Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
041-26 - Resolution - Tremont Street Improvements Study
Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 RESOLUTION NO. 041-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE TREMONT STREET IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2 AND 3 ALTERNATIVES STUDY. WHEREAS, Tremont Street is a major entry corridor serving approximately 23,000 vehicles per day and is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a priority for improved multimodal facilities; and WHEREAS, the City conducted public outreach in summer 2025, with respondents expressing support for shared -use paths separated from traffic, safer crossings, and improved north -side connections; and WHEREAS, the consultant evaluated thirty-six alternatives and determined that the shared -use path options performed best based on public feedback, safety, right-of-way impacts, and compatibility with adjacent facilities; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee identified two leading options in early 2026, and determined the North Side Shared Use Path best met project goals; and WHEREAS, in March 2026, the City Council selected the North Side Shared Use Path as the preferred alternative, with interest in a possible future south -side eastbound buffered bike lane; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THAT: It is the intent of the Port Orchard City Council that the recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated as findings in support of this Resolution. THAT: The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 Alternatives Study, including the preferred North Side Shared Use Path alternative. THAT: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 14th day of July 2026. Signed by: 3R96402F3F5847D Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: 1�gned by: 6A5A54BBD00418_. Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk J/ r City of Poi Tre Improvemen-lLk Phase 2 and 3 Alternatives Study "!�' � '�►- �� - -.•� z `• fir_ ���� • rt �3 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 _C_HARD Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 Alternatives Study Prepared for: City of Port Orchard April 2026 Prepared by: Transpo Group 12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 425.82 1 .3665 www.transpogroup.com transpogroup c/// WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. � Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................................................1 Alternatives Identification and Selection.....................................................................................................................2 NextSteps for the Project.........................................................................................................................................3 ProjectOverview......................................................................................................................................................4 ProjectBackground...................................................................................................................................................4 PlanningPhase.........................................................................................................................................................6 ProjectProgress........................................................................................................................................................6 Summaryof Public Feedback.............................................................................................................................7 KeyObservations......................................................................................................................................................9 TremontStreet Alternatives...............................................................................................................................11 InitialConstraints.....................................................................................................................................................12 Consideration of All Alternatives...............................................................................................................................14 Technical Selection Criteria for the Narrowed Range of Alternatives.........................................................................16 (Buffered) Bike Lanes...............................................................................................................................................18 CycleTracks............................................................................................................................................................19 SharedUse Paths...................................................................................................................................................20 EvaluatingAlternatives........................................................................................................................................22 SafetyFactors.........................................................................................................................................................22 Comfort................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Connectionsand Crossings.....................................................................................................................................24 Aesthetics...............................................................................................................................................................24 Public Feedback and Transit Access.......................................................................................................................24 Constructability.......................................................................................................................................................25 TechnicalScoring...................................................................................................................................................27 TechnicalLeading Candidate...................................................................................................................................28 Transportation Committee Evaluation......................................................................................................................28 PreferredAlternative Selection.................................................................................................................................31 NextSteps................................................................................................................................................................32 DesignTeam...........................................................................................................................................................32 CityCouncil.............................................................................................................................................................32 AppendixA: Public Feedback.............................................................................................................................33 Appendix B: Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue Intersection..........................................51 Appendix C: Alternatives Analysis....................................................................................................................145 Appendix D: Preferred Alternatives..................................................................................................................150 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Port Orchard is actively looking to increase the connectivity and comfort of active mode (pedestrian and bicycle) facilities throughout the city. New active mode connections will encourage non - motorized trips, and all users will benefit from safer, more comfortable facilities. The City of Port Orchard desires to increase the number of active mode (pedestrian and bicycle) facilities to encourage non - motorized trips and improve safety and comfort for active mode users. The Tremont Street Improvements project will improve bike and pedestrian facilities along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. The City's goal is to connect active travelers to downtown Port Orchard in the north portion of the City. The project directly supports the goal by creating a multimodal transportation connection that accommodates the abilities, confidence, and comfort levels of local cyclists and pedestrians, while meeting the most advanced guidance on appropriate active mode facilities for the adjacent roadway context. The project advances the City's long- term vision for delivering significant active transportation improvements along Tremont Street and within the City of Port Orchard consistent with the transportation goals and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning and preliminary design have been funded for the project, with pursuit of construction funding currently underway. The planning phase of the project included public engagement, which occurred in the summer of 2025 and involved an online website to disseminate information about the project and a survey to solicit public feedback. The City Council's input was sought via the Transportation Committee and full council presentations, and a preferred alternative was selected from the planning phase to advance to detailed engineering design and, if successful in obtaining competitive grants, construction. 1 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION Identifying Alternatives As the public outreach was underway, the City's technical consultant identified a total of 36 initial design alternatives while considering constraints such as right- of-way impacts, connections to existing active mode facilities, and FHWA and WSDOT design guidance. The 36 sections included the following facility types: • Conventional bike lanes • Buffered bike lanes • Separated street -level bike lanes • Buffered cycle track • Median -separate cycle track • Raised cycle track • Shared use path Evaluating Alternatives The consultant narrowed down the list of technically feasible alternatives through choose by advantages methodology, evaluating each alternative against the following factors: • Allocation of space by mode • Movement conflicts • Design guidance • Modal mixing • Landscaping opportunities and separation from traffic • Curb line relocation 2 By combining various right-of-way widths and approaches for active mode facilities within the project corridor, the design team chose three facility types to present to the City's Transportation Committee in January and February of 2026. The three main categories of presented alternatives included: • Buffered bike lanes, featuring one-way, "on -road" bicycle operations with separation provided through striping or flex -posts • Cycle tracks, which would modify existing lane striping to accommodate a two-way, on -road bicycle facility on one side of the road • Shared use paths, which would provide a two-way, off -road configuration with curbed, physical separation from vehicle traffic. Each alternative had varying right-of- way and other impacts. Through a collaborative process involving the City's public works group, Council, and the consultant team, the various alternatives were evaluated considering public feedback, technical and cost feasibility, right-of-way impacts, integration with existing facilities, and safety factors. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Selecting Recommended Alternatives The City's Transportation Committee utilized several differentiating factors to evaluate the narrowed set of alternatives, including: • Alignment with the City's comprehensive plan • Degree to which they matched public feedback • Alignment with available grant funding goals • Minimization of potential right- of-way and utility impacts • Integration with existing and future facilities • Degree of mode separation and achievement of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) traffic goals Transportation Committee narrowed the alternatives down to a final set of two: 1 2 North Side Shared Use Path, having the most separation of active modes from vehicle traffic and offering the lowest level of traffic stress while matching public feedback. Buffered Bike Lanes, offering the closest match to the existing Tremont Street facilities, but resulting in a higher level of traffic stress and requiring more right-of-way width. Preferred Alternative Selection City staff and Councilmembers worked together to select Alternative #1: North Side Shared Use Path as the preferred layout for the first phase of the project. Considerations included cost, available funding, possible future intersection improvements at Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue, and the needs of current active mode travelers. The alternative includes an optional future Phase II, which would add a separated (eastbound) bike lane along the south side of Tremont Street. Once the preferred alternative was selected, the consultant team developed final alternative layouts. NEXT STEPS FOR THE PROJECT The design team will advance the engineered design of the preferred alternative (north side shared use path), while confirming right-of-way impacts and integrating further feedback from the City Council. The team will also design crossings and intersection improvements at Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue and prepare applications for construction funding. Future work will include studying options for extension sidewalks north and south on Sidney Avenue, and options for pedestrian connections through Van Zee Park. 3 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT BACKGROUND The Tremont Corridor is one of three primary entry points into the City of Port Orchard from Highway 16. It allows travelers and residents to access shops and services in the core of the City, as well as business and homes in outlying areas. One of the City's goals for the corridor is to, "Encourage development of an efficient multimodal transportation system and develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet its needs."' Located within the northeast part of the Tremont Center Corridor, the Tremont Street Improvements project (Phases 2 and 3) will improve bike and pedestrian facilities along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. Modifications will reallocate space for active mode facilities, resulting in the need for improvements at the Tremont Street and Sidney Avenue intersection to accommodate both vehicle and non -motorized traffic. Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue is a 4 -lane minor arterial as defined by the City of Port Orchard with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are provided along both sides of SE Lund Avenue but are only provided on the south side of Tremont Street. No bicycle facilities are present within the study limits. The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan estimates between SR 16 and Bethel Road, the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue corridor serves an average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) of 23,000 vehicles per day, which is the highest in the City. The roadway also serves as a connection between Van Zee Park and South Kitsap Regional Park. Sidney Avenue is a 2 -lane minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph north of Tremont Street, and 30 mph south of Tremont Street. Sidewalks are currently only provided on the west side of Sidney Avenue north of Tremont Street, with paved shoulders provided along other segments. Sidewalks and bike lanes are planned (but not studied or funded) for the section of Sidney Avenue south of Tremont Street. The Port 1. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, published December 2024 4 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D 1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 I'0 SW COOK RD Q,O Q C') it W F 16 0. a. 0 v 0 I1 m W Q H N w LIPPERT DIj ` W LIPPERT DR �N UJ J 4'ts Lji � W W LEGEND LL a Tremont Center Corridor U. a `" Tremont Street Improvements SW BERRY LAKE RD 2 Phase 2 & 3 W x- N U) Ill Figure 1 Tremont Countywide Center Map Orchard Comprehensive Plan estimates Sidney Avenue serves 5,000 AWDT. The Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/ Sidney Avenue intersection is an existing signalized intersection, with residential development surrounding it, except at the southwest corner, where Van Zee Park is located. The intersection is situated east of SR 16 and south of the Port Orchard downtown waterfront area. Aw NW I I - w m W N J W I F W m I Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 The multimodal transportation connection provided by the project is designed to accommodate local cyclists' and pedestrians' abilities, confidence, and comfort levels. The project continues the work completed along Tremont Corridor in 2018, which improved intersections, created bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks, provided street trees in landscape strips, and included a landscaped median to create a boulevard style of roadway west of Port Orchard Boulevard. 2Planning and preliminary design have been funded for Phases 2 and 3 of the Tremont Street Improvements project. Construction funding has not yet been secured, but a diversified strategy is underway including pursuit of WSDOT funding through the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, as well as transportation impact fees and other local sources. PLANNING PHASE The scope of the planning phase for the project centered on three goals: 1. Gather public feedback. 2. Evaluate a range of feasible alternative facility types and sections. 3. Identify a preferred alternative. PROJECT PROGRESS The City conducted public outreach in summer of 2025 through an online public engagement survey. The survey was advertised on social media platforms and in a mailer sent with residential utility bills in June 2025. Survey results were received in June and July of 2025. While the public outreach was underway, Transpo Group, the City's consultant, developed a wide range of alternative facility types and cross sections for consideration. The alternatives were carefully evaluated based on technical criteria. Following the public engagement efforts and technical alternatives analysis, Transpo Group presented the results to the City of Port Orchard's Transportation Committee in January and February 2026. The presentation discussed the alternatives in detail and suggested the ones most suitable for further analysis based on the City's goals and the feedback received. In March 2026, City personnel presented the alternatives to the City Council, who selected the final preferred alternative: the north side shared use path with a future on -road bike lane on the south (eastbound) side. 2. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, published December 2024 6 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK To obtain community feedback, the City commissioned a public engagement survey hosted on a custom website providing background information on the project. The website link was advertised on social media platforms and in a mailer sent with residential utility bills in June 2025. Survey results were received in June and July of 2025. A detailed report was prepared for the City Council in September 2025 and is included as Appendix A.' The primary goal of the public engagement survey was to obtain input on the study area along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. The following feedback elements were specific to the study area: • Travel origins and destinations and desired future routes of active mode users (pedestrians and cyclists) • Purpose of travel (e.g., commuting, pleasure, etc.) • High stress locations and barriers to current travel by active modes 1. Tremont Phase 2 and 3 Non -Motorized Improvements: Public Engagement Survey Report, September 5, 2025. II Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 > A � N Q m - �� w DI 40 F Bethany ZQ SOUTH ST a Lutheran > Church 0 Q, W TREMONT ST W +4 O Fire S tation ti0 - H Van Zee Park 9 6� a � P z� S KITSAP BLVD yO Franciscan Medical Clinic ••:1TI1. Sidney from the south to the Park, PO Bivd or points west Sidney from the north to the Park, PO Bivd or points west Neighborhood streets to Park, PO Blvd or points west or east along Tremont ••:t1T.I PO Bivd to the Park Pottery Ave to Park Figure 2 Bicycle route options presented to the public to identify preferred routing through the study area, part of the public engagement survey, June 2025 The following additional feedback elements were more generally focused and not necessarily limited to the study area: • Level of comfort interacting with other active mode users (cyclists, pedestrians, dogs) and vehicles • Preferences for feasible active mode alternatives, focusing on improvements to Tremont Street, but also including potential improvements on Sidney Avenue and Port Orchard Boulevard Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 KEY OBSERVATIONS Modes The public engagement survey collected input from 45 respondents, with 34 indicating only pedestrian activity and 11 indicating cyclist activity, a 3:1 ratio of pedestrians to cyclists. A map tool on the same website also gave cyclists the opportunity to mark the origins and destinations of their typical bike trip(s). The detailed survey report and cyclist map tool results are included in Appendix A. Routes Although only 11 cyclist responses were received, the results indicated cyclists are occasional rather than regular users, with the majority of cycling uses being recreational. Recreational cyclists expressed a strong preference for northeast -to -northwest cycling routes, with Van Zee Park being a "stopover" location rather than cycle trip destination. Facility Type The survey respondents indicated mixed active mode traffic (combining walkers, cyclists, etc.) is acceptable. The highest priority for respondents was active mode facilities should provide separation from vehicle traffic. f �� �.�� -G, t. v 'i ��1� il� - � `. �o-•q?yC �"'��'4. �� �-'•� jj� i ' Lam! ,� V _ - , r ; ,.4 _ .s Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study TREMONT STREET ALTERNATIVES The consultant team prepared a wide range of possible alternatives and conducted an internal technical analysis to narrow the field of potential candidate sections and facility types for the active mode facility on Tremont Street. A narrowed selection of the most feasible alternatives was presented to the City and elected officials with detailed pros and cons of each to allow for an evaluation of the preferred alternative(s). Figure 3 Example of sidewalk, buffer strip and buffered cycle track improvements on S 7th Street in Renton, WA, designed recently by Transpo Group 11 ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 12 SPEED LIMIT 35 Figure 4 Existing conditions in the Tremont Street project corridor, Google Streetview, 2025 INITIAL CONSTRAINTS At the start of the alternatives analysis, the consultant team was tasked with identifying active mode facilities based on the following constraints. The team considered all factors in both the initial development of possible alternatives, and in creating sorting criteria allowing for the selection of a more manageable number of alternatives from which the City staff and elected officials could choose the final preferred option. Requirements of FHWA and WSDOT design guidance and standards such as traffic volume, posted speed, number of vehicle lanes, and others. The design user was identified by the City as a mixed, medium -confidence rider. The City confirmed the design user with the public outreach but also wanted to balance the needs of commuter/confident cyclists with recreational/less- confident cyclists accessing Van Zee Park or connecting to other existing and future bike facilities throughout the City. In addition to the bike facility, a north side sidewalk or other pedestrian facility was desired in any final alternative. r.:. ! �.. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 T ,tile I___ _ __ Figure 5 Right -of -Way and Physical Constraints Right -of -Way Constraints Expanding the right-of-way width: The roughly 60 feet of existing right-of- way was known to be too narrow to fit all the City's desired uses with new active mode facilities. The right-of-way is not consistent throughout the project corridor, so any widening efforts needed to consider potential impacts on both sides of the roadway. The team looked at expanding the right-of-way from 60 feet, in 5 -foot intervals, up to 75 feet wide. The wider right-of-way was then evaluated not only for impacts to existing public and private facilities, but also to see what types of facilities would fit within the wider right-of-way. 1 The team considered existing public and private structures outside of the current right-of-way limits such as retaining walls, driveways, steep slopes, decks, structures close to the right-of-way lines, and significant trees 2 The team also considered utilities, especially the large gas valve structure on the south side, and Van Zee Park, particularly the pickleball courts and parking lot access. Physical Constraints 3 The number of lanes: Two lanes per direction have to be maintained. 4 Turn lanes: A left turn lane for eastbound at Sidney needs to be maintained; unless a roundabout was certain to be installed, in which case turn lanes could be eliminated. 5 Integration with adjacent surrounding active mode facilities: Including existing striped one-way bike lanes west of the project area and confirmed future active mode facilities (a shared use path on the west side of Port Orchard Boulevard). 6 Nearby bridge: A key constraint was the inability to remove or widen the existing Paul D. Powers, Jr. bridge east of the project area, where Tremont Street transitions to Lund Avenue. The bridge currently has only less than current standards sidewalks for active mode facilities, which limits the ability to safely transition cyclists traveling eastbound along any proposed new facilities on Tremont Street onto and across the bridge itself. 