Shelton staff to pursue two design options for Olympic Highway North after council favors protected bike facility with preserved parking

Shelton — City staff presented the Olympic Highway North pavement rehabilitation project to council on Oct. 28, describing a $3.6 million Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant that requires adding bike facilities and a 10% local match. Acting city manager Jay Harris and assistant public director Aaron Nix reviewed four striping and cross‑section options and council signaled support for pursuing two middle options that retain some parking while adding protected bicycle facilities.

"Part of the grant funding award ... stipulated that we had to put bike lanes in as part of the project," Jay Harris said, describing the grant conditions and the need to study tradeoffs among lane width, on‑street parking, pedestrian crossings and bike separation.

What staff presented: the project would repave Olympic Highway North from C Street north to Wallace and Kneeland and coordinate curb, utility and lighting work with the county and PUD. Staff said they secured a TIB grant of about $3,600,000 that required a roughly 10% match and that using another federalized project as part of the match increased procedural complexity. Consultants and staff reviewed four cross‑section options:

• Option 1 — retain parking both sides and add bike lanes (narrows vehicle lanes; safety and dooring concerns);

• Option 2 — remove parking on one side, keep parking on the other and add protected or buffered bike lanes (improves lane widths and separation);

• Option 3 — provide a one‑sided two‑way bike path (multi‑use pathway on one side) and keep parking on the opposite side (staff and several council members favored this option as an elegant longer‑term connection);

• Option 4 — remove parking both sides and add buffered bike lanes and wider sidewalks (offers most room for buffers and landscape but draws opposition because it removes all on‑street parking).

Staff said a snapshot parking count found about 32 on‑street stalls on the east side and 56 on the west side of the corridor, and utilization during those sample counts was low; staff cautioned that redevelopment and future traffic growth could change demand. Geotechnical work performed for the project indicated distress is mainly surface oxidation of the asphalt binder rather than a deep structural failure; staff said that finding could lower reconstruction costs. PUD representatives told staff they intend to replace street lighting and underground utilities along the corridor; staff said they will perform photometric analysis to set light levels.

Council direction and next steps: council members discussed safety, business access, lane width, emergency‑vehicle needs and aesthetic options such as intermittent landscaped medians or planting pockets. A majority of councilors and staff said they preferred keeping options that preserve some on‑street parking while improving bike and pedestrian facilities. "If we could keep the bike lanes together, I think that's a little bit safer," one councilor said during the discussion. Staff said they will prepare cross‑section sketches for the preferred options (2 and 3), develop public outreach materials, include businesses and property owners in community meetings and continue coordination with utilities and the Transportation Improvement Board. Staff estimated the project could move into design and ultimately construction in a multi‑year timeline (staff cited a likely target around 2027 for construction, depending on design and funding).

Provenance: first related transcript text begins when the acting city manager introduced the project (46:40); related discussion and last related remarks occur during the design options conversation and the council's direction to staff (56:47–1:07:41).