APPENDIX 5

DRAFT ARTERIAL STREET PLAN

FIGURES

1.	Existing Functional Classifications	4
2.	Proposed Functional Classifications For Existing Streets	7
3.	Planning Areas	10
4.	1.5% Annual Growth Rate Forecast Level Of Service	17
5.	3.0% Annual Growth Rate Forecast Level Of Service	18
6.	4.5% Annual Growth Rate Forecast Level Of Service	21
7.	Forecast Level Of Service At Buildout	22
8.	Proposed Functional Classifications For Existing And Future Streets	37
9.	Conceptual Location Howard Street Corridor	39
10.	Conceptual Location East-West Road Corridor	42

Appendix C

Typical Rural Section

Typical Urban Section

TABLES

1.	Recommended Functional Classification Changes	8
2.	Roadway Level Of Service Definitions	13
3.	Scenario 1: Low Growth	25
4.	Scenario 2: Medium Growth	27
5.	Scenario 3: High Growth	29
6.	Criteria For Classifying Arterials, Collectors, And Local Streets	35
7.	Howard Street As A Minor Arterial	36
8.	E-W As A Collector	41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 dome of the transportation 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 and needs

• Identify new (future) corridors, if they are needed

• Provide general recommendations for additional right-of-way acquisition needs along existing and future alignments.

• Create a basis for the roads portion of the transportation plan element of an up dated Comprehensive Plan.

For the development of this report several tasks were completed, including the following: reviewing existing City roadway functional classification designations, recommending revised functional classifications, and developing traffic and 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 an 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 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 complete traffic counts as well as to obtain the origin and destination points of vehicles using Port Townsend's road system. This information can provide Port Townsend with a more complete understanding of the impacts of additional roads on traffic congestion and mobility.

The street system in Port Townsend, as in all jurisdictions, is classified according to each roadway's use or function. Part I of this report discusses functional classification. The functional classification system is a way of categorizing a road system according to mobility and access to land use. Classifications include local, collector, and arterial roads, where local roads provide the most access to land use activities and arterials provide the most mobility.

This part of the report discusses Port Townsend's existing roadway functional classifications and proposes a few changes to ensure that Port Townsend's roadways will be able to serve its future needs.

Part II describes the development of the forecast methodology. The methodology includes the determination of the forecast assumptions, including growth scenarios.

Three of the scenarios represent low, medium, and high traffic growth rates in Port Townesend 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 traffic 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 the 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 of the roadways in Port Townsend fall to LOS E or F. 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.

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 Sound to SR 20/Sims Way as well as an east/west route extending from Center Street to the proposed Howard Street extension.

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.

• Identify the arterial street network and needs

• Identify new (future) corridors, if they are needed

• Provide general recommendations for additional right-of-way acquisition needs along existing and future alignments.

• Create a basis for the roads portion of the transportation plan element of an up dated Comprehensive Plan.

To achieve these goals, the development of this report included several tasks: reviewing existing City roadway functional classification designations, recommending 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.

• PART I: Functional Classification

• PART II: Travel Forecasting

• PART III: Recommendations for Improvements to Existing Roadways

• PART IV: Recommendations for Additional Roadways

PART I: FUNCTIONAL 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 system 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.

• Trip lengths

• Traffic characteristics

• Continuity of functional classification

• Route feasibility

• Location of travel generators

• Geographical spacing of roads

• Miles and travel classifications of roads

• Integration of network with adjoining jurisdictions

• Ability of roads to service other travel modes (e.g. buses, pedestrians and bicycles)

These parameters allow for development of the hierarchy of streets. The hierarchy ranges from major arterials (which carry long, relatively high speed, inter-regional trips), to minor arterials (which carry shorter, intra-city trips), to collector streets (which function as links between local streets and the arterial system), to local streets (which directly serve adjacent land uses).

EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The 1981 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan outlines certain goals and policies for transportation circulation within the City. The following is an excerpt from that document.

Transportation circulation is that network of delivering people, goods, and services to various points within, to and from the city. Transportation facilities include roads, bus terminals, and ferries.

GOAL:

To maintain and expand the city's transportation circulation network to the highest level of convenience, safety, reliability, and efficiency while conserving energy and natural resources.

POLICES:

1. The City's arterial street system shall be configured, as closely as possible, as indicated on the Transportation Circulation Map.

2. Transportation circulation corridors should be multi-functional and include roads and utilities, as well as equestrian, pedestrian and bike routes in integrated system.

3. Transportation circulation networks and facilities should be commensurate with existing and future land use and development patterns.

4. Facilities associated with transportation circulation should be located and designed with respect for such natural features as topography, soils, geology, floodplains, drainage corridors, shorelines, wetlands and aquifer recharge areas.

5. In order to provide for public safety and to minimize public expenditures, traffic circulation routes should incorporate limited-access provisions whenever possible.

