Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/11/2017 00 Distributed: 2040 Transportation System Plan Draft
r� r r r r r r r r r r r ■r rr rr rr r■r �■r err CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Prepared for City of Yakima Prepared by Transpo Group transpojroup c'"r 'l { f,N`'G,t )RTATION CAN BF � 11730 1181' Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone 425-821-3665 Fax 425-825-8434 www transpogroup com 1525400 © 2017 Transpo Group M M M M M M M M M M ' M M M M � M M M CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Prepared for City of Yakima Prepared by Transpo Group transpogroup 1w WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BF OF 11730 1181' Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone 425-821-3665 Fax 425-825-8434 www transpogroup corn 1525400 © 2017 Transpo Group City of Yakima December 2015 Draft 2040 Transportation Plan Table of Contents Introduction to the Plan v 3 4 Transit Forecast Conditions 38 1 Background and Planning Context 2 3 5 Plan Framework 38 1 1 Plan Development 2 3 6 Emerging Transportation Trends 39 1 2 Changes Since Last Plan Update 2 4 Transportation Systems Plan 43 1 3 Governing Legislation 4 4 1 Network Classifications 44 1 4 Relationship with Other Plans 5 4 2 System Plans by Travel Mode 50 1 5 Relationship with Funding 8 4 3 Street Design Guidelines 56 1 6 Agency Level of Service Standards 9 4 4 Transit and Transportation Demand Management 58 2 Existing Transportation System 11 4 5 Level of Service Standards 59 2 1 Transportation System Networks 11 4 6 Transportation Projects & Programs 60 2.2 Transportation System Performance 27 5 Financing Program 67 2 3 Transportation System Safety 29 5 1 Overview of Existing Funding and Expenditures 67 3 Travel Forecasts and Alternatives Evaluation 36 5 2 Estimated Project and Programs Cost 71 3 1 Travel Demand Model and Land Use Forecasts 36 5 3 Financial Outlook 71 3 2 Vehicle Forecast Conditions (2040) 36 5 4 Reassessment Strategy 75 3 3 Non -Motorized Forecast Conditions 38 M M M M M M M M M M M M S M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan March 2017 List of Tables Table 2-1 Existing (2015) Fixed Route Summary 21 Table 2-2 Intersections with Collision Rates Exceeding the Critical Collision Rate (2010-2014) 32 Table 3-1 Existing and Future Intersection LOS Summary 37 Table 4-1 City of Yakima Functional Classification Definitions .46 Table 4-2 Street Design Guidelines 57 Table 4-3 Transportation Improvement Projects 62 Table 5-1 Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015$) 71 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Existing Roadway Network and Signals 14 Figure 2-2 Traffic Volumes by Hour on Mayor Corridors 15 Figure 2-3 Existing (2015) Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Number of Lanes 16 Figure 2-4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 18 Figure 2-5 Existing Bicycle Facilities 20 Figure 2-6 Existing Transit Corridors 22 Figure 2-7 Historical Yakima Transit Ridership 23 Figure 2-8 Existing Freight Corridors 26 Figure 2-9 Existing Intersection Vehicle Level of Service 28 Figure 2-10 Total of All Reported Collisions (2010 — 2014) 29 Figure 2-11 Vehicle Collisions (2010 — 2014) 30 Figure 2-12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Street Type (2010 — 2014) 33 Figure 2-13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2010 — 2014) 34 Figure 4-1 Functional Classification Relationship between Mobility and Access 44 Figure 4-2 Roadway Functional Classification 45 Figure 4-3 Travel Context Classification Map 47 Figure 4-4 Truck Route Classification 49 Figure 4-5 Highway and Street System Plan 51 Figure 4-6 Pedestrian System Plan 53 Figure 4-7 Examples of Bicycle Facilities 54 Figure 4-8 Bicycle System Plan 55 Figure 4-9 Transportation Improvement Projects 61 Figure 5-1 Total Transportation Expenditures 67 Figure 5-2 Operations and Maintenance Expenditures. 68 Figure 5-3 Construction Expenditures 68 Figure 5-4 Historical Transportation Revenue. 68 Figure 5-5 Local Revenue 69 Figure 5-6 State and Federal Revenue 70 1W ni March 2017 IV City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan This page intentionally left blank w M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M = ' = ' M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Introduction to the Plan The multimodal transportation system is integral to many facets of the City of Yakima, including land use, economic development, tourism, and recreation The City's 2040 Transportation Systems Plan is the background and companion document to the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan The Transportation Element establishes the City's goals and policies for developing the transportation system within the City Both the Transportation Element and Transportation Systems Plan provide a long-range vision for the City's transportation system to guide City decision makers, staff, advisory bodies, and citizens on transportation priorities and projects over the next twenty-five years The Transportation System Plan coordinates and plans for the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation system by recognizing the regional nature of the transportation system and the need for continuing interagency coordination The Transportation Systems Plan is organized into five chapters 1 Background and Planning Context 2 Existing Transportation System 3 Travel Forecasts and Alternatives Evaluation 4 Transportation Systems Plan 5 Financing Program The Transportation Systems Plan is intended to serve as a guide for making transportation decisions to address both short and long term needs To meet Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, the Transportation Systems Plan must identify existing transportation system characteristics, establish standards for levels of service, and identify existing and future deficiencies based on land use growth projections The Transportation Systems Plan identifies roadway mobility and accessibility needs, improvements necessary to enhance safety, bicycle and pedestrian travel characteristics, and transit service The Transportation Systems Plan should be a document that is regularly reviewed and updated periodically to reflect and serve as a decision-making tool for transportation policy, planning, and construction efforts within the City This should be accompanied by a regular review and update to the Municipal Code to ensure that the goals and projects contained in the Transportation Systems Plan are implemented March 2017 v ti Y k � •yam.• �� �,rr.� it ' «M 2 • , '� jw AN IF .i 71 •� s... i 1p Y !F y f r » sS F�r� 1L,i� iy y., �+y,F-�L�, -.-�R • r ��y r: . � � � %' t tw�� "��'�'r `S= _ AND NNI. o t � ""'.. t r / e . is .. " i . �• - �• � �+`, � � - Ji - 1 March 2017 Background and Planning Context The 2040 Transportation Systems Plan was developed to address future land use growth and identify transportation needs to support future growth This plan is required to satisfy Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and to update the City's transportation improvement projects and programs This chapter of the Plan summarizes the regulatory setting and regional planning efforts that guided the development of the Transportation Plan 1.1 Plan Development The development of Yakima's 2040 Transportation Systems Plan was approved by the City Council to provide an update to the Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025 The Yakima City Council adopted its previous Transportation Plan in December 2006 The Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025 and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive & Transportation Plan 2012 Addendum were prepared to meet the requirements of GMA In 2015, the City identified a need to update the Transportation Plan to address the impacts of growth within the City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA) The update was also needed to address changes in available transportation funding, development standards, and changes in the GMA The purpose of the 2040 Transportation Systems Plan is to provide an update to the existing plan by identifying and evaluating the transportation improvement plans for the City through the years 2016 and 2040 1.2 Changes Since Last Plan Update Since the last plan was completed in 2006 and updated in 2012, the City of Yakima has completed several transportation projects that were identified in the Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025 The City has also 2 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan completed several other transportation planning efforts in subareas and along corridors. 1 2.1 Completed Projects The Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025 identified $103 9 million in transportation system improvements and maintenance over a 20 -year planning horizon The following projects identified in that plan have been completed Capacity Constrained Projects • S 16th Ave & Washington Signal Upgrade • W Nob Hill Blvd Corridor— 52nd Ave to 80th Ave System Improvement Projects • Railroad Grade Separation of MLK Blvd & Lincoln Ave Multimodal (Sidewalks, Transit, and Parks) Projects • ADA Ramp Improvements (numerous locations as part of other projects) • 16th Ave Pedestrian Crossing • 6th Street — Nob Hill to Lincoln Annual Projects and Operations • School Safety Projects — WV Middle School Vic M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M ' M M === M= r M M M r= M M M M M s M= City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 1 2 2 Subarea/Corridor Plans Subarea and corridor plans provide the footprint for future capital projects to address capacity and safety improvements as well as a "sense of place" for subareas and corridors. In this way, improvements that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing may be developed Yakima Downtown Master Plan (2013) The Yakima Downtown Master Plan discusses the transformation of the downtown Yakima and the Central Business District along Yakima Avenue to create a vibrant destination A prime objective of the Plan was to provide a `retail strategy' for Downtown Concepts central to the Plan include Yakima Plaza, new parking options, and enhancements to the Public Market Multimodal circulation is presented including enhancements to Yakima Valley Trolley routes and new bicycle facilities in the corridor area Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan (1999) The Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan discusses growth within the area as guided by the Yakima Urban Area Plan Access and circulation are addressed as well as the importance of Terrace Heights Drive, the sole link between downtown and Terrace Heights West Valley Neighborhood Plan The West Valley neighborhood, located in the southwest Urban Growth Area of the city, discusses the relationship to the Comprehensive plan including the transportation element. The vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian systems are discussed with recommended treatments at select locations Cost estimates for projects in the West Valley area are included East West Corridor Project (2012) The East-West Corridor is part of a larger transportation corridor that includes the Terrace Heights Corridor that would connect Fruitvale Boulevard in western Yakima to 57th Street in Terrace Heights. This 2012 study is F supplemental to a 2011 study and recommends corridor alignments 1 2.3 Annexations and UGA As areas in the UGA have been annexed, the total land area and number of residents within the City limits has increased over the years. As of 2015, the City includes over 27 square miles and approximately 93,300 residents (2011-2015 American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates, US Census) March 2017 March 2017 1.3 Governing Legislation The 2040 Transportation Systems Plan and Transportation Element fulfills the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) Other state legislation requires the Plan include projects that address Healthy Communities and the Clean Air Conformity Act. Projects must also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1 3.1 Growth Management Act and Concurrenc Under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36 70A 070), referred to herein as the GMA, the Transportation Plan is required to assess the needs of a community and determine how to provide appropriate transportation facilities for current and future residents The Transportation Plan must contain • Inventory of existing facilities, • Assessment of future facility needs to meet current and future demands, • Multi-year plan for financing proposed transportation improvements, • Forecasts of traffic for at least 10 years based on adopted land use plan, • Level of service (LOS) standards for arterials and public transportation, including actions to bring deficient facilities into compliance, • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and, • Identification of intergovernmental coordination efforts Additionally, under GMA, development may not occur if the development causes the transportation facility to decline below the City's adopted level of service standard unless adequate infrastructure exists or strategies are identified to accommodate the impacts of the development are made within six years of the development. Finally, the element 4 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan must include a reassessment strategy to address how the Plan will respond to potential funding shortfalls 1 3 2 Healthy Communities Recognizing the growing need for physical activity among residents, the Washington State Legislature amended the GMA in 2005 with the Healthy Communities Amendment, ESSB 5186 Comprehensive plans are directed to address the promotion of Healthy Communities through urban planning and transportation approaches The two amendments to the GMA require that communities 1 Consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan, and 2 Include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan 1 3 3 Clean Air Conformity Act The Transportation Plan is also subject to the Washington State Clean Air Conformity Act that implements the directives of the Federal Clean Air Act Because air quality is a region wide issue, the City must support the efforts of state, regional, and local agencies as guided by WAC 173- 420-080 1 3 4 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990, and provides comprehensive civil rights protections to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications Of the five titles or parts to the ADA, Title II is most pertinent to travel within the public right-of- way Part 35, Subpart D — Program Accessibility § 35 150 (d)(3)) of Title II requires local agencies to conduct a Self - Evaluation and Transition Plan r M ' M M M M M M = = M M = i' M M M M M M a M M M M M M=1 M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 1.4 Relationship with Other Plans The Transportation Systems Plan and Transportation Element describes both policies and actions that are required by the City to implement the intent of the transportation plan It is essential that the Plan be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Capital Facilities Plan, the six-year Transportation Improvement Program and the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Regional Transportation Plan 1 4 1 City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan The Transportation Systems Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan and should be consistent with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation Element An update to the Comprehensive Plan was begun in conjunction with the 2040 Transportation Systems Plan to provide consistency and coordination between the two planning efforts The Transportation Element goals and policies help guide implementation of the City's transportation system and supports the other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the overall vision for Yakima The goals and policies establish the general philosophy for use of City rights-of-way and transportation funds The policies also indicate City priorities for regional transportation system programs, including freeways, arterials, non -motorized facilities, bus and rad transit service and facilities, and transportation demand management (TDM) GOAL TR 1. Develop an integrated and balanced transportation system in Yakima that provides safe, efficient, and reliable multimodal transportation. GOAL TR 2. Increase the share of trips made by non - motorized travel modes. GOAL TR 3. Provide a transportation system that supports the city's land use plan and is consistent with the Washington Transportation Plan, Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation Plan, and Yakima County Comprehensive Plan. GOAL TR 4 Preserve and extend the service life and utility of transportation investments. GOAL TR 5 Encourage and support a stable, long-term financial foundation for improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system. Policies General Plan and Safety — A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city and nearby areas These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards 4 5 1 Use a combination of enforcement, education, and engineering methods to keep vehicular travel patterns and travel speeds consistent with street functional classification, and promote pedestrian safety 452 Enforce intersection clear -view standards at intersections and access points to promote safety for all users of the transportation system ( March 2017 March 2017 4 5 3 Maintain street signage, wayfinding, and lane markings to industry standards to heighten traffic safety, support emerging vehicle technology, and maintain clean community image 454 Maintain program to monitoring and analyzing vehicle collision patterns and severity of injuries to identify high priority safety improvements 4 5 5 Include accommodations for the transportation needs of special population groups (such as ADA - related, school age, and/or elderly) for each transportation project Use design standards for consistent application 4 5 6 Leverage the transportation system to help create and enhance a sense of place within the City This includes gateway treatments, landscaping, pedestrian -scale elements, and lighting Use design standards for consistent application at target locations 4 5 7 Balance the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit, autos, and trucks on the whole transportation system by improving streets according to the Mode Priority Classification This includes intersection and access designs 4 5 8 Work to address remaining road -rail conflicts within the City Enhance protection (signals or gates) or remove conflict (grade -separation or facility removal) Properly maintain existing grade - separation infrastructure Transportation Network Efficiency — A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city and nearby areas These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards R City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 4 5 9 Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel Where possible, encourage small block sizes 4510 Discourage new 4 -lane streets (where left -turns are expected) because of safety and system efficiency issues Convert existing 4 -lane streets to 3 -lane streets, 4 -lane streets with turn -restrictions, or 5 -lane streets, depending on forecasted vehicle volumes, street classifications, multi -modal use, and adjacent land uses 4 5 11 Maintain a program to repair and preserve existing streets surfaces, drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, and trails, including ADA -related upgrades 4 5 12 Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies This postpones the need for capital roadway projects 4513 Maintain a Transportation Concurrency Program and Traffic Impact Study guidelines to coordinate projects related to SEPA mitigations, off-site developer improvements, and the 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Program 4 5 14 Coordinate transit facility improvements on all projects Evaluate if additional or relocated stops, pull-outs, shelters, or other special improvements are needed Active Transportation — The active transportation system includes pedestrian, bicycling, and other modes that promote healthy lifestyles and provide alternative modes to private vehicles for commuting These modes depend on increasing network connectivity and constructing non -motorized facilities within the city r M M Ml M M M M M =1 i M i M M M M Ml M M M M M s M M M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 4515 Educate pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety, sharing the road, and Rules of the Road, including multi -modal rules Promote and support special events (races and bicycle rodeos) that encourage bicycling and pedestrian safety 4 5 22 Support the development and adoption of a Pedestrian System Plan Transportation Funding —Adequate, diverse, and sustainable funding sources for transportation projects can help ensure the implementation of improvement projects 4516 Require new development, infill development, and 4524 Actively seek and develop funding solutions to redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and address future project and program needs and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent address transportation goals of the City This with adopted street