Staff recommends Alternative B and 35 mph speed limit for Sahali Way corridor; council asks for B-plus options and cost breakdowns

Public-works staff presented a master-plan phase for the Sahali Way Corridor on Tuesday and recommended Alternative B — a corridor-wide sidewalk on the west side and targeted safety improvements in the north half — paired with a proposed 35 mph speed limit. Staff described Alternative B as the public-preferred compromise that improves pedestrian connectivity while limiting right-of-way impacts and cost compared with a full multimodal Alternative C.

Audrey Sarci, Director of Public Works, described the phase as a “master plan for the corridor” that sets direction for near- and long-term work. Senior project engineer Judd (Judd) Ireland and consultant Brent Powell (Pertit) described three concepts: Alternative A (spot safety/transit crossing upgrades), Alternative B (continuous sidewalk in north half, bicycle access by shoulder), and Alternative C (full multimodal improvements including protected bike facilities and a series of roundabouts).

Staff reported broad public feedback: Alternatives A and B showed plurality support in the city’s survey while Alternative C drew strong opposition (about two-thirds opposed in the public sample). The consultants told council that Alternative C’s opposition was likely driven partly by public aversion to a series of proposed roundabouts and by the markedly higher cost of proposed southern-half upgrades under C.

Planning-level cost estimates presented to council were: Alternative A, roughly $23–28 million; Alternative B, roughly $38–43 million; and Alternative C, substantially greater (staff presented a phasing scenario that produced a materially higher total, discussed as approximately three times Alternative B when phased and inflated). Staff also said Alternative C’s largest single cost component was redevelopment of the southern half of the corridor to modern bicycle and sidewalk standards.

On speed management staff cited guidance from FHWA and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Staff recommended a corridor-wide 35 mph posted limit with a traffic-calming package that could include radar speed signs, curb extensions, medians and targeted intersection improvements. Consultants reported simulation results showing an approximate 45-second increase in travel time per direction if posted speeds were reduced from current behavior to a consistent 35 mph; Alternative C’s roundabouts produced a larger travel-time increase in modeling but stronger reductions in level-of-traffic-stress for bicycles and pedestrians.

Council members asked for several follow-ups before adopting a preferred alternative: a more detailed, line‑item cost breakdown (north half vs. south half), a menu of “B‑plus” hybrid options including narrower physical separators or raised curbs and the cost of smaller or simpler roundabout designs, intersection-level safety metrics, level-of-traffic-stress maps for each alternative, and clarifications about transit stop improvements and potential mobility-hub elements.

Staff acknowledged procurement and right‑of‑way constraints in northern and southern segments (noting steep slopes and adjacent county-owned roadway segments) and said they would return with refined costs, phasing options, and specific measures that could add bicycle protection to Alternative B without the full cost and public resistance associated with Alternative C.

There was no formal council vote on a preferred alternative at the meeting; staff requested direction and received council requests for additional analysis and B‑plus options prior to selection.