Flourishing
Natural
Environment
Creating
Connections
Authentic Public
Participation
Charming • Safe •
Beautiful
Healthy Community
Innovation
Healthy Built
Environment
Vibrant Economy
2 - City of Mukilteo 2 - City of Mukilteo
Adopted by City Council on March 6, 2017
Resolution 2017-01
2
By e Way Plan -3 3
A:
Special thanks to all those who have helped and participated in the 2017 By e Way Plan.
2017 Elected Ocials:
Mayor: Jennifer Gregerson
City Council: Bob Champion, Council President
Steve Schmalz, Council Vice President
Christine Cook
Richard Emery
Randy Lord
Ted Wheeler
Scott Whelpley
2016 Planning Commission:
Norman Webb, Chair
Nicole omsen, Vice Chair
Jerry Bush
Melanie Field
Nick Gottuso
Arnie Hammerman
Dennis Konopinski
Wise Investment in Transportation Taskforce:
Joe Marine, Chair
Len Baron
Diane Cooper
Melanie Field
Marius Grigore
Laura McCarty
Richard Norman
Cyndi omsen
Kevin Wilson
City Sta: Marko Liias, Policy Analyst
Patricia Love, Community Development Director
Linda Ritter, Senior Planner
Karl Almgren, AICP, Associate Planner
Jacob Milner, GISP, GIS Coordinator
Andrea Swisstack, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Challis Stringer, Senior Engineering Technician
Consulting Sta: Cascade Design Collaborative, and Ferhs & Peers
Eric Schmidt, Principal, RA, AICP, RLA
David Bader, Associate
Ryan Abbotts, AICP
Special Contributions: Snohomish Health District
Carrie Parker, BS, MSHS
Keri Moore, BA, MPH
4 - City of Mukilteo 4 - City of Mukilteo
I: .......................................................................................
. E S .......................................................................................
. D I ....................................................................................... 
Existing Facilities Inventory .................................................................. 16
Transit Inventory ............................................................................ 
Destinations Inventory ............................................................................ 
Barriers Inventory ....................................................................................... 
Safe Routes to School Inventory ....................................................... 21
. D A ....................................................................................... 
Gap Analysis ....................................................................................... 
Community Workshop ............................................................................ 
. M C ............................................................................ 
City-Wide Connections ............................................................................ 
Local Connections ....................................................................................... 
Regional Facilities ....................................................................................... 
Project Timeline ....................................................................................... 
. P P ....................................................................................... 
Priority Score ....................................................................................... 
Near-Term Projects...................................................................................... 
. F P ....................................................................................... 
. F ................................................................................................. 
M M ............................................................................... 
A F ............................................................................ 
CP ............................................................................ 
C R ....................................................................................... 
A ............................................................................................................ 
W A
T R
P C R
P C E
T  C:
By e Way Plan -5
P I:
Project
Number
Project Name Page
Number
1
Harbour Pointe blvd. bike Markings
44
2
526 sHared use PatH
45
3
sr 525 sidewalks - safe route to scHool
46
4
Harbour reacH drive bike retrofit
47
5
waterfront ProMenade Multi-use PatH
48
6
76tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
49
7
Mid-town Mukilteo sidewalk & bike Markings
50
8
44tH sHared-use PatH
51
9
Harbour Pointe blvd. s widening
52
10
sr 526 sidewalks
52
11
Harbour reacH corridor Project
47
12
sr 525 bike lane
53
13
sr 525 sidewalks & bike Markings
53
14
84tH street sidewalks
54
15
cHennault beacH road sidewalks
54
16
2nd street sidewalks
55
17
Harbour reacH drive connection
56
18
cyrus way sidewalks
56
19
cHennault beacH drive sidewalk & bike Markings
57
20
central drive sidewalk & bike Markings
57
21
Possession way bike Markings
56
22
64tH Place west
57
23
blue Heron drive bike Markings
56
24
soutH road Markings
56
25
80tH/81st crossing
63
26
sr 525 corridor study
64
27
76tH street crossing
63
28
Harbour Pointe blvd. nortH cycle track
80
29
47tH bike iMProveMents
80
30
goat trail PatH & bike Markings
71
31
endeavor eleMentary sHared use PatH
83
32
stairsteP PatH & bike Markings
71
33
86tH crossing
63
34
5tH street Pedestrian Projects
67
35
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
73
Project
Number
Project Name Page
Number
36
80tH sidewalks & sHarrows
77
37
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
77
38
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
65
39
sky-Hi-la PatHway safe route to scHool
69
40
2nd street crosswalk
63
41
81st Place sw
74
42
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
74
43
49tH Place transit connection
76
44
11tH street sidewalk
69
45
wasHington ave sidewalks
71
46
Possession view lane sidewalks
69
47
cHennault beacH road bike Markings
81
48
Park ave sidewalks
68
49
62nd street & canyon road
82
50
92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings
75
51
Harbour Place sHared use PatH
79
52
airPort road sHared use PatH
85
53
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
65
54
84tH street sidewalks
54
55
92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings
77
56
88tH sidewalks & bike lanes
77
57
goat trail Pedestrian bridge
63
58
cyrus way sidewalks
81
59
121st bike connection
65
60
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
76
61
cyrus way sidewalks
81
62
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
74
63
cyrus way road extension
81
64
sHared use PatH to old town
69
65
sHare use PatH froM Mukilteo blvd to
boeing recreation center
85
66
54tH avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
74
67
cHennault beacH gulcH sHared use
PatH
83
68
cHennault beacH road bike Markings
82
69
loveland avenue sidewalks
68
6 - City of Mukilteo
Data Inventory:
D
ata Inventory:
6 - City of Mukilteo
Preface: Moving Mukilteo forward
“M
oving Mukilteo Forward” provided the motto
in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Notably, this Comprehensive Plan introduced a story
of Mukilteo that diered from previous plans. While
previous plans focused on the future development of
Mukilteo, Moving Mukilteo Forward engaged decision
makers in the story of Mukilteo. is story introduced
the vision and goals of enhancing the livability of the
community.
To reach higher levels of livability and improved quality
of life, residents must have the choice of how they want to
move about the community. Parents should feel safe as
their children walk to school; and anyone should not
have to wear a safety vest just to go for a walk. Cyclists
should feel safe within our roadways; and transit riders
should nd easy and convenient access to transit.
Moving Mukilteo Forward identied specic policies
for implementation that would be identied through
a functional plan. is plan, the Bike - Transit - Walk
(BTW) Plan, is that document to implement the identied policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these
policies included adopting street standards to include pedestrian-oriented streetscape elements and bicycle
facilities (TR6) as well as ensuring that street standards provide bike lanes, convenient bus stops, discourage
high travel speeds, minimize signicant environmental impacts and maintain character of existing residential
neighborhoods (TR6a). Not only does the Comprehensive Plan require standards that include bike, pedestrian,
and bus facilities; the Comprehensive Plan also identied destinations or ‘points of interest’ that these facilities
must provide connectivity between parks, retail centers, schools, and regional transportation nodes (TR9).
By identifying selected alternatives and a priority criteria, these projects will be funded in the Capital Facilities
Plan (CFP) and the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as updated annually. While the total cost of the
project list within this plan is quite large, this plan presents projects to be completed over a 30-year horizon
in a prioritized fashion. rough this approach, additional opportunities for external funding sources may
become more readily available as well as project pairing with adjacent infrastructure improvements including
surface water, roadway resurfacing, water and sewer improvements, and private development along primary
street frontage.
e realization of Moving Mukilteo Forward is based on the success of enhancing Mukilteo’s healthy and livable
community for future generations of residents. rough the implementation of the BTW Plan, the ability to
move about the community regardless of mode will provide residents a deeper connection to the community
while encouraging a healthy and safe environment for all ages and abilities.
IntroductIon:
By e Way Plan -7
Data Inventory:
D
ata Inventory:
M
ukilteo’s history of development has created a pedestrian and bicycle
network that lacks a north-south corridor from the Waterfront to the
Southern City Limits. e purpose of this plan is to identify projects that
promote the availability of options to residents to have more control of the
travel choices.
While a corridor spine exists as the Mukilteo Speedway, this roadway is
currently inadequate for safe usage by most pedestrians and bicycles. e BTW
Plan recognizes that the Mukilteo Speedway is a state route highway with the
primary focus on providing vehicle access to and from the Mukilteo Ferry. Even
though the facility requires certain key pedestrian and bicycle improvements
within destinations, such as Midtown, long-term solutions can be paired to
complement the Mukilteo Speedway for a safe pedestrian and bicycle corridor.
Not only has Mukilteo’s development lacked a central pedestrian spine,
many neighborhoods lack a sense of safety to and from the neighborhood.
Areas such as Sky-Hi-La are dependent on 8th Drive for a route to school,
but many parents fear for the safety of their children walking to school.
Some neighborhoods may be a mere few hundred feet from a destination,
but barriers exist to reroute individuals over one half-mile out of the way,
eliminating the reasonable choice of walking. Harbour Pointe, a master
planned community, has the highest quantity of sidewalks in Mukilteo, but
the neighborhood lacks bicycle facilities for the common user.
G:
e BTW Plan will meet the following goals:
1. Projects will provide safe connection between neighborhoods, parks,
commercial districts, transit stops, schools, and regional pedestrian and
bicycle networks.
2. Routes located within one half-mile of schools will identify projects to meet
the principles and policies of Safe Routes to School.
3. Project corridors will provide multi-modal facilities to promote the choice of
travel mode within the community.
4. Mukilteo Greenway signage and waynding will provide residents a sense
of location and connection to better identify safe routes to move about the
community.
B T W P:
B - T - W
IntroductIon:
8 - City of Mukilteo 8 - City of Mukilteo
This page is intentionally blank
By e Way Plan -9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
10 - City of Mukilteo
T
he Bike - Transit - Walk (BTW) Plan is a functional document as an
extension of the Mukilteo Comprehensive Plan. The BTW Plan has
identified a list of projects to improve connectivity between origins and
destinations to provide a higher level of mobility and enhanced livability
within Mukilteo. In order to identify these projects, a data inventory
was conducted to identify existing facilities for pedestrian and bicycles,
transit facilities, barriers, and safe routes to school. This inventory
led to a data analysis to determine the existing gaps between where
people are (origins) and places people want to go (destinations). This
analysis included community outreach. These primary components led
to a expansive list of projects.
To create a manageable list, the identied projects were classied based on
the scale and grouped between:
City-Wide Connections
Local Connections
Regional Facilities
From this grouping, the BTW Plan determined whether a project should
be completed within the ‘Near-Term’ (less than 7-years), ‘Mid-Term’
(between 8-20 years), and ‘Far-Term’ (more than 20 years). By comparing
these two lists, the BTW Plan creates a clear Preferred Project List,
and a Future Project List.
By grouping these projects based on scale and connectivity, future
decision makers are able to better identify projects for funding and
implementation. To present conceptual project alternatives and begin to
move towards project implementation through the Capital Facilities
Plan and Capital Improvements Plan, this plan provides additional
information including conceptual project cost, project priority score,
and the timeline category. The priority scoring criteria was determined
by the Planning Commission to consider different characteristics of
each project such as proximity to schools as well as sense of safety.
E S
ExEcutIvE Summary:
By e Way Plan -11
ExEcutIvE Summary:
To reach a level of preferred funding per year, the Preferred Projects were
plotted into a management matrix into six sectors to determine which
projects oer a high priority score and a low cost. rough the analysis of the
management matrix, projects that were considered above average in priority
score and less than twice the average project cost (Sectors 1&2) were identied
the recommended annual funding level of $435,000.
e known limitations of the BTW Plan include the best available cost
estimates and dependence on external funding. e cost estimates are limited
due to changes of development costs of stormwater facilities, City stang
levels, and accuracy of projecting ination. e other disclaimer is that under
current revenue generation by the City of Mukilteo, project implementation
will require external funding. While external funding seems like 'free money',
there is project management costs that must be accounted for within the
project costs.
E S  F
One of the early success of the BTW Plan has been the implementation of bike
lanes on Harbour Pointe Boulevard. With an estimated cost of over $200,000
to implement bike lanes as an individual project, the Public Works Department
was able to continue an inter-jurisdictional agreement with Snohomish
County to stripe the bike lanes with the annual roadway striping. Between the
agreement and the work of our own Public Works Crews, Mukilteo has added
over 2.5 miles worth of bike lanes for very little cost.
is type of success and innovation will allow Mukilteo to reach a level of
connectivity that has limited Mukilteo Residents for so many years. Map 2 of
the Executive Summary represents the future connectivity of Mukilteo within
our community, and to our regional partners.
- E W -
Easy Wins are identied throughout this document
to highlight dierent ways projects or interim
projects can be implemented at low cost. Such easy
wins include utilizing development standards upon
development, project pairing, or project phasing.
12 - City of Mukilteo
Map 1: Existing Pedestrian &
Bike Facilities
ExEcutIvE Summary:
Map 1:
BTW plan
By e Way Plan -13
Project ImProvements:
table 1: btW PlaN Project list
Project
Number
Priority
score
Project Name
Project
Number
Priority
score
Project Name
1 114
Harbour Pointe blvd. bike Markings
36 63
80tH sidewalks & sHarrows
2 95
526 sHared use PatH
37 60
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
3 94
sr 525 sidewalks - safe route to scHool
38 60
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
4 93
Harbour reacH drive bike retrofit
39 58
sky-Hi-la PatHway safe route to scHool
5 90
waterfront ProMenade Multi-use PatH
40 55
2nd street crosswalk
6 89
76tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
41 54
81st Place sw
7 89
Mid-town Mukilteo sidewalk & bike Markings
42 49
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
8 88
44tH sHared-use PatH
43 46
49tH Place transit connection
9 85
Harbour Pointe blvd. s widening
44 43
11tH street sidewalk
10 82
sr 526 sidewalks
45 43
wasHington ave sidewalks
11 82
Harbour reacH drive extension
46 41
Possession view lane sidewalks
12 81
sr 525 bike lane
47 39
cHennault beacH road bike Markings
13 77
sr 525 sidewalks & bike Markings
48 36
Park ave sidewalks
14 68
84tH street sidewalks
49 35
62nd street & canyon road
15 60
cHennault beacH road sidewalks
50 71
92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings
16 57
2nd street sidewalks
51 66
Harbour Place sHared use PatH
17 57
Harbour reacH drive connection
52 60
airPort road sHared use PatH
18 43
cyrus way sidewalks
53 60
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
19 40
cHennault beacH drive sidewalk & bike Markings
54 57
84tH street sidewalks
20 40
central drive sidewalk & bike Markings
55 56
92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings
21 37
Possession way bike Markings
56 51
88tH sidewalks & bike lanes
22 36
64tH Place west
57 51
goat trail Pedestrian bridge
23 34
blue Heron drive bike Markings
58 47
cyrus way sidewalks
24 30
soutH road Markings
59 47
121st bike connection
25 95
80tH/81st crossing
60 45
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
26 87
sr 525 corridor study
61 43
cyrus way sidewalks
27 86
76tH street crossing
62 41
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
28 83
Harbour Pointe blvd. nortH cycle track
63 41
cyrus way road extension
29 77
47tH bike iMProveMents
64 37
sHared use PatH to old town
30 73
goat trail PatH & bike Markings
65 36
sHare use PatH froM Mukilteo blvd to
boeing recreation center
31 72
endeavor eleMentary sHared use PatH
66 36
54tH avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
32
71
stairsteP PatH & bike Markings
67
34
cHennault beacH gulcH sHared use
PatH
33
70
86tH crossing
68
32
cHennault beacH road bike Markings
34
64
5tH street Pedestrian Projects
69 29
loveland avenue sidewalks
35
63
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
ExEcutIvE Summary:
N T P M-T P F-T P
14 - City of Mukilteo
Map 1: Existing Pedestrian &
Bike Facilities
ExEcutIvE Summary:
Map 2:
MukilTeo 2040
By e Way Plan -15
DATA INVENTORY
2
E P  B F
T I
D I
B
W A
16 - City of Mukilteo
Data Inventory:
D
ata Inventory:
data InvEntory:
B L  B B L
Bike lanes originated as a conversion of existing
shoulders to provide a marked facility for cyclists
within the roadway. Today bike lanes tend to be a
minimum of 5-feet in width traveling with the ow of
trac. An improved alternative that requires additional
pavement is the buered bike lane that provides a form
of additional buer between cyclists and motorists.
I
n order to implement the goals of the BTW Plan, including connectivity between destinations, safe routes to
school, multi-modal design, and future greenways, an inventory was conducted to identify existing facilities.
One inventory included identifying existing sidewalks, shared use paths, bike lanes, buered bike lanes, and
bike sharrows. ese ve dierent facilities represent typical facilities that can be used to improve connectivity
throughout a community. While other options, such as a cycle track, provide for a sixth facility, the application
typically requires very specic conditions for implementation.
