Loading...
015-12 - Ordinance - Adopting the 2011 Transportation Plan UpdateIntroduced by: Requested by: Drafted by: Introduced: Adopted: ORDINANCE NO. 015-12 Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director July 24, 2012 July 24, 2012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE 2011 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, on December 11, 20o6, the Port Orchard City Council adopted Resolution No. 026-o6, thereby updating the 2oo6 Capital Facilities Plan, including Appendix E: Transportation and affirming that the update is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.7oA RCW; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2012, the City of Port Orchard issued a Programmatic Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the 2011 Transportation Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, a Public Hearing was held to receive public comment on the anticipated update to the 2011 Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the current 2011 Transportation Plan (2012 Adoption) includes review by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan via update to Appendix G of the 2012 Amendment to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan scheduled for late 2012; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City's 2011 Transportation Plan Update is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A (Disk) attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Ordinance No.015-12 Paee 2 of 2 SECTION n. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 24th day of July 2012. ATTEST: r Brandy Rinearson, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Timothy C. fflatthes, Mayor Sponsored by: Carolyn Po rs, Councilmember NOTICE OF CITY OF PORT ORCHARD ORDINANCE The following is a summary of an Ordinance approved by the Port Orchard City Council at their regular Council meeting held July 24, 2012. ORDINANCE NO. 015-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE 2011 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Copies of Ordinance No. 015-12 are available for review at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Port Orchard. Upon written request a statement of the full text of the Ordinance will be mailed to any interested person without charge. Thirty days after publication, copies of Ordinance No. 015-12 will be provided at a nominal charge. City of Port Orchard Brandy Rinearson City Clerk Publish: Port Orchard Independent August 3, 2012 City of Port Orchard stk4 Transportation Plan Update Final Report December 201 1 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98104 Perteet 1.800.615.9900 / 206.436.0515 This page left blank intentionally. City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Update Final Report December 201 1 Mayor Larry Coppola City Council Jim Colebank Carolyn Powers Robert Putaansuu John Clauson Fred Olin Fred Chang Jerry Childs Public Works Director— Mark Dorsey, PE Public Works Staff Lead — Andrea Archer, PE Development Director — James Weaver, AICP Perteet, Inc. Project Manager — Kris Liljeblad, AICP, PTP Transportation Analyst — David Schuurman GIS Planner — Andy Yim This page left blank intentionally. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 . 1 PURPOSE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.................................................................................................... 1 1.2 GMA REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 WASHINGTON STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS.....................................................................4 1.4 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) - VISION 2040/TRANSPORTATION 2040.................................4 1.5 KITSAP COUNTY PLANNING POLICIES.....................................................................................................................6 1.6 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN...................................................................................... 7 1.7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 7 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES................................................................................................9 2.1 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION GOALS....................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 TRANSIT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS GOALS.................................................................................................... 1 1 2.3 NON -MOTORIZED FACILITIES GOALS.................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 VEHICULAR TRAVEL AND ROADWAYS................................................................................................................... 13 2.5 LINKAGES WITH OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS.............................................................................................................. 15 2.6 COMMUNITY CHARACTER GOALS.......................................................................................................................... 16 2.7 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE GOALS........................................................................................................... 17 2.8 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE............................................................................. 17 2.9 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS........................................................................................................................................26 3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS..........................................................................................29 3.1 ROADWAY AND AUTOMOBILE SYSTEM..................................................................................................................29 3.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE.........................................................................33 3.3 PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES........................................................................................................................................37 3.4 MARINE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.....................................................................................................................41 3.5 AIRPORT AND AVIATION SERVICES.........................................................................................................................42 3.6 FREIGHT AND RAIL SERVICES....................................................................................................................................43 3.7 NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................44 4.0 STATE OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES....................................................................49 4.1 INVENTORY OF STATE OWNED FACILITIES............................................................................................................49 4.2 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE OWNED FACILITIES...................................................................................50 4.3 TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO STATE OWNED FACILITIES.................................................................................................5 1 4.4 LOS AND CONCURRENCY FOR HIGHWAYS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE....................................................51 5.0 LONG RANGE PLAN AND ROAD STANDARDS......................................................................................53 5.1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES......................................................................................................................................53 5.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE.......................................................................................................................53 5.3 PROPOSED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES....................................................................56 5.4 STREET DESIGN STANDARDS...................................................................................................................................63 7.0 NON -MOTORIZED SYSTEM NEEDS...............................................................................................................91 7.1 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.............................................................................................................................................91 7.2 BICYCLE FACILITIES....................................................................................................................................................91 8.0 TRANSIT SYSTEM NEEDS...................................................................................................................................95 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page i 8. 1 TRANSIT SERVICE....................................................................................................................................................... 95 8.2 TRANSIT FACILITIES....................................................................................................................................................96 9.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT........................................................................................99 10.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN........................................................................................... 103 1 1.0 FINANCIAL PLAN............................................................................................................................................ 113 I I . I COST ESTIMATES OF NEAR TERM CITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS........................................................ 113 I1.2 REVENUE SOURCES............................................................................................................................................... 113 I 1.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM....................................................................................................... 117 12.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION.......................................................................................... 120 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: STREET/ROADWAY LOS CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................... 19 TABLE 2: CITY OF PORT ORCHARD EXISTING ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS (FCC CLASS) ......30 TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION (SIGNALIZED / UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS)...................................33 TABLE 4: EXISTING LOS DEFICIENT ROADWAY SEGMENTS......................................................................................37 TABLE 5: EXISTING LOS DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS..................................................................................................37 TABLE 6: PORT ORCHARD MARINA PROVIDERS AND MOORAGE............................................................................42 TABLE 7: INTERSECTIONS WITH DEFICIENT PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE IN 2025...................................53 TABLE 8: ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH DEFICIENT PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE IN 2025........................56 TABLE 9: RECOMMENDED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS.........................................57 TABLE 10: RECOMMENDED ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS................................................................59 TABLE 1 I: RECOMMENDED STREET DESIGN STANDARDS..........................................................................................63 TABLE 12: CLASSIFIED STREETS, CURB ROADWAY SECTION DESIGN PARAMETERS...............................................76 TABLE 1 3: LOCAL STREET, ROADWAY SECTION DESIGN PARAMETERS...................................................................77 TABLE 14: HORIZONTAL CURVATURE AND SIGHT DISTANCE DESIGN VALUES FOR ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR ANDLOCAL STREETS...............................................................................................................................................79 TABLE 15: STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD) ON GRADES......................................................................................80 TABLE 16: INTERSECTION AND LOW -SPEED CURVES.................................................................................................82 TABLE 17: RECOMMENDED NEAR TERM PROJECTS, 2012-2017............................................................................ 104 TABLE 18: RECOMMENDED LONG TERM PROJECTS, 2018-2025........................................................................... 106 TABLE 19: PORT ORCHARD TRANSPORTATION REVENUE HISTORY (2003-2007)............................................ 1 1 3 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: SCREENLINES FOR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................22 FIGURE 2: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDORS.................................................................................................................23 FIGURE 3: FUTURE BICYCLE FACILITIES................................................................................................................................................25 FIGURE 4: FUTURE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................27 FIGURE 5: CITY OF PORT ORCHARD EXISTING ARTERIAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP................................................32 FIGURE 6: EXISTING PORT ORCHARD AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC (AWDT)..........................................................................34 FIGURE 7: EXISTING ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS)..................................................................................................................35 FIGURE 8: EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS).........................................................................................................36 FIGURE 9: EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES...................................................................................................................................39 FIGURE 10: 2025 FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES...........................................................................................54 FIGURE1 I: 2025 PM PEAK HOUR LOS..............................................................................................................................................55 FIGURE 12: RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS BY STREET/ROADWAY..................................................................61 FIGURE 13: PROPOSED 2025 ROADWAY CAPACITY (No. OF LANES)...........................................................................................62 FIGURE 14: FOUR -LANE WITH CENTER LANE OR MEDIAN) PRINCIPAL OR MINOR ARTERIAL WITH MULTI -USE PATH ........65 FIGURE 15: FOUR -LANE WITH CENTER LANE OR MEDIAN) PRINCIPAL OR MINOR ARTERIAL WITH BIKE LANES ..................65 FIGURE 16: TWO-LANE WITH CENTER LANE PRINCIPAL/MINOR ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR WITH MULTI -USE PATH .......66 FIGURE 17: TWO-LANE WITH CENTER LANE OR MEDIAN PRINCIPAL/MINOR ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR WITH BIKE LANES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 66 FIGURE 18: TWO-LANE MINOR ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR WITH MULTI -USE PATH..................................................................67 FIGURE 19: TWO-LANE MINOR ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR WITH BIKE LANES............................................................................67 FIGURE 20: TWO-LANE MINOR ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR WITH BIKE LANES AND PARKING..................................................68 FIGURE 21: TWO-LANE LOCAL STREET..............................................................................................................................................68 FIGURE 22: TWO-LANE LOCAL STREET WITH PARKING...................................................................................................................68 FIGURE 22A: MCCORMICK NORTH PHASE III, ROAD 6 CHANNELIZATION.................................................................................69 FIGURE 22B: MCCORMICK NORTH PHASE III, ROAD SECTIONS 1-6.............................................................................................70 FIGURE 22C: MCCORMICK NORTH PHASE III, PARKING FOR PROPOSED PARK...........................................................................71 FIGURE 22D: MCCORMICK WEST ROAD SECTIONS, SUB-COLLECTOR........................................................................................72 FIGURE 22E: MCCORMICK WEST ROAD SECTIONS, LOCAL ROAD...............................................................................................73 FIGURE 22F: MCCORMICK WEST ROAD SECTIONS, LOCAL MINOR LANE AND PRIVATE ACCESS TRACT...............................74 FIGURE 22G: MCCORMICK WEST ROAD SECTIONS, MAIN ENTRY AND GLENEAGLE CONNECTOR.......................................75 FIGURE 23: MEASURING SIGHT DISTANCE...........................................................................................................................................81 FIGURE24: CUL-DE-SAC DIMENSIONS................................................................................................................................................83 FIGURE 25: HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND DIMENSIONS.................................................................................................................84 FIGURE 26: TRANSIT STOP DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS..........................................................................................................85 FIGURE 27A: TRENCHING BACK -FILL CROSS SECTION....................................................................................................................86 FIGURE 27B: SAWCUT AND PANEL REPLACEMENT............................................................................................................................87 FIGURE27C: UTILITY COVER RESTORATION.....................................................................................................................................88 FIGURE 28: TRANSIT STOP ACCESSIBILITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.................................................................................................97 FIGURE 29: TRANSIT STOP ACCESSIBILITY TO COMMERCIAL AREAS...............................................................................................98 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page iii This page left blank intentionally. City of Port Orchard Transportation Element December 2011 Page iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Transportation Element of the City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan establishes a framework for providing a multi -modal transportation system of facilities and services to support the projected growth of land use within the City and its designated Urban Growth Area in South Kitsap County. The Transportation Element framework is consistent with Transportation 2040, the adopted long range plan of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and Kitsap County plans and polices. It meets the mandatory requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) under RCW 36.70A.070 and it provides transportation project recommendations for inclusion in the City's Capital Facilities Plan. The vision of the Transportation Element is a safe, dependable, properly maintained, fiscally and environmentally responsible multi -modal transportation system that is consistent with and supports the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation system should respect community character, environment, and neighborhoods; improve mobility and safety; minimize impacts from regional facilities; and promote increased use of transit and non -motorized travel. The transportation system needs to be both locally and regionally coordinated, adequately financed, and community supported. The updated Transportation Element provides a revised approach to level of service (LOS) standards for transportation, and it provides for the creation of a Transportation Impact Fee to fund identified roadway improvements that are needed to support a vital economy and keep pace with the City's growth and development. The policy direction within this element and the project recommendations also provide for the improvement of facilities for walking and bicycling, and recognize the mobility benefits provided by Kitsap Transit within the bus service area. The objective of these policies and actions is to reduce automobile dependence, thereby minimizing the need for capital -intensive street capacity expansion, while improving conditions for moving about safely and conveniently without a car. The goals and policies identified in this element are based upon existing conditions information and transportation systems analysis contained in the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan, which resulted from a cooperative City -County planning process, and the 2006 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 10 Year Update and Environmental Impact Analysis. Those documents (Kitsap County 2006 Comprehensive Plan: Volume II, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Appendix E: Transportation with additional supporting appendices) included supporting analysis and mitigation measures for transportation facilities within the city, transportation impact analysis, proposed projects, performance standards, and a financial and implementation plan. The document also incorporates the data, analysis, and updates provided in the Port Orchard Capital Facilities Plan 2006 update (Ordinance 026-06). 1.1 Purpose of the Transportation Element The purpose of the City of Port Orchard Transportation Element is to identify, evaluate and recommend transportation improvements for the City through the planning horizon of 2025. It provides a vision for the City's transportation system in 2025 and it is intended to guide the development of that system by the City and other responsible stakeholders. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page I The Transportation Element is an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is required to satisfy GMA requirements that call for a balanced approach to land use and transportation planning, ensuring that the City's transportation system can support planned levels of land use development. The City must adopt level of service (LOS) standards for the transportation system in order to provide a policy framework to maintain the community's desired quality of life while it develops and changes over time. In addition, the GMA mandates that capital facility funds be identified to pay for necessary transportation improvements. The Transportation Element identifies several sources to finance the recommended transportation projects. It provides documentation to support grant applications by the City to fund needed improvement projects, and it establishes roadway design standards and guidelines based on designated functional classifications. The funding program includes a Transportation Impact Fee program, which should be adopted to help fund improvement projects needed to serve the transportation demands caused by planned land use development. 1.2 GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted by the State of Washington in 1990. It established specific goals and requirements to guide the development of the transportation element of local jurisdiction comprehensive plans, and to ensure a balanced approach is taken to land use development and transportation. Planning Goals There are 14 far-reaching planning goals that guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The goals discourage sprawling development, encourage development in urban areas with adequate public facilities, encourage economic development throughout the state consistent with comprehensive plans, encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems, provide for the protection of property rights, and require that adequate public facilities and services necessary to support development be available when new development is ready for occupancy. Many of these planning goals directly relate to specific planning requirements in the act. The following four goals relate directly to transportation: (3) Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (10) Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. (1 1) Citizen Participation and Coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and to reconcile conflicts. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 2 (12) Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Specific Requirements The GMA has specific requirements to guide the development of transportation elements of city and county comprehensive plans. According to GMA transportation element requirements (RCW 36.70A.070), the transportation element shall include the following sub elements: a. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; b. Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities to assist the department of transportation in monitoring performance, to plan improvements, and to assess impacts of land use decisions on state-owned transportation facilities; C. Facilities and services needs, including: (i) An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning... must include state-owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdictional boundaries; (ii) Level of service (LOS) standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (iii) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the system; (iv) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; (v) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; (vi) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands. Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW; d. Finance, including: (i) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (i i) A multi -year financing plan, which should be coordinated with the six -year improvement program developed by the Department of Transportation; (iii) If probable funding falls short, how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 3 (iv) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; (v) Demand -management strategies; and a (vi) Pedestrian and bicycle component... that addresses and encourages enhanced community access and promotes healthy lifestyles. House Bill 1487 (SHB 1487), signed into law in 1998, requires that cities and counties add a sub -element to their comprehensive plans related to State owned transportation facilities and transportation facilities of statewide significance (even if not owned by the State). To comply, a separate section is included in the revised Port Orchard Transportation Element which includes: • An inventory of State owned transportation facilities within the planning area; • Estimated traffic impacts to State owned transportation facilities resulting from land use decisions so performance can be monitored and improvements planned; • Transportation level of service (LOS) standards for measuring state facility performance; and • Identification of current and future state facility needs that are consistent with the statewide multimodal system plan (Washington Transportation Plan). 1.3 Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions A law was passed by the State Legislature in 2008 that provides for reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases (or GHG). The law establishes a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035; and to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Washington State Department of Commerce provides assistance and evaluation tools to local agencies for addressing GHG reductions. 