 915 Travel Time (s) 6.0 75.7 14.8 17.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 5: Railroad Ave & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.953 0.914 Flt Protected 0.968 0.985 Satd. Flow (prot) 1420 0 1703 0 0 1560 Flt Permitted 0.968 0.985 Satd. Flow (perm) 1420 0 1703 0 0 1560 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 315 590 660 Travel Time (s) 7.2 13.4 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 170 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.872 0.988 Flt Protected 0.959 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1762 1455 0 1550 0 902 3539 0 1805 3531 0 Flt Permitted 0.380 0.245 0.430 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 698 1455 0 1550 0 233 3539 0 817 3531 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 55 152 13 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 315 256 563 649 Travel Time (s) 7.2 5.8 12.8 14.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 240 0 230 0 150 0 300 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.978 0.969 0.974 0.990 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3107 0 1562 3027 0 1533 2976 0 1608 3182 0 Flt Permitted 0.287 0.422 0.288 0.473 Satd. Flow (perm) 481 3107 0 692 3027 0 465 2976 0 798 3182 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 19 30 23 8 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1173 641 560 728 Travel Time (s) 26.7 15.6 12.7 16.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 200 0 190 0 110 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.997 0.979 0.896 0.949 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3529 0 1736 3398 0 1770 1669 0 1770 1768 0 Flt Permitted 0.306 0.376 0.605 0.574 Satd. Flow (perm) 570 3529 0 687 3398 0 1127 1669 0 1069 1768 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 19 64 25 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 641 336 521 268 Travel Time (s) 15.6 7.6 14.2 7.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 9: Smith St & 1st Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.986 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3423 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3423 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 114 397 Travel Time (s) 7.6 2.6 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 10: Smith St & Railroad Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 90 0 145 0 0 0 0 25 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.986 0.899 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.984 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 0 0 3524 0 0 1675 0 0 1558 1346 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.984 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 0 0 3524 0 0 1675 0 0 1558 1346 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 152 314 292 590 Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.1 6.6 13.4 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 160 0 150 0 220 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.993 0.971 0.945 0.985 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.996 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3511 0 1787 3437 0 1770 3345 0 1626 3335 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.996 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3511 0 1787 3437 0 1770 3345 0 1626 3335 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 26 106 9 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 314 313 596 563 Travel Time (s) 22.3 7.8 13.5 12.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 60 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.978 0.904 0.986 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.992 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3565 0 1770 3444 0 0 1670 0 0 1759 0 Flt Permitted 0.330 0.190 0.942 0.559 Satd. Flow (perm) 619 3565 0 354 3444 0 0 1585 0 0 1015 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 34 70 5 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 20 20 Link Distance (ft) 313 434 289 317 Travel Time (s) 7.1 9.9 9.9 10.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -3% 2% 0% Storage Length (ft) 220 0 340 0 0 225 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.998 0.850 0.991 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.985 0.987 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 0 1779 3529 0 0 1834 1583 0 1804 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.918 0.920 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3539 0 1779 3529 0 0 1710 1583 0 1682 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 2 212 3 Link Speed (mph) 30 40 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 300 637 419 340 Travel Time (s) 6.8 10.9 11.4 9.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 70 0 190 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.961 0.974 0.987 0.991 Flt Protected 0.990 0.984 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1772 0 0 1785 0 1770 3493 0 1787 3542 0 Flt Permitted 0.894 0.702 0.365 0.400 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1600 0 0 1274 0 680 3493 0 752 3542 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 13 12 8 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 321 160 256 596 Travel Time (s) 8.8 4.4 5.8 13.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Lanes and Geometrics Existing 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 245 0 0 0 130 130 70 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.963 0.976 0.850 0.996 Flt Protected 0.994 0.950 0.979 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3421 0 1681 1691 0 1787 3574 1599 1787 3560 0 Flt Permitted 0.994 0.950 0.979 0.254 0.422 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3421 0 1681 1691 0 478 3574 1599 794 3560 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 37 8 316 2 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 293 347 1140 256 Travel Time (s) 8.0 9.5 25.9 5.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 1: 4th Avenue & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 14.3 35.2 11 49.5 11 38.5 11 49.5 Maximum Split (%) 13.0% 32.0% 10.0% 45.0% 10.0% 35.0% 10.0% 45.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 37.4 51.7 86.9 97.9 37.4 48.4 86.9 97.9 End Time (s) 51.7 86.9 97.9 37.4 48.4 86.9 97.9 37.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 47.7 82.4 93.9 32.4 44.4 82.4 93.9 32.4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 47.7 60.4 93.9 12.4 44.4 66.4 93.9 10.4 Local Start Time (s) 49.5 63.8 99 0 49.5 60.5 99 0 Local Yield (s) 59.8 94.5 106 44.5 56.5 94.5 106 44.5 Local Yield 170(s) 59.8 72.5 106 24.5 56.5 78.5 106 22.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 97.9 (89%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 18.7 35.2 17.6 38.5 13.2 40.7 22 34.1 Maximum Split (%) 17.0% 32.0% 16.0% 35.0% 12.0% 37.0% 20.0% 31.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 39.6 4.4 58.3 75.9 4.4 17.6 92.4 58.3 End Time (s) 58.3 39.6 75.9 4.4 17.6 58.3 4.4 92.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 54.3 34.6 71.9 109.4 13.1 53.8 0.4 87.4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 54.3 9.6 71.9 84.4 13.1 30.8 0.4 63.4 Local Start Time (s) 91.3 56.1 0 17.6 56.1 69.3 34.1 0 Local Yield (s) 106 86.3 13.6 51.1 64.8 105.5 52.1 29.1 Local Yield 170(s) 106 61.3 13.6 26.1 64.8 82.5 52.1 5.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 58.3 (53%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 18.7 52.8 38.5 20.9 50.6 38.5 Maximum Split (%) 17.0% 48.0% 35.0% 19.0% 46.0% 35.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 73.7 92.4 35.2 73.7 94.6 35.2 End Time (s) 92.4 35.2 73.7 94.6 35.2 73.7 Yield/Force Off (s) 88.4 30.7 69.2 90.6 30.7 69.2 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 88.4 14.7 53.2 90.6 19.7 69.2 Local Start Time (s) 91.3 0 52.8 91.3 2.2 52.8 Local Yield (s) 106 48.3 86.8 108.2 48.3 86.8 Local Yield 170(s) 106 32.3 70.8 108.2 37.3 86.8 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 92.4 (84%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Min None C-Max None Ped None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 14.3 34.1 17.6 44 15.4 33 14.3 47.3 Maximum Split (%) 13.0% 31.0% 16.0% 40.0% 14.0% 30.0% 13.0% 43.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 74.8 89.1 13.2 30.8 74.8 90.2 13.2 27.5 End Time (s) 89.1 13.2 30.8 74.8 90.2 13.2 27.5 74.8 Yield/Force Off (s) 85.1 8.7 26.8 70.3 86.2 8.7 23.5 70.3 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85.1 8.7 26.8 55.3 86.2 103.7 23.5 51.3 Local Start Time (s) 47.3 61.6 95.7 3.3 47.3 62.7 95.7 0 Local Yield (s) 57.6 91.2 109.3 42.8 58.7 91.2 106 42.8 Local Yield 170(s) 57.6 91.2 109.3 27.8 58.7 76.2 106 23.8 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 27.5 (25%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 15.4 33 15.4 46.2 15.4 33 15.4 46.2 Maximum Split (%) 14.0% 30.0% 14.0% 42.0% 14.0% 30.0% 14.0% 42.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 36.3 51.7 84.7 100.1 36.3 51.7 84.7 100.1 End Time (s) 51.7 84.7 100.1 36.3 51.7 84.7 100.1 36.3 Yield/Force Off (s) 47.7 80.2 96.1 31.8 47.7 80.2 96.1 31.8 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 47.7 66.2 96.1 24.8 47.7 66.2 96.1 23.8 Local Start Time (s) 46.2 61.6 94.6 0 46.2 61.6 94.6 0 Local Yield (s) 57.6 90.1 106 41.7 57.6 90.1 106 41.7 Local Yield 170(s) 57.6 76.1 106 34.7 57.6 76.1 106 33.7 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 100.1 (91%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 11: Central Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 26.4 22 12.1 49.5 22 39.6 Maximum Split (%) 24.0% 20.0% 11.0% 45.0% 20.0% 36.0% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 106.7 23.1 45.1 57.2 84.7 45.1 End Time (s) 23.1 45.1 57.2 106.7 106.7 84.7 Yield/Force Off (s) 18.6 40.6 53.2 102.2 102.7 80.2 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 3.6 28.6 53.2 88.2 102.7 67.2 Local Start Time (s) 61.6 88 0 12.1 39.6 0 Local Yield (s) 83.5 105.5 8.1 57.1 57.6 35.1 Local Yield 170(s) 68.5 93.5 8.1 43.1 57.6 22.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 45.1 (41%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 12: State Ave & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 29.7 80.3 29.7 80.3 Maximum Split (%) 27.0% 73.0% 27.0% 73.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 2 1.5 1.5 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 45.1 74.8 45.1 74.8 End Time (s) 74.8 45.1 74.8 45.1 Yield/Force Off (s) 70.3 40.6 70.3 40.6 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 56.3 40.6 56.3 40.6 Local Start Time (s) 0 29.7 0 29.7 Local Yield (s) 25.2 105.5 25.2 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 11.2 105.5 11.2 105.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 45.1 (41%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 29.7 16.5 63.8 29.7 45.1 35.2 Maximum Split (%) 27.0% 15.0% 58.0% 27.0% 41.0% 32.0% Minimum Split (s) 28 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 90.2 73.7 9.9 90.2 9.9 55 End Time (s) 9.9 90.2 73.7 9.9 55 90.2 Yield/Force Off (s) 4.9 86.2 68.2 5.4 50.5 85.7 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 4.9 86.2 60.2 101.4 50.5 76.7 Local Start Time (s) 80.3 63.8 0 80.3 0 45.1 Local Yield (s) 105 76.3 58.3 105.5 40.6 75.8 Local Yield 170(s) 105 76.3 50.3 91.5 40.6 66.8 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 9.9 (9%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 60.5 49.5 Maximum Split (%) 55.0% 45.0% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 104.5 55 End Time (s) 55 104.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 50.5 100 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 39.5 87 Local Start Time (s) 0 60.5 Local Yield (s) 56 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 45 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 104.5 (95%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 11 37.4 29.7 31.9 12.1 36.3 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 34.0% 27.0% 29.0% 11.0% 33.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 56.1 67.1 26.4 104.5 56.1 68.2 End Time (s) 67.1 104.5 56.1 26.4 68.2 104.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 63.1 100 51.6 21.9 64.2 100 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 63.1 88 36.6 1.9 64.2 88 Local Start Time (s) 99 0 69.3 37.4 99 1.1 Local Yield (s) 106 32.9 94.5 64.8 107.1 32.9 Local Yield 170(s) 106 20.9 79.5 44.8 107.1 20.9 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 67.1 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 16.5 39.6 12.1 41.8 28.6 27.5 13.2 40.7 Maximum Split (%) 15.0% 36.0% 11.0% 38.0% 26.0% 25.0% 12.0% 37.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 45.1 61.6 101.2 3.3 45.1 73.7 101.2 4.4 End Time (s) 61.6 101.2 3.3 45.1 73.7 101.2 4.4 45.1 Yield/Force Off (s) 57.6 96.7 109.3 40.1 69.7 96.7 0.4 40.1 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 57.6 74.7 109.3 20.1 69.7 80.7 0.4 18.1 Local Start Time (s) 41.8 58.3 97.9 0 41.8 70.4 97.9 1.1 Local Yield (s) 54.3 93.4 106 36.8 66.4 93.4 107.1 36.8 Local Yield 170(s) 54.3 71.4 106 16.8 66.4 77.4 107.1 14.8 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 3.3 (3%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Min None C-Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 13.2 41.8 19.8 35.2 22 33 16.5 38.5 Maximum Split (%) 12.0% 38.0% 18.0% 32.0% 20.0% 30.0% 15.0% 35.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 94.6 52.8 33 107.8 52.8 74.8 107.8 14.3 End Time (s) 107.8 94.6 52.8 33 74.8 107.8 14.3 52.8 Yield/Force Off (s) 103.8 89.6 48.8 28 70.3 103.3 10.3 47.8 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 103.8 64.6 48.8 28 70.3 80.3 10.3 47.8 Local Start Time (s) 41.8 0 90.2 55 0 22 55 71.5 Local Yield (s) 51 36.8 106 85.2 17.5 50.5 67.5 105 Local Yield 170(s) 51 11.8 106 85.2 17.5 27.5 67.5 105 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 52.8 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 12.1 62.7 35.2 12.1 62.7 35.2 Maximum Split (%) 11.0% 57.0% 32.0% 11.0% 57.0% 32.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 103.4 5.5 68.2 103.4 5.5 68.2 End Time (s) 5.5 68.2 103.4 5.5 68.2 103.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 1.5 63.7 98.9 1.5 63.7 98.9 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 1.5 47.7 82.9 1.5 52.7 98.9 Local Start Time (s) 97.9 0 62.7 97.9 0 62.7 Local Yield (s) 106 58.2 93.4 106 58.2 93.4 Local Yield 170(s) 106 42.2 77.4 106 47.2 93.4 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 5.5 (5%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Ped None C-Max None Ped Maximum Split (s) 12.1 47.3 14.3 36.3 24.2 35.2 12.1 38.5 Maximum Split (%) 11.0% 43.0% 13.0% 33.0% 22.0% 32.0% 11.0% 35.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 73.6 85.7 23 37.3 73.6 97.8 23 35.1 End Time (s) 85.7 23 37.3 73.6 97.8 23 35.1 73.6 Yield/Force Off (s) 81.7 18.5 33.3 69.1 93.8 18.5 31.1 69.1 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 81.7 3.5 33.3 54.1 93.8 3.5 31.1 50.1 Local Start Time (s) 97.9 0 47.3 61.6 97.9 12.1 47.3 59.4 Local Yield (s) 106 42.8 57.6 93.4 8.1 42.8 55.4 93.4 Local Yield 170(s) 106 27.8 57.6 78.4 8.1 27.8 55.4 74.4 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 85.7 (78%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 12.1 39.6 12.1 46.2 23.1 28.6 12.1 46.2 Maximum Split (%) 11.0% 36.0% 11.0% 42.0% 21.0% 26.0% 11.0% 42.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 88 100.1 29.7 41.8 88 1.1 29.7 41.8 End Time (s) 100.1 29.7 41.8 88 1.1 29.7 41.8 88 Yield/Force Off (s) 96.1 25.2 37.8 83.5 107.1 25.2 37.8 83.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 96.1 11.2 37.8 76.5 107.1 11.2 37.8 75.5 Local Start Time (s) 46.2 58.3 97.9 0 46.2 69.3 97.9 0 Local Yield (s) 54.3 93.4 106 41.7 65.3 93.4 106 41.7 Local Yield 170(s) 54.3 79.4 106 34.7 65.3 79.4 106 33.7 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 41.8 (38%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 35.2 31.9 12.1 30.8 13.2 29.7 Maximum Split (%) 32.0% 29.0% 11.0% 28.0% 12.0% 27.0% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 7.7 42.9 74.8 86.9 104.5 74.8 End Time (s) 42.9 74.8 86.9 7.7 7.7 104.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 38.4 70.3 82.9 3.2 3.7 100 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 23.4 58.3 82.9 99.2 3.7 87 Local Start Time (s) 42.9 78.1 0 12.1 29.7 0 Local Yield (s) 73.6 105.5 8.1 38.4 38.9 25.2 Local Yield 170(s) 58.6 93.5 8.1 24.4 38.9 12.2 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 74.8 (68%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 38.5 71.5 38.5 71.5 Maximum Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 35.0% 65.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 1.5 3 1.5 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 27.5 66 27.5 66 End Time (s) 66 27.5 66 27.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 61.5 23 61.5 23 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 61.5 14 47.5 15 Local Start Time (s) 71.5 0 71.5 0 Local Yield (s) 105.5 67 105.5 67 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 58 91.5 59 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 66 (60%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 26.4 16.5 67.1 26.4 16.5 67.1 Maximum Split (%) 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2.5 2 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 15.4 108.9 41.8 15.4 41.8 58.3 End Time (s) 41.8 15.4 108.9 41.8 58.3 15.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 37.3 11.4 103.4 37.3 53.8 10.9 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 37.3 11.4 95.4 23.3 53.8 1.9 Local Start Time (s) 83.6 67.1 0 83.6 0 16.5 Local Yield (s) 105.5 79.6 61.6 105.5 12 79.1 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 79.6 53.6 91.5 12 70.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 41.8 (38%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 58.3 51.7 Maximum Split (%) 53.0% 47.0% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 79.2 27.5 End Time (s) 27.5 79.2 Yield/Force Off (s) 23 74.7 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 12 61.7 Local Start Time (s) 0 58.3 Local Yield (s) 53.8 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 42.8 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 79.2 (72%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Existing 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 11 44 25.3 29.7 9.9 45.1 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 40.0% 23.0% 27.0% 9.0% 41.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 60.5 71.5 35.2 5.5 60.5 70.4 End Time (s) 71.5 5.5 60.5 35.2 70.4 5.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 67.5 1 56 30.7 66.4 1 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 67.5 99 41 10.7 66.4 99 Local Start Time (s) 100.1 1.1 74.8 45.1 100.1 0 Local Yield (s) 107.1 40.6 95.6 70.3 106 40.6 Local Yield 170(s) 107.1 28.6 80.6 50.3 106 28.6 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 70.4 (64%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Future – No Build Lanes and Geometrics No Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 230 713 360 0 220 160 370 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.977 0.850 0.987 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1752 3415 0 1656 3312 1482 1787 3523 0 Flt Permitted 0.410 0.136 0.168 0.380 Satd. Flow (perm) 762 3539 1583 251 3415 0 293 3312 1482 715 3523 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 260 20 139 9 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 1187 440 573 657 Travel Time (s) 23.1 8.6 13.0 68.