design standards, ADA includes dedicated funding sources to match state or Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit federal funding Development Plan 4 5 17 Give high priority to projects that create or improve safe "Walk to School Routes", provide access to activity centers, provide linkages to transit, and connections to trails for pedestrians and bicyclists 4 5 18 Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan 4519 Encourage projects and support grant applications and other funding sources that provide facilities (such as signage, lighting, and/or restrooms) at trailhead locations to support safe, clean, and efficient trail use 4 5 20 Provide bicycle storage facilities at transit facilities, buses, and civic centers Require storage facilities at employment, retail, and mixed-use developments 4521 Maintain and regularly update an inventory of sidewalks, curb ramps, marked crosswalks, trails, bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and roadways to assist in a smart allocation of transportation resources 4 5 25. Provide freight routes to serve the Yakima Regional Airport, significant industrial centers, and other freight activity centers (7 1 1) Maintain a dedicated funding source for capital, operation and maintenance of the City's Transit System 4 5 26 Encourage the use of public and private funding to remove gaps in pedestrian facilities on existing roadways Economic Activity — Air, rail, and freight are important economic drivers for the City and region Ensuring adequate access to these activities and to the regional network is important 4 5 27 Provide freight routes to serve the Yakima Regional Airport, significant industrial centers, and other freight activity centers 45.28 Support future expansion of services at Yakima Regional Airport by anticipating any necessary transportation T28 network changes in the vicinity of the airport, including intermodal facilities 4529 Support future services of rail interests by anticipating any necessary transportation network changes in the vicinity of the rail facilities March 2017 March 2017 Interjurisdlctlonal Coordination — Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network 4530 Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions 4 5 31 Coordinate with WSDOT and neighboring jurisdictions regarding level of service definitions, concurrency requirements, and other impacts LEVEL OF DETAIL J 9 UJ 0 W W J J a r UJ 0 W cc 0 2 Ihis graphic illustrates the relative context and level of delarl from local modal ��lans v!7 to state (,MA rnqu,mmentS 1 4.2 Yakima Countv-Wide Plannina Polic The GMA also requires that counties adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) to guide and coordinate issues of regional significance The Yakima County -Wide Planning Policy, originally adopted in 1993 and updated in 2003 0 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan contains the countywide goals and policies for transportation 1 4 3 Yakima Vallev Conference of Governments The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (YVCOG) coordinates planning efforts for the region, including the development of a regional travel demand model and the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Plan Adopted in 2016, the Plan contains goals and policies for the region 1.5 Relationship with Funding Identifying and securing the necessary funding for multimodal transportation projects is essential Current projections reflect a short -fall in needs versus revenue sources The city needs to pursue a wide range of potential funding sources at the local, regional, statewide and national level to address future capacity constraints and multimodal needs, preserve system integrity, address safety concerns and promote responsible economic development Securing these funds will require collaboration with regional partners to jointly pursue grant opportunities 1.5 1 Grant Opportunities Over the past several years the City has had significant success in securing state and federal grants for transportation improvements Grant funding is typically tied to specific improvement projects and distributed on a competitive basis, often with a local funding match Due to reduced federal and state allocations, the pool of available grant funds will likely decrease in the future In addition, more local agencies are pursuing grants resulting in a more competitive environment r M M M M r M M M M IM r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M i M' M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 1.6 Agency Level of Service Standards Traffic operations analyses provides quantitative method for evaluating how the transportation system is functioning It is applied to existing and forecast conditions to assist in identifying issues and potential improvement options Level of service is a measure of the quality of traffic flow and operations It can be described in terms of speeds, travel times, delays, convenience, interruptions, and comfort 1 6.1 Vehicle Level of Service The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2010), provides methodologies for evaluating level of service (LOS) for transportation facilities and services The HCM criteria range from LOS A indicating free-flow conditions with minimal delays. to LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays State Highway Level of Service Standards Cities in Washington are required to include the LOS standards for all state routes in the Transportation Plan of their local comprehensive plan US 12 and 1-82 are state highways serving the City of Yakima and are designated as highway of statewide significance (HSS) The LOS standards for HSS facilities are jointly set by WSDOT and YVCOG. The LOS standard for facilities in Yakima County that are in urban areas is LOS D and for facilities in rural areas is LOS C US 12 within the City of Yakima is designated as urban and has an LOS D standard WSDOT applies these standards to highway segments. intersections, and freeway interchange ramp intersections. When a proposed development affects a segment or intersection where the LOS is already below the state's adopted standard, then the pre -development LOS is used as the standard When a development has degraded the level of service on a state highway. WSDOT works with the local jurisdiction through the SEPA process to identify reasonable and proportional mitigation to offset the impacts Mitigation March 2017 could include access constraints, constructing improvements, right-of-way dedication, or contribution of funding to needed improvements Dow Yakima County Level of Service Standards The County's standard allows flexibility for LOS to be expressed in terms such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, geographic accessibility and safety The regional LOS standards are contained in the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Plan that identifies a standard of LOS D or better, when feasible and cost effective City Level of Service Standards The City has established LOS standards to provide for adequate mobility of traffic at intersections and adjacent roadways The City has maintained an LOS standard of D for all intersections, including traffic signals, roundabouts, and stop -controlled intersections The official City of Yakima Level of Service standards are discussed in Chapter 4 1 6.2 Non -Motorized Level of Service Existing non -motorized level of service is discussed in Parks and Recreation Plan for Yakima County (2014), and outlines a methodology for assessing trail adequacy An expansion of the level of service system to include additional pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and multi -use pathways, as well as bicycle facilitates is discussed in Chapter 4 1 6 3 Transit Level of Service An existing transit level of service methodology has not been adopted by the City or related agencies Stable flow > 35 ' >BCl I-urcea now �)ar tmQd) 1 6 3 Transit Level of Service An existing transit level of service methodology has not been adopted by the City or related agencies a� 4 I �N►� , � i. ''�':is� 1. Ll Lt Lt Ll Lt. 44 tow i- ..tOrr .,... - "now~ 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2 Existing Transportation System This chapter summarizes key components of the existing transportation system serving the City of Yakima that represent the transportation system in its current condition An inventory of transportation facilities is presented through maps, figures, and descriptions that provide a foundation for identifying and prioritizing the City's transportation improvement projects and programs presented later in the 2040 Transportation Plan The transportation system within the City of Yakima consists of streets and highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service Freight and goods, which are vital to the City's economic development, are primarily carried by trucks and rail lines Following a description of the street system, subsequent sections describe the existing multimodal transportation system within the current City Limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the travel modes on the City's transportation system 2.1 Transportation System Networks The transportation system inventory identifies key transportation issues to be addressed in this plan update The networks that comprise the transportation system include the arterial and collector street system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit service, freight routes, rail lines, and air facilities Most travel within the City of Yakima occurs on the streets and highways that also provide public space for other modes What is included in the system inventory? • Overview of street network • Vehicle traffic volumes • Pedestrian facilities • Bicycle facilities • Transit facilities and ridership • Freight street facilities and tonnage • Rail lines and street crossings • Air facilities • Traffic operations • Traffic safety analysis • Pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis March 2017 March 2017 2 1 1 Street Network and Traffic Controls The street system provides mobility and access for a range of travel modes and users Streets in the central business district and older sections of the City are laid out in a dense grid, while the newer neighborhoods in the western sections of the City have greater spacing between mayor roadways The City limits, existing streets, and traffic signal locations are shown in Figure 2-1 Figure 2-3 summarizes the number of lanes of mayor north -south and east -west roadways within the City Yakima City is at the crossroads of two mayor Washington State transportation corridors Interstate 82 (1-82) provides access to Oregon and the Tri -Cities area to the south, and the 1-90 corridor to the north US 12 provides an alternate pathway to Western Washington with connections to the 1-5 corridor and the Puget Sound area (via SR 410) Interchanges (1-82 and US 12) The interchanges with 1-82 and US 12 act as mayor gateways in and out of the City of Yakima Along 1-82, the City of Yakima has three interchanges 1 st Street, Yakima Avenue, and Nob Hill Boulevard In addition, the Valley Mall Boulevard interchange in Union Gap provides a mayor 1-82 access to southern areas of the City of Yakima Along US 12, there are three interchanges. 40th Street/Fruitvale Boulevard, 16th Avenue, and 1 st Street Given the direct connections to these regional routes, these City streets are considered Principal Arterials Major East-West Corridors The Summitview Avenue/Yakima Avenue corridor is a mayor east -west corridor connecting 1-82, Yakima downtown, western areas of the City, and west valley areas in the county This corridor crosses the railroad at -grade in the downtown area on Yakima Avenue While travelling west at 16th Avenue, Yakima Avenue transitions to a local access street For continued westerly travel, drivers must travel north along 16th to Summitivew, or access Summitview 12 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan directly at 7th Avenue This corridor is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the city The Nob Hill Boulevard corridor is another mayor east -west corridor within the city It provides a more direct connection to 1-82 for western areas of the city It is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the city, and has a grade -separated crossing of the railroads The Washington AvenueNalley Mall Boulevard corridor is a mayor east -west corridor in the southern areas of the city It provides access to the regional airport and connections to 1-82 for southern areas of the city It is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the city, and has a grade -separated crossing of the railroads Fruitvale Boulevard provides access to US 12 and industrial areas in the northern areas of the City Lincoln Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard provide a higher speed parallel route to Yakima Avenue with grade -separated rail crossings Other east -west corridors include Tieton Drive, Walnut Street, Mead Avenue, and T Street Major North-South Corridors The 1 st Street corridor provides a mayor north -south connection between US 12 and 1-82 to the north, the Yakima downtown area, and Union Gap to the south It is the only continuous route throughout the City east of the railroad It is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the City The 16th Avenue corridor provides north -south mobility in the central areas of the City It connects US 12 to the north and the regional airport to the south, as well as connections to most mayor east -west City corridors It is general 4 lanes wide The 40th Avenue corridor provides north -south mobility in the western areas of the City It connects US 12 to the north and connections to most mayor east -west City corridors It is general 4 lanes wide W City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan March 2017 Other Principal Arterial connections providing north -south mobility include 72nd Avenue, 5th Avenue, 8th Street, and Fair Avenue Minor Arterial north -south corridors include 96th Avenue, 80th Avenue, 64th Avenue, 3rd Avenue, Fair Avenue, 18th Street, and Rudkin Road r 13 Legend ® Traffic Signal ;' City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space \.r Q — S I rn 1 .':4)E HOLLOW R c ' I I I I r -r -r -r -r-1 0 0 5 Miles .�Existing Roadway Network and Signals ro City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan DRAFT FIGURE transpo % 2-1 M M M M M M M r M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2.1 2 Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were collected at several midblock locations on City roadways in October 2015 over three midweek days to gather average 24-hour counts These recent tube counts were used to update historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on City roadways to represent existing traffic conditions Existing (2015) average daily traffic volumes for major roadways are shown in Figure 2-3 Roadways with notable changes in traffic volumes as compared to 2006 counts include: • 1st Street: Traffic volumes decreased between 2,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day • 16th Avenue: Traffic volumes decreased between 4,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day • Fruitvale Boulevard: Traffic volumes increased by approximately 6,000 east of 16th Avenue • Lincoln Avenue / MLK Jr Boulevard: Traffic volumes decreased on the couplet between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day In addition to ADT volumes, PM peak hour volumes typically represent the worst travel conditions experienced during the day Figure 2-2 shows the traffic volumes by hour on 40th Avenue and Nob Hill Boulevard As shown in this figure, most traffic occurs between 7 a m and 7 p m each weekday with peaks during the morning and late afternoon The PM peak hour is shown in yellow and represents the highest total traffic volumes on the road Traffic operations analysis is typically evaluated based on the weekday PM peak hour 40th Avenue (Summitview Avenue to Tieton Drive) 2.000 1,500 ' s 1,000 r r � > r r � 500 r 0 12 00 AM 4:00 AM 8 00 AM 1200 PM 4-00 PM 8:00 PM 12.00 AM Northbound 5outhbound — — —Total Nob Hill Boulevard (Fair Avenue to 18th Street) 2,000 1,500 t 1,000 r � 500 0 12 00 AM 4.00 AM 8.00 AM 1200 PM 4'00 PM 8:00 PM 1200 AM Eastbound Westbound —— — Total Figure 2-2 Traffic Volumes by Hour on Mayor Corridors March 2017 r 15 I � Legend 2 Lanes azs 3 Lanes 4 Lanes j— — '-' •� �5 Lanes '•`'-A i j] City Limits 00 12 g o 'ti O N UGA Boundary _ �60o 1100 91°0 2.600 7 Park / Open Space r1 0T, _ •1 _ 7.500 3,800 j—•�_/r`t210p. ll.: N 400 2,400 12.800 19.100 _ --�-- o• 1800 or_I o 00 0 o r o o a o 0 I L • c0.r ..t ?6 �. oo — 1.900 vi 2,500 6,400 8,100 `" 5.200 00 3,100 0 0 0 '100 v a+ -� I I RRAGE HGTS DR 2,400 a 3,800 ` 4 500 8.800 1,100 16,900 a 15,400 300 o0 0 — 00 ... �� 000 A00 Doo 6 400 `, su M TWE r 9 500 12 400 12.700 0 18,600 mn 19,000 21 600 11 100 v 13,300 13,500 z 12 700 13.200 All. 20 0 0� 1 00 0 00 n 0 0 a 00 11 300 15 p00 i t 'o o m% o 0 N rn 'J N TIETON DR 6.400 7 700 10.900 7,700 8 100 17 800 15.200 18 100 14 500 17,600 11.500 15 A00 `O1 4.800 Gi 1111 o p2 I o 00� ' 6,800 11,600 13,000 16.600 20.900 24.700 24,500 1 ,1 •� .-• 24.400 21.600 28,100 18,500 15.500 Z I— -I r m E"OLL 0rn N� co o� 00 . 0 1100 014 o po o 6 � 9,800 J- 10,90 8,200_2 1 N 1,500 5,800 3,300 1100 09pO Y o ` 20,800 00 ^ o o NI •� m. 8.300 7.80016100'.. / 24,800 23.800 16,400 15 700 _ ._._.) L__ _r 2,500 o �.I r---- j L I=. o e f ------ o ed Vgltf ra R � "y ❑ I O 2,400 Ili i 6,100 I I l Vn O r_._._.___._.ynI I1LrP Y. r _ AHTANUAI RD I 10700 1 UM RD I 0 0 5 Miles Existing (2015) Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Number of Lanes DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo F 3 � = IMI M � MI M M M M IM � M i 1=1 M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2 1 3 Pedestrian Facilities Every trip begins and ends with a walk People walk to their cars and drive to a location where they will walk into a building or facility, or they need to walk to a transit station A well-established pedestrian system encourages healthy reactional activities, reduces travel demand on roadways, and enhances safety within a livable community Non - motorized facilities provide critical access to and from transit stops, which can increase the use of active transportation Along with shared -use trails, sidewalks are the primary facility type for pedestrians Sidewalks are generally provided adjacent to the street on one or both sides Where sidewalks are not available, pedestrians must use the roadway shoulders Existing pedestrian facilities in the City of Yakima are illustrated in Figure 2-4 Sidewalks The most complete system of sidewalks is located within the central business district and downtown area Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of the street in these areas, but may not have standard curb ramps or other ADA facilities Many of the older residential neighborhoods east of 16th Avenue also have sidewalks, along with the east -west arterial and collector roadways extending to the western sections of the City Shared -Use Trails Yakima has several important shared -use trails that provide critical connections and enhance pedestrian travel These off-street facilities include pathways and unpaved trails that are used by all types of non -motorized users The Powerhouse Canal Pathway, Yakima Greenway, Walter Ortman Parkway, William O Douglas Heritage Trail and several unnamed neighborhood connector paths support pedestrian travel in Yakima The Powerhouse Trail, Walter Ortman Parkway, and the Yakima Valley Greenway Trail are recreational and commuting trails The Yakima Valley Greenway Trail is approximately 10 miles long and provides access to several parks, fishing lakes. playgrounds.. and natural areas The Powerhouse Trail is an in -city trail that connects to schools, city parks, and residential areas The Walter Ortman Parkway, along Willow Street from 10th to 611 Ave. connects to the Powerhouse Canal Pathway through McGuinness Park. Shared -use trails may be primarily used for recreational purposes. but also serve commuter and utility travel between neighborhoods and to surrounding areas Standard trails are separated from the roadways and vary in width from approximately 5 feet to 12 feet wide. ADA access is provided on many trails, but some may not include these features Shared -use trails are also important linkages for bicycle travel March 2017 c 17 r. s*\ `�`�* �S� 61 r 1�R, +� �-'a� �a� �� �Psi ,•r%Sim ��sz Slow Will I I I JIM W.;i amal �A �. t.N ! , IIII.i11:1� 5 llu IS Ill City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2 1.4 Bicycle Facilities Bicycling is an important and growing mode of travel for people in cities across the country When appropriately planned, bicycle routes have a role in reducing congestion, improving air quality, providing travel choices, encouraging exercise and recreation, and providing greater mobility for those without access to a vehicle Existing bicycle facilities and descriptions are coordinated and consistent with the Draft Bicycle Master Plan (City of Yakima, 2015) There are a range of bicycle treatments available for cities to provide comfortable space for cyclists of all ages and abilities The City of Yakima has three types of bicycle treatments shared lanes, bicycle lanes, and shared -use trails. Existing bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 2-5 and described in the sections that follow Shared Lanes While not formal bicycle facilities, roadways with shared lane markings, or sharrows, can provide connectivity for experienced cyclists. Shared lane markings are a tool that can assist cyclists and motorists by indicating appropriate bicycle positioning on a roadway, increasing safety and visibility. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are striped roadway space dedicated for cyclists and are typically provided on the edge of the traveled way Bicycle lanes may be included on both sides of the roadway or on one side of a sloped roadway where there is not sufficient space for bicycle lanes in both directions They are typically 4 to 6 feet in width (not including vehicle buffers) and are marked with a wide white stripe or buffer area Yakima has approximately 5 miles of bike lanes currently installed Bicycle lanes are present in the central business district on W Lincoln Avenue, W MILK Jr Boulevard, S 3rd Street, and S 6th Street. There are also a few segments of bike lanes on the east end of town on Tieton Drive, W Nob Hill Boulevard, and W Washington Avenue Shared -Use Trails The shared -use trails that are part of the pedestrian network are important for bicycle travel Paved trails are preferred by many cyclists who also travel on streets, but finely crushed gravel surfaces may be suitable alternatives March 2017 W 19 Legend —Bike Lane -■-- Shared Lane Shared -Use Trail j ', �•� l School City Limits = UGA Boundary ` �_!. .r' – I ............. .... Park / Open Space .l't ' - J r ' --■- ---- r° .,� � 1 EI;RAGE_ HGTS DR � � -Jrte viii: AT l a 7NORII •� Q • I RI D .4 RDE H — .,; ^- V1(IF" OCCIDENTAL RD I ------------- R ClI.G I VALLEY h ,I I FI'tcJ - WAH UM RD I 0 0 5 Miles rAExisting Bicycle Facilities DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo 2 5 f 1 N 0 N a) v (D O O N O O N x (D (- v Z cn �� (n (Dm " � � v m (XD v -, 77 < N < O 0m v 3 3 � (D (0 ° Q. Q( 0° Q< 73 o o° 3 m 3 m �3 cn (D N N O O La v m CD D N 00 N v (a 4) o LU 3 D C m 3< c 0 o> cfl -0 CD �� c<D v ° o0 o= m (DCD — I (11 a 0 (n p m D Q Q(D v CD u' o c�i� V, 3 (n 70 Q 6 Q cD (n - 0 3 cn (D (n (D m m � (n (n b N n3i � m= - C Cr - v W Q c (D i O 'O D(n (n N m U) 3 (D v (D C� (n (D .-. M C7 (Q (� N ° 3 o 7 (D O (D Q (D .O+ O -< r. in (7 °' (D m (O o 6 C ((DD o v fp O m (p (O < TT D <D (n z O N Q 3 zr 7n 3(DCv N oo,-0�w om��Q`n33Sm cD cn 0 N _� (p r. w o o m 0 W Q W CTcn CC c m O Q Q .�-. <_ O 7 cn a N cn o LU O (/) 3 G (n On O ::r �av (D ca ( (D nO Q cD ° (D 3mm 3 ° n -oa o�M 07x< �� o —5(� SQU (D N Q 4) (n m N v m O Q m m N Q C (n cn s n (n v (D m �c m (ND '< Zy O - (XD r. ((D m O (-D (O N -i o- o N Q O (D m �cn - o a m���zym (Dm - WC ��-nm D Cs n ni c6D ai D o 73 3 (n cn mm �,� ° r.(nQcn��3p(no cl o(QocnD Z° cr Q N m 3 m (D (n (p (D (D O O- p(D< 3 d Q N n (D N w N m (D m v v O 0 m o CO N, a 0 m (n Q- (D o m � 07 2 N Z p cn o o a (n 0(D (n Q m o m m o .< Q m cn cD ° 3 (n 7, m -- (D cn (o m r, a) m O cc o (D (n Q * ? 3 07 v E C F (D mQ o - n o ZT O G) (r -� Ti - < -< cn T a (n D <_ -p cn �, o cn n m (n — 0 0) N 4) m C co m < w N m > (D m = (D n 3 3 < C o -U0 6° F)'I(o � sv v Q) (D m m (D gQ0m m y CD c m -'� , N D U� LD1 (D - 3 m v o mm 0< o< o < o m mC3 0 3 23. (D (D3 3 D cn (p � � (n C � m c m -4 -0 6 C7 (D ff C1 (D T (n �" m 7C 7 0 7 aw3cn -< a mo3i D m mCL v 3 i aM po�o � <a, �m WC) C v m (D (D m m Z 7 vc 7 > 3 0 (D (D (D 6 0 cn cn cn 3 c v m c v m v m v m v m C c m = c m m o c (D m 3 a a a a a a a s o 0. a s m ���� A O n (D �(D CD < M � a m 3 N � rn� S C N CD D C C CD n CD m W X---ic Z @ 2 0 C (D O 6 3 m < w � N o< 5 < p C c m v C m CL X Zmcn o m CT CL =oma 00 o 7-0 mM --4 N � C acL LD < =m no CD 0 Z CD o < 6 v ? (n g c (n g (n g v m C C m m m v m C m C 0.Q a c a s 0 0 a a m < m -(CD m CD00 � C 3 < 3 CD <. C CD o � m � 'c o 3 3 m 0 m N n O 7 cn---i CD �c Z .m m o 07 Q (D m Ll. c 3� La N O n T(' m CL X O c CD cn c 3 3 v i � I Legend Yakima Transit Center Park and Ride Transit Corridor i ;! City Limits UGA Boundary �• Park / Open Space �•--I I I Q n I I I r------ ----I— L-------- I j � I — r r—Y. AHTAN M —_ U RD Ah i r'T Tom, 0 0 5 Miles Existing Transit Corridors DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan 2 6 transpo r M 1• I• M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Paratransit Service Paratransit service (Dial -a -Ride) is provided by Yakima Transit for patrons who cannot use fixed -route bus services due to a disability and in accordance with ADA This service provides curb -to -curb paratransit service during the same operating days and hours of local fixed route service Paratransit services are provided, door-to-door, to eligible clients and serves the areas within the city limits of Yakima and Selah and some trips into the City of Union Gap System -Wide Ridership Yakima Transit reports ridership for all services in the Transit Development Plan Similar to tracking trends in vehicle volumes, the number of annual passenger boards is important to the success and performance of a transit system Figure 2-7 shows system -wide annual boardings for the most recent 5 years of available data Yakima Transit System -Wide Ridership 2,000 000 1,500,000 _ L m 1,000 000 c Q 500 000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2-7 Historical Yakima Transit Ridership As shown in Figure 2-7, annual boards exceeded 1 5 million in 2011 and 2012, but have declined as a result of rate increases, lower fuel prices, and a reduction in service after 2012 Vanpool Program Yakima Transit operates vanpool services for residents within the Greater Yakima area Vanpool services are provided on a cost recovery basis, costs are covered by the users As part of the services provided through the vanpool program, Yakima Transit offers each vanpool commuter a guaranteed ride home, in the event they are sick, the vehicle brakes down, or other issues come up The guaranteed ride home service may be used by an individual user up to four times per year There are currently 17 vans in operation, four vans less than at the end of 2014 March 2017 23 March 2017 Park -and -Rides There are four park and ride locations served by Yakima Transit service • Chesterly Park at the North 40th Ave / River Road intersection has approximately 50 spaces • Gateway Center along Fair Avenue at 1-82 ramps has approximately 64 parking spaces • Public Works Facility at N 23rd Avenue / Fruitvale Boulevard has approximately 88 spaces • Firing Center Park & Ride Lot in Selah is served by the Yakima—Ellensburg Commuter service and has approximately 35 parking spaces Figure 2-6 illustrates the locations of designated Park -and - Ride lots Yakima Transit Center Yakima has one mayor transit center in its downtown area The Yakima Transit Center is located along 4th Street between Chestnut Avenue and Walnut Avenue All Yakima Transit Routes are routed through the Yakima Transit Center The transit center can accommodate up to 12 buses at a time Figure 2-6 illustrates the location of the Yakima Transit Center 24 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2.1 6 Freight Corridors Centrally located for companies that rely on distribution throughout Washington State, the City of Yakima is a natural distribution hub served by many freight routes Planning for freight is an important component to Yakima's overall economy While the City does not have designations for freight routes, WSDOT maintains a classification system for freight corridors statewide, including Yakima The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) classifies highways, county roads, and city streets according to the average annual gross truck tonnage they carry Truck tonnage values are derived from actual or estimated truck traffic count data that is converted into average weights by truck type. The FGTS uses five truck classifications, T-1 through T-5, depending on the annual gross tonnage the roadway carries Yakima has roadways or roadway segments that fall into every classification level • T-1 more than 10 million tons per year • T-2 4 million to 10 million tons per year • T-3 300,000 to 4 million tons per year • T-4 100,000 to 300,000 tons per year • T-5 at least 20,000 tons in 60 days and less than 100,000 tons per year Corridors with the highest annual gross tonnage, T-1 and T- 2 routes, are also identified as Strategic Freight Corridors I- 82 is a T-1 route that runs through Yakima County and connects to other freeways in Washington and Oregon Many roadways with ramps to 1-82, including US 12 and SR 24, are T-2 corridors and important connections to other regional destinations Freight corridors are illustrated in Figure 2-8 2.1 7 Rail Lines and Crossings Rail lines in the City of Yakima are exclusively used for freight transportation and do not include passenger service The double -tracked line through the City's central business district is a Strategic Rail Corridor (WSDOT, 2013) and one of three statewide east -west rail lines Owned by BNSF, these tracks connect Auburn and Pasco via Stampede Pass Additional spur lines within the City and its UGA carry less train traffic, but many remain important connections for the rail community At -Grade Rail Crossings Safety for all at -grade rail crossings is of potential concern for all modes near the crossing when the rail line is active At -grade rail crossings typically include warning systems and signage to inform drivers of the conflict zone with rail traffic. Highly active crossings include gate arms to stop vehicle traffic, but spur tracks may not include these types of warning devices To reduce the negative impacts of at -grade rail crossings, the City has completed several grade separation projects, including the recent completion of the MLK Jr and Lincoln Avenue grade separation projects in 2013 and 2014 2.1 8 Air Facilities The Yakima Airport (McAllister Field) is a general aviation air facility between Washington Avenue and Ahtanum Road in the south-central area of the City The airport handles small passenger aircraft that includes flights to and from SeaTac Airport in Seattle March 2017 25 .,'r Legend T-1 Freight Corridor ez T-2 Freight Corridor T-3 Freight Corridor T-4 Freight Corridor �_ X11--- --•---- �� T-5 Freight Corridor 12 Railroad i - — -I i r- ' e,,] City Limits UGA Boundary _ 1 : > '� _ �• -i CA'TI FVAI F Rn x _ Park / Open Space •f v�!F 1LN� •4i - Rw" •� I FRF CF HOT R • ..' l ,I, 1 _ � r LL •� AL _ Y_ W MEAL, AVE 1 j � —•— —-I �- I I _ ----I— L------ -- r------ I OCCIDENTAL RD I I Mq<<Al'lp� r '/Al l i V h'I I fwvkl _ .J • i 1�1 0 0.5 Miles ( Source WSDOT Existing Freight Corridors DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo f 2 - r r r �r r r r r r r r r r ■ir r r rr r r City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2.2 Transportation System Performance Performance of the transportation system includes an evaluation of all modes based on City standards and available analysis tools The existing performance results contained in this section will set the stage for the evaluation of the forecast (2040) transportation system The following sections describe vehicular operations at intersections and on corridors. non -motorized operations, and transit service operations 2.2 1 Intersection Operations Intersection traffic operations evaluate the performance of signalized and stop -controlled intersections according to the industry standards set forth in the HCM 2010 and described in 2 2 1 Vehicle Level of Service PM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated at 30 study intersections using Synchro version 9 1 The PM peak hour intersection operations were selected due to the higher typical traffic volumes occurring during that time period for a single hour between 4 and 6 p m Existing (2015) Intersection LOS City of Yakima LOS standards are identified in this Comprehensive Plan for roadways within the City For these roadways, the standard is LOS D Existing levels -of -service at key intersections in City of Yakima are shown in Figure 2- 9 The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all study intersections currently meet City LOS standards. except for three intersections located at S 64th Ave / Tieton Dr (TWSC), N 16th Ave / W Tieton Dr (Signal), and S 18th St / E Nob Hill Blvd (Signal) These three intersections are located on arterial roadways which are designated to serve a high number of vehicles 2 2.2 Corridor Capacity The existing regional travel demand model includes a roadway capacity that provides an estimated volume -to - capacity (v/c) ratio that is used to identify general areas where weekday PM peak hour volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the roadway A roadway with a v/c ratio of 1 0 is assumed to be at capacity As vehicle volumes approach peak roadway capacity, travel times and vehicle delays typically increase While this does not necessarily mean the roadways would need widening, it does mean that these sections of roadway may need to be monitored closely. In situations where the roadway has an excess of capacity. the number of travel lanes could be reduced to include bike lanes or other enhanced non -motorized facilities in the street right-of-way Average Daily Traffic and roadway number of lanes is shown in Figure 2-3 General Guidance on Corridor Capacities The specific corridor capacity is calculated based on hourly vehicle traffic volumes and can be impacted by many characters such as speeds, number of lanes. lane widths. on -street parking, and the number of access points per mile In addition, intersection capacity constraints can limit the number of vehicles that a corridor can efficiently move However, transportation professionals have created general guidance ("rules of thumb") on how to size mayor urban streets based on Average Daily Traffic volumes, such as • 3 -lane urban street capacity 18,000 ADT • 4 -lane urban street capacity 25,000 ADT • 5-1ane urban street capacity 34,000 ADT March 2017 r 27 Legend Signal LOS A- C LOS D LOSE -F 12 Two -Way Stop El LOS D LOS F e'J3 City Limits e LIGA Boundary G Park Open Space SUMM TVIUW AV[ 4yi 1 C C L r- ------ [q] I - 4 + c) 3 i'HILL LVD U, rn O ------------- AHTAN11M Rn C A A —1 MEA F7_T_T_T_1 0 0 5 Miles NExisting InteasectatonP/Vehicle Level of Service DRAFT FIGURE that City of Yakima 2040 an transpo 2-9 M= M M M M M = M M M M M M IIIIIIIIN M M N t 0 N E F R ST —1 MEA F7_T_T_T_1 0 0 5 Miles NExisting InteasectatonP/Vehicle Level of Service DRAFT FIGURE that City of Yakima 2040 an transpo 2-9 M= M M M M M = M M M M M M IIIIIIIIN M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2.3 Transportation System Safety The collision history of the transportation system can help identify crash patterns for all modes and is used in the development of projects to improve the safety of the City's roadways Records for the most recent complete five-year period were reviewed for all collisions reported for the period of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 in City of Yakima as provided by WSDOT. An evaluation of the location and severity of reported collisions was completed to identify potential safety issues for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists 2 3.1 Safety Analysis The most recent collision data during a five-year period for all roadways in the City of Yakima, excluding state highways and interstates, were used for analysis The total number of collision records reviewed over the 5 -year period totaled over 8.000, and the number of collisions reported by year is shown in Figure 2-10. 2.000 c 0 Fn = 1 500 0 U w 1.000 m E Z 500 IL 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2-10 Total of All Reported Collisions (2010 - 2014) As shown in the figure, the total number of collisions was lowest in 2012 before slowly beginning to climb again through 2014 This trend follows national observations in the total number of vehicle miles traveled, which show lower levels of vehicle travel following the Great Recession The total collisions over the 5 -year study period are shown in Figure 2-11 The locations of collisions were mapped to identify roadway segments and intersections with the most frequent number of collisions Roadways with higher volumes, such as Principal Arterials, generally have higher numbers of collisions 2.3 2 Collision Rates Crash rates were compiled by intersection and along mayor roadway segments to identify locations with potential safety issues Crash rates were analyzed to identify the average crash frequency based on the number of vehicles traveling through the intersections or along the roadway The typical measure for determining crash rates at intersections is the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). while the typical measure for crash rates on roadways is the number of crashes per million vehicle miles (MVM) The critical crash rate compares that location to other intersections in the City that have similar characteristics. Groups of intersections and roadway segments were evaluated consistent with guidance provided in Chapter 4 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 2010) '" March 2017 29 I � Legend Collisions 823 e 10-20 O 21-30 F-1 \` O 31 -40– ` O 41-50 ,-; 12 0>50 t C3 City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space 1TERRACE HGTS DR � 1 ----- - - - O --O - 00-0- 0-- OO p O p ° w oQ 0 -- - z _ I — O i 0 — ,r 1 —.—_I— 1-------- i J CIbENTAL RD —_—r AHTANUM RD i i t _ 0 0 5 Miles Note Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2014 Vehicle Collisions (2010 - 2014) DRAFT IGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo 1-2-11 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan March 2017 2 3.3 Collision Severity Intersections with observed collision rates higher than the critical collision rate were flagged for further review, consistent with guidance provided in the Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO, 2010) The type and severity of reported collisions provides insight into the circumstances that resulted in higher collision rates at these intersections The critical collision rate calculated for each intersection compares that location to other intersections in the City that have similar characteristics Three groups of intersections were evaluated that included signals, two-way stop -controls, and all -way stop -controls. This is consistent with guidance provided in Chapter 4 of the Highway Safety Manual Table 2-2 summarizes the factors and calculations used to determine the critical collision rate for the study intersections As shown in Table 2-2, eight intersections had an observed collision rate higher than the intersection's critical collision rate The Fair Avenue/Nob Hill Boulevard intersection had the highest observed collision rate at 1 61 with "entering -at - angle" and "rear -end" being the predominate collision types The 40th Avenue/Nob Hill Boulevard had a collision rate of 1 28 with "left-turn/thru collision" being most common The remaining intersections had rates between 1 10 and 1 31 with rear end being the most common Generally rear end collisions are associated with congested traffic conditions Five of the eight intersections had collisions with pedestrians or bicycles. Of those five intersections, the 16th Avenue/ Tieton Drive intersection had the most with one pedestrian collision and two bicycle collisions No stop -controlled (all -way or two-way) study intersections had observed collision rates higher than critical collision rates. r- 31 March 2017 Table 2-2 Intersections with Collision Rates Exceeding the Critical Collision Rate (2010-2014) City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 1 Total Entering Vehicles 2 Collisions per MEV 3 Calculated per Equation 4-10 in the Highway Safety Manual 4 Calculated per Equation 4-11 in the Highway Safety Manual 32 r Weighted Peak Observed Average Critical Hour Intersection Number of Pedestrian Bicycle Collison Collision Crash Primary Collision Intersection TEV' Control Collisions Collisions Collisions Ratez Rate' Rate Type 40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 2,920 Signal 44 0 0 1 28 087 1 02 Left Turn/ Thru Collision 16th Ave / Tieton Dr 2,935 Signal 38 1 2 1 10 087 1 02 Rear End 16th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 3,550 Signal 53 0 1 1 25 087 1 00 Rear End 3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 3,265 Signal 32 1 1 1 12 087 1 01 Rear End 1 st St / `I' St 1,885 Signal 23 1 1 1 10 087 1 06 Rear End 1 st St / Nob Hill Blvd 3,575 Signal 61 0 0 1 32 087 1 00 Rear End 1 st St / Washington Ave 3,010 Signal 37 0 0 1.31 087 1 02 Rear End Fair Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 2,145 Signal 35 0 1 161 087 1 05 Entering at Angle/ Rear End 1 Total Entering Vehicles 2 Collisions per MEV 3 Calculated per Equation 4-10 in the Highway Safety Manual 4 Calculated per Equation 4-11 in the Highway Safety Manual 32 r M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 2 3 4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Collisions with pedestrian and bicycle crashes were reviewed over the 5 -year period of crash data obtained from WSDOT Locations that experienced multiple non -motorized collisions were reviewed for any crash patterns Roadways with higher vehicle turning movements create safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists Locations where sidewalks are not present or only available on one side of the street can also be particularly