HomeMy WebLinkAbout1014~--------r-----------------------------------,.--~------------
/ _1. /1
~,' .__
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington adopting the City of Kent
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has experienced a dramatic
increase in economic and population growth in the past decade,
resulting in strain-s on its transportation system; and the area
surrounding the City has grown as well, and traffic passing
through Kent to get to major freeways has had a significant impact
on the City's road system; and this increase in traffic needs,
coupled with the recent decline in available funding programs, has
required the City to thoroughly evaluate existing problems and
find possible solutions in order to adequately prepare for the
future; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Wilsey and Ham was
retained in 1981 by the Department of Public Works to prepare a -report analyzing the transportation system, to project needs
caused from growth until the year 2000, and to recommend a
Comprehensive Transportation Plan to guide the City; and
WHEREAS, a Citizen's Advisory Committee was formed with
representatives from business, the residential community, the
school district, Planning Commission, and City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Technical Advisory Committee was formed with
representatives from the Washington State Department of
Transportation, the Puget Sound Council of Governments, METRO,
Commuter Pool, King County, and the adjacent cities of Auburn,
Renton, and Tukwila; and
WHEREAS, meetings designed for information exchange with
the Citizen' 's Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee
and the general public were held during 1981 and 1982 at which
time the consultants presented study progress reports, solicited
responses to findings and preliminary recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council commenced its public hearing on
the Transportation Plan on February 6, 1984; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued until Tuesday,
February 21, 1984 at which time the goals and policies used to
develop the Transportation Plan were approved and the arterial
'...,/
plans developed therefrom were approved with the understanding
that the new east-west arterials identified in the plan should be
considered only as study corridors, which implies their potential
but recognizes a need for additional joint agency study and
concurrence; and
\fflEREAS, the public hearing was continued until March 5,
1984 and later March 19, 1984 to consider the pedestrian, bicycle,
and truck elements of the Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1984 the pedestrian, bicycle, and
truck elements of the Transportation Plan were approved, as
modified; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that financing alter-
natives should be deferred until participating agreements with
interested agencies are developed and until the City develops a
Comprehensive Capital Improvement Financing Program; and
WHEREAS, further hearings on the Transportation Plan were
conducted on April 16, 1984 at which time the City Attorney was
directed to prepare a resolution adopting the Transportation Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on May 7 further hearings were conducted on the
arterial access policies of the Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council having considered the Transportation
Plan during the above-identified hearings over the past few
months; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Kent Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein, a copy of which is also filed with the City
Clerk, is hereby adopted.
City of
day of
Passed at a regular meeting of t~e City Council of the
Kent Washington this ~ day of ~< 1984.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this ..:.£:__
~ '1984. / 1'
\__ . .-/"
- 2 -
ATTEST:
·~~
MARIE J~~y CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
Resolution No. (orf , passed by~ Council of the
Kent, Washington, the 7 day of , 1984.
copy of
City of
'-...~ (SEAL) ~~~
MARIEJ SNICIT1 CLERK
170-10
- 3 -
CITY OF KENT (~)
00~00~800
(~ Transportation Study
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
as adopted by the Kent City Council
May 7' 1984
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. Arterial Plan .............................................. 4
III. Pedestrian Element ..•.....••...•.••..••.••...••..••••••.•.. 7
IV. Bicycle Element . • . • . . • • • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • . • • . . • • • . . . 8
V. Truck Element······································'······· 11
VI. Arterial Access Policy ••••.••••...•••...••••••.•••••••••..• 13
VII. Appendix: Transportation Policies .......................... 15
Page -2-
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent has experienced a dramatic increase in economic and
population growth in the past decade, resulting in strains to its
transportation system. The areas surrounding the city have grown as well,
and traffic passing through Kent to get to major freeways has also had a
significant impact on the city's street system.