13 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 CONSIDERATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVES With the goal of evaluating a range of options for future right-of-way, a total of 36 different sections were considered technically feasible and were evaluated to determine a smaller number which best met the City's objectives for the project. For each right-of-way width, the following facility types were laid out, in section, to evaluate potential advantages balanced against the impact of a wider footprint and right-of-way . Wider right of way will likely have significant impacts on existing conditions such as utilities and private development. Conventional bike lanes Striped bike lanes do not meet current WSDOT guidance for the volume, size, and classification of Tremont Street. Alternatives featuring wider sections accommodated street trees as buffers between the roadway and sidewalks on both sides of the road, but did not provide a buffer between bikes and traffic lanes. The bike lane section best matches the existing section of Tremont Street to the west of the project area. Buffered bike lanes A striped buffer with physical devices better meets guidance for on -road, one-way bike lanes in the context of the study corridor, but requires additional width. A wider right-of-way was needed to accommodate the full recommended bike lane widths, and no street trees could be provided within the evaluated right-of-way widths. Separated street -level bike lanes A raised median taking the place of the striped buffer was considered to reduce traffic stress but introduced complexities of long-term maintenance for the narrow bike lanes, as well as potential increased stormwater costs. Narrow planted buffers were found to be possible at the widest right-of-way widths but were not wide enough for street trees to comfortably grow, as the trees would need a 5 -foot minimum buffer. Separated raised bike lanes Alternatives offered a footprint similar to street -level bike lanes, but with fewer maintenance concerns as the bike lanes would be at sidewalk grade. Although there were some advantages, only the widest right-of-way widths allowed any planted, non -street tree buffer, and the narrower right-of-way widths effectively created narrow shared use paths at the curb line on both sides of the street. 14 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Buffered cycle track The option of combining both travel directions for bikes on one side of the street limits the required width of buffers and the bike facilities. Buffered cycle tracks would remain separated from pedestrian facilities, meaning only the widest rights -of -way allowed any planted buffer between the roadway and sidewalks, and were not wide enough for street trees. Cycle tracks would require crossings for cyclists to connect at Port Orchard Boulevard, and to the existing Tremont Street facilities. Median -separated cycle track Similar to the separated bike lanes, alternatives used a curbed median instead of a striped buffer. The median increased the physical protection of the bike facility, but did not otherwise significantly change the concept from the on -road buffered cycle track. The median separation resulted in less potential impact for a cycle track, as the combined two-way bike facility was roughly the width of a vehicle lane and could be swept and maintained by conventional equipment. However, stormwater impacts from the median were possible. Raised cycle track Raising the cycle track to sidewalk level on either side of the corridor created a generously wide dedicated active mode facility on either side of the road to maintain separation between bike and pedestrian modes. Alternatives had similar width impacts as other cycle track sections, trees were not feasible in the buffers, and planted buffers were only possible at the widest rights -of -way. Shared use path A shared use path, considered on either the north or the south side of the roadway, would gain the benefits of the raised cycle tracks, but with a reduced active mode facility width due to the mixed bike and pedestrian traffic. The reduced width allows for more buffer space, and street trees are feasible at narrower right-of-way widths. Constructing a shared use path on the south side would require reconstruction of the existing sidewalk, while on the north side, the south sidewalk could stay in its existing location. 15 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 TECHNICAL SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE NARROWED RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES The consultant evaluated the full, wide range of technically feasible alternatives, with the goal of reducing to a more manageable number of sections to compare and select a preferred alternative. Evaluation of the full range of alternatives eliminated facilities which struggled to meet the City's goals for the project. The full, detailed technical evaluation is included in Appendix C. Evaluation factors included: Allocation of space by mode: While no specific criteria exist or were applied, the design team quantified the percentage of right-of-way dedicated to vehicle, bike, pedestrian, and buffer space in each alternative. Understanding space allocation helped the team assess the balance of right- of-way acquisition impacts on existing facilities compared to the expected uses of the new public assets. Movement conflicts: The number of conflicts from driveways and side streets was evaluated for each alternative section, with priority given to sections with fewer conflicts. The team considered how two- way facility conflicts at driveways and side streets can be more impactful, as drivers often do not expect bikes or pedestrians to come from both directions at a crossing. The team assessed the additional visibility treatments and design space allocation necessary to safely implement crossings. Meeting design guidance: Some of the alternatives were technically feasible but did not meet the most current FHWA and WSDOT design guidance for the traffic and roadway geometry characteristics of Tremont Street. • Modal mixing:' Because separation of modes, including individual active mode uses, is typically preferred, the team prioritized greater separation where feasible. Landscaping opportunities and separation from traffic: Sections with the widest buffers, allowing vegetation and —more particularly —street trees, were ranked higher than sections where active mode facilities were located at the back of curb with little to no separation from traffic lanes. • Curb line relocation: Related to other factors of constructability, sections maintaining at least one curb line were ranked higher. If curb lines can be maintained, the potential construction cost and traffic impact resulting from phasing and construction days is likely to be less. 1. Modal mixing was initially evaluated to be a negative for sections where active modes (bikes and pedestrians) occupied the same space. However, the results of the public outreach survey showed the preference of respondents for mixed mode facilities. Once results were considered, the scoring of alternatives includeding mixed modes was adjusted to reflect the public's feedback and preferences. 16 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Choose by Advantages Methodology The choose by advantages method of comparing alternatives identifies differentiating criteria between alternatives, and then identifies if, in isolation for a single criterion, an alternative provides an advantage or a significant advantage over the other alternatives, when compared to the existing conditions. Points are assigned to an option based on how much of an advantage is offered, typically 2 points for a significant advantage and 1 point for an advantage. In the end, a score is reached for each alternative, helping to guide the selection of a recommended alternative. Selection of a final alternative is dependent on the City's weighting of each evaluated advantage. Narrowed Alternatives for Selection of a Preferred Alternative From the wide range of over 30 possible design sections, combining various right- of-way widths and approaches to including active mode facilities in the project corridor, the team chose three facility types in the narrowest widened right-of-way to present to the City's Transportation Committee. Being the narrowest of the widened right-of-way options at 65 feet, the focused categories of alternatives minimized the cost of right- of-way acquisition and impacts to existing features. The advantages and disadvantages of the three leading candidate section options were presented by Transpo Group, with support from Parametrix and City staff, to the City's Transportation Committee on January 27 and February 10, 2026. The three main categories of alternatives presented are described on the following pages. 17 ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont St Tremont Professional Building _y, Figure 6 (Buffered) Bike Lanes Concept un, l-6'-----I-2'-I----6' I 11' I 10' I 10' I 11' I 6'—I-2'+---6'---1 4$ 44 1 4 tI- E-7' I5' a2' I 11' I 10' I 10' I 11' 12'15' I 7'—I Figure 7 Buffered Bike Lanes (BUFFERED) BIKE LANES The buffered bike lanes alternatives would modify existing lane striping and were designed to integrate with existing facilities on Tremont Street. The options featured one-way, "on -road" bicycle operations with separation provided through striping or flex -posts. Alternatives were designed so sidewalks and buffer strips could be added where space allows. Some roadway widening would be required, resulting in right- of-way impacts; however, the design would match the bicycle facility located to the west, supporting continuity along the corridor. The buffered bike lanes alternatives would be most similar to the existing Tremont Street. However, buffered bike lane alternatives had the least amount of physical separation and a lack of alignment with Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) goals. Given the existing roadway speed, vehicle traffic volume, and number of lanes, bike lanes would not be aligned with current WSDOT active mode design guidance.' Although the WSDOT Active Transportation Programs Design Guide is not a "required standard," meeting its guidance is a significant scoring factor for selection of continued funding from WSDOT's Pedestrian/Bicyclist Program (PBP) and represents best practices for active design in Washington State. 1. WSDOTActive Transportation Programs Design Guide, February 2024 liam A. (Bill) Memorial Ps ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Station 31 South Kitsap Fire and Rescue, Figure 8 Cycle Tracks Design Concept * _____ F-6' —I2'/2' I 11' i 10' I 10' I 11' WI — 5' 1 5' —I2½'+------6' -I Figure 9 Cycle Tracks Design Example CYCLE TRACKS Similar to the buffered bicycle lanes, the cycle tracks alternatives would modify existing lane striping to accommodate a two-way, on -road bicycle facility. For cycle track options, separation could be provided either through striping or a raised curb, while minimizing the need to relocate existing curbs. Sidewalks and buffer strips could also be added where space allows, improving multimodal comfort and safety. Cycle track designs would provide separate facilities for all travel modes but would require additional crossings to accommodate the two-way bike traffic. Some roadway widening would be necessary, resulting in right-of-way impacts. 19 E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031E76 i Figure 10 Shared Use Path on North Concept J 10' ' 4' ' ' 11' i 10' I 10' I 11' ' 4' ' ' 10' I 4 4 F-6' 1 5' 1 11' I 10' a 10' I 11' I 5' 1 12' I Figure 11 Shared Use Path Design Examples SHARED USE PATHS Out of all the alternatives, the shared use paths were found to provide the greatest amount of space, comfort, and physical separation. Shared use paths were also the preferred facility type of the majority who responded to the public feedback survey in 2025. Shared use path alternatives would consolidate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into a two-way, off -road configuration with curbed, physical separation from vehicle traffic. The design would narrow and consolidate some existing curb lanes but, in some variations, retained one curb line. Sidewalks and buffers would be consolidated with the shared use path. There would be flexibility to locate the facility on the north side, the south side, or on both sides of the roadway, with the north side presenting fewer conflicts overall. Shared use paths offer a higher level of comfort, but intersections can be complex and would require dedicated crossings. The configuration does not match the bicycle facility to the west of Port Orchard Boulevard, but does match the future facility on Port Orchard Boulevard. 20 *- t Tom_ ••----- •T :•i. • Photo Credit: Paul Conrad Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES The City and the consultant team worked together to evaluate the various alternatives, considering public feedback, technical and cost feasibility, safety factors, right-of-way impacts, and integration with existing facilities. SAFETY FACTORS The primary safety factors identified for the alternatives evaluation included: • Number and location of driveway and side street crossings • The degree of separation for active mode traffic • Level of Traffic Stress 22 On the south side of Tremont Street, driveway and side street crossings were more numerous and included the South Kitsap Fire Station 31 driveways, making the north side more attractive from a safety perspective. Providing adequate separation of cyclists and pedestrians from vehicle traffic was a top consideration. The team evaluated the separation of each active mode from other active modes. For instance, if survey results had shown a high number of cyclists commuting along Tremont Street, the need to separate bikes from pedestrians, dogs, strollers, etc., would have been higher. Since the public survey results showed primarily recreational bike use along Tremont Street, the mixed -use path alternatives were judged to be more feasible. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study �• 1� L1� G� TC� ALL RIDERS LTS 1 fill ALL PEOPLE LTS 1 MOST RIDERS LTS 2 ••• ill MOST PEOPLE LTS 2 Figure 12 Level of Traffic Stress The WSDOT Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) approach considers both physical and psychological needs, incorporating space, separation, and visibility to create comfortable facilities for walking, biking, and rolling.1 Facilities are rated on a 1-4 scale, with LTS 1 being separated and/ or barrier -protected, thus suitable for all ages, including children. LTS 4 is the least comfortable, with no dedicated space or 1. Level of Traffic Stress, published by WSDOT August 2023 FEW RIDERS LTS 3 vf* FEW PEOPLE 1% RIDERS LTS 4 • 1% PEOPLE LTS 4 separation, and only suitable for highly confident people or users with no other choice. The City's goal was to achieve the best possible LTS rating, at least LTS 2 or above, to align with WSDOT's Pedestrian/ Bicycle Program funding preferences. The various alternatives were analyzed with LTS ratings in mind. Buffered bike lanes alternatives scored lowest on the LTS scale. 23 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 COMFORT The team considered how the various alternatives met the guidance for level of traffic stress from WSDOT and FHWA for each facility type as well as the separation of all modes. CONNECTIONS AND CROSSINGS The team evaluated to what extent each alternative minimized crossing(s) for cyclists and pedestrians to get to their destinations. They also assessed how new active mode improvements would connect with existing and future facilities: The existing Tremont Street section west of Port Orchard Boulevard, consisting of single -direction, on -road striped bike lanes at the north and south curb line • A future buffered on -road shared use facility on the west shoulder, and shared northbound lane, on Port Orchard Boulevard (see Figure 9) Future upgrades at Sidney Avenue for walking and biking which are outside the scope of the current project The mixture of one- and two-way facilities, both on Tremont Street and on Port Orchard Boulevard, will require crossings for active mode users. While the mixed traffic shared use facilities have been consistently identified by the Port Orchard public as a preferred facility type, both on Port Orchard Boulevard and on Tremont Street, crossings with significant safety treatments for comfort, visibility, and safety of users will be required at Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue for maximum network connectivity. AESTHETICS Evaluation of the aesthetic elements of the alternatives focused on the capacity to include landscaped buffers, and/ or street trees. Minor consideration was given to the potential impact on existing mature trees or options requiring large, unsightly retaining walls. While not a significant factor in alternatives selection, providing a more pleasing experience for all modes of travel is a goal of the project. PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND TRANSIT ACCESS As previously discussed, engaging the public with the project and actively responding to their feedback was of high importance to the team. Also considered were potential effects on transit access (desiring to improve access if * _______ possible), and other community needs, including needs of stakeholders who may not have responded 13' I I 11' 11' I to the public survey. Figure 13 Example Port Orchard Boulevard future facility 24 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D 1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 • I - - aoiUhey born the north to the rarK, rU DIVd or points west .VRfMONT 5IV 0 Franciscan Medical Clinic > Q � wBethany a Lutheran "' aChurch O m LU TREMONT ST W 2 0 LL S KITSAP BLVD SOUTH ST sF Fi ion !G O ti0 m Van Zee Park F � Q D 'oil Orchard Blvd Sic Figure 14 Future crossing improvements along Tremont Street CONSTRUCTABILITY Costs Costs were an important consideration, as even the highest quality design does not benefit the community if funds are not available to construct it. The city is reliant on grant funding partnerships, so maintaining a project cost within the limits of likely grant programs is important to identifying the preferred alternative. The goal was to balance the best possible project outcomes with the expected construction costs and the feasibility of securing potential funding sources. High cost elements which ranked poorly in the evaluation included full width pavement replacement of Tremont Street, significant utilities relocations and retaining walls, and acquisition of right of way. Maintenance The design team understands long-term maintenance of the proposed facility is a critical element of a successful project. A financially and logistically sustainable solution for the City throughout the expected life of the facility was ranked higher than other alternatives. Maintenance elements like ability to sweep with standard equipment, minimizing the use of raised elements which could be impacted and require replacement, and less complex stormwater management concepts were ranked higher in the alternatives comparison. 25 A Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Right -of- Way Acquisition, Structure, and Utility Impacts North Right -of -Way Widening Impacts Right-of-way (ROW) impacts on the north side of Tremont Street included the following • At least nine private parcels, though many west of Flower Avenue have no development or significant structures in the potential ROW acquisition area. One parcel west of Garrison Avenue does have some accessory structures in the potential impact area. • Various existing fences, retaining walls and significant trees in the parcels between Flower Avenue and Sidney Avenue • Modification of the minor streets and alleyways • Some challenges due to topography and rapid changes in elevation, although challenges are lesser overall compared to the south side of Tremont Street South Right -of -Way Widening Impacts On the south side of Tremont Street, the following right-of-way impacts were identified: • South Kitsap Fire Station 31 parking lot and emergency vehicle driveways • Van Zee Park, including pickleball courts and the main parking lot • Multiple utilities, including a major gas valve complex and power poles/lines • Retaining walls and driveway connections to private parcels due to challenging topography and rapid changes in elevation • Depending on the approach taken to vertical design, some structures on private parcels on the south side may be impacted by acquisitions 26 Intersection Impacts A draft Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) was conducted by Transpo Group in September 2025. The ICE report showed the new active mode facilities along Tremont Street will necessitate the need for improvements at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection to accommodate both non -motorized and motorized traffic. The "do nothing" approach will result in an unacceptable level of service once the multimodal improvements are constructed. To address concerns about level of service for all modes, the consultant team developed various roundabout alternatives, analyzing each for alignment with the City's goals. A detailed discussion of intersection alternatives and a copy of the draft ICE report are attached as Appendix B. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study TECHNICAL SCORING Using project goals such as safety, comfort, and aesthetics, and constructability factors such as maintenance, right-of-way, and permitting needs, the consultant developed a weighted technical scoring matrix to evaluate the alternatives using a choose by advantages methodology. Figure 15 Technical Scoring Matrix Safety: minimizes conflict points with crossing roads & d/ws` 1" 1" 1" 2" 1" Safety: Potential traffic calming 1 2 1 1 2 Comfort: Meets guidance for facility type 1 1 1 1 2 Comfort: Separation of all modes 1 2 1 1 1 1 Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress 1 2 1 2 2 Connections: integrates with other adjacent network facilities 2 2 1 2 Connections: Minimizes crossing(s) to get to destinations 1 1 1 2 Aesthetics: landscaped and treed buffer 2 1 1 2 1 1 Project goals only 2 5 6 9 9 8 10 11 Meets desired outcomes from public feedback 1* 1* 2* 2* Improves transit access 1 1 2 Meets the needs of stakeholders 1 1 1 2 1 Stakeholders 1 0 0 1 4 2 7 7 Costs N/A 2 2 1 1 Maintenance N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 Minimizes right of way acquisition, structure & utility impact* N/A 1* 2* 1` Minimizes permitting concerns N/A 1 1 2 1 Constructability 0 5 2 1 2 7 6 2 GRAND TOTAL 3 10 8 11 15 17 23 20 1 =Advantage, 2=Significant Advantage, *Weighted x2 No Build: No changes from existing conditions, no changes to south side sidewalks, no bike facilities added A: Conventional bike lanes added via roadway widening, adds sidewalk on the north side, no changes to sidewalk on the south side B: Buffered bike lanes added via roadway widening, adds sidewalk on the north side, no changes to sidewalk on the south side C: On -road cycle track on the south side of Tremont Street with roadway widening, adds sidewalk on the north side, no changes to sidewalk on the south side D: Existing south side sidewalks replaced with a shared use path, separated from the road by a planted buffer, adds sidewalk on the north side E: Existing south side sidewalks replaced with a shared use path, separated from the road by a planted buffer, no north side changes F: Shared use path, separated from the road by a planted buffer, added to the north side, no changes to sidewalk on the south side G: Existing south side sidewalks replaced with a shared use path, shared use path added to the north side, both separated from the roadway by a planted buffer 27 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031E76 Figure 16 Technical Leading Candidate Alternative: Shared Use Path on the North Side of Tremont Street (aerial view) 11' I 10' I 10' I 111/z' 11'F 5' 41'l Figure 17 Technical Leading Candidate Alternative: Shared Use Path on the North Side of Tremont -tT _ TECHNICAL LEADING CANDIDATE The technical evaluation showed a shared use path on the north side of Tremont Street would best balance the various needs and goals of the project. The north side has fewer driveways and regular side street spacing, resulting in fewer design conflicts. Right-of-way impacts are also lower, with a narrower street width needed. The shared use path alternative also matched the public feedback received regarding multimodal mixed use, vehicle separation, and preferred connections to Sidney Avenue and Port Orchard Boulevard. The section and concepts evaluated for the technical analysis were used as a basis for further engineering refinement. Changes were made to widths of buffers, planter strips and other features for the final preferred alternative. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE EVALUATION Narrowing the Range of Alternatives On January 27 and February 10, 2026, the City of Port Orchard Transportation Committee was presented with the set of feasible alternatives, including pros and cons of each. The Transportation Committee evaluated alternatives using several differentiating factors. Priority was given to options aligned with the City's comprehensive plan, matched public feedback, aligned with available grant funding goals, and minimized potential right-of-way and utility impacts. The Committee also considered integration with existing and future facilities as well as the degree of mode separation provided, noting where proposed alternatives did 28 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study 1 1 4 4 I-2'110' 12'+-5' I 11' I 10' I 10' I 121/2' I 5' —f1'/l Figure 18 Transportation Committee Alternative #1: North Side Shared Use Path not align with Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) goals. Overall construction feasibility was also evaluated to ensure projects could realistically be delivered. As a result of the evaluation, the Transportation Committee ranked two design alternatives as the strongest candidates, which are outlined in detail here. Transportation Committee Alternative #1: North Side Shared Use Path As the top alternative selected by the Committee, the north side shared use path offers the most separation from vehicle traffic and the lowest level of traffic stress while matching public feedback. Although Alternative #1 requires new crossings of Tremont Street to connect to the existing striped bike lanes west of the project area, the shared use path minimizes driveway crossings and provides a connection to and similar facility type and user experience as the future Port Orchard Boulevard shared use path. Another benefit of the north side shared use path is the south sidewalk would be maintained in the near term, avoiding the greater right-of-way impacts and higher cost associated with alternatives on the south side of Tremont Street. Some north side right-of-way acquisition would be required, but the amount would be less than 10 feet, which is lower than what would be needed for other alternatives. Additionally, Alternative #1 is strongly aligned with available grant funding and best practices for multimodal facilities. Alternative #1 assumes temporary facilities near Sidney Avenue to accommodate an expected roundabout installation in the future. After discussion, the Transportation Committee and City staff elected to add to Alternative #1 an option to relocate the south sidewalk further south in the future, widening Tremont Street to provide a buffered eastbound bike lane. The future option would allow cyclists in the bike lanes west of the project area to continue east towards Sidney Avenue without needing to cross Tremont Street. 