hazardous In addition, the lack of safe crossings on some corridors may be a factor because pedestrians and cyclists could be crossing at unsafe locations The types for roadways where pedestrian and bicycle collisions were reported are shown in Figure 2-12 J6610 22 9% ■ Minor Arterial ■ Collector Arterial Principal Arterial ■ Local Street Figure 2-12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Street Type (2010 — 2014) As shown in the figure, more than half of all non -motorized collisions occurred on Principal Arterials While these roadways carry only a portion of pedestrian and cyclists, they are the roadways where most collisions between vehicles and pedestrians or vehicles and cyclists occurred The location of all non -motorized collisions reported over the 5 -year study period are shown in Figure 2-13 March 2017 33 I � Legend • Pedestrian Collisions 823 • Bicycle Collisions Number of Collisions j ' ' \•� \ — — O 2 _ 12 O 3 - 5 ______ i ;� City Limits , —_ • 1 _ . UGA Boundary — i •' •� I Park / Open Space _ • • • • i F eeA, I • • \ W J _ —AdkANk -I W Lg i • • 4 It _ • i • I __—_. W UAV �• r------� • • • ----I -- _ r------- L ------- ---- L-_-_---J _ ------ _. o • croeNlARo I ,rFYatn�FAi o �. r------------ .J — r i -- y Wlk'FM I WAR UM RD 0 0 5 Miles I Note Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2010 - 2014) DRAFT FIGURE ' City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan TF 2 1 3 transpoyrc,up i► 7 a x 1 ORCASTS AND A March 2017 3 Travel Forecasts and Alternatives Evaluation In addition to addressing existing needs, the City must develop its transportation system to accommodate forecast growth The GMA requires that the transportation planning horizon be at least ten years in the future For this current update effort, the City decided to use 2040 as the long-range horizon, consistent with the Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan The longer -range horizon year allows the City to better plan for and scale transportation facilities that are needed as the City changes over the next two decades The following provides an overview of the travel demand model used to create the forecasts and evaluate alternatives It summarizes the land use assumptions and network alternatives The alternatives evaluations are presented, resulting in the development of the framework for the Transportation Systems Plan and improvement projects, which are presented in Chapter 4 3.1 Travel Demand Model and Land Use Forecasts The YVCOG's regional travel demand model was used to support the City's transportation planning efforts The travel demand model provides a tool for forecasting long-range traffic volumes based on the projected growth in housing and employment The model is also useful in evaluating the impact of changes to the roadway network Travel forecasts are largely derived based on changes in households and employment within the study area In addition, the model land use forecasts reflect regional planning assumptions as defined by Yakima County's growth allocations and YVCOG Additional information on residential and employment land use forecasts assumed for the transportation analysis can be found in the Land Use 36 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan The City developed two land use alternatives to be evaluated in the Transportation Systems Plan development process These land use scenarios are described below 3 1.1 Baseline (Alternative 1 or No Action) The 2040 Baseline alternative was developed to establish a framework for the Plan and to identify future traffic operational deficiencies The Baseline alternative is also referred to as Alternative 1 or the No Action alternative This land use scenario assumes current land use and zoning within City limits remaining in place and household and employment growth allocated throughout the City consistent with historical trends Regional growth outside the City limits reflect assumptions in the YVCOG travel demand model 3 1 2 Preferred (Alternative 2) The Preferred alternative is also referred to as Alternative 2 This land use scenario assumed changes to the future land use within Yakima and additional goals/policies that promote higher density infill -growth in areas closer to the downtown and northeast/southeast Yakima For regional growth outside the City limits, the same assumptions use for Baseline were applied 3.2 Vehicle Forecast Conditions (2040) Forecast travel conditions estimate where future bottlenecks may occur based on future travel demand Travel demand is based on anticipated changes to land use and the types of trips generated based on the population and employment allocations described in the Land Use Element The aggregation of those trips on City roadways provides planners with a future snapshot of the transportation system as a whole r r M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M I• M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Table 3-1 Existing and Future Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Location Traffic Control Existing 2040 Baseline (Alt 1) 2040 Preferred (Alt 2) 72nd Ave / Tieton Dr Signal C E E 72nd Ave / Washington Ave TWSC D F F 40th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd Signal C E E 40th Ave / Englewood Ave Signal C E D 40th Ave / Summitview Ave Signal D E E 40th Ave / Tieton Dr Signal C E E 40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Signal D F F 40th Ave /Washington Ave Signal B E E 16th Ave / W Lincoln Ave Signal D F F 16th Ave / W Tieton Dr Signal E F F 16th Ave / W Nob Hill Blvd Signal D E E 16th Ave / W Washington Blvd Signal C F F 3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Signal C E E 1 St St /T St Signal B E E 1 st St / Nob Hill Blvd Signal D E E Fair Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Signal D F E 18th St / Nob Hill Blvd Signal E E E Traffic volumes in urban areas are typically highest during the weekday PM peak hour This reflects the combination of commuter work trips, shopping trips, and other day-to-day activities which result in travel between 4 00 and 6 00 p.m , Monday through Friday Therefore, the weekday PM peak hour is typically used for evaluating transportation system needs The 2040 Baseline transportation system includes committed transportation system projects — those currently under construction or fully funded As a conservative assessment of vehicle forecast conditions, the Baseline model did not assume significant changes to the City of Yakima network The YVCOG model included an additional lane of capacity along 1-82 through the urban areas of the county In addition, the YVCOG model included a new east -west road corridor connecting northeast Yakima to eastern county areas across 1-82 and the Yakima River 3 2 1 Forecast Operations with Plan Framework The 2040 Baseline model includes roadway capacities that provide an estimated volume -to - capacity (v/c) ratio that is used to identify general areas where weekday PM peak hour volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the roadway A roadway with a v/c ratio of 1 0 is assumed to be at capacity As vehicle volumes approach peak roadway capacity, travel times and vehicle delays typically increase While this does not necessarily mean the roadways would need widening, it does mean that these sections of roadway may need to be monitored closely No roadway v/c issues were identified within the study area As described in the Existing Conditions section, intersection traffic operations evaluate the performance of signalized and stop -controlled intersections according to the industry standards set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Peak hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections based on level -of -service (LOS) methodology City of Yakima LOS standards are identified in this Comprehensive Plan for roadways within the incorporated areas of the City For these roadways, the City maintains an adopted standard of LOS D The results of the LOS analysis March 2017 / 37 March 2017 indicate that all study intersections will meet City LOS standards with existing configurations and controls, except for the intersections shown in Table 3-1 Nearly all the study intersections would operate the same regardless of the land use alternative The Preferred Alternative generally shifts minor amounts of traffic to the downtown area, reducing volumes in other areas of the City Selected transportation projects described in Chapter 4 were developed to address intersection and roadway deficiencies found in the land use scenarios Section 3 5 has more discussion about how and why projects were identified and selected for the Transportation Systems Plan 3.3 Non -Motorized Forecast Conditions The non -motorized transportation network within the City of Yakima and its UGA serves pedestrians, cyclists, and other types of non -motorized users The future non -motorized transportation network contained in the Transportation Systems Plan builds upon previous planning efforts that have identified future routes for bicyclists and pedestrians These plans identify future pedestrian and bicycle routes for the City of Yakima through a combination of on -street facilities and off-street pathways provide the core network for walkers, cyclists, and other non -motorized users to travel The City of Yakima will continue to develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of its transportation system improvements The TSP identifies the desired pedestrian and bicycle systems plans, which will guide the development and implementation of improvement projects throughout the City The non -motorized systems plan includes facilities on arterials, collectors, and local streets, as well as multi -use trails The bicycle and pedestrian systems plans are discussed in section 4 2 3.4 Transit Forecast Conditions To provide a comprehensive transportation system, the City of Yakima recognizes the importance of transit As growth 38 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan and density is encouraged in the downtown core, a frequent and reliable transit system can help move people efficiently without the use of a personal vehicle The six-year (2016- 2021) Yakima Transit - Transit Development Plan, contains the transit agency's short and long-range priorities, capital improvements, and planned operating changes The City's transit system plan is discussed in section 4 4 3.5 Plan Framework Based on the alternatives evaluation, the Plan Framework was established for creating its long-range multimodal street network The framework builds from the City's prior Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plans, as well as other agency transportation improvement programs Below are the five key themes used to create the Transportation Master Plan and project list 3 5.1 Maintain Connected Networks The Transportation Systems Plan specifically identifies the primary and secondary routes for each of the mayor travel modes within the city When layering these separate network plans together, urban corridors were classified as "Auto Priority", "Bike/Ped Priority", or "Shared Priority" This allows project funding resources to be targeted to the best types of improvements that would complete the overall system In addition, maintenance dollars could also be prioritized based on the anticipated street functions 3 5 2 Expand Capacity on Key Corridors Reviewing the travel demand model volume forecasts and intersection operations analysis made it clear that Principal Arterials will continue to be the core vehicle routes throughout the City Principal Arterials should provide maximum vehicle capacity with 5 lanes, or if 5 lanes are not feasible, 4 lanes with greater access control Arterial- toarterial intersections should have traffic signals with separate left -turn lanes, and if necessary dual left -turn lanes and/or right -turn lanes r � M M M! i M i M M M M M M M M! M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 3 5 3 Right -Size Urban Corridors Many urban streets within the City are oversized for the traffic demands expected by 2040 and beyond These are mostly 4 -lane roads classified as local streets, mayor collectors, and even some minor arterials Reducing the number of lanes to 2 or 3 lanes improves safety, allows for on -street parking, or provides space for bicycle facilities It is also much easier to create safe pedestrian crossings on 2 - or 3 -lane facilities compared to 4 -lane facilities 3 5 4 Bridge Non -Motorized Gaps A review of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities shows that there are mayor gaps in connectivity throughout the overall system While all roads should accommodate all users, the Transportation Systems Plan focuses on projects that help bridge the existing gaps in the system 3 5 5 Facilitate Economic Development The transportation system can be a mayor component in development of economic growth in the area Increased capacity along 1-82 and related interchanges helps drive opportunities to the City New roadways in the Cascade Mill Site area provide the backbone for redevelopment in that area In downtown areas and other activity centers within the city, providing lower stress multimodal urban corridors promotes economic vitality for the City 3.6 Emerging Transportation Trends In addition to formal transportation analysis and forecasting, long-range planning also includes anticipating emerging transportation trends that may change basic assumptions concerning how people travel and how transportation systems operate Transportation -related technology has advanced quickly over the past decade, will continue to accelerate, and will create mayor shifts in transportation within the City of Yakima This section describes some of these technology -related trends and the potential impacts on Yakima's transportation system 3.6 1 Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) There is a great deal of uncertainty for communities planning for autonomous vehicles Potential outcomes carry a wide range of possibilities Over the next 15 years, a portion of the vehicles on the City's streets and highways could be operating without drivers It is possible that 30 to 40 years from now all, or nearly all, vehicles will be driverless or will have driverless capabilities in certain situations The implementation of some of these technologies may be within the 2040 planning horizon, and thus the City should consider the ramifications of these technologies on its transportation network A few key issues rise to the top of what local agencies should contemplate while preparing long-range plans Roadway Capacity and Safety AVs will be able to space themselves closer together, effectively increasing the capacity of streets and highways This is especially true if AVs travel in narrower lanes with smaller vehicles (assuming AV -only lanes and/or AV -only urban areas) This implies that roadway capacity improvements to accommodate more vehicles could be postponed as the potential of AVs becomes realized In addition, AVs may reduce many common accident risks Transit Service Over half of the cost of operating buses is related to the driver In the future, replacing the driver with AV technology may enable transit operators to offer more service for the same cost Technology that clears lanes when buses approach may allow them to avoid the same congestion they now face This would also increase service as buses will be able to run routes faster Such technology may reduce the need for investments in rail transit infrastructure as buses may operate with close to the same freedom that trains do on dedicated rights-of-way March 2017 �j' 39 March 2017 On -Demand or Shared Ride Regulations The demand for shared ride services such as Lyft and Uber may likely increase as the economics improve without drivers Public agencies would likely need to address regulations regarding these types of services, especially those that offer pooling options for two, three or more people to ride together Human Services Transportation AVs may provide independent mobility for low-income and disabled populations, reducing the need for conventional demand response services 3 6.2 Parking Demand Shifts It is likely that the economics of transportation will dramatically change with widespread use of on -demand or shared ride services Car ownership in urban areas may further decrease if on -demand travel (with or without driverless vehicles) becomes a legitimate alternative This would reduce the need for off-street parking at places of employment or residential areas, but would increase the demand for curbside areas set aside for loading/unloading activities 3 6 3 Connected Vehicles Although it is not yet clear what the demand for vehicle -to - infrastructure may ultimately look like, cities might look ahead to providing infrastructure as efficient reference points For example, light poles could become hubs of wireless communication to/from vehicles Connected vehicle technology has the potential to optimize traffic flow as computer systems communicate with vehicles to moderate flow Cities should monitor technologies to prepare for phased implementation of such systems 3 6 4 Teleworking Advances in technology and communication infrastructure would facilitate the exponential growth of teleworking in the 40 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan next decade and beyond Per recent Census data, "not traveling at all" accounts for more than two percent of the overall national mode split and is increasing at a greater rate than all other modes Factors that are fueling this change include improving communications and collaboration technologies, increased high-speed broadband availability, and the proliferation of web -based applications The land use and transportation implications of this trend are wide ranging including reduced vehicle -miles traveled, reduced roadway congestion, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and, greater number of employees choosing to live further from fob sites 3 6 5 Transportation Funding Methods The traditional transportation funding method of taxing fuels has become unsustainable as transportation technology changes The emerging funding trends point to user fees in the form of facility tolling or pay -per -mile taxes These "user fees" would directly impact commuting costs and incentivize less frequent or shorter vehicle trips 3.6 6 Emerging Trends Takeaways It remains unclear whether these new technologies (or others) will be implemented by agencies, vehicle manufacturers, and related industries The shifts may be relatively quick (within a decade) or take much longer to develop The following list highlights the emerging trends takeaways as the City of Yakima plans for the future • Growth in commute vehicle trips is likely to decline over time as teleworking technology improves • Agencies can play a mayor role in how connected vehicle infrastructure gets implemented, which can lead to better traffic management. • Growth in car ownership is likely to continue to decline due to on -demand services and commuting costs This would likely increase demands for non - 'A IMI M M M i M M! M M M M M M M M r M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan March 2017 motorized and transit modes This would also decrease the need for off-street parking. • Demand for curb space for loading/unloading for AV and on -demand services would likely increase dramatically This could impact on -street parking or default cross-sections ! 41 Al If W _ _ .r�'" ";,�' �S+r.