CITY OF KIRKLAND Department of Public Works 123 Fifth Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033 425.587.3800 www.kirklandwa.gov

MEMORANDUM To: Kurt Triplett, City Manager From: June Carlson, Transportation Strategic Advisor Joel Pfundt, Transportation Division Manager Kathy Brown, Public Works Director Date: July 3, 2019 Subject: I-405/NE 85th STREET INLINE STATION AND INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDATION: City Council receives a summary and update regarding the I-405/85th Street Inline Station and Interchange. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The I-405/NE 85th Street Inline Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Station and Interchange plans are advancing to preliminary engineering and environmental review. The project team has nearly completed a series of outreach meetings that will culminate in this presentation, summarizing comments received to date and inviting questions and feedback from the City Council. Through a partnership between the Washington State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit, and in collaboration with the City, a three-level preliminary concept for the interchange was identified. The base level will be a lowered NE 85th Street for vehicles traveling east/west; the middle level will be dedicated to transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle access to the express toll lanes; and the top level will be I-405 general purpose and express toll lanes. Construction is to be complete in 2024. In March 2019, the Sound Transit Board approved advancing the refined BRT project into the conceptual engineering and environmental review phase. A technical review of the engineering plans at 5% recently has been completed. The project team has presented the project in multiple forums: 1) the Kirkland Alliance of Neighborhoods (KAN), 2) the Transportation Commission, 3) the general community at a public open house, and 4) the Regional Transportation Ad Hoc Council Work Group. Throughout the series of meetings, numerous recurring comments were received:

1. Importance of a connection to downtown Kirkland similar to the dedicated bus lanes included in the ST3 ballot measure

2. Questions on pedestrian safety at roundabouts and through the interchange 3. Request to include additional intersection in traffic study, such as NE 87th Street and

114th Avenue NE

Council Meeting: 07/16/2019 Agenda: Study Session Item #: 3. a.

Memorandum to Kurt Triplett

July 3, 2019 Page 2

4. Need for park-and-ride space and/or drop-off/pick-up areas 5. Questions about queueing on I-405 off ramps due to smaller footprint 6. Pedestrian disruption of traffic without signalized intersection 7. Importance of bike infrastructure 8. Need for more information on roundabout operations and examples 9. Need for transit priority elements for local bus service on NE 85th Street 10. Questions about an additional eastbound lane analyzed as part of the project between

120th Avenue NE and 122nd Avenue NE 11. Request to fund additional nonmotorized access opportunities to surrounding

neighborhoods

Comments received at the June 10 Open House included: 1. General support for the project 2. Importance of connections to downtown Kirkland 3. A preference for roundabouts over signals 4. Support for nonmotorized access elements 5. Need to fund additional nonmotorized access opportunities 6. Concern about construction impacts 7. Need for BRT station amenities 8. Support for new connection to Express Toll Lanes

Discussions at the second Transportation Commission meeting centered on:

1. Pedestrian/bicycle safety. Research regarding roundabout safety indicates increased safety of roundabouts over signalized intersections. There are fewer lanes to be negotiated at once, vehicles are moving slower in the roundabout, gaps in traffic occur and pedestrian-activated rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) will be installed. The project team showed examples of roundabouts with similar motorized and nonmotorized traffic volumes.

2. Pedestrian/bicycle connection. There was strong support expressed for including the nonmotorized connections from each corner of the interchange to the surrounding neighborhoods in the base project.

3. Traffic analysis. During the upcoming environmental review, more detailed traffic analysis will be conducted.

The Transportation Commission thanked the project team for addressing the concerns expressed in their earlier meeting and praised their responsiveness and work. The Transportation Commission agreed to move to more detailed engineering and environmental review. NE 85th Street Transitway and Unresolved Issues The City has proposed to Sound Transit the “NE 85th Street Transitway” as a cost effective and efficient alternative to the representative project included in the ST3 ballot measure to connect the BRT station with 6th Street South (see Attachment A). Agreement on the connection between downtown Kirkland and the BRT Station has not yet been reached, but staff from both the City and Sound Transit continue to collaborate to resolve details of the connections project.

