Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Final Plan

Prepared for:

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Prepared by:

HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2569

December 2003

Transportation Plan Ordinance 2003-40: Suggested revision to Alaska Railroad goals, page 54:

Objective 11.2: Delete Action C regarding public crossings. Revise Action D as follows: "Work with the Alaska Railroad to develop a fair and mutually acceptable crossing permit agreement.

Biggs, Sherry

From: Thompson, Colette Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:28 PM To: Murphy, Linda; Biggs, Sherry Subject: Possible amendment language

Hi Linda and Sherry:

Transportation Plan amendment.... Attached is language for a possible small amendment to the transportation plan, to be approved in ordinance 2003­ 40. Please do not distribute this as I do not know if anyone will make this amendment - it was just discussed in committee. Thanks.

-Colette

1

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Final Plan

Prepared for:

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Prepared by:

HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2569

In association with:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205

December 2003

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Table of Contents

1.0 INTF~ODUCTION 1 2.0 ROADS 2 2.1 Ste:te Roads 2 2.2 Cily Roads 3 2.3 Village Roads 3 2.4 Borough Road Service Area 3 2.4.1 Road Maintenance 4 2.4.2 Construction and Improvement of Borough Roads 5 2.4.3 Environmental Standards and Fish Passage 5 2.5 Bri dges 5 2.6 Traffic Regulation 6 2.7 Ccrridor Preservation 6 3.0 TRAFFIC DATA AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT. 10 3.1 Traffic Data 10 3.2 Traffic Demand Model 10 3.0 Problem Segment 13 4.0 Proje,:t in Development 13 4.0 TRAILS 14 5.0 TRA 'JSIT 15 5.1 Public Transit Service 15 5.2 Private Transit Services 16 6.0 POR'fS AND HARBORS 16 6.1 Port and Harbor Authority 18 6.2 Existing Ports and Harbors 18 6.2.1 Anchor River 18 6.2.2 Homer 20 6.2.3 Kenai 21 6.2.4 Nanwalek 22 6.2.5 Nikiski 22 6.2.6 Ninilchik/Deep Creek 22 6.2.7 City of Seldovia and Seldovia Village 23 6.2.8 Seward 24 6.2.9 Kasilof 26 6.2.10 Port Graham 26 6.2.11 West Side of Cook Inlet 27 6.3 Financing for Port and Harbor Improvements 28 6.3.1 State Funding 29

Page i Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

6.3.2 Federal Funding 29 7.0 FERRY SERVICE 30 7.1 Alaska Marine Highway System 30 7.2 Cook Inlet Ferry 32 8.0 AIRPORTS 33 8.1 Central Peninsula 33 8.2 Southern Peninsula 36 8.3 Eastern Peninsula 37 8.4 Western Borough 37 9.0 THE ALASKA RAILROAD 38 10.0 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED HAZARDS 39 11.0 LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION VISIONS 39 11.1 Railroad Extension 40 11.2 Turnagain Arm Road Crossing 40 11.3 West Side of Cook Inlet 41 12.0 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 42 12.1 Roads 42 12.2 Trails 44 12.3 Transit 45 12.4 Ports and Harbors 45 12.5 Airports 46 12.6 Alaska Railroad 47 13.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 48 13.1 Roads 48 13.2 Roadside/Urban Trails 51 13.3 Transit 52 13.4 Ports and Harbors 52 13.5 Airports 53 13.6 The Alaska Railroad 54 13.7 Transportation Planning 55

Page ii Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

List of Figures On or following page Figure 1: State, Borough and City Bridges 7 Figure 2: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2001 11 Figure 3: Historical Avg. Daily Traffic Sterling Highway 6 Miles East of Soldotna 12 Figure 4: 2002 Avg. Daily Traffic by Month Sterling Highway 6 Miles East of Soldotna. 12 Figure 5: Central Area Rural Transit System (CARTS) Service Area 17 Figure 6: Kenai Peninsula Borough Ports and Harbors Overview 19 Figure 7: AMHS Southcentral Alaska Routes 30 Figure 8: Kenai Peninsula Borough Airports 35

List of Tab1E~s Table 1. QRS II Model Predictions of Problem Road Segments 13 Table 2. AMHS Southcentral Alaska Route: Routes and Running Times 31 Table 3. Comparison of AMHS Southwest Service Visits to Borough Communities 32 Table 4. Principal Public Airports within the Kenai Peninsula Borough 34

List of Appe·ndices Appendix A: State, Borough and City Bridges Appendix B: Traffic Model Development Technical Memoranda Appendix C FAA Airport Master Records Appendix D: DOT&PF Airport Improvement Program Kenai Projects Appendix E: Transportation Related Hazards in Kenai Peninsula Borough Appendix F: DOT&PF Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Kenai Projects Appendix G: Permanent Traffic Recorder Data Displays Appendix H: Central Area Rural Transit Service (CARTS) Ridership Charts Appendix I: RSA Policy Statements 99-01 and 01-04

Page iii Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this plan is to update the transportation portion of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. The plan was last updated in 1992, and since that time, a number of improvements have been made to transportation facilities and services in the Borough. Similarly, many aspects of the Federal, State, and Borough institutional framework that govern the planning, construction, and maintenance of transportation facilities have changed.

This plan provides goals for transportation development and management in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, an overview of existing transportation facilities, and a summary of programs that fund construction and maintenance of transportation facilities. There are also action items that provide an advisory guide of different methods for obtaining the goals and objectives. The action items are neither exclusive to other approaches to meeting the goals and objectives, nor are they mandatory. In addition, this plan includes development of a traffic analysis model for the Borough, as well as an assessment of freight traffic flows on Kenai Peninsula highways.

The Kenai Peninsula is accessible by air, land, and water. The Seward, Sterling, and Kenai Spur Highways, and connecting State and local roads, provide highway access to Resurrection Bay, the western coast of the Kenai Peninsula, and a corridor through the central peninsula. Access to the west side of Cook Inlet and southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula is limited to air and water. Three public ports, four small boat harbors, fourteen public airports, and numerous private facilities provide air and water access to communities and development areas within the Borough. The Alaska Railroad provides rail service from Anchorage to Seward. The Alaska Marine Highway System operates ferries between Seward, Horner, Seldovia, Kodiak Island, Prince William Sound, the Alaska Peninsula, and Aleutian communities.

Responsibility for construction and maintenance of transportation facilities is divided between the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Cities of Kenai, Soldotna, Seward, Horner, Seldovia, Native Village corporations, and the private sector.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) provides most of the funding for transportation construction projects, selected and administered by DOT&PF. The railroad is owned by the State of Alaska and operated by the Alaska Railroad Corporation.

Page 1 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

For additional information on current transportation plans and priorities, readers are directed to DOT&PF (www.dot.state.ak.us). the Borough Public Works Department and Road Maintenance Service Areas (www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Roads/). the Cities of Kenai (www.cLkenaLak.us/), Soldotna (www.ci.soldotna.ak.us), Seward (www.cityofseward.net/), Homer (www.ci.homer.ak.us/), Seldovia (www.xyz.net/-seldovia) and the Alaska Railroad (www.alaskarailroad.com).

2.0 ROADS The following subsections describe State, Borough, City, and village roads and related issues.

2.1 State Roads There are a:::>proximately 650 miles of State maintained roads in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. State roads are constructed and maintained by the DOT&PF. Within the Borough, there are three State highways: the Seward Highway, the Sterling Highway, and the Kenai Spur Highway. A number of secondary State and local roads provide local access along the highway corridor.

Construction and maintenance of State roads are funded by the USDOT, Federal Highway Administration through the DOT&PF, Central Region. Capital project funding for transportat.on projects is allocated through a six-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process and through project-specific legislative appropriations. In recent years, the State has obtained approximately 90 percent of its transportat.on capital budget from Federal highway and airport trust funds.

During the 2002 legislative session, in addition to the normal 90 percent Federal Highway/ 10 percent State match funding, two new funding sources were tapped. First, the sale of $120 million in State general obligation transportation bonds was approved. These State funds constituted the first large-scale, State-funded road projects in nearly two decades. In addition, for the first time, the State chose to issue GARVEE bonds, which use future Federal transportation funding to payoff the bonds. Approximately $100 million of these bonds werE sold.

Historically, the State also granted some funding directly to the Borough for upgrade of State secondary roads. Under the Local Service Roads and Trails program authorized by AS 19.30.111-251 and KPB 14.04, the State funded improvement of these roads within the Borough. :Road projects were limited to those meeting the criteria set forth in the statutes. The construction was completed by private companies under contracts administered by

Page 2 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan the Kenai Peninsula Borough. This program and the road construction powers authorized by this program have not been funded for over a decade.

2.2 City Roads Local roads within the cities of Kenai, Soldotna, Seward, Homer, and Seldovia are constructed and maintained by the cities through State revenue sharing, municipal funds, property owner contributions, and by landowners who dedicate new roads through the subdivision process. The Borough Planning Department works closely with the cities in reviewing and approving new subdivisions to ensure that roads are constructed to city standards. Kachemak City has not assumed road authority, so roads are constructed and maintained by individual property owners in this area.

2.3 Village Roads Tyonek, Seldovia Village, Port Graham, and Nanwalek all are communities with small, mostly Native populations that are separated from the Borough, State, and national road system. Roads in and near the villages are owned by a number of entities, including the State, the Borough, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and village corporations. There are a host of road needs identified in each of the communities, but the populations are small and funding for all transportation needs generally is limited. This is made more difficult by the relative isolation of the communities and their desire, in some cases, to be isolated and to preserve the Native culture and subsistence lifestyle. Removed from mainstream political circles and with limited in-house expertise in project development, the communities have a difficult time making their needs known. Council presidents contacted appeared to feel that the Borough should actively partner with the small communities, participate in their planning processes over time, and actively advocate for small community needs to the State and Federal governments. Most appeared more interested in on-going engagement and advocacy and possible Borough facility ownership and participation in maintenance.

2.4 Borough Road Service Area Outside of the cities, the Borough Road Service Area (RSA) maintains roads that have been accepted into the Borough road maintenance program. In 2003 the Borough maintained approximately 600 miles of roads using funding from Borough property taxes, State revenue sharing and State grants. A decade ago road maintenance was funded largely by State revenue sharing and State grants. Voters first approved a .5 mill levy for road improvement projects in 1985. As State revenue sharing decreased over time, previously unexpended funds maintained in a reserve account were used. As these funds were expended, the Borough implemented the .5 mill portion of the property tax in 1993,

Page 3 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan which has over time been increased to 1.5 mills to keep pace with road maintenance and improvement needs. The current assessment raises approximately $4.5 million each year, which is predominantly used to maintain and upgrade Borough roads. The RSA funds are also available for construction projects. Construction powers were adopted in 2000 and a relatively minor amount has been allocated to that program at this time.

The Kenai Peninsula Borough Road Service Area Board (RSA) oversees the Borough road maintenance, improvement, and construction programs. The Board certifies roads for the road maintenance program and makes recommendations regarding use of road service area funds. The Board recommends capital improvement and construction projects to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly. The RSA also oversees right-of-way permitting and regulation. All new roads certified (accepted into the road maintenance program), must meet codified Borough road standards in KPB 14.06.

The RSA, pursuant to AS 29.46.010 and KPB 14.31 and 14.32, has implemented a road improvement assessment district program. Commonly known as Road Improvement Assessmenit Districts (RIAD), roads are improved in such districts at the Borough's expense. The Borough is then repaid over 10 years through a special assessment on the properties that benefit from the improvements. A Borough match of 25 percent may also be available for this program.

All of the above referenced programs are authorized by the Assembly and are implementE·d consistent with applicable ordinances and written RSA policies and procedures.

2.4.1 Road Maintenance Roads were initially accepted for maintenance in 1982 after the formation of four separate but contiguous road maintenance service areas by the October 1981 election. At that time, roads were accepted for maintenance based on aerial photography and citizen comment, but no field work was performed. As a result, despite criteria that a road be both "constructed" and within a "dedicated" right-of-way in order to qualify for maintenance, a number 0:: roads were accepted for maintenance that did not meet these basic criteria. Additionally, no specific construction standards were adopted until 1986. Currently, roads must meet the construction standards set forth in KPB 14.06 to be certified for maintenance. The RSA has been resolving the backlog of substandard roads either through capital improvement projects or by decertifying the road from the maintenance program urder KPB 14.06.070. The decertification criteria are stringent and at a minimum the road must have no residents, and a public hearing and notice process must be followed. As a result, only five roads have been decertified through this formal process.

