HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-165 Transportation PlanBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -') V) 5
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 a new 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:
,.,.,r:fc1erk of the Board-Julie Kjorsvik
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ABSENT
Laura Osiadacz, Chairman
~
Obie O'Brien, Vice-Chairman
~-
Cory Wright, Commissioner
Kittitas County
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............. ·••.•······················ ......................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Purpose .............................................. , ............................................................................................... : ................ 3
1.2 Planning Context ........................................................ :··· .. ··· .... ·,•·· ..................................................... , .•.............. 3
Other Plans ........................................................................................................................................... s
Kittitas County 2008 Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................ , ............ 5
Kittitas County Long Range Transportation Plan ...................................................... --........................... 5
Kittitas County Road Safety Plan ........................................................................................................... 6
Ellensburg Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................................................ 6
OUADCO Regional Transportation Plan ................................................................................................ 6
Kittitas County Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan ................................................................. 6
Washington State Freight Mobility Plan ................................................................................................ 7
l-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Project ......................................................................................................... 7
GMA ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Role of the Transportation Element ............................................................................................. , .................... 8
1.4 Element Organization ................................................................................. , ...................... , ............................. , .. 8
2 Conditions and Trends ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 9.
Land Uses and Key Destinations ............................................................................................................ 9
Transportation Network Overview ......................................................................................................... 17
Safety .................................................................................................................................................. 30
2.2 Opportunities and Challenges ......................................................................................................................... -3S
Network Connectivity .......................................................................................................................... 35
Regional Growth .................................................................................................................................. 3'5.
Safety ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Funding ....................................................................................................... , ...................... , .. , ............. 35
3 Transportation Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................ 37
Goal 1-Safe .......................................................... , ............................................................................ , .............. ., ... 37
Goal 2 -Efficient and Accommodates Growth, but Respects Rural Character ........... , .................. : .... :···: ............. 37 .
Goal 3 -Complete, Multi modal, 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 .................................................................................................................... 4,1
4.1 Existing System ............ , .............................................. -.................................................................................... .41
Maintenance .................................................. , .................................................................................... 41
Preservation ............................................. , ....................... , ................................................................... 4J.
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Administration and Operations ........................................................................................................... 42
Other Roadway Operations ................................................................................................................. 42
Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 43
4.2 Budgeting for Good State of Repair ................................................................................................................. 45
Pavement ................................................. , ...•. , .................. " ................................................................ , .. 5
Gravel Roads ........................................................................................................................................ 45'
Other Supporting Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 45 .
Operational Expenditures .......................................... ._ ........................... ; ............... , ........................... ,. 45
Bridges ..................................................................................................... , .......................................... 45
Major Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 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 ................... 't7
5 Transportation Vision ....................................................................................................................... 48
5.1 Introduction to the Layered Network ............................................................................................................. .4.8'.
5.2 Modal Networks ............................................................................................................................................. .48 . .
Walking .................................................................................. _. ........................................................... 49
Bicycling ............................. ._ ............................................................................................................... 50
Transit ......... , .............................................................................................. , ......................................... 5 0
Freight & Auto ..................................................................................................................................... Si·
6 Capital Plans .................................................................................................................................... 5.2
6.1 Regional Collaboration .................................................................................................................................. .-56
Cities ................................................................................ , .................................................................. ,56
Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................. _ ................. 56'
WSDOT ............................................................................................................................................... 56
U.S. Forest Service .............................................................................................................................. 56
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................ , ............................ 51;,
7 Implementing the Transportation Plan .................................. .-............................................................ 57
7.1 Balancing Financial Capacity with Future Funding Needs ..... ,. ........................................................................ 57
Decrease Expenses ........................................................................... , .................................................. 57
Future Funding Strategies ................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix .................................................................................................... .-........................................ 61
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Kittitas County ......................................................................... · ......................................................... , .. , .... 4
Figure 2. County Zoning Map ...................................................................................................................... _. ......... 10.
Figure 3. Key Destinations ........................................................................ , ............. , ........... , ................ , ................ 11
Figure 4. Bowers Field Environmental Assessment Projects 2019-2023 ................................................................ 11.
Figure 5. Kittitas Valley Event Center Master Plan ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 6. Land Ownership in Kittitas County ................................................................... ,. .................................... -r8
Figure 7. Roadway Functional Classifications-Kittitas County ............................................................................. ~o
Figure 8. Roadway Functional Classifications -Ellensburg .................................................................. , ................ 21:
Figure g. Roadway Functional Classifications -Cle Elum ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 'ilt
Figure 11. Central Transit Existing and Proposed Transit routes ........................................................................... ,.6
Figure 12. Yakima-Ellensburg Commuter Route ................................................................................................... 2.7
Figure 13. Truck and Rail Corridors ....................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 14. LOS Analysis Segments -Ellensburg ............................................................................... ,. .................. 31
Figure 15. LOS Analysis Segments -Cle Elum ...................................................................................................... 32 ·
Figure 16. PSC Rating Scale ................................................................................................................................. 4-2 ·
Figure 17. National Standard Deterioration Curve for Pavement .................................................................. ,., ..... 4-2
Figure 18. Layered Network ................................................................................................................................. 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Classifications of Roadway ...................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2. WSDOT Freight Road Classifications ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 3. Corridor LOS Analysis Summary ............................................................................................................. 33'
Table 4. Historical Programmatic Expenditures, 2007-2017 .................................................................................. ·44_
Table 5. Recommended Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures .................................................................. ,t6
Table 6. Pedestrian Accommodation Descriptions for Roadways within the UGA and LAMIRDs .................. , ....... ft9
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 10. Costs of Kittitas County Transportation Plan (20+ years) ........................................................................ 52
Table 11. 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 ................................................................... 60
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kittitas County is an area rich in history and a premier destination for outdoor adventure. It is home to the five
cities of Ellensburg, Cle Elum, South Cle 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)
Project Needs Description Total Cost
Road Projects to Accommodate Growth
Roadway Investments
Nonmotorized
Evacuation
Bridge Replacement
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Planning
Note: Costs denoted in millions
Source: Fehr & Peers, 201 8
Ensuring LOS standards are met
Traffic signals, intersection improvements, capacity enhancements
Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, trails
Priority evacuation routes
Replacement of bridges that are structurally deficient or +75 years
Overlay, pavement repair, and bridge repairs
Planning studies
Total
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
1!Page
$2.4
$19.6
$4.9
$10
$61.6
$28.8
$0.1
$127.4
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.
A typical rural county road traversing agricultural land .
2IPage
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
1 INTRODUCTION
Kittitas County is an area rich in history and a
premier destination for outdoor adventure. It is
home to the five cities of Ellensburg, Cle Elum, South
Cle 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.
1.11. P,UIRJ'POSE
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.
il..'2 PLAININING (q)iN'lf1EX'f
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 1 shows the location of Kittitas County in this
regional setting.
3IPage
~
lo 5 10 20 Miles -===--
""
Okanogan-Wenatctr«·
Natippal Forest
(
.-,.S
~ve n~h ~~
. -~~
'·
\__
Ki tli ta ~
u
Royal
-·~
~ u
Figure 1
Kittitas County
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
I 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.
I KITTITAS COUNTY 2008 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."1
1 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.
5. 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, van pools, 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
slPage
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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.
I 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.
I 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.
I 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 servrces
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
6IPage
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with
life cycle features that account for long-
term costs and benefits.
I 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.
I 1-90 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.
JGMA
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.
7IPage
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
1.3 OL.E OF THE TRA~_SPORJ:~r:rlijN
EtJEMENT
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
ll4t ELE,ME~.T ORGANIZr'AnON
This Transportation Element includes seven chapters
in addition to the Introduction (Chapter 1):
• 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.
8IPage
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
2 CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Z'1. £Xl lSTtNG COtslOmlOINS
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 Z. Key destinations in the county are mapped
in Figure 3 and described below.
The incorporated cities in Kittitas County are
Ellensburg, Cle Elum, South Cle 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 2 •
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 ACS2011-2015
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
1
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.
glPage
•
0 County Boundary
Agriculture
Commercial
• Forest and Range
II Incorporated City
Industrial
Master Planned Resort
• LAMIRDs
• Residential
• Rura l
• Rura l Recreation
[J Urban Growth Area
0 5 10 20 Miles
Leavenworth
Cashmere
Wena·
-KiWtas
Naches
Quincy
George
Mattawa
Figure 2
County Zoning Map
'
Roslyn
uke£uton -
Stlwhdc V
s
~
Slm<Hi•
Resort
' Cle
Efum
m.:~iv..,,,i.;-
""l/10•,>I ~
~7~
l eavenwo rth ,.·
Cashrrie.re
. ',..
BGWe'rs -
We natq,·~
D ~ock ~ --lshl:1'1d
Whtd INISol•
'
Airport ¥Hid Horse
Ellensburg • untnlWa.shington Univl!rnty hclity
Kittitas ' kitlftas Valley Evart .
Center tj -·
' Key Destination O 5 10 20 Miles
Naches
Quincy -
~orge
0
;~
l ~ttawa
'
Figure 3
Key Destinations
Kittitas County Transportation 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
bu ildings 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 2016 3 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 approx imately 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 .
'Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2016.
"Washington State Report Card, Ellensburg School District"
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?groupLevel=Dist
rict&schoolld=127&reportlevel=District&orglinkld=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 campus 4 • In
addition to students, there are about 1,500 faculty
and staff members 5 • 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 6•
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. ed u/ president/ sites/ cts. cwu. ed u. p resident/files/
documents/economic%20impact%20brochure%20final2.pdf
6WSDOT. 2012. "Airport Economic Profile".
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ A3 DF6FC9-CB27-4CBD-
BAA4-31F26BC08896/0/2012BowersField. pdf
12 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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 5.
13 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Scale: ,~500'
1@ .
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
,-----.-----j ' '
I :, I
J I j l I I
f -~~-=-.=:.-........-. • L . ---------' I -~--===~,~~--=====~~~
I /=--~---_ _i ~-~ -=--= l_ ·r ,-----71 ! , .I • \ ' ,, Ii ' -'
I Ir "';I •, t ',•. l i1 ;:=. ="'
I ~-= ~j ""-=;-=-'! I 11 1i
I ,:;•'' l;.:..,,-1
I ~ . ,._,
11 '=:=:' 71
' I• l:'j
I ='.I 1-...:J t
11 -.,i---
1 II -'l t I )l_}, !'
I ---==,, I I
' I
~ (_~f ... J ~--=-----_.yr--=-.JJ& p TTzzt
--. iii, 1 :f .... . • "\,
'-. • 1t L ' ... . ..-.!r'fii-g;~ '--I ,r, -r ~ ... , ~ -..--=d'.:-_ ~.-___,
"', 1f~~.. L·-· .. ,J~, "-,1,,,1 J ,,.,_. J
,------1 ·. --------------------
,\
L:-
j,'
~&ww1,-....... ~~~. 'ifui.,,r,ii •;~;;.~ ~ 11>-T•IS""""""--.......,,.:,ci~ -,,....., __
,. .... .llfttt~(m\1
TU'A4lJ ~l"l".l\'IIOY-IJ
l'~Flt!Mme:ntCe,nstr,ic:tlon
~ LNIStud, Afftl lbr,daiy
=-
~1 11 111 1~m =---· ~-;; i~:t::t:t:~:::::::::::::::::=1 ' ' • .~' ' '" • :::::::-•--~-2018 Environmentol Assessment Projects
IClll.�"..l'.'<flfNGI..Y. lf--f--+-+-+-----------, -;,,;n: ~110: 1:....:,..,.JCJTC 2019-202)
Bowers Fteld -Ktttttas Couny
OF
Figure 4
Bowers Field Environmental Assessment Projects 2019-2023
14 j Page
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Figure 5
Kittitas Valley Event Center Master Plan
15 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Cle Elum-South Cle Elum vicinity
Meaning "swift water", Cle Elum is the second most
populous city in Kittitas County. Along with
neighboring city South Cle Elum, Cle 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 Cle 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 Cle Elum, the Alpine
Lakes Wilderness, and the greater Okanogan-
Wenatchee National Forest for year round outdoor
recreation.
Suncadia Resort
Situated between the cities of Cle 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 arid desert to
richly irrigated farmland that produces over $1.3
billion in crops annually7 . It also provides a unique
opportunity for recreation at Keechelus Lake,
Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, and Lake Easton.
7 https://www.usbr.gov/projects/pdf.php?id=220
8 http://parks.state.wa.us/532/Lake-Easton
9 www.pse.com/inyourcommunity/ToursandRecreation/Wild
Horse/Pages/default
Lake Easton State Park
Lake Easton State Park encompasses 516 acres in the
Northwest corner of Kittitas County 8 • 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 Northwest9 • 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 exercises 10. 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.
'0http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/1ocal/the-yakima-
trai ni ng-center-our-quiet-neighbors/article_06c14cf0-7 c6f-
11 e5-873a-b75194abefa5.html
16 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
I 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.
17 IP age
•
Land Ownership
City • 10,646 Acres
Federal • 642,552 Acres
State
398,069 Acres
County
446,355 Acres
D
Leavenworth
5 10 20 Miles
Naches
Cashmere
Wenatchee
Ki ttitas .
'·:,j
• it,
~ '
------
.!---•
~oc k
Island
0
. .
Ii \.
Quincy
George
Mattawa
Figure 6
Land Ownership In Kittitas County
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Table 1. Classifications of Roadway
Roadway Description/ Purpose Example Photo
Type
Interstate
Principal
Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Major
Collectors
Minor
Collectors
Local
Streets
Interstates primarily serve long distance travel
between cities and carry high volumes. They
provide only limited access via grade separation
and access ramps.
Principal arterials tend to carry the highest
volumes of any roadway type below interstate
routes . They can potentially serve regional
through trips and connect the region .
Minor arterials are designed for higher volumes,
but tend not to be major regional travel ways.
Minor arterial streets provide inter-neighborhood
connections.
Collectors distribute trips between local streets
and arterials and serve as transition roadways to
or from commercial and residential areas .
Collectors have lower volumes than arterials, and
must balance experience for all modes.
Minor Collectors serve a similar purpose to Major
Collectors, however they are distinguished by
having lower traffic volumes and more
connecting driveways . Minor collectors offer
more access at lower speed and with fewer travel
lanes.
Local streets are the lowest functional
classification, providing circulation and access
within residential neighborhoods. Many local
streets do not require sidewalks given their lower
traffic volumes and speeds.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 201 8
1-90
1-82
University
Way
US97
Vantage
Highway
Kittitas
Highway
Thorp
Highways
Number 81
Road
Hungry
Junction Rd
Mohar Rd
Denmark
Road
Ferguson
Road
19 IP age
-po...:
~l~.tnn
•• • .!Ut r:,$.l ei\,ltO And 1n·1~·1c
-Interstate
-Other Freeway/EXpressway
-Principal Arterial
-U lr"4'.ll'lmlllli l
-Major Collector
~ Miror Collector
~., ~ -~ Urban Grow th Area .. _,
City Boundary
-......,
-------
0 10 MIies
--) ..-,
1
r
Figure 7
Existing and Proposed Functional Roadway Classification -Kittitas County
]
,:,•'°
lil ..--
1 -
Roadway Classlncatlon
~Proposed
L....-.,.Er.isting
••• $1&.Ho,IIUI)" .-,.;,,.,co.
-Interstate
-Other Freeway/Expressway
__. Principal Arteria
-:M'nor-~l
._ Major Collector
Minor Collector
.-.Loc::al
J1
]
! ~
.,
.§ -~
s.,,,,
Ylr..,.;tCJ!l
~ -~ Urban Growth Area ,.._,
City Boundary
ii
J
~ .,
0
'~
lil
]
j
,.---",
f
P.,;Y)4~ -
-~":!.J-i
a!