S
Typical residential sidewalks range from 4-feet
to 6-feet in width and commercial sidewalks can be
much larger. ese facilities are commonly made out
of concrete. While sidewalks construction is costly,
alternative facilities such as a widened shoulder or gravel
paths provide little improvement to the pedestrian and
even less service to those with disabilities.
S U P
A shared use path is a facility that is typically
used as an ‘urban-trail’. is facility is usually 6- feet
to 15-feet in width and provides both a recreation and
commuting purpose and is commonly made out of
asphalt. e user groups of a shared use path is much
more diverse than sidewalks and can provide adequate
facilities within a common space with less footprint.
B S
At times, roadways that are underutilized, cyclists
can safely travel within the lane of travel. To notify
motorists and establish a bicycle route, a ‘sharrow
is used as a painted marking. e sharrow identies
the location of the cyclist and the direction of travel.
Sharrows are common on roadways of 25 MPH or less
in residential areas.
E P  B F:
By e Way Plan -17
Data Inventory:
Data Inventory:
Map 3:
exisTing pedesTrian & Bike FaciliTies
table 2: existiNg Facilities
Facility existiNg (miles)
bike lanes 4.9*
bike sHarrows 0
cycle track 0
sidewalks 70.5
sHared use PatH 1.3
streets 78.3
*Quantity before Harbour Pointe boulevard
bike lanes were coMPleted wHile btw Plan was
being drafted.
ExIStIng PEdEStrIan & BIkE FacIlItIES:
18 - City of Mukilteo
data InvEntory:
I
n addition to the dierent facilities for walking
and bicycling, an inventory was conducted to
identify how many transit facilities exist within
Mukilteo including routes, bus stops, and number
of properties within quarter mile radius of bus
facilities. e quarter-mile radius represents the
most reasonable distance an individual may be
willing to walk in order to reach transit facilities.
While the ‘reasonable walking distance’ can vary
based on hills, the distance provides a metric for
potential transit users.
One challenge that faces transit users is ensuring
that routes are not only between primary
destinations, but also provide convenient route
frequency, known as headways. Many routes
along major corridors feature approximately 10-
15 minute headways whereas routes in less dense
service areas may feature 30 minute or greater
headways. As frequency of transit increases, so does
the convenience for transit users. Unfortunately,
greater frequency incurs greater costs. To oset the
costs, the ridership of the route must also increase.
table 3: existiNg traNsit Facilities
Facility: Notes:
routes: 6
ct-113 30 Min Monday-friday
60 Min saturday-sunday
ct-417 30 Min Monday-friday -
5 ServiceS to/From
Downtown - Seattle
ct-880 30 Min Monday-friday -
4 ServiceS to/From
UniverSity DiStrict - Seattle
et-18 30 Min Monday-friday
et-70 45 Min Monday-friday -
4 ServiceS to/From Boeing
sounder 30 Min Monday-Friday -
4 Services to/From Seattle
transit stoPs 120
single-faMily residences witHin 1/4 Mile buffer: 2,703
Map 4:
TransiT invenTory
T I:
By e Way Plan -19
dEStInatIonS InvEntory:
T
he data inventory has reviewed the available
facilities for dierent modes available for bike,
transit, and walking. e next critical element of
pedestrian planning is the human choice aspect,
Where Do People Want To Go?’.
Map 4 provides an inventory of the different
activity areas including schools, commercial
nodes, and external network connections. Map
4 also identifies the Open Space and Parks
within Mukilteo that have a variety of activities.
One aspect to consider is that neighborhoods
are not identified as destinations, but are
considered origins. The intent of the BTW
Plan is not to connect neighborhoods to
neighborhoods, but to connect neighborhoods
to specific destinations. By focusing on origin-
destination planning, additional opportunities
for neighborhood-neighborhood connections
will occur organically.
Map 5:
desTinaTion invenTory
D I:
20 - City of Mukilteo
data InvEntory:
B
arriers are physical obstructions or certain
conditions that discourage individuals from the
choice to bike, use transit, or walk. Certain barriers
may include fences preventing connectivity or users
lacking the sense of safety. For example, a sidewalk
facility may be located on the correct route, with the
correct width, but without the correct lighting the
facilitys use drops signicantly during the evening
and early morning.
Map 5 is an inventory of barriers that discourage
individuals from alternative forms of commuting.
One barrier is a 'limiting intersection' that includes
places without a signalized crosswalk. ese barriers
include:
Steep Grade Hills
Areas of Low Lighting
Limiting Intersections
Missing Connections
Trac Speed
MaP 6:
Barriers invenTory
B I:
By e Way Plan -21
"In 2012, the Districts Public Health Advisory Council evaluated more than
80 health indicators for Snohomish County. e 27 indicators with the
worst risk scores were then evaluated in terms of their size, seriousness, the
existence of evidence-based practices/community interventions, and whether
there are community values attached to the issue. Using these criteria, the
members of the Council chose priority health issues in need of community
action. One of these priority issues was obesity prevention. Obesity aects
27% of adults and 11% of children in Snohomish County, double the 1994
obesity rates. It is a contributing factor to heart disease, certain cancers, and
diabetes. ere is a need for coordinated eorts that will increase physical
activity and improve nutritional quality in Snohomish County. e Health
District embarked on a collaborative eort with community partners and
key stakeholders to develop Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs)
for priority areas. In an eort to meet the obesity prevention objective of
“Increasing school-based best-practice policies that promote physical activity
for children and families in a minimum of three Snohomish County school
districts” the collaborative identied the need to conduct a county-wide
assessment of current physical activity practice and policies in elementary
schools in order to identify districts or schools with the greatest need. A
walking audit of all elementary schools in Snohomish County is one element
of this assessment" (Snohomish Health District - Walking Audit, 2015).
e Snohomish Health District did a signicant amount of leg work and
research regarding the connectivity to and from Mukilteo's Elementary
Schools. On the following page are the top observations of the conclusions
for Mukilteo Elementary, Columbia Elementary, and Endeavour Elementary.
ese reports can be found in the Appendix for additional information.
WalkIng audItS:
W A:
22 - City of Mukilteo
Mukilteo Elementary:
Top Observations:
1. e crossing over Mukilteo Speedway was one of the most hazardous that
we have observed in the county. Visibility of crossing and guard are very poor
even on a clear day (no rain, no fog). Trac was heavy and fast. Crosswalk
signs are dicult to see and invisible for cars traveling behind larger vehicles.
Columbia Elementary:
Top Observations:
1. Columbia Elementary has ideal walking and biking conditions and excellent
sidewalk access/trail access, safe crossings,and is well manned by both sta
and student crossing guard at start and dismissal times. ough there were
many students observed taking advantage of walkability, an above-average
volume of parent drop o/pick up trac was also observed resulting in
congestion on school grounds and Harbour Pointe Blvd.
Endeavour Elementary:
Top Observations:
1. e parking lot and drop o/pick up area of this school are confusing,
but make the most of the space available. Congestion from parent trac is
substantial.
2. Walking conditions around this school are excellent, with good sidewalks
on all surrounding major and secondary/residential streets.
data InvEntory:
By e Way Plan -23
DATA ANALYSIS
3
C W
G A
24 - City of Mukilteo
Data analysis:
P
ublic outreach is critical to the success of any long range planning project. So critical that the Comprehensive
Plan’s ‘Goals to Achieve a Livable Mukilteo’ identied that Authentic Participation leads to transparency,
collaborative planning, an engaged public, and responsive leadership. Following the data inventory, an Open
House was held in October, 2015 to assist sta in further identifying routes and project ideas that would
improve their ability to move about the community. Following the Open House, the exercise was repeated with
the Planning Commission and Wise Investment in Transportation Taskforce (WITT). In total, approximately
50 residents participated in the workshop exercise to help shape the preferred routes of the BTW Plan. e
summar of the results identied through the workshop are in Table 4 and Map 7.
table 4: coMMunity worksHoP Projects
Project
Number
DescriPtioN
Project
Number
DescriPtioN
a bike connection tHrougH Mid-town u waterfront ProMenade Multi-use PatH
b Pedestrian connection tHrougH Mid-town v rails to trails Multi-use PatH
c Public scHool Pedestrian PatH w Pedestrian connection on east side of sr525
between 92nd st and sr526 sPur
d Pedestrian connection to old town x Pedestrian PatH along stairstePs and between
goat trail road and 9tH st
e bike lanes froM sr526 to boeing looPing to tHe Heri-
tage fligHt MuseuM, beverly Park rd, back to sr525
y Pedestrian connection along 5tH street
f transit routes froM sr526 to everett Z bike connection along 5tH street
g Multi-use PatH froM 92nd street to ferry/old town aa Multi-use PatH along Harbour Pl between
sr525 and Harbour Pointe blvd.
H bike PatH along Harbour reacH corridor bb Multi-use connection between Harbour
reacH drive and 130tH Pl sw
i Pedestrian PatH along Harbour reacH corridor cc Pedestrian PatH between Mukilteo lane and
3rd street along cornelia avenue
j transit route along sr525 & beverly Park road dd road noise
k Pedestrian bridge across sr525 ee bike connection between beverly Park road
and sr525 along 121st st.
l trail tHrougH big gulcH connecting to cHennault
beacH road
ff transit looP around Park & ride at bernie
webber drive witH bike storage lockers
M bike connection froM cyrus way to cHennault beacH rd gg Multi-use PatH connection to seaway blvd.
n Pedestrian connection froM cyrus way to cHennault
beacH road
HH endeavour eleMentary Pedestrian PatH
o Pedestrian PatH connection froM Marine view drive
to waterton circle
ii Protected bike lanes along Harbour Pointe
blvd. and cHennault beacH road
P bike connection froM cHennault beacH drive to Har-
bour HeigHts Pkwy
jj cHange froM Private road to Public access
road
Q Pedestrian connection froM cHennault beacH drive
to Harbour HeigHts Pkwy
kk Pedestrian bridge across big gulcH
connecting 52nd ave. w to 52nd ave. w
r Pedestrian trail between west end of big gulcH trail
and waterfront access
ll Multi-use PatH froM Mukilteo blvd to boeing
recreation center
s Multi-use PatH connecting tHrougH jaPanese gulcH MM Park and ride at Harbour Pointe sHoPPing centre
t Pedestrian iMProveMents to 76tH street
C W:
By e Way Plan -25
communIty WorkShoP:
MaP 7:
coMMuniTy Workshop resulTs
26 - City of Mukilteo
Data analysis:
A
gap analysis is the process of reviewing existing
facilities to identify unserviced areas. Another
way to consider a gap analysis is the inverse of an
inventory. is process can identify gaps that may
be short or long in terms of scope and investment.
Short gaps may be cheaper projects that are
prioritized in order to create consistent corridors,
whereas gaps that cover a large distance may
require larger nancial support. is gap analysis
is for bikes and sidewalks and does not include a
gap analysis for shared-use paths, as shared-use
paths are site specic design solutions for both
pedestrian and cyclists.
e gap analysis also does not include transit gaps,
because the focus of the improvements is to increase
connectivity to existing facilities. is will allow the
increased ridership developed through connectivity
to create the demand for more facilities.
Map 8 represents the areas of facility gaps and is
tallied in Table 5. Some of these gaps include areas
without sidewalks along major corridors or known
preferred bike routes that lack facilities. While
these areas are identied as ‘gaps’ some locations
may not require a facility. Such locations include
areas where the street serves both pedestrians
and motorists safely without the requirement of
a sidewalk. ese areas tend to have a travel speed
of less than 25 MPH with very low average daily
trips.
MaP 8:
gap analysis
G A:
table 5: gaP aNalysis
Facility mileage
sidewalks - existing 70.49
sidewalks - gaPs 61.12
bike facilities - existing 4.86*
bike facilities - gaPs 18.37
*Quantity before Harbour Pointe boulevard bike
lanes were coMPleted wHile btw Plan was being
drafted.
By e Way Plan -27
MAKING CONNECTIONS
4
C-W C
L C
R C
P T
28 - City of Mukilteo
Making ConneCtions:
C-W C
I
n order to create a network, various types of connections are utilized.
ese dierent types of connections are rated based on their ability to
improve connectivity such as pathways that have signicant ability to
network throughout Mukilteo are considered 'City-Wide' and projects that
provide connectivity localized to a specic neighborhood is considered a
'Local Connection'. A typical City-Wide Connection provides connectivity to
the Library, Commercial Nodes, and to external facilities.
5th Street Connector
e 5th Street Connector provides a connection from the Downtown Business
District at Lincoln Avenue to the eastern city limits which connects to the
Everett bike lanes on Mukilteo Boulevard.
Mukilteo Speedway - Bike Route
While the BTW Plan identies that the Mukilteo Speedway requires a corridor
study to better analyze the opportunities and constraints of the roadway,
one likely result of the study will include designating the Mukilteo Speedway
as a 'Bike Route'.
Stair-Step Greenway
is long used pedestrian and bicycle route connects 5th Street to 44th
Avenue West. is route provides an alternative north-south route from the
Mukilteo Speedway.
Harbour Place Connector
e Harbour Place Connector is located at the 'Spur' and provides connection
from the Harbour Pointe Loop to either the Mukilteo Speedway or to the
Stair-Step Greenway.
Harbour Pointe Loop
e Harbour Pointe Loop is a combination of the existing shared use path and
the recently completed bike lanes on Harbour Pointe Blvd. is route provides
connection to the schools, library, commercial nodes, and to other routes.
Harbour Reach Drive Corridor
Harbour Reach Drive Corridor provides connection from Beverly Park Road to
the Stair-Step Greenway without requiring access onto the Mukilteo Speedway.
Cyrus Way Alternative Route
As an alternative to the Mukilteo Speedway, the Cyrus Way Alternative
provides connection to Chennault Beach Road from Evergreen Drive.
By e Way Plan -29
cIty-WIdE connEctIonS:
MaP 9:
ciTy-Wide connecTions
30 - City of Mukilteo
Making ConneCtions:
L C
T
he next type of connections include the 'Local' Connections'. ese types
of connections provide access to 'City-Wide Connections' or provide
better access within the neighborhoods. A 'Local Connection' would typically
see a lower level of use than 'City-Wide Connections', the users of a 'Local
Connection' tend to be primarily neighbors. By having facilities that not
only connect to 'City-Wide Connections', these 'Local Connections' provide
greater interaction with our own neighbors.
Sky-Hi-La Connectors
Being on top of a hill, this neighborhood is fairly well cut-o with only one
primary entrance/exit for motorists on 8th Drive. ese connectors will
provide access to 5th Street as well as to the Stair-Step Greenway.
Mid-Town Neighborhood Greenway
Mid-Town, also known as Mid-Mukilteo, is the area that extends from 76th
Street to approximately the ‘Spur’ at the intersection of Paine Field Boulevard
and Mukilteo Speedway. is area requires a new network of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities which will connect the neighborhoods together, but also connect
the neighborhoods to the 'City Wide' routes.
Chennault Beach Neighborhood Greenway
e Chennault Beach Neighborhood Greenway system provides higher
mobility within the Chennault Beach Community that is accessed on one
route from Harbour Pointe Blvd. Part of the greenway system is to open up
a second pedestrian and bicycle access to Harbour Heights Drive that will
improve opportunity to travel to and from the community without a vehicle.
Harbour Reach Drive Connectors
Harbour Reach Drive Corridor will provide north-south pedestrian and
bicycle connections, but equally important are the connections to the
Harbour Reach Drive Corridor. ese two connections will primarily establish
Possession Way and Blue Heron Drive as Bike Routes.
By e Way Plan -31
local connEctIonS:
MaP 10:
local connecTions
32 - City of Mukilteo
Making ConneCtions:
R F
T
he last type of connection under consideration by the BTW Plan are the
facilities that truly operate as a regional asset for the greater Snohomish
County Area. ese projects extend either outside Mukilteo's boundaries or
serve users that will primarily be non-residents.
Waterfront Promenade
e Waterfront Promenade is considered a regional facility as it provides
services to users of the Multi-Modal Center with Washington State Ferries,
Sound Transit, Community Transit, and Everett Transit all converging into a
single hub. is hub is not only a destination to leave Mukilteo and head to
Seattle or Everett, but this hub is also the end destination. is project will
primarily be led through the implementation of the Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan.
Boeing Recreation Shared Use Path
e proposed Boeing Recreational Shared Use Path is to provide connectivity
between 5th Street up to 36th Ave West in Everett. is project will provide
active Boeing commuters a route between the Mukilteo Multi-Modal
Terminal and the Boeing Recreation Facility with showers and lockers.
Understandably, controlled access of the Boeing Facility is important in
the design consideration with this project and the Boeing Company is the
primary partner with this project.