Page 4 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

2.4.2 Construction and Improvement of Borough Roads Construction or improvement of local roads and bridges is a need frequently identified by community groups during the development of both the previous (1992) Borough Transportation Plan and this one. Improvement powers were adopted in the RSA in 1985. A number of capital improvement projects were performed on Borough roads through the Local Service Roads and Trails and subsequent State grant / Borough match programs for capital projects. In spite of decreasing State aid, the increase in the mill levy in FY01 and again in FY04 has allowed the RSA to increase the quantity and quality of road improvement projects. The Borough adopted construction powers in 2000 by popular vote. The ordinance implementing the power requires Assembly approval after review of a report and recommendation of the RSA Board applying codified standards. At this time the RSA construction powers have only been used for two projects, the North Road Extension, a predominantly Federally funded high priority project estimated at about $6 million, and a small construction project at $15,000, which provided alternate access to a heavily trafficked subdivision road that helped relieve maintenance issues. The Borough may also construct roads pursuant to other powers, e.g., land management for Borough­ developed subdivision roads, or education for access roads to schools. In order to better evaluate changes in usage over time and to prioritize road improvements, the RSA is initiating an ongoing traffic counting program for Borough roads.

2.4.3 Environmental Standards and Fish Passage As the area with many important recreational areas and some of the premier fishing in the nation, it is common sense that the Borough should lead the effort to build roads using high environmental standards. In particular, culverts should be sized to pass flood-level waters in order to avoid "blow-outs" such as those caused by the recent floods, and to allow juvenile fish to pass through the culvert under most water flow conditions.

2.5 Bridges This section of the transportation plan provides an inventory of bridges in the Borough regardless of ownership. The bridge information in tabular form is contained in Appendix A, and a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database was created for the Borough as an inventory of the bridges, their locations and characteristics. Bridges are critical road infrastructure that cost significantly more per lineal foot than roads. And as recent events have demonstrated, bridges are in locations more subject to damage by natural events. There are approximately 60 significant bridges on public roads in the Borough. Almost all of these are State-owned and maintained as part of the State highway system. The Borough owns three of the 60 bridges. With ready reference to length of the span and other characteristics, the database is usable as an aid in Borough

PageS Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan emergency response in case of bridge washout or earthquake damage. It can also be used as a reference for transportation planning and road improvement. It is important to note that there are other small bridges and many culverts on City, Borough, and State roads that are not inventoried and that could also close a road if washed out. Such bridges would be easier to "patch" temporarily and to repair permanently (see also Section 10, Transportation-Related Hazards). Figure 1 presents an overview map of the bridges contained in the database.

2.6 Traffk Regulation As the Borough has grown, the regulation of traffic and other activities in public rights-of­ way are issues that have become increasingly important. The Borough relies predominantly on the DOT&PF and State Troopers to establish and enforce speed limits and control traffic. Utilizing a construction permit system, the Borough has assumed responsibility to enforce right-of-way development. Code compliance officers are used to respond to complaints about abandoned vehicles, parking violations, gates or other obstruction:, placed across public rights-of-way, and similar issues.

The Borough RSA, with the assistance of the Planning Department, also engages in a limited traffic regulation program authorized by AS 29.35.010(10) consisting of speed limit signage pursuant to KPB 12.02, parking signage and enforcement pursuant to KPB 12.04, an abandoned vehicle removal program pursuant to AS 28.11 and KPB 12.06, and warning signage and a speed hump program pursuant to RSA Board policies.

2.7 Corridor Preservation In the past ten years the Borough has accomplished much in terms of assuming responsibility for the development and maintenance of its roads. For the most part, private devl~lopmenthas determined the locations of the new roads brought into the Borough's system. However, the Borough is now both legally and financially able to look at the long--:erm development of its road system. While development is not to the point that the Borough need mobilize to build collector level roads to tie developing areas and their subdivision roads together, the time is likely to fall within the scope of this plan. A more immediate need, however, is the development of a corridor preservation program, so that when a collector-level road is needed to connect subdivisions with highways or other arterials, the right-of-way is in hand or readily available. Without such a program, the cost of acquiring right-of-way can be high for not only the Borough, but for the residents whose homes and businesses must be relocated. In a well-developed area, the cost of right-of-way for a new road can equal or exceed construction costs. Planning for

Page 6 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 1: State, Borough and City Bridges

Page 7 nc

Legend o Community Figure 1: ... Bridge N State, Borough, and City Bridges 5 10 15 20 Miles L..-_.l..1_--J..!__.L--J A Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan future colledor roads and establishing a corridor preservation program should be the next major objective of the Borough's road program.

Corridor preservation is a pro-active strategy that will help the Borough address its future transportation needs. A successful program typically includes a variety of tools that can be mixed and matched to fit the circumstances. The most common methods are fee simple purchase of land for right-of-way, and requiring building setbacks from road rights-of-way. Many road-building agencies also attempt to obtain voluntary dedications or donations of right-of-way on a case-by case basis during the land development process. Other available tools include options to purchase, interim use agreements, land banking, purchase of access rights and density credits. The key is to have a number of methods available so that the most appropriate approaches can be used for a specific section of needed roadway.

It is also important to ensure that the corridor management program has a solid foundation in the Borough's Comprehensive Plan. This transportation plan will specify the portions of the Borough where corridor preservation will be most important, and outline likey needed collector road connections. It will be important to take a number of steps in the near future to create a useful corridor preservation program. These steps include:

• Identify section line and other existing (but unconstructed) roadway easements; • Finalize the "preliminary" future corridor needs identified in this plan; • Field verify the recommended corridors to make sure the routes are constructible; and • In cases in which recommended or existing (section line) rights-of-way are not feasible} select alternative alignments within the next few years.

Although not important (or possible} in most cases)} to have a precise alignment ahead of design, the corridors designated should indicate corridor needs and identify that the road location will be determined by specific corridor and design studies.

It will be beneficial to focus initially on areas of the Borough that have experienced residential development and have a combination of generally decent soils} private or Borough land ownership and enough area to make development of collector roads important tJ efficient handling of traffic as these areas develop. Areas that will likely need a collEctor road network to tie subdivisions to highways and communities} and therefore are prime candidates for collector road right-of-way designation are:

Page 8 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

• Sterling and the area between Sterling and Soldotna north of the Kenai River. Connections between existing collectors and new collectors need to be developed in order to avoid the need for all neighborhoods to use the Sterling Highway for east-west travel. Examples are the extension of Sports Lake Road along the section line to the east as far as the vicinity of Whisper Lake, and the extension of Robinson Loop Road to the west generally along the section line to connect with the Kenai Spur Highway. • The area between Soldotna and Kasilof generally west of the Sterling Highway extending south to the South Cohoe Loop. Examples include the extension of Echo Lake Road to Tote Road and the extension of Gas Well Road south to the Kasilof area.

Where possible in these and other areas identified in the future, the Borough should endeavor to reserve 80 to 100 feet of right-of-way to accommodate collector or minor arterial level streets. Once a set of needed future corridors are finalized, the Borough will need to reserve as much of the land in the corridors as possible. In order to develop the corridor program and thereby carry out the Borough's Comprehensive Plan, the following measures should be considered as a basket of tools to be developed and in some cases 1 codified as Borough ordinances :

• Restrictions on building in the right-of-way of a mapped transportation facility; • Allowances for some interim use of transportation right-of-way for uses having low structural impact through an agreement that requires the property owner to relocate or discontinue the use at their expense when the land is ultimately needed for the transportation facility; • Criteria for right-of-way exactions and a process for determining the amount of right-of-way dedication that is roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed development; • A reduction or reprieve from property taxes on property subject to corridor preservation restrictions. Examples are removing property from the tax roll, lowering the tax rate for preserved land, or providing a tax credit; • An option for clustering developments by reducing setbacks or other site design requirements to avoid encroachment into the right-of-way; • Procedures for intergovernmental coordination between the Borough and the DOT&PF.

1 Adapted from Managing Corridor Development: A Municipal Handbook, Center for Urban Transportation Research,1996.

Page 9 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

3.0 TRAFFIC DATA AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Traffit: Data The combination of population growth in the Borough and increased levels of visitation by car have resulted in 2002 Borough traffic levels two to three times those of 1982. An overall picture of average daily traffic on highways and major State roads is shown in Figure 2. The levels shown indicate thatfor average traffic levels the State highways and roads in the Borough are sized appropriately.

The records of the DOT&PF's permanent traffic recorders located in eleven locations in the Borough were used to create a picture of traffic growth over time. Data from the recorder six miles east of Soldotna are shown below. Increased growth in the Sterling area and increased levels of tourism have contributed to the steady and substantial growth shown in Figure 3.

In addition to growth over time, traffic on the Seward and Sterling Highways peaks significantly during the summer. The highest monthly average daily traffic, which occurs in July, was about 13,500 vehicles per day in 2002. During January, the month with the lowest levels of traffic, an average of 5,600 vehicles per day were recorded. Figure 4 displays thE:' monthly averages as well as the annual average for 2002. Charts illustrating average daily traffic over a series of years and monthly variations during 2002 at additional locations in the Borough are contained in Appendix G.

3.2 Traffic Demand Model To look into the future and predict the long-range transportation needs, a traffic model has been developed to predict future traffic volumes on the Borough's highways and principal roads. The QRS II model is a computer program for forecasting impacts of land use developments on highway traffic and for forecasting impacts of highway projects on travel patterns. Like all macroscopic travel demand models, QRS II predicts vehicle and transit travel demand as a function of the available transportation network (capacity of roads and the connections provided) and the location of the population and employment within the study area. QRS II has been used to provide estimates of the trips between different communities within the Borough for 2013. To ensure that the model has the appropriatE predictive capabilities, an existing conditions model was developed. The volumes generated for the existing conditions model were compared with the actual volumes collected by DOT&PF. Input parameters affecting trip generation and distribution were adjusted as necessary until the appropriate accuracy was obtained.

Page 10 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 2: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2001

Page 11 Sa/amatof J-.'--:

/ / ~;J L ,

, . ;I Clam Gulch

Anchor" , __or Point,

Inset

Sterling!

, " Seld;via ';:~6 ..~ ,/''{\. ~' ~: '\-."=", , \ ",_---, l , Nanwa/~k <::­ ~\ J-t~pqt!-G''roham G -\-l--( P ( > Ci~oldotna , ""K '.~ C:',,:!,"~..'<~'~/'\g' ( ,," .. \---- ,- '" '. \ in: .f~ Portlock /c '. c, I" " ~,~~.,._:, - :) '''0 'LJ\­ __..) <("-/ <)', \~... :~~ ••• Legend 2001 ACT - 501 - 1,000 No Data 1,001 - 2,500 - 1 - 250 _, 2,501 - 5,000 ~,- 251 - 500 _. 5,001 - 10,000 _-10,000+ N Figure 2: Annual Average Da.ily Traffic (AADT) 2001 10 20 Miles 1 A. L.....JL...... L...... L---L...... L.....L-...JI....J Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 3: Historical Average Daily Traffic Sterling Highway 6 Miles East of Soldotna r--.... ~ 1 9000 ---.--.------.--..----..--...­..------.-.-..------­ I o :e 8000 ~ I­ 7000 >­ ~ 6000 ~ 5000 Cl ~ 4000 Q) ~ 3000 ~ 2000 c ~ 1000 ; o ..j-IIlL,-laL,-.-L,...... ~IL,_-..,--....,....lL,._J...... ,...-L.,-IIU_.,_...... ~IL,_J...... ,...... ,....L,-I'"'_r...... ,--L_,_IIIL,_-..,__..., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ b b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Year

Figure 4: 2002 Average Daily Traffic by Month Sterling Highway 6 Miles East of Soldotna 1­

16000 ------­ G) 14000 § 12000

0 10000 ~ /F I Monthly ADT > 8000 Annual ADT .~ 6000 l:- ~ 4000 .... 2000 O~=:..4l~.J+fL:~tE=titE~ljb=_1t~~=::..J4L:...;....lfI~.ljl_~L.-__l1 0 ~~ «<8J ~~ ~«:- ~¢' ~~ ~'v ~0 <::><8 00" ~O~ Q

______Month -----.J

As the next step, 2013 population and employment were estimated and input into the model to predict 2013 daily traffic volumes. The 2013 traffic volumes generated from QRS II will help decision makers determine the necessary transportation improvements required to accommodate such growth, and will provide an estimate of the time by which road improvements may be needed. Improvements could include the construction of new roads, the addition of lanes, intersection improvements including additional turning lanes, and the paving or maintenance of dirt roads.