29 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 r1i ___ ___ ___ ___ 4I 1 4 F2'06' 0 5'/2'—I-2' I 11' I 10' I 10' I 11' 12'+-5'/2'06'-11'i Figure 19 Transportation Committee Alternative #2: Buffered Bike Lanes Transportation Committee Alternative #2: Buffered Bike Lanes As the second -place alternative chosen by the Transportation Committee, the buffered bike lanes option is the closest match to the existing Tremont Street section and does not require cyclists to cross the street except to access other facilities. However, Alternative #2 results in a higher level of traffic stress and requires more right-of-way to the north of Tremont Street (over 18 feet needed). There are also potential utility and right- of-way impacts to the south. Additionally, Alternative #2 may not allow for street trees without further right-of-way impacts and would not be as strongly aligned with the technical guidance and preferences of available grant funding partner agencies. Another key factor influencing the second - place ranking of the buffered bike lanes alternative is the inability to remove or widen the existing Paul D. Powers, Jr. bridge east of the project area, where Tremont Street transitions to Lund Avenue. The bridge will not be replaced within the time horizon considered for the project. The bridge also is not wide enough even for striped bike lanes, and certainly not for the more -extensive active mode facilities being proposed. As a result, any alternative along Tremont Street including bike lanes can only be applied up to the SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection and not beyond. East of the intersection, cyclists would be forced to turn north or south, or "take the lane" and mix with vehicle traffic. The intersection of Sidney Avenue and Tremont will be improved in the future (see Appendix B), with sidewalk extensions along Sidney Avenue as an opportunity to address concerns with the existing crossings and connectivity south of Tremont Street. 30 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031E76 m � - ____ ___ - ---'L - Tremont St .z_ Tremont St Tremont Station 31 South William Tremont, Station 31 South Kite rofassional Building Fire and R M ssione F William A. (Bit 1 Building Fire end Rescue Memorial N Figure 20 North Side Shared Use Path (preferred alternative) Figure 21 North Side Shared Use Path with South Side Separated Bike Lane (Future Phase II) PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Selection of the final preferred alternative was accomplished through a collaborative meeting between City staff members and the entire City Council, which included the Transportation Committee members. The City presented the alternatives and led a discussion covering the pros and cons of each. The result was the selection of Alternative #1: North Side Shared Path, with the option of adding a buffered eastbound bike lane on the south side in the future. Several factors were key in the decision process. The City Councilmembers and staff agreed the north side shared use path would be the best starting point for active mode improvements on Tremont Street. Although there is some desire to provide the south side only (eastbound) bike lane, the high cost and lack of available funding kept the eastbound bike lane as a future option. The Council also acknowledged the desire to construct a roundabout at Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue and Sidney Avenue in the future. Although the timing of the intersection improvement is unknown, the new roundabout would impact both the proposed north side shared use path as well as the south side only bike lane option. The goal of the City and the Councilmembers was to address the current needs of active mode travelers while also limiting impacts to any new non -motorized facilities from future construction. Thus, choosing the simpler option of the north side shared use path was deemed the best balance. Once the City and the Councilmembers identified the preferred alternative, the consultant team developed the final alternative layouts. Rollplots of the preferred alternatives are included in Appendix D. 31 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 NEXT STEPS The next step for the project is to apply for competitive grant funding from partner agencies. The City intends on seeking funding from WSDOT's Ped-Bike program in 2026 for the north side shared use path (Phase I). Future grant applications for the roundabout at Tremont and Sidney, and the south side bike lane (Phase 11) will be considered as likely funding partnerships, with a good chance of success in competitions, are identified. Assuming funding applications are successful, the next stage of the project involves additional steps for both the design team and the City Council: DESIGN TEAM • Advance engineering design details and complexity of the preferred alternative while integrating further feedback from the City Council. • Refine and confirm right-of-way impacts. • Design the crossings and intersection improvements at Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. • Prepare applications for additional construction funding as needed. Future work will include studying options for extension sidewalks north and south on Sidney Avenue, and options for pedestrian connections through Van Zee Park, see Appendix C. CITY COUNCIL Council will work to provide additional feedback on the preferred alternative as the design progresses. 32 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study APPENDIX A: PUBLIC FEEDBACK Tremont Phase 2 and 3 Non -Motorized Improvements: Public Engagement Survey Report, September 5, 2025 33 Prepared for: City of Port Orchard Council Members Prepared by: Transpo Group Tremont Phase 2 and 3 Non -Motorized Improvements Public Engagement Survey Report City of Port Orchard Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study WHAT IS THE TREMONT STREET PROJECT? The Tremont Street Multimodal Improvements project will improve bike and pedestrian facilities along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. The project may also include improvements on Sidney Avenue between Lippert Drive and Melcher Street. The goal of the project is to create a multimodal transportation connection that accommodates local cyclists' and pedestrians' abilities, confidence, and comfort levels. The project advances the City's long-term vision for delivering significant active transportation improvements along Tremont Street and within the City of Port Orchard. HOW ARE WE GATHERING PUBLIC INPUT? To obtain community feedback, the City commissioned a public engagement survey hosted on a custom website that also gave background information on the project. The website link was advertised on social media platforms and in a mailer sent with residential utility bills in June 2025. Survey results were received in June and July of 2025. WHAT WAS THE GOAL OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY? The primary goal of the public engagement survey was to obtain input on the main study area along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue. The following feedback elements were specific to this study area: • Travel origins and destinations and desired future routes of active mode users (pedestrians and cyclists) • Purpose of travel (e.g., commuting, pleasure, etc.) • High stress locations and barriers to current travel by active modes The following additional feedback elements were more generally focused and not necessarily limited to the main study area: • Level of comfort interacting with other active mode users (cyclists, pedestrians, dogs) and vehicles • Preferences for feasible active mode alternatives, focusing on improvements to Tremont Street, but also including potential improvements on Sidney Avenue and Port Orchard Boulevard WHAT RESULTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEY? The public engagement survey collected input from 45 respondents, with 24% indicating they engage in cyclist activity and 76% indicating engagement in pedestrian activity only. A map tool on the same website also gave cyclists the opportunity to mark the origins and destinations of their typical bike trip(s). The detailed survey report and cyclist map tool results are included in Attachment A. Below are some of the key observations from the survey: • Primary Cyclist Travel Patterns: Survey responses and map tool results show that the dominant cyclist travel movements and desired routes are concentrated on the north side of the project area, specifically along Sidney Avenue to the east, heading west to Port Orchard Boulevard, with a possible stopover at Van Zee Park. • Project Focus Preferences: There was less public support for improvements to neighborhood -only connections or routes from Port Orchard Boulevard ending at the park. Instead of being an endpoint, Van Zee Park is more often a connection point, with the final destination typically being east of the park. 35 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Walking vs. Biking Trends: Walking is a more common mode of active transportation in the community compared to biking. Even those who do bike don't bike very often. Comfort Levels in Traffic: Cyclists appear to be very comfortable in mixed traffic situations. Pedestrians also expressed some level of comfort, though it was lower than that of cyclists. Desire for Separation: Both cyclist and pedestrian respondents expressed a desire for separated facilities; however, the survey did not define these separated facilities. Van Zee Park: There was moderate support for a pathway through the park. Sidewalk Preferences on Sidney Avenue: Feedback on whether sidewalks should be placed on one or both sides of Sidney Avenue was mixed. Most respondents selected Van Zee Park as their preferred destination if sidewalk(s) were added to Sidney Avenue. • Top Focus Points: Survey responses identified the top needs as physical separation for pedestrians and improved access to bus stops. Top Focus Points Physical separation for pedestrians Improved access to bus stops HOW DO THE SURVEY RESULTS INFLUENCE THE PROJECT DESIGN? The design team has considered the survey responses in the development of potential alternatives for improvement of Tremont Street within the project limits. Based on the feedback, the following design elements were considered in developing and evaluating options for the corridor: North Side Improvements: The survey responses indicated that much of the through movement in the corridor is focused on the north side of Tremont Street. While some users do access Van Zee Park and points south, the most popular movements are in both the east and west directions, staying on the north side of Tremont Street. Mixed Traffic with Separation: Users of both active modes indicated they don't mind mixing, but both desire physical separation from traffic. To mitigate the project's cost and impact on existing development, shared use paths may be the best balance of space, separation, and meeting the preferred facility needs of users. • Crossing Improvements: Many of the survey respondents are pedestrians, and access to Van Zee Park is a benefit, although not the destination, of many users. Therefore, ensuring there are high comfort crossing locations both east and west of the park, likely at the intersections with Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue, is a significant design consideration. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? The next steps for this project include the following: • Obtain feedback from city council members and confirm focus areas for design alternatives. • Develop concepts for design alternatives. • Obtain feedback from the public on the design alternatives. • Report back to city council members. 36 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study 37 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 1. How often do you typically bike for any reason? Daily 2-3 times per week Weekly Monthly 0 1 2 3 4 2. How often do you currently bike along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue? Daily 2-3 times per week Monthly Less than monthly 0 2 4 3. As a bicyclist, what is your comfort level interacting with the following? •Very comfortable •Somewhat comfortable •Not comfortable Dogs, strollers, and young children 1191. Other cyclists (opposite direction) tIC. Other cyclists (same direction) Pedestrians Vehicle traffic IllS. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 4. When biking, what is the typical purpose of your trip? •1. Often •2. Sometimes •3. Never Commute tIn. tiC. Exercise/funI'. Get to/from stores, parks, or other commu... . r'. Other ICE 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 38 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study !ORTremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 5. What is your typical destination when biking? Local store/business destination Workplace Grocery store Van Zee Park Olympic bike and skate Port Orchard Coffee Company, Safeway, Fred Meyer Bus stop Recreation with stops at local coffee, restaurants, bars, etc iSalmonberry Books Local store/business Shopping/dining at walmart/safeway complex at bethel Other (please list) and lund. Shops on bay street 0 2 4 6 8 6. Where do you usually start your trip? • 1. Often •2. Sometimes •3. Never Other destination South Kitsap park Manchester Southworth Ferry Waterfront East of Sidney Avenue North of Tremont Street MO. IIBiui South of Tremont Street West of Port Orchard Blvd 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 7. Where do you usually end your trip? W. Often •2. Sometimes •3. Never East of Sidney Avenue North of Tremont Street West of Port Orchard Blvd 148. 151. South of Tremont Street 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 39 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 I ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey eemooy _ SOUTH ST ,�o`' of t ho teEM�C sr ks Fire 5mtm^ Van Zee Por �<` 10 s KlTsne eWD � yZc Franciscan Medical Clink Sidney from the south to the Park, PO Blvd or points west Sidney from the north to the Park, PO Blvd or points west Neighborhood streets to Park, PO Blvd or points west or east along Tremont PO Bivd to the Park Pottery Ave to Park 8. Would you bike along any or all of the following routes if they were available? •Definitely •Maybe •Probably Not A N Route A (Red) TBk. Route B (Blue) Route C (Purple) 55. IIt Route D (Green) Route E (Yellow) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 40 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 9. Would you bike along Tremont Street more often if it were safer? 2(2 0%) 10. What changes would make Tremont Street safer for cyclists? Shared use path (both sides) separated from vehicle traffic Fully separated bike lane (both sides of street) Shared use path (south side) separated from vehicle traffic Putting part of the bike path through Van Zee Park Conventional bike lanes Fully separated bike lane (south side of street) Raised cycle track •Yes •Maybe 41 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 11. How often do you currently bike along Sidney Avenue between Lippert Drive and Melcher Street? Daily 2-3 times per week Weekly Monthly Less than monthly Never 0 12. Do you currently feel safe biking along Sidney Avenue? 5 (505 42 (50%) •Not safe at all •Somewhat safe 1 13. Would you bike along Sidney Avenue more often if it were safer? •Yes •Maybe 2 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Ooht Tremont Street Multimodal Improvements Public Engagement Survey Results RCHARD. P a 99 14. How often do you currently walk along Tremont Street between Port Orchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue? Daily 2-3 times per week Weekly Monthly Less than monthly Never 0 10 20 30 15. As a pedestrian, what is your comfort level interacting with the following? •Very comfortable •Somewhat comfortable •Not comfortable Bicyclists Vehicle Traffic/Crossing the Street 0% 50% 100% 16. Would you walk along Tremont Street more often if it were safer? 9(21%) •Yes •No • Mayb 26(00%) 43 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 17. What changes would make Tremont Street safer for pedestrians? Shared use path (both sides) separated from vehicle traffic Walking path through Van Zee Park Shared use path (south side) separated from vehicle traffic 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 'Other Response Respondent Type 17. Response Pedestrian yes, leave it alone 18. How often do you currently walk along Sidney Avenue between Lippert Drive and Melcher Street? Daily 2-3 times per week Weekly Monthly Less than monthly II. Never 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 44 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Ao�t Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 9. Do you think sidewalks are needed on both sides of Sidney Avenue or could there be a sidewalk on only one side with highly sible crosswalks? Sidewalks on both sides Sidewalk on one side with highly visible crosswalks Not sure 0 5 10 15 20 0. If sidewalk(s) are added to Sidney Avenue, would you walk to the following locations? • 1. Yes Si Maybe •3. No Destinations along Tremont Street MO Other places along Sidney Avenue 540 Van Zee Park Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% )ther" responses 10. Response )epends on my needs )owntown waterfront area think port orchard needs to be more walkable )n Pottery by Cedar Heights Valking is more important than bike lanes. There are not that many that ride bikes. Also, there are secondary roads as well as Sidney that need at least one sidewalk nd to be paved. Sidney from Lippert to Fireweed is a prime example. vaterfront is fine. bay St is fine I 45 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 ��oht Tremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey 21. How important are the following criteria to you in developing a design? •Very important •Somewhat important •Not important A dedicated space for bikes that is safe and ap... A physically separated space for bikes A physically separated space for pedestrians Ability to walk or bike to/from bus stops Seamless connectivity for commuting via bike Walk or bike to/from Van Zee Park 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 46 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study A0 Tremont Street Multimodal Improvements Public Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey Respondent Type 22. For future projects, what do you think the best way is to get more participation in surveys like this? Bicyclist Create a way to sign up for planning related surveys. I had to find this from someone on Reddit Bicyclist Post in local businesses that would/could be impacted by an increase in traffic. Bicyclist Post notices with QRcodes at transit locations and libraries Bicyclist Social media Pedestrian Are you on Instagram? Pedestrian Conduct it at the farmer's market! Pedestrian Fire current city official that won't let you comment on Facebook because they are such control freaks Pedestrian Hand out or mail flyers to city residents. Pedestrian in addition to emails like this, have real people asking those who are walking/riding on those sreets. Pedestrian Make them readily available through a variety of channels. Not all have mobiles. Through utility billing , great. Many have out bill. Signage on -site. Pedestrian Oline surveys Pedestrian Postcard Pedestrian Put QR code in mail. Pedestrian Putting these in the kitsap Sun also on social media Pedestrian Reach people where they are at. E-mail, text message, social media, TV news, advertise online, booth at community events, direct mail, send letter to schools to have sent home with kids. Pedestrian Send something in the mail to voters. Not everyone has the ability to access a survey this way, especially senior citizens. Pedestrian Social media city sites shareable on sites like PO pages. Pedestrian the Port Orchard FB groups Pedestrian This is a great way to get the community involved in these decisions. Pedestrian We receive our City utility bill via email - so potentially taking email addresses from there or other systems if possible, and sending a mass email with the survey. Or, even incorporating in the body of the email sent with our bimonthly water bill. For folks who don't receive these via email, maybe providing a flyer with utility billing sent out explaining the survey objective and providing them with a website to go to take the survey. A lot of folks who have social media don't follow local government accounts, so trying to reach citizens through methods the city already communicates with them is important. 47 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 48 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 blkt )RCHARDTremont Street Multimodal Improvements I Public Engagement Survey Results spondent Type 23. Additional Comments :yclist Much of the waterfront, mile hill, and the main lund track need upgrades for walkability way more than a side street with a few apartment complexes. :yclist Please know that paint is not protection from vehicles; people will not bike if they don't feel safe. I see more people using e bikes now. Let's make Port Orchard biking friendly! I think the community would also benefit from bike safety lessons or communications. :yclist Sidewalk on north side of Tremont between PO blvd and Sidney would be great destrian Adding a pedestrian pathway - even just a sidewalk - on the north side of Tremont is very important to prevent the need to cross over the street and back during high traffic times. Drivers are not always paying attention and crossing can be dangerous. destrian At this time there is no need for bike lanes on Tremont. If the city council would get out in the community, they would realize that. Tremont is a main road to get from across town from Highway 16. Why would you make it more unsafe for drivers? If you take a ride down Sidney from Lippert to Fireweed, you have to drive a 4 wheel drive vehicle. For as many people that live in that area, it is disgraceful the city has no sidewalks and a terrible road. That isn't the only area. Most of the secondary roads in Port Orchard , are terrible. All the City ever does is fill the potholes. Do not waste money on Tremont. The City hasn't finished the walkway downtown. I am definitely a NO! destrian Extending the sidewalks from pottery ave to Melcher then to Sherman/hull ave would be great at connecting all of us to downtown in a safer manner. destrian I walk my dog in other areas. But, the city should improve many areas for pedestrian and cycle use destrian It would be great to have a safe space for pedestrians at minimum between Poplar and Tremont on Sidney. It is completely unsafe and you get some who will walk and bike up the side with no shoulder. It's completely unsafe. And the path through the park gets rocks and debris then you have to walk through the weeds and grass that can be high. And rarely do you see people walking there. But also almost hit by a disc trying to walk through there and people playing disc golf saying you are in their way. destrian Please consider discussing the lower part of Sidney. I sometimes park up the hill to walk to the Farmers market. It is so crazy steep! We need a funicular! destrian Real Public input instead of hidden. You cannot say anything against this current weak Mayor that can be heard in public. destrian Seems like bethel expansion should be the priority over this project destrian Show us that there is money, else no reason to do this. Sidney ave needs a safe place to walk from Lippert south to fireweed. Too many new developments in the last 15 years with NO improvements to Sidney ave. destrian The sidewalks feel way too close to traffic. destrian The traffic circles need better crosswalks. Without pedestrian signals it's very dangerous for anyone with low or no vision to navigate the traffic circles. destrian There needs to be a sidewalk for sure on Tremont near Sidney. It is unsafe to walk to the bus stop. destrian There should be more lights on Pottery Ave with those two schools on that street. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study !ORTremont Street Multimodal ImprovementsPublic Engagement Results ORCHARD. P ISurvey Respondent Type 11 (24%4b,--34(76%) Browser 21 (47°P • Pedestrian • Bicyclist Timing of Responses 20 0 25 26 30 1 2 3 4 6 10 11 15 June July Response Source • Fire) ox •Chrome • iPhone/Safari _ . t7%) 26 12)27%) •Google •Facebook • Reddit • Unknown 49 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 O CHARD . Tremont Street Multimodal Improvements I Public Engagement Survey Results Cyclist Origins and Destinations I, + 166 16 W51 Rd y Port Orchard Indusrial Park , ea Ir a 16 Tremont Public Outreach Results E Surve, Polylmc SE S.,. „ I:,, -r Port Orchard Downtown Veterans Home Cemetery Port Orchard y South Kitsap t Ki1sap nal Park Distance Creation ID (ft) Date Start Location End Location start_x start_y end_x end_y William A. Vanzee 13 3985 6/26/2025 179 Campbell Ln Memorial Park -122.648867 47.516494 -122.644685 47.524295 14 18355 7/10/2025 216 Prospect Street 2680 SE Kerni Ct -122.616128 47.518045 -122.63842 47.541284 50 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study APPENDIX B: TREMONT STREET/SE LUND AVENUE/SIDNEY AVENUE INTERSECTION Tremont Street and Sidney Avenue Intersection Analysis Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue Intersection Control Evaluation, September 2025 51 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 TREMONT STREET AND SIDNEY AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Tremont Street and Sidney Avenue Intersection As previously discussed, the new active mode facilities along Tremont Street will necessitate the need for improvements at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection to accommodate both non -motorized and motorized traffic. The alternatives analysis and selection process for the intersection improvements was similar to the process previously described for the multimodal improvements. The consultant worked with the City's Transportation Committee and Councilmembers to evaluate alternatives against the project's goals and needs. No Action: Existin Traffic Signal _ s Alternative 2: Multilane roundabout 52 Alternative 2.5: Multilane roundabout Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Alternative 3 l,lultilane r .indabcut ..ith stop- Alternative 3.5 l,lu thane I rdabou: ;.iih stop - controlled right -ii right -out access on NE approach_ controlled right-i might -cut access on N5 approach A V may` Alternative 4: Multilane roundaboutwith stop- Alternative 5: Two multilane roundabouts controlled fight-irr.'right-out access on SB appmach_ Alternative 6: Peanut roundabout Alternative fa_5: Peanut roundabout :7- k1±iT! Figure 1 Concepts of Intersection Improvements Alternatives Evaluated [taken from Transpo draft ICE, September 2025] Intersection Improvement Alternatives An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) conducted by Transpo Group in September 2025 showed that the "do nothing" approach would result in an unacceptable level of service once the multimodal improvements were constructed. Because of this, the team moved forward with the roundabout alternatives, analyzing each for alignment with the project's goals. These alternatives are briefly discussed below, with full details available in the ICE report, which is also included in this appendix. Many of the roundabout options shown in the figure above would have similar traffic operations even with a slightly different shape. The key difference with these options is the amount and areas where right-of-way would be needed to accommodate the roundabouts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were carried forward in the traffic operations analysis, as they were representative of roundabout operations for the various configurations. The other roundabout alternatives, even though they were not specifically evaluated, would have similar traffic operations. 