Memorandum to Kurt Triplett

July 3, 2019 Page 3

Also yet to be resolved are the pedestrian/bicycle connections in each quadrant of the interchange, the drop off and pick up area in the NW quadrant, and transit/pedestrian/bicycle connections to downtown, and how the additional eastbound lane analyzed as part of the project between 120th Avenue NE and 122nd Avenue NE would be funded as the traffic analysis demonstrates the interchange works best when the lane is implemented. The Council’s Regional Transportation Ad Hoc Work Group, consisting of Deputy Mayor Jay Arnold, Councilmember Dave Asher and Councilmember Jon Pascal have been strongly engaged in the discussions related to the Inline Station, Interchange and the NE 85th Street Transitway. The Ad Hoc Work Group has had multiple meetings with the Sound Transit and WSDOT teams on these and related issues, as well as discussions with the three Eastside Sound Transit Board members. The Ad Hoc Work Group has emphasized several of the key themes that have come from the public outreach, including the need for a transitway connection from the BRT station to downtown, the need for pedestrian and bicycle access to and from downtown to the station, and the importance of including pedestrian/bicycle access at each of the quadrants of the station. Additionally, Sound Transit recently conducted a value engineering (VE) exercise that also will be summarized at this study session. The VE Team brainstormed potential ways to save costs and make the project more effective. A summary of the process and findings will be presented to the Council by the following Sound Transit and WSDOT staff:

• Paul Cornish, Sound Transit BRT Program, Project Director • Diana Giraldo, WSDOT I-405/NE 85th Street Interchange Project Design Manager • Barrett Hanson, WSDOT Design Engineering Manager • Karl Westby, WSDOT Traffic Engineering Manager

NEXT STEPS: At the August 7, 2019 City Council meeting, staff will present a letter to Sound Transit reflecting the Council comments from the July 16 study session and expressing support for moving the project components into the environmental assessment phase and advancing engineering plans in preparation for the design/build contractor procurement. Attachment A: NE 85th Street Transit Way Concept and Feasibility Study Tech Memo

Attachment A

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

\\'fh~~- I STRUCTURAL '\j '£. \\ \\ DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

5- .... !, g.

---------~ ------------ , ____ ~ -- ~ ~ EBbthSI -----

: NE 85th S1 NE 8S m I • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 'hSr • I tJs:-A~,h~

"'··············~··· s •••••••••• ·············'···············~····,.-.~"W~~· I _ thAw~ t

L ~ -;.:~ts"!~~e - -----------t,- - - - - - - - - :'I>~ ---------• taJ ~hee - -~

3nd Pa:ks ft ~ 'It. ~ ,undat1on Y · "--

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

•••••••••••

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

SOUNDTIIANsrr 25

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

\\ 'IL~~" I STRUCTURAL ~ 7i_. \\ \\ DESIGN

\\ 'IL~~" I STRUCTURAL ~ 7i_. \\ \\ DESIGN

.- . . .,.. . ~ :-,.,, -.. .

.• ' -.::-v-

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

\\'fh~~- I STRUCTURAL '\j '£. \\ \\ DESIGN

••••

o••••••••

\\'fh~~- I STRUCTURAL '\j '£. \\ \\ DESIGN

•

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Table 3.2-1- Design Vehicle

Clear Deck Width 7 to 10 n

Over 10 ft

H10 4.0 kips 14 ft O in.

De i:m Vehicle 115

111 0

16.0 kips

•

•

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

8. Vertical Clearances to Overhead Structures

a. Since the Link system will draw electric traction power from an overhead contact wire system, the following vertical clearances from the top of the high rail along any given section of track to the soffit of any overhead structure, within the horizontal limits of the Clearance Envelope shall be provided as a minimum:

Location Minimum Vertical Clearance

At Overhead 21 feet 6 inches, preferred minimum Bridges 15 feet O inches, desired minimum

14 feet 7 inches, absolute minimum

Link Structures 16 feet 6 inches, desired minimum over roadways

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

STRUCliURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

SPIRAL TOWER BRIDGE OVER CKC EXISTING GROUND AT

NE 85TH STREET 20

s:. TRAIL GRADE

180 s:. TRAIL GRADE

160 ---------------140 ---- --

1+500 1+600

,--------.. ' ' ' i w 1+700

16'-6" VERT. CLEAR.