" lil j , ], .~·.;.,, .. ~
G:>mPFarm Rd
Cmr1rm lj
, ( 1
r-..111
o ~m l II<""
B
t ii~~ .;--
!
~~
I
_; !"""iM Rd I I
~ l~I
1~Rd
lil
Ii
t
l! j
~ I I ' If l' : ~• I &r,----fL...;.-..J.~-~, ? ~ ~-...i--
. '
Kittit~
lil
., =Rd
lil i
Cl
,i i
t ::i--
:.i
I
lhrall"d
li!
!-
'
25
It/,
~ "-· ,VA-, ,,i;;..
i';et2ri
~ft Rd
lil
~
-,~--lil
1
i---.1
\~
~
l'
l:
~
.§
Figure 8
Roadway Functional Classifications -Ellensburg
Nat-"o,-
'\.,,,, loi
-t.,_
q.0,.,Rd~
~,ll "~,,,,
Roadway Classtncatlon
.,,~ t Pro ~~-
l____..& 111 -,,
•-SU\li.8QL,c ln(l,momirt.c,.
-lnlerstate
-Ottier Freew-ay-/EXpressw(l'J
-Principal Arterial
-Minor Ar12rial
,_, Major Collector
-Minor Collector
-1.oa,
I~
1&-,,
lid 4510
½I
.. ~
~ ~
;--~ Urban Growth Area
L-•
City Boundary
N:at For Dt11 Rd~
w,.~
Af,;,R;,ig,,, ..
i"'\ .r: .. ,_, \?
: ~
·----, 11-
1
•~ .. ----,
~
~
'! ....
~
25
-1-..,
~
¥' ;:
~
ti'
E1i,,,,.
.f
"'"
a'.
"'
~~
~
l ~¼> ,.,,
442,,
eff"' Dev "'1, 5 Miles
"-'
N•11,
,.,I ~,mg,~
W Taneum Rd
flo\t\H
v.~1
tlleulnr1]1
-,Kitt i'"'
i
-A:,,
"'
~
ll t ...,,.~
la
J
l!
1
_,.,,,Ee
'i
~
J,,, ,; ,,
> '!
Figure 9
Roadway Functional Classifications -Cle Elum
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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, Cle
Elum, and Roslyn all enjoy walkable downtowns with
at least partial sidewalk coverage. South Cle 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 SO mph on rural routes unless otherwise signed .
High speeds roadways without separate
non motorized 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 .
The John Wayne Trail is a scenic pedestrian route.
Wide shoulders and separated trails provide safer
accommodations for bicyclists.
23 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
2007 Kittus County Department of Public V\brks
""'~1 ~ -~~
\
·-~ • ,..,--
. " ."',.
'• r•u -.-·'
Figure 10
Existing Bicycle Facilities
24 IP a g e
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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 Cle
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.
25 JP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
.. ·,
\.
'
NE Route/West Route
and Existing Route
....
~ -,
(· ..
\\
I
I i
.§
e
i •
"" ............. """! \
\ \
+ ·-· Field .. .,,
'L \
I \
-Le_g_e_n_d.._ __________ ~ \ _
0
Route Nam• + Airport \ ...... ,tsl'""
!ll/lt1°Route • ,,.
_ •V!iest Route Fire House ..,t
-NE Route B Government ,..~• .... Tran1tteus stop! e llmed stop
• On Demand stop
• aty Parks & Facllit1es
Offstreet Trails & Paths
sreets
Cl Hospital • Met1lcal
I Museum
" SChool
1J) Shopping Center
ll!l Unlverslly
ELLENSBURG LOCAL TRANSIT ROUTE
March 23, 2017
NOTTO SCALI
..
Figure 11
Central Transit Existing and Proposed Transit Routes
26 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Route 11 I Yakima-Ellensburg Commuter ====:=:::
~
The Commuter Express runs the same •
route Northbound and Southbound. The w
black dots mark the only bus stops.
Yakima/Selah
~
5 ~
vi
WA'shlf! ton Ave .
0
-Yulillllll 1
Ai'p:rt
s
,d'Ji•YD C<n lill Rd ~ ll<o'
Firi ng Cen ter Rd .
b, All routes served by lift-equipped buses
Ellensburg
Cl'J(I Sll!-'Cei. E. 11111 Ave ,
I ,:_, i
Mount ai n vrow Ave.
O supo,I
~
~ 1 %
Express buses make limited stops.
Serving : Yakima Airport, Yakima Valley
Community College , Yakima Transit Center,
Selah Civic Center, Yakima Firing Center Road
Park and Ride, Ellensburg Super 1, Ellensburg
Safeway (4th & Ruby), Central Washington
University SURC.
36 For Yakima-Ellensburg Commuter lnfonnatlon, calf Yakima Transit at 509-675-'176
Figure 12
Yakima-Ellensburg Commuter Route
27 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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.
T bl 2 WSDOT Frei ht Road Classifications I
Road Classifications Goods Moved
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 Cle
Elum 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 Cle
Elum to Ellensburg.
The region is also bisected by a major railroad
corridor carrying over 5 million tons of goods each
year 11 • 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.
28 IP age
~
-Railroad
0
Truck Corridor
5 10
Obi~~~;,,:...--
Figure 13
Truck and Rail Corridors
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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 LOS
analysis summary. A secondary analysis was
performed to capture possible traffic increases from
high growth at the Suncadia 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.
l 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 IP age
f-
I I Urban Growth Area L.1
City Bo:Jndary
A description of each LOS analysis segment can
be found in Table 3. Colors are used to
distinauish individ~ents.
"'
::
11!
Susan Rd
Jl
ll
!
j
1
C • l
.,~
;.: '""ll'l'il<
1
"' l
2,S
"" ..
li1
~
f
'"
j
• 1l' ~
9 10
'""9'1.llm6
I
I
l
ll _14,_
5 Mite,
Charlton Rd .. ~
-tr
G
1
8
North
11>111
]~
J
7homasfld
&rl•Ai
li1
Nfo,dllrl ! ;:_
"""""
li1
]
1 ,
' ' ,
r
I t---.
I
I I 6~e Fann Rd
-
, . . , ,.
I
,.. -, ~·;,
:J-
Tjmetnlld
li1
~
"
.. h
W.Oon
1J
II
J
AllcaliRtl
~ .j "' ~ " ::, li "
a!
f
"
..
]
~ Gil!Jt Rd s
!
8
~= ~·-
lln<'<M!I Rd
li1
~
1!
l
t'
I
' r-,
~, I
~I .,;>L't._ t
' ' ' I ,_i , I ---.· Kil~!!
li1
: li1
-;j ~ !
I
" f ,
:.I
llinltf-
..
]
"'
5
Graidmd~ I
~
~ l
-2:t..~
Pall,,C,,,tqd
-Camoz,y lfd
Cam>I Rd
\
iii'.
~
li1
I .E
~ ~
\_
,ll
.!I
li1 • ~
li1 • s
Ovis111nSen~
t '!!::~
~"'" .. ,., ;ii
"' "
~
-~rl
Figure 14
Level of Service Analysis Segments -Ellensburg
Roslyn
~¾
'"
\~, '\\.
I
~,,
.. ~ .. .<!II'
~ ~
~>.>q,_;_,,
~G ~ .,.,Ac...,~ -¾.g..,
'~ \l'IIJIO"""I>'
-----
P.iSQ> Rd
+..,
-s,'I.
~¼
i •: Urban Growth Area
L.1
w ,.,. rea....~ ,A
··--------~
' I
' ~-v \ : '\ "';"" ,,,.. ~ ~.----, \ i ~ "'"' .-\
...... ,i<fg,,9_.
,. ....... , ,\f; ' "' \ .....,.,~ • ,,. I .,._I ' \ ·----· : \. 1 •.p I I ~
~-, """',,:-,,,, ----: 'I>'
'f , ,~ ,.., ,_.., ____ , .,,.~~ .......... >" ~.:---,
-,1 --. • .. ~, ~,-.;;:::;-_::--, ·--......... ~ ...... • ... ~,. .Cle Elum ., ,~ ... ., .. ,
' ,-. . ' ,
' • .," ' • '-..,4111 ( _ _.-A-:=:;,
<-I ---"l•:1,-* j 6 ..... 0JRd
. . \"i
-"\i ;j! '"'" l ~.-.... ,-~,
"' "' All-,
~ ~
f
~
~~
City Bounda,y o,. /1,J •SlO j
A description of each LOS analysi1 segment can o 2.5 J MAn "'-
be found a"ITable 3.Colors are used to ------------==:::;;;;:;::;:::;;::=====:i .-.,
distingu~h individual segm•nts. ,,_, ,,..'C',w"' JJ, """'"" %,
0, -,,.,
,l~
!
~
I Cl
'-""
~if1Jt
rJ
:--
~
I
;;,
-t.,,
~
i.t '
s.ii,.,~-11
l t
j
of,,
\
~
~~~
Figure 15
Level of Service Analysis Segments -Cle Elum
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
T ble 3 Corr"dor LOS A I i S
Road Name
1. SR-903 -Blue Agate Ln to Roslyn west city limits
2. SR-903 -E South Ave (Roslyn E city limits) to Alliance Rd
3. SR-970 -1-90 WB ramp to SR-10 junction
4. SR-970 -SR-10 junction to Taylor Rd
5. SR-970 -SR-10 junction to Teanaway Terrace Rd
6. SR-10 -Grand View Rd to SR-97
7. SR-97 -SR-10 to Hungry Junction Rd
8. Hungry Junction Rd -SR-97 to Reecer Creek Rd
9. Hung_ry Junction Rd -Reecer Creek Rd to Kerr Rd
10. Hungry Junction Rd/Look Rd -Kerr Rd to Brick Mill Rd
11. Brick Mill Rd -Look Rd to Willow Creek Rd
12. Reecer Creek Rd -Hungry Junction Rd to E Bowers Rd
13. E Bowers Rd -Reecer Creek Rd to Ellensburg City boundary_
14. E Bowers Rd -Ellensburg City boundary to Piper Rd
15. Reecer Creek Rd -E Bowers Rd to Old Highway 10
16. W University Way -Reecer Creek Rd to SR-97
17. SR-97 -W University Way to SR-10
18. Wilson Creek Rd -Lyons Rd to Vantage Hwy
19. Wilson Creek Rd/Number 6 Rd -Vantage Hwy to Kittitas Hwy
20. Number 6 Rd -Kittitas Hwy to Tjossem Rd
21. Canyon Rd -Ellensburg S boundary to Tjossem Rd
22. Vantag_e Hwy -Number 6 Rd to Naneum Rd
23. Vantage Hwy/Number 81 Rd -Fairview Rd to Clerf Rd
24. Vantage Hwy -Number 81 Rd to Buckskin Ln
25. W Bender Rd -Reecer Creek Rd to Ellensburg City boundary
26. Thorp Highway -Wheeler Rd to 3753 Thorpe Hwy S
27. Thorp Highway -5941 Thorpe Hwy S to 8267 Thorpe Hwy S
28. Thorp Highway -1st St, Thorpe to E Taneum Rd
29. Umptanum Rd -Canyon Rd, Ellensburg to Anderson Rd
30. Umptanum Rd -Anderson Rd to Manastash Rd
31. Manastash Rd -Umptanum Rd to Cove Rd
32. Cove Rd -Manastash Rd to Thorpe Hwy S
33. Thrall Rd -1-90 ramp to Emerson Rd
34. Thrall Rd -Cleman Rd to Upper Badger Pocket Rd
35. Fairview Rd -Brick Mill Rd to Lyons Rd
36. Fairview Rd -Vantage Hwy to Kittitas Hwy
37. Denmark Rd -Tjossem Rd to Thrall Rd
38. 1-90 -W Kittitas Co boundary to Tree Farm Rd, Easton
39. 1-90 -Tree Farm Rd, Easton to Golf Course Rd , Nelson
40. 1-90 -Golf Course Rd, Nelson to 1st St, Cle Elum
41. 1-90 -1st St, Cle Elum to Thorpe Hwy, Thorpe
42. 1-90 -University Way to Canyon Rd, Ellensburg
43. 1-90 -Canyon Rd, Ellensburg to Main St, Kittitas
44. 1-90 -Main St, Kittitas to Ryegrass Safety Rest Area
45. 1-90 -Ryegrass Safety Rest Area to Main St, Vantage
Note: July LOS represents a high seasonal volume reflective of recreational use
Source: r-ehr and Peers, 20 l 8
LOS
Standard
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
-
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
_C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
r
2016 LOS 2038 LOS I
Unadjusted July* Unadjusted July* I
B B B B
B B C C
B B C C
B B B C
B B B B
B B B C
B B B B
B B B B
B B C C
B B B B
B B B B
B B C C
B B C C
B B E E
B B D D
B B C C
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B C C
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B C
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
C C C C
B B B B
B B C C
B B C C
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
33 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
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
see the '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 Plan. 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 Plan.
• 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.
34 IP age
Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
2.2 0PPORTUNITIES AN.D
CH,ALLENGES
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, Cle 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.
I REGIONAL GROWTH
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 201S, Kittitas County had five
traffic collision fatalities and twenty-one serious
injury collisions 12 . 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 .
I 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 IP age
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.
36 IP age
3 TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES
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.
0Alm:-SAIP1E
Create a transportation network that can be shared
safely by all users and provides sufficient access for
emergency response.
la. Require new development to provide
multiple access points that are designed to
support emergency access and evacuation.
lb. 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.
le. Develop and maintain a safe, efficient and
environmentally sound multi-modal
transportation system in accordance with
local, state, and federal requirements.
ld. Provide all weather, all-season use of the
road system for the movement of goods
and services.
le. Develop road standards that incorporate
traffic calming techniques that are
appropriate for the roadway and
surrounding land use.
lf. Implement safety improvements in areas
with high accident locations.
lg. Seek program funds for implementing
investments identified in the countywide
safety plan.
lh. Encourage new developr:nent to provide for
safe transportation alternatives.
GO ·~L 2 -EAFt<;:lE 1J' A'NCl>
ACCOMMOOA 11E'"S ·GROW1iH, BtlT
RESPECTS RURAL CH~RAC-,,-SR.
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.
37 IP age
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 ra il transportation .
2n. Identify, designate, and protect agriculture
transportation corridors that facilitate farm
use.
Wildlife:
2o. Consider refinements to roadway plans and
design standards to minimize impacts to
wildlife .
2p. Where appropriate, new roadways should
consider incorporating wildlife friendly
design features.
GO~L 3-£0MPLE1iE, MULTIMG'eAL,
A'.NO ACCOMMODATES QU11000R
RE(REAT ON ______ ~
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 trans it 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 .
38 IP age
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 :
LOS Description
Work with transit to
accommodate access to transit
service expansion.
Work with transit to maintain
existing transit service .
Failure to partner with transit
operator.
Gt3M. tt-LE'ViERAGED BY ~CTIVE
PART!NERSHIPS
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 a
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 .
39 IP a 9 e
,GO>JL5 -S~S1'.AlmA1BLY FUNJOEL') Af:40
~INiAIN5 WHA:r WE HP.VE
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:
Sa. 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.
Sb. Maximize local funds by pursuing outside
funding sources for all transportation
improvement projects.
Sc. 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.
Sd. Encourage efforts to reduce the costs
associated with administration of
transportation improvement projects by
identifying opportunities to consolidate or
coordinate administration responsibilities.