Page 12 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

The 2013 forecast traffic results from this model need to be considered carefully. Time of year (e.g. summer with tourism) has a major impact on the magnitude of daily traffic. The QRS II model is calibrated to the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). In the Kenai region, the peak season traffic is approximately 16 to 38% more then the AADT. It is common to use Level of Service (LOS) categories to understand the operating condition of the traffic. The LOS can also be used to identify potential problem segments, which are defined as portions of highways or roads where minimum traffic operating conditions are not met. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) thresholds have been used to define these conditions in the year 2013. A level of service C or above has been assumed for a rural or multi-lane highway on the Peninsula, while a LOS D threshold has been assumed for the urban arterials where there are signalized intersections. The HCM thresholds may not be applicable for certain areas, and the assumptions should be considered carefully prior to adopting these as policies. Using the HCM thresholds and the QRS II 2013 results, the level of service for each segment was determined. Table 1 consists of the segments that the model predicted would have poor levels of service in the year 2013.

Table 1. QRS II Model Predictions of Problem Road Segments

Location 3.0 Problem Segment 4.0 Project in Development Kenai Bridge Access Road - Existing Level of Service None (LOS) D Soldotna Kenai Spur Road between Sterling Highway and Big None Eddy Road - Future LOS E Sterling Highway - Kalifornsky to Robinson Loop Kenai R. Bridge will be widened to five Road - Future LOS F lanes and connected to widened sections on both sides ofbridge. Funny River Funny River Road - Future LOS D Bridge over Kenai River connecting Sterling Highway with Funny River Rd. Kalifornsky Kalifornsky Beach Road - Future LOS D Rehabilitation project planned from Sterling Hwy to Bridge Access Rd. Sterling Highway - LOS D None Homer East End Road between Lake Street and East Hill East End Rd. to be reconstructed from Road - Future LOS D beginning to MP 12.2 by 2013. Sterling Highway - Pioneer to West Hill Road- None Future LOS F Seward Seward Highway - Port Ave to Nash Road - Future Seward Hwy MP 0-8 LOSF Sterling Robinson Loop Road to Skilak Lake Road - Future Sterling Hwy between Skilak Lake Rd. Highway LOSD and Sterling will be reconstructed as 3­ lane highway.

Page 13 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

A number of these segments already have some form of improvement planned, but others do not. Given the planning-level nature of the QRS II modeling process, the problem segments should be seen as an "early warning" list which should direct attention to the segments for which there is no improvement currently in development. As planning proceeds in the Borough, staff and the ADOT&PF should work closely to monitor traffic operations on these facilities and identify priorities for improvements as a function of the average daily and peak hour conditions forecasted in this model. For a technical description of the development of the model and the detailed results, please refer to the model technical memorandum included as Appendix B.

4.0 TRAILS There are a limited but growing number of improved bicycle-pedestrian trails within developed areas of the Borough and along some rural highways. Unimproved trails along some of the roads and highways are heavily used by pedestrians, bicyclers, skiers, snowmachiners, and off-road vehicle operators, and occasionally by dog mushers and equestrians. In other areas of the Borough, pedestrians and bicycles must use the road shoulders, which are often narrow and unpaved. During the past decade, a number of bicycle-pedestrian trails have been built in the Borough, including trails along Kenai Spur Road between Soldotna and Kenai, along Kalifomsky Beach Road, along parts of the Seward Highway, and on Homer Spit.

At the public meetings held throughout the Borough, considerable public support was heard for expanding and improving the condition of roadside local trails for the safety and convenience of Borough residents and visitors. The most commonly requested areas for pedestrian and bicycle trail improvements include:

• Highway corridors connecting a community's commercial and residential areas. • Routes used by children traveling to and from schools. • Highway corridors near popular fishing or recreation areas.

The highest priority locations for roadside trail improvements, based on public comment ,'"" and on-site review include: n,St:.Vlti'!J {:il~~ ) --fk N4vf{ FiYf-~0t-[J .OIJL J I • Anchor Point, along the~terlingHighway, exte~ding the length of the developed community; • Cooper Landing, along the Sterling Highway and Bean Creek Road, extending the length of the developed community;

Page 14 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

• Hope, along the Hope Road, Resurrection Creek Road, and Palmer Creek Road, extending the length of the developed community; • Kasilof, along the Sterling Highway and Kalifornsky Beach Road, extending the length of the developed community; • Kenai, along the Bridge Access Road connecting the Kenai Spur Highway and the Kalifonsky Beach Road. • Ninilchik, along the Sterling Highway and Oilwell Road, extending the length of the developed community; and • Seward, from the end of the trail being constructed as part of the Seward Highway MP 0-8 project at MP 3.5 to MP 8.

There is also public interest in expanding and improving the network of recreational trails within the Borough. Skiers, hikers, dog mushers, equestrians, and off-road vehicle operators use a number of improved and unimproved trails. Many of these are in the Chugach National Forest or Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and are managed and maintained by the responsible agency. Many others, however, are not located within dedicated easements or rights-of-way. The issue of continued public use of trails across private property has been a problem in the development and retention of recreational trails. A law was recently enacted by the State Legislature that grants full liability immunity to private landowners who grant a conservation trail easement. Private property owners who allow public use of their property may be encouraged to place part of their land holdings into conservation easements so as to obtain the fullest possible protection from liability. Additional information on recreational trails is included in the "Parks and Recreation" section of the Borough Comprehensive Plan and the 1998 Comprehensive Trails Plan.

The Comprehensive Trails Plan was developed to identify local recreational trails throughout the Borough. The study was initiated in response to the Federal Highway Administration's emphasis on providing additional recreation and transportation opportunities through the development of improved bicycle and pedestrian trail networks nationwide. In 1998, the Borough completed the trails plan that was adopted (Ordinance 98-62) as an element of the Borough Comprehensive Plan.

5.0 TRANSIT 5.1 Public Transit Service In 2000, the Borough adopted public transportation funding powers by Ordinance 202-19­ 17 on an areawide basis, with a sunset clause one year later. In 2001, Ordinance 2001-27 extended transportation funding powers for five years. The applicable ordinances require

Page 15 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan the powers to be exercised through contracts with other entities or organizations providing public transportation rather than the Borough directly providing the public transportabon. In 2000, in conjunction with the adoption of areawide transportation funding powers, the Central Area Rural Transit System (CARTS) service began serving the Central Peninsula as the Borough's first transit service. DOT&PF and the Community Transit Association of America (CTAA) provided technical support for the planning and start-up of:he system. The system operates demand-responsive transit service, where rather than operating on fixed routes, vans serve individual passenger trips from origin to destination. More than one party can be riding at any time, providing substantially higher service efficiency than a taxi-type service. CARTS ridership for 2002 totaled over 41,000 pass2nger-trips, and for 2003 will total approximately 100,000 trips. The CARTS service area is illustrated in Figure 5. Ridership totals, trip purposes and passenger characteristics through July 2003 are provided in Appendix H.

The system uses an efficient service model, carrying both individuals and social service agency clients. In recent years, the Borough has provided $50,000 per year in support of CARTS operations, which is about 7.5 percent of its annual operating budget. Interest in expanding the service to the southern and eastern Kenai Peninsula was evidenced during the transportation plan public process, although additional operating funding will need to be identified for a larger area to be served.

5.2 Private Transit Services The Seward Bus Line operates between Seward and Anchorage, providing one trip in each direction daily in the summer and Monday through Saturday service during the winter. The Homer Stage Line provides Homer to Anchorage and return service seven days per week in the summer and on Tuesday and Friday during the winter. Both services art~ privately owned and operated. Fares for the Seward-Anchorage trip are $40 one-way and $75 round-trip, and $50 one-way and $90 round-trip for Homer-Anchorage servIce.

6.0 PORTS AND HARBORS The primary ports in the Kenai Peninsula Borough are located in Homer, Seward, Kenai, Nikiski, and Drift River. Small boat harbors at Ninilchik and Seldovia, and barge landings or private docks at Tyonek, Beluga, Port Graham, Kasilof, and other locations provide important transportation links to these areas.

Page 16 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 5: Central Area Rural Transit System (CARTS) Area Served

Page 17 _~_1I, --,,;:: -.( \[

j (t'" ( J.""'~.~"\ ) "

) 1 \

'. .~

\,

'-y \-.~ 'f-­ ,.~

Legend • Community Figure 5: ~ CARTS Area Served Central Area Rural Transit System (CARTS) N

2.5 5 1( Miles Area Served L...... L.'-I''''''''''''...1.'....L...L....L'....J' A Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

6.1 Port and Harbor Authority Ports and h,lrbors within the Borough are shown on Figure 6. Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes provides the authority that enables cities and boroughs throughout the State to establish pert organizations, plan for waterfront development, own, lease or manage properties,~aisefunds, and exercise financial control over public ports. Within the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the cities of Seward, Homer, Kenai, and Seldovia have assumed port and harbor powers and operate municipal ports. Outside the cities, the Borough has assumed limited port and harbor authority. Proposition D, approved by the voters at the regular Borough election of October 6, 1981, provided for:

"... the acquisition of municipal powers to provide ports and harbors, wharves and other marine facilities in the Borough outside cities with these limitations: A. The Assembly will control and manage any Borough port and harbor functions. B. The port and harbor powers will be administered by the Borough's existing staff, and no additional employees will be employed. C. Port and harbor developments from Borough capital funds must obtain prior approval of the voters. "

A proposihJn to remove restrictions on the previously adopted port and harbor powers in 1989 failed. The issue of removing the restrictions on Borough-wide port and harbor powers wa~, considered again during the 1990 election, and again failed. Additionally, an effort to form an Anchor Point Port and Harbor Service Area failed voter approval in 2002.

All of the ports and harbors in the Borough outside of the cities were built and are presently IT.anaged by the State or private industry. However, the State does not have staff to operate and maintain harbors, or to collect user fees to finance harbor operations. Many resid,?nts of the smaller communities with State-owned facilities believe that additional port and harbor development will spur related economic development. Typically unincorporated, these communities have only the Borough to look to for assistance in developing or improving their harbor infrastructure. The Borough's voters, however, have not been persuaded that assuming greater port and harbor powers is in their best in terest.

6.2 Existing Ports and Harbors 6.2.1 Anchor River The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR) manages a tractor­ operated boat launch operation at the mouth of the Anchor River, at the Anchor River

Page 18 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 6: Kenai Peninsula Borough Ports and Harbors Overview

Page 19 Tyonek Dock: 1500 ft Wharf Owner: Tyonek Native Corp.

Nikiski Private Docks: Offshore Systems Dock (large cranes, a substantial dock face) Rig Tenders Dock (currently not in use) Phillips-Conoco Dock (liquefied natural gas (LNG)) Kenai Pipeline (Tesoro) Dock (petroleum products) Agrium Dock (petroleum based fertilizers) / \ Sa/amatof ~--- Kenai i-'arbo , Dock -170ft M Seasonal Mouring Buoys i ; Owner: City of '

4,'" 1f1R_a.,_KaChemak,"'''"'<; _ " .', Port of Homer! ~'m;------_~2 Deep Water Docks (470ft, 354ftli.:-) ~1 r 920 Slip Small Boat Harbo~ '­ j' I' j:;l'- ,1'qrt/f!..-~Ikc:': '-., y .• ,-,------~

Legend .t. Ports & Harbors N • Community Figure 6:

o 2,5 5 10 15 20 Miles Ports & Harbors Overview I, I I I , , , I I , , I • L...LJ A Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

State Recreation Area. It is operated by a private contractor and principally serves both recreational and charter sport fishing boats.

