SR 302 Corridor Study
SR 302 Corridor Study Elgin-Clifton Rd to SR 16
NEPA Environmental Scoping Key Peninsula Light Conference Room January 12, 2009
Paula Hammond
Kevin Dayton
Secretary of Transportation
Olympic Region Administrator
Olympic Region Planning Office
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background
3
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background Study Area SR 302 Route – from SR 3 Mason County to SR 16 in Pierce County SR 302 Study – from Elgin Clifton Rd to SR 16 in Pierce/Kitsap County
Location Map
4
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background 4 Miles
Study Area
The SR 302 study corridor is an Urban Arterial serving Key Peninsula and making connections to Mason County and Puget Sound.
To Kitsap County/ Bremerton To Mason County/ Olympic Peninsula
Mason County Key Peninsula
To Central Puget Sound
A 1993 study identified a number of alternatives to consider in addressing long term needs on SR 302.
Proposed Alternatives, 1993
5
SR 302 Corridor Study
Most SR 302 traffic is bound for Gig Harbor, Tacoma Narrows, and beyond
Study Background Traffic Patterns An Analysis of Origins and Destinations at Purdy Bridge
Spruce Rd
Traffic flow location
Burley
Kitsap
% of Purdy Bridge traffic
Horseshoe Lake
18%
Pierce •PM peak period used for analysis •Assume Purdy Bridge is 100% trips •split 70/30 south/north at SR 16 •About 1/4 of trips cross the TNB •split 50/50 west/south at KPH •2/3 of trips have destinations west and south of the KPH intersection •About 1/10 of trips are based in Mason County
SR 16 Spur End Study
Pine Rd
LEGEND
33%
Burley-Olalla Interchange (2010)
Port Orchard Airport
30% 80%
To Mason County
144th St 100%
65%
10%
Burley Lagoon Purdy
33% Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
33%
Henderson Inlet SR 16 End Study
Key Center
Source: SR 302 Corridor Travel Model
70%
Burnham Dr Interchange
Tacoma Narrows Bridge is 27%
6
SR 302 Corridor Study
The population will continue to increase in the area served by SR 302
Study Background Population Growth
2000-2035 45% Increase 50,000 45,000
Purdy / Rosedale / Arletta
40,000
Key Peninsula
35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000
2010
2020
2030
2035
PSRC Population Estimates 2000 – 2035 Source: PSRC - 2006 Forecasts of Population, Households, and Employment
Note: The most recent (2007) PSRC estimates in these FAZ ‘s already exceed 2010 forecast.
7
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background Level of Service (LOS)
HCM Class I – arterial carrying daily commute trips (HCM Chap 12) Along the Highway LOS is based on : % time spent following and avg. travel speed LOS
PTSF
ATS
A
< 35
> 55
B
35 - 50
50 - 55
C
50 - 65
45 - 50
D
65 - 80
40 - 45
E
> 80
< 40
At Intersections the LOS is based on : Average delay to vehicles LOS
Delay (s)
A
< 10
B
10 - 20
C
20 - 35
D
35 - 55
E
55 - 80
Source: PSRC – Adopted LOS Standards for non-NHS Regionally Significant Highways (October 30, 2003)
8
SR 302 Corridor Study
Purpose and Need
Improve safety Level of service Reduce travel time Accommodate non-motorized
9
SR 302 Corridor Study
To increase the level of safety for all travelers who use the route.
Purpose and Need Improve Safety
SR 302 Average for study corridor (MP 10.55 to MP 16.87)
5 4.5
Need related to . . .
4 3.5 3
Statewide Average (2006)
2.5
• Collision rate above
statewide average
2 1.5 1 MP 11-12
• Collisions are generally increasing over time
MP 12-13
MP 13-14
MP 14-15
MP 15-16
MP 16-17
Annual collisions rate (per MVMT*) for 2002-2006.
SR 302 Average for entire route (MP 0.00 to MP 16.87)
• Long waits at intersections during the peak hour
Does not include Key Pen Hwy intersection
•Reduced shoulder widths restrict their usefulness
Serious collisions include injury and fatal only
*million vehicles miles traveled
10
SR 302 Corridor Study
To improve peak hour travel time
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility 24 veh-hrs of delay (compared to free flow)
40% increase in travel time
Day 1
Average peak hour travel time
Free flow travel time
11 veh-hrs of delay (compared to free flow)
Day 2
(A 10% decrease in volume)
40% decrease in times above average travel time
100% decrease in veh-hrs of delay (compared to freeflow)
11
SR 302 Corridor Study
To meet or exceed Level of Service standards in the design year.
