Document Kennewick_doc_b93f38ce22

Appendices Transportation Systems Plan City of Kennewick ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT APPENDIX B INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LOS SUMMARY APPENDIX C NON-MOTORIZED FEDERAL & STATE POLICY GUIDE APPENDIX D DETAILED TRANSPORTATION REVENUE PROJECTIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation System Plan DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM STUDY REPORT Prepared for: City of Kennewick August 2008 Prepared by: 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] www.transpogroup.com 05026.00 © 2008 Transpo Group ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 The Transpo Group M:\05\05026 Kennewick Citywide Transportation System Plan\Draft TSP_August 08\Technical Appendices\Appendix - Transportation Impact Fee Report.doc i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 What are Transportation Impact 1 How do Transportation Impact Fees Relate to Other Development 2 Why is the City Considering Transportation Impact 5 How is this Report 6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PROGRAM 7 How was the TIF Program Developed? 7 What TIF Program Options Were 8 Which Option is being Recommended for Consideration? 8 What Improvement Projects are 9 How Are Project Costs Allocated to the TIF 14 What Transportation Revenues may be Generated by the 15 How are the Fees Determined? 15 What are the Resulting Transportation Impact Fees? 16 How does the Recommended Fee Compare to Other 18 How are the Fees Collected and Spent? 18 When are Credits Provided? 19 Are any Developments Exempt from the Fees? 19 What are the Requirements Regarding Refunds? 19 How Would the Fees be Kept Up to Date? 20 What are the Next Steps? 20 Figures Figure 1. Elements of the Development Review Figure 2. Transportation Improvement Projects Eligible for TIF Program Figure 3. Project Revenues versus Figure 4. Example Traffic Impact Fees Tables Table 1. Transportation System Plan Project Table 2. Maximum Allowable Vehicle Trip Rate Fee (Citywide Option) Table 3. Costs by Unit of Development (Citywide APPENDIX A Fee Schedule ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 1 Introduction The City of Kennewick, like many local government agencies in Washington State, has a need for additional funding to improve and expand its transportation system to serve new growth. The City is considering adding a transportation impact fee program, as allowed under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), to help fund transportation system improvements needed to serve growth. Currently, development projects in the City may be required to help fund transportation improvements through three different regulatory programs. These programs include: • Frontage improvements/development regulations • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Concurrency These existing programs are requirements that basically cover transportation impacts directly resulting from development; they do not specifically address the long-term transportation system needs resulting from the forecast growth. The City of Kennewick is considering adding a transportation impact fee (TIF) program as the fourth piece of the transportation review and mitigation puzzle, as shown on Figure 1. Transportation Impact Fees are optional under GMA. The City prepared an extensive analysis of potential use of TIFs which is summarized in this report. Figure 1. Elements of the Development Review Process What are Transportation Impact Fees? Transportation impact fees (TIFs) are a tool allowed under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) to help fund growth-related capital facility improvements to public streets and roads. Impact fees are also allowed under GMA to fund other public capital facilities such as parks, open space, recreation facilities, and fire protection. The following summarizes the GMA definition of an impact fee: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 2 “Impact fee” means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. (source: RCW 82.02.090[3]) Impact fees are an optional element under GMA; agencies are not required to implement them. As noted above, they are a tool used to help mitigate some of the transportation impacts due to new development or redevelopment. GMA specifically requires that the impact fees: • Shall be only used for system improvements that are reasonably related to new development; • Be assessed proportional to or less than the impacts of new development; • Be allocated to system improvements that reasonably benefit new development; • Be collected for and spent on facilities included in the capital facilities element of the agency’s Comprehensive Plan. Impact fees can only be used for helping fund “system” improvements included in adopted capital facilities plans. For TIFs, system improvements are capital improvements designed to provide service for the community at-large. Impact fees cannot be used for “project” improvements, such as subdivision streets. Typically, agencies focus application of TIFs to arterial streets and key collector roads. TIFs can only be used to fund growth-related improvements. They cannot be used to resolve existing transportation deficiencies. To the extent an improvement serves growth and resolves an existing deficiency, the TIF cannot include the portion of the cost related to resolving the existing deficiency. TIFs also cannot be the only funding for the growth-related transportation improvement projects. The project cost allocations must account for other public funding which would be generated by developments in forms of taxes or user fees. The TIFs are implemented through development regulations adopted by ordinance. GMA sets specific minimum requirements for the TIF ordinance. How do Transportation Impact Fees Relate to Other Development Regulations? As noted above, TIFs are an optional element allowed under GMA. They are used to help mitigate some of a development’s potential transportation impacts. TIFs are used in conjunction with three other development review regulations as shown in Figure 1: • Development Regulations/Frontage Improvements • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Transportation Concurrency While transportation impact fees can change how agencies apply some of these other regulations, the other requirements do not go away with adoption of a TIF. The following summarizes the basic roles of the other development regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 3 Development Regulations/Frontage Improvements When properties are subdivided or redeveloped, the permitting agency can require transportation and other improvements needed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare (RCW 58.17). This includes safe and convenient travel by the public. Frontage improvements and site development regulations help insure that the City street standards are met and that ultimately, new development is served by adequate roads. Developers can be required to construct the site’s frontage and on-site roadways based on the City’s adopted Road Standards. Frontage improvements apply to both vehicular and non- motorized facilities. Key elements related to addressing impacts to the transportation system include: • Addresses on-site impacts (access onto public rights-of-way) • Helps to insure that new development is served by adequate roads • Developer can be responsible for frontage along public and private roads • Can be used to address vehicular, transit, and non-motorized facilities serving the site State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), adopted in 1971 (RCW 43.21C), directs State and local decision-makers to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. Implementing regulations, in the form of the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11) establish uniform requirements for agencies to use in environmental impacts of a proposal. The process also allows review of possible project alternatives or mitigation measures that will reduce the environmental impact of a project. SEPA is typically used to review impacts within the immediate and nearby vicinity, such as vehicular access points, frontage right-of-way improvements and nearby intersections or roadways. SEPA uses the “significant adverse environmental impact” standard as the threshold for triggering mitigation. The intention of SEPA, as applied for transportation, is to mitigate a development’s significant adverse impact on the transportation system in terms of capacity and/or operations. SEPA reviews also address safety, specific access points, circulation needs, and impacts on neighborhoods, pedestrians, and transit facilities. (source: Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Handbook, 2003) The following summarizes key items of SEPA in the review of development projects: • Uses “significant adverse impact” standard (not just level of service) • Broad scope can be used to address capacity, safety, operations, non- motorized impacts and transit • Reviewed on a development by development basis • Can be used to mitigate both on and off-site impacts • Mitigation can be in the form of constructing improvements or payment of proportionate share of improvement costs • Pooling of funds is generally not allowed • Does not require denial of developments if standards are not met Concurrency The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.070) requires that infrastructure improvements or strategies to accommodate development be available when the impacts of development occur. For transportation facilities, concurrency is defined in the GMA and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) to mean that any needed transportation improvements or programs be in place at the time of development or that a ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 4 financial commitment exists to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Local governments have a significant amount of flexibility regarding how to set level of service standards and how to apply transportation concurrency within their plans, regulations, and permit systems. As part of the requirement to develop a comprehensive plan, jurisdictions are required to establish level-of-service standards for arterials, transit service, and other facilities, such as water and sewer. Once a jurisdiction sets a standard, it is used to determine whether the impacts of a proposed development can be met through existing capacity and/or to decide what level of mitigation will be required. If a “development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in its transportation element”, jurisdictions are required to prohibit development approval unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Transportation is the only area of concurrency that specifies denial of development. The Growth Management Hearings Boards reiterated the role of a concurrency program, finding that “the concept of concurrency is not an end in of itself but a foundation for local governments to achieve the coordinated, consistent, sustainable growth called for by the Act”. (source: Puget Sound Regional Council, Assessing the Effectiveness of Concurrency, 2002) Concurrency is a tool to insure that transportation facilities are constructed as growth occurs. Concurrency provides a link between land use, transportation, and public investment. The following identifies key requirements for concurrency programs. • Compliance with GMA • Local governments have flexibility in applying concurrency • Measured with level of service standards as defined by the City’s Comprehensive Plan • Addresses systemwide impacts • Developments are not to be approved if development causes the level of service to decline below identified standards As required, the City of Kennewick currently has a transportation concurrency program in place. Transportation Impact Fees Under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), cities and counties are required to make appropriate provisions for transportation needs and impacts during the review of development proposals. The GMA grants local governments the authority to impose transportation impact fees (TIF) for the purpose of supporting the funding of roadway improvements to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development. Transportation impact fees are assessed by local governments against new development projects to recover a portion of the costs incurred by government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. Transportation impact fees are only used to fund road improvements that are directly associated with new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. In Washington, impact fees are authorized for those jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 to 82.02.100). Transportation Impact Fees are a tool to help mitigate development impacts for systemwide traffic impacts. The following summarizes the key points: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 5 • Enforces “growth pays for growth” principal • Funds must be spent on capacity projects that are designed to serve new growth and not fix existing deficiencies. • Addresses “system” wide impacts • Must be generally proportional to impacts of development • Based on proportionate share • Provides funding for six-year Capital Improvement Program • Funds must be spent on improvements that generally benefit the developments paying the fee • Funds assessed for several improvement needs can be “pooled” to address agency’s priority projects Why is the City Considering Transportation Impact Fees? Transportation revenues continue to decline, while the costs of maintenance, administration, and capital improvements have increased significantly. It has been difficult for the City to build needed capital improvement projects, while also preserving and maintaining existing transportation facilities. Adoption of a TIF will provide the City with a relatively reliable additional transportation funding mechanism to supplement its current transportation revenues. In addition, adoption of a TIF will provide the City more consistency in defining mitigation of development-related transportation impacts. Like many local agencies in Washington State, the City has significantly more transportation improvement needs than they have consistent revenue sources to fund the needed transportation improvements. Increased housing and employment growth is forecast to continue in the City and its designated urban growth areas (UGAs). The growth requires capacity and other improvements to safely and efficiently meet the increased transportation demands. These demands include passenger vehicles, trucks, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. TIFs can provide another source of transportation funding that is directly tied to the level of growth. The City’s current development review process using SEPA can result in equity issues. For example, several developments that impact a roadway or intersection may have been approved with little or no transportation mitigation. The next development that is applied for may add relatively minor traffic to the same intersection, but triggers the City’s level of service standard. This last development could be denied or conditioned to resolve the deficiency, while the other prior developments were not required to contribute to the improvement. Under a TIF program, each new development after the effective date of the TIF ordinance (if adopted) would help pay toward this and other growth-related transportation improvement projects. With a TIF in place, even the smallest developments (such as a single-family house) would help fund key transportation improvements proportional to their overall impact to the system. Currently, most small developments in the City pay little or no traffic mitigation under SEPA or Concurrency. The cumulative impacts of these small developments adds up over time placing the full burden on existing City transportation funding programs or on larger development projects that trigger improvements under SEPA or Concurrency standards. Furthermore, under SEPA, developer mitigation must be spent on the specific improvements at the impacted location. This requires the City to fund any remaining amount not paid for by developers. By accepting 5 percent or less of the funding for an improvement, the City may need to commit the remaining 95 percent even if it was not the City’s highest priority transportation improvement. Under GMA, impact fees for different improvement locations can be “pooled” to allow the agency to fully fund its highest priority projects, even though the fees are assessed for a range of improvement projects. This makes the TIF process a more reliable source of funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 6 Developers in other parts of Washington have also indicated that under TIF programs they can better estimate their potential transportation mitigation costs. As noted above, most of the developments will still be subject to review under SEPA, concurrency, and frontage improvements which could result in additional mitigation costs above the TIF. These would include mitigation at locations not covered in the TIF or that require mitigation to pass concurrency. How is this Report Organized? The next section of this report summarizes the recommended transportation impact fee (TIF) program. It provides an overview of how the program was set up and what the resulting fees would be, if adopted. It also highlights how the program would be implemented by the City of Kennewick. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 7 Summary of Recommended Program The recommended Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program for the City of Kennewick is based on detailed technical analyses, as well as policy direction. An overview of the key elements of the program is presented in this section. It covers the following key questions: • How was the TIF program developed? • What TIF program options were evaluated? • Which option is being recommended for consideration? • What improvement projects are included? • How are project costs allocated to the TIF? • What transportation revenues may be generated by the program? • How are the fees determined? • What are the resulting transportation impact fees? • How does the recommended fee compare to other jurisdictions? • How are fees collected and spent? • When are credits provided? • Are any developments exempt from the fees? • What are the requirements regarding refunds? • How would the fees be kept up to date? How was the TIF Program Developed? In order to meet the GMA requirements, the City of Kennewick developed a specific methodology for calculating the transportation impact fees. The process included four basic tasks: • Identification of Transportation Impact Fee Eligible Projects • Evaluation of Service Areas and Alternative Program Concepts • Calculation of the Base Impact Fees • Preparation of the Fee Schedule The Transportation System Plan was the basis for the TIF. The Transportation System Plan identified existing and forecast transportation deficiencies based on 20-year traffic volumes. The forecasts were prepared using the recently constructed City of Kennewick travel demand model which was built off the regional model maintained by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG). The model was refined for the City of Kennewick and covers all of the surrounding urban areas, including the Cities of Richland, Pasco, and West Richland. The model includes all major transportation corridors in the region. The model refinements were limited to the areas in and around the City of Kennewick. The modifications included refining the model zone structure to provide more detail in the City, updating existing and forecast land use data, and adding more detail to the model’s transportation system to allow more detailed evaluation of collector road needs. The City of Kennewick model is used to forecast weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions. The weekday PM peak hour typically has the highest overall travel demands and therefore, provides the basis for determining overall transportation improvement needs to support growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 8 The City model was used to define the amount and location of traffic growth through 2025 for the entire City. The model was also used to identify the travel patterns of the growth trips that benefit from the potential transportation impact fee projects. What TIF Program Options Were Evaluated? A total of three potential TIF programs were evaluated once the model had been completed and the resulting 20-year project list identified. The potential programs were identified based on input from City staff. Each program that was evaluated is described below. Citywide Option GMA requires establishment of one or more service areas for the TIF. This option treated the entire City as one transportation service area (TSA). The TSA boundary considered the existing City limits and UGA boundaries. Developments in any area of the City are assessed the same base fee per unit and type of development. The base fee is calculated by dividing the total project cost shares by the number of new vehicle trips within the entire City. Transportation Service Area Option Under this option the City and UGA were divided into four transportation service areas. The TSAs were defined to identify the proportional impact of growth from various parts of the study area. The TSA boundaries were based on the type and amount of growth, the location of improvement projects, and likely future travel patterns. It was determined that the resulting fees for this option were not significantly different by having more than one service area for the City. One service area is much easier to administer and provides for an equitable and proportionate distribution of costs, since all developments benefit from the system wide improvements being funded with the TIF. Citywide Option with Southridge Surcharge The Southridge surcharge option assumes implementation of the citywide impact fee, but includes a surcharge for those land uses in the Southridge subarea. The citywide impact fee is assessed to all land uses within the City, while land uses in the Southridge subarea are assessed an additional surcharge to pay for the infrastructure needed to support new growth. The additional fee, or surcharge, is used to fund and construct the improvement projects in the Southridge subarea that need to be constructed to provide appropriate levels of circulation and emergency access to the area. These projects are shown to primarily benefit the Southridge subarea and therefore are included in the surcharge fee. Unlike the TSA and Citywide options, the full cost of the improvements identified in the 20- year project list are included in the surcharge amount, including improvement projects not eligible for impact fee funding. These improvements include collector roadways that enhance circulation and access, but are not shown to be needed by 2025 based on the City’s existing level of service standards. The surcharge spreads the cost of all transportation capital improvements within Southridge to the expected growth over the next 20 years. Which Option is being Recommended for Consideration? The Transportation System Plan is recommending implementation of the citywide option. As a result, the remaining documentation focuses on the citywide option and the resulting fee structure. However, it is also assumed the Southridge area projects will be built as ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 9 development occurs in that subarea, regardless of whether the City establishes a surcharge. Ultimately those projects are needed in order for development to take place in the subarea. Either all development will be assessed equally using a surcharge type of system, which might be implemented as a transportation benefit district, or the developments that occur first will be required to build the infrastructure and then be reimbursed using a latecomer’s agreement. This system can be implemented once the citywide impact fee program has been established. What Improvement Projects are Included? The full list of projects in the City’s Transportation System Plan were screened to identify potential growth-related improvements. This process eliminated a wide array of improvements that focused on resolving existing deficiencies or non-growth related transportation needs (these are projects that would likely be done even without growth). These typically included safety, maintenance/ preservation, environmental upgrades, and railroad grade separation projects. In addition, projects primarily benefiting the Southridge subarea were also eliminated and assumed to be funded by new development in the subarea or by using a surcharge type of system described earlier. Other possible TIF-eligible projects that were not considered included upgrades to several corridors to provide urban amenities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. These could certainly be considered for TIF eligibility if the City desired, but the finance plan indicated the City could reasonable fund those improvements through other revenue sources and City staff desired to keep the impact fee cost to a minimum. The remaining projects that were further considered for the TIF program included: • Upgrading and widening collectors and arterials needed to accommodate higher traffic volumes, • Construction of new collector or arterials to address capacity and circulation needed for growth, • Constructing turn lanes and traffic controls to address capacity needs. The City of Kennewick has identified an overall need of approximately $154 million (in 2007 dollars) to fund the transportation improvements identified in the Transportation Systems Plan. Of these, the total cost for the potential TIF improvement projects totaled approximately $46 million in 2007 dollars. The TIF projects and costs include some improvements on state highways that are critical to serving growth in the City. It has been assumed the City would contribute less than 35 percent towards the cost of the improvements, with WSDOT responsible for the remaining amount. The improvements are located at the following state highway intersections: • US 395 / Clearwater Avenue • US 395 / Yelm Street • US 395 / 10th Avenue • SR 397 / Columbia Street • SR 240 EB Ramps / Edison Street • SR 240 WB Ramps / Edison Street Figure 2 and Table 1 summarize the transportation improvement projects recommended for the TIF program. The improvements included in the impact fee program are noted with a in the column titled, “Partially Funded by Impact Fee,” in Table 1. Some of the improvements are not yet adopted into the Capital Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will need to be updated based on the recommendations in the Transportation System Plan prior to the City adopting the TIF. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 395 240 397 101a 102 216 210 100 107 100 332 331 330 329 328 327 324 323 321 322 319 314 313 310 307 312 303 300 Figure 2 Projects Partially Funded with Transportation Impact Fees Kennewick Transportation System Plan Legend Impact Fee Eligible (Intersection) Impact Fee Eligible (Roadway) Streets Collector Streets Minor Arterials Principal Arterials Highways Interstate Railroad Urban Growth Boundary Parks City Limits 10TH AVE CLEARWATER AVE 4TH AVE KENNEWICK AVE 27TH AVE GAGE BLVD QUINAULT AVE COLUMBIA PARK TRAIL CANAL DR OLYMPIA ST VANCOUVER ST ELY ST WASHINGTON ST EDISON ST UNION ST GARFIELD ST 1ST AVE LESLIE RD COLU MBIA CEN T ER BLV D 10TH AVE 4TH AVE CLE AR W A TER AVE STEPTOE ST CO LU M B I A D R CAN AL D R PASCO RICHLAND DESCHUTES AVE R I O GR A NDE OKANOGAN YOUNG C E N TER P K WY KELLOG ST TA P TE AL L E SLIE RD CL O D F E LTE R RD KELLOG ST 36TH AVE 45TH AVE 45TH AVE 27TH AVE 19TH AVE 19TH AVE FRUITLAND ST GUM ST 7TH AVE NEEL ST CA S CA DE ST HIGHLAND DR G R ANDRIDGE UNICORPORATED BENTON COUNTY COLUMBIA RIVER C R E E K S T O N E MORAIN ST S O UTH RID G E B LVD ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Project List Project Type MAP ID Project Name Project Limits Project Description 2007 Total Cost ($1,000's) % Cost Included in Impact Fee Impact Fee Cost ($1,000's) Partially Funded by Impact Fee Comments 101b Hildebrand Boulevard Southridge Boulevard to US 395 Construct a new 5-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. N/A Southridge $0 Built by developers 102 Hildebrand Boulevard 10th Avenue to Center Parkway Construct a new 5-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. Traffic control improvements include a new roundabout at the intersection with the new Kansas Street roadway. $5,275 70% $3,699 Y 103 Center Parkway Hildebrand Boulevard to Ridgeline Drive Construct a new 3-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. $810 Southridge $0 104 Sherman Street Hildebrand Boulevard to Ridgeline Drive Construct a new 3-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. $1,070 Southridge $0 105 Kansas Street 10th Avenue to Ridgeline Drive Construct a new 3-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, signals and shy lanes. $2,925 Southridge $0 107 Center Parkway Extension Gage Boulevard to the City limits to the north Extend Center Parkway from Gage Boulevard to Tapteal Drive. Construct a new roundabout at the intersection with Gage Boulevard. $3,920 24% $933 Y 201 4th Avenue Kellogg Street to Columbia Center Boulevard Widen and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. $2,855 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 City funds and grants 203 Edison Street Clearwater Avenue to Canal Drive Widen to 5 lanes including center left-turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. $3,440 No LOS deficiency $0 204 10th Avenue Clearwater Avenue to Steptoe Street Widen to 3 lanes and reconstruct including center left turn-lane, curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and shy lanes. $2,555 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 Likely to be partially funded by Developers/Grants 206 Southridge Boulevard Ridgeline Drive to Hildebrand Boulevard Reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and illumination. $1,295 Southridge $0 Y Y $8,270 42% Southridge 205 10th Avenue 202 $0 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $2,035 83% $4,683 Steptoe Street Gage Boulevard to Clearwater Avenue Construct a new 5-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. Traffic control improvements include roundabouts at the intersections with the new Center Parkway and Sherman Street roadways. Center Parkway to Southridge Boulevard $4,349 100 $5,230 Hildebrand Boulevard Steptoe Street to Columbia Center Boulevard Widen to 3 lanes including center left-turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and shy lanes. Traffic control includes stop control at the intersection with the Montana Street roadway. Construct a new 3-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and shy lanes. Traffic control improvements include stop-controls at the intersections with Clodefelter Road, the new Kansas Street, the new Center Parkway, the new Sherman Street, and Southridge Boulevard roadways. $0 City funds and grants Widen and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. Kellogg to Union Street Would include developer contributions 106 Ridgeline Drive Clodfelter Road to US 395 101a $11,105 New Roadway Construction Construct a new 5-lane roadway including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, signals, and shy lanes. Traffic control improvements include a roundabout at the intersection with Center Parkway, traffic signal upgrades at the intersection with Gage Boulevard, and installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection with Clearwater. Includes completion of Center Parkway to new intersection with Steptoe Street. $0 Urban area, no LOS deficiency Roadway Reconstruction/Widening 4th Avenue $2,855 8/13/200811:54 PM M:\05\05026 Kennewick Citywide Transportation System Plan\Excel\Kennewick Project List,Costs,and Priorities\Kennewick Project List 13.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Project List Project Type MAP ID Project Name Project Limits Project Description 2007 Total Cost ($1,000's) % Cost Included in Impact Fee Impact Fee Cost ($1,000's) Partially Funded by Impact Fee Comments 207 Southridge Boulevard Hildebrand Boulevard to 27th Avenue Widen to 3 lanes and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. $2,000 Southridge $0 Local funding includes developer contributions 208 Olympia Street 27th Avenue to 45th Avenue Reconstruct including curb, sidewalks, illumination, and shy lanes. Include turn pockets at major intersections. $3,200 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 210 Steptoe Street Clearwater Avenue to 10th Avenue Widen to 5-lanes and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes and signal. $2,125 67% $1,424 Y Will be completed along with construction of the Steptoe Extension (Project #100). 211 Clodfelter Road 10th Avenue to Leslie Road Reconstruct and realign Clodfelter Road to intersect with 10th Avenue west of Steptoe Street including curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and shy lanes. Traffic control includes partial-way stop at intersection with 10th Avenue. $1,335 Southridge $0 212 Canal Drive US 395 to Washington Street Widen and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination,center left-turn lanes, and shy lanes. Add eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Canal Drive and Fruitland Street. $6,455 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 213 Vancouver Street 36th Avenue to 45th Avenue Widen and reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, left-turn lanes, and shy lanes. $2,055 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 215 27th Avenue Washington Street to Dayton Street Reconstruct to include curb and gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and shy lanes. $1,500 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 Dependent on Grant Funding 217 Cascade Street 27th Avenue to City Limits Widen and reconstruct including center two-way left-turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. $3,505 Urban area, no LOS deficiency $0 218 Leslie Road Clodfelter Road to the west Reconstruct including curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, and shy lanes. $960 Southridge $0 300 4th Avenue / Kellogg Street Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $300 80% $240 Y 301 45th Avenue / Olympia Street Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $390 No LOS deficiency $0 Local funding includes developer contributions 303 Clearwater Avenue / Edison Street Intersection Upgrade the traffic signal and widen the intersection including the addition of a westbound right-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane. $850 49% $414 Y Coordinate with Project #203 304 Clearwater Avenue / Arthur Street Intersection Intersection Improvements $360 2006 LOS deficiency $0 Y Needs additional funding from adjoining property owners or developers 305 Clearwater Avenue / 10th Avenue Intersection Intersection Improvements $360 No LOS deficiency $0 306 Clearwater Avenue / Leslie Road Intersection Install a traffic signal. Includes a railroad interconnect. $0 Already funded $0 Already funded 307 10th Avenue / Morain Street Intersection Intersection Improvements $360 72% $259 Y Y Clearwater Avenue to Quinault Avenue 216 209 Columbia Center Boulevard Intersection Improvements Add northbound and southbound lanes and make intersection improvements as necessary. $4,324 65% $6,660 Dependent on Grant Funding Widen to 3 lanes and reconstruct including center left-turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and shy lanes. Union Street to Morain Street Kennewick Avenue $1,975 $0 Urban area, no LOS deficiency Roadway Reconstruction/Widening 8/13/200811:54 PM M:\05\05026 Kennewick Citywide Transportation System Plan\Excel\Kennewick Project List,Costs,and Priorities\Kennewick Project List 13.