Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTransportation Functional Plan - AppendicesCity of Port Townsend Appendices Transportation Functional Plan LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A LIST OF TRANSPORTATION ORDINANCES, CODES, & PLANS APPENDIX B PUBLIC SAFETY APPENDIX C TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX D TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM \ APPENDIX E SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION RELATED MATERIAL APPENDIX F CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPENDIX G FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION & SPEED LIMITS APPENDIX H PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CONDITION EXAMPLES Appendix A: Policy Framework Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-1 Appendix A – Policy Framework City of Port Townsend City Code Governing Transportation Systems City Code Title 10, Vehicles and Traffic City Code Title 12, Streets and Sidewalks City Code Title 12.06, Transportation Concurrency Management City Code Title 17.72, Off Street Parking and Loading City Code Title 20.04, Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Amendment Process. See the City Code for the full requirements. Table 20.04.035: Schedule for Suggested and Formal Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Updates Year Implementation/Update Activity Formal, Site-Specific Amendments Suggested Amendments Planning Commission Assessment 2003 Phase I of seven-year update Yes No No1 2004 Phase II of seven-year update Yes Yes No 2005 Implementation Yes No No 2006 Implementation Yes No No 2007 Mid-cycle assessment Yes Yes Yes 2008 Implementation Yes No No 2009 Implementation Yes No No 2010 Phase I of seven-year update Yes No Yes 2011 Phase II of seven-year update Yes Yes No 2012 Implementation Yes No No 2013 Implementation Yes No No 2014 Mid-cycle assessment Yes Yes Yes 2015 Implementation Yes No No 2016 Implementation Yes No No 2017 Phase I of seven-year update Yes No Yes 2018 Phase II of seven-year update Yes Yes No 2019 Implementation Yes No No 2020 Implementation Yes No No 2021 Mid-cycle assessment Yes Yes Yes 2022 Implementation Yes No No 1. Beginning in 2003, the planning commission will no longer conduct an “annual assessment” of the comprehensive plan. Instead, planning commission assessments will occur less frequently and shall occur during Phase I of each seven-year update and also during each mid-cycle assessment, beginning in 2007. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-2 City Ordinances Governing Transportation Systems Ordinance 2539, Adopts Comprehensive Plan, July 15, 1996 Ordinance 2546, Amends City Code Title 10.40, skate boards and roller skates Ordinance 2548, Amends City Code Title 12, street latecomer agreements Ordinance 2578, Amends City Code Title 12, streets and sidewalks Ordinance 2586, Adopts Engineering Design Standards Manual Ordinance 2614, Amends City Code Title 10.32, bicycles on sidewalks Ordinance 2615, Amends City Code Title 10.40, skate boards and roller skates Ordinance 2630, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2643, Adopts Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Ordinance 2646, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2664, Amends City Code Title 10.24, rules of the road Ordinance 2671, Amends City Code Title 12.20, street vacation procedure Ordinance 2692, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2733, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2743, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2751, Amends City Code Title 10.28, speed limits Ordinance 2760, repealed non-motorized advisory committee ?? Ordinance 2767, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2776, Amends City Code Title 12.20, street vacation procedure Ordinance 2802, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2808, Amends City Code Title 10.28, speed limits Ordinance 2811, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2813, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2814, Amends Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Ordinance 2832, Adds City Code Chapter 10.30, compression brakes Ordinance 2836, Amends City Code Title 10.04, parking Ordinance 2837, Tree Ordinance Ordinance 2870, Parking, not codified, August 9, 2004 Ordinance 2879, Amends City Code Title 12 and others, Concurrency Management, February 7, 2005 Ordinance 2893, Amends City Code Title 17.72, Off-Street Parking and Loading, May 18, 2005 Ordinance 2894, Amends City Code Title 10.04, paid parking passes, May 2, 2005 Ordinance 2906, Repeals City Code Title 10.32 and providing helmet requirements for bicycles and "recreational vehicles" (AMENDED BY 2922), December 5, 2005 Ordinance 2915, Adopting 2005 DOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, June 5, 2006 Ordinance 2922, Amends City Code Title 10.32 and Ordinance 2906, delaying effective date for helmet requirements, March 20, 2006 Ordinance 2928, Amends City Code Title 17.72 – establishing interim development standards for parking in Uptown, September 5, 2006 Ordinance 2931, Amends City Code Title 10.04.190, adds two hour parking limit on Grant Street, December 4, 2006 Ordinance 2941, Adopts East Downtown Streetscape Plan, February 20, 2007 Ordinance 2942, Extends interim parking regulations for residential development in Uptown C-III District, February 20, 2007 (extends Ordinance 2928) Ordinance 2945, Amends City Code Title 12.20.060, deleted reference to the Urban Waterfront Plan, April 16, 2007 Ordinance 2948, Amends City Code Title 10.32 – Repealing PTMC 10.32.130 & amending 10.32.010 and .140 relating to helmet requirements & declaring actions needed to implement comprehensive bicycle education program, August 6, 2007 Ordinance 2950, Extends interim parking regulations for residential development in Uptown C-III District, August 20, 2007 (extends Ordinance 2928) Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-3 Ordinance 2952, Amends City Code Title 12 and others, adopting a uniform code administration and enforcement chapter, March 31, 2008 Ordinance 2968, Extends interim parking regulations for residential development in Uptown C-III District, August 4, 2008 (extends Ordinance 2928) Ordinance 2975, Amends City Code Title 10.40, prohibiting skateboarding at Haller Fountain and Terrace Steps, April 21, 2008 Ordinance 2984, Extends interim parking regulations for residential development in Uptown C-III District, August 4, 2008 (extends Ordinance 2928) Comprehensive Plan, July 1996 Index CHAPTER I. ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO. 2539 4 Items 37 and 40 include transportation related policies 8 Effective Date July 22, 1996 10 CHAPTER II. INTRODUCTION 11 Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan 18 The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County 18 CHAPTER III. COMMUNITY DIRECTION STATEMENT 20 CHAPTER IV. THE LAND USE ELEMENT 23 Open Spaces & Trails 38 (several items have some impact on transportation) CHAPTER V. THE HOUSING ELEMENT 55 CHAPTER VI. THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 62 Map – Right-of-Way Identified for Interim Preservation 63 INTRODUCTION 63 Growth Management Act Requirements 64 Major Transportation Issues Facing Port Townsend 65 POLICY DIRECTION FOR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 65 Policy Direction for Local Street System Needs 66 Narrow Streets & Emergency Vehicles 66 Stormwater Treatment on Local Access & Neighborhood Collector Streets 66 Policy Direction on Arterial, Major Collector & S.R.20 Needs 67 Policy Direction on Non-Motorized System Needs (Pedestrians, Bicycles & Trails) 67 Unimproved Street Rights-of-Way 68 Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards & Concurrency Management 68 Policy Direction for Transportation Demand Management 69 Traffic Calming 69 Transit & Park-&-Ride Promotion 70 State & Private Ferry Needs 70 Parking Management 71 Commercial Historic District 71 Reducing Impervious Surfaces 71 TABLE VI-1: CAPACITY RELATED IMPROVEMENTS 72 TRANSPORTATION GOALS & POLICIES 73 Land Use & Transportation 73 Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination 74 Arterial Street System 74 Local Street System 77 Non-Motorized Transportation – Pedestrian & Bicycle Systems 78 Transit & Ferry Services 81 Parking Management 83 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-4 Level-of Service (LOS) & Concurrency Management 84 Rights-of-Way Management 85 Transportation Financing 86 Implementation Policies 87 CHAPTER VII. THE CAPITAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT 88 INTRODUCTION 88 Growth Management Act Requirements 89 The County-wide Planning Policy Requirements 89 Scope 89 Purpose 90 Quality of Life 90 Concurrency 90 Essential Public Facilities 91 Endangered Species Listings 91 CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES 92 Capital Facilities – Generally 92 Phasing of Capital Facilities & Utilities 92 Levels of Service 93 TABLE VII-1: WATER AND WASTEWATER LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 93 TABLE VII-2: ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 94 TABLE VII-3: PUBLIC FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 94 Concurrency Management 94 Funding & Financial Feasibility 95 Consistency with Other Plans 95 Essential Public Facilities 96 Unincorporated Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) 96 UTILITYGOALS & POLICIES 97 - 108 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 108 Introduction 108 POPULATION ESTIMATES USED FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING 109 TABLE VII-4: EXAMPLE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 109 Method for Using Levels of Service 109 Setting the Standards for Level of Service (LOS) 111 TABLE VII-5: SUMMARY OF ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS 113 Selecting Revenue Sources for the Financing Plan 113 TABLE VII-6: SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE REVENUES 114 E. Roads, Bridges and Mass Transit (revenue sources) 115 TABLE VII-7: SUMMARY OF EXISTING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTS116 SPECIAL REVENUES- Streets 117 TABLE VII-8: SUMMARY OF COSTS AND REVENUES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS 117 (non-transportation) 118 - 128 Streets 129 Current Facilities (street inventory) 129 TABLE VII-19: SUMMARY OF TYPES & LENGTHS OF CITY STREETS 129 Levels of Service (LOS) 129 Capital Facilities Projects & Financing 129 Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities) 129 TABLE VII-20: (listing of projects) 130 - 131 (non-transportation) 132 - 144 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS 145 Capital Facilities 145 CHAPTER VIII. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 146 – 160 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-5 CHAPTER IX. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GMA & THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICY 161 INTRODUCTION 161 CONSISTENCY WITH THE 13 GMA GOALS 162 Goal #3 – Transportation 162 Goal # 12 – Public Facilities & Services 166 CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY 166 Policy #5 - Policy on County-Wide Transportation Facilities and Strategies 168 CHAPTER X. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 170 - 188 APPENDIX 1 – POPULATION FORECAST FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY AND PORT TOWNSEND, December 1994 1 List of Figures 1 List of Tables 1 Executive Summary 2 Historical Trends 2 County Forecast 2 Sub-county Distribution 3 Recommendations 4 I. Introduction 5 About this Project 5 A Note of Forecasts and Forecasting 6 What is in this Report 6 II. Historical Trends: Facts about Jefferson County and Port Townsend 6 Composition of the Population 7 Figure 1 – Jefferson County Population 7 Figure 2 – Population, Natural vs. Migration 8 Employment vs. Population 8 Figure 3 – Employment Change vs. < 65 Population Change 9 Figure 4 – Employment / Under 65 Population Ratios 10 Population Distribution 11 Figure 5 – Port Townsend / Unincorporated Population 11 Table 1 – Population Estimates for County Planning Areas 12 III. Population Futures County-wide 12 OFM County Forecast 12 Table 2 – OFM Forecast and Actual Estimates 12 Projection Method in this Project 13 Figure 6 – Jefferson County Share of State Population 14 Assumptions for County Forecasting 15 Twenty Year Projections 16 Figure 7 – County 65+ Share of State 65+ Population 16 Figure 8 – County <65 Share of State <65 Population 17 Figure 9 – Jefferson County Population Projections 18 Forecast Conclusion 18 Figure 10 – Jefferson County Population 1970 – 2014 19 Table 3 – Jefferson County Population Forecast 19 Fifty-Year Projection 19 Figure 11 – Fifty-Year Population Forecasts 20 IV. Sub-County Population Distributions 20 Sub-County Areas and Growth Management Planning 21 Method of Population Distribution 21 Figure 12 – Housing Unit Population Projection Method 22 Assumptions and Calculations for Distribution 23 Table 4 – Jefferson County Housing Unit Projection 1990- 2014 23 Figure 13 – New Housing Units Permitted 1980- 1993 24 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-6 Table 5 – Planning Area Unit Housing Data 1990 25 Twenty-Year Projections 26 Figure 14 – Total Housing Units, 1993 and 2014, Continuation of Trends Projection 26 Figure 15 – Total Population, 1993 and 2014, Continuation of Trends Projection 27 Figure 16 – Total Housing Units, 1993 and 2014, Trends with Constraints Projection 28 Figure 17 – Total Population, 1993 and 2014, Trends with Constraints Projection 28 Table 6 – Trends with Constraints Projection Differences from Continuation of Trends 29 Population Range for Port Townsend 29 Figure 18- Port Townsend Population Projections 30 Forecast Conclusion 30 Table7- Population Forecast for County Planning Areas 30 Table 8 - City of Port Townsend Population Projections 31 Fifty-Year Projection 31 Table 9 - Fifty-Year Projections 32 V. Summary and Conclusions 32 County Forecast 32 Sub-County Distribution 33 Recommendations 34 Appendix A - Supplementary Tables 34 Appendix B- Summary of Projection Methodology 36 Appendix C - Consultant Qualifications 41 APPENDIX 2 –REVENUE SOURCES FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES, February 7, 1995 Section 1. Multi-use Revenue Sources 42 Taxes 43 1. Property Tax and "Lid Lift" 43 2. General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) (Voted and Councilmanic) 46 3. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 49 4. Business and Occupation Tax (B&O) 51 5. Local Option Sales Tax 53 6. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 54 7. Utility Tax 55 8. Admissions Tax 57 9. Gambling Tax 57 Special Assessments 58 10. Special Assessment Districts 58 11. Parking and Business Improvement Authority (PBIA) 59 Fees and Charges 59 12. Street Use License 59 Grants and Loans 59 13. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 59 14. Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) 60 15. Farmers Home Administration (FHA) 60 16. Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) 61 Section 2. Single-Purpose Revenue Sources A. Airport 63 17. User Fees 18. Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) 63 B. Cultural Arts, Stadium/Convention Facilities 63 19. Special Purpose Districts 63 (20 was skipped) C. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 64 21. EMS Levy 64 22. Fire District 66 23. Fire Impact Fees 67 24. Service Benefit Charge 68 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-7 D. Libraries 69 25. Library District 69 E. Parks and Recreation 70 26. Open Space and Park Facilities General Obligation Bonds 70 27. Park Districts 72 28. Park and Recreation Service Area (P&RSA) 74 29. User Fees and Program Fees 75 ?? Traditional Park Grants 75 ?? Wildlife and Recreation Program 75 32. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account 76 F. Roads, Bridges and Mass Transit 76 33. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 76 34. Local Option Fuel Tax 78 35. Commercial Parking Tax 79 36. Transportation Benefit Districts 79 37. Road Improvement District 81 38. Road Impact Fees 81 39. Local Option Vehicle License Fee 82 40. Street Utility Charge 83 41. Street Vacation Compensation 85 Grants 85 42. National Highway System (NHS) 85 43. Surface Transportation Program (STP) 85 44. Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BR) 86 45. Federal Aid Emergency Relief (ER) 86 46. Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA) 87 47. Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) 87 G. Sewer 88 48. Sewer Districts 88 49. User Fees 89 (50 and 51 skipped, incomplete) H. Solid Waste 89 52. User Fees 89 Grants 53. Department of Ecology 90 54. Farmers Home Administration (FHA) 90 I. Stormwater/Flood Control 90 55. Flood Control Special Purpose District 90 56. Storm Drain Utility Fee 92 57. Stormwater Reserve Capacity Charges 93 J. Utilities 94 58. General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) 94 Grants and Loans 59. Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) 94 K. Water 95 60. Water Districts 95 61. User Fees 96 APPENDIX 3 – CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS March 1995 97 A. Introduction 97 I. Purpose of Study 97 II. Methodology 97 III. Data Collection and Analyses 100 IV. LOS (Level of Service) and "Adequate Public Facilities" 101 Concurrency Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-8 B. Calculation of Capital Facility Requirements 103 1. City Administrative Offices 104 2. City Shop Facilities 105 3. Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) 106 4. Library 109 5. Parks 111 6. Law Enforcement: Police Department Facilities 116 7. (skipped) 8. Water Supply and Distribution 118 9. Wastewater Treatment and Collection 131 10. Stormwater Management 132 11. Transportation 136 A. Streets and Non-Motorized Facilities 137 B. Transit Facilities and Services 142 C. Ferry System 143 D. Airport 144 APPENDIX A – ROAD SURFACE INVENTORY February 14, 1995 146 Summary 158 APPENDIX 4 - DRAFT STREET STANDARDS ORDINANCE 159 Chapter 12.04 – Street Construction and Improvement Standards 159 12.04.010 Purpose / Authority 159 12.04.020 Definitions 159 12.04.030 Street Development and Utility Permit Required/Revocation/Lapse 161 12.04.040 Unlawful Digging of Streets / Permit Required 161 12.04.050 Application Requirements / Permit Issuance 162 12.04.060 Appeals 162 12.04.070 Adoption of Standards / Map by Reference 162 12.04.080 Scope 162 12.04.090 Improvement and Construction Requirements for Development of City Streets, Rights-of-Way, Easements and Alleys 163 12.04.100 Inspections / Approval of Work Done 167 12.04.110 Cutting Significant Trees 167 12.04.120 Property Damage Responsibility 167 12.04.130 Liability of City 167 12.04.140 Construction and Maintenance Bonds 168 12.04.150 Violations, Enforcement and Penalties 168 12.04.160 Interpretations 169 12.04.170 Severability 169 Chapter 12.08 - Excavations and Street Obstructions 169 APPENDIX 5 – DRAFT ARTERIAL STREET PLAN 170 Executive Summary 171 Introduction 172 Part I: Functional Classification System 172 Existing Functional Classification System 173 Recommended Functional Classification System 174 Part II: Travel Forecasting 176 Study Limitations 176 Growth Rates 176 Table 1 – Recommended Functional Classification System Changes 177 Methodology and Assumptions 178 Table 2 – Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Definitions 180 Description of the Analysis Procedure 181 Forecast Results 182 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-9 Part III: Recommendations for Improvements 187 (Travel Demand Management - TDM) 187 Part IV: Recommendations for Additional Roadways 188 Future Development and Impacts on Future Roadway Needs 188 Table 3 – Capacity Related Improvements – Scenario 1 Low Growth 188 Table 4 – Capacity Related Improvements – Scenario2 Medium Growth 189 Table 5 – Capacity Related Improvements – Scenario 3 High Growth 190 Functional Classification for New Roads 193 Howard Street Extension 193 New East-West Road 197 Conclusions 199 Appendix A – Additional Studies 200 Questions for Consideration When Establishing a Traffic Count Program 201 Appendix B – Calculation of Estimated Traffic Growth on the Arterial System 202 Table 1 – Determination of Available Lots 205 Table 2 – Determination of Localized Equivalent Growth Rates 206 Table 3 – Generalized Peak Hour Differential Volumes for Florida's Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Areas or Areas over 5,000 not in Urbanized Areas 209 Traffic Growth Projections – Scenario 1: Growth Rate of 1.5% 210 Traffic Growth Projections – Scenario 2: Growth Rate of 3.0% 211 Traffic Growth Projections – Scenario 3: Growth Rate of 4.5% 212 Traffic Growth Projections – Scenario 4: Build-out 213 Appendix C - Examples of Rural and Urban Cross Sections 217 Appendix D - New Corridor Estimates 220 APPENDIX 6 – POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGY Development Capacity Analysis 221 Summary 221 Methodology 221 Population Holding Capacity Analysis 225 Summary 225 Assumption for Each Alternative by Sub-Area 226 No Action Alternative 226 Alternative #1 – Residential Community (Dispersed Growth) 226 Alternative #2 – Community Neighborhoods (Focused Growth) 227 Alternative #3 – Urban Community (Concentrated Economic Growth) 228 APPENDIX 7 - GLEN COVE WATER AND WASTEWATER NEEDS 229 Introduction 229 Water 229 Wastewater 230 Engineering Design Standards Manual, April 1997 Definitions and Terms 2 Abbreviations 7 Chapter 1 General Conditions 1. Applicability 8 2. Standard Specifications 9 3. Changes to Engineering Design Standards 10 4. Severability 10 5. Permits and Applications Required 10 6. Design and Plan Submittals 12 7. Construction Plan – General Conditions 13 8. Construction 14 9. Inspection 14 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-10 10. Project Approval and Acceptance 15 11. Fees 15 12. City Performed Work 16 13. Latecomer Agreements 16 14. Bonding 16 15. Utility Locations 16 16. Easements 16 17. Utility Extensions 17 18. Traffic Control 17 19. Surveying, Staking and Monumentation 18 Chapter 1 Appendix 19 Chapter 2 Water 1. General Requirements 30 2. Design Standards 31 3. Water Service Connections 31 4. Water Main Extensions and Other System Improvements 31 5. Procedural Requirements 32 6. General Facility Placement 33 7. Distribution System – Flow and Pressure Requirements 34 8. Service Installation or Service Connections 34 9. Distribution Mains 35 10. Water and Sewer Main Separation Distance 36 11. Fire Hydrants 36 12. Water Main Installation 37 13. Materials Specifications 37 14. Cross Connection Control 38 15. Pump Stations 38 Chapter 2 Appendix (standard details) 39 Chapter 3 Wastewater 1. General Requirements 67 2. Design Standards 68 3. Sewer Service Connections 69 4. Sewer Main Extensions and Other System Improvements 69 5. Procedural Requirements 70 6. Gravity Sewer Mains 71 7. Alignment Tolerance 75 8. Maintenance Holes 76 9. Service Connection, Side Sewer, Building Sewer 77 10. Grease Traps 80 11. Pump Stations 80 12. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems 83 Chapter 3 Appendix (standard details) 84 Chapter 4 Stormwater 1. General 112 2. Minimum Requirements 113 3. Drainage Plans – When Required and Content Required 113 4. Sites Containing or Adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas 115 5. Drainage Plan – Contents and Standard Procedures for Medium Impact Projects 116 6. Drainage Plan Contents for High Impact Projects 120 7. General Design Standards for High Impact Projects 121 8. Easements 122 9. Drainage Facilities 123 10. Wet Ponds 124 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-11 11. Vegetated Swales 125 12. Piping 128 13. Maintenance Holes, Inlets and Catch Basins 129 14. Trash Racks 130 Chapter 4 Appendix (standard details) 131 Chapter 5 Clearing, Grading and Erosion Control 1. General 171 2. Clearing and Grading Permit 171 3. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Requirements 173 4. Methods of Control 173 5. Seasonal Limitations 175 6. Temporary Erosion/Sediment Control Plans 176 7. Vegetation Restoration 177 Chapter 5 Appendix (standard details) 178 Chapter 6 Transportation 1. General Considerations 192 2. Definitions (see Chapter 1) 192 3. General Requirements 193 4. Permitting, Design, Construction and Approval 193 5. Street Openings and Uses of Existing Public Rights-of-Way 195 6. Existing Streets 197 7. New Streets in Previously Platted Rights-of-Way 197 8. Subdivisions and PUDs – General Layout of the Street and Pathway System 198 9 Local Access (Neighborhood) Streets 198 10. Multi-Family (R III or R IV), Mixed Use, Commercial Development 199 11. Level of Service Standards 199 12. General Design Standards 199 13. Functional Classification (arterials and collectors listings) 200 14. Naming and Addresses 201 15. Signage 202 16. Right-of-Way Width and Dedications 202 17. Private Streets or Access Easements 203 18. Street Frontage Improvements 203 19. Street Ends 203 20. Intersections 204 21. Street Sections 204 22. On-Street Parking 205 23. Pedestrian Walkways (including sidewalks) and Multi-use Pathways 205 24. Transit and School Bus Connections 206 25. Bikeways 207 26. Driveways 207 27. Sight Obstruction Requirements 208 28. Survey and Monumentation 209 29. Delivery Boxes (Mail and Newspaper) 209 30. Street and Trail Illumination 210 31. Temporary Street Patching 210 32. Trench Backfill and Restoration 211 33. Traffic Control 212 34. Street Trees 212 35. Signalization 213 36. Appurtenances 213 37. Franchise Utilities 213 38. Warranty/Guarantee 214 Table 6-1 Minimum Street Standard Summary 214 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-12 Chapter 6 Appendices Appendix A – Standard Details 215 Appendix B – Maps 243 Appendix C – Gateway Plan Drawings 246 Appendix D – Trees and Vegetation 250 Street Tree List 252 Appendix E – Street Grid, Streetscape and Pathway Examples 254 Appendix F – Traffic Impact Analysis 267 FORMS 272 Stormwater Design Standards Manual Gateway Development Plan, August 2, 1993 1. PLANNING FOR THE NEXT CENTURY 2 2. REVISITING THE GATEWAY CONCEPT 4 Statement of Purpose 4 “Strip” Commercial Development 5 Corridors and Districts 5 Rooms in the Districts 7 The Creation of a Linear Urban Form 8 2a. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GATEWAY PLAN 8 Which Properties are Included in the Gateway Planning Area 8 The Plan as a Guide for Development 8 Who Pays for Implementation of the Plan? 9 Phasing of Implementation 9 City Council Resolution No. 9367 10 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CORRIDORS AND DISTRICTS 12 3.1 Forest Corridor 12 Status/Condition 12 Traffic Recommendations 13 Streetscape Recommendations 13 Details/Intersection Recommendations 13 3.2 Upper Commercial District 14 Status/Condition 14 Traffic Recommendations 14 Streetscape Recommendations 15 Details/Intersection Recommendations 16 3.3 “S” Curve Corridor 21 Status/Condition 21 Traffic Recommendations 21 Streetscape Recommendations 21 3,4 The “Flats” Commercial District 23 Status/Condition 23 Traffic Recommendations 24 Streetscape Recommendations 24 Details/Intersection Recommendations 26 3.5 The Bluff Corridor 29 Status/Condition 30 Streetscape Recommendations 30 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-13 Traffic Recommendations 30 Ferry Queuing and Parking Recommendations 30 4. DETAILED ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN 32 The Purpose of the Detailed Access Management Plan 32 Roadway Configuration 33 Flex Zone 33 Pedestrian Facilities and Walkways 35 Signage 35 Transit Pull-Outs and Shelters 35 Streetscape Improvements 35 Detailed Access Management Plan 35 Access Design Guidelines 36 Option Areas 37 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 43 Corridor Concept 44 1.1 Character and Theme 44 1.2 A Corridor of Multiple Activities 44 1.3 Corridors and Districts 45 1.4 Districts 46 1.5 Rooms in the District 47 1.6 Intersections 48 Corridor Circulation 49 2.1 Vehicular Circulation 49 2.2 Parking 50 2.3 Pedestrian Circulation 51 2.4 Bicycle Circulation 52 Corridor Character 53 3.1 Topography and Vegetation 53 3.2 Parks / Open Space 54 3.3 Viewpoints and View Corridors 55 3.4 Visual Linkages 56 3.5 Markers 57 3.6 Signage and Lighting 58 3.7 Street Furniture 59 Buildings and Site Development 59 4.1 Site / Building Organization 59 4.2 Building Form 60 4.3 Building Character 60 4.4 Transitions 61 4.5 Inside and Ourside 62 4.6 Building Entrances 62 APPENDIX 6,1 Appendix Consultant Scope of Work 63 Route Development Plan 63 Streetscape Development Plan 65 Design and Development Guidelines 66 6.2 Appendix Route Development Plan 67 Introduction 67 Project Description 67 Summary of Analysis Findings 67 Major Recommendations 68 Existing Conditions Transportation Facilities 68 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-14 Specific Intersection Conditions 73 Traffic Safety 74 Traffic Volumes 75 Traffic Analysis Existing Traffic Operations 80 Future Traffic Operations 81 Table 1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections 83 Table 2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 84 Table 3 General LOS Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections 84 Table 4 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 85 Table 5 Signalized Intersection Levels of Service, Summer 1990 85 Table 6 Signalized Intersection Levels of Service, Summer 2010 86 Table 7 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 1990 Traffic Conditions 86 Table 8 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 2010 Traffic Conditions 87 Traffic Signal Warrants 87 Transportation Recommendations General Recommendations 88 Application of General Recommendations 89 Mill Road Intersection 94 Upper Commercial District West of McPherson 94 McPherson and Thomas Street Intersections 95 Upper Commercial District, Thomas to Hendricks Streets 97 Castle Hill Center / Sheridan Street 97 The “S” Curve Section 99 The Flatlands Section 99 Kearney to Washington Street Intersections 100 Water Street Section 100 Access Management Plan Element General Access Recommendations 101 Mill Road Area and Forest Corridor 102 Upper Commercial District West of Thomas Street 102 Upper Commercial District, Thomas Street to Sheridan Street 103 The “S” Curve Section 103 The Flatlands Section 104 Kearney and Washington Street Intersections 104 Water Street 104 References 104 Appendix A Port Townsend Gateway Parking Inventory 105 Tables 1 – 8 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis as above Appendix B Capital Cost Estimate 6.3 Appendix Visual Analysis 113 6.4 Appendix Streetscape Development Recommendations 114 6.5 Appendix Cost Memorandum 116 - 128 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Vision 3 Purpose 3 Comprehensive Plan Direction 4 Scope of the Plan 5 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-15 Relationship with Other Plans 7 Parks Plan Survey 9 Relationship with Other Agencies 9 The Planning Process 10 2, DEVELOPING THE NON-MOTORIZED PLAN 11 Introduction 11 User Groups 11 Table 2.1 Users, Needs, and Destinations 13 Destinations and Existing Conditions 14 Existing Facilities 15 Figure 2.1 Inventory 17 Table 2.2 Inventory of Existing Facilities 18 Network Concept 18 Figure 2.2 Network Concept 19 Facility Types 19 Figure 2.3 Facility Types 20 3. PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT 21 Introduction 21 Why Pedestrian Facilities 21 Mobility vs. Access 24 The Walkway System Plan 24 Figure 3.2 The Walkway System Plan 26 Multi-Use Loop Trail 26 Neighborhood Connectors 28 Shortcuts 30 Safest Walk Routes to School 32 Shared Streets 34 Local Streets and Sidewalks 34 Non-Motorized Transportation Committee Considerations 36 4. BICYCLE ELEMENT 38 Introduction 38 Why Bicycle Facilities 38 Classifications of Bicyclists 40 Table 4.1 – Classification of Users 40 Types of Bikeways 41 Bikeway System Plan 43 Figure 4.1 Bikeway System Plan 45 Table 4.2 Bikeway Plan – Specific Street Details 45 Intersections 46 Bicycle Parking Facilities 47 5. PRIORITY PROJECTS 48 Project Identification and Visualization 48 Project Prioritization 48 Priority Projects 49 Instant Gratification Projects (IGPs) 49 Unit Cost 49 Table 5.3 IGPs 50 Table 5.1 Multi-Use Trail Projects 51 Table 5.2 Non-Motorized Improvements Project List 52-57 Figure 5.1 Priority Projects with Anticipated Funding 57 Figure 5.2 Priority Projects with Exceptional Funding 58 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-16 6. MAINTENANCE 58 Who Maintains? 59 Typical Maintenance Requirements 59 Construction Practices to Reduce Maintenance Costs 60 Estimated Maintenance Costs 61 Table 6.1 Estimated Maintenance Costs 62 Maintenance Initiatives 63 7. FUNDING 64 Current Funding Sources 64 Potential Funding Sources 66 Local Options 66 State Transportation Funds 68 Federal Transportation Funds 69 Proposed Funding Program 70 Table 7.1 Non-Motorized Facilities Funding Program 70 8. EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT 71 Pedestrian Issues 71 Bicyclist Issues 72 Motorist Issues 72 What Has Been Done? 73 What to Do? 74 9. OTHER ISSUES 76 Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Design 76 Universal Accessibility 77 Downtown Business District 77 10. IMPLEMENTATION 78 How Long Will It Take? 78 Who Will Carry Out the Plan 78 Implementing Policies 80 Section 1 General 81 Subdivisions and PUDs 81 Sidewalks and Pedestrian Pathways 82 Universal Accessibility 82 Bicycle Facilities 82 Transit Supportive Design 82 Section 2 Maintenance 83 Funding 83 Education, Encouragement & Enforcement 83 Park & Recreational Facilities 84 Inter-jurisdictional Coordination 84 Other 84 APPENDIX A. KEY NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES AND PRODUCTS 84 Uptown & Downtown Neighborhoods 85 Fort Worden and North San Juan Valley 87 North Beach and Northwest Neighborhoods 89 Hastings Avenue Neighborhoods 91 Southwest Neighborhood 93 APPENDIX B. BICYCLE FACILITY PARKING INVENTORY (to be completed) Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-17 APPENDIX C. DESIGN STANDARDS 95-97 APPENDIX D. DETAILED PROJECT LIST 98-106 Urban Waterfront Plan, December 4, 1990 (Ord 2945?) Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 3 Planning Area and Sub-districts 4 A VISION FOR THE WATERFRONT Visioning 6 The Planning Process 7 THE PLAN Description and Summary 9 PLAN ELEMENTS Introduction to Plan Elements 12 URBAN DESIGN Community Goals and Objectives: 14 Discussion: 14 Projects: 15 Policies and Programs: 15 LAND USE Community Goals and Objectives: 18 Discussion: 18 Projects: 19 Policies and Programs: 20 ECONOMICS Community Goals and Objectives: 24 Discussion: 24 Projects: 24 Policies and Programs: 25 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Community Goals and Objectives: 27 Discussion: 27 Projects: 27 Policies and Programs: 28 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Community Goals and Objectives: 29 Discussion: 30 Projects: 30 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Community Goals and Objectives: 32 Discussion: 32 Projects: 33 Policies and Programs: 33 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING Community Goals and Objectives: Discussion: Projects: 36 HOUSING Community Goals and Objectives: 38 Discussion: 39 Projects: 39 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Community Goals and Objectives: 40 Discussion: 40 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-18 Projects: 40 Policies and Programs: 40 GOVERNMENT Community Goals and Objectives: 41 Discussion: 42 Policies and Programs: 42 POINT HUDSON PROPERTIES Community Goals and Objectives: 44 Discussion: 45 Projects: 45 Policies and Programs: 45 APPENDIX A: URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROJECTS Appendix A.1 Urban Design Guidelines 47 Appendix A.2 The Waterwalk 76 Appendix A.3 Jackson Bequest 80 Appendix A.4 Town Common 82 Appendix A.5 Thomas Oil 82 Appendix A.6 Crossroads Area 84 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Appendix B.1 Implementation 86 Appendix B.2 Design Review Process 87 Appendix B.3 Funding Options for Implementation 88 Appendix B.4 Funding Options for Implementation 106 Appendix B.5 Urban Maritime District 106 Appendix B.6 Provisions for Mixed-Use Projects 109 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 109 APPENDIX D: ORDINANCE NO. 2216 115 Downtown Parking Plan, State of Washington Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A The following is a summary of applicable sections of the State Growth Management Act as it applies to the City’s transportation planning and capital improvements. A number of provisions directly affect the City's planning efforts. Transportation-related requirements are highlighted by italics and comments are shown in parenthesis. 36.70A.020 Planning Goals (1) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (12) Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. 36.70A.030 Definitions Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-19 (13) “Public facilities” include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities and schools. 36.70A.040 Who must plan – Summary of requirements – Development regulations must implement comprehensive plans. (The City of Port Townsend must plan in accordance with this RCW.) 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans – Mandatory Elements Each Comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element ---- (2) A housing element ---- (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. (4) A utilities element ---- (5) Rural element ---- (6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element. (a) The Transportation element shall include the following sub-elements: (i) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; (ii) Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land use decisions on state-owned transportation facilities.; (iii) Facilities and services needs, including: (A) An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. This inventory must include state-owned facilities within the city or county’s jurisdictional boundaries; (B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county’s or city’s six-year street, road, or transit program and the department of transportation’s six-year investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this sub-section do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-20 ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this sub-section; (D) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; (E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; (F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands. Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under 47.06 RCW; (iv) Finance, including: (A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (B) A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. The multi-year financing plan should be coordinated with the six-year improvement program developed by the department of transportation as required by RCW 47.05.030; (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; (v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including the assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; (vi) Demand-management strategies. (b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purpose of this subsection (6), “concurrent with the development” shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. (c) The transportation element described in this subsection (6), and the six-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.68.121 for counties, RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems, and RCW 47.05.030 for the state, must be consistent. (7) An economic development element ---- (8) A park and recreation element ---- (9) It is the intent that new or amended elements required after January 1, 2002, be adopted concurrent with the schedule update provided in RCW 36.70A.130. Requirements to incorporate any such new or amended elements shall be null and void until funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by the state at least two years before local government must update comprehensive plans as required in RCW 37.70A.130. 36.70A.110 Comprehensive plans – Urban growth areas Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page A-21 (The City of Port Townsend UGA is coincident with the city limits) 36.70A.120 Planning activities and capital budget decisions – Implementation in conformity with comprehensive plan. Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan. Six-Year Street Plan As stated in the GMA (requirement pre-dated adoption of GMA for other purposes), RCW 35.77.010 requires cities to adopt six-year transportation plans, commonly called and for other purposes known as Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The other purposes are primarily related to federal and state-wide funding programs which use the state, counties’ and cities’ TIPs for allocation of funds. 35.77.010 states: (1) The legislative body of each city and town, pursuant to one or more public hearings thereon, shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. If the city or town has adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to chapter 35.63 or 35A.63 RCW, the inherent authority of a first class city derived from its charter, or chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA), the program (TIP) shall be consistent with this comprehensive plan. The program (TIP) shall be filed with the secretary of transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption. Annually thereafter the legislative body of each city and town shall review the work accomplished under the program and determine current city transportation needs. Based on these findings, each such legislative body shall prepare and, after public hearings thereon, adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program before July 1st of each year, and each one-year extension and revision shall be filed with the secretary of transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption. The purpose of this section is to assure that each city and town shall perpetually have available advanced plans looking to the future for not less than six years as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program. The program may at any time be revised by a majority of the legislative body of a city or town, but only after a public hearing. The six-year plan for each city or town shall specifically set forth those projects and programs of regional significance for inclusion in the transportation improvement program within that region. (2) Each six-year transportation program (TIP) forwarded to the secretary in compliance with subsection (1) of this section shall contain information as to how a city or town will expend its moneys, including funds made available pursuant to chapter 47.30 RCW, for non-motorized transportation purposes. (3) Each six-year transportation program (TIP) forwarded to the secretary in compliance with subsection (1) of this section shall contain information as to how a city or town shall act to preserve railroad right-of-way in the event a railroad ceases to operate in the city’s or town’s jurisdiction. Appendix B: Public Safety Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page B-1 Appendix B – Public Safety Police Department Ferry Traffic Control (Based on Conditions prior to 2008) One of the Police Department’s transportation issues is the ferry traffic, coming and going. Loading for normal ferry service can usually be accommodated on the dock (100 car capacity) but overloads back up onto Water Street / SR 20 to the west, along the curb (in the bike lane), in front of several private properties, to a holding area on Water Street south of where SR 20 turns, and sometimes beyond, along the south shoulder of Sims Way / SR 20 to the Haines Place signal. The City used to handle the entire traffic control but now the ferry system employs a private firm. The ferry system is reluctant to over-schedule them due to the cost so they may not be on-site when the backup occurs and the City has to handle it until they arrive. The local contact lives in Chimacum so that can take an hour or so. In the mean time, City Police move vehicles to the right out of traffic and keep peace but don’t try to over- manage it. Some backups occur due to heavy traffic, i.e. weekends and holidays, and some backups occur because of bad weather or low tide cancellations. Also, there is no way for the traveling public to be notified in advance of the ferry traffic situation as there is for Kingston and Bainbridge Island – they just arrive and have to deal with it. The holding area south of SR 20 is in front of undeveloped land (Indian Point) that may be developed soon which will impact or eliminate that holding area. Ferry off-loading causes backups at every traffic signal westbound on SR 20. It can also back up westbound traffic on Water Street. And vice versa, traffic congestion eastbound on Water Street can backup to the ferry intersection at Harrison Street. The bike lanes on SR 20 west of the ferry terminal and around the bend are uncomfortably narrow with heavy traffic, especially if there is a ferry backup line of vehicles. Downtown Traffic Control The downtown district has no alleys or off-street parking for unloading delivery trucks so they must park in the middle of the street, forcing vehicles to pass between them and the curb lane parked vehicles. It’s very tight and most difficult for large RVs to pass. It requires the passing vehicle to slow to minimum speed and watch carefully for persons accessing the center-lane parked truck or vehicle. It's also a safety issue for drivers or passengers who try to access vehicles parked along the curb on the traffic side and opening doors into on-coming traffic. Fortunately, the truck drivers and passing drivers are careful and no major problems occur. The other downtown traffic problem is pedestrians crossing Water Street without regard to vehicle traffic, just assuming that they have the right-of-way and forcing the traffic to stop for them. The blocks are short enough that there is not a lot of jay walking. Vehicle delays for pedestrians can cause backups both directions. Sims Way / Kearney Intersection The crosswalks at Sims Way and Kearney are a problem, due to the street configuration, left turns and the unusual grades. Pedestrians have problems being seen and vehicles have problems seeing them because of the configuration and grades. Also, bike riders have problems making the left turns. Many bike riders don’t obey normal traffic laws. Sims Way / SR 20 at Benedict (Henery's Garden Center) There is a westbound left turn lane to the intersection and then a merge lane for vehicles westbound from Benedict. But that merge area is also used by vehicles on Sims Way turning Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page B-2 left into the Safeway gas station. That causes a problem for the vehicles entering from Benedict that need that acceleration/merge lane which is frequently blocked by stopped / left- turning vehicles. Discovery Road Discovery Road is another street that needs safety improvements in a number of locations. It is a school route, passes by an elementary school and has school bus stops. There are a lot of mixed uses – vehicles, pedestrians and bikers. There are a number of high-density apartment complexes which serve a wide variety of people that have to use Discovery Road. Speeding is also an issue there. Accidents The City has copies of accident reports in a file in the Public Works Department. The locations were posted on a pin map but are now being mapped in the GIS. The next phase of the study should review and summarize the accident records to determine if there are any locations that should be addressed for safety improvements. East Jefferson Fire and Rescue http://www.ejfr.org Fire Code Standards vs. Engineering Design Standards The City Council has adopted the International Fire Code, 2003 Edition, as well as the Engineering Design Standards Manual, April 1997, which have differences that are addressed as needed. The Fire Department is directly involved in the development review and enforcement process. Roundabouts / Traffic Circles Roundabouts / traffic circles need to have a large enough radius and width to accommodate a fire engine with another blocking vehicle (for whatever reason) in the circle. They can pass on a hard surface that isn’t intended for normal vehicular traffic, such as rolled curb and paver blocks. The issue is how to meet the traffic needs of growth and related congestion without degrading the response time of emergency vehicles where seconds really do make a life-or- death difference. For example, traffic signal preemption technology is being implemented as funds are available. A related issue is traffic-calming circles in the middle of residential intersections that may impede fire trucks. If these are allowed, they need to follow engineering and fire standards for clearance of emergency vehicles. Access The Fire Department needs access for their equipment and sufficient space for it to operate in a fire event. The access can be over rolled curb and hard surface that isn’t intended for normal vehicular traffic. An example is the facility off of Sims Way / Howard / McPherson where access is provided that way. The International Fire Code also requires a second access to any development over 30 units. That is becoming an issue for some developments. The number of units used to be 50. Other access issues have come up in new developments such as Umatilla Hills and Tree House where the streets are narrow. They are okay for fire truck access but only as long as no one is parking in the street. One parked car can block the entire emergency access. Such Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page B-3 developments should provide some manner of parking and signage so no one parks in the street. The Chief suggested the signs could read, “ALL ROADS ARE FIRE LANES (or OPERATING AREAS). PARK IN DESIGNATED STALLS ONLY.” And it needs to be enforced 24/7. Such signs should say “OPERATING AREA” (or “FIRE OPERATING AREA”) instead of “FIRE LANE” (the standard) because the Fire Department needs the space to operate equipment (16 feet wide) as well as just access. The width for forward access is less than the width for backing up for egress. Again, the Fire Department needs to be involved in the beginning, not after something has been built. It has been suggested that the Fire Department acquire smaller vehicles that can access these tighter areas but the predominant need is for fire fighting capability available with larger, not smaller fire apparatus. Alternate Routes The Fire Department needs alternate routes in case the primary route is congested or blocked. The Department has two staffed stations, the headquarters station on Lawrence and another on Jacob Miller Road near the solid waste facilities. They normally use Sims Way but may need other routes if it’s congested or blocked. Their objective response time is within six and a half minutes, 90% of the time. They now have a management system that will allow them to record and monitor response times. Then they’ll have better information on how well or bad traffic affects their mission. Distance from Street The Fire Department also has “distance” issues. The Engineering Design Standards Manual, page 203, item “19. Street Ends” requires access and turnarounds where the furthermost part of a building is 260 feet from fire department vehicle access. The International Fire Code limit is 150 feet. Private Roads and Driveways They also have the same issues of width, distance and grade change for private roads and driveways. Grade changes are limited to 7% for the ladder truck and 10% for others. They provide guidance to an owner or builder but have less control over the improvements. Copies of the International Fire Code – 2003, Chapter 5, Section 503, Fire Apparatus Access Roads; Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads; Privately Maintained Road/Driveway Design, Construction and Maintenance Standards; a memo dated Feb 13, 2001 regarding minimum standards for ladder truck access standards are included in the Appendices. Also, a pre-application proposal with a difficult access and distance problem is an example of the issues they have to address. Night-Visible Address Numbers In the County, all buildings are required to have small red address signs with white letters that are clearly visible for emergency vehicles and reflectorized for night visibility. No such requirement exists within the City and the Fire Department commonly has difficulty finding address markers on homes and buildings that are not clearly visible from the street. Appendix C: Travel Demand Model Documentation (Originally produced in 2007 so some Appendices are out-of-date) City of Port Townsend Travel Demand Model Documentation Prepared for: City of Port Townsend April 2007 Prepared by: The Transpo Group, Inc. 