Visibility at revised NK intersection protested
October 3rd, 2009 by travis bakerThe in basket: Keith Pittman of North Kitsap writes “the new traffic revision at the intersection of Port Gamble-Suquamish Road and Bond Road has created quite a dangerous vision issue when turning onto Bond Road from the east side of Port Gamble-Suquamish Road.
“The new angle of the intersection makes it impossible to see on-coming traffic from the south. With the incline and the curve, the trees are blocking the view.
“Again,” Keith asserts, “this county has been dealt another blow to smooth and safe traffic, let alone the inconvenience to those who regularly use those arterials. Kind of like speed bumps on the freeway, eh?”
The out basket: As a South Kitsaper, I am regularly impressed when I venture into the north end how bad the traffic is there, whether it’s the Finn Hill-Viking Way intersection, the now-improved Highway 305 through Poulsbo, or this place, Bond Road.
A person can sit a long time waiting for a break in Bond Road traffic, including at the Port Gamble-Suquamish Road intersection. That’s probably why the state moved the eastern one a short distance so they no longer line up, ending straight-across traffic as well as left turns onto and off of Bond.
Fortunately, the traffic lights at Gunderson Road and at the bend in Highway 104 eventually provide breaks in the interminable strings of cars there, but an impatient or unfamiliar driver, or anyone with a long line of cars behind him, might not know, want or dare to wait.
Steve Bennett, traffic operations engineer for the Olympic Region of state highways, says even though the project cut into the sight distance for those looking south from the eastern intersection, it still meets their standard of 350 feet (a football field and a sixth) for highway speeds. The new alignment provides 460 feet of sight distance “and over 700 feet of sight distance when the drivers roll ahead to a few feet from the fog line,” he said.
But they will look to see if brush can be removed near the curve to improve visibility there, he said.
Tags: Bond Road, Highway 307, North Kitsap, Port Gamble-Suquamish
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
October 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I have used that intersection often in the past. I never found waits intermitible and, since I was pulling a horse trailer, needed a generous space to cross. Neither of the new, revised, improved (ha!) roads will get much use from me. I think somewhere–maybe in several offices–are signs that say “Inconvenience when possible!” It seems that is often the county’s motto.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Going South the biggest problem is trying to turn left off Hwy 307 onto Minder Rd. Which is the only way you can get onto Old Port Gamble rd. Hwy 307 has no turn lane, markings, signs or lights. So you are forced to stop traffic to turn, although most traffic does not slow down and passes you on the right at highway speed. State Dept of Hwy should fix this problem before someone is killed.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Two different unrelated people drew my attention to your article in the Sun the morning ofoct 26th about the intersection of Bond road and the Port Gamble-Suquamish road. I couldn’t pass up an opportunity to comment on this situation. I have three sets of relatives in this area affected by the traffic revisions. The improvements in this area remind me of the very poorly designed Highway 3 intersection with 303 just north of the Silverdale mall.
The road “improvements” on Bond included placing guard rails along Bond road north of the Port Gamble-Suquamish road. These rails greatly cut down the visibility to on-coming traffic to a point that it is really unsafe to pull onto Bond. Let me explain. My relatives and friends live down the driveway connecting to Bond from the northwest; this driveway contains the address’ 261XX; there are four homes using this driveway. When you come down the driveway to enter Bond the newly installed guard rail blocks sight to the north on Bond to where I doubt you could see a normal sized car or motorcycle 200 feet away, and especially at night. If there really is a 350 foot visibility rule as indicated in your article then the “improvements” almost certainly have violated it. It may have been that the visibility before the guard rails were installed might have been 350 feet. I hear that the problem has been brought to the attention of the State but they have not provided any idea of corrective actions. I was going to go measure the distance of the visibility but your article came before I could do it. I.e. best intentions! I should also mention that the Post Office years ago determined that it was unsafe for a pedestrian to cross Bond to access the mail box and then had us move the boxes to the west side of Bond and on this driveway to prevent safety problems; their reasoning was based upon visibility.
In regard to the intersection of Bond with the Port Gamble road: A relative lives a quarter mile north up Port Gamble road from Bond and he cannot turn onto the road from Bond when coming from the south. He has to drive an additional 3 or 4 miles north on Bond to Striebels Corner, west on 104, and then south on the Port Gamble road to access their home. I have a hunch that the traffic revision in this intersection was to interdict the commuters coming from the Bainbridge ferry to Port Gamble and beyond; it has been my observation that this was a commuter route to save time.