The arterial network illustrated in the 1981 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is reproduced in Figure 1. The current circulation plan is defined as follows:

• Arterials

SR 20/Sims Way	Discovery Bay Road
Water Street	Hastings Avenue
Lawrence Street	San Juan Avenue
Monroe Street (Water Street to	Kearney Street
Lawrence Street)

• Collectors

Cook Avenue Extension	19th Street
49th Street	"F" Street
Admiralty Street	Tyler Street
"W" Street	Quincy Street
Walnut Street	Blaine Street (San Juan to Walker)
Jackson Street	Washington Street
Umatilla Street	Fir Street
McPherson Street	Cherry Street/Redwood Street
Sheridan Street

• Local roads include all other streets

In addition, the existing 1981 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan also depicts Cherry Street/Redwood Street and Fir Street potentially being used as a one-way couplet to and from the Fort Worden vicinity

RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 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 20/Sims Way	● 49th Street
● Discovery Bay Road	● Harrison Street
● 19th Street	● Benton Street
● Jackman Street	● Walker Street
● Kuhn Street	● Umatilla Street
● 12th Street

Table 1 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 use 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 II: TRAVEL FORECASTING

STUDY LIMITATIONS

Available existing data from Port Townsend was reviewed to form the basis of this report. Two of the studies reviewed include the Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan and Population Change in Jefferson County: The Next 20 Years. In addition, data from the transportation plants 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.

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 traffic growth, as well as assumptions about year of development build-out, and the percent of buildable land, stem from a combination of professional judgement (of both consultant and City staff) and from a need to provide parameters to the analysis of traffic growth. If traffic and/or development growth or build-out occur at rates different 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.

GROWTH RATES

After existing roadway traffic volumes (1992 City furnished traffic counts) were collected and mapped, research was conducted to determine appropriate traffic growth rates. A check of historical 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 information on population growth rates in the Port Townsend area indicated that the document Population Change in Jefferson County, The Next 20 Years (GMA Planning Staff, Jefferson County Planning Department, 1992) provided the most recent research on growth rates in the area. In addition, data from the transportation plans by Jefferson County and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization was incorporated.

Four scenarios were investigated. All of the scenarios estimate future traffic growth on the basis of new development potential within the City. (However, this analysis does not take into account a potential major new destination point along the waterfront). Three scenarios represent estimated low, medium, and high traffic growth rates of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 percent per year. For the fourth scenario, future traffic 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 Washington State Ferry Terminal. This background rate was an attempt to approximate traffic growth occurring within the region due to factors outside the influence of the City of Port Townsend. These factors 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.

TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CHANGES
Roadway	Existing Classification	Recommended Classification	Reason
SR 20/Sims 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 By Road (19th Street to Hastings Avenue)	Arterial	Collector	The traffic volumes suggest that 19th Street from Sheridan Street to San Juan 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)	Local	Collector	Roadway functions as an alternate route between the Castle Hill area (shopping, hospital) and the Lower Flats are (shopping, boat yards, etc.)
49th Street (Blaine Street Extension to San Juan Avenue)	Local	Collector	Roadway will potentially serve as a primary link between new development in the northwest sector of the City and the commercial areas.
Harrison Street (Blaine Street to Washington Street)	Local	Collector	Roadway 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 (Lawrence Street to Washington Street)	Local	Collector	Roadway currently functions as a collector serving the uptown area.
Walker Street (Lawrence Street to Washington Street)	Local	Collector	Roadway currently functions as a collector serving the Jefferson County Courthouse.
Umatilla Street (Silver Street to Howard Street R/W)	Collector	Remain as a Collector	Right-of-way constraints may restrict this extension of Umatilla Street.

Research accomplished during the preparation of the Jefferson County Transportation Plan and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan reveal 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 the variation in growth rates was caused by varying assumptions and methodologies. Often the variations were due to calculating growth rates over different time periods, such as from 1980 to 1990 and from 1985 to 1990. The variation in growth rates stemming from different time periods may be attributable to economic swings and the decline of the logging industry.

Washingtonn State Department of Transportation historical traffic figures cited in the Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan suggest that traffic on SR 20 has been growing at rates equal to and higher than 7 percent per year. Traffic volumes on the Port Townsent - Keystone ferry route grew at an annual rate of 5.5 percent between 1979 and 1989. When the 1.5 percent per year background growth rate is added to the medium and high traffic growth rates of 3.0 and 4.5 percent per year for the City, the forecast traffic on SR 20 approximates the growth observed in the studies.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The four scenarios investigated estimate traffic increases due to potential new residential development. (The scenarios did not take into account a potential major new destination point along the waterfront). The overall growth rates were varied based on the development potential within planning areas. A planning area was defined as a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) or a group of TAZs.

Development was assumed to occur in each area of the City based on the number of available sites within 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 designated ESAs. Information on the location of ESAs, number of currently developed lots, and total available 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 population of 7,740 (as estimated by the Office of Financial Management) and assumes 2.3 persons per household (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 Manual1. An equivalent of 7.75 average daily trips per 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 this study.

1 Trip General Manual 5th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1991.

Growth Scenarios

The following is a brief description of each 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 low growth scenario. The adjustments for the individual planning areas based on development potential resulted in localized growth rates of the following: Planning Area "A" = 0.7 percent, Planning Area "B" = 2.3 percent, and Planning Area "C" = 3.2 percent. The background traffic growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to SR 20/Sims 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 20-year period. The adjusted localized traffic growth rates for this scenario were the following: "A" = 1.4 percent, "B" = 4.3 percent, and "C" = 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). Localized planning area rates were the following: "A" = 2.2 percent, "B" = 6.1 percent, and "C" = 7.9 percent. The background traffic 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 available lots within a planning area to the number of currently developed lots within the same area. The factors (ratios) for each of the planning areas were as follows: "A" = 2.33; "B" = 6.31; and, "C" = 9.24 (See Appendix B). The background factor of 1.5 percent for SR 20 was also applied based on a time period of 50 years.