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 www.thetranspogroup.com © 2007 The Transpo Group City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 Study Area and Transportation Analysis Zones..........................................................................1 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK...................................................................3 Links...................................................................................................................................................3 Nodes.................................................................................................................................................8 EXISTING AND FORECAST LAND USE/SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA...............10 Residential Forecasts......................................................................................................................11 Employment Forecasts..................................................................................................................11 External Growth.............................................................................................................................12 TRIP GENERATION..................................................................................19 Trip Rates........................................................................................................................................19 Trip Types.......................................................................................................................................20 Trip Balancing.................................................................................................................................21 External TAZ Trip Generation....................................................................................................21 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT...................................................22 Trip Distribution............................................................................................................................22 Trip Assignment.............................................................................................................................22 VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION RESULTS...............................................23 Trip Duration Analysis..................................................................................................................23 Screen Line Analysis......................................................................................................................23 Link Volume Analyses...................................................................................................................25 2026 BASELINE MODEL..........................................................................26 APPENDIX A: LAND USE TABLES APPENDIX B: MODEL PLOTS APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS APPENDIX D: UPDATING THE MODEL IN VISUM City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc ii Figures Figure 1. 2006 Study Area and Transportation Analysis Zones..............................................2 Figure 2. 2006 Base Transportation Model – Link Types........................................................5 Figure 3. 2006 Base Transportation Model – Link Capacities.................................................6 Figure 4. 2006 Base Transportation Model – Link Speeds......................................................7 Figure 5. 2006 Base Transportation Model – Node Types......................................................9 Figure 6. 2006 Land Use – Dwelling Units per Acre by TAZ...............................................13 Figure 7. 2026 Land Use – Dwelling Units per Acre by TAZ...............................................14 Figure 8. Land Use Growth (2006 to 2026) – Number of New Dwelling Units by TAZ15 Figure 9. 2006 Land Use – Employees per Acre by TAZ......................................................16 Figure 10. 2026 Land Use – Employees per Acre by TAZ......................................................17 Figure 11. Land Use Growth (2006-2026) – Number of New Employees by TAZ............18 Figure 12. Screen Line Locations..................................................................................................24 Figure 13. 2026 Transportation Model – Link Types...............................................................27 Figure 14. 2026 Transportation Model – Link Capacities........................................................28 Figure 15. 2026 Transportation Model – Link Speeds..............................................................29 Figure 16. 2026 Transportation Model – Node Types..............................................................30 Tables Table 1. Link Types and Associated Capacities and Speeds1 .......................................3 Table 2. Node Classifications............................................................................................8 Table 3. Land Use Categories..........................................................................................10 Table 4. 2006 and 2026 Employment and Household Land Use Data....................11 Table 5. Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rates1 .............................................................19 Table 6. Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rates by Trip Type......................................20 Table 7. 2006 and 2026 External TAZ Trip Generation............................................21 Table 8. Deterrence Parameters1 ....................................................................................22 Table 9. Screen Line Calibration Summary...................................................................23 Table 10. Statistical Analysis of Calibrated Data............................................................25 Table 11. 2026 Baseline Model Network Changes1 .......................................................26 City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 1 Introduction The Transpo Group created a travel demand model for the City of Port Townsend to assist in the evaluation of future transportation system needs, support the Concurrency Management Program, update the Arterial Street Plan, and ensure that the City is planning according to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The travel demand model was constructed using VISUM, a transportation modeling software program. The model was constructed to replicate conditions for the existing year (2006) and then used to estimate future conditions based on 2026 land use projections and roadway network improvements. The model consists of the following elements which will be documented in this report. 1. Zone Structure –The City was divided into transportation analysis zones (TAZs) to facilitate the gathering and organization of land use data and to generally represent existing travel patterns. 2. Roadway Network – The roadway network was represented in the model based on existing functional classifications and roadway characteristics. 3. Land Use Totals – The 2006 existing residential and commercial land uses were summarized based on data from InfoUSA and provided by the City. The 2026 residential and commercial land use forecasts were developed based on data provided by the City. 4. External Traffic Volumes – Traffic volumes for external TAZs were based on recent traffic counts and ferry data provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Forecast traffic for external TAZs was updated to year 2026 based on recent historical trends and growth rates provided by Jefferson County. 5. Traffic Operations – Traffic operations for the existing year (2006) and horizon year (2026) are detailed based on intersection level of service (LOS) analyses calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Traffic operations are detailed as part of Appendix C. Study Area and Transportation Analysis Zones The model study area is generally limited to the City of Port Townsend with the exception of the external TAZs which incorporate data from surrounding Jefferson County, the Keystone – Port Townsend ferry, and regional connectors such as State Route 20. The TAZs were created based on the type and intensity of existing and forecast land uses, zoning, natural features, and the transportation system. Where possible, similar land uses were grouped together. Within a travel demand model, the approximate center of a TAZ becomes the point where all traffic generated by the TAZ is linked to the arterial, collector, and local road system. The Port Townsend model has a total of 145 zones, with approximately 138 zones within the Port Townsend city limits. The TAZs are numbered according to categories that correspond to the location of the TAZ. Internal zones are numbered 1 through 138, external zones representing the adjacent county land uses are numbered 200 through 201, and external zones accounting for regional connections are numbered 300 through 303. A base map of the model study area and TAZs is illustrated in Figure 1. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 3 Transportation Network The model roadway network contains information such as number of lanes, speeds, capacities, intersection control, turning delays, restricted turns, and other information necessary to accurately portray the existing roadway system in the City and the surrounding county. The model stores the information as links and nodes with a link representing a roadway and a node representing the point where two links join or where an intersection between roadways occurs. Links The links in the model network represent state highways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors. Some business and local access roads are also included within the study area to provide reasonable representations of access to arterials from the commercial areas and the surrounding neighborhoods. Special links called centroid connectors are used to connect the trips generated within each TAZ to the model network. Each link in the model is coded with a capacity and speed based on the functional class, number of lanes, and relative number of access points and level of side street traffic. The roadway functional class, capacity, and speed guidelines listed in Table 1 were used to construct the model. Table 1. Link Types and Associated Capacities and Speeds1 Type # Type Description Link Capacity2 Link Speeds (mph) 21 Rural Principal (2 Lane) 900 40 22 Urban Principal (2 Lane) 1,000 35 23 Rural Principal (3 Lane) 1,000 40 24 Urban Principal (3 Lane) 1,100 35 25 Rural Principal (5 Lane) 2,000 40 26 Urban Principal (5 Lane) 2,200 35 31 Rural Minor (2 Lane) 700 25 32 Urban Minor (2 Lane) 800 25 33 Rural Minor (3 Lane ) 800 35 34 Urban Minor (3 Lane) 900 30 35 Rural Minor (5 Lane) 1,500 35 36 Urban Minor (5 Lane) 1,600 30 41 Rural Collector (2 Lane) 550 25 42 Urban Collector (2 Lane) 600 25 43 Rural Collector (3 Lane) 600 30 44 Urban Collector (3 Lane) 700 30 51 Urban Local 500 20 52 Rural Local 450 20 1. Link types, capacities, and speeds serve as guidelines to calibrate the model and do not necessarily represent actual conditions. 2. Vehicles per direction per lane. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 4 The model network was overlaid on a GIS base map and adjusted to better reflect actual roadway alignments as illustrated in Figure 2. Model link capacities and link speeds are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. The length of each link is calculated within the VISUM software because the model network was built to scale. The model network is coded with travel speeds, typically reflecting speed limits or estimates of speeds under free-flow conditions. The travel speeds are assigned to each link in the model based on the functional classification of the link except where the posted speed limit varies from the functional classification at which point the posted speed limit is assigned to the appropriate model links. The speeds (or other parameters) can be adjusted in the model setup, as appropriate, to support the model calibration process. For example, the model link speeds for the Jacob Miller roadway in the 2006 base model were adjusted from 40 mph to 25 mph in order to lower the number of trips that the model assigned to the roadway. The link speeds on local roadways were also adjusted as part of the calibration process from 25 mph to 20 mph in order to decrease the amount of thru traffic that the model was assigning to local streets and to better reflect the traffic counts that were collected on the local streets. The VISUM software adjusts travel speeds during the assignment process based on defined volume-delay functions. As congestion (measured by the volume-to-capacity ratio, or v/c ratio) increases, travel speeds on the link decrease. This results in traffic shifting to other corridors to minimize travel times between two TAZs. Centroid connectors are used to connect the trips generated within each TAZ to the model network. Within the study area, the multi-point assignment process within VISUM was used to assign a defined percentage of vehicle trips to/from a TAZ to a particular centroid connector based on observed conditions. Multi-point assignment allows the model to better reflect existing travel patterns by directing the model where to load traffic from a TAZ to the street system. City staff reviewed the multi-point assignment assumptions for reasonableness. W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Model Link Types 22 - Urban Principal 32 - Urban Minor 42 - Urban Collector 51 - Urban Local 31 - Rural Minor 41 - Rural Collector 52 - Rural Local City Limits Figure 22006 Base Transportation Model - Link TypesPort Townsend Model Documentation Link Number Refers to Model Documentation Table 1 W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Model Link Capacities (veh) 1100 - Urban Principal (Limited Access) 1000 - Urban Principal 800 - Urban Minor 600 - Urban Collector 500 - Urban Local 700 - Rural Minor 550 - Rural Collector 450 - Rural Local City Limits Local Streets Figure 32006 Base Transportation Model - Link CapacitiesPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Model Link Speeds (mph) 40 35 30 25 20 City Limits Local Streets Figure 42006 Base Transportation Model - Link SpeedsPort Townsend Model Documentation Local street speeds adjusted from 25 mph to 20 mph, and Jacob Miller Road speed adjusted from 40 mph to 25 mph for calibration purposes. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 8 Nodes Two nodes are used to define each link in the model network. A node is simply the location where two or more links come together to form the network. Nodes were classified according to intersection control type and roadway functional classification. The node classifications are listed in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 5. High flow intersections are intersections that include at least one approach that is designated as a principal or minor roadway. Low flow intersections include at least one approach that is designated as a collector or local street. Table 2. Node Classifications Type # Type Description 10 Ferry Terminal 20 Rural One-/Two-way stop, high flow 21 Urban One-/Two-way stop, high flow 30 Rural One-/Two-way stop, low flow 31 Urban One-/Two-way stop, low flow 40 Rural All-way Stop 41 Urban All-way Stop 45 Roundabouts 50 Signal, Local Junctions 51 Signal, Minor/Collector Junction 52 Signal, Principal/Collector Junction 53 Signal, Minor/Minor or Principal/Minor Junctions 54 Signal, Principal/Principal Junction Turning movement capacities and delays were assigned based on these node types. The capacities associated with each turning movement are used along with link capacities and speeds in the VISUM assignment to define the shortest travel time path between all TAZs. The travel times and distances are then used in assigning traffic to specific routes. Nodes can also be placed along corridors during the calibration process in order to introduce delay on routes where VISUM is over-assigning volumes. ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ### ### ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # ## èé !"$ !"$èé !"$!"$ èé !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$!"$ èé èé W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend All-Way Stops and Signals !"$41 Urban All-Way Stops èé 50 Traffic Signals Two-Way Stops # 21 - Urban Principals or Minors # 31 - Urban Collectors # 20 - Rural Minors # 30 - Rural Collectors Local Streets City Limits Figure 52006 Base Transportation Model - Node TypesPort Townsend Model Documentation Node Number Refers to Model Documentation Table 2 City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 10 Existing and Forecast Land Use/Socio- Economic Data Land use and socio-economic data were used in the modeling process to estimate the quantity of travel activity associated with each TAZ. The base year (2006) and forecast year (2026) land use totals were compiled by the City of Port Townsend. The data were summarized by land use category for each TAZ within the study area. Existing and forecasted future land use data for the City of Port Townsend were gathered from InfoUSA (a national marketing firm) and summarized for each TAZ by City staff according to the categories shown in Table 3. More detailed land use tables that summarize the 2006 and 2026 land use data by TAZ are found in Appendix A. Table 3. Land Use Categories Land Use Type Units Land Use Description SFDU Dwelling Units Single-family dwelling units MFDU Dwelling Units Multi-family dwelling units, including duplexes RetireDU Dwelling Units Retirement dwelling units NRC Employees Natural resource (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining) and construction employment Manuf Employees Manufacturing and Industrial employment CTU Employees Communication, Transportation, Utilities employment Whole Employees Wholesale employment Retail - USW Employees Retail employment along Upper Sims Way Retail - Dwtn Employees Retail employment in Downtown FIRE Employees Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate employment Edu Employees Education employment Med Employees Medical employment Office/Other Employees Office or other services employment GOV Employees Government employment Motel Rooms Motels, hotels, and resort destinations Table 4 summarizes the existing and future land use data for households and employment in the City of Port Townsend. Household land use data account for single-family and multi- family dwelling units as well as retirement housing, whereas employment land use data comprise several categories. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the density of dwelling units per acre by TAZ for the years 2006 and 2026, respectively. Figure 8 illustrates the numeric increase in the number of dwelling units by TAZ between the base year 2006 and the horizon year 2026. Employment data is illustrated in a like manner in Figures 9, 10, and 11. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 11 Table 4. 2006 and 2026 Employment and Household Land Use Data Number of Units1 Land Use Type 2006 20262 Percent Increase SFDU 3,677 5,208 42% MFDU 537 1,098 105% RetireDU 429 639 49% NRC 214 278 30% Manuf 146 205 40% CTU 185 254 37% Whole 96 136 42% Retail - USW 843 1,283 52% Retail - Dwtn 695 1,497 115% FIRE 311 502 61% Edu 327 437 34% Med 973 1,544 59% Office/Other 1,227 1,832 49% GOV 446 604 35% Motel 650 907 40% 1. Total number of units does not include land use data from TAZs 200 – 202 or TAZs 300-303 2. Data provided by City of Port Townsend Residential Forecasts Residential land use growth can be characterized by the following: · Residential land use is expected to increase by over 40 percent for SFDU and RertireDU land uses while the MFDU land use is expected to increase by 105 percent. · The majority of growth in the density and number of new dwelling units will occur in the area of the City bounded on the west by the City limits, on the north by Hastings Avenue, and on the east and south by Discovery Bay road. · The remainder of the growth in dwelling units will primarily occur in the area of the City directly south of 49th Street and directly west of San Juan Avenue. Growth is also expected to occur in TAZ 202, where the current paper mill is located, with an estimated addition of 522 SFDU. Employment Forecasts Employment growth can be characterized by the following: · Retail employment growth along Upper Sims Way and Downtown will result in increases of 52 percent and 115 percent, respectively. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 12 · The greatest increase in the density and number of new employees will likely occur in the southern portion of the City along Sims Way (SR 20) and Water Street (SR 20). The growth along Sims Way will be concentrated mainly in the existing downtown core, the land around the southwestern portion of Discovery Bay Road and Howard Street, and the southern end of Sheridan Avenue. · Employment growth will occur in Fort Worden State Park with an estimated 171 new employees by the year 2026. External Growth Growth occurring external to the model was also accounted for by increased traffic on external connectors to the model. Growth on external connectors was determined from future traffic estimates provided by the Jefferson County Public Works Department and from projected growth estimates at the ferry terminal. Growth on SR 20 was projected to be around 33 percent. The capacity for the SR 20 external connector was estimated at 1400 vehicles per hour. Each additional trip over 1400 vehicles were added to the Discovery Road external connector assuming that traffic would shift to the connector if SR 20 reached capacity. Additionally, traffic on the Discovery Road and Cook Avenue connectors was grown by 69 percent. Ferry traffic was estimated to represent the peak off-loading capacity for the existing year 2006 because no plans have been finalized to increase the frequency of ferry loadings/unloading or the size of the ferries themselves. The future model may be adjusted to represent changes to the ferry system should plans be finalized. W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs 2006 DUs per Acre 0.00 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.00 1.01 - 2.00 2.01 - 3.00 3.01 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 62006 Land Use - Dwelling Units per Acre by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs 2026 DUs per Acre 0.00 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.00 1.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 3.00 3.00 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 72026 Land Use - Dwelling Units per Acre by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs New DUs by TAZ 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 250 251 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 8Land Use Growth (2006 to 2026) - Number of New Dwelling Units by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs 2006 Employees per Acre 0.00 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.00 1.01 - 3.00 3.01 - 5.00 5.01 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 92006 Land Use - Employees per Acre by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs 2026 Employees per Acre 0.00 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.00 1.01 - 3.00 3.01 - 5.00 5.01 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 102026 Land Use - Employees per Acre by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Port Townsend TAZs New Employees by TAZ 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 250 500 + Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Streets City Limits Figure 11Land Use Growth (2006 to 2026) - Number of New Employees by TAZPort Townsend Model Documentation City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 19 Trip Generation The trip generation process is used to convert the land use/socio-economic data into vehicle trips and estimate the number of trips per TAZ. The trip rate parameters are adjustable to allow the model to better reflect existing conditions as part of the calibration/validation process. A simple trip generation methodology was applied to estimate the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips for each study area TAZ. The entire trip generation process results in an estimate of the number of vehicle trips by trip purpose during the PM peak hour. Trip generation rates were adjusted in an Excel spreadsheet for the 2006 base year and 2026 horizon year and were input directly into the VISUM model. Trip Rates The PM peak hour trip rates for each land use category were derived from rates for similar land uses detailed in the ITE Trip Generation1 Manual. The rates were adjusted during model calibration to better match existing traffic volumes within the study area. Table 5 lists the weekday PM peak hour vehicle trip rates for each land use category in the model. Table 5. Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rates1 Land Use Category Code Units Rate (Trips per unit) Percent Origins Percent Destinations Single-family dwelling units SFDU Dwelling Units 0.75 39 61 Multi-family dwelling units MFDU Dwelling Units 0.54 37 63 Retirement dwelling units RetireDU Dwelling Units 0.25 44 56 Natural resource and construction NRC Employment 0.45 50 50 Manufacturing/Industrial Manuf Employment 0.45 56 44 Communication/ Transportation/Utility CTU Employment 0.70 75 25 Wholesale Whole Employment 0.60 65 35 Retail along Upper Sims Way Retail - USW Employment 2.0 55 45 Retail in Downtown Retail - Dwtn Employment 1.30 35 65 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate FIRE Employment 0.70 56 44 Education Edu Employment 1.10 53 47 Medical Med Employment 0.47 63 37 Office or other services Office/Other Employment 0.90 82 18 Government GOV Employment 0.50 69 31 Motels/Hotels/Resort Destinations Motel Rooms 0.50 51 49 1. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Adjusted during model calibration to better replicate travel patterns and traffic counts within the City. 1 Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 20 The trip generation process estimates origins and destinations within each TAZ. For a PM peak hour model, origins are normally associated with places of employment, since they correspond to where a trip usually begins during the evening commute. Destinations are normally associated with households and retail centers because these are types of land uses where PM peak hour trips might end. Trip Types Trips generated by each TAZ are also classified by a distinct trip type, or the general purpose of the trip. Within the City of Port Townsend model there are three primary trip types: · Home-Based Work (HBW): A vehicle trip that has its origin or destination at the place of residence and the other end at a place of employment. · Home-Based Other (HBO): A vehicle trip that has its origin or destination at the place of residence and the other end at a non-work location such as a trip from home to a restaurant for dining purposes. · Non-Home Based (NHB): A vehicle trip with no residential trip end such as a trip from a restaurant to a movie theater for dining and entertainment purposes. The trip rates used to estimate weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips by trip type are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rates by Trip Type HBW2 HBO NHB Land Use Code1 Orig3 Dest4 Orig Dest Orig Dest SFDU 0.05 0.23 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.0 MFDU 0.04 0.18 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.0 RetireDU 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.13 0.0 0.0 NRC 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.17 Manuf 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.13 CTU 0.01 0.32 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.12 Whole 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.14 Retail - USW 0.05 0.20 0.22 0.31 0.59 0.64 Retail - Dwtn 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.13 0.25 0.60 FIRE 0.02 0.16 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.19 Edu 0.04 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.32 Med 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 Office/Other 0.01 0.34 0.05 0.22 0.18 0.10 GOV 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.11 Motel 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.14 0.10 1. See land use categories in Table 3. 2. Trip types: Home-Based Work (HBW); Home-Based Other (HBO); Non-Home Based (NHB). 3. Rates for trip origins 4. Rates for trip destinations City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 21 Trip Balancing For each of the trip purposes, the total number of origins were balanced to the total number of destinations. The destinations within a PM peak hour model for the Home-Based Work and Home-Based Other trip purposes are generally linked to household information. Estimating the number of households is usually more accurate than estimating the number of jobs or employees. Subsequently, the trip generation values were balanced to the home end of the trip. External TAZ Trip Generation Trip generation rates for external TAZs (TAZs numbered 300-303) were estimated from existing traffic counts and future forecasted traffic volumes. These trips were then separated into two groups: trips associated with other external TAZs (XX trips); and trips associated with study area TAZs (IX/XI trips). XX trips were used to create the external-to-external trip table used by the model. IX/XI trips were incorporated with the study area trips for use in creating the other model trip tables. Table 7 lists the number of IX/XI and XX trips for the external TAZs in the Port Townsend model for the year 2006 and the year 2026. Table 7. 2006 and 2026 External TAZ Trip Generation External – Internal Trips (IX/XI) External – External Trips (XX) Zone Location X-I I-X From To Total Origins Total Destinations 2006 External Trip Generation 300 Ferry 40 35 90 83 130 118 301 State Route 20 662 839 83 90 745 929 302 Discovery Bay Road 147 231 0 0 147 231 303 Cook Avenue 138 132 0 0 138 132 2026 External Trip Generation 300 Ferry 40 39 90 91 130 130 301 State Route 20 900 1,146 91 90 991 1,236 302 Discovery Bay Road 248 390 0 0 248 390 303 Cook Avenue 233 223 0 0 233 223 The Port Townsend model contains one XX trip type that accounts for external trips from the Port Townsend/Keystone ferry terminal to locations outside City limits. The total number of trips to and from the ferry was provided by WSDOT and accounts for the seasonal summer peak travel period. The percentage of origin and destination ferry trips that were XX in nature came from the Washington State Ferry 1999 Travel Survey Analysis and Results Report Table 15-3. The XX trips to and from the ferry were assigned to SR 20 and totaled 90 trips from and 83 trips to the ferry terminal during the PM peak hour. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 22 Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution and assignment of the Port Townsend model was performed by procedures inherent to VISUM and using parameters that were calibrated to represent conditions prevalent in Port Townsend. Trip Distribution The Port Townsend model applies the VISUM software’s “gravity” model to distribute the PM peak hour trips between TAZs. The travel forecasting gravity model is built on Isaac Newton’s theory that, all else being equal, the attraction between two masses will be proportional to the size of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses. In a travel forecasting model, the number of trips in a TAZ (for a trip purpose) is used to reflect the size of the mass, and a combination of travel time and distance is used to represent the distance factor in the gravity model. The trip distribution model contains parameters that adjust the relationship between travel time and distance based on trip purpose. Table 8 summarizes the parameters used to calculate the relationship which is then used in the Gravity model to distribute the PM peak hour trips. During the distribution, a separate trip table is constructed for each trip purpose. These trip tables are combined with the external trip table and assigned to the model network. Each trip purpose maintains a separate trip table so that assignment volumes can be displayed for individual trip purposes. The Port Townsend model is setup to conduct distribution in an iterative process. The model was calibrated by iterating the distribution a maximum of 5 times. After each assignment iteration, travel speeds on the roadway links are adjusted based on the resulting v/c ratio. The revised congested link speeds and intersection delays are then used to compute zone-to-zone travel time for the gravity model distribution. The trip assignment affects the attractiveness of travel between two zones based on the relative changes in travel times. Table 8. Deterrence Parameters1 Trip Purpose a b c Home-Based Work -0.75 1.8 100 Home-Based Other -0.75 2.8 200 Non-Home Based -0.75 2.5 300 1. Deterrence parameters apply to the TModel function used to calculate friction factors for the Gravity model. Trip Assignment A trip assignment is performed using the trip matrices constructed as part of the trip generation and distribution phases. A multi-equilibrium assignment is used to assign the vehicle trips to the model roadway network. A maximum of 20 assignment iterations are conducted with the first three iterations each loading one-third of the total vehicle trips onto the model roadway network. The assignment process can result in traffic from one zone to another using different travel routes based on the level of congestion along specific routes. Volumes assigned to the 2006 transportation model network can be found in Appendix B. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 23 Validation and Calibration Results Before the model is used to estimate future traffic volumes and travel patterns, the trip distribution results are validated and trip assignments are calibrated based on existing data. The validation process involves comparing the trip distribution results of the study area to what is generally known of the area. The relative distribution of trips between zones is reviewed to verify that the model is distributing trips appropriately and that the overall lengths of trips are reasonable. The calibration process consists of comparing model travel assignments for the base year to actual traffic volumes and data on travel patterns. The calibration process consists of four primary parts: trip generation (discussed previously), trip duration analyses, screen line analyses, and link volume analyses. Trip Duration Analysis Typically trip lengths for the various trip types are much longer and have higher variability than those with the Port Townsend model. The model extents limit travel length distance calculations to a maximum of five miles. While the actual average trip lengths for the various trip types may be longer, those calculated from the model still provide a relative comparison. For HBW trips the average trip duration was 9.5 minutes from home-to-work and 8.9 minutes from work-to-home during the PM Peak hour. HBO trips had an average trip duration of 7.9 minutes from other-to-home and 8.1 minutes from home-to-other. HBW trips (usually commute trips) are typically longer than HBO trips (usually shopping trips). Smaller still is the 6.4 minute average trip duration for NHB trips. NHB trips are typically short due to their work-to-store or store-to-store nature. Screen Line Analysis Screen lines were defined to facilitate comparison of model volumes versus actual counts across several roadways serving similar travel patterns. Table 9 summarizes the comparison of traffic counts to model volumes at each screen line and the percent difference. Figure 12 shows the five major screen lines created to calibrate the Port Townsend model to the 2006 base year. The allowable percentage deviation from actual counts depends on the volume of the actual traffic counts. The higher the actual traffic volumes, the lower the percent deviation allowed, per Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (NHCRP 255, TRB, Dec. 1982. pg. 49). Table 9. Screen Line Calibration Summary Map ID Screen Line Location Traffic Counts Model Volumes Percent Difference North/South NB1 SB NB SB NB SB Allowed2 5 City Center Cordon 1,204 1,143 1,179 1,011 -2 -12 45 3 Hastings Avenue North/South 779 633 780 682 0 8 50 East/West EB WB EB WB EB WB Allowed 2 San Juan Avenue East/West 1,195 1,325 1,131 1,246 -5 -6 45 1 Sheridan Avenue East/West 1,070 1,195 1,000 1,159 -7 -3 45 4 McPherson Street East/West 860 1,070 846 1,053 -2 -2 50 1. Direction of traffic: Southbound; Northbound; Westbound; Eastbound 2. Maximum desirable error obtained from the Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design report (NHCRP 255). 5 4 3 2 1 W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Screenlines 1 - McPherson Street East/West 2 - Sheridan Avenue East/West 3 - Hastings North/South 4 - San Juan East/West 5 - City Center Cordon Local Streets City Limits Figure 122006 ScreenlinesPort Townsend Model Documentation City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 25 All of the variances in volumes at City screen lines fall within the allowable deviation based on NHCRP 255. The largest percentage difference in the City screen lines is found in the City Center Cordon (Map ID 5). Model volumes flowing southbound into the City center are 10 percent lower than the actual traffic counts. While this should be kept in mind when reviewing the raw model output, it is very reasonable for this macroscopic model. However, for detailed intersection capacity analyses, additional adjustments will be made to account for these differences. Generally, the screen line analysis indicates that overall traffic generation and travel distribution patterns reasonably reflect existing conditions in the study area. Link Volume Analyses Another measure of model calibration is the analysis of roadway link volumes. This process compares roadway model volume outputs to actual traffic counts, by direction, for all locations where actual counts are provided. Table 10 contains the output of key statistical analysis parameters for the calibrated model including the coefficient of determination or R2 value and the percent root mean square error (%RMSE). Table 10. Statistical Analysis of Calibrated Data R2 %RMSE 0.95 23.9% The R2 value represents the “goodness of fit,” indicating how well the model output matches the actual traffic counts. The R2 value also represents the likelihood that the correlation between the traffic counts and the model output could have occurred randomly or by chance. The closer the R2 value is to 1.00 the less likely it is that the correlation between data sets occurred randomly and the more likely it is that relationship between the data is strong and that the model is calibrated accurately. An R2 value of 0.88 or higher is considered acceptable in the industry according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The overall R2 value for the Port Townsend model is 0.95. The %RMSE measures the deviation between the model volumes and the actual traffic counts. The greater the %RMSE, the greater the deviation between the model volumes and the actual traffic counts. It is recommended that the %RMSE value for a model be 40 percent or less. The %RMSE of the Port Townsend model is approximately 24 percent. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc 26 2026 Baseline Model After the calibration process was completed and determined to be within acceptable parameters, the model was used to develop a baseline 2026 traffic forecast. The baseline forecast was used to determine where future operational and capacity deficiencies were likely to occur based on the assumed land use growth. Appendix B contains a figure of the model volumes for each link for year 2026 as well as a map of the volume to capacity ratio on each link. Improvement projects can be identified and incorporated into the model to address any future deficiencies. The 2026 baseline model network is similar to the 2006 model network. The difference between the 2006 and 2026 baseline model networks is the land use inputs upon which trip generation and trip distribution are based. Future land use data were provided by the City of Port Townsend and can be found in Appendix A. Roadway network improvements were also made to 2026 baseline model as outlined in Table 11 and illustrated in Figure 13. 2026 model capacities and speeds are illustrated in Figure 14 and 15, respectively. Node classifications for the 2026 model network are illustrated in Figure 16. Table 11. 2026 Baseline Model Network Changes1 Project Limits Description Howard St Sims Way to 35t h St Extend Howard Street from Sims Way to 35th Street. The new roadway will be classified as an Urban Minor street. Umatilla Ave Existing terminus to 35th St Create connection between the existing western terminus of Umatilla Avenue to the existing eastern terminus of 35th Street. The new roadway will be classified as an Urban Collector. Howard St/Sims Way Traffic Control Intersection Install traffic control at the intersection of Howard Street and Sims Way as part of the extension of Howard Street. Howard St/Discovery Rd Traffic Control Intersection Install traffic control at the intersection of Howard Street and Discovery Road as part of the extension of Howard Street. Discovery Rd Sims Way to Sheridan Ave Reclassify Discovery Road from Rural Minor to Urban Minor. Hastings Rd Howard St to Sheridan Ave Reclassify Hastings Road from Rural Minor to Urban Minor. 1. Based on input from City staff. W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Functional Classification 22 - Urban Principal 32 - Urban Minor 42 - Urban Collector 51 - Urban Local 31 - Rural Minor 41 - Rural Collector 52 - Rural Local City Limits Figure 132026 Base Transportation Model - Link TypesPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend 2026 Model Link Capacities (Veh) 1100 - Urban Principal (Limited Access) 1000 - Urban Principal 800 - Urban Minor 600 - Urban Collector 500 - Urban Local 700 - Rural Minor 550 - Rural Collector 450 - Rural Local City Limits Figure 142026 Base Transportation Model - Link CapacitiesPort Townsend Model Documentation W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend 2026 Model Link Speeds (mph) 40 35 30 25 20 City Limits Figure 152026 Transportation Model - Link SpeedsPort Townsend Model Documentation ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ### ### ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## èé èé èé !"$ !"$èé !"$!"$ èé !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$!"$ èé èé W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a w r e n c e U W a l k e r T y l e r W a s hin g to n FirM o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n K e a r n e y Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e Sher i dan Admiralty Silver Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend Model All-Way Stops and Signals !"$41 - Urban All-Way Stops èé 50 - Traffic Signals Model Two-Way Stops # 21 - On Urban Principals or Minors # 31 - On Urban Collectors # 20 - On Rural Minors # 30 - On Rural Collectors Local Streets City Limits Figure 162026 Base Transportation Model - Node TypesPort Townsend Model Documentation Node Number Refers to Model Documentation Table 2 Appendix A: Land Use Tables City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs Existing (2006) Land Use Estimate County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail - Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp11171034051218379528815 292544 33333 515 430333 0 51212 0 630636 11 72929 66 8282851 17 93131 0 1031313 1 26 1136440 242 1241243 112 131919 29 29 1456562 113 152929 11 1642423 317 172323 212 182020 2 2 1921214 4 20184058 33 2144 0 22338191415943381091834423282813833150496824275245813 0 251818 101710 26342155149 757 27482505 712 282020 0 294054511 24 30321244435 1433288 3112113 5415569 3299325416 3684 3314216 15415 3414418 151015 35881261111320402813618564361616163 3414143622117 3726266 14314 38161625 1211158 39191332 3 71110 40409491 16181743 HOUSING EMPLOYMENT M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2006 Land Use Page 1 4/25/200710:00 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs Existing (2006) Land Use Estimate County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail - Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 41628 132 132 425151 1 5612 432626 0 4433 2727 4576032993172403510420146213241 3 4 473737 1 528 4828283 1 216 4924241 326 5018927 44917 5112214 9393 5211415 8 0 5319193 1 26 54 0 130111436155551171836515497142931915633417874015 8126270 57 0 0 5833417016 190 592828310 13 60334477 33 26 612727 11 621818 0 63408481 34 6425251 4510 654539841 327140 666010703212 412 673713761264 222735 6862668 0 6980411216 713 708080 3 437 7147478 8 7277975 3092125206 736464 235 741313 448 754444 1 42807 764610 40 40 7732323 3 7844 0 7951511 67 803535 0 M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2006 Land Use Page 2 4/25/200710:00 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs Existing (2006) Land Use Estimate County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail - Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 8141414 26 8210103 25 832727 1 1 842828 3 3 8565469 1 2215 8632321 1 871919 2 32 34 88333 6232628 891212 22374041 905050 312 15 91572481140225174899224241883215142602519376331093 1024156 942323 0 95642663 36 961010 52759 9794251 571830 984216581 23 994444 1 1 100949431 138 1012727 22 10233 0 1031313 0 1043232 0 1054242 22 1064949 44 10785855 27 1081212 0 10922 0 110 0 0 1111212 0 11244 0 1132323 0 114273259 426 115164164 33 1163737 33 1173434 0 11853168221 24 24 1191010 4 4 120293059 1212 M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2006 Land Use Page 3 4/25/200710:00 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs Existing (2006) Land Use Estimate County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail - Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 121173249291115333412212233424223212366 0 12414141 8 9 12510105158438315321712611 0 12755 0 1282727 55 12969691 1 13077 0 1311212 1 1 13211 0 13322 0 134333 3 13510010051 127 13634342 2 13755 11 13822 0 20060262281 213 20153536 6 202443421 1425 2006 Total 3,794 539 429 4,762 225 575 185 97 695 843 311 327 973 1,230 446 650 5,895 M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2006 Land Use Page 4 4/25/200710:00 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs 2026 Land Use Forecast County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp 11 00 19144 0 70 0 73012381552199 210 00 10 0 1515 000000 3953574 333 00 33 000000000 5 0 15 4333 0 36 0000000000000 518 00 18 0000000000000 6366 0 42 000000000 1 00 1 737 00 37 000000000 6 00 6 841 00 4151 0000000 1 00 7 939 00 39 0000000000000 1037 00 373 000 1 0000 2 00 6 11424 0 46 000000000 2 0 62 12442 0 46 000000 1 00 1 00 2 1323 00 23 000000 29 00000 29 1464 00 64 0 2 0000000 1 0 13 1531 00 31 000000000 1 00 1 1647 00 473 000000 3 0 1 00 7 1728 00 28 000000000 2 0 12 1825 00 25 0000 2 0000000 2 1922 00 224 00000000000 4 2019 0 4059 000000000 3 00 3 217 00 7 0000000000000 22 0 13 0 13102415 0 1974 0 34514125429 23 0 48 0 4814944 0 2324 0 1184 0 33388 2458 0 13 0000000000000 2520 00 20 000000000 10 0 2410 263721 0 581 000 49 0000 7 00 57 27502 0 525 00000000 7 00 12 2822 00 22 0000000000000 29425 0 471 00 1 00000 2 00 4 303516 0 51 0 4 00 55 00 14352 00 128 311221 0 33 00000000 7020 0 790 32912 0 214305 0 26 0000 46 00 111 33152 0 17 000000000 15 0 615 34164 0 20 000000000 15 0 1415 35 0 28 0 281781515 0 52065 0 39216 0 25895 36 0 36 0 36214 000 8419 0 1956 0 31203 3727 00 276 0000 1 00 43 00 14 38166 0 2235 00000 2 00 2915 0 81 391925 0 44 0000 3 0000 7 0 1510 404213 0 551 000000 161817 0 43 HOUSING EMPLOYMENT M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2026 Land Use Page 1 4/25/200710:02 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs 2026 Land Use Forecast County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 4162 0 8 0000000 132 0000 132 4271 00 71 0000 1 000 56 00 12 4336 00 36 0000000000000 443 00 3 000000000 35 00 35 45790321293 000 50 0 36052156 00 324 46223 0 25 00 1 00000 3 000 4 4741 00 41 000 1 0000 52 00 8 4830 00 303 000 1 0000 2 0 16 4925 00 25 0 1 000000 32 00 6 501915 0 34 0000000 449 00 17 51132 0 15 0000000000 93 0 93 52174 0 21 00000000000 11 0 532310 0 333 000 20 0000 2 00 25 54 000000000 16914 00 18 0 50201 55117 0 1848721 0 8099 00 59 0 130278 563 00 35221135220 0000 10534 0 351 57 00000000000000000583 00 35 000 213 0 20 00000 238 5936 00 36 0 3 00 10 0000000 13 60412054115 0000 3 0 3 0000 36 61358 0 43 000000000 1 00 1 6221 00 21 0000000000000 63458 0 531 00000000 3 00 4 6431 00 312 000000 8 0 10 00 20 65652059144 0 1 000000 327 0 140 666420 0 843 0 2120 0000 4 00 30 674535761564 000 30 0 2 00 40 00 76 68686 0 74 0000000000000 6910047 0 1476 00000000 7 00 13 7095 00 95 0000 3 0000 4 0 47 7172 00 728 00000000000 8 727 00 7 0 18 00 115 00 60 0 184 0 175377 7371 00 71 000000000 23 0 5 7428 00 28 000000 4 000 4 0 8 7559 00 59 0000 2 000 84 0 11214 7646 0 10 0000000 50 0000 50 77628 0 703 00000000000 3 78104 00 104 0000000000000 7971 00 711 00000000 6 00 7 8039 00 39 0000000000000M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2026 Land Use Page 2 4/25/200710:02 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs 2026 Land Use Forecast County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 8156 00 564 00000000 2 00 6 8213 00 133 00000000 2 00 5 8335 00 35 0000 1 0000000 1 8433 00 33 000 3 00000000 3 85704 0 74 0000 1 000 22 0 15 8636 00 36 0 1 0000000000 1 8725 00 25 0000 4 000 64 000 68 886 00 64 0000000 9003 00 907 8913 00 13 0000 10 0 2 0 10050 0 56162 9053 00 53 000000 5 0 18 000 23 916724 0 91 0 152333 0 22 00 5 00 116 92 0 24 0 24 00 1 0 150 0 4 0 202018484379 937753 0 1303 0000000 502041 0 114 942515 0 40 0000000000000 956622 0 883 00000000 3 00 6 961124 0 35 0000000 68 0 9 00 77 971246 0 58 000000 57 0 18 00 30 987716 0 931 00000000 2 00 3 9959 00 59 0000 1 0000000 1 100114 00 1143 00 1 00 1 00 3 00 8 10157 00 57 000000000 2 00 2 10223 00 23 0000000000000 10343 00 43 0000000000000 104523 0 55 0000000000000 105924 0 96 000000000 2 00 2 10669 00 69 000000000 4 00 4 107115 00 1155 00000000 2 00 7 10832 00 32 0000000000000 10912 00 12 0000000000000 11020 00 20 0000000000000 11118 00 18 0000000000000 1129 00 9 0000000000000 1134310 0 53 0000 10 0000000 10 11412762 0 189 0000 10 000 422 0 18 115174 00 174 000000000 3 00 3 1168710 0 97 000000000 3 00 3 1174815 0 63 0000000000000 1185324168245 00000000 24 000 24 1192016 0 36 0000 4 0000000 4 12031 0 3061 000000000 12 00 12 M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2026 Land Use Page 3 4/25/200710:02 AM City of Port Townsend / Transportation Model City TAZs 2026 Land Use Forecast County TAZs TAZ SFDU MFDU RetireDU Total DU NRC Manuf CTU Whole Retail USW Retail Dwtn FIRE Edu Med Office Gov Motels Total Emp HOUSING EMPLOYMENT 1211732 0 4958 0 22 0 100 0 66 00 68 00 314 1223 00 3 000 4100 0 10 00 40 00 154 12316 