` r+�►' `Irk" VA :rjor VIC" I I is � �� � � �_7 [ �Is�• �y r • �i C i �O - "ur�riF 7r ^�•tir 4.TRANSP4 rAMk SYSTEMS PLAN .:IC14 M M M M! M MIWI M M M!! M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 4 Transportation Systems Plan The Transportation Systems Plan provides the blueprint for improvement projects and programs to meet the multimodal transportation needs of the community Each mode has a separate systems plan that harmonize together to build the overall City plan The Transportation Systems Plan is based on the evaluation of existing system deficiencies and forecasts of future travel demands The improvement projects and programs must be balanced with the availability of funding, as discussed in Chapter 5 The Transportation Systems Plan is organized and presented by travel mode to provide an overview of key components of each element However, the Plan is integrated to create a multimodal transportation system For example, improvements along arterial streets and highways also incorporate appropriate non -motorized improvements The non -motorized systems were defined to support access to transit, and to provide alternatives to automobile travel within the City As improvement projects move toward implementation, the City will conduct detailed design studies, supported with project -level environmental review, and input from the public and other stakeholders A key implementation tool of the Transportation Systems Plan is a defined network classification system Network classifications include the Roadway Functional Classification, the Travel Context Classification, and the Truck Route Classification These classifications directly influence the street cross-section design standards as City streets are reconstructed, improved, or enhanced Each of the mode plans illustrate how the City of Yakima's transportation system supports, and relies on, transportation facilities and programs provided by other agencies These include new or improved interchanges with 1-82 and US 12, consistency of the arterial and collector road system, connectivity of trails and non -motorized transportation systems, additional transit service and facilities, and rideshare programs The City will continue to coordinate with WSDOT, Yakima County, and adjacent cities develop a comprehensive multimodal transportation system for the greater Yakima area Outline of Plan Maps Network Classifications Functional Classification Travel Context Classification Truck Route Classification System Plan Maps Street and Highway System Plan Pedestrian System Plan Bicycle System Plan Improvement Project Maps Transportation Projects March 2017 43 March 2017 4.1 Network Classifications Network classifications are one of the key implementation tools of the Transportation System Plans by establishing priorities It is unreasonable and uneconomical to build each street to accommodate every function and user and so priorities must be set. The Functional Classification identifies whether mobility or access is a priority for each street. The Travel Context Classification identifies whether auto, bikes, or pedestrians are the priority for each street The Truck Route Classification identifies routes that should be designed to accommodate regular truck activity The following sections provide more details on these network classifications 4 1 1 Functional Classification Systems Roadways are classified by their intended function to provide for a selection of roadways that provide varying degrees of access and mobility Figure 4-1 shows the relationship between access, mobility, and street types The City of Yakima maintains a functional classification that is tied to the City's roadway plans and street standards In addition to the City's functional classification system, there are federal and state roadway designations Federal and state grant programs provide funding for improvement projects that are on streets classified by federal or state roadway designations City of Yakima Functional Classification The City's Functional Classification defines the characteristics of individual roadways to accommodate the travel needs of all roadway users The functional classification of the City of Yakima street system establishes five types of streets. State Highways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Mayor Collectors, and Local Streets Table 4-1 describes the roadway characteristics of these classifications recognized by the City A map depicting the functional classification designations for City roadways is provided in Figure 4-2 44 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Access Management and Vehicle Capacity The term access management relates directly to the functional classification Higher mobility means that greater access control is necessary, meaning better management of streets and driveways accessing the street That access control on City streets is called Access Management. Many Principal Arterials within the city have a high number of access points (driveways and streets) which inherently limit mobility, and ultimately vehicle capacity In other words, better aligning the functional classification and access management will improve vehicle capacity on the arterial street corridors 0li FREEWAYS ARTERIAL STREETS COLLECTOR STREETS LOCAL STREETS Figure 4-1 Functional Classification Relationship between Mobility and Access r M M M >_ i M M r it M M M M s M r M r M I � Legend Functional Classification 823 -- Principal Arterial Minol-Arterial �, j ' �•' \-\ _ Major Collector ` — — N ■ ■ ■ • Future Principal Arterial .12. ■ ■ ■ Future Minor Arterial t — ® City Traffic Signal City Limits}•__ u, Imo./� % r% 'y -L TLEVA OT ■�••. ■IA ,: �. UGA Boundary _ NO + Park / Open Space -♦ TFR CF HOTS DR /. • �� `/.. i �.i -� �. A; r r E , N a 'N C, _ - v' i 79 L �n —ti < ln� 11 A,1111 E 401 HILLM D ,\ :. q MEA AVE �, -----I 1N SHINGTON AVF ' WA I AVE � 2 -- lip— iVALLEY LL BLV ---- AHTANVM RD AN UM Rd" ��� !. 0 0 5 Mlles Roadway Founctional Classification DRAFT FIGURE City 2040 �' oPlan transpo F 4-2 March 2017 Table 4-1 City of Yakima Functional Classification Definitions Classification Description State State Highways connect mayor regions with one Highways another, and WSDOT classifies certain State highways as Highways of Statewide Significance Principal Arterials serve both local and through traffic entering and leaving the City and provide Principal access to mayor activity centers within Yakima Arterials The Principal Arterials also connect the minor arterial and collector street system to the freeways Minor Arterial Streets support moderate -length trips and provide connections between Minor neighborhoods and community/regional activity Arterials centers There is a higher degree of access and lower vehicular travel speed than on mayor arterials Mayor Collectors are the intermediate street Mayor classification They provide a link between local Collectors roadways and the arterial system providing a balance between access and mobility Local streets provide direct access to adjoining properties, commercial businesses, and similar traffic destinations. These roadways also provide Local Streets traffic circulation within or through neighborhoods Local streets typically carry low volumes of traffic, at relatively low speeds Through traffic is generally discouraged through appropriate geometric design and/or traffic control devices 46 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 4 1.2 Travel Context Classification The Transportation System Plan was developed using traditional planning techniques to establish a foundation with key connection and facility types added to develop a holistic vision of a safe and attractive motorized and non -motorized transportation system The City of Yakima will continue to develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of its transportation system improvements, in addition to expanding vehicle capacity at key intersections and streets The type and size of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle facilities is dependent on the travel context of the street The Travel Context Classification along with the Functional Classification is referenced in the City's street design standards The following describes the three Travel Context Classifications Auto Priority Classification The Auto Priority class emphasizes automobile mobility over other modes Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are focused on facilitating local access, however overall non -motorized travel would be more comfortable on alternate parallel routes Bike/Ped Priority Classification The Bike/Ped Priority class emphasizes bicycle and pedestrian mobility over other modes Posted vehicle speeds would be lower and the number of vehicle lanes would be minimized Shared Priority Classification The Shared Priority class represents corridors were vehicle mobility is balanced with non -motorized travel comfort This type of street has been referred to as a "complete street" r IM r M M M MIMI, M r M= M M i M r� r M -.- N ' ilk; I� w � tom: �1'_-n�!■ �, �•��` "vim 82 �1 1 Ilf I!l�11 .�ON • .�.� � ■ �-j*� 1 M rill rw111 •" • lull 1111 1!:! IILS�/IY 111 inall .� 1111 �7.� IGiI � I IIIIi�I 111111 1 11:T.7 ! Z �SLIIi 11111 1111111 'L • 1 t �" • ISI • • •• � March 2017 4 1 3 Truck Route Classification The City of Yakima has a significant level of truck activity With increased commercial and employment growth forecast through 2040, the level of truck activity will also increase To systematically address the needs of future truck travel, the City has adopted a defined system of truck routes As shown in Figure 4-4, the Truck Route system generally connects freight generating areas with 1-82 and US 12 In northwest Yakima, Summitview Avenue and 40th Avenue are the mayor routes In northeast Yakima, 16th Avenue and 1st Avenue connect Fruitvale Boulevard and Downtown areas to US 12 Yakima Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Martin Luther King Boulevard connect downtown areas to 1-82 In southeast and southwest Yakima, Nob Hill Boulevard, Washington Avenue, Valley Mall Boulevard, and Ahtanum Road connect areas to 1-82 As mentioned in Chapter 2, WSDOT's Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) classifies state highways, county roads, and city arterials according to average annual gross truck tonnage The following corridors in the greater Yakima area are designated as part of a Strategic Freight Corridor (T-1 or T-2 in Figure 2-8) • 1-82 throughout Yakima County • US 12, between City of Naches and 1-82 • Yakima Avenue/Terrace Heights Drive, between 8th Street (Yakima) and 41 st Street (Yakima County) • SR 24, between 1-82 (Yakima) and University Parkway (Yakima County) • Ahtanum Road, between 90th Avenue (Yakima) and Main Street (Union Gap) • Main Street, between Union Gap City Limits and Ahtanum Road (Union Gap) 48 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan • Valley Mall Boulevard, between Main Street (Union Gap) and 1-82 (Union Gap) 4 1 4 Other Street Classifications The following classifications are included as reference Federal and state classification systems serve different purposes from the City classifications, particularly as it relates to funding Federal Functional Classification The Federal Functional Classification system provides a hierarchy of roadways as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) This classification system defines the role of travel through a network of roadways, rather than focusing on individual roadways As a result, the Federal Functional Classification differs in several ways from the City's Functional Classification Changes to the Federal Functional Classification may be submitted through the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) National Highway System The National Highway System (NHS) includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Both 1-82 and US 12 and are classified as NHS facilities Highways of Statewide Significance WSDOT designates interstate highways and other principal arterials that are needed to connect mayor communities in the state as Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) This designation assists with the allocation of some state and federal funding These roadways typically serve corridor movements having travel characteristics indicative of substantial statewide and interstate travel 1-82 and SR 12 are HSS facilities r r� �r rr r r r rr r r r■w r r r r li• r�� 4. March 2017 4.2 System Plans by Travel Mode The Yakima Transportation System Plan combines the system plans from three different travel modes vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles The following sections highlights detail included in each of the system plans Highway and Street System Plan, Pedestrian System Plan, and Bicycle System Plan 4 2 1 Highway and Street System Streets and state highways are the backbone of the transportation system serving the City of Yakima and surrounding communities They provide for the overall movement of people and goods, for a wide range of travel modes Streets and highways serve automobile trips, trucks, transit, vanpools, carpools, and the majority of bicycle and pedestrian travel Therefore, the streets and highways establish the framework for the overall transportation system for the City Figure 4-5 highlights the highway and street system envisioned for the City of Yakima based on the size (number of lanes) and connectivity of City arterials and collectors Most Principal Arterials are anticipated to be 4 to 5 lanes to best facilitate vehicular travel throughout the City Existing Principal arterials limited to 4 lanes would be widened to 5 lanes where possible Where widening Principal Arterials is impractical, then greater Access Management would be anticipated over time Example corridors include 40th Street, 16th Street, 1st Street, Fruitvale Boulevard, Summitview Boulevard, Nob Hill Boulevard, and Valley Mall Boulevard Minor Arterials would be 3 to 5 lanes wide depending on anticipated traffic volumes in the area Major Collectors would be limited to 2 to 3 lanes, with possible exceptions in commercial areas Existing Major Collectors with 4 lanes would likely be reduced to 3 lanes in the future Local streets are mostly 2 lanes with possible exceptions in commercial areas City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Rail Crossings Rail crossings are an important consideration when developing the Highway and Street System Plan For safety and mobility reasons, Principal Arterials ideally would have grade -separated rail crossings. Fortunately, most of Yakima's Principal Arterials cross rail lines with grade - separated structures (Lincoln Avenue, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Nob Hill Boulevard, and Valley Mall Boulevard) In addition, US 12 provides a major grade -separated crossing of the railroad corridor In the long-term plan, an additional grade -separated crossing is anticipated between 5th Avenue and 1st Street north of downtown This will reduce the crossing conflicts at nearby 'I' Street The Highway and Street System plan anticipates that the rail crossings at Yakima Avenue and 16th Avenue (both Principal Arterials) would remain at -grade Minor Arterials also have major rail crossings Walnut Street is the only grade -separated crossing for a Yakima Minor Arterial At -grade crossings are present at 'I' Street, Mead Avenue, and Washington Avenue Changes to these routes or parallel routes are anticipated to reduce vehicle -rail conflicts in the future r M M r� r M M r� M r r M M M r M M M /` Legend 82 2 Lanes 3 Lanes — 4 Lanes j--- ' 4 Lanes (Access Control) — 5 Lanes _ 12 ` i ;]i City Limits �� �"— Q ' = j UGA Boundary I _► _ _ �. Park / Open Space t - % '• (;ASTI FVA11 F RD • y t TERRACE HUTS DR y I N VE J ��(, I, Mlloc I AHIANUNIRD Highway and Street System Plan DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo 4-5 N1XDITW hqures\DRAFTFhg4 05 Highway and Street System Plan mxd March 2017 4.2 2 Pedestrian System Sidewalks, walkways, and multiuse trails are integral to the City's overall transportation system The City generally desires to have sidewalks or comparable pedestrian facilities on both sides of streets, unless special circumstances make it physically or cost prohibitive In addition, safe crossings are desired at regular intervals along a corridor to discourage unsafe pedestrian and cyclist crossings of arterial roadways The City requires that new developments construct sidewalks on their internal streets and adjacent frontages This process has helped the City convert the rural roadways developed under Yakima County road standards into the urban facilities needed to support the additional growth and higher traffic volumes within the City Developer improvements will continue to provide for a large portion of the ultimate pedestrian system, however, even with those improvements some significant gaps would remain in sidewalks along arterial and collector corridors Figure 4-6 illustrates the priority pedestrian system plan for the City The primary pedestrian routes indicate those corridors that have the highest priority for establishing a completely connected sidewalk and trail network The secondary network indicates the arterials and collector streets that also should have basic pedestrian facilities The street design standards will indicate the type of pedestrian facilities based on the Functional Classification and Travel Context Classification of the street segment Most of the additional pedestrian facilities will be constructed as part of associated roadway projects These may be constructed as part of developer frontage requirements or as part of a capital project by the City of Yakima or another agency In some corridors, pedestrian facilities will be provided through development of multi -use trails separated from the travel lanes 52 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Safe Routes to Schools The Pedestrian System Plan is meant to provide a backbone of pedestrian facilities throughout the City of Yakima However, it is also recognized that safe routes to neighborhood schools would also be a priority The Pedestrian System Plan is meant to be complement rather than compete with safe -routes -to -school travel networks r M r M M r M M r ar M� M r IM r Ml M M= P1-INK M. JISEEMS 'u. ! mil ■'i' MUMiii iow-AMILN1111, MIUNI&M.12 1121111 BOOM "n 1:m,1t11':ooiiJ'i�!Il':,I�mi NEW -ill III III 0 ML IN IN 'm+ 1�j1111111 Is IN 1� 11 � IWIY�11�11 �l:1 MIND J �I II S Y w .n qw. 411 March 2017 4 2.3 Bicycle System Figure 4-8 shows the planned bicycle system plan for Yakima and the surrounding areas The bicycle system plan, provides comprehensive network of attractive bicycle facilities between the City's residential neighborhoods, the transit system, employment areas, schools, and parks The bicycle facilities will include multiuse trails, protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, bike lanes, bike routes, and bicycle boulevards on lower volume roadways (see Figure 4-7) Wide shoulders on higher speed roads and shared lane markings on low speed, low volume roads are appropriate bike facilities in the adjacent rural areas Specific improvements for each corridor are identified, however project level planning and engineering studies are still required to determine feasibility on a project by project basis Multiuse Trail Protected Bike Lane Bike Lane Wide Shoulder it City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Bicycle facilities would be along most key arterials, excluding most Principal Arterials due to high vehicle and truck volumes and limited right-of-way The main east -west bicycle corridor would be Chestnut Avenue in western Yakima and Walnut Street in eastern Yakima Major north -south bicycle corridors would be 64th Avenue, 44th Avenue, 32nd Avenue, 24th Avenue, 11th/10th Avenue (south of Walnut Street), and 5th Avenue (north of Walnut Street) Direct connections to the Yakima Greenway and Cowiche Canyon trails are also provided Key investment priorities include completion of short gaps in the existing bike lane system, construction of continuous bike lanes and bicycle boulevards which provide alternatives to bicycling on arterials, connecting neighborhoods to destinations like schools and parks Buffered Bike Lane I NOW -1 I TI,' I Shared Roadway* *Shared roadways on low volume, low speed streets that include safe arterial crossings are called Ricvcle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevards may use motor vehicle speed or volume management treatments to ensure safe and comfortable travel for bicyclists. (Source Toole Design Group 2017) Figure 4-7 Examples of Bicycle Facilities 54 M M M i r= M M r M 1 M Ml M M M= M M v oWto-A �l I'll, Elam 1,001 1 s � OOF 0 O t Y � m 1,001 1 s � OOF t N r_ r _ N -ti ICD s t 1 Irk I d� tL .�1-W � c0cn-U `� CD CD I y o Q �1 O o v N S in W ll_ =3 ni W m t -0 C O O lD --T-}---. CD .ticroE 1_ 1,001 1 s � OOF t N 4 1 N t 1 Irk I d� � i March 2017 4.3 Street Design Guidelines The Street Design Guidelines are an integral part of implementing the Transportation System Plan The Functional Classification and Travel Context Classification work together to inform City staff on the type of cross-section that would be anticipated for each roadway segment Table 4-2 shows the Street Design Guidelines for the City of Yakima For Principal Arterials, only the Auto Priority and Shared Priority classifications are relevant For Minor Arterials and Collectors, all three Travel Context Classifications are provided The following are general observations about each design element. • Posted Speeds Vehicle speeds would be 30 mph or less where bicyclist are anticipated Otherwise arterial speeds could be 35 to 40 mph • Number of Travel Lanes Number of lanes would be dictated by the Highway and Street System Plan • Center Median For safety and mobility reasons, a center median is always recommended on arterials and collectors • Travel Lane Widths Auto priority areas would have wider lanes (12 feet), otherwise narrower lanes are recommended This does not include any width for shoulders or buffers • Shoulder/Buffer. Buffers would always be recommended, especially adjacent to bike facilities • Bike Facilities Facilities would not be recommended on higher speed facilities Otherwise they would be recommended or required • On -Street Parking Parking would only be provided on lower speed minor arterials and collectors City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 56 / M M M M M M M M M M r M r M M M M M M M M M s M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Table 4-2 Street Design Guidelines March 2017 Travel Lane Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Access Planting Strip 100 ft ROW, 70 ft Paved 80 ft ROW, 65 ft Paved 80 ft ROW, 54 ft Paved 50 ft ROW, 11 to 12 ft Narrower 11 to 12 ft Narrower Narrow 24-30ft Paved Design Shared Shared Pedestrian/ Shared Pedestrian/ Auto Priority Element Auto Priority' Priority Auto Priority Priority2 Bicycle' Auto Priority Priority° Bicycle 10 to 12 ft Posted Speed 35 to 40 35 35 30 30 or less 30 25 25 20-25 (mph) Number of 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 Travel Lanes Center Median/ Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende No Turn Lanes d d d d d d d d Travel Lane Wide Wide 2 ft or more None Planting Strip (no planting), (no planting), Narrow" Widths 11 to 12 ft Narrower 11 to 12 ft Narrower Narrow Narrower Narrower Narrow 10-11 ft (with planter) (wider outside 10 to 12 ft (wider outside 10 to 12 ft 10 to 11 ft 10 to 12 ft 10 to 12 ft 10 to 11 ft 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum lane for lane for freight) freight) Shoulder/ Buffer Recommende Recommende Recommende Recommende Use to buffer Recommende Use to buffer Use to buffer Recommende d d d d bike lanes d bike lanes bike lanes d Bike Facilities Encourage Not parallel routes Not Not Recommende Not Recommende Recommende or use barrier recommended recommended d Required recommended d Required d separated facilities On -Street If no bike lane, 7 ft (low- 7 ft (low- 7 ft (low- 7 ft (low- 7 ft (low Parking Not Not Not 7 ft (low- turnover) turnover) turnover) turnover) turnover) recommended recommended recommended turnover) 8ft (high- 8ft (high- 8ft (high- 8ft (high- 8ft (high- turnover) turnover) turnover) turnover) turnover) Sidewalk Buffer/ 2 ft or more 2 ft or more 2 ft or more None Planting Strip (no planting), (no planting), (no planting), 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more for street trees for street trees for street trees for street trees for street trees (with planter) (with planter) (with planter) Sidewalks 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard 7 ft standard 7 ft standard 7 ft standard 7 ft standard 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum Source Toole Design Group 1 Wider travel lanes (greater than 11 ft) are appropriate in locations with high volumes of heavy vehicles (greater than 8%) or designated freight or transit routes Planting strip may be wider widths are based on minimum tree pit dimensions 2 Consider strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to preferred levels, for higher volume roads speeds of lower than 30 mph are preferred for on -road bike facilities Bike facilities should not be precluded for facilities with higher speeds if no parallel facilities existing within a half mile Greater protection for bike lanes in terms of lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases 3 Strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to lower than 30 mph must be included with the inclusion of bike facilities Also greater protection for bike lanes in terms of lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases Consider using parking lane to buffer bike lane from vehicle lanes 4 Wider sidewalks and planting strips are recommended. 