Kirkland staff present options to slow traffic and increase separation on 80th/80 Fourth corridor after student collision

KIRKLAND, Wash. — Following a January collision that injured two students, Kirkland transportation staff presented a range of options to slow traffic and further separate people walking, rolling and bicycling from vehicles on a corridor adjacent to Finn Hill Middle School and other schools.

The presentation and context Transportation engineering supervisor Jennifer Palmer briefed council on existing conditions, noting a 36‑foot pavement width and daily volumes of roughly 2,000–3,000 vehicles along the study segment. Staff said the collision appeared to be an outlier in the city’s crash history but that the corridor’s straight alignment invites higher speeds and that the site adjoins wetland‑buffered parkland, which constrains widening.

Options presented Staff described five concept categories — each would require further engineering and design work before construction: - Option 1 (low‑cost flexible post buffer): striping a shared walking/bike path with flexible posts in a buffer where the extruded curb now sits. Pros: fast, limited permitting. Cons: converts separate sidewalks and bike lanes into a single shared path and uses low‑durability posts. - Option 2 (Toronto‑style low concrete barrier): a low interlocking concrete barrier down the buffer with a combined shared pedestrian/bicycle path; adds permanence and could support art panels, but still narrows the active‑transportation space. - Option 3 (Jersey barrier): taller precast concrete barrier providing stronger protection but raising maintenance concerns and potentially signaling higher travel speeds; staff flagged the risk that roadside barriers can themselves be fixed‑object hazards. - Option 4 (intrusive traffic calming): speed cushions, traffic circles and raised school crosswalks. Staff said these physically reduce vehicle speeds, can be installed quickly and align with the “safe‑system” approach to reduce crash severity; some residents find cushions noisy and disruptive. - Option 5 (full curb/gutter/sidewalk buildout): reconstruct the corridor to provide dedicated and separated sidewalks, landscaped buffers and bike facilities. Staff noted high cost, likely wetland permitting and potential impacts to trees and utility poles; a full build‑out would take substantially longer and cost far more.

Council feedback Councillors and commissioners generally sought a balance between speed and cost. Many council members favored option 4 (intrusive traffic calming) for a rapid, relatively low‑cost pilot, possibly combined with targeted hardened barriers (Option 2) in constrained spots. Council members asked staff to: - Return with cost estimates, implementation timelines and an outreach plan to the schools and neighborhood. - Consider pilot installations (speed cushions, raised crosswalks) and study targeted use of low concrete barriers where appropriate. - Coordinate with the school district on crosswalk placement and timing to reduce conflicts during drop‑off and pick‑up.

Staff next steps Staff said they will bring the corridor and the suggested approaches into the city’s CIP prioritization process, refine cost and timing information and return with options for pilot installation and community outreach. Council members also asked staff to consider whether similar treatments should be used at other school corridors in the city.

Ending Council expressed a sense of urgency to move quickly on pilot traffic‑calming measures while reserving analysis and funding for larger capital work in the CIP.