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility
SR 16 Spur End Study
Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
Purdy
SR 16 End Study
2007 Intersection and Highway LOS is already below the LOS D threshold throughout the corridor during the PM peak period
12
SR 302 Corridor Study
To meet or exceed Level of Service standards in the design year.
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility
Signal to be installed
SR 16 Spur End Study
Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
Purdy F
No plans at this time SR 16 End Study Existing signal
2035 Intersection and Highway LOS remains below the LOS D threshold throughout the corridor during the PM peak period.
13
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives
14
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives Alternatives Development / Public Involvement Date
Activity
Meeting Purpose
September 25, 2007
Public meeting on study goals and community concerns
December 4 and 6, 2007
Public meeting on alternatives Feedback on alternatives, and environment purpose and need
February 19, 2008
Discussion about logical termini rationale with FHWA
To confirm logical termini at Key Pen Hwy and SR 16
September 26, 2008
WSDOT Level 1 screening
To weight criteria and score alternatives
October 20, 2008 (Level 1) December 9, 2008 (Level 2)
Advisory Committee Level 1 & To provide weighting for Level 2 screening criteria criteria as part of analysis
October 27 and 29, 2008
Review results from Level 1 alternative screening
To provide input/confirm Level 1 decision
January 7, 2009
WSDOT Level 2 screening
To weight criteria and score alternatives
15
To develop/verify the broad range of alternatives
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives Location and Description
Alt 4 (Bridge) Direct route across Burley Lagoon
Burley
Burley
Alt 10 (Bridge) Shortest span across Burley Lagoon*
Kitsap Pierce
Alt 6 (Land) New route through Burley Alt 7 (Land) Existing county roads
Purdy
Purdy
Wauna
No Action Use existing route throughout
*Besides existing bridge 16
SR 302 Corridor Study
Advisory Committee
Project Schedule
Alternatives Screening Public Meeting
1/2 to 2/13 Scoping Period
17
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues
18
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues
Archeology/Cultural Section 4(f) Agriculture/Land Use Relocation/Social/Environmental Justice Wetlands/Wildlife/Terrestrial Habitat Fish/Surface Water/Aquatic Habitat Traffic Community Input
19
SR 302 Corridor Study
Historical/Cultural
Burley Village
118th Ave
94th Ave
Purdy Br
20
Burley Lagoon
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Parks Potential Impacts 4(f) Resource
4
6
7
10
Horseshoe Lake
No
No
No
No
Purdy Spit Park
No
No
No
No
Peninsula Recreation
R/W
No
No
No
Lake Cushman Trl*
R/W
No
No
No
No
R/W
No
R/W
Horseshoe 360* * Potential resources
21
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Land Use
22
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Land Use Rank by estimated acres impacted* Agriculture
Commercial
Public
Rural Farm
Rural Sensitive
Residential
Alternative 4
1
4
4
2
1
3
Alternative 6
4
3
1
4
3
2
Alternative 7
3
1
1
1
2
4
Alternative 10
2
3
1
3
4
1
Alternative Avg. < 2.4*
Rank by estimated acres impacted* Avg Rank
Total Area
Alternative 4
3
3
Alternative 6
4
2
Alternative 7
1
4
Alternative 10
2
1
23
* 2.4 is the average rank
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Social Relocations* Estimated Relocations
30
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10
Income** Est. Income by Tract
< 55K
> 55K
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10 * 30 is average alt. estimate **55K is weighted avg. estimate
24
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Wetlands
6
Estimated Rank
7
Alternative 4
3
Alternative 6
1
Alternative 7
4
Alternative 10
2
1 0
4
25
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat Habitat Impact Estimated Rank Alternative 4
1
Alternative 6
3
Alternative 7
4
Alternative 10
2
Wildlife Species of Concern Bald Eagle
WA Priority Species Great Blue Heron Mountain Quail
26
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Surface Water Est. Impervious (acre)* 55
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10 * 55 is average est. acreage
Est. Stream crossings** 9
Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Exactly 9
Alternative 7 Alternative 10 ** 9 is average # of crossings
27
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Marine Resources
Bridge Impact Mi*
Ac
Alternative 4
0.35
7.2
Alternative 6
0.0
0.0
Alternative 7
0.0
0.0
Alternative 10
0.15
2.8
* to the nearest 0.05 mi.