Level of Service

Level 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 due 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 Jefferson 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 "acceptable" and "unacceptable", but for the purposes of this report, 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 E or F are considered to be providing unacceptable service. This report's recommendations focus on improving roadways which are forecast to provide unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F).

TABLE 2: ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CATEGORY	DEFINITION
Level of Service A	Describes a condition of free with low volumes and high speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
Level of Service B	Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions.
Level of Service C	In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
Level of Service D	Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.
Level of Service E	Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor and driver of pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.
Level of Service F	Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount of traffic which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves. For example, vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion.

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Washington, D.C., 1985

DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

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 a TAZ 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 lot, 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 o 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- lien annual growth rate from the existing number of developed lots and the anticipated number of newly developed lots. This localized rate will then be used to forecast future traffic volumes.

7. Calculate future traffic volumes using the localized growth rates obtained in Step 6. (New rods were not included in this portion of the analysis).

8. Add the background traffic growth to the forecast volume for SR 20/Sims Way.

The following analysis was used for Scenario 4 (Build-out):

1. Determine a "build-out" factor for each planning area by dividing total available lots by the number of existing developed lots.

2. Estimate future traffic volumes by multiplying existing traffic counts by the "build-out" factor.

3. Add the background traffic adjustment to the total build-out volume for SR 20/Sims Way.

LOS was determined through the following analysis.

1. Calculate vehicle capacities for various LOS determinations for city arterials and collectors considering them acting as interrupted flow. Use the "Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volumes for Florida's Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Areas or Areas over 500 Not in Urbanized Areas" from Florida Department of Transportation.

2. Calculate LOS capacities for SR 20/Sims Way using Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning, April 1992. Assume that 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 acceptable threshold.

FORECAST RESULTS

Analysis of the three scenarios shows that most of the roads in Port Townsend will remain at LOS D or above for all of the growth scenarios. Figures 5 through 8 graphically depict those roadways which are forecasted to fall below LOS E or F for each scenario.

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.

• Water Street (from the Ferry Terminal to Monroe Street)

• 19th Street (from Sheridan Street to San Juan Avenue)

• Sheridan Street (from Sims Way to Discovery Bay Road)

• Kearney Street (from Sims Way to Blaine Street)

Scenario 1

Under Scenario 1, 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 "C") causes the street to reach LOS E under the low growth scenario. Presently, it is unclear if all of the 7,200 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 Way, SR 20, and downtown because it provides the most direct route from Area C and from San Juan Avenue to SR 20/Sims Way. Other routes were determined to be too indirect, too steep, or too close to well-established residential area.

Scenario 2

Under Scenario 2, forecasted traffic 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 Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan, adopted in July 1993 by the Port Townsend City Council. The Gateway Development Plan assumes a 2.0 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 20/Sims 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.

The Gateway Development Plan also identifies specific intersection improvements to accommodate the forecast growth. Because the Gateway Development Plan conducted an intersection level of analysis, more detailed and specific recommendations can be developed that cannot be developed under the broad brush analysis of the Arterial Street Plan. The Gateway Development Plan recommendations have been reviewed and approved by both the City and the State. The Gateway recommendations focus on intersection improvements that are able to improve traffic flow along SR 20/Sims Way and thereby allow the roadway to accommodate higher volumes of traffic.

Scenarios 3 and 4

Under Scenario 3, the high growth scenario, traffic growth increases by a 4.5 percent annual growth rate (Figure 6). Under this assumption, the City would face level of service "F" conditions on several roadways, including Discovery Bay Road and Hastings Avenue. However, preserving the carrying capacity of these roadways could reduce the need for capacity expansion. Preserving the carrying capacity means not interfering with the flow of traffic. Interruptions in the flow of traffic reduces the volume of cars that can be carried on a roadway, much the same way as interrupting the flow of water reduces the volume of water reaching its goal.

Common interruptions in traffic flow are cars turning in and out of driveways, people making turns at unsignalized or unchanneled intersections, and stop signs. Signals, it should be noted, help preserve the capacity of a roadway more than stop signs because signals allow some cars to pass through an intersection without stopping.

Preserving the roadway capacity can be achieved by encouraging consolidated driveways, limiting access, and only allowing signalized intersections. Preserving the roadway capacity can also help maintain the roadway's character, because widening needs are reduced and the visual appearance is not marred by driveways. Consequently, for Scenario 3, land use actions are a part of the recommendations, but to be effective the land use controls must be established early on. To underscore the importance of early land use actions, these land use recommendations are mentioned in all of the scenario recommendations.

At a growth rate of 4.5 percent per year, Kearney will not be able to handle the additional traffic volumes. The expected volumes on Kearney under this scenario are 27,910 average daily traffic, which is more than a five lane arterial could accommodate. Currently, it is not believed that right-of-way for more than four lanes could be accommodated in the Kearney Street right- of-way.