5 Central Business District streets require 12 ft sidewalk r7 57 March 2017 4.4 Transit and Transportation Demand Management To provide a comprehensive transportation system, the City of Yakima recognizes the importance of transit and transportation demand management (TDM) programs In general, these programs build on regional programs with some refinements to reflect the specific needs of the City 4 4.1 Transit System Transit service in the Yakima area is provided by Yakima Transit Yakima Transit has submitted to WSDOT a six-year Transit Development Plan (TDP) for the period 2016 to 2021 The TDP provides a framework to guide Yakima Transit's service delivery through the next six years The City should continue to work with Yakima Transit to improve transit services and develop a convenient, integrated and efficient transit system that supports future growth Yakima Transit's 6 -year TDP identifies a variety of investments targeted at bringing back service Other than capital investments in vehicle replacements and equipment upgrades, Yakima Transit doesn't have any significant operating changes planned for the 2016-2021 period 4 4 2 TDM Programs The expansion of existing TDM programs are recommended to reduce the overall amount of travel by single -occupancy vehicles within the City TDM programs are coordinated with regional agencies such as Yakima County, Yakima Transit and Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (YVCOG) The City of Yakima identifies Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) policies in the City's Bicycle Master Plan, which includes policies found in the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (see Chapter 1 of the Bicycle Master Plan) The YVCOG discusses components of the CTR program including 58 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan • Ridesharing - Employers can develop and maintain a database of home addresses to facilitate carpool and vanpool matching between employees working on the same site Employers can also provide financial incentives or reserved parking spaces for carpool and vanpool vehicles Flexible and Alternative Work Schedules — Flexible work hour schedules allow employees to adjust start/end times to accommodate carpools, vanpools, or transit options Alternative work schedules can also be used to reduce the number of days an employee commutes during peak travel periods These programs help reduce the need for adding capacity to highways and arterials, and reduce the levels of peak hour congestion • Telecommuting — The use of telecommunications technology can allow some employees to work from home, reducing the need for travel to and from a work site for some work days Secured Bicycle Parking and Showers — Secured bicycle parking could be provided near mayor employment centers, preferably in a covered, weather -protected area Shower facilities at work sites are also desirable to encourage commuting by bicycle City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 4.5 Level of Service Standards Level of service (LOS) for vehicles has been part of transportation planning for decades, but recently cities and other jurisdictions are recognizing the need to evaluate transportation system performance for other modes as well. Levels of service are measured for vehicles using methodologies identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010. Transportation Research Board) HCM 2010 is a nationally recognized and locally accepted method of measuring traffic flow and congestion. Criteria range from LOS A. indicating free-flow conditions with minimal vehicle delays to LOS F While the HCM 2010 includes LOS methodologies for measuring the quality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, these more detailed analyses are generally reserved for corridor studies or subarea plans and therefore not included as part of the citywide Transportation System Plan 4.5 1 Vehicle LOS Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control and provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into three intersection types present within the City of Yakima roundabouts, all -way stop, and two-way stop control LOS for roundabouts and all -way stop control intersections is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach Two- way stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement as well as mayor -street left -turns City Level of Service Standards The City has established LOS standards to provide for adequate mobility of traffic at intersections and adjacent roadways The City maintains an LOS standard of D for all intersections, including traffic signals, roundabouts, and stop -controlled intersections In certain cases, unsignalized two-way stop controlled intersections may be allowed to operate below the LOS standard on the minor street if a signal or roundabout improvement is not warranted The lower LOS standard for unsignalized, two-way stop controlled intersections reflects the desire to minimize delays on the mayor street and through street traffic, while supporting safe and efficient operations from the minor streets 4 5 2 Non -Motorized System LOS Non -Motorized System LOS refers to evaluating the pedestrian and bicycle system as a means to understanding how the non -motorized system is operating at a given time The City has not adopted a non -motorized system LOS standard, but will be evaluating options for implementation in the future The potential goals would be to (1) monitor how the non -motorized system is improving over time and (2) identify metrics that show how new development is impacting the non -motorized system March 2017 r 59 March 2017 4.6 Transportation Projects & Programs The City has identified a comprehensive list of multimodal transportation system improvement projects and programs The multimodal improvement projects address transportation needs within the existing City limits It also identifies improvement projects within the City's unincorporated UGA needed to serve future growth within the area as it is annexed Improvements under other jurisdictions include previously identified projects as well as potential improvements identified by the City of Yakima The City will continue to coordinate with the other agencies in their transportation planning efforts to facilitate development of a comprehensive transportation system for the City and surrounding communities Figure 4-9 shows a map of the projects Each of the projects have been assigned a likely timing horizon of short-range (2015-2020), mid-range (2021-2030), and long-range (2031-2040) The timing blends the relative priority of each project with the likely timing to be able to fund, design, and construct an improvement project The timing horizon also takes into consideration the availability of funding, which is presented in Chapter 5 Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each project under the jurisdiction of the City of Yakima The planning level cost estimates are based on typical unit costs for different project types The cost estimates also account for potential right-of-way acquisition, and engineering design Costs of specific needs such as a bridge or major power lines are also incorporated, at a planning level All cost estimates are reported in 2015 dollars City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan The projects were categorized as follows (and shown in Tables 4-3) Intersection Improvements include upgrading intersections through added turn lanes or modifications to traffic controls Where applicable, improvements may also include upgrading traffic signals and implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which could encompass modifications to vehicle detection and coordinated signal timing. • Active Transportation improvements add pedestrian and bicycle facilities to roadways or construct off-street multiuse pathways to complete gaps in the existing non -motorized network • Study includes further analysis and evaluation to develop more detailed improvement projects and cost estimates • Roadway Improvements include modifying roadways to current City design standards and incorporating multimodal improvements to serve higher traffic volumes and non -motorized travel • New Roadway includes constructing new arterials or collector roads, including non -motorized facilities r t Legend \ Intersection Improvement az ® Active Transportation ® Study ® Roadway Improvement => ® New RoadwayF, N1 12 O O �._. Intersection 7 i Roadway • - STLEVA ERD L J] Study UGA Boundary TE A e Hcrs DR Park/Open Space Z j. ut. E A9A t t * UMMIT IEW AVE ".... " - r z'- w ! > [L- 1)N DR w - iTt i } _ NOB r41LL r 'gg WIDE HOLLOW R J" it W i t • �-_-_(_.. r . 7T m I r!J _ — ''-- a.. r— I _. WAS IN A'oCIt -• _ r L t, OC IDENTALRD I 1���CC (i LSU LLEY��� ISD AS r-------- '_-- r L , I ONEFR ST: r Y r ' '---. AHTANUM RU I ANUM r �.. �-1 0 0 5 Miles Transportation Improvement Projects DRAFT FIGURE City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan transpo =.f f- 4-9 0 Robed- �'.. r 1, r _ Ili . , TSP Flgure,;0RAFTF1g409 lmprovementProje:, �' DRAFT Transportation Improvement Projects City of Yakima 1040 Transportation System Pion ID Project Name Location (Extents) Description Source Estimated Cost Time Frame Widen Nob Hill Boulevard through the intersection, construct left -turn lane curb, 1-1 Nob HAI Blvd / Farr Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection gutter sidewalk, street lighting and drainage Upgrade signal by installing mast arm TIP $1,900,000 Mediumstructures (17 22) LOS Provide dual southbound left turn lanes Add westbound right -turn lane Install 1-2 Nob Hill Blvd / 18th St Intersection Improvements Intersection curb gutter sidewalk upgrade traffic signal system Coordinate with Project I-13 $516,000 Medium (trail connection) (17 22� LOS TIP Improve the 64th Avenue and Ahtanum Road Intersection by constructing a 13 64th Ave / Ahtanum Rd Intersection Improvements Intersection westbound right -turn lane on Ahtanum and Installing a traffic signal (17-22) 5575,000 Short 1-4 3rd Ave/ Washington Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Upgrade the traffic signalization system TIP 52 I n.n00 Medium (17-22) Improve the Washington Avenue and Longfiber Road intersection by constructing an eastboung left -turn lane on Washington and a northbound left -turn lane on 1-5 Washington Ave / Longfiber Rd Intersection Improvements Intersection Longfiber Install or replace curb, gutter sidewalk street lighting, storm drainage I� 1.021.000 Medium and safety flashing signal Project may be removed or changed based on (1T�) Washington Avenue study findings Realign intersection widen E Washington Avenue to accommodate an additional 1-6 1st St / Washington Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection lane, replace curb, gutter and sidewalk and Install a new traffic signalization TIP $2,000,000 Long system Project may be removed based on Washington Avenue study findings. (17 22) 1-7 72nd Ave / Tieton Dr Intersection Improvements Intersection Set standard at LOS E Add dual leftturnlanes when needed LOS $6,000,000 Long Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes on westbound and southbound 1-8 40th Ave / Frultvale Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection approaches when needed Project may change based on 40th Avenue Access LOS $6,000,000 Long Management Plan 1-9 40th Ave / Tieton Dr Intersection Improvements Intersection Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed Project may change LOS $6,000,000 Long based on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan Improve the intersection by constructing larger corner radii lengthening the turn 1-10 40th Ave / Summdwew Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection lanes, and upgrading the traffic signal system Project may be modified based on $1,093,000 Medium 40th Avenue Access Management Corridor Study findings. (17 211) LOS 1-11 40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed Project may change LOS $6,000,000 Long based on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed Project may change 1-12 161h Ave / Lincoln Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection based on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan and Lincoln Ave/MLN Bvd LOS $6,000,000 Long Realignment Study_—.__. Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed Project may change 1-13 16th Ave / Nob HIII Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection based on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan LOS $6,000,000 Long Improve Intersection by installing multilane roundabout curb, gutter and sidewalk 114 34th Ave / Frmtvale Blvd Intersection Improvements and Bike Crossing Intersection Project Includes a single lane roundabout at River Rd/34th Ave Intersection Add TIP $1,012,898 Short lower stress bike crossing north -south (17-121, Daft BMP 1-15 1st St / I St Intersection Improvements _ Intersection Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed _ LOS $6,000,000 Long Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes on northbound and southbound 1-16 3rd Ave / Nob HAI Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection approaches when needed LOS $3,000,000 Long Set standard at LOS E Add dual left -turn lanes when needed 117 Nob HIII Blvd / 1st St Intersection Improvements intersection LOS $7,000,000 Long I 118 72nd Ave / Washington Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Improve intersection by installing a traffic signal system or roundabout $840,000 Medium (17 2 LOS 119 40th Ave / Englewood Ave Intersection ImprovementsTIP Intersection Replace traffic signal poles and upgrade controller $350,000 Medium (17-22) TIP I-20 Powerhouse Rd / Englewood Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Construct single -lane roundabout If not possible realign intersection install curb $728 000 Medium utter sidewalk and safety flashing signal (17-22) TIP 1-11 48th Ave / Summitvrew Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Imtall traffic signal at the Intersection of Sum inview Avenue and 48th Avenue $693,000 Medium (17-22) 1-22 Washington Ave / 40th Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Convert one northbound lane to a southbound left -turn lane to provide dual left LOS $200,000 Medium turn lanes Update signal and lane markings at intersection to match Construct a roundabout where the westbound ramps intersect with N- 16th TIP 1-13 SR 11 / 16th Ave Interchange Improvements Interchange SR 12 Ramps / 16th Avenue Avenue Coordinate with 1 13 project j (17-22), Draft BMP $1,$00,000 _ Medium TIP Improve the intersection by constructing larger curb radii, Installing ADA ramps and I-14 16th Ave / Frwtvale Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection upgradingthe traffic signal system(17-22)'� Medium Reconstruct and widen 16th Avenue and Tieton Drive by adding/lengthening left TIP I-25 16th Ave / Tieton Dr intersection Improvements Intersection turn lanes for all movements at the Intersection Upgrade the traffic signal (17-22) LOS $5,800,000 Medium Widen south leg to provide exclusive dual left -turn lanes Project may change based 1-26 16th Ave / Washington Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection on Washington Ave corridor study LOS $280,000 Medium 1-27 Tieton Dr / 5th Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Remov existing traffic signal and construct a roundabout, remove and replace curb, utter, sidewalk, street li hnn and it a TIP 11-2I $1,200,000 Medium A-1 Powerhouse Rd Safety Improvements Powerhouse Rd Cowiche Canyon Rd to Mobile Home Park Access Widen westbound lane to provide a 14-foot wide shared bike lane and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road. TIP (17-22) $245,000 Short A-2 Washington Ave Bike Corridor (64th-24th) Washington Ave. 64th St to 24th St Add low stress bike trail on north side of corridor Draft BMP $2,550,000 Medium A-3 Neches Avenue Sidewalk Pacific Ave to Walnut Ave Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk City $330,000 Medium '.. A-4 4th Street Sidewalk Pacific Ave to Walnut Ave Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk City 531S,000 Medium A-5 Chestnut Avenue Sidewalk 56th Ave to 70th Ave Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road City $448,200 Medium A-6 Mead Avenue Sidewalk Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of the road City $17,000 Medium 27th Ave to 28th Ave 7th Ave to 16th Ave. City A-7 Browne Avenue Sidewalk Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk $336,000 Medium A-8 Mead Avenue Pedestrian Signal 10th Ave to 10th Ave Install pedestrian signal across Mead Avenue north of 10th Avenue City $300,00 Med:um A-9 44th Avenue Sidewalk Viola to Randall Park Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road City $275,000 Medium A-10 Pacific Avenue Sidewalk Fast Avenue to Jail Property Construct sidewalk on both sides of the road where nee_ d_ed_. _ Ciry $300,000 Medium A-11 Fair Avenue Sidewalk Pacific Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Construct vdewalk on the west side of the road City $370,000 Medium A-12 Nob Hill Blvd Sidewalk 12th Street to 14th Street Construct sidewalk an the south side of the road. City $130,000 Medium A-13 SR 12 / 16th Ave Interchange Trail Improvements Interchange 51112 Ramps / 16th Avenue Add two-way cycle track on west side of bridge and corresponding Intersection improvements to complete trail Coordinate with X project TIP 117-221, Draft BMP $150,000 Medium A-14 N 16th Avenue Sidewalk Fruitvale Blvd to River Road Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road. $250,000 Medium A-15 16th Ave Sidewalk Improvements (WashingtonNabHill) 16th Ave Washington Ave to Nob Hill Blvd. install 7-foot sidewalk on the west side of 16th Avenue TIP (17-22) S730,000 Medium A-16 Nob Hill Blvd Sidewalk Improvements (16th-6th) Nob Hill Blvd, 16th Ave to 6th St Construct sidewalk in locations where it doesn't exist on the south side of Nob Hill. (17-21) TIP $1,500,000 Medium Draft BMP A-17 Chestnut Ave/40th Ave Crossing Intersection (crossing east-west) Add intersection treatment to create lower stress bicycle connection $40,000 Medium j Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings; A-18 Yakima Greenway Trail Access (Yakima Ave) Along Yakima Ave, 10th St to 18th St complete trail connection on east end of corridor Coordinate with future Draft BMP $1,340,000 Medium interchange improvements (Project R-37). A-19 Yakima Greenway Trail Access (Nob Hill Shad) Along Nob Hill Blvd, 19th St to 1-82 NB Ramps Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings; complete trail connection on west end of corridor Draft BMP $690,000 Medium Powerhouse Trail Connection (16th Ave) Draft BMP $220,000 A-20 Intersection of 16th Ave/Englewood Ave Add lower stress bike connection between existing Powerhouse Trail endpoints, Medium across intersection TSP Draft A-21 32nd Ave/Lincoln Ave Bike