1.4 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) — Vision 2040/Transportation 2040 In April 2008 the PSRC adopted a long range regional growth strategy for the central Puget Sound region to accommodate a projected increase of 2.7 million people by 2040. Local jurisdiction comprehensive plans such as Port Orchard's must be reviewed and certified for consistency with the regional plan in order to maintain eligibility for funding from regional, state and/or federal agencies. A checklist has been provided by PSRC as a local jurisdiction comprehensive plan reporting tool, to guide plan certification. The transportation -related checklist items are provided below: Maintenance, Management and Safety ✓ Clean transportation programs and facilities, including actions to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 4 ✓ Incorporate environmental factors into transportation decision -making, including attention to human health and safety ✓ Identify stable and predictable funding sources for maintaining and preserving existing transportation facilities and service ✓ Include transportation systems management and demand management programs and strategies ✓ Identify transportation programs and strategies for security and emergency responses Supporting the Growth Strategy ✓ Focus system improvements to support existing and planned development as allocated by the Regional Growth Strategy ✓ Prioritize investments in centers ✓ Invest in and promote joint- and mixed -use development ✓ Include complete streets provisions and improve local street patterns for walking and biking ✓ Design transportation facilities to fit the community in which they are located ("context sensitive design"); use urban design principles when developing and operating transportation facilities in cities and urban areas Greater Options and Mobility ✓ Invest in alternatives to driving alone ✓ Ensure mobility of people with special needs ✓ Avoid new or expanded facilities in rural areas ✓ Include transportation financing methods that sustain maintenance, preservation, and operations of facilities Linking Land Use and Transportation ✓ Integrate the ten Transportation 2040 physical design guidelines in planning for centers and high - capacity transit station areas ✓ Use land use development tools and practices that support alternatives to driving alone — including walking, biking and transit use Land Use Assumptions and Forecast of Travel Demand ✓ Demonstrate that travel demand forecasts and transportation need assessments are always based on land use assumptions that correspond with the most recently adopted growth targets; ensure that population and employment assumptions are consistent throughout the comprehensive plan City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 5 Service and Facility Needs — Including Level -of -Service Standards and Concurrency ✓ Include inventories for each transportation system, including roadways, transit, cycling, walking, freight, airports, and ferries ✓ Establish level -of -service standards that promote optimal movement of people across multiple transportation modes ✓ Include state facilities and reflect related level -of -service standards ✓ Address multiple transportation modes in concurrency programs ✓ Tailor concurrency programs, especially for centers, to encourage development that can be supported by transit Financing and Investments — including Reassessment Strategy ✓ Include a multi -year financing plan, as well as an analysis of funding capability ✓ Include a reassessment strategy to address the event of a funding shortfall Intergovernmental Coordination ✓ Coordinate with neighboring cities, the county, regional agencies and the state Demand Management ✓ Identify demand management strategies and actions, including but not limited to programs to implement the Commute Trip Reduction Act Pedestrian and Bicycle Component ✓ Include strategies, programs and projects that address non -motorized travel as a safe and efficient transportation option — including pedestrian and bicycle planning, project funding and capital investments, education and safety Land Uses Adjacent to Airports ✓ Identify and address any airports within or adjacent to the jurisdiction - Describe existing and planned uses near the airport, as well as policies and regulations that discourage incompatible uses 1.5 Kitsap County Planning Policies Kitsap County led an extensive comprehensive planning process for the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Subarea in 2004-2006, which was prepared under an interlocal agreement between Kitsap County and the City of Port Orchard, and included the engagement of a Citizens Advisory Group. The resulting sub- area plan, adopted in May 2006 is based on the consensus recommendation of the CAG. The Port City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 6 Orchard / South Kitsap Subarea Plan provided the planning foundation for this City of Port Orchard Transportation Element, including: • Socio-economic allocations by geographic subarea; • Travel demand forecasts for the planning area roadway network; and • Transportation -related goals and policies. The Port Orchard/South Kitsop Subarea Plan implements the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan by addressing the population growth and related land use changes within the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Urban Growth Area (UGA), located adjacent to the City of Port Orchard. The subarea was designated as Port Orchard's UGA with the adoption of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan in 1998, along with some Urban Reserve, and other surrounding lands. The policies, land use designations, and boundaries of the sub -area were amended with adoption of the Subarea Plan in 2006. It addresses the specific issues and provides more detailed policies and implementation strategies that are tailored to the geographic area. In addition, it provides planning level guidance for future public and private projects within the sub- area. 1.6 Land Use Assumptions — The Comprehensive Plan The City of Port Orchard's Transportation Element is one component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is required to be internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This means that the various requirements and assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan must not contradict each other. Most important is the use of consistent future land use assumptions. The Transportation Element provides that consistency: it is based on the City's 2025 growth targets for population and employment that were established through the process described in the Land Use Element. The City of Port Orchard was a partner in the recently completed Port Orchard / South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan, which evaluated and recommended a preferred land use plan for the City and its Urban Growth Area. 1.7 Transportation Element Analysis Methodology The Transportation Element development process included a review and inventory of the City's existing transportation system including streets, transit routes and facilities, rail lines, marine services, sidewalks and trails, bike facilities and park and ride lots. Existing transportation data and information was obtained from the City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Traffic level of service (LOS) analysis was calculated for City arterials based on existing (2007) and future year 2025 traffic volumes as part of the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan. This analysis helped identify existing and future transportation deficiencies, and guide the identification of transportation improvements needed to address areas of traffic congestion. The analysis also provided information to help review arterial system connectivity to provide for planning of safe and effective transit service, and to identify pedestrian and bicycle travel needs within the Port Orchard Planning Area. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 7 Level of service standards and performance measures for all travel modes including roadways, transit, walking, and biking are documented in Chapter 2. A transportation financial plan was developed that includes both short- and long-range revenue forecasts, and costs for each identified transportation improvement. An analysis of funding capability was conducted to determine if the transportation revenues were sufficient to fund the identified improvements. Based on the review findings, adopting and implementing a new City traffic impact fee program is recommended in Chapter 11. The recommended transportation improvements were then prioritized for inclusion in the City's Capital Facility Plan (CFP) and Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 8 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies for transportation provide the primary foundation for this Transportation Chapter and support the overall vision of the City of Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan. They are consistent with both the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan by Kitsap County, and Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision/Transportation 2040. These goals and policies are organized under the following categories: general transportation goals; transit goals, non -motorized goals; vehicular travel and roadways; linkages with other elements; community character; performance goals; level -of -service standards; and recommended actions. State objectives: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordination with city and county comprehensive plans. [RCW 36.70A.020 (3)] 2.1 General Transportation Goals Goal 2.1.1 — Designate a street network for the City and its Urban Growth Area to provide a rational grid of streets that establishes functional classifications and consistent street standards. Policy T- I — The design of transportation facilities shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and shall emphasize a safe and enjoyable travel experience, while minimizing long-term maintenance costs. Policy T-2 - Implement needed transportation improvements as development in the City occurs, consistent with the City's Street Standards, Capital Facilities Plan, concurrency policies and SEPA requirements. Policy T-3 - Require new development and redevelopment to incorporate transit, pedestrian, and other non -motorized transportation improvements, including bus shelters and/or pullouts, sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks and bicycle lanes. Goal 2.1.2 — Provide a safe, comfortable and reliable transportation system. Policy TA - Control the location and spacing of commercial driveways and the design of parking lots to avoid traffic and pedestrian accidents, confusing circulation patterns, and line -of -sight obstructions. Policy T-5 - Designate and clearly demarcate appropriate routes for through truck traffic, hazardous materials transport, and oversized traffic. Policy T-6 - Require new development and redevelopment to incorporate appropriate street lighting as defined in the City Street Standards. Policy T-7 - Include sidewalks as required in the City Street Standards. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 9 Goal 2.1.3 — Develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet the multi -modal and programmatic needs identified in the transportation element. Policy T-8 - Provide sufficient flexibility in the funding process to maximize the City's ability to partner with other jurisdictions, regional and federal governments, and the private sector to optimize funding sources to implement transportation projects and programs. Policy T-9 - Establish public/private partnerships to finance needed transportation improvements. Private sector funding generated from within the City should be primarily allocated to improvements within the City's Urban Growth Area. Policy T-10 - Require developers to provide on -site and off -site road, safety, and other transportation improvements where necessary to serve the needs of the proposed developments and to mitigate the impacts of the development on the surrounding community. Policy T- I I - Consider potential funding mechanisms such as creation of a City Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIF), a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) or Road Improvement District (RID), Proportional Share Mitigation via SEPA, and pursuit of non -local grant funding. Policy T-12 - Work with Washington State Department of Transportation, Kitsap Transit, and the private sector to seek additional revenues for infrastructure improvements and/or operational subsidies or programs, including state and federal grants. Policy T-13 - Allow phased development of transportation improvements. Goal 2.1.4 — Ensure the citizens and businesses in the City and South Kitsap have the opportunity to participate in the development of transportation planning policy. Policy T-14 - Establish and maintain a program for accessing and responding to local, community, and residential neighborhood traffic control concerns. Policy T-15 - Maintain a transparent prioritization process for the development of the Port Orchard Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Goal 2.1.5 — Develop and implement transportation programs within the City to assist in the application, monitoring, and review of transportation goals and policies. Policy T-16 - Monitor the success of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Commute Trip Reduction Programs (CTR) within the City of Port Orchard and the South Kitsap Area. Policy T-17 - Encourage the development of self-sustaining Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) for major employers including government offices, medical facilities, commercial businesses, business parks, and industrial sites within the City. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 10 2.2 Transit Facilities and Operations Goals Goal 2.2.1 — Provide a range of infrastructure incentives to encourage the use of non -single occupant modes of travel. Policy T-18 - Provide preferential treatments for transit such as safe, convenient, transit stops and traffic signal priority treatments or queue by-pass lanes where appropriate. Policy T-19 — Reduce off-street parking requirements for medium- to high -density residential developments along transit routes. Goal 2.2.2 — Work with Kitsap Transit to improve the quality of transit service within Port Orchard consistent with the pace of development, including increasing: the service area coverage, the frequency of service, and the hours of service on weekdays and weekends. Policy T-20 - Encourage new development and redevelopment to include provisions for bus pullout lanes, bicycle storage facilities, and safe, attractive transit shelters where appropriate. Policy T-21 - Support efforts to expand usage and infrastructure for public transportation. Promote public/private partnerships, joint -use facilities, and Transit Oriented Development within the City and the adjacent Urban Growth Areas. Policy T-22 - Encourage the installation of bicycle racks on buses and other transit vehicles. Policy T-23 - Work closely with Kitsap Transit to develop Transfer Centers and Multi -Modal Terminals within and adjacent to the City. Encourage and ensure that land use and site development are compatible with the goals and policies of the community. Policy T-24 — Work with Kitsap Transit to identify and plan corridors for future high capacity transit development, including bus rapid transit and/or light rail transit. Goal 2.2.3 — Work with Kitsap Transit to establish convenient park and ride lots. Policy T-25 - Work with Kitsap Transit to develop park and ride lots to improve access to transit and to serve the transportation needs of residents and employees within the City and the Urban Growth Area. Policy T-26 — Encourage the establishment of park and ride lots in existing parking lots. Policy T-27 - Form partnerships with community organizations along easily accessible arterials that have underutilized or dormant parking during traditional commuting hours (i.e. churches, movie theaters, etc.). City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page I I Policy T-28 - Ensure that the land use and site development are compatible with the goals and policies of the community. 2.3 Non -Motorized Facilities Goals Goal 2.3.1 — Promote pedestrian, bicycle, and other non -motorized travel. Policy T-29 - Require that the City's streets provide for non -motorized transportation, consistent with City road standards or approved variances; give priority to non -motorized travel; and make pedestrian improvements in conjunction with improved transit service. Policy T-30 - Require new development within the city to provide internal trails or paths that connect residential, commercial, business parks, and other land uses within the city where feasible to facilitate physical activity and improve public health. Policy T-31 - Ensure that trails and paths provide convenient connections within the City, and enact incentives for urban development to create connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Policy T-32 - Require new development and redevelopment to provide safe neighborhood walking and biking routes to schools, and bike lanes on planned streets. Policy T-33 — Transportation facilities in the City shall be planned, designed and constructed to be barrier -free and easily accessible to disabled persons consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Policy T-34 - Adopt relevant portions of the Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan, or similar design standards to guide the development of bicycle improvements including surfacing materials, signage, striping, drainage, barriers, bridges, lighting, parking facilities, width, grade separation, design speed, sight distance, and horizontal and vertical clearance. Policy T-35 - Maintain existing and create new, engineered bike lanes. Policy T-36 - Promote completion of the designated "Mosquito Fleet" trail and pedestrian path along Beach Drive. Require new development or redevelopment to provide paved shoulders along Beach Drive within the City, extending east of Olney Avenue East to Ahlstrom Road East. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 12 seawzall alongalang traffic haxie Policy T-37 - Require all new development and redevelopment projects to install frontage improvements, including new sidewalks and bike lanes along Bay Street and Bethel Avenue. Policy T-38 - All new developments and redevelopment projects along the waterfront shall be required to install a minimum 10-foot wide boardwalk the entire width of the property adjacent to the shoreline, and dedicate it to the City. Goal 2.3.2 — Minimize single -occupant vehicle (SOV) trips generated within the City by supporting a mixture of land uses to encourage walking, and by providing a multi -modal network of transportation facilities and services. Policy T-39 - Emphasize moving people rather than vehicles by providing a variety of ways to commute to work, especially during peak hours. 2.4 Vehicular Travel and Roadways Goal 2.4.1 — Maintain a system of arterial and collector streets to provide mobility within the City and to connect its developed areas to the State and regional highway system. Policy T-40 - Plan, design, and implement needed roadway and intersection improvements to provide capacity, and resolve potential operational and safety issues. Ensure that designs address non - motorized travel within and to/from the City. Policy T-41 - Develop a collector road system to provide for access and circulation between the various developments in and adjacent to the City. Design the collector road system to reduce the potential need for local traffic to use the arterials. Policy T-42 - Phase street improvements to meet the anticipated trip generation of each development within the City. Policy T-43 - Wherever possible, provide access to industrial, commercial and/or multi -family land use developments from collector streets and minimize associated traffic on local residential streets. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 13 Policy T-44 — Encourage access management to maintain arterial capacity by minimizing curb cuts, increasing driveway spacing, and providing for median treatments where appropriate. Work cooperatively with the Washington Department of Transportation to develop access management agreements for State Routes within the City. Policy T-45 - Encourage access consolidation and reciprocal access agreements between adjacent compatible developments to balance local access with arterial mobility. Policy T-46 - Minimize local street widths and crossing distances. Policy T-47 - Reduce speed while maintaining connectivity on neighborhood streets using street design devices such as curb bulbs, chicanes, traffic circles, or other measures proven safe and effective at reducing travel speeds. Goal 2.4.2 — Provide aesthetically pleasing streets. Policy T-48 - Develop design standards for landscaping, sidewalks, and maintenance within new developments. Policy T-49 - Street Design Standards: Reflect the urban nature of roadways within the City by providing, where appropriate, crosswalks and sidewalks, street trees and landscaping, and traffic - calming strategies. Policy T-50 - Minimize impacts of road construction on environmentally sensitive areas by properly managing stormwater runoff and minimizing pollution from road use and maintenance. Policy T-51 - Where possible for new development and redevelopment, relocate overhead utilities to under -ground in order to improve aesthetics and to reduce the need for ongoing roadside vegetation removal and maintenance. Goal 2.4.3 — Recognize the importance of easily accessible, attractive, and well -located parking as a valuable community asset. Policy T-52 - Implement safety standards for interior parking and circulation for development in the City. Policy T-53 - Consider reduction of parking requirements if a development provides alternatives for multi -modal uses such as Transportation Demand Management measures. Policy T-54 - Consider shared parking agreements and joint development of off-street parking facilities between adjacent and compatible developments. Policy T-55 - Discourage parking on arterials within the City unless absolutely necessary. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 14 Policy T-56 - Encourage the development of a public / private joint use parking garage to provide convenient short-term downtown parking for visitors and shoppers. Policy T-57 - Coordinate parking, transportation planning, and projects with the Port of Bremerton to make the best use of the waterfront. 2.5 Linkages with Other Plan Elements Goal 2.5.1 — Support and reinforce coordination between land use and transportation. Policy T-58 - Promote the creation of corridor development plans for Tremont Street, Bay Street/Beach Drive (SR 166), Sedgwick Road (SR 160), Mile Hill Drive (SR I66), and Sidney Road SW. Policy T-59 - Promote implementation of a Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan extending from Beach Drive (SR 166) to the State Route 16 overpass. Policy T-60 - Make transportation improvements available to support planned growth and maintain adopted levels of service. "Concurrent" shall mean that improvements or strategies to maintain mobility are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment has been made. Policy T-61 - Implement the Road Design Standards included in the City's transportation plan and acquire needed rights -of -way. Policy T-62 - Require dedication of anticipated right-of-way needs for all roadways at the time of development land use approvals. Goal 2.5.2 — Require implementation of the Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan. Policy T-63 - Work with Kitsap Transit to maintain and improve transit service on the Bethel Road Corridor consistent with changes in demographics and land use. ■ i T�plcal roadway a�on far Ud* Road. $4u4R. F&Kp GWnhy 941hW F�:w1{amdV WVckxnwra Fiore WM. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 15 Policy T-64 Promote separated bicycle lanes, separated sidewalks, and Access Management Plans as proposed in the Bethel Road Corridor Plan. Policy T-65 Seek funding for widening and improvements along Bethel Avenue. Goal 2.5.3 — Provide a transportation system that supports economic development. Policy T-66 - Establish truck routes to provide good access from regional arterials and state highways to manufacturing and industrial sites, and identify them through clear signage. Policy T-67 - Apply appropriate street design standards for manufacturing and industrial sites, and commercial districts to allow for the easy movement of goods and services. 2.6 Community Character Goals Goal 2.6.1 — Develop transportation improvements that respect the natural and community character and are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy T-68 - Restore / create unique neighborhood aesthetics via formation of distinctive streetscapes and traffic controls. Policy T-69 - Minimize the impacts of traffic on residential neighborhoods by discouraging the use of local access streets by non -local traffic. Policy T-70 - Prohibit commercial development from utilizing local residential roads as access points. Policy T-71 - Analyze accident data to determine where safety —related improvements are necessary. Prioritize and implement safety -related improvements during the transportation planning process. Policy T-72 - Install sidewalks along Bay Street, Bethel Avenue, and side streets where none currently exist. Sidewalks should be on both sides of the street in the Downtown Gateways. Policy T-73 - Enhance current crosswalks on Bay Street to improve pedestrian safety. Policy T-74 - Encourage easements and interconnections between properties for vehicles and pedestrians. Policy T-75 - Encourage bicycle commuting with a waterfront boardwalk that minimizes conflicts with vehicles. Policy T-76 - Provide landscaping on City streets consistent with street design standards. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 16 2.7 Transportation Performance Goals Goal 2.7.1 — Develop Transportation Performance Standards (Level -of -Service) that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recognize that congested roadway conditions will remain after affordable improvements are completed. Policy T-77 — The City's transportation level of service standards shall integrate all modes of travel and encourage the use of transit, ridesharing, walking, and biking. Goal 2.7.2 — Implement projects and programs that improve connectivity and mobility within the City, and maintain level -of -service standards. Policy T-78 - Review land development applications and mitigation requirements as they occur over time based on traffic analyses using up-to-date traffic data. Policy T-79 - Establish standards for local roads and monitor cut -through, non -local traffic. Establish a process for providing traffic control responses that are gauged to the severity of the neighborhood disturbance. Goal 2.7.3 — Promote transportation practices and solutions that are environmentally sustainable. Policy T-80 - Encourage transit providers and organizations with large vehicle fleets to minimize vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumed, and the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Policy T-81 — Implement transportation projects and programs that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035; and to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, consistent with state law. 2.8 Transportation Concurrency and Level -of -Service (LOS) Standards Concurrency management is required by the state Growth Management Act, which allows local jurisdictions to establish their own LOS standards to evaluate transportation system performance. These locally established standards must be used to determine whether adequate transportation capacity is, or will be available to serve proposed development, within six years after occupancy. To satisfy the concurrency requirements, financial obligations and broadly defined investment priorities must be established along with planned transportation improvements. These commitments are intended to tie available City financial resources to an investment strategy that supports the Comprehensive Plan. Resources must be scheduled and prioritized in an expeditious manner to build the necessary improvements and implement the needed programs in the same timeframe as the new growth is approved. The timing of plan implementation will depend on the availability of State and Federal support, the collection of an appropriate private share from new developments, and the environmental review process. The Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Element represent a policy commitment by City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 17 the City to pursue the improvements identified in the plan along with the associated financial requirements. The details of the financial program are established during the preparation of City's Capital Facilities Program and Transportation Implementation Plan. Subsequent environmental review may be needed to cover the effects of implementing each program and setting the impact fee schedule for new development. This Transportation Element provides for balanced levels of investment among all modes of travel, increasing the opportunities for travel by transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking. As a consequence of the shift in financial resources to address this broader range of investment needs, higher levels of unmitigated roadway congestion may remain. This represents a tolerance by the community for vehicular congestion. The City wishes to accommodate its share of projected regional growth and intends to apply all reasonable means to reduce or modify vehicular travel demand. However, congested roadway conditions are projected to remain after all affordable improvements are put into place. Goal 2.8.0 — Invest in transportation improvements and programs that support the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan and are within the City's financial means. Policy T-82 — The City of Port Orchard accepts the rate of growth in travel demand, consistent with the land use specified in its Comprehensive Plan and a more pedestrian- and transit - oriented community. Policy T-83 — The City of Port Orchard accepts the consequences of accommodating its fair share of regional growth, including unmitigated traffic congestion that may remain after all affordable transportation investments are in place. The following sections provide LOS standards for streets/roadways, public transit, and for walking and bicycling. These levels of service are aimed at establishing desired levels, based on policies intended to re -shape the City's form and circulation environment to achieve the City's vision in 2025 and beyond. 