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Project List Project Type MAP ID Project Name Project Limits Project Description 2007 Total Cost ($1,000's) % Cost Included in Impact Fee Impact Fee Cost ($1,000's) Partially Funded by Impact Fee Comments 308 Kennewick Avenue/ Yelm Street Intersection Upgrade traffic signal poles and equipment. $60 No LOS deficiency $0 309 Grandridge Boulevard / Young Street Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $365 No LOS deficiency $0 310 Deschutes Avenue / Center Parkway Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $365 54% $196 Y 311 Steptoe Street / 10th Avenue Intersection Install a traffic signal $360 Southridge $0 Local funding includes developer contributions. 312 Edison Street / Metaline Avenue Intersection Widening and Intersection Improvements $1,300 24% $318 Y Received safety grant for the project. 313 27th Avenue / Washington Street Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $300 34% $103 Y 314 10th Avenue / SR 397 Intersection Intersection Improvements $360 14% $49 Y Joint project with WSDOT 315 Hildebrand Boulevard / Southridge Boulevard Intersection Signal and Intersection Improvements $450 Southridge $0 316 US 395 / Ridgeline Drive Intersection Intersection improvements, access control, earthwork, acceleration/deceleration lanes. $4,850 Southridge $0 Partially funded through development contributions 317 Hood Avenue / Neel Street Intersection Construct a one-lane roundabout. $150 No LOS deficiency $0 UNFUNDED IN ALL OPTIONS 319 Edison Street / Canal Drive Intersection Add a westbound right-turn lane. $370 43% $160 Y 320 Edison Street Railroad Grade Separation Intersection Railway crossing grade separation. $17,000 No LOS deficiency $0 UNFUNDED IN ALL OPTIONS 321 Edison Street/ SR 240 EB Ramps Intersection Install a traffic signal. $360 21% $77 Y Majority funded by WSDOT 322 Edison Street/ SR 240 WB Ramps Intersection Install a traffic signal. $360 20% $73 Y Majority funded by WSDOT 323 Union Street/Clearwater Avenue Intersection Intersection Improvements $345 41% $142 Y 324 US 395/ 10th Avenue Intersection Add a southbound left-turn lane. $1,600 36% $576 Y 325 Olsen Street/ 27th Avenue Intersection Install a traffic signal. $360 93% $333 Y 326 Rainier Street/ 10th Avenue Intersection Intersection Improvements $360 Local Access $0 UNFUNDED IN ALL OPTIONS 327 Washington Street/ Columbia Drive Intersection Add an eastbound right-turn lane. $510 28% $145 Y 328 Yelm Street/ US 395 Intersection Add a westbound left-turn lane with receiving lane on Yelm Street. $1,200 24% $283 Y Majority funded by WSDOT May require removal of some on-street parking 329 US 395/ Clearwater Avenue Intersection Add additional eastbound and northbound left-turn lanes plus new eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes. $1,800 24% $430 Y 330 Columbia Drive & Gum St (SR- 397) Intersection Add a northbound left-turn lane. $1,100 9% $95 Y 331 27th Avenue/ Southridge Boulevard Intersection Reconstruct the roundabout to a two lane roundabout. Add a lane to the entrance of the southbound and northbound approaches and widen the exit on the east leg to accomodate two lanes. $250 87% $218 Y 332 Columbia Drive/ Fruitland Street Intersection Add an eastbound right-turn lane $340 21% $71 Y N/A Downtown Railroad Grade Separation Intersection Railway crossing grade separation. $17,000 No LOS deficiency $0 UNFUNDED IN ALL OPTIONS N/A Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Retiming City-wide New signal system software, communications equipment, and retiming. $600 No LOS deficiency $0 N/A Citywide Intersection & Corridor Safety Program City-wide City-wide signal modifications & retiming for Flashing Yellow Left- turns. $550 No LOS deficiency $0 Upgrade signal systems Unfunded projects in the 20-year transportaiton system plan Intersection Improvements 8/13/200811:54 PM M:\05\05026 Kennewick Citywide Transportation System Plan\Excel\Kennewick Project List,Costs,and Priorities\Kennewick Project List 13.xls ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 14 How Are Project Costs Allocated to the TIF Program? The citywide TIF program is based on weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions. The City’s travel demand model was used to segment forecasted traffic into four components, as shown below. On one side you have existing traffic versus growth traffic. The other axis divides traffic into those trips that have an origin and/or destination within the City. The only trips included in the impact fee program are growth trips with at least an origin or destination (or both) within the City or its Urban Growth Area (UGA). Origin or Destination Within the City or UGA No Origin or Destination Within the City or UGA Existing traffic Not charged Not charged Growth traffic IMPACT FEE Not charged Without interlocal agreements, the City is not able to charge for the trip end outside the City. For example, a trip from a new residential dwelling unit in Richland that uses Columbia Center Boulevard is not chargeable in the fee program, although its effect on the City road system is included in the travel forecasting process. The travel forecasting model was applied to allocate the costs of TIF projects based on the origins and destinations of the growth trips. To perform the calculation, the 2005 base year trip table and the 2025 future year trip table were assigned to the 2025 model network. The vehicle trips for each trip table were then tracked through each TIF improvement project. Tracking the trips through each improvement project is done through a modeling technique called “select link” analyses. In conducting a select link analysis for a specific improvement project, a specific group of links or nodes of the future Transportation System Plan network are identified and the model assignment is performed. The select link assignment tracks and accounts for all of the trips using or impacting the selected group of links and/or nodes. The select link trip tables for the 2005 and 2025 model runs were then subtracted from one another to develop a net growth trip table. The select link assignment results for each improvement project were then evaluated to determine the number of growth trips that have origins or destinations within the City or Urban Growth Area (UGA). These were separated from the non-City growth trips that did not have an origin or destination within the City or its UGA. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 15 What Transportation Revenues may be Generated by the Program? The total cost of the capital improvements shown in the Transportation System Plan is approximately $154 million. The Transportation System Plan is expected to fund approximately $117 million over the next 20 years, assuming all Southridge projects will be constructed by new development. Several intersections and two major grade separation projects, totaling $37 million, will remain unfunded. Approximately $24 million or 20 percent of the total $117 million in revenues would be generated by the impact fee program. This would require the City to commit up to $67 million over the next 20 years to fully fund the improvement projects included in the TIF. Other projects would be built by developers as a condition of approval in the Southridge subarea ($24 million). Additional funds would likely be contributed by WSDOT to fund improvements to intersections along the state highways ($1.5 million). The breakdown of revenues and project costs are shown below. Project Revenues vs. Estimated Costs (in 2007 dollars) New Roadw ays Baseline Funding Reconstruction /Widening Intersections Bicycle/Trails Impact Fees Sidew alks Southridge Surcharge Southridge Projects WSDOT $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 Projected Revenues Estimated Costs Dollars (Millions) Figure 3. Project Revenues versus Expenditures Again, the TIF program would require a commitment of approximately $67 million in City funding to assure completion of the TIF projects over the next 20 years. The City funding would come from grants, sales tax, motor vehicle fuel tax, and other transportation fees. The Transportation System Plan financing chapter summarizes the revenue sources in more detail. How are the Fees Determined? The resulting base transportation impact fees per new weekday PM peak hour growth trip were converted to a schedule of fees by land use category. This facilitates calculation of the fee by applicants, City staff, and the public. Residential and employment land uses generate trips during the weekday PM peak hour based on the type and size of the development. The ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 16 basic trip rates are adjusted to reflect the impact of “new” trips, as described below. As noted before, the weekday PM peak hour typically has the highest volume of traffic which is used to define the future improvements needed to serve growth. Base Trip Rate Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 7th Edition, 2003 provides data on the average PM peak hour trips generated for a wide range of land uses. The weekday PM peak hour trip rate is used because it is consistent with the modeling analysis of growth trips. The ITE rates are based on studies from around the United States based on standardized sampling and reporting methods. The trip rates are defined based on units of development. Typically, trips for residential land uses are based on the number of dwelling units. Trip rates for employment land uses can be reported for several different variables, with the most typical being trips per 1,000 square feel of building area. As noted later in this report, the TIF ordinance provides for applicants to submit their own independent studies to reflect unique characteristics that may not be accurately reflected by the average trip rates reported in Trip Generation. This provides for a more consistent and equitable assessment of impact fees within the City of Kennewick. Pass-by Trip Adjustment The base PM peak hour trip rate reported by Trip Generation reflects the number of trips entering and exiting the site driveways during the weekday afternoon time period. Trip Generation notes that for some retail and other commercial land uses, not all of the driveway trips are “new” to the road system, but are “pass-by” trips. Pass-by trips reflect traffic that would otherwise be traveling on the adjacent street system but makes an intermediate stop at the new development. A person making a trip between work and home but stops at a gas station along the route, is an example of a pass-by trip. The inbound and outbound trips at the gas station would not be new trips to the system and should not be charged in the TIF. If the driver needs to make a short detour to access the gas station, the trip would be called a diverted trip by Trip Generation. For purposes of the broader transportation impacts being assessed under the TIF, these diverted trips also would not be new to the system and would not be charged for in the fee schedule. Therefore, the rate schedule applies an adjustment to account for the reduction of traffic impacts to account for pass-by trips. Trip Generation provides guidance on adjustments for pass-by trips. In addition, the City of Kennewick TIF rate schedule reviewed pass-by adjustment factors identified by other agencies. Applying the adjustment for pass-by trips results in the net-new trips for the TIF schedule. The base trip generation for residential and many other land use categories were not adjusted for pass-by trips and the full base trip rate is applied in the rate schedule. What are the Resulting Transportation Impact Fees? The cost share of the impact fee projects is divided by the number of PM peak hour growth trips between 2005 to 2025 to calculate a cost per new weekday PM peak hour trip generated. As previously noted, the weekday PM peak hour typically carries the highest volume of traffic and is generally used to identify transportation improvements needed to serve growth. The number of new weekday PM peak hour growth trips in the City is based on the City’s travel demand model which incorporates forecast changes in households and employment within the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 17 The amount the City will charge new development is approximately $1,943 per new weekday PM peak hour trip generated. Table 2 shows the total cost of TIF eligible project costs and the net new PM peak hour trips expected to be generated over the next 20 years. Table 2. Maximum Allowable Vehicle Trip Rate Fee (Citywide Option) Citywide Impact Fee Project Costs1 $23,595,000 New PM Peak Hour Trips2 12,146 Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip3 $1,943 1. The total project costs that can be allocated to the impact fee program. 2. The number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips that are estimated over the next 20-years. 3. The cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip for the entire City and UGA areas. A transportation impact fee schedule for a wide range of typical land uses was prepared based on this maximum amount that can be charged. The rate schedules were calculated as follows: Transportation Impact Fee Rate = Base Cost per New PM Peak Hour Trip x Base Trip Rate per Unit of Development x Pass-by Trip Adjustment Factor Table 3 shows the resulting impact fees for several typical land use types. Appendix A includes the full rate schedules for a broader list of land use categories. Table 3. Costs by Unit of Development (Citywide Fee) Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit1 Net New Trip Rate2 Cost per Unit of Development Cost Per New PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip $1,943 Single-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 1.01 $1,962 Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 $1,205 Office 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $2,895 Light Industrial 110 1,000 sf GFA 0.98 $1,904 Specialty Retail 814 1,000 sf GLA 1.79 $3,475 Big Box Retail 813 1,000 sf GFA 2.79 $5,414 Fast Food Restaurant3 934 1,000 sf GFA 17.32 $33,653 1. GFA = Gross Floor Area; GLA = Gross Leasable Area.. 2. Retail trip rate adjusted for pass-by trips. 3. With Drive-Through The impact fee assessed for a specific development would simply be calculated by multiplying the number of units by the rate per unit. (Total Transportation Impact Fee = Number of Units x Impact Fee per Unit) The fee schedule allows City staff and development applicants to readily estimate their transportation impact fees prior to initiating the more detailed development review process. As required under GMA, the City ordinance must allow applicants to submit their own studies which the City will consider in setting the final fee for a project. These could take into account specific characteristics of the development, the potential reduction of existing trips (e.g. through redevelopment) independent trip generation analyses based on similar projects, and other factors. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 18 How does the Recommended Fee Compare to Other Jurisdictions? The City of Kennewick’s fee rate for a single-family house is compared to other jurisdictions on Figure 4. The fee for a new single-family house is $1,962. This is on the lower end of fees as compared to many communities throughout the state (mostly western Washington), but is about twice the amount of West Richland ($944) and much higher than the City of Pasco at $300. However the City of Pasco is expecting to increase their fees soon as part of an ongoing planning study. Other communities in Eastern Washington are expected to implement impact fees shortly, such as the Cities of Spokane and Ellensburg. Figure 4. Example Traffic Impact Fees How are the Fees Collected and Spent? The ordinance can require payment of the TIF prior to issuance of the building permit. The required fees would be those in effect at that time. Under GMA, the City must set up a separate account in its accounting processes for the collected impact fees. This account would be similar to other tax or fee accounts currently used by the City. The City will need to track the fees that are collected and where they are spent. The City would encumber the fees as part of its annual budgeting process to assure the funds are properly spent. Collected fees must be spent within six years of receipt, unless an extraordinary reason is identified in written findings by the City Council. The City may only spend the collected fees on improvement projects identified in the TIF (see Figure The fees may be spent on planning, engineering design, acquisition of right-of-way, or construction of any of the TIF improvement projects. However, the City must spend the funds in a manner where they reasonably benefit developments that paid the fee. For example, if the City collects all the fees in the west part of the City, it should generally spend the majority of the funds on projects in the west part of the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 19 When are Credits Provided? As required under GMA, the City must provide credits for the “value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developed, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the county, city, or town as a condition of approving the development activity” (RCW 82.02.060[3]). The credits provision is to assure that a development is not assessed twice for a specific impact. This could occur if the City requires frontage improvements be constructed which are also part of the adopted TIF program project list. The City also could require that a development improve an intersection or roadway under SEPA or concurrency that is also covered by the TIF. Credits against the TIF would have to be provided to the extent that the improvements and/or land use dedication are consistent with the definition of the TIF project and the cost estimating parameters used in the TIF. Providing credits to applicants against the TIF assessments will reduce the actual TIF revenues collected by the City. However, the net affect will be completion of the TIF improvements in a timely manner. Are any Developments Exempt from the Fees? GMA allows the City to provide for exemptions from the impact fees for development activities that have a broad public purpose (RCW 82.02.060[2]). These broad public purposes could include low-income housing, parks, schools, government buildings, fire or water district facilities, transit facilities, etc. If the City chooses to allow for exemptions for some uses providing broad public purposes, the City will collect less revenue from the program. This loss of revenue would need to be paid from other (non-impact fee) funds. This could be grants, general funds, or other appropriate taxes. The specific exemptions, if any, will be discussed during the formal review of the TIF ordinance. What are the Requirements Regarding Refunds? RCW 82.02.080 sets forth requirements for the City to provide refunds for previously collected TIF revenues. First, if the City fails to expend or encumber the fees within six years, the fees may need to be refunded to the current owner of the property for which the fees were paid. This is not typically an issue because the fees can be spent on design, right of way acquisition, and construction of projects included in the TIF program. The property owner must submit the request in writing to the City. If the City terminated “any or all impact fee requirements” any unexpended or unencumbered fees must be refunded to the current owners of property on which an impact fee has been paid. The third provision for refunds would be applied when the fees for a proposed development were paid but the development does not proceed to construction. The applicant may request a full refund, with interest, for these fees because the impact that was mitigated did not materialize. Any of these refund provisions could reduce the actual fees generated by the program. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Kennewick Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report DRAFT August 2008 Page 20 How Would the Fees be Kept Up to Date? Most communities with adopted impact fee programs incorporate an annual cost escalation process. The cost escalator is based on an index that reflects changes in improvement costs for the area. One source is the Engineering News Record (ENR), a national construction trade magazine. On a basis, ENR publishes construction cost indices for 20 cities across the United States. The City of Seattle metropolitan area is included in the ENR report. Many local agencies use ENR’s construction cost index for Seattle for a general cost escalation factor for the TIF. However WSDOT also tracks highway construction costs. Annual changes in the WSDOT cost index could be a better source for adjusting the City TIF rate because it is specific to the transportation industry, rather than the entire construction industry (such as ENR). A process for updating the fees will be defined as part of the ordinance. The City also should plan to update the TIF rates as new transportation improvement projects are defined as part of any update to its Comprehensive Plan. Significant changes in forecast residential or employment growth from those in the current City model also would result in a need to update the TIF program. Changes in land use and improvement projects would likely occur as part of the required GMA Comprehensive Plan update or as part of the City’s annual Comprehensive Plan review process. What are the Next Steps? If City Council is supportive of the recommended citywide TIF program, a draft ordinance should be developed that provides the details on how the program is maintained and implemented. Both the TIF ordinance and the Transportation System Plan will need to be adopted by City Council before the TIF program goes into effect. Once the citywide TIF program has been implemented, the City should consider developing a more structured program to implement the needed circulation roadways within the Southridge subarea. One such program would be an additional TIF surcharge for developments in the Southridge subarea or a defined Latecomer’s fee program. The Transportation System Plan indicates the surcharge could be as high as $3,100 per new PM peak hour vehicle trip to adequately fund and implement the recommended Southridge circulation roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Fee Schedule ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Category - Trip Generation, 7th Edition * Notes ITE Land Use Code ITE Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate Unit** Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor Net New Trip Rate Impact Fee Per Unit RESIDENTIAL Single-Family Detached Housing 3 210 1.01 Dwelling Unit 1.00 1.01 1,962 Apartment 3 220 0.62 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.62 1,205 Low-Rise Apartment (1-2 Floors) 3 221 0.58 Occupied Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.58 1,127 High -Rise Apartment (>10 floors) 3 222 0.35 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.35 680 Mid-Rise Apartment (3-10 floors) 3 223 0.39 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.39 758 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 3 230 0.52 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.52 1,010 Mobile Home Park 3 240 0.59 Occupied Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.59 1,146 Senior Adult Housing-Detached 3 251 0.26 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.26 505 Senior Adult Housing-Attached 252 0.11 Occupied Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.11 214 Congregate Care Facility 1 253 0.17 Occupied Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.17 330 Assisted Living 254 0.22 Bed 1.00 0.22 427 Recreational Homes 1 260 0.26 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.26 505 Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) 3 270 0.62 Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.62 1,205 INSTITUTIONAL County Park 1 412 0.06 Acre 1.00 0.06 117 Beach Park 1 415 1.30 Acre 1.00 1.30 2,526 Regional Park 1 417 0.20 Acre 1.00 0.20 389 Golf Course 1 430 0.30 Acre 1.00 0.30 583 Multipurpose Recreational Facility 1 435 3.35 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 3.35 6,509 Bowling Alley 1 437 3.54 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 3.54 6,878 Movie Theater with Matinee 1 444 0.07 Seat 1.00 0.07 136 Casino/Video Lottery Establishment 473 13.43 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 13.43 26,094 Tennis Courts 1 490 3.88 Tennis Court 1.00 3.88 7,539 Recreational Community Center 1 495 1.64 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.64 3,187 Health/Fitness Club 1 492 4.05 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 4.05 7,869 Elementary School 4 520 n/a (see note) 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 n/a n/a Middle School/Junior High School 522 1.19 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.19 2,312 High School 530 0.97 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.97 1,885 Church 560 0.66 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.66 1,282 Day Care Center 565 13.18 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 13.18 25,609 Library 590 7.09 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 7.09 13,776 Hospital 610 1.18 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.18 2,293 Nursing Home 1 620 0.42 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.42 816 Clinic 1 630 1.23 Employee 1.00 1.23 2,390 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Hotel 310 0.59 Room 1.00 0.59 1,146 All Suites Hotel 1 311 0.40 Room 1.00 0.40 777 Motel 320 0.47 Room 1.00 0.47 913 Resort Hotel 3 330 0.42 Room 1.00 0.42 816 Building Materials and Lumber Store 2(a), 3 812 4.49 1,000 sf GFA 0.75 3.37 6,543 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 813 3.87 1,000 sf GFA 0.72 2.79 5,414 Specialty Retail Center 1, 2(b), 3 814 2.71 1,000 sf GLA 0.66 1.79 3,475 Free-Standing Discount Store 815 5.06 1,000 sf GFA 0.83 4.20 8,160 Hardware/Paint Store 3 816 4.84 1,000 sf GFA 0.74 3.58 6,959 Nursery (Garden Center) 2(a) 817 3.80 1,000 sf GFA 0.72 2.74 5,316 Nursery (Wholesale) 2(a) 818 5.17 1,000 sf GFA 0.72 3.72 7,233 Shopping Center 5 820 n/a (see note) 1,000 sf GLA 0.66 n/a n/a Factory Outlet Center 2(b) 823 2.29 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 1.51 2,937 New Car Sales 2(a) 841 2.64 1,000 sf GFA 0.75 1.98 3,847 Automobile Parts Sales 1,3 843 5.98 1,000 sf GFA 0.57 3.41 6,623 Tire Store 848 4.15 1,000 sf GFA 0.72 2.99 5,806 Tire Superstore 2(e) 849 2.11 1,000 sf GFA 0.72 1.52 2,952 Supermarket 3 850 10.45 1,000 sf GFA 0.64 6.69 12,995 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours) 851 52.41 1,000 sf GFA 0.39 20.44 39,715 Convenience Market (Open 15-16 Hours) 1, 2(i) 852 34.57 1,000 sf GFA 0.39 13.48 26,196 Convenience Market with Gasonline Pumps 853 19.22 Vehicle Fueling Position 0.34 6.53 12,697 Discount Supermarket 3 854 8.90 1,000 sf GFA 0.77 6.85 13,315 Discount Club 2(f) 861 4.24 1,000 sf GFA 0.77 3.26 6,344 Home Improvement Superstore 862 2.45 1,000 sf GFA 0.52 1.27 2,475 Electronic Superstore 1 863 4.50 1,000 sf GFA 0.60 2.70 5,246 Toy/Children's Superstore 1, 2(b) 864 4.99 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 3.29 6,399 Pet Supply Superstore 1, 2(b) 866 4.96 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 3.27 6,361 Office Supply 1, 2(f) 867 3.40 1,000 sf GFA 0.77 2.62 5,087 Book Superstore 1, 2(b) 868 19.53 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 12.89 25,045 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 1, 2(b) 869 4.01 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 2.65 5,142 Apparel Store 2(b) 870 3.83 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 2.53 4,912 Art and Craft Store 1, 2(f) 879 6.21 1,000 sf GFA 0.77 4.78 9,291 Pharmacy/Drug Store without Drive-Through 880 8.42 1,000 sf GFA 0.47 3.96 7,689 Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive-Through 881 8.62 1,000 sf GFA 0.51 4.40 8,542 Furniture Store 890 0.46 1,000 sf GFA 0.47 0.22 420 Video Rental Store 2(b), 3 896 13.60 1,000 sf GFA 0.66 8.98 17,440 Walk-in Bank 1, 2(d) 911 33.15 1,000 sf GFA 0.53 17.57 34,138 Drive-in Bank 912 45.74 1,000 sf GFA 0.53 24.24 47,103 Quality Restaurant 931 7.49 1,000 sf GFA 0.56 4.19 8,150 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 10.92 1,000 sf GFA 0.57 6.22 12,094 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Through 1, 2(g) 933 26.15 1,000 sf GFA 0.50 13.08 25,405 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 934 34.64 1,000 sf GFA 0.50 17.32 33,653 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 2(c) 941 5.19 Servicing Position 0.57 2.96 5,748 Automobile Care Center 1, 2(c) 942 3.38 1,000 sf GLA 0.57 1.93 3,743 Automobile Parts and Service Center 1, 2(c) 943 4.46 1,000 sf GLA 0.57 2.54 4,939 Gasoline/Service Station 944 13.86 Vehicle Fueling Position 0.58 8.04 15,619 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market 945 13.38 Vehicle Fueling Position 0.44 5.89 11,439 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash 2(h) 946 13.33 Vehicle Fueling Position 0.44 5.87 11,396 Self-Service Car Wash 2(h) 947 5.54 Wash Stall 0.44 2.44 4,736 City of Kennewick Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees 1 of 2 Last Updated: April 10, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Category - Trip Generation, 7th Edition * Notes ITE Land Use Code ITE Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate Unit** Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor Net New Trip Rate Impact Fee Per Unit City of Kennewick Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees OFFICE General Office Building 3 710 1.49 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.49 2,895 Corporate Headquarters Building 3 714 1.40 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.40 2,720 Single Tenant Office Building 3 715 1.73 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.73 3,361 Medical-Dental Office Building 3 720 3.72 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 3.72 7,228 Government Office Building 1 730 1.20 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.20 2,332 United States Post Office 732 10.89 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 10.89 21,159 Office Park 3 750 1.50 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.50 2,915 Research and Development Center 3 760 1.08 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.08 2,098 Business Park 3 770 1.29 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 1.29 2,506 INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial 3 110 0.98 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.98 1,904 General Heavy Industrial 1 120 0.88 Employee 1.00 0.88 1,710 Industrial Park 130 0.86 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.86 1,671 Manufacturing 3 140 0.74 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.74 1,438 Warehousing 3 150 0.47 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.47 913 Mini-Warehouse 151 0.26 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.26 505 Utilities 1 170 0.76 1,000 sf GFA 1.00 0.76 1,477 PORT and TERMINAL Truck Terminal 1 30 0.55 Employee 1.00 0.55 1,069 Park-and-Ride Lot with Bus Service 3 90 0.62 Parking Space 1.00 0.62 1,205 * Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition, 2003 Abbreviations include: GFA = Gross Floor Area, sf = square feet, and GLA = Gross Leasable Area. The Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor reduces the Average Trip Rate based on average Pass-By trip percentages published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition, 2004). NET NEW TRIP RATE CALCULATION: $1,943 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION: NOTES: Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) has less than 6 studies supporting this average rate. Applicants are strongly encouraged to conduct, at their own expense, independent trip generation studies in support of their application. No pass-by rates are available. Pass-by rates were estimated from other similar uses. Code Land Use Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor 2 No Data Available 25% Estimated Pass-by 0.75 2 Shopping Center (850) 0.66 2 Auto Parts Sales (843) 0.57 2 Bank/Drive-In (912) 0.53 2 Tire Store (848) 0.72 2 Discount Supermarket (854) 0.77 2 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (934) 0.50 2 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market (945) 0.44 2 Convenience Market (24 Hr) (851) 0.39 Alternatively, the PM peak hour trip regression equation in Trip Generation can be used instead of the average trip rate identified in the table. However the equation must be used according to the instructions in Trip Generation. No Average PM peak hour trip rate available. Need to perform own PM peak hour traffic count for the identified land use to calculate impact fee. ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) equation used instead of trip rate. SOURCE: The Transpo Group (2008). Intended for the sole use by the City of Kennewick. ITE Trip Rate Pass-By Reduction Factor X Net New Trip Rate = Net New Trip Rate X Per New PM Peak Hour Trip = Impact Fee per Unit of Development X 2 of 2 Last Updated: April 10, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LOS SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B. City of Kennewick Intersection LOS ID1 Intersection2 LOS3 Delay4 V/C5 or WM6 Control Type7 LOS Delay V/C or WM Control Type LOS Delay V/C or WM Control Type 62 1st Ave & Gum St (SR 397) B 16.8 0.53 Signal B 18.2 0.66 Signal B 18.2 0.66 Signal 59 1st Ave & Washington St C 23.1 0.22 Signal C 20.0 0.39 Signal C 20.0 0.39 Signal 58 1st Ave & Auburn St A 6.8 0.25 Signal A 6.9 0.34 Signal A 6.9 0.34 Signal 57 1st Ave & Benton Street A 4.3 0.22 Signal A 4.3 0.30 Signal A 4.3 0.30 Signal 56 1st Ave & Dayton St A 5.5 0.27 Signal A 5.6 0.34 Signal A 5.6 0.34 Signal 83 4th Ave & Olympia St A 9.0 0.48 Signal B 14.5 0.62 Signal B 14.5 0.62 Signal 80 4th Ave & Vancouver St A 7.3 0.36 Signal B 14.5 0.41 Signal B 14.5 0.41 Signal 75 4th Ave & Morian St B 13.8 0.28 Signal B 15.3 0.48 Signal B 15.3 0.48 Signal 27 4th Ave & Edison St A 8.7 0.33 Signal A 9.7 0.4 Signal A 9.7 0.4 Signal 60 10th Ave & Washington St C 20.8 0.44 Signal C 23.5 0.56 Signal C 23.5 0.56 Signal 55 10th Ave & Garfield St C 25.3 0.62 Signal C 25.9 0.66 Signal C 24.8 0.66 Signal 52 10th Ave & Olympia St C 21.3 0.49 Signal C 25.1 0.58 Signal C 21.7 0.58 Signal 51 10th Ave & Vancouver St C 25.5 0.62 Signal C 27.8 0.73 Signal C 26.5 0.73 Signal 48 10th Ave & Ely St B 14.1 0.46 Signal B 12.5 0.57 Signal B 12.0 0.57 Signal 41 10th Ave & Huntington St B 18.7 0.33 Signal C 21.3 0.44 Signal C 21.2 0.44 Signal 33 10th Ave & Union St B 18.8 0.59 Signal D 37.3 0.96 Signal D 37.3 0.96 Signal 28 10th Ave & Edison St B 13.0 0.32 Signal B 12.2 0.39 Signal B 12.2 0.39 Signal 19 10th Ave & Kellogg St C 21.4 0.44 Signal C 21.6 0.53 Signal C 21.6 0.53 Signal 79 27th Ave & Ely St B 14.5 0.58 Signal C 23.4 0.86 Signal B 19.8 0.86 Signal 36 27th Ave & Quillian St C 21.3 0.38 Signal C 28.6 0.59 Signal C 26.3 0.59 Signal 84 27th Ave & Olympia St B 11.7 0.42 Signal B 13.3 0.51 Signal B 13.3 0.51 Signal 86 Canal Dr & Fruitland St B 15.9 0.36 Signal B 14.3 0.33 Signal B 13.9 0.33 Signal 39 Canal Dr & Neel St A 8.0 0.31 Signal A 7.7 0.39 Signal A 7.7 0.39 Signal 31 Canal Dr & Volland St A 8.2 0.35 Signal B 10.6 0.47 Signal B 12.9 0.58 Signal 24 Canal Dr & Edison St D 45.1 0.71 Signal D 47.8 0.85 Signal D 46.6 0.85 Signal 20 Canal Dr & Grant St/Quinault Ave B 18.5 0.37 Signal B 18.3 0.37 Signal B 18.3 0.37 Signal 17 Canal Dr & Kellogg St A 7.7 0.40 Signal B 10.5 0.50 Signal B 10.5 0.50 Signal 16 Canal Dr & Grandridge Blvd A 6.7 0.32 Signal B 14.2 0.49 Signal B 14.2 0.49 Signal 15 Canal Dr & Young St A 8.7 0.30 Signal A 9.1 0.40 Signal A 9.1 0.40 Signal 40 Clearwater Ave & Huntington St A 5.7 0.38 Signal A 6.3 0.55 Signal A 6.2 0.55 Signal 38 Clearwater Ave & Morian St B 19.3 0.45 Signal C 25.7 0.66 Signal C 25.0 0.66 Signal 32 Clearwater Ave & Union St C 28.3 0.74 Signal E 60.4 1.02 Signal D 49.0 0.9 Signal 30 Clearwater Ave & Yost St A 6.7 0.38 Signal A 7.5 0.47 Signal A 7.5 0.47 Signal 26 Clearwater Ave & Edison St D 36.8 0.78 Signal D 40.1 0.83 Signal D 40.2 0.83 Signal 18 Clearwater Ave & Kellogg St C 25.2 0.65 Signal C 33.4 0.86 Signal C 33.4 0.86 Signal 14 10th Ave & Columbia Center Blvd A 9.9 0.28 Signal B 11.8 0.34 Signal B 12.3 0.37 Signal 13 4th Ave & Columbia Center Blvd A 8.7 0.24 Signal B 15.7 0.37 Signal B 15.7 0.37 Signal 12 Clearwater Ave & Columbia Center Blvd C 26.7 0.70 Signal F 86.7 1.15 Signal D 47.5 0.88 Signal 11 Deschutes Ave & Columbia Center Blvd C 23.9 0.73 Signal D 36.2 0.71 Signal C 32.8 0.64 Signal 10 Grandridge Blvd & Columbia Center Blvd C 21.2 0.53 Signal C 23.8 0.46 Signal C 23.8 0.46 Signal 9 Okanogan Pl & Columbia Center Blvd A 9.2 0.42 Signal A 8.9 0.41 Signal A 8.9 0.41 Signal 8 Quinault Ave & Columbia Center Blvd C 30.6 0.68 Signal C 29.5 0.65 Signal C 30.0 0.65 Signal 7 Canal Dr & Columbia Center Blvd C 29.7 0.63 Signal C 34.5 0.82 Signal C 34.5 0.82 Signal 6 Willamette Dr & Columbia Center Blvd A 7.9 0.53 Signal A 8.8 0.55 Signal A 29.5 0.55 Signal 90 Columbia Dr & Gum St (SR 397) B 17.4 0.59 Signal E 76.7 1.02 Signal D 52.9 0.91 Signal 88 Columbia Dr & Washington St C 20.8 0.47 Signal E 60.5 0.78 Signal C 29.8 0.69 Signal 85 Columbia Dr & Fruitland St B 12.7 0.48 Signal B 17.2 0.72 Signal B 18.1 0.68 Signal 23 Yellowstone Ave & Edison St A 4.4 0.45 Signal A 5.0 0.5 Signal A 5.0 0.5 Signal 64 Gage Blvd & Grandridge Blvd C 20.4 0.58 Signal C 22.2 0.72 Signal C 24.1 0.72 Signal 1 Gage Blvd & Steptoe St B 12.4 0.52 Signal F >200 1.62 Signal D 48.0 0.89 Signal 87 Kennewick Ave & Fruitland St B 12.2 0.28 Signal C 21 0.42 Signal C 20.9 0.42 Signal 53 Kennewick Ave & Olympia St B 11.9 0.44 Signal B 10.7 0.56 Signal B 10.4 0.56 Signal 50 Kennewick Ave & Vancouver St A 6.1 0.33 Signal A 8.7 0.56 Signal B 11.5 0.63 Signal 49 Kennewick Ave & Yelm St B 13.2 0.40 Signal B 17.7 0.52 Signal B 17.1 0.52 Signal 47 Kennewick Ave & Vista Way B 11.7 0.32 Signal B 14.4 0.40 Signal B 13.5 0.40 Signal 78 Kennewick Ave & Huntington St A 5.9 0.25 Signal A 6.9 0.26 Signal A 7.2 0.26 Signal 74 Kennewick Ave & Morian St A 9.7 0.28 Signal B 11.8 0.38 Signal B 11.8 0.38 Signal 66 Quinault Ave & Center Pkwy B 18.0 0.63 Signal C 23.0 0.66 Signal C 23.0 0.66 Signal 54 1st Ave & Carmichael Dr B 17.0 0.61 Signal A 5.6 0.39 Signal A 5.6 0.39 Signal 35 27th Ave & US 395 E 63.8 0.63 Signal E 66.0 1.02 Signal D 46.5 0.82 Signal 37 19th Ave & US 395 C 21.8 0.37 Signal C 23.5 0.6 Signal C 23.4 0.6 Signal 1. Intersection ID corresponds to the ID on the Study Intersection map. 2. Intersections organized by corridor. 3. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 4. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 5. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections 6. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. AWSC = All-way stop control, Stop = At least one approach is stop controlled, Round = Roundabou 2005 Existing 2025 w/Improvements 2025 Baseline ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Continued. City of Kennewick Intersection LOS ID1 Intersection2 LOS3 Delay4 V/C5 or WM6 Control Type7 LOS Delay V/C or WM Control Type LOS Delay V/C or WM Control Type 42 10th Ave & US 395 D 38.0 0.71 Signal E 59.6 1.07 Signal D 48.1 0.95 Signal 43 7th Ave & US 395 B 15.5 0.46 Signal C 27.2 0.63 Signal C 22.6 0.63 Signal 44 Kennewick Ave & US 395 C 24.7 0.66 Signal D 35.8 0.93 Signal C 33.4 0.93 Signal 45 Clearwater Ave & US 395 D 46.2 0.81 Signal F 137.4 1.14 Signal D 54.6 0.92 Signal 46 US 395 & Yelm St D 38.6 0.89 Signal F 124.5 1.17 Signal D 51.6 0.91 Signal 5 SR 240 EB Ramps & Columbia Cntr Blvd A 6.1 0.86 Signal A 8.3 0.87 Signal A 8.3 0.87 Signal 4 SR 240 WB Ramps & Columbia Cntr Blvd B 10.3 0.62 Signal A 9.4 0.59 Signal A 9.4 0.59 Signal 2 Clearwater Ave & Clodfelter Rd C 16.0 NBL Stop B 18.0 0.72 Signal B 18.0 0.72 Signal 21 SR 240 WB Ramps & Edison St F >200 WB TWSC F >100 WB TWSC D 39.6 0.97 Signal 22 SR 240 EB Ramps & Edison St F > 200 EBR TWSC F >100 EB TWSC C 28.8 0.96 Signal 25 Metaline Ave & Edison St F 66.9 WBL Stop A 4.3 0.39 Signal A 4.3 0.39 Signal 29 Clearwater Ave & Arthur St F >200 SBL Stop D 38.3 0.77 Signal D 38.3 0.77 Signal 34 36th Ave & US 395 C 23.0 WBL Stop D 43.1 1.30 Signal D 43.1 1.30 Signal 63 10th Ave & SR 397 C 22.9 EBL Stop A 5.4 0.54 Signal A 5.4 0.54 Signal 76 10th Ave & Morian St E 35.2 SBL TWSC A 5.3 0.36 Signal A 5.3 0.36 Signal 77 27th Ave & Olson St D 29.2 NB Stop F >100 NB TWSC B 18.8 0.93 Signal 82 10th Ave & Rainier St D 25.1 NB TWSC F 50.6 SB TWSC A 6.4 0.5 Signal 91 Leslie Rd & Clearwater Ave E 46.8 EB TWSC B 11.1 0.77 Signal B 11.1 0.77 Signal 3 10th Ave & Clodfelter Rd/Steptoe St B 10.8 WB TWSC A 8.3 0.52 Signal A 8.3 0.52 Signal 61 10th Ave & Gum St D 29.7 NB TWSC F >100 NB TWSC C 20.2 AWSC 65 Gage Blvd & Center Pkwy A 9.5 0.63 AWSC B 10.7 0.86 Round B 10.7 0.86 Round 67 Grandridge Blvd & Center Pkwy A 7.9 0.47 Round A 8.9 0.68 Round A 8.9 0.68 Round 68 Deschutes Ave & Center Pkwy B 10.5 AWSC A 7.4 0.42 Round A 7.4 0.42 Round 69 4th Ave & Kellogg St D 30.3 EB TWSC A 7.7 0.55 Signal A 7.1 0.67 Round 70 10th Ave & Irving St B 10.4 NB Stop B 10.7 NB TWSC B 10.7 NBR Stop 71 Kennewick Ave & Union St A 6.1 0.41 Round A 9.9 0.77 Round A 9.9 0.77 Round 72 4th Ave & Union St A 5.9 0.41 Round B 14.0 0.84 Round B 14.0 0.84 Round 73 27th Ave & Union St A 5.8 0.30 Round D 35.2 1.20 Round D 35.2 1.20 Round 81 27th Ave & Vancouver St A 7.8 0.642 Round C 23.3 1.00 Round C 23.3 1.00 Round 89 27th Ave & Washington St C 24.6 SBL Stop A 6.9 0.45 Signal A 7.5 0.58 Round 1. Intersection ID corresponds to the ID on the Study Intersection map. 2. Intersections organized by corridor. 3. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 4. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 5. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 6. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. AWSC = All-way stop control, Stop = At least one approach is stop controlled, Round = Roundabou 2005 Existing 2025 Baseline 2025 w/Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 395 240 397 2 3 1 9 8 6 7 5 4 91 21 22 25 29 34 63 76 77 82 70 69 68 67 65 81 71 72 73 61 62 90 88 85 86 575859 56 87 60 89 54 83 84 55 53 52 79 48 51 80 50 47 49 46 45 44 43 42 36 35 37 41 75 74 78 40 38 39 31 30 32 33 28 27 26 24 23 20 18 19 13 14 12 11 17 16 15 66 64 10 Legend Study Intersections Parks City Limits Urban Growth Boundary 10TH AVE CLEARWATER AVE 4TH AVE KENNEWICK AVE 27TH AVE GAGE BLVD QUINAULT AVE COLUMBIA PARK TRAIL CANAL DR OLYMPIA ST VANCOUVER ST ELY ST WASHINGTON ST EDISON ST UNION ST GARFIELD ST 1ST AVE LESLIE RD COLU MBIA CEN T ER BLV D 10TH AVE 4TH AVE Appendix B Study Intersections Kennewick Transportation System Plan CLE AR W A TER AVE STEPTOE ST CO LU M B I A D R CAN AL D R PASCO RICHLAND DESCHUTES AVE R I O GR A NDE OKANOGAN YOUNG C E N TER P K WY KELLOG ST TA P TE AL L E SLIE RD CL O D F E LTE R RD KELLOG ST 36TH AVE 45TH AVE 45TH AVE 27TH AVE 19TH AVE 19TH AVE FRUITLAND ST GUM ST 7TH AVE NEEL ST CA S CA DE ST HIGHLAND DR G R ANDRIDGE UNINCORPORATED BENTON COUNTY COLUMBIA RIVER C R E E K S T O N E MORAIN ST SO UT H RID GE BL VD ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 1 Steptoe St 1 Steptoe St Gage Blvd Gage Blvd 425 470 1,400 930 120 0 305 170 980 250 860 115 355 1,095 1,425 385 165 1,415 525 2,160 740 660 4,875 1,005 640 0 0 830 1,255 210 245 1,085 0 0 0 250 380 175 0 0 1,435 805 % Increase = 2 Clodfelter Rd 2 Clodfelter Rd Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 0 0 1,270 660 0 0 0 250 695 325 480 0 0 520 785 130 200 1,005 285 875 465 315 3,345 500 310 25 55 315 490 45 305 855 15 0 30 35 330 215 80 45 1,045 580 % Increase = 3 Steptoe/Clodfelter Rd 3 Steptoe/Clodfelter Rd 10th Ave 10th Ave 40 30 970 530 10 30 0 200 690 80 110 5 5 140 365 145 35 200 40 305 95 75 1,865 115 45 0 40 95 280 60 50 170 5 20 55 50 350 15 70 80 800 415 % Increase = 4 Columbia Center Blvd 4 Columbia Center Blvd SR 240 WB Ramps SR 240 WB Ramps 455 450 605 630 60 395 0 115 490 0 60 0 110 645 115 0 130 875 0 2,095 0 0 2,770 0 0 0 535 655 0 0 745 790 0 340 655 0 500 790 930 995 1,235 1,290 % Increase = 5 Columbia Center Blvd 5 Columbia Center Blvd SR 240 EB Ramps SR 240 EB Ramps 1,315 1,205 1,315 1,355 205 1,110 0 205 1,110 0 205 105 0 0 205 145 0 0 0 4,595 0 0 4,800 0 1,640 1,535 0 540 1,680 1,535 0 595 0 1,100 540 0 1,210 595 2,645 1,640 2,645 1,805 % Increase = 6 Columbia Center Blvd 6 Columbia Center Blvd Williamette Dr Williamette Dr 2,020 1,865 2,100 1,965 225 1,795 0 250 1,850 0 225 220 0 0 250 240 0 0 0 4,010 0 0 4,205 0 345 125 0 0 380 140 0 0 0 1,645 0 0 1,725 0 1,920 1,645 1,990 1,725 % Increase = 125.7% 282.3% 511.5% 32.2% 4.5% 4.9% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 7 Columbia Center Blvd 7 Columbia Center Blvd Canal Dr Canal Dr 1,530 1,305 1,930 1,770 65 1,005 460 110 1,255 565 235 75 280 560 345 120 460 855 70 3,465 115 80 4,690 130 175 30 165 725 280 80 265 975 55 950 195 105 1,190 330 1,200 1,200 1,600 1,625 % Increase = 8 Columbia Center Blvd 8 Columbia Center Blvd Quinalt Ave Quinalt Ave 1,325 1,010 1,625 1,165 260 895 170 285 1,155 185 695 305 115 355 765 340 125 390 130 3,110 195 145 3,645 215 590 155 45 310 655 170 50 340 240 590 10 265 700 10 1,095 840 1,375 975 % Increase = 9 Columbia Center Blvd 9 Columbia Center Blvd Okanogan Pl Okanogan Pl 1,120 1,000 1,550 1,300 30 985 105 35 1,405 110 50 15 170 230 55 15 180 245 5 2,240 10 5 2,980 10 30 10 50 145 30 10 55 155 10 815 35 10 1,105 40 1,045 860 1,470 1,155 % Increase = 10 Columbia Center Blvd 10 Columbia Center Blvd Grandridge Blvd Grandridge Blvd 985 855 1,280 1,045 80 795 110 65 1,095 120 350 140 95 275 310 125 110 265 125 2,465 135 120 2,865 135 415 150 45 270 385 140 20 255 135 620 35 110 810 15 990 790 1,255 935 % Increase = 11 Columbia Center Blvd 11 Columbia Center Blvd Deschutes Ave Deschutes Ave 1,040 955 1,285 1,050 110 860 70 200 980 105 490 80 120 365 640 125 145 550 60 2,915 120 100 3,545 175 420 280 125 205 520 295 230 350 260 755 75 265 780 145 1,265 1,090 1,505 1,190 % Increase = 12 Columbia Center Blvd 12 Columbia Center Blvd Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 1,260 1,080 1,500 1,185 245 650 365 340 875 285 510 220 410 645 1,105 315 285 1,000 150 2,820 215 420 4,090 645 390 20 20 540 825 90 70 765 50 450 25 120 585 60 690 525 1,035 765 % Increase = 35.4% 17.2% 33.0% 16.2% 21.6% 45.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 13 Columbia Center Blvd 13 Columbia Center Blvd 4th Ave 4th Ave 705 390 1,080 650 50 510 145 65 810 205 100 30 80 110 125 40 145 195 15 1,190 25 20 1,870 30 65 20 5 165 85 25 20 240 25 280 5 30 465 15 535 310 855 510 % Increase = 14 Columbia Center Blvd 14 Columbia Center Blvd 10th Ave 10th Ave 355 325 585 475 20 60 275 115 85 385 170 10 295 465 290 85 355 545 90 975 135 120 1,415 155 110 10 35 375 220 15 35 515 15 20 10 20 35 10 105 45 135 65 % Increase = 15 Young St 15 Young St Canal Dr Canal Dr 40 55 40 55 25 5 10 25 5 10 570 40 5 580 860 40 5 840 585 1,505 505 810 2,045 765 660 35 70 770 910 60 70 995 40 10 175 70 10 175 110 225 135 255 % Increase = 16 Grandridge Blvd 16 Grandridge Blvd Canal Dr Canal Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 585 0 0 460 775 0 0 470 560 1,365 425 475 1,870 355 685 125 35 620 830 355 115 625 160 0 60 420 0 150 160 220 470 570 % Increase = 17 Kellog St 17 Kellog St Canal Dr Canal Dr 60 60 60 65 25 20 15 25 20 15 575 30 15 410 590 35 15 330 485 1,405 360 490 1,430 280 670 155 35 560 680 155 35 565 190 15 60 285 15 60 210 265 210 360 % Increase = 18 Kellog St 18 Kellog St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 1,150 440 1,280 590 150 595 405 180 655 445 830 70 210 960 1,150 105 310 1,360 485 2,945 655 670 3,730 940 580 25 95 960 805 30 110 1,195 25 160 70 30 175 80 715 255 795 285 % Increase = 57.1% 45.1% 35.9% 37.0% 1.8% 26.7% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 19 Kellog St 19 Kellog St 10th Ave 10th Ave 380 225 410 245 40 170 170 45 185 180 475 30 110 530 650 30 120 735 430 1,680 370 600 2,130 535 555 95 50 665 735 105 80 865 65 85 65 70 95 85 315 215 370 250 % Increase = 20 Grant St/Quinalt Ave 20 Grant St/Quinalt Ave Canal Dr Canal Dr 225 170 225 170 50 30 145 50 30 145 460 45 95 575 360 45 95 475 525 1,580 405 525 1,520 305 575 5 75 840 575 5 75 880 5 30 170 5 30 210 110 205 110 245 % Increase = 21 Edison St 21 Edison St SR 240 WB Ramps SR 240 WB Ramps 65 75 70 85 5 60 0 5 65 0 520 0 25 525 580 0 30 580 0 1,150 5 0 1,275 5 0 0 495 0 0 0 545 0 510 50 0 570 55 0 555 560 610 625 % Increase = 22 Edison St 22 Edison St SR 240 EB Ramps SR 240 EB Ramps 555 560 610 620 0 540 15 0 595 15 0 25 0 0 0 30 0 0 5 2,120 0 5 2,335 0 670 640 0 380 740 705 0 415 0 535 360 0 590 395 1,180 895 1,300 985 % Increase = 23 Edison St 23 Edison St Yellowstone Ave Yellowstone Ave 1,180 895 1,295 985 15 1,160 5 15 1,275 5 75 15 5 15 80 15 5 15 5 2,215 5 5 2,430 5 85 65 5 15 90 70 5 15 55 875 5 60 965 5 1,230 935 1,350 1,030 % Increase = 24 Edison St 24 Edison St Canal Dr Canal Dr 870 915 1,375 1,005 140 450 280 155 790 430 600 220 220 585 665 240 240 655 445 2,970 335 470 3,760 370 865 200 30 775 1,010 300 45 955 125 475 50 140 525 55 680 650 1,135 720 % Increase = 26.8% -3.8% 10.9% 10.1% 9.7% 26.6% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 25 Edison St 25 Edison St Metaline Ave Metaline Ave 1,035 640 1,140 705 0 855 180 0 940 200 0 0 90 125 0 0 100 140 0 1,740 0 0 1,920 0 0 0 35 210 0 0 40 235 0 550 30 0 605 35 890 580 980 640 % Increase = 26 Edison St 26 Edison St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 905 570 995 625 150 500 255 165 550 280 945 120 230 965 1,435 130 255 1,445 740 3,275 675 950 4,150 1,125 940 80 60 1,120 1,185 105 65 1,370 120 220 125 145 240 140 640 465 720 525 % Increase = 27 Edison St 27 Edison St 4th Ave 4th Ave 610 345 690 365 40 460 110 60 510 120 185 30 75 225 265 35 85 285 105 1,275 130 145 1,485 180 175 40 20 225 230 50 20 275 15 240 10 25 245 10 520 265 580 280 % Increase = 28 Edison St 28 Edison St 10th Ave 10th Ave 465 220 520 245 135 0 330 165 0 355 560 80 140 565 730 85 160 725 685 1,795 425 835 2,165 565 765 0 0 1,015 920 0 0 1,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Increase = 29 Arthur St 29 Arthur St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 150 105 145 115 90 5 55 85 5 55 1,340 60 40 1,305 1,710 70 40 1,680 1,020 2,610 1,235 1,245 3,215 1,610 1,100 20 30 1,110 1,335 20 30 1,335 15 5 35 15 5 35 55 55 55 55 % Increase = 30 Yost St 30 Yost St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 180 150 195 165 110 5 65 120 5 70 975 125 20 915 1,200 140 20 1,135 1,005 2,270 855 1,255 2,770 1,070 1,145 15 40 1,085 1,410 15 45 1,340 10 5 15 10 5 15 60 30 65 30 % Increase = 10.3% 26.7% 16.5% 20.6% 22.0% 23.2% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 31 Volland St 31 Volland St Canal Dr Canal Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 0 0 400 770 0 0 385 405 1,405 360 440 1,755 330 700 295 40 445 845 405 55 525 265 0 40 440 0 85 335 305 460 525 % Increase = 32 Union St 32 Union St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 335 285 490 480 45 190 100 55 310 125 1,035 55 55 915 1,490 110 80 1,420 815 2,825 740 1,010 4,040 1,135 1,075 205 120 990 1,385 265 205 1,290 250 175 75 300 290 155 515 500 780 745 % Increase = 33 Union St 33 Union St 10th Ave 10th Ave 270 295 505 500 20 175 75 20 385 100 570 40 65 470 750 50 90 550 490 2,045 340 515 2,940 355 860 330 65 610 1,080 515 105 685 210 190 45 375 360 70 570 445 1,005 805 % Increase = 34 US 395 34 US 395 36th Ave 36th Ave 435 560 1,165 1,400 0 340 95 195 580 390 0 0 45 70 380 280 360 560 0 1,090 0 125 3,140 130 0 0 25 165 495 90 70 620 0 515 70 55 760 105 365 585 740 920 % Increase = 35 US 395 35 US 395 27th Ave 27th Ave 670 735 1,470 1,225 60 320 290 430 675 365 415 65 280 625 1,000 80 350 1,150 375 2,485 250 530 4,885 400 545 105 95 815 780 170 400 1,415 105 390 150 170 795 520 520 645 1,245 1,485 % Increase = 36 Quillan St 36 Quillan St 27th Ave 27th Ave 95 75 105 80 35 20 40 40 20 45 710 55 5 570 1,150 60 5 995 615 1,880 410 1,075 2,830 820 920 250 155 670 1,410 275 170 1,135 265 15 15 290 15 15 425 295 465 320 % Increase = 96.6% 50.5% 24.9% 43.8% 43.0% 188.1% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 37 US 395 37 US 395 19th Ave 19th Ave 850 665 1,465 1,200 100 670 80 60 1,330 75 150 75 60 105 125 50 60 105 35 1,655 30 35 2,865 25 130 20 15 135 135 50 20 140 20 530 20 40 1,090 30 705 570 1,400 1,160 % Increase = 38 Morian St 38 Morian St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 190 160 340 200 10 120 60 30 130 180 655 20 30 555 1,200 35 45 1,085 515 1,650 495 795 2,665 1,005 625 90 30 595 930 100 35 1,000 150 110 20 165 120 25 240 280 265 310 % Increase = 39 Neel St 39 Neel St Canal Dr Canal Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 235 360 0 0 255 325 890 210 430 1,075 210 480 155 25 365 600 170 45 500 135 0 40 150 0 70 180 175 215 220 % Increase = 40 Huntington St 40 Huntington St Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 780 0 0 780 1,330 0 0 1,335 765 1,750 710 1,230 2,765 1,265 845 80 70 820 1,310 80 70 1,285 70 0 55 65 0 55 150 125 150 120 % Increase = 41 Huntington St 41 Huntington St 10th Ave 10th Ave 15 20 40 45 5 5 5 10 10 20 515 5 10 640 700 10 25 895 555 1,480 440 675 2,025 585 645 85 190 665 815 130 285 855 70 5 105 105 10 160 280 180 425 275 % Increase = 42 US 395 42 US 395 10th Ave 10th Ave 1,105 885 1,595 1,220 190 670 245 230 1,060 305 740 155 170 700 850 185 155 870 555 3,290 460 575 4,580 465 820 110 70 815 920 160 250 1,040 90 560 15 155 880 160 850 665 1,470 1,195 % Increase = 36.8% 39.2% 20.8% 58.0% 73.1% 61.