53 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 54 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Matching other nearby intersections and limiting right-of-way impacts were important factors in selecting the preferred section for the roundabout. The existing northwest and southeast corners of this intersection have major walls located on private property. Thus, any significant acquisitions at either of these corners would cause dramatic changes to these properties and could require full acquisition, with the property owners needing to be relocated in order to build some of these alternative geometries. The alternatives listed below were chosen because they meet traffic study standards while limiting the potential impacts to right-of-way and private parcels. Roundabout Alternative #1 This is a typical roundabout layout, centered on the existing intersection. Although it maintains the existing intersection movements and connections, it has significant right-of-way impacts to existing retaining walls and driveways.'•. /%V ,/ E o N ' 7/" 'N Figure 2 Roundabout Alternative #1 (Typical Layout, Centered on Existing Intersection) Roundabout Alternative #2 This alternative features an offset layout utilizing the existing City -owned parcel, which results in lower right-of-way acquisition needs and limited retaining wall impacts. It splits the through movement of Sidney Avenue. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Figure 3 Roundabout Alternative #2 (Offset Layout with Split Through Movement of Sidney Avenue) Roundabout Alternative #3 The "peanut" layout of this roundabout alternative balances the right-of-way acquisition needs, with only some acquisition required and only limited impacts to retaining walls and the private property on the NW and SE corners of the intersection. Like Alternative #2, this design splits the through movement of Sidney Avenue. Although through traffic on Sidney must take more turns to navigate the double roundabout, vehicles can continue through without stopping. This alternative also avoids requiring traffic to approach a 3 -way intersection on either leg, and it likely has the best traffic calming impact due to the number and radii of the turns involved. Thus, Alternative #3 is the geometrically preferred alternative) 55 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 56 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 o' Ico N LJTI1? N N Figure 4 Roundabout Alternative #3 ("Peanut" Layout, Geometrically Preferred Alternative) Transportation Committee Feedback The information on the three generalized alternatives, and a summary of the traffic analysis results for each were presented to the Transportation Committee in February and March of 2026. The Transportation Committee was afforded the opportunity to ask questions about the analysis and the design philosophy behind each of the alternatives. After consideration of the technical aspects of each roundabout alternative, and the potential impact to private parcels and Sidney Avenue, the Committee agreed that Alternative #3, the "Peanut", was the preferred candidate. The preferred candidate would be used to help guide not only the preferred alternative for the Tremont Street corridor, but for future Sidney Avenue active mode facilities. The Transportation Committee did recommend presenting the same information to the full City Council for confirmation of the preferred roundabout alternative for the intersection. City Council Feedback The City Council was presented with the various roundabout alternatives in March of 2026. A summary of the pros and cons of each approach was presented, and Council members were provided with the detailed ICE report ahead of time. The Council confirmed that the "peanut" layout, Alternative #3, was their preferred alternative in order to seek further design, right of way, and construction funding from grant partners, and to continue mode detailed design to confirm project elements. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study The selection of Alternative #3 for the roundabout design will help to inform both the temporary and final layouts of the active mode facility in the project corridor by providing a framework for how the shared use path interacts with the intersection, how cyclists will access Sidney Avenue north and southbound from the intersection, and how eastbound cyclists will be able to navigate the intersection and then mix with traffic heading east towards the Lund Avenue bridge. Next Steps The next stage of the improvement of the Sidney Avenue and Tremont Street intersection involves additional steps for both the design team and the City: Design Team • Integrate the design of the intersection into the design of the Tremont Street active mode facility • Advance design details and complexity of the preferred alternative while integrating further feedback from the City Council. • Refine and confirm right-of-way impacts. City Staff Determine the preferred phasing sequence between the construction of the Sidney Avenue/Tremont Street roundabout, the preferred alternative Tremont Street active mode facilities and any future Sidney Avenue active more facilities. o Determine the need, based on the phasing sequence, to design and construct temporary connections on the east side of the Tremont Street facilities identified as part of the current project. Discuss internally and with grant funding partners the likely funding sources and sequence for the three projects to inform the phasing. Prepare applications for further design, right of way and construction funding. 57 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 58 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue Intersection Control Evaluation September 2025 Prepared by: transpogroup Ar WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 12131 113"Avenue NE, Suite 203 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 www.transpogroup.com 1.24211.00 © 2025 Transpo Group Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 Step 1: Background and Project Needs.................................................................................. 1 Step 2: Operational and Safety Performance Analysis......................................................... 9 Appendix Appendix A: Alternative Concepts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS and Queuing Worksheets Figures Figure 1: Intersection Vicinity and Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................2 2 Figure 2: Concepts of Alternatives Evaluated........................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Future Weekday AM, Midday and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... 7 Figure 4: Future Weekday AM, Midday and PM Peak Hour Volumes (Alternatives 3+4)........ 8 Tables Table 1. Weekday AM Peak Hour Operations Summary ..................................................9 9 Table 2. Weekday Midday Peak Hour Operations Summary ..........................................10 10 Table 3. Weekday PM Peak Hour Operations Summary ................................................11 11 Table 4. Five -Year Collision Summary 2020 to 2024 ...................................................... 12 59 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation City of Pbl4rAvenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Introduction This report summarizes the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) prepared for the intersection of Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue and Sidney Avenue in Port Orchard, Washington. An ICE is required for state-owned intersections; however, the City of Port Orchard has requested this study for this local intersection. The study generally follows the guidelines in Chapter 1300.05(1) Intersection Control Evaluation Section of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual. The existing intersection is controlled by a traffic signal system. This analysis evaluates traffic operations results for 4 alternatives for intersection control: • Alternative 1 — Existing traffic signal with removal of dedicated eastbound right -turn lane • Alternative 2 — Multilane roundabout • Alternative 3 — Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled right-in/right-out access on the northbound leg • Alternative 4 — Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled right-in/right-out access on the southbound leg ICE Process The steps followed for the ICE were scaled based on the characteristics of the intersection and the selected alternatives. The steps include: 1. Background and Project Needs 2. Operational and Safety Performance Analysis Step 1: Background and Project Needs The following section summarizes the existing conditions of Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection as well as the project needs and methodology used for analysis and comparison of the intersection alternatives. Existing Conditions The Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection is an existing signalized intersection located in Port Orchard, Washington (see Figure 1). Residential development surrounds the intersection except at the southwest corner, where Van Zee Park is located. The intersection is situated east of SR 16 and south of the Port Orchard downtown waterfront area. 60 r Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidnej-iopl Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 I Compl y 0 m 0 , O O a J� �P 2� ��O W TREMONT ST 1 _j ur w m •S}, `Gz LEGEND !� O Study Intersection (x) Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes �) Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes QSidney Ave Tremont SI (15) 1pl 50 (551 1601 120 I f� li is 130 (80)155 65) li 4j95)]160)90 (470)1665 945- ~(530)15751645 (20)120145 1 (('`(65)11001165 (35)115)20 (80)1951165 R0� 35 Figure 1: Intersection Vicinity and Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 1 shows the existing weekday AM, midday and PM peak hour intersection turning movements at Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue. The weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are highest with both eastbound and westbound along Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue exceeding 900 vehicles per direction. The volumes from the south and north legs of Sidney Avenue are much lower than the east and west directions, with between 200 and 300 vehicles per direction. The total entering vehicles at the intersection during the weekday PM peak hour are approximately 2,500 vehicles, while the total entering vehicles during the weekday midday peak hour and the weekday AM peak hour are approximately 1,800 vehicles and 1,500 vehicles, respectively. The channelization and non -motorized facilities for both Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue and Sidney Avenue are described below. Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue is a 4 -lane minor arterial as defined by the City of Port Orchard with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are also provided along both sides of SE Lund Avenue but are only provided on the south side of Tremont Street. 61 1 2 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 No bicycle facilities are present. The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan estimates that between SR 16 and Bethel Road, the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue corridor serves an average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) of 23,000 vehicles per day, which is the highest in the city. The roadway also serves as a connection between Van Zee Park and South Kitsap Regional Park. Sidney Avenue is a 2 -lane minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph north of Tremont Street, and 30 mph south of Tremont Street. Sidewalks are currently only provided on the west side of Sidney Avenue north of Tremont Street, with paved shoulders provided along other segments. Bicycle facilities are provided on both sides of the roadway. Sidewalks and bike lanes are planned for the section of Sidney Avenue south of Tremont Street. The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan estimates that Sidney Avenue serves 5,000 AWDT. The channelization at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection includes: • Eastbound and westbound approaches: Left -turn, through, and channelized right - turn lanes • Northbound and southbound approach: Left -turn lane and a shared through/right- turn lane Signalized pedestrian crossings are provided across all legs of the intersection In addition, existing bus stops are located along Tremont Street west of Sidney Avenue and along Sidney Avenue north of Tremont Street. These stops serve Kitsap Transit routes 104 and 105. Route 104 provides daily service between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Kitsap County Youth Services Center with weekday headways of approximately 60 minutes between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Route 105 provides daily service between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Sidney Ave/Sedgwick Rd intersection, with weekday headways of approximately 60 minutes between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. Project Needs Non -motorized facilities are currently limited in the area, and the City of Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan identifies improvements to segments of both Sidney Avenue and Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue that would install sidewalks, bike lanes, and storm drainage to the streets within the vicinity of the intersection. The intersection improvements are part of the overall City of Port Orchard project to provide non -motorized improvements along Tremont Street from Port Orchard Boulevard to Sidney Avenue. The project will reallocate space for active mode facilities resulting in the need for improvements at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection to accommodate both vehicle and non -motorized traffic. Intersection Control Alternatives Five alternatives are identified to accommodate the projected vehicle growth and non - motorized traffic at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection. Figure 2 provides a conceptual layout of different alternatives. Conceptual plans for the alternatives are provided in Appendix A. • No Action Alternative — Existing traffic signal and lane configuration. • Alternative 1 — Existing traffic signal with removal of dedicated eastbound right -turn lane • Alternative 2 — Multilane roundabout with two -circulating lanes and Sidney Avenue is one -lane approaches. o Alternative 2.5 — Roundabout with same layout as Alternative 2, shifted slightly northeast of the existing intersection. Operationally, this layout is expected to function similarly to Alternative 2. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 • Alternative 3 — Multilane roundabout to the east of the current intersection location. Provision of a stop -controlled right-in/right-out access on the Sidney Avenue northbound (NB) approach at approximately the location of the current intersection. Realignment of the southbound (SB) Sidney Avenue approach to the east into the new roundabout location. o Alternative 3.5 — Roundabout with same layout as Alternative 3 but shifted slightly south. Operationally, this alternative is expected to function similarly to Alternative 3. • Alternative 4 — Similar to Alternative 3 but with a multilane roundabout to the west of the current intersection location. Provision of a stop -controlled right-in/right-out access on the Sidney Avenue SB approach to the east of the location of the current intersection location. Realignment of the NB Sidney Avenue approach to the west into the new roundabout location. • Alternative 5 — Two 3 -leg multilane roundabouts with the west roundabout receiving the northbound leg of Sidney Avenue and the east roundabout receiving the southbound leg of Sidney Avenue. Operationally, this alternative is expected to function similarly to Alternative 2. • Alternative 6 — Similar to Alternative 5, but with a peanut roundabout layout instead of two separate roundabouts. Operationally, this alternative is expected to function similarly to Alternative 2. o Alternative 6.5 — Peanut roundabout with a similar layout to Alternative 6, but with a smaller inscribed circle diameter. Operationally, this alternative is expected to function similarly to Alternative 2 No Action: Existing Traffic Si nal Alternative 2: Multilane roundabout Alternative 2.5: Multilane roundabout 1iE I1 63 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Many of the roundabout options described above would have similar traffic operations even with a slightly different shape. The key difference with these options is the amount and areas where right-of-way needed to accommodate the roundabouts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are carried forward in the traffic operations analysis as representative of the roundabout operations for the different configurations. The other roundabout alternatives not specifically evaluated would have similar traffic operations. 64 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Methodology The following section provides an overview of the methodology used to analyze the intersection control alternatives. Horizon Years The horizon years evaluated are Opening Year 2031 and Design Year 2044. The horizon years are consistent with the City of Port Orchard's Transportation Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan, respectively. Performance Measures Level of service (LOS), volume to capacity ratio (V/C), and queuing are used as performance measures to compare each alternative. Traffic operation assumptions include: • All Alternatives — o For roundabout and traffic signal -controlled intersections, LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersection as a whole. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free -flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix B contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. o Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave has a LOS standard of D. o During the design year (2044) condition, the peak hour factor (PHF) was set to 1.0 for both the No Action and Action Alternatives per the WSDOT guidelines'. The existing PHF was maintained for the Opening Year conditions. Signalized Alternatives — Evaluated using Synchro 12 software and based on guidelines found in WSDOT Synchro & Simtraffic Protocol (August 2018). Roundabout Alternatives (Alternatives 2 -4)— Evaluated using Sidra 9.1 network analysis. Sidra model settings used for the roundabout evaluation were based on the guidelines in the WSDOT Sidra Policy Settings (October 2020). Additionally, for roundabouts, a v/c ratio of 1.0 or less for each lane group is desired. Note that WSDOT's Sidra Policy also notes that "WSDOT does not recommend using Sidra to produce MOE's for intersection control types other than roundabouts." Therefore, although the adjacent stop -controlled approaches featured in Alternatives 3 and 4 are input into the Sidra network model, they are only included to reflect anticipated impacts on the adjacent roundabout and reported LOS and delay is based on Synchro. In addition, a qualitative discussion of safety performance was conducted for each Alternative. Traffic Volume Forecasts The future Opening Year (2031) traffic volume forecasts are based on trip estimates from the city's latest concurrency review at the intersection for the Blueberry Apartments 2.0 project. The travel demand model contains estimates of future land use growth within and outside the City consistent with adopted local and regional plans. The travel demand model forecasts weekday PM peak hour conditions. Therefore, the weekday PM peak hour forecasts are determined directly from the Blueberry Apartments 2.0 concurrency review data. The weekday AM and midday forecasts are determined based on reviewing the projected weekday PM peak hour traffic growth from the travel demand model. Based on the additional weekday PM peak hour trips, an annual growth rate of 1% per year was estimated, which was then applied to the weekday AM and midday peak hour traffic volumes to develop the Opening Year (2031) AM and midday peak hour traffic volumes. ' WSDOT Sidra Policy Settings (October 2020) and WSDOT Synchro & Simtraffic Protocol — August 2018 Or 65 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 66 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 The Design Year (2044) PM peak hour forecasts were developed based on traffic growth from the City's travel demand model. Future weekday PM peak hour growth between the City's baseline 2022 PM traffic volumes and the 2044 PM traffic volumes were used to determine the forecasts. The weekday PM peak hour traffic volume growth was added to the existing traffic counts, with reasonable adjustments made to account for trips from the Blueberry Apartments study. Consistent with the Opening Year forecasts, the City's travel demand model corresponds with the weekday PM peak hour. The weekday AM and midday peak hour traffic volumes for Design Year were developed by applying an annual growth rate of 1% per year to the existing volumes. The Opening and Design Year weekday AM, midday and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. ago 11145 45 U20 a 7ss 165 LEGEND study Ime, oclm (X1 Weekday AM Peak Hour Tmdk: Volumes tq Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traft Volumes X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 3: Future Weekday AM, Midday and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes As seen on Figure 3, the forecast weekday PM peak hour volumes at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue intersection are approximately 2,640 total entering vehicles (TEV) under the opening year and 3,065 TEV under the design year. This represents approximately 7 percent growth under Opening Year relative to existing weekday PM peak hour conditions and 24 percent growth under Design Year conditions relative to existing weekday PM peak hour conditions. For Alternatives 3 and 4, the future volumes shown on Figure 3 were shifted accordingly to account for right-in/right-out restrictions on the northbound and southbound legs, respectively. The resulting Opening and Design Year weekday AM, midday and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 4. 1Wr Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Altem4l,ve 3 Alternative 4 1 TRrronl SI sAnelAm 2 TTreme e St 1 rrMbnI st RIROAcces 2 0IeaMi s (751)851190 115111 aD5)3S1 m (35)115] 20� J 1(15)112011{0 L J , (115)90)110) &11001hasj90 (115)18%+75) &110 01 110 5(90 rn 565)(605(1.115+ +61351 (l+5)9,0(565)16511526+ r,i6m(6801905565)16SI 1.025+ --)628)(67585(985)(92511 275-- t-(635)1715(915 (20)120)451 ((85)1251215 (20)120145 ((651 (125) 215 !' '1 (` 15)1201160 (15011135)220 (35)115120 115)1201 200 SI0ne Ave (D r .n, SI 0 2 1151 81 StAcce 1 Trerro 1 501105 AveSt s 2 Tree,onl St (80)1851195 (85)11401210 (165( 235)405 °112°12°20J L J (130) 1901125) (115) 11201120 (130)1901125) &(115) [120)120 c 665)920)1300 — .—(7205)9151060(665) 107011.285 — f(740)1851955 665)1870)1.285—.. ♦100)1651935 (75a,11.a011.sro — x)720)18151960 (25) (251451 ((100) (145) (25)125) 4S ((100)11451 225 r( 1(17011160250 •18 51 114 01 21 0 1(130)11401230 (40)[20]20 Figure 4: Future Weekday AM, Midday and PM Peak Hour Volumes (Alternatives 3+4) Signal Timing Parameters For the signalized alternative (No Action and Alternative 1), the following signal timing parameters were assumed for the analysis: • Actuated -uncoordinated control • A cycle length of 90 seconds and optimized splits were used for future traffic conditions. • Left -turn movements are protected only LLE�GEN[1 1 x 1 Study Intel (1q Weekday, Hour Troll, IXI Weekday I Hour Traffi X Weekday I Hour Traffl Roundabout Geometrics For the multilane roundabout alternatives (Alternatives 2-4), key features geometric features are shown in detail in Appendix A. All roundabout geometrics were developed in accordance with WSDOT Design Manual, Section 1320 and NCHRP Report 672. Design Vehicle For both the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives, design concepts were developed to accommodate city buses on all maneuvers. In addition, WB-67 truck movements are accommodated for the east -west through maneuvers only. Ir 8 67 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Step 2: Operational and Safety Performance Analysis Forecast traffic operations as well as a qualitative safety discussion of the Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave intersection are provided in this step. Traffic Operations Step 1 describes the methods and parameters used for the traffic operations analysis of the alternatives. The weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hour traffic operations are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Based on the similarities between the different options, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are the only roundabout options carried forward. The detailed intersection LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 1. Weekday AM Peak Hour Operations Summary Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) Design Year (2044) Alternative LOS' Delay2 V/C' LOS Delay V/C No Action - Traffic signal with existing channelization Overall B 18 - B 18 Eastbound Approach a 15 - B 15 Westbound Approach B 15 - B 15 Northbound Approach C 32 - C 32 Southbound Approach C 32 - C 33 Alternative I - Traffic signal with removal of dedicated EB right -turn lane Overall B 18 - B 18 Eastbound Approach B 15 - B 15 WestboundApproach B 15 - B 15 Northbound Approach C 32 - C 32 Southbound Approach C 32 - C 33 - Alternative 2— Multilane roundabout Overall A 6 0.31 A 6 0.29 Eastbound Approach A 6 0.26 A 6 0.24 WestboundApproach A 5 0.31 A 5 0.29 Northbound Approach A 8 0.22 A 7 0.19 Southbound Approach A 9 0.22 A 9 0.19 Alternative 3- Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on NB approach Overall A 5 0.32 A 5 0.30 Eastbound Approach A 4 0.31 A 4 0.28 WestboundApproach A 5 0.32 A 5 0.30 Northbound Approach4 B 12 - B 12 - SouthboundApproach A 9 0.23 A 9 0.19 Alternative 4 — Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on SB approach Overall A 5 0.31 A 5 0.29 Eastbound Approach A 5 0.26 A 5 0.24 WestboundApproach A 3 0.31 A 3 0.29 Northbound Approach A 8 0.23 A 8 0.20 Southbound Approach4 B 14 - B 14 - Note: EB = eastbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, RIRO = right-in/right-out 1. Level of service, based on Highway Capacity Manual (7th edition) methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to -capacity ratio reported for roundabout approaches 4. Stop -control RIRO access evaluated in Svnchro 9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 During the weekday AM peak hour, Table 1 shows the Tremont Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS B under the No Action condition during both the Opening Year and Design Year conditions, respectively. With the Action Alternatives, operations remain at LOS B with the traffic signal alternative (Alternative 1) and improve to LOS A with the roundabout alternatives. Additionally, the v/c with the roundabout alternatives is shown to be below 1.0 under all alternatives. For the roundabout alternatives with right-in/right-out access, the stop -controlled leg is shown to operate at LOS B for both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 under both the Opening Year and the Design Year. Table 2. Weekday Midday Peak Hour Operations Summary Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) Design