2.8.1 — Street/Roadway Level -of -Service The typical approach by local jurisdictions for the past 20-plus years under GMA has been to adopt an LOS standard applicable to roadways only, usually during the afternoon peak hour. Typical roadway LOS employs a rating from A to F, assigned to indicate the degree of delay and congestion on roadways and/or intersections. Motorists generally consider LOS A to LOS D as acceptable, covering the range of conditions from free -flow to modest delays. Most motorists in urban conditions tolerate LOS E conditions (which entail long traffic delays). LOS F is characterized by extreme traffic congestion, with motorists operating under stop and go conditions, wasting time and energy, and increasing air pollutant emissions. LOS F is undesirable and when it consistently occurs, it should trigger consideration of changes to help alleviate the congested conditions and restore mobility, or to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel. A summary description of traffic operations by Street/Roadway LOS is provided in Table I. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 18 Table I: Street/Roadway LOS Characteristics LOS V/C Description of Traffic Operations A .59 and below Free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. Stable flow, with traffic conditions beginning to restrict operating speeds. Drivers still have reasonable B .60 to .69 maneuverability between multiple lanes. Fairly stable flow, but the higher volumes more closely C .70 to .79 constrict speeds and maneuverability. Approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds D .80 to .89 and limited maneuverability. Unstable flow with reduced operating speeds and volumes E .90 to .99 nearing the arterial capacity. F 1.00 and above Forced flow with operating under stop and go conditions. Source: Port Orchard - South Kitsap Subarea Plan, Transportation Element Many local jurisdictions have set their roadway LOS standard to be applied to all roadway segments and/or intersections during the PM peak hour. Others have designated subareas and set an LOS threshold for the average operating performance of intersections therein. Generally, no jurisdiction wants its concurrency standard to prevent development that is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. This has resulted in many creative approaches to setting LOS standards. The Kitsap County County -Wide Transportation Plan suggests that cities set a standard at 85% attainment of a Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.89 that equates to a LOS "D". This is intended to acknowledge that portions of the urban area may fall below level "D" from time to time, and to recognize congestion management limitations such as lengthy project development timelines to plan, design, finance, and construct capital facilities. There are many appropriate considerations when traffic congestion occurs, other than pursuing capital improvements to expand general roadway capacity: • Roadways serve many functions in addition to moving vehicles (for example, walking, biking, service to land use, and community character); • Widening to add travel lanes or turn lanes is not always feasible or desirable, and often inconsistent with the community's vision; • Adding capacity to reduce peak hour congestion should be evaluated within the context of a 24- hour day, along with the cost-effectiveness of sizing road capacity for that short time window; • Viable solutions to reduce congestion may include managing the travel demand (adjusting start times for employment sites and/or schools for example, or encouraging telecommuting); • Vehicles on Port Orchard's streets (like most communities), have substantial unused capacity (average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons/vehicle is typical). Even a small increase in average vehicle occupancy can significantly reduce congestion and improve mobility in peak periods. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 19 • Port Orchard's streets carry substantial non -local traffic that is not subject to the City's land use control. Forecast roadway operating conditions (see Chapter 5) indicate that it will not be possible to maintain a standard better than LOS F within the City of Port Orchard during the PM peak period, given existing and forecast travel demand, the City's transportation vision, and available financial resources. Goal 2.8.1 — Establish a Street/Roadway LOS consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Street Network Plan, which establishes maximum build -out cross -sections. Policy T-84 - Revise the existing roadway LOS from D to LOS F for concurrency purposes. This will not excuse projects from SEPA review, which will continue to require the mitigation of development impacts that would negatively affect roadway operations. This LOS standard does not apply to SR 16, as it is a Highway of Statewide Significance. Roadways that are designated as Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) are statutorily exempt from the concurrency requirement, fRCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(C)J. Highways of Statewide Significance include interstate highways and other principal arterials that are needed to connect the state's major communities. The designation helps assist with the allocation and direction of funding. Policy T-85 — Utilize the five transportation screenlines illustrated in Figure I to evaluate and prioritize future roadway mobility improvements (within the context of the planned roadway design standard). The objective shall be to add lanes and/or intersection capacity first to LOS F arterial streets that cross the screenlines with the greatest number of LOS E/F crossing streets. (East-West arterials crossing screenlines I and 3 have the worst projected LOS.) I. Screenline I — running north -south from Sinclair Inlet to south of Sedgwick, west of Bethel. Arterials crossing east -west include: Bay, Tremont, and Sedgwick. In 2005 Bay and Sedgwick operate at LOS E/F, and by 2025 all three arterials will be at LOS E/F. 2. Screenline 2 — running east -west from Port Orchard Boulevard to east of Fircrest, south of Mile Hill Road. Arterials crossing north -south include: Port Orchard Boulevard, Sidney, Bethel, Mitchell, and Jackson. In 2005 Bethel is at LOS E/F. By 2025 Bethel will improve to LOS D but Jackson will decline to LOS E/F. 3. Screenline 3 — running north -south from north of Mile Hill Road to south of Sedgwick, just east of Jackson. Arterials crossing east -west include Mile Hill Road, Lund, Salmonberry, and Sedgwick. In 2005 Lund and Sedgwick operate at LOS E/F, and by 2025 Mile Hill will also be at LOS E/F. 4. Screenline 4 — running diagonally southwest to northwest along the west side of SR 16, from Sinclair Inlet to south of Lider. Arterials crossing east -west include Lider, Sedgwick, Berry Lake, Old Clifton Road, SR 16 and Bay. In 2005 Sedgwick and Bay both operate at LOS E/F, and by 2025 Lider will also be at LOS E/F. 5. Screenline 5 — running east -west from west of Bethel to east of Long Lake, north of Sedgwick. Arterials crossing north -south include Bethel, Jackson, Phillips and Long Lake. In City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 20 2005 Bethel is operating at LOS E/F and Jackson at LOS D. By 2025 Bethel will improve but Jackson will be at LOS E/F (as on screenline 2). 2.8.2 — Public Transit Level -of Service The improvement of transit service by Kitsap Transit is assumed in the City's investment strategy. Transit service quality shall be gauged in Port Orchard by geographic area coverage, frequency of service, and the span of service in hours/day, and days/week. Other improvements identified by the City are intended to improve access to the transit system, to improve non -motorized facilities, and to encourage participation in demand management programs that would promote travel by alternative modes rather than single occupant vehicles. Participation in such programs can successfully moderate vehicle travel demand and related levels of congestion. Goal 2.8.2 — Improve Transit Service in Port Orchard consistent with urban population and employment growth. Policy T-86 — Maintain or improve the 30-minute bus service frequency to the key destinations of City and County offices, the Downtown Port Orchard waterfront, the Kitsap Transit Foot Ferry Terminal, the Annapolis Park and Ride, and the Bethel Corridor. (See Figure 2: Existing and Future Transit Corridors) Policy T-87 — Improve the existing 60-minute or greater bus service frequency to 30-minutes for key destinations of Harrison Medical Center, Sedgwick Landing, Kitsap Juvenile Detention Center/Port Orchard Industrial Park, and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. (See Figure 2: Existing and Future Transit Corridors.) Policy T-88 — Seek to expand baseline transit service coverage to urbanizing areas of McCormick Woods, Lidstrom/Baby Doll, Lincoln, Flower, Pottery north of Tremont, and the area south of Sedgwick and east of Bethel. (See Figure 2: Existing and Future Transit Corridors) Policy T-89 — Seek to provide baseline service for late evening and weekend travel by City populations with no alternative transportation options, especially to key destinations such as Harrison Medical Center, the Bethel Corridor and the Port Orchard waterfront. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 21 Figure 1: Screenlines for Transportation Analysis x r z BURWE.L-L -� o gRto�Y o tsr TH i GRE G RY o{ j RNSENAt- 4 HLLCRE.si Poll orchard J BRBA ERTON 'WERNER z � �� � LL Transportation Element w DL Fi Ya- a ry0S� 1 4 a O CG- Sro JDc> D D a Screenlines for COLLINS ! Transportation Analysis z Y.,- �r PORT Krr y2D DOL, Q` ; I O cH D - DIV I- w Dr ' -- i:�- m Y Legend 1 w y HCRO L ss rr P Local Street ,� I J _ 9 r ,t•� SR Ol1F MILE HLL City Boundary MILE HILL^J BEL-. ..4 VALLEY .kPS� 1 �' Ott 2 i I GARFIELD Port Orchard DGA I �c� 2 I✓ 2 ` O p� o6Q Screenlines for Transportation Analysis CO K ' W -ONT 9 yy d� 2 Sti J J v a MAY g vUj 0. 1. North -South, West of Bothell 2. East-West, South of Mile Hill RME TOM s T O+ m a I UND Y 3. North -South, West of Jackson w Y w 0 x 4. Diagonal, West of SR 15 w � 5. East-West, at Blueberry BERRY 4` c �A w 1 f�OL 0-1I I m y }L �`-' <c l 5 ' 1I HARPER �� I L + I 7 is 3 2 y J I _ i `rf0 LAKE V ' O !V 1 KING D 2_ 1-0—t 2 w CEpAR / D w e DON4 a z 0 C.25 C.5 1 I DOGW OD DSE D E� 6AKER� 7 _ i Miles VAN SKIVER r� FP `��m F f Map Date October, 2011 l ai I C, s- w MILLER OE4' ki 'e�' 8fE -M EIER W, TAFT J �! LA._J KE FLORA ,.G.Pertee# w �� In City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 22 Figure 2: Existing and Future Transit Corridors I ' J O 1ST �+W J RRvOyy 9T Q aw L Z L wBRNER Z q HOSE JAL G 1-W E F C S'Z ° P B G�' � m n 1 j . `w1 y20 j L c rr PORT ORCHARD iTELFAIR VALLEY y44t iB F1Y ` TA `Y, r I W TM i E I 1 � 2 4 — I �` C I ER• L KE 0 CLIFTON WEB` HARPS '46�0_� 1 d o r — I 1 tu$ DOG MILLER f � '. ,•f TAF1T LAKE FLORA 5TH 1 I G RAI' HILLCRE Si BRM ERTON J 4 ❑ J COLLIN � O C ❑ a K P ti F ❑�W F r 7 J K z + HORS F 55 Q J 1� F � MILE HLL C m ' Olt F rp F MILE HILL Port Orchard Transportation Element O < Existing and Future s Transit Corridors Local Street h � j i Cby Boundary m z Port Oich aid OGA h Fi Future Service Area M--^ GARFIELO Primary Trans it Service Area 2 000 Existing Transit Corridors ❑ qm rq 31 q E �QS T � Proposed Future Transit Corridors I w J / SALM 6ERRY g ti w VAIN W r w W w I m 1 J LAKE VAS pZ JF V Q J �W KING wCEDAR - o$ tEoQRSF BAKER 0 F 0 C.25 C.5 1 iMiles '>m VAN SKIVER L) _ L'r 11 I os Map Date October, 2011 /61ELM E IE a \ � w City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 23 2.8.3 — Bicycle System Level -of -Service An extensive Regional Bicycle Plan, including the Port Orchard/South Kitsap subarea, was prepared by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council and adopted in 2004. The identified system of designated regional and subregional routes in Port Orchard and its UGA includes: a. The Mosquito Fleet Trail along the waterfront on Bay and Beach (regional) b. Mile Hill Road east of Jackson (regional) c. Bethel from north of Lund south (regional) d. Long Lake from Mile Hill south (subregional) e. Jackson from Mile Hill south to Salmonberry (subregional) f. Salmonberry from Jackson east to Long Lake (subregional) g. Lund from Jackson west to Sidney (subregional) h. Sedgwick/Glenwood/Lake Flora from Bethel west (subregional) i. Lider from Bethel west to Glenwood Goal 2.8.3 — Adopt the Regional Bicycle Plan/Kitsap County Greenways Plan, support its implementation and establish a network of designated City bicycle facilities and/or routes that provide continuity for the regional system and serve the City's bicycle users. Policy T-90 — City bicycle facilities shall be designated to supplement and extend the Regional Bicycle Plan, including local bike lanes and/or routes identified on Figure 3: Future Bicycle Facilities. These routes include portions of Mile Hill, Jackson/Olney, Bethel, Mitchell, Sidney/Pottery, Port Orchard Boulevard, Tremont/Old Clifton, Salmonberry, Sedgwick, Phillips, Bielmier, and Cedar/Converse. Policy T-91 - Bicycle LOS will be based on implementation progress toward the City -designated portion of the planned regional bicycle plan system. Cyclists shall be considered in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all roadway projects. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 24 Figure 3: Future Bicycle Facilities x _ z BURWELL TI4 TH K GRE G RY 15T 4 Q f f Port Orchard Q� D F g� j RNSEN%�1" U w HLLCRE.ST 'WERNER LL .4 G� Transportation Element HOS -I EBREM ERTON r C Future Bicycle f I COLLINS Facilities : i� o z J / i�--0ORT w ORCHARD n 7 20 1- . 7 I DN SS ON c=i w Cy _ �{OR411 m Y t�$ r ,t, S Ol1F MILE HLL MILE HLL m 2 Legend y0. .`A-IR VALLEY I STAL K F FIR Kitsap Regional Bicycle Plan "^- shy , O w GARFIELD Regional Route STATE M•-- , , \ CO , jOHTMAY i Ip �~ v I NA a mob Subregional Route w o I = _ E Q • • • Local Route E z 1 oa I L� Mosquito Fleet Trail a L 1 z ? Other Recommended Routes _ W J Proposed Local Route /SALIMO ERRY tk J City Boundary BERRY LAKE kyl Port Orchard UGA OL 4GN L^ SED(WICK - HARPER LAKE V� v 2 } ' 1 w Q J ❑ON` 7 O 0 17.25 0.5 1 r BAKER x'�lFt�' Mlles 5 I DOGWOOD Sys l/ w AN SKIVER f Map Date June, 2009 MILLER 8 �r I+c-M EIER W, TAFT - � NORTH m_ J� w _— LAKE FLORA w e'- �2 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 25 2.8.4 — Pedestrian System Level -of -Service The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that half of all trips made in the U.S. are 3 miles or less in length, and 28% are less than I mile. Yet, 80% of American household trips are made by car. Within the Puget Sound region, the 2000 Census found that 9% of all trips were made by walking or biking. There are many inter -related objectives to improve pedestrian facilities: • To provide a safe and accessible street environment for all users; • To ensure that those who cannot drive have mobility options; • To provide walking among the range of travel choices; • To improve health and fitness; • To improve neighborhood livability; • To support the use of public transit; and • To reduce air and noise emissions, conserve fossil fuels, and support economic vitality. Goal 2.8.4 — Establish a connected network of pedestrian facilities (including sidewalks, trails and other routes) that serve all areas of the City, accommodating walking as a safe and convenient mode of travel. (See Figure 4: Future Pedestrian Facilities) Policy T-92 — Consider pedestrians as users in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all roadway projects. Policy T-93 — Pedestrian LOS shall be based on implementation progress toward the planned system, including satisfaction of ADA compliance needs. 2.9 Recommended Actions Goal 2.9.1 — Budget annually for at least one street landscape improvement, including parkways, traffic islands, and/or pedestrian ways. Goal 2.9.2 — Develop design guidelines and standards for landscaping, sidewalks, and maintenance practices in new developments. Goal 2.9.3 — Adopt the City bikeway and pedestrian plans, consistent with the Kitsap County Greenways Plan. Goal 2.9.4 — Develop and adopt a Transportation Impact Fee Program to ensure that new growth and development pays a fair, proportionate share of the cost of needed transportation infrastructure to serve increased travel demand. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 26 Figure 4: Future Pedestrian Facilities 0-r I E� ri you BREMERTON L N D E r rn C yt D e -0O RT 7 ORCHARD r6�4P 4 �a 211 DOL � � � l I � DNI ION w N /) JQ z m a 2 r I ,� 7 V MILE I b6Z SROD v .`A—IR VALLEY $TAT IO rjtW _2 `._ STATE M• CDC K 1 0 3 a - Opp J LO o�T _o E MAY Q �a y LIJND W _ Q ti � SALM ON6ERRY V�. BERRYLAKE LL y = 5 f VA }� w SEDGWICK I HARPER ' 1-0 I Ly ! w CED R UO o f p 4 w C7 7� E� r D.r DE LOOSE BAKER �p 5 VAN -SKIVER 1 19 r �J I MILLER E Ic TAFT W J W LAKE FLORA ~ m Port Orchard HLLCRE.ST Transportation Element J I _ 0 o z 3 z Furore Pedestrian COLLINS 1-4 Facilities Legend E HUL m r w p z GARFIELD Mosquito Fleet Trail p05 Other Future Trail �O Primary Pedestrian Network 1 I C ty Boundary T W Port Orchard UGA J Y of L7 T W N m kyl W J � LAKE V � KNG 0 C.25 i7.5 1 Miles Map Date June, 2009 ftr'ten'; City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 27 This page left blank intentionally. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 28 3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This chapter provides information about the current conditions of the transportation system and services within the City of Port Orchard and the surrounding Urban Growth Area. 3.1 Roadway and Automobile System Port Orchard lies along Sinclair Inlet across from Bremerton in the heart of the Kitsap Peninsula. The major north -south route within the County is State Route (SR) 3 which passes through the community of Gorst about a mile north of Port Orchard. SR 16 connects with SR 3 at Gorst and passes through Port Orchard, ending at 1-5 in Tacoma by way of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. SR 16 is primarily a four -lane divided highway providing major regional access between Kitsap County and the transportation network of Pierce County and the greater Central Puget Sound region. SR 16 is a full access control highway (providing Class 3 managed access). SR 16 becomes 6 lanes near Gorst, west of the interchange with SR 166. Port Orchard is also connected to the Seattle metropolitan area by the Washington State Ferry system, and the Kitsap County ferry system. Kitsap Transit operates passenger -only ferry service from two docks on the Port Orchard waterfront to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal, which are scheduled to meet the direct ferry service to Downtown Seattle's Colman Dock. The Bremerton terminal provides direct walk-on, or vehicle drive -on ferry service to Downtown Seattle. Washington State Ferries operates the ferries serving the Bremerton and Southworth Ferry terminals. Roadway access from Port Orchard to the Bremerton Ferry terminal is provided by SR 304, SR 3, SR 16, and SR 166. Roadway access from Port Orchard to Southworth is provided by Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and county roads. In addition to serving the Southworth ferry terminal, Sedgwick Road also provides connections to SR 16. Sedgwick Road is a two lane highway with minimum access spacing of 330 feet. Kitsap County Roads Minor county arterial roads serve as key elements in the county transportation system. These minor arterial roads link state routes and connect them to the City of Port Orchard, to other major centers, and to the ferry system. For example, Bethel Road is a two lane north/south arterial that intersects with Sedgwick Road (SR 160), Lund Avenue, and Bay Street (SR 166) where it terminates. Kitsap County roads and Port Orchard roads were identified and analyzed within the joint Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan and the 2006 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update and Environmental Impact Analysis, and those analysis results are reported herein. Existing Roadway Functional Classifications The Functional Classification System provides a planning guide for the development of a transportation network that will serve the needs of a community's growth for the future. Streets within a transportation network must be managed for specific roles in moving persons through the City and surrounding region. The Functional Classification System identifies the role of each street and provides City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 29 a simplistic vision of management needs for each type, including safety, adjacent land uses, multi -modal travel demands, and other connecting transportation systems. Ultimately the functional class of each street determines the typical roadway design, cross section parameters, and design speed, while providing a basis for management practices to minimize conflicts between travel modes. The City of Port Orchard has not adopted its own functional classifications, but has used the Federal Functional Classifications (FCC) as provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Federal functional classifications for the arterial roadway system serving the Port Orchard study area are depicted on Figure 5. The City's current streets are listed by their FCC classification in Table 2. The following definitions serve as a general guide in determining FCC roadway classifications: • Principal Arterials — Inter community roadways connecting primary community centers with major facilities. Principal arterials are generally intended to serve through traffic, with limitations for direct access to abutting properties. • Minor Arterials — Intra community roadways connecting community centers with principal arterials. In general, minor arterials serve trips of moderate length. Access is partially controlled with infrequent access to abutting properties. • Urban (and Rural Major) Collectors — Streets connecting residential neighborhoods with smaller community centers and facilities as well as access to the minor and principal arterial system. Property access is generally a higher priority for Urban Collectors and through -traffic movements are served as a lower priority. The study area includes Rural Major Collectors that serve rural areas adjacent to the Urban Growth Area. • Rural Minor Collectors — Streets connecting rural residential neighborhoods with smaller community centers and facilities as well as access to the arterial system. The study area includes Rural Minor Collectors that serve rural areas adjacent to the Urban Growth Area. • Local Access - Streets providing direct access to individual residential or commercial properties. Local access streets are an integral part of the street network, providing important travel routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Local access streets include all streets that are not functionally classified as arterials or collectors. The transportation plan addresses the improvement needs of only the functionally classified arterial and collector street system within the study area. Table 2: City of Port Orchard Existing Roadway Functional Classifications (FCC Class) Freeway Route Termini SR 16 Through the Planning Area Principal Arterials Route Termini Bay Street SR 16 to Bethel Avenue Bethel Avenue Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Drive Bethel Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to SE Sedgwick Road SE Sedgwick Road SR 16 to western city limits City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 30 Table 2: City of Port Orchard Existing Roadway Functional Classifications (FCC Class) (Cont.) Minor Arterials Route Termini SE Sedgwick Road SR 16 to eastern UGA boundary Bay Street Bethel Avenue to Olney Avenue Beach Drive E Olney Avenue to eastern UGA boundary Bethel Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to SR 16 Sidney Avenue Bay Street to SR 16 Sidney Road SW SW Berry Lake Road to southern UGA boundary Pottery Avenue Tremont Street SW to SW Berry Lake Road Tremont Street SW SR 16 to Sidney Avenue Lund Avenue SW Sidney Avenue to Jackson Avenue SE SE Mile Hill Drive Bethel Avenue SE to eastern UGA boundary Jackson Avenue SE SE Mile Hill Drive to SE Sedgwick Road Long Lake Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to UGA boundary Long Lake Road SE SE Sedgwick Road to Bodle Road SE Glenwood Road SW Western city limits to western UGA boundary Urban Collector or Rural Minor Collector Route Termini Bielmeier Road Bethel Road SE to Phillips Road SE Phillips Road SE SE Sedgwick Road to southern UGA boundary Olney Avenue Beach Drive E to SE Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard Boulevard Bay Street to Tremont Street SW Old Clifton Road SR 16 to McCormick Woods Drive SW SW Berry Lake Road Sidney Road SW to western UGA boundary Mitchell Avenue Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Drive Mitchell Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to Bethel Avenue SE Lincoln Avenue Mitchell Road SE to Karcher Road SE Karcher Road SE SE Lincoln Avenue to SE Mile Hill Drive Retsil Road E/SE Beach Drive E to SE Mile Hill Drive SE Salmonberry Road Bethel Road SE to Long Lake Road SE SE Lund Avenue Jackson Avenue SE to Madrona Drive SE City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 31 Figure 5: City of Port Orchard Existing Arterial Functional Classification Map ,-_,- y } } PORT ORCHA C x� 7i.� L. C � AT 614M ERTON I f{ — _ ► _ ! LLLNL' l w r -- - SE6lGYlICT4 ' F "gr6AR 4.' SKIVE BAKEF OR F. 1 T" 1 Port Orchard `7LLCREy j frarrspartatiorr Efement �xfs�ing Roadway � 3 C4LLIHS Fwncrfonal Classffocarfon W� � Fosa f q Freeway k Principal itehal it * y Hlnor �narlal _ U HILL s lPman cdise.or.Rural Major Cal lector RFIE�L'L Rural Minor Iolle=r S ECCaI stfeet ' w ,. — CKy 9UY7�irf PortflrcharIUG- V ryl —K:' - o Q25 o.s 1 *flee Map 6aw:June, 20DO - *to'- Perteet .' City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 32 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Traffic Levels of Service The analysis of the City arterial system included a review of the existing (2005) average weekday traffic volumes on select streets within the City and the larger Port Orchard Planning Area. Traffic volume data was provided by the City of Port Orchard and the Kitsap County Public Works Department. The existing (2007) average weekday traffic is shown in Figure 6. Transportation LOS is a measure of the quality of service provided by the transportation system. Transportation LOS helps provide an understanding of the performance of the transportation system, it also establishes a basis for comparison between roadways, and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects. Arterial street system LOS is typically described in terms of traffic congestion which can be measured by average vehicle delay, travel speed, vehicular density, or the traffic volume to street traffic capacity (V/C) ratio, as described in Chapter 2. In addition to arterial LOS, intersection LOS was also analyzed. The intersection LOS is based on the PM peak hour (4:30 — 5:30). Intersection capacity is estimated based on the recommended capacities in the Kitsap County planning model. Level of service for arterial unsignalized intersections is estimated based on a ratio of the intersection capacity to utilization (ICU) LOS. Letter grades are assigned based on the sum of the turning movement volumes to capacity flow rates. The resulting LOS indicates the levels of delay that drivers experience at an intersection. Table 3 describes the LOS ratings and the corresponding intersection capacity to utilization (ICU) for unsignalized and signalized intersections. Table 3: Level of Service Definition (Signalized / Unsignalized Intersections) LOS Conditions ICU A Best (Short Delay) 0 to 55% B > 55% to 64% C > 64% to 73% D > 73% to 82% E >82%to91% F Worst (Long Delay) Greater than 91 % ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization is the ratio of the intersection capacity to utilization. The existing 2007 level of service on the City's arterial streets is shown in Figure 7. The existing 2007 level of service at intersections is shown in Figure 8. Nine roadway segments have existing levels of service below the City's LOS standard (LOS E/F), as listed in Table 4. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 33 Figure 6: Existing Port Orchard Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) H L LC F1 Esr Port Orchard BREMERio" Transportation Element Existing Conditions S'L- -too Traffic Volumas .PGRT j, CM in, 7 600 16 00 1131800 -9 .2. F1 L Ft_F I EL13 Port Orchard UG A 07 L j I PKAY B"ERYON 17 LUN 0 L j TT 000 1P UESERR, r Q 21000 16E 0 HARIA EltOr. qAN SISIVER M11 c.Ep. 0? I -TAFr ER 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mil es F- Map Date: June, 23C: '.NDR'TM Per, City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 34 Figure 7: Existing Arterial Level of Service (LOS) AD Port Orchard I `.w z j BREMERTOf4 ,' f fr r I � Transportation Element11 ExrstingCoditions Li �r `7,I CL3 L N& 2005 Level of Service r PORT I } I� Kra _'� Foss I x — Level of Service � � �5 f :]: LL 4iL OR iM1 `ri f S +u mI i_ m tee► A R I g fd� GARFIELEI 1 Y 1 F, C4iK W 7 II �E •i Y w 3 / ERTOlf �x I _ I L'JhG 4 - LOgIStset i L. 'VI —1 "x r — — — Cltg Boundary ti .. , ` 1 3 'a "1 w rl x Pmtarcnar UGA 17 OCQ CL11 tQR uGW :J f _HA#i4rF I I I i' [aql 1zi XENG ac O. o Jp— CEDAR r > ll 4 45E �� i ri QDM } 5f�+° 0 0.25 0-5 1 Wes 4 iiAFiEH qq IL/l 9 _ OQG W SX I -dart } F _ x Map date: June, 2009 I� �TMILL EF. � t TAFf City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 35 Figure 8: Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) 25 w z BLMVWVE.LL IT C4RV-OO F 1ST GRETW Port Orchard gRSE'AL � x HLLCR E.sT weRNER Z 5 LL BREMERTON 'r y Transportation Element 0� ❑ HOB 2 F ,t> y 0 J' m EG-0� j e w 1 B D ti Existing Conditions n A COLLINS Intersection Level of Service � � A g .C� � 1 a z w PORT C C�c I PQ f a° Y o � D L 7 KIT AP f b < y, B� LL w Cy HORS F ss = Y Level of Service JQ J { YiN Q m A CA E�-� LL {,$ �Op SRODF B C C MILEIHLL C B A rn = B a BEIF' ~ O LFA IIR VALLEi P'tw Yti: HY Iq FIR k iA 76 CO GARFIELD C' C 0 r Oz m MAD oOc' C p CO K i 2 z v' NJ' d�0 Z Sao .. .. CE o ❑1 MAY Qw i!G s A J �R E� J ¢ F E 3. O d J Local Street 0 Chy Boundary P ❑ y. u] U T C F� w LU W Port Orchard DGA �G�� Q,5 BERRY LAKE '� LL m 2 VA ~ A rOV�� OLD CLIF 70N — El' E C HARPER C B SEDGWICK D .� CC In ly a JJ B uJ m s KNG g0 / O LL CEDAR 0 J ��� �, DON4 a z z D 0.25 0.5 1 Q / DOGWOD OSE 0 0 G.��. OEF¢ BAKER 1 Miles 0 VAN s NER Map Cate- June, 2009 ,CC ORG MILLER'r AA 81E -I�EIER A TAFT NORTH LAKE FLO t CP�4 — Pertee City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 36 Table 4: Existing LOS Deficient Roadway Segments Roadway Segment LOS Bay Street (SR 16 to Beach Drive) F Bethel Avenue (SE Lund Avenue to Bay Street) F Bethel Road (Sedgwick to Lund Avenue) F W Sedgwick Road (Glenwood Road to SR 16) F SE Sedgwick Road (SR 16 to east UGA Limit) F SE Lund Avenue (Bethel Road to Jackson Avenue) F SE Mile Hill Road (Whittier to Baby Doll Road SE) F SE Mile Hill Road (Baby Doll Road SE to Long Lake Road) E Jackson Avenue SE (Salmonberry Road to Lund Avenue) E Among the LOS deficient roadways identified in Table 4, Bethel Avenue and Bethel Road have planned projects in place that would expand the roadway to four lanes to address the existing deficiency. This project is identified in the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan recommends expanding the roadway to a five -lane section to increase capacity. Three intersections were identified as currently operating with LOS below the adopted standard of LOS D, as shown in Table 5. Table 5: Existing LOS Deficient Intersections Intersection 1101-i Bethel Avenue at SE Mile Hill Drive (Roundabout) F Bethel Road at SE Salmonberry Road F SE Sedgwick Road at Converse Avenue SE E The deficient LOS at the identified Bethel Road intersections would also be addressed with implementation of the Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan. 3.3 Public Transit Services Public transit service in the City of Port Orchard is provided by Kitsap Transit, which also services most of Kitsap County, including the cities of Bremerton, Poulsbo, and Bainbridge Island. Kitsap Transit has developed a long range plan which contains historic data regarding its operation, future and financial plans. As a part of its plan, Port Orchard has joined with the other cities in an inter -local agreement with Kitsap Transit to implement Transportation Demand Management programs as required by the Washington Trip Reduction Law of 1991 (SSHB 1671). Under the agreement, Kitsap Transit ensures City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 37 certification of consistency with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan requirements for Transportation Demand Management programs. Kitsap Transit provides both bus service and foot ferry service. Existing Bus Service Coverage Kitsap Transit operates six transit routes within the City of Port Orchard and its UGA. A description of each route is provided below, and shown in Figure 9. • Route 5: Sidney to Harrison and Sedgwick Landing - This route operates with two branches from a main spine on Sidney serving the Port Orchard Ferry Dock in downtown Port Orchard. The main spine operates with a bus every 30 minutes on weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. serving the Ferry Dock, past the Kitsap County Courthouse on Sidney to Tremont. At Tremont the route branches, with one branch (5H) serving Harrison Medical Center and the Youth Services Center with a bus every hour, and the other branch (5S) serving Sedgwick Landing /Albertsons with an hourly bus. The same service pattern is operated on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. In 2010 this route carried 59,669 riders. • Route 8: Bethel - This route operates between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock in downtown Port Orchard and the Fred Meyer store at the intersection of Sedgwick and Bethel, serving South Kitsap High School and Walmart in between. The service is provided on 30 minute headways weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. In 20I0, the route carried 40,953 riders. • Route 9: South Park - This route serves the Port Orchard Ferry Dock in downtown Port Orchard from a loop route that serves the Retsil Veteran's Home, South Park Shopping Center, Walmart, Towne Square Shopping Center, Albertsons, and two park and ride lots. The route operates on Bay Street, Olney/Jackson, Ash, Madrona, Lund, Salmonberry, Branson, Berger, Chase, Hoover, Lincoln, Mitchell, and Mile Hill. Service is provided on hourly headways weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays between 10:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. In 2010 the route carried 58,655 riders. • Route 81: Annapolis Commuter - This commuter route operates between the Annapolis Ferry Dock and the central area of the Port Orchard UGA simlar to the Route 9, with service to the Port Orchard Armory Park and Ride lot, South Kitsap Mall, and South Park area. Service is provided with three morning peak buses on weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (on 30 minute headways), and three afternoon peak between 3:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (half hour headways). No weekend service is provided. In 2010 the route carried 35,958 riders. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 38 Figure 9: Existing Public Transit Routes S S' 4J HU:i'fIF LL TH ' oil O.1ST I,�.OR C�l7fivT'MLLCREST r. Port Orchard ` Transportation Element a .2 ri D E S'°a BREMERTON m °g Existing and Future y T D COLLM ` Public Transit PORT Ferry- p ..r�Y x ,• �� ORCHARD �41 , �. s o' 1 yo oDLtA4 �s 1 or�::;z::, i{itSB +- - Existing i{itsap Transit �: f •� .� a Mail ��_ Q 5-5idney-30Minutes f5 m• z SH- S idnny, to Harrison - Hourly '�U r MILE f'IiLI r � SR H i -. MILE HILL—' 53 -Sidna to Sad wick Landln Houn -IR VALLEY � SAT&N i 8 . FI w - Y 9 9- Y y�A Y6. P Sr GARFIEL❑ 8 . Beth ek . 30 Minutes I" COrmt.111 ❑ w °. 'r MM.9 g w + Og rA-•---- 9-South Park - Hourly I � m 87-Annapolis Co. muter __ fjF. 1 a BREMERTON =� I + }` @ ❑ I1 G��= 88-Southworth Shuttle Comm uter rr� �i. w ' 9 i .. L P - I _ z T - = z Local Street , :7j N m_ Transfer Center 1 a z w . A l Park & Ride } SALMONBERRY-• Y OVA e BERRY LAKE 8 f VA[ Si ¢ + .{ tAP `v Potential Future Park& Ride ❑L6 CLIFT, Y SEDGWI( 1i — ! —C:=- Ferry (Passenger Only) I� Future Servlee Area I 000 / I HARD I J w r a w 1 iy 9 m x— J - LASCE VP L..r City Boundary eC KC Port Ore hard UGA � A l �. ILL CEDAF I — 6ON p ! Cj W 713 i L `m R �- _1 � O O 0 0-2s 0-5 1 - --DE ,1�SE FAKER O Fk iZ - Miles I DDcwaOD LI- VAN -� - — W _ SH NERI C) OS Ft* Map Date: October. 2011 kV I j. MILLER NORTH f -- 9" .' 1TAF1T- L y m— �, J LAME FLORA w City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 39 • Route 86: Southworth Shuttle - This commuter route operates between the Southworth Ferry Terminal and the Port Orchard Ferry Dock, with stops at the Port Orchard Armory Park and Ride lot and the Harper Evangelical Church Park and Ride lot. Service is provided on weekdays only. Service operates at variable headways to meet the WSF schedule, generally between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 7:10 p.m. In 2010, the route carried 55,177 riders. • Purdy Connection - This commuter route operates mainly on SR 16 between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Purdy Park and Ride lot in Pierce County, with a stop at the Mullenix Park and Ride lot. Service operates on weekdays only. During the morning commute period, there are two runs from Port Orchard to Purdy (leaving the Port Orchard Ferry Dock at 6:10 a.m., and at 8:10 a.m.), and two runs from Purdy to Port Orchard (leaving Purdy Park and Ride at 6:35 a.m. and 8:35 a.m.) During the afternoon, there are three runs from Port Orchard to Purdy (leaving at 3:05, 4:05 and 5:05 p.m.), and three runs from Purdy to Port Orchard (leaving Purdy Park and Ride at 3:35, 4:35, and 5:35 p.m.). Existing Ferry Service Coverage Kitsap Transit operates the Kitsap Foot Ferry in addition to bus service. The foot ferry provides service across Sinclair Inlet between Port Orchard and Bremerton, via two different ferry docks, including the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Annapolis Ferry Dock. The foot ferry provides direct pedestrian access timed to meet the Seattle/Bremerton Ferry. The Port Orchard Ferry Dock is located north of the Sidney Avenue / Bay Street intersection, and service operates at 30 minute headways (in both directions) between 4:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Port Orchard Ferry Dock is served by transit routes 5, 8, 9, 81, 86 and the Purdy Connection. The Annapolis Ferry Dock is located west of the Olney Avenue E / Bay Street intersection. Ferry service from the Annapolis Ferry Dock is provided during peak commute periods on weekdays only. During the morning peak, service is provided from 5 to 15 minute headways between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and during the afternoon peak, service is provided between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Annapolis Ferry Dock is served by transit routes 9 and 81. A pay parking lot is located at the Annapolis Ferry Dock. In 2010, the foot ferries (both routes combined) carried a total of 444,296 riders. Kitsap Transit expanded the foot ferry capacity in 2009, adding a new vessel and an upgraded vessel. Transfer Centers / Transfer Points There are two transfer centers in Port Orchard and two transfer points. The two transfer centers include the Town Square Transfer Center (South Kitsap Mall), and the Port Orchard Ferry Dock in downtown Port Orchard. The two transfer points include the Annapolis Ferry Dock, and the Walmart located at Bethel Road SE / SE Lund Avenue. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 40 Park and Ride Lots Kitsap Transit operates three park and ride lots within the City of Port Orchard. A description of each lot is provided below. • Annapolis Ferry Terminal — This lot, located just east of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal on Bay Street, contains 74 parking spaces. The lot serves routes 9 and 81. • First Lutheran Church Park and Ride Lot — This lot, located at 2483 Mitchell Road SE, contains 24 parking spaces. The lot serves routes 8, 9 and 81. • Port Orchard Armory Park and Ride Lot — This lot, located at SE Mile Hill Road at Karcher Road SE, contains 109 parking spaces. The lot serves routes 8, 9, 81 and 86. Vanpools Kitsap Transit operates a vanpool program aimed at commuters, with vans operating between various locations in Kitsap County and Puget Sound. Current employment destinations served from the Port Orchard area include the Bangor Submarine Base, Boeing Kent facility, Boeing Renton facility, Everett Naval Station, Fort Lewis, Keyport, Bremerton Naval Station, and various other sites in Seattle and Tacoma. Paratransit Service Kitsap Transit provides paratransit (dial -a -ride) service, called "Access" within its operating area. The Access paratransit service provides transportation for people whose disability or condition prevents them from using Kitsap Transit's regular route buses. Access paratransit service can take a qualified customer to anywhere within the Kitsap Transit service area during the regular hours that the bus routes serve that area. Reservations are required for the paratransit service. 3.4 Marine Transportation Services The Port Of Bremerton commissioned a 1994 study entitled Recreational Boating Demand. According to the study, there are 11,200 vessels in Kitsap County registered with the State of Washington. There are 6,363 boats shorter than 18 feet. There are 3,344 vessels between 18 and 25 feet long, and there are 1,525 over 25 feet long. The study analyzes demand from the four county region and is based upon the residence of registered boaters and boaters using the Port's marina facilities. It estimates future demand based upon Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections. The resulting forecasts are for 14,991 vessels by the year 2010, 16,887 by the year 2020, and 17,836 by the year 2025. These vessels, when sorted by size, identify Kitsap County's contribution to the regional recreational demand. Boats over 25 feet long are usually moored while boats between 18 and 25 feet long may be moored depending on the owner's use and towing/loading capabilities. Boats less than 18 feet long are generally stored on dry land. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 41 Recreational Boating Services The present supply of recreational boating services is provided by a mixture of private and public providers, as listed in Table 6. Table 6: Port Orchard Marina Providers and Moorage Type Number of Providers Number of Wet Moorage Slips Public Ports 6 1,377 Other Government 2 0 Private for Profit 1 1 676 Condominium 4 453 Yacht Clubs 3 462 Total 26 2,968 source: Kecreationai tsoating �,tuay vemana /ssessment Tor moorage, preuminary report Tor the rort oT tsremerton and reratrovicn, Nottingham & Drage Inc. by BST and Associates, Seattle, WA, February 28, 1994 3.5 Airport and Aviation Services Future Boating Services Needs The Port's study analyzed the supply of moorage by type and facility. It compared the existing supply with the expected demand. The report recommends additional surveys to determine facility needs for boat ramps and storage. Available records indicate that there are 21 salt water access boat ramps in Kitsap County and 9 fresh water access ramps. Only one is located in the City of Port Orchard. Since no record is kept or fee charged for use of most boat ramps, the study is unable to determine the existing or projected demand. The study analyzed the supply of moorage and compared the existing supply with the expected demand. By the year 2010, this unmet demand was forecasted to grow to about 936, by the year 2020, unmet forecasted demand is approximately 1,352, and by 2025 unmet demand is approximately 1,560. Port Orchard is serviced by two airports: Port Orchard Airport, a privately owned, general aviation facility about 5 miles southwest of the City, and Bremerton National Airport (BNA), owned and operated by the Port Of Bremerton. BNA is a general aviation facility servicing the communities on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. BNA is a Part 139 Certified Airport authorized to serve U.S. Department of Transportation certified air carriers with more than 30 passengers. In 1992, there were 101 airplanes based at the airport. Three fixed base operators provide various but limited training, fuel and convenience services. In the last seven years, total annualized operations ranged from 91,000 to 130,000 flights per year. BNA serves beginning amateurs as well as professional pilots and flights. BNA based planes range from 100-120 in numbers with the largest in size being C-130 and C-9 transports. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 42 The Bremerton National Airport Master Plan projects a 74 percent increase in the number of planes based at the airport, increasing to 202 airplanes by the year 2012. Along with the increase in the numbers of based aircraft, operations are forecasted to increase by the year 2025. It has been estimated that the Navy could bring in as many as five weekly flights for a total 520 annual operations if it utilizes the airport for its C-9 transport aircraft activities. For planning purposes, the future operations are forecasted to continue to be dominated by business oriented flights, private planes, flight training, or other forms of noncommercial activity that use single- and multi -engine piston aircraft. The Master Plan for the airport identifies land use impacts on areas surrounding the runways due to the expanded operations. These impacts are related to the expected increase in noise levels. The Plan suggests that there is a need for an Airport Overlay Zone or Impact and Development Zones to protect the airport from encroachment of incompatible uses. The Plan's recommendations would affect only county planning areas and would not impact any lands within the current or projected City of Port Orchard. The airfield consists of two converging runways, 1-19 and 16-34. Runway 1-19 is 6,200 feet long and 150 feet wide. Runway 16-34 is currently closed to aircraft. The Port of Bremerton provides the following data on the airports active runway, RW 1 / 19: The City of Port Orchard may also benefit from the waterfront location on Sinclair Inlet as a landing site for private float planes and corporations such as Kenmore Air. Additional effort may be invested to accommodate float plane service and facilities within the City of Port Orchard as this mode of travel provides additional personal travel choice within the study area. 3.6 Freight and Rail Services Freight and goods are transported within the Port Orchard Planning Area on SR 16 and SR 160, on City and County roads, and on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF). The BNSF Railroad provides one train per day freight service, with use restricted to the U.S. Military by agreement. The U.S. Navy owns the rails from Shelton to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and on to Bangor. The railroad is maintained as Federal Railway Administration Class 3 on a scale of I (low) to 6 (high). At its closest point, the railroad right of way passes through the community of Gorst, about five miles west of the City of Port Orchard. In Washington State the highway and roadway system is rated according to the amount of freight and goods that are carried by truck on the system. The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) is a ranking of roads in Washington State by average gross annual truck tonnage carried. The FGTS classification system is as follows: City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 43 • T- I over 10 million tons carried annually • T-2 between 4 and 10 million annual tons • T-3 between 300,000 and 4 million annual tons • T-4 between 100,000 and 300,000 annual tons • T-5 at least 20,000 tons carries in a 60 day period The FGTS system is affected by changes in the economy, international trade, and the transportation industry such as changes in truck travel patterns, cargoes and tonnages. Revisions to the Freight and Goods Transportation System routes and tonnage classifications are developed by the agency having jurisdiction over the roadway segment. The following freight routes are designated within the Port Orchard planning area: a. SR 16 is designated as a T-I facility carrying an estimated annual 13,880,000 tons; b. SR 160 (Sedgwick, between SR 16 and Bethel Road) is designated as a T-2 facility, carrying an estimated annual 2,390,000 tons; c. Designated T-3 routes include: 1. Sidney Avenue, Tremont to SR 166 2. Sidney Road SW, Hovde to the south City Limit 3. Tremont, SR 16 to the east City Limit d. One designated T-4 route is Port Orchard Boulevard, Tremont to SR 166. e. Additional freight routes recommended for T-4 route designation are: I . SR 166/Bay Street, SR 16 to Bethel Road 2. SR 166/Beach Drive, Bethel Road to east City Limit 3. SR 160/Sedgwick/Glenwood/Lake Flora Drive, west City Limit to east City Limit 4. Tremont/Old Clifton Road, SR 16 to west City Limit 5. The last two candidate routes above are identified as freight routes serving the South Kitsap Industrial Area in the SKIA Environmental Impact Statement, 2010. 3.7 Non -Motorized Transportation Non -motorized transportation systems include facilities that provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. These include sidewalks, crosswalks, off street trails, bike routes, and bike lanes. In rural areas, non -motorized facilities can also include roadway shoulders when they are of adequate width. Some portions of non -motorized routes can be used for commuting purposes to reduce potential vehicular traffic volumes. If properly located, designed and maintained, non -motorized trails can accommodate a significant portion of local resident travel between residential areas and shopping centers, schools, and places of employment. Non -motorized facilities also provide access to public transit and in this way can help decrease the reliance on single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. When City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 44 properly planned and constructed, non -motorized facilities are shown to increase the desirability of a City as a place to live and work. Safe walking and bicycling environments within Port Orchard are a major concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational walkers or bicycle commuters. In many cases, pedestrians and cyclists must share narrow high volume streets with motor vehicles of all sizes and bicycles. They cross busy intersections with multiple conflict points. The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation Element, toward the goal of improving every citizen's quality of life by creating a safer walking and biking environment. This plan proposes a strategy for implementing a priority system for physical improvements through grants and competitive funding sources. Existing Pedestrian Facilities There are an assortment of pedestrian facilities located throughout Port Orchard and its UGA. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, trails and designated crosswalks. The majority of sidewalks are located along commercial corridors and in some neighborhoods. Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are not provided in some residential subdivisions including Goldenrod, Flower Meadows, Leora, and Indigo Point. These pedestrian facilities are typically the responsibility of the developer and are provided as part of plat development. Sidewalks are generally promoted throughout the commercial areas such as the Bethel Corridor, creating a grid -system for pedestrians, although many of the streets outside the commercial area have paved or gravel shoulders rather than sidewalks. The non -motorized network has missing links around some elementary and secondary schools. Many of the schools are located in residential neighborhoods. Continuous sidewalks would improve the safety and utility of the pedestrian environment for elementary and secondary school children to walk to and from school. In the past, many of the roads in Port Orchard were constructed to a rural standard with no curb or sidewalk improvements or provisions for safe pedestrian travel. Recent roadway reconstruction projects have provided storm drainage, curbs, and sidewalk improvements, particularly along major streets providing access to schools, parks, and the downtown business district. Sidewalks have also been constructed on many local streets in concert with new development within the City. Curb ramps to allow barrier -free access to sidewalks at street crossings have also been installed at many locations. The City created an inventory of the locations of these facilities in 2011 in order to determine where further improvements are needed to provide for mobility by persons with disabilities. Existing Trails Non -motorized transportation systems also include separated or off -road recreational trails. A portion of these trail corridors can also satisfy local access needs between residential areas and parks, schools, commercial and employment areas depending on the trail locations. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 45 At present, there are no formal separated trails within Port Orchard, however, there are informal trails throughout the City. Kitsap County initiated the development of the Mosquito Fleet Trail, which will ultimately include approximately 100 miles of pedestrian and bicycle trails that will link open spaces throughout Kitsap County in an interconnected system. The trail system will include a combination of on -street (sidewalks, bike lanes, shoulders, separated paths) and off-street (off -road trail) facilities. The Mosquito Fleet Trail Master Plan, completed in 2001, identifies the primary corridor through Port Orchard following SW Bay Street and Beach Drive. From Dogwood Hill Road to Kitsap Street, a separated path is proposed on the shoreline side of the road. From Kitsap Street to Bethel Avenue, bicycle lanes are recommended. Through downtown Port Orchard (Port Orchard Avenue to Harrison Avenue), bicycle lanes are recommended, but will require eliminating either the center turn lane or on - street parking from one side. From Sidney Avenue to Mitchell Point, a separated path was recommended on the shoreline side. From Mitchell Point to Olney Avenue, paved shoulders were recommended. Through coordination with the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation, a separated path could be developed from Retsil Road to Olney Avenue by utilizing property at the Annapolis Recreation Area. The City has proposed a number of north -south off -road trails that would link to the Mosquito Fleet Trail. These include the Ross Creek Trail, Center City Trail, and Blackjack Creek Trail. The Ross Creek Trail would connect Bay Street to Tremont Street SW, following the Ross Creek watershed. The City Center Trail would connect Bay Street to Pottery Avenue, following Port Orchard Boulevard for most of its length. The Blackjack Creek Trail would eventually include a trail along the entire Blackjack Creek watershed, from Bay Street to the intersection of Sedgwick Road and Highway 16. Existing Bicycle Facilities Today, there are few bicycle facilities within Port Orchard. In the past, cyclists within the Port Orchard Planning Area either rode in the lane of traffic, on available road shoulders, or on City sidewalks. Kitsap County has identified five bike routes within the Port Orchard planning area. These routes do not cross into the City of Port Orchard limits. The routes include: a. Route 25 — Sidney Road SW from SR 16 to the south, west on SW Lider Road, south on Glenwood Road SW b. Route 30 — SE Mile Hill Drive from the east city limits eastward to the Southworth Ferry terminal c. Route 37 — Bethel Road from Lincoln Avenue to the south into unincorporated Kitsap County d. Route 43 — SW Lake Flora Road from Glenwood Road SW southwesterly into unincorporated Kitsap County e. Route 47 — Beach Drive E, from the city limit to the north The following projects that include pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements are planned by the City of Port Orchard: City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 46 a. Bay Street Pedestrian Path — The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to construct a 1.5 mile long pedestrian walkway with guardrail and street improvements, from Downtown Port Orchard to the eastern City Limits. b. Downtown Bay Street Improvements — The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (2011-2016) includes a project to replace and resurface existing sidewalks, replace curbs, and stormwater culverts, and construct traffic calming devices between Bank Street and Harrison Avenue. c. Cedar Heights Sidewalks - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to construct concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter and stormwater system on the west side of Pottery Avenue from Lippert Drive to Cedar Heights Junior High School. d. Pottery Avenue - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to widen the two lane roadway with sidewalks and a stormwater system for 0.3 miles from Tremont to Melcher Street; and another project widen to four lanes the segment from Tremont to SR 16, a distance of I mile, adding sidewalks, stormwater and traffic calming. e. Bethel Avenue — The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes two projects to widen Bethel Avenue and Bethel Avenue W to four lanes with sidewalks, lighting and stormwater improvements, for a distance of 2.8 miles from Bay Street to Lincoln Avenue. f. Sidney Avenue - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to overlay the roadway and construct a paved shoulder for 0.5 miles from Lippert Drive to SR 16; and a second project to widen to four lanes with sidewalks, stormwater and traffic calming, the segment from SR 16 to Sedgwick Road, a distance of I mile. g. Fireweed Road — The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to widen the 2- lane roadway with shoulders and a stormwater system for .25 miles. h. Sherman Avenue - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to widen the 2-lane roadway with shoulders and a stormwater system for .35 miles. i. Port Orchard Boulevard - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to construct a concrete sidewalk on one side of the roadway from Bay Street to Tremont Street, a distance of 1.1 miles. j. Old Clifton Road - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to widen the existing roadway to 4-lanes with sidewalks, lights and stormwater improvements, for 0.5 miles from SR 16 to the west City Limit. k. Cline Avenue - The Port Orchard 6-year TIP (201 1-2016) includes a project to rehabilitate the roadway pavement and replace the sidewalk on the west side of the street, in the segment from Kitsap Drive to Dwight Street, a distance of 0.13 mile. 1. Tremont Street Widening —This City of Port Orchard project has been recommended to KRCC for federal funding. It would widen 0.65 miles of Tremont Street from two to four lanes with concrete sidewalks, bike paths on both sides, and necessary drainage improvements. This segment would complete the Port Orchard Bypass, which constructed a four -lane arterial from Bethel Road to Port Orchard Boulevard and the four -lane bridge across Blackjack Creek. The Pottery Avenue intersection will be significantly improved with road widening, a Pottery Avenue left -turn lane onto Pottery Avenue, and signal improvements. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 47 This page left blank intentionally. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 48 4.0 STATE OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES As required under the WA Growth Management Act (GMA), comprehensive plan transportation elements are required to include a sub -element addressing state-owned transportation facilities, and transportation facilities of statewide significance. This section of the City's Transportation Element complies with the GMA requirements by providing: • An inventory of state-owned facilities within the Port Orchard Planning Area; • Estimates of traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use decisions so performance can be monitored and improvements can be planned; • State adopted level of service (LOS) standards for measuring state facility performance; • Identified current and future state facility needs that are consistent with WSDOT's statewide multimodal transportation system plan. 4.1 Inventory of State Owned Facilities SR 16 SR 16 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) that passes through the Port Orchard Planning Area. SR 16 is functionally classified as a Freeway by WSDOT, and the highway is rated on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) as a T- I facility carrying an estimated 13,880,000 tons in 2008. SR 16 serves freight, commuter, neighborhood, business, and recreational travelers. Within the planning area, interchanges with SR 16 are located at Tremont Street SW, and at SW Sedgwick Road (SR 160). SR 16 links South Kitsap County with Pierce County, passing through Port Orchard and eventually connecting to Interstate 5 in Tacoma by way of the Narrows Bridge. SR 16 is a fully access -controlled highway with Class 3 managed access within Kitsap County. It is primarily a four -lane divided highway, however, it widens to six lanes east of the intersection with SR 3 at Gorst and continues to SR 166 in Port Orchard. SR 160 SR 160 (Sedgwick Road) is the east/west ferry commuter route, connecting Port Orchard with the Southworth ferry terminal, SR 16, and eventually with SR 3. This highway has two lanes with minimum access spacing of 330 feet. SR 160 is the the primary route from SR 16 to the Southworth Ferry Terminal. The corridor has a history of collisions that is expected to continue worsening as traffic volumes increase. SR 166 SR 166 (Bay Street) runs from SR 16 along the City of Port Orchard waterfront to the east city limits. The road was previously designated SR 160, but in 1992, SR 160 was moved to its present location on City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 49 Sedgwick Road, and SR 166 was formed in 1993. The route includes Bay Street from SR 16 to Bethel Avenue, Bethel Avenue from Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Road, and SE Mile Hill Road from Bethel Avenue to the east city limits. 4.2 Planned Improvements to State Owned Facilities Within the Port Orchard Planning area, SR 160 and SR 16 have been identified by WSDOT for planned projects. They are described below. WSDOT State Highway System Plan The State Highway System Plan provides service objectives and action strategies for maintaining, operating, preserving and improving state highways. The financially constrained 20-year transportation improvement projects proposed for the planning area are described below. a. SR 16 from Pierce/Kitsap County Line to SR 166, Widen to 6 lanes, creating HOV lanes, interchange improvements, TDM, Intelligent Transportation Systems. b. SR 160 from SR 16 to Long Lake Road, Widen to 4 lanes, widen bridge 160/5 at interchange to 5 lanes. c. SR 166 from SR 16 to Port Orchard Boulevard, Widen to 4 lanes. d. SR 166 from couplet to end of route, Add one lane in the decreasing direction. Maintain two-way left turn lanes. SR 160 Route Development Plan The SR 160 Route Development Plan was completed in 1998. Its limits were between SR 16 and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. The improvements that were recommended for the corridor include: a. Widen State Route 160 from SR 16 to Long Lake Road, by creating a four lane roadway with sidewalks and bike lanes and a raised median. The proposed highway median for this segment will serve to reduce the total number of conflicting vehicle movements such as left turns and crossing maneuvers, particularly at minor intersections and private driveways. Under this plan, full intersection access will remain at the public road intersections of Geiger Road, Bethel Road, Converse Avenue, Jackson Avenue, Phillips Road, and Long Lake Road. b. Between Long Lake Road and the Southworth Ferry Terminal, no additional through travel lanes were recommended. The WSDOT Access Management Plan will continue to provide guidance related to the permitting of future road approaches. c. Provide Sidewalk and/or Shoulder Improvements the entire Route. d. Develop a park & ride lot near the area of the interchange of SR 16 and SR 160. If a lot was constructed at this location, vehicle demand along Sedgwick Road could be reduced by capturing ferry -bound vehicles before they enter the SR 160 corridor and by providing transit service to the terminal. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 50 SR 160 Recent Project — SR 16 to Long Lake Road WSDOT completed safety improvements in 2011 on SR 160 (SE Sedgwick Road) between SR 16 and Long Lake Road, to reduce the frequency and severity of collisions. The project provides a safer, smoother -flowing corridor with increased visibility and turning -sight distance. Flattened slopes will decrease the severity of collisions where vehicles leave the roadway. New left turn lanes at the Phillips Road intersection and a two-way left turn lane from Estonian Court to Brasch will also help to reduce collisions. Pedestrian safety improvements included new railing on the SR 16 overpass and new six -foot -wide shoulders in the school zone from Estonian Court to Brasch. 4.3 Traffic Impacts to State Owned Facilities Traffic impacts from the City's 2025 Future Land Use Plan on state owned facilities are shown in Chapter 5: Long Range Plan and Road Standards, except the SR 16 freeway, where forecast information was not available. 4.4 LOS and Concurrency for Highways of Statewide Significance SR 16 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) by WSDOT who has established a traffic level of service (LOS) standard of "D" for the highway through the Port Orchard Planning Area. Local transportation concurrency requirements do not apply to HSS facilities. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 51 This page left blank intentionally. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 52 5.0 LONG RANGE PLAN AND ROAD STANDARDS The Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to provide travel forecasts for at least ten years based on the jurisdiction's adopted future land use plan. The Port Orchard/South Kitsap Subarea Plan provided future traffic forecasts to the year 2025 based on the City's adopted 2025 Future Land Use Plan. 5.1 Future Traffic Volumes Future 2025 traffic forecasts for the average weekday traffic (AWDT) forecast are shown in Figure 10. The traffic forecasts indicate that arterial volumes will increase within the Port Orchard Planning Area as the land use development occurs consistent with the City's adopted land use plan. 5.2 Future Traffic Levels of Service In order to evaluate the operating conditions with the forecasted 2025 future traffic volumes, PM peak hour (4:30 — 5:30) traffic LOS analysis was performed on the City's arterials and intersections. All the roadway facilities that are currently operating with poor LOS (below the City's current LOS D standard) are expected to get worse as a result of future traffic growth. Table 7 shows intersections that are projected to have congested LOS conditions in 2025. Table 8 shows roadway segments that are projected to operate with congested roadway LOS in the PM Peak Hour. The 2025 PM peak hour LOS is shown for arterial and collector roadway segments in Figure 11. Table 7: Intersections with Congested PM Peak Hour Levels of Service in 2025 Intersection Existing LOS 2025 LOS SW Bay Street at Sidney Avenue C E SW Bay Street at Bethel Avenue C E Bethel Road at Lund Avenue SE D F Bethel Road at Bielmeier A F Jackson Avenue SE at SE Salmonberry Road B F Jackson Avenue SE at SE Mile Hill Drive D E Sidney Road at SW Berry Lake Road A F Sidney Road at SE Lider Road B F SE Sedgwick Road at Converse Avenue SE E F SE Sedgwick Road at Phillips Road SE C F SE Sedgwick Road at Southbound SR 16 Ramps C E Tremont Street at Southbound SR 16 Ramps C E City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 53 Figure 10: 2025 Forecast Average Weekday Traffic Volumes PORT C r + Port Orchard � L.I [] ZE;j �y \j� r 1t.rLLCRESf Transporwrr'on Element j 2025 Forecast IN Traffic Voluim-s -� L a x r iy l r 4.l ��h SF �� UsapCauntyMAGI Rxecaut 2. 400 `-22_3001 LmaIStreet r' I Ha:f ' +y}yf ,1_ i ..L.I. tIR.-, G4RFIELD f-- CKr Boundepf 31 Q ,a 6 '. '. q . p5 Purt Orchard 11 GA + Y ~ I I 38.OQU t dL = -! I ate` I I .' P4MERTON a q {1 r r Y o: r`- 47 �•' HAiE'NJ 9y.�1 rim pi' - S { — 8 ¢} y S 9 C max'; r' r r � W S• z.14.3T0 8,32D f m L VN A - - X O KEH 5F � j 01 ►1 q F NT F[EIL� f W AL .._ I I L NORS II I , L ' 0 0.2t 0.5 1 Wiles Map Daw June. 2.009 x Pert City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 54 Figure 1 I: 2025 PM Peak Hour LOS a� a Fr �] ❑ rn 2 W l l m Y yO q qi 6ELFAIR VALLEY C ATE H r 1 R9 I 1 � a V� O OLD CL IFiTON r 1 7 � x LL jJlx ?P� — -PO RT �I4Q ORCHARD O O KIT AP a y F w JC =+NI IDN fa 0 g'ATE,& CO K — •lo iU f J r w 0 C MAY r 6 Q w O 1 Gy x m J BERRYLAKE w w w yT EY `w` 4 2L^ . m ca_ � O 1 1 HARPER — 1 Q ^ OJ -1 Q E CLo 4 CEDAR / F r 0 GW1OD OSE Ej�y I QFP �F VAN SKf c� I O <,q� �J MILL -ER H O TAFT a Port Orchard .CREST J Transportation Element a ❑ o z Level of Service ❑ �L Change (2005 - 2025) Legend Z y 2005 Intersection LOS O A z O B O GARFIELD O C ao� O' D 3'o O E • F 2025 Intersection LOS W x A N g z m B oC P � C o tiIll i O E . F W J KE VAS KING 0 0.25 0.6 1 Miles f Map Date: October, 2011 w m, w NORTH E� Perteet City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 55 Table 8: Roadway Segments with Congested PM Peak Hour Levels of Service in 2025 Roadway Existing LOS 2025 LOS SW Bay Street (SR 16 to Beach Drive) F F SE Lund Avenue (Sidney to Bethel Road) D F SE Sedgwick Road (Glenwood to east city limits) F F SE Lider Road (Sidney Road SW to Phillips Road SE A F SE Mile Hill Road (Bethel Avenue to Whittier) D E SE Mile Hill Road (Whittier to Baby Doll Road) F F SE Mile Hill Road (Baby Doll to Long Lake Road) E F Tremont (SR 16 to Lund Avenue) F F Evaluating existing and future LOS using the screenlines identified in Figure I indicates that screenlines I and 3 in central Port Orchard show the greatest need for added arterial capacity. All four continuous east -west routes crossing screenlines I and 3 are forecast to have LOS F conditions in 2025 — Bay, Tremont/Lund, Sedgwick, and Lider/Bielmier. Establishing a new east -west arterial connection should be considered by completing the missing link from Salmonberry across Blackjack Creek to Sidney/Pottery. This would provide a continuous route from west of SR 16 eastward to Long Lake Road, although it would likely require a new bridge crossing in an environmentally sensitive area. Screenline 4 also indicates a need for increased east -west arterial capacity west of SR 16 and south of Berry Lake Road — where both Sedgwick and Lider will have congested conditions in 2025. 5.3 Proposed Roadway Functional Classification Changes Traffic volumes in Port Orchard are expected to increase by over 50 percent by 2025. As previously stated, the existing functional classifications were developed primarily as a response to the existing traffic volumes. However, a street network is also developed to satisfy the desired characteristics of the community, taking into account all modes of travel and representing them in the transportation plan. Pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and vehicles are all incorporated into the network design to achieve a desired quality of life for the community. The recommended functional classifications for Port Orchard's roadway system include: • Freeways • Principal Arterials • Minor Arterials • Collectors • Local Streets City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 56 An overview of each roadway classification, including the description, connectivity, number of lanes and widths, and non -motorized elements, is described in Table 9, and further explained for each classification in the section that follows the Table. Table 9: Recommended Roadway Functional Classification Descriptions Roadway Overall Connectivity Lanes and Non -Motorized Classification Description Parking Freeway High capacity, high Terminate at 2 lanes each No peds allowed. speed, regional principal arterials direction. 12' Bikes on paved connections. or freeway. lane width min.; shoulder or Maximum mobility Shoulders both adjacent trail in with full access sides. No on- certain control. street parking circumstances Principal Arterial Provide connectivity Terminate at 2 to 4 general Sidewalks both between different freeways or purpose lanes sides w/ landscape areas of a region. principal arterials maximum; On- strip; On -street High mobility street parking in bike lanes both w/partial access commercial sides or multi -use control. districts trail. Minor Provide connectivity Terminate at 2 to 4 general Sidewalks both Arterial between different other arterials or purpose lanes sides w/ landscape areas of a region. freeways. maximum; On- strip; On -street Moderate mobility street parking in bike lanes both w/partial access commercial sides or multi -use control. districts trail. Collector Street Collect traffic from Terminate at 2 general Sidewalks both local streets and other collectors, purpose lanes; sides w/ landscape other collectors. arterials, or On -street strip; On -street Connect freeways. parking in bike lanes both neighborhds to each commercial sides or multi -use other and to districts trail. arterials. Local Street Provide direct Terminate at 2 general Sidewalks both access to properties other local purpose lanes; sides; shared lane in residential, streets, On -street for bike travel. commercial or collectors or parking as space residential areas. arterials. is available. Freeways - Freeways serve as high capacity, high speed facilities for long distance trips of an interstate or inter -regional nature. To maximize mobility, access to adjacent development is fully controlled. Freeways terminate only with other freeways or principal arterials and are typically connected via grade separated interchanges. The purpose of these facilities is not to provide access to adjacent land, and such service should be purely incidental to the primary function. These routes are designed and designated for timely movement of freight and other motor vehicles over long distances. Public transit often uses freeways for regional trips. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 57 Pedestrians and bicycles are typically prohibited, except bicycles may be allowed in limited circumstances where no alternative route is available. SR 16 is the one freeway in Port Orchard's roadway network. Principal Arterials - Principal arterials provide capacity and continuity for long distance travel between regions. Adjacent land uses may include commercial areas, industrial and institutional sites, and residential (with appropriate setbacks and buffers). Access to abutting land should be subordinate to providing safe and constant flow for major traffic movements. Principal arterials terminate only at freeways or other principal arterials. Managed access control will limit spacing of driveways for safety and operation of the principal traffic flow. Connections with other roadway classes are provided with "at -grade" intersections that include turn lanes allowing for minimal interruption of through movements. The roadways may vary from two to five lanes, depending on demand, with medians often occurring between intersections. On -street parking may be allowed in identified high activity areas. Principal arterials are designed, designated and signed as truck routes. Public transit facilities are provided along these corridors, including bus stops, pullouts, and pedestrian crosswalks at signalized intersections. On street bicycle lanes or multi -use trails are provided with sidewalks separated by a landscaped buffer on both sides of the street. Minor Arterials - Minor arterials include streets that allow greater land access (more intersections) than principal arterials, with a lower level of traffic mobility. These streets may carry local bus routes and provide for travel within the community, but ideally they border identifiable neighborhoods rather than penetrate them. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial areas. Minor arterials provide urban connections to rural collector roads outside the urban growth area boundary and they terminate only with other arterials or freeways. Minor arterials may have from two to five lanes (with center left turn lane), may be divided or undivided, and may include on -street parking in identified high activity areas. Turn lanes are provided at major intersections with clearly marked crosswalks. Freight movement on minor arterials is not encouraged for through trucks, but minor arterials provide access routes for local businesses. Public transit facilities are provided along these corridors, including bus stops and pullouts. On -street bicycle lanes or multi -use trails are provided with sidewalks on both sides of the street, separated from the curb by a landscaped buffer. Collectors - The collector system provides traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas. Collectors differ from arterials in that they may penetrate residential neighborhoods, collecting traffic from local residential streets and channeling it to the arterial system. In the central business district and other activity areas with similar traffic density, collectors are an integral part of the street grid that provides for traffic circulation. Collectors are not intended for regional travel and they typically provide route continuity for shorter distances up to two miles. Collectors may terminate with other collectors, arterials or City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 58 at intersections with local streets. These streets will usually have two travel lanes (for through movement), but may have three lanes when a center turn lane is needed for safety. Turn lanes are typically provided at intersections when warranted. On -street parking may be allowed in designated activity areas. Public transit routes often follow collector streets, and bus stops are an important design consideration. On street bicycle lanes or multi -use trails are provided with sidewalks on both sides of the street, preferably separated from the curb by a landscaped buffer. Local Streets - The local street system includes all roadways not included on one of the higher systems. Local streets provide direct access to abutting land and provide access to the higher order systems. They provide the lowest level of mobility and do not usually serve regular bus routes. Local streets have only two travel lanes, with turn lanes at intersections only under unusual circumstances. Service to through traffic movements is deliberately discouraged. On street parking may be allowed where width is provided. No bus stops or on - street bicycle lanes are provided, however local streets may serve as designated bicycle routes, identified through signage, using a shared travel lane. Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the street. Based on an evaluation of the existing and projected traffic volumes, land uses and connections, changes are recommended to the functional classification system as shown in Table 10 and Figure 12. Table 10 identifies the recommended number of lanes by roadway segment to serve the intended function and to accommodate projected future (2025) traffic volumes. The recommended number of lanes by roadway segment is also shown in Figure 13. Table 10: Recommended Roadway Functional Classifications Functional No. of 2025 No. of Classification Roadway Segment Lanes Volume Lanes (Existing) (2025) Freeway SR 16 West city limit to south UGA boundary 4 Not 4 available Principal Arterials Bay Street SR 16 to Bethel Avenue 2 28,000 2 Bethel Avenue Bay Street to Sedgwick Road 2 25,700- 4/5 29,300 Bethel Road SE Sedgwick Road to SR 16 (with new 2 15,300- 2/3 to 4/5 interchange) 18,800 SE Mile Hill Road Bethel Avenue to eastern UGA boundary 2 17,700- 2/3 to 4/5 22,300 Tremont Street SW SR 16 to Bethel Avenue 2 36,000 4/5 SE Sedgwick Road West city limits to east (Southworth Ferry) 2 8,500- 2 to 4/5 (SR 160) 20,400 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 59 Table 10: Recommended Roadway Functional Classifications (Cont.) Functional No. of 2025 No. of Classification Roadway Segment Lanes Volume Lanes (Existing) (2025) Minor Arterials Beach Drive E Bethel Avenue to eastern UGA boundary 2 4,000-5,100 2 Port Orchard Bay Street to Tremont Street SW 2 5,600 2/3 Boulevard Sidney Road SW Berry Lake Road to southern UGA 2 to 4 23,500 2/3 boundary Pottery Avenue Tremont Street SW to SW Berry Lake 2 to 4 19,700 2/3 Road Lund Avenue SW Bethel Avenue to Jackson Avenue SE 2 to 4 18,200 2 to 4 SE Mile Hill Drive Bethel Avenue SE to eastern UGA boundary 2 17,700- 2/3 to 4/5 22,300 Olney Avenue Beach Drive E to SE Mile Hill Drive 2 5,500 2/3 Jackson Avenue SE SE Mile Hill Drive to SE Sedgwick Road 2 16,800- 2/3 19,900 Phillips Road SE SE Sedgwick Road to SE Bielmeier Road 2 5,300 2/3 Bielmeier Road Bethel Road SE to Phillips Road SE 2 Not 2/3 available Collector Streets Sidney Avenue Bay Street to Lippert Dr SW 2 23,500 2 Lippert Drive SW Pottery Road to Sidney Avenue 2 Not 2 available Old Clifton Road SR 16 to McCormick Woods Drive SW 2 9,300- 2 10,000 Mitchell Avenue Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Drive 2 Not 2 available Mitchell Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to Bethel Avenue 2 Not 2 available SE Lincoln Avenue Mitchell Road SE to Karcher Road SE 2 Not 2 available Karcher Road SE SE Lincoln Avenue to SE Mile Hill Drive 2 Not 2 available Retsil Road USE Beach Drive E to SE Mile Hill Drive 2 5,500 2 Long Lake Road SE SE Mile Hill Drive to UGA boundary 2 5,300 2 Long Lake Road SE SE Sedgwick Road to Bodle Road SE 2 5,100 2 SE Salmonberry Bethel Road SE to Long Lake Road SE 2 4,300 2 Road SE Lund Avenue Jackson Avenue SE to Madrona Drive SE 2 Not 2 available Glenwood Road SW Sidney Road SW to SW Lider Road 2 8,500 2 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 60 Figure 12: Recommended Functional Classifications by Street/Roadway W 4•WER NER yy �J - i r ' L - BREM RTON FiORT ORCHARD r r` yr r ry'I `L FR — I 1!: A ..t o: {{{��� c EFR I 1 1.1413 _ I -47 14 Jy Principal l S I Arteria I if 4 r r Interchange . _4 Built � ` > j DCl— No — Fs Future _ �—TIAI LI EIP R I�7trh.�. �7g .... # t TAFT LAKE: L4KA ' �d _ h LL CREST tl a L r e Port Orchard Transportation Element Proposed OL UN�; Roadway Functsorras Classification i s ofI SI �' ff� Krtaap CO[Inty Arte71a1 .'1 2 Freeway ,u 4;aL LG Pll n alpal Artealal �.. honor Ar W al • J collector - LL - — - Local Street f City Boundary L r Pat OrcharG UGA } 4 015 0.5 1 6Ules Map DatL= Jun e• 21300 �- x Perteet City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 61 Figure 13: Proposed 2025 Roadway Capacity (No. of Lanes) IA RN M F , L 13REMERTON PORT ORCRARD 2 EAR 0 rL_ 4&EtklR VALLEY K r f I BREMERTON L f7 J 1 SER LA;Kn r L -3 Lk _j 0 SE Ij0GivWW0q13 �AKER D E — C r . IJ CIA E-R JL F F 9d7LMLILR 4 A � �JL . . CREsr Pon Orchard Transportation Element Proposed 2025 ,,1131 PAS r r Rnadwq v r.in.4ritv II ;?nes) 2 Lanes 03 Lanes Lan&B q,�FtFjEL[3 e� FrH-away .,) Local Slro-A City Bcrunda ry PortOrchard UG- M Wes Map Dale, June. Pertee r City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 62 5.4 Street Design Standards Standards for street construction and improvement provide continuity for the functional roadway system and assure that constructed facilities are adequate for their functional roles. Well -designed street standards also help ensure the safety and accessibility for all system users pedestrians and cyclists, buses, trucks and general vehicular traffic. The standards also designate right of way width, landscape areas, on -street parking. Recommended street standards for the City of Port Orchard are listed by functional classification in Table I I and illustrated in Figures 14-22. Variations from the standards may be approved by the Public Works Director as a result of a project -specific design process. Table 1 I: Recommended Street Design Standards Street Type Traffic Parking Bike Street Landscape Sidewalks Right -of - Lanes Pockets Lane Width Way PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 6' s/w 4 Lanes w/ center lane or 8' (High 12' path median & one multi -use 12 Activity n/a 60'- 76' 4' (+2' 90'- 106' path Areas) w/parking shoulder w/ parking each side desirable) 4 Lanes w/ center lane or 12' 8' (HighActivity 5' 70 - 86 4' 6' min. 90'-106' median & bike lanes Areas) w/parking w/ parking 6' s/w 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 8' (High 36' — 52' 12' path median & one multi -use 12 Activity n/a w/parking 4' (+2' 66'- 82' path Areas) shoulder w/parking each side desirable) 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 12' 8' (High 46'- 62' 66'- 82' median & bike lanes Activity 5' w/parking 4' 6' min. w/parking Areas) MINOR ARTERIAL 6' s/w 4 Lanes w/ center lane or 8' (High 12' path median & one multi -use 12 Activity n/a 60' - 76' 4' (+2' 90'- 106' path Areas) w/parking shoulder w/ parking each side desirable) 4 Lanes w/ center lane or 12' 8' (High 70'- 86' 90'-106' median & bike lanes Activity 5' w/parking 4' 6' min. w/ parking Areas) 6' s/w 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 8' (High 36'- 52' 12' path median & one multi -use 12 Activity n/a w/parking 4' (+2' 66'- 82' path Areas) shoulder w/parking each side desirable) 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 12' 8' (High 46'- 62' 66'- 82' median & bike lanes Activity 5' w/parking 4' 6' min. w/parking Areas) City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 63 Table 1 I: Recommended Street Design Standards (Cont.) MINOR ARTERIAL 6' s/w 8' (High 24'- 40' 12' path 2 Lanes w/ one multi -use 12' Activity n/a w/parking 4' (+2' 54'- 70' path Areas) shoulder w/parking each side desirable) 12 8' (High 34'-2 - Lanes w/ bike lanes Activity 5' /pa kin50' v'/parking 4' 6' min. /p54' kin w/parking Areas) COLLECTOR 6' s/w 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 12 8' (High 36' — 52' 12' path (+2' 66' — 82' median & one multi -use Activity n/a w/parking 4' shoulder w/parking path Areas) each side desirable) 2 Lanes w/ center lane or 12' 8' (High Activity 5' 46'- 62' 4' 6' min. 66'- 82' median & bike lanes Areas) w/parking w/parking 6' s/w 8' (High 24'-40' 12' path 2 Lanes w/ one multi -use 12' Activity n/a w/parking 4' (+2' 54'- 70' path Areas) shoulder w/parking each side desirable) 12' 8' (High 34' — 50' 54' - 70' 2 Lanes w/ bike lanes Activity 5' w/parking 4' 6' min. w/parking Areas) LOCAL 2 Lanes I I' or 12' 7" n/a 24' - 40' n/a 6'min. 34' — 50' w/parking w/parking The right-of-way widths identified in Table I I were determined based on accommodations for all transportation system users, including cars, trucks, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians. The street width refers to the total width of pavement measured curb to curb. The design standards include six-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of all streets unless there is a multi -use path in the right-of-way. On collector and arterial streets, a four foot wide landscaped buffer strip should be provided between the vehicular travel lanes and sidewalks or paths. The buffer between sidewalk and curb is desirable, but not required on local streets. Where three travel lanes are recommended, the third lane is assumed to be a center two -way - left -turn -lane (TWLTL), not a through lane. The TWLTL provides safer vehicular turning access into side streets and frontage properties. On three lane arterial segments where the additional TWLTL lane may not be needed for vehicular movement, it may be possible to include a landscaped median that can provide a pedestrian refuge at crosswalks. The landscaped median City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 64 can provide left -turn pockets where warranted at intersections or major driveways, or transitioned back into a TWLTL where warranted. Figures 14-22 illustrate cross sections for the street design standards. In situations where both on -street parking (parallel) and adjacent bike lanes are incorporated, a revised cross section is recommended as shown in Figure 20, with narrowed travel lanes and parking area to allow clearance from car doors opening into the bike lane. Figure 14: Four -Lane (with Center Lane or Median) Principal or Minor Arterial with Multi -Use Path Medianitum lane 12' (plus 2' i�q�l 12' 12' T12' 1 12' T 12' 4' s� shoulder each side if possible) 90' for Five lane Cross section wlno parking Figure 15: Four -Lane (with Center Lane or Median) Principal or Minor Arterial with Bike Lanes I90' for Five lane Cross section wino parking City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 65 Figure 16: Two -Lane (with Center Lane) Principal/Minor Arterial or Collector with Multi -Use Path 12' (plus 2' r 4 shoulder each sided possible) 66' for Three Lanes and Multi -Use Trail w1no parking Figure 17: Two -Lane (with Center Lane or Median) Principal/Minor Arterial or Collector with Bike Lanes 0o iur i nree lane t,rvss secuun winu parking City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 66 Figure 18: Two -Lane Minor Arterial or Collector with Multi -Use Path :." IVI IrvV IOIIC lJIuaa auLm Vll YY711V VO[RIIIIJ Figure 19: Two -Lane Minor Arterial or Collector with Bike Lanes 6' 4" !"