SR 526 Shared Use Path
Currently the City is working with regional partners on the design of the
SR 526 Shared Use Path. is project would provide connection from 84th
Street SW to Airport Road by utilizing a shared use path on the south side of
SR 526.
Airport Heritage Loop
e Airport Heritage Loop concept is to provide a separated shared use
path between 84th Street SW and Beverly Park Road. is project requires
partnerships with the Boeing Company, Snohomish County, Paine Field
Airport, and WSDOT to make this joint partnership project a reality.
Endeavour Shared Use Path
e proposed Endeavour Shared Use Path would connect Harbour Pointe
Blvd to Picnic Point Road through an existing utility easement. is
connection between Harbour Pointe Blvd and Picnic Point Road is primarily
a recreational facility as Picnic Point Road connects to the Picnic Point Park
with beach access.
By e Way Plan -33
rEgIonal connEctIonS:
MaP 11:
regional FaciliTies
34 - City of Mukilteo
makIng connEctIonS:
P T:
T
he implementation of the BTW Projects will occur through various
methods and funding sources. e BTW Plan is a long range vision
and will require many years, and possibly generations to implement these
projects, but by focusing resources to a specic project criteria, public funding
can be allocated in the most rational and logical method possible. In order to
prioritize and fund the identied projects, these projects were broken into
three categories:
Near-Term (Less than 7 years)
Mid-Term (Less than 20 Years)
Far-Term (More than 20 Years)
By identifying these three groups of projects, decision makers are better able
to determine funding needs for each project. While a project may be listed as
‘Mid-Term’ that does not preclude the opportunity to fund the project earlier if
additional funding becomes available through external sources or internal revenue
generators.
N-T P
When reducing the project list to the near-term projects, the determining
factors for project as near-term were based on the project's:
Ability to ll gaps within existing routes;
Ability to reduce barriers;
Create connections to existing facilities;
Projects currently under review or project development; and
Project pairing to other capital projects.
Map 12 on the following page identies the existing bike lanes, shared use paths,
and sidewalks. From the existing facilities, the added near-term projects layer
(green) showcases the increased network connectivity.
By e Way Plan -35
ProjEct tImElInE:
MaP 12:
near-TerM projecTs
36 - City of Mukilteo
makIng connEctIonS:
M-T P
F
ollowing the selection of the near-term projects, the mid-term projects
were then selected based on the same criteria as the near-term projects.
One unique project within the mid-term projects is the Mukilteo Speedway
Corridor Study. is project could easily be considered a near-term project,
but due to ferry relocation, the corridor will need time reect the change of
trac conditions so there is a better understanding of the opportunities of
the roadway.
Following the identied 7 year period for the near-term projects, an update
to the BTW Plan should be considered in run concurrent with the Mukilteo
Speedway Corridor Study to:
Address projects costs of the Mukilteo Speedway Corridor;
Remove Completed Projects within the BTW Plan;
Review annual funding opportunities to address implementation of
projects identied as 'Mid-Term' Projects;
Move ‘Mid-Term’ Projects to ‘Near-Term’ List that connect to
completed projects and/or pair with identied capital improvement
projects; and
Provide public outreach opportunity to address new community
concerns.
Map 13 on the following page identies the existing facilities, near-term projects
(green), and the mid-term projects (blue). e mid-term projects specically
provide improved connectivity in North Mukilteo.
By e Way Plan -37
ProjEct tImElInE:
MaP 13:
Mid-TerM projecTs
38 - City of Mukilteo
makIng connEctIonS:
F-T P
T
he last group of projects are projects that are slated for 20 years
or more away. ese projects were identied as far-term projects
primarily because the projects were either improving existing facilities or
were connecting to projects that were identied in the near or mid-term
projects. ese far-term projects should be evaluated for their timeline with
the update of the BTW Plan when running concurrent with the Mukilteo
Speedway Corridor Study. e criteria to consider when advancing projects
from the far-term list to the mid-term list include:
Completed connections from near-term and mid-term projects;
Pairing opportunities from other updated capital project lists; and
Maintaining opportunistic approaches for external funding availabilities.
By e Way Plan -39
ProjEct tImElInE:
MaP 14:
Far-TerM projecTs
40 - City of Mukilteo 40 - City of Mukilteo
This page is intentionally blank
By e Way Plan -41
PREFERRED PROJECTS
5
P M
P P
42 - City of Mukilteo
Preferred Projects:
P P:
T
he preferred projects section is structured based on the project timeline of
near-term, mid-term, and far-term projects, as well as the priority score of
the project. is organization creates a project list for direct integration into
the Capital Improvement Projects list. e design of Chapter 5 and Chapter 6
is the distinction between what projects are considered 'preferred projects' and
what projects are 'future projects'. Because near-term projects are designated to
happen in a shorter time frame, it makes reasonable sense to discuss near-term
projects from mid-term and far-term projects. Chapter 5 is focused on individual
near-term projects (preferred projects), where Chapter 6 is more focused on the
generalities of the mid-term and far-term projects (future projects).
P M
To determine a priority matrix with which to assess each projects, City
Sta completed a workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss how
should one project characteristic should be weighted against another project
characteristics. is discussion led to the following criteria list and points
eligible for the project:
Connectivity
20 Points - Proximity to Schools
15 Points - Proximity to Community Facilities (YMCA, Rosehill, Boys
& Girls Club, Medical Facilities, Parks, Trails, City Hall, and similar)
10 Points - Transit Connections
5 Points - Proximity to Commercial/Employment Centers
5 Points - Connections to ‘Greenways’
Safety
10 Points - Speed of Vehicles
10 Points - Accident History
5 Points - Existing Bicycle Facilities
5 Points - Existing Pedestrian Facilities
5 Points - Separated Facility
5 Points - Number of Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT)
Other
20 Points - Project Pairing Opportunities
10 Points - Grant Eligible
10 Points - Social Equity
5 Points - Public Outreach
In order to continue a grading methodology for ‘which projects to fund’, Chart
1 and Chart 2 on page 90 plots the projects into a management matrix based
on the project's priority score and cost.
By e Way Plan -43
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
MaP 15:
preFerred projecTs - near TerM
44 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
1. Harbour Pointe Boulevard
Priority Score: 114
Project 1 is nearly complete and was started after the BTW Plan process had begun. is project for Harbour
Pointe Boulevard was a primary example of the ingenuity of the Public Works Department to further a current
partnership with Snohomish County by implementing bike lanes with the annual restriping project. During
this striping project, the soft costs associated with city management, mobilization, and typical overhead costs
are practically zero given the partnership with Snohomish County who conducts the annual roadway striping
project. is is an easy win.
e previous facility was designed that pedestrian and cyclists would be able to adequately share a single
recreation path. is 5 mile roadway is no longer adequate for all modes of travel, as many cyclists choose to ride
the roadway and not on the recreation path. Given the width of the existing lanes, most places within Harbour
Pointe Boulevard are suitable for a standard bike lane or at minimum bike sharrows at narrow lane portions.
By implementing this option, the existing recreational path is less dependent for cyclists and provides more
capacity for pedestrians.
By e Way Plan -45
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
2. SR 526 Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 95
Currently the City is working with regional partners
on the design of the SR 526 Shared Use Path. is
project would provide connection from 84th Street
SW to Airport Road by utilizing a shared use path on
the south side of SR 526. While funding only currently
exists for the design phase, future construction funds
may become available through grant opportunities and
lobbying for additional state, and county funds for the
regional connection. is pathway will provide safer
bicycling access to the Boeing Facility, and ultimately
connect to Project 52 - Airport Road Shared Use Path.
e table to the right identies the total cost expectations
of the projects for all parties of the project.
table 6: sr 526 shareD use Path
Total Work Done by Contractor $3,421,000
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $1,836,393
Subtotal $5,257,393
Additional Contingency(30%) $1,395,768
Estimated Total $6,653,161
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $7,712,344
Map 16:
SR 526 ShaRed USe Path
46 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
W
hile the Mukilteo Speedway will be studied in
the corridor analysis, during the public outreach
for the BTW Plan several projects were identied as
important to many residents. To ensure that these
projects are further researched in the Corridor Study,
they are identied below:
3. SR 525 Safe Route to School
Priority Score: 94
e existing sidewalk on the Mukilteo Speedway between
76th Street SW and 81st Place SW is inadequate for a
safe route to school. While the facility exists, there lies
the opportunity to increase the size of the sidewalk as a
shared use path facility. is size of facility will provide
the opportunity for students to walk or ride safely along
the Mukilteo Speedway.
table 7: sr 525 srts
Total Work Done by Contractor $698,131
Design, Sales Tax, an d Permits $346,273
Estimated Total $1,044,404
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $1,210,674
Map 17:
SR 525 SRTS
SR  F S
By e Way Plan -47
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
Harbour Reach Corridor -
Project 4 - Priority Score 93 & Project 11 - Priority Score 57
Harbour Reach Drive is an existing roadway that will be extended to connect Harbour Pointe Boulevard South to Beverly
Park Road. is project is a capacity project as it will alleviate congestion at the intersection of SR 525 & Harbour Pointe
Blvd as well as SR 525 & Beverly Park. As Project 11 - Harbour Reach Corridor is a fully funded project currently under
development, Project 4 - Harbour Reach Drive Retrot will reformat the existing roadway to conform to the proposed
cross section. As Harbour Reach Corridor is fully funded, nal construction cost estimates will allow City Sta and
HW Lochner, consulting engineering rm, to determine the feasibility of implementing a retrot project. Because the
retrot project is dependent upon the extension project, the BTW Plan did not perform cost estimates at this time.
Should the Harbour Reach Corridor be unable to perform the necessary level of retrotting, the City shall consider
Project 4 incomplete and maintain the project on the 6-year list with cost estimates determined by HW Lochner.
During the public outreach for the BTW Plan, an online-survey was conducted for the Harbour Reach Corridor to
determine the preferred street cross-section. is survey presented four dierent cross-sections, which showed various
levels of bike facilities and pedestrian facilities with consistent vehicle facilities. e survey results on each option are
indicated below.
oPtioN 1 - buFFereD bike laNes
oPtioN 2 - shareD use Path
oPtioN 3 - ceNter cycle track
oPtioN 4 - siDe cycle track
96/136*
13/136*
17/136*
10/136*
Map 18:
Harbour reacH corridor
*is is representing the number of preferred responses
to the total number of responses.
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
48 - City of Mukilteo
Preferred Projects:
5. Waterfront Promenade - Priority Score 90
e Waterfront Promenade is considered a regional facility as it provides
services to users of the Multi-Modal Center with Washington State Ferries,
Sound Transit, Community Transit, and Everett Transit all converging into a
single hub. is hub is not only a destination to leave Mukilteo and travel to
Seattle or Everett, but this hub is also the end destination. e implementation
of the Mukilteo Downtown Waterfront Master Plan will make the Mukilteo
shoreline a vivid and vibrant place to experience Possession Sound’s gorgeous
shorelines and interact with our aquatic nature. Not only will the Waterfront
Promenade provide recreational amenities with the transportation hub, but
will provide connectivity between the Waterfront and Japanese Gulch Parks
expansive trails. e Waterfront Promenade is a project that should be led
through the implementation of the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan and
the cost estimates for an interim promenade are shown. As the City continues
the preliminary design work of the promenade additional cost estimates
regarding the nal design will become more readily available and should be
incorporated into future updates of this plan.
MUKILTEO WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN
INTERIM PROMENADE TYPICAL DETAIL PLAN 3/17/15
CITY OF MUKILTEO
POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,
WEST OF FERRY TERMINAL
POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,
WEST OF FERRY TERMINAL
8’ WIDE ASPHALT PROMENADE
15’ WIDTH
BENCH, TYP.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER
INTERPRETIVE
SIGNAGE
OVERLOOK, TYP.
0’ 10’ 20’
Scale: 1” =10’
N
HAND CARRY BOAT LAUNCH/
BEACH ACCESS
MEADOW SEEDING
D W M P
I P D
table 8: iNterim PromeNaDe DesigN Per
DoWNtoWN WaterFroNt master PlaN
Total Construction Cost $127,186
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $104,587
Subtotal (2014 U.S.D.) $231,773
Ination over 5 years $34,766
Total (2019 U.S.D.) $266,539
City Sta PE/CE $52,769
Grand Total (2019 U.S.D.) $319,309
By e Way Plan -49
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
6. 76th Street SW - Priority Score 89
76th Street SW is a destination connector, meaning that at either end of the
roadway are two primary destinations within the City. Olympic View Middle
is at one end while the 76th Street Trailhead and access to Japanese Gulch
Park is at the other end. e proposed project includes completing the sidewalk
system and adding new bike facilities. More detailed information about the
sidewalk estimating can be found under the Tuttle Sidewalk Report located in
the Appendix. ese costs may be lower depending on project pairing.
*e cost estimates below dier from those provided by the Tuttle Report,
because the previous estimates did not include the costs of bike facilities
which City Sta included at a rate $539 per 100 feet of construction costs.
table 9: 76th street sW Project 6
Total Work Done by Contractor $893,539
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $443,195
Estimated Total $1,336,734*
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $1,549,541*
Map 19:
76th Street SW
50 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
7. Midtown Sidewalks & Bike Lanes
Section 1 -
Priority Score: 89
In connection with Project 3 - SR 525 Safe Route to
School, the focus of the improvements along SR 525
is to take advantage of opportunities to improve
connectivity prior to the Mukilteo Speedway Corridor
Plan, should they be available.
e Mid-Mukilteo Commercial Corridor currently lacks
adequate facilities to fully support commerce by feet and
pedal, not by car. As the City has identied the need for
the Midtown Mukilteo to be studied further in LU6 of the
Comprehensive Plan and potentially consider a Subarea
Plan, the identied costs below represent a sample cost
of potential improvements. is roadway should be
reviewed more with the public outreach of the Midtown
Mukilteo.
SR  F S
table 10: miDtoWN mukilteo sectioN 1
Total Work Done by Contractor $2,962,241
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $2,355,575
Subtotal $4,512,086
Additional Contingency(20%) $805,730
Estimated Total $5,317,816
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $6,164,412
By e Way Plan -51
8. 44th Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 88
e City had previously completed a shared use project
on 44th Ave West, south of 84th Street SW, with the
development of Paine Field Blvd. is project proposes
to continue the existing path north to 76th Street SW.
is 10’-15’ shared use facility can have signicant
portions constructed with the development of vacant
industrial land or the City could construct the frontage
improvements as an economic development initiative
to better market the development of these lots. is
facility, along with the previously mentioned projects,
will nish the north-south connection from 5th Street
to Paine Field Blvd & SR 525 at the ‘Spur.
Since the start of the BTW Plan drafting, an industrial
project permit has been submitted. Under this permit,
the requirement the street frontage will be for sidewalks,
and bike lanes and not the preferred shared use path.
e City should be exible with design considerations
for the remaining portions of the roadway.
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
- E W -
Perform frontage improvements as an economic
development initiative to develop the vacant
industrial land.
table 11: 44th ave West - Project 8
Total Work Done by Contractor $1,083,750
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $567,018
Subtotal $1,650,768
Additional Contingency(20%) $294,780
Estimated Total $1,945,548
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $2,255,279
E  S U P
Map 21:
44th Shard USe Path
52 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
9. Harbour Pointe Boulevard Widening
Priority Score: 85
Project 9 is a capacity project that will improve the level-of-service (LOS) at the intersection of Harbour Pointe
Boulevard and SR 525. is intersection is currently at an LOS D (Rated A to F) and is projected to decrease
to LOS E with no improvements. e proposed project will add a second right turn lane to head south on SR
525. is project, paired with Harbour Reach Corridor, should decrease the signal delays at Harbour Pointe
Boulevard and Beverly Park Road and increase the trac ow through these intersections. is project is fully
funded at a project costs of $1,900,000.
table 12: sr 526 siDeWalks
Total Work Done by Contractor $167,293
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $82,978
Estimated Total $250,271
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $290,114
E ‘G T’ 
P R R
10. SR 526 Sidewalk
Priority Score: 82
As identied by the Tuttle Report, the need for sidewalks
on SR 526 is clear. is section of roadway has seen
the establishment of a ‘goat’ trail that borders several
of the properties. is has been created by individuals
continuing to walk on the same pathway over and over
again. Future consideration should be given as to if Project
10 is no longer needed or signicantly less needed with
the implementation of Project 2 for the SR 526 Shared
Use Path on the other side of the roadway.
