Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - City Council Workshop - 02/04/2025 (2)
Approved City Council Workshop • Workshop Regular Meeting KENT Minutes WAS M IN G 7 0 N February 4, 2025 Date: February 4, 2025 Time: 5:15 p.m. Place: Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Council President Kaur called the meeting to order. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Satwinder Kaur Council President Present Bill Boyce Councilmember Present John Boyd Councilmember Present Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present Marli Larimer Councilmember Present Zandria Michaud Councilmember Present Toni Troutner Councilmember Present H. PRESENTATIONS 1 Target Zero Action Plan David Paine 30 MIN. Transportation Planner, David Paine presented the Target Zero Action Plan - Public Draft. The Draft Plan builds on the Local Road Safety Plan, identifying solutions and prioritization. Paine reviewed key milestones and advised the advisory group members are from community-based organizations, residents, a student, and partner agencies. Vocabulary used throughout the plan: • The Target Zero Action Plan is a prioritized work plan to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries on the network • Crashes or collisions - not accidents • KSI - Killed or Serious Injury crashes • Systemic Safety - applying changes to a system based on calculated risk and not just history The Safe System Approach = safer people, safer vehicles, safer speeds, safer roads and post-crash care. Over the course of the last year, staff held three rounds of public engagement that included surveying participants. City Council Workshop Workshop Regular February 4, 2025 Meeting Kent, Washington Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................................................................................................................................................... There is a new element: The High Injury Network helps identify corridors with the highest levels of severe injuries and fatalities. A Vulnerable Road User includes people who are walking rolling, motorcycling, or cycling. Paine reviewed a chart displaying how different areas within Kent are host to Underserved Communities, based on the combined scoring of the proportion of population matching the demographic variables. Those scores were used to rank the equity benefit of projects in their proximity. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission's areas of emphasis for King County include: impairment involved, walkers and bicyclists and lane departures. These data trends inform solutions. City Traffic Engineer, Erik Preston talked about reducing KSI crashes. Target Zero: Kent aspires to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. Kent will continue to invest in safety plans, projects and programs to make progress towards this goal, with a reevaluation of progress in 2030. The Transportation Action Plan expands on the Local Road Safety Plan: • A safe system approach • A data-driven approach • An equitable approach • A multidisciplinary approach. The Plan takes an equitable approach. Preston walked the Council through the Project Prioritization: Data inputs Key considerations and top crash types Final project focus areas Assemble project packages to address top systemic safety needs Project packages: All segments Safer Crossings for vulnerable road users Appropriate speeds Safer Signals Preston provide an example of how the segments were analyzed. Paine talked about the Community Engagement Phase 2. During the second phase of outreach, the City discussed project types along key corridors with past crashes or similar risk factors. Paine reviewed the desired project types that came from the community. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 2 of 4 City Council Workshop Workshop Regular February 4, 2025 Meeting Kent, Washington Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................................................................................................................................................... Next Steps: Implementation and monitoring Phasing and sequencing, oversight and accountability Follow up with the community on progress, in language Funding Year 0-3 - Near-term actions are priorities within the first three years 3-5 - Mid-term actions are priorities within the following three to five years 5+ years - Long-term actions are priorities beyond five years. This phase of outreach: Public and other interested parties view the plan online on engage.kentwa.gov/kent-target-zero-action-plan Survey: Do you support the Kent Target Zero Action Plan? What have we missed? What should we emphasize or add? Staff advised that having this Plan is a key component to apply for various grants. 2 Federal Way Link Extension Update Kelly Peterson 45 MIN. Deputy Public Works Director, Kelly Petersen provided Council with an update on the Federal Way Link Extension. Angle Lake to Federal Wax 8 miles in length Revenue service is 12 minutes Kent Des Moines Station: • Reviewed concept and new roads around the station • Reviewed drone images of station and surrounding area • Peterson compared photos from 2019 to 2025. Structure C is located in Segment 2, just south of 259th. Due to soil conditions, the distance between the spans needed to be altered. South 272nd Street Station Peterson reviewed drone images of the station and surrounding area. Traffic Mitigation Projects need to be completed prior to revenue service: • Pacific Highway/Kent Des Moines Road • Military Road/Reith Road • 272nd Street/Star Lake Road ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 3 of 4 City Council Workshop Workshop Regular February 4, 2025 Meeting Kent, Washington Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................................................................................................................................................... • Pacific Highway/S 272nd Street Moving forward: • Street vacations and dedications • Project closeout process • As-builts • Boundary line adjustments • Testing (Sound Transit) • Traffic mitigation projects • Revenue service - estimated early 2026 Peterson expressed appreciation of City staff that have contributed to this project. Meeting ended at 6:12 p.m. Y,t* ZvwIoy A. Ko-ww-tc- City Clerk ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 4 of 4 FEDERAL WAY �l WINK EXTENSION __------ --` �y Link FWLE Align ent PROJECT CORRIDOR LENGTH � _ 1 7o8mi,es PROJECT CORRIDOR OPENING FOR TRAVEL TIME REVENUE SERVICE `�. • • - " Minutes 2026 2035 DAILY RIDERSHIP 363 Riders Diwirm wf.)i illoguria:purpo 5odyand meV.lore. �Not 0S"Iv _ f.. - - _ i R a 1. .art'^.' - •... 4' - - _ I t. /r • Now Segment 2 [Star Lake] _tw aFs� +�orsr�+Y WA-1,a[Slruclure B] WA-2.1 [Structure 8[ WA-2.2{At-Gradel WA-2.3[5tr.Cl wig-2.4(At•Grada[ . btu f' - IF 4 jL .}e — + µ� i .. ��• - �. '11 l ' •{slhriv'� �+ - ?.:, 141 a• a .` +-�`�e; , !'� R: +J��+Jk: .+ rfj l .•.� `- 1' —`7 Am 5� . T4a t41 � �� "� ■ '■ Structure C-Area AT it 4 �1 l +`�.: ,. McS rel. Wet and J< ; s °y �.�-._,��. ~•r .IfsiYL ram,• .r'ti �� '`. - pk�� � r y KL + 16 30t" Ave. w w w w w � w w w � w ■ i � e ■ � � ■ � ■ _�_ _��■. AML ��':�_�� ■ ■ ■ • • i � V� � Zip p.CA 0� N N m N r Pacific HWY MR Station - looking southwest across 30t" Ave. S. from the parking garage. 'SoWn�a �..-h ±��� _ �. �a �i�L•1I. �F��_�!!�c_ wTF .1 '.z - � - xy i ti4pe — �<r rip — ■ 11li - r it lu PVT— f - ;_ --- � --- Kent 'Des Moines Statron-an:d G:ar�age `' - 1. r _A. f � - December 2024 —Looking- Easter-- 4.7 ol F .x� L1 i 5 y yi6'��'�1�£s, �`'� � ,�.. �_� •.'..-`'V -1L�"" 1 y -1: - } .i • I 'T. � . +• ... i � � ' - .�1�- �Tf• �����w..r _ t ��"„� L.'LL '.T.-L L 1 L L�.k__�� hL 1 y�.�y y�,r�7 1y ,• .,.�",. s.'j .�1E.L'.Y .-a—M�w - �•�� � �-�-� r, -,- - - -�� - =� ` -.� _ - I � �" - - - _ w 'cam - - OL Mr- � { ,•.. .� .. __ � ^ 7 _ �� - - - - 'z��1�.►--,fir r�� � L �L'' �.�, �_ •- •.! '� .. - err • ue" • i Kent Des Moines Station and Garage December 2024 - Looking Northeast 74 low le IL -- ,t `=ram�w, ��'�" •E 'r'�?9]`" ��" 'R-'C. ri' I i � �'r: �=.+• .:�� �. 1 � , '-�-; gal < �� ��S -• l _� ' .. T z'-v� '1 8`,��.,,.. • i - fJJSSJ 1; 't. �._. pp— '•.� ,r Z ._ _ �-Y. - - _ -ar - •, .. -- - ... _ .-- �Y,,-TM..w�. --:'S'_:�-icy:,_�:.,�-�i�'++�` �•....��-� ��...--.r><�� } r Xe.nt Des Moines Station antb G-el"M e .. r a- ..._ Declewkta�r 20.24 - Looking North, '�P: ,1. � � 1 �•~- } _ � - - -_ � _, "�"..c�-- +.�. _ �+-� _ — _ -• _. AAO Plot n �y_�k .- ti "y+ ...i. �. *.._ .. .. i•�' _ 't. ..: .ice.. - } _ J ' - 1� ,I�- - ^-��• +- Y -Ac •.;�f*.'I �'-- �' _� F - -'7+�� r..- !s.titi _ � d �. y V_ 7 _� 7 _�^c• �- vim- .r.� ";��;- drill ,�y• R �. y �' - - it\+�►lt\�j.a• Jam, L_ r ,— r -i1 b ^i �$.PAO- it N Oki. Sok allill -`' •'` S. y -I �� IF Ir -Alp! -b I-M, eft�� irk -Y a Y�, - _ .. _' •- -y ry* 'm' ,R � "t�!•r ■ �.. �� ,�.�.f L•r �. � ' .� - •�� i' �� •_ Jam. � � ��_'J�, .. � '1+l _ •�^ 1'�.�•�_ � � � �- I `i �.i�'�`C• - •-L`r'•,rt'�:� i + 'xr ti� f '� r "�--•P _. i• \� . �� AUX AI Aft �,..r a��, '�•�" � '- a11.:;, -- �, — -nil �:' l[ `-''_ � �•+ - y.w+ j. r►- "- r1=, fir` r Aw ZZ Al y ' ,� � ® yl _ , - ..- '. rip=—�.-_ __ - wr - •� ^a�. -L ". .._ 1: - _ A, ? Kent Des. MoinesStation and Garage t December 2024 Looking :NFort•hwest 4 q - . . •i'r}'� k ki��e�;rt., �' �e:.�Y; �'�� .i•r� � l 11 � �:4C����. - .3- � � r _ _ ���=�a.l • � .. :III �1F.t1`�. �•�r, ��~4• 'F �� - �-..E- — �� _ ..n - _ .-� _ -`���'_n. f r r� �-r' r f 1 _ .'`_ '.���=�r r r •� r�_� ��1.l.0 -77 V. oil 40 137 WIM per.. �+:-r} a F"■ _ cis+{ _ a I yapeo, Ott 'F. - ��-.FfS:-C�i h.:'.a��l't�'r:-�:� Yr3.L rt• � f .4' .J. � 1 1- ,. +W, Kent Des Moines Station and Garage . December 2024 Looking Southwest -�1►� �. i-, •ice rr, ,, „� �.J:t� r".'fT- � ��'r• , �y'1��' ' `�r� �;_ � �• � `�'is — .� � i'^ =._#`raiR 4� -��� � I -� �.1 Kent Des Moines Station and Garage- ., De�c�ember�+2'024- Looking SouthAk j AIL I ilL Ix ir �.��k ` �' •'� -- ;; � ` � ';l.r �•�; •Ill - - 'e �' �-e� . . 1 Kent Na Moines Station and Garage December 2024 - Looking South =-= Pf,` fir_ -_ :.:•• - ��' � -� �.� r .� � � ��:.�,q� : g`:,. j _ �- ^ . _ -' _ � - ...� :�' ��' �Y�. � --. _�+;,"` .yam• ��= �'�'� _,- _ wff jr 41 ■ram'� .�,� _ �� t - � aa''l �� � x ,.`� _i � RaWS Ail 00 Of so VIP Kent Des Moines Station and Garage - Y -- . _ December 2024 - 30t" Ave S. and S. 236t" St. lom Kent Des Moines Station and Garage December 2024 - Pacific HWY and S. 2 V St. - Looking East slob= vi .a i!-. - ._ :�. ?�.V.• - - -^ ^I� Fb� L4 Elul 1 ee u� .� zi_ _ �k:l:t �: 1[ T � V � 1 h ?.�Y� � � r �! !-p 4 N q■ .I...r��wa� tilflr�I'�..i.i �-:i Z:.• L i - L'P•_ �[��� C. +1-; i. k[. .' �.: � y., - Ofy i �I i f .Yr i arc -r i. se'+ ���w. 4: •i[��ri::il'{R .. 'i. 'C - �; �! C eti� i�h i "7f1NIR• 'ram' •+��i.' ���. +•1� • _ �.; _ '- �a --�r,ai.r.ir�� _� � y i;i i 1�-' _ --' � .-'r..-x ��.' - r l�i t�i/'.� i °i�F �V�� � �.J II I! � 1{•�lil l�li 1 � -�1�:. . irl L - .`'�1M p'- - �le� :1 -- - �0 .�� 4_ .1►::y1.; -. �f�� .�.• �� _ •`'lam �� i " s` � 7W OW Lq WF - - - 77 }" - �-�--:>-��_ .. _ -:�:.. y -sag �:• '..aFgy� .� 5 ..--_''`'i�I.�� —__ fir'•'.S.•.1 � •.`iF '•F' ,�. ��_ s}': •� .���- ___.- �•'!i ` - _ �� 49. '•3�. ]� -� - - ... ..:tip - _ .. - v�1• :F• _ •ry i• - x. -. 5 I I + 7-_�'r� '''�{ �. K�i aw � •:iiilf.IQ�Z/.Y ^; �_''i���S,a. Y- - � Kent Des Moines Station and Garage December 2024 - Pacific HWY and S. 236t" St. - Looking East '��iiw sue."�•.a _ ..Y ► A 0"'`4w part" T I . 61 r... t 24 I111 1,6j + � L .f GF+''�►�Cxli► ':6 r• :�1=I�:ff .. -- - - ..- - 6k'�ic�3l.{�.'Z'���N.. -. ! s. �z.': - I.:R�V -!� •- -- - rl wEr :� �s_ e OV IN } LL OPP- KDM Station — looking southwest across 301" Ave. from the parking garage. �.� -N � x uimam Of JiNt" Crap- - F mod J"' y4 ! i rlq S;s k-A -- ; ism WiIMNIMMINOW t_ kx .� . . Fie ONOW ' 4 G-M-� k p off- Ae, a L Y owl O■ a # ■ * -T � �4 ���T T a _ i `r -r *` F ���_}-• -- tip' -- October 2019 .. January 2025 '��.�.����,,,.y - ';.a •.. �+���71��� 1 - _' � IF 7 W, I 4A = October 20191 30thAve. S. - Looking south from S. 236thStreet 0 x ' I f .L — r F ���� - � January2025 j,r. i�+¢1•., Now rz Looking north • dlW - _ fF^ ,. - - -- �-- Uuffy2025 �. - i R a 1. .art'^.' - •. 4' - - _ I t. /r Segment 2 [Star Lake] AMW�AtJ6 NOW ZWFLFAdvw WA-1,a[Slruclure B] WA-2.1 [Structure 8[ WA-2.2{At-Grade] WA-2.3[5tr.Cl wig-2,4(At•Grada[ ��• - �. '11 l ' •{slhriv'� �+ - ?.:, � ..;,Y, I _ a• a•' � .` +-�`�e; , !'� R: +J��+Jk: .+ � r�fj l .•.� `- �._ ow �� "� ■ '■ Structure C-Area .x r- - , a McS reI. Wet and 5 f 1 �1�tr °y �.�_._,��. ~•r .IfsiYL ram,• .r'ti �N Structure Looking South 7/6/23 + v �a t rl Structure C Area - Looking North s F�.. a=• ��Fr �. t,;r� ' �' G T_a. � _ w �� tee' :i�; _ ••!� '� � raf., _ r` s+• gip'` .i;. �,' � +S '�.- . iIML ._.Try 1 I. jr Structure C Area - Looking South 167, f .. � _f - - � ---� •� { � �� cif �[�\ 9�1i� * - _- Structure C January 2025 - i R a 1. .art'^.' - •. 4' - - _ I t. /r Segment 2 [Star Lake] AMW�AtJ6 NOW ZWFLFAdvw WA-1,a[Slruclure B] WA-2.1 [Structure 8[ WA-2.2{At-Grade] WA-2.3[5tr.Cl wig-2,4(At•Grada[ ��• - �. '11 l ' •{slhriv'� �+ - ?.:, � ..;,Y, I _ a• a•' � .` +-�`�e; , !'� R: +J��+Jk: .+ � r�fj l .•.� `- �._ ow �� "� ■ '■ Structure C-Area .x r- - , a McS reI. Wet and 5 f 1 �1�tr °y �.�_._,��. ~•r .IfsiYL ram,• .r'ti �N South 272nd Street Station Concept Angle Lake S.204thSt Stati4 - lk 99 S.216th St S.Kent Des Moines Rd. Highline 5.2d0th St [allege �+ ' - iFYstation Area S.260th St - -� S.272nd 5t Parking Garage &288th 5t - - - — 1 99 Federal Way f i, Transit Center S.320th St A AN p► "aM l _ � ����.r' �,. ..r t q�"�� ,• I _ s•`, t'•`•�•`� k.� Fes, -r ��� . . � s y►JYr - �'3 .:r.j'y ;'' .• '••.� iy '! y tj d... , �'-s �.•�:w..r• 1L.. .yy :M + 1.�1 I�I�� l-� iT - ' � if. � .` �M - �� ���'� �11� �•'11_ ..Sl-_7 ��•.11 iP1�"... �_ Ste• ; ... .. 'fir' ~ .qrw .•- �. A � , `y T ti� �• � 1 _ . .� i ■ �-,�+� � 'f ," t t�. �..ice'� .�, �.. .. ._, - ." .- Star Lake Station land, Garage December 2024 - Looking West _ �•^ �, - Y-4 � �' � �� � � lr .•:$�,' 1. -- F-•. •�:Sp. 1411� ng :F�.�sr`_ r Fes. =�'.s - _ }: :, . : .I-� _y +�• � '� i;,y -,Fv;� • C� 1.0 � Awl - ¢¢-5y� ��•"�r= �-. ��� r1' .•T i� _ 1 'd.. 1 - � r r. ut' �• ` r. f - - t � N {�1{{3�� TP - , '��'Lc.���:: •.`Y '+n, '- •Ld'��; .�� 1'�r. •-,.,, i •� r � 1 .. 13 �f -___���IAllh.�. !� ��T � ". - '�- �•v ��..is �..• — =t � Star Lake Station and Garage ' December 2024 - Looking South . 6�K�=��'~` .. - r�_,�. !f -,,gyp ,. �,. .•� •- +r 7' � • 41 Mor - __- � .` � ��I �•� � � i'.r"yam ... 1'��� a_+. IN 4. y•.. .� .'.� � rr:�k� �F�k\ �\ `.i. � -,t ti��y ry '• � 1 v �{,r. i r� r•' .,y 1]�YG .14 Ar irl ` � ,.M1 :,�. —; -�'"M �� �d � -- : .jam •-�� �. —_ �� .�-�. j[�`Jy t, .r. �_. �. l^ :�` �i .