OVER CKC

1+800

PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE

-------------

1+900 2+000 2+100

220

200

180

160

140

2+200

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

•••

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

•

•

•••

•••

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

I I \

....... _____________ _

•••

\\'fh~~- I STRUCTURAL '\j '£. \\ \\ DESIGN

\

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCliURAL DESIGN

\\ 'JL~~• 1 STRUCTURAL '\l 'l. \\\\ DESIGN

\\ 'JL~~• 1 STRUCTURAL '\l 'l. \\\\ DESIGN

\\ 'l_,_~~• 1 STRUCTURAL ~7l \\ \\ DESIGN

•••

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Comparitive Cost Summary

Deck Clear

Option Width (ft)

Ped/Bike/Shuttle 18 $

18-FT

Construction Cost Soft Costs

(Subtotal 1 *) (Subtotal 2) Total Cost

22,330,000 $ 9,640,000 $ 32,000,000

* Accuracy of estimate for o 1%-15% feasibility study is -40% and+ 100% per WSDOT Estimating Guidelines, Table 4-1: Cost

Estimating Matrix.

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

\\~ ,l~\l\ STRUCTURAL Yf 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

' .

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

T.ab@ 4-1 Cos.t Ertimating Matrix

Project Peroe111tage Development of Design

Phase Completed

Plann,ing 0%to 2%

Washilngton Tra nsportat ion

Plan

1-l lghway System • 1..,.,.,.,,.,..,.,.,,..,.,..,,..,. Plan I

Desig,n Studies I Route o,ev. Plans (

1%to 15%

I I ---

Scopinig

Pr,oj1ect Su mma,ry 10%to 30%

(P D, DDS)

Design

D1esign Documentation

30%to 90% 1/S Plans for

Approva,1

Design Approva l

PS&E

Pia ns, Specs, 90%to 100% Est imate

jR/W Pllans approvedl

Estimate 1Pur,pose of Estimate Me·l:it.odol'ogv Tools

Range

Screenin,g or Fea,sibility '#. WTP/HISP 0

0

t20-Yea r Plla n} N

PlCJE and/or M P3 +

WTP - Washington !Pa ra metri:c 0 -

Tra nsportation Plan '#. 0 U"I

HISP - Highw ay I

Systems P'lan n=.,,.,...,,........,~., ..... ...,...........,.,.,.,.,.- 1 ........................... ,..,.,.,.,, 1 .................... [!

~ * Concept Study or

Pl CE and/or M PE 8 ~ Fea,sibil1ity Pa ra metri:c ,,.;

Risk assessment •O Implementation Plan Risk•Basecl - ~ moclels '#.

(10 Yr. Pla n) 0 ~

~ -

-- - -- - -- -- - -- ---- ----Budget Author izat ion ~

PlCE and/o r 1M P3 ~ o:r Control Parametric .,.,

U BA, BidT abs Pro + Capit al Improvement Histor ica l Bidi-Based

Risk asses_sment £ & P re.se:rvation Pian Risk- Basedl ~

models 0 (CIPP} ';'

Design Est imates "$. U"l

Histor ica l Bidl-Ba se<:l U BA, Bidlabs Pro N (Proj ect Co ntrol of +

Scope Sch edulle Cost-Basedl Ri sk assessment B

Bl.ldget) Risk- Based! m odiels ~

~

'#. Histor i,ca I Bid-Based

EBASE, UBA, 0

Engineer's Est im at;e BidTa bs Pro, r-< +

(prior t o bid) ·Gost-Basedl

Risk assessment ·O .....

Risk-Based! m odle ls "$.

u;,

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Chapter 7 Cost Estimating Data

The cost of work items is estimated, including the Miscellaneous Items Allowance in

design, and then the markups such as mobilization, sales tax, preliminary engineering

(PE), and construction engineering (CE) are applied to them.

Table 7-1 Markups Summary

Cost Estimating Elements111121

Mobilization

Sales Tax

Preliminary Engineering

Miscellaneous Item Allowance in Design 13l

Contingency

Construction Engineering

Notes:

.. ___ I

Planning I I!

Scoping Design PS&E

~ I PerEBASE -11 www.wsdo. wa.gov/design rojectdev/engineeringapplications/adread

111 y .htm

Site-specifii based on Cont l l Section. Data can be found in TRIPS or EBASE. Splfific direction iV ound in Standard Specification 1-07.2.

-11 wwy sdot.wa .gov/l /rdonlyres/clb02cbf-ea4c-4a3f-afff­f13cc43c ~ de/96366/taxes.pdf

I PM's W orkplan +

Actuals to Date

IJ ]

30% to 50% ~ 20% to 30% j 10% to 20%

Actua l

0% (all items should be defined}

AppliJ to parametricJ istorical bid-based, and cost-based

I timates only.