28
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Community Involvement
New Bridge
Thru Burley
29
Existing
SR 302 Corridor Study
Traffic
Travel Time Level of Service
30
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Travel Time
Average Travel Time
Rank
2
3
4
1
* Times estimated using non-simulation models
31
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
Alternative 4 – PM Peak Period LOS*
* LOS estimated using non-simulation models
32
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 6 - PM Peak Period LOS* 33
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 7 - PM Peak Period LOS* 34
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 10 - PM Peak Period LOS*
35
SR 302 Corridor Study
Agency Coordination Project Coordination Plan Cooperating Agencies . . . Lead Agencies •FHWA and WSDOT
. . . (have) jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative.
Cooperating Agencies
Cooperating Agencies . . .
•Department of Arch and Historic Preservation •Pierce and Kitsap Counties
. . . have a higher degree of authority, responsibility, and involvement in the environmental review process.
•USCOE, Fish & Wildlife, NMFS – in process Cooperating Agencies . . . Participating Agencies •WDFW, Key Pen Parks, Pierce County Parks •City of Gig Harbor •Nisqually, Puyallup, Skokomish, Squaxin – in process (Jamestown, Lower Elwha will defer) •US EPA – in process
. . . assume on request of the lead agency responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of the environmental impact statement. Participating Agencies . . . . . . participate at the earliest possible time, identify issues of concern, provide timely input, and participate in scoping
36
SR 302 Corridor Study
NEPA Scoping 2009 January
February
March Scoping report March 2009
Scoping period ends Feb 13 Agency and public meeting Jan 12
NOI published Jan 2 •Phase 2 scope of work due Feb 15 •Confirm Phase 2 budget and schedule •Assuming budget and schedule . . . •Phase 2 (DEIS) begins July 2009 •DEIS summer 2010 37
SR 302 Corridor Study
NEPA Environmental Scoping Key Peninsula Light Conference Room January 12, 2009
Paula Hammond
Kevin Dayton
Secretary of Transportation
Olympic Region Administrator
Olympic Region Planning Office
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background
3
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background Study Area SR 302 Route – from SR 3 Mason County to SR 16 in Pierce County SR 302 Study – from Elgin Clifton Rd to SR 16 in Pierce/Kitsap County
Location Map
4
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background 4 Miles
Study Area
The SR 302 study corridor is an Urban Arterial serving Key Peninsula and making connections to Mason County and Puget Sound.
To Kitsap County/ Bremerton To Mason County/ Olympic Peninsula
Mason County Key Peninsula
To Central Puget Sound
A 1993 study identified a number of alternatives to consider in addressing long term needs on SR 302.
Proposed Alternatives, 1993
5
SR 302 Corridor Study
Most SR 302 traffic is bound for Gig Harbor, Tacoma Narrows, and beyond
Study Background Traffic Patterns An Analysis of Origins and Destinations at Purdy Bridge
Spruce Rd
Traffic flow location
Burley
Kitsap
% of Purdy Bridge traffic
Horseshoe Lake
18%
Pierce •PM peak period used for analysis •Assume Purdy Bridge is 100% trips •split 70/30 south/north at SR 16 •About 1/4 of trips cross the TNB •split 50/50 west/south at KPH •2/3 of trips have destinations west and south of the KPH intersection •About 1/10 of trips are based in Mason County
SR 16 Spur End Study
Pine Rd
LEGEND
33%
Burley-Olalla Interchange (2010)
Port Orchard Airport
30% 80%
To Mason County
144th St 100%
65%
10%
Burley Lagoon Purdy
33% Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
33%
Henderson Inlet SR 16 End Study
Key Center
Source: SR 302 Corridor Travel Model
70%
Burnham Dr Interchange
Tacoma Narrows Bridge is 27%
6
SR 302 Corridor Study
The population will continue to increase in the area served by SR 302
Study Background Population Growth
2000-2035 45% Increase 50,000 45,000
Purdy / Rosedale / Arletta
40,000
Key Peninsula
35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000
2010
2020
2030
2035
PSRC Population Estimates 2000 – 2035 Source: PSRC - 2006 Forecasts of Population, Households, and Employment
Note: The most recent (2007) PSRC estimates in these FAZ ‘s already exceed 2010 forecast.