H P B F E T SR 
By e Way Plan -53
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
12. Midtown Bike Lanes
Priority Score: 81
e existing Mukilteo Speedway Shared Use Path provides
adequate pedestrian facilities into Midtown Mukilteo,
however the existing bicycle facilities along this primary route
are lacking. During the public outreach, it was expressed that
using the shared use path for all cyclists in both directions
was inadequate, and many cyclists will choose to still ride
in the shoulder. To provide for an adequate bike facility for
cyclists who are destination oriented and are traveling at
speeds higher than appreciated by pedestrians, the creation
of a bike lane in each direction at this location will provide the
necessary connectivity needed. is project should be further
studied with the Mukilteo Speedway Corridor Plan.
13. Midtown Sidewalks & Bike Lanes
Priority Score: 77
The Midtown Section 1 supported connectivity for commerce
purposes, whereas Section 2 supports the quality of life
connectivity by providing a safe route to 92nd Street Park and
the existing Mukilteo Speedway Shared Use Path to Harbour
Pointe. Phase 2’s project area is from the 8600 Block of SR 525
to 92nd Street SW.
- E W -
Implement Signage on SR 525 when shoulders
either narrow/end as caution for both motorists
and cyclists.
Provide additional waynding to support slower
cyclists on the existing shared use path.
Transition existing shoulders to Bike Lanes.
SR  F N T  S SW
table 13: miDtoWN bike laNes
Total Work Done by Contractor $23,020
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $11,417
Estimated Total $34,437
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $39,920
table 14: miDtoWN mukilteo siDeWalks & bike laNes
Total Work Done by Contractor $1,284,466
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $637,095
Subtotal $1,921,561
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $2,227,474
Map 22:
Midtown Section ii & iii
54 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
14. 84th Street Sidewalks
Priority Score: 68
is section of roadway is apart of the Smuggler's
Gulch Local Connections that provides improved
mobility throughout the 81st to 92nd Street
community. is specic section is an area that
provide connectivity to the commercial area and
is the rst leg of creating the network for other
projects to connect to. is connection would
connect 54th Place West to SR 525.
table 15: 84th street siDeWalks
Total Work Done by Contractor $502,768
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $249,374
Subtotal $752,142
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $871,883
15. Chennault Beach Road Sidewalk
Priority Score: 60
Chennault Beach Road is dened as an urban
collector and transports residential and
commercial trac from SR 525 to Harbour
Reach Drive. is section of roadway, much
like 47th Ave West, has a signicant number
of employers, providing adequate pedestrian
and bicycle facilities along this section will
provide connectivity between dense residential
development within Harbour Pointe, large
employers, and a regional transit facility. is
project will complete a sidewalk gap and allow
for future projects as a mid-term to implement
bicycle facilities.
 S SW F E
T  A W
table 16: cheNNault beach roaD siDeWalk
Total Work Done by Contractor $157,836
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $78,286
Estimated Total $236,122
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $273,713
- E W -
Pair bike improvements with annual roadway striping
C B R F E
T SR 
By e Way Plan -55
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
16. 2nd Street Sidewalks
Priority Score: 57
2nd Street was designated as a pedestrian-oriented street within the Downtown Business District Subarea Plan.
is purpose of this designation is to increase mobility to promote a vibrant commerce area. e reason for 2nd
Street as a near-term project is provide the opportunity to pair the projects with pending pedestrian bridge over
the BNSF Right-of-Way. By identify this project now, the intent is to continue the conversation about improving
this section if additional funding becomes available to create a better connection to the future pedestrian bridge.
is section is proposed from SR 525 to Park Avenue.
table 17: 2ND street siDeWalks
Total Work Done by Contractor $587,017
Design, Sales Tax, Contingency, Permits $291,160
Subtotal $878,177
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $1,017,984
 S F E 
P A
56 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
C 
H R C
17. Possession Bay Connection:
Priority Score: 57
Following public outreach and preliminary designs of the
Harbour Reach Corridor, it was determined that Project
17 is infeasible to develop due to grade dierential.
18. Cyrus Way Sidewalks -
Priority Score: 43
To create an additional connection from Harbour Reach
Corridor to SR 525 for pedestrian, Project 18 will ll in
missing sidewalk section to create better connections to the
existing small commercial hub. is will provide the ability
for residents of Crown Park to walk to get a cup of coee
without the dependency on Harbour Pointe Blvd or SR 525.
21. Possession Way Bike Markings &
23. Blue Heron Drive Bike Markings &
24. South Road Markings
Project 21 (Priority Score 37), Project 23 (Priority Score
34), and Project 24 (Priority Score 30) are practically
the same project. e intent is to simply utilize the
existing roadway and provide signage for pedestrian
and bike markings to create an easy route for bicyclists
and pedestrians to nd their way to and from Harbour
Reach Corridor. ese projects dier slightly as Project
24 will require more pedestrian waynding than
Project 21 and 23 given the general locations between
the existing commercial sections. Essentially, it is less
likely that someone will be disoriented in Project 21 or
Project 23 areas than on Project 24 area.
table 18: cheNNault beach Primary coNNectioNs
Total Work Done
by Contractor
Design, Sales Tax,
Contingency, Permits
Total
($2021)
18. Cyrus Way Sidewalk $511,247 $253,579 $764,826
21. Possession Way Bike Markings $50,644 $25,119 $75,763
23. Blue Heron Drive Bike Markings $18,326 $9,089 $27,415
24. South Road Markings $57,550 $28,544 $86,094
Estimated Grand Total $954,098
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $1,105,990
Map 23:
Harbour reacH connections
By e Way Plan -57
nEar-tErm ImPlEmEntatIon:
C B C
e Chennault Beach Plat was recorded during World
War II and would develop into an auent single family
community with a single access point in and out of
the community. ese proposed connections are to
improve connectivity within the neighborhood of over
350 homes as well as provide access to Boeing Harbour
Pointe Technical Center.
19. Chennault Beach Drive (Priority 40)&
20. Central Drive (Priority 40) &
22. 64th Place West (Priority 36)
Project 19 & 20 are similar projects to provide a safe
bike lane in the uphill direction while also providing
a sidewalk to promote a connection to Harbour Pointe
Boulevard. While some of this route is supported by a
widened shoulder, for a community of over 350 homes
these two routes require a minimum of a 6-ft. sidewalk
with an uphill bike lane on the primary routes. Bicycle
sharrows can be used in the 'downhill fashion' as the
speed limit is 25 MPH. Once constructed, these two
pedestrian and bicycle paths will promote a higher level
of mobility to connect to the existing pedestrian facilities
on Chennault Beach Drive. Project 22 is to support
pedestrian mobility within the community including the
interim options for widened shoulder if curb & gutter
sidewalks are infeasible.
- E W -
Project Pairing: e Comprehensive Surface
Water Management Plan (SWMP) Update identies
opportunity for project pairing of BTW Plan's 19 &
20 with the SWMP's #1 & #6
Add sharrows in 'downhill fashion' with road striping projects.
Sign as a bike a route and add a bicycle awareness
at the intersection of Central Drive and Chennault
Beach Road.
table 19: cheNNault beach Primary coNNectioNs
Bike-Transit-Walk Plan Total Work Done
by Contractor
Design, Sales Tax,
Contingency, Permits
Total
($2021)
2015-SWMP
Project 19 - Chennault Beach Drive $2,419,083 $1,923,655 $4,342,738 #1 - $3,811,000
Project 20 - Central Drive Sidewalks $1,656,762 $1,317,457 $2,974,219 #6 - $5,267,000
Project 22 - 64th Place West $1,179,981 $869,298 $2,046,279 #4 -$1,202,000
Estimated Total $8,496,938 $10,280,000
2021 Dollars at 3% Annual $9,849,650
Map 24:
Chennault BeaCh ConneCtions
58 - City of Mukilteo 58 - City of Mukilteo
This page is intentionally blank
By e Way Plan -59
FUTURE PROJECTS
6
I
M S P
O T P
N M N
M-M N
H P C
E-J P
60 - City of Mukilteo
Preferred Projects:
F P:
C
hapter 5 established the 'preferred projects' to be developed over the next
7 years, but what happens after 7 years? e expectation is that some
projects from the preferred projects will not have been completed, and some
may not even have been started. As identied Chapter 4 - Making Connec-
tions, the criteria to consider when advancing projects from one timeline
list to another include:
Completed connections from near-term and mid-term projects;
Pairing opportunities from other updated capital project lists; and
Maintaining opportunistic approaches for external funding availabilities
One additional consideration is the public desire for projects that aren't prioritized.
Many of these projects are most likely future projects, but if neighborhoods are
interested in advancing projects from the Future Project List to the Preferred
Project List, one method may be a Local Improvement District that is explored
in Chapter 8.
On the following page is Map 25 that identies the future projects, and their
connections to the Preferred Projects that were discussed in Chapter 5. One im-
portant characteristic to note is the number of projects identied within North
Mukilteo and Mid-Mukilteo. ese areas act together as a network system of
multiple projects and is explored further in this chapter.
FuturE ProjEctS:
By e Way Plan -61
Selected AlternAtiveS:
MaP 25:
FuTure projecTs
FuturE ProjEctS:
62 - City of Mukilteo
Preferred Projects:
M S - SR 
P , , , ,  
T
he Mukilteo Speedway is both Mukilteos largest weakness and largest
opportunity to provide facilities for a large variety of user groups. e
Mukilteo Speedway has had some signicant improvements in the last 15
years and until recently possessed the only existing bike lanes within the
City, however other areas of the Mukilteo Speedway require improvements
to provide adequate levels of service. In addition to the projects listed
below, the BTW Plan calls for a Corridor Study to better understand the
long term potential of the roadway. While the identied projects provide
a stop-gap between the existing conditions and desired conditions, the
changing conditions of the ferry-holding lane on SR 525 provide a signicant
opportunity for Mukilteo that may signicantly change the design approach
for biking, walking, and transit usage. is study will require the participation
of Washington Department of Transportation, Community Transit, Everett
Transit, Mukilteo School District, adjacent property owners, commercial
businesses, residents, and special interest stakeholders.
To improve the Mukilteo Speedway, the BTW Plan identies several future
projects in addition to the Preferred Projects that vary in priority and project
ranking, but functionally require reviewing together.
*Community Transit Photo courtesy of www.ickriver.com - "Double-Deck
Buses and Trams Outside the British Isles", accessed November 6, 2016.
FuturE ProjEctS
By e Way Plan -63
mukIltEo SPEEdWay ProjEctS:
D M-B C
C WSDOT D M
Mukilteo Speedway Crossings
Priority Score: 51 to 95
One of the challenges identified during the public outreach was the inability to safely and efficiently cross
SR 525. Each of these facilities will require approval from WSDOT and will contribute into the corridor
plan as identified on page 64. If the opportunity to establish a mid-block crossing prior to the approval of
the corridor plan, the City should pursue the opportunity for implementation.
One option to implement a higher safety factor is the development of a pedestrian refuge island as
pictured below. In the diagonal refuge island below, the user is forced to change body direction. By forcing
the pedestrian to change directions by a few degrees, the user will visually engage oncoming traffic. This
small environmental shift promotes higher communication between motorists and pedestrians while also
providing a safe crossing location. These projects costs approximately $121,000 each and include:
Project 25 - 80th/81st Crossing - Priority Score 95
Project 27 - 76th Street Crossing - Priority Score 86
Project 33 - 86th Street Crossing - Priority Score 71
Project 40 - 2nd Street Crossing - Priority Score 55
The Goat Trail Road crossing is slightly more
complicated. Given the adjacent terrain and speed of
vehicles, a more suitable long-term option for crossing
SR 525 is a pedestrian bridge that would connect to
11th Street. Project 57, priority score of 51, is for the
implementation of a bridge and comes with a price tag of
over $7,000,000. However an interim solution of rapid
flashing beacons, ADA improvements and signage could
be implemented with a price tag of closer to $60,000.
MaP 26:
Mid-Block
crossings
64 - City of Mukilteo
26. Mukilteo Speedway - SR 525 Corridor Study -
Priority Score: 87 --- Estimated Cost $130,000
e purpose of the Mukilteo Speedway - SR 525 Corridor Study is to better identify the 20 year vision for the
primary route north and south within Mukilteo. is study extends well beyond the depth of the BTW Plan. e
Corridor Study will provide more detailed design and transportation engineering regarding trac engineering
whereas the BTW Plan focuses on identication of routes and connections in Mukilteo. ere are three primary
drivers for the use of a corridor plan:
1. e construction of the new Multimodal Ferry Terminal has a very high likelihood of reducing the required
length of ferry holding lanes located on SR 525. With the reduction in this demand, a roadway reconguration
project has merit where the vehicle holding lane could potentially serve as a pedestrian facility during non-
peak ferry demand (under 85th percentile). is potential means that additional pedestrian facilities could be
added to the Mukilteo Speedway without the requirement of expanding the footprint of the roadway.
2. Mid-Mukilteo is quickly becoming a prime location for redevelopment. is area from 76th Street
SW to 88th Street SW has the opportunity to become a true neighborhood center for the Mid-
Mukilteo neighborhood with the opportunity for mixed-use development and revitalized commercial
opportunities. Here the Mukilteo Speedway divides the subarea into an east and west portion and
challenges the design eorts for a pedestrian oriented development as envisioned by the Comprehensive
Plan. e Corridor Study will have the opportunity to review this vision with connection to the ferry
holding lane segment.
3. e changes identied in the two reasons stated above provide the opportunity to reconsider bike,
transit, and walking movement throughout the entire corridor. While a signicant portion of SR 525
has been improved, alternatives for a single shared use path may be feasible whereas the BTW Plan
identies projects below as 'stop-gap' options in response to existing conditions.
FuturE ProjEctS
By e Way Plan -65
Selected AlternAtiveS:mukIltEo SPEEdWay ProjEctS:
59. 121st Street Improvements
Priority Score: 47 --- Estimated Costs $380,000
e intersection at 121st Street and the Mukilteo Speedway is a vital link between Beverly Park Road and the
Mukilteo Speedway. is link provides the opportunity for pedestrians and bicyclists to reduce their route by
approximately 3,000 feet. is eciency increases opportunity for a connection to the Paine Field Community
Park, but currently 121st Street lacks safe bike connections. e proposal would be to add bike lanes on this
roadway and the improve connection between 121st Street and Harbour Pointe Boulevard SW.
38. & 53. Interim & Final Build of Beverly Park Road Intersection Improvements
Priority Score: 60 --- Estimated Total Costs $1,690,000
e intersection at Beverly Park Road is at the boundary between the City of Mukilteo and unincorporated
Snohomish County. is area has seen some signicant growth of multi-family residential and is a regional
corridor bicycling to connect to Edmonds, Lynnwood, and the Interurban Trail. Due to the high volume of
vehicle movement, the pedestrian crossing are physically long distance. One method to make this walkway
more pedestrian friendly is to add 'pork chops' that would decrease the crossing distances as shown below.
66 - City of Mukilteo
O T P
5th Street serves Mukilteo as a principal arterial including connection to the entire Mukilteo Boulevard Community,
Glenwood Avenue, and 41st Street. Within the Everett jurisdiction, the Mukilteo Boulevard has been treated with
bike lanes in a converted shoulder. In order to connect to this regional facility, the preferred alternative must balance
the neighborhood character, meet on-street parking demand, and maintain reasonable project cost. Previously,
the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) approved a grant for the City of Mukilteo to make 5th Street into
a boulevard roadway with a raised planter median. Following neighborhood backlash against the project, the TIB
grant was given back. In order to prevent such occurrences in the future, public outreach must be conducted during
conceptual design, preliminary design, and construction. e City conducted extensive outreach with the community
and this conceptual design captures the general opinion.
To ensure that this plan meets the public opinion and is supported by the Community, City Sta held a 5th Street
Neighborhood Meeting on March 31, 2016 to discuss potential alternatives. During this discussion, it was identied
that many residents supported the overall intent to limit the total amount of pavement, but many individuals would
like to have some sort of bike facilities and pedestrian facilities. ere were additional concerns expressed by a few
that any change would negatively impact the community. To balance these opinions, the BTW Plan identies an
alternative that maintains the existing character of the roadway while providing necessary pedestrian amenities.
FuturE ProjEctS:
MaP 27:
5
TH
STREET
By e Way Plan -67
old toWn ProjEctS:
34. 5th Street - Priority Score: 64 --- Estimated Cost $2,500,000
roughout the BTW Plan Public Outreach, the consideration for implementation included an interim solution
and a future nal build solution, however Sta identied an alternative to merge the benets of interim
solutions and nal build while controlling costs to create a feasible option. is alternative became known as
Alternative 3’. Alternative 3 identies opportunity for parking, one bike lane, and shared use path. e principle
with the alternative is to implement the desired facilities within the existing ‘improved area’ of approximately
44 feet. One the challenges to address is on-street parking, and this interim design proposes to transfer the use
of existing on-street parking into intermittent parking as needed on both sides of the roadway. e intent of
intermittent parking is to provide high exibility to meet true parking demands while minimizing pavement.