6.2.2 Homer The Port of Horner is a regional port facility serving the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet. Along with Seward, it is one of the two principal port and harbor facilities in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has designated Horner a backup port for the Port of Anchorage. The port is located at the end of the Horner Spit, a peninsula within the City of Horner that extends 4.6 miles into Kachemak Bay. Horner port facilities are a major economic component and intermodal transportation link for the City and Borough. Facilities include the Pioneer Dock, a second deep-water cargo dock, a boat harbor, and launch ramps. These facilities were constructed with State and Federal funds and are operated by the City of Horner.

The Pioneer Dock was completed in 2002. It is 469 feet long on the dock face. Three mooring dolphins spaced 100 feet apart off of the end of the dock allow for the mooring of ships of 75C feet long or longer. The dock handles State marine ferry vessels M. V. Tustumena and M. V. Kennicott, cruise ships, general cargo vessels, and petroleum tankers serving the local tank farm. The Coast Guard cutter Hickory has a designated space at the dock.

The City also operates a deep-water cargo dock that supports a wood product shipping operation, general cargo and container traffic, larger cruise ships, and other deep draft vessels. The dock, with a 354-foot face and additional mooring dolphins and buoys off both ends, can accommodate ships of approximately 800 feet. The City would like to increase thE' weight-handling capability of this dock by extending the dock 600 feet to the north, and designing that portion to a higher weight capacity for use with a 170-ton crane. This project is in the early review phases now, and the City hopes to fund it through direct appropriation from Congress. Either the deep-water dock or Pioneer Dock can offload Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE) roll-on, roll-off trailer ships. In an emergency situation in which the Port of Anchorage is damaged, trailers could be off­ loaded in Horner and trucked to their destination.

The small boat harbor has 920 slips (by reservation) and 6,000 lineal feet of dock space for transient vE'ssels. The harbor can accommodate up to approximately 1,400 vessels, with rafting of the transient boats. Most boats in the harbor are commercial fishing, charter, and recreabonal vessels, though workboats also stay in the harbor. The harbor includes launch facilities and a 340-foot fish dock with eight cranes for fish off-loading, and ice-

Page 20 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan making and ice storage facilities. Despite harbor expansion in 2001-2002, there remains a waiting list for berths at the small boat harbor. The wait currently is about one year for vessels up to 32 feet long and perhaps two years for vessels of 32 feet to 75 feet.

During peak use periods, transient vessels are rafted due to the lack of available space. More of the larger fishing vessels (for example Bering Sea crab boats) have been choosing Homer as their home port, or to re-provision, do repairs, or moor for the off-season. The City is pursuing an expansion of the small boat harbor, either by creating a new separate harbor or physically expanding the existing harbor. This new harbor area would be designed specifically to accommodate the larger boats-work boats, tug boats, oil platform supply boats, and larger fishing vessels that need a deeper basin (20 feet compared to the existing 12 feet at low water) and more maneuvering room. A port expansion reconnaissance study, with three alternatives, is in its second year. The harbor concept includes a secure portion that would be owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Construction is not expected to begin before 2005 or 2006.

6.2.3 Kenai The City of Kenai owns a multiple-use public dock and boat launch ramp facility near the mouth of the Kenai River. This facility has a 170-foot dock, with a gangway and floats, a set of two boat launch ramps adjoining each other, a fueling facility, restrooms, water, and small cranes (5,500-lb capacity) to receive cargo and fish. The dock operates May-August with an on-site dock manager. The dock monitors VHF radio. There are five private commercial fish processing plants with docks and boat ramps along both sides of the lower Kenai River, which receive fish and provide dry moorage space for commercial fishing vessels. The U.s. Army Corps of Engineers has issued permits for four seasonal moorage buoys in the Kenai River for mooring boats. These can accommodate up to four 32-foot boats each but are limited by water depth (no more than 8 feet at low water). Mostly drift net and gill net commercial fishing boats use these. Boats of 100 feet or longer occasionally stop at the dock, but all boats are limited by tides and the river level. Virtually all dock operations, including cargo handling and fueling, happens at higher tidal stages. Water depth is 3 - 5 feet at the dock at minus tides.

The City proposes expansion of the existing boat launch facilities by adding a second set of two ramps immediately upriver from the existing set of ramps, and by adding a new exit road from the launch ramp parking lot. The ramp would serve as an additional launch and take-out point for sport fishing vessels and allow for a one-way entrance road and one-way exit road for greater parking lot efficiency. Use of the existing dock and boat launch ramps facilities is intense during the peaks of the summer fishing season, with an

Page 21 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan estimated 3,000 launches during the 21-day dip net season in July. It is not unusual to experience a 1 - 2 hour wait to launch or retrieve a boat.

6.2.4 Nanwalek Nanwalek has no port and harbor facilities. Boats moor to buoys but are exposed to the weather. B1fges land on an undeveloped beach. The village council recently completed a strategic plan to identify needs in this fast growing community. Included are a protected barge landing and limited harbor facilities. These are envisioned as occurring in conjunctior. with airport realignment (the runway embankment would serve as the breakwater). A barge-landing ramp is also identified as a need. The community would like to be included in plans for a Kachemak Bay fast ferry.

6.2.5 Nikiski Along the coast of Nikiski there are a number of privately owned and operated shipping and receiving facilities for cargo and petroleum commodities. They serve an export function and serve the refineries and oil platforms in the area. These are major port facilities, with domestic and international shipments. Major facilities at Nikiski, from north to south, include the Offshore Systems Dock, the Rig Tenders Dock, the Phillips­ Conoco Dock, the Kenai Pipeline (Tesoro) Dock, and the Agrium Dock. The names and ownership of some of these docks have changed one or more times over the past two decades.

The Offshore Systems Dock is the most used in the area, with large cranes, a substantial dock face, Clnd longshoreman capabilities. Natchiq Corporation owns the Rig Tenders Dock. Wab=rs at this dock tend to fill in with silt, and it is currently not in use. The Phillips-Conoco Dock principally handles liquefied natural gas (LNG). Tesoro uses its dock to import crude oil for its refinery and to export refined petroleum products. The Agrium Dock handles principally fertilizers based on petroleum products.

6.2.6 Ninilchik/Deep Creek The Ninilchik Harbor, located in the mouth of the Ninilchik River, is a State-owned facility designed to provide moorage for 32 vessels. The operation is small and seasonal. The Corps of Engineers dredges the harbor and entrance each year in May, and the DOT&PF highway maintenance personnel place floats in the water. There are no reserved spaces, no ~;lips, and boats generally raft alongside each other at no charge. DOT&PF removes the floats in mid-September each year. The harbor is overcrowded during the fishing seawn, used at times by 75 or more vessels. The majority of the vessels using the facility are ;;almon drift net vessels in the 30- to 40-foot range. The harbor is inaccessible

Page 22 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan at low tide due to a shallow sill at the entrance. A new gangway was installed in spring 2003.

In the past there has been a demand for local log transfer facilities to serve the timber industry. Logs from the Ninilchik area are currently trucked to Homer for export on ocean-going vessels.

The lack of local ownership and management places the Ninilchik harbor among those State harbor facilities that are used beyond their capacity in the summer but have little on­ site management. It is a candidate for Borough or local ownership and maintenance. A number of studies have been completed to examine the feasibility of expanding or improving the harbor, but the State is unlikely to support an expansion project without a local sponsor and prospective owner.

The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation maintains a recreational boat ramp on the Ninilchik River upstream from the boat harbor, which sees relatively little use as boats appear to prefer launching at Deep Creek. Another launch ramp, nearby in the mouth of Deep Creek (a few miles south of the Ninilchik harbor), was washed out in the 2002 floods. It had been heavily used during the salmon and halibut season, and was often overcrowded with boats and trailers waiting to launch or take out. State Parks intends to replace it using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. Both ramp areas are inaccessible at low tide, which sometimes results in safety hazards. Improvement of the Ninilchik harbor could provide an alternate launch and take-out area for small recreational vessels. Deep Creek retains a tractor-operated beach launching operation for trailerable boats run by a contractor for State Parks.

6.2.7 City of Seldovia and Seldovia Village Marine transportation is critical to the economy of Seldovia, because there is no road access to this community. Port facilities at Seldovia include the City Dock, a 142-berth small boat harbor, and the Cannery Dock. The City Dock is owned by the City of Seldovia and, with two cranes, is used for the receipt of general cargo and petroleum products, and as a terminal for the Alaska Marine Highway ferry system. The small boat harbor is owned by the State of Alaska, and operated by the City. Recreational boats use this facility, along with fishing vessels and tour boats. Fishing boats include commercial drift net and purse seine salmon, crab, and shrimp vessels. The Cannery Dock, once privately owned and now City owned, is undergoing rehabilitation with an Economic Development Administration grant. The cannery is being removed and the dock reconfigured. The Cannery Dock will be used for purposes similar to the City Dock.

Page 23 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

The City is negotiating with the State for repair and upgrade of the floats in the small boat harbor, and possibly for transfer of ownership to the City. The City is also considering formation of a Port Authority that could issue revenue bonds and potentially work in partnership with other Kachemak Bay communities and the Alaska Marine Highway System to e;;tablish a new type of ferry that would serve only the local area with basic service on a more frequent schedule. The City would like to dredge and expand the small boat harbor, in order to include another 50 slips and a boat haul-out with 80-ton capacity. The project is in early phases; the Corps of Engineers has a study underway to examine this concept. The City hopes that construction could begin in 2004 or 2005. Larger boats using the boat harbor have had problems dragging bottom during low tide.

Seldovia Village, the Native village at the City of Seldovia, has been promoting a fast ferry with daily 5ervice for Kachemak Bay communities. The City has been pursuing funding for design of the vessel and completion of a feasibility study. Seldovia Village depends on the City of Seldovia harbor and on use of the Jakalof Bay Float, a State-owned dock about 10 miles from the City of Seldovia along the Jakalof Bay Road. Conceptually, the ferry would be based in Seldovia Harbor and would serve Kachemak Bay communities. Special trip:;; could be made for fish products at any of the communities, and possibly across Cook Inlet to Williamsport. The vessel would have the capability to operate in most sea and weather conditions. It would accommodate 15 - 20 cars, 3 - 4 container trucks, and walk-on passengers.

6.2.8 Seward The Port of Seward is the oldest and largest port in the Borough and, with Homer, is one of two major ports that are important economic components for the Borough as a whole. The Transp:xtation Security Administration (TSA) has designated Seward a backup port for the Port of Anchorage. City-owned Seward port facilities include:

• A small boat harbor with 522 slips and with water, fuet boatlift, sewer pump-out and repair fccilities, and grocery and other services nearby. The mooring floats for transient vessels extend a combined 2,062 linear feet. • A city piling dock and, under lease from the city, the Seward Fisheries Wharf (a sheet pile dock face and cannery), both located within the small boat harbor. • The Seward Marine Industrial Center at Fourth of July Creek, on the eastern side of Resurrection Bay. The industrial center includes two deep draft docks, 50-ton and 250­ ton travl~llifts for moving moderate and large vessels out of the water, a 5,000-ton capacity ship lift (capable of lifting the State ferry), and related marine industrial

Page 24 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

facilities and services. The Marine Industrial Center is City-owned and operated as part of the Port of Seward. Many of the operations are under lease. The dock serves container and cargo ships serving Seward and other parts of the Borough, and is a major marine repair location.

Other port facilities include:

• Three major docks owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation as part of its southern terminus: The Alaska Railroad Dock (with a face of about 700 feet), a coal transfer facility (breasting and mooring dolphins with a trestle capable of mooring large ships for exporting coal to Asian markets); and a relatively recent sheet pile Freight Dock with rail access. These are located at the head of the bay adjacent to the small boat harbor and serve cruise ships, the Alaska Marine Highway ferry M. V. Tustumena, coal ships, and other cargo vessels. • The Institute of Marine Sciences Dock, which provides moorage for the University of Alaska's research vessel Alpha Helix, located on the western side of the bay near downtown. • A major deepwater dock adjacent to the Marine Industrial Center, designed as a marine log transfer and wood chip exporting facility but not currently in use. It is a privately-owned dolphin-pile dock with a catwalk and is capable of mooring large, deep-draft ships. Additional wave/swell protection would make this dock and the other docks in the Marine Industrial Center more fully usable.

