Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ResolutiontoAdopt20YearTransportationPlan
KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA DATE: ACTION REQUESTED: AGENDA STAFF REPORT October 16, 2018 Request to Approve a Resolution Adopting Kittitas County Twenty Year (2018-2038) Transportation Plan BACKGROUND: Public Works has been updating the 2008 Kittitas County Transportation Plan since January 2017. The effort is complete and final Board of County Commission revision requests are now incorporated for Board adoption. INTERACTION: Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the 2018-2038 Transportation Plan for Kittitas County HANDLING: Return one original to Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; 2018-2038 Kittitas County Transportation Plan LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook, Director BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - ADOPTING THE KITTITAS COUNTY TWENTY YEAR (2018-2038) TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS: Kittitas County is updating its land use comprehensive plan pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 36.70A (Growth Management); and WHEREAS: The current long range transportation plan is now ten years old; and WHEREAS: Public Works has produced anew twenty year transportation plan (2018-2038); and WHEREAS: The new plan updates and replaces transportation policies and service level forecasts for the public roadway network to 2038; and WHEREAS: The 2018-2038 transportation plan includes necessary projects for replacement/repair for the twenty year period; and WHEREAS: The plan also includes a proposed funding plan supporting identified plan projects; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, does hereby adopt the Kittitas County Twenty Year (2018-2038) Transportation Plan. DATED this 16th day of October, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. Attest: ❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik ❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laura Osiadacz, Chairman Obie O'Brien, Vice -Chairman Cory Wright, Commissioner Kittitas County TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Kittitas County Transportation Element 2o18 ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................... 1 iIntroduction......................................................... 1.1 Purpose..............................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Planning Context................................................................................................................................................3 OtherPlans........................................................................................................................................... 5 Kittitas County 2oo8 Comprehensive Plan............................................................................................. 5 Kittitas County Long Range Transportation Plan................................................................................... 5 Kittitas County Road Safety Plan...........................................................................................................6 EllensburgComprehensive Plan............................................................................................................6 QUADCO Regional Transportation Plan................................................................................................6 Kittitas County Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan.................................................................6 Washington State Freight Mobility Plan................................................................................................ 7 1 -go Snoqualmie Pass East Project......................................................................................................... 7 GMA...................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Role of the Transportation Element..................................................................................................................8 1.4 Element Organization........................................................................................................................................8 z Conditions and Trends .............................................. 2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................................9 LandUses and Key Destinations............................................................................................................ 9 Transportation Network Overview.......................................................................................................17 Safety.................................................................................................................................................. 30 2.2 Opportunities and Challenges.........................................................................................................................35 NetworkConnectivity.......................................................................................................................... 35 RegionalGrowth................................................................................................................................. 35 Safety................................................................................................................................................. •35 Funding............................................................................................................................................... 35 3 Transportation Goals and Policies.......................................................................................................37 Goal1— Safe..........................................................................................................................................................37 Goal 2 — Efficient and Accommodates Growth, but Respects Rural Character.....................................................37 Goal 3 — Complete, Multimodal, and Accommodates Outdoor Recreation.........................................................38 Goal 4 — Leveraged by Active Partnerships...........................................................................................................39 Goal 5 —Sustainably Funded and Maintains What We Have................................................................................40 4 Maintaining Our System....................................................................................................................41 4.1 Existing System................................................................................................................................................41 Maintenance....................................................................................................................................... 41 Preservation........................................................................................................................................ 41 Kittitas County Transportation Element 2o18 Administration and Operations...........................................................................................................42 OtherRoadway Operations................................................................................................................. 42 Construction........................................................................................................................................ 43 4.2 Budgeting for Good State of Repair................................................................................................................45 Pavement............................................................................................................................................ 45 GravelRoads....................................................................................................................................... 45 OtherSupporting Infrastructure.......................................................................................................... 45 OperationalExpenditures.................................................................................................................... 45 Bridges................................................................................................................................................ 45 MajorFindings..................................................................................................................................... 45 4.3 Policies to Support a Good State of Repair.....................................................................................................47 Prioritize System Maintenance over System Expansion....................................................................... 47 Identify New Sources of Funding that Can Pay for Maintenance and Preservation ............................... 47 Maintain the County's Transportation System at Lowest Lifecycle Cost .............................................. 47 Enhance the Pavement Management System to Consider more Comprehensive Inventory of Assets.. 47 Maintain A Reserve Fund to Address Unfunded Programmatic and Unanticipated Events ................... 47 5 Transportation Vision....................................................................................................................... 48 5.1 Introduction to the Layered Network..............................................................................................................48 5.2 Modal Networks..............................................................................................................................................48 Walking............................................................................................................................................... 49 Bicycling.............................................................................................................................................. 50 Transit................................................................................................................................................. 5o Freight& Auto..................................................................................................................................... 51 6 Capital Plans...................................................................................................................................52 6.1 Regional Collaboration....................................................................................................................................56 Cities................................................................................................................................................... 56 TransitFacilities...................................................................................................................................56 WSDOT............................................................................................................................................... 56 U.S. Forest Service.............................................................................................................................. 56 FederalHighway Administration ................ ......................................................................................... 56 7 Implementing the Transportation Plan...............................................................................................57 7.1 Balancing Financial Capacity with Future Funding Needs...............................................................................57 DecreaseExpenses.............................................................................................................................. 57 FutureFunding Strategies................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix............................................................................................................................................ 61 Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 Figure1. Kittitas County.........................................................................................................................................4 Figurez. County Zoning Map...............................................................................................................................10 Figure3. Key Destinations.................................................................................................................................... az Figure 4. Bowers Field Environmental Assessment Projects 2019-2023................................................................14 Figure 5. Kittitas Valley Event Center Master Plan................................................................................................15 Figure 6. Land Ownership in Kittitas County........................................................................................................18 Figure 7. Roadway Functional Classifications— Kittitas County............................................................................. 20 Figure 8. Roadway Functional Classifications — Ellensburg................................................................................... 21 Figure 9. Roadway Functional Classifications — Cie Elum......................................................................................22 Figure 10. Existing Bicycle Facilities...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11. Central Transit Existing and Proposed Transit routes........................................................................... 26 Figure 12. Yakima -Ellensburg Commuter Route................................................................................................... 27 Figure 13. Truck and Rail Corridors....................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 14. LOS Analysis Segments — Ellensburg................................................................................................... 31 Figure 15. LOS Analysis Segments — Cle Elum...................................................................................................... 32 Figure16. PSC Rating Scale.................................................................................................................................42 Figure 17. National Standard Deterioration Curve for Pavement..........................................................................42 Figure18. Layered Network.................................................................................................................................48 Table 1. Classifications of Roadway......................................................................................................................19 Table z. WSDOT Freight Road Classifications...................................................................................................... 28 Table3. Corridor LOS Analysis Summary ............................................................................................................. 33 Table 4. Historical Programmatic Expenditures, 2007-2017.................................................................................. 44 Table 5. Recommended Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures.................................................................. 46 Table 6. Pedestrian Accommodation Descriptions for Roadways within the UGA and LAMIRDs ..........................49 Table 7. Pedestrian Accommodation Descriptions for Roadways outside of the UGA and LAMIRDs.....................49 Table 8. Bicycle Accommodation Descriptions..................................................................................................... 50 Table 9. Transit Accommodation Descriptions..................................................................................................... 50 Table 1o. Costs of Kittitas County Transportation Plan (20+ years)....................................................................... 52 Table11. Twenty Year Project List....................................................................................................................... 53 Table 12. Opportunities to Increase Revenues through Funding and Financing Tools ........................................... 59 Table 13. Potential Additional Revenue Generated by Funding Tools...................................................................6o Kittitas County r ransportation Element 2018 Kittitas County is an area rich in history and a premier destination for outdoor adventure. It is home to the five cities of Ellensburg, Cie Elum, South Cie Elum, Roslyn, and Kittitas, each with their own amenities and charm. This Transportation Element aims to provide a 20 -year vision for the County's transportation system, which respects the character of each of its regions, supports anticipated growth, and builds on Kittitas County's development as an attractive place to live, work, and play by supporting safe and comfortable travel by all modes through 2038. The overall vision for Kittitas County's Transportation Element is to provide a safe, balanced, and efficient multi- modal transportation system that serves anticipated local and regional growth. Guidance from County staff and the Policy Working Group helped identify five goals, which serve as the foundation for this Element: • Safe • Efficient and Accommodates Growth, but Respects Rural Character • Complete, Multimodal, and Accommodates Outdoor Recreation • Leveraged by Active Partnerships • Sustainably Funded and Maintains What We Have As stated in the goals, this Transportation Element accommodates growth, but has a strong focus on system maintenance and preservation. The current analysis shows that all but one of the study roadway segments in the County will adequately handle future traffic volumes without capacity improvements. This Element prioritizes preservation of current infrastructure as many of the County's assets are old and need to be rehabilitated to keep them in a state of good repair. The project list included in Chapter 6 includes a total of $127.4 million in potential projects for the 20 -year planning horizon. Of this, roughly a third ($36.9 million) is allocated for capacity enhancements, including roadway improvement and expansion, bikeways, and trails and over $90 million is allocated to projects that maintain roadways, bridges, and other infrastructure. The full list of projects can be seen on page 53. Costs of Kittitas County Transportation Plan (20+ years) Road Projects to Accommodate Growth Ensuring LOS standards are met $2.4 Roadway Investments Traffic signals, intersection improvements, capacity enhancements— $19.6 Nonmotorized Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, trails $4.9 Evacuation Priority evacuation routes $10 Bridge Replacement Replacement of bridges that are structurally deficient or+75 years $61.6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Overlay, pavement repair, and bridge repairs T _$28 8 Planning Planning studies $0.1 Total $127.4 Note. Costs denoted in millions Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 With projected revenues and expenditures for the 20 -year planning horizon, the County will have a projected financial shortfall of $91 million. To bridge this gap, a variety of funding strategies are discussed in Chapter 7. While this Transportation Element plans for long-term growth over a 20 -year period, it is recommended that it be 11F'_ge Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 updated every five to ten years in light of new policy changes or development that can affect the transportation system. To serve as a useful document for the community, including both County staff and the general public, this Transportation Element focuses on the County's vision and the projects and programs intended to meet that vision. Technical and supporting information are available in the Technical Appendices. Atypical rural county road traversing agricultural land. 2C- ii e Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 Kittitas County is an area rich in history and a premier destination for outdoor adventure. It is home to the five cities of Ellensburg, Cie Elum, South Cie Elum, Roslyn, and Kittitas, each with their own amenities and charm. This Transportation Element aims to provide a 20 - year vision for the County's transportation system, which respects the character of each of its regions, supports anticipated growth, and builds on Kittitas County's development as an attractive place to live, work, and play by supporting safe and comfortable travel by all modes through 2038. 1.3. PURPOSE The overall vision for Kittitas County's Transportation Element is to provide a safe, balanced, and efficient multi -modal transportation system that serves anticipated local and regional growth. Guidance from County staff and the Policy Working Group helped identify five goals, which serve as the foundation for this element: • Safe — Create a transportation network that can be shared safely by all users and provides sufficient access for emergency response and designated evacuation routes. Efficient and Accommodates Growth, but Respects Rural Character — Provide a transportation system that works hand-in- hand with existing and planned land uses, supports farm -to -market and recreational tourism needs, but respects the rural character and wildlife that residents cherish. • Complete, Multimodal, and Accommodates Outdoor Recreation — Fill gaps in the system to accommodate safe and enjoyable travel by those choosing to walk, bike, or use transit, including recreational users. • Leveraged by Active Partnerships — Coordinate with a broad range of groups (including local, state, and regional agencies, airports, businesses, and the public) to develop and operate the transportation system. Sustainably Funded and Maintains What We Have — Plan for a financially -viable system that considers the full lifecycle costs of infrastructure and leverages outside funds, while maintaining existing transportation facilities in a state -of -good - repair to ensure their continued function. The Transportation Element sets a framework for creating a transportation network that will help Kittitas County achieve its vision. 1.2 PLANNING CONTEXT Kittitas County's geography plays a role in the demands put on its transportation system. The County is located in central Washington, with major highway connections, railroad lines, and river crossings. Kittitas County is bisected by 1-90, which also connects to 1-82 and US 97. These are important connections for freight and passenger travel across the state as well as into Oregon, Idaho, and Canada. Travelers from all regions come to Kittitas County looking for a variety of activities, including patronizing the highway -oriented services for a quick stop or visiting the lakes and mountains for recreation. These routes also serve the Yakima Training Center operated by the US Army. 1-90 is a major freight corridor for trucks and the parallel privately owned Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) rail corridor moves more than five million tons of goods each year. This is an important aspect of Kittitas County's economic vitality, but also poses transportation challenges. The County must coordinate its transportation planning with a variety of jurisdictions and agencies, including the city governments, QUADCO Regional Planning Organization, US Forest Service, FHWA, US Army, and the State of Washington. Figure i shows the location of Kittitas County in this regional setting. age a a 21 W �Z= V-2:1 Mil le Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oi8 OTHER PLANS As part of this planning process, several local, regional, and state plans and documents that influence transportation planning in Kittitas County were reviewed. This section summarizes some of those key plans. rKITTITAS COUNTY 2oo8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The County's last major Comprehensive Plan update occurred in 2008 and has guided decisions on land use, transportation, economic development, and public infrastructure. It was written to address both short and long-term needs and laid out a future vision for the region. The overarching goal of the Transportation Element was to provide a safe and integrated transportation system that maintains and preserves the existing facilities, while supporting land use development and economic vitality. The previous iteration of this Plan identifies 52 goals for transportation in the region focusing on: 1. Multi -Modal Transportation System, Arterial System, and System Maintenance 2. Land Use, Environment and Economic Development 3. Level of Service (LOS) and Concurrency 4. Financing Transportation Improvements 5. Intergovernmental Coordination and Public Participation This plan was reviewed and key projects that were not yet completed, but still considered viable, are included in the 20 -year project list for this Transportation Element. KITTITAS COUNTY LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Kittitas County also developed a Long Range Transportation Plan in 2008 to guide the County's planning for roads, public transportation, air, rail, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and recreation. The overarching goal of this plan was to "Provide a balanced and well-maintained transportation system for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services."' Kittitas County Long Range Transportation Plan - 2008 The Plan identified 11 key goals for transportation in the County: 1. Preserve and maintain Kittitas County's 565 miles of arterial roads and bridges. 2. Improve roads that do not meet design standards according to the County's priority system and as funds become available. 3. Improve roads with high accident rates and target road deficiencies that affect safety according to the County's priority system and as funds become available. 4. Preserve right of way for additional routes to establish a better grid system of roads, especially in areas that have only one way in and one way out and in areas experiencing a large amount of new development. S. Maintain roadway capacity at an acceptable level of service by monitoring and forecasting development growth and identifying infrastructure improvements needed to address expected growth in the next 20 years. 6. Continue supporting programs that provide essential public transportation services for the county's senior, disabled and low- income population. 7. Implement strategies as funding becomes available to encourage people to travel in carpools, vanpools, or buses such as establishing park and ride lots or expanding existing shuttle services to nearby county residents. 8. Program improvements needed to connect travelers and freight to airports and rail services. 9. Include construction of pedestrian paths and bike routes with major reconstruction projects when they are within the non - motorized system plan and develop inter- agency partnerships to seek grants for paths and bike routes. 10. Coordinate with US Forest Service and Washington State Parks and Recreation to establish off-road parking facilities to SIPa9: Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oi8 provide access to the over 500 miles of snowmobile and dirt bike trails in the county. 11. Identify roads that are needed to access the county's recreational lands and develop partnerships with other jurisdictional agencies to seek funding to improve or construct these roads. KITTITAS COUNTY ROAD SAFETY PLAN The 2017 Kittitas County Road Safety Plan aims to reduce serious injury and fatal accidents throughout the County road network. The plan catalogues areas with roadside hazards, clear zone inventory, bridge rail deficiencies, and corridor/intersection improvements. It ranks projects to identify the highest priority improvements with the greatest benefits. Relevant components of the Safety Plan were included in this Transportation Element. ELLENSBURG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As a part of its recent Comprehensive Plan update, the City of Ellensburg completed a transportation assessment. This plan identified key transportation goals and improvement projects for a 20 -year planning horizon. Some of these projects will affect travel outside of the city, including bike and pedestrian connections to regional trails, expanded transit service, and roadway projects along University Way. QUADCO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN QUADCO is the regional planning organization consisting of Adams, Grant, Lincoln, and Kittitas Counties. The QUADCO Regional Transportation Plan establishes a regional method of decision making that is also consistent with statewide goals. It identifies six major goals for the region: 1. Safety - Protect the safety of our community. 2. Preservation - Preserve and extend the life and utility of prior transportation system investments. 3. Economic Vitality - Enhance our region's economic vitality by promoting and developing transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods. 4. Mobility- Enhance the mobility of people and goods throughout the region by providing an interconnected transportation system and opportunities for choosing different transportation modes. 5. Environment - Protect our region's environment and high quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment. 6. Stewardship - Improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of our region's transportation system and growing communities with cost effective investments that have public support. KITTITAS COUNTY PARK, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN The 2016 Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan inventories Kittitas County's current open space, park, and trail facilities. It also outlines future demand and the preferred actions for the expansion and management of these spaces. It identifies 12 goals; the three that are most relevant to this effort are included here: Strategic (Role - Undertake a strategic approach to open space, trail, park, and recreation facilities and recreation services where Kittitas County assumes responsibility for functions of countywide interest where there are no other viable sponsors, and helps coordinate or support functions and activities that have other viable sponsors. Trail Systems - Facilitate the planning, development, and operation of a variety of countywide trails including winter, water, horse, off-road hike and bike, off-road vehicle and all -terrain vehicle trails, on -road bicycle touring routes and scenic drives that are directly related to environmental resources that are of most interest to Kittitas County residents and tourists. • Design Standards - Develop and maintain design guidelines to ensure facilities are 6 P a g Kittitas County Transportation Element 2os8 accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life cycle features that account for long- term costs and benefits. 'WASHINGTON STATE FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) created the Freight Mobility Plan in 2014 to ensure the enhancement of trade flows and associated economic growth throughout the state. It conforms to federal freight goals and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21) objectives for each state to create a Freight Mobility Framework. The plan was developed with three objectives: • Developing an urban goods movement system that supports jobs, the economy, and clean air for all; and provides goods delivery to residents and businesses. Maintaining Washington's competitive position as a global gateway to the nation with intermodal freight corridors serving trade and international and interstate commerce, and the state and national Export Initiatives. • Supporting rural economies' farm -to - market, manufacturing, and resource industry sectors. 1 -go SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST PROJECT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and WSDOT are making improvements to a 15 -mile section of 1-90 east of Snoqualmie Pass. The corridor project will widen the freeway, build and replace bridges, minimize closures due to avalanches and rockslides, and address wildlife connectivity. Phase 1 addresses the first five miles of the corridor and will be completed in 2018. Phase 2 improves the next two miles and will be completed in 2019, and funding has been secured for the remaining eight - mile section. Completion of the project will result in a six -lane freeway with less avalanche closures, increased safety, and new pavement. The improved corridor will increase traffic capacity coming to and from Kittitas County along 1-90. '4A The State's Growth Management Act of 1990 requires communities to prepare a transportation plan that ties directly to the County's land use decisions and financial planning. This Transportation Element Update fulfills the mandate. 71 is 9 - Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 1.3 ROLE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The Transportation Element provides a framework that outlines the policies, projects, and programs necessary to implement the County's vision for future mobility. The Transportation Element also describes the financial environment for transportation investments out to 2038. In essence, the Transportation Element informs the development of the Capital Improvement Program by identifying the types of maintenance and operational improvement projects the County should undertake to support future travel trends. The element also evaluates how these projects coincide with the community's values and financial resources. Wild Horse Wind and Solar Facility 1.4 ELEMENT ORGANIZATION This Transportation Element includes seven chapters in addition to the Introduction (Chapter i): Chapter 2 — Conditions and Trends: Describes conditions for all travel modes in the existing transportation system. This chapter also identifies current challenges and trends that will affect the County's transportation network in the future. Chapter 3 — Transportation Goals and Policies: Describes Kittitas County's vision for transportation and the goals and policies that serve as the basis for the Transportation Element. Chapter 4 — Maintaining our System: Describes how the County operates and maintains its transportation system, including ongoing programmatic activities and expenditures. This chapter discusses best practices in good state of repair. Chapter 5 — Future Transportation Vision: Introduces a layered network concept that forms the foundation of this plan to accommodate all modes of travel and create a complete transportation network in Kittitas County. This section also details how to accommodate each travel mode and establishes the County's level of service standards. • Chapter 6 — Capital Plan: Provides a long-term capital plan based on the community values expressed in the transportation goals and layered network. Chapter 7 — Implementing the Transportation Plan: Evaluates Kittitas County's financial conditions over the next 20 years and provides guidance on plan implementation. 