I I PerEBASE -'el wwv,l,vsdot.wa .gov/rf/ rdonlyres/clb02cbf-ea4c-4a3f-afff­

f13cc43119de/96724/en~ eeringandcontpercentagetables.pdf

i WPerEBASE -'el wwv.l.vsdot.wa .gov/f /rdonlyres/clb02cbf-ea4c-4a3f-afff­

f13cc431 9de/96724/en~ eeringandcontpercentagetables.pdf

[1) Round to appropriate significant digit; for example, $196,526,918.00 is rounded to $197

million.

[2) Report cost estimates in current dollars to program management. The Construction Cost Index

(CCI} will be used to inflate the estimate to midpoint of construction by program management.

Note: Public declarations of estimated project costs should be presented in the form of a range

in Year-Of-Expenditure (YOE} dollars.

[3) Miscellaneous Item Allowance in Design accounts for lack of scope definition and those items

too small to be identified at the stage of project design. This allowance is eliminated for final

PS&E estimates on design-bid-build projects because the scope and estimate for all items

should be identified at that point.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Appendix 12.3-A 1 Structural Estimating Aids Construction Costs

UNIT COSTS Before using these structure unit costs for any official WSDOT project cost estimate, contact the Bridge and Structures Office at 360-705-7201 to discuss the specific project criteria and constructability related risks, so an appropriate structures construction cost can be provided.

UNIT LOW MEDIAN HIGHM

Pedestrian Bridge - Reinforced Concrete SF $400.00 $550 .00 Reinforced Concrete Rigid Frame (Tunnel) SF * $100 .00 Replace Existing Curbs & Barrier With LF $220.00 $280.00 Safety Shape Traffic Barrier (Including Removal)

Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall (Exposed Area) SF $55.00 $75 .00

SE Wall - Welded Wire SF $20.00 $30.00 SE Wall - Precast Cone. Panels or Cone. Block SF $30.00 $40 .00 SE Wall - CIP Cone. Fascia Panels (Special Design) SF $40.00 $50 .00

Permanent Geosynthic Wall w/ Shotcrete Facing SF $20.00 $35 .00 Permanent Geosynth ic Wall w/ Concrete Fascia Panel SF $30.00 $45.00 Soil Nail Wall SF $80.00 $100.00 Shotcrete Facing SF $20.00 $30.00 Concrete Fascia Panel SF $30.00 $40 .00

Soldier Pile Wall (Exposed Area) SF $100.00 $120.00 Soldier Pile Tieback Wall (Exposed Area) SF $140.00 $160.00

*Based on limited cost data . Check with the Bridge Project Support Engineer.

Bridge areas are computed as follows: Typical Bridges: Width x Length

Width : Total width of Deck, including portion under the barrier. Length: Distance between back of pavement seats, or for a Bridge having Wingwalls, 3'-0" behind the top of the embankment slope ; typically end of Wingwalls to e nd of Wingwalls, reference Standard Plans H9.

Special Cases:

Wid enings - Actual area of new construction .

Tunnel - Outside dimension from top of footing to top of footing over the tunnel roof, i.e ., including walls and top width .

!'!.!'!. For small jobs (less than $100 ,000), use the high end of the cost range as a starting point.

(Note : Unit structure costs include mobilization but do not include sales tax , engineering, or contingency)

$700 .00

$350.00

$90 .00

$40.00 $50.00 $60 .00

$50.00 $60.00

$130 .00 $40.00 $50.00

$130.00 $200.00

• \\ 7h~~ I STRUCTURAL '\j 'h \\ \\ DESIGN

150

l 140

i -:>130 "-B 120

~ 110

100

90

80

0+000

~ .. ....., ,~ \ i ~ ti

!

l&H -------CWB -----------------------------------------------

:, I 'I' e : i

-----------------------------------------j

-----I;

I ...

0+100 0+200

CITY OF KIRKLAND NO. DATE BY APPR REVISION

PA D1/J1/l01t S-N 51.V f"EASIBILITY $1\JOY OE.PARTMENT OF l'\JBUC WORKS

123 FIFTH AVENUE KJRl<lNIO, W" 98033

I~ ')} '.