Hence, should the City grow at this high rate of 4.5 percent per year the City would have two choices. First the City could adjust the land use growth so that Kearney Street would not be as heavily impacted. This would involve directing the growth to the western edge of the City and cause traffic impacts on McPherson and other streets in that area. Secondly, the City could develop alternate north-south routes to alleviate the demand for Kearney Street. The proposed 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 count are necessary in Port Townsend, as is an origin- destination 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 a methodology, the most appropriate solution to traffic growth on Kearney under this scenario 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 street 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 fall to LOS E or F (Figure 7). 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 Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan, adopted in July 1993 by the Port Townsend City Council.

PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The traffic growth scenarios analyzed in this report indicate that Port Townsend needs to consider various methods to improve its transportation system. In the past, transportation improvements focused exclusively on roadway and intersection capacity improvements. That is, widening roadways, adding turn lanes at intersections, adding traffic signals, and similar improvements. Today, transportation improvements focus on a combination of capacity improvements and Travel Demand Management (TDM).

TDM is a broad term used to described various techniques aimed at altering travel behavior. TDM techniques range from encouraging off-site parking, to providing transit with more access and reduced travel time or encouraging non-motorized travel, such as bicycling or walking.

The Port Townsend Transportation Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC) has expressed strong support for efficient and effective alternatives to the automobile and to single occupant driving. The support is encouraged, but this report was asked to address the street system. In general, the purpose of this report is to recommend improvements and/or additions to roadways and intersections.

The need for roadway and intersection improvements depends on the use and effectiveness of TDM. If TDM mechanisms are widely and effectively applied, the need for additional roadway and intersection capacity will decline. If no TDM measures are in place, demand for roads and improvements will increase. This report does not lay out a step by step process for implementing TDM measures, transit improvements or related activities because that is the role of the transportation plan or a TDM program.

The recommendations in the following section discuss capacity improvements to both existing roadways and to proposed new roadways. In some instances, potential TDM measures are discussed 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 identified in the low growth scenario will also show up in the medium and high scenarios. Therefore, the recommendations for each growth scenario are similar for roadways common to all scenarios. However, since the recommendations may not be identical, the recommendations should be read carefully for each scenario.

In the low growth scenario, four roadways were forecast to fall below LOS D to LOS E or E, and thus improvements to the roadways will need to be addressed under all of the growth scenarios. Tables 3 through 5 identify the potential improvements to the arterial system under each of the forecast scenarios.

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 will alter 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 Development 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.

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 transportation conflicts can be minimized. if the roads are built after development occurs, several difficulties could ensure. 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 20/Sims 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.

CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 3
SCENARIO 1: LOW GROWTH
(1.5 Percent Annual Growth)

ROADWAY	FROM	TO	RECOMMENDATIONS
Water Street	Ferry Terminal	Monroe Street	1. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle service, expand transit service. 2. Develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to and travel within downtown area.
19th Street	Sheridan Street	San Juan Avenue	1. Perform intersection level analysis at San Juan Avenue and Blaine Street for intersection realignment signalization.
Sheridan Street	SR20/Sims Way	Discovery Bay Road	1. Establish traffic monitoring program on Sheridan, Include AM. PM, and midday counts, turning movements, and trips to school versus through trips. 2. As traffic volumes build, conduct detailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersections to determine precise roadway needs (e.g., left-turn pockets at key intersections, signals, changes in channelization,, etc.), and right-of-way-constraints. 3. This street may need to be widened to four lanes. The purpose of recommendations 1 and 2 is to confirm traffic volume and to identify appropriate traffic mitigation strategies. The recommendation is to do the detailed analysis necessary to determine if improvements less than widening will handle the traffic.
Kearney Street	SR20/Sims Way	Blaine Street	1. Recognize Kearney 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 intersections to determine other roadway needs (e.g. left turn lanes, signalization, etc.). 5. Develop pedestrian paths and bicycle facilities to reduce north -south auto travel demand (e.g., connect residential areas to downtown with paths and/or stairways, connect new retail development to residential areas with bicycle routes).
Discovery Bay Road	City Limit	Sheridan Street	1. Control land use access to preserve existing rural character. Prohibit driveways, allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity. 2. Acquire additional right-of-way width to permit future improvements.
Hastings Avenue	City Limit	Sheridan Street	1. Control land use access to preserve existing rural character. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadway access exists. Allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity.

CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE 4
SCENARIO 2: MEDIUM GROWTH
(3.0 Percent Annual Growth)

ROADWAY	FROM	TO	RECOMMENDATIONS
Water Street	Kearney Street	Monroe Street	1. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle service, and expand transit service. 2. Development pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to and travel within downtown area.
19th Street	Sheridan Street	San Juan Avenue	1. Intersection level analysis at San Juan Avenue and Blaine Street for intersection realignment and signalization. 2. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build only if growth rate exceeds 3.0 percent per year.
Sheridan Street	SR20/Sims Way	Discovery Bay Road	1. Establish 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 to determine 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 1 and 2 is to confirm traffic volume and to identify appropriate traffic mitigation strategies. The recommendation is to do the detailed analysis necessary to determine if improvements less than widening will handle the traffic.
Kearney Street	SR20/Sims Way	Blaine Street	1. Recognize Kearney Street as key north - south link. 2. Establish traffic counting program to monitor traffic volume growth. 3. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build only if growth rate exceeds 3.0 percent per year. 4. As traffic volumes build, conduct detailed traffic study of street and adjacent intersections to determine other roadway needs (e.g., left turn lanes, signalization, etc.). 5. Develop pedestrian paths and bicycle facilities to reduce north - south auto travel demand (e.g., connect residential areas to downtown with paths and or stairways, connect new retail development to residential areas with bicycle routes.
SR20/Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	1. Follow recommendations of Gateway Development Plan (e.g., intersection improvements).
Discovery Bay Road	City Limits	Sheridan Street	1. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadway access exists. Allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity and to preserve existing rural character. 2. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build only if growth rate exceeds 3.0 percent year.