The consulting firm of Wilsey & Ham was retained in 1981 by the City of Kent
to analyze the existing transportation system and the comprehensive land use
plan, and recommend a comprehensive transportation plan which would serve the
future needs of the City and its sphere of influence. The firm completed
their work in 1983.
A Community Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed
Wilsey & Ham's work in progress. The Community Advisory Committee was
composed of representatives from the residential and business community, the
School District, and the Kent Planning Commission and City Council. The
Technical Advisory Commitee was made up of transportation planners from
adjacent agencies, including the cities of Renton, Tukwila, and Auburn; the
Washington State Department of Transportation; the Puget Sound Council of
Governments; METRO; Commuter Pool; and King County. Both committees made
modifications to the recommended transportation plan.
The City Council held a series of hearings on the recommended transportation
plan during the months of January through May, 1984. This document
summarizes the plan adopted on May 7, 1984. Additional technical information
is available through the Department of Public Works.
Page -3-
CITY OF KEtrf COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ARTERIAL PLAN
The Arterial Plan, shown in Figure 1, was developed to provide for
transportation needs which would result from implementation of the City of
Kent's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The arterial system established is more extensive than is needed in the next
fifteen years. However, when the Kent area is fully developed at some time
ln the future, the entire arterial system will be necessary.
This Arterial Plan does not delineate the exact size or precise
roads, but does establish the principal function that each
corridors will serve in the overall transportation system.
Arterial Plan does not distinguish between existing arterials and
have yet to be built.
location of
of the road
Also, the
those which
Figure 2 lists the projects which would be necessary to complete the Arterial
Plan.
The new east-west arterials suggested on the Arterial Plan (i.e. 192nd/196th
and 272nd/277th Streets), have been designated study corridors which implies
their potential, but recognizes a need for additional joint agency study and
concurrence.
Page -4-
' ' ' \
. \
\
~ \
~ I
\
,216tl>.
I-~. I
/.
I
(
I
\
... ...
=
···--···---··~
... • ...
r.:
'--· ._.. .... ---~-. .
.-./
"' 1 ... :.-. I ~et • •'--•--=---...-.,. --._.,. .ro,..l ...... \ ·-·-·-~, ........ :·...,~ ·-'·
·'5 ~
"' FUNCTIONAL
192n4
\ 240tl>.
I l ...
:: I .. .,
.• ~
CLASSIFICATIONS
STATE ROUTES
freeway
1111111111 expressway
• ............ pri~pal arte_rtal
minor arterial
• • · • • ~ colt,ctor
LOCAL ROUTES
24~~-\-·-. --· expressway
24Bt ..
I .
I
\
J
Om I
-.---primary arterial .
CITY OF KENT
Arterial Plan
figure 1
I
'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
12.
17.
18.
21.
25.
34.
36.
37.
38.
40.
42.
41.
43.
44.
45.
49.
so.
13.
15.
16.
20.
22.
23.
6.
9.
10.
27.
28.
14.
24.
26.
33.
39.
46.
47.
48.
7.
29.
30.
19.
