6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2014)

1. 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program(2009-2014) Kit Baker, Chair (Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee) Desiree’ Winkler, P.E. (Transportation Division Manager)

2. Presentation Purpose • Review goals and objectives of transportation infrastructure development • Provide recommendations for project prioritization • Provide overview of the 6-Year TIP development • Present final draft of 6-Year TIP • Inform Council of the fiscal outlook • Provide recommendations for revenue generation

3. Vision • Comprehensive Plan(ref: page 2, Ch. 6) • Transportation Systems – • Safe, efficient, and convenient • Vehicle and freight movement vital to the economy • Transit, bicycling, & walking are fundamental modes • Contribute to quality of life and civic identity • Integrate with land use goals

4. Vision (cont’d) • Joint Meeting between City Council and CTAC (March 31, 2008) • City Council supports CTAC’s goal of preserving existing infrastructure • Focus on Transportation corridors to move people and goods safely and efficiently (continue to update traffic signal system) • Complete the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and related projects • Council requested CTAC’s input on transportation funding sources

5. Objectives – 6-Year TIP • Develop criteria for prioritizing projects • Understand revenue forecasts versus expenditures • Preserve existing infrastructure • Address top safety hazards • Provide infrastructure improvements consistent with City Council’s priorities (i.e. Tillicum and Pacific Highway redevelopment)

6. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014) Priorization Criteria (CTAC May 20, 2008) • Implement correctable safety improvements • Maintain existing infrastructure • Promote corridor flow • Maximize grant opportunities • Develop other improvement projects such as curb, gutter, sidewalks

7. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014) Priorization Criteria - Expanded (CTAC June 3, 2008) • Safety Improvements – top 5 correctable accident locations • Statutory or technical requirement • Pavement rehabilitation to maintain current overall pavement score • Existing infrastructure life expectancy of less than 2 years. • Projects that are under construction • Major corridor level of service improvements • Projects with over 40% SECURED grant funding that have all right-of-way secured and design is complete • Projects with over 40% SECURED grant funding with design set to be complete in 1st half of following year • Projects with over 40% SECURED grant/developer funding with a committed inter-agency/develop partnership • Projects with less than 40% SECURED grant/develop funding • Projects with REASONABLE ANTICIPATED grant funding • Safety improvements – roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities

8. 6-year TIP Development • Purpose and Need • Required for all Cities (RCW 35.77.010) • Projects must be listed in the TIP in order to be grant eligible • Annual process • Subject to stakeholder review, public hearing, and City Council Adoption • Provides framework for identifying and prioritizing transportation improvements

9. 6-Year TIP Development (cont’d) • Important Points • TIP does NOT include routine maintenance and operation costs • Listing projects within the TIP does not commit the City to complete the project

10. 6-Year TIP Development (cont’d) • CTAC Reviewed the Following: • Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Vision, Objectives, and Goals • Joint meeting results (Council and CTAC) • Previous 6-Year TIP • Pavement Condition History • Accident Data • Traffic Volumes (Level of Service) • Comprehensive Plan and Requested Projects • Existing infrastructure • Transportation revenue and expenditure projections

11. Transportation Revenue & Expenditures • Need to understand available revenue and fixed expenditures • 6-Year TIP is NOT required to be financially balanced • Always more needs than revenue can support

12. Transportation Revenue and Expenditures

13. Transportation Revenue and Expenditures • Challenges • Reduction in revenue • REET - $300,000 less than budgeted FY2008 • Utility Taxes redistributed to balance the General Fund (2006) • Administrative costs assessed (2006) • Less fuel consumption = less fuel tax • Construction costs in recent years have escalated at 10% annually (Grants received in prior years at a City match of 20% now need a 40% City match)

14. Fiscal Outlook

15. Fiscal Outlook – Consequences of no additional revenue • Overall City Pavement Condition will fall below acceptable levels • Secured Grant Funding Lost ($3,614,000) • Bridgeport Way - Steilacoom to 83rd ($734,000) • 100th Street – GLD to 59th ($960,000) • Bridgeport Way – 75th to N. City Limits ($1,550,000) • Steilacoom – BP to Fairlawn ($125,000) • Kendrick Street (study only) ($245,000) • Unable to Match Future Grant Funding (average $2.0 Million per year)

16. Pavement Condition Ratings

17. Pavement Condition Ratings (cont’d)

18. Pavement Condition Rating (cont’d)

19. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014) FY 2009 *Note: does not include grant revenue.

20. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014)FY 2009 Project Prioritization List

21. Projects and Grants Lost • Secured Grant Funding Lost ($3,614,000) • Bridgeport Way - Steilacoom to 83rd ($734,000) • 100th Street – GLD to 59th ($960,000) • Bridgeport Way – 75th to N. City Limits ($1,550,000) • Steilacoom – BP to Fairlawn ($125,000) • Kendrick Street (study only) ($245,000)

22. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014) • CTAC Recommendations • Safety and maintaining existing infrastructure is #1 • Council needs to find additional funding • Defer pavement preservation for 2-3 years in order to “partially” fund secured grant projects • Limit future grant applications to safety-related and pavement preservation • Pursue a voter-approved Transportation Benefit District

23. 6-Year TIP (2009-2014) Thank you !