As the properties along the north side of 5th Street have access to either a garage or alley parking, the nal
design is expected to minimize on-street parking. With the proposed design, on-site stormwater management
may be required and to meet this potential a exible space for a bioswale is identied or could also be used
as landscaping and parking. Alternative 3 still provides exibility to meet changing demands. is exibility
provides the opportunity for additional public input and at this stage is a conceptual design only for planning,
and cost estimating purposes. e City will continue public outreach eorts with the residents on 5th Street to address
any adverse impacts to landscaping.
- E W -
Roadway east of the Dog Park can be
implemented with a re-striping project.
Identify future water and waste water capital
projects that require signicant work within
the right-of-way for project pairing.
Minimize use of physical barriers (curbs)
to lower costs of implementing (project
costs) and maintaining (future costs) ADA
facilities.
E
A 3
68 - City of Mukilteo
FuturE ProjEctS:
Old Town Projects
- Priority Score: 36-57 -
Total Estimated Cost $804,000
Old Town’s unique character of a beach town with lumber mill history
recognizes that the residential portions of Old Town function well as a
complete street without typical curb, gutter, and sidewalks. However, the
adjacent commercial and community assets, including Rosehill Community
Center require a certain level of typical sidewalks through these portions to
support commerce and mobility. ese projects are in addition to Project
16 - 2nd Street Sidewalks that were identied through the Tuttle Sidewalk
Assessment and included cost estimates as identied in 20.
Map 28:
Old TOwn lOcal cOnnecTiOns
table 20: olD toWN local coNNectioNs
Project: Costs: Priority Score:
Project 48 - Park Ave Sidewalks $584,078 36
Project 69- Loveland Sidewalks $220,181 29
Estimated Total $804,259
M-T P
F-T P
By e Way Plan -69
N-M N
N
orth Mukilteo is composed of remaining neighborhoods north of 76th Street that aren't located in
Old Town. is area includes Elliot Pointe, Sky-Hi-La, Goat Trail, Horizon Heights, and several other
neighborhoods. Part of North-Mukilteo includes Olympic View Middle School and Mukilteo Elementary, for
some of these communities, there is no bus service, but walking isn't the preferred option due to the lack of
pedestrian facilities.
North Mukilteo Safe Routes to School - Priority Score: 41-58
Total Estimated Cost $804,000
Projects 39 & 44: 8th Drive & 11th Street Sidewalks - Safe Routes to School
Connecting neighborhoods to schools is incredibly important for the health and safety of children within the
community. Currently, 8th Drive is a narrow roadway with a steep grade and limited sight distance. While the roadway
includes a widened shoulder, the facility is inadequate to provide the sense of safety and security for parents to allow
their children to walk to Mukilteo Elementary. e intent of Projects 39 and 44 is to remove the barrier and create a
sense of safety and security promoting walkability within young students and connect to the Stair-Step Greenway as
illustrated on page 70. One future consideration in addition to Projects 39 and 44 is to activate Goat Trail Park as a
school drop o location which should be vetted in the Parks Master Plan update.
46. Possession View Lane Sidewalks - Safe Routes to School
e Possession View Lane section of Goat Trail ‘C’ Community is the bottom leg of multiple small developments
that create a ‘C’ shape on Goat Trail Road. is specic section was originally platted as part of Snohomish
County and includes limited right-of-way and no pedestrian facilities. Unfortunately this is the section of the
‘C’ Community that is closest to the access at Mukilteo Elementary. Project 46 would propose to add a sidewalk
on the north side of Possession View Lane.
north mukIltEo nEtWork:
table 21: North mukilteo coNNectioNs
Project Cost Priority
Project 39 - 8th Drive Sidewalks $2,479,848 58
Project 44 - 11th Street Sidewalks $561,670 43
Project 46 - Possession View Lane $892,253 41
Project 64 - Water Tower Path $667,590 37
Estimated Total $3,933,771
M-T P
64. Water Tower Path - Estimated Cost $670,000
is trail project is a formalization of an existing trail that
currently crosses over private property. While the Mukilteo Water
Wastewater District is one of the property owners, additional
outreach and communication will be required to formalize the
trail segment. e completion of this trail segment will provide a
formalized connection for residents to Old Town.
Map 29:
North Mukilteo
F-T P
70 - City of Mukilteo
Map 1: Existing Pedestrian &
Bike Facilities
MaP 30:
sTair-sTep greenWay
FuturE ProjEctS:
By e Way Plan -71
north mukIltEo nEtWork:
UPHILL DIRECTION DOWNHILL DIRECTION
M S-S G
P , ,  
e north-south alternative to the Mukilteo Speedway is a path starting at 5th Street and winding up through the
Goat Trail Community and eventually to the Hilltop Community at 44th Ave West. is route is known as the stair
steps because of the 90-degree turns on the corridor. Most of this route is on an Urban Collector with a speed limit
of 25 MPH and is primarily residential in character with connection to industrial development on 44th Ave West.
is Greenway Route also serves as a connector to the Olympic View Middle School and Mukilteo Elementary.
30. Goat Trail Road - Priority Score: 73 --- Estimated Cost $2,300,000
e middle section of the Stair-Step Greenway is Goat Trail Road to 8th Drive. is section of roadway exists
in a prescribed easement as the roadway does not solely exist within the dedicated right-of-way. is issue
has faced Mukilteo for many years as the recognized property lines signicantly dier from the surveyed
property lines. Unfortunately, to implement a sidewalk or bike lane within the right-of-way, the City will have
to commit to working with the property owners to reach an agreement to resolve the surveying issue. By
solving this issue, not only will the City have the ability to implement additional pedestrian and bike facilities,
the aected property owners will no longer be faced with lot boundary challenges
32. Stair-Step Path - Priority Score: 73 --- Estimated Cost $5,800,000
e south and largest section is the roadway that most resembles stairs. is section extends from 8th
Drive up to 76th Street SW. Much of this area includes a widened shoulder that currently serves cyclists and
pedestrians, but given the immediate connection to the schools this widened shoulder should be transformed
to a sidewalk with a bike lane in the uphill route.
45. Washington Ave - Priority Score:
45 --- Estimated Cost $3,600,000)
e north section of the Stair-Step from 5th
Street lies primarily on Washington Avenue.
is section curbed section to provide refuge
to pedestrians, but does not fully provide a
path for both cyclists and pedestrians. e
most preferred design option would include
transitioning the existing curbed area into the
bike facility, add sharrows in the downhill travel
lane, and implement a new sidewalk portion
as several properties have already. Due to the
terrain of several properties, this option may
not be entirely feasible.
- E W -
Implement Greenway Signage
Implement Downhill Sharrows
Move the Mailboxes out of the Pedestrian Path
72 - City of Mukilteo
FuturE ProjEctS:
MaP 31:
Mid-MukilTeo connecTions
By e Way Plan -73
M-M N
M
id-Mukilteo is the area that extends from 76th Street to approximately the ‘Spur’ at the intersection of Paine
Field Boulevard and Mukilteo Speedway. is neighborhood was primarily developed when Mukilteo was
considered the ‘woods’ and was developed as an autodominate community. Even after the annexation of 1980,
this area has primarily remained the same regarding pedestrian facilities with the exception of a few projects (92nd
Street) and new development. In order to provide higher connectivity to primary corridors, Mid-Mukilteo needs a
signicant amount of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. is section identies the projects based on locations starting
with Project 35 - 88th Street SW and continues the conversation based on connectivity of the neighborhoods. e
projects are discussed within the Smuggler's Gulch Community and the Hilltop Community.
S' G
Smugglers Gulch neighborhood extends from 76th Street to Big Gulch that is west of the Mukilteo Speedway.
is large area includes several dierent connection opportunities to provide for mobility throughout the
community. e challenges within the section is that existing pedestrian facilities are disconnected. e intent
of the identied projects is to provide for routes from residences to the destinations of 92nd Street Park, Mid-
Mukilteo Commercial Corridor, and connections to the City-Wide Connections.
35. 88th Street SW - Priority Score: 63 --- Estimated Cost $6,500,000
88th Street SW is one of Mukilteo's designated ‘urban collectors’ that provides direct connection for local
neighborhoods to the Mukilteo Speedway. Typically an urban collector is a 30-35 MPH roadway with a center
turn lane, but this road is another roadway developed in unincorporated Snohomish County. It was originally
constructed as a two lane local access road with 10’ lanes at 25 MPH, and has remained relatively the same since.
As patchwork development occurred on the roadway, 88th was not improved. To bring this roadway up to the
livability standards the Mukilteo Comprehensive Plan identies, there must be a large commitment of funds to
this roadway.
e 88th Street Proposal below includes deviations from the existing urban collector standards to support
maintaining the roadway as a 25 MPH path. is cross-section includes a limited footprint of 60 feet of ROW
where there is an existing 80 feet of ROW.
mId-mukIltEo nEtWork:
P  S SW C-S
 SR    P W
74 - City of Mukilteo
Smuggler's Gulch Local Connections
- Priority Score: 36-57 -
Total Estimated Cost $8,400,000
Project 41, 42, 54, 62, & 66 - 81st to 88th Street
ese identied projects will provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities for a
large portion of the multifamily development that is outside of Harbour
Pointe. What is unique about this community is that most of the dwelling
units are serviced by dierent owners, unlike large single owner complexes.
Several of these units are under-market rate and provide for a high level of
aordability to families. ese identied projects would follow the typical
local access cross section with on-street parking, and sidewalks, with bike
sharrows. When funding becomes available for design, additional landscaping
should be included into the project.
E W
Pave gravel sections for a widened shoulder when available.
Restripe roadway to 10’ travel lanes to increase shoulder width.
Formalize pedestrian routes to dene on-street parking locations.
FuturE ProjEctS:
table 22: 81st to 84th street
Project: Costs: Priority Score:
Project 41 - 81st Place $2,910,364 54
Project 42 - 53rd Phase 1 $570,979 49
Project 54 - 84th Street SW Section 2 $1,044,570 57
Project 62 - 53rd Phase 2 $1,185,704 41
Project 66 - 54th Place West $2,694,782 36
Estimated Total ($2016) $8,406,399
M-T P F-T P
By e Way Plan -75
mId-mukIltEo nEtWork:
50. 92nd Street SW -
Priority Score: 71 --- Estimated Cost $4,400,000
Similar to 88th Street SW, this roadway was initially developed as a County road with a speed limit of 25 MPH. Unlike
88th Street, the 92nd Street Corridor is designated as a Far-Term Project because during the mid-2000s the City
completed a project that installed a sidewalk along the southern portion of 92nd Street. Prior to the sidewalk concept,
a widened shoulder was considered as the preferred alternative and received sti objection from the neighborhood
who successfully advocated for a sidewalk. is project is a continuation of that previous intent in order to nish the
roadway.
e proposed cross-section below is similar in style to 88th Street SW, but diers because 88th Street SW is
less constrained by private property and cut slopes when compared to 92nd Street. is is because development
around 88th Street SW identied an 80 ft. wide right-of-way whereas 92nd Street is a 60 ft. wide right-of-way.
e image below identies the addition of a 5’ bike lane and to ‘shift’ the center of the roadway to the north as
illustrated by the ghosted centerline. As some of 92nd Street has portions of sidewalks, the design below is the
ideal concept, but should incorporate existing facilities as much as reasonably possible.
P  S SW C-S
 SR    P I
76 - City of Mukilteo
FuturE ProjEctS:
60. 53rd Ave West - Far-Term Project
Priority Score: 45 --- Estimated Cost $700,000
To connect 88th and 92nd Street together, 53rd Ave West provides a great neighborhood connection. Currently
this connection is approximately a 20 ft paved two lane road with no pedestrian or bike facilities. is roadway
between 88th and 92nd Street is extremely important to ensure that Mid-Mukilteo Commercial Corridor
and 92nd Street Park are connected to each other though routes other than the Mukilteo Speedway. One
consideration with this roadway is to ensure that 53rd Ave West does not become a ‘cut through’ for vehicle
trac. Part of the character on 53rd Ave West is the limited facilities and woodsy feel. Given the 25 MPH speed
limit and existing 40 ft. of right-of-way, the proposed design for 53rd Ave West is minimal, but provides for
all modes of connection. is BTW Plan design varies from the proposed design and costs as identied in the
Tuttle Report to maintain the existing character.
P  A W C-S 
 S SW   S SW
- E W -
Implement a widened path for a
future sidewalk as an interim option.
43. 49th Avenue Transit Connection - Mid-Term Project
Priority Score: 46 --- Estimated Cost $220,000
is connection is currently an established connection, but has a sidewalk gap between the existing facilities and
the transit stop. is pathway has become overgrown and shrunk in width, but is still an existing connection
which serves a legitimate purpose. e purpose of Project 30 is to take an existing connection that is decient
and improve the connection to a widened shoulder/shared-use pedestrian path. Phase 1 of the project is an ‘easy
win’ which would include no new pavement surfaces and would focus on restriping. is section includes access
to only one residence and with creative restriping, a dedicated walking path can be created within the existing
roadway. is restriping is considered 'Phase 1' and is a functional alternative until future redevelopment of the
property occurs. When redevelopment occurs, Phase 2 of the connection would be the construction of a large
portion of the sidewalk. e missing gap would require the City to complete approximately 139 ft of sidewalk.
- E W -
Cut back brush
Implement Phase 1 including
restriping roadway with annual
maintenance
By e Way Plan -77
mId-mukIltEo nEtWork:
H C
T
he Hilltop Community is essentially Mid-Mukilteo that is east of SR 525 and includes the Kiley Woods
Development. e following projects provide increased connection between the SR 525 and the 44th Shared
Use Path in addition to 76th Street SW Project 6 as identied in City-Wide Connections.
Hilltop Connections
- Priority Score: 36-57 -
Total Estimated Cost $3,600,000
Projects 36, 37, 55, & 56 - SR 525 to 44th Shared Use Path
ese projects would include the implementation of a sidewalk and downhill sharrows with a sidewalk and bike
lane in the uphill direction. e identied project locations include 80th Street SW, 88th Street SW, and 92nd
Street SW. ese three dierent roadways have varied widths of improved area, but includes some portions of
completed sidewalks such as 92nd Street. One benet with these roadways is that there are limited number of
driveways that access directly to the roadway.
- E W -
Implement Bike Sharrows in ‘Downhill
Fashion’ and Sign as Bike Route
Convert the Widened Shoulder on 88th to
Uphill Bike Lane, Sign ‘No Parking
Sign Connection from 92nd Street Park up
92nd Street to 44th Shared Use Path to connect
92nd Street Park to 76th Street Trailhead.
table 23: hilltoP local coNNectioNs
Project: Costs: Priority Score:
Project 36 - 80th Street SW $2,155,825 3
Project 37 - 88th Street SW Section 1 $214,523 60
Project 55 - 92nd Street SW $593,333 56
Project 56 - 88th Street SW Section 2 $678,095 51
Estimated Total $3,641,776
M-T P F-T P
78 - City of Mukilteo
PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
MaP 32:
harBour poinTe connecTions
By e Way Plan -79
harBour PoIntE nEtWork:
H P C
T
he Harbour Pointe Master Planned
Community contains the highest level
of sidewalks per household throughout the
neighborhoods. is feature provides excellent
connection throughout each subdivision, but for
the greater community connectivity is lacking
for all modes of transportation. e identied
projects will improve connectivity for all modes
for both inside the Harbour Pointe community
and connection within Mukilteo.
51. Harbour Place Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 66
Total Estimated Cost $1,500,000
Harbour Place is a roadway that connects to two
shared use paths from 44th Ave West, and SR 525.
Utilizing bike markings in this location makes logical
sense to continue the path as far as reasonably
possible as sidewalks already exist within the area and
the intent is to provide clarity for cyclists to connect
to and from the shared use paths.
- E W -
Maintain concurrency with Engineering Standards
for development of shared use path with
requirements of new development at Sector 3.
MaP 33:
HarBour poinTe
connecTions i
80 - City of Mukilteo
FuturE ProjEctS:
28. Harbour Pointe Blvd. Cycle Track -
Priority Score: 83 ---
Estimated Cost $88,000
Cycle tracks are an incredible way for cyclists
to move about a community, but are seldom
used for specific locations when using bike
lanes make more sense. This project proposes
to transition the dual bike lanes as completed
in Project 1 to a cycle track on the north side
of Harbour Pointe Blvd. By doing so, a cyclist
attempting to connect to Harbour Place’s
Shared Use Path will have a safer turning
movement. The existing turning movement
includes climbing a hill in order to make a left
in front of two lanes of oncoming traffic while
waiting in a center-turn lane. The proposed
project design will allow cyclists to transition
to the north side of the roadway near the
4800 block of Harbour Pointe Blvd where the
terrain is still flat, and then transition on
Harbour Place to the preferred facility.