Se. 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
Sf. Prioritize projects and expenditures of
transportation funds that have multiple
benefits.
Sg. Prioritize arterial improvements and
maintenance activities based on traffic
volumes and identified safety concerns.
Sh. 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.
Si. 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:
Sj. Provide scheduled preservation and
maintenance of valuable roadway assets.
Sk. Consider the traffic volumes, type of use,
adjacent land uses, and maintenance costs
before approving any new county-
maintained gravel roads.
SI. Maintain and operate transportation
infrastructure according to industry
standards.
Sm. Encourage and initiate Road Improvement
Districts to bring all roads up to County
standards.
Sn. Protect at-risk roads by imposing seasonal
weight restrictions as appropriate.
40 IP age
4 MAINTAINING OUR SYSTEM
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 EXISTING SYSTEM
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.
I 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
I 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
41 IP age
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 Oto 100
(Figure 16).
Pavement
Condition Index
Very ood 80 -100
60 -80
Fair 40 -60
Poor 20 -40
Ve.ry PoQr 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 ; Typical Pave
rnef'/f . 0,.4
: 40% Drop · "'o _
Good : In Qualtty '<,7<)
: '>
Fair T _____ 75%ofltfe __ . -·-----•,
Poor
Very Poor
0 5 10
' ,:
40% Drop :
tn Quality :
I
15
Years
20
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
repa i rs.
I 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.
I 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
42 IP a g e
25 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 .
I 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.
43 IP a g e
Table 4. Historical Programmatic Expenditures, 2008-2017
2008 I $1,030,873 $1,331,278 $1,618,412 $1,197,092 $379,167 $5,556,822
2009 I $908,043 $1,110,413 $1,357,628 $2,245,337 $1,841,087 $7,462,508
2010 I $636,055 $1,691,907 $1,408,552 $1,314,180 $266,207 $5,316,900
2011 I $1,220,289 $1,289,751 $1,313,792 $1,028,462 $1,190,795 $6,043,089
2012 I $1,571,058 $1,470,901 $1,250,802 $1,783,937 $3,786,182 $9,862,880
2013 I $936,956 $1,496,694 $1,577,708 $1,242,386 $4,902,848 $10,156,593
-----
2014 I $2,378,123 $1,714,519 $1,578,224 $1,397,912 $1,042,050 $8,110,828
2015 I $1,908,838 $1,678,933 $1,484,871 $1,281,822 $9,281,580 $15,636,045
-----.
2016 I $1,906,515 $1,887,672 $1,638,202 $1,542,586 $3,141,937 $10,116,911
2017 I $2,203,655 $2,113,768 $1,717,284 $1,681,642 $2,320,566 $10,036,915
Source: Kittitas County Public Works, 2018
44JPage
it~2 B11:!JD6E11l·NG F.OR GOOD SfAiJ:E
QFRIEPAltR
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.
I 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.
I GRAVEL 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.
l 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.
I 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.
I 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. It is 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 $2 million annually after addressing the
10 deficient bridges provides enough money based
on currently estimated costs to make substantial
progress on these additional bridges as repairs are
needed. The cost for bridge replacement is included
in the project list in Table 11 (page 53).
I MAJOR FINDINGS
It is worthwhile to note that this analysis suggests
that the County's historical investments in
preservation, maintenance, and related operations
are not sufficient to cover the expected operational
costs for the next 20 years. The County will need to
potentially consider additional funding sources for
transportation in order to meet the operational
45 IP age
needs over the 20 -year planning horizon. The final
chapter of this Plan considers ways to increase
transportation revenues, such as a transportation
benefit district with vehicle license fee, sales and use
tax, and a levy lid lift, all of which could fund both
operational and capital expenses.
Table 5. Recommended Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures
Element Conditions Qualitative Inventory Unit Design Life Unit cost($) Annual
PSC Condition (years) Investment
Paved County Roads
Paved Roads PSC?. 40 Fair to Very 498 Center line I 7 $30,000 per $2,250,000
Good (CL) miles CL mile
Gravel County Roads --
Gravel Roads 64 CL miles 1 $7,000 per $450,000
CL mile
Other Suooortln_g Infrastructure (Signs, Guardrail, Striping)
Maintain and Lump Sum 1 $350,000 $350,000
Replace Historic Cost
Vegetation Control (Brushing, Mowing, Herbicide and Sterilant)
Operational Lump Sum 1 $350,000 $350,000
Expenditure Historic Cost
Snow and Ice Control (Plowing, Sanding, De-icer, clean up)
Operational Lump Sum 1 $750,000 $750,000
Expenditure I Historic Cost
Other Maintenance (Sidewalks, Path and Trails, Fence, Litter, Livestock Crossings, lightening)
Operational Lump Sum 1 $40,000 $40,000
Expenditure Historic Cost
Maintain and Lump Sum 1 $600,000 $600,000
Replace Historic Cost
Bridge Maintenance and Repair
Super/Sub Lump Sum 1 $60,000 $60,000
Structure ) Historic Cost
Annual
Repairs
Annual Cost $4,850,000
Full Cost for All Elements (Years 1-20) $97,000,000
Source : Fehr and Pee rs, 20 l 8; Kittitas County Public Works, 2017
46 IP age
4.3 POLICIES iG SUPP0RT A GGQIJ>
STATE OF REP.AIR
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
INVENTORY OF ASSETS
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
UNFUNDED PROGRAMMATIC AND
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
47 IP age
S TRANSPORTATION VISION
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
'E
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
MQD~L 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 IP a g e
j 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 LAM I RD 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
LOS Description
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 .
49 Ip age
[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 8.
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.
I 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 .
access to transit service expansion .
Work with transit to maintain existing
transit service.
Failure to partner with transit
operator.
50 IP age
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 20 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 over time
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 Bowers 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 i nto 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.
51 IP age
6 CAPITAL PLANS
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 a
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
T rtat· Pl (20 ) •
Project Needs Description
Road Projects to Ensuring LOS standards
Accommodate are met
Growth
Roadway Traffic signals,
Investments intersection
improvements, capacity
enhancements
Non motorized Bicycle and Pedestrian
projects, trails
Evacuation Priority evacuation
routes
Bridge Replacement of Bridges
Replacement that are structurally
deficient or +75 years
Maintenance and Overlay, pavement
Rehabilitation repair, and bridge
repairs
Planning Planning studies
Total
Note: Costs denoted in millions
Source: Fehr and Peers, 20 l 8
Total
Cost
$2.4
$19.6
$4.9
$10
$61.6
$28.8
$0.1
$127.4
52 IP age
Table 11. Twenty Vear Project List
Road Projects to Accommodate Growth
1 Bowers Road to Look Road Connector
Roadway Investments
1 Bender Road -Widening and Pedestrian Improvements
2 Manastash Road Creek Bank Stabilization and Snow Park Improvements
Milepost 10.65 to 11.01
3 Fairview Road Widening & Coleman Creek Structures, Brick Mill Road to Rader Road
Milepost 5.03-6.05
4 Manastash Road Bridge
Milepost 10.567 -10 .633 (State Funding Secured)
5 Reecer Creek Road -advanced warning signs
Milepost 0 .26 -0 .312
6 Reecer Creek Road -curves that need advanced warning signs, chevrons
Milepost 4.80-6.68
7 Denmark Road Safety Improvements -railing Milepost 0.50-3 .08, countermeasures
Milepost 3.08-4 .35
8 Brick Mill Road Bridge over Naneum Creek
Milepost 0.10 East Naneum Road
9 Fairview Road Bridge over Coleman Creek
Milepost 0.23 North of Brickmill Road
10 Bowers Road Extension
11 Bender Road to Dry Creek Road Connector
12 Brick Mill Road & Wilson Creek Road -four way stop controlled intersection
13 Kittitas Highway & Number 6 Road -four way stop controlled intersection
14 Vantage Highway & Number 6 Road -four way stop controlled intersection
Nonmotorized Projects
1 Canyon Road on road bike trail -City Limits to SR 821 (No Widening)
2 Reecer Creek Road on road bike trail -University Way to Bowers Road (No Widening)
3 Hansen Pits Park Master Plan -West of Tjossem Road/ Canyon Road intersection
4 Cle Elum Pedestrian Bridge -S. Cle Elum Bridge Vicinity
5 Ellensburg Greenway John Wayne Trail Reconnection
6 River to Rodeo Trail
7 McCabe Ringer Loop
8 Reecer Creek Trail
9 City Parks Trail
10 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Trail
11 Spray Fields Trail
12 Hanson Pits Trail
13 Wetlands Trail
14 River Walk Trail
$2,400,000
$2,400,000 10
$19,571,184
$3,300,000 22
$2,400,000 18
$2,250,000 17
$2,500,000 16
$20,000 16
$20,000 16
$385,684 16
$1,500,000 15
$2,500,000 15
$1,675,000 13
$1,500,000 10
$20,500 2
$750,000 2
$750,000 2
$4,900,000
$500,000 17
$125,000 17
$25,000 14
$1,250,000 14
$1,000,000 14
14
14
14
14
$2,000,000 14
14
14
14
14
53IPage
15 Yak i ma River Canyon Scenic Byway Trails 14
Evacuation Routes $10,000,000
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: $20,000,000 17
• 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 (M i lepost 0 .72)
• Durr Road over Umptanum Creek (Milepost 4.05)
• Hayward Road over Hi line 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)
2 Bridges past useful life(+ 75 years) within the 20 year planning horizon (97 total) $41,648,820 12
Necessary Maintenance/Rehabilitation $28,788,731
1 Teanaway Road Hydraul ic Improvements $2 ,336,000 13
Milepost 6.91-West Fork Teanaway Road Milepost 8.64
2 Thorp Cemetery Road -inadequate railing and curves that need delineators/signs $585,150 13
Milepost 0.00-3.02
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 Br idge Rail Improvements Phase 3 -20 structures i n Maintenance Districts J-L $597,233 13
6 Clear Zone Inventory -data collection, database creation, scoping level mitigation $75,000 13
opportunities identified
7 Bridge Rail Improvements Code 2 Phase 1 -6 structures in Maintenance Districts A-D $766,927 13
8 Br idge 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 II
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 Br idge 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 Br idge Rail Improvements Code 1 Phase 3 -17 structures in Maintenance District F-L $429,573 13
17 Airport Road Cle Elum -replace irrigation culverts crossing road $1,876,000 12
Milepost 0.23-1.50
18 Hungry Junction Road Bridge over Cascade Creek $750,000 12
M il ep ost 0.02 West Kerr Road
19 Lyons Road Bridge ove r Naneum Creek $750,000 12
M i lepost 0.38 West Naneum Road
20 Lyons Road Bridge over Creek $750,000 12
Milepost 0.96 East Naneum Road
21 Lyons Road Bridge over Naneum Creek $750,000 12
M i lepost 0 .83 East Wilson Creek Road
54 IP age
22 Naneum Road Culvert Replacement -Fish Passage $730,000 11
24 McManamy Road Bridge over Dry Creek $1,900,000 10
Milepost 0.21 SR 97
25 Number 6 Road Irrigation Bridge over Town Ditch $685,000 10
Milepost 0.63
26 Thrall Road at bridges, canals, and fills $300,000 10
Milepost 0.00 -5.30
27 Lambert Road Bridge $250,000 10
Milepost 0.67 -7 .00
28 Reecer Creek Road & Robbins Road intersection $500,000 10
29 Kachess Lake Road -Culvert Replacement $660,000 6
Milepost 2.5
30 Mohar Road -Settlement Reconstruction $545,000 6
Milepost 1.75 -2.01
31 University Way Bridge Repairs over BNSF RR $175,000 6
Milepost 1.61
32 Wiehl Road Improvement District $650,000 6
33 Yellowstone Road Culvert Replacement $1,000,000 6
Milepost 0.70
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
Source: Fehr and Peers, 20 l 8
55 IP ag e
6.1 REGIONAL 'GOLL,ABORA l110~
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.
l c1T1Es
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.
I 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 multi modal 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 .
I 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.
I 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.
56 IP age
7 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 BALANCIIMG Flfl!lANIC~ L
CAPAC1'!1"V wrnH FtUTU R'E Ri.llNDIM:G
NEE0S
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.
I DECREASE EXPENSES
Prioritization
Project prioritization is needed to help identify when
best to fund and implement the projects since
s1IPage
funding is limited. Criteria were established to help
prioritize the projects and implementation 13.
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.
I 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:
0 $20 Vehicle Licensing Fee levied via a
Transportation Benefit District
0 0.2% Sales and Use Tax levied via a
Transportation Benefit District
0 County Road Property Tax Levy Lid Lift
0 Transportation Impact Fees
0 General Fund Allocations
0 Reclaiming Diverted County Road Levy
Property Tax Capacity
0 Property Tax Levy Lid Lift -County
General Expense Levy
0 Sale of Existing Capital Assets
0 Real Estate Excise Tax 2
n 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:
0 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 IP age
Table 12. Opportunities to Increase Revenues through Funding and Financing Tools
Voter Eligible Expenditures Who Tool Description Approval Pays?
Programmatic Capital Required?
Recommended Funding Tools
$20 Vehicle Licensing Independent taxing districts created through X X No,upto Vehicle
Fee levied via a 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 effect for at least 24 months; and $50 and up
$50 if a $40 fee has been in effect for at least to $100. 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 0.2% I
District
County Road property Increase property taxes in taxing districts X X Yes Property
tax levy lid lift without banked capacity beyond the 1% 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 X No Developers
Fees related to development as established by a
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 N/A
Assets
Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Levy of an additional 0.25% tax on the full X No Property
sales price of real estate 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
59 IP age
Additional
Revenues
Order of
Magnitude
$$-$$$
$$
II
$$$
$$
II
$
$
$
I
$
$
$$$
$$$
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
Funding Source 2018 -2023 2024 -2027 Total,
2028 -2037 2018 -2027
(Years 1 -6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1 -10) (Y ears 11 -20)
Transportation Benefit
District -Vehicle Licensing $6,540,000 $6,510,000 $13,050,000 $18,570,000
Fee
Transportation Benefit $4,740,000 $3,500,000 $8,250,000 $9,990,000 District -Sales and Use Tax
County Road property tax
levy lid lift $22,170,000 $13,150,000 $35,320,000 $26,990,000
($1 .75 per $1000 AV)
Transportation Impact $6 ,000,000 $4,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Fees
Total $39,450,000 $27,160,000 $66,620,000 $65,550,000
Note : The se figure s are rounded to the neares t 10,000 .
Total,
2018 -2037
(Years 1 -20)
$31,610,000
$18,240,000
$62,320,000
$20,000,000
$132,170,000
Source : Kittita s County Public Works 2018; Wa sh i ngton St at e Department of Licensing 2018 ; BER K Consu lting 2018 .
60 IP age
Appendix A:
Florida Department of Transportation Roadway
Level of Service Definitions
TABLE 6
Generalized Peak Hour Two-Way Volumes for Florida's
Rural Undeveloped Areas and
Developed Areas Less Than 5,000 Population 1
12/18/12
INTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES UNINTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES
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
(A lter corre s ponding state volumes
by th e indicated percent.)
Non-State Sign ali zed Roadways -10%
Median & Turn Lane Adjustments
Exclusive Exclusive Adjustment
Lan es
2
2
Multi
Mult i
-
Median Left Lan es Right Lanes
Divided Ye s No
Undivided No No
Undivided Yes No
Und iv ided No No
--Yes
One-Way Facility Adjustment
Multiply the corresponding two-directional
volumes in this table by 0.6
BICYCLE MODE 2
Factors
+5%
-20%
-5 %
-25 %
+5%
(Multiply moto ri zed ve hicl e volumes sho wn below by number of
directio nal ro adway lanes to detennine two-way maxi mum service
volumes .)
