HomeMy WebLinkAboutArterial Street Plan - 1994')
-)
$10
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ARTERIAL STREET PLAN
Final
June 24, L994
Prepared by:
Henigar & Ray, Inc.
157 Yesler Way, Suite 617
Seattle, WA 98104
I
f
J
J
I
(
)
)
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ARTERIAL STREET PLAN
Ftnol
June 24, 1994
Prepared by:
Henigar & Ray, Inc.
157 Yesler Way, Suite 6U
Seattle, WA 98104
)
)
TABLE OT CONIBNTS
Executive Summary
Part Itr:
Recommendations For Improvements To The Existing. System
Part IV: Recommendations For Additional Roadways
Functional Classification System For New Roads
Howard Street Extension
New E-W Road
I
IIntroduction... ......^
Part I: Functional Classification System
Existing Functional Classification System
=:,, Recommended Functional Classification System
Partll:TravelForecasting ............Studylimitations.. .... ......5GrowthRates ...6
Methodology AndAssumptions . . i . . .
Description Of The Analysis Procedure L4
Forecast Results 15
1
2
5
Conclusions
23
24
34
34
40
M
Appendix A: Additional Studies
Appendix B: Calculation of Estimated Traffic Growth on the Arterial System
,i:.,..j
Appendix C: Examples of Rural and Urban Cross'sections
Appendix D: New Corridor Estimates
"l
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
FIGURES
Existing Functiond Classifications
Proposed Functional Classifications For nxistilg Strg,ets
Planning Areas
1.5% Annual Growth Rate Forecast Level Of Service
3.0% Annual Growth Rate Forecast Irvel Of Service
4.5Vo A,nnual Growth Rate Forecast Level Of Service
Foreeast l-evel Of Service At Buildout
Proposed Functional Classifications For
Existing And Future Streets
Conceptud I-ocation Howard Street Conidor
Conceptual Location East-West Road Corridor
4
7
:.
10
17
.....18
2t
22
,
37
39
42
36
Appendix C
Typical Rural Section
Typical Urban Section
,.' ,r'.,.i
TABLES
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Recommended Functional Classification Changes
RoadwaykvelOfServiceDefinitions . . . . . ; . . . . . . . : . . . . r 13
Scenario 1: Low Growth
.....8
Scenario 2: Medium Growth
Scenario 3: High Growth
Criteria For Classifying Arterials,
. . 35. Collectors, And I-ocal Streets
Howard Street As A Minor Arterial
E-W As A Collector ....4t
EXECUTTVE SIJMMARY
As m attractive residential com-unity md a regional tourist attraction, the City of Port
Townsend may face substmtial new growth over the next twsrty years. To assist the City in
addressing some of the trmsportation challenges associated with expected growth, this report was
developed. The following goals were used to guide the development of this report.
Identify the arterial street network md needs
Identify new (future) corridors, if they are needed
Provide'general recommendations for additional right-of-way acquisition needs along
existing m.d future alignments
--Create a basis for the roads portion of the trmsportation plan element of m updated
Comprehensive Plm
For the development of this re,port several tasks were completed, including the following:
reviewing existing City roadway ftrnctional classification designations, recommending revised
furctional classifications, m.d developing traffic md population growth rate assumptions to be
used in forecasting travel demand. The forecast results were then used to identify potential
roadway needs and improvements. Based on this analysis, two new roadways were proposed:
a north/south road and m east/west road. These corridors accommodate potential development
in the northwest section of the City as well as connect this sector to the City's arterial street
system.
Overall, this re,port should be used as a starting point for further studibs. In order to determine
exact road alisnments, more detailed work must be undertaken. Furthermore, additional studies
should be taken to obtain complete traffic counts as well as to obtain the origin md destination
points of vehicles using Port Townsends road system. This information cm provide Port
Townse,nd with a more complete understmding of the impacts of additional roads on traffic
congestion md mobility.
The street system in Port Townsend, as in all jurisdictions, is classified according to each
roadway's use or firnction. Part I of this re,port discusses functional classification. The fmctional
classification system is a way of categorifuE aroad system asselding to mobility md access tolmd use. Classifications include local, collector, md arterial roads, where local roads provide
the most access to lmd use activities and arterials provide the most mobility.
This part of'the report discusses Port Townsend's existing roadway firnctional classifications m.d
proposes a few chmges to ensurg that Port Townsend's roadways will be able to serye its future
needs.
Part II describes the development of the forecast methodology. The methodology includes the
determination of the forecast asstrmptions, including growth scenarios.
I
Final June 24, 1994
)
Three of the scenarios represent low, medium, and high traffic growth rates in Port Townsend
of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 percent per year. The fourth scenario is a build-out scenario which
considers traffic growth rates if all available lots are developed. In addition, a background
growth rate of 1.5 percent per year on SR 20 was applied under each scenario. This background
trafnc rate was an attempt to approximate traffic growth occurring within the region due to
factors outside the influence of the City of Port Townsend. Also included in this section is a
discussion of this study's limitations
Part III presents the recommendations for improvements to the existing street system as based
upon thi low, medium, and high growth scenarios. Recommended improvements are not
identified for the build-out scenario because the impacts associated with this scenario are so large
that most o! the roadways in Port Townsend fall to LOS E or F. Such a dramatic change will
alter the chiracter and atmosphere of Port Townsend and would require developing a planning
strategy beyond the scope of this document.
Part IV, the final part of this report recommends two additional roadways be built to serve future
growth in the northwestern section of the City. Proposed roadways include a north/south minor
arterial along Howard Street extending from 49th South to SR 20lSims Way as well'as an
easuwest route extending from Center Street to the proposed Howard Street extension.
)
Final Jwtc 24, 1994
ii
INTRODUCTION
As an attractive residential community and a regional tourist attraction, the City of port
Townsend may face substantial new growth over the next twenty years. To assist the City in
addressing some of the transportation challenges associated with expected growth, this report was
developed. The following goals were used to guide the development of this report.
o Identify the arterial street network and needs.o Identify new (future) corridors, if they are neededo Provide general recommendations for additional right-of-way acquisition needs along
existing and future alignments.o Create a basis for the roads portion of the transportation plan element of an updated
Comprehensive Plan
To achieve these goals, the development of this report included several tasks: reviewing existingCity roadway functional classification designations, rerommending revised functional
classifications, if necessary, and determining traffic growth rate assumptions to be used in
forecasting. Those forecast results were then used to identify potential roadway needs, including
identifying potential new transportation corridors.
The following report is divided into four main components, listed below.
o PART I: Functional Classification
o PART II: Travel Forecasting
o PART III: Recommendations for Improvements to Existing Roadways
o PART IV: Recommendations for Additional Roadways
PART I: FTJNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The street system in Port Townsend, as in all jurisdictions, is classified according to each
roadway's use or function. In general, the functional classification syslem is a way of
categorizing a road system according to mobility and land access. In addition, within this
system, distinctions are made between urban and rural roadways. Under both distinctions,
roadways are further classified as local, collector, and arterial roads based upon their functions
as listed below.
o Trip lengths
o Traffic characteristics
IFinal Junc 24, 1994
)
)
. Continuity of functional classification
. Route feasibility
. Location of travel generators
' Geogr4hical spacing of roads
. Miles and travel classifications of roads
. Integration of network with adjoining jurisdictions
1: ':. Ability of roads to service other travel modes (e.g. buses, pedestrims m.d bicycles)
These parameters allow for development of the hierarchy of streets, The hierarchy. rmges from
major arterials (which carry long, relatively hig! qpeed, inter-regional trips), to minor arterials
(which carry shorter, intra-city trips), to collector streets (which firnction as links betureen local
streets and the arterial system), to local streets (which directly serve adjacent lmd uses).
DilSTING FT]NCTIONAL CI,AS SIF'ICATTON SYSTEIVI
The 1981 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plot outlines certain goals md policies for
trmsportation circulation within the City. The following is m excerpt from that document.
Trorportation cireulation is that networlc of delivering people, goo/s, otd seruices
to various points within, to od frcm the city. Trouportation facilities include
roads, bus terminals, ttd fenies.
GOAL:
To maintain md expand the city's ttwtsportation circulation networlc to the highest level
of convenience, s$ety, retiability, md efficiency while consening enetgl otd natuml
resounces.
POLICIES:
I. The City's arterial street system shall be configured, as closely as possible, as
indicated on the Transportation Circulation Map.
2. Tronportation circulation corido:rs should be multi-functional md include
roads otd utilities, as well as 'equestrio4 pedestriot otd bike routes in
integrated systems.
)
2Final June 24, 1994
3. Trarcportation circulation networlcs andfacilities should be corupensurate
with existing and fiaure land use and development pattena
4. Facitities associued with trarcpoftation circuluion should be locaed and
dcsigrud with respect for such twturalfeaures as topography, soils, geology,
floodplairc, drainage conidors, shorelincs, wetlands and oquifer rechargeareas. .',.t. ...,1i:
5. In order to provide for public safety and to minimize public expenditures,
trafic circulation routes should incotporate limited-access provisions wheruver
possible.
The arteriai'network illustrated in the t98l Pon Towrcend Comprehercive Plan is reproduced
in Figure 1. The current circulation plan is defined as follows:- .
o
Arterials
SR 2OlSims Way
Water Street
Lawrence Street
Monroe Street (Water Street to
I:wrence Street)
Collectors
Cook Avenue Extension
49th Street
Admiralty StreetnW'Street
Walnut Street
Jaclson Street
Umatilla Street
McPherson Street
Sheridan Street
Discovery Bay Road
Hastings Avenue
San Juan Avenue
Kearney Street
'1 't '.il:. :'',.i.,i I
: :'r. .r-l : - f_. , :. \'
19th Sfeet , .'. -r. , :-.ii';.hi{:.;,-;;.i
"F" Street
Tyler Sreet -: .'.:".'',
quincy Sreet
Blaine Street (San Juan to Walker) ,
Washington Street
Fir Street
Cherry StreeURedwood Street
o Local roads include all other streets .-';1r-':!'
In addition, the existing 1981 Pon Towtsend Comprehensive plan al's depicts Cherry
Street/Redwood Street and Fir Street potentially being used as a one-way couplef to and from
the Fort Worden vicinity.
3
Firwl Jurw 24, 1991
STRAIT OF..i'A}.I DE R'CAf{}t-t3-sJ-ADMIRALTY INLET\fr\,A,AFtsF.h2=x(Jo15x49 TH ST":i l'?\/3r/nlIv_$t6,IiI3l;lIl-__Jt-rIhl-txl3'"'-itL"rty,,It,,Etelt-tt,Ivi,I{,iIIII! *ott'ics AvEL-F---,IIIIIII--l-'9k,t"*YLEGENDF E ART:RIALCOLLECTC:LOCAL sTi::TSFIdJFE IrLrxrtrtc . :rr..523lt^io.{ ..€cStocY o Eic,lxet' xcrl3lE, EXISTING CLA:S :ICATIONSC3'AINED FROM ThE '93I POF.;;.IVNSCND COMPREIJE\SIVE PLAN.6Gclr,)c6oIJIII{.IIIIIIIt-^gt'-$l---3'-tr-i--\slErtlitII)wAYl-IIlIIIIIIIIiIJtt,(/f//I/Ta"g"s/ri,CTTY OF POBT TOWNSENDEXISTINGFUNCTIONAL CI-ASSIFICATIONS(NOT TO SCALE)He,n!gar&Ra/--//I/-.*.fi#//V--.--CITY LilI'rI1n6,4,'\!l r,/PORT TOWNEND BAYrtt qau -q !l $t laru. * tts lll l$Irty-
RECOMMENDED FTJNCTIONAL CLA SS IFIC ATION SYSTEM
While the existing functional classification system (as defined in the existing comprehensive
plan) was found to be appropriate and consistent with the City's existing needs, it may not be
appropriate for the future needs of Port Townsend. Presently, the City is in the process of
developing a revised functional classification system as part of the transportation element of the
updated Comprehensive Plan. Figure 2 depicts the proposed functional classification plan for
the existing street network. Functional classification changes are proposed for the following
roads:
. SR 20lSims Way
o Discovery Bay Road
o 19th Street
o Jackman Street
o Kuhn Streeto 12th Street
o 49th Street
o Harrison Street
o Benton Street
o Walker Street
o Umatilla Street
Table I includes the recommended functional classification changes and the reasoning behind
the reclassification. This classification will need to be reviewed, in conjunction with the
proposed land uses in the City's comprehensive plan.
It is also recommended that the City designate scenic byways - including Cook Avenue.
Improvements to scenic byways would require balancing protection of scenic resources with
traffic concerns.
PART tr: TRAVEL FORECASTING
STI.JDY LIMITATIONS
Available existing data from Port Townsend was reviewed to form the basis of this report. Two
of the studies reviewed include the Pofr Towrcend. Gateway Development Plan and Populuion
Change tn Jefferson County: The Next 20 Years. In addition, data from the transportation plans
by Jefferson County and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization was
incorporated.
However, as with many studies, this study was faced with data and research limitations. Ideally,
complete databases on existing traffic volumes, historical traffic growth, travel patterns, and
percent of inter-regional travel (as well as temporal distribution) would have contributed to a
more detailed and thorough study of the existing arterial streets and of potential future arterials.
A number of arterial/collector segments were not studied due to a lack of available base traffic
data. One example is the Monroe/Jackson/Walnut corridor. This route does accommodate local
traffic as well as traffic to Fort Worden. A discussion on future data collection efforts is
described in Appendix A.
5
Final June 24, 1994
)
The available data provided single year (1992) information on overall traffic volumes on a
number of arterials in port Townsend, but other data was not available and this influenced the
study approach and assumptions. Assumptions for trlfflc growth, as well as assumptions about
y* of development build-out, and the percent.of buildable land, stem from a combination of
irofessional juigment (of borh consultani and City staff) and from a need to provide parameters
io the anatysis Jf traffic growth. If traffic and/or development growth or build-out occur at
rates differ-ent than those assumed here, City staff are provided with the information to identify
when those parameters are exceeded and a procedure to follow to adjust the assumptions.
GROWTII RATES
After existipg roadway traffic volumes (1992 City furnished traffic counts) were collected and
mapped, rJdarctr wai conducted to determine appropriate traffic growth rates. A check of
trisioricat traffic growth rates of Jefferson County roadways and SR 20 (as it enters the City) was
also undertaken. In the absence of historical traffic data for City streets, a review of population
growth was accomplished to determine if any correlations could be drawn. A review of
i-nformation on population growth rates in the Port Townsend area indicated that the document
population Chinie in Jffirson Counry, The Next 20 Years (GMA Planning Staff, Jefferson
County planningbepartrilent, lgg2) piovided the most recent research on growth rates in the
area. In addition, dlata from the transportation plans by Jefferson County and the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization was incorporated.
