HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.07.27 Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, July 27, 2026
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would
like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out
the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment)
to obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings
must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this workshop.
The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel
191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at
www.facebook.com/cityofPasco.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call 1-332-249-0718 and use access
code 981 152 572#.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for
assistance.
Servicio de intéprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la
Secretaria Municipal dos dias antes para garantizar la disponiblidad.
request. upon be provided service language (Spanish may interpreter
Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure
availability.)
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3 - 5 (b) Oath of Office - Police Chief Brent Cook
Mayor Charles Grimm to administer the Oath of Office to Chief of
Police Brent Cook.
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION (20 min)
Page 1 of 465
a) Discussion with legal counsel about current or potential litigation per
RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) (10 min)
b) Discussion with legal counsel about current or potential litigation per
RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) (10 min)
5. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT – the public may comment on each topic scheduled for
discussion, up to 2 minutes per person with a total of 8 minutes per item. If
opposing sides wish to speak, then both sides receive an equal amount of
time to speak or up to 4 minutes each side.
6 - 20 (a) Presentation - Cannabis - Revenue & Licenses (15 min)
Discussion
21 - 29 (b) Legal Parameters for Enforcement of Anti-Camping and Quality
of Life Ordinances (10 min)
Discussion and direction to staff. No formal action is requested at this
time. Staff seeks Council direction on the three recommended actions
identified and summarized below.
30 - 457 (c) Traffic Safety Unit Funding Program (8 min)
Discussion
458 - 463 (d) Ordinance - Extending Moratorium on Essential Public Facilities
(Secure Community Transition Facilities) (10 min)
Discussion
7. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. ADDITIONAL NOTES
464 - 465 (a) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only)
Page 2 of 465
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 15, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 7/27/26
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Oath of Office - Police Chief Brent Cook
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Oath of Office
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Mayor Charles Grimm to administer the Oath of Office to Chief of Police Brent
Cook.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Brent Cook began his law enforcement career in 1988 as a volunteer Reserve
Officer and has served the Pasco Police Department for more than 36 years,
advancing through every rank within the organization. Since being appointed
Deputy Chief in 2019, he has provided executive leadership for a department
serving more than 82,000 residents, responding to nearly 60,000 calls for
service annually, while overseeing approximately 110 commissioned officers
and professional staff. These responsibilities have included strategic planning,
budget management, personnel and and development administration,
oversight of daily operations for one of Washington's fastest-growing
communities.
During numerous led has Cook Chief Deputy as tenure his Chief,
organizational initiatives focused on improving public safety, accountability, and
operational effectiveness. His leadership has included development of the
Department's expansion Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Program, of
innovative community engagement through the Community Canine Program,
implementation of advanced public safety technologies including Axon body-
Page 3 of 465
worn camera and digital evidence systems, Axon My90, Flock Safety, IAPro,
and other investigative technologies. He has managed the department's
operating budget, successfully pursued and administered numerous state and
federal grant awards, led the department's accreditation through both the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) Accreditation
Program and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA), and guided the department through continued organizational growth,
modernization, and operational excellence.
Throughout his career, Chief Cook has demonstrated a strong commitment to
professional excellence and public service. He is a graduate of the FBI
National Academy and the Northwest Command College, has twice been
recognized as the Pasco Police Department's Officer of the Year, and has
helped lead a department recognized for its professionalism, innovation, and
strong community partnerships. Beyond his operational accomplishments,
Chief Cook has played a significant role in developing the department's future
leaders by mentoring supervisors, investing in employee development, and
fostering a culture of professionalism, accountability, and service. His steady
leadership, commitment to innovation, and dedication to the Pasco community
have helped position the Pasco Police Department to meet the evolving public
safety needs of one of Washington's fastest-growing cities. As Chief of Police,
he is well-positioned to build upon the department's tradition of professional,
community-focused policing while leading the organization into its next chapter.
V. DISCUSSION:
Mayor Charles Grimm will administer the Oath of Office to Brent Cook, formally
recognizing his appointment as Chief of Police for the City of Pasco.
Page 4 of 465
OATH OF OFFICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON}
County of Franklin } ss.
City of Pasco
I, Brent Cook do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States
of America and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I
will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of Police Chief for the City of Pasco.
Brent Cook
Effective July 13, 2026
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of July, 2026.
Mayor Charles Grimm
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
4
6
5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council June 29, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 7/27/26
FROM: Drew Pollom, Attorney
City Attorney
SUBJECT: Presentation - Cannabis - Revenue & Licenses
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
PowerPoint
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Cannabis excise tax revenues collected by the State are deposited into the
Dedicated Cannabis Account and distributed in accordance with RCW
69.50.540. After funding statutory appropriations for state programs and
agencies, a portion of the remaining revenues is distributed to eligible local
governments.
Local governments may be eligible for two separate revenue distributions:
Retail Sales Distribution (1.5% statewide allocation) – Cities, towns, and
counties where licensed cannabis retailers are physically located
receive a proportionate share of this distribution based on the cannabis
excise tax generated by retailers located within their jurisdiction.
Revenue generated by retailers located within an incorporated city is
distributed entirely to that city rather than the county.
Per Capita Distribution (3.5% statewide allocation) – Distributed to
eligible cities, towns, and counties on a per capita basis.
Pasco is eligible to receive the Retail Sales Distribution because licensed
cannabis retailers operate within the City. However, the City is not eligible to
receive the Per Capita Distribution because Pasco Municipal Code prohibits
cannabis producers and processors. Under RCW 69.50.540(3)(c)(ii),
jurisdictions must allow the siting of state-licensed cannabis producers,
Page 6 of 465
processors, and retailers to qualify for the per capita distribution.
In Fiscal Year 2025, the City received approximately $41,650 through the
Retail Sales Distribution. Staff is currently reviewing the distribution
methodology and working with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board to better understand the City's proportionate share percentage and how
the distribution is calculated.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
Washington legalized recreational cannabis through Initiative 502 (I-502),
approved by voters in 2012. The initiative established a regulated cannabis
market Board Cannabis and Liquor and Washington the directed State
(WSLCB) to license and oversee cannabis producers, processors, and
retailers.
Rather than allocating retail licenses using a simple population ratio, the State
established an overall statewide cap on retail licenses and distributed licenses
through a formula-based allocation that considered:
Office of Financial Management (OFM) population estimates;
Estimated consumer demand and access;
Countywide allocations with proportional distribution to larger cities; and
Remaining "at-large" license opportunities.
Cannabis Retail Licensing
Washington initially capped cannabis retail licenses at 334 statewide, with later
adjustments to support the transition of the medical cannabis market into the
regulated recreational system. Under the State's allocation methodology,
Pasco was allotted up to four (4) retail licenses.
Current City Regulations
Under PMC 25.10.025, Pasco currently allows:
Up to three (3) cannabis retail facilities; or
Up to four (4) retail facilities if one is licensed through the State's Social
Equity Program.
All currently authorized retail licenses are in operation.
State Licensing Today
Since 2020, Washington has shifted new retail licensing exclusively to the
Social Equity Program.
HB 2870 (2020) established the Social Equity Program, reserving
available licenses from revoked, cancelled, or forfeited licenses for
qualifying applicants.
Page 7 of 465
SB 5080 (2023) expanded the program, allowing eligible Social Equity
licensees to locate in any jurisdiction that permits cannabis retailers,
regardless of the original State allotment.
The program is intended to address the disproportionate impacts of past
cannabis enforcement by creating opportunities for individuals and
communities identified in state law as disproportionately impacted.
Today, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) issues new
retail licenses only through the Social Equity Program. Based on current State
policy, additional general retail license allotments are not anticipated before
July 2032, if at all.
Local Authority
While the State controls issuance of cannabis retail licenses, Washington law
also recognizes local authority to regulate the number and location of cannabis
retailers.
RCW 69.50.345(2)(b)(i) provides that:
"An incorporated city or town, or county legislative authority, may enact an
ordinance prescribing outlet density limitations..."
Accordingly, if the City Council wishes to allow additional cannabis retail
businesses beyond the current municipal cap, Council may amend the Pasco
Municipal Code through ordinance.
If the local cap is increased, the State would not automatically issue new
licenses. Rather, additional retailers could only locate within the City if they
obtain an available State-issued license through the Social Equity Program or
another future licensing process established by the Legislature and
administered by the WSLCB.
The WSLCB has advised that:
Social Equity applicants selected under SB 5080 may locate anywhere
in Washington where local regulations permit cannabis retailers, even if
doing so exceeds the original State allotment.
Certain applicants selected under HB 2870 may also locate outside their
originally assigned county under specific eligibility criteria established by
the WSLCB.
Accordingly, increasing the City's local cap would create the opportunity for
additional State-approved Social Equity licensees to locate in Pasco but would
not guarantee additional retail establishments.
Impacts (Other than Fiscal)
Page 8 of 465
Amending the City's retail cap would not create additional State-issued licenses
but would allow eligible State license holders to pursue locations within Pasco
if approved through the WSLCB licensing process.
Potential considerations include:
Increased retail access and business opportunities;
Potential changes in geographic distribution of retailers;
Land use and zoning considerations;
Public safety and code enforcement impacts consistent with existing
cannabis businesses;
Coordination with the WSLCB regarding licensing and compliance.
Any increase in the number of retailers would remain subject to State licensing
requirements, City zoning regulations, and all applicable operational standards.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
This item is presented for Council discussion and policy direction.
No action is required unless Council desires to amend the City's existing
cannabis retail limitations contained in PMC 25.10.025.
Constraints (Time or Other Considerations)
The City cannot independently issue cannabis retail licenses.
The WSLCB currently issues new retail licenses only through the State
Social Equity Program.
Future State licensing opportunities remain subject to legislative action
and WSLCB policy.
Any modification to the City's retailer cap would require amendment of
the Pasco Municipal Code through the public ordinance process.
sentiment public and input Consider Sentiment: Public community
regarding whether the existing number of cannabis retailers adequately
serves the community or whether additional locations are warranted.
Next Steps
Should Council express interest in modification of the City's current regulations,
staff would:
1. Prepare an ordinance amending PMC 25.10.025.
2. Coordinate with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
regarding implementation and current Social Equity licensing
opportunities.
3. Conduct the required public review and ordinance adoption process.
4. Implement any Council-approved changes to the City's cannabis retail
Page 9 of 465
regulations.
Alternatives
1. Maintain the current limit of three retail facilities, or four if one retailer is
a State-approved Social Equity Licensee.
2. Amend the municipal code to allow for producers and processors.
3. Refer the matter for additional study, including consultation with the
WSLCB regarding current and anticipated Social Equity licensing
opportunities before considering ordinance amendments.
4. A combination of the various options.
Page 10 of 465
Pasco City Council
July 27, 2026
Workshop
Pa
g
e
1
1
o
f
4
6
5
Cannabis –Revenue
& Licenses
July 27, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
1
2
o
f
4
6
5
Presentation Purpose
▪Provide background on Washington's cannabis retail licensing framework.
▪Explain Pasco's current municipal regulations.
▪Review cannabis revenue received by the City.
▪Discuss options available to City Council.Pa
g
e
1
3
o
f
4
6
5
History of Cannabis Licensing
▪Initiative 502 (2012) legalized recreational cannabis in Washington.
▪WA ST Liquor and Cannabis Board administers producer, processor, and retailer licenses.
▪Initial statewide retail cap: 334 licenses.
▪Pasco was allotted up to four retail licenses through the State allocation process.Pa
g
e
1
4
o
f
4
6
5
Pasco
▪PMC 25.10.025 allows three retail stores, or four if one is a Social Equity licensee.
▪All currently authorized retail licenses are in operation.
▪Pasco does not allow cannabis producers or processors.
Pa
g
e
1
5
o
f
4
6
5
State Licensing
▪HB 2870 (2020) created the Social Equity Program.
▪SB 5080 (2023) expanded where Social Equity licensees may locate.
▪New retail licenses are currently issued only through the Social Equity Program.
▪General license allotments are not expected before at least July 2032.
▪Where cannabis is approved by local jurisdictions, those jurisdictions can increase allowed
number of businesses.
Pa
g
e
1
6
o
f
4
6
5
Revenue
▪Retail Sales Distribution: eligible because retailers operate in Pasco.
▪FY2025 Retail Sales Distribution: approximately $41,650.
▪Pasco is not eligible for the Per Capita Distribution because producers and processors are
prohibited under City code.
Pa
g
e
1
7
o
f
4
6
5
Council Authority
▪RCW 69.50.345 authorizes cities to establish outlet density limits.
▪Council may amend PMC to increase the local retailer cap.
▪Increasing the cap does not create new State licenses.
▪Additional retailers require an available State-issued license.Pa
g
e
1
8
o
f
4
6
5
Options/Alternatives & Next Steps
Option 1: Maintain current code.
Option 2: Amend PMC to increase retailer cap .
Option 3: Amend PMC to allow for producers and processors.
Option 4: Request additional study and WSLCB consultation .
Option 5: Combination of the above.
Based on Council direction,staff would:
1.Prepare ordinance
2.Coordinate with WA ST Liquor & Cannabis Board regarding changes
3.Conduct required public review &ordinance adoption process
4.Implement any Council-approved changes
Pa
g
e
1
9
o
f
4
6
5
Questions?Pa
g
e
2
0
o
f
4
6
5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 7/27/26
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Legal Parameters for Enforcement of Anti-Camping and Quality of Life
Ordinances
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion and direction to staff. No formal action is requested at this time.
Staff seeks Council direction on the three recommended actions identified and
summarized below.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None associated with this discussion item. Council should note, however, that
enforcement policy choices carry resource implications, including police
enforcement time, prosecutorial and public defense costs, court time, storage
costs for impounded vehicles that may not be recoverable if the vehicle is
claimed as a homestead, encampment cleanup and personal property storage
costs, and potential staffing additions such as social workers and officers.
Fiscal analysis will accompany any future ordinance revisions or program
proposals.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
From 2019 to 2024, under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of
Boise, municipalities could not enforce criminal anti-camping and quality
of life ordinances against homeless persons unless adequate shelter
space was available.
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
that loitering, municipalities may enforce anti-camping, and similar
quality of life ordinances regardless of available shelter space, because
such the than rather status regulate ordinances conduct of
Page 21 of 465
homelessness and do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court held in City of Seattle v. Long
that a vehicle used as a residence may qualify as a “homestead” under
Chapter 6.31 RCW and cannot be sold to satisfy impoundment debts,
and that impound fees are punitive “fines” subject to an individualized
excessive-fines analysis based on the person’s ability to pay.
The City’s existing quality of life ordinances include unauthorized
camping (PMC 9.105.030), unauthorized storage of personal property
(PMC criminal 9.80.030/.035), (PMC 9.105.040), sit-lie provisions
trespass (PMC 9.115.020), park hours and rules (PMC 9.100.050/.250),
trespass from City property (PMC 9.110.050), and related provisions
addressing disorderly conduct, littering, fires, and other conduct.
PMC 9.105.050 currently limits enforcement of unauthorized camping
based on shelter availability. This limitation was adopted in response to
Martin; following Grants Pass, retaining or removing it is now within the
City’s discretion.
Pending state-level developments could narrow the City’s enforcement
authority: the ACLU’s lawsuit against the City of Spokane (Currie v. City
of Spokane, Spokane County Superior Court, 2024) asserts broader
protections under the Washington Constitution, and bills such as SHB
2489 or local condition would restrict 1380 SHB and (2026)
enforcement. The City Attorney’s Office is monitoring both.
Impact (other than fiscal)
Clear Council direction will align enforcement practices with current law, reduce
litigation exposure under Long and the Washington Constitution’s excessive
fines the Department, Police and give punishment cruel and provisions,
prosecutors, and code enforcement staff consistent, defensible protocols for
interactions with homeless individuals, including situations involving vehicles
used as residences. Direction on policy goals will also shape how the City
addresses encampments, vehicle camping, and related community impacts in
parks, on sidewalks, and in public spaces, matching Council priorities to
available resulting resources. Staff will coordinate communication of any
changes with affected departments and community partners.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council discuss and provide direction on the following
actions:
1. Direct staff to evaluate the current quality of life ordinances, inventory
fines and potential impoundment fees, and work with the City Attorney to
determine compliance with Long; if noncompliance is identified, prepare
the revisions necessary to correct it.
2. Direct the Chief of Police to review existing protocols, or develop new
Page 22 of 465
ones, governing officer interactions with homeless persons – including
an explicit protocol for identifying and addressing situations where a
person living in their vehicle is violating City code in a manner that would
require impoundment.
3. Identify Council policy goals and direct staff to implement policies and
ordinances to carry them out, including direction on specific scenarios
such as vehicle camping, camping in public parks, public use of illegal
drugs, and encampment cleanups.
Constraints (time or other consideration)
The legal landscape remains unsettled. A ruling in the Spokane litigation could
restrict or complicate enforcement authority under the Washington Constitution,
and further preemption bills are anticipated in the next legislative session.
Establishing a compliant framework now positions the City to adapt if the law
changes. Enforcement choices are also constrained by available police,
prosecutorial, public defense, court, and cleanup resources, and by practical
limits on recovering impound costs for vehicles claimed as homesteads.
Next Steps
Based on Council direction, staff will complete the ordinance and fine inventory
with the City Attorney and return with any recommended code amendments;
the Police Department will present updated interaction and vehicle
impoundment protocols; and staff will develop a policy framework addressing
the specific scenarios identified by Council, with fiscal analysis, for future
Council consideration.
Alternatives
1. Maintain the current ordinances and enforcement practices without
modification, including the shelter-based enforcement limitation in PMC
9.105.050, accepting unevaluated compliance risk under Long.
2. Direct staff to proceed with only a subset of the recommended actions.
3. Provide staff with alternate direction.
Page 23 of 465
Anti-Camping &
Quality of Life
Ordinances
Legal Parameters & Requested Council Direction
JULY 27,2026 | CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP City of Pasco | Washington
Pa
g
e
2
4
o
f
4
6
5
WHY WE'RE HERE
Two Decisions Reshaped the Enforcement Landscape
The City Attorney's Office has analyzed how recent court rulings define what the
City can and cannot enforce.
2019
Martin v. City of
Boise9th Circuit: no criminal
enforcement against
homeless persons
without adequate
shelter space
available.
2021
City of Seattle v.
LongWA Supreme Court:
lived-in vehicles are
homesteads; impound
fees are fines requiring
an ability-to-pay
analysis.
2024
Grants Pass v.
Johnson
U.S. Supreme Court:
cities may enforce anti-
camping laws
regardless of shelter
capacity.
2026
Unsettled Ground
Spokane litigation and
state preemption bills
could narrow local
authority again.
City of Pasco | Presentation to City Council 2
Pa
g
e
2
5
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON (2024)
Enforcement Authority Restored
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Grants Pass's camping ordinances, overturning the shelter-space
requirement that had governed since Martin v. Boise.
1 Conduct, Not Status
The ordinances forbid actions like public sleeping and camping
and apply to everyone, regardless of housing status. They do
not punish the “mere status” of homelessness.
2 Punishment Is the Question
The Eighth Amendment regulates only the type of
punishment imposed -not whether a locality can punish an
offense in the first place.
3 Standard Penalties Stand
Ordinary fines and jail time are not cruel or unusual; they
remain commonly used punishments across the country.
BOTTOM LINE
Cities may enforce anti-
camping and quality of life
ordinances even without
sufficient shelter space.
Whether and how to enforce
is now a local policy choice -
subject to state law.
City of Pasco | Presentation to City Council 3
Pa
g
e
2
6
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF SEATTLE V. LONG (2021)
Washington's Guardrails Still Apply
Enforcement authority under Grants Pass is not unlimited. The Washington Supreme Court
imposed two lasting constraints when a person lives in their vehicle or has limited means.
Vehicles as Homesteads
A vehicle used as a residence
qualifies as a homestead under
Chapter 6.31 RCW.
•The City may still impound the
vehicle
•The City cannot sell it to recover
fees
•The vehicle must be released to
the owner
Impound Fees Are “Fines”
Impound and storage fees are
partly punitive -subject to the
Excessive Fines Clause.
•Individualized ability-to-pay
assessment required
•Fees disproportionate to the
underlying infraction are
excessive
•Fines within ordinance ranges are
presumed valid
FISCAL RISK
Towing and storage fees
on a homestead vehicle
can climb into the
thousands and the City
cannot recoup them
through sale or compelled
payment. Pasco's
ordinances have not yet
been evaluated for Long
compliance.
City of Pasco | Presentation to City Council 4
Pa
g
e
2
7
o
f
4
6
5
WHERE PASCO STANDS
Compliant with Grants Pass —Unevaluated Under Long
CURRENT ORDINANCE FRAMEWORK
PMC 9.105.030 / .040 Unauthorized camping & storage of
property
PMC 9.105.050 Shelter-based enforcement limit -now
discretionary
PMC 9.80.030 / .035 Sit-lie on designated sidewalks (warning
first)
PMC 9.100 / 9.110 / 9.115 Park hours & rules, trespass, exclusions
Related provisions Disorderly conduct, littering, fires, drug
offenses
STATUS
✓Grants Pass: compliant. All ordinances
apply to all persons regardless of housing
status.
Long: unevaluated. Fines and impound
procedures have not been reviewed for
excessive-fines and homestead risk.
WATCH LIST
•Currie v. City of Spokane -ACLU suit claiming
broader protection under the WA Constitution
•SHB 2489 & SHB 1380 (2026) -state bills that
would restrict or condition local enforcement
City of Pasco | Presentation to City Council 5
Pa
g
e
2
8
o
f
4
6
5
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
Three Actions to Align Policy with the Law
1 Evaluate Ordinances for Long Compliance
Inventory fines and impound fees with the City Attorney; prepare revisions where
noncompliance is found.
2 Update Police Protocols
Direct the Chief of Police to establish protocols for interactions with homeless persons —
including vehicles used as residences facing impoundment.
3 Set Policy Goals by Scenario
Give staff direction on vehicle camping, camping in parks, public drug use, and encampment
cleanups —matched to available resources.
Next steps: staff returns with the ordinance and fine inventory, updated protocols, and a policy framework
with fiscal analysis —shaped by tonight's direction.
Pa
g
e
2
9
o
f
4
6
5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council June 12, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 7/27/26
FROM: Brent Cook, Police Chief
Police Department
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Unit Funding Program
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Attached documents:
Traffic Safety Unit Funding Recommendation Memorandum
Ordinance No. 4392 – Automated Traffic Camera Systems
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP)
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the proposed Traffic Safety Unit would be derived from automated
traffic camera revenue generated pursuant to Ordinance 4392. No General
Fund appropriation is requested through this action.
Expenditures would be restricted to activities directly related to traffic safety
programming and enforcement and would be subject to established
accounting, reporting, and program performance measures.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4392 authorizing the use of
automated traffic safety cameras for traffic safety enforcement purposes. The
ordinance further provides that revenue generated from the program shall be
Page 30 of 465
used for the sole purpose of increasing traffic safety conditions within the City
through infrastructure and programming initiatives consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Transportation Plans.
The Police Department has evaluated whether the creation and funding of a
dedicated Traffic Safety Unit qualifies as an allowable use of automated traffic
camera revenue under the ordinance.
The review included analysis of:
Ordinance 4392 requirements regarding the use of camera- generated
revenue.
The City's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).
The Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP).
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The evaluation determined that a dedicated Traffic Safety Unit can satisfy the
ordinance requirements when structured as a defined traffic safety program
focused on reducing collisions, injuries, and fatalities through data-driven
enforcement activities.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed Traffic Safety Unit would be responsible for implementing
targeted traffic safety strategies designed to address the primary contributing
factors associated with serious injury and fatal crashes, including:
Speeding
Red-light violations
Impaired driving
Other high-risk driving behaviors
To qualify as a programming initiative under Ordinance 4392, the unit would
operate as a dedicated traffic safety program rather than general patrol
staffing. Program activities would include:
High-visibility traffic enforcement campaigns
DUI enforcement operations
Data-driven deployment based on crash trends and High Injury Network
(HIN) corridors
Targeted enforcement in areas identified through safety analysis
Measurement of safety outcomes and program effectiveness
The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan identifies increased enforcement,
Page 31 of 465
speed management, impaired driving enforcement, and high-visibility
enforcement programs as key safety strategies. The proposed Traffic Safety
Unit for mechanism implementation primary serve as these would a
recommendations.
The Transportation System Master Plan establishes transportation safety and
operational goals that rely on compliance with traffic laws and traffic control
devices. The proposed unit would support these objectives through focused
enforcement efforts designed to improve roadway user behavior.
The Transportation Improvement Program identifies significant investments in
roadway, intersection, signal, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure
improvements. Targeted traffic enforcement complements these investments
by improving compliance and enhancing the effectiveness of completed safety
projects.
To ensure continued compliance with Ordinance 4392, staff recommends the
following safeguards:
Establish the Traffic Safety Unit as a formally defined traffic safety
program.
Limit program activities to traffic safety-related enforcement and
education efforts.
Base deployment decisions on crash data, violation trends, and High
Injury Network locations.
Develop measurable performance metrics, including reductions in
crashes, serious injuries, and violations.
Maintain clear financial accounting and annual reporting regarding
program expenditures and outcomes.
Based on the analysis completed by the Police Department, staff concludes
that funding a dedicated Traffic Safety Unit through automated traffic camera
revenue is consistent with Ordinance 4392 when the unit is structured as a
data-driven traffic safety program and operated in support of the City's adopted
transportation safety plans.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Page 32 of 465
215 W. Sylvester Street Pasco, WA 99301-5320
Phone: (509) 545-3421 Fax: (509) 545-3423
TO: Brent Cook, Interim Chief of Police
FROM: Jeff Harpster, Captain
DATE: May 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Unit Funding Recommendation
This memorandum evaluates whether funding a dedicated Traffic Safety Unit using automated traffic
camera revenue is consistent with Ordinance 4392 and the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
consisting of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Transportation System Master Plan
(TSMP), and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).
City of Pasco Ordinance 4392 authorizes the use of automated traffic camera revenue “for the sole
purpose of increasing traffic safety conditions in the city through infrastructure and programming
initiatives consistent with the City’s comprehensive transportation plans.”
The central question is whether a Traffic Enforcement/Safety Unit qualifies as a “programming
initiative” that meets both:
1. The purpose requirement (increasing traffic safety), and
2. The consistency requirement (alignment with TIP, TSMP, and CSAP).
ANALYSIS
A. Purpose Requirement – Increasing Traffic Safety Conditions
A properly structured Traffic Safety Unit directly advances traffic safety by addressing the primary
contributing factors to serious and fatal collisions, including:
•Speeding
•Red-light violations
•Impaired driving
•High-risk driving behaviors
These enforcement activities are recognized as effective countermeasures to reduce collisions, injuries,
and fatalities. As for purpose, a Traffic Safety Unit clearly satisfies the ordinance requirement that funds
be used to increase traffic safety conditions.
B. Programming Initiative Requirement
The ordinance allows funding for “programming initiatives,” which requires distinguishing between:
•Programmatic safety efforts, and
•General staffing or operational expenses
A Traffic Safety Unit qualifies as a programming initiative only if it is structured and operated as a
defined traffic safety program, including:
•High-visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns
•DUI enforcement operations
•Data-driven deployment based on collision patterns and High Injury Network (HIN) locations
•Measurable safety outcomes (e.g., reduction in violations and collisions)
Page 33 of 465
2
If the unit is instead framed or utilized as general patrol staffing, it would not meet the definition of a
programming initiative and would present legal and policy risk.
C. Consistency with Comprehensive Transportation Plan
1. Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
The CSAP identifies enforcement as a core safety strategy and calls for:
•Increased speed enforcement
•DUI enforcement
•High-visibility enforcement programs
A Traffic Safety Unit serves as the primary implementation mechanism for these strategies, making
alignment with the CSAP strong and direct.
2. Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP)
The TSMP establishes safety and operational goals that depend on:
•Compliance with traffic laws
•Safe driver behavior
•Effective traffic control adherence
While the TSMP does not directly call for staffing, it assumes the presence of enforcement to achieve its
system performance objectives. A Traffic Safety Unit supports these assumptions by ensuring
compliance.
3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The TIP identifies infrastructure improvements such as intersections, signals, and corridors. However,
these projects rely on behavioral compliance to achieve intended safety outcomes.
A Traffic Safety Unit reinforces and protects the investments in these projects by:
•Ensuring adherence to traffic controls
•Supporting the effectiveness of safety improvements
•Reducing violations in upgraded corridors
D. Nexus Between Revenue Source and Use
Automated traffic camera revenue is generated from violations Red-light infractions which is a high-risk
behavior. A Traffic Safety Unit targets these same types of violations. This creates a:
•Direct relationship between revenue source and expenditure
•Proportional and behavior-specific nexus
•Clear connection to the ordinance’s safety purpose
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed funding approach is defensible but subject to the following risks if not properly
structured:
A. Risk of General Fund Substitution
If the unit functions as general law enforcement staffing rather than a dedicated traffic safety program,
it may be viewed as improper use of restricted funds.
B. Lack of Program Definition
Failure to define the unit as a structured program with measurable outcomes weakens the argument
that it qualifies as a “programming initiative.”
C. Mission Creep
Page 34 of 465
3
Expansion into non-traffic-related enforcement activities could undermine the required nexus to traffic
safety.
MITIGATION MEASURES
To ensure compliance with Ordinance 4392 and strengthen defensibility, the following safeguards are
recommended:
•Establish the unit as a Traffic Safety Unit with a clearly defined mission limited to traffic safety
enforcement
•Tie deployment to:
o High Injury Network (HIN) corridors
o Crash and violation data
•Implement performance metrics, including:
o Reduction in crashes and serious injuries
o Violation trends in targeted areas
•Maintain clear accounting and reporting of expenditures
•Prohibit use of funds for non-traffic-related law enforcement activities
CONCLUSION
A Traffic Safety Unit does fit within the allowable use of automated traffic camera revenue under
Ordinance 4392, provided it is:
•Structured as a programming initiative, not general staffing
•Directly focused on traffic safety enforcement activities
•Clearly aligned with the CSAP, TSMP, and TIP
•Supported by measurable outcomes and defined operational parameters
When these conditions are met, the funding approach satisfies both the purpose and consistency
requirements of the ordinance and represents a defensible and policy-aligned use of revenue.
RECOMMENDED POSITION
The Traffic Safety Unit should be formally established and presented as:
A data-driven traffic safety enforcement program designed to implement strategies identified in the
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and support the safety performance objectives of the Transportation
System Master Plan and Transportation Improvement Program.
Page 35 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 4392
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, creating
Chapter 10.22 "Automated Traffic Camera Systems"; and Amending Section
1.02.020 "Initiation of Civil Infraction Proceedings".
WHEREAS, Pasco's significant growth has resulted in growing traffic enforcement
concerns with increasing numbers of signalized intersections, school zones, traffic volume, and
additional miles of road, the Pasco Police Department has conducted considerable research to
finds means to address this growing concern; and
WHEREAS, that research has demonstrated that the worse traffic accidents are the result
of running red lights at signed or signalized intersections, and the most tragic traffic accidents
involve school children as the result of speeding in school zones;and
WHEREAS, the Washington legislature, pursuant to RCW 46.63.170, authorizes the use
by cities of automated traffic safety cameras for certain traffic enforcement including red-light
safety cameras and school zone cameras; and
WHEREAS, it is determined that strategic placement of automated cameras in school
zones and arterial intersections would provide an efficient and economical means for traffic
enforcement; and
WHEREAS, an analysis has been prepared of the locations within the City of Pasco
where automated traffic safety cameras are proposed to be located on either a permanent or
temporary basis, and shall post an annual report of the number of traffic accidents that have
occurred at each location where an automated traffic safety camera is located, as well as the
number of notices of infractions issued for each camera, and such other relevant information as
appropriate which shall be posted on the City's website. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That a new Chapter 10.22 entitled "Automated Traffic Camera Systems"
of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows:
Chapter 10.22
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CAMERA SYSTEMS
Sections:
10.22.010 Authorized Use of Automated Traffic Safety Cameras.
10.22.020 Notice of Infraction for Automated Traffic Control System.
10.22.030 Response to Notice of Infraction for Automated Traffic Control System.
10.22.040 Presumption of Committed Infraction—Presumption Overcome.
10.22.050 Infractions Processed.
Page 36 of 465
10.22.060 Fines.
10.22.070 Nonexclusive Enforcement.
10.22.080 Authorization for Use of Electronic Signatures.
10.22.010 AUTHORIZED USE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY
CAMERAS.
A) Law enforcement officers of the City of Pasco and persons commissioned by the
Police Chief are authorized to use automated traffic safety cameras and related automated
systems to detect one or more of the following infractions:
1) Stop light infractions.
2) Railroad crossing violations.
3) School speed zone violations.
B) The use of automated traffic safety cameras is subject to the following
restrictions:
1) The use of automated traffic safety cameras is restricted to "two arterial
intersections" (the intersection of two arterial streets), railroad crossings, school speed zones, and
as authorized in RCW 46.63.170.
2) Approval of the City Council shall be obtained for each location proposed
for the use of automated traffic safety cameras.
3) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle
and the vehicle license plate and only while the infraction is occurring. Pictures taken by the
automated traffic safety camera may not reveal the face of the driver or of the passengers in the
vehicle.
C) The City shall clearly mark all locations where automated cameras are in use by
placing signs in locations that clearly indicate to a driver that he or she is entering a zone where
traffic laws are enforced by automated traffic safety cameras.
D) For the purpose of this Chapter, "Automated Traffic Safety Camera" means a
device that uses a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an intersection traffic
control system, a railroad grade crossing control system, or a speed measuring device, and a
camera synchronized to automatically record one or more sequential photographs,
microphotographs, or electronic images of the rear of a motor vehicle at the time vehicle:
1) Fails to stop when facing a steady red traffic control signal; or
2) Fails to stop when facing an activated railroad grade crossing control
Ordinance—Automated Traffic
Camera Systems- 1
Page 37 of 465
signal; or
3) Exceeds a speed limit in a school speed zone as detected by a speed-
measuring device; or
10.22.020 NOTICE OF INFRACTION FOR AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CONTROL
SYSTEM.
A) Whenever any vehicle is photographed by an automated traffic safety camera, a
notice of infraction shall be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within fourteen (14)
days of establishing the registered owner's name and address under this section.
B) If the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental car business, before a notice of
infraction is issued, the Pasco Police Department will provide a written notice to the rental car
business that a notice of infraction may be issued if the rental car business does not within
eighteen (18) days of receiving the written notice, provide the Pasco Police Department by return
mail:
1) A statement under oath stating the name and known address of the
individual driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred; or
2) A statement under oath stating the business is unable to determine who
was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the infraction occurred; or
3) In lieu of identifying the vehicle operator, the rental car business may pay
the applicable penalty.
Timely mailing of this statement to the Pasco Police Department relieves the rental car
business of any liability under this chapter for the notice of infraction.
C) The law enforcement officer issuing the notice of infraction shall include with it a
certificate or facsimile thereof, based upon the inspection of photographs, microphotographs, or
electronic images by an automated traffic safety camera, stating the facts supporting the notice of
infraction. This certificate or facsimile is prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it and is
admissible in a proceeding charging a violation under this Chapter.
D) Photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images evidencing the violation
must be available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to adjudicate the
liability for the infraction. All photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images prepared
under this Chapter are for the exclusive use of law enforcement and the discharge of duties under
this Chapter, and are not open to the public and may not be used in a Court in a pending action or
proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of this Chapter. No photograph,
microphotograph, or electronic image may be used for any purpose other than enforcement of
violations under this Chapter, nor retained longer than necessary for its enforcement.
Ordinance—Automated Traffic
Camera Systems- 1
Page 38 of 465
10.22.030 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INFRACTION FOR AUTOMATED
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM. Any person receiving a notice of infraction based upon the
evidence detected by an automated traffic safety camera shall respond to such notice within
fifteen(15) days of the date of notice as required by PMC 1.02.050; and, within said period, may
request a contested hearing as provided by PMC 1.02.060, or a mitigation hearing as provided by
PMC 1.02.070.
10.22.040 PRESUMPTION OF COMMITTED INFRACTION —
PRESUMPTION OVERCOME.
A) In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of a
photo enforcement system under PMC 10.22, as now enacted or hereafter amended, or detected
through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under this section, proof that a particular
vehicle described in the notice of infraction was in violation of any such provision of PMC
10.22, together with proof that the person named in the notice of infraction was at the time of the
violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes a prima facie presumption that the
registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and
for the time for which the violation occurred.
B) This presumption may be overcome at a contested hearing only if the registered
owner states,under oath, in a written statement to the Court or in testimony before the Court, that
the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person
other than the registered owner.
10.22.050 INFRACTIONS PROCESSED. Except as provided in this Chapter,
infractions detected through the use of automated traffic safety cameras shall be processed as
provided in PMC 1.02. Infractions detected through the use of automated traffic safety cameras
are not part of the registered owner's driving record under RCW 46.52.101 and RCW 46.52.120,
as now enacted or hereafter amended. Additionally, infractions generated by the use of
automated traffic safety cameras under this section shall be processed in the same manner as
parking infractions prosecuted under this code, including for the purposes of RCW 3.46.120,
RCW 3.50.100, RCW 3.62.040, RCW 46.152.216 and RCW 46.20.270(3) and any other
applicable statutes.
10.22.060 FINES. The fine for infractions committed pursuant to the provisions of
this Chapter shall constitute a Class 2 civil infraction pursuant to PMC 1.02.080 ($125.00).
10.22.070 NONEXCLUSIVE ENFORCEMENT. Nothing in this section prohibits a
law enforcement officer from issuing a notice of infraction to a person in control of a vehicle at
the time the violation occurs:
A) When the infraction is committed in the officer's presence (except
as provided in RWC 46.06.485);
B) When the officer is acting upon the request of a law enforcement officer in his
Ordinance—Automated Traffic
Camera Systems- 1
Page 39 of 465
presence of the traffic infraction committed; or
C) If an officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle accident has reasonable
cause to believe that the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has committed a
traffic infraction pursuant to RCW 46.63.030(1)(a) through(c).
10.22.080 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. In
connection with the traffic safety, safety camera program, the police chief, or designee, is
authorized to utilize electronic signatures in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.34
RCW.
Section 2. That Section 1.02.020 entitled "Initiation of Civil Infraction
Proceedings" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as
follows:
1.02.020 INITIATION OF CIVIL INFRACTION PROCEEDINGS
1) A civil infraction proceeding is initiated by the issuance, service, and filing of a
Notice of Civil Infraction.
2) A notice of civil infraction may be issued by an enforcement officer when the
civil infraction occurs in the officer's presence.
3) A Court may issue a Notice of Civil Infraction if an enforcement officer files
with the Court a written statement that the civil infraction was committed in the officer's
presence or that the officer has reasonable cause to believe that a civil infraction was
committed.
4) Service of a Notice of Civil Infraction was issued under subsection (2) or (3)
of this section shall be as provided by Court Rule. Until such a rule is adopted, service shall
be as provided in JTUR 2.2(c)(1) and (3), as applicable.
5) A Notice of Infraction, except an infraction issued pursuant to PMC 10.22
Automated Traffic Camera Systems). Shall be filed with the Clerk of the Pasco Municipal Court
within forty-eight (48) hours of issuance, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. An
infraction issued under PMC 10.22 shall be filed with the Clerk of the Pasco Municipal Court
within five(5) calendar days. A Notice of Infraction not filed within the time limits prescribed in
this section may be dismissed without prejudice. (Ord. 2743 Sec. 2,1989.)
Section 3. Fine revenue received from the use of automated traffic safety cameras
shall be used, at the discretion of the City Council, to pay for the costs of the program, including
court, vendor and administrative costs and thereafter, for the sole purpose of increasing traffic
safety conditions in the City through by funding infrastructure and programming initiatives
consistent with the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Transportation Plans.
Ordinance—Automated Traffic
Camera Systems- 1
Page 40 of 465
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this 6th day August, 2018.
Craig Maloney, Mayor Pro-Tem
TTA- T: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lam_ _I_k,
Daniela Erickson, Ci y Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance—Automated Traffic
Camera Systems- 1
Page 41 of 465
Transportation
System Master Plan
JUNE 2022
CITY OF PASCO
Pa
g
e
4
2
o
f
4
6
5
PROJECT TEAM
CITY OF PASCO
Dan Ford,
City Engineer
Jacob Gonzalez,
City Planning Manager
DKS ASSOCIATES
Carl Springer,
Project Manager
Aaron Berger,
Senior Engineer
Rochelle Starrett,
Engineer
Melissa Abadie,
Creative Services
ANGELO
PLANNING GROUP
Darci Rudzinski,
Principal
Andrew Parish,
Senior Planner
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dan Ford,
City of Pasco
Jacob Gonzalez,
City of Pasco
Carl Springer, DKS
Aaron Berger, DKS
David Beach,
Bike Tri-Cities
Patrick Pittenger,
Benton-Franklin
Council of
Governments
Erin Braich,
Benton-Franklin
Council of
Governments
Olivia Meza,
Benton-Franklin
Council of
Governments
Keith Hall, Benton
Franklin Transit
Paul Gonseth, WSDOT
John Gruber, WSDOT
Eric Snider, WSDOT
Pa
g
e
4
3
o
f
4
6
5
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 2:
PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW . . . . . . . 10
CHAPTER 3:
RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CHAPTER 4:
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
CHAPTER 5:
IMPLEMENTATION
AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . 60
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Pa
g
e
4
4
o
f
4
6
5
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. STATE, REGIONAL, AND CITY PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................4
FIGURE 2. PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING PROCESS ..........................................................................................5
FIGURE 3. TRI-CITIES REGIONAL CONTEXT .....................................................................................................11
FIGURE 4. HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS IN TRI-CITIES ..............................................................................12
FIGURE 5. TRI-CITIES BRIDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC GROWTH TRENDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FIGURE 6. PASCO RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS ...............................................................................................14
FIGURE 7. EMPLOYMENT TRAVEL PATTERNS TO/FROM PASCO (STREETLIGHT DATA, 2019) ..............................................................16
FIGURE 8. FREIGHT ACTIVITY CENTERS WITHIN PASCO (STREETLIGHT DATA, 2019) ....................................................................17
FIGURE 9. EXISTING BEN FRANKLIN TRANSIT SERVICES .........................................................................................19
FIGURE 10. PLANNED BEN FRANKLIN STOP UPGRADES AND ROUTE EXTENSIONS ....................................................................20
FIGURE 11. PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHALLENGES – TODAY ..............................................................................22
FIGURE 12. INTERSECTIONS WITH MAJOR CONGESTION BY 2040 .................................................................................27
FIGURE 13. MOTOR VEHICLE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................30
FIGURE 14. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS ..............................................................................................40
FIGURE 15. DESIRED FACILITY SPACING ......................................................................................................45
FIGURE 16. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................46
FIGURE 17. FREIGHT SYSTEM ...............................................................................................................52
FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Pa
g
e
4
5
o
f
4
6
5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URBAN GROWTH AREA ..................................................................................25
TABLE 2. INTERSECTIONS WITH MAJOR CONGESTION BY 2040 (OPERATING AT LOS E OR F) ...........................................................26
TABLE 3. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (INT) ................................................................................................31
TABLE 4. NEW ROADWAY EXTENSIONS (EXT) ..................................................................................................33
TABLE 5. TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TRANSIT AMENITIES (TS & TR) ...................................................................................35
TABLE 6. ROADWAY WIDENING PROJECTS (EXP) ...............................................................................................36
TABLE 7. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS (BP) ............................................................................................41
TABLE 8. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUMMARY .........................................................................................42
TABLE 9. FACILITY SPACING GUIDELINES .....................................................................................................45
TABLE 10. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF NEW ROADWAYS ....................................................................................47
TABLE 11. ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES ....................................................................................48
TABLE 12. APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...................................................................54
TABLE 13. ACCESS MANAGEMENT SPACING STANDARDS ........................................................................................55
TABLE 14. RECOMMENDED STREET CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS ..................................................................................56
TABLE 15. EXISTING MOBILITY TARGETS FOR WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR PERIODS .......................................................................57
TABLE 16. RECOMMENDED MOBILITY TARGETS ................................................................................................58
TABLE 17. FILLING THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING GAP ........................................................................................61
TABLE 18. RECOMMENDED VEHICLE MOBILITY STANDARDS FOR LOCAL STREETS ....................................................................63
Pa
g
e
4
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 1
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
For years, Pasco has been among the fastest
growing cities in Washington, and it is
expected to add over 40,000 new residents
by 2040 when Pasco’s population will exceed
120,000, surpassing the neighboring Tri-Cities.
Rapid population growth of this scale has a
corresponding major impact in transportation
demands for a community. As the city’s first
transportation system master plan, this represents
a foundational study that will establish a host
of policies and programs that will guide the City
of Pasco to a safer and more vibrant city. The
challenge ahead for city leaders is to take steps to
address existing system needs identified through
this process and to make strategic investments
with partner transportation agencies to prepare
for substantial growth in the decades to come.
THE CITY OF PASCO HAS PREPARED A
MASTER PLAN TO GUIDE DECISIONS AND
INVESTMENTS IN THEIR TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
1
Pa
g
e
4
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 2INTRODUCTION
The Pasco Transportation System Master Plan
(TSMP) is a guide for future transportation
investments to ensure that they align with
our community’s goals, values, and vision
for the future. The TSMP is a key resource for
implementing transportation system improvements
that address current deficiencies and that serve
expected local and regional growth. As the first
TSMP in Pasco, this plan represents the first step
towards a series of new guidelines and standards
that will shape the city as it grows and re-builds.
Transportation planning in Washington is
required under the Growth Management Act
which governs each city’s transportation
element of a comprehensive plan.
Under the Growth Management Act, each
transportation plan must contain:
• A set of goals, policies, and evaluation
criteria that define a vision for a city’s
transportation future
• An inventory of a city’s existing, multimodal
transportation system and how well this
system currently serves users
• An assessment of future travel demand and
the impact of this growth on the existing
transportation system
• A review of bicycle and pedestrian needs
and opportunities
• An understanding of available funding for
transportation system improvements
The Pasco TSMP documents the operational and
safety performance of the City’s existing and future
transportation system and provides strategies that
will support growth in and around the community
through the year 2040.
This TSMP will act as a supplement to the
transportation element in Pasco’s 2018-2038
Comprehensive Plan to further envision Pasco’s
transportation future.
ADA COMPLIANCE AND TRANSITION PLAN
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) governs
how we serve people with hearing, vision, and
ambulatory disabilities. In 2013, the City of Pasco
adopted the Sidewalk Transition Plan. The
Sidewalk Transition Plan was intended to remove
barriers to mobility of people with disabilities
and improving safety for all pedestrians in Pasco.
The results of that plan highlighted the needs
to improve infrastructure based on area needs,
including Downtown, West Court Street (between
Road 48 and N 4th Avenue), Road 68 and the area
around Columbia Basin College and the Tri-Cities
Airport. In 2018, the Pasco City Council adopted
its first Complete Streets Policy, which is aimed
at maximizing the safety of the community and all
users of public streets.
The implementation of the plan has been left arising
opportunities, such as inclusion in the scope of
capital projects or repair of sidewalks and non-
compliant ADA ramps by city crews. This approach
Plan Purpose
This transportation system master plan lays
out a multimodal transportation system to
better serve built parts of the community
and provides a framework for growth in
undeveloped areas. In addition to the specific
capital improvement projects for walking,
bicycling, and driving, this plan identifies
a more robust street design concept for
arterial and collector roadways to better
serve all travel modes. The plan also includes
a priority network for quality bicycle routes,
and safety enhancements for mid-block
crossings on arterial roadways.
The master plan also recommends new street
spacing and accessibility guidelines to be
applied for new portions of the community
that will be built in the coming years.
Significant growth is expected north of
Interstate 182 in the Broadmoor Boulevard
area, which includes hundreds of acres of
developable residential and commercially
zoned vacant land. Better street connectivity
can balance travel demand across many
routes and makes it easier for residents to
walk or bike within the neighborhood or to
access transit. This approach recognizes
that the layout and design of the local
transportation system is foundational to
neighborhood livability. It better serves the
full spectrum of community travel needs
which can vary over time based on household
size, income, age, physical abilities, and
personal preferences.
Pa
g
e
4
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 3INTRODUCTION
has provided certain level of success. Additionally,
the City has a designated ADA coordinator, a formal
process for notices and grievances.
While incremental improvement has been
accomplished, a more systematic implementation
plan for the ADA transition plan is recommended.
This plan would establish clear parameters,
schedules, and completion targets on:
1. Documentation of Existing Conditions
and Compliance (Catalogue or inventory)
2. Evaluation of Internal Design Standards,
Specifications and Details (Scheduled
recurrent reviews, as standards and
regulations are updated)
3. Implementation Schedule (Targets)
4. Progress Monitoring (Tracking progress
and expenditures associated with the
formal program)
3PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Pa
g
e
4
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 4INTRODUCTION
The TSMP was developed consistent with
the state and regional transportation planning
framework as required by the GMA. The chart
at right illustrates how the state’s Growth
Management Act provides overall policy and
regulatory guidance for all governmental agencies
within Washington State. In addition to state
guidance, the City of Pasco must also coordinate
their planning with local Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), which is represented by the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG).
The BFCG develops and maintains the region’s
transportation plan (RTP) and they are responsible
for oversight on regional population and
employment forecasts of local city and county
agencies to maintain consistency with statewide
planning efforts. Land use growth assumptions are
vital inputs to the transportation planning process.
As noted previously, the TSMP supplements the
transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan,
and it provides the basis for Pasco’s on-going
six-year transportation improvement plan and
the bicycle and pedestrian master plan.
By coordinating the city’s TSMP with their
regional and statewide partner agencies, the city
can strengthen its position to more effectively
compete for various state and federal
transportation funding opportunities. The city
desires to continue its record in securing state
and federal grants to expedite local transportation
improvement projects. A recent example is
the grant that advanced the Lewis Street
Overcrossing project in the downtown to began
construction in 2021. New federal legislation in
2022 enabled additional grant opportunities such
as the RAISE (Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity).
Planning and Transportation Funding Framework
FIGURE 1. STATE, REGIONAL, AND CITY PLANNING FRAMEWORK
WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GMA
BENTONFRANKLIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANREGIONAL/METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT SIXYEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
CITY OF PASCO
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Pa
g
e
5
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 5INTRODUCTION
The TSMP project team, which included city
staff members and the consultant team, worked
closely with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
comprised of local partners to develop and
review interim work products and address major
issues collaboratively. The TAC roster included
representatives from Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT), Franklin County, Ben
Franklin Transit (BFT), Benton-Franklin Council of
Government (BFCG), and Bike Tri-Cities. The TAC
met three times to review how the system works
today, expected changes with growth to 2040,
and proposed transportation improvements
recommended within Pasco. During each meeting,
initial technical findings were presented and
discussed with TAC members to collect feedback
on draft concepts and to align long-range plans
among the various partner agencies.
In addition, two online public open house events
were conducted during the development of the
TSMP. Given the restricted conditions of the
ongoing COVID pandemic, these events were
limited to being conducted online only.
• The first event (June 2020) identified community
concerns and issues related to walking, bicycling,
and driving within Pasco today through an online
survey. Refer to Appendix A for a summary of the
public responses to the survey.
• The second online event (May/June 2021)
collected public feedback on the proposed
projects and programs that the TSMP process
identified to address current and expected future
transportation system issues.
PERFORMANCE-BASED
PLANNING ELEMENTS
The Pasco TSMP differs from prior transportation
planning processes in that this update applied
a performance-based approach. As described
below, that begins with the community’s vision
for its transportation system, which is distilled
into measurable goals and supporting policies.
These goals and policies are then used to develop
performance measures that are used to identify
gaps and challenges in the system today, to
evaluate potential projects, and to measure
long-term alignment between Pasco’s
transportation system and the community’s
vision of this system. The plan process is illustrated
in Figure 2, along with the key questions that are
considered at each stage of the planning work.
The advantage of a performance-based planning
process is that it demonstrates how strategic
investments directly benefit and address
essential community goals regarding multimodal
transportation services for all of the community’s
residents, workers, and visitors.
The Planning Process
FIGURE 2. PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING PROCESS
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
TRENDS, TARGETS, & PRIORITIES
INVESTMENT PLANS, SYSTEM DESIGN, & STANDARDS
What do we value most in our community?
How do those values apply to our travel system?
How do we measure success?
What challenges do we
face today?
How will growth impact those challenges?
What are our strategies to improve our system consistent with our
community values?
What public investments
are our top priority?
What guidance is needed for private investments?
How will we evaluate and monitor progress?
Pa
g
e
5
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 6INTRODUCTION
VISION:
The City of Pasco’s future transportation system is a safe and balanced
multimodal transportation system which equitably serves pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit, freight, and drivers. Pasco’s residents should have
access to livable neighborhoods through established planning practices
which prioritize system connectivity and multimodal street design,
including a network of parks, trails, and bikeways which connect all
residents to the Columbia River. Pasco’s transportation system also
supports regional economic activities, including access to Pasco’s
freight facilities for regional agriculture and other industries, and
supports regional, multimodal transportation connections in Pasco.
The first stage of the planning process involves defining the City’s vision for their transportation system and developing goals and policies to guide it.
Pasco’s comprehensive plan defines a vision for Pasco in 2038 which includes their idealized future transportation system; this concept was used to develop
the following vision statement to guide the TSMP.
Pasco’s Transportation Vision
Pa
g
e
5
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 7INTRODUCTION
TR-1: COORDINATE WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS
ON SHARED TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
TR-1-A: Participate in the metropolitan and
regional transportation planning efforts of the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
TR-1-B: Work with other jurisdictions to plan,
fund, and implement multi-jurisdictional projects
necessary to meet shared transportation needs
including right-of-way acquisition.
TR-1-C: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit
in programming transit routes, transit stops, and
supporting facilities that increase user accessibility
during the development process.
TR-1-D: Require transportation and land use
planning efforts and policies that meet the needs
of the community and the objectives of this plan.
TR-2: PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS TO
TRANSPORTATION FOR ALL SYSTEM USERS
TR-2-A: Minimize traffic conflicts on the arterial
street system by implementing access and corridor
management best practices.
TR-2-B: Maintain a current local road safety plan
to identify and prioritize safety investments.
TR-2-C: Reduce frequency of fatal and severe
injury crashes particularly for vulnerable road users.
TR-2-D: Establish a vision zero plan for
transportation safety.
TR-3: PRESERVE EXISTING ROADS, SIDEWALKS,
TRAILS, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
TR-3-A: Ensure adequate maintenance of the
existing facilities.
TR-3-B: Encourage retrofit projects that include
beautification on major arterial streets.
Transportation Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies were identified for Pasco’s TSMP based on the existing transportation goals for Pasco’s comprehensive plan and relevant
state and regional plan goals.
GOAL #1 GOAL #2 GOAL #3
Pa
g
e
5
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 8INTRODUCTION
TR-4: PRIORITIZE A CONNECTED AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR DRIVERS
TR-4-A: Adopt and maintain a functional street
classification system consistent with regional
and state guidance.
TR-4-B: Maintain level-of-service (LOS) “D” on
all arterials and collectors and level-of-service
(LOS) “C” during the PM peak-hour.
TR-4-C: Provide increased neighborhood travel
connections to enhance public safety and provide
for transportation disbursement.
TR-4-D: Evaluate, plan, and install traffic control
devices and intersection designs to improve travel
safety and efficiency.
TR-5: DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
THAT SUPPORTS AND ACCOMMODATES THE
NEEDS OF BUSINESSES AND VISITORS
TR-5-A: Promote the safe and efficient
movement of freight through the city.
TR-5-B: Support the development of
facilities that are critical components of
the movement of freight.
TR-5-C: Maintain the multimodal
passenger terminal.
TR-5-D: Support rail services for passengers,
industries, and commerce within the area.
TR-5-E: Support air services for passengers,
industries, and commerce within the area in
coordination with the Pasco Airport Master Plan.
TR-6: SUPPORT HEALTHY AND LIVABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS IN PASCO
TR-6-A: Develop an interconnected network
of streets, trails, and other public ways during
the development process to ensure and improve
neighborhood accessibility.
TR-6-B: Encourage multimodal street design
with traffic calming and safety in consideration
of surrounding land uses.
TR-6-C: Require developments to meet the
mission of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance.
TR-6-D: Incorporate aesthetic design and
streetscape into all major arterial and collector
streets as they are constructed.
GOAL #4 GOAL #5 GOAL #6
Pa
g
e
5
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 9INTRODUCTION9
TR-7: DEVELOP A COMPLETE MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
TR-7-A: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit
in programming transit routes, transit stops, and
supporting facilities that increase user accessibility
during the development process.
TR-7-B: Encourage the use of public
transportation including ride-sharing and
Ben Franklin Transit’s Van-Pool program.
TR-7-C: Encourage park-and-ride lots for bicycles
and/or automobiles.
TR-7-D: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel
by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and
pedestrian routes.
TR-7-E: Reduce major existing system
connectivity gaps for bicyclists and pedestrians
to improve multimodal access.
TR-7-F: Develop new transportation performance
measures for a multimodal system that could
include measures like freight delay.
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
GOAL #7
Pa
g
e
5
5
o
f
4
6
5
Pasco Today
and Tomorrow
CHAPTER 2
10
Pasco attracts visitors from the entire
Columbia Basin, Yakima Valley, Walla Walla
and Northeastern Oregon region. It is home to
the regional Tri-Cities Airport, Columbia Basin
College, expanding regional sports facilities,
and our rapidly changing Downtown.
One feature that makes Pasco unique compared
to its neighboring cities is its dependence on the
four bridges over the Columbia and Snake Rivers
for inter-city and regional travel (see Figure 3).
PASCO IS A RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITY
IN THE TRI-CITIES REGION. THE RAPID
GROWTH IS MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT
FOR RESIDENTS TO GET AROUND PASCO
AND REQUIRES NEW SOLUTIONS TO MANAGE
THE FUTURE GROWTH.
Pa
g
e
5
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 11PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
182
395
395
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
4T
H
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
CLARK RD
A ST
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
N
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO URBAN GROWTH AREA UGA
ACTIVITY CENTERS
EXISTING BARRIERS
AGRICULTURE AREAS
TRICITIESAIRPORT
KENNEWICK
DOWNTOWNPASCO
COLUMBIABASIN COLLEGE
HAPO CENTER &PASCO SPORTING COMPLEX
RICHLAND
HANFORD SITE G
L
A
D
E
R
D
FIGURE 3. TRI-CITIES REGIONAL CONTEXT
Pa
g
e
5
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 12PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
Pasco has experienced a population boom over the last 20 years during which time the population
more than doubled, outpacing the rate of growth in neighboring Kennewick and Richland, and in
Washington State overall. In recent years, development has been attracted to the lands north of Interstate
182 and west of Road 68, which offered significant vacant lands for development and convenient
commuting access to regional work centers, such as the Hanford Site. Since 2010, Pasco’s population
has increased by 25 percent (3.1 percent annually), from 60,000 residents to 75,000 residents in 2018
while its Tri-Cities neighbors have grown by 15 percent, as illustrated in Figure 4. By way of comparison.
Washington State’s population grew by 12 percent during the same period.
About half of the city’s residents use the
three Columbia River bridges to commute to
work, travel to shopping centers, and reach
other regional destinations south or west of
the river. This is a major constraint
for vehicle traffic among the cities. Providing
safe, convenient, and reliable travel
across these bridges will be an important
consideration in developing the
Transportation System Master Plan
for the City of Pasco.
Growth in Pasco has been rapid over the
past 20 years, which has also increased the
demand for travel across the river bridges,
seen in Figure 5. The bridges with the
highest traffic volumes are on Interstate 182
and US 395. They each carry about two to
three times the number of cars and trucks
as the other two river bridges entering
Pasco, which are SR 397 and US 12. As the
existing highway facilities become more
congested during peak hours of the day,
it extends travel times for commuters,
freight traffic, and other trips made on
these regional highway corridors.
Historic Growth
FIGURE 4. HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS IN TRI-CITIES
90,000
KENNEWICK
RICHLAND
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
2000 202020152010
YEAR
TO
T
A
L
P
O
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
2005
PASCO
POPULATION: 75,000
Pa
g
e
5
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 13PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
The population growth in the Tri-Cities region and Pasco closely mirrors traffic trends on the I-182 and US
395 Columbia River bridges where volumes increased between 15 and 22 percent (2.5 to 3.7 percent
annually) between 2012 and 2018 (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5. TRI-CITIES BRIDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC GROWTH TRENDS
BLUE BRIDGE
I182 BRIDGE
70,000
60,000
50,000
2012 2014 2016 2018
AV
E
R
A
G
E
M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
YEAR
80,000
BRIDGETRAFFICGROWTH:+19%
13PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Pa
g
e
5
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 14PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
Pasco is a majority-minority community with a
large Hispanic and Spanish-speaking population.
Relative to Washington State, Pasco has a higher
proportion of children under age 18 and a lower
median household income; 17 percent of residents
live in poverty. Within Pasco, over 40 percent of
senior citizens are also living with a disability (see
Figure 6). Pasco’s population characteristics indicate
a need for reliable alternative transportation modes
to accommodate groups that cannot drive or those
individuals who cannot afford to drive. This will
be a significant consideration for transportation
choices around community equity.
PASCO HAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE
OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 34%
THAN THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE 22%
AGE OF PASCO RESIDENTS
UNDER 18
1865 58%
OVER 65 8%
34%
50%
47%
ENGLISH
SPANISH
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PASCO
WASHINGTON STATE
17%OF PASCO RESIDENTS
ARE BELOW THE
POVERTY LINE
$61,600
$70,100
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
3% LATINO/A NONMEXICAN DESCENT
2% ASIANAMERICAN
2% BLACK/AFRICANAMERICAN
2% OTHER RACIAL GROUPS
LATINO/A MEXICAN DESCENT
52%
39% CAUCASIAN
OF RESIDENTS 65 YEARS AND
OLDER HAVE A DISABILITY42%
SENIOR CITIZENS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Demographics
FIGURE 6. PASCO RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Pa
g
e
6
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 15PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
Based on mobility data1 for the Tri-Cities region,
we found that nearly half (48 percent) of Pasco’s
employed residents travel to job sites outside of
Pasco. Residents that are commuting out of town
use one of the four bridges to travel to jobs in
Kennewick, Richland, or the Hanford Nuclear Site.
As shown in Figure 7, bridge travel patterns
mirror these destinations with the highest share
(26 percent) on the Lee-Volpentest Bridge (I-182)
to access jobs in Richland, Kennewick, or the
Hanford site while 16 percent of commute trips
use the Pioneer Memorial Bridge (US 395). The
other two bridges carry a small share, three
percent each.
1 Employment and school travel patterns analysis conducted using StreetLight data for 2019.
The other half of the employed Pasco residents
work in or near Central and Downtown Pasco,
at commercial establishments along US 395, or
in the industrial areas of eastern Pasco. Local job
destinations are colored to show where the highest
concentrations occur in Figure 7. Other major
activity generators are the higher level schools
including Chiawana High School, Pasco High
School, and the Columbia Basin College.
Employment and School Travel Patterns
The Port of Pasco maintains and operates
several key industrial sites for the Tri-Cities
region, including the Tri-Cities Airport, the Big
Pasco Industrial Center, and a container barge
terminal on the Columbia River. Burlington
Northern-Santa Fe Railroad also maintains
a major switchyard within Pasco. Freight
activity is concentrated within eastern
Pasco along the existing rail alignment,
US 395, and SR 397/Oregon Avenue
adjacent to these major industrial centers.
The composition of vehicle types using city
streets was evaluated in the same StreetLight
Data set to show which areas had the highest
share of trucks. As shown in Figure 8, higher
shares of heavy trucks were found to be
concentrated east of US 395, with the
highest share of truck traffic east of US 12.
Bridge crossings were reviewed as well, and
it was discovered that the percent of heavy
freight over the Columbia and Snake Rivers
ranges from six to 20 percent with the
highest percent share being on the Snake
River Bridge in eastern Pasco, with
20 percent of its 19,000 daily vehicles being
freight trucks. By contrast, the western and
northern sectors of the city had relatively
light truck traffic. The truck volumes north of
I-182 and west of US 395 were much lower,
typically less than five percent of the total
vehicle traffic, while the river bridge shares
were between eight and nine percent.
Freight Transportation
15
Pa
g
e
6
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 16PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
4
T
H
A
V
E
LEWIS ST
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
3%
1 1%11%
182
395
395
12
1%
10%
11%
3%
1%
5%
INDUSTRIALBUSINESSES IN EAST PASCO
HIGH SCHOOL
DOWNTOWNPASCO
COMMERCIALBUSINESSESALONG US 395
26%
16%WA397 BRIDGE:3%
3%
395
HIGH SCHOOL
I182 BRIDGES:
BLUE BRIDGE/US 395:
US 12 BRIDGE:
397
PERCENTAGES
OF WORK
DESTINATIONS
FOR ALL COMMUTE
TRIPS OF PASCO'S
RESIDENTS
LESS THAN 5%
510%
1015%
1520%
MORE THAN 20%
N
TOP EMPLOYMENT
DESTINATIONS
FIGURE 7. EMPLOYMENT TRAVEL PATTERNS TO/FROM PASCO (STREETLIGHT DATA, 2019)
Pa
g
e
6
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 17PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
182
395
395
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
4
T
H
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
ESTIMATEDPERCENTAGEOF HEAVYVEHICLES ONROADWAYS 2018
LESS THAN 5%
510%
1015%
1520%
MORE THAN 20%
N
I182 BRIDGES:2018 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC: 69,0008% HEAVY VEHICLES
BLUE BRIDGE/US 395:2018 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC: 67,0009% HEAVY VEHICLES
US 12 BRIDGE:2018 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC: 19,00020% HEAVY VEHICLES
WA397 BRIDGE:2018 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC: 20,5006% HEAVY VEHICLES
FIGURE 8. FREIGHT ACTIVITY CENTERS WITHIN PASCO (STREETLIGHT DATA, 2019)
Pa
g
e
6
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 18PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
The City of Pasco is served by Ben Franklin Transit
(BFT) which operates fixed-route bus service,
dial-a-ride, vanpool, and other demand responsive
services within the Tri-Cities area. These transit
options provide service within Pasco along with
connections to Kennewick, Richland, and other
regional destinations.
FIXED ROUTE SERVICE
BFT operates eight fixed route bus services
within Pasco, including the following:
• Route 1: Pasco / Kennewick / Richland
• Route 3: Pasco / Kennewick
• Route 64: Pasco A Street
• Route 65: Pasco Lewis
• Route 66 & Route 67: Pasco Sylvester
& Pasco Sandifur
• Route 225: Pasco / Richland
• Route 268: Pasco / Richland
See Figure 9 for these route locations and their
existing transit stops.