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT LIST
SR 516 Bypass, Reith to Washington
SR 515 Bypass, Petrovitsky to Grady
S 180th Widening, Petrovitsky to SE 196th
SR 515 Widening, Petrovitsky to SE !96th
Pctrovitsky Widening, SR 515 to 116th SE
Petrovitsky Widening, !16th SE to 140th SE
S 180th & East Valley intersection
S 180th & West Valley intersection
SE 208th & 108th SE intersection
Petrovitsky & 140th SE intersection
S 212th & East Valley intersection
Washington Ave & SR 516 intersection
SR 516 & Reith intersection
Willis & Central intersection
SR 516 & 132nd SE intersection
Smith & Central intersection
Kent-Kangley & 277th Ext. intersection
S 277th & 83rd S intersection
SE 277th & 104th SE intersection
SE 277th & 124th SE intersection
Pedestrian Program
Bicycle Program
SR 515 Widening, SE 196th to SE 256th
83rd S/ Auburn Way Widening
SR 516 Widening, 116th SE to SR 18
James & Central intersection
SE 240th & 104th SE intersection
S 212th & West Valley intersection
SE 192nd/196th New Route, SR 515 to East Valley
S 277th Extension, West Valley to 132nd SE
SR 167/S 212th Interchange
SE 192nd & SR 515 intersection
S !96th & East Valley intersection
·SR 515 Widening, Petrovitsky to Grady
Petrovitsky & SR 515 intersection
SE 208th & 132nd SE intersection
84th S & SR 167 intersection
SE 240th & 132nd SE intersection
SE 192nd & 116th SE intersection
SE 208th & ll6th SE intersection
SE 240th & !16th SE
S 196th/200th New Route, East Valley to Orillia
S !96th & West Valley intersection
.S 200th & Orillia Road intersection
Kent-Des Moines Road & SR 99 intersection
FIGURE 2
Page -6-
'x x
XX
X
X
X
X
XI
xi
.J ~·~· -
I
I
: X
lx x [(xl
XX lx 1
----·1-----·
X X X I
xxxx ~~ ~ [_
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
IX X
!x x
I X
X XI
X X'
X X X ~ ~I
X X X X x!
X X
XX X
XXX
XXX
X
X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
YEAR NEEDED
~---1983.
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986-94
1986-90
1987-94
1987
1987-89
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
2000
LOCAL FUNDS NEEDED
(EXCL. ·NEW ROUTES)
$ 65,000
$ 60,000
$ 88,000
$541,000
$ 61,000
$787,000
$ 22,000
$ 22,000
$ 44,000
$ 69,000
TOTAL $1,759,000
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT
Kent and the surrounding area have been developed for transportation by car.
Pedestrians have taken a back seat. As a result, few people walk.
However, accommodations must be provided for those who do walk. School
children have no choice and must walk to school. Others have no driver's
license or no car and must walk. Some choose to walk. As Kent develops,
residential and commercial densities will increase and walking will become
more convenient and therefore more common.
Unfortunately, facilities for pedestrians are often lacking, particularly in
the East Hill area.
The Pedestrian Element of the Transportation Plan consists of two sections:
new standards and needed improvements.
The following pedestrian standards will be implemented on all new arterial
construction in the City of Kent:
1) Paved walkways of minimum five foot width on both sides.
2) Walkways should be separated from travel lanes where possible
by a curb, ditch, or planting strip.
3) All arterial walkways in urban areas should be lighted. Those
in residential areas should receive no less than 0.2 average
horizontal footcandles and those in commercial areas no less
than 0.9 footcandles. The uniformity ratio (average to
minimum) should exceed 6:1.
4) Marked pedestrian
transit stops and
crossings safely.
crossings
schools,
should be provided at all major
where pedestrians can make such
The following improvements should be built as soon as funds are available:
1) Canyon Drive (SR 516) from Hazel to Kent-Meridian High School -
separated shoulder on south side.
2) 116th Avenue SE from SE 240th to SE 234th -paved shoulder on
west side.
3) Woodland Way from Reiten to Maple and Maple to 267th -paved
walkway on east side.
4) West Valley Highway (SR 181) from James Street to Green River
bridge -sidewalks on both sides.
5) Frager and Russell Roads from Kent-Des Moines Road to S 200th
Street -paved shoulders on both sides.
Page -7-
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
BICYCLE ELEMENT
The Bicycle Element of the Transportation Plan primarily serves the needs of
school children, but it is also intended to serve commuting and recreational
bicyclists.
As in the Pedestrian Element, the Bicycle Element is composed of two parts:
standards to be applied to new construction and proposed improvements
intended to correct existing problem areas.
New standards:
1) A bicycle route system should be established as indicated on
Figure 3.
2) Normally the bicycle route will be a widened outside traffic
lane, a minimum of 15 feet wide, as shown in Figure 4.