TABLE 5
CAPACITY RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS
SCENARIO 3: HIGH GROWTH
(4.5 Percent Annual Growth)

ROADWAY	FROM	TO	RECOMMENDATIONS
Water Street	Ferry Terminal	Monroe Street	1. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle 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.
19th Street	Sheridan Street	San Juan Avenue	1. Perform intersection level analysis at San Juan Avenue and Blaine Street for intersection realignment and signalization. 2. Monitor traffic growth. If growth is over 4.0% per year, this street will need to become four lanes.
Sheridan Street	SR20/Sims Way	Discovery Bay Road	1. Establish 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 to determine 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 1 and 2 is to confirm traffic volume and to identify appropriate traffic mitigation strategies. The recommendation is to do the detailed analysis necessary to determine if improvements less than widening will handle the traffic.
Kearney Street	SR20/Sims Way	Blaine Street	1. Develop preserved ROW to four lanes. 2. Monitor traffic volumes on street and adjacent intersections to determine roadway design. 3. Conduct origin-destination study to identify travel patterns. 4. Monitor traffic volumes to develop alternative traffic routes to relieve travel demand on Kearney or re-direct land use development. 5. Monitor land use for changes/opportunities that would draw traffic away from Kearney. 6. Develop pedestrian paths and bicycle facilities to reduce north - south auto travel demand (e.g., connect residential areas to downtown with paths and/or stairways, connect new retail development to residential areas with bicycle routes).
SR20/Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	1. Follow recommendations of Gateway Development Plan (e.g., intersection improvements).
Discovery Bay Road	City Limits	Sheridan Street	1. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadway access exists. Allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity and to preserve existing rural character. 2. Preserve ROW for 4 lanes. Monitor traffic growth. Build to 4 lanes if traffic growth exceeds 3.0 per year.
Hastings Avenue	City Limit	Sheridan Street	1. Control land use access. Prohibit driveways directly onto arterials if alternative roadway access exists. Allow access only at intersections to make full use of existing capacity and to preserve existing rural character 2. Preserve ROW for four lanes; refrain from developing until other recommendations implemented. Consider results of origin-destination study before implementing. 3. Perform additional studies to determine roadway needs for improved traffic flow (e.g., left turn lanes, signalization, etc.). 4. Preserve full traffic flow capacity of roadway. (e.g., limit traffic conflicts and maximized traffic flow by limiting and controlling access, signalization, and adding center turn lanes to reduce turning conflicts).
"F" Street	San Juan Avenue	Cherry Street	1. Improve design section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow 2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion is considered inappropriate for adjacent land uses. 3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origin-destination study, traffic diversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered. 4. If origin-destination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocation or considering land use distribution. 5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve access to and within downtown.
"F" Street	Cherry Street	Tyler Street	1. Improve design section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow 2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion is considered inappropriate for adjacent land uses. 3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origin-destination study, traffic diversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered. 4. If origin-destination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocation or considering land use distribution. 5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve access to and within downtown.
Tyler Street	Jefferson Street	F Street	1. Improve design section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow 2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion is considered inappropriate for adjacent land uses. 3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origin-destination study, traffic diversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered. 4. If origin-destination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocation or considering land use distribution. 5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve access to and within downtown.
Quincy Street	Water Street	Jefferson Street	1. Improve design section from rural to urban (curb, gutter, sidewalks) to facilitate traffic flow 2. Avoid need for major capacity expansion along this route. Major capacity expansion is considered inappropriate for adjacent land uses. 3. Monitor traffic growth to determine if and when an origin-destination study, traffic diversion/reallocation is needed and if land use distribution should be reconsidered. 4. If origin-destination study implemented, use results in choosing traffic diversion/reallocation or considering land use distribution. 5. As discussed under Water Street improvements, develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve access to and within downtown.

Functional Classification For the New Roads

As part of completing Port Townsend's functional classification system, a classification for each proposed road should 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 system. This study recommends that the E-W Road be built as a collector road and that the Howard Street extension be built as a minor arterial. The recommendations are based upon road functional classification criteria (Table 6). The criteria includes the following items:

• Type of Travel

• System Continuity

• Spacing Between Routes

• Traffic Volumes (Percent)

• Speed Limits

• Mobility/Land 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 major arterial tends to serve travel between major inter-city destination points (e.g. city to city), while a minor arterial tends to serve intra-city trips to major destination points. In addition, 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 links major destinations within the City. The proposed road would extend approximately 2 1/2 miles. The north/south alignment could be generally located along the existing Howard Street right-of-way from SR 20/Sims Way to 49th Street (see Figure 8). Table 7 discusses how the proposed Howard Street fits the criteria required for a minor arterial designation.