Weekday service is provided between 6:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m. although Route 64 and 268 both
end service at 8:00 p.m. Service is similar for
most routes for Saturday although service does
not start until 7:00 a.m.; Route 268 does not
provide Saturday service. Most routes operate on
30-minute headways for weekday and Saturday
service, but Routes 1 and 3 operate on 15-minute
headways, providing more frequent service to
Kennewick and Richland from Downtown Pasco.
Conversely, Routes 66 and 67 operate on hour
headways, providing less frequent service to
largely residential areas in western Pasco.
Sunday service for Routes 1, 3, 64, and 225
began in August 2021.
BFT operates service for Pasco to and from the
22nd Avenue Transit Center which facilitates
transfers between routes. Riders can park at both
the 22nd Avenue Transit Center and the HAPO
Center. BFT has received two multimodal transit
center grants from WSDOT to further develop
multimodal hubs in Downtown and West Pasco.
The bus stops within Pasco are indicated on
Figure 9. Class 1 is a basic stop, which includes a
sign that specifies the route number serving that
location. Class 2 also has a bench for waiting riders,
and Class 3 is a covered shelter with a bench.
The Class 2 and 3 bus stops often require more
right-of-way space to construct these facilities
consistent with ADA requirements than is provided
in the current street standards. To address this,
this plan update identified a wider sidewalk be
built on collector and arterial roadways. In
addition, the city has an exemption process
to provide needed easements to BFT to
accommodate these higher quality facilities.
According to the BFT Transit Development Plan,
additional bus service is planned to extend
coverage along Road 84 south of Argent Road,
with continued service along the end of Court
Street west of Road 68. The BFT plan also
identified locations on the current service routes
where stop upgrades are anticipated. Notable
proposed changes are upgrades to Class 3
(sheltered) stops along Sandifur Parkway, and
along Road 68 in the commercial area. Refer
to Figure 10 for more information.
DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE
Ben Franklin Transit operates Dial-A-Ride service
for individuals with a disability between 6:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and between
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday. There is
no Sunday service.
VANPOOL
Vanpool services are also available for commuters
traveling to Walla Walla, the Hanford Nuclear Site,
and other major employment destinations.
OTHER TRANSIT SERVICES
BFT also offers CONNECT and general demand
service which allows residents of Pasco to schedule
rides to and from transit stops or other destinations
within specific areas. These services make transit
more accessible for all residents, especially those
who lack convenient access to transit.
Transit Services
Pa
g
e
6
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 19PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
182
395
12
397
397
240
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
395
395
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20TH AVE
10TH AVE
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
N
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
EXISTING BUS ROUTE
BUS STOPS:
CLASS 1 BASIC STOP
CLASS 2 BENCH/TRASH CAN
CLASS 3 SHELTER
FIGURE 9. EXISTING BEN FRANKLIN TRANSIT SERVICES
Pa
g
e
6
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 20PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
182
395
12
397
397
240
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
395
395
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20TH AVE
10TH AVE
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
N
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
EXISTING BUS ROUTE
BUS STOPS:
PROPOSED BUS ROUTE
CLASS 1 BASIC STOP
CLASS 2 BENCH/TRASH CAN
CLASS 3 SHELTER
FIGURE 10. PLANNED BEN FRANKLIN STOP UPGRADES AND ROUTE EXTENSIONS
Pa
g
e
6
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 21PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
The transportation system performance was
reviewed to understand where the system
experiences high levels of congestion during
weekday peak travel hours, where higher than
expected crash rates occur, and where there
are barriers to safe and convenient travel for
all users. These issues were observed even
with the short-term transportation improvements
that are expected for Pasco. Figure 11 shows
a compilation of our system performance
findings for Pasco. The following sections
highlight a few key findings that will be
considered during the plan development.
For more details on how the performance
assessment was completed and full listing
of the findings, please refer to the Technical
Memorandum #3 in Appendix B.
CONGESTION
Traffic congestion for motor vehicles is
significant today at the two western interchanges
(Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68) on I-182
during typical weekday commute hours.
The Road 68 interchange was observed to
regularly have excessive vehicle queues
blocking access to adjoining intersections and
driveways. Whenever traffic has significant
delays during peak travel hours, it can impact
the safe and convenient traffic operations
in those areas.
Fourteen intersections also had significant
congestion. A total of 52 locations were monitored
around the city, however, the rest of the locations
all operated with low to moderate delays during the
busiest hours of the day. The list of 14 intersections
with concerns are noted in Figure 10. The Road 68
corridor from Sandifur Parkway, across I-182 and
ending at Court Street has the highest group of
congested locations. Several key locations along
Argent Road, Sylvester Street, and Court Street are
also noted as being congested on a regular basis.
SAFETY
Traffic safety was reviewed by considering how
often crashes occurred at intersections and along
roadways around the city along with the type
and severity of crashes. Locations with the
highest crash rates were flagged and mapped
on Figure 11 (a total of five intersections). A crash
rate calculation considers both the number and
severity of crashes along with the traffic count
at a given location. In this way, intersections
with different traffic counts can be reasonably
compared to each other. We found several
intersections had both high congestion and high
crash rates, which occurred at Road 68 at Burden
Boulevard, Road 68 at Court Street, and 20th
Avenue at Court Street. In addition, four corridors
were flagged that had a significantly higher rate
of crashes, especially between intersections. Those
included Burden Boulevard, Court Street, Sylvester
Street, and Lewis Street. These corridors had a total
of 33 crashes involving pedestrians and bicycle
riders. Each of these streets are arterial roadways
that carry higher traffic volumes at increased speeds.
Field observations showed that portions of these
high crash corridors had frequent driveways and
side streets which adds opportunities for conflicts.
In addition, the city prepared a Local Road Safety
Plan in February, 2020, that confirmed these
findings, and recommended safety projects at
North Road 28 and West Sylvester Street; South
10th Avenue and West Lewis Street; and a road
diet project on West Sylvester Street. All of these
projects are included in this TSMP.
Transportation System Challenges
INTERSECTIONS WITH BOTH HIGH
CONGESTION AND HIGH CRASH RATES:
• ROAD 68 AT BURDEN BOULEVARD
• ROAD 68 AT COURT STREET
• 20TH AVENUE AT COURT STREET
Pa
g
e
6
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 22PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
182
395
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
INTERCHANGECONGESTION
INTERSECTION WITH CONCERNS
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
INTERSECTIONWITH CONCERNS
CONGESTION CONCERN
HIGH ACCESS DENSITY WITHOUT CENTER LANES
N
HIGH COLLISION ROADWAY
CONNECTIVITY ISSUESFOR ALL TRAVEL MODES
BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY ISSUES
ROADWAY CONNECTIVITY ISSUES
OTHER IDENTIFIED OPERATIONAL NEEDS
SAFETY CONCERN RAILROAD
1 ROAD 68 & SANDIFUR PKY
2 ROAD 68 & BURDEN BLVD
3 ROAD 68 & I182 WB ON/OFF RAMPS
4 ROAD 68 & COURT ST
5 MADISON AVE & BURDEN BLVD
6 ROAD 44 & ARGENT RD
7 ROAD 36 & ARGENT RD
8 SYLVESTER ST & US 395 NB OFF RAMP
9 SYLVESTER ST & ROAD 28
10 20TH AVE & COURT ST
11 4TH AVE & US 395 WB ON/OFF RAMPS
12 FOSTER WELLS RD/US 395
13 RAINIER AVE & US 395 SB ON/OFF RAMPS & KARTCHNER ST
14 A ST & US 12
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
12
13
11
10
8 9
4
6
5
1
2
3
7
14
#
395
KARTCHNER ROADBROADMOORBLVD
FIGURE 11. PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHALLENGES – TODAY
Pa
g
e
6
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 23PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity describes how efficiently, directly,
and conveniently a system is designed to serve
its intended users. A well-connected multimodal
system promotes resiliency, reduces congestion,
and enhances equity for local travelers, whether
they are driving, accessing transit, bicycling, or
walking. For example, a well-connected roadway
network provides more routes for drivers to travel
between a trip’s start and end points which can
reduce congestion. Improving system connectivity
for drivers can spread traffic more evenly across
the existing roadway network, mitigate congestion
due to system disruptions, and reduce the overall
distance traveled by drivers. Pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders also benefit from a
well-connected transportation system. Providing
local circulation options for short trips also helps
freight traffic that otherwise must compete with
autos that are forced onto the arterial roadways,
such as Road 68 and Broadmoor Boulevard.
Long block lengths and out-of-direction travel can
dissuade potential multimodal system users and
incur significant costs in both time and safety
for existing users who depend on these systems.
A technical review of Pasco’s existing transportation
system highlighted many arterial or collector
corridors and areas without access for pedestrians,
vehicles, transit riders, and bicyclists. In addition,
public feedback identified dozens of locations
where residents felt unsafe or unable to
conveniently reach their intended destination.
A few specific examples where connectivity
challenges were flagged include the following:
• The I-182 freeway corridor divides Pasco in
half and provides very limited opportunities
to cross over the freeway. Local freeway
interchanges have inadequate facilities for
walking and biking, which compound the
barriers for non-motorized travel. Further,
the long spacing between these interchanges
exacerbates the barrier for walking and bicycling
travel between either sides of the highway.
• The Pasco Airport, and the Pasco rail yards
represent major barriers to intra-city travel.
• In portions of unincorporated Franklin County
within Pasco (for example, south of I-182),
historical rural development has created a
roadway network with limited east-west street
connections and limited north-south street
connections across the Franklin County
Irrigation Canal.
• Newer residential developments adjacent
to Burden Boulevard and Sandifur Parkway
have limited connections to adjoining services
and neighborhoods.
It is acknowledged that the city does have two
extensive east-west trail corridors to serve walking
and bicycling. These include the trail immediately
north of I-182 between Broadmoor Boulevard and
Argent Road. This provides connections to
adjoining neighborhoods and to Road 58. Another
regional trail borders the Columbia River between
Sacajewea State Park and Road 100 with
intermittent connections to city streets.
Photo Credit: Jacob GonzalezPhoto Credit: City of Pasco
Pa
g
e
6
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 24PASCO TODAY AND TOMORROW
In many areas of the city, the transportation
system does not support travel for Pasco residents
without a car. Notable corridors that require
attention are portions of Burns Road, Sandifur
Parkway, Burden Boulevard, Court Street and
Sylvester Street. For automobile drivers, long
block lengths and limited access options increase
out-of-direction travel and concentrate higher
traffic volumes at the entry points to the
neighborhoods. The residents that live adjacent
to these entry/exit points experience significantly
higher traffic volumes than others in the same
neighborhood. These same features also
significantly increase the distance that must be
traveled by pedestrians or bicyclists to access
transit or other destinations, making it more
difficult to walk or bike in Pasco.
The current transit service routes generally are
within one-quarter to one-half mile as the crow flies,
to many of the key destinations and neighborhoods
within the existing city limits, as shown in Figure 8,
but limited street connectivity in certain areas puts
these stops beyond a reasonable walking distance
for many residents. Today, the exceptions are in the
industrial areas east of US 12, and the edges of
the urban area, particularly in the southern portions
of Broadmoor Boulevard and westerly end of
Argent Road. As noted previously, BFT is planning
to extend bus route services along Road 84 south
of Argent Road connecting to Court Street.
In general, as new development occurs, there is
an opportunity for the city and its regional partners
to provide better quality and more consistent
connection options as part of the new neighborhood
designs. This will enable city residents, employees,
and visitors to have safer and more convenient
access to transit services and general walking and
biking trips. The primary growth area is north of
I-182 in the greater Broadmoor Boulevard Area.
As new streets and neighborhoods are developed,
providing direct, safe, and convenient walking and
bicycling access to existing and planned transit
routes will be critical to maintaining a safe and
reliable transportation options for our residents.
Pa
g
e
7
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 25IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
(BFCG) travel demand model was applied
to forecast 2040 travel demand within the City
of Pasco, and the resulting traffic volumes were
evaluated at study intersections by the project team
to flag major degradations or changes in traffic
operations compared to present day conditions.
Forecasts were developed from the Base Year
(2015) and Future No-Build (2040) BFCG regional
travel demand model, following the process
described in the Traffic Analysis and Forecasting
Methodology memo.2 Key assumptions are
highlighted in the following sections along with
performance results.
The travel demand forecasting is directly influenced
by expected land use growth throughout the
Tri-Cities region. For this Transportation System
Master Plan, the BFCG model was updated to a
2040 horizon year, by refining the previous 2017–
2037 Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update land use
to reflect the Broadmoor Master Plan and Urban
Growth Area (UGA) expansion that was identified
2 DKS Associates. Traffic Analysis & Forecasting Methodology memo. July, 2020
3 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Transition 2040, Appendix F. 2018.
during the Comprehensive Plan Update. The
updated 2040 land use significantly changed
both the geographic distribution of growth and
population and employment projections for the
City of Pasco and its UGA. The land use totals are
summarized in Table 1.
The 2040 land use assumptions are the catalyst for
the forecasted growth and changes of traffic
patterns within the City of Pasco. Significant shifts
are expected north of I-182 as higher office, retail,
and mixed-use growth in the Broadmoor area
reduced the number of residents traveling out of
Pasco for jobs, goods, and services. Reduced
regional travel was also shown to reduce peak
demands at interchanges with I-182, compared to
historical growth patterns in Pasco where a high
share of local residents left
the city for employment and shopping purposes.
Overall, households are predicted to grow by 81
percent from 2015 (the BFCG model base year) to
2040, while employment is predicted to grow by
about 73 percent during the same period.
EXPECTED TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS
It was assumed that near-term transportation
improvements that are reasonably likely to be
funded and constructed by the cities of Pasco,
Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, and
WSDOT will be operational by 2040. These new
improvements projects within Pasco include the
following. As noted, several of these projects have
been recently completed, while others are actively
in development or preparing for construction:
• Argent Road Improvements (Road 40 to
20th Avenue) - under construction
• Wrigley Drive Extension (Convention Drive
to Clemente Lane) - completed
• Chapel Hill Boulevard Extension (Road 84
to Road 68) - completed
• Sandifur Parkway Improvements (Road 68
to Convention Drive)
• Road 68 Widening (I-182 to Argent Road) –
in progress
• Burns Road Improvements/Extension
(Road 52 to Pasco City Limits)
• Lewis Street Downtown Overpass – in progress
Other projects included in the 2040 BFCG model
outside of Pasco are summarized in Transition
2040, the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area Regional
Transportation Plan.3
Forecasted Growth In Pasco
TABLE 1. PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URBAN GROWTH AREA
LAND USE TOTAL 2015 2040 PERCENT GROWTH
HOUSEHOLDS 22,500 39,645 81%
POPULATION 70,855 120,275 71%
EMPLOYMENT 19,765 33,895 73%
Pa
g
e
7
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 26IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
The system performance with growth in 2040
was re-evaluated to determine if traffic congestion
would reach unacceptable levels with the
added traffic volumes. We found that sixteen
intersections would drop below the agency’s
target, which is LOS D. This corresponds to
significant delay for the average vehicle using that
location during commute hours. The locations that
are expected to have major congestion issues are
mapped in Figure 12 and listed in Table 2. These
locations and the roadways serving them were
further reviewed to help gauge the scale and
nature of system improvements that would
adequately serve the higher travel demands, and
recommendations are made in the following section.
The traffic operations results showed increased
congestion and below standard operating
conditions throughout much of the City of Pasco
west of US 395 (south), and in and around the
industrial employment growth expected to occur
along US 395 (north) and US 12. The Broadmoor
Boulevard and I-182 interchange ramp terminal
intersection failures were particularly concerning,
as ramp queues could lead to safety and operations
issues on I-182. The operations issues at the US 12
and A Street intersection, the US 395 and
Kartchner Street interchange, and the 4th Avenue
and I-182 interchange are of particular concern for
freight movement, as these are all key gateways
into the City of Pasco’s industrial growth centers.
System Conditions After Growth
TABLE 2. INTERSECTIONS WITH MAJOR CONGESTION BY 2040 (OPERATING AT LOS E OR F)
#STUDY INTERSECTION
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE
EXISTING FUTURE
NO-BUILD EXISTING FUTURE
NO-BUILD
1 BROADMOOR BOULEVARD & I 182 WB ON RAMP/I 182 WB ON/OFF RAMP B B A E
2 BROADMOOR BOULEVARD & I 182 EB OFF RAMP/I 182 EB ON RAMP B C B F
8 SYLVESTER ST & US 395 NB OFF RAMP A/C A/C A/E A/F
11 4TH AVE & US 395 WB ON/OFF RAMP A B D E
13 US 395 & FOSTER WELLS RD A/F C/F B/F C/F
14 RAINIER AVE/US 395 SB ON/OFF RAMP & KARTCHNER ST A/C A/D B/F B/F
15 COMMERCIAL AVE/US 395 NB ON/OFF RAMP & KARTCHNER ST A/D A/E A/D A/F
18 HWY 12 & E A ST A/C A/E A/C A/F
19 ROAD 68 & BURDEN BLVD E E E E
20 BROADMOOR BOULEVARD & DENT RD/EDELMAN RD A/C A/F
27 ROAD 68 & SANDIFUR PKWY C E
30 ROAD 68 & COURT ST A/D A/F
31 ROAD 60 & COURT ST A/C A/F
32 MADISON AVE & BURDEN BLVD A/F A/F
33 ARGENT RD & RD 44 A/F B/F
52 CEDAR AVE & LEWIS ST A/C A/E
Red text indicates where conditions will exceed accepted LOS limits.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) For motor vehicles, the LOS is an indicator of how much extra time it
takes to travel through an intersection during busy travel hours. The LOS scale ranges from little or no delay
(LOS A) to extreme delay (LOS F). Pasco’s target is LOS D, which is moderate delay. During off-peak hours,
delay conditions improve significantly. See Appendix C for more information.
Pa
g
e
7
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 27IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
182
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
LEWIS ST
CEDARAVE
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
FOSTER WELLS RD
RO
A
D
4
4
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
N
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
#
STUDY INTERSECTIONS THAT DO NOT MEET MOBILITY TARGETS:
BOTH AM & PM PEAK
Refer back to Table 2 for full descriptions of intersection names.
PM PEAK ONLY
#
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
395
395
13
18
19
1
2
8
11
14 15
20
27
30 31
32
33
52
FIGURE 12. INTERSECTIONS WITH MAJOR CONGESTION BY 2040
Pa
g
e
7
3
o
f
4
6
5
Recommended
Transportation
System
Improvements
CHAPTER 3
28
Not all recommended improvements are required
to be in place prior to developing land within the
UGA. The need to upgrade the existing streets
or construct new ones will be driven by the
multimodal access needs of the adjacent
properties. The project design elements depicted
are identified for the purpose of creating a
reasonable cost estimate for planning purposes.
The actual design elements for any project
are subject to change and will ultimately be
determined through a project scoping process.
THE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO
PASCO’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WILL
IDENTIFY UPGRADES TO EXISTING STREETS
AND INTERSECTIONS, AS WELL AS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADWAYS,
TO SUPPORT THE MULTIMODAL NEEDS
OF THE COMMUNITY.
Photo Credit: City of Pasco
Pa
g
e
7
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 29
The first major category of system improvements
to the motor vehicle system is for at-grade
intersection traffic control upgrades and
channelization improvements, or for
major freeway interchange upgrades and
re-configuration projects. As shown in Table 3,
many projects are identified to upgrade existing
intersections traffic controls to better serve
higher traffic volumes with planned growth.
This typically includes installing traffic signals
or roundabouts to make those locations more
efficient and safer under higher usage levels.
One of the more complex intersection solutions
is on Broadmoor Boulevard at Sandifur Parkway
(INT42); this includes extensive additions of
dedicated right- and left-turning lanes and
upgrades to the existing traffic signal equipment
to serve these wider street approaches. The cost
estimate for these improvements is $3.6 million.
In addition, there are several freeway interchanges
on I-182 that require improvement to the existing off
and on ramps serving the local city streets, or they
require a major upgrade of the interchange itself
to better service long-range multimodal travel
demands (INT1, INT24, INT25, INT30). The
Broadmoor Boulevard interchange (INT25)
improvement project would add a loop off-ramp
for eastbound freeway travel bound for northbound
Broadmoor Boulevard. This will significantly reduce
demands on the existing eastbound off-ramp, which
queues heavily during peak periods. As noted
previously, the existing freeway overcrossings
of I-182 have very limited walking and bicycling
facilities, and any upgrade to those interchanges
would provide improved accommodations for
all modes of travel consistent with City of Pasco
and WSDOT design standards.
The recommended improvements are listed
by category in Figure 13 (Motor Vehicle
System Improvements) and Figure 14
(Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects), with the
project IDs corresponding with those in
Table 3 through Table 7. Note that the
project IDs were created in numerical order,
and do not correspond with priority. While
the estimated project costs are shown, the
responsibility will be shared by the city,
Franklin County, WSDOT, and private
development, with the cost shares to be
determined as applicable.
Motor Vehicle System Improvements
TO BETTER SERVE THE HIGHER TRAFFIC
VOLUMES EXPECTED WITH COMMUNITY
GROWTH, MANY MOTOR VEHICLE
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE
UPGRADING EXISTING INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC CONTROLS.Photo Credit: Tri-City Herald
Pa
g
e
7
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 30RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
182
395
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
10TH AVE
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
N
RAILROAD
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
ROAD WIDENING TRANSIT CENTER
TRAFFIC STUDY
ROAD EXTENSION/NEW ROAD
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
NEW BRIDGE
INTERSECTIONIMPROVEMENTS#
EXP#TR#
TS#
EXT#
EXT#
EXT#
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
TS2
TS1
EXT1
EXT12
EXP1
EX
P
1
4
EXP2EXP1
5
EX
P
1
3
EXT13
EX
T
2
EXT3
EXP4EXP3
EXP6
EX
T
8
EXT5
EX
T
6
EX
T
7
EXP9
EX
T
1
6
EX
T
9
EXT5
EXP9
EX
T
1
0
EX
P
9
EXT15
EXT14
TR1
EX
T
1
1
EXT4
EX
P
7
E
X
P
1
0
TS3
EX
P
8
EXP6
E
X
P
5
EX
P
1
1
32
33
34
4 14 16
17 19 23 6
9
30
46 47
15
8107
2
3
45
124443
25
42
11
49
241
48
DENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
KARTCHNERROAD
BROADMOORBLVD
BROADMOORBLVD
FIGURE 13. MOTOR VEHICLE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Pa
g
e
7
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 31RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE 3. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (INT)
ID NAME DESCRIPTION COST
INT1 Road 68/I-182 WB Ramp Terminal Improvements Expand capacity of westbound ramp terminal $1,915,000
INT2 Sandifur Parkway/Convention Drive Improvements Install a traffic signal; restripe Convention Drive to include northbound and
southbound left turn pockets $1,045,000
INT3 Road 68/Burden Boulevard Intersection Improvements Channelization improvements to reduce queueing on westbound approach
and access to I-182 $260,000
INT4 Court Street/Road 68 Intersection Improvements Construct a roundabout or traffic signal to improve safety, intersection control,
and capacity $2,000,000
INT6 Lewis St/Heritage Ave Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal $480,000
INT7 Burden Blvd/Road 60 Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal $480,000
INT8 Road 44/Burden Blvd Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal $480,000
INT9 Heritage Ave/A St Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal $795,000
INT10 Madison Ave/Burden Blvd Intersection Improvements Install traffic signal $480,000
INT11 Dent Rd/Road 68/Columbia River Rd/Taylor Flats Rd/
Clark Rd Intersection Improvements
Realign Columbia River Road south to Dent Road and close existing
connection to Road 68; construct a 1-lane roundabout at Columbia River Road/
Dent Road; construct a 2-lane four leg roundabout at Dent Road/Clark Road/
Road 68/Taylor Flats Road with eastbound and northbound right turn slip
lanes; widen Taylor Flats Road to 4 lanes immediately north of roundabout
$4,865,000
INT12 Sandifur Pkwy/Road 76 Intersection Improvements Install a traffic signal; remove existing channelized northbound right turn lane
and convert to shared northbound through/right turn lane $480,000
INT14 Court St/Road 60 Intersection Improvements Construct a traffic signal $480,000
INT15 Argent Rd/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Construct turn pockets or traffic signal $350,000
INT16 Court St/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Construct turn pockets (included as part of road diet project)$350,000
INT17 Sylvester St/Road 28 Intersection Improvements Redesign traffic signal and install a northbound left turn lane $700,000
INT19 10th Ave/Sylvester St Intersection Improvements Installation of a northbound advance signal and warning sign on S. 10th Avenue $50,000
INT23 Cedar Ave/Lewis St Intersection Improvements Construct a traffic signal and restripe Lewis Street to three lanes $350,000
Pa
g
e
7
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 32RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ID NAME DESCRIPTION COST
INT24 I-182/Road 68 Interchange Improvements Interchange reconstruction, improve on and off capacity for EB and WB traffic,
widen bridge structure $15,850,000
INT25 I-182/Broadmoor Blvd Interchange Improvements
Construct a 1-lane loop ramp from eastbound I-182 to northbound Broadmoor
Boulevard within existing right of way; widen westbound approaches at I-182
westbound and eastbound ramp terminals to include dual right turn lanes
$3,300,000
INT30 4th Ave/I-182 WB ramps Construct a southbound right turn lane at intersection $220,000
INT32 Court St/Harris Rd Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT33 Court St/Road 108 Restripe southbound approach to create a southbound left turn lane $35,000
INT34 Court St/Broadmoor Boulevard Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT42 Broadmoor Boulevard/Sandifur Parkway
Intersection Improvements
Widen approaches as needed to construct new dual northbound left turn
lanes, a westbound through lane, a channelized southbound right turn lane,
and dual eastbound right turn lanes; widen to add an additional southbound
receiving lane on Broadmoor Boulevard between Sandifur Parkway and the
old Harris Road intersection
$3,600,000
INT43 Sandifur Parkway/Road 90 Intersection Improvements Install a traffic signal $795,000
INT44 Sandifur Parkway/Road 84 Intersection Improvements Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT45 Wrigley Drive/Road 76 Intersection Improvements Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT46 Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp & Kartchner St Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT47 Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off Ramp
& Kartchner St Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT48 Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp Install a traffic signal $480,000
INT49 Lewis St/10th Avenue Intersection Improvements Install an active signal ahead warning sign $45,000
Pa
g
e
7
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 33RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The next major category of motor vehicle system
improvements is roadway extensions, which are
newly constructed as development occurs, and
overpasses. These projects are generally much
larger investments than intersection upgrades
because they are building the essential roadway
network in the growth areas and addressing system
limitations at key bottlenecks around the city.
The first two projects would construct new street
overpasses at Lewis Street (EXT1) in downtown,
and at Road 76 (EXT2) just west of the Road 68
interchange with I-182. The Lewis Street Overpass
replaces the existing railroad underpass facility
and began construction in 2021. The Road 76
Overpass project supplements the carrying
capacity of the Road 68 overpass to allow local
trips to cross the freeway without passing through
the ramp intersections and provides quality
walking and bicycling options that are not
available at Road 68. The other EXT projects
are new streets that extend the existing major
roadway system to service growth areas.
TABLE 4. NEW ROADWAY EXTENSIONS (EXT)
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
EXT1 Lewis Street Overpass 2nd Avenue to Oregon
Avenue
Construct a new railroad overpass between 2nd Avenue and Oregon Avenue
to replace existing deteriorating underpass (Built)$32,016,000
EXT2 Road 76 Overpass Chapel Hill Boulevard
to Burden Boulevard
Construct a new 2-lane overpass and roadway to extend Road 76 over
I-182 with bicycle and pedestrian facilities; install traffic signal at Road 76/
Burden Boulevard, restripe southbound approach to include a separate left
turn pocket, and construct a northbound right turn lane; complete existing
roundabout at Road 76/Chapel Hill Boulevard
$30,000,000
EXT3 Wrigley Drive Extension Clemente Lane to
Convention Drive Extend Wrigley Drive from Clemente Lane to Convention Drive (Built)$960,000
EXT4 Crescent Road Chapel Hill Boulevard
to Road 108
Construct a new 3-lane road in the existing Crescent Road ROW to connect
Road 108 and Chapel Hill Boulevard $3,085,000
EXT5 Future East-West
Connection (Deseret Drive)Dent Road to Road 52
Construct a 3-lane roadway and upgrade existing segments of Deseret Drive;
construct two-way stop control intersection at Deseret Drive/Dent Road,
Deseret Drive/Future North-South Connection (Halfway between Broadmoor
Boulevard and Dent Road), Deseret Drive/Convention Drive, and Deseret
Drive/Road 60; install new signals at Broadmoor Boulevard/Deseret Drive and
Road 68/Deseret Drive; construct new 1-lane roundabout at Deseret Drive/
Road 90 and Deseret Drive/Road 84
$63,640,000
EXT6 Road 52 Extension Burns Road through
to UGA Construct a 3-lane roadway $24,885,000
Pa
g
e
7
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 34RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
EXT7 Road 60 Extension Burns Road through
to UGA
Construct a 3-lane roadway; install two-way stop control
at Clark Road/Road 60 $24,270,000
EXT8 Convention Drive
Extension
Burns Road through
to UGA
Construct a 3-lane roadway; install two-way stop control at Clark Road/
Convention Drive; restripe northbound approach at Burns Road/Convention
Drive to include a dedicated left turn lane
$24,330,000
EXT9 Road 90 Extension Burns Road through
to UGA
Construct a 3-lane roadway; install a traffic signal at Road 90/Burns Road;
construct a 1-lane roundabout at Road 90/Dent Road $26,795,000
EXT10
Future North-South
Connection (Halfway
between Broadmoor
Boulevard and Dent Road)
Harris Road to Dent Road
Construct a 3-lane roadway; install two-way stop control at Future North-South
Connection/Harris Road and Future North-South Connection/Dent Road;
install a traffic signal at Future North-South Connection/Burns Road
$28,105,000
EXT11 Dent Road Extension Burns Road to Harris Road Construct a 3-lane roadway; install a traffic signal at Dent Road/Burns Road $14,505,000
EXT12 Hillsboro Rd Extension King Avenue to UGA New road from east of King Ave to UGA $34,940,000
EXT13 Wernett Rd Extension Road 76 to Road 84 New road from Rd 76 to Road 84 $6,075,000
EXT14 Sandifur Parkway
Extension - Phase 1
Broadmoor Boulevard
to Future North-South
Connection (Between
Broadmoor Boulevard
and Dent Road)
Construct a 5-lane roadway; realign Harris Road to Sandifur Parkway Extension
as 2-lane road and close the existing Harris Road/Broadmoor Boulevard
intersection; construct a 2-lane roundabout at Sandifur Parkway Extension/
Harris Road and a 1-lane roundabout at Sandifur Parkway/Future North-South
Connection (Between Broadmoor Boulevard and Dent Road) with a westbound
right turn slip lane
$12,140,000
EXT15 Sandifur Parkway
Extension - Phase 2
Future North-South
Connection (Between
Broadmoor Boulevard and
Dent Road) and Shoreline
Construct a 3-lane roadway; construct a 1-lane roundabout at Sandifur Parkway/
Dent Road; install two-way stop control at Sandifur Parkway/Shoreline $23,740,000
EXT16 Road 84 Extension Burns Road to UGA Construct a 3-lane roadway; install a traffic signal at Road 84/Burns Road;
construct a 1-lane roundabout at Road 84/Dent Road $25,585,000
Pa
g
e
8
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 35RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
A series of focused traffic studies (TS1, TS2, and
TS3) was also identified to develop conceptual
plans for solutions at major intersections and
freeway interchanges to better understand
trade-offs and cost efficiencies. In addition,
two safety studies (TS4 and TS5) were identified
to help the City leverage access to grant funding
for local safety improvements. The master plan
also shows a potential transit park and ride lot in
the general Broadmoor Road area. In addition,
the city will develop and adopt a master plan
that focuses on active transportation needs of
the community. This will refine the findings of the
TSMP projects to include a priority citywide
network, and to amend plans and standards,
as needed, to support safe and convenient
non-motorized travel. Further study is required
to fully understand the investment required for
improvements to support the park-and-ride lot.
TABLE 5. TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TRANSIT AMENITIES (TS & TR)
ID NAME DESCRIPTION COST
TS1 Study Road 44/Argent Road Intersection Study Road 44/Argent Road Intersection $65,000
TS2 Traffic Analysis for I-182/US 395 Interchange Traffic Analysis for I-182/US 395 Interchange $265,000
TS3 Traffic Analysis for US 12/Tank Farm Road Traffic Analysis for US 12/Tank Farm Road $250,000
TS4 Intersection Safety Implementation Plan
Develop a program to analyze intersection safety needs, including
identification of automated enforcement locations and identifying projects
for safety grants
$80,000
TS5 Local Roads Safety Plan (LRSP)Update the 2020 LRSP in even-numbered years (2022 and following) to gain
eligibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding $60,000
TS6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Develop a master plan specific to the active transportation needs
of the community. $200,000
TR1 Broadmoor Park and Ride Location Construct a park-and-ride facility in the Broadmoor Area TBD
Pa
g
e
8
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 36RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The next category of motor vehicle improvements is
expansions to the existing system, which generally
add more motor vehicle travel lanes to serve 2040
traffic conditions consistent with the mobility targets
in place by the City and its local partners (WSDOT
and Franklin County). Some expansion projects
were also identified as key components to complete
a comprehensive bicycle network for Pasco. These
projects are included on Figure 13. Several of these
roadway widening projects also identify supporting
intersection and traffic control upgrades based on
initial performance studies done through the TSMP.
Further traffic engineering evaluation will be
required at the time of improvement design
to fully understand the geometric requirements
associated with intersection improvements,
such as the length of the suggested dedicated
turn lanes, at each location.
TABLE 6. ROADWAY WIDENING PROJECTS (EXP)
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
EXP1 Argent Road
Improvements - Phase 1
20th Avenue to
Varney/Saraceno Widen to 5 lanes with intersection improvements $2,015,000
EXP2 Argent Road
Improvements - Phase 2
Varney/Saraceno to
Road 40
Widen to 5 lanes with intersection improvements; install a traffic signal
or roundabout at Road 36/Argent $8,150,000
EXP3 Sandifur Parkway
Improvements
Convention Drive to
Road 68
Widen to 5 lanes; construct a westbound right turn lane at Road 68/
Sandifur Parkway $2,265,000
EXP4 Sandifur Parkway
Improvements Road 60 to Road 52
Widen to 3 lanes; restripe westbound approach to Road 52 to include a shared
through/right lane and a dedicated left turn pocket; restripe southbound and
eastbound approaches to Road 60 to include dedicated left turn lanes
$3,505,000
EXP5 Road 68 Improvements I-182 Eastbound Ramp
Terminal to Argent Road
Widen to 5 lanes; construct a southbound right turn lane at Road 68/Chapel
Hill Boulevard $307,628
EXP6 Burns Road
Improvements
Broadmoor Boulevard
to Road 44
Widen to 3 lanes; construct new 3-lane roadway between Road 68 and Rio
Grande Lane; install all-way stop control at Road 52/Burns Road intersection;
install a traffic signal at Burns Road/Road 68
$13,804,000
EXP7 Broadmoor Boulevard
Improvements
I-182 Eastbound Ramp
Terminal to Court Street
Widen to 3 lanes as needed; convert existing right turn pockets and
acceleration lanes to a continuous through travel lane $7,905,000
EXP8 Broadmoor
Boulevard Widening
I-182 Westbound Ramp
Terminal to Dent Road
Widen to 5 lanes between I-182 Westbound Ramp Terminal and Burns Road;
widen to 3 lanes between Burns Road and Dent Road; install traffic signal
at Broadmoor Boulevard/Burns Road and widen eastbound approach to
include dedicated left and right turn lanes; install traffic signal at Broadmoor
Boulevard/Dent Road
$8,035,000
EXP9 Clark Road/Dent Road
Improvements Burns Road to Road 52 Widen to 3 lanes $43,225,000
Pa
g
e
8
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 37RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
EXP10 Road 68 Improvements Sandifur Parkway to
Clark Road Widen to 5 lanes $13,085,000
EXP11 Road 68 Improvements Court Street to
Argent Road
Extend 5-lane section immediately south of Argent Road; convert existing
southbound right turn lane to a shared southbound through/right turn lane $9,740,000
EXP13 Road 44 Improvements Madison Avenue to
Argent Road Widen to 3 lanes; install a traffic signal at Road 44/Argent Road intersection $1,225,000
EXP14 Road 36 Improvements Desert Plateau Drive to
Argent Road Widen to 3 lanes $3,345,000
EXP15 Argent Road
Improvements - Phase 3 Road 40 to Road 44 Widen to 5 lanes $600,000
EXP23 Burns Road Shoreline to
Broadmoor Boulevard Widen to complete a residential minor arterial cross section $13,795,000
EXP26 Court Street Harris Road to
Broadmoor Boulevard Widen to complete a residential minor arterial cross section $9,920,000
EXP33 Road 84 Burns Road to
Sandifur Parkway Widen to complete a residential collector cross section $25,000
EXP37 Road 76 Sandifur Parkway to Burden
Boulevard Widen to complete a commercial collector cross section $1,925,000
EXP38 Wrigley Drive Road 76 to Clemente Lane Widen to complete a commercial neighborhood collector cross section $560,000
EXP46 Hudson Drive Road 84 to Okanogan Lane Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $825,000
EXP47 Okanogan Lane Hudson Drive to
Chehalis Drive Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $250,000
EXP48 Chehalis Drive Okanogan Lane to
Three Rivers Drive Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $490,000
EXP49 Three Rivers Drive Chehalis Drive to Road 68 Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $1,170,000
EXP53 Argent Road Road 52 to Road 44 Widen to complete a residential minor arterial cross section $3,840,000
EXP57 Road 76 Argent Road to Court Street Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $5,520,000
Pa
g
e
8
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 38RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
EXP58 Court Street Broadmoor Boulevard
to Road 84 Widen to complete a residential 3-lane principal arterial cross section $15,315,000
EXP74 Wrigley Drive Road 68 Place to
Roosevelt Drive Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $4,350,000
EXP75 Roosevelt Drive Wrigley Drive to
Madison Avenue Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $225,000
EXP76 Madison Avenue Roosevelt Drive to
Burden Boulevard Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $140,000
EXP77 Madison Avenue Burden Boulevard
to Road 44 Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $50,000
EXP79 Road 60 Burns Road to
Burden Boulevard Widen to complete a residential collector cross section $465,000
EXP82 Burden Boulevard Road 60 to Road 36 Widen to complete a residential minor arterial cross section $5,860,000
EXP89 Road 60 Court Street to
Sylvester Street Widen to complete a residential collector cross section $3,305,000
EXP93 Sylvester Street Road 60 To Road 54 Widen to complete a residential collector cross section $2,125,000
EXP102 A Street 20th Avenue to
Heritage Boulevard Widen to complete an industrial minor arterial $6,990,000
EXP103 A Street Heritage Boulevard
to US 12 Widen to complete an industrial minor arterial $4,695,000
EXP111 10th Avenue Lewis Street to
Sylvester Street Widen to complete a mixed use minor arterial cross section $2,895,000
EXP112 10th Avenue Ainsworth Street to
Lewis Street Widen to complete an industrial minor arterial cross section $150,000
EXP115 4th Avenue Ainsworth Street to
Columbia Street Widen to complete an industrial minor arterial cross section $3,480,000
EXP126 Elm Avenue Broadway Street
to A Street Widen to complete a residential neighborhood collector cross section $445,000
Pa
g
e
8
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 39RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended bicycle and pedestrian system
improvements are listed by category in Figure 14
(Bike/Pedestrian Projects), with the project IDs
corresponding with those in Table 7. Note that the
project IDs were created in numerical order, and
do not correspond with priority. While the estimated
project costs are shown, the responsibility will be
shared by the City, Franklin County, WSDOT, and
private development, with the cost shares to be
determined as applicable.
In addition to the specific projects targeted for
bicycle and pedestrian users (Table 7), Figure 14
illustrates motor vehicle projects that have bike
and pedestrian elements, which were already
listed in the previous sections’ project tables.
The compilation of dedicated bicycle/pedestrian
and other projects illustrates the citywide bicycling
and walking network that will be in place once
these improvements have been completed.
Photo Credit: Port of Pasco
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Improvements
Photo Credit: City of Pasco
Pa
g
e
8
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 40RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
182
395
395
12
397
397
240
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
10TH AVE
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
BROADMOORBLVD
BROADMOORBLVD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
20
T
H
A
V
E
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
N
RAILROAD
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIANIMPROVEMENTPROJECTS
BP#
MINOR ROADWAY WIDENING
EXP#
OTHER BICYCLEAND PEDESTRIANPROJECTS
EXP#
EXT#
TRANSIT CENTERTR#
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
EXT1
EXT12
EXP1
EX
P
1
4
EXP2EXP1
5
EX
P
1
3
EXT13
EX
T
2
EXT3
EXP4EXP3
EXP6
EX
T
8
EXT5
EX
T
6
EX
T
7
EXP9
EX
T
1
6
EX
T
9
EXT5
EXP9
EX
T
1
0
EX
P
9
EXT15
EXT14
TR1
EX
T
1
1
EXT4
EX
P
7
E
X
P
1
0
EX
P
8
EXP6
EXP23
EX
P
2
6
EXP58
EXP77
EXP74
EX
P
7
9
EXP102
EX
P
1
2
6
EX
P
8
9
EX
P
5
7
E
X
P
5
EX
P
1
1
R
O
A
D
6
8
BP6
BP11, BP14
BP12, BP15
BP8
BP
1
3
,
B
P
1
6
BP12, BP15
BP9
BP10
BP10
BP1 BP2 BP3
BP
4
B
P
5
BP7
RO
A
D
8
4
FIGURE 14. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Pa
g
e
8
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 41RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE 7. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS (BP)
ID NAME EXTENTS DESCRIPTION COST
BP1 Burns Road Pedestrian/
Bicycle Pathway Phase 1
Broadmoor Boulevard
to Road 90
12-foot-wide Pedestrian/Bicycle pathway from Broadmoor Boulevard
to Road 90 (Starting construction in 2022)$775,000
BP2 Burns Road Pedestrian/
Bicycle Pathway Phase 2 Road 90 to Road 84 12-foot-wide Pedestrian/Bicycle pathway from Road 90 to Road 84
(Starting construction in 2022)$455,000
BP3 Burns Road Pedestrian/
Bicycle Pathway Phase 3 Road 84 to Road 68 12-foot-wide Pedestrian/Bicycle pathway from Road 84 to Road 68
(Starting construction in 2022)$650,000
BP4
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Access Broadmoor
Boulevard Interchange
St Thomas Drive to
Harris Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle facilities on Broadmoor Boulevard from St Thomas Dr
to Harris Road $2,320,000
BP5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
Road 68 Interchange
Chapel Hill Boulevard to
Burden Boulevard Pedestrian/Bicycle facility on Road 68 from Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd $1,100,000
BP6 Sacajawea Heritage
Trail Levee Road 52 to Road 72 Lower the levee and install pathways for pedestrians from Road 52 to Road 72 $4,731,000
BP7 James Street
Improvements
Oregon Avenue to
Frontier Loop Improve safety and pedestrian features and consolidate accesses $1,220,000
BP8 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
Sylvester Street Overpass
32nd Avenue to
28th Avenue
Pedestrian/Bicycle facility on Sylvester Street from 32nd Avenue to
28th Avenue $1,845,000
BP9 Lewis Street Corridor
Improvements N/A Tie Lewis Street Overpass into other downtown improvements for safety
and Pedestrian/Bicycle accessibility $1,625,000
BP10 FCID Canal Pedestrian/
Bicycle Pathway Study N/A FCID Canal Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Study $870,000
BP11 Court Street Road
Reconfiguration Road 40 to Road 68 Reconfigure Court Street to one lane in each direction and a center turn lane;
stripe bike lanes in both directions $270,000
BP12 Sylvester Street Road
Reconfiguration 5th Avenue to Road 54 Reconfigure Sylvester Street to one lane in each direction and a center turn
lane; stripe bike lanes in both directions $1,630,000
BP13 20th Ave Road
Reconfiguration A Street to Argent Road
Reconfigure 20th Avenue to one lane in each direction and a center turn
lane; install buffered bikes lanes in both directions. Additional improvements
(e.g. right turn lanes) may be provided at intersections
$1,990,000
BP14 Court Street Sidewalk Infill Road 40 to Road 68 Complete sidewalk infill as needed $8,275,000
BP15 Sylvester Street
Sidewalk Infill 5th Avenue to Road 54 Complete sidewalk infill as needed $9,795,000
BP16 20th Ave Sidewalk Infill A Street to Argent Road Complete sidewalk infill as needed $3,180,000
Pa
g
e
8
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 42RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The previous lists of recommended multimodal
system improvements represent an investment
of about $665 million, as summarized in Table 8
below. Most of the costs are associated with
Roadway Extensions (EXT) and Widenings (EXP),
which together total $575 million. It is noted that
these improvement costs will be shared among
the City of Pasco, the local development
community, and other local transportation agency
partners, including WSDOT and Franklin County.
The city will be updating its Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
program in 2022 to address these system
investments. The TIF is a one-time fee which
helps build system improvements. It is collected
from local development applicants at the time
of new construction.
Summary of Recommended Improvements
TABLE 8. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUMMARY
ID CATEGORY NUMBER OF
PROJECTS DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST
(MILLIONS)
INT Intersections 31 Intersection expansions, multimodal improvements and upgraded traffic controls $42.8 M
EXT Roadway Extension Projects 16 New streets to extend or replace existing roadways and overpasses $375.1 M
TS/TR Traffic Studies and Transit Amenities 6 Future traffic and concept planning to refine the scope and cost of improvements $0.9 M
EXP Roadway Widening Projects 40 Expand existing roadway cross-sections to add motor vehicle through and turning
lanes to support growth $206.0 M
BP Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 16 Dedicated projects to enhance and connect the citywide system for
walking and bicycling $40.7 M
TOTAL 108 $665.5 M
42
Pa
g
e
8
8
o
f
4
6
5
Transportation
System
Standards
CHAPTER 4
43
The roadway functional classification system,
special route designations, access spacing and
mobility standards are also included in this chapter.
For a complete listing of the system standards
including typical design standards for roadways,
walkways and bikeways within the city, refer
to Appendix D for Transportation System
Standards memo.
THIS CHAPTER PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW
OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
STANDARDS ADOPTED CONCURRENT
WITH THE PASCO TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN. TOGETHER, THESE
STANDARDS WILL HELP ENSURE FUTURE
FACILITIES ARE DESIGNED APPROPRIATELY
AND THAT ALL FACILITIES ARE MANAGED
TO SERVE THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.
Pa
g
e
8
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 44TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
A city’s street functional classification system is
an important tool for managing the transportation
system. It is based on a hierarchical system of
roads in which streets of a higher classification,
such as arterials, emphasize a higher level of
mobility for through movements, while streets of a
lower classification emphasize access to land uses.
Pasco currently has four functional classes:
1. Principal Arterials connect major activity
centers as well as the interstate system.
They will serve a variety of travel movements
supporting longer/lengthier trips and
are primarily intended to serve regional
traffic movement.
2. Minor Arterials create direct connections
through the city and can be found on the
periphery of residential neighborhoods. They
generally provide the primary connection to
other Arterial or Collector Streets and access
to larger developed areas and neighborhoods.
3. Collectors provide local traffic circulation
throughout the city and serve to funnel traffic
from the arterial street network to streets of
the same or lower classification. They typically
have minor access restrictions.
4. Local Streets provide local access and
circulation for traffic, connect neighborhoods,
and often function as through routes for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Local Streets
should maintain slow vehicle operating
speeds while providing convenient access
to multimodal travel.
The TSMP also introduced a new Neighborhood
Collector functional classification to identify
locations where local access needs should be
balanced with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle
amenities. These streets should maintain slow
vehicle operating speeds to accommodate
safe use by all modes and provide local
neighborhood access.
Functional classification provides a helpful
framework for managing the city’s transportation
system and supporting other standards
summarized in the following sections,
including connectivity, spacing, freight routes,
cross-sections, and access management.
Table 9 lists the desired spacing of each facility
type throughout Pasco to ensure a high level
of connectivity. Figure 15 illustrates the desired
spacing for the arterial and collector network.
Deviations from these guidelines may be needed
in locations where there are significant barriers,
such as topography, rail lines, freeways, existing
development, or the presence of natural areas.
In Pasco, all roadways are required to be
multimodal or “complete streets”, with
each street serving the needs of the various
travel modes. Streets in the city will not all
be designed the same. Pasco classifies the
street system into a hierarchy organized
by functional classification and street type
(representative of their places). These
classifications ensure that the streets reflect
the neighborhood through which they pass,
consisting of a scale and design appropriate
to the character of the abutting properties
and land uses. The classifications also
provide for and balance the needs of
all travel modes including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, motor vehicles and
freight. Within these street classifications,
context sensitive designs may result
in alternative cross-sections.
Roadway Functional Classification
Photo Credit: Tri-City Herald
Pa
g
e
9
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 45TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
TABLE 9. FACILITY SPACING GUIDELINES
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SPACINGA
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 1 to 2 miles
MINOR ARTERIAL 1 mile
COLLECTOR ½ mile
NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR ¼ mile
LOCAL STREET 300–500 feet
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 300 feet
A Recommended maximum spacing refers to distance
between facilities with the same or higher functional
classification. Deviations from the recommended
maximum spacing are subject to approval by the
City engineer.
The adopted reclassifications aim to create
a consistent functional classification scheme
and match a roadway’s functional classification
to their role in the transportation network.
The existing road network was also reviewed
to identify neighborhood collector routes.
Neighborhood collectors were identified in locations
where the functional classification map from the
Pasco Comprehensive Plan previously identified
two closely spaced, parallel collectors which serve
similar land uses. Converting one of these routes to
a neighborhood collector provides a classification
that is more consistent with the actual use of the
road and facilitates multimodal transportation.
Neighborhood collectors were also designated
on the local street system for routes which
provide connections between several adjacent
neighborhoods and the collector or arterial network.
The adopted reclassifications summarized
in Figure 16 and Tables 10 and 11 will provide
better system spacing and connectivity. It is
important to note that many of the existing
roadway cross-sections will not meet the standard
cross-sections of their new functional classification.
Cross-section improvements are not expected
outside of redevelopment.
Note that Columbia River Road and Taylor Flats
Road, north of Road 68, are classified as
collectors, consistent with Franklin County’s
functional classification, even though Road 68
is classified as a principal arterial. These
designations will be consistent for both roadways
as they continue further north in rural Franklin
County. Also, the easterly end of Burns Road, also
called Powerline Road, is indicated with a possible
easterly extension that crosses over the rail yard
and eventually connects to US 395 north of Foster
Wells Road. This is an illustrative concept of how
east-west principal arterial level connections could
be made north of I-182 to provide an alternative
regional route. However, this connection is not
included in the project list of the TSMP, and has not
been assumed in the 2040 horizon year system.
People walking and biking benefit the most from
closely spaced facilities because their travel is most
affected by variation in distance. By providing
walking and biking facilities or accessways that are
spaced no more than 300 feet apart, Pasco will
support active transportation within and between
its neighborhoods. These connections also support
high quality access to transit.MI
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
MI
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
FREEWAY
CO
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
PR
I
N
C
I
P
A
L
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
PR
I
N
C
I
P
A
L
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
2 MILES
1 TO 2 MILES FOR PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
1 MILE
1 MILE FOR
MINOR ARTERIALS
1/2
1/2 MILE FOR
COLLECTORS
FIGURE 15. DESIRED FACILITY SPACING
Pa
g
e
9
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 46TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20THAVE
10TH AVE
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395PASCO CITY LIMITS PASCO UGA
STREET CLASSIFICATION:
INTERSTATE
OTHER FREEWAYS
& EXPRESSWAYS
RAMP
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIAL, FUTURE
MINOR ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL,FUTURE
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR, FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOODCOLLECTOR
NEIGHBORHOOD
COLLECTOR, FUTURE
LOCAL
N
FIGURE 16. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Pa
g
e
9
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 47TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
TABLE 10. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF NEW ROADWAYS
ROADWAY EXTENTS RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
SANDIFUR PARKWAY EXTENSION Broadmoor Boulevard to New North-South Collector Principal Arterial
DENT ROAD EXTENSION Burns Road to Harris Road Minor Arterial
SANDIFUR PARKWAY EXTENSION New North-South Collector to Shoreline Drive Minor Arterial
SANDIFUR PARKWAY EXTENSION New North-South Collector to Shoreline Drive Collector
NEW NORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR Dent Road to Harris Road Collector
ROAD 84 EXTENSION Burns Road to Columbia River Road Collector
CONVENTION DRIVE EXTENSION Burns Road to Clark Road Collector
ROAD 60 EXTENSION Burns Road to Clark Road Collector
DESERET DRIVE Dent Road to Road 52 Collector
ROAD 76 EXTENSION Burden Boulevard to Argent Road Collector
ROAD 90 EXTENSION Burns Road to UGA Neighborhood Collector
THREE RIVERS DRIVE EXTENSION Road 68 to Rio Grande Lane Neighborhood Collector
WRIGLEY DRIVE EXTENSION Clemente Lane to Road 68 Place Neighborhood Collector
ROAD 52 EXTENSION Burns Road Deseret Drive Neighborhood Collector
WERNETT ROAD EXTENSION Road 76 to Road 84 Neighborhood Collector
Pa
g
e
9
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 48TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
TABLE 11. ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ROADWAY EXTENTS RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
MINOR ARTERIAL Broadmoor Boulevard Dent Road to UGA Principal Arterial
MINOR ARTERIAL 20th Avenue Lewis Street to A Street Principal Arterial
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 10th Avenue Ainsworth Street to A street Minor Arterial
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4th Avenue A Street to I-182 Westbound Ramp Terminal Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Court Street Broadmoor Boulevard to Harris Road Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Harris Road Court Street to Dent Road Extension Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Dent Road Burns Road to Road 68 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Clark Road Road 68 to Road 52 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Chapel Hill Boulevard Road 82 to Road 68 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR A Street 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR 28th Avenue A Street to Sylvester street Minor Arterial
MINOR ARTERIAL Chapel Hill Boulevard Crescent Road to Broadmoor Boulevard Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Road 60 Court Street to Sylvester Street Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Sylvester Street Road 60 to 4th Avenue Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Court Street 4th Avenue to 1st Avenue Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL 1st Avenue Court Street to A Street Collector
LOCAL Broadway Street Wehe Avenue to Cedar Avenue Collector
LOCAL Cedar Avenue Broadway Street to Lewis Street Collector
LOCAL Commercial Avenue Kartchner Street to Hillsboro Road Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Road 90 Sandifur Parkway to Burns Road Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR Wernett Road Road 36 To Road 76 Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR 14th Avenue Lewis Street to Court Street Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR Saratoga Lane Chapel Hill boulevard to Argent Road Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR Road 44 Argent Road to Madison Avenue Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR Madison Avenue Road 44 to Burden Boulevard Neighborhood Collector
Pa
g
e
9
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 49TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
EXISTING FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION ROADWAY EXTENTS RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
COLLECTOR Road 52 Burden Boulevard to Burns Road Neighborhood Collector
COLLECTOR Wrigley Drive Road 76 to Clemente Lane Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Kohler Road Dent Road to Hillcrest Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 92 Court Street to Maple Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 76 Argent Road to Court Street Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 60 Argent Road to Court Street Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 48 Argent Road to Sylvester Street Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Wernett Road Road 36 to Road 30 Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL 14th Avenue Court Street to Lincoln Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Pearl Street 24th Avenue to 13th Avenue & 10th Avenue to 5th Avenue Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL 13th Avenue Pearl Street to Riverview Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Riverview Drive 13th Avenue to 12th Avenue Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL 10th Avenue 12th Avenue to Pearl Street Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Elm Avenue A Street to Shepperd Street Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Wrigley Drive Road 68 Place to Roosevelt Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Roosevelt Drive Wrigley Drive to Madison Avenue Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Madison Avenue Roosevelt Drive to Burden Boulevard Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Vincenzo Drive Broadmoor Boulevard to Majestia Lane Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Majestia Lane Vincenzo Drive to Road 90 Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 90 Sandifur Parkway to Burns Road Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Wilshire Drive Road 90 to Westmoreland Lane Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Westmoreland Lane Wilshire Drive to Overland Court Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Overland Court Westmoreland Lane to Westminster Lane Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Westminster Lane Overland Court to Stutz Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Stutz Drive Westminster Lane to Road 84 Neighborhood Collector
Pa
g
e
9
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 50TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
EXISTING FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION ROADWAY EXTENTS RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
LOCAL Hudson Drive Road 84 to Okanogan Lane Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Okanogan Lane Hudson Drive to Chehalis Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Chehalis Drive Okanogan Lane to Three Rivers Drive Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Three Rivers Drive Chehalis Drive to Road 68 & Rio Grande Lane to Road 56 Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Road 56 Three Rivers Drive to Overton Road Neighborhood Collector
LOCAL Overton Road Road 56 to Road 52 Neighborhood Collector
Pa
g
e
9
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 51TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Freight routes play a vital role in the economical
movement of raw materials and finished products,
while maintaining neighborhood livability, public
safety, and minimizing maintenance costs of the
roadway system. The Washington State Freight
and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) tonnage
classification system identifies different categories
of freight corridors based on annual freight
tonnage moved (refer to Figure 17). The freight
corridors in Pasco are as follows:
• I-182
• US 12
• US 395
• WA 397
• Broadmoor Boulevard (I-182 to Harris Road)
• Road 68 (I-182 to Clark Road)
• 4th Avenue (I-182 to Glade Road)
• Ainsworth Avenue/Dock Street (WA 397 to
Sacajawea Park Road)
• Harris Road (Broadmoor Blvd to Shoreline Road)
• Shoreline Road (Harris Road to Burns Road)
• Burns Road (Shoreline Road to Dent Road)
• Dent Road (Burns Road to Road 68)
• Clark Road (Road 68 to Glad Road)
• Taylor Flats Road (North of Road 68)
• Columbia River Road (North of Road 68)
• Glade Road (North of 4th Avenue)
• Railroad Avenue (North of Hillsboro Street)
• Foster Wells Road (East of US 395)
• Kartchner Street (Railroad Avenue to
Commercial Avenue)
• Hillsboro Street (Railroad Avenue to
Travel Plaza Way)
• Lewis Street (US 395 to 20th Avenue)
• 20th Avenue (Lewis Street to A Street)
• A Street (20th Avenue to US 12)
• Pasco Kahlotus Road (East of US 12)
• Lewis Street (WA 397 to US 12)
• 4th Avenue (Ainsworth Street to A Street)
As part of the revitalization of the downtown
as envisioned in the current Master Planning,
the existing Lewis Street freight corridor should
be modified to divert freight traffic onto parallel
routes along Ainsworth Street and A Street.
Other critical freight corridors that are not currently
included in the Washington FGTS, as shown in
Figure 17, include Sacajawea Park Road from
Ainsworth Avenue to US 12 and Commercial
Avenue from Lewis Street to Kartchner Street.
Including these routes in a future update to the
Washington FGTS will recognize their significance
to Pasco’s freight system and connect key
industrial areas to existing FGTS corridors.
The city’s freight transportation system also
includes a rail yard, port, and the Tri-Cities Airport.
Intermodal connections between these freight
hubs, Pasco’s industrial areas, and the Tri-Cities
region are necessary to support the movement
of goods. Primary routes serving these existing
freight transportation needs are identified through
the Washington FGTS although additional
development in these areas could generate
new freight traffic demands.
Pasco will benefit from ensuring that its freight
routes are designed to accommodate the needs of
its industrial and commercial areas, while protecting
its residential neighborhoods from freight traffic.
Having designated freight routes will help the city
better coordinate and improve its efforts regarding
both freight and non-freight transportation system
users, including the following:
• Roadway and Intersection Improvements can
be designed for freight vehicles with adjustments
for turn radii, sight distance, lane width and turn
pocket lengths.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements—
such as protected or separated bike facilities,
enhanced pedestrian crossings, and other
safety improvements—can be identified to
reduce freight impacts to other users,
particularly along bikeways and walkways.
• Roadway Durability can be increased by
using concrete instead of asphalt for the
pavement surface.
• Railroad Connections can be coordinated
to support businesses that ship goods by rail,
particularly in areas where railroad sidings
can be provided.
• Coordination with Businesses and Adjacent
Jurisdictions can ensure that local and regional
freight traffic uses Pasco’s freight routes to travel
within the city.
Freight Network
Pa
g
e
9
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 52TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
20TH AVE
10TH AVE
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395
REROUTE LEWIS STFREIGHT CORRIDORTO A ST VIAHERITAGE LANE
SUGGESTED
FREIGHT CORRIDORS
TO BE ADDED TO
THE WSDOT
FREIGHT MAP
PASCO CITY LIMITS
PASCO UGA
FREIGHT CORRIDORS:
T1: MORE THAN 10 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
T2: 410 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
T3: 300,0004 MILLION TONS PER YEAR
T4: 100,0003000,000 TONS PER YEAR
T5: AT LEAST 20,000 TONS IN 60 DAYS
AND LESS THAN 100,000 TONS PER YEAR
N
FIGURE 17. FREIGHT SYSTEM
Pa
g
e
9
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 53TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) involves
strategies to slow traffic, and potentially reduce
volumes, creating a more inviting environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists. NTM strategies focus
on neighborhood livability on local streets, though
a few can apply to collectors and arterials, such
as raised median islands. Mitigation measures
balance the need to manage vehicle speeds
and volumes with the need to maintain mobility,
circulation, and function for service providers,
such as emergency responders. Examples of tools
are shown in Figure 18.
Table 12 lists common NTM applications. Any
NTM project should include coordination with
emergency response staff to ensure that public
safety is not compromised. NTM strategies
implemented on a state facility would require
coordination with WSDOT regarding freight
mobility considerations.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Tools
FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
CHICANES
DIVERTERS
SPEED CUSHIONS
CHOKERS
MEDIAN ISLANDS
SPEED HUMP
CURB EXTENSIONS
RAISED CROSSWALKS
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Photo Sources: Chicanes, Chokers, Median Islands, and Speed Hump > www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden;
Curb Extensions and Traffic Circles > www.pedbikeimages.org/Carl Sundstrom; Diverters > www.pedbikeimages.org/
Adam Fukushima; Raised Crosswalks > www.pedbikeimages.org/Tom Harned; Speed Cushions > NACTO Urban
Street Design Guide.
Pa
g
e
9
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 54TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
TABLE 12. APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
USE BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION IMPACT
ARTERIALS COLLECTORS LOCAL STREETS SPEED REDUCTION TRAFFIC DIVERSION
CHICANES
CHOKERS
CURB EXTENSIONS
DIVERTERS (WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE PASS-THROUGH)
MEDIAN ISLANDS
RAISED CROSSWALKS
SPEED CUSHIONS (WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE PASS-THROUGH)
SPEED HUMP
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
The City of Pasco does not currently have a formal neighborhood traffic management program.
Suggested elements of a new program to be developed and implemented can include:
• Provide a formalized process for citizens who are
concerned about the traffic or safety on their
neighborhood street. The process could include
filing a citizen request with petition signatures and
a preliminary evaluation. If the evaluation finds
cause for concern, a neighborhood meeting
would be held and formal data would be collected
and evaluated. If a problem were found to exist,
solutions would be identified and the process
continued with neighborhood meetings, feedback
from service and maintenance providers,
cost evaluation, and traffic calming device
implementation. Six months after implementation
the device would be evaluated for effectiveness.
• For new development proposals, in addition to
assessing impacts to the entire transportation
network, traffic studies for new developments
must also assess impacts to residential streets.
A recommended threshold to determine if this
additional analysis is needed is if the proposed
project increases through traffic on residential
streets by 40 or more vehicles during the
evening peak hour or 200 vehicles per day.
Once the analysis is performed, the threshold
used to determine if residential streets are
impacted would be if their daily traffic volume
exceeds 1,800 vehicles.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
LIVABILITY ON LOCAL STREETS, CREATING
A MORE INVITING ENVIRONMENT FOR
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.
Pa
g
e
1
0
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 55TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Access management provides safe and efficient
access to the transportation system for all users.
Historically, the City of Pasco only managed access
through restrictions on the placement of driveways.
New residential driveways must be located 25 feet
from an existing intersection, while new commercial
driveways must be placed in coordination with
the Public Works Director.4 Expanded access
management spacing standards which account
for the different roadway functional classifications
are adopted for the City of Pasco as part of the
TSMP to better manage driveway construction.
These standards are summarized in Table 13.
In addition to these access spacing standards, it is
recommended that the city consider guidelines to
enhance the system connectivity within the new
neighborhoods to better balance access for all
system users. As noted in previous sections of the
TSMP, the public feedback during the open house
events highlighted the challenges of navigating the
city outside of a motor vehicle. Walking and biking
and access to transit are significantly benefited
by constructing neighborhoods with greater
connectivity through better street and walkway
spacing, and more direct routes to key destinations,
such as schools, parks and transit stops. Today,
the city does not provide this type of guidance,
and new neighborhood circulation plans are left
to the development applicants to decide.
4 City of Pasco. Pasco Municipal Code Section 12.04.100
Driveway Standards. https://pasco.municipal.codes/
PMC/12.04.090
Access Management & Street Connectivity Standards
TABLE 13. ACCESS MANAGEMENT SPACING STANDARDS
SPACING GUIDELINESA, B PRINCIPAL
ARTERIALS
MINOR
ARTERIALS COLLECTORS NEIGHBORHOOD
COLLECTORS
LOCAL
STREETS
MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING (DRIVEWAY TO DRIVEWAY)B
300 feet 250 feet 150 feet 75 feet N/A
MINIMUM FULL-ACCESS DRIVEWAY SPACING (SETBACK FROM INTERSECTION)
300 feetC 250 feet 150 feet 75 feet 25 feet
MINIMUM RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT DRIVEWAY SPACING (SETBACK FROM INTERSECTION)
150 feetC 125 feet 75 feet 50 feet 25 feet
A All distances measured from the edge of adjacent approaches.
B A property must construct access to a lower classified roadway, where possible.
C WSDOT requires 1,320 between an interchange and the closest driveway. (Source: State of Washington.
Washington Administrative Code Section 468-52-040 Access Control Classification System and Standards.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=468-52-040)
Photo Credit: Group Health Foundation Photo Credit: Jacob Gonzalez
Pa
g
e
1
0
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 56TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
The public engagement process of the TSMP
revealed a strong concern about the lack of
connectivity in new neighborhoods north of I-182.
To address this, guidelines were developed to
clarify the community’s expectation for better
circulation options in growth areas. It was
recognized that it is important to balance the
economic objectives of a land developer with
the community values of its future residents.