Four scenarios were investigated. A11 of the scenarios estimate future traffic growthon the basis
of new development potential within the City. (However, this analysis does not take into account
a potential r"lot niw destination point along the waterfronD. Tt:" scenarios represent
estimated low, medium, and high trafhc growth rates of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 percent per year. For
the fourth scenario, fuiure trafnc for total build-out was estimated. In addition, an assumed
background traffic growth rate of 1.5 percent per year was applied to SR 20 from the City
Limits to the wasliington state Ferry Terminal. This background rate was an attempt to
upp;".it""!e traffic grJ*tn occurring within the region due to factors outside the influence.of
tf,i City of port Toinsend. These iactors include overall growth in Jefferson County (outSide
port Townsend City limits), increased tourism, increases in commercial truck traffic, as well as,
increased daily trips by system users.
)
)
rFll
E"dlfll 6Final Junc 24, 1994
STRATT OF JUAN DE FUCAINLETADMIRALTYFozEra(.,?\F6att!6zJF(/rzI:v\.49THST\--ef --o!or.| ?'tt4 .El / -{Le -al I \-/9trIHI3t;lII__JIEIr-l:,i'r'ILio*tt{b",*,dS1"sIt//lIIIItIIIru-a-Heniar&RaLEGENDPRINCIPAL ARTENIALMINON ARTERIALCOLLECT ORLOCAL S-I REE TSoelrtJJJIdto|J-.Fl-'t-- -Hsrrysr ss - Ei - -i---TI\rII,IIIIIIIIIIItII/"sl#'olItet*t / a!.i / $il./*ii ,i2'##-^'T--F,,*i:,-IPORT TOWNSEND BAYFGURE 2CIW OF PORT TOWNSENDPROPOSEDFUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONSFOR EXISTING STREETS0.roT To scALE)I-,-1,-y*P|-ANNNG . IRAr{SPOfi lAnOil . ECOIOGY . tNoltrftRrs;rtt {tla r.i str att r.tnt. r. xrB tFl ,rr nrin)lt.nt."I
TABLE 1: RECOMMETTIDED FLJNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CHANGES
Roadway Existing
Classification
Recommended
Classification
Reason
SR 2OlSims Way (City Limits
to WA State Ferry Dock)
Arterial Principal Arterial Roadway is a State Route carrying inter-regional
traffic between population centers and activity
centers. New designation is more consistent with
State and Federal system designations.
Discovery Bay Road (19th
Street to Hastings Avenue)
Arterial Collector The traffic volumes suggest that 19th Street from
Sheridan Street to San J"an Avenue is functioning as
the arterial. The street section on 19th is also more
conducive to arterial traffic than the section along
this segment of Discovery Bay Road. Future
proposed intersection realignments at each end of
this segment will also increase the likelihood of this
roadway performing as a collector.
19th Street (Sheridan Street to
San Juan Avenue)
Collector Minor Arterial See comments for Discovery Bay Road
Sheridan (Hastings Avenue to
Sims Way)
Collector Minor Arterial Existing traffic volumes and existing adjacent land
uses suggest this street currently functions as an
arterial.
12th Street (Sheridan Street to
Sims Way)
I-ocal Collector Roadway functions as an alternate route between the
Castle Hill area (shopping, hospital) and the Lower
Flats area (shopping, boat yards, etc.)
49th Street (Cook Avenue
Extension to San Juan Avenue)
Collector Minor Arterial Roadway will potentially serve as a primary link
between new development in the northwest sector of
the City and the commercial areas.
Harrison Street @laine Street
to Washington Street)
L,ocal Collector Rciadway functions as a collector across the uptown
area of City. Connects a number of activity centers
i.e. high school, Post Office, Fire Station-
Benton Street (I-awrence Street
to Washington Street)
I-ocal Collector Roadway currently functions as a collector serving
the uptown area.
Walker Street (Lawrence
Street to Washington Street)
Local Collector Roadway currently finctions as a collector serving
the Jefferson County Courthouse.
Umatilla Street (Silver Street
to Howard Street R/!V)
Collector Remain as a
Collector
Right-of-way constraints may restrict this extension
of Urnatilla Street.
)
Finnl June 24, 1994
8
Research accomplished during the preparation of the Jefferson Counry Transponation plan and
lhe Peninsula Regional Transponation Planreveal that County and regional traffic growth varied
between 1.5 and 12 percent per year over the past 5-10 years. The research indicated that thevariation in growth rates was caused by varying assumptions and methodologies. Often thevariations were due to calculating growth rates over different time periods, suCh as from 1980to 1990 and from 1985 to 1990. The variation in growth rates stemming from different timeperiods may be attributable to economic swings and the decline of the logging industry.
Washington State Department of Transportation historical traffic figures cited in the pon
Towruend Gaeway Development Plan suggest that traffic on SR 20 his been growing at rates
9qu"l to and higher than 7 percent per year. Traffic volumes on the Port Townsend - keystoneferry route grew at an annual rate of 5.5 percent between 1979 and 1989. When the 1.5 p"r."nt
per year background growth rate is added to the medium and high trafhc growth rates of l.O anO4.5 percent per year for the City, the forecast traffic on SR-20 approximates the growth
observed in the studies.
METIIODOLOGY AND ASSTJMPTIONS
The four scenarios investigated estimate traffic increases due to potential new . residential
development. (The scenarios did not take into account a potential major n-ew destination point along
the waterfront). The overall growth rates were varied based on the development potential withinplanning areas. A planning area was defined as a Traffic Analysis Zoni (lAZi or a group ofTAZs.
Development was assumed to occur in each area of the City based on the number of available siteswithin an area. Available lots were defined as a) those lots lying outside of environmentally
sensitive areas (ESAs) and b) fifty (50) percent of the lots within desilnatea Ed;. i;i;;on on
the location of ESAs, number of currently developed lots, and total ivailable lots was provided by
the City. Overall, this analysis was a two step process: 1) calculate growth rates on the existing
street system without the addition of new roads and 2) use trip generation/distribution analysis to
approximate traffic on future (new) roads. This analysis was based on an existing popuhfron of7,740 (ai estimated by the Office of Financial ManagemenQ and assunies 2.3 personi-peihousetrolO
(per census data furnished by the City).
Potential traffic on new alignments was. estimated by a manual trip generation/distribution analysis
using the ITE Trip Generation Manualt. An equivalentof 1.75-average dai[y tripsper residence
was used to calculate the total trips generated by new development on these new alignments.
The total build-out scenario considers that all available lots are developed. Total build-out is
assumed to occur in 50 or more years. Figure 3 shows the individual planning areas defined in thisstudy.
tTrip General Manual 5th Hition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1991.
9
Final June 24, 1994
o,:c5!anotri62Ja'CITY LIMITtIcSIMIT OF JUAT.I DE R,ICA4,IvtJ'tl,II49 TH 3TIIIIfintIIIIIIII-w-PORT TOWT.ISEND BAYADMIRALTY INLETLEGENDRGI'RE 3CffY OF PORT TOWI'ISENDPI.ANNING AREAS(l.loTTo scAtE)Henigar&Rarrrr AREA t-iirlTSA LOC,!l-':=l ;;t76-QPMENTA ARE: ::::-'.:Tror!BFIt-aIISR?oDlr-r.--{apt-rxnflc . nars2crr^iro{ . Ecq-a6l . t\o\Eg"flcaclTY LNTIT>l0nrtuiaEFt SRaF:t'sty-
Growth Scenarios
The following is a brief description of each of the four growth scenarios.
Scenario 1: Low Growth
A development growth rate of 1.5 percent per year was used for development growth for the lowgrowth scenario. The adjustments for the individual planning areas based on development
potential resulted in localized growth rates of the following: Planning Area uA* - 0.7 percent,
Planning Area "B" : 2.3 percent, and Planning Area ucu - 3.2 percent. The background
traffic grgwth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to SR 2OlSims Way between the City limits and
the ferry terminal. (See Appendix B for detailed calculations).
Scenario 2: Medium Growth
The development rate for this second scenario was 3.0 percent per year. This represents nearly
a doubling of current traffic volumes over a 2}-year period. The adjusted localized traffic
growth rates for this scenariil were the following: "A":1.4 percent, "B" :4.3 percent, andncu - 5.8 percent. Again, the background traffic adjustment of 1.5 percent was applied to SR
20. (See Appendix B for detailed calculations).
Scenario 3: High Growth
The development rate for this high growth scenario assumes greater development activity in port
Townsend with resultant increases in traffic volumes. The base rate used in the analysis was
4.5 percent per year; the equivalent of an increase in traffic of 2.5 times existing volumes (over
20 years). I-ocalized planning area rates were the following: uA' - 2.2percent, 'B" = 6.1
percent, and ncu : 7.9 percent. The background tmffic adjustment of 1.5 percent for SR 20
was also applied. (See Appendix B for detailed calculations).
Scenario 4: Total Build-out
This scenario assumes that all available lots within the current City limits are developed. The
resulting traffic volumes were estimated by a ratio of total availabll 1o$ within a planning area
to the number of currently developed lots within the same area. The factcirs (ratios) for eachof the planning areas were as follows. 'A' : 2.33i "8" : 6.31i and, "C" : 9.24 (See
Appendix B). The background factor of 1.5 percent for SR 20 was also applied based on a timeperid of 50 years.
Final
11 Junc 24, 1994
)
)
Level of Semice
L,evel of service standards (LOS) are qualitative measures describing both the operational
conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or
passengers. Each level of service describes these conditions in objective terms, such as speed,
travel time, or vehicle density (i.e., the number of vehicles per mile). The conditions are also
qualitatively described in terms of a driver's ability to change lanes, to safely make turns at
intersections, and to choose his/her own travel speed.
Congestion is measured in terms of delay, which can be categorized into levels of service.
Delay is a measure of mobility and access, and it measures the excess travel time accrued by
motorists dtie to less than ideal traffic conditions. Congestion can also be measured by vehicle
density and average travel speed. While these measures are calculated differently, the influence
on travel behavior remains the same. Delay is a convenient measure of congestion at
intersections, while average travel speed or vehicle density is a better indicator of congestion on
roadway sections. Six levels of service are defined. Each level is given a letter designation
from A to F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The six
levels of service are described in Table 2.
The 1990 Growth Management Act requires Port Townsend to establish a level of service policy
that is coordinated with lefferson County and the region. Level of service policies are generally
established outside the framework of a street plan, such as this document. Frequently, LOS
policies are developed when the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is
developed. Thus, in this report, a level of service policy is not recommended. Instead, the
discussion focuses on "acceptable" and "unacceptable" levels of service. Within the
transportation planning and the traffic engineering fields, level of service below D is generally
viewed as unacceptable. Port Townsend may choose a different level of service as the cut-off
point between "acceptablen and "unacceptable", but for the purposes of this repofi, level of
service D is used as the cut-off point.
Roads which are forecast to have LOS A through D are considered to be providing acceptable
service. Those forecast with LOS F or F are considered to be providing unacceptable service.
This report's recommendations focus on improving roadways which are forecast to prwide
unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F).
Final t2 June 24, 19%
TABLE 2: ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
CATEGORY
Level of
Service A
Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds. Freedomto selecl desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic sirea. is extremelyhigh. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
Level of '.
Service B
Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travelspeeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is ontyitigtruy
restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not ginerally
subjected to appreciable tensions.
Level of
Service C
substantial
theIn of stable flow butrange and maneuverab arespeeds moreility closelylledcontrothehvolumesThebyigherselectionofnowisspeedsignificantly
baffected interactions withv others them traffic andstream,maneuveringlnwithtraffithestreamcresonancetheoftherequvigiluserpart
The oflevelgeneral andcomfort conventence declines noticeabl thisat levelv
Level of
Service D
Represents high{ensity, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver areseverely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor ,level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic fl-ow will"generally
cause operational problems at this level.
Level of
Service E
conditions
driver frustration
Represents at nearoroperating maxlmumthe levelcapacityFreedomtomaneuverthewithinstreamtrafficlsd itand isextremelyifficult,r rishedagenerallyaccomplorvehiclebyforcingtopedestrian toglveway
suchaccommodate maneuvers andComfort convenience levels are extremely
and orpoor pedestrian is at thishighgenerallyOperations
arelevel usuall because smallvunstable,mcreases m flow minoror disturbanceslnwithtraffrcthewillstreamcausebreakdowns.
Level of
Service F
within
vehicl
forcedDescribes or breakdown flow where arevolumes above theoretical
condThis existsition thewhereveritycapac of trafficamount aapproachingintexceedsamouthepoofnttrafficwhichcantraverstheeintformespoQueubehindsuchlocationsandtheueueoperationsarecharacterizedqbystop-waves Forand-go esexample,atmay reasonableprogress forspeeds
hundseveralred feet of bethenmore,ired to ln a lc fashrequlon.stop cycl
Sourcc: Transportation Regearch Board,Highway C-apacity Manual Special Report 209, Washingron, D.C., IgSs
IFTlwl Final l3 Junc 24, 1994
)
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCEDIJRE
The analysis procedure used to forecast future motorized vehicle traffic growth based on
development estimates involved the following nine steps. The build-out analysis was similar and
is also described. The detailed calculations (including an explanation of the formulas used) are
included in Appendix B.
The following analysis procedure was used to analyze future motorized transportation growth
for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
1. Review the City TAZ map and delineate planning area boundaries for the study (a
planning area is defined as aTAZ or a group of TAZs) and assign roadway segments to
specific planning areas. Generally, roadways were assigned to the area in which they
were located. However, certain roadways were assigned to a Planning Area with a
higher localized growth rate in order to quantify the higher'traffic volumes crossing from
one planning area to another via those roadways.
2. Using the current population figure (7,740), an occupancy rate of 2.3 persons per Iot,
and the base annual growth rates of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 percent, the number of new lots
(City-wide) were computed that would potentially develop over the study period (20
years).
3. Identify the number of developed, undeveloped, and total available lots within each of
the planning areas. Determine the percentage of developed and undeveloped lots to total
available lots within each planning area.
4. Determine the ratio of undeveloped lots within each planning area to the number of
undeveloped lots city-wide.
5. Using the ratio obtained in Step 4, determine the number of lots within each planning
area that will develop under each of the base growth rates. '
. ,
6. Determine the localized growth rate for each planning area by calculating a straight-
line annual growth rate from the existing number of developed lots and the anticipated
number of newly developed lots. This localizel rate will then be usedio forecast future
traffic volumes.
7. Calculate future traffic volumes using the localized growth rates obtained in Step 6.
(New roads were not included in this portion of the analysis).
8. Add the background traffic growth to the forecast volume for SR 2OlSims Way.
)
Finnl l4 Junc 24, 1994
The following analysis was used for Scenario 4 (build-out):
1. Determine a "build-out" factor for each planning area by dividing total available lotsby the number of existing developed lots.
.
2. Estimate future traffic volumes by multiplying existing traffic counts by the "build-outnfactor.
3. Add the background traffic adjustment to the total build-out volume for SR 2o/Simsway.
LOS was determined through the following analysis.
1. Calculate vehicle capacities for various LOS determinations for city arterials andcollectors considering them acting as intemrpted flow. Use the "Generaliied peak HourDirectional Volumes for Florida's Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Areas or Areasover 500 Not in Urbanized Areas" from Florida Department of Transportation.