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 2: 1st Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.865 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1611 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1611 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 336 94 890 330 Travel Time (s) 6.5 1.8 24.3 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 3: Railroad Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.989 0.850 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3491 0 0 3539 1863 1404 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3491 0 0 3539 1863 1404 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 170 307 660 Travel Time (s) 3.3 6.0 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 270 200 245 100 245 140 240 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.981 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3173 1425 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1398 3077 3034 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 3173 1390 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1363 3077 3034 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 104 114 114 18 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 307 1345 649 915 Travel Time (s) 6.0 75.7 14.8 17.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 5: Railroad Ave & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.932 0.935 Flt Protected 0.976 0.979 Satd. Flow (prot) 1324 0 1742 0 0 1550 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.979 Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 0 1742 0 0 1550 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 315 590 660 Travel Time (s) 7.2 13.4 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 170 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.896 0.985 Flt Protected 0.964 0.996 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1757 1429 0 1448 0 902 3539 0 1805 3474 0 Flt Permitted 0.233 0.972 0.167 0.376 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 425 1404 0 1413 0 159 3539 0 714 3474 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 60 149 19 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 315 256 563 649 Travel Time (s) 7.2 5.8 12.8 14.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 240 0 230 0 150 0 300 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.975 0.968 0.971 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3096 0 1562 3024 0 1533 2964 0 1608 3175 0 Flt Permitted 0.279 0.279 0.197 0.380 Satd. Flow (perm) 468 3096 0 457 3024 0 318 2964 0 641 3175 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 20 33 25 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1173 641 560 728 Travel Time (s) 26.7 15.6 12.7 16.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 200 0 190 0 110 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.996 0.979 0.900 0.950 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 0 1736 3398 0 1770 1676 0 1770 1770 0 Flt Permitted 0.228 0.292 0.577 0.521 Satd. Flow (perm) 425 3525 0 533 3398 0 1075 1676 0 970 1770 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 21 80 25 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 641 336 521 268 Travel Time (s) 15.6 7.6 14.2 7.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 9: Smith St & 1st Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.984 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 114 397 Travel Time (s) 7.6 2.6 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 10: Smith St & Railroad Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 90 0 145 0 0 0 0 25 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.983 0.932 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.984 Satd. Flow (prot) 1410 3539 0 0 3482 0 0 1736 0 0 1420 1346 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.984 Satd. Flow (perm) 1410 3539 0 0 3482 0 0 1736 0 0 1420 1346 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 152 314 292 590 Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.1 6.6 13.4 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 160 0 150 0 220 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.990 0.970 0.943 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.996 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3498 0 1787 3400 0 1687 3337 0 1610 3319 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.996 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3498 0 1787 3400 0 1687 3337 0 1610 3319 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 29 107 12 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 314 313 596 563 Travel Time (s) 22.3 7.8 13.5 12.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 60 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.994 0.974 0.914 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.991 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3545 0 1770 3423 0 0 1687 0 0 1763 0 Flt Permitted 0.235 0.111 0.916 0.540 Satd. Flow (perm) 441 3545 0 207 3423 0 0 1558 0 0 982 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 45 47 5 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 20 20 Link Distance (ft) 313 434 289 317 Travel Time (s) 7.1 9.9 9.9 10.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -3% 2% 0% Storage Length (ft) 220 0 340 0 0 225 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.997 0.850 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.976 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1818 1583 0 1792 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.835 0.915 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1555 1583 0 1659 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 3 170 6 Link Speed (mph) 30 40 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 300 637 419 340 Travel Time (s) 6.8 10.9 11.4 9.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 70 0 190 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.955 0.977 0.984 0.990 Flt Protected 0.990 0.980 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1761 0 0 1784 0 1770 3483 0 1787 3539 0 Flt Permitted 0.865 0.591 0.264 0.306 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1539 0 0 1076 0 492 3483 0 576 3539 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 33 13 14 9 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 321 160 256 596 Travel Time (s) 8.8 4.4 5.8 13.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Lanes and Geometrics No Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 245 0 0 0 130 130 70 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.960 0.964 0.850 0.994 Flt Protected 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 1787 3574 1599 1787 3553 0 Flt Permitted 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.168 0.339 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 316 3574 1599 638 3553 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 45 13 381 4 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 293 347 1140 256 Travel Time (s) 8.0 9.5 25.9 5.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 10 34 9 47 9 35 9 47 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 34.0% 9.0% 47.0% 9.0% 35.0% 9.0% 47.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 76 86 20 29 76 85 20 29 End Time (s) 86 20 29 76 85 20 29 76 Yield/Force Off (s) 82 15.5 25 71 81 15.5 25 71 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 82 93.5 25 51 81 99.5 25 49 Local Start Time (s) 47 57 91 0 47 56 91 0 Local Yield (s) 53 86.5 96 42 52 86.5 96 42 Local Yield 170(s) 53 64.5 96 22 52 70.5 96 20 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 29 (29%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 15 35 12 38 11.2 38.8 9 41 Maximum Split (%) 15.0% 35.0% 12.0% 38.0% 11.2% 38.8% 9.0% 41.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 44 9 59 71 9 20.2 0 59 End Time (s) 59 44 71 9 20.2 59 9 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 55 39 67 4 15.7 54.5 5 95 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 55 14 67 79 15.7 31.5 5 71 Local Start Time (s) 85 50 0 12 50 61.2 41 0 Local Yield (s) 96 80 8 45 56.7 95.5 46 36 Local Yield 170(s) 96 55 8 20 56.7 72.5 46 12 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 130 Offset: 59 (59%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 9 59 32 9 59 32 Maximum Split (%) 9.0% 59.0% 32.0% 9.0% 59.0% 32.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 16.5 25.5 84.5 16.5 25.5 84.5 End Time (s) 25.5 84.5 16.5 25.5 84.5 16.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 21.5 80 12 21.5 80 12 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 21.5 64 96 21.5 69 12 Local Start Time (s) 91 0 59 91 0 59 Local Yield (s) 96 54.5 86.5 96 54.5 86.5 Local Yield 170(s) 96 38.5 70.5 96 43.5 86.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 25.5 (26%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Min None C-Max None Ped None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 9 35 9 47 9 35 9 47 Maximum Split (%) 9.0% 35.0% 9.0% 47.0% 9.0% 35.0% 9.0% 47.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 4.5 13.5 48.5 57.5 4.5 13.5 48.5 57.5 End Time (s) 13.5 48.5 57.5 4.5 13.5 48.5 57.5 4.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 9.5 44 53.5 0 9.5 44 53.5 0 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 9.5 44 53.5 85 9.5 29 53.5 81 Local Start Time (s) 47 56 91 0 47 56 91 0 Local Yield (s) 52 86.5 96 42.5 52 86.5 96 42.5 Local Yield 170(s) 52 86.5 96 27.5 52 71.5 96 23.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 57.5 (58%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 27 13 53 7 27 7 59 Maximum Split (%) 7.0% 27.0% 13.0% 53.0% 7.0% 27.0% 7.0% 59.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 4.5 11.5 38.5 51.5 4.5 11.5 38.5 45.5 End Time (s) 11.5 38.5 51.5 4.5 11.5 38.5 45.5 4.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 7.5 34 47.5 0 7.5 34 41.5 0 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 7.5 20 47.5 93 7.5 20 41.5 92 Local Start Time (s) 59 66 93 6 59 66 93 0 Local Yield (s) 62 88.5 2 54.5 62 88.5 96 54.5 Local Yield 170(s) 62 74.5 2 47.5 62 74.5 96 46.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 45.5 (46%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 45 14 40 Maximum Split (%) 24.5% 21.5% 9.0% 45.0% 14.0% 40.0% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 4.5 29 50.5 59.5 90.5 50.5 End Time (s) 29 50.5 59.5 4.5 4.5 90.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 24.5 46 55.5 0 0.5 86 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 9.5 34 55.5 86 0.5 73 Local Start Time (s) 54 78.5 0 9 40 0 Local Yield (s) 74 95.5 5 49.5 50 35.5 Local Yield 170(s) 59 83.5 5 35.5 50 22.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 140 Offset: 50.5 (51%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 12: State Ave & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 27 73 27 73 Maximum Split (%) 27.0% 73.0% 27.0% 73.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 2 1.5 1.5 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 29.5 56.5 29.5 56.5 End Time (s) 56.5 29.5 56.5 29.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 52 25 52 25 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 38 25 38 25 Local Start Time (s) 0 27 0 27 Local Yield (s) 22.5 95.5 22.5 95.5 Local Yield 170(s) 8.5 95.5 8.5 95.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 29.5 (30%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 28 9 63 28 30.1 41.9 Maximum Split (%) 28.0% 9.0% 63.0% 28.0% 30.1% 41.9% Minimum Split (s) 28 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 5.5 96.5 33.5 5.5 33.5 63.6 End Time (s) 33.5 5.5 96.5 33.5 63.6 5.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 28.5 1.5 91 29 59.1 1 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 28.5 1.5 83 15 59.1 92 Local Start Time (s) 72 63 0 72 0 30.1 Local Yield (s) 95 68 57.5 95.5 25.6 67.5 Local Yield 170(s) 95 68 49.5 81.5 25.6 58.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 33.5 (34%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 63 37 Maximum Split (%) 63.0% 37.0% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 4.5 67.5 End Time (s) 67.5 4.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 63 0 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 52 87 Local Start Time (s) 0 63 Local Yield (s) 58.5 95.5 Local Yield 170(s) 47.5 82.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 4.5 (5%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 16 26.4 28.1 29.5 7 35.4 Maximum Split (%) 16.0% 26.4% 28.1% 29.5% 7.0% 35.4% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 68.1 84.1 40 10.5 68.1 75.1 End Time (s) 84.1 10.5 68.1 40 75.1 10.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 80.1 6 63.6 35.5 71.1 6 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 80.1 94 48.6 15.5 71.1 94 Local Start Time (s) 93 9 64.9 35.4 93 0 Local Yield (s) 5 30.9 88.5 60.4 96 30.9 Local Yield 170(s) 5 18.9 73.5 40.4 96 18.9 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 75.1 (75%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 19 39 9 43 29 29 12 40 Maximum Split (%) 17.3% 35.5% 8.2% 39.1% 26.4% 26.4% 10.9% 36.4% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 4 23 62 71 4 33 62 74 End Time (s) 23 62 71 4 33 62 74 4 Yield/Force Off (s) 19 57.5 67 109 29 57.5 70 109 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 19 35.5 67 89 29 41.5 70 87 Local Start Time (s) 43 62 101 0 43 72 101 3 Local Yield (s) 58 96.5 106 38 68 96.5 109 38 Local Yield 170(s) 58 74.5 106 18 68 80.5 109 16 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 71 (65%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Min None C-Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 12 48 15 35 25 35 14 36 Maximum Split (%) 10.9% 43.6% 13.6% 31.8% 22.7% 31.8% 12.7% 32.7% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 106 58 43 8 58 83 8 22 End Time (s) 8 106 58 43 83 8 22 58 Yield/Force Off (s) 4 101 54 38 78.5 3.5 18 53 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 4 76 54 38 78.5 90.5 18 53 Local Start Time (s) 48 0 95 60 0 25 60 74 Local Yield (s) 56 43 106 90 20.5 55.5 70 105 Local Yield 170(s) 56 18 106 90 20.5 32.5 70 105 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 130 Offset: 58 (53%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 9 67 34 9 67 34 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 60.9% 30.9% 8.2% 60.9% 30.9% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 82.5 91.5 48.5 82.5 91.5 48.5 End Time (s) 91.5 48.5 82.5 91.5 48.5 82.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 87.5 44 78 87.5 44 78 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 87.5 28 62 87.5 33 78 Local Start Time (s) 101 0 67 101 0 67 Local Yield (s) 106 62.5 96.5 106 62.5 96.5 Local Yield 170(s) 106 46.5 80.5 106 51.5 96.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 91.5 (83%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Ped None C-Max None Ped Maximum Split (s) 9 49.4 14 37.6 25 33.4 20 31.6 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 44.9% 12.7% 34.2% 22.7% 30.4% 18.2% 28.7% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 38.1 47.1 96.5 0.5 38.1 63.1 96.5 6.5 End Time (s) 47.1 96.5 0.5 38.1 63.1 96.5 6.5 38.1 Yield/Force Off (s) 43.1 92 106.5 33.6 59.1 92 2.5 33.6 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 43.1 77 106.5 18.6 59.1 77 2.5 14.6 Local Start Time (s) 101 0 49.4 63.4 101 16 49.4 69.4 Local Yield (s) 106 44.9 59.4 96.5 12 44.9 65.4 96.5 Local Yield 170(s) 106 29.9 59.4 81.5 12 29.9 65.4 77.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 47.1 (43%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 41 10 52 21 27 11 51 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 37.3% 9.1% 47.3% 19.1% 24.5% 10.0% 46.4% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 23.5 30.5 71.5 81.5 23.5 44.5 71.5 82.5 End Time (s) 30.5 71.5 81.5 23.5 44.5 71.5 82.5 23.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 26.5 67 77.5 19 40.5 67 78.5 19 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 26.5 53 77.5 12 40.5 53 78.5 11 Local Start Time (s) 52 59 100 0 52 73 100 1 Local Yield (s) 55 95.5 106 47.5 69 95.5 107 47.5 Local Yield 170(s) 55 81.5 106 40.5 69 81.5 107 39.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 81.5 (74%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 25 36 11 38 12 37 Maximum Split (%) 22.7% 32.7% 10.0% 34.5% 10.9% 33.6% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 68.5 93.5 19.5 30.5 56.5 19.5 End Time (s) 93.5 19.5 30.5 68.5 68.5 56.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 89 15 26.5 64 64.5 52 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 74 3 26.5 50 64.5 39 Local Start Time (s) 49 74 0 11 37 0 Local Yield (s) 69.5 105.5 7 44.5 45 32.5 Local Yield 170(s) 54.5 93.5 7 30.5 45 19.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 19.5 (18%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 35 75 35 75 Maximum Split (%) 31.8% 68.2% 31.8% 68.2% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 1.5 3 1.5 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 67.5 102.5 67.5 102.5 End Time (s) 102.5 67.5 102.5 67.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 98 63 98 63 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 98 54 84 55 Local Start Time (s) 75 0 75 0 Local Yield (s) 105.5 70.5 105.5 70.5 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 61.5 91.5 62.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 102.5 (93%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 33.2 9 67.8 33.2 13.8 63 Maximum Split (%) 30.2% 8.2% 61.6% 30.2% 12.5% 57.3% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2.5 2 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 79.5 70.5 2.7 79.5 2.7 16.5 End Time (s) 2.7 79.5 70.5 2.7 16.5 79.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 108.2 75.5 65 108.2 12 75 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 108.2 75.5 57 94.2 12 66 Local Start Time (s) 76.8 67.8 0 76.8 0 13.8 Local Yield (s) 105.5 72.8 62.3 105.5 9.3 72.3 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 72.8 54.3 91.5 9.3 63.3 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 120 Offset: 2.7 (2%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 50 60 Maximum Split (%) 45.5% 54.5% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 28.5 78.5 End Time (s) 78.5 28.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 74 24 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 63 11 Local Start Time (s) 0 50 Local Yield (s) 45.5 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 34.5 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 28.5 (26%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase No Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 9 46.6 24.8 29.6 7 48.6 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 42.4% 22.5% 26.9% 6.4% 44.2% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 8.9 17.9 94.1 64.5 8.9 15.9 End Time (s) 17.9 64.5 8.9 94.1 15.9 64.