City standards help to assure that the shape
of the resulting walking, biking and travel systems
will provide a framework for new neighborhoods
to thrive in the long-term, since it plays a
fundamental role in defining the character
of that community for generations to come.
Specifically, it is recommended to apply new
guidelines for the maximum block length, block
size, block perimeter and access spacing as
summarized in Table 14. Under this new guidance
for most zoning designations, block lengths shall
not exceed 660 feet and the block perimeter shall
not exceed 1,760 feet. Previously blocks could not
exceed 1,320 feet for residential uses or 600 feet
for commercial uses.5 The recommended complete
street connectivity standards plus guidelines are
summarized below in Table 14. To enact these
recommended street spacing and connectivity
changes, the city must conduct a public hearing
and the city council must adopt them to become
a part of the municipal code.
5 City of Pasco. Street Connectivity – Supplemental
Memorandum for CA2019-013. September 17, 2020.
TABLE 14. RECOMMENDED STREET CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS
SPACING GUIDELINES PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS MINOR ARTERIALS COLLECTORS NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTORS LOCAL STREETS
MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE (PUBLIC STREET TO PUBLIC STREET)660 feet 660 feet 660 feet 660 feet 660 feet
MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE (PUBLIC STREET TO PUBLIC STREET)300 feet 250 feet 200 feet 150 feet 125 feet
MAXIMUM BLOCK PERIMETER 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet
MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESSWAYSA
330 feet 330 feet 330 feet 330 feet 330 feet
A Spacing is the maximum of public street to public street, public street to accessway, or accessway
to accessway distance.
Pa
g
e
1
0
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 57TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
For the motor vehicle system, the city applies a list of performance targets to track how well the system works.
These mobility targets are used in long-range planning and development review to identify deficiencies on
the transportation network and can be used to identify needed improvements as growth occurs.
Mobility targets are adopted by the City of Pasco
in their comprehensive plan. The City of Pasco uses
a Level of Service (LOS) standard which evaluates
the average delay at signalized and unsignalized
intersections. This calculation is made by using
a national methodology for assessing intersection
performance, as published in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM). The current mobility targets, which
apply to the weekday peak hour, are summarized
below in Table 15. The City requires a lower level
of service for arterial and collector roadways where
higher traffic leads to higher delays. The arterial
and collector standards are consistent with the
mobility targets applied by BFCG and WSDOT.
TABLE 15. EXISTING MOBILITY TARGETS FOR
WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR PERIODS
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MOBILITY TARGET
LOCAL STREETS Level of Service C
ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS Level of Service D
WSDOT FACILITIES Level of Service D
Vehicle Mobility Targets
TWO COMMON METHODS USED TO GAUGE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ARE:
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY (V/C) RATIO
A v/c ratio is a decimal representation (between
0.00 and 1.00) of the proportion of capacity that
is being used at a turn movement, approach leg,
or intersection. The ratio is the peak hour traffic
volume divided by the hourly capacity of a given
intersection or movement. A lower ratio indicates
smooth operations and minimal delays. A ratio
approaching 1.00 indicates increased congestion
and reduced performance.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
LOS is a “report card” rating (A through F) based
on the average delay experienced by vehicles at
the intersection. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions
where traffic moves without significant delays over
periods of peak hour travel demand. LOS D and E
are progressively worse operating conditions. LOS F
represents conditions where average vehicle delay
is excessive, and demand exceeds capacity, typically
resulting in long queues and delays.
Pa
g
e
1
0
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 58TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Typically, these LOS targets are applied at individual
intersections. It is recommended that these targets
be modified to account for the type of traffic
controls being applied at each intersection,
since the impact of delay differs between signals,
roundabouts and stop sign controlled locations.
In addition, it is recommended that another metric
be added, the Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) Ratio,
which measures how close to capacity a location
operates at a given time of day. Using both a LOS
(delay-based) and v/c (congestion-based) standard
which can be helpful in situations where one
metric may not be enough, such as an all-way stop
where one approach is over capacity, but overall
intersection delay meets standards. Each of these
metrics is readily calculated by applying the
appropriate HCM methods. Table 16 summarizes
recommended changes to Pasco’s mobility
targets. Also noted is the current target used
for WSDOT intersections, which will remain at
Level of Service D for all cases.
TABLE 16. RECOMMENDED MOBILITY TARGETS
TRAFFIC CONTROL TYPE MOBILITY TARGETS APPLICABLE ELEMENT
SIGNALIZED Level of Service D and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.90
Average for all vehicles
using the intersection
ALL-WAY STOP OR ROUNDABOUTS
Level of Service D and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.90 Worst Approach
TWO-WAY STOP A Level of Service E and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.95
Worst Major Approach/
Worst Minor Approach
WSDOT INTERSECTIONS Level of Service D Intersection or Worst Approach
depending on control type
A Applies to approaches that serve more than 20 vehicles; there is no standard for approaches serving lower volumes.
Pa
g
e
1
0
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 59TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Pasco experiences peak congestion due to
single-occupant trips during peak demand times.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) aims
to remove single occupant motor vehicle trips
from the roadway network during peak travel
demand periods which could provide one avenue
for reducing pressure on key facilities. Changing
users’ travel behavior and providing alternative
choices will help accommodate the expected
growth in travel demand identified for Pasco.
Generally, TDM focuses on reducing vehicle
miles traveled for large employers by promoting
active and shared modes of travel. Research
has shown that a comprehensive set of
complementary policies implemented over
a large geographic area can affect the number
of vehicle miles traveled to/from that area.
For TDM measures to be effective, strategies
should go beyond the low-cost, uncontroversial
measures commonly used such as carpooling,
transportation coordinators/associations, and
priority parking spaces.
Effective TDM measures include parking strategies
(limiting or increasing supply in strategic locations),
improved services for alternative modes of travel,
and market-based incentives to encourage travel
behavior changes. TDM can also include a variety
of actions that are tailored to the specific needs
of an area.
Opportunities to expand TDM and other measures
in Pasco include developing requirements for
long-term bicycle parking for places of
employment above a certain size, park-and-ride
facilities, major transit stops, and multi-family
residential developments. Other land uses,
especially activity generators, should be required to
provide short-term bike parking and are
encouraged to implement the long-term options.
Long-term bicycle parking options include:
• Individual lockers for one or two bicycles
• Racks in an enclosed, lockable room
• Racks in an area that is monitored by
security cameras or guards (within 100 feet)
• Racks or lockers in an area always visible
to employees
Demand Management Policies
EFFECTIVE TDM STRATEGIES INCLUDE:
• Develop standards and policies that support
alternative vehicle types and travel methods,
including a network of electric vehicle charging
stations, or other facilities that support Pasco’s
Green House Gas Emissions Reductions Policy
Resolution 3853.
• Encouraging/supporting rideshare/vanpool to
major employers in Benton or Franklin County and
Kennewick or Richland (e.g. Hanford Nuclear Site)
for employees living in Pasco.
• Establishing site development standards that
require pedestrian and bicycle access through
sites and connections to adjacent sites and
transportation facilities, to the extent the
development impacts existing access.
• Improving amenities and access for transit stops.
Actions could include instituting site design
requirements allowing redevelopment of parking
areas for transit amenities; requiring safe and
direct pedestrian connections to transit; and
permitting transit-supportive uses outright in
commercial and institutional zones.
• Improving street connectivity to support
direct connections between residential areas
and activity centers.
• Investing in pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Pa
g
e
1
0
5
o
f
4
6
5
Implementation
and On-Going
Strategies
CHAPTER 5
60
It is important to recognize that because this
is the first of its kind transportation planning
process for the City of Pasco, additional work
will be required to carry this strategic vision
into practice. This chapter identifies the
recommended implementation actions.
Furthermore, it is recognized that the primary
purpose of the TSMP is to guide how the city will
make strategic transportation investments in the
years to come. It is acknowledged that there are
a host of on-going community issues related to
general transportation needs that may not be
resolved by this TSMP process and outcomes,
and further studies may be required to help to
inform how best to respond to each of those
situations. Several of the most prominent on-going
transportation issues that face Pasco are
acknowledged in the final section of this chapter
along with a summary of their status, applicable
on-going strategies, and the expected path forward.
THE FOREGOING CHAPTERS PRESENTED
THE GOALS, POLICIES, PLANS AND
PROGRAMS THAT DEFINE THE KEY
ELEMENTS OF PASCO’S TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN. THE TSMP
DESCRIBES THE CITY’S VISION FOR HOW
IT WILL ADDRESS MANY TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM WEAKNESSES AND GAPS
IDENTIFIED TODAY, AND HOW IT PLANS
TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT
COMMUNITY GROWTH TO 2040.
Photo Credit: Jacob Gonzalez
Pa
g
e
1
0
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 61IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
To effectively implement the TSMP citywide
will require a series of updates and amendments
to existing city policies, codes and regulations
related to land development, transportation
management and capital project funding.
The major actions to be taken fall into
these categories:
• Secure Necessary Funding for
Transportation Improvements
• Implement Neighborhood
Transportation Management Tools
• Update Vehicle Mobility Standards
• Update Engineering Design Standards
for Roadways, Bikeways and Walkways
• Amend the Municipal Development Code
to incorporate TSMP changes regarding
Streets and Sidewalks, Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning
The specific recommendations for each
action are described in the following sections.
SECURE NECESSARY LOCAL
FUNDING PROGRAMS
Providing adequate city funding for capital
investments and on-going maintenance of
transportation systems and services is a major
challenge throughout the State of Washington.
The City’s current funding programs are expected
to allocate about $20 million annually ($360
million over 18 years) for transportation system
improvements through 2040, not including other
allocations from gas tax revenues that support
maintenance operations. The current Traffic
Impact Fee program is expected to collect about
$12 million. However, when compared to the full
list of capital improvement projects identified
through this TSMP, which totals $665 million,
additional funding options are needed to bridge
the $293 million gap.
If the city decides to supplement the transportation
funding beyond what is currently available to
advance more projects, it is recommended to
further consider one of the above options. This
could include more general funding allocated to
the transportation improvement program, and/or
increasing the current Traffic Impact Fee (TIF).
A separate study was conducted to recommend
update options for the city’s Traffic Impact Fee
(FCS Group, October 2021). If the full amount was
authorized, the new TIF would generate about
$350 million in additional fees, which would
fully bridge the funding gap shown in Table 17.
It will be vital for the City Council to consider the
proposed TIF rate and recommend a fee that
ensures new development accommodates the
necessary transportation infrastructure without
burdening existing residents and businesses.
Without significant additional funding resources,
the great majority of projects identified in the
TSMP will not be able to be constructed within
the timeframe of the TSMP.
In addition, the city should consider developing
a proportionate share methodology and funding
strategy for specific transportation improvements
that are not funded through the TIF or other
existing programs.
Steps to Support Plan Implementation
TABLE 17. FILLING THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING GAP
DESCRIPTION TOTAL FUNDING THOUGH 2040
TRANSPORTATION CITYWIDE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDED IN THE PASCO TSMP $665 M
CURRENT CITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – $360 M
CURRENT CITY TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM – $12 M
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SHORTFALL $293 M
ACTION: PURSUE AND ENACT
SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OPTIONS
TO BRIDGE FORECASTED FUNDING GAP.
Pa
g
e
1
0
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 62IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
IMPLEMENT NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOLS
The Transportation System Management Plan
identifies a new classification of city streets that
are the best candidates for applying neighborhood
traffic management (NTM) strategies. The primary
purpose of this new classification is to address
community concerns about autos speeding
through neighborhoods or diverting away from
state highways while they are under severe
congestion. These streets are referred to as
Neighborhood Collector routes, and they are
shown in Figure 15, and listed in the supporting
technical memorandum . Potential management
strategies include traffic humps, traffic circles
and raised crosswalks, which are illustrated
in the memorandum.
The challenge with a NTM program is to identify
a clear and objective process for collecting
community inputs, assessing the prevailing
concerns, and evaluating which, if any, NTM
solution is appropriate to be installed. This will
require developing guidelines about which
NTM strategies are best for Pasco, and where
and how they are to be applied. In addition, many
cities balance the technical review process with
a consensus opinion of the affected neighbors
to help ensure community satisfaction with
the NTM decision.
The City of Pasco does not currently have a formal
neighborhood traffic management program. If
such a program were desired to help respond to
future NTM issues, suggested elements include:
• Provide a formalized process for citizens
who are concerned about the traffic on their
neighborhood street. The process could include
filing a citizen request with petition signatures
and a preliminary evaluation. If the evaluation
finds cause for concern, a neighborhood meeting
would be held, and formal data would be
collected and evaluated. If a problem were found
to exist, solutions would be identified and the
process continued with neighborhood meetings,
feedback from service and maintenance
providers, cost evaluation, and traffic calming
device implementation. Six months after
implementation the device would be evaluated
for effectiveness.
• For land use proposals, in addition to assessing
impacts to the entire transportation network,
traffic studies for new developments must
also assess impacts to residential streets. A
recommended threshold to determine if this
additional analysis is needed is if the proposed
project increases through traffic on residential
streets by 40 or more vehicles during the
evening peak hour or 200 vehicles per day.
Once the analysis is performed, the threshold
used to determine if residential streets are
impacted would be if their daily traffic volume
exceeds 1,800 vehicles.
ACTION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
CITY DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT
A NTM PROGRAM THAT FORMALIZES
THESE PROCESSES.
Photo Credit: Ben Franklin Transit
Pa
g
e
1
0
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 63IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
UPDATE VEHICLE MOBILITY STANDARDS
Mobility standards for streets and intersections in
Pasco provide a metric for assessing the impacts
of new development on the existing transportation
system and for identifying where capacity
improvements may be needed. They are the basis
for requiring improvements needed to sustain the
transportation system as growth and development
occur. Two common methods currently used in
Oregon to gauge traffic operations for motor
vehicles are volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios and
level of service (LOS). For State facilities, mobility
targets are v/c ratio based.
The City of Pasco does not have adopted mobility
standards for motor vehicles. It is recommended
that the city consider adopting mobility standards
to include both a v/c ratio and LOS standard.
Having both a LOS (delay-based) and v/c
(congestion-based) standard can be helpful in
situations where one metric may not be enough,
such as an all-way stop where one approach is
over capacity, but the overall intersection delay
meets standards. The City of Pasco should also
introduce mobility standards that depend on the
intersection control which can better capture
acceptable levels of performance across different
intersection control types. The recommended
mobility standards shown in Table 18 should be
incorporated into the Traffic Impact Analysis
guidelines and applied for the next update to the
comprehensive plan.
TABLE 18. RECOMMENDED VEHICLE MOBILITY STANDARDS FOR LOCAL STREETS
TRAFFIC CONTROL TYPE MOBILITY TARGETS REPORTING MEASURE
SIGNALIZED Level of Service D and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.90 Intersection
ALL-WAY STOP OR ROUNDABOUTS
Level of Service D and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.90 Worst Approach
TWO-WAY STOP A Level of Service E and
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ≤0.95
Worst Major Approach/
Worst Minor Approach
WSDOT INTERSECTIONS Level of Service D Intersection or Worst Approach
depending on control type
A Applies to approaches that serve more than 20 vehicles per hour; below that amount, there is no standard.
ACTION: AMEND CITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO INTRODUCE VEHICLE
MOBILITY STANDARDS ON CITY
STREETS CONSISTENT WITH THE TSMP.
Pa
g
e
1
0
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 64IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
UPDATE ENGINEERING
ROADWAY STANDARDS
The City Engineer maintains the recommended
design standards for all city-maintained facilities,
which include roadway, bikeway, walkway and
trail cross-sections. The configurations of several
elements of these facilities were modified during
the TSMP process, primarily to provide better
quality bicycling and walking facilities on lower
class roadways. The specific facility cross-sections
and new right-of-way requirements should be
incorporated into the city’s design standards
to guide construction of future street
improvement projects.
MUNICIPAL CODE REVISIONS
AND AMENDMENTS
A variety of changes and amendments were
recommended that influence the city’s municipal
code as it relates to streets and sidewalks,
subdivisions regulations and zoning. The
city council should take action to modify the
appropriate sections of the code to address
these amendments, as stipulated in a
memorandum (Angelo Planning Group,
20 Aug 2021) and summarized below:
1. Title 12 Streets and Sidewalks:
a. Increase minimum sidewalk width in
residential and mix-used areas
b. Update driveway design standards to be
consistent with current best practices
c. Implement Complete Street guidelines and
clear and objective minimum standards
d. Add a fee-in-lieu provision for roadway
improvements
2. Title 21 Pasco Urban Area
Subdivision Regulations:
a. Require a future street plan with proposed
subdivision to demonstrate how it will
accommodate future street extensions
b. Amend arterial minimum standards
consistent with the TSMP
c. Amend collector minimum standards
consistent with the TSMP
d. Amend local access roadway minimum
standards consistent with the TSMP
e. Provide guidance for constrained roadway
designs to enable connectivity in challenging
topographical or environmental situations.
f. Require pedestrian ways in areas of
exceptionally long blocks or for access to
recreational facilities or schools.
3. Title 25 Zoning:
a. Require safe connections on all non-single-
family residential development sites to:
main building entries, adjacent streets and
sidewalks, transit stops, and adjacent uses
such as schools and parks
b. Reduce minimum off-street parking standards
and consider maximums
c. Establish bike parking standards
d. Codify recommended TSMP access
management spacing standards to better
manage driveway construction
e. Require safe and direct pedestrian
connections to existing and planning
transit stops.
f. Permit transit supportive uses outright in
commercial and institutional zones.
ACTION: AMEND THE CITY DESIGN
STANDARDS TO INCLUDE THE MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR,
AND LOCAL ACCESS ROADWAYS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE TSMP.
Pa
g
e
1
1
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 65IMPLEMENTATION AND ON-GOING STRATEGIES
This is the first Transportation System Master Plan
that has been prepared by the City of Pasco.
As noted earlier in this section, to fully realize
the vision of this TSMP to be “a safe and
balanced multimodal transportation system which
equitability serves pedestrians, bicyclists, transit,
freight and drivers” will require several regulatory
and administrative changes to be made by the city.
Once these changes have been implemented,
the shape and amenities of new transportation
projects will more readily support these objectives.
However, as with any long-range planning
process, the TSMP should be reviewed and
updated periodically to address any unanticipated
major changes that could significantly influence
the land development patterns or the local
transportation system. Examples of possible
issues that trigger a review might include new
state and federal transportation regulations
and funding priorities, or significant changes
to the city or regional growth forecasts that are
associated with comprehensive plan updates,
or major urban growth area adjustments.
Aside from these types of triggering events,
it is recommended that the TSMP be reviewed
every five to 10 years to update the growth
and funding assumptions that were made
in this plan. The update process should align
with the requirements stipulated in the Growth
Management Act for transportation elements
(RCW 36.70A.070, subsection 6).
On-Going Plan Review and Updates
Pa
g
e
1
1
1
o
f
4
6
5
JUNE 2022
CITY OF PASCO
Transportation
System Master Plan
Appendices
Pa
g
e
1
1
2
o
f
4
6
5
Appendix A
Pa
g
e
1
1
3
o
f
4
6
5
These are the results of the online survey in June and
July of 2020. The Pasco community provided a total of
225 responses and we summarized the information below.
THE PASCO COMMUNITY
• 74% of respondents live in Pasco
• 54% of respondents work in Pasco
• 10% of respondents attend school in Pasco
0 20 40 60 80 100
Under 18 years
19-25 years
26-64 years
65 years or older
Percentage of Respondents
How old are you?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
<1 Year
1-5 Years
5-10 Years
10-20 Years
20+ Years
Percentage of Respondents
How long have you lived in the City of Pasco?
Page 114 of 465
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
<1 Year
1-5 Years
5-10 Years
10-20 Years
20+ Years
Percentage of Respondents
How long have you worked in the City of Pasco?
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Car/Truck (by yourself)
Carpool?
Uber/Lyft?
Bus?
Bicycle?
Walking?
Scooters?
Other?
How Often do you travel by...
Daily
Weekly
Weekends only
Once a month, or less
Never
Page 115 of 465
WALKING
Where residents of Pasco note issues with sidewalks:
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I disagree
I agree
Percentage of Respondents
I can easily walk to most destinations in my
neighborhood.
0 5 10 15 20 25
I disagree
I agree
Percentage of Respondents
Crosswalks are provided wherever I want to cross the
street.
Page 116 of 465
Transportation System Accessibility
0 5 10 15 20
I disagree
I agree
Percentage of Respondents
I feel safe and comfortable biking in my neighborhood.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I disagree
I agree
Percentage of Respondents
Most places I need to visit each day (shopping, dining,
parks, etc.) are available within my neighborhood.
Page 117 of 465
0%20%40%60%80%100%
A doctor or medical…
A grocery store
Restaurants or food
Parks or recreation
My employer
A bus stop
I can reach...
With a 15 minute (or less)
walk
With a 15 minute (or less)
bike ride
With a 15 minute (or less)
drive
0 5 10 15 20 25
Parks
Schools
Shopping
Recreation
Restaurants
Jobs
Other
Percentage of Respondents
I would like improved access to:
Page 118 of 465
Appendix B
Pa
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
4
6
5
SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING PERFORMANCE
DATE: May 18, 2020
TO: Dan Ford, Jacob Gonzalez | City of Paso
FROM: Rochelle Starrett, Carl Springer, Aaron Berger | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Pasco Transportation System Master Plan
Task 3: System Inventory and Existing Conditions
Project #19209-000
BACKGROUND
The City of Pasco is developing its first transportation system master plan (TSMP) which
includes a baseline for measuring transportation system conditions. This memorandum
provides an overview of the transportation system performance which includes a deta iled
review of operating characteristics for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers. This
analysis focuses on arterial and collector roadways within Pasco’s Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Study intersections were identified in coordination with the City of Pasco and are listed
below and mapped in Figure 1. Note that only some locations were analyzed for both
weekday AM and PM peak period conditions.
AM/PM Study Intersection Locations
1. Broadmoor Blvd & I-182 WB Ramps
2. Broadmoor Blvd & I-182 EB Ramps
3. Road 68 & I-182 WB Ramps
4. Road 68 & I-182 EB Ramps
5. US 395/Morasch Ln & Argent Rd
6. US 395 SB Ramps & Court St
7. US 395 NB Ramps & Court St
8. US 395 NB Ramps & Sylvester St
9. 20th Ave & I-182 WB Ramps
10. 20th Ave & I-182 EB Ramps
11. 4th Ave & I-182 WB Ramps
12. 4th Ave & I-182 EB Ramps
13. Foster Wells Rd & US 395
14. US 395 SB Ramps/Rainier Ave &
Kartchner St
15. US 395 NB Ramps/Commercial Ave &
Kartchner St
16. Hwy 12 SB Ramps & Heritage
Blvd/Pasco Kahlotus Rd
17. Hwy 12 NB Ramps & Heritage
Blvd/Pasco Kahlotus Rd
18. Hwy 12 & A St
19. Road 68 & Burden
Page 120 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 2
PM Only Study Intersection Locations
20. Broadmoor Blvd & Burns Rd
21. Broadmoor Blvd & Sandifur Pkwy
22. Broadmoor Blvd & Chapel Hill Blvd
23. Broadmoor Blvd/Road 100 & Argent Rd
24. Road 84 & Argent Rd
25. Road 84 & Court St
26. Road 68 & Powerline Rd
27. Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy
28. Road 68 & Chapel Hill Blvd
29. Road 68 & Argent Rd
30. Road 68 & Court St
31. Road 60 & Court St
32. Madison Ave & Burden Blvd
33. Road 44 & Argent Rd
34. 20th Ave & Argent Rd
35. 20th Ave & Court St
36. 20th Ave & Sylvester St
37. 20th Ave & Lewis St
38. 10th Ave & Sylvester St
39. 10th Ave & Lewis St
40. 10th Ave & A St
41. 10th Ave & Ainsworth St
42. 4th Ave & Court St
43. 4th Ave & Sylvester St
44. 4th Ave & Lewis St
45. 4th Ave & A St
46. 4th Ave & Ainsworth St
47. Oregon Ave & Lewis St
48. Oregon Ave & A St
49. Oregon Ave & Ainsworth St
50. Heritage Blvd & Lewis St/Avery Ave
51. Heritage Blvd & A St
52. Cedar Ave & Lewis St
FIGURE 1. PASCO TSMP STUDY INTERSECTIONS
ANALYSIS METHODS USED
The system performance evaluation applied several technical methods consistent with
transportation planning practices. The following section describes the methods used and
Page 121 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 3
they are consistent with the Street Light Analysis Approach Memo, the Traffic Forecast
Methodology Memorandum, national guidance, and best practice.
SAFETY ANALYSIS
Crash data for the last five years (2014-2018) was obtained from WSDOT to analyze crash
trends within the City of Pasco1. This data was used to flag typical crash patterns (e.g. crash
type, severity, underlying factors) and screen the transportation system for corridors and
intersections with high crash rates. Crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists were also
flagged for separate evaluation. Results of this analysis are documented in the Traffic Safety
Assessment, provided in the appendix.
SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS
Pasco’s existing road network and functional classification was reviewed to identify
transportation barriers and other missing elements of Pasco’s existing transportation
system. Pasco does not have spacing standards for different street types, so syst em
connectivity was assessed using a 1-mile spacing standard for arterial roadways and a ½-
mile spacing standard for collectors. Connections for both pedestrians and bicyclists should
be provided more frequently to promote walkability and bikeability. Bicy cle and pedestrian
connectivity gaps were identified when existing block lengths along arterial or collector
roadways exceeded 500 feet. The gap analysis was used to identify corridors and areas that
lack critical bicycle or pedestrian connections.
STREET LIGHT ANALYSIS
Street Light data uses GPS traces from personal devices (e.g. cell phones) or other location-
based services to infer travel patterns. The personal identity of the user is kept anonymous
at all times. The data is used as a sample to represent patterns and trends for all types of
travel around the City. Additional details on the Street Light analysis are provided in the
Street Light Analysis Approach Memo.
Each Street Light analysis was set up to consider an entire year of available data (typ ically
2019) which can provide a clearer picture of typical travel patterns. Trip metrics (e.g. trip
length or distance) and traveler attributes (e.g. trip purpose or income) were also evaluated
in conjunction with different analyses to provide additional insights to travel behavior.
Existing data, such as freight volumes from WSDOT, was also used to calibrate the
estimated Street Light freight volumes.
1 Crash data provided from the 2020 City Safety Program:
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/CitySafetyProgram
Page 122 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 4
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Traffic operations at study intersections were reported using Synchro 10 and HCM 6th
Edition Methodology based on recent traffic counts and new counts collected December
2019 and January 2020. Since traffic counts are typically lower during the winter, these
counts were factored to represent average traffic conditions in Pasco. Specific m ethods used
for seasonal factoring and adjusting traffic counts are summarized in the Traffic Forecast
Methodology Memorandum. Intersection geometry and traffic control types were collected
using Google Maps/Streetview and field verified, if necessary. Tra ffic signal timings were
provided by both the City of Pasco and WSDOT.
Signalized intersection v/c ratios were post-processed at signalized intersections based on
HCM 6th Edition Chapter 192. If HCM 6th Edition results could not be reported for signals, v/c
ratios were reported using HCM 2000. Mainline through movement v/c ratios were post -
processed at unsignalized intersections consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual 3.
Planning mobility targets for all study intersections utilize a LOS D standard for all arterial
and collector roadways, consistent with state transportation plans and adopted regional
standards4.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY
ROADWAY SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY
Pasco’s existing roadway network is arranged largely on a grid system which establishes a
system of arterial and collector streets. Within Pasco’s older downtown core (generally
between US 395 and Oregon Avenue, south of I -182), the existing functional classification
system establishes a traditional urban arterial and collector street system that adheres to
the recommended spacing standards, seen below in Figure 2. Existing arterials in the
downtown core also distribute traffic to and from existing interchanges along US 395 and I-
182.
The roadway system in areas of Pasco outside the downtown core have more limited
opportunities for developing an arterial and collector street system. The existing road
network is constrained by post-1980s suburban-style residential developments (including
new subdivisions north of I-182 and developments that remain within Franklin County south
2 TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Ed., Ch. 19 Signalized Intersections. 2016.
3 TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Ed., Ch. 20 Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections.
2016.
4 City of Pasco. 2018 to 2038 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. 2020.
Page 123 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 5
of I-182). The recent development in Pasco have a markedly different development style,
seen below in Figure 2, which includes longer block lengths and limited access points.
Limited crossing opportunities for I-182, the Pasco airport, and other geographical features
(e.g. the Franklin County Irrigation Canal) also constrain the existing roadway network
within Pasco.
FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED EACH DECADE IN CITY OF PASCO
The constraints to circulation and access affect the City’s ability to provide convenient and
safe services for all travelers. Through this plan update process, there are opportunities to
address these system weaknesses. The first is through re-classifying roadways to better
represent that scale and character of facilities for a given area. A s new streets are built and
existing streets are upgraded to match revised standards, those improvements will better
align with what is important for residents and businesses alike. However, the long blocks
and sealed off neighborhoods that are borderd by the arterial and collector network will
remain, particularly in recently developed areas and across I-182. Housing construction in
Pasco has built approximately 11,000 units over the past 20 years (see Figure 3). As the
Page 124 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 6
City continues to grow, it will be important to consider how system connectivity could be
enhanced, especially in the new neighborhoods, to achieve the City’s community values.
FIGURE 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN CITY OF PASCO BY DECADE
MULTIMODAL SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY
The same development patterns also limit connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists who
depend on more frequent system spacing. Key facility gaps were identified when the
distance between local streets or existing trails exceeded 500’ on arterial and collector
roadways. Since these gaps occur more frequently than for the arterial and collector street
system, the gap analysis was used to flag arterial and collector segments with several
facility gaps. The following arterial and collector corridors (adjacent to existing
developments) were identified as segments with poor pedestrian or bicyclist accessibility:
● Court Street (Road 44 to Road 108)
● Wernett Road (Road 48 to Road 76)
● Argent Road (Road 48 to Road 100)
● Chapel Hill Boulevard (Road 68 to Road 100)
● Burden Boulevard (Road 36 to Road 60)
● Sandifur Parkway (Porto Lane to Road 90)
● Road 44 (Laredo Drive to Porto Lane)
● Burns Road (Road 68 to Road 100; Dent Road to Kohler Road)
● Clark Road (Road 36 to Lentz Road/Janet Street)
● Road 100/I-182 overpass
● Road 68/I-182 overpass
Areas within Franklin County, south of I-182, also have limited local street connectivity
which further limits the existing multimodal transportation system in these areas. Figure 4,
below, shows identified corridors and areas with limited multimodal access.
Page 125 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 7
FIGURE 4. MULTIMODAL SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY CONSTRAINTS
The multimodal system connectivity assessment did not consider existing crossing
opportunities for arterial or collector roadways which can further limit the connectivity of a
multimodal transportation system. Limited crossing opportunities exist on 20th Avenue
between Argent Road and I-182, which divides existing student housing from the Columbia
Basin Community College Campus. Other arterial and collector roadways within Pasco are
also expected to provide limited crossing opportunities for multimodal system users.
EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS (PER STREET LIGHT DATA FINDINGS)
BRIDGE TRAVEL
Travel on the Columbia and Snake River Bridges between Pasco and the Tri -Cities is tied to
the geographic location of each regional trip’s origin or destination. The US 12 Bridge serves
travel between Pasco, the eastern Tri-Cities, and other destinations to the east. The Blue
Bridge/US 395 Bridge and WA-397 Bridge primarily serve travel between Pasco (especially
the largely residential areas near these bridges), Kennewick, and eastern Richland.
However, the Blue Bridge/US 395 Bridge also serves regional traffic between US 395 north
of Pasco and I-82 south of Pasco which accounts for 4% of this bridge’s AADT. The I-182
Bridges serve travel between Pasco, Hanford, Richland, western Kennewick, and West
Page 126 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 8
Richland. Within Pasco, the I-182 Bridges serve residential zones within western Pasco and
the Road 68 commercial core. The I-182 Bridges also serve regional traffic to I-82 west of
the Tri-Cities which accounts for 2% of these bridges’ AADT.
Traffic within the Tri-Cities region primarily uses the I-182 Bridges, the Blue Bridge/US 395
Bridge, and the WA-397 Bridge. The great majority of trips on all three Columbia River
bridges are less than 30 miles in length, 65% of trips on the I-182 Bridges, 78% of trips on
the Blue Bridge/US 395 Bridge, and 75% of trips on the WA-397 Bridge. Conversely, the
vehicle trips are longest on the US 12 Bridge where only 38% of trips are less than 30 miles
and 9% of trips are longer than 100 miles. The distribution of trip lengths for each bridge is
below in Figure 5.
FIGURE 5. VEHICLE TRIPS LENGTH CROSSING RIVER BRIDGES (% of Total Bridge Trips, StreetLight
Data)
FREIGHT TRAVEL
Freight transportation plays a significant role in Pasco’s economy and serves trips between
the Columbia River Basin agricultural region and other major cities within the Pacific
Northwest, including Seattle, Portland, Spokane, Moses Lake, and Walla Walla. Freight is
concentrated on Pasco's highway system which is primarily accessed at the following
interchanges/intersections:
● US 395/Kartchner Street interchange
Page 127 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 9
● US 12/Lewis Street interchange
● US 12/Sacajawea Park intersection
● US 395/Oregon Avenue interchange
Freight traffic on local roadways is concentrated in eastern Pasco, adjacent to major
industrial centers, including Kartchner Street, Ainsworth Street, Oregon Avenue, Heritage
Boulevard, A Street, Lewis Street, and Sacajawea Park Road. Freight traffic on the bridges
over the Columbia and Snake Rivers ranges from 6 -20%. Figure 6 summarizes freight
activity within Pasco.
FIGURE 6. FREIGHT TRAVEL PATTERNS IN PASCO (Source: StreetLight Data)
Although the distribution of freight traffic for Pasco remains similar throughout the year, the
total volume of freight traffic increases during summer and early fall months, as seen in
Figure 7. Freight traffic peaks in the spring and summer months (April to September) where
it is 7-8% above average; the months of June, August, and September have the highest
freight traffic. Freight traffic is lower in the fall and winter months (October to March) where
it is 6-10% below average. The seasonal variation in freight volumes mirrors the growing
and harvest season within the Columbia River Basin which suggests the importance of
regional agriculture for Pasco’s economy.
Page 128 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 10
FIGURE 7. SEASONAL VARIATION IN FREIGHT TRAFFIC FOR PASCO (Source: StreetLight Data)
COMMUTE PATTERNS
Street Light data can also infer trip purpose using a device’s identified “home” or “work”
location. Inferred home-based work trips that begin in Pasco during the AM peak (6-10 AM)
were used to understand typical commute trends for residents of Pasco. Since Street Light
flags “home” and “work” locations based on where a device typically spends daylight o r
evening hours, this data set does count students travelling to school or overnight shift
works in Pasco who travel home during the AM peak as home-based work trips. Street Light
data estimates about 50% of Pasco’s residents have local jobs within Pasco for work which
is twice the percentage estimated by the US Census (25%)5. The top Pasco employers
include the following:
● Downtown Pasco area businesses
● Chiawana High School (including students)
● Industrial businesses in eastern Pasco
● Commercial businesses along US 395
Within the Tri-Cities region, other major employment destinations include the cities of
Kennewick, Richland, and the Hanford Nuclear Site. Commute patterns for Pasco residents
on the Columbia River bridges mirror these destinations. 26% of com mute trips to jobs
outside of Pasco use the I-182 Bridges to access jobs in Richland, Kennewick, and the
Hanford site while 16% of commute trips use the Blue Bridge/US 395 Bridge, primarily to
access jobs within Kennewick or Richland. Existing commute patterns are summarized in
5 US Census On the Map. Work Destination Report – Home Selection Area to Work Places.
https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/cgi-
bin/report.py?mode=serve_page&t=otm_23e9532e0d994c57afb714237fd6325d&download
=false&format=pdf Accessed. May 11, 2020.
Page 129 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 11
Figure 8. These numbers were estimated using a full year of observed Street Light data, so
high school or community college students are also captured within this commute data.
Residents of West Pasco (west of US 395 or north of I-182) are more likely to travel outside
of Pasco for work, and more West Pasco residents travel to Hanford, Richland, West
Richland, and Kennewick/Richland than East Pasco residents. Conversely, resident s of East
Pasco who travel outside of Pasco for work are more likely to be employed in Kennewick or
the eastern Tri-Cities area than residents of West Pasco. Within Pasco, employment is also
geographically concentrated; residents are more likely to be empl oyed near their home. A
higher percentage of residents of East Pasco work at the industrial businesses of east Pasco
compared to residents of West Pasco.
FIGURE 8. COMMUTE PATTERNS FOR PASCO RESIDENTS (Source: Street Light
Data)
Commuters from the Tri-Cities region who are employed in Pasco tend to live in Kennewick
(13% of Pasco workers) or in the western Kennewick/eastern Richland area (16% of Pasco
workers). 5% of workers commute from Richland and 6% of workers commute from West
Richland. Residents of Pasco who stay within Pasco fork work tend to live south of I-182
although some of Pasco’s workers do live in the newer residential developments around the
Road 68 commercial core.
Page 130 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 12
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES
Local transit services are provided by Ben Fran klin Transit which operates 8 fixed route bus
services within Pasco, including:
● Route 64: Pasco A Street
● Route 65: Pasco Lewis
● Route 66 & Route 67: Pasco Sylvester & Pasco Sandifur
● Route 150: Pasco / Kennewick
● Route 160 / Kennewick
● Route 225: Pasco / Richland
● Route 268: Pasco / Richland
Weekday service is typically provided between 5:45 AM and 8:15 PM on all routes with half
hour headways. Select routes run until 10:15 PM on weekdays, including inter -city routes to
both Kennewick and Richland. Service is similar on most routes for Saturday although
service does not start until 6:45. Transit service ends an hour earlier on Saturdays for
Routes 64 and 160, and Route 268 does not provide Saturday Service. No transit services
are available on Sunday. Ben Franklin Transit operates service for Pasco to and from the
22nd Avenue Transit Center which facilitates transfers between routes. Riders can currently
park at both the 22nd Avenue Transit Center and the HAPO Event Center.
FIGURE 9. BEN FRANKLIN TRANSIT ROUTES
Page 131 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 13
Ben Franklin Transit also operates Dial-A-Ride service for individuals with a disability
between 6 AM and 10 PM Monday to Friday and between 7 AM and 10 PM on Saturday.
Vanpool services are also available for commuters travelling to Pendleto n, Walla Walla,
Connell, Patterson, and the Hanford Nuclear Site.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS
Most study intersections on WSDOT facilities currently operate within their mobility target
during the morning peak period, including all US highway or interstate ramp terminals
within Pasco. Two study intersections exceed their mobility target during the AM peak: US
12/E A Street and US 395/Foster Wells Road. These intersections are two at -grade
intersections on US highways within Pasco, and the intersection of US 12/E A Street has
previously been identified as a future interchange. The intersection of Road 68/Burden
Boulevard, under the City of Pasco’s jurisdiction, also has major delays during the AM peak.
Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour intersection operations is summarized below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: EXISTING WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS
# CONTROL INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
SERVICE*
DELAY
(SECONDS
PER VEHICLE)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
1 Signal Road 100 & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182
WB On/Off Ramp
B 16 0.40
2 Signal Road 100 & I 182 EB Off Ramp/I 182
EB On Ramp
B 17 0.68
3 Signal Road 68 & I 182 WB On/Off Ramp/I
182 WB On Ramp
B 16 0.84
4 Signal Road 68 & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp/I 182
EB On Ramp
A 7 0.50
5 Signal US 395 On/Off Ramp/Morasch Ln &
Argent Rd
B 13 0.44
6 Signal US 395 SB On Ramp/US 395 SB On/Off
Ramp & Court St
A 9 0.48
Page 132 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 14
7 Signal US 395 NB Off Ramp/US 395 NB On
Ramp & Court St
B 12 0.74
8 TWSC Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp A/C 0/15 0.26/0.46
9 Signal 20th Ave & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182
WB Off Ramp
B 14 0.72
10 Signal 20th Ave & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp B 18 0.68
11 Signal 4th Ave & US 395 WB On/Off Ramp B 10 0.44
12 Signal 4th Ave & US 395 EB On/Off Ramp B 20 0.75
13 TWSC US 395 & Foster Wells Rd A/F 10/54 0.23/0.22
14 TWSC Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp &
Kartchner St
A/C 9/21 0.16/0.19
15 TWSC Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off
Ramp & Kartchner St
A/D 8/33 0.06/0.5
16 TWSC Hwy 12 EB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St &
Hwy 12 EB Off Ramp
A/C 10/22 0.29/0.63
17 TWSC Hwy 12 WB Off Ramp/Hwy 12 WB
On/Off Ramp & Lewis St
A/B 9/14 0.31/0.18
18 TWSC Hwy 12 & E A St B/F 11/129 0.25/0.89
19 Signal Road 68 & Burden Blvd D 52 0.87
*Shaded values indicate an intersection that exceeds its mobility target
During the Weekday PM peak period, WSDOT study locations, including freeway ramp
terminals, handle the bulk of traffic; these locations tend to have the most severe
operational issues, while most local street intersections currently operate with tolerable
Page 133 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 15
congestion, as defined by their mobility target. The few ramp terminals that have severe
congestion are either two-way stop control (TWSC) or at-grade intersections which have
high side street delay. The intersections of US 12/E A Street and Rainier Ave & US 395 SB
Ramps/Kartchner Street both currently operate over-capacity on their minor street
approach with excessive vehicle delays. During the PM peak, the traffic signals at I-182 WB
Ramps/Road 68 and 4th Ave/US 395 WB Ramps also both exceed their mobility targets.
Most City streets operate well within their mobility target during the PM peak. Only the
intersection of Road 68/Burden Bouleva rd exceeds its mobility target during the PM peak.
PM peak vehicle operations for all study intersections are summarized below in Table 2.
TABLE 2: EXISTING WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
# CONTROL INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
SERVICE*
DELAY
(SECONDS
PER VEHICLE)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
1 Signal Road 100 & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182
WB On/Off Ramp
A 9 0.72
2 Signal Road 100 & I 182 EB Off Ramp/I 182
EB On Ramp
C 21 0.86
3 Signal Road 68 & I 182 WB On/Off Ramp/I
182 WB On Ramp
F 136 1.43
4 Signal Road 68 & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp/I
182 EB On Ramp
B 16 0.77
5 Signal US 395 On/Off Ramp/Morasch Ln &
Argent Rd
B 17 0.49
6 Signal US 395 SB On Ramp/US 395 SB
On/Off Ramp & Court St
A 10 0.54
7 Signal US 395 NB Off Ramp/US 395 NB On
Ramp & Court St
B 17 0.89
8 TWSC Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp A/E 0/38 0.23/0.82
9 Signal 20th Ave & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182
WB Off Ramp
C 26 0.91
Page 134 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 16
10 Signal 20th Ave & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp C 21 0.73
11 Signal 4th Ave & US 395 WB On/Off Ramp E 58 1.04
12 Signal 4th Ave & US 395 EB On/Off Ramp B 16 0.69
13 TWSC US 395 & Foster Wells Rd B/F 12/74 0.26/0.53
14 TWSC Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp
& Kartchner St
B/F 11/363 0.38/1.51
15 TWSC Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off
Ramp & Kartchner St
A/D 8/31 0.08/0.61
16 TWSC Hwy 12 EB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St &
Hwy 12 EB Off Ramp
A/B 8/11 0.28/0.18
17 TWSC Hwy 12 WB Off Ramp/Hwy 12 WB
On/Off Ramp & Lewis St
B/B 11/13 0.24/0.32
18 TWSC Hwy 12 & E A St B/F 14/1688 0.44/3.88
19 Signal Road 68 & Burden Blvd E 62 1.12
20 TWSC Road 100 & Dent Rd/Edelman Rd A/D 8/26 0.13/0.35
21 Signal Road 100 & Sandifur Parkway B 12 0.50
22 Signal Road 100 & Chapel Hill Rd C 21 0.69
23 TWSC Road 100 & Argent Road A/C 8/18 0.24/0.12
24 Signal Road 84 & Argent Road B 12 0.28
Page 135 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 17
25 TWSC Court Street & Road 84 A/B 8/11 0.12/0.12
26 TWSC Road 68 & Edelman Road/Powerline
Rd
A/C 8/18 0.24/0.13
27 Signal Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy C 22 0.70
28 Signal Road 68 & Chapel Hill Rd C 20 0.74
29 Signal Road 68 & Argent Road C 22 0.69
30 TWSC Road 68 & Court Street A/D 8/34 0.13/0.73
31 TWSC Road 60 & Court Street A/C 8/21 0.13/0.36
32 TWSC Madison Ave & Burden Blvd A/F 9/72 0.35/0.71
33 TWSC Argent Rd & Rd 44 A/B 0/15 0.17/0.47
34 Signal 20th Ave & Argent Rd B 20 0.66
35 Signal 20th Ave & Court St C 25 0.71
36 Signal 20th Ave & Sylvester St C 23 0.51
37 Signal 20th Ave & Lewis Street C 22 0.54
38 Signal 10th Ave & Sylvester St B 12 0.59
39 Signal 10th Ave & Lewis St C 22 0.45
40 Signal 10th Ave & A St B 17 0.36
Page 136 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 18
41 Signal 10th Ave & Ainsworth St B 19 0.62
42 Signal 4th Ave & Court St B 19 0.70
43 Signal 4th Ave & Sylvester St A 8 0.24
44 Signal 4th Ave & W Lewis St B 14 0.56
45 Signal 4th Ave & A St A 5 0.29
46 TWSC 4th Ave & Ainsworth St A/A 8/9 0.29/0.02
47 Signal N Oregon Ave & E Lewis St B 17 0.43
48 Signal Oregon Ave/S Oregon Ave & E A St B 11 0.23
49 TWSC Oregon Ave & Ainsworth St A/C 8/17 0.12/0.41
50 TWSC Heritage Blvd & Lewis St & Avery Ave A/C 8/19 0.29/0.4
51 TWSC E A St & Heritage Blvd A/C 8/17 0.12/0.43
52 TWSC Cedar Ave & Lewis St A/C 9/24 0.15/0.48
*Shaded values indicate an intersection that exceeds its mobility target
Page 137 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 19
KEY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
The review of Pasco’s existing transportation system was used to identify key operational,
safety, and connectivity issues to inform an assessment of Pasco’s existing transportation
system. This review identified locations that had high levels of congestion during peak travel
hours, higher than expected crash rates, and barriers to safe and convenient travel for all
users.
Figure 10 shows a composite of our system performance findings for Pasco which will be
considered during the plan development. Detailed findings for each travel mode are also
summarized below.
FIGURE 10. PASCO’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHALLENGES
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
● Limited system connectivity; key barriers include:
○ Highway crossings without pedestrian or bicycle facilit ies (e.g. Road 100,
Road 68)
○ Long blocks (up to 2,000 feet) without any pedestrian connections
Page 138 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 20
○ Limited sidewalks and bike facilities, including along arterial and collector
roadways
○ Rural roadway standards which do not include multimodal facilities
● Corridors without adequate pedestrian or bicyclist connections, including:
○ Court Street (Road 44 to Road 108)
○ Wernett Road (Road 48 to Road 76)
○ Argent Road (Road 48 to Road 100)
○ Chapel Hill Boulevard (Road 68 to Road 100)
○ Burden Boulevard (Road 36 to Road 60)
○ Sandifur Parkway (Porto Lane to Road 90)
○ Road 44 (Laredo Drive to Porto Lane)
○ Burns Road (Road 68 to Road 100; Dent Road to Kohler Road)
○ Clark Road (Road 36 to Lentz Road/Janet Street)
● Limited crossing opportunities on high-speed roadways, outside of existing signals
● High crash risk
○ Over two hit and run crashes annually involve pedestrians
○ Nearly half of pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks
○ Over 60% of bicyclists crashes were caused by drivers failing to yield the right
of way when turning or crossing
TRANSIT
● Basic transit service
● Limited stop amenities
● Limited access from new residential developments to transit
● Limited, safe crossing opportunities near stops
● Limited existing park and ride locations
VEHICLES
● Limited system connectivity; key barriers include:
○ Long blocks (up to 2,000 feet) without any local street connections
○ Limited arterial or collector roadway access points for large residential
developments
○ I-182
○ Pasco Rail Yard
● Peak period intersection congestion near ramp terminals and at critical intersections
in Pasco, including at:
○ Road 100/I-182 Interchange
○ Road 68/I-182 Interchange
○ Road 68/Burden Boulevard
○ Road 68/Court Street
○ Madison Avenue/Burden Boulevard
○ Road 36/Argent Road
○ Road 44/Argent Road
Page 139 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 21
○ 20th Avenue/ Court Street
○ 4th Avenue/I-182 WB ramp terminal
○ US 12/A Street
○ US 395 SB ramp terminal/Rainier Avenue/Kartchner Street
○ US 395/Foster Wells Road
● AM peak period congestion on Road 100 between the I-182 interchange and Argent
Road from Chiawana High School traffic
● Existing at-grade intersections on national highways, including US 12/A Street and
US 395/Foster Wells Road
● High access density without a center, two-way left turn lane on Court Street and
Sylvester Street
● Vehicle speeding
● Existing, multi-lane half street connections without striping to denote travel lanes
Page 140 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • SYSTEM INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS • MAY 2020 22
APPENDIX
Page 141 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
1
TRAFFIC SAFETY ASSES SMENT
DATE: Feb 12, 2020
TO: Project Management Team | City of Pasco
FROM: Veronica Sullivan, Carl Springer | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Pasco Transportation System Master Plan Project #19209-000
SUMMARY
Traffic safety was evaluated on major roadways within the City of Pasco. Collision data was
provided by WSDOT for the five-year period from 2014 to 20181. The study team identified the
following findings related the existing safety conditions:
• The most common collision types were rear-end and entering at angle crashes.
• 75% of rear-end crashes and 64% of all crashes occurred at intersections2.
• The five intersections with the highest crash rate were W Court St reet/ Road 68, Sylvester
Street/Road 28, Burden Boulevard/Road 68, 20th Avenue/ W Court Street and Sandifur
Parkway/ Road 68.
• The six roadway segments with highest crash rate accounted for 57% of all collisions within
the city were Burden Boulevard, 20th Avenue, Sylvester Street, Lewis Street, Road 68 and
Court Street.
• For most crashes, neither speeding nor alcohol/drug use were documented as significant
contributors, and only reported in less than 8% of all crashes.
1 Crash data provided from the 2020 City Safety Program:
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/CitySafetyProgram
2 Intersection related crash includes “at intersection and related”, “at intersection and not related” and
“intersection related but not at intersection”.
Page 142 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
2
• The most common driver errors reported were inattention, failed to yield right -of-way and
following too closely.
• 42% of pedestrian crashes involved a driver that reported inattention or field to yield right -
of way to pedestrian.
• 77% of bicycle crashes occurred at intersections and 54% involved a vehicle making a
turning movement.
Figure 1: Identified high crash rate intersections and roadway segments.
Page 143 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
3
TRAFFIC SAFETY ANALY SIS RESULTS
TREND S OVER LAST FIVE YEAR S
There were 3,984 total crashes reported (797 per year) within the City of Pasco on all roadway
facilities. The type, severity, and reported driver errors are summarized in the following discussion.
• 1159 rear-end crashes (29% of crashes)
• 1087 entering at angle crashes (27% of crashes)
• 54 pedestrian-related crashes (1.4% of crashes)
• 26 bicycle-related crashes (0.01% of crashes)
Crashes within the City of Pasco; over the past five years:
• 7 crashes resulted in fatalities
• 43 crashes resulted in serious injuries (Injury A)
• 72% of crashes are property damage only or lead to minor injuries (Injury C)
The most common driver errors are responsible for nearly 65 percent of all crashes including:
• 1019 Inattention (26%)
• 627 Did Not Yield Right-of-Way (16%)
• 561 Followed Too Closely (14%)
• 225 Improper Turn or U-turn (6%)
• 121 Disregard Stop and Go Light (3%)
Risky behavior, including alcohol/drug use or speeding was implicated in 141 and 175 crashes,
respectively. These crashes tend to be less severe; alcohol/drug use and speeding is involved in
64% and 80% of property damage only crashes.
Page 144 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
4
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
54 crashes involved at least one pedestrian. Crashes were most common in along major arterials,
including W Court Street (13 crashes), W Sylvester Street (7 crashes) and W Lewis Street (5
crashes).
• About two-thirds (61%) of pedestrian-involved crashes occurred during daylight conditions.
• 22% (12 crashes) were caused by drivers failing to yield the right of way and 20% were caused
by driver inattention.
• 11 crashes were hit and run
• 26 crashes occurred at a marked crosswalk
• 16 crashes involved a ped crossing at an intersection with a signal
• 6 crashes involved a ped crossing at an intersection with no signal
BICYCLE SAFETY
26 crashes involved a bicyclist over the past five years.
• 77% of crashes occurred at an intersection.
• 2 crashes occurred at the intersections of W Argent Rd/ Road 100 and W Court St/Route 395
Northbound off ramps.
• 3 crashes occurred along these two segments: N 4th Ave and N 20th Ave.
• 54% of crashes involved a vehicle that was making a turning movement: 8 crashes making a
left turn and 6 crashes making a right turn.
• 5 crashes occurred in dark conditions, including one reported with no streetlights on. The
remaining crashes occurred during daylight conditions.
• 8 crashes reported the cyclist with “inattention” and 4 crashes where the cyclist did not grant
right-of-way to vehicle.
Most of the crashes involving a bicyclist were caused by drivers failing to yield the right of way
when turning or crossing (64 percent). The remaining crashes were caused by either a bicycle or
motorist failing to obey traffic control devices. All bicycle crashes occurred during the day.
Page 145 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
5
INTERSECTION SAFETY
52% of crashes occur at intersections and 27% of crashes were within 75 feet of a signalized
intersection. Table 1 shows the weighted crash rate based on crash severity and frequency.
TABLE 1 : INTERSECTIONS WITH H IGH CRASH RATES
* Weighted total is based on the severity of the crash = PDO+ 10(Possible Injury +Suspected Minor Injury) +
100*(Suspected Serious Injury).
3 Intersection Crash Rate Formula in Section 3.2.2:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1210/s3.cfm
# LOCATION
NO
APPARENT
INJURY
POSSIBLE
INJURY
SUSPECTED
MINOR
INJURY
SUSPECTED
SERIOUS
INJURY
GRAND
TOTAL
WEIGHTED
TOTAL *
APPROXIMATE
AADT
CRASH
RATE 3
1 W COURT ST
AND RD 68 20 13 3 0 36 180 9830 2.01
2 SYLVESTER ST
AND RD 28 28 9 1 1 39 228 14640 1.46
3 BURDEN BLVD
AND RD 68 77 22 2 2 103 517 48370 1.17
4 20TH AVE AND
W COURT ST 45 18 4 0 67 265 26990 1.36
5
SANDIFUR
PKWY AND RD
68 26 13 2 0 41 176 23070 0.97
6
BURDEN BLVD
AND
CONVENTION
PL
32 16 1 1 50 302 43960 0.62
7 W COURT ST
AND 26TH AVE 21 8 4 0 33 141 25340 0.71
8 RD 68 AND EB
RAMPS 55 13 2 0 70 205 42970 0.89
9 RD 68 AND WB
RAMPS 46 15 3 0 64 226 48260 0.73
10
BURDEN BLVD
AND CLEMENTE
LN 39 11 1 0 51 159 43560 0.64
Page 146 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
0
SEGMENT SAFETY
Six study segments were selected based on the number of crashes per mile, as summarized in Table 2 below. The combined number of
crashes for all six segments make up 57% of total crashes within the City of Pasco.
TABLE 2 : STUDY SEGMENTS CRASH DATA SUMMARY
4 Average AADT was an average of the volume collected from Pasco Tube Counts in 2018: https://data-cityofpasco.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/pasco-
tube-counts-2018
5 Crash rate was calculated using Section 3.2.1 Road Segment Rate Calculation: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1210/s3.cfm
# STUDY
SEGMENT UNKNOWN
NO
APPARENT
INJURY
POSSIBLE
INJURY
SUSPECTED
MINOR
INJURY
SUSPECTED
SERIOUS
INJURY
DIED IN
HOSPITAL
GRAND
TOTAL PEDESTRIAN
CRASHES
BICYCLIST
CRASHES
APPROX.
STUDY
CORRIDOR
LENGTH IN
MILES
AVERAGE
AADT 4
CRASH
RATE 5
1 BURDEN
BLVD
0 253 67 6 4 0 330 1 0 0.48 9447 3987.64
2 20TH AVE 0 236 58 12 3 0 309 6 4 2.0 7046 1201.50
3 SYLVESTER
ST
6 177 61 13 4 1 262 7 0 4.12 3673 948.68
4 LEWIS ST 4 227 79 12 3 0 325 6 6 4.22 4828 874.06
5 RD 68 2 391 119 18 3 0 533 0 0 3.07 13687 695.05
6 COURT ST 5 373 126 25 2 0 531 11 2 6.68 6710 522.43
Pa
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
0
APPENDIX A – DETAILE D DIAGRAMS OF CRASH DATA
Figure 2: Heat Map of All Crashes within the City of Pasco.
Page 148 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
1
Figure 3: Location of Crashes Including Suspected Serious Injury and Fatality.
Page 149 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
2
Figure 4: Location of Pedestrian Crashes Based on Crash Severity.
Page 150 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
3
Figure 5: Location of Bicycle Crashes Based on Crash Severity.