3) On grades in excess of 5%, the bicycle facility will consist of
either an outside traffic lane of minimum 16 feet width or a
shared sidewalk of minimum seven feet width.
4) On arterials with no curbs, the bicycle facility will consist
of a minimum five-foot paved shoulder on both sides.
5) All constructed facilities will be signed as bicycle routes,
and no parking will be allowed on the bicycle facility.
Improvement Projects:
1) Totem Junior High School
ramps
reposition bicycle racks, build
2) Star Lake Elementary School -install bicycle racks, obtain
easement and pave paths.
3) Kent Elementary School -provide paved path
4) Scenic Hill Elementary School -install ramps, bicycle racks.
Page -8-
AjCMhW&i@ W'"' 'F•*MM:I
I I !z E
Cl) .... w (/)
~ ~ en
8 s LL
0 Cl)
;:1 :;l -i I (; CJ
~
"C .~
c ! 0 aJ
CD m I l
CD
...
N
..J -.. --P"'l>l --tnaH --· -:: -----..
I I II II I I I I II I I~ I I I II II(, -z~ ~ " .. .. --" .. " ..
, ~ -", ~ -\)~ lllllllllllllllllll'llllllllll~lllllll 111111 ~ 1111111111111 ~
: pal(l .. : •• ;$· --... -... .... .. ..... .... -~ .. ~-w ·u. ·.,J ..,_ ...
-~: ~ .. ~: ~ ~ t{q~~:'-1£1-,-~-~-
.. :1 I I I I I I II I I I I 1: ""' .. _ ., , : : ~ --It~.:"' -
-: :tllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.lllllllll 11111:1111 'f
: IP9lt : 'P9tt : : ._, J -: : : .:J ~ : : -: -.:-~
Ill I 1111111111 1111111 II II I II I {It II II I I II I I I)-,. : "!:.. _1---.. : ~ -~ .;
VI ar.~ -• -', • ..., . ":.. 01, ~,, : : _,. I I I I I I I II I I 11 I I I I i I II II II Q Ill 111111 L · 0:,
" "' - --tntol -.. ., ... - --llllf. ~ ""' c ..... - -" .. ,, ... -..... _. ,d -.. (\ ~ ,. ..... ...... ..,11111 ; ~ ~= ~ ..,.' :lllltllllllf-!..111111~ #1~ : N,. ........
----=:::::::.:-.;;__ ":. .. uqn·,11 ,: -,,, :tn" .. ":_:ou1111T
':, -:. -''UIII : ~ ......
._,, ~I. : -...
1, "tr'IA ""' L't 'IS .. • .. .J ,,, -E. . -:-J;J
1 1111111.:.1111111111111p1111111111 011\., : : -
tn'ri -·ua l"TIY<l. :1 ~ -rw.ou;o:J .. ''lllt··lll 1C::111 -... --
.: ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~-·~ ~ ~-~~~--.. ~----------------==--
--T
,..
fllllllllllllllllrll
taru -..
--
('I)
Cl) ...
:::J
0')
~
.... e
N
(
PA'JBD
~0/>..DWA.Y
SHOVL-Ot::IZ. {IYP.'l
Edge of Pavement j
CITY OF KENT
Transportation
Sludy
&!0 r BIKE ROUTE
If-KENT 6
<;f' Lane Line
Minimum Shoulder Width
.. PAVED ROADWAY SHOULDERS
.. ····--···-·--·--·---'-fN1uR£ 4 ______ )
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TRUCK ELEMENT
The Truck Element of the Transportation Plan is designed to meet the
following objectives:
1) Improve and protect the quality of residential neighborhoods
and public/recreation areas.
2) Provide direct access to major truck destination areas.
3) Minimize street maintenance and capital costs. Maximize the
overall life of the street network.
4) Insure that special roadway needs of trucks are met in the
street system.
Streets in Kent will be divided into three categories, truck routes,
non-truck routes, and other routes.