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 13.9 60 4.4 89.6 11.9 60 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 13.9 48 99.4 69.6 11.9 48 Local Start Time (s) 103 2 78.2 48.6 103 0 Local Yield (s) 108 44.1 98.5 73.7 106 44.1 Local Yield 170(s) 108 32.1 83.5 53.7 106 32.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 15.9 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Future – Build Lanes and Geometrics Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 230 713 360 0 220 160 370 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.977 0.850 0.987 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1752 3415 0 1656 3312 1482 1787 3523 0 Flt Permitted 0.410 0.136 0.169 0.360 Satd. Flow (perm) 762 3539 1583 251 3415 0 295 3312 1482 677 3523 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 260 20 139 9 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 1187 440 573 657 Travel Time (s) 23.1 8.6 13.0 68.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes and Geometrics Build 2: 1st Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.865 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1494 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1494 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 336 94 890 330 Travel Time (s) 6.5 1.8 24.3 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lanes and Geometrics Build 3: Railroad Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.988 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 6303 0 0 2888 0 1429 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 6303 0 0 2888 0 1429 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 287 190 241 Travel Time (s) 5.6 3.7 5.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lanes and Geometrics Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 245 100 245 140 240 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.981 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3173 1425 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1398 3077 3035 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 3173 1390 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1363 3077 3035 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 104 114 114 17 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 190 1345 649 915 Travel Time (s) 3.7 75.7 14.8 17.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lanes and Geometrics Build 5: Railroad Ave & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.912 0.932 Flt Protected 0.980 0.983 0.966 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 931 0 0 1292 0 0 1736 0 0 1530 0 Flt Permitted 0.980 0.983 0.966 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 931 0 0 1292 0 0 1736 0 0 1530 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 211 327 331 229 Travel Time (s) 4.8 7.4 7.5 5.2 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lanes and Geometrics Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 170 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.896 0.998 0.981 Flt Protected 0.957 0.996 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1769 1455 0 1448 0 902 3532 0 1805 3492 0 Flt Permitted 0.429 0.962 0.116 0.340 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 793 1430 0 1399 0 110 3532 0 646 3492 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 140 151 2 23 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 327 256 563 649 Travel Time (s) 7.4 5.8 12.8 14.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Lanes and Geometrics Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 240 0 230 0 150 0 300 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.963 0.971 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3099 0 1562 3008 0 1533 2964 0 1608 3175 0 Flt Permitted 0.292 0.261 0.192 0.373 Satd. Flow (perm) 490 3099 0 428 3008 0 310 2964 0 629 3175 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 19 41 25 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1173 641 560 728 Travel Time (s) 26.7 15.6 12.7 16.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Lanes and Geometrics Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 200 0 190 0 110 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.996 0.979 0.900 0.944 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 0 1736 3398 0 1770 1676 0 1770 1758 0 Flt Permitted 0.251 0.299 0.413 0.527 Satd. Flow (perm) 468 3525 0 546 3398 0 769 1676 0 982 1758 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 21 80 29 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 641 336 521 268 Travel Time (s) 15.6 7.6 14.2 7.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Lanes and Geometrics Build 9: Smith St & 1st Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.984 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 114 397 Travel Time (s) 7.6 2.6 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Lanes and Geometrics Build 10: Smith St & Railroad Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 90 0 145 0 0 0 0 25 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.977 0.932 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.975 Satd. Flow (prot) 1388 3539 0 0 3455 0 0 1736 0 0 1439 1346 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.975 Satd. Flow (perm) 1388 3539 0 0 3455 0 0 1736 0 0 1439 1346 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 152 314 292 313 Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.1 6.6 7.1 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Lanes and Geometrics Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 160 0 150 0 220 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.993 0.969 0.943 0.984 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.993 Satd. Flow (prot) 1543 3476 0 1787 3404 0 1687 3337 0 1626 3316 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.993 Satd. Flow (perm) 1543 3476 0 1787 3404 0 1687 3337 0 1626 3316 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 30 107 12 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 314 313 596 563 Travel Time (s) 22.3 7.8 13.5 12.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Lanes and Geometrics Build 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 60 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.994 0.975 0.914 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.991 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3545 0 1770 3427 0 0 1687 0 0 1763 0 Flt Permitted 0.225 0.103 0.916 0.542 Satd. Flow (perm) 422 3545 0 192 3427 0 0 1558 0 0 986 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 40 36 5 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 20 20 Link Distance (ft) 313 434 289 317 Travel Time (s) 7.1 9.9 9.9 10.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Lanes and Geometrics Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -3% 2% 0% Storage Length (ft) 220 0 340 0 0 225 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.997 0.850 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.984 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1833 1583 0 1792 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.903 0.915 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1682 1583 0 1659 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 3 198 6 Link Speed (mph) 30 40 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 300 637 419 340 Travel Time (s) 6.8 10.9 11.4 9.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Lanes and Geometrics Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 70 0 190 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.955 0.977 0.984 0.989 Flt Protected 0.990 0.980 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1761 0 0 1784 0 1770 3483 0 1787 3535 0 Flt Permitted 0.862 0.578 0.277 0.310 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1533 0 0 1052 0 516 3483 0 583 3535 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 12 16 10 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 321 160 256 596 Travel Time (s) 8.8 4.4 5.8 13.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Lanes and Geometrics Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 245 0 0 0 130 130 70 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.960 0.964 0.850 0.994 Flt Protected 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 1787 3574 1599 1787 3553 0 Flt Permitted 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.172 0.334 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 324 3574 1599 628 3553 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 45 13 362 4 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 293 347 1140 256 Travel Time (s) 8.0 9.5 25.9 5.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 13 35.8 9 52.2 9 39.8 9 52.2 Maximum Split (%) 11.8% 32.5% 8.2% 47.5% 8.2% 36.2% 8.2% 47.5% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 102 5 40.8 49.8 102 1 40.8 49.8 End Time (s) 5 40.8 49.8 102 1 40.8 49.8 102 Yield/Force Off (s) 1 36.3 45.8 97 107 36.3 45.8 97 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 1 14.3 45.8 77 107 20.3 45.8 75 Local Start Time (s) 52.2 65.2 101 0 52.2 61.2 101 0 Local Yield (s) 61.2 96.5 106 47.2 57.2 96.5 106 47.2 Local Yield 170(s) 61.2 74.5 106 27.2 57.2 80.5 106 25.2 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 49.8 (45%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 16 35 15 44 11.2 39.8 23 36 Maximum Split (%) 14.5% 31.8% 13.6% 40.0% 10.2% 36.2% 20.9% 32.7% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 32 107 48 63 107 8.2 84 48 End Time (s) 48 32 63 107 8.2 48 107 84 Yield/Force Off (s) 44 27 59 102 3.7 43.5 103 79 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 44 2 59 77 3.7 20.5 103 55 Local Start Time (s) 94 59 0 15 59 70.2 36 0 Local Yield (s) 106 89 11 54 65.7 105.5 55 31 Local Yield 170(s) 106 64 11 29 65.7 82.5 55 7 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 130 Offset: 48 (44%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 17 59 34 10 66 34 Maximum Split (%) 15.5% 53.6% 30.9% 9.1% 60.0% 30.9% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 0.5 17.5 76.5 0.5 10.5 76.5 End Time (s) 17.5 76.5 0.5 10.5 76.5 0.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 13.5 72 106 6.5 72 106 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 13.5 56 90 6.5 61 106 Local Start Time (s) 100 7 66 100 0 66 Local Yield (s) 3 61.5 95.5 106 61.5 95.5 Local Yield 170(s) 3 45.5 79.5 106 50.5 95.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 10.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Min None C-Max None Ped None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 9 39 9 53 9 39 9 53 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 35.5% 8.2% 48.2% 8.2% 35.5% 8.2% 48.2% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 End Time (s) 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 81.5 10 19.5 72 81.5 10 19.5 72 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 81.5 10 19.5 57 81.5 105 19.5 53 Local Start Time (s) 53 62 101 0 53 62 101 0 Local Yield (s) 58 96.5 106 48.5 58 96.5 106 48.5 Local Yield 170(s) 58 96.5 106 33.5 58 81.5 106 29.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 23.5 (21%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 28 15 60 7 28 7 68 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 25.5% 13.6% 54.5% 6.4% 25.5% 6.4% 61.8% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 90.5 97.5 15.5 30.5 90.5 97.5 15.5 22.5 End Time (s) 97.5 15.5 30.5 90.5 97.5 15.5 22.5 90.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 93.5 11 26.5 86 93.5 11 18.5 86 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 93.5 107 26.5 79 93.5 107 18.5 78 Local Start Time (s) 68 75 103 8 68 75 103 0 Local Yield (s) 71 98.5 4 63.5 71 98.5 106 63.5 Local Yield 170(s) 71 84.5 4 56.5 71 84.5 106 55.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 22.5 (20%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 25 21.5 9 54.5 13 50.5 Maximum Split (%) 22.7% 19.5% 8.2% 49.5% 11.8% 45.9% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 105.5 20.5 42 51 92.5 42 End Time (s) 20.5 42 51 105.5 105.5 92.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 37.5 47 101 101.5 88 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 1 25.5 47 87 101.5 75 Local Start Time (s) 63.5 88.5 0 9 50.5 0 Local Yield (s) 84 105.5 5 59 59.5 46 Local Yield 170(s) 69 93.5 5 45 59.5 33 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 140 Offset: 42 (38%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 12: State Ave & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 27 83 27 83 Maximum Split (%) 24.5% 75.5% 24.5% 75.5% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 2 1.5 1.5 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 21.5 48.5 21.5 48.5 End Time (s) 48.5 21.5 48.5 21.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 44 17 44 17 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 30 17 30 17 Local Start Time (s) 0 27 0 27 Local Yield (s) 22.5 105.5 22.5 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 8.5 105.5 8.5 105.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 21.5 (20%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 28 9 73 28 32.5 49.5 Maximum Split (%) 25.5% 8.2% 66.4% 25.5% 29.5% 45.0% Minimum Split (s) 28 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 108.5 99.5 26.5 108.5 26.5 59 End Time (s) 26.5 108.5 99.5 26.5 59 108.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 21.5 104.5 94 22 54.5 104 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 21.5 104.5 86 8 54.5 95 Local Start Time (s) 82 73 0 82 0 32.5 Local Yield (s) 105 78 67.5 105.5 28 77.5 Local Yield 170(s) 105 78 59.5 91.5 28 68.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 110 Offset: 26.5 (24%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 70 40 Maximum Split (%) 63.6% 36.4% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 51.5 11.5 End Time (s) 11.5 51.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 7 47 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 106 34 Local Start Time (s) 0 70 Local Yield (s) 65.5 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 54.5 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 51.5 (47%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 17 30.5 33 29.5 7 40.5 Maximum Split (%) 15.5% 27.7% 30.0% 26.8% 6.4% 36.8% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 22 39 99 69.5 22 29 End Time (s) 39 69.5 22 99 29 69.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 35 65 17.5 94.5 25 65 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 35 53 2.5 74.5 25 53 Local Start Time (s) 103 10 70 40.5 103 0 Local Yield (s) 6 36 98.5 65.5 106 36 Local Yield 170(s) 6 24 83.5 45.5 106 24 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 29 (26%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 19 39 9 43 29 29 12 40 Maximum Split (%) 17.3% 35.5% 8.2% 39.1% 26.4% 26.4% 10.9% 36.4% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 1 20 59 68 1 30 59 71 End Time (s) 20 59 68 1 30 59 71 1 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 54.5 64 106 26 54.5 67 106 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 16 32.5 64 86 26 38.5 67 84 Local Start Time (s) 43 62 101 0 43 72 101 3 Local Yield (s) 58 96.5 106 38 68 96.5 109 38 Local Yield 170(s) 58 74.5 106 18 68 80.5 109 16 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 68 (62%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Min None C-Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 10 47 18 35 22 35 15 38 Maximum Split (%) 9.1% 42.7% 16.4% 31.8% 20.0% 31.8% 13.6% 34.5% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 77 30 12 87 30 52 87 102 End Time (s) 87 77 30 12 52 87 102 30 Yield/Force Off (s) 83 72 26 7 47.5 82.5 98 25 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 83 47 26 7 47.5 59.5 98 25 Local Start Time (s) 47 0 92 57 0 22 57 72 Local Yield (s) 53 42 106 87 17.5 52.5 68 105 Local Yield 170(s) 53 17 106 87 17.5 29.5 68 105 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 130 Offset: 30 (27%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 12.1 62.7 35.2 12.1 62.7 35.2 Maximum Split (%) 11.0% 57.0% 32.0% 11.0% 57.0% 32.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 45.2 57.3 10 45.2 57.3 10 End Time (s) 57.3 10 45.2 57.3 10 45.2 Yield/Force Off (s) 53.3 5.5 40.7 53.3 5.5 40.7 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 53.3 99.5 24.7 53.3 104.5 40.7 Local Start Time (s) 97.9 0 62.7 97.9 0 62.7 Local Yield (s) 106 58.2 93.4 106 58.2 93.4 Local Yield 170(s) 106 42.2 77.4 106 47.2 93.4 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 57.3 (52%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Ped None C-Max None Ped Maximum Split (s) 9 48.4 15 37.6 25 32.4 21 31.6 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 44.0% 13.6% 34.2% 22.7% 29.5% 19.1% 28.7% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 36.1 45.1 93.5 108.5 36.1 61.1 93.5 4.5 End Time (s) 45.1 93.5 108.5 36.1 61.1 93.5 4.5 36.1 Yield/Force Off (s) 41.1 89 104.5 31.6 57.1 89 0.5 31.6 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 41.1 74 104.5 16.6 57.1 74 0.5 12.6 Local Start Time (s) 101 0 48.4 63.4 101 16 48.4 69.4 Local Yield (s) 106 43.9 59.4 96.5 12 43.9 65.4 96.5 Local Yield 170(s) 106 28.9 59.4 81.5 12 28.9 65.4 77.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 45.1 (41%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 39 11 53 13 33 14 50 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 35.5% 10.0% 48.2% 11.8% 30.0% 12.7% 45.5% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 60.5 67.5 106.5 7.5 60.5 73.5 106.5 10.5 End Time (s) 67.5 106.5 7.5 60.5 73.5 106.5 10.5 60.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 63.5 102 3.5 56 69.5 102 6.5 56 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 63.5 88 3.5 49 69.5 88 6.5 48 Local Start Time (s) 53 60 99 0 53 66 99 3 Local Yield (s) 56 94.5 106 48.5 62 94.5 109 48.5 Local Yield 170(s) 56 80.5 106 41.5 62 80.5 109 40.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 7.5 (7%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 25 38 9 38 12 35 Maximum Split (%) 22.7% 34.5% 8.2% 34.5% 10.9% 31.8% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 75.5 100.5 28.5 37.5 63.5 28.5 End Time (s) 100.5 28.5 37.5 75.5 75.5 63.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 96 24 33.5 71 71.5 59 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 81 12 33.5 57 71.5 46 Local Start Time (s) 47 72 0 9 35 0 Local Yield (s) 67.5 105.5 5 42.5 43 30.5 Local Yield 170(s) 52.5 93.5 5 28.5 43 17.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 28.5 (26%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 38.5 71.5 38.5 71.5 Maximum Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 35.0% 65.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 1.5 3 1.5 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 70.5 109 70.5 109 End Time (s) 109 70.5 109 70.