- 3I'.4 ��." �=Td" '''0�'!} ��r��� - �31' l�E'i •�"-�'��h� ti,����' .�rt`�.^� - _' �.r _ '�. .� r i y -.rim r' r. •�Lr•..-. Or r WIN c I - •.��� 1 .T. �:r . Fes:- � h® �. �. � _��.��� � �� } � �� 1\. I 1 1�IJt � 7•� rF h �'/ � .-. fj Star Lake Station "'and �Garagy December 2024 - Lookil.n-g•West ' !w�:� .:`"*'j�� --_ _ �` i� I �a •'III .. Arri ��_ _�� '�C- --_mow ����,��,,y. Y s _� _ _,� �• '� y y i � i I - � - 'ram•� i` 1�� '�Y�• jf h I j i to AC ppw 901W it AOV .. ..�_ � _ •;tip � .. + � ...a:�' T = , , -Star Lake Station and Garmge Y_ December 2024 - LookingSouth }" Star Lake Station looking east _ � - - _"` -� -�•� . y` . .:-4kt �� - _ low •ram- �� ��� `_ ���+o�. ) �µ.. �iM�.i [ CEO 1. � ���.'w1��H� ri ` ` �`��•°�.•-•,r E�l���l. H}\ems+{'i� �J.c ~� - _r{ , emu{ `911i.F. •' 4 -- - �CFI• _. ��r.� - -- .-- �.- _ fl � � � �- f- t,i '"� _ �'�,N ■ � ,��`� - .. "t'.---- � .. .•. •• ram. _- ... �y - t �:O V0 �+�.� - � � �,- .. ` ,• PY, mot, �i��, . _ _ - ` � T�'.:: � �..• 1. '�:'� ���. i :�}. .�. � �•, - .- + =-:�.lP. :�n R - ���•,,�,� :•.: •s 'jam 1 .. ,I T�" .. :l -���.,�•' .. '� 1 .-_ j 4 �1 � �' •• ��.. �,' - ] fir.• -� ' � �' I" ,.. �... . � "�1 �� .e gip.. ��qs� � i 4 1^ •li , �,yy�• .E17 -•�' ' � _s s,... 6*1 LINO IIM— ..3 ,.►:.t � � I 'i .� `I , �. � t Nam. - �e ' �'P � — `�.��� � if�"' � Ito 'r ., ,,1_ �,fi� : Star Lake Station looking north L v - HER• I - �� f � ,.�r .{ .,�� � --�- r= � ', Jr it _ _ _ _ rrr�rrrr���r���r�rnrrr���M�rrN���rri�rr�t�����tx � tt���i����t rr�rtt►��►r����►����r���������►►���`��� ����r����r����rr����������r�- `�=s.. NIMMIN/►rrr►►r►►�rrrrrrrr►_►r►»rrrrrrrrrrnn�� _ 11 !! iTAT lb 1 Jr, - Star Lake Station Artwork y 14r; At - -- - December 2024 � = � y,._ •,�' . �:�� may:` � � � � ii1« �h -1 -. r.. 'rf -..• — l. f� v Flit � 'S• � F ..may, • ,�.;� -�,a F `r: .. � �s��: i .t1 �• j,]'r�y� ;, . Star Lake Station artwork a M 71j,' x_ 1l���l4! �■ ® , riMM : JAIL y. Al _ - - ---- ems..-'- --- }r S.r :�....._:'.. aka•._E:.;s- ;:je r qr �' , Alk- 'tom;� �y� 1.. October 2019 •thAve. S. Looking south from S. • •th Place Ar = January-2025 i- • - '... _ r':f.' +" _Sri is �- October 2019 — • t — _ J I It Jran u-a ry 2025_ 'r �-October 2019 Looking southtowards Till N JaOACJary 202-521i Greenslde RecreatlonFFal - - Highlirke coil � JlPL "°r' - - {._.�•,.� IIEE yowle s borne mprove en: I.•- _ - -" me Towne p - - .- Y Studios Seattle Kentl_:- •. # red eypr - •_ .-._-. - -- Fr AW AEI Rinconsito s sIl{ Fed&al WEr T5.2fiU:h F- _ = 1 e[ 21,11th'�•i - + _ y Et Parral Eve rgreenMiddIe•Sch aiU s � � j qqq���r way •y' I _4_r�,F 41 5 2 72nd". -._;r 5 TA R LAKE .s 172nd St - A 1 4 A%. Ava a r Lake �C) I_ ,: f PEDESTRIAN ISLANDtiif. _ I ADJUSTED TO NEW LIMITS AL �► „ LEFT-TURN POCKETS f fr 1� C . .. � ,I SIGNALIZED RIGHT-TURN �. �`; * r + WITH ADJUSTED CROSSWALK o ;� AND STOP BAR f. _ -[' W MEDIAN ADJUSTED TO NEW LIMITS ROW ACQUISITION RIGHT-TURN POCKET \ - RIGHT-TURN 1 HOV LANE co f _ �= I ROW ACQUISITION w S,4 ROW ACQUISITION • ` � 1 4 RELOCATED 6.5' SIDEWALK IP 03 SR 99 AND KENT-DES MOINES ROAD SOUND TRANSIT FEDERAL WAY LINK EXTENSION MINE NEW NORTH - -TURN POCKET so 30 a so 120 SOM RAFT for discussion purposes only. Not approved by or on behalf of any part . SCALE IN FEET NEW RIGHT-TURN POCKET i L PREVIOUS 'THRU-RIGHT' LANE REDESIGNED TD 'THRU-ONLY' LANE Ile" ,r r. MILITARY ROAD AND S 259TH PLACE S 1 S REITH ROAD SOUND TRA2NaSIT O DERAL W�AO LINK EXT8EO SION SouivaTRANS+r for discussion purposes only, Not approved by or on behalf of any party. 3 SCALE IN FEET - 4,... .yam`, i ;ti '•' - _J I ,� NEW LEFT-TURN POCKET � •� NEW LEFT-TURN POCKET MEDIAN BETWEEN - 'f .c LEFT-TURN POCKETS ` CA E RLOTED PLANTER U' f cn ROW ACQUISITION ROW ACQUISITION, RELOCATED BUS STOP .7. RELOCATED PLANTER _ RELOCATED 6.5' SIDEWALK ��- _ ,;i TIE-IN WITH PROPOSED DESIGN RELOCATED 6.5' SIDEWALK lift ,� ►f, r I moat,; 1 �yw� :.� �• � � ice. � � , ,�I. I j AI; �r;� ;, Z•.�7 dL AJ STAR LAKE ROAD AND S 272N D ST SOUND TRANSIT FEDERAL WAY LINK EXTENSION IMF NEW - RN POCKETS 1ao �o 0 100 2aa SA°TRAMU FT for discussion purposes only. Not approved by or on behalf of any party. SCALE IN FEET i - 1 #.. S 272ND ST NEW PEDESTRIAN ISLAND - EXISTING RIGHT TURN LANEMw REDESIGNED TO THRU-LANE { - limp ;• t r A r l IA NEW RIGHT TURN POCKET �t�` ` '► I µ � ' ROW ACQUISITION ur #.: 1 1 RELOCATED 8' SIDEWALK Lim ME•• SR 99 AND S 272ND ST SOUND TRA�NSIT a DERAL W4A4Y LINK EXTENSION kr F� 80 NEW N TH - RN POCKET SCUW?r►uM for discussion purposes only. Not approved by or on behalf of any party. SCALE IN FEET Target Zero Action Plan - Public Draft Kent City Council Workshop February 4, 2025 Today's Agenda — o O — o — o PROCESS DRAFT PLAN NEXT STEPS Engaging the Community Build on the LRSP Public Comment Systemic Analysis Identify Solutions Adoption Prioritization Today's Agenda O — o — o — o PROCESS DRAFT PLAN NEXT STEPS Engaging the Community Build on the LRSP Public Comment Systemic Analysis Identify Solutions Adoption Prioritization KEY MILESTONES City Council • • 0 0 Advisory GroupV % • Adoption Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 • Community Report back on 0 Priority Safety Project • Draft Plan Engagement I outreach Development 9 Community • Equity Analysis/ Discuss data, 0 Engagement II Engagement III Plan solutions 0 Recommendations • High Injury Network Identification 4 VOCABULARY • Target Zero Action Plan - prioritized work plan to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries on the network �SEJC)05INJURIESA;?6 • Crashes or Collisions not accidents i • KSI - Killed or Serious Injury Crashes � u • . 2s • Systemic Safety - applying changes to a People14 c., m system based on calculated risk and not just zSAFE history SYSTEM v z 71 LU APPROACH ost Safer N197- Care Speeds •�A'�L Safer ILI Roads EspoNSfBILITY 15 vH gsv 5 71 , Engagement Surveys A - �ti- Sample of Events: `mac- 9ti - r Kent Parks/YMCA Community Day 2/24 & 9/14 !`.\\ �F�: �-Q !_-• School District Bus Drivers In-Training Day 3/8 0 Kent Arts Day at Kent Commons 3/9 • Eid Bazaar at Kent Senior Center 4/20 • Byblos Mediterranean Market 5/17 `- Kent Bike Rodeo 5/18 Kent Juneteenth 6/22 National Night Out 8/6 Street of Treats - Kent Downtown Partnership 10/26 R Luna Market for Dia de Los Muertos 11/2 a � C 3E 742St Vulnerable Users 4 s1s6 All Users �ati 5t- ���� SE 208 St H i h Injury Network � h - Qi' 1 SE 216 5: �s 248 sJ $228 r w • A High Injury Network (HIN) helps identify *Nam Or 16 ' 4 corridors with the highest levels of severe z F5 l' Sr2°U 5t _ injuries and fatalities. .. SE2s, a A Vulnerable Road User* includes people who are walking, rolling, motorcycling, or J SE 256 St -- a V cycling. Sir, C+ SE 272$1 a' 277 SI SE Y14J31 52 st 3 9 is Top Primary Collision Types (KSI) are: 68% of fatalities 51% of fatalities Entering at Vehicle Hit • serious injuriesand serious Angle Pedestrian involvinginjuries involving 0 0 �/ vulnerable road all road users 42 �0 54 �0 01 !0 ■ occur on Year of Analysis:2018-2022 7a ��o Roadways Removed:15,SR 516,SR 167 Under23 U.S.Code 3148and 23 U.S.Code 3407 safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists,compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, • - • - • of Ken#'S roads, evaluating orplanning the safety enhancement ofpotential crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or5tate court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressedin such reports,surveys,schedules,lists,or data. NrnklarEW a SW3dIh5t 5f 51'1 C1 St SN43rtlsr { ' ,' TMP Underserved Sleathsr �� = t S i Communities S�ooth st E3 1 y 5=lgth3t b . s The following socio-demographic variables S72�nd51.a � q 5]13r�St+Y _ s= SEZxy[h!n were used to identify communities that have fewer transportation options: t ,Yz ����rru� 51 • Low-income households (less than $50,000 per year, ,YK�t* a t th st SE YSdth St 200% of the federal poverty line) a f. Limited English proficiency �lfi a 'Jr - . �-d-- --- Q People of color t v T,th'R r _____ -- x Persons with a Disability sxeeth St W - _SG xaeihs_1 Youth (Under 18) y }Tlh�fbBY 37th SINE � - ". • Seniors (65 and older) 3MhUNE Figure 22 Undenewed Community Score rrrr Rail U derserved Ommunity Scar Low High ;CityLiornIts 0 Population density (weighting factor) AA updatd: Target - a Performance: Ca - - Priorities,, 1 • 1 PriorityList of One Areas Impairment Involved 5911/c WTSC Target Zero Data Trends Walkers and Bicyclists 36% Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) Lane Departure 3511/o Areas of Emphasis for King County: • Impairment Involved Speeding Involved 3GOlo Walkers and Bicyclists • Lane Departures Intersection Related 25% Impairment Invol,.ed Walkers and S oicli5ts Lane Departure Speeding Involved ` 50 10C SG 5o 40 so V 20 20 wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/tz-performance-dashboard/ O D13 PROCESS DRAFT PLAN NEXT STEPS Engaging the Community Build on the LRSP Public Comment Systemic Analysis Identify Solutions Adoption Prioritization Target Zero: Kent aspires to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. Kent will continue to invest in safety plans, projects, and programs to make progress towards this goal , with a reevaluation of progress in 2030. Plan Goal KENT TARGET O SupportingPrinciples ALow r ? Underserved Community Scare • / � J safer Safer SAFE Safer Peo �1' •=� : i J KENT TARGET Q =[FAPPROACH Post-Crash Sa r Th* Care S SYSTEM peeds s •I�.. A L ;.r • :.i . s.. ••r yfit Safer A Safe System A Data-Driven An Equitable A Multidisciplinary Approach Approach Approach Approach SupportingPrinciples A *V LOW r Underserved Community Score a ■����i • / Safer Safer FSAFE ... Peo Vehicles �1 •=��. i KENT TARGET SYSTEM APPROACH eo � S Care _ •f :; '. s 1. por Safer al oil ..._� ; ii smog A Safe System A Data-Driven An Equitable A Multidisciplinary Approach Approach Approach Approach VRU Road Segment PrioritIzation — f , Project PrioritizationJ, 1 . Data inputs _ 2. Key considerations and top crash types 57°0 100. 4 Wr 3. Final project focus areas Kent Project Map:Areas of Focus DRAFT 4. Assemble project packages to address top systemic safety needs Project Packages All Segments a. Safer Crossings for f Vulnerable Road Users y/J b. Appropriate Speeds c. Safer Signals / • `�4 1 SE 192 St a - Project Packages .......... .. ...... SE 208 5t 52125t�' 4•• 167 ti - 4 �5£2Tfi St Li �S 218 5t f� ..... All Se ments g 5zz�5� �b . s zi6 St 7 t�Veterans Or....:::::::: ..... .-. .4 qa•- 5 a. Safer Crossings for '° ' ,,,,, •�W lames St:•c fames St 52465t H SE 2-0U 52 Vulnerable Road Users :: a �� ESmEth SY: a[[[a W Meeker5t;'N ` ... ...........5E-2485t 16 b. A ro riate Speeds pp pEWillis:5t::: E n .i• s:::7.• .... r Sr 256 St 5 260;5t C. Safer Signals18 5,6 '. :.: 5 u : N:SE 267•a::St 516 N 5272 St •• :::: T • Kangl nt "m ::SE 272 St v 5E Ke I _ Q : � sznst ; z; ri. 5�2, w S: 18 Priority Project Corridor i Priority Project Area C23ST Disadvantaged Community Miles Year of Analysis:2018-2022 Roadways Removed:15,SR 516,SR 167 Under23 U.5.Code.4148and 23 U.5.Code 4407,safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists,compiled or collected for the purpose ofidentifying evaluating,or planning the safety enhancement ofpotential crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressedin such reports,surveys,schedules,lists,or data. Pro ' ect Package Example: J Safer Crossings for Vulnerable Road Users Multilane, arterial streets with high traffic volumes and posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour and over where VRUs are crossing Downtown Area 11 A. W Smith St without enhanced treatments. Streets overlap WJames St } Washington Ave with YRU HIN. 41h Ave Commercial Area 20 Focus: T' 4 SE 260th 104th Ave SE What is the driver doing? S Going Straight Ahead 7 167 Vehicle hits pedestrian/bicyclist Speeding " -J 14 What is happening? z 5,6 zo Dark- Streetlights On , 3 18 =+ 518 Under the Influence (driver or ped) ,8 Year of Analysis:2018-2022 Roadways Removed:15,SR 516,SR 167 Under23 U.5.Code.4148and 23 U.5.Code 4407,safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists,compiled or collected for the purpose ofidentifying evaluating,or planning the safety enhancement ofpotential crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressedin such reports,surveys,schedules,lists,or data. Pro ' ect Package Example: J Safer Crossings for Vulnerable Road Users EERIN G SOLUTIONS Accessible Pedestrian Signals (AIDS) with Spud Enforcement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)* C rosswalk Will b i I itV enha nce m e nts* Revise to rget or lower speed 11 m its Lane width reduction* Targeted yielding enforcement Corn pl ete s idewa I k m issing I i n ks or protected Automated traffic enforcement c a meras (detect shau Ider wa I kvvays (e.g., extruded cu rb) speed i ng, red liq ht ru n n i nq) Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Countermeasure- specific educational outreach Enhanced crossings near transit stops Safety campaigns and messaging for motorists Enhanced crosswalks Frith pedestrian refuge Safety tra1nIng for Limited English Pr€ficiency island populations, chi Idren, older adults, and people with disabilities Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHE6) signals Dynamic speed (radar) feedback signage Corridor/intersection Lig kiting Automated speed warnings Reduce d istances between controlled High-Visibility Enforcement crossings Separated bikeways Media and Progressive Tic ketinq 12 *low cost, h rgh effective n ess er?gfn eerfn g so lutions Community C-�s 3 Withriopl, Engagement Phase 2 In the second phase of outreach, the City discussed project types along key corridors with past crashes or 12F similar risk factors. This phase revealed that the following project types are most desired: Busier str"tr' MgarRetail : ...: 0 Align speed management with improvements. Educational campaigns to address impaired and ff- AV T MIN distracted driving, and/or automated enforcement. Sidewalks with comfortable buffer from travel lanes. 00 Street lighting. Raised crosswalks, curb bulbs, and improved pedestrian crossings. O — o — o . 