Page 151 of 465
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
0
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL S AFETY ANALYSIS FOR COURT STREET AND SYLVESTER STREET
COURT ST
Pa
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
1
Pa
g
e
1
5
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
2
Top 6 Crash types along the Corridor:
Reasons for Collison Type:
COLLISON TYPE NUMBER OF
CRASHES
ENTERING AT ANGLE 185
➢ DID NOT GRANT RW TO VEHICLE 66
➢ INATTENTION 50
➢ DISREGARD STOP AND G O LIGHT 19
➢ IMPROPER TURN 14
➢ DISREGARD STOP SIGN - FLASHING RED 8
➢ NONE 7
➢ OTHER 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Entering at angle
From same direction - both going straight - one stopped - rear-end
From opposite direction - one left turn - one straight
From same direction - both going straight - both moving - rear-end
From same direction - both going straight - both moving - sideswipe
Fixed object
Other
Crash Type
No Apparent Injury Possible Injury Suspected Minor Injury Suspected Serious Injury Unknown
Pa
g
e
1
5
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
3
➢ EXCEEDING REAS. SAFE SPEED 5
➢ UNKNOWN DRIVER DISTR ACTION 5
➢ UNDER INFLUENCE OF A LCOHOL 1
➢ OTHER DRIVER DISTRAC TIONS INSIDE VEHICLE 1
➢ DRIVER DISTRACTIONS OUTSIDE VEHICLE 1
➢ DRIVER NOT DISTRACTE D 1
➢ IMPROPER BACKING 1
FROM SAME DIRECTION - BOTH GOING STRAIGH T - ONE STOPPED - REAR-END 126
➢ FOLLOW TOO CLOSELY 56
➢ INATTENTION 35
➢ OPERATING DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT 7
➢ OTHER 6
➢ NONE 5
➢ EXCEEDING REAS. SAFE SPEED 4
➢ DID NOT GRANT RW TO VEHICLE 2
➢ UNKNOWN DRIVER DISTR ACTION 2
➢ APPARENTLY ASLEEP 1
➢ DRIVER OPERATING HAN DHELD TELECOMMUNICAT 1
➢ DRIVER NOT DISTRACTE D 1
➢ APPARENTLY FATIGUED 1
➢ UNDER INFLUENCE OF A LCOHOL 1
➢ DRIVER DISTRACTIONS OUTSIDE VEHICLE 1
➢ DRIVER INTERACTING W ITH PASSENGERS, ANIM 1
➢ DRIVER OPERATING OTH ER ELECTRONIC DEVICE 1
➢ DRIVER READING OR WR ITING 1
FROM OPPOSITE DIRECT ION - ONE LEFT TURN - ONE STRAIGHT 65
➢ DID NOT GRANT RW TO VEHICLE 27
➢ IMPROPER TURN 12
➢ INATTENTION 10
➢ NONE 6
➢ OTHER 3
➢ UNDER INFLUENCE OF A LCOHOL 2
Pa
g
e
1
5
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
4
➢ DISREGARD STOP AND G O LIGHT 2
➢ DISREGARD YIELD SIGN - FLASHING YELLOW 2
➢ DISREGARD STOP SIGN - FLASHING RED 1
Other Crash Data:
Crash Distribution by Junction Type
At Intersection and Related
At Driveway
Not at Intersection and Not
Related
Intersection Related but Not at
Intersection
At Intersection and Not Related
At Driveway within Major
Intersection
Crash Distribution by Lighting Conditions
Daylight
Dark-Street Lights On
Dusk
Dark-No Street Lights
Dark-Street Lights Off
Dawn
Other
Pa
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
5
SYLVESTER ST
Pa
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
6
Pa
g
e
1
5
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
7
Top 6 Crash types along the Sylvester Corridor:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Entering at angle
From opposite direction - one left turn - one straight
From same direction - both going straight - one stopped - rear-end
Fixed object
From same direction - both going straight - both moving - rear-end
One parked--one moving
Other
Crash Type
No Apparent Injury Possible Injury Suspected Minor Injury Suspected Serious Injury Died in Hospital Unknown
Pa
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
8
Crash Distribution by Junction Type
At Intersection and Related
Not at Intersection and Not Related
At Driveway
At Intersection and Not Related
Intersection Related but Not at Intersection
At Driveway within Major Intersection
Driveway Related but Not at Driveway
Crash Distribution by Lighting Conditions
Daylight
Dark-Street Lights On
Dusk
Dawn
Dark-No Street Lights
Pa
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
4
6
5
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Road 100 & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182 WB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 220 0 185 0 631 559 0 502 839
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 220 0 185 0 631 559 0 502 839
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.001.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 0 1781 0 1811 18561781 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 250 0 210 0 570 0717 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.880.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, %0 3 0 8 0 6 38 1
Cap, veh/h 0 295 0 252 0 24702430
0.00 0.17 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.72 0.000.24 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1767 0 1510 0 3532 15723474 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 250 0 210 0 717 0 570 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1767 0 1510 0 1692 1598 1721 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 4.5 13.9 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 4.5 13.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 252 0 2430 0 2470
V/C Ratio(X)0.85 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 539 0 460 0 2430 0 2470
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.000.77 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 32.3 0.0 32.2 0.0 3.8 0.013.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.00.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.2 0.06.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 0.0 35.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 460 717 A 570 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 14.2 4.0
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.0 62.0 18.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.4 46.4 24.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 6.5 13.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 4.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 161 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Road 100 & I 182 EB Off Ramp/I 182 EB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 409 0 319 0 0 0 0 781 345 210 512 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 409 0 319 0 0 0 0 781 345 210 512 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 0 1841 0 1841 1870 1796 1841 0
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 481 0 0 0 919 406 247 602 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 0 4 0 04 2 7 4
Cap, veh/h 0580 0 2006 909 393 1307 0
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.03 0.23 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3319 0 1560 0 3589 1585 1711 1841 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 481 0 0 0 919 406 247 602 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1659 0 1560 0 1749 1585 1711 1841 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 11.7 4.1 22.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 11.7 4.1 22.5 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 580 0 0 2006 909 393 1307 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.45 0.63 0.46 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1054 0 0 2006 909 565 1307 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 9.8 9.0 17.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.00.6 1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.6 1.2 11.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 11.4 9.5 18.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A A B B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 481 A 1325 849
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 10.9 15.9
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 50.5 18.6 61.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s14.4 26.4 25.4 45.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.1 14.2 13.2 24.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.8 0.8 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 162 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Road 68 & I 182 WB On/Off Ramp/I 182 WB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 193 3 463 0 620 329 0 1231 667
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 193 3 463 0 620 329 0 1231 667
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 0 1856 1856 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1353 212 3 509 0 681 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 0 5 0 5 25 2
Cap, veh/h 0 16751229 665 564 0 1662
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3374 1826 1547 0 3618 1572 0 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 00 0 681 0 1353 3 212 509
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1687 1826 1547 0 1763 1572 0 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.1 17.5 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.1 17.5 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1229 665 564 0 1662 0 1675
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.810.17 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1410 763 647 0 1662 16750
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 11.3 16.9 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.00.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.1 11.3 31.2 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS BB B C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 724 1353 681 A A
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 7.2 15.0
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 86
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.0 25.031.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.64.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.4 23.423.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 19.520.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 0.92.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 163 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Road 68 & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp/I 182 EB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 287 0 131 0 0 0 0 662 361 0 539 885
Future Volume (veh/h) 287 0 131 0 0 0 0 662 361 0 539 885
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 0 1841 18410
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 0 0 704 384 0 573 00
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 4 4
Cap, veh/h 0432 0 1535 836 0 2438
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 0 1572 0 2295 1200 0 3589 1560
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 305 0 0 0 563 525 0 573 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1714 0 1572 0 1763 1640 0 1749 1560
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.000.73 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 432 0 0 1229 1143 0 2438
V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1433 0 1229 1143 0 24380
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.65 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 5.0 5.1 0.0 0.1
LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 305 A 1088 A573
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.3 5.1 0.1
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.3 11.7 44.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.7 23.4 22.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 6.8 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.3 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 164 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: US 395 /ONOff Ramp/Morasch Ln & Argent Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 818 102 42 165 3 154 3 385 3 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 818 102 42 165 3 154 3 385 3 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1796 1796 1796 1870 1870 1870 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 1010 0 52 204 4 190 4 0 4 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 7 7 7 2 2 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 634 1476 346 1627 32 382 401 161 24 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1711 3424 67 3456 1870 1585 1435 1900 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 1010 0 52 101 107 190 4 0 4 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1711 1706 1784 1728 1870 1585 1435 1900 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.7 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.7 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 634 1476 346 811 848 382 401 161 24 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.68 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.50 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1335 2603 918 1250 1307 2052 1651 427 376 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.6 12.1 0.0 8.6 7.4 7.4 21.1 15.6 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 3.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.6 12.6 0.0 8.7 7.5 7.5 21.5 15.6 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0
AC C B A A B A A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1011 A 260 194 4A
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.6 7.7 21.4 24.7
Approach LOS B A C C
8Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.2 26.4 10.2 5.7 5.2 29.4 15.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.1 5.4 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 37.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 37.0 44.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.8 13.7 4.6 2.1 2.0 3.7 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 165 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: US 395 SB On Ramp/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 605 373 0 398 193 0 0 0 255 0 285
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 605 373 0 398 193 0 0 0 255 0 285
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 1856 18700 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 747 0 0 491 0 3520 315
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1508 0 1508 514 0 457
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3711 0 0 3711 0 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 747 0 0 491 0 315 0 352
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 0 0 1763 0 1781 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 5.4 0.0 7.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 5.4 0.0 7.2
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1508 0 1508 514 0 457
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.33 0.61 0.00 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 5502 0 5502 0 11241264
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 10.8 0.0 11.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 11.3 0.0 12.5
LnGrp LOS AA A A BA B
Approach Vol, veh/h 747 A 491 A 667
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.4 6.8 11.9
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.1 15.2 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 25.0 55.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 9.2 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 1.0 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 166 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: US 395 NB Off Ramp/US 395 NB On Ramp & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 280 580 0 0 416 428 175 0 213 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 280 580 0 0 416 428 175 0 213 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1841 1841 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 318 659 0 0 473 486 199 0 242
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 4 4 2 0 2
Cap, veh/h 559 2185 0 0 1324 591 345 0 307
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.00 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3589 1560 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 318 659 0 0 473 486 199 0 242
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 0 0 1749 1560 1781 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 15.1 5.4 0.0 7.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 15.1 5.4 0.0 7.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 559 2185 0 0 1324 591 345 0 307
V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 957 3549 0 0 3521 1570 797 0 709
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.3 4.8 0.0 0.0 12.0 15.0 19.6 0.0 20.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.0 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.7 2.0 0.0 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.6 4.8 0.0 0.0 12.0 16.2 20.2 0.0 22.3
CA B B A C A A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 977 959 441
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.7 14.1 21.3
Approach LOS A B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 86
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.2 12.9 25.3 15.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.0 20.0 54.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 7.1 17.1 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 0.60.4 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 167 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
8: Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 388 161 0 85 163
Future Vol, veh/h 0 388 161 0 85 163
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 3 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
-0 0 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 12 12 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 456 189 0 100 192
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 192 0 - 0 648 192
Stage 1 - 192 -- - -
Stage 2 - 456 -- - -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1375 - - - 435 850
Stage 1 - - - - 841 -
Stage 2 - - - - 638 -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1371 - - - 432 848
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 432 -
Stage 1 - -838 - - -
Stage 2 - -636 - - -
Approach SBWB EB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 15.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1371 - - - 638
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.457
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 15.3
- CHCM Lane LOS A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 2.4
Page 168 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
9: 20th Ave & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182 WB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 114 0 259 211 980 0 0 493 229
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 114 0 259 211 980 0 0 493 229
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.001.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.001.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 0 0 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 624 2900 267 1241 0 144 0 328
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.790.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Percent Heavy Veh, %3 30 2 2 0 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 888 4130 425 2067 0 447 0 398
Arrive On Green 0.38 0.380.00 0.12 0.58 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1767 0 1572 1781 3647 2429 1085
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 144 0 328 267 1241 471 443
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1767 0 1572 1781 1777 1763 1658
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 13.713.6 5.0 13.6 11.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 13.713.6 5.0 13.6 11.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 0.00 0.65
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 447 0 631670 425 2067 398
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.700.70 0.63 0.60 0.82
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 848 0 656 2942 755 1459 1373
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 11.3 8.1 21.3 15.8 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.3 3.3 1.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 4.0 4.4 5.1 4.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.7 0.0 24.6 11.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 17.2 17.3
LnGrp LOS BB A C B A A A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 472 1508 914
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 9.0 17.2
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.1 12.2 28.0 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 15.0 50.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 7.0 15.7 13.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.9 0.3 7.2 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 169 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 20th Ave & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 663 335 116 528 440 167
Future Volume (veh/h) 663 335 116 528 440 167
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1856 1856 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 850 429 149 677 564 214
Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 3 3 4 4
Cap, veh/h 1104 506 414 1848 830 314
Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.52 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1598 1767 3618 2572 939
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 850 429 149 677 397 381
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1742 1598 1767 1763 1749 1670
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 14.5 2.8 6.5 11.3 11.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 14.5 2.8 6.5 11.3 11.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1104 506 414 1848 585 559
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.85 0.36 0.37 0.68 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1204 552 678 3046 1511 1443
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.9 18.5 10.5 8.1 16.6 16.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 11.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.0 13.2 0.9 2.0 4.2 4.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.7 29.5 10.7 8.2 18.0 18.1
BB A B C LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1279 826 778
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 8.7 18.0
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.9 22.9 11.0 24.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 20.0 15.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 16.5 4.8 13.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 1.8 0.1 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 170 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 4th Ave & US 395 WB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 111 140 243 202 100
Future Volume (veh/h) 42 111 140 243 202 100
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1633 1633 1781 1781 1707 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 117 147 256 213 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 18 18 8 8 13 13
Cap, veh/h 333 297 538 971 302 149
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.54 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1555 1384 1697 1781 1079 532
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 117 147 256 0 318
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1555 1384 1697 1781 0 1612
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 2.8 1.9 2.9 0.0 6.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 2.8 1.9 2.9 0.0 6.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 297 538 971 0 451
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.39 0.27 0.26 0.00 0.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1221 1087 1180 1399 0 1265
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 12.9 6.9 4.6 0.0 12.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 13.5 7.0 4.8 0.0 14.4
BA A A B B LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 161 403 318
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 5.6 14.4
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.4 12.8 10.1 15.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 20.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 4.8 3.9 8.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 0.4 0.2 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 171 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 4th Ave & US 395 EB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 12
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 458 154 252 247 66
Future Volume (veh/h) 131 458 154 252 247 66
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1767 1767 1707 1707
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 539 181 296 291 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 9 9 13 13
Cap, veh/h 672 598 394 774 407 343
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.11 0.44 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1535 1682 1767 1707 1441
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 539 181 296 291 78
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1725 1535 1682 1767 1707 1441
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 19.2 4.3 6.6 9.1 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 19.2 4.3 6.6 9.1 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 598 394 774 407 343
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.90 0.46 0.38 0.72 0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 891 793 781 912 1046 883
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 16.7 13.6 11.0 20.3 17.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 10.3 0.3 0.3 2.4 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.2 15.7 1.4 2.3 3.6 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 27.0 13.9 11.3 22.7 18.2
BC B B C B LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 693 477 369
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 12.3 21.7
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.5 27.6 11.6 18.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 30.0 20.0 35.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 21.2 6.3 11.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 1.4 0.2 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 172 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
13: US 395 & Foster Wells Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 13
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 2 59 6 5 6 202 591 6 5 446 13
Future Vol, veh/h 8 2 59 6 5 6 202 591 6 5 446 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - - - - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 20 20 20 36 36 36 21 21 21 25 25 25
Mvmt Flow 215 629 6 5 474 146 5 6 63 9 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1238 1556 244 1310 1560 318 488 0 0 635 0 0
Stage 1 491 491 - 1062 1062 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 747 1065 - 248 498 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.9 6.9 7.3 8.22 7.22 7.62 4.52 - - 4.6 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.9 5.9 - 7.22 6.22 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.9 5.9 - 7.22 6.22 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.86 4.36 3.66 2.41 - - 2.45 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 114 94 704 87 80 587 949 - - 804 - -
483 504 - 186 234 - - - - - - - Stage 1
333 261 - 646 465 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 87 72 704 64 61 587 949 - - 804 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 87 72 - 64 61 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 373 501 - 144 181 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 247 202 - 582 462 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 18.5 54.1 2.5 0.1
HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)-- 804 91 339 - 949 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.226 - - 0.217 0.199 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 18.5 54.1 9.5 - -
A C - F - -A HCM Lane LOS -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.8 0.7 0 - -
Page 173 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
14: Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp & Kartchner St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 14
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 59 31 0 86 235 139 0 35 11 27 9 2
Future Vol, veh/h 59 31 0 86 235 139 0 35 11 27 9 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 190 - - 550 - 550 200 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-- - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 26 26 26 22 22 22 38 38 38 24 24 24
Mvmt Flow 0 36 69 101 276 164 0 41 13 32 11 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 440 0 0 37 0 0 742 817 37 679 653 276
Stage 1 - - - - - - 175 175 - 478 478 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 567 642 - 201 175 -
Critical Hdwy 4.36 - - 4.32 - - 7.48 6.88 6.58 7.34 6.74 6.44
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.48 5.88 - 6.34 5.74 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.48 5.88 - 6.34 5.74 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.434 - - 2.398 - - 3.842 4.342 3.642 3.716 4.216 3.516
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 - - 1454 - - 290 274 941 338 360 713
750 691 - 529 520 -- - - - Stage 1 - -
Stage 2 450 417 - 753 714 -- - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 - - 1453 - - 253 237 940 260 311 713
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 253 237 - 260 311 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 698 643 - 492 484 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 408 388 - 647 664 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.8 1.4 20.3 19.4
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)- 289 1004 - - 1453 - - 260 347
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.187 0.069 - - 0.07 - - 0.122 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 20.3 8.9 - - 7.7 - - 20.8 15.8
C CHCM Lane LOS A C A - - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.7 0.2 - - 0.2 - - 0.4 0.1
Page 174 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
15: Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off Ramp & Kartchner St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 15
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 12.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 13 42 2 80 4 106 45 9 141 149 273
Future Vol, veh/h 12 13 42 2 80 4 106 45 9 141 149 273
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 250 - - 200 - - 225 - - 260 - 110
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 44 44 44 29 29 29 54 54 54 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 164 173 31710 52 123 5 93 49 15 14 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 98 0 0 64 0 0 413 170 40 199 192 96
Stage 1 -100 100 - 68 68 - - - - - -
Stage 2 -- - - - - - - 92 99 345 102
Critical Hdwy 4.54 - - 4.39 - - 7.64 7.04 6.74 7.2 6.6 6.3
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.64 6.04 - 6.2 5.6 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.64 6.04 - 6.2 5.6 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.596 - - 2.461 - - 3.986 4.486 3.786 3.59 4.09 3.39
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1269 - - 1383 - - 468 639 901 743 689 939
Stage 1 - - - - - - 827 747 - 887 797 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 575 720 - 888 803 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1269 - - 1383 - - 247 631 901 681 681 939
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 247 631 - 681 681 -
Stage 1 - 818 739 - 877 796 -- - - - -
Stage 2 - 297 719 - 807 794 -- - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0.2 25.8 11.4
HCM LOS D B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Capacity (veh/h)247 664 1269 - - 1383 - - 681 681 939
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.499 0.095 0.011 - - 0.002 - - 0.241 0.254 0.338
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.3 11 7.9 - - 7.6 - - 12 12.1 10.8
HCM Lane LOS D B A - - A - - B B B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 0.3 0 - - 0 - - 0.9 1 1.5
Page 175 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
16: Hwy 12 EB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St & Hwy 12 EB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 16
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 381 58 61 72 0 0 268 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 381 58 61 72 0 0 268 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - None - -
Storage Length - - 275 350 - - - 0 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 -
-0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 7 7 27 27 27 8 8 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0353 0 95 76 501 0 80
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 577 0 0 - 501 - 95
Stage 1 - - -- - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - -- - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.22- - - 4.37 - - 6.28
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.443 - - - 3.372 - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 884 - 0 0 558 0 962
0 Stage 1 0 - - - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 0 0 - - - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 884 - - - 558 - 962
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - -- - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - -- - - - - -
Approach EB WB SENB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.3 021.9
HCM LOS AC
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT SELn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 884 - - 558 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.632 - - 0.091 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 21.9 - - 9.5 - 0
C - - A- HCM Lane LOS A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.4 - - 0.3 - -
Page 176 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
17: Hwy 12 WB Off Ramp/Hwy 12 WB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 17
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 183 466 0 0 119 176 0 0 74 0 0 14
Future Vol, veh/h 183 466 0 0 119 176 0 0 74 0 0 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 330 - - - - 270 - - 0 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % 0 -- -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 8 8 27 27 27 33 33 33 17 17 17
Mvmt Flow 213 542 0 0 138 205 0 0 86 0 0 16
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 343 0 - - - 0 - - 542 - - 138
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - - - - - - 6.53 - - 6.37
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - - - - - - 3.597 - - 3.453
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1183 - 0 0 - - 0 0 485 0 0 872
- 0 -0 0 0 - - 0 0 - Stage 1 -
Stage 2 - 0 -0 0 0 - - 0 0 - -
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1183 - - - - - - - 485 - - 872
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 -- - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 -- - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.5 0 14 9.2
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)485 1183 - - - 872
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.18 - - - 0.019
HCM Control Delay (s) 14 8.7 - - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS B A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.7 - - - 0.1
Page 177 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Hwy 12 & E A St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 18
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 167 79 734 787 55
Future Vol, veh/h 96 167 79 734 787 55
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Free - None - Free
Storage Length 0 - 290 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
0 0 - - -Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 12 12 13 13 18 18
Mvmt Flow 100 174 82 765 820 57
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1367 - 820 0 - 0
-- - - Stage 1 820 -
-- - - Stage 2 547 -
Critical Hdwy 7.04 - 4.36 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.04 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.04 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.62 - 2.33 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 126 0 738 - - 0
- 0- - 0 369 Stage 1
- 0- - 0 516 Stage 2
- -Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 112 - 738 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 112 - - - - -
- Stage 1 328 - - - -
- Stage 2 516 - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 129.2 1 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h)112 738 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 - 0.893 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 - 129.2 -
-F HCM Lane LOS B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 5.4 -
Page 178 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
19: Road 68 & Burden Blvd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 43 319 875 92 91 265 537 421 62 522 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 24 43 319 875 92 91 265 537 421 62 522 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1885 1885 1885 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 46 343 941 99 98 285 577 0 67 561 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 1259339 545 461 371 253 241 1006 301066 85
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.36 0.00 0.05 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1569 3483 1885 1596 3401 3497 1560 1767 3500 100
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 46 343 941 99 98 285 577 0 67 282 295
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1569 1742 1885 1596 1700 1749 1560 1767 1763 1837
10.9 17.517.5 5.0 0.0 16.7 5.2 6.1 34.7 18.0 2.9 1.7 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 2.9 18.0 34.7 5.2 6.1 10.9 16.7 0.0 5.0 17.5 17.5
0.051.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 241 253 371 1006 545 461 339 1259 56085 537
V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.84 0.460.21 0.94 0.18 0.11 0.93 0.530.79 0.53
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 241 253 371 1108 600 508 696 1259 560187 537
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 50.5 49.3 45.7 35.2 35.6 58.4 32.4 0.0 62.1 38.0 38.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 28.1 12.9 0.1 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.0 5.8 3.7 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 1.4 13.9 16.8 2.4 2.4 4.8 7.2 0.0 2.4 8.1 8.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.0 50.6 77.4 58.7 35.3 35.6 60.5 33.6 0.0 68.0 41.7 41.5
D LnGrp LOS D D E E D E C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 415 1138 862 A 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.7 54.6 42.5 44.3
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.2 45.7 43.6 11.9 53.0 23.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 34.0 42.0 14.0 47.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 19.5 36.7 7.0 18.7 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 179 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Road 100 & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182 WB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 325 0 238 0 1299 351 0 464 655
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 325 0 238 0 1299 351 0 464 655
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.001.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 0 1885 0 1885 18701885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 378 0 277 0 540 01510 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.860.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, %0 1 0 1 0 1 21 1
Cap, veh/h 0 429 0 382 0 22542254
0.00 0.24 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.63 0.001.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1795 0 1598 0 3676 15853676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 378 0 277 0 1510 0 540 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1795 0 1598 0 1791 1598 1791 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.2 0.0 11.2 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.2 0.0 11.2 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 0 382 0 2254 0 2254
V/C Ratio(X)0.88 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 651 0 580 0 2254 0 2254
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.002.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.81 0.000.54 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 25.7 0.0 24.5 0.0 5.7 0.00.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 6.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.00.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 6.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.4 0.00.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.9 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 655 1510 540 A A
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 0.9 5.9
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.7 48.7 21.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.4 35.4 25.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.6 16.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 13.8 3.8 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 180 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Road 100 & I 182 EB Off Ramp/I 182 EB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1005 0 716 0 0 0 0 645 281 194 595 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 1005 0 716 0 0 0 0 645 281 194 595 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 0 1885 1870 1870 1885 1885 00
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1142 0 0 733 319 220 676 00
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0
01271 Cap, veh/h 0 1192 529 375 949 0
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.14 0.67 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 0 1598 0 3647 1578 1795 1885 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1142 0 0 0 733 319 220 676 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1742 0 1598 0 1777 1578 1795 1885 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.8 5.3 15.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.8 5.3 15.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1271 0 0 1192 529 375 949 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.71 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1562 0 0 1192 529 381 949 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 19.4 13.2 8.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.3 4.6 4.0 0.0 2.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln8.8 0.0 0.0 0.01.8 4.4 4.6 0.0 4.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 23.9 14.5 12.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A AB B C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1142 A 1052 896
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 22.3 12.9
Approach LOS C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.8 28.1 30.1 39.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.4 17.4 31.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.3 14.1 23.7 17.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.9 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 181 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Road 68 & I 182 WB On/Off Ramp/I 182 WB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 195 0 1108 0 1749 219 0 1334 653
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 195 0 1108 0 1749 219 0 1334 653
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 0 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1375 201 0 1142 0 1803 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1
Cap, veh/h 0 15351429 774 656 0 1547
Arrive On Green 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 1900 1610 0 3705 1610 0 3676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 00 0 1803 0 1375 0 201 1142
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1900 1610 0 1805 1610 0 1791 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1429 774 656 0 1547 0 1535
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.900.14 0.00 1.74 0.00 1.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1429 774 656 0 1547 15350
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.0 16.6 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 340.2 0.0 78.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.00.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 68.9 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.5 0.0 356.8 0.0 102.5 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS BB A F A F A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1343 1375 1803 A A
Approach Delay, s/veh 305.0 102.5 18.6
Approach LOS F F B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 86
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.6 27.428.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.64.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 22.824.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 26.0 24.821.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.01.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 137.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 182 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Road 68 & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp/I 182 EB On Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1225 0 539 0 0 0 0 743 167 0 708 821
Future Volume (veh/h) 1225 0 539 0 0 0 0 743 167 0 708 821
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 0 1900 0 1885 1885 0 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1289 0 0 0 782 176 0 745 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 1
Cap, veh/h 01291 0 1328 299 0 1637
Arrive On Green 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.76 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 0 1610 0 2998 654 0 3676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1289 0 0 0 482 476 0 745 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1755 0 1610 0 1791 1767 0 1791 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 0.0 4.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 0.0 4.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1291 0 0 819 808 0 1637
V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1291 0 0 819 808 0 1637
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3 0.0 4.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.00.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.5 0.0 0.0 0.01.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 14.4 0.0 4.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS D A AA B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1289 A 958 745 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.3 14.4 4.6
Approach LOS D B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.9 25.1 30.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.5 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.6 20.6 25.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 22.5 6.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.5 0.0 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 183 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: US 395 /ONOff Ramp/Morasch Ln & Argent Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 448 46 142 527 11 473 10 125 12 2 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 18 448 46 142 527 11 473 10 125 12 2 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 509 0 161 599 12 538 11 0 14 2 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 327 807 423 1137 23 708 655 219 9 81
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.35 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 3357 1497 1795 3591 72 3456 1870 1585 1426 164 1472
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 509 0 161 299 312 538 11 0 14 0 20
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1682 1678 1497 1795 1791 1872 1728 1870 1585 1426 0 1635
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 7.0 0.0 3.2 7.0 7.0 7.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 7.0 0.0 3.2 7.0 7.0 7.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
910 219 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 807 423 567 593 708 655
V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.63 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.76 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 934 2422 935 1292 1351 2022 1627 418 0 319
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 17.4 0.0 12.2 14.4 14.4 19.2 10.9 0.0 23.1 0.0 23.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 2.3 0.0 1.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.0 18.3 0.0 12.4 15.1 15.1 19.8 10.9 0.0 23.2 0.0 23.6
B A CC B B B B B LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h 529 A 772 34549 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 14.5 19.7 23.4
Approach LOS B B B C
8Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.5 17.7 15.1 7.9 6.6 21.6 23.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.1 5.4 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 37.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 37.0 44.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.2 9.0 9.5 2.6 2.5 9.0 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 184 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: US 395 SB On Ramp/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 740 458 0 668 304 0 0 0 279 0 407
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 740 458 0 668 304 0 0 0 279 0 407
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1885 1885 18850 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 787 0 0 711 0 4330 297
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1
Cap, veh/h 0 1428 0 1439 596 0 530
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3741 0 0 3770 0 1795 0 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 787 0 0 711 0 297 0 433
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 0 0 1791 0 1795 0 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 9.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 9.3
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1428 0 1439 596 0 530
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.49 0.50 0.00 0.82
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 5208 0 5250 0 10641196
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 11.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 10.3 0.0 12.7
LnGrp LOS AA A A BA B
Approach Vol, veh/h 787 A 711 A 730
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.7 8.5 11.7
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.1 17.4 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 25.0 55.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 11.3 7.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 1.1 3.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 185 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: US 395 NB Off Ramp/US 395 NB On Ramp & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 341 678 0 0 749 585 223 1 302 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 341 678 0 0 749 585 223 1 302 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 355 706 0 0 780 609 232 1 315
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 445 2296 0 0 1586 707 407 0 362
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.22 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1810 0 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 355 706 0 0 780 609 232 0 315
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1795 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1810 0 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 25.6 8.5 0.0 14.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 11.5 25.6 8.5 0.0 14.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 445 2296 0 0 1586 707 407 0 362
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.86 0.57 0.00 0.87
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 692 3849 0 0 2646 1180 608 0 541
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.2 6.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 18.7 25.7 0.0 27.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.0 6.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.8 3.5 0.0 5.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 20.4 26.1 0.0 34.7
CA C B A C A B LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1061 1389 547
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.6 17.3 31.1
Approach LOS A B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 86
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.7 14.7 38.0 21.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.0 20.0 55.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 9.3 27.6 16.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.70.4 5.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 186 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
8: Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 12.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 343 366 0 114 226
Future Vol, veh/h 0 343 366 0 114 226
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
-0 0 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 3 3 1 1
Mvmt Flow 0 404 431 0 134 266
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 431 0 - 0 835 431
Stage 1 - 431 -- - -
Stage 2 - 404 -- - -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.41 6.21
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.41 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.41 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.509 3.309
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1129 - - - 339 626
Stage 1 - - - - 657 -
Stage 2 - - - - 676 -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1129 - - - 339 626
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 339 -
Stage 1 - -657 - - -
Stage 2 - -676 - - -
Approach SBWB EB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 37.9
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1129 - - - 488
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.82
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 37.9
- EHCM Lane LOS A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 7.9
Page 187 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
9: 20th Ave & I 182 WB On Ramp/I 182 WB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 374 1 302 318 604 0 0 473 482
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 374 1 302 318 604 0 0 473 482
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.001.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.001.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 531 5420 0 357 679 339 420 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.890.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %1 10 0 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 746 6640 0 394 2195 434 487 1
Arrive On Green 0.42 0.420.00 0.00 0.14 0.61 0.27 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1791 4 1598 1795 3676 1885 1594
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 421 0 542339 357 679 531
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1796 0 1598 1795 1791 1791 1594
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 21.3 26.117.0 9.8 7.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 21.3 26.117.0 9.8 7.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 488 0 746 664434 394 2195
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.71 0.820.78 0.91 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 622 0 1034 920553 455 2894
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 21.0 22.429.2 18.7 8.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 1.4 4.14.9 18.6 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 8.7 9.96.9 5.6 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.3 0.0 34.1 37.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 22.4 26.5
LnGrp LOS CD A C D A A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 760 1036 1073
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.0 18.2 24.4
Approach LOS D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.1 17.0 41.1 28.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 15.0 50.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 11.8 28.1 21.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.6 0.2 8.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 188 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: 20th Ave & I 182 EB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 285 450 134 637 748 99
Future Volume (veh/h) 285 450 134 637 748 99
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1885 1885 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 297 469 140 664 779 103
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 1 1 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1084 497 381 1897 1106 146
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.53 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1585 1795 3676 3248 417
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 297 469 140 664 439 443
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1585 1795 1791 1777 1795
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 18.4 2.8 6.8 13.6 13.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 18.4 2.8 6.8 13.6 13.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1084 497 381 1897 623 629
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.94 0.37 0.35 0.70 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1084 497 622 3932 1393 1407
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 21.3 11.7 8.7 17.9 17.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 26.8 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 17.7 1.0 2.2 5.3 5.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.6 48.1 11.9 8.8 19.3 19.3
BB A B B LnGrp LOS D
Approach Vol, veh/h 766 804 882
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.9 9.3 19.3
Approach LOS D A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.8 25.0 11.4 27.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.0 20.0 15.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 20.4 4.8 15.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 0.0 0.1 6.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 189 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: 4th Ave & US 395 WB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 256 394 270 323 245
Future Volume (veh/h) 60 256 394 270 323 245
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1752 1752 1811 1811
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 298 458 314 376 285
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 10 10 6 6
Cap, veh/h 377 336 481 1141 340 257
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.65 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1459 1668 1752 956 725
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70 298 458 314 0 661
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1640 1459 1668 1752 0 1681
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 16.7 18.4 6.4 0.0 30.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 16.7 18.4 6.4 0.0 30.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 336 481 1141 0 597
V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.89 0.95 0.28 0.00 1.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 583 519 481 1141 0 597
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 31.4 23.9 6.2 0.0 27.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 10.1 29.2 0.1 0.0 69.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 0.9 7.9 2.1 0.0 22.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.3 41.5 53.1 6.4 0.0 96.8
FA A D D C LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 368 772 661
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.6 34.1 96.8
Approach LOS D C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 60.0 24.4 25.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 30.0 20.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 18.7 20.4 32.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 58.0
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 190 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: 4th Ave & US 395 EB On/Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 12
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 133 271 92 531 498 81
Future Volume (veh/h) 133 271 92 531 498 81
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1841 1841 1826 1826
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 308 105 603 566 92
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 4 4 5 5
Cap, veh/h 416 370 377 1040 685 579
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.57 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 1447 1753 1841 1826 1543
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 308 105 603 566 92
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1626 1447 1753 1841 1826 1543
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 11.3 1.7 11.8 15.7 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 11.3 1.7 11.8 15.7 2.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 370 377 1040 685 579
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.83 0.28 0.58 0.83 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 872 776 828 1810 979 828
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.1 19.7 10.3 7.9 15.8 11.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 3.7 0.1 0.5 4.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 0.4 0.5 3.6 6.4 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 23.3 10.5 8.4 19.8 11.7
BB A B B LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h 459 708 658
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 8.7 18.7
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 19.3 10.6 26.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 30.0 20.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 13.3 3.7 17.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 1.1 0.1 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 191 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
13: US 395 & Foster Wells Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 13
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 2 169 13 9 6 56 593 4 2 908 9
Future Vol, veh/h 11 2 169 13 9 6 56 593 4 2 908 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 17 17 17 21 21 21 17 17 17
Mvmt Flow 2 4 638 60 6 10 2 182 12 976 14 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1429 1747 493 1253 1750 321 986 0 0 642 0 0
985 985 - 760 760 - - - - - - - Stage 1
444 762 - 493 990 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.84 6.84 7.24 4.52 - - 4.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.84 5.84 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.84 5.84 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.17 3.47 2.41 - - 2.37 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 95 85 522 113 73 633 592 - - 844 - -
Stage 1 266 324 - 333 378 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 563 412 - 489 291 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 77 76 522 66 65 633 592 - - 844 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 77 76 - 66 65 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 239 323 - 299 340 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 487 370 - 316 290 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25.3 73.7 1 0
HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)- -844 81 369 - 592 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.102 - - 0.53 0.372 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 - - 25.3 73.7 9.3 - -
A D - F - -B HCM Lane LOS -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 3 1.4 0 - -
Page 192 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
14: Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off Ramp & Kartchner St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 14
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 45.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 296 55 1 34 121 243 0 86 15 26 2 6
Future Vol, veh/h 296 55 1 34 121 243 0 86 15 26 2 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 190 - - 550 - 550 200 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
0 - - 0 - - 0 -- 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 18 18 18 9 9 9 48 48 48
Mvmt Flow 45 1 73 161 324 0 115 20 35 3 8395
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 485 0 0 74 0 0 1283 1439 74 1182 1115 161
Stage 1 864 864 - 251 251 -- - - - - -
Stage 2 419 575 - 931 864 -- - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.19 - - 4.28 - - 7.19 6.59 6.29 7.58 6.98 6.68
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.19 5.59 - 6.58 5.98 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.19 5.59 - 6.58 5.98 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.281 - - 2.362 - - 3.581 4.081 3.381 3.932 4.432 3.732
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1042 - - 1430 - - 137 128 969 135 172 777
- 339 362 - 662 622 -- - - - - Stage 1
Stage 2 - 598 492 - 266 314 -- - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1042 - - 1430 - - 92 ~ 77 969 - 104 777
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 92 ~ 77 - - 104 -
Stage 1 -411 603 211 225 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 -571 477 - - - - - - - 79 195
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.9 0.6 $ 363.1
HCM LOS F -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)- 89 1042 - - 1430 - - - 297
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 1.513 0.379 - - 0.032 - - - 0.036
HCM Control Delay (s) 0$ 363.1 10.5 - - 7.6 - - - 17.6
A - - B A - HCM Lane LOS - CF -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 10.5 1.8 - - 0.1 - - - 0.1
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Page 193 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
15: Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off Ramp & Kartchner St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 15
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 14 67 6 113 8 167 27 4 25 113 118
Future Vol, veh/h 15 14 67 6 113 8 167 27 4 25 113 118
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 250 - - 200 - - 225 - - 260 - 110
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-- - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 43 43 43 15 15 15 21 21 21 32 32 32
Mvmt Flow 141 14831 5 34 209 10 141 8 18 19 84
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 151 0 0 102 0 0 405 265 60 280 302 146
Stage 1 162 162 -- - 98 - - 98 - - -
Stage 2 118 140 -- - - - - - - 307 167
Critical Hdwy 4.53 - - 4.25 - - 7.31 6.71 6.41 7.42 6.82 6.52
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.31 5.71 - 6.42 5.82 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.31 5.71 - 6.42 5.82 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.587 - - 2.335 - - 3.689 4.189 3.489 3.788 4.288 3.588
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1214 - - 1413 - - 524 609 954 616 564 828
864 778 - 774 710 -- - - - - Stage 1 -
Stage 2 664 726 - 819 727 -- - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1214 - - 1413 - - 340 596 954 577 552 828
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 340 596 - 577 552 -
Stage 1 - - 850 766 - 762 706 -- - - -
Stage 2 - - 434 722 - 767 715 -- - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.4 28 12
HCM LOS D B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Capacity (veh/h)340 626 1214 - - 1413 - - 577 552 828
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.614 0.062 0.015 - - 0.005 - - 0.054 0.256 0.178
HCM Control Delay (s) 31.1 11.1 8 - - 7.6 - - 11.6 13.8 10.3
HCM Lane LOS D B A - - A - - B B B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.9 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 1 0.6
Page 194 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
16: Hwy 12 EB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St & Hwy 12 EB Off Ramp 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 16
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 183 26 45 392 0 0 101 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 183 26 45 392 0 0 101 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - None - -
Storage Length - - 275 350 - - - 0 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 -
-0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 4 4 4 12 12 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0138 0 537 36 251 0 62
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 287 0 0 - 251 - 537
Stage 1 - - -- - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - -- - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.22- - - 4.14 - - 6.32
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.236 - - - 3.408 - 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1264 - 0 0 764 0 544
0 Stage 1 0 - - - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 0 0 - - - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1264 - - - 764 - 544
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - -- - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - -- - - - - -
Approach EB WB SENB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 010.8
HCM LOS AB
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT SELn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 1264 - - 764 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.181 - - 0.049 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - - 8 - 0
B - - A- HCM Lane LOS A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.2 - -
Page 195 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
17: Hwy 12 WB Off Ramp/Hwy 12 WB On/Off Ramp & Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 17
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 129 155 0 0 289 314 2 0 68 0 0 146
Future Vol, veh/h 129 155 0 0 289 314 2 0 68 0 0 146
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 330 - - - - 270 - - 0 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % 0 -- -
Peak Hour Factor 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 7 7 5 5 5 42 42 42 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 182 218 0 0 407 442 3 0 96 0 0 206
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 849 0 - - - 0 1313 - 218 - - 407
Stage 1 - - - - - 582 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - 731 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - - - - 7.52 - 6.62 - - 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.52 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.52 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - - - - 3.878 - 3.678 - - 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 768 - 0 0 - - 112 0 731 0 0 648
- 0 -0 435 0 - - 0 0 - Stage 1 -
Stage 2 - 0 -0 357 0 - - 0 0 - -
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 768 - - - - - 62 - 731 - - 648
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 62 - - - - -
Stage 1 -- - - 332 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 -- - - 244 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.1 0 10.7 13.1
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)731 768 - - - 648
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.131 0.237 - - - 0.317
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 11.1 - - - 13.1
HCM Lane LOS B B - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.9 - - - 1.4
Page 196 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Hwy 12 & E A St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 18
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 51.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 69 96 270 1182 830 105
Future Vol, veh/h 69 96 270 1182 830 105
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Free - None - Free
Storage Length 0 - 290 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
0 0 - - -Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 8 8 10 10
Mvmt Flow 78 108 303 1328 933 118
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2203 - 933 0 - 0
-- - - Stage 1 933 -
-- - - Stage 2 1270 -
Critical Hdwy 6.92 - 4.26 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.92 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.92 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.56 - 2.28 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 36 0 693 - - 0
- 0- - 0 334 Stage 1
- 0- - 0 220 Stage 2
- -Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 20 - 693 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 20 - - - - -
- Stage 1 188 - - - -
- Stage 2 220 - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 1688.3 2.6 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h)20 693 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.438 - 3.876 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.2 -$ 1688.3 -
-F HCM Lane LOS B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - 10.1 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Page 197 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
19: Road 68 & Burden Blvd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 164 482 731 163 114 677 1051 975 129 644 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 71 164 482 731 163 114 677 1051 975 129 644 23
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 174 513 778 173 121 720 1118 0 137 685 24
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1326704 463 392 534 252 240 856 31892 161
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1885 1594 3483 1885 1596 3510 3610 1610 1795 3530 124
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 174 513 778 173 121 720 1118 0 137 347 362
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1885 1594 1742 1885 1596 1755 1805 1610 1795 1791 1863
27.0 24.224.2 10.1 0.0 38.2 10.3 8.3 29.2 18.0 11.9 5.2 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 11.9 18.0 29.2 10.3 8.3 27.0 38.2 0.0 10.1 24.2 24.2
0.071.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 252 534 856 463 392 704 1326 471161 453
V/C Ratio(X)0.37 1.02 0.840.31 0.91 0.69 0.32 0.96 0.770.85 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 252 534 1087 588 498 704 1326 471187 453
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 55.6 43.9 49.3 42.2 41.4 53.8 39.0 0.0 60.4 46.6 46.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 6.5 29.0 8.3 0.2 0.2 39.6 6.7 0.0 24.0 11.8 11.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 6.1 20.9 13.7 4.8 3.3 15.7 17.9 0.0 5.7 12.2 12.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.0 62.1 73.0 57.6 42.3 41.6 93.4 45.7 0.0 84.4 58.4 58.1
D LnGrp LOS D E E E D F D F E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 763 1072 1838 A 846
Approach Delay, s/veh 68.5 53.4 64.4 62.5
Approach LOS E D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 39.5 38.6 17.6 54.9 23.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 34.0 42.0 14.0 47.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.0 26.2 31.2 12.1 40.2 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 1.9 0.0 2.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.1
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 198 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
20: Road 100 & Dent Rd/Edelman Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 20
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 32 82 52 36 1 163 166 78 4 151 3
Future Vol, veh/h 2 32 82 52 36 1 163 166 78 4 151 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 95 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 54 38 1 85 170 173 81 4 157 32 33
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 740 761 159 780 722 214 160 0 0 254 0 0
Stage 1 167 167 - 554 554 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 573 594 - 226 168 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.1 - - 4.13 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.2 - - 2.227 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 334 336 889 313 353 826 1432 - - 1305 - -
Stage 1 837 762 - 517 514 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 506 495 - 777 759 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 275 295 889 235 310 826 1432 - - 1305 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 275 295 - 235 310 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 737 760 - 455 453 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 408 436 - 670 757 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 26 3.1 0.2
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1432 - - 558 263 1305 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.119 - - 0.217 0.353 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 13.2 26 7.8 0 -
-A A D B A - HCM Lane LOS -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.8 1.5 0 - -
Page 199 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
21: Road 100 & Sandifur Parkway 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 21
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 728 44 532 945 30 391
Future Volume (veh/h) 728 44 532 945 30 391
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1870 1885 1856 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 827 50 605 0 34 444
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 2 1 3 2
Cap, veh/h 597 9991177 1542341
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.00 0.04 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1585 3647 1598 1767 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 827 50 605 0 34 444
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1585 1777 1598 1767 1777
0.0 3.50.5 6.5 9.0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 0.9 6.5 0.0 0.5 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1177 597 999 341 1542
V/C Ratio(X)0.610.08 0.70 0.10 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1986 965 2026 1280 4458
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 8.8 13.6 0.0 9.9 8.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.5 8.9 14.2 0.0 10.0 8.1
A LnGrp LOS B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 877 605 A 478
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.3 14.2 8.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 19.8 6.7 17.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 11.0 2.5 8.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 3.8 0.1 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 200 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
22: Road 100 & Chapel Hill Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 2 2 33 8 271 3 284 21 508 504 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 2 2 33 8 271 3 284 21 508 504 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 2 2 34 8 277 3 290 21 518 514 77
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 462 406 347 489 375 330 294 821 59 706 771 115
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.48 0.46
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1844 1577 1810 1900 1610 1810 3415 246 1810 1615 242
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 2 2 34 8 277 3 153 158 518 0 591
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 1805 1616 1810 1900 1610 1810 1805 1856 1810 0 1856
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 11.3 0.1 4.8 4.9 14.0 0.0 16.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 11.3 0.1 4.8 4.9 14.0 0.0 16.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 462 397 355 489 375 330 294 434 446 706 0 886
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.84 0.01 0.35 0.36 0.73 0.00 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 585 397 355 705 415 364 546 829 852 793 0 1123
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 20.9 20.9 19.5 22.2 26.2 20.6 21.6 21.7 13.1 0.0 13.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 3.1 0.0 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 5.5 0.0 1.9 2.0 5.1 0.0 5.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.7 20.9 20.9 19.6 22.2 41.9 20.6 22.3 22.4 16.2 0.0 15.2
BA B C C C C D C C B LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h 62 319 314 1109
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 39.0 22.3 15.7
Approach LOS B D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.4 36.8 9.4 18.1 20.7 20.5 7.8 19.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.0 40.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 12.0 13.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.1 18.8 3.6 13.3 16.0 6.9 3.0 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 201 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
23: Road 100 & Argent Road 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 23
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 14 1 2 13 96 2 121 5 164 165 24
Future Vol, veh/h 9 14 1 2 13 96 2 121 5 164 165 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - Stop - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - 220 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 14 134 182 183 272 107 2 6 16 1 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 711 706 198 710 716 138 211 0 0 140 0 0
Stage 1 562 562 - 141 141 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 149 144 - 569 575 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.13 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.227 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 351 363 848 348 356 910 1354 - - 1456 - -
Stage 1 515 513 - 862 780 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 858 782 - 507 503 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 265 310 847 298 304 909 1353 - - 1456 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 265 310 - 298 304 - - - - - - -
513 440 - 860 778 - - - - - - - Stage 1
741 780 - 419 431 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 18.2 9 0.1 3.6
HCM LOS C A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1353 - - 299 298 1051 1456 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.089 0.007 0.115 0.125 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 18.2 17.2 8.9 7.8 0 -
A -A HCM Lane LOS A - C C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0 0.4 0.4 - -
Page 202 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
24: Road 84 & Argent Road 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 113 9 57 122 54 15 42 65 45 44 13
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 113 9 57 122 54 15 42 65 45 44 13
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1841 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 4 133 11 67 144 64 18 49 76 53 52 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 173 132457 566 132 138 311 124 39 473 483 529
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1674 138 1767 1216 541 105 664 872 1753 1371 395
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 4 0 144 67 0 208 143 0 0 53 0 67
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1812 1767 0 1757 1642 0 0 1753 0 1766
0.0 0.0 1.00.0 3.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.0 3.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.0
0.221.00 0.53 0.13 0.31 1.00 1.00 Prop In Lane 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 483 0 512 529 0 449 429 0 0 566 0 589
0.09 0.00 0.110.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.46 0.28 0.00 0.01 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1028 0 1836 1126 0 1780 923 0 0 1173 0 1745
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.2 0.0 11.0 10.1 0.0 12.4 13.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 9.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.2 0.0 11.5 10.3 0.0 13.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 9.2
AA B A B A A LnGrp LOS A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 148 275 143 120
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 12.7 14.3 9.8
Approach LOS B B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 85 4 6 7
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 16.2 17.7 6.7 15.1 5.3 12.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 39.0 15.0 40.0 15.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 4.4 3.0 2.1 5.9 2.9 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 203 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
25: Court Street & Road 84 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 25
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 152 136 68 55 14
Future Vol, veh/h 14 152 136 68 55 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
-0 0 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 5 5
Mvmt Flow 16 169 151 76 61 16
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 227 0 - 0 390 189
Stage 1 - 189 -- - -
Stage 2 - 201 -- - -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.45 6.25
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.45 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.45 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.545 3.345
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - - 608 845
Stage 1 - - - - 836 -
Stage 2 - - - - 826 -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - - 600 845
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 600 -
Stage 1 - -825 - - -
Stage 2 - -826 - - -
Approach SBWB EB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 11.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1341 - - - 638
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - - 0.12
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 11.4
- BHCM Lane LOS A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
Page 204 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
26: Road 68 & Edelman Road/Powerline Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 26
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 1 45 5 2 1 26 279 3 1 366 16
Future Vol, veh/h 9 1 45 5 2 1 26 279 3 1 366 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 426 191 324 30 1 2 3 52 6 1 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 825 825 436 850 833 326 445 0 0 327 0 0
438 438 - 386 386 - - - - - - - Stage 1
387 387 - 464 447 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 292 308 620 280 304 715 1115 - - 1233 - -
Stage 1 597 579 - 637 610 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 637 610 - 578 573 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 282 298 620 249 294 715 1115 - - 1233 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 282 298 - 249 294 - - - - - - -
577 578 - 616 590 - - - - - - - Stage 1
613 590 - 528 572 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 18.2 0.7 0
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1115 - - 510 283 1233 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.125 0.033 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 - 13.1 18.2 7.9 0 -
A A -HCM Lane LOS A - B C A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.1 0 - -
Page 205 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
27: Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 27
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 52 367 162 171 258 90 321 316 233 136 341 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 52 367 162 171 258 90 321 316 233 136 341 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 382 169 178 269 94 334 329 243 142 355 46
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 375 63491 293 519 631 553 486 741 482 415 359
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 1610 1810 1900 1610 1810 1999 1446 1795 3192 410
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 382 169 178 269 94 334 296 276 142 198 203
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1810 1900 1610 1810 1805 1640 1795 1791 1811
9.6 9.3 6.86.7 6.6 4.9 7.5 2.4 4.4 1.3 12.0 1.3 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 12.0 1.3 4.4 7.5 2.4 6.6 9.3 9.6 4.9 6.7 6.8
0.231.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 415 482 741 359 553 631 486 469 426 293 275 279
0.72 0.730.48 0.65 0.63 0.69 0.15 0.49 0.23 0.79 0.13 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 858 742 961 735 742 791 1102 987 897 673 560 566
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 22.3 2.8 15.8 18.7 12.6 21.7 21.0 21.1 27.2 25.8 25.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 3.3 0.2 1.1 0.7 0.1 2.5 2.0 2.4 0.5 1.3 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 5.4 0.5 1.8 3.1 0.8 4.4 3.8 3.6 1.9 2.7 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.6 25.6 3.0 16.9 19.4 12.7 24.1 23.0 23.4 27.7 27.1 27.2
B CC LnGrp LOS B C A B B C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 605 541 906 543
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 17.4 23.5 27.3
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.2 14.3 8.3 23.1 10.9 21.6 10.7 20.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 8.8 3.3 9.5 6.9 11.6 6.4 14.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 1.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 5.0 0.4 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 206 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
28: Road 68 & Chapel Hill Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 28
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 13 13 43 10 205 9 630 22 333 834 80
Future Volume (veh/h) 75 13 13 43 10 205 9 630 22 333 834 80
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 14 14 45 10 214 9 656 23 347 869 83
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 249 270 233 433 295 263 189 1351 47 554 976 917
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1823 1570 1795 1791 1598 1795 3530 124 1795 1885 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 14 14 45 10 214 9 333 346 347 869 83
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1795 1791 1603 1795 1791 1598 1795 1791 1863 1795 1885 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.3 8.8 0.2 9.6 9.6 7.2 28.1 1.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.3 8.8 0.2 9.6 9.6 7.2 28.1 1.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 249 265 238 433 295 263 189 685 713 554 976 917
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.81 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.63 0.89 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 542 394 353 697 394 352 563 1051 1093 686 1106 1028
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.0 24.9 25.0 21.2 23.9 27.4 15.2 16.0 16.0 10.0 14.7 6.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 8.7 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 3.9 0.1 3.6 3.8 2.3 12.1 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.3 25.0 25.1 21.2 24.0 37.7 15.4 16.7 16.6 10.5 23.4 6.6
AC B B B B D C C C C C LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 106 269 688 1299
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 34.4 16.6 18.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.8 39.8 7.9 15.7 14.0 30.6 9.0 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 40.0 15.0 15.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.2 30.1 4.5 10.8 9.2 11.6 3.4 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 5.9 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 207 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
29: Road 68 & Argent Road 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 29
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 214 77 28 11 97 118 22 316 10 241 399 211
Future Volume (veh/h) 214 77 28 11 97 118 22 316 10 241 399 211
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 83 30 12 104 127 24 340 11 259 429 227
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 432 401 145 387 142 173 291 456 15 427 660 560
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1301 470 1781 766 936 1795 1816 59 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 230 0 113 12 0 231 24 0 351 259 429 227
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 0 1771 1781 0 1702 1795 0 1875 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 3.2 0.4 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.0 11.6 6.7 12.9 7.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 3.2 0.4 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.0 11.6 6.7 12.9 7.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 432 0 546 387 0 316 291 0 471 427 660 560
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.08 0.00 0.75 0.61 0.65 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 961 0 790 1007 0 633 633 0 976 586 974 825
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.8 0.0 17.2 21.2 0.0 25.8 17.8 0.0 23.2 15.3 18.3 16.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.1 0.0 4.0 1.4 1.9 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.3 0.0 5.2 2.5 5.3 2.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 0.0 17.6 21.2 0.0 32.6 17.9 0.0 27.2 16.7 20.1 17.2
BC B C A B C A C B A B LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 343 243 375 915
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 32.1 26.6 18.4
Approach LOS B C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 29.2 13.9 18.0 13.0 22.4 5.6 26.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.7 14.9 8.4 10.6 8.7 13.6 2.4 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.6 0.6 1.9 0.4 3.3 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 208 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
30: Road 68 & Court Street 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 30
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 10.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 176 8 14 228 213 3 15 8 285 22 51
Future Vol, veh/h 40 176 8 14 228 213 3 15 8 285 22 51
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - Yield - - None - - Free
Storage Length 250 - - 100 - 0 - - - 130 - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 2 2 2 12 12 12 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 240 224 3 16 8 300 23 5415 8 185 42
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 240 0 0 193 0 0 555 543 189 555 547 -
Stage 1 273 273 - 270 270 -- - - - - -
Stage 2 282 270 - 285 277 -- - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.15 - - 4.12 - - 7.22 6.62 6.32 7.11 6.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.22 5.62 - 6.11 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.22 5.62 - 6.11 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.245 - - 2.218 - - 3.608 4.108 3.408 3.509 4.009 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1309 - - 1380 - - 427 433 828 444 446 0
712 666 - 738 688 0 Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 704 668 - 724 683 0- - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1309 - - 1380 - - 396 414 828 413 427 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 396 414 - 413 427 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 689 645 - 714 680 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 673 661 - 677 661 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0.2 12.8 32.2
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3
Capacity (veh/h)486 1309 - - 1380 - - 413 427 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.056 0.032 - - 0.011 - - 0.726 0.054 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.8 - - 7.6 - - 33.6 13.9 0
- AHCM Lane LOS B A - - A - B D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 5.7 0.2 -
Page 209 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
31: Road 60 & Court Street 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 31
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 384 79 3 363 23 82 22 12 17 6 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 384 79 3 363 23 82 22 12 17 6 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 26 18 13 23 86 24 83 3 404 3 382
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 406 0 0 487 0 0 652 864 244 620 893 203
Stage 1 452 452 - 400 400 -- - - - - -
Stage 2 200 412 - 220 493 -- - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.12 - - 7.62 6.62 7.02 7.58 6.58 6.98
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.62 5.62 - 6.58 5.58 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.62 5.62 - 6.58 5.58 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.21 - - 3.56 4.06 3.36 3.54 4.04 3.34
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1149 - - 1079 - - 345 283 744 368 276 798
- Stage 1 - 546 559 - 592 595 -- - - -
Stage 2 - - 772 583 - 756 540 -- - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1149 - - 1079 - - 336 281 744 337 274 798
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 336 281 - 337 274 -
Stage 1 - - 544 557 - 590 593 -- - - -
Stage 2 - - 759 581 - 709 538 -- - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 21.2 16.7
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)343 1149 - - 1079 - - 334
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.356 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.079
HCM Control Delay (s) 21.2 8.1 0 - 8.3 0 - 16.7
- A - A A CC HCM Lane LOS A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0 - - 0 - - 0.3
Page 210 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
32: Madison Ave & Burden Blvd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 32
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 473 167 17 407 9 106 14 14 8 8 25
Future Vol, veh/h 48 473 167 17 407 9 106 14 14 8 8 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - - 130 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 488 172 18 420 9 109 14 14 8 8 2649
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 429 0 0 660 0 0 1150 1137 574 1147 1219 425
Stage 1 - - - - - - 672 672 - 461 461 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 478 465 - 686 758 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - 4.12 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - 2.218 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - 928 - - 174 201 516 178 182 634
- - - 444 453 - 584 569 -- Stage 1 - -
Stage 2 - - - 566 561 - 441 418 -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - 928 - - 153 189 516 155 171 634
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 153 189 - 155 171 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 425 434 - 559 558 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 525 550 - 397 400 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.4 61.3 19.1
HCM LOS F C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)153 277 1136 - - 928 - - 297
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.714 0.104 0.044 - - 0.019 - - 0.142
HCM Control Delay (s) 72.4 19.5 8.3 - - 9 - - 19.1
F CHCM Lane LOS - C A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.2 0.3 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.5
Page 211 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
33: Argent Rd & Rd 44 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 33
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 319 0 148 155
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 319 0 148 155
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
-0 0 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 96 92 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 1 2 7 7
Mvmt Flow 0 0 332 0 154 161
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 332 0 - 0 332 332
Stage 1 - - -- 332 -
Stage 2 - - -- 0 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.47 6.27
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.47 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.47 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.563 3.363
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1227 - - - 653 698
Stage 1 - - - - 716 -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1227 - - - 653 698
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 653 -
Stage 1 -716 - - - -
Stage 2 -- - - - -
Approach SBWB EB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.9
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1227 - - - 675
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.468
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 14.9
BHCM Lane LOS A - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 2.5
Page 212 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
34: 20th Ave & Argent Rd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 34
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 71 447 72 169 7 540 78 39 2 91 54
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 71 447 72 169 7 540 78 39 2 91 54
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1796 1796 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 87 0 88 206 9 659 95 0 2 111 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 7 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 256253 1727880 303 13 366 445275
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1711 1796 0 1781 1778 78 1795 3676 0 1810 3705 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 87 0 88 0 215 659 95 0 2 111 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1711 1796 0 1781 0 1856 1795 1791 0 1810 1805 0
0.018.7 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 7.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.9 1.6 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 2.9 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.2 18.7 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0
1.00 0.000.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Prop In Lane 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 256 366 0 316 880 1727 275 445
V/C Ratio(X)0.19 0.34 0.68 0.75 0.060.00 0.24 0.01 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 433 539 638 0 696 1174 2150 678 1083
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 25.7 0.0 21.7 0.0 25.9 12.6 9.2 0.0 25.5 26.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.2 6.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.2 26.9 0.0 22.0 0.0 29.6 15.0 9.2 0.0 25.5 26.7 0.0
B AA LnGrp LOS C C C C CC
Approach Vol, veh/h 136 A 303 754 A 113 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.5 27.4 14.2 26.7
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.1 13.2 8.0 16.3 5.2 37.1 9.8 14.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 20.0 10.0 25.0 15.0 40.0 15.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.7 3.9 3.6 9.2 2.1 2.9 4.7 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 213 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
35: 20th Ave & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 35
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 137 445 192 148 521 117 231 353 105 173 453 123
Future Volume (veh/h) 137 445 192 148 521 117 231 353 105 173 453 123
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 464 200 154 543 122 241 368 109 180 472 128
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 327 660 282 327 802 179 400 738 216 422 677 182
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 2434 1041 1795 2902 649 1781 2708 791 1781 2763 744
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 143 340 324 154 334 331 241 240 237 180 302 298
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1795 1791 1684 1795 1791 1760 1781 1777 1722 1781 1777 1730
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 12.8 13.0 4.5 12.4 12.5 7.3 8.5 8.7 5.5 11.6 11.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 12.8 13.0 4.5 12.4 12.5 7.3 8.5 8.7 5.5 11.6 11.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.43
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 486 457 327 495 486 400 484 469 422 435 424
V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.70 0.71 0.47 0.68 0.68 0.60 0.49 0.51 0.43 0.69 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 540 718 675 532 718 705 644 712 690 715 712 693
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.3 24.6 24.6 18.3 24.1 24.1 18.2 22.9 23.0 18.1 25.7 25.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.7 5.4 5.2 1.9 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.2 4.9 4.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.2 26.4 26.7 19.4 25.7 25.8 19.7 23.7 23.8 18.8 27.7 27.9
CC B C C B C C B C C B LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 807 819 718 780
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 24.6 22.4 25.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.1 25.7 12.7 25.4 11.5 25.3 14.8 23.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 30.0 20.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.2 14.5 7.5 10.7 6.5 15.0 9.3 13.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.7 0.4 2.8 0.2 3.7 0.5 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 214 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
36: 20th Ave & Sylvester St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 36
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 206 84 45 251 153 85 421 24 122 441 129
Future Volume (veh/h) 94 206 84 45 251 153 85 421 24 122 441 129
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 101 222 90 48 270 165 91 453 26 131 474 139
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 132 654 257 60 483 285 119 870 50 172 770 224
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 2448 960 1781 2141 1266 1781 3415 195 1781 2710 789
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 156 156 48 222 213 91 235 244 131 310 303
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1753 1749 1660 1781 1777 1630 1781 1777 1834 1781 1777 1722
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 4.1 4.4 1.5 6.4 6.7 2.9 6.5 6.6 4.1 8.7 8.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 4.1 4.4 1.5 6.4 6.7 2.9 6.5 6.6 4.1 8.7 8.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 132 467 444 60 401 368 119 453 467 172 505 490
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.33 0.35 0.81 0.56 0.58 0.76 0.52 0.52 0.76 0.61 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 458 914 867 465 928 852 465 928 958 465 928 900
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 16.9 17.0 27.6 19.7 19.8 26.3 18.4 18.4 25.3 17.8 17.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.6 0.7 21.7 1.7 2.0 9.7 1.3 1.3 6.9 1.7 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.6 1.6 1.6 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.6 2.7 2.0 3.4 3.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.0 17.5 17.7 49.3 21.4 21.8 36.1 19.7 19.7 32.2 19.5 19.7
BB C B B D C C D B B D LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 413 483 570 744
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 24.4 22.3 21.8
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.3 17.9 10.5 19.6 6.9 20.3 8.8 21.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 30.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.2 8.7 6.1 8.6 3.5 6.4 4.9 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 0.2 4.0 0.1 2.5 0.1 5.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 215 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
37: 20th Ave & Lewis Street 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 37
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 325 81 15 405 217 105 165 17 137 228 144
Future Volume (veh/h) 124 325 81 15 405 217 105 165 17 137 228 144
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 335 84 15 418 224 108 170 18 141 235 148
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 169 1157 286 17 727 385 141 503 53 182 377 228
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.18
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2823 698 1781 2243 1190 1781 3242 339 1781 2119 1280
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 128 209 210 15 330 312 108 92 96 141 195 188
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1745 1781 1777 1656 1781 1777 1804 1781 1777 1622
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 4.9 5.0 0.5 9.5 9.7 3.7 2.9 2.9 4.8 6.3 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 4.9 5.0 0.5 9.5 9.7 3.7 2.9 2.9 4.8 6.3 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.79
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 728 715 17 576 536 141 275 280 182 316 289
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.29 0.29 0.91 0.57 0.58 0.77 0.33 0.34 0.78 0.62 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 519 1094 1074 433 1007 939 433 576 584 433 576 525
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 12.2 12.2 30.6 17.3 17.4 27.9 23.2 23.3 27.0 23.4 23.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 0.3 0.3 79.2 0.9 1.0 6.4 0.3 0.3 5.2 0.7 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.0 1.6 1.6 0.6 3.6 3.4 1.7 1.1 1.2 2.2 2.5 2.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 12.5 12.5 109.7 18.2 18.4 34.3 23.5 23.5 32.2 24.2 24.5
CC C C C C B B B B D LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h 547 657 296 524
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 20.4 27.4 26.5
Approach LOS B C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 25.0 11.3 14.6 5.6 30.3 9.9 16.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 35.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 38.0 15.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.3 11.7 6.8 4.9 2.5 7.0 5.7 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 4.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 2.9 0.1 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 216 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
38: 10th Ave & Sylvester St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 38
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 171 78 51 201 10 137 127 27 9 120 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 13 171 78 51 201 10 137 127 27 9 120 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1695 1695 1695 1723 1723 1723 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 190 87 57 223 11 152 141 30 10 133 27
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 122 675 289 253 809 40 189 568 121 374 226 46
Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 52 2093 896 375 2507 123 1654 1388 295 1125 1400 284
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 0 134 153 0 138 152 0 171 10 0 160
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1662 0 1380 1461 0 1545 1654 0 1683 1125 0 1685
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.3 0.0 2.5 0.3 0.0 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 2.7 2.5 0.0 2.5 3.3 0.0 2.5 0.3 0.0 3.3
Prop In Lane 0.09 0.65 0.37 0.08 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 641 0 445 604 0 498 189 0 689 374 0 272
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.30 0.25 0.00 0.28 0.80 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.59
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1413 0 1109 1261 0 1242 886 0 2254 947 0 1128
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.4 0.0 9.5 9.4 0.0 9.4 16.1 0.0 7.2 13.2 0.0 14.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.4 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 1.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 0.0 10.0 9.7 0.0 9.8 19.2 0.0 7.4 13.3 0.0 16.5
BA B A A B A A B A A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 291 291 323 170
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.9 9.8 12.9 16.3
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 20.3 17.0 9.3 11.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 4.5 4.7 5.3 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 1.1 2.4 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 217 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
39: 10th Ave & Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 39
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 240 86 122 276 39 175 286 76 66 233 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 37 240 86 122 276 39 175 286 76 66 233 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1723 1723 1709 1709 1709 1723 1723 1723 1723 1723 1723
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 253 91 128 291 41 184 301 0 69 245 46
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 503 979 343 516 1307 182 361 774 321 467 86
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 2374 832 1628 2860 399 1641 3359 0 1641 2756 509
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 172 172 128 164 168 184 301 0 69 144 147
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1641 1637 1569 1628 1624 1635 1641 1637 0 1641 1637 1629
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 5.9 6.1 3.7 5.2 5.3 7.4 6.6 0.0 2.9 6.8 7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 5.9 6.1 3.7 5.2 5.3 7.4 6.6 0.0 2.9 6.8 7.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.31
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 675 647 516 742 747 361 774 321 277 276
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.51 0.39 0.21 0.52 0.53
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1045 675 647 982 742 747 752 1350 822 675 672
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 16.4 16.5 12.3 13.9 13.9 23.5 27.2 0.0 27.1 32.1 32.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.4 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.5 0.0 1.1 2.8 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 17.3 17.5 12.6 14.1 14.1 24.6 27.6 0.0 27.5 33.6 33.8
CC C C C B B B B B LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h 383 460 485 A 360
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.0 13.7 26.4 32.5
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.9 43.8 9.1 25.1 10.7 40.0 14.8 19.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.2 7.3 4.9 8.6 5.7 8.1 9.4 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.0 0.3 2.2 0.5 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 218 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
40: 10th Ave & A St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 40
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 144 241 162 181 94 100 376 65 45 430 18
Future Volume (veh/h) 19 144 241 162 181 94 100 376 65 45 430 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 148 0 167 187 97 103 388 0 46 443 19
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 425 26 227 536 266 137 1036 56 853 37
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 1795 2318 1151 1781 3647 0 1781 3471 149
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 148 0 167 143 141 103 388 0 46 226 236
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 0 1795 1791 1678 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1843
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 1.6 0.0 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.6 0.0 1.1 4.6 4.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 1.6 0.0 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.6 0.0 1.1 4.6 4.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 26 425 227 414 388 137 1036 56 437 453
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.35 0.74 0.34 0.36 0.75 0.37 0.82 0.52 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1279 2977 1289 1500 1406 1279 2977 1279 1489 1544
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 16.9 0.0 17.6 13.4 13.5 18.9 11.8 0.0 20.1 13.6 13.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.4 0.6 0.0 4.6 0.6 0.7 7.9 0.3 0.0 25.0 1.1 1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.4 0.6 0.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 17.5 0.0 22.1 14.0 14.2 26.8 12.0 0.0 45.1 14.8 14.7
B BC D B B B C B D LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h 168 A 451 508491 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 17.1 15.1 17.5
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.7 14.8 5.1 14.2 5.8 16.7 9.8 9.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.4 6.6 2.5 5.0 3.1 5.6 5.7 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.1 3.2 0.4 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 219 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
41: 10th Ave & Ainsworth St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 41
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 10 13 477 4 35 0 449 215 13 845 3
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 10 13 477 4 35 0 449 215 13 845 3
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856 0 1841 1841 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 10 13 492 4 36 0 463 222 13 871 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 0 4 4 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 664 316 18 1406 50 467 52 574 55 49 15
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 420 1400 1560 1767 160 1437 0 2390 1094 1795 3661 13
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 13 0 13 492 0 40 0 351 334 13 426 448
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1820 0 1560 1767 0 1597 0 1749 1644 1795 1791 1883
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 0.5 15.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.5 10.6 0.4 11.3 11.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.5 15.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.5 10.6 0.4 11.3 11.3
Prop In Lane 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 0 55 574 0 518 0 505 475 18 688 723
V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.24 0.86 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.62 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 311 0 266 1206 0 1090 0 1194 1122 460 1834 1928
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.5 0.0 27.5 18.5 0.0 13.7 0.0 18.5 18.6 28.9 14.6 14.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.8 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 1.9 20.1 0.9 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.0 0.2 5.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.9 3.7 0.3 4.2 4.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.0 0.0 28.3 22.4 0.0 13.8 0.0 20.3 20.5 49.0 15.5 15.5
B BD C C A B C C A C LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 26 532 685 887
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 21.7 20.4 16.0
Approach LOS C C C B
8Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.6 21.9 24.0 27.5 7.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 10.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.4 12.6 17.3 13.3 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 1.8 6.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 220 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
42: 4th Ave & Court St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 42
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 180 66 116 6 94 55 109 298 4 37 300 300
Future Volume (veh/h) 180 66 116 6 94 55 109 298 4 37 300 300
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1709 1709 1709 1668 1668 1668 1736 1736 1736 1723 1723 1723
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 75 132 7 107 62 124 339 5 42 341 341
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 6 6 6 1 1 1 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 498 641 539 67 156 87 334 593 9 341 512 434
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1628 1709 1437 25 977 545 1654 1707 25 1641 1723 1460
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 75 132 176 0 0 124 0 344 42 341 341
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1628 1709 1437 1547 0 0 1654 0 1732 1641 1723 1460
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 1.7 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 9.6 1.1 10.3 12.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 1.7 3.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 9.6 1.1 10.3 12.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.35 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 498 641 539 309 0 0 334 0 602 341 512 434
V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.12 0.25 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.57 0.12 0.67 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 693 1003 843 450 0 0 624 0 871 573 722 612
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 12.2 12.8 23.8 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 15.8 14.4 18.4 19.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.8 5.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.0 0.6 1.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.6 0.4 4.0 4.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 12.3 13.1 25.7 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 16.9 14.6 20.2 24.2
CC B B A B A A B B B LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h 412 176 468 724
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 25.7 16.2 21.7
Approach LOS B C B C
8Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 6 7
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.9 14.5 6.5 25.7 27.4 9.6 22.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 15.0 10.0 30.0 35.0 15.0 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.8 8.4 3.1 11.6 5.8 5.0 14.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 221 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
43: 4th Ave & Sylvester St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 43
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 71 35 12 75 6 37 147 9 5 225 72
Future Volume (veh/h) 41 71 35 12 75 6 37 147 9 5 225 72
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1695 1695 1695 1668 1668 1668 1682 1682 1682 1736 1736 1736
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 77 38 13 82 7 40 160 10 5 245 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 363 499 245 207 868 72 491 537 34 538 848 263
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 562 1522 748 185 2648 219 946 1565 98 1123 2473 768
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 71 55 0 47 40 0 170 5 161 162
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1437 0 1395 1579 0 1472 946 0 1663 1123 1650 1592
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.1 2.2 2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.2 0.0 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.3
Prop In Lane 0.50 0.54 0.24 0.15 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 649 0 457 664 0 482 491 0 570 538 565 546
V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.30 0.01 0.29 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 969 0 782 1012 0 825 666 0 877 745 870 839
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.2 0.0 7.2 7.1 0.0 7.1 8.5 0.0 7.3 8.2 7.3 7.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.4 0.0 7.4 7.2 0.0 7.2 8.7 0.0 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.4
AA A A A A A A A A A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 160 102 210 328
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.4 7.2 8.4 8.3
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 14.9 15.4 14.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 17.0 16.0 17.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 3.1 4.4 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.9 3.0 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.0
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 222 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
44: 4th Ave & W Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 44
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 69 259 16 25 299 46 12 68 28 65 67 63
Future Volume (veh/h) 69 259 16 25 299 46 12 68 28 65 67 63
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.94
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 278 17 27 322 49 13 73 30 70 72 68
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 412 581 35 449 458 70 103 318 118 196 183 133
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1654 1615 99 1654 1468 223 69 1122 416 337 646 471
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 295 27 0 371 116 0 0 210 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1654 0 1714 1654 0 1691 1607 0 0 1454 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 6.4 0.5 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 6.4 0.5 0.0 9.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.13 0.11 0.26 0.33 0.32
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 0 616 449 0 527 538 0 0 512 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.00 0.48 0.06 0.00 0.70 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 745 0 1469 859 0 1449 1073 0 0 992 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.9 0.0 11.9 10.3 0.0 14.5 13.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.4 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.1 0.0 12.4 10.3 0.0 16.2 13.4 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0
AA B A A B A B B A B LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h 369 398 116 210
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.0 15.8 13.4 14.7
Approach LOS B B B B
5 86 Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.4 19.9 18.5 7.1 22.2 18.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s14.0 41.0 30.0 14.0 41.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.3 11.3 4.6 2.5 8.4 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 0.6 0.0 2.0 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 223 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
45: 4th Ave & A St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 45
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 166 5 5 375 29 1 12 5 11 16 58
Future Volume (veh/h) 32 166 5 5 375 29 1 12 5 11 16 58
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1736 1736 1736 1723 1723 1723 1586 1586 1586 1695 1695 1695
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 187 6 6 421 33 1 13 6 12 18 65
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 12 12 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 567 971 31 685 916 72 222 194 87 254 65 196
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 870 3263 104 1096 3076 240 45 996 446 131 333 1006
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 94 99 6 223 231 20 0 0 95 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 870 1650 1718 1096 1637 1679 1487 0 0 1470 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.14 0.05 0.30 0.13 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 567 491 511 685 487 500 503 0 0 515 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1044 1394 1452 1285 1383 1420 1878 0 0 1870 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.2 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0
AA A A A A A A A A A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 229 460 20 95
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.9 5.3 5.9 6.3
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 8.0 9.8 8.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 20.0 15.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 2.2 4.6 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Page 224 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
46: 4th Ave & Ainsworth St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 46
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 211 1 4 497 5 8
Future Vol, veh/h 211 1 4 497 5 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - Yield
Storage Length - 120 215 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
-0 0 - Grade, % 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 8 3 3 0 0
Mvmt Flow 546 5 94 232 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 233 0 786 232
Stage 1 - - - - 232 -
Stage 2 - - - - 554 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1329 - 364 812
- 811 -- Stage 1 - -
Stage 2 - 580 -- - -
Platoon blocked, % - --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1329 - 363 812
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 363 -
Stage 1 - - - - 811 -
Stage 2 - - - - 578 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 8.9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)-944 - - 1329
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.003 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.7 -
-A HCM Lane LOS A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
Page 225 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
47: N Oregon Ave & E Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 47
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 288 49 27 254 44 65 175 14 37 203 161
Future Volume (veh/h) 86 288 49 27 254 44 65 175 14 37 203 161
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1693 1693 1693 1752 1752 1752
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 294 50 28 259 45 66 179 14 38 207 164
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 3 3 14 14 14 10 10 10
Cap, veh/h 52 280372 391 669 323 382 311 122 724 330 350
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3043 511 1767 1856 1570 1612 3023 234 1668 1807 1360
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 170 174 28 259 45 66 94 99 38 190 181
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1767 1856 1570 1612 1608 1650 1668 1664 1503
2.5 2.4 5.45.1 1.6 0.9 1.2 6.4 0.6 4.1 4.0 1.9 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 4.0 4.1 0.6 6.4 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.5 0.9 5.1 5.4
0.901.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 423 423 350 382 323 311 356 365 391 343 310
0.55 0.590.10 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.14 0.08 0.41 0.40 0.27 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 944 1428 1429 1014 1492 1262 881 969 995 1007 1003 906
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.6 16.0 16.0 15.0 18.2 16.1 14.8 16.0 16.0 14.8 17.7 17.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.2 2.6 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.6 1.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.1 16.2 16.3 15.1 19.0 16.2 15.1 16.2 16.2 14.9 18.2 18.5
B B B B B LnGrp LOS B B B B B BB
Approach Vol, veh/h 432 332 259 409
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 18.3 15.9 18.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 17.8 8.4 16.3 8.9 16.3 7.6 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 6.1 3.6 7.4 3.9 8.4 2.9 4.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 226 of 465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
48: Oregon Ave/S Oregon Ave & E A St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 48
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 37 126 13 137 195 49 5 95 114 36 183 46
Future Volume (veh/h) 37 126 13 137 195 49 5 95 114 36 183 46
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1826 1826 1826 1618 1618 1618 1752 1752 1752
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 133 14 144 205 52 5 100 0 38 193 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 5 5 5 19 19 19 10 10 10
Cap, veh/h 548 822 85 631 861 213 0 791 0 683 166
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3223 335 1739 2755 683 0 3156 0 0 2655 645
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 72 75 144 127 130 0 100 0 0 119 122
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1795 1739 1735 1703 0 1537 0 0 1664 1636
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39
428 4210 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 548 450 458 631 542 532 0 791
V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.28 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1152 1814 1848 1126 1786 1753 0 3561 0 1713 1684
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.8 11.2 11.2 8.8 9.9 9.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.8 11.5 11.5 9.0 10.2 10.3 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.1
B BA B A B B B B A LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h 186 401 100 A 241
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.1 9.8 11.2 12.1
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.9 14.9 0.0 15.0 6.7 17.1 0.0 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 40.0 25.0 40.0 15.0 40.0 20.0 45.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.3 3.3 0.0 4.3 2.6 4.2 0.0 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Page 227 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
49: Oregon Ave & Ainsworth St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 49
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 133 76 0 1 190 35 2 11 0 21 0 280
Future Vol, veh/h 133 76 0 1 190 35 2 11 0 21 0 280
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - Yield - - None - - Yield
Storage Length 300 - - - - 0 - - 100 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
0 - - 0 - - 0 -- 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 3330 25 0 13 2 42 226 0 90 158 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 226 0 0 90 0 0 634 634 90 641 634 226
Stage 1 - 406 406 - 228 228 -- - - - -
Stage 2 - 228 228 - 413 406 -- - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.18 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.15 6.55 6.25
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.15 5.55 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.15 5.55 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 - - 2.272 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.545 4.045 3.345
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1308 - - 1468 - - 395 399 973 383 393 806
- 626 601 - 768 710 - Stage 1 - - - - -
Stage 2 - 779 719 - 610 593 -- - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1308 - - 1468 - - 210 350 973 337 345 806
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 210 350 - 337 345 -
Stage 1 550 528 - 675 709 -- - - - - -
Stage 2 456 718 - 523 521 -- - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.2 0 16.9 12.9
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)- 317 - 1308 - - 1468 - 337 806
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - 0.121 - - 0.001 - - 0.074 0.414
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.9 0 8.1 - - 7.5 0 - 16.5 12.6
A - - A BC HCM Lane LOS A C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 - - 0 - - 0.2 2
Page 228 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
50: Heritage Blvd & Lewis St & Avery Ave 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 50
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 114 9 52 12 19 33 43 62 8 15 137 378
Future Vol, veh/h 114 9 52 12 19 33 43 62 8 15 137 378
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - Yield - - Yield - - None - - Yield
Storage Length 240 - - - - 120 275 - - 325 - 325
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 0 0 0 12 12 12 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 49 12 201 55691 63 28 22 76 18 13 168
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 482 474 208 482 468 97 201 0 0 103 0 0
245 245 - 223 223 - - - - - - - Stage 1
237 229 - 259 245 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Critical Hdwy 7.15 6.55 6.25 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.22 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.15 5.55 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.15 5.55 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 4.045 3.345 3.5 4 3.3 2.308 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 490 485 825 498 496 965 1313 - - 1489 - -
Stage 1 752 698 - 784 723 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 760 709 - 750 707 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 423 455 820 418 465 965 1313 - - 1489 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 423 455 - 418 465 - - - - - - -
716 688 - 746 688 - - - - - - - Stage 1
659 675 - 653 696 - - - - - - - Stage 2
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.6 11.4 3 0.2
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1313 - - 423 605 446 965 1489 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 - - 0.396 0.148 0.102 0.05 0.015 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 19 12 14 8.9 7.5 - -
- -- HCM Lane LOS A - C B B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0 - -
Page 229 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
51: E A St & Heritage Blvd 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 51
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 167 0 0 314 57 0 0 0 96 0 86
Future Vol, veh/h 25 167 0 0 314 57 0 0 0 96 0 86
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1040 116 0 0 0 69 0 0 201 30 378
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 447 0 0 201 0 0 450 708 101 574 674 224
Stage 1 - - - - 261 261 - 413 413 -- -
Stage 2 - - - - 189 447 - 161 261 -- -
Critical Hdwy 4.22 - - 4.18 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.54 6.54 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.26 - - 2.24 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.52 4.02 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1082 - - 1354 - - 497 362 941 402 375 779
727 696 - 587 592 -- - - - - Stage 1 -
Stage 2 800 577 - 825 691 -- - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1082 - - 1354 - - 422 352 941 394 365 779
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 422 352 - 394 365 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 707 677 - 571 592 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 694 577 - 802 672 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0 0 17.1
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 5141354 - - - - 1082
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.028 - - - - - 0.427
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.4 - - 0 - - 17.1
A C- HCM Lane LOS A A - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 2.1
Page 230 of 465
HCM 6th TWSC
52: Cedar Ave & Lewis St 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 52
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 110 11 11 299 137 12 24 8 50 9 75
Future Vol, veh/h 81 110 11 11 299 137 12 24 8 50 9 75
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
-0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % -
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 104 141 14 14 383 176 15 31 10 64 12 96
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 563 0 0 161 0 0 588 953 84 797 872 284
Stage 1 362 362 - 503 503 -- - - - - -
Stage 2 226 591 - 294 369 -- - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.14 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.62 6.62 7.02
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.62 5.62 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.62 5.62 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.23 - - 2.22 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.56 4.06 3.36
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 998 - - 1416 - - 397 261 965 270 280 701
635 629 - 509 530 -- - - - Stage 1 - -
Stage 2 762 498 - 679 609 -- - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 994 - - 1408 - - 296 225 959 215 242 698
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 296 225 - 215 242 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 554 - 449 520 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 633 489 - 561 536 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 3.7 0.3 20.9 24.3
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)283 994 - - 1408 - - 355
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.199 0.104 - - 0.01 - - 0.484
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.9 9 0.2 - 7.6 0.1 - 24.3
C CHCM Lane LOS - A A - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.3 - - 0 - - 2.5
Page 231 of 465
Appendix C
Pa
g
e
2
3
2
o
f
4
6
5
FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECAST
DATE: September 2, 2020
TO: Pasco TSMP Project Team
FROM: Carl Springer, Aaron Berger | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Pasco TSMP Task 4.2:
Technical Memo #4
Project #19209-000
The City of Pasco is developing its first transportation system master plan (TSMP). Future
forecasting is an important step in the transportation planning process and provides estimates of
future travel demand. This memorandum documents the Future No-Build 2040 results associated
with the travel demand model developed by Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) for
the Pasco area. The Pasco model was used to develop study intersection turn movement volumes
for the 2040 TSMP horizon year.