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 43 US 395 43 US 395 7th Ave 7th Ave 1,195 890 1,650 1,210 40 1,070 85 40 1,555 55 90 25 45 85 95 30 25 60 30 2,235 20 30 3,010 20 70 15 20 150 80 20 15 115 30 820 35 35 1,155 30 1,105 885 1,590 1,220 % Increase = 44 US 395 44 US 395 Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 1,180 875 1,765 1,295 105 980 95 115 1,545 105 515 140 65 500 565 155 70 540 320 3,150 305 350 4,260 335 610 150 130 500 670 165 135 555 105 670 85 115 1,070 100 1,260 860 1,845 1,285 % Increase = 45 US 395 45 US 395 Clearwater Ave Clearwater Ave 1,330 1,120 1,940 1,675 400 815 115 585 1,150 205 840 420 50 390 1,140 700 100 480 385 3,465 305 450 4,905 365 950 145 35 510 1,410 260 15 665 135 650 10 190 875 10 995 795 1,425 1,075 % Increase = 46 Yelm St 46 Yelm St US 395 US 395 170 150 175 215 25 55 90 30 60 85 1,395 20 75 1,845 1,745 70 85 2,275 1,140 3,565 1,275 1,425 4,390 1,595 1,170 10 495 1,460 1,505 10 595 1,765 95 55 230 120 60 255 560 380 665 435 % Increase = 47 Vista Way 47 Vista Way Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 450 300 585 415 85 5 360 95 5 485 495 45 250 660 545 50 360 810 405 1,595 405 445 1,925 445 465 15 5 775 510 15 5 940 5 5 10 5 5 10 25 20 25 20 % Increase = 48 Ely St 48 Ely St 10th Ave 10th Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 660 0 0 580 825 0 0 750 555 1,625 515 685 2,080 650 840 285 65 615 1,065 380 100 775 145 0 60 175 0 90 350 205 480 265 % Increase = 20.7% 28.0% 41.5% 23.1% 34.7% 35.2% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 49 Yelm St 49 Yelm St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 525 380 665 430 50 60 415 55 60 550 605 45 285 835 745 50 315 1,000 605 2,100 545 755 2,580 680 675 25 5 1,025 835 30 5 1,310 10 50 5 10 65 5 90 65 95 80 % Increase = 50 Vancouver St 50 Vancouver St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 610 0 0 490 955 0 0 720 540 1,455 470 785 2,340 705 810 270 20 555 1,355 570 15 800 140 0 15 250 0 15 290 155 585 265 % Increase = 51 Vancouver St 51 Vancouver St 10th Ave 10th Ave 465 240 550 280 30 370 65 70 435 45 550 30 45 535 715 60 45 660 460 1,890 440 585 2,285 555 620 130 50 550 775 130 60 665 80 165 25 90 175 35 550 270 625 300 % Increase = 52 Olympia St 52 Olympia St 10th Ave 10th Ave 420 350 565 485 40 275 105 100 345 120 505 40 110 605 615 110 125 615 310 1,795 400 325 2,130 435 450 100 95 470 575 140 55 490 65 200 55 80 250 45 470 320 540 375 % Increase = 53 Olympia St 53 Olympia St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 15 15 15 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 715 5 5 445 840 5 5 525 420 1,590 400 460 2,010 440 810 385 40 430 1,025 560 80 510 310 5 5 395 5 45 430 320 645 445 % Increase = 54 Carmichael Dr/Garfield St 54 Carmichael Dr/Garfield St Vineyard Dr/1st Ave Vineyard Dr/1st Ave 330 290 370 345 100 105 125 100 105 165 610 10 55 745 655 10 110 845 250 1,780 425 330 2,000 470 375 115 265 395 455 115 265 515 85 225 20 85 225 20 485 330 485 330 % Increase = 26.4% 12.4% 20.9% 18.7% 22.9% 60.8% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 55 Garfield St 55 Garfield St 10th Ave 10th Ave 485 280 595 385 65 365 55 115 370 110 615 45 35 625 665 70 115 705 360 1,920 480 360 2,135 480 480 75 110 475 505 75 110 530 70 200 60 70 200 60 550 330 555 330 % Increase = 56 Dayton St 56 Dayton St 1st Ave 1st Ave 75 90 90 115 15 35 25 20 40 30 515 10 20 495 650 15 25 625 325 1,085 455 460 1,415 575 385 50 20 375 540 65 25 520 45 60 25 55 75 30 105 130 130 160 % Increase = 57 Benton St 57 Benton St 1st Ave 1st Ave 110 70 140 90 55 25 30 70 30 40 505 30 25 470 655 40 30 610 395 1,090 430 525 1,425 560 455 30 15 445 605 40 20 590 20 15 20 25 20 25 70 55 90 70 % Increase = 58 Auburn St 58 Auburn St 1st Ave 1st Ave 75 100 95 125 20 50 5 25 65 5 405 5 5 345 530 5 5 445 310 980 325 440 1,275 430 375 60 15 350 520 75 10 470 60 90 35 75 115 25 125 185 150 215 % Increase = 59 Washington St 59 Washington St 1st Ave 1st Ave 340 265 705 570 75 240 25 95 580 30 275 65 35 220 350 80 40 255 155 1,065 150 170 1,835 165 250 30 35 220 290 40 50 245 50 165 40 90 450 45 305 255 670 585 % Increase = 60 Washington St 60 Washington St 10th Ave 10th Ave 335 605 610 780 35 220 80 145 375 90 365 70 105 410 525 155 115 470 245 1,800 220 280 2,375 260 385 70 85 455 535 100 95 500 110 430 130 120 510 130 375 670 570 760 % Increase = 72.3% 31.9% 30.7% 30.1% 11.2% 30.4% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 61 Gum St 61 Gum St 10th Ave 10th Ave 95 170 120 215 20 60 15 25 75 20 260 10 40 320 325 15 50 400 145 955 195 180 1,195 245 180 25 85 355 225 30 105 445 45 120 195 55 150 245 170 360 210 450 % Increase = 62 Gum St 62 Gum St 1st Ave 1st Ave 890 525 1,125 685 155 695 40 195 880 50 245 145 5 15 300 180 5 15 35 1,680 5 45 2,125 5 310 130 5 80 380 155 5 100 85 375 5 100 500 5 830 465 1,040 605 % Increase = 63 SR 397 (Chemical Dr) 63 SR 397 (Chemical Dr) 10th Ave 10th Ave 540 325 750 470 35 505 0 35 715 0 115 15 0 0 140 15 0 0 0 1,075 0 0 1,465 0 145 130 0 0 155 140 0 0 80 310 0 105 455 0 635 390 855 560 % Increase = 64 Grandridge Blvd 64 Grandridge Blvd Gage Blvd Gage Blvd 90 80 180 125 50 20 20 100 25 55 1,160 50 20 545 1,485 90 30 975 550 2,170 515 845 2,870 885 925 325 10 575 1,180 245 60 930 595 10 5 500 5 30 355 610 330 535 % Increase = 65 Center Parkway 65 Center Parkway Gage Blvd Gage Blvd 80 75 700 415 10 40 30 565 75 60 715 15 25 330 1,135 265 50 445 190 1,505 290 240 2,445 365 620 415 15 245 945 440 30 350 415 35 25 205 100 50 470 475 545 355 % Increase = 66 Center Parkway 66 Center Parkway Quinalt Ave Quinalt Ave 490 425 580 305 5 130 355 15 315 250 235 5 315 655 215 15 100 425 160 1,585 200 130 1,620 150 200 35 140 620 200 55 175 555 30 105 105 50 190 175 305 240 545 415 % Increase = 62.5% 2.2% 36.3% 32.3% 25.1% 26.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 67 Center Parkway 67 Center Parkway Grandridge Blvd Grandridge Blvd 305 160 545 330 10 210 85 10 370 165 375 5 55 335 250 5 100 300 185 1,240 235 90 1,340 160 335 145 45 305 160 65 40 285 130 100 35 80 225 30 400 265 475 335 % Increase = 68 Center Parkway 68 Center Parkway Deschutes Ave Deschutes Ave 280 240 390 335 30 5 245 35 110 245 95 15 220 285 105 15 225 390 30 635 60 35 1,025 65 50 5 5 285 55 5 100 370 5 5 10 5 95 90 15 20 215 190 % Increase = 69 Kellog St 69 Kellog St 4th Ave 4th Ave 535 280 605 325 15 440 80 35 485 85 100 15 55 145 210 25 70 250 60 1,000 80 135 1,280 170 95 20 10 150 180 20 10 230 5 210 10 5 230 10 470 225 515 245 % Increase = 70 Irving St 70 Irving St 10th Ave 10th Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 0 500 665 0 0 675 615 1,125 495 785 1,480 665 620 5 5 620 795 10 10 795 0 0 5 0 0 10 10 5 20 10 % Increase = 71 Union St 71 Union St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 495 435 805 740 5 340 150 5 635 165 40 15 130 240 40 15 145 265 10 1,165 15 10 1,800 15 50 25 95 230 55 30 105 250 20 290 70 20 580 75 460 380 770 675 % Increase = 72 Union St 72 Union St 4th Ave 4th Ave 465 340 735 575 60 305 100 65 545 125 190 30 55 195 240 35 80 255 135 1,185 95 160 1,790 125 190 25 45 280 240 45 50 335 35 255 45 50 460 50 375 335 640 560 % Increase = 54.5% 51.1% 28.0% 31.6% 8.1% 61.4% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 73 Union St 73 Union St 27th Ave 27th Ave 365 290 745 640 30 30 305 65 220 460 150 15 250 405 275 50 385 990 195 1,090 115 210 2,605 175 215 5 40 575 290 30 430 1,010 5 25 75 35 205 340 75 105 680 580 % Increase = 74 Morain St 74 Morain St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 260 175 325 255 20 145 95 20 200 105 210 10 75 325 230 10 85 385 165 980 175 180 1,230 195 225 50 75 325 245 55 105 385 15 90 65 15 160 100 270 170 360 275 % Increase = 75 Morian St 75 Morian St 4th Ave 4th Ave 245 215 360 310 70 95 80 90 80 190 245 60 65 260 290 75 145 360 140 900 145 160 1,160 165 235 35 50 260 275 40 50 390 30 90 40 35 90 40 180 160 170 165 % Increase = 76 Morian St 76 Morian St 10th Ave 10th Ave 135 110 135 100 50 5 80 50 20 65 505 35 75 535 565 35 65 580 545 1,275 450 595 1,375 505 585 5 10 640 640 10 10 670 5 0 15 10 0 10 20 20 40 20 % Increase = 77 Olson St 77 Olson St 27th Ave 27th Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 565 0 0 540 975 0 0 845 810 1,550 510 1,150 2,565 755 910 100 30 855 1,395 245 90 1,255 55 0 45 220 0 105 130 100 335 325 % Increase = 78 Hunington St 78 Hunington St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 230 185 230 185 110 60 60 110 60 60 570 60 100 560 570 60 100 560 355 1,385 415 355 1,385 415 475 60 45 465 475 60 45 465 45 25 50 45 25 50 165 120 165 120 % Increase = 65.5% 0.0% 28.9% 7.8% 139.0% 25.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 79 Ely St 79 Ely St 27th Ave 27th Ave 345 200 415 440 45 205 95 45 205 165 570 35 50 480 785 80 245 785 550 1,835 400 650 2,835 445 750 165 30 665 1,085 355 95 955 125 115 20 295 115 140 400 260 655 550 % Increase = 80 Vancouver St 80 Vancouver St 4th Ave 4th Ave 295 200 365 210 5 270 20 5 340 20 360 15 25 365 370 15 25 385 195 1,240 255 205 1,360 265 295 85 85 240 305 85 95 260 100 160 25 100 170 35 440 285 520 305 % Increase = 81 Vancouver St 81 Vancouver St 27th Ave 27th Ave 260 165 385 235 85 140 35 95 220 70 450 50 35 395 580 65 70 550 445 1,405 330 590 1,985 410 550 55 30 565 765 110 70 770 35 80 85 75 100 110 225 200 400 285 % Increase = 82 Rainier St 82 Rainier St 10th Ave 10th Ave 45 75 50 60 10 30 5 5 30 15 450 10 20 465 580 10 5 585 445 1,055 435 590 1,325 570 485 30 10 460 630 30 10 615 5 45 10 5 45 10 70 60 70 60 % Increase = 83 Olympia St 83 Olympia St 4th Ave 4th Ave 425 330 535 365 5 340 80 5 450 80 385 10 80 550 375 5 80 590 210 1,610 320 220 1,885 310 270 50 150 355 275 50 200 445 60 240 65 60 280 145 540 365 700 485 % Increase = 84 Olympia St 84 Olympia St 27th Ave 27th Ave 450 275 480 310 95 290 65 135 270 75 445 85 20 310 625 135 25 405 280 1,600 225 380 1,985 305 500 135 65 390 715 200 75 505 125 170 45 185 150 50 490 340 545 385 % Increase = 17.1% 24.1% 41.3% 25.6% 54.5% 9.7% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 85 Fruitland St 85 Fruitland St Columbia Dr Columbia Dr 30 25 155 50 5 20 5 85 40 30 865 5 5 610 1,170 10 10 855 550 1,730 590 885 2,505 815 785 230 15 575 1,155 260 30 955 270 15 20 270 30 40 265 305 330 340 % Increase = 86 Fruitland St 86 Fruitland St Canal Dr Canal Dr 525 430 500 420 35 470 20 30 450 20 215 50 70 240 225 45 15 200 120 1,300 155 140 1,300 170 190 20 15 150 205 20 15 170 25 310 10 25 360 10 505 345 485 395 % Increase = 87 Fruitland St 87 Fruitland St Kennewick Ave Kennewick Ave 515 350 635 470 70 395 50 160 400 75 230 55 85 230 400 85 130 410 135 1,180 140 205 1,695 210 200 10 5 190 305 15 70 340 20 210 5 30 255 60 410 235 485 345 % Increase = 88 Washington St 88 Washington St Columbia Dr Columbia Dr 80 60 140 95 35 20 25 70 30 40 775 25 20 770 1,000 45 30 1,215 445 1,920 540 660 2,820 730 725 255 210 600 960 255 455 985 200 15 130 200 20 285 485 345 740 505 % Increase = 89 Washington St 89 Washington St 27th Ave 27th Ave 380 225 455 270 225 5 150 225 5 225 325 130 95 190 395 125 145 310 125 830 95 215 1,110 165 255 0 0 275 340 0 0 440 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 % Increase = 90 SR 397 90 SR 397 Columbia Dr Columbia Dr 1,285 695 1,945 1,105 540 740 5 830 1,110 5 735 280 5 30 1,195 485 5 30 10 2,515 15 10 3,950 15 605 315 10 20 1,005 510 10 20 180 410 5 350 615 5 1,065 595 1,630 970 % Increase = 33.7% 57.1% 43.6% 46.9% 44.8% 0.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B City of Kennewick Turning Movement Volumes Existing Counts (2005) Future Forecast (2025) 91 Clearwater Ave 91 Clearwater Ave Leslie Rd Leslie Rd 385 320 710 510 205 175 5 215 485 10 405 95 5 65 630 175 10 105 50 1,135 35 75 2,005 55 255 110 25 100 435 185 40 155 165 220 45 360 325 70 310 430 710 755 % Increase = 76.7% ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C NON-MOTORIZED FEDERAL & STATE POLICY GUIDE ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Appendix C – Federal and State Policy Guide Introduction There are several federal and state policies that affect the City of Kennewick regarding the planning and development of its non-motorized transportation system. This appendix provides an overview of those policies, and summarizes a policy framework for both the pedestrian and bicycle element of the TSP. The policy framework outlines the pedestrian and bicycle goals, and then a series of objectives, policies and implementation strategies by which the City can coordinate and guide the implementation of TSP as an integral component of the Kennewick Comprehensive Plan. The policy guide concludes with a summary of state funding sources for non-motorized projects. Federal Policy The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has issued policy guidelines1 for public agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others to better integrate bicycling and walking into comprehensive transportation plans. More specifically, USDOT has emphasized that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist. There is a certain amount of flexibility for the type of facility, and the design elements that are required to ensure accessibility. This federal approach is intended to provide guidance for the accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians, and can be adopted by State and local agencies and other groups as a commitment to developing a transportation infrastructure that is safe, convenient, accessible, and attractive to motorized and non-motorized users alike. After adopting the policy that bicyclists and pedestrians (including people with disabilities) will be fully integrated into the transportation system, State and local governments should encourage engineering judgment in the application of the range of available treatments. An example of the federal policy regarding bicycle facilities states: collector and arterial streets shall typically have a minimum of a four foot wide striped bicycle lane; however, wider lanes are often necessary in locations with parking, curb and gutter, heavier and/or faster traffic. The fully integrated transportation infrastructure will improve conditions for all users because of State and local agencies’ efforts to plan projects for the long term; address the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them; obtain approval for design exceptions at the highest senior staff level; and design facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines. Local Agency Actions Some actions that agencies can take to demonstrate their commitment to the multifaceted USDOT approach include: 1 Design Guidance - Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel” A Recommended Approach / A US DOT Policy statement Integrating Bicycle and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highways Administration, February 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Adopt new manuals, or amend existing manuals, covering the geometric design of streets, the development of roadside safety facilities, and design of bridges and their approaches so that they comprehensively address the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral element of the design of all new and reconstructed roadways; Define the exceptional circumstances in which facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians will not be required in all transportation projects; Adopt stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facility design manuals as an interim step towards the adoption of new typical sections or manuals covering the design of streets and highways; Initiate an intensive re-tooling and re-education of transportation planners and engineers to make them conversant with the new information required to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Training should be made available for, if not required of, agency traffic engineers and consultants who perform work in this field. By taking the above actions, the City of Kennewick can avoid possible liability claims. USDOT guidance on this issue is unambiguous. Agencies should take steps to identify and evaluate risks, and develop an effective risk management program. One risk that local government agencies can avoid is signing sidewalks as bicycle paths. Such signage indicates that it is safe for bicyclists to ride there, but these facilities are not usually designed for pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition to steering clear of potential bicycle-pedestrian collisions, separate bicycle facilities are “operationally superior” to wide outside lanes. In policy and in practice, USDOT has committed itself to supporting a completely mobile transportation infrastructure. Bicycles are increasingly used for everyday travel needs as well as for recreation and health benefits. As more federal funding is devoted to research and planning for bicycles, the judicial system is now less likely to rule in favor of local jurisdictions that do not prepare and implement truly multi-modal plans. By paralleling USDOT’s commitment to planning for pedestrian and bicycle transportation, the City of Kennewick can help to build a transportation networks that is more fully mobile for all travelers. Washington State