13 (D o PROCESS DRAFT PLAN NEXT STEPS Engaging the Community Build on the LRSP Public Comment Systemic Analysis Identify Solutions Adoption Prioritization YEAR ENear-term actions are . _Zvi#hin ##�e firs# threeIm lementation rs acti n are prioritiee following three to Implementation and Monitoring s. Ln -term actin are priorities beyond five years. Phasing and Sequencing • Near-term TARGET • Mid-term Oversight & Accountability 40,� ZEPb- Follow up with community on progress, in KEN T KING COUNTY WASH I N G T O N FORCETRAFFIC SAFETY TASK Language Funding �InM°p 8 t,l OF TRgNsa y►° �Oje ��ti a� fil a 4e 7` Lf O C ° O l AF 1 r O � SrA7ES OF PeA PS RC WSDOT TIB USDOT .r Z E R O�(� �• CITY OF KENT ACTION VLAN v KENT W nsnincrory DRAFT AL Q 00, keTAR(iE t y cos 0Vj Fop O CTI N c% PLAN S 5 afer Road ' CITYOFKENT v •�� O� ���, "r �, r�fie► J 16� 2025 KENT TARGET o 7=1 [P= R ( D ACTION PLAN Draft et 0 Zero Action Plan P re pa red fo r: City of Kent January 2025 FEHRtPEERS Under 23 U.S.Code§148 and 23 U.S.Code§407,safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists,compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying,evaluating,or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway- highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports,surveys, schedules,lists,or data. The City's Target Zero Action Plan is an aspirational plan that recognizes a myriad offactors and elements must align to enable a Safe System.This includes appropriate road user behavior by users,which cannot always be managed solely through the engineering of City roadways. Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................................................1 Chapter1: Background..................................................................................................................1 Background................................................................................................................................................................................2 ASafe System Approach....................................................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2: Building Upon Prior Safety Efforts....................................................................4 Plansand Programs.............................................................................................................................................................4 Policies...........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Chapter3: Engaging the Community.................................................................................... 8 EquitableOutreach Approach.......................................................................................................................................8 Demographics..........................................................................................................................................................................9 Kent Underserved Communities.......................................................................................................................10 TargetZero Advisory Group...........................................................................................................................................12 WhatWe Heard.....................................................................................................................................................................12 Chapter4: Analyzing Crash Data ...........................................................................................16 Examinationof Crash Trends........................................................................................................................................17 KingCounty......................................................................................................................................................................17 Kent.......................................................................................................................................................................................19 Development of a High Injury Network................................................................................................................28 Calculation of Higher Crash Risk Factors.............................................................................................................30 SystemicAnalysis.........................................................................................................................................................30 Chapter5: Identifying Solutions............................................................................................33 Selectionof Safety Focus Areas..................................................................................................................................35 Identification of Final Priority Projects...................................................................................................................35 Final Priority Project Packages...........................................................................................................................36 Chapter6: Reaching Target Zero..........................................................................................42 ActionPlan...............................................................................................................................................................................43 ImplementationStrategies...........................................................................................................................................46 EvaluationStrategies.........................................................................................................................................................47 List of Fig u res Figure 1: Safe System Approach Wheel (Source: FHWA)......................................................................................2 Figure 2: Kent Underserved Communities..................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Community-Identified Safety Concerns by Mode...........................................................................15 Figure4: King County Fatalities..........................................................................................................................................18 Figure 5: All Crashes in Kent by Injury Type..............................................................................................................20 Figure 6: All Crashes by Severity by Year in Kent...................................................................................................21 Figure7: KSI by Year in Kent................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 8: All Crashes by Mode in Kent..........................................................................................................................22 Figure 9: All Pedestrian Crashes in Kent.....................................................................................................................23 Figure 10: All Bicycle Crashes in Kent...........................................................................................................................24 Figure 11: All Motorcycle Crashes in Kent...................................................................................................................25 Figure 12: All Vehicle Crashes in Kent...........................................................................................................................26 Figure13: Kent High Injury Network..............................................................................................................................29 Figure 14: Calculated Higher Crash Risk Locations...............................................................................................32 Figure 15: Steps to generate Project Focus Areas..................................................................................................34 Figure 16: Highest Scoring Project Focus Areas.....................................................................................................37 Figure 17: Map annotated by community members at YMCA........................................................................3 Figure 18: Online web map filled out by residents.................................................................................................4 Figure 19: How do you primarily travel around Kent?...........................................................................................5 Figure 20: What are your top transportation safety concerns that the City should address?...5 Figure 21: Underserved Communities and CEJST Disadvantaged Communities.............................16 Figure 22: All Road User Prioritization..........................................................................................................................23 Figure 23: Vulnerable Road User Prioritization.......................................................................................................25 List of Tables Table1: Key Crash Trends in Kent....................................................................................................................................27 Table 2: Priority Criteria and Evaluation Overview................................................................................................35 Table 3: Target Performance Measures.......................................................................................................................47 Table 4: Racial Equity Impact Assessment..................................................................................................................12 Table 5: CEJST Categories and Indicators of Burden............................................................................................15 Table 6: WSDOT Crash Cost Estimates..........................................................................................................................19 Table 7: Prioritization Analysis and Scoring ..............................................................................................................26 Table8: Safety Funding Sources......................................................................................................................................34 Acknowledgements Thank you to the community members and stakeholders who participated in virtual and in-person engagement events. Your input was invaluable in creating a successful Kent Target Zero Action Plan. Thank you to the elected officials, Kent staff, Target Zero Advisory Group, and the business community for providing input during this process. Your feedback helped align this plan with local priorities, policies, and existing programs. Elected Officials Dana Ralph, Mayor Satwinder Kaur, Council President Bill Boyce, Councilmember John Boyd, Councilmember Brenda Fincher, Councilmember Marli Larimer, Councilmember Zandria Michaud, Councilmember Toni Troutner, Councilmember Target Zero Advisory Group Haidar AI-Abedi, Open Doors for Multicultural Families Tshishiku Henry, Wide World For Refugee Vislee Roman, Kent Meridian High School Tim Erwin, Kent Bicycle Advisory Board Sara Wood, King County Target Zero Task Force Justin Dennison, Kent School District April Delchamps, Washington State Department of Transportation Kent Staff David Paine,AICP, City Transportation Planner Erik Preston, PE, City Traffic Engineer Lucie Wu,Transportation Planner Honey Maria, Engineer Rob Brown, PE,Transportation Engineering Manager Maria Tizoc, Race and Equity Coordinator Fehr & Peers Consultant Team Taylor Whitaker Emily Alice Allhart,AICP Kendra Breiland,AICP Moiz Abdul Majid Toole Design Consultant Team Michael Houston, PE Maimoona Rahim Anish Tailor Glossary ADT Average Daily Traffic CRF/CMF Crash Reduction Factor/Crash Modification Factor DUI Driving Under the Influence FHWA Federal Highway Administration HIN High Injury Network HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KSI Killed or Severe Injury Crashes LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PCF Primary Crash Factor PDO Property Damage Only Crashes PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon RAISE Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity program (USDOT) RRFB Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All program (USDOT) TZAG Target Zero Advisory Group TZAP Target Zero Action Plan USDOT US Department of Transportation CITY OF ♦ R • ACTION PLAN ABOUTTHE - Target - • Action ' (TZAP) is . blueprint • Kent to ET chieve the goal Of eliminating ff I tra ic deaths . • serious .+F.- es through • oriPzed nil A _ Background Kent aspires to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. Kent will continue to invest in safety plans, projects, and programs to make progress towards this goal, with a reevaluation of progress in 2030. IKent's Goal is Guided by Four Principles LOW _ Underserved Community Score 010 . Safe _ • -? 1 � er „ 4eopiepp- Vehicles { • • SAFE KENT TARGET Q. . _ ° O � :.�: ,: - ?ZERO Post-Crash S"'e' care Speeds Safer A Safe System A Data-Driven An Equitable A Multidisciplinary Approach Approach Approach Approach Kent will pursue a Safe Kent will continue Kent will take an Kent will continue System, incorporating to pursue ongoing equitable approach to to collaborate with safety plans, projects, evaluation to identify roadway safety,with a a multidisciplinary and programs for safer where and why traffic focus on investment and group, including people,streets, speeds, crashes occur, and prioritization of roadway emergency response, vehicles, and post-crash prioritize safety plans, safety in underserved law enforcement, care. projects, and programs communities. equity, and educational that aim to eliminate partners,to achieve fatal and serious injury roadway safety goals. crashes. CITY OF KENT - TARCET ZEROACTION PLAN 2 What is the Safe System Approach? The Safe System Approach covers a wide S��\pU5 INJURIES gRFUNgC range of potential policies and actions that cFATq government agencies and other entities, including non-governmental organizations, _ •y community groups, and individuals, can `Qv' G39 undertake to improve safety on roadways. Safer Safers People - - 3 The TZAP serves as the City's blueprint to Z SAFE 3 meaningfully advance this goal through prioritized o SYSTEM investments in infrastructure, education, emergency D A w * y services, enforcement, and culture change. . . . � .� Founded on the belief that death and serious injuries tp •ost-Crash Safer on city streets are preventable,the Safe System 7,,�, Care SpeedsQ Approach has five core principles and considers how the transportation system as a whole can be sA JS' improved to avoid serious and fatal crashes. Safer a To learn more,visit the USDOT FHWA's website: F . Roads �J e FHWA Zero Deaths and Safe System RESPONSIBILITY IS SHAR11-U • Equitable Outreach Community engagement is vital to the success of the TZAP, reflecting diverse community perspectives and building trust to serve as the foundation for the plan's outcomes.The City of Kent conducted three citywide phases of engagement as part of the TZAP. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 IF PHASE 3 3H Listening and Learning Integrating Community Input Project Prioritization The TZAP team heard Using community input from Phase The TZAP team shared initial from over 300 community 1,the TZAP team identified a draft ideas for projects and plans participants on issues High Injury Network (HIN) which for prioritization with the and locations of concern, highlights areas with higher rates of community.The draft plan perceived safety, and specific serious crashes and common factors sets a clear goal:To work ideas for improvement. that contribute to them. Further towards a future with zero outreach was conducted to share fatal and serious crashes on findings and collect additional input city streets. on the types of improvements to focus on. The Outreach Process Included: 15 fP 4 300+ In-person Events Advisory Group CPiAFSurvey Responses Meetings 3 CITY OF • • ACTION The online survey and webmap Community- invited participants to "pin" identified Safety specific locations of concern by • �� Concerns travel mode and add a comment 1. • • Walking if they wished.The webmap • Bicycling collected over 200 comments in • • • • driving total, of which nearly70% (138) a, owl were: • Transit were walking-related,29% (58) • driving-related, and 12% (23) • 167 = 1 biking-related. 1 •• � � � • 1 j • � '� t _ 200+ •«• 5,6 • _ ••�• • • • Total Comments 516138 - • • • • • •S • • • Boik ng 23 V Driving People Were Most Concerned About • Vehicle speeds Increased Enforcement Desire for marked or Behavior change enhanced crosswalks School zones _ Missing sidewalks Key Crash Trends The data analysis considers the number of crashes, breakdown by mode and severity, and primary crash factors and movements preceding the crashes.The data-driven process for the TZAP process includes: Ip Examination of jLL Development of a --� Calculation of Higher Crash Trends '�'��' High-Injury Network Crash Risk Factors Identifying when,where, and Identifying roadways where most Identifying the most prevalent why crashes occur and who is injury crashes are concentrated crash types using a combination involved. for more targeted analysis. of crash factors and contextual data. Selection of Safety +, Identification of Final Q Focus Areas LO Priority Projects Identifying focus areas using Packaging the key locations into scoring metrics based on crash four key themes, and identifying trends,the High Injury Network, engineering and non-engineering equity considerations, community solutions for each location. feedback, and selected higher crash risk factors. ZEPO ACTION PLAN 4 Key KSI Crash Trends in Kent The TZAP analyzed WSDOT crash data from 2018 to 2022 on all local roadways within city boundaries to better understand road safety performance in Kent.The infographic below summarizes key Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) crash trends using various metrics, including by mode, circumstance, location,type of movement,time of day, and age and gender. KSI crashes are the most serious type of crashes that result in fatalities or serious injuries. Circumstance-Based Mode-Based Trends Location-Based Trends A number of different circumstances can contribute to Trends fatal crashes,including speeding,not granting right of way,distracted driving,and driving while under the Vehicles are involved in the majority of total influence of alcohol or drugs. The majority of KSI crashes occurred crashes and KSI crashes.While pedestrians at intersections or roadways related were involved in just 3%of crashes,they make Source:WTSC Data,2018-2022 to an intersection. up nearly a quarter of KSI crashes. / bw • Occurred at KSI Crashes �� Driveways or Related 57% i ► Roads 23% Reported KSls 4% 6% I Per Police Crash Reports 2% 1% < 1% PEED Occurred at Occurred at 1 An Intersection A Roadway that is Total Crashes 1 1 or Roadway not an Intersection Related to an or Related to an 97% Intersection Intersection Movement- - - • Age & Gender- Based Trends - Based Trends Common movements contributing to KSI • . •• • • Most KSIs involved individuals of crashes include driving into a fixed object, •. • . the male gender.Overall,the making a left-or right-turning movement,and majority of KSIs occurred between driving straight and colliding with a pedestrian. the ages of 20 to 29 and 40 to 49. Movement NOJ'11 Going Straight and Hitting a • Pedestrian ' tcler Ofall reported . • Entering at KSIs occurred an Angle when it was dark Hitting an 0 19 ' Object 20-29 30-39- Making a Left • ' • 40-49 ' . Turning 50-59 17% Movement 60+ 14% 5 CITY OF • • ACTION High Injury Network (HIN) A High Injury Network All Users Vulnerable Road Users (HIN) helps identify Corridors highlighted in yellow Corridors highlighted in blue corridors with the highest see the highest levels of traffic see the highest levels of traffic levels of severe injuries related injuries and fatalities for related injuries and fatalities and fatalities. all users. for vulnerable road users.A vulnerable road user is someone walking, rolling, or using a motorcycle or bicycle. a > a co > `° SE 192 St Vulnerable Users are S 196 St All Users 5e Jy 181 t ry�Jy SE 208 St Q5 212 St N a SE 216 St S 218 St f> n m o Q S 228 St wm Veterans Dr 167 u+ ?i: n � W `^ SE 240 st in- � rn t�eeK S 248St SE 248-St m m 99 516 N ' -ri a �� SE-256,St v 0 Z!Zl w 516 Q sE 272 St a 4� m SE2775t SEI274-�� N S 27 st ' L Q- �+ N • � 18 •. of 51%of fatalities • serious injuries and serious Mies involving injuries involving Under23U.S. ode§148and23U.S.Code§407, all road users safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists,compile 68% 51% -vulnerable •' • or collected for the purpose c identifying,evaluating, • • occur on crash sh planning azar?J us enhancement of potential or r it crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway- highway crossings are not subject to discovery or Q admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court r, •5/Q proceeding or considered for other purposes in any of Kent's roads. action for damages arising from any occurrence at ofroads. a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys,schedules,lists,or data. CITY OF KENT m TARGET ZERO ACTION PLAN 6 How were projects prioritized? To guide future investments,the City developed a prioritization framework that is both responsive to historic crash locations and proactive in identifying areas where crash likelihood may be higher due to the combination of land use and roadway characteristics present. Using this framework,the highest scoring Project Focus Areas were identified. COM DATAINPUTS, KEY CONSIDERATIONSFINAL PROJECT FOCUS AREAS FOR: • Vulnerable Road User HIN Inclusion on TIP list/ All Modes • All modes HIN potential for funding • Vulnerable Road Users Calculated higher Adjust segment lengths • crash risk factors based on logical start ,-- • Equity analysis and end points ' 00 �-- • Community feedback Possibility of leveraging rn - � *0—m other adjacent projects • Proximity to destinations j P (schools, parks, Transportation Advisory shopping, etc.) Group input • II �i A e Highest Scoring The highest scoring Project Focus SE 1925t Project Focus Corridors 51965t Areas highlighted Highest Scoring on this map were Project Focus 52065t SE2065t identified usingthe Areas 167 a 5 data inputs and key m 6 SE 216 St considerations listed sz 218 St 3 below. The project , za si m oa 52295t a Lei° Sete o. areas #11 (downtown 8 m Kent) and #20 99 yy lames St v U` Elames S< 52405[ 515 SE 2405t (commercial area) contain a grouping pyfth gy'144 5 52^65t SE 240 St / of high priority e 6 F e° segments. SE 256 St 6259 S 6011 5259 P, S, , S w� a �SE2]St 516 SE Kent Ka°ie 52]2 St c SE 2]25[ SE 2i]St SE 214 a ry s zn st P 18 �Miles Reaching Target Zero .F� •r• .l ,'w,• ST J. � 7 f Cap. � �.� .1,�� � , �y• To view the full plan: ,M a Visit the link below s or scan the QR • �ff code on the left. t4 Link placeholder ■ Successful implementation of this Plan will require: VProven Safety I Funding CC/9 Identify Target Solutions `•' Metrics and Measure Staying up-to-date on relevant Performance Utilizing a list of proven safety grant opportunities and solutions, both engineering, proactively pursue grant funding Tracking targets and actions set and non-engineering,that can for the most competitive projects in the plan to measure safety be implemented to improve as match funding is available. outcomes and investments, transportation facilities safer. and track performance every Phasingand other year. For every action or OOversight and Sequencing strategy, responsible parties J and anticipated timeline are Accountability Committing to ongoing long- identified: Forming a task force of City term investment from the City, with different areas of focus over YEAR staff,who will help maintain different time horizons near- sustained focus and success di ( Near-term actions are term, mid-term, and long-term). priorities within the first three in implementing projects and years. actions identified in the TZAP. Track Key Metrics Mid-term actions are priorities Trust and and Update the Plan within the following three to five IF Communication Regularly Communicating regularly with Updating and tracking the TZAP Long-term actions are g g y priorities beyond five years. stakeholders and community and Local Road Safety Plan build trust and (LRSP) every other year to identify members to support for the trust safety crash trends, qualify for additional Several actions are identified as goals. grant opportunities, and assess ongoing, indicating that they are whether new direction is needed actions already underway in the as conditions within the City and City and anticipated to continue region change. through continued investment. KENT FG ET M[E0 Chapter 1: Background Each year from 2018 through 2022, on average, 39 people were seriously injured and 8 lives were lost in traffic-related crashes in the City. By implementing a "safety-first" approach to intentionally and proactively reduce, and hopefully eliminate transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries, the Kent Target Zero Action Plan (TZAP) is a commitment to transform how the City of Kent prioritizes safety, aiming to build a community where every journey is a safe one. Goal: Kent aspires to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. Kent will continue to invest in safety plans, projects, and programs to make progress towards this goal, with a reevaluation of progress in 2030. Kent's goal is guided by the following principles: • A Safe System Approach: Kent will pursue a Safe System; incorporating safety plans, projects, and programs for safer people, streets, speeds, vehicles, and post-crash care. • A Data-Driven Approach: Kent will continue to pursue ongoing evaluation to identify where and why traffic crashes occur and prioritize safety plans, projects, and programs that aim to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. • An Equitable Approach: Kent will take an equitable approach to roadway safety, with a focus on investment and prioritization of roadway safety in underserved communities. • A Multi-Disciplinary Approach: Kent will continue to collaborate with a multi-disciplinary group, including emergency response, law enforcement, community based organizations, and educational partners, to achieve roadway safety goals. The TZAP serves as a blueprint for Kent to work to achieve this ambitious goal through prioritized investment in infrastructure, education, emergency services, enforcement, and shared awareness. KENT FG ET M[E0 BACKGROUND As the sixth most populated city in the State of Washington, Kent houses about 140,0001 residents. Kent's diverse population is 41 percent White, 22 percent Asian, 16 percent Hispanic or Latino, 13 percent Black or African American, 3 percent Native or Pacific Islander, and 1 percent American Indian and Alaska Native. The gender breakdown of Kent's population is Sl percent male and 49 percent female. In 2022, 69 percent of workers in Kent drove alone to work, followed by those who carpooled to work (12.6 percent) and those who worked at home (10.1 percent). A SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH The TZAP is built around the "Safe System Approach," founded on the principle that people make mistakes, and that the road system should be adapted to anticipate and accommodate human mistakes.z It acknowledges the vulnerability of the human body when designing and operating a transportation network so that if crashes occur, they are less likely to result in serious human injury. The Safe System Approach includes five key elements-safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care- integrated Figure 1:Safe System Approach Wheel through a range of interventions, shown in (Source: FHWA) Figure 1. These interventions include the following: �❑st,,�pos lNauRrEs gR�UNa • Separating users in physical space (e.g., sidewalks, dedicated bicycle �. • y� facilities) Tk • Separating users in time (e.g., time for pedestrians to start crossing the 2 N street before cars begin turning, and a N signalized left turns) • Alerting users to potential hazards • Discouraging or prevent risky behaviors AHOY yp¢� • Slowing or managing vehicle speeds •Res • �vsrarzirr is sHARVD https://www.census.gov/q u ickfacts/fact/table/kentcitywash i n gto n/R H l725223 2 https://safety.fhwa.dot.ciov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf 2 KENT ��G ET � 0 • Accommodating human injury tolerance through interventions that reduce impact speed and transfer of kinetic energy In a Safe System, interventions are deployed proactively and systemically, meaning they are applied across a network or a group of locations sharing similar roadway or land use context, to reduce the potential or likelihood for fatal and serious injury crashes. �� 3 KENT FG ET MLE0 Chapter 2: BuildingUpon Prior Safety Efforts Kent's efforts to improve safety have been visible through a range of plans, infrastructure projects, and educational campaigns. Creating more comfortable transportation options for people to walk, bike, and take transit can make these modes more attractive and reduce the number of car trips in Kent. The plans, programs, and policies work together to identify issues, take input from the public, potential solutions, and register improvements for all modes. PLANS AND PROGRAMS The City of Kent has several plans and policies that help to define future development, including the 2024 Local Road Safety Plan, the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, the 2021 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and the Residential Traffic Calming Program. These plans and policies, following the plans, serve to guide development, support community services, and inform design and operations for certain corridors or areas within the city. Additional plans and policies are reported in Appendix A. Systemic Local Road Safety Plans (2024) For the last five years, Kent has developed a