HomeMy WebLinkAbout061316 Walker, Scott - Post-docket Dear Planning Commission,
The following are my comments for your consideration in the process of updating the
Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to offer them.
Scott G. Walker
The bulk of the Transportation element is an excellent step in realizing and maintaining
our"small town" atmosphere. But I see some inconsistencies that will work to
undermine and ultimately negate our best efforts of community building.
The intro to the"Transportation Goals and Policies" chapter is clear and laudable in its
goal of moving people and goods while supporting a land use pattern that enhances our
quality of life; this is done well while making no specific reference to moving motor
vehicles. This is followed by seven laudable goals detailed in the Residential Street
System introduction. Good so far.
The following are some detailed points for how to improve on your excellent work.
* Policy 1.7 is excellent, but would much improve the overall goal of the chapter by not
referring to the active modes of transportation as alternative when walking and biking
predate the motor vehicle. It would be much cleaner to call out the specific mode.
*Delete policy 3.54
*Include a policy in section 5.xx to require, where possible, sidewalks be constructed
adjacent to the r/w edge to ensure a convenient contiguous walkway system at build out.
* Add a policy in section 5.xx to consider eliminating center-line striping on low volume
streets, such as Umatilla, to create a safer walking and biking environment.
*Include a policy in section 7.xx similar to 6.1 to support expansion of direct transit
service from Jefferson County to the Bainbridge Island ferry terminal.
*Include a policy 12.xx to "Explore" the possibilities of establishing a funding source for
transit improvements from revenue generated from on-street parking.
*In the "Transportation Improvements list, both 49th St. and Cook Avenue need inclusion
as streets needing pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
*In Figure 6.1,please remove the r/w to be preserved designation from 35, St. It is
currently a heavily used pedestrian and bicycle arterial and should remain so. Upgrading
35th, and then, by extension Umatilla, to where it can handle the loads of an arterial
would be prohibitively expensive while at the same time seriously deteriorate the safety
and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists needing an alternative route to and from the
area. All the mobility needs for motor vehicles in the undeveloped NW quadrant can be
met efficiently through the use of either Woodland or using Howard and Hastings.
Planning to use 35th and Umatilla needs greater consideration. The commentary
following the section, "Local or Residential Street System", offers good advice regarding
this issue.
PC-26
The goals of the Parking section are also laudable. You have done very well for the
commercial HD. Why not make the whole town as desirable as the downtown Historic
District? The policy exceptions for downtown need to be extended outside the area we
love into the newer sections of town.
Outside of the Historic District, several policies within the Parking section are
contradictory to the overall goals of the plan and the transportation goals and will
ultimately undermine the small-town value. The draft policies mandate provision for and
subsidy for motor vehicles, the principal cause of losing small town atmosphere. As
well, they undermine the seven referenced and laudable goals instead of support them.
The Parking section must be made supportive in "moving people and goods" through
"active transportation"which includes transit. As written, the parking section plans for
more cars and more traffic. It should instead plan for people and places of community.
Port Townsend is a very attractive place to live. People are going to continue to want to
come and live here and in the surrounding area. If we as a community acquiesce to the
needs of their cars for parking, we will eventually have a community of asphalt parking
lots fed by multilane roads,particularly if we try to supply parking for all the local non-
city residents who base their lives on driving to everything.
Parking is the one issue from population growth that most affects the character of our
community. It is the one that most affects walkability. Parking is the epitome of a dead
zone, devoid of most life. Policies in support of free and ubiquitous parking are the
fertility prescription drug for cars and thus are a significant factor in transportation mode
choice with its resultant GHG emissions, the chronic health and obesity epidemic, and
much of the polluted storm water runoff. Ubiquitous off-street parking creates the sprawl
we hate and sprawl makes transit service difficult. Parking policy adds a significant and
unnecessary and unsupportable cost to housing. The common factor in each of these
undesirable issues is our continued policy support to the primacy of the motor vehicle.
The Comp Plan must instead use its power to create the kind of community we desire,
one where walking, biking and transit are the natural mode choice. Parking policy is key.
Less parking is more park, more community, more habitat, more money for housing,
more quiet, more healthy people, and healthier finances.
Parking policy is the one item in the Comp Plan that can make or break the vision for our
community. I beg you to take this very seriously and revisit the parking section for a
makeover. In the least, I suggest the following additions and deletions:
*Policy 9.2: delete "encourage"in favor of the word require.
*Policy 9.3: Expand the policy to include all commercial development and all residential
areas, not just the Historic District.
*Delete policy 9.7
*Delete policy 9.9
*Delete policy 9.12; this is such an awful policy I can't say enough! 9.13 is the answer to
9.12.
PC-26
And again, I applaud you for your visionary work throughout much of this document. It
has the possibility of continuing to build a walkable, bikable, transit rich community with
an attractive small town atmosphere.
Thank you,
Scott G. Walker
PC-26