Table 6: Criteria For Classifying Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets
	Major Arterials	Minor Arterials	Collectors	Local Roads
Criteria
Type of Travel (Function)	Intercommunity travel some intracommunity travel1	Intracommunity travel1	Collects/distributes traffic between local streets and arterial system2	Land Access2
System Continuity2	Continuous4	Continuous	Not necessarily continuous; should not extend across arterials	None
Spacing Between Routes2	1-2 miles	1/2-1 mile	1/2 mile or less	As needed
Traffic Volume (Percent)3	40-64	65-80	5-10	10-30
Speed Limit2	35-45 in fully developed areas	30-35	25-30	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

Sources: 1 WSDOT Guidelines For Amending Urban Boundaries, Functional Classifications, and Federal Aid Systems, August 1990, p. B-7

2 Transportation and Land Development, 1988, pg. 82.

3 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990, p. 16.

4 System continuity refers to the length of the road before it ends or is intersected by another road. Continuity parameters are subject to specific conditions such as natural barriers.

Table 7: Howard Street As A Minor Arterial1
Criteria	Howard Street
Function	Intracommunity travel-Fort Worden; northwest section of the City; industrial area located along SR 20/Sims Way
Continuous	Yes-provides a fairly direct linkage from 49th to SR 20/Sims Way
Spacing Between Routes	Approximately 1 1/4 miles to San Juan Avenue (an arterial)
Traffic Volume (percent)	Expected to carry a high percentage of the western section through traffic
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

Source: Henigar & Ray, 1994

1 This table is based upon criteria included in Table 6.

Corridor Alignment

As depicted in Figure 9 this proposed minor arterial would be located roughly 11/4 miles west 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 1 to 10 percent. Included within the conceptual depiction of the Howard Street Extension are a few alternatives 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 area.

Design Criteria And LOS Levels

In order to develop a north/south arterial that will serve future roadway capacity needs, 80-feet of right-of-way should be acquired to accommodate future growth as well as to allow for pedestrian/bicyclist amenities. The Howard Street Extension 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 (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.

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 arterials and collectors, the LOS (under all three growth scenarios) for the Howard Street Extension would appear to function at LOS C. Under a full 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 average daily traffic of 4,883. These forecast volumes are at or below LOS C.

width and height info: 8.37986,5.53889>

Road Function

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 arterial 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 capacity 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, and 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 a 30% 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 E-W Road

Cost Estimates

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 arterial 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 upgraded to an arterial. This is not recommended in this study as it is not believed that it would function as well as having two east-west collectors and because of the scenic qualities of Cook Avenue.

Corridor Alignment

The proposed collector would extend approximately 1 3/4 miles and be located roughly 1/8 of a mile north of Umatilla Road (a collector). The alignment could begin along Howard Street in the vicinity of the platted Peary Street right-of-way. Proceeding in a 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 of the new middle school. The proposed road "would intersect with San Juan Avenue at approximately Center Street (see Figure 10). The topography that this new alignment will cross is predominately flat with some gentle slopes. Profile grades are not expected to exceed 8 to 10 percent (on the west end).

Table 8: E-W As A Collector1
Criteria	E-W Road
Function	Collecting and distributing traffic within the northwest section of the City
Continuous	Will not extend across the proposed minor arterial of Howard Street
Spacing Between Routes	Approximately 1/8 mile from Umatilla
Traffic 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/Land Access	Built primarily for distributing traffic, but would alkw for mobility or access
Functional Class	Collector

Source: Henigar & Ray, 1994

1 This table is based upon criteria include in Table 6.

Figure 10 is a conceptual depiction of the alignment the proposed E-W Road could possibly follow. 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 topography, 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 recommended to accommodate 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 Road 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 arterials and collectors, 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 1,873 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 extension, 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 full build-out scenario, the roadway falls to an operational LOS of F.

Road Function

In general, 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. 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, would 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 the existing system. However, it would focus access to and from the northwestern section at two points-Howard and the proposed E-W Road and San Juan and the proposed E-W Road.

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 east/west 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 traffic 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.

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 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, would 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 the existing system. However, it would focus access to and from the northwestern section at two points--Howard and the 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 study. While this report was not directed at transportation demand management, several TDM recommendations are included including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The variation in the recommendations is representative of the complex nature of travel in Port Townsend.

APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL STUDIES

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 directly impacts policy decisions. As mentioned under Study Limitations, 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.

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 Sheridan Street, but are trips accessing the school. Therefore, increasing the through-capacity of the roadway (e.g., a new lane along all of Sheridan Street) may not be the best solution.

Possibly, a better solution is to improve access to the school to separate school-traffic from through-traffic. For example, a designated a left turn lane would separate school-traffic from through-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, and changes over time would provide greater insight into any transportation decisions made by the City. Studies on traffic composition, patterns, and changes generally require additional consultant services. Local jurisdictions frequently lack the staff to carry out the extra work of additional studies.

Not all of a city's questions and needs can be addressed in a single study. Frequently, several studies are required. Sometimes sequential studies are needed: The early studies are generalized and offer a wide 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 on the city's needs and goals. Often, jurisdictions carry out studies to assess their needs and goals. This is particularly true when the public is involved in the process and many views must be heard, discussed, facilitated, and, revised before a clear statement 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 patterns and travel behavior of these tourists influences local travel pattern and behavior. Consequently, the City may want to consider developing a long term process for collecting data and monitoring traffic in the City. A potential three-phase process is outlined below. The items represent areas where further study is needed.