Year (2044) Alternative LOS' Delay' V/C' LOS Delay Vic No Action — Traffic signal with existing channelization Overall B 19 - C 20 - Eastbound Approach B 16 - B 18 - WestboundApproach B 16 - B 17 - Northbound Approach C 34 - C 34 Southbound Approach C 32 - C 32 - Alternative 1 — Traffic signal with removal of dedicated EB right -turn lane Overall B 19 - C 21 - Eastbound Approach B 16 - B 19 - WestboundApproach B 16 - B 17 Northbound Approach C 34 - C 34 - Southbound Approach C 32 - C 32 - Alternative 2— Multilane roundabout Overall A 6 0.32 A 6 0.33 Eastbound Approach A 6 0.32 A 6 0.33 WestboundApproach A 5 0.30 A 5 0.31 Northbound Approach A 7 0.19 A 7 0.20 Southbound Approach A 10 0.27 A 10 0.27 Alternative 3— Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on NB approach Overall A 5 0.35 A 5 0.36 Eastbound Approach A 3 0.35 A 3 0.36 Westbound Approach A 5 0.31 A 5 0.32 Northbound Approach4 B 13 - B 14 - SouthboundApproach A 10 0.27 A 10 0.27 Alternative 4— Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on SB approach Overall A 5 0.32 A 5 0.33 Eastbound Approach A 6 0.32 A 6 0.33 WestboundApproach A 4 0.32 A 4 0.33 Northbound Approach A 8 0.20 A 8 0.21 Southbound Approach' B 15 - C 16 - Note: EB = eastbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, RIRO = right-in/right-out 1. Level of service, based on Highway Capacity Manual (7th edition) methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to -capacity ratio reported for roundabout approaches 4. Stop -control RIRO access evaluated in Synchro During the weekday midday peak hour, Table 2 shows the Tremont Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS B and LOS C under the No Action condition during the Opening and Design Years conditions, respectively. With the Action Alternatives, operations remain at LOS B 10 69 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 70 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 and LOS C with the traffic signal alternative (Alternative 1). With the roundabout alternatives, the operations are improved to LOS A under all alternatives, with v/c ratios estimated to be less than 1.0. For the roundabout alternative with a right-in/right out access on the northbound approach (Alternative 3), the stop -controlled leg is shown to operate at LOS B or better under Opening Year and Design year conditions. For the roundabout alternative with a right-in/right out access on the southbound approach (Alternative 4), the stop -controlled leg is shown to operate at LOS B under Opening Year conditions and at LOS C under Design year conditions. Table 3. Weekday PM Peak Hour Operations Summary Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) Design Year (2044) Alternative LOS' Delay2 V/C3 LOS Delay Vic No Action — Traffic signal with existing channelization Overall C 29 - C 35 - Eastbound Approach C 28 - C 35 - WestboundApproach C 23 - C 27 - NorthboundApproach D 41 - D 48 - Southbound Approach D 36 - D 46 Alternative 1 - Traffic signal with removal of dedicated EB right -turn lane Overall C 31 - D 39 - Eastbound Approach C 32 - D 44 Westbound Approach C 24 - C 27 Northbound Approach D 42 - D 48 Southbound Approach D 38 - D 44 - Alternative 2- Multilane roundabout Overall A 7 0.54 A 7 0.55 Eastbound Approach A 7 0.51 A 7 0.55 Westbound Approach A 6 0.40 A 6 0.37 Northbound Approach A 9 0.42 A 9 0.42 Southbound Approach B 12 0.54 B 11 0.49 Alternative 3— Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on NB approach Overall A 5 0.55 A 5 0.57 Eastbound Approach A 4 0.53 A 4 0.57 WestboundApproach A 5 0.41 A 5 0.38 Northbound Approach' C 20 - D 27 - SouthboundApproach B 12 0.55 B 11 0.51 Alternative 4— Multilane roundabout with stop -controlled RIRO access on SB approach Overall A 6 0.51 A 6 0.55 Eastbound Approach A 7 0.51 A 7 0.55 WestboundApproach A 4 0.46 A 4 0.43 Northbound Approach A 10 0.44 a 10 0.45 Southbound Approach 4 D 32 - E 38 - Note: EB = eastbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, RIRO = right-in/right-out 1. Level of service, based on Highway Capacity Manual (7th edition) methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume -to -capacity ratio reported for roundabout approaches 4. Stop -control RIRO access evaluated in Synchro During the weekday PM peak hour, Table 3 shows the Tremont Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C under the No Action condition during the Opening Year and Design Year conditions. With Alternative 1, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS C under Opening Year conditions, but overall intersection operations would worsen to LOS D under Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 Design Year conditions. With the roundabout alternatives, the overall operations are improved to LOS A under Opening and Design Year conditions, with overall v/c ratios estimated to be less than 1.0. For the roundabout alternative with a right-in/right out access on the northbound approach (Alternative 3), the stop -controlled leg is shown to operate at LOS C or better under Opening Year conditions and LOS D under Design Year conditions. For the roundabout alternative with a right-in/right out access on the southbound approach (Alternative 4), the stop - controlled leg is shown to operate at LOS D under Opening Year conditions and at LOS E under Design Year conditions, which would not meet the city's LOS standards. Vehicle Queues The future weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hour 95th percentile queues were reviewed in the Synchro reports for Alternatives 3 and 4 to determine if the left -turn lane storage length between the proposed roundabout and the proposed stop -controlled access could sufficiently accommodate for left -turning vehicles in the future. Across all scenarios, the proposed left -turn storage lengths for Alternatives 3 and 4 were found to sufficiently accommodate for the 95th percentile queue. No queuing issues are identified with the proposed alternatives. Safety Performance Analysis The most recent available collision records were reviewed within the study area to identify existing traffic safety issues at the study intersection. The most recent five-year summary of collision data from the WSDOT is for the period between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2024. Table 4 provides a summary of the total and average annual number of collisions at the study intersection as well as the collision rate at the intersection. Table 4. Five -Year Collision Summary 2020 to 2024 Tremont St/SE Lund Ave/Sidney Ave Number of Collisions Average Collisions per Severity 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Annual MEV' Property damage only (PDO) 2 1 0 2 1 6 1.2 - Injury2 2 3 1 1 0 7 1.4 - Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Total 4 4 1 3 1 13 2.6 0.29 Source: WSDOT, 2025. Under 23 U.S. Code § 148 and 23 U.S. Code § 407, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway -highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. 1. MEV = Million Entering Vehicles 2. Injury assumed to include possible injury. The reported collisions were primarily due to rear -end (7), making up over 50 percent of all collisions. In terms of severity, 7 collisions (over 50 percent) resulted in either possible injuries or suspected minor injuries, while the remaining 6 resulted in property damage only (PDO). Two of the 13 total crashes at the intersection involved pedestrians or bicyclists, with both crashes resulting in suspected minor injuries. No serious injuries or fatalities were reported during the 5 -year study period. The crash rate per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) for the existing intersection was calculated to be 0.29, which is below the 1.0 crashes per MEV threshold typically used to identify intersections for further investigation of adverse safety conditions. Traffic safety with the traffic signal (Alternative 1) is anticipated to be similar to existing conditions; however, with increases in traffic volume, collisions may proportionally increase. Studies have shown that roundabouts are safer than traditional stop- or signal -controlled intersections with reductions in the overall number of collisions, severity, and the number of 12 71 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 72 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue/Sidney Avenue September 2025 collisions involving pedestrians. These reductions are achieved through lower travel speeds through roundabouts, yielding behavior of roundabouts, and the one-way travel pattern. Approach turn and angle collisions are types of collisions that are typically eliminated with roundabout traffic control; however, these types of collisions only make up 2 of the 13 collisions reported during the 5 -year study period. Multimodal Safety and Operations As mentioned previously, there were two reported collisions during the 5 -year study period, demonstrating some minor risks to pedestrians at the Tremont Street intersection. The current intersection layout features crosswalks on all legs with pedestrian walk phases to provide pedestrian crossings to accommodate existing and future pedestrian demand by the horizon years. However, there is currently no marked crossing on the channelized eastbound right -turn lane, which could pose a risk to pedestrians looking to cross at the west or south legs to access Van Zee Park. For the signal alternative (Alternative 1), the removal of the channelized eastbound right -turn is shown to have some impacts to traffic operations at the intersection; however, the intersection would still meet the City's LOS standards under the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hour. Alternative 1 provides a potential way to improve pedestrian safety at the intersection while maintaining the traffic signal. For the roundabout alternatives, drivers would be expected to yield to pedestrians crossing while bicyclists would function as a vehicle when entering and exiting the roundabout or have the option to exit via bike ramp and use crosswalks. Drivers must slow down prior to entering the roundabout due to the design of the intersection, which improves the crossing safety and experience for pedestrians while they cross multiple lanes of traffic. Current pedestrian counts show relatively low pedestrian usage, with only 12 pedestrians counted during the weekday PM peak hour and less than 5 pedestrians counted during the midday and AM peak hours. In addition, no cyclists were counted during any of the peak hours. With the future development of sidewalks and bike lanes along both Tremont Street and Sidney Avenue, it is anticipated that pedestrian and bicycle volumes will increase at the intersection, which could increase the risk of future pedestrian and bicycle collisions. However, it is expected that all alternatives would be able to safely accommodate future anticipated pedestrian and bicycle demand at the study intersection. Recommendation Based on this ICE, all alternatives evaluated at the Tremont Street/SE Lund Avenue /Sidney Avenue intersection would meet the operational standards and accommodate anticipated traffic. The WSDOT ICE process also evaluates other factors including right-of-way, design constraints, context sensitive/sustainable design, implementation/constructability and maintenance. It is recommended that these additional factors be considered in determining the preferred alternative. 13 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study DRAFT Intersection Control Evaluation Tremont Street (SE Lund Avenue)/Sidney Avenue Appendix A: Alternative Concepts September 2025 73 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 I ItT:: CD TREMONT ST _ E is I T - WILLIAM A. VANZEE e/ \ \ MEMORIAL PARK Tremont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 1 74 June 19, 2025 FIGURE ap 1 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study j::I o Gy TREM0NT ST -- - - \ A "• 16 _ WILLIAM A. VANZEE O�% y; Tremont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 1.5 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 24211.00 - Tremont Phase and 3 . �.. 2 75 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 •y 1 a / it- ink � 120 ICD � 53 17.5 � Cp =7REM 57 160 � Y Owl WILLIAM A. VANZEE L MEMORIAL PARK j Tremont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 2 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3 3 76 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study 77 Tremont St & Sidney Ave 1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 78 _________ TREMONT ST kf ti / , V / 4+ 130' MAJOR ICD 100' MINOR ICD 1 � Roundabout Concept - Option 3 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 5 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study aE an.a .oNx. x..o„�'. Tl"" l ii`� < TREMONT ST e.a 'vs., _.. y 1 'la, / 5 •.. 138 L - ___ WILLIAM A. VANZEE MEMORIAL PARK 02 Tremont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 4 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 7.24217.00-TremontTase2antl3 M1 r 6 79 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 80 c IItII ;--- } 60•' Y y y/ rh 120' ICD 1 / _ WILLIAM A. VANZEE / \ \ MEMORIAL PARK / _/ remont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 5 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2and3 Yr.n 7 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study $j L$' !�4!J1L u r a h 4AJ ___: - to atl , TREMONT 5T 7 . --. �� tstl '-- LH / ____ WILLIAM A. VANZEE kW /, ________ L MEMORIAL PARK ARK iL. .. I. Tremont St & Sidney Ave - Roundabout Concept - Option 5,5 June 19, 2025 FIGURE 7.24217.00-TremontTase2antl3 M1 r.v 8 81 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Appendix B: LOS Definitions Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) General Description A s10 Free Flow B >10-20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 — 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 — 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 — 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F1 >80 Forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022, respectively. 1. If the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0 LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group. LOS for overall approach or intersection is determined solely by the control delay. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all -way stop and two-way stop controlled. All -way stop controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach. Two-way stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left -turns. This approach is because major -street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, a weighted average of all movements results in very low overall average delay, and this calculated low delay could mask deficiencies of minor movements. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A 0-10 B >10-15 C >15-25 D >25-35 E >35-50 F1 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022, respectively. 1. If the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections, or minor street approach at two-way stop -controlled intersections. Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Appendix C: LOS and Queuing Worksheets 84 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour - No Actior Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBI BF Lane Configurations ►j tt �r ►j +1 ►j 1. 1, Traffic Volume (veh/h) X85 500 20 70 565 100 35 30 85 75 15 6( Future Volume (veh/h) 85 500 20 70 565 100 35 30 85 75 15 6( Initial Q (Qb), veh 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) J50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.0( Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190( Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 1 568 0 80 I 642 0 40 34 97 85 17 6£ Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.8£ Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 127 1706 109 1669 73 51 145 112 46 18L Arrive On Green 0.07 • 0.47 0.00 0.06 • 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 433 1237 1810 332 132E Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 568 0 80 642 0 40 0 131 85 0 8f Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1670 1810 0 1661 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.1 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.f Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.1 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.f Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.8( Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 1706 109 1669 73 0 196 112 0 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.33 0.74 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.76 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 362 1706 333 1669 217 0 522 333 0 62f HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0( Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 10.3 0.0 28.8 11.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 26.4 28.8 0.0 24. Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.5 0.0 9.2 0.7 0.0 6.4 0.0 3.9 10.1 0.0 1.( Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.( %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.0 4.0 0.0 2.5 4.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.6 2.7 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.5 10.8 0.0 38.1 11.6 0.0 35.8 0.0 30.3 38.9 0.0 25.z LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 665 722 171 170 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 14.6 31.6 32.2 Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 i 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 34.0 8.4 11.8 8.9 33.4 7.0 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 29.5 11.5 19.5 12.5 28.5 7.5 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 .4.9 6.7 5.3 9.3 3.4 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.0 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report 0 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 86 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour - No Action Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL� Lane Configurations ►j TT ►j �, ►j t+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 705 20 105 610 105 15 20 100 120 20 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 705 20 105 610 105 15 20 100 120 20 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 I 727 0 IOR_ 629 0 15 21 103 124 21 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 92 1630 141 1728 33 32 156 161 74 236 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 277 1361 1810 398 1271 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 727 0 108 629 0 15 0 124 124 0 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1638 1810 0 1669 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 9.3 0.0 3.9 7.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 4.5 0.0 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 9.3 0.0 3.9 7.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 4.5 0.0 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.76 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 92 1630 141 1728 33 0 188 161 0 310 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.45 0.76 0.36 0.46 0.00 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 231 1630 335 1728 134 0 449 338 0 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 12.7 0.0 30.5 11.1 0.0 32.8 0.0 28.6 30.1 0.0 23.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.9 0.0 8.3 0.6 0.0 9.6 0.0 3.9 7.5 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 2.1 6.4 0.0 3.6 5.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.7 4.0 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 39.7 13.6 0.0 38.8 11.7 0.0 42.4 0.0 32.5 37.6 0.0 24.1 LnGrp LOS D B D I B D C D- C Approach Vol, veh/h 789 737 139 212 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 • 15.7 33.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 35.0 10.5 12.2 7.9 36.8 5.7 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 28.4 12.6 18.5 8.6 32.3 5.0 26.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.9 11.3 6.5 6.9 4.3 9.4 2.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.7 0.1 0.5 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.8 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour - No Actior Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBI BF Lane Configurations ►j tt ►j TT 1r ►j 1. ' 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 950 45 165 745 90 20 35 165 160 50 14( Future Volume (veh/h) 75 950 45 165 745 90 20 35 165 160 50 14( Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.0( Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8111022 0 177 801 0 22 38 177 172 54 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.9: Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 105 1341 216 1562 44 48 226 211 115 321 Arrive On Green 0.06 • 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.43 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.26 0.2E Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 288 1342 1810 440 1231 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 1022 0 177 801 0 22 0 215 172 0 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1630 1810 0 167, Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 19.9 0.0 7.7 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.1 7.4 0.0 8.: Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 19.9 0.0 7.7 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.1 7.4 0.0 8.; Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.7z Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 105 1341 216 1562 44 0 274 211 0 43E V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.76 0.82 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.78 0.82 0.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 1341 275 1562 120 0 366 271 0 511 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0( Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 22.1 0.0 34.5 16.6 0.0 38.7 0.0 32.0 34.6 0.0 25.( Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 4.1 0.0 14.1 1.2 0.0 8.7 0.0 7.8 13.9 0.0 0.E Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.( %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.3 13.5 0.0 7.4 9.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 7.9 7.2 0.0 5.£ Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.3 26.3 0.0 48.6 17.8 0.0 47.4 0.0 39.8 48.5 0.0 25.E LnGrp LOS D C D B D D D I C Approach Vol, veh/h 1103 978 237 377 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 23.4 40.5 36.1 Approach LOS C C D D Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 34.3 13.8 18.0 9.2 39.2 6.4 25.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.2 29.8 12.0 18.0 9.5 32.5 5.3 24.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 21.9 9.4 12.1 5.5 15.0 3.0 • Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.0 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.5 HCM 7th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Ell Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 88 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour - No Action J -p 1~ t -, T,* \- 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBJ__. SBR Lane Configurations tt r ►j +T ►j I. ►j Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 570 25 80 640 115 40 35 95 85 20 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 95 570 25 80 640 115 40 35 95 85 20 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 570 0 80 640 0 40 I 35 95 85 20 65 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 124 1722 108 1690 72 52 142 111 54 176 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.06 • 0.47 0.00 0.04 10.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 450 1222 1810 393 1277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 570 0 80 640 0 40 0 130 85 0 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1673 1810 0 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.76 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 1722 108 1690 72 0 194 111 0 230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.33 0.74 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.76 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 1722 330 1690 215 0 518 330 0 623 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 10.2 0.0 29.1 10.8 0.0 29.7 0.0 26.7 29.1 0.0 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 0.5 0.0 9.4 0.6 0.0 6.5 0.0 4.0 10.4 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.0 4.0 0.0 2.6 4.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.6 2.8 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 38.1 10.7 0.0 38.6 11.5 0.0 36.2 0.0 30.7 39.5 0.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 665 720 170 170 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 14.5 31.9 32.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 34.6 8.4 11.8 8.8 34.0 7.0 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 14.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 29.5 11.5 19.5 11.5 29.5 7.5 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 8.2 J4.9 6.7 5.3 9.2 3.4 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.1 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour - No Action Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SP' BR Lane Configurations ►j ►j +1 ►j T+ ►j 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 805 25 120 695 120 20 25 115 140 25 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 65 805 25 120 695 120 20 25 115 140 25 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 651 805 0 120 695 0 20 25 115 140 25 70 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 93 1560 156 1686 42 36 167 180 88 247 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.43 0.00 0.09 • 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 293 1349 1810 441 1235 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 805 0 120 695 0 20 0 140 140 0 95 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1642 1810 0 1676 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 11.3 0.0 4.5 8.8 0.0 0.8 • 0.0 5.7 5.3 0.0 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 11.3 0.0 4.5 8.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.7 5.3 0.0 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 0.82 1.00 0.74 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 1560 156 1686 42 0 203 180 0 335 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.52 0.77 0.41 0.48 10.00 0.69 0.78 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 221 1560 325 1686 130 0 436 325 0 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 14.4 0.0 31.1 12.2 0.0 33.6 • 0.0 29.2 30.6 0.0 23.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 1.2 0.0 7.8 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.1 7.1 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 2.3 7.9 0.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.3 4.6 0.0 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 41.6 15.7 0.0 38.9 13.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 33.3 37.7 0.0 24.1 LnGrp LOS D B D B D I C D Approach Vol, veh/h 870 815 160 235 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 16.8 134.4 3 - Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Asned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7= 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 34.6 11.4 13.1 8.1 37.0 6.1 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 28.5 12.5 18.5 8.5 32.5 5.