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 Transportation Functional Plan CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Prepared for: City of Port Townsend April 2009 Prepared by: In Association With: Southwick Enterprises 11730 118th Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Avenue NE, Suite 600 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 06089.00 © 2009 Transpo Group Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Scope of the Transportation Functional Plan ................................................................... 1-1 Plan Organization ........................................................................................................... 1-2 Public Outreach .............................................................................................................. 1-2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1-2 State and Regional Transportation Networks and Systems ........................................ 1-3 Transportation Planning ............................................................................................. 1-5 Governance .................................................................................................................... 1-5 City Council, City Manager and Staff .......................................................................... 1-5 Citizen Advisory Boards ............................................................................................. 1-6 Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board ........................................................... 1-6 Other Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 1-7 Jefferson County ....................................................................................................... 1-7 Port Townsend School District ................................................................................... 1-7 Jefferson Transit Authority ......................................................................................... 1-7 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ........................................ 1-7 Peninsula Regional Transportation Policy Organization (PRTPO) .............................. 1-8 CHAPTER 2 - POLICY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 2-1 City of Port Townsend ..................................................................................................... 2-1 City Code .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Ordinances and Resolutions ...................................................................................... 2-1 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan ................................................... 2-1 Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan ................................ 2-2 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan ............................................................................ 2-2 Parking ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 Gateway Development Plan ....................................................................................... 2-6 Urban Waterfront Plan ............................................................................................... 2-6 East Downtown Streetscape Plan .............................................................................. 2-6 Engineering Design Standards Manual ...................................................................... 2-7 Jefferson County ............................................................................................................. 2-7 Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................. 2-7 State of Washington ........................................................................................................ 2-8 Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A ..................................................................... 2-8 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan ................................................................ 2-9 CHAPTER 3 - MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS PLAN ........................................................... 3-1 Organization ................................................................................................................... 3-1 Performance Measures & Maintenance Management ..................................................... 3-1 City Shop and Equipment................................................................................................ 3-3 Pavement Maintenance .................................................................................................. 3-4 Pavement Markings ........................................................................................................ 3-5 Signs .............................................................................................................................. 3-6 Shoulder and Vegetation Maintenance ............................................................................ 3-6 Traffic Signals ................................................................................................................. 3-6 Street Lights ................................................................................................................... 3-6 Street Sweeping and Litter Control .................................................................................. 3-7 Sidewalks ....................................................................................................................... 3-7 Snow and Ice Control ...................................................................................................... 3-7 Citizen Complaints .......................................................................................................... 3-7 CHAPTER 4 - ARTERIAL STREET PLAN ................................................................................ 4-1 Roadway Functional Classification .................................................................................. 4-1 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 ii Roadway Inventory ......................................................................................................... 4-2 State Highways .......................................................................................................... 4-2 Jefferson County Roads ............................................................................................ 4-4 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................. 4-4 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 4-4 Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 4-4 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................... 4-11 Future Baseline Traffic Conditions................................................................................. 4-15 Travel Demand Forecasting Model .......................................................................... 4-15 Baseline Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 4-16 Baseline Traffic Operations ...................................................................................... 4-16 Street and Highway Improvements ................................................................................ 4-17 City Street Improvements......................................................................................... 4-17 Other Agency Improvements.................................................................................... 4-23 Future Traffic Conditions – With Improvements ........................................................ 4-23 CHAPTER 5 - AGENCY COORDINATION ............................................................................... 5-1 Jefferson Transit ............................................................................................................. 5-1 Transit Development Plan .......................................................................................... 5-2 Bus Routes ................................................................................................................ 5-2 Park-and-Ride ........................................................................................................... 5-2 Paratransit ................................................................................................................. 5-3 Services Other Than Fixed Route .............................................................................. 5-3 School District Transportation Systems ........................................................................... 5-4 Safe Walk Routes to Schools ..................................................................................... 5-4 Capital Improvements ................................................................................................ 5-5 Bus Routes ................................................................................................................ 5-5 City Coordination ....................................................................................................... 5-5 Jefferson County ............................................................................................................. 5-6 Current Projects ......................................................................................................... 5-6 Roadway Maintenance .............................................................................................. 5-6 Port of Port Townsend .................................................................................................... 5-6 Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) ............................... 5-7 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ............................................. 5-8 State Route 20........................................................................................................... 5-8 SR 19 / SR 20 Corridor Plan ...................................................................................... 5-8 Washington State Ferries (WSF)................................................................................ 5-9 Passenger-Only Ferry Study .................................................................................... 5-10 Private Transportation Service Providers....................................................................... 5-10 CHAPTER 6 - FINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM .................................................... 6-1 Maintenance Program and Capital Project Cost Summary .............................................. 6-1 Maintenance and Operations Costs ........................................................................... 6-2 Capital Improvement Costs ........................................................................................ 6-4 Existing and Potential Revenue Sources ......................................................................... 6-5 Existing Revenues ..................................................................................................... 6-5 Other Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................... 6-7 Financing Strategy .......................................................................................................... 6-8 Pavement Management Program – Property Tax Levy............................................... 6-9 Funding from the Development Review Process ........................................................ 6-9 Implementing a Transportation Impact Fee Program ................................................ 6-11 Pursuing Grants, Loans, or Bonding......................................................................... 6-12 Using Other Potential Transportation Funding Mechanisms ..................................... 6-12 Partnering with Other Agencies ................................................................................ 6-12 Reassessment Strategy ................................................................................................ 6-13 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 iii Figures Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map...................................................................................................1-3 Figure 4-1. Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................4-3 Figure 4-2. 2006 Daily Traffic Count Locations and Volumes ...........................................4-6 Figure 4-3. 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................4-7 Figure 4-4. Study Intersections ........................................................................................4-8 Figure 4-5. 2006 PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements ...................................4-9 Figure 5-1. Relationship to Other Plans ...........................................................................5-1 Figure 6-1. Historical Maintenance and Operations Expenditures ....................................6-2 Tables Table 3-1. Maintenance and Operations Tasks ..............................................................3-2 Table 3-2. List of Maintenance and Operations Equipment (Street Fund) .......................3-3 Table 3-3. List of Maintenance and Operations Equipment (Storm Water Fund) .............3-4 Table 3-4. Street Inventory .............................................................................................3-4 Table 3-5. Citizen Complaint Summary ..........................................................................3-8 Table 4-1. Roadway Functional Classification Descriptions ............................................4-2 Table 4-2. Intersection Level of Service Criteria............................................................ 4-12 Table 4-3. City of Port Townsend Intersection LOS Standards1 Table 4-4. 2006 Roadway Volumes vs. Capacities on Roads Into and Out of Port Townsend ................................................................................................... 4-13 .................................... 4-12 Table 4-5. 2006 Existing Intersection LOS .................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-6. 2026 Baseline Forecast Roadway Volumes vs. Capacities on Roads Into and Out of Port Townsend.................................................................................. 4-17 Table 4-7. 2006 Existing and 2026 Future Baseline Intersection LOS ........................... 4-19 Table 4-8. Arterial and Collector Street Improvement Projects ...................................... 4-20 Table 4-9. 2026 With Improvements Forecast Roadway Volumes vs. Capacities on Roads Into and Out of Port Townsend .................................................................... 4-24 Table 4-10. 2026 With Roadway Improvements Intersection LOS .................................. 4-26 Table 6-1. Transportation Project and Program Costs 2009 to 2026 ...............................6-1 Table 6-2. Pavement Maintenance Options ....................................................................6-3 Table 6-3. Grant Funded Projects in Port Townsend ......................................................6-4 Table 6-4. Potential Road Levy Scenarios and Associated Revenues.............................6-9 Appendix Material 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 INDEX APPENDIX I JEFFERSON TRANSIT TDP 2010-2015 APPENDIX J PENINSULA RTPO REGIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 iv Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 v Acknowledgements City Council Michelle Sandoval, Mayor George Randels, Deputy Mayor Catharine Robinson Laurie Medlicott Mark Welch David King Kris Nelson Advisory Groups Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board City Staff David Timmons, City Manager Rick Sepler, Development Services Director Ken Clow, Public Works Director David Peterson, City Engineer John Merchant, Street, Wastewater and Composting Facility Manager Tyler Johnson, GIS Coordinator Consultants Transpo Group Southwick Enterprises Responsibilities included: • Arterial Street Plan (Chapter 4) • Finance & Implementation Plan (Chapter 6) • Travel Demand Model (Appendix C) • Transportation Impact Fee Program (Appendix D) • Concurrency Management Program (Appendix F) Responsibilities included: • All Other Chapters and Appendix Material Other Agencies Jefferson County Jefferson Transit Port of Port Townsend Port Townsend School District Washington State Department of Transportation Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction One of local government’s primary responsibilities is to provide safe, efficient and effective transportation systems for its citizens, the traveling public, and goods and services. Transportation systems support our entire lifestyle, including our freedom to get to and from home, work, shopping and recreation. Federal, state and local laws require, regulate and fund the transportation network. The City has a responsibility to plan for, implement, construct, operate, maintain and improve its transportation systems. Most of the needed transportation systems are provided by local and regional government (City and County: roads and non-motorized systems; State: highways and ferries; and public transit agencies: local and regional public transit services). Other transportation services are provided by private enterprise (e.g., taxis, airport shuttle buses and transportation improvements related to development) and some by joint public-private efforts such as Local Improvement Districts. Within the City limits, the City has the responsibility to fund and implement transportation systems, including the responsibility to seek county, state and federal funding as needed. Purpose The purpose of the Transportation Functional Plan is to provide a measure of the current levels of transportation systems and guidance for the City to carry out its responsibilities for its transportation systems, now and into the future. Scope of the Transportation Functional Plan The Transportation Functional Plan (TFP or “Plan”) addresses all elements of the City’s transportation systems. It provides an inventory of the current elements and summarizes their status. It is not intended to duplicate preceding efforts and other on-going efforts such as the Non-motorized Transportation Plan update. While it is desirable to include everything related to the transportation systems, such an effort is too large and complex. Some of these elements are in the hands of other agencies. Some of the elements are subject to change on their own, such as the update of the Non-motorized Transportation Plan. The TFP addresses each of those elements and incorporates the current documents by reference with specific details still contained in the original sources. While the Plan includes all transportation elements, it necessarily focuses on vehicular traffic, both current and projected. It includes a complete technical analysis of traffic using a travel demand model based on current traffic counts, current land use maps, adopted future land use plans, projected growth, and standard vehicular trip generation for each land use category. The model assigns trips from each area to the transportation network and is adjusted to replicate traffic to reasonably match the current traffic conditions. The model is then scaled up to reflect the future land use plans and anticipated growth resulting in projected traffic volumes throughout the network. Those volumes are then compared to the capacity of the streets and intersections and a level of service is derived for each segment of the system. That analysis is then used to update the Arterial Street Plan and subsequent listing of improvements that are needed to maintain adopted levels of service. Those listed improvements are then used to develop a short and long term transportation capital improvement plan (TIP) that is required by State law. Directly related to the technical analysis of future traffic demand impacts is the Growth Management Act (GMA) that requires cities to manage traffic improvements in a manner that keeps pace with development growth without reducing the level of service (LOS) below an Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-2 adopted acceptable standard. The Arterial Street Plan and Appendix F define how the City implements its concurrency management system to maintain the adopted LOS. In order to fund improvements that are needed relative to the traffic generated by new growth, the Plan addresses current and potential funding sources. Evaluation of a transportation impact fee is included as part of this Plan and is summarized in Appendix D. Plan Organization The Transportation Functional Plan was developed in a series of tasks. Specific components such as the Non-Motorized Plan, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and Downtown Parking Plan are referenced in this Plan. It is organized as follows: • Introduction • Policy Framework • Maintenance & Operations Plan • Arterial Street Plan • Agency Coordination • Finance & Implementation Program Public Outreach Public outreach activities included a public open house and a City Council workshop. The public open house was held in November of 2007. The open house was advertised through press releases to the local media, web site notification, posting in the city newspaper, and an email to interested stakeholders for broader distribution to organizations and interest groups. Public feedback from the open house was provided to the City Council for their consideration. A City Council workshop in June of 2008 was held to review and consider the Plan recommendations. Council was able to provide direction on main policy considerations and the identified project list. Background The City of Port Townsend is located on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State at the northwestern tip of the continental United States and adjacent to British Columbia, Canada. Founded in 1851, Port Townsend is the County seat and only incorporated city in Jefferson County and has a population of 8,925. Transportation has played a key role in the history and development of the City. Originally envisioned as the major seaport for the state, Port Townsend’s early rapid growth ended when the major railroad was ultimately routed to the eastern, not the western side of Puget Sound. Today tourism, marine trades, and paper/pulp production are leading contributors to the local economy. Local businesses are dependent on reliable, efficient transportation systems to deliver commodities as well as to transport products to outside markets. Local residents need access to regional medical and commercial centers to the east – Kitsap County and the east sound – and to the west – Port Angeles and Sequim. Tourists arrive by land and water and, to a lesser degree, by air. Extended closures of land or water transportation systems can have a significant impact to the local economy. Located to the east of the Olympic Mountains, Port Townsend’s climate is largely influenced by the “rainshadow” and the proximity to the open water of Townsend Bay and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The average annual rainfall is 19 inches. The greatest weather related impacts to local transportation come from snow falls which are generally limited in both accumulation Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-3 and duration. High winds are not unusual during the winter months and can have an impact on various regional transportation systems. Ferry service and the Hood Canal Bridge operations can be temporarily suspended due to high winds. Extended rains and snow melts can lead to flooding and slides along major highways, such Highway 101, eliminating access to the City from the south and the west. State and Regional Transportation Networks and Systems The major regional highway, railway, air and sea transportation systems are focused in Western Washington, primarily along the Interstate 5 corridor, i.e., the densely developed and urbanized core of cities running from Vancouver, B.C. on the north state border to Vancouver, WA on the south state border. From Vancouver, B.C. through Bellingham, Mount Vernon, Everett, Seattle and Tacoma to Olympia, WA, this corridor runs along the eastern shore of Puget Sound, the major marine waterway separating the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas from the population centers of Western Washington. Port Townsend is on the northeastern tip of the Olympic Peninsula, separated from those primary transportation systems by Puget Sound as shown in Figure 1-1. Port Townsend is about 40 miles northwest from Seattle in a direct line and about 50 miles by highway and ferry. Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map Interstate 5 is the primary north/south transportation corridor for vehicular, commercial and freight traffic that runs through Western Washington. Interstate 90 is the primary east/west transportation corridor for vehicular, commercial and freight traffic which terminates in downtown Seattle. The railways follow the same north/south and east/west corridors, passing through or terminating in the same above mentioned cities. The primary international airport in Western Washington is SeaTac International, mid-way between Seattle and Tacoma. The primary shipping ports are Seattle and Tacoma. With few exceptions, everyone and everything coming to Port Townsend has to originate in or pass through Seattle, Tacoma or Olympia. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-4 Puget Sound is a major impediment to cross-sound transportation from the urbanized corridor described above to the cities on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas, including Port Townsend. For the vast majority of the traveling public and commercial trucking, there are only two reasonable options available: highway routes across the southern end of and around Puget Sound or Washington State Ferries. It is possible to drive around the Olympic Peninsula on Highway 101 and arrive at Port Townsend from the west but that is several hundred miles and an all day trip. There are limited railway facilities serving portions of the Kitsap Peninsula, but not the Olympic Peninsula. There are relatively small airports at Bremerton, Jefferson County, Sequim and Port Angeles, but they do not provide relatively significant transportation alternatives. Likewise, there are private and commercial marine carriers but they also do not provide relatively significant transportation alternatives. The primary all-highway route to travel to Port Townsend from the I-5 corridor is Highway 16 west from Tacoma, crossing the Tacoma Narrows onto the southeastern end of the Kitsap Peninsula and connecting to Highway 3 through Bremerton, Silverdale and Poulsbo which is still separated from the primary Olympic Peninsula by Hood Canal which is crossed by Highway 104 and the Hood Canal Floating Bridge. State Routes 19 and 20 lead from Highway 104 to Port Townsend and are the last remaining segments of the 75 mile route. The other alternative is Highway 101 west, then north from Olympia through Shelton and along the west side of the Hood Canal to ultimately intersect with Highway 104 west of the Hood Canal Bridge and then Highway 20 to Port Townsend. This route is about 100 miles in length and is more scenic than Highways 3 and 104, but is a lower speed route that is primarily favorable from Olympia and points further south on I-5. There are several ferry routes that connect Port Townsend, via the Kitsap Peninsula, to the I- 5 corridor and another ferry option via Whidbey Island to the east. The ferry from downtown Seattle to Bainbridge Island leads to Highway 305 and Highway 3 which again lead to Highway 104 and the Hood Canal Bridge. This is the primary connection from Seattle, Interstate 90 and other points south for those choosing not to drive around. It is approximately 50 miles from Bainbridge Island to Port Townsend. The ferry from downtown Edmonds to Kingston on the Kitsap Peninsula connects to Highway 104 which leads to the Hood Canal Bridge. This is the primary connection from points north of Seattle and those choosing to avoid downtown Seattle. It is about 35 miles from Kingston to Port Townsend by this route. A third, less-used route connects Seattle and Bremerton at the southern end of the Kitsap Peninsula. This route is longer and generally slower than the Seattle-Bainbridge Island route. Another ferry option is the smaller ferry between Port Townsend and Whidbey Island connecting Highway 20 to points north and east. This route requires driving to the north tip of Whidbey Island, crossing the Deception Pass Bridge to Fidalgo Island, and then east to connect to I-5 at Mount Vernon/Burlington. This route is favorable for northern connections. Another option is to take the Port Townsend-Keystone ferry to Whidbey Island and then east to the ferry at Clinton which then connects to Mukilteo and the I-5 corridor. This requires two ferry crossings as compared to the Kingston-Edmonds ferry which achieves essentially the same result with one ferry crossing and a more direct highway route. Due to the limited highway and ferry route options, the north Olympic Peninsula cities are extremely dependent on the continuous and reliable service provided by the Washington State Ferries (WSF) and the Hood Canal Floating Bridge. The Seattle-Bainbridge and Edmonds-Kingston ferries are highly reliable but are still subject to periodic delays for operational reasons and occasional security and weather shutdowns. The Port Townsend to Whidbey Island ferry route is less reliable and subject to more frequent cancellations due to weather and tidal conditions. This route has been beset with equipment problems beginning Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-5 in 2008 when the 80-year old steel-electric ferries were taken out of service with no prior planning or alternative vessels to replace them. WSF leased a single, smaller ferry from Pierce County to provide a lower level of service until new vessels can be bid, constructed and placed in service in 2010 or later. As noted above, Port Townsend is very dependent on the Hood Canal Bridge for access to the commercial and health centers of the Kitsap Peninsula as well as connections to the I-5 corridor urban centers and the regional transportation hubs. The Hood Canal Floating Bridge was partially destroyed by a major storm in 1979 and remained out of service for three years. A temporary ferry service was installed at a minimal level of service with most traffic having to drive the long and circuitous route around the Hood Canal. The Bridge was again closed for six weeks from major reconstruction in 2009 in order to replace the floating sections that were not replaced following the 1979 storm reconstruction. The Bridge is periodically opened for marine traffic causing temporary delays and occasionally is blocked due to accidents. Extended closures of either the Hood Canal Bridge or the ferry connections have had significant impacts on the economic well-being of Port Townsend, East Jefferson County, and the remainder of the Olympic Peninsula communities. Transportation Planning The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 and includes a Transportation Element which provides the primary and current policy framework for the transportation systems within the City. A number of other project-specific planning documents have been subsequently adopted that build on that policy framework including: • Urban Waterfront Plan • Gateway Development Plan • Engineering Design Standards Manual • Non-Motorized Transportation Plan • Downtown Parking Management Plan • Concurrency Management Ordinance • East Downtown Streetscape Plan This Transportation Functional Plan does not replace any of those plans but is an implementation plan that takes the policy framework together with traffic analysis to present a short and long term transportation improvement program that meets the City's needs and responsibilities. It summarizes the policy framework but does not present new policies. This Plan also addresses the significant challenges of maintaining the City's transportation infrastructure with some potential financial options for a pavement management program. This Plan is consistent and supportive of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the County's Comprehensive Plan and the State Growth Management Act. Governance City Council, City Manager and Staff The City of Port Townsend is a municipal corporation in the State of Washington. The City Council is the legislative body with authority and responsibility to establish policy and governance for the City’s transportation systems. The City Council adopts ordinances and resolutions providing funding (revenues, budgets, Capital Improvement Plan), regulations (City Code) and direction (Comprehensive Plan, Gateway Plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), etc.). Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-6 The City Council also utilizes committees made up of Council members to provide oversight and review and to make recommendations to the full Council on specific items of interest to the Council. The structure and mission of the committees changes with each new Council. In the past, transportation issues have been referred to the Public Works, General Government, or Transportation Committees. Currently, the General Services Committee oversees the technical issues related to transportation while the Community Development/Land Use Committee handles planning and policy issues that include transportation. The Finance Committee also deals with transportation funding and budgeting issues. The City Manager is the City’s chief executive with responsibility for providing the staffing and organizational resources to implement the transportation programs adopted by the City Council. The Public Works Department is directly responsible for implementing all transportation programs and maintaining, operating and improving the transportation infrastructure. Transportation planning is a joint responsibility of the Public Works and Planning staff. Transportation improvements necessitated by private development are coordinated by the Development Services Department in concert with Public Works and emergency services (Police and Fire). Traffic enforcement is provided by the Police Department. There are a number of federal and state statutes, standards and procedures that provide direction and funding for transportation programs which the City must adopt and implement. Many of those requirements are tied to the City's eligibility to receive funding for improvement projects. Citizen Advisory Boards In the past, the City Council has appointed a Transportation Advisory Board made up of citizens to capitalize on the expertise and commitment of community members and promote citizen involvement with city government with respect to transportation issues. The Transportation Advisory Board had the responsibility of researching, advising, and making recommendations to the appropriate City Council committee on transportation priority issues established by the City Council. Currently there is no such advisory board. Citizen input is still received via specialized citizen task forces chartered to review specific topics such as parking policies, City-wide speed limits, or to review specific transportation projects under consideration. The City Council has also held a series of “Town Hall” meetings to receive citizen input on a broad range of City initiatives to include transportation issues. Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board The City Council has appointed a group of citizens to provide guidance for non-motorized transportation systems. The Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board’s purpose is: • Advise the City Council on the planning, funding and maintenance of the City's non- motorized transportation facilities, including implementation of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan; • Promote walking and bicycling for both recreation and transportation throughout the city; • Sponsor a wide range of volunteer non-motorized transportation projects such as: o Neighborhood trail-building work parties organized throughout the year; o Designing a pedestrian trail and bicycle guide map for Port Townsend; and o Develop a plan for bicycle parking throughout Port Townsend Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-7 Other Public Involvement The primary avenue for public input on transportation concerns is through meetings of the above – City Council, Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board, as well as the City Planning Commission. Major projects that address public policy issues such as transportation also typically include public workshops and other means for open public discussion and input. Jefferson County The County has similar responsibilities to the City for the local transportation systems throughout the county. There is a statutory and practical requirement for the City and County to coordinate their transportation systems including planning, funding and construction. Jefferson County is governed by three elected County Commissioners. The County Administrator is an appointed official who serves as the Chief Administrative Officer for the County and is responsible for carrying out all decisions, directives, policies, ordinances and resolutions made by the Board of County Commissioners. The County Public Works Department is responsible for implementing all transportation programs and maintaining, operating and improving the county transportation infrastructure. Port Townsend School District The School District is a significant bus transportation service provider both in and outside the city. School bus service is provided jointly with the Chimacum School District. Many parents transport their children to and from school, and older students drive themselves making streets and intersections around each school site significant elements of the transportation system. Many other students walk or bike to school requiring the non-motorized elements of safe sidewalks, street shoulders, bicycle lanes and pathways around each school site. The School District is governed by the elected School Board, the appointed School Superintendent and the school staff. The school district plays a key role in identifying the safe walking routes to school which are given funding priority in various state and federal transportation programs. Jefferson Transit Authority Jefferson Transit operates as a Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) in accordance with appropriate state laws. The Jefferson Transit Authority Board consists of five members who represent the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County governments. Jefferson Transit provides fixed route bus service as well as paratransit, vanpools and other related service programs both in and outside the city. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Route 20 from the western city limits to the ferry terminal is under joint jurisdiction of WSDOT and the City, as both a highway and city street. It is also a Highway of Statewide Significance due to its unique route connecting the Olympic Peninsula to Whidbey Island and points north and east including the North Cascades Highway. A most significant element of that route is the Washington State Ferries service from Port Townsend to Keystone on Whidbey Island. In general WSDOT is responsible for all activities within the roadway to include signals, pavement and markings, and signage. Local activities that impact the state highway must comply with the appropriate WSDOT standards. The City is generally responsible for issues concerning the right of way (ROW) beyond the roadway. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 1-8 Peninsula Regional Transportation Policy Organization (PRTPO) Federal transportation funding programs require the administration of local funding be coordinated on a regional basis through "regional transportation planning organizations." The PRTPO is made up of representatives from public agencies in Clallam, Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson Counties. It is administered by WSDOT. The City is represented on the PRTPO by an appointed City Councilor and City Public Works staff. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-1 Chapter 2 - Policy Framework The City is required by several state laws to adopt and implement transportation policies and plans, specifically Comprehensive Plans, (RCW 35A.63); the Growth Management Act, (RCW 36.70A); and six-year transportation improvement plans, (RCW 35.77). The statutes also require that city plans be consistent with the local county-wide planning policies. The City's transportation policies are primarily established in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1996. The City's Non-Motorized Transportation Plan adopted in 1998 also expands on policies with regard to pedestrian, bicycle and other non-motorized elements. This Chapter summarizes the City's key transportation policies and the County and State policies that provide the overall policy framework for the Transportation Functional Plan. City of Port Townsend The City's transportation-related policies are contained in City Code, numerous ordinances and resolutions, the Comprehensive Plan and a number of project-specific plans, all of which have been adopted by the City Council. The Transportation Functional Plan builds from these established City policies. City Code The most binding transportation policies are contained in the City Code and bear the force of law and enforcement with penalties: • Title 10 - Vehicles and Traffic • Title 12 - Streets and Sidewalks • Title 12.06 - Transportation Concurrency Management • Title 17.72 - Off Street Parking and Loading Ordinances and Resolutions City ordinances and resolutions are adopted by the City Council to amend the City Code and to establish plans, rules and regulations that guide and implement the City's transportation programs. All of the governing transportation policies have been adopted by Council ordinances. For example, Ordinance 2539 adopted the Comprehensive Plan on July 15, 1996. A listing of the ordinances that govern the City's transportation policies and programs is contained in Appendix A. Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is a document containing the goals, policies and implementing strategies for the management of the City's transportation systems. It describes the current conditions and a vision for the future. Its policies support and encourage multi-modal and non-motorized transportation systems. It establishes level of service standards, lists capital improvements and provides a policy framework for providing adequate public facilities and services to address current needs and future growth. The introduction characterizes the current street conditions as, “Many existing roadways are narrow and lack adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Because roadways were built without substantial underlying base materials, they are inadequate and difficult to maintain.” The Transportation Element addresses major transportation issues facing Port Townsend, Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-2 policy direction for local street system needs, and narrow streets relative to emergency vehicles. Unimproved rights-of-way are addressed, stating, “Most of Port Townsend’s unimproved streets were platted in the late 1800s. As outlined in the goals and policies of this element, it may not be in the best interest of the public to improve all of the currently platted streets.” “Opened rights-of-way occupy slightly less area than closed rights-of-way (600 acres open vs. 602 acres closed).” Issues related to unimproved rights-of-way will be addressed in a subsequent effort and incorporated into this Plan, when that project is completed. “Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), comprehensive plans must establish Level-of- Service (LOS) standards for transportation facilities. Thus, a primary purpose of this element is to establish and measure levels of service to support the transportation and land use goals established for the City and the region, and to meet concurrency requirements. The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) recommends that roads within urban growth boundaries (i.e., City of Port Townsend) have a LOS D. Urban Tourist corridors, which are rural corridors that carry urban levels of traffic, for example SR 20, are also recommended by the PRTPO to have a LOS D. Because the GMA requires these standards to be “regionally coordinated,” this element proposes that the LOS standard for the City of Port Townsend’s arterials and collectors be established as LOS D.” “Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies focus on measures that reduce the demand for new or expanded facilities and make the overall transportation system more efficient. Examples of TDM improvements include: signalization and signage; pedestrian- triggered signals; traffic calming devices; park-and-ride lots; parking management programs; and street improvements that facilitate transit, pedestrian and bicycle use." Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan This element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the utilities but includes several sections that relate to the transportation system requirements, including the requirement for a transportation Capital Facilities Plan, concurrency, and level of service. Adopted originally in 1996, the Comprehensive Plan is updated on a seven year cycle as required by the GMA and specified in Chapter 20.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. The Code provides for a mid-cycle assessment and annual amendments as needed. See Appendix A for Table 20.04.035 which provides the suggested schedule for formal Comprehensive Plan amendments and updates. The Comprehensive Plan remains the fundamental guide for transportation planning, construction and maintenance activities. Implementation of the Capital Facilities Plan is subject to the limited available funding. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan The City has also made significant non-motorized improvements in recent years, after adoption of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan in 1998. The Plan addresses: sidewalks and pathways; bikeways; trails; road shoulders; accessibility; school walkways; non- motorized support facilities; maintenance; funding; education, encouragement and enforcement; and implementation. Many of the arterials and collectors have bike lanes or adequate space for bicycles. Much of the City is compact and can be serviced by walking or bicycle. However many of the residential streets have few pedestrian facilities and result in pedestrians and bicyclists using the poor shoulder pavement or the outermost portion of the travel lanes. This is only possible Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-3 on local roadways that serve few vehicles. Also, Jefferson Transit provides bus service to most of the City which allows people to access public and commercial businesses, and recreational activities without having to drive their own vehicle. The City’s 1996 Comprehensive Plan established a policy framework for non-motorized transportation systems. "The citizens of Port Townsend wish to create a safe and pleasant environment for walking and bicycling by: maintaining existing pedestrian walkways and bikeways, extending the network through City-sponsored projects and private development, and prioritizing our efforts according to safety needs and affordability." "The purpose of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is to guide and promote the development of improved facilities for pedestrians (including those in wheelchairs), bicyclists, and transit users. It is first and foremost a transportation plan that seeks to identify a network of pedestrian walkways and bikeways to connect neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, and other destinations. Enhancement of recreational opportunities is a secondary benefit that accrues from this Plan. The Plan is intended to be broad in scope addressing the needs of residents and visitors, workers and recreational users." The following list summarizes overall direction given by the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan: • Provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a system of facilities, incentives, and services that fully support trip-making connections between residential areas, employment centers, shopping, recreational facilities, schools, public transit and other public services; • Support trip-making by developing an integrated City-wide sidewalk/pathway plan including on and off-road trails to establish safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation; • Develop a safe and convenient environment for walking and bicycling by physically separating pedestrian and vehicle traffic; • Provide for safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian use on all public streets and rights-of-way; • Establish non-motorized transportation links between public facilities, commercial areas, and higher density residential areas; • Design the trail system to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, cultural resources, shoreline access areas, and employment centers; • Provide safe and convenient non-motorized access to bus transportation; • Prepare a "Safest Route to School" map to ensure that safety and accident prevention for pedestrian and bicycle travel to school receives the highest consideration; • Design trails to be accessible to people with disabilities where topography will allow; • Identify existing unopened street rights-of-way, utility corridors, and drainage corridors for use in developing the trails system; • Locate trails in areas that are important to preserve as open spaces, such as wooded areas, drainage corridors, shorelines, and scenic vistas; • Walkways and bike lanes should be required in proximity to all arterials, collectors, and streets near multi-family and commercial development; • Require new development and redevelopment to incorporate transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly design elements; and • Establish and adopt design and maintenance standards as part of the Non-Motorized Plan to ensure that the implementation and maintenance of non-motorized improvements are coordinated and consistent in design and construction. The City Council has appointed a citizen's Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board (NMTAB) with the purpose of: Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-4 • Advising the City Council on the planning, funding and maintenance of the City's non-motorized transportation facilities, including implementation of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan; • Promotion of walking and bicycling for both recreation and transportation throughout the city; • Sponsoring a wide range of volunteer non-motorized transportation projects such as: o Neighborhood trail-building work parties organized throughout the year; o Designing a pedestrian trail and bicycle guide map for Port Townsend; and o Developing a plan for bicycle parking throughout Port Townsend. The NMTAB has been actively involved throughout the time since the NMTP was adopted. Through their volunteer efforts and work by the City, many of the projects have been accomplished. The NMTAB is currently working to update portions of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan separately from the Transportation Functional Plan. The work plan includes the following issues/approaches: 1. Updated inventory of existing trails and facilities 2. Proposed new trails and facilities 3. Expand the "toolbox" to include new approaches and strategies The City and the NMTAB joined forces with Jefferson Transit, the Port Townsend Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, the Port Townsend Bicycle Association, Jefferson County and the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce to produce the "Exploring Port Townsend Walking, Bicycling & Transit Guide Map." The Guide Map includes separate maps for the Port Townsend Walking Map, the Quimper Peninsula Bicycle Map and a Jefferson Transit route map. The Walking Map includes suggested walking tours for the Historic Downtown and Uptown, Morgan Hill and Historic Homes, Beach Walk and Fort Worden, Cappy's Trails, an All Terrain and Western Port Townsend Loop and ADA Accessible Routes, plus the entire network of trails, pathways, shortcuts, sidewalks and streets. The Quimper Peninsula Bicycle Map includes all of the primary bike routes in the City as well as Jefferson County north of Irondale and the Four Corners Road. This map needs to be updated periodically as conditions and changes warrant. Parking Parking is an essential element of the overall transportation system but is more significant in Downtown and Uptown where there is a higher density of retail, office and residential uses with a relatively limited parking supply, primarily consisting of on-street parking. There are several private parking lots but no available space for a public parking lot or facility downtown at this time. To the extent that users of all kinds arrive by their own vehicle, there is a need for available parking within a convenient and reasonable distance. Because the supply is limited, it is also regulated with enforcement to achieve desired levels of availability for all users, but especially retail shoppers who provide the essential income for businesses. The level of regulation and enforcement is higher from mid-May to mid-October to accommodate the tourist season shoppers. There are not enough parking spaces available for very large events but it is not realistic or desirable to try to meet that high level of demand. There are several alternatives to on-site or nearby parking that are offered. Jefferson Transit operates a park-and-ride facility for local and tourist traffic just off of Sims Way / SR 20 at Haines Place with bus shuttle service to the downtown as well as all other fixed bus routes. Those fixed bus routes can also bring local residents to the park-and-ride and then by shuttle to downtown without their own cars. Non-motorized transportation is also encouraged to the extent possible. Other options are addressed in the Downtown Parking Management Plan. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-5 Parking Codes and Ordinances. Chapter 10.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) regulates parking, including impoundment, method of parking, taxi and bus zones, loading and unloading and time limits. Chapter 17.72 of the PTMC, in the Zoning Code, regulates off-street parking and loading. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan addresses the need for “Parking Management” and identifies other Goals and Policies. PTMC 17.72.020 B provides the following: "All new construction and all land uses established, changed or relocated within the nonresidential zoning districts of the historic overlay district, as defined by PTMC 17.30.040, shall be exempt from off-street parking and loading requirements; provided, that the owner of the property underlying such construction or uses has first signed a no protest agreement with the city, in a form approved by the city attorney, concerning the formation of a parking and business improvements district (PBID) for the purpose of funding municipal parking facilities, pursuant to Chapter 35.87A RCW; and further provided, that all such construction and uses shall be subject to the maximum permissible parking space and bicycle parking requirements set forth in Table17.72.080; and provided further, if parking facilities are provided, they must meet the requirements established pursuant to PTMC.” Ordinance No. 2870, August 2004, authorized parking time limits and construction permit fees consistent with recommendations of the Parking Advisory Board. Ordinance No. 2893, April 2005, amended Chapter 17.72 of the PTMC with regard to off-street parking requirements. Ordinance No. 2894, May 2005, amended Chapter 10.04 of the PTMC to add a “program for paid parking utilizing parking passes.” Downtown Parking Management Plan. The City adopted a Downtown Parking Management Plan in January 2004. It was developed by consultants together with a local Parking Advisory Committee with City staff support. It considered three "strategy alternatives" – management emphasis; alternative mode emphasis; and new supply emphasis. The management emphasis was the basis for the final recommendations which were scaled in three phases; (1) near-term actions (within one year); (2) intermediate actions (two to five years); and (3) long-term actions (more than five years). While not all of the near-term recommendations have been implemented, the Plan is used as a guide for current and future actions by the City and community. Implementation of some of the recommendations will require more resources than are currently available. The exemption from off-street parking requirements in City Code mentioned above, together with on-street parking restrictions and enforcement, poses a parking issue for downtown residential uses which are increasingly becoming more common. Owners / residents in these units have to compete with businesses and shoppers for the limited parking spaces. Long term parking is located on the perimeter of the downtown some distance from the residential facilities. As the number of full-time residents increase downtown, pressure to provide different solutions for downtown residential parking will increase. A related issue is that the requirement in the City Code for "no protest agreements" for builders and developers of residential facilities cannot be implemented because the anticipated "parking and business improvements district (PBID)" has not been formed to establish a basis for capitalizing any parking facilities. Current and permitted residential projects have no financial commitment to participate in such PBID although they, with other businesses and property owners, would be involved in the formation of such PBID, if and when, on a voluntary basis. Also, the Downtown does not have alleys or off-street parking for commercial buildings or businesses, hence service deliveries of materials and products must use the center of the main streets for parking. This is common on weekdays on Water Street, a minor arterial. The street has curb-side parking on both sides, so when trucks are parked in the center, a narrow lane is passable on either side. This presents problems for traffic movement as well as safety Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-6 for all concerned, especially for emergency vehicles, buses and larger vehicles (trucks and RVs). Generally, all parties are accommodating and accidents are few. Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. The City Council appointed this committee to advise the consultants and City as the Downtown Parking Management Plan was developed. Some of the Committee members are still involved but the body as a whole has not been actively involved in the on-going issues related to parking in the Downtown. Such a group could be reconstituted as needed. Uptown Parking. The above stated PTMC 17.72.020 B also applies to the Uptown commercial area. In September 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2928 to drop the C-III zoned portions of the Uptown National Landmark Historic District from the exemption for parking requirements and established an interim minimum requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit for multi-family buildings. That interim standard has been extended by Ordinances 2942, 2950, 2968, and 2984. An Uptown Parking Strategies Committee was appointed by Council in 2007. The Committee and related staff work is still in progress and will likely be completed and adopted this year. Gateway Development Plan The Gateway Development Plan is a planning document formally adopted in 1993 for the Highway 20 (Sims Way) corridor from the western city limits at Mill Street, through the forested area entering the city, the upper commercial area along West Sims Way, the long S- curve coming down the hill, along the Boat Haven / Kah Tai Lagoon Park and the bluff area to the historic downtown district. It includes extensive discussion and recommendations regarding the transportation systems and elements throughout the project area. A corridor improvement project for the area of Upper Sims Way from west of Howard Street to Logan Street is being designed for construction in 2009 and 2010. It will implement the transportation elements of the Gateway Development Plan. Urban Waterfront Plan The Urban Waterfront Plan, adopted in December 1990, is a detailed plan for the Urban Waterfront area that addresses uses of public and private properties, height and bulk of structures, housing, open space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation throughout the planning area, physical and visual connections to the rest of the waterfront and from the bluff above, and new urban design guidelines and regulations. It encompasses the area, following the waterfront from the Port of Port Townsend properties at Point Hudson to the Boat Haven Marina. East Downtown Streetscape Plan In 2007 the City adopted Ordinance 2941 which enacted the East Downtown Historic Streetscape Design Concept Plan. The Plan contains standards and designs that will serve Deliveries of materials and products must use the center of Water Street for parking. This is common on weekdays and can present challenges for pedestrians and traffic movement, especially for emergency vehicles, buses and larger vehicles. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-7 as a guide for future improvements in the east end of downtown. Subsequent to adoption, the City has applied the concepts contained within the Plan and developed a series of streetscape improvements. These improvements have been funded through Council action and include the following: The removal and replacement of approximately 14 street trees to allow the undergrounding of power and telephone lines; the replacement of existing sidewalks and construction of new sidewalks in the East Downtown area; the improvement of Water Street in conjunction with the construction of the Northwest Maritime Center; and the installation of new coordinated street furniture, lighting and signage. Engineering Design Standards Manual The purpose of the Engineering Design Standards is to establish minimum requirements for all development in the City relating to water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation, utilities, clearing and grading, erosion control and construction activities. It includes detailed requirements for transportation systems and elements, design and construction. It includes development review, permitting, inspection and approval requirements. Jefferson County Jefferson County transportation-related policies that affect the City are contained in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and its Appendix B – Countywide Planning Policy. Comprehensive Plan Jefferson County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1998. The first GMA-required review and update occurred in 2004, including revisions to the Transportation Element.. The City of Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element must be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policy (CPP). In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan which interfaces with the City's Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. SR 20 is classified as a Principal Arterial and is the primary connection between the City and County. Other roadways that affect the City are Hastings Avenue, Cook Avenue, and South Discovery Road, all west of the City limits. Hastings Avenue and South Discovery Road are classified as minor arterials within the City and rural minor collectors within the County. Cook Avenue is classified as a collector within the City and rural minor collector within the County. South Jacob Miller Road is listed as a Local Access Road, though the County is planning to revisit its functional classification. South Jacob Miller Road could be an important route for serving the northwest quadrant of the City with an alternative route to SR 20 to reduce the traffic on Sheridan Street and Discovery Road. The County has adopted Level-of-Service (LOS) standards that are consistent with the standards established by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The LOS for Urban Roads is set at D, which is consistent with the City’s LOS D for its streets. The Concurrency section beginning on page 10-6 of the County’s Comprehensive Plan is a guide for addressing concurrency issues on SR 20. It states that House Bill 1487 in 1998 provides the WSDOT with authority to establish Level-of-Service standards for SR 20. “WSDOT accomplishes this through consultation with the Peninsula RTPO. The amended GMA now explicitly exempts HSS routes (highways of state-wide significance, including SR 20) from concurrency requirements except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes (RCW 36.70A.070).” Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-8 It further states, “The analysis of capacity-related concurrency has focused on equity. Two main issues have been identified. The first concerns State Routes and the regional traffic carried by those routes through local jurisdictions. The second concerns the scale of responsibility for achieving concurrency.” “Increases in regional traffic flow, appropriately, should not be attributed to local development. Jefferson County has regarded the need to share the burden of concurrency between locally and regionally-generated traffic as an important point for discussion because State Routes provide both local and regional travel routes. As regional travel routes, State Routes within Jefferson County provide access to the Olympic Peninsula and the Pacific Ocean and, therefore, are important links in supporting the regional economy. At the same time, developers of projects that serve local needs should not be required to mitigate declines in LOS that result from regional traffic growth. That is one reason Highways of Statewide Significance are exempt from local concurrency requirements.” State of Washington State statutes listed below provide the overall requirements for local city and county transportation elements and policies. Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A The link between land use and transportation is a focus of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of the Transportation Element is to provide the City with a guide for transportation system improvements to meet existing and future travel needs, and a means for integrating these improvements with the State, County, and regional transportation system. The GMA requires that the following topics be addressed within the Transportation Element: • Land use assumptions used in estimating travel demand • An inventory of existing transportation facilities and services • Level of service standards to gauge the performance of the system • Identification of actions and requirements needed to bring existing facilities and services up to standard • Forecasts of future traffic based on the Land Use Element • Identification of improvements and programs needed to address current and future transportation system deficiencies, including Transportation Demand Management strategies • A realistic multi-year financing plan that is balanced with the adopted level of service standards and the Land Use Element • An explanation of intergovernmental coordination and regional consistency. Local transportation elements must also include the following: • State-owned transportation facilities in the transportation inventory • The level of service (LOS) for state-owned transportation facilities • Identification and assessment of GMA concurrency and the applicability to highways of statewide significance • An estimate of the impacts to State-owned transportation facilities resulting from local land use assumptions Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 2-9 The City of Port Townsend Transportation Element and supporting Transportation Functional Plan both incorporate and address each of the GMA requirements for local transportation elements. More details regarding the GMA are included in Appendix A. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan As stated in the GMA (this requirement pre-dated adoption of GMA for other purposes), RCW 35.77.010 requires cities to adopt six-year transportation plans, commonly known as a 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. The City of Port Townsend has developed its TIP and updates it annually. Project priorities are adjusted to reflect current Council priorities and funding availability for specific projects. The TIP includes several projects that have no readily available funding sources at the time the TIP is approved. These projects are listed to identify City transportation needs in order to be able to apply for grant programs as funding becomes available. Also, the TIP is a part of the process for determining concurrency and potential transportation impact fee requirements for new development. More details regarding the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan requirements are included in Appendix A. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-1 Chapter 3 - Maintenance & Operations Plan This chapter describes the organization, tasks, equipment and programs that the Department of Public Works field crews perform to maintain and operate the City's physical transportation infrastructure. There are limited resources spread over a wide variety of functions that have to be performed to keep the streets, sidewalks and trails in safe condition. Organization The Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance and operations of the City’s transportation systems. The Department is also responsible for the water, sewer and storm water infrastructure services. The Street/Sewer/Storm Division includes eight people including the Operations Manager, a Crew Chief, four equipment operators, and two maintenance workers plus two seasonal part-time positions totaling 0.5 FTE. Those eight full time employees have to provide the full range of maintenance and operations for all three functions (streets, sewer, and storm water maintenance) in the field. There is a separate unit in this Division that maintains and operates the wastewater treatment facility and biosolids program. Performance Measures & Maintenance Management Table 3-1 summarizes the primary tasks and associated activities currently performed by the City under the transportation maintenance and operations program. The division managers keep the information to support these performance measures on paper and computer records. The Crew Chief keeps a daily log of all work performed. For example, the street sweeper records are highlighted maps showing streets that were swept on a daily basis. A similar system is used to record shoulder vegetation mowing and painting. Work planning is a continual process that is updated as it goes. Much of the work is repetitive, seasonal and is routinely scheduled. Some work is unable to be completed in the winter, increasing the difficulty of scheduling the summer workload. The construction project work requires more planning and scheduling. Much of the work is dependent on the adopted budget and can only be planned for the available funding. The issue of using a computerized software system of keeping actual labor costs based on the daily activities of the crews has been used in the past, periodically re-considered and determined that it would consume time and resources that should be used for other productive tasks. The current financial accounting system does not accept that level of detail and would have to be expanded. It would require acquisition or development of a work order system that would track hourly labor to the budget accounting system plus the staff time in both Finance and Public Works to implement and maintain it. Any acquired system would need to be integrated with the financial/budget performance system in some manner. The City has evaluated a software system which provides a full maintenance management system that can run on PCs, laptops, cell phones, PDAs, GPS units and more. Typical components are: work flow management, asset management, GIS integration, and tools that allow customized applications. Such a system would track all of the labor, equipment and material costs for a work order, tying work orders to physical assets. Another element would provide an interface that helps gather all information needed to record any work request, links directly to generate work orders, records incoming requests, and views caller history. The transportation asset management element could include components for pavement management, pavement markings (striping, crosswalks, stop bars, parking stalls, etc), traffic signals and signs. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-2 Table 3-1. Maintenance and Operations Tasks Task Activities Frequency Chip seal streets Prepare gravel roads for chip seal Contract with County for paving 1 to 1.5 miles per year depending on funding Maintain gravel streets Grade and apply crushed rock for dust control 6 miles, twice per year Major pavement repair Dig out and repair failed pavement with hot mix asphalt by contractor 1 to 4 locations per year depending on funding Pothole patching Apply cold mix asphalt in potholes 66 tons of cold mix asphalt per year Shoulder maintenance Grade and apply crushed rock for walkways and parking 1 to 2 miles per year Sidewalk repair Repair trip hazards in sidewalks 40 to 60 hours per year Major sidewalk repair Remove existing sidewalk and contract for replacement by others 1 to 6 locations per year depending on funding F Street paver repair Repair pavers and apply sand 12 locations per year Place thermoplastic pavement markings Purchase and apply hot tape for: ADA symbols for restricted parking Bicycle emblems for bike ways Crosswalks Stop bars 2 locations per year 10 locations per year 4 locations per year 5 locations per year Paint pavement striping Paint parking stripes and crosswalks with own forces and equipment Contract for centerline and fog line painting Approx. 500 hrs per year with two people Approx. 70 miles of lines Tree and brush trimming and other vegetation control Cut back trees and brush to clear shoulders and maintain sight lines Mow shoulders, ditches and banks 160 hours per year with 2 people 140 miles per year with 2 people Install and maintain traffic signs Place new traffic signs as needed Replace broken or worn signs 25 signs per year 30 signs per year Maintain City-owned street lights Replace bulbs or fixtures as needed 3 times per year Maintain City-owned traffic control system at Taylor on Water Street Replace bulbs or fixtures as needed 5 times per year Street sweeping Sweep with City-owned truck-mounted street sweeper 2,400 miles per year Snow and ice control Plow snow and apply sand Varies with weather conditions but averages 80 hours per year Citizen complaints and request See summary below See summary below There are many potential vendors of this type of software that would provide consultation and cost estimates. Any system would require significant capital investment plus the staff resources to implement and maintain the system. The City could decrease the amount of paper files kept for maintenance and operations by increasing the use of current software and by scanning paper files into pdf or Word files for storage on the network and access by individual computers. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-3 City Shop and Equipment The City has one major “shop” facility where all of the street-related equipment and operations are located. Parks has facilities at Chetzemoka Park and the Sewer crews have some equipment located at the treatment plant. The City does have an Equipment Rental Fund (ERF) for depreciation and replacement funding for vehicles and motorized equipment. A portion of the annual Street Fund budget is paid into the ERF so the City can replace aging equipment as needed. The City has its own shop for normal maintenance of equipment but only one mechanic for all of the City’s vehicles so major work is contracted out. Equipment is periodically shared with other City operations but most equipment is dedicated to program use. The following is a listing of the equipment owned by the Streets Fund through the ERF. Table 3-2. List of Maintenance and Operations Equipment (Street Fund) Date Acquired Description Value in 2008 Jan 1979 Miller Equipment Trailer $20,000 Jan 1990 Valk Snow Plow $5,000 Jan 1990 GMC Dump Truck $85,000 Jan 1997 Ingersoll Rand Roller $72,000 April 2004 Chevrolet ¾ T Pickup $17,458 Ditch Witch Trailer – Shoring $5,000 Jan 1996 Meyer Snow Plow $5,000 Jan 1985 GMC Dump Truck $75,000 Jan 1980 Honda 1500 Generator $12,000 Jan 1980 Hiway Sander $5,000 Jan 1980 Hiway Sander $5,000 April 2004 PK 40H Patcher $38,333 Jan 1980 Henderson Sander $5,000 April 2004 Chevrolet ¾ T Pickup $24,128 Jan 1991 Paint Striper $2,000 Jan 1991 Power Line 4000 Paint Striper $8,000 Jan 1996 Honda Pavement Grinder $2,000 Jan 1997 Air Jackhammer #80 $9,000 Jan 1996 Monroe Tailgate Sander $5,000 Jan 1999 Oil Distributor Trailer $8,254 Feb 2005 Paint Striper $5,222 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-4 The following is a listing of the equipment owned by the Storm Water Fund through the ERF and used for streets purposes, just as streets equipment is used for storm purposes. Table 3-3. List of Maintenance and Operations Equipment (Storm Water Fund) Date Acquired Description Value in 2008 Jan 1989 John Deere Grader $150,000 Jan 1989 Ford Tiger Mower $75,000 Jan 1984 ½ Ford Vactor Truck $62,500 Jan 2002 Street Sweeper $125,000 Jan 1997 Chevrolet S10 Excab Pickup $16,000 Pavement Maintenance The following table shows the current inventory of City streets based on data as of February 2008. Table 3-4. Street Inventory Classification Asphalt 1 (miles) Chip Seal (miles) Gravel (miles) Totals (miles) Percent Minor Arterial 2.47 5.62 8.09 10.14% Major Collector 0.88 6.64 7.52 9.43% Minor Collector 1.28 1.52 2.80 3.51% Scenic Collector 0.48 4.73 5.21 6.53% Local Access 13.74 37.4 4.99 56.13 70.38% Total miles 18.85 55.91 4.99 79.75 100.00% Percent 23.64% 70.11% 6.26% 100.00% 1. Includes City-maintained streets only and excludes Sims Way (WSDOT), Fort Worden, and other private streets. Total street miles is 93.6 miles when other facilities are included. The five miles of unpaved streets require grading and new crushed rock twice per year. Unpaved streets readily pot hole and are especially susceptible to water, breaking down even faster. They are also dusty when dry so good crushed quarry rock which is not as “dirty” is used to reduce dust complaints. The City does not apply dust control oil or chemicals. There is a long backlog of streets with older chip seal pavement that need to be re-paved but the annual budget is used to chip seal gravel streets to reduce that maintenance workload. Chip seal is much less expensive than asphalt pavement and reduces citizen complaints about gravel streets and dust. An Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with Jefferson County provides for County crews to “chip seal” dirt/gravel streets. The amount budgeted varies from year to year. The Performance Measures in Table 3-1 show that $40,000 has been allocated for 2008 which will chip seal around 0.5 miles. At that rate, it will take 10 years to complete chip sealing the 5 miles of gravel streets. City crews do all of the preparation work for these projects and the County crews apply the oil and crushed rock. This arrangement costs the City around $1 per square foot. It would probably cost over $1.50 per square foot to contract this work. There are very few contractors in the northwest that do chip seal work because it is mostly performed by the counties and the WSDOT with their own crews. As shown in the inventory, 70 percent of the City’s inventory of paved streets is chip seal. The more correct name for it is bituminous surface. The process for "chip seal" pavement is hot asphalt oil (liquid) sprayed across the roadway followed by spreading crushed rock Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-5 (chips) over the oil and then letting the oil harden. It may be compacted with truck tires or by just letting traffic run on it. After it has set up, the excess crushed rock is swept off. It can be applied in one or multiple layers by the same process. Thickness is dependent on the number of layers but may only be 1/2 inch or more per layer. The strength and durability of a thin layer depends entirely on the underlying base material and condition. If the base is bad, the chip seal breaks down and requires patching or replacing. Once it breaks down, an additional chip seal is not effective because the problem will emerge again in a very short time. Full reconstruction is needed to re-build the base and then pave with asphalt. Chip seal can also be used, as the County does, as a surface treatment applied over existing pavement for preventive maintenance and to extend the life of the pavement. (See discussion below regarding pavement preventive maintenance). Chip seal pavement has a shorter life than asphalt and has to be patched or repaired more frequently. The industry considers its expected life cycle to be 7 to 10 years. Chip seal streets are not designed for heavy traffic loads, especially trucks and buses. Asphalt pavement (or asphalt concrete) is crushed rock mixed with hot asphalt oil in an industrial plant, trucked hot to the site and applied with a paving machine then compacted with heavy steel rollers. It is usually applied at least 2 inches thick on well prepared base material. Because of the improved sub-grade and thickness, it is much stronger and more durable than chip seal pavement. The expected life for asphalt pavement is 15 to 20 years for non-arterials. The City does not have the equipment to do its own paving. The asphalt would have to be hauled in the City’s small dump trucks so it is not efficient and is labor-intensive. The City contracts for paving with asphalt as needed and as funds are available. Asphalt prices have increased dramatically along with the price of oil and gasoline. In the past, asphalt concrete could be placed for around $40 per ton and in 2008 it cost around $120 per ton. It costs around $3.50 per square foot to overlay a street in decent condition and around $6.00 to reconstruct failed pavement. The City purchases EZ Street ® cold asphalt mix for pothole patching and has a "hot box" for heating it before placement. It holds in place better than traditional "cold mix" asphalt patching. It is delivered cold to the maintenance yard by a supplier. The City has a wide range of natural, glacial sub-grade under its streets, from sand and gravel to clay. The poorer clay sub-grade materials are more affected by poor drainage, water table and freezing. The City does not experience many freeze/thaw problems due to the moderate winter temperatures. Poor drainage means higher maintenance problems and really cold winters where the ground freezes more than 6 inches could cause substantial problems for gravel and chip seal streets. That causes the water under the pavement to expand then contract which turns the sub-grade to mud, loosing all of its strength and causing the pavement to fail. Pavement Markings Most crosswalks, parking stalls and bicycle lane markings are performed by City crews, but the annual centerline and fog line painting is contracted out. This is seasonal work depending on good, dry weather, keeping two or more people busy most of the summer. The City recently purchased a painting machine and has increased the use of hot thermal plastic tape (5 year life depending on traffic conditions) as much as funding allows minimizing the amount of annual painting. Striping is tracked through a series of maps. WSDOT is responsible for pavement marking and signs on Sims Way (SR 20) from the western city limits to the ferry terminal downtown. The City provides the street name signs and the City applied the bike lane symbols for the bike lanes. WSDOT maintains the Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-6 crosswalks on Sims Way but the City maintains the “flashing in-pavement lights” at the crosswalk on Sims Way west of Sheridan Street. Signs The City has a street sign shop but does not make their signs. There are two vendors that can supply the signs as needed, including custom-order signs. They have a listed and mapped sign inventory and do keep track of the sign work as it is performed. A substantial percentage of citizen complaints are related to requests for new signs or replacement as needed. The crew performs reflectivity surveys at night to determine which signs need to be replaced. The City recently provided a new computer for the sign function and will be moving toward sign maintenance management in that mode. All sign work is done in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to comply with standards and minimize liability. Shoulder and Vegetation Maintenance City crews perform road shoulder, ditch and vegetation maintenance. They also perform a limited amount of grading (“pulling”) the shoulders and ditches due to the concerns for erosion and storm water requirements which takes a lot more planning for such projects. A lot of the ditches are being filled in without adequate drainage, either naturally or by the adjacent homeowners. Solving drainage problems in these areas increases the work and cost of such projects. In some areas, it requires construction of a new drainage system. Also, City crews do not have a conveyor loader for picking up the spoils from that kind of operation. It would cost about $5,000 per week to rent the extra equipment needed for full scale pulling of shoulders and ditches. The City recently acquired an aerial bucket truck and a new, heavy tractor-mounted mower for vegetation maintenance. They also have an extendable arm chain saw for cutting high tree branches. The City currently does not have a chipper for vegetation maintenance. Herbicides or other chemical weed control is not used, except under new pavement to stop weeds from breaking up the pavement and for noxious weed control on a site specific basis where mechanical weed control cannot be done, such as on steep slopes. Traffic Signals The City is responsible for and maintains the old traffic signal at Water and Taylor Streets which was originally installed for the ferry terminal when it was located downtown. It is a fixed time, non-actuated signal and provides some level of traffic control downtown. WSDOT is responsible for all other traffic signals on Sims Way (SR 20). City crews perform road shoulder, ditch and vegetation maintenance using a heavy tractor- mounted mower. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-7 Street Lights The City does own some street lights that are the responsibility of the Streets Division to maintain. Most of the street lights are owned and maintained by Puget Sound Energy, through their separate “Intolight” company. The City pays PSE approximately $70,000 per year for street light power and maintenance. Most lights are low pressure sodium vapor. Street Sweeping and Litter Control City crews are responsible for waste and litter control, but most of it is handled by the garbage hauler in a franchise agreement. The City has a number of “public” trash receptacles that the garbage hauler picks up on their regular routes. City crews pick up some litter during shoulder and vegetation maintenance work and they do have some community service litter crews when possible, mostly for arterials and collectors. City crews also respond to and pick up dead animals on the streets, mostly deer. The City does have and regularly provides street sweeping, downtown once to twice per week and as needed in other locations. They have to sweep twice per week in the fall to pick up leaves before they block storm drainage systems. As mentioned above, this work is scheduled on a regular basis and records are kept on paper maps showing the streets that have been swept on a daily basis. Sidewalks City crews have to maintain all sidewalks, including addressing trip hazards by paint marking, grinding and repair. They do little “concrete” work and contract it out as needed. Crews will assist a property owner desiring to re-construct a sidewalk by providing some demolition and removal of the old concrete. Snow and Ice Control The City has several dump trucks mounted with snow plows and sand spreaders (3 plows and 4 sanders) for snow and ice control. The City can also use the grader if the snow accumulation is heavy. There is an adopted “snow plan” for prioritizing and routing snow plow efforts. The City is responsible for plowing and sanding Sims Way. WSDOT provides some assistance if they are in the area and occasionally they apply de-icing materials from the city limits to the ferry terminal. The City does not use deicing chemicals. Citizen Complaints A large portion of work is directed toward resolving citizen complaints and trying to meet high expectations with limited resources. The Division also does a lot of work to support public events, festivals, parades, etc. by providing labor and temporary signs, barricades, portable fences, etc. plus clean-up after the events, primarily from May to September. For example, it takes several weeks of work to prepare the streets for the Rhododendron Festival parade and fun run as well as make the whole City look clean for the visitors. The City has a citizen complaint logging system that includes a “streets” category. The following is a tabulation of the data provided. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-8 Table 3-5. Citizen Complaint Summary Citizen Complaint Summary Complaint 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Abandoned car 2 1 Abrupt edge 1 Access to property 2 1 Bicycle safety 1 1 1 Bike lane designation 1 Broken bollard 1 City employee (crew) 1 2 2 Construction concerns 1 5 3 4 Crew blocking access 1 Crew broke phone line 1 Crosswalk 1 2 1 2 3 Dead animal 7 3 6 2 8 12 10 Development 1 Dirty street 5 1 1 Dog poop 1 Driveway 2 Dusty road 1 6 5 1 1 F Street 2 7 Garbage pickup 3 Glass on road 3 2 3 Grading request 1 2 Graffiti 2 3 Hazard (unidentified) 1 1 1 Hornets 1 Horse manure 2 Ice 1 4 5 Litter 3 5 2 5 8 12 Oil on road 5 7 2 Parking 1 3 6 8 9 10 Pavement markings 1 1 2 3 3 Pavement request 1 4 4 3 2 Pedestrian safety 2 2 7 1 Pesticides / herbicides 1 Pot hole 15 16 15 20 14 31 7 Property usage 13 1 Right-of-way 1 2 1 2 Roadway concerns 8 Road/street maintenance 1 4 2 8 10 17 Road work 1 Safety concern 2 2 Sidewalk gravel 1 Sidewalk hazard 7 6 2 15 9 10 Snow plowing 4 Speed bump 1 Speed bump request 1 1 Storm debris 1 Storm water 2 8 6 22 41 25 (cont’d) Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 3-9 (Table 3-5. cont’d) Street light glare 2 1 1 10 Street light (private) 1 2 3 Street light (PSE) 7 4 33 12 11 17 29 Street light request 1 Street light (unidentified) 1 1 2 2 Street light (WSDOT) 1 Street obstruction 1 Street sign 38 9 16 40 32 39 30 Street sign request 23 28 24 23 21 23 15 Street vacation 1 Survey monument 1 Thank you 2 Traffic calming 3 6 6 2 1 Traffic control 1 Traffic signal (City) 2 2 3 Traffic signal (WSDOT) 1 2 1 2 1 Trail issue 5 2 Unidentified 50 101 63 2 1 Unpaved road 1 Unsafe curb 1 Utilities 2 27 52 61 Utility wires 2 1 6 7 Vandalism 1 Vegetation 26 22 58 45 60 92 77 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-1 Chapter 4 - Arterial Street Plan The Arterial Street Plan identifies the transportation improvements necessary to support the expected growth over the next 20 years. It focuses on safety, capacity, and operational improvements on the arterials and collectors serving the City. It incorporates pedestrian, bicycle, transit, vehicular, and freight needs and builds off the prior planning work and adopted regulations summarized in Chapter 2. The Arterial Street Plan is based on the results of the traffic count inventory and the traffic volume forecasts from the travel demand model. The traffic volume forecasts were used to evaluate future PM peak hour traffic operations and identify future deficiencies at the major intersections within the City. New roadway connections and roadway extensions were also evaluated along with geometric, streetscape, and other roadway enhancements that are necessary to improve roadway and intersections operations and safety. The evaluation results include recommended changes to the functional classification system, a summary of each recommended project along with planning level cost estimates, and a relative priority level and a timing horizon for each project. The Arterial Street Plan is organized into the following sections: • Roadway Functional Classification • Roadway Inventory • Existing Traffic Conditions • Future Baseline Traffic Conditions • Street and Highway Improvements Roadway Functional Classification The street system in Port Townsend is classified according to the roadway’s purpose, design characteristics and function. The functional classification guides the programming of roadway improvements. Within the City of Port Townsend, the roadway classifications include principal and minor arterials, collectors and local streets. There are three sub-categories of collectors including major, minor, and scenic collectors. Table 4-1 describes typical characteristics of each functional classification based on the City of Port Townsend Engineering Design Standards (1997). Figure 4-1 shows the roadway functional classification system for the City of Port Townsend. The City intersections controlled by traffic signals and those controlled by all-way stop signs are also shown. The changes to the functional classification since the completion of the previous Arterial Street Plan include reclassifying Howard Street as a minor arterial between Sims Way and Hastings Avenue to reflect its new function as a north-south connection arterial. The section north of Hastings Avenue should be reconstructed and classified as a collector. The roadway classification system reflects the anticipated and desired function of the streets. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-2 Table 4-1. Roadway Functional Classification Descriptions Classification Description Principal Arterial Street with access control, channelized intersections, restricted parking, and that collects and distributes traffic to and from minor arterials. Direct access to a principal arterial is usually restricted to intersecting streets or consolidated commercial or industrial entrances. Minor Arterial Street with signals at important intersections and stop signs on the side streets and that collect and distribute traffic to and from collector streets. Collector Major Collectors – Connect generators of intra-county importance not served by arterials. Provide connections between arterials and other collectors and local roads. More access is provided to adjacent land uses than normally found on arterials. Minor Collectors – Link locally important generators not served by arterials and provide connections to major collectors or arterials. Scenic Collectors – Provides access to less dense areas where greater mobility is expected without a significant decrease in access to adjacent land uses. Local Street Public right-of-way used primarily to provide access to abutting residential properties. Includes any street not designated as a collector, minor arterial, or principal arterial street. Roadway Inventory The City of Port Townsend is responsible for the transportation system within its city limits, except for SR 20 which the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for maintaining. There are five signalized intersections (four along SR 20 and one at the Water Street/Taylor Street intersection) and nine all-way stop controlled intersections in the City. The City is responsible for and maintains the old traffic signal at Water and Taylor Streets which was originally installed for the ferry terminal when it was located downtown. It is a fixed time, non- actuated signal and provides some level of traffic control downtown. WSDOT is responsible for maintenance and operations on all other traffic signals on Sims Way (SR 20). State Highways The City of Port Townsend is served by SR 20 which begins at the Ferry Terminal. It is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance. Highways of Statewide Significance (HHS) are facilities that have been specially designated by the State of Washington to ensure linkages between major communities within the State and to assist with priority planning and the allocation of funding. HHS’s are not subject to local jurisdiction level-of-service standards. The access control type on SR 20 within the City of Port Townsend is Class 3 between the City limit and Decatur Street, and Class 4 between Decatur Street and the Ferry Terminal. Highways of Classes 3 and 4 provide for moderate travel speeds and moderate traffic volumes, and offer a reasonable balance between access and mobility needs. Class 4 is used primarily where the existing level of development of the adjoining land is more intensive and where the probability of major land use changes is less probable than on Class 3 highways segments. F ST S JACOB MILLER RD FIR ST 35TH ST COOK AVE 49TH ST LANDES ST HOWARD ST 19TH ST MILL R D W ST K E A R N E Y S T HASTINGS AVE W AT E R S T SAN JUAN AVE SI MS WAY ADMIRALTY ST B E N T O N S T D IS C O V E R Y R D CENTER ST CHERRY ST S DISCOVERY RD UMATILLA AVE LA 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 SI M S W A Y Roadway Functional Classification Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-1 Roadway Functional Classification.mxd Legend Intersection Control Type All-Way Stops Traffic Signals Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Minor Arterial (Proposed) Collector Rural Minor Collector Local Streets City Limits FIGURE4-1 Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay City of Port Townsend Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-4 Jefferson County Roads Several Jefferson County rural minor collectors adjoin the City including Cook Avenue, Hastings Avenue, and South Discovery Road. These facilities are all located west of the City limits. No rural major collectors abut the City. South Jacob Miller Road is listed as a local access road in the County’s roadway functional classification system. Truck Routes Trucking is the predominant mode of freight transportation in Jefferson County. Most of the total westbound truck freight is carried over the Hood Canal Bridge, towards Port Townsend, or north along US 101 through Shelton. Washington State Ferries are also a part of the freight transport system in the County, carrying commercial trucks from East Puget Sound via Keystone to Port Townsend. Port Townsend Paper Corporation also owns a 600-foot dock that can accommodate large ocean-going vessels. Due to shallow waters, ships cannot leave fully loaded. The Port Townsend Paper Corporation generates more than 40 inbound trucks per day. In-bound freight consists primarily of raw materials such as wood chips, and outbound trucking freight is paper goods. SR 20 is classified as a T-3 class in the State Freight and Goods Transportation System, meaning that the annual truck gross tonnage is between 300,000 and 4 million tons. The truck percentage is about 12 to 14 percent of the total daily traffic. Existing Traffic Conditions The existing traffic conditions were evaluated to identify 2006 traffic volumes and intersection and roadway operational issues. 2006 data was the latest available information at the time of the analyses. Traffic Volumes Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 4-2 shows existing average daily traffic volumes as of 2006. Traffic counts were provided by the City of Port Townsend and WSDOT, and additional counts were conducted in 2006 for developing the City’s travel demand model. WSDOT collects 24-hour traffic count data on an annual basis at the City limit, Haines Place, Kearney Street, Water Street and at the Ferry Terminal intersection. The highest daily traffic volumes are observed along SR 20 near the City limit with more than 18,000 average annual daily vehicles. There are significant seasonal variations in traffic patterns along SR 20: WSDOT reports that January volumes are approximately 25 percent to 53 percent lower than the annual average, and August volumes are approximately 10 percent to 19 percent higher than the annual average. The highest volumes in the City of Port Townsend are on the City’s principal and minor arterials, as would be expected. The major east-west routes are Discovery Road, 19th Street, Blaine Street, Lawrence Street, and Washington Street which serve as alternatives to Sims Way and Water Street. The average daily volumes along these east-west roads range from 3,000 to 4,700 average daily vehicles. The Discovery Road corridor serves much less traffic than the Sims Way corridor, or about one-sixth of the volumes. As traffic flow increases into and out of the City in the future, it is Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-5 expected that traffic will begin to shift to Discovery Road because Sims Way is nearing capacity. The major north-south roadways in the City include McPherson Street, Sheridan Avenue, San Juan Avenue, Cherry Street and Tyler Street. The average daily volumes on these roadways range from 1,300 to 4,800 vehicles per day. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The PM peak hour traffic volumes represent the highest volumes that occur during an average day. PM peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4-3. The PM peak hour volumes are generally used to design and plan roadways and intersections so that operations will run smoothly, safely, and efficiently. The PM peak hour volumes generally follow the same trends as the average daily traffic volumes meaning that the same high volume corridors for an average day mirror the high volume corridors during the PM peak hour. The highest PM peak hour volumes in the City occur along Sims Way and Water Street with volumes ranging between 1,680 vehicles per hour in both directions at the entrance to the City to 950 vehicles per hour in both directions downtown. The volumes are more pronounced in the westbound direction heading out of the City with a ratio of 55 percent westbound to 45 percent eastbound. The ratio decreases towards Lower Sims Way and Water Street where the flows are almost even. There are no pronounced north-south trends with most flow fairly even in both directions. In general, the PM peak hour volumes on City streets are below 200 vehicles per hour outside of Sims Way and Water Street and congestion and capacity issues are only a concern at a few specific intersections. Intersection Turning Movements Key intersections in the City of Port Townsend were selected to be part of the traffic operations analysis. The key intersections are illustrated in Figure 4-4. The key intersections are mainly located at the junctions of principal, minor, and collector arterials with other arterials including all of the signalized and all-way stop intersections, and the intersections affected by ferry loading and unloading. The PM peak hour turning movements at the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4-5A and Figure 4-5B. The intersection turning movements mirror the trends seen in the average daily volumes and the PM peak hour counts in that the major roadway movements are reflected at the intersection turning movement level. The high and evenly distributed through volumes at the Sims Way and Water Street intersections means that there are fewer gaps in traffic for left-turning vehicles from the minor roadways and from Sims Way and Water Streets onto the minor roadways. As a result, more delay is experienced by motorists making left-turns, especially at unsignalized locations or locations without left-turn lanes. Traffic decreases along Sims Way in the eastbound direction from the City Limits to Monroe Street as vehicles turn onto the minor arterials and side streets such as McPherson Street, Sheridan Avenue, and Kearney Street and to and from adjoining businesses along the corridor. Conversely, volumes increase along Sims Way in the westbound direction as vehicles turn onto the corridor from the minor arterials and adjoining land uses and head out of town. The flow in both directions along Sims Way is fairly even in both directions. 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 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD 35TH ST COOK AVE HOWARD ST MILL R D W ST HASTINGS AVE SI MS WAY ADMIRALTY ST D IS C O V E R Y R D CENTER ST S DISCOVERY RD UMATILLA AVE M O N R O E S T 2006 Daily Count Locations and Volumes Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-2 2006 Daily Counts and Volumes.mxd FIGURE4-2 Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay City of Port Townsend Legend 2006 Daily Count Locations Major Arterial Local Streets City Limits 55 40 65 50 150 175 200 50 485 465 65 185 135 120 705 65 65 220 140210 120 120 930 770 145 130 200 730 715165 305 155 155 100 120 310 320 140165 35 50 885 710 880 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD FIR ST 35TH ST CO OK AVE LANDES ST HOWARD ST MILL R D HASTINGS AVE ADMIRALTY ST B E N T O N S T DI S C O V E R Y R D W A S HI N G T O N S T UMATILLA AVE SHERIDAN ST M O N R O E S T J A C K S O N S T 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-3 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Legend 2006 Traffic Volumes 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 700 701 - 2000 City Limits FIGURE4-3 City of Port Townsend Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay 35 34 33 1 43 9 87 65 2 29 1131 30 27 28 2625 2019 24 23 22 1721 16 14 32 12 18 1015 13 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD FIR ST 35TH ST COOK AVE 49TH ST LANDES ST HOWARD ST 19TH ST MILL R D W ST HASTINGS AVE SAN JUAN AVE SI M S WA Y B E N T O N S T CENTER ST S DISCOVERY RD UMATILLA AVE H A R R I S O N S T J A C K S O N S T MCPHERSON ST SI M S W A Y Study Intersections Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-4 Study Intersections.mxd Legend Study Intersections Major Arterial Local Streets City Limits FIGURE4-4 Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay City of Port Townsend Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-11 Traffic Operations Traffic operations analysis provides a quantitative method for evaluating existing and future transportation conditions. Traffic operations analyses takes into account the channelization and configuration of an intersection, volumes for each movement, traffic control types, the percentage of heavy vehicles using the intersection, flow rates, and pedestrian crossings. The end result is a measurement of the average delay that a motorist would experience when traveling through the intersection. The average delay calculation is compared to the level of service (LOS) standard of the City to identify potential operations or capacity issues. Roadway operations are also evaluated and based primarily on a volume-to-capacity threshold. If standards are not being met, then recommendations are made that specify how intersection or roadway operations can be improved. The City’s LOS standards for roadways and intersections are first summarized. An evaluation of how the City’s roadways and intersections currently (2006) operate is then presented. Level of Service Standards The City of Port Townsend has defined level of service (LOS) standards for roadways and intersections. Some elements of the LOS standards are applied as part of the City’s Transportation Concurrency Management (TCM) program per the Growth Management Act (GMA), as described further in Appendix F. Other elements of the standards are applied during part of the review of potential development traffic impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Roadway LOS Standards and Methodology. One of the most critical elements of travel in the City of Port Townsend is access/egress to the City along the western boundary. The primary travel routes include Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road. Sims Way (SR 20) is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). As a HSS, the level of service standard for the highway is set by the state (RCW 14.06.140). For urban areas, the state has established a standard of LOS D or better. LOS C or better is the LOS standard for HSS routes in rural areas. The state has exempted HSS facilities from the concurrency provision of GMA. Discovery Road provides an alternative to Sims Way (SR 20) to/from Port Townsend and other areas of Jefferson County and the Olympic Peninsula. It is classified by the City as a minor arterial. In order to assess the overall ability of traffic to enter/exit the City at its western boundary, the City has developed a roadway LOS standard based on a “screenline” covering both of these roadways. A screenline is an imaginary line that comprises one or more roadways that serve a particular travel pattern. As part of its TCM program, the City defined a screenline that includes both Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road just west of Howard Street near the west edge of the City. The screenline analysis is based on weekday PM peak hour roadway volumes, for each travel direction. The combined directional PM peak hour roadway volumes for the two roadways is divided by their combined capacities, or a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by direction. The roadway capacities are defined in the City’s travel demand model. The City has established a standard as a maximum screenline v/c of 0.85 or less, representing LOS D or better. This method provides the City with a broad evaluation of available capacity and potential need for transportation improvements to serve planned growth. While the screenline includes Sims Way (SR 20), it does not require the City to deny a development application if Sims Way (SR 20) operates below LOS D, as long as Discovery Way continues to have capacity to serve traffic growth. Intersection LOS Standards and Methodology. In addition to the roadway LOS standard and evaluation, the City has adopted standards for intersection operations. The standards for intersection operations are based on weekday PM peak hour conditions, using Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-12 methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2000. Intersection levels of service are based on the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection during the analysis time period. Levels of service for signalized or roundabout controlled intersections are based on the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Levels of service for unsignalized intersections depend on whether all movements are required to stop, or just traffic on the minor street(s) stops. Level of service for all-way stops is evaluated based on the average vehicle delay for all traffic movements at an intersection, similar to a signalized intersection. For two-way, stop-controlled intersections LOS is typically reported in terms of the average vehicle delay for individual movements. The LOS for the worst movement(s) is typically presented and represents vehicles entering from the stop- controlled, minor street approach. Table 4-2 summarizes the delay criteria for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections per the HCM. Table 4-2. Intersection Level of Service Criteria Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A < 10 < 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, TRB, 2000. The City has adopted LOS D or better for intersections. Application of the LOS standard under concurrency and/or SEPA depends on the type of intersection (signalized/roundabout versus unsignalized), the intersection location (Sims Way [SR 20] or City roadway), and functional classifications (arterials, collectors, and local streets). These are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. City of Port Townsend Intersection LOS Standards1 Traffic Control Type Level of Service Standard2 Concurrency or SEPA3 Review Signals / Roundabouts • Sims Way (SR 20) D SEPA only, HSS4 facility • All locations 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. 3. SEPA = State Environmental Policy Act 4. HSS = Highway of Statewide Significance Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-13 Existing Roadway Operations Except for Sims Way (SR 20), roadways in the City of Port Townsend generally operate well below capacity during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Sims Way (SR 20) experiences the highest traffic volumes in the City since it is the main ingress and egress point to the City, and the main east-west route. Consistent with the City’s concurrency program, roadway operations are based on a screenline volume-to-capacity measurement west of Howard Street. The screenline measures the volume-to-capacity of both Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road and effectively treats the separate roadways as one corridor. Table 4-4 illustrates the 2006 volumes, estimated capacities (based on the City’s travel demand model), and volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c ratio) of the SR 20 and Discovery Road corridors west of Howard Street. LOS D is defined as a screenline v/c ratio of 0.85 or less, by direction. The volumes on Upper Sims Way are approximately 930 vehicles per hour westbound and 770 vehicles per hour eastbound during the PM peak hour. Discovery Road experiences traffic volumes of 145 vehicles per hour westbound and 130 vehicles per hour eastbound during the weekday PM peak hour. Based on 2006 volumes, the v/c ratio along Upper Sims Way was at the LOS D (v/c < 0.85) threshold in the westbound direction, but well under in the eastbound direction. Discovery Road has v/c ratios of approximately 0.20 in both directions, indicating that it can accommodate additional traffic during the weekday PM peak hour. The total screenline capacity in the westbound direction is 0.60, which is well below the LOS D threshold of 0.85. The screenline v/c in the eastbound direction is 0.50, so it would also meet the City’s concurrency LOS D standard. Table 4-4. 