� 5' IlT'Ir Le NI T12' S' 54' far Two lane plus bike lanes Cross section wlno parking City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 67 Figure 20: Two -Lane Minor Arterial or Collector with Bike Lanes and Parking &� �7.51 6.5` 11 11 fi 5' T 5' 4 6' 70' for Two lane plus parking cross section plus parking Figure 21: Two -Lane Local Street Figure 22: Two -Lane Local Street with Parking 50' Total with parking Figures 22 A-C show adopted road sections for McCormick North Phase III, and Figures 22 D- G show the adopted road sections for McCormick West. City of Port Orchard Transportation Element December 2011 Page 68 Figure 22A: McCormick North Phase III, Road 6 Channelization t IG t4 ., 0 ! ery ce r ar�x; i o '._ FJ'NS' Y '•. ` •.� rarx; � � V 1`MPM City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 69 Figure 228: McCormick North Phase III, Road Sections 1-6 < ; � § \ � ' �■ & � § 2V) 13 e a� §■ B � \\®---- |(06 o \ ;| g 0 I� � | � � � U City 3Port orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 70 Figure 22C: McCormick North Phase III, Parking for Proposed Park City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 71 Figure 22D: McCormick West Road Sections, Sub -Collector McCORMICK WEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROAD SECTIONS 11-is-2011 APPENDIX z W 0 { V W .J J v u V i-- V 5 Ce 0 V u 49 GOLDSMITH LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES wUc� ouwnes�aenac�oasoceR�.a� City of Port Orchard Transportation Element Q z r :�_• L � cJ� V1 0 H u W _j i_j V U I CIO LA W U 2 oe. Q u x CA �Vzry 5�r N z W ILA SHEET 1 OF 4 December 2011 Page 72 Figure 22E: McCormick West Road Sections, Local Road McCORMICK WEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROAD SECTIONS 1 1-18-201 1 VERTICAL CURB A1EOUIN LVERTIC41 CURB l AND GUTTER [TYP] AND GUT iER C"P) I.V S' 20, 20' S' 1.5' AL DRIVE LANE 60' R.O.W. DRIVE LANE WALK LOCAL ROAD MINOR wJ MEDIAN SECTION C N.T.S. LVERTICALCURB VERTICALCURB� S, AND GUrMR [iYP) I AND GUTTER 4Tl'P] .5' i 7' S` WALK PARKING DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE PAILKING WALK 50' R.O.W. LOCAL ROAD MINOR LOOP SECTION D N.T.S. 2N zx VERTICALCURS VER iCAL EBR{TYP] AND GUTTER (TYP) AND .5' I •5' S 1' PARKING' DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE PARKING' WALK 42' R.O.W. AT wTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATJONS, WHERE PARKING CAN NOT BE PROVIDED, TRAVEL WAY MAY NARRowWITH CUR BULB OUTS TO 24' MIN. LOCAL ROAD MINOR G❑LDSMITH SECTION E N.T.S. 19 LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHEET 2 OF 4 M:uc�o�aulnoa�o ae oo�eee oceas.a.o City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 73 Figure 22F: McCormick West Road Sections, Local Minor Lane and Private Access Tract McCORMIGK WEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROAD SECTIONS 11-18-2011 LOCAL MINOR ACCESS LANE SECTION F N.T.S. 2% THICKENED EDGE 12"GRAVEL 12" GRAVEL 3' 18' E.P. TO E.P. 0-1 20' TRACT WIDTH PRIVATE ACCESS TRACT SECTION C N.T.S. IS13OLOSMITH LAND DEYE WMENT SERVICES XNA CADN'LAnOV05609�066 WE 6yAr6 City of Port Orchard Transportation Element SHEET 3 OF 4 December 2011 Page 74 Figure 22G: McCormick West Road Sections, Main Entry and GlenEagle Connector McCORMICK WEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROAD SECTIONS 11--18-2011 IS GOLDSMITH IAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES M:�ACAO��LRIAV6�OL 600'%Old OOE, Mel; City of Port Orchard Transportation Element aQ 0 W Z 0 U W u4 LJJ Z 3 Z C)y w-- - a JLLI �x u v) x W 5 U ice 0 m� V SHEET 4 OF 4 December 2011 Page 75 5.4.1 — Design Parameters for Functionally Classified Streets Typical standard speeds and dimensions for functionally classified streets are shown in Table 12. The values shown are minimum parameters for design guidance under typical conditions. As described in the footnotes, deviations from the standard may be allowed in response to local conditions with approval of the Public Works Director or his or her designee. Unless specifically exempted by the Public Works Director or his or her designee, all new roadways shall be paved prior to acceptance by the City. The City may require consolidation of driveways to minimize access points. Table 12: Classified Streets, Curb Roadway Section Design Parameters Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Street Access Controlled with very restricted access to abutting properties. Partially controlled with infrequent access to abutting properties. Partially controlled with infrequent access to abutting properties. Arterial Spacing' 660' 660' 250' Design Speed Up to 40 mph Varies 35 to 40 mph Varies 35 to 40 mph Horizontal Curvature See Table 14 See Table 14 See Table 14 Maximum Grade3 9% 10% 12% Typical Traveled Way 36 to 60 feet 24 to 60 feet 36 to 46 feet Typical Roadway Width 36 to 76 feet 24 to 76 feet 36 to 62 feet Typical Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Typical Left Turn Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Typical Right Turn Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Typical Bike Lane Width4 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Maximum Superelevation5 6% 6% 6% Minimum Stopping Sight Distance See Table 14 See Table 14 See Table 14 Minimum Entering Sight Distance See Table 14 See Table 14 See Table 14 Minimum Right -of -Way Width 66 feet 54 feet 54 feet Minimum Sidewalk Width 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Curb Type Vertical Vertical Vertical For arterial spacing, distances are given only as general guidelines. Topographic conditions will affect dimensions. 2 Design speed is a basis for determining geometric elements and does not imply posted or legally permissible speed. 3 Maximum grade may be exceeded for short distances. 4 Bike lane width should be increased to 6.5' adjacent to parallel on -street parking for clearance from car doors. 5 Superelevations greater than 6 percent may be permitted by approval of Public Works Director. 6 Criteria for federal and state funding may require greater traveled way, roadway and right-of-way widths. Greater widths also may be required for the construction of separated pathways, bike lanes and other non -motorized use. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 76 Maximum Grade and Grade Transitions - Maximum roadway grade as shown in Table 12 may be exceeded for short distances of 300 feet or less, upon showing that no practical alternative exists. Grades greater than 15 percent that exceed the 300-foot distance must be approved by the Public Works Director or his or her designee through the road variance process. Additionally, the maximum grade shall not exceed 15 percent unless verification is obtained from the Fire Marshal that additional fire protection requirements will be met and the applicant's engineer must demonstrate what method will be used to ensure drainage will be controlled. Grades exceeding 12 percent shall be paved with hot mix asphalt (HMA) or Portland cement concrete (PCC). Grade transitions shall be constructed as smooth vertical curves, without angle points, except in intersections where the difference in grade is one percent or less and upon approval of the Public Works Director or his or her designee. 5.4.2— Design Parameters for Local Streets (includes roads previously classified as Access, Feeder, Private and Cul de Sac) Typical standard design speeds and other dimensions for local streets are shown in Table 13. The values shown in Table 13 are intended as minimum parameters for design guidance under typical conditions. As described in the footnotes, deviations from the standard may be allowed in response to local conditions with approval of the Public Works Director or his or her designee. The typical right-of-way width for local streets is 34-50 feet as shown in Tables I I and 13. Cul de sac roadways must provide a 40 foot paved radius as shown in Figure 24, with sidewalk all the way around. Roads with traffic volumes in excess of 2,000 ADT will be striped. Subdivisions require public roads. Private roads are limited to certain short plats serving no more than five dwelling units; a minimum 20 foot wide paved all-weather surface must be provided. Private roads will not be maintained by the City. The City will only maintain roads to the standard at which they were accepted. Table 13: Local Streets, Roadway Section Design Parameters Classification Two Lane Two Lane Local Street Local Street w/Parking Access Lots front on Lots front on local access local access street street unless unless infeasible infeasible Public or Private Public Streets Public Streets Design Speed 35 mph 30 mph Horizontal Curvature See Table 14 See Table 14 Maximum Grade 12% 12% City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 77 Table 13: Local Streets, Roadway Section Design Parameters (Cont.) Classification Two Lane Two Lane Local Street Local Street w/Parking Minimum Stopping Sight See Table 14 See Table 14 Distance3 Minimum Entering Sight See Table 14 See Table 14 Distance Typical Traveled Way 24 feet 24 feet Typical Right of Way Width 34 feet 50 feet Minimum Roadway Width 24 feet 40 feet Minimum Sidewalk Width 6' 6' Curb Type Vertical Vertical Design speed is a basis for determining geometric elements and does not imply posted or legally permissible speed. 2 Maximum grade may be exceeded for short distances with approval of Public Works Director. 3 Standard Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or his or her designee 5.4.3 — Horizontal Curvature and Sight -Distance The values shown in Table 14 are minimum design values. A maximum of 8 percent superelevation may be used, upon approval of the Public Works Director or his or her designee, for design of improvements to existing arterials, to meet terrain and right-of-way conditions. Superelevation run-off lengths on arterials and collector streets shall be calculated in accordance with the WSDOT Design Manual. Superelevation is not required in the design of horizontal curves on local streets; however, horizontal curves must be designed based on design speed and selected cross section as indicated in Table 14. This table is based on AASHTO "Low Speed Urban Streets" design methodology. Superelevation may be used on urban residential streets as necessary to meet terrain and right-of-way conditions. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 78 Table 14: Horizontal Curvature and Sight -Distance Design Values for Arterial, Collector and Local Streets Design Speed (mph) 15 20 25 30 35 40 Horizontal Curvature, Normal 50 107 198 333 510 762 Crown Section, Radius (Feet) Horizontal Curvature for 6% 39 81 144 231 340 485 (maximum allowable on local streets) Superelevation, Radius (Feet) Horizontal Curvature for 8% 38 76 134 214 314 444 (maximum allowable on arterials and collectors) Superelevation, Radius (Feet) (requires approval of the Public Works Director or designee) Stopping Sight Distance (Feet) 1,2,3 80 115 155 200 250 305 1,z,3 Entering Sight Distance (Feet) 170 225 280 335 390 445 Entering sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger vehicle to turn left onto a two-lane highway with no median and level grades. For other conditions the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. (See AASHTO — Intersection Control section). 2 For left turns from multi -lane roadways onto two-way roadways with more than two lanes, add 0.5 seconds for passenger cars or 0.7 seconds for trucks for each additional lane from the left, in excess of one, to be crossed by the turning vehicle. 3 For minor and approach grades: If the approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent; add 0.2 seconds for each percent grade for left turns 5.4.4 - Stopping Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is the sum of two distances: the distance traveled during perception and reaction time and the distance required to stop the vehicle. The perception and reaction time used in design is 2.5 seconds. The stopping sight distance is calculated using a constant deceleration rate of 11.2 feet/second2. Available stopping sight distance is calculated for a passenger car using an eye height of 2.50 feet and an object height of 0.50 foot. Although AASHTO allows a 2-foot object height, a 0.50-foot object height is used because objects with a height between 0.5-foot and 2 feet may be perceived as hazards that would likely result in an erratic maneuver. When calculating stopping sight distance, use h 1=2.50 feet and h2=0.50 foot. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 79 The grade of the roadway has an effect on the vehicle's stopping sight distance. The stopping distance is increased on downgrades and decreased on upgrades. When evaluating sight distance with a changing grade, use the grade for which the longest sight distance is needed. Road grades other than those shown in Table 16 must be interpolated. Table IS: Stopping Sight -Distance (SSD) on Grades DOWNGRADE DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 3 Percent 6 Percent 9 Percent 40 315 333 354 35 258 271 288 30 205 215 227 25 158 165 173 20 116 120 126 UPGRADE DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 3 Percent 6 Percent 9 Percent 40 289 278 269 35 237 229 222 30 200 184 179 25 147 143 140 20 109 107 104 Sag vertical curves on streets that do not meet the minimum SSD may be approved by the Public Works Director or his or her designee if no practical design exists and if acceptable illumination is provided throughout the curve and is maintained by a franchised utility. The design shall include at a minimum 100-watt High Pressure Sodium luminaries, 25-foot mounting height and 100- to 120-foot spacing, throughout the sag curve. intersecting Roadway Stopping Sight Distance A. Stopping sight distances for the design speeds of proposed arterial or collector streets, must be met when intersecting arterials. B. The minimum stopping sight distance on proposed intersection approaches for all other access to intersecting roadways shall be 125 feet. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 80 5.4.5 - Entering Sight Distance (ESD) Entering sight distance applies on driveways and streets approaching intersections with arterial, collector, and local streets. Specific ESD values for required design speeds are listed in Table 14. A. Entering vehicle eye height is 2.5 feet, measured 10 feet back from edge of traveled way or edge line on rural roadways and ten feet back from face of curb on urban roadways, see Figure 23. Approaching vehicle height is 4.25 feet. B. Requirements in Tables 14 and 16 apply to an intersection or driveway approach for a typical road under average conditions. In difficult topography the Public Works Director or his or her designee may authorize a reduction in the ESD based on factors mitigating the hazard. Such factors may include an anticipated posted or average running speed less than the design speed or the provision of acceleration lanes and/or a median space allowing an intermediate stop by an approaching vehicle making a left turn. C. Where a significant number of trucks will be using the approach road, the Public Works Director or his or her designee may increase the entering sight distance requirements by up to 30 percent for single -unit trucks and 70 percent for semi -trailer combinations. D. A clear zone should be maintained within the sight triangles in Figure 23 between points A and B. Figure 23: Measuring Sight -Distance _. DISTANCE EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE ~ ~---- POINT S ROADWAY Imo._ DISTANCE L CENTER OF APPROACH LANE EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE -J / LEFT TANGENT LINE OUTSIDE EDGE OF MAJOR STREET TRAFFIC LANES - Notes: 'CENTER OF - APPROACH LANE I YPOINT EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE A RIGHT TANGENT LINE I I CENTER OF MINOR STREET APPROACH LANE OR DRIVEWAY I. Parking strips or lanes designated for parking only are outside this reference line and are not included in the major street traffic lanes. 2. See stopping sight distance sec. 5.4.4 3. See intersections, sec. 5.4.4 4. See entering sight distance, sec. 5.4.5. 5. All street ends shall be signed per the MUTCD. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 81 5.4.6 — Intersection and Low Speed Curve Design Parameters Design dimensions for intersection design are provided in Table 15, including angle of approach, minimum radius, spacing between intersections, and low speed curves. Design dimensions for local street cul-de-sacs and hammerhead turnarounds are shown respectively in Figure 24 and Figure 25. Table 16: Intersections and Low Speed Curves A. Intersections 1. Angle of intersection (measured at 10 feet beyond 85 degrees Minimum road classification right-of-way) 95 degrees Maximum 2. Minimum centerline radius (2-lane) (radii for local 55 feet streets) 3. Minimum curb radius a. Arterials and collector intersections: 35 feet b. Local street intersections: 25 feet 4. Minimum right-of-way line radius: 25 feet B. Spacing between adjacent intersecting streets, whether crossing or T-connecting, shall be as follows: When highest classification involved is: Minimum centerline offset shall be: Principal arterial 1,000 feet Minor arterial 500 feet Collector street 300 feet Local street 100 feet C. On sloping approaches at an intersection, landings shall be provided with grade not to exceed one foot difference in elevation for a distance of 30 feet approaching an arterial or 20 feet approaching a residential or commercial street, measured from future right-of-way line (intersected by an imaginary 2 percent grade extended from crowned road to right-of-way line) of intersecting street. D. Roundabout intersections taking the place of standard intersections shall be designed in accordance with current USDOT/FHWA guidelines and the WSDOT Design Manual. E. Entering Sight Distance. See Table 14 for specific entering sight distance values based on required design speed. F. Low Speed Curves: applicable to local streets only. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 82 Up to 75' 75 ° & Over I. Minimum centerline radius (two-lane): 100 feet 55 feet 2. Minimum curb radius: 80 feet 35 feet' 3. Minimum right-of-way line radius: 70 feet 25 feet Figure 24: Cul-de-sac Dimensions son' MAX�D R/W LINE S ISLAND (IF g EDGE OF PAVEMENTS Dq 3V MIN. . VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER n a� i/ri�lfilir! REQUIRED) Fig 24 Notes: I . Extruded Curb Is Also Acceptable For Outer Edge As Alternative To Shoulder And Ditch. 2. Island At Center Of Bulb Shall Have Vertical Or Extruded Curb. 3. Island Is Mandatory When Radius Of Paved Area Exceeds 40 Ft. 4. No Curbside Parking Is Allowed In Cul-De-Sac City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 83 Figure 25: Hammerhead Turnaround Dimensions t20ft. A - �20ft. Offset Hammerhead Turnaround Notes: soft �� 60ft. "T" Hammerhead Turnaround I . Hammerhead width ranges between 90' to 120', dependent upon roadway length. Sidewalks and utilities may be located within public easements. 2. Alternative designs by approval of the public works director or his or her designee and fire marshal. 3. Turnaround facilities cannot be located on driveways. 4. All street ends shall be signed per the MUTCD. S. 20' road dimensions are based upon unobstructed width. 6. No curbside parking is allowed for roads built to the 20' minimum width. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 84 5.4.7 Bus Zones and Turn -Outs During the design of arterial and collector streets, the designer shall contact the transit agency and the local school district to determine bus zone (stop) locations and other bus operation needs. The project shall provide wheelchair accessible landing pads at designated bus zones, and where required shall include turn -outs and shelter pads. Pedestrian and disabled access improvements within the right-of-way to and from the bus loading zone or turn -out from nearby businesses or residences shall also be provided as part of the road improvement. Transit Stop Locations - Each street design must consider the need for transit stops, pedestrian improvements, and bicycle lanes. Key transit stop locations will require allowance for future bus shelter pads. Parking pockets between landscaped bulb -outs at key intersections may be constructed at the discretion of the developer. Transit facilities at key stops require right-of-way allowance for bus pullouts and transit shelter pads. The minimum extra right-of-way allowance for a transit shelter and amenities at an in -lane transit stop is five feet in width and 15 feet in length (from the back of sidewalk) as shown in Figure 26. Where bus pullouts are located, additional space (12') is needed. This allowance will provide sufficient space for a standard shelter with adjacent room for other transit amenities such as signs, schedules, trash receptacles, etc. Figure 26: Transit Stop Design / Right of Way Needs Right of Way Needs for In Lane Transit Stop Right of Way Needs for Pull Out Transit Stop 6' landscape strip $ Additional ROW (Approx. Tx 15', or 105 s.f.) Shelter(5'x7') Area for Amenities (Signage, trash receptacle, etc.) ROW line — 6'sidewalk Bus Pullout -W" 8'wide pad Shelter(5'x7') Area for Amenities ld (Signage, trash receptacle, etc.) Additional ROW (Minimum of Approx. 15' x 150', or 2,250 s.f.; However, pullout space/taper 12' Min. varies depending on roadway speed) vi . ' BROW line Note: Drawing Notto Scale City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 85 5.4.8 Pavement Restoration for Trenching in Right -of -Way Pavement restoration activities within the paved portion of the public street right-of-way due to trenching and excavation shall adhere to this section to ensure the pavements are not degraded. The trench backfill and pavement restoration shall be completed consistent with Figures 27A—C, which show construction materials and cross sections to be applied following pavement saw cuts. Trenching Moratorium - A five year moratorium on pavement trenching shall be effective upon completion of new street construction and/or upon pavement overlay of an existing street. Modifications or Exceptions — Modifications or exceptions may be approved by the Public Works Director or his or her designee upon written request by the permittee and demonstration of a satisfactory alternative. Compelling circumstances and emergencies such as utility failures, main breaks, etc. shall warrant priority consideration. Figure 27A: Trenching Back -Fill Cross Section EDGE OF PAVEMENT. EDGE OF CURE do GU i Ems. OR CENTER OF LRNE LINE 7, ^8„ STANDARD VEHICLE WHEEL -PATH LANE LINE MARKING t L 4" MIN. I /2- CL455 ..8" EXISTING A.C.P. - SAWCUT AND ACP CLASS 8 REMOVE 0R GRIND. SEAL win1 AR400OW 6" CRUSHED SURFACING ram-- 2 .S` MIN. —�-� SAWCUT ONLY UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 86 Figure 2713: Sawcut and Panel Replacement REMOVE - LOOSENED ASP>-t1LT SAW CUT ASPHALT coNcREiE PATCH Z' MIN. OR MATCH EXISTING WHICH EVER IS GREATER TRIM CEMENT VERTICALLY A CONCRETE EXISTINC CONCCRERE �S COTE PAVEMENT MIN' 1 z" MI COMPACTED TRENCH BACXFILL AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER SAW CUT SMALL BE VERTICAL AND IN STRAIGHT LINES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER i NT TYPE AND SPACING ALL MATCH EXISTING ENLESS ERWISE APPROVED. EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT 6- MIN EPDXY COATED DOWEL BARS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER 12, COMPACTED CRUSHED SURFACING (BASE OR TOP COURSE) T ANQ PANEL REPLACEWNr QETrRMINATION; FULL CEMENT PANEL REPLACEMENT: FOR CEMENT CONCRETE SURFACE STREETS, THE MINIMUM RESTORATION SHALL BE FULL PANEL REPLACEMENT. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 87 Figure 27C: Utility Cover Restoration SEAL WITH AR 400OW PATCHED AREA I , — ()V F- [.LkIV 3'-0" OUTSIDE DIA. 1'-0" 2" R.C.P. CLASS "F" OR "G" 1 11 1 MAXIMUM -DENSITY- ~ SECTION A -A CONCRETE MIN, REMOVE PAVEMENT AND BASE MATERIALS FOR A DISTANCE WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE FRAME PLUS TWO FEET. AQJUST CASTING FRAME TO PAVEMENT SURFACE USING CONCRETE BLOCKS. REPLACE ALL BUT TOP 2" OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WITH CLASS 3000 CONCRETE (3/4), FINISH PAVEMENT SURFACE WITH 2" OF A.C.F. CLASS "F' OR "C. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 88 6.0 FREIGHT SYSTEM NEEDS As discussed in Section 3.6, freight and goods are transported within the Port Orchard Planning area primarily on SR 16 and a portion of SR 160, and several other arterial roadways. The designated freight routes on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) include: • T- I Route: SR 16 carries an estimated 13,880,000 tons annually; • T-2 Route: SR 160 (Sedgwick Road, SR 16 to Bethel Road) carries an estimated 2,390,000 tons annually; • T-3 Routes: o Sidney Avenue, Tremont to SR 166 o Sidney Road SW, Hovde to the south City Limit o Tremont, SR 16 to the east City Limit • T-4 Route: Port Orchard Boulevard, Tremont to SR 166 Additional freight routes recommended for T-4 route designation on the FGTS include: o SR 166/Bay Street, SR 16 to Bethel Road o SR 166/Beach Drive, Bethel Road to east City Limit o SR 160/Sedgwick/G I enwood/ Lake Flora Drive, west City Limit to east City Limit o Tremont/Old Clifton Road, SR 16 to west City Limit The future widening of SR 160 to four lanes, as recommended in the SR 160 Route Development Plan, will help to improve freight mobility within this section of the City. Port Orchard does not currently have a City -designated truck route network. Policy T-5 of the Transportation Plan recommends that the City designate and clearly demarcate appropriate routes for through truck traffic, hazardous materials, and oversized traffic. The identification of future truck routes should be coordinated with the City's arterial design standards, and related to existing and future industrial land use locations. Truck routes should be located on streets that are classified as collectors, arterials or freeways. Principal arterials should be designed as truck routes and designated and identified accordingly. Freight movement on minor arterials or collectors is not encouraged for through trucks, but these are important access routes for local business destinations. The City's Land Use Plan identifies major commercial and industrial uses along the following corridors, which should be considered for designation as City truck routes: • Mile Hill Road between Bethel Road and east city limit • Bethel Road between Bay Street and SR 16 • Sedgwick Road between Bethel Road and west city limit • Sidney Road between SR 16 and Sedgwick Road • Tremont Street SW / SW Old Clifton Road between Pottery Avenue and west city limit City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 89 Once a truck route network is established, specific design improvements related to freight movement, such as curb / turning radii, or stop bar locations can be recommended and implemented. In the meantime, many of the recommended arterial system improvements shown in Chapter 10 in Tables 17 and 18 will help to facilitate expected increased tonnage of freight movement to and from developing commercial and industrial areas within the City and UGA. In particular, the following arterial improvement projects identified in the City's 201 I-2016 TIP will help facilitate freight movement within the City: • Tremont Street widening (Port Orchard Blvd. to SR 16) • Bethel Avenue widening (Bethel Ave. roundabout to Lincoln Avenue) • Bethel Avenue widening (Bay Street to Bethel Avenue) • Pottery Avenue widening (Tremont Street to SR 16) • Sidney Avenue widening (Sedgwick Road to SR 16 overpass) • Old Clifton Road widening (SR 16 to the west city limit) City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 90 7.0 NON -MOTORIZED SYSTEM NEEDS The City of Port Orchard is committed to taking measurable steps toward the goal of improving every citizen's quality of life by creating a safer non -motorized environment. The main focus of the non - motorized improvements recommended in this section is to provide pedestrian and bike routes which can be used for commuting purposes between residential areas and shopping centers, schools, places of employment, and transit facilities. A comprehensive network of safe, functional and well -marked pedestrian and bicycle facilities will help to provide improved mobility options for residents and visitors of Port Orchard. These facilities should provide connectivity between residential areas and major activity centers, including schools, commercial areas, transit facilities, recreational areas, community facilities (libraries, community centers, civic, etc.) and major employment sites. 