Rural Undeveloped
Paved Shoulder/Bicycle
Lane Coverage B C D
0-49% * 120 190
50-84% 100 200 310
85-100% 250 370 1,760
Developed Areas
Paved Shoulder/Bicycle
Lane Coverage
0-49%
50-84%
85-100%
B C D
* 220 460
170 430 1,270
560 1,760 >1,760
PEDESTRIAN MODE2
E
300
>l,010
>1,760
E
1,480
>1,760
**
(Multiply motorized vehi cle volumes shown below by number of
directional roadway la nes to detennine two-way maximum servi ce
volumes)
Sidewalk Coverage
0-49%
50-84%
85-100%
B
*
*
320
C
*
120
940
D
220
780
1,560
E
840
1,390
>1,820
Lanes
4
6
8
B
3,020
4,510
6,040
FREEWAYS
C
4,510
6,720
8,970
D
5,490
8,220
10,960
Freeway Adjustments
Auxiliary Lanes
Prese nt in Both Directions
+ 1,800
E
6 ,300
9,720
12,970
UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS
Rural Undeveloped
Lanes Median B C D E
2 Undivided 440 790 1,350 2 ,710
4 Divided 2 ,440 3,820 4,840 5,500
6 Divided 3,680 5,730 7,280 8,240
Developed Areas
Lanes Median B C D E
2 Undivided 820 1,550 2,190 2,990
4 Divided 2 ,460 3,860 4,970 5,660
6 Divided 3,680 5,790 7,440 8,500
Passing Lane Adjustments
Alter LOS 8-D volum es in pro portion to the pass ing lan e length to
th e high way segm ent length
Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments
Lanes
2
Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustment factors
Divided Yes +5%
Multi Undivided
Multi Undivided
Yes
No
-5%
-25%
1Values shown arc presented as peak hour two-way volumes for levels of service and
are for the automobile/truck modes wiless specifically stated. This table does not
constitute• standard and should be used only for general planning applications The
computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific
planning applications The table and deriving computer models should not be used for
corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist Calculations are
based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual and the Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.
2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number
of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility
• Cannot be achieved using tab le inplll value defaults.
•• Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode,
volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have
been reached For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not
achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input
value defaults.
Source:
Florida Department of Transportation
Systems Planning Office
www,dot. state. fl , us /p Jann ing/systems/s mllos/d efau It.sh Im
2012 FOOT QUALITY /LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES
Appendix B:
Roadway Segment Level of Service Results
2D16Volume
Road Name Unadjusted Marth
'L SR-903 -Blue A2a te Lo to 8oslvn west citv limits 180 108
Z, SR-903 -E South Ave (Rostvn E citv limits) to Alliance Rd 500 30Q
r3. SR-970 -1-90 we ramD to SR-10 iunction ~ 38 6
4 SR-970-SR-10 iunction to Tav lor Rd .911 16
5. SR-970 -SR-10 junctio n to Teanaway Terrace Rd 162 139
6. SR-10 -Grand View Rd to SR-97 135 .102
7.SR-97 -SR-10 to HunRrv Junction Rd 204 ll9
8 Hune.ry Junction Rd -SR-97 to Reecer Creek Rd 44 29
:~t 1::1,,n .. .-.,J u_nction Rd -fle(!torCro6'Rd l0 (ie.rr'Rd 95 62
10. Hungrv Junction Rd/Look Rd -Kerr Rd to Brick Mill Rd 77 5a
lLBric.k Mill Rd -Look Rd to Willow Creek Rd 51 32
12. R.eecer Cre ek Rd -Hvr,2rv )unction Rd to E Bowers Rd 181 119
13 . E Bowers Rd -Reecer Creek Rd to EIT'ensburfi!.: Citv bound"arv 48 31
14. E Bowers Rd -Ellensbure C-itv boundarv to Piper Rd a :15
1.5. R:KL~ troct:Rd -E Bowers Rd t o Old Highwav 10 31 7 22 3
16, W Universitv Wav • Reecer Creek Rd t o SR-97 ~s n,!
.17. SR-97 -W University Way to SR-10 :W? 131
is. Wilson Creek Rd -Lvon s Rd to Vanta e:e Hwy 168 J49
l 9 r Wi.lson Creek Rd/Number 6 Rd -Vantae:e HWY to Kittitas Hwv 243 166
1O-Num_ber 6---Rd -Kittitas thw Uf1j o;,.q.m Rd 201 137
1 1.. Canvon Rd -Ellensbure S boundar)' to l}ossem Rd -3 14
l2-Va.n ta 1?e.Hwy -Number 6 Rd to Naneum Rd 644 497
23. Van ta •e Hwv/Number 81 Rij -Folhlocw Fld to r~~d 283 219
Z4 \lanta~e Hwy -N_urnber &l Rd to Buckskin ln 152 117
l5.': 111 almdrr Rd • fl.O'eU::f QeoJr Rd to Elhm~ City bau:nd111y 125 80
26.. Thorp Hi rz hway -Wheeler Rd to 3753 Thoroe Hwv S 174 155
U . Thorp Hirzh.w.av -..5 94L Thor0e Hwv S to 8267 Thoroe Hwy S 77 69
2a Thort> l-li2hwav -1st-St~ Thorne to E Ta •eum Rd 37 33
Ill>. u mntonun1 llcl • o, .. on ~cl. Ene,,1bunt to ~-n ~d 261 167
~o. Umptanum Rd -Anderson Rd to Manastasti Rd .\'9 444
~LMan.astas h Rd -Umotanum Rd to Cove Rd 153 13&
~2.. Cove,Bd..-M.anast as b Rd to Thorpe Hwv5 40 36
33. Thrall Rd -1-90 ramp to Emerson Rd 133 9]
:34. Thrall Rd -Cleman Rd to Upper Badier Pocket Rd 89 6~
35L Fairview Rd -Brick Mill Rd to Lvons Rd i'J 35
3&...Fa\rview Rd -Vanta~e Hwy to Kittitas Hwy 217 168
37_ Denmarlc Rd -Tiossem Rd to Th.calJ Rd 23 18
38.1-90 -W Krttrtas Co bo undary to Tree Farm Rd, Caston 999 1n
39_ 1-90 -Tree Farm Rd , Easton t o Golf Co urse Rd , Nelson 3200 Ua5
40L 1-90 -Golf Course Rd , Nelson t o 1st St. Cle Elum :lll$8 .817
41 1-90 -1st St. Cle Elum to Thorpe HWV, Thorpe 2600 1 650
42..1-90-University Wav to Canvon Rd. Ellensbur~ 1700 1143
f43-1-90 -Canyon Rd , Ellensbura to Main St. Kittitas 1700 1161
44_ 1-90 -Main St. Kittitas to Ryeerass Safetv Rest Area 1500 1024
45.1-90 -Rye_i,rass Safety ~~l Ar~ ,r.-Main k. Vi:Urtii1·Jt 1600 1236
Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018
Corridor Level of Service Analysis Summary
Kittitas County, 2018
2038Volume 2038 Suncadia Volume
July Unadju5ted March July Unadjusted March July
17~ 789 473 7-71 m · ~ 7SQ
489 1136 682 1110 1122 704 J:141
629 1047 888 1447 1190 796 1297
u • ~2 .sa-, 956 825 552 899
221 11!9 m 263 0,7 116 189
.167 '14S S6S 921 878 575 937
ni ~ J7tl 603 641 420 684
~' ~!) us !>13 7U 476 77f,
101 11n 7~ = llll BIO 1110
82 617 404 659 59Z 396 645
52 us :m 4S8 0 3 m ~•!
193 973 Im 11139 92·s. ol.!l lll08
51 1331 872 1421 1410 943 1517
24 ..lZ5S .1446 235! 229 6 1504 2451
363 1570 .llD4 1'1" IS? 1182 1925
331 1259 807 1316 1339 877 1.U
214 609 386 630 657 430 70 1
i~~ 418 37.2 606 417 273 445
,n ~ ,(33 ·705 648 4U 670
22 4 3flJ 3"9 EO I 575 365 594
5 U . 39IJ I ~Sli 701 616 404 658
&l b 938 ru .1180 922 604 984
35 6 i 02 m ·.~. •23 2T/ 451
191 219 IS 7.'TI l22 J.45 2:11
131 470 301 I 491 .cs ' 280 :.-
U'l .:239 ID ~I DO .240 391
112 :198 J.'23 .200 17 • 1.55 252
54 95 85 Ull .so a,i 136'
273 662 425 692 61;6 41 0 717
723 650 578 942 652 580 94S
222 ,.,. JI),! 31£ ru 1.9§' '311
5l 64 57 93 62 55 .9(l
L48 162 111 180 169 115 l8S ,,, 145 112 182 145 112 182 -,, 74 66 107 72 64 104
273 -5"49 ,124 ·&t1 SOl 388 &ll.
29 55 42 69 ,9 u 61
1257 1212 936 1525 1220 942 1535'
U60 3535 2ll<I 3932 3555 2427 3954
133 1 ?!OE3 :15'.il' 2602 2651 2048 333 6
268& 3607 2289 3729 4096 2599 4234
3.003 3251 2220 3616 3412 2330 379S
~1 fi81 l.lil' 'NJlJ 2032 1387 2260
"6~ 1549 ',1058 ·fn3 .155, lOOQ 1726
2013 16'!9 11'74 1 21lU i m 1215 10'1!
Final -Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
2016 LOS 2038 LOS 2038 Suncadia LOS
LOS
Standard Unadjusted March July uo.>dlu,t<'d March July Uftadjustff March July
.c a B B B B B B B B
C 1! B "B -c B C C B C
C B s & C C C C .B C
C B a B B 8 C C B C
C B B B B B B B 8 8
C B B B 6 B, C C B C
C B B B B II. 8' I a IL
C B B B B B B B 8 !S
C B. Jl .B C ' B C C B C
C B a 8 B B. B B B B
( B B B B B B B B • C B. B B C B C C B C
-ti 5 B. s •c C C C C C
D B B 6 .£ (l .£ E: C E
D B B B D e D , t, C D
D , II 6 C 6 C C C C
l) B • s 9 e 1' B B B
C B B ;; " 6, S B 8 B
C B B B I · 6 B B a. B
C B B B B 8 0 8. 8 B
.0 9 ll B 3. e 8 6 B B
C B B B C' 6, C. C. B C
C B B B B B 8 B. ,. 8
C B B B B B B B a 11
D a B B B B B B D ftc
C B B B B ·B I 0 a B B
C B B B B B B B B s
C e B B B B I B B B e
C ir B B B B B B B B
C B II B 3. B C B B C
C ) B B B B B B s 8
C 6 B B B B B B B B
t 8 B B 3 B B B B B
C B II B Ir 9 1i B B B
C B B 8 a B B", 8 B B
C II .I. B B B B B B 9 .
C 6 3 9 B B B B B B
C B 11 . B 8 B s B B B
C C B c-•C 8 G-C B C
C B B B ... B B B B C
.D-8 JI a C' 8 Cc C B C
C B B !I C B C C B C
C B B B D a B B B B
C B B B B B I Er ·11-B I
C B B B B B B B B B
Corridor Level of Service Analysis
Kittitas County, 2018
Road Name
l . S11-!nJ!I • !U u~l~ ln to Ro sjyn west d ly l)ml!>
2. SR·90l • e Sl:!u\h P.v~ (Ro,lvn ~tj,:v !fmito) to Allll\n«1 i,d
~, SR>3 7C..l;!!OW8 ••m 1>·\0 Sll·.lO l~n ct10n
4, SR-970 -SR-lO June1ion to Taylor Rd
S. SR-970 -SR-10 Ju nction to Tea e-'lway·1errac,, Rd
6.SR-10 -Grand View Rd to SR-97
7.SR-97 -SR-lO to Hungry Junction Rd
8LHtJrnuv Ju nction Rd -:W.-97 to RHur Crttt Rd
9.Hu'1W'l'_JU~et:lon 'Rd · Rile~t(:nek Rd IQ Kerr Rd
10. HuftE.r~ Junction Rdllco~ Rd . Korr Rd t.o P<ltk:Mlll Rd
11. Brick Mill Rd -Look Rd to Willow Creek Rd
12. Reecer Creek Rd -Hu.,-Y Junction Rd to E Bowers Rd
13, E Bowers Rd -Reece, Creek Rd to ElleJi,J bl,rz OW bou.ndaty
1.oLE:!lawH:<. Rd • Ellft!l<l,ur,:·Cltyl>ilu'!l1AIY to Pl~ Rd
lS.. R=c< '1ut Rd · e.&wm.-Rd to O!!i Hlahwo.f 1ll.