Systemic Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The latest plan, completed in 2024, identified "Hit Pedestrian," "Angle," and "Hit Fixed Object" as the most frequent crash types in Kent. The LRSP includes a ranked list of roadway segments and intersections based on crash rate, crash severity, and risk factors. It includes lists of safety countermeasures to address the leading crash types for both spot and systemic improvements.The updated LRSP is included as Appendix B to the Target Zero Action Plan. Comprehensive Plan (2024) The 2024 Final Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element is the framework for transportation investments over the next 20 years in accordance with the community's mobility priorities. This element sets goals, objectives, and policies to improve mobility and quality of life in Kent.This element addresses how the City will use context-sensitive design to help create a safer, more reliable, and balanced r blo 4 KENT TARGET M[EFDI0 multimodal transportation system for all users that supports current and projected growth. The Transportation Element reinforces Kent's goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries through the following guiding principles: a Safe System Approach, a Data-Driven Approach, an Equitable Approach, and a Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Additionally, the Transportation Element includes 12 policies that support the City's goal to "promote community health by improving safety and making walking, biking, and getting to transit viable and comfortable alternatives to driving." Transportation Master Plan (2021) Kent'sTransportation Master Plan (TMP) provides a long-range (20-year) roadmap of citywide infrastructure projects and strategic programs to enhance the transportation system for all users, using a performance-based analysis approach that includes safety. The TMP emphasizes a multimodal approach, addressing the diverse needs of drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. One of the five goals, "promote community health by improving safety and by making walking, biking, and getting to transit viable and comfortable alternatives to driving," includes policies relating to lowering speeds, reducing bicycle level of traffic stress, and reducing killed or severe injury (KSI) crashes by implementing safety-focused projects and programs while considering the state's best practices. Residential Traffic Calming Program (2020) Through the Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP), residents and community groups can join forces to help tackle neighborhood traffic safety concerns. Residents fill out a request form and the City Traffic Engineer conducts a traffic study collecting data on traffic speeds; average daily traffic (ADT); crash history; pedestrian facilities; and proximity to parks, schools, or transit stops. The RTCP includes recommendations for education and enforcement and engineering solutions. Education and enforcement include radar speed trailers, and traffic enforcement. Engineering solutions include chicanes, medians, lane striping, raised crosswalks, speed cushions, and other common traffic calming devices. Kent Police Photo Enforcement Program Kent police have installed automated enforcement cameras located near six elementary schools documenting and fining drivers for exceeding the school zone speed limit of 20 mph. The criteria for determining where the school zone �� 5 KENT ��G ET � 0 enforcement cameras are placed include the location of the arterial in relation to the school, the age of the students, the average vehicle speed, standard reactionary time, and vehicle stopping distances. Pursuant to RCW 46.63.170, cities can add one additional speed safety camera for every 10,000 residents.There are currently 12 school zone speed cameras operating at six elementary schools under separate photo enforcement program authorized by the state. There are also 41 red light intersection enforcement cameras throughout Kent that are installed at 11 arterial intersections. Complete Streets: Chapter 6.14 Kent City Code (2016, 2017) The City of Kent adopted Ordinance 4207, on July 5, 2016 and Ordinance 4247 on June 6, 2017, entitled "Complete Streets." Chapter 6.14 of the Kent City Code codifies the City's commitment to a transportation system that provides for all users, regardless or mode, age, or ability and set forth an administrative checklist process to ensure projects are scoped to include consideration of all existing standards and policies that support safe walking and biking environments, in addition to considerations that go above and beyond the standards. This ordinance outlines the city's commitment to creating a transportation system that is safe, convenient, and accessible for all users, regardless of age, ability, or preferred mode of travel (pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, etc.). The Complete Streets code provisions apply to all new city transportation projects, including new construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. City plans, guidelines, and standards will be updated to reflect complete streets principles and best practices. ADA-specific projects and routine maintenance are exempt. Other projects can be exempt under specific circumstances, such as if they conflict with environmental regulations, public safety, or create excessively high costs. Crosswalk Marking Policy: Resolution 1931 (2016) Resolution 1931 outlines a methodology for where Kent installs marked crosswalks. It provides that they should be installed at signal-controlled intersections, stop-sign controlled intersections in the downtown area, uncontrolled intersections with a peak hourly pedestrian volume of 20; or 15 for children and seniors, and designated FT 11 6 KENT FG ET M[E0 school crossing locations. Marked crosswalks will not be installed at uncontrolled intersections with low pedestrian volume, if the cost is deemed excessive compared to the projected use, or if the traffic engineer determines a marked crosswalk is unsafe due to reasons such as poor sight distance and heavy truck traffic. These crosswalks will need to be installed with additional safety features such as flashing beacons. KENT FG ET M[E0 Chapter 3: Engagingthe Community EQUITABLEOUTREACH APPROACH Community engagement continues to be vital to the success of the TZAP, reflecting diverse community perspectives and building trust to serve as the WE REACHED MANY foundation for the plan. This chapter highlights what we have heard from the community at each phase of COMMUNITIES engagement. Guided by internal partners and local community-based organizations, the City conducted three citywide phases of engagement: 9 Transportation Advisory Group • Phase 1 Listening and Learning -We heard 9 Kent D. Community from over 300 community participants on 9 KentSchool location issues, perceived safety, and specific District Bus Driver ideas for improvement. D- • Phase 2 Integrating Community Input-The 9 Kent Arts Day team identified a draft High Injury Network Eid Bazaar with (HIN) that highlights areas with higher rates of Iraqi Community serious crashes and describes the common Center factors that contribute to them. After working KentBike_ _Rodeo through Phase 1 and analyzing the data, we with nt Bicycle Advisory went back to the community to share what we Board learned and get input on the types of Kent Juneteenth improvements we should focus on. Bylblos Mediterranean Phase 3 Project Prioritization -We went back Market to the community to share our initial ideas for National Night Out projects and how we plan to prioritize them. Spooky Streets Kent D. This TZAP is created for everyone who travels in Kent, Partnership including residents, workers, and visitors. Negative Haunted Boo - safety outcomes disproportionately affect levard Station disadvantaged communities, especially when Luna Market roadway conditions associated with higher crash risk are frequently located in disadvantaged areas, which r 110 8 KENT 7G ET ME0 are areas that correlate to historic under investment or emphasis on one mode over others. As a result, Kent aims to prioritize projects and locations that support disadvantaged communities and balance user needs. In total, we received over 700 comments in the development of the plan, with the majority through one of 1S in- person events. To support inclusive outreach, the City translated most materials from English into six additional languages commonly spoken in Kent: Spanish, Chinese, Punjabi, Tagalog, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. In addition, the City coordinated with local partners to provide live interpretation at key events to encourage members of the public to participate however they felt most comfortable. f DEMOGPAPHICS Equity considerations are an important component of analyzing and improving roadway safety through the Safe System Approach, and equity is an important value for the City of Kent. Over the past several years, City departments have reoriented their efforts to ensure equitable outcomes in Kent and it was important that this emphasis be reflected in transportation decisions. There are many ways to measure access to opportunities to prioritize lessening the burden of transportation. This TZAP leverages analysis done in the Comprehensive Plan's transportation element �� 9 KENT FG ET M[E0 to be consistent with decisions made prioritizing transportation investments. The TZAP also utilizes the USDOT Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool'. Kent Underserved Communities The TMP identified undeserved communities based on data that commonly relate to having fewer transportation options to advance equity by prioritizing projects that benefit these communities. Figure 2 shows a map of underserved community scores. The following socio-demographic variables were used: • Low-income households (less than $50,000 per year, 200 percent of the federal poverty line) • Limited English proficiency • People of color • Persons with a Disability • Youth (Under 18) • Seniors (65 and older) • Population density (weighting factor) CEJST Disadvantaged Communities The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) is one social index tool that measures equity by designated census tracts with a significant concentration of disadvantaged populations. It is one of the demographic "lenses" used by this plan to inform engagement and solutions. The CEJST utilizes census data to explore the burden communities experience because of underinvestment in transportation. It measures the burden these communities experience using Climate Change, Energy, Health, Legacy Pollution, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, and Workforce Development.' Disadvantaged census tracts within Kent, identified by the CEJST, are shown in Figure 2.Twenty-six percent of Kent residents (about 35,000 people) live in these disadvantaged census tracts. Tracts identified as disadvantaged by the CEJST tool strongly correlate to the underserved communities identified in the TMP. 3 https://screen i ngtool.geopl atform.goy/en/#9.9/47.3924/-122.1527 4 https://screeningtool.geoplatform.goy/en/methodology#9.9/47.3924/-122.1527 a 10 AGTfON PLAN Figure •e e• Communities m . 210 St 653381 •r � ® E J. Sli 240 SE2dOSt ,41 EAl Underserved Community Score Low 18, High C:rz]FT Disadvantaged Community Source: Kent Transportation , This figure displays how different areas within Kent are host ko Underserved Communities,based on the combined scoring of the proportion of population matching the demographic variables described above.These scares were used to rank the equity benefit of projects in their proximity. KENT FG ET M[E0 TARGET ZERO ADVISORY GROUP The Target Zero Advisory Group (TZAG) was convened to include City staff, partner agency staff from WSDOT and Kent School District, members of the public, and community-based organizations. The group met four times over the course of the project, and after the draft plan was complete to check in.The first meeting introduced the group to the Safe System Approach and gathered initial stakeholder input; the second introduced them to the High Injury Network and existing crash data trends and a draft policy commitment to Target Zero; and the third session gave the group the opportunity to provide input on the draft projects and solutions.The fourth meeting covered the draft plan. Members of this group were engaged throughout the plan's process to gather feedback, expand outreach representation, and ask questions that informed the plan development. 1WHAT WE HEARD _ . The City of Kent conducted surveys online and at in-person engagement events to understand people's priorities and perceived safety concerns. Following is a sample of feedback heard through discussions with TZAG members and community members in the Phase 1 outreach, which included discussions at events and an online web map, results are noted in Figure 3. • Concerns about vehicle speeds, noting locations where they feel cars drive too quickly in residential neighborhoods and in school zones. • Concerns about locations with no sidewalk, or a sidewalk that felt uncomfortable to walk or roll on due to narrow width, lack of buffer, or a state of disrepair. • Concerns near school zones, requesting improved signage, crosswalks, and traffic calming measures. • Requests for more connectivity and access to help fill infrastructure gaps for people walking and biking. Community members requested filling sidewalk gaps, creating bicycle connections, addressing lighting gaps, and improving marked crosswalks as well as enhancing currently unmarked crosswalks. r� �� 12 KENT FG ET M[E0 • People noted concerns with access to destinations such as transit stops. • Interest in more education, particularly for new drivers and immigrants. Recent arrivals noted they are less familiar with traffic laws and local driving customs. • Desire for increased enforcement, particularly concerning vehicle speeds and reckless driving. The following are some key corridors where people noted concerns about vehicle speeds and missing sidewalks, and wanted more marked or enhanced 9 crosswalks and enforcement: • Central Avenue N and S • SE Kent-Kangley Road • W Meeker Street • Woodland Way S • E and W James Street Many of these themes were present during each phase of outreach. In the second phase, community members generally agreed that the Phase 1 outreach accurately reflected public opinion. The second phase of outreach confirmed the following: • Education and incentives are desired for behavior change, ideally in multiple languages. • Community members would like the City to incorporate context-sensitive appropriate speed limits. • Filling sidewalk gaps continues to be a strongly desired improvement. • Technical terms such as "road diets" and "access management" can be divisive in part due to lack of understanding. �� 13 KENT ��G ET � 0 In the third phase of outreach, the City discussed project types along key corridors with past crashes or similar risk factors. This phase revealed that the following project types were most desired: • Street lighting. • Setting appropriate speed limits. • Supplemental traffic signal heads and retro- : .. ; reflective signage to improve visibility and - compliance. f Y • Comfortable and safe waiting areas for transit riders. r— • Educational campaigns to address , distracted and impaired driving and/or automated enforcement. • Raised crosswalks, curb bulbs, and improved pedestrian crossings. TARGET 'M[En Is Ayr Safe trick-or-treating' Travel in groups,walk on sidewalks,use crosswalks,and stay in well-lit areas.Use glanvsticke,flashlights,and reflective tape or stickers to help people see you at night. Slower speeds save lives' On average,children are more than twice as likely to be hit by a car and killed on hlalloween than any other day oft he yea r.Drive slowly and watch closely For trick-or-treaters.