Policy Much of Washington State policy regarding transportation planning is guided by the Growth Management Act (GMA). In 2005 the State amended the GMA2 to encourage local governments to complete their non-motorized transportation plans (TSPs) with comprehensive networks for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Specifically, the GMA amendments require communities to consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity, and require that a bicycle and pedestrian component be included in the Transportation Element of a comprehensive plan. Examples of planning approaches promoting physical activity are: encouraging infill development, designating mixed-use community centers, and designating transit-oriented development (TOD) zones, among other things. Most relevant to transportation planners, State suggests that agencies review local regulations to ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians are adequately planned for in street and subdivision development standards, parking standards, and parking lot design. Also, local 2 Planning for Bicycling and Walking: 2005 Amendments to the Growth Management Act, August, 2005. Washington State Departments of Transportation, Health, and Community, Trade and Economic Development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan governments should comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act not only to provide access for the disabled, but also for people with strollers and walkers. Ensuring that high quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities are available is important, as well as ensuring that people feel safe using them. “High quality” denotes several characteristics: T A complete street network with multiple connections, accommodating multiple transportation modes, and a grid street pattern. Block sizes between 200-800 feet and maximum distances for intersections between 500 feet (local streets) and 1000 feet (arterial streets) are elements of such a complete street network. Links between dead-end streets are also essential. T Connectivity between trails, pathways, neighborhoods, schools, and sidewalks that enhances the ability for users to be physically active. T Trails and linear parks that link activity centers, and serve as recreation facilities and as transportation routes. T Safety enhancements such as lighting, signage, more safe crossing opportunities, reduced vehicle speeds, and separated paths and trails. T A consistent use of strategies such as crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in order to address users’ fears and perceptions of danger about walking and bicycling in the community. The use of CPTED includes a clear division between public and private space, and passive surveillance of public areas can improve safety. The cities of SeaTac, Everett, and Spokane have adopted CPTED principles. Washington cities have been including bicycle and pedestrian components as parts of their Transportation Elements in their comprehensive plans. By employing consistent non-motorized policies with new federal and state directives, the City of Kennewick will be more competitive for statewide and federal funding, and consistent with the revised GMA. Some strategies that can be used in TSP components are: T Retrofit existing streets with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. T Designate and improve safe routes to school (already completed by Kennewick). T Improve walking and bicycling conditions by improving connections from residential areas to health care facilities, community centers, shopping, transit, and other services. The improved connections would be enhanced by adding amenities such as shade trees, benches, and water fountains. It is also important to eliminate hazards to bicycle travel such as parallel bar drainage grates, traffic-actuated signals unresponsive to bicycles, and roadside debris along non-motorized routes of travel. T Use traffic calming measures such as narrower road widths, traffic circles, speed humps, and other devices to slow traffic for safer pedestrian and bicycle use, and create safer and more attractive streets. T Enforce traffic laws and provide traffic safety education programs for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. T Use innovative, low-cost transportation demand management (TDM) strategies employer provided bus passes, facilities, and incentives) to help make bicycling, walking, transit, carpooling, and vanpooling more attractive commuting options. Washington’s Commute Trip ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Reduction (CTR) Act requires certain jurisdictions to develop, adopt by ordinance, and implement a commute trip reduction plan for all major employers. In addition to statewide multi-modal planning laws in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the GMA, the State of Washington has emphasized multi-modal planning3 in order to be more consistent with Federal policy. WSDOT has been instrumental in this effort, particularly by laying out the Livable Communities Policy4. Transportation agencies have many options at their disposal to support and encourage livable communities. Some of these options are: T Foster multimodal transportation systems that enhance communities to encourage multimodal access to transportation facilities; i.e., design and placement of facilities to provide for safety and access to services or jobs. T Consider community and neighborhood connectivity when improving transportation corridors by providing bicycle and pedestrian networks plans and agreements. T Develop collaborative transportation actions sensitive to community values to allow flexibility in design standards/procedures to adjust to local plans. T Promote tools for livable communities such as model ordinances, codes, and regulations. T Enhance community aesthetics with transportation facilities, incorporating unique local features scenic views, community neighborhoods, historic districts, etc.) and providing focal points for communities through those facilities such as multimodal stations, pedestrian plazas, and parkways. T Coordinate access to funding to support local planning efforts. T Fund (support) projects and efforts that enhance local livability. T Support projects consistent with local plans. T Encourage the use of funding resources like Transportation Enhancements and the National Scenic Byways program to support livable communities. T Provide innovative financing tools which provide positive incentives to promote livable communities. T Include livability criteria in funding of projects. T Encourage funding partnerships by simplifying transportation and community infrastructure funding programs. T Ensure new or expanding transportation facilities are consistent with local land use and regional policies. Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrians Walkways Plan March 2008- 20275 3 Washington State Bicycle Transportation and Walkways Plan, Washington state Department of Transportation, September, 2005. 4 Livable Communities Policy, Washington state Department of Transportation, 2006. 5 Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan, Washington State Department of Transportation, 2008-2027. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan WSDOT has prepared its State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan that summarizes a statewide goal with policies and performance measures. The Plan considered the Governor’s Executive Order [07-02] and emerging directives and initiatives addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, The Plan includes the following 20-year goal, which is consistent with several local, regional and national plans: T Double the percentage of total trips made primarily by bicycling and walking in Washington within the next 20 years; and T Simultaneously reduce the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured in traffic crashes by 5 percent per year. For successful implementation, the Plan also includes a series of guiding non-motorized policies (with respective statewide performance measures), including: Preservation - Ensure no net loss in pedestrian and bicycle safety, and mobility. Safety - Target safety investments toward known risk factors for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mobility – Increasing bicycling and pedestrian transportation choices. Health and Environment - Increasing walking and bicycling will be part of Washington State’s strategy to improve public health and address climate change. Stewardship - Improve the quality of the transportation system by improving transportation access for all types of pedestrians and bicyclists, to the greatest extent possible. An element of the Plan includes recommended implementation measures or “steps” to be taken by Washington’s cities and counties. For a variety of reasons it is important for the City of Kennewick to ensure that its TSP is not only consistent but supportive of the Washington statewide plan. Consistency will help Kennewick in its future efforts seeking federal and state funding support for local non-motorized projects. Table A-1 summarizes some selected steps identified the state Plan for implementation through Kennewick’s TSP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Table A-1. City of Kennewick TSP – Implementing the Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Plan Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan – Selected Implementation Steps Kennewick TSP Coordination and Implementation WSDOT, regional and local agencies will address known risk locations on the roadway and bridge system to help ensure safe access by bicyclists and pedestrians. See Pedestrian and Bicycle implementation strategies – Chapters 5 and 6 – Kennewick TSP WSDOT will partner with local agencies and developers to reduce short motor vehicle trips (both commute and non- commute trips) and related CO2 emissions by increasing biking and walking. In Washington State, over half of all trips are under three miles, yet 80 percent of these trips are made by car (National Household Travel Survey). See Pedestrian and Bicycle policy discussion and objectives – Chapters 5 and 6 – Kennewick TSP WSDOT will initiate a new training program for all transportation engineers (state and local) focused on bicycle and pedestrian design and funding programs. To be coordinated between Kennewick, BFCOG and other regional and local agencies. WSDOT will raise awareness of the importance of accessibility and design that strives to provide access to as many people as possible through training for state, regional, and local engineers, planners, and other transportation professionals and interested parties. See TSP Chapters 5 and 6 – Design Guide supporting local design measures to improve non-motorized access and safety. Recommend Kennewick identify and staff “ADA Coordinator” position. Ensure Regional and Local Plans have measurable goals that will move toward accomplishing the state and federal goals. To be coordinated between Kennewick, BFCOG and other regional and local agencies. WSDOT will work with local agencies, transit providers, and developers to identify additional funding for projects not yet in design or construction to develop the entire project including elements addressing bicycle and pedestrian safety. To be coordinated between Kennewick, BFCOG and WSDOT. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction – Emerging Washington State Policy6 In 2007 Governor Gregoire signed Executive Order 07-02 directing the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to lead the Washington “Climate Challenge.” The Executive Order included goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, create clean energy jobs and reduce expenditures on imported fuels. The Departments of Ecology and CTED formed the Washington Climate Advisory Team (CAT) to advise the State on a full range of policies and strategies to achieve goals specific in Executive Order. The CAT includes business, academic, tribal, government, religious and environmental leaders. The CAT’s recommendations were finalized in February 20087. The critical findings identified by the CAT relating to transportation are: transportation is Washington’s largest contributor to GHG emissions; growth patterns and long-term infrastructure choices that result in compact walkable, bikable and transit-friendly communities must be supported, funded and implemented; without reductions in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by 6 First Draft, Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan, Washington State Department of Transportation, March 2008. 7 Leading the Way: A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gases in Washington State: Recommendations of the Washington Climate Advisory Team. February 1, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan single-occupant vehicle use, Washington cannot meet its goals for emission reductions; and, people will not (cannot) get out of their cars in sufficient number if they do not have viable options. Further, the CAT concluded with two directional recommendations relating to transportation systems, designed to help achieve the GHG emission reduction goals: T Build and continue to redesign communities that offer real and reliable alternatives to single- occupant vehicle use. T Focus investments in Washington's transportation infrastructure to prioritize moving people and goods cleanly and efficiently. As shown in Figure A-1, non-motorized system infrastructure enhancements (statewide) alone will have relative low impact mitigating emissions. However, non-motorized transportation is essential for the State and local jurisdictions in support of the major and most promising emission mitigation strategies, including: T Transit, Ridesharing and Commuter Choice Programs T State, Regional and Local Vehicle-Miles Travel Reduction Goals and Standards T Promotion of Compact and Transit-Oriented Development. Figure A-1. Greenhouse Gas Savings – Washington State Policy Options Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Savings: MMtCO2e (2008 - 2020) Zero Emission Vehicle Standards Transit/Rideshare/ Commuter Choice* State/Regional/Local VMT Reduction Goals/Standards* Fuel Efficiency (especially diesel) Bicycle & Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Accelerate/Integrate Hybrids Low Carbon Fuel Standard Improve Railroads Promote Compact & Transit-Oriented Design* Transportation Pricing MMtCO2e = Million Metric Tons, Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Source: Washington Climate Advisory Team, Leading the Way – A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gases in Washington State, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan As contained in Chapters 5 and 6 of the TSP, Kennewick has already prioritized its bicycle and pedestrian projects to fill critical system gaps, particularly in connection to major land activity centers, and bus transit facilities. In March 2008, Washington Governor Gregoire signed climate change legislation (ESSHB 2815). The new law, based in part on the Governor’s Executive Order 07-02, includes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goals for light duty vehicle per capita VMT 18% by 2020, 30% by 2035, and 50% by 2050. The Department of Ecology is coordinating several implementation working groups (IWG) to implement the CAT recommendations. A Transportation IWG was formed and directed to recommend tools and best practices to achieve vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goals and advance specific non-VMT transportation policy proposals for implementation, and possibly identify specific next steps (e.g revised taxing capabilities) given the need for a scalable, multi-pronged approach to address the climate impacts of the transportation sector. The Transportation IWG met regularly and identified in its October 2008 report, actions and policy proposals that were forwarded for consideration by the CAT. To reduce VMT, with the ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions, the Transportation IWG recommended a package of strategies that fall into three broad categories, but which intended to be integrated and implemented in conjunction with each other: • Transit, Ridesharing, and Commuter Choice Programs, including recommendations to expand and enhance current programs to increase viable transportation options available to Washington residents to conduct the activities, trips, and travel needed and desired for daily life. • Compact and Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) and Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility that supports the development of compact walking, bicycling, and public transportation-friendly communities and to increase the travel choices available. • Transportation Funding and Pricing Strategies that identify and create potential pricing mechanisms to support and incentivize GHG and VMT reductions, and stress key considerations for revenue use to support transportation infrastructure maintenance and operations. The Transportation IWG also defined and advanced specific non-VMT transportation policy proposals, including recommendations related to freight railroads; diesel engine emission reductions and fuel efficiency; vehicle electrification; and a low carbon fuel standard. In the CAT’s final report8 is the full set of recommendations from the Transportation IWG. The CAT’s recommendations have been finalized and forwarded to the Governor and will likely be considered by the Legislature in 2009. CTED Tracking GMA Amendments Senate Bill 6580 - Climate Change Mitigation through the Growth Management Act 8 Leading the Way: Implementing Practical Solutions to the Climate Change Challenge, November 2008. Washington Climate Action Team. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan In March, 2008 Senate Bill 6580 was passed by both the Washington House and Senate. SB 6580 addresses mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through land use and transportation planning processes under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The legislature acknowledged and recognized that implications of climate change will affect the state of Washington; and that it is in the public’s best interest to reduce the state’s dependence upon foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) is the lead state agency charged with enhancing and promoting sustainable community and economic vitality in Washington State. Under SB 6580, CTED was tasked to form and facilitate the Land Use Climate Change Advisory Committee (LUCC) and with their assistance and recommendations prepare a report (by Dec. 1, 2008) for the Governor and Legislature that: • Describes current actions being taken by local governments to address climate change • Recommends amendments to GMA and other statutes (if needed) to help state and local governments address climate change issues through land use and transportation planning processes • Describes computer models and other analytic and assessment tools that could help local governments address climate change issues • Assesses state and local resources needed to put report’s recommendations into practice and recommend funding • Considers positive and negative impacts to affordable housing, employment, transportation costs, and economic development that result from addressing the impacts of climate change at the local level SB 6580 identified and appointed which types of organizations and voting members would seat on LUCC. LUCC met several times and in October, 2008 concluded their efforts with recommendations to CTED on four policy issues: Amending GMA with Goal to reduce GHG emissions, requiring local governments to amend their plans in coordination with regional planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions; encourage local governments to use SEPA programmatically to support compact urban form; and, better enable GMA transportation concurrency to address all transportation modes through improved methods. The LUCC policy recommendation to amend the GMA relating to transportation concurrency includes the following: Better enable GMA Transportation Concurrency to address all modes of transportation. The LUCC recommends encouraging and assisting local governments to develop multi-modal transportation concurrency methods. Direct state agencies, in conjunction with other regional and local transportation entities, to provide technical, non-binding guidance on multimodal transportation systems and how multimodal considerations can be included in and addressed during concurrency analysis at the local level. Specifically relating to multimodal LOS is the following LUCC recommendation: ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Amend the Growth Management Act (GMA) to require local governments to provide level of service (LOS) standards for all available or planned modes of transportation and to require local governments to consider multimodal improvements or strategies in their transportation concurrency regulations. The LUCC recommends the Growth Management Act (GMA) be amended at RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B) to require consideration of a multimodal approach as part of establishing levels of service standards and at RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) to require consideration of multimodal improvements or strategies as part of a local government’s concurrency analysis. It should be noted that LUCC’s policy recommendations emphasize non-binding, but required consideration of multi-modal LOS approaches to refining transportation concurrency regulations in Washington. The next steps involve CTED consideration of the LUCC policy recommendations in their final report to the Legislature (expected in December, 2008) followed by possible legislative action and eventual GMA amendments. How does the Kennewick TSP Integrate Emerging Statewide Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction? In the interim, and until specific policy and legislative action is taken, Kennewick’s TSP is already structured to implement policy and plan action consistent with and supporting the emerging statewide policies. Table A-2 summarizes the steps identified in Kennewick’s TSP to track and support the state’s emerging greenhouse gas reduction initiatives relating to non-motorized policy strategies. The City of Kennewick will need to consider the new statewide legislation and revise its TSP findings accordingly. In coordination with BF Transit, Kennewick has already undertaken local planning steps and adopted local ordinances consistent with emerging statewide policy to address key greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: Transit, Ridesharing and Commuter Choice Programs – coordination with BF Transit to better link land uses with fixed-route bus service through revisions in local land development codes and plans State, Regional and Local Vehicle-Miles Travel Reduction Goals and Standards – revised Comprehensive Plan policies through the Draft Transportation System Plan. Promotion of Compact and Transit-Oriented Development – designated and adopted Comprehensive Plan policy9 and land development code revisions10 to designate transit-oriented land use and zoning overlay defining mixed-use and higher density land uses conducive to transit and non-motorized travel. Mode-Share Policy Targets Comprehensive mode-share data for multiple trip purposes is not available for the Kennewick urban area specifically. General mode-share data for the Kennewick and larger Tri-City urban area is summarized and provided by BFCOG as part of their demographic and travel demand model programs, using data from the National Household Travel Survey (2001) and other sources. The NHTS summary for Kennewick indicates that area biking and walking accounts for almost 9 percent of all trips. 9 City of Kennewick Comprehensive Plan. 10 City of Kennewick Development Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Mode-Share Person Trips 86.9% 0.1% 1.4% 2.7% 0.5% 8.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Auto/Pu Transit School Bus Bike Walk Specifically for Kennewick, the National Household Travel Survey (2001) summary indicates that Kennewick’s residents largely drive or are driven to various activities. As shown in Figure A-2 the non-auto mode-share is roughly 13 percent. These data suggest that the City of Kennewick can make good progress in increasing non-auto mode-share through the implementation of the TSP, in policy partnership with the State and regional partners. The City will need to coordinate with BFCOG to help refine regional travel demand model steps and procedures to report non-SOV mode share and impact on VMT per capita reduction. Figure A-2. Kennewick Mode-Share ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan June 2007 Table A-2. City of Kennewick TSP – Implementing the Emerging State Greenhouse Gas Policies Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Policy & Funding Initiatives (not yet State policy or statute) Kennewick TSP Coordination and Possible Implementation City adopt a “Complete Streets” policy for local spending, with substantial incentive from State (e.g. state grants to local jurisdictions contingent on complete street policy). See recommended Complete Streets Policy in Chapter 3. In addition to ADA requirements, incorporate low-cost safety solutions to improve conditions for biking and walking as part of maintenance projects (e.g. paving projects). See City’s regular maintenance programming. State to increase funding available for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs to $150 million in the near term (as recommended in Washington’s Transportation Plan) and more in the long term, and expand the existing State Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program to include projects and programs that support mobility as well as safety. Priority sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects identified in Chapters 5 and 6. Over 20-year plan period, a majority of which are new sidewalk construction projects; all of which are suitable for City action to apply for additional state funding support (when it becomes available). State-supported new taxing authority and more flexibility with gas tax revenues to finance local, non-motorized projects. The goal would be provide sufficient funding for localities to build out their pedestrian and bicycle networks, invest in inviting streetscapes to accompany new development, and retrofit existing streets to prioritize transit, biking and walking. Similarly, local transit agencies should be granted additional voter-approved revenue sources. Priority sidewalk and bicycle improvement projects identified in Chapters 5 and 6. Over 20- year plan period, a majority of which are new sidewalk construction project; all of which are suitable for City action to supplement revised state and local funding options under new and more flexible statutes. State to provide policy support and planning grants to localities to develop plans and policies to encourage biking and walking, including public education, safety, engineering, and revisions to local land use policies. As the Kennewick TSP is already drafted, additional state funding would support a local Kennewick “Complete Streets” design guide and policies. State to support local governments, through grants and technical assistance, in identifying and studying the gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and determining how these gaps can be best filled by street-related improvements as well as those associated with other public right-of-ways parks, inter-street links, specialized structures). Supportive local land use policies include requirements for shower and bike storage facilities in new buildings and design requirements to promote a pedestrian friendly environment. Gaps in the Kennewick pedestrian and bicycle system identified in the TSP. Additional state funding and support to Kennewick for local land use policy and regulation enhancements for building design, orientation, transit-oriented land uses that promote non-motorized travel. State to require or encourage RTPOs to quantify bicycle and walking mode share in order to allow tracking of progress of this mitigation option. On-going coordination with BFCOG and WSDOT will assist Kennewick in establishing mode- share data baseline (for multiple trip purposes) and track future progress towards VMT reduction and non-motorized mode share increase over the TSP planning horizon; to address mode-share targets – see below. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D DETAILED TRANSPORTATION REVENUE PROJECTIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Transportation Systems Plan Draft - December 2008 Transpo Group I Chapter 10 APPENDIX B Detailed Annual tables Baseline Potential Funds POTENTIAL REVENUES 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Estimated Available Funds Federal Grants 554,000 $ 581,000 $ 607,000 $ 636,000 $ 666,000 $ 698,000 $ 730,000 $ 764,000 $ 801,000 $ 838,000 $ 877,000 $ 919,000 $ 962,000 $ 1,007,000 $ 1,054,000 $ 1,104,000 $ 1,156,000 $ 1,211,000 $ 1,289,000 $ 16,454,000 $ State Grants 842,000 $ 881,000 $ 923,000 $ 966,000 $ 1,012,000 $ 1,059,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 1,161,000 $ 1,216,000 $ 1,274,000 $ 1,333,000 $ 1,396,000 $ 1,461,000 $ 1,531,000 $ 1,603,000 $ 1,677,000 $ 1,757,000 $ 1,839,000 $ 1,958,000 $ 24,999,000 $ Total Revenues 1,396,000 $ 1,462,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,602,000 $ 1,678,000 $ 1,757,000 $ 1,840,000 $ 1,925,000 $ 2,017,000 $ 2,112,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 2,423,000 $ 2,538,000 $ 2,657,000 $ 2,781,000 $ 2,913,000 $ 3,050,000 $ 3,247,000 $ 41,453,000 $ Other Possible Funds OTHER POSSIBLE FUNDS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Estimated Available Funds Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - $ 476,000 $ 480,000 $ 484,000 $ 489,000 $ 493,000 $ 497,000 $ 502,000 $ 506,000 $ 511,000 $ 515,000 $ 520,000 $ 524,000 $ 529,000 $ 534,000 $ 539,000 $ 543,000 $ 548,000 $ 562,000 $ 9,252,000 $ Impact Fees (not projected annually) 22,659,000 $ 48,164,000 $ 24,037,000 $ 94,860,000 $ Total Revenues - $ 476,000 $ 480,000 $ 23,143,000 $ 489,000 $ 493,000 $ 497,000 $ 502,000 $ 506,000 $ 48,675,000 $ 515,000 $ 520,000 $ 524,000 $ 529,000 $ 534,000 $ 24,576,000 $ 543,000 $ 548,000 $ 562,000 $ 104,112,000 $ No Transp Fees collected due to impact fee program) 30,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 71,000 $ 85,000 $ 101,000 $ 120,000 $ 143,000 $ 170,000 $ 202,000 $ 240,000 $ 285,000 $ 339,000 $ 404,000 $ 480,000 $ 571,000 $ 679,000 $ 4,055,000 $ Total Available Funds - $ 446,000 $ 445,000 $ 23,103,000 $ 429,000 $ 422,000 $ 412,000 $ 401,000 $ 386,000 $ 48,532,000 $ 345,000 $ 318,000 $ 284,000 $ 244,000 $ 195,000 $ 24,172,000 $ 63,000 $ (23,000) $ (117,000) $ 100,057,000 $ Maintenance Revenues and Costs 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Potential Available Funds Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1,132,000 $ 1,203,000 $ 1,223,000 $ 1,243,000 $ 1,263,000 $ 1,284,000 $ 1,306,000 $ 1,327,000 $ 1,349,000 $ 1,371,000 $ 1,394,000 $ 1,417,000 $ 1,440,000 $ 1,464,000 $ 1,488,000 $ 1,513,000 $ 1,538,000 $ 1,564,000 $ 1,616,000 $ 26,135,000 $ Property Tax 986,000 $ 976,000 $ 966,000 $ 956,000 $ 947,000 $ 938,000 $ 928,000 $ 919,000 $ 910,000 $ 901,000 $ 892,000 $ 883,000 $ 874,000 $ 866,000 $ 857,000 $ 849,000 $ 840,000 $ 832,000 $ 837,000 $ 17,157,000 $ Total Revenues 2,118,000 $ 2,179,000 $ 2,189,000 $ 2,199,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,222,000 $ 2,234,000 $ 2,246,000 $ 2,259,000 $ 2,272,000 $ 2,286,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,314,000 $ 2,330,000 $ 2,345,000 $ 2,362,000 $ 2,378,000 $ 2,396,000 $ 2,453,000 $ 43,292,000 $ Transfers In (from Cap Imp Fund) 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 8,550,000 $ Total Available Funds 2,568,000 $ 2,629,000 $ 2,639,000 $ 2,649,000 $ 2,660,000 $ 2,672,000 $ 2,684,000 $ 2,696,000 $ 2,709,000 $ 2,722,000 $ 2,736,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,764,000 $ 2,780,000 $ 2,795,000 $ 2,812,000 $ 2,828,000 $ 2,846,000 $ 2,903,000 $ 51,842,000 $ Expected Maintenance Costs 2,470,000 $ 2,679,000 $ 2,904,000 $ 3,147,000 $ 3,409,000 $ 3,691,000 $ 3,995,000 $ 4,322,000 $ 4,675,000 $ 5,055,000 $ 5,464,000 $ 5,905,000 $ 6,379,000 $ 6,889,000 $ 7,438,000 $ 8,028,000 $ 8,663,000 $ 9,346,000 $ 10,080,000 $ 104,539,000 $ Maintenance Gap ( ) / Excess Capacity 98,000 $ (50,000) $ (265,000) $ (498,000) $ (749,000) $ (1,019,000) $ (1,311,000) $ (1,626,000) $ (1,966,000) $ (2,333,000) $ (2,728,000) $ (3,155,000) $ (3,615,000) $ (4,109,000) $ (4,643,000) $ (5,216,000) $ (5,835,000) $ (6,500,000) $ (7,177,000) $ (52,697,000) $ Source: Berk & Associates BASELINE REVENUES 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Estimated Available Funds Federal Grants 554,000 $ 580,000 $ 608,000 $ 636,000 $ 666,000 $ 697,000 $ 730,000 $ 765,000 $ 800,000 $ 838,000 $ 878,000 $ 919,000 $ 962,000 $ 1,007,000 $ 1,055,000 $ 1,104,000 $ 1,156,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 1,288,000 $ 16,453,000 $ State Grants 842,000 $ 882,000 $ 923,000 $ 967,000 $ 1,012,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,109,000 $ 1,162,000 $ 1,216,000 $ 1,273,000 $ 1,333,000 $ 1,396,000 $ 1,462,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,602,000 $ 1,678,000 $ 1,756,000 $ 1,839,000 $ 1,957,000 $ 24,999,000 $ Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 431,000 $ 438,000 $ 445,000 $ 453,000 $ 460,000 $ 468,000 $ 476,000 $ 483,000 $ 491,000 $ 500,000 $ 508,000 $ 516,000 $ 525,000 $ 533,000 $ 542,000 $ 551,000 $ 560,000 $ 570,000 $ 589,000 $ 9,539,000 $ Transportation Fees 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 71,000 $ 85,000 $ 101,000 $ 120,000 $ 143,000 $ 170,000 $ 202,000 $ 240,000 $ 285,000 $ 339,000 $ 404,000 $ 480,000 $ 571,000 $ 679,000 $ 4,085,000 $ Sales Tax (optional) 4,310,000 $ 4,483,000 $ 4,662,000 $ 4,848,000 $ 5,041,000 $ 5,241,000 $ 5,449,000 $ 5,664,000 $ 5,887,000 $ 6,119,000 $ 6,359,000 $ 6,608,000 $ 6,866,000 $ 7,134,000 $ 7,411,000 $ 7,699,000 $ 7,998,000 $ 8,308,000 $ 8,778,000 $ 118,865,000 $ Total Revenues 6,167,000 $ 6,413,000 $ 6,673,000 $ 6,944,000 $ 7,239,000 $ 7,537,000 $ 7,849,000 $ 8,175,000 $ 8,514,000 $ 8,873,000 $ 9,248,000 $ 9,641,000 $ 10,055,000 $ 10,489,000 $ 10,949,000 $ 11,436,000 $ 11,950,000 $ 12,498,000 $ 13,291,000 $ 173,941,000 $ Estimated Debt Service 1,087,000 $ 1,015,000 $ 1,020,000 $ 928,000 $ 956,000 $ 984,000 $ 1,014,000 $ 1,044,000 $ 1,076,000 $ 1,108,000 $ 1,141,000 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,211,000 $ 1,247,000 $ 1,284,000 $ 1,323,000 $ 1,363,000 $ 1,403,000 $ 1,446,000 $ 21,825,000 $ Estimated CIP Funds for Maintaining Capital 500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,242,000 $ 1,285,000 $ 1,330,000 $ 1,377,000 $ 1,425,000 $ 1,474,000 $ 1,526,000 $ 1,579,000 $ 1,634,000 $ 1,691,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 1,811,000 $ 1,875,000 $ 1,940,000 $ 27,039,000 $ Estimated Transfers Out 1,813,000 $ 1,665,000 $ 1,675,000 $ 1,675,000 $ 1,675,000 $ 1,675,000 $ 1,682,000 $ 1,691,000 $ 1,702,000 $ 1,715,000 $ 1,730,000 $ 1,746,000 $ 1,763,000 $ 1,782,000 $ 1,803,000 $ 1,825,000 $ 1,849,000 $ 1,874,000 $ 1,901,000 $ 33,241,000 $ Total Available Funds 2,767,000 $ 2,733,000 $ 2,778,000 $ 3,141,000 $ 3,408,000 $ 3,636,000 $ 3,868,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 4,359,000 $ 4,625,000 $ 4,903,000 $ 5,194,000 $ 5,502,000 $ 5,826,000 $ 6,171,000 $ 6,538,000 $ 6,927,000 $ 7,346,000 $ 8,004,000 $ 91,836,000 $