2. Calculate LOS capacities for SR 20lSims Way using Ftoida's Level of Service
Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning, April lgg}. Assume thai the port
Townsend Gateway Plan recommendations are in place and analyze SR 20 as a three lane
urban highway.
3. Compare the estimated forecast volumes with the LOS capacities and determine
operating level of service. Assume LOS D as the minimum acciptable threshold.
FORECAST RESTJLTS
Analysis of the three scenarios shows that most of the roads in Port Townsend will remain atLOS D or above for all of the growth scenarios. Figures 5 through 8 graphically depict thoseroadways which are forecastedlto fall below LoS E-or F for.".tir."ttirio. J - E - - ---
In all of the forecast analyses, four roadways consistently had LOS of E or F, including the
analysis conducted under the low growth scenario. These roadways are the'following.
o Water Street (from the Ferry Terminal to Monroe Stree)
o 19th Street (from Sheridan Street to San Juan Avenue)
o Sheridan Street (from Sims Way to Discovery Bay Road)
o Kearney Street (ffom Sims Way to Blaine Street)
Final l5 June 24, 19%
)
)
Scenario I
Under Scenario l, both Sheridan and Kearney Streets fall to LOS E or F (Figure 4). This was
generally not expected and further investigation revealed that two separate reasons explain why
these roadways exceed LOS D.
Sheridan Street has high existing volumes (7,200 average daily traffic). This high base number
combined with increased traffic (due to future development in Planning Areas 'B" and nC")
causes the street to reach LOS E under the low growth scenario. Presently, it is unclear if all
of the 7 ,2n vehicles are making through trips on Sheridan Street or if a portion of the traffic
is school traffic from the elementary school located one block off of Sheridan. The ratio of
through trips to school trips should be determined through additional study before any
improvements are made to Sheridan. In general, the ratio of through trips to school trips
directly impacts the kinds of improvements appropriate to maintain an acceptable level of service
on Sheridan
Kearney Street is forecasted to exceed LOS D under the low growth scenario because traffic
forecasted to be generated in Area C is expected to use Kearney Street. Kearney Street was
determined to be the most appropriate route from Area C to Sims W.y, SR 20, and downtown
because it provides the most direct route from Area C and from San Juan Avenue to SR 2OlSims
Way. Other routes were determined to be too indirect, too steep, or too close to well-established
residential areas.
Scennrto 2
Under Scenario 2, forecasted trafflc growth along Sims Way causes LOS to fall to E, with
volumes growing from the current average daily volume of 12,225 to 20,434 at the forecast year
(2012) (Figure 5). The forecast volume for Sims Way is 23,189. This forecast volume is
comparable to the Pon Townsend Gaeway Development Plan, adopted in July 1993 by the Port
Townsend City Council. The Gateway Development Plan assumes a2.0 percent annual growth
rate and estimates traffic along this same route to grow to approximately 25,000.
The forecast traffic volumes between the analyses conducted for the Arterial Street Plan and the
Gateway Development Plan differ because the assumptions and methodologies differ. The
Gateway Development Plan analysis was a more detailed intersection level analyses for one
roadway (SR 20lSims Way), while this Arterial Street Plan carried out a more broad brush,
overall forecast for Port Townsend's city streets. Consequently, variations in the conclusions
are to be expected, but the Gateway Development Plan forecast of 25,000 does fall within the
range of forecasts produced by the Arterial Street Plan.
Final l6 June 24, 1994
lrlz:t26o?ts<4CENTER STsI'F'Fozrf,vFou,td6zJHTH STI--It9---STMIT OF JUAN DE FI,,CAFo2=!a(,1,l49 TH ST''w's7ADMIRALTY INLETLEGENDoGe.LJJJE(ooo?LOS E- LrlS t'NOTE, ALL O 1 ilt:. t( ..i t uli r noADsOPERATE AI LOS D ORBE T TERFtc.tRE 4SCENARIO ICITY OF POBT TOWNSEND152 ANNUAL GROWTH RATEFORECAST LEVEL OF SEBVICE(r.loTTo scALE)$lA5Heniar&RaPLANMNO . IRAI{5POf, t^nor{ . tCO.OCy . ftiC0{EERTlGytr aCITY LIilTT--PORT TOW{SEND BAYmrrt [u 11 utr atr E^ti(, a xtq (al trForty-
,-U'CENTER STI'F"Ftnzrf!.F6otr,6JSTRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCAF,nz=Yoa,l49THST(II"w's7ADMIRALTY INLETLEGENDr-os F_- L()S toEtrUJJJ=dlo(,al.l0TE' ALL ofllt:R SltJ[.,r ti()Atri,OPERATE AI- LOC, I) ONBE T TFIiaaa,a'TRIYIarot6FIGIJRE 5.--2ocEtntatSCENARIO 2CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND3.OZ ANNUAL GROWTH RATEFORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE(NOTTO SCALE}a'aa/IrrlQtt\.aarrrElG'tt-AYa'aaHeniar&Ra,,CITY Lfr,llTT--.oPORT TOWNSEND BAYmI'l Ar{NrNo . tn^Nsp(ntAtr,lil . tcot.(x;y .l.NoHlfRrrcrtt {alr r a gtr att l^tna. r {tor tEl ttt-6tFy,"
The Gateway Development Plan also identifies specific intersection improvements toaccommodate the forecast growth. Because the Gateway Development plan conducted anintersection level of analysis, more detailed and specific recommendaiions can be developed thatcannot be developed under the broad brush analysis of the Arterial Street ptan. The datewayDevelopmeru Plan recommendations have been riviewed and approved by both the City and th!State. The Gateway recommendations focus on intersection'improu6.nt, that are able toimprove traffic flow along SR 20lSims Way and thereby allow the roadway to accommodatehigher volumes of traffic.
Scenarios 3 and 4
Under Scenario 3, the high growth scenario, traffic growth increases by a 4.5 percent annualgroY.q rate (Figure 6). - under this assumption, the City would fad level of service nFn
conditions on several roadways, including Discovery Bay Road atid gastings Avenue. Howeverpreserving the carrying capacity of these roadways iould reduce the need i6r capacity e*pansionlPreserving the carrying capacity means not inteifering with the flow of traffic. lnt"r1..ption, inthe flow of traffic reduces the volume of cars that ca; be carried on a roadw"y, ru.r,-fir" ,"r"way as intemrpting the flow of water reduces the volume of water reaching iti goat.
Common intemtptions in traffic flow. are cars turning in and out of driveways, people makingturns at unsignalized or unchanneled intersectionr, and stop signs. Signals, ii sh-ould be noted',help preserve the capacity of a roadway more than stop signsiecauf tign.rr allow some carsto pass through an intersection without stopping.
Preserving the roadway capacity can.be achieved .by encouraging consolidated driveways,limiting access, and.only allowing signalized intersectio-ns. preserving the ro"O*"y of""it;;also help maintain the roadway's character, because widening neeOsle reduced and the visualappearance is not marred by driveways. Consequently, for-Scenario 3, tanO"L-".ti"*;;;part of the recommendations, but to be effective the land use controls must be establistred earfyon' To underscore the importance of eady land use actions, these land use recommendationsare mentioned in all of the scenario recommendations.
At a growth rate of a.5 ryrce1t per year, Kearney will not be able to handle the additional trafficvolumes. The expected volumes on Kearney under this scenario are ziqrg "dg"-d"1itraffic, which is more than a five lane arterial could accommodate. Currently,.it is not behevedthat right-of-way for more than four lanes could be accommodated in the Keirney Street right-of-way.
Hence, should the City grow at this high rate of 4.5 percent per year the City would have twochoices. First the City could adjust ttre land ur" g.o*th so th;t r"earney Street would not be asheavily impacted. This would involve di_recling the growth to the westirn edge of the City andc.aury traffic impacts on McPherson and othei streets in that area. Secondt!, the city ;oul;develop alternate north-south routes to alleviate the demand for Kearney Street. The proposed
Final
19 June 24, 1994
l
)
Howard Street extension appears to be the most likely candidate because it has excess capacity
under this scenario. And, importantly, Howard Street does not have a school near its right-of-
way.
Sheridan, the second obvious choice as an alternative to Kearney Street, is forecast to operate
at LOS E or F and also has a school near the roadway. While recommendations are made to
alleviate the service levels along Sheridan, the presence of a school reduces its attractiveness as
an alternative to Kearney Street.
A key element in either potential solution -- guiding the land use or directing the traffic to
Howard Street -- is a more thorough understanding of travel patterns in Port Townsend. As
mentioned-earlier, more complete traffic counts are necessary in Port Townsend, as is an origin-
destinatiori study. Traffic volumes should be monitored to determine if they are increasing at
or about this growth rate. If the traffic volumes are growing at this rate (4.5 percent), the City
should implement a more complete travel demand forecasting model.
In this Arterial Street Plan, given the data and methodology, the most appropriate solution to
traffic growth on Kearney under this s0enario cannot be precisely stated. An in-depth study is
more appropriate. However, it is important to note that this Arterial Street Plan does not
recommend widening "F" , Tyler, Quincy Streets to accommodate the forecast volumes of
Scenario 3. This route of streets does not have sufficient right-of-way or the appropriate
adjacent land uses for major capacity expansion.
while it is recommended that these streets be improved from rural to urban stre€t sections, this
conversion would not increase capacity to the magnitude necessary to accommodate the forecast
traffic volumes.
Impacts associated with Scenario 4 (build-out) are so large that most of the roadways in Port
Townsend falt to LOS E or F (FigureT). Such a dramatic'change will alter the character and
atmosphere of Port Townsend and would require developing a planning strategy beyond the
scope of this document.
Under both Scenario 3 and 4, traffic growth on Sims Way is forecast to increase to 32,805
average daily trips. Similar to Scenario 2, these forecast volumes are comparable to the Pon
Towsend. Gateway Development Plan, adopted in July 1993 by the Port Towntend City Council.
)
Final 20 Junc 24, 1994
tsljrFrCENTER STFUIzrfYF66td6zJrdzJzoAVEHASSTRAT OF JUAN DE FUCAFozTYo149 TH ST-lv-STADMIR.ALfi INLETLEGENDofttrtdJJ.Do(,1t-()3 EI-OS FNO'fL.' At L ()l'lll ll 'rIl,l)/ t{OAl).;(JP[liA il. A I t-os Lr OttBE'T TERa)_t's/lHISrIljltIoaFIGURE 6.tttlSCENARIO 3CITY OF POBT TOWNSEND4.52 ANNUAL GROWTH RATEFORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICE(NOTTO SCALE)a-*rrJ'--oeoa',:t-ir#Henigar&Ra,,PLAITNTNC . lRAtSpORlAnd\t . tcq-ocy . tNor{ttRficaCITY LIIIT-tr\aPOBT TOWNSEND BAYmrlt fut qq DI trt l^ttl rr ftoa (a) ,rl-or!y-
Fo2IfvFotrJozJTH STFo2od,hJ-tnSTMIT OF JUAN DE R,EAF)a()149 THII'w" sIADMIRALTY INLET6cGlr,JJ5dto()1LEGENDLOS E- t_os rNOTE. ALL OTHER STUD'' ROAOSOPERATE AT LOS D O'?BE TTERNqJRE 7SCENARIO 4CIW OF PORT TOWNSENDFORECAST LEVEL OF SERVICEAT BUILDOUTo.toT To scALE)POBTTOWI.ISEND BAYHenigar&RaPLAIt}{ftG . tRAilSPORIAnON . ECotOCy . EilCrllttRflGCITY LIMIT)--:2?.mrtr iatr r a utr arr qrru. r^.6ro (a) Itl.atFy*
PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The traffic growth scenarios analyzed in this report indicate that port Townsend needs toconsider various methods to improve its transportation system. In the past, transportationimprovements focused exclusively on roadway and intersection capacity improvements. Thatis, widening roadways, adding turn lanes at intersections, adding trafirc signals, and similarimprovements. Today, transportation improvements focus on a combin-ation of capaciiyimprovements and Travel Demand Management (TDM).
TDM is a broad term used to describe various techniques aimed at altering travel behavior.TDM techniques range from encouraging off-site parking, to providing transilwith more accessand reduced travel time or encouraging non-motorized tiavel, such as- bicycling or walking.
The Port Townsend Trgsqgrtation Planning Advisory Committ& (TPAC) has expressed strongsupport for efficient and effective alternatives to the automobile and to single o."up-t drivinj.This support is encouraged, but this report was asked to address the street-system. In generi,the purpose of this report is to recommend improvements and/or additions to roadw,iys andintersections.
The need for roadway and intersection improvements depends on the use and effectiveness ofTDM. If TDM mechanisms are widely,Td effectively applied, the need for additional roadwayand intersection capacity will decline. If no TDM r.asutbs are in place, demand for roads andimprovements will increase. This report does not lay out ; step by step process forimplementing TDM measures, transit improvements or retited activities be,cause ttt"t ir the roleof the transportation plan or a TDM program.
The recommendations in the following section discuss capacity improvements to both existingr.oadways and to proposed new roadways. In. some instances, potential TDM measures arediscussed to underscore their role and effectiveness in reducing'capacity needs.
Existing Corridors
The impacts of all the growth scenarios is cumulative. For example, problem areas identifiedin the low growth scenario will also show up in the medium anO trigtr scenarios.
tft.t"ioti
tfr"recommendations for each growth scenario are similar for roadways commoq to all scenarios.However, since the recommendations may not be identical, the recommendations should be reaOcarefully for each scenario.
In the low growth scenario, four roadways were forecast to fall below LOS D to LOS E or F,and thus improvements to these roadways will need to be addressed under all of the growthscenarios. Tables 3 through 5 identify the potential improvements to the arterial system-undereach of the forecast scenarios.
Final
23 Junc 24, 1994
Recommended improvements are not identified for the Build-out Scenario because the impacts
are so large and most of the roadways in Port Townsend fall to LOS E or F. Such a dramatic
change *ill altet the character and atmosphere. of Port Townsend and will require developing
planning strategy beyond the scope of this report.
PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL ROADWAYS
Future l)evelopment and Impacts on Future Roadway Needs
It is expected that Port Townsend will expand into the undeveloped western section of the City
(bounded to the north by 49th Street, to the east by San Juan Avenue, to the west by the City
limits, and_ to the south by Hastings Avenue). As this area develops, there will be increasing
need for additional streets for both access and mobility purposes
i
To ensure managed growth, Port Townsend will need to ensure that a continuous network of
streets through the area are developed before the majority of new development occurs. If roads
are built before buildings are sited and developed, there is a higher potential that land use and
transporgation conflicts can be minimized. If the roads are built after development occurs,
several difficulties could ensue. For example, after development occurs land may not be
available for good through street connections without impacting either homes or environmentally
sensitive sites. In addition, Port Townsend needs to complete its arterial/collector network to
ensure a better flow of traffic throughout Port Townsend.