8 1 P a g e Kittitas County Transportation Element 2o3.8 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes how people use Kittitas County's transportation network today, as well as how that may change over the next 20 years as the region grows. The way people travel is greatly influenced by the built environment, which includes land use and travel corridors, as well as the key destinations where people live, work, shop, and recreate. This chapter also describes trends in how people are traveling based on anticipated development patterns and travel mode data. LAND USES AND KEY DESTINATIONS The places where people live, work, and play are impacted by how a county and its communities guide development. The Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan provides this guidance. The Kittitas County zoning map regulates the types of uses that are allowed in specific areas of the region. This zoning map leads to clustering of like uses, for example shopping and other commercial destinations in downtown and along major roadway corridors, with other areas limited to primarily residential development or agriculture. Changes to zoning can affect not only the land use, but also use of the surrounding transportation network. The current zoning map for Kittitas County is shown in Figure 2. Key destinations in the county are mapped in Figure 3 and described below. The incorporated cities in Kittitas County are Ellensburg, Cie Elum, South Cie Elum, Roslyn, and Kittitas. Ellensburg is the county seat and the largest of these cities, a hub of commercial and recreational activity. The cities of Roslyn and Cle Elum are both centers of recreational tourism. Even within these incorporated communities, the majority of housing is detached single family with an owner occupied housing rate of 58 percent'. More than half of the county is forested, with 30 percent pasture and only two percent urban land. Agricultural developments are located throughout Kittitas County, with lower, more level expanses located in the central and southeast regions. The County is known for its high quality Timothy Hay that is shipped all over the world. Timber has historically 2 ACS 2011-201$ been another major economic commodity for County residents, although current trends see that potentially declining over the next 20 years. The export of forest and agricultural products lead to a lot of farm and heavy vehicles traveling on low volume County roads. This can lead to disproportionately high levels of pavement damage and safety concerns. Large swaths of the northwest portions of the county are highly mountainous, with the Okanogan - Wenatchee National Forest, four lakes that the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) operates as part of the Yakima Project, and Lake Easton State Park comprising large areas of public land. Recreation opportunities draw crowds to the sno-parks, lakes, and trails. Sixty four percent of Kittitas County land is managed by state or federal agencies so interagency cooperation is crucial. While there is a large amount of privately held land in the County that could be available for development, growth is constrained by the availability of potable water in many areas. Development is then concentrated in areas of the County that have access to potable water, putting a strain on existing roadways. Maintaining the existing public facilities to account for this growth is as important as planning for new growth during the 20 - year planning horizon. It is important to consider that areas of commercial, industrial, and dense residential land use tend to have more concentrated trips and can be supportive of alternative modes of travel such as transit, whereas areas of low density residential and agricultural use tend to have dispersed trip patterns more conducive to trips made by personal vehicle. Recreational destinations are also subject to seasonal trip fluctuations, which can stress local roadway networks. 9fpr-gr n i rA i i U cm Q V 10 �w= W C V t3 0 C' a I F I 9 f i N t � G y}d 3 + N {' m L a C a Z M sl Ln Kittitas County 1'ransportation Element 2018 Ellensburg Ellensburg, the county seat of Kittitas County, is a city rich in history, and home to Central Washington University. Ellensburg has continued to grow since it was incorporated in 1883, and is projected to have 11,757 new residents and 6,998 new jobs by 2037. Currently half of county residents live in Ellensburg. The main commercial areas in Ellensburg are the Central Commercial zones, the Commercial Highway zones, and the Commercial Tourist zones. The Central Commercial zone is generally comprised of older historic buildings in the historic downtown core that was rebuilt after the fire of 1889 and that was revitalized beginning in the late 1970s. Outside of the Central Commercial zone, areas of commercial development are largely auto -oriented with larger buildings and ample off-street parking lots. The Central Commercial II zone includes newer developments, like the Fred Meyer shopping center. Newer developments are also located in pockets of Commercial Highway zones, mostly centered on Canyon Road near 1-90, West University Way, and Vantage Highway. Tourist services such as restaurants, coffee shops, and gas stations are clustered in the Commercial Tourist zones around the two interstate interchanges in Ellensburg. As the largest urban center in the county, Ellensburg provides many essential services. The Ellensburg School District serves almost 3,300 students as of May 20163 and operates five K-12 schools that serve the community. Kittitas Valley Healthcare Hospital serves Ellensburg and the surrounding areas. The hospital is a 25 -bed inpatient facility, although outpatients make up 85 percent of the total usage. The hospital employs approximately 600 people in addition to other medical clinics on the same campus. Ellensburg also has a number of retirement communities and medical facilities. ADA accessible pedestrian infrastructure surrounding retirement communities and medical communities should be in place for those that wish to walk. 3 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2016. "Washington State Report Card, Ellensburg School District" https/Ireportcard.osp i. 1<12.wa.us/summa ry.aspx?groupLevel=Dist rict&school! d=127&reportLeve!=District&or6L! nkl d=127&yrs=201 5-16&year=2015-16 "Central Washington University. 2016. "Quick Facts" https://www.cwu.edu/about/quick-facts Central Washington University Central Washington University (CWU) is a major destination and economic driver in the County. The 380 -acre campus is located northeast of historic downtown Ellensburg. The University had almost 11,000 students enrolled in the 2015-2016 academic year, of which over 3,000 live on campus4. In addition to students, there are about 1,500 faculty and staff members-. The large concentration of students, faculty, and staff leads to university - specific transportation issues, such as clustering of arrivals and departures around class schedules, parking availability and pricing concerns, and how to accommodate students without access to personal vehicles. The University has plans for continued growth in enrollment and campus facilities, particularly on the relatively undeveloped areas on the north end of campus. Growth at CWU was considered in future conditions analysis. Bowers Field Airport Bowers Field (ELN) is the largest airport in Kittitas County and is located just north of Ellensburg. Home to the Central Washington University Flight training program, it provides regional connections for tourism, emergency medical services, and firefighting operations. In 2012, it supported 129 jobs and $11.8 million in regional economic activity' ELN is planning for significant capital construction over the next six years. During the period of 2019- 2024, improvements to runway 11-29 and construction of a parallel taxiway will be implemented as shown in Figure 4. By 2024 it is anticipated that runway 11-29 will be lengthened from 4,301 feet to approximately 5,128 feet to better serve small jet aircraft and increase additional economic development opportunities for ELN. The airport supports the County's largest land bank of industrial land. It is likely that as airport improvements progress, businesses will want to use this land for development and truck and passenger vehicle traffic will increase. Due to these anticipated 5 Central Washington University. 2014. "Economic impact" http://www.cwu.edu/president/sites/cts.cwu.edu.president/files/ documents/economic%20impact%20broch ure%20fi nal2. pdf `'WSDOT. 2012. "Airport Economic Profile". https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/N R/rdonlyres/A3 DF6FC9-CB27-4CBD- BAA4-31 F26BC08896/0/2012BowersField. pdf :.�I. age Kittitas County Transportation Element 2os8 changes it is recommended that the County revisit the travel demand forecast for the Bower's Road area by 2028. In the coming years, the ELN capital improvements will significantly enhance air transport connection to the road transportation network. Kittitas Valley Event Center The Kittitas Valley Event Center, also known as the fair and rodeo grounds, are located in Central Ellensburg. They are a major draw on Labor Day weekend coinciding with the Kittitas County Fair and Rodeo, but are used intermittently throughout the year for equestrian and 4-H related activities. In 2016, the County adopted a Master Plan for the grounds — this element considers consistency with potential improvements at the event center. The Composite Long Range Plan for the Event Center is shown in Figure S. 131Page 0 N 41 ai E w 0 0 0- C 41 0 � N D1 � L O N LA u �O L a a� 0 iA a, Ln 0 EN c 0 W Kittitas County Transportation Element =8 L Ali tLm% 0 J— f Figure 5 Kittitas Valley Event Center Master Plan 151 P a 9 e Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 Cle Elum-South Cle Elum vicinity Meaning "swift water", Cie Elum is the second most populous city in Kittitas County. Along with neighboring city South Cie Elum, Cie Elum is a gateway to outdoor recreation. The city's recreational opportunities include camping, hiking, biking, horseback riding, water sports, and winter snow sports. The Coal Mines Trail connects the towns of Roslyn, Ronald, and Cie Elum along a series of historical mines. The city also boasts museums, restaurants, and lodging. Roslyn vicinity Originally a coal -mining town, Roslyn is now a beautiful historic destination. There is a brewery and a variety of restaurants to enjoy in town, as well as the historic theater and summer Farmer's Market. Roslyn connects visitors to Lake Cie Elum, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and the greater Okanogan - Wenatchee National Forest for year round outdoor recreation. Suncadia Resort Situated between the cities of Cie Elum and Roslyn, Suncadia Resort is a 6,000 -acre community just four miles from 1-90. It includes lodging, residential homes, golf courses, a spa, shops, and restaurants. It has connections to many hiking and biking trails and other recreation opportunities. Suncadia is a major economic and transportation generator in the County. Future -year traffic analysis included a model scenario with high growth at Suncadia. The Yakima Project During the first half of the twentieth century, the Bureau of Reclamation built several canals, reservoirs, and dams in Kittitas and Yakima Counties. These served to control flooding, generate power, and transform the region from an and desert to richly irrigated farmland that produces over $1.3 billion in crops annually'. It also provides a unique opportunity for recreation at Keechelus Lake, Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, and Lake Easton. ' https://www.usbr.gov/projects/pdf.php?id=220 e http://parks.state.wa.us/532/Lake-Easton v www.pse.com/inyourcommunity/ToursandRecreation/Wld Horse/Pages/default Lake Easton State Park Lake Easton State Park encompasses 516 acres in the Northwest corner of Kittitas Countyg. It is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Yakima Project but is managed by the Washington State Parks system. It is a popular destination for summer recreation such as hiking, camping, and fishing as well as winter sports. It includes over 12 miles of hiking and biking trails, boat docks, and ski trails. Wild Horse Wind and Solar Facility Located 16 miles east of Ellensburg, the Wild Horse Wind and Solar Facility supplies clean energy to citizens throughout the Puget Sound. It can generate up to 273 megawatts of electricity from wind turbines and 502 kilowatts from solar panels, one of the largest installations in the Northwest'. The Renewable Energy Center at Wild Horse has educational displays, guided tours, and beautiful views of the surrounding mountains. It also hosts meetings and special events, and allows for hunting and other outdoor recreation during the summer. Yakima Training Center An outpost of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, the Yakima Training Center is a military training base spanning 327,000 acres in Kittitas and Yakima Counties. While there are a limited number of soldiers permanently stationed there, the Training Center hosts thousands of troops annually for large- scale training exercises1°. The regional transportation network must be equipped to handle convoys of heavy-duty military vehicles and the large volumes of traffic that travel to and from the center. 1lhttp://www.yakimaheraid.com/news/local/the-yakima- trai ping-center-aur-quiet-neighbors/a rticle_06c14cF0-7c6f- 11e5-873a-b75194abefa5.html age Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oi8 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK OVERVIEW Kittitas County possesses a rich and diverse mix of land uses and destinations that require a specialized transportation plan to ensure efficient mobility and accessibility throughout the County. The transportation network accommodates many modes of travel, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and driving. Vehicular travel is still the primary mode for most travelers in and around the County. Rural roads and highways form the foundation of the transportation framework with roadways connecting the many communities in Kittitas County. Additionally, transit is available within the city of Ellensburg. The incorporated cities have relatively well-connected street grids, while rural roadways with more limited pedestrian amenities characterize the remaining areas of the County. The majority of land in the County is owned by Federal and State entities, including the Department of Natural Resources and State Park Service (see Figure 6). The United States Forest Service (USFS) maintains certain roadways within Kittitas County, which are known as "Schedule A" roads. As County residents use roadways on Federal and State land, coordination between all parties is important to properly maintain these roadways. This plan classifies Kittitas County's roadways into interstates, principal and minor arterials, major and minor collectors, and local streets, as shown in Table 1, and Figures 7 to 9. Rural roads are the foundation of the Kittitas County road network. Higher volume roads connect the County to regional destinations. 171 ag(! E r. V r r m r � ob d E U.2 -i jF 1� m 1 c CL io L Z v d El o tu O � 0 E r. V r r m r � ob d E U.2 -i jF 1� m 1 c CL io L Z v O � Y1 H Y1 d Q ¢N Q t Ch N Ln AD o Ln m rn � r.: vii V Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oa8 'cable 1. Classifications of Roadway Interstate Interstates primarily serve long distance travel 1-90 between cities and carry high volumes. They 182 provide only limited access via grade separation and access ramps. Principal Principal arterials tend to carry the highest University Arterial volumes of any roadway type below interstate Way routes They can potentially serve regional US 97 through trips and connect the region MinorMinor arterials are designed for higher volumes, Vantage Arterial but tend not to be major regional travel ways. Highway Minor arterial streets provide inter -neighborhood Kittitas connections. Highway Major Collectors distribute trips between local streets Thorp Collectors and arterials and serve as transition roadways to Highway S or from commercial and residential areas. Collectors have lower volumes than arterials, and Number 81 must balance experience for all modes Road Minor Minor Collectors serve a similar purpose to Major Hungry Collectors Collectors, however they are distinguished by Junction Rd having lower traffic volumes and more Mohar Rd connecting driveways. Minor collectors offer more access at lower speed and with fewer travel lanes. Local Local streets are the lowest functional Denmark Streets classification, providing circulation and access Road within residential neighborhoods. Many local streets do not require sidewalks given their lower Ferguson traffic volumes and speeds. Road Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 19 P-.jge v = o m m r Y C O R V N V io O R C O G C 7 LL d LA O a a CL a c Y X W Ln W tye � I o U ec v } rn s m tn Al ti c W- 3>, ob e O vat nC PH m0% ��"� 4. Pu Pawwd.B*.- +I 47 yf F ptl �-3 pa uwo-N � py umewk P'- Pa+avi _1,6 +! Pa9°anx n' � •T' � e I mr � � 7� � _ ' PH W GG I lPH PX uarNj • �. AQeL. r Did JV • x � IV I C � q W � o 6 � I :d f {'i _r 5 r 8 O±� a M1: Py afiWn.. '554 • Ropm r1 g r � ' r r ! ' r' • r Rd �e5d'Oev Rd ut 1 1-„- •�� � i h 1♦ 1' PB uwyu� 4' 1�p9 N �Y , Avh r �Y r � c D!, 1 1 x m — Ap m a, m M W rn a LL U IF, Kittitas County Transportation Element 7oi8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Provision of facilities for walking and biking is essential to providing a functional, multimodal transportation system that accommodates all users. Residents and visitors walk and bike as part of their daily travel for many reasons. Children attending school, seasonal laborers hiking to a jobsite, and senior citizens taking a mid-day stroll, all require safe amenities. Most of the highly walkable areas in Kittitas County are in incorporated downtowns: Ellensburg, Cie Elum, and Roslyn all enjoy walkable downtowns with at least partial sidewalk coverage. South Cie Elum, Kittitas, and many of the unincorporated towns have significant sidewalk deficiencies that make walking and biking more difficult. Many rural routes lack facilities like sidewalks and wide shoulders altogether, and County ordinance allows speeds up to 50 mph on rural routes unless otherwise signed. High speeds roadways without separate nonmotorized facilities make walking and biking uncomfortable and less safe. The Ellensburg Comprehensive Plan identifies areas in the city for improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian networks. It also calls for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety. As a result, providing pedestrian and bike infrastructure in connecting unincorporated areas should remain an important goal for the County. Countywide, biking is accommodated on trails and on shoulders along rural roadways. The scenic John Wayne Trail, Coal Mines Trail, and routes in the recreation areas provide bicycle access and connectivity throughout the County. Moreover, the County's Park, Recreation & Open Space plan identifies multiple locations for future trail improvements. Figure 10 is from the County's Long Range Transportation Plan and shows the location of bike and trail facilities in Kittitas County. Some bicyclists may be uncomfortable sharing the road with high-speed vehicles. ' V41.1j, The Johri Wayne Trail is a scenfc p6dastrian route. Wide shoulders and separated trails provide safer accommodations for bicyclists. 23 -agc ��I 8 m C Kittitas County Transportation Element 208 Transit Network The city of Ellensburg is the only location in Kittitas County with regular intracity transit service. Route 1 and Route 2 are operated along the same route, but in opposite directions. Headways between buses on each route are currently one hour. Approximately 54,000 transit trips are taken annually on Central Transit. Ellensburg recently voted for a sales tax measure that partially funds transit service in the city. The existing Central Transit service is a collaboration between the City, CWU, and HopeSource, a Community Action Agency in Ellensburg. With the new sales tax, Ellensburg has hired a transit manager as a full time position, and will continue to improve existing service. It is planning to add two new routes to its regular service, one extending west to University Way and Dolarway Road and one north to Bender Road and east to Pfenning Road. Figure 11 shows existing and future routes by Central Transit In addition to the Central Transit service, Ellensburg is also served by the Yakima -Ellensburg Commuter operated by Yakima Transit. The route does not provide local service but connects to Yakima and offers three stops in Ellensburg (Figure 12). There are a total of seven weekday trips in each direction (Yakima to Ellensburg and vice versa) and no weekend or holiday service. HopeSource offers on -demand shuttle service in Cie Elum, Easton, Kittitas, Ronald, and Roslyn. Trips must be booked two days in advance and specialized needs such as medical appointments are prioritized. For connections outside of the County, Greyhound has a service with a stop in Ellensburg, the Apple Line bus travels north into Chelan and Okanogan counties, and the Bellair private charter bus takes residents to and from the SeaTac Airport. Grant and Kittitas Counties were recently awarded a grant to create an express route from Ellensburg at CWU to Moses Lake in Grant County. This project will facilitate travel between the counties along the 1-90 corridor. A Central Transit bus in Ellensburg. g Kittitas County Transportation Element zos$ sotnEresan .� Plod FRoute/West Route nd Existing Route f ; eENOERNn ...«.-....i-.S RA°- '- DERrRD y S HELE HELENAAWE s ..�._..�,._...•"� S E Crestview �oklEKe 1 x z 'M EYY = A LCNs`7t L � z.... K._..� �57Ff�wE__ .moi f UI uTHAVE r.A v� � .eR B+ry �; .:•, CVAJ Libracvwu rwiB.� 3 a * � r 1 j woo4vahEnv" a 11!'x- wwTns{e •� t �:�r�e - Wy1� UNN8i81TYN64Y r �� � 6:. p � - .h'P oe IdC abwl '�*. }� •1 8rNlArE * �1'. oxnrow,. �• MY 6rHAVE r1 . ' .w •I�i ERr 6 0 ILI . = M:. a,n -� • F.* L rF.ab. _ t sSshwry ME _. �1 - C , a Re-,w{..r + Tr:����.;a f,h� -�•.ii e m�j K1gk3.d ;` '� 1R • " F s {' Rldb 9.h.l= rrr\iii P!," .ie 4 PNd/M l on 6PMXAVE - 1 �. .. 7- z Meteew.gl�S ea, a -><ah.sl sy Y• h.qe�,�' • / F �. �q� `. V'h C' ungi'im.�..rlf R1iliM. f � OS Y el}•nbuq S ; IS 1 1 CNYfYe _ 7 . • `crw i <, 9iM-� MNIITOBAAVE. L i, Lik RW" W4 R u� x 8..Idli F.x�'fl��Ca�� 1,�-�wnuNruNYI� AVE ����� , 1 f •,7L- 0r.4 ow y Legend 1141=0 + Airport Sdsnng Route � Fire House Mat Route Mrr NE FLoId QMmment lransRaus Steps © Hospital O TYnatl Stop * Medical 0 On Demand Slop a. 6 Museum e City Parke&Fetilgles CAf&eet Trails &Palle 9rhool Suets ID 8110pping Center UnNersfly City of ELLENSBURG LOCAL TRANSIT ROUTE a , �Jf��►� Mach 2 ALE •'" � NOT TO SCALE Figure 11 Central Transit Existing and Proposed Transit Routes agc, Kittitas County Transportation Element 203.8 Route 11 1 Yakima -Ellensburg Commuter The Commuter Express runs the same route Northbound and Southbound. The black dots mark the only bus stops. i3 --- - Yakima/Selah M* Rd. y (1118 Cfl ' Md. Firing Center Rd. I- 111� A? 1� y, t Y! O Nob FRIT Blvd- �S� i- ri— N lrtle shirfn Ave. Mpnd i SAll routes served by lift -equipped busses crrt:rrs�u r--�-`- cwu suacO E. 11th Ave Mountain View Ave, Express buses make limited stops. Serving: Yakima Airport, Yakima Valley Community College, Yakima Transit Center, Selah Civic Center, Yakima Firing Center Road Paris and Ride, Ellensburg Super 1, Ellensburg Safeway (4th & Ruby), Central Washington University SURC. 36 For Yakima-Mlensburg Commuter Information, call Yakima Transit at 609-6754175 Figure 12 Yakima -Ellensburg Commuter Route 9 Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oa8 Freight Network Freight and goods movement is a vital and often underappreciated component of the transportation network. Everyone is directly impacted by how goods are delivered to ports, distribution centers, stores and homes. Freight movement is essential in Kittitas County in order to bring goods to citizens as well as to export products such as the world famous Timothy Hay grown in Kittitas County. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Kittitas County is home to a number of key freight -generating and time -sensitive industries, including agriculture and forestry. Providing a transportation system that accommodates these key economic generators and the timely movement of goods is important to Kittitas County. WSDOT has identified the state's major truck corridors (Figure 13). They rank the corridors by the amount of goods that they carry each year, measured in gross tons annually. Table 2 below shows the thresholds applied to determine each roadway's classification. Table 2. WSDOT Freight Road Classifications T-1 Over 10 million gross tons annually T-2 4 to 10 million gross tons annually _ T-3 300,000 to 4 million gross tons annually T,4 100,000 to 300,000 gross tons annually T-5 Over 20,000 gross tons in 60 days Source: WSDOT, 2015 The heavily traveled T-1 corridors in Kittitas County are 1-90 and 1-82. SR 97, SR 970, Vantage Highway, W Dolarway Road/Railroad Avenue, parts of Umptanum Road, Canyon Road, Water Street, and Mountain View Avenue in Ellensburg are T-2 corridors. SR 903 through Roslyn and down to Cie Eium is a T-3 corridor as is SR 821 south of Ellensburg and multiple arterials surrounding Ellensburg and 11 2014 Washington State Freight Mobility Plan Kittitas. SR 10 is a T-4 corridor stretching from Cie Elum to Ellensburg. The region is also bisected by a major railroad corridor carrying over 5 million tons of goods each year11. These freight modes are major economic drivers in the region, both as customers to the businesses along the routes and as providers of goods movement for producers and growers in the County. Freight trucks are important for economic success but also bring transportation and safety challenges. ge rrr Ln 6- 0 'ri lJ x u D 4 Kittitas County Transportation Element 20j.8 Auto Network With many Kittitas County residents and employees relying on vehicles as their primary mode of transportation, the County's roadway network is critical to the transportation system. Growth within the region has increased the strain on the roadway network, both in terms of traffic congestion and wear and tear. Growth is also concentrated in already developed areas of the County due to limited water availability in many areas. Most of the congestion in Kittitas County occurs in the urban areas or at certain times of the year— near ski resorts in winter or routes accessing the lakes in the summer. Analysis was conducted on 45 segments of interstate, arterial, and collector roadways throughout the County. Roadway segment operations were evaluated and assigned a level of service (LOS) grade based on their operations in terms of a ratio of PM peak- hour traffic volumes to the roadway segment's capacity. This analysis was performed for multiple times of the year to capture seasonal shifts in traffic volumes. Appendix A describes the Level of Service definitions from the Florida Department of Transportation, which is a standard methodology for measuring the performance of roadway corridors. In Kittitas County, the standard for a roadway to be considered "acceptable" is LOS C for rural roads and LOS D for roads within urban growth boundaries. Based on this analysis only one segment is expected to exceed LOS standards during the 20 -year planning horizon —Bowers Road located just to the north of Ellensburg is projected to be at LOS E by 2038. This section is within the UGA boundary in an area of rapid development. A future planned project to connect Bowers Road to Look Road would bring this section back into compliance with the County's LOS standards. Reecer Creek Road from Bowers Road to Old Highway 10 also sees increased volumes, which will increase LOS to D by 2038. However, because this plan reclassifies this section of Reecer Creek to an urban arterial, this is considered within the County's LOS standard. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Table 3 show the LOS segment maps and L05 analysis summary. A secondary analysis was performed to capture possible traffic increases from high growth at the Suncad ia Resort. The LOS results were found to be very similar to the scenario without additional growth in Suncadia. Detailed LOS results can be found in Appendix B. Based on the regional demand and the forecasted traffic volume, all other County roadways should be able to accommodate anticipated local and regional growth over the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the County should monitor key segments especially near freeway interchanges, proposed new commercial and residential developments, and potential bottleneck locations to maintain an efficient roadway network. SAFETY The County undertook a detailed safety analysis along the roadway network that was compiled in the 2017 Road Safety Plan. The Plan aims to reduce fatalities and severe injury accidents across the County's road network by analyzing crash data and ranking roadway improvement projects based on effectiveness. Between 2011 and 2015, about one third of collisions in the County resulted in injury. Nineteen percent of those injuries were fatal and 81 percent were serious injuries. Of these, the most common collision types were hitting a fixed object and overturning. Higher speeds and lack of lighting were also major contributing factors. Knowing the contributing factors to these collisions, the County scored the safety projects on the presence of potential hazards, inclusion in previous plans, road curvature, adequate clear zone, and instances of severe collisions. The final project list contains 39 items with eight priority levels. This allows the County to focus its resources on the most crucial projects that will make the greatest safety improvement for the cost. 30 4 9 = Is t rn d � rn � _ m LA- E C QI C Q 0J U $ aJ qA .S O PH R s Pa Pa uosarl J J Ptd PW u^N!ueN Pa unPr!] 4.9 '"9 1lA13veugn� PE 4-1 d N Pa mpn;,-Spm Pa 4giW�5 PH 13 mgtunh h ; r y'".! PH .."13 na�+vn Pa?I+owvo Pnyl1lAd v � A p ds E b PH-.] AP�FP°0 lwN w�ueM Pa UdJ-bAa N a N a PE -N PH�l PY �+) uosp�a as ss Ot Ch �a9 W�lI s7 I � mz Pa A" PH -teaPa / 3333........ •' a � ! pad Pa 1pu �' ` • 131 P9 uol—j wwg L P} Pa �r t� PH�j -Pa E PH -.0 12 E �Wd ! i r E W HiJdrn YIAty �ykkRd 3 . Lu C � stn a pj6 u �pb� e OF ay WAWa Ix+ 1 1 1 d JI PHONE ♦• 1 lie Im 1 1 / i g— A�.r Ile .�$Dw Pdu, i ♦ J, 1 { { 1 1 1 J ♦ � 1 1 V 3 0 1 rt J 1 4 Aleg �pb� e OF Kittitas County Transportation Element 2o18 Table 3. Corridor LOS Analysis Summary low Road Name IF I 1. SR -903 - Blue Agate Ln to Roslyn west city limits ` Standard C 2016 B B B B 2. SR -903 - E South Ave (Roslyn E city limits) to Alliance Rd C B B C C 3. SR -970 -1-90 WB ramp to SR -30 junction C B B C C 4. SR -970 - 5R-10 junction to Taylor Rd C B g g C 5. SR -970 - SR -10 junction to Teanaway Terrace Rd C B B B B 6. SR -10 - Grand View Rd to SR -97 C B 8 B C 7. SR -97 - SR -10 to Hungry Junction Rd C g B g g 8. Hungry Junction Rd - SR -97 to Reecer Creek Rd C B B B B 9. Hungry Junction Rd - Reecer Creek Rd to Kerr Rd C B B C C 10. Hungry Junction Rd/Look Rd - Kerr Rd to Brick Mill Rd C B B B B 11. Brick Mill Rd - Look Rd to Willow Creek Rd C B B B B 12. Reecer Creek Rd - Hungry Junction Rd to E Bowers Rd C B B C C 13, E Bowers Rd - Reecer Creek Rd to Ellensburg City boundary D B B C C 14. E Bowers Rd - Ellensburg City boundary to Piper Rd D B B E E 15. Reecer Creek Rd - E Bowers Rd to Old Highway 10 D B B D D 16. W University Way - Reecer Creek Rd to SR -97 D B B C C 17. SR -97 - W University Way to SR -10 D B B g g 18. Wilson Creek Rd - Lyons Rd to Vantage Hwy C B B g g 19. Wilson Creek Rd/Number 6 Rd - Vantage Hwy to Kittitas Hwy C B B B B 20. Number 6 Rd - Kittitas Hwy to Tjossem Rd C 8 B B a 21. Canyon Rd - Ellensburg S boundary to Tjossem Rd D B B B B 22. Vantage Hwy - Number 6 Rd to Naneum Rd C B a C C 23. Vantage Hwy/Number 81 Rd - Fairview Rd to Clerf Rd C B B B B 24. Vantage Hwy - Number 81 Rd to Buckskin Ln C B B B B 25. W Bender Rd - Reecer Creek Rd to Ellensburg City boundary D B B B B 26. Thorp Highway - Wheeler Rd to 3753 Thorpe Hwy 5 C B B B B 27. Thorp Highway - 5941 Thorpe Hwy S to 8267 Thorpe Hwy 5 C a B B B 28. Thorp Highway -1st St, Thorpe to E Taneum Rd C B B B B 29. Umptanum Rd - Canyon Rd, Ellensburg to Anderson Rd C B B B B 30. Umptanum Rd - Anderson Rd to Manastash Rd C B B B C 31. Manastash Rd - Umptanum Rd to Cove Rd C B B B B 32. Cove Rd - Manastash Rd to Thorpe Hwy S C B B B B 33. Thrall Rd - 1-90 ramp to Emerson Rd C B B B B 34. Thrall Rd - Cleman Rd to Upper Badger Pocket Rd C B B B B 35. Fairview Rd - Brick Mill Rd to Lyons Rd C B B B B 36. Fairview Rd - Vantage Hwy to Kittitas Hwy C B B B B 37. Denmark Rd-Tjossem Rd to Thrall Rd C B B B B 38. f-90 - W Kittitas Co boundary to Tree Farm Rd, Easton C B B B B 39.1-90 - Tree Farm Rd, Easton to Golf Course Rd, Nelson C C C C C 40.1-90 - Golf Course Rd, Nelson to 1st St, Cie Elum C B B B B 41.1-90 -1st St, Cie Elum to Thorpe Hwy, Thorpe D B B C C 42.1-90 - University Way to Canyon Rd, Ellensburg C B B C C 43.1-90 - Canyon Rd, Ellensburg to Main St, Kittitas C B B B B 44.1-90 - Main St, Kittitas to Ryegrass Safety Rest Area C B B B B 45.1-90 - Ryegrass Safety Rest Area to Main St, Vantage C B B B B _. �; i � - -y�� ,��,���u� .o��r��r re,leczrve or reGrearlanQl . Source: Behr and Peers, 2018 33 pa9 Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oi8 Travel Forecasting Forecasting future roadway volumes requires knowledge of the current state of the transportation system and best estimates of future population and employment. Modeling software is then used to understand where new vehicle trips will be distributed on the road network. For a more detailed explanation of the travel forecasting used in this plan seethe 'Kittitas County Travel Demand Forecasting' box below. Kittitas County Travel Demand Forecasting The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Transportation Element support the land uses envisioned in the Comprehensive Pian. Thus, an important component of this plan was forecasting how the future land uses envisioned in the County, as well as regional growth, would influence demand on Kittitas County's transportation network. A description of the travel demand modeling process is provided below with more detail about land use assumptions in Appendix C. The Tool. As a part of previous planning efforts, Kittitas County created a travel model with the Visum software package. This model forecasts traffic volumes during the evening commute hour (4-6pm) along key streets and intersections. This tool provides a reasonable foundation for developing year 2038 forecasts, as the underlying land use assumptions have been updated to match the land use forecasts for the current Comprehensive Pian. ■ Estimate Land Use Growth. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the County is planning for expected growth in population and employment over the next 20 years through 2038. Based on growth estimates from Kittitas County Conference of Governments, the County is preparing for 23,297 new residents and 11,155 new workers by 2038. The County then allocates the growth throughout the region based on adopted zoning, observed development patterns, and other county policies. • Capture Regional Growth Patterns. Other communities throughout the region are going through this very same process. Since travel does not stop at a jurisdiction's borders, it is important to capture how regional growth could influence travel patterns throughout the County. • Translating Land Uses into Trips. The next step is evaluating how the regional growth assumptions described above translate into walking, biking, transit, and auto trips. The travel model represents the number of housing units and employees in spatial units called traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs can be as small as a few street blocks to as large as an entire neighborhood. They provide a simplified means to represent trip making rather than modeling individual parcels. The travel model estimates trips generated from each TAZ (both inside and outside of the Cities) using established relationships between different land use types with trip making. These trips are then assigned onto the roadway network to estimate how much traffic would be on each street during the evening commute hour. 341Pd9c Kittitas County Transportation Element 2oa.8 2.2 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Kittitas County has several important challenges to face over the next 20 years to offer a functional transportation system that provides safe mobility and accommodates both local and regional growth i NETWORK CONNECTIVITY Barriers to Mobility Kittitas County faces several barriers that increase congestion and can lead to chokepoints in the transportation network. These barriers include the low number of alternative routes across the county, limited railroad and stream crossings, and areas where terrain hinders the creation of new network connections. This plan seeks to support commerce and recreation through efficient connections. Projects that add route options, aid in emergency response and evacuation, and reduce chokepoints/barriers to mobility should be prioritized. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Sidewalks are generally available in Central Ellensburg, Cie Elum, and Roslyn, although there are some missing links and often no sidewalks in outlying areas. Ellensburg also has an existing bicycle network, however, the network does not provide much in the way of separation between modes and has missing links. The unincorporated towns and more rural areas are missing sidewalks and bicycle facilities, which can inhibit the mobility of citizens and lead to increased vehicle use when a walking or biking trip would otherwise be preferable. The project list should include projects that accommodate safe and enjoyable travel by those choosing to walk or bike, including recreational users. Transit Since population centers are distant from one another, enhanced bus service could provide significant mobility. The County coordinates with and encourages transit usage and service to help residents, employees, and visitors reach their destinations. The County is looking to integrate transit into the regional transportation network. Its goal is to accommodate and complement fixed route networks outside of the UGAs as opportunities 12 Kittitas County Road Safety Plan 2017 present themselves. Service that is coordinated amongst the cities, as well as more frequent service with a larger coverage area could increase usage of the transit system and improve mobility. IZI*f ol►T1t�T:ti7irrr�: Regional development will play a role in the growing demands on Kittitas County's transportation network by 2038, The County is expected to continue adding residents and jobs. This growth will add traffic to Kittitas County's roads and could impact quality of life for county residents. Limited water availability on buildable lands limits growth to areas that already have development, which further concentrates traffic in developed areas. To improve mobility and connectivity to the rest of the region, the County should facilitate active partnerships with regional partners and stakeholders, such as WSDOT, QUADCO, and the cities. This coordination will ensure that Kittitas County residents, employees, and visitors continue to have a good experience on the transportation network. SAFETY Between 2011 and 2015, Kittitas County had five traffic collision fatalities and twenty-one serious injury collisions12. While this is comparable to injury rates on other public roads in the state, there is always room for improvement in safety. Ensuring that there are safe routes for evacuation and emergency response vehicles is also extremely important. This plan includes as its number one goal to provide safe connections for all users. Implementation of countermeasures should be considered, as appropriate, at locations with high incidence of more severe collisions, and at locations that improve emergency response. FUNDING Kittitas County, as with all jurisdictions, faces issues with how to fund improvements to the transportation network. Alternative sources of funding, such as grants and private dollars, should be explored to augment system funds and increase investment in transportation infrastructure. Moreover, this plan includes a goal to reliably fund 35�Page Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018 system maintenance and preservation. Capital project expenditures should consider projects' full lifecycle costs and also be balanced with the need to maintain the current system. 361Pige Kittitas County has established five goals to accomplish its overall vision for transportation in the future. The goals establish overarching priorities that serve the vision of this Transportation Element while policies lay out specific actions. Together, the goals and policies lay the foundation for the remainder of this Element, including the proposed project list and ongoing implementation of the Element. GOAL a — SAFE Create a transportation network that can be shared safely by all users and provides sufficient access for emergency response. Ia. Require new development to provide multiple access points that are designed to support emergency access and evacuation. 1b. Develop or update the existing evacuation plan that is interagency, ties specific transportation route designations to a countywide and regionally based system of emergency traffic routes, and identifies evacuation centers that accommodate people, pets, and livestock. 1c. Develop and maintain a safe, efficient and environmentally sound multi -modal transportation system in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. 1d. Provide all weather, all -season use of the road system for the movement of goods and services. 1e. Develop road standards that incorporate traffic calming techniques that are appropriate for the roadway and surrounding land use. If. Implement safety improvements in areas with high accident locations. 1g. Seek program funds for implementing investments identified in the countywide safety plan. 1h. Encourage new development to provide for safe transportation alternatives. GOAL 2— EFF"ICIENI AND ACCOMMO©ATES GROWTH, BUT RESPEC iS RURAL CHARACTER Provide a transportation system network that works hand-in-hand with existing and planned land uses, supports farm -to -market and recreational tourism needs, but respects the rural character and wildlife that residents cherish. 2a. Ensure an efficient regional system of roads that is functional, safe, accommodates evacuation, and is consistent with adopted County policy and local comprehensive plans. 2b. Encourage the development and implementation of transportation demand management programs appropriate for the various communities in the County. 2c. Develop and implement a concurrency management system, which identifies existing deficiencies and funded improvements to maintain adopted level of service standards. 2d. Build and maintain a modern transportation network that expands and grows with the needs of its growing population. 2e. Identify transportation corridors to be preserved as part of the overall transportation plan by requiring right-of- way dedication or easements as part of development approval, and by acquiring right-of-way for future needs. 2f. Maintain level of service "C" in rural areas and "D" in county urban areas as measured during the PM peak hour for roadway segments along segments that are classified as collectors or higher. 371 P g e Network: 2g. Provide a transportation system with a hierarchy of roads, with distinct purposes, forming a complete network. 2h. Encourage a grid system in the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) where practical. 2i. Evaluate and plan for regional facility improvements that may impact the County road system. Land use: 2j. Evaluate the merits of a proposed land use action against the potential impacts on the transportation system by reviewing development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation system and requiring developments to identify and mitigate their transportation impacts through SEPA or other local regulatory reviews and county permits or actions. 2k. Provide a transportation system that corresponds to and is consistent with patterns of land development and which provides access to and from population centers identified in the comprehensive plans in accordance with adopted land use plans. 21. Encourage land use development patterns and investments which reduce the demands on the roadway network. Farm to Market: 2m. Encourage opportunities for the county to explore rail transportation. 2n. Identify, designate, and protect agriculture transportation corridors that facilitate farm use. Wildlife: 2o. Consider refinements to roadway pians and design standards to minimize impacts to wildlife. 2p. Where appropriate, new roadways should consider incorporating wildlife friendly design features. GOAL 3- COMPLETE, MULTIMODAL, AND ACCOMMODATES OUTDOOR RECREATION Fill gaps in the system to accommodate safe and enjoyable travel by those choosing to walk, bike, or use transit, including recreational users. 3a. Consider alternative modes when reviewing development applications, incorporate multiple modes into transportation improvement projects, and establish development standards to support the use of alternative transportation modes. 3b. Develop a variety of performance measurements to evaluate the multi -modal transportation system and prioritize improvements. 3c. Work with WSDOT, transit, and local agencies to develop park-and-ride, park - and -pool, and express transit service where the need for such facilities has been identified. Non -motorized: 3d. Identify high priority non -motorized corridors and evaluate the highest priority improvements. 3e. Encourage the expansion and use of non - motorized transportation by constructing and maintaining safe, efficient, and pleasant streets for pedestrian and bicycle use. Recreation: 3f. Promote and support recreational activities throughout the County by providing adequate access. 3g. Coordinate with other entities to identify viable options and projects for connection to the John Wayne Pioneer Trail within Kittitas County and to adjacent counties. 381 0gc 3h. Support the construction of parking facilities at identified locations known for recreational and multi -modal use. Transit: 3i. Support efforts to provide public transportation services to the general population. 3j. Work with local transit operators to maintain existing transit services. Where appropriate, support service expansion. For the purposes of measuring Level of Service for transit routes in Kittitas County, the following table summarizes this Plan's standard: Work with transit to accommodate access to transit service expansion. Work with transit to maintain existing transit service. Failure to partner with transit 0. operator. GOAL 4 — LEVERAGED BY PARTNERSHIlPS Coordinate with a broad range of groups (including local, state, and regional agencies, airports, businesses, and the public) to develop and operate the transportation system. County/Agency planning: 4a. Identify, review, and resolve interjurisdictional transportation concerns within or affecting Kittitas County. 4b. Work with WSDOT, QuadCo RTPO, cities and neighboring counties to develop and maintain a system of arterials, collectors and local access roads. 4c. Coordinate transportation planning, construction and maintenance efforts with all affected agencies by developing joint transportation standards for UGAs between the County and the adjoining city or town. 4d. Seek partnerships with other public or private agents when mutual benefits and significant cost savings are anticipated as result of a coordinated transportation improvement project to maximize benefits while minimizing costs. 4e. Actively participate on selected state, regional and local transportation committees. 4f. Ensure County plans and policies are consistent with other plans and policies within the region. 4g. Identify stakeholders and include them in the decision-making process, and jointly develop a process for resolving conflicts between jurisdictions. 4h. Promote public information and communication with businesses, organizations, and individual citizens as part of the transportation planning and decision- making process. Airports/Airfields: 4i. Protect Kittitas County Airport (Bowers Field), Cle Elum Municipal, DeVere Field and Easton State airports from adjacent incompatible land uses and/or activities that could impact the present or future use of these or other public use airports as essential public facilities. 4j. Recognize air transport and airports as an important mode of the transportation system and coordinate with FAA and WSDOT Aviation Division. 4k. Maintain up-to-date maps of airport overlays and make available to the general public. 391PF9J_ GOAL 5 - SUSTAINABLY FUNDED AND MAINTAINS WHAT WE HAVE Plan for a financially -viable system that considers the full lifecycle costs of infrastructure and leverages outside funds, while maintaining existing transportation facilities in a state -of -good -repair to ensure their continued function. Funding/Costs: 5a. Improve the sustainability of the county's funding for maintenance, operations, and capital improvements. Periodically review funding status and consider either increasing revenues generated by existing sources or establishing new funding sources for transportation. 5b. Maximize local funds by pursuing outside funding sources for all transportation improvement projects. 5c. Consider all funding options for financing transportation improvements by evaluating the potential funds, including taxes, grants, fees, etc., and securing funds from all available sources. 5d. Encourage efforts to reduce the costs associated with administration of transportation improvement projects by identifying opportunities to consolidate or coordinate administration responsibilities. 5e. Ensure the transportation system can support new development and that new development funds all new construction and improvements that might be necessary to maintain adopted level of service standards. Project Choice/Prioritization 5f. Prioritize projects and expenditures of transportation funds that have multiple benefits. 5g. Prioritize arterial improvements and maintenance activities based on traffic volumes and identified safety concerns. 5h. Establish appropriate performance measures by maintaining the Pavement Management System (PMS) to measure pavement conditions and to prioritize maintenance or improvement projects, and the Hazard Elimination Safety Program to identify potentially hazardous locations and to prioritize mitigation measures. 5i. Maintain an arterial system that can accommodate legal weights year-round by developing a program for identifying and prioritizing maintenance and reconstruction projects for roads that are used primarily for freight and goods movement. Maintenance: 5j. Provide scheduled preservation and maintenance of valuable roadway assets. 5k. Consider the traffic volumes, type of use, adjacent land uses, and maintenance costs before approving any new county - maintained gravel roads. 51. Maintain and operate transportation infrastructure according to industry standards. 5m. Encourage and initiate Road Improvement Districts to bring all roads up to County standards. 5n. Protect at -risk roads by imposing seasonal weight restrictions as appropriate. 40 1 E0 9 " The capital plan (Chapter 6) of this element presents the future transportation infrastructure investments that are recommended to achieve the County's mobility goals. However, the vast majority of the County's future transportation system is already on the ground today and needs to be operated, maintained, and preserved over the life of this plan. The critical importance of adequately funding ongoing programmatic expenditures is emphasized in Goal 5 of this plan: Sustainably Funded and Maintains what We Have. This chapter discusses conditions and trends in programmatic expenditures related to the County's existing roads and bridges. 4.1 EX11571NG SYS -TEN The County road inventory consists of a total of 562 miles of roads and 268 county -owned bridges. This inventory does not include State Routes or city streets, which are maintained and operated by the State and city agencies, respectively. Rural roads form the majority of the system (539 miles). A total of 64 miles of county roadways were unpaved in 2017. To keep this system functioning, the County makes the following types of investments, which are described in further detail below: ■ Maintenance. Routine and ongoing activities to ensure facility utility, e.g. pothole repair and snow and ice control. ■ Preservation. More substantive improvements to extend the useful life of assets, like pavement repair and chip seals. ■ Administration and Operations. Public works transportation administration and support, engineering and planning services that support transportation projects. Other Roadway Operations. Roadway elements, buildings and maintenance facilities that support the transportation program. • Construction. Roadway improvements, safety and preservation projects, and parks and recreation construction. MAINTENANCE The County performs regular maintenance on its roadway system. Maintenance is considered a routine activity associated with repairing a physical asset or keeping the physical asset functional during its useful life. The major maintenance activities conducted by the county include: • Pavement crack sealing and pothole repair • Gravel road maintenance • Shoulder maintenance • Roadside maintenance • Road storm drainage facility maintenance • Bridge/Culvert repair and maintenance • Guardrail repair and maintenance • Signing and striping PRESERVATION Preservation is the replacement or repair of an asset to keep it in service at its lowest life cycle cost. Examples of preservation are replacing a bridge or repaving a roadway. There is a strong relationship between maintenance and preservation, in that if the County's roadways are well maintained, it will maximize their useful life and minimize the cost of keeping the roadways functional when it comes time to repair/replace them. The following activities are examples of preservation: Pavement repair followed by o Chip Sealing o Hot Mix Asphalt overlay • Bridge rehabilitation/replacement To monitor pavement maintenance and preservation needs, Kittitas County maintains a Pavement Management (PM) program that regularly collects data and rates pavement conditions for all paved roadways under the County's jurisdiction. The ratings are the result of field assessments of the percentage of roadway surface experiencing conditions like alligator cracking, longitudinal 4�LIP Ye cracking, patching, asphalt raveling, and transverse cracking in a given length of roadway. From these observations, the Pavement Surface Condition (PSC) rating is calculated. The rating is a scale of 0 to 100 (Figure 16). Pavement Condition Index +1ery good 80-100 Good 60-80 Fair 40-60 Poor 20-40 Very Poor 0-20 Figure 16 PSC Rating Scale These ratings are used to evaluate treatment strategies, assess overall management of the roadway surface network, and inform future funding needs. As Figure 17 shows, pavement degrades in a non- linear fashion. Once pavement falls into the fair/poor categories, its condition rapidly degrades without maintenance intervention. The cost to bring a road into good condition or maintain it at this level escalates quickly as the roadway degrades. A road in good condition can be maintained with simple patching and sealing, whereas roads in fair condition may require an overlay, and very poor condition roads often require full reconstruction. Excellent TypicalPa�ft"Snr� 40% Drop r�7 Good m Quality o� Fair . -------7545oLde ----------►. Poor 40% Drop ' m Quality ; Very Poor _1295 of life - . 10 15 20 25 Years Figure 17 National Standard Deterioration Curve for Pavement In addition to roadways, the other major asset that the County is responsible for is bridges. The state mandates a biannual review of all bridges to determine their condition. The result of this analysis is a rating of bridges to determine the condition of the structure and if they are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. Of the 268 bridges under the county's jurisdiction, 60 have only timber railing or no railing at all, while several other structures require deck rehabilitation, scour repairs, railing improvements, painting, or structural concrete repairs. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS Another critical component to keeping the County's transportation system functioning are the public works staff that administer and support the system by responding to emergencies, conducting maintenance activities, administering permits, and providing planning and engineering improvements to the system. OTHER ROADWAY OPERATIONS Other roadway operations include the roadway elements such as traffic control and street lighting that keep the network operating efficiently. There are many other elements of County roads including shoulders, drainage features, walls, guardrail, signage, traffic signals and streetlights. Most of these elements have not had a systematic method of evaluating condition over time, with elements of the 421P-ig0 30 system replaced only when they fail or fall out of compliance. It is a federal requirement that signs be replaced when the visibility of the sign at night falls below a prescribed visibility. To comply with this mandate, the County must determine when signs need to be replaced based on the average visibility of a sign. Different sign material fades at different rates. Support infrastructure for the transportation system, such as snowplows, street cleaners, maintenance shops, and other heavy machinery that are owned and maintained by the County keep the transportation system functioning year round. Operations for flood control and extraordinary circumstances are also a critical part of anticipating transportation needs. CONSTRUCTION Last but not least, construction activities to advance the transportation network include new roadway improvements, major preservation construction, construction for safety improvements, and park and recreation expenditures. The following table (Table 4) shows programmatic expenditures over the past 10 years. Some bridges may not show visible signs of wear but proper maintenance is necessary to keep them in good repair. An example of maintenance needs on County roads. 431Page cn m Ln rl Ln N 00 0 M ca M cc -;r rq QqL 0 0 co CD 00 Go Ln r" co ori, m ID LO ID Lo N LO fv� eq In m 'i Ln Lri tb �q Irt -t r -I -t m , -t C3 Lr) o 0 Ln is Vl LO M I co _q in, in 1^ VN I vi � C4 Do i 0 0 1*� 1 0 f,Ln cc M co%r LO co LO LO ct CD R I Ln cnm Ch Im C* 0 Rt cc qt r4 r,LO (n in 1A. en, tN C4 tm I r -i r-4 w I r4 01 I rn I 00 W ro no -4 1 C4 00 i It O I m14 a1 fft al I Co in i w Ln, Rr CO MNr, -4 N loo .4 m co 1 v w rn CD r% r! m! 1 N Ln ID N I N ei I ri ri I ri I 14 4ri- vi- tri- vl qj)- q^ I AA tn 4j" N 00 C4 (14 N 00 gr I N Im r4 LD Ln rl co Ili O0 rt rt 00 N 06 r�� 00 i v wr - r-I Ln i a Ln N N 00 mI q-1 Ln Ln A4 L4 V$. In V1. V} In qjl- Go 0 Ln 0 g 11 cm r% LO nni Im P'� a� "R LIZ a! r,�. %D v co m M co cl T-4 N 00 14 m w eq N w c0 r4�q V . in iff 44 4n V� - 44 in I vlL en m Do I rn co Ln P, m LLnn co Ln to N m -4Ln Ln 00 N Ln 4 00 Ln i w O I CY) 06 1 00 W , i ff� en 06 -D 4 N W N 0 o 0 0 mLM fn cn ev a l r -I (N in 4A. w 01o rl I C4 e+1 14 LA 0 0 0 0 42 N ry N N N 4.2 BW)GFTING FOR GOOD STATE OF REPAIR The County evaluated its transportation system inventory and likely maintenance and preservation needs over the next 20 years. Below, each element of the County's inventory is described with annual expenditure needs summarized at the end. PAVEMENT The primary type of paved roadway under Kittitas County's jurisdiction is Bituminous Surface Treated Road. Bituminous surface treatment (BST), also known as chip seal, is a lower-cost treatment that has a short design life of approximately 7 years. The county currently has 498 -centerline miles of BST paved roadways that are in fair to very good condition (PSC more than 40). Performing an overlay of a BST roadway is approximately $30,000 per centerline mile. Table 5, below, summarizes the annual investment need for pavement preservation based on this inventory. 75 miles of paved roadway are chip sealed each year under the current maintenance schedule. With a total of 498 miles of roadway this means that the entire network is maintenanced every 7 years, which is the design life of a chip seal treatment. Consistent with Goal 5 of Sustainably Funded and Maintains What We Have, this plan recommends continuing the current maintenance schedule and associated expenditures to keep the roadways in good repair. IGRAVEL ROADS While paved roads make up the majority of the County road network, Kittitas County also maintains 64 miles of gravel roads. While gravel is less expensive than chip sealing, gravel roads only have a design life of one year and must be maintained more frequently. Historically the County has budgeted enough to perform the necessary annual maintenance to keep all of the gravel roads in good repair and it is recommended that this maintenance plan continue. OTHER SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE While pavement preservation is the primary cost related to County roads, there are other important elements to consider, including shoulders, culverts and drainage features, pedestrian facilities, guardrail, concrete barriers, signals and signage. Table 5 summarizes costs associated with these and other maintenance preservation activities over the life of this plan. OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES There are a variety of regular operations that must take place to keep the transportation network in good repair. These include vegetation control, snow and ice control, and the operations associated with pedestrian crossings, paths and trails, and litter clean up. BRIDGES As described earlier, there are 268 bridges under Kittitas County's jurisdiction and ten are considered functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. To protect the safety and continued mobility of Kittitas County residents and businesses, this Plan recommends continuing the current practice of rehabilitating one bridge each year. Itis assumed that the cost to rehabilitate a bridge is approximately $2 million, a conservative estimate to ensure that enough funds are available to cover all project costs and any unforeseen costs. Currently the majority of this cost is being borne by the County, so assuming no outside funding the cost to the County of retrofitting these bridges would be approximately $20 million over the next 10 years. In addition to the 10 identified deficient bridges, 97 bridges on the County's inventory will meet or exceed their 75 -year design life within the 20 -year horizon of this document. Continuing to prioritize and budget $2 million annually after addressing the 10 deficient bridges provides enough money based on currently estimated costs to make substantial progress on these additional bridges as repairs are needed. The cost for bridge replacement is included in the project list in Table 11 (page 53). MAJOR FINDINGS It is worthwhile to note that this analysis suggests that the County's historical investments in preservation, maintenance, and related operations are not sufficient to cover the expected operational costs for the next 20 years. The County will need to potentially consider additional funding sources for transportation in order to meet the operational needs over the 20 -year planning horizon. The final chapter of this Plan considers ways to increase transportation revenues, such as a transportation benefit district with vehicle license fee, sales and use tax, and a levy lid lift, all of which could fund both operational and capital expenses. Table S. Recommended Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures Paved County Roads Paved Roads PSC> 40 i Fair to Very I Good 498 I Center line i (CL) miles 7 I $30,000 per CL mile $2,250,000 Grave! County Roads I Gravel Roads 64 CL miles 1 $7,000 per CL mile $450,000 Other Supporting Infrastructure (Signs, Guardrall, Striping) Maintain and Replace Lump Sum 1 Historic Cost $350,000 $350,000 Vegetation Control (Brushing, Mowing, Herbicide and Sterliant) Operational Expenditure Lump Sum 1 $350,000 Historic Cost I $350,000 Snow and Ice Control (Plowing, Sanding, Oe -icer, clean up) Operational ! Expenditure Lump Sum i 1 Historic Cost $750,000 $750,000 Other Maintenance (Sidewalks, Path and Trails, Fence, Litter, Livestock Crossings, Lightening) Operational Expenditure Lump Sum Historic Cost 1 $40,000 $40,000 Maintain and Replace Lump Sum Historic Cost 1 $600,000 $600,000 Bridge Maintenance and Repair Super/Sub Structure Annual Repairs Lump Sum Historic Cost 1 $60,000 $60,000 Annual Cost $4,850,000 Full Cost for All Elements (Years 1-20) $97,000,000 Source. Fehr and Peers, 2018; Kittitas County Public Works, 2017 461Pag =. 4.3 POLICIES TO SUPPORT A GUOD STATE OF REPAIR The following policies are recommended to enhance Kittitas County's ability to preserve its existing system over the course of this Plan. Many of these policies have been applied in other jurisdictions. PRIORITIZE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OVER SYSTEM EXPANSION The cost-effective preservation of the existing and future transportation system should be a funding priority ahead of expanding the system. This Plan recommends continuing the current maintenance schedule to ensure the network stays in good repair IDENTIFY NEW SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT CAN PAY FOR MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION The County should look for ways to increase the amount of annual funding available for system maintenance and preservation activities. In considering new sources of funding, those that can fund maintenance and system preservation activities should be prioritized. MAINTAIN THE COUNTY`S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AT LOWEST LIFECYCLE COST To maximize the County's funding resources, transportation assets should be replaced or rehabilitated at the point of lowest cost in the lifecycle of the asset. ENHANCE THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO CONSIDER MORE COMPREHENSIVE A comprehensive asset management system for all road assets is a key strategy for being able to accomplish the goal of lowest life -cycle cost for these assets. The County's Pavement Management system is an excellent step in the right direction, although the system could be expanded to monitor the condition of a comprehensive list of roadway assets, such as guardrail, signs, and concrete barriers. A comprehensive asset management system includes the following elements: • Setting level of service goals • Developing and maintaining a complete inventory of assets Regularly collecting asset condition and usage data • Tracking costs Developing a method for evaluating risk • Developing a method for evaluating when and how to replace or refurbish the asset Adopting performance measures that provide information to best manage the resources used to manage the asset. Once all of these elements of a system are in place to manage an asset, County staff can justify and allocate the resources needed to effectively preserve the assets. MAINTAIN A RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS i UNFUNDED PROGRAMMATIC AND j UNANTICIPATED EVENTS In recent years, the County has seen an uptick in system failures related to weather, environmental regulations, and aging infrastructure. While the County currently has a reserve fund to address unanticipated events, it is swiftly being depleted. The County should prioritize maintaining their reserve fund at no less than $4.5-5 million dollars to ensure that they have the resources to counteract emergency situations. The types of expenditures that might be covered by this sort of account include: • Bridge Repairs • Culvert Replacement Guardrail Infill • ADA Compliant Needs * Slope/Wall Stabilization • Hazardous Tree Removal Increase in Regulatory Mandates • Emergency Funding P a g Kittitas County envisions a future transportation system that serves all users and modes of travel by offering a safe and robust network of walkways, bicycle facilities, roadways, and complementary transit options. This transportation system is well linked with the built environment, since the way people travel is greatly influenced by the key destinations where people live, work, shop, and recreate. This chapter describes Kittitas County's vision for its future transportation network and establishes how to identify infrastructure improvements that will get the County there (described in Chapter 6). As identified in this plan, most of the improvements are focused on the development of a 'layered' transportation network, which focuses on providing complete accommodation for all modes of travel. While some of the projects identified in this Transportation Element are needed to meet the County's vehicular level of service (LOS) standard, many of the future improvements focus on bringing roadways up to modern County standards, providing safer and more complete facilities for walking and cycling, and preserving existing roads and bridges 5.1 6NTRODUCTT 061,1 TO THE LAYERED NETWORK It can be a challenge for a single roadway to meet the demands and expectations of all modes at any given time. This is also generally not desirable from a user or a planning perspective. In response to this challenge, Kittitas County has adopted a layered network approach that focuses on how the County's transportation network can function as a system to meet the needs of all users. In such a system, different facilities are identified for different travel needs to ensure that everyone has complete accommodation throughout the overall network. Figure 18 illustrates the concept of a layered network. The County will implement this layered network through a system of modal networks that define each street's user priorities and associated infrastructure needs. Figure 18 Layered Network 5.2 MODAL NETWORKS Roads in Kittitas County serve different travel purposes, and the modal networks therefore prioritize a different balance of users on each corridor. Determining how the entire transportation network fits together in Kittitas County requires identifying desirable routes for each mode, combining them to locate overlaps, and then identifying infrastructure enhancements to ensure safe and complete facilities for all modes. The following sections review the priority networks for each mode and establish their level of service standards. 48 1 ..1 9 e WALKING Walking is the most fundamental transportation mode of all since virtually all trips include a walking component. Effective pedestrian facilities enable community building and social equity. While many of the County's roads do not need fully separate sidewalks or paths due to the lack destinations in close proximity in rural areas, arterials and collectors in the UGAs and LAMIRDs may warrant dedicated pedestrian infrastructure. Dense areas with commercial land uses and roadways that serve schools, parks, and churches are particularly important as they support more pedestrians and may have a larger portion of vulnerable users than other roadways. Measures such as increased separation from moving vehicles, marked crosswalks, bulb -out curbing, and sidewalks at crossings can keep pedestrians safer. The County is required by Federal guidelines to establish an ADA Transition Plan. This should be prioritized to ensure that both new and existing pedestrian infrastructure is accessible for all users. Table 6 and Table 7 establish guidance in terms of the level of accommodation that the County wishes to provide for pedestrians. Table 6 applies to the UGA and LAMIRD areas, where pedestrian demands warrant special attention. The highest level of accommodation for walking, indicated in the green row, would provide improved pedestrian facilities such as trails and separated facilities that are ADA accessible and have wayfinding signage and milepost markers. The yellow level of accommodation would make strong progress in maintaining the existing sidewalk and pedestrian network and building out the network by filling sidewalk gaps or pedestrian shoulders to ensure that a pedestrian facility is provided on at least one side of the roadway. Incomplete or missing pedestrian facilities would fall into the red category and not satisfy the County's goals for accommodating pedestrians. Table 6. Pedestrian Accommodation Descriptions for Roadways within the UGA and LAMIRDs Improved network of paved trails that are ADA accessible and have marked wayfinding signage and milepost markers. _ Maintain existing sidewalk and pedestrian facility provided on one side of the street. No pedestrian facility or existing facilities allowed to decay. Table 7 applies to unincorporated areas outside of the UGA and LAMIRD areas, where pedestrian demands are considerably lower. The highest level of accommodation for walking, indicated in the green row, would provide enhanced pedestrian facilities relative to what exists today. These types of improvements could be provision of trails, wayfinding signage, or sidewalks or wide shoulders on at least one side of the roadway. The yellow level of accommodation would include maintaining what exists today. Allowing facilities to fall into disrepair would fall into the red category. Table 7. Pedestrian Accommodation Descriptions for Roadways outside of the UGA and LAMIRDs Improved network of pedestrian facilities from what exists today. Maintain existing sidewalk and pedestrian facilities. No maintenance of existing facilities, allowed to decay. 