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 104.5 66 104.5 66 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 104.5 57 90.5 58 Local Start Time (s) 71.5 0 71.5 0 Local Yield (s) 105.5 67 105.5 67 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 58 91.5 59 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 109 (99%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 26.4 16.5 67.1 26.4 16.5 67.1 Maximum Split (%) 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2.5 2 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 63.8 47.3 90.2 63.8 90.2 106.7 End Time (s) 90.2 63.8 47.3 90.2 106.7 63.8 Yield/Force Off (s) 85.7 59.8 41.8 85.7 102.2 59.3 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85.7 59.8 33.8 71.7 102.2 50.3 Local Start Time (s) 83.6 67.1 0 83.6 0 16.5 Local Yield (s) 105.5 79.6 61.6 105.5 12 79.1 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 79.6 53.6 91.5 12 70.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 120 Offset: 90.2 (82%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 58.3 51.7 Maximum Split (%) 53.0% 47.0% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 25.4 83.7 End Time (s) 83.7 25.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 79.2 20.9 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 68.2 7.9 Local Start Time (s) 0 58.3 Local Yield (s) 53.8 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 42.8 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 25.4 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Build 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 11 44 25.3 29.7 9.9 45.1 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 40.0% 23.0% 27.0% 9.0% 41.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 19.9 30.9 104.6 74.9 19.9 29.8 End Time (s) 30.9 74.9 19.9 104.6 29.8 74.9 Yield/Force Off (s) 26.9 70.4 15.4 100.1 25.8 70.4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 26.9 58.4 0.4 80.1 25.8 58.4 Local Start Time (s) 100.1 1.1 74.8 45.1 100.1 0 Local Yield (s) 107.1 40.6 95.6 70.3 106 40.6 Local Yield 170(s) 107.1 28.6 80.6 50.3 106 28.6 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 29.8 (27%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Future – Build with Mitigations Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 230 713 360 0 220 160 370 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.977 0.850 0.987 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1752 3415 0 1656 3312 1482 1787 3523 0 Flt Permitted 0.410 0.136 0.169 0.360 Satd. Flow (perm) 762 3539 1583 251 3415 0 295 3312 1482 677 3523 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 260 20 139 9 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 1187 440 573 657 Travel Time (s) 23.1 8.6 13.0 68.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 2: 1st Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.865 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1494 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3532 0 0 3539 0 0 0 1494 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 336 94 890 330 Travel Time (s) 6.5 1.8 24.3 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 3: Railroad Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.988 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 6303 0 0 2888 0 1429 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 6303 0 0 2888 0 1429 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 285 192 244 Travel Time (s) 5.6 3.7 5.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 300 100 245 140 240 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.981 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3173 1425 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1398 3077 3035 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 3173 1390 1533 3037 1411 1593 3067 1363 3077 3035 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 104 114 114 17 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 35 Link Distance (ft) 192 1345 649 915 Travel Time (s) 3.7 75.7 14.8 17.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 5: Railroad Ave & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.905 0.932 Flt Protected 0.980 0.986 0.960 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 931 0 0 1292 0 0 1736 0 0 1520 0 Flt Permitted 0.980 0.986 0.960 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 931 0 0 1292 0 0 1736 0 0 1520 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 211 327 331 229 Travel Time (s) 4.8 7.4 7.5 5.2 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 150 0 0 170 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.871 0.896 0.998 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.996 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1471 0 0 1448 0 902 3532 0 1805 3501 0 Flt Permitted 0.205 0.962 0.080 0.310 Satd. Flow (perm) 382 1471 0 0 1399 0 76 3532 0 589 3501 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 89 138 2 16 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 327 256 563 649 Travel Time (s) 7.4 5.8 12.8 14.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 240 0 230 0 150 0 300 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.963 0.971 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 3099 0 1562 3008 0 1533 2964 0 1608 3175 0 Flt Permitted 0.292 0.261 0.192 0.373 Satd. Flow (perm) 490 3099 0 428 3008 0 310 2964 0 629 3175 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 19 41 25 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1173 641 560 728 Travel Time (s) 26.7 15.6 12.7 16.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 200 0 190 0 110 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.996 0.979 0.900 0.944 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 0 1736 3398 0 1770 1676 0 1770 1758 0 Flt Permitted 0.251 0.299 0.413 0.527 Satd. Flow (perm) 468 3525 0 546 3398 0 769 1676 0 982 1758 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 21 80 29 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 641 336 521 268 Travel Time (s) 15.6 7.6 14.2 7.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 9: Smith St & 1st Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.984 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3416 0 0 1611 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 336 114 397 Travel Time (s) 7.6 2.6 9.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 10: Smith St & Railroad Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 90 0 145 0 0 0 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.977 0.932 0.865 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1388 3539 0 0 3455 0 0 1736 0 0 1370 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1388 3539 0 0 3455 0 0 1736 0 0 1370 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 152 314 292 313 Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.1 6.6 7.1 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 160 0 150 0 220 0 160 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.993 0.969 0.943 0.984 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.993 Satd. Flow (prot) 1543 3475 0 1787 3404 0 1687 3337 0 1626 3316 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.993 Satd. Flow (perm) 1543 3475 0 1787 3404 0 1687 3337 0 1626 3316 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 30 107 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 314 313 596 563 Travel Time (s) 22.3 7.8 13.5 12.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 60 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.994 0.975 0.914 0.988 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.991 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3545 0 1770 3427 0 0 1687 0 0 1763 0 Flt Permitted 0.225 0.103 0.916 0.542 Satd. Flow (perm) 422 3545 0 192 3427 0 0 1558 0 0 986 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 40 36 5 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 20 20 Link Distance (ft) 313 434 289 317 Travel Time (s) 7.1 9.9 9.9 10.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -3% 2% 0% Storage Length (ft) 220 0 340 0 0 225 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.997 0.850 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.984 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1833 1583 0 1792 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.903 0.915 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3538 0 1779 3525 0 0 1682 1583 0 1659 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 3 198 6 Link Speed (mph) 30 40 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 300 637 419 340 Travel Time (s) 6.8 10.9 11.4 9.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 70 0 190 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.955 0.977 0.984 0.988 Flt Protected 0.990 0.980 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1761 0 0 1784 0 1770 3483 0 1787 3531 0 Flt Permitted 0.862 0.578 0.269 0.310 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1533 0 0 1052 0 501 3483 0 583 3531 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 12 16 12 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 321 160 256 596 Travel Time (s) 8.8 4.4 5.8 13.5 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Lanes and Geometrics Mitigation 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 245 0 0 0 130 130 70 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.960 0.964 0.850 0.993 Flt Protected 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 1787 3574 1599 1787 3549 0 Flt Permitted 0.994 0.950 0.986 0.169 0.334 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3411 0 1681 1682 0 318 3574 1599 628 3549 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 45 13 362 5 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 293 347 1140 256 Travel Time (s) 8.0 9.5 25.9 5.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 1: 4th Avenue & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 13 35.8 9 52.2 9 39.8 9 52.2 Maximum Split (%) 11.8% 32.5% 8.2% 47.5% 8.2% 36.2% 8.2% 47.5% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 102 5 40.8 49.8 102 1 40.8 49.8 End Time (s) 5 40.8 49.8 102 1 40.8 49.8 102 Yield/Force Off (s) 1 36.3 45.8 97 107 36.3 45.8 97 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 1 14.3 45.8 77 107 20.3 45.8 75 Local Start Time (s) 52.2 65.2 101 0 52.2 61.2 101 0 Local Yield (s) 61.2 96.5 106 47.2 57.2 96.5 106 47.2 Local Yield 170(s) 61.2 74.5 106 27.2 57.2 80.5 106 25.2 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 49.8 (45%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 16 35 15 44 11.2 39.8 37 22 Maximum Split (%) 14.5% 31.8% 13.6% 40.0% 10.2% 36.2% 33.6% 20.0% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 46 11 62 77 11 22.2 84 62 End Time (s) 62 46 77 11 22.2 62 11 84 Yield/Force Off (s) 58 41 73 6 17.7 57.5 7 79 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 58 16 73 91 17.7 34.5 7 55 Local Start Time (s) 94 59 0 15 59 70.2 22 0 Local Yield (s) 106 89 11 54 65.7 105.5 55 17 Local Yield 170(s) 106 64 11 29 65.7 82.5 55 103 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 130 Offset: 62 (56%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 124568 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 17 59 34 10 66 34 Maximum Split (%) 15.5% 53.6% 30.9% 9.1% 60.0% 30.9% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 122122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 0.5 17.5 76.5 0.5 10.5 76.5 End Time (s) 17.5 76.5 0.5 10.5 76.5 0.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 13.5 72 106 6.5 72 106 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 13.5 56 90 6.5 61 106 Local Start Time (s) 100 7 66 100 0 66 Local Yield (s) 3 61.5 95.5 106 61.5 95.5 Local Yield 170(s) 3 45.5 79.5 106 50.5 95.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 10.5 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Min None C-Max None Ped None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 9 39 9 53 9 39 9 53 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 35.5% 8.2% 48.2% 8.2% 35.5% 8.2% 48.2% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 End Time (s) 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 85.5 14.5 23.5 76.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 81.5 10 19.5 72 81.5 10 19.5 72 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 81.5 10 19.5 57 81.5 105 19.5 53 Local Start Time (s) 53 62 101 0 53 62 101 0 Local Yield (s) 58 96.5 106 48.5 58 96.5 106 48.5 Local Yield 170(s) 58 96.5 106 33.5 58 81.5 106 29.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 23.5 (21%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 28 15 60 7 28 7 68 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 25.5% 13.6% 54.5% 6.4% 25.5% 6.4% 61.8% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 90.5 97.5 15.5 30.5 90.5 97.5 15.5 22.5 End Time (s) 97.5 15.5 30.5 90.5 97.5 15.5 22.5 90.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 93.5 11 26.5 86 93.5 11 18.5 86 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 93.5 107 26.5 79 93.5 107 18.5 78 Local Start Time (s) 68 75 103 8 68 75 103 0 Local Yield (s) 71 98.5 4 63.5 71 98.5 106 63.5 Local Yield 170(s) 71 84.5 4 56.5 71 84.5 106 55.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 22.5 (20%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 11: Central Avenue & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 25 21.5 9 54.5 13 50.5 Maximum Split (%) 22.7% 19.5% 8.2% 49.5% 11.8% 45.9% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 105.5 20.5 42 51 92.5 42 End Time (s) 20.5 42 51 105.5 105.5 92.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 37.5 47 101 101.5 88 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 1 25.5 47 87 101.5 75 Local Start Time (s) 63.5 88.5 0 9 50.5 0 Local Yield (s) 84 105.5 5 59 59.5 46 Local Yield 170(s) 69 93.5 5 45 59.5 33 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 140 Offset: 42 (38%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 12: State Ave & Smith St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 27 83 27 83 Maximum Split (%) 24.5% 75.5% 24.5% 75.5% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 2 1.5 1.5 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 21.5 48.5 21.5 48.5 End Time (s) 48.5 21.5 48.5 21.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 44 17 44 17 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 30 17 30 17 Local Start Time (s) 0 27 0 27 Local Yield (s) 22.5 105.5 22.5 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 8.5 105.5 8.5 105.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 21.5 (20%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 28 9 73 28 32.5 49.5 Maximum Split (%) 25.5% 8.2% 66.4% 25.5% 29.5% 45.0% Minimum Split (s) 28 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 108.5 99.5 26.5 108.5 26.5 59 End Time (s) 26.5 108.5 99.5 26.5 59 108.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 21.5 104.5 94 22 54.5 104 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 21.5 104.5 86 8 54.5 95 Local Start Time (s) 82 73 0 82 0 32.5 Local Yield (s) 105 78 67.5 105.5 28 77.5 Local Yield 170(s) 105 78 59.5 91.5 28 68.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 110 Offset: 26.5 (24%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 70 40 Maximum Split (%) 63.6% 36.4% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 51.5 11.5 End Time (s) 11.5 51.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 7 47 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 106 34 Local Start Time (s) 0 70 Local Yield (s) 65.5 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 54.5 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 51.5 (47%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St AM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 17 30.5 33 29.5 7 40.5 Maximum Split (%) 15.5% 27.7% 30.0% 26.8% 6.4% 36.8% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 22 39 99 69.5 22 29 End Time (s) 39 69.5 22 99 29 69.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 35 65 17.5 94.5 25 65 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 35 53 2.5 74.5 25 53 Local Start Time (s) 103 10 70 40.5 103 0 Local Yield (s) 6 36 98.5 65.5 106 36 Local Yield 170(s) 6 24 83.5 45.5 106 24 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 29 (26%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 1: 4th Avenue & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 19 39 9 43 29 29 12 40 Maximum Split (%) 17.3% 35.5% 8.2% 39.1% 26.4% 26.4% 10.9% 36.4% Minimum Split (s) 9 33.5 9 32 9 27.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 22223222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 22 20 16 22 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 1 20 59 68 1 30 59 71 End Time (s) 20 59 68 1 30 59 71 1 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 54.5 64 106 26 54.5 67 106 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 16 32.5 64 86 26 38.5 67 84 Local Start Time (s) 43 62 101 0 43 72 101 3 Local Yield (s) 58 96.5 106 38 68 96.5 109 38 Local Yield 170(s) 58 74.5 106 18 68 80.5 109 16 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 68 (62%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 1: 4th Avenue & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Min None C-Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 10 47 18 35 22 35 15 38 Maximum Split (%) 9.1% 42.7% 16.4% 31.8% 20.0% 31.8% 13.6% 34.5% Minimum Split (s) 9 35 9 35 9.5 32.5 9 34 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 55555555 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 55505550 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 25 25 23 24 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 77 30 12 87 30 52 87 102 End Time (s) 87 77 30 12 52 87 102 30 Yield/Force Off (s) 83 72 26 7 47.5 82.5 98 25 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 83 47 26 7 47.5 59.5 98 25 Local Start Time (s) 47 0 92 57 0 22 57 72 Local Yield (s) 53 42 106 87 17.5 52.5 68 105 Local Yield 170(s) 53 17 106 87 17.5 29.5 68 105 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 120 Offset: 30 (27%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 4: Central Avenue/Central Ave & James St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 6: Central Avenue & Pioneer St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 1234568 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 7 50.1 25.3 27.6 10 47.1 52.9 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 45.5% 23.0% 25.1% 9.1% 42.8% 48.1% Minimum Split (s) 7 27.5 9.5 27.5 7 22.5 11.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 7 3 10 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2222223.5 Minimum Gap (s) 1222122 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0005000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No Yes No No No No Start Time (s) 103 0 50.1 75.4 103 3 50.1 End Time (s) 0 50.1 75.4 103 3 50.1 103 Yield/Force Off (s) 106 45.6 70.9 98.5 109 45.6 98.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 106 29.6 70.9 82.5 109 34.6 98.5 Local Start Time (s) 103 0 50.1 75.4 103 3 50.1 Local Yield (s) 106 45.6 70.9 98.5 109 45.6 98.5 Local Yield 170(s) 106 29.6 70.9 82.5 109 34.6 98.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Central Avenue