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.5 13.3 7.3 7.7 4.5 10.8 2.8 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 20.2 HCM 7th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report 89 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 90 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour - No Action Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SP' BR Lane Configurations ►j 4t ' ►j +i r' ►j 1. ►j 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 1210 45 165 795 120 20 50 180 210 55 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 1210 45 165 795 120 20 50 180 210 55 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 1 1210 0 165 795 0 20 50 180 210 55 140 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 97 1372 198 1573 40 61 219 240 133 339 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.38 0.00 0.11 0.44 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 3610 1610 1810 357 1285 1810 473 1204 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 1210 0 165 795 0 20 0 230 210 0 195 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1642 1810 0 1677 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 27.1 0.0 7.8 13.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 11.7 9.9 I 0.0 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 27.1 0.0 7.8 13.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 11.7 9.9 0.0 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 • 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 1372 198 1573 40 0 280 240 0 472 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.88 0.83 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.82 0.88 10.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 1372 198 1573 108 0 340 240 0 472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 25.1 0.0 37.9 17.7 0.0 42.0 0.0 34.7 37.0 I 0.0 25.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.9 8.4 0.0 25.2 1.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 12.5 28.4 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.4 18.4 0.0 8.3 9.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 9.4 10.3 0.0 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh A LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 52.5 33.5 0.0 63.0 18.9 0.0 51.4 0.0 47.2 65.3 0.0 26.0 LnGrp LOS D C E B D D E I C Approach Vol, veh/h 1285 960 250 405 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.6 26.5 47.6 46.4 Approach LOS C C D D Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 37.5 16.0 19.3 9.2 42.3 6.4 28.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 33.0 11.5 18.0 9.2 33.3 5.2 24.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 29.1 11.9 13.7 5.6 15.8 2.9 • Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.9 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.7 HCM 7th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [EBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Original Year (2031) AM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL -BF Lane Configurations ►j +T, ►j +t r' ►j 1+ ►j 1, Traffic Volume (veh/h) X85 500 20 70 565 100 35 30 85 75 15 6( Future Volume (veh/h) 85 500 20 70 565 100 35 30 85 75 15 6( Initial Q (Qb), veh 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) J50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.0( Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 1 568 23 80 I 642 0 40 34 97 85 17 6£ Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.8£ Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 127 1671 68 109 1669 73 51 145 112 46 18L Arrive On Green 0.07 • 0.47 0.47 0.06 • 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3536 143 1810 3610 1610 1810 433 1237 1810 332 132E Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 290 301 80 642 0 40 0 131 85 0 8f Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1874 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1670 1810 0 1661 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.3 6.3 2.7 7.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.f Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.3 6.3 2.7 7.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.f Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.8( Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 853 886 109 1669 73 0 196 112 0 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.34 0.34 0.74 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.76 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 362 853 886 333 1669 217 0 522 333 0 62f HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0( Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 10.3 10.3 28.8 11.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 26.4 28.8 0.0 24. Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 1.1 1.0 9.2 0.7 0.0 6.4 0.0 3.9 10.1 0.0 1.( Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 OF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.( %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.0 4.4 4.5 2.5 4.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.6 2.7 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh L. LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.5 11.4 11.4 38.1 11.6 0.0 35.8 0.0 30.3 38.9 0.0 25.z LnGrp LOS D 0 B D B D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 688 722 171 170 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.1 • 14.6 31.6 32.2 Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 i 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 34.0 8.4 11.8 8.9 33.4 7.0 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 29.5 11.5 19.5 12.5 28.5 7.5 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 .4.9 6.7 5.3 9.3 3.4 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.1 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report 91 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 92 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund AveOriginal Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL •R Lane Configurations ►j ,T, ►j TT ►j 1+ ' 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 705 20 105 610 105 15 20 100 120 20 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 705 20 105 610 105 15 20 100 120 20 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 621 727 21 108 - 629 0 15 21 103 124 21 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 i1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 92 1614 47 141 1723 33 32 156 161 74 236 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3583 103 1810 3610 1610 1810 277 1361 1810 398 1271 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 366 382 108 629 0 15 0 124 124 0 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1881 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1638 1810 0 1669 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 9.4 9.4 3.9 7.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 4.5 0.0 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 9.4 9.4 3.9 7.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 4.5 0.0 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.76 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 92 813 847 141 1723 33 0 188 161 0 310 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.45 0.45 0.77 0.36 0.46 0.00 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 234 813 847 320 1723 137 0 451 342 0 648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.4 12.7 12.7 30.4 11.1 0.0 32.7 0.0 28.5 30.0 0.0 23.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 1.8 1.7 8.4 0.6 0.0 9.6 0.0 3.9 7.5 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 2.1 6.8 7.1 3.6 5.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.7 4.0 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 39.5 14.5 14.5 38.8 11.7 0.0 42.2 0.0 32.4 37.5 0.0 24.0 LnGrp LOS B B D B D C D ME C Approach Vol, veh/h 810 737 139 212 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 15.7 33.5 31.9 • Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 34.8 10.5 12.2 7.9 36.6 5.7 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.9 28.9 12.7 18.5 8.7 32.1 5.1 26.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.9 11.4 6.5 6.9 4.3 9.4 2.6 • Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.1 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Original Year (2031) PM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL • SBR Lane Configurations ►j 0 ►j TT 1r ►j 1+ ►j 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 950 45 165 745 90 20 35 165 160 50 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 950 45 165 745 90 20 35 165 160 50 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8111022 48 177 801 0 22 38 177 172 54 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap,veh/h 105 1327 62 215 1585 43 48 224 210 114 319 Arrive On Green 0.06 10.38 0.38 0.12 0.44 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3508 165 1810 3610 1610 1810 288 1342 1810 440 1231 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 526 544 177 801 0 22 0 215 172 0 205 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1868 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1630 1810 0 1672 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 20.9 20.9 7.8 13.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.4 7.6 0.0 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 20.9 20.9 7.8 13.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.4 7.6 0.0 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.74 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 683 707 215 1585 43 0 272 210 0 433 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.79 0.82 0.00 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 210 683 707 254 1585 117 0 358 254 0 494 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 22.3 22.3 35.3 16.6 0.0 39.5 I 0.0 32.7 35.4 0.0 25.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 8.2 7.9 16.9 1.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 8.5 16.1 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Q 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.4 15.1 15.4 7.8 9.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.2 7.6 0.0 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh N. LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.1 30.5 30.3 52.2 17.7 0.0 48.3 0.0 41.2 51.5 0.0 26.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D B I D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1151 978 237 377 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.7 24.0 ' 41.9 I 37.9 Approach LOS C C D D Timer- s ned Phs 1 3 4 5 6 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 35.5 14.0 18.2 9.3 40.5 6.5 25.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 31.0 11.5 18.0 9.5 33.0 5.3 24.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.8 22.9 19.6 12.4 5.6 15.1 3.0 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 1.0 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.7 HCM 7th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report 93 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 94 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SW- SBR Lane Configurations 5 11, ►j +T ►j I+ ►j T Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 570 25 80 640 115 40 35 95 85 20 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 95 570 25 80 640 115 40 35 95 85 20 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 570 25 80 640 0 40 I 35 95 85 20 65 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 124 1681 74 108 1690 72 52 142 111 54 176 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.48 0.48 0.06 • 0.47 0.00 0.04 10.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3523 154 1810 3610 1610 1810 450 1222 1810 393 1277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 292 303 80 640 0 40 0 130 85 0 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1872 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1673 1810 0 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.4 6.4 2.7 7.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.4 6.4 2.7 7.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 2.9 0.0 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.76 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 861 893 108 1690 72 0 194 111 0 230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.34 0.34 0.74 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.76 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 861 893 330 1690 215 0 518 330 0 623 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 10.3 10.3 29.1 10.8 0.0 29.7 0.0 26.7 29.1 0.0 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 1.1 1.0 9.4 0.6 0.0 6.5 0.0 4.0 10.4 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 OF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.0 4.4 4.5 2.6 4.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.6 2.8 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh L. LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 38.1 11.3 11.3 38.6 11.5 0.0 36.2 0.0 30.7 39.5 0.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS D 0 B D B D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 690 720 170 170 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 • 14.5 31.9 32.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 34.6 8.4 11.8 8.8 34.0 7.0 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 14.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 29.5 11.5 19.5 11.5 29.5 7.5 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.7 8.4 J4.9 6.7 5.3 9.2 3.4 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.2 HCM 7th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL -BF Lane Configurations ►j ,T, ►j +1 r' ►i 1+ ►j 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 805 25 120 695 120 20 25 115 140 25 7( Future Volume (veh/h) 65 805 25 120 695 120 20 25 115 140 25 7( Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.0( Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 651 805 25 120 695 0 20 25 115 140 25 7( Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 93 1543 48 156 1684 42 36 167 180 88 247 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.43 0.43 0.09 • 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.2( Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3574 111 1810 3610 1610 1810 293 1349 1810 441 123f Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 407 423 120 695 0 20 0 140 140 0 9f Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1880 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1642 1810 0 167( Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 11.5 11.5 4.5 8.8 0.0 0.8 I 0.0 5.7 5.2 0.0 3.: Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 11.5 11.5 4.5 8.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.7 5.2 0.0 3.; Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 0.82 1.00 0.7z Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 779 811 156 1684 42 0 203 180 0 33f V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.52 0.52 0.77 0.41 0.48 • 0.00 0.69 0.78 0.00 0.2E Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 224 779 811 326 1684 133 0 437 326 0 62f HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0( Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 14.5 14.5 31.1 12.2 0.0 33.5 I 0.0 29.2 30.5 0.0 23.E Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 2.5 2.4 7.8 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.1 7.1 0.0 0.f Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.( %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 2.3 8.4 8.6 4.0 6.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.3 4.6 0.0 2.z Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 41.5 17.0 16.9 38.8 13.0 0.0 41.8 0.0 33.3 37.7 0.0 24.( LnGrp LOS D B B D B D I C D I C Approach Vol, veh/h 895 815 160 235 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 16.8 • 34.3 32.2 • Approach LOS B B C C Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 34.5 11.4 13.1 8.1 36.9 6.1 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 28.5 12.5 18.5 8.6 32.4 5.1 25.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 13.5 7.2 7.7 4.5 10.8 2.8 5.3 • Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.7 0.1 0.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.4 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 20.7 HCM 7th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report 95 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 96 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 1: Sidney Ave & Tremont St/SE Lund Ave Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour - Alternative 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL • SBR Lane Configurations ►j 11 ►j +1 r' ►j 1+ ►j 11 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 1210 45 165 795 120 20 50 180 210 55 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 1210 45 165 795 120 20 50 180 210 55 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No s No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 1 1210 45 165 795 0 20 50 180 210 55 140 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 97 1336 50 198 1561 40 61 219 245 135 342 Arrive On Green 0.05 • 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.43 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3547 132 1810 3610 1610 1810 357 1285 1810 473 1204 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 615 640 165 795 0 20 0 230 210 0 195 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1805 1874 1810 1805 1610 1810 0 1642 1810 0 1677 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 28.0 28.0 7.8 13.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 11.7 9.8 0.0 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 28.0 28.0 7.8 13.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 11.7 9.8 0.0 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 • 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 680 706 198 1561 40 0 280 245 0 477 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.90 0.91 0.83 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.82 0.86 10.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 190 680 706 198 1561 108 0 340 246 0 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 25.6 25.6 37.9 17.9 0.0 42.0 0.0 34.7 36.7 I 0.0 25.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.0 17.8 17.4 25.1 1.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 12.5 24.3 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 10.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.4 21.0 21.6 8.3 9.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 9.4 9.9 0.0 5.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 52.5 43.4 43.0 63.0 19.1 0.0 51.4 0.0 47.2 61.0 0.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS D D D E B D D E I C Approach Vol, veh/h 1330 960 250 405 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 26.7 47.5 144.0 Approach LOS D C D D Timer- s ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 37.2 16.3 19.3 9.2 42.0 6.4 29.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 32.7 11.8 18.0 9.1 33.1 5.2 24.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 30.0 11.8 13.7 5.6 15.9 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.9 Intersection ummary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.5 HCM 7th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study SITE LAYOUT 7 Site: I [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternatve 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. N 1N SE Lund 80 -�«L -104 V1 104 Q�� r 80 Tremont St ___________ V u) SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Thursday, July 17,20253:20:03 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Ave 97 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 SITE LAYOUT V Site: 1 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. 1N • �� SE Lund 80 O1 104- �— X104 80 — / Tremont St — i on SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:20:05 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Ave Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Outout produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternatve 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave • , 3 L2 All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.215 11.9 LOS B 0.8 19.3 0.51 0.70 0.51 33.8 8 Ti All MCs 34 0.0 34 0.0 0.215 6.3 LOSA 0.8 19.3 0.51 0.70 0.51 34.5 18 R2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.215 6.4 LOS A 0.8 19.3 0.51 0.70 0.51 34.1 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.215 7.7 LOS A 0.8 19.3 0.51 0.70 0.51 34.1 East: SE Lund Ave wr- .4 -9 1 L2 All MCs 80 0.0 80 0.0 0.312 10.5 LOS B 1.7 43.7 0.36 0.49 0.36 34.2 6 Ti All MCs 642 0.0 642 0.0 0.312 4.8 LOSA 1.8 44.4 0.35 0.47 0.35 35.2 16 R2 All MCs 114 0.0 114 0.0 0.312 4.7 LOS A 1.8 44.4 0.35 0.45 0.35 35.1 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.312 5.3 LOS A 1.8 44.4 0.35 0.47 0.35 35.1 North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.221 12.1 LOS B 0.8 20.5 0.53 0.74 0.53 33.1 4 Ti All MCs 17 0.0 17 0.0 0.221 6.5 LOSA 0.8 20.5 0.53 0.74 0.53 33.7 14 R2 All MCs 68 0.0 68 0.0 0.221 6.6 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.53 0.74 0.53 33.4 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.221 9.3 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.53 0.74 0.53 33.3 West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.260 10.5 LOS B 1.4 35.4 0.36 0.52 0.36 34.0 2 Ti All MCs 568 0.0 568 0.0 0.260 4.8 LOSA 1.4 36.0 0.36 0.47 0.36 35.1 12 R2 All MCs 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.260 4.7 LOS A 1.4 36.0 0.35 0.44 0.35 35.1 Mppluuuri 00, V.V 001 V.V V.LOV no LVJM I.4 OO.V V.00 V.4O U.O0 J4.D All Vehicles 1864 0.0 1864 0.0 0.312 6.0 LOS A 1.8 44.4 0.39 0.52 0.39 34.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:06 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 99 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Outout produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 15 0.0 15 0.0 0.192 12.2 LOS B 0.7 17.5 0.56 0.72 0.56 34.0 8 Ti All MCs 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.192 6.7 LOSA 0.7 17.5 0.56 0.72 0.56 34.6 18 R2 All MCs 103 0.0 103 0.0 0.192 6.7 LOS A 0.7 17.5 0.56 0.72 0.56 34.3 Approach ast: SE Lund Ave 1 L2 All MCs 139 0.0 108 0.0 139 0.0 EW 108 0.0 0.192 A 0.301 7.3 10.2 LOS A 0.7 LOS B 1.7 17.5 42.7 0.56 0.27 0.72 0.48 0.56 0.27 34.3 34.3 6 Ti All MCs 629 0.0 629 0.0 0.301 4.5 LOSA 1.7 43.2 0.27 0.45 0.27 35.4 16 R2 All MCs 108 0.0 108 0.0 0.301 4.4 LOS A 1.7 43.2 0.26 0.42 0.26 35.4 Approach North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 845 0.0 124 0.0 845 0.0 124 0.0 0.301 0.269 5.2 12.1 LOS A LOS B 1.7 1.0 43.2 25.0 0.27 0.53 0.45 0.75 0.27 0.53 35.2 32.9 4 Ti All MCs 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.269 6.6 LOSA 1.0 25.0 0.53 0.75 0.53 33.5 14 R2 All MCs 67 0.0 67 0.0 0.269 6.6 LOS A 1.0 25.0 0.53 0.75 0.53 33.2 Approach West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 211 0.0 62 0.0 211 0.0 62 0.0 0.269 0.322 9.8 10.9 LOS A LOS B 1.0 1.9 25.0 46.4 0.53 0.45 0.75 0.52 0.53 0.45 33.0 34.0 2 Ti All MCs 727 0.0 727 0.0 0.322 5.2 LOSA 1.9 47.6 0.44 0.50 0.44 34.9 12 R2 All MCs 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.322 5.1 LOS A 1.9 47.6 0.44 0.48 0.44 34.8 Mppiuuull oUS V.V ovu V.V V.JLL 0.0 LVJM 1.5 4r.0 V.44 V.OU U.44 J4.0 All Vehicles 2005 0.0 2005 0.0 0.322 6.0 LOS A 1.9 47.6 0.39 0.52 0.39 34.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:05 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 100 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Outout produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave • 1 3 L2 All MCs 22 0.0 22 0.0 0.416 14.3 LOS B 2.0 49.2 0.73 0.88 0.83 33.0 8 Ti All MCs 38 0.0 38 0.0 0.416 8.7 LOSA 2.0 49.2 0.73 0.88 0.83 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 177 0.0 177 0.0 0.416 8.8 LOS A 2.0 49.2 0.73 0.88 0.83 33.4 Approach 237 0.0 237 0.0 0.416 9.3 LOS A 2.0 49.2 0.73 0.88 0.83 33.4 East: SE Lund Ave L 1 L2 All MCs 177 0.0 177 0.0 0.397 10.4 LOS B 2.6 63.8 0.37 0.52 0.37 33.9 6 Ti All MCs 801 0.0 801 0.0 0.397 4.7 LOSA 2.6 64.8 0.37 0.47 0.37 35.0 16 R2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.397 4.7 LOS A 2.6 64.8 0.36 0.44 0.36 35.1 Approach 1075 0.0 1075 0.0 0.397 5.7 LOS A 2.6 64.8 0.37 0.48 0.37 34.8 North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 172 0.0 172 0.0 0.542 14.5 LOS B 2.8 70.6 0.70 0.90 0.87 32.1 4 Ti All MCs 54 0.0 54 0.0 0.542 8.9 LOSA 2.8 70.6 0.70 0.90 0.87 32.7 14 R2 All MCs 151 0.0 151 0.0 0.542 9.0 LOS A 2.8 70.6 0.70 0.90 0.87 32.4 Approach 376 0.0 376 0.0 0.542 11.5 LOS B 2.8 70.6 0.70 0.90 0.87 32.3 West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 81 0.0 81 0.0 0.513 12.4 LOS B 3.7 93.0 0.67 0.63 0.69 33.4 2 Ti All MCs 1022 0.0 1022 0.0 0.513 6.4 LOSA 3.8 93.8 0.66 0.61 0.67 34.2 12 R2 All MCs 48 0.0 48 0.0 0.513 6.1 LOS A 3.8 93.8 0.65 0.59 0.65 34.1 Approach 1151 0.0 1151 0.0 0.513 6.8 LOS A 3.8 93.8 0.66 0.61 0.67 34.1 All Vehicles 2839 0.0 2839 0.0 0.542 7.2 LOSA.8 93.8 0.56 0.62 0.60 34.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:05 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 101 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Outout produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave • A 3 L2 All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.186 11.4 LOS B 0.7 16.6 0.49 0.67 0.49 33.9 8 Ti All MCs 35 0.0 35 0.0 0.186 5.9 LOSA 0.7 16.6 0.49 0.67 0.49 34.6 18 R2 All MCs 95 0.0 95 0.0 0.186 5.9 LOS A 0.7 16.6 0.49 0.67 0.49 34.2 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.186 7.2 LOS A 0.7 16.6 0.49 0.67 0.49 34.2 East: SE Lund Ave 1 L2 All MCs 80 0.0 80 0.0 0.288 10.4 LOS B 1.6 39.4 0.34 0.49 0.34 34.2 6 Ti All MCs 640 0.0 640 0.0 0.288 4.7 LOSA 1.6 40.4 0.33 0.46 0.33 35.2 16 R2 All MCs 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.288 4.6 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.32 0.44 0.32 35.2 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.288 5.2 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.33 0.46 0.33 35.1 North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.189 11.6 LOS B 0.7 17.6 0.51 0.72 0.51 33.3 4 Ti All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.189 6.0 LOSA 0.7 17.6 0.51 0.72 0.51 33.9 14 R2 All MCs 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.189 6.1 LOS A 0.7 17.6 0.51 0.72 0.51 33.6 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.189 8.8 LOS A 0.7 17.6 0.51 0.72 0.51 33.5 West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 95 0.0 95 0.0 0.241 10.4 LOS B 1.3 32.3 0.35 0.52 0.35 34.0 2 Ti All MCs 570 0.0 570 0.0 0.241 4.7 LOSA 1.3 33.3 0.34 0.47 0.34 35.1 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.241 4.6 LOS A 1.3 33.3 0.33 0.43 0.33 35.1 Approach 690 0.0 690 0.0 0.241 5.5 LOS A 1.3 33.3 0.34 0.47 0.34 35.0 All Vehicles 1865 0.0 1865 0.0 0.288 5.8 LOS A 1.6 40.4 0.37 0.51 0.37 34.