Truck Routes:
1) SR 515 (Benson Highway, 104th Avenue SE)
2) SR 516 (Kent-Des Moines Road, Willis Street, Central Avenue,
Smith Street, Canyon Drive, SE 256th Street, Kent-Kangley Road)
3) SR 167 (Valley Freeway)
4) SR 5 (Interstate 5)
5) SR 181 (West Valley Highway, Washington Avenue, 64th Avenue S,
68th Avenue S)
6) S 180th Street (SW 43rd Street)
7) S 212th Street (Orillia Road)
8) S 228th Street (S 224th Street)
9) S 277th Street
Trucks should be prohibited from certain streets because of steep grades,
inadequate structural strength, or incompatible land use.
No-Truck Routes:
1) S 240th Street (James Street) between Central Avenue and 94th
Avenue S -this restriction will take effect when the first new
east-west arterial is opened.
2) Reith Road between SR 516 and Military Road
3) S 218th street between 92 Avenue S and lOOth Avenue SE
Page -11-
4) 35th Avenue S/37th Place S/40th Place S between 42nd Avenue S
and Military Road
5) All residential access streets, except for deliveries.
All other arterials could be used by trucks, but they would not be signed as
truck routes.
Page -12-
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ARTERIAL ACCESS POLICY
Uncontrolled arterial access leads to increased congestion and collisions.
However, prohibiting access entirely precludes reasonable use of abutting
properties. On the city arterial·system, property access shall be provided,
but controlled.
Access to city arterials shall be controlled as specified in ARTERIAL ACCESS
REGULATIONS (Page 14). These standards shall be applied only to new
developments within the City.
Page -13-
CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ARTERIAL ACCESS REGULATIONS
All new driveways shall be
criteria. Deviations may be
justification by the applicant.
developed
permitted
in accordance with the following design
by the Director of Public Works after
1. All single family residential lots shall be permitted one driveway access,
not more than 25 feet wide.
2. The number of driveway accesses for commercial and industrial lots shall
depend on the amount of street frontage as follows:
less than 250 feet
250-500 feet
500-750 feet
more than 750 feet
1 driveway
2 driveways
3 driveways
4 driveways
Driveway widths for industrial lots shall be 30-40 feet. Driveway widths for
commercial lots shall be 25-35 feet.
3. Commercial or industrial developments may warrant a private intersection
opening instead of a standard driveway approach. The private intersection
opening differs in that radii are provided to allow easier turning movements.
The following additional criteria shall be met before a private intersection can
be approved:
A) A left turn lane is provided on the abutting street, if warranted.
B) Traffic signalization is provided by the applicant, if warranted.
C) A minimum 100 feet of storage lane is provided between the street
and parking, maneuvering, and loading areas wlthin the development.
D) No other driveway openings shall be approved within 150 feet of the
private intersection opening.
E) Ahe driveway approach shall be marked for two-way traffic.
F) The driveay is expected to serve more than 1,500 vehicles daily, or
a substantial number of oversized vehicles.
G) C11r.b radii shall be limited to l) f~et for co'n'n~ceL-tl properties and
20 feet for industrial properties.
4. All driveway approaches shall be perpendicular or radial to the city street.
S. No driveways onto arterial streets may be permitted within 100 feet of any
arterial intersection, or within SO feet of any other intersection. Exceptions
may be granted if no other access is possible.
6. Direct access onto arterials shall be restricted if an alternate street
access is available.
Page -14-
GOALS AND POLICIES GUIDING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
USER GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL: Establish a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all
modes of travel. r~ake available needed mobility for all.
GENERAL USER POLICY:
1. A broad range of transportation facilities will be provided for all
purposes and modes of travel.
AUTOMOBILE POLICIES:
2. 8oth existing traffic volumes and future growth in travel by
automobile should be reduced, to the extent possible, by supporting
programs and physical improvements which encourage ridesharing and
higher levels of transit use.