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None Ped None C-Max None Ped Maximum Split (s) 9 48.4 15 37.6 25 32.4 21 31.6 Maximum Split (%) 8.2% 44.0% 13.6% 34.2% 22.7% 29.5% 19.1% 28.7% Minimum Split (s) 9 25.5 9 27.5 9 25.5 9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 58585858 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 Walk Time (s) 6868 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 19 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 36.1 45.1 93.5 108.5 36.1 61.1 93.5 4.5 End Time (s) 45.1 93.5 108.5 36.1 61.1 93.5 4.5 36.1 Yield/Force Off (s) 41.1 89 104.5 31.6 57.1 89 0.5 31.6 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 41.1 74 104.5 16.6 57.1 74 0.5 12.6 Local Start Time (s) 101 0 48.4 63.4 101 16 48.4 69.4 Local Yield (s) 106 43.9 59.4 96.5 12 43.9 65.4 96.5 Local Yield 170(s) 106 28.9 59.4 81.5 12 28.9 65.4 77.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 45.1 (41%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 7: 4th Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBTL EBL WBTL SBL NBTL WBL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None Ped None C-Min None Ped None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 7 39 11 53 13 33 14 50 Maximum Split (%) 6.4% 35.5% 10.0% 48.2% 11.8% 30.0% 12.7% 45.5% Minimum Split (s) 7 25.5 7 18.5 7 25.5 7 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 35353835 Vehicle Extension (s) 22222222 Minimum Gap (s) 12121212 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 7 14 8 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No No No Start Time (s) 60.5 67.5 106.5 7.5 60.5 73.5 106.5 10.5 End Time (s) 67.5 106.5 7.5 60.5 73.5 106.5 10.5 60.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 63.5 102 3.5 56 69.5 102 6.5 56 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 63.5 88 3.5 49 69.5 88 6.5 48 Local Start Time (s) 53 60 99 0 53 66 99 3 Local Yield (s) 56 94.5 106 48.5 62 94.5 109 48.5 Local Yield 170(s) 56 80.5 106 41.5 62 80.5 109 40.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 7.5 (7%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 8: 2nd Ave/Ramsay Way & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 11: Central Avenue & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123478 Movement NBTL SBTL EBL WBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 25 38 9 38 12 35 Maximum Split (%) 22.7% 34.5% 8.2% 34.5% 10.9% 31.8% Minimum Split (s) 24.5 21.5 9 23.5 9 22.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 575757 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 211211 Time Before Reduce (s) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Time To Reduce (s) 10 10 5 10 10 10 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 14 13 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 75.5 100.5 28.5 37.5 63.5 28.5 End Time (s) 100.5 28.5 37.5 75.5 75.5 63.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 96 24 33.5 71 71.5 59 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 81 12 33.5 57 71.5 46 Local Start Time (s) 47 72 0 9 35 0 Local Yield (s) 67.5 105.5 5 42.5 43 30.5 Local Yield 170(s) 52.5 93.5 5 28.5 43 17.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 28.5 (26%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 11: Central Avenue & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 12: State Ave & Smith St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2468 Movement SBTL WBTL NBTL EBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min C-Min None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 38.5 71.5 38.5 71.5 Maximum Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 35.0% 65.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 20.5 25.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1111 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3434 Minimum Gap (s) 1.5 3 1.5 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 14 9 14 8 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max No No No No Start Time (s) 70.5 109 70.5 109 End Time (s) 109 70.5 109 70.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 104.5 66 104.5 66 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 104.5 57 90.5 58 Local Start Time (s) 71.5 0 71.5 0 Local Yield (s) 105.5 67 105.5 67 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 58 91.5 59 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 109 (99%), Referenced to phase 4:WBTL and 8:EBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 12: State Ave & Smith St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 234678 Movement SBTL EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Min None C-Min None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 26.4 16.5 67.1 26.4 16.5 67.1 Maximum Split (%) 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% 24.0% 15.0% 61.0% Minimum Split (s) 25.5 9 20.5 25.5 9.5 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 7 5 10 7 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3 5 3.5 3 3.3 Minimum Gap (s) 2.5 2 2.5 2 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 10 10 0 10 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 5 10 0 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18 8 14 9 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 63.8 47.3 90.2 63.8 90.2 106.7 End Time (s) 90.2 63.8 47.3 90.2 106.7 63.8 Yield/Force Off (s) 85.7 59.8 41.8 85.7 102.2 59.3 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85.7 59.8 33.8 71.7 102.2 50.3 Local Start Time (s) 83.6 67.1 0 83.6 0 16.5 Local Yield (s) 105.5 79.6 61.6 105.5 12 79.1 Local Yield 170(s) 105.5 79.6 53.6 91.5 12 70.1 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 120 Offset: 90.2 (82%), Referenced to phase 4:WBT and 8:EBT, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 13: Titus St/Jason Ave & Smith St/Canyon Drive