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:08 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 102 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont SUSidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.198 12.0 LOS B 0.8 19.0 0.57 0.72 0.57 33.9 8 Ti All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.198 6.4 LOSA 0.8 19.0 0.57 0.72 0.57 34.6 18 R2 All MCs 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.198 6.5 LOS A 0.8 19.0 0.57 0.72 0.57 34.3 Approach 160 0.0 160 0.0 0.198 7.1 LOS A 0.8 19.0 0.57 0.72 0.57 34.3 East: SE Lund Ave ; _____ 1 L2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.311 10.2 LOS B 1.8 44.7 0.29 0.49 0.29 34.2 6 Ti All MCs 695 0.0 695 0.0 0.311 4.5 LOSA 1.8 45.5 0.28 0.45 0.28 35.3 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.311 4.4 LOS A 1.8 45.5 0.27 0.42 0.27 35.4 Approach 935 0.0 935 0.0 0.311 5.2 LOS A 1.8 45.5 0.28 0.45 0.28 35.2 North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.267 11.8 LOS B 1.0 25.4 0.54 0.75 0.54 32.9 4 Ti All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.267 6.3 LOSA 1.0 25.4 0.54 0.75 0.54 33.6 14 R2 All MCs 70 0.0 70 0.0 0.267 6.3 LOS A 1.0 25.4 0.54 0.75 0.54 33.3 Approach 235 0.0 235 0.0 0.267 9.6 LOS A 1.0 25.4 0.54 0.75 0.54 33.1 West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.333 11.0 LOS B 2.0 49.3 0.48 0.53 0.48 34.0 2 Ti All MCs 805 0.0 805 0.0 0.333 5.2 LOSA 2.1 51.5 0.46 0.50 0.46 34.8 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.333 5.0 LOS A 2.1 51.5 0.45 0.48 0.45 34.7 Approach All \/oL.inlcc 895 0.0 9999 n n 895 0.0 9995 n n 0.333 n III 5.6 a n LOS A I nQ A 2.1 9 1 51.5 51 5 0.46 n An 0.51 n 59 0.46 n An 34.8 9A 7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:08 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 103 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY ' Site: 1 [Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 2)] Outout produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Tremont St/Sidney Ave RAB Alternative 2 Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs � 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.419 14.2 LOS B 2.1 52.9 A 0.77 0.89 0.88 33.1 8 Ti All MCs 50 0.0 50 0.0 0.419 8.7 LOSA 2.1 52.9 0.77 0.89 0.88 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 180 0.0 180 0.0 0.419 8.7 LOS A 2.1 52.9 0.77 0.89 0.88 33.4 Approach ast: SE Lund Ave 1 L2 All MCs 250 0.0 165 0.0 250 0.0 165 0.0 0.419 9.2 0.369 10.4 LOS A LOS B 2.1 2.3 52.9 57.6 0.77 0.36 0.89 0.51 0.88 0.36 33.5 33.9 6 Ti All MCs 795 0.0 795 0.0 0.369 4.7 LOSA 2.4 59.1 0.35 0.47 0.35 35.1 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.369 4.6 LOS A 2.4 59.1 0.34 0.43 0.34 35.1 Approach North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 1080 0.0 1080 0.0 210 0.0 210 0.0 0.369 0.493 5.5 13.3 LOS A LOS B 2.4 2.5 59.1 62.5 0.35 0.66 0.47 0.86 0.35 0.79 34.9 32.5 4 Ti All MCs 55 0.0 55 0.0 0.493 7.7 LOSA 2.5 62.5 0.66 0.86 0.79 33.1 14 R2 All MCs 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.493 7.8 LOS A 2.5 62.5 0.66 0.86 0.79 32.8 Approach West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 405 0.0 75 0.0 405 0.0 75 0.0 0.493 0.551 10.6 12.8 LOS B LOS B 2.5 4.4 62.5 110.6 0.66 0.71 0.86 0.66 0.79 0.75 32.7 33.3 2 Ti All MCs 1210 0.0 1210 0.0 0.551 6.6 LOSA 4.5 111.7 0.69 0.63 0.72 34.1 12 R2 All MCs 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.551 6.2 LOS A 4.5 111.7 0.68 0.61 0.69 34.0 Approach 1330 0.0 1330 0.0 0.551 6.9 LOS A 4.5 111.7 0.69 0.63 0.72 34.1 All Vehicles 3065 0.0 3065 0.0 0.551 7.1 LOS A 4.5 111.7 0.57 0.62 0.61 34.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:16:07 PM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 104 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study NETWORK LAYOUT M Network: N101 [Opening Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. 1N in SE Lu Tremont St T s ca C10 - - - - - - at.. -u4 ®mien- - - - - Tremont St Tremont St r ur SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name V101 NA Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour @lot NA Opening Year (2031)AM Peak Hour SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:11:36 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 nd Ave 105 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 106 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 NETWORK LAYOUT M Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. 1N in SE Lu Tremont St T s ca - at. EB<®miea- - - - - - Tremont St Tremont St r ur SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name V101 NA Design Year(2044)AM Peak Hour Sto1 NA Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:13:17 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 nd Ave Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] •O Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 722 0.0 722 0.0 0.323 5.3 LOSA 1.9 47.1 0.37 0.47 0.37 32.6 16 R2 All MCs 114 0.0 114 0.0 0.323 5.0 LOSA 1.9 47.1 0.36 0.47 0.36 34.8 1 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.323 5.2 LOS A 1.9 47.1 0.37 0.47 0.37 33.1 North: Sidney Ave iM 7 L2 All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.225 11.8 LOS B 0.8 20.4 0.53 0.76 0.53 33.0 14 R2 All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.225 6.9 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.53 0.76 0.53 30.3 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.225 9.3 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.53 0.76 0.53 32.0 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.305 9.5 LOSA 1.9 47.7 0.28 0.53 0.28 18.4 5 L2 All MCs 131 0.0 131 0.0 0.305 7.3 LOS A 1.9 47.7 0.28 0.53 0.28 32.1 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.305 2.6 LOS A 1.9 48.3 0.28 0.43 0.28 34.3 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.305 3.7 LOS A 1.9 48.3 0.28 0.45 0.28 33.7 All Vehicles 1841 0.0 1841 0.0 0.323 4.9 LOS A 19 48.3 0.34 0.49 0.34 33.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:11:42 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 107 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 108 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] •° Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) South: Sidney Ave 18 R2 All MCs 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.250 11.8 LOS B 1.3 32.4 0.57 0.87 0.57 29.1 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.250 11.8 LOS B 1.3 32.4 0.57 0.87 0.57 29.1 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.105 5.5 LOS A 0.4 10.6 0.54 0.72 0.54 30.9 Approach 847 0.0 847 0.0 0.197 0.6 NA 0.4 10.6 0.06 0.08 0.06 38.6 West: Tremont St Ah 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.182 0.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.7 12 R2 All MCs 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.182 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 37.6 Approach 688 0.0 688 0.0 0.182 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.5 All Vehicles 1705 0.0 1705 0.0 0.250 1.6 NA 1.3 32.4 0.09 0.14 0.09 37.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:11:42 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour - Alt 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.8 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +'. ►j ++ r Traffic Vol, veh/h 585 20 85 660 0 150 Future Vol, veh/h 585 20 85 660 0 150 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 665 23 97 750 0 170 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 688 0 - 344 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 916 - 0 658 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 916 - - 658 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 1.07 12.37 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 658 - - 916 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.259 - - 0.105 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 12.4 - - 9.4 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.4 - Transpo Synchro 12 Report 109 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 110 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] tH Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 737 0.0 737 0.0 0.310 4.9 LOSA 1.8 46.0 0.28 0.44 0.28 33.1 16 R2 All MCs 108 0.0 108 0.0 0.310 4.7 LOS A 1.8 46.0 0.28 0.44 0.28 35.0 Approach 845 0.0 845 0.0 0.310 4.9 LOS A 1.8 46.0 0.28 0.44 0.28 33.5 North: Sidney Ave A& 7 L2 All MCs 124 0.0 124 0.0 0.274 11.8 LOS B 1.0 24.9 0.53 0.76 0.53 32.8 14 R2 All MCs 88 0.0 88 0.0 0.274 6.9 LOS A 1.0 24.9 0.53 0.76 0.53 30.0 Approach 211 0.0 211 0.0 0.274 9.8 LOS A 1.0 24.9 0.53 0.76 0.53 32.0 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 15 0.0 15 0.0 0.350 9.7 LOSA 2.3 56.7 0.36 0.48 0.36 19.0 5 L2 All MCs 82 0.0 82 0.0 0.350 7.5 LOS A 2.3 56.7 0.36 0.48 0.36 32.6 2 Ti All MCs 830 0.0 830 0.0 0.350 2.8 LOS A 2.3 57.5 0.35 0.44 0.35 34.3 Approach 928 0.0 928 0.0 0.350 3.3 LOS A 2.3 57.5 0.35 0.44 0.35 34.1 All Vehicles 1985 0.0 1985 0.0 0.350 4.7 LOSA 2.3 57.5 0.34 0.47 0.34 33.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:17:11 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) H Network: N101 [Opening Year (2031 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] South: Sidney Ave 18 R2 All MCs 139 0.0 139 0.0 0.224 12.5 LOS B 1.1 27.6 0.60 0.89 0.60 28.6 Approach 139 0.0 139 0.0 0.224 12.5 LOS B 1.1 27.6 0.60 0.89 0.60 28.6 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 129 0.0 129 0.0 0.156 6.2 LOS A 0.6 15.8 0.58 0.76 0.58 30.4 Approach 840 0.0 840 0.0 0.187 1.0 NA 0.6 15.8 0.09 0.12 0.09 38.1 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 789 0.0 789 0.0 0.214 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.7 12 R2 All MCs 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.214 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 37.7 Approach 809 0.0 809 0.0 0.214 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.6 All Vehicles 1789 0.0 1789 0.0 0.224 1.5 NA 1.1 27.6 0.09 0.13 0.09 37.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:17:11 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 111 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 112 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour - Alt 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +I. ►j ++ r Traffic Vol, veh/h 765 20 125 690 0 135 Future Vol, veh/h 765 20 125 690 0 135 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 789 21 129 711 0 139 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 809 0 - 405 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 825 - 0 601 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 825 - - 601 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 1.56 12.78 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 601 - - 825 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 - - 0.156 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 12.8 - - 10.2 - HCM Lane LOS B - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.6 - Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] I ° Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 978 0.0 978 0.0 0.410 5.2 LOSA 2.8 70.8 0.39 0.46 0.39 32.5 16 R2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.410 5.0 LOSA 2.8 70.8 0.39 0.46 0.39 34.7 1 Approach 1075 0.0 1075 0.0 0.410 5.2 LOS A 2.8 70.8 0.39 0.46 0.39 32.8 North: Sidney Ave a 7 L2 All MCs 172 0.0 172 0.0 0.554 14.3 LOS B 2.9 71.8 0.70 0.92 0.88 31.9 14 R2 All MCs 204 0.0 204 0.0 0.554 9.3 LOS A 2.9 71.8 0.70 0.92 0.88 28.6 Approach 376 0.0 376 0.0 0.554 11.6 LOS B 2.9 71.8 0.70 0.92 0.88 30.6 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 22 0.0 22 0.0 0.529 10.2 LOS B 4.3 108.0 0.53 0.52 0.53 17.7 5 L2 All MCs 118 0.0 118 0.0 0.529 8.1 LOS A 4.3 108.0 0.53 0.52 0.53 32.1 2 Ti All MCs 1199 0.0 1199 0.0 0.529 3.3 LOS A 4.4 110.1 0.52 0.49 0.52 33.7 Approach 1339 0.0 1339 0.0 0.529 3.8 LOS A 4.4 110.1 0.52 0.49 0.52 33.5 All Vehicles 2790 0.0 2790 0.0 0.554 5.4 LOSA 4.4 110.1 0.50 0.54 0.52 32.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Friday, July 18, 2025 10:57:03AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 113 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 114 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] .0 Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) South: Sidney Ave 18 R2 All MCs 237 0.0 237 0.0 0.501 18.3 LOS C 3.4 86.1 0.77 1.06 1.14 25.1 Approach 237 0.0 237 0.0 0.501 18.3 LOS C 3.4 86.1 0.77 1.06 1.14 25.1 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 231 0.0 231 0.0 0.376 9.8 LOS A 1.9 46.6 0.73 0.94 0.95 27.9 Approach 1204 0.0 1204 0.0 0.376 1.9 NA 1.9 46.6 0.14 0.18 0.18 36.8 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 1102 0.0 1102 0.0 0.324 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.5 12 R2 All MCs 48 0.0 48 0.0 0.324 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 37.5 Approach 1151 0.0 1151 0.0 0.324 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 39.4 All Vehicles 2591 0.0 2591 0.0 0.501 2.7 NA 3.4 86.1 0.13 0.19 0.19 36.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Friday, July 18, 2025 10:57:03AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffc Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour - Alt Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +'. ►j 14 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1025 45 215 905 0 220 Future Vol, veh/h 1025 45 215 905 0 220 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1102 48 231 973 0 237 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1151 0 - 575 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 615 - 0 466 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 615 - - 466 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 2.75 20.42 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 466 - - 615 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.508 - - 0.376 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 20.4 - - 14.3 - HCM Lane LOS C - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 - - 1.7 - Transpo Synchro 12 Reporl 115 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 116 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)1 East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 720 0.0 720 0.0 0.297 5.1 LOSA 1.7 42.9 0.35 0.46 0.35 32.7 16 R2 All MCs 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.297 4.9 LOS A 1.7 42.9 0.34 0.47 0.34 34.8 1 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.297 5.1 LOS A 1.7 42.9 0.35 0.46 0.35 33.2 North: Sidney Ave r Jk 7 L2 All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.188 11.3 LOS B 0.7 16.9 0.50 0.73 0.50 33.2 14 R2 All MCs 80 0.0 80 0.0 0.188 6.4 LOS A 0.7 16.9 0.50 0.73 0.50 30.6 Approach 165 0.0 165 0.0 0.188 8.9 LOS A 0.7 16.9 0.50 0.73 0.50 32.3 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.282 9.4 LOSA 1.7 43.1 0.27 0.53 0.27 18.4 5 L2 All MCs 130 0.0 130 0.0 0.282 7.3 LOS A 1.7 43.1 0.27 0.53 0.27 32.1 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.282 2.5 LOS A 1.8 44.0 0.26 0.43 0.26 34.4 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.282 3.6 LOS A 1.8 44.0 0.26 0.45 0.26 33.8 All Vehicles 1835 0.0 1835 0.0 0.297 4.8 LOS A 18 44.0 0.32 0.48 0.32 33.3 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:13:29AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)1 South: Sidney Ave 18 R2 All MCs 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.249 11.8 LOS B 1.3 32.2 0.57 0.87 0.57 29.1 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.249 11.8 LOS B 1.3 32.2 0.57 0.87 0.57 29.1 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 100 0.0 100 0.0 0.109 5.6 LOS A 0.4 11.0 0.54 0.72 0.54 30.9 Approach 840 0.0 840 0.0 0.195 0.7 NA 0.4 11.0 0.06 0.09 0.06 38.6 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.183 0.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.6 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.183 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 37.6 Approach 690 0.0 690 0.0 0.183 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.5 All Vehicles 1700 0.0 1700 0.0 0.249 1.6 NA 1.3 32.2 0.09 0.14 0.09 37.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:13:29AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 117 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 118 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour - Alt 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.8 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +'. ►j ++ r Traffic Vol, veh/h 665 25 100 740 0 170 Future Vol, veh/h 665 25 100 740 0 170 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 665 25 100 740 0 170 J Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 690 0 - 345 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 914 - 0 657 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 914 - - 657 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 1.12 12.38 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 657 - - 914 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.259 - - 0.109 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 12.4 - - 9.4 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.4 - Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout too Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 815 0.0 815 0.0 0.321 4.9 LOSA 2.0 49.1 0.30 0.44 0.30 33.0 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.321 4.7 LOS A 2.0 49.1 0.29 0.44 0.29 35.0 1 Approach 935 0.0 935 0.0 0.321 4.9 LOS A 2.0 49.1 0.29 0.44 0.29 33.4 North: Sidney Ave 7 L2 All MCs 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.272 11.6 LOS B 1.0 25.5 0.53 0.76 0.53 32.9 14 R2 All MCs 95 0.0 95 0.0 0.272 6.6 LOS A 1.0 25.5 0.53 0.76 0.53 30.2 Approach 235 0.0 235 0.0 0.272 9.6 LOS A 1.0 25.5 0.53 0.76 0.53 32.1 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.363 9.7 LOSA 2.4 60.1 0.38 0.49 0.38 18.8 5 L2 All MCs 90 0.0 90 0.0 0.363 7.6 LOS A 2.4 60.1 0.38 0.49 0.38 32.5 2 Ti All MCs 920 0.0 920 0.0 0.363 2.8 LOS A 2.5 61.7 0.37 0.44 0.37 34.2 Approach 1030 0.0 1030 0.0 0.363 3.4 LOS A 2.5 61.7 0.37 0.45 0.37 34.0 All Vehicles 2200 0.0 2200 0.0 0.363 4.7 LOSA 2.5 61.7 0.35 0.48 0.35 33.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:17:22AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 119 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 120 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) South: Sidney Ave III 0 Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)] Approach 160 0.0 160 0.0 0.272 13.3 LOS B 1.4 34.8 0.64 0.91 0.65 28.1 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 145 0.0 145 0.0 0.189 6.7 LOS A 0.8 19.2 0.61 0.79 0.61 30.0 Approach 930 0.0 930 0.0 0.207 1.1 NA 0.8 19.2 0.10 0.12 0.10 38.0 West: Tremont St k 2 Ti All MCs 870 0.0 870 0.0 0.237 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.7 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.237 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 37.7 Approach 895 0.0 895 0.0 0.237 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.6 All Vehicles 1985 0.0 1985 0.0 0.272 1.7 NA 1.4 34.8 0.10 0.14 0.10 37.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:17:22 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour - Alt Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +'. ►j +1 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 870 25 145 785 0 160 Future Vol, veh/h 870 25 145 785 0 160 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 870 25 145 785 0 160 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 895 0 - 448 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 767 - 0 564 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 767 - - 564 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 1.68 13.89 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 564 - - 767 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.284 - - 0.189 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 13.9 - - 10.8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 0.7 - Transpo Synchro 12 Reporl 121 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 122 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)1 East: SE Lund Ave 6 Ti All MCs 960 0.0 960 0.0 0.383 5.1 LOSA 2.7 66.5 0.38 0.46 0.38 32.5 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.383 4.9 LOS A 2.7 66.5 0.38 0.46 0.38 34.7 Approach 1080 0.0 1080 0.0 0.383 5.1 LOS A 2.7 66.5 0.38 0.46 0.38 32.9 North: Sidney Ave is 7 L2 All MCs 210 0.0 210 0.0 0.505 13.0 LOS B 2.6 63.9 0.66 0.87 0.79 32.4 14 R2 All MCs 195 0.0 195 0.0 0.505 8.1 LOS A 2.6 63.9 0.66 0.87 0.79 29.3 Approach 405 0.0 405 0.0 0.505 10.7 LOS B 2.6 63.9 0.66 0.87 0.79 31.3 West: Tremont St 5u U All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.574 10.4 LOS B 4.9 122.3 0.59 0.55 0.59 17.4 5 L2 All MCs 125 0.0 125 0.0 0.574 8.3 LOS A 4.9 122.3 0.59 0.55 0.59 32.0 2 Ti All MCs 1390 0.0 1390 0.0 0.574 3.4 LOS A 5.1 126.7 0.58 0.51 0.58 33.6 Approach 1535 0.0 1535 0.0 0.574 3.9 LOS A 5.1 126.7 0.58 0.52 0.58 33.4 All Vehicles 3020 0.0 3020 0.0 0.574 5.2 LOS A 5.1 126.7 0.52 0.54 0.54 32.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Friday, July 18, 2025 10:57:08AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 3)1 South: Sidney Ave 18 R2 All MCs 250 0.0 250 0.0 0.638 23.1 LOS C 4.6 116.2 0.84 1.17 1.49 22.7 Approach 250 0.0 250 0.0 0.638 23.1 LOS C 4.6 116.2 0.84 1.17 1.49 22.7 East: Tremont St 1 L2 All MCs 220 0.0 220 0.0 0.419 11.7 LOS B 2.1 51.5 0.78 0.98 1.07 26.7 Approach 1175 0.0 1175 0.0 0.419 2.2 NA 2.1 51.5 0.15 0.18 0.20 36.5 West: Tremont St L 2 Ti All MCs 1285 0.0 1285 0.0 0.391 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.5 12 R2 All MCs 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.391 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 37.5 Approach 1330 0.0 1330 0.0 0.391 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.4 All Vehicles 2755 0.0 2755 0.0 0.638 3.2 NA 4.6 116.2 0.14 0.20 0.22 35.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Friday, July 18, 2025 10:57:08AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 -Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffc Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 123 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 124 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: Sidney Ave & Tremont St Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour - Alt 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +'. ►j ++ r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1285 45 220 955 0 250 Future Vol, veh/h 1285 45 220 955 0 250 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 100 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1285 45 220 955 0 250 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1330 0 - 665 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 526 - 0 407 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - 526 - - 407 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 3.13 26.9 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 407 - - 526 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.614 - - 0.419 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 26.9 - - 16.7 - HCM Lane LOS D - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4 - - 2 - Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study NETWORK LAYOUT M Network: N101 [Opening Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. 1N Trei N SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name V102 NA Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright @2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:18 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 125 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 126 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 NETWORK LAYOUT M Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. 1N Trei SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name V102 NA Design Year(2044)AM Peak Hour X101 NA Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright @2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1 PC I Created: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:22 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] •O Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.228 11.6 LOS B 0.8 19.6 0.51 0.74 0.51 33.4 18 R2 All MCs 131 0.0 131 0.0 0.228 7.2 LOS A 0.8 19.6 0.51 0.74 0.51 31.0 1 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.228 8.2 LOS A 0.8 19.6 0.51 0.74 0.51 31.9 East: SE Lund Ave T - I 1 u U All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.309 9.0 LOSA 2.0 50.6 0.19 0.54 0.19 18.8 1 L2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.309 7.1 LOS A 2.0 50.6 0.19 0.54 0.19 32.4 Approach 892 0.0 892 0.0 0.309 3.3 LOS A 2.0 51.1 0.19 0.43 0.19 34.1 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.262 5.3 LOS A 1.4 35.3 0.35 0.47 0.35 32.6 12 R2 All MCs 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.262 4.9 LOS A 1.4 35.3 0.34 0.47 0.34 34.8 Approach 688 0.0 687 0.0 0.262 5.3 LOS A 1.4 35.3 0.35 0.47 0.35 32.7 All Vehicles 1750 0.0 1750 0.0 0.309 4.6 LOS A 2.0 51.1 0.28 0.48 0.28 33.3 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:00AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 127 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 128 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] 0a Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 722 0.0 722 0.0 0.225 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 39.0 16 R2 All MCs 114 0.0 114 0.0 0.225 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 0.00 36.8 1 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.225 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 0.00 38.4 North: Sidney Ave Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.241 11.4 LOS B 1.3 31.4 0.55 0.86 0.55 29.3 West: Tremont St A 5 L2 All MCs 131 0.0 131 0.0 0.162 6.1 LOS A 0.7 16.4 0.59 0.77 0.59 30.4 2 Ti All MCs 750 0.0 750 0.0 0.316 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9 Approach 881 0.0 881 0.0 0.316 0.9 NA 0.7 16.4 0.09 0.11 0.09 38.1 All Vehicles 1886 0.0 1886 0.0 0.316 1.8 NA 1.3 31.4 0.09 0.17 0.09 37.3 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:00AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) AM Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.9 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) ++ fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 660 635 100 0 150 Future Vol, veh/h 115 660 635 100 0 150 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 131 750 722 114 0 170 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 835 0 - 0 - 418 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 807 - - - 0 590 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 807 - - - - 590 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.53 0 13.57 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 807 - - - 590 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.162 - - - 0.289 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.3 - - - 13.6 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - - 1.2 Transpo Synchro 12 Report 129 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 130 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] tH Network: N101 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 15 0.0 15 0.0 0.203 12.0 LOS B 0.7 17.7 0.55 0.76 0.55 33.5 18 R2 All MCs 124 0.0 124 0.0 0.203 7.5 LOS A 0.7 17.7 0.55 0.76 0.55 31.1 Approach 139 0.0 139 0.0 0.203 8.0 LOS A 0.7 17.7 0.55 0.76 0.55 31.6 East: SE Lund Ave 1 u U All MCs 124 0.0 124 0.0 0.322 8.9 LOS A 2.2 54.9 0.11 0.59 0.11 18.3 1 L2 All MCs 129 0.0 129 0.0 0.322 6.9 LOS A 2.2 54.9 0.11 0.59 0.11 32.0 Approach 948 0.0 948 0.0 0.322 3.6 LOS A 2.2 55.5 0.11 0.46 0.11 33.9 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 789 0.0 789 0.0 0.323 5.7 LOS A 1.8 45.4 0.43 0.50 0.43 32.2 12 R2 All MCs 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.323 5.2 LOS A 1.8 45.4 0.42 0.50 0.42 34.6 Approach 809 0.0 809 0.0 0.323 5.7 LOS A 1.8 45.4 0.43 0.50 0.43 32.3 All Vehicles 1897 0.0 1897 0.0 0.323 4.8 LOS A 2.2 55.5 0.28 0.50 0.28 33.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:44:22AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) H Network: N101 [Opening Year (2031 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 737 0.0 737 0.0 0.228 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 39.0 16 R2 All MCs 108 0.0 108 0.0 0.228 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 0.00 36.9 1 Approach 845 0.0 845 0.0 0.228 0.