3. Automobile traffic remaining after the maximum likely use of
ridesharing and transit will be provided sufficient facilities for
operation at or just below capacity (Level of Service 11 E11
) during
peak hours.
4. The arterial system shall have appropriate spacing of arterials to
distribute traffic evenly and provide sufficient capacity (within
four through-lanes on each arterial) for full development of land in
and around Kent. In cases where ideal spacing cannot be achieved, up
to six through-lanes may be provided but, generally, pavement widths
should be minimized.
5. The arterial system will be planned, designed and operated to
accommodate appropriate types of vehicular traffic; through traffic
will primarily be accommodated on freeways and major arterials, and
local traffic will be accommodated primarily on local access streets
and collectors. State design standards and arterial classification
definitions will be used in describing the Kent street system.
6. Access to development along expressvmys and major arterials should be
to collector and access streets whenever possible rather than direct
dri ve1-1ay access. • Proposals for new development should address
provision of local access street~ in common with other property
owners as a part of the proposal.
7. Existing and future arterials and intersections will be planned,
desiqned and operated so that accident rates are within the normal
range for each class of arterial.
TRANSIT POLICIES:
8. METRO will be encouraged to provide fixed route, scheduled service to
employment and population centers in Kent.
Page -15-
.·
9. The City will consider modifications of employment and population
density to meet METRO service criteria as a ~eans of securing
fixed-route, scheduled service.
10 For population and employment areas not meeting METRO service
criteria for fixed-route scheduled service, METRO will be encouraged
to develop paratransit services.
11. Transit and paratransit service should be provided to adequately
connect the resident population with industrial, commercial,
recreational and educational areas in Kent.
12. Transit and paratransit services should be provided to adequately
connect the resident population with METRO Park-and-Ride facilities
in and near Kent.
13. The City will work to encourage transit use through provision of
physical and operational improvements on public rights of way to
facilitate transit movement and transit patron access.
14. The City shall identify transit facility needs to be provided by
METRO (shelters, signs, route and schedule information posted).
15. The City will develop guidelines and programs that will encourage
employers to provide or subsidize transit and ridesharing for their
employees.
16. The City shall encourage ~IETRO to provide transit and paratransi t
service to nonmotorized trails and paths at feasible access points.
PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
17. Pedestrian travel shall be separated from vehicular travel on the
arterial system, and facilities for pedestrian travel shall be
provided on all arterials.
18. Adequate lighting shall be provided on the pedestrian network.
19. Pedestrian crossings of arterials shall be provided at a minimum of
every one-half m1le.
20 All-weather walking surfaces S'lall. be provided for the pedestrian
network along arterials.
21. Pedestrian facilities on local access stree~ will be provided by
property owners.
22. Pedestrian access to transit will be provided.
Page -16-
23. Vehicles and pedestrians will be separated in parking areas through
appropriate design and traffic control devic€s. The City will
institute guidelines for pedestrian facilities within new
development. Existing development will be encouraged to meet
pedestrian facility guidelines.
24. Nonmotorized trail policies of the Shoreline Master Plan will be
follovJed. (See Shoreline Master Plan for the City of Kent).
BICYCLE POLICIES:
25. Bicycle circulation shall be safely integrated into existing and all
nevJ traffic circulation facilities or improvements.
26. Along arterial and residential streets in the vicinity of eiementary
and middle schools, roadway shoulders or sidewalks should be provided
to permit school children to ride bicycles outside of the motorized
traffic stream.
27. Existing streets shall be developed to the extent physically and
economically feasible before seeking new routes and a mixture of
circulation modes within the corridor sha11 be ·encouraged.
28. Detection devices for bicycles shall be provided at all locations
with actuated traffic signals.
29. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided at all municipal
buildings. The City shall also encourage and promote the use of such
storage facilities at other public and private locations to
facilitate the use of bicycles.
30. Establishment of 11 Bikes-on-Busesn· transit stops shall be encouraoed to
serve residential and business areas and bypass topographical
barriers to buses.