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 2 4 Movement NBSB EBWB Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Min None Maximum Split (s) 58.3 51.7 Maximum Split (%) 53.0% 47.0% Minimum Split (s) 22.5 24.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1 1 Minimum Initial (s) 10 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 2 Minimum Gap (s) 2 2 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 13 Dual Entry No No Inhibit Max No No Start Time (s) 25.4 83.7 End Time (s) 83.7 25.4 Yield/Force Off (s) 79.2 20.9 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 68.2 7.9 Local Start Time (s) 0 58.3 Local Yield (s) 53.8 105.5 Local Yield 170(s) 42.8 92.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 25.4 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NBSB, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 14: Central Avenue & Meeker St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Mitigation 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St PM Peak Hour

Phase Number 123456 Movement NBL SBTL WBTL EBTL SBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min Maximum Split (s) 11 44 25.3 29.7 9.9 45.1 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 40.0% 23.0% 27.0% 9.0% 41.0% Minimum Split (s) 7 23.5 24.5 29.5 7 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 Minimum Initial (s) 3 10 5 5 3 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 222222 Minimum Gap (s) 122212 Time Before Reduce (s) 000000 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 5 5 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 15 20 12 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max No No No No No No Start Time (s) 19.9 30.9 104.6 74.9 19.9 29.8 End Time (s) 30.9 74.9 19.9 104.6 29.8 74.9 Yield/Force Off (s) 26.9 70.4 15.4 100.1 25.8 70.4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 26.9 58.4 0.4 80.1 25.8 58.4 Local Start Time (s) 100.1 1.1 74.8 45.1 100.1 0 Local Yield (s) 107.1 40.6 95.6 70.3 106 40.6 Local Yield 170(s) 107.1 28.6 80.6 50.3 106 28.6 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 29.8 (27%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of 1st Green