To allow for the most direct and efficient roads to be built to serve future development within
this undeveloped western portion of Port Townsend, this study recommends the development of
a new E-W Road between San Juan Avenue and the existing City limits and a north/south
extension of Howard Street from SR 2OlSims Way to 49th Street. Developing this road system
provides for more street continuity through the area as well as good connections to the rest of
the Port Townsend arterial system. Specific alignments have not been determined at this time"
Additional environmental and land availability studies would need to be made.
)
Final 24 June 24, 1994
CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMEI{DATIONSTABLE 3SCENARIO t: LOW GROWTH i(1.5 Percent Annual Growth)lPlrlHeniearll&RaV IERECOMMENDATIONSl. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle service, expand transit service.2. Develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to and travel within downtown area.l ' Perform intersection level analysis st $an Jrrnn Avenue and Blaine Street for intersectionrealignment and signalization.l. Establish traffic monitoring program on Sheridon. Include AM, pM, and inidday connts,turning movementis, and trips to school versus through trips.2' As traffic volumqs build, conduct de&ailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersectionsto determine precise roadway needs (e.g., Ieft-turn pockets at key intersections, signals,changes in channelization, etc.), and right-of-way constraints.1' ffit street rnay need to be widened to four lanes. The purpose of recomrnendations I and 2is to confirm traffic volurne and to identi$ appropriate trainc mitigation strategies. Therecomrnendation is to do the detaited analysii necessary to determine if improvemenls tsss rhanwidening will handle the traffic.l. Recognize Keamey Street as key north - south link.2. Establish traffic counting program to monitor traffic volume growth.3. Preserve ROW for four lanes.4. As traffic volumes build, conduct detailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersectionsto determine other roadway needs (e.g., left turn ranes, signalization, etc.)-5. Develop pedestrian paths and bicycle facititie.s to reduce north - south auto travel demand(e.g., connect residential areas to downtown with paths and/or stairways, connect new retaildevelopment to residential areas with bicycle routes).TOMonroe StreetSan Jttgn AvenueBayDiscoveryRoadFROMFerry TerminalSheridan StreetSR2O/Sims WaySR20/Sims WayROADWAYWater Streetl9th StreetSherid"n StreetFinal25June 24, 1994
tFlllllenimrll&RaV I-TABI,E 3SCENARIO l: LOW GROWIH(1.5 Pertent Annual Growth)(continued)aHastingsAvenueDiscovery BayRoadROADWAYCity LimitCity LimitFROMSheridan StreetSheridan StreetTOl. Control land use access to preserve existing rural cbaracter. Prohitit driveways directlyonto arterials if alternative roadway access exists. Allow access only et intersections to makefull use of existing capacity.1. Control land use access to preserve existing rural character. Prohibil driveways, allowaccess only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity. I2. Acquire additional right-of-way width to permit future improvements.RECOMMEI{DATIONSiiFinaln6June 24, 1994
iiCAPACITY R-ELATED RECOMMENDATIONSTABLE 4SCENARIO Z: rcoruu GROWTH(3.0 Percent Annual Growth)Sheridan Streetl9th StreetWater StreetROADWAYSR20/SimswaySheridan StreetKearney StreetFROMDiscoveryRoadBaySan Juan AvenueMonroe StreetTOl. Establish traffic monitoring program on sheridan. Incrude AM, pM, and midday counts,turning movements; and trips to school in contrast to through trips.2' As traffic volumes build, conduct detailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersections todetermine precise roadway needs (e.g., reft turn tanes, sigualization, etc.).3' This street may need to be widened to four lanes. The purpose of recommendations I and 2 isto confirm traffic volume and to identiff appropriate traffic mitigation strategies. Therecommendation is to do the-detailed analysis necesssry to deterrrine if imprivements less thanwidening will handle the traffic.l. Intersection level enalysis at San Juan Avenue and2' ' Preserve RoW for four lanes, but avoid building to presenre roadway character. Build only ifgrowth rate exceeds 3.0 percent per year.Blaine Street for intersection realignmentand signalization.l. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle service, and expand transit sendce.2' Develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to and travel within downtown area.Finaln.lJune 24, 1994
iiTABLE 4CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONSSCENARIO 2: MEDIUM GROWTH(3.0 Percent Annual Growth)(continued)Discovery BayRoadSR2O/Sims WayKeamey StreetROADWAYCity LimitsCity LimitsSR20/SimswayFROMSheridan StreetFerry TerminalBlaine StreetTOl. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadwayaccess exists. Allow access only at intersections to rnake full use of existing capacity and topreserve existing rural character.2. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build only ifgrowth rate exceods 3.0 percent year.l. Follow recommendations of Gateway Development Flan (e.g., intersection improvements).l. Recognize Kearney Street as key north - south link"2. Establish traffic counting program to monitor traffrc volume growth.3. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build onlyif growth rate exceeds 3.0 percent per year.4. As traffic volumes build, conduct deiailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersections todetermine other roadway needs (e.g., left turn lanes, signalization, etc.).5. Develop @estrian paths and bicycle facilitie,s to rcduce north - south auto travel demand(e.g., connect rc,sidential areas to downtown with paths and /or stainvays, connect new retaildevelopment to residential areas with bicycle routes.RECOMMEIYDATIONSaFinal?9June 24, 1994
TABLE 5CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONSSCENARIO 3: IIIGH GROWTH(4.5 Percent Annual Growth)Sheridan Street19th StreetWater StreetROADWAYSR20/SimswaySheridanStreetFerryTerminalFROMDiscovery BayRoadSan Juan AvenueMonroe StreetTOl. Eslablish traffic monitoring program on Sheridan. Include AM, pM, and midday counts,turning movements, and trips to school in contrast to through trips. '2. As traffic volumes build, conduct detailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersections todetermine precise roadway needs (e.g., left turn lanes, signalization, etc.).3. This street may need to be widened to four lanes. The purpose of recommendations I and 2 is toconfirm traffic volume and to identi$ appropriate traffic mitigation strategies. Therecomrnendation is to do the detailed analysis necessary to detennine if improvements less rhanwidening will handle the traffic.l. Perform intersection level analysis at San Juan Avenue and Blaine Street for intersectionrealignment and signalization.2. Monitor traffic growth. If growth is over 4.O% per year, this street will need to become fourlanes.l. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttre service, and expand transit service.2. Develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to and travel within downtown area.3. Study separating ferry traffic from street traffic.RECOMMENDATIONSlT]lHenicarll&RaV I.:Final.oJune 24, 1994
rTlIHenimrll&RaV IETABLE 5CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMET.IDATIONSSCENARIO 3: HIGH GROWTH(continued)RECOMMENDATIONSl. Develop preserved ROW to four lanes.2. Monitor traffic volumes on street and adjacent intersections to determine roadway dasign.3. Conduct origindestination study to identiS travel patterns4. Monitor traffic volumes to develop alternative traffrc routes to relieve travel demand onKearney or redirect land use development.5. Monitor land use for changes/opportunitias that would draw traffic away from Kearney.6. Develop pedestrian paths and bicycle facilities to rcduce north - south auto travel demand (e.g.,connect rqsidential areas to downtown with paths and/or stainrays, connect new reiail developmentto residential areas with bicycle routes).1. Follow recomrnendations of Gateway Development Plan (e.g., intersection improvements).1. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadwayaccess exists. Allow access only at intersections to make full dse of existing capacity and topreserve existing rural character.2. Preserve ROW for 4 lanes. Monitor traffic growlh.3.0/o per yar.Bgild to 4 lanes if traffic growth exceedsITOBlaine StreetFerry TerminalSheridan StreetrROMSR20/SimswayCity LimitsCity LimitROADWAYKearney StreetSR2OiSims WayDiscovery BayRoadFinal30June 24, 1994
TABLE 5CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENIDATIONSSCENARIO 3: HIGH GROWTH(continued)RECOMMENDATIONSl. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadway accessexists. Allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity and to preserveexisting rural character.2. Preserve ROW for four lanes; refrain from developing until other recommendationsimplemented. Consider results of origindastination study before implementing.3. Perform additional studies to determine roadway needs for improved traffic flow (e.g., left tumlanes, signalization, etc.).4. Preserve full traffic flow capacity of roadway. (e.g., limit traffic conflicts and maximizedtraffic flow by limiting and controlling access, signalization, and adding center turn lanes toreduce tuming conflicts).1. Improve dasign section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion isconsidered inappropriate for adjacent land uses.3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origindestination study, trafficdiversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered.4. If origindestination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocation orconsidering land use distribution.5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities toimprove access to and within downtown.TOShbridon StreetCherry StreetFROMCity LimitJuanSanAvenueROADWAYHastingsAvenue'F" StreetItillHenimrll&RaV IFinal31June 24, 194
(tTllHenisarll&Rai IIcAPAcrrY RELAff k33oo^**ArloNsSCENARIO 3: IIIGH GROWTH(continued)RECOMMENDATIONS1. Improve design section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion isconsidered inappropriate for adjacent land uses.3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origindastination study, trafficdiversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered.4. If origindestination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocationor considering land use distribution.5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedastrian and bicycle facilities toimprove access to snd within downtown.l. Improve dasign section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to faciliiate traffic flow2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion isconsidered inappropriate for adjacent land uses.3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when anlorigindestination study, trafficdiversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered.4. If origindestination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocationor considering land use distribution.5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop @astrian and bicycle facilities toimprove access to and within doumtown.TOTyler StreetF StreetrROMCherry StreetJeffersonStreetROADWAY'F' StreetTyler StreetFinal32June 24, 1994
TABLE 5CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMEI.IDATIONSSCENARIO 3: HIGII GROWTH(continued)RECOMMENDATIONSl. Improve dasign section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion isconsidered inappropriate for adacent land uses.3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origindestination study, trafficdiversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered.4. If origindestination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocationor considering land use distribution.5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop @astrian and bicycle facilities toimprove access to and within downtown.TOJefferson StreetrROMWater StreetROADWAYQuincy StreettFlllHsnimrll&RaV IrFinal33June 24, 1994
Functional Classification For the New Roads
As part of completing Port Townsend's functional classification system, a classification for each
proposed road ihould be identified. This classification would ensure that the area is served by
a road network which fits the area's needs and which works within Port Townsend's existing
street syslem. This study recommends that the E-W Road be built as a collector road and that
the Howard Street exteniion be built as a minor arterial. The recommendations are based upon
road functional classification criteria (Iable 6). The criteria includes the following items:
' Type of Travel
. System Continuity
--:
o Spacing Between Routes
o Traffic Volumes @ercent)
o Speed Limits
o Mobility/Itnd Access
As this western portion of Port Townsend is primarily conceived as a residential area, it will
probably not need to be served by roads classified higher than a minor arterial. For example,
a maSoi arterial tends to serve travel between major inter-city destination poilts (e.g. city 1o
city), while a minor arterial tends to serve intra-city trips to major destination points. In
aOAition, minor arterials and collectors are intended to handle lower traffic volumes and speeds
than major arterials.
Howard Street Extension
As based upon the criteria depicted in Table 6, the proposed Howard Street extension would best
serve the area as a minor arterial because it tinks major destinations within the City. The
proposed road would extend approximately 21l2 miles. The north/south alignment could be
ienerally located along the exiiting Howard Street right-of-way from SR 20lSims Way to 49tll
5tr."t (see Figure 8). Table 7 discusses how the proposed Howard Street fits the criteria
required for ahinor arterial designation. :'
Firwl 34
Junc 24, 1994
Table 6: Criteria For Classifying Arterials, Collectors, ard Local Streets
Mqior Arterials Minor Arterials Collectors Local
Roads
Criteria
Type of Travel
(Function)
Intercommunity travel ;
some intracommunity
travelr
Intracommunity
travell
Collects/distributes
traffic between
local streets and
arterial system2
Land
Access2
System
Continuity2
Continuousa Continuous Not necessarily
continuous; should
not extend across
arterials
None
Spacing
Between
Routes2
l-2 miles ll2-l mile ll2 mile or less As
needed
Traffic Volume
(Percent)3
40{/6s-80 5-10 l0-30
Speed Limit2 3545 in tully
developed areas
30-35 2s-30 25
Mobility/Land
Access2
Built primarily for
mobility
Built primarily for
mobility, but
allows for some
access
Built primarily for
distributing traffic,
but also allows for
mobility and access
Built
primarily
for access
lcatrons- and Federnl AidAugust 1990, p. B-7t
Jr_alloortationana Um T , l9gg, pg. 82.
ll , l99o, p. 16.{system continuity refers to the length of tUe iiaa before it ends or is intersected by another road. Continuity parafretersare subject to specific conditions such as natural barriers.
lTI
EflflI Fitwl I 35 Jutrc 24, 1994
)
)
Table 7: Howard Street As A Minor Arterialt
Criteria Howard Street
Function Intracommunity travel:Fort Worden; northwest section of the City;
industrial area located along SR 20lSims Way
Continuous Yes--provides a fairly direct linkage from 49th to SR 20lSims Way
Spacing Between
Routes
Approximately I 1/4 miles to San Juan Avenue ( an arterial)
Traffrc Volume
(percent)
Expected to carry a high percentage of the.western section through
traffrc
Speed Limit As a minor arterial, it would be 25-30 mph
Mobility/Land Access Built primarily for mobility, but would allow some access
Designation Minor Arterial
)
tThis table is based upon criteria included in Table 6:
)
)
Firwl 36 Jutu 24, 1994
SAATT OF JUAN DE FUCAFFADMIRALTY INLETI,lF,3'={tL{"*tP"LEGEND\oA-a-PRINCIPAL ARTERIALMINOR ARTERIALCOLLECTORLOCAL STREETS\NOTESI. R'IV RESTRICTIONS MAY PREVENI T}fEXTENSION OF UMATILLA ST. WEST OFSII.VER ST.2. FUTURE EXTENSION OF HAINE5 5T. TOS.R. 20 MAY RESIJLT IN RECLASSIFICATIONOF SEGMENTS-OF IzIh ST.3. SEE APPENOIX A FOR MORE DETAILSOF PROPOSED FUTURE ALIGNMENTS.)HGLNE 8CITY OF PORT TOWNSENDPROPOSEDFUNCTIONAL CI-ASSIFICATIONSFOR EXISTING AND FUTURE STREETS(l.torro scALE)Heniar&RaPLANHTNC . ln^r{sPoRrAnoa{ . Eco(ocY . ENol{ttRra{G)/l€r {afa uf, sf, art l.lu. * {s (Fl rs-et&y*j7
)
)
Corridor Aligrunent
As depicted in Figure 9 this proposed minor arterial would be located roughly 1 1/4 miles w9,st
of San Juan Avenue (an arterial). The proposed Howard Street extension would cross hilly
ground with elevation relief of approximately 200 feet. Roadway profile grades range from I
[o 10 percent. Included within the conceptual depiction of the Howard Street Extension are a
few al-ternatives to the overall alignment. However, it must be noted that this figure is meant
to be only used for conceptual purposes. Detailed alignment analysis is recommended to select
the actual alignment. In developing the alignment, consideration should be give to topography,
existing development, and environmental constraints based on field survey information. In
addition to this north/south minor arterial, other local streets need to be developed to serve the
iuea.