7.1 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities can include on -street facilities (sidewalks, shared use separated paths) and off-street facilities off-street trails). On -street facilities are generally focused on providing transportation mobility for pedestrians to access various land uses or transit. They should ultimately be provided on all streets, whether they are local, collectors or arterials. The highest priority should be given to streets that provide connectivity to major activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, and transit. While off- street facilities can also provide connectivity to activity centers, they are generally used to provide access to recreational facilities and open space corridors. A primary pedestrian network has been developed that includes those streets within the City and the urban growth area (UGA) that at a minimum should have a pedestrian facility to provide connectivity between residential areas, and to major activity centers. Portions of the primary pedestrian network are already in place. As described previously, the City of Port Orchard is working with Kitsap County to develop the Mosquito Fleet Trail. This project should be a high priority project to provide recreational connectivity along the waterfront and to the regional system. The City has also proposed a number of north -south off -road trails that would link to the Mosquito Fleet Trail. These include the Ross Creek Trail, Center City Trail, and Blackjack Creek Trail. The planned future pedestrian system for Port Orchard and the UGA was presented previously in Figure 4 in Chapter 2. 7.2 Bicycle Facilities Because bicyclists travel at greater speeds and distances than pedestrians, bicycle facilities can be spaced at greater distances, and should provide more connectivity to regional facilities and adjacent communities. Bicycle facilities should be planned and designed for both commuters and recreational users, who often have conflicting needs. When properly planned and constructed, both commuter based City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 91 and recreational based nonmotorized facilities are shown to increase the desirability of a City as a place to live and work. Bicycle commuters in general require the most direct route between residential and major activity centers and transit facilities, and are usually comfortable riding within the roadway. The types of bicycle facilities that are often preferred by commuter bicyclists may include bike lanes, shared use lanes or sharrows, and shoulders. Recreational riders, especially children, may not feel as comfortable riding in the street, and often prefer off-street facilities or a separated path that provide linkages to recreational areas, community facilities and schools. Bicycle boulevards are becoming increasingly popular in various cities, such as Portland, Oregon. Bicycle boulevards are shared, usually local roads that are optimized for bicycle traffic. They are designed to discourage cut -through motor vehicle traffic and give priority to bicyclists, and use traffic calming techniques such as diverters, traffic circles, chicanes and stop signs. The Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan (May 2001) recommends corridors for future bicycle facilities within unincorporated areas of Kitsap County, including the Port Orchard UGA. Three types of facilities are included in the plan: regional facilities, sub -regional facilities, and local facilities. These three types of facilities are defined below: • Regional facilities provide regional connections through and within Kitsap County, connect urban centers within the County, connect to adjacent counties, serve and connect public and private ferry systems, public transit systems. They may consist of bicycle paths or multi -use paths, bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. They should avoid high traffic arterials and state highways unless no other feasible direct connection exists. They should also avoid major hills and natural areas where possible. • Sub -regional facilities provide sub -regional connections meant to complement the regional system. They serve smaller commercial, residential or employment centers and local connections to schools, and also connect urban centers with local parks. They should also connect with the public transportation system, marine access points, and public shorelines. They may consist of paved shoulders, bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway, or bicycle paths / multi -use paths. They should avoid high traffic arterials and state highways, major hills and natural areas where possible. • Local facilities connect residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, employment centers, schools, and activity centers to the regional and sub -regional system. They may consist of paved shoulders, bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway, or bicycle paths / multi -use paths. They should avoid high traffic arterials and state highways, major hills and natural areas where possible. In addition to these three levels of facilities outside of the city of Port Orchard city limits, a proposed local bicycle system has been developed. This system builds off of the facilities identified in the Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan, and provides the needed connectivity to access major activity centers, transit, schools, employers and commercial areas within the City of Port Orchard. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 92 Finally, as described previously, the City of Port Orchard is working with Kitsap County to develop the Mosquito Fleet Trail. This project should be a high priority project to provide recreational connectivity, including for bicyclists, along the waterfront and to the regional system. The planned future bicycle network for Port Orchard and the UGA was shown previously on Figure 3 in Chapter 2. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 93 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 94 8.0 TRANSIT SYSTEM NEEDS This section outlines recommended improvements to public transit serving the Port Orchard Planning Area. Of primary importance is increasing opportunities for access to public transit, particularly in the developing areas both within the City and its UGA. Providing expansion of existing transit routes and/or additional new routes in these areas is key to ensuring a viable 1/4 mile walk access to transit stops in these developing areas. In addition, the provision of adequate transit facilities, such as transit stops, transfer centers, and park and ride lots is important in order to serve existing riders, and attract future riders. 8.1 Transit Service Kitsap Transit has identified near term improvements through its 2008-2014 Transit Development Plan. In general, the plan identifies action strategies over the six year period targeted toward preservation/maintenance, safety, mobility, environment, and stewardship. The transit agency has plans over the next six years to reorganize routes to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Most developed areas within Port Orchard and its UGA are currently provided with adequate transit service. Regional connections to Bremerton, King and Pierce counties are provided by the foot ferry and commuter routes to Southworth and Purdy. Currently, bus routes on Bethell and part of Sidney operate at 30 minute headways, and the remaining service is hourly or peak only. The City should work with Kitsap Transit to improve the most productive routes, increasing service frequencies to 30 minute headways or better. The City's Land Use Plan, Policy POLU-71 encourages improving Kitsap Transit's trip frequency within the Tremont Corridor, which is planned for future growth of commercial, office and residential uses. The City should work with Kitsap Transit to improve service reliability and speed along arterial bus routes through the use of tools such as queue bypass lanes at intersections and transit signal priority. Existing bus routes and future public transit service needs were shown previously in Figure 9 in Chapter 3. As future growth occurs within Port Orchard and the UGA, existing routes should be extended and new routes developed to serve growth areas. Among these areas are the following: • Bethel Road Corridor — The City's land use plan envisions commercial land use growth along the entire corridor, as far south as SR 16. The County has plans to redevelop this corridor to include additional lanes, landscaped medians, bicycle lanes and sidewalks. • Sidney Road SW — The City's land use plan envisions commercial land use along this corridor between SR 16 and SW Sedgwick Road. • Tremont Street SW / SW Old Clifton Road — The City's land use plan envisions a mixture of future land uses along the Tremont Street corridor. On the city's west side, SW Old Clifton Road provides access to the McCormick Woods growth area, which includes a concentration of medium density residential, commercial and industrial uses west of Anderson Hill Road. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 95 • Mile Hill Road — This important east -west corridor serves the South Kitsap Mall and the existing shuttle route to the Southworth Ferry terminal. Further commercial and residential use is planned. In lower density areas of the city that do not presently warrant fixed route bus service, flex -route or on -demand service should be considered to provide cost-effective basic transit mobility. 8.2 Transit Facilities Kitsap Transit also plans to improve foot ferry service through the acquisition of new vessels, additional ferry service, and an upgrade to the Annapolis Ferry dock. Park and Ride Lots As identified in the 6-year Kitsap Transit Development Plan, Kitsap Transit plans to add over 700 additional park -and -ride spaces throughout its service area, including the expansion of the Mullenix Park and Ride lot, located south of UGA, and the Harper Church Park and Ride lot in Southworth. The SR 160 Route Development Plan (completed in 1998) recommended a future park and ride lot near the area of the interchange of SR 16 and SR 160. If a lot was constructed at this location, vehicle demand along Sedgwick Road could be reduced by capturing ferry -bound vehicles before they enter the SR 160 corridor and by providing transit service to the terminal. Transfer Centers There are two transfer centers in Port Orchard and two transfer points. The two transfer centers include the Town Square Transfer Center (South Kitsap Mall), and the Port Orchard Ferry Dock in downtown Port Orchard. The two transfer points include the Annapolis Ferry Dock, and the Walmart located at Bethel Road SE / SE Lund Avenue. As transit service is expanded in the future, the City and Kitsap Transit will need to determine if additional transfer points or centers are needed. Transfer Centers or Points are located at high traffic generators and next to activity centers. They should include additional information than typically contained at a local stop, such as a small kiosk to display schedules, route maps, real-time transit information and wayfinding information, bicycle storage (lockers, racks or bike station), and other pedestrian amenities such as enhanced shelters, seating, lighting, landscaping, direct pedestrian connections to adjacent uses. The City and Kitsap Transit should also consider joint development opportunities at these locations, where compatible uses such as convenience retail uses, day care facilities, police stations, and housing can be constructed adjacent to, or near the transfer center/point. Combining these types of uses can attract additional ridership, reduce the number of trips to different uses, and improve security. Transit Stops The level of improvements at transit stops are usually based on existing boarding and alignment counts, as well as the adjacent land uses or activity centers. All transit zones must be ADA accessible, and City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 96 include a landing pad (or sidewalk between the stop and curb), and legible bus stop sign. All transit stops should also have schedule information, fare information and a customer service telephone number. This information should be continually updated as schedules or fares change. Transit stops that have significant numbers of boarding and alighting, also known as "Primary local stops" should include other amenities. These are generally stops with greater than 25 boardings per day. Amenities should include a shelter, seating, system map, trash receptacles, lighting and bicycle racks. Shelter protection from adverse weather is essential for attracting riders. Shelters should especially be provided at stops where there are high boardings, or located near high traffic generators or activity centers, that are often bi-directional in use. As Port Orchard and its UGA grows, stops should be strategically located to serve new or expanding residential activity and employment centers. Bi-directional stops should be safely accessible so that users can reach the opposite bus stop easily to make their return trip. If possible, one direction stops should be complemented with an opposing stop for reverse travel. The City should work with Kitsap Transit, adjacent property owners and developers to include direct pedestrian access between transit stops and adjacent uses such as commercial or residential areas, as shown in Figures 28 and 29. Improved pedestrian access can result in greater safety and convenience for transit riders. For example, a direct, separated pedestrian path from a transit stop to the entrance of a major employer, keeps cars that are circulating in parking lots away from pedestrians. These improved pedestrian connections can also play a role in attracting more ridership, especially when the only other option is a long, circuitous route. Figure 28: Transit Stop Accessibility to Residential Areas ...............r.........................r............ 4.......................... LEGEND: 0-- Existing Roadway ........... Existing Sidewalk © Needed Pedestrian Connection Transit Stop City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 97 Figure 29: Transit Stop Accessibility to Commercial Areas Bus Staging Area Bus Information Sign Sidewalk Landscaping Parking Stall Newspaper Stand Trash Receptacle _ Shelter with Bench/ . . ___ - Gam- Pedestrian connection to commercial L� 0 Design of Transit Facilities along Arterials Bus stops should be constructed along identified transit streets in conjunction with street improvements. Design standards for bus stops should be prepared in cooperation with Kitsap Transit in advance of the need. Each street design must consider the needs of all users to effectively serve transit, so that pedestrians and cyclists can easily and safely access bus stops. Key transit stop locations will require allowances for pads to accommodate bus shelters in the future. Parking pockets between landscaped bulb -outs at key intersections should be constructed at the discretion of the developer. Transit facilities at key stops require right-of-way allowances for bus pullouts and pads for transit shelters. The minimum extra right-of-way allowance for a transit shelter and amenities at an in -lane transit stop should be five feet in width and about 15 feet in length (from the back of sidewalk) as shown previously in Figure 26 in Chapter 5. Where bus pullouts are located, additional space is needed. This allowance will provide sufficient space for a standard shelter with room for other transit amenities such as signs, schedules, and trash receptacles. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 98 9.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation demand management (TDM) is a series of strategies that provide for a more efficient utilization of the transportation system by reducing the demand for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. One of the transportation goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to provide for efficient use of the transportation system through encouraging the balanced use of the various transportation modes including TDM: Goal 2.1.5 — Develop and implement transportation programs within the City to assist in the application, monitoring, and review of transportation goals and policies. Policy T-16 - Monitor the success of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Commute Trip Reduction Program (CTR) for the City of Port Orchard and the South Kitsap Area. TDM strategies can be of two types: (1) employer -based strategies and (2) regional strategies. Employer -based strategies are those that are primarily undertaken by public and private employers specific to serving commuter travel to the employment sites. These include: • Ride -matching programs for carpooling and vanpooling • Transit support programs • Flexible work schedules • Telecommuting • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools When applied at the regional level, TDM strategies have significant impact on overall traffic levels because they generally impact all travel markets such as commuting, school, shopping, etc. Where large employment concentrations are present, TDM strategies can be very effective. Effective regional TDM strategies include: • Providing easily accessible and frequent transit service — this Plan recommends expanding transit service within the Port Orchard Planning Area, and provides design guidelines for the construction of bus stops along City arterials. • Providing bicycle/pedestrian facilities — this Plan recommends significant investment in improving nonmotorized travel within the Planning Area including sidewalk construction and repair, bike lanes, bike routes, and trails. • Providing park -and -ride lots — Port Orchard has park and ride lots located at various locations as described in the Existing Public Transportation section. Port Orchard should continue to work with Kitsap Transit to improve the utilization of existing park and ride lots, City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 99 identify future parking needs, and develop new park and ride lots or spaces as needed. The City should coordinate with Kitsap Transit in developing safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle connections to park and ride lots. • TDM-friendly land use policies — the implementation of land use policies that are TDM- friendly such as allowing mixed use development, combined with nearby and accessible transit access and improvements to nonmotorized facilities, reduces the demand for vehicular travel. The potential impact of these strategies may be greater in the long run than traditional employer -based TDM measures. In order to encourage TDM within the City, Port Orchard will continue to pursue improvements to transit service and facilities, and development of its nonmotorized system. Commute Trip Reduction The purpose of Washington's 1991 Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR) (RCW 70.94.521-551) is to improve our quality of life by reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and fuel consumption. To achieve these goals, employers are asked to develop CTR programs that encourage employees who drive alone to work to consider using an alternative commute mode such as buses, vanpools, carpools, biking, or walking. Telecommuting or a flexible work schedule such as a compressed work week are other elements employers can implement to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips to the worksite. The law affects public and private employers in Kitsap, along with other counties throughout the State, that have 100 or more full-time employees at a single worksite who begin their workday between 6 and 9 AM on at least two weekdays for at least 12 continuous months. In 2006, the State legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act which requires that the local jurisdiction's CTR Plan be consistent with the TDM strategies identified within the transportation element of the local jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Local jurisdictions must establish goals and targets that meet or exceed the minimum program targets established by the state. The goals and targets shall be set for the affected urban growth area in the city or county's official jurisdiction, and shall be targets for the year 201 1 based on the base year measurement for the urban growth area. Each major employer worksite shall be accountable for attaining the targets established by the jurisdiction. The City of Port Orchard Municipal Code includes Chapter 10.86 relating to Commute Trip Reduction. The City has an interlocal agreement with Kitsap Transit, whereby Kitsap Transit is the responsible agency for implementing and administering the City's CTR plan. The City's CTR goals for percentage Reductions of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per employee are as follows: • Newly affected employers shall have two years from the date of their CTR program approval to meet the first CTR goal of 15 percent; City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 100 Four years from the date of their initial CTR program approval to meet the second CTR goal of 20 percent; • Six years from the date of their initial CTR program approval to meet the third CTR goal of 25 percent; and • Twelve years from the date of their initial CTR program approval to meet the fourth CTR goal of 35 percent. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 101 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 102 10.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN The overall goal of the City's Transportation Element is to promote a balanced, affordable, reliable and efficient transportation system that supports the City's 2025 Future Land Use Plan. In order to meet the goal, a series of transportation improvements are recommended for arterial streets (including designated State Routes), transit facilities and services, nonmotorized facilities, and freight transport routes. The improvement needs are separated into existing needs — those that are needed today, and future needs which are defined as transportation improvements that are necessary by year 2025. In this section, a series of near term (2012 thru 2017) and long term (2018 thru 2025) multi -modal transportation improvements are recommended to a comprehensive transportation system within the Port Orchard Planning Area. The near and long term project recommendations are the result of the City and County's existing 6- year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP), a review of existing arterial system conditions, and future traffic forecast analysis from the Kitsap County 2025 traffic forecasting model, and based on the non -motorized and transit needs as identified in earlier sections. Roadway capacity improvements, designated with a "C" project number include: • Projects to address existing deficiencies for all modes on both local access and arterial streets, • Projects needed to serve planned future growth, and • Projects to serve all modes of travel consistent with City design standards, enhance transportation system connectivity, and maintain mobility. Non -motorized system improvements, identified with an "N" project number include the addition of shoulders and sidewalks for pedestrian use, or the addition of bike lanes. Improvement projects that are principally to address maintenance and/or safety needs are identified with an "M" project number. Recommended near term projects are identified in Table 17 and long term projects are identified in Table 18. Cost estimates were used where they were available from the published TIPS of the City and County. All other project costs are approximate planning level estimates only, in current dollars without escalation or contingencies, and subject to further engineering judgment and project -specific analysis that was not possible in conjunction with this project. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 103 Table 17: Recommended Near Term Projects, 2012-2017 Total Project Responsible Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type jurisdiction (000s) Widen to 4 lanes from Port Orchard Blvd. to SR 16. C-1 Tremont Avenue Construct roundabout at Capacity Port Orchard TIP $14,500 (.65 mi.) Tremont / Port Orchard Blvd. / Kitsap Co. TIP Add bike lanes and sidewalk both sides of street. Widen to 4 lanes with sidewalks, lights, and C-2 Bethel Avenue stormwater from the Capacity Port Orchard TIP $4,000 (0.8 mi.) roundabout to Lincoln Ave. Add sidewalks and bike lanes both sides of street. From Bay St. to Bethel Ave., C-3 Bethel Avenue W. widen to 4 lanes with Capacity Port Orchard TIP $5,000 (0.5 mi.) sidewalks and bike lanes both sides, lights and stormwater. Widen roadway to 4/5 lanes Lund Avenue Widening with sidewalks and bike lanes C-4 (1.0 mi.)* both sides per Kitsap Co. Capacity Kitsap Co. $7,240 Greenways Plan, Bethel to Jackson. East-West Arterial Study potential east -west Feasibility Study, arterial route, adding new Port Orchard / C-5 Pottery Ave to Bethel capacity at approx. Fireweed Capacity Kitsap Co. $150 Connection** to Salmonberry alignment with connections across SR 16. Cooperative study with Sedgwick Road (SR I60) WSDOT; long range plan for WSDOT/Port C-6 Corridor Study (3.5 4/5 lane roadway, sidewalks Capacity / Non- Orchard/Kitsap $350 mi. ** and bike lanes both sides, motorized Co. Glenwood Road to east of Long Lake Road Widen to 3 lane roadway with C-7 Jackson Avenue sidewalks and bike lanes both Capacity / Non- Kitsap Co $4,000 Widening (I mi.)* sides (per KC Bicycle Facilities motorized Plan), Sedgwick to Lund. Widen road to 2 lanes with C-8 Pottery Avenue sidewalks and stormwater Capacity Port Orchard TIP $1,600 Widening (0.4 mi.) system from Tremont St. to W Melcher St. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 104 Table 17: Recommended Near Term Projects, 2012-2017 (Cont.) Total Project Responsible Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type jurisdiction (000s) Pottery Avenue From Tremont St. to SR 16 C-9 Widening (.95 mi.) overpass, widen to 4 lanes Capacity Port Orchard TIP $5,700 with sidewalk, stormwater system and traffic calming. Fireweed Road From Sidney Ave. to S. Flower C-10 Widening Ave., widen 2 lane road to Capacity Port Orchard TIP $500 (.25 mi.) include shoulders both sides and stormwater system. Sherman Avenue Widen 2 lane road from C-1 I Widening Fireweed Rd. to its terminus Capacity Port Orchard TIP $750 (0.4 mi.) to include shoulders and stormwater system. From SR 16 to the west city C-12 Old Clifton Road limits, widen to 4 lanes with Capacity Port Orchard TIP $1,734 (0.5 mi) sidewalk, lights and stormwater. Sidney Avenue Widen to 4 lanes with C-13 Widening sidewalks, stormwater system Capacity Port Orchard TIP $5,700 (.95 mi.) and traffic calming from SR 16 overpass to Sedgwick Road. Design Report for lane C-14 Salmonberry Road (1.22 widening with sidewalk, Capacity Kitsap Co. Draft $100 mi.) Bethell to Jackson Ave and TIP paved shoulders to Phillips Rd. Construct 150' long N- I Bay Street Seawall pedestrian walkway from 1800 Non -Motorized Port Orchard TIP $100 block of Bay St to Seawall with drainage Construct concrete sidewalk, Pottery Avenue (Cedar curb, gutter, and stormwater N-2 Heights) Sidewalk system on west side of street Non -Motorized Port Orchard TIP $500 from Lippert Dr. to the Jr. High School. N-3 Sidewalk Improvement Repair and replace concrete Non -Motorized Port Orchard TIP $60 Project sidewalks N-4 Port Orchard Boulevard Construct concrete sidewalk Non -motorized Port Orchard TIP $100 Sidewalk Improvement on one side of roadway Replace/resurface existing sidewalks, curbs and N-5 Downtown Bay Street stormwater culverts; Non -Motorized Port Orchard TIP $350 Improvements construct traffic calming devices, Bank St. to Harrison Ave Sidney Road Shoulders Construct 6 foot paved Kitsap County N-6 (68 mi.)