29. 47th Place West
Priority Score: 77 ---
Estimated Cost $152,000
47th Place West is a roadway that connects
several important community assets including
the YMCA, Police Station, Fire Station 25, and
the future Boys & Girls Club Facility. ese
community assets are also adjacent to several
employers that will have the opportunity to
enjoy an increased level of mobility. Because
of the number of employers, there appears to
be an overow of parking onto the street. To
ensure that there is adequate parking for both
peak demand of the employers and community
assets, the City should review a striping and
pavement marking design that would ensure bicycle
facilities while balancing the demand for parking.
MaP 34:
harBour poinTe
connecTions ii
By e Way Plan -81
Harbour Pointe Connections III
- Priority Score: 41-47
Total Est. Cost $7,950,000
47. Chennault Beach Road Bike Lanes
is project is to add bike facilities on Chennault
Beach where the sidewalks gaps where completed
with Project 15. is completion provides a better
connection from Harbour Reach Corridor to
Mukilteo Speedway.
58, 61, & 63 - Cyrus Way Projects
In connection with Project 18, Projects 58, 61, and
63 are all far-term projects to eliminate sidewalks
gaps along the existing roadway. Project 63 is
to extend Cyrus Way to Chennault Beach when
industrial redevelopment is to occur to improve
truck routes.
harBour PoIntE nEtWork:
MaP 35:
harBour poinTe
connecTions iii
table 24: harbour PoiNte iii
Project Cost Priority
47. Chennault Beach Road $37,898 39
58. Cyrus Way Sidewalks $842,682 47
61. Cyrus Way Sidewalks $694,177 43
63. Cyrus Way Extension $5,527,497 41
Estimated Total $7,953,174
M-T P
F-T P
82 - City of Mukilteo
49. 62nd Street & Canyon Road -
Priority Score: 35 ---
Estimated Cost $890,000
Project 49 is a midterm project that is paired with
the Comprehensive Surface Water Management
Plan (SWMP) similar to Project 22. is project
location is listed in the SWMP as Project #7
with an estimated cost of $2,852,000 provides a
potential project to be paired with.
68. Chennault Beach Road Bike Markings
Priority Score: 32 ---
Estimated Cost $30,000
To better connect Central Drive and Chennault
Beach Drive for bicycles, Project 68 identies the
need for some form of bike markings. Preliminary
indications identify that the existing curb to curb
is too limited for bike lanes, however the roadway
is an existing 25 MPH that could support the use
of sharrows as a trac calming mechanism.
FuturE ProjEctS:
MaP 36:
harBour poinTe
connecTions iv
By e Way Plan -83
harBour PoIntE nEtWork:
31. Endeavour Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 72 ---
Estimated Cost $1,100,000
e proposed Endeavour Shared Use Path would connect Harbour Pointe Blvd to Picnic Point Road through an
existing utility easement. is connection between Harbour Pointe Blvd and Picnic Point Road is primarily a
recreational facility as Picnic Point Road connects to the Picnic Point Park with beach access. By providing this
connection with a shared use path, individuals will be able to travel from Picnic Point Park to Edgewater Beach
and Lighthouse Park without the use of the Mukilteo Speedway by connection through Japanese Gulch Park.
However, before this level of connection could be made, additional partnerships with Snohomish County is
required as pedestrian facilities on Picnic Point Road are lacking. If the Endeavour Shared Use Path is developed,
there will be additional projects needed outside the boundaries of Mukilteo to provide adequate facilities to
Picnic Point Park.
67. South Gulch Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 34
Estimated Cost: $220,000
Project 45 is to establish a connection between Chennault Beach Drive and Harbour Heights Parkway over
South Gulch. is shared use path would exist within a stretch of property that is owned by the City of Mukilteo
used for utilities and would cross South Gulch. is site includes an existing pathway that requires review to see
what level of maintenance needs to be performed. e existing path may be in such condition that an asphalt
overlay is sucient to create the connection.
- E W -
Implement an interim trail within the property to create a usable connection until funding is available for the
shared use path construction.
84 - City of Mukilteo
MaP 37:
exTra-jurisdicTional projecTs
FuturE ProjEctS:
52
65
By e Way Plan -85
E-J P
52. Airport Road Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 60 ---
Estimated Cost $14,700,000
e Airport Road Shared Use Path is a proposed pedestrian and bike facility separate from Airport Road.
Currently, Airport Road is a 45 MPH Arterial with heavy ows of trac during rush-hour events, and the
existing bike lanes and sidewalks are inadequate for a roadway with this volume and speed. is project is a
long-range project, and the opportunity to implement this project is when Airport Road requires additional
capacity due to a reduced level of service. When additional capacity is needed, the existing bike lanes could
be transitioned into additional width for vehicle travel lanes. If the bike lanes are removed, a shared use path
should be the preferred alternative. is shared use path should be setback from the roadway by a minimum of
25 feet and incorporate landscaping for additional sensory protection from the high trac volumes and travel
speeds.
65. Boeing Recreation Shared Use Path
Priority Score: 36 ---
Estimated Cost $2,800,000
e proposed Boeing Recreational Shared Use Path is to provide connectivity between 5th Street up to 36th Ave
West in Everett. is project will provide active Boeing commuters a route between the Mukilteo Multi-Modal
Terminal and the Boeing Recreation Facility with showers and lockers. Understandably, controlled access of
the Boeing Facility is important in the design consideration with this project and the Boeing Company is the
primary partner with this project.
e route of this pathway is undetermined at this point, because the route requires signicant exibility to
address concerns of future stakeholders.
Extra-jurISdIctIonal ProjEctS:
86 - City of Mukilteo
T    
By e Way Plan -87
FUNDING
7
F  P P
M M
F R
T I F
88 - City of Mukilteo
FundIng:
F  P P:
e Preferred Projects have a total of $51,073,235. Some of these projects are
either currently funded or are anticipated to be externally funded through current
grant applications. What remains is the responsibility of the City of Mukilteo.
is means that over 7 years, if all preferred projects were implemented, the City
of Mukilteo would have to identify approximately $24,100,000 or $3,500,000 to
be spent annually.
e reality is that the City of Mukilteo is extremely thrifty when it comes to
utilizing external resources and innovative practices to create 'in-house' cost
savings. e expectation is that the through these practices there would be a
60% cost savings for the preferred projects meaning the City of Mukilteo would
need to identify approximately $10,000,000 or $1,375,000 to be spent annually
to implement the Preferred Projects. is ratio is based on the City funding the
‘soft costs’ (36%) including design costs to create ‘shovel-ready’ projects that
are more successful in grant applications. e additional 4% is to account for
opportunities the City of Mukilteo may identify for in-house savings. Because
this reduction level will vary depending on each project, one project may be
signicantly more dependent on internal funding whereas other projects may
succeed primarily on external funding.
is funding level is unfeasible within the existing revenue structure of the
City of Mukilteo. However, not all preferred projects may meet constraints of
the Citys scal limits. In order to identify 'which project should get funding'
a management matrix was utilized to identify the 'High-Priority - Low Cost'
projects. is management matrix is discussed on page 90.
One additional consideration is the inclusion of three near-term projects within
the Chennault Beach Neighborhood. ese projects are prioritized on the
Stormwater CIP, and the opportunity to pair a BTW Project with a Stormwater
Project can provide some cost savings. ese cost savings can include savings
in mobilization, design, and reducing redundant construction costs. One of the
highest cost savings may not be known until the projects move to design in order
to address any additional stormwater needs of the increased impervious surfaces
of the project area.
By e Way Plan -89
P P
table 25: PreFerreD Project list
Project
Number Project Name
Priority
score cost ($ 2016)
Existing ProjEcts*
1
Harbour Pointe blvd. bike Markings
111 $217,390.34
2
526 sHared use PatH
95 $6,653,161.00
4
Harbour reacH corridor retrofit
93 $2,200,000
9
Harbour Pointe blvd. s widening
85 $1,929,850.00
11
Harbour reacH corridor
82 $16,000,000.00
ProPosEd PrEfErrEd ProjEcts
3
sr 525 sidewalks - safe route to scHool
94 $1,044,404.73
5
waterfront ProMenade Multi-use PatH
90 $319,309.00
7
Mid-town Mukilteo sidewalk & bike Markings
89 $5,317,815.73
6
76tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
89 $1,336,733.89
8
44tH sHared-use PatH
88 $1,945,548.00
10
sr 526 sidewalks
82 $250,271.36
12
sr 525 bike lane
81 $34,437.92
13
sr 525 sidewalks & bike Markings
77 $1,921,561.54
14
84tH street sidewalks
68 $752,142.42
15
cHennault beacH road sidewalks
60 $236,122.92
16
2nd street sidewalks
57 $878,178.47
18
cyrus way sidewalks
43 $764,826.02
19
cHennault beacH drive sidewalk & bike Markings
40 $4,342,738.00
20
central drive sidewalk & bike Markings
40 $2,974,219.00
21
Possession way bike Markings
37 $75,763.42
22
64tH Place west sidewalks
36 $1,765,251.58
23
blue Heron drive bike Markings
34 $27,415.69
24
soutH road Markings
30 $86,094.80
meDiaN Priority score:
64.00
existiNg Project list:
$27,000,401
ProPoseD PreFerreD Projects:
$24,072,833
graND total:
$51,073,235
* FUnDeD, UnDer conStrUction, UnDer FUnDing review, or anticipateD For 100% external FUnDeD
**project 17 waS DeleteD aS a preFerreD project DUe to graDing DiFFerentialS aS an inFeaSiBle project
FundIng For PrEFErrEd ProjEctS:
90 - City of Mukilteo
M M:
The Management Matrix shown above allows decision makers to plot projects based on the priority score and
the cost of the project. This matrix above has been tailored for the BTW Plan to identify different 'Sectors'
of considerations and how to implement the projects within each sector. The matrix is shaded from green to
yellow to red to represent projects that are low cost with a high priority (green) to projects with a high cost
with a low priority (red). This illustration assists decision makers to better understand the complexity of the
project funding opportunities and limitations. In addition to the sectors, and shading, this matrix identifies
the average cost, 2x average cost, and the average score. The different sectors are described below:
Sector 1: High Priority - Low Cost - City Led Projects
Sector 2: High Priority - Medium Cost - City Led Projects
Sector 3: Low Priority - Low Cost - Most Likely Completed In House
Sector 4: Low Priority - Medium Cost - Implemented with other CIP Projects
Sector 5: High Priority - High Cost - Implemented through Phased Approach
Sector 6: Low Priority - High Cost - Implemented with Subsidized Local Improvement District (LID)
FundIng:
C : M M
By e Way Plan -91
M M R:
e Preferred Projects were plotted above to identify which sector each project falls into. e results above are
great pieces to consider as Projects 3 & 6 fell into Sector 1 and Sector 2 (respectably). Both of these projects are
identied as Safe Routes To School (SRTS) which was given the highest importance in the priority matrix. As
a review continues on the plotted information, the project placement is in accordance with the priorities set by
the Planning Commission as identied on page 42.
Projects 19, 20, and 22 fell into Sector 4 & 6 would be paired with other CIPs or utilize a subsidized LID.
ese projects are all located in the Chennault Beach Neighborhood where the inclusion of these projects
into the Preferred Project List was based on being identied in the SWMP. When preparing for the SWMP
implementation, consideration with teh neighborhood of implementing an LID should be further researched,
because these projects are only connections for residents who live in the immediate vicinity. is makes the
boundary identication for an LID extremely simple.
managEmEnt matrIx:
C : P P - C . P
92 - City of Mukilteo
F R - P P
table 26: PreFerreD Project list
Project
Number Project Name
Priority
score cost ($ 2016) sector
recommeNDeD
For FuNDiNg?
Existing ProjEcts*
1 Harbour Pointe blvd. bike Markings 111 $217,390.34 underway
2 526 sHared use PatH 95 $6,653,161.00 underway
4
Harbour reacH corridor retrofit 93
$2,200,000
underway
9 Harbour Pointe blvd. s widening
85 $1,929,850.00
underway
11
Harbour reacH corridor 82
$16,000,000.00
underway
ProPosEd PrEfErrEd ProjEcts ordErEd by ManagEMEnt Matrix
3
sr 525 sidewalks - safe route to scHool 94
$1,044,404.73
sector 1 yes
5 waterfront ProMenade Multi-use PatH 90 $319,309.00 sector 1 yes
10 sr 526 sidewalks 82 $250,271.36 sector 1 yes
12 sr 525 bike lane 81 $34,437.92 sector 1 yes
14 84tH street sidewalks 68 $7521,42.41 sector 1 yes
6 76tH street sidewalks & bike Markings 89 $1,336,733.89 sector 2 yes
8 44tH sHared-use PatH 88 $1,945,548.00 sector 2 yes
13 sr 525 sidewalks & bike Markings 77 $1,921,561.54 sector 2 yes
15 cHennault beacH road sidewalks 60 $236,122.92 sector 3 no
16 2nd street sidewalks 57 $878,178.47 sector 3 no
18 cyrus way sidewalks 43 $764,826.02 sector 3 no
21 Possession way bike Markings 37 $75,763.42 sector 3 no
23 blue Heron drive bike Markings 34 $27,415.69 sector 3 no
24 soutH road Markings 30 $86,094.80 sector 3 no
22 64tH Place west sidewalks 36 $1,765,251.58 sector 4 no
7 Mid-town Mukilteo sidewalk & bike Markings 89 $5,317,815.73 sector 5 no
19 cHennault beacH drive sidewalk & bike Markings 40 $4,342,738.00 sector 6 no
20 central drive sidewalk & bike Markings 40 $2,974,219.00 sector 6 no
subtotal oF sector 1-2: $4,604,408.85
less exterNal FuNDiNg aND iN-house Project saviNgs (60%): $4,562,645.31
total: $3,041,763.54
Project timeliNe: 7 years
recommeNDeD aNNual FuNDiNg: $434,537.64
* FUnDeD, UnDer conStrUction, UnDer FUnDing review, or anticipateD For 100% external FUnDeD
**project 17 waS DeleteD aS a preFerreD project DUe to graDing DiFFerentialS aS an inFeaSiBle project
FundIng:
By e Way Plan -93
F R - F P
e Future Projects have a total amount of $85,850,000 ($2016) which is currently unfunded.. However, because
these projects are identied as future projects to be completed within the next twenty-years, considering the
annual funding expenditures is not justied. To best use these gures, the City should advance projects from
the ‘Far-Term’ list into the Near or Mid-Term lists as conditions change and update the required annual funding
based on those conditions. Below is a table that identies which sector each project falls into. e average cost
of future projects is $1,805,083 with an average priority score of 55.
table 27: Future Project list (miD-term Projects)
Project
Number Project Name
Priority
score cost ($ 2016) sector
25
80tH/81st crossing
95 $120,946.34
sector 1
26
sr 525 corridor study
87 $129,399.59
sector 1
27
76tH street crossing
86 $120,946.34
sector 1
28
Harbour Pointe blvd. nortH cycle track
83 $88,144.32
sector 1
29
47tH bike iMProveMents
77 $152,904.37
sector 1
31
endeavor eleMentary sHared use PatH
72 $1,108,536.00
sector 1
32
stairsteP PatH & bike Markings
71 $5,788,392.17
sector 1
33
86tH crossing
70 $120,946.34
sector 1
37
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
60 $214,523.40
sector 1
38
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
60 $287,267.08
sector 1
40
2nd street crosswalk
55 $120,946.34
sector 1
30
goat trail PatH & bike Markings
73 $2,306,767.76
sector 2
34
5tH street Pedestrian Projects
64 $2,506,817.28
sector 2
36
80tH sidewalks & sHarrows
63 $2,155,825.76
sector 2
39
sky Hila PatHway safe route to scHool
48 $2,479,848.08
sector 2
42
53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings
49 $570,979.29
sector 3
43
49tH Place transit connection
46 $222,806.34
sector 3
44
11tH street sidewalk
43 $561,670.95
sector 3
46
Possession view lane sidewalks
41 $892,254.43
sector 3
47
cHennault beacH road bike Markings
39 $37,898.17
sector 3
48
Park ave sidewalks
36 $584,078.55
sector 3
49
62nd street & canyon road sidewalks
35 $892,254.43
sector 3
41
81st Place sw sidewalks
54 $2,910,364.78
sector 4
32
stairsteP PatH & bike Markings
71 $5,788,392.17
sector 5
35
88tH street sidewalks & bike Markings
63 $6,532,152.05
sector 5
45
wasHington ave sidewalks
43 $3,658,716.87
sector 6
FundIng rEcommEndatIon:
94 - City of Mukilteo
F R - F P C.
table 28: Future Project list (Far-term Projects)
Project
Number
Project Name
Priority
score
cost ($ 2016) sector
51 Harbour Place sHared use PatH
66 $1,482,352.74
sector 1
53
beverly Park intersection iMProveMents
60 $1,411,207.00
sector 1
54
84tH street sidewalks 68
$1,044,570.79
sector 1
55
92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings 56
$593,333.26 sector 1
56 88tH sidewalks & bike lanes
51
$678,095.15 sector 3
58 cyrus way sidewalks
47 $842,682.10
sector 3
59
121st bike connection
47 $381,031.20
sector 3
60 53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings 45 $706,349.12 sector 3
61 cyrus way sidewalks 43 $694,177.58 sector 3
62 53rd avenue sidewalks & bike Markings 41 $1,185,704.17 sector 3
64 sHared use PatH to old town 37 $667,590.00 sector 3
67 cHennault beacH gulcH sHared use PatH 34 $220,716.10 sector 3
68 cHennault beacH road bike Markings 32 $30,779.87 sector 3
69 loveland avenue sidewalks 29 $220,181.76 sector 3
65 sHare use PatH froM Mukilteo blvd to boeing
recreation center
36 $2,781,490.06 sector 4
66 54tH avenue sidewalks & bike Markings 36 $2,694,782.20 sector 4
50 92nd street sidewalk & bike Markings 71 $4,419,442.81 sector 5
52 airPort road sHared use PatH 60 $14,761,032.00 sector 5
57 goat trail Pedestrian bridge 51 $7,763,975.16 sector 6
63 cyrus way road extension 41 $5,527,497.09 sector 6
FundIng:
By e Way Plan -95
C P:
I
mpact fees are assessed to new development in
order to expand the capacity of the system. If a
development is proposing to add 100 single-family
homes to an existing system, it is reasonable to
charge the development for new demands on the
parks system, trac system, and school system to
pay for projects that maintain the same level-of-
service that existed prior to development.