Crossing Intersection Add RRFB for north-south bike crossing $40,000 Medium A-22 88th Ave Reconstruction (Teton-Summitview) 88th AveTieton Dr to Summityiew, Ave Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage system on the east side of 88th Avenue. TIP 17.22 $650,000 Medium Various Streets This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Adams Elementary School and Washington Middle School, such as, constructing sidewalks, improving roadway crossings, installing flashers and installing fencing. TN 117-22) - A-23 Adams ES & Washington MS Safety Improvements $282,000 Short Along 32nd Ave from Mead Ave to Englewood A-24 32nd Ave/34th Ave Bike Corridor Ave, Along 34th Ave Englewood Ave to Fruitvale Add bike boulevard treatments and wayfirding to corridor Draft BMP $M0,000 Medium r- Blvd Along Chestnut Ave 72nd Ave to 24th. Jog north A-25 Chestnut Ave Bike Corridor along 24th, then along Yakima Ave 24th to 14th; Jog along Terrace St, 12th Ave, Chestnut Ave, 11th Ave to Walnute Ave; Along Walnut Ave 11th Ave Add bike boulevard treatments lot bike lanes m wider sections) and wayfinding to orridor Draft SMP $1,220,000 Medium to 5th Ave Along 11th Ave Walnut St to Steward St, Jog along A-26 10th/11th Ave Bike Corridor Steward St Along 10th Ave, Steward St to Add bike lanes or bike boulevard elements along corridor to lower stress Draft BMP $6WA00 Mudtan Washington St Add bike Anes, buffered bike Ones, or widen buffered bike lanes to lower stress Draft BMP $810,000 Mardian A-27 3rd Street Bike Corridor Along 3rd St, l St to Pacific Ave Along Maple St, 3rd St to 13th St Along 13th St, A•28 Maple St/Parks Bike Corridor Maple St to Beech St, Along Beech St, 13th St to Chalmers Rd, Along Chalmers Rd, Beech St to Riverside St, Along Riversidr St, Chalmers Rd to 18th St, Along 18th St, Riverside St to Bike Trail improvement g Intersection crossingt at 6th St, Add bike lanes and wayfinding; Along Beech SI remove yellow centerline and add fog lines to indicate low volume oadway Drag BMP $520,1100 MWkan Connection Pacific/118th St bike Corridor $590,000 Madktm A-29 Along Pacific Ave, 3rd St to 18th St Along 18th St, Pacific Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Add bite lanes by removing parking or removing center median _ Draft BMP Garfield ES Safety Improvements $141,000 Shat A-30 Various Streets - - This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Garfield Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, improving roadway crossini installing flasher= 7 - (17-222) TIP (1722) $270,000 Short A-31 McClure ES Safety Improvements Various Streets This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements m the vicinity of McClure Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, ADA ramps and ri room crosswalks. A-31 McKinley E5 Safety Improvements Various Streets This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of McKinley Elementary School, such as, replacing delapitated sidewalk, constructing ADA ramps, and installing a HAWK pedestrian crossing system TIP (17-22) $480,000 Short _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A-33 Powerhouse Rd Bike Corridor Powerhouse Rd Mobile Home Park Access to 40th Add bike lanes TSP Draft $350,000 Medium Ave A-34 Cowiche Canyon Trail improvements Comche Canyon Powerhouse Rd to Tradhead Construct a 10 -foot wide pathway including two bridges over Cowiche Creek TIP $2,000,000 Short _ __ (17-221_ _ A-35 34th Ave to Greenway Trail Connection Along Frunvale Blvd 34th Ave to 40th Ave Provide cycle track or trail on north side of Fwtvale Blvd to provide low stress bike Draft BMP $190,000 Medium connection between two primarybike corndors. Yakima Ave 16th Ave to Terrace St A-36 Yakima Ave Bike Corridor Connection (16th Terrace) Add short section of cycle track on south side of Yakima (300 feet east of 16th Draft BMP $80,000 Medium Avenue to Terrace St) by removing one eastbound vehicle lane A-37 3rd Avenue Sidewalk Nob Hill Blvd to Walnut Ave Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk $480,000 Medium Study to determine plan for access management and spot Intersection S-1 40th Ave Access Management Plan (SR 12 -Washington) 40th Ave SR 12 to Washington Ave improvements to improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes in $500,000 Medium corridor (17-22) Study to determine plan for access management and spot Intersection S-2 16th Ave Access Management Plan (SR 12 -Washington) 16th Ave SR 12 to Washington Ave Improvements to Improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes In TIP $500,000 Medium corridor (17 221 Study the option of orienting the west end of the Lincoln/MLX couplet south to Summitview, and converting Lincoln Ave (16th to Pierce) to 3lanes with bike lanes Lincoln Avenue 16th Ave [0 5th Ave Pierce Ave Pierce Ave would be widened (to the east) to S lanes between Summrtview Ave and TIP I Lincoln Ave 1, M11 Blvd Realignment Study (Auto and Bike Mobility) Lincoln Ave to Summnwew Ave MLK Blvd Intersection of Summ,tview Ave/Pierce Ave would have dual eastbound (17-22), Draft BMP 5250.000 Medium left -turns and dual southbound right turns Need to Improve both auto and bike east -west mobility m area Study feasibility of convening corridor from 4lanes to 3lanes. Could reduce or 5-4 Washington Ave Corridor Study Washington Ave 16th Ave to 1st St eliminate need for Improvements at 16th St, Longfiber Rd and ht St Increases TSP Draft $150,000 Medium safety along corridor and reduces conflicts at the at -grade railroad crossing North-South Corridor West of 80th Ave Ahtanum Corridor study to determine the best location for a north/south limited access TIP SS West Valley North/South Corridor (Ahtanum-Summrtview) Rd to Summnwew Ave vehicle corridor in West Valley City and Count omt project (17-22) $500,000 Long R-1 H St Extension, Phase 1 (1st -10th) 'H St 1st St to 10th St Construct new 3 -lane roadway including water sewer curb gutter sidewalk, street TIP $5,100,0110 Short lighting and storm drainage system (17-22) R-2 24th Avenue Bike Corridor (Inglewood -Washington) 24th AveInglewood Ave to Washington Ave Convert 4 -lane street to 3 -lane street with bike lanes between Washington and Nob TSP Draft $200,000 Medium Hill Wayfinding throughout corridor R-3 6th Avenue Rehabilitation (Walnut -Rover) 6th Avenue Walnut St to River Rd Reconstruct the existing trolley rail and Impacted roadway, grind and overlay the TIP $4400,000 Medium remaining width of 6th Avenue (17-22) Improve North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, R 4 1st St Rewtahxation Phase 2 (MLK-N St) 1st St MILK Blvd to N' St removing on -street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing TIP $10,000,000 Medium median islands and mstallmg various pedestrian and decorative elements. (17-22) Along Lincoln Ave 5th Ave to 10th St, Along MILK R-5 Linclon/MLK Bike Corridor Blvd 5th Ave to 10th St, Along Fair Ave 10th St to Along Lincoln Ave and MLK Blvd reduce vehicle lanes to 2 and add Draft BMP $500,000 Medium Yakima Ave buffered/protected bike lanes Add signage/markings to completed full corridor Install historic lighting sidewalk modifications and other improvements Exact TIP R-6 Yakima Downtown Future Initiatives Phase 5 Yakima Ave Corridor Area 1st St to 9th St Improvement area(s) to be clto mmed (17-22) $6,000,000 Medium E Replace the bridge on E Yakima Avenue that crosses over 18th Street Consider TIP R 7 Yakima Ave Bridge Replacement (18th Stl Yakima Ave / 18th Street Crossing _ lowering 18th Street to date larger vehicles (17-22) $3,160,000 Medium E R-8 Spring Creek Rd Widening (Washington -36th) Spring Creek Rd Washington Ave to 36th Ave Widen roadway to 3lanes install curb gutter sidewalk and street lights TIP $1,920,000 Short (17-22) 36th Ave Spring Creek Rd to Sorenson Rd $905,000 a R-9 36th Ave Widening (Spring Creek -Sorenson) Widen roadway to 3lanes Install curb gutter sidewalk and street lights 7- Short 2 (17-2 2) x R-30 Sorenson Rd Widening (36th -38th) Sorenson Rd: 36th Ave to 38th Ave Widen roadway imtall curb, gutter sidewalk and street lights $320,000 Short (171 22) Replace existing two-lane bridge over Wide Hollow Creek with three -lane bridge R-11 80th Ave Bridge Widening (Wide Hollow Creek) 80th Ave Wide Hollow Rd to Plath Ave The City's Involvement Is only to pass through of an Ecology grant In conjunction TIP $100,000 Short with the County's flood plain management project (17 22) Replace existing two-lane bridge over Wide Hollow Creek with three -lane bridge R-12 Wide Hollow Rd Bridge Widening (Wide Hollow Creek) Wide Hollow Rd 89th Ave to 88th Ave The City's Involvement Is only to pass through of an Ecology grant In conjunction TIP $100,000 Short with the County's flood plain management project (17 22) 11-13 River Rd Improvements (40th -36th) River Rd 40th Ave to 36th Ave Upgrade road to urban standards and add bike facilities City $1,500,000 Short Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter sidewalk, street lighting and TIP R-14 88th Ave Widening (Tieton-Zler) 88th Ave Tieton Dr to her Rd storm drainage system (17-22) $2,519,000 Medium R-15 66th Ave Widening (Summ twew Scenic) 66th Ave Summnwew Ave to Scenic Dr Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter sidewalk storm TIP (17-22) $1,560,000 Medium drainage system and ut bties Along I St, 6th Ave to 3rd St Draft BMP $4,140,000 Medium R-16 I Street (6th Ave -3rd St) Upgrade street to urban standards by constructing curb, gutter sidewalk and bike lanes Kee at two vehicle lanes, no center vehicle median R-17 64th Ave Widening (Washington -Nob Hill) Stith Ave: Washington Ave to Nob HIII Blvd Widen roadway to three lanes, Install curb, gutter sidewalk, street lighting and TIP $2,081,000 Medium storm drainage system (17-22) Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter sidewalk, street lighting and TIP R-18 Englewood Ave Widening (40th -56th) Englewood Ave 40th Ave to 56th Ave storm drainage system (_17-2.2) $1703,000 Medium Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter sidewalk street R 19 Englewood Ave Widening (24th -40th) and Bike Corridor Connection Englewood Ave 24th Ave to 40th Ave lighting and storm drainage system Install sewer and water lines Add bike lanes to 71P $3,854,000 Medium corridor 117-22), Draft BMP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R-20 Englewood Ave Widening (16th-24th) Englewood Ave: 16th Ave to 24th Ave Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter sidewalk, street lighting and TP $3,411,000 Medium storm drainage system, water and sewer lines. Add bike lanes to corridor 117.22) Medium R-21 48th Avenue Widening (Summitview-Nob Hill) 48th Ave- Summitview Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Reconstruct and wid8th Avenue, install curb, gutter sidewalk, street lighting en 4 TIP $2,575,000 and drainage system. (17-22) $1,660,000 R-22 Nob Hill Widening (40th-48th) Nob Hill Bl yd 40th Ave to 48th Ave Widen corridor to 5lanes TSP Draft Medium R-23 TIP $9,442,000 Nob Hill Blvd Widening (6th-18th) Not, Hill Boulevard 6th St to 18th St Reconstruct and widen roadway to 5lanes with intersection improvements, curb, Medium gutter sidewalk, street lighting and drainage system 117-22) Mead Ave Reconstruction (Rudkin-Fair) Partner with Union Gap to reconstruct E Mead Avenue, install curb, gutter Medium R-24 Mead Ave Rudkin Rd to Fair Ave TIP 52 SS 000 sidewalk and storm drainage system. 117-22) R-2S Rudkin Rd Viola Ave to Rainier PI TP $2,132,000 Rudkin Rd Reconstruction (Viola-Rainier) Reconstruct roadway install curb, gutter sidewalk and storm drainage. Partner Med with Union Gap to install additional sewer force main. (17-22) Improve North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, R-26 1st St Revitalization Phase 11N St-SR 12) 1st St-'N' St to SR 12 removing on-street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing TIP $3,142,000 Short median islands and installing various pedestrian and decorative elements. 117-22) Intersection (Yakima Ave / 6th Ave) Remove and replace a portion of the existing trolley rail in the vicinity of the Short R-27 Yakima Valley Transportation Company Preservation TIP $52,000 intersection of 6th Avenue and Yakima Avenue. (17-22) TIP 5448,185 Short Alleys in area between Folsom Ave, Fruitvale Blvd, Pave the east/west gravel alleys between Folsom Avenue and Fruitvale Bouleyard R-28 Northside Alley Paving 16th Ave, and 6th Ave from 16th Avenue to 6th Avenue. (17-22) _ TSP Draft 5420 000 A-29Lincoln _ _ _ vem Ave Safety Improvements ents (40th-Powerhouse) Lincoln Ave 40th Ave to Powerhouse Rd Convert 4-lane street to 3-lane street with bike lanes. Medium Construct new 5-lane roadway including water sewer, curb, gutter sidewalk, street N-1 Bravo Company Blvd Extension (H-Lincoln) 10th St H' St to Lincoln Ave lighting and storm drainage system Connects new East-West corridor in Mill Site to 7- $6,600,000 Short Lincoln/M1K corridor 117 2 22) N-2 TIP •�•� H St Extension, Phase 2 110th-I 82) 'H' St 10th St to I-82 Construct 5-lane new roadway including water sewer curb, gutter sidewalk, street Short lighting and storm drainage system Creates Mill Site ease west roadway (17-22) N-3 75th Ave Connection (Mead-Nob Hill) 75th Ave Mead Ave to Nab Hill Blvd 7- Medium $1,500,000 (17-22) 2 $25,000,000 N-4 Fruitvale Blvd to H Street Connection (5th-lstl New arterial roadway between Fruitvale Blvd/5th Contruction new arterial roadway to connect the Fruitvale Blvd and H St corridors to 75P DoH long Ave intersection and lit St/H SI intersection provide a continuous east-west corridor RR crossing would be grade separated. N-5 H St Extension, Phase 3 (182-Butterfield) 'H St 1-82 to Butterfield Rd Complete new east-west corridor across the Yakima River to Butterfield Road I1R $50,000,000 Medium Reconstruct/extend off-ramp from existing 1-82 offramp for Lincoln Avenue (Fair Avenue) to vicinity of'G Street (the new east-west corridor). Construct Collector �t Nob Distributer (CD) roads and auxilary lanes along 1-82 Construct new diamond TIP $75,000,000 Medium i r 0-1 1-82 / Yakima Ave Interchange Improvements 1-82 Corridor SR 12 to Hill interchange Mth'H' Street extension Connect'H' Street ramps and Yakima Avenue (17-22) interchange ramps to CO roads. Fair Ave Loop connector convened to limited access one-way road (right-in from Yakima, right—t to Fair Ave) O-Z Ahtanum Road Ahtanum Road from 26th Avenue to 52nd Avenue Reconstru ting and widening roadway to three lanes, with a separated Yakima County TIP $6,560,000 Short bike/ edestrian athwa 01MANC awe '. M e j+ 1A j j• '�` �Ai� _ _ �+•. �+Y. �,'�'''� y �����/��y,.+ 1. ING PRGG ON ,I R - i • - � wl ul _ t1�1 :® M M M M M= M M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 5 Financing Program The multimodal improvement projects and programs provide the blueprint for improving the transportation system to meet existing and future travel demands in and around the City of Yakima The funding and financing assessment presented in this section details the City's transportation financial situation and options This section presents a summary of historical revenues and the estimated costs of the transportation projects and program Key findings include • Both transportation spending and funding have increased substantially over the past 15 years, in both nominal and real terms • The city has been, and is planning to greatly leverage state and federal award sources to accomplish the majority of Its capital transportation spending needs • Maintenance, costs are a growing share of the city's overall transportation expenditures • The majority of new capital spending has been on preservation of existing facilities, as opposed to new facilities • Until recently, the City has not used large shares of local derived taxes to support transportation funding 5.1 Overview of Existing Funding and Expenditures Building the plan first requires an understanding of how local transportation agencies fund their capital and operations needs This analysis provides a financial summary of historical patterns of the sources and uses of transportation activities by the City of Yakima The use of those funds includes (1) administration, maintenance, and operations and (2) capital construction Transportation revenue comes from (1) local, (2) state, and (3) federal sources �F The datasets for expenditures and revenues are pulled from the State of Washington financial reporting system as part of annual reporting of Washington cities. The data have been filtered for transportation activities by WSDOT 5 1.1 Transportation Expenditures The City of Yakima uses their transportation revenues to fund administrative, maintenance, and operations activities, as well as capital improvements Since 2000, transportation expenditures have increased from $6 2 million to $30 3 million in 2014 In this 15 -year period, cumulative transportation expenditures totaled over $200 million $35 0 2 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 —Total (2014$) $o o° ry0° ry0 ,�O° ,�O ,yo Figure 5-1 Total Transportation Expenditures Administration, Maintenance, and Operations Transportation administration, maintenance, and operational spending is directly related to the size of the system and the service expectations established for each community Administration, maintenance, and operations have accounted for almost 40% of total expenditures since 2000, maintenance expenditures alone represent one-third of total expenditures Since 2000, maintenance expenses have grown from $2 6 million to $4 4 million in 2014 Over the same period March 2017 67 March 2017 administration and operations expenses have been relatively flat. w $35 o ■ Traffic Policing 2 $30 0 Plant Maintenance & Construction Debt Service $25 ■ Administration & Operations • Other $20 ■ Maintenance $15 $10 $5 - ---- 00 $0 O° O^ Off' 00 Oa 00 01 01 010 e '�° NN IV f ,yo f ,yo do f f ,yo ,yo yo I o yo yo yo Figure 5-2 Operations and Maintenance Expenditures Capital Construction Construction projects accounted for the majority (54%) of expenditure since 2000 totaling $108 5 million The city has increased its spending on building new facilities and preserving its existing facilities since 2000 However, Yakima's construction spending has varied year to year on a per -project basis, which is related to the ability to fund the project through state and federal grants In addition, the 2014 road bond provides a large one-time spend on facilities City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan y $35 C 0 2 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 10- "hAA $0 ,y0 10 rye 10 ,LO 16 10 1P 1P 110'ry0 ry0 ,ti0 Figure 5-3 Construction Expenditures 51 2 Existing Revenue Sources Since 2000, transportation revenues in Yakima have grown from $7 3 million to $33 9 million in 2014 , $35 C 2 —Total (2014$) $30 —Total (Nominal) $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 O°tx O°y O°6 O°A O°0 O°0 O^O Off^ ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Figure 5-4 Historical Transportation Revenue 68 %r M M M i M M r M M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Total transportation revenues have been variable from year to year. Since 2010, non -bond revenues for the City have averaged $19 0 million a year Local Sources Local sources of transportation revenue primarily fund administration, maintenance, and operational uses Since 2000, local funding accounted for 47% of City transportation revenues Overall, local revenues are more stable and have grown steadily overtime In 2014, the recent road improvement initiative created a large one-time influx of bond revenues of $14 8 million However. property tax revenues have declined from almost $4 0 million in 2000 to $3 1 million in 2014 Figure 5-5 shows the change in local revenues over time More detail on specific local revenue sources is discussed below $35 o • Special Assessment 2 $30 •General Fund $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 00 0� off' 00 od 00 o0 01 00 NN 0 ^b NN yo do yo f do ,yo f ,yo 10 yo do do ,yo ,yo ,yo Figure 5-5 Local Revenue • City general fund. Dollars may be used in numerous ways Yakima has historically contributed some general fund dollars to transportation financing However. general fund dollars are discretionary for transportation spending The primary sources of general fund revenues for the city Include property taxes, sales taxes, business taxes, and utility taxes. City Special Assessments. In the last several years, Yakima increased its use of special assessments for transportation revenue Special assessments include funds received through Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) Although these assessments may be levied by a City, they are applied only to local, clearly-defined areas in which the land owners are expected to benefit from a specific improvement project, rather than to an entire jurisdiction. The assessment comes in the form of an additional real estate property assessment that covers debt service payments on the sale of bonds purchased to finance the project LIDs may be used for transportation projects, but may also be used for water, sewer, and storm sewer facilities • Other Local City Funding. Yakima receives other local revenue from development mitigation fees These fees are collected on individual development projects as part of the permitting process and are calculated to reflect their estimated direct impact on specific public facilities State and Federal Sources State