Design Criterta And LOS l*vels
In order to develop a north/south arterial that will serve future roadway capacity needs, SGfeet
of right-of-way should be acquired to accommodate future growth as well as to allow for
peOeJtrian/bicyclist amenities. The Howard Street Extension could be initially constructed as
i rural road and as need arose additional improvements could be made to upgrade it to an urban
road. Figures C1 and C2 (typical urban and rural cross sections) in Appendix C are only meant
to provide conceptual ideas and are not to be used for actual design purposes.
Thb analysis used for this study assumed that the new road would be constructed as a two-lane
roadway. Applying the analysis that was used for determining LOS on Port Townsend's
arteriali anA ibUectors, the LOS (under all three growth scenarios) for the Howard Street
Extension would appear to function at LOS C. Under a fult build-out scenario, the roadway
falls to an operational LOS of F.
Forecasts developed for the Howard Street extension indicate that under the low growth scenario
the extension would carry about 1,199 average daily traffic. Under the high growth scenario,
the extension is expected to carry an ayerage daily traff,rc of 4,883. These forecast volumes are
at or below LOS C.
tFlllllenionrll&Rd I
-
Fitwl 38
June 24, 1994
tr)\ol- -r(tl(IIuf..,NTStsHa$Iffii.la+{rrlas A'lzI.t76zoVeel bLYIEHFriH3trJH.cFJo\or.:I\.\rilh:l'ilr$hl3l:EIH:nlrjn9\r' ALT 2rJ'tI'gzlF-!3rLruil rrF)t,|EEIt-l.ll=l=lF$DLiR7\'tlf_l:\l1...\. r7r.)LT1Ta1--->NtI\.fJl: ri '.,IrlrI\'ilt3rt45 VAYzoooltrr*jFlC)ztdHoC)U!UoHc)o:d*ld('vr{r{Fa-lU:UO€F!ItI:,I;!If;:rl!riirilrl'sIonor,{t
)
Road Furrction
Overall, the addition of the Howard Street Extension would help to complete Port Townsend's
roadway network; especially since Port Townsend does not currently have a north/south art€rial
in the western portion of the City. In general, this road would not only serve new development
in the northwestern section of the City, it may also relieve capacity problems along San
Juan/Kearney and Sheridan Streets from traffic leaving the City for other destinations and
provide an alternative route to the major destination point of Fort Worden. The percentage
redistribution of traffic to Howard Street from the other alignments would vary by scenario.
The greater the congestion on other alignments, the greater the diversion to Howard Street. At
the low growth scenario of 1.5 percent per year, Sheridan and Kearney Streets reveal
unacceptable levels of service. If approximately 2,400 ADT shifted to Howard Street, these
streets could achieve level of service D. Howard Street would have cap3city to accept this
traffic.
If LOS C were maintained on these streets about 30 percent of the traffic would have to shift.
Howard Street could handle this additional capacity. The question is whether 6,000 ADT could
shift. This is about 10 percent of the traffic on these streets. It seems unlikely that nearly one-
third of the trips would automatically shift to this corridor because the destinations served by
Sheridan include a school on Sheridan that is not directly accessed by Howard, ild Kearney
serves downtown. However external traffic heading to Fort Worden and residential traffic to
the industrial park and county destinations could be served by Howard. It may be possible to
achieve a30/o shift if specific traffic diversion strategies are used, including signage to Howard
and signals favoring Howard. More detailed studies; such as an origin/destination study, would
need to be undertaken before actual traffic counts along this road could be calculated, and a
redistribution of traffic estimated.
A proposed alignment along Howard Street is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $10 to
$12 million, including engineering, project administration, construction, and right-of-way
acquisition. Calculations used for deriving the estimated costs are included in Appendix D.
New EW Road
Cost Estimaes
As based upon the criteria included in Table 6, the proposed E-W Road would best serve the
area as a collector street. This functional classification is shown in Figure 8. As a collector,
this road would not connect major destination points. Instead, it would collect and distribute
traffic between local streets and the arterid system. In addition, the development of this road
would ensure that there is a through road in the area as well as allow for police and fire access.
Table 8 discusses how the proposed E-W Road fits the criteria required for a collector
designation. As an alternative to a new E-W collector, Cook Avenue and 49th Street could be
Final 40
June 24, 1994
upgraded to an arterial. This is not recommended in this study as it is not believed that it wouldfunction as well as having two east-west collectors and because of the scenic qualities of CookAvenue.
Corridor Aligrunent
The proposed collector would extend approximately I 3/4 miles and be located roughly l/8 ofa mile north of Umatilla Road (a collector). The alignment could begin along ftowarO Streetin the vicinity of the platted Peary Street right-of-way. Proceeding in I southeasterly direction
to a point near the Section Line, the E-W Road would turn east. The first segment of the road
would need to be located so as not to impact adjacent wetlands. The eastern segment would
generally follow the Section Line and turn south to follow along the southern property line ofthe new middle school. The proposed road would intersect with San Juan Avenue atapproximately Center Street (see Figure 10). The topography tltat this new alignment will cross
is^predominately flat with some gentle slopes. Profile gradeg are not expected to exceed 8 to
10 percent (on the west end).
rThis table is based upon criteria include in Table 6.
Table 8: F-W As A Collectorr
Criteria BW Road
Function collecting and distributing traffic within the northwest section.of theCity :-
Continuous Will not extend across the proposed minor arterial of Howard Street
Spacing
Between Routes
Approximately 1/8 mile from Umatilla
Traffrc Volume
(Percent)
Expected to carry lesser amounts of the western's section traffic than
arterials
Speed Limit As a collector it would be 25-30 mph
Mobility/I-and
Access
Built primarily for distributing traffic, but would allow-for mobility or
access
Functional Class Collector
Final 4t June 24, 1994
7oFz\_lr1I"il!IHiFll,F{'l\T{frtIli\l=ll'l;l t-lIt\l.l1l]ilrlitllHII IIIT[]]il lllfll{III\[lJ]tffii')r-tF-sH F.t-ITfut'r,'l--'I lr IIt-\II\-.-'lItltllll/ilJJIZ4Ytlt.tIa.+ral.lrt'.t. ./i-t \\. /r...--_ i.i. "..fl#Ft,'\)('$o"'0'(.hto.+'a)\+htFe.,Til..\l9\(tdtFJl-?)F{F..'F4C)zoOHzoF.QOFl(nF]l.>IF"(nF]aoEF{ORHHE;,itttlirlE*t6tI{N-$
Figure 10 is a conceptual depiction of the alignment the proposed E-W Road could possibly
fotlow. Included within the depiction are a few alternatives to the overall alignment. However,
it must be noted that this figure is meant to. be used only for conceptual purposes' more detailed
studies would have to be undertaken to develop the actual alignment as based upon topogmPhY,
existing development, and other constraints. In addition, other local streets would also need to
be developed to serve the area.
Design Criteria And LOS Levels
In order to develop a road that will serve future roadway capacity needs, 80-feet of right-of-way
is recomm_e-nded lo accomrodate future growth as well as to allow for pedestrian/bicyclist
amenities. Right-of-way opportunities or constraints may modify the actual acquisition of ROW.
The E-W noiO could be-initially constructed as a rural road -and as need arose additional
improvements could be made to upgrade it to an urban road. Figures Cl and C2 in Appendix
C (rural and urban cross sections) are only meant to provide conceptual ideas and are not to be
used for actual design purposes.
The analysis used for this study assumed that the new road would be constructed as a two-lane
roadway. Applying the analysis that was used for determining LOS on Port Townsend's
arteriali anO cotiectors, the LOS (under all three growth scenarios) for the E-W Road would
appear to function at LOS C. Travel forecasts for the proposed roadway indicate that average
daily volumes would vary between L,873 for Scenario 1 and 4,352 for Scenario 3, the high
growth scenario. These volumes translate into an LOS C or better. As with the Howard Street
Jxrcnsion, this wide variation in average daily traffic implies varying service levels. However,
the FDOT methodology for this roadway type doesn't calculate LOS designations below LOS
C. Under a fult build-out scenario, the roadway falls to an operational LOS of F.
Road. Furrction
In general, the E-W Road would primarily collect and distribute traffic generated within the
*.Jtrtn portion of Port Townsend lo the proposed extended Howard Street and to other arterials
such as ffastings Avenue and San Juan Avenue. As mentioned previously, the development of
this road would ensure that there is a through road in the area as well as allow for police and
fire access. In addition, this proposed collector, serving as a link between the local residential
system and the arterial system, wbuld be designed for lower traffic volumes and speeds than the
arterial system. Overall, it is expected that this road would not divert and redistribute traffic
from theLxisting system. However, it would focus access to and from the northwestern section
at two points-ttoward and the proposed E-W Road and San Juan and the proposed E-W Road.
Finnl 43
June 24, 1994
Cost Estimates
Estimated project costs for the construction of a new alignment would be in the range of $6 to
$8 million (see Appendix D).
CONCLUSIONS
For the development of this report several tasks were completed: reviewing existing City
roadway functional classification designations, recommending revised functional classifications,
and developing traffic growth rate assumptions to be used in forecasting. The forecast results
were then used to identify potential roadway needs. Based on this analysis, two new roadways
were proposed: a north/south road and an easUwest road. These roads accommodate potential
development in the northwest section of the City and connect this section to the City's street
system.
Overall, this report should be used as a,starting point for further studies. In order to determine
exact road alignments, more detailed work must be undertaken. Furthermore, additional studies
should be taken to obtain accurate traffic counts as well as to obtain the origin and destination
points of vehicles using Port Townsend's road system. Only with this information can Port
Townsend have a more complete understanding of the impacts of additional roads on trafhc
congestion and mobility.
Functional Classification
The recommended functional classification system identifies a variety of changes to the existing
functional classification system, including lowering the classification of some streets and raising
that of others. The existing system was reviewed and determined to be appropriate given
industry criteria, but a new system was developed to address the future needs of the City.
Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations
For Scenarios 2 and 3, there are two concerns: the percent of traffic to be shifted and the
capacity of Howard. The percent of traffic shifted depends on whether Sheridan and Kearney
are two or four lanes. Under Scenario 2, if these streets are two lanes, about 40 percent of the
traffic would have to shift to maintain LOS D. If the traffic on Sheridan is through traffic and
not directly related to the school, increasing the capacities of Sheridan and Kearney to four lanes
will absorb the increased traffic. However, a study of traffic on Sheridan is necessary to
determine if this is the appropriate solution. Under Scenario 3 with Kearney widened to four
lanes, nearly 40 percent of the traffic would have to shift to Howard Street to maintain LOS D.
This shift would be difficult to achieve. Howard Street would potentially have enough capacity
to receive the Scenario 2 traffic it were four lanes. But under Scenario 3, Sheridan and Kearney
Streets may need to be four lanes as well.
Final
44 June 24, 1994
')
)
The E-W Road would primarily collect and distribute traffic generated within the western portion
of port Townsend to the proposed extended Howard Street and to other arterials such as
Hastings Avenue and San Juan Avenue. The development of this road would ensure that there
is a th"rough road in the area as well as allow for police and fire access. In addition, this
proposed Jo11r"tor, serving as a link between the local residential systemand the arterial system,
*oufO be designed for loier traffic volumes urd speeds than the arterial system. Overall, it is
expected that-this road would not divert and redistribute traffic from the existing system.
H6wever, it would focus access to and from the northwestern section at two points--Howard and
tfre proposed E-W Road and San Juan and the proposed E-W Road.
In conclusion, the recommendations include a wide range of actions, ranging from increasing
roadway capacity, to adding new roadway links, to carrying out further 1udy. While this report
*", noi diiected at transportation demand management, several TDM recommendations are
included including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The vfration in the recommendations
is representative of tfti complei nature of trivel in Port Townsend.
)
_)
)
J Firwl 45
Junc 24, 1994
APPENIDIX A
ADDITIONAL STUDIES
,)
ADDITIONAL STTJDIES
Conducting additional studies and gathering more detailed data may assist the City in making
decisions. A more detailed analysis of existing traffic and travel behavior may reveal
information that directty impacts policy decisions. As mentioned under Study Limitationst
complete databases on Lxisting ttaffic volumes, historical traffic growth, travel patterns, and
p"rrint of inter-regional travcl (as well as temporal distribution) would have contributed to a
111o." detailed and thorough study of the existing arterial streets and of potential future arterials.
For example, it is unclear with the current database how school related traffic is influencing
traffic volumes on Sheridan Street. The existing volume for Sheridan Street may have been
obtained when school traffic was heavy, such as right before classes begin or right after school
has ended. These trips do not represent through trips on Sheridatstreet, but are trips accessing
the school. Therefoie, increasing the through-capacity of the roddway (e.9.' a new lane along
all of Sheridan Sueet) may not be the best solution.
possibly, a better solution is to improve access to the schoot to separate school-traffic from
through-traffic. For example, a deiignated a left turn lane would separate school-traffic from
throulh-traffic. Through-traffic would then use the existing roadway to pass by the school-
traffic and continue along Sheridan Street.
Collecting and analyzing data on traffic composition, patterns, ild changes ovei time wqylg
provide g-te"t"r insigtrt ir,to any transportation decisions made by the City. Studies on traf. fic
composidon, patterns, and changes generally require additional consultant services. I-ocal
jurisdictions frequently lack the staff to carry out the extra work of additiond studies.
Not all of a city's questions and needs can be addressed in a single study. Frequently, several
studies at" t quin A. Sometimes sequential studies are needed: The early studies are generalized
and offer . *id" range of options. Preferred options are chosen and studied in more detail.
Determining which additional studies are appropriate and how they should be carried out should
be based oi tt" city's needs and goals. Often, jurisdictions carry out studies to assess their
needs and goals. ttris is particularly true when the public is involved in the process andmany
views *utt be heard, discussed, facilitated, and, revised before a clear statellent of needs and
goals can be developed
The'City of port Townsend is heavily influenced by recreational travel, particularly tourists_who
come to visit the City. The travel pitterns and travel behavior of these tourists influences local
travel pattern and bihavior. Consequently, the City may *att! to consider developing a long
term process for collecting data and-monitoring traffic in the City. A potential three-phase
pro".ir is outlined below. The items represent areas where further study is needed.
)
A-1
I. Broad study of travel in the city
II.
Origin md destinations for both local md regional traffic
Weekday md weekend travel pattems
Assess public opinion of trmsportation issues md co-munity vision
Study of local trips as ss-paxed to regional tourist trips.
Impact md proportion of inter-city m.d regional traffic on local streets
Impact and proportion of travel destined for the state park versus downtown
Ratio of local traffic to regional traffic in the downtown area
m.--'iSstablish a process of collecting data on md monitoring behavior of local traffrc
Trends md chmges in travel over time
Timing md impact of school traffic on local streets
The need md feasibility of off-site parking for the downtown area.
This three phase process is a guide to help the City establish a program for evaluating traffic.