00 16 00000000000001244440801641 0 1010140 0 20 0 2040 00 241 12510 00 1010 0 210168 0 76 0 6210640 0 474 12610148100249 0000 50 0 10 000 10 0 70 12745 00 45 0000000000000 12847 00 47 000000000 5 00 5 12911910 0 1291 000 10 0 5 00000 16 13027 00 27 0000 10 0000000 10 13122 00 22 00000000 1 000 1 1321 00 1 0000000000000 13312 00 12 0000000000000 13413 00 133 00000000000 3 135130 00 130 000 51 0000 1 0 37 13654 00 542 00000000000 2 13755 00 55 000000000 1 00 1 13832 00 32 0000000000000 200702 0 7228 0 1 00000 2 00 13 20163 00 636 00000000000 6 202522 00 5223421 0000000 1 00 425 Total Growth 5,863 1,100 639 7,602 289 634 254 137 1,497 1,283 502 437 1,544 1,835 604 907 9,017 M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Model\Land Us e\Port Townsend Land Use Final.xls 2026 Land Use Page 4 4/25/200710:02 AM Appendix B: Model Plots LegendLink barsVolCapRatioPrTVolCapRatioPrT<= 85<= 100> 100 LegendLink barsVolCapRatioPrTVolCapRatioPrT<= 85<= 100> 100 Port Townsend Travel Demand ModelVISUM 9.44 PTV AGThe Transpo Group 2006 Existing Final.ver Created on: 25.04.20072006 Volume to Capacity Ratio s PM Peak Hour LegendLink barsVolCapRatioPrTVolCapRatioPrT<= 85<= 100> 100 LegendLink barsVolCapRatioPrTVolCapRatioPrT<= 85<= 100> 100 Port Townsend Travel Demand ModelVISUM 9.44 PTV AGThe Transpo Group 2026 Baseline Model Final.ver Created on: 25.04.20072026 Volume to Capacity Ratio s PM Peak Hour 2 2 2 3 125 200 39 243 16 20 60 31 27 6 0 1224 18 1 1 1 6 3844 4 6 3742 0 0 70 49 70 49 90 64 3442 148 170 0 0 11 2018 20 23 17 23 8 5 6589 160 194 159 190 160 189 1015 0 0 12 13 12 17 24 23 32 11 7 34 00 1512 1 2 1624 4 6 1013 2637 17 4 71 28 29 22 810 1621 2229 6 0 7 8 5 2 6 4 9 8 5 8 7 5 4 7 5 3 5 7 10 15 3233 17 15137 186 147 77 162 91 1625 10 8 6292 6087 6289 10 7 2 1 65 131207 213 1618 1412 1010 80 55 88 64 62 96 40 166 11 8 0 1915 86 6468 76 66 90 64 88 3719 31 40 93 87 60 13 10 2 2 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 5 5 5 2 0 78 101 66 44 67 33 25 36 28 3 7 6 7 52 910 4933 141 92 164 107 208 228 2 3 2 2 5 9 2 4 2 2 6 4 306 317 64 1 7 2 5 158 186 164 182 1 1 6145 14 20 97 69 3845 2932 7 9 2 7 9 8 0 2 4 00 138 132 51 75 1 4 7 2 3 1 36 46 2 4 6 1 4 4 2933 2933 3952 0 0 191 1129 10 141 47 929 745 4047 1 8 2 0 77 62 169 145 6 8 9 8 6 8 115 69 79 78 171 148 85 130150 66 62 87 50 143 143 176 148 4 0 3 8 48 66 86 60 4 6 6 5 0 6 182 157 43 47 74 3123 9 10 174 126 13 2125 17 0 0 64 6 4 107 186 16 17 51 80 8051 8060 60 80 2 3 3 3 1 1 9 1 51 1 2 8 3 7 5 0 7 4 8 0 0 6 25 4 1 5 3 0 1 9 0 0 3 8 4 5 8 4 5 5 4 6 7 9 1 1 3 1 2 4 7 7 9 5 5 2 9 0 3 0 3 1 3 11 2 1 9 3 4 2 6 6 1 0 3 9 5 8 8 3 2 1 2 6 2 3 7 8 4 0 6 4 3 21 32 7 5 147 143 143 146 225 145 61 51 20 362 6 2 3 4 1 9 6 2 8 3 3 43 30 1822 27 34 464 5 1 1 1 1 00 314 3 1 4 7 81 1 17 5 177 229 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 3 125 200 39 243 16 20 60 31 27 6 0 1224 18 1 1 1 6 3844 4 6 3742 0 0 70 49 70 49 90 64 3442 148 170 0 0 11 201 8 20 23 17 23 8 5 6589 160 194 159 190 160 189 1015 0 0 12 13 12 17 24 23 32 11 7 34 00 1512 1 2 1624 4 6 1013 2637 17 4 71 28 29 22 810 162 1 2229 6 0 7 8 5 2 6 4 9 8 5 8 7 5 4 7 5 3 5 7 10 15 3233 17 15137 186 147 77 162 91 1625 10 8 6292 6087 6289 10 7 2 1 65 131207 213 1618 1412 1010 80 55 88 64 62 96 40 166 11 8 0 19 15 86 6468 76 66 90 64 88 3719 31 40 93 87 60 13 10 2 2 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 5 5 5 2 0 78 101 66 44 67 33 25 36 28 3 7 6 7 52 910 4933 141 92 164 107 208 228 2 3 2 2 5 9 2 4 2 2 6 4 30 6 3 1 7 64 1 7 2 5 158 186 164 182 1 1 6145 14 20 97 69 3845 2932 7 9 2 7 9 8 0 2 4 00 138 132 51 75 1 4 7 2 3 1 36 46 2 4 6 1 4 4 2933 2933 395 2 0 0 191 1129 10 141 47 929 745 4047 1 8 2 0 77 62 169 145 6 8 9 8 6 8 115 69 79 78 171 148 85 130150 66 62 87 50 143 143 176 148 4 0 3 8 48 66 86 60 4 6 6 5 0 6 182 157 43 47 74 3123 9 10 174 126 13 2125 17 0 0 64 6 4 107 186 16 17 51 80 8051 8060 60 80 2 3 3 3 1 1 9 1 51 1 2 8 3 7 5 0 7 4 8 0 0 6 25 4 1 5 3 0 1 9 0 0 3 8 4 5 8 4 5 5 4 6 7 9 1 1 3 1 2 4 7 7 9 5 5 2 9 0 3 0 3 1 3 11 2 1 9 3 4 2 6 6 1 0 3 9 5 8 8 3 2 1 2 6 2 3 7 8 4 0 6 4 3 21 32 7 5 147 143 143 146 225 145 61 51 20 362 6 2 3 4 1 9 6 2 8 3 3 43 30 1822 27 34 464 5 1 1 1 1 00 314 3 1 4 7 81 1 17 5 177 229 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 Port Townsend Travel Demand ModelVISUM 9.44 PTV AGThe Transpo GroupCalib_10.verCreated on: 22.12.20062006 Base Year Model VolumesPM Peak Hour 4 12 8 12 199 277 88 395 15 23 121 74 1 14 1 40 1449 223 1 7 2 5 59 80 1015 5873 0 0 87 60 87 6078 5271 270 362 0 0 30 2223 34 44 29 46 101 214 241 373 247 373 263 386 813 314 279 18 22 1321 59 89 1321 99 32 20 812 00 2016 225 239 3257 9 16 1926 2032 45 19 80 29 39 28 8105 1829 2144 6 9 1 1 0 4 6 8 2 2 1 0 2 3 8 4 6 1 0 0 4 6 10 21 32 4343 24 22210 305 194 113 213 131 4486 13 10 94 93 203 97 215 12 8 3 1 76 188364 421 2025 1919 1614 127 94 81 248 11 26 12 2526 10797 964021 32 41 143 95 100 15 24 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 5 4 6 4 4 3 4 299 145 85 96 86 98 44 34 4 21 7 21 64 98 73 112 188 129 239 192 468 534 2 8 9 5 1 0 2 9 9 5 1 6 458 665 75 2 8 4 1 250 576 253 569 2 08 8060 14 24 119 108 55 105 3768 9 0 1 1 1 0 8 0 6 7 00 233 223 54 80 2 4 8 3 9 0 49 56 3 3 1 3 2 4 3771 3771 55 127 0 0 242 15711 12 165 17 1236 983 57 117 2 1 2 6 76 137 234 190 8 5 0 1 0 5 2 121 176 791 9 239 193 85 173264 72 71 99 80 258 281 249 225 6 2 6 5 22 29 51 34 6 7 3 8 5 1 250 204 51 40 90 4 34 108 9 8 288 195 35 5459 40 0 0 29 19 29 19 150 236 20 21 113134 122 136 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 51 5 0 1 8 3 2 8 7 8 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 2 1 4 4 6 1 93 7 1 3 0 0 6 3 5 0 8 0 4 72 8 4 2 7 9 1 5 8 4 0 1 2 5 8 5 7 4 5 2 9 8 2 0 3 1 2 01 6 3 2 0 2 17 14 1 61 7 1 0 7 3 7 5 4 8 8 5 8 3 7 5 3 3 2 12 10 203 240 33 22 310 278 276 306 302 228 202 120 30 604 5 3 5 8 4 4 3 5 1 6 3 7 4 3 100 67 2229 106 55 70 98 64 00 522 5 5 7 2 1 0 1 0 6 94 32 226 207 1 4 2 4 2 2 5 3 4 0 2 7 235 242 8 9 247 109 4 12 8 12 199 277 88 395 15 23 121 74 1 14 1 40 1449 223 1 7 2 5 59 80 1015 5873 0 0 87 60 87 6078 5271 270 362 0 0 30 222 3 34 44 29 46 101 214 241 373 247 373 263 386 813 314 279 18 22 1321 59 89 1321 99 32 20 812 00 2016 225 239 3257 9 16 1926 2032 45 19 80 29 39 28 8105 182 9 2144 6 9 1 1 0 4 6 8 2 2 1 0 2 3 8 4 6 1 0 0 4 6 10 21 32 4343 24 22210 305 194 113 213 131 4486 13 10 94 93 203 97 215 12 8 3 1 76 188364 421 2025 1919 1614 127 94 81 248 11 26 12 25 26 10797 964021 32 41 143 95 100 15 24 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 5 4 6 4 4 3 4 299 145 85 96 86 98 44 34 4 21 7 21 64 98 73 112 188 129 239 192 468 534 2 8 9 5 1 0 2 9 9 5 1 6 45 8 6 6 5 75 2 8 4 1 250 576 253 569 2 08 8060 14 24 119 108 55 105 3768 9 0 1 1 1 0 8 0 6 7 00 233 223 54 80 2 4 8 3 9 0 49 56 3 3 1 3 2 4 3771 3771 55 1 2 7 0 0 242 15711 12 165 17 1236 983 57 117 2 1 2 6 76 137 234 190 8 5 0 1 0 5 2 121 176 791 9 239 193 85 173264 72 71 99 80 258 281 249 225 6 2 6 5 22 29 51 34 6 7 3 8 5 1 250 204 51 40 90 4 34 108 9 8 288 195 35 5459 40 0 0 29 19 29 19 150 236 20 21 113134 122 136 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 51 5 0 1 8 3 2 8 7 8 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 2 1 4 4 6 1 93 7 1 3 0 0 6 3 5 0 8 0 4 72 8 4 2 7 9 1 5 8 4 0 1 2 5 8 5 7 4 5 2 9 8 2 0 3 1 2 01 6 3 2 0 2 17 14 1 61 7 1 0 7 3 7 5 4 8 8 5 8 3 7 5 3 3 2 12 10 203 240 33 22 310 278 276 306 302 228 202 120 30 604 5 3 5 8 4 4 3 5 1 6 3 7 4 3 100 67 2229 106 55 70 98 64 00 522 5 5 7 2 1 0 1 0 6 94 32 226 207 1 4 2 4 2 2 5 3 4 0 2 7 235 242 8 9 247 109 Port Townsend Travel Demand ModelVISUM 9.44 PTV AGThe Transpo Group2026 Model With Improvements.verCreated on: 22.12.20062026 Base Year Model VolumesPM Peak Hour Appendix C: Traffic Operations City of Port Townsend Model Documentation – Appendix C April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc C-2 Traffic Operations Traffic operations analyses were conducted using the Synchro software program which utilizes the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology to compute level-of-service (LOS) and delay for study area intersections. In addition, roadway volume-to-capacity ratios were reviewed and evaluated based upon data from the travel demand model (See Appendix B). Traffic Counts The majority of turning movement counts and tube counts were collected in July of 2006 and were supplemented by a handful of counts from 2004 and 2005. The counts collected before 2006 were increased by 5 percent annually to represent 2006 conditions. Figure C-1 illustrates the locations where turning movement counts were collected with the actual turning movement count volumes illustrated in Figure C-2a and Figure C-2b. Figure C-3 illustrates the location where tube counts were collected along with the 24-hour volumes at each collections site. 2006 Existing Conditions LOS was calculated for the PM peak hour between 4:15 PM and 5:15 PM. Table 11 shows the LOS analysis results for the study intersections. The LOS standard for the City of Port Townsend is LOS D. Analysis results for the 2006 intersections operations evaluation indicate that four intersections operate below LOS D, including the intersections of McPherson Street & Sims Way (LOS E), 12th Street & Sims Way (LOS E), Sheridan Avenue & Sims Way (LOS F), and Washington Street & Sims Way (LOS F). These intersections operate below LOS D because there are few gaps in traffic to allow for left or right turns to/from the minor street approaches, resulting in increased delay and poor operations. 2026 Baseline Conditions Table C-1 compares the 2006 existing with the 2026 baseline LOS results. The 2026 baseline LOS results indicate that five more intersections will operate below LOS D or will have movements that operate below LOS D including: Mill Road & Discovery Bay Road, Sheridan Avenue & Discovery Bay Road, San Juan Avenue & 19th , Kearney Street & Sims Way, and Kearney Street & Blaine Street. The intersection of Quincy Street & Washington Street would fall to LOS D. Many of the intersections along Sims Way will fall below LOS D because Sims Way will be operating at or above roadway capacity as noted in the 2026 volume-to-capacity model plot in Appendix B. Operating at or above capacity along Sims Way will increase delay for the minor street approaches due to fewer gaps in traffic to complete left or right turns to/from the minor street approaches. The intersections along Discovery Road will also operate below LOS D due to the same problem - not enough gaps in traffic to allow for left or right turns to/from the minor street approaches. ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! 1 43 9 87 65 2 29 1131 30 27 28 26 25 2019 24 23 22 1721 16 14 32 12 18 1015 13 W Si ms W ay Hastings 19th 49th 9thDiscovery 14th F W at e r 12th San Juan Ave. L a wr e n c e U T y l e r Fir M o n r o e Cherry 53th Q J a c k s o n Walnut Gr ant Center Lande s C o o k A v e S h e r i d a n Silver Spruce Discovery Cherry F F Cherry Sheri dan Fir C oo k Av e Sher i dan Legend !2006 Turning Movement Count Locations Local Streets City Limits Figure C12006 Turning Movement Count LocationsPort Townsend Model Documentation X " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 430 860 910 740 340 4,110 4,060 7,090 3,450 1,130 2,140 2,950 1,080 3,150 4,650 2,770 1,220 1,290 2,290 2,380 4,830 3,120 1,340 18,460 W Si ms Way Hastings 19th 49th 9th Di s c o v er y 14th F W at er 12th San J uan Av e. U Fir M o n r o e Cherry 53th Q K e a r n e y Gr ant Lande s C o o k A v e S h e r i d a n Admiralty C ook Av e F Sheri dan Legend "2006 Tube Count Locations Local Streets City Limits Figure C32006 Tube Count Locations and VolumesPort Townsend Model Documentation City of Port Townsend Model Documentation – Appendix C April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc C-7 Table C-1. 2006 and 2026 Intersection LOS Comparison Table 2006 Existing 2026 Baseline Map ID Intersection LOS1 Delay2 V/C3 or WM4 LOS Delay V/C or WM Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 Discovery Stub/Mill Road/Sims Way (Hwy 20) B 16 0.81 F 92 1.15 2 Howard Street/Sims Way (Hwy 20) C 21 SB B5 13 0.8 3 McPherson Street/Sims Way (Hwy 20) E 48 NB F >100 NB/SB 4 Sheridan Avenue/Sims Way (Hwy 20) F 58 NB F >100 NB/SB 5 Haines Street/Sims Way (Hwy 20) C 21 0.80 C 30 0.97 6 12th Street/Sims Way (Hwy 20) E 41 SB F >100 SB 7 Kearney Street/Sims Way (Hwy 20) C 21 0.79 F >100 1.20 8 Sims Way/Water Street (Hwy 20)/Washington Street/Gaines Street F >200 SB F >100 NB/SB 9 Harrison Street (Ferry Terminal)/Water Street (Hwy 20) A 5 0.34 A 6 0.57 10 Taylor Street/Water Street (Hwy 20) A 9 0.26 B 10 0.42 --- Quincy Street/Water Street (Hwy 20) C 15 NB C 24 NB 11 Monroe Street/Water Street (Hwy 20) B 13 NB C 18 NB 12 Discovery Road/Mill Road A 9 WB A 9.8 NB 13 Eddy Street/Discovery Road A 10 NB B 12 NB 14 McPherson Street/Discovery Road B 12 SB C 17 SB 15 Sheridan Avenue/Discovery Road B 13 WB F >100 EB 16 Discovery Road/19t h Street B 10 SB C 16 SB 17 Discovery Road/Hastings Avenue B 11 EB B 14 EB 18 San Juan Avenue/Discovery Road/F Street B 10 EB C 19 WB 19 Cherry Street/F Street A 9 SB B 12 WB 20 Fir Street/F Street A 8 EB B 14 NB 21 Sheridan Avenue/Hastings Avenue B 12 NB C 19 NB 22 Jackman Street/49th Street B 11 SB B 14 SB 23 San Juan Avenue/Admiralty Street/47th Street B 10 EB B 12 EB 24 Cherry Street/W Street A 8 SB A 9.7 SB 25 San Juan Avenue/19th Street B 13 SB E 36 SB 26 Kearney Street/Blaine Street B 15 NB F >100 NB 27 Walker Street/Blaine Street B 11 EB C 20 EB 28 Kearney Street/Lawrence Street C 18 WB C 21 WB 29 Tyler Street/Lawrence Street A 9 EB B 13 NB 30 Monroe Street/Lawrence Street B 11 WB B 14 WB 31 Quincy Street/Washington Street A 9 SB D 35 EB 32 Sheridan Avenue/12th Street B 15 WB C 23 WB 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 5. Assumes new traffic control. Appendix D: Instructions to Update the Land Use in the Travel Demand Model City of Port Townsend Model Documentation – Appendix D April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc D-2 Updating the Land Use in the Visum Model This documents the process of updating the land use in the City of Port Townsend’s travel demand model. Updates to the model are needed when evaluating new land use scenarios. The process outlined below is not meant to replace the Visum User’s Manual. Necessary Files Two items are needed to update the model’s trip generation. They include: Port Townsend Land Use Excel file. The Port Townsend Land Use Excel file stores the land use information used to estimate the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips. The file contains many different worksheets, however only the “2026 Land Use” worksheet needs updating. Visum Model File. Obtain the model year version (*.ver) file that is being updated with the revised land use. Save the file as a new model file. Land Use Update Instructions The following steps explain how to make land use changes to the Port Townsend Land Use Excel file. 1. Open the Port Townsend Land Use Excel file. 2. Navigate to the 2026 Land Use worksheet (See Figure D-1). 3. Input the revised land use estimates into the correct TAZ and land use categories. 4. Select the 2026 VISUM Export worksheet. 5. Highlight all of the data (Rows 1-147 and Columns A-R). 6. Copy the data. 7. Save the Port Townsend Land Use Excel file. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation – Appendix D April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc D-3 Figure D-1. Port Townsend Land Use Excel file The following instructions explain how to update the Visum model with the revised land use: 8. Open the Visum software if it is not already open 9. Click FILE > OPEN PROJECT DIRECTORIES 10. Navigate to the Port Townsend.pfd file and click OPEN 11. Click FILE > OPEN VERSION 12. Navigate to the model file that needs to be updated and click OPEN 13. Click LISTING > ZONES (See Figure D-2) 14. Click LAYOUT > READ LAYOUT 15. Navigate to the landuse.lla file and click OPEN 16. Click on the “Paste Attributes from Clipboard” icon on the upper left hand corner of the Land Use layout window (the icon looks like a clipboard and is located below the “Printer” icon on the Visum program window as illustrated in Figure D-2). 17. Click OK on the Read Attributes window that appears 18. Save the revised Visum model file. Visum now contains the updated land use file. City of Port Townsend Model Documentation – Appendix D April 2007 The Transpo Group | 06089\Model Documentation Final Draft.doc D-4 Figure D-2. Port Townsend Visum Model Land Use Layout Window. The following instructions explain how to run the Visum model with the revised land uses in order to update the traffic assignment to the model network: 1. Using the Visum software, open the Visum Model File (*.ver) that is to be updated, if it is not already open. 2. Click CALCULATE > PROCEDURES 3. Click the Execute button. 4. Save the revised Visum model file. The Visum model has now assigned traffic to the network based on the updated land use revisions. In order to view the traffic assignment to the network click FILE > OPEN GRAPHIC PARAMETERS Navigate to the Model Volumes.gpa file and click OK Appendix D: Transportation Impact Fee Report Port Townsend Transportation Functional Plan DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM REPORT Prepared for: City of Port Townsend January 2009 Prepared by: 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 06089.00 © 2008 Transpo Group City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 The Transpo Group M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Impact Fee\Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Report v2.doc i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 What are Transportation Impact Fees?........................................................................................1 How do Transportation Impact Fees Relate to Other Development Regulations?......................2 Why is the City Considering Transportation Impact Fees?..........................................................5 How is this Report Organized?.....................................................................................................6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PROGRAM..............................................................................7 How was the TIF Program Developed?.......................................................................................7 How is the TIF Service Area Defined?.........................................................................................8 What Improvement Projects and Costs are Included?.................................................................8 How are Project Costs Allocated to the TIF Program?..............................................................11 What Revenues may be Generated by the TIF Program?.........................................................12 What are the Resulting Transportation Impact Fees?...............................................................12 How does the Maximum Fee Rate Compare to Other Jurisdictions?........................................14 How are the Transportation Impact Fees Collected and Spent?...............................................14 When are Credits Provided?......................................................................................................15 Are any Developments Exempt from the Fees?........................................................................15 What are the Requirements Regarding Refunds?.....................................................................15 How Would the Fees be Kept Up to Date?................................................................................16 What are the Next Steps?..........................................................................................................16 Figures Figure 1. Elements of the Development Review Process...................................................1 Figure 2. Transportation Improvement Projects Eligible for TIF Program........................10 Figure 3. Example Traffic Impact Fees.............................................................................14 Tables Table 1. TIF Program Eligible Improvement Projects and Costs.......................................9 Table 2. Maximum Allowable Vehicle Trip Rate Fee.......................................................12 Table 3. Costs by Unit of Development...........................................................................13 APPENDIX A Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 1 Introduction The City of Port Townsend, like many local government agencies in Washington State, has a need for additional funding to improve and expand its transportation system to serve new growth. The City is considering adding a transportation impact fee program, as allowed under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), to help fund growth related transportation system improvements identified in the City’s Arterial Street Plan.. Currently, development projects in the City may be required to help fund transportation improvements through three different regulatory programs. These programs include: • Frontage improvements/development regulations • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Concurrency These existing programs are requirements that basically cover transportation impacts directly resulting from development; they do not specifically address the long-term transportation system needs resulting from the forecast growth. The City of Port Townsend is considering adding a transportation impact fee (TIF) program as the fourth piece of the transportation review and mitigation puzzle, as shown on Figure 1. Transportation Impact Fees are optional under GMA. The City prepared an analysis of potential use of TIFs which is summarized in this report. Figure 1. Elements of the Development Review Process What are Transportation Impact Fees? Transportation impact fees (TIFs) are a tool allowed under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) to help fund growth-related capital facility improvements to public streets and roads. Impact fees are also allowed under GMA to fund other public capital facilities such as parks, open space, recreation facilities, and fire protection. The following summarizes the GMA definition of an impact fee: City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 2 “Impact fee” means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. (source: RCW 82.02.090[3]) Impact fees are an optional element under GMA; agencies are not required to implement them. As noted above, they are a tool used to help mitigate some of the transportation impacts due to new development or redevelopment. GMA specifically requires that the impact fees: • Shall be only used for system improvements that are reasonably related to new development; • Be assessed proportional to or less than the impacts of new development; • Be allocated to system improvements that reasonably benefit new development; • Be collected for and spent on facilities included in the capital facilities element of the agency’s Comprehensive Plan. Impact fees can only be used for helping fund “system” improvements included in adopted capital facilities plans. For TIFs, system improvements are capital improvements designed to provide service for the community at-large. Impact fees cannot be used for “project” improvements, such as subdivision streets. Typically, agencies focus application of TIFs to arterial streets and key collector roads. TIFs can only be used to fund growth-related improvements. They cannot be used to resolve existing transportation deficiencies. To the extent an improvement serves growth and resolves an existing deficiency, the TIF cannot include the portion of the cost related to resolving the existing deficiency. TIFs also cannot be the only funding for the growth-related transportation improvement projects. The project cost allocations must account for other public funding which would be generated by developments in forms of taxes or user fees. The TIFs are implemented through development regulations adopted by ordinance. GMA sets specific minimum requirements for the TIF ordinance. How do Transportation Impact Fees Relate to Other Development Regulations? As noted above, TIFs are an optional element allowed under GMA. They are used to help mitigate some of a development’s potential transportation impacts. TIFs are used in conjunction with three other development review regulations as shown in Figure 1: • Development Regulations/Frontage Improvements • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Transportation Concurrency While transportation impact fees can change how agencies apply some of these other regulations, the other requirements do not go away with adoption of a TIF. The following summarizes the basic roles of the other development regulations. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 3 Development Regulations/Frontage Improvements When properties are subdivided or redeveloped, the permitting agency can require transportation and other improvements needed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare (RCW 58.17). This includes safe and convenient travel by the public. Frontage improvements and site development regulations help insure that the City street standards are met and that ultimately, new development is served by adequate roads. Developers can be required to construct the site’s frontage and on-site roadways based on the City’s adopted Road Standards. Frontage improvements apply to both vehicular and non- motorized facilities. Key elements related to addressing impacts to the transportation system include: • Addresses on-site impacts (access onto public rights-of-way) • Helps to insure that new development is served by adequate roads • Developer can be responsible for frontage along public and private roads • Can be used to address vehicular, transit, and non-motorized facilities serving the site State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), adopted in 1971 (RCW 43.21C), directs State and local decision-makers to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. Implementing regulations, in the form of the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11) establish uniform requirements for agencies to use in environmental impacts of a proposal. The process also allows review of possible project alternatives or mitigation measures that will reduce the environmental impact of a project. SEPA is typically used to review impacts within the immediate and nearby vicinity, such as vehicular access points, frontage right-of-way improvements and nearby intersections or roadways. SEPA uses the “significant adverse environmental impact” standard as the threshold for triggering mitigation. The intention of SEPA, as applied for transportation, is to mitigate a development’s significant adverse impact on the transportation system in terms of capacity and/or operations. SEPA reviews also address safety, specific access points, circulation needs, and impacts on neighborhoods, pedestrians, and transit facilities. (source: Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Handbook, 2003) The following summarizes key items of SEPA in the review of development projects: • Uses “significant adverse impact” standard (not just level of service) • Broad scope can be used to address capacity, safety, operations, non- motorized impacts and transit • Reviewed on a development by development basis • Can be used to mitigate both on and off-site impacts • Mitigation can be in the form of constructing improvements or payment of proportionate share of improvement costs • Pooling of funds is generally not allowed • Does not require denial of developments if standards are not met Concurrency The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.070) requires that infrastructure improvements or strategies to accommodate development be available when the impacts of development occur. For transportation facilities, concurrency is defined in the GMA and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) to mean that any needed transportation improvements or programs be in place at the time of development or that a City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 4 financial commitment exists to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Local governments have a significant amount of flexibility regarding how to set level of service standards and how to apply transportation concurrency within their plans, regulations, and permit systems. As part of the requirement to develop a comprehensive plan, jurisdictions are required to establish level-of-service standards for arterials, transit service, and other facilities, such as water and sewer. Once a jurisdiction sets a standard, it is used to determine whether the impacts of a proposed development can be met through existing capacity and/or to decide what level of mitigation will be required. If a “development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in its transportation element”, jurisdictions are required to prohibit development approval unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Transportation is the only area of concurrency that specifies denial of development. The Growth Management Hearings Boards reiterated the role of a concurrency program, finding that “the concept of concurrency is not an end in of itself but a foundation for local governments to achieve the coordinated, consistent, sustainable growth called for by the Act”. (source: Puget Sound Regional Council, Assessing the Effectiveness of Concurrency, 2002) Concurrency is a tool to insure that transportation facilities are constructed as growth occurs. Concurrency provides a link between land use, transportation, and public investment. The following identifies key requirements for concurrency programs: • Compliance with GMA • Local governments have flexibility in applying concurrency • Measured with level of service standards as defined by the City’s Comprehensive Plan • Addresses systemwide impacts • Developments are not to be approved if development causes the level of service to decline below identified standards Recently, the City of Port Townsend adopted Ordinance No. 2879 which requires further steps to implement concurrency programs to assure that the laws and policies are met. The City’s Arterial Street Plan, which was recently updated, concluded that concurrency will not be an immediate problem on City-owned streets. It also identified that most of the congestion will occur along the Sims Way/SR 20 corridor. However, Sims Way is a “highway of statewide significance” and therefore exempt from the concurrency program. The projects funded partially through the Transportation Impact Fee program, and included in the Arterial Street Plan, will largely address any future concurrency issues as long as they are implemented as development occurs. Transportation Impact Fees Under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), cities and counties are required to make appropriate provisions for transportation needs and impacts during the review of development proposals. The GMA grants local governments the authority to impose transportation impact fees (TIF) for the purpose of supporting the funding of roadway improvements to ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development. Transportation impact fees are assessed by local governments against new development projects to recover a portion of the costs incurred by government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. Transportation impact fees are only used to fund road improvements that are directly associated with new development. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 5 They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. In Washington, impact fees are authorized for those jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 to 82.02.100). Transportation Impact Fees are a tool to help mitigate development impacts for systemwide traffic impacts. The following summarizes the key points: • Enforces “growth pays for growth” principal • Funds must be spent on capacity projects that are designed to serve new growth and not fix existing deficiencies. • Addresses “system” wide impacts • Must be generally proportional to impacts of development • Based on proportionate share • Provides funding for six-year Capital Improvement Program • Funds must be spent on improvements that generally benefit the developments paying the fee • Funds assessed for several improvement needs can be “pooled” to address agency’s priority projects Why is the City Considering Transportation Impact Fees? Transportation revenues continue to decline, while the costs of maintenance, administration, and capital improvements have increased significantly. It has been difficult for the City to build needed capital improvement projects, while also preserving and maintaining existing transportation facilities. Adoption of a TIF will provide the City with a relatively reliable additional transportation funding mechanism to supplement its current transportation revenues. In addition, adoption of a TIF will provide the City more consistency in defining mitigation of development-related transportation impacts. Like many local agencies in Washington State, the City of Port Townsend has significantly more transportation improvement needs than they have consistent revenue sources to fund the needed transportation improvements. Increased housing and employment growth is forecast to continue in the City. The growth requires capacity and other improvements to safely and efficiently meet the increased transportation demands. These demands include passenger vehicles, trucks, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. TIFs can provide another source of transportation funding that is directly tied to the level of growth. The City’s current development review process using SEPA can result in equity issues. For example, several developments that impact a roadway or intersection may have been approved with little or no transportation mitigation. The next development that is applied for may add relatively minor traffic to the same intersection, but triggers the City’s level of service standard. This last development could be denied or conditioned to resolve the deficiency, while the other prior developments were not required to contribute to the improvement. Under a TIF program, each new development after the effective date of the TIF ordinance would help pay toward this and other growth-related transportation improvement projects. With a TIF in place, even the smallest developments (such as a single-family house) would help fund key transportation improvements proportional to their overall impact to the system. Currently, most small developments in the City pay little or no traffic mitigation under SEPA or Concurrency. The cumulative impacts of these small developments adds up over time placing the full burden on existing City transportation funding programs or on larger development projects that trigger improvements under SEPA or Concurrency standards. Furthermore, under SEPA, developer mitigation must be spent on the specific improvements at the impacted location. This requires the City to fund any remaining amount not paid for by City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 6 developers. By accepting 5 percent or less of the funding for an improvement, the City may need to commit the remaining 95 percent even if it was not the City’s highest priority transportation improvement. Under GMA, impact fees for different improvement locations can be “pooled” to allow the agency to fully fund its highest priority projects, even though the fees are assessed for a range of improvement projects. This makes the TIF process a more reliable source of funding. Developers in other parts of Washington have also indicated that under TIF programs they can better estimate their potential transportation mitigation costs. As noted above, most of the developments will still be subject to review under SEPA, concurrency, and frontage improvements which could result in additional mitigation costs above the TIF. These would include mitigation at locations not covered in the TIF or that require mitigation to pass concurrency. How is this Report Organized? The next section of this report summarizes the recommended transportation impact fee (TIF) program. It provides an overview of how the program was set up and what the maximum fees could be. It also highlights how the program would be implemented by the City of Port Townsend. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 7 Summary of Recommended Program The recommended Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program for the City of Port Townsend is based on detailed technical analyses, as well as policy direction. An overview of the key elements of the program is presented in this section. It covers the following key questions: • How was the TIF program developed? • How is the TIF service area defined? • What improvement projects and costs are included? • How are project costs allocated to the TIF program? • What revenues may be generated by the TIF program? • What are the resulting transportation impact fees? • How does the recommended fee compare to other jurisdictions? • How are the transportation impact fees collected and spent? • When are credits provided? • Are any developments exempt from the fees? • What are the requirements regarding refunds? • How would the fees be kept up to date? • What are the next steps? How was the TIF Program Developed? In order to meet the GMA requirements, the City of Port Townsend developed a specific methodology for calculating the transportation impact fees. The process included four basic tasks: • Definition of the Transportation Service Area • Identification of Transportation Impact Fee Eligible Projects • Calculation of the Base Impact Fees • Preparation of the Fee Schedule The Arterial Street Plan of the Transportation Functional Plan is the basis for the TIF. The Arterial Street Plan identifies existing and forecast transportation deficiencies based on 20- year traffic volumes. The forecasts were prepared using the recently constructed City of Port Townsend travel demand model. The Port Townsend model includes all arterial and collector streets and state roads. Some local streets were also included to allow the model to more accurately represent travel patterns. The calibrated 2006 model was used to create forecasts for the year 2026. Land use was updated to reflect the City’s projected growth estimates for employment and housing for the year 2026. The City of Port Townsend model is used to forecast weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions. The weekday PM peak hour typically has the highest overall travel demands and therefore, provides the basis for determining overall transportation improvement needs to support growth. The City model was used to define the amount and location of traffic growth through 2026 for the entire City. The model was also used to identify the travel patterns of the growth trips that benefit from the potential transportation impact fee projects. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 8 How is the TIF Service Area Defined? GMA requires an agency to establish one or more service areas for calculating and assessing the impact fees. In developing its TIF program, the City considered alternative service area concepts. The adopted concept established the entire City as a single service area. The City is treated as one transportation service area (TSA). Developments in any area of the City are assessed the same base fee per unit and type of development. The base fee is calculated by dividing the total project cost shares by the number of new vehicle trips within the entire City. The City selected the single service area for its TIF program because it would be simpler to administer and communicate. A single service area also is appropriate because growth traffic throughout the City will benefit from the TIF projects, especially those along Sims Way and Discovery Road which account for the majority of the TIF eligible project costs. What Improvement Projects and Costs are Included? The full list of projects in the City’s Arterial Street Plan was screened to identify improvement projects eligible to be included in the TIF program. The screening dropped improvements that focused on resolving existing deficiencies or non-growth related transportation needs (these are projects that would likely be done even without growth). Other possible TIF-eligible projects that were not considered included upgrades to several corridors to provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The remaining projects that were further considered for the TIF program included: • Upgrading collectors and arterials needed to accommodate higher traffic volumes, • Construction of new collector or arterials to address capacity and circulation needed for growth, • Constructing turn lanes and traffic controls to address capacity needs. The City of Port Townsend has identified an overall need of approximately $60 million (in 2007 dollars) to fund the transportation improvements identified in the Arterial Street Plan. Of these, the total cost for the potential TIF improvement projects totaled approximately $43 million in 2007 dollars. The TIF projects and costs include some improvements on the state highway that are critical to serving growth in the City. It has been assumed the City would contribute less than 50 percent towards the cost of the improvements, with WSDOT and other funding mechanisms responsible for the remaining amount. Figure 2 and Table 1 summarize the City of Port Townsend transportation improvement projects that were identified as being eligible for the TIF program. Some of the improvements are not yet adopted into the Capital Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will need to be updated based on the recommendations in the Transportation Functional Plan prior to the City adopting the TIF. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 9 Table 1. TIF Program Eligible Improvement Projects and Costs ID1 Project Name Project Limits Total Cost2 Potential Impact Fee Cost Comment 101 Howard Street Park Avenue to Discovery Road $3,095,000 $1,548,000 New arterial needed to accommodate growth 102 Howard Street Discovery Road to 20th Street $6,785,000 $3,393,000 New arterial needed to accommodate growth 103 Discovery Road Mill Road to Howard Street $5,370,000 $3,759,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth 104 Discovery Road Howard Street to McPherson Street $3,375,000 $2,363,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth 105 Discovery Road McPherson Street to 19th Street $4,305,000 $3,014,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth 106 Discovery Road 19th Street to Hastings Avenue $4,670,000 $3,269,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth 107 Hastings Avenue Sheridan Street to Discovery Road $3,875,000 $2,713,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth 108 Sims Way and Howard Street Park Avenue to Cliff Street $1,710,000 $855,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth. 109 Sims Way Cliff Street to Thomas Street $1,145,000 $573,000 Roadway improvement needed to accommodate growth. 301 Mill Road Discovery Road to Sims Way $2,890,000 $1,156,000 Roadway and intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 302 Sims Way & Howard Street Intersection $1,060,000 $530,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 303 Sims Way & Thomas Street Intersection $935,000 $468,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 304 Sims Way & Sheridan Street Intersection $860,000 $215,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 305 Discovery Road & Howard Street Intersection $1,035,000 $828,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 306 Discovery Road & Sheridan Street Intersection $220,000 $176,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 307 Blaine Street & Kearney Street Intersection $150,000 $120,000 Intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth 308 Sims Way Kearney Street to Washington Street $1,630,000 $408,000 Roadway and intersection improvements needed to accommodate growth Total Costs $43,110,000$25,388,000 1. Project identification number from Arterial Street Plan. 2. Preliminary planning-level cost estimates in 2007 dollars. Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay City of Port Townsend 108 109 103 102 104 105 106 107 101 308 307306 304303 302 301 305 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD FIR ST 35TH ST C O O K AV E 49TH ST LANDES ST HOWARD ST 19TH ST W ST K E A R N E Y S T HASTINGS AVE W A T E R S T SAN JUAN AVE SI M S WA Y ADMIRALTY ST B E N T O N S T DI S C O V E R Y R D CENTER ST CHERRY ST S DISC OV ER Y RD U M A TIL L A A V E L A W R E N C E S T H A R R I S O N S T SHERIDAN ST J A C K S O N S T Transportation Improvement Projects Eligible for TIF Program Port Townsend Transportation Functional Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 2 Transportation Improvement Projects Eligible. . . Legend Intersection Improvements Arterial/Collector Improvements (New) Arterial/Collector Improvements Local Streets City Limits FIGURE 2 City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 11 How are Project Costs Allocated to the TIF Program? The citywide TIF program is based on weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions. The City’s travel demand model was used to segment forecasted traffic into four components, as shown below. On one side you have existing traffic versus growth traffic. The other axis divides traffic into those trips that have an origin and/or destination within the City. The only trips included in the impact fee program are growth trips with at least an origin or destination (or both) within the City. As shown in the diagram, the City would only charge the TIF for growth trips with at least an origin or destination (or both) within Port Townsend. Origin or Destination Within the City No Origin or Destination Within the City Existing traffic Not charged Not charged Growth traffic IMPACT FEE Not charged For example, a trip that uses the ferry service in Port Townsend without originating or ending in Port Townsend is not chargeable in the fee program, although its effect on the City road system is included in the travel forecasting process. The travel forecasting model was applied to allocate the costs of TIF projects based on the origins and destinations of the growth trips. To perform the calculation, the 2006 base year trip table and the 2026 future year trip table were assigned to the 2026 model network. The vehicle trips for each trip table were then tracked through each TIF improvement project. Tracking the trips through each improvement project is done through a modeling technique called “select link” analyses. In conducting a select link analysis for a specific improvement project, a specific group of links or nodes of the future Arterial Street Plan network are identified and the model assignment is performed. The select link assignment tracks and accounts for all of the trips using or impacting the selected group of links and/or nodes. The select link trip tables for the 2006 and 2026 model runs were then subtracted from one another to develop a net growth trip table. The select link assignment results for each improvement project were then evaluated to determine the number of growth trips that have origins or destinations within the City. These were separated from the non-City growth trips that did not have an origin or destination within the City. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 12 What Revenues may be Generated by the TIF Program? The total cost of the capital improvements shown in the Arterial Street Plan is approximately $60 million. WSDOT, grants, and other local funding mechanisms are expected to contribute to fund improvements along Sims Way (SR 20). Approximately $25 million or 40 percent of the total cost would be covered by the impact fee program. The remaining City share would have to be covered by other sources including: • Tax revenues (real estate excise taxes, sales and use taxes, motor vehicle fuel taxes) • Grants (Surface Transportation Program, State Transportation Improvement Board, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, …) • Developer commitments (frontage improvements, traffic impact mitigations pursuant to SEPA, and/or improvements to meet concurrency requirements). What are the Resulting Transportation Impact Fees? The cost share of the impact fee projects is divided by the number of PM peak hour growth trips between 2006 to 2026 to calculate a cost per new weekday PM peak hour trip generated. As previously noted, the weekday PM peak hour typically carries the highest volume of traffic and is generally used to identify transportation improvements needed to serve growth. The number of new weekday PM peak hour growth trips in the City is based on the City’s travel demand model which incorporates forecast changes in households and employment within the City. The maximum amount the City can charge new development is approximately $5,500 per new weekday PM peak hour trip generated. Table 2 shows the total cost of TIF eligible project costs and the net new PM peak hour trips expected to be generated over the next 20 years. Table 2. Maximum Allowable Vehicle Trip Rate Fee Citywide Impact Fee Project Costs1 $25,384,000 New PM Peak Hour Trips2 4,614 Maximum Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip3 $5,501 1. The total project costs that can be allocated to the impact fee program. 2. The number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips that are estimated over the next 20-years. 3. The maximum cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip for the entire City. The City does not have to apply this maximum impact fee rate. Instead, the City Council may choose to start implementing the Transportation Impact Fee program with a lower fee rate, with a gradual increase phased in over time. Other sources of revenue would need to be identified to make up the difference in revenue to adequately fund the impact fee funded projects. A transportation impact fee schedule for a wide range of typical land uses was prepared based on this maximum amount that can be charged. The rate schedules were calculated as follows: Transportation Impact Fee Rate = Base Cost per New PM Peak Hour Trip x Base Trip Rate per Unit of Development x Pass-by Trip Adjustment Factor City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 13 Base trip rates and pass-by trip adjustment factors are provided by the Trip Generation manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 7th edition, 2003. The document provides data on the average PM peak hour trip generation rate for a wide range of land uses. The ITE rates are based on studies from around the United States using standardized sampling and reporting methods. The trip rates are based on units of development. Typically, trip rates for residential units are based on the number of dwelling units. Trip rates for employment categories can be reported for several different variables, with the most typical being reported as trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. The base PM peak hour trip rate reported in Trip Generation reflects the volume of traffic entering and exiting a development at its site access roadways or driveways during the weekday afternoon peak commuter period. Trip Generation notes that for some retail and other commercial land uses, not all of the trips accessing/exiting the development are “new” to the road system, but are “pass-by” trips. Pass-by trips account for traffic that would be traveling on the adjacent streets but make an intermediate stop at the new development. A driver making a trip from work to home that stops at a gas station along the route is an example of a pass-by trip. These gas station trips which would not be new to the adjacent road system would not be charged the TIF. If the driver makes a short detour to access the gas station or another intermediate stop, the trip would be called a diverted trip. For the broader purposes of assessing transportation impacts of new development, the diverted trips also are not assessed the TIF. Therefore, the rate schedule includes an adjustment for converting base trip generation rates into “net new” PM peak hour traffic. Table 3 shows the resulting impact fees for several typical land use types. Appendix A includes the full rate schedules for a broader list of land use categories. Table 3. Costs by Unit of Development Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit1 Net New Trip Rate2 Cost per Unit of Development Cost Per New PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip$5,501 Single-Family 210 Dwelling Unit 1.01 $5,556 Multi-Family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 $3,411 Office 710 1,000 sf GFA 1.49 $8,196 Light Industrial 110 1,000 sf GFA 0.98 $5,391 Specialty Retail 814 1,000 sf GLA 1.79 $9,839 Big Box Retail 813 1,000 sf GFA 2.79 $15,328 Fast Food Restaurant3 934 1,000 sf GFA 17.32 $95,277 1. GFA = Gross Floor Area; GLA = Gross Leasable Area.. 2. Retail trip rate adjusted for pass-by trips. 