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 travel demand model. Existing Intersection LOS Results During a typical weekday, traffic peaks during the evening commute with the predominate peak hour of most City intersections occurring within 15 minutes of the hour from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. Existing intersection levels of service were calculated for the PM peak hour period on a typical day using turning movement counts collected between 2004 and 2006 at 35 intersections. Counts conducted prior to 2006 were increased at a rate of 5 percent annually to estimate 2006 conditions. The growth rate was based on a review of historical traffic counts. Table 4-5 summarizes existing PM peak hour LOS for the study intersections. The analysis indicates that five unsignalized intersections along Sims Way (SR 20) currently operate below the adopted City or State LOS standard under existing conditions: • Intersections of Sims Way (SR 20) with McPherson Street and 12th Street (LOS E); • Intersections of Sims Way (SR 20) with Thomas Street, Sheridan Avenue, and Washington Street (LOS F). Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-14 Table 4-5. 2006 Existing Intersection LOS ID Intersection LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM3 Traffic Control5 PM Peak Hour1 1 Sims Way (SR 20)/Mill Road B 17 0.78 Signal 2 Sims Way (SR 20)/Howard Street C 21 SB TWSC 3 Sims Way (SR 20)/McPherson Street E 48 NB TWSC 4 Sims Way (SR 20)/Sheridan Avenue F 60 NB TWSC 5 Sims Way (SR 20)/Haines Street C 21 0.80 Signal 6 Sims Way (SR 20)/12th Street E 41 SB PSC 7 Sims Way (SR 20)/Kearney Street C 21 0.79 Signal 8 Sims Way (SR 20)/Washington Street F > 100 NB PSC 9 Water Street/Ferry Terminal A 6 0.33 Signal 10 Water Street/Taylor Street A 9 0.26 Signal 11 Water Street/Monroe Street B 14 NB TWSC 12 Discovery Road/Mill Road C 19 WB PSC 13 Discovery Road/Eddy Street A 10 NB TWSC 14 Discovery Road/McPherson Street B 12 SB TWSC 15 Discovery Road/Sheridan Avenue B 12 WB AWSC 16 19th Street/Discovery Road B 10 SB PSC 17 Hastings Avenue/Discovery Road B 11 EB PSC 18 Discovery Road/San Juan Avenue B 10 EB AWSC 19 F Street/Cherry Street A 9 EB AWSC 20 F Street/Fir Street B 11 NB TWSC 21 Hastings Avenue/Sheridan Avenue B 12 NB TWSC 22 49th Street/Jackman Street B 11 SB TWSC 23 Admiralty Street/San Juan Avenue B 10 EB TWSC 24 W Street/Cherry Street A 8 SB AWSC 25 19th Street/San Juan Avenue B 13 SB PSC 26 Blaine Street/Kearney Street B 15 NB PSC 27 Blaine Street/Walker Street B 11 EB PSC 28 Lawrence Street/Kearney Street C 19 WB TWSC 29 Lawrence Street/Tyler Street A 9 SB/EB AWSC 30 Lawrence Street/Monroe Street B 11 WB TWSC 31 Washington Street/Quincy Street B 13 WB TWSC 32 12th Street/Sheridan Avenue B 15 WB TWSC 33 Water Street/Quincy Street C 15 NB TWSC 34 Sims Way (SR 20)/Thomas Street F 72 SB TWSC 35 Discovery Road/Howard Street A 10 SB TWSC Note: Bold indicates intersections operating below LOS D standard. 1. The Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of the intersection was used instead of the PHF of each approach. 2. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3. Average delay in seconds per vehicle 4. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 5. PSC = Partial Stop Control, AWSC = All-way Stop Control, TWSC = Two-way Stop Control. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-15 The high volume of traffic on Sims Way (SR 20) makes it difficult for drivers to find an acceptable gap in the traffic stream. This results in delays that are longer than the adopted standards. The approaches that are most affected are the left-turns to and from the north and south legs of these intersections. The delay at Washington Street and Sims Way (SR 20) is compounded by the fact that the intersection alignment is skewed and there are more than four legs to the intersection which increases the amount of time it takes to make a safe maneuver through the intersection. Drivers have an option to avoid delays accessing Sims Way (SR 20) from 12th Street by shifting to the adjacent signalized intersection at Sims Way (SR 20) and Haines Street, which operates at LOS C. Future Baseline Traffic Conditions This section presents the methodology used to develop traffic volume forecasts and provide an assessment of future traffic conditions if no additional improvements are made to the transportation system. Travel Demand Forecasting Model Future year traffic volume forecasts were developed using a travel demand model created using the VISUM software program. The model is a tool used to convert existing and future land uses into traffic volumes. The forecasts represent future average weekday conditions during the PM peak hour which has the highest overall traffic volumes and thus provides a basis for identifying improvement needs. The development and calibration of the Port Townsend Travel Demand Model is documented in Appendix C. Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) were defined to divide the City and surrounding Jefferson County into relatively similar areas in terms of land use and travel characteristics. The TAZs were used to summarize land use data, which were then used to estimate traffic volumes coming to and from each TAZ. Year 2006 and year 2026 land use and socio- economic data were provided by the City The transportation network represents the local area road system within the model. The Port Townsend model includes all arterial and collector streets. Some local streets were also included to allow the model to more accurately represent travel patterns. Each roadway was divided into segments based on the location of key intersections and locations of land uses. Each road segment was coded with data based on the functional classification, number of travel lanes, speed, and an estimate of capacity. Capacity values were also assigned to each intersection (or node) in the model. Trip tables represent the travel to/from each zone to all other TAZs (both internal and external TAZs). The travel demands for each internal TAZ were estimated based on the land uses in that zone. Trip generation equations, which convert the land use data to number of vehicle trips, and trip distribution, which identifies the specific zone-to-zone interchanges, were the basic tools for developing the trip table. Vehicle trips were distributed by the model using zone-to-zone allocations based on travel times and distances. These parameters were adjusted as part of the model calibration. The final step in developing the base year travel forecasting model was to assign the trip table to the transportation network. The model assignment results were compared to actual 2006 traffic counts to calibrate the model to base year conditions. Calibration was an iterative process in which refinements were made to the model until a satisfactory result was achieved. The Port Townsend model was calibrated to generally accepted standards for transportation models and thus provides a basis for developing and evaluating future travel demands. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-16 The calibrated 2006 model was then 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 based on the Comprehensive Plan. Land use growth was reflected in increased traffic volumes which served as a starting point to evaluate future scenarios. Baseline Traffic Volumes The 2026 baseline model assumed a “no-build” scenario in which no substantial capacity improvements were made to the roadway network and no significant changes were made to existing intersections between 2006 and 2026. The 2026 baseline scenario was to be used to identify deficiencies in the future roadway network and to define improvement projects needed to meet future travel demands in the City. Estimates of land use data for 2026 were used to generate traffic volume forecasts. The highest levels of traffic volume growth are expected to occur along Discovery Road and SR 20. The results of the forecast model show that the traffic volumes will likely increase between 200 and 300 vehicle trips in each direction during the PM peak hour on both Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road. Baseline Traffic Operations If no improvements are made, the traffic volume growth along Discovery Road and Sims Way will cause congestion on the roadways and at important intersections in the City. 2026 Baseline Roadway Operations The 2026 baseline traffic forecasts show that all roadways, except Sims Way (SR 20) will have a v/c ratio of 0.85 or lower. In the westbound direction, Sims Way (SR 20) is forecast to have volumes that exceed the LOS D (v/c < 0.85) standard between Sheridan Avenue and the City limits. This would likely result in congestion and delays for travel along Sims Way (SR 20) and for side streets and driveways intersecting the highway. Some additional capacity would be available on Discovery Road as an alternative to Sims Way (SR 20) for these trips. Table 4-6 summarizes the 2026 baseline forecast conditions for the Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Way screenline west of Howard Street, pursuant to the City’s Transportation Concurrency Management (TCM) program. The 2026 baseline forecasts estimate that westbound Sims Way (SR 20) would be 4 percent over capacity (based on the model capacity), with 1,140 vehicles per hour (vph). Westbound Discovery Way would be well below capacity without any improvements. However, when combined, the resulting v/c in the westbound direction is forecast to be above the LOS D standard of 0.85. This indicates additional capacity will be needed on Sims Way (SR 20) or Discovery Road in order to accommodate the forecast traffic associated with planned growth in the City. The 2026 baseline forecasts for the eastbound direction indicate that Sims Way (SR 20) would be above the LOS D (v/c < 0.85) concurrency threshold. Forecast volumes in the eastbound direction on Discovery Way would result in a v/c of 0.54, well below the 0.85 LOS standard. The combined screenline v/c in the eastbound direction would be 0.76, thereby meeting the City’s standard. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-17 Table 4-6. 2026 Baseline Forecast 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 1,140 995 2,135 1,100 1,100 2,200 1.04 0.90 0.97 Discovery Road West of Howard Street 435 380 815 700 700 1,400 0.62 0.54 0.58 TOTAL1,575 1,375 2,950 1,800 1,800 3,600 0.88 0.76 0.82 SOURCE: Transpo Group 1. PM peak hour volumes based on the 2006 baseline travel forecasts 2. Estimated roadway capacities are from the City’s travel demand model, without improvements. Baseline Intersection LOS Results As shown on Table 4-7, in addition to the five unsignalized intersections along Sims Way (SR 20) which do not meet the LOS D standard under existing conditions, seven additional intersections would operate below the adopted LOS standard under 2026 baseline conditions (with no improvements). These locations include three additional intersections along SR 20 (at Mill Road, Howard Street, and Kearney Street), intersections along Discovery Road (Mill Road and Sheridan Avenue) and two intersections along Kearney Street (Blaine Street and Lawrence Street). Improvements will be needed to conform to the LOS standard. Street and Highway Improvements The Arterial Street Plan covers street and highway improvements with a focus on the main corridors within the City. The arterial street system serves the primary movement of automobiles and truck traffic. The street system also provides the framework for other modes in the community, including transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes. This section identifies and describes City and other agency roadway and intersection projects. It also includes an analysis of future traffic conditions with the implementation of the identified improvements necessary to meet the City’s LOS standard. The improvements outlined in this plan are consistent with two important transportation studies that were recently completed including the Sims Way/Howard Street Improvement Project Traffic Analysis for the City, and the Port Townsend Entryway System Improvement Concepts analysis for Jefferson County. It should be noted that both of the preceding studies contain recommendations for improvements based on forecast volumes generated for the year 2030 and 2031, respectively. The 2030 and 2031 forecast volumes from the studies were generated by taking the straight line growth rate between 2006 and 2026 and applying if for four or five more years. It is anticipated that the recommended improvements generated from these studies would be completed by the year 2026 as part of the Arterial Street Plan. Therefore the improvements will operate just as well, if not better, under 2026 conditions. As a result, the analyses and results from the studies are presented in the Arterial Street Plan for consistency. City Street Improvements Transportation improvement projects and programs were developed to address existing and future deficiencies on the arterial system. Proposed City roadway improvements are organized into the following three categories: • Arterial/collector improvements • Arterial/collector sidewalk/bicycle improvements • Intersection improvements Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-18 Table 4-8 identifies each of the projects and programs, provides a planning level cost estimate, and a relative priority level and timing horizon. Figure 4-6 shows the location of the improvements identified in the Plan. The cost estimates were prepared based on typical per unit costs, by type of roadway and scope of the improvement. These cost estimates are provided in 2007 dollars. The cost estimates also include allowances for right-of-way acquisitions, based on the requirements to meet the City’s street standards. Adjustments to construction costs were included as needed to reflect specific implementation risks such as environmental impacts or impacts on adjacent properties. A relative priority level (high, medium or low) was assigned to each project. The criteria used to determine the priority level included: • Addresses projected increases in traffic volumes; • Addresses vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and safety issues; • Supports City’s Comprehensive Plan, Non Motorized Plan and Regional Plans; • Supports implementation of the Gateway Plan and creation of a “gateway” to the City along Sims Way; • Promotes connectivity and community circulation; • Supports economic development. Each project has also been assigned a timing horizon of short (2008-2013), medium (2014- 2019) or long (2020-2026). The timing takes into account the relative priority and the likely time needed to fund, design and construct a project. It also takes into account when an improvement may be needed to support growth expected in a particular area. Sims Way Sims Way is the key arterial in and out of the City and experiences congestion at times. Five intersections operated below the LOS D standard under existing conditions. Increased traffic volumes are expected along Sims Way over the next 20 years, with PM peak hour volumes increasing by about 200 to 300 trips in each direction. Left turns from Sims Way will become increasingly difficult and unsafe. Furthermore, growth along the north-south corridors will increase the volume of left and right turning vehicles onto Sims Way. If no improvements are made, most major intersections along Sims Way will fall below the adopted standard (LOS D). • Construction of a roundabout that combines the intersections of Mill Road with Discovery Road and SR 20 into one junction; • Roundabouts at Howard Street and Thomas Street; • Right-in/right-out access on all approaches to McPherson Street; • Signal or roundabout at Sheridan Avenue; • Restricting left-turns from 12th Street onto Sims Way since there is an adjacent signal at Haines Street; • Intersection improvements at Kearney Street and Washington Street including restricting left-turns from the approaches at Washington Street south of Sims Way; • Two-way left turn lanes between Kearney Street and Washington Street; • Access management techniques to limit access to specific, well delineated entries and exits to properties (existing and future), and consolidate access points by using shared driveways. Resolution 07-016 adopted by City Council in June 2007 provides justification on the City’s choice of roundabouts as intersection control types for Upper Sims Way at Howard Street and Thomas Street. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-19 Table 4-7. 2006 Existing and 2026 Future Baseline Intersection LOS 2006 Existing1 2026 Future Baseline1 ID Intersection LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM4 Traffic Control5 LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM4 Traffic Control5 PM Peak Hour 1 Sims Way (SR 20)/Mill Road B 17 0.78Signal E 68 1.11 Signal 2 Sims Way (SR 20)/Howard Street C 21 SB TWSC F >100 SB TWSC 3 Sims Way (SR 20)/McPherson Street E 48 NB TWSC F >100 NB/SB TWSC 4 Sims Way (SR 20)/Sheridan Avenue F 60 NB TWSC F >100 NB/SB TWSC 5 Sims Way (SR 20)/Haines Street C 21 0.80Signal C 27 0.87 Signal 6 Sims Way (SR 20)/12th Street E 41 SB PSC F >100 SB PSC 7 Sims Way (SR 20)/Kearney Street C 21 0.79Signal E 65 1.1 Signal 8 Sims Way (SR 20)/Washington Street F > 100 NB PSC F >100 NB PSC 9 Water Street/Ferry Terminal A 6 0.33Signal A 6 0.48 Signal 10 Water Street/Taylor Street A 9 0.26Signal A 9 0.33 Signal 11 Water Street/Monroe Street B 14 NB TWSC C 15 NB TWSC 12 Discovery Road/Mill Road C 19 WB PSC F >100 WB PSC 13 Discovery Road/Eddy Street A 10 NB TWSC B 14 NB TWSC 14 Discovery Road/McPherson Street B 12 SB TWSC C 23 SB TWSC 15 Discovery Road/Sheridan Avenue B 12 WB AWSC F >100 WB/EB AWSC 16 19th Street/Discovery Road B 10 SB PSC B 14 SB PSC 17 Hastings Avenue/Discovery Road B 11 EB PSC B 15 EB PSC 18 Discovery Road/San Juan Avenue B 10 EB AWSC C 21 EB AWSC 19 F Street/Cherry Street A 9 EB AWSC B 12 WB/SB AWSC 20 F Street/Fir Street B 11 NB TWSC B 13 NB TWSC 21 Hastings Avenue/Sheridan Avenue B 12 NB TWSC D 27 NB TWSC 22 49th Street/Jackman Street B 11 SB TWSC B 13 SB TWSC 23 Admiralty Street/San Juan Avenue B 10 EB TWSC B 12 EB TWSC 24 W Street/Cherry Street A 8 SB AWSC A 10 SB AWSC 25 19th Street/San Juan Avenue B 13 SB PSC D 26 SB PSC 26 Blaine Street/Kearney Street B 15 NB PSC F 57 NB PSC 27 Blaine Street/Walker Street B 11 EB PSC B 15 EB PSC 28 Lawrence Street/Kearney Street C 19 WB TWSC E 40 WB TWSC 29 Lawrence Street/Tyler Street A 9 SB/EBAWSC A 10 SB AWSC 30 Lawrence Street/Monroe Street B 11 WB TWSC B 13 WB TWSC 31 Washington Street/Quincy Street B 13 WB TWSC B 14 WB TWSC 32 12th Street/Sheridan Avenue B 15 WB TWSC D 26 WB TWSC 33 Water Street/Quincy Street C 15 NB TWSC C 21 NB TWSC 34 Sims Way (SR 20)/Thomas Street F 72 SB TWSC F >100 NB TWSC 35 Discovery Road/Howard Street A 10 SB TWSC C 20 SB TWSC Note: Bold indicates intersections operating below LOS D standard. 1. The Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of the intersection was used instead of the PHF by approach. 2. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3. Average delay in seconds per vehicle 4. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 5. PSC = Partial Stop Control, AWSC = All-way Stop Control, TWSC = Two-way Stop Control. Table 4-8 City of Port Townsend Transportation Capital Improvement Project List ProjectType MAPIDProject Name Project Limits Project DescriptionPriorityTiming Impact Fee Eligible? Preliminary Cost Estimates 101Howard StreetPark Avenue to Discovery Road Construct a new two-lane Urban Minor Arterial with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. High2008-2013YES$3,095,000 102Howard StreetDiscovery Road to 20th Street Construct a new two-lane Urban Minor Arterial with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Medium2014-2019YES$6,785,000 103Discovery RoadMill Road to Howard Street Reconstruct to Urban Minor Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. High2008-2013YES$5,370,000 104Discovery RoadHoward Street to McPherson Street Reconstruct to Urban Minor Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Medium2008-2013YES$3,375,000 105Discovery RoadMcPherson Street to 19th Street Reconstruct to Urban Minor Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Medium2014-2019YES$4,305,000 106Discovery Road19th Street to Hastings Avenue Reconstruct to Urban Minor Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Low2014-2019YES$4,670,000 107Hastings AvenueSheridan Street to Discovery Road Reconstruct to Urban Minor Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Medium2020-2026YES$3,875,000 108Sims Way (SR 20) Park Avenue on Howard Street to Cliff Street on Sims Way (SR 20) Reconstruct to Urban Principal Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage in conjunction with the intersection improvements planned at Sims Way & Howard Street. High2008-2013YES$1,710,000 109Sims Way (SR 20) Cliff Street on Sims Way (SR 20) to Thomas Street on Sims Way (SR 20) Reconstruct to Urban Principal Arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage in conjunction with the intersection improvements planned at Sims Way & Thomas Street. High2008-2013YES$1,145,000$34,330,000 201Howard Street20th Street to Hastings AvenueAdd curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and drainage where necessary.Medium2020-202 6NO$695,000 202Howard StreetHastings Avenue to 35th Street Overlay and add curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, bike lanes, and drainage. Low2020-2026NO$1,710,000203Hastings AvenueCity limits to to Howard StreetOverlay and add shoulders and bike lanes.Medium2020-2026NO$1,705,000204Hastings AvenueHoward Street to Sheridan StreetOverlay and add shoulders and bike lanes.Medium2020-2026NO$2,020,000205Sheridan StreetSims Way (SR 20) to Discovery Road Add sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes signing and striping where necessary. Medium2014-2019NO$2,215,000 206Sheridan StreetDiscovery Road to Hastings Avenue Add curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes signing and striping where necessary. Medium2020-2026NO$2,035,00020719th StreetDiscovery Road to San Juan AvenueAdd curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and drainage.Low2020-2026NO$2,710,000208Lawrence StreetKearney Street to Walker StreetAdd sidewalks, lighting, and bike lanes.Low2008-2013NO$820,000209Landes Street12th Street to 19th StreetAdd sidewalks, and bike lanes.Low2020-2026NO$1,480,000210McPherson StreetSims Way (SR 20) to Discovery RoadAdd sidewalks, bike lanes.Low2014-2019NO$1,780,000$17,170,000 301Mill RoadDiscovery Road to Sims Way (SR 20) Construct a two-lane roundabout to improve traffic flow, safety, and serve as a gateway into the City. Work with the County and WSDOT to possibly combine the Mill Road, South Jacob Miller Road, Discovery Road, and Sims Way corridors into one intersection. High2008-2013YES$2,890,000 302Sims Way (SR 20) & Howard StreetIntersection Construct a one-lane roundabout in coordination with improvements on Sims Way (SR 20) and Howard Street. Include curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes. SEE PROJECT 108 High2008-2013YES$1,060,000 303Sims Way (SR 20) & Thomas StreetIntersection Construct a one-lane roundabout in coordination with improvements on Sims Way (SR 20) and Thomas Street. Include curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes. SEE PROJECT 109 Medium2008-2013YES$935,000 304Sims Way (SR 20) & Sheridan StreetIntersection Intersection traffic control improvements such as a signal or roundabout, and would also include curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and drainage. High2014-2019YES$860,000 305Discovery Road & Howard StreetIntersection Construct a one-lane roundabout in coordination with improvements along Howard Street. Include curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes. High2008-2013YES$1,035,000 306Discovery Road & Sheridan StreetIntersection Intersection traffic control improvements such as a signal or roundabout, and would also include curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and drainage. Medium2020-2026YES$220,000307Blaine Street & Kearney StreetIntersectionIntersections traffic control and turn lane improvements.Low2020-2026YES$150,000308Sims Way (SR 20)Kearney Street to Washington Street Arterial mobility and intersection improvements. Including the prohibition of left-turns from the south legs of the intersections. High2014-2019YES$1,630,000 309Sims Way (SR 20) & 12th StreetIntersection Prohibit left-turns from 12th Street onto Sims Way (SR 20). Left-turns can be made from Haines Street. Low2014-2019NO---$8,780,000 $60,280,000 Intersection Improvements SubtotalTOTAL Arterial/Collector Sidewalk/Bike ImprovementsArterial/Collector Improvements SubtotalSubtotal 4/3/200911:50 AM M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\Excel\Recommended Project List v7.xls 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 304303302 301 305 208 209 207 205 206 204 202 201 210 309 203 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD FIR ST 35TH ST COOK AVE 49TH ST LANDES ST HOWARD ST 19TH ST W ST HASTINGS AVE W AT E R S T SAN JUAN AVE SI M S W A Y ADMIRALTY ST B E N T O N S T D IS C O V E R Y R D CENTER ST CHERRY ST S DISCOVERY RD UMATILLA AVE LA 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 Arterial & Collector Street Improvement Projects Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-6 Arterial & Collector Street Improvement Projects Legend Intersection Improvements Arterial/Collector Improvements (New) Arterial/Collector Improvements Arterial/Collector Sidewalk/Bike Improvements ROW Preservation Corridor Local Streets City Limits FIGURE4-6 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-22 Discovery Road Discovery Road will experience an increase of around 200 to 300 trips in each direction during the PM peak hour over the next 20 years. Discovery Road needs design standard improvements prior to the City redirecting traffic from Sims Way (SR 20) to that corridor. These improvements include drainage, lighting, pedestrian, and bike improvements, and traffic calming to alleviate speeding. This route will be a key corridor to providing an alternative to handle traffic in the western part of the City, and particularly a route to and from Fort Worden State Park as an alternative to the current signed route using Sims Way and Kearney Street. Discovery Road also has needs for safety improvements at 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 including vehicles, buses, pedestrians and bicycles. Proposed improvements along Discovery Road include: • Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards with curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and bike lanes between Mill Road and Hastings Avenue; • Intersection improvements at the Mill Road intersection, coordinated with the improvements at the intersection of Sims Way and Mill Road as described previously; • Roundabout at Howard Street (new intersection); • Traffic signal or roundabout at Sheridan Avenue. Howard Street The City plans to extend Howard Street from Sims Way to 35th Street to allow for improved north-south circulation in the western portion of the City and to relieve congestion on Upper Sims Way and Discovery Road. The Howard Street Corridor improvements will increase access to development in the western portion of the City, especially between Discovery Road and Sims Way. The Howard Street corridor will be completed in phases as development occurs and funding becomes available. The first phase of the Howard Street corridor will be between Discovery Road and Sims Way. Traffic analysis shows that phase one of the Howard Street corridor project will result in the need for intersection improvements at the intersections with Discovery Road and Sims Way. The City already plans on installing roundabouts at both the intersections of Howard Street at Sims Way and Howard Street at Discovery Road. Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities The City has made significant improvements to the non-motorized transportation facilities in recent years, after the adoption of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. About 80 percent of the projects identified in the adopted five year plan have been completed. Many of the arterials and collectors have bike lanes or adequate space for bicycles. However, additional arterial sidewalk and bike facility improvements will be needed in the future to increase the mobility and safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Non-motorized improvement projects also add to the livability of a City and can decrease congestion by encouraging alternative modes of transportation. Non-motorized improvements are needed along Hastings Avenue, Sheridan Street, and McPherson Street. Gaps in sidewalks and bike lanes will also be filled in along the Lawrence Street, 19th Street, and Landes Street corridors. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-23 Right-of-Way Preservation Figure 4-6 identifies right-of-way corridors that the City should preserve for potential street purposes, including utilities and related public facilities. These preservation corridors could be developed for other public use of unimproved rights-of-way such as parkways or trails or left completely unimproved for bird and animal sanctuaries. Generally there is benefit to the public and to the adjacent property owners to preserve open space in areas throughout the City. Other Agency Improvements WSDOT WSDOT has identified several potential projects along SR 20 in the Washington State Highway Systems Plan (HSP). The proposed improvements include: • Widening SR 20 from a 2-lane facility to a 4-lane divided facility from SR 19 to Old Fort Townsend Road (0.47 mile); • Parallel road extensions and access management between Old Fort Townsend Road and Hendricks Street; • Shoulder widening to 5’ minimum to better serve bike touring route and nearby schools (1.6 miles between Old CMSTP&P Railroad Bridge and Sherman Street); • Westbound truck climbing lane between Hendricks Street and Ferry Landing (2.3 miles). WSDOT is currently completing a corridor study for SR 20 which will further evaluate the future needs along the corridor. It is likely several of these improvements are unlikely to remain as future recommendations. Jefferson County The western city limit is the Urban Growth Area boundary. The City needs to plan in conjunction with the County along corridors such as Hastings Avenue, Discovery Road, Jacob Miller Road and Cook Avenue. Jefferson County has not identified any specific roadway improvements near Port Townsend in their 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Program. The only project located close to Port Townsend is a trail connection project located just south of the City, between SR 20 and the Cape George Trailhead. The project will connect two trail segments already completed as part of the regional Larry Scott Trail. There will be a track for walkers, bicyclists and runners, and a parallel path for equestrians. Future Traffic Conditions – With Improvements Traffic Volumes with Improvements Figure 4-7 illustrates the 2026 PM peak hour traffic volumes with improvements. Improvements to the intersection of Mill Road with SR 20 and Discovery Road, and the improvements to intersections along Upper Sims Way will cause shifts in traffic to occur. The most noticeable shift is the increased use of Discovery Road as an alternative to SR 20 for motorists entering and exiting the City during the PM peak hour. The shift in traffic from SR 20 to Discovery Road will result in reduced congestion on Sims Way. Other movements throughout the City are consistent with existing patterns. Construction of the Howard Street Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-24 extension will provide increased circulation between southern portions of the City with land uses along Discovery Road and Hastings Avenue. The Howard Street extension will also serve development between Discovery Road and Sims Way and provide an alternative north- south access point to/from SR 20. 2026 Roadway Operations with Improvements With the additional capacity provided by the identified improvements, most roadway segments within the City will have forecast v/c ratios below 0.85. The exception will continue to be westbound Sims Way (SR 20) approaching the west City limits. The forecasts show a PM peak hour v/c of 1.05 for westbound Sims Way (SR 20) west of Howard Street. As noted above, the City evaluates roadway levels of service based on the volume-to- capacity (v/c) ratio of a screenline that includes both Sims Way (SR 20) and Discovery Road, west of Howard Street. As shown on Table 4-9, the additional capacity provided by improvements along Discovery Way results in a screenline v/c less than the LOS D (v/c < 0.85) standard adopted by the City for both travel directions. The resulting v/c for the westbound traffic is 0.83; the v/c for eastbound traffic at the screenline is 0.72. Table 4-9. 2026 With Improvements Forecast 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 1,140 995 2,135 1,100 1,100 2,200 1.04 0.90 0.97 Discovery Road West of Howard Street 435 380 815 800 800 1,600 0.54 0.48 0.51 TOTAL1,575 1,375 2,950 1,900 1,900 3,800 0.83 0.72 0.78 SOURCE: Transpo Group 1. PM peak hour volumes based on the 2006 baseline travel forecasts 2. Estimated roadway capacities are from the City’s travel demand model, with improvements. Intersection LOS Results with Improvements Table 4-10 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for City intersections by 2026 with all recommended transportation improvements in place. The LOS forecasts presented in Table 4-10 are consistent with previous studies that were completed for the City and County. The traffic control and/or channelization improvements at the intersections of Sims Way with Howard Street, McPherson Street, and Thomas Street, and at the intersection of Discovery Road and Howard Street are outlined in the Sims Way/Howard Street Improvement Project Traffic Analysis report. Improvements at the intersections of Sims Way and Mill Road and Discovery Road and Mill Road were evaluated as part of the Port Townsend Entryway System Improvement Concepts analysis. The improvements outlined in those studies are planned for completion by the year 2026. Because these improvements are based on forecasts for the year 2030 and 2031 they will operate just as well, if not better, under 2026 conditions. With the recommended improvements, operations at the intersections of Sims Way with Mill Road, McPherson Street, Thomas Street, and Sheridan Avenue, will improve from LOS E or F to LOS D or better. Likewise, traffic operations will also improve at the intersections of Discovery Road with Sheridan Avenue and Howard Street, Blaine Street with Kearney Street, and Water Street with Quincy Street due to traffic control and/or channelization improvements. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-25 Operations at some intersections, such as Sims Way with Kearney Street, Hastings Avenue with Sheridan Avenue, Lawrence Street with Kearney Street, and 12th Street with Sheridan Avenue, will experience slight improvements in operations due to shifts in traffic patterns caused by other improvements in the transportation system. For example, the intersection of Sims Way and Kearney Street will experience slightly fewer left-turns heading to areas in the north part of the City because vehicles have shifted to Howard Street and/or Discovery Road due to improvements to intersections and roadways along those routes. With the identified improvements, all study intersections, except for Sims Way at Howard Street will meet the adopted LOS D standard. Minor intersections or driveways intersecting with Sims Way (SR 20), such as 12th Street or Washington Street, or driveways intersecting other major roadways could sometimes operate below the LOS D standard. Signalization or other traffic control improvements are not always appropriate at these locations due to the relatively low volume of minor street traffic; and in most cases adjacent driveways or intersections will provide adequate alternative access. For example, motorists turning left onto SR 20 from 12th Street may have a hard time finding a gap in traffic without the aid of a traffic signal and will probably shift to Haines Street, just a few hundred feet to the west, where there is a traffic signal and a left-turn lane that can handle the additional demand. The same can be said for the intersection of Sims Way and Washington Street where the northbound left-turn can also be made from the adjacent intersection at Kearney Street. The City will continue to review these locations as part of the SEPA review process for new developments and may require mitigation to reduce traffic safety and/or operations impacts. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 4-26 Table 4-10. 2026 With Roadway Improvements Intersection LOS 2026 Future Baseline1 2026 With Improvements1 ID Intersection LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM4 Control Type5 LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM4 Control Type5 PM Peak Hour 1 Sims Way (SR 20)/Mill Road6 E 68 1.11 Signal B 14 0.88 Round 2 Sims Way (SR 20)/Howard Street7 F >100 SB TWSC E 76 1.22 Round 3 Sims Way (SR 20)/McPherson Street7, 8 F >100 NB/SBTWSC D 29 SB TWSC 4 Sims Way (SR 20)/Sheridan Avenue F >100 NB/SBTWSC B 10 0.71 Signal 5 Sims Way (SR 20)/Haines Street C 27 0.87 Signal C 28 0.92 Signal 6 Sims Way (SR 20)/12th Street9 F >100 SB PSC B 14 SB PSC 7 Sims Way (SR 20)/Kearney Street E 65 1.1 Signal D 47 0.95 Signal 8 Sims Way (SR 20)/Washington Street10 F >100 NB PSC D 35 SB PSC 9 Water Street/Ferry Terminal A 6 0.48 Signal A 6 0.48 Signal 10 Water Street/Taylor Street A 9 0.33 Signal A 9 0.33 Signal 11 Water Street/Monroe Street C 15 NB TWSC C 15 NB TWSC 12 Discovery Road/Mill Road6 F >100 WB PSC Combined with SR 20 /Mill Road 13 Discovery Road/Eddy Street B 14 NB TWSC B 14 NB TWSC 14 Discovery Road/McPherson Street C 23 SB TWSC C 19 SB TWSC 15 Discovery Road/Sheridan Avenue F >100 WB/EBAWSC B 10 0.68 Signal 16 19th Street/Discovery Road B 14 SB PSC C 17 SB PSC 17 Hastings Avenue/Discovery Road B 15 EB PSC C 16 EB PSC 18 Discovery Road/San Juan Avenue C 21 EB AWSC C 21 EB AWSC 19 F Street/Cherry Street B 12 WB/SBAWSC B 12 EB AWSC 20 F Street/Fir Street B 13 NB TWSC B 13 SB TWSC 21 Hastings Avenue/Sheridan Avenue D 27 NB TWSC C 16 NB TWSC 22 49th Street/Jackman Street B 13 SB TWSC B 13 SB TWSC 23 Admiralty Street/San Juan Avenue B 12 EB TWSC B 12 EB TWSC 24 W Street/Cherry Street A 10 SB AWSC B 9 SB AWSC 25 19th Street/San Juan Avenue D 26 SB PSC D 26 SB PSC 26 Blaine Street/Kearney Street F 57 NB PSC C 19 NB AWSC 27 Blaine Street/Walker Street B 15 EB PSC B 15 EB PSC 28 Lawrence Street/Kearney Street E 40 WB TWSC D 34 WB TWSC 29 Lawrence Street/Tyler Street A 10 SB AWSC A 10 SB AWSC 30 Lawrence Street/Monroe Street B 13 WB TWSC B 13 WB TWSC 31 Washington Street/Quincy Street B 14 WB TWSC B 14 WB TWSC 32 12th Street/Sheridan Avenue D 26 WB TWSC C 21 WB TWSC 33 Water Street/Quincy Street C 21 NB TWSC C 21 NB TWSC 34 Sims Way (SR 20)/Thomas Street7 F >100 NB TWSC B 15 0.99 Round 35 Discovery Road/Howard Street7 C 20 SB TWSC A 3 0.49 Round Note: Bold indicates intersections operating below LOS D standard. 1. The Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of the intersection was used instead of the PHF by approach. 2. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 4. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections. 5. PSC = Partial Stop Control, AWSC – All-way Stop Control, TWSC = Two-way Stop Control, Round = Roundabout. 6. SR 20/Mill Road and Discovery Road/Mill Road intersections combined into single two-lane roundabout as part of future improvements outlined in the 2031 Port Townsend Entryway System Improvements Concept memorandum. 7. Improvements as outlined in the 2030 Sims Way/Howard Street Improvements traffic analysis report. 8. Access at McPherson Street will be right-in/right-out only on all approaches. 9. 2026 With Improvements LOS results reflect a shift in southbound left-turning vehicle traffic from 12t h Street to Haines Street 10. 2026 With Improvements LOS results reflect a shift in northbound left-turning vehicle traffic from Washington Street to Kearney Street. 75 55110 220 250 435 60 685 670 70 345 255 210 1205 1005 125 55 390 200180 275 160195 1140 995 435 380 135 830 905 240 415 235 245 135 140 380 420 205255 55 75 1070 955 85 225 230 370 F ST S JACOB MILLER RD 35TH ST COOK AVE LANDES ST MILL R D ADMIRALTY ST B E N T O N S T DI S C O V E R Y R D CENTER ST W A S HI N G T O N S T UMATILLA AVE SHERIDAN ST M O N R O E S T J A C K S O N S T 2026 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Improvements Port Townsend Arterial Street Plan M:\06\06089 Port Townsend Concurrency\GIS\Arterial Street Plan FIGURES\Figure 4-7 2026 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Improvements Legend 2026 Traffic Volumes 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 700 701 - 2500 City Limits FIGURE4-7 City of Port Townsend Straight of Juan De Fuca Admiralty Inlet Port Townsend Bay Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-1 Chapter 5 - Agency Coordination Port Townsend’s transportation system is part of, and connected to, a broader transportation system. The GMA works to increase coordination and compatibility between the various agencies that have responsibilities for the overall transportation system. The GMA requires all comprehensive plans to be coordinated with "other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues." It also requires counties or cities to identify impacts to state facilities and address multi-modal strategies in their transportation element. This Transportation Functional Plan has been coordinated with Jefferson Transit, the Port Townsend School District, Jefferson County, the Port of Port Townsend, the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The Transportation Functional Plan and the City’s Transportation Element are primarily based on a bottoms-up approach to planning with the City exploring its needs based on the land use plan, then identifying projects to support it. Eventually the local projects are incorporated into the regional and state plans. A schematic of this approach is shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1. Relationship to Other Plans Jefferson Transit Jefferson Transit is a public transit system that began service in May 1981 after a successful vote by Jefferson County citizens in 1980. Jefferson Transit operates as a Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) in accordance with RCW 36.57A in the State of Washington. The Jefferson Transit Authority Board consists of five members who represent Port Townsend City and Jefferson County government. Jefferson Transit is funded through a number of different federal, state and local programs, grants and sources. The federal transportation funding package includes funds specifically for rural transit services. They compete statewide for those funds. They also compete regionally for portions of the federal and state highway funds that are available for transit. Special services are subsidized by federal programs and 0.6 percent sales tax. Only 7 percent of revenues come from the fare box. There needs to be continuous coordination with Jefferson Transit when the City has maintenance, paving, improvement and development projects, and parking modifications that impact bus routes. Other corridors are also important because the bus routes can change Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-2 over time. Bus pullouts need to be considered in all improvement projects. The City also needs to address pavement conditions, particularly those roadways that also serve buses and heavy vehicles. Senior and disabled customers in particular have difficulties navigating roadways in poor condition. Rough surfaces make it hard for wheelchairs and for unsteady pedestrians, which makes it difficult to access transit facilities. As development occurs, Jefferson Transit needs to be included in the review and have the opportunity to provide input on transit accessibility measures and facilities. Jefferson Transit needs to work with the City to establish bus zones and stops on existing arterials, especially where it might impact parking. This cooperation is working and needs to be continually reinforced. Jefferson Transit occasionally partners with and supports City projects and grant applications. Transit Development Plan Jefferson Transit has a Transit Development Plan (TDP) that is updated annually which identifies projects and funding for their TIP (see Appendix I). The TDP outlines both short- range and long-range transportation plans and documents recent Transit accomplishments. Improvements on Upper Sims Way are important to all users, including transit. There is a substantial morning and evening rush hour on Sims Way, especially because growth in the Tri-Area is supported by jobs in Port Townsend (and vice versa). Transit provides a good alternative for those commuters. Recent road improvements on Upper Sims Way provide better opportunities for Transit access to the businesses in that area. Jefferson Transit is looking at new technology and fuels to reduce emissions and other alternatives. They already use biodiesel fuel. The Plan includes efforts to expand bicycle-rider options and links to proposed new ferry operations. Bus Routes Jefferson Transit’s circular bus routes in Port Townsend provide frequent connecting service to the Port Townsend/Keystone ferry terminal, seven days a week. Fixed route connections are made with Kitsap Transit in Poulsbo and with Clallam Transit in Sequim six days a week. Connecting service with Mason County is available in Brinnon Monday through Friday. Route maps and timetables are available in print, by phone or on their website. Jefferson Transit provides regular bus service within Port Townsend. Jefferson Transit has adjusted routes to have more neighborhood penetration, off of the main arterials, in order to make service more accessible and increase ridership. Continual internal monitoring and adjustment of service routes and levels is performed so they can be flexible to meet the needs. Current routes and schedules are available from Jefferson Transit. Jefferson Transit makes adjustments to accommodate the passenger ferries, on a temporary or permanent basis. Similarly, they adjust and increase transit service to support festivals and large public events such as the Rhododendron Festival, 4th Park-and-Ride of July celebration, Wooden Boat Festival, Centrum music festivals, Port Townsend Film Festival, Kinetic Sculpture, etc. The support is tailored to meet the community needs and is open to the public for the specific time of the event. The Park-and-Ride is the hub for all fixed route transit service. Jefferson Transit markets use of the Park-and-Ride largely to visitors but also wants to encourage City and other downtown Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-3 employees to use this service to alleviate downtown parking demand. Marketing of transit service to visitors of Port Townsend can be reinforced by the City in several ways, such as including it on their website and in other City materials. Jefferson Transit can work with the City and business employers to incentivize use of transit. The Park-and-Ride is free and convenient, and the shuttle provides frequent service. Eventually, paid parking in downtown would be good for transit service as a “traffic demand management” tool. In March 2009, the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center (VIC) was relocated from the intersection of SR 20 and Jefferson Street to the Park-and-Ride adjacent. One reason for the move was to encourage users of the VIC to park at the Park- and-Ride and utilize transit service to the historic downtown area where parking is more limited. Jefferson Transit has added bicycle storage units at the Park-and-Ride to increase service for bike riders at this connection point for the Olympic Discovery Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail. Jefferson Transit is also marketing the Park-and-Ride as a free parking site for the SeaTac International Airport via Jefferson Transit, Kitsap Transit, the Bainbridge- Seattle ferry and Metro Transit. Paratransit Paratransit service is mandated to meet ADA requirements. Eligible customers can use Dial- a-Ride for minimal cost or can use fixed-route service for free. Jefferson Transit is adding vans for that program to be able to access all areas. The program requires a substantial amount of administration due to the large number of users. The aging population and growing number of retirees in the area require transit to be adaptive to their needs. Services Other Than Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride (Paratransit) – demand response service for people with disabilities provides door-to-door service that must be scheduled 24 hours in advance. Route Deviated Service – Fixed-route service can deviate by pre-arrangement (a minimum of 24 hours in advance) up to ¾ mile to serve ADA eligible riders outside of the Dial-a-Ride service area. This service is available on the #1 Brinnon route and on the Olympic Connection service in West Jefferson County. West Jefferson Transit – It is possible to travel in a loop around the Olympic Peninsula by bus. The Olympic Connection runs through Jefferson County as it connects to Forks (in Clallam County) and Amanda Park (in Grays Harbor County) on Highway 101. Vanpool – Jefferson Transit currently operates one commuter vanpool to Keyport and two to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. Ridesharing – Jefferson Transit now participates in an on-line ridesharing service that is administered by the WSDOT. Bus Buddies School District Transportation Systems – A safe and personal introduction to the transit system through the assistance of trained and qualified Bus Buddy volunteers. The Port Townsend School District currently has four school campuses: • Grant Street Elementary at 1637 Grant Street, just south of Discovery Road; Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-4 • Mountain View Elementary School at 1919 Blaine Street, at the corner of Walker Street (closed in 2009); • Blue Heron Middle School at 3939 San Juan Avenue; and • Port Townsend High School at 1500 Van Ness. School district transportation elements are a major component of the overall transportation system around these sites. The School District sites have multiple bus routes, significant vehicular traffic, on-site and adjacent parking, and pedestrian and bike route concerns and issues. The Mountain View and Blue Heron sites are adjacent to City arterials with sidewalks, but the Grant Street Elementary and High School sites are surrounded by residential streets, many without sidewalks. NOTE: In 2009 the School District closed the Mountain View campus and leased the site to the City. The City Police Department, Municipal Pool, YMCA, Food Bank, Red Cross, and PT Radio are currently occupying space in the facility. The Port Townsend School District works by joint agreement with the Chimacum School District for transportation services. There is one Transportation Supervisor that serves both districts, including all bus service and related transportation planning. The bus facility is located on the west side of the Chimacum school campus. Some of the discussions and materials in this report were provided by the Transportation Supervisor. Safe Walk Routes to Schools The State requires the school to prepare maps for "walking routes to schools" within a one mile radius of each elementary (K-5) school. The District has prepared the maps, but the district policy is to bus all elementary students, regardless of distance, because of overall safety concerns. Copies of the current "School Walking Routes" for Grant Street Elementary, Mountain View Intermediate and Port Townsend High School (minimal) are in the Appendix E (Note that the school district web site names Mountain View as "Elementary" and the School Walking Routes names it "Intermediate"). Maps and routes are not provided for Blue Heron Middle School because it is not required and because there are good sidewalks and crosswalks on San Juan Avenue in the vicinity of the school. This does not mean that no other improvements are needed; they just are not included in the "School Walking Routes" at this time. WSDOT has an extensive program for "Safe Routes to Schools" (SRTS). That program was presented at a meeting of the Jefferson County Traffic Safety Task Force on December 5, 2007. A copy of the meeting report and presentation are included in the Appendix E. There is also a web site for the SRTS program and it is also included in Appendix E. The web site includes links for the annual grant program applications and another link to SRTS training sessions around the state. The City has funded several projects with these funds in the past: the Sheridan Street sidewalk (19th to Hastings) and the Walker sidewalk in front of Mountain View were funded by SRTS grants; the recent improvements to the Upper Sims Way at Hendricks crossing were funded by a Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Program grant. Capital Improvements The School District is undertaking planning for its facility needs based on projected enrollments. The District recently closed the Mountain View Elementary School, consolidating those activities at the Grant Street and Blue Heron school sites. As further planning efforts are adopted, a complete transportation review for bus service, vehicular access and parking, and sidewalks for each site should be made in coordination with the City and School District staffs. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-5 Bus Routes The School District does not provide bus transportation for middle or high school students within a one-mile radius but they do bus all students outside of the one-mile radius of each school. The bus routes are all posted on the school district's web site. A copy is included in Appendix E. Regular fixed-route service is coordinated with Jefferson Transit to provide service to Port Townsend public schools as well as with Chimacum and Quilcene schools, and to Peninsula College in Port Townsend and Port Angeles (via Clallam Transit) and to Washington State University Cooperative Extension in Port Hadlock. City Coordination The City Non-Motorized Transportation Plan includes designated walkways, bikeways and trails including the areas around each school site. It also includes policies directly related to school area walkways including the "safe routes to schools" maps and includes "school children" on the table of "users, needs, and destinations." The policies strongly encourage the use of walkways, bikeways and trails for all users, including school students. Because of the above stated school district policies, that effort should focus on the areas around the middle and high schools because they do not provide bus transportation within a one-mile radius, requiring more use of walkways and bicycles. It should also address the elementary school sites but recognize the school's policy to bus students to those schools. The City includes school needs as a priority in transportation projects and grant applications. There are specific funding programs (e.g., Safe Routes To School (SRTS)) designated for school walkways and the City applies for those funds as a part of the annual transportation improvement plan (TIP) process. This "Transportation Functional Plan" is not intended to include detailed project lists for improvements. The City, the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board and school principals should develop lists for specific improvements needed around each school site. Additionally, the City street maintenance crews could make minor safety improvements on school walking routes within the current or expanded budget levels. City or private development projects that may impact the school bus routes or walking routes need to be communicated to and coordinated with the School District. The Washington State Traffic Safety Commission also has a number of programs for "School Zone Safety" including funding for local projects to include a grant program for flashing beacons at schools. A copy of the home page from their web site is included in Appendix E. The web site includes a link to their grants programs, including the flashing beacons grants. Potential flashing beacon sites could include San Juan Avenue at Blue Heron and Discovery Road at Grant Street Elementary. A recommended transportation element for the schools is a substantial education program for students regarding safe use of walkways, crosswalks and bicycles around school campuses. Education is a major component of the SRTS program. The City, in coordination with the School District and local bicycling experts is currently sponsoring a bicycle safety program as part of the Blue Heron Middle School physical education program. Jefferson County The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and transportation-related policies are included in Chapter 2 and not repeated here. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-6 Current Projects According to the County’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2009-2014, the County has no plans for work over the next six years on Cook Avenue, Hastings Avenue, Mill Road, S Jacob Miller Road or the segment of S Discovery Road adjacent to the City. The County worked with the City and WSDOT to improve the Sims Way (SR 20) / Mill Road / Discovery Road intersection and is open to working on joint projects in the future. The County is particularly interested in examining potential system-wide solutions that include the intersections of S Jacob Miller Road, S Discovery Road and SR 20. In 2008, the County engaged The Transpo Group to build upon the travel demand model that they developed for the City in 2006-2007. The model now covers all of the Quimper Peninsula (i.e., north of SR 104 and east of US 101) and has a horizon year of 2031. The County plans to use the model results to inform future transportation improvements in the area, as well as the GMA-required review and update of the Transportation Element in 2011. Within the period of the current Six-Year TIP, the County plans to complete the Larry Scott Trail, which will then extend the non-motorized, multiuse path from the Boat Haven in Port Townsend to the Four Corners intersection of SR 20, S. Discovery Road and Four Corners Road. Roadway Maintenance The County has worked hard to improve their bituminous surface treatment (BST or “chip sealing”) capabilities and works with the City on that program. The County assistance has been sporadic in some years and is dependent on availability of City funding. It is a very good, cooperative relationship and work for the City is primary to their operation. There are few contractors that do BST, mostly counties and WSDOT. The City did have some work done by contractors. The County has worked hard with their oil suppliers to get good, reliable service and product. They have two oil distributor trucks so they can keep the paving operation going. The County plans for a three course pavement – heavier ½” rock in the first course, 3/8” rock in the second and third courses. The City only has two courses done. The County later sweeps the pavement and fog seal it to finish and blacken it for better striping visibility. The grading and vegetation work has to be done in advance of the project. Port of Port Townsend Ports operate under RCW 53. The Port of Port Townsend is a county-wide municipal corporation, has a shipyard, two marinas, an RV park, other Point Hudson facilities and undeveloped property (Kah Tai Lagoon) in the City as well as an airport in the County and other operations/facilities in Hadlock, Quilcene and other smaller locations. The Port provides facilities for the transportation of people and goods through the port (countywide). Their primary use of City transportation systems is to provide access and egress to Port facilities. The Port generates and attracts a significant amount of traffic to its Boat Haven site, as well as its Point Hudson facilities. The traffic can include very large trucks transporting large boats, up to 60 feet, on long flatbed trucks to and from the two Port marinas. The Boat Haven site relies on Highway 20/Sims Way for access while the Point Hudson site relies on City streets – Water, Washington and Monroe Streets – for access. The Port owns and maintains the streets and transportation facilities within their property boundaries at both the Boat Haven and Point Hudson sites. The City does provide some maintenance (e.g., sweeping and vactor cleaning) for Port streets in exchange for the City’s Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-7 use of Port property for off-season storage of City-owned dock facilities. The Port can and has partnered with the City on joint projects where it benefits the Port, such as the traffic signal at Haines Place. A significant issue to be addressed with the City is the ultimate vacation of old street rights-of- way within the Port boundaries. The Port would like to eventually re-plat their ownership to consolidate it into primary parcels instead of the current, 1800’s platted lots and streets which no longer have any relationship to reality – platted streets to nowhere. The City also owns a strip of land within the Port shipyard from the old railroad right-of-way that has no relationship to current and future use. Another issue is the ultimate need for a traffic signal at Benedict Street on SR 20. Due to the difficulty of exiting westbound at that location, traffic backtracks through the Port to get to the signal at Haines Place. That internal street is not intended for through traffic and has a lot of conflicts and safety concerns for Port users. The quality of City streets, i.e., pavement condition, is important to the Port and its users. Proper maintenance of its infrastructure is a core responsibility of the City. The Port web site provides links to their strategic planning process and documents. Recent and future improvements on the Point Hudson site will generate additional traffic. Those, together with the NW Maritime Center improvements, will shift the center of gravity of the downtown toward the north end for both people and traffic. The Point Hudson RV park also generates large vehicle traffic – diesel pushers with towed vehicles – to that site which have different needs for maneuverability in the downtown and north end streets. Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) Formed in December 1990, the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) is an association of cities, towns, counties, ports, tribes, transit agencies and major employers that serve as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about regional growth management, economic and transportation issues in Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap and Mason counties. The primary purpose of the PRTPO is to provide for cooperative decision-making by the agencies within the region in order to bring about a continuous and comprehensive transportation planning process. One aspect of this purpose is to ensure that all local plans are coordinated with and consistent with the regional plan. This is accomplished through the participation of all jurisdictions and members of the private sector in the technical analysis and policy approvals for the plan. The PRTPO is made up of elected officials, planners, public works directors, general managers and corporate CEOs representing four counties, nine cities, four transit agencies, 10 tribal nations, four port districts, and four major employers. The Washington State Department of Transportation is the lead agency and provides staff and support to the PRTPO. Federal and state transportation funds are channeled to cities through the PRTPO in order to assure that local transportation plans and projects are consistent with the regional plans and policies. A copy of the Peninsula RTPO Regional Goals and Policies is attached in Appendix J. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-8 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) WSDOT has several roles with respect to the City of Port Townsend transportation systems. From a policy perspective, WSDOT sets many of the transportation policies and standards for all state and local agencies, e.g., the Local Agency Guidelines. Some of those are implemented through the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), which is administered by WSDOT and which the City is a participating agency. Further, most federal and state transportation funding that cities receive is processed through WSDOT and, for this region, the PRTPO. Sims Way (SR 20) is a state highway that traverses the City from the western city limits to the ferry terminal in downtown. WSDOT also owns and operates the ferries that serve Port Townsend and are an important link in the regional transportation network. The policy, financial, and physical aspects of WSDOT make it a critical provider of transportation facilities and services to the City and the region State Route 20 From a jurisdictional perspective, State Route (SR) 20 is a primary transportation route that passes through the City to the ferry terminal. SR 20 is a Highway of Statewide Significance and provides a regional connection between the Olympic Peninsula and points north and east via the Port Townsend–Keystone ferry. The ferry itself is owned and operated by WSDOT as an integral component of SR 20 traffic movement in both directions. SR 20 is under the State’s jurisdiction but, within the City limits, is partially a City responsibility. The State is responsible for the pavement, pavement markings, traffic signals and regulatory signage. The City is responsible for illumination, drainage, sidewalks and snow removal. WSDOT has a state-wide agreement with cities ("City Streets as Part of State Highways”) where such joint operations are necessary. Transportation problems and solutions on SR 20, including planning, programs such as the annual TIP, project development, funding and construction all require joint effort and approval by both the City and WSDOT. Periodic meetings as needed, sharing of information and data and involvement in each others' projects is essential for efficient and effective use of SR 20. SR 19 / SR 20 Corridor Plan In 2008, WSDOT began the planning process for the SR 19 / SR 20 Corridor Plan which includes the portion of SR 20 from the City limits to the ferry terminal. That process is on- going through 2009 when a draft plan will be completed, subject to final review. The study will target congestion and safety issues, identify improvement opportunities, and guide WSDOT investments in the corridor over a 20-year period. The City is directly involved in the planning process and represented in the Corridor Working Group which is made up of local city, county and state officials and staff, as well as business and citizen representatives. The project addresses the corridor in six segments, of which segments 5 and 6 are entirely within the city limits. One of the study assumptions is that the Upper Sims Way project between Howard and Thomas Streets with its roundabouts will be built. Other improvements within the city limits, whether initiated by the City or WSDOT, will be coordinated between the two agencies as needed. The planning process will provide useful information to the City for its own consideration. Washington State Ferries (WSF) WSDOT owns and operates the ferry system from the terminal in downtown Port Townsend to Keystone on Whidbey Island. Ferry service, with its inherent traffic, loading and unloading Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-9 issues, is an integral part of the City transportation system, carrying people (and traffic) to and from the City and its businesses as well as providing a key, regional transportation link to north Puget Sound. As such, it also requires on-going cooperation between the City and WSF. The impacts of ferry traffic, both approaching and departing the downtown terminal area, are significant on SR 20 which, for city purposes, also has to function as a main arterial for local traffic. Loading for normal ferry service can usually be accommodated on the dock (100 car capacity). As is common at most of the other WSF terminals, overloaded vehicles that can not be accommodated on-site back-up onto local streets, in this case onto Water Street (SR 20) southwest of the terminal, 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 traffic signal. The overload holding area south of SR 20 is in front of undeveloped land, Indian Point, which may be developed soon and will impact or eliminate that holding area. The old Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center building is on City-owned property which may be used for some of the overload holding area with the relocation of Visitor Information Center to the Park-and-Ride property on Haines Place. The City used to manage the traffic control for these overload backups but now the ferry system employs a private firm. The firm is not typically on-site when the backup occurs and can take an hour or so to arrive. When the private firm is not on-site, City Police move vehicles out of traffic and keep peace but do not manage the traffic issues. In other locations, the Washington State Patrol has to provide traffic control for similar backups. 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 (delayed, one hour wait, out-of-service) as there is for Kingston and Bainbridge Island. Recently WSF instituted a reservation program for the Port Townsend – Keystone Ferry run. This system has been quite effective in reducing the back-ups associated with waiting vehicles. The current off-loading and projected ferry traffic volumes have been incorporated into the City's transportation model used for this Plan. Several of the key 20-year capital projects included in this Plan identify intersection improvements along Sims Way (SR 20). Off-loading ferry traffic is a component of the traffic that impacts those intersections. As such, and because SR 20 is a Highway of Statewide Significance, those intersection improvements will need to be jointly developed and funded. WSF has had an ongoing planning process for upgrading the ferries, terminal and related on- site and off-site overload parking that has continued over the last few years. The effort is still in process and the City will continue to be involved as a key stakeholder. Through a series of political and administrative decisions, WSF is now pursuing the construction of two new ferries of essentially the same size and capacity as the previous steel-electric ferries. WSF has no current plans to expand ferry boat capacity above that level for the foreseeable future, including the current long term planning effort. All growth in capacity to meet projected future traffic demand will need to come from other methods which are being addressed. WSF has provided "Operational and Pricing Strategy Options" to the Ferry Advisory Committees and the general public for review and comment. These "strategies" are categorized into nine groups: pricing; reservations; transit access enhancements; technologies for improved fare collection; non-motorized access enhancements; enhanced user information; promotion of non-SOV modes; traffic and dock space management; and, parking and holding. They have successfully implemented a reservation system for the Port Townsend–Keystone ferry crossing in order to better manage the limited capacity of one, 50- Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 5-10 car ferry. It is anticipated that the reservation system will remain in service and be expanded to other terminals. It has the potential to significantly reduce the peak traffic overflow parking back onto SR 20 and City streets. Future operational improvements at the toll booths including electronic fare collection could speed up vehicles entering the loading dock and also reduce backup traffic onto SR 20. The City has been a part of the on-going process with the WSF as the new vessels are constructed and placed in service as well as the other elements of the "Operational and Pricing Strategy Options" are implemented. After those changes are complete and the system stabilizes, the City may need to re-evaluate the issues related to ferry traffic. Passenger-Only Ferry Study WSF previously operated several passenger-only ferries but has since been directed to terminate that service and have sold the vessels. WSF is no longer in the passenger-only ferry business. Subsequently, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) completed a Regional Passenger- Only Ferry Study. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was established to provide input and advice to the study team. The study included an evaluation of a Port Townsend to Downtown Seattle route along with a number of other non-Port Townsend routes. The study evaluated a peak season, Friday to Sunday at four runs per day by one vessel. It would take an estimated 80 minutes per one- way trip. Two terminal sites in Port Townsend – the Point Hudson marina where an existing dock serves Puget Sound Express vessels and the WSF terminal site which would require construction of facilities to accommodate passenger ferries – were evaluated. The study proposed that such passenger-only ferry service would be privately operated and financed with possibly some public subsidy. "Given it would serve largely tourists and recreational users, this route would most likely be operated by a private entity. Given that the route would also partially serve the non-tourist market and that it would help meet state mobility needs, there is a possibility it could receive public subsidy." "Fares would be the primary funding source to cover both capital and operating costs. If a partnership is formed with local jurisdictions and/or the state, the route could also become eligible for FTA Grants, State POF Grants, and federal earmarks. Business contributions could also subsidize the service to develop the tourist market." Capital costs are estimated at $3 million to $5 million and operating costs are estimated at $1.5 million. Fare options run from $3.20 to $15.00, depending on the amount of fare box cost recovery. Private Transportation Service Providers Current private providers of transportation services include: • Peninsula / Key City Taxi – local and regional taxi service. • Olympic Bus Lines – daily bus service between Port Townsend and Seattle, Kingston, Edmonds, SeaTac Airport, Seattle hospitals, Greyhound bus and Amtrak terminals. • Rocket Transportation – door-to-door shuttle service on a reservation basis. • Olympic Van Tours and Shuttles – Olympic National Park tours and Port Angeles shuttle service. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-1 Chapter 6 - Finance & Implementation Program Transportation projects and programs were combined into two primary funding categories as part of the development of a financial strategy for the Transportation Functional Plan. The two categories are: (1) maintenance and operations activities such as paving, street sweeping, signing, and striping; and (2) capital improvements such as new sidewalks, turn lanes, road reconstruction, and new roundabouts or traffic signals. The maintenance and operations plan in Chapter 3 outlines those strategies and activities the City performs to maintain the existing transportation system and the Arterial Street Plan in Chapter 4 identifies the capital improvements necessary to address existing and future transportation system needs. The estimated costs of these projects and programs were summarized and compared to existing transportation-related revenues to assess the City’s ability to implement the projects and programs outlined in the Transportation Functional Plan within the plan horizon. As with most local agencies, existing transportation revenues will not allow the City of Port Townsend to fund all of its needed maintenance activities or capital improvements. The Finance and Implementation Program identifies other possible revenue sources to help close the funding gap. Even with additional revenues, the City of Port Townsend will not be able to fully fund all of the projects and programs within the 20-year study period. Maintenance Program and Capital Project Cost Summary Cost estimates were prepared for both the maintenance program and capital improvement projects to identify total transportation related costs over the next 18 years. Table 6-1 summarizes the estimated costs of the capital improvements and the maintenance program in 2007 dollars. The capital costs have been further summarized by project category. Table 6-1. Transportation Project and Program Costs 2009 to 2026 Improvement Category Costs¹ Capital Projects Arterial/Collector Improvements $34,330,000 Arterial/Collector Sidewalk/Bicycle Improvements $17,170,000 Intersection Improvements $8,780,000 Subtotal $60,280,000 Average cost per year $3,348,900 Maintenance Program Maintenance and Operations $12,720,000² Average cost per year $706,700 Grand Total $73,000,000 Average cost per year $4,055,600 1. Planning level costs in 2007 dollars. 2. Based on historical trends and residential growth rate projections over 18 years. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-2 Maintenance and Operations Costs The most basic funding category is maintenance and operations of the transportation system. Maintenance and operations costs cover preserving or improving road surfacing; maintaining adequate signing, marking, illumination, and traffic controls; safety enhancements; and general and emergency repairs. Transportation maintenance spending is directly related to the available revenue and/or desired performance level. Therefore, jurisdictions must continually make decisions regarding desired performance and available revenue based on overall financial priorities. Future maintenance and operations costs were based on an analysis of the City’s historical maintenance and operations spending trends. The costs increase over time as new infrastructure is built and used to meet the needs of a growing population base. It also assumes that the current levels of maintenance and operations will continue into the future. Data for this analysis comes from a review of the historical expenditures on maintenance and operations from the City’s Street Fund. Figure 6-1 summarizes the historical expenses related to transportation maintenance and operations (personnel, supplies, equipment, and services). $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 200120022003200420052006200720082009 Year Amount Figure 6-1. Historical Maintenance and Operations Expenditures In 2009, the City has budgeted approximately $592,000 for maintenance and operations expenses as part of the Street Fund. The actual Street Fund shows $787,000 in 2008 and $945,000 in 2009. However, these additional amounts were included to cover specific capital costs, increased equipment rental costs, and debt service payments. This has resulted in the funding for maintenance and operations to remain fairly constant between 2008 and 2009. The 2008 and 2009 City expenditures for transportation maintenance and operations are approximately $100,000 more than the City expended in 2001. Cost estimates for maintenance and operations programs over the study period were derived from historical data and land use forecasts. It was assumed that expenditures would grow at the same rate as the City’s residential growth that was assumed in the development of the travel demand model. The number of Port Townsend households is expected to grow at an annual growth rate of 2.04 percent over the next 18 years. Based on this growth rate, the City Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-3 will need approximately $13 million (in 2007 dollars) to maintain and operate its transportation system at current levels during the planning period (2009 to 2026). This represents an average annual cost of about $707,000 to fund the citywide maintenance program at current levels and does not account for other inflation factors relating to personnel or material costs. Addressing Deferred Maintenance Costs The City currently chip seals approximately 0.5 miles of street per year, performs major pavement repair at one to four locations per year, and applies approximately 66 tons of asphalt for pothole patching. These items are all accomplished using the available maintenance funding described previously. Funds are not currently available for preventive maintenance, significant rehabilitation or roadway reconstruction. As a result, the historical spending levels towards maintenance and operations of the transportation system have not been sufficient to maintain status quo. The City’s pavement conditions are in a declining state and are expected to continue to worsen if no additional funding beyond historical levels can be obtained. Therefore, the maintenance costs over the next 20 years are likely understated and result in a much higher need than the $13 million shown for maintenance in Table 6-1. Inadequate funding of roadway maintenance results is additional roadways in need of more substantial and costly capital improvements to reconstruct the roadway sub grade and base material. To overlay existing pavement with asphalt concrete costs around $3.50 per square foot while the cost to grind old pavement and complete sub-grade repairs before paving is approximately $6 per square foot. The City has about 75 miles of paved streets. At an average width of 24 feet (some as narrow as 20 feet and some as wide as 48 feet), the City has approximately 9.5 million square feet of pavement to maintain. To overlay all streets, a total of $33 million would be needed. To rebuild all of the City’s roadways, the cost would increase to approximately $57 million dollars, or nearly double. Therefore, it is critical the City develop a long-term preventive maintenance program that is adequately funded Various pavement maintenance program options are shown on Table 6-2. These options were developed to provide a basis for an on-going pavement maintenance program. Table 6-2. Pavement Maintenance Options Option A: Current Level of Funding • 2008 budget $40,000 for chip seal of gravel streets only, ~ 0.5 miles per year at this level, 5.0 miles of existing gravel streets, 10 years to complete paving gravel streets. • Minimum additional funds for pot hole patching and pavement repair in failed areas only. • 75 miles of streets deteriorate with no preventive maintenance. Option B: Preserve Good Pavement Only, Let the Remaining Deteriorate • Chip seal only good pavement at a rate of ~ 2.5 miles per year. • Remaining streets deteriorate to failure with no preventive maintenance. • Approximately $500,000 per year to address miscellaneous repairs. Option C: Preserve Good Pavement and Reconstruct ~ 0.5 miles Failed Pavement Per Year • Same as Option B plus additional $250,000 per year for reconstruction. • Will take over 50 years at this level to reconstruct failed pavement. Option D: Preserve Good Pavement and Overlay or Reconstruct Remaining Streets Over a 20-Year Period • Estimate $1.4 million is needed per year for 20 years. • Over $0.5 M per year thereafter to preserve pavement life on a continuous basis ASSUMPTIONS 1. The condition of the existing pavement is as follows: 10 miles of "new" pavement, 30 miles of "good" pavement, 30 miles of "going" pavement and 10 miles of "gone" or failed pavement. 2. The approximate unit costs are: Chip seal "good" pavement is $1.50 per square foot, overlay "going" pavement is $3.50 per square foot, reconstruct failed pavement is $6.00 per square foot. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-4 3. All costs in current 2007 dollars, i.e., annual budget would have to increase at the rate of inflation of oil products each year. Capital Improvement Costs Capital transportation projects have been identified and focus on improvements that are needed to construct or upgrade existing arterials and collectors, provide for improved sidewalk and bicycle facilities, and to upgrade and improve existing intersections. The capital improvements identified in the Arterial Street Plan (Chapter 4) are organized into the following three categories: • Arterial/collector improvements • Arterial/collector sidewalk/bicycle facility improvements • Intersection improvements Table 4-8 lists each of the projects and planning level cost estimates. The cost estimates are based on typical unit costs, by type of roadway and scope of the improvement. These cost estimates are provided in 2007 dollars. The cost estimates also include allowances for right- of-way acquisitions, based on the requirements to meet the City’s street standards. Adjustments to construction costs were included as needed to reflect specific implementation issues such as environmental impacts or impacts on adjacent properties. The cost estimates should be refined and updated as each project moves into design and implementation. As shown in Table 6-1, the total costs of the capital improvement projects are $60.3 million (in 2007 dollars) over the study period. Approximately $3.4 million per year would be required to complete these projects by 2026. Historical Capital Expenditures The City has a Capital Improvement Fund to fund improvements on streets as well as buildings, structures and parks. However the revenues are shared with other capital improvements and therefore no dedicated revenue stream exists specifically to fund transportation capital projects. Historically, most of the City’s transportation capital improvements have been funded with state grants. Grants will often require that the City provide a 10 percent or higher match. City revenues that need to be used towards capital projects, such as Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) revenue, are typically used to provide the local match for grants Table 6-3 lists the TIB grants the City has received since 1995. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-5 Table 6-3. Grant Funded Projects in Port Townsend* Location Project limits Project Description Funding Year TIB Funds San Juan Avenue Lopez Ave to 47th St/Admiralty Sidewalk 2008 $90,000 SR 20 W Howard St to Thomas St Widening, sidewalks 2008 $2,060,000 Discovery Road Hastings Ave to Sheridan St Sidewalk 2007 $150,000 Discovery Road Sheridan St to Sherman St Sidewalk and crosswalk 2006 $89,000 San Juan Avenue F St to 19th St Sidewalk 2001 $126,000 F Street Blaine St to Hastings Ave Pavement reconstruction, sidewalk 2001 $1,600,000 SR 20 Hendricks St to Hancock St Pedestrian crossing, sidewalk 2000 $93,000 F St/Discovery Rd Fir St & Hastings Sidewalk improvements 2000 $100,000 F Street Blaine St to Fir St Sidewalk improvements 1999 $47,000 Walker St Lawrence St to Blaine St Sidewalk 1998 $14,000 San Juan Avenue F St to Lopez Ave Pavement reconstruction 1996 $66,000 San Juan Avenue 19th St to Admiralty Ave Pavement 1995 $28,000 * Grants obtained from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) As shown in Table 6-3, the City has received approximately $4.5 million in grants during the past 13 years. This is an average of approximately $350,000 in grant funding per year. This is significantly less than the $3.4 million needed each year to implement the capital improvements listed in Table 4-8. The City will need to identify other, more reliable funding sources to be able fund the identified capital transportation project needs. Existing and Potential Revenue Sources The following provides an overview of existing revenue sources and other potential funding sources that could be used to help address the City’s shortfall in funding its transportation maintenance and capital project needs. The City of Port Townsend is faced with a significant funding shortfall over the study period and should explore strategies to address the funding imbalance, while also considering policy changes that would increase future revenues and available funding. Existing Revenues The City has relied primarily on public utility taxes, motor vehicle fuel taxes, and street permits for funding the maintenance and operations of the transportation system (Street Fund). The Capital Improvement Fund is funded primarily by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) and grants (federal and state). These existing revenue sources along with other general fund sources such as the property tax and retail sales tax are described below. Public Utility Taxes (Water, Sewer, Storm, Garbage) Utility taxes are a form of Business and Occupation tax levied on utilities, and a revenue source that has been used by the City for transportation projects since 2007. These revenues contribute to the General Fund and may be used for many expenses, including maintenance costs and capital improvements. Utility taxes are paid by the utility service providers, but are likely passed on to the customers of those companies. Therefore, these funds are primarily paid by City residents. In 2008, the City of Port Townsend generated almost $500,000 of Public Utility Taxes deposited in the Street Fund. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-6 Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes (Gas Taxes) Counties and cities receive a portion of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT) based on a reimbursement formula. These funds are collected from people who purchase gas for vehicles, and are presumably users of the road system, and are used to pay for improvements that benefit those users. The gas taxes can be used for construction and maintenance of streets. No increase in the State gas tax rate is expected in the near future. In 2008, the City of Port Townsend reported approximately $220,000 of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and included it as part of the Street Fund. Real Estate Excise Tax Washington State government together with its cities and counties are authorized to levy taxes on the transfers of real property. This tax, known as the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), is levied on the total selling price of the property and is generally paid by the seller. State law authorizes cities and counties to impose several optional real estate excise taxes each for prescribed purposes. Local REET 1 and REET 2 are the most widely implemented local options. These taxes represent the primary source of local taxing authority strictly dedicated for critical infrastructure needed to accommodate growing communities. Capital Improvements (REET 1): All cities and counties may levy up to 0.25 percent tax to fund general capital programs listed in the capital facilities element of the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan. In 2008, the City of Port Townsend generated $220,000 of REET 1 which was deposited in the Capital Improvement Fund. GMA REET (REET 2): Cities and counties mandated to plan or choosing to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) may impose a second tax up to 0.25 percent. Proceeds are exclusively limited to fund growth related capital projects. In 2008, the City of Port Townsend has generated $220,000 of REET 2 deposited in the Capital Improvement Fund. Property Tax Property tax is deposited into the City’s General Fund, and is available for any municipal purpose, including transportation maintenance or capital projects. Since the passage of Initiative 747 in 2001, property tax increases are restricted to 1.0 percent annually, lower than the rate of inflation. Therefore, cities and counties are seeing a decline in total property tax purchasing power. Retail Sales Tax The City has in place a 0.85 percent sales tax voted by residents. All residents and visitors to the City who make retail purchases within the City limits contribute to this revenue stream. The sales taxes can be used to fund a wide range of City services, including transportation projects. State Grants State grants are primarily funded with the state-levied portion of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax, which is paid by anyone purchasing fuel for vehicles within the state. Per capita Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue has been declining in real terms and able to fund less and less each year. This lower per capita revenue affects grant distributions. As more jurisdictions compete due to their own decreases in funds, securing grant funding becomes even more difficult. The Transportation Partnership Act (TPA) of 2005 provided some additional funds to the Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-7 Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and the County Road Administration Board (CRAB), for a total of $80 million to be disbursed to local jurisdictions as grants over a 16-year period. However, these increases in funds are very small relative to demand, with grant requests greatly exceeding available TIB funding. The TIB provides funding for urban areas through various programs: the Urban Arterial Program focuses on roadway projects that improve safety and mobility; the Urban Corridor Program focuses on roadway projects with multiple funding partners that expand capacity; the Sidewalk Program focuses on sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity. Federal Grants Similar to State grants, federal grants are primarily funded with the federally-levied portion of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. This tax is paid by all who purchase gas within the United States. The federal gas tax rate is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline; diesel and other fuels have different rates. The majority of these funds are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and disbursed to the states through the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. Future federal funding is difficult to project as it is awarded on a competitive basis. Between 2008 and 2009, the City was awarded $3.2 million in federal transportation grants deposited in the Capital Improvement Fund. Other Potential Funding Sources The following outlines possible funding sources to close the maintenance and capital funding shortfalls. A combination of new revenue sources should be used to generate additional revenue to fund the transportation projects and programs over the study period. 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: “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; Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-8 • 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. The TIFs are implemented through development regulations adopted by ordinance. GMA sets specific minimum requirements for the TIF ordinance. More information on how a TIF program could be established for the City is summarized in Appendix D. Local Improvement District Any jurisdiction may form a Local Improvement District (LID) and levy a special assessment on properties within the LID that would benefit from the improvement. These improvements include streets, parking facilities, park boulevards, and other public places along with local transportation systems, such as buses and railways, and the facilities necessitated by these systems. The City may levy a tax on the property within an area that will benefit from a specific capital project. The LID’s property assessment is determined during its formation and is assessed relative to the benefits the users derive from the improvements. For example, a LID in a commercial area funding right-of-way improvements might charge on the basis of commercial building square footage. If the LID funded $1 million of improvements and there were 100,000 square feet of commercial square footage in the district, a property owner with 10,000 square feet of shop space might be assessed an additional $100,000 ($10/sq ft). Transportation Benefit District A Transportation Benefit District (TBD) is an independent taxing district that can impose an array of taxes or fees either through a vote of the people or through council action. The revenue options subject to voter approval include levy on property taxes, increase of sales and use tax, annual vehicle fee (up to $100 per year) or vehicle tolls. Revenue options not subject to voter approval include an annual vehicle fee of less than $20 and transportation impact fees. If the City decides to exercise the tax authority that does not require a public vote, the TBD must be citywide. A TBD may be established for the construction, maintenance, preservation, and operation of improvements to state, regional, or local agency roadways, high capacity transportation systems, public transit, and transportation management programs. To be eligible for funding through a TBD, the transportation improvement project must be included in a state or regional transportation plan. State law sets requirements for selecting improvements, including the need for the projects that are “necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels.” These may include maintenance or capital projects. Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-9 Financing Strategy As indicated in Table 6-1, the City would need approximately $73 million (in 2007 dollars) to fully fund the transportation improvement projects and programs identified in the Transportation Functional Plan. The City should adopt a multifaceted strategy for funding its highest priority transportation needs. Existing revenue sources are not sufficient to cover the cost of the projects and programs. The strategy builds on current revenue base and supplements the funding through potential new resources. The financing strategy includes the following six primary elements: • Implementing a Pavement Management Program through a Property Tax Levy • Funding from the Development Review Process • Implementing a new Transportation Impact Fee program • Continuing to pursue grants and loans • Using new funding mechanisms (LID, TBD) • Partnering with other agencies. Pavement Management Program – Property Tax Levy There is no current funding for any significant pavement management program. As discussed above, most grants and other funding sources are primarily available for capital improvements, not ongoing maintenance. Increasing funding for maintaining and upgrading roadways or operating the City’s transportation system will generally have to be generated from expansion of the City's own resources. This is a typical problem for cities but some are finding the need compelling and are dedicating funding for pavement programs. With voter approval, the City is eligible to collect a property tax levy for the maintenance of City roadways. Table 6-4 was developed with information from the City's Finance Director. It assumes a property tax based annual levy at various levels (based on 2010 Levy Rate and 2009 assessed values) and shows the amount that a homeowner would have to pay on an annual basis. The costs of the various options presented in Table 6-2 are compared with the potential revenues from the levy. Per Table 6-2, Option B (Preserve Good Pavement Only, Let Remaining Deteriorate) would require $500,000 per year in funding. As shown in Table 6-4 (page 6-10), the owner of a $300,000 house would need to be assessed an additional $103 per year (or 28 cents per day) to provide the additional $500,000 in additional funding for this increased level of maintenance. Option C (Preserve Good Pavement and Reconstruct ~0.5 Miles of Failed Pavement per Year) would require $750,000 per year in funding, costing the same owner $155 per year (43 cents per day). Option D (Preserve Good Pavement and Overlay or Reconstruct Remaining Streets Over a 20-Year Period) would require $1,400,000 per year in maintenance funding. This would increase property taxes on a $300,000 home by $289 per year, or 80 cents a day. Option D would provide new streets throughout the City over a 20- year period (This summary is for discussion in relative terms and is based on reasonable high-level assumptions, not detailed pavement condition surveys or cost estimates). Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-10 Table 6-4. Potential Road Levy Scenarios and Associated Revenues Annual Pavement Program Cost Annual Tax on a $200,000 Home Annual Tax on a $300,000 Home Annual Tax on a $400,000 Home Annual Tax on a $500,000 Home $200,000 $27 $41 $55 $69 $300,000 $41 $62 $82 $103 $400,000 $55 $82 $110 $137 $500,000 $69 $103 $137 $172 $600,000 $82 $124 $165 $206 $700,000 $96 $144 $192 $241 $800,000 $110 $165 $220 $275 $900,000 $124 $186 $247 $309 $1,000,000 $137 $206 $275 $344 $1,100,000 $151 $227 $302 $378 $1,200,000 $165 $247 $330 $412 $1,300,000 $179 $268 $357 $447 $1,400,000 $192 $289 $385 $481 Funding from the Development Review Process Growth within the City results in a need for additional transportation improvements. The City has primarily required new developments to mitigate their potential transportation impacts based on its review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), its Road Design Standards requirements, and GMA concurrency. The City should ensure that its development review processes, level of service standards/concurrency program, and its road design standards fully address the adequacy of the transportation system and help mitigate potential adverse transportation impacts of growth. The City also can consider adopting and implementing a transportation impact fee, as allowed by GMA, to help mitigate impacts of new development (see Appendix D). State Environmental Policy Act Review As required under state law, the City will review potential impacts of new development under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA review would typically be used to evaluate impacts on: • Safety, such as horizontal curvature issues • Intersection operations and levels of service • Congestion • Transit and non-motorized transportation SEPA review is based on the development project having a potential adverse impact. Assessment of transportation impacts under SEPA depends on the conditions for each transportation facility or service serving a new development. If potential adverse impacts are identified, the City can condition the development to provide mitigation to offset or reduce its impacts. This mitigation would help improve the transportation system. SEPA review also can be through a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). Planned Action ordinances can be used to address both existing deficiencies and growth-related improvements based on their need to mitigate adverse impacts of new development. The City Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-11 may consider using a PAO to more systematically address development impacts within its existing City limits and its urban growth area. Concurrency Review Concurrency is a tool to insure that transportation facilities are constructed as growth occurs as discussed in Chapter 4. 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 The City’s transportation concurrency program is codified in Chapter 12.06 of the Municipal Code. Recently, the City 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 (Chapter 4 of the Transportation Functional Plan) 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 is exempt from the concurrency requirements, although the state’s level of service standards still apply to the highway. Roadway Design Standards The City has adopted roadway design standards (Chapter 6 of the Engineering Design Standards Manual). They identify requirements for design speed, right-of-way width, pavement width, grade, non-motorized facilities, parking and other roadway design features. New developments are required to comply with the road standards for all on-site roadways, adjacent street frontage, and access roadways. The standards cover both public and private roadways. The City has specific review and approval processes if variances to the standards are requested by the developer. 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 design 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 Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-12 Latecomers Agreements Mitigation under concurrency, SEPA, or the Roadway Design Standards may entail constructing or improving roadways or intersections that future development in the City will benefit from. To help balance the costs with the benefits of the improvements, the City provides for Latecomer Agreements, which allow property owners to recover a portion of their costs of constructing capital improvements from other future developments that benefit from the improvements. Street Latecomers Agreements are codified in Chapter 12.26 of the City’s Municipal Code. The Latecomers Agreements are set up for specific improvements and would calculate a share of the construction costs based on the relative benefit of the improvement to each development. Contract administration costs of the agreement also can be included. A maximum period of 15 years can be established for the Latecomers Agreement. Implementing a Transportation Impact Fee Program The funding strategy includes a GMA-based Transportation Impact Fee program to help fund growth-related roadway and intersection improvements. The City prepared an analysis of potential use of Transportation Impact Fees, which is documented in Appendix D (Impact Fee Report) of the Transportation Functional Plan. The City of Port Townsend has a need for additional funding to improve and expand its transportation system to serve new growth. As allowed under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), the City is allowed to develop and implement a program to collect Transportation Impact Fees for new development activity to help fund growth related transportation system improvements identified in the City’s Arterial Street Plan. The City of Port Townsend has identified an overall need of approximately $60 million (in 2007 dollars) to fund the capital projects identified in the Arterial Street Plan. Up to $25 million, or 40 percent, of the total costs of capital transportation improvements could be collected through the impact fee program if the maximum allowable impact fee rates were to be adopted. The City does not have to apply this maximum impact fee rate. Instead, the City Council may choose to exclude some improvement projects or costs from the program. The City also could reduce the potential fees as a matter of policy; the fees could then be adjusted in the future without extensive new analyses. Other sources of revenue would need to be identified to make up the difference in revenue to adequately fund the impact fee funded projects. Pursuing Grants, Loans, or Bonding As noted previously, the City receives state and federal grants to help implement its transportation improvements. Most of the grants are for capital improvement projects. The grants are becoming more competitive because most agencies are facing funding issues, gas tax revenues used to fund the grants are declining, and project costs are increasing at a rate faster than inflation. The City will need to continue to pursue traditional transportation related grants through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and federal grant programs administered by WSDOT and the PRTPO. These grants can be used to fund preservation, non-motorized, intersection, and roadway projects. In addition, the City will need to pursue grants for other types of projects and programs that can partially support transportation improvements. These could include Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation and other grants or economic development grants such as the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) administered through the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development (CTED). Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-13 Typically, the City will need to provide local matching funds to receive the grants. The need for matching funds could be covered through loans (such as the Public Works Trust Fund) or by the City issuing bonds. While not a source of new funding, the loans or bonds can help advance high priority projects. Depending on the interest rate, the loans or bonds may help reduce the total project costs by completing projects prior to inflationary increases in construction costs. Bonds and loans for transportation improvements need to be considered in light of the City’s overall funding needs and commitments. Using Other Potential Transportation Funding Mechanisms As previously noted, there are no Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) currently in place to fund transportation improvements in Port Townsend. The City could decide to pursue this funding strategy in the future. The Upper Sims Way, Discovery Road or Hasting Avenue corridors would be potential areas to be included in a LID to fund the specific transportation improvements identified along each of these corridors. While not part of existing funding programs either, the City could decide to fund some of the future transportation improvements through a Transportation Benefit District (TBD). In Port Townsend, a TBD could be appropriate to help fund maintenance and operations programs, and some higher priority capital transportation improvements. Partnering with Other Agencies Again, the City alone can not fund all the transportation improvements identified in the Arterial Street Plan. In particular, it is expected that the projects along Sims Way (SR 20) will be partly funded by WSDOT as this facility is a highway of statewide significance. It is anticipated that the City would contribute less than 50 percent towards the cost of the improvements on the state highway, with WSDOT and other funding mechanisms responsible for the remaining amount. The City should work with WSDOT and PRTPO to seek grants, legislative “earmarks” and other outside funding for improvements along the highway. Jefferson County also plays a major role in funding and constructing transportation projects in the area. The County is considering improvements along Discovery Road just outside the City. The City will need to work with Jefferson County on funding improvements to Discovery Road and Sims Way. The Port Townsend Entryway improvement summarized in the Arterial Street Plan would be one project where the City could partner with the County to address growth related improvements. Reassessment Strategy The City is committed to reassessing its transportation needs and funding sources each year as part of its Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This allows the City to match the financing program with the short term improvement projects and funding. The City also intends to periodically review land use growth, adopted level of service standards, and funding sources to ensure they support one another and meet concurrency requirement. In order to implement the Transportation Functional Plan, the City will consider the following principals in its transportation funding program: • As part of the development of the annual Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, the City will balance improvement costs with available revenues; • Review project design standards to determine whether costs could be reduced through reasonable changes in scope or deviations from design standards; Transportation Functional Plan City of Port Townsend April 2009 Page 6-14 • Fund improvements or require developer improvements as they become necessary to maintain LOS standards to meet concurrency; • Explore ways to obtain more developer contributions to fund the improvements; • Coordinate and partner with WSDOT and Jefferson County to vigorously pursue grants from state and federal agencies to fund and implement improvements to SR 20; • Work with Jefferson County to develop multi-agency grant applications for projects that serve growth in the City and its UGA • Review funding strategy to see if the transportation impact fees (if adopted) should be revised to account for the updated capital improvement project list and revised project cost estimates; • If the actions above are not sufficient, the City could consider changes in its level of service standards and/or possibly limit the rate of growth in parts of the City or its urban growth area as part of future updates of its Comprehensive Plan; • Some lower priority projects may need to be delayed or deleted from the transportation improvement program. The City of Port Townsend will use the annual update of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to re-evaluate priorities and timing of projects. Throughout the planning period, projects will be completed and priorities will be revised. This will be accomplished by annually reviewing traffic growth and the location and intensity of land use growth in the City. The City will then be able to direct funding to areas that are most impacted by growth or to arterials that may fall below the City’s level of service (LOS) standards. The development of the TIP will be an ongoing process over the life of the Transportation Functional Plan and will be reviewed and amended annually.