Phase I is the most impertmt component of this process because it provides the overview mdframewort for the additional work outlined in Phases II md Itr. Fh.r"r tr md III md their
related studies do not need to be carried out in the order identified. The order cm. chmge,
depending rryon the needs, goals, md priorities of the City. The three phase process is a guide.
The precise order md priority of additional studies cm be determined whathe City's overall
trmqportation needs m,d goals are identified. .,j
Determining these needs ad goals would be appropriate in the City's Trmsportation Element ofthe Comprehensive Plm, but the following list of questions is provided io assist the City in
determining its transportation data needs. The questions cover a wide rmge of topics: .L*"
are intended to generate intemal city staff discussion about count program goals, while otherquestions focus on staffing md equipment needs.
A-2
.f
1
2
3
4.
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
WHEN ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC COUNT PROGRAM
Do you want to develop a database where you can comPjlre weekday/weekend counts
year after year? Or do you just want to know if traffic is changing on a roadway
year after year?
Do you want to apply the data to long tgqe planning issues such as right of way
presenation, or do you want to identify intersection improvements and specific
projects such as left turn Pockets?
Are you only interested in certain roadways or do yourvant to understand local travel
patterns?
Do you anticipate eventually using this data in a model or are you gathering it as-a
separate datablse? If you are planning on putting the information into a travel model,
you should research the type and format of that model's data requirements.
How often do you want to take counts -- Annually? Biannually? Seasonally?
Do you want counts for only one day? One week? One weekend? Holidays?
Would you like to do a screenline analysis where you count cars on parallel routes at
the same time? Do you have enough hoses to do this?
Do you warit to develop data on trip generation rates for specific land use activities.
You could place the hose at the entrance to Fort Worden, for example. This would
tell you how many trips the park attracted.
If the City is considering establishing an in-house traffic counting program, the
following questions should be considered..
What is your annual budget for traffic count collection and compilation?
Do you have enough staff to monitor the traffic hoses and compile data?
Do you have enough staff to safely install the hoses (i.e., two people for each
installation as required by OSHA).
What kind of work and how often would you need to contract out data
collection, compilation, or analysis?
Do you want roadway counts or intersection counts?
)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
)
A-3
If you were to do regular intersection counts, do you have staff and
equipment?
Do your hose counters calculate ADT or hourly information?
Do you want to supplement hose ADT's with peak hour counts? This will
require additional staff monitoring and/or the possibility of different traffic
hoses.
Do you want to develop conversion factors between peak hour and ADT with
the hose counter data? If so, you will need both sets of counts.
A-4
APPENDIX B
CALCI.JLATION OF ESTMATED
TRAFFIC GROWTH
ON
THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM
PORT TOTYNSEND TRANSPORTATIOI.i PLANI{ING
ARTERIAL STREE-T PLAN
H&R Project No. 935-3251
CALCULATION OF ESTIIVIATED TRAFFIC GROWTH ON THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM
Prepared by: M. A. Pawlak Date: 8-20-93
In order to calculate estimated traffic growth over the next 20 years on Port Townsend's arterial
system, a three step approach was ibllou,ed (each step required the use of one or more
mathematical equations) :
1. Four 'City-Wide" scenarios of development growth w-ere calculated (low, medium,
high, and build-out).
2. The "City-Wide" development growth rates rvere then used to calculate more localized
development .uea growth rates.
3. The localized development grorvth rates were then used to estimate traffic growth on
the arterial system.
The following assumptions form the basis tor the calculations:
1. A 1.5 percent bickground tratfic growth rate will be applied to SR 20 to aicount for
the increase in traffic from intra- and inter-county trips and increase in ferry ridership.
This growth is due to circumstances beyond the effects of development within the City
limits of Port Townsend
2.Low, medium, and high development growth rates of 1.5,3.0, and 4.5 percent will
be used in the calculation of localized development area growth rates.
3. Build-out is assumed to occur in -50 or more years.
development of all residential lots.
Build-out is defined as
4. Localized development areas will be det'ined by combining Traffic Analysis Zones
(TAZ's) previously determined by the Port Townsend TPAC and their traffic consultant.
5. Existing population of Port Tou'nsend, per City Planning is 7740 (OFM estimate,
furnished by the City;.
6. The development growth considered in this analysis rvill consist of single-family
residential at an occupancy rate oi2.3 persons per unit (per 1990 census data furnished
by rhe City1.
B-l
1
)
7. The number of currently developed lots, available lots (for future development), and
coverage of developed and undeveloped lots is based on data received from the City of
Port Townsend via ELS, Inc.
8. For currently undeveloped parcels, an equivalency rate of 2.5 unis per acre will be
used to determine the potential number of future lots available for development (per City
Planning).
9. Buildable lots will be those lots that lie outside currently mapped Environmentally
Seniidve Areas (RSA's), plus fifty percent (50Vo) of the lots lying within ESA's.
The following list of equations will be used in the analysis.
(1) NEW = [ p * ((1+r)21 - pl I 2.3 where,
NEW is the number of potential new lots available at a given development growth
rate
p is the current 1993 population.
r is the assumed development growth rate.
I20 is the time considered in the analysis in years.
2.3 is the occupancy rate in persons per unit.
(2) VoDL =(dlTBL)*100 where,
VoDL is the percent of the buildable lots currently developed.
d is the number of currently developed buildable lots within aT.AZor localized
;development area.
TBL is the total number of buildable lots within aTAZ or localized development
areas, as determined in assumption #8 (above),J
B-2
(3) VoUL = (u / TBL) * 100 where,
vouL is the percent of currently undeveloped buildable lots.
u is the number of cu-rrently undeveloped buildable lots, including the number ofequivalent lots available within large parcels, within a TA2 or localizeddevelopment area.
TBL is the total number of buildable lots within aTAZ or localized developmentarea, as determined in assumption #g.
(4)'AIt=u/TIjL where,
AR is the ratio of the number of currently undeveloped buildable lots within alocalized development area to the total number of unaevelopea b;]ld;;i;l;;within the City.
u is the number of currently undeveloped buildable lots as defined in Equation (3).
TUL is the total number of undeveloped buildable lots within the City.
(5) N=AR*NEIV where,
N is the number of new lots estimated to develop within a defined localizeddevelopment area' for a givert "City-wide' development growth rate, over thestudy period.
AR is the ratio difined in Equation (4).
NEW is the number of lots defined in Equation (l).
(O g = {[(d + f9 / d]'os] - t where,
g is the localized development area growth rate derived from a given 'City-wide"development growth rate.
d is the number of developed lots as det'ined in Equation (2).
N is the number of new rots as der]ned in Equation (5).
.05 is the inverse of the study time of the analysis, in this case 20 years.
B-3
')
(T) T. = (1992 Traffic * g) - 1992 Traffic where,
T, is the increase in traffic over the study period at a given growth rate.
1992 Traffic is the ADT, actual traft'ic count, furnished by the City.
g is the localized development area growth rate as deFrned in Equation (6).
(8) B=TBL/d where,
B is the build-out factor used to compute traffic volumes at build-out.
TBL is the number of buildable lots as defined in Equation (2).
d is the number of currently developed lots as defined in Equatio n (2)-
(9) Ts = $gg2 Traffic * B) - 1992 Traffic where,
T, is the increase in traffic due to build-out.
Lg92 Traffic- is the currenr ADT as detlned in Equation (7).
B is the build-out factor as det'ined in Equation (8).
(10) 2012 Traffic = 1992 Traffic * Background grorvth * T, where,
20L2 Traffrc is the estimared tfuure tratfic on a segment of roadway for a given
localized growth rate.
1992 Traffrc is the current ADT as det-rned in Equation (7).
Background growth is the growth in background traffic due to circumstances
occuning beyond the intluence of development growth in the City.
Tg is the increase in tratfic due to development growth as defined'in Equation (4.
)
)
B-4
(11) 2042 Traffic = 1992 Traffic * Backgiound grorvth * T" where,
2042 Traffrc is the estimated future traffic at build-out.
1992 Tnfftc is the current ADT as defined in Equation (7).
Background growth is the growth in background traffic due to circumstances
occurring beyond the. influence of development growth in the City.
TB is the increase in traffic due to build-out.
The following calculations will be used in the analysis:
Determine the number of new lots to be developed city-wide for each of the growth rate
scenarios Qow, medium, and high).
NEw = [p*((1*r)20) -pJl2.3 (l)
@ 1.5 percenr NEW r., = 17740 ((l.Olt'?) - 7740J t 2.3 = 1167
, @3.0 percent NEWr.o = 17740 ((1.030)19 - 77401 t 2.3 : 27t3
@4.spercenr NEW.s -- U740((1.045),) - 77401 I 2.3 : 4751
Determine the number of developed and undeveloped lots, and the percentage of lots
currently developed using information fUrnished by the City and EES, Inc.
VoDL=(d/TBL)"'100 (2)
VoUL: (u/TBL) * 100
See Table 1. :
Determine the ratio of the undeveloped buildable lots in each localized development area
to the total number of undeveloped buildable lots in rhe City.
AR = u/TUL (4)
Localized Development
Area A
ARo=3412 ll094l:0.31
Localized Development
Area B
ARs:2536 ll094l:0.23
Localized Development
Area C
ARc,=4993 ll094l:0.46
(3)
B-5
CITY OF PORTTOWNSENDARTERIALSTREET PI,ANH&R Proiect No.935€251TABLE 1DETERMINATION OF AVAII.ABLE LOTS@Io\DATE:9-2-93REVISED:9-2-93% Undevelopod(% UL)556906145936267276#t#i:liiiBis."$if irt$*!iinr,l6B96u8391988293% Developed(% DL)45311003955738s!7394i.I.g:ei,.t i!iii:.$rt{r*t-.?dt:*4t i,{ii3241617I2187No. of TotalBuildable LotsOBL)16837231518'1787300138924210493{iZl#itlr.:9.<lBrl$r+.4;iii.r:6.O?nii8621 1061046tgtgQ't$R**f{3{Mtlf.ritt+?i}11650u411699491487Number olUndeveloped Lots(u)92257092381028085516128b5BB1067881136931411507741386Number olDeveloped Lots(d)7611s359597720534817687274391652813019175101TAZ No.23I10111213141516,ri{iiil'l*3,r"i*4517ffi:iffiss7618I19LocalizedDevelopmontAreaABc
Determine the number of new lots to develop within each of the localized development
areas at the different growth rate scenarios and the equivalent localized development area growth
rates.
N=AR.*NEW
s-{[(d+Irr)/d]'05}-I
See Table 2.
Determine the increase in traffic due to the localized development ar(n growth rates. The
traffic on tha roadway segments will be increased by the localized growth rate calculated for the
localized development area which the roadway falls within. Segments on the perimeter of
localized development :reas will be assigned the higher growth rate of the adjacent localized
development areas. In cerlain special circumstances, a roadway segment will be assigned a
higher localized growth rate if it is determined that the effects of growth in an outlying (non-
adjacent) area will impact the road segment.
Tg = (1992 Traff,rc * g) - 1992 Traffic (7)
See Traffic Growth Projections, Scenarios I through 3.
Determine the effects of build-out on traftic. Calculate the build-out factor. Apply the
build-out factor to the current traffic to determine the increase in traffic due to the impacts of
total build-out.
B=TBL/d (8)
TB = (1992 Traffic *B) - 1992 Traft'ic (9)
See Traffic Growth Projections, Scenario 4.
Estimate the total future traffic volurnes due to the low, medium, and high development
growth rates. Estimate the total future traffic volumes due to the impacts of fotal build-out.
Z}I2Tnffic = 1992 Traffic * Background growth + Tg (10)
2042Traffrc = 1992 Traft'ic * Background growth + TB (11)
(s)
(6)
B-7
CLCIW OF PORTTOWNSENDARTERIALSTREET PIANH&R Project No.90S€251TABLE 2DETE RMI NATION OF LOCAUZEO EOU MALENT GROWTH RATESJriDATE:8-31-93REVISED:9€-93(tIctEquivalant Annual Grourth Rate (g)@4.52.26.17.9@3.01.44.35.8@ 1.50.072.33.2@4.5147310932185No. ol Lots to@ 3.08416241248@1.s362268537Ratio of UndevelopedLols (AR)0.310.230.46LocalizedDevelopmentAreaABc
To determine the capacity values for LOS Srandards review both the HCM and FDOT
Modifications to the 1985 HCM method. Revier','the following merhods: a) unintemrpted flow
and b) intemrpted flow.
a) Unintemrpted Flow
Use FDOT modifications to the 1985 HCNI method. Use program model U2LN TABwith the following variables: K =0. 10, D =0.54, pHF=0.90, SFR:176, T(transitioning area or urban area over 5000 population), speed limit of 35 mph or iess,no medians and no left-turn bays (U2L-IT). For an analysis of SR 2OlSims W"y,
include a painted median and left-turn bays in accordance wirh the port fownsend
Gateway Plan (U2L-2T). See Pages 8 and 9 for prinr-out.
b) Interrupted Flow
Use "Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volumes for Florida's Areas Transitioning into
urbanized Areas or Areas over 5000 NoT IN urbanized Areas, tiom
1985 HcM. see Page 10. use "Non-State Roadways", 2-lane, undivided, a -l;vo
adjustment factor for no left-turn bays, K=0.10, D=0.54.
for LOS C ADT : (520 x 0.8-5) / (0.10 x 0.54) = 8185
for LOS D ADT : (650 * 0.85) / (0.10 * 0.54) : 10231
for LOS E ADT = (710 x 0.S5) / (0.10 x 0.54) = LtL76
Use the following LOS capacities: LOS C 8190
LOS D 10200
LOS E l 1200
Use Intemrpted Flow (method b) for the analysis of city srreers as it more closely
approximates the actual conditions existing in Porr Townsend. Use Uninterrupted Flbw (method
a;U2L'2T) for SR 20lSims Way as the State highway functions as an urban highway as it enters
Port Townsend. ;'
Compare the estimated future volumes u'ith rhe maximum capacity thresholds for levels-
of-service (LOS) C, D, and E. Use LOS D as the minimum acceprable level of service on the
arterial network (arterials and collectors).
B-9
')
-)
_)
Conclusion:
Develop New Corridors
If the northwest and west areas of Port Townsend are to develop, additional north-south and
east-west roadways will be needed. Two recommended alignments are Howard Street
(SR20/Sims Way io 49th Street) and a new 'E-W" Road (Howard Street to San Juan Avenue).
'ifr.r" recommended alignments are depicted on the maps included in the study report.