491P;i9e BICYCLING The City of Ellensburg already offers recreational bicycling options on the multiple trails spanning its length such as the Coal Mine Trail and John Wayne Trail. Connecting to these routes from other areas of the County can be challenging, however, due to the lack of bicycle infrastructure. Bicyclists can share the road with motorists but high speeds, lack of paved shoulders, and lack of separation from auto traffic can be a deterrent. Kittitas County can strive for the green level of accommodation for bicycling by installing bicycle facilities that offer more separation from vehicle traffic. At a minimum, maintaining its existing bicycle infrastructure including shoulders along County roads and supporting city and regional entities in implementing bike projects will achieve the yellow level of accommodation. Removal or degradation of existing bicycle facilities would not meet the County's desired level of accommodation as shown in Table S. Table S. Bit cle Accommodation Descriptions Installation of facilities that provide more separation from vehicle traffic. Maintain existing bicycle infrastructure and -- support city and regional entities in implementing improvements. No maintenance of existing bicycle facilities, allowed to decay. TRANSIT Transit operations are not dictated by the County but Kittitas County can still create an environment that is welcoming to transit. The County will work with Central Transit to assist with transportation accommodations for planned service expansions and identify areas where additional or future service or improvements are needed. Table 9 provides guidance for the County's level of accommodation for Transit. Table 9. Transit Accommodation Descriptions Work with transit to accommodate access to transit service expansion. Work with transit to maintain existing transit service. Failure to partner with transit operator. SOIPagti i FREIGHT & AUTO Most trips in Kittitas County occur along its roadway network, which serves as the backbone for accessing homes, jobs, and other destinations. Many of these routes are rural, however, and do not see significant traffic volumes throughout the day. Similarly, goods movement and delivery vehicles use some corridors frequently while other roads see only the occasional local delivery. Figures 7 to 9 (pages 24 to 22) call out the functional classification of each of Kittitas County's roads, in terms of whether it is an arterial, collector, or local road. These classes indicate the level of priority of each road for automobiles, specifically in terms of facilitating vehicle and freight mobility as well as other modes. The figures also show potential future road extensions, which may be completed overtime as development occurs. Figure 13 (page 29) identifies the major WSDOT freight corridors that support goods movement. These classifications indicate the annual weight of goods that travel a corridor, whether via large trailer loads or smaller delivery vehicles. The functional classification and freight class of a road should guide future investments in streetscape to ensure that roads can carry appropriate freight loads. Kittitas County will maintain its current LOS standards of LOS C for rural roads and LOS D for roads within urban growth boundaries. Of the 45 road segments analyzed, all currently meet the County's LOS standard. Appendix B of this element summarizes existing and future forecast delay along key roadway segments in the County. The capital list provided in the next chapter includes future roadway projects that would maintain the County's LOS standard through 2038. The LOS analysis found that only one road segment will not meet the County's standards with the currently predicted level of growth (E Sowers Road from the Ellensburg city boundary to Piper Road). However, the planned extension of E Bowers Road to connect with Look Road would bring this road segment back into compliance. Kittitas County's roadways provide access to jobs and services throughout the region. An urban street faces different needs than a rural one. Interstates facilitate goods movement and regional tripsmaking. This chapter presents the capital program that forms the basis of this Transportation Plan. Collectively, this program adds up to $127 million in transportation improvements to be constructed over the next twenty years as seen in Table 10. Funding to support this program will come from number of sources including the County's general funds, gas taxes, property taxes, as well as federal and state grants. Since the County's ability to attract outside funding sources is unknown, this project list may reach beyond the 20 -year time horizon. The program was developed to create a transportation system that realizes Kittitas County's goal: safe, balanced, and efficient multi -modal transportation system that serves anticipated local and regional growth. This vision is guided by the transportation goals outlined in this Plan: 1. Safe 2. Efficient and Accommodates Growth, but Respects Rural Character 3. Complete, Multimodal, and Accommodates Outdoor Recreation 4. Leveraged by Active Partnerships 5. Sustainably Funded and Maintains What We Have With these goals in mind, as well as completing the layered networks described in the previous chapter, the project list was developed. Table 11 describes the recommended projects, which represent a balance of safety, maintenance, and operational improvements for all modes. These projects provide a starting point for the County in developing its Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, which is updated annually and is developed based on knowledge related to project feasibility and funding availability. They were scored based on their ability to meet the goals outlined in Chapter 4 —Transportation Goals and Policies. A full list of scoring criteria is included in Appendix D Table 10. Costs of Kittitas County Trans ortation Plan f20+ years) Road Projects to Ensuring LOS standards $2.4 Accommodate are met Growth f Roadway Traffic signals, $19.6 Investments intersection improvements, capacity i enhancements f _ Nonmotorized _ Bicycle and Pedestrian $4.9 _ projects, trails Evacuation Priority evacuation $10 I routes Bridge Replacement of Bridges $61.6 T Replacement that are structurally deficient or +75 years Maintenance and Overlay, pavement $28.8 Rehabilitation repair, and bridge repairs Planning Planning studies $0.1 Total $127.4 Note: Costs denoted in millions Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018 521- :ige Table 11. Twenty Year Project List Road Projects to Accommodate Growth $2,400,000 Z I Bowers Road to Look Road Connector $2,400,000 10 Roadway Investments $19,571,184 1 Bender Road - Widening and Pedestrian Improvements $3,300,000 22 2 Manastash Road Creek Bank Stabilization and Snow Park improvements Milepost 10.65 to 11.01 $2,400,000 18 3 Fairview Road Widening & Coleman Creek Structures, Brick Mill Road to Rader Road Milepost 5.03-6.05 $2,250,000 17 4 Manastash Road Bridge Milepost 10.567 -10.633 (State Funding Secured) $2,500,000 16 5 Reecer Creek Road - advanced warning signs Milepost 0.26 - 0.312 $20,000 16 6 Reecer Creek Road - curves that need advanced warning signs, chevrons Milepost 4.80-6.68 $20,000 16 7 Denmark Road Safety Improvements - railing Milepost 0.50-3.08, countermeasures Milepost 3.08-4,35 $385,684 16 8 Brick Mill Road Bridge over Naneum Creek Milepost 0.10 East Naneum Road $1,500,000 15 9 Fairview Road Bridge over Coleman Creek Milepost 0.23 North of Brickmill Road $2,500,000 15 10 Bowers Road Extension $1,675,000 13 11 Bender Road to Dry Creek Road Connector $1,500,000 10 12 Brick Mill Road & Wilson Creek Road - four way stop controlled intersection $20,500 2 13 Kittitas Highway & Number 6 Road - four way stop controlled intersection $750,000 2 14 Vantage Highway & Number 6 Road - four way stop controlled intersection $750,000 2 Nonmotorized Projects $4,400,000 1 Canyon Road on road bike trail - City Limits to SR 821 (No Widening) $500,000 17 2 Reecer Creek Road on road bike trail - University Way to Bowers Road (No Widening) $125,000 17 3 Hansen Pits Park Master Plan - West of T)ossem Road / Canyon Road intersection $25,000 14 4 1 Cie Elum Pedestrian Bridge - S. Cie Elum Bridge Vicinity $1,250,000 14 5 Ellensburg Greenway John Wayne Trail Reconnection $1,000,000 14 6 River to Rodeo Trail $2,000,000 ' 14 7 McCabe Ringer Loop 14 8 Reecer Creek Trail 14 9 City Parks Trail 14 10 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Trail 14 f 11 ; Spray Fields Trail 14 12 Hanson Pits Trail n14 13 I Wetlands Trail 14 River Walk Trail 14 _31P -9e 15 Yakima River Canyon Scenic Byway Trails 14 Evacuation Routes $10,000,000 1 1 Middle Fork Teanaway Road to Salmon La Sac Road Connector $10,000,000 16 Bridge Replacement $61,648,820 1 Replacement of Structurally Deficient/Obsolete Bridges: • Manastash Road over Manastash Creek (Milepost 7.09) • Naneum Road over Hiline Canal (Milepost 0.14) • North Fork Teanaway Road over North Fork Teanaway River (Milepost 2.85) • Old Highway 10 over Currier Creek (Milepost 0.72) • Durr Road over Umptanum Creek (Milepost 4.05) • Hayward Road over Hiline Canal (Milepost 0.78) • Cooke Can Road over Cooke Creek (Milepost 2.54) • Ross Road over Turbine Canal (Milepost 1.03) • Cove Road over Manastash Creek (Milepost 0.37) • N Thorp Highway over Mill Ditch (Milepost 0.51) $20,000,000 17 2 Bridges past useful life (t75 years) within the 20 year planning horizon (97 total) $41,648,820 12 Necessary Maintenance/Rehabilitation $28,788,731 1 Teanaway Road Hydraulic Improvements Milepost 6.91— West Fork Teanaway Road Milepost 8.64 $2,336,000 13 2 Thorp Cemetery Road - inadequate railing and curves that need delineators/signs Milepost 0.00-3.02 $585,150 13 3 Bridge Rail Improvements Phase 1-19 structures in Maintenance Districts A -F $559,914 13 4 Bridge Rail Improvements Phase 2 - 21 structures in Maintenance Districts G-1 $524,418 13 5 Bridge Rail Improvements Phase 3 - 20 structures in Maintenance Districts J -L $597,233 13 6 Clear Zone Inventory - data collection, database creation, scoping level mitigation opportunities identified $75,000 13 7 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 1- 6 structures in Maintenance Districts A -D $766,927 13 8 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 2 -16 structures in Maintenance District E $948,625 13 9 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 3 -17 structures in Maintenance District F $974,967 13 10 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 4 - 21 structures in Maintenance District G $1,032,990 13 11 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 5 -14 structures in Maintenance Districts H-1 $875,433 13 12 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 6 -14 structures in Maintenance District J -K $754,201 13 13 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 7 -12 structures in Maintenance Districts L $548,920 13 14 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 1 Phase 1- 2 structures in Maintenance Districts A -D $389,540 13 15 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 1 Phase 2 -1 structures in Maintenance District E $938,840 13 16 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 1 Phase 3 -17 structures in Maintenance District F -L $429,573 13 17 Airport Road Cie Elum - replace irrigation culverts crossing road Milepost 0.23-1.50 $1,876,000 12 18 Hungry Junction Road Bridge over Cascade Creek Milepost 0.02 West Kerr Road $750,000 12 I 19 Lyons Road Bridge over Naneum Creek Milepost 0.38 West Naneum Road $750,000 12 20 Lyons Road Bridge over Creek Milepost 0.96 East Naneum Road $750,000 12 21 Lyons Road Bridge over Naneum Creek Milepost 0.83 East Wilson Creek Road $750,000 12 9= 22 Naneum Road Culvert Replacement - Fish Passage $730,000 11 24 McManamy Road Bridge over Dry Creek Milepost 0.21 SR 97 $1,900,000 10 25 ! Number 6 Road Irrigation Bridge over Town Ditch Milepost 0.63 $685,000 10 26 Thrall Road at bridges, canals, and fills Milepost 0.00 - 5.30 $300,000 10 27 ; Lambert Road Bridge Milepost 0.67 - 7.00 $250,000 110 28 Reecer Creek Road & Robbins Road intersection $500,000 10 29 Kachess Lake Road - Culvert Replacement Milepost 2.5 $660,000 6 30 Mohar Road - Settlement Reconstruction Milepost 1.75 - 2.01 $545,000 6 31 University Way Bridge Repairs over BNSF RR Milepost 1.61 $175,000 6 32 Wiehl Road Improvement District $650,000 16 33 Yellowstone Road Culvert Replacement I Milepost 0.70 $1,000,000 6 34 N Thorp Highway Bridge over Yakima River -Joint Repair $180,000 4 35 N Thorp Highway Bridge over Yakima River - Painting Project $4,000,000 4 Planning Projects $100,000 1 I ADA Transition Plan $100,000 20 Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018 6,1 REGIONAL COLLABORATION As stated earlier, the County's priority in this plan is to coordinate with a broad range of groups to develop and operate the transportation system. A key element of this will be partnering with the city governments, WSDOT, and USFS to ensure regional travel patterns do not impact quality of life in Kittitas County. CITIES There are city projects outside of Kittitas County's purview that will affect travel in and around the County. Ellensburg recently updated their comprehensive plan and identified transportation projects within the city limits that are needed to accommodate future growth. The County should balance its land use and roadway network with adopted city plans. Coordination with Ellensburg as well as the other cities within the County will be necessary to determine the best allocation of resources for transportation improvements. TRANSIT FACILITIES On the transit side, Ellensburg is working to improve Central Transit service and facilities within the City that will connect with regional transit options. Envisioned improvements include: Adding a northeast route stretching east to Pfenning Road and north to Bender Road Adding a west route traveling out to Dolarway Road and University Way Development of a transit center Greater Kittitas County currently only has on demand transit service within the region but a more integrated Central Transit network would support the County transit and any future expansions. Increased Central Transit service will also connect residents to the intercity Yakima Commuter route that travels between Ellensburg and Yakima during the week. WSDOT WSDOT supports multimodal integration into projects and planning multi -agency and community network interconnectivity. The state system provides access to key destinations within the County, so WSDOT will partner with Kittitas County to ensure that both agencies' needs and concerns are addressed. One of the biggest projects that will impact travel in the region is the WSDOT 1-90 Snoqualmie Pass East widening. The first two phases of the project will complete widening, paving, and safety improvements along seven miles of 1-90 and are projected to be finished in 2019. Completion of this roadway is expected to improve safety and mobility within Kittitas County. U.S. FOREST SERVICE The USFS owns and maintains roads throughout Okanogan -Wenatchee National Forest, which covers a large portion of Kittitas County. Maintenance and repairs are necessary to provide access to popular recreation destinations. Collaboration with the USFS is necessary to ensure these facilities are maintained and accessible to Kittitas County residents and visitors. 1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) partners with local agencies to oversee maintenance, capital projects, and preservation of the country's roads and bridges. It regulates road operations, provides research and guidance on transportation best practices, and is a potential source of funds for improvement projects throughout the County. S 6 1 p 9 = This chapter considers Kittitas County's funding picture over the next 20 years and provides strategies to support implementation of the recommendations made as part of this Transportation Element. Based on historical revenues, the County will generate an estimated $207 million over the 20 -year planning horizon, with $130 million available for operations and $77 million restricted for capital expenses. With a projected $171 million in operational expenses, the County faces a $41 million deficit in operating revenues. The $77 million in revenue for capital expenses is not sufficient to complete the $127 million of projects on the County's prioritized project list. The County faces an additional $50 million deficit in revenues for capital projects. Together, the County faces a $91 million deficit in operating and capital costs. Any funding strategy must balance stated goals against developing sustainable revenue sources that are feasible for the County to implement. This is even more pressing given the limited means counties have at their disposal for raising revenue. Washington's counties are different from cities and special service districts in fundamental ways. These differences are brought into stark relief by considering the interplay of four factors: • Counties face strict limits on their taxing authority. Counties are heavily reliant on property taxes. Counties face a long list of regional service obligations that are mandated by the state. Counties have a complex set of relationships with multiple constituencies: o They collect regional taxes and provide regional services for all constituents in the county. o They collect local taxes and provide local services to unincorporated areas. Historically, the County's transportation program has been operating at capacity. During the last few years, transportation revenues have dropped below operating expenditures. At the same time, the County has been accumulating a growing list of capital projects that are critically needed to provide safe roads, highways, bridges, and infrastructure. In addition, the County had been growing at a steady rate and this growth is expected to continue. Kittitas County has a long list of service obligations with few options for securing new revenue streams. Looking into the future, Kittitas County faces a fundamental, structural challenge—and this larger systemic issue must be considered as part of a long- term transportation funding strategy. 7.1. BALANCING FINa_Mr.iAI CAPACITYVVITN FUTURE FUNDING NEEDS When comparing total available revenues for transportation with expected costs over the 20 -year planning horizon, revenues fall short of paying for the current estimated operating and capital costs. Detailed revenue and expenditure calculations can be found in Appendix E. Two main strategies can be used to balance this implementation plan: 1. decrease expenses by decreasing level -of - service or further prioritizing capital projects. 2. Increase revenue, through increases in existing funding tools or implementation of new funding or financing tools. Funding and financing strategies should fund capital investments that are currently needed, as well as help the County sustainably fund future capital needs. j DECREASE EXPENSES Prioritization Project prioritization is needed to help identify when best to fund and implement the projects since funding is limited. Criteria were established to help prioritize the projects and implementation13 Using these criteria, the recommended projects were evaluated and ranked based on how well each could meet the criteria. High priority projects for Kittitas County are those that meet multiple criteria in terms of effectiveness, benefit to the community, and ability to be implemented. As the current 20 - year project list is expected to exceed the County's revenue, these criteria can be used to evaluate both current and future projects. Level of Service maintenance Current operating expenditures incorporate additional costs needed to bring locations failing LOS standards back into compliance. Going forward, expenditures will maintain existing levels of service, which may not be as capital intensive. Decreasing current expenses is not likely to yield large gains, as the County has already implemented this strategy where possible. FUTURE FUNDING STRATEGIES Given the limited ability of the County to further reduce expenditures, the following list of potential funding options was compiled to help address future funding needs: • increase Revenues through Funding Tools: o $20 Vehicle Licensing Fee levied via a Transportation Benefit District 0 0.2% Sales and Use Tax levied via a Transportation Benefit District o County Road Property Tax Levy Lid Lift o Transportation Impact Fees o General Fund Allocations o Reclaiming Diverted County Road Levy Property Tax Capacity o Property Tax Levy Lid Lift —County General Expense Levy o Sale of Existing Capital Assets o Real Estate Excise Tax 2 13 See Appendix E for a detailed description for how each project was evaluated and scored relative to the transportation goals using a scoring matrix. • Increase Revenues through New Financing Tools: o Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds o Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bond Each of these options has its own challenges, and there is no easy solution to balancing revenues and needs. It is recommended that the County pursue a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and then establish a Vehicle Licensing Fee, in combination with a County Road property tax levy lid lift. It should also explore Transportation Impact Fees and a Sales and Use Tax levied via a Transportation Benefit District as avenues for additional revenue. While Impact Fees can only be used for capital costs, the other three can be used to cover both operating and capital costs. Table 12 summarizes these tools and their potential for revenue. 58 1 P rl g s' Table 12. Opportunities to Increase Revenues through Funding and Financing Tools AdditioFial r - Eligible iWho Revenues Description Orderof EL 0 Pirogrommatir Capital Required? u� Recommended Funding Tools $20 Vehicle Licensing Independent taxing districts created through X X No, up to Vehicle $$-$$$ j Fee levied via a I ordinance can impose a vehicle fee, without $50. Owners Transportation Benefit , voter approval, of up to $20; $40 if a $20 fee Yes, above District ' has been in effectfor at least 24 months; and $50 and up $50 if a $40 fee has been in effectfor at least to $100. I j 24 months. Vehicle license fees can be as much as $100 with voter approval 0.2% Sales and Use Independent taxing districts created through X X Yes Consumers , $$ Tax levied via a ordinance can impose additional sales and use Transportation Benefit tax of up to 0.296 District County Road property increase property taxes in taxing districts X X Yes Property $$$ tax levy lid lift without banked capacity beyond the 196 limit Owners ! for six years up to a rate equal to or less than the statutory maximum rate Transportation Impact Fees charged to developers to fund impacts i X No Developers $$ Fees related to development as established by a j rate study or levied as part of SEPA mitigation. (single family homes exempt) Other Funding and Financing Tools deemed unfeasible at this time Reclaiming Diverted Reclaiming funds diverted for other County X X No Other $ County Road Levy purposes County Property Tax Capacity Programs Property Tax Levy Lid Increase property taxes in taxing districts X X Yes Property $ Lift — County General without banked capacity beyond the 1% limit Owners Expense Levy -- revenues would remain in the general fund General Fund Dependent on excess General Fund capacity X X No Other $ Allocations County Programs Sale of Existing Capital Sale of surplus existing capital assets X No I N/A $ Assets ! Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Levy of on additional 0.25% tax on the full X No Property $ ' sales price of real estate I Sellers Limited Tax General Councilmanic bonds (debt) that must be X No Property $$$ Obligation (LTGO) repaid through County revenues Owners Bonds Unlimited Tax General Voted bonds (debt) that include the levying of X Yes Property $$$ Obligation (UTGO) an additional property tax to repay them ! Owners Bond ! Note: Additional Revenue Order of Magnitude values are conservative estimates only and represent the estimated annual revenue. $ - less than $250,000 $$ - $250,000-$1,000,000 $$$ - greater than $1,000,000 Source: BERK Consulting and Fehr & Peers, 2018 ilge Over the course of the 20 -year planning horizon, it is estimated that these four recommended funding tools could cover the deficit that the County is anticipating. Table 13 details the potential revenue from these funding strategies over the 20 -year planning horizon. Table 13. Potential Additional Revenue Generated by Funding Tools Transportation Benefit District - Vehicle Licensing $6,540,000 $6,510,000 $13,050,000 $18,570,000 $31,610,000 Fee Transportation Benefit $4,740,000 $3,500,000 $8,250,000 $9,990,000 $18,240,000 District - Sales and Use Tax County Road property tax levy lid lift $22,170,000 $13,150,000 $35,320,000 $26,990,000 $62,320,000 ($1.75 per $1000 AV) Transportation Impact $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 Fees Total $39,450,000 $27,160,000 $66,620,000 $65,550,000 $132,170,000 Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Source: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Washington State Department of Licensing 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. 6oIPage Appendix A: Florida Department of Transportation Roadway Level of Service Definitions Generalized Peak Hour Two -Way Volumes for Florida's TABLE 6 Rural Undeveloped Areas and _ Developed Areas Less Than 5,00_0 Population' Ih�lffi, ; 1 I I. Non -State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Non -State Signalized Roadways -10% 111'�0I AIAIZ:�W 12/18/12 Lanes B STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided * 1,220 1,350 ** 4 Divided * 2,790 2,890 ** 6 Divided * 4,300 4,350 ** Non -State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Non -State Signalized Roadways -10% 111'�0I AIAIZ:�W 12/18/12 Lanes B C D E 4 3,020 4,510 5,490 6,300 6 4,510 6,720 8,220 9,720 8 6,040 8,970 10,960 12,970 Freeway Adjustments Auxiliary Lanes Present in Both Directions +1,800 BICYCLE MODE (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Rural Undeveloped Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Coverage Median & Turn Lane Adjustments D E 0-49% * 120 190 300 50-84% Exclusive Exclusive Adjustment >1,010 UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS 250 370 Lanes Median Left Lanes Right Lanes Factors 1,560 s >1,820 Rural Undeveloped 2 Divided Yes No +5% Lanes Median B C D E 2 Multi Undivided No No Undivided Yes No -20% -5°/n 2 Undivided 440 790 1,350 2,710 > Multi Undivided No No -25% 4 Divided 2,440 3,820 4,840 5,500 - - - Yes +5% 6 Divided 3,680 5,730 7,280 8,240 I Developed Areas One -Way Facility Adjustment Lanes Median B C D E Multiply the corresponding two -directional 2 Undivided 820 1,550 2,190 2,990 volumes in this table by 0.6 4 Divided 2,460 3,860 4,970 5,660 6 Divided 3,680 5,790 7,440 8,500 BICYCLE MODE (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Rural Undeveloped Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Coverage B C D E 0-49% * 120 190 300 50-84% 100 200 310 >1,010 85-100% 250 370 1,760 >1,760 Developed Areas Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Coverage B C D E 0-49% * 220 460 1,480 50-84% 170 430 1,270 >1,760 85-100% 560 1,760 >1,760 #* PEDESTRIAN MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lames to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Passing Lane Adjustments Alter LOS B -D volumes in proportion to the passing lane length to the highway segment length Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustment factors 2 Divided Yes +5% Multi Undivided Yes -5% Multi Undivided No -25% 'Values shown ate prexented as peal hour two-way volumes for levels of seri ice and are tt,r the autouwbileluuck modes unless specifically stated Ihm mble docs not constitute it standard and should be used only for geae�alplain nu; spphoations The compvtor models bom which this table is dei ned should be used for mace specific planning applications The table and deining computer models should not be used 1°r eorralox of intasmtion design where mor;, refined techniques e"t Cakulanons we based on planning apphcetions of the Highway Capacrt.- Manual and the Tamisit Capacity and Quality of Service Mwmal a Levet of leilwe for the blENLIE and pedestrian modes mthis fable is based on number ofmotmized vehicles. not numbo, otbwyolosts or pedeswas usmg the facility ' Camaot be achieved uting table mput value de&Wu " Not applicable foi that 1"01 0i teivace letter gi ade For the automobile mods . volumesgiraterthan level of service D become F because mteisecnon capacmes have been reached Foi the bu}cle mode, the level of service letter grade (mohadmg F) rs not achievable boo, nice there is no ma,.imum vehicle volume threshold using table mput value defaults %.. . Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0-49% * * 220 840 Solved 50-84% * 120 780 1,390 Flonda Depadment of Fianspc 85-100% 320 940 1,560 s >1,820 Sv w`dnwm Phmm iiiM ce www dnrxtate fl_neh,Mnnmsrle 2012 FDOT QUALCTY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES Appendix B: Roadway Segment Level of Service Results I. U m m U U w 0 u mlmim 1 +TT .m m V mmmm...... mmmy u UiU ! m ! m m j I A fi mmmm m Im mF FIT.... m y V V V mmmm mm 010 mEm lmmm mmlm 11- m mmm mlm mmmm m M v 7 uIV V m V m m U m m U U W d V,mlm m m I m V m m m m m m m m mem m m m ¢ :alm u y m m m — m y V V m Vlm m U m m U U W O V m m m m mV m m m m m m m V m m m m m m m i V m V V m m m J � m m U m + + m m V V mm O N m VIV m m m m m U m TIV W a V m m -m m. m V mmm m m m m m m m m m y m V V m m mmmm m mlm Imam m m m m m. m m m ! m ... m m V m mlm�m m m {pry J n Q m m.m m m m m 00 m mmm m m m m mmm m m mlm m m,m mmm m m'm m m mm m m m m mm m m N 9 R G m mmmm -I-1-1, mmm m m m m m m m m m m m UIm m m m m m 7 4 J C V V U V V +Hu U jujul. Cl +1+ V U d U V U d U V U U l: U U U U U U V V V V d U li U U nhm ra om Inmr.y w oa wa rm r d E 3 � 11.1 Cry bm N m m � Q�yy m Q m N rtaf 1� pp G i m p p �.I p �p m N r pp m m r m N y Np ry MN m O N 3 I m M � nlrvv r.+.i mrmvn m r.1 r ml$rNm �l�pl m � mo a a mry N� mn m�a nmm �vni mN Inwa mNw Nv oe�m� rv.ni �IrvD Pd�n o �rbv m vmi n mla `i nervi o ervn as In n' m'�` 7 ryN O l+ 10 R1 r1 py N EI EO e�1 �aI m p1 R1 b p e m b n pI Ont ® "ITS Oip9 MN TIPM n E roNm f N W W a0 M 'IG IP- n eel ul M N 'D e r O 0~0 V N .� r -IO W b r ro N rtm� Of. Imp a Vm tbn m e F ei. �D eml N 0 N n OI Ynf .Ni eNi ISD N R m..e-I T N N Vmi A 3 e e m m Qry m -I N NM ,C -I y 7 i m 3 mmoe.m-IIE N.+'I r 3 F nN °�QI��IO..II m a rvei ear n .y N aom.nmN N Nm I -I In e1+I NIMD d pmI�p1 N� e N N 1117.} rvO1 n� $ moryp MmN m mm pp m ry m m fY O N H N ,� "' O 4mO r .�-I CI m n b N G1 10 T Q h e m m S m m T of m ID ij M O � m N Q ry � b O .mi H uNN� O P m NN N e IO NiN � V1 p m r N n m N �p m V r N�� v1 n N S N Q �$ ry m`M I h m ry m OI S O, m p O ISL m m r n d 0 C ,pil W q 7 I E I ! m! v N C C o M v m y 9 c a I y w :2 A�� �3-yf I m w u x€ m E E ss _1 ASt E 3'x x'a'rc oma G 'n 0w w,o, s,� m a 3 td �Iwlc aY¢in E >A E'« ~ 3 u�9 mm �$�9ba e p y m °m°I cqE«ut9w j .q.q++ m q 3 umim��c c o ox a` U v M rcmu°O rn N mf v� car c «�¢}Y m b « d �we9[I€ DI ` a 5 m m 0 uy E «O o U�" «IC o ar c� « « m G ¢ o g¢««««mo omej 1 ,a, �' «a v x �rcPaC¢s y m m w cS r o c�W�9w«' t Z' «,o, -0 I,d„¢'A a o v cl^��¢s ov c $m oe J �9 agn m Y e mami E'o mz wa E - m c� m a mw C ��IEIS I 31mn:.'t9a� E SIC �m`7 P €may m QSc s'¢ E' C �m G w Sri 2 3 T TI,- as E E$ Ico im il_ tH L4fIv --2. nc `w o nm 5 u C P v �I13 u` `dN ! x x x c c b'v vim c Bim ma�,�tio� C-ymo v�i"-c 3 3 z c ci 7> r i m 3 o r r E E n> i 1r'r LL .- vm LL d mlm _I�: - In m In h vl W vl m IS h x ..i dj u1 ei Id n w ad m o .-I N .i Iry N N11 M v N �i Io N N ri ed N N of c N M .ti ni Ih m n1 m 6 m m I� m m m'ciid m m .1 e a C O O b O 3 p�p N ^ a [[VV p T y W � m � 3 b NTTtl O Qj N _ ' N N O Y a p� O ? N N t a ontomNmpmNMmMIWIT V N OS lD W n N n q W O O O N M O OSF m 00 O O m VI h No d A O lO N N 40 10 W h IIS u5 O 0 R �l pIlryy m p ei M1 N .-I O1 N O ri N N ul N O1 to Q Mt.- m O o0 Vl N 01 01 ry ry N a Cf m Q ID P m !� n N ei 10 O W N O l0 Itl m 1� m m W b N N CI M Q n V O1 VN1 OMS N OS M N N N W m m b lD "11131. M N M N I] N .-[ vl M N N pN 19 W R O !�. ,N N N IMO oN0 m M a N N N IM NO N e 40 40 o cO A M� mp W s Q .Q-1 N N ei pf M a N .-I O w� m Q � Yl In .aNemm m� Q W O ti N N N IO n lII M .i N I b N N N h O M umt a .Ni IIl W Q n N Ol m a Ni N N lR Vl �M M .-I p Np Ol a N u MuS1 61 M N M h N K ry R uNl N 'i Iry N Vi Vpl 'Ni 6 Of a MMMM 111 u1. N� O O WOW ri ei TIT 40 1p0 'Ri N 00 m N N uaj m m IO m ~ M INO [p0 N n N O owID h N M1 Ip tNp m N a v a l0 1p0 Ill W N N M 10 M M umj Q N a V 1pO ID ei rN1 N 1lal W .Ni ri OWS 01 M W N N Y1 o'W � � ISO N a OS N n m OO W N M e+ Q Vi N N t�Il N N N IIS y N FY dl pl IIi V1 YI IG Ma0MMw0W0 !Mi'I lW�{ N ri �'f f0 N S YW` N Q l0 u5 10 1p0 M [WII N N N h .-I CO O M I/) C IO 00 pO O l0 n SD l0 lG N N .nl M O .-I h OI 4p aMY �0 N a O loo n :ry N SO 4C 1OV N .i OI O N IO 4�0 N R R N ry N N N N N N N] NS N R N N N N N N N R ftl p� N ry N l6 10 N m l6 7 10 N N N IO N N o W N N W W N N 10 4 N N Q N N N 1l Ill I!] H ,I INrNll IINI vv�I Iy•li�I q` O O l 1 O N O 4�N0 I`O 0 0 r�- lA 0 0 N a0 0 0 06 00 0 N e 00 u11 ry O 4 ` u�l 0 0 O'1 0 0 N 0 ` O I�4 O O W N O ` O b 40 O O` O_l N N N N N T N r`i rel O C 4O O O oo aoo`o Mmmm mm QMv In ul In lnQQv vvva In vll+ yy yy b W IOIS 7 W INO N pp O1 Qs n V n m -I c�pp I�r1 ip N d u1 N h n fn'I N V N Q 00 m C N pp m 0 S T 6 O 7 ,Wy .m .Ni ,y N ry l0 N N !Wl! .-I NNp M m Of �./il N rt1 h ,ory0 N IYI h N Ifni N R W eai 7 r IIWj Q lWV .Oi .-! H ri N O .�I N - N n IWO N X09 H I M N N N n M m mol� N vI m a u N Intl N N N Cpm1 'a m Q pp SIS rt1 N m m l0 m ry ry W N h N W IO m N N OS O N N m N Q N h N m M1 O Its h N m m N p1 0 m W ul m 00 N M1 h N W M N N n M M M Q R n N V M M m N m N N M N m O N M N 0 N W ID N N f0 M1 N M N O M O IIl Ill O s w q N OJ YI Ol W SO SD m I/S N m a M N a m n h SO N m N M N Q F .2W. '7 O1 n N III 40 h INh n Q N n Ilml pppp N N Itmj n N N 001 Sm0 b Q N I�/1 1� M N m. OI M N n M Imo I� .Mr 1� rl I•�R O .Wi N T IOiI N N N n M M n m b a ¢ f h N pp N 0 40 M .-I IO n Yl .