and federal transportation revenues primarily fund capital improvements Until 2014, state and federal support accounted for the largest share of transportation funding for the City (53% of revenues since 2000) Most of the variability from year to year is due to federal and state grants awards for capital projects. as can be seen in Figure 5-6 The City's share of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax is more stable Fuel tax revenues have been declining since 2006, though In 2006 the City received $2.0 million, and in 2014 the City received $1 3 million March 2017 r 69 March 2017 W y $35 o • State Fuel Tax Distnbution $30 • Federal Revenues • Other State Funds $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 ,yo ,�o ,yo ryo ,to pyo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ryo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo Figure 5-6 State and Federal Revenue • State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Funding. The City receives a portion of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVF) based on a reimbursement formula State Grant Funding. Grants are an important funding source for transportation capital projects, however, these funds are distributed in a competitive process making it difficult to determine future grant funding levels State grants are largely funded through a portion of the fuel tax revenue not distributed to jurisdictions, and are therefore affected by the diminishing funds Federal Funding Sources As previously discussed, grant funding is difficult to project because it is awarded on a competitive basis Federal transportation grants are funded through the federal portion of the Fuel Excise Tax The federal gas tax rate has fluctuated between $0 184 and $0 183 per gallon since 1994 The majority of these funds are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and disbursed to the states through the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Development -based Transportation Contributions In addition, the City uses several non -tax based programs to help offset the increased traffic impacts of new development or redevelopment These include construction of frontage improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks, with or without dedication of right-of-way, and new roadways needed to serve the development The City is also required to review the potential transportation impacts of development and define appropriate mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and GMA concurrency requirements In addition, the City previously adopted a Transportation Impact Fee program as allowed for by the GMA to help fund growth -related transportation system improvements r .. M M M M M M M M .. M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 5.2 Estimated Project and Programs Cost Table 5-1 summarizes the costs of the recommended transportation improvement projects and programs Identified for the 2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) The costs are summarized for the short-range (2015-2020), medium - range (2021-2030), and long-range (2031-2040) time periods based on the project timelines The cost summary includes projects identified within the City of Yakima's jurisdiction The project and program costs are presented in constant 2015 dollars. Planning level cost estimates were developed for the capital improvements presented in the Transportation Systems Plan section of the Transportation Element. Cost estimates were prepared based upon average unit costs for recent transportation projects within the City They include estimates for engineering design, right-of-way, and construction costs More detailed costs of individual projects will be developed as the Improvements are programmed for design and implementation The final costs will fluctuate from the planning level estimates, but the planning level estimates provide a reasonable basis for the financing plan of the Transportation Element Table 5-1 Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015$) Overall, the full list of projects and programs the City has funding responsibility for total more than $256.3 million over the next 25 years Short-range cost total $28 2 million, dust over 11 percent of the total costs Medium -range projects account for a large share costs with an estimated $148 7 million in costs (58 percent) New roadway and roadway Improvements represent most of these costs Long-range costs account for almost $80 0 million, or 31 percent of total project and program costs Of the total project costs across all time frames, roadway and intersection Improvements account for $148 3 New construction projects, which primarily include new roadways and active transportation projects, total $106 2 million A number of various proposed studies total $1 9 million. Other projects under the jurisdiction or lead of WSDOT or Yakima County would be needed as part of this plan but are not included in the City's financial analysis These "Other Agency" projects are estimated to cost over $81 5 million. The City supports these projects, and the completion of these projects would have impacts on the City's transportation system However, the costs of these projects aren't considered as being part of the City's responsibility 5.3 Financial Outlook Transportation infrastructure funding is challenge due to the dependence on competitive grants and variability in project costs and timing Yakima will have to address these challenges in order to fund the TSP's projects in the time frame they are needed The City broadly has two strategies for funding projects in the TSP, (1) pay as you go (e.g , funding), and (2) financing (e g , borrowing) Funding is the ultimate source of revenue for infrastructure costs, such as property taxes or fuel taxes Financing is when funds for projects are borrowed and paid back over time, such as through a general obligation bond Future revenues are the used to pay the debt service of that bond. The City has used both options in the past. In addition, the City has been successful using local funds to leverage state and local grants to fund those projects All these strategies will likely be necessary In the future to meet the City's funding needs. In aggregate, future transportation project costs are similar to the City's recent experience Over the last 15 years the March 2017 71 Time[Trame Category 91ort Medium long Total Cost NewMoadway $9,600,000 $51,500,000 $25,000,000 $86,100,000 Roadwayamprovements $13,587185 $61915,000 $0 $75,502,185 IntersectionUmprovements $1,587898 $17159,000 $54,000,000 $72,746,898 Actrve(Transportation $3,418,000 $16,701,200 $0 $20,119,200 Study $0 $1,400,000 $500,000 $1900,000 Total $28193,083 $148,675,200 $79500,000 $256,368,283 Table 5-1 Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015$) Overall, the full list of projects and programs the City has funding responsibility for total more than $256.3 million over the next 25 years Short-range cost total $28 2 million, dust over 11 percent of the total costs Medium -range projects account for a large share costs with an estimated $148 7 million in costs (58 percent) New roadway and roadway Improvements represent most of these costs Long-range costs account for almost $80 0 million, or 31 percent of total project and program costs Of the total project costs across all time frames, roadway and intersection Improvements account for $148 3 New construction projects, which primarily include new roadways and active transportation projects, total $106 2 million A number of various proposed studies total $1 9 million. Other projects under the jurisdiction or lead of WSDOT or Yakima County would be needed as part of this plan but are not included in the City's financial analysis These "Other Agency" projects are estimated to cost over $81 5 million. The City supports these projects, and the completion of these projects would have impacts on the City's transportation system However, the costs of these projects aren't considered as being part of the City's responsibility 5.3 Financial Outlook Transportation infrastructure funding is challenge due to the dependence on competitive grants and variability in project costs and timing Yakima will have to address these challenges in order to fund the TSP's projects in the time frame they are needed The City broadly has two strategies for funding projects in the TSP, (1) pay as you go (e.g , funding), and (2) financing (e g , borrowing) Funding is the ultimate source of revenue for infrastructure costs, such as property taxes or fuel taxes Financing is when funds for projects are borrowed and paid back over time, such as through a general obligation bond Future revenues are the used to pay the debt service of that bond. The City has used both options in the past. In addition, the City has been successful using local funds to leverage state and local grants to fund those projects All these strategies will likely be necessary In the future to meet the City's funding needs. In aggregate, future transportation project costs are similar to the City's recent experience Over the last 15 years the March 2017 71 March 2017 City has spent more than $200 million on transportation projects The proposed TSP estimates $177 million in costs over the first 15 years of the plan However, the alignment of costs and revenues will dependent on whether the project is a maintenance project, likely funded through local sources, or a new construction project, likely funded by state and federal grants 5 3 1 Administration, Maintenance, and Operations Financial Outlook Funding for administration, maintenance, and operational needs will likely be a challenge for the City over the next 25 years Since 2000 the City realized $121 7 million in local and state motor vehicle fuel tax revenues, which funds the City's transportation administration, maintenance, and operational needs Property tax revenues and the City's share of the motor vehicle fuel tax, which are declining, accounted for largest share of these revenues generating $80 5 million (66%) Over the same period administration, maintenance, and operational expenditures have been increasing This trend is likely to continue over the next 25 years As a result, the City will likely have to find new revenue sources to supplement existing sources The source of these funds will mostly likely have to come from local sources beyond MVET distributions 5 3 2 Capital Financial Outlook Funding new construction projects will also be a challenge for the City While estimated future construction expenditures of are generally in line with recent averages, there are still transportation funding challenges the City will have to address One specific challenge is how lumpy capital project costs are, which is illustrated in Figure 5-3 Revenues for projects may not be in hand when the costs occur This may be particularly an issue from 2021 to 2030 (medium -range), which has the vast share of the project and program costs over the next 18 years 72 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan Since 2010, the City has received $85 9 million in state and federal transportation revenue, not including the City's share of the motor vehicle fuel tax Maintaining this level of revenue will be dependent on the City successfully securing state and/or federal grants for capital projects The City may also consider financing projects if it is unable to receive grant funding or needs to make improvements before funds are available However, the debt service for the bonds come from local funding source, which underscores the importance of finding new local revenue sources The next sections provide assessments of individual existing funding sources and identifies potential new funding sources the City can consider to address any future funding challenges 5 3 3 Existing Revenue Sources Existing funding sources will continue to compose a substantial portion of the City's transportation funding into the future However, a number of current revenue sources are likely to be a declining revenue source for the City, specifically property tax revenue and motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues Thus, other funding sources and may have to compose a larger share of revenues in the future Local Tax Revenues The existing tax revenues used by the City will need to be maintained as one source of revenue to fund transportation projects and programs The majority of the General Fund allocation is anticipated to be used for maintenance, and to provide the matching funds for grants or to complete a portion of the improvement projects not covered by other funding sources In addition, property taxes compose a sizable portion of the City's General Fund revenues State law caps growth in property tax to one percent annually, which causes property tax dollars to decrease on an inflation-adjusted basis, decreasing the overall available general funds r M ' =11 = M M M M ' M I♦ M M = = M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan State Funding Sources For the City, motor vehicle fuel tax distributions from the state have decreased slightly since 2000 In addition, state grants are may be more competitive as more jurisdictions compete due to their own decreases in funds. There have, recent years, been increases in the state fuel tax rate. though many of these additional funds were earmarked for specific large projects growth The City previously had a transportation impact fee and represents potential source for new local revenues However, the fees can only be used to help fund improvements that are needed to serve new growth The in cost of projects needed to resolve existing deficiencies cannot be included Federal Funding Sources Federal grant funding is typically tied to specific improvement projects and distributed on a competitive basis, often with a local funding match Ultimately, competitiveness for federal funds depends on the specific programs that exist at the time and its priorities and criteria. as well as other projects also submitted Developer Mitigation and Requirements The City has adopted specific development -related requirements which will help fund the identified improvements. These include requirements for frontage improvements, mitigation of transportation impacts under SEPA, and concurrency requirements Several of the projects identified in the Transportation Plan could be partially funded and constructed as part of new developments Given scarce public funding sources, development will likely bear a larger share of costs going forward 5 3 4 Additional Funding Options and Tools The City can increase funding for capital street projects using a range of revenue options These include partnering with other agencies, tapping new revenue sources, or pursuing additional grants as available Transportation Impact Fees The GMA allows agencies to develop and implement a transportation impact fee program to help fund part of the costs of transportation facilities needed to accommodate Tax Increment Financing Washington State allows cities to create "increment areas that allows for the financing of public improvements. including transportation projects within the area by using increased future revenues from local property taxes generated within the area The specific rules and requirements are noted in the Community Revitalization Financing (CRF) Act The City also has a Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) award that it has not utilized This is a potential tool for the City to pursue for specific projects The City would have to include these projects as part of its annual budget and six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) processes to be eligible Voter Approved Bond/Tax Package Bonds do not result in additional revenue unless coupled with a revenue generating mechanism, such as a voter approved tax The debt service on the bonds results in increased costs that can be paid with the additional tax revenues Although the City does not anticipate issuing bonds in the near future, it remains an option for generating additional transportation revenues to fund some of the higher cost improvement projects Local Improvement Districts A local improvement district (LID) is a special assessment area established by a jurisdiction to help fund specific improvements that would benefit properties within the district. LIDs could be formed to construct sidewalks, upgrade streets, improve drainage or other similar types of projects An LID may be in residential, commercial, or March 2017 r 73 March 2017 industrial areas or combinations depending on the needs and benefits LIDs can be proposed either by the City or by property owners LIDs must be formed by a specific process which establishes the improvements, their costs, and assessments The assessments are added to the property tax that helps to spread the costs over time Transportation Benefit District A transportation benefit district (TBD) is authorized to impose a vehicle license fee, sales and use tax, development fees, or vehicle tolls for construction and operation of improvements to county roadways The TBD may be used for the reconstruction and upgrade of existing facilities, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements, or other regionally significant projects The City previously considered implementing a TBD before issuing the road bond, and it remains an option in the future if an additional local funding source is needed 74 City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan r M M i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan 5.4 Reassessment Strategy Although the Financial Outlook section identifies the potential need for additional revenue sources or financing approaches to cover the project costs over the life of the Plan, the City is committed to reassessing their transportation needs and funding sources each year as part of its six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) This allows the City to match the financing program with the short-range improvement projects and funding Some lower priority improvements may be deferred or removed from the Transportation Plan The City will use the annual update of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to re-evaluate priorities and timing of projects and need for alternative funding programs Throughout the planning period, projects will be completed and priorities revised This will be accomplished by annually reviewing traffic growth and the location and intensity of land use growth in the City and its UGA The City will then be able to direct funding to areas that are most impacted by growth or to roadways that may be falling below the City's level of service standards The development of the TIP will be an ongoing process over the life of the Plan and will be reviewed and amended annually In order to implement the Transportation Plan, the City will consider the following principals in its transportation funding program • Balance improvement costs with available revenues as part of the annual six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), • Review project design standards to determine whether costs could be reduced through reasonable changes in scope or deviations from design standards, • Fund improvements or require developer improvements as they become necessary to maintain LOS standards, • Explore ways to obtain more developer contributions to fund improvements, • Coordinate and partner with WSDOT, Yakima County, and others to implement improvements to state owned facilities, • Vigorously pursue grant funds from state and federal sources, • Work with Yakima County to develop multiagency grant applications for projects that serve growth in the City and its UGA, • Evaluate a transportation impact fee program to fund capital improvement project list; • The City could consider changes in its level of service standards and/or limit the growth potential in the City and its UGA as part of future updates to its Comprehensive Plan March 2017 !" 75 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 3. Historical and Projected CBD Improvement Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ 100 K 1 90 K I I 80 K 1 70 K 1 1 60 K 1 1 50 K 1 1 1 40 K 30 K 1 20 K 1 1 1 10K 1 1 0 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 4 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 C')cn Ann $1,220,000 $1,470,000 CBD Capital Improvement: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 5 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for CBD Improvement capital projects over the planning period Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $2,200 in its CBD Improvements Capital Fund. These funds are also available to cover CBD capital projects during the 2017 — 2040 period The CBD Capital Improvement Fund will focus largely on the construction of the Downtown Plaza and other minor services. In 2018, work is expected to begin on the $10 million plaza A $9 million LTGO bond will be secured for its construction and will be paid back with $9 million in community donations Exhibit 5. Estimated Revenues $250,000 $1,220,000 $1,470,000 $1,480,000 ' Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was almost ' $500,000 in grant revenues and contributions for CBD Improvement capital spending The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future. ' CBD Capital Improvement- Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison IDRAFT, March 2016 8