7
SR 302 Corridor Study
Study Background Level of Service (LOS)
HCM Class I – arterial carrying daily commute trips (HCM Chap 12) Along the Highway LOS is based on : % time spent following and avg. travel speed LOS
PTSF
ATS
A
< 35
> 55
B
35 - 50
50 - 55
C
50 - 65
45 - 50
D
65 - 80
40 - 45
E
> 80
< 40
At Intersections the LOS is based on : Average delay to vehicles LOS
Delay (s)
A
< 10
B
10 - 20
C
20 - 35
D
35 - 55
E
55 - 80
Source: PSRC – Adopted LOS Standards for non-NHS Regionally Significant Highways (October 30, 2003)
8
SR 302 Corridor Study
Purpose and Need
Improve safety Level of service Reduce travel time Accommodate non-motorized
9
SR 302 Corridor Study
To increase the level of safety for all travelers who use the route.
Purpose and Need Improve Safety
SR 302 Average for study corridor (MP 10.55 to MP 16.87)
5 4.5
Need related to . . .
4 3.5 3
Statewide Average (2006)
2.5
• Collision rate above
statewide average
2 1.5 1 MP 11-12
• Collisions are generally increasing over time
MP 12-13
MP 13-14
MP 14-15
MP 15-16
MP 16-17
Annual collisions rate (per MVMT*) for 2002-2006.
SR 302 Average for entire route (MP 0.00 to MP 16.87)
• Long waits at intersections during the peak hour
Does not include Key Pen Hwy intersection
•Reduced shoulder widths restrict their usefulness
Serious collisions include injury and fatal only
*million vehicles miles traveled
10
SR 302 Corridor Study
To improve peak hour travel time
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility 24 veh-hrs of delay (compared to free flow)
40% increase in travel time
Day 1
Average peak hour travel time
Free flow travel time
11 veh-hrs of delay (compared to free flow)
Day 2
(A 10% decrease in volume)
40% decrease in times above average travel time
100% decrease in veh-hrs of delay (compared to freeflow)
11
SR 302 Corridor Study
To meet or exceed Level of Service standards in the design year.
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility
SR 16 Spur End Study
Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
Purdy
SR 16 End Study
2007 Intersection and Highway LOS is already below the LOS D threshold throughout the corridor during the PM peak period
12
SR 302 Corridor Study
To meet or exceed Level of Service standards in the design year.
Purpose and Need Improve Mobility
Signal to be installed
SR 16 Spur End Study
Key Peninsula Highway (KPH) Begin Study
Purdy F
No plans at this time SR 16 End Study Existing signal
2035 Intersection and Highway LOS remains below the LOS D threshold throughout the corridor during the PM peak period.
13
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives
14
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives Alternatives Development / Public Involvement Date
Activity
Meeting Purpose
September 25, 2007
Public meeting on study goals and community concerns
December 4 and 6, 2007
Public meeting on alternatives Feedback on alternatives, and environment purpose and need
February 19, 2008
Discussion about logical termini rationale with FHWA
To confirm logical termini at Key Pen Hwy and SR 16
September 26, 2008
WSDOT Level 1 screening
To weight criteria and score alternatives
October 20, 2008 (Level 1) December 9, 2008 (Level 2)
Advisory Committee Level 1 & To provide weighting for Level 2 screening criteria criteria as part of analysis
October 27 and 29, 2008
Review results from Level 1 alternative screening
To provide input/confirm Level 1 decision
January 7, 2009
WSDOT Level 2 screening
To weight criteria and score alternatives
15
To develop/verify the broad range of alternatives
SR 302 Corridor Study
Range of Alternatives Location and Description
Alt 4 (Bridge) Direct route across Burley Lagoon
Burley
Burley
Alt 10 (Bridge) Shortest span across Burley Lagoon*
Kitsap Pierce
Alt 6 (Land) New route through Burley Alt 7 (Land) Existing county roads
Purdy
Purdy
Wauna
No Action Use existing route throughout
*Besides existing bridge 16
SR 302 Corridor Study
Advisory Committee
Project Schedule
Alternatives Screening Public Meeting
1/2 to 2/13 Scoping Period
17
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues
18
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues
Archeology/Cultural Section 4(f) Agriculture/Land Use Relocation/Social/Environmental Justice Wetlands/Wildlife/Terrestrial Habitat Fish/Surface Water/Aquatic Habitat Traffic Community Input