* shoulders, Port Orchard city Non -Motorized Draft TIP $745 limit to 106' south of Lider Rd City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 105 Table 17: Recommended Near Term Projects, 2012-2017 (Cont.) Total Project Responsible Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type jurisdiction (000s) Anderson Hill Road Construct paved shoulders Kitsap County N-7 Shoulders (.IS mi.)* from 300' west of roundabout Non -Motorized Draft TIP $375 to 480' east of roundabout S. Kitsap Boulevard (0.2 Remove and replace existing Maintenance M-1 mi) pavement between Tremont (Pavement) Port Orchard TIP $300 St. and Pottery Ave. Arnold Creek Crossing Replace wooden span with M-2 (.01 mi.) pipe arch culvert at the 1800 Maintenance Port Orchard TIP $300 block of Bay St. Street Bay Street Pedestrian Install guardrail and street Maintenance M-3 Path improvements from (Safety) Port Orchard TIP $4,400 downtown to the City limits. M-4 Residential paving Repair and replace roadway Maintenance Port Orchard TIP $900 program pavement in residential areas. (Pavement) Overlay road and construct Maintenance M-5 Sidney Overlay shoulder between Lippert Dr. (Pavement) Port Orchard TIP $1,215 and SR 16. M-6 Melcher Street Maintenance Port Orchard TIP $400 Reconstruction Reconstruct 2 lane roadway (Pavement) M-7 Cline Avenue Replace roadway pavement Maintenance Port Orchard TIP $100 Rehabilitation and west side sidewalk (Pavement) M 8 Bay Street & Rockwell Improve driver safety and Maintenance Port Orchard TIP $100 Intersection visibility (Safety) Jackson Ave / Improvements to address Maintenance Kitsap County M-9 Salmonberry Rd safety issues and traffic (Safety) Draft TIP $668 Intersection (.05) operations Total Cost (City=$48,009; Kitsap County=$13,128; WSDOT= $350) $61,487 * Project is outside City limits but within Urban Growth Area ** Project is partially within City limits and within Urban Growth Area Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 Project No. Project Name Project Description Project Type Responsible jurisdiction Total Cost (000) Widen to 3 lane roadway with multi -use trail on west side and C-15 Sidney Road Widening sidewalk on east side (continue Capacity / Non- Kitsap County / $8 460 ** (0.9 mi.) trail northward on Pottery or motorized Port Orchard construct bike lanes both sides, Berry Lake to SR 160/Sedgwick Sidney Rd/ SW Lider Install signal and turn lanes to /Kitsap County / C-I6 Signal* (600'??) address future (2025) Capacity Port Orchard $1,630 congestion City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 106 Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 (Cont.) Responsible Total Project jurisdiction Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type (000) Widen road to 4/5 lanes with C-17 Mile Hill Dr. Widening bike lanes both sides and Capacity / Non- Port Orchard $18,010 (1.9 mi.) sidewalks where missing, motorized Bethel to east city limit Widen to 4 lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes both C-18 Mile Hill Dr. Widening* sides of street (per KC Capacity / Non- Kitsap County $5,963 (0.6 mi.) Greenways Plan and Bicycle motorized Facilities Plan), city limits to Bulman Sedgwick Road (SR Widen to 4/5 lane roadway Capacity/Non- Non- WSDOT/Kitsap C-19 160) Corridor with sidewalks and bike lanes County/Port $47,000 * Improvements (3.4 mi) both sides, Glenwood Road motorized Orchard SW to east of Long Lake Road Access Decision Report for a WSDOT/Kitsap C-20 SR 16 / Bethel Rd. new interchange on SR 16 at Capacity p y County/Port $1,000 Interchange* Bethel -Burley /Lider/Bielmeier. Orchard Priority is a NB off -ramp. Widen to 4/5 lane roadway C-21 Bethel Road Widening with sidewalks and bike lanes Capacity / Non- Kitsap County $13,850 Project (1.0 mi.) both sides, SE Ives Mill to SE motorized Bielmeier Rd., Widen to 3 lanes with Jackson Avenue sidewalks and bike lanes both Capacity / Non- C-22 Widening*(I.0 mi.) sides (per KC Greenways Plan motorized Kitsap County $8,995 and Bicycle Facilities Plan), Mile Hill to Lund. Beilmeier Road Widen to 3 lanes with Capacity / Non- C-23 Widening* (1.31 mi.) sidewalks and bike lanes both motorized Kitsap County $13,420 sides, Bethel Rd. to Phillips Rd Widen to 3 lanes with C-24 Phillips Road sidewalks and bike lanes both Capacity / Non- Kitsap County $15,500 Widening* (1.51 mi.) sides, SE Sedgwick Rd. to SE motorized Bielmeier Olney Avenue Widen to 3 lanes with Capacity / Non- Port C-25 Widening* (0.9 mi.) sidewalks and bike lanes both motorized Orchard/Kitsap $12,570 sides, Beach Dr. to Mile Hill Dr County Construct bike lanes both N-8 Sidney Road ** (0.8 mi.) sides, Sedgwick to Lider (per Non -motorized Kitsap Co./ Port $2 870 KC Greenways Plan / KC Orchard Bicycle Facilities Plan) From SE Bethel Rd. to SE N-9 Salmonberry Road) * Phillips Rd., construct sidewalks Non -motorized Kitsap County $9,740 (1.2 mi.) and bike lanes both sides of street Salmonberry Road Construct bike lanes & N-10 (Phillips SE to Long sidewalks both sides (per KC Non -motorized Kitsap County $4,842 Lake Rd SE; 0.6 mi.) * Bicycle Facilities Plan). City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 107 Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 (Cont.) Responsible Total Project jurisdiction Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type (000) From east City limits to Ahlstrom Rd., construct bicycle N-1 I Beach Drive (west; 0.2 path and paved shoulders (per Non -motorized Kitsap County $646 mi.) KC Greenways Plan / Mosquito Fleet Trail Plan / KC Bicycle Facilities Plan) From Ahlstrom Rd. to Hillcrest Dr., construct separated N-12 Beach Drive (east; 1.8 bicycle path (per KC Non -motorized Kitsap County $6,700 mi.) Greenways Plan / Mosquito Fleet Trail Plan / KC Bicycle Facilities Plan) Construct sidewalks and bike N-13 Long Lake Road SE (1.0 lanes both sides of road from Non -motorized Kitsap County $12,440 mi.) SE Sedgwick Rd. to SE Lake Valley Rd. From SE Lund Ave. to south N-14 Harris Road SE (0.7 terminus, construct sidewalks Non -motorized Kitsap County $2,723 mi.)* both sides of street where missing. From Sedgwick Rd. to SE Vale Rd., construct sidewalks both N- 15 Converse Ave. SE (0.2 sides of street where missing. Non-motorized Kitsap County $ I ,2 I 0 mi.)* Construct trail from SE Vale Rd. to south terminus of Harris Road SE. From Bethel Rd. to Sedgwick Rd., construct bike lanes both N-16 Cedar Road / Con* erse sides of road (per KC Non -motorized Kitsap County $3,157 Ave. (0.8 mi.) Greenways Plan / KC Bicycle Facilities Plan). Construct sidewalks both sides of road. Chase Road / Berger From SE Lund Ave. to N-17 Lane / Branson Drive Salmonberry Rd., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $2,392 (0.6 mi.)* sidewalks both sides of street where missing From Sidney Ave. to Bethel SE Lund Avenue (0.7 Rd.SE, construct bike lanes Kitsap N-18 mi.) both sides of road (per KC Non -motorized County/Port $8,888 Greenways Plan / KC Bicycle Orchard Facilities Plan) From Jackson Ave. to Madrona Dr., construct bike lanes both N-20 Lund Avenue (0.6 mi.) * sides of road (per KC Greenways Plan / KC Bicycle Non -motorized Kitsap County $6,587 Facilities Plan). Construct sidewalks both sides of road. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 108 Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 (Cont.) Responsible Total Project jurisdiction Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type (000) Restripe for bike lanes both Madrona Drive SE/ sides of road (per KC N-21 Harrison Avenue SE Greenways Plan / KC Bicycle Non -motorized Kitsap County $4,027 (2.1 mi. loop from SE Facilities Plan). Construct Mile Hill Dr.)* sidewalks both sides of road where missing. From Lund Ave. SE to Fircrest N-22 SE Conifer Park Drive Dr.SE, construct sidewalks Non -motorized Kitsap County $830 (0.3 mi.) * both sides of street where missing. From Madrona Dr. to SE N-23 Fircrest Drive SE (0.3 Conifer Park Dr., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,161 mi.) sidewalks both sides of street where missing. SE Horstman Road (1.2 From Olney Ave. to Baby Doll Port Orchard / N-24 mi) ** Rd., construct sidewalks both Non -motorized Kitsap Co. $4,468 sides of street where missing From SE Horstman Rd. to SE N-25 Whittier Avenue SE Mile Hill Dr., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $852 (0.2 mi.) * sidewalks both sides of street where missing From SE Horstman Rd. to SE N-26 Warmer Ave *ue SE Mile Hill Dr., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,176 (0.3 mi.) sidewalks both sides of street where missing From SE Horstman Rd. to SE N-27 Baby Doll Road SE (0.5 Mile Hill Dr., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,964 mi.) sidewalks both sides of street where missing From Beach Dr. to Lidstrom N-28 E. Lidstrom Hill Road Rd. E., construct sidewalks Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,196 (0.3 mi.) both sides of street where missing From E. Lidstrom Hill Rd. to SE N-29 Lidstrom Hill Road E Horstman Rd., construct Non -motorized Kitsap County $4,561 (0.7 mi.) * sidewalks both sides of street where missing From Sunnyslope to Bethel - Lake Flora Road / SW Burley Rd., construct bike lanes N-30 Lider Road (5.2 mi.)*** both sides of road (per KC Non -motorized Kitsap County $28,200 Greenways Plan / KC Bicycle Facilities Plan). From SW Lider to Sidney Rd, Glenwood Road (I.I construct bike lanes both sides N-31 mi.)** of road (per KC Greenways Non -motorized Kitsap County $2,888 Plan / KC Bicycle Facilities Plan). City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 109 Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 (Cont.) Responsible Total Project jurisdiction Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type (000) From W. Pottery Ave. to Lippert Drive / Sidney Tremont St. W, construct bike N-32 Avenue (0.8 mi.) lanes or signed shared lane, and Non -motorized Port Orchard $1,735 sidewalks both sides of road where missing. From Bay Ave. to Tremont St., N-33 Sidney Avenue (1.2 mi.) construct sidewalks both sides Non -motorized Port Orchard $1 1,080 of road where missing. From Sidney Ave. to Garrison Ave., construct sidewalks both N-34 Melcher Street (0.3 mi.) sides of street, and trail from Non -motorized Port Orchard $2,367 Garrison Ave. to Port Orchard Boulevard. Construct sidewalks both sides of street where missing Kendall Street (0.2 mi. between Cline Ave. and N-35 on -street + 0.3 mi. trail Harrison Aveand trail from Non -motorized Port Orchard $4,014 east to roundabout) e connecting to Harrison Avenue future Blackjack Creek Trail, and continuing east to roundabout at Bethel Avenue From Kitsap St. to Division St., N-36 Seattle Avenue (0.2 mi.) construct sidewalks both sides Non -motorized Port Orchard $1,074 of street where missing. Rockwell Avenue (0.1 From Bay St. to Kitsap St., N-37 mi.) construct sidewalks both sides Non -motorized Port Orchard $1,881 of street where missing. Mitchell Avenue (0.3 From Pilsko Ln. to Jefferson N-38 mi.) Ave., construct sidewalks both Non -motorized Port Orchard $2,093 sides of street where missing. Mitchell Rd. SE -Harding Ave. N-39 Jefferson Avenue (0.4 SE, construct sidewalks both Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,425 mi.) sides and trail from Harding Ave. SE to Lincoln Avenue SE. Construct sidewalks both sides N-40 Hoover Avenue (0.5 of street where missing, Non -motorized Kitsap County $3,190 mi.) Jefferson Ave. SE to SE Lund Ave. Lincoln Avenue (0.2 Construct sidewalks both sides N-41 mi.) of street where missing, Bethel Non -motorized Kitsap County $1,368 Rd. SE to Hoover Ave. St. Construct sidewalks both sides Port N-42 Karcher Avenue SE (0.1 of street where missing, SE Non -motorized Orchard/Kitsap $1,086 mi.) Mile Hill Dr. to Lincoln Ave. County SE. Construct sidewalks both sides Port N-43 Retsil Road E. (1.0 mi.) of street where missing, Bay St. Non -motorized Orchard/Kitsap $7,592 to SE Mile Hill Dr. County City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 110 Table 18: Recommended Long Term Projects, 2018-2025 (Cont.) Responsible Total Project jurisdiction Cost No. Project Name Project Description Project Type (000) Construct sidewalks both sides N-44 Dekalb Street (0.1 mi.) of street where missing, Non -motorized Port Orchard $627 Mitchell Ave. to Tracy Ave. S. Tracy Avenue S. (0.6 From Bay St. to Dekalb St., N-45 mi.) construct sidewalks both sides Non -motorized Port Orchard $4,406 of street where missing. From W Lippert Dr. to N-46 Pottery Avenue SE (0.4 Fireweed Ln/SW Moorea Ln, Non -motorized Port Orchard $900 mi.) construct sidewalks both sides of street where missing. S. Flower Avenue (0.3 From Goldenrod St. to Leora N-47 mi.) Park, construct sidewalks both Non -motorized Port Orchard $2,869 sides of street where missing. From Sidney Ave. to Indigo Pt. PI, construct sidewalks both Goldenrod Street (0.2 sides of street where missing. N-48 mi. on -street + 0.2 mi. Construct trail from Non -motorized Port Orchard $2,91 1 trail) Goldenrod Street end eastward to connect to Blackjack Creek Trail. Construct trail from Bay Street Port Orchard/ N-49 Blackjack Creek Trail to SE Sedgwick Road near SR Non -motorized Kitsap County $20,400 16. N-50 Ross Creek Trail Construct trail from Bay Street Non -motorized Port Orchard $6,220 to Tremont Street. Construct extension of the N-5 I Port Orchard Trail Port Orchard trail, south from Non -motorized Port Orchard $2,735 Extension Tremont Street to Pottery Avenue. Total Long Range Project Costs: $339,889 * Project is outside City limits but within Urban Growth Area ** Project is partially within City limits and within Urban Growth Area City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page I I I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 112 1 1.0 FINANCIAL PLAN A financial plan establishes how transportation improvements can be funded over the planning horizon year 2025. The plan includes four sections: 11.1 Cost estimates of recommended Near Term transportation projects, 11.2 Revenue sources, and 11.3 Transportation impact fee program. 11.1 Cost Estimates of Near Term City Transportation Projects Planning level cost estimates for each of the recommended near term improvements are shown in Table 17. The cost estimates are based on costs already identified in the City's 201 1-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Draft Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 2012-2017 by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works, and updated estimated costs for new projects where available. The total estimated cost for the near term projects is approximately $61,487,000. 11.2 Revenue Sources This section provides a forecast of anticipated transportation revenues that considers the City's past history, ability to secure state and federal grant dollars, and the amount of local revenues available. Over the five year period (2003 thru 2007), the City of Port Orchard averaged approximately $1.4 million annually in transportation related revenues. These included local taxes, permit fees, various state and federal grants and other sources. The revenue history for the five year period is shown in Table 19. Table 19: Port Orchard Transportation Revenue History (2003-2007) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5 Year Total Taxes 641,707 704,718 740,484 1,012,131 959,876 4,058,916 Licenses and Permits 1,840 2565 2,185 2,395 5,326 14,311 Federal Entitlements 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Grants 43,894 0 0 196,815 240,709 FHWA Grants 166,599 95,324 203,303 0 465,226 State Grants 0 1,766 71,438 27,272 74,663 175,139 State Shared Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 State Entitlements 165,007 162,979 172,183 191,747 201,356 893,272 Charges for Services 29,499 28,828 14,582 13,360 18,065 104,334 Fines 34 0 34 Miscellaneous 35,184 18,852 23,572 109,669 45,555 232,832 Other Finance Services 215,901 5,525 4,000 10,000 259,800 495,226 Operating Transfers 99,482 25,000 0 124,482 TOTAL 1,133,032 1,191,314 1,148,768 1,569,911 1,761,456 6,804,481 City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 113 Assuming the historical trend in transportation related revenues continues in the future, there will be a significant gap in funding to pay for the near term projects: $61,487 million project costs - $7 million in available revenue = a $54,487 million revenue shortfall (see Table 17 total minus Table 19 total). The following are some sources of transportation revenue that the City of Port Orchard may pursue to help fund the near term transportation projects. 1 1.2.1 -Transportation Grant Funds The City has been successful in securing non -local transportation grant funds for transportation improvements projects. These funds have allowed the City to advance needed projects to design and construction. Following is a summary of available transportation grant funds the City of Port Orchard can pursue to help fund transportation improvements. A. Federal SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) This is the federal transportation program that provides transportation funds for local governments on a competitive basis. The funds are administered through WSDOT and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Funds are available through various programs under the SAFETEA-LU umbrella including the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Transportation Enhancement Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Recreational Trails Program, and the Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program. A brief summary of each of the programs is provided below: Surface Transportation Program (STP) The STP Program provides flexible funding that can be used by state and local governments for projects on any federal —aid highway system facility including the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, modifications of existing public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regardless of whether the sidewalk is on the federal —aid system right of way, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of the funds are reserved for rural areas and may be spent on the federal -aid functionally classified system including Rural Minor Arterials. Highway Bridge Program (HBP) The HBP provides funding to state for improving bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventative maintenance. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 114 Transportation Enhancement Program Transportation Enhancements are transportation and transportation related activities that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the transportation system. The program provides for a wide variety of projects that range from nonmotorized (bike/pedestrian) facilities, to landscaping and scenic beautification, to mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff, and to the restoration of historic transportation facilities. Safe Routes to School Program The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools program is to provide K-8 children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. This federal program, which in Washington also includes a state funded portion, provides funding for engineering and construction, education efforts and enforcement activities within two -miles of schools. There is no match requirement. Projects are to be submitted as complete projects and fully funded. Intersection and Corridor Safety Program In spring 2005 WSDOT developed the Intersection and Corridor Safety program to fund safety projects that eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents at high accident intersections and within high accident corridors. WSDOT estimated approximately $20 million to be available for this program. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program The TCSP Program provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships between transportation, community, and system preservation and to identify private sector -based initiatives. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments and tribal governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants. The Federal share payable on account of any TCSP project or activity shall be 80% or subject to the sliding scale rate Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trail Program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non -motorized travel. More information on federal SAFETEA-LU funding program opportunities is available at the Federal Highway Administration website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 115 B. Washington State Transportation Improvement Board The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides funding to foster investment in quality local government transportation projects. The TIB distributes grant funding from revenue generated by three cents of the State's gas tax, to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. TIB administers several funding programs each with its own set of criteria used to facilitate project selection. The project selection process for all programs is completed annually. The TIB programs are summarized below: TIB Urban Programs The Transportation Improvement Board provides funding to urban cities within federally designated urban areas with population greater than 5,000. Three state -funded grant programs are administered through TIB: - Urban Arterial Program (UAP) for road projects that improve safety and capacity, - Urban Corridor Program (UCP) for road projects that expand capacity and have multiple funding partners, and - Sidewalk Program (SP) for sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity. TIB Urban Program projects require financial participation by the local agency. Minimum local match requirements range from ten to twenty percent depending on the assessed value of the local agency. Local match is typically a mixture of private and public funds. Projects are selected annually using a rating system based on criteria developed by TIB. TIB awards approximately $70 million to new projects each year. Other TIB Programs Several other programs are administered by TIB including: - Route Jurisdiction Transfer Program (RJT) reviews petitions from cities, counties, or WSDOT for additions or deletions from the state highway system. - Route Transfer Program (RTP) provides funding to offset extraordinary costs associated with the transfer of state highways to cities. - De -TEA Program offers to remove federal funds from a transportation project and provide 100% state TIB funding in its place. The intent of the program is to lower costs and speed projects towards completion by eliminating unnecessary federal process and administrative requirements that only apply because of the presence of federal funds. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 116 C. Other WA State Transportation Funding Programs The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program was initiated to reduce the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. Similar to the federal Safe Routes to School Program, the purpose of the program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education, and enforcement. Community Development Block Grant Funds Providing several (CDBG) grant programs, WA State Office of Community Development administers fund through a competitive application process to assist Washington State small cities, towns and counties in carrying out significant community and economic development projects that principally benefit moderate and low-income persons. Transportation projects are eligible. Community Economic Revitalization Board Rural Program Administered by the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, this program assists in financing growth -related infrastructure in designated rural counties, and timber and salmon - impacted areas that will result in job creation by manufacturing, industrial assembly, distribution, processing, warehousing and tourism development. Transportation projects are eligible. More information is available at http://www.pwb.wa.gov/partners.asp D. Local Transportation Funds Transportation impact fees are the most typical financing tool used by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington. This allows the collection of revenue to offset the traffic impacts of new development before occupancy permits are issued. Further discussion of this potential tool is provided below. The City may choose to establish a Transportation Benefit District to generate local transportation revenue from an added vehicle registration fee, an increased local sales tax, or other measure applicable within the city limits. This mechanism is gaining traction with local jurisdictions in the State, with the creation of new municipal transportation benefit districts. Increased vehicle registration fees have garnered the most public attention, subject to voter approval. However, a sales tax may generate more revenue with less controversy, depending on local circumstances. 11.3 Transportation Impact Fee Program There is a significant shortage of available revenue to fund the City's transportation projects, and this challenge will likely continue in the future. Many cities in Washington State use transportation impact fees to help fund transportation improvements. Impact fees are charges assessed by local governments against new development projects that attempt to recover some portion of the cost incurred by government in providing the added capacity in public City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 117 facilities required to serve the new development. Impact fees are only used to fund facilities such as roads, that are directly associated with the new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development. They cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies. In Washington, impact fees are authorized under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 - .I00), as part of "voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020, under the "Local Transportation Act" (RCW 39.92.040), and as mitigation for impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - Ch. 43.21 C RCW). Impact fees for transportation facilities may be calculated based on average trips, numbers of units in a residential project, square footage in a non-residential project, or other factors. The payment of transportation impact fees does not by itself satisfy mitigation requirements under SEPA, or transportation concurrency requirements under the Growth Management Act. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 118 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 119 12.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The City of Port Orchard works to maintain positive relationship with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies and service providers, and state and federal governments. The City has a shared interest and concern in maintaining a vital local and regional economy, and a high quality of life for its citizens, which depend on transportation mobility across jurisdiction boundaries. The City has agreements in place that demonstrate its active commitment to working with Kitsap County, other regional partners and state and federal agencies to address transportation issues, share information and solve problems. The development and ongoing monitoring of the City's Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that commitment. The Growth Management Act requires that plans between neighboring jurisdictions maintain a level of consistency through coordination of planning efforts. Increasingly, Port Orchard's transportation system functions as an integral part of a larger regional system — of roadways, transit routes, park and ride lots, ferry routes, and non -motorized facilities that allow walking and/or biking the first and final mile, and making connections in between. The development of this Plan depended on land use data and traffic forecasts provided by the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. The resulting traffic forecasts were analyzed using methods recommended by the Kitsap County Public Works Department to determine the arterial LOS for the roadway system. Coordination efforts are expected to be ongoing with: • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on the recommended revisions to the City's Roadway Functional Classification System, the addition of new truck routes to the state Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS), and needed improvements on designated State Routes within the city; • Kitsap Transit on Transportation Demand Management activities by major employment sites, providing access to ferry and transit facilities and services, and on maintaining and expanding transit service quality within the City; • Kitsap County to address the needs of travel across jurisdiction limits, including mitigating the impacts of land use development outside the City, providing for needed street improvements in annexation areas, and furthering the expansion of the regional non -motorized trail system. Lastly, the City anticipates a certification review of this Comprehensive Transportation Plan Element by the Puget Sound Regional Council to ensure its conformity with the adopted regional Vision 2040 plan. City of Port Orchard December 2011 Transportation Element Page 120