31. Secure bicycle storage lockers or racks should be provided at all
major transit stops.
32. Bicycle lockers which provide security from theft and weather should
be encouraged at all Park-and-Ride lots . .
33. Provision of bicycle lockers or racks secure from theft and weather
shall be required at every major new structure vJit~in working and
trading areas.
34. Safe bicycle operation for all ages shall be promoted through
programs such as user training, educational campaigns, and
bicycle-route mapping.
35. Educational campaigns shall be promoted to educate motor vehicle
drivers about bicycle operations.
Page -17-
36. Multi-function use of bike facilities should be considered where the
users will not be in conflict with each oth~r (wheelchair ramps,
motor bikes, pedestrian facilities, etc.).
GOOD MOVEMENT POLICIES:
37. Truck routes shall be established which provide adequate truck access
and circulation without impacting other transportation modes.
38. Loading zones on public right-of-\'Jay may be pennitted for access to
commercial and industrial property not having off-street loading
facilities. Loading zones on major arterials will not be pennitted.
39. Conflicts of rail facilities with other modes of travel will be
minimized. On major arterials, grade separation of highway and rail
facilities will be considered if rail line use results in peak hour
conditions \'/Orse than level of Service 11 £'1
•
40. Basic mobility needs of the elderly and handicapped shall be provided
for. Transportation programs and facilities will be developed so
that the elderly and handicapped can travel between their residence
and their place of employment, shopping areas, and access points to
the METRO system.
COMMUNITY GOALS AND POLICIES
GENERAL COMMUNITY POLICY:
1. Transportation facilities in Kent will be developed and improved to
enhance the community and to assure continued economic growth. The
transportation system vlill support the community ·development, and
environmental objectives of Kent.
ENVIRONMENT-RELATED POLICIES:
2. The transportation system will be planned, designed and operated to
minimize traffic noise in residential neighborhoods.
3. The transportation system will be planned, designed and operated to
minimize energy sonsumption, and vehicle-generated air pollution.
4. The arterial system will be planned and designed to complement the
visual character of the nearby landscape.
5. The streets of Kent will maintain and enhance the natural
environmental amenities.
6. The transportation plan will acknowledge and provide for the policies
of scenic roads, access points and trails in Special Interest
Districts.
Page -18-
COMMUNITY ACCESS AND CIRCULATION POLICIES:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
\ Access and circulation within residential, commercial and industrial
areas should be separated from major arterials.
Adequate on-site vehicle, truck, and pedestrian circulation should be
provided within major developments, and access to major arterials
will be provided through collector and secondary arterials rather
than directly by driveways. Accordingly, property owners adjacent to
major arterials should cooperate \'lith one another and the City in
planning and designing secondary and collector arterials to
consolidate access to new development.
Parking lots in new commercial and industrial development will be
landscaped and screened from the road by berms, landscaping or
structured walls as appropriate. _.
Bicycle and pedestrian linkages between residential areas and nearby
commercial areas and transit stops will be assured, and are a
priority for implementation.
Pedestrian circulation and amenities will be provided in the CBD and
major commercial areas. Parking areas and commercial circulation
roads bordering residential areas will be screened from residents•
sight and hearing.
Street naming and address systems will facilitate locating
destinations and foster community identity.
SYSTEM OWNER/OPERATOR GOALS AND POLICIES
GENERAL OWNER/OPERATOR POLICY:
1. The City shall plan, design and operate the transportation system in
a cost-effective manner; and financing of the continued maintenance
and operation as well as system improvements will be equitably
distributed among those v1ho use and pay for area roads. The City • s
management of transportation will be an open process regularly
examined by the public, their elected representatives and affected
agencies.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION POLICIES: .
2. The City will establish a continuing process for identifying and
evaluating trnsportation system needs for use in decision-making.