An old city dock downtown, which previously served the State ferry, still exists but has been decommissioned and is no longer is use. At Lowell Point, there is an informal beach boat launch area. It is Borough-owned and platted as public beach access, but there is no formalized launch area or procedure. The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, which owns an adjacent parking lot, indicates that trailered boats are launched there by four-wheel-drive vehicles, that it is popular enough to be congested at times, and that management is needed.

There currently is a waiting list for slips in the harbor, and it generally takes 5 - 7 years to gain a space there, with slips for larger boats taking the longest. There are typically 700 ­ 800 boats in the harbor, with transient boats moored 2 - 3 deep. The City is set to begin construction on an expansion of the small boat harbor to add 110 slips. The breakwater and entrance channel dredging are fully funded, and the floats and harbor interior partially funded. The breakwater work contract is expected to be issued before 2004. Local revenue bonds and other Federal grants are expected to pay for the inner harbor work. The expansion to the east makes this likely to be the last expansion the existing

Page 25 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan harbor can a,ccommodate. Further work would have to happen elsewhere on the bay. To alleviate pr,~ssure on the small boat harbor, the City has requested the Corps of Engineers to examine the feasibility of enclosing the Marine Industrial Center docks to provide moorage for workboats, tugs, barges, and other large vessels, and a reconnaissance report is expected.

The coal eX:Jorting operation was shut down for more than a year but, with a renewed coal contract, coal shipments began again in the fall of 2003. A large percentage of the work force in Seward derives income from port-related activities. Marine Highway System ferries provide regular service from Seward to other communities on the Kenai Peninsula and along the coast of Prince William Sound and the Alaska Peninsula. Numerous tour boats and cruise ships call at Seward and provide tourism revenue to the region. The harbor brings in many visitors from elsewhere in Alaska, since the vast majority of slip holders in the Seward Harbor are from Anchorage or locations outside the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Princess Cruise Lines is shifting its ships from Seward to Whittier as their port of call beginning in 2004. This is expected to shift more than 20 cruise ship stops, or nearly 25 percent of ell Seward cruise ship calls, to Whittier.

6.2.9 Kasilof A small private pier with a boat launch ramp and loading dock is located at the mouth of the Kasilof River. This facility was constructed as a public facility, but was transferred to private ownership as a result of a lawsuit regarding land ownership. Primarily commercial fishing vessels use this facility during the summer season. A number of other private docks in the river also support fish processing activities. The Kasilof River is also used for moorage of numerous fishing vessels and fish buyer barges. Approximately 100 mooring buoy permits have been issued by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, primarily for commercial salmon drift fishing boats in the 30 - 40 foot range. There are no public docks or ranps on the lower Kasilof River. The number of mooring permits is capped, and any boat owner who wishes to moor there must wait until a buoy permit becomes available.

6.2.10 Port Graham The Port Graham Village Council works closely with the Port Graham Corporation, which owns a fish processing plant and dock, and a log transfer facility. The fish processing plant has not operated since 2001, and the log facility has not operated since 1998. The Cannery Dock, with a 110-foot face and mooring dolphins 40 feet off each end, continues

Page 26 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

to provide limited fish and cargo off-loading, fuel delivery, boat fueling, and moorage space for commercial fishing vessels. The largest boat typically to use the dock is a Petro Marine fuel barge 200 feet long.

A float is currently tied alongside the dock and is used by smaller boats. Larger local fishing and workboats anchor in the bay but are not protected. Several other fishing boats are pulled out of the water. The Village Council is pursuing funds to build a breakwater for protected anchorage and a protected area for the float. The city also would like the State ferry to stop regularly, or to otherwise have service to ship fish product out to Homer.

The log transfer dock is a sheetpile, earth-filled bulkhead with a ISO-foot face. It was designed to have mooring anchors and buoys 150 feet off each end to handle log barges up to 400 feet long. The water depth at mean low water is 22 feet.

Port Graham has road access to Windy Bay on the opposite side of the peninsula. There is a gravel beach ramp at an old Windy Bay log transfer facility site, and it is suitable for launching trailered small boats.

6.2.11 West Side of Cook Inlet The Tyonek wharf is located on the northwestern shore of Cook Inlet near North Foreland, approximately 45 miles west of Anchorage and 1.5 miles southwest of the village of Tyonek. This facility was constructed by the Kodiak Lumber Mills, Inc. and is presently owned by the Tyonek Native Corporation. The wharf, approximately 1,500 feet long, is currently used to export logs on large Canadian ships. The dock is in fair condition and the village council does not know of specific needs. It has also been considered as a possible coal loading facility if the area's coal resources are developed.

Currently, most of the bulk freight and heavy equipment used by residents and industry on the west side of Cook Inlet arrives by barge, off-loaded at one of four barge-landing areas. The Ladd Landing is located north of the mouth of the Chuitna River, between Tyonek and Beluga. This facility provides an important off-loading point for equipment and supplies for the Chugach Electric power plant, natural gas fields, coal and mineral exploration activities and the domestic needs of the families living in the Beluga area. The tidelands belong to the State of Alaska, while the uplands belong to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Borough has entered into a lease option agreement with the Tidewater Services Corporation (an affiliate of Diamond Alaska Coal Company) to maintain future options for coal transfer at this site, while protecting existing uses. The village of Tyonek

Page 27 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan also has a barge-landing beach, located within the community, which is used for off­ loading local equipment, fuel, and freight.

A third barge-landing beach on the west side of Cook Inlet is located one mile west of Granite Poi:1.t, between Shirleyville and the Granite Point Pump Station. This facility is privately-owned and used to support the oil and gas activities, fishing, mining, tourism, and recreational use. Farther south, at the mouth of Drift River on Redoubt Bay and directly west of Kenai, there is a fourth barge-landing area. This is associated with the major oil ta:1.ker moorage at the Drift River Marine Terminal.

The Drift River Terminal, consisting of two breasting dolphins and two mooring dolphins, can accommodate tankers up to 830 feet long. The facility, owned by Cook Inlet Pipeline Company, is exclusively for petroleum products and can only off-load ballast water and load crude oil through submerged pipelines that lead to tanks on shore. The oil is from wells in Cook Inlet that feed a pipeline that takes oil south paralleling the shore to the terminal area. This facility has undergone extensive construction to resolve flooding and safety prob:.ems resulting from the 1989-1990 eruption of Mt. Redoubt.

DOT&PF is currently expecting to improve a beach barge landing at Williamsport, across Cook Inlet from Homer, along with rehabilitation and widening of the one-lane road from Williamsport to Pile Bay on Lake Iliamna. The road had been used primarily to move fishing vessels from Cook Inlet to Lake Iliamna (which in turn connects with Bristol Bay by river). In 2003, an airport contractor intending to use the road is dredging at Williamsport and is expected to maintain the barge-landing site for five years. DOT&PF has submitted a letter to the Corps of Engineers indicating intention to sponsor a harbor project idertified in a 1995 feasibility study and put on hold until 2002 pending completion of the State's Southwest Transportation Plan. DOT&PF's plans include further dredging and"dockside" improvements. Funding for the in-water and dockside improvements are not yet programmed. The road has several bridges out, although construction of temporary replacements for two bridges are underway in 2003. Rehabilitation and widening of the entire 15.5-mile road, including new bridges, is expected, with design beginning in 2004 and construction in approximately 2009. It is possible thE' proposed Kachemak Bay ferry, or the proposed upper Cook Inlet ferry could serve Willicmsport on occasion.

6.3 Financing for Port and Harbor Improvements In Alaska, port and harbor project needs are the least well funded of transportation project needs. While there are substantial and growing Federal programs available to

Page 28 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan support road and aviation projects, Federal support for port and harbor projects is limited. Nonetheless, many port and harbor construction or improvements within the Borough have been funded by State or Federal grants. Others have been funded by private industry. Municipal bonding is another little-used option for funding port and harbor projects within cities. In order to directly participate in port improvement projects, the Borough would need to evaluate the ability of the improved facility to generate sufficient revenues, or the availability of the other sources to repay the bonds, and would then need to seek voter approval.

6.3.1 State Funding State funding for port and harbor projects has been increasingly limited in recent years. Virtually all of the capital project funding available through the DOT&PF is derived from the Federal highway and airport trust funds, and therefore, must be used for Federal airport and surface transportation projects. During the past decade, State funds have primarily been used to provide matching funds for these Federal funding sources. Since 2 port and harbor projects generally do not qualify for these funds , and there is no State port and harbor funding program, there have been very few projects. Direct legislative appropriations can also be used to fund port and harbor projects, although with ongoing downward pressures on State capital and operating budgets, very few such projects have been funded.

6.3.2 Federal Funding The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a potential source of funding for harbor design and construction, but the agency requires a substantial local match and favorable benefit-to­ cost ratio. The Corps has funded a small group of projects each year during the past decade, the Federal funding for which has totaled $10 to $15 million per year. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has also been involved in funding port and harbor projects where local job creation can be shown. Federal funding through the Corps of Engineers or EDA generally requires a local municipality or port authority to provide matching funds and assume management of the completed facility. The local match requirement is 50 percent for Corps projects, which the State normally splits with the local government.

2 If a dock or ferry terminal is to be used by the Alaska Marine Highway System ferries, the facility can qualify for Federal highway funding. The local match required for these facilities is approximately ten percent.

Page 29 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

7.0 FERRY SERVICE 7.1 Alaska Marine Highway System The Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), through its Southcentral Alaska route, provides ferry service between the Kenai Peninsula Borough communities of Seward, Homer, and Seldovia, as well as other Southcentral Alaska destinations including Kodiak, Prince Willi am Sound, and the Alaska Peninsula. Through its cross-gulf route, the AMHS connects communities on the Southcentral route to communities on the Inside Passage/Southeast route (Juneau, Wrangell, Ketchikan, etc.). Figure 7 depicts the Southcentral Alaska route. Table 2 shows running times and miles associated with this route.

Figure 7: AMHS Southcentral Alaska Routes

The M.V. Tustumena serves as the primary AMHS Southwest Alaska - Kachemak Bay vessel. The "Tusty" is 296 feet long, with 27 staterooms, and can accommodate 200 passengers and 54 standard vehicles. When the Tustumena is sidelined for its annual overhaul, the M. V. Kennicott replaces it. The Kennicott is 382 feet long, 85 feet wide, with nine decks, and has a capacity for 748 passengers and 80 standard automobiles. This vessel is uS'2d to provide cross-gulf service from Juneau to Seward and Valdez during the summer.

Ferry service is an important means of transportation for residents, visitors, and freight, especially to and from Seldovia, where no road access is available. Seldovia residents rely

Page 30 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan on ferry service to transport bulk items such as cars and supplies to and from the community. Table 3 provides a comparison of the frequency of AMHS visits to each of the three Borough communities.

Table 2. AMHS Southcentral Alaska Route: Routes and Running Times

1.1 Miles From To Running Time Nautical/Statute

Valdez Cordova 5 hrs, 30 min. 74/84

Cordova Whittier 7 hours 97/110

. Whittier Valdez 6 hrs, 45 min. 78/89

Cordova 1.1.1 Seward 11 hours 144/164

Valdez 1.1.2 Seward 11 hours 144/164

1.1.3 Seward Kodiak 13 hrs, 15 min. 185/210 ; -~-~~--~~-+------~------_._..,-----_._.. _------.._.._---~ -_.._------_._----'.------,­ 1.1.4 Port Kodiak Lions 2 hrs, 30 min. 48/55

Port Lions Homer 10 hours 134/152

Homer . Seldovia 1 hr, 30 min. 17/19

The DOT&PF's Prince William Sound and Southwest Alaska Transportation Plans call for the replacement of the M. V. Bartlett with a new fast ferry serving Prince William Sound. The increase in sailings that the fast ferry will provide will allow the M. V. Tustumena to remain in Kachemak Bay - Kodiak - Aleutian service full time. The plans call for the discontinuation of ferry service between the Southwest and Prince William Sound in favor of additional sailings in Kachemak Bay, between Horner/Seldovia and Kodiak and out the Aleutian Chain to UnalaskalDutch Harbor. The Southwest Alaska Plan also calls for discontinuation of service to Seward in favor of additional service between Horner and Seldovia, Kodiak, and the Aleutians. The plan's rationale is that service should be concentrated on connecting the road system with communities off the road system, by the most efficient routing. In this case service to Seldovia, Kodiak, and the Aleutian Chain

Page 31 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan would originate from Homer rather than Seward because Homer provides the shorter routing. If the Southwest Plan is fully implemented, service frequencies between Homer and Seldovia should increase.