Pedestrian, Bike, and Transit projects can provide
additional capacity to the system by providing
alternative transportation modes. e BTW Capacity
Projects are eligible to receive impact fee funding
from the Transportation Impact Fee, however
the current Impact Fee Ordinance may need to be
revised to represent mode split. One opportunity
is that instead of charging impact fees based on PM
Peak Trips, the fee is charged based on passenger
trips and then with a mode split percentage for
vehicles, transit, and walking/biking. is division
could provide better funding towards pedestrian and
bike infrastructure.
Example:
PM Peak Trips = 50 Trips
Passenger Trips = 50 x 1.13 (Occupancy) =
56.6 Passenger Trips
80% Vehicle: 45.2 Passenger Trips
12% Transit: 6.8 Passenger Trips
8% Walking/Biking: 4.5 Passenger Trips
e City should consider alternative ways of
structuring an impact fee to ensure new development
is paying their fair share towards the impacts on the
communities.
Map 38 identies the capacity projects within the
BTW Plan.
tranSPortatIon ImPact FEES:
MaP 38:
capaciTy projecTs
96 - City of Mukilteo 96 - City of Mukilteo
This page is intentionally blank
By e Way Plan -97
cloSIng rEmarkS:
A
s we journey forward into implementation, it is important that this Bike – Transit - Walk Plan not sit on
a shelf, and be a document that was produced just By the Way. Our city sta, City Council, and I will take
seriously the next steps needed to make the vision that is described here come to life.
I believe in ensuring our City is a safe place to bike, walk, and access transit, for all of our residents and our
visitors. From walking to school, bicycling for recreation, or hopping a bus to get to work: Mukilteo should be
a place where all of these choices are possible. As described in our vision for Mukilteo, one aspect of our safe,
strong neighborhoods includes improved accessibility and mobility. e BTW Plan lays the ground work for
creating that network of connections.
Moving around our community on our own two feet or two wheels connects us with each other, and provides
a little space and breathing room to appreciate the world around us. I will ensure that our City does everything
we can to make healthy transportation choices ones that are easy to make.
Mayor Jennifer Gregerson, 2016
98 - City of Mukilteo 98 - City of Mukilteo
This page is intentionally blank
By e Way Plan -99
APPENDIX
W A P
B S H D
P-L S A 
B T E
P C R
B C S
I P E
B C S
1
Mukilteo Elementary
Mukilteo School District
2600 Mukilteo Speedway
Mukilteo, WA 98275
April 2015
Walking Audit
2
Overview 3
Methodology 3
Community Resources 3
School Maps 4
Neighborhood Reference 4
School-Recommended Student Walking Routes 5
Walking Audit Notes 6
Bus & Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes 11
Bicycling Notes 11
Summary & Recommendations 12
Table of Contents
3
Overview:
In 2012, the District’s Public Health Advisory Council evaluated more than 80 health indicators for Snohomish County. The 27 indicators
with the worst risk scores were then evaluated in terms of their size, seriousness, the existence of evidence-based practices/community
interventions, and whether there are community values attached to the issue. Using these criteria, the members of the Council chose
priority health issues in need of community action. One of these priority issues was obesity prevention. Obesity affects 27% of adults and
11% of children in Snohomish County, double the 1994 obesity rates. It is a contributing factor to heart disease, certain cancers, and
diabetes. There is a need for coordinated efforts that will increase physical activity and improve nutritional quality in Snohomish County.
The Health District embarked on a collaborative effort with community partners and key stakeholders to develop community health
improvement plans (CHIPs) for priority areas. In an effort to meet the obesity prevention objective of “Increasing school-based best-
practice policies that promote physical activity for children and families in a minimum of three Snohomish County school districts” the
collaborative identified the need to conduct a county-wide assessment of current physical activity practice and policies in elementary
schools in order to identify districts or schools with the greatest need. A walking audit of all elementary schools in Snohomish County is
one element of this assessment.
Methodology:
Each school’s surrounding neighborhoods were visited. Walking maps required of schools were also collected, analyzed, and verified.
Notes and photographs were taken on pedestrian infrastructure surrounding the school campus. At least one site visit was conducted at
school arrival or dismissal to observe student arrival/release, bus, and traffic pick-up patterns. Based on the information collected and
observed, assets were identified and recommendations for improving walkability were documented.
Auditors were supplied with maps, clipboards, Health District IDs, and digital cameras. Their notes and photo documentation were
compiled into this final report to be made available to school, district, and city officials.
Community Resources:
School Principal: Josh Benedict, 425.366.3100
District Superintendant: Marci Larsen, 425.356.1274
District Transportation Director: Cindy Steigerwald, 425.356.1258
City Planning & Public Works Director: Glen Pickus, 425.263.8042
Health District Staff: Carrie Parker, 425.339.8634
Safe Routes to School Website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/SafeRoutes
4
Mukilteo Elementary School Walking Audit
Neighborhood Reference Map:
2600 Mukilteo Speedway, Mukilteo, WA 98275
5
School-Recommended Walking Routes:
6
Walking Audit Notes:
Street/Intersection
Observations
Recommendations
Photo
Mukilteo Speedway
Mukilteo Speedway is a
very fast moving,
congested highway. There
are shoulders, but no
sidewalks on either side of
the street.
There is one crossing of the
Speedway for students. It is
very difficult to see.
Indicator signs are low and
not visible as you approach
in heavier traffic. Office
staff and crossing guard
indicated there have been
several near-miss
incidences in this
crosswalk.
Improve visibility of
crosswalk.
7
Washington Ave
Washington Avenue has
sidewalks on the east side
(school side), but not the
west. Most walkers
approach from stairs/trail
leading to neighborhoods
and cross at crosswalk just
south of school exit drive.
There is a very faded
crosswalk, signage at a
guard at this crossing.
Illegal parking on this street
by parents looking to avoid
the traffic of drop off is a
problem! Restricts visibility
and forces traffic exiting
the school to turn wide in
to oncoming lanes that
have poor visibility due to
sharp bend on north end of
the street.
Refresh paint on crossing
(almost completely gone).
Enforce parking regulations,
especially to the north of
school.
8
70
th
Place SW
&
Goat Trail Road
Sidewalks present on 70
th
Pl SW and on the east side
of Goat Trail Rd.
This intersection has an
unmanned crosswalk. It is a
low-traffic road.
Refresh paint on crosswalk.
70
th
Street SW
Flashing “school zone” sign.
70
th
becomes 48
th
Ave W,
after this there is no
sidewalk and a narrow
shoulder.
Install sidewalk on 48
th
Ave
W.
9
49
th
Avenue W
&
70
th
Street SW
Crosswalk and “Stop for
pedestrians” sign at this
intersection. Low traffic
road but speeding was
observed during audit.
Refresh paint on crosswalk.
71
st
Place SW
&
48
th
Avenue W
Unmanned crosswalk with
worn paint. Speeding traffic
observed during audit.
Refresh paint on crosswalk.
School Driveway
(Approach from
Mukilteo Speedway)
The entrance to this school
is a long two lane, one way
drive from Mukilteo
Speedway. All traffic enters
here. It was very busy, but
there is a sidewalk
approach that runs right
along the neighboring
middle school and is well
buffered from traffic
(though there is a
unmanned, unmarked
crossing to access this).
10
School access paths
There are a number of
excellent access paths
connecting neighborhoods
to the north and east with
Mukilteo Elementary. This
connectivity means
students can avoid roads
entirely, as well as shorten
their transit time to school.
Continue to maintain access
paths, and require new ones
to be built with any new
construction.
11
Bus and Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes:
Bus and parent pick up both enter from the Mukilteo Speedway, split to different drop off/pick up curbs and then exit on to
Washington Ave. Parent traffic was very heavy, though both seemed to run relatively smooth for campus capacity. There was
some crossing of the bus lane (runs between the parent parking lot and the school curb) that could be a hazard. There is a
non-manned crosswalk for this purpose.
Bicycling Notes:
Does the school provide bike racks? Yes No
Are they covered? Yes No
Are they in good repair? Yes No
Is capacity adequate? Yes No
Are there designated bike lanes around the school? Yes No
Additional Comments: School requires that students are in at least the third grade in order to bike or scooter to school.
Helmets are required and bike and scooters are to be walked on school grounds.
12
Summary & Recommendations
Top Observations:
1. The crossing over Mukilteo Speedway was one of the most hazardous that we
have observed in the county. Visibility of crossing and guard are very poor even on
a clear day (no rain, no fog). Traffic was heavy and fast. Crosswalk signs are
difficult to see and invisible for cars travelling behind larger vehicles.
2. Cars illegally park on the curb north of the school exit on to Washington
Avenue. This creates a substantially hazard as cars and buses exiting right of the
school have to turn wide to avoid parked cars in to the oncoming lane which
comes blindly around the bend. Illegal parking around the Washington Avenue exit
also restricts visibility of the crosswalk just south of the turnout.
Auditor: Carrie Parker, BS MSHS
Keri Moore, BA MPH
Top Recommendations:
1. Re-install overhead crosswalk indicator and/or flashing ground lights on Mukilteo Speedway crossing.
2. Increase law enforcement and permanent visible “No Parking” indicators on Washington Avenue, especially north
(right) of the school turnout.
3. Refresh paint on Washington Avenue crossing.
1
Columbia Elementary
Mukilteo School District
10520 Harbour Pointe Blvd
Mukilteo, WA 98275
September 2015
Walking Audit
2
Overview 3
Methodology 3
Community Resources 3
School Maps 4
Neighborhood Reference 4
School-Recommended Student Walking Routes 5
Walking Audit Notes 6
Bus & Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes 9
Bicycling Notes 12
Summary & Recommendations 13
Table of Contents
3
Overview:
In 2012, the District’s Public Health Advisory Council evaluated more than 80 health indicators for Snohomish County. The 27 indicators
with the worst risk scores were then evaluated in terms of their size, seriousness, the existence of evidence-based practices/community
interventions, and whether there are community values attached to the issue. Using these criteria, the members of the Council chose
priority health issues in need of community action. One of these priority issues was obesity prevention. Obesity affects 27% of adults and
11% of children in Snohomish County, double the 1994 obesity rates. It is a contributing factor to heart disease, certain cancers, and
diabetes. There is a need for coordinated efforts that will increase physical activity and improve nutritional quality in Snohomish County.
The Health District embarked on a collaborative effort with community partners and key stakeholders to develop community health
improvement plans (CHIPs) for priority areas. In an effort to meet the obesity prevention objective of “Increasing school-based best-
practice policies that promote physical activity for children and families in a minimum of three Snohomish County school districts” the
collaborative identified the need to conduct a county-wide assessment of current physical activity practice and policies in elementary
schools in order to identify districts or schools with the greatest need. A walking audit of all elementary schools in Snohomish County is
one element of this assessment.
Methodology:
Each school’s surrounding neighborhoods were visited. Walking maps required of schools were also collected, analyzed, and verified.
Notes and photographs were taken on pedestrian infrastructure surrounding the school campus. At least one site visit was conducted at
school arrival or dismissal to observe student arrival/release, bus, and traffic pick-up patterns. Based on the information collected and
observed, assets were identified and recommendations for improving walkability were documented.
Auditors were supplied with maps, clipboards, Health District IDs, and digital cameras. Their notes and photo documentation were
compiled into this final report to be made available to school, district, and city officials.
Community Resources:
School Principal: Wendy Eidbo, 425.366.2600
District Superintendant: Marci Larsen, 425.356.1274
District Transportation Director: Cindy Steigerwald, 425.356.1258
City Planning & Public Works Director: Glen Pickus, 425.263.8042
Health District Staff: Carrie Parker, 425.339.8634
Safe Routes to School Website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/SafeRoutes
4
Columbia Elementary School Walking Audit
Neighborhood Reference Map:
10520 Harbour Pointe Boulevard, Mukilteo, WA 98275
5
School-Recommended Walking Routes:
School Walking Policy:
Bus service is not available within one mile radius. Walking is at parent discretion.
6
Walking Audit Notes:
Street/Intersection
Observations
Recommendations
Photo
Harbour Pointe
Boulevard
Busy road but with excellent
sidewalks, wide buffers, and
multiple types of school zone
signage (there are three
schools in a row on this
road).
53
rd
Avenue W
&
104
th
Place SW
Neighborhood intersection
crossing to school access trail
on west side of school
campus. Sidewalks on one
side of both streets and well
marked crossing. Unmanned.
Low traffic.
7
Neighborhood
Access Trail
Well maintained and well
traveled trail accessing
school grounds from the
west for surrounding
neighborhoods.
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
107
th
Street SW
Well marked, unmanned
crossing. 3-way intersection
(most walkers would be
crossing 107
th
Street SW, not
Harbor Pointe Blvd). 107
th
Street SW is a sidewalked,
low traffic, residential street.
8
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
108
th
Street SW
Well marked, unmanned
crossing. 3-way intersection
(most walkers would be
crossing 108
th
Street SW, not
Harbor Pointe Blvd). 108
th
Street SW is a sidewalked,
low traffic, residential street.
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
Chennault Beach
Drive
High traffic crossing. Well
marked and staffed.
Due to traffic volume
(including nearby high school
traffic) crossing would benefit
from lighted signage/alerts.
City committed to this and
even installed cabling years
ago, but still no flashing signal
light is present. Recommend
finishing project for
pedestrian safety.
9
Bus and Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes:
Columbia Elementary has three regular bus routes, but 12 to 15 buses that transport special needs students for their special
education programs. Bus drop off/pick up occurs in the circular parking lot off Harbour Pointe Blvd, to the east and is
completely separate from parent traffic areas. While it is a high volume of buses, congestion was minimal and there was a
lot of staff presence at the bus area to assist with students coming on to school grounds. There was some parent traffic
observed attempting to use this lot to avoid the more congested parent lot, but they were quickly diverted by staff and
students were not allowed to exit parent vehicles on this side. There is good sidewalk and school entrance access from this
area. There is a crossing at the entrance of the bus lot that was staffed by student crossing guards.
10
Parent drop off/pick up occurs in an identical circular lot off of Harbour Pointe Blvd to the west. Instructions for parent traffic
and parking were available and visible in the main office (see following page). There are two lanes designated for drop off
and one thru-lane. There was considerable parent traffic for such a highly walkable school/surrounding areas causing high
congestion and back up on to Harbour Pointe Blvd. There is good sidewalk and school entrance access from this area. There
is a crossing at the entrance of the parent lot that was staffed by student crossing guards.
11
12
Bicycling Notes:
Does the school provide bike racks? Yes No
Are they covered? Yes No
Are they in good repair? Yes No
Is capacity adequate? Yes No
Are there designated bike lanes around the school? Yes No
Additional Comments:
Columbia has no official biking policy. Riding to school is at parent discretion. School reports a fair amount of bikers and
recently installed a third bike rack to accommodate volume.