Splits and Phases: 15: Central Avenue & Gowe St

Fehr & Peers Synchro 10 Report Page 10

Attachment F Environmental Commitments

Attachment F. Environmental Commitments Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project Noise and Vibration (Checklist Section B.7.b) Prior to construction as part of final design, Sound Transit will revise the noise and vibration analysis with updated design and construction information. The revised analysis will be presented as part of an updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan, which will specify methods that the contractor will implement to minimize construction equipment noise and vibration levels at sensitive receivers. If the updated analysis indicates a potential exceedance of FTA noise impact guidelines, measures and best practices will be identified in the updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan and implemented to minimize noise levels. Measures used to limit construction noise could include but would not be limited to the following:

• Constructing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses. Barriers will be designed to obstruct line of sight between the noise-sensitive land use and construction equipment on site. • Using noise-reducing shrouds on pile drivers. • Using alternative pile driving methods such as vibratory hammers, hydraulic press-in driving, auger, or pre-drilled pile holes. • Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment. • Locating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, cement mixers, idling trucks) as far as possible from noise-sensitive land uses. • Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust. • Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound-control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. • Using smart backup alarms on heavy equipment that automatically adjust the alarm sound level to be audible above background levels or using spotters instead of backup alarms. • Preventing excessive noise by shutting down idle vehicles or equipment.