Table 3. Comparison of AMHS Southwest Service Visits to Borough Communities Month # of AMHS Visits to Community Seward Seldovia Homer Jan. 2.5/wk

The Marine Highway is also evaluating the possibility of operating a second, purpose­ built vessel. This ferry would be similar to the M. V. Lituya currently under construction and intended to provide service between Ketchikan and Metlakatla. Addition of such a vessel would significantly improve service to Seldovia, and allow the expansion of service to Port Graham. The community of Port Graham is very much in favor of a regular ferry connection:o Homer and Seldovia. These plans will be balanced with the proposal for a local Kache:nak Bay fast ferry to serve Homer, Seldovia, Port Graham, Jakalof Bay, Halibut Cove, and possibly Nanwalek.

7.2 Cook Inlet Ferry The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has received environmental approval and is currently working on final design of a Knik Arm Ferry. As planned, the ferry would run between

Page 32 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Port MacKenzie and Anchorage. The Mat-Su Borough is also considering adding Knik and Goose Bay to the ferry route to enable daily commuters to access Anchorage more easily.

The Mat-Su Borough has initiated discussions with the City of Kenai, City of Horner, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough regarding expanding the Knik Arm Ferry system to the rest of Cook Inlet. Kenai, approximately 82 miles by sea from Anchorage, could be accessed in 2.5 to 3 hours--more quickly and easily by ferry than by driving. Horner (155 miles) could also be accessed by ferry from Anchorage in about the same amount of time required to drive, according to marine architects designing the ferry. Based on preliminary planning, ferry ridership in upper Cook Inlet would include freight haulers and tourists and other pleasure travelers. Additional study of ferry landing locations in both communities would be required.

The Cook Inlet Ferry System could be expanded to serve areas on the west side of the Cook Inlet and Point Possession. Tyonek, about 43 miles southwest of Anchorage, is not accessible by road and ferry service would greatly improve access to the community. Ferry service to Williamsport could enhance transportation to the Lake Iliamna area. Future ferry service to Point Possession could be added if the North Kenai Road is extended.

8.0 AIRPORTS There are 14 principal public airports, three public floatplane bases, and numerous private airstrips within the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Figure 8 provides an overview of the location of the public and private airports, landing strips, and floatplane bases in the Borough. An inventory of public airports is shown in Table 4, and the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Master Records for these airports and floatplane bases are contained in Appendix C. Beaches, lakes, and river bars also provide landing sites for small aircraft throughout the Borough.

8.1 Central Peninsula The Kenai and Soldotna Airports are municipal airports owned and operated by the Cities of Kenai and Soldotna. The Kenai Airport is the primary airport serving the Central Peninsula with instrument landing support and the capability to land 737/757 series aircraft. A number of projects are currently underway, including lengthening the main runway to 8,000 feet, improving security with additional fencing and video surveillance and constructing a new airport rescue and firefighting building. Increases in airfares, particularly between Kenai and Anchorage, have led to fewer people flying out of Kenai

Page 33 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Table 4. Principal Public Airports within the Kenai Peninsula Borough Airport Owner Length Width Surface Navigation (ft.) (ft.) Aids Homer DOT&PF 6,701 150 Asphalt IFR Homer-Beluga Lake DOT&PF 3,000 600 Water VFR Hope DOT&PF 2,000 65 Gravel VFR lakolofBay State 1,230 NA Gravel VFR Kasilof DOT&PF 2,165 40 Gravel VFR Kenai City 7,575 150 Asphalt IFR Kenai Floatplane City 3,500 150 Water VFR Nanwalek DOT&PF 2,000 NA Gravel/sand VFR Ninilchik DOT&PF 2,400 60 Dirt/Gravel VFR Port Grahcm DOT&PF 1,975 45 Gravel/Dirt VFR Quartz Cn:eklCooper Landing DOT&PF 3,400 75 Gravel VFR Seldovia DOT&PF 1,845 60 Gravel VFR Seldovia Floatplane City 2,000 1,000 Water VFR Seward DOT&PF 4,240 100 Asphalt VFR Soldotna City 5,000 130 Asphalt IFR Tyonek Community 3,000 90 Gravel VFR Crown Point/Lawing DOT&PF 2,200 50 Gravel VFR

in recent years. The airport is considering the development of incentives to strengthen air service competition, which it hopes will help decrease fares and increase enplanements.

The Soldotna Airport provides a landing strip and plane storage area for local aircraft owners and serves as a back-up landing area when weather prevents landing in Kenai. Fishermen flying in from other Alaska locations also use the airport. Fishermen flying in from other Alaska locations also use the airport. The airport is currently updating its master plan, which establishes long-range goals for the airport, including expansion of safety zone:" floatplane facility improvements, parking, runway, and taxiway extensions, and bulk fuel storage plans. There have been a limited number of attempts to operate commercial air service from the Soldotna airport, although there is no service operating from the airport currently. The City of Soldotna has been investigating options to increase airport reVEnues to help support this facility.

There are the two primary public airports, ten private airstrips and three floatplane bases in the Kenal-Soldotna-Sterling area. This density of use has given rise to two issues of growing concern in the Central Peninsula:

Page 34 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 8: Kenai Peninsula Borough Airports

Page 35 ----:- -, J2i<­

(

f • Anchor Point \,

II Legend

I • Community i-Highway Airports • Regular Commercial Passenger Service

£. Seaplane Base !, .OtherPublic =====J' IL • priva~e

N Figure 8: o 5 10 15 Miles Airports Overview 1"""","1 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan

Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

• compatibility between the large number of private airstrips, floatplane use and increasing residential density, and • airspace conflicts among the existing airports, private airstrips, lakes used for floatplane operations, as well as potential conflicts between these uses and new private airstrips.

The initial approach to dealing with these issues should include a requirement in the platting precess to disclose on a plat that the subdivision is within five miles of an airstrip, and a requirement that, prior to approval, the owner of any proposed landing strip must complete and file an FAA form 7480, "Notice of Landing Area Proposal." Once the form is filed, FAi\. staff will do an airspace analysis of the proposed airstrip. If operation of the airstrip would cause potential conflict, the airstrip should not be permitted.

8.2 Southern Peninsula The Homer Airport is a State-owned airport operated by the City. The City also owns the terminal building. The Homer Comprehensive Plan and the Homer Airport Master Plan, which is currently being updated, provide long-range goals for airport improvements. Current priorities include a connection between the airport and the floatplane base so that airplanes could be transferred between the two without the need to use the road system.

Other public airports on the southern peninsula include State airports at Seldovia, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Ninilchik, and a Federal airstrip at Jakolof Bay. The Nanwalek e.irstrip is located on an eroding sand spit with a limited approach zone and is in serious Deed of replacement or improvement; however, the Federal Aviation Administration believes there is no reasonable alternative for rehabilitation or replacement. Consequently, no alternate site has been identified, although both the FAA and the DOT&PF believe the most feasible alternative is to build a road connecting Nanwalek end Port Graham, which would provide Nanwalek residents with access to the Port Graham airport. Delayed for several years due to land ownership issues, the Port Graham Airport Master Plan is expected to be implemented. The plan includes moving the airport up-valley to a more suitable site, with a 3,300-foot long runway.

Ninilchik is seeking funds for an airport expansion project, although property ownership has been an issue, and the DOT&PF airport prioritization process does not favor small community airports located on the highway system. Although maintenance was suspended :=or a year, limited maintenance activities at the Ninilchik airstrip were funded again by DOT&PF as of mid-2003. Considerable interest has been exhibited in the Anchor Point community in the development of a local airport. The DOT&PF has designated land

Page 36 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan for an airstrip, but Anchor Point's location on the Sterling Highway and its proximity to Homer mean near-term development by the State is unlikely.

8.3 Eastern Peninsula The Seward Airport is owned and operated by the State. In 1992, the access road was realigned, the apron expanded, and tie-down capacity expanded to 45 aircraft. The updating of the Seward Airport Master Plan has begun. Although instrument flight capability for the Seward Airport was a desired improvement mentioned during the initial public meetings, the proximity of the mountains to the Seward airport will make the addition of IFR capability unlikely.

The Crown Point/Lawing airstrip south of Moose Pass, the Quartz Creek airstrip near Cooper Landing, and the Hope airport are also State-maintained airstrips serving the eastern side of the Borough. The Lawing and Quartz Creek airstrips had DOT&PF maintenance suspended for a year due to insufficient maintenance funding. Limited maintenance began again in mid-2003. Neither of these airports qualifies for Federal funding, so absent a State airport improvement project they are likely to remain as-is for the foreseeable future. Direct Borough involvement in airport improvements would require the adoption of airport powers. Public sentiment at the meetings and open houses held in conjunction with the preparation of this plan generally did not see the improvement needs as being serious enough nor the potential economic benefits as being great enough to warrant Borough involvement at this time. The DOT&PF is currently planning to rebuild the Lawing Airstrip as part of the highway realignment project in that area.

8.4 Western Borough There are no public airports on the west side of Cook Inlet. The Tyonek Airport, with a 3,000-foot runway, is owned and operated by the Village of Tyonek for local use. The 2003 long-range transportation plan for Tyonek makes airport improvements the community's first priority, in part because health and safety depend on air transportation for medical evacuation. The runway is also quite dusty. Plans call for a crosswind runway, extension of the existing runway, replacing and upgrading old, high­ maintenance runway lighting, and paving the surface. No funding is identified, and the village acknowledges funding is complex because it is not a public airport.

The Beluga airstrip is a private 5,000-foot airstrip operated by Conoco-Phillips, Inc. through a lease with Cook Inlet Region, Inc. This airstrip has been heavily used by Beluga

Page 37 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan area industrial operators, residents, and visitors in the past, but insurance liability costs now restrict use by small private planes.

The Nikolai Creek airstrip near Granite Point is also a privately-operated airstrip, but is located on State land, which is now classified as public right-of-way. A number of other small private or unmaintained public airstrips, beaches, and riverbeds provide access to residents, developers, and recreational users in more remote areas. The demand for public airport facilities is likely to increase as projected resource development and settlement takes place in this region.

9.0 THE ALASKA RAILROAD Railroad service is available from Seward to Anchorage, and from Anchorage to Fairbanks, with stops at some communities or developed areas outside the Kenai Peninsula Borough along the railroad corridor. Upon its completion in 1923, the railroad became the primary means of transportation between the coast and Interior Alaska, gave Anchorage its start, and has since been an important transportation means for resources and consumables brought into the state through Seward or Whittier. In the past few years, the railroad has carried coal from the Usibelli coal field near Healy to Seward for export on o,:eangoing vessels. The railroad also has daily passenger service from Anchorage to Seward from mid-May through mid-September. Passenger volumes for the "Coastal Chssic" from the beginning of the service in 1989 through 2003 are shown in Figure 9. In addition to this regularly scheduled service, the Alaska Railroad also operates service to transport cruise ship passengers between Seward and Anchorage. During 2003, an additional 35,000 of these passengers were carried.

The railroad closely parallels the Seward Highway through Moose Pass, Crown Point, and the Seward area, and crosses the highway in a number of locations. Additional railroad crossings have been proposed to provide better access to property located across the railroad tracks from the highway. Representatives from the Alaska Railroad, Kenai Peninsula Borough, DOT&PF, and concerned citizens have met to resolve railroad­ crossing issues. The DOT&PF has given priority to highway improvement projects that provide grade separations for railroad-highway crossings. In the past few years, two rail crossing grade separations on the Seward Highway between Seward and mile 24 have been constructed.