I. Broad study of travel in the city

Origin and destinations for both local and regional traffic

Weekday and weekend travel patterns

Assess public opinion of transportation issues and community vision

II. Study of local trips as compared to regional tourist trips.

Impact and proportion of inter-city and 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

III. "Establish a process of collecting data on and monitoring behavior of local traffic

Trends and changes in travel over time

Timing and impact of school traffic on local streets

The need and 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 important component of this process because it provides the overview and framework for the additional work outlined in Phases n and ffl. Phases n and ffl and their related studies do not need to be carried out in the order identified. The order can change, depending upon the needs, goals, and priorities of the City. The three phase process is a guide. The precise order and priority of additional studies can be determined when the City's overall transportation needs and goals are identified.

Determining these needs and goals would be appropriate in the City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, but the following list of questions is provided to assist the City in determining its transportation data needs. The questions cover a wide range of topics: some are intended to generate internal city staff discussion about count program goals, while other questions focus on staffing and equipment needs.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC COUNT PROGRAM

1. Do you want to develop a database where you can compare weekday/weekend counts year after year? Or do you just want to know if traffic is changing on a roadway year after year?

2. Do you want to apply the data to long range planning issues such as right of way preservation, or do you want to identify intersection improvements and specific projects such as left turn pockets?

3. Are you only interested in certain roadways or do you want to understand local travel patterns?

4. Do you anticipate eventually using this data in a model or are you gathering it as a separate database? 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.

5. How often do you want to take counts - Annually? Biannually? Seasonally?

6. Do you want counts for only one day? One week? One weekend? Holidays?

7. 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?

8. Do you want 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.

9. 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?

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 ADTs 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.

APPENDIX B
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GROWTH ON THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM

PORT TOWNSEND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ARTERIAL STREET PLAN

H&R Project No. 93S-3251

CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED 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 followed (each step required the use of one or more mathematical equations):

1. Four "City-Wide" scenarios of development growth were calculated (low, medium, high, and build-out).

2. The "City-Wide" development growth rates were then used to calculate more localized development area growth rates.

3. The localized development growth rates were then used to estimate traffic growth on the arterial system.

The following assumptions form the basis for the calculations:

1. A 1.5 percent background traffic growth rate will be applied to SR 20 to account for the increase in traffic from infra- 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. Build-out is defined as development of all residential lots.

4. Localized development areas will be defined by combining Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) previously determined by the Port Townsend TPAC and their traffic consultant.

5. Existing population of Port Townsend, per City Planning is 7740 (OFM estimate, furnished by the City).

6. The development growth considered in this analysis will consist of single-family residential at an occupancy rare of 2.3 persons per unit (per 1990 census data furnished by the City).

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 EES, Inc.

8. For currently undeveloped parcels, an equivalency rate of 2.5 units 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 Environ men tally Sensitive Areas (ESA's), plus fifty percent (50%) of the lots lying within ESA's.

The following list of equations will be used in the analysis.

(1) NEW = [ p * ((1+r)20) - p] / 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.

20 is the time considered in the analysis in years.

2.3 is the occupancy rate in persons per unit.

(2) %DL = ( d / TBL) * 100 where,

%DL is the percent of the buildable lots currently developed.

d is the number of currently developed buildable lots within a TAZ or localized development area.

TBL is the total number of buildable lots within a TAZ or localized development areas, as determined in assumption #8 (above).

(3) %UL = (u / TBL) * 100 where,

%UL is the percent of currently undeveloped buildable lots.

u is the number of currently undeveloped buildable lots, including the number of equivalent lots available within large parcels, within a TAZ or localized development area.

TBL is the total number of buildable lots within a TAZ or localized development area, as determined in assumption #8.

(4) AR = u / TUL where,

AR is the ratio of the number of currently undeveloped buildable lots within a localized development area to the total number of undeveloped buildable lots 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 * NEW where.

N is the number of new lots estimated to develop within a defined localized development area, for a given "City-wide" development growth rate, over the study period.

AR is the ratio defined in Equation (4).

NEW is the number of lots defined in Equation (1).

(6) g = {[(d + N) / d].05} - 1 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 defined in Equation (2).

N is the number of new lots as defined in Equation (5).

.05 is the inverse of the study time of the analysis, in this case 20 years.

(7) Tg = (1992 Traffic * g) - 1992 Traffic where,

Tg is the increase in traffic over the study period at a given growth rate.

1992 Traffic is the ADT, actual traffic count, furnished by the City.

g is the localized development area growth rate as defined 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 Equation (2).

(9) TB = (1992 Traffic * B) - 1992 Traffic where,

TB is the increase in traffic due to build-out.

1992 Traffic is the current ADT as defined in Equation (7).

B is the build-out factor as defined in Equation (8).

(10) 2012 Traffic = 1992 Traffic 4- Background growth + Tg where,

2012 Traffic is the estimated future traffic on a segment of roadway for a given localized growth rate.

1992 Traffic 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.

Tg is the increase in traffic due to development growth as defined in Equation (7).