INTRODUCTION
This task considers how the City’s transportation system will perform with the expected travel
demand growth to 2040. The future baseline assessment will include any transportation
improvement projects that have committed funding available. The BFCG travel demand model will
be applied to forecast 2040 travel demands within the planning area, which was evaluated by the
consulting team to flag major degradations compared to today’s conditions. A summary of the
Pasco Travel Demand Model results is provided in the following sections, including a discussion of
the roadway network and land use assumptions included in the model.
FUTURE FORECASTS
Future 2040 PM traffic volumes at all study intersections were developed from the Benton-Franklin
Council of Governments (BFCG) regional travel demand model. The BFCG regional travel demand
model includes both existing (2015) and future (2040) model scenarios in TransCAD which formed
the basis of all future traffic analysis. This model provides a regional picture of growth and
transportation improvements identified as feasible and funded within the next 20 years which will
be used to identify and refine projects within Pasco for the TSMP.
Page 233 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 1
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Transportation improvements assumed in the BFCG 2040 Model include projects submitted by the
cities of Pasco, Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, and WSDOT that are reasonably expected to
be complete by 2040 (i.e. financially constrained). Only new construction or projects that otherwise
change a roadway’s alignment or capacity in the RTP are included as network changes within the
BFCG 2040 model. Projects within Pasco include:
• Argent Road Improvements (Road 40 to 20th Avenue)
• Wrigley Drive Extension (Convention Drive to Clemente Lane)
• Chapel Hill Boulevard Extension (Road 84 to Road 68)
• Sandifur Parkway Improvements (Road 68 to Convention Drive)
• Road 68 Widening (I-182 to Argent Road)
• Burns Road Improvements/Extension (Road 52 to Pasco City Limits)
• Lewis Street Rail Yard Overpass
Other projects included in the 2040 BFCG model outside of Pasco are summarized in Transition
2040, the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area Regional Transportation Plan1.
2040 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The 2040 baseline analysis identifies how Pasco’s transportation system is expected to operate with
additional residents, businesses, and visitors. These conditions were assessed based on the
forecasted increase in trips generated by future transportation growth without any new
investments in the transportation infrastructure. This analysis describes where the transportation
system will perform satisfactorily and identifies areas that will likely be congested without
additional investments.
2040 NO BUILD TRANSPORATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS
Traffic operations (delay, LOS, and v/c) were analyzed for future (2040) conditions using Synchro.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodology was used for signalized and
unsignalized intersection analyses, where possible; signalized intersection v/c ratios were post-
processed to obtain intersection v/c ratios. If HCM 6th Edition results cannot be reported due to
intersection geometry or other limitations, the capacity results were based on HCM 2000.
All intersections within the Pasco UGA were compared against the mobility targets identified by
WSDOT, the City of Pasco, or Franklin County. These agencies currently use a Level of Service
(LOS) D mobility standard which were applied at all study intersections as part of the TMP update.
1 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Transition 2040, Appendix F. 2018.
Page 234 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 2
Study intersection operations were analyzed using the methodology outlined in the traffic analysis
and forecasting methodology memo2. Forecasted intersection operations were compared to
applicable agency mobility targets to identify where significant congestion is likely to occur. Figure
1 shows the study intersections that do not meet mobility targets for both AM and PM peak hour in
the 2040 no-build conditions. Also, Table 1 compares the existing and future no-build operational
Level of Service (LOS) results for the study intersections that do not meet mobility targets for AM
and PM peak periods. A complete listing of operating conditions (delay, LOS, and v/c) at study
intersections is provided in the appendix.
FIGURE 1: STUDY INTERSECTIONS THAT DO NOT MEET MOBILITY TARGETS FOR AM AND PM PEAK
PERIODS (2040 DESIGN HOUR CONDITIONS)
2 DKS Associates. Traffic Analysis & Forecasting Methodology memo . July, 2020.
Page 235 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 3
TABLE 1: STUDY INTERSECTIONS THAT DO NOT MEET MOBILITY TARGET LEVEL OF SERVICE
(LOS) D FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE NO-BUILD (AM AND PM PEAK)
AM (LOS) PM (LOS)
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Existing Future
No-Build Existing Future
No-Build
1 Road 100 & I 182 WB On Ramp/I
182 WB On/Off Ramp D B B A E
2 Road 100 & I 182 EB Off Ramp/I
182 EB On Ramp D B C B F
8 Sylvester St & US 395 NB Off Ramp D A/C A/C A/E A/F
11 4th Ave & US 395 WB On/Off Ramp D A B D
E
13 US 395 & Foster Wells Rd D A/F C/F B/F C/F
14 Rainier Ave/US 395 SB On/Off
Ramp & Kartchner St D A/C A/D B/F B/F
15 Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off
Ramp & Kartchner St D A/D A/E A/D A/F
18 Hwy 12 & E A St D A/C A/E A/C A/F
19 Road 68 & Burden Blvd D E E E E
20 Road 100 & Dent Rd/Edelman Rd D A/C A/F
27 Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy D C E
30 Road 68 & Court Street D A/D A/F
31 Road 60 & Court Street D A/C A/F
32 Madison Ave & Burden Blvd D A/F A/F
33 Argent Rd & Rd 44 D A/F B/F
52 Cedar Ave & Lewis St D A/C A/E
Overall, in comparison to the existing conditions, twice as many study intersections will not meet
the mobility targets in the 2040 future no-build conditions. In other words, if future improvements
are not made for the identified intersections that are currently operating less than LOS D, these
intersections will continue to operate at a substandard level and additional intersections will not
meet their mobility targets. For instance, the intersection of Road 68 and Burden Blvd reported
LOS E for AM and PM peak periods for existing conditions and the LOS results will continue for the
future no-build conditions. Also, the stop-controlled intersection of US 395 and Foster Wells Rd
Page 236 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 4
experienced significant delays for AM and PM peak periods in both existing and future no-build
conditions, however there is a planned improvement project that may impact future operational
results3.
With regards to the future no-build results, of the 19 study intersections in the AM peak period,
four will not meet their respective mobility target during the 2040 design hour conditions. For the
PM peak period, 16 of the 52 study intersection will exceed the 2040 mobility target. The four
study intersections that are substandard under 2040 conditions for both AM and PM peak periods
include: US 395 and Foster Wells Rd, Commercial Ave/US 395 NB On/Off Ramp and Kartchner St,
Hwy 12 and E A St, and Road 68 and Burden Blvd. The majority of the study intersections that
exceed their mobility target are located near highway interchanges.
Significant corridors of concern for the future no-build operations include Rd 100 and Rd 68. Three
study intersections on both Rd 100 and Rd 68 will not meet the mobility targets during the 2040
design hour conditions. In particular, the intersection of Rd 68 and Court Street experience LOS
LOS A/F due to the side streets operating over capacity during the PM peak period.
Another area of concern for the future no-build conditions are located at ramp terminals. The ramp
terminals along Rd 100 and Kartchner St both experienced LOS E or F. Significant improvements
should be made at these ramp terminal locations or additional ramps terminals should be
considered to alleviate some of the traffic.
3 US 396 Safety Corridor Improvements visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us395/safety-corridor/home
Page 237 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 5
APPENDIX
Page 238 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 6
TABLE 3: FUTURE NO-BUILD 2040 RESULTS FOR AM PEAK
Existing Future No-Build
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
1
Road 100 & I 182 WB
On Ramp/I 182 WB
On/Off Ramp
D B 14 0.40 B 19 0.69
2
Road 100 & I 182 EB Off
Ramp/I 182 EB On
Ramp
D B 15 0.68 C 35 0.98
3
Road 68 & I 182 WB
On/Off Ramp/I 182 WB
On Ramp
D A 8 0.69 A 6 0.71
4
Road 68 & I 182 EB
On/Off Ramp/I 182 EB
On Ramp
D A 7 0.47 A 6 0.61
5
US 395 On/Off
Ramp/Morasch Ln &
Argent Rd
D B 13 0.44 B 16 0.63
6
US 395 SB On Ramp/US
395 SB On/Off Ramp &
Court St
D A 7 0.43 A 8 0.50
7
US 395 NB Off Ramp/US
395 NB On Ramp &
Court St
D A 9 0.49 A 8 0.45
8 Sylvester St & US 395
NB Off Ramp D A/C 0/15 0.26/0.45 A/C 0/19 0.35/0.51
9
20th Ave & I 182 WB On
Ramp/I 182 WB Off
Ramp
D B 12 0.65 B 15 0.79
10 20th Ave & I 182 EB
On/Off Ramp D B 15 0.63 B 19 0.72
11 4th Ave & US 395 WB
On/Off Ramp D A 8 0.36 B 11 0.54
Page 239 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 7
Existing Future No-Build
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
12 4th Ave & US 395 EB
On/Off Ramp D B 11 0.44 B 12 0.60
13 US 395 & Foster Wells
Rd D A/F 10/54 0.23/0.22 C/F 16/596 0.47/1.33
14
Rainier Ave/US 395 SB
On/Off Ramp &
Kartchner St
D A/C 9/21 0.16/0.19 A/D 9/29 0.16/0.32
15
Commercial Ave/US 395
NB On/Off Ramp &
Kartchner St
D A/D 8/33 0.06/0.5 A/E 8/45 0.06/0.6
16
Hwy 12 EB On/Off
Ramp & Lewis St & Hwy
12 EB Off Ramp
D A/C 10/22 0.29/0.63 A/D 10/27 0.29/0.73
17
Hwy 12 WB Off
Ramp/Hwy 12 WB
On/Off Ramp & Lewis St
D A/B 9/14 0.31/0.18 A/C 9/16 0.34/0.27
18 Hwy 12 & E A St D A/C 0/23 0.25/0.34 A/E 0/46 0.33/0.62
19 Road 68 & Burden Blvd D E 64 0.90 E 59 0.95
Page 240 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 8
TABLE 4: FUTURE NO-BUILD 2040 RESULTS FOR PM PEAK
Existing Future No-Build
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Level
of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
1
Road 100 & I 182 WB On
Ramp/I 182 WB On/Off
Ramp
D A 9 0.72 E 77 1.25
2 Road 100 & I 182 EB Off
Ramp/I 182 EB On Ramp D B 19 0.86 F 125 1.24
3
Road 68 & I 182 WB
On/Off Ramp/I 182 WB
On Ramp
D B 15 0.97 A 9 0.88
4
Road 68 & I 182 EB
On/Off Ramp/I 182 EB On
Ramp
D C 24 0.76 C 25 0.83
5
US 395 On/Off
Ramp/Morasch Ln &
Argent Rd
D B 17 0.47 C 21 0.62
6
US 395 SB On Ramp/US
395 SB On/Off Ramp &
Court St
D A 8 0.44 A 9 0.53
7
US 395 NB Off Ramp/US
395 NB On Ramp & Court
St
D B 11 0.62 B 11 0.67
8 Sylvester St & US 395 NB
Off Ramp D A/E 0/38 0.23/0.82 A/F 0/97 0.31/1.06
9 20th Ave & I 182 WB On
Ramp/I 182 WB Off Ramp D B 18 0.82 C 22 0.86
10 20th Ave & I 182 EB
On/Off Ramp D B 13 0.54 B 13 0.58
11 4th Ave & US 395 WB
On/Off Ramp D D 42 0.82 E 60 0.94
12 4th Ave & US 395 EB
On/Off Ramp D B 11 0.55 B 13 0.62
Page 241 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 9
Existing Future No-Build
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Level
of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
13 US 395 & Foster Wells Rd D B/F 12/74 0.26/0.53 C/F 19/2514 0.39/4.78
14
Rainier Ave/US 395 SB
On/Off Ramp & Kartchner
St
D B/F 11/363 0.38/1.51 B/F 11/496 0.4/1.81
15
Commercial Ave/US 395
NB On/Off Ramp &
Kartchner St
D A/D 8/31 0.08/0.61 A/F 8/55 0.08/0.8
16
Hwy 12 EB On/Off Ramp
& Lewis St & Hwy 12 EB
Off Ramp
D A/C 8/16 0.28/0.39 A/C 8/19 0.31/0.5
17
Hwy 12 WB Off
Ramp/Hwy 12 WB On/Off
Ramp & Lewis St
D B/B 11/13 0.24/0.32 B/B 13/15 0.37/0.37
18 Hwy 12 & E A St D A/C 0/25 0.28/0.3 A/F 0/112 0.4/0.88
19 Road 68 & Burden Blvd D E 73 1.15 E 75 1.09
20 Road 100 & Dent
Rd/Edelman Rd D A/C 8/25 0.13/0.23 A/F 10/2121 0.34/5.44
21 Road 100 & Sandifur
Parkway D B 12 0.50 C 21 0.77
22 Road 100 & Chapel Hill Rd D B 12 0.77 B 15 0.62
23 Road 100 & Argent Road D A/C 8/18 0.24/0.12 A/D 8/29 0.31/0.23
24 Road 84 & Argent Road D B 12 0.245034 B 13 0.31
25 Court Street & Road 84 D A/B 8/11 0.12/0.12 A/C 8/16 0.25/0.17
26 Road 68 & Edelman
Road/Powerline Rd D A/C 8/18 0.24/0.13 B/A 11/0 0.62/0
27 Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy D C 21 0.70 E 58 0.98
28 Road 68 & Chapel Hill Rd D B 15 0.61 B 19 0.55
29 Road 68 & Argent Road D C 21 0.67 C 31 0.87
30 Road 68 & Court Street D A/D 8/34 0.13/0.73 A/F 9/278 0.25/1.48
31 Road 60 & Court Street D A/C 8/21 0.13/0.36 A/F 9/178 0.17/1.22
Page 242 of 465
PASCO TS MP • TECHNICAL MEMO #4 10
Existing Future No-Build
# Study Intersection
Mobility
Target
(LOS)
Level
of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Delay
(secs)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
32 Madison Ave & Burden
Blvd D A/F 9/72 0.35/0.71 A/F 9/312 0.37/1.44
33 Argent Rd & Rd 44 D A/F 10/98 0.31/1.03 B/F 12/490 0.5/1.95
34 20th Ave & Argent Rd D B 20 0.66 C 30 0.83
35 20th Ave & Court St D C 24 0.68 C 27 0.77
36 20th Ave & Sylvester St D C 21 0.46 C 21 0.45
37 20th Ave & Lewis Street D C 21 0.48 C 22 0.56
38 10th Ave & Sylvester St D B 12 0.52 B 12 0.52
39 10th Ave & Lewis St D C 22 0.44 C 23 0.45
40 10th Ave & A St D B 17 0.36 B 18 0.38
41 10th Ave & Ainsworth St D B 18 0.62 B 18 0.58
42 4th Ave & Court St D B 17 0.64 C 22 0.78
43 4th Ave & Sylvester St D A 8 0.56 A 8 0.56
44 4th Ave & W Lewis St D B 15 0.58 B 16 0.65
45 4th Ave & A St D A 4 0.20 A 5 0.24
46 4th Ave & Ainsworth St D A/A 8/9 0.29/0.02 A/A 8/9 0.3/0.02
47 N Oregon Ave & E Lewis
St D B 17 0.38 B 20 0.58
48 Oregon Ave/S Oregon Ave
& E A St D B 11 0.22 B 11 0.27
49 Oregon Ave & Ainsworth
St D A/C 8/17 0.12/0.41 A/C 8/21 0.15/0.44
50 Heritage Blvd & Lewis St
& Avery Ave D A/C 8/19 0.29/0.4 A/D 8/27 0.3/0.61
51 E A St & Heritage Blvd D A/C 8/17 0.12/0.43 A/D 9/28 0.16/0.6
52 Cedar Ave & Lewis St D A/C 9/24 0.15/0.48 A/E 9/37 0.18/0.65
Page 243 of 465
Appendix D
Pa
g
e
2
4
4
o
f
4
6
5
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS
DATE: February 22, 2021
TO: Dan Ford, Jacob Gonzalez | City of Pasco
FROM: Rochelle Starrett, Carl Springer | DKS
SUBJECT: Pasco Transportation System Master Plan: Technical Memo #5 Project #19209-000
This document provides an overview of the transportation system standards recommended for
adoption as part of the Pasco Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP). Included is a detail of the
roadway functional classification system, typical designs for roadways, and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, special route designations, access spacing and mobility standards, and guidance for
Traffic Impact Analysis requirements. Together, these standards will help ensure future facilities
are designed appropriately and that all facilities are managed to serve their intended purpose.
MULTI-MODAL STREET SYSTEM
Traditional roadway designs focus on the safety and flow of motor vehicle traffic. The one size fits
all design approach is less effective at integrating the roadway with the character of the
surrounding area and addressing the needs of other users of a roadway. For instance, the design of
an arterial roadway through a commercial area has often traditionally been the same as one
through a residential neighborhood, both primarily focused on the movement of motor vehicles.
In Pasco, all roadways are proposed to be multi-modal or “complete streets”, with each street
serving the needs of the various travel modes. Streets in the city will not all be designed the same.
It is recommended that Pasco classify the street system into a hierarchy organized by functional
classification and street type (representative of their places). These classifications ensure that the
streets reflect the neighborhood through which they pass, consisting of a scale and design
appropriate to the character of the abutting properties and land uses. The classifications also
provide for and balance the needs of all travel modes including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, motor vehicles and freight. Within these street classifications, context sensitive designs may
result in alternative cross-sections.
Page 245 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 2
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
A city’s street functional classification system is an important tool for managing the transportation
system. It is based on a hierarchical system of roads in which streets of a higher classification,
such as arterials, emphasize a higher level of mobility for through movements, while streets of a
lower classification emphasize access to land uses.
Pasco currently has four functional classes:
• Principal Arterials connect major activity centers as well as the interstate system. They
provide limited access and are primarily intended to serve regional traffic movement.
• Minor Arterials create direct connections through the city and can be found on the
periphery of residential neighborhoods. They generally provide the primary connection to
other Arterial or Collector Streets and access to larger developed areas and neighborhoods.
• Collectors provide local traffic circulation throughout the city and serve to funnel traffic
from the arterial street network to streets of the same or lower classification. They typically
have minor access restrictions.
• Local Streets provide local access and circulation for traffic, connect neighborhoods, and
often function as through routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Local Streets should
maintain slow vehicle operating speeds and discourage through traffic.
The TSMP also recommends adding a new Neighborhood Collector functional classification to
identify locations where local access needs should be balanced with enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle amenities. These streets should maintain slow vehicle operating speeds to accommodate
safe use by all modes and through traffic should be discouraged.
Functional classification provides a helpful framework for managing the city’s transportation system
and supporting other standards discussed in the following sections, including connectivity, spacing,
freight routes, cross-sections, and access management.
Table 1 lists the desired spacing of each facility type throughout Pasco to ensure a high level of
connectivity. Figure 1 illustrates the desired spacing for the arterial and collector network.
Deviations to these guidelines may be needed in locations where there are significant barriers, such
as topography, rail lines, freeways, existing development, and the presence of natural areas.
TABLE 1: FACILITY SPACING GUIDELINES
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SPACING1,2
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 1 to 2 miles
MINOR ARTERIAL 1 mile
COLLECTOR ½ mile
Page 246 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 3
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SPACING1,2
NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR ¼ mile
LOCAL STREET 300-500 feet
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 300 feet
1. Recommended maximum spacing refers to distance between facilities with the same or higher functional
classification.
2. Deviations from the recommended maximum spacing are subject to approval by the City engineer.
People walking and biking benefit the most from closely spaced facilities because their travel is
most affected by variation in distance. By providing walking and biking facilities or accessways that
are spaced no less than 300 feet apart, Pasco will support active transportation within and between
its neighborhoods. These connections also support high quality access to transit.
FIGURE 1: DESIRED FACILITY SPACING
The proposed roadway functional classification from the Pasco Comprehensive Plan was reviewed
to identify locations where reclassifications should be considered to improve conformance with
recommended spacing guidelines. The future functional classification map from the Comprehensive
Plan includes instances of closely spaced arterials and sudden changes in functional classification.
The recommended reclassifications aim to create a more consistent functional classification scheme
and match a roadway’s functional classification to their role in the transportation network. The
existing road network was also reviewed to identify potential neighborhood collector routes.
Neighborhood collectors were identified in locations where the functional classification map from
the Pasco Comprehensive Plan previously identified two closely-spaced, parallel collectors which
Page 247 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 4
serve similar land uses. Converting one of these routes to a neighborhood collector provides a
classification that is more consistent with the actual use of the road and facilitates multimodal
transportation. Neighborhood collectors were also designated on the local street system for routes
which provide connections between several adjacent neighborhoods and the collector or arterial
network.
The recommended reclassifications summarized in Figure 2 and Table 2 will provide better system
spacing and connectivity. It is important to note that many of the existing roadways cross-sections
will not meet the standard cross-sections of their new functional classification. Cross-section
improvements are not expected outside of redevelopment.
FIGURE 2: RECOMMENDED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
A draft version of this figure identifying all recommended changes is also included for review
Page 248 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 5
TABLE 2: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF NEW ROADWAYS
ROADWAY EXTENTS
RECOMMENDED
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
SANDIFUR PARKWAY
EXTENSION Road 100 to New North-South Collector Principal Arterial
DENT ROAD EXTENSION Burns Road to Harris Road Minor Arterial
SANDIFUR PARKWAY
EXTENSION New North-South Collector to Shoreline Drive Minor Arterial
SANDIFUR PARKWAY
EXTENSION New North-South Collector to Shoreline Drive Collector
NEW NORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR Dent Road to Harris Road Collector
ROAD 84 EXTENSION Burns Road to Columbia River Road Collector
CONVENTION DRIVE EXTENSION Burns Road to Clark Road Collector
ROAD 60 EXTENSION Burns Road to Clark Road Collector
DESERET DRIVE Dent Road to Road 52 Collector
ROAD 76 EXTENSION Burden Boulevard to Argent Road Collector
ROAD 90 EXTENSION Burns Road to UGA Neighborhood
Collector
THREE RIVERS DRIVE
EXTENSION Road 68 to Rio Grande Lane Neighborhood
Collector
WRIGLEY DRIVE EXTENSION Clemente Lane to Road 68 Place Neighborhood
Collector
ROAD 52 EXTENSION Burns Road Deseret Drive Neighborhood
Collector
WERNETT ROAD EXTENSION Road 76 to Road 84 Neighborhood
Collector
Page 249 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 6
TABLE 3: ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
EXISTING
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
ROADWAY EXTENTS
RECOMMENDED
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
MINOR ARTERIAL Road 100 Dent Road to UGA Principal Arterial
MINOR ARTERIAL 20th Avenue Lewis Street to A Street Principal Arterial
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIAL 10th Avenue Ainsworth Street to A street Minor Arterial
PRINCIPAL
ARTERIAL 4th Avenue A Street to I-182 Westbound Ramp
Terminal Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Court Street Road 100 to Harris Road Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Harris Road Court Street to Dent Road Extension Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Dent Road Burns Road to Road 68 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Clark Road Road 68 to Road 52 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR Chapel Hill Boulevard Road 82 to Road 68 Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR A Street 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue Minor Arterial
COLLECTOR 28th Avenue A Street to Sylvester street minor arterial
MINOR ARTERIAL Chapel Hill Boulevard Crescent Road to Road 100 Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Road 60 Court Street to Sylvester Street Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Sylvester Street Road 60 to 4th Avenue Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Court Street 4th Avenue to 1st Avenue Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL 1st Avenue Court Street to A Street Collector
LOCAL Broadway Street Wehe Avenue to Cedar Avenue Collector
LOCAL Cedar Avenue Broadway Street to Lewis Street Collector
LOCAL Commercial Avenue Kartchner Street to Hillsboro Road Collector
MINOR ARTERIAL Road 90 Sandifur Parkway to Burns Road Neighborhood
Collector
Page 250 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 7
EXISTING
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
ROADWAY EXTENTS
RECOMMENDED
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
COLLECTOR Wernett Road Road 36 To Road 76 Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR 14th Avenue Lewis Street to Court Street Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR Saratoga Lane Chapel Hill boulevard to Argent Road Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR Road 44 Argent Road to Madison Avenue Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR Madison Avenue Road 44 to Burden Boulevard Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR Road 52 Burden Boulevard to Burns Road Neighborhood
Collector
COLLECTOR Wrigley Drive Road 76 to Clemente Lane Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Kohler Road Dent Road to Hillcrest Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 92 Court Street to Maple Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 76 Argent Road to Court Street Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 60 Argent Road to Court Street Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 48 Argent Road to Sylvester Street Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Wernett Road Road 36 to Road 30 Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL 14th Avenue Court Street to Lincoln Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Pearl Street 24th Avenue to 13th Avenue & 10th
Avenue to 5th Avenue
Neighborhood
Collector
Page 251 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 8
EXISTING
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
ROADWAY EXTENTS
RECOMMENDED
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
LOCAL 13th Avenue Pearl Street to Riverview Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Riverview Drive 13th Avenue to 12th Avenue Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL 10th Avenue 12th Avenue to Pearl Street Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Elm Avenue A Street to Shepperd Street Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Wrigley Drive Road 68 Place to Roosevelt Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Roosevelt Drive Wrigley Drive to Madison Avenue Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Madison Avenue Roosevelt Drive to Burden Boulevard Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Vincenzo Drive Road 100 to Majestia Lane Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Majestia Lane Vincenzo Drive to Road 90 Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 90 Sandifur Parkway to Burns Road Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Wilshire Drive Road 90 to Westmoreland Lane Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Westmoreland Lane Wilshire Drive to Overland Court Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Overland Court Westmoreland Lane to Westminster
Lane
Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Westminster Lane Overland Court to Stutz Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Stutz Drive Westminster Lane to Road 84 Neighborhood
Collector
Page 252 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 9
EXISTING
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
ROADWAY EXTENTS
RECOMMENDED
FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
LOCAL Hudson Drive Road 84 to Okanogan Lane Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Okanogan Lane Hudson Drive to Chehalis Drive Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Chehalis Drive Okanogan Lane to Three Rivers
Drive
Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Three Rivers Drive Chehalis Drive to Road 68 & Rio
Grande Lane to Road 56
Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Road 56 Three Rivers Drive to Overton Road Neighborhood
Collector
LOCAL Overton Road Road 56 to Road 52 Neighborhood
Collector
FREIGHT NETWORK
Freight routes play a vital role in the economical movement of raw materials and finished products,
while maintaining neighborhood livability, public safety, and minimizing maintenance costs of the
roadway system. The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation system (FGTS) tonnage
classification system identifies different categories of freight corridors based on annual freight
tonnage moved1. The following corridors are identified in Pasco and summarized below in Figure 3:
• I-182
• US 12
• US 395
• WA 397
• Road 100 (I-182 to Harris Road)
• Road 68 (I-182 to Clark Road)
• 4th Avenue (I-182 to Glade Road)
• Ainsworth Avenue/Dock Street (WA 397 to Sacajawea Park Road)
• Harris Road (Road 100 to Shoreline Road)
• Shoreline Road (Harris Road to Burns Road)
• Burns Road (Shoreline Road to Dent Road)
1 WSDOT. Freight Transportation System in WA.
https://wsdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0e37044a459244d9b6414826b46e8c46
Page 253 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 10
• Dent Road (Burns Road to Road 68)
• Clark Road (Road 68 to Glad Road)
• Taylor Flats Road (North of Road 68)
• Columbia River Road (North of Road 68)
• Glade Road (North of 4th Avenue)
• Railroad Avenue (North of Hillsboro Street)
• Foster Wells Road (East of US 395)
• Kartchner Street (Railroad Avenue to Commercial Avenue)
• Hillsboro Street (Railroad Avenue to Travel Plaza Way)
• Lewis Street (US 395 to 20th Avenue)
• 20th Avenue (Lewis Street to A Street)
• A Street (20th Avenue to US 12)
• Pasco Kahlotus Road (East of US 12)
• Lewis Street (WA 397 to US 12)
• 4th Avenue (Ainsworth Street to A Street)
Other critical freight corridors that are not currently included in the Washington FGTS include
Sacajawea Park Road from Ainsworth Avenue to US 12 and Commercial Avenue from Lewis Street
to Kartchner Street. Including these routes in a future update to the Washington FGTS will
recognize their significance to Pasco’s freight system and connect key industrial areas to existing
FGTS corridors.
The city’s freight transportation system also includes a rail yard, port, and the Tri-Cities Airport.
Intermodal connections between these freight hubs, Pasco’s industrial areas, and the tri-cities
region are necessary to support the movement of goods. Primary routes serving these existing
freight transportation needs are identified through the Washington FGTS although additional
development in these areas could generate new freight traffic demands.
Pasco will benefit from ensuring that its freight routes are designed to accommodate the needs of
its industrial and commercial areas, while protecting its residential neighborhoods from freight
traffic. Having designated freight routes will help the city better coordinate and improve its efforts
regarding both freight and non-freight transportation system users, including the following:
• Roadway and Intersection Improvements can be designed for freight vehicles with
adjustments for turn radii, sight distance, lane width and turn pocket lengths.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements – such as protected or separated bike facilities,
enhanced pedestrian crossings, and other safety improvements – can be identified to reduce
freight impacts to other users, particularly along bikeways and walkways.
• Roadway Durability can be increased by using concrete instead of asphalt for the
pavement surface.
Page 254 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 11
• Railroad Connections can be coordinated to support businesses that ship goods by rail,
particularly in areas where railroad sidings can be provided.
• Coordination with Businesses and Adjacent Jurisdictions can ensure that local and
regional freight traffic uses Pasco’s freight routes to travel within the City.
Page 255 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 12
FIGURE 3: WASHINGTON STATE FGTS FREIGHT NETWORK
This figure will be developed at a later date
Page 256 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 13
PRIORITY BICYCLE NETWORK
Currently, Pasco does not maintain designated bicycle routes although residents of Pasco have
provided numerous comments and input in support of bicycle facilities. These comments were
received in both the online survey conducted for the TSMP and in the 2020 National Citizen Survey
conducted by the City of Pasco2. Pasco’s existing and planned bicycle facilities were reviewed to
identify opportunities and constraints. Future bicycle facility gaps were identified and used to
develop a comprehensive priority bicycle network for the City of Pasco. The priority bicycle network
will be used to prioritize investments and develop a system that supports bicycle travel. The
identified priority bicycle network for Pasco is shown in Figure 4.
The priority bicycle network includes a range of treatment types based on the roadway context
(e.g., vehicle speeds and volumes) and available right of way. This approach ensures that the
proposed bicycle network fits within the existing neighborhood and street context.
FIGURE 4: RECOMMENDED PASCO PRIORITY BIKE NETWORK
A draft version of the priority bicycle network is available here:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ZQGKg1iS76ttbP7cpz4f7Iu983_Lvng1&usp=shari
ng
2 The National Community Survey. Pasco, WA, Community Livability Report. 2019. https://www.pasco-
wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62086/NCS-Community-Livability-Report-Pasco-2020
Page 257 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 14
MULTIMODAL CROSS-SECTION STANDARDS
Different streets serve different purposes, and a functional classification system provides a
framework for matching the size and type of various street elements with the intended purpose of
the street. While a street’s functional classification does not dictate which street elements to
include, it does facilitate the selection of the multimodal facilities and widths that help the street
fulfill its intended multimodal function. Adjacent land uses and available right-of-way also influence
which elements are included in a specific segment.
Much of Pasco’s street system is already built out and may not be easily reconfigured. However,
cross-section standards should be applied to existing streets as significant redevelopment occurs
and to new streets serving future development areas. For existing developed areas where
significant redevelopment is not expected, the constrained cross-section standards will be applied.
Constrained cross-sections may include narrower or limited travel lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, or accommodations that generally match those provided by the surrounding developed
land uses. Cross-section standards can also provide a framework to guide design of existing
facilities that may be candidates for future road diets or other reconfigurations.
Roadway cross-section design elements include travel lanes, curbs, planter strips, and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. The current standard cross-sections for the City of Pasco are summarized in
the Pasco Design and Construction Standards3 and summarized below for comparison with the
recommended cross-sections.
The following cross-sections show current standards and recommended maximum elements and
total facility widths for Pasco’s functional classes. The recommended cross-sections were expanded
to allow flexibility in the width of specific elements depending on the context of the adjacent land
uses, as identified in the comprehensive plan zoning map. The cross-sections identified below
include sections for each roadway type within each land use context to present the complete range
of cross-section standards. These standards were compiled based on existing best practices for
urban street design4,5 and professional judgement. A specific roadway type may not exist within a
specific land use context (e.g. there are currently no identified industrial neighborhood collectors).
ARTERIAL ROADWAY STANDARDS
Currently, the City of Pasco maintains a five-lane cross-section standard for all minor arterials
which includes a 5-foot bike lane and 7-foot sidewalks on each side of the street, seen in Figure 5.
The City of Pasco does not currently have a roadway standard for their principal arterial network.
3 City of Pasco. Pasco Design and Construction Standards. https://www.pasco-wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3229/City-of-
Pasco-Standard-Drawings-
4 NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
5 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Page 258 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 15
Paved Width: 68 feet, Right of Way: 83 feet
FIGURE 5: EXISTING MINOR ARTERIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
The Pasco Transportation System Master Plan recommends converting the existing minor arterial
roadway standard to the proposed principal arterial roadway standard and introducing a new three-
lane minor arterial cross-section. Other key recommended changes include adding a planter strip
between the sidewalk and street, on-street parking (for residential and mixed-use areas where less
off-street parking is typically constructed), and a buffer between cyclists and adjacent travel lanes.
The proposed principal arterial cross-sections, summarized in Figures 6A to 6D, and the proposed
minor arterial cross-sections, summarized in Figures 7A to 7D, include flexible design standards for
each cross-section element to accommodate the expected roadway users depending on the
adjacent land use context. For example, the residential minor arterial cross-section standard will be
applied as part of the proposed road reconfiguration on Court Street. A summary of the
recommended widths for both the principal arterial and minor arterial cross-sections is also
provided below in Tables 4 and 5.
Paved Width: 70 feet, Right of Way: 102 feet
FIGURE 6A: RECOMMENDED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL – MIXED USE STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 259 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 16
Paved Width: 70 feet, Right of Way: 94 feet
FIGURE 6B: PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL – RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 74 feet, Right of Way: 96 feet
FIGURE 6C: PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL – COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Page 260 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 17
Paved Width: 76 feet, Right of Way: 98 feet
FIGURE 6D: PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL – INDUSTRIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
TABLE 4: RECOMMENDED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION OPTIONS
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
1. On-street parking not recommended for a five-lane cross-section
2. The number of lanes is dependent on the expected street volume
Cross-Section Element Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial
Sidewalk 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip 8 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Bike Lanes 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Buffer Width 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum
On-Street Parking Optional1; 8 feet None None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes2
2 to 4 lanes;
11 feet
2 to 4 lanes;
11 feet
2 to 4 lanes;
12 feet
2 to 4 lanes;
12 feet
Median or Center T urn
L ane 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 14 feet
Page 261 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 18
Paved Width: 64 feet, Right of Way: 92 feet
FIGURE 7A: PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL – MIXED USE STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 62 feet, Right of Way: 86 feet
FIGURE 7B: PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL – RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Page 262 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 19
Paved Width: 50 feet, Right of Way: 72 feet
FIGURE 7C: PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL – COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 52 feet, Right of Way: 74 feet
FIGURE 7D: PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL – INDUSTRIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Page 263 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 20
TABLE 5: RECOMMENDED MINOR ARTERIAL CROSS-SECTION OPTIONS
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
COLLECTOR ROADWAY STANDARDS
The City of Pasco’s current collector cross-section includes three lanes for vehicles with 5-foot bike
lanes and 7-foot sidewalks on each side. The existing collector cross-section is shown in Figure 8.
Paved Width: 48 feet, Right of Way: 63 feet
FIGURE 8: EXISTING COLLECTOR STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
The Pasco Transportation System Master Plan recommends maintaining the existing collector
roadway standard for collectors constructed in commercial and industrial areas where a center two-
way left turn lane can better balance through movements for vehicles and business or freight
access. The recommended collector street cross-section for mixed use and residential areas does
not include a center two-way left turn lane to minimize the cross-section width and to support a
Cross-Section Element Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial
Sidewalk 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Bike Lanes 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Buffer Width 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum 2 feet minimum
On-Street Parking Optional; 8 feet Optional; 7 feet None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
12 feet
2 lanes;
12 feet
Median or Center T urn
L ane 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 14 feet
Page 264 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 21
multimodal street character. Other key recommended changes include adding a planter strip
between the sidewalk and street and including on-street parking (for residential and mixed-use
areas where less off-street parking is typically constructed). The proposed collector cross-sections,
summarized below in Figures 9A to 9D, include flexible design standards to accommodate the
expected roadway users depending on the adjacent land use context. The proposed residential,
commercial, or mixed-use standards will be applied to the planned road reconfiguration on
Sylvester Street. The recommended widths are also summarized below in Table 6.
Paved Width: 50 feet, Right of Way: 78 feet
FIGURE 9A: PROPOSED COLLECTOR – MIXED USE STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 48 feet, Right of Way: 72 feet
FIGURE 9B: PROPOSED COLLECTOR – RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Page 265 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 22
Paved Width: 45 feet, Right of Way: 67 feet
FIGURE 9C: PROPOSED COLLECTOR – COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 46 feet, Right of Way: 68 feet
FIGURE 9D: PROPOSED COLLECTOR – INDUSTRIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE:
STREETMIX)
Page 266 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 23
TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR CROSS-SECTION OPTIONS
Cross-Section Element Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial
Sidewalk 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Bike Lanes 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Buffer Width None None None None
On-Street Parking Optional; 8 feet Optional; 7 feet None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
Median or Center T urn
L ane None None 11 feet 12 feet
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
The Pasco Transportation System Master Plan also recommends introducing a new neighborhood
collector cross-section which balances mobility for all roadway users with home or business access.
Neighborhood collectors are designed to provide more connectivity than local streets with slower
vehicle speeds than a typical collector street through their design or other traffic calming
treatments. These features make neighborhood collectors a critical component of a multimodal
transportation system. This cross-section includes two vehicle travel lanes, on-street bike lanes (in
commercial or industrial areas only), on-street parking (for residential and mixed-use areas where
less off-street parking is typically constructed), a planter strip between the sidewalk and street,
and sidewalks. The proposed neighborhood collector cross-sections, summarized below in Figures
10A to 10D, include flexible design standards for each cross-section element to accommodate the
expected roadway users depending on the adjacent land use context. Recommended widths for
each element are also summarized in Table 7. Potential traffic calming treatments which can be
applied to neighborhood collectors is summarized below in the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Tools section.
Page 267 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 24
Paved Width: 40 feet, Right of Way: 68 feet
FIGURE 10A: PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR – MIXED USE STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 38 feet, Right of Way: 62 feet
FIGURE 10B: PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR – RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 268 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 25
Paved Width: 32 feet, Right of Way: 54 feet
FIGURE 10C: PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR – COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 32 feet, Right of Way: 54 feet
FIGURE 10D: PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR – INDUSTRIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 269 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 26
TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR CROSS-SECTION OPTIONS
Cross-Section Element Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial
Sidewalk 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Bike Lanes None None 5 feet1 6 feet1
Buffer Width None None None None
On-Street Parking Optional; 8 feet Optional; 7 feet None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes
2 lanes;
12 feet
2 lanes;
12 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
Median or Center T urn
L ane None None None None
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
1. Sharrows and traffic calming treatments can be provided in lieu of bike lanes
LOCAL ROADWAY STANDARDS
Existing local roadway standards for the City of Pasco are summarized in Figures 11A and 11B for
local streets with and without curb. Both cross-sections include two travel lanes and parking on
each side of the street. Sidewalks are only provided for sections that are constructed with curb. All
new roadways within the City of Pasco are recommended to be constructed with curb, so the TSMP
did not include a local street option without curb.
Paved Width: 38 feet, Right of Way: 49 feet
FIGURE 11A: EXISTING LOCAL STREET CROSS-SECTION WITH CURB (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 270 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 27
Paved Width: 44 feet, Right of Way: 44 feet
FIGURE 11B: EXISTING LOCAL STREET CROSS-SECTION WITHOUT CURB (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
The Pasco Transportation System Master Plan recommends maintaining the existing local roadway
standard for streets constructed in mixed use and residential areas where on-street parking is
needed to serve residences or businesses. On-street parking is less critical in commercial and
industrial areas where large off-street parking areas are typically constructed, so the recommended
local street cross-sections for commercial and industrial areas does not include parking. Other key
recommended changes include adding a planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The
proposed local street cross-sections, summarized below in Figures 12A to 12D, include flexible
design standards for each cross-section element to accommodate the expected roadway users
depending on the adjacent land use context. The recommended widths for each cross-section
element is also summarized below in Table 8.
Paved Width: 36 feet, Right of Way: 64 feet
FIGURE 12A: PROPOSED LOCAL STREET WITH CURB – MIXED USE STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 271 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 28
Paved Width: 34 feet, Right of Way: 58 feet
FIGURE 12B: PROPOSED LOCAL STREET WITH CURB – RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Paved Width: 22 feet, Right of Way: 44 feet
FIGURE 12C: PROPOSED LOCAL STREET WITH CURB – COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
Page 272 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 29
Paved Width: 24 feet, Right of Way: 46 feet
FIGURE 12D: PROPOSED LOCAL STREET WITH CURB – INDUSTRIAL STREET CROSS-SECTION
(SOURCE: STREETMIX)
TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET CROSS-SECTION OPTIONS
Cross-Section Element Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial
Sidewalk 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Bike Lanes None None None None
Buffer Width None None None None
On-Street Parking Optional; 8 feet Optional; 7 feet None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes
2 lanes;
10 feet
2 lanes;
10 feet
2 lanes;
11 feet
2 lanes;
12 feet1
Median or Center T urn
L ane None None None None
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
1. Additional width may be needed at intersections or driveways to accommodate truck turning movements
CONSTRAINED ROADWAY OPTIONS
Constrained Streets are generally those where the construction may be challenging due to
topography, environmentally sensitive areas, or historic areas. The constrained street standards
will also be applied in existing, developed areas where significant redevelopment is not expected.
These streets may require modified designs that may not be to scale with the adjacent land use to
allow for reasonable construction costs. Constrained elements may include narrower or limited
Page 273 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 30
travel lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or accommodations that generally match those
provided by the surrounding developed land uses. Recommended guidance for modifications to the
standard designs is provided in Table 9. Any modification of a standard design requires approval
prior to construction.
TABLE 9: RECOMMENDED CONSTRAINED ROADWAY OPTIONS
Note: Pasco’s standard curb section is included as part of the furnishing zone or landscape strip width; Pasco’s standard
gutter section is included as part of the adjacent lane
1. Minimum 3 feet width for furnishing/landscape strip, if provided
2. The number of lanes is dependent on the expected street volume
3. Access restrictions required if no median is provided
COUNTY ROADWAY OPTIONS
County roadways within Pasco’s UGA face several unique challenges, including inconsistent
roadway widths, lack of multimodal facilities, and inadequate ROW designations which can make it
challenging to bring these roadways up to urban standards as these areas are incorporated.
Furthermore, there is no existing formal agreement between Franklin County and the City of Pasco
to guide the process for requiring dedication and improvements in the UGA or for jurisdictional
transfer of County roads to the City. As a result, within the UGA ROW dedication and
improvements, including multimodal facilities, are provided in an inconsistent, ad hoc manner.
Three different approaches can be considered for establishing road annexation (or jurisdictional
transfer) standards that ensures consistency in ROW widths and promotes multimodal facility
development:
1. Interim or phased approaches for upgrading ROW in urbanizing areas (i.e. within the UGA)
Cross-Section Element Principal & Minor
Arterials
Collectors &
Neighborhood
Collectors
Local Streets
Sidewalk 6 feet minimum width 5 feet minimum width 5 feet minimum width
Furnishing Zone or
Landscape Strip None1 None1 None1
Bike Lanes 6 feet minimum width,
no buffer
5 feet minimum width or
provide facility on
adjacent corridor
N/A
On-Street Parking None None None
Vehicle Travel Lanes
2 to 42
11 feet minimum width
2
10 feet minimum width
2
10 feet minimum width
Median or Center T urn
L ane As needed3 As needed3 None
Page 274 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 31
2. Interagency Agreements that establish a coordinated strategy for ROW improvements
among the City and the County/State
3. Standards/Fee-in-lieu that offer developers or property owners an alternative to directly
providing roadway improvements
These methods and examples will be used to codify a process to manage ROW dedications within
the UGA as part of the TSMP.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE STANDARDS
The following sections detail various walking and biking facility standards and treatment guidelines.
WALKING AND BIKING FACILITIES
As shown in the multi-modal roadway cross-section standards, the existing city roadway design
standards should be modified to require buffered bike lanes along principal arterial and minor
arterial roadways for all land use types. Wider bike lanes will also be provided along collector
roadways for all land use types and neighborhood collector roadways in industrial or commercial
areas. Bicyclists should be accommodated with a 5-foot bike lane and 2-foot buffer along arterial
roadways and a six-foot bike lane along collector roadways. Currently, the City of Pasco requires 5-
foot bike lanes on all arterial and collector roadways, so the revised standards increase the total
operating room for bicyclists. Shared streets for bikes are also recommended to be designated
throughout the city and should include pavement markings/ signage.
All streets in mixed-use, residential, and industrial areas are also recommended to require wider
sidewalks. Newly constructed roadways are recommended to include an 8-foot sidewalk in mixed-
use areas and a 6-foot sidewalk in residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Additionally, each
new street is recommended to include a landscape buffer strip or tree wells to create a more
pleasant walking environment for pedestrians. Currently, the City of Pasco requires a 5-foot
sidewalk in residential areas and a 7-foot sidewalk in commercial areas. The proposed cross
sections increase the standard sidewalk width to 6 feet in residential areas and establish new
standards for commercial areas that are based on the type of adjacent businesses. In mixed use
areas (e.g., downtown Pasco), wider 8-foot sidewalks will be supplemented with tree wells to
accommodate increase pedestrian activity while auto-oriented commercial districts will provided
narrower 6-foot sidewalks.
SHARED-USE PATHS
Shared-use paths provide off-roadway facilities for walking and biking travel. Depending on their
location, they can serve both recreational and transportation needs. Shared-use path designs vary
in surface types and widths. Hard surfaces are generally better for bicycle travel. Widths need to
provide ample space for both walking and biking and should be able to accommodate maintenance
vehicles. Currently, the City of Pasco does not have a standard cross-section for shared-use paths.
The recommended cross-section is summarized in Figure 13. The proposed cross-section is 12 feet
wide, with 2-foot shoulders on each side.
Page 275 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 32
Paved Width: 14 feet, Right of Way: 16 feet
FIGURE 13: PROPOSED SHARED-USE PATH CROSS-SECTION (SOURCE: STREETMIX)
STREET CROSSINGS
Roadways with high traffic volumes and/or speeds in areas with nearby transit stops, residential
uses, schools, parks, shopping and employment destinations generally require enhanced street
crossings with treatments, such as marked crosswalks, high visibility crossings, and curb
extensions to improve the safety and convenience. Crossing locations with higher volumes of
pedestrians (either observed or projected) are also candidate locations for rectangular rapid
flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons which increase the visibility of the crossing for
drivers. Crossings should be consistent with the recommended block spacing standards shown in
Table 5, and mid-block pedestrian and bicycle accessways are recommended to be provided at
spacing no more than 300 feet. Exceptions include where the connection is impractical due to
topography, inadequate sight distance, high vehicle travel speeds, lack of supporting land use or
other factors that may prevent safe crossing (as determined by the city).
The city should consider adding enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments to increase protection
where warranted by the combination of pedestrian demand volumes and cross traffic speeds and
volumes. Candidate locations include trail crossings (e.g. Road 100/Planned FCID Canal Trail),
parks or recreation, schools, or high-volume transit stops. Appendix A of National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized
Crossings, includes a procedure for treatment selection, with input variables including:
• Vehicle speed on the major street
• Pedestrian crossing distance
• Peak hour pedestrian volume
• Peak hour vehicle volume
• Local parameters such as motorist compliance, pedestrian walking speed, and pedestrian start-
up and clearance time
Page 276 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 33
NCHRP Report 562 includes worksheets for inputting the variables above and identifying the
appropriate treatment type. A typical worksheet used for this evaluation is seen below in Figure 14.
FIGURE 14: NCHRP 562 SAMPLE EVALUATION WORKSHEET
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) involves strategies to slow traffic, and potentially reduce
volumes, creating a more inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. NTM strategies target
neighborhood livability on local streets, though a few can apply to collectors and arterials, such as
raised median islands. Mitigation measures balance the need to manage vehicle speeds and
volumes with the need to maintain mobility, circulation, and function for service providers, such as
emergency responders. Examples of tools are shown in Figure 15.
Page 277 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 34
Chicanes Chokers Curb Extensions
www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden www.pedbikeimages.org/Carl
Sundstrom
Diverters Median Islands Raised Crosswalks
www.pedbikeimages.org/Adam
Fukushima
www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden www.pedbikeimages.org/Tom Harned
Speed Cushions Speed Hump Traffic Circles
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden www.pedbikeimages.org/Carl
Sundstrom
FIGURE 15 : SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Page 278 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 35
Table 10, below, lists common NTM applications. Any NTM project should include coordination with
emergency response staff to ensure that public safety is not compromised. NTM strategies
implemented on a state facility would require coordination with WSDOT regarding freight mobility
considerations.
TABLE 10: APPLICATION OF NTM STRATEGIES
Arterials Collectors Local
Streets
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Diversion
CHICANES ü ü ü
CHOKERS ü ü ü
CURB EXTENSIONS ü ü ü ü
DIVERTERS
(WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE PASS-
THROUGH)
ü ü ü
MEDIAN ISLANDS ü ü ü ü
RAISED CROSSWALKS ü ü ü
SPEED CUSHIONS
(WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLE PASS-
THROUGH)
ü ü ü
SPEED HUMP ü ü ü
TRAFFIC CIRCLES ü ü ü
The City of Pasco does not currently have a formal neighborhood traffic management program. If
such a program were desired to help respond to future issues, suggested elements include:
• Provide a formalized process for citizens who are concerned about the traffic on their
neighborhood street. The process could include filing a citizen request with petition
signatures and a preliminary evaluation. If the evaluation finds cause for concern, a
neighborhood meeting would be held and formal data would be collected and evaluated. If a
problem were found to exist, solutions would be identified and the process continued with
neighborhood meetings, feedback from service and maintenance providers, cost evaluation,
and traffic calming device implementation. Six months after implementation the device
would be evaluated for effectiveness.
• For land use proposals, in addition to assessing impacts to the entire transportation
network, traffic studies for new developments must also assess impacts to residential
streets. A recommended threshold to determine if this additional analysis is needed is if the
proposed project increases through traffic on residential streets by 40 or more vehicles
during the evening peak hour or 200 vehicles per day. Once the analysis is performed, the
NTM Application Use by Function Classification Impact
Page 279 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 36
threshold used to determine if residential streets are impacted would be if their daily traffic
volume exceeds 1,800 vehicles.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT & STREET CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS
Access management provides safe and efficient access to the transportation system for all users.
Currently, the City of Pasco only manages access through restrictions on the placement of
driveways. New residential driveways must be located 25 feet from an existing intersection, while
new commercial driveways must be placed in coordination with the Public Works Director6.
Expanded access management spacing standards which account for the different roadway
functional classifications are recommended for the City of Pasco to better manage driveway
construction. These standards are summarized in Table 11.
TABLE 11: RECOMMENDED ACCESS MANAGEMENT SPACING STANDARDS
SPACING GUIDELINES1 2 PRINCIPAL
ARTERIALS
MINOR
ARTERIALS COLLECTORS NEIGHBORHOOD
COLLECTORS
LOCAL
STREETS
MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING
(DRIVEWAY TO DRIVEWAY) 2 300 feet 250 feet 150 feet 75 feet N/A
MINIMUM FULL-ACCESS
DRIVEWAY SPACING
(SETBACK FROM
INTERSECTION)
300 feet3 250 feet 150 feet 75 feet 25 feet
MINIMUM RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-
OUT DRIVEWAY SPACING
(SETBACK FROM
INTERSECTION)
150 feet3 125 feet 75 feet 50 feet 25 feet
1. All distances measured from the edge of adjacent approaches
2. A property must construct access to a lower classified roadway, where possible
3. WSDOT requires 1,320 between an interchange and the closest driveway7
The City of Pasco recently adopted block length and block perimeter guidelines to control access to
their street network. Under this new guidance for most zoning designations, block lengths shall not
exceed 660 feet and the block perimeter shall not exceed 1,760 feet. Previously blocks could not
exceed 1,320 feet for residential uses or 600 feet for commercial uses8. In addition to these new
standards, Pasco should consider adopting standards which govern the minimum block size and the
6 City of Pasco. Pasco Municipal Code Section 12.04.100 Driveway Standards. https://pasco.municipal.codes/PMC/12.04.090
7 State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code Section 468-52-040 Access Control Classification System and
Standards. https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=468-52-040
8 City of Pasco. Street Connectivity – Supplemental Memorandum for CA2019-013. September 17, 2020.
Page 280 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 37
maximum distance between pedestrian or bicycle access points. The existing street connectivity
standards plus these additional guidelines is summarized below in Table 12.
TABLE 12: EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED STREET CONNECTIVITY STANDARDS
SPACING GUIDELINES PRINCIPAL
ARTERIALS
MINOR
ARTERIALS COLLECTORS NEIGHBORHOOD
COLLECTORS
LOCAL
STREETS
MAXIMUM BLOCK
SIZE (PUBLIC STREET
TO PUBLIC STREET)1
660 feet 660 feet 660 feet 660 feet 660 feet
MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE
(PUBLIC STREET TO
PUBLIC STREET)
300 feet 250 feet 200 feet 150 feet 125 feet
MAXIMUM BLOCK
PERIMETER1 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet 1,760 feet
MAXIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
ACCESSWAYS2
330 feet 330 feet 330 feet 330 feet 330 feet
1. Existing standard for the City of Pasco
2. Spacing is the maximum of public street to public street, public street to accessway, or accessway to accessway
distance
VEHICLE MOBILITY TARGETS
Mobility targets are used in long-range planning and development review to identify deficiencies on
the transportation network and can be used to identify needed improvements as growth occurs.
Two common methods used to gauge traffic operations for motor vehicles are volume to capacity
(v/c) ratios and level of service (LOS):
• Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio: A v/c ratio is a decimal representation (between 0.00 and 1.00)
of the proportion of capacity that is being used at a turn movement, approach leg, or
intersection. The ratio is the peak hour traffic volume divided by the hourly capacity of a given
intersection or movement. A lower ratio indicates smooth operations and minimal delays. A ratio
approaching 1.00 indicates increased congestion and reduced performance.
• Level of service (LOS): LOS is a “report card” rating (A through F) based on the average delay
experienced by vehicles at the intersection. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic
moves without significant delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. LOS D and E are
progressively worse operating conditions. LOS F represents conditions where average vehicle
delay is excessive, and demand exceeds capacity, typically resulting in long queues and delays.
Mobility targets are adopted by the City of Pasco in their comprehensive plan. The City of Pasco
currently uses a Level of Service (LOS) standard which is based on a Highway Capacity Manual
calculation of delay that varies between signalized and unsignalized intersections. The current
mobility targets, which apply to the daily peak hour, are summarized below in Table 13. The City
requires a lower level of service for arterial and collector roadways where higher traffic leads to
Page 281 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 38
higher delays. The arterial and collector standards are consistent with the mobility targets applied
by BFCG and WSDOT.
TABLE 13: EXISTING MOBILITY TARGETS
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFIATION EXISTING MOBILITY TARGET
LOCAL STREETS LOS C
ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS LOS D
WSDOT FACILITIES LOS D
The City of Pasco should consider expanding their current mobility targets to include a volume-to-
capacity (v/c) standard. Having both a LOS (delay-based) and v/c (congestion-based) standard can
be helpful in situations where one metric may not be enough, such as an all-way stop where one
approach is over capacity but overall intersection delay meets standards. The City of Pasco should
also introduce mobility targets which depend on the intersection control which can better capture
acceptable levels of performance across different intersection control types. Table 14, below,
summarizes recommended changes to Pasco’s mobility targets.