[IF you're enloying'adultpotions'do so responsiblyand ensure you have a designed driver or use a rideshare service to get horn a safely, t If you Feel Different, You Drive Different' Drive Hlgh.Get a OLII. If you see a drunk driver,contact law Example outreach material distributed enforcement, to families, raising awareness and We can all save lives bymaking smarter choices. •Plan ahead to have a sober driver if you plan to con sume education on risk-contributing behavior. alcof,olor use animpairrngdrug. Don't let friends get behind the wheel if they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs_ r� �� 14 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 3: Community-Identified Safety Concerns by Mode a' •SE 192�51 r- o� s zu6 sr •`O 167 �S SE zqg 5t a'' _ •----- silzst � I 18S + ,�E 21651 +'• s xzast � a� S 2 51 v a E jam 5t 52405t ! 2d051 a W Smn -t E SMIth st ff .�• SI. 0 1. 248 51j E M � a ra 4 ! " sw c . 5 Z p1 5E 256$ 5 259 •a � � ,y �g ! N " �S 516 L��7sl _ SE 272 SS Item I !id 52775 COMMUNITY-ICIENTIFIED SAFETY CONCERNS 18 ! Walking 1 ! 8lcycling J ! Driving ! Transit 0 075 05 N �Milk, Detailed information on public outreach, including the events and organizations the City collaborated with throughout the process, is provided in Appendix C. �� 15 KENT FG ET M[E0 Chapter 4: Analyzing Crash Data This chapter summarizes the results of a broad crash analysis for the City of Kent. To leverage existing City efforts under the What is a Fatal or Serious LRSP, this analysis considered crashes that Injury (KSI) Crash? occurred in the five-year period between January 2018 and December 2022 (the same AFatal Injury is any injury that results in analysis period for the LRSP), available death 0 days after the motor through the Washington State Department vehicle -. A Serious Injury is any injury. otherof Transportation (WSDOT) crash portal.' fatal which results in • _ or • _ of This plan includes analysis of crashes on the following: managed access state highways Kent • Severe _ - _ operates, which include State Route (SR) 99 exposure of underlying_ organsresulting (Pacific Highway S), SR 181 (Washington Ave significantin • ••• and 68t' Ave S), SR 515 (104t' Ave SE, Benson • Broken or distorted extremity Rd, and 108t' Ave SE), and sections of SR 516 (arm or leg) • Crush injuries (parts of Willis, Central, Smith, Canyon Dr, SE Suspected• _ 2561" St, Kent-Kangley Rd, and SE 272nd St). It abdominal injury othbruises or minor erlacerations does not include areas of the limited access Significant• - • and state highways Interstate (1)-5, SR 167, and a third degree burns over - ... 0% section of SR 516 (from 301" Ave S to the more . • Unconsciousness when taken Union Pacific Railroad), which are under the from - crash scene authority of WSDOT. Limited access • Paralysis highways in Kent are covered separately ediaI201,31 under the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. However, this plan is consistent with the analysis, methods, and findings of the State's Plan, and Washington Traffic Safety Commission's Target Zero priority/"level one" focus areas for King County.' s The crash data used in the preparation of this plan were provided by WSDOT and only includes crashes that were logged by police with a crash report. 6 Target Zero Performance Dashboard -Washington Traffic Safety Commission R 61 16 KENT FG ET M[E0 The data analysis considers the number of crashes, breakdown by mode and severity, and primary crash factors and movements preceding the crashes. The data- driven process for the TZAP process includes the following: • Examination of Crash Trends to evaluate when, where, and why crashes occur and who is involved. • Development of a High Injury Network to identify roadways where most injury crashes are concentrated for targeted intervention. • Calculation of Higher Crash Risk Factors using a combination of crash factors and contextual data to identify the most prevalent crash types. EXAMINATIONOF King County Traffic fatalities on all roads in King County increased' over the five year period of 2018-2022, as shown in Figure 4:.The Washington State Traffic Safety Commission (WSTC) tracks areas of emphasis for high-risk behaviors and crash type, including the following for the time period:' High Risk Behaviors • Impairment Involved (59%) • Speeding Involved (30%) Crash Type • Walkers and Bicyclists (36%) • Lane Departure (35%) • Intersection Related (25%) 7 https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ e https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/tz-performance-dashboard/accessed June and December 2024 17 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 4: King County Fatalities 180 168 160 151 137 140 120 108 102 112 115 107 110 100 80 80 60 40 20 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Source: Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Crash Data 2014-2023 M VI18 KENT FG ET M[E0 Kent To better understand road safety performance in Kent and consistent with the City's LRSP 2024 update, crash data was analyzed from 2018 to 2022 on all Kent-operated roadways within the City's boundaries (see Figure 6). During this period, an annual average of 39 people were seriously injured and 8 lives were lost in traffic-related crashes in the City. Compared to the prior period of 2014 to 2018, the total number of crashes with fatalities declined slightly from an average of 9 per year (see Figure 6). With the inclusion of 2023 data, the trend reversed, increasing to an average of13 lives lost between 2019 and 2023. Impairment as a contributing high-risk behavior has also increased, and ranks highest among high-risk behaviors tracked by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission for both the City and County. The number of fatal crashes over the last five years of data involving alcohol or drug impairment doubled (47) compared to the prior five-year period (23). Total fatal crashes also increased, but at a slower rate for the five-year period. Both impairment-involved and total-crashes increased, as did trends in greater King County. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic may be present in the crash data between 2020 and 2022 when the City experienced reduced travel overall. However, even with reduced travel and a reduction in injury crashes, total fatal and serious injury crashes have remained fairly consistent. Figure 5.2: Kent Impairment-Involved, and Total Fatalities M Impairment involved Fatal Crashes, Kent Total Fatal Crashes, Kent 25 22 20 18 15 14 12 11 11 10 9 8 9 10 9 6 6 7 6 7 5 5 4 5 1 0 1 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Source: Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Crash Data 2014-2023 i� 19 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 6.- All Crashes in Kent by Injury Type f se>92m •�y• • 5r9 St 4 Alf s s, sF zne sz s2,2s ro . lal � • �r • � a azta e _ H 5?265[ • Ve a • a • S�N•. ■ • • •a• ? • STS■ • ! • • �� ••t • � W larn •y � Elames Sl S 24U � SE 2-00 St • x �W Sryrh 3r E 'M. � m • � � 1 Se EGa+'•Si + ' •s '� S2454 SE SI �1, I'm � r�■• • � � �• • ■ • 81 �•S 2s4 w • • • $• Sld + $E 15a u •• i� 5 60 SI • 525@� • ys .• �• . � • � V.SE 75i �� � SM : •• S�72fii f C • 5E m.1• SE K•nf' le .. 2T7 fi E 2T4 • • • . • KSI Crashes { ,8 ■ Injury Crashes All Other Cra517Efs - f" r i a a.s as r MM- 20 r� KENT FG ET M[E0 Figure 7 summarizes all crashes by severity by year in Kent, Figure 8 summarizes all KS Is by year in Kent, while Figure 9 summarizes all crashes by mode by year in Kent. Figure 10 summarizes all pedestrian crashes, Figure 11 summarizes all bicycle crashes, Figure 12 summarizes all motorcycle crashes, and Figure 13 summarizes all vehicle crashes. Figure 7: All Crashes by Severity by Year in Kent 2500 2000 1500 — 1000 500 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■Fatality ■Serious Injury ■All Other Injury ■No Apparent Injury ■Unknown Source: WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022 Figure 8: KSI by Year in Kent 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■Fatality ■Serious Injury Source: WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022 �� 21 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 9: All Crashes by Mode in Kent 2500 80 70 v 2000 60 V) v L 1500 50 aU 40 0 iE 1000 v 30 0 s > ru 20 500 10 > 0 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Vehicle Bikes Motorcycle Pedestrians Source: WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022 r! `A 22 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 10: All Pedestrian Crashes in Kent I 11, SE.ly2:SS' sy, 51 I Sl 520851 SE 288 St 167 y 52F25t ■ 18t E2165t� ! • $218 St a f i` 52tB SE r� s ■ 03p I��$ E1..SE 52485E F SE 2405t ya f • s 1N'ill,S1 ddE N$t w`a WC-St E _St 51 5E 51 �u � EWJIis 1 `A S16 SE 256 St °� 5 59 W 5 25g� i • i 1_SE 267 Sx 'f 516 5 771 StS ' • rn ■ - G• SE2725t F gT15t 15E 271� S 2775 � � • .fir A'n IB • All Pedestrian Crashes KSI Pedesvian Crashes f l ❑ PJS ❑.5 I N �� 23 KENT TARGET 0 Figure 11: All Bicycle Crashes in Kent Ifir �l SE•ly2•SS r 167 yx� 5 20Q SI SE Mgt h 18E E216 St $21a St R 52z4`+t �C z x 8Q ■ I� sss � • w E James St 2dp St gam_ _ eM 240 S[ 2 g �y c W Smith Sy1}E rm Sx S �r �W6ewrSt e91 52'Ma 5I' '�+' S7 � �•�' dti d�`` lit sezeasr � E HKllis St 1 f 5T6 SE 25651 526051 S So Pr �' „ 5259 Y.SE 76751 $16 `tat St SE 272 St r Men[N I 'R 5�2TY St 1 E 27i ^J9 Rd 1 S 277 S 'F 16 • All BiCyCle CrasFl2s KSI B:Cycle Crashes f • f ❑ PJS ❑.5 I N MO, fr. i 24 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 12: All Motorcycle Crashes in Kent �l � 3 I 1 $ �se•1n2.ss s 1 st �i S 208 51 'W^ sE M St i 167 A a' c szl2st I 18E E2165t^ $218 st N 5226 SS N 52t85t r • VeuranE r r � v I 8 515 . _ w h�St g EJames s[ s 24-8 5t Imo. SEE 340 St $ $ i-i mf '•' y2 W Srtillh S E•Sn I dth St F .� �" � p Ww�e S[ E 5f• � y�st N E VA is St �. .r l S525651 4:76P SS S Sew �' � 5 253� S14 S_SE 207 Sr m $16 5 272 RW ! N C SE 272 St SE 00—t O(m glq • Sr 2T7 St s 2 S r 18 � • All Motorcycle Crashes KSI Motorcycle Crashes r' { ❑ PJS ❑.5 I Li li �M,lef � �� 25 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure 13: All Vehicle Crashes in Kent •.' t57 t 16i M • j. • • ■ • ■ i •H �• NFy ■ R 5 2 B 4 SF. OF, L t • wT 1f7 Y �' 1■■ •Y M■ p••• ■S ■ a R d•A • ■ -SE 27951 ■ ■ ■ • ■ • a ■La. III �+ 3i ■ •• �•Ti • • � • • 04 M • N •r•• .■ ■� • •. • �� • • Qr ! • • ■ • oz we $a$ ■ /• s ,tl psi•�� E' s� s xao sls NR = s+:au s • • •r • e. �*low wpylgwr ■f 1•rra �l-r.►.' r• • •a�►• '! 10 a •' a as i*,•Nt ;'r._ /w�i.': • Fr.:�:: • spa. sr av «.y ■ 95 � �z+ ■ - •■••�t • - o • • ir•Q! :"• • ■ • 4■ she L -r.t ■ • := 5 ace sir` ,■••I • i� �z ■ i••by:='- ■• w•f N •• i■ � ■■■• a � :^ it •`• r >-1!•�/n• � ■_ ■!■ t•• ■ • • r slc • • SE 2721, 7,7*[■sE 27a• w ■ :■.,a �n o..0:• vign:• no ■..• • Room All Vehicle Crashes i KSI Vehicle Crashes •�i - I ❑ pJS ❑.5 I H Red 26 (CENT TARGET 0 Table 1 summarizes several patterns that appear in Kent's crash history over the five-year period from 2018 to 2022. Table 1: Key Crash Trends in Kent KEY TRENDS'UM7 Mode-Based Trends Vehicle-Vehicle crashes were involved in 97%of crashes and 57%of KSIs. Pedestrians were involved in 2%of crashes and 33%of KSIs. Bicyclists were involved in 1%of crashes and 4%of KSIs. Motorcyclists were involved in less than 1%of crashes and 6%of KSIs. Circumstance-Based Unsafe Speed crashes involve 16%of KSIs. Trends About 50%of KSIs involve being under the influence of alcohol or drugs9. About 14%of KSIs are related to not granting right of way to other vehicles or non-motorists. Distracted driving10 is related to about 11%of KSIs. Movement-Based About 24%of KSIs involve a vehicle going straight and hitting a pedestrian. Trends Almost 19%of KSIs involve entering at an angle. About 13%of KSIs involve a driver Hitting an Object" Almost 13%of KSIs involve a driver making a left turning movement. Time-Based Trends Over 55%of reported KSI crashes occurred when it was Dark outside-5% without streetlights,50%with streetlights. Location-Based About 48%of KSIs occurred at a non-intersection and not related to an Trends intersection (per police crash reports). About 7%of KSIs occur at driveways or related,while 44%occur at an intersection or related (per police crash reports). Age and Gender- 66% KSIs involved males,and 31%involved females Based Trends Age 0-19: 11% KSIs Age 20-29: 21% KSIs Age 30-39: 17% KSIs Age 40-49: 20% KSIs Age 50-59: 17% KSIs Age 60+: 14% KSIs Source: Fehr&Peers,WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022. 9 Washington Traffic Safety Commission Dashboard,2018-2022 0 Includes asleep,fatigued or ill,inattention,operating cell phone or electronic devices,or other distractions " Includes concrete barrier,bank or ledge,fence,fire hydrant,guardrail,curb,mailbox,signal pole,streetlight,tree, utility pole or box,or signpost. 6 27 KENT FG ET M[E0 DEVELOPMENTOF • • A High Injury Network (HIN) is an identification of stretches of roadway where the highest concentration of crashes, weighted by fatal and serious injuries, occur on the transportation network. A citywide HIN was developed as part of the TZAP to identify corridors with the highest level of serious injuries and fatalities (see Figure 14).This analysis used the same 2018 through 2022 crash data and the analysis was consistent with other comprehensive safety action plans in Washington State. Kent's HIN analysis shows 51 percent of KSI crashes occurred on 7.5 percent of city streets. A Vulnerable Road User HIN was also developed focusing on pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. This analysis shows that 68 percent of Vulnerable Road User KSI crashes occur on 4 percent of city streets. The approach to developing the HIN is shown in Appendix F. V F128 KENT FG ET M[E0 Figure 74: Kent High Injury Network a' � SE192SS 1�5! S81 M1 q 521ZSY. H SE 2,6 St y 5 218 5, szaass� !. 