(NOTE; RETAINI C WALI.S NOT SHOWN)

PLAN - WEST TOWER AIIGNM Elfi B SCM.C J/tt• • l'-'O"

0 JOO

(NOTE; RETAINI C W.U.S NOT SHOWH)

PRQOLE - WEST TOWER r!,LIGNMENI a ICM.(. J/1,t" • •·-0·

/ , ,. /

, , /

,' / !_ _______ ,✓

STDUC. T UOAL OES1GN

0 ,oo

APPROVED BY:

i~ .e • j

, --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------I

~--

OHOO

ttRJUir ·-biQ.iiiif

0)/l•t:;:

I

:, n 150

140

•X 130 "' "-

; 120 2 '

110

~ • < 100 • Jc --1 ~ 'IO

ao _._ 0<1$1'1NG .e CROuN) LINE • ;I

0+600

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CrTY Of KIRKlANO NE 85TH STREET TRANSIT WAY

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHEET 1

1105-S-001

150 l ! 140

: 2 130

: i 120

~ ~ 110

~ 100

J 00

IIO

I I

L _ _ _ L --------.__ : l""l

~8: i -----------------------------------------~ ---- H :,: I , --------- z....-: = f -- t ~1 ~ ~ I I : !

~ i I g ! 5lll A\ICJ I :,:

~ : I ~

ii r- li --- - -.__ I I ---- - - -- ----- --- -------

--- - -- - -- - --- - - -- - --- - --- -(NOTE; RE1.-N111C WALLS NOT SHOWN)

PLAN - W(S'.[ TOWtB ALIGNMENT B SCN.t'J/1r-1·-o'"

n 100

IIIO

110:g

160 ~ 150 ,<

14() ~ Hti =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=~~""""~=""~"="~as==:™~S'Tl!=""~w~":J~================PffOPOS£l)====Fl=...,.==m==GRAO+:==Jt======~:;,~

5=~;,-~; .. ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~===~7'. : ~L - • ti

~ I ----------- 1 i 130

~ I --------------------------------- : ~ 120 ~- ---------------------------; ~------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~ ~ ~ ~ j I Ii

L -----~----------,..----------,-----------,----------.---------,-------,---" 0+800 0+900 1+000 1+100

(NOTE; 11!:!-'INIHG WALLS NOi SHOWN)

PRQOI E - WESJ TOWER N iCNMENJ B SCol(.C l/"4. - l ' -0"

1+200 1+300 1+400

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

~ .. ....., CITY OF KIRKLAND NO. DATE BY ,~ \ PA D1/Jl/201i SN

APPR REVISION

Sl.V f"EASIBIUIY STIJOY STDOC. T UOAL OES1GN

APPROVED BY: Cl'IY Of KIRKlANO 1105-S-002

i OEP,Jm,.ENT OF P\JBUC WORKS

123 FIFTH AVENUE KJRl<lNIO, IN" 98033

ti ~ I~ ')} -· !

ttRJUir ·-Wit

,,.._ bitQbff

NE 85TH STREET TRANSIT WAY

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHEET 2 1,co-s-cio1~

"' I 'I "' ' 2

""~ ,~ \ I ~ !

CITY OF KIRKLAND OE.PARri,£NTOF P\JBllCv.llRKS

113 FIFTH AVENL-" KJRICUHO, WA 98033

1.1J.t I.

,--------, I I I I

' Cl{C

1+700

NO. DATE BY APPR REVISION PA 01/ll/ll)li S.N SlV F'EloSIBIU1Y SI\JO'f

(NOT(! ACTAJNI!<() WAUS NO'! SHOWN)

PI-Atl - WEST TOWER ALIGNMENT B $Clll.l; .)/14 ' • 1•-0·

1+800

(NOlt, RETAJN NC WAUS NOT SHOWN)

PBQEJLE - WEST TOWER Al IGNt.AENT B $Clil.L )/14" • 1·-0·

UDUCTUOAL OlS1GN

----

1>900

APPROVEO BY:

CArt:

-------------------

2+000

·-tlWtilr .... 011;11':::

bCQtiff

a£AA ------------

------

'2+100

I I

200 ~

'"°t 100 d

170

100

2HOO

PRE'UMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CITY Of KIRKlANO NE 85TH STREET TRANSIT WAY

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHEET 3

1105-S-003

ASSHOWH

~---------------~-~--~-~--~-------~-----~--------~----------~---------~----------------~----~