TABLE 14: RECOMMENDED MOBILITY TARGETS
INTERSECTION TYPE
PROPOSED
MOBILITY
TARGET
REPORTING MEASURE
SIGNALIZED LOS D and v/c
≤0.90 Intersection
ALL-WAY STOP OR
ROUNDABOUTS
LOS D and v/c
≤0.90 Worst Approach
TWO-WAY STOP
1 LOS E and v/c
≤0.95 Worst Major Approach/Worst Minor Approach
WSDOT INTERSECTIONS LOS D Intersection or Worst Approach depending on control
type
1. Applies to approaches that serve more than 20 vehicles; there is no standard for approaches serving lower volumes
Page 282 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 39
DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Pasco experiences peak congestion due to single-occupant trips during peak demand times.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) aims to remove single occupant motor vehicle trips
from the roadway network during peak travel demand periods which could provide one avenue for
reducing pressure on key facilities. Changing a users’ travel behavior and providing alternative
choices will help accommodate the expected growth in travel demand identified for Pasco.
Generally, TDM focuses on reducing vehicle miles traveled for large employers by promoting active
and shared modes of travel. Research has shown that a comprehensive set of complementary
policies implemented over a large geographic area can affect the number of vehicle miles traveled
to/from that area. In order for TDM measures to be effective, strategies should go beyond the low-
cost, uncontroversial measures commonly used such as carpooling, transportation
coordinators/associations, priority parking spaces, etc.
Effective TDM measures include parking strategies (limiting or increasing supply in strategic
locations), improved services for alternative modes of travel, and market-based incentives to
encourage travel behavior changes. However, TDM includes a wide variety of actions that are
specifically tailored to the individual needs of an area. Effective TDM strategies include:
• Supporting alternative vehicle types by identifying potential electric vehicle plug-in stations
and developing implementing code provisions.
• Encouraging/supporting rideshare/vanpool to major employers in Benton or Franklin County
and Kennewick or Richland (e.g. Hanford Nuclear Site) for employees living in Pasco.
• Establishing site development standards that require pedestrian and bicycle access through
sites and connections to adjacent sites and transportation facilities, to the extent the
development impacts existing access.
• Improving amenities and access for transit stops. Actions could include instituting site
design requirements allowing redevelopment of parking areas for transit amenities;
requiring safe and direct pedestrian connections to transit and permitting transit-supportive
uses outright in commercial and institutional zones.
• Improving street connectivity to support direct connections between residential areas and
activity centers.
• Investing in pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Opportunities to expand transportation demand management and other measures in Pasco include
developing implementing requirements for long-term bicycle parking for places of employment
above a certain size, park and ride facilities, major transit stops, and multi-family residential
developments. Other land uses, especially activity generators, should be required to provide short-
term bike parking and are encouraged to implement the long-term options. Long-term bicycle
parking options include:
• Individual lockers for one or two bicycles
• Racks in an enclosed, lockable room
• Racks in an area that is monitored by security cameras or guards (within 100 feet)
• Racks or lockers in an area always visible to employees
Page 283 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 40
ELECTRIC AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Emerging transportation technologies will shape roads, communities, and daily lives for
generations. Vehicles are becoming more connected, automated, shared, and electric. While the
timing of when these advances will occur is uncertain, they will have significant impacts on how a
community plans, designs, builds, and uses the transportation system. Below are some important
emerging transportation technology terms and definitions that provide the basis for the impacts,
policies and action items discussed in the following sections.
Connected vehicles (CVs) will enable
communications between vehicles, infrastructure,
and other road users. This means that vehicles will
be able to assist human drivers and prevent
crashes while making the system operate more
smoothly.
Automated vehicles (AVs) will, to varying
degrees, take over driving functions and allow
travelers to focus their attention on other matters.
Vehicles with combined automated functions like
lane keeping and adaptive cruise control exist
today. In the future, more sophisticated sensing and programming technology will allow
vehicles to operate with little to no operator oversight.
Shared vehicles (SVs) allow ride-hailing companies to offer customers access to vehicles
through cell phone applications. Ride-hailing applications give on-demand transportation with
comparable convenience to car ownership without the hassle of maintenance and parking.
Examples of shared vehicles include companies like Uber and Lyft.
Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been on the road for decades and are becoming more
economically feasible as the production costs of batteries decline and vehicle fuel prices
increase.
Many of these technologies will not be exclusive of the others and it is important to think of the
host of implications that arise from the combination of them. These vehicles are referred to as
connected, automated, shared, and electric (CASE) vehicles.
IMPACTS OF CASE VEHICLES
CONGESTION AND ROAD CAPACITY
There are several competing forces that will unfold as connected, automated, and shared vehicles
are deployed. It is difficult to predict how these vehicles will influence congestion and road
capacity.
• AVs will provide a more relaxing or productive ride experience and people may have less
resistance to longer commutes.
• Shared AVs are projected to have lower fuel and operating costs, making them less
Page 284 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 41
expensive on a per mile basis than private vehicle ownership. This may increase demand for
auto-based travel in the future.
• CV technology will allow vehicles to operate safely with closer following distance, less
unnecessary braking, and better coordinated traffic control. This will increase road capacity
in the long run when CVs and AVs comprise most of the public and private fleet of vehicles.
• In the near term, since AVs make up a fraction of the fleet of vehicles, road capacity could
decrease as AVs will operate more slowly and cautiously than regular vehicles.
• A new class of traffic – zero-occupant vehicles – will increase traffic congestion. These could
include AVs making deliveries or shared AVs circulating around the city and traveling to
their next rider.
• Roadways may need to be redesigned or better maintained to accommodate the needs of
automated driving systems. For instance, striping may need to be wider and more
consistently maintained to ensure the vehicle’s sensors can recognize it.
These points raise questions about the degree to which CASE vehicles will impact road capacity and
congestion. The development and use of the technologies should be monitored closely.
TRANSIT
AVs could become cost competitive with transit and reduce transit ridership as riders prefer a more
convenient alternative. However, transit will remain the most efficient way to move high volumes
of people through constricted urban environments. AVs will not eliminate congestion and as
discussed above, could exacerbate it – especially in the early phases of AV adoption. In addition,
shared AVs may not serve all sectors of a community so many will still require access to transit to
meet their daily needs.
PARKING
Because AVs will be able to park themselves, travelers will elect to get dropped off at their
destination while their vehicle finds parking or its next passenger. Shared AVs will have an even
greater impact on parking because parking next to the destination will no longer be a priority for
the traveling public. This means that parking may be over-supplied in some areas and new
opportunities to reconfigure land use will emerge. Outstanding questions related to parking
include:
• How does vehicle ownership impact parking behavior?
• What portion of the AV fleet will be shared?
• How far out of the downtown area will AVs be able to park while remaining convenient and
readily available?
CURB SPACE
In addition to parking impacts, the ability to be dropped off at the destination will create more
potential for conflicts in the right-of-way between vehicles that are dropping passengers off or
picking them up, vehicles moving through traffic, and vehicles parked on the street. This issue is
already occurring in many urban areas with ride-hailing companies, where popular destinations are
experiencing significant double-parking issues.
Page 285 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 42
AVs will also be used to deliver packages and food. This may mean that delivery vehicles need to
be accommodated in new portions of the right-of-way. For instance, if the AV parks at the curb in a
neighborhood and smaller robots are used to deliver packages from door to door, new conflicts will
arise between vehicles, pedestrians, robots, and bicyclists.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
To accommodate a future where electric vehicles are the majority of the vehicle fleet, additional
charging infrastructure will be required. Cities, electric utilities, regions, and states will need to
work together to create enough reliable electricity supply to fulfill the increased electrical demand.
Page 286 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 43
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) GUIDELINES
The City of Pasco’s existing TIA guidelines were reviewed to identify areas of improvement to
ensure a consistent development review process that accurately anticipates traffic impacts due to
ongoing development. Currently, Pasco requires a TIA to be completed if 100 or more weekday
peak hour trips are generated by the development, or due to existing traffic/roadway conditions,
existing and anticipated traffic volumes, trip distribution, accident history, property zoning, truck
traffic percentage, event-based traffic, expressed community concern, and other factors relating to
complexity, and location of proposed development.
Their current guidelines also allow for two tiers of TIAs to be completed depending on the
anticipated level of development. A Tier 1 TIA can be completed when fewer than 50 PM peak hour
net new trips will be generated by the development depending on the context of the development
location. Tier 1 TIAs document the anticipated trip generation and detail the proposed site plans for
the development at a minimum. Tier 2 TIAs are required when a development is expected to
generate 50 or more net new trips during the PM peak hour. These documents include all details
required for a Tier 1 TIA plus a full traffic study to document traffic conditions with the new
development. The existing TIA guidelines do not provide specific details on methodologies that
must be used to evaluate transportation impacts (e.g. appropriate background growth rate,
appropriate trip generation resources).
Recommended modifications to the TIA guidelines are summarized in the supplemental document
“Pasco Guidelines for Transportation Impact Analysis,” provided in the appendix. These guidelines
incorporate most material previously included in Pasco’s TIA guidelines, but include additional
details on best practice for conducting TIAs. Clearly specifying these methods in the TIA guidelines
will increase the uniformity of TIAs received by the City of Pasco and ensure consistent
development review standards are applied. Key changes include:
• Reducing the trips generated threshold to trigger a Tier 2 TIA from 50 to 25 for either the AM or
PM peak hours
• Adding a daily trip generation threshold to trigger a Tier 2 TIA of 300 trips
• Specifying that all TIAs must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or under the direct
supervision of a licensed professional engineer registered in the State of Washington
• Providing recommendations for standard analysis methodologies (e.g. standard background
growth rate)
• Adding additional guidelines for appropriate content to be documented in each TIA
The following section presents the TIA guidelines for the City of Pasco.
Page 287 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 44
CITY OF PASCO
GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
February 2021
Page 288 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 45
This document describes the city’s required content for a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). In
general terms, TIA applies to developments that are presumed to have a transportation impact. A
traffic study shall, at a minimum, be a thorough review of the intermediate and long-range effects
of the proposed development on the City’s transportation system and may result in mitigation of
those resulting impacts. This is not to be confused with a Traffic Impact Fee.
A professional engineer must prepare the TIA and must use appropriate data, methods, and
standards as documented in the Pasco Guidelines for Transportation Impact Analysis.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to implement a process to apply conditions to land use proposals in
order to minimize impacts on and protect transportation facilities.
In order to obtain sufficient and consistent information to assess a development’s impact on the
transportation system a TIA will be performed by the City of Pasco, and/or its agents, at the
Developers expense. The City of Pasco requires two tiers (Tier 1 and Tier 2) of TIAs depending on
the expected level of development. In order to perform an adequate TIA the following options are
available to the developer, Once a direction is chosen by the developer and/or his/her
representative. it cannot be changed. This is out of consideration for responsibilities and final cost
for the developer:
n The City and/or its agents perform the TIA, at the Developers expense, selecting the most
efficient and cost-effective means and provide the analysis to the developer without further
consideration.
n The Developer can perform the TIA utilizing their own licensed Traffic Engineer at the
developer’s expense and the City will perform a review, at the Developers sole expense, with
any and all clarifications or modifications to the TIA resulting from the review being the
Developers sole financial responsibility.
The preparation of the TIA report is the responsibility of the landowner or applicant. Pasco assumes
no liability for any costs or time delays (either direct or inconsequential) associated with the TIA
report preparation and review. The applicant can choose any qualified professional engineer. All
TIA reports shall be reviewed by the city Public Works Department and the Department of
Community & Economic Development (referred to as “city” in this document). Studies that do not
address these guidelines adequately shall be returned to the applicant for modification. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to coordinate with local agencies and/or the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for any potential impacts to county roadways or state
highways.
WHEN IS A TIER 1 ANALYSIS REQUIRED?
Page 289 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 46
A Tier 1 TIA may be required to be submitted to the city with a land use application at the request
of the city or if the proposal is expected to involve one (1) or more of the following:
1. Changes in land use designation, or zoning designation that will generate more vehicle trip
ends.
2. Projected increase in trip generation of less than 25 trips during both the AM or PM peak
hour, or less than 300 daily trips.
3. No additional Tier 2 requirements are met.
WHEN IS A TIER 2 ANALYSIS REQUIRED?
A Tier 2 TIA may be required to be submitted to the city with a land use application at the request
of the city or if the proposal is expected to involve one (1) or more of the following:
1. Changes in land use designation, or zoning designation that will generate more vehicle trip
ends.
2. Projected increase in trip generation of 25 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak
hour, or more than 300 daily trips.
3. Potential impacts to intersection operations.
4. Potential impacts to residential areas or local roadways, including any non-residential
development that will generate traffic through a residential zone.
5. Potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle routes, including, but not limited to school routes
and multimodal roadway improvements identified in the Transportation System Master Plan
(TSMP).
6. The location of an existing or proposed access driveway does not meet minimum spacing or
sight distance requirements, or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property are
restricted, or such vehicles are likely to queue or hesitate at an approach or access
connection, thereby creating a safety hazard.
7. A change in internal traffic patterns may cause safety concerns.
8. Projected increase of five trips by vehicles exceeding 26,000-pound gross vehicle weight (13
tons) per day, or an increase in use of adjacent roadways by vehicles exceeding 26,000-
pound gross vehicle weight (13 tons) by 10 percent.
9. Potential event-based traffic that could impact adjacent intersections.
10. Expressed community concern.
11. Other factors as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Department or the Department of
Community & Economic Development.
PROCESS
A landowner or developer seeking to develop/redevelop property shall contact the city at the
project’s outset. The city will review existing transportation data to establish whether a Tier 1 or
Tier 2 TIA is required. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide enough detailed
information for the city to make a determination. An applicant should have the following prepared,
preferably in writing:
Page 290 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 47
n Type of uses within the development
n The size of the development
n The location of the development
n Proposed new accesses or roadways
n Estimated trip generation and source of data
n Proposed study area
If the city cannot properly evaluate a proposed development’s impacts without a more detailed
study, a Tier 2 TIA will be required. Within a reasonable time following the initial contact, the city
will establish whether a TIA is required. If the developer chooses to use the city to complete the
TIA, the city will provide a project specific scope with an estimated cost to the applicant that
includes all of the requirements in this guideline document. If the developer chooses to use its own
traffic engineer, it must submit a project specific scope to the city that includes all of the
requirements in this guideline document for review and approval before starting the TIA.
TIER 1 REQUIREMENTS
The following sections detail the TIA requirements.
TIA REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements shall be included in each Tier 1 TIA submitted to the city. Additional
information specified by the city through scoping or through other project meetings shall also be
included.
1. The TIA shall be prepared by or prepared under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional
Engineer who shall sign and stamp the TIA.
2. Study Area: An inventory of the existing transportation facilities (pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
and vehicle) for all roadways fronting the proposed development will be included. The
surrounding land use context and allowable zoning must also be reviewed.
3. Trip Generation: The proposed trip generation should be based on similar land uses reported
in the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and shall include calculations for
removed trips, pass-by trips, internal trip capture, and diverted trips, if applicable.
4. Trip Distribution and Assignment: Estimated site generated traffic for the proposed project
should be distributed and assigned to intersections of existing or proposed arterial and
collector roadways within three miles of the site. A summary by intersection movement
should be provided in tabular format, at a minimum. Trip distribution methods should be
based on a reasonable assumption of local travel patterns and the locations of off-site
origin/destination points within the site vicinity. An analysis of local traffic patterns and
intersection turning movement counts can be used as long as the data has been gathered
Page 291 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 48
within the previous 12 months and reflect typical traffic volumes. Counts collected during
periods with significant and/or extended traffic disruptions (i.e., COVID-19 pandemic,
natural disasters, or other special events as determined by city staff) cannot be applied
without adjustments to account for the impact on traffic volumes with approval by city staff.
5. Site plan review: A site plan for the proposed development shall be submitted detailing proposed access
locations and documentation that they meet spacing and sight distance requirements; site circulation for
bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; and the proposed parking.
TIER 2 REQUIREMENTS
The following sections detail the TIA requirements.
TIA REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements shall be included in each Tier 2 TIA submitted to the city. Additional
information specified by the city through scoping or through other project meetings shall also be
included. All additional Tier 1 criteria not specified must be satisfied.
1. The TIA shall be prepared by or prepared under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional
Engineer who shall sign and stamp the TIA.
2. Study Area: The TIA should include all roadways adjacent to and through the site (e.g., all
roadways used to access the site), and any roadway with a functional classification of
collector and above within a quarter-mile of the site. Study intersections will generally
include site-access points, and intersections of two roadways with a functional classification
of collector and above (i.e., Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, or Neighborhood
Collector) within three-miles of the site with an expected increase of 20 peak hour trips
generated from the proposed project. The intersection closest to the site of any roadway
with a functional classification of collector and above with a Principal Arterial should also be
included (if not already required), regardless of the distance or generated trip thresholds
identified above. An inventory of the existing transportation facilities (pedestrian, bicycle,
transit, and vehicle) for all study roadways will be included. The surrounding land use
context and allowable zoning will also be reviewed.
3. The TIA should include the following horizon years:
n Existing Conditions
n No Build Conditions. The conditions in the year in which the proposed project will be
completed and occupied, but without the expected traffic from the proposed project. This
shall include trips generated at study intersections from approved, but not fully occupied
developments at the time traffic count data was collected.
n Build Conditions. The no build condition, plus traffic from the proposed project
Page 292 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 49
assuming full build-out and occupancy. This shall also include phased years of
completion resulting from the development, if applicable.
n Mitigation Conditions (if necessary). The build conditions plus off-site (e.g. proportionate
share of infrastructure improvements) and on-site (e.g. traffic management plan, parking
management plan) improvements that mitigate undesirable impacts from the
development.
4. Analysis Periods: The TIA should analyze the weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) AM
and/or PM peak periods in which the proposed project is expected to generate 25 or more
trips. Additional periods may be required depending upon the proposed project and/or
surrounding land uses. Turning movement counts during the weekday AM peak period should
typically be between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and 4:00 PM and 6:00 pm during the weekday
PM peak period. Historical turning movement counts may be used if the data is not more
than 12 months old. Historical counts shall be factored accordingly to meet the existing
traffic conditions.
5. Trip Generation: The proposed trip generation should be based on similar land uses reported
in the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and shall include calculations for
removed trips, pass-by trips, internal trip capture, and diverted trips, if applicable.
6. Trip Distribution and Assignment: Estimated site generated traffic for the proposed project
should be distributed and assigned to intersections of existing or proposed arterial and
collector roadways within three miles of the site. Trip distribution methods should be based
on a reasonable assumption of local travel patterns and the locations of off-site
origin/destination points within the site vicinity. An analysis of local traffic patterns and
intersection turning movement counts can be used as long as the data has been gathered
within the previous 12 months.
7. Background Traffic Growth Rate: A 1 percent compound annual growth rate shall be applied
to all movements at study intersections to develop background traffic growth for the horizon
years. An applicant may propose an alternative background growth rate with appropriate
documentation and references.
8. In-Process Developments: The TIA should add the trips generated at study intersections
from approved, but not fully occupied developments at the time traffic count data was
collected, to the future horizon years. The applicant should request the approved
developments and their occupancy status from the city. Should the TIA not be submitted to
the city within 12 months of the scoping summary, additional approved developments could
be required. If multiple development applications are received by the city, but not yet
approved, for projects in the same area, the city may require a sensitivity test for each
subsequent applicant to ensure the adequacy of proposed improvements in the event all
developments are approved. The need for any sensitivity tests will be determined based on
the order of applications received and specified in the study scope.
9. Safety Analysis: crash patterns for the past five years will be reviewed for all study
roadways. Crash trends and any specific recommendations to improve existing safety
deficiencies will also be discussed.
Page 293 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 50
TIA CONTENT
The following content should typically be included in each Tier 2 TIA submitted to the city.
Additional information specified by the city in the scoping summary or through other project
meetings shall also be included.
Section 1: Introduction
n Proposed project summary, including site location, zoning, project size, and project scope.
This should include a figure showing the project site and vicinity map, including any
roadway with a functional classification of collector and above within a quarter-mile of
the site and all study intersections.
Section 2: Existing Conditions
n Study area description, including a figure showing the project site, key roadways, and
study intersections.
n Existing site conditions, current zoning, and adjacent land uses.
n Roadway characteristics of important transportation facilities and modal opportunities
located within the study area, including roadway functional classifications, roadway
cross-section, roadway condition, posted speeds, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and
transit facilities.
n Existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study area intersections.
n Existing traffic volumes and operational analysis of the study area roadways and
intersections. This should include a figure of existing peak hour turn movement volumes.
n Roadway and intersection crash history analysis (most recent five years). This should
include a discussion on crash trends, if any, and recommendations for safety
improvements, if any.
Section 3: Assumptions and Methodologies
n Project description, including site location, zoning, project size, and project scope, and
map showing the proposed site, building footprint, access driveways, active
transportation connections, parking, and transit facilities.
n Transportation standards (e.g., roadway and access spacing standards, level-of-service
standards). These can be found in the Pasco Transportation System Master Plan.
n Site access for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, including access spacing
and site distance review at site driveways, and summary of roadway grades and other
vertical or horizontal obstructions.
n Site frontage improvements, including provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Page 294 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 51
n Trip generation summary. This section should also include a summary of the expected
vehicles exceeding 26,000-pound gross vehicle weight (13 tons) that the proposed project
will generate.
n Trip distribution and assignment assumptions, including a figure showing the trip
distribution percentages. A summary of the distributed trips at intersections of existing or
proposed arterial and collector roadways within three miles of the site should be provided
in tabular format by intersection movement.
n Background traffic growth.
n In-process developments, if applicable.
n Funded transportation improvements in the study area, if applicable, including
improvements found in the Pasco Transportation System Plan and the Ben Franklin
Transit Development Plan.
n Future analysis years and scenarios (No Build Conditions, Build Conditions, Mitigation
Conditions, and Phased Years of Completion, if necessary).
n Future traffic volumes. This should include a figure showing the future traffic volumes
broken down by existing traffic volumes, background traffic growth, in-process trip
growth (if applicable), project traffic growth, and total traffic volumes.
Section 4: Future Conditions
n Background traffic volumes and operational analysis.
n Full buildout traffic volumes and intersection operational analysis. This should also
include a summary of roadway segment conditions with full buildout traffic volumes
(e.g., roadway volumes, roadway condition and width).
n Signal and turn lane warrant analysis at site access points, if applicable.
n Intersection and site-access driveway queuing analysis.
n Site access considerations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders
n Impacts of non-residential traffic through a residential zone.
n Impacts from vehicles exceeding 26,000-pound gross vehicle weight (13 tons), including
turning movements.
n Site circulation and parking.
Section 5: Recommendations
n Motor vehicle improvements, including proposed cross-section for site frontage
improvements and intersection improvements (if necessary).
n Site access recommendations for all transportation modes, including summary of needed
Page 295 of 465
PASCO TSMP • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS • FEBRUARY 2021 52
deviations to the code, cross-over easements and driveway consolidation, and proposed
driveways widths.
n Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements, including provisions for pedestrians and
bicyclists along the site frontage, and internally to the site. Recommendations must also
consider future transit routes or stops and access to these facilities from the site.
Appendix
n Traffic count data.
n Crash analysis data.
n Traffic operational analysis worksheets, with detail to review capacity calculations.
n Signal, left-turn, and right-turn lane warrant evaluation calculations.
n Other analysis summary sheets, such as queuing.
Page 296 of 465
Resolution – Adopting the City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) - 1
Version 1.9.26
RESOLUTION NO. 4708
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
APPROVES THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
SAFETY ACTION PLAN (CSAP).
WHEREAS, in 2024, the City of Pasco secured federal funding from the U.S. Department
of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program to help develop a
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).
WHEREAS, the CSAP aims to reduce fatal and serious injuries on city roadways through
engineering improvements and countermeasures.
WHEREAS, as commitment to the eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, the City Council of the City of Pasco approved Resolution No. 4641, adopting the
commitment goal to reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries by 50% by the year 2035.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco is committed to the eventual goal of zero
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Pasco adopts the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP), and
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this 2nd day of March,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Page 297 of 465
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
MARCH 2026
CITY OF PASCO
Pa
g
e
2
9
8
o
f
4
6
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PLAN DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Andrey Avetisyan, Engineering Manager,
City of Pasco, Public Works
Faigda Garcia, Engineer l,
City of Pasco, Public Works
CONSULTANT TEAM
Veronica Sullivan, Project Manager,
DKS Associates
Brian Chandler, Principal in Charge,
DKS Associates
Sheida Carugati, Transportation Planning
Assistant, DKS Associates
Houssam Ghandour, Transportation Planning
Engineer, DKS Associates
Harshala Sardar, Transportation Engineer,
DKS Associates
Caleb Trapp, Transportation Engineering
Associate, DKS Associates
Melissa Abadie, Creative Director,
DKS Associates
Kathryn Miller, Creative Services Specialist,
DKS Associates
Conny García Gaitán,
Engagement Specialist, PRR
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Lieutenant Matthew Decker,
Pasco Police Department
Mark Trumpy, Street Lead Maintenance,
City of Pasco
Sergeant Michael Andrews, Traffic Sergeant,
Pasco Police Department
Kevin Crowley, Fire Chief, Pasco Fire Department
Andrey Avetisyan, Engineering Manager,
City of Pasco, Public Works
Faigda Garcia, Engineer l,
City of Pasco, Public Works
STATUTORY NOTICE
Under 23 U.S. Code § 148 and 23 U.S. Code § 407, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating,
or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or
admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a
location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
Pa
g
e
2
9
9
o
f
4
6
5
ACRONYMS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BFCOG Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
CSAP Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
DUI Driving Under the Influence
of Alcohol and/or Drugs
EHD Environmental Health Disparity
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HAWK High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk
HIN High Injury Network
HVE High-Visibility Enforcement
IB Infrastructure-Based Project
IBL Information by Location
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
NI Non-Infrastructure Based Project
PDO Property Damage Only
POC People of Color
PROWAG Public Right-of-Way
Accessibility Guidelines
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SR State Route
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
SSA Safe System Approach
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
USDOT United States Department
of Transportation
VRU Vulnerable Road User
WSDOT Washington State Department
of Transportation
Pa
g
e
3
0
0
o
f
4
6
5
DEFINITIONS
TERM DEFINITION
CRASH/COLLISION An event involving at least one motorized vehicle on a public roadway within which one or more road users are injured
or killed, or that meets a particular property damage threshold (per WAC 446-85-010).
CRASH SEVERITY The injury severity level of a crash is determined by the most severe injury sustained in the crash: fatal injury (K),
suspected serious injury (A), suspected minor injury (B), possible injury (C), and no apparent injury (O).
COMMUNITY AND
POPULATION
Community and population are often used interchangeably to describe groups of people sharing similar characteristics
or experiences. In this document, we use “community” to mean a group of people who share experiences or cultures.
“Population” is used to describe a group of people defined by shared demographic attributes, typically identified through
Census data.
DISTRACTED DRIVER Distraction includes a long list of items, including but not limited to other occupants, a moving object in the vehicle,
eating or drinking, or using portable electronic devices.
UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITY
An Underserved Community, for the purposes of the Pasco CSAP, is interpreted as a historically disadvantaged
population based on income, limited access to transportation resources, limited English proficiency, and increased risk of
exposure to harmful transportation emissions and environmental hazards. For a plan to address concerns of underserved
communities, it must acknowledge historical marginalization, disenfranchisement, and disinvestment. An underserved
community analysis should examine disproportionate impacts and disparate outcomes for those who have been harmed.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK The High Injury Network (HIN) identifies where the greatest frequency of traffic-related fatal and serious injuries
have occurred.
HISTORICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES
Historically Disadvantaged Communities refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as
geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic,
social, and civic life.
VULNERABLE
ROAD USER
A Vulnerable Road User (VRU) refers to individuals who use a human-scale and often human-powered means of travel
to get from one place to another, including walking, bicycling, using a mobility assistive or adaptive device such as
a wheelchair or walker, using micromobility devices such as skateboards, and using electric-assist devices such as
e-bikes and e-foot scooters. Vulnerable road users travel typically without external protection, making them more
susceptible to severe injuries in the event of a collision with a vehicle.
Pa
g
e
3
0
1
o
f
4
6
5
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CHAPTER 2:
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CHAPTER 3:
OUR COMMITMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CHAPTER 4:
CSAP DEVELOPMENT
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CHAPTER 5:
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CHAPTER 6:
CRASH ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CHAPTER 7:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES
WITH THE MOST NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
CHAPTER 8:
POLICY AND PROCESS REVIEW . . . . . . . . 47
CHAPTER 9:
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
CHAPTER 10:
MEASURING AND
MONITORING PROGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Pa
g
e
3
0
2
o
f
4
6
5
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN PROCESS ......................................................................................2
FIGURE 2. USDOT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH DIAGRAM ...........................................................................................9
FIGURE 3. COMPARISON BETWEEN TRADITIONAL ROAD SAFETY APPROACH AND SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ...............................................11
FIGURE 4. COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN PROCESS ....................................................................................15
FIGURE 5. ENGAGEMENT EVENTS TIMELINE FOR THE PASCO CSAP ................................................................................18
FIGURE 6. INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP FOR THE PASCO CSAP ..................................................................................19
FIGURE 7. PUBLIC OUTREACH TABLING EVENTS AT THE FIRST AVENUE SENIOR CENTER, NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, AND
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL FOOD BANK (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) .......................................................................................20
FIGURE 8. PUBLIC OUTREACH AT THE PASCO CSAP PIZZA & PLANS OPEN HOUSE ....................................................................20
FIGURE 9. PASCO CSAP PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS ANDREY AVETISYAN AND VERONICA SULLIVAN INFORM THE PASCO CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE CSAP .........21
FIGURE 10. TOTAL NUMBER OF CRASHES IN THE CITY OF PASCO (2020–2024) ......................................................................24
FIGURE 11. NUMBER OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES IN PASCO (2020–2024) ...............................................................24
FIGURE 12. LOCATIONS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES THE CITY OF PASCO (2020–2024) ....................................................25
FIGURE 13. SAFETY TRENDS IN THE CITY OF PASCO ............................................................................................27
FIGURE 14. PASCO INTERSECTION AND SEGMENT HIGH INJURY NETWORK (2020–2024) ..............................................................36
FIGURE 15. PASCO RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS ..............................................................................................41
FIGURE 16. UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY AREAS IN PASCO .......................................................................................43
FIGURE 17. SAFETY TRENDS IN PASCO’S UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES ............................................................................44
FIGURE 18. UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES IN PASCO AND THE PASCO HIGH INJURY NETWORK (2020–2024) ..............................................46
FIGURE 19. LOCATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED PROJECTS ...................................................................................54
Pa
g
e
3
0
3
o
f
4
6
5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOCUS AREAS BY SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ELEMENT .................................................................10
TABLE 2. PASCO INTERSECTION HIGH INJURY NETWORK (2020–2024) .............................................................................37
TABLE 3. LIST OF HIGH INJURY NETWORK SEGMENTS ..........................................................................................38
TABLE 4. CITY OF PASCO EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS .......................................................................................48
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NON-INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED (NI) PROJECTS ..................................................................51
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED (IB) PROJECTS .......................................................................52
TABLE 7. PASCO CSAP OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE METRICS ................................................................................56Pa
g
e
3
0
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1
Executive
Summary
These are not just numbers; these are members
of our community who were loved and cared for –
our family, neighbors, loved ones, and friends.
The City recognizes how deeply these incidents
have affected the community, emphasizing the
need for a safer transportation network. The
City of Pasco is committed to improving the
safety of all road users, regardless of age or
ability, including those who walk, bike, roll, take
public transit, or drive. This commitment takes
form in the City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan (CSAP).
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED AND
SERIOUSLY INJURED ON U.S. ROADWAYS
CONTINUES TO BE A GRAVE CONCERN
NATIONALLY. THIS IS ALSO A SERIOUS
ISSUE IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WHICH HAS
EXPERIENCED 104 FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES ON CITY-MAINTAINED
STREETS BETWEEN 2020 AND 2024.
1
Pa
g
e
3
0
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FIGURE 1. COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN PROCESS
SCORE & PRIORITIZE
POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATIONS
IDENTIFY
STRATEGIES & COUNTERMEASURES
EVALUATE
FEASIBILITY & EFFECTIVENESS
SELECT
STRATEGIES & COUNTERMEASURES
MONITOR
PROGRESS
High Injury Network
Emphasis Areas
REEVALUATE
BASED ON FEEDBACK
CRASH ANALYSIS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & FEEDBACK
UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES ANALYSIS
POLICY ASSESSMENT
To help communities like Pasco reduce and
eventually eliminate these crashes, the U.S.
Federal Highway Administration developed the
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program funded
by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA). This program provides the
necessary demonstration and implementation
funds for regional, local, and municipal agencies
to develop data-driven CSAPs and implement
infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects
that improve safety.
In 2024, the City received SS4A funds to develop
a CSAP to help achieve a 50% reduction in the
number of fatalities and serious injuries on its
roadway network by 2035. This goal, adopted by
the Pasco City Council in August 2025 (Resolution
No. 4641), marks a public commitment to reducing
roadway fatalities and serious injuries in Pasco. This
goal aligns as closely as possible with municipal
and regional planning efforts—such as the City
of Pasco Comprehensive Plan and the 2025
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments CSAP.
The Pasco CSAP introduces the purpose of a
comprehensive safety action plan, provides
context on the federal Safe System Approach,
shares publicly the City’s commitment, informs
how the local crash analysis was conducted and
the High Injury Network developed, analyzes
transportation safety risks of underserved
communities, reviews current policies and
processes, proposes recommended safety
improvement projects, and introduces a method
for measuring and monitoring the City’s progress.
The Pasco CSAP was developed through the
lens of the Safe System Approach to meet all the
requirements of the United States Department of
Transportation’s (USDOT) Safe Streets and Roads
for All grant program, as illustrated in Figure 1 and
described on the next page.
Pa
g
e
3
0
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This process included regular updates to the City of Pasco Public Works Department and the CSAP Technical Advisory Committee and modifications to the process
based on their feedback. The result is a CSAP with recommended projects and strategies, and a foundation for the City of Pasco to make roads safer for all users.
CRASH ANALYSIS
The City of Pasco analyzed five years, between 2020 and 2024, of reported crashes in Pasco on all city-
maintained public roadways to understand three important elements of those crash events: location, injury
severity, and contributing factors.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & FEEDBACK
It is vital to understand community concerns to fully understand roadway safety needs. More than 440 community
members shared their safety concerns and ideas for projects and strategies via an online mapping tool, a survey,
and/or in-person and online events.
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES ANALYSIS
The team analyzed underserved communities in Pasco to identify historically disadvantaged communities and
sociodemographic populations.
POLICY ASSESSMENT The City reviewed local policies, plans, guidelines, and standards to assess how each addresses transportation
safety needs. Improving policies can have long-term life-saving effects.
SCORE & PRIORITIZE POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATIONS
Based on all inputs described in previous steps, the City prioritized safety needs, balancing a reactive approach
(focused on the past, including crash history) with a vision for the future by predicting how projects and
strategies can be most effective to prevent future crashes. This process involved evaluating each High Injury
Network intersection and segment using factors such as safety benefit scores, implementation timeframes,
underserved communities considerations, public input, and estimated cost ranges.
SELECT STRATEGIES & COUNTERMEASURES
The result of this analysis is a set of recommended projects and strategies in two primary categories:
• Safety Policy Strategies are non-infrastructure safety strategies that look to address transportation safety
concerns via engagement efforts, new plans and policies, and updated plans and policies. Examples include
updates to the Sidewalk ADA Transition Plan, younger driver education campaigns, and an intersection
daylighting policy.
• Infrastructure Safety Projects are larger capital projects that require significant financial resources, feasibility
studies, and grant applications to secure approvals and funding. Examples include signalized intersections,
roundabouts, sidewalks, and roadway reconfigurations.
MONITOR PROGRESS Develop a method to keep track of the progress and be transparent to the community.
Pa
g
e
3
0
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 4
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
Covering approximately 37 square miles, Pasco
has transformed from an agricultural hub into
one of the state’s fastest-growing urban areas.
In 2024, Pasco’s population was estimated at
over 81,000 residents, reflecting steady growth
driven by a strong regional economy, diverse
employment opportunities, and ongoing housing
and infrastructure development.
THE CITY OF PASCO IS LOCATED IN
SOUTHEASTERN WASHINGTON STATE
AT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE COLUMBIA,
SNAKE, AND YAKIMA RIVERS, FORMING
PART OF THE VIBRANT TRI-CITIES REGION
ALONGSIDE KENNEWICK AND RICHLAND.
4
Pa
g
e
3
0
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 5INTRODUCTION
Pasco’s landscape is characterized by a blend
of urban neighborhoods, industrial areas, and
expansive agricultural lands, all connected by a
growing network of arterial, collector, and rural
roads; each of which connects to state and federal
highways (I-182, US-12, US-395, and SR-397).
While Pasco continues to expand as a regional
employment and logistics hub, its rapid
development and diverse land use also create
unique challenges for safe and efficient mobility.
Transitions between high-speed rural highways
and densely populated urban areas have lacked
adequate pedestrian and bicyclist facilities,
increasing exposure risk for vulnerable users.
While every roadway in Pasco should provide
a safe way for people to travel, that is not yet
the reality. Between 2020 and 2024, 11 people
were killed and 93 were seriously injured while
traveling on city-maintained roads. These
individuals were our neighbors, coworkers,
family members, friends, and visitors.
THE CITY OF PASCO HAS MADE A
COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE ROADWAY
SAFETY FOR ALL ROAD USERS WITH
A GOAL TO REDUCE FATALITIES AND
SERIOUS INJURIES BY 50% BY 2035, WITH
AN ULTIMATE VISION OF ZERO DEATHS
OR SERIOUS INJURIES ON CITY STREETS.
Reaching this goal will require bold action—
changing how the City designs, operates,
and maintains our transportation system, and
strengthening education and outreach around
safe travel behaviors.
This Comprehensive Safety Action Plan establishes
the foundation for taking these important steps.
Achieving a 50% reduction by 2035—and ultimately
reaching zero deaths and serious injuries—
will require a shared responsibility among
transportation safety professionals, safety partners,
and all road users. By working together and
drawing on our collective experience and expertise,
we can implement effective safety projects and
strategies. In the end, together we will make the
City of Pasco a safer place to live, work, and play.
Pa
g
e
3
0
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 6INTRODUCTION
The City secured funding from the federal Safe
Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) grant in 2024 to
create a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP) to improve safety for all roadway users,
including those most vulnerable, walkers, bicyclists
and rollers. Its primary focus is reducing fatal
and serious injury crashes. To accomplish this,
the CSAP uses data and community members’
perspectives to develop an understanding of the
areas (geographic and crash type) most in need
of safety interventions. Based on this analysis, the
plan includes prioritized projects and strategies
designed to improve roadway safety.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
SS4A CHECKLIST
The SS4A grant program requires the City to complete several elements as part of this CSAP development.
The following section identifies the relevant Pasco CSAP chapters for each SS4A element. The City of
Pasco completed an SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet that is included in Appendix A.
ACTION PLAN ELEMENT
THE SAFETY ACTION PLAN MUST INCLUDE THESE THREE REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
1. SAFETY ANALYSIS
• Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to baseline the level of crashes
involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality,
tribe, or region;
• Analysis of the location where there are crashes, the severity, as well as contributing
factors and crash types;
• Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs, as needed (e.g., high risk
road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users);
• A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of
higher risk locations.
CHAPTER 6
2. STRATEGY AND PROJECT SELECTIONS:
DOES THE PLAN IDENTIFY A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES
TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE ACTION PLAN,
TIME RANGES WHEN PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES WILL BE DEPLOYED, AND EXPLAIN
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA?
CHAPTER 9
3. COMPLETION DATE:FEBRUARY 2026
Pa
g
e
3
1
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 7INTRODUCTION
ACTION PLAN ELEMENT
THE SAFETY ACTION PLAN MUST INCLUDE AT LEAST THREE OF THE FIVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
4. ARE BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING TRUE?
• Leadership Commitment: Did a high-ranking official and/or governing body in
the jurisdiction publicly commit to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and
serious injuries?
• Goal: Did the commitment include either setting a target date to reach zero, or setting
one or more targets to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious
injuries by a specific date?
CHAPTER 3
5. PLANNING STRUCTURE:
TO DEVELOP THE ACTION PLAN, WAS A COMMITTEE, TASK FORCE,
IMPLEMENTATION GROUP, OR SIMILAR BODY ESTABLISHED AND CHARGED
WITH THE PLAN’S DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING?
CHAPTER 5
6. ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION:
DID THE ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE ALL THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES?
• Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector
and community groups
• Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration
into the plan
• Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and
collaboration, as appropriate
CHAPTER 5
7. POLICY AND PROCESS CHANGES:
ARE BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING TRUE?
• Plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines,
and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize safety
• Plan discusses implementing through the adoption of revised or new policies,
guidelines, and/standards
CHAPTER 8
8. PROGRESS AND TRANSPARENCY
• A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at a
minimum, outcome data.
• The plan is posted publicly online.
CHAPTER 10
Source: The Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet is included in Appendix A.
Pa
g
e
3
1
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 8
Safe System
Approach
CHAPTER 2
This approach includes improving safety culture,
increasing collaboration among all safety-
interested parties, and redesigning transportation
systems to anticipate human error and lessen
impact forces to reduce crash severity.
1 https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach
THE SS4A GRANT PROGRAM IS SUPPORTED
BY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH,1 WHICH
REPRESENTS A SHIFT IN THINKING ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY.
8
Pa
g
e
3
1
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 9SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
THERE ARE SIX KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE USDOT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH:
1. DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES
ARE UNACCEPTABLE
2. HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES
3. HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE
4. RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED
5. SAFETY IS PROACTIVE
6. REDUNDANCY IS CRUCIAL
FIGURE 2. USDOT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH DIAGRAM
R
E
D
U
NDANCY IS CRUCIAL D E A T H /S E R I O U S I N J U RY IS UNACCEPTABLE H
U
M
A
N
S
M
A
K
E
M
I
S
T
A
K
ES
S
A
F
E
T
Y
I
S
P
R
O
A
C
TIVE RESPONSIBILITY I S S H A R E D H U M A N S A RE VULNERABLE
Safe
System
Approach
POSTCRASHCARE SAFESPEEDS
SAFEROADS
SAFEROAD USERS SAFEVEHICLES
The Safe System Approach is recognized as an
effective way to manage inherent risks within the
transportation system. As part of this framework,
multiple layers of protection are combined to
prevent crashes and reduce harm when crashes
do occur. It provides a holistic and comprehensive
approach with a guiding framework to make
transportation systems safer for everyone.
The Safe System Approach prioritizes eliminating
fatal and serious injury crashes by creating a
system with redundancies in place to protect all
road users (Figure 2).
Pa
g
e
3
1
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 10SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
The five Safe System Approach elements are shown in Table 1. By integrating these elements, this approach aims to create a transportation system where no one is
seriously injured or killed in a roadway crash.
TABLE 1. EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOCUS AREAS BY SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ELEMENT
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ELEMENT EXAMPLE SAFETY STRATEGY FOCUS AREAS
SAFER PEOPLE • Education and public outreach
• Enforcement and accountability
• Design for human behavior
• Target populations (e.g., younger and older drivers)
SAFER VEHICLES • Fleet modernization and procurement
• Advanced vehicle technology adoption
• Heavy and commercial vehicle safety
• Public awareness and consumer education
SAFER SPEEDS
• Context-sensitive speed limit setting
• Speed management planning
• Speed feedback signs
• Engineering and design countermeasures
• Legislation and enforcement
• Intelligent speed management and feedback
SAFER ROADS
• Network screening and prioritization
• Systemic engineering countermeasures
• Multimodal design enhancements
• Capital projects
• Maintenance and operations
POST-CRASH CARE
• Rapid detection and notification
• Optimized emergency response
• On-scene safety and clearance
• Trauma care and data integration
• Public empowerment (e.g., bystander training)
Whereas traditional road safety strives to modify human behavior and prevent all crashes, the Safe System Approach refocuses transportation system design,
educational and enforcement programs, and anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives.
Pa
g
e
3
1
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 11SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
FIGURE 3. COMPARISON BETWEEN TRADITIONAL ROAD SAFETY APPROACH AND SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
TRADITIONAL APPROACH
• Traffic deaths are inevitable
• Aims to fix humans
• Expects perfect human behavior
• Prevents crashes
• Exclusively addresses
traffic engineering
• Doesn’t consider
disproportionate impacts
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
• Traffic deaths are preventable
• Aims to fix systems
• Humans make mistakes
• Prevents fatal and serious crashes
• Considers the roadway system
as a whole
• Considers road safety as an issue
of social equity
To make meaningful progress, we need to change how we think about the traffic safety problem and the
approaches to solving it. Figure 3 further describes differences between the previously-used traditional
approach and the Safe System Approach.
11
Pa
g
e
3
1
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 12
Our
Commitment
CHAPTER 3
IN AUGUST 2025, THE CITY OF PASCO
FORMALLY COMMITTED TO A 50%
REDUCTION OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY
CRASHES ON CITY ROADS BY 2035 WITH
THE PASSING OF RESOLUTION NO. 4641.
12
Pa
g
e
3
1
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 13OUR COMMITMENT
Pa
g
e
3
1
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 14
CSAP
Development
Methodology
CHAPTER 4
A DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY-
INFORMED METHODOLOGY WAS USED
TO IDENTIFY, EVALUATE, AND PRIORITIZE
ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS
FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
CITY OF PASCO.
14
Pa
g
e
3
1
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 15CSAP DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
A step-by-step process was used to identify, score, and prioritize potential project locations in the City of Pasco through data analysis, community input, and
iterative evaluation (shown in Figure 4).
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
Safety analysts developed the High Injury Network
(HIN) to identify the intersections and segments
of Pasco’s roadway network with the highest
densities of fatal and serious injury crashes. The
HIN was developed by using crash data from the
5-year period of 2020-2024, which was acquired
from Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) for the Pasco study area (excluding
state-owned facilities such as highway 182, 12
and 395). See the Crash Analysis chapter,
Chapter 6, for details on the methodology for
establishing the Pasco HIN.
The Intersection HIN encompasses over one-third
(37%) of all intersection-related fatal and serious
injury crashes in Pasco. The Segment HIN
encompasses almost half (45%) of all segment-
related fatal and serious injury crashes in Pasco.
LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
AND PRIORITIZATION
To determine project priorities, the City evaluated
crash trends, High Injury Network data, and
underserved community needs alongside direct
public feedback. This review ensured that the
identified roadway segments and intersections
align with both data-driven safety goals and
community expectations. The segments and
intersections were assigned scores separately
using geospatial software and a scoring
framework. These locations were ranked and
prioritized to guide project development. See
the Crash Analysis chapter for details on the
weighting and scoring methodology for the
intersection and segment HIN.
FIGURE 4. COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN PROCESS
SCORE &
PRIORITIZE POTENTIAL
PROJECT LOCATIONS
IDENTIFY STRATEGIES &
COUNTERMEASURES
EVALUATE FEASIBILITY &
EFFECTIVENESS
SELECT STRATEGIES &
COUNTERMEASURES
MONITOR PROGRESS
High Injury Network
Emphasis Areas
REEVALUATEBASED ON
FEEDBACK
CRASH ANALYSIS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
& FEEDBACK
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES ANALYSIS
POLICY ASSESSMENT
Plan Process
Pa
g
e
3
1
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 16
Public
Engagement
CHAPTER 5
As a part of the development of the CSAP, the
City conducted a thorough outreach process
from May 2025 through November 2025. These
efforts successfully engaged over 440 community
members, providing the City with a diverse range
of perspectives and local safety priorities. All
public input was instrumental in validating
technical findings and ensuring that the final
project recommendations align with the lived
experiences of Pasco residents.
THE CITY OF PASCO IS DEDICATED TO
ENHANCING TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
FOR ALL ROAD USERS, A COMMITMENT
THAT IS REFLECTED IN ITS PROACTIVE
APPROACH TO GATHERING PUBLIC
FEEDBACK ON SAFETY CONCERNS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
16
Pa
g
e
3
2
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 17PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The engagement efforts for the CSAP included
in-person and virtual participation opportunities for
the public and regular meetings with transportation
safety experts of Pasco in the form of a Technical
Advisory Committee. The virtual options included
a multilingual project website with a Frequently
Asked Questions sheet, survey of questions
regarding transportation and safety, an interactive
comment map where participants could leave
comments and ideas, and virtual open houses.
In-person efforts included workshops and
presentations to the Pasco City Council, pop-up
events in the community, and an open house.
Figure 5 depicts the timeline of all the Pasco
CSAP public engagement efforts that were
executed during the project.
WHO DID WE REACH OUT TO?
Of the optional demographic responses submitted,
the community profile that appeared was as follows:
• Age Representation: The majority of responses
were contributed by working-age adults,
24 to 54 years old.
• Ethnicity: Individuals identifying as White/
Caucasian represented the largest group of
survey respondents. The second-highest ethnic
background represented was Hispanic/Latino.
Three ethnic backgrounds have one respondent
each: Black or African American, Middle Eastern
or North African, and Two or more races.
• Mobility: A majority of respondents reported not
having a disability/mobility limitation. A small
number of respondents identified as having, or
having someone in their household with, a
disability/mobility limitation.
• Gender: Most survey respondents identified as
female. A minority of respondents identified as
male; only one participant preferred not to share
their gender; and no respondents identified as
non-binary or with other gender presentations.
• Access to Transportation: More than 1 in 5 (22%)
of survey respondents reported they do not have
regular access to a personal vehicle.
• Languages Spoken at Home: More than
one-quarter (26%) of survey respondents
primarily speak Spanish at home. This bilingual
representation reinforces the need for English/
Spanish communication, outreach materials,
and engagement strategies throughout the
CSAP process.
Public Outreach Overview
Pa
g
e
3
2
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 18PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
FIGURE 5. ENGAGEMENT EVENTS TIMELINE FOR THE PASCO CSAP
2025 2026
MAY JUNE JULY AUG.SEPT.OCT.NOV.DEC.JAN.FEB.MAR.
PROJECT WEBSITE (THROUGHOUT DURATION OF PROJECT)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS
INTERACTIVE MAP
JULY 7, 2025 AUG. 8, 2025 DEC. 8, 2025
ONLINE SURVEY
POP-UPS & OPEN HOUSES
AUG. 4, 2025
AUG. 5, 2025
AUG. 6, 2025
NOV. 13, 2025
AUG. 12, 2025
AUG. 13, 2025
Transportation Tea Time, First Avenue Senior Center
National Night Out, Chiawana Park
St Vincent de Paul Food Bank
Pizza and Plans Open House, Pasco Mid-Columbia Library
Virtual Open House
Virtual Open House
PASCO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPS & PRESENTATIONS
JULY 28, 2025 AUG. 4, 2025
Workshop Presentation
FEB. 23, 2026
Presentation
ENGAGEMENT EVENTS TIMELINE
Pa
g
e
3
2
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 19PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
SURVEY
A project website was developed and hosted by
Social Pinpoint, including a brief survey asking
participants to share their safety priorities,
concerns, and questions with the project team.
The survey also asked optional demographic
questions to gain a better understanding of which
communities were filling out the survey and which
communities needed more concerted outreach
efforts based on the survey responses.
The same survey was provided during in-person
events, with a combined total of 46 submitted by
the public.
VIRTUAL EVENTS
To ensure access to outreach to as many
community members as possible, two virtual open
houses on Zoom were conducted in August 2025.
The virtual open houses were promoted through
regular project promotion channels as well as on
the local evening news.
INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP
The engagement efforts included an online interactive map also located on the project website, where
participants could add location-based comments to share their safety priorities, concerns, and questions
with the project team. The comment categories participants could choose from were:
• Pedestrian Concern
• Bicycle Concern
• Motorcyclist Concern
• Vehicle Concern
• Transit Concern
• Other Concern
Participants could also upvote and downvote other comments already posted. Over the span of the
project engagement phase, the Interactive Comment Map received 142 comments and numerous upvotes
for existing comments (Figure 6) either in-person or online.
FIGURE 6. INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP FOR THE PASCO CSAP
Pa
g
e
3
2
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 20PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
FIGURE 8. PUBLIC OUTREACH AT THE PASCO CSAP PIZZA & PLANS OPEN HOUSE
IN-PERSON OUTREACH EVENTS
The project team conducted several outreach
events throughout the engagement period,
ranging from pop-ups at community events, a
public open house, and city council workshops
and presentations. A total of 444 individuals took
part in the in-person outreach events.
POP-UP EVENTS
Several pop-ups were held at community events
and centers to reach as many different community
members of Pasco as possible. Members of the
public were informed of the Pasco CSAP, the
goal to reduce and eventually eliminate fatalities
in Pasco, and were asked to provide any
feedback on safety concerns or ideas for safety
improvements. Pop-up events, as pictured in
Figure 7, included tabling at:
• First Avenue Senior Center (Transportation
Tea Time)
• Chiawana Park (National Night Out)
• St. Vincent de Paul Food Bank
OPEN HOUSES
On November 13, 2025, the project team
conducted a final outreach event in the form of a
public open house. The open house was held in
evening hours at a local public library and had free
pizza for participants. Community members were
asked about their safety concerns and shared
ideas for safety improvements in their communities.
Over 60 people attended the Pizza and Plans
Open House. Figure 8 depicts the project team
discussing the Pasco CSAP with community
members that attended the open house.
FIGURE 7. PUBLIC OUTREACH TABLING EVENTS AT THE FIRST AVENUE SENIOR CENTER, NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, AND ST. VINCENT DE PAUL FOOD BANK (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT)
Pa
g
e
3
2
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 21PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPS
AND PRESENTATIONS
To ensure both informed decision-making and a
sustained public commitment from City leadership,
the project team prioritized early and consistent
engagement with the Pasco City Council. This
collaboration began with a City Council Workshop
in late July 2025, designed to brief Council
members on the objectives of the Pasco CSAP
and the necessity of establishing a measurable
safety reduction goal. This workshop helped
served as a precursor to a formal public
presentation delivered to the City Council in
August 2025, as shown in Figure 9. These
summer 2025 sessions helped Pasco pass their
official commitment to reduce fatal and serious
injury crashes on August 18, 2025.
The final phase of engagement will be held on
February 2026, when the completed Pasco CSAP
will be presented at a City Council Workshop.
During this Council Workshop session, the project
team will update Council on the plan’s development
and request to formally adopt and execute the
Resolution for the Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan (CSAP) at the following week’s Council Meeting.
WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY SAY
ABOUT SAFETY IN PASCO?
The community consistently expressed that
roads feel too fast, too car-dominated, and not
safe enough for people walking, biking, riding
motorcycles, taking transit, or even driving.
Community members in Pasco share a strong
desire for safer, more connected streets that
complete their communities. People note frequent
issues with speeding, unsafe intersections, and
gaps in sidewalks, bike facilities, and transit
access. Community members want streets that
are safer, more accessible, and better connected
for everyone. Overall, the following overarching
themes appeared:
• Currently, Pasco community members
observe unsafe speeds and drivers exhibiting
risky behaviors.
• Community members identified missing
or inadequate pedestrian and bicyclist
infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks).
• The community noted they feel unsafe at
intersections. There are many areas that
feel difficult to navigate when it comes to
turning movements.
• While transit is generally viewed as safe,
community members shared concerns about
reaching bus stops due to missing sidewalks,
poor lighting, and limited connections, especially
in West and East Pasco.
•
FIGURE 9. PASCO CSAP PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS ANDREY AVETISYAN AND VERONICA SULLIVAN INFORM
THE PASCO CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE CSAP
Pa
g
e
3
2
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 22PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
• Many comments highlighted missing sidewalks,
a lack of crosswalks, and disconnected bike
routes, especially along high-traffic corridors
such as Road 68 and Road 100. There is a need
for more connections across highway 182.
DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS FROM
THE COMMUNITY
When asked what would make Pasco’s streets
safer, community members most often selected:
• Improved roadway design (lighting, signage,
intersection design)
• Traffic calming and speed management strategies
• Better pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Improved roadway maintenance
• Safer access to public transit
Many comments also expressed interest in streets
that are not only safer but also more welcoming,
supporting neighborhood pride, local businesses,
and community spaces.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was
developed to include key stakeholders to share
their insights on improving safety in the City of
Pasco; meeting throughout the development
of the CSAP. The TAC members included
staff from the Public Works Department, the
Maintenance Department, the Police Department,
and the Fire Department.
The TAC met three times during plan development
and provided vital feedback during key milestones
of the project. During the first TAC meeting, the
Committee learned about the CSAP, the Safe
System Approach and Vision Zero goals; learned
about the outcomes of the TAC and their roles;
reviewed the planned outreach events; and
brainstormed an initial reduced fatality goal.
The second TAC meeting provided a preliminary
outlook on the 2020 – 2024 Pasco crash data, an
update on the public engagement efforts, and an
agreement on the recommended fatality reduction
goal year in Pasco. The third TAC meeting involved
sharing the Draft CSAP and discussing the draft
recommended safety improvements. TAC members
were also provided a draft copy for review and
comment. Each received a final copy of the
CSAP upon its completion.
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MATTHEW
DECKER
Lieutenant,
Pasco Police
Department
MICHAEL
ANDREWS
Traffic
Sergeant,
Pasco Police
Department
KEVIN
CROWLEY
Fire Chief,
Pasco Fire
Department
MARK
TRUMPY
Street Lead
Maintenance,
City of Pasco
ANDREY
AVETISYAN
Engineering
Manager,
Public Works
Department
FAIGDA
GARCIA
Engineer I,
Public Works
Department
Pa
g
e
3
2
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 23
Crash Analysis
CHAPTER 6
Severity-weighted crash data are used to identify
high-injury intersections and roadway segments
through the High Injury Network, while common
crash patterns and contributing factors are
evaluated to establish key emphasis areas.
Together, these analyses inform data-driven,
equitable prioritization of safety projects aimed at
reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.
AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF ROADWAY
CRASHES PROVIDES THE FOUNDATION FOR
UNDERSTANDING SAFETY TRENDS ACROSS
THE CITY OF PASCO.
23
Pa
g
e
3
2
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 24CRASH ANALYSIS
Figure 10 below reveals the total number of crashes in the City of Pasco from 2020 to 2024. For this crash analysis, the study area encompassed city maintained
roads within the existing city limits, excluding highways 182, 12, and 295. From 2020 to 2024, Pasco experienced a total of 4,490 crashes on its roadways, averaging
898 crashes per year. Figure 11 presents the number of fatal and serious injury crashes and Figure 12 displays these crashes and their location in Pasco. While fatal
and serious injury crashes have trended downward following their 2022 high, overall crash frequency across the roadway network has continued to rise.
Overview of Crashes in Pasco
FIGURE 10. TOTAL NUMBER OF CRASHES IN THE CITY OF PASCO (2020–2024)FIGURE 11. NUMBER OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES IN PASCO
(2020–2024)
657
882 974 990 987
200
400
600
800
1,000
0
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
5
10
20
0
15
30
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
18
21
29
21
15
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
F
A
T
A
L
A
N
D
SE
R
I
O
U
S
I
N
J
U
R
Y
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
Pa
g
e
3
2
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 25CRASH ANALYSIS
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
LVD
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395
CRASHES
FATAL
SUSPECTED
SERIOUS INJURY
PASCO CITY LIMITS
N
FIGURE 12. LOCATIONS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES THE CITY OF PASCO (2020–2024)
Pa
g
e
3
2
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 26CRASH ANALYSIS
Like many public agencies, the City operates
with limited resources that must be strategically
allocated to address the most urgent safety risks
and the most persistent community concerns.
The projects and strategies outlined in this CSAP
are intentionally designed to focus on the most
severe crash factors, the highest-risk roadway
characteristics, and the priority locations where
targeted investments will yield the greatest
reductions in fatalities and serious injuries.
The most common crash types and attributes
are typically called emphasis areas.
Figure 13, presents a snapshot of Pasco’s safety
landscape, showing how fatal and serious injury
crashes have occurred over time, the types and
causes most commonly associated with them,
and the users and behaviors disproportionately
represented in severe outcomes. This identifies
the six emphasis areas that represent the primary
contributing factors to fatal and serious injury
crashes in the city. These emphasis areas also
reflect long-standing public concerns related
to roadway safety. Structuring projects and
countermeasures around these emphasis areas
ensure that the City’s safety investments are
both locally relevant and aligned with proven,
data-driven outcomes.
The following cut sheets summarize key fatal and
serious injury crash trends associated with each
emphasis area. It is important to note that
individual crashes may involve multiple
contributing factors and, therefore, may fall under
more than one emphasis area. For example, a
crash involving an impaired driver who is also
speeding and departs the roadway would be
reflected in several emphasis categories.
• Intersections (60% all fatal and serious
injury crashes occurred at intersections)
• Low Lighting Conditions (47% of all fatal
and serious injury crashes involved lighting
conditions that were indicated as dark, dusk
or dawn lighting conditions)
• Risky Behaviors – Speeding, Inattention/
Distraction (31% of all fatal and serious injury
crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist)
• Vulnerable Road Users – Pedestrians and
Bicyclists (23% of all fatal and serious injury
crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist)
• Impaired Drivers (18% of all fatal and serious
injury crashes involved an impaired driver)
• Lane Departure (17% of all fatal and serious
injury crashes involved lane departure)
• Motorcyclists (although only 1% of all crashes
involved a motorcyclist, these types of crashes
made up 17% of all fatal and serious injury crashes)
Emphasis Areas
Pa
g
e
3
3
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 27CRASH ANALYSIS
SAFETY TRENDS AND PRIORITIES
Selecting the most effective safety strategies relies on an accurate understanding of why fatal and serious injury crashes are happening in the first place. The
foundation of this CSAP is centered around a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of historical crash data (2020 to 2024), an inventory of the study area, and
an evaluation of risk factors that are known to increase the likelihood of a severe crash occurring.
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASH TRENDS
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
A
L
L
S
E
V
E
R
I
T
I
E
S
FATAL SERIOUS INJURY
104
FATAL OR SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
IN PASCO FROM 2020 TO 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY
CRASHES PER YEAR
17 20
26
19 11
18
21
29
21
15
42311
30%
ENTERING AT
AN ANGLE
21%
PEDESTRIAN
10%
ANGLE LEFT TURN
10%
FIXED OBJECT
INTERSECTION
38%
YOUNG DRIVERS
18%
SPEEDING
18%
IMPAIRED
60%<21
MOST COMMON FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASH TYPES
TOP CONTRIBUTING FACTORS OR TOP EMPHASIS AREAS
FIGURE 13. SAFETY TRENDS IN THE CITY OF PASCO
Pa
g
e
3
3
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 28CRASH ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION
Intersections are locations where two or more
roadways meet. The potential for severe or fatal
crashes at these locations increases with higher
approach speeds, the nature of vehicular and
turning conflicts, and the presence of multiple
modes of travel, including vulnerable road users
such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
INTERSECTION CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF INTERSECTION CRASHES
THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
60%
12
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
35%<21
24%
19%
15%
15%
68%
34%
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
OF CRASHES ARE DUE TO
ENTERING AT AN ANGLE AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
15
10
14 13
10
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
UNDER
AGE 21
IMPAIRED
DRIVING
MOTORCYCLISTS
SPEEDING
RELATED
PEDESTRIANS
Intersections
28
Pa
g
e
3
3
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 29CRASH ANALYSIS
Low Lighting Conditions
29
DESCRIPTION
This emphasis area includes crashes that
occurred during periods of low lighting
conditions, such as dawn, dusk, or nighttime.
Limited visibility during these times can
reduce a driver’s perception and reaction
time, increasing the likelihood and severity
of crashes, particularly for vulnerable road
users and on roadways with insufficient
street lighting.
LIGHTING CONDITION CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF LIGHTING CONDITION
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
47%
10
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
45%
<21
33%
31%
29%
22%
33%
14%
14%
OF CRASHES ARE DUE TO
ENTERING AT AN ANGLE
OF CRASHES INVOLVED HITTING
A FIXED OBJECT
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5
13 12
9
10
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSINTERSECTION
RELATED
UNDER
AGE 21
ROAD
DEPARTURES
IMPAIRED
DRIVING
PEDESTRIANS
Pa
g
e
3
3
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 30CRASH ANALYSIS
Risky Behaviors
30
DESCRIPTION
This emphasis area encompasses crashes
related to distracted driving and speeding.
Distracted driving refers to any behavior that
diverts a driver’s attention from the primary task
of operating a vehicle safely, while speeding
includes both exceeding the posted speed limit
and traveling too fast for prevailing conditions.
Higher speeds reduce a driver’s ability to
perceive and react to situations leading to
a collision and substantially increase the
likelihood of severe or fatal outcomes when
crashes occur.
RISKY BEHAVIOR CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF RISKY BEHAVIOR
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
31%
6
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
53%
<21 41%
28%
22%
22%
31%
38%
16%
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4
6
13
4 5NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
OF CRASHES ARE DUE TO
ENTERING AT AN ANGLE
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
INTERSECTION
RELATED
UNDER
AGE 21
PEDESTRIANS
ROAD
DEPARTURES
IMPAIRED
DRIVING
Pa
g
e
3
3
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 31CRASH ANALYSIS
Vulnerable Road Users
31
DESCRIPTION
Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) include
pedestrians and bicyclists who are at greater
risk of serious injury or death in a traffic crash
due to the absence of a protective vehicle
structure. This risk is particularly pronounced
on higher-speed roadways, where exposure
to vehicular traffic significantly increases the
likelihood and severity of crash outcomes.
VULNERABLE ROAD USER CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF VULNERABLE ROAD USER
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
23%
5
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
42%
<21
29%
29%
17%
29%
29%OF CRASHES OCCURRED IN
DARK LIGHTING CONDITIONS
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 3
11
4
6
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSINTERSECTION
RELATED
DISTRACTED
DRIVING
INVOLVED
UNDER
AGE 21
IMPAIRED
DRIVING
Pa
g
e
3
3
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 32CRASH ANALYSIS
Impaired Driving
32
DESCRIPTION
Impaired driving is operating a vehicle under
the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other
substances that affect the central nervous
system. These substances reduce cognition,
judgment, vision, reflexes, and motor
control. As a result, drivers have difficulty
controlling speed, maintaining lane position,
and responding to traffic conditions or
emergencies, which increases the likelihood
of unsafe and high-risk behaviors.