3. With Drive-Through The impact fee assessed for a specific development would simply be calculated by multiplying the number of units by the rate per unit. (Total Transportation Impact Fee = Number of Units x Impact Fee per Unit) The fee schedule allows City staff and development applicants to readily estimate their transportation impact fees prior to initiating the more detailed development review process. As required under GMA, the City ordinance must allow applicants to submit their own studies which the City will consider in setting the final fee for a project. These could take into account specific characteristics of the development, the potential reduction of existing trips (e.g. through redevelopment) independent trip generation analyses based on similar projects, and other factors. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 14 How does the Maximum Fee Rate Compare to Other Jurisdictions? The City of Port Townsend’s maximum fee rate for a single-family house is compared to other jurisdictions within the State of Washington on Figure 4. The maximum fee for a new single- family house is $5,500. This is on the upper end of fees as compared to many communities throughout the state (mostly western Washington). Kitsap County has a fee rate of $550. Other nearby communities are currently considering implementing transportation impact fees, such as the City of Sequim. The City of Port Townsend could consider a lower fee rate when the Transportation Impact Fee program is first introduced. For instance, the City could choose to apply a fee rate of $2,500 for a single-family house (representing less than half the maximum impact fee rate). Then, the City could consider a gradual increase of the fee rate phased over time. For instance, 25 percent of the additional allowable fee amount could be added each year over a period of 4 years. Figure 3. Example Traffic Impact Fees How are the Transportation Impact Fees Collected and Spent? The ordinance requires payment of the TIF at the time of issuance of the building permit. The required fees would be those in effect at that time. Under GMA, the City must set up a separate account in its accounting processes for the collected impact fees. This account would be similar to other tax or fee accounts currently used by the City. The City will need to track the fees that are collected and where they are spent. The City would encumber the fees as part of its annual budgeting process to assure the funds are properly spent. Collected fees must be spent within six years of receipt, unless an extraordinary reason is identified in written findings by the City Council. City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 15 The City may only spend the collected fees on improvement projects identified in the TIF (see Table 1). The fees may be spent on planning, engineering design, acquisition of right-of-way, or construction of any of the TIF improvement projects. When are Credits Provided? As required under GMA, the City must provide credits for the “value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developed, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the county, city, or town as a condition of approving the development activity” (RCW 82.02.060[3]). The credits provision is to assure that a development is not assessed twice for a specific impact. This could occur if the City requires frontage improvements be constructed which are also part of the adopted TIF program project list. The City also could require that a development improve an intersection or roadway under SEPA or concurrency that is also covered by the TIF. Credits against the TIF would have to be provided to the extent that the improvements and/or land use dedication are consistent with the definition of the TIF project and the cost estimating parameters used in the TIF. Providing credits to applicants against the TIF assessments will reduce the actual TIF revenues collected by the City. However, the net affect will be completion of the TIF improvements in a timely manner. Are any Developments Exempt from the Fees? GMA allows the City to provide for exemptions from the impact fees for development activities that have a broad public purpose (RCW 82.02.060[2]). These broad public purposes could include low-income housing, parks, schools, government buildings, fire or water district facilities, transit facilities, etc. If the City chooses to allow for exemptions for some uses providing broad public purposes, the City will collect less revenue from the program. This loss of revenue would need to be paid from other (non-impact fee) funds. This could be grants, general funds, or other appropriate taxes. The TIF ordinance lists the following exemptions: (a) Alteration, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing unit where no additional units are created and the use is not changed. (b) A change in use that results in no additional impact to the City’s transportation system. (c) The construction of accessory structures that will not create additional transportation impacts on system improvements. (d) A structure moved from one location within the City to another location within the City. The vacated lot will not be exempted from paying all appropriate impact fees upon development. What are the Requirements Regarding Refunds? RCW 82.02.080 sets forth requirements for the City to provide refunds for previously collected TIF revenues. First, if the City fails to expend or encumber the fees within six years, the fees may need to be refunded to the current owner of the property for which the fees City of Port Townsend Transportation Impact Fee Program Report DRAFT January 2009 Page 16 were paid. This is not typically an issue because the fees can be spent on design, right of way acquisition, and construction of projects included in the TIF program. The property owner must submit the request in writing to the City. If the City terminated “any or all impact fee requirements” any unexpended or unencumbered fees must be refunded to the current owners of property on which an impact fee has been paid. The third provision for refunds would be applied when the fees for a proposed development were paid but the development does not proceed to construction. The applicant may request a full refund, with interest, for these fees because the impact that was mitigated did not materialize. Any of these refund provisions could reduce the actual fees generated by the program. How Would the Fees be Kept Up to Date? Most communities with adopted impact fee programs incorporate an annual cost escalation process. The cost escalator is based on an index that reflects changes in improvement costs for the area. The City’s TIF ordinance requires the use of the WSDOT Construction Cost Index (CCI) to annually adjust the traffic impact fee rate schedule. The WSDOT cost index is a good source for adjusting the City TIF rate because it is tracks the cost of transportation related material and labor. The City also should plan to update the TIF rates as new transportation improvement projects are defined as part of any update to its Comprehensive Plan. Significant changes in forecast residential or employment growth from those in the current City model also would result in a need to update the TIF program. Changes in land use and improvement projects would likely occur as part of the required GMA Comprehensive Plan update or as part of the City’s annual Comprehensive Plan review process. What are the Next Steps? Both the TIF ordinance and the Transportation Functional Plan (Arterial Street Plan) will need to be adopted by City Council before the TIF program goes into effect. Appendix A: Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees Land Use Category - Trip Generation, 7th Edition *Notes ITE Land Use Code ITE Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate (1)Unit** Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor *** (2) Net New Trip Rate (3) Impact Fee Per Unit (4) RESIDENTIAL Single-Family Detached Housing32101.01Dwelling Unit1.001.015,556 Apartment32200.62Dwelling Unit1.000.623,411 Low-Rise Apartment (1-2 Floors)32210.58Occupied Dwelling Unit1.000.583,191 High -Rise Apartment (>10 floors)32220.35Dwelling Unit1.000.351,925 Mid-Rise Apartment (3-10 floors)32230.39Dwelling Unit1.000.392,145 Residential Condominium/Townhouse32300.52Dwelling Unit1.000.522,861 Mobile Home Park32400.59Occupied Dwelling Unit1.000.593,246 Senior Adult Housing-Detached32510.26Dwelling Unit1.000.261,430 Senior Adult Housing-Attached2520.11Occupied Dwelling Unit1.000.11605 Congregate Care Facility12530.17Occupied Dwelling Unit1.000.17935 Assisted Living2540.22Bed1.000.221,210 Recreational Homes12600.26Dwelling Unit1.000.261,430 Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD)32700.62Dwelling Unit1.000.623,411 INSTITUTIONAL County Park14120.06Acre1.000.06330 Beach Park14151.30Acre1.001.307,151 Regional Park14170.20Acre1.000.201,100 Golf Course 14300.30Acre1.000.301,650 Multipurpose Recreational Facility14353.351,000 sf GFA1.003.3518,428 Bowling Alley14373.541,000 sf GFA1.003.5419,474 Movie Theater with Matinee14440.07Seat1.000.07385 Casino/Video Lottery Establishment47313.431,000 sf GFA1.0013.4373,878 Tennis Courts14903.88Tennis Court1.003.8821,344 Recreational Community Center14951.641,000 sf GFA1.001.649,022 Health/Fitness Club 14924.051,000 sf GFA1.004.0522,279 Elementary School4520n/a (see note)1,000 sf GFA1.00n/an/a Middle School/Junior High School5221.191,000 sf GFA1.001.196,546 High School5300.971,000 sf GFA1.000.975,336 Church5600.661,000 sf GFA1.000.663,631 Day Care Center56513.181,000 sf GFA1.0013.1872,503 Library 5907.091,000 sf GFA1.007.0939,002 Hospital6101.181,000 sf GFA1.001.186,491 Nursing Home16200.421,000 sf GFA1.000.422,310 Clinic 16301.23Employee1.001.236,766 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL Hotel3100.59Room1.000.593,246 All Suites Hotel13110.40Room1.000.402,200 Motel3200.47Room1.000.472,585 Resort Hotel33300.42Room1.000.422,310 Building Materials and Lumber Store2(a), 38124.491,000 sf GFA0.753.3718,525 Free-Standing Discount Superstore8133.871,000 sf GFA0.722.7915,328 Specialty Retail Center1, 2(b), 38142.711,000 sf GLA0.661.799,839 Free-Standing Discount Store8155.061,000 sf GFA0.834.2023,103 Hardware/Paint Store38164.841,000 sf GFA0.743.5819,702 Nursery (Garden Center)2(a)8173.801,000 sf GFA0.722.7415,051 Nursery (Wholesale)2(a)8185.171,000 sf GFA0.723.7220,477 Shopping Center5820n/a (see note)1,000 sf GLA0.66n/an/a Factory Outlet Center2(b)8232.291,000 sf GFA0.661.518,314 New Car Sales2(a)8412.641,000 sf GFA0.751.9810,892 Automobile Parts Sales1,38435.981,000 sf GFA0.573.4118,751 Tire Store8484.151,000 sf GFA0.722.9916,437 Tire Superstore2(e)8492.111,000 sf GFA0.721.528,357 Supermarket385010.451,000 sf GFA0.646.6936,791 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours)85152.411,000 sf GFA0.3920.44112,440 Convenience Market (Open 15-16 Hours)1, 2(i)85234.571,000 sf GFA0.3913.4874,166 Convenience Market with Gasonline Pumps 85319.22Vehicle Fueling Position0.346.5335,948 Discount Supermarket38548.901,000 sf GFA0.776.8537,698 Discount Club2(f)8614.241,000 sf GFA0.773.2617,960 Home Improvement Superstore8622.451,000 sf GFA0.521.277,008 Electronic Superstore18634.501,000 sf GFA0.602.7014,853 Toy/Children's Superstore1, 2(b)8644.991,000 sf GFA0.663.2918,117 Pet Supply Superstore1, 2(b)8664.961,000 sf GFA0.663.2718,008 Office Supply1, 2(f)8673.401,000 sf GFA0.772.6214,402 Book Superstore1, 2(b)86819.531,000 sf GFA0.6612.8970,907 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore1, 2(b)8694.011,000 sf GFA0.662.6514,559 Apparel Store2(b)8703.831,000 sf GFA0.662.5313,905 Art and Craft Store1, 2(f)8796.211,000 sf GFA0.774.7826,304 Pharmacy/Drug Store without Drive-Through8808.421,000 sf GFA0.473.9621,770 Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive-Through8818.621,000 sf GFA0.514.4024,183 Furniture Store8900.461,000 sf GFA0.470.221,189 Video Rental Store2(b), 389613.601,000 sf GFA0.668.9849,377 Walk-in Bank1, 2(d)91133.151,000 sf GFA0.5317.5796,650 Drive-in Bank91245.741,000 sf GFA0.5324.24133,356 Quality Restaurant 9317.491,000 sf GFA0.564.1923,073 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 93210.921,000 sf GFA0.576.2234,240 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Through1, 2(g)93326.151,000 sf GFA0.5013.0871,926 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through93434.641,000 sf GFA0.5017.3295,277 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop2(c)9415.19Servicing Position0.572.9616,274 Automobile Care Center1, 2(c)9423.381,000 sf GLA0.571.9310,598 Automobile Parts and Service Center1, 2(c)9434.461,000 sf GLA0.572.5413,985 Gasoline/Service Station 94413.86Vehicle Fueling Position0.588.0444,221 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market94513.38Vehicle Fueling Position0.445.8932,385 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash2(h)94613.33Vehicle Fueling Position0.445.8732,264 Self-Service Car Wash2(h)9475.54Wash Stall0.442.4413,409 City of Port Townsend Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees 1 of 2 Land Use Category - Trip Generation, 7th Edition *Notes ITE Land Use Code ITE Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate (1)Unit** Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor *** (2) Net New Trip Rate (3) Impact Fee Per Unit (4) City of Port Townsend Schedule of Transportation Impact Fees OFFICE General Office Building37101.491,000 sf GFA1.001.498,196 Corporate Headquarters Building37141.401,000 sf GFA1.001.407,701 Single Tenant Office Building37151.731,000 sf GFA1.001.739,517 Medical-Dental Office Building37203.721,000 sf GFA1.003.7220,464 Government Office Building17301.201,000 sf GFA1.001.206,601 United States Post Office73210.891,000 sf GFA1.0010.8959,906 Office Park37501.501,000 sf GFA1.001.508,252 Research and Development Center37601.081,000 sf GFA1.001.085,941 Business Park37701.291,000 sf GFA1.001.297,096 INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial31100.981,000 sf GFA1.000.985,391 General Heavy Industrial 11200.88Employee1.000.884,841 Industrial Park 1300.861,000 sf GFA1.000.864,731 Manufacturing31400.741,000 sf GFA1.000.744,071 Warehousing31500.471,000 sf GFA1.000.472,585 Mini-Warehouse1510.261,000 sf GFA1.000.261,430 Utilities 11700.761,000 sf GFA1.000.764,181 PORT and TERMINAL Truck Terminal1300.55Employee1.000.553,026 Park-and-Ride Lot with Bus Service3900.62Parking Space1.000.623,411 * Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition, 2003 ** Abbreviations include: GFA = Gross Floor Area, sf = square feet, and GLA = Gross Leasable Area. *** The Pass-By Trip Reduction Factor reduces the Average Trip Rate based on average Pass-By trip percentages published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition, 2004). NET NEW TRIP RATE CALCULATION: $5,501 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION: NOTES: (1) Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) has less than 6 studies supporting this average rate. Applicants are strongly encouraged to conduct, at their own expense, independent trip generation studies in support of their application. (2) No pass-by rates are available. Pass-by rates were estimated from other similar uses. CodeLand UsePass-By Trip Reduction Factor 2 (a)No Data Available 25% Estimated Pass-by0.75 2 (b)Shopping Center (850)0.66 2 (c)Auto Parts Sales (843)0.57 2 (d)Bank/Drive-In (912)0.53 2 (e)Tire Store (848)0.72 2 (f)Discount Supermarket (854)0.77 2 (g)Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (934)0.50 2 (h)Gasoline/Service Station w/ Convenience Market (945)0.44 2 (i)Convenience Market (24 Hr) (851)0.39 (3) Alternatively, the PM peak hour trip regression equation in Trip Generation can be used instead of the average trip rate identified in the table. However the equation must be used according to the instructions in Trip Generation. (4) No Average PM peak hour trip rate available. Need to perform own PM peak hour traffic count for the identified land use to calculate impact fee. (5) ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition, 2003) equation used instead of trip rate. SOURCE: The Transpo Group (2009). Intended for the sole use by the City of Port Townsend. ITE Trip Rate (1) Pass-By Reduction Factor (2) X Net New Trip Rate (3) = Net New Trip Rate (3) X Per New PM Peak Hour Trip = Impact Fee per Unit of Development (4) X 2 of 2 Appendix E: School District Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-1 Appendix E – School District 1. Jefferson County Traffic Safety Task Force meeting report for December 5, 2007 Including WSDOT "Safe Routes to Schools" (SRTS) program presentation 2. Meeting Report for January 24, 2008 with School District Superintendent and others 3. Port Townsend School District "School Walking Routes" Cover page "School Walking Routes" Grant Street Elementary School Walking Routes (2 pages) Grant Street Elementary, 1 mile radius map, city view Grant Street Elementary, 1 mile radius map, local view Mountain View Intermediate School Walking Routes (3 pages) Mountain View Intermediate, 1 mile radius map, city view Mountain View Intermediate, 1 mile radius map, local view Port Townsend High School Walking Routes, no maps (none for Blue Heron Middle School as noted above) 4. Port Townsend School District Bus Routes From http://www.ptsd.wednet.edu/transportation/bus_routes.html 5. Discover Your World – Safe Routes To Schools web site A joint effort between The Bicycle Alliance of Washington and WSDOT http://www.saferoutes-wa.org/, includes a link to SRTS grant applications it also includes a link to a series of SRTS training sessions around the state 6. Washington State Traffic Safety Commission web site School Zone Safety program The web site for that program is http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/programs/schlzone.php. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-2 Southwick Enterprises 64 Queets Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone (360) 379-2878 Email larrysouth@cablespeed.com Jefferson County Traffic Safety Task Force December 5, 2007 Meeting Report I attended the meeting at the Jefferson County Library from 1:30 to 3:30 pm to gain information and contacts with regard to the Transportation Functional Plan, specifically for the Safe Routes to Schools Program. In attendance were WSDOT program and operations staff, WSP, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Public Works, Port Townsend Police, Superintendents from both Port Townsend and Chimacum School Districts, the Grant Street School Principal, the PT/Chimacum schools transportation director, David McCullough, myself and perhaps others I didn’t identify. The program was sponsored by the Jeff Co Sheriff's Dept and specifically provided by the WSDOT Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Coordinator, Charlotte Claybrooke. She gave a power point presentation and handout, scanned copy below. She also provided a couple other handouts, both "Safe Routes to School" but I didn't scan them (I can make copies if you'd like). The next round of STRS grant applications will be announced in January or February 2008 but will be compiled for the 2009 legislative session. The total level of funding is around $11 M for the state. It will be announced on their website. Charlotte also discussed the "Flashing Beacon Program" but no slides or handouts. That program is sponsored by the WA State Traffic Safety Commission, contact Lynn Drake, and has provided funding for 2007 but not yet available for future projects. They have funded but not yet installed flashing beacons for the Chimacum main campus intersection. They will be installed by the WSDOT crews but the O&M is negotiated with the local school in the project agreement. There was quite a bit of discussion about issues surrounding the Grant Street School and Discovery Road. If the PT School bond issue in March 2008 is approved, it will fund major improvements and changes at that school, including revising all of the traffic access routes for both busses and the public, likely including direct access onto Discovery Road. Most were well aware of the issues of traffic and problems on that route that will need to be jointly addressed by the school and city. A site distance problem eastbound approaching the Grant Street intersection was mentioned that will need to be solved. After the formal presentation, we broke up into interest groups and we had the PT Superintendent, school transportation manager, David McCullough and myself (the Grant Street Principal had to leave early for another commitment) around a table for an introductory level discussion about some of the issues there. It provided a good opportunity for me to get acquainted with the school people so I can better work on that element of the transportation plan. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-3 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-4 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-5 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-6 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-7 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-8 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-9 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-10 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-11 Southwick Enterprises 64 Queets Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone (360) 379-2878 Email larrysouth@cablespeed.com Transportation Functional Plan Contacts Report Wednesday, January 24, 2008 Port Townsend School District I met with Tom Opstad – Superintendent, Patrick Kane – High School Asst Principal, Diana Post – Transportation Manager (in conjunction with the Chimacum School District) and Sgt. Troy Surber of the PT Police Dept. assigned to school safety and related issues. I explained the overall project and the need for all kinds of related transportation information from the District. They are a major player in the transportation system with busses, parent and student vehicles, non-motorized – both peds and bikes, as well as significant attractions and generators of traffic. We mostly discussed the long range plans for both the high school campus and the Grant Street Elementary re-development. There are a lot of detailed current and future transportation elements around each site but I won't get into the details in this meeting report. The Superintendent will provide some current and planning level documents that will help provide the basis for discussing those details. We will need to include discussions about current and future traffic access and circulation for busses, students and other traffic, major changes in parking, needs for pedestrian facilities and speed tables to slow school zone traffic like those on San Juan at the Blue Heron Middle School. The District and the City will need to work closely as those plans are developed in more detail. The Superintendent said they will be going out for a bond issue to include substantial planning funds for those efforts in the near future. They anticipate the bond issue for the major Grant Street Elementary project in early 2009. That project will relocate all major traffic to the Discovery Road side of the site including busses, general public and parking. They will retain the current parking lot on Grant Street but that will be for access to some facilities, not the major focus. That would allow returning Grant Street to two-way where it's now one-way. Sgt. Surber suggested several directional traffic signs telling the general public and other school team busses the best routes for getting from Highway 20 to the high school. He may convey those to me or directly to Public Works. I will schedule a followup meeting with Diana Post at her office in Chimacum to discuss the bus routes and Safe Routes to Schools (non-motorized) issues in more detail. I'll also schedule a followup meeting with Asst Principal Kane regarding the transportation issues around the high school site. Sgt. Surber has a thorough understanding of all these issues and will be a valuable resource. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-12 School Walking Routes Developed for Chimacum Creek Primary By Chimacum/Port Townsend Schools Transportation Department 2008/09 It is important for Administers of each school to make sure that all students, current and enrolling, living within a 1 mile radius, be giving a copy of the “Safe Walking Routes”. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-13 GRANT STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1637 Grant Street Port Townsend Wa 98368 School Walking Routes FACTS: All streets within 1 mile are 25 mph and 20 in the School zone except for Sims Way. One crossing Guard 19th & Sheridan Main road to walk Discovery Sheridan Grant St. 14th 16th 19th ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DISCOVERY School Bus Route 203 services Discovery. Bus stops are @ Howard Town point (stand @ school side of entrance) Sherman McPherson (Bus Shed) Side walks Start @ Grant to Sheridan. There is a walking path from Sherman to Daycare. At Discovery & Sherman a posted School Crossing Sign, as well there is a crosswalk. Speed limit 25 Limited shoulders from Grant west on Discovery. Cross walk @ Discovery & Grant Traffic is heavy. School Zone Starts @ Sherman. 