l&. W IJnl,uslw Wav · R~--""' (tuk'..Riito 58-9.1
t 'LSl!.-9:Z · IN UllriierilrvWsvu,SR ·l0 '
i t .. wllso'n~ild-LW>,u.~d.«,Varuar•Mwi1,
1$. \tJll$4,\~ Fld/N un,ber 6 Rd · Vant20-.e Hwy l<> Xlult:ao Hwv
~C . Number 6 Rd -~lttlt•l ;L01y ~ TJ,:,=m.f!il
2.1 . Cmvoi, Rd -Ellorub ur~ S bo u~c!My .ID lJo»a>e"' Ril
:U. Vania,:,.: HW'/--Number 6 Rd to Naneum Rd
23. Vanta:n Hwy/Nun\~r 81 Rd -Fairview Rd to Clerf Rd
14. Vbntno Hwv-Number 81 Rd to Buckskin Ln
l5. W l!i,ndcr Rd • R"""rCreek Rd to EJl~nl.l!uJR aiy liou ni!.r\'
26. Thoro Hlg},w.v • Wh,i~r Rd t <> l]~ ThG11>41 Hwy S
27. Thorp Kig/lway -594.1 Th_orpe Hwy S to 82.67 Thoroe Hwv S
2.S .Thc.,p l-fllzhwav• lstS1,l'l,0r;pc to E Taneum .Rd
2.9. Urr111lamJ"1 Rd -Cmwon l\d,. Ell e,ui,~rg to Anderson Rd
30. U"1PtiP11Jfli Rd -Anderson Rd to Manastash Rd
31. Manastash Rd • Limp f;m~m Rd to Cove Rd
3 2 o.,.,.,_Rd • M•~•Jl8"1 Rd to,i,orRe Hwy S
!3. Thr~II Rd .-r-sorao m plo E,oqn¢nl<d -
~. lll!c•~ Rd • Q!!ff1'1n Rd 10 Ugr:i,r r Bo dz~ pcoc;k~r !id
35 . ••1<vi0,w lid · $rlo!o Miff Rd to L"I'"' Rd
;,6.. Fairview Rd -\/nnmgr HWv to l<ittitaiHwt
3.7. Denmark Rd -TJ~ Rd to Thrall Rd
33-1-90 -W Kittitas Co bo undlll"if to TrNt form Rd;East!:ln
3,9~ 1-90 -Tree Farm Rd., Easton to Golf Course R~. Nelson
4~ 1-90 -Golf Course R-d. Nelson to 1st St. Cle Elum
Ql . l•!i0 -1.U S~Cle Elum to Thorpe HWy, Tl'.o r~
42 .I-'IO •. unw~roltil w ,y to c,nyon Rd, Ellemburg
43.I.SO •Cl!nycn Rd, Ellol\SbU/'it to MIi in sr,·Kl tlltl!<
44. HlQ • Moin·s~ Klttl lnJ to RYffil'Jo,:s S•!~ty Rest Area
45.1-90 • R'\l'flgr.luSafety ReS t.'Att:tl to Mflln S:,,. Vent.II~
Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018
Seasonal Model 2017 Model2017 adjustment Forward Reverse category
G:!(.{)9 224 192;
GR-o!I 358 55~
GR-Cr9 367 317
Glt-09 5.1 44
GR-09 348 306
GR-04 46 64
GR.02 273 192
GR.-02 42 34
GR-O J 69 60
GR -0.2 sa 46
GR-0 2 115 06
GR-01 66 81
GR:00 34 23
Gfl-02 27 31
GR.02,. 89 120
G,'r-02 38,i 284
GR.02. _n~ 150
GR-04 67 78
GR~ .1.25 103
GR-&I 102 83
GR-oil 139 .143
GR-<l4 _131 101
Gij-04 29 30
GR-4l4-33 23
GR-02 106 60
GR-l)ll 33 30
GR-04 33 41
GR-<14 53 44
Gll-02 234 163
G1141 143 89
GR-o<I 100 60
<.it-e.1 16 22
GR-o,l 45 38
Gll-o,l 38 46
GR--04 s 9
GR-o,i 123 103
Gfl-oil 17 12
GR-o<I J.978 W\3
GR-04 1918 1657
GR~ 1825 1904
GR-0 1. 1638 1803
GR--0<1 1464 1508
GR'°4 1065 1070
G R-04 967 946
GR•04 967 946
Page 1 of 2
Count
Model 2038 Model 2038 Difference Difference year
Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Peak
Volume
607 418 383 22~ 180
-612 935 254 38Z 500
630 668 263 351 433
316 386 2.65 342 85
.35,E; 325 ll -1.9 .162
317 415 271 35], 123
435 419 162 227 194
280 392 238 358 44
570 637 501 571 95
387 257 329 211 77
367 2.11 252. 145 51
440 499 374 418 _181
591 749 557 72G 48
997 1293 970 1262 23
7 82. 538 &93 568 309
8 16 ,ss ~a2 4~ 365
303 432-ffi = 196
22~ 178 158 100 160
344 287 219 184 231
280 25;\ 178 170 192
226 258 87 115 388
286 2.7d 155 169 614
101 _9d n 60 '}JO
64 66 31 43 145
349 162 243 102 125
82 46 49 16 174
80 ss. 47 14 77
84 71 31 27 37
4_63 335 229 1-72 261
.226 151 83 68 499
135 90 35 30 153
28 34 12 12 40
68 50 23 12 127
68 7 6 30 30 85
20 3Q 15 21 38
303 265, 180 162 207
43 1~ 2/; 7 22
2.059 1.77? 81 132 999
2055 185~ .137 198 3200
2236 2503 411 59.9 -l!lSB
2058 2390 420 587 2600
1773 1750 309 242 2700
1195 1227 130 157 1700
992 970 25 24 1S00
992 970 25 24 1600
Final -Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
2016 2038 2038 Count 2016 Peak 2016 July 2038 Peak Date Month March March July Land Use
Year volume volume Volume volume volume volume
8/15/2016 2016 8 180 108 176 789 473 771 Rural
8/15/2016 201a s 500 300 489 1136 682 1110 Rural
10/2672015 2015 10 455 386 629 11l47 888 1447 Rural
1.0/26/201,5 2015 10 90 76 124 69? 587 956 Rural
5/1/2016 20.10 s .162 139 2.26 189 162 263 Rural
9/15/2014 ;.>ll.l4 ~ cl.35 lll2 167 745 ,r;,s Q.21 Rural
9/15/2014 2014 a 204 129 211 583 370 603 Rural
3/28/2016 2016 i 44 29 47 640 419 683 Rural
3/28/2016 2016 J 95 62 101 1173 769 1252 Rural
~/la/20 16 2016 8 77 so 82 617 404 659 Rural
8/8]2016 2019 a Sl. 32 52 448 281 438 Rural
3/15/2016 2.016 -3 .181 119 193 973 637 1039 Rural
3f 28[2016 2016 3 48 31 ,1 1331 872 1421 Urban
~/S/2Jl1 6 2018 4 23 15 24 2255 1,146 2.358 Urban
l,./:I/W16 2016 1 317 223 363 1570 ll~ 1792 Ur.1:lon
~/19/2016 21)16 4 365 234 381 1259 807 1316 U,tlon
~}1 5/2014 ~l/1 .!I 207 131 2.14 509 * &30 LhbOJl
4/21./2015 2015 4 168 149 244 418 372 606 Rural
6/2/2015 2015 6 243 166 270 634 433 70S .11.uJul
6/2/201S 201S . 6 201 137 224 540 369 601 Rural
S/io/2015 201S 5 407 314 512 590 456 742 Urban
$/2.6/2015 2015 5 644 497 810 938 725 1180 Rural
5/26/201S 2.01s . 5 283 219 356 402 311 506 Rural
5/20/20.lS 2.01S-5 152 117 191 2.19. 169 276 Rural
4/19/2016 2.0.l& 4 .125 80 131 470 301 491 Urban
4/1V2016 2016 4 174 155 252 .239 2.13 34& Rural
4/12/2016 2016 4 77 69 112 13& 123 ~od Rural
4/5/2016 2016 4 37 33 54 95 85 131\ Rural
4/12/2016 2016 4 261 167 273 662 425 692: Rural
4/12L2016 201$ 4 499 444 723 65() 578 942: Rural
4/19/2016 2016 4 153 136 2.2.2 .218, 194 316 Rural
4/12/2016 2016 4 40 36 58 64 5_7 9?; Rural
6/1/2015 2015 6 133 91 148 162 111 18(! Rural
5/11/2015 2015 5 89 69 112 145 11:\ 18Z Rural
4_/1472015 2015 4 39 35 57 74 66 107 Rural
5/26/2015 2015 s 217 168 273 549' 424 691 Rural
S/19/2015 2015 5 23 18 29 55 42, 6!"j Rural
S/1[2016 2016 s 999 772 1257 1212' 9,6 rs2s Rural
6/U20.l6 2016 6 = 2185 35-60 3535, 2414, 393Z Rural
S/1L2QJ.f; ,0.16 , 1058 81.7 1331 201l,1! 1597 260Z Rural
6/1/2016 2016 6 2600 1.6.50 2688 3601 .2289 372~ Urban
6/1/2016 2016 6 2700 1843 3Q~ 3251 222P 3611) Rural
6/1/2016 2016 6 1700 1161 -189:i 1981 135J 22.lQ Rural
6/1/2016 2016 6 lSOQ 1024 1669 1549 1058 lJE RJ.iral
5/1/2016 2016 5 1600 1236 2013 1649 1274 2075 Rural
Page 2 of 2
Flow Divided Arterial LOS (Signalized, Number Speed 35 Exclusive Exdusive One-way Final Final Final Final 2016 2038 2038 July 2016 LOS Median? Failing LOS 2016 2016July 2038 Left Lane? Rightlum Unadjusted Unadjusted Oanmcauon Standard Freeway or of Lanes or slower (Y/N) capacity B Capacity C Capacity D Capacity E Capacity Standard March LOS LOS March LOS LOS
Highway)
(Y/N) (Y/N) lane (Y/N) LOS LOS
Maj or• C B Hig hway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
Maj or* C B Highway 2 N N N N N 82Q 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B C B C
Major C B High w ay 2 N N N N N 82Q 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B C C C
Major C B Highway 2 N N N N N 82P 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B 8 B B C
Maior C B Highwa y 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2l90 2990 1550 C B B B B B 8
,Mlijot' C 8 ~hwov 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1S50 C B 8 8 8 8 C
Major C B Hi.e;hwa y 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B Ji B B B B
Minor• C 8 Hi,ehwa y 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B .B B B B
Minor* C B Hlbhw•I' 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B 8 C B C
Minor• C B Hls),wl>y 2 N ti N, N II SlO 1550 21~ 1990 lS50 C B B 8 B B 6
Minor* C 6 Hie:hwa_v 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
Minor* C B Hieh_way 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B C B C
Maier"' D B Hie,hwa_'i. 2 y N N N N 8 20 1550 2..190 2990 21.9 0 D B B B C C C
Major* 11 .B H~Wi)V 2 y N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 2190 D B B B E C -E_
Maier* D B Highway 2 y N N N N 820 1550 21 90 2990 2190 D B B 8 D C D
Maier D B H)_g hwav 2 N N N N N 82 0 1550 2190 2990 2190 D 8 B B C B C
Major D B Hiehwa v 2 N N N N N 820 1550 Zl90 2990 2190 D B B B B B 8
Major• C B Hiehwav 2 y N N N N 820 .1 550 Zl90 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
Major• C B H~hwa v 2 N N N N N 820 .1550 Zl90 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
Maio_r• C B Highway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2..190 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
M ajo r• D .B H(l:hway 2 N N y N N 820 1550 -2190 2990 21.90 D B B B B B B
Major* C B H.i£,h wa y 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B C B C
Maior• C B .,li~hwav 2 N N N N N 8 20 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B 8 B B B B
M•!or" C B lflt~w,, 2 !I II II II N no I~ 219Q ~ -1SSO C B 8 -8 I! B a
Major* D !I w .. ~,.., 2 y N ff ' H H QI) 1Si511 ;!190 2990 2190 I D B B B B s 'I!
Major* C B Highway 2 N N N N N 820 .1 550 Zl90 2990 1550 C 8 B B B B B
Major• C B Hig hway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 Zl90, 2990 1550 C B B 8 B 8 B
Maier* .C B Hig hway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C 8 B B B B B
Major• C e Hig_hway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B B B B
Major• C B Highway 2 y N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 1550 C B B B 8 B C
Ml]or• C B lllthwov 2 N N ~· " N 8;() I~ 211'() ~ 1~ C 8 B B 8 B 8
Mljot" C B .H1c11wo, 2 N N II " N 8;() .ISSO 211!0 ~ 1551J C B 8 8 B B 8
Major• C B l!IChw.lV 2 N N N lf N s;io lS!;O ,1~ ~ l5SI) C B 11 !I B s ;j
Major• C B Hlt!hw.ly l N N N N N 81'0 .1 550 U1!0 29'10 1SSD C B 8 5 8 B a
Minor C B Hlltllway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 2190 2990 .1550 C B 8 B B s a
MirJ o r C B Hljtlll!roy 2 N N N N N s;o lSSQ ~1'90 1990 1550 C B 8 8 B B· B
Mif"J or C B Hie::hway 2 N N N N N 820 1550 21 90 2990 .155 0 C B B B B B B
Minor C B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 45.10 5490 6300 4S 10 C B B B B B 8
Minor C C Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 549() 6300 4510 C C B C C B C
Minor C B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 451.(l 5490 6300 4S 10 C B B B B B 8
Minor D B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 5 491) 6300 5490 D B B 8 C B C
Minor C B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 549Q 6300 4510 C B B B C B C
Mi.nor C B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 5490 6300 4510 C B B B B 8 B
Minor C B Free way 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 5490 6300 451Q C B B 8 B B B
Minor C B Freeway 4 N y N N N 3020 4510 5490 6300 451Q C B B B 8 8 B
Final -Kittitas County Transportation Element 2018
Appendix C:
Kittitas County Travel Demand Model
Documentation
Date:
From:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
501 North Anderson Street, Ellensburg WA 98926
March 16, 2017
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 emoloyment allocation 2037 Employment
Cle Elum 2,046 1,353 3,399
Ellensburg 11,490 6,998 18 ,488
Kittitas 440 365 804
Roslyn 1 ,150 202 1,352
South Cle Elum 7 6 13
Rural County 4 ,230 2,231 6,461
Total 19,362 11,155 30,517
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 Pooulation 20-year oooulation allocation 2037 Population
Cle Elum 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 Cle Elum 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
Prepared for
Kittitas County, Washington
Prepared by
PTV -America, Inc. -Tacoma, Washington
May 2009
,cllll\H County 2:UOla
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 Cle Elum/Roslyn f110m 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 NA VTEQ 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 tum 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 Page2
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 tum, 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 zone boundaries is shown in Fi ur · 1.
Figure 1 -Model Area with T AZ Structure
Kittitas County, Washing ton Transportation Model -M a y 2009 Page 3
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 T AZs are areas with points where
trips begin and end. These are used to inventory all of the land use or attributes that
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 Page 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 T AZ 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 Location
Zone
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), tum movement penalty, link delay functions, and node delay
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 PageS
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. MP A 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
MP A function is turned off during the iterative distribution and assignment portion,
and then once the final trip matrices are established, MP A 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 Page7
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 Transpor tation Model-May 2009 Page8
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 Tum 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 FHW A 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 Co Lmty Transportation Planning Model
Type Number Facility Type
1 Interstate Principal Arterial (Rw:aJ Freeway)
2 Principal Arterial (Rural)'
3 Freeway Rar:np s
6 Mi:nor Artedal (Ruva l)
7 MajoT Col!lector (Rural)
8 Mir1or Collector (Rural)
9 Local (R'Ul·al)
11 Interstate Principal Arterial (Urban Fr eway)
12 Expressway Principal Arterial (Urban)
14 Principal Artel'ial (Urban)
16 \. Minor Arterial (Uri ban)
17 ' C ollector (U1j,an}
19
,.
Local (Urban) >.l ,
99 " \( Trail
'
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 Page 11
Legend
Ae serv ttd
-lntershtle Pilnclpa l ArltM"itc l (A)
-P rlntip1!1Ar1ell8l(RI
Rernp:s
Mino,-Arl"riEII IRJ
Mejor CO,le(,h>r (R)
MKlor Colleclor (R)
local (R)
-!nle~lele Princip~I Artetinl (U)
-E11prnswey Principal Ar1erlal lU)
-Principe ! Arterl al (U )
-Minor Arterial (U)
-Col~tor(U)
-l ot11I
--Trail
TSys
I .,.
,· ...
Figure 3
Kittitas County Link Types
VISUM permits the specification of Transportation Systems or TSys for short. Because
the network was constructed from the NA VTEQ 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 VISUM. Typically, freeway s gments in modeling
are split into a pair of one-way links so that the difference in eapacitie and directional
splits can be modeled appropriately. On and off ramps fox the-s'e facili ties were also
coded as one-way links.
A one-way link is entered in VISUM by permit ting only the car and tr uck transp r ta tion
systems (TSys-Car and TSys-Truck) to m o~e in on e d irection and not the other.
Number of Lanes
This attribute is used in the VISUM m od -l r Wl to assign capacities to network links. It is
also used for display and for entering int~r ection geometry in VI UM. All model links
were checked for accuracy with this designa ti on . Nu01be r . f lan es per direction is
shown as Figure 4.
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 Page 13
Legend
Link bar
Numlanes
Scaling
0 ~
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 Facility Type Capacity
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 VISUM 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 Tum 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
Link
Type
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
16
17
19
Volume-delay f111Ctlan I !
T)1)9 I ~~ ~
IC\I' =(to +a) ~+d-(sat+rt) forsot<sotCrt
tCur = (to + 11'). (1 + d'; (sat+ rf') for ••t>•satCrlt
where sat ~ _q -..«:rt• Io .es
411111 ' C
Par,netss
• • l_o j b • · 4 : c • : 1 : d • 'o.25 i f • i o_:15
e' [o . ~-j b' • _I~-~ ~ !