IMPAIRED DRIVING CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF IMPAIRED DRIVING
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
18%
4
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
32%
21%
21%OF CRASHES INVOLVED HITTING
A FIXED OBJECT
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
4
7
3
2NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
OF CRASHES INVOLVED
A PEDESTRIAN
OF CRASHES ARE DUE TO
ENTERING AT AN ANGLE
47%
32%
26%
INTERSECTION
RELATED
32%SPEEDING
RELATED
<21 26%UNDER
AGE 21
PEDESTRIANS
UNRESTRAINED
OCCUPANT
Pa
g
e
3
3
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 33CRASH ANALYSIS
Lane Departure
33
DESCRIPTION
A lane departure crash involves a driver
unintentionally leaving their lane of travel. This
includes leaving a lane to the right (run-off-
the-road crashes) and leaving a lane to the left
(either head-on or run-off the-road crashes). It
excludes crashes where a driver encroaches on
another lane of travel in the same direction, and
wrong-way crashes.
LANE DEPARTURE CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF LANE DEPARTURE
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
17%
4
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
50%<21
33%
33%
17%
44%
17%
11%
OF CRASHES INVOLVED HITTING
A PARKED CAR
OF CRASHES INVOLVED STRIKING
ANOTHER VEHICLE HEAD-ON
0
5
7
5
1NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
OF CRASHES INVOLVED HITTING
A FIXED OBJECTUNDER
AGE 21
IMPAIRED
DRIVING
SPEEDING
RELATED
DISTRACTED
DRIVING
INVOLVED
Pa
g
e
3
3
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 34CRASH ANALYSIS
Motorcyclist
34
DESCRIPTION
Motorcyclists represent a distinct subset
of vulnerable road users who experience
a disproportionately high level of risk. This
heightened vulnerability arises from the limited
structural protection provided by motorcycles,
their operation at typical motor vehicle speeds,
and their relatively small profile, which reduces
their visibility to other motorists.
MOTORCYCLIST CRASH STATISTICS (FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY ONLY)
FACTORS SHOWN BELOW ARE NOT MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE
ATTRIBUTED TO PERCENT OF MOTORCYCLIST
CRASHES THAT ALSO INVOLVED OTHER NOTABLE FACTORS
17%
4
PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED EACH
YEAR ON AVERAGE
OF ALL FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES
83%
<21 61%
22%
50%
44%
33%OF CRASHES OCCURRED DURING
THE LEFT TURN MANEUVER
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2 1
4
6
5
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
YEAR
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES PER YEAR
OF CRASHES OCCURRED AT
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
OF CRASHES ARE DUE TO
ENTERING AT AN ANGLE
INTERSECTION
RELATED
UNDER
AGE 21
SPEEDING
RELATED
Pa
g
e
3
3
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 35CRASH ANALYSIS
The City of Pasco High Injury Network (HIN)
includes the intersections and roadway segments
where injury crashes occurred most often during
the study period (2020-2024).
The customized HIN was developed using severity-
weighted crash heat maps, providing increasing
scores for segments and intersections based on the
frequency and severity of injury-resulting crashes.
For example, an intersection that experienced a
fatal crash would be more likely to show up on the
HIN than an intersection that experienced several
minor injury crashes.
The resulting HIN is a practical, data driven tool that
helps the City of Pasco prioritize locations for safety
improvements and quickly explore how high injury
locations shift when focusing on specific crash
types, user groups, or time periods. Figure 14 shows
the Pasco intersection and segment HIN.
1 For more information about societal cost: https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/data/multimodal-mobility-dashboard/doc/TargetZero-ImplementationPlan-HSIP2024.pdf
DEVELOPING THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK
The study team acquired reportable crash data
from the WSDOT Public Disclosure Request
Center database from January 2020 through
December 2024. Crash records include all data
collected by the reporting officer, including crash
identification (jurisdiction, location, date, time),
demographics of involved parties (age, gender),
environmental (weather, road surface), and crash
details (type of collision, contributing
circumstance, vehicle type, severity).
Crash data for the City of Pasco was first reviewed
and filtered to include only fatal, serious injury,
minor injury, and possible injury crashes. Each crash
was then classified into one of two categories:
1. Intersection related: occurred at or
immediately adjacent to an intersection
2. Segment related: occurred along a roadway
segment between intersections
This distinction is important because crash patterns
and safety needs often differ between intersection
nodes and longer roadway corridors. Having
separate datasets allows separate heat maps and
rankings for intersections and segments.
To reflect the relative impact of different crash
outcomes, each crash is assigned a severity weight.
The following scale was used:
• Fatal Injury (K): 24 points
• Suspected Serious Injury (A): 24 points
• Suspected Minor Injury (B): 2 points
• Possible Injury (C): 1 point
• Property Damage Only (PDO) and Unknown:
0 points (excluded)
The scale above was derived from the societal cost
for crashes in Washington State1 and provided by
WSDOT Headquarters Design in August 2025.
These weights approximate the societal and
economic costs associated with crash severity.
Fatal and serious injury crashes were assigned
equal weight in the analysis because both were
assigned the same societal cost value under
WSDOT State Safety Implmentation Plan (2023).
For each crash record, the corresponding weight
was applied. Weighted crash scores were then
summed for each intersection or segment.
The weighted crash score at a location is the sum
of these points for all crashes that fall within that
intersection area or corridor segment.
High Injury Network
Pa
g
e
3
3
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 36CRASH ANALYSIS
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BLVD
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFURPKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
INTERSECTIONS
SEGMENTS
PASCO CITY LIMITS
1 W LEWIS ST AT N 14TH AVE
2 BURDEN RD AT HOMERUN RD
3 BURDEN BLVD AT RD 68
4 I182 NW EXIT RAMP AT RD 68
5 W LEWIS ST AT S OREGON AVE
6 W AGATE ST AT N 4TH AVE
7 W LEWIS ST AT N 4TH AVE
8 W COURT ST AT RD 52
9 WRIGLEY DR AT RD 60
10 E KARTCHNER ST AT
N COMMERCIAL AVE
11 W COURT ST AT N 20TH AVE
12 W SYLVESTER ST AT N 22ND AVE
HIGH INJURY NETWORK INTERSECTIONS
1 N 24TH AVE FROM W COURT ST
TO W PEARL ST
2 W LEWIS ST FROM N 28TH AVE
TO N 24TH AVE
3 W LEWIS ST FROM S 10TH AVE
TO N 6TH ST
4 N OREGON AVE FROM E SUPERIOR
ST TO I182 NE ONRAMP JUNCTION
5 RD 68 FROM W ARGENT RD TO
300 FT NORTH OF CHAPEL HILL BLVD
6 BURDEN BLVD FROM RD 76 TO
250 FT EAST OF ROBERT WAYNE DR
7 W COURT ST FROM N 26TH AVE
TO N 9TH ST
8 W COURT ST FROM RD 44 TO US 395 SW ONRAMP JUNCTION
9 RD 68 FROM RODEO DR TO 400 FT
NORTH OF SANDIFUR PKWY
10 W A STREET FROM S 9TH AVE TO S MYRTLE AVE
HIGH INJURY NETWORK SEGMENTS
N
33
44
22
99
88 1111
1212
11 77
66
55
1010
99
66
55
88
441177
22 33
1010
FIGURE 14. PASCO INTERSECTION AND SEGMENT HIGH INJURY NETWORK (2020–2024)
Pa
g
e
3
4
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 37CRASH ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIONS INCLUDED IN THE
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
The 12 most prominent clusters were selected
as the top intersection HIN locations. For each
of these intersections, crashes in the immediate
influence area were summed, and a total
weighted crash score was calculated. The
final list of intersections (Table 2) was ranked in
descending order of this weighted crash score.
The Intersection HIN encompasses over one
third (37%) of all intersection-related fatal and
serious injury crashes in Pasco.
TABLE 2. PASCO INTERSECTION HIGH INJURY
NETWORK (2020–2024)
RANK HIN INTERSECTIONS
WEIGHTED
CRASH
SCORE
1 W Lewis St at N 14th Ave 82
2 Burden Rd at Homerun Rd 72
3 Burden Blvd at Rd 68 63
4 I 182 NW Exit Ramp at Rd 68 63
5 W Lewis St at S Oregon Ave 53
6 W Agate St at N 4th Ave 50
7 W Lewis St at N 4th Ave 49
8 W Court St at Rd 52 49
9 Wrigley Dr at Rd 60 49
10 E Kartchner St at
N Commercial Ave 45
11 W Court St at N 20th Ave 39
12 W Sylvester St at N 22nd Ave 34
Pa
g
e
3
4
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 38CRASH ANALYSIS
SEGMENTS INCLUDED IN THE
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
For segments, the methodology followed a
similar approach to the intersection HIN, but
applied to crashes along roadway segments
between intersections. Crashes were
summarized by segment to compute:
• Total weighted crash score per segment
• Weighted crash score per mile (normalizing
by segment length)
These two measures help distinguish between
long corridors with many crashes simply due to
length and shorter segments where crashes
are more concentrated. The top ten corridor
segments with the highest injury burden were
then identified, forming the segment HIN
locations (Table 3).
The Segment HIN encompasses almost half
(45%) of all segment-related fatal and serious
injury crashes in Pasco.
TABLE 3. LIST OF HIGH INJURY NETWORK SEGMENTS
RANK HIN SEGMENTS FROM TO LENGTH
(MILES)
WEIGHTED
CRASH SCORE
WEIGHT CRASH
SCORE PER MILE
1 N 24th Ave W Court St W Pearl St 0.25 78 307
2 W Lewis St N 28th Ave N 24th Ave 0.27 76 279
3 W Lewis St S 10th Ave N 6th St 0.28 50 176
4 N Oregon Ave E Superior St
I-182 NE
On-Ramp
Junction
0.38 62 164
5 Rd 68 W Argent Rd
300 ft North
of Chapel
Hill Blvd
0.44 59 134
6 Burden Blvd Rd 76
260 ft East
of Robert
Wayne Dr
0.74 79 107
7 W Court St W Brown St N 9th St 1.08 82 76
8 W Court St Rd 44
US 395 SW
On-Ramp
Junction
0.84 62 74
9 Rd 68 Rodeo Dr 400 ft North of
Sandifur Pkwy 0.68 44 65
10 W A Street S 9th Ave S Myrtle Ave 0.66 37 56
Pa
g
e
3
4
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 39
Considerations
for Communities
with the
Most Need
CHAPTER 7
This chapter summarizes how demographic,
economic, and environmental factors were
mapped to highlight neighborhoods experiencing
higher levels of vulnerability across Pasco. The
findings help guide equitable investment decisions
by aligning safety strategies with the areas where
improved infrastructure and targeted actions
can make the greatest difference.
ENSURING TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS BENEFIT ALL RESIDENTS
REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING WHERE
PEOPLE FACE THE GREATEST BARRIERS
TO SAFE, RELIABLE TRAVEL.
39
Pa
g
e
3
4
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 40CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
An underserved communities analysis aims
to provide a framework for distinguishing
populations in Pasco that are underserved
and under-resourced. This data-informed
approach assesses how these populations are
disproportionately impacted by the safety risks
on the transportation network. The results of the
analysis reveal key patterns in safety outcomes
and provide valuable information to prioritize
safety investments in those areas. Consideration
of underserved communities in Pasco along with
the crash analysis, the High Injury Network, and
public input can provide a deeper understanding
of high-risk locations, types of disproportionate
safety risks, and a better-targeted, proactive
approach to safety improvements.
Demographic and socioeconomic indicators
from government data and software tools—
including the U.S. Census and American
Community Survey and ESRI Business Analyst
and Community Profile— were used to help
identify the locations and types of underserved
communities in Pasco. Figure 15 provides an
overview of the demographics of Pasco’s
population. Statistics on Pasco’s median income,
percentage of younger population, disability
identification, personal vehicle possession,
languages spoken in Pasco households, and
more were evaluated as part of this analysis.
THE UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
ANALYSIS WAS DONE IN FIVE BROAD STEPS:
1. Identify the types of historically
disadvantaged communities in Pasco.
2. Identify the locations of historically
disadvantaged communities in Pasco.
3. Identify the types of fatal and serious
injury crashes occurring in the identified
underserved communities.
4. Identify the top contributing factors to
fatal and serious injury crashes in the
identified underserved communities.
5. Prioritize safety improvements
in underserved communities
disproportionately affected by high rates
and severity outcomes of crashes in Pasco.
DEFINING UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS
To understand where communities with
sociodemographic and transportation-related
vulnerabilities are geographically located, the
federal Areas of Persistent Poverty, the Washington
Environmental Health Disparities Map and the
Washington Social Vulnerability Index were
analyzed. All three datasets are filtered for the
U.S. census tracts in the City of Pasco. The layers
of data obtained include:
• Overall Environmental Health Disparity (EHD)
• Heavy Traffic Exposure
• Transportation Expense
• Access to a Vehicle
• Diesel Emissions Exposure
• People Living in Poverty
• People of Color (POC)
• Languages Other Than English Spoken at Home
This Census Tract data offers a foundational basis
for the City to incorporate the needs of underserved
communities into transportation safety planning.
Underserved Communities Analysis
Pa
g
e
3
4
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 41CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
COMPARED TO
29% IN WA STATE
OF PASCO RESIDENTS ARE UNDER 24 YEARS OLD
THE MEDIAN AGE IN WA IS 38
POPULATION
UNDER 15
1565 63%
66 & OVER 10%
27%
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PASCO
WASHINGTON STATE
12%
4 1 %
OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PASCO ARE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE
33%OF PASCO RESIDENTS PURSUED EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL$83,544
$96,261
EDUCATION
45%SPANISH
43%ENGLISH
RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
45.1% WHITE
1.4% AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKA NATIVE
1.7% BLACK / AFRICAN AMERICAN
2.1% ASIAN
42.5% NONHISPANIC / LATINO OF ANY RACE
0.3% NATIVE HAWAIIAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER
32.3% ANOTHER RACE
57.5% HISPANIC / LATINO OF ANY RACE
17.1% TWO OR MORE RACES
OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PASCO HAVE AT LEAST ONE PERSON LIVING WITH A DISABILITY
25%
TOTALRESIDENTSIN PASCO77,108
MEDIAN AGE IN PASCO31
AGE OF PASCO RESIDENTS
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PASCO DON’T HAVE A PERSONAL VEHICLE5%VEHICLE ACCESS
HISPANIC/ LATINO VS. NONHISPANIC OR LATINO
POPULATION BY RACE
Demographics
FIGURE 15. PASCO RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Pa
g
e
3
4
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 42CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
the datasets from the maps were extracted and
overlayed with each other. Each of the layers
included a rank of Information by Location (IBL)
from 1 to 10. An IBL rank of 1 indicates a community
least impacted by the relative risk and an IBL
rank of 10 indicates a community is most impacted.
An underserved community in this analysis
is ranked by averaging the IBL ranks across
all factors (i.e. EHD, heavy traffic exposure,
transportation expense, people living in
poverty, etc.).
1 https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/9806be8527b14f93be311f0fb57d336e
Figure 16 displays the areas of underserved
communities in Pasco and categorizes them
as Higher Impact, Moderate Impact, and Lower
Impact areas.
• Lower Underserved Community Impact:
rank 1 – 3
• Moderate Underserved Community Impact:
rank 4 – 6
• Higher Underserved Community Impact:
rank 7 – 10
Based on the analysis, Pasco’s underserved and
under-resourced communities are mainly in the
eastern portions of the city, especially east of
US 395, west of 4th Avenue, and south of US 182.
These areas are impacted the most by poverty,
transportation expenses, heavy traffic, diesel
emissions, the lack of access to a personal
vehicle, and other related factors. These
higher impact areas are also consistent with
the Areas of Persistent Poverty designated
by the federal government.1
Summary of Underserved Communities in Pasco
Pa
g
e
3
4
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 43CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
LVD
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
LOWER IMPACT
MODERATE IMPACT
PASCO CITY LIMITS
HIGHER IMPACT
N
FIGURE 16. UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY AREAS IN PASCO
Pa
g
e
3
4
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 44CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
FIGURE 17. SAFETY TRENDS IN PASCO’S UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
25%MORE THAN
ROADWAY LANE
DEPARTURE
25%
ANGLE
COLLISIONS
58%
INTERSECTION
RELATED
19%
INVOLVED A
MOTORCYCLIST
31%
INVOLVED A
PEDESTRIAN OR
BICYCLIST
20%
INVOLVED AN
IMPAIRED DRIVER
17%
INVOLVED SPEEDING
15%
INVOLVED
DISTRACTED DRIVING
INVOLVED A
LEFTTURN
10%
INVOLVED HITTING
A FIXED OBJECT
14%
FATAL OR SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
IN UNDERSERVED AREAS OF PASCO
FROM 2020 TO 2024
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS OF PASCO
7
FATAL CRASHES
43%
OF FATAL CRASHES
INVOLVED A PEDESTRIAN
OR BICYCLIST
81
SAFETY TRENDS AND PRIORITIES IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
To better focus safety investments in Pasco’s underserved communities, it is important to understand the patterns and circumstances most commonly
associated with fatal and serious injury crashes in these areas. Figure 17 highlights key trends from 2020 to 2024 to help guide targeted, high-impact strategies
in underserved communities.
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASH TRENDS IN PASCO’S UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
Pa
g
e
3
4
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 45CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
Transportation safety improvement investments
and available resources should be prioritized
in the areas of this analysis that are categorized
as having a “Higher Impact.” Figure 18 also
shows the underserved communities map
combined with the HIN. Concerted efforts
in these areas could drastically improve
transportation safety outcomes and the quality
of life for the people in communities that
have been the most adversely affected by
transportation system underinvestment.
Improving
Transportation
Safety in Underserved
Communities
Pa
g
e
3
4
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 46CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH THE MOST NEED
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
LVD
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COLUM
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
240
395
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
LOWER IMPACT
MODERATE IMPACT
PASCO CITY LIMITS
HIGHER IMPACT
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
INTERSECTIONS
SEGMENTS
N
33
44
22
99
88 1111
11 77
66
55
1010
99
66
55
88
441177
22 33
1010
1212
KARTCHNER ROAD
FIGURE 18. UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES IN PASCO AND THE PASCO HIGH INJURY NETWORK (2020–2024)
Pa
g
e
3
5
0
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 47
Policy and
Process Review
CHAPTER 8
Policies establish safety as a priority by guiding
decisions such as street design standards,
speed management, and how different users
are accommodated. Procedures put those
policies into action by defining consistent steps
for planning, design reviews, maintenance,
and project delivery, helping ensure safety is
considered at every stage. Together, policies and
procedures promote consistency, accountability,
and data-driven decision-making.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PLAY A
CRITICAL ROLE IN TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BY SETTING CLEAR EXPECTATIONS
FOR HOW STREETS ARE PLANNED,
DESIGNED, BUILT, AND OPERATED.
47
Pa
g
e
3
5
1
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 48POLICY AND PROCESS REVIEW
Existing policies, plans, guidelines, and standards
within the City of Pasco were cataloged and
reviewed to determine how roadway safety is
currently prioritized. This review helps identify
potential opportunities to improve how these
processes can impact safety. Table 4 lists the
existing documents that were reviewed.
TABLE 4. CITY OF PASCO EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS
DOCUMENT NAME STATUS
Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Adopted in September 2011
2013 City of Pasco ADA Sidewalk Transition Plan Adopted in February 2013
City of Pasco 2018–2038 Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 1 & 2 Adopted in October 2021
2022 Pasco Local Road Safety Plan Updated in February 2022
2022 City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan Adopted in August 2022
Downtown Pasco Master Plan Adopted in January 2023
City of Pasco Final Shoreline Master Program Update Adopted in October 2023
Pasco City Council Speed Limit Setting Policy Adopted in August 2025Pa
g
e
3
5
2
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 49POLICY AND PROCESS REVIEW
The following types of plans related to roadway safety are currently in place within the City of Pasco:
CITY OF PASCO 2018-2030
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A comprehensive plan is a long-term guiding
document for the future growth and development
of a city, town, or county. It outlines the community’s
vision for the future and establishes goals, policies,
and objectives to guide decisions on land use,
housing, transportation, economic development,
environmental protection, and other key aspects
of the built environment.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
A local road safety plan identifies, analyzes, and
prioritizes safety improvements on local roadways.
The plan focuses on issues that are specific
to the jurisdiction and allows for a more tailored
approach to taking safety actions.
MASTER PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Master plans are long-range frameworks that
guide the coordinated growth and development
of a community or system. Master plans can be
used for specific areas like downtowns or central
business districts, or for a specific system like a
transportation network.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP)
An ATP is a blueprint for a community’s active
transportation future. It’s a strategic document
that lays out a vision, goals, and a detailed
roadmap for creating a network of safe,
accessible, and enjoyable walking, biking,
rolling, and micro mobility infrastructure.
ADA TRANSITION PLAN
ADA Transition Plan is a federally required
document that outlines concerted analysis and
improvements to access the public right-of-way,
including but not limited to, sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, urban trails, and transit stops.
SPEED LIMIT SETTING POLICY
A speed limit setting policy establishes a
framework for establishing and evaluating posted
speed limits along a roadway corridor or segment.
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
A Complete Streets policy, enacted by a local
jurisdiction, guides transportation planners and
designers on how to plan and design streets that
account for all modes of transportation, not only
vehicles. The City of Pasco’s Complete Streets
Policy (Resolution No. 3725) is included in the
2022 City of Pasco Transportation System Master
Plan and declares all Pasco roadways needing to
adhere to the adopted Complete Streets Policy.
Advancing transportation safety in Pasco will require a proactive focus on non-infrastructure measures, such as recommending policy changes that support safer
travel conditions. The City has made significant efforts to improve roadway safety through the development of safety driven plans and policies. However, some
of the policies are out of date or are missing crucial data summarized by this CSAP. As part of the development of this CSAP, suggested policy improvements
have been provided based on the review process.
Types of Plans and Policies Reviewed
Pa
g
e
3
5
3
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 50
High Priority
Projects
CHAPTER 9
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS WERE IDENTIFIED
THROUGH THE CSAP PROCESS TO
ADDRESS PASCO’S MOST CRITICAL
SAFETY NEEDS AND SUPPORT PROGRESS
TOWARD REDUCING FATAL AND SERIOUS
INJURY CRASHES.
50
Pa
g
e
3
5
4
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 51HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
This section summarizes all non-infrastructure (Table 5) and infrastructure-based (Table 6) projects. Figure 18 provides a map of the proposed infrastructure projects.
While the following projects are critical to the City’s safety goals, their order in this document is not indicative of their prioritization level or funding status.
1 Police Department, City of Pasco Police Department Policies, Chapter 54 (54.1.1) and Chapter 61 (61.1.6) (2021). Retrieved 2025, from https://www.pasco-wa.gov/1008/Department-Policies.
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NON-INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED (NI) PROJECTS
CSAP
PROJECT ID PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIMEFRAME Near Term (Under 5 years) Mid Term (5 to 10 years)
NI 1 Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update Update the 2011 Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan to meet
new national and state-wide standards Near Term
NI 2 Pasco ADA Sidewalk Transition Plan Update Update the 2013 City of Pasco ADA Sidewalk Transition Plan to meet
new federal PROWAG standards Near Term
NI 3 Pasco Police Department Speeding,
HVE, and DUI Patrols1
Continue and increase support for Pasco PD policies like high-visibility
enforcement (HVE) at schools during school travel periods and DUI
police patrols support during prom and graduation seasons. Consider
enhanced speeding patrols.
Mid Term
NI 4 Pasco Red-Light-Running Policy Develop a Pasco-specific red light running policy Mid Term
NI 5 Complete Streets Policy Update
(Transportation System Master Plan)
Update the Complete Streets section of the Transportation System
Master Plan, as identified in the BFCOG CSAP as well Mid Term
NI 6 Safe Routes to School Program Develop and implement an official Safe Routes to School Program Mid Term
NI 7 Pasco Intersection Daylighting Policy Develop and implement an intersection daylighting policy Mid Term
NI 8 Traffic Signal Management Plan
Develop a Pasco-specific document that will outline the goals,
objectives, and procedures for designing, operating, and maintaining
traffic signal systems to improve efficiency and safety
Mid Term
Pa
g
e
3
5
5
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 52HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED (IB) PROJECTS
CSAP
PROJECT ID PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIMEFRAME Near Term (Under 5 years) Mid Term (5 to 10 years)
Long Term (Greater than 10 years)
IB 1
Systemic Access
Management
along Segments
• West Lewis Street (from North 28th
Avenue to North 24th Avenue)
• Burden Boulevard (from Rd 68 to
Jack in the Box Driveway)
• West Court Street (from North 26th
Avenue to North 14th Avenue)
This project evaluates three selected corridors to identify
and apply access management strategies that improve safety
and traffic flow. Potential treatments include raised medians
or raised concrete curbing to physically separate travel
lanes and regulate turning movements. The analysis will also
consider prohibiting left turns and implementing right-in/right-
out driveway access to reduce conflict points and enhance
corridor safety.
Mid Term
IB 2
Systemic
Pedestrian
Crossings
• Burden Road & Homerun Road
Intersection (RRFB)
• North 4th Ave & West Agate Street
Intersection (RRFB)
• West Lewis Street & South 8th
Avenue Intersection (RRFB)
• 20th Ave at Park St
Intersection (HAWK)
This project will enhance pedestrian safety by installing three
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and one HAWK
signal with documented crossing challenges. Each location
will be evaluated for appropriate RRFB placement, signage,
and supporting roadway markings to ensure consistent and
effective implementation.
Mid Term
IB 3
Systemic
Intersection
Improvements
• West Lewis Street & North
14th Avenue
• Wrigley Drive and Road 60
This project aims to improve safety and visibility along selected
intersections. West Lewis Street and North 14th Avenue may
include prohibiting on-street parking to improve sight-distance,
implement systemic signing and pavement marking upgrades
at stop-controlled intersections. At Wrigley Drive and Road 60,
add advanced intersection warning signs. In addition, flashing
beacons may be installed at targeted stop-controlled locations.
Near Term
IB 4
Systemic
Signalized
Intersection
Improvements
• West Lewis Street & North
14th Avenue
• Rd 68 & Burns Street
• Rd 60 & Burden Street
This project will improve traffic operations and safety by
converting selected stop-controlled intersections to fully
signalized intersections. Supporting improvements such as
updated pavement markings, signal timing optimization, and
pedestrian accommodations will also be incorporated to
ensure a comprehensive upgrade.
Mid Term
Pa
g
e
3
5
6
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 53HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
CSAP
PROJECT ID PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIMEFRAME Near Term (Under 5 years)
Mid Term (5 to 10 years) Long Term (Greater than 10 years)
IB 5 Systemic
Lighting
• North 24th Avenue (from West
Court Street to West Pearl Street)
• Rd 68 (from Argent Road to
Chapel Hill Boulevard)
This project will enhance nighttime safety by installing
new street lighting along two priority corridors. The added
illumination will improve drivers’ ability to detect pedestrians,
bicyclists, and roadside hazards, reducing the likelihood of
nighttime collisions.
Mid Term
IB 6 Road 76
Overpass • Connection of Road 76
The project provides a new active transportation connection
across I-182, which is currently a major barrier to bicyclists
and pedestrians in the western portion of Pasco. This new
connection allows for potential reduction in vehicle trips both
to Chiawana High school and for employees and customers
traveling between the Road 68 business corridor and the
residential land uses south of the I-182.
Mid Term – Long Term
Pa
g
e
3
5
7
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 54HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
4
T
H
A
V
E
G
L
A
D
E
R
D
COURT ST
ARGENT RD
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
SYLVESTER ST LEWIS ST
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
LVD
BR
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
BL
V
D
DENT RD
KARTCHNERROAD
CLARK RD
A ST
SANDIFUR PKWY
BURNS RD
BURDEN BLVDHARRIS RD
RO
A
D
8
4
WERNETT RD
POWERLINE RD
AINS
W
O
R
T
H
S
T
C
OMMERCIA
L A
V
E
COL
U
M
B
I
A
R
I
V
E
R
SNAKE RIVER
TRICITIES
AIRPORT
182
395
397
395
12
397
395
240
INFRASTRUCTUREBASED PROJECT LOCATIONS
SYSTEMIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMIC PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
SYSTEMIC INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
SYSTEMIC SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
SYSTEMIC LIGHTING
OVERPASS
PASCO CITY LIMITS
N
11
22
33
11
44
22
33
22
11
22
11
11
11
3322
IB #1: SYSTEMIC
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
1 W LEWIS ST FROM N 24TH AVE
TO RD 28
2 BURDEN BLVD FROM RD 68 TO
JACK IN THE BOX DRIVEWAY
3 COURT STREET FROM N 26TH
AVE TO N 14TH AVE
IB #2: SYSTEMIC
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS:
1 BURDEN RD & HOMERUN RD
2 N 4TH AVE & W AGATE ST
3 W LEWIS ST & S 8TH AVE
4 20TH AVE & PARK ST
IB #3 SYSTEMIC INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS:
1 W LEWIS ST & N 14TH AVE
2 WRIGLEY DR AND RD 60
IB #4 SYSTEMIC SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS:
1 W LEWIS ST & N 14TH AVE
2 RD 68 & BURNS ST
3 RD 60 & BURDEN ST
IB #5 SYSTEMIC LIGHTING:
1 N 24TH AVE FROM W COURT ST
TO W PEARL ST
2 RD 68 FROM ARGENT RD TO
CHAPEL HILL BLVD
IB #6 OVERPASS:
1 RD 76 OVERPASS
INFRASTRUCTUREBASED PROJECTS
FIGURE 19. LOCATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE-BASED PROJECTS
Pa
g
e
3
5
8
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 55
Measuring
and Monitoring
Progress
CHAPTER 10
The Safe Streets and Roads for All program
requires a description of how progress with be
measured over time. Safe System Approach also
understands the importance to monitor both
output (the number of projects and strategies
implemented) and outcomes (the effectiveness
of the projects to reduce the number and severity
of roadway crashes).
CLEAR PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND
ONGOING MONITORING ARE ESSENTIAL
FOR TRACKING CSAP IMPLEMENTATION AND
EVALUATING WHETHER SAFETY STRATEGIES
ARE REDUCING FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY
CRASHES OVER TIME.
55
Pa
g
e
3
5
9
o
f
4
6
5
PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN 56MEASURING AND MONITORING PROGRESS
Table 7 outlines the primary objectives of the CSAP and the recommended safety improvement projects as well as, the performance metrics associated
with each objective.
TABLE 7. PASCO CSAP OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE METRICS
CSAP OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS
REDUCTION OF FATAL
AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
• Number of Fatalities
• Number of Serious Injuries
• Location of Crash
»At an Intersection
»Along a Roadway Segment
PROJECT / STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
• Number of Safety Projects/Strategies Continued
• Number of Safety Projects Constructed on the HIN
• Number of Implemented Strategies
• Policies/Plans revised or added
CSAP Objectives & Performance Metrics
Photo Credit: Tri-City Herald
Pa
g
e
3
6
0
o
f
4
6
5
MARCH 2026
CITY OF PASCO
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
Appendices
Pa
g
e
3
6
1
o
f
4
6
5
Appendix A
Pa
g
e
3
6
2
o
f
4
6
5
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 2 of 5
Action Plan Components
For each question below, answer “YES” or “NO.” If “YES,” list the relevant plan(s) or supporting documentation that address
the condition and the specific page number(s) in each document that corroborates your response. This form provides
space to reference multiple plans, but please list only the most relevant document(s).
1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
Are BOTH of the following true?
•A high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly committed to an
eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and
•The commitment includes either setting a target date to reach zero OR setting one or more
targets to achieve a reduction in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date.
YES
NO
Note: This may include a resolution, policy, ordinance, executive order, or other official announcement
from a high-ranking official and the official adoption of a plan that includes the commitment by a
legislative body.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
2.Planning Structure
To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body
established and charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring?
YES
NO
Note: This should include a description of the membership of the group and what role they play in the
development, implementation, and monitoring of the Action Plan.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
Page 363 of 465
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 3 of 5
3. Safety Analysis
Does the Action Plan include ALL of the following?
• Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to provide a baseline level of crashes
involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region;
• Analysis of the location(s) of crashes, the severity, contributing factors, and crash types;
• Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs, as needed (e.g., high-risk road features or specific
safety needs of relevant road users); and,
• A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk locations.
YES
NO
Note: Availability and level of detail of safety data may vary greatly by location. The Fatality and Injury
Reporting System Tool (FIRST) provides county- and city-level data. When available, local data should
be used to supplement nationally available data sets.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
4. Engagement and Collaboration
Did development of the Action Plan include ALL of the following activities?
• Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community
groups;
• Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration into the plan; and
• Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and collaboration, as
appropriate.
YES
NO
Note: This should include a description of public meetings, participation in public and private events,
and proactive meetings with stakeholders.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
Page 364 of 465
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 4 of 5
5. Policy and Process Changes
Are BOTH of the following true?
• The plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or
standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize safety; and
• The plan discusses implementation through the adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards.
YES
NO
Note: This may include existing and/or recommended Complete Streets policy, guidelines for
community engagement and collaboration, policy for prioritizing areas of greatest need, local laws
(e.g., speed limit), design guidelines, and other policies and processes that prioritize safety.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
6. Strategy and Project Selections
Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies to address the safety problems in
the Action Plan, with information about time ranges when projects and strategies will be deployed, and
an explanation of project prioritization criteria?
YES
NO
Note: This should include one or more lists of community-wide multi-modal and multi-disciplinary
projects that respond to safety problems and reflect community input and a description of how your
community will prioritize projects in the future.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
Page 365 of 465
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 5 of 5
7. Progress and Transparency
Does the plan include BOTH of the following?
• A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at a minimum, outcome
data.
• The plan is posted publicly online.
YES
NO
Note: This should include a progress reporting structure and list of proposed metrics.
If “YES,” please list the relevant document(s) and page number(s) that corroborate your response.
Document Title Page Number(s)
8. Action Plan Date
Was at least one of your plans finalized and/or last updated between 2020 and June 26, 2025? YES
NO
Note: Updates may include major revisions, updates to the data used for analysis, status updates, or the
addition of supplemental planning documents, including but not limited to an ADA Transition Plan,
one or more Road Safety Audits conducted in high-crash locations, or a Vulnerable Road User Plan.
If “YES,” please list your most recent document, date of finalization, and page number(s) that
corroborate your response.
Document Title Date of Most
Recent Update Page Number(s)
Page 366 of 465
Appendix B
Pa
g
e
3
6
7
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN
POLICY REVIEW
DATE: January 6, 2026
TO: City of Pasco
FROM: DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Policy Analysis Project #24710-000
PURPOSE
The rate of fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roadways continues to be a grave concern
nationally. As a push to help agencies across the country reduce and eventually eliminate these
crashes, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration developed the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant
Program using funds from the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This
program provides the necessary demonstration and implementation funds for regional, local, and
municipal agencies to develop data-driven Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (CSAP) and
implement infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that improve safety.
In 2024, the City of Pasco received SS4A funds to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan to
help work toward a 50% reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries on its roadway
network by 2035. This goal, adopted by the Pasco City Council in August 2025 (Resolution No.
4641), requires a holistic approach that incorporates both infrastructure-based and non-
infrastructure-based safety improvement recommendations. In addition to safe infrastructure, key
elements of a safer transportation system include policies, plans, guidelines, and standards that
establish safety of all road users as a priority.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program requires an assessment of the City’s existing
policies, plans, guidelines, and standards to identify opportunities for improving these processes
and enhancing safety. This policy analysis memorandum has identified relevant policies and
programs in the City of Pasco, along with other relevant policies at the local level.
The findings and recommendations from this memo will be incorporated into the Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan via an implementation plan to adopt or revise policies,
guidelines, standards, programs, and procedures.
Page 368 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 2
LIST OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE 1
LIST OF CONTENTS 2
EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS 2
PASCO BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 3
2013 CITY OF PASCO ADA SIDEWALK TRANSITION PLAN 5
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2018-2038 VOL. 1 & 2 7
2022 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 9
2022 PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 11
DOWNTOWN PASCO MASTER PLAN 13
CITY OF PASCO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE 15
PASCO CITY COUNCIL SPEED LIMIT SETTING POLICY 17
EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS
The consultant team conducted a review of the plans, policies, and programs listed below.
DOCUMENT NAME STATUS
Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Adopted in September 2011
2013 City of Pasco ADA Sidewalk Transition Plan Adopted in February 2013
City of Pasco 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan, Vol.1 & 2 Adopted in October 2021
2022 Pasco Local Road Safety Plan Updated in February 2022
2022 City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan Adopted in August 2022
Downtown Pasco Master Plan Adopted in January 2023
City of Pasco Final Shoreline Master Program Update Adopted in October 2023
Pasco City Council Speed Limit Setting Policy Adopted in August 2025
Page 369 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 3
PASCO BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/820/Bike-Ped-Master-Plan
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 3347 Adopted October 17th, 2011
Description:
Recent trends show a growing interest in bicycling and walking for both recreation and
transportation, as communities aim to create more balanced and equitable transportation systems.
National surveys indicate that improved bicycle infrastructure significantly increases people’s
willingness to cycle more frequently. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was created to
address these shifts. It combines existing non-motorized travel initiatives, establishes a prioritized
framework for route improvements, and evaluates associated costs and funding opportunities. This
comprehensive plan supports active transportation within the city’s evolving network.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● This document lists Resolution No. 3021 as a starting point for the master plan, stating the
aim of creating a contiguous network of safe and convenient bicycle pathways (Pg.2).
● TR-23-D is listed as a guiding local plan aiming to provide safe and purposeful bicycle and
pedestrian routes (Pg.3).
● In the Policies and Objectives section, Policy #1 states that bicyclists should have safe
access to the City destinations accessible by motorized vehicles where practical, all policy
objectives emphasize that safety is important to the development of the bicycle paths
(Pg.5).
● Policy #4 emphasizes the need to establish policies and schedules to keep bike paths free
from hazards (Pg.6).
● The Challenges section of the Policy #5 states there may be safety concerns if sharrow
pavement markings are used at a certain location (Pg.30).
● A discussion of sharrow pavement markings in the document details the challenges to safety
due to the need for further education for drivers and the creation of a false sense of security
among bicyclists.
● The “Closure of a Gap” criteria for site selection helps to prioritize sites based on if it would
address a major safety concern for pedestrians and bicyclists (Pg.44).
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● In general, updating the 2011 plan to align with current national and state guidelines,
practices, and research will improve its ability to inform safer bicyclist and pedestrian
facilities.
● This document could analyze incidents where a pedestrian or bicycle were involved in a
crash. The findings could help prioritize where facilities should be constructed, and which
countermeasures could be most effective.
Page 370 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 4
● Incorporate pedestrian or bike volumes (actual counts or crowdsourced data) to support
project prioritization.
● Consider identifying areas where community members do not have access to a vehicle.
These locations are where people would be most likely to walk, bike, or take public
transportation.
● Consider adding an introductory paragraph detailing the typical safety concerns for
pedestrians and bicycles to better illustrate the safety priorities.
● Consider incorporating language under each of the six challenge areas that explicitly frames
them through a safety-specific lens.
● Explore using Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) as a measure in addition to Level of Service to
evaluate corridors and intersections. LTS is geared towards bicyclist safety and assesses the
perceived stress.
● Consider adding descriptions of each safety measure taken in the Opportunities section of
each area.
● Language should be added to the rest of the treatment descriptions in the Alternative
Solutions section to demonstrate the safety considerations for each, not just sharrow
pavement markings.
Page 371 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 5
2013 CITY OF PASCO ADA SIDEWALK TRANSITION PLAN
Source: https://docs.pasco-
wa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=302748&dbid=0&repo=CityofPasco&searchid=73c55004-e16a-
40c7-b0d5-feeccce96253
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 3456 Adopted February 4, 2013
Description:
In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which established the
legal prohibition of discrimination against people with disabilities in public spaces and
infrastructure. The City of Pasco ADA Sidewalk Transition Plan is a federally-required document
needed to achieve compliance with the ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual and provides a
framework for the City of Pasco to remove mobility barriers along sidewalks, curb ramps, and
pedestrian crossings in streets or parking lots. The document aims to improve safety and mobility
for all pedestrians in Pasco. The document lists physical barriers in Pasco that limit accessibility to
sidewalks, includes an outline for barrier removal methods, a schedule to achieve compliance, and
a named responsible party for implementing the plan. This document does not just follow federal
requirements, it represents a commitment by the City to provide safe, accessible transportation for
all road users of all abilities.
How does this document prioritize safety?
• The Sidewalk ADA Transition Plan specifically calls out improvements to accessibility of
sidewalks and crossings as an essential task to also improve the overall safety of all
pedestrians in Pasco (Pg.2).
• The plan includes suggestions for upgrades to traffic signals to include audible pedestrian
signals and upgrading existing ramps to current standards. These slight changes can
significantly improve the safety of pedestrians crossing Pasco streets, especially at busy
intersections (Pg.9).
• The plan identifies several funding sources related to safety to help fund the transition of
sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian crossings. These sources include federal traffic
safety program grants, WSDOT's Safe Routes to School Program and their Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Program (Pg.11).
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Consider updating the Sidewalks ADA Transition Plan to reflect new requirements outlined in
the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), which, in 2023, became the
federal accessibility standard for public infrastructure. The update should also consider in
which ways Pasco falls short of the new requirements and an attainable path for
compliance.
Page 372 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 6
● Consider updating the plan with the improvements that have been made to sidewalk
accessibility and pedestrian mobility in Pasco since 2013 to provide an accurate state of
pedestrian safety.
● Consider updating the document (Appendix B) with the sidewalk inventory that has been
updated since 2013 to help reprioritize locations in need of sidewalk, curb ramp, and
pedestrian crossings improvements, including safety and accessibility improvements.
● Consider updating the high priority projects on the project list (Appendix C) based on
updates made to Appendix B.
Page 373 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 7
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2018-2038 VOL. 1 & 2
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/1088/City-of-Pasco-Comprehensive-Plan
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 3998 Adopted October 5th, 2020
Ordinance No. 4537 Adopted June 7th, 2021
Description:
The Pasco Comprehensive Plan serves as a foundational policy document that outlines the
community’s long-term vision and guides its future development. The plan establishes a framework
of goals and policies that inform the creation and implementation of ordinances and regulations
impacting the city’s physical landscape. It also addresses anticipated population and employment
growth, detailing how public facilities and services will be planned to support this expansion.
Originally adopted in 1995 to comply with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Comprehensive Plan has undergone several updates, with the most recent major revision in 2008.
The current version represents a continued effort to revise and refine the City’s planning approach
in response to evolving needs and legislative requirements.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● Safety is listed as a priority in the Transportation Element, TR-1 goal states that the Plan
will “provide for and maintain a safe, integrated and effective transportation system that
promotes connectivity.” TR-1-D states that traffic calming and safety should drive
multimodal street design. TR-1-E states the plan should provide increased neighborhood
travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement
(vol.1 Pg.30).
● Policy ED-3-C of the Economic Development Element of the master plan (Pg.21) requires
appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel
lanes and parking.
● CF-7 Goal: to maintain, within the City, a level of fire protection service that is efficient and
cost-effective.
● TR-2 aims to promote multimodal transportation systems. To this end, TR-2-D mentions
bicycle and pedestrian travel should be encouraged by providing safe and purposeful bicycle
and pedestrian routes (vol.1 Pg.31).
● TR-3 aims to improve operating efficiency of the transportation system. To this end, TR-3-A
states that the City should evaluate, plan, and install traffic control devices and intersection
designs to improve travel safety and efficiency (vol.1 Pg.31).
● TR-5-A states that the City should promote the safe and efficient movement of freight
through the City (vol.1 Pg.31).
● Economic development priorities list safety as a core value (vol.2 Pg.49).
● Complete Streets Policy (PMC 12.15) details the City’s aim to increase the overall safety of
the community and aims to include all users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and
transit riders (vol.2 Pg.90).
Page 374 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 8
● Table T-10 describes multiple short-term projects which aim to improve safety (vol.2
Pg.109).
● The document identifies two Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants which are
aimed at improving safety: the Urban Arterial Program and the Urban Sidewalk Program.
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Consider adding language detailing the current transportation safety conditions in the
beginning of the Transportation Element section of the document.
● Consider adding language to the transportation element (vol. 2 Pg.104) to describe the
safety benefits of pedestrian scale lighting.
● Consider adding language to the transportation element (vol. 2 Pg.104) to describe the
importance and guidance for bicycle facilities in the City of Pasco.
● Consider adding language regarding safety in the “Roadway System Deficiencies” section.
● Evaluate including guidelines to incorporate traffic-calming geometric features such as
narrow travel lanes, curb extensions and smaller corner radii, raised crosswalks, on-street
parking, and chicanes to lower vehicular speeds and reduce crash severity. These are
especially relevant in urban and suburban contexts.
● Consider developing pedestrian specific guidance for mid-block crossings that include
rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), pedestrian
refuge islands, sight distance, and adequate lighting at these crossings.
Page 375 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 9
2022 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64903/2022-Pasco-Local-Road-Safety-
Plan_FINAL
Relevant Documents:
2020 Local Road Safety Plan Resolution No. 3974 Adopted July 20, 2020
2022 Local Road Safety Plan Updated February 28, 2022
Description:
The City of Pasco has developed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) as part of its ongoing
commitment to reducing the frequency and severity of roadway collisions within the city. This plan
aligns with Washington State’s Target Zero initiative, which uses a data-driven approach to traffic
safety. By systematically analyzing local crash data, the LRSP identifies prevalent collision trends,
contributing risk factors, as well as existing deficiencies in the City's roadway infrastructure. This
methodology helps to strategically select, prioritize, and implementing infrastructure-based safety
improvements to enhance traffic safety and reduce crashes throughout the city.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● The document prioritizes safety by analyzing crash data and identifying potential safety
improvements.
● The document includes a summary of existing safety conditions (Pg.5-Pg.9) by analyzing
data for all crashes - crashes that result in serious injuries and crashes that resulted in
fatalities. This includes the frequency, severity, and location of crashes from 2016 to 2020
as well as most common driver errors and collision types. Fatal crashes are explored in
detail showing the specific circumstances under which they occurred.
● The document provides analysis on fatal/serious crashes, comparing collision attributes in
Pasco to other cities in Eastern Washington (Pg.10-Pg.12). Further analysis is performed on
common collision types and conditions such as: junction relationship, roadway curvature,
fixed object hits, contributing circumstances, motor vehicle type, traffic control, roadway
type, pedestrian crashes contributing circumstances, pedestrian crashes facilities used,
bicycles crashes contributing circumstances, and bicycle crashes facilities used.
● The document identifies the five most common collision attributes and screens the street
network to identify high risk locations (Pg.13-Pg.20).
● This document provides a prioritized list of projects which the City could undertake to
improve safety, based on the analysis performed previously (Pg.25-Pg.42). Each project
includes a discussion of the specific identified safety need, and what will be done to address
it. These include citywide speed limit policy updates, safety treatments for W “A” street and
S 6th Ave, systemic treatments of unsignalized intersections, safety treatments for W Court
Street, and safety treatments for W Argent Road and Road 36.
Page 376 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 10
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?1
● Update the Citywide Local Road Safety Plan within five years of the previous plan to
recognize if crash trends and high-risk locations have changed.
● Consider involving a task force of multi-disciplinary experts from all the elements of the
Safe System Approach (i.e., fire department, police department, maintenance departments,
etc.) in the development and review of the plan.
● Consider including more public engagement and input into the location prioritization
process.
● Review LRSP requirements from WSDOT during development of the Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan, so that the CSAP can also serve as a WSDOT-approved LRSP for the purposes
of Highway Safety Implementation Plan (HSIP) grant applications.
1 The City's upcoming Comprehensive Safety Action Plan will be the improved version of the previous LRSP.
Page 377 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 11
2022 PASCO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/1084/Transportation-System-Master-Plan-TSMP
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 4220 Adopted August 1st, 2022
Description:
The City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan is a foundational document that outlines
policies and programs to improve transportation safety, accessibility, and efficiency. It serves as a
long-term guide for creating a more connected and vibrant urban environment. The plan identifies
current system deficiencies and emphasizes the importance of collaborating with regional
transportation partners to make targeted investments. It represents a critical step toward ensuring
that Pasco’s transportation network can accommodate the demands of a rapidly growing population
in the coming decades.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● TR-2 states that one of the main goals of the Transportation system master plan is to
“Provide safe access to transportation for all system users.” This includes sub-goals TR-2-A
through TR-2-D (Pg.7).
● There is a detailed section on safety included in the Transportation System Challenges
section of the TMP. This section identified specific intersections which had both high
congestion and high crash rates. Additionally, four corridors were flagged as having high
crash rates (Pg.21).
● The document highlights public feedback, which identified dozens of locations where
residents felt unsafe or unable to reach their destinations (Pg.23).
● At-grade intersection traffic control upgrades and channelization improvements are
recommended in order to increase efficiency and safety under higher usage levels (Pg.29).
● Proposed bicycle and pedestrian system additions or improvements would help to reduce
vulnerable user crashes (Pg.39-Pg.41).
● This document outlines the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management tools, which reduce
speeds and promote safety on local streets (Pg.53-Pg.54).
● This document details Access Management & Street Connectivity Standards to provide safe
and efficient access to the transportation system for all users (Pg.55-Pg.56).
● A new classification of City streets was created: Neighborhood Collector. It was determined
to be the best candidate street classification for applying neighborhood traffic management
strategies to address speeding concerns (Pg.44).
● The plan includes updates to standards and municipal codes, such as implementing
Complete Street guidelines and requiring pedestrian access routes (Pg.62-Pg.64).
Page 378 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 12
● Key Transportational safety issues are identified and evaluated in Appendix B ( pg.19-
Pg.20).
● This document provides a Traffic Safety Assessment which evaluated major roadways within
the City of Pasco. Collision data between 2014-2018 was analyzed to identify existing safety
conditions (Traffic Safety Assessment Appendix).
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Consider emphasizing the safety needs of non-motorized users—pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit riders—in strategy prioritization.
● Consider prioritizing areas near destinations such parks, schools, and transit stops. This
could result in intersections or corridors that are important to multimodal users to be
prioritized by maintenance crews.
● Consider including citywide measures to target specific crash trends that are low cost and
easy to install.
● Due to the pandemic's restrictions, two online open houses were conducted for this version
of the TSMP. For the next update, consider additional in-person events to gather feedback
from the community members who may not have access to the online open houses.
Page 379 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 13
DOWNTOWN PASCO MASTER PLAN
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64472/Pasco-Downtown-Plan---Approved-
01032023?bidId=
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 4292 Adopted January 3, 2023
Description:
The Downtown Pasco Master Plan is a community-driven initiative focused on revitalizing the city's
urban core. Developed through an extensive community engagement process, the plan reflects a
shared vision from the City, local stakeholders, and residents. It identifies key strategies to
enhance Downtown Pasco through a coordinated series of strategies and actions, highlighting its
significance as a community priority. The plan addresses key elements essential for a thriving
downtown, including:
• The design and management of public spaces and streets.
• Improvements in public safety.
• Diversification of businesses and activities.
• Effective downtown governance.
• Encouraging private sector investment through regulatory updates and incentive programs.
These strategies are tailored to the unique context and needs of Downtown Pasco, based on
feedback gathered during the engagement process. As a central component of the City’s broader
revitalization efforts, the Master Plan acts as both a roadmap and catalyst for change. The plan’s
success depends not only on its adoption, but also on consistent implementation and monitoring,
which requires strong collaboration between the City and its community partners. This plan marks
an important opportunity for Pasco to realize its collective vision for a vibrant and dynamic
downtown.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● There are four major goals for the Downtown Master Plan, one of which is to have “Active
and Safe Streets and Places for all” (SPS) which has a subcategory of “Lighting and Safety”
(SPS 3) (Pg.12).
● One finding of the plan was that Public Safety is a major concern for many City of Pasco
residents. There is a perception that Downtown Pasco is not safe (Pg.24).
● Sidewalks are specifically mentioned as important to improve the quality of the Downtown
area (Pg.25).
● Findings from the Visioning Workshop identified “a Safe and Vibrant Downtown” as a
primary concern (Pg.34).
● Findings from the Visioning Workshop identified that safety is fundamental to the future
success of Lewis Street, including increased lighting and streetscape elements (Pg.39).
Page 380 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 14
● The SPS goal identifies the right-sizing of downtown streets to improve safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists (Pg.44).
● SPS-2.0 describes challenges with the Downtown core as wide streets and poor lighting
(Pg.50).
● SPS-2.0 identifies locations where multiple improvements are planned, including raised
crosswalks and updates to the street cross section to narrow vehicle lanes and include
bicycle striping (Pg.53).
● SPS-2.1 identified that the 17’ lanes on W Lewis Street may be contributing to higher
vehicle speeds, reckless driving, and potential conflicts with pedestrians (Pg.54).
● SPS-2.2 identified that the 13’ lanes on W Columbia Street should be right-sized to reduce
vehicle speeds to support pedestrian activity and safety. The proposal states the lanes
should be reduced to 11’ and a protected bike lane should be added (Pg.59).
● SPS-2.4 identified reducing the vehicle lane width and adding on street parking to reduce
speeds. Also, it includes the addition of bicycle lanes (Pg.62-Pg.63).
● SPS-3.0 identifies that lighting in the downtown area should be focused on the sidewalk and
on visibility for people walking, rather than emphasizing lighting levels on drive lanes
(Pg.66).
● SPS-5.1 identifies the concern of the potential speed of vehicles entering the pedestrian-
oriented area of Downtown from the overpass, and recommends strong signaling of the
pedestrian district to reduce speed (Pg.74).
● DTM-3.2 emphasizes the need for a parking management strategy that would develop
convenient off-street employee parking that is “well-lit, affordable, and feels safe” (Pg.82).
● The number one word identified by the community survey for the vision of the future of
Downtown Pasco was “Safe” (Pg.122).
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Potentially list signal phasing improvements that are proven to improve vehicle, bicyclist,
and pedestrian safety such as Leading Pedestrian Interval (LIPs) (where APS pushbuttons
exist or are proposed), longer pedestrian walk phases, and signing no turn on red at
intersections.
● Consider developing pedestrian specific guidance for mid-block crossings that include
rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), pedestrian
refuge islands, and sight distance, and adequate lighting at these crossings.
● Look into adding language that prioritizes clearing vegetation that is within sight distance
triangles to maintain necessary visibility.
● Consider reviewing the existing speed limits in the Downtown core and updating them after
the roadway and land use context changes to a more pedestrian- and bike-friendly location.
Page 381 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 15
CITY OF PASCO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Source:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64917/City-of-Pascos-2023-Shoreline-Master-
Program
Status: (Adopted)
Resolution No. 4372 Adopted October 2, 2023
Description:
The City of Pasco’s updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) serves as a key policy tool for
implementing the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as codified in RCW 90.58,
along with associated administrative regulations. Enacted in 1971, it includes SMA Guidelines (WAC
173-26) and Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures (WAC 173-27).The SMA
was designed to ensure coordinated development and prevent the negative impacts of unregulated
growth.
The SMA requires that local jurisdictions such as Pasco develop and adopt SMPs to guide shoreline
use and development, while also protecting public health, natural resources, and water-dependent
activities. SMPs are expected to accommodate appropriate shoreline uses while safeguarding
ecological functions and public navigation rights. Prior to a comprehensive update in 2015, Pasco
relied on Franklin County’s 1974 SMP.
The most recent updates to Pasco’s SMP in 2022 and 2023 were part of a state-required periodic
review. These revisions reflect new guidance from the Washington State Department of Ecology,
following the adoption of revised SMA Guidelines in 2003. The updated guidelines emphasize
achieving no net loss of ecological function, enhancing public access, incorporating scientific
advancements, and aligning shoreline planning with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Pasco’s current SMP articulates specific goals, policies, and regulatory frameworks tailored to the
city’s unique shoreline context, representing a significant advancement in local shoreline
management and environmental stewardship.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● Policy F aims to encourage the cooperative use of existing port facilities where feasible and
when they do not negatively affect the public safety (Pg.4).
● Public Access Policy D states that public access to the shoreline should be managed in such
a way that protects the public health and safety (Pg.5).
● General Policy 2.B prioritizes safety by stating “Ensure proposed shoreline uses are
distributed, located, and developed in a manner that will maintain or improve the health,
safety, and welfare of the public when such uses occupy shoreline areas” (Pg.8).
● Utilities Policy 16.C states “Public health and safety should be the highest priority for
planning, development, and operation of primary utility facilities” (Pg.15).
Page 382 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 16
● Section 29.01.030 details the purposes of the SMP, purpose 1.A is “To promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare of the City by providing comprehensive policies and
effective, reasonable regulations for development, use, and protection of jurisdictional
shorelines” (Pg.22).
● The Rights-of-Way, Easements, and Streets for Public Access section states that, for the
purpose of providing access across or through the site to the OHWM, access shall be
maintained by the property owner to provide for reasonable and safe public access to the
OHWM (Pg.70).
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Consider adding discussion of the pre-existing safety conditions present along the shoreline,
especially those related to active transportation modes.
● Consider adding Safety to the “Transportation: Trails, Roads, and Parking” section, including
discussion of safety for bicycle and pedestrian usage. Also, add a safety element when
considering new or expanded transportation facilities.
● Consider adding language pointing to City, State and Federal best practices and standards
that prioritize safety for motorized and non-motorized vehicles, when design for such users
is required along the shoreline.
Page 383 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP - POLICY REVIEW 17
PASCO CITY COUNCIL SPEED LIMIT SETTING POLICY
Source:
https://docs.pasco-wa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1304038&dbid=0&repo=CityofPasco&cr=1
Status:
Resolution No. 4640 Adopted August 18, 2025
Description:
The Speed Limit Setting Policy outlines a standardized methodology for setting speed limits on City
of Pasco streets. This methodology is based on guidance from Washington State statutes, the City
of Pasco’s municipal code, and professional engineering judgment. The primary goal of this policy is
to provide clear criteria for setting appropriate speed limits that align with both regulatory
frameworks and specific roadway factors.
How does this document prioritize safety?
● The Policy notes the Revised Code of Washington, RCW 46.61.440, which states that speed
limits may be lowered near schools or playgrounds to 20 mph.
● The Policy notes the safety goals of the City by referencing the Transportation System
Master Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
● Drivers are expected to reduce their speeds below the speed limit during conditions, such as
congestion or poor visibility.
● Speed limits are set based on additional context, other than existing vehicle speeds.
Consideration is given to surrounding land use, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, crash data,
roadway design, roadway equipment, and proximity to schools or playgrounds.
● The policy emphasizes the importance of reevaluating non-statutory speed limits every
three to five years, particularly on roadway segments that have experienced significant
changes in physical design or surrounding land use.
What are the potential improvements that could be made to this document to help
prioritize safety?
● Consider adding a customized-for-Pasco version of the NCHRP Report 966 speed limit
setting tool as part of the speed limit setting procedure.
● Review NACTO City Limits and consider incorporating some elements of it, especially on
local/neighborhood streets that do not serve as collectors or arterials.
● Consider adding more direct language to ensure speed limit setting is consistent along
similar roadways and contexts. The current policy language is vague and leaves room for
interpretation.
Consider stating the City’s safety goals in the Citywide Safety Goals section, as the reader
may not look into these properly. Perhaps align it with the City of Pasco’s current goal to
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.
Page 384 of 465
Appendix C
Pa
g
e
3
8
5
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 1
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
SAFETY ACTION P LAN
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
JANUARY 202 6
Page 386 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 2
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Pasco is developing a Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP), a strategic initiative to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries for the safety of all
road users in Pasco. This plan will serve as a foundational document that identifies existing safety
challenges and proposes potential policy changes, improvement projects, and other strategies to
improve safety for everyone using the city’s streets and transportation network.
The CSAP, while data-driven to find where and why crashes occur and find the most effective
solutions, will also be informed by community input. Community engagement is a vital part of this
process as it captures real-time feedback from people living in Pasco and using its transportation
system.
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document summarizes the outcomes of the community engagement conducted in 2025 to
inform CSAP.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Community engagement activities are essential in the development of the City of Pasco’s CSAP.
The purpose of engagement was to ensure that the plan reflects the experiences, priorities, and
safety concerns of the people who use Pasco’s streets every day. The goals for the CSAP
engagement events were to:
• Build awareness of the CSAP and the steps the City is taking to reduce serious and fatal
crashes.
• Gather firsthand insight about locations where residents feel unsafe or experience
transportation challenges.
• Ensure fair participation by proactively reaching historically underserved and
disproportionately impacted communities.
• Create shared ownership of safety decisions by involving residents, families, schools, and
organizations in shaping the plan.
To achieve these goals, the City implemented a broad, multilingual outreach effort to ensure
residents knew when and how to participate. Pasco used a combination of digital, print, and in-
person communication methods to reach people where they live, work, and gather.
The City shared information through its website and social media platforms, and provided updates
on upcoming in-person events, open houses, surveys, and an interactive comment map. The CSAP
project webpage was continuously updated with new materials and featured built-in translation
tools to support Pasco’s diverse language communities.
Printed outreach materials also played a significant role. Event flyers were distributed to local
libraries, the school district schools, and community centers. All materials used were clear, plain
language, and were available in both English and Spanish to reduce barriers to participation.
Page 387 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 3
Partnerships further expanded the City’s reach. Community-based organizations, faith
communities, and the Pasco School District helped circulate information through their
communication networks. These partners were essential in connecting with historically
marginalized communities and residents who may not regularly engage with City channels.
Additionally, City staff and project team members attended community events and local community
spaces to share information and personally invite participation. Tabling events at a local community
space, as well as two (2) virtual and one (1) in-person open house at the Mid-Columbia Library,
allowed the team to meet residents where they already were, including those who may not attend
traditional public meetings.
Through this combination of digital notifications, printed materials, partnerships, multilingual tools,
and in-person outreach, the City successfully promoted engagement opportunities and ensured
that community voices played a meaningful role in shaping the CSAP between May and November
2025.
PROJECT WEBSITE
The City launched the Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan website in May 2025 to share
information about the CSAP with the community. The site was periodically updated to include
information about in-person and virtual outreach events. A total of 392 visitors1 viewed the project
website between May 15, 2025, and November 16, 2025. The project website was available in
English and translated into 15 additional languages, including English, Chinese, French, Hindi,
Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, and Tagalog. At the end of the comment period, the website was
viewed in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Tamil.
OPTIONAL SURVEY
In addition to sharing information about the CSAP, the project website also hosted an interactive
comment map and an optional survey. The comment period began on May 15, 2025, and closed on
November 16, 2025.
The survey was available in English and translated into 13 additional languages, including Spanish.
A total of 46 were submitted. Some English surveys included Spanish comments in the open-ended
questions; those comments were translated into English by staff members. The optional survey
consisted of 16 questions. The first nine questions focused on community members' use of the
Pasco transportation system and their safety concerns, while questions 10 through 16 gathered
community demographics.
For the complete list of questions in the optional survey, see Appendix 1: Optional Survey
Questions.
1 Visitors - The number of unique public or end-users to the project website. A Visitor is counted only once, even if they
visited the project site several times in a single day.
Page 388 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 4
SAFETY QUESTIONS SUMMARY 2
Of the 46 respondents, 29 (63%) live and work in Pasco, showing strong local representation.
Nearly one-third (14 respondents, 30%) live in Pasco but work elsewhere, and only one (1)
respondent (2%) commutes into Pasco.
The survey results show the community’s most significant safety concern is speeding (20
respondents, 43%), followed closely by heavy traffic volumes (13 respondents, 28%) and
distracted driving (13 respondents, 28%). These issues reflect the need for traffic-calming and
driver-awareness strategies.
Survey respondents primarily rely on personal vehicles to move around Pasco, with nearly 80% (36
respondents) identifying driving as their primary mode of travel. Only a small percentage, about
11% (5 respondents), regularly walk, bike, or use mobility devices, and even fewer use transit or
shared mobility services. These findings highlight the importance of expanding safe walking, biking,
and transit options to provide more choices for people traveling within Pasco.
Most survey participants share that safety is a key factor in how they choose to travel in Pasco.
More than 80% of survey participants (37 respondents) say safety “frequently” or “always”
influences their transportation decisions. Only 2% (2 respondents) note that safety does not impact
their choices.
Survey results show that people in Pasco feel safest when driving (40 respondents), while walking
and biking generate the most safety concerns. Community members are split on walking safety:
half feel unsafe (20 respondents), and half feel safe (20 respondents). Biking is seen as less safe
than walking; over 70% of community members (16 of 22 respondents) think biking in Pasco is
unsafe. Nearly 90% of community members (40 of 46 respondents) say they would be more likely
to walk or bike if they felt safer doing so.
Riding a motorcycle is perceived as one of the least safe modes of transportation, with 71% (10 of
14 respondents) rating it as unsafe/very unsafe. More than half of community members view
transit as safe (57%, 16 of 28 respondents). Ride-sharing had both safe (56%, 22 respondents)
and unsafe (36%, 14 respondents) sentiments among community members.
When answering, “What kinds of improvements would make you feel safer on Pasco’s roadways?”
most community members chose better-designed streets. The most requested improvements
include better lighting, improved signage, safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and strategies to
slow down traffic. Many respondents also emphasized the need for improved roadway maintenance
and safer access to public transit.
2 For survey charts see Appendix 2: Optional Survey Responses
Page 389 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 5
FIGURE 1 : COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO "WHAT KINDS OF IMPROVEMENTS WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER ON PASCO'S
ROADWAYS?"
When asked whether survey respondents had any concerns about the safety of specific areas,
intersections, routes, or locations for travelers through Pasco, community members shared a wide
range of safety concerns across the City of Pasco.
0%
7%
13%
13%
15%
17%
17%
20%
24%
28%
30%
39%
41%
43%
46%
52%
63%
None of the above
Seat belt patrols
Faster or more reliable emergency response
All of the above
Distracted driving patrols
Red light cameras (through intersections)
Other (please specify)
Data-driven interventions (e.g., regular crash data…
Educational safety programs (e.g., roundabout use,…
DUI (driving under the influence) patrols
Speed cameras
Improved public transit accessibility and safety (e.g.,…
Speeding patrols
Improved road maintenance (e.g., paving, drainage,…
Traffic calming measures (e.g., lower speed limits,…
Improved pedestrian and cycling facilities (e.g., bike…
Improved road design (e.g., signage, lighting,…
What additions or improvements to roadway safety would
you like to see in your community? Please select all that
apply.