3. Travel forecasts used as a basis for evaluation of system needs will
be based upon the most current population, employment and urban
arterial data, and will be coordinated with the Puget Sound council
of Governments (PSCOG) prior to the City making capital program
decisions.
Page -19-
4. The City shall urge PSCOG to adopt and incorporate regional elements
of the City•s comprehensive land use and transportation olans as
elements of the Subregional Plan.
5. The transit element of the transportation plan will be based upon the
METRO Transit Plan.
6. The City shall coordinate transportation planning decisions with King
County, Auburn, Tukwila, Renton, and the Washington State Department
of Transportation as appropriate.
7. The City, when negotiating a cost sharing agreement with other
jurisdictions for transportation improvements shall work for a
formula which most equitably divides project costs among all parties
rather than attempt to arrive at a cost sharing agreement more
advantageous to Kent than to the others. The formula should be based
upon the most appropriate factors, the most common of which include:
cost of construction in each jurisdiction, proportion of each
jurisdiction•s traffic estimated to use new projects; an assessment
based upon the value of perceived benefits to each jurisdiction; or
some combination of these methods.
8. The Circulation element of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent
with the Federal Aid Urban Systems designation.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS POLICIES:
9. The City shall rehabilitate or replace viaducts, bridges, and
retaining walls which have serious problems with safety and load
ratings, have a remaining life of less than five years, or are
economically inefficient to operate.
10. The City shall rehabilitate or replace roadways with severe problems
regarding surface base, drainage or maintenance costs.
11. The City will ensure that the maintenance program is conducted at
service maintainence levels sufficient to achieve reasonable life for
transportation facilities.
12. The City shall modernize and/or replace traffic control devices to
reduce trouble calls, higher than average maintenance costs, and City
liability.
SYSTEM FINANCING POLICIES:
13. Allocation of fund sources to types of transportation system
improvements will depend upon the definition of equitable assessment
listed below. These fund allocation policies will set the priorities
of the capital and operating budgets. Priorities by fund are shown
in the following table.
Page -20-
a. Improvements primarily upgrading facilities and the roadway
system to minimum standards should be the responsibility of
existing property owners and system users \oJi th the following
qua 1 ifi cations:
(1) The responsibility for provision of funds for capacity
improvements on existing arterial links, or new arterial
links for system continuity should be borne equally by
existing residents and those moving into Kent as residents
or empl ayers.
TYPE OF FUNDS
FUIJDING ALLOCATION PRIORITIES
PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMDIT
I. Traditional
Gas Tax
Regular Property Tax
F.A.U.S. & Federa 1 Shared
State Shared
II. General Obligation Bonds
I I I. Develoement Assessment
-Subarea
IV. Development Assessment
-Individual
V. Improvement District
1 • Maintenance
2. Major rehabilitation
3. Safety
4. TSM
5. Environmental and Neighborhood
6. Economic development
7. New roads -infrastructure
1. Major rehabilitation
2. Safety
3. TS~1 and capacity improvements
4. New roads and infrastructure
5. Economic development
6. Regional environmental
1 • New roads -infrastructure
2. TSM and capacity improvements
3. Safety
1. Only mitigation of direct impacts
1. Environmental and neighborhood
2. Economic development
3. New roads -infrastructure
4. Maintenance
5. Major rehabilitation
6. Safety
7. TSM
Page -21-
..
(2) Safety and structural rehabilitation improvements should be
the general funding responsibility,of the City. These
kinds of projects will have the highest priority for
allocation of new general obligation bond revenues.
b. Improvements primarily for the provision of new infrastructure
should be funded by assessments or fees against new development.
c. Right-of-way dedicated to the City, by developers of property
abutting planned arterials, shall be considered as a portion of
the development assessment.
d. Improvements primarily for protecting neighborhood environments
and for correcting local environmental problems should be funded
through the improvement district process.
e. Improvements intended to help achieve economic development
objectives can be funded through any form of funding mechanisms.
Page -22-