-I N O m W O h h o0 M1 cD N h M py N 10 W N M N O N V O Q W l0 IO N W N O Of Nov W m CO M W l0 N M W M N O M N O M M Q m IIS 10 N m W m N n Jl N 01 p1 N p1 D LL N m N h V N] Q tp V m SDD N O ID IO Q SO N IO 00 m N N M O Q N N O W VS h O 06 V O m N 10 et�111 a0 O b N rMi �y 1IDD OS h e} N N IO u1 yWyO Iti � p1 cD uW1 �p .N-� N Iai1 N y W OG n W ul N O M M p1 N M O M Mmf N� � O .ml Iry R IWII N N n n .W -i n rt mrt�1 SP b Ino pnI p e u C a e o E m a. a a. $$ m m 4 4 m Q 4 4 N N 4 4 N N 4 o N N O 4 N N 0 0 N N 0 o N a e 4 v v 4 4 V v 4 4 N V 4 V a N a 0 Q g 4 Y Q Q 99="8999 o o ¢¢¢¢ee¢¢ tats tD m o m i m <�ee t� oe It -0 toe m m 0 0 �¢¢¢o[xx¢oc¢ LD u tD LD wo 17 L ap L fo o[zl'cszzn:¢¢¢¢ee¢�oe Lq(D U& 0 0 w 0 06 o m wo 60 wo m ID 0 a v U U o R E « wa a ¢ 1' Y O W V —m n E yv 8� aw f oG E¢t v K O b iG x Ip ✓ Y K r o Y =a0+ a W F f o NF W d $ a0.. CC rn `m 2 E ` a 3OF p W ✓1 C a Y S', E F U a az ma moeWv—t u ma E$ m u 0 W Nit- a e i 2 '6 ¢ a ¢ aui^ o ✓Iw2 a mg 2 3 �$ao 9 ;° c 7 � c' �' m z m m r n w.c c � a� m 0 w ,. N m c aai aaae v 7 Fiz4y a0+ oe « `o c h YL817 o cY `a m T O$$ y M N O r i0 gg u m M m L F F K O G 7 ¢ L Gp a c � S 0N0 bew A"aNov a m¢�o,$= y P 0 $¢b -g�ga E m$' S 3 P p0cmi I Z w Z x 5. R '. A a N �wmte� O O O Y Y c a OC O E E T rb M aa¢Y CJ �_ W M um� ao41e mglmMM ¢oe tr to to to c oe > c o >S m`¢w b oe >s w� a Z ry m (5>> m > m =HH»� E E ���LLa_p1 q1 g14loe mM N N M a II1 lC Ih CU OI .Ni .N -I M Q IIl 10 h emi .Mi N N N ry N N N N N N M M fel m m IN11 D'I ln!! M M Q Q V a V r ep m V V V m V m m V m m V U W O U m m m m m um W m m m V m m m m m m m m V m V 4 m W m s m� eV U V V W m m m m m m m m m m m W W m m m m m m m m m W W �C a d s m u u m m m W u m m u V W o U m m m m m 4 m m m .... m m m m m m m m m u m u 4 m m m e 7 N m m W m m m m m m m m W W m m m m m m W W m W m m m W m m V m m m m m m oN N 1 1O O u m m m w m m m m m m m W W m m m W m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m W m m N N m m 3 m m W W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m U m m m m m m C 7 �p C V I. V V V V U V V V V r, A A. C V 4 4 O V V U CY V V V U V V U V V 4 V V U U V g V lu U U N b m11 1NN cu.i11 ml m9� o N00 ON 0vvr11l 0w NN N 0 Nvv11 o W��uu�� O bpyo �.ry N N �1 6 LL R Vy. TIT pppppQ��� pp�� ry n N N N pppp���� pp�� m p �Qpy p C� 0�OI N N N p N ppppb� ppN�� 01NryN p� p� pm� mOm 1. p p m O ry N C V A c p N N Imil N ffVV t[[«VVVVV N m 2 T To V 8 8 S m w$$ m m m m a� & 8 8 E m m S, $ R$ m 8 8 R m m py� m 1.2 N N N N N N N N H N N N N N N A N N q$ �� N N N M C R � a T V O O b b m yy4�� HD NO NO NO ON O� uyO'i � vrYI vOr11 Ow o .Ni Ry� vei1 210 O N 1 1 NOYl pN O; O O y � C � y pp 0N N emi N N ry a b O HN ry oNNN W ^w N gi n w oNo m ENo m m W w m w od W cryo eNo ONo cN0 O m m pm m m e � � 6 h u TbONNry I I # z z Z 2 z Z Z z Z Z c z z z z z z S z z Z z Z Z z Z Z z z z z Z z z Z z Z z Z ,y Y Z Z z z z Z I E 2 _e z z z z z z zz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 1i z z z -1Z z z z z z z 4 C z 3 Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z11 2 Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z i Z Z Z Z .1.1. Z Z z z x Z Z Z z z z z Z z Z Z Z m C Z -I- x Y�: z zZ Z z Z I - Z Z z z z z z z Z z 2 Z Z 2 z H- z Z lz Z z Z 2} T OI II 1ZHz m �Fy z z z z z s z z z z N O z z r >• T z z} Z z$ x Z z} z z z z Y z z z z z z z zHznzi-r z YI V A C r s fp s._ h S x x x x x x x x s z m x M. xw s w y 114 Lr m m x x x x x x x x x x s x m x x m W _W r x x r x x x x LL N S cp m m m m m m m m m a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m m m V m m W m m m N N Q C V U U U V V V V U U V V O C O O O U V V O V V V O V V U V V V V V U U U V V V V O V V V V i N 0 , IL c c Q A O Appendix C: Kittitas County Travel Demand Model Documentation 4��t Fsis1� �Yn v3rrf'q COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 North Anderson Street, Ellensburg WA 98926 Date: March 16, 2017 From: Angela San Filippo, Long Range Planner RE: Kittitas County Conference of Governments recommendation on employment projection and allocation Summary In addition to the population projection and allocation recommendation COG has reached a recommendation for employment projections and allocations. This recommendation is based on the countywide land capacity analysis and population and employment study. COG voted unanimously on the following employment projection and allocation: • 2.00% average annual employment growth rate • 80% of employment growth to be located in urban areas (cities and their UGAs) • 20% of employment growth to be located in rural areas outside of established UGAs This allocation is based on carrying forward how employment is currently split in the County with about 78% located in urban areas and about 22% located in rural areas. The allocation to the individual jurisdictions was based on each jurisdiction maintaining their 2015 share of employment. Ellensburg's current share of employment is about 64% • COG's allocation recommendation results in 63% of employment located in Ellensburg in 2037 Table 1. Employment allocation to each jurisdiction Jurisdiction 2015 Employment 20 year employment allocation 2037 Employment Cie Elum 2,046 1,353 3,399 Ellensburg 11,490 6,998 18,488 Kittitas 440 365 804 Rosin 1,150 202 1,352 South Cie Elum 7 6 13 Rural County 4,230 2,231 61461 Total 19,362 11,155 30,617 The employment allocated to each jurisdiction is limited by their current employment capacity. Employment capacity was estimated based on current zoning and regulations that pertain to commercial and industrial development. • Ellensburg's current employment capacity is equal to the 6,998 allocated to Ellensburg Recap of population projection and allocation Earlier this year COG made reached a recommendation on countywide population projection and allocation of that population to each of the jurisdictions. COG passed the following population projection and allocation (Roslyn voted no): 2.00% average annual population growth rate * 65% of population growth allocated in urban areas (cities and their UGAs) 35% of population growth allocated in rural areas outside of established UGAs This allocation is based on encouraging slightly more growth in urban areas than what we see currently. Currently about 60% of our population is in urban areas and about 40% is located in rural areas. The allocation to the individual jurisdictions was based on each jurisdiction maintaining their 2015 share of population. • Ellensburg's current share of population is just under 49% • COG's recommended allocation would result in just over 49% of the population living in Ellensburg in 2037 Table 1. Population allocation to each jurisdiction .Jurisdiction 2015 Population 20 -year population allocation 2037 Population ! Cle Bum 1,875 1,808 3,683 Ellensburg 20.783 11,757 32,540 Kittitas 1,481 807 2,288 Roslyn 896 307 1,203 South Cie Bum 592 464 1,056 Rural County 17,043 8,154 25,197 Total 42,670 23,297 65,967 , The population allocated to each jurisdiction is limited by their current population capacity. Population capacity was estimated based on current zoning and regulations that pertain to residential development. • Ellensburg's current population capacity is equal to the population of 11,757 allocated to Ellensburg Kittitas County Transportation Model Documentation I CA 6- wu wm fifth. &*W, w" w- a* *#+1� to .� @'.i--figFse.�m..=;¢a4.$ .•R '4j; wn.a.o Kit6jol County MS 4PxPim,b VWM�MeIIAP) ` WIUPx.WPm+Pr <. "to <. woo ON - .,41 - Prepared for Kittitas County, Washington Prepared by PTV — America, Inc. - Tacoma, Washington May 2009 Introduction This document provides a summary of the process and the parameters used to update and develop the transportation model for Kittitas County. This model is intended to represent base year conditions for 2008. Also discussed is the methodology used in providing forecasts for the years 2030 for use in recommendations with the Kittitas County Plan and to evaluate other proposed improvements. The knowledge of the procedure used to develop the models and the forecasts is important for the future application of the models. This model, for use by Kittitas County, will assist in the development and evaluation of future transportation improvement projects. PTV America developed this 2008 Kittitas County model from the Kittitas County transportation model developed in 2005 and updated for the City of Ellensburg in 2007, The Kittitas County model was completed in August of 2005 and was developed by PTV America in conjunction with Valerie Southern, Transportation Consultant, LLC, and Garry Struthers and Associates, Inc. and in cooperation with Kittitas County. The 2005 Kittitas County model was based upon models for Kittitas County, Ellensburg, and CleElum/Roslyn from various earlier years. These models were developed between 1994 and 2000 using the TMODEL software package. These previous models were converted into the VISUM software package for ease of data transfer. The new Kittitas County model network was built from NAVTEQ data. The NAVTEQ data is network definition data used in many mapping software including Mapquest, Microsoft Streets and Trips, and used for onboard vehicle navigation. systems. The data includes all streets and roads (including names) and data on lanes, speeds, and turn restrictions so it can be used for routing. For purposes of the Kittitas County model this data was further enhanced with data from the previous models, data from the road deficiency reports, and field review. The data was further refined as more detailed parcel level land use data was provided for the 2008 Kittitas County model. This transportation planning model is a representation of Kittitas County, roadway transportation facilities and the travel patterns using these facilities. The model contains inventories of the existing roadway facilities and of housing, shopping, employment, Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 1 and other land use in the area. These inventories, along with model "rules" are used to generate traffic volumes for all roadways within the model. These forecast volumes are compared with current traffic counts. When the model matches the traffic counts within acceptable ranges of error, the model can then be used to test future year scenarios. These scenarios may be changes in number of housing units, employment quantities, travel behavior patterns, or roadway improvements. The transportation planner, using the transportation planning model, can project future traffic volumes without the cost of building inappropriate roadways or waiting for traffic congestion to severely impact travelers. The 2008.Kittitas County model was developed with version 10.03+ of VISUM, part of the PTV Vision Suite of software. Most importantly, this version of the model was updated in 2009 with updated base year land use inventory and forecasts supplied by Kittitas County, new traffic count data supplied by Kittitas County and the City of Ellensburg. This update included review of the network and forecasts involving Kittitas County staff. This document describes the methodology that PTV America, Inc. (PTV) and Kittitas County staff used to develop the model. Because modeling is a complex process, much of the theory, terminology, and concepts are also discussed. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 2 The Modeling Process A transportation planning model is constructed with the purposes of forecasting traffic and operating conditions. The model is first calibrated to replicate existing or base -year travel patterns. The model inputs are then modified to represent future conditions, making it possible to project traffic volumes. This gives transportation planners and engineers the ability to determine the impact of different roadway or land use scenarios on the traffic network. This, in turn, allows the professional to evaluate economic decisions on potential capital improvements and then make appropriate plans. One such use of these models is to test several forecast conditions. Model Area Identification The modeling process begins by determining the area to be modeled. The Kittitas County model includes major roadway facilities within the Kittitas County boundaries, including all cities. When the county model was developed, detail within the City of Ellensburg and to some extent within the Cle Elum area was included so that the model could be later refined for use by the cities. Because the model was developed with the NAVTEQ data set as its basis, the model also includes rail and trail transportation links and other points of interest such as rivers and lakes. The model area with traffic analysis zo ne boundaries is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1- Model Area with TAZ Structure Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 The Kittitas County model encompasses the entire county and includes all of the roadways classified as collector or greater within the county. The included network is described in more detail later in this document. The original network was based upon the cities' and county's roadway functional classification maps as determined by Kittitas County staff. Additional streets or roads were added based upon the judgment of the Kittitas County staff. Roadways included in the Kittitas County model are shown in Figure 2. It is important that the model include the major roads leading in, out, and through Kittitas County because these have an impact on traffic within Kittitas County. Figure 2 Kittitas County Model Network The model Traffic Analysis Zones, also known as TAZs are areas with points where trips begin and end. These are used to inventory all of the land use or attributes that KiWta4 County, Wash4lgt n Transpartation �?EkJel— MBS' 2W9 P. -%o 4 generate traffic. For the previous modeling efforts, Kittitas County supplied a TAZ system that was developed previously by county staff. For the 2008 Kittitas model, the TAZ system was reviewed and revised. Traffic Analysis Zones were subdivided in growth areas and other locations to match the detail of the network. The TAZ system used for the model was shown in Figure 1. Two types of zones were used: internal and external. Internal zones can consist of a single parcel, a group of like land uses, or a gathering of local land uses separated by natural, physical, or political boundaries. Several factors are considered to find the best zonal design. The primary factor is related to the results expected of the model. It may be logical to place the zone in a way that groups all land uses bounded by network roadways. The second factor is how the available land use information is geographically described. Because the land use data was derived from the Kittitas County parcel layer, the TAZ structure could be defined to best match the transportation system. The Kittitas County model now consists of 300 internal zones. External zones account for all vehicle trips that enter and leave the model area. Depending upon the desired results, it may be logical to place an external zone on each roadway that leaves the network. In other cases, local traffic conditions may establish a need to tie together several exiting roadways into a single zone so that the external destination of the trip can be simulated. For the Kittitas County model, it was decided that the external zones would be placed at the following locations: External Zone Location 1000 I-90 West 1001 SR 97 North 1002 I-90 East 1003 I-82 South 1004 SR -821 South Data Collection and Coding After the model area has been identified, the collection and entry of the necessary data to run the modeling program begins. There are two primary components to be entered: network and travel characteristics. The network data includes: roadway (link), intersection (node), turn movement penalty, link delay functions, and node delay Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 5 functions. Roadway or link data includes traffic count data for links and turning movements at key intersections. Travel characteristic data includes the land use inventory, trip generation rates, external volume data (volumes entering, exiting, and traveling through the model area), and trip length frequency distributions. PTV America conducted a field review of major facilities within the county including some locations with Kittitas County staff. Upon completion of data collection, development of the model's mathematical "rules" began by coding the information and readying it for entry into VISUM. Essentially all entered data is numeric. Each entry, such as speed limits for links, capacities for nodes, and collected land use data, is used by the model to estimate network or street volumes. The VISUM software contains many equations and algorithms that help the traffic volume computation process. Therefore, given the amount of data in the transportation planning model, it is advisable to group like data together and assign uniform values. For example, link and node capacities are assumed to be uniform for links and nodes of similar classifications and types throughout the model area. In actual practice, these capacities are unique to the location and road conditions. The method for developing these "blanket" values is considered part of the model's rule -building process. Calibration After all data has been collected, coded, and entered in the VISUM program, the calibration process begins. In this task, the data and the model rules are refined so that the model closely simulates existing travel patterns and volumes on the roadway network. Calibration is performed by conducting a series of simulation runs and evaluating the results. The calibration is considered complete when the results of the simulation runs are statistically similar to the traffic count volumes and other measures of travel behavior. Distribution and assignment are the two steps undertaken during a typical model simulation run. Distribution is the process of allocating trips between various zones within the network. The product of the distribution is a trip table that lists the number of trips between the model's zones. The distribution for this model was computed with the VISUM/TMODEL form of the gravity model. Application of the gravity model in transportation modeling is derived from earlier work with economic interaction through a study of social physics. The idea, simply put, Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 6 is that more interactions (between different zones) take place when the cost of interacting is less. As with the physics of gravitation between masses, it has been found that many human interactions can be related to the distance or cost between interactors using a negative exponential function. In the Assignment portion of the simulation run, the distributed trips on the trip table are assigned to possible paths between each zone. The assignment uses an algorithm known as "equilibrium" assignment. This algorithm assigns traffic to each path between each zone such that the travel time for each path between each path is statistically equal. Each model run consists of multiple feedback loops from trip assignment to trip distribution. The skim matrix of travel time between zones is fed back after each assignment into the trip distribution. The skim matrix is then averaged (weighted more heavily towards the current iteration) between the previous iterations' skim matrix with this iteration's skim matrix This method of skim matrix averaging and feedback loops produces more stable results and more accurately represents the impact on travel distributions from travel times. This allows the distribution to change as travel times increase or change between zones. Trips will distribute to other zones which are easier to reach or not as congested as reflected in the skim matrix. This model also used Multi -Point Assignment (MPA). Traditionally all trips begin or end at the zone centroid, a point in the center of the zone. In reality, trips begin at driveways, parking lots, and other places in the zone. MPA allows the modeler to define the access points for each zone. These were assigned equally for each connector, except in cases where the access would be different. For speed of the model run, the MPA function is turned off during the iterative distribution and assignment portion, and then once the final trip matrices are established, MPA is turned back on for a highly refined assignment. The series of calibration simulation runs involves review of the assumptions used to construct the model. In the distribution portion of the simulation, the exponents to the distance function of the gravity model are examined. During the assignment portion of the simulation, the assumptions for link speeds, capacities, and delay parameters are studied. Between each run, different parameters are evaluated and necessary adjustments made to the "rules" so that the desired results (i.e., calibration) are reached. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 7 Before any adjustments to the Kittitas County model parameters were made, they were justified either through the collected travel pattern data or the judgment of PTV America and their experience with transportation planning models and travel conditions throughout the model area. Model Forecasts The fourth and final step to modeling is future scenario travel forecasting. With a working calibrated transportation planning model, different land use and/or roadway projections can be entered to produce forecast results on the roadway network. Before the actual forecast can begin, this question must be raised: Are the rules established in calibration still applicable to future scenarios? Only professional judgment can answer this question. Most rules that are questioned will involve the roadway characteristic assumptions (speed, capacity, number of lanes, etc.) and should not require any model re -calibration. To complete the forecasts, the appropriate link, node, land use and/or through trip table file is changed by entering the future scenario data. After the forecast evaluation is complete, it is possible to make recommendations for the study area and test each recommendation to analyze its effectiveness on the roadway network. VISUM can compute link volume changes due to modifications in capacity, land uses, roadways, etc. These types of VISUM tools are a valuable resource for decision makers and transportation professionals in determining the most effective solutions for mitigating existing and potential roadway congestion. For this study, different sets of proposed improvement projects were coded into the model and tested. Each of these scenarios was evaluated with Kittitas County Staff. Furthermore, Kittitas County Staff was trained in use of the model so future alternatives can be rapidly evaluated. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 8 Background Data and Modeling Assumptions The primary goal of this transportation planning model is to simulate the PM peak hour of travel on the roadway network in Kittitas County. In order for this simulation to be effective, it is important to obtain all transportation related data for that peak hour (a "snapshot" of time). It was also decided that the traffic model would replicate a 2008 weekday evening (PM) peak -hour. The following section describes the various data used to develop the model. It is subdivided into two sections corresponding to the two primary components of a transportation planning model: network characteristics travel characteristics data. NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS DATA After establishing the model area, the existing model was reviewed and updated. All roadways classified as collector or greater throughout Kittitas County were included. As noted previously, the network was reviewed by Kittitas County Staff and some additional network facilities were added. Data is encoded to describe both the links and the nodes. A link is a vector that describes connectivity between two nodes. A node is an end point of a link. Typically, a node can be an intersection or an intermediate point between intersections. This model was developed using the geographically accurate NAVTEQ data set. Much of the data was already coded. This data was refined during the model development process. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 9 Roadway (Link Data) After establishing the model area, the existing model was reviewed and updated. In expanding the model, all roadways classified as local street or greater throughout the study area were included. Data attributes entered for the link layer in VISUM: • Link Type TSys (Transport System) • One- or Two-way Direction • Number of Lanes • Capacity • Length • Design Speed (or posted speed limit) • TWLTL (Two -Way Left Turn Lanes) Link Type Link Type is used to describe the functional classification of the network links for the Kittitas County model. The Type numbering corresponds to the FHWA roadway classification numbering system. Link Delay functions are coded to operate with these link types. It is important to code future network revisions with the correct link classifications. Link types in the model are shown described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3. Please note that there is no link type for centroid connector as VISUM has a special layer for centroid connectors and thus they are not coded as links. Link type 99 was used to denote the John Wayne Trail. Other links are in the model for future use but if they are not given a Type number they have not been "activated" for use in the model. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 10 Table 1 Link Type Class 2008 Kittitas County Transportation Planning Model Type Number Facility Type 1 Interstate Principal Arterial (Rural Freeway) 2 Principal Arterial (Rural) 3 Freeway Ram s 6 Minor Arterial (Rural) 7 Major Collector (Rural) 8 Minor Collector (Rural) 9 Local (Rural) 11 Interstate Principal Arterial (Urban Freeway) 12 Expressway Principal Arterial (Urban) 14 Principal Arterial (Urban) 16 Minor Arterial (Urban) 17 Collector (Urban) 19 Local (Urban) 99 Trail Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 11 Legend Rtlened intwaiele Pdncpal Artedel !R) �� Prl�ptli AdeHtlt (R) Mawr ArtenW (R) Ma)w Gellecror IRS - - MhW rok I -r (R) Lpcel(R) Inleminte Pdncbel Artedal (U) &preaawey Nnclpal Advlal (U) ...+.� PrWFwI Arlednt (U) Mina AMMI (U) - w1acta (U) - - TrrHh Figure 3 Kittitas County Link Types TSys VISUM permits the specification of Transportation Systems or TSys for short. Because the network was constructed from the NAVTEQ data, only the model links (those classifications specified with a Type 1-19 were given the ability to carry Cars and Trucks. All of these links permitted both Cars and Trucks. However, trucks were assumed to be equal to four (4) passenger car units (PCU) for capacity and delay computations. This higher value was used to reflect the situations where trucks are operating on steep grades or, when in urban areas, have a lot of starts and stops, making the impact of a truck greater. Therefore, truck assignments were kept separate from the car assignments. It is important during the testing of scenarios that the proper TSys is activated for new links as well as for turns. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 12 Although transit was not explicitly analyzed as a part of this study, a TSys for Bus was also created for future use. One- or Two-way Direction All links were checked for one- or two-way entry. Interstate 90 and Interstate 82 were coded as pairs of one-way links in VISUTIM. Typically, freeways segments in modeling are split into a pair of one-way links so that the difference in capacities and directional splits can be modeled appropriately. On and off ramps for these facilities were also coded as one-way links. A one-way link is entered in VISUM by permitting only the car and truck transportation systems (TSys-Car and TSys-Truck) to move in one direction and not the other. Number of Lanes This attribute is used in the VISUM model run to assign capacities to network links. It is also used for display and for entering intersection geometry in VISUM. All model links were checked for accuracy with this designation. Number of lanes per direction is shown as Figure 4. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 13 Figure 4 Kittitas County Number of Lanes Capacity Capacity is entered in terms of vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for each link, directionally. For the Kittitas County model, capacities were based upon Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual", Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1985, updated 1994, and PTV America experience with other models. The capacities are used for both model operation and network analysis. In the context of model operation, the capacities are used in conjunction with link speeds, link lengths, and speed -delay functions to derive a realistic travel speed to be used in the distribution Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model- May 2009 Page 14 of travel and the derivation of appropriate travel routes. In the context of network analysis, the capacities are used to identify deficiencies and recommend improvements. In both cases, it is desired that the capacities used in the model be as accurate and realistic as possible. These capacities were modified slightly during model calibration to better match local conditions. These were further revised during the 2009 update based upon the new traffic count and land use data, including adding 200 vehicles per hour per direction for links with Two -Way Left Turn Lanes. Table 2 represents the capacities used for the model. Table 2 Link (Roadway) Type/Capacities 2005 Kittitas County Model Link Capacity Type Facility Type (vphpl) 1 Interstate Principal Arterial (Rural Freeway) 2000 2 Principal Arterial (Rural) 1200 3 Freeway Ramps 1200 6 Minor Arterial (Rural) 1200 7 Major Collector (Rural) 1000 8 Minor Collector (Rural) 800 9 Local (Rural) 600 11 Interstate Principal Arterial (Rural Freeway) 2000 12 Expressway Principal Arterial (Urban) 1600 14 Principal Arterial (Urban) 1400 16 Minor Arterial (Urban) 1200 17 Collector (Urban) 800 19 Local (Urban) 600 99 Trail NA Length In VISUM, all lengths are automatically calculated. The program will calculate lengths for each link during data entry and any subsequent future modifications. After the link lengths were calculated for the Kittitas County model, link lengths were checked to confirm that the function was working properly. Typically in a model for a county that has relatively long travel times on the externals the external link lengths are adjusted. For this model, the additional travel times in and out of the model area were coded into the centroid connectors. The model scale is set in the Network Parameters section. This Kittitas County, Washington 'Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 15 assures that whenever a link is added, re -shaped, or a node is moved, the link length will be recalculated using this scale. Design Speed Link speeds are entered in VISUVI in miles per hour. Speeds have a direct influence on the computation of travel times during simulation runs. Generally, posted speed limits are entered into the program during the initial data entry phase. However, posted limits do not always accurately depict the free-flow conditions on the roadway. For example, some state highways have 65 mph speed limits in urban areas that are often ignored. Conversely, some locations may have posted limits greater than what can be achieved (e.g., arterials in fully developed areas with numerous driveways and signalized intersections). Speeds were entered from the NAVTEQ data and then updated with data from the previous models, the data collected during other portions of this study, and during the field review. TWLTL Links are coded with locations with Two -Way Left Turn Lanes (TWLTL). This adds 200 vehicles per hour to the capacity. This should be coded for both directions of a link. Link Delay Coefficients Travel time on each individual link typically increases as the traffic volume on the link approaches capacity. Current research has shown that the amount of travel time increase depends on the functional classification of the link as well as the region and the behavior of the drivers using that link. VISUM offers the ability to adjust the travel time increases on the link as the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio changes by functional classification of the link. This feature was used during the calibration process. During calibration analysis, both link operating speeds and total (including both link and node delays) operating speeds can be analyzed. This differential analysis is used to adjust both the link and node delay coefficients. The final values used in the model calibration are shown in Table 3. These values are similar to others used in central Washington and are based upon experience with travel behavior in this area. The form of the equation is shown as: Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 16 Volume.delayfunetiagpihmwters _ 5+06w-dalaa lunchpnTS PO - !TMOOEL-. KM teas = oto + a) (3 +d (sat+ f j tar=(t„+&') (1+d' (sat+ffl where sat - q q,m L 1�JiR1�SalMe a� `0 b- 4 t= ±1 d -.0..-- ----. h'- 10 -- -� � 61oci�sd Farsrt :sal3--nL fm =a -=ate sank- i a>�s d- .0.25 t- ; 015 d' 0,25 F- 015 Table 3 Link Delay Coefficients 2008 Kittitas Countv Transportation Planning Model Link Type V/C < SatCrit SatCrit V/C => SatCrit d b f d' b' f' 1 0.25 4.0 0.05 0.95 0.25 10.0 0.05 2 0.25 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0 0.15 3 0.25 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0 0.15 6 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 7 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 8 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 9 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 11 0.25 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0 0.15 12 0.25 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0 0.15 14 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 16 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 17 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0 0.25 19 0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 1 10.0 0.25 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 17 INTERSECTION NODE DATA Data entered for each node include the following: Type 0 Node Capacity Factors Capacity • TMODEL Special Delay Links (SDLs) • Base Delay 0 Turns Node Type The node classifications were coded in the model dependent upon the intersection control. Table 4 lists the node types. These were modified from the previous model structure to represent current practice. Table 4 Node (Intersection) Type 2008 Kittitas County Transportation Planning Model Node Type Description 1 Not an Intersection 4 Freeway Ramp Terminal — Merges 5 Freeway Ramp Terminal — Diverges 10 All -way Stop 11 Partial. Stop 20 Signal 21 Signal not at network intersection 30 Roundabout Node Capacity Using Capacities at all nodes is one of VISUM's three options to model delays based upon traffic congestion at the intersections. This feature has been incorporated into the Kittitas County model so that delays at these critical points on the network can be Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 18 modeled to reflect the impacts upon traffic flow patterns. For the 2008 Kittitas County model, VISUM calculates node capacities using the following node equation: Node Capacity = K1 + K4 * (Entering Link Capacity) Node capacities for the Kittitas County model use the KI and K4 constants. K4 was used to simulate the effect that a green time -to -cycle length (G/C) ratio has at an intersection. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that when similar link types classes meet, the G/C ratio is fairly even, and as the roadway meets lesser class roadways, the green time, or GIC ratio increases on the major facility. This effect is reflected in the increasing values of the K4 constant as the difference in entering link types or classifications is more disparate. When there are less than three (3) intersection legs, the K4 constant is increased by .05 to reflect the impact of a smaller number of conflicts. When there are five (5) or more intersection legs, the K4 constant is decreased by .05 to reflect the impact of more conflicts, which take green time, at the intersection. For shape nodes of Type 1 and Ramp Diverge nodes of Type 5 a K4 value of 1.0 should be used. Special Delay Links (SDLs) Another special feature in VISUM (and previously in TMODEL) is the ability to model intersections under STOP or YIELD control. SDLs at a node denote which link(s) are under two- or three-way STOP or YIELD control. If an intersection is a four-way STOP, then no SDLs are entered. SDLs are coded using the node dialog box with the TModel tab. _ Nl�ll�el ;131G062fa5 Pik Lein � T#iodd :Irlkodertahorw Com. TRnFFD' iTY' Litre wih ern hvedance atTaftde. rramuwno � f y 786788666(731694.Ri 3 '8816415719151435• ® ; ���-'B4B4Ye671131�4439• I ❑ - Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 19 SDLs work in the VISUM model run. As traffic is loaded onto the network, the program calculates Volume -to -Capacity (V/C) ratios at each node. Intersection delay is calculated using the V/C ratio (more on how the program calculates the delay is presented in later sections of this report). If SDLs are specified at the nodes, then any delay calculated during the simulation run is assigned to the special delay link(s) approaching the node to simulate a STOP or YIELD condition. Under a four-way STOP condition, delay is experienced on all four legs and no SDLs are entered for this condition. All nodes were checked to insure that SDLs were coded where appropriate for partial way stop controlled intersections. Base Delay Additional delay, called t0 in VISUM, can be added to an intersection if a known condition exists. These conditions could include an all red condition at a signal, pedestrian phases, or a node representing a railroad crossing. No additional base delays have been used in the Kittitas County model. Turn Penalty At some locations on a network it may not be possible to execute a certain turn movement or there can be a capacity constraint due to the drivers' perception of restricted sight distance or other potential safety concerns. If a movement is not allowed, then the transportation system car is removed from the turning movement layer in VISUM. Turns were restricted as necessary. At left turns at stop and signal controlled nodes, a base delay, or t0, of 6 seconds was added. These same left turns were given a capacity of 250 vehicles per hour so the turn delay would increase as the volume of the left turn increased. Node Delay Coefficients The delay caused by different types of intersection control must be defined to reproduce the delays that drivers perceive. The resultant extra travel time is dependent upon the volume -to -capacity ratio (V/C) and varies by Type of the nodes. These use the TMODEL_Nodes equation as shown in this dialog box: Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 20 Volume -delay functiai-i panowtets Volume -do* function to I Type bZut (to+ a)+ �A (sat+ f For sat < satCrit it tr-ur = (t.