Responses
Page 390 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 6
FIGURE 2 : THE WORD CLOUD SHOWS A VISUALIZATION OF THE TOP 65 WORDS USED BY RESPONDENTS WHEN
SHARING THEIR CONCERNS.
Many comments highlighted intersections of concern and the need for better visibility, signals, and
road markings. Speeding and street racing were among the most common issues mentioned,
especially near residential areas. Respondents also expressed strong concerns about pedestrian
and bicyclist safety, citing missing crosswalks, busy multi-lane roads, and challenging conditions
along corridors like Road 68 and Road 100. Comments also noted the need for improved road
maintenance, safer on-ramps, and greater attention to East Pasco, where people feel sidewalks,
lighting, and safety investments are lacking. The following word cloud shows a visualization of top
50 words used by respondents when sharing their concerns:
The following themes emerged from the 19 respondents who answered the question:
• Unsafe Roads Intersections
o Includes community comments
regarding intersections, need for
signals or improved markings,
general maintenance issues (i.e.,
potholes, faded striping, etc.),
short or unsafe freeway/on-ramps
• Speeding, Racing, and Reckless
Driving
o Includes community comments
regarding excessive speeding,
street racing, and unsafe driver
behavior in neighborhoods
FIGURE 3 : THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS
SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS FOR EACH THEME.
“There is a need for a
stoplight where the Los Pinos
restaurant is located; there
are many accidents there.”
*Comment submitted in Spanish
“Streets always have loud
cars and street racing. We
walk daily, and it's scary to
see the cars speeding by.”
Page 391 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 7
• Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Gaps
o Includes community comments
about missing sidewalks, lack of
crosswalks, High-stress corridors
like Rd 68 and Rd 100, poor
bike/pedestrian connectivity, and
difficult crossings of multi-lane
roads
• Community Needs and Concerns
o Includes community comments
regarding the perceptions of unsafe
neighborhoods; Concerns about
underinvestment in East Pasco;
Requests for better lighting,
connectivity, and infrastructure
equity; Desire for more walkable,
people-centered street designs
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS SUMMARY
Of the demographic responses submitted, the community profile that appeared was as follows:
• Age Representation: The majority of responses were contributed by working-age adults.
The age groups represented were:
o No respondents were under 15
o 15–24 (6 respondents)
o 25–34 years (13 respondents)
o 35–44 years (9 respondents)
o 45–54 years (8 respondents)
o 55–64 (4 respondents)
o 65+ (3 respondents)
• Ethnicity: Individuals identifying as white/Caucasian (20 respondents) represented the
largest group of survey respondents. The second-highest ethnic background represented
was Hispanic/Latino (16 respondents). Three ethnic backgrounds have one (1) respondent
each: Black or African American, Middle Eastern or North African, and Two or more races.
• Mobility: A majority of 71 respondents reported not having a disability/mobility limitation.
A small number of respondents (11) identified as having, or having someone in their
household with, a disability/mobility limitation.
• Gender: Most survey respondents identified as female (30 respondents). A minority of
respondents identified as male (11); only one (1) participant preferred not to share their
gender; and no respondents identified as non-binary or with other gender presentations.
• Access to Transportation: More than 1 in 5 (22%) of respondents reported they do not
have regular access to a personal vehicle.
“People in East Pasco are
underserved! We have
streets without sidewalks,
and we have no easy way
to bike to Court Street! …
Plus give us more paths to
the other cities to bike!!!”
“Please add a rectangular,
rapid-flashing beacon at the
crosswalk at 4th Ave and
Agate... Lots of people use
this cross street to cross,
including many neighborhood
children.”
Page 392 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 8
• Languages Spoken at Home: More than one-quarter (26%) of respondents primarily
speak Spanish at home (11 respondents). This bilingual representation reinforces the need
for English/Spanish communication, outreach materials, and engagement strategies
throughout the CSAP process.
For all responses and detailed response graphs, see Appendix 2: Optional Survey Responses.
INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP
The interactive map received 142 comments from participants. This includes 109 comments
participants submitted directly through the interactive comment map and 33 comments written on
poster maps during in-person events. After the in-person events, a project member uploaded
written comments to the interactive comment map on the project website. The majority of
participants wrote their comments on the interactive map in English; fewer than 10 comments
were in Spanish.
FIGURE 4 : POSTER MAP USED DURING IN -PERSON EVENTS FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO WRITE THEIR SAFETY
CONCERNS.
KEY THEMES
Across all categories, the community consistently expressed that roads feel too fast, too car-
dominated, and not safe enough for people walking, biking, riding motorcycles, taking transit, or
even driving. Community members in Pasco share a strong desire for safer, more connected
Page 393 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 9
streets that complete their communities. People note frequent issues with speeding, unsafe
intersections, and gaps in sidewalks, bike facilities, and transit access. Community members want
streets that are safer, more accessible, and better connected for everyone. Overall, the following
overarching themes appeared:
• Current Pasco streets have high speeds, and drivers exhibit unsafe behaviors.
o Community members across all categories mentioned:
▪ Excessive speeding
▪ Aggressive or inattentive drivers
▪ Cars not yielding to people walking or biking
▪ Speeding near schools, parks, and residential neighborhoods
▪ Fear of being hit while turning or sharing the road
• There is missing or inadequate infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks).
o Comments repeatedly mentioned a need for safe infrastructure that includes:
▪ More sidewalks
▪ Safer crossings
▪ Protected or buffered bike lanes
▪ Continuous routes (no gaps)
▪ Clearer lane markings
▪ Better-designed intersections
• There are intersections of concern and many difficult areas when it comes to
turns.
o Comments across all categories mention that Pasco’s transportation network has:
▪ Hard-to-see intersections
▪ Difficult left turns
▪ Busy crossings without traffic control
▪ High-speed turning traffic
▪ Safety issues at multi-lane intersections
• For pedestrians, cyclists, and people who use public transit, there is a lack of
access and connectivity.
o Community members want to safely connect to places they need to go, citing:
▪ Gaps in sidewalks
▪ Disconnects between neighborhoods
▪ Missing bike infrastructure
▪ Limited or far-away transit stops
▪ Many transit stops that do exist do not have sidewalks
▪ Uncomfortable walking paths to bus stops
▪ Need for east–west and north–south connectivity
• In addition to safety, comments across the categories also request community
improvements along with safety improvements.
o Commenters ask for:
▪ Beautification of main corridors
▪ Safer, more welcoming spaces near small businesses
▪ Greenways and community-focused spaces
Page 394 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 10
INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP SUMMARY
The City categorized comments submitted on the interactive comment map into five categories:
pedestrian concern, bicycle concern, motorcyclist concern, vehicle concern, transit concern, or
other concern.
FIGURE 5 : COMPARISON SHOWING THE NUMBER OF POSTS FOR EACH CATEGORY
The 142 comments were categorized as follows:
• Pedestrian concern:
o The 38 comments labeled as pedestrian concerns highlight walking safety concerns
across Pasco. Residents shared that many streets lack sidewalks, crosswalks, and
lighting, making it difficult and uncomfortable for families. They mainly focus on
children walking to school and around their neighborhoods. Community members
identified speeding and limited visibility as key safety challenges. They expressed
strong support for improvements such as flashing crosswalk beacons, updated
striping, traffic islands, and safer school-area crossings
• Bicycle concern:
o In 43 comments, community members express consistent concerns about
uncomfortable biking conditions in Pasco. The concerns relate to missing or
insufficient bike lanes, roads, and bridges or intersections. Comments also showed
tension with motorized vehicles (cars, motorcycles, gas-powered mini-bikes).
Community members would like safer, more comfortable places to ride, especially
30%
28%
27%
10%
4%
1%
Comments Posted by Comment Type
Bicycle Concern
Vehicle Concern
Pedestrian Concern
Other Concern
Transit Concern
Motorcyclist Concern
Page 395 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 11
protected bike lanes, safer road crossings, and better connections between
neighborhoods.
• Motorcyclist concern:
o The one (1) motorcyclist's concern comment shares that some intersections and
lane configurations make turning feel uncomfortable, especially when turning left.
The rider shared that unclear or missing lane markings make it hard for drivers to
anticipate motorcycle movements.
• Vehicle concern:
o Across 41 vehicle-related comments, the majority express concern about speeding,
aggressive driver behavior, and intersections. Many residents said intersections are
difficult to navigate and would benefit from clearer signs, more stoplights, speed
management strategies, or traffic-slowing features. People also mentioned that
high-traffic roads like Court Street and Sandifur Parkway feel uncomfortable due to
vehicles driving at high speeds. Comments also highlight left turns, lane mergers,
and overall visibility issues.
• Transit concern:
o The six (6) transit-related comments share there are gaps in service coverage, and
at times, it is uncomfortable to access bus stops. Community members note that
some areas lack nearby transit stops, and many existing stops lack sidewalks,
requiring riders to walk in the roadway and making it uncomfortable, especially for
pedestrians. Several comments name Lewis Street, Court Street, and West Pasco as
areas without the transit services needed. Comments mention pedestrian
infrastructure around stops is the biggest barrier to safe transit use.
• Other concern:
o The 13 “other concerns” highlight a mix of transportation and community-
development issues. Community members share ideas beyond transportation safety.
Many express a desire for shared community spaces that offer greater support for
local businesses and better neighborhood amenities.
o Comments in this “other section” also noted ongoing concerns about speeding,
roadway conditions, and challenging intersections. Especially on roads like Sandifur
Parkway and roadways in East Pasco.
Page 396 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 12
FIGURE 6 : INTERACTIVE COMMENT MAP WITH COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS
COMMUNITY EVENTS
From August through November 2025, the project team heard from or spoke to community
members at six (6) community engagement events. The purpose of this outreach was to share
information about the CSAP and gather input on where community members experience issues
within the Pasco Transportation system.
Page 397 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 13
FIGURE 7 : PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS CHATTING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS DURING THE OPEN HOUSE ON NOVEMBER
13, 2025.
Table 1 lists the CSAP's community engagement activities, including two online open houses,
tabling events, and an in-person open house. English and Spanish-speaking project team members
staffed each event.
Notifications for events included flyers to share with city departments and community partners. As
well as notifications on city-owned social media sites, like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. For a
complete summary of notifications, see Appendix 3: Event Notifications, Event Materials, and Media
Mentions.
Page 398 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 14
TABLE 1 : COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CSAP
DATE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
August 4,
2025
Transportation Tea
Time
In-person event to introduce the project to community
members at the First Avenue Center. The project team shared a
Project FAQ flyer, an info card, and large poster maps where
community members could write feedback. The City staff spoke
to more than 10 people and provided cookies and tea for
attendees.
August 5,
2025
Tabling at Pasco
National Night
Out
In-person event to introduce the project to community
members at National Night Out at Chiawana Park. The project
team spoke to 121 people and shared a Project FAQ flyer, info
card, and displayed large poster maps where community
members could write their feedback.
August 6,
2025
Tabling at St.
Vincent de Paul
Food Bank
In-person event to introduce the project to community
members at the St. Vincent de Paul food bank. The project
team spoke to over 150 people and shared a Project FAQ flyer,
an info card, and displayed large poster maps where community
members could write their feedback.
August 12,
2025
PCSAP Virtual
Open House #1
The City held a virtual meeting on Zoom to give community
members a chance to learn about the CSAP and share their
input on roadway safety issues and proposed strategies to
address them. The first virtual open house was held at noon
during the workday to accommodate any community members
who wanted to attend but could not participate in an in-person
event.
August 13,
2025
PCSAP Virtual
Open House #2
The City held a virtual meeting on Zoom to give community
members a chance to learn about the CSAP and share their
input on roadway safety issues and proposed strategies to
address them. The second virtual open house was held at 6 pm
to accommodate any community members who wanted to
attend but could not participate in an in-person event.
Page 399 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 15
DATE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
November
13, 2025
Pizza and Plans
Open House
Evening in-person open house at the Downtown Pasco Mid-
Columbia Library Branch. Project staff spoke to 62 attendees
and shared information about the project. Attendees were
invited to interact with display boards set up around the room
and poster maps. Community members could share comments
verbally with project staff, on the poster maps, and through the
optional survey. Pizza and soft drinks were available for
community members.
NEXT S TEPS
The project team will take the community engagement summary and key themes from community
input and, as appropriate, incorporate them into the broader evaluation of safety conditions across
the city. Using a combined understanding of community experience and technical data, the team
will continue to identify safety countermeasures and refine the list of potential projects and
strategies. Once the City ensures recommendations are coordinated and implementable, the
project team will present the final CSAP to the City Council in February 2026.
To keep up with the Pasco CSAP, and check for up to date information, community members can
visit the project website, Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
Page 400 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 16
APPENDIX 1 : OPTIONAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
The following are the optional 16-question surveys in English and Spanish. Print copies were
provided at in-person events. The survey was also available on the project website.
Page 401 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 17 Page 402 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 18 Page 403 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 19 Page 404 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 20 Page 405 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 21 Page 406 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 22 Page 407 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 23
Page 408 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 24
APPENDIX 2 : OPTIONAL SURVEY RESPONSES
All 16 survey questions were optional. Forty-six respondents submitted partial or complete surveys.
Each question listed below includes the survey responses and graphs breaking down each
response.
1. Tell us about you:
Answer Choices Responses
I work and live in Pasco 29
I live in Pasco, but don’t work in Pasco 14
I don’t work or live in Pasco 2
I work in Pasco, but don’t live in Pasco 1
2%
4%
30%
63%
I work in Pasco, but don’t live in Pasco
I don’t work or live in Pasco
I live in Pasco, but don’t work in Pasco
I work and live in Pasco
Tell us about you
Responses
Page 409 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 25
2. What are your top concerns about roadway safety in your community? Please select
your top three.
Answer Choices Responses
Speeding 20
Infrastructure deficiencies and gaps for drivers, pedestrians, and/or cyclists
(sidewalks/bike lanes/paths or crosswalks, inadequate signage, poor lighting,
uneven surfaces, road hazards, lack of built-in safety features, etc.) 16
Irresponsible driving, pedestrians, or cyclists (e.g., unsafe, uninformed,
inexperienced) 15
High traffic volumes 13
Distracted driving (e.g., using cellphones or eating while driving) 13
Road maintenance (e.g., pavement conditions, potholes, drainage, faded striping or
pavement markings, etc.) 13
Aggressive or reckless driving (e.g., cutting people off or changing lanes quickly) 12
Enforcement (e.g., insufficient patrol, too much or too little automated
enforcement, etc.) 12
Roadway design (e.g., complex intersections, sightline obstructions, roads are too
narrow or too wide, no dedicated turn lanes, insufficient signal time, etc.) 11
Impaired driving (e.g., driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or marijuana) 9
Lack of ADA compliant facilities (not accessible for people with disabilities) 9
Other (please specify) 8
Emergency response is not reliable or fast enough 1
2%
17%
20%
20%
24%
26%
26%
28%
28%
28%
33%
35%
43%
Emergency response is not reliable or fast enough
Other (please specify)
Impaired driving (e.g., driving under the influence…
Lack of ADA compliant facilities (not accessible…
Roadway design (e.g., complex intersections,…
Aggressive or reckless driving (e.g., cutting…
Enforcement (e.g., insufficient patrol, too much…
High traffic volumes
Distracted driving (e.g., using cellphones or…
Road maintenance (e.g., pavement conditions,…
Irresponsible driving, pedestrians, or cyclists…
Infrastructure deficiencies and gaps for drivers,…
Speeding
What are your top concerns about roadway safety in your
community? Please select your top three.
Responses
Page 410 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 26
3. What is your typical mode of transportation in Pasco? (choose one)
Answer Choices Responses
Personal Vehicle 36
As a pedestrian (walking, wheelchair, mobility aid etc.) 3
Public transit (buses, trains, etc.) 3
Biking or e-bike 2
Taxi or rideshare (such as Uber, Lyft, carpool/vanpool) 1
Motorcycle 1
Other (please specify) 0
0%
2%
2%
4%
7%
7%
78%
Other (please specify)
Taxi or rideshare (such as Uber, Lyft,
carpool/vanpool)
Motorcycle
Biking or e-bike
As a pedestrian (walking, wheelchair, mobility
aid etc.)
Public transit (buses, trains, etc.)
Personal Vehicle
What is your typical mode of transportation in Pasco?
(choose one)
Responses
Page 411 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 27
4. Does safety (for yourself and others) factor into your decision for how/when you
travel? (choose one)
Answer Choices Responses
Frequently 20
Top priority, All of the Time 17
Sometimes / Occasionally 7
Never 2
4%
15%
37%
43%
Never
Sometimes / Occasionally
Top priority, All of the Time
Frequently
Does safety (for yourself and others) factor into your
decision for how/when you travel? (choose one)
Responses
Page 412 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 28
5. How often do you use the following ways to get around? (for each row select one)
Never Occasionally Regularly Not Applicable Total
Walking 7 21 17 0 45
Biking 20 16 5 1 42
Driving a vehicle 2 3 40 1 46
Taking Public Transit 27 8 6 1 42
Using Taxi or Ride Share 23 14 1 2 40
Motorcycle 35 0 1 5 41
16%
48%
4%
64%
58%
85%
47%
38%
7%
19%
35%
0%
38%
12%
87%
14%
3%
2%
0%
2%
2%
2%
5%
12%
Walking
Biking
Driving an vehicle
Taking Public Transit
Using Taxi or Ride Share
Motorcycle
How often do you use the following ways to get around? (for
each row select one)
Not Applicable
Regularly
Occassionally
Never
Page 413 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 29
6. How safe do you feel, or would you feel, traveling in the City of Pasco using the
following ways to get around? (for each row, select one)
Very Unsafe Unsafe Safe Very Safe Not Applicable Total
Walking 4 20 20 2 0 46
Biking 4 19 10 2 8 43
Driving a vehicle 0 6 36 3 1 46
Taking Public Transit 0 4 16 8 16 44
Using Taxi or Ride Share 0 1 22 2 19 44
Motorcycle 4 6 3 1 28 42
9%
9%
0%
0%
0%
10%
43%
44%
13%
9%
2%
14%
43%
23%
78%
36%
50%
7%
4%
5%
7%
18%
5%
2%
0%
19%
2%
36%
43%
67%
Walking
Biking
Driving a vehicle
Taking Public Transit
Using Taxi or Ride Share
Motorcycle
How safe do you feel, or would you feel, traveling in the City
of Pasco using the following ways to get around? (for each
row select one)
Not Applicable
Very Safe
Safe
Unsafe
Very Unsafe
Page 414 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 30
7. Would you be more or less likely to walk or bike in Pasco if you felt safer? (choose
one)
Answer Choices Responses
More Likely 40
Less Likely 6
13%
87%
Less Likely
More Likely
Would you be more or less likely to walk or bike in Pasco if
you felt safer? (choose one)
Responses
Page 415 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 31
8. What additions or improvements to roadway safety would you like to see in your
community? Please select all that apply.
Answer Choices Responses
Improved road design (e.g., signage, lighting, intersection design, signal timing,
etc.) 29
Improved pedestrian and cycling facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks,
signal timing, etc.) 24
Traffic calming measures (e.g., lower speed limits, speed humps, narrow lanes,
etc.) 21
Improved road maintenance (e.g., paving, drainage, restriping, etc.) 20
Speeding patrols 19
Improved public transit accessibility and safety (e.g., lighting, bus stops, roadway
design, safe operations, etc.) 18
Speed cameras 14
DUI (driving under the influence) patrols 13
Educational safety programs (e.g., roundabout use, sign interpretation, safe
driving behaviors, etc.) 11
Data-driven interventions (e.g., regular crash data analysis, regular speed
analysis, etc.) 9
Red light cameras (through intersections) 8
Other (please specify) 8
Distracted driving patrols 7
Faster or more reliable emergency response 6
All of the above 6
Seat belt patrols 3
None of the above 0
Page 416 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 32
0%
7%
13%
13%
15%
17%
17%
20%
24%
28%
30%
39%
41%
43%
46%
52%
63%
None of the above
Seat belt patrols
Faster or more reliable emergency response
All of the above
Distracted driving patrols
Red light cameras (through intersections)
Other (please specify)
Data-driven interventions (e.g., regular crash
data analysis, regular speed analysis, etc.)
Educational safety programs (e.g., roundabout
use, sign interpretation, safe driving behaviors,…
DUI (driving under the influence) patrols
Speed cameras
Improved public transit accessibility and safety
(e.g., lighting, bus stops, roadway design, safe…
Speeding patrols
Improved road maintenance (e.g., paving,
drainage, restriping, etc.)
Traffic calming measures (e.g., lower speed
limits, speed humps, narrow lanes, etc.)
Improved pedestrian and cycling facilities (e.g.,
bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, signal…
Improved road design (e.g., signage, lighting,
intersection design, signal timing, etc.)
What additions or improvements to roadway safety would
you like to see in your community? Please select all that
apply.
Responses
Page 417 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 33
9. Do you have concerns about the safety of certain areas, intersections, routes, or
locations for those traveling through Pasco? (optional) If so, please specify below:
Open-Ended Response
8th & Lewis + Clark 9th & Lewis + Clark
Exceso de velocidad
Freeway onramp on SB 395 too short.
Court St and 4th Ave. Faded markings, big pothole 4th & Agate - need RFB, people speed going
to and from the highway Need signage of upcoming school zone at W Sylvester & Road 26 Road
68 traffic is too high/too crazy, too many bike lanes The buses are not safe on Court St. Number
3 North and Southbound
Se nesecita un semaforo en donde esta ubicado el restaurant los pinos alli hay muchos
accidentes.
Road 68 is awful for cyclists. North of I-182 there's a commercial zone that's almost impossible
to get by bike and is hard to navigate as a pedestrian (around the Yok's on Rd 68)
Calles grandes y mas occupadas
Ped gaps along Court Rd 68 bridge and driving patterns between Argent and Burden in general
Lewis & 14th
Rte 68 is very intimidating to navigate by bike or as a pedestrian. There are limited crosswalks
and bike lanes and high volumes of moderate speed traffic.
The entrance from Oregon/ Lewis St light going to the overpass. The right side is to turn Right
but people see a long line on the left side and don’t want to wait so they zoom to the right side
across Oregon that has an arrow to turn right and then dash infront of cars. I’m also concerned
about how many homeless are walking around drugged and with mental issues. One came to my
door and knocked. When I opens he tried to come in but my dog scared him and he jumped
back. They are walking all hours of the night looking at vehicles and it is getting scary.
The number of kids racing on burden & through the neigbourhoods
The whole downtown area is way too car-centric. We need to make 4th ave a pedestrian street
from Bonneville to Columbia
North Road 52 has very few crosswalks, even though it gets used extremely frequently by
children. The Burden Blvd and Road 60 intersection could be improved on to increase pedestrian
safety.
Yes! People in east Pasco are under served! We have streets without side walks and we have no
easy way to bike to Court St! We need another connection north of Lewis St Overpass! Ideally an
overpass that connects W Court St to E Salt Lake, this would communicate and allow our teens
to bike safely to Pasco High with the new boundaries from the Ochoa Middle Neighborhood!
Going all the way to Lewis street to access Court St business is sad! As a community well we
need access to I-182 at Rd 44! This makes sense! We also need a low MPH bridge crossing into
Kennewick and Richland! A bridge between Edison and Rd 76! And a bridge between Columbia
Center BLVD and Rd 100/Broadmoore, this would give more foot traffic to Pasco businesses in
the Rd100 and future Broadmoore area! We need to be part of the shopping nexus of the Tri
cities!!! Plus give us more paths to the other cities to bike!!!
Mainly on Court St and Lewis St.
Page 418 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 34
Too many homeless.
Rd 68 is terrible and I'm concerned that Rd 100 will soon be just as bad. I marked specific areas
on the map.
Yes! The following streets always have loud cars and street racing. Burden, Sandefur,
Powerline, Road 52, and Road 60. We walk daily and it's scary to see the cars speeding by and
there is so much noise/smell pollution. There have been many accidents behind my house on
Sandefur because of street racing.
Court Street feels difficult to navigate by any means—whether driving, biking, or walking. It has
a high crash rate and an unwelcoming look, with cluttered power lines and no greenery. Adding a
line of trees or landscaped buffers between the sidewalk and traffic would not only improve the
street’s appearance, but also enhance safety. Trees placed closer to the roadway create what’s
known as a traffic calming or enclosure effect, they visually narrow the road, which changes
drivers’ sight lines and naturally encourages them to slow down.
Sandifur & Road 90. Also Sandifur and Road 84 cars drive through the crosswalk even if a
crosswalk duty is in the middle.
Too many to list.
Road 68 is a hazard. There needs to be another outlet to I-182 between Road 68 and 395.
Speeding on Argent and on Burden
The Sylvester area could have a few more crosswalks west of 20th and over the bridge! Also RD
68 need to be redone with all modes of transportation in mind
Downtown is too focused on cars, there are too many pedestrians that interfere. We need to
make 4th ave between Bonneville and Columbia pedestrian and bike only
Please add a rectangular, rapid flashing beacon to the crosswalk at 4th ave and agate. Many
people live in the neighborhood of public housing there and because this street of fourth Avenue
is right before and after the entrance and exit of the highway people drive very fast and it’s hard
to get people to slow down or see a pedestrian trying to cross. Lots of people use this cross
street to cross, including many neighborhood children.
My biggest concern is the traffic on Rd 68 and the traffic that is coming to Rd 100. I feel like the
city is fast to ok all these new building projects without factoring in the strain it will place on the
current road systems.
Yes, we’ve had our house broken into and our fence cut multiple times where people were
passing through. There seems to be a lot of homeless people in the area and it’s really bad.
You’re definitely needs to be more safety measures put into place to keep people feeling safe in
their homes and neighborhood. This is happening on rd 34 by the Coca Cola warehouse.
Page 419 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 35
10. Do you want to join the project emailing list to stay informed?
a. Email addresses omitted for privacy
Answer Choices Responses
No 23
Yes (please enter email) 23
11. For your household: (choose one)
Answer Choices Responses
There is no personal vehicle in the household 1
There are one or more personal vehicles in the
household 40
2%
98%
There is no personal vehicle in the household
There are one or more personal vehicles in the
household
For your household: (choose one)
Responses
Page 420 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 36
12. What is your age?
Answer Choices Responses
65+ 3
55-64 4
45-54 8
35-44 9
25-34 13
15-24 6
Under 15 0
0%
14%
30%
21%
19%
9%
7%
Under 15
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
What is your age?
Responses
Page 421 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 37
13. How do you currently describe yourself?
Answer Choices Responses
Female 30
Male 11
Prefer not to say 1
Non-binary or other gender
presentation 0
0%
2%
26%
71%
Non-binary or other gender presentation
Prefer not to say
Male
Female
How do you currently describe yourself?
Responses
Page 422 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 38
14. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?
Answer Choices Responses
White/Caucasian 20
Latino/Latinx/Hispanic 16
Prefer not to say 2
Black or African American 1
Middle Eastern or North African 1
Two or more races 1
Asian or Asian American 0
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 0
Another race 0
Other (please specify) 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
2%
5%
39%
49%
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Asian American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Another race
Other (please specify)
Black or African American
Middle Eastern or North African
Two or more races
Prefer not to say
Latino/Latinx/Hispanic
White/Caucasian
Which of the following best describes your ethnic
background?
Responses
Page 423 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 39
15. Do you, or someone in your household, require mobility assistance? (check all that
apply)
Answer Choices Responses
No disability 27
Yes, myself or someone in my household requires mobility assistance 7
Prefer not to say 3
Yes, myself or someone in my household has a temporary injury 2
Yes, myself or someone in my household has a mental or cognitive disability 2
Other (please specify) 0
0%
5%
5%
8%
18%
71%
Other (please specify)
Yes, myself or someone in my household has a
temporary injury
Yes, myself or someone in my household has a
mental or cognitive disability
Prefer not to say
Yes, myself or someone in my household
requires mobility assistance
No disability
Do you, or someone in your household, require mobility
assistance? (check all that apply)
Responses
Page 424 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 40
16. What is the primary language spoken in your household?
Answer Choices Responses
English 31
Spanish 11
French 0
German 0
Vietnamese 0
Tagalog 0
Korean 0
Swahili 0
Russian 0
Mandarin 0
Other (please specify) 0
74%
26%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
English
Spanish
French
German
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Korean
Swahili
Russian
Mandarin
Other (please specify)
What is the primary language spoken in your household?
Responses
Page 425 of 465
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 41
APPENDIX 3 : EVENT NOTIFICATIONS, EVENT MATERIALS, AND
MEDIA MENTIONS
NOTIFICATIONS
Notifications promoting events were shared on city-managed social media accounts. Emails sharing event posters and project
information were also sent to community partners, including the Pasco School District, St. Vincent de Paul, and the Pasco
branch of the Mid-Columbia Library, to share with their members and networks within the Pasco community.
Social Media Notifications
Facebook Post - City of Pasco
In-person events and virtual open house notification, July 28,
2025
12 likes; 8 comments; 5 shares
Instagram Post - City of Pasco
In-person events and virtual open house notification, July 28, 2025
12 likes; 0 comments
Pa
g
e
4
2
6
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 42
Facebook Post – City of Pasco
In-person event notification, August 4, 2025
38 reactions; 27 comments; 4 shares
Facebook Post – City of Pasco
virtual open house notification, August 11, 2025
4 reactions; 1 comment
Pa
g
e
4
2
7
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 43
Facebook Event – City of Pasco
Open house event, October 16, 2025
33 people interested; 2 comments
Partner Facebook post - Mid-Columbia Library
Open house notification, October 28, 2025
3 reactions; 0 comments
Pa
g
e
4
2
8
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 44
Facebook Post - City of Pasco
Open house notification
October 30, 2025
8 reactions; 3 comments; 4 shares
Instagram Post - City of Pasco
Open house notification
October 30, 2025
9 likes; 0 comments
Pa
g
e
4
2
9
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 45
EVENT MATERIALS
The following materials were used to promote the in-person events (Event Flyers), or were materials provided to the
community during the in-person events. Project display boards were available only to community members during the
November open house. All information on the display boards was also available as survey questions on the project's website for
the community to read and complete online.
EVENT FLYERS:
Pa
g
e
4
3
0
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 46
FIGURE 9 : POSTER MAP (24X36 )
TABLING MATERIALS:
FIGURE 10: FAQ HANDOUT (8X11)
FIGURE 8 : PROJECT QR CODE BUSINESS CARDS
Pa
g
e
4
3
1
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 47
DISPLAY BOARDS (ONLY USED DURING NOVEMBER OPEN HOUSE):
Pa
g
e
4
3
2
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 48
Pa
g
e
4
3
3
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 49
Pa
g
e
4
3
4
o
f
4
6
5
CITY OF PASCO CSAP ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR Y • NOVEMBER 2025 50
MEDIA
During the August 2025 in-person event week, Apple Valley News set up an interview with project staff, Veronica Sullivan, and
published a new story on the Pasco CSAP on August 12th, 2025, which was updated on September 19, 2025.
• Pasco Develops Comprehensive Safety Plan to Reduce Traffic Deaths and Injuries Across All Transportation
Methods
Pa
g
e
4
3
5
o
f
4
6
5
Resolution – 2026-2031 Six-Year TIP - 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4608
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2026-2031 SIX-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF
PASCO FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUIDING THE DEVELOPMENT,
DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the
comprehensive transportation program of each city and town, after public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City shall annually review the work accomplished under the program and
determine current City transportation needs and from these findings shall prepare and adopt a
revised and extended comprehensive transportation program before July 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2025, and May 7, 2025, City staff held open house opportunities
on the revision and extension of the comprehensive transportation program, received and evaluated
all comments; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the revision and
extension of the comprehensive transportation program, received and evaluated all comments; and
WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the comprehensive transportation program
as identified as the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and
WHEREAS, the City has determined, based on an assessment of the work accomplished
under this program and the current City transportation needs, that this revised comprehensive
transportation program adequately addresses the City’s future transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the comprehensive
transportation program for the ensuing six years as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and labeled
2025-2031 Transportation Improvement Program” incorporated by this reference as though fully
set forth herein; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the comprehensive transportation program shall be filed with
the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Page 436 of 465
Resolution – 2026-2031 Six-Year TIP - 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this 16th day of June,
2025.
Pete Serrano
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 437 of 465
2026-2031 Transportation Improvement Program Final 06/11/2025
Column1 Project Title Road Name Begin/End Termini Prior Year 2026 Year 2027 Year 2028 Year 2029 Year 2030 Year 2031 REMAINDER 6 year- plan
PROJECTS
1 SRTS Argent Rd/Rd 88 & Sandifur Pkwy/Rd 90 Pedestrian Crossings Argent Road Road 88 679,056$ 500,000$ 500,000
2 Lewis Street Underpass Demolition Lewis Street 1st Ave to Tacoma Ave 500,000$ 2,800,000$ 2,800,000
3 Rd 40 E Extension Road 40 East 'A' Street/ East Lewis Place 400,000$ 528,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,928,000
4 Ainsworth Ave Pavement Preservation Ainsworth Ave Oregon Ave/10th ave 400,000$ 1,682,000$ 1,682,000
5 Sylvester St Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sylvester Street US 395 Overpass 340,660$ 659,340$ 3,229,340$ 3,888,680
6 Lewis Street Pavement Preservation Lewis Street US12/27th Ave 100,000$ 996,000$ 4,150,000$ 5,146,000
7 Sandifur Pkwy/Rd 76 Intersection Safety Enhancements Sandifur Parkway Road 76 31,000$ 300,000$ 1,700,000$ 2,000,000
8 Clark St Improvements Clark Street 10th St/2nd St 50,000$ 300,000$ 1,450,000$ 1,750,000
9 Rd 76 Overpass Road 76 Chapel Hill/Burden Blvd 2,659,000$ 3,100,000$ 8,000,000$ 12,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 30,759,000
10 Burns Rd/Rd 68 Intersection Improvements Burns Road Rd 68 150,000$ 350,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,000,000
11 Harris Rd Realignment Rd 103 Sandifur Pkwy 250,000$ 1,650,000$ 1,900,000
12 Burns Rd Extension - Missing link Burns Road Road 68/Rio Grande Lane 300,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,700,000$ 6,000,000
13 Burden Blvd/Rd 60 Intersection Improvements Burden Road Road 60 360,000$ 1,810,000$ 2,170,000
14 City Wide Traffic Signal Improvements (Phase 3) Multiple Locations Multiple Locations 300,000$ 2,877,500$ 3,177,500
15 E Lewis St/Heritage Blvd Intersection Improvements E Lewis Street Heritage Blvd 400,000$ 1,500,000$ 500,000$ 2,400,000
16 South Rd 68 Pavement Preservation Court St I-182 700,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,200,000
17 Safe Routes to School Project TBD TBD 300,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,300,000
18 Road 44 FCID Canal Crossing Road 44 FCID Canal (North of Argent PI) 400,000$ 1,600,000$ 2,000,000
19 South 4th Ave (Festival Street Improvements) S 4th Avenue Lewis Street / Columbia Street 290,000$ 790,000$ 1,080,000
20 Sandifur Pkwy/Rd 84 Intersection Improvements Sandifur Parkway Road 84 350,000$ 1,900,000$ 2,250,000
21 Sacajawea Heritage Trail Levee Lowering Sacajawea Heritage Trail Road 54/Road 72 250,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,250,000
22 Court & Rd 100 Intersection Improvements Court St Rd 100 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,500,000$ 6,000,000
23 Court Street/Road 60 Intersection Improvements Court St Rd 60 450,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,950,000
24 Sandifur Pkwy/Convention Dr Intersection Improvements Sandifur Parkway Convention Dr 410,000$ 1,900,000$ 2,310,000
25 I-182/Broadmoor Blvd I/C Multiuse Pathway/Bridge Broadmoor Boulevard I-182 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 9,500,000
26 Columbia St Improvements Columbia Street 10th St/2nd St 390,000$ 1,190,000$ 1,580,000
27 Burden Rd/Rd 44 Intersection Improvements Burden Road Road 44 360,000$ 1,810,000$ 2,170,000
28 Rd 40 East Pathway Road 40 East Sacajawea Park/East Lewis Place 540,000$ 590,000$ 840,000$ 1,970,000
29 Rainier Ave/Kartchner St Intersection Improvements Rainier Ave Kartchner 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,500,000$ 500,000$ 2,400,000
30 Court St Improvements- Ped/Bike Court Street Road 96/Harris Road 180,000$ 1,340,000$ 3,456,000$ 2,304,000$ 7,280,000
31 Rd 76 Improvements - Sandifur Pkwy to Cordero Dr Road 76 Sandifur Pkwy/Cordero Dr 300,000$ 1,700,000$ 2,000,000
32 N 4th Ave Pavement Preservation (I-182 to County Line) I-182 County Line (Glade Rd) 150,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,750,000
33 Argent Rd Widening (Phase 4) Argent Road Road 36/Road 44 1,180,000$ 2,360,000$ 2,360,000$ 5,900,000
34 Franklin County Irrigation District Canal Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway N/A Road 100/Road 76 300,000$ 500,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,800,000
35 Rd 100 Widening Road 100 Court St/Chapel Hill Blvd 625,000$ 950,000$ 7,000,000$ 8,575,000
36 Shoreline Rd Realignment Shoreline Road Court/Burns Road 250,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 7,700,000$ 3,250,000
37 Burns Rd Extension to Glade Rd Burns Road "Road 44"/N Glade Road 2,400,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,000,000$ 24,750,000$ 8,800,000
38 Burden Rd/Madison Ave Intersection Improvements Burden Road Madison Ave 360,000$ 1,810,000$ 2,170,000
39 Court St Safety Improvements Court Street Road 40/Road 68 110,000$ 340,000$ 450,000
40 James St Improvements James Street Oregon Ave/Frontier Lp 250,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,850,000
41 Harris Rd / Crescent Rd Overpass Harris Road Harris Road/Crescent Rd 1,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 47,600,000$ 4,000,000
42 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (Phase 1) Lewis Street 2nd Ave/ 5th Ave 530,000$ 450,000$ 780,000$ 4,000,000$ 1,230,000
43 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (Phase 2) Lewis Street 5th Ave/10th Ave 300,000$ 4,800,000$ 300,000
44 I-182/Broadmoor Blvd I/C Improvements - Westbound Broadmoor Boulevard I-182 750,000$ 6,940,000$ 750,000
45 Court St Safety Improvements (Phase 2) Court Street Road 68/Road 96 680,000$ 680,000$ 5,100,000$ 1,360,000
PROGRAMS 161,526,180
46 Annual Pavement Preservation Multiple Locations Multiple Locations 701,000$ 715,500$ 737,000$ 759,200$ 782,000$ 805,500$ 4,500,200$
47 Ped/Bike Gap Program Multiple Locations Multiple Locations 105,000$ 110,250$ 115,763$ 121,551$ 127,628$ 580,191$
48 Neighborhood Traffic Calming program Multiple Locations Multiple Locations 110,250$ 115,763$ 121,551$ 127,628$ 134,010$ 609,201$
PLANS AND STUDIES 5,689,592$
49 Comprehensive Safety Action Plan(SS4A) 250,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$
50 Traffic Analysis for US 12 US 12 A /Tank Farm Road 1,530,000$ 1,530,000$ 3,060,000$
51 Interchange Feasibility Study on I-182 I-182 Multiple Existing Interchanges 200,000$ 250,000$ 450,000$
52 Rd 68/Taylor Flats Rd Intersection Study Road 68 Taylor Flats Rd/Columbia River 350,000$ 350,000$
53 Sign Reflectivity Analysis and Implementation 112,000$ 400,000$ 512,000$
4,522,000
15,265,340$ 31,439,590$ 31,323,013$ 31,731,513$ 29,487,179$ 32,491,138$ 171,737,772
Exhibit A
Pa
g
e
4
3
8
o
f
4
6
5
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
1
1. SRTS Argent Rd/Rd 88 & Sandifur Pkwy/Rd 90 Pedestrian Crossings
Curb extensions/bulb-outs, crossing advance stop bars, median refuge island, reduced curb radii, stop
signs, new marked crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB), lane width reducon, sidewalk
5' +) with curb, pedestrian scale crossing illuminaon, ADA curb ramps.
2. Lewis Street Underpass Demolion
This project will demolish the Lewis Street underpass, to 6 feet depth. Backfill aer demolion will be
consistent with BNSF requirements.
3. Rd 40 E Extension
This project will extend Road 40 E, as a 1-lane northbound roadway north of A Street to connect to E
Lewis Place. This extension will eliminate a dead-end road at East Lewis Place. Signal adjustments,
striping and signage will be included in the scope of work.
4. Ainsworth Ave Pavement Preservaon
This project involves the overlay and restriping of Ainsworth Street/Avenue (SR397) from 10th Avenue to
the West and S Oregon Avenue to the East.
5. Sylvester St Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overpass, Sidewalk (6'+) with curb, ADA Curb Ramps, Shared use Path/Trail, Bridge
Part of Shared-use Path).
6. Lewis Street Pavement Preservaon
Mill and overlay enre exisng pavement area. Work includes cung and patching failed areas (Alligator
cracking and spalling), taper mill at curved edges and then overlay with HMA. This allows for unchanged
elevaons at exisng curbs and addional structural secon for the majority of the roadway. ADA
upgrades will also be included as needed.
7. Sandifur Parkway & Road 76 Intersecon Safety Enhancement
This project will convert the two-way stop-controlled intersecon into a roundabout or signalized
intersecon and will include the following safety enhancements: ADA compliant ramps, marked
crosswalks, and push buon assemblies; Flashing yellow arrows (FYA) for all le-turn movements;
emergency vehicle detecon; intersecon lighng. The project will also include design and construcon
of intelligent transportaon systems (ITS) connecons to the Sandifur Parkway/Road 68 intersecon for
interconnect capabilies.
8. Clark St Improvements
This project will adjust Clark Street roadway configuraon to include vehicle travel lanes, bike lanes,
lighng, and bulb-outs at crossing locaons for increased pedestrian safety. Conceptual improvements
for this project are included in the adopted Downtown Masterplan.
9. Rd 76 Overpass
This project will extend Road 76 north from Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd by construcng an overpass
across I-182 to connect communies north and south of the exisng interstate. This project will include
bicycle and pedestrian facilies.
Page 439 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
2
10. Burns Rd/ Rd 68 Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Burns Road and Road 68 and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
11. Harris Rd Realignment
This project will re-align Harris Road from Road 103 to Broadmoor Blvd to connect to Sandifur Parkway
and eliminate the exisng intersecon on Broadmoor.
12. Burns Rd Extension – Missing Link
This project will extend Burns Road, from Road 68 to Rio Grande Lane to improve connecvity and
access.
13. City Wide Traffic Signal Improvements (Phase 3)
This project will replace obsolete signal equipment with updated signal controllers, signal
equipment, opmized corridor ming plans, vehicle detecon system and emergency vehicle
priority system. Pedestrian access will be upgraded to meet current ADA right of way
accessibility design guidelines for the signalized intersecons.
14. Burden Rd/Rd 60 Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Burden Road and Road 60 and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
15. E Lewis St/Heritage Blvd Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of E Lewis Street and Heritage Blvd and
include any necessary ADA improvements.
16. South Rd 68 Pavement Preservaon (NEW)
This project involves the asphalt overlay and restriping of South Road 68 from Court Street to
eastbound on/off I-182 ramp.
17. Safe Routes to School Project
City will connue to work closely with Pasco School District and parents/residents to idenfy
and priorize projects that qualify for the state’s biannual Safe Routes to School Program, which
could include several locaons. This project typically involves providing sidewalks, enhancing
intersecon crossings, providing ADA curb ramps, providing school zone beacons or rectangular
rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and other safety related improvements within designated
school walking routes.
18. Road 44 FCID Canal Crossing (NEW)
Project along the west side of Road 44 to provide sidewalk connecvity to address exisng gap across
Franklin County Irrigaon Canal structure.
Page 440 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
3
19. South 4th Ave (Fesval Street Improvements)
This project will revise roadway configuraon and install sidewalk furnishings, lighng, street trees and
landscaping to create a Fesval Street on South 4th Avenue from Lewis Street to Columbia Street. The
street will be able to be closed to motor vehicles during special events and further enhance the
completed Peanuts Park improvement project to allow for greater and more varied use of Peanuts Park
Plaza. Conceptual improvements for this project are included in the adopted Downtown Masterplan.
20. Sandifur Pkwy/Rd 84 Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Sandifur Parkway and Rd 84 and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
21. Sacajawea Heritage Trail Levee Lowering
This project will lower the levee and re-install a wider pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists from Road
52 to Road 72.
22. Court & Rd 100 Intersecon Improvements
This project will convert the exisng angled T-intersecon at Court St and Road 100 into a roundabout or
signalized intersecon, enhance traffic flow and safety in the area, and include any necessary ADA
improvements.
23. Court St/Rd 60 Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Court St and Road 60 and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
24. Sandifur Pkwy/Convenon Drive Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Sandifur Parkway and Convenon Drive and
include any necessary ADA improvements.
25. I-182/Broadmoor Blvd I/C Muluse Pathway/Bridge
Construct a ped/bike bridge with a mul-use pathway across I-182 on the west side of the exisng
overpass, between ramp terminals.
26. Columbia St Improvements
This project will adjust Columbia Street roadway configuraon to include vehicle travel lanes, bike lanes,
lighng, and bulb-outs at crossing locaons for increased pedestrian safety. Conceptual improvements
for this project are included in the adopted Downtown Masterplan.
27. Burden Rd/Rd 44 Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Burden Road and Road 44 and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
28. Rd 40 East Pathway
This project will construct a mul-use pathway along Road 40 E from ”A” Street to Sacajawea Park E.
Page 441 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
4
29. Rainier Ave/Kartchner St Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Rainier Avenue and Kartchner Street at the
locaon of the US 395 SB On/Off Ramps and include any necessary ADA improvements.
30. Court Street Improvements – Ped/Bike
This project will improve Court Street from Road 96 to Harris Road to include bike and pedestrian
facilies and permanent traffic calming features.
31. Rd 76 Improvements – Sandifur Pkwy to Cordero Dr
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Wrigley Drive and Road 76 and include any
necessary ADA improvements and reconfigure corridor between Sandifur Pkwy and Cordero Dr.
32. N 4th Ave Pavement Preservaon (I-182 to County Line) (NEW)
This project involves the asphalt overlay and restriping North 4th Ave from westbound on/off I-182 ramp
to County Line (Glade Road).
33. Argent Road Widening (Phase 4)
This project is Phase 4 of urban road improvements to Argent Road from Road 36 to Road 44.
Improvements include street widening to a three-lane secon, illuminaon, stormwater facilies,
curb/guer, sidewalk, and related improvements.
34. Franklin County Irrigaon District Canal Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway
This project will construct a mul-use pathway along the piped irrigaon canal from Road 100 to Road
76.
35. Rd 100 Widening
This project will widen the Road 100 corridor to a 3-lane secon from W Court St to Chapel Hill Blvd.
Intersecon Improvements (such as turn lanes) will be evaluated and implemented as part of this
project.
36. Shoreline Rd Realignment
This project will provide for the realignment of Shoreline Road from Shoreline Court to Burns Road. The
realignment would be coordinated with the construcon of a park, to the west of the proposed roadway.
37. Burns Rd Extension to Glade Rd
This project will extend Burns Road from the approximate alignment of Road 44 to Glade Road.
38. Burden Rd/Madison Ave Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Burden Rd and Madison Ave and include any
necessary ADA improvements.
39. Court St Safety Improvements
This project will reconfigure Court Street from Road 40 to Road 68 to three lanes, with one lane in each
direcon and a center two-way-le-turn lane and provides designated bike lanes in each direcon, and
pedestrian facility enhancements.
Page 442 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
5
40. James St Improvements
This project is intended to provide pavement preservaon/reconstrucon of E James Street.
41. Harris Rd/Crescent Rd Overpass
This project will construct an overpass over I-182 to connect Harris Road and Crescent Road. This project
will connect the communies north and south of I-182 and relieve some of the demand at Broadmoor
Boulevard and the I-182 interchange.
42. Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (Phase 1)
The project is intended to e the improvements made with the overpass project into those made under
the Peanuts Park improvement project. This project will include ADA improvements, crosswalks,
widened sidewalks, streetlights, re-striping and streetscape. NOTE: A revised scope is being considered
to minimize impacts to businesses during construcon.
43. Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (Phase 2)
This project will include ADA improvements, crosswalks, widened sidewalks, streetlights, re-striping and
streetscape between 5th Ave and 10th Ave. NOTE: A revised scope is being considered to minimize
impacts to businesses during construcon.
44. I-182/Broadmoor Blvd I/C Improvements – Westbound
New mul-lane roundabout at the I-182 westbound ramp terminal at Broadmoor Blvd on the north side
of I-182.
45. Court St Safety Improvements (Phase 2) (NEW)
This project will reconfigure Court Street from Road 68 to Road 96 to provide designated bike lanes in
each direcon, and pedestrian facility enhancements, as well as .
46. Annual Pavement Preservaon
The City has implemented an annual Pavement Preservaon Program to assess and maintain quality
streets within the City. The program includes crack seal, overlay, chip seal, etc. of city streets.
47. Ped/Bike Gap Program
This program idenfies and closes gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network to enhance connecvity
and safety. Annually, locaons are selected with stakeholder and community input, priorizing areas
based on traffic volumes, crash history, and proximity to schools, hospitals, transit, and essenal
services.
48. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
This program aims to enhance safety and livability in residenal areas by implemenng measures to
reduce vehicle speeds and discourage cut-through traffic. This program includes the implementaon of
traffic calming measures, such as: chicanes, islands, speed cushions, traffic circles, radar speed feedback
signs, and other calming devices to create a safer and more pleasant environment for pedestrians,
cyclists, and residents.
Page 443 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
6
49. Comprehensive Safety Acon Plan (SS4A)
Pasco’s Comprehensive Safety Acon Plan (CSAP) will help idenfy the updated 2024 problem areas
through systemac data collecon, recommending innovave and appropriate countermeasures, and
priorizing safety improvements that will benefit all users. The recommended soluons will aim to
reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, with an emphasis in reducing fatalies and serious
injuries.
50. Traffic Analysis for US 12
This project will consist of a traffic analysis for US 12 from the intersecons of A Street to Tank Farm
Road/Sacajawea Park Road. This study will be completed in partnership with WSDOT in search of
praccal soluons for safety improvements at these locaons.
51. Interchange Feasibility Study
This study will evaluate the potenal for modifying exisng interchanges along I-182, in order to
improve traffic flow and safety. It serves as a planning document, defining "purpose and need" and
conducng traffic analysis to coordinate potenal soluons with DOT and FHWA.
52. Rd 68/Taylor Flats Rd Intersecon Study (NEW)
This study will consist of a traffic and safety analysis for the intersecon of Road 68 and Taylor Flats
Road. The intersecon has split ownership with Franklin County.
53. Sign Reflecvity Analysis & Implementaon
The project will evaluate up to 500 stop signs that are near the end of their service life
older than 12 years) and upgrade the retro-reflecvity as needed. The project will also include the
evaluaon of the stop sign size and may increase stop signs from 30” to 36” signs. In addion, red
reflecve strips will be added to the stop sign poles as warranted.
Page 444 of 465
2026-2031 Transportaon Improvement Plan (TIP)
Project Descripons
7
REMOVED PROJECTS
1. Burns Rd/Broadmoor Blvd Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Burns Road and Broadmoor Blvd. Sidewalks
and any necessary ADA improvements will be included.
2. Sandifur Pkwy Extension
This project will extend Sandifur Parkway from the vicinity of Road 103 to Road 108. Provisions for future
traffic signals will be included at the intersecon of Sandifur and Road 105. A roundabout will be
constructed at the intersecon of Sandifur Parkway and Road 108.
3. Sandifur Pkwy/Broadmoor Blvd Intersecon Improvements
This project will improve the intersecon of Sandifur Parkway and Broadmoor Boulevard. Addionally,
Broadmoor Blvd. widening will be included as part of this project extending north up to Burns Road.
Provisions for a future traffic signal at Buckingham Dr are considered in this project.
4. Road 108 Extension
This project will construct a 2-lanes road from Harris Road to Sandifur Parkway.
5. W 'A' St/6th Ave Pedestrian Crossing
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, curb extensions, illuminaon, signing, pavement markings,
and curb ramps.
6. Commercial Ave/Kartchner St Intersecon Improvements
This project will install a traffic signal at the intersecon of Commercial Ave and Kartchner St at the
locaon of the US 395 NB On/Off Ramps and include any necessary ADA improvements.
7. Citywide Injury Minimizaon & Speed Management Implementaon
Conduct Citywide speed data collecon and study. Install speed limit signing and radar speed feedback
signs.
Page 445 of 465
Ro
a
d
4
4
E Hillsboro St
Ro
a
d
8
4
W Pearl St
E Lewis St
R
o
a
d
6
8
Ro
a
d
3
6
S
10Th
Ave
N
4
T
h
Av
e
EDockSt
SOregonAve
N
O
r
e
g
o
n
A
v
e
N
1
4
T
h
A
v
e
N
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
W
a
y
Harris Rd
Pasco K a h l o t u s R d
Burns Rd
Ro
ad
5
2
G
l
a
d
e
N
o
r
t
h
R
d
Ro
a
d
6
8
W
C
o
u
rt
St
N
Capitol
A
ve
Burns Rd
N
2
0
T
h
Av
eWLewisSt
W Court St
W Wernett Rd
N
C
o
m
m
ercial
A
v
e
W Argent Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd
W Argent Rd
W Court St
EAinsworthAve
Sandifur Pkwy
W Sylvester St
N
4
T
h
A
v
e
E A St
50
52
1
9
25
18
5
4
1
11
242
3
12
43
40
31
9
26
8
4
33
35
21 6
28
6
3
6
37
16
34
39
30
45
3
2
15
29
7 24
13 38 27
20
23
44
10
22
1
1
Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
2026-2031
Legend
Project Type
Ped Crossing
Signal/Intersection
Bike/Ped
New Road
Other
Study Area
Admin Boundary
City Limits
Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary
Date Saved: 6/12/2025 11:06 AM
Pa
g
e
4
4
6
o
f
4
6
5
July 27, 2026
Pasco City Council
Workshop
Pa
g
e
4
4
7
o
f
4
6
5
Traffic Safety Unit
Funding Program
July 27, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
4
4
8
o
f
4
6
5
Why is this needed now?
3
Pasco is growing and with that growth comes increased demands on our transportation system and
public safety resources.
•Continued population growth means more vehicles on our roadways.
•Traffic volumes, intersections, and lane miles continue to increase.
•Patrol officers are increasingly dedicated to responding to calls for service, reducing the time
available for proactive traffic safety enforcement.
As Pasco grows, the need for proactive traffic safety has grown beyond what can consistently be
provided through traditional patrol operations alone.
Pa
g
e
4
4
9
o
f
4
6
5
Current Patrol
•Responds to emergency calls and priority
incidents
•Balances many competing public safety
responsibilities
•Limited time for proactive traffic
enforcement
•Reactive deployment based on calls for
service
Traffic Safety Program
•Dedicated traffic safety mission
•Focused exclusively on traffic safety
•Data-driven deployment
•High Visibility Enforcement (HVE),
•DUI patrols
•Speed enforcement
•Measurable results
Why a Dedicated Traffic Safety Program?
A Traffic safety Program will provide consistent, proactive enforcement that cannot always be
sustained while patrol officers respond to emergency calls and other community service demands.
4
A dedicated Traffic Safety Unit complements—not replaces—traditional patrol by allowing officers to
focus on traffic safety while patrol Handles emergency response and community policing needs.
Pa
g
e
4
5
0
o
f
4
6
5
Legal & Policy Alignment
5
The City has already established both the legal authority and the policy direction for investing
automated traffic camera revenue in roadway safety.
•State law and Ordinance 4392 allow camera revenue to be used for traffic safety programs
after the costs to operate the camera program are paid.
•The City Council has adopted the Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP),
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
to improve roadway safety and reduce serious crashes.
•These plans identify traffic safety as a City priority and recommend strategies such as high-
visibility enforcement, DUI enforcement, and speed enforcement.
The proposed Traffic Safety Program provides the dedicated funding needed to implement the
safety priorities already adopted by the City Council.
Pa
g
e
4
5
1
o
f
4
6
5
Program Structure & Accountability
6
The Traffic Safety Unit will operate as a dedicated traffic safety program focused on reducing
crashes and improving roadway safety.
•Officers using crash data, violation trends, and High Injury Network (HIN) corridors to focus
enforcement where it is needed most.
•Conduct High Visibility Enforcement (HVE), DUI patrols, and targeted speed enforcement in the
locations and during the time periods identified through crash analysis and the Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan.
•Measure performance through reductions in crashes, serious injuries, traffic violations, and other
key safety outcomes.
•Maintain financial accounting and provide regular reporting to ensure transparency, accountability,
and compliance with Ordinance 4392.
The programs deployment, will be guided by data and measured against the City's traffic safety
goals.
Pa
g
e
4
5
2
o
f
4
6
5
Measuring Success
7
The Traffic Safety Unit will be evaluated through measurable outcomes, including:
•Reduction in fatal crashes
•Reduction in serious injury crashes
•Reduction in speeding and high-risk driving behaviors
•High Visibility Enforcement activity
•DUI enforcement operations
•Improved safety in school zones.
Pa
g
e
4
5
3
o
f
4
6
5
What does the community receive?
8
•Safer streets through targeted, data-driven enforcement
•Fatal and serious injury crashes
•School zones and High Injury Network corridors
•Speeding and impaired driving
•Compliance at intersections and traffic signals
•Protect and enhance the City's investment in safer roads, intersections, and school
zones.
•A safer community for everyone who lives, works, and travels in Pasco
Pa
g
e
4
5
4
o
f
4
6
5
Fiscal Impact & Recommendation
9
The proposed Traffic Safety Program will be funded through automated traffic safety camera
revenue—not the General Fund.
•State law requires camera program costs to be paid first before remaining revenue may be used
for other eligible traffic safety purposes.
•No additional General Fund resources are requested.
•Camera revenue will be authorized for use to support the dedicated Traffic Safety Program,
which directly supports the City's adopted traffic safety goals.
Staff recommends approval to establish a dedicated Traffic Safety Program funded through
automated traffic safety camera revenue. This proposal implements the City's adopted transportation
safety plans, complies with state law and Ordinance 4392, and reinvests restricted revenue into
improving roadway safety for the Pasco community.
Pa
g
e
4
5
5
o
f
4
6
5
Questions?
10
Pa
g
e
4
5
6
o
f
4
6
5
Pa
g
e
4
5
7
o
f
4
6
5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 6, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 7/27/26
FROM: Craig Raymond, Deputy Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Extending Moratorium on Essential Public Facilities (Secure
Community Transition Facilities)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal:
None anticipated at this time.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services implemented
the Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) program in an effort to distribute the
housing proportional regional to the state, offenders sexual of across
demographics. State law requires local jurisdictions to allow the location of
these facilities. Cities do maintain some local control of the siting of these
facilities regarding land use regulations but cannot regulate the operation of
them. One form of LRA housing is a Secure Community Transition Facility
(SCTF), treatment which provides supervised residential placement and
services.
Under classified are SCTFs as Management Growth Washington’s Act,
Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). State law requires local jurisdictions to allow
the siting of EPFs but allows cities to regulate land use aspects such as
zoning, development standards, and siting criteria, while not regulating facility
operations.
Page 458 of 465
The neighboring community of Kennewick recently dealt with the public
response to the siting of one of these facilities in one of their neighborhoods. In
anticipation of the probable siting of a facility in Pasco, staff assessed Pasco’s
land use regulations regarding these uses.
After review, staff has determined Pasco’s land use ordinances do not currently
establish a dedicated siting process or decision criteria specifically applicable
to EPFs or SCTFs. Council approved a six month moratorium on applications
related to essential public facilities, including EPF or SCTFs on February 17,
2026.
Public feedback meetings were held on March 31st, April 15th, April 29th and
May 6, 2026 to provide the community opportunities to become informed, ask
questions and provide valuable feedback regarding the placement of these
facilities within the community.
On June 1, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on
draft regulations, and at a Workshop meeting held on June 22, 2026 the City
Council directed staff to develop a possible special overlay zoning district
where these facilities may be located.
Impact (Other than Fiscal):
This will be a matter of significant public concern and will likely generate
community discussion and participation.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation:
On June 22, 2026, after a presentation of draft regulations, potential siting
buffer zones and further discussion, the City Council directed staff to prepare a
potential special overlay district and regulations for the siting of LRA's to further
refine the draft regulations and siting buffer maps that staff had prepared.
In order to effectively prepare the necessary supporting documentation to
effectuate the Council's direction, staff recommends the City Council implement
an additional moratorium on the acceptance of applications related to Essential
Public Facilities, including Secure Community Transition Facilities until staff
has prepared and Council has approved appropriate and necessary regulations
addressing these topics.
Constraints (time or other consideration):
It is imperative the development of these land use regulations be determined
as soon as possible. Staff also recommends the coordination of additional
public input during the regulation development. As such staff recommends the
Page 459 of 465
following:
Next Steps:
1. Council approve the attached ordinance renewing the moratorium on the
acceptance of applications related to Essential Public Facilities,
including Secure Community Transition Facilities for a period of 6
months from the date of adoption to allow time for the development of a
capacity analysis report, a special overlay district and necessary land
use regulations.
2. Staff recommends a public hearing be scheduled for September 14,
2026, where a draft overlay and capacity analysis will be available for
review.
3. Draft overlay and capacity analysis will be submitted to Washington
state Department of Commerce no later than October 1, 2026.
4. Final Ordinance adoption will be presented to Council in December
2026.
Alternatives:
1. Leave LRAs unregulated by Pasco Land Use ordinances.
Page 460 of 465
Ordinance - 1
Version 7.9.26
4899-1038-9692, v. 3
{DTP4899-1038-9692;2/13206.000011/}
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
RENEWING THE MORIATORIUM ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 4817 FROM
AUGUST TO 2026, 17, DECEMBER PROVIDING 2026; 31, FOR
INTERPRETATIVE AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has authority under Article XI, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution, RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.200, and RCW 36.70A.390 to
regulate land uses and adopt interim zoning controls and moratoria; an
WHEREAS, at a City Council Regular Meeting held on February 17, 2026, the City
Council adopted Ordinance 4817 imposing a six-month moratorium on applications related to
Essential Public Facilities (“EPFs”), including Secured Community Transition Facilities
(“SCTFs”) and Least Restrictive Alternatives (“LRAs”) ending on August 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, since passage of Ordinance 4817, the City developed draft regulations for
the permitting process and siting requirements for EPFs, SCTFs, and LRAs and have held public
workshops on March 31st, April 15th, April 29th and May 6, 2026; and
WHEREAS, at a Council Workshop meeting held on June 22, 2026, after discussion and
consideration, the Council directed staff to prepare a possible special overlay zoning district for
SCTFs and LRAs for future consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that additional time is necessary to develop a clear EPFs,
SCTFs, and LRAs siting process, conduct a capacity analysis, evaluate zoning regulations and
development standards, map risk-potential facilities using GIS, establish separation criteria
consistent with state law, evaluate public safety and compatibility considerations, and complete
other analysis, and to adopt interim or permanent development regulations; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220 permit a municipality to renew a
moratorium for one or more six-month periods provided that the municipality holds a public
hearing prior to the adoption of the renewal and adopts findings of fact stating the necessity of the
moratorium renewal; and
WHEREAS, without renewing the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 4817, business
license and/or permit applications related to EPFs, SCTFs, and LRAs could vest under existing
regulations that do not contain siting criteria or review procedures; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2026, the City held a public hearing on renewing the
moratorium in accordance with RCW 36.70A.390; and
Page 461 of 465
Ordinance - 2
Version 7.9.26
4899-1038-9692, v. 3
{DTP4899-1038-9692;2/13206.000011/}
WHEREAS, during the renewed moratorium period the Council intends to continue to
study and develop EPF, SCTF, and LRA development regulations with input from staff and the
community; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further directed staff to prepare a capacity analysis for the
siting of LRAs and SCTFs within the proposed zoning overlay. The staff are directed to provide a
draft of the proposed zoning overlay and capacity analysis for Council’s consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Council intends on providing additional opportunities for public
comment on the draft permanent regulations via the public hearing process prior to adoption; and
WHEREAS, it is the Council’s goal to adopt development regulations for EPFs, SCTFs,
and LRAs by December 31, 2026, and in no event later than the expiration of the renewed
moratorium period; and
WHEREAS, renewing the moratorium established in Ordinance 4817 is necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare while the City develops appropriate regulations and
implements its proposed timeline for adoption of said regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. The recitals set forth above are adopted as the City
Council’s findings of fact in support of the moratorium renewal established by this ordinance.
Section 2. Moratorium Renewed. The moratorium established by Ordinance 4817 is
hereby renewed and shall have a new expiration date of February 31, 2027. The moratorium shall
automatically expire at 11:59:59 p.m. on December 31, 2026 unless the City Council, in its sole
discretion, (a) decides to formally renew this moratorium for additional periods by ordinance; or,
(b) has passed all permanent amendments deemed necessary by the City Council to justify lifting
of the moratorium prior to said date.
Section 3. Interpretive Authority. The City Manager or designee is authorized to
issue official interpretations necessary to implement this ordinance.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or word of this ordinance.
Section 5. Corrections. Upon approval by the city attorney, the city clerk or the code
reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including scrivener’s errors
or clerical mistakes; reference to other local, state, or federal laws, rules, or regulations; or
numbering or referencing of ordinances or their sections and subsections.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect within five days of
Page 462 of 465
Ordinance - 3
Version 7.9.26
4899-1038-9692, v. 3
{DTP4899-1038-9692;2/13206.000011/}
adoption.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____,
202_.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 463 of 465
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and
appropriate investment and re- investment in community
infrastructure.
City Council Goals
QUALITY OF LIFE
2024-2025
Enhance the long-term viability, value, and service levels of services
and programs.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation system.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Implement targeted strategies to reduce crime through strategic
investments in infrastructure, staffing, and equipment.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Promote and encourage economic vitality.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Identify opportunities to enhance City of Pasco identity, cohesion,
and image.
CITY IDENTITY
Page 464 of 465
METAS DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
2024-2025
Promover una alta calidad de vida a través de programas, servicios
y inversion apropiada y reinversión en la comunidad infraestructura
comunitaria.
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover viabilidad financiera a largo plazo, valor, y niveles de
calidad de los servicios y programas.
SOSTENIBIILIDAD FINANCIERA
Promover un sistema de transporte multimodal altamente funcional.
RED DE TRANSPORTE DE LA COMUNIDAD
Implementar estrategias específicas para reducir la delincuencia por
medios de inversiones estratégicas en infraestructura, personal y equipo.
SEGURIDAD DE NUESTRA COMUNIDAD
Promover y fomentar vitalidad económica.
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la
cohesión, y la imagen.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Page 465 of 465