20 mph ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sheridan (South of Discovery) School Bus Route 204 services Sheridan. Bus stop are @ 3rd Grant 7th & Sheridan (Cross Walk) 10th & Sheridan (Cross Walk) 12th & Sheridan (Cross Walk) 14th & Sheridan (Cross Walk) At 19th & Sheridan there is a .. “four way stop”. Crossing Guard Posted School Zone @ 16th Cross Walks At 17th & Sheridan there is a cross walk At 16th & Sheridan there is a cross walk, No Crossing Guard. There are stop signs at all cross roads entering Sheridan from 7th to 18th . Paved wide shoulders are present along Sheridan. Bike path from 14th to 19th Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-14 All Students coming from roads East of Sheridan should walk to 16th or 19th to cross. All students west of Sheridan Should Travel on the West side of the road and enter Grant St from 16th or 19th . Traffic is heavy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sheridan (North of 19th ) School Bus Route 203 service Sheridan North. Bus stop are @ Sheridan & 20th (School Zone Begins) Sheridan & 25th At 19th And Sheridan It is a “four way stop”. Crossing Guard Posted School Zone Cross Walks Side walks from 19th to Hastings Cross walks @ Hastings & Sheridan All Students coming off any side road west or east of Sheridan, must travel to 19th and Sheridan to cross. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 19th School Bus Route 203 services 19th & Hill After dropping off at Mountain View AM, & Before Mountain View in the PM. Students can cross At Sheridan & 19th Crossing Guard Crosswalk. School Zone Begins @ 19th & Discovery A posted School Crossing Sign. Traffic is heavy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Grant Street Side walks on both sides of Grant Street from 16th to Discovery. One way traffic on Grant , (south bound) Traffic parking on both sides of the street. Four cross walks @ Main entrance 16th & Grant North corner of school Discovery & Grant @ Grant on 16th to Sheridan, dirt shoulders. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-15 MOUNTAIN VIEW INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 1919 Blain Street Port Townsend Wa 98368 School Walking Routes Facts: All streets within 1 mile are 25 mph and 20 in the School zone. Three Crossing Guards: 19th & Kearney Cherry & Blaine Parking Lot exit of school Main roads to walk Blaine 19th Cherry (north of Blaine) Walker (cross walk) Lawrence: Cross At Walker San Juan (Cross Walk) Kearney (East Side of Street) F Street 19th Street Changes name to Blaine @ Kearney Traffic conditions are ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 19th Street School Bus Route 203 has stops @ 19th & Hill All students south of 19th must travel on the South side of 19th . (Paved bike lane) Kuhn Landes Hill Jackman Holcomb Gise Wilson Cross walks @ San Juan @ Kearney School Zone Starts @150 feet before Kearney & Blaine Side Walk Starts @ San Juan and continue through to the school Students enter at the “parking lot” entrance. (Cross walk) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cherry Street School Bus Route 202 has stops at F Street & Cherry All Students coming from north of Cherry & Blaine must travel on the West side of Cherry. Golf Course Side) Van Ness A Street E Street Crosswalks @ Van Ness F St Side Walks from Blaine to A Street on the Golf Course side of road. Wide shoulders after that. School Zone Starts @ A Street & Van Ness Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-16 Crossing Guard @ Blaine & Cherry Crossing Guard @ “exit of parking lot” Students Enter @ “exit of parking lot” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Walker Street All Students west of Walker must travel in to Walker and walk on the west side of Walker street. Clay Franklin Jefferson Lawrence Lincoln Scott Washington Side Walks from Blaine To Lawrence Crosswalks @ Lincoln & Walker @ Lawrence & Walker Crossing Guard @ Blaine & Walker, However the students will enter school grounds at the “ Parking lot Exit”. Crossing Guard @ “ Parking Lot Exit” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kearney Street All Students coming in on Kearney Must travel on the East side of the street out to Blaine and enter the school at the “Parking lot Entrance”. Side walks from Lawrence to Blaine on the west side of the street. School zone Starts @ Kearney & Blaine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F Street School Bus Route 202 has a bus stop @ F street & Cherry All students walking in from north of F Street must cross at F and Cherry. Walk on the west side of Cherry. Sidewalks from San Juan Tyler (both sides of road) Crosswalks @ F Street & Cherry (4-way stop) Crossing Guard @ Cherry & Blaine Crossing Guard @ “Parking Lot Exit” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Walker Street East All Students Walking in from streets east of Walker must come out to Lawrence traveling on the north side of the road and cross at Lawrence & Walker. All of the following streets have stop signs @ Walker Cass Calhoun Benton Garfield Crosswalk @ Lawrence & Walker. @Lincoln Crossing Guard @ Blaine & Walker, However the students will enter school grounds at the “ Parking lot Exit”. Crossing Guard @ “ Parking Lot Exit”. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-17 Lawrence Street School Bus Route 202 has bus stops @ Cass @Pierce @Taylor @Washington & Van Buren All students coming from any side street off of Lawrence must travel on the North side to Walker. Crosswalks @ Benton @ Pierce @Walker Heavy Traffic. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ San Juan All Students coming from any side street off San Juan, must travel on the East side of road. School Bus Route 202 has Bus stops @ Umatilla @ Tremont Sidewalks on the East side of street Crosswalks @ San Juan & 19th @ 20th @22nd @24th @25th Bike lanes both sides of San Juan. Heavy Traffic. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page E-18 PORT TOWSEND HIGH SCHOOL 1500 VAN NESS STREET PORT TOWNSEND WA. 98368 School Walking Routes Facts: All streets within 1 mile are 25 mph and 20 in the School zone. There are no Crossing Guards for this age group. Main roads to walk: F Street Fir Street Lawrence Blain Cherry Crosswalks locations: F street & Cherry F street & Fir ** ** Appendix F: Transportation Concurrency Management Program Overview Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page F-1 Appendix F – Transportation Concurrency Management Program Overview As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the City of Port Townsend has adopted level of service standards as part of the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan. GMA further requires that the City “adopt ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of its comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements and strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Concurrent with development shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financed commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years” [RCW 36.70A.070 (6) (6)] The following summarizes the City’s level of service standards and associated transportation concurrency management (TCM) program. The relationship of the LOS and TCM program and the City’s review of potential transportation impacts and mitigation requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are also presented. Level of Service Standards The City has adopted transportation level of service standards for roadways and for intersections. The roadway level of service is intended to assure that adequate capacity is available on key roadway corridors to serve new development. The intersection-based level of service standard is applied to assure that each intersection impacted by a new development operates without excessive delays. Roadway Level of Service Standards The City of Port Townsend has adopted roadway level of service standard based on the weekday PM peak hour volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio at a “screenline” near its west city limits. A screenline is an imaginary line passing through one or more roadways that serve a similar travel pattern. The City defined a screenline encompassing Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road just west of Howard Street. This screenline is used to assure that adequate roadway capacity is available for traffic entering/exiting Port Townsend from areas west of the City. To evaluate this screenline, the City adds together the traffic volumes on both roadways, by direction. The combined volumes, by direction, are then divided by the combined estimated capacities of the two roadways, by direction. The capacities for each road are based on the values in the City’s travel demand forecasting model. The City has established the level of service standard for this roadway screenline as being a v/c of 0.85 or lower for each travel direction. The v/c of 0.85 or lower is considered LOS D or better. Intersection Level of Service Standards The City also has established level of service standards for its intersections. For concurrency, the adopted standard for intersections is LOS D or better during the weekday PM peak hour. Page F-2 Intersections are evaluated based on the methodologies in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2000. The HCM defines intersection delay in terms of the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection during a specific time period. For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, levels of service are based on the average delay per vehicle of all traffic movements at the intersection. For two-way stop- controlled intersections, the levels of service are calculated for each traffic movement, with the highest delay traffic movement reported for the level of service. Attachment 1 to Appendix F summarizes the delay criteria for intersection level of service. Transportation Concurrency Management Program The City of Port Townsend’s Transportation Concurrency Management (TCM) program builds directly from its level of service standards. It is a two-part program. Part one evaluates concurrency based on its roadway screenline level of service standard. The second part of the TCM program is related to development impacts at intersections in the City. Roadway Concurrency Evaluation In order to assess compliance with the roadway screenline level of service standard, the City will monitor traffic volumes on Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road just west of Howard Street. The evaluation will require obtaining weekday PM peak hour traffic counts, in both directions, for the two roadways. The directional volumes for each roadway will be added together and compared to the combined roadway capacities. The capacities will be taken from the City’s travel demand forecasting model. The data and results will be summarized as shown in Table F-1. Table F-1. 2006 Roadway Volumes vs. Capacities on Roads Into and Out of Port Townsend PM Peak Hour Volumes (vph)1 Estimated Roadway Capacity (vph)2 Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio Roadway Segment Location WB EB Total WB EB Total WB EB Total Sims Way (SR 20) West of Howard Street 930 770 1,700 1,100 1,100 2,200 0.85 0.70 0.77 Discovery Road West of Howard Street 145 130 275 700 700 1,400 0.21 0.19 0.20 TOTAL1,075 900 1,975 1,800 1,800 3,600 0.60 0.50 0.55 Source: Transpo Group 1. PM peak hour volumes based on 2006 traffic counts West of Howard Street. 2. Estimated roadway capacities are from the City’s VISUM model. When the resultant v/c in one or both directions reaches 0.75 or greater, the City will conduct additional analysis to forecast traffic accounting for developments that are approved, but not yet constructed. The additional forecast volumes will be based on recent traffic impact studies prepared for larger development projects. In addition, the analysis of forecast concurrency conditions will need to account for background traffic growth. Background traffic growth will include through traffic on Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road, as well as traffic from smaller developments in the City where traffic studies were not required. The concurrency forecast for the screenline analysis will combine the various traffic components, by direction, and compare them to the roadway capacities, similar to Table F-1. The model capacities would be updated, as appropriate, to include any improvements funded for construction within six years. The resulting forecast v/c will provide an indication of when improvements to these roadways may be needed to provide capacity to meet concurrency. The City would be able to use that information as it prepares its annual Six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Page F-3 If the actual or forecast v/c exceeds 0.85, then the City would not approve new developments that would add 10 or more PM peak hour vehicle trips to the screenline in the direction that is not meeting the adopted LOS standard of 0.85 or less. The concurrency deficiency may be resolved if the City, developer(s), or others fund improvements that will increase the screenline capacity of the roadways within six years. Alternatively, the applicant may elect to modify the proposal to reduce the traffic impacts at the screenline through reducing the level of development, changing the land uses to generate less traffic, phasing the project, applying transportation demand management (TDM) techniques, or other strategies. The City would review and would need to approve proposed mitigation or project modifications to assure concurrency would be met. Intersection Concurrency Evaluation The evaluation of new development impacts or intersection levels of service will be conducted as part of the required Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), as documented in the City’s Engineering Design Standards. The concurrency evaluation will be combined with the review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). However, under concurrency review, new development may not be approved where a project impacts an intersection forecast to operate below the LOS D standard. Concurrency review does not apply to all intersections in the City. Intersections along Sims Way (SR 20) are exempt from concurrency by the State of Washington because it is classified as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). In addition, the City does not apply concurrency to intersections of local streets or driveways with arterials, collectors, or other local streets. Intersections along Sims Way (SR 20) and local street or driveway intersections will, however, still be reviewed under SEPA. Table F-2 summarizes which intersections are subject to review under SEPA or under SEPA and concurrency. Table F-2. City of Port Townsend Intersection LOS Standards1 Traffic Control Level of Service Standard2 Concurrency or SEPA3 Review Signalized • Sims Way (SR 20) D SEPA only, HSS4 facility • All signals not along Sims Way (SR 20) D Concurrency and SEPA Unsignalized • Intersections with Sims Way (SR 20) D SEPA only, HSS facility • All other (non-Sims Way) intersections of arterials or collectors with other arterials or collectors D Concurrency and SEPA • Intersections of local streets or driveways with arterials, collectors, or local streets. D SEPA intersections may be allowed to operate below LOS D with appropriate mitigation, if needed. 1. LOS evaluation based on weekday PM peak hour operations. 2. LOS calculated based on average delay per vehicle per Highway Capacity Manual Page F-4 For purposes of concurrency evaluation, the applicant’s traffic impact analysis will need to evaluate the existing and forecast LOS for all intersections impacted by 10 or more weekday PM peak hour trips. The analysis of forecast conditions with project will include: • Existing traffic • Background traffic growth • Traffic from “pipeline” developments • Project traffic These are consistent with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis requirements. If all concurrency intersections impacted by 10 or more project trips during the PM peak hour operate at LOS D or better, the development will pass concurrency. If one or more concurrency intersections are forecast to drop below the LOS D standard due to the added project traffic, then the application would not meet concurrency. Applicants can propose concurrency mitigation or modifications to their proposal in order to resolve the concurrency deficiency at these intersections. In the event that a concurrency intersection is forecast to operate below LOS D without the proposed new development, the development also would not meet concurrency. Under this scenario, the applicant would need to provide mitigation to bring the intersection back to pre- project conditions or better. This requirement allows a new development to pass concurrency by off-setting its impact on intersection delays. If development applicants do not propose to provide adequate mitigation or modifications to resolve the intersection LOS deficiency, they will not receive concurrency approval. The project applicant may reapply once the City, another development, or other entity provides assured funding for improvements to meet the LOS D standard within six years. Relationship of SEPA and Concurrency Review As noted above, concurrency review of developments is limited to City arterial and collector intersections not along Sims Way (SR 20). The City only reviews intersections along Sims Way (SR 20) and intersections of local streets or driveways with arterials/collectors only under SEPA. The same LOS D standards apply, but under SEPA review the City is not required to deny approval of the development when the LOS standard is not met. SEPA review of these intersections would include LOS and also may include safety, traffic queues, and other potential operational impacts. Intersections covered by concurrency review also will be reviewed under SEPA for safety impacts, traffic queues, and other potential operational impacts. For all intersection impacted by a new development, the City may require SEPA analysis of other time periods such as the AM peak hour, noon peak, weekend time periods, ferry off-loading, or others as applicable. Concurrency review will only be applied during the weekday PM peak hour for intersections impacted by 10 or more project trips. The City may still require mitigation of project traffic impacts at these intersections under SEPA. The mitigation may not fully resolve the LOS deficiency, but may offset or reduce the traffic impacts of the project at that location. This is especially important at intersections of lower volume, local streets or driveways with higher volume arterials or collectors. Changes in traffic controls that could provide LOS D or better may not be desired or appropriate at these locations. The low volumes may not meet warrants for traffic signals or all-way stops, or the spacing between adjacent intersections may not allow for safe and efficient operations of the intersections. WSDOT may request that the City condition a development application for mitigation at intersections or roadway segments along Sims Way (SR 20). The City will decide whether to include WSDOT’s request as a condition of approval. WSDOT may, however, appeal approval of the permit based on City and state regulations. Page F-5 Appendix F Attachment 1 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table F-3 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table F-3. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) General Description (Signalized Intersections) A ≤10 Free Flow B >10 - 20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 - 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 - 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 - 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >80 Forced flow (jammed) Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop- controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table F-4 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop-controlled). Table F-4. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 0 - 10 B >10 - 15 C >15 - 25 D >25 - 35 E >35 - 50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. Appendix G: Functional Classification and Speed Limits Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page G-1 Appendix G – Functional Classification and Speed Limits Table G-1. Inventory of City Roadways Street Name From – To Classification1 Speed Sims Way (SR 20) City Limits to Baker Street Principal Arterial 40 Sims Way (SR 20) Baker Street to Van Buren ROW Principal Arterial 30 Sims Way (SR 20) Van Buren ROW to Harrison Street Principal Arterial 25 Water Street Harrison Street to Monroe Street Minor Arterial 20 Discovery Road Mill Road to 19th Street Minor Arterial 25 Discovery Road Hastings Avenue to San Juan Avenue Minor Arterial 25 19th Street Discovery Road to Kearney Street Minor Arterial 25 Sheridan Avenue SR 20 to Hastings Avenue Minor Arterial 25 San Juan Avenue 19th Street to 49th Street Minor Arterial 25 Hastings Avenue Cook Avenue to City Limits Minor Arterial 40 Hastings Avenue City Limits to Sherman Street Minor Arterial 35 Hastings Avenue Sherman Street to Discovery Road Minor Arterial 30 Cook Avenue/49th Street Howard Street to San Juan Avenue Minor Arterial 25 Admiralty Avenue San Juan Avenue to W Street Minor Arterial 25 W Street Admiralty Avenue to Cherry Street Minor Arterial 25 F Street San Juan Avenue to Tyler Street Minor Arterial 25 Lawrence Street Kearney Street to Monroe Street Minor Arterial 25 Tyler Street F Street to Lawrence Street Minor Arterial 25 Monroe Street Lawrence Street to Water Street Minor Arterial 25 Discovery Road 19th Street to Hastings Avenue Major Collector 25 14th Street Discovery Road to Sheridan Avenue Major Collector 25 Blaine Street Kearney Street to Walker Street Major Collector 25 McPherson Street SR 20 to Discovery Road Major Collector 25 12th Street Sheridan Avenue to SR 20 Major Collector 25 Cherry Street Redwood Street to Walker Street Major Collector 25 Walker Street Blaine Street to Washington Street Major Collector 25 Fir Street F Street to Benton Street Major Collector 25 Benton Street Blaine Street to Washington Street Major Collector 25 Washington Street Water Street to Monroe Street Major Collector 25 Harrison Street F Street to Washington Street Major Collector 25 Tyler Street Lawrence Street to Jefferson Street Major Collector 25 Jefferson Street Tyler Street to Quincy Street Major Collector 25 Taylor Street Washington Street to Water Street Major Collector 25 Quincy Street Water Street to Jefferson Street Major Collector 25 Adams Street Washington Street to Water Street Major Collector 25 Madison Street Washington Street to Water Street Major Collector 25 Monroe Street Lawrence Street to Roosevelt Street Major Collector 25 Redwood Street W Street to Cherry Street Major Collector 25 Landes Street 12th Street to 19th Street Major Collector 25 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page G-2 9th Street McPherson Street to Sheridan Avenue Major Collector 25 Sheridan Avenue Hastings Avenue to Umatilla Avenue Minor Collector 25 Umatilla Avenue Sheridan Avenue to San Juan Avenue Minor Collector 25 Cherry Street Redwood Street to W Street Minor Collector 25 Fir Street F Street to U Street Minor Collector 25 U Street Cherry Street to Fir Street Minor Collector 25 Grant Street South of Sims Way Minor Collector 25 Hendricks Street North of 49th Street Minor Collector 25 Jackman Road 43rd Street to 49th Street Minor Collector 25 Center Street San Juan Avenue to Redwood Street Minor Collector 25 Admiralty Avenue San Juan Avenue to W Street Scenic Collector 25 Cook Avenue City Limits to 49th Street Scenic Collector 25 Jackson Street Roosevelt Street to Q Street Scenic Collector 25 Walnut Street W Street to Q Street Scenic Collector 25 San Juan Avenue 49th Street to Admiralty Avenue Scenic Collector 25 Q Street Walnut Street to Jackson Street Scenic Collector 25 Discovery Road Sheridan Avenue to City Limits Scenic Collector 25 W Street Admiralty Avenue to Walnut Street Scenic Collector 25 49th Street Hendricks Street to San Juan Avenue Scenic Collector 25 1. Classifications based on the Port Townsend Design Engineering Standards. Appendix H: Pavement Management Condition Examples City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 19 Asphalt Lifecycle 12th St Repaving behind HeneryHardware, 2005 Asphalt Pavement -NEW Kearney south of Lawrence Asphalt Pavement -GOOD City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 20 Asphalt Lifecycle Lawrence between Calhoun and Cass Clay looking at Monroe Asphalt Pavement -GONE Asphalt Pavement -GOING City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 21 Chip Seal LifecycleHoward north of Hastings, 2005Chip Seal -NEW Blaine looking at Van BurenChip Seal -GOOD City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 22 Chip Seal LifecycleCenter east of San Juan Center further east of San JuanChip Seal -GONE Chip Seal -GOING City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 23 Pavement Inventory Surface Type in Miles70.1%55.9137.404.731.526.645.62Chip Seal 6.3%4.994.990.000.000.000.00Gravel 23.6%18.8513.740.481.280.882.47Asphalt 100.0%79.7556.135.212.807.528.09TOTAL TOTAL MILES 6.5% Scenic Collector 70.5%3.5%9.4%10.1%Percent Percent of TotalLocal AccessMinor CollectorMajor CollectorMinor ArterialRoadway ClassificationIncludes City mainta ined streets onlyExcludes Sims Way (WSDOT), Fort Worden, and ot her private streets Total City miles = 93.6 miles City of PortTownsend Tr ansportation Functional Plan 24 New13%Good37% Poor37% Failed13% Pavement Condition ~$1.50 / square foot Pavement Lifecycle Graph Pavement Condition by Percent~$3.50 / square foot~$6.00 / square foot * General estimate