+ a')+ V (sat+ f fu sat >- Satcrit q sah:tt O'S where sat = . -1. qrnax C a`'_3_.._b 3.6 r= I d- 30 "fes 0.2 3 V= 5.16 d' 130 V= 02 D blocked �� Cancel The final values used are shown in Table 5. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 21 Table 5 Node Delay Coefficients Kittitas Countv 2008 Transvortation Planning Model Node Types V/C < SatCrit SatCrit V/C => SatCrit D b f a d' b' f at 1,5 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 30 3.80 0.15 0 1 0.85 30 5.80 0.15 0 10 30 3.60 0.20 3 0.80 1 30 5.80 0.20 3 11 30 3.60 0.20 3 0.80 30 6.00 0.20 6 20,21 30 3.60 0.20 1.2 0.80 30 5.00 0.20 1.2 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model -- May 2009 Page 22 LAND USE AND TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS The central point of each traffic analysis zone (TAZ), where trips begin and end on a transportation planning model network, is called a zone centroid. Zone centroids are at the center of a zone which consists of a variety of land uses bounded by either the roadway network or other geographic or municipal boundaries. The TAZ system was established from a TAZ system originally developed by Kittitas County staff. This TAZ system was revised slightly to disaggregate into smaller zones in the Suncadia and CleElum UGA area. A graphic of the TAZ boundaries is shown as Figure 1. The Kittitas County model consists of two zone types: internal and external. Internal zones were those zones within the model area. Internal zones have associated land use data that is used to generate origins and destinations. External zones were placed along roadways entering and leaving the Kittitas County model area. Land use is not associated with external zones; rather the traffic volumes corning in and out of the area are used to describe the origins and destinations for these zones. During this model update, a number of zones were disaggregated to allow a finer granularity of traffic assignment. The majority of the disaggregated zones were in the areas surrounding Cle E1um. As a part of this zone reorganization, the zone numbering scheme was modified throughout the network to a more intuitive numbering scheme. In general, the zone numbers in each area increase from west to east and from north to south. A record of the old zone numbers can be found within a user -defined attribute of each zone called "OLDZONENO". The new numbering scheme is as follows: Zones Area 1 to 71 Internal Zones - representing the Ellensburg Area. 100 to 179 Internal Zones - representing the Cle Elum-Rosi n Area. 200 to 272 Internal Zones - representing the Upper Kittitas County Area excluding zones from the Cle Elum-Ros1 n Area. 300 to 313 Internal Zones - representing the Lower Kittitas County Area excluding zones from the Ellensburg Area. 400 to 461 Internal Zones - re resentin the Range Area of Kittitas County. 1000 to 1004 External Zones - representing the entry/exit points from the model area. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 23 Data for each land use variable, such as numbers of dwelling units, employees, etc. is required for each TAZ. This data is required for the base year calibration as well as for each forecast scenario. When this was not available, various procedures were used to derive this data. Summary of the Procedures for Compiling Kittitas County Land Use The Kittitas County land use data was updated using data from multiple sources for both the base year and the forecast scenarios. The transportation model requires not only numbers of dwelling units but also levels of employment, as measured by floor area, by type of employment and can also include other types of land use not specifically related to dwelling units or employment. Internal Zone Data The residential land use was further divided into residential categories for Upper County, Lower County, and Range to allow for more accurate trip generation. Much of the residential in the Upper County is vacation or recreational property and hence has a lower average trip generation rate. The Agriculture/Forestry/Mining classification was also divided to differentiate by trip generation as well. Typically irrigated agriculture has higher trip generation than range land. The Upper County area is typically the part of Kittitas County that is West and North of Ellensburg. The area included in the Upper County is shown here: Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 24 The Lower County includes the area around Ellensburg. This area is shown as: The Range area of the county is shown as: Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 25 Land Use Detail For Kittitas County, PTV America analyzed the area with using a variety of sources of information to create a credible database of land use information. This involved using the Kittitas County GIS coverage, inventorying occupancy by land use type, and computing expected numbers of dwelling units, employees, and students. These were compared with previous data and computations. All land use data was summarized into the following: LU1 Single Family Residential includes those lands occupied by either a single family home, a manufactured home, or a duplex on a single lot. Measured in dwelling units. LU2 Multi -Family Residential uses three or more or more residential units on a parcel of land. Also, this category includes mobile home parks, apartment buildings, and condominiums. Measured in dwelling units. LU3 Hotel includes motel rooms, hotels, and camp areas. Measured in number of rooms or designated camp areas. LU4 Retail Trade includes a variety of uses identified by Kittitas County staff. Retail uses include a broad range of establishments which sell goods directly to the general public, such as restaurants, automotive dealers, home furnishings, food stores or other products. Measured in thousand square feet. LU5 Industrial and Manufacturing includes a variety of uses identified by Kittitas County staff, within a broad range of general or specialty contractors: the production of food, textile, wood, furniture, paper, printing, metal, machinery, electrical and other products; and also includes Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities, such as railroads, trucking and warehouse, air transportation, pipelines, communication towers and electrical, gas and sanitary services. Measured in thousand square feet. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 26 LU6 Office are those land uses which are owned, or operated by units of government and provide the administration of public programs, which are identified by Kittitas County staff. Also included are offices with minimal customer traffic. This includes the state patrol. Measured in thousand square feet. LU7 FIRES (Finance Insurance Real Estate and Services) includes a variety of uses identified by Kittitas County staff. Services and offices include banks or other financial institutions, real estate and insurance offices, personal services, such as laundry or cleaning services, business services such as advertising, automotive repairs, amusements, churches, health care, medical, legal services and other assorted services. Measured in thousand square feet. LU8 Elementary and Middle Schools were updated using information obtained from the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Instruction (OSPI). The website of OSPI listed the number of students that attend each public school during the 2007-2008 school year. Measured in numbers of students. LU9 High Schools were updated using information obtained from the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Instruction (OSPI). The website of OSPI listed the number of students that attend each public school during the 2007-2008 school year. Measured in numbers of students. LU10 College and University are measured in number of full time equivalent students using data obtained from Central Washington University's website on enrollment during the 2007-2008 school year. LU11. Agriculture/Forestry/Mining generally relate to agricultural production and services without irrigation. Measured in acres. LU12 Agriculture -Upper County is a subdivision of LU11 for those uses in the Upper County area. Typically these include forestry and mining with some limited agriculture. Measured in acres. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 27 LU13 Agriculture -Lower County is a subdivision of LU11 for those uses in the Lower County area. Typically these include irrigated agriculture. Measured in acres. LU14 Agriculture -Range is a subdivision of LU11 for those uses in the Range area. Typically these include range and dry agriculture. Measured in acres. LU15 Single Family Residential -Upper County is a subdivision of LU1 for just the zones included in the Upper County area. Measured in dwelling units. LU16 Multi -Family Residential -Upper County is a subdivision of LU2 for just the zones included in the Upper County area. Measured in dwelling units. LU17 Single Family Residential -Lower County is a subdivision of LU1 for just the zones included in the Lower County area. Measured in dwelling units. LUIS Multi -Family Residential -Lower County is a subdivision of LU2 for just the zones included in the Lower County area. Measured in dwelling units. LU19 Single Family Residential -Range is a subdivision of LU1 for just the zones included in the Range area. Measured in dwelling units. LU20 Multi -Family Residential -Range is a subdivision of LU2 for just the zones included in the Range area. Measured in dwelling units. LU21 Parks are those land uses which are open space used for recreation. Measured in acres. LU22 Recreation are those land uses for recreation. Measured in thousand square feet. LU23 Medical are those land uses which are used for hospitals, clinics, or for medical offices. Measured in thousand square feet. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 28 LU24 Wholesale are those land uses which are for wholesale sale or storage. Measured in thousand square feet. Trip Generation After the collected land use data was distributed to the model zone system, the number of trips generated by each zone was calculated. This procedure, called trip generation, is a compilation of several mathematical formulas that determine the number of trips produced and attracted to each model zone. Many transportation engineering projects use the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation report to determine trip generation for proposed projects. Research by ITE has established a series of trip generation rates that, when multiplied by amount of proposed development (e.g., number of dwelling units, employees of commercial or industrial, etc.), produce an estimate of the total number of vehicle trips entering or exiting the development. While the above application is suitable for many traffic engineering projects, modeling uses a more disaggregate trip generation approach. When a trip distribution model (such as the one used in VISUM) is applied to origins and destinations, different trip purposes exhibit different travel characteristics. For example, the characteristics of a home -to -work trip are different from a home -to -shopping trip. If trip generation estimates were made simply following just the ITE rates, no distinction could be made. Therefore, it is important that the model generate different trip productions (origins) and attractions (destinations) for different trip purposes so that different travel characteristics can be accounted for in the gravity model. In its NCHRP reports 187 and 365, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) describes a methodology for trip generation that includes the following trip purposes: • Horne -Based Work (HBW) trips, • Home -Based Other (HBO) trips, and • Non -Horne -Based (NHB) trips. These three trip purposes are typically used with most daily transportation models. Because of the spatial structure of the Kittitas County model, it was decided to disaggregate the trip purposes. The Horne -Based Work trips were divided into trips Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 29 between Home -to -Work and Work -to -Home. The Home -Based -Other trips were divided into trips between Home -to -Other and Other -to -Home. By splitting the HBW and HBO trip purposes into their components; this eliminated the possibility of a problem of excessive trips between households. In addition, a Truck trip purpose was added to allow for the explicit generation and tracking of truck trips. Therefore six trip types were used: • Home to Work (HW) trips, • Work to Home (WH) trips, • Home to Other (HO) trips, Other to Home (OH) trips, and • Non -Horne -Based (NHB) trips • Truck trips PTV America developed the following trip generation factors for use in the model. The base trip generation rates were taken from ITE's Trip Generation Report. Factors used to separate the trips into the six purposes and origins -destinations were from NCHRP reports 187 and 365 and experience by PTV America with other studies. The trip generation process used percentage control totals that correspond to data in NCHRP 365 for similar sized areas. Trip generation rates are set at values during the beginning calibration simulations. As the calibration process is conducted, adjustments are made to the rates to better reflect the known (or base -year) travel conditions. Generated trips are compared with traffic count volumes and modified to match these volumes as closely as possible. During the process the residential and agricultural land uses were disaggregated for better definition of actual trip making characteristics. The total trips generated were adjusted for the three main county areas based upon regression analysis and observation of the behavior of the model with these adjustments. The allocations of the SFDU, MFDU, and AGFM units to the territories During the update of the model, the trip rates were refined for use in Kittitas County. This involved making incremental changes and comparing the results with the traffic counts in the areas throughout Kittitas County. Trip rates were revised as necessary to achieve improvement of the modeled volumes within Kittitas County. Table 6 presents the final trip generation rates used for the weekday evening peak hour model. Note that Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 30 land uses one and two are not listed. These are disaggregated into categories 15 - 20. Please note that there are also rates for the "externals" which generate the trips coming in and out of the external locations. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 31 Table 6 Peak Hour Trip Rates for the Kittitas County Transportation Planning Model HW WH HO OH NHB Truck Total Land Uses Units Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Ong Dest Orig Dest Total 3 Hotel/Motel Rms 0.011 0.01 0,011 0.01 .022 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.145 0.17 0.006 0 00 .216 0.25 0.47 4 Retail KSF. 0.00 0.03 0.47 0.00d0.000 1 1 1.08 0.00 .518 0.62 0.08 0.07 160 1.84 4.00 5 Ind/Man KSF. 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.000 0.043 0 07 0.00 .093 0.08 0.09 0.12 .465 0.28 0.75 6 Service/Office KSF. 0.00 0.051 1.23 0.00 0.000 0.50 1.17 0 0040.246 0.40 0.082 0.051 .738 1.01 3.75 7 FIRES KSF. D,o00 0.05(0.9()a0 00 .000 0.49 0.6 0.00 0.241 0.39 0.06 0.05 .010 0.99 3.00 8 El/MidSchoo] Stud. 0.40 0.00 0.03 0.00 D 000 0.022 0.04 0.00 016 0.03 0.00A.00 0.096 0.0 0.16 9 High School Stud. O.OD 0.00 0.032 0.00 0.0000021 0.041 0.000 0.015 0 03 0.00 0.00 .090 0,06 0.15 10 College Stud. 0.000 0.00 0.051 0.00 000 0.02 0 06 0 ON 0.025 0.03 0.004 0.00 .147 0.06 0.21 11 Ag/For/Min Acres 0.0()(0.00(0.00 0.04 0.000 0 00 0.00 0.00 .000 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 12 Ag -Range Acres 0.00 D 00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.04 0.00 .001 0.00 0.001 13 Ag -Lower Acres 0.00(0.00 0.001 0.00 .000 0000 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0,000 D.D0 002 0.001 0.00 14 Ag -Upper Acres 0 DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 .000 0.00010.001 15 SF -Upper DU 0.01 0,00 0.00 016 0.15 0.000 0.00 0.20 .057 0.051 0.00 0.00 3.23110.42d 0.66 16 MF -Upper DLJ 0.()050 000().0()(0.08 0.08 0.000 0.40 0.116 0.031 0.031 0.002 0.00 119 4.241 0.36 17 SF -Lower DU 00100-000 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.085 0.07 0.007 0.01 .346 0.61 0.96 18 MF -Lower DU 000 0.00 0. 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.051 0.051 0,00 0.00 .191 0.38 0.58 19 5F -Range DU 0, 012 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.181 0.00 0.00 0.2 .064 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.263 0.4880.75C 20 MF -Range DU 0.007 0;00 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.145 0.039 0.03 0.00 0.00 .149 0.30 0.45 21 Parks Acres 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 0.00 0.000 0.00 011 0.00 0.02 22 Recreation KSF 0 00 0.09 0.401 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.501 0.00 1.042 0.64 0.06 0.04 ,005 1.57 3.58 23 Government KSF 0.00 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.102 0.21 O.00 .235 0.20 0.02 0.01 .871 0.33 1.21 24 Medical KSF 0.00 0.04 0.20 O.QD 0.00 0.228 0.171 0.000 0.287 0.16 0.021 0.01 .684 0.45 1.14 25 Wholesale KSF 0.000 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.051 0.00 0.103 0.05 0.068 0.05 .342 0.16 0.51 26 External -Internal Trips 0.05 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.230 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.000 0.00 1.00 27 Internal -External Trips O.DQ 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.20 .000 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.000 1.00 1.00 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 31 In Table 7, a comparison is made between the generation rates used in the Kittitas County model and ITE Trip Generation Report. Table 7 Trip Generation Rate Comparison 2008 Kittitas County Transportation Planniniz Model Land Use Rates used in the Model ITE Rates Orig Dest . Total Avg. Low High 3 Hotel/Motel 0.22 0.25 0.47 0.47 0.20 1.69 4 Retail 2.16 1.84 4.00 3.74 0.68 29.27 5 Ind/Man 0.47 0.29 0.75 0.75 0.09 7.85 6 Service/ - Office 2.74 1.01 3.75 3.46 0.97 8.86 7 FIRES 2.01 0.99 3.00 2.85 2.82 2.86 8 Elem/Mid School 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.30 9 High School 0.09 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.38 10 College 0.15 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.43 11 Ag/For/Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 12 Ag -Range 0.00 0.001 0.00 NA 13 Ag -Lower 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 14 Ag -Upper 0.00 0,00 0.00 NA 15 SF -Upper 0.23 0.43 0.66 1.01 0.42 2.98 16 MF -Upper 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.62 0.10 1.64 17 SF -Lower 0.35 0.61 0.96 1.01 0.42 2.98 18 MF -Lower 0.19 0.39 0.58 0.62 0.10 1.64 19 SF-EMLe 0.26 0.49 0.75 1.01 0.42 2.98 20 MF -Range 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.62 0.10 1.64 21 Parks 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 22 Recreation 2.00 1.58 3.58 3.58 2.95 4.06 23 Government 0.87 0.34 1.21 1.21 1.17 1.22 24 Medical 0.68 0.46 1.14 1.14 0.70 6.94 25 Wholesale L 0.341 0.17 0.51 0.51 0.501 0.55 Model rates are comparable but slightly different than ITE rates. Reasons for these Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 32 differences can be occupancy or, conversely, vacancy, the aggregation of distinct land use types into more general categories, and local variations. Retail rates are based upon a medium size shopping center. Typically a smaller retail establishment will have a higher trip generation to employee ratio than a large shopping mall. In addition, the ITE national average, or 1\CHRP 187 and 365 rates, assumes the same trip generation rates at each development. During the actual system peak hour, this is not necessarily the case. For example, one industrial development or office may dismiss their employees during the peak hour, while another, located elsewhere in the model area, will have a slightly earlier (or later) discharge time. Adjustments were made to the 2008 model to reduce trip generation in the residential areas that may have seasonally vacant vacation homes, homes away from the urban areas resulting in lower peak hour trip generation rates, and to increase the generation for retail, office, and service uses. Rates were adjusted slightly for balance between origins and destinations and to account for locations in the model where overall trip generation appeared too high or too low. The factors were applied to the collected land use information and stored in the origin - destination files in VISUM These files contain the origins and destination values for all trips generated by all land uses and external zones. External Zones Origin and destination totals for external zones were set at the base -year peak -hour traffic volumes. These were based upon data from the previous models and WSDOT data. As with internal zones, traffic generated externally is also apportioned among different trip purposes as show in Table 6. Trips generated by external zones fall into two categories. Traffic that travels from external zone to external zone, or through the network, is called a through trip. These movements are designated as X -X trips in VISUM, which stands for eXternal to eXternal travel. The primary characteristic of these trips is that they travel through the network but do not stop or start within an internal or perimeter zone. In the Kittitas County model the best illustration for this movement is the trip that starts in Seattle and ends in Moses Lake or Yakima without making a stop in the Kittitas County model area. The second trip type generated by an external zone is the one that begins at an internal zone and ends in an external zone, or vice versa. These trips, often designated as I -X Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 33 and X -I trips (for Internal to eXternal, eXternal to Internal) can be illustrated by the movement from Ellensburg to Yakima. Trip distribution is typically only performed for I -I (Interna? -Internal), I -X, and X -I trips. The remaining X -X trips are placed in a trip table. This trip table, listing the number of direct movements between zones, is a manual distribution of the X -X traffic based upon some known parameters. External -external traffic is difficult to simulate (or in this case, distribute) with the gravity model. Therefore, the modeling process with VISUM includes a step for "manually" distributing X -X traffic to the external stations. For this model, the External -External traffic was derived from the previous modeling efforts and then tested in the model. These were revised in this process because several ramps with count data were too high in the model. It was determined that more through trips would reduce these to more reasonable values. The X -X trips were placed in two through trip table matrices, one for Cars and one for Trucks. The Truck matrix was derived using WSDOT ADC counter locations and an average of 25% trucks was used at all external locations except for SR 821 which assumed 10% trucks. The remaining trips associated with the external zone's I -X and X -I movements were added to the trip generation portion of the modeling stream and then combined with the model's origin -destination file for the model runs. The model stream run module used in VISUM automatically adds the manually distributed X -X trips to the trip table created from the origin -destination file during the gravity model distribution process. Combine Productions and Attractions and Balance Data from the external traffic zones were combined with the internal zone trips to form a complete origin -destination file for the Kittitas County model. After the I -X and X -I trips were added, origin and destination sums by trip purpose were automatically balanced to the average of the number of productions and attractions to be equal. The trip generation rates were previously checked with land use totals to insure that trips would be balanced. The primary purpose for checking equivalencies was to ensure that for each production or origin generated by the model there was an attraction or destination. (Transportation planning models are closed systems, meaning that every trip on the network must have an origin and a destination.) Care was taken to closely correlate to target percentages by trip purpose from NCHRP 365. A trip generation rates strategy such as the one used to develop the Kittitas County Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 34 model internal zone traffic does not always produce balanced origins and destinations. For example, trip generation assumes that every business within the same retail category has the same trip generating characteristic. Retail land uses include different types of development ranging from department stores to restaurants. Furthermore, had a single land use been assumed, such as grocery stores, the departure rates during the PM peak hour would vary from development to development. Therefore, with the methodology there can be some difficulty in producing equal numbers of origins and destinations in the transportation model. A process must be followed before the first simulation run can be performed to balance the origins and destinations. Any balancing adjustments would be done to the total numbers of trips by trip purpose. First, the total differences by trip purpose were found. Then, the trip generation rates were reevaluated and appropriate changes were made to the trip rates. After this process was completed, the sums were checked for both internal and external zones, all trips were balanced by averaging the trips, and the total productions and attractions by demand strata were ready for initial V1SUM distribution and assignment runs. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 35 Calibration Approach Calibration is an iterative process and includes upgrading or adjusting entered data, program coefficients, or parameters and assumptions on successive simulation nuns until the volumes and traffic patterns produced by the model approximate known volumes within an "acceptable level of error." The acceptable level of error for calibrated model data has been recommended in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 255 entitled Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project PIanning and Design. The primary premise behind these guidelines is that simulated model data should not significantly differ from actual count data thereby causing inappropriate under- or over -design of roadway facilities. Differences between modeled volumes and actual counts may look significant; however, in everyday practice, these differences should not cause unsuitable roadway facility planning. There are three significant points to consider. The first is "acceptable level of error" and "How good are the counts?" Given that this is the basis for calibration, are these counts good enough for the process? if some count data is questionable, can the model be asked to simulate a condition better than the condition is known? Considering these questions, it has been found through experience in modeling that an "acceptable level of error" is directly related to the existing traffic volumes on a certain link. Through the course of calibration, higher volume streets can be expected to have better results. Acceptable limits may be that a 20% error can be expected on heavily used arterials, 40% on primary collectors, and perhaps as high as 200% on little -used rural collectors. Although the latter level of error may seem high, a variation of 200% on little -used roadways may mean a difference of 25 to 100 vehicles, insufficient to cause inappropriate facility planning when the model results are used. The second point to consider is the adjustment of entered data, program parameters, and model assumptions. After entering all the data and making the initial model assumptions, the simulation distribution and assignment run is made. The desired outcome is that the results will perfectly match all the counts and the model will be calibrated. Usually, though, some data or assumptions (the "rules" of the model) are incorrect. On locating the errors from the distribution and assignment, causes are identified. The rules are reconsidered and adjusted. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 36 Each change in data, parameters, or assumptions represents a refinement or upgrade of the rules. Each refinement must be backed by a reason. No changes are made to simply get better volumes. To apply the model to alternate scenarios, especially future year forecasts, each justification must be questioned for its continued application. If the rule still holds for the scenario, then it can be applied. If the rule is not applicable, then adjustments must be made in rules for that scenario. Finally, it must be emphasized that the simulation being run with the model is one of human interaction with the transportation system. To do this, the program uses the gravity model to simulate the distribution of trips between zones and selects "shortest paths" for the assignment of trips. Human behavior is equated to a series of mathematical formulas that assume that all humans behave logically. While people do not always behave in a logical and rational manner, under most situations these assumptions are valid. Keeping this in mind, the calibration process is carried out. Model Calibration Process Essentially, calibration is comprised of three stages. First, working from outside to inside and large to small, all volumes that lead to the outside world through external zones are calibrated. Analyzing the model for general trends of trips is the next step. The third step is to evaluate the individual count locations and individual routes. Changes at any level may affect operations at another stage in calibration. That is, a proper allocation of trips to the right route may affect the general trends. Therefore, the calibration process is one of always looking back and continually monitoring each step until the procedure is complete. External Zones In VISUM, zones are differentiated between "internal" and "external." Internal zones are those in which all the land use is known and all generated trips will go to and arrive from other zones in the modeled system. An external zone interacts with other zones in the modeled system and with the external world that surrounds the network. (Traffic count data, collected on the roadway leading in or out of an external zone, is used.) It is impossible to describe hilly the land uses outside the modeled area that interact with the internal zones. Therefore, an external zone is described in the model as having origins and destinations to produce the appropriate volume of traffic on the roadways that connect it with the rest of the network. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 37 VISUM automatically adjusts the distribution to match the IA and X -I origins and destinations at the external zones. It also automatically distributes the proper number of destinations to each zone based upon the values derived during the trip generation process. However, the distribution of those trips within the model can be modified by changing the apparent distance traveled either approaching or departing the model area. These were adjusted to get an expected distribution from the externals. From these results, analyses are performed and potential changes or upgrades to the entered data are made for the following simulation run. Overall high or low trends can suggest that information needs to be upgraded concerning dwelling units, employment, trip generation rates, and/or gravity model -spatial behavior coefficients. Throughout the calibration of overall trends, each segment of entered data is questioned and necessary changes are made. In addition, ground count data is also scrutinized. Final Calibration Values Changes were made to the parameters in an iterative fashion based upon judgment. The final values used in the calibration are the following: Car impedance is weighted 0.985 on time and 0.15 on distance. Truck impedance is weighted 0.980 on time and .020 on distance Iterative distribution and assignment with equilibrium assignment was used. The skim matrix (a measure of travel impedance) was averaged for each iteration for up to 3 iterations after the initial step. Specification of this option meant that the gravity model distributions are based upon recalculated travel impedances in subsequent assignments. Table 8 illustrates the gravity model exponents set at the following: Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 38 Table 8 Gravity Model Parameters 2008 Kittitas County Transportation Planning Model Trip Purpose Beta Exponent Alpha Exponent Constant HW 2.00 -0.2 100 WH 2.00 -0.2 100 HO 2.70 -0.2 100 OH 2.70 -0.2 100 NHB 2.80 -0.1 100 Truck 2.2 -0.,5 100 The volumes and volume/capacity ratios for links or streets were plotted for comparison with the future year alternatives. These colors range light green through dark green, orange, red, and dark red to show increasing amounts of congestion. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 39 2008 Base Conditions Finally, the "calibrated" model is verified against the base -year traffic counts. The verification process is a series of post -simulation run analyses that are designed to analyze the accuracy and degree of confidence presented in the calibrated results. Included in these analyses are verification of the trip distribution characteristics and comparisons of the traffic count data vs. modeled link volumes. These are typically analyzed with screenlines and scattergrams. Screenlines Nine (9) Screenlines were established showing major movements within the County. These were chosen at locations were counts were also available. The screenlines were summarized and analyzed for trends and acceptability. These are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Kittitas County Screenline Locations NCHRP 255 establishes standards for allowable deviation based upon traffic count volumes. Lower volume screenlines are allowed more deviation because of the increased amount of variation in count data and the lesser importance of Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 40 :�'0 a'ac� + t 94..... -----] •raRW -----... p [S�w.. 2P59Trs� ¢•.4iL Via« y❑ 4 i Y - A. Z ,• y4 ..,. A _ ISI .