At first, the recommended roadways will act as local access and collector roads. 'However, as
development increases, these roads will need to develop and function as minor arterials. To
ensure that these arterials can be developed, land use will need to be regulated and right-of-way
options will need to be secured.
l
B-10
REPORT FOR 18.MAr.94
Urban Two-Lane Uninterrupted Highway Levelof Service Tables
U2LN_TAB Version 1.0
Developed by: E.Shenk, D.McLeod, W.McShane, and G.Brown
DESCRIPTION
ROAD NAME:
Study Time Period:
Analysis Date:
User Notes:
TRAFFI C CHARACTERI STI CS
K FACTOR:
D FACTOR:
PHF:
ONE.DI RECTI ON ADJUSTED
SATURATION FLOW RATE:
ROADWAY CHARACTE R I STI CS
Urbanized, Transitioning, or
Rural Developed Area:
POSTED SPEED LIMIT (mph):
MEDTANS (Y/rll1:
LEFT TURN BAYS (Y/N):
Minor Arterial
Daily
REVISED 08.30.93
DISK: PT TNSD 3 FILE:A\U2L-17
o.100
0.540
0.900
----Range--
(0.06 - 0.20)
(0.50 - 1.00)
(0.70 - 1.00)
1 ,700 (1300 - 2000)
T (U,TorR)
35 (55,50,45,40,35)
-l
N
N
PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUMELOS:A B C D E30 1oO 570 850 1 ,3oO
PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DTRECTTONS)LOS:A B C D E50 190 1 ,060 1 ,570 2,410
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)LOS:A B C D E500 1 ,900 10,600 15,700 24,100
B-1 I
1 REPORT FOR 18-MAT.94
Urban Two-Lane Uninterrupted Highway Level of Service Tables
U2LN_TAB Version 1.0
Developed by: E.Shenk, D.McLeod, W.McShane, and G.Brown
DESCRIPTION
ROAD NAME:
Study Time Period:
Analysis Date:
User Notes:
Minor Arterial-SR2O
Daily
08-30-93
DISK: PT TNSD 3 FILE:A:\U2L'27
TRAFFT C CHARACTERI STI CS
K FACTOR:
D FACTOR:
PHF:
ONE.DI RECTION ADJUSTED
SATURATION FLOW RATE:
ROADWAY CHARACTE RI STI CS
Urbanized, Transitioning, or
POSTED SPEED LIMIT (mPh):
MEDTANS (Y/N1:
LEFT TURN BAYS (Y/N):
1 ,700 (1300 - 2000)
T (U,TorR)
35 (55,50,45,40,35)
0.100
0.540
0.900
---Range---
(0.06 - 0.20)
(0.50 - 1.00)
(0.70 - 1.00)
)
Y
Yf
PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME
LOS:A B .C D E
30 130 710 1 ,O4o 1 ,610
PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS)
LOS:A B .C D E
60 240 1 ,310 1 ,930 2,980
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)
LOS:A B C D E
600 2,400 13,100 19,300 29,700
"')
)
B-12
TABLE 3 - 2
GENER{,LIZED PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S
AREAS TRA}ISITIONING INTO URBAI{TZED AREAS OR
AREAS O\TER 5,OOO NOT IN URBAIVIZED AREAS{'
STATE T\T'O.\+ AY ARTERIAIS FR.EETTATS
t i'DrTCluaLTrt:D tLow
Crup A 0rr tjro 0 6O riluhrrd iatocuro 9=r milcl (lYralo3 ?cr I
t*lak rrd;rb r fxolry'r ulrf,iivpea pnxtou rd lho
F6iou aLh.i l'..PElat -ulah'r rhculd be aJslod
rprrrlrln)
ltetl
Drvi&d
I L'rrdir.
a Drr.
3 Div-
ller/
Drid.d
2 Ua/it,
a Dr?.
3 Dp.
A
l?o
410
tro
I
6JO
l.tto
2.Ott,
lad tf Scricr
c
?.0 '
rJgO
a?bo
D
9{O
2,t oo
t.t50
E
tJro
2,4bt.no
Arn
r,a50
1150
3.oto
B
tJoo
2150
Jroo
4:rg
D
3310
{JOO
55{O
tJm
E
tJ20
sno
?.c9,
t,?!x,
a0
Lrr
I
3
c
lo
ttr l
Divi&d
2 Undiv,
lad ol Scrie
c
LTlO1.ffi
6.tt 0
3.''0
tr{T8nlruPttr, tl.olv
Gsr D (o5o b 2.{t rijullrd int 6-ti{' F Eild
I
650t2sr'x)
lad of lirnicc
c
?to
t90
2j3ll
D.'.
?'ro
t.46{'
25lO
E.-
r90
r,6?0
?.3to
}iON-'TATE ROADWAYS
XA'OR CITY/qOUNTI ROAI'I'AYA
8..
lad cf Srryic
c' 520
6D
650
{ Uit
5 Dir.
lJ t9 r.r-4
2.t 60
I5Z9
2JOO
Gnp C t!L!O ra l.5O ri3rulird inl.ncti{, P3t nilc,
t-xa/ lrrct of Scryicc
ll"c
r50
990
tJoo
lad c{Scricc
c..
rJ6o
OTHER 6 IGN^LTZED AOAI'WATS
(rifir lird irurEi!.r nltrir)
lt..
A-DtVSTMF.\IrS
DT\4DEryT'ilDTWDED
(rl!d ffipondint dirstknl vcluc indictcd pcmrl
ONE.TAY(dt.toEt ,rdnj dimjdl vduo iodiotrd grmrt
)
Dr.rdrd
2 Utidit.
I Drv.
3 Div.
D
8rO
l.al o
,..l7(,
lrrr
Datid.d
2 Uadir.I Div.
D
{90
I J00
g
560
tJl0
C@p O (6d. lh.n aJO 'iiElL.d inkD6lin. F mil.t
t:
Tto
lSaa
23!fi
lpd rf SrricrI cl:::.&w
trr'
Divi.r.d
2Vgdj'.
{ Orr.
3 D!;.
ll..t)
f30
t.t ?0
r16
E
-. q4
I,a90
22ri,
hm Xdbn lr{lTun &yr Adjuraor ltam -d? ._ DF14 Yr :.51 ld}$'i - iil'ial ' ' .{. '" ''' .isi . --
.Yultt Uidvid.d Yc . 5t
I'luhi Lindlri.lcd lfc .2Ot
OrGw.t
trm
Coropndia3
Tr*Wrt lrmr
Adjotnot
Prc
2t loi
20a
a
3
Thc gblc d€ nct on.lttstr . .vttu.A rid .h.sld b. srd onjt td Fthl ,inh.na tttiralt-.. thr coaDuur aod.l. lm -hrh tt!. bbL ir arn'rd rhatd !. urd
lc ngc rFrrnc itnnina.gpl(.u.dr. Th. rrbl..id &nnnf ..6tEkt a.&l..hneld nt b. u..d fa cate tt otqHcn d.ntn. rh{. on haln.d :-hnrqrrd o(
V.lsr.h.-n.chdrltdr.ct6.lnlcarrb.ooanrlrrl!(. llilh-r;CrFdltyriul .6a''ldirt tnrfr.t*at.rd.trliDo.nd.b. To16nruaulrogr
dlltt..Jta'C6s.rjrcr.'rlF6s.Sb3a,ldGdlt.arpgtog.rlcllLrroerndXl@fi.tt(l5.d4t oDlc{rgolto&rlyurr.lllcnrrqrXt@Esf !.ud! Tia
(rh!a'. rnpg( nlE a..c6rir6a rnd iccl rf rcmcr cnkai. aDF t d rha Lai
Craru br rchicod.
volucr rn -EFnSlr Sqau* rallt'clhi qFolls 'n u'hql'
t'!sd. D.FiE.nr of lnnrFilrtro. 1991.
tf !l!)
o+1 gt2
B-13
CITY OF POBT TOWNSENDABTERIAL STREET PLANH&R Prolect No.935€251DATE: 7-19-93REVISED: 3-14-94EE,I5TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONSScenarlo 1: Generallzed Annual GrowthRale ol 1.5%(') Traflic volume shown ls calculated lrom a trlp generallon/dlslrlbutlon analysls. lnstead ol the percentage ol growth analysls.LOSD\::::iiii;jel:: j.i::ri:cccccDcffiiiiE:iriii;lccccccccccccccccc2012TRAFFIC1 8340iiriiiiiiririit :i da"LiW2529241434494599373094552644ii:tiiillliiiiiiiii i 02{ 3'146946008s633319239431 878511251123730iiiiitt#i?;i:it:,{:{ Ffl .i31923730367934491725563360082644AREA C@3.20%GROWTH.T't*8...-6-Rlle?. !21942808263314921843878:lirii$i1$$iili6$S$ii149226332808AREA B@2.30%GROWTH3455, j.;fiir'lfsEi':.il.i37a3iirg18681868iiljlrlliil:rgiiiitl;riiAREA A@0.70%GROWTH1835iriiii:i,i.i$l,l.i:.trit {. i,329314449599486344iJi-::tg+illili486486479449225s44BKGBDGROWTH@1.5%42511992TRAFFIC1225522002100300040003244600023002500320030001 70021001000324432443244ffi:::i.,-i.ilii:llii,i;:riib'Ifrij j-i?06''3244320030001500300032002300TOFerry TerminalBSq+ffiMtQuincy Sl.Qulncy Sl.Benlon Sl.Tyler Sl.Landes St.Sheridan St.Hastings Ave.gsoiilssfjitrii;if i:li.,ii#i:ili:litiilSan Juan Ave.Cherry St.Tvler St.San JuanRedwood St.49rh St.Discovery Bav Rd.Hastings Ave.lgrh sr49th Sr.Blaine Sl.F SI.Redwood St.49th St.F Si.Jetlerson St.Lawrence St.FROMWalker St.Walker St.Kearney St.Benlon St.Sheridan St.City Limitlgrh st.LimilSan JuanChery SlCook Ave.San JuanHaslings Ave.Sims WayDiscovery Bay Rd12rh Sr.-..---ffi9im$::WeVri:i:i:: jtij:ii::iliitr:.it.L,iiBlaine Sl.Washinglon St.Blaine St.F SI.Cherry Sl.Jellerson Sl. 'Waler St.Waler $1.STREET NAMEWashington Sl.Jellerson St,Lawrence St.Lawrence Sl1?rh sr.Discovery Bay RdDiscovoRd1grhHasAveF St.F St.49rh Sr.AdmiralilyCook Ave.McPherson StShe iiga n Stiii'i1,,:iiiiriii:',;i.niiffi i:i!Sheridan St.Landes St.San JuanWalker StWalker St.Cherry Sl.Redwood Sl.Tyler Sl.Quincy Sl.Monroe St.Disk: Pt. Townsend 2 FIIo:A:\PTFCSTIS.WQl
CITY OF PORT TOWNSENOARTERIAL STREET PLANH&R Prolect No.93S€2SlTRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONSScenarlo 2: Generallzed Annual Growlh Rate ol 3.O%(r) Tralllc volumot thown tre calculaled lrom a lrlt' generatlon/dlctrlbutlon analyclr lngtead ol the percentlgo grorylh analyc6.:,Disk: Pl. Townsend 2 F|Io:A:\PTFCST3O.WO1 :DATE: 7-19-93REVISED: 3-14-94EdIuLOS-cccccccDDcccccci:tf i:ilj:cir:ii..:HiicccccDDc2012TRAFFICGii:.:,*llt:ii 2o{.i,*,,'ffiru290527733962528242fl4303777219882926552506485308875307530428Aitliiiii:ilritii{EE3Eii--rso4284-422639621981926598823037AREA C@s.80%GROWTH522166826265355043852088::ii.il"+'s11fi2738:i355082656682AREA B@4.30%GROWTH42864286ffiftii,tiiiiii.lirjrri.ii'tii,+rAREA A@1.4O%GROWTH70567396212A21(XO737ffi1040:i:i:iiii:ii:,1':i+:iiiliit-r,+;tl'to4o1026962481737BKGRDGROWTH@1.s%=i::ii+i..+::i:i+!:!:i:iT:!:i:!:!i:i:i:aiii{4+iiii!llu+:!ii:-a:!1992TRAFFICt:i:::r-rji.t iijt:i :,!l 4}',it.E:tii22002100300040003244230025003200300017002100100032443244.3244:ii- i-h-=ffil:iiii:l,ji.i:ii.if iF{mi-i7oo'"3244320030001500300032002300TOE-i-ffi=-FtPlFEiN almlllll:iiidriii.rrlQulncy St.Oulncy St.Benton St.Tyler St.Landes St.Hll9f ':194!li9liiii.tiiiiiiiilillliiiiHastlngs Ave.San Juan Ave.Cherry St.Tyler,St.San JuanRedwood St.49th sr.Dlscovery Bay Rd.Hasllngs Ave.1gth st.49th st.Blalne St.F St.'Redwood St.49rh st.F Sr.Jellercon St.Lrwrenco Sl.FROMWalker St.Walker Sl.Kearney St.Benton St.Sherldan St.1gth st.Clty LimltSan JuanCherry St.Cook Ave.San JuanHastlngs Ave.Slms Waystfi s :way,i:ii,iiijiiXi:iiiiiiiiiDiscovery Bay Rd.12th sr.Blalne St.Washlngton St.Blalne St.F Sr.Cherry Sl.Jellerson Sl.Water Sl.Waler St.STREET NAMEWashlnglon St.Jellerson St.Lawrence StLawrence St12th sr.oheotad sqi Rdjr:iiiii.i:ril:iiiDiscovery Bay Rd.%,l gth..St,,:,:,,,;r:,:.:,,,,j:,:,,,it iji:iiii:t,iiilj:iii i:ij,iilHasllngs Ave.FSrFSr49rh sr.AdmiralityCook Ave.McPherson Stshcrldin sU' i..r,ii.:'i''i: II..=ilSherldan St.Landes St.ffiSan JuanWalker SlWalker St.Cherry St.Redwood St.Tyler St.Qulncy SlMonroe Sl.