Oblocbd
Table 3
r!t ! 0.25 ' --·-·7 ; r-
1
0.1s ____ 1
1-OJ 7
Link Delay Coefficients
2008 Kittitas County 'J';ra11s p0rta tion Planning _ Model
V /C < SatCrit V /C => SatCrit
d b f SatCrit d' b'
0.25 4.0 0.05 0.95 0.25 10.0
0.25 4:0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0
0.25 4 .'Q 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.2,5 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.15 0.85 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
0.25 4.0 0.25 0.75 0.25 10.0
Kittitas County, Washington Tr ansportation Model-May 2009
f'
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Page 17
INTERSECTION NODE DAT A
Data entered for each node include the following:
• Type
• Node Capacity Factors
• Capacity
• TMODEL Special Delay Links (SDLs)
• Base Delay
• 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 ColJfl. Tra orta ti on Plannin Model
Node Ty e Descri tion
1 Not an Intersection
10
11
20
21
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
Ki ttita s County, Washington Trans por tation Mo del -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= Kl+ K4 * (Entering Link Capacity)
Node capacities for the Kittitas County model use the Kl 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 G/C 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 prevfously 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.
Numb"l 131606265
Link.a with tun ~dance al ToNode
~•OO)l;il:.7(1 •~
-• ) 92942267(13154433,t
•
181
181
•
I or l !concei J
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 tO 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. Tums 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 tum delay would increase as the
volume of the left tum 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 Page20
n p~, alfie ters
Volume-de lay funct1ol'l
Type
10
TMODEl._NOOES 1:;;;J
FU!)ld.lon
wbera sate ,•-· _,...;4;...·· -
«btitz:~\
POl'amet«s
.J;l:\!11 ' 3
a' I 3
O btoclc.ed
b ·-·._J 3._6 ___,I , ''C•.~ .__I 11_· ____.l d .-30
b'= s.e d 30
The final values used ar sh own in Table 5 .
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009
, _ 0,2
r-= I 0.2
CbflSel
Page21
Table 5
Node Delay Coefficients
Kittitas County 2008 Transportation Planning Model
Node V /C < SatCrit V/C => SatCrit
Types D b f a SatCrit d' b' £' a'
1, 5 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 30 3.80 0.15 0 0.85 30 5.80 0.15 0
10 30 3.60 0.20 3 0.80 3,~ ~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, Washlngton Transportation Model -May 2009 Page22
LAND USE AND TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
The central point of each traffic analysis zone (T AZ), 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 T AZ
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 coming 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 Elum. 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-Roslyn Area.
200 to 272 Internal Zones -representing the Upper Kittitas County Area
excluding zones from the Cle Elum-Roslyn Area.
300 to 313 Internal Zones -representing the Lower Kittitas County Area
excluding zones from the Ellensburg Area.
400 to 461 Internal Zones -representing 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 Page23
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 U . r Co un
Kittitas County, Washington Trans portation Model-May 2009 Page24
The Lower County includes the area around Ellensburg. This area is shown as:
The Range area of the c unty is shown as:
1--!
> •••• .,; ....
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 Page25
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:
LUl 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.
L U4 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.
L US 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 Page27
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 LUl 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 LUl for just
the zones included in the Lower County area. Measured in dwelling units.
LU18 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 LUl 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.
L U21 Parks are those land uses which are open space used for recreation.
Measured in acres.
L U22 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:
• Home-Based Work (HBW) trips,
• Home-Based Other (HBO) trips, and
• Non-Home-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 Home-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-Home-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 Page30
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 corning
in and out of the external locations.
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 D est Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Total
3 Hotel/Motel Rms 0 .011 0 .013 0.011 0.01~ O.Q22 0 .02~ 0.02 ~ 0 .02~ 0 .145 0 .17( 0 .006 Q,00€ 0 .216 0.254 0.471
4 Retail KSF . o.ooa 0.037 0.47E 0 .00( 0 .000 1.104 1.08c a.coo 0 .518 0 .62€ 0 .0860.074 !2.160 1.84C 4 .00(
5 Ind/Man KSF . 0 .000 0 ,029 0.20E 0 .00( 0 .000 0 .04~ 0 .07C O.OOC 0.093 0.08€ 0 .093 0.12E 0.465 0.28E 0 .75(
6 Service/Office KSF , 0 .00( 0.051 1 .23, 0 .00( 0 .000 0 .50€ 1.177 o .ooc 0 .246 0.40! 0 .082 0.051 ~.738 1.013 3 .75(
7 FIRES KSF . 0.00( 0 .05( 0.90! 0.00( 0.000 0.495 0 .804 0 .00( 0 .241 0.39€ 0 .06( 0 .05( 2.010 0 .99( 3.00I
8 El/MidSchool Stud. 0 .00( 0 .00~ 0.034 0.00~ 0 . .000 0 .02, 0 .043 o.ooc 0.016 0.03€ 0.00~ 0.00~ 0.096 0.06• 0.16(
9 High School Stud. O.OOQ 0 .00, 0.032 0.001 0 ,000 0.021 0 .041 0 .00( 0.015 0 .03• 0.00~ 0.00~ 0 .090 0 .06( 0 .15(
10 College Stud . 0 .000 o.oo: 0 .051 0 .00( 0.000 0.022 8.06! o.ooc I0 .025 0.03! 0 .004 0.00~ 0.147 0.06, 0 .21(
11 Ag/For/Min Acres 0 .000 0 .00( 0 ,00( 0 .00( 0.000 0 .000 o.ooc ·o.ooc 0 .000 0 .00( 0.00( 0 .00( 0 .000 0 .00( O.OOI
12 Ag-Range Acres 0.0000.00( 0 .00( 0.00( 0 .000 0.00( O.OOC O.OOC 0 .000 O.OOf 0.000 0.00( I0 .001 0.00( 0 .001
13 Ag-Lower Acres 0.000 o.ood 0.001 0 ,00( 0.000 0.00( o.ooc 0 .00( 0 .001 ,0 .00( 0.000 0.00( 0 .002 0.001 o.oo:
14 Ag-Upper Acres o.ooc o.ooc 0.00( 0 .00( 0.00( 0 .00( O.OOC O.OOC O.QOO 0 .001 0.000 0 .00( I0 .000 o.ooc 0.001
IS SF-Upper DU 0 .010 0.00( 0 .00( 0 .16~ 0 .15~ 0 .00( O.OOC 020€ 0.057 0.051 o .oot a .om I0 .231 0.42! 0 .66(
' Hi MF-Upper DU 0.00! 0 .00( 0 .001 0 .08! 0 .08( 0 .00( 0 .00( 0.11€ 0 .031 0.031 0 .00, 0.00! 0 .119 0.241 0 .361
I? SF-Lower DU 0.016 0 .00( 0 .00( 0 .23° 0.23E O.OOC 0.00C 0.29E 0 .085 0 .074 0 .007 0 .01, 0.346 0.614 0.96(
18 MF-Lower DU 0 .0090.00( O.O{)G 0.144 0.126 0 ,000 0.000 0.187 0 .051 0 .051 0 .004 o .ooi 0.191 0.38£ 0 .58(
19 SF-Range DU 0 .012 0.00( 0 .00( 0 .185 0 .181 0,000 o.ooc 0 .234 0 .064 0 .059 0.005 0 .010 0 .263 0.48f 0 .75(
20 MF-Range DU 0 .001 b.ooc o.ooc 0.112 0 .091 0 .000 0 .00( 0.145 0 .039 0.039 0.003 .0 .00€ 0.149 0 .30:i 0.45(
21 Parks Acres O.oo'C 0.001 0 .002 o.ooc O.OOC o.oo4 0 .003 0 .ood 0.006 0.004 0 .000 0 .000 0 ,011 O.OOf 0 .02(
22 Recreation KSF 0.000 0.09E 0.401 0 .00( . O.OOC 0 .78E 0.501 (!).000 1.042 0.64E 0 .060 0 .047 2.005 1.575 3 .58(
23 Government KSF 0 .000 0 .02( 0 .392 o.ooc O.OOC 0 .102 0 .218 0 .000 0 .235 0 .207 0 .026 0 .010 0 .871 0.33~ 1.21[
24 Medical KSF 0.000 0 .04€ 0.205 0.000 o.ooc 0 .22E 0.171 0 .00( 0 .287 0.169 0.021 0 .014 0 .684 0.45€ 1.14C
2.5 Wholesale KSF 0 .00( 0 .01( 0.12C 0 .000 O.OOC 0.050 0 .051 0 .000 0.103 0.057 0 .068 Q.050 ~.342 0 , 16E 0 .51(
26 External-Internal Trips 0 .050 0.00( 0.26( o.ooc 0.15( o.ooc 0 .210 0 ,000 0 .230 0 .00( 0.10C O.OOC 1.000 0.00( 1.00(
'fl Internal-External Trips 0 .00( 0 .05( O.OOC 0 .22C 0.00C 0.26C o.ooa 0200 0 .000 0.17( 0.00( 0.10C I0 .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 K tti C t T t ti Pl M d 1 1 tas :onn ty :i;ansp or ,a on . an;n,mg o e
Rates used in the Model ITE Rates
Land Use 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 r 0.75 0.75 0.09 7.85
6 Service/-1
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 0.00 '· 0.00 NA L
13 Ag-Lower 0.00 0.00 1 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-Range 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 0.34 0.17 0.51 0.51 0.50 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 NCHRP 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-1 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 (Internal-Internal), 1-X, and X-1 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 1-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 Page34
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 VISUM 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 runs
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 Planning
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 fully 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 I-X 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 Page38
Table 8
Gravity Model Parameters
2008 Kittitas County Transportation P lamtlng Model
Trip Beta Alpha Constant
Purpose Exponent Exponent
HW 2.00 -0.2 100
WH 2.00 -0.2 100
HO 2.70 -0.2 100
OH 2.70 -0.2 100 'C
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.
. .......... {~]. ...................... · ......... ..
~I
.J
Figure 5
Kittitas County Screenline Locations
!f I
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
Kittita s County, Washington Trans p o rtation 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 -i:c
4 West Ellensburg 3207 2388 34% 47 %
5 North Ellensburg 474 442 7% 70 %
6 South of Ellensburg 488 451 ~ 8% 69%
7 Central Ellensburg 5041 5522 I -9% 33%
8 EW Central Ellensburg 3184 2841 12% 43%
9 East of Ellensburg 577 629 -8% 67%
Total .. 13284 l 12488 6% 23%
~ C
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 munts 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 I-90 on-ramp at Cascade/University Way. This is an older count and
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model-May 2009 Page 41
may not have an actual deviation of this magnitude. This comparison also affects
screenline number 4.
Assignment analysis, Network : Kittitas Base2008
2 ,----j,-------!--------------.---,-----,---,,
2 , -j'·-I -•j
2 , t i .l
I Xl
2 'i' •
~ -: _T. ---. -1,._ .
·-· ·····--i··· I-
600
500
400
300
200 --
100
: l
L
200
i
[
I
60D BOO
Observed attribute(Validate)
Figure 6
.
2 2 2
Kittitas County Scattergram for ALL Links
Kittitas County, W ashington Transportation Model -May 2009
-Tolerances
--• -Regress ion
-T arget value
NumObs 663
AvgObs 178
%RMSE41
% In 84
R20.92
Slope0.95
Ylnt2.38
MeanRelError% 24
Page 42
Assignment analysis, Network: Kittitas Base 2008
2 i I _, I -t---~--i 2 . --··i· ~-~--,.~r ' ! i -Tolerances [ 2 I -r· ! -1 ----Regression
2 , •---.j. -+···x I -Target value
I ! !
2 . ~ ... 1 I NumObs 90 I ~ AvgObs 625 2 ! -~~ -
! l %RMSE 23
2 . ,. % In 93 ci:' l
I R2 0.89 ~ 1 r-r I;: Slope 1.04
a.. 1 Ylnt -58.43 ~
~ 1 ... I MeanRelError% 17
~ -.-j
2 i ::,
,Q 1 . ---t···· i:: ~ 900 i
Q)
-0 ~ 800 "c
700
600 -
500
400
200 ~ i
200 400 600 800 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:
A vgObs 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.
I(Assignment Errors )2
Number of Links % RMSE = 100 x ---------
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 1-90) to less than
Kittitas County, Washington Trans portation Model -May 2009 Page45
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 21 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 Page46
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 (MP A) equivalencies were checked and
revised as necessary. Tum 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 NHT) was computed for each of the scenarios also to facilitate
comparisons.
s ummacy C om_panson o f Al f terna 1ves
Scenario I VMT VHT VMT/VHT
No Build
Full Corridor
Development
Medium
Corridor
Development
Low Corridor
Kittitas County, Wa shington Transpor tation Mode l -May 200 9 P a ge 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 am ? Shc;>ulcl adjustments
be made to account for these changes?
These models should be considered working tools. They are now c;: m pleted and ready
for application and use. When they are used for pecific ·tu d i , th i'eS ults should be
examined and analyzed. If conditions have dtanged in an area or t h ee •-is ting data is out
of date, compensation or improvements ho uld b made in the model and its res ult.
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model -May 2009 Page 49
Kittitas County, Washington Transportation Model -May 2009 Pagc50
Appendix D:
20 Year Transportation Project Scoring Criteria
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION
Does the project include an evacuation route improvement?
Yes: Automatically prioritized
No: Score with below metrics
Goal Metric Description
I--. I.
J ..;~\=-
--•-
• • • L . ....
I
•
•
• I --
•
D
-• • --•
• ·l
• ~
• -
• •
•-;•/!~I .. I ,.,, . ..,• .
• I
•
•
Does the project address a location with a
history of injury/fatality collisions or identified
modal conflicts?
Is project listed in Kittitas County Highway
Safety Plan?
Does the project support future growth or
improve auto LOS?
Does the project provide needed connections
to key land-uses: farm-to-market, recreation ,
employment, forestry, etc. ----
Project includes features that
protect/accommodate wildlife and fish.
Does the project support multimodal travel,
including for recreation?
Project is on-books for another agency or
leverages outside funding sources
Does the project include a maintenance or
rehabilitation component?
KITilJ~ CQ_l.!NIT
Ranking
3=Serious Injury/Fatality or bike/pedestrian
collision
0=No
3=Yes
0=No
2=Yes
0=No
2=Connects two or more destinations
1 =Connects to one destination
0=Other
2=Yes
0=No
6=Transit/Bike/Ped direct improvement
3=1ndirectly improves Transit/Bike/Ped
0=Does not improve Tran sit/Bike/Ped
6=Yes
0=No partnerships
6=Major Reconstruction
4=Minor maintenance/Overlay
0=Not maintenance
Appendix E:
Revenue and Expenditures Report
Fiscal Sustainability Strategy for
Kittitas County Public Works
20-Year Transportation Improvement Program I 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 $91 million deficit in operating and capital costs. Key figures to summarize
the County's financial capacity are highlighted in Exhibit 1 below.
! ~II May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy : Final Report
Exhibit 1. Financial Capacity for Operating Expenditures and Capital Projects in 20-Year Period (2018$)
20-year period:
Projected Revenue
-Capital-restricted funds
Available for Operating Expenditures
Available for Operating Expenditures
-Proiected Operating Expenditures
Operating Expediture Deficit or Surplus
Capital-restricted funds
-Capital Projects List
Capital Expenditure Deficit or Surplus
Total Operating and Capital Deficit
2018-2037
$206.5 million
$76.7 million
$129.8 million
$129.8 million
$170.5 million
($40.7) million
$76.7 million
$1 27.0 million
($50.3) million
($91.0) million
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
Note: Capital-restr icted fund s are fede ral 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 $50 million deficit in capital needs.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 2
Exhibit 2. Projected Annual Operating Revenues, Expenditures, and Deficit, 2018-2037 (2018$)
$12
$10
$8
"' $6 C:
J
~
$4
$2
-$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 capitol 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 rote 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 Deportment of Licensing, we project that this strategy con bring in on
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.
• ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works \ 20-Yeor TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 3
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 $91 million while allowing the County to build a
slight surplus for unknown and/or emergency events.
Alternatively, the County can pursue a TBD Sales and Use Tax, in combination with a higher County Road
property tax levy lid lift. The County could also choose to pursue debt financing, though there are
additional costs associated with taking on debt. The recommended revenue options are summarized in
Exhibit 3 below, and the benefits and challenges associated with each option are outlined further in this
report.
Exhibit 3. Operating and Capital Funding Gap and Potential Additional Revenue (2018$)
Operating Surplus or Deficit
Capita l E1<penditures Surp lus or Deficit
2018-2023 2024-2027 l~YearTotal,
2018-2027 2028-2037 2~YearTotal,
2018-2037
(Years 1-6) (Years 7 -10) (Years 1-10) (Years 11-20) .(Years 1-20}
$ lll,206,000) $ (8,077,800) $ (19 ,283,800) $ (21,368,600) $ (40,652,400)
:
Total Operatin_g and Capital E><penditures Surplus or Deficit I Is (91,112,000)
Estimated Potential Additional Revenue I
Transportation Benefit District -
Vehicle Licensi ng Fee $ 6,540,000 $ 6,5:l.0,000 S 13,DS@_;l!)(i)(l $ 18,570,000 $ 31,ft.h0.;0(:)0
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
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 A ss essor's Office 2018 ; Washington Departme nt of Licen sing
2018; Washington De partment of Revenu e 2018 ; BERK Con sulting 2018.
Note: The se figure s are rounded to the near e st 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 $ 1.7 5 per $1 000 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 $1 000 AV; strategies
on how the County might reach this $1.7 5 per $1,000 AV levy limit could vary.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittita s County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainab ility Strategy: Final Report 4
Exhibit 4. Annual Projected Revenues, Operating and Capital Expenses, and Surplus with Additional Revenue
Tools, 2018-2037 (2018$)
$16
$14
$12
$10
$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.
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8 .. ,g
~ $6
$4
$2
$0
-$2
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 $3 million (over 20 years)
will be used up.
•."II 1 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 5
Funding Situation Assessment
HISTORICAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Historically, the County's transportation program has been operating at capacity. During the last few
years, transportation revenues have dropped below operating expenditures. At the same time, the
County has been accumulating a growing list of capital projects that are critically needed to provide safe
roads, highways, bridges, and infrastructure. Future revenue sources are increasingly uncertain, and
County staff are concerned that current revenues available for operations and capital cannot keep up
with the demands. In addition, the County had been growing at a steady rate and this growth is
expected to continue. Therefore, demand for services is also expected to increase.
Exhibit 5 shows historical transportation revenues from 2008 to 2017, and Exhibit 6 shows historical
transportation expenditures over the same period. The historical revenue and expenditure data was
provided by County Public Works and categorized in discussion with department staff. Exhibit 7 shows
summary-level historical data. The data are presented in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars, or nominal
dollars.
• ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 6
Exhibit 5. Historical Transportation Revenues, 2008 to 2017 (YOE$)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Taxes
Property Taxes $ 4,016,377 $ 4,218,470 $ 3,580,609 $ 3,592,411 $ 4,158,907 $ 4,675,313 $ 4,744,361 $ 3,776,126 $ 3,949,626 $ 4,042,641
Timber Harvest Tax $ 223 $ $ 3,011 $ 2,308 $ 3,810 $ -$ 1,357 $ 2,314 $ 630 $
Leasehold Excise Tax $ 4,100 $ 21,111 $ 8,658 $ 506 $ 10,376 $ 11,329 $ 12,865 $ 8,669 $ 8,970 $ 9,189
Other Taxes $ $ $ $ -$ (51) $ (179) $ (103) $ (294) $ (138) $
State Revenues
State Shared Revenues $ $ 30,783 $ 31,333 $ 40,979 $ 22,929 $ 25,428 $ 68,394 $ 66,232 $ 65,464 $ 95,090
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) $ 1,881,106 $ 1,809,369 $ 1,840,750 $ 1,837,816 $ 1,846,948 $ 1,897,389 $ 1,948,049 $ 2,000,671 $ 2,102,329 $ 1,931,267
Grants
Fede r al Grants $ 1,894,039 $ 4,487,721 $ 482,839 $ 843,311 $ 2,249,880 $ 5,734,928 $ 1,974,411 $ 6,168,151 $ 152,123 $ 967,414
State Grants $ 377,530 $ 622,843 $ 360,358 $ 410,775 $ 963,902 $ 467,950 $ 648,372 $ 5,111,665 $ 509,896 $ 842,928
Rural Arterial Program $ 572,051 $ 154,924 $ 48,420 $ 451,081 $ 2,245,600 $ -$ 121,594 $ 54,323 $ 1,260,294 $ (34,781)
Charges for Services and Fines
Road Improvement Districts $ $ $ $ -$ $ -$ -$ -$ . $
Licenses and Permits $ 56 $ 65 $ 636 $ 13,954 $ 13,335 $ 21,360 $ 19,548 $ 24,414 $ 19,288 $ 105,373
Charges for Services $ 142,008 $ 192,081 $ 156,160 $ 181,343 $ 178,235 $ 181,056 $ 229,337 $ 148,918 $ 281,509 $ 307,114
Ove rl oad Fines $ $ -$ $ $ $ $ $ -$ -$
Other
County lnterfund $ 16,984 $ 140,915 $ 519,550 $ 323,082 $ 74,682 $ 22,801 $ 33,777 $ 22,411 $ (542) $ 27,700
Miscellaneous $ 391,672 $ 151,663 $ 71,317 $ 58,980 $ 367,936 $ 197,872 $ 169,938 $ 73,912 $ 200,513 $ 71,779
TOTAL $ 9,296,146 $ 11,829,946 $ 7,103,641 $ 7,756,546 $ 12,136J489 $ 13,235,247 $ 9,971,898 $ 17,457,514 $ 8,549,963 $ 8,365,714
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
Note: BERK's projection assumes federal and state grants revenue will remain constant based on the average annual revenue from 2008-2017, with two anomalous years
removed: 2013 and 2015. In 2013 the County received unanticipated grant funding for the Kittitas Highway project which enabled them to borrow ahead on those grant
funds and as a result shows higher than normal grant allocations. In 2015 there was a supplemental action by the state legislature that provided the county with additional
grant funding associated with the state's purchase of Teanaway Community Forest. This was a one-time allocation of funds as a way to offset lost revenue to the county.
Neither year is representative of the expected range of grant funding to be secured during the next 20 years .
: ~,, May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 7
Exhibit 6. Historical Transportation Expenditures, 2008 to 2017 (YOE$)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Administration and Overhead
Administration and Overhead $ 986,144 $ 831,947 $ 1,049,738 $ 946,590 $ 955,958 $ 1,107,030 $ 1,014,203 $ 945,413 $ 1,157,396 $ 1,110,400
Road Services $ 398,432 $ 337,994 $ 123,703 $ 138,683 $ 83,264 $ 82,964 $ 90,400 $ 123,785 $ 124,402 $ 144,981
Utility Services $ $ $ $ . $ $ 12,691 $ 13,067 $ 6,071 $ 250 $
Engineering
Engineering $ 98,018 $ 84,063 $ 89,153 $ 80,202 $ 93,901 $ 195,449 $ 143,454 $ 108,399 $ 188,450 $ 331,242
Planning
Planning $ 118,283 $ 86,643 $ 128,978 $ 131,336 $ 101,297 $ 124,845 $ 254,766 $ 238,870 $ 105,051 $ 66,594
Construction
Construction -Improvements $ 312,930 $ 870,906 $ 184,330 $ 536,815 $ 3,296,096 $ 2,592,891 $ -$ 136 $ 139,740 $ 18,613
Construction -Parks and Recreation $ 6,803 $ 62,062 $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ $ 99,541
Construction -Rehabilitation $ 57,417 s 446,978 $ 47,921 $ 452,941 $ 339,477 $ 1,346,114 $ 202,307 $ 4,785,480 $ 2,659,574 $ 1,016,790
Construction -Safety $ 2,017 $ 461,140 $ 33,956 $ 201,040 $ 150,608 $ 963,843 $ 839,743 $ 4,495,963 $ 120,628 $ 1,185,622
Construction -Other $ s $ -$ $ $ $ $ $ 221,996 $
Facility Operations
Facility Operations $ 17,535 $ 16,981 $ 16,981 s 16,981 s 16,382 $ 54,730 s 62,333 $ 62,333 $ 62,652 $ 64,067 -
Other Operations
Overlay $ $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $
Maintenance -Drainage and Irrigation $ 328,000 $ 254,552 s 345,994 $, 347,592 s 478,217 $ 496,888 5 s92,492 ·s 590,360 $ 603,515 $ 626,317
Maintenance -Parks and Recreation $ 2,784 $ 2,839 s 2,857 $ 3,016 $ 3,957 $ 3,941 $ 6,426 s 4,378 $ 4,127 $ 4,330
Reimbursable Work $ 121,107 $ 283,255 $ 668,958 $ 403,931 s 217,224 $ 145,587 s 354,409 $ 180,814 $ 241,970 $ 420,409
lnterfund $ $ $ s $ $ s $ $ -$
RID Expenditures $ $ s s: $ $ $ s $ 4,718 $ 6,469
Debt Service $ $ s S: $ $ -s -s $ $
Transfer Out to ERR $ 189,800 $ 4,860 $ $ $ $ $ s $ $
Flood Control $ 13,131 $ 5,325 s 3,648 s 7,085 $ 21,212 $ 45,331 s 8,994 s 9,441 $ 146,955 $ 77,843
Extraordinary Operations $ $ 1,288,485 $ 208,768 $ s 634,674 $ 47,374 s 55,008 $ 11,380 $ 72,380 $ 18,048
Maintenance and Preservation
Grave l $ 246,629 $ 218,461 $ 311,170 s 158,237 $ 318,357 $ 388,200 s 278,232 s 299,907 $ 441,526 $ 449,735
Maintenance $ 442,958 $ 346,447 $ 362,927 s 376,976 s 453,145 $ 462,079 $ 482,960 $ 603,475 $ 591,816 $ 606,508
Preservation $ 1,030,873 $ 908,043 s 636,055 $ 1,220,289 $ 1,571,058 $ 936,956 $ 2,378,123 $ 1,908,838 $ 1,906,515 $ 2,203,655
Traffic Control $ 280,461 $ 283,717 $ 275,763 s 292,860 s 282,450 $ 291,756 $ 328,878 $ 321,008 $ 338,742 $ 348,835
Street lighting $ 4,529 $ 2,094 s 2,614 s 3,657 s 3,671 $ 10,007 s 4,206 s 3,755 $ 4,848 $ 20,020
Snow and Ice Control $ 541,652 $ 357,492 ·$ 385,395 $ 394,017 s 506,277 $ 335,760 S 408,016 s 482,446 $ 633,039 $ 844,344
Street Cleaning $ 4,929 $ 4,634 s 6,562 s 4,586 s 5,708 $ 7,677 s 8,329 $ 8,996 $ 9,432 $ 5,554
Vegetation Control $ 352,390 $ 303,590 $ 431,430 s 326,257 $ 329,944 $ 504,480 $_ 584,481 $ 444,796 $ 337,190 $ 366,998
TOTAL $ 5,556,822 $ 7,462,508 $ 5,316,900 $ 6,043,089 $ 9,862,880 $10,156,593 $ 8,110,828 $ 15,636,045 $ 10,116,911 $ 10,036,915
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
Note: Operating costs highlighted in grey are included in Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures, which are summed in the following exhibit. These costs are separated
out due to their projection approach.
:~11 May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report I 8
Exhibit 7. Summary-Level Historical Revenues and Expenditures, 2008-2017 (YOE$)
Revenues:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total2008-2017
Property Taxes $ 4,016,377 $4,218,470 $3,580,609 $3,592,411 $4,158,907 $4,675,313 $4,744,361 $3,776,126 $3,949,626 $4,042,641 $ 40,754,841
Timber HaNest Tax $ 223 $ -$ 3,011 $ 2,308 $ 3,810 $ $ 1,357 $ 2,314 $ 630 $ $ 13,653
Other Taxes $ 4,100 $ 21,111 $ 8,658 $ 506 $ 10,325 $ 11,151 $ 12,762 $ 8,376 $ 8,833 $ 9,189 $ 95,011
State Shared Revenues $ $ 30,783 $ 31,333 $ 40,979 $ 22 ,929 $ 25,428 $ 68,394 $ 66,232 $ 65,464 $ 95,090 $ 446,632
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) $ 1,881,106 $1,809,369 $1,840,750 $1,837,816 $1,846,948 $1,897,389 $1,948,049 $2,000,671 $2,102,329 $1,931,267 $ 19,095,693
Federal Grants $ 1,894,039 $4,487,721 $ 482,839 $ 843,311 $2,249,880 $5,734,928 $1,974,411 $6,168,151 $ 152,123 $ 967,414 $ 24,954,816
State Grants $ 949 ,581 $ 777,768 $ 408,778 $ 861,856 $3,209,501 $ 467,950 $ 769,966 $5,165,989 $1,770,190 $ 808,147 $ 15,189,725
Charges for SeNices and Fines $ 142,064 $ 192,146 $ 156,796 $ 195,297 $ 191,570 $ 202,416 $ 248,885 $ 173,332 $ 300,797 $ 412,487 $ 2,215,790
Other Revenues $ 408,656 $ 292,578 $ 590,867 $ 382,062 $ 442,618 $ 220,673 $ 203,715 $ 96,324 $ 199,972 $ 99,479 $ 2,936,945
Expenditures:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total2008-2017
Operating Expenditures
Administration and Overhead $ 1,384,576 $1,169,941 $1,173,441 $1,085,272 $1,039,222 $1,202,685 $1,117,671 $1,075,270 $1,282,048 $1,255,381 $ 11,785,506
Facility Operations $ 17,535 $ 16,981 $ 16,981 $ 16,981 $ 16,382 $ 54,730 $ 62,333 $ 62,333 $ 62,652 $ 64,067 $ 390,975
Other Operations $ 652,038 $1,836,477 $1,227,367 $ 758,607 $1,351,327 $ 735,180 $1,010,903 $ 791,995 $1,069,538 $1,149,086 $ 10,582,519
Plann i ng $ 118,283 $ 86,643 $ 128,978 $ 131,336 $ 101,297 $ 124,845 $ 254,766 $ 238,870 $ 105,051 $ 66,594 $ 1,356,664
Engineering $ 98,018 $ 84,063 $ 89,153 $ 80,202 $ 93,901 $ 195,449 $ 143,454 $ 108,399 $ 188,450 $ 331,242 $ 1,412,331 -~-
Capital Expenditures
Construction $ 372,364 $1,779,025 $ 266,207 $1,190,795 $3,786,182 $4,902,848 $1,042,050 $9,281,580 $3,141,937 $2,221,025 $ 27,984,014
Parks and Trails Operating Expenditures
Parks and Trails Maintenance $ 2,784 $ 2,839 $ 2,857 $ 3,016 $ 3,957 $ 3,941 $ 6,426 $ 4,378 $ 4,127 $ 4,330 $ 38,655
Parks and Trails Capital Expenditures
Parks and Trails Construction $ 6,803 $ 62,062 $ s s s s s $ $ 99,541 $ 16S,4°-5
Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures
Maintenance and Preservation $ 2,904,421 $2,424,477 $2,411,916 $2,776,878 $3,470,611 $2,936,916 $4,473,224 $4,073,221 $4,263,108 $4,845,649 $ 34,580,421
Sources: Kitt ita s County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
: ~II May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 9
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
PROJECTED BASED ON HISTORICAL REVENUE PROJECTED BASED ON HISTORICAL REVENUE
RATE OF CHANGE AVERAGES
• Property Taxes are projected on 3-year historical
rate of change of per capita revenue. Property tax
revenues are driven by population, and 2015
reflects the most recent year after a noticeable drop
in property tax revenue per capita. Property taxes
per capita have been declining at a compound
annual rate of -1 .3% over the last 3 years; we
project that future revenues continue to decrease by
this rate.
• Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT) revenues are
projected on 10-year historical rate of change of
per capita revenue. Washington currently levies a
tax of 49.4 cents per gallon on motor vehicle fuel,
and counties receive o designated share. MVFT
revenues in real dollars hove been declining. This
trend is becoming more apparent in recent years
due to the shift toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Because of this, the County's state fuel tax
distributions ore expected to continue to decline.
Over the lost ten years, when adjusted for inflation,
revenue per capita from MVFT has been declining
by a compound annual rote of -1 .6%; we project
that future revenues per capita continue to decrease
by this rate.
• Similar to MVFT, Other Revenues (inter-
departmental funds and miscellaneous funds) and
State Shared Revenues are also projected on 1 0-
year historical rote of change of per capita revenue.
Other Revenues per capita hove been declining at a
compound annual rate of -15.9%, while State
Shared Revenues per capita have been growing at
a compound annual rate of 1 0.3%; we project that
these rates of change will continue.
• Federal Grants and State Grants. BERK's projection
assumes federal and state grants revenue will
remain constant based on the average annual
revenue from 2008-2017, with two anomalous years
removed: 2013 and 2015. In 2013 the County
received unanticipated grant funding for the Kittitas
Highway project which enabled them to borrow
ahead on those grant funds and as o result shows
higher than normal grant allocations. In 2015 there
was a supplemental action by the state legislature
that provided the county with additional grant
funding associated with the state's purchase of
Teanaway Community Forest. This was a one-time
allocation of funds as a way to offset lost revenue to
the county. Neither year is representative of the
expected range of grant funding to be secured
during the next 20 years. This approach assumes
that the County's future ability to secure federal and
state grants is constant based on the historical
period.
• Other Taxes and Charges for Services and Fines
are projected on 10-year historical average per
capita revenue. These sources are driven by
population but have been volatile historically,
fluctuating each year. A 10-year average provides
a closer projection of future revenues.
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 20 l 8; BERK Consulting 20 l 8 .
: ~I I May 22, 20 l 8 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy : Final Report 10
The County can expect approximately $207 million in transportation revenues between 2018 and 2037,
including $60 million in the 6-year period. Expected future revenues are shown in Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9. Total Projected Revenues for Transportation, 2018 to 2037 (2018$)
2018-2023 2024-2027 10-Year Total, 2028-2037 20-Year Total,
2018-2027 2018-2037
(Years 1-6) (Years 7-10) (Years 1-lOj (Years 11-20) (Years 1-20)
Property Taxes $ 25,549,000 $ 17,687,000 $1 ,J9,2$6i®O $ 45,967,000 $ 89,203,000
Other Taxes $ 74,000 $ 54,000 $ l28jQbo $ 155,000 $ 283,000
State Shared Revenues $ 903,000 $ 1,075,000 $-1,9181000 $ 6,349,000 $ 8,327,000
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) $ 11,537,000 $ 7,369,000 $ 18i906000 $ 17,118,000 $ 36,024,000
Federal Grants $ 11,192,000 $ 7,462,000 $ 1$,"654,poo $ 18,654,000 $ 37,308,000
State Grants $ 7,983,000 $ 5,322,000 $ :13,305;()® $ 13,304,000 $ 26,609,000
Charges for Services and Fines $ 1,676,000 $ 1,238,000 -$ 2,914,0Cl:O $ 3,531,000 $ 6,445,000
Other Revenues s 1,S26;0QP $ 428,000 $ !,9~,!)00· $ 359,000 $ t1l~;.()OO
Total Revenue-s $ 60,440,000 $ 40,635,000 $· l01,Q7S,®I), $ 105,437,000 s· 2,06,512,00!)
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 same 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 .
:-111 May 22, 201 8 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability 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 6 are projected forward using different approaches,
as described in Exhibit l 0.
Exhibit 10. Projection Approaches for Future Operating Expenditures
MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION
EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENDITURES
These expenses are captured by the Recommended
Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures list,
developed by Fehr and Peers with the County as part
of the 20-Year Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element update. This list addresses recommended
maintenance and preservation costs that keep roads
and bridges in a good state of repair.
Note that these costs do not include the $20 million for
bridge replacements that are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete and the $41.5 million for
bridges past their useful life (75 years per the
Washington State Department of Transportation
standard). For these project costs, see the separate
capital projects list.
The future annual investment for maintenance and
preservation is estimated at $4.85 million. The full
cost over 20 years is $97 million.
• Gravel (gravel roads)
• Maintenance (including super/ sub-structure annual
repairs)
• Preservation (paved roads)
• Traffic Control
• Street Lighting
• Snow and Ice Control
• Street Cleaning
• Vegetation Control
These expenses address the costs of operations, and
they are projected based on the rate of change of
per capita operating expenses over the historical
period. Engineering costs are calculated based on the
historical trend from 2008-2016, then projected
forward from 2017, due to a significant jump
between 201 6 and 2017.
There are two exceptions: Facility Operations were
projected based on average per capita operating
expenses over the last 5 years due to a jump in
expenses in 2013. Other Operations were projected
based on average per capita operating expenses
over the last 1 0 years due to the volatility of the sub-
categories.
Total projected operating expenditures over the 20-
year period are $73 million.
• Administration and Overhead
• Engineering
• Planning
• Facility Operations
• Other Operations
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 201 8; BERK Consulting 2018; Fehr and Peers 20 l 8.
: ~I I May 22, 20 l 8 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-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 11 below, estimate the costs of
providing the same services that occurred during the historical period (2008 to 2017). Exhibit 1 l does
not include the $127 million in estimated costs to complete the capital projects list.
Exhibit 11. Total Projected Operating Expenditures for Transportation, 2018 to 2037 (2018$)
2018-2023
(Years 1 · 6)
2024-2027
(Years 7 -10)
10-VearTotal,
2018-2027
(Years 1-10)
2028-2037 20-Vear Total,
2018-2037
(Years 11-20) (Vear_s 1-20)
Total Revenue $ 60,440,000 $ 40,635,000 $ 101,075,000 $ 105,437,000 $ 206,512,000
Administration and Overhead
Facility Operations
Other Operations
Planning
Engineering
Parks and Trails Maintenance
Total Operating Expenditures
Maintenance and Preservation Expenditures
$ 7,150,000 $ 4,261,000
$ 439,000 $ 324,000
$ 8,227,000 $ 6,078,000
$ 1,048,000 $ 774,000
$ 2,642,000 $ 2,511,000
$ 30,000 $ 24,000
$ 19,536,000 $ 13,972,000
$ 29,100,000 $ 19,400,000
$ 11,41,t,OOO
$ 7~,000
s 14,30~.ooo
$
$
$
$
$
1.,822 000
5 ,~3000
54,000
33,.SQSlOOO
48iSOOlOOO
$ 9,001,000 : $ 0,4'12,<Jgp
$ 925,000 $ 1,688,000
$ 17,332,000 $ 31,~7;000
$ 2,207,000 $ 4,029,0QO
$ 10,412,000 $ 1S,~S 000
$ 79,000 • S-.133;000
$ 39,956,000 $ 73,464,000
$ 48,500,000 $ 97.000,000
Total Operating, Maintenance & Preservation Costs $ 48,636,000 $ 33,372,000 $ '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 spelled 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.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 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 1 2.
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 1 2, 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$)
2018-2023 2024-2027 10-YearTotal,
2018-2027 2028-2037 20-YearTotal,
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 $ 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 ! $ 129_,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,on,soo1 $ (19,283,800) $ (21,368,600) $ (40,652,400}
or Deficit
Total Available for Capital $ 23,010,000 $ 15,340,800 $ 38,350,800 $ 38,349,600 1 s 76,700,400
Sources: Kittitas County Public Work s 20 l 8; BERK Consulting 20 l 8.
Not e: These figur es are rounded to th e 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 $2 million annually.
: ~I I Moy 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Yeor TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Fino/ Report 14
Exhibit 13. Financial Capacity for Operating Expenditures in 6-Year Period (2018$)
6-year period:
Projected Revenue
-Capital-restricted funds
Available for Operating Expenditures
Available for Operating Expenditures
-Projected Operating Expenditures
Operating Expediture Deficit
2018-2023
$60.4 million
$23.0 million
$37.4 million
$37.4 million
$48.6 million
($11.2) million
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 201 8; 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 $1 30 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 $1 27 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:
Projected Revenue
-Capital-restricted funds
Available for Operating Expenditures
Available for Operating Expenditures
-Projected Operating Expenditures
Operating Expediture Deficit or Surplus
Capital-restricted funds
-Capital Projects List
Capital Expenditure Deficit or Surplus
Total Operating and Capital Deficit
2018-2037
$206.5 million
$76.7 million
$129.8 million
$129.8 million
$170.5 million
($40.7) million
$76.7 million
$127.0 million
($50.3) million
($91.0) mill ion
Source s: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Con sulting 2018.
Note: Capital-restricted funds are federal grants, state grants, and Road Fund allocations to match grants.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 15
Exhibit 15. Total Projected Transportation Operating and Capital Deficit, 2018 to 2037 (2018$)
2018-2023
{Ye a rs 1-6)
Total Revenues s 60,440,000
Capital Only Funds
Federal Grants $ 11,192,000
State Grants s 7,983,000
Estimated Minimum Match for Grants 120%) $ 3,835,000
Total Restricted to Cael tal $ 23,010,000
Operating
Total Available for Op e rating Expenditures $ 37,430,000
Total Proj ected Oeera.ting Expe nditures $ 48,636,000
Projected Operating Expenditures Surplus $ (11,206,000)
or Deficit
<;a pital
Total Available for Capital $ 23,010,000
Total Proj ected Ca e ital Ex p e nditures
Pro jected Capita l Exee nditures Su rp lus or Deficit
Total Operating and Capital Expend tt ures Surplu s or Deficit
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest l ,000.
2024-2027 10-YearTotal, 2028-2037 2018-2027
(Yea ts 7 • 10) tv.ears 1-10J ('r'.ea rs 11 · 20)
$ 40,635,000 $ 101,075;000 $ 105,437,000
$ 7,462,000 s 18,684,000 $ 18,654,000
$ 5,322,000 s 1!3, 3,0J,,000 $ 13,304,000
$ 2,556,800 s 6J-39l,800 $ ,6,391,~
$ 15,340,800 s -38,~iSOO $ 38,349,600
$ 25,294,200 s 62,7241200 $ 67,087,400
$ 33,312,000 $ 82,.0®,bO.O $ 88,456,000
$ (8,077,800) $ ( 9,~,.800): $ {21,368,600)
$ 15,340,800 $ iiB;SS0,800 $ 38,349,600
: ~II May 22, 201 8 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report
20-Year Total,
2018-2037
(Yea rs 1, 20)
$ 206,512,000
s 31,m;@
s !26,-6®,000
s m,7~.:.i~
$ 76,7Q0,400
$ 129,8'4,600
$ i 70i/J64,0!)0
$ (40,.(»2,400}
$ 76,700,400
$ 127,168,000
$ (50,459,600}
$ (9:J.ll-21000)
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
• Transportation Benefit District -Vehicle Licensing Fee (Non-Voted)
0 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.
0 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.
0 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.
: ~II May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability 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 $31.6 million over the
20 -year period.
13 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.
a Property Tax Levy Lid Lift — County Road Fund Levy (Voted)
13 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.
13 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 $93.9 million over 20 years, enough to cover the funding gap
with a slight surplus available.
13 The property tax is relatively less susceptible to market volatility, since the property tax revenue
can continue to increase by 1 percent and is not dependent on market valuation. New
construction is susceptible to market volatility, though, and to the extent that property tax growth
beyond 1 percent in total is due to new construction, market conditions could affect property tax
revenue.
I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 18
0 Since the levy lid lift generates a relatively larger magnitude of additional revenue, the County
could potentially add projects to its project list or use the slight surplus for unknown or
emergency events. Political feasibility is a hurdle for this strategy; a levy lid lift requires voter
approval, and property owners would bear the burden. It will be important to consider election
timing, other votes on the election ballot, community attitudes, and political will in pursuing this
option.
Exhibit 16. Additional Revenue Generated from Transportation Benefit District Vehicle Licensing Fee and
County Road Property Tax Levy Lid Lift (2018$)
2018-2023 2024-2027 10.YearTotal,
2018-2027 2028-2037 20.YearTotal,
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
Property Tax Levy Lid Lift -
County Road Fund ($1 . 75 per
$1000AV)
Total Estimated Additional
Revenue
$
$
22,170,000 $ 13,150,000
28,710,000 $ 19,660,000
$ 35,320,000 $ 26,990,000 $ 62,320,000
s 48,370,000 $ 45,560,000 $ 93,930,000
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Washington State De partment of Licensing 2018; BERK Consulting 2018.
Note: These figures are rounded to the nearest l 0,000.
Alternative Options
• Transportation Benefit District -Sales and Use Tax (Voted)
0 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 1 0 years.
0 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 $18.2 million
over the 20-year period. This option would need to be combined with another option.
0 This option would help to align costs with beneficiaries, since the sales and use tax would apply
to recreational users passing though the county. The County could frame this approach as
aligning with the City of Ellensburg. This option would only partially cover the funding gap, and
it could be more susceptible to market volatility, since taxes collected depend on commercial
use.
Potential additional revenue from each of these three tools is summarized in Exhibit 17 below.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Yeor TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 19
Exhibit 17. Potential Additional Revenue Generated by Various Revenue Tools (2018$)
Transportation Benefit District -
Vehicle Licensing Fee
2018-2023
(Years 1-6)
s 6,540,000
2024-2027
(Years 7 -10)
s 6,510,000
10-YearTotal,
2018-2027
2028-2037
(Years 1-10) (Years 11-20)
$ 13,050,000 s 18,570,000
20-YearTotal,
2018-2037
(Years 1-20)
$ 31,610,000
Transportation Benefit District -
Sales and Use Tax s 4,740,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 8,250,000 s 9,990,000 . $ 18,240~000
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
Sources: Kittitas County Public Works 2018; Kittitas County As se ssor's Office 2018; Washington Department of Licensing
201 8; Washington Department of Revenue 201 8; Wa shington Joint Transportation Committee 2017; BERK Consulting 201 8.
Note: These figure s 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 l .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.
0 The County is currently taking out 21 percent of its LTGO debt capacity ($91.6 million) and has
a remaining debt capacity of $72. l 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.
0 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)
0 UTGO bonds are voted bonds that require levying an additional property tax to repay the
debt. This impacts property owners.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 20
0 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.
0 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 l 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 l, 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.
: ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 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.
:~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 22