167 SE 24D 5t 1 5248! _ .�^-SE,'Al 1,1 4 rgg 516 ; a' SE 256 S! Z 516 - � x77�SE x7aY1� ry S2n d 41 � �1s 1 ! ` Al User HIN 1 I� - Vulnerable Road User HiiJ r 1 0 ors ns 5 M M29 KENT FG ET M[E0 CALCULATION OF HIGHER CRASH RISK O . Systemic Analysis Systemic analysis is a proactive approach that extrapolates crash history to the greater network by identifying other locations that have a similar context to where fatal and serious injury crashes have occurred. Like the LRSP, it looks at crash history on an aggregate basis to identify roadway characteristics of concern, in addition to looking at high crash locations. Building on the LRSP, this analysis evaluates trends among the location-specific issues identified in the LRSP. By merging adjacent road and intersection features with crash data, relationships can be identified between contextual factors and the likelihood of certain crash types. Systemic improvements then aim to address the identified risk factors before a severe crash is experienced. To identify the factors influencing crash occurrence and severity, five years of crash data (2018-2022) was analyzed with available land use and roadway data to assess contributing factors and discern trends. Consistent with other comprehensive safety action plans in the state and region, these were then organized into potential factors influencing the occurrence of fatal and serious injury or bicycle, motorcycle, and pedestrian crashes. Crash data was joined spatially in GIs to nearby contextual data, which include the following variables: • Streets, including number of lanes, posted speed limit, and functional classification • Signalized intersections and traffic beacons • Land use zoning • Driveways • Education facilities and school traffic zones • Sidewalks • Bicycle facilities • Locations of parks • Proximity to intersections The crash data was spatially referenced and mapped in ArcGIS. Each crash was assigned to the nearest intersection within 250 feet of a major street or 75 feet of a minor street, or nearest roadway segment if no intersection was within range. When examining the data, it became apparent that there were different patterns pertaining to fatal and serious injury crashes and those crashes involving a �� 30 KENT FG ET M[E0 vulnerable road user (someone walking, biking, rolling by other means, or using a motorcycle). While the dataset for fatal and serious injury crashes includes those involving a vulnerable road user, crash data for vulnerable road users was also analyzed separately, consistent with current WSDOT Target Zero analysis for this subset of roadway users. Since these users are also more vulnerable, crashes involving motor vehicles also increase their risk of serious injury or fatality. For these reasons, Kent's risk factors are presented as two categories-fatal and serious injury crashes (total) and crashes involving a vulnerable road user. To be consistent with WSDOT and the Draft Regional Safety Action Plan HIN (by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)), the "total" fatal and serious injury crashes also include those with a vulnerable road user. Land use and roadway characteristics that stood out as indicators for where more severe conflicts and potentially collisions could occur are identified in Figure 15. At these types of locations, engineering treatments that prioritize slowing vehicle speeds, physically separating severe conflicts, separating severe conflicts in time (e.g., through the use of signal phasing), and/or increasing road user attentiveness and awareness should be proactively considered and applied. �� 31 (CENT TARGET 0 Figure IS: Calculated Higher Crash Risk Locations Pedestrians & Intersections Bicyclists Grossing Streets With Signals S7%of bike and Pedestrian 30%of Fatal and Serious Injury Fatal and Serious Injury .5 Crashes but Intersections that a Crashes.M%of Pedestrians 3096 $.$/o Killed or Seriously Injured' are Signaled are only 5.8%af } CMZMMMMZ� �S7 Cityrs Intersections.• Ytli�ivigaiiYrYYiR r• r 0 Hot granting right of way ©Left turns 0speedtng QHigh aa,nen�em ft.Iorsarra,s Qspeedirrg ©Leh turns rryuryerssnes inwlving pedestrians A Not granting right of way 0 Entering at angle durlrtq heursnf darkness jca%I, 0 Under the,influenca cresmrg verse lanes lsnci, 0 Disregarding signa is and signs Brae mldM°ek erasalrgv{6I%J Near a Bus Stop Near Retail & Services Within 300 Feet 57%of Bike and Pedestrian 4S%of Fatalities and Serious. Fatal and Serious injury o fi9°/o Injury Crashes but Commercial Crashes.69%of Pedestrians Land Vse is onlyl3%af the �0 13% Killed or Seriously Injured' Roadway Network' 0speeding 0 Righttums 0 Not granting right of way 0 Entating at angle 0 Not granting right of way 0 Hitting padestrians 0 HIttWg pedestrians Q Under the influence 0 Entering at angle 0 LaRtuming mdvemdnts Busier Streets Percent of KSI-related injuries 65%of Fatalities and Serious Injury Crashes but Arterials are only 15%of the Roadway 65% 15% U � Percent of KSI-related crashes Network' 0speeding r r• 10 Erfiftring at an ri I c Percent of street network 0 Driving not granting right of way f5 Tuning movements 0 underthe influence 61 Hitting pads ions FT VA32 KENT FG ET M[E0 Cha pter 5is : Identifying Solutions One of the central objectives of the TZAP is to develop projects and programs to address concerns along priority safety Advisorycorridors. This chapter presents the safety We heard from the focus areas identified through systemic on prioritizing of four advisory areas: • analysis and community engagement input and then matches programs and treatments outreach1) additional that are applicable to address these focus education, •. areas. The programs and design treatments language • - - -• to described in this chapter align with the Safe System Approach. The location-specific rounclabouts and appropriate- treatments described in this plan draw from buffer space for different modes Kent's 2024 LRSP and focus on eliminating potential upgrade _ • conflicts, preventing risk-taking behavior, sidewalks,withreducing speed, separating users in space • - enforcement of existing and time, and increasing traveler awareness. laws to reinforce normal behavior. Prioritizing corridors and addressing specific contributing behaviors helps the City to focus its resources and better align with the criteria of several grant programs. The selected improvements both address priority corridors and complement past, current, and planned City efforts.The listed projects add systemic and site-specific improvements, which address crash trends and crash likelihood factors identified in this TZAP and 2024 LRSP. The steps taken for this assessment are as follows: Selection of Safety Focus Areas based on criteria that account for both crash history (responsive) and crash potential (proactive) measured through the roadway characteristics found to contribute to crashes. Identification of Final Priority Projects that will effectively address safety focus areas and advance city priorities, based on scoring criteria. Development of a Solutions Toolbox to identify effective, nationally proven countermeasures applicable to different crash risk factors, priority projects, and crash trends. See Appendix I. FT M33 KENT FG ET M[E0 Figure 16 illustrates the data inputs, key considerations, and focus area steps taken for the Kent TZAP: Figure 16:Steps to generate Project Focus Areas 0118 � fir•li ir1 DATAINPUTS KEY CONSIDERATIONSFINAL PP03ECT FOCUS AREAS FOR: • Vulnerable Road User HIN Inclusion on TIP list/ All Modes • All modes HIN potential for funding Vulnerable Road Users • Calculated higher Adjust segment lengths crash risk factors based on logical start ,-- • E q u ity a n a lys is and end points • Community feedback Possibility of leveraging • Proximity to destinations other adjacent projects _ °�° (schools,parks, Transportation Advisory shopping,etc,) Group input bpi 34 KENT FG ET M[E0 SELECTIONOF • AREAS To guide its investments, the City will focus on advancing its safety priorities based on criteria that account for both crash history (responsive) and crash potential (proactive) measured through the roadway characteristics found to contribute to crashes. Crash risk factors were evaluated in two categories: All Users and Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs). Table 2 shows the data inputs and scoring used to determine the selection of safety focus areas in Kent.Appendix I includes background on how these metrics were selected. Table 2: Priority Criteria and Evaluation Overview DATAINPLITS SCORES • . All Mode HIN 1 point-On HIN "Yes or no" based on overlap with HIN. VRUs HIN HIN for VRUs and All Modes evaluated separately. Higher Crash Risk 1 point-Arterial with 35 mph and above One point for each of the factors Factor Network speed limit and 4 or more lanes included in the Higher Crash Risk Factor 1 point-100 feet from signalized Network intersection Four points possible for All Modes 1 point-300 feet from transit stop Five points possible for VRUs 1 point-Adjacent to commercial zoning 1 point-streets with no bike facilities Equity Index 1 point-Street segment completely USDOT CEJST mapping layer used. within or adjacent to underserved area in CEJST mapping Community 1 point-Comments received about Comments from all outreach events Feedback location were considered in this criterion. Proximity to 1 point- Located within 1/4 mile of one or VRU destinations included schools and additional VRU more key destinations parks. destination 512 IDENTIFICATIONOF • L PRIORITY PROJECTS Following the selection of safety focus areas, street segments were refined based on segment length to further define potential project focus locations. Each preliminary priority location was evaluated to determine if the City could identify a priority project to address specific challenges recorded for each location. In this consideration, the 12 Used for Vulnerable Road User Scoring only R35 Red KENT ��G ET � 0 City evaluated each location to determine what, if any, recently completed, underway, or planned City or private development projects may include safety countermeasures relevant to the identified safety concerns or risks. For locations that did not include any planned projects, needed improvements were identified. The resulting set of draft project ideas were then evaluated for their feasibility, such as Roundabouts inclusion on the Transportation Stre SE et at 116th Ave Improvement Program (TIP) list, potential for funding, and the possibility of leveraging Rounclabouts are intersections other adjacent or on-going projects, to controlled by - • rather maximize the City of Kent's investments to signal or •• Rounclabouts improve transportation safety for all modes provide • • • " and vulnerable roadway users. other intersection •" by reducing the number of potential Figure 17 shows the highest scoring Project conflict points _ • slowing vehicle Focus Areas identified as part of the project speeds. Rounclabouts prioritization process.The project areas were improve traffic flowthrough identified using the data inputs and key continuous use. Installing or considerations listed in Figure 16 to identify converting intersections to streets with the greatest risk reduction for all rounclabouts is a Washington users and VRUs. Two project areas, numbers State Target Zero emphasis 11 (Downtown Kent) and 20 (Commercial strategy for - • Area), contain a grouping of high priority segments.Appendix I provides further The City has nine rounclabouts, details about the project areas along with with two in design. One • - • recommended engineering and non- to be improved, SE 248thStreet engineering solutions at each location. 116th Ave SE, ranks highlyfor numberof - Final Priority Project Packages Upgrading the intersection to a wouldroundabout - safety, The City's prioritization framework provides traffic flow, _ • mobility benefits rigorous yet flexible approach to for _I I modesof advancing corridor safety projects across the city. Based on the framework of this assessment, the following top priority safety project packages emerged: • Safer Crossings for Vulnerable Road Users • Appropriate Speeds for All Users • Safer Signals for All Users �� 36 (CENT TARGET 0 • LRSP Previously Identified Projects Figure 17: Highest Scoring Project Focus Areas ,I :E: a SF 192 St •:::7 i::':::;;t:t:� . .. yf' S 08 51 '^ SF 208 5t • 4 � . a 13 8 sc 716 se .....' „i snezr I� •� ••181•E.. yy �J ................... .................. 7 515 y i=t••'••,Jame St:c E lamef St 240 5+ 6 SE 240 S. z ........................ LLJ j � W MnkaH� -. ;:SE::"SS._ `n E Wdli^.5e 1G 74 2 'S•759 P, :::::: :::P'ti...•• ::' SE 256 SI 3 :t•:::- 516 a� 15 �Fz€i:sr Sxx2St sFit?st M—t k— ey w ' :SE27'�.'n•SE V x�• .1 � 18 1 Priority Project Corridor r' _ Priority Project Area Ir CE]ST Disadvantaged Community 2 n as 05 B OMNI[=M, 6• 37 KENT FG ET M[E0 Safer Crossings for Vulnerable Road Users These locations are along the VRU HIN. They include KEYTHEMES multilane arterial streets with high traffic volumes and posted speed limits of 35 mph and greater where Vehicle going Straight Ahead Vulnerable Road Users lack enhanced crossing Vehicle hits treatments. Recommended countermeasures for these ' 'es ' Speeding locations could include, but are not limited to Driving Underthe Influence the following: Dark-Streetlights . • • . Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)with Speed Enforcement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)* Crosswalk visibility enhancements* Revise target or lower speed limits Lane width reduction* Targeted yielding enforcement Complete sidewalk missing links or protected Automated traffic enforcement cameras (detect shoulder walkways(e.g.,extruded curb) speeding, red light running) Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Countermeasure-specific educational outreach Enhanced crossings near transit stops Safety campaigns and messaging for motorists Enhanced crosswalks with pedestrian refuge Safety training for Limited English Proficiency island populations,children,older adults,and people with disabilities Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)signals Dynamic speed (radar)feedback signage Corridor/Intersection Lighting Automated speed warnings Reduce distances between controlled High-Visibility Enforcement crossings Separated bikeways Media and Progressive Ticketing 13 *low cost, high effectiveness engineering solutions 13 http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/enforcement/progressive_ticketing.cfm a 38 (CENT TARGET 0 Appropriate Speeds for All Users These locations are along the All Users HIN. They KEYTHEMES include multilane, arterial or collector streets with high traffic volumes and posted speed limits of3S miles per hour and greater. Recommended countermeasures Vehicle going StraightAhead Vehicle hits object these locations could include, but are not limited Speeding to: Dark-streetlights • ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 111111111 F Evaluate and design for appropriate speed Speed Enforcement limits for all road users* Upgrade existing markings to thermoplastic Automated traffic enforcement pavement markings* Crosswalk visibility enhancements* Countermeasure-specific educational outreach Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)* Safety campaigns and messaging for motorists Pedestrian refuge islands* Lane width reduction* Roadside design features Install road diet Safety training for Limited English Proficiency populations,children,older adults,and people with disabilities Adjust traffic signal timing to encourage Dynamic speed (radar)feedback signage appropriate speeds Access management Automated speed warnings Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons High-Visibility Enforcement Pedestrian hybrid beacons Media and Progressive Ticketing Variable speed limits in school zones Buffered sidewalks Separated bikeways *low cost, high effectiveness engineering solutions `� 39 (CENT TARGET 0 Safer Signals for All Users These locations are along the All Users HIN. They KEYTHEMES include traffic signals on multilane, arterial, or collector streets. Recommended countermeasures for these locations could include, but are not limited to -the following: ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS • • • • • Evaluate left turn phase improvements at Automated traffic enforcement signalized intersections* No right-turn on red* Countermeasure-specific educational outreach Yellow phase change intervals* Safety campaigns and messaging for motorists Reflective backplates and supplemental signal Safety training for Limited English Proficiency heads* populations,children,older adults,and people with disabilities Leading pedestrian intervals* Dynamic speed (radar)feedback signage Accessible Pedestrian Signals* Automated speed warnings Lower speed limits High-Visibility Enforcement Bike Boxes Media and Progressive Ticketing Dedicated left-and right-turn lanes at intersections Corridor access management Raised crosswalks or raised intersection Protected intersections Reduced left-turn conflict intersections (e.g., Restricted Crossing U-turn and Median U-turn) *low cost, high effectiveness engineering solutions 40 KENT FG ET M[E0 Local Road Safety Plan The LRSP identified "Hit Pedestrian," "Angle," and "Hit Fixed Object" as the most frequent crash types in Kent. The LRSP includes a prioritized list of roadway segments and intersections based on crash rate, crash severity, and risk factors. It includes a list of safety countermeasures to address the leading crash types for both spot and systemic improvements.The LRSP is shown in Appendix B. �� 41 KENT TARGET M[EFDI0 Chapter 6: Reaching Target Zero The City of Kent commits to an action plan to advance its safety goals and institutionalize safety practices in its policies, programs, and operations. The safety action plan is organized into the five core elements that align with the state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2024) and broader Safe System Approach -safe users, safe roadways, safe vehicles, safe speeds, and post-crash care. For every action or strategy, responsible parties and anticipated timeline are identified: • Near-term actions are priorities within the first three years • Mid-term actions are priorities within the following three to five years • Long-term actions are priorities beyond five years • Several actions are identified as ongoing, indicating that there are actions already underway in the City and anticipated to continue through continued investment. The items included in this plan are shaped by the outcomes of the safety policy review and assessment (Chapter 2), in addition to discussions with the TZAG and the public (Chapter 3). �� 42 (CENT TARGET 0 ACTION ■ • ELEMENT CATEGOPY Vi • UJ . . LL • Safe Project evaluation framework: Develop a project X X X Mid Roads evaluation framework that prioritizes funding based on KSI crash reduction opportunities or locations along the High Injury Network,especially for under-resourced and underserved populations. Incorporate Safety Design Strategies in Capital Projects: X X X Ongoing Continue to incorporate design elements with proven crash modification factors into transportation capital improvement projects. Underserved communities in plans and projects: Set X X X Ongoing goals based on project needs related to safety improvements for populations that have been traditionally under-resourced and underserved. Incorporate into project planning,design, implementation,and assessment. Safe Road Improving road user behavior campaign: Focused X X X Near Users outreach campaign and educational programs on the behaviors and target audiences most linked to fatalities and serious injuries,including substance use, improper turning,obeying traffic signs and signals,and high speeds. Leverage partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups to ensure these campaigns and programs are well-publicized and accessible the full spectrum of Kent's diverse communities. Motorcycle outreach and education: Facilitate outreach X X X Mid and educational opportunities for motorcycle riders and similar road users to encourage safe behavior and informed riding. Leverage partnerships with community- based organizations and advocacy groups to ensure these outreach and educational opportunities are well-publicized and accessible to the full spectrum of Kent's diverse communities. SRTS Program: Continue the SRTS program partnership X X X Ongoing with school districts service Kent to implement safe walking and biking curriculum to elementary schools and middle school students throughout Kent. Youth leadership: Develop focused engagement for X X X Long middle and high school students and families in traffic safety,with a focus on empowering youth leadership to promote safe transportation in their school communities. 43 (CENT TARGET 0 V) TIME ELEMENT • • FRAME • . . Educational Messaging around the High Injury Network: X X X Near-Mid Provide clear safety education messaging and public awareness along the High Injury Network to increase awareness among travelers. Leverage partnerships with community-based organizations and advocacy groups to ensure messaging and public awareness is both well- publicized and accessible to the full spectrum of Kent's diverse communities. Equity: Support equitable, unbiased enforcement to X X X Mid enhance the overlap of public safety and security. Safer Active transportation network: Build transportation X X X Long Roadways facilities that provide high-quality, lower-stress connections for people walking, bicycling,and rolling to key destinations, including schools, libraries,and community centers,supporting an all ages and abilities friendly environment. Priority safety projects: Review roadway design standards X X X Mid to integrate with the Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy. Crosswalk policy: Update the citywide crosswalk policy to X X Mid enhance the safety of pedestrian crossings; reduce distances between higher visibility and more comfortable crossings on multilane arterials;and provide similar crossings near transit stops. Intersection design: Evaluate intersection design and X X Mid control decisions in the planning or scoping stage of projects for opportunities to better prioritize using design and control strategies that separate users in time and space. Kinetic Transfer: Plan,design,and implement X X Long transportation system improvements14to minimize or eliminate the potential kinetic energy transfer that a person would experience if a collision were to occur. Quick builds: Systematically apply low-cost safety X X X Near- countermeasures citywide, including through adoption of Mid policies to streamline and expedite project delivery. 14 https:Hhighways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.goy/files/2024- Ol/Safe_System_Roadway_Desig n_H iera rchy_.pdf IT, 44 (CENT TARGET O L4 TIME ELEMENT • • FRAME • . . Safer Safe Speed design standards and standard details: X X X Long Speeds Update city design standards and standard details to reference target speeds,speed management,and provision of low-stress facilities for people walking and biking (e.g., roadway geometries are designed for context- appropriate speeds). Photo Enforcement: Continue school zone photo X Ongoing enforcement and expand photo enforcement into more school zones and into non-school zones as allowed by state law and authorized by city council. Speed feedback signs: Develop and implement a X Ongoing program to install rotating speed feedback sign locations and ensure accuracy and maintenance of signage. Speed management plan: Develop a speed management X Long plan with the goal of slowing vehicle speeds combining tools such as speed limit reductions,traffic signal re-timing, installing traffic calming devices,and re-channelizing travel lanes.The plan will include complementary tools like education and outreach and higher visibility enforcement at moderate speeds. Speed Setting: Set target speed limits to prioritize the X Long safety of all roadway users with specific consideration given to the severity of potential conflicts (i.e.,amount of potential kinetic energy transfer) between vulnerable road users (e.g.,people walking, biking) and motor vehicles. Safer Emerging Trends: Review, update,and maintain local X X X Long Vehicles ordinances regarding the appropriate use of emerging micromobility technologies such as e-scooters and e-bikes. Inspections and Registration: Support legislative efforts X Long to require periodic inspection of motor vehicles and trailers to ensure that they have adequate lighting,stopping,and safety features in working order. Post Data sharing: Share data across agencies and X X X Long Crash organizations, including first responders and hospitals,to Care develop a holistic understanding of the safety landscape and improve data accuracy to reduce the likelihood of crash underreporting. 45 KENT FG ET M[E0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Implementation is a critical step in the TZAP process. Considerations for successful implementation include the following: Oversight &Accountability- Form a task force of City staff who will help maintain sustained focus and success in implementing projects and actions identified in the TZAP. Such a task force would be composed of City staff and would continue to meet regularly to discuss the pursuit of safety-related grants, delivery of projects, status of action items, and provide general support to advancing TZAP implementation. Coordination & Partnerships-Continue to coordinate and partner with overlapping and adjacent transportation-safety related agencies and cities. Providing regular updates on action plan progress and coordinating with agency partners helps create sustained support and creates opportunities to bundle safety projects (as with the State's Highway Safety Improvement Program). Knowledge and practice share provides more opportunities, shares resources and initiatives with other related ongoing efforts, and facilitates TZAP implementation. Communication - Continued communication with stakeholders and community members in collaboration with the King County Target Zero Task Force and TZAG builds trust and support for the City's safety goals. These can be completed through strategies such as communication across diverse channels, publication offactsheets on action plan progress, and regular public conversation on the topic of safety. Phasing & Sequencing -To see meaningful progress in road safety performance, sustained commitment and investment is needed. • Near-term implementation efforts may focus on successful completion of ongoing safety efforts and lower-cost improvements that can be constructed within three years. • Mid-term implementation goals may target larger and more comprehensive safety infrastructure projects and more complex programmatic efforts that require extensive cross-agency collaboration. • Long-term implementation goals may focus on initiating significant shifts in the City's approach to planning and design to formalize the institutionalization of the Safe System Approach. �� 46 KENT FG ET M[E0 Funding - Funding can be a major hurdle to TZAP implementation. Staying up to date on relevant grant opportunities and proactively pursuing grant funding for the most competitive projects can aid in overcoming funding hurdles. Kent can take advantage of a variety of regional, state, and federal funding sources to finance safety project planning, design, and construction. Funding (including required matches) and resources must be available from the City to provide a successful grant application. See Appendix K for potential safety funding resources to consider. EVALUATION STRATEGIES Ongoing safety program evaluation provides an indication of progress towards goals and can help inform future decision making about safety investments. Effective program evaluation includes the following: Update the Plan Regularly- Update and track the TZAP and LRSP every otheryear to identify crash trends, qualify for additional grant opportunities, and assess whether new direction is needed as conditions within the city and region change. Identify Target Metrics and Measure Performance-Table 3 identifies safety metrics for tracking performance: Table 3. Target Performance Measures PERFORMANCE - . - . . Reduction in total number of KSI crashes. Every year Reduction in KSIs along the HIN. Every two years Track reduction in Impairment Involved crashes. Every two years Track reduction in vulnerable road user crashes. Every two years Track reduction in Lane Departure crashes. Every two years Track reduction in Speeding related crashes. Every two years Track reduction in Intersection related crashes. Every two years �� 47 KEY MILESTONES City Council • • • • • Adoption Advisory Group Advisory Group Advisory Group Advisory Group Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Engage.kentwa.gov/pent-target-zero-action - plan j Plan Feedback L Lt.. TARGET 0 ' Survey • Do you support the Kent Target Zero Action Plan? • What have we missed? • What should we emphasize or add? Engage.kentwa.gov/pent-target-zero-action - plan j Plan Feedback L Lt.. TARGET 0 '