CITY OF PORTTOWNSENDARTERIAL STREET PLANH&R Prolocl No.935€251TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONSScenarlo 3: Gonerallzod Annual Growth Rate ol 4.5%(') Tratlic volumos shown were calculaled from'a trlp generalion/distrlbullon analysls lnstead ol the percentage growlh analysls.Disk: Pt. Townsend 2 File:A:\PTFCST45.WOIDATE: 7-t9-93REVISED: 3-17-94t!Io\ccccccccccccccDLOS,tiiii:iiiiii.lil 3720 jii::iiir,irilO602,r#iii:i+'ii:i:iiit 4el iti35545013494546362318501377783245463661 8150133554iliiliiili:,iti',21 2 43,i7774960845752012TRAFFIC340035756078ffiii;iiii,tiililit'l':g-iU:ii@60787508AREA C@7.e0%GBOWTHffiABEA B@6.10%GROWTH1745163681812541769176917691254ABEA A@2.zo"hGROWTH12001 14516362181BKGRDGROWTH@1.5%3200300015002300r7003244ffiriiliitliiil;liiiBiroi$i32443000400032442300iiiiiiii!:iiriiiit:6sirn.-i1 7002roo10001992TRAFFIC22002100Lawrence St.1grh Sr.49rh sr.ffiSfnhsi$ii;l,.':,:ltiii:i:':'.:i$i:::;Blaine Sl.F St.Redwood St.49lh St.Hastings Ave.*lgfi iil[la fii:;:i:i:!:i:;:::!:i:i:i:::ii::i:i:r:!:::::::i i::San JuanRedwood St4grh Sr.TOOuincy St.Qulncy St.Benlon St.Tyler St.Landes SlQlv,Umltit.'ii';ri0ity,lirtii{,lii::::iiiitii:iit:iBlaine Sl.12rh sr.Washinglon St.Blaine St.FStCherry St.Cook AveSan JuanHastings AveSiiiiC:'wa'VWalker Sl.Walker St.Kearney Sl.Benton Si.Sheridan Si.1grh st.ffiStiii riiiaril'Stll:i:::iiiiiiiiliiliiiFROMMCPheison St:i,;.::iti:l:iliiii.:;i:i:!iiiil:iiirtlllaSlingS aVpt,. t:t,,,'t,,,,;i::.tit'itl',:,:iiii,Cherry St.Redwood SlMonroe Sl.Cook Ave$tiaridin iSi;i;ri:iii,i:'ii:.iiir:;!:i;i:iili:j:i.i:iiiiLandes Sl:San JuanWalker St.Walker St12rh sr.Dlscovery Bal Rdr,:,,.:iiri ' ii;,,'Discovery Bay Rd.ffiF 61,,;.,,:,.,..,: ..,j., i.',' .r:::,:, ,,,1,t,::,.:.i:,,ti:ii.i:,:ilL::,'4grh SrAdmiralitySTREET NAMEWashington St.Jellerson St.Lawrence Sl.Lawrence Si.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSENDARTERIAL STREET PLANH&R Prolecl No. 935-325tTRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONSScsnarlo 4: BUILD-OUT(') Traflic volumee shown were calculated lrom a lrlp generatlon/disklbutlon analysls lnslead ol lhe percentage ol growlh analysls.Disk:Pt.Townsend2 Flle:A:\PTFCSTBO.WOlDATE: 7-19-93REVISED: 3-14-94cpI\lLOSiii?lT#fficccDccDcccccc20/'2TRAFFIC-iiiiiiiiiii:;i:328q5 i.:ii.i.:: ri:1:1: !: !r:512648936990932075595359:i.#iriiiii:i:',':ri,29568 i::ffi.iiii:::ii::i.tiii 477?O,iiki:ttt.;ii:ri':::t;t:::.l 570S i:'|@;:ir. : : :r'r:,:::.i: :::1 9{ q{ ::9240i':i;:,:.i i:' :,i',,20{70i755975597456699034955359AREA Cffiilffi8240AREA Bffiiilli!ii:ii:.ii!ii:,:i3 t 86Oi:'AREA A2926279339905320431530594315431542563990I 9953059BKGRDGROWTH@1.s%1 992TRAFFIC22002100300040003244ffii:,i::,ii:::i i:..::.::;ii 600flii23001000324432443200300015002300TOQulncy St.Oulncy Sl.Benlon SlTyler St.Landes Sl.SdAildai{::Sii:: jiiiiiiriiriii!:.:i:iiriiiriliiHAve49rh Sr.1grh Sr.Blalne St.F SI:Redwood Sl.49rh st.Lawrence Sl.FROMWalker Sl.Walker St.Kearney St.Benton St.Sheridan St.CIV: Unili:r:r.::,:il:1il:iii:lii::;::::i::i:;ilill:ilgrh st.Haslings Ave.$imC :wat ilii:::::,:i!i,ilil::DlscoveiVrBav R12rh sr.Siirl6rlw6\Washington St.Blaine Sl.F SI.sr,Water St.STREET NAMEWashinglon St.Jellerson St.Lawrence Sl,Lawrence St.12th SrDlsqovery Bay Fldt':i,itiii:..iii:,ii,ii:i;iCook Ave.rSOO,Shpridan St.:,, : ; :t :.;',:.:l',i:i:l:,,:::::iii::i:iShelklan. 6f:':,l,riri :r't:t:t:it:rii:.,rtiriiiiiiiiLandes StKeair{av,6lir:iii:,,i::i::'::iili,iiriiiiii;i'iiiSgn,rjuan,;,::.i:, ii!:i1.r;,.:i;irliii;.irj!iiiiiili:;l:iilWalker Sl.Walker SlChorry Sl.Bedwood Sl.Monroe St.
,f
--f,tE-l*'93 Tl{J 892L4 ID:PT TO'SSENDfLG Bt-Dg lA- 1{J2296 36'42s IElgg TUI
*:*
ci
Plannin
540 Watcr
of Port Tsrvnse nd
g and Buildi-oe DePartmcnt
5r- Port Toqrnscnd' we 6sr6s 2061365'3000
1[o:lRoll:
DATI:
HEloRlrrDo(
Hike ParlalrKLt Perldns'8/Le/e3
RE: ArAerial Stre€t Plan Data
Ar ='per yogr cpnversatlon sltlr l{lcb'ael Et'Idt' Pleasc utlc tle
folloslng fnrofraii;-fi -ttov"f- a.nanO foreeast analyrlr'
1.I'3€2.SunltoTacreasProxydansttlrlorrrglllatledelDEle-falllY taacta.
2. Cru:z.€nt oEH data LndLcateg that Port llowngcnd rpptrlatton ls
7.74O PcoPIe.
3. Censqs dsta (1990) lndlcatee that average bouselpld eize is
..2.3 P*Ple.
Pot&hr fana le:rtransmitltll mgmo lo, I
)
)
.J
tdP.F >
6
B- l8
Land Use: 210
Single-Family Detached Housing
Description
Any single family detached home on an individual lot is included in this land use category. Atypicalsite surveyed is a suburban suMivision.
Additional Data
tnformation on transit tn:p ends is not available.
tnformation on person trfp ends is not available.
lnformation on truck trfps is not available.
lnformation on vehicle occupancy is not available.
-Peak hours of the generator typically coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic.
Average development density:
3.5 dwelling units per acre
3.7 persons per dweiling unit
Average automobile ownership:
1.6.vehicles per dweiling unit
The studies were conducted at sites throughout'rhe United states and canada in the late 1g60.sthrough late 1990's.
lndependent van'ables:
Although the number of vehicles and number of residents have high conelations withaverEtge weekday vehicte trip ends, these van'ables have limited use. This is becausethe number of vehicles and residents is difficult to obtain, many studies Jio not containthese data, and these data are difficult to predict. rne numoei or arerring units has ahigh conelation with average weekday uehicle trip ends, and is generally the ind€pendentvariable of choice because it is contained in mosistudies, is eaiy o pro;ect, anoconvenient to use.
Adjustment factors:' This land use includes data from a wide vanery of units with diffe-rent sizes, price ranges,locations' and ages- conse_quently, there is ai wide a variation in trips g";Jot.owithin this category as there is between different residential fand uses. i" "rp".t"o.dwelling units lhat were larger in size, more expensive, or farrher "tn"y rror lhe centralbusiness district (c8o) had a higher rate of trip generati on per unit rhan those smaller insize, less expensive. or closer to the c8o. How-ever. other tactors. a*r.,'a, i"ographiclccation and type of acjacent and near:y de,rerccrii':ent. arso had an erfect cn-tne site tripgeneraticn.
Trip Genenilon, January 19g1 B - l9 lnstitute of Transponation Enqineers
I
)
single.famity detached units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unil of all
residentiat uses because they are the l"tgiti'r;iiJ; size and have more residents and
more vehictes per rfil;";;'th;rresiOen-tilii"nJ"tt; they 1re generally located further
away from snopping cenGrs, employmrnil*r. anO onei trip attractors than are other
residendal land uses; and lhey f,aue fewer-ail'|'ttt t"Oes.of transportation available
because they are not as-con&ntrated as other residential land uses'
A study performed for the Federal Highway Administratio,n' d-"^u:loP"d 3d'':q-:^llfactors
for average weeroay'vl'liicre rip nte!.for iesidentialland uses and lheir associated
dembgraphic crrancrer[i""-. fn"r" .ft"t"Jf, tittio included household size' vehicle
ownership, and dweiling density. rne aoiusn.nir"ttoo shown betow are to be added
to or subtracted from rhl average weeroay-trip generationrates;using dweting unils as
the indepenoent variali;. ni|b;gi1"qgi oiricr"tttnt tactors mav be apptied to the
trip generation rate. ;il";l if iesidentiatcnaracteristics are not available' then lhe
average rate or "qr"iiJn-*orii
oe utitizeo. F.ir hour trip generation rates can be
adjusred by the ,"6o;il;;;;rage weetd.v.dirii.o rib Lte to the ave€ge weekday
trip rate.
FactotaCharacteristic:Household Size
1-2
2-3
>3
-3.4
-1.8
0.0
Vehicles Owned Factota
-1.5o.o?
+2.9
A
G1
1-2
>2
Acre)Adiustment Factot4Chancteristic:(D.U. per
0.0)0-3
3-5
>5
1,4,5,6,7,8, 11,12,13, 14, 16, 19' 20, 21',26',gt!5199', 1?:a\',71',72',84', 91:98', 100', 105'
1 og. 1 1 o, 1 1 4, 1 17, 11 9, 1 57, 1 67, 1:r7, lliji. tgb', zoi' zt t' 246' 275'. 283', 2gg',3oo' 31 9' 320
'U.S. Depariment of Tnnsportation, Federal Highway Administration' Development and
;;ituti"; of rrip oiio:tio' Rates' Kellerco' January 1985'
2Adjustment factor to be added to (or subtrac'ted from) the average weekday vehicle trip
generation rate per drrelling unit'
Source Numbers
0.0
-0.1
a
ta
I
ri
$
Trip Generation, JanuarY 1991
B-20
lnstitute of Transportation Engineers
Single-Family Detached Housing
(21o)
Average Vehicle Tr:ip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 348
Average Number of Dwelling Units: 2OO
Directional Distribution: 5O%" entering , 5OV" exiting
Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Data Plot and Equation
Average Rate Flange of Flates Standard Deviation6.ss).F 4.31 - 21.85 3.66
30,ooo
20,@o
10.000
o
o
x Acturl Oata Points
Fitted Curve Equation:
X .X
rooo
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Fintd Curv.
Ln(T) = 0.921 Ln(X) + 2.698
Avcragc Rlta
R2 = 0.96
o
ulo
F
.9g
o
o
CD6
o
I
F
X
X
x j.
x'
x
2000 3000
Trip Generation, January 1991
B.2L
lnstitute of Transportation Engineers
)
)
APPENDTX C
EXAI\{PLES OF
RT,JRAL AhID I,JRBAN
CROSS SECTIONS
)
TYPICAL RURAL SECTIONS
o
ll'=
MINIMUM 2-LANE SECTlON
N.T.S.
MULTI=LANE SECTlON
N.T.S.
66 t6
?
THESE S-CTIOi\:S-ARE FOR ILLUS:RAtrIVE PURPOSES CNLY. THEY DIPICT TiiEMlNlMuN4 'qlGHT-c=-wAY nEourn:': To pp.bvror ir'i eAsrc sacroN. coNSiDERATici.JFOR LANDSCAP||J,3TPARKINT, BIKi LANES,-EiC]. WOULD RESULT IN GREATIRRIGHT-OF-WAY .'JiD Ti.IS.AN ADfITIONAL .:".9'. (Yry.) WU.. 3E REOUIRED TO ACCOIV,IVICDATE ANAUXILLARY TUi:;':,JG LANE.'THE ADDITION:= DESIGI\IATED 3<E LANES WILL RESULT IN TiiE.\EeDFOR Gi:ATER : 3:T-OF-,//eV -r,i',:;HS.
6 .A-?
:_:f jr*,lir\c r iii..SnCi:;- l:.1 . a::_,1,:.,. . i,. -t...!l:;,::l.:- ls_i: ..,.:., s:A;;L:, ...:.Sitrjc.:::, -13:C.:,ieternone: !?06)233-a7:O i;( 1206)2iJ_C7:5tNc.
Heni
r&Ra
gar
3
TYPICAL URBAN SECTIONS
MINIMUM 2-LANE SECTION
N.T.S
MULTI-L.ANE SECTION
N.T.S.
I. THESE SECTIONS ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THEY DEPICT THE
MINIMUM RIGHT-OF-WAY REOUIRED TO PROVIDE THE BASIC SECTION. CONSIDERATIONFOR LANDSCAPING, PARKING, EIKE LANES. ETC. WOULD RESULT IN GREATERRIGHT.OF-WAY WIDTHS.
2. AN ADDITIONAL I!'-C'' (MIN.) WILL EE REOUIRED TO ACCOMfuIODATE AN
AUXILLARY TURNING LANE.3. THE ADDITION O.3 DESIGNATED EIKE LANES WILL RESULT iN T|.IE NEEDFOR GREATER RIG|T-OF-WAY WIDT|IS.
5
t'
7
t't'
Heni
&Ra
gar PL.r':.:r.,tG o TRnNSP'jR:ATiC'N . EC:l_a,c'/ r i:rlGtNESFtfj6j5; /::_:q w:i
SEA;TLE. WASi..iiNGTCh .g8IC4
relephone: (206)2JJ-0720 FAX (ZO6)D3-A72A
5.5'
NC.
APPENIDIX D
NEW CORRIDOR ESTD{ATES
')
1
J
J
New Corridor Estimates
preliminary corridor level estimates for the development-of new alignments along Howard Street
and a New 'E-W" Road north of Hastings Avenue are based on the following assumptions.
$2.0M per mile for basic construction of new roadway
$100K per mile for illumination'
$50K per replacement acre for wetlands
15 V,t= of construction costs for contingencies
..
$4 per square foot of acquired right-of-way ' . , ::i',,
,
15% ofconstruction costs for design engineering and pgrmitiing
l7Vo of construction costs for construction engineering and administration
. llVo of construction costs for agency administrative costs
New alignment lengths: Howard St. 13100 L.F.
New "E-W" Road 6650 L.F
Estimates. See Table 3 on the following page.
Howard St. Constnrction $r0 - 12M.
New nE-W" Road Construction s6- 8M.
)
D-l
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PROPOSED FUTURE ARTERIAL STREETS
H & R Project No. 935-3251
NEW CORRIDOR ESTIMATES
CORRIDOR HOWAFO ST.NEW E-W ROAD
LENGTH 13100 LF 66s0 LF
BASIG CONSTRUCTION @ $2.oM/MILE 4.96 2.s2
|LLUMINAT|ON @ 9.01 M/M|LE 0.25 0.13
WETI3ND BEPIACEMENT @ $o.5M/MILE o.12 0.0€
CoNT|NGENCTES @ ls% OF CONST. COSTS 0.74 0.38
RIGHT.OF.WAY ACQUISITION @ $.1 74MIACRE 2.54 1-s7
DESIGN ENGINEERING & PERMITTING
@ 1s% oF ooNSTRIJCTION COSTS 0.74 0.38
CONST. ENGINEERING AND ADMIN
@ 15% OF CONSTRT CTION COSTS 0.74 0.38
AG ENCY ADMINISTRATION COSTS
@ 10% oF ooNSTRUCTTON COSTS 0.5 o.25
10.s9 5.67
D-2