The updated Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control Plan will include best practices to reduce construction groundborne vibration at adjacent sensitive buildings so that vibration will not exceed FTA’s vibration criterion. In addition, given the proximity of sensitive uses and the length of pile driving, Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual provides that a reasonable threshold for annoyance from groundborne vibration should be developed on a project-specific basis. This threshold will consider the type of land use, the nature of the construction activities, and the time of day. The applicability of measures will vary based on the location, timing, nature, and feasibility of each activity. Mitigation measures to address groundborne vibration from pile driving could include the following.

• Locating vibration-generating equipment as far as practical from vibration-sensitive (and noise- sensitive) buildings. • Using smaller, lower vibration generating equipment within 100 feet of potentially impacted buildings. • Using alternative pile driving methods such as vibratory hammers, hydraulic press-in driving, or use of pre-drilled pile holes.

Environmental Commitments 1

• Conducting vibration monitoring at potentially affected buildings to measure levels from vibration producing activities such as pile driving. • Prepare a building conditions report prior to and after construction for potentially affected buildings. If new cracks or damages are found, Sound Transit will remediate building damages found to occur during construction.

Sound Transit will prepare a community outreach plan that will include, and not be limited to, the following:

• Provide advance notice of construction activities to occupants of potentially impacted buildings. • Identify a point of contact responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the notification of the construction schedule. Aesthetics (Checklist Section B.10.c) • Landscaping, including screening of the parking garage. • Exterior lighting on the new building, public spaces, and parking areas would be shielded and directed downward to minimize stray illumination of offsite areas. Any garage, bus layover area, and bus operator rest stop lighting would be directed downward. • During construction, Sound Transit may place construction screens or barriers to limit the visibility of work areas. • During any nighttime construction activities, lighting would be directed away from adjacent residents. Archaeological Resources (Checklist Section B.13.d) In the event that any archaeological materials are encountered during project construction, Sound Transit will follow the Project’s Inadvertent Discovery Plan. This protocol provides guidance for identifying archaeological resources and procedures for responding to inadvertent discoveries, including the responsibilities of Sound Transit and their consulting archaeologist, as well as the process for outreach to consulting tribes and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Transportation (Checklist Section B.14.d, and B.14.h) Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities are located adjacent to and near the project site to enhance overall access to Kent Station and improve safety. As part of the final design, these amenities would be finalized in collaboration with the City of Kent (City) and King County Metro as part of their permitting and approval process.

• Adjacent to the project site, amenities include painted crosswalks, traffic signals, lighting, and signage. Refer to Civil Roadway Plan and Architectural Garage Site Plan – Overall in Attachment A, Improvement Plans. • At Railroad Avenue N and W Smith Street, amenities include installing a painted curb extension (painted curb extensions help to reduce crossing distance and slow vehicle speeds), rapid flashing beacons, a hardscape median with pedestrian refuge, restriping of crosswalks, and curbs that are compliant with ADA. Refer to Smith Street Pedestrian Crossing in Attachment A, Improvement Plans.

Environmental Commitments 2

• At the Kent Station, planned bicycle improvements include adding smart lockers (smart lockers provide opportunities for commuters to pay and reserve lockers) and bike racks and a RapidRide stop on Railroad Avenue N including a new sidewalk, ADA compliant crosswalk, painted curb extension to provide traffic calming, and restriping along Railroad Avenue N. Refer to Bicycle Improvements and RapidRide Station in Attachment A, Improvement Plans. • At the intersection of W James Street and 2nd Avenue N, amenities include a painted curb extension, new crosswalks, curbs that are ADA compliant, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Sound Transit and the City will coordinate the improvements at this intersection, given that the City was recently awarded a grant for these improvements. Refer to James Street Pedestrian Crossing in Attachment A, Improvement Plans. • On 1st Avenue N, west of the project site and adjacent to the railroad, the Sound Transit-owned parking lot would be converted to a bus layover area for King County Metro buses (King County Metro Layovers in Attachment A). The layover area would include approximately 8 bus bays and a bus operator rest stop. Landscaping and ingress/egress modifications would facilitate bus movements in and out of the lot. Sound Transit and/or the contractor would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts during construction. Potential mitigation measures for all modes during construction include the following practices related to traffic operations. • Develop the Maintenance of Traffic Plan to conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and to jurisdictional agency requirements for traffic control. • Use lighted or reflective signage to direct drivers to truck haul routes to ensure visibility during nighttime work hours. • Communicate public information about construction activities via print, radio, posted signs, websites, email, and direct communication with other agencies and affected parties to provide information regarding any required street closures, hours of construction, business access, and parking impacts. • Coordinate access closures with affected businesses and residents. If access closures are required, then property access to residences and businesses will be maintained to the extent possible. If access to the property could not be maintained, the specific construction activity will be reviewed to determine if it could occur during non-business hours, or if the parking spaces and users of the affected access (for example, deliveries) could be provided at an alternative location. • Provide detour, open for business, and other signage as appropriate. • Post advance notice signs prior to construction in areas where surface construction activities would affect access to surrounding businesses. • Provide regular updates to schools, in particular Mill Creek Middle School which is located just east of the project site. Assist public school officials in providing advance and ongoing notice to students and parents concerning construction activity near schools. Mill Creek Middle School is bounded by E James Street, Central Avenue N, and E Pioneer Street, some of which could be affected by traffic mitigation projects. • Provide regular updates to emergency service providers, local agencies, solid waste utilities, and postal services. • Schedule traffic lane closures and high volumes of construction truck traffic during off-peak hours to minimize delays during periods of higher traffic volumes as much as possible.

Environmental Commitments 3

• Cover potholes and open trenches, where possible, and use protective barriers to protect drivers from open trenches. To mitigate the temporary loss of Sounder parking spaces during construction, Sound Transit will coordinate with the City of Kent, King County Metro, and private transit service providers to develop and implement plans for replacement parking and alternative access measures. Mitigation measures will include the following, as appropriate, or other measures developed in coordination between the City of Kent and Sound Transit. • Lease parking lots and/or new parking areas near Kent Station. • Redirect transit riders who use the Sounder surface lots to nearby park-and-ride lots. In particular, the King County James Street Park & Ride, located 0.5 mile west of Kent Station, has more than 700 spaces and ample reserve capacity on a typical day. • Inform passengers about changes to parking availability in advance by using signage at existing transit stops, website information, rider information systems, emails, and agency mailing lists. • Revise transit services by rerouting buses where appropriate. Sound Transit will implement the following mitigation measures to address the PM peak period impact at Railroad Avenue N and E James Street during project operations (Figure 7). • Prohibit eastbound left turn from garage’s eastern driveway and pick-up/drop-off loop. This addresses the Railroad Avenue N/E James Street impact by rerouting garage and pick-up/drop- off traffic to E Pioneer Street/Central Avenue N. • Reconfigure east and west legs of Central Avenue N/E Pioneer Street to have exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Revise phasing to include protective and permissive eastbound and westbound left phases. This is required due to the increased traffic that would be routed to E Pioneer Street. While this would increase volumes and congestion along E Pioneer Street, the adjacent intersections are expected to operate acceptably with the lane configuration and signal timing modifications. Sound Transit will also implement the following mobility enhancements to address potential queuing issues during project operations, though they are not directly related to traffic operation impacts (Figure 7). • Prohibit southbound through and southbound left-turn movements from Railroad Avenue N/E Smith Street (except for buses if needed). This would address the southbound queuing on Railroad Avenue N which is caused by a small number of vehicles trying to make the through or left movement. • Extend the westbound left-turn pocket length at Central Avenue N/E James Street as much as possible without taking property. Along with signal timing changes, this would help accommodate the increase in westbound left turns generated by the Project. Based upon a review of aerial imagery, an additional 55 feet of turn pocket length was tested in the microsimulation, but the specific distance that could be added is unknown pending further design review. • Install a “type c” curb (commonly called “c-curb”) median on E James Street between the eastbound left-turn pocket and the adjacent through lane. With the relocation of Railroad Avenue N closer to the Central Avenue N intersection, the c-curb would prohibit northbound right turning traffic from Railroad Avenue N from attempting to weave across multiple lanes of traffic to the left turn lane.

Environmental Commitments 4

Final mitigation for all traffic impacts will be determined in conjunction with the City. With the above- mentioned mitigation measures in place, microsimulation modeling indicates that the traffic impacts would be mitigated as shown in Tables 4 and 5. Sound Transit would provide mitigation through these traffic improvements or other improvements as agreed to by the City. Also, in lieu of implementing the improvements proposed, Sound Transit could contribute to a City’s project to improve intersection performance, as agreed to with the City.

Environmental Commitments 5