� '. Y jAk ge. `s ; 4 ' Figure 5 Kittitas County Screenline Locations NCHRP 255 establishes standards for allowable deviation based upon traffic count volumes. Lower volume screenlines are allowed more deviation because of the increased amount of variation in count data and the lesser importance of Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 40 lower volumes. The screenline results are summarized in Table 8. Locations with counts so low that they are less than the evaluation criteria are shown as "NA." All screenlines and the total of all screenlines are within acceptable standards. It should be noted that not all crossings of a screenline had count volumes. Therefore, there may be some variations that are not completely explained by this table. It is felt that all screenlines are within acceptable ranges. Table 8 Screenline Analysis No. NAME Tot Vol Tot Count % Deviation % Allow 1 CleElum 128 76 68% NA 2 West of Ellensburg 69 55 25% NA 3 North of Ellensburg 116 84 38% NA, 4 West Ellensburg 3207 2388 34% 47% 5 11 North Ellensburg 474 442 7% 70% 61 South of Ellensburg 488 451 8% 69% 7 Central Ellensburg 5041 5522 -9% 33% 8 EW Central Ellensburg 3184 2841 12% 43% 9 East of Ellensburg 577 629 -8% 67% Total 13284 12488 6% 23% Scattergram Analysis Several analyses of scattergram plots showing the correlation between traffic count observations and model volumes were conducted. Figures 6 and 7 show comparisons for ALL traffic counts and counts on just Freeways, Ramps, and Principal and Minor Arterials, respectively. Typical standards are usually compared on roads classified as Principal Arterial and higher classifications. More deviation is expected when analyzing lower classification facilities such as collectors and local roads due to the variation in traffic count data and the lower volumes. Both figures show link ground counts on the X axis and assigned volumes on the Y axis. On the green 'goal' line the assignment volume is equal to the ground count. The red linear 'regression' line shows the best straight line estimate of the assignment volume for any count. The blue 'allowable' curves show the maximum allowable errors according to the graph discussed from NCHRP 255. In both graphs there is one significant outlier. This is the westbound 1-90 on-ramp at Cascade/University Way. This is an older count and Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 41 i s 3 2 1 1 1 1 �1 SrrV,Mi�//[�i YW 300 200 140 may not have an actual deviation of this magnitude. This comparison also affects screenline number 4. Assignment analysis,NeWo* Kittitasaase20N , _ ._-__ _ ------------ ____.___!.. ,- , may •-.+.�....__-_I_ . 2VU 4VJ CYW KUD 1 1 1 2 2 2 Observers attribute{Ualidatet Figure G Kittitas County Scattergram for ALL Links — Tolersnm ---- Regression — - Target value teum.Obs 863 Avg Obs 178 %RhMSE 41 9~ Ir, 84 R2 GM., SlopeQ.95 Ysnt 2.38 MeanRelError%24 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 42 71 61 51 41 31 21 Assignment analysis, Network: Kittitas Base 2008 - W---------- ----------- -------------------- -------------------------- f , — ------- --------- ----•--- I -- _ -- _-. f ..v ------------------ ---------a Tolerances Regression Target value NumObs 90 AvgObs 625 %RMSE 23 %In 93 R2 0.89 Slope 1.04 Ylnt -58.43 MeanRelErmr% 17 200 400 600 800 1 1 1 2 2 2 Observed attribute (Validate) Figure 7 Kittitas County Scattergram for Freeway, All Arterials, and Ramps As can be seen, the majority of the deviations fall between the curves. Other statistics calculated are: AvgObs is the average assignment volume for all analyzed links. %RMSE, the percent root mean square error, a summary statistic representing the average assignment error, disregarding sign, in percent. E(Assignment Errors)2 % RMSE 100 x Number of Links Average Count Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 43 %In shows the percent of assigned volumes within allowable errors specifications. R2, the coefficient of determination or 'goodness of fit' statistic, shows how well the regression line represents the assignment data. There are no national standards for R2 or RMSE. However, there are guidelines that have been established by Caltrans for data used in air quality analysis. The guidelines recommend an R2 of 0.88, a maximum RMSE of 35%, and a minimum %In of 75% for links classified as Principal Arterials and above. Analysis of all links shows an R2 of 0.92 and of Arterials and above shows an R2 of 0.89, which are both better than the guideline of 0.88. Typically we see higher values of R2 when there is a broader range of counts. If analyzing just higher volume facilities, the counts are more clustered and thus it is more difficult to plot these in a straight line. The model also shows a %RMSE of 41% for all links and a %RMSE of only 23% for Arterials and above. The guideline of 35% or less is only applicable for Principal Arterials and above, so the 23% looks very good. Analyzing all link classes shows the 84% of the count locations within acceptable bounds The analysis of Arterials and above shows 93% of the count locations are within bounds. This is much better than the recommended standard of 75% for only links classified as Principal Arterial or above. Slope of the line in both cases is very close to 1.0, with values ranging from 0.95 to 1.04. This is considered to be very good. The 2008 Kittitas County model is well calibrated and can be used for forecasts. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 44 Forecasts Forecast Process The traffic volume forecasts are based upon projected changes in land use, changes in interaction with the area outside of the model, changes in travel behavior, and changes in the transportation system. Typically, as the number of households and jobs increase, the traffic will increase as well. The calibration can be looked at as building and checking the "rules" for traffic generation, distribution, and assignment in the Kittitas County area. Then, as changes are made these same "rules" are used to project the change in traffic volumes and resulting changes in congestion, travel time, and emissions. The forecast process requires the projected number of housing units, projected number of employees by land use classification, number of acres of agricultural land, etc. It also requires a forecast of interaction with the area outside of the models. Information is needed to project the trips that enter and leave the model area. Finally, any planned transportation improvement projects should be included to properly assess the future operation of the transportation system. Each of these items is discussed. Land Use Forecasts Several sources were used to compile the forecast land use scenario. Previous work on forecast land use had been done by Studio Cascade, a land use planning consulting firm. Studio Cascade examined land use in Ellensburg during 2005 and compiled a forecast scenario for Ellensburg zones. Kittitas County also supplied PTV America, Inc. with a forecast scenario using growth factors with three ranges. It was decided to use a combination of these sources of forecast information to produce a detailed and more accurate land use forecast. The general methodology included using forecast data from Studio Cascade for all Ellensburg zones while using Kittitas County forecast data for all other zones with some exceptions. External growth was similarly adjusted. Typically external growth is based upon trends analysis. The area surrounding a model study area is usually not experiencing congestion or volume -to -capacity problems. It is usually sufficient to analyze historical trends based upon traffic counts and extrapolate these trends into the future. Caution should be used if any of the trend extrapolation pushes the traffic volume on any external close to its capacity. WSDOT ATR count data was used from 1997 to 2007 to establish trends. The growth rates were between 2.5% per year (for I-90) to less than Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 45 0.5% per year (for SR 97). Each external was factored with the appropriate rate and external -external trips were adjusted with the combined rates for both Car and Truck trips. Trips were generated for the alternative scenario forecasts with the same rates as used for the calibrated 2008 model. Once the total productions and attractions were computed the totals were balanced for each trip purpose or demand strata. These were averaged before use in the gravity distribution model. The same procedure was used for distribution and assignment as in the base year calibration. Transportation System Improvements The forecast models were run for the future horizon year of 2030. The models were run with no -build and groups of assumed improvements to test the impacts of various improvements. The assumed network improvements included these 27 proposed corridors. Alliance Rd to 6th Street Bender Road to Dry Creek Road Bowers Road to Look Road Bowers Road to US 97 Exit 85 to Lower Peoh Point Fowler Creek to Lund Lane FS Rd 2600 to FS Rd 4930 Godawa Ln to Upper Peoh Point Graham Road to Upper Peoh Point Road Hidden Valley Road to US 97 Judge Ronald Road to Fields Road Pasco Road to Westside Road Pasco Road to Woods & Steele Road Pays Rd to Godawa Ln Pfenning Road to Kittitas Highway Reecer Creek Rd to Tipton Rd Silverton Road to Weaver Road Smithson Road to Wilson Creek Road Strande Road to Hanson Road Winston Rd to Exit 78 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 46 Woods & Steele Road to Graham Road No improvements are assumed for I-90 or other state facilities. All network coding was checked for the revisions. Capacities were recomputed for the links and nodes. The Multi -Point Assignment (MPA) equivalencies were checked and revised as necessary. Turn penalties were checked and revised as necessary. Growth Scenarios The four growth scenarios were analyzed run for both the no -build and build conditions. PM Peak hour volumes were forecast and the links were plotted with colors depicting ranges of volume/capacity ratios for the roads. Similar to the previously displayed base year conditions, these colors range light green through dark green, orange, red, and dark red to show increasing amounts of congestion. Also, relative amounts of delay are shown for nodes or intersections using red dot. The larger the red dot the more delay computed by the model. Intersections with large red dots indicate potential problem locations. Graphics of each of the scenarios are shown below with traffic volumes. A comparison was made between alternatives to show the differences between land use scenarios and the Build/No-Build conditions. Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) were summarized for the Kittitas County. The average speed (VMT/VHT) was computed for each of the scenarios also to facilitate comparisons. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Scenario VMT VHT VMT/VHT No Build Full Corridor Development Medium Corridor Development ' Low Corridor Kirdtas County, Washington Transportation Model - May 2009 Page 47 Development Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) increased by approximately for Scenario XX for Scenario YY. Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) increased by approximately Scenario XX No -Build and for Scenario YY etc. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 48 Conclusions As with all models, these are tools to evaluate the impacts of future change. The results should be used with caution. A model is only as good as the data and assumptions that were used to develop the model and the forecasts of the future year inputs. Caution should especially be used when evaluating the future. Will the forecast land use really occur as projected? Will travel behavior stay essentially the same? Should adjustments be made to account for these changes? These models should be considered working tools. They are now completed and ready for application and use. When they are used for specific studies, the results should be examined and analyzed. If conditions have changed in an area or the existing data is out of date, compensation or improvements should be made in the model and its result. Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 49 Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model — May 2009 Page 50 Appendix D: 20 Year Transportation Project Scoring Criteria Z 0 J N• } Lij a) N F— 9 U ° W _E O} O c 4.- V Z❑ U oU NU 4? Lr -N �- C p Q .Q 0 0 - IL .(D o V) ��o ZN Q ��,�zo f..f, W O CD O N � O C C fL > y N ° 0 m - CD O N } C > C O O N O O Q1 -0p O j C N Z)p u C O O 3° 0 L L EDL /"� Q y C R j o c 0S❑ Vi'—Z >-Z >-Z U0 >-Z >-Z U0 M0 NO N —E Q NO 10M0 100 10v0 C O a_(D U O O O 0 0 O O 3 c 3 c L r c o 3 c° m c; c oLa A, W ivr TS Q� O O "O D ALAS� t O E i3 E— U .� '' C E O °� O aO ° o N O C� c "O � Q• >O E �. O O Q p O C ] O €3 N N• H 6 O y (D D O O y N 2 .O- c Q E d N 'O W E 0 QJ O N> U N N _� O 0 0 O o Q° CD U 0 a j C Q� 0 U (� % 0 0 Q� O O D CL ° ° „ �O O } o U _ U O O 0-0 y O E O Q W L N> v 0 Q y N O D N O Q3 O O E O O E 0 Q O V O> 0 O L ❑ L m N ❑ ❑ N a. Q ❑ .c a_ ❑ Appendix E: Revenue and Expenditures Report Fiscal Sustainability Strategy for Kittitas County Public Works 20 -Year Transportation Improvement Program j Final Report: May 22, 2018 Executive Summary This letter report assesses Kittitas County's (the County's) historical transportation improvement program and its future operating and capital needs. We present the funding gap between expected revenues and future needs and provide strategies to balance future revenues; operating, maintenance, and preservation expenses; and capital projects. The County's goals are to fill the anticipated 20 -year funding gap, provide safe roads and bridges, and better align beneficiaries and those who are paying. This report recognizes that any funding strategy must balance these goals against developing sustainable revenue sources that are feasible for the County to implement. Based on historical revenues, we project the following: The County can expect approximately $207 million in transportation revenues over the 20 -year planning period between 2018 and 2037 (in 2018 dollars), including $60 million in the 6 -year period. Out of the $207 million in projected revenues over 20 years, approximately $77 million comes from assumed awards from federal and state grants and Road Fund allocations to match those grants, which are capital -restricted funds. This leaves $130 million in available revenues for operating expenditures. This estimate assumes that the County can successfully secure grant awards. The County faces approximately $171 million in total operating and maintenance and preservation costs, which include the costs of maintaining, preserving, and operating current roads, bridges, and facilities. ■ This means the County faces a $41 million deficit in operating revenues over 20 years. On the capital side, the $77 million available for the prioritized capital projects over the life of this plan is not sufficient to complete the $127 million of projects on the County's prioritized project list. The County faces an additional $50 million deficit in revenues for capital projects. Together, the County faces a $91 million deficit in operating and capital costs. Key figures to summarize the County's financial capacity are highlighted in Exhibit 1 below. :101 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Sfrafegy: Final Reporf Exhibit 1. Financial Capacity for Operating Expenditures and Capital Projects in 20 -Year Period (2018$) 20 -year period: 2018-2037 Projected Revenue $206.5 million - Capital -restricted funds $76.7 million Available for Operating Expenditures $129.8 million Available for Operating Expenditures $129.8 million - Projected Operating Expenditures $170.5 million Operating Expediture Deficit or Surplus ($40.7) million Capital -restricted funds $76.7 million - Capital Projects List $127.0 million Capital Expenditure Deficit or Surplus ($50.3) million Total Operating and Capital Deficit ($91.0) million Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: Capital -restricted funds are federal grants, state grants, and Road Fund allocations to match grants. Our analysis assumes the following: 1) revenue forecasts follow the trend established by historic revenue streams from 2008 through 2017; 2) petroleum-based fuels will continue as the predominant vehicle propellent during the next 20 years; and 3) the County's ability to secure federal and state grants remains constant, based on the ten-year average period (2008-2017). Exhibit 2 shows the annual projected baseline revenues available for operating uses, operating expenditures, and the operating deficit, in 2018 dollars, over the next 20 years. This exhibit does not include the $50 million deficit in capital needs. r11f May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report Exhibit 2. Projected Annual Operating Revenues, Expenditures, and Deficit, 2018-2037 (2018$) $12 $10 $8 0 $6 $4 $2 $0 O w b �`L0o9 07" ,L�0l, ,t6' ' ,Z0`b, Z60 Q;' ,yr5 ��b'blr1' ,a0�o,L;gq L030 ,1fl3' ,y03`Z 03'S fl ,L,y9b 0511 �003I 3b 7 -$2 -$4 Annual Projected Baseline Operating Revenues Annual Projected Operating Expenditures Annual Operating Deficit Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: This does not include the $50 million deficit in capital needs over 20 years. To fill the 20 -year funding gap of $91 million in operating and capital costs, we worked with the County to identify potential funding strategies. Based on our analysis of potential revenue generation and alignment with County goals, BERK recommends that the County pursue a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and then establish a Vehicle Licensing Fee (non -voted), in combination with a County Road property tax levy lid lift (voted). Revenue generated from both these sources may be used for both operating and/or capital purposes. Through a phased approach, the County can implement a Vehicle Licensing Fee that graduates to a higher rate annually. This approach would develop as a $20 Vehicle Licensing Fee for two years, a $40 fee for two years, and a $50 fee for the rest of the 20 -year time frame without a public vote. Using vehicle registration data from the Department of Licensing, we project that this strategy can bring in an estimated additional revenue of $32 million over 20 years. The Vehicle Licensing Fee through a TBD would help to meet the goals of increasing revenues to cover the funding gap and addressing safety concerns. This option also does not require a public vote. However, this option does not address the issue of improving the alignment between beneficiaries and those who are paying. Recreational users from outside the County would not be subject to this fee. III May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Reporf In addition to establishing a Vehicle Licensing Fee, we recommend the County pursue a County Road property tax levy lid lift, up from the current rate of $0.98 per $1,000 of assessed value to $1.75 per $1,000 of Assessed Value (which is still below the statutory maximum of $2.25 per $1,000 Assessed Value). The levy lid lift requires a public vote. We project that this can bring in an estimated additional $62 million over 20 years. The Vehicle Licensing Fee, combined with a County Road property levy lid lift, can generate $94 million in additional revenue, sufficient to cover the deficit of $91 million while allowing the County to build a slight surplus for unknown and/or emergency events. Alternatively, the County can pursue a TBD Sales and Use Tax, in combination with a higher County Road property tax levy lid lift. The County could also choose to pursue debt financing, though there are additional costs associated with taking on debt. The recommended revenue options are summarized in Exhibit 3 below, and the benefits and challenges associated with each option are outlined further in this report. Exhibit 3. Operating and Capital Funding Gap and Potential Additional Revenue (2018$) Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Kittitas County Assessor's Office 2018; Washington Department of Licensing 2018; Washington Department of Revenue 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Exhibit 4 shows 20 -year projected revenues when the County implements a phased Vehicle Licensing Fee and a County Road property tax levy lid lift to $1.75 per $1000 Assessed Value (AV), along with projected operating and capital expenditures and the application of the operating surplus with the two recommended revenue tools. The exhibit shows a one-time levy lid lift to $1.75 per $1000 AV; strategies on how the County might reach this $1.75 per $1,000 AV levy limit could vary. May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Reporf 4 2018-2023 2024-2027 _10 -Year Total, 2018 - 2027 2028 - 2037 '� 20 -Year Total, 7018 - 2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 - 10) : (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) : (Years 1- 20) Operating Surplus or Deficit $ (11,206,000) $ (8,077,800) $ (19,283,800) $ (21,368,600) $ (40,652,400) Capital Expenditures Surplus or Deficit $ (50,459,600) Total Operating and Capital Expenditures Surplus or Deficit $ (91,112,000) Estimated Potential Additional Revenue Transportation Benefit District - Vehicle Licensing Fee $ 6,540,000 $ 6,510,000 $ 13,050,000 $ 18,570,000. $ 31,610,000 Property Tax Levy Lid Lift - County Road Fund ($1.75 per $1000 AV) $ 22,170,000 $ 13,150,000 $ 35,320,000 $ 26,990,000 $ 62,320,000 Total Estimated Additional Revenue $ 28,710,000 $ 19,660,000 $ 48,370,000 $ 45,560,000"$ 93,930,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Kittitas County Assessor's Office 2018; Washington Department of Licensing 2018; Washington Department of Revenue 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Exhibit 4 shows 20 -year projected revenues when the County implements a phased Vehicle Licensing Fee and a County Road property tax levy lid lift to $1.75 per $1000 Assessed Value (AV), along with projected operating and capital expenditures and the application of the operating surplus with the two recommended revenue tools. The exhibit shows a one-time levy lid lift to $1.75 per $1000 AV; strategies on how the County might reach this $1.75 per $1,000 AV levy limit could vary. May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Reporf 4 Exhibit 4. Annual Projected Revenues, Operating and Capital Expenses, and Surplus with Additional Revenue Tools, 2018-2037 (2018$) $16 $16 zo-0 ,b�1p ,Z0'P ,l00 ,L011 ,1OS!, ?zr'" 200 L0111 ,1011 100 oqq �o�O �p�, 0,'l ,1oa,5 �oS1, R0,55 y_$b -$2 $14 $12 $10 $8 a $6 $4 $2 $0 .$2 Annual Projected Additional Revenue: Vehicle Licensing Fee + County Road Levy Lid Lift ($1.75 per $1000 AV) Annual Projected Baseline Total Revenues Annual Average Capital Expenditures Annual Projected Operating Expenditures Annual Surplus Available with Additional Revenue Tools Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: Baseline total revenues include both operating revenues and capital -restricted funds. Projected capital expenditures show annual averages assuming the capital expenditures are smoothed over 20 years; realistically, capital expenditures will be uneven across 20 years. The exhibit shows how the funding gap can be filled with voter and Board of County Commissioner actions in 2018. If these new funding mechanisms are not in place until 2019, the small surplus of $3 million (over 20 years) will be used up. 1II May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 5 Funding Situation Assessment HISTORICAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Historically, the County's transportation program has been operating at capacity. During the last few years, transportation revenues have dropped below operating expenditures. At the same time, the County has been accumulating a growing list of capital projects that are critically needed to provide safe roads, highways, bridges, and infrastructure. Future revenue sources are increasingly uncertain, and County staff are concerned that current revenues available for operations and capital cannot keep up with the demands. In addition, the County had been growing at a steady rate and this growth is expected to continue. Therefore, demand for services is also expected to increase. Exhibit 5 shows historical transportation revenues from 2008 to 2017, and Exhibit 6 shows historical transportation expenditures over the some period. The historical revenue and expenditure data was provided by County Public Works and categorized in discussion with department staff. Exhibit 7 shows summary -level historical data. The data are presented in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars, or nominal dollars. ! May 22, 201 B Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy. Fina! Report n v} .a+ V� . _ 00 q c j v 0 p O a u m�q g ` m m EO O 0 j 5 c 1 s O a3 N $ ami m cno rn -- o nni h p � e -I O O > N N O 44 V3- V} V} in V} V} V} Vi VI- V? V1 V! V} c4 -0 : T E 0 °' 3 m n+ t a' M to g v rn o+ om a 5 W .y QW �D rn m ti N o0p0op N Ln inLn Rti ti o m y p N Lo N C - �fy a a V 6 V} a) a �- Ln N N N y t x 0 re N 1 p E a t Gl yCD a to Vr V► th V� v> +/� v� V> V� V► c a)a�� m m m i? p rn G LL y GJ m ni LpO h Nr 0) v L N 00 n d CV E F ; a p 'o pippp -- N� N p .• T + GO i: -- LLD S 1p �3 o M N l0' VI p > 0V} w o p m m u Y} m a) y O a int V► V> V� +h +n in. V► V� vs u^ � in V> v► N p U O 2 N a rz �+ n `�' MO y n o 1 c'v x a5 T �. 00 a N N O m r n 00 ., m v m vii m n a` li _ ,1 CIS11 `� O -u C 1 14 T GO N N } N m G � O y y O G u7i p 0_ U •o a 0 y m m N N C4 a c a �a a G T h W m v O -- u o o in V1 Vk V! i/f VF V^ V} Vl V1 V} in rn 41 m m 00 M a m oo W W N n ` V ccii m 0 00 V1 r -I V1 n � r� r•i H' N 1� to N 0�0 `� r� VE V} V} V? in -Ll V} VF V? V1. Vl V} VF VF in n O to N �i m w M O N Qr� o V1 N M M N w 0`00 m o oNi ^Nr' Lo D1 cY of �c�np �[y M N r» 06Ln c°$ m v in in VP' V} V> in ih in A^ V? V► i!? VF i1} vF a h m n o Ln cn k Cq N M 000 M [71 Ln Ch fb fm� N uWl Lri 00�Y a r M M ti V} VF A^ VF V} in VF V} VT V? V? V} Vt V} VT *� 1GO� M c+ 00 O N M o n V1 t� rn n 00relM to �••I M to M Q w M M Cpl p pUp 00 ac-il� ri' �+ W fn CF V m 1�f1 c•I v� n M N Vr V} V> in in 14 V} V� Vti in to � in VE V� -4 N W l�O n N m N lQ pip rte{ �ryp� MMS n R1 l� Mr4 q�p N N cr m rlr � pOH A W .--I V1 V► in 11 V} V} VIN V? Vf iR V! m S nNi p Ln p b L6 oz 0 00 oo n P- 0o M Ln a rl al M Vf in V� th v► rn in in in in v> in t4 in in H � C C L6 �» X c ~ N m G V H N > d a at xu LB N "a U G m �, 7 G_ O X 3 d t C y N m O LL C C i p m C L 07 m .0 CL N m L CL N N Qr s C 0J O r� y N N L° "O G ni V v� O E m a O m a to a m ri V1 m w ry o= u O c F- tn C9 O n v} .a+ V� . _ c j v 0 p O a u !2 a r s N o o 0 a� �� EO O 0 j 5 c 1 s O a3 N v> w !I f ; m p O O > N N O co E Q p H 00 - ° o c4 -0 : T E 0 °' 3 add a -0 � bi w a o+ om a 5 W .y Vs- o.2 d Rti ti o m y p N Lo N C - �fy a a V 6 V} a) a _O Nd L O O T o O m 4O > C0 y t x 0 e rl G L = G = v O v UL p E a t Gl yCD a a CL 3' w O N c a)a�� i? p G LL y GJ m E a t h v O L p y n d CV E F ; a p 'o `- v► ao m Q— V c a .• T + GO i: -- C4'2 = �3 o � cc a p N p > 0V} w o p m m u Y} m a) y O a 0 _ y� a V N u N p U O 2 N a rz y n o 1 c'v x a5 T y d O N M t 7 a N N O O y O d N s A V c s>70 y a P am;; O O -u C T GO N N } N CO G � O y y O G u7i p 0_ U •o a 0 y m aM a p N C4 a c a �a a G T h W m v O -- u o o S o y g tnn Z � 0) Z §C 4 N m m V? M O O H uz M, ad H Nrq n 10 lz O •� m `H° o .•i A 00 w n m T iN En 0 N N LO N' irF�v>v>� sA Lr Lr n� V' V V? VF VT VF iR V1 M n m N OD VY V? in Vf VF V1 N (T� Ion m N •I in VF N Vi V} V>• m ke N m Ln rl m V1. tit iA Vt- u! vs 4 Do Do 01 g Ln Q N V} V! V} V? V> V4 M N Vcp1 aH0 Vp} V> VF V1• V} CVpp} pT O 6n1 � O1 n lND Q lHp epi 00 V C r4^ i!} in Vl sA O1 00 C YM1 N LO cz �n•I m i/f Vf in VF VF iA mrM C C a w o /F V> in V. VF V? :mmLm Ln 4 m -f g N � n N inapn inpAn. Qvvav^yrv�-ipnp n N tO m M od 4 W M v � ai '•i V1 H H in V} V). ipp?� V1 V1• VF in Vf VF C4 LO Z!T 4 V f11 lD � DD rf7 t4 in an » to v> in vE in V> • o� i m m Ln m m v C H a v VF VF VF VF N in V} V} V} ii} .ni uni ryCry N O1 N ev 11 n Ono M N 0 H C' N N iA 1A V! in V* i1? VT VA in �pNnp • Lin O Omi m � 4 n Vf VF V} V} V} V} uti V> 44np ' 00 0�1 n `m ni m to in V. V) V} +h V? VI. VT V1 in m Ln Ln Lnm • Ln 00 rld N 00m V7 N 9 C L 0 N N N ra in V1• VF V? 41 V► in An Vf V4 WOD N N H m H Vl i? V? VI, VY in in VF VF V1 Ln m M in 4 n Ln amo. o m Ln cn N M N V1 in in V! Vv iR VF V} N to N g Ol N Ln oo Lf, r -i vk V. in .n• Vt V1. in in Ln m P fr� C4 06 ti V) ippn N F �••I V4A. in VF V - N 0a1 W N C fNn mm a °° Ln rni V1. V} V? V} V! N 14 Vi gsis�El, cS o L n g Om7 N W [AY1 L" V? 4A V► Vf Vf N in uv m�4��p� m n p Nm p O L 0 M C f1 N N M AA VF V} in iR V} V1 Vn N Onl N 080 l0 C l7] N ri M N N m m rf iA V! i/F VF u♦ N V? V} N m l0 •C•I n 01n1 �� lN0 qOT rl 0 O l0 m i nF lO ui r r 1p r m m env m a VF iA VT i? i? VY Vf VF Lmo m a � N �^ V• ryp� N 001 N m r'�f V) in V? VF V} VF VF in NN n H N O1 io rn m Ln ' o mm v C m VF vv Vf Vf in N ;A N I C C � G O •� o � � a m H y G u ru O Q u� o N 03 C Y Y c a � t •� L C •� O tr m C O e c E a z rn O e N o a a o O a ° m c cv °_�' c c c c c° �° c m a' +' m ,- p 2' c m e°= u E UO I° .� Z Z O o 0 o O a g �G' C W v u 3 m O c s `—�' A C '_� rn y c ami c° 2 2>>> n v w o rn 0 u° _ m u 3 FF R WW C G N N N O O C C lL (Op pc m a1 u ppJ� y m r E R— m m G C C C C 't 'a L m 'N 16 +m+ 0 Z A 0 ++ +-. N G O N m E a �a e G c o O o O O_ ra d m m On Lu a o u u u u V a LL m O s O !- LL al C7 2 a F to Ln i> a 00 CL �Ln rn o m� L O � 0 v V} V v m o vE x m c 0 0 0 N �F N N L C 0 L � a u O s 3 0- 0 u x vE LU d C O L Q N a 10 � C in H C H a rn u U1 c ih = 4 N iL n 7 C N O m V � Y N Y L W DO a� LnU LR ao a T � +n O N 1 Cst � T C F 3 a 2 u u CD Q 0 0. a CL L .2 SC i• N V co ? � O 0 U O N u Q H N N N �e m o ai _0 0 o 0z 0 W 0 O n 00 O O N C 0 Q. x W M C G w d 7 C a .V O JA d 3 E E 7 W 'owul�ia�ogn-di �GiQQn�up o +if Q� Y VY V! V1 W). Vi• 4^ N yE y► -LA. A& t/F VIN th ' VF = J^ ! .qn _ y OLr� N V -I `0 w 8 N M OEn N �r1 O O 'MI .a pqp� T ch M tnD O ` 0en1 01 G0O �a L�fl �O v 40 m M d 01 d a I i/l= V) V>• V} V4 to to Vf Vt [V N M V1 V} V} to V>• ih to V> tdn N O M� m '-"i 001rl cD � m d m � � � � 001 a0 'D 0 LC4 &n Lmi1 m O ro � a n �� ri N CK N .--1' U). to V? V1 44• V1 V1 to to r -I e-1 V} V! V? V? V► M' in to to de Vl N rdt I, LO M r, M N Opprl rt M m lNp iD pHp I0Nf11 m fn m n001 N M 0�1 W 1�'1 I C l!S fni'] .9f N rl O H ri r -I n Lrq O O O I� N ri O6 eq O m' lf) VF to to Vr V► V$. A4 VF to _r toil V1 V? V>- Vr 01' V1 to Vb V! 1D Ln r�i to ONG ,t, 1 rn m n M H' N 00;fOh GO 0 m n Q a n ~ Ol N N Ont n e"I UD a4 V} [!} to} V? V} V} {/� yf} V) V} Vl Vt• In um to V) t4 oo Ln -1 m � .N -I NV m Ln cnD n cy rn n If N 01 ({vav7� n O N cD 00 n N N O [rf1 N pVp11� fppV' rtS m N n W r -i 01 M _r U V? 44 in to v/ V? Vi V> V} e -i V► V? V} in V? qf to VT Vf N V! nc3 � N N g Cb � O o.-10 G Lon 01 OD M m 01 f70 LCR u7 fD m N C -4m M N 01 Ln N O 01 M 1�-I 1n O Omi co m O d r -I' N Yff r-1 rl M' fY1 Vl V? V! Vl to to th u} sn Vi in in to to V} yr us c� P/1 Ill Ont 0�6 M 000 N O n 00 pnO M O 1D G�1 Lp1 Ln Ln N 00 000 r -I m lrN 01 MMj pN •�-I 00 n 001 O m 1 00 te f� O Ie n7 _r V} V! V? V1• in sfr/7? t/? V} in tR th V} V$L fV V/► pVnp} LO F- F- O 00 lD n OM'1 O Ln11 -I lD Oli M I� 00 f� 0pq cps n co1 m M m M p0p1 .p -i1 N 00 N e0 05 00 u1 00 .�-I Ln n �"I N 00 l00 N e�-I O V1• VF V} VF V? In to to in i1 '~ V? V} Vt• in tn 1 t"ooa -C4�t d tvo N v -1AL1 A°i v � Ln o m OD r -I N N Nm �p N N rI 90 hNN � 14 LYCcj �h to to V>• VS. V? V? in AnVl - N VF in in to rl to V1 V). N' t" w nnIn� ppLO Ch p U1lD� M N .--I O 6 N O lD pryp� O � m 00 H d 0�0 pdj l!1 LM fV O I, N 00 00' N 0� w 00 00 6l eij u1 `� Q1 lD r-1 n M �. CN -cp0O i --I e -i N _3 O01 V? V♦ N to t/F v1. V► V* V$. 'V? V1• ih to to 20 VF V? V} 1N y to 0" A G C fxo H a A C a f GL7 g. Lu a C C C Cc O Q� :S +� u C %a '' L N C F N W f� N d T 3 m t m o e +� rL u° �' '.P FL V a 3 " N c � o a L O = v= ,ay 0 G a a N R 01q C IL 2 p a A d r m 10 ` ep cm a�, F vig 4 cc t a m -0` C O C+ ,� m CL M d a O d a d� E t p t Q Q LL O a w p U a d L u Q = &1 -66 a p. D 0 CL ry O c� a� a 2 O• FUTURE REVENUES Expected future revenues for transportation were projected based on the County's historical sources of transportation revenue. We projected property taxes and other taxes, state shared revenues, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT), federal and state grants, charges for services and fines, and other revenues based on historical trends. Different revenues sources are projected differently, and these approaches are outlined below (all projections are based on inflation-adjusted real 2018 dollars): Exhibit 8. Projection Approaches For Future Revenues ■ Property Taxes are projected on 3 -year historical ■ Federal Grants and State Grants. BERK'`s projection rate of change of per capita revenue. Property tax assumes federal and state grants revenue will ., revenues are driven by population, and 2015 remain constant based on the average annual reflects the most recent year after a noticeable drop ". revenue from 2008-2017, with two anomalous years in property tax revenue per capita. Property taxes removed: 2013 and 2015. In 2013 the County per capita have been declining at a compound received unanticipated grant funding for the Kittitas annual rate of -1.3% over the last 3 years; we Highway project which enabled them to borrow . project that future revenues continue to decrease by ahead on those grant funds and as a result shows .. " this rate. ^ higher than normal grant allocations. In 2015 there Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT) revenues are ." was a supplemental action by the state legislature projected on 10 -year historical rate of change of that provided the county with additional grant per capita revenue. Washington currently levies a funding associated with the state's purchase of tax of 49.4 cents per gallon on motor vehicle fuel, Teanaway Community Forest. This was a one-time and counties receive a designated share. MVFT allocation of funds as a way to offset lost revenue to revenues in real dollars have been declining. This " '. the county. Neither year is representative of the .... trend is becoming more apparent in recent years expected range of grant funding to be secured due to the shift toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. � during the next 20 years. This approach assumes " �, Because of this, the County's state fuel tax " that the County's future ability to secure federal and distributions are expected to continue to decline. :" ° state grants is constant based on the historical . Over the last ten years, when adjusted for inflation, .; period. revenue per capita from MVFT has been declining .. ■ Other Taxes and Charges for Services and Fines . by a compound annual rate of -1,6%; we project ." are projected on 10 -year historical average per " that future revenues per capita continue to decrease capita revenue. These sources are driven by by this rate. J,population but have been volatile historically, ■ Similar to MVFT, Other Revenues (inter- "•: Z fluctuating each year. A 10 -year average provides departmental funds and miscellaneous funds) and "; e a closer projection of future revenues. State Shared Revenues are also projected on 10- year historical rate of change of per .capita revenue. Other Revenues per capita have been declining at p compound annual rate of. -15.9%, while State. Shared Revenues per capita have been growing at .. a compound annual rate of 10.3%; we project that these rates of change will continue. Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. :�1! May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Sfrofegy: Final Report 10 The County can expect approximately $207 million in transportation revenues between 2018 and 2037, including $60 million in the 6 -year period. Expected future revenues are shown in Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9. Total Projected Revenues For Transportation, 2018 to 2037 {2018$} Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Notes: These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. See Exhibit 8 for a discussion of federal and state grant revenue projections. Population projections were based on the County's population growth allocations, adopted in Resolution No. 2017-068 by the Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners in April 2017. Since the adopted population projections only provide growth projections for rural areas and cities, without separately including Urban Growth Areas that are also part of the unincorporated County, this analysis assumes that the unincorporated County areas are growing at the some rate as the County overall. FUTURE OPERATING NEEDS Transportation spending falls in two main categories: operating and capital. Capital expenditures for transportation are mainly from construction of new facilities, such as roads, bridge replacement(s), sidewalks, and traffic signals. Those are shown as Construction in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. Operating expenditures support operations such as pavement improvement, bridge retrofitting and rehabilitation, and other roadway elements, like guardrails, signs, concrete barriers, and pedestrian and drainage facilities. The County's transportation operating expenditures can be categorized into the following: ■ Administration and Overhead: Public works transportation administration and support. Engineering: Engineering services that support transportation maintenance, preservation, and capital projects. Planning: Planning services that support transportation maintenance, preservation, and capital projects. Facility Operations: The costs of operating facilities. :�11 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works j 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 11 2018 -2023 10 -Year Total, 2024 -2027 20 -Year Total, 2028 -2037 2028-2027 2018-2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) (Years 1- 201 Property Taxes $ 25,549,000 $ 17,687,000 $ 43,236,000 $ 45,967,000 $ 89,203,000 OtherTaxes $ 74,000 $ 54,000 5 - 128,000 S 155,000 $ 283,000 State Shared Revenues $ 903,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,978,000 $ 6,349,000 $ 8,327,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) $ 11,537,000 $ 7,369,000 $ 18,906,000 $ 17,118,000 $ 36,024,000 Federal Grants $ 11,192,000 $ 7,462,000 i $ 18,654,000 $ 18,654,000 $ 37,308,000 State Grants $ 7,983,000 $ 5,322,000 $ 13,305,000 $ 13,304,0001 $ 26,609,000 Charges for Services and Fines $ 1,676,000 $ 1,238,000 $ 2,914,000 $ 3,531,000 $ 6,445,000 Other Revenues $ 1,526,000 $ 428,000 $ 1,954,000 $ 359,000 ; $ 2,313,000 Total Revenues $ 60,440,000 $ 40,635,000 ; $ 101,075,000 $ 105,437,000 .