19
SR 302 Corridor Study
Historical/Cultural
Burley Village
118th Ave
94th Ave
Purdy Br
20
Burley Lagoon
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Parks Potential Impacts 4(f) Resource
4
6
7
10
Horseshoe Lake
No
No
No
No
Purdy Spit Park
No
No
No
No
Peninsula Recreation
R/W
No
No
No
Lake Cushman Trl*
R/W
No
No
No
No
R/W
No
R/W
Horseshoe 360* * Potential resources
21
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Land Use
22
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Land Use Rank by estimated acres impacted* Agriculture
Commercial
Public
Rural Farm
Rural Sensitive
Residential
Alternative 4
1
4
4
2
1
3
Alternative 6
4
3
1
4
3
2
Alternative 7
3
1
1
1
2
4
Alternative 10
2
3
1
3
4
1
Alternative Avg. < 2.4*
Rank by estimated acres impacted* Avg Rank
Total Area
Alternative 4
3
3
Alternative 6
4
2
Alternative 7
1
4
Alternative 10
2
1
23
* 2.4 is the average rank
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Social Relocations* Estimated Relocations
30
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10
Income** Est. Income by Tract
< 55K
> 55K
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10 * 30 is average alt. estimate **55K is weighted avg. estimate
24
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Wetlands
6
Estimated Rank
7
Alternative 4
3
Alternative 6
1
Alternative 7
4
Alternative 10
2
1 0
4
25
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat Habitat Impact Estimated Rank Alternative 4
1
Alternative 6
3
Alternative 7
4
Alternative 10
2
Wildlife Species of Concern Bald Eagle
WA Priority Species Great Blue Heron Mountain Quail
26
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Surface Water Est. Impervious (acre)* 55
Alternative 4 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 10 * 55 is average est. acreage
Est. Stream crossings** 9
Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Exactly 9
Alternative 7 Alternative 10 ** 9 is average # of crossings
27
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Marine Resources
Bridge Impact Mi*
Ac
Alternative 4
0.35
7.2
Alternative 6
0.0
0.0
Alternative 7
0.0
0.0
Alternative 10
0.15
2.8
* to the nearest 0.05 mi.
28
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Community Involvement
New Bridge
Thru Burley
29
Existing
SR 302 Corridor Study
Traffic
Travel Time Level of Service
30
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Travel Time
Average Travel Time
Rank
2
3
4
1
* Times estimated using non-simulation models
31
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
Alternative 4 – PM Peak Period LOS*
* LOS estimated using non-simulation models
32
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 6 - PM Peak Period LOS* 33
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 7 - PM Peak Period LOS* 34
SR 302 Corridor Study
Environmental Issues Traffic – Level of Service (LOS)
* LOS estimated using nonsimulation models
Alternative 10 - PM Peak Period LOS*
35
SR 302 Corridor Study
Agency Coordination Project Coordination Plan Cooperating Agencies . . . Lead Agencies •FHWA and WSDOT
. . . (have) jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative.
Cooperating Agencies
Cooperating Agencies . . .
•Department of Arch and Historic Preservation •Pierce and Kitsap Counties
. . . have a higher degree of authority, responsibility, and involvement in the environmental review process.
•USCOE, Fish & Wildlife, NMFS – in process Cooperating Agencies . . . Participating Agencies •WDFW, Key Pen Parks, Pierce County Parks •City of Gig Harbor •Nisqually, Puyallup, Skokomish, Squaxin – in process (Jamestown, Lower Elwha will defer) •US EPA – in process
. . . assume on request of the lead agency responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of the environmental impact statement. Participating Agencies . . . . . . participate at the earliest possible time, identify issues of concern, provide timely input, and participate in scoping
36
SR 302 Corridor Study
NEPA Scoping 2009 January
February
March Scoping report March 2009
Scoping period ends Feb 13 Agency and public meeting Jan 12
NOI published Jan 2 •Phase 2 scope of work due Feb 15 •Confirm Phase 2 budget and schedule •Assuming budget and schedule . . . •Phase 2 (DEIS) begins July 2009 •DEIS summer 2010 37
SR 302 Corridor Study