13
Summary & Recommendations
Top Observations:
1. Columbia Elementary has ideal walking and biking conditions and excellent sidewalk access/trail access, safe crossings,
and is well manned by both staff and student crossing guard at start and dismissal times. Though there were many students
observed taking advantage of walkability, an above-average volume of parent drop off/pick up traffic was also observed
resulting in congestion on school grounds and Harbour Pointe Blvd
Cable for unfinished
indicator light at
Harbour Pointe Blvd
& Chennault Beach
Dr corssing
Auditor: Carrie Parker, BS MSHS
Keri Moore, BA MPH
Top Recommendations:
1. Parent education (including a walking map) and
encouragement! This school is one of the most walk-
able in the county, and the volume of parent
transportation was very high.
2. Work with the city to complete the flashing
crossing indicator project and Harbour Pointe Blvd
and Chennault Beach Drive.
[Type a quote from the document or the
summary of an interesting point. You can
position the text box anywhere in the
document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to
change the formatting of the pull quote text
box.]
1
Endeavour Elementary
Mukilteo School District
12300 Harbour Pointe Blvd
Mukilteo, WA 98275
February 2016
Walking Audit
2
Overview 3
Methodology 3
Community Resources 3
School Maps 4
Neighborhood Reference 4
School-Recommended Student Walking Routes 5
Walking Audit Notes 6
Bus & Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes 10
Bicycling Notes 11
Summary & Recommendations 12
Table of Contents
3
Overview:
In 2012, the District’s Public Health Advisory Council evaluated more than 80 health indicators for Snohomish County. The 27 indicators
with the worst risk scores were then evaluated in terms of their size, seriousness, the existence of evidence-based practices/community
interventions, and whether there are community values attached to the issue. Using these criteria, the members of the Council chose
priority health issues in need of community action. One of these priority issues was obesity prevention. Obesity affects 27% of adults and
11% of children in Snohomish County, double the 1994 obesity rates. It is a contributing factor to heart disease, certain cancers, and
diabetes. There is a need for coordinated efforts that will increase physical activity and improve nutritional quality in Snohomish County.
The Health District embarked on a collaborative effort with community partners and key stakeholders to develop community health
improvement plans (CHIPs) for priority areas. In an effort to meet the obesity prevention objective of “Increasing school-based best-
practice policies that promote physical activity for children and families in a minimum of three Snohomish County school districts” the
collaborative identified the need to conduct a county-wide assessment of current physical activity practice and policies in elementary
schools in order to identify districts or schools with the greatest need. A walking audit of all elementary schools in Snohomish County is
one element of this assessment.
Methodology:
Each school’s surrounding neighborhoods were visited. Walking maps required of schools were also collected, analyzed, and verified.
Notes and photographs were taken on pedestrian infrastructure surrounding the school campus. At least one site visit was conducted at
school arrival or dismissal to observe student arrival/release, bus, and traffic pick-up patterns. Based on the information collected and
observed, assets were identified and recommendations for improving walkability were documented.
Auditors were supplied with maps, clipboards, Health District IDs, and digital cameras. Their notes and photo documentation were
compiled into this final report to be made available to school, district, and city officials.
Community Resources:
School Principal: Steve Raymond, 425.366.2800
District Superintendant: Marci Larsen, 425.356.1274
District Transportation Director: Cindy Steigerwald, 425.356.1258
City Planning & Public Works Director: Glen Pickus, 425.263.8042
Health District Staff: Carrie Parker, 425.339.8634
Safe Routes to School Website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/SafeRoutes
4
Endeavour Elementary School Walking Audit
Neighborhood Reference Map:
12300 Harbour Pointe Blvd, Mukilteo, WA 98275
5
School-Recommended Walking Routes:
School Walking Policy:
Walking is at parent discretion.
6
Walking Audit Notes:
Street/Intersection
Observations
Recommendations
Photo
Harbour Pointe Blvd
Busy road. Sidewalks and
wide buffers on both sides
of the street. School zone
signage and flashers
present. Good walking
conditions.
Double Eagle Drive
Low traffic residential area.
Sidewalks and intermittent
buffers on both sides of the
street.
7
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
Double Eagle Drive
4 way intersection, 2 way
stop. 2 way crossing. Well
painted. Manned.
Pedestrian activated
flashers. High traffic and
pedestrian use.
West School Access
Trail
Short access path
connecting the west side of
campus with Double Eagle
Drive. Neighborhood
complains that parents
park on this street to use
trail for alternate drop
off/pick up location. Public
access.
8
55
th
Place W
Quiet residential to the
south. Sidewalks, no buffer
on both sides of street.
Apartment/Condo complex
on the north with walking
paths.
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
55
th
Place W
4 way intersection, 2 way
stop. 2 way crossing.
Painted with crosswalk
signage. Flasher present for
stopping traffic, but not
thru traffic on Harbour
Pointe Blvd. Unmanned.
Busy.
Add a crossing guard and/or
pedestrian activated
crossing flashers.
9
School Driveway
Long drive accessing the
school. Sidewalk available
on the west side. Dirt trail
on the east side, though
use is not necessary with
crosswalk at the top of the
drive.
Harbour Pointe Blvd
&
School Driveway
3 way intersection, 1 way
stop. Heavy traffic and
pedestrian use. Marked,
painted and manned. No
left turn allowed at drop
off/pick up time (often
disregarded).
10
Bus and Drop Off/Pick Up Traffic Notes:
Buses approach the school down the main driveway, and pull in to the front school lot to drop off/pick up students directly in
front of the main school entrance. Staff was present to assist with loading and unloading.
Parent drop off and pick up occurs in a designated area just behind bus traffic, though they use a different approach and
holding area. Parent traffic is routed through the north parking lot. Direct approach via the school driveway is coned-off and
only bus traffic can pass. This north lot detour provides two lanes of traffic waiting area before cars proceed in to the front
lot of drop off and prevents blocking of the buses. Students are not to enter/exit vehicles before their vehicle approaches the
designated area. Staff was present to assist students with loading/unloading.
The drop off/pick up area was very congested and confusing; however the current system takes advantage of as much
holding space as possible for traffic. Some back up on to the driveway and Harbor Pointe Blvd still occurs.
11
Bicycling Notes:
Does the school provide bike racks? Yes No
Are they covered? Yes No
Are they in good repair? Yes No
Is capacity adequate? Yes No
Are there designated bike lanes around the school? Yes No
Additional Comments:
Students must be in at least the third grade to bike to school. A helmet is required.
12
Summary & Recommendations
Top Observations:
1. The parking lot and drop off/pick up area of this school are confusing, but make the most of the space available.
Congestion from parent traffic is substantial.
2. Walking conditions around this school are excellent, with good sidewalks on all surrounding major and
secondary/residential streets.
Auditor: Carrie Parker, BS MSHS
Keri Moore, BA MPH
Top Recommendations:
1. Explore ways to encourage to use bus and walking routes (excellent) available to them in order to reduce traffic and
congestion on and around the school grounds.
2. Add a crossing guard and/or pedestrian activated crossing flashers at Harbour Pointe Blvd & 55
th
Place W.
BTW Plan: Project Cost Rates
Appendix
Hard Costs of Improvements Costs Column1
No Improvements 0 per 100 LF
Bike Markings - Low 539.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Markings - Medium 1,151.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Markings - Hard 1,809.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane Marking - Low 2,467.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane & Sharrows - Low 3,006.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane Marking - Med. 3,619.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane & Sharrows - Med. 4,770.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane Marking - High 7,075.00$ per 100 LF
Bike Lane & Sharrows - High 8,884.00$ per 100 LF
10' Asphalt Path - Low Signage 18,500.00$ per 100 LF
10' Asphalt Path - Medium Signage 19,500.00$ per 100 LF
10' Asphalt Path - Heavily Signage 23,700.00$ per 100 LF
15' Asphalt Path - Typical 29,250.00$ per 100 LF
Sidewalks & Paving - Low 37,233.68$ per 100 LF
Sidewalks & Paving - Median 71,514.00$ per 100 LF
Sidewalks & Paving - High 105,794.32$ per 100 LF
Sidewalks & Paving - Extremely High 140,074.64$ per 100 LF
New Road 410,000.00$ per 100 LF
ROW Purchase 12' Tract (Estimate) 24,000.00$ per 100 LF of 10' Path
ROW Purchase 17' Tract (Estimate) 34,000.00$ per 100 LF of 15' Path
2 Lane Resurfacing 8,000.00$ per 100 LF
Landscaping 800.00$ per 100 LF
Rates - 2016 Dollars Rate Used Notes
Sales Tax 10% Total
Inflation Rate Over 5 Years at 3% Annual 15.92% Per 5 Years
Soft Costs 36% Total
Additional Contingency 20% Estimate Varies Based on Project
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
1 Harbour Pointe Blvd. Bike Markings Harbour Pointe Blvd Loop
Improvement Length 26960 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Bike Markings - Low 539.00$ 145,314.40$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 145,314.40$
Soft Costs 36% 52,313.18$
Sub-Total 197,627.58$
Sales Tax 10% 19,762.76$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 34,608.54$
2021 Total 251,998.88$
2 526 Shared Use Path 84th Street to Boeing
Improvement Length 6300 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 3,351,000.00$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
ROW Purchase 70,000.00$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 3,421,000.00$
Soft Costs 36% 1,231,560.00$
Sub-Total 4,652,560.00$
Additional Contingency 30% 1,395,768.00$
Sales Tax 10% 604,833.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 1,059,183.23$
2021 Total 7,712,344.23$
3 SR 525 Sidewalks 81st Place to 76th Street
Improvement Length 1875 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: Yes
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Sidewalks & Paving - Low 37,233.68$ 698,131.50$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 698,131.50$
Soft Costs 36% 251,327.34$
Sub-Total 949,458.84$
Sales Tax 10% 94,945.88$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 166,269.23$
2021 Total 1,210,673.96$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
4 Harbour Reach Drive Bike Retrofit Harbour Pointe Blvd to Harbour Pointe Blvd.
Improvement Length 10000 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Costs 2,200,000.00$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Costs 2,200,000.00$
2021 Total 2,200,000.00$
5 Waterfront Promenade Waterfront from Edgewater to LHP
Improvement Length 3000 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Waterfront Master Plan Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs -$
Soft Costs 36% -$
Sub-Total -$
Sales Tax 10% -$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% -$
2019 Total 319,309.00$
6 76th Street Sidewalks & Bike Markings SR 525 to 44th Ave.
Improvement Length 4,680 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs 868,313.49$ Safe-Route-To-School: Yes
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Bike Markings - Low 539.00$ 25,225.20$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 893,538.69$
Soft Costs 36% 321,673.93$
Sub-Total 1,215,212.62$
Sales Tax 10% 121,521.26$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 212,808.03$
2021 Total 1,549,541.92$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
7
Mid-Town Mukilteo Sidewalk & Bike Ma
81st Place to 86th
Improvement Length 2800 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Sidewalks & Paving - High 105,794.32$ 2,962,241.00$
Bike Lane & Sharrows - Med. 4,770.00$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 2,962,241.00$
Soft Costs 36% 1,066,407.00$
Sub-Total 4,028,648.00$
Additional Contingency 20% 805,730.00$
Sales Tax 10% 483,438.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 846,596.00$
2021 Total 6,164,412.00$
8 44th Shared-Use Path 84th Street to 76th Street SW
Improvement Length 2550 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: Yes
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
10' Asphalt Path - Low Signage 18,500.00$ 471,750.00$
ROW Purchase 12' Tract (Estimate) 24,000.00$ 612,000.00$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 1,083,750.00$
Soft Costs 36% 390,150.00$
Sub-Total 1,473,900.00$
Additional Contingency 20% 294,780.00$
Sales Tax 10% 176,868.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 309,731.24$
2021 Total 2,255,279.24$
9 Harbour Pointe Blvd. S. Widening Cyrus Way to SR 525
Improvement Length 2200 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 1,929,850.00$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total 2016 Costs 1,929,850.00$
-$
1,929,850.00$
2016 Costs 1,929,850.00$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
10 SR 526 Sidewalks 84th St. to 40th Ave.
Improvement Length 1310 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 167293.69 Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 167,293.69$
Soft Costs 36% 60,225.73$
Sub-Total 227,519.42$
Sales Tax 10% 22,751.94$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 39,843.20$
2021 Total 290,114.56$
11 Harbour Reach Drive Extension Harbour Pointe Blvd to Beverly Park Rd
Improvement Length 3700 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 16,000,000.00$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 16,000,000.00$
Soft Costs -$
Sub-Total
Sales Tax
Inflation at 3% Annual
2021 Total -$
12 SR 525 Bike Lane Paine Field Blvd to 92nd Street
Improvement Length 2000 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Bike Markings - Medium 1,151.00$ 23,020.00$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 23,020.00$
Soft Costs 36% 8,287.20$
Sub-Total 31,307.20$
Sales Tax 10% 3,130.72$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 5,482.52$
2021 Total 39,920.44$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
13 SR 525 Sidewalks 92nd St. to 86th St.
Improvement Length 2230 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 1,272,446.57$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Bike Markings - Low 539.00$ 12,019.70$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 1,284,466.27$
Soft Costs 36% 462,407.86$
Sub-Total 1,746,874.13$
Sales Tax 10% 174,687.41$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 305,912.60$
2021 Total 2,227,474.14$
14 84th Street Sidewalks SR 525 to 53rd Ave.
Improvement Length 1920 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs 502,768.99$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 502,768.99$
Soft Costs 36% 180,996.84$
Sub-Total 683,765.83$
Sales Tax 10% 68,376.58$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 119,741.07$
2021 Total 871,883.49$
15 Chennault Beach Road Sidewalks 4400 Block
Improvement Length 500 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 157836.18 Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 157,836.18$
Soft Costs 36% 56,821.02$
Sub-Total 214,657.20$
Sales Tax 10% 21,465.72$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 37,590.77$
2021 Total 273,713.69$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
16 2nd Street Sidewalks SR 525 to Park Ave
Improvement Length (ft) 1020 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs 587,017.69$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: No
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 587,017.69$
Soft Costs 36% 211,326.37$
Sub-Total 798,344.06$
Sales Tax 10% 79,834.41$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 139,806.01$
2021 Total 1,017,984.48$
17 Harbour Reach Drive Connection 130th Place SW to Harbour Reach Drive
Improvement Length 250 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
10' Asphalt Path - Medium Signage 19,500.00$ 48,750.00$
ROW Purchase 12' Tract (Estimate) 24,000.00$ 60,000.00$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 108,750.00$
Soft Costs 36% 39,150.00$
Sub-Total 147,900.00$
Additional Contingency 20% 29,580.00$
Sales Tax 10% 17,748.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 31,080.30$
2021 Total 226,308.30$
18 Cyrus Way Sidewalks Evergreen Dr. to South RD.
Improvement Length 3800 Capacity Project: Yes
Preliminary Hard Costs 511,247.34$ Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: Tuttle Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 511,247.34$
Soft Costs 36% 184,049.04$
Sub-Total 695,296.38$
Sales Tax 10% 69,529.64$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 121,760.30$
2021 Total 886,586.32$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
19
Chennault Beach Drive Sidewalk & Bike
60th to Marine View Drive
Improvement Length 2275 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: No
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Sidewalks & Paving - High 105,794.32$ 2,406,820.78$
Bike Markings - Low 539.00$ 12,262.25$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 2,419,083.03$
Soft Costs 36% 870,869.89$
Sub-Total 3,289,953.00$
Additional Contingency 20% 657,991.00$
Sales Tax 10% 394,794.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 691,363.89$
2021 Total 5,034,101.89$
20 Central Drive Sidewalk & Bike Markings 103rd to 64th Pl West
Improvement Length 2280 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: No
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Sidewalks & Paving - Median 71,514.00$ 1,630,519.20$
Bike Markings - Medium 1,151.00$ 26,242.80$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 1,656,762.00$
Soft Costs 36% 596,434.32$
Sub-Total 2,253,196.00$
Additional Contingency 20% 450,639.00$
Sales Tax 10% 270,384.00$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 473,495.66$
2021 Total 3,447,714.66$
21 Possession Way Bike Markings HP Blvd to Harbour Reach Drive
Improvement Length 4400 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: Yes
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Bike Markings - Medium 1,151.00$ 50,644.00$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$
Total Hard Costs 50,644.00$
Soft Costs 36% 18,231.84$
Sub-Total 68,875.84$
Sales Tax 10% 6,887.58$
Inflation at 3% Annual 15.92% 12,061.54$
2021 Total 87,824.96$
BTW Plan: Project Cost Estimates
Appendix
22 64th Place West Central Drive to Chennault Beach Dr
Improvement Length 1650 Capacity Project: No
Preliminary Hard Costs Safe-Route-To-School: No
Reference: City Staff Greenway: No
Additional Facilities Per 100ft
Sidewalks & Paving - Median 71,514.00$ 1,179,981.00$
None -$ -$
None -$ -$