$ 206,512,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Notes: These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. See Exhibit 8 for a discussion of federal and state grant revenue projections. Population projections were based on the County's population growth allocations, adopted in Resolution No. 2017-068 by the Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners in April 2017. Since the adopted population projections only provide growth projections for rural areas and cities, without separately including Urban Growth Areas that are also part of the unincorporated County, this analysis assumes that the unincorporated County areas are growing at the some rate as the County overall. FUTURE OPERATING NEEDS Transportation spending falls in two main categories: operating and capital. Capital expenditures for transportation are mainly from construction of new facilities, such as roads, bridge replacement(s), sidewalks, and traffic signals. Those are shown as Construction in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. Operating expenditures support operations such as pavement improvement, bridge retrofitting and rehabilitation, and other roadway elements, like guardrails, signs, concrete barriers, and pedestrian and drainage facilities. The County's transportation operating expenditures can be categorized into the following: ■ Administration and Overhead: Public works transportation administration and support. Engineering: Engineering services that support transportation maintenance, preservation, and capital projects. Planning: Planning services that support transportation maintenance, preservation, and capital projects. Facility Operations: The costs of operating facilities. :�11 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works j 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 11 Maintenance and Preservation: Routine and ongoing activities to keep roads and bridges in good physical condition and to ensure utility of public assets. This includes gravel roads, paved roads, super/sub-structure annual repairs, traffic control, street lighting, snow and ice control, street cleaning, and vegetation control. Other Operations: This includes flood control, extraordinary operations, maintenance for drainage and irrigation, maintenance for parks and recreation, reimbursable work, inter -departmental work, Road Improvement District expenditures, and transfers out to Equipment Replacement and Repair. The historical operating expenses shown in Exhibit b are projected forward using different approaches, as described in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 10. Projection Approaches for Future Operating Expenditures 4 These expenses are captured by the Recommended These expenses address the costs of operations, and Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures list, .-" they are projected based on the rate of change of developed by Fehr and Peers with the County as part per capita operating expenses over the historical " of the 20 -Year Comprehensive Plan Transportation period. Engineering costs are calculated based on the Element update. This list addresses recommended ; " .. historical trend from 2009-2016, then projected maintenance and preservation costs that keep roads " ." forward from 2017, due to a significant jump and bridges in a good state of repair. : " between 2016 and 2017. Note that these costs do not include the $20 million for There are two exceptions: Facility Operations were bridge replacements that are structurally deficient or projected based on average per capita operating functionally obsolete and the $41.5 million for expenses over the last 5 years due to a jump in bridges past their useful life (75 years per the expenses in 2013. Other Operations were projected Washington State Department of Tiansportation : -" :: based on average per capita operating expenses standard). For these project costs, seethe separate ' over the last 10 years due to the volatility of the sub- capital projects list. • ..:',-� categories. ,. The future annual investment for maintenance and Total projected operating expenditures -over the 20 - preservation is estimated at $4.85 million. The full ; year period are $73 million. cost over 20 years is $97 million. ■Administration and Overhead ■ Gravel (gravel roads) ; ■ Engineering ■ Maintenance (including super/sub-structure annual repairs) ■Planning ■ o ` :. . _ Preservation (paved roads) :. ■ Facility Operations ■ Traffic Conti of "' - - ■ Other Operations ■ Street Lighting ■ Snow and Ice Control Street Cleaning - Vegetation Control Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018; Fehr and Peers 2018. May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: final Report 12 Adding the $97 million in recommended maintenance and preservation expenditures over 20 years to the $73 million in projected operating expenditures over 20 years yields a total of $170 million in total operating, maintenance, and preservation expenditures. The projected transportation operating expenditures, shown in Exhibit 1 1 below, estimate the costs of providing the same services that occurred during the historical period (2008 to 2017). Exhibit 11 does not include the $127 million in estimated costs to complete the capital projects list. Exhibit 11. Total Projected Operating Expenditures for Transportation, 2018 to 2037 (2018$) Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures $ 29,100,000 $ 19,400,000 $ 48,500,000 $ 48,500,000 $ 97,000,000 Total Operating, Maintenance & Preservation Costs $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,0()0"$ 82,008,000 $ 88 456,000 $ 170.464,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018; Fehr and Peers 2018. Notes: Other Operations above only includes items that are not already included in Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures. These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS Capital expenditures for transportation mainly come from construction of new facilities, such as roads, sidewalks, and traffic signals. County staff prioritized the capital projects, and the countywide cost of the transportation capital project list is $127 million. This includes $20 million for bridge replacements that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, as well as $41.5 million for bridges past their useful life, which is 75 years according to the Washington State Department of Transportation standard. If any of the costs currently included on the capital project lists are recapitalization of assets (restructuring the debt and equity structure of assets), then the funding for those costs would not be restricted to capital -only grant funds. Structurally deficient refers to bridges in poor condition that require repair or replacement of a certain component, such as cracked or spalled concrete, the bridge deck, the support structure, or the entire bridge itself. If bridges are no longer able to carry their intended traffic loads, they may be weight - restricted, and these are typically the first priority for replacement. Functionally obsolete bridges, which are assessed by comparing the existing design of each bridge to current standards, can be characterized by substandard bridge widths, low vertical clearance that can lead to repeated damage from over height trucks, load -carrying capacity, or for potential flood damage. :111 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 1 13 2018 -2023 2024 -2027 10 -Year Total, 20 -Year Total, 2028 -2037 2018 -1027 2018-2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) (Years 1- 20) Total Revenue $ 60,440,000 $ 40,635,000 $ 101,075,000 $ 105,437,000 . $ 206,512,000 Administration and Overhead $ 7,150,000 $ 4,261,000 $ 11,411,000 $ 9,001,000 • $ 20,412,000 Facility Operations $ 439,000 $ 324,000 $ 763,000 $ 925,000 ' $ 1,580,000 Other Operations $ 8,227,000 $ 6,078,000 $ 14,305,000 $ 17,332,000 $ 31,637,000 Planning $ 1,048,000 $ 774,000 $ 1,822,000 $ 2,207,000 $ 4,029,000 Engineering $ 2,642,000 $ 2,511,000 $ 5,153,000 $ 10,412,000 $ 15,565,000 Parks and Trails Maintenance $ 30,000 $ 24,000 $ 54,000 $ 79,000 , $ 133,000 Total Operating Expenditures S 19.536.000 S 73.977_nM 4 33.S11R nnn t aso= nm C 79 eu Ann Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures $ 29,100,000 $ 19,400,000 $ 48,500,000 $ 48,500,000 $ 97,000,000 Total Operating, Maintenance & Preservation Costs $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,0()0"$ 82,008,000 $ 88 456,000 $ 170.464,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018; Fehr and Peers 2018. Notes: Other Operations above only includes items that are not already included in Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures. These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS Capital expenditures for transportation mainly come from construction of new facilities, such as roads, sidewalks, and traffic signals. County staff prioritized the capital projects, and the countywide cost of the transportation capital project list is $127 million. This includes $20 million for bridge replacements that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, as well as $41.5 million for bridges past their useful life, which is 75 years according to the Washington State Department of Transportation standard. If any of the costs currently included on the capital project lists are recapitalization of assets (restructuring the debt and equity structure of assets), then the funding for those costs would not be restricted to capital -only grant funds. Structurally deficient refers to bridges in poor condition that require repair or replacement of a certain component, such as cracked or spalled concrete, the bridge deck, the support structure, or the entire bridge itself. If bridges are no longer able to carry their intended traffic loads, they may be weight - restricted, and these are typically the first priority for replacement. Functionally obsolete bridges, which are assessed by comparing the existing design of each bridge to current standards, can be characterized by substandard bridge widths, low vertical clearance that can lead to repeated damage from over height trucks, load -carrying capacity, or for potential flood damage. :111 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 1 13 FUNDING GAP Using the projected revenues and expenditures, a baseline picture was generated of the total revenue availability based on current financial policies for the next 6 and 20 years. This is shown in Exhibit 12. Some of the County's transportation revenue sources are specifically earmarked for capital purposes. These include federal grants, state grants, and any Road Fund allocations to support those grants (an average of about 20 percent per grant). As shown in Exhibit 12, the transportation program has been very dependent on federal and state grants. Future revenue projections are based on historical grant numbers, and it is important to understand that these revenue sources are uncertain and not guaranteed in the future. To account for the capital -restricted funds in our analysis, we assume Road Fund allocations to match grants average 20 percent of grant funds. This estimated minimum match for grants is included under capital -restricted funds in the exhibit below. Exhibit 12. Total Projected Transportation Financial Capacity for Operating Expenditures and Capital Projects, 2018 to 2037 (2018$) Total Available for Operating Expenditures $ 37,430,000 $ 25,294,200: $ 62,724,200 $ 67,087,400 i $ 729,811,600 Total Projected Operating Expenditures $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,000 $ 82,008,000 $ 88,456,000 $ 170,464,000 Projected Operating Expenditures Surplus $ (11,206,000) $ (8,077,800) $ (19,283,800) $ (21,368,600)' $ (40,652,400) or Deficit E Total Available for Capital $ 23,03D,000 $ 15,340,800 $ 38,350,800 $ 38,349,600 $ 76;700,400 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2016; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. After accounting for capital -restricted funds, Exhibit 12 shows that in the 6 -year period, approximately $23 million in revenue is capital -restricted. This means that only $37 million of the $49 million needed for operating expenditures is available. This is a starting deficit of $11 million in the 6 -year period for operating activities, which is an additional funding need of around $2 million annually. ��'� May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 14 2018-2023 2024-2027 10 -Year Total, 2028-2037 20 -Year Total, 2018 -. 2027 2018-2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 - 10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) (Years 1- 20) Total Revenues $ 60,440,000 $ 40,635,000 $ 101,075,000 $ 105,437,000 $ 206,512,000 Capital Only Funds Federal Grants $ 11,192,000 $ 7,462,000: $ 18,654,000 $ 18,654,000 I $ 37,308,000 State Grants $ 7,983,000 $ 5,322,000 $ 13,305,000 $ 13,304,000 $ 26,609,000 Estimated Minimum Match for Grants (20%) $ 3,835,000 $ 2,556,800 $ 6,391,800 $ 6,391,600 $ 12,783,400 Total Restricted to Capital $ 23,010,000 $ 15,340,800 $ 38,350,800 $ 38,349,600 ! $ 76,700,400 Total Available for Operating Expenditures $ 37,430,000 $ 25,294,200: $ 62,724,200 $ 67,087,400 i $ 729,811,600 Total Projected Operating Expenditures $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,000 $ 82,008,000 $ 88,456,000 $ 170,464,000 Projected Operating Expenditures Surplus $ (11,206,000) $ (8,077,800) $ (19,283,800) $ (21,368,600)' $ (40,652,400) or Deficit E Total Available for Capital $ 23,03D,000 $ 15,340,800 $ 38,350,800 $ 38,349,600 $ 76;700,400 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2016; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. After accounting for capital -restricted funds, Exhibit 12 shows that in the 6 -year period, approximately $23 million in revenue is capital -restricted. This means that only $37 million of the $49 million needed for operating expenditures is available. This is a starting deficit of $11 million in the 6 -year period for operating activities, which is an additional funding need of around $2 million annually. ��'� May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 14 Exhibit 13. Financial Capacity for Operating Expenditures in 6 -Year Period (2018$) 6 -year period: 2018-2023 Projected Revenue $60.4 million - Capital -restricted funds $23.0 million Available for Operating Expenditures $37.4 million Available for Operating Expenditures $37.4 million - Projected Operating Expenditures $48.6 million Operating Expediture Deficit ($11.2) million Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: Capital -restricted funds are federal grants, state grants, and Road Fund allocations to match grants. If the previous funding opportunities are carried forward over the 20 -year period, the County would generate $207 million with $130 million available for operations and $77 million restricted for capital expenses. With a projection of $170 million for operational expenses, the County faces a $41 million deficit in operating revenues. Over the 20 -year period, the County would have $77 million available for the prioritized capital projects list over the life of this plan. This is not sufficient to complete the $127 million of projects on the County's prioritized project list; the County faces a $50 million deficit for capital needs. If some of the operating funds were used to complete the capital projects list, then the operating expenditures deficit would be even greater. The County's total deficit over 20 years for operating and capital uses is $91 million. Exhibit 14. Financial Capacity For Operating Expenditures and Capital Projects in 20 -Year Period (2018$) 20 -year period: 2018-2037 Projected Revenue $206.5 million - Capital -restricted funds $76.7 million Available for Operating Expenditures $129.8 million Available for Operating Expenditures $129.8 million - Projected Operating Expenditures $170.5 million Operating Expediture Deficit or Surplus ($40.7) million Capital -restricted funds $76.7 million -Capital Projects List $127.0 million Capital Expenditure Deficit or Surplus ($50.3) million Total Operating and Capital Deficit ($91.0) million Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: Capital -restricted funds are federal grants, state grants, and Road Fund allocations to match grants. : Exhibit 15. Total Projected Transportation Operating and Capital Deficit, 2018 to 2037 (2018$) Minimum Match for Grants Total Restricted to Ca Operating 2018-2023 2024 - 2027 10 -Year Total, 2028-2037 20 -Year Total, Total Available for Operating Expenditures $ 37,430,000 $ _25,294,200 $ 2019-2027 67,087,400 $ 2018-2037 Total Projected Operating Expenditures $ (Years i- 6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) (Years 1- 26) Total Revenues $ 60.444000 $ 40,635,000 $ 101,075,000 $ 105,437,000 $ 206,532,000 Capital Only Funds Federal Grants $ 11,192,000 $ 7,462,000 $ 18,654,01M $ 18,654,000 I $ 37,30$000 State Grants $ 7,983,000 $ 5,322,000: $ 13,305,000 $ 13,304,000 $ 26,609,000 Minimum Match for Grants Total Restricted to Ca Operating Total Available for Operating Expenditures $ 37,430,000 $ _25,294,200 $ 62,724,200 $ 67,087,400 $ 129,81.1,600 Total Projected Operating Expenditures $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,000 ' $ 88,008,000 $ 88,456,000 $ 174464,000 Projected Operating Expenditures Surplus $ (11,206,000) $ (8,077,800) 5 (19,283,800) $ (21,368,600) $ (40,652,400) or Deficit Capital Total Available for Capital $ 23,010,000 $ 35,344800 ` $ 38,3501800 $ 38,349,600 $ 74700,400 Total Projected Capital Expenditures r $ 327,160,000 Projected Capital Expenditures Surplus or Deficit $ (50,459,600) Total Operating and Capital Expenditures Surplus or Deflclt $ (94112,000) Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. :111 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 1 16 Recommendations When comparing total available revenues for transportation with expected costs over the 20 -year study period, revenues fall short of paying for even the current estimated operating costs, before considering policy changes that would increase those operating costs. This makes sense when considering that revenues have been declining while costs are increasing. There are two main types of strategies that can be used to balance this implementation plan: Increase revenue, through increases in existing funding tools or implementation of new funding or financing tools. Decrease expenses, by decreasing level -of -service or further prioritizing capital projects. Decreasing current expenses is not likely to yield large gains, as the County has already implemented this strategy where possible. Funding and financing strategies should fund capital investments that are currently needed, as well as help the County to plan to sustainably fund future capital needs. RECOMMENDED STRATEGY FOR BALANCING OPERATING AND CAPITAL REVENUES AND COSTS To address the $91 million funding gap in operating and capital revenues over the 20 -year planning period, we worked with County staff to prioritize funding strategies. Each of these options has its own challenges, and there is no easy solution to balancing revenues and needs. BERK's recommended funding option is for the County to pursue a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and then establish a Vehicle Licensing Fee, in combination with a County Road property tax levy lid lift. Revenues generated from these two sources can be used to cover operating and/or capital costs. Recommended Option Is Transportation Benefit District — Vehicle Licensing Fee (Non -Voted) Independent taxing districts created through ordinance can impose a vehicle fee, without voter approval, of up to $20. If a $20 fee has been in effect for at least 24 months, then a vehicle fee up to $40 can be imposed; if a $40 fee has been in effect for at least 24 months, then a $50 vehicle fee can be imposed. Vehicle license fees can be up to $100 with voter approval. Two ordinances are required to establish a Vehicle Licensing Fee, first a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and then a Vehicle Licensing Fee itself. Currently, over 100 cities have established TBDs; the City of Kittitas is a TBD with a $20 Vehicle Licensing Fee. The County could potentially set a fee aligned with the City of Kittitas. Five counties have established a TBD: King, Pierce, Points Roberts (formed by Whatcom County), Snohomish, and Thurston County. According to Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) data, there are 27,549 vehicles registered in the unincorporated County. This is based on the number of vehicles with an expiration day between February 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, in unincorporated County areas. The DOL collects 1 percent of revenue generated from a Vehicle Licensing Fee. The fee can be collected 6 months after it is approved, and the County must notify DOL once the fee has been approved so that the fee can be included in vehicle renewal notices. I1 May 22, 201 B Kittitas County Public Works 120 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 17 Assuming a constant rate of registered vehicles to population, and projecting forward using population estimates, a $20 Vehicle Licensing Fee would bring in estimated annual additional revenues of approximately $557,000 during the first year (after deducting 1 percent for DOL). If the County's preference is to pursue a non -voted option, we recommend a phased approach, where the County implements a $20 fee for 2 years, a $40 fee for 2 years, and a $50 fee for the rest of the 20 -year period. This could bring an estimated additional $37.6 million over the 20 -year period. The County could frame this approach as aligning with the City of Kittitas's Vehicle Licensing Fee. One remaining challenge, however, is that the fee is limited to vehicles under 6,000 pounds. This means there may still be an equity concern such that large vehicles, which cause a significant amount of wear on the roads, would not bear the burden of these costs. Property Tax Levy Lid Lift — County Road Fund Levy (Voted) Counties can levy either a single -year or multiyear levy lid lift, temporary or permanent, to increase County road property taxes in taxing districts without banked capacity beyond the 1 percent limit. With a permanent single -year lid lift, the County can increase the County road fund property taxes beyond the 1 percent limit in the first year, and then that amount is used to calculate all future 1 percent levy limitations. The measure never expires, and the levy lid never reverts. Single -year lid lifts may be submitted to voters at any special, primary, or general election. With a permanent multiyear lid lift, the County can increase the County road fund property taxes beyond the 1 percent limit (up to a limit factor specified in the ballot measure), for 6 consecutive years up to a rate equal to or less than the statutory maximum, which is $2.25 per $1,000 of assessed value. After the 6 years, the total levy can increase by up to 1 percent annually. Multiyear lid lifts must be submitted at the primary or general election. The County is currently levying a County Road Fund Levy of only $0.98, and County staff suggested bringing this up to $1.75 per $1,000 assessed value. With a permanent single -year lid lift by setting the 2019 levy rate at $1.75 per $1,000 assessed value, the County Road Fund Levy could bring in an additional $3.6 million during the first year, or $62.3 million over 20 years, beyond what is currently being collected. This is based on projected valuations of property and new construction in the unincorporated County. This, combined with the Vehicle Licensing Fee, would generate $93.9 million over 20 years, enough to cover the funding gap with a slight surplus available. The property tax is relatively less susceptible to market volatility, since the property tax revenue can continue to increase by 1 percent and is not dependent on market valuation. New construction is susceptible to market volatility, though, and to the extent that property tax growth beyond 1 percent in total is due to new construction, market conditions could affect property tax revenue. *i1! May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Susfainability Sfrafegy: Final Reporf 18 Since the levy lid lift generates a relatively larger magnitude of additional revenue, the County could potentially add projects to its project list or use the slight surplus for unknown or emergency events. Political feasibility is a hurdle for this strategy; a levy lid lift requires voter approval, and property owners would bear the burden. It will be important to consider election timing, other votes on the election ballot, community attitudes, and political will in pursuing this option. Exhibit 16. Additional Revenue Generated from Transportation Benefit District Vehicle Licensing Fee and County Road Property Tax Levy Lid Lift (2018$) Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Washington State Department of Licensing 2018; BERK Consulting 201 S. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Alternative Options ■ Transportation Benefit District — Sales and Use Tax (Voted) 13 Independent taxing districts created through ordinance can impose an additional sales and use tax of up to 0.2 percent. This would apply to unincorporated areas and could be aligned to sales and use taxes in cities. Currently, the City of Ellensburg is a TBD with a 0.2 percent sales tax. The tax must be reauthorized by voters after 10 years. ° A Sales and Use Tax levied through a TBD could bring in approximately $719,000 annually, based on the unincorporated County's 2016 taxable retail sales data from Washington State's Department of Revenue. Based on population projections, this is approximately $18.2 million over the 20 -year period. This option would need to be combined with another option. This option would help to align costs with beneficiaries, since the sales and use tax would apply to recreational users passing though the county. The County could frame this approach as aligning with the City of Ellensburg. This option would only partially cover the funding gap, and it could be more susceptible to market volatility, since taxes collected depend on commercial use. Potential additional revenue from each of these three tools is summarized in Exhibit 17 below. r�'j May 22, 201 B Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 19 2018-2023 2024-2027 10 Year Total, 2028 - 2037 '. 20 -Year Total, 2018- 2027 i 2018- 2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) [Years 1- 20) Estimated Potential Additional Revenue Transportation Benefit District - Vehicle Licensing Fee $ 6,540,000 $ 6,510,000: $ 13,050,000 $ 18,570,000 $ 31,610,000 Prope rtyTax Levy Lid Lift - County Road Fund ($1J5 per $1000 AV) $ 22,170,000 $ 13,150,000 `$ 35,320,000 $ 26,990,000 $ 62,320,000 Total Estimated Additional Revenue $ 28,710,000 $ 19,660,000 $ 48,370,000 $ 45,560,000 $ 93,930,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Washington State Department of Licensing 2018; BERK Consulting 201 S. Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Alternative Options ■ Transportation Benefit District — Sales and Use Tax (Voted) 13 Independent taxing districts created through ordinance can impose an additional sales and use tax of up to 0.2 percent. This would apply to unincorporated areas and could be aligned to sales and use taxes in cities. Currently, the City of Ellensburg is a TBD with a 0.2 percent sales tax. The tax must be reauthorized by voters after 10 years. ° A Sales and Use Tax levied through a TBD could bring in approximately $719,000 annually, based on the unincorporated County's 2016 taxable retail sales data from Washington State's Department of Revenue. Based on population projections, this is approximately $18.2 million over the 20 -year period. This option would need to be combined with another option. This option would help to align costs with beneficiaries, since the sales and use tax would apply to recreational users passing though the county. The County could frame this approach as aligning with the City of Ellensburg. This option would only partially cover the funding gap, and it could be more susceptible to market volatility, since taxes collected depend on commercial use. Potential additional revenue from each of these three tools is summarized in Exhibit 17 below. r�'j May 22, 201 B Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 19 Exhibit 17. Potential Additional Revenue Generated by Various Revenue Tools (2018$) 2018-202.3 2024 - 2027 10 -Year Total, 2028.2037 20 -Year Total, 2.018-2027 2018 - 2037 (Years 1- 6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11- 20) (Years 1-201 Transportation Benefit District - Vehicle Licensing Fee $ 6,540,000 $ 6,510,000: $ 13,050,000 $ 18,570,000: $ 31,610,000 Transportation Benefit District - Sales and Use Tax $ 4,740,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 8,250,000 $ 9,990,000 '', $ 18,240,000 Property Tax Levy Lid Lift - County Road Fund ($1.75 per $1000AV) $ 22,170,000 $ 13,150,000,$ 35,320,000 $ 26,990,000:$ 62,320,000 Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Kittitas County Assessor's Office 2018; Washington Department of Licensing 2018; Washington Department of Revenue 2018; Washington Joint Transportation Committee 2017; BERK Consulting 2018 Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000. Financing Options If the County chooses to instead pursue debt financing, the County can levy additional debt through two main financing tools, Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds and Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bonds. Debt bears additional costs through interest, and any use of bonding capacity for transportation projects reduces the remaining bonding capacity available for other projects. LTGO bonds will impact the General Fund, while UTGO bonds will have an additional tax burden. The loan schedules used in this analysis assume a 1.5 percent bond issuance fee, a 4 percent interest rate, and a loan taken over the 20 -year period. Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (Non -Voted) LTGO bonds are councilmanic bonds (debt) that do not require voter approval, and they must be repaid from County revenues, since there is no dedicated source of new revenue for the debt service. The County is currently taking out 21 percent of its LTGO debt capacity ($91.6 million) and has a remaining debt capacity of $72.1 million. Taking on additional bond debt will affect the County's credit rating, so best practices suggest using less than two-thirds of the debt capacity to maintain credit rating. That means the County's remaining debt capacity based on best practices for maintaining credit rating is $41.5 million. The County does not have enough LTGO debt capacity to cover the projected 20 -year deficit of $91.1 million. Even if the County were to take out the entire deficit in a one-time LTGO bond, the bond would cost the General Fund $136.1 million over the bond's lifecycle, and it would hurt the County's credit rating. ■ Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds (Voted) UTGO bonds are voted bonds that require levying an additional property tax to repay the debt. This impacts property owners. :111 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainabilify Strategy: Final Report 20 The County is currently taking out 20 percent of its total combined UTGO and LTGO debt capacity ($152.6 million) and has a remaining capacity of $122.2 million. However, the remaining debt capacity based on best practices for maintaining credit rating is $71.3 million. The County does not have enough debt capacity to cover the projected 20 -year deficit of $91.1 million while maintaining its credit rating. Even if the County were to take out the entire deficit in a UTGO bond, the bond would have an estimated tax burden of $1.51 per $1,000 assessed value, based on the County's 2018 valuation of unincorporated County areas ($4.5 billion). This translates to approximately $383 for a homeowner with the County's median home value of $253,300. This would be paid on top of the existing County Road property tax of $0.98 per $1000 AV. Over a 20 -year bond lifecycle, the cost to homeowners will decline as the value of the tax dollar decreases --as such the cost to homeowners would be greatest in the first year of the bond. Other Options The following other options were discussed but deemed less feasible: General Fund Allocations: These are dependent on excess General Fund capacity. " Reclaiming Diverted County Road Levy Property Tax Capacity: The County currently diverts $0.045 per $1,000 of assessed value in County Road Levy property tax capacity for general County purposes. Reclaiming these funds could only bring in an estimated $200,000 annually, and Public Works was concerned about its feasibility. Property Tax Levy Lid Lift — County General Expense Levy: The County can increase the County general expense property taxes in taxing districts without banked capacity beyond the 1 percent limit for 6 years up to a rate equal to or less than the statutory maximum, which is $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value. The County is currently levying a County General Expense Levy of $1.38, based on the 2018 assessor's report. Since these additional funds would remain in the General Fund, the additional revenues would not necessarily be invested in the transportation program. Sale of Existing Capital Assets: Due to the structurally deficient or obsolete nature of County bridges, many are not truly considered assets, and this would bring in a nominal amount. Real Estate Excise Tax 2: The County already levies Real Estate Excise Tax 1, but could levy a second, additional 0.25 percent tax on the full sales price of real estate. This would only be expected to bring in approximately $65,000 a year, and Public Works had questions about its feasibility. Transportation Impact Fees: These are fees charged to developers to fund impacts related to the development as established by a rate study, or alternatively, levied as part of SEPA mitigation, which exempts single family homes. This would require a rate study, which would be dependent on expected development, and Public Works was concerned about the feasibility of this option. JQ May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 21 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Equipment Replacement and Repair Fund Rate Study Public Works staff noted that the Equipment Replacement and Repair fund rates are currently not reflecting true costs and that the department is currently overcharging itself for use of equipment. This funding strategy does not specifically explore this issue, but there is a potential for further study on these rates. Future Strategy for Funding Parks and Trails Operations and Capital Projects In addition to Transportation, Public Works is also responsible for Parks and Trails operations and capital projects. Without a clear strategy for prioritizing and funding Parks and Trails projects, it may be difficult to balance these needs with critical Transportation projects such as bridge replacements. Therefore, developing a separate funding strategy for Parks and Trails may be worth exploring. r�® May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 22