Extension of the Alaska Railroad to the western Kenai Peninsula was mentioned a number of times at the transportation plan public meetings. There have been a number of studies concerning the feaSibility and possible routes to extend the railroad to Kenai,

Page 38 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Figure 9 - Seward Line Passenger Ridership

40,000 -'------,------,------,---­

35,000 +------­

30,000 t------­

:1 25,000 t------­ E ~ ~ 20,000 +---'------­ c:: CIl rn rn ~ 15,000 +-----=-

10,000

5,000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003' Year

,. Projected

Soldotna and possibly Homer. Routes around Kenai Lake, through Cooper Landing, or along the Turnagain Arm have been considered, but to date none of these routes has been determined to be feasible or cost effective,

10.0 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED HAZARDS It is not necessary to live in Alaska very long to experience the forces of nature that often affect residents' day-to-day activities. Flooding that washed out highways and roads on the Kenai in 2002 is a recent example. As part of the transportation plan, a review of the most significant hazards and their potential effects on transportation in the Borough was conducted. Appendix E contains the overview of significant hazards affecting transportation in the Borough.

11.0 LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION VISIONS Although beyond the ten-year horizon of this plan, worth noting are several large-scale, long-term transportation projects for the Kenai Peninsula Borough, These include rail extension westward across the peninsula, a Turnagain Arm road crossing to shorten the connection between the western peninsula, Anchorage and points north, and

Page 39 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan developments on the western side of Cook Inlet. Development of these projects extends beyond the ten-year time frame of this plan, and while none of these projects is active, they are the subjects of recurrent discussion.

11.1 Railroad Extension Railroad extension to Kenai/Soldotna or Homer along the north coast of the Kenai Peninsula or parallel to the Sterling Highway has been discussed. A route from Moose Pass to Soldotna would require 65 miles of new track. A route from Moose Pass to Homer would requlre 140 miles of new track. This investment and on-going maintenance would require sub~;tantial promise of on-going freight and passenger demand. The route would make an extraordinary tourist excursion. Freight demand at Homer or large-scale resource extraction (timber, gravel) along the route would likely be required.

11.2 Turnagain Arm Road Crossing Chickaloon Bay to the Seward Highway. A route crossing Turnagain Arm would be a very large project. A route from the Sterling Highway near Sterling would parallel an existing gas line along the western edge of the Kenai Mountains, passing through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge to reach the eastern edge of Chickaloon Bay and then join the Seward Highway in the Potter area of South Anchorage. The route between Sterling and Potter would be about 57 miles (reduced from the current 130 miles) and would require 50 or more mil~s of new construction. The crossing itself would be in excess of 6 miles, a likely a long; causeway and bridge combination. The eastern Sterling area would be within daily commuting distance of Anchorage, and Skilak Lake recreation areas would be easily accessible by Anchorage residents and tourists. The route would provide beautiful mountain, forest, and coastal scenery.

Point Possession to Anchorage/Fire Island. This route would traverse the edge of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands designated as Federal Wilderness, and pass through Captain Cook State Recreation Site (a park). Even the shortest bridge would be long­ from Point Possession to Fire Island is some 7 miles, and a second bridge or causeway would also be necessary between Fire Island and Anchorage. However, the route would reduce the driving distance between Kenai and Anchorage from 150 miles to 70 miles and put north Kl~nai and Nikiski within daily commuting distance of Anchorage. The driving distance from Homer to Anchorage would be reduced from 225 miles to 155 miles. The route wouIe provide beautiful coastal scenery.

Page 40 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

11.3 West Side of Cook Inlet Westside Development Project (West Foreland). The Borough has undergone a two-stage planning process for disposal of its 1O,000-acre land holdings at West Foreland. To enable development of residential and recreational properties, the plans called for a new airstrip, a deepwater dock, use of the existing Unocal barge landing area, and upgrade of existing pipeline service roads or development of new roads. A future ferry was considered a possibility. This area is a relatively narrow strip of upland between the wetlands of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay State Critical Habitat Area. With views of the Chigmit Mountain (Aleutian Range) and Kenai Peninsula, the area would be quite attractive. The plan is not moving forward at this time.

Road to Mat-Su. Development of transportation infrastructure farther north along the western side of Cook Inlet would appear to be closely tied to resource development. Currently, there are substantial facilities (pipelines, tanks, tanker dock, local roads, airstrip, Beluga power plant) for the oil and gas/power generation industry. There are substantial coal deposits and likely further oil and gas potential. Ice roads across the Susitna River connecting Beluga to the Mat-Su Borough road system have shown the potential for a permanent road. If developed, such a road would serve not only the industries but could be popular for recreation and tourism. It would take about 50 miles of new road to reach Beluga and its existing gravel road system without crossing the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. Another 15 miles of new road or upgraded old road would reach the Tyonek and Trading Bay State Game Refuge areas. It should be noted, however, that the Native Village of Tyonek Tribal Council has indicated that there is little support in Tyonek for a road connection with Mat-Su.

This project might become more practical if the Knik Arm Crossing, currently under consideration in Anchorage, were built north to Point McKenzie. The crossing would dramatically decrease the drive necessary for Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula residents to reach the current western extent of the road system near the Little Susitna River. Alternatively, the Alaska Marine Highway System or other ferry, such as the one currently under development for the Mat-Su Borough for Knik Arm service to Anchorage, could provide frequent ferry service to the western side of Cook Inlet for residents and recreational visitors, as well as for small-scale resource development.

Page 41 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

12.0 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 12.1 Roads Issue: Borough Road Maintenance Funding Local property tax levies for road maintenance and improvement were recently increased to 1.5 mills. However, with the outlook for decreasing State assistance, additional local funding may be necessary to keep pace with maintenance needs and to improve the Borough road network.

Possible solutions: (1) Members of the State Legislature have talked for some time about a State-funded local road program that would use a portion of the State's Federal apportionment and/or State gas tax or other tax revenues to fund local road improvements. (2) Incre:lse local mill rate to: a. increase road maintenance (grading, plowing, and dust control). b. bring substandard Borough roads up to standards. c. allow review and acceptance of additional local road miles (see below). d. better compete for Federal road funds. State system favors local contribution to cost of projects and local takeover of State-owned local roads. (3) Assess a Borough gasoline tax on sales in the Borough for a-d, above.

Issue: Impl'Ovement and Acceptance of Constructed Roads in Borough Right-of-Ways A number of roads have been built, often to serve new residential subdivisions, which have not been constructed to Borough standards. Other older roads were built before standards were adopted. In a third case, roads were built to the proper standard initially, but became substandard as connecting roads built later elevated their function (for example, to collector from subdivision road).

Possible solutions: Develop a "road upgrade and acceptance" program funded by: (1) a combination of Borough funds matched by private funds from those property owners served by the improved roads.; (2) the existing Borough Road Improvement Assessment District (RIAD) program.

The method chosen would be matched to the current function of the road. For example a road that serves a well-defined neighborhood would be upgraded using the RIAD program because the beneficiaries of the upgrade are identifiable. The greater the general

Page 42 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan public service provided by the road to be upgraded, the greater the share of Borough funds that should be used to accomplish the upgrade.

Issue: Compliance with Borough Subdivision Road Standards Many complaints were heard during the public meetings for this plan about subdivision roads that were to be built to Borough standards by developers but were not, and as a result the RSA will not certify the road for maintenance.

Possible solutions: (1) Require bond posted by developers that would help ensure that the roads are constructed to Borough standards. (2) Require that roads be improved to Borough standards prior to plat approval. (3) Establish a local improvement district to include the subdivision.

Issue: Borough Road Impacts Caused by Other Agencies With a major national forest, national wildlife refuge and state parks on the Peninsula, if access to a Federal or State facilities over Borough roads creates maintenance and upkeep headaches for the Borough and residents living along the affected roads. Keystone Drive is a prime example of this problem.

Possible solutions: Develop an agreement with the Federal or State agency that results in a sharing of the cost of maintenance of the road, and in cases where usage exceeds reasonable levels for gravel roads (greater than 300 vehicles per day) a sharing of the cost of a road upgrading and paving project.

Issue: Transportation and Land Use Coordination with Cities For the most part the cities in the Borough and the Borough itself have dealt with transportation maintenance and construction independently. As population and traffic grow, there will be growing benefit to a coordinated approach to dealing with inter­ community transportation and planning issues. In regard to transportation planning, the cities will increasingly look to the Borough, as the transcending area-wide political entity, to take the lead in such coordination.

Possible solutions: The Borough could establish a voluntary organization that would initially include the Borough, Kenai, and Soldotna. The organization would work to coordinate land use and transportation plans to the benefit of the residents of the Central Peninsula. Specific

Page 43 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan issues would include advocating for new roads and bridges, and coordinating standards for roads and bridges connecting the Cities and the Borough.

Issue: Borough Role in Shaping Growth Although tr.e Borough now has the authority to construct roads, it has generally not built roads to achieve specific community development goals.

Possible solutions: Planning roads with the specific aim of directing other development would give the Borough more leverage over the development of transportation in the KPB and patterns of community development. A Borough program would allow the Borough to playa role in new road and community development outside the cities by directly influencing the manner in which the Borough develops - e.g., nodal development at specific points along the major roads, rather than uncontrolled strip development.

12.2 Trails Issue: Construction and Maintenance of Lighted Trails and Sidewalks The public meetings for this plan demonstrated widespread public interest in developing or improving lighted trails along major highways and main roads in the Borough. Safety for walkers and bicyclists, especially children, is of concern. Areas of emphasis are along roads connecting homes with schools and commercial areas.

Possible Solutions: (1) Stres:, that appropriate pedestrian facilities - sidewalks or separated paths along road~; - should be included in all State projects in settled areas of the Borough, and that in most cases the walks should be lighted during the winter. (2) Include appropriate pedestrian facilities along roads built by or for the Borough and serving settled areas.

Issue: Dedication of Trail Rights-of-Way Many established, historically-used trails cross public and private land without dedicated easements or rights-of-way. Other than the ANCSA 17(b) process established for rights­ of-way on Native lands, there are currently no provisions to identify and dedicate public trails prior to use or disposal of public land, or as part of the subdivision process on private land.

Page 44 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Possible Solutions: Develop an ordinance that provides for public trail dedication over Borough land prior to disposal, and that can allow for dedication of a public trail easement as part of the platting process. An ordinance requiring dedication of trails as part of the subdivision process must be carefully drafted and implemented in order to avoid takings claims. A recent State law provides that a private property owner who grants a conservation easement across private property is not liable for problems that result from public use of the trail.

12.3 Transit Issue: Borough Support for Transit Service The existing CARTS system serves the central peninsula with a hybrid public transit and social service agency transportation system. It is an efficient model that minimizes capital and operating costs. The key issues are whether the Borough will want to continue to support the service, or will want to support its expansion to Horner, Seward, and possibly other parts of the Kenai.

Possible Solutions: (1) The Borough should work with CARTS to examine the need for transit service in the Horner and/or Seward areas. The DOT&PF may support this examination as they did the creation of CARTS. If the study is supportive of service expansion, consider extending transportation funding powers for five additional years. (2) The Borough should work with the cities served, both existing and with any proposed expansion, to jointly fund a portion of the cost of the service with the Borough. (3) The Borough could create a transit service area to fund the Borough's contribution to transit operations that would include all the area served by CARTS.

12.4 Ports and Harbors Issue: Construction, Management and Operation of Ports There is limited Borough authority to construct, manage, or operate ports. Outside the cities, the Borough must rely on State funds or private industry to plan, construct, and operate ports. State funding and role in development and maintenance of ports and harbors is declining. This decline may impact the economic development benefits associated with port development and operations.

Page 45 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Possible Solutions: (1) The Borough has assumed limited port and harbor powers (the acquisition of muni':ipal powers to provide ports and harbors, wharves and other marine facilities in the Borm[gh outside cities .. .). It is possible for the Borough to assume greater port and harbor powers. Although expansion of such powers has not been popular Boro.lgh-wide, it may want to do so if the benefits of port and harbor related economic development could be seen on a case-by-case basis to justify the responsibility and expense.

(2) The Borough could proactively promote economic development of ports and harbors. The Borough would identify what is needed and in the best interest of the Borough, and push for port development where needed. This role is consistent with the Borough's active promotion of economic development, but would not require assumption of additional port and harbor powers.