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 0.00 38.5 North: Sidney Ave Approach 211 0.0 211 0.0 0.303 11.8 LOS B 1.7 41.3 0.59 0.86 0.59 29.1 West: Tremont St IL 1 5 L2 All MCs 82 0.0 82 0.0 0.103 6.0 LOS A 0.4 10.1 0.58 0.76 0.58 30.5 2 Ti All MCs 954 0.0 954 0.0 0.402 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8 Approach 1036 0.0 1036 0.0 0.402 0.5 NA 0.4 10.1 0.05 0.06 0.05 38.9 All Vehicles 2093 0.0 2093 0.0 0.402 1.8 NA 1.7 41.3 0.08 0.15 0.08 37.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:44:22 AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 131 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 132 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) Midday Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations '9 ++ fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 925 715 105 0 205 Future Vol, veh/h 80 925 715 105 0 205 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 82 954 737 108 0 211 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 845 0 - 0 - 423 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 800 - - - 0 585 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 800 - - - - 585 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.8 0 14.59 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 800 - - - 585 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.103 - - - 0.361 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10 - - - 14.6 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 1.6 Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] I ° Network: N102 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 22 0.0 22 0.0 0.441 14.4 LOS B 2.0 50.8 0.72 0.92 0.85 32.4 18 R2 All MCs 215 0.0 215 0.0 0.441 9.9 LOS A 2.0 50.8 0.72 0.92 0.85 29.3 1 Approach 237 0.0 237 0.0 0.441 10.3 LOS B 2.0 50.8 0.72 0.92 0.85 29.7 East: SE Lund Ave r 1 u U All MCs 172 0.0 172 0.0 0.463 8.9 LOS A 4.0 100.9 0.18 0.59 0.18 17.7 1 L2 All MCs 231 0.0 231 0.0 0.463 7.0 LOSA 4.0 100.9 0.18 0.59 0.18 31.7 Approach 1355 0.0 1355 0.0 0.463 3.8 LOS A 4.1 101.9 0.17 0.45 0.17 33.5 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 1102 0.0 1102 0.0 0.510 7.0 LOS A 3.5 88.4 0.63 0.61 0.64 31.2 12 R2 All MCs 48 0.0 48 0.0 0.510 6.4 LOS A 3.5 88.3 0.62 0.60 0.62 34.0 Approach 1151 0.0 1151 0.0 0.510 7.0 LOS A 3.5 88.4 0.63 0.61 0.64 31.4 All Vehicles 2742 0.0 2742 0.0 0.510 5.7 LOS A 4.1 101.9 0.41 0.56 0.43 32.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:05AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 133 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 134 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] .0 Network: N102 [Opening Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Year (2031 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 978 0.0 978 0.0 0.318 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 39.2 16 R2 All MCs 97 0.0 97 0.0 0.318 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 37.1 Approach 1075 0.0 1075 0.0 0.318 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 38.8 North: Sidney Ave 14 R2 All MCs 376 0.0 376 0.0 0.734 21.9 LOS C 8.0 201.2 0.90 1.18 1.76 23.4 Approach 376 0.0 376 0.0 0.734 21.9 LOS C 8.0 201.2 0.90 1.18 1.76 23.4 West: Tremont St r ' 5 L2 All MCs 118 0.0 118 0.0 0.180 7.5 LOS A 0.7 17.6 0.65 0.84 0.65 29.4 2 Ti All MCs 1371 0.0 1371 0.0 0.578 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7 Approach 1489 0.0 1489 0.0 0.578 0.6 NA 0.7 17.6 0.05 0.07 0.05 38.6 All Vehicles 2941 0.0 2941 0.0 0.734 3.3 NA 8.0 201.2 0.14 0.21 0.25 35.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:31:05AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Opening Year (2031) PM Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) ++ fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 110 1275 910 90 0 350 Future Vol, veh/h 110 1275 910 90 0 350 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 118 1371 978 97 0 376 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1075 0 - 0 - 538 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 656 - - - 0 493 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 656 - - - - 493 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.93 0 32.15 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 656 - - - 493 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 - - - 0.763 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.7 - - - 32.1 HCM Lane LOS B - - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - - 6.6 Transpo Synchro 12 Report 135 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 136 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)1 South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.197 11.1 LOS B 0.7 16.8 0.48 0.72 0.48 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 130 0.0 130 0.0 0.197 6.7 LOS A 0.7 16.8 0.48 0.72 0.48 31.4 1 Approach 170 0.0 170 0.0 0.197 7.7 LOS A 0.7 16.8 0.48 0.72 0.48 32.2 East: SE Lund Ave r 1 u U All MCs 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.285 9.0 LOSA 1.8 45.2 0.18 0.55 0.18 18.7 1 L2 All MCs 100 0.0 100 0.0 0.285 7.0 LOSA 1.8 45.2 0.18 0.55 0.18 32.3 Approach 885 0.0 885 0.0 0.285 3.3 LOS A 1.8 46.1 0.18 0.44 0.18 34.2 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 665 0.0 665 0.0 0.243 5.2 LOS A 1.3 32.6 0.34 0.46 0.34 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.243 4.8 LOS A 1.3 32.6 0.33 0.46 0.33 34.9 Approach 690 0.0 690 0.0 0.243 5.2 LOS A 1.3 32.6 0.33 0.46 0.33 32.8 All Vehicles 1745 0.0 1745 0.0 0.285 4.5 LOS A 1.8 46.1 0.27 0.47 0.27 33.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:30:56AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 AM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)1 East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 720 0.0 720 0.0 0.225 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 39.0 16 R2 All MCs 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.225 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 0.00 36.8 1 Approach 835 0.0 835 0.0 0.225 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 0.00 38.4 North: Sidney Ave _ Approach 165 0.0 165 0.0 0.232 11.4 LOS B 1.2 30.1 0.55 0.86 0.55 29.3 West: Tremont St 5 L2 All MCs 130 0.0 130 0.0 0.161 6.1 LOS A 0.7 16.3 0.59 0.77 0.59 30.4 2 Ti All MCs 750 0.0 750 0.0 0.316 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9 Approach 880 0.0 880 0.0 0.316 0.9 NA 0.7 16.3 0.09 0.11 0.09 38.1 All Vehicles 1880 0.0 1880 0.0 0.316 1.8 NA 1.2 30.1 0.09 0.17 0.09 37.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:30:56AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 137 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 138 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Design Year (2044) AM Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.9 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations '9 ++ fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 130 750 720 115 0 165 Future Vol, veh/h 130 750 720 115 0 165 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 130 750 720 115 0 165 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 835 0 - 0 - 418 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 807 - - - 0 590 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 807 - - - - 590 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.52 0 13.46 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 807 - - - 590 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.161 - - - 0.28 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.3 - - - 13.5 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - - 1.1 Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.209 11.7 LOS B 0.8 19.1 0.56 0.77 0.56 33.6 18 R2 All MCs 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.209 7.2 LOS A 0.8 19.1 0.56 0.77 0.56 31.3 1 Approach 160 0.0 160 0.0 0.209 East: SE Lund Ave 1 u U All MCs 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.333 1 L2 All MCs 145 0.0 145 0.0 0.333 too Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] 7.8 LOSA 0.8 19.1 8.9 LOS A 2.3 58.1 7.0 LOSA 2.3 58.1 0.56 0.77 0.56 31.8 0.13 0.60 0.13 18.1 0.13 0.60 0.13 31.9 Approach 1050 0.0 1050 0.0 0.333 3.6 LOS A 2.4 59.1 0.13 0.46 0.13 33.8 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 870 0.0 870 0.0 0.334 5.7 LOS A 2.0 49.0 0.45 0.51 0.45 32.1 12 R2 All MCs 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.334 5.2 LOS A 2.0 49.0 0.43 0.51 0.43 34.5 Approach 895 0.0 895 0.0 0.334 5.7 LOS A 2.0 49.0 0.45 0.51 0.45 32.2 All Vehicles 2105 0.0 2105 0.0 0.334 4.8 LOS A •'• 59.1 0.30 0.50 0.30 32.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:44:27AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 139 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 140 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Iw Network: N101 [Design Year Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 (2044 Midday Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)] New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 815 0.0 815 0.0 0.252 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 39.0 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.252 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 0.00 36.9 Approach 935 0.0 935 0.0 0.252 0.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 0.00 38.5 North: Sidney Ave Approach 235 0.0 235 0.0 0.353 12.9 LOS B 2.2 55.8 0.63 0.90 0.71 28.4 West: Tremont St L I _ 5 L2 All MCs 90 0.0 90 0.0 0.122 6.5 LOS A 0.5 11.8 0.60 0.79 0.60 30.1 2 Ti All MCs 1060 0.0 1060 0.0 0.447 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8 Approach 1150 0.0 1150 0.0 0.447 0.5 NA 0.5 11.8 0.05 0.06 0.05 38.8 All Vehicles 2320 0.0 2320 0.0 0.447 1.9 NA 2.2 55.8 0.09 0.15 0.10 37.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:44:27AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Design Year (2044) Midday Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations '9 ++ fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 1060 815 120 0 235 Future Vol, veh/h 90 1060 815 120 0 235 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 90 1060 815 120 0 235 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 935 0 - 0 - 468 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 741 - - - 0 547 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 741 - - - - 547 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.82 0 16.43 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 741 - - - 547 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.122 - - - 0.429 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.5 - - - 16.4 HCM Lane LOS B - - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - - 2.1 Transpo Synchro 12 Reporl 141 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 142 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 102 [Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)1 South: Sidney Ave 3 L2 All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.449 14.5 LOS B 2.2 55.6 0.76 0.93 0.90 32.3 18 R2 All MCs 230 0.0 230 0.0 0.449 10.0 LOS B 2.2 55.6 0.76 0.93 0.90 29.2 1 Approach 250 0.0 250 0.0 0.449 10.4 LOS B 2.2 55.6 0.76 0.93 0.90 29.6 East: SE Lund Ave 1 u U All MCs 210 0.0 210 0.0 0.433 8.9 LOS A 3.7 92.4 0.16 0.61 0.16 17.4 1 L2 All MCs 220 0.0 220 0.0 0.433 7.0 LOSA 3.7 92.4 0.16 0.61 0.16 31.4 Approach 1365 0.0 1365 0.0 0.433 3.9 LOS A 3.8 94.2 0.16 0.46 0.16 33.3 West: Tremont St 2 Ti All MCs 1285 0.0 1285 0.0 0.545 7.2 LOS A 4.1 103.4 0.66 0.63 0.68 31.0 12 R2 All MCs 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.545 6.4 LOS A 4.1 103.1 0.64 0.61 0.65 33.9 Approach 1330 0.0 1330 0.0 0.545 7.2 LOS A 4.1 103.4 0.66 0.63 0.68 31.2 All Vehicles 2945 0.0 2945 0.0 0.545 5.9 LOS A �1 103.4 0.43 0.58 0.46 32.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:48:23AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3/Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study MOVEMENT SUMMARY © Site: 101 [Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour (Site Folder: Alternative 4)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Stop (Two -Way) tH Network: N101 [Design Year (2044 PM Peak) (Network Folder: Alternative 4)1 East: Tremont St 6 Ti All MCs 960 0.0 960 0.0 0.312 0.1 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 39.1 16 R2 All MCs 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.312 6.0 LOSA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 0.00 37.0 1 Approach 1080 0.0 1080 0.0 0.312 0.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 38.6 North: Sidney Ave Approach 405 0.0 405 0.0 0.742 21.8 LOS C 8.9 223.6 0.91 1.18 1.79 23.4 West: Tremont St T 5 L2 All MCs 125 0.0 125 0.0 0.191 7.5 LOS A 0.7 18.7 0.65 0.84 0.65 29.4 2 Ti All MCs 1600 0.0 1600 0.0 0.675 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5 Approach 1725 0.0 1725 0.0 0.675 0.6 NA 0.7 18.7 0.05 0.06 0.05 38.6 All Vehicles 3210 0.0 3210 0.0 0.742 3.3 NA 8.9 223.6 0.14 0.20 0.25 35.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). NA (TWSC): Level of Service is not defined for major road approaches or the intersection as a whole for Two -Way Sign Control (HCM LOS rule). Two -Way Sign Control Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard (HCM). Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap -Acceptance Capacity Formula: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 I Copyright © 2000.2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence: NETWORK / 1PC I Processed: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:48:23AM Project: M:\24\1.24211.00 - Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\Tremont RAB Options.sip9 143 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 144 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 HCM 7th TWSC Tremont Phase 2 and 3 ICE 2: SE Lund Ave & Sidney Ave Design Year (2044) PM Peak Hour - Alt 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ' 1" fiT. r Traffic Vol, veh/h 125 1600 960 120 0 405 Future Vol, veh/h 125 1600 960 120 0 405 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 75 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 125 1600 960 120 0 405 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1080 0 - 0 - 540 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - - 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - - 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 653 - - - 0 491 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage2 - - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 653 - - - - 491 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.86 0 38.23 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 653 - - - 491 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.191 - - - 0.824 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.8 - - - 38.2 HCM Lane LOS B - - - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - - 8.1 Transpo Synchro 12 Report Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study APPENDIX C: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 145 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Tremont St - Pod Orchard Blvd S to Sydney Any 60ft ROW (Existing) 65ft ROW 70ft ROW 75ft ROW Oq Conventional Bike Lanes O Conventional Bike Lanes O Conventional Bike Lanes Conventional Bike Lanes T. LL Buffered Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes r i _ �_j e. ■ �_ � I�I�Infl ■ ■ OSeparated Street -Level Bike Lanes Separated Street -Level Bike Lanes OC Separated Street -Level Bike Lanes Separated Street -Level Bike Lanes I I I I . D/E Separated Raised Bike Lanes D/E Separated Raised Bike Lanes D/E Separated Raised Bike Lanes D/E Separated Raised Bike Lanes F•^ OBuffered Cycle Track O Buffered Cycle Track OF Buffered Cycle Track OF Buffered Cycle Track I i I i Separated Cycle Track Separated Cycle Track Separated Cycle Track OSeparated Cycle Track H/I Raised Cycle Track H/I Raised Cycle Track H/I Raised Cycle Track H/I Raised Cycle Track - O Shared Use Path on South O Shared Use Path on South O Shared Use Path on South Shared Use Path on South 0 F^ t. OShared Use Path on North 110 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study Total Right of Way 60.010 (Keeping Existing ROW, with south Sidewalk outside of it) Conflicts Type of Separation Facility Level Travel Lanes Landscaping Bicyclist Pedestrian Bike-Ped Bike-Veh One -Way Bike Lanes A Traditional None Street -Level 42.00 O.Oft 0% 10.010 11.00 17% B Buffered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 O.Oft 0% 9.005 14% 10.00 15% 1& 1& C Separated Curb Street -Level 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 IO.Oft 15% D Separated Curb Intermediate 42.Oft 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 10.00 15% E Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.Oft 0.00 0% 11.00 1 10.00 15% 10.00 15% Two -Way Bike Lanes F Buttered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 0.00 0% 9.50 15% 10.00 15% 0 G Separated Curb Street -Level 42.00 . 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 10.00 15% H Separated Curb Intermediate 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 10.00 15% • I Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 0.00 0% 11.00 10.00 15% 0 0 Shared -Use Path 1 Shared Sidepath South 42.60 4.Oft 12.00 17.00 26% • 0 K Shared Sidepath North 42.00 4.00 12.00 17.00 26% • 0 Total Right of Way 65.00 Conflicts Type of Separation Facility Level Travel Lanes Landscaping Bicyclist Pedestrian Bike-Ped Bike-Veh 0ne-Way Bike Lanes A Traditional None Street -Level 42.Oft 0.051 0% 11.0ft 17% 12.00 18% B Buffered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 10.00 15% C Separated Curb Street -Level 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 11.00 17% D Separated Curb Intermediate 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 12.00 18% E Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 0.00 0% 10.00 15% 12.Oft 18% Two -Way Bike Lanes F Buffered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 65% 0.00 0% 0 5f 15% 1O.Oft 15% 0 G Separated Curb Street -Level 42.00 5% 0.00 0% 10.Oft 15% 10.00 15% • 0 H Separated Curb Intermediate 42.00 % 0.00 0% l0.Oft 15% 16.00 25% 5 0 I Separated Curb SidewalkLevel 42.00 loft 0% 11.0ft 179■ 16.00 25% 0 Shared -Use Path 1 Shared Sidepath South 42.00 4.Oft 12.00 19.05 29% K Shared Sidepath North 42.00 4.00 12.00 19.00 29% Total Right Be Way 70.Oft Conflicts Type of Separation Facility Level Travel Lanes Landscaping Bicyclist Pedestrian Bike-Ped Bike-Veh 0ne-Way Bike Lanes A Traditional None Street -Level 42.00 60% 4.00 6% 12.00 12.00 17% B Buffered Ver icalObjects Street -Level 42.Oft 60% 0.00 0% 11.00 14.00 20% 0 0 C Separated Curb Street -Level 42.00 60% 4.00 6% 10.00 14% 12.00 17% D Separated Curb Intermediate 42.00 60% 4.00 6% 10.00 14% 12.00 17% E Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 % - 4.00 6% 10.00 14% 12.00 17% 0 Two -Way Bike Lanes F Buffered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 60% 4.Oft 6% 10.00 14% 12.Oft 17% 0 0 G Separated Curb Street -Level 42.Oft 60% 4.Oft 6% 10.00 14% 12.Oft 17% • 0 H Separated Curb Intermediate 42.00 60% 4.00 6% 10.00 14% 12.00 17% 5 0 I Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 Ili 60% 4.00 6% 10.00 14% 12.00 17% 0 0 Shared -Use Path 1 Shared Sidepath South 42.00 60% 10.00 12.00 18.00 26% K Shared Sidepath Noah 42.Oft 10.00 12.00 18.00 26% Total Right of Way 75.010 Conflicts Type of Separation Facility Level Travel Lanes Landscaping Bicyclist Pedestrian Bike-Ped Bike-Veh t2 -Way Bike Lanes A Traditional None Street -Level 42.00 56% 9.Oft 12.00 16% 12.00 16% B Buffered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.Oft 56% 7.0ft 11.00 15% 12.Oft 16% C Separated Curb Street -Level 42.Oft 56% 7.0ft 12.00 16% 12.Oft 16% D Separated Curb Intermediate 42.Oft 56% 6.Oft 8% 12.00 16% 13.Oft 17% E Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 56% 6.00 8% 12.00 16 13.05 17% Two -Way Bike Lanes F Buttered Vertical Objects Street -Level 42.00 56% 7.Oft 9% 11.00 15% 12.Oft 16% G Separated Curb Street -Level 42.Oft 56% 8.Oft 11% 12.00 12.Oft 16% H Separated Curb Intermediate 42.Oft 56% B.Oft 11% 11.00 15% 13.Oft 17% I Separated Curb Sidewalk Level 42.00 56% 8.00 11% 11.00 15% 13.0[5 17% Shared -Use Path 1 Shared Sidepath South 42.00 56% 10.00 14.Oft 23.00 31% K Shared Sidepath Noah 42.Oft 56% 1O.Oft 14.00 23.00 31% transpogroup Note: Widths are totalwidth of right ofway dedicated to usage. Percentages are percentage of right of way dedicated to usage. WHAT TOANSPOOTATION CAN BE. Conflicts are rated based on expected frequency of conflict along corridor, exclusive of intersections. 147 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis - Unweighted Categories are rated from 1 to 3 points with 1 point being the most favorable condition and 3 points being the least favorable. The alternatives with the lowest final scares are the most tTranspogroup r favorable alternatives for the corridor. A tedmicel regng and cons dibllity rating are both provided. Curb relocaton adds both consirocticn days and costs to the project which d..— a r —one the alternative but could become a deciding fador in the Cibrs final decision. winnrvsaoai ry cna e[ Shared 25ttornowviremativesassumedror Bike Bpryarad Blke Lens Cycle Track Use scorrngpurposes Lanes Path A B C D E F G H I J Stop controlled High Volume 0 2 e 2 Q 2 (, 2 2 S 0 0 • D • 0 0 Low Volume Sd •4 •4 Sd Sd 50 50 50 •0 So E '-' No Control High Volume •0 Low Volume • 4 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 • 4 • 4 S 4 • 4 Sc So • 0 •0 • o •0 So a D Driveways Reeitlenfial 53 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 Commercial 54 50 X 4 50 50 50 Sd 54 54 Sd Traffic Calming Reduced Lanes Bump -outs • • • • • • • S • S Meats FHWA Guitlelina6 Mixed Motley i Y i S S S S S SS Separation from TraiOc • • • • • S • • • • Bicycle Clear Zones .._ Landscaping S S S S S S S • S Technical Rating 20 Curb Llne Relocation • • e • • e • • • Cos[ 5 5' Construction Days S S • • • • S Co.—cghlllyRating 38 41 40 28 28 30 30 Legend Category Score Descnpcon Category Score Desoripibn Stop controlled Number of stop controlled movements the facilily crosses. Separation from Tragic 5 1 Facility has a physical buffer to traffic. No control Number of not controlled mavemeMs the facility crosses. • 2 Facil'Ty base painted buffer to traffic. Driveways Number of driveways the facility crosses. • 3 Facility is adjerant to traffic. Reduced Lanes S 1 Lane widths reduced wpr curbe on both sides to reducs trafic speeds. Bicycle Clear Zones S 1 Facility M1as 2ft clear zones b both sides. • 2 Lane widths retlucetl wiN cult on one side to reduce iraRc speeds. • 2 Facility has 1 ft dear zones to bolb sides or 2ft clear zone to one side. • 3 lane widths reduced wfh paint to reduce traffic speeds. S 3 Facility has no clear zones. Bump-Or855 1 Modificetions allow for curbedbump-outs intotraific toreducepefficspendn. Lendsoaping5 1 Buffersallowfortreeplantings. • 2 Modifications allow for painted bump -outs into traffic to reduce traffic speeds. • 2 Buffers allow for sod plantings. • 3 Modifications do not allow for bum -outs. S 3 No lantlsraping opportunites. Meets FHWAS 1 Meets FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidelines for ADT and Speeds. Curb Lined 1 Does not require cuN line relocation. • 3 Does not Meet FHWA Bikeway Seledion Guidelines ton ADT and Speeds. • 2 Requires curb line relocation ton noon side of roadway. Mixed Modes 5 1 Separate faolses for commuter cydists, interested but concerned cyclists, and pedestrians. • 3 Requires curb line relocation for both noon and south side of roetlwey. • 2 Combined facility ton commuters 8 interested but concerned cyclists. Separate facility for pedestrian. • 3 Combined facility for commuter cydists, interested but concomed cyclials, and pedestrians. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 Tremont Street Improvements Phase 2 and 3 1 Comprehensive Study During the alternatives phase, the design team looked at potential alternatives through Van Zee Park to provide southbound connectivity from Tremont. All of the paths through the park would encounter steep grades which, while accessible in an unpaved trail configuration, would not provide an ADA-compliant accessible path southbound. All connections through the park to Sidney are likely to involve some cutbacks just to meet comfortable grades even for non-ADA compliant paths, and removal of several large trees. Connections further south into the parking lot for Van Zee Park off the south end of the park could and not ADA compliant. All paths through the park would hay park's open areas for sports and wintertime sledding activities. 149 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 City of Port Orchard 1 2026 APPENDIX D: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 150 Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031E76 4 . - - 4 -- 44 ° 1 ° \dd Crossing Management 10.3' VARIES ::-:i:::i: w J �y 4� Tremont Professional Building -I 10.0' -1 10.0' 12.3' -- .: .2 . ...... . -' . 4 . - . . 4. 4. --. -. -- H. . - 4.. -.. - .. . 44 - '-, 4 4 4 ... A 4 q�- - - - - -- ___ ____ - 6 1 Tremont St - North Side Shared Use Path 1N24211N00 - Tremont P 2 and Apr 07, 2026 — 5: 58pm santiagom M:\24\1.24211.00 — Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Engineering\CAD\Xrefs\24211—TG—CONCEPT—FINAL.dwg Layout: Rollplot ,r Station 31 South Kitsap Fire and Rescue 1 L;. O ° a' a a .. 4 . • i %Al t - - S •f 1P - William A. (Bill) VIL. . -an Zee Memorial Park r -w L -J !"f _4._L._____________________________ v I, iII IW - 2' 10' 2' 5' 11' 10' 10' Shared Use Path Drive lane Drive lane Drive lane 12'/4' 5' 1%' Drive lane Sidewalk w H vents and path geometry -ed an interim improvement. r and path alignment are te roject to convert the :rsection to a roundabout. 11.0' 1- 10.0' -1- 10.0' 10.0' - I -------- ------------------------------ ------ i II (t r, (Phase I) April 7, 2026 FIGURE transpogrour yr WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 4 /4 / Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031E76 ..................................-_� , n m� W CCU U i O O' ti TI1i1I E'i add Crossing Management 11.0 10.0' 10.0' -I 11.0' Tremont Professional Building -I 10.0' -1 10.0' I ___ ___ 7.0' Station 31 South Kitsap Fire and Rescue 6.0' 2' 10' 2' 5' Shared Use Path 11' Drive lane I - - - - - ' I II - U - n- I -__--I.- Is 10' 10' 11' 2' 7' 6' Drive lane Drive lane Drive lane Bike lane Sidewalk William A. (Bill) Van Zee Memorial Park Right of way impacts, ease ents and path geometry within these limits are considered an interim improvement. Future changes to the buff r and path alignment are changes_ anticipated with e separ e project to convert the Sidney Ave - Tremont St intersection to a roundabout. LLlLJVT i I • • . t: ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������i�i�i�i��►Oi�JJ000�L�pd�t�t��ppd�LLL�dp�LLL�J0�4�0��0��00�t�t - - 'I. .'% A Jiii ; -- • w r' s E 1 • -- - { i • • • • w ••'I do F I. • Tremont St - North Side Shared Use Path with South Side Separated Bike Lane (Future Phase II) April 7, 2026 FIGURE 1N24211N00 - Tremont P 2 and Apr 07, 2026 — 5: 59pm santiagom M:\24\1.24211.00 — Tremont Phase 2 and 3\Engineering\CAD\Xrefs\24211—TG—CONCEPT—FUTURE FINAL.dwg Layout: Rollplot transpogrouc ej WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. Docusign Envelope ID: E59D1 134-A66D-88A4-835F-6B38F9031 E76 ORCHARD.