Issue: Limited Ferry Service Expansion or improvement of ferry service is a community priority in Seldovia and Port Graham. There is also some interest in a general Cook Inlet service connecting Kenai and Homer with Anchorage, Tyonek, and Williamsport.

Possible Solutions: (1) The Borough should advocate for additional service, particularly in the Kachemak Bay Clrea, and actively support the efforts of Kachemak Bay communities to secure fund:.ng for a Kachemak Bay ferry. (2) The Borough should advocate for re-focusing of the AMHS service on Kachemak Bay, Kodiak, and the Aleutian Chain, rather than on service to Prince William Sound, per the State's Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan.

12.5 Airports Issue: Airfares, Competition, and Security The major airports serving the Borough are in good physical condition. The concerns heard during development of this plan were focused on the rapid increase in airfares and the lack of competition in the Kenai and Homer to Anchorage markets. With heightened airline security now a reality of air travel, residents expressed concerns about the need for adequate se:urity clearances at Kenai airports that would obviate the need for redundant security checks in Anchorage.

Page 46 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Possible Solutions: The Borough could partner with Kenai and Homer to support competitive diversity in the local air service market.

Issue: Noise and Conflicted Airspace There has been little or no control exerted over opening of private airstrips in the Borough. This was not a problem when the Borough was sparsely populated, and was a necessity in some areas poorly served by roads. As air traffic increases there are increasing opportunities for airspace incursions, unsafe conditions, and noise conflicts with nearby residences.

Possible Solutions: (1) Each proposal for a private airstrip to the Borough Planning Commission should be required to include a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) form 7480, which will prompt an analysis by FAA of possible airspace conflicts and a recommendation as to whether the airstrip should be permitted. (2) Neighbors should have adequate opportunity to object to the noise impacts of a prospective airstrip or floatplane operation, and the Borough should require planning to mitigate noise impacts where necessary.

12.6 Alaska Railroad Issue: Railroad Crossings DOT&PF has pursued a policy of eliminating at-grade crossings on major highways. On other roads, there are community needs for continued maintenance of existing railroad crossings and the development of additional crossings to access property. These needs conflict with the Alaska Railroad's policy to limit at-grade crossings to minimize the potential for accidents at crossings.

Page 47 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Possible SoLutions: (1) The BJrough Planning Department should work with the Alaska Railroad to identify any high-priority locations for additional crossings, and to locate them for maxinum access and safety. (2) The BJrough and Railroad should identify low-use and redundant crossings that could possibly be combined or eliminated. (3) Existing crossings that connect Borough roads with State highways should be owned. and maintained by the Borough.

Issue: Seward Line Viability Although not a short-term issue, without the coal export shipments to Seward, the only significant use of the line between Portage and Seward is to run the Anchorage-Seward passenger trains during the summer. This is scant traffic over which to defray the cost of upkeep of the line, and as a result there is some risk of it being closed on a temporary or permanent basis.

Possible So Lution: The Borough should partner with the Alaska Railroad to promote development, rail uses, and passen~;er service to help ensure that the railroad remains busy, in service, and in a position to contribute to the economic health of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Borough should advocate for increased recreation and tourist whistle-stop use of the railroad and the Iditarod Rail-Trail pass that has been discussed between the Railroad and Forest Service.

13.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 13.1 Roads

GOAL 1: To continue and improve maintenance and upgrading of Borough roads.

Objective 1.1 Develop criteria for the evaluation, selection and scheduling of candidate road improvement projects.

Page 48 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Action A Follow the RSA Policy Statement 99-013 regarding criteria for the ranking of CIP projects in the RSA Board's annual review of CIP projects.

Action B Implement the results of the 2003 CIP selection criteria consultant contract.

Action C Implement RSA Resolution 01-04 regarding the enhanced CIP pavement program, as may be amended, and explore the feasibility of a chip-seal program.

Action D Consider average daily traffic counts as a fundamental criterion for collector road improvement projects.

Objective 1.2 Quantify the additional revenue needed to fund road maintenance and upgrading activities.

Action A Assess each Borough road and assign a functional classification.

Action B Determine through field inspection whether the road is improved sufficiently to warrant the assigned classification, and if not, determine the level of improvement needed.

Action C Estimate the cost of each road improvement.

Objective 1.3 Consider a variety of mechanisms to increase funding for improvement of Borough roads.

Action A Advocate for Federal highway monies to be directly allocated to the Borough for local roads and local management of road projects through a State DOT&PF local roads program.

Action B Advocate for a State general fund program for Borough capital improvement projects and State roads within the Borough.

Action C Consider RSA funding matches to increase the scores of roads within the Borough on the State STIP list.

3 RSA Policy Statement 99-01 and Resolution 01-04 can be found in Appendix 1.

Page 49 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Acticn D Explore the use of a Borough gas tax, vehicle tax, or other fees and taxes for funding of Borough roads.

GOAL 2: To establish procedures and incentives to upgrade substandard roads and bridges within the Borough.

Objective 2.1 Use the existing Road Improvement Assessment District (RIAD) mechanism to ftmd road improvements in cases where the use of the road is limited to the members of the RIAD.

Action A Consider increasing the Borough match for RIAD's.

Acticn B Publicize the availability of the RIAD program.

Objective 2.2 Develop a mechanism that uses Borough funds matched by private funds in cases where the road is used by the general public in addition to the abutting private property owners (collector roads).

Action A Consider partnering between the developer and Borough for financing and construction of access roads to subdivision roads.

Acticn B Establish a priority list for improvements to collector roads based on average daily traffic counts and other relevant criteria.

GOAL 3: To establish a means by which the Borough can improve the likelihood that that roads built as part of a residential development are constructed to Borough standards.

Objective 3.1 Develop and implement a means by which roads are to be built to Borough standards.

Objective 3.2 To determine an existing and future desired network ofcollector and arterial roads to serve growing communities outside the cities.

Acticn A Consider anticipated nearby development during the dedication and vacation process.

Page 50 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Action B Consider necessary alternate or escape routes (1) in the platting process, (2) when prioritizing road improvement projects, and (3) when classifying and conveying Borough lands.

Action C Identify section line and other existing (but unconstructed) roadway easements and right-of-way.

Action D Finalize key future corridor collector and arterial corridors.

Action E Field verify future corridors to ensure constructability, and recommend alternative alignments when necessary.

Objective 3.3 To reserve, acquire and otherwise preserve rights-oj-way Jor the Juture collector and arterial roads.

Action A When classifying or conveying Borough land, make a determination of whether reservation of easements are required for access.

Action B Develop public use easement criteria to facilitate the dedications for public roads.

Action C Consider an ordinance restricting building in the right-of-way of a mapped road.

Action D Develop allowances for low structural impact interim uses of the right-of-way prior to construction.

Action E Consider an ordinance that would provide a reduction or reprieve from property taxes on property subject to corridor preservation restrictions.

Objective 3.4 Continue working with landowners benefiting from road improvement projects to acquire additional rights-oj-way and resolve prescriptive issues and inadequate right-oI-way problems.

13.2 Roadside/Urban Trails

Page 51 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan " Final Plan

GOAL 4: To create trails or pedestrian walkways along highways and other busy roads, especially within communities.

Objective 4.1: Work early in the project development process with ADOT&PF to ensure that appropriate pedestrian facilities are included in the scope ofall State road projects in settled areas of the Borough.

Objective 4.2: Include appropriate pedestrian facilities along roads built by or for the Borough that serve settled areas.

GOALS: To keep existing trails in public use as the Borough develops and land is increasingly subdivided and improved.

Objective 5.1: Develop an ordinance that provides for trail dedication over public land prior to disposal, and that can provide for dedication ofa public trail easement as part of the platting process. 13.3 Transit

GOAL 6: To support and promote the continuation and expansion of cost­ effective transit service within the Borough.

Objective 6.1 Assess the need for expanded transit service in the Homer and Seward areas.

Objective 6.2 Support the expansion ofshared public and private-non-profit transportation in the Borough.

13.4 Ports and Harbors

GOAL 7: To promote economic development and provide support facilities for fishing and recreation through maintenance and expansion of ports and harbors within the Borough.

Objective 7.1 Recognize and encourage port and harbor expansion plans by others.

Objective 7.2 Provide assistance to unincorporated areas in planning, obtaining funds, and managing needed port and harbor improvements.

Page 52 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

GOALS: To encourage expansion of ferry service, particularly to coastal communities within the Borough not otherwise linked to the road system.

Objective 8.1 Advocate with the Alaska Marine Highway System and the Alaska Legislature for additional ferry service, particularly to the communities not on the road system, and the improvement of port facilities to handle ferry service.

Objective 8.2 Advocate for the re-focusing of the AMHS service on Borough communities, Kodiak and the Aleutian Chain, rather than on service between the Borough and Prince William Sound.

Objective 8.3 The Kenai Peninsula Borough will be an active and supportive partner in the development and operation offerry seroice between Anchorage, the Mat­ Su Borough, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

13.5 Airports

GOAL 9: To promote maintenance and improvement of a network of district and local airports to serve Borough communities.

Objective 9.1 Assist cities and unincorporated communities in planning and reserving appropriate land for future airport needs.

Objective 9.2 Actively advocate for continued State and Federal funding of airport operations and needed expansion or improvements.

Objective 9.3 Partner with Kenai, Homer and Seward to encourage varied and competitive air service and airfares.

GOAL 10: To work proactively to control the development of private airstrips that negatively impact residences and cause airspace conflicts.

Objective 10.1 Work with the DOT&PF and the FAA to locate and map all public, private, and informal airstrips in the Borough.

Page 53 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

Objective 10.2 Develop a process that requires each proposal for a private airstrip to include a completed FAA airspace analysis, and that requires mitigation of significant airspace conflicts.

Objective 10.3 Include a requirement in the platting process to disclose on a plat that a subdivision is within five miles of an airstrip, or is within five miles of a lake that can accommodate float plane operations, or a similar mechanism that will alert prospective residents of potential noise impacts.

13.6 The Alaska Railroad

GOAL 11: To encourage continuation and expansion of rail service to the Kenai Peninsula.

Objective 1201 Partner with the Alaska Railroad to promote development, rail uses, and passenger service to help ensure that the railroad remains busy, in service, and in a position to contribute to the economic health of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Action A Work with the Alaska Railroad to add a rail line connection to the Seward Marine Industrial Center.

Objective V.2 Rationalize the ongoing problem of identifying responsibility for railroad crossings within the Borough.

Action A The Borough Planning Department should work with the Alaska Railroad to identify any high-priority locations for additional crossings, and to locate them for maximum access and safety, combined with Action B The Borough and Railroad should identify low-use and redundant crossings that could possibly be combined or eliminated. '"---.... Action C Aso/u~~ership~~ceof eXi~ public cr~SSings that co~ct Boro~adswith Stat~ fitghwcifs. Action D Work with the Alaska Railroad to develop a crossing permit ~~( agreement. I . (.1 i j I A , J. ~'{ *' tYI (A; J fvJ LX-/ t\.(Jf " (i l J U Uv,VVm ~

Page 54 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Plan Final Plan

13.7 Transportation Planning

GOAL 12: To increase Borough and community involvement in State and Federal transportation capital project planning.

Objective 12.1 Encourage greater Borough and community involvement in the DOT & PF's capital project planning process by increasing publicity and information about the significance of this process.

GOAL 13: To continue and enhance joint transportation planning with the Cities within the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Objective 13.1 Work to develop a coordinated and effective transportation planning process with the Cities.

Action A: With the Cities, jointly plan road and trail connections between the Borough and the Cities.

Action B: Provide notice to the Cities when considering a platting action that abuts the City limits, or would in some other way affect development of transportation in the City. Recommend to the Cities that they develop a similar process with respect to the Borough.

Objective 13.2 Work with the Cities to develop coordinated and effective road maintenance service delivery.

Objective 13.3 Refer to local transportation plans and traffic studies that have been done by cities and communities when considering improvements in the cities or communities, or improvements that link the Borough to those communities. Examples are the Nikiski Traffic Study, the Kenai Comprehensive Plan, etc.

Page 55