(11) 2042 Traffic = 1992 Traffic + Background growth + TB where,

2042 Traffic is the estimated future traffic at build-out.

1992 Traffic 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 (low, medium, and high).

NEW = [ p * ((1 +r)20) - p] / 2.3  (1)

@ 1.5 percent   NEW1.5 = [7740 ((1.015)20) - 7740] / 2.3 = 1167

@3.0 percent   NEW3.0 = [7740 ((1.030)20) - 7740] / 2.3 = 2713

@4.5 percent   NEW4.5 = [7740 ((1.045)20) - 7740] / 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.

%DL = ( d / TBL ) * 100
(2) %UL = (u / TBL) * 100	(3)

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 the City.

AR = u / TUL

(4)

Localized Development	ARA = 3412 / 10941 = 0.31
Area A
Localized Development	ARB = 2536 / 10941 = 0.23
Area B
Localized Development	ARC = 4993 / 10941 =0.46
Area C

TABLE 1  REVISED: 9.2.93

DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE LOTS

Localized Development Area	TAZ No.	Number of Developed Lots (d)	Number of Undeveloped Lots (u)	No. of Total Buildable Lots (TBL)	% Developed (%DL)	% Undeveloped (%UL)
A	2	76	92	168	45	55
	3	115	257	372	31	69
	9	3	0	3	100	0
	10	595	923	1518	39	61
	11	977	810	1787	55	45
	12	20	280	300	7	93
	13	534	855	1389	38	62
	14	81	161	242	33	67
	15	76	28	104	73	27
	16	87	6	93	94	6
	Total	2564	3412	5976	43	57
B	4	274	588	862	32	68
	5	39	1067	1106	4	96
	17	165	881	1046	16	84
	Total	478	2536	3014	16	84
C	7	281	1369	1650	17	83
	6	30	314	344	9	91
	18	19	1150	1169	2	98
	8	175	774	949	18	82
	19	101	1386	1487	7	93
	Total	606	4993	5599	11	89

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	5
g = {[(d + N) / d].05} - 1	6

See Table 2.

Determine the increase in traffic due to the localized development area growth rates. The traffic on the 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 areas will be assigned the higher growth rate of the adjacent localized development areas. In certain 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 Traffic * g) - 1992 Traffic

(7)

See Traffic Growth Projections, Scenarios 1 through 3.

Determine the effects of build-out on traffic. 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 Traffic	(9)

See Traffic Growth Projections, Scenario 4.

Estimate the total future traffic volumes due to the low. medium, and high development growth rates. Estimate the total future traffic volumes due to the impacts of total build-out.

2012 Traffic = 1992 Traffic + Background growth + Tg	(10)
2042 Traffic = 1992 Traffic + Background growth + TB	(11)

TABLE 2

DETERMINATION OF LOCAUZED EQUIVALENT GROWTH RATES  DATE: 8-31-93

REVISED: 9-3-93

Localized Development Area	Ratio of Undeveloped Lots (AR)	No. of Lots to Develop (N)			Equivalent Annual Growth Rate (g)
		@1.5	@3.0	@4.5	@1.5	@3.0	@4.5
A	0.31	362	841	1473	0.07	1.4	2.2
B	0.23	268	624	1093	2.3	4.3	6,1
C	0.46	537	1248	2185	3.2	5.8	7.9

To determine the capacity values for LOS Standards review both the HCM and FDOT Modifications to the 1985 HCM method. Review the following methods: a) uninterrupted flow and b) interrupted flow.

a) Uninterrupted Flow

Use FDOT modifications to the 1985 HCM method. Use program model U2LN_TAB with the following variables: K=0.10, D=0.54, PHF=0.90, SFR=1700, T (transitioning area or urban area over 5000 population), speed limit of 35 mph or less, no medians and no left-turn bays (U2L-1T). For an analysis of SR 20/Sims Way, include a painted median and left-turn bays in accordance with the Port Townsend Gateway Plan (U2L-2T). See Pages 8 and 9 for print-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, from 1985 HCM. See Page 10. Use "Non-State Roadways", 2-lane, undivided, a -15% adjustment factor for no left-turn bays, K=0.10, D=0.54.

for LOS C	ADT = (520 * 0.85) / (0.10 * 0.54) = 8185
for LOS D	ADT = (650 * 0.85) / (0.10 * 0.54) = 10231
for LOS E	ADT = (710 * 0.85) / (0.10 * 0.54) = 11176

Use the following LOS capacities:	LOS C	8190
	LOS D	10200
	LOS E	11200

Use Interrupted Flow (method b) for the analysis of city streets as it more closely approximates the actual conditions existing in Port Townsend. Use Uninterrupted Flow (method a; U2L-2T) for SR 20/Sims Way as the State highway functions as an urban highway as it enters Port Townsend.

Compare the estimated future volumes with [he maximum capacity thresholds for levels-of-service (LOS) C, D, and E. Use LOS D as [he minimum acceptable level of service on the arterial network (arterials and collectors).

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 to 49th Street) and a new "E-W" Road (Howard Street to San Juan Avenue). These 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.

Urban Two-Lane Uninterrupted Highway Level of Service Tables

U2LN_TAB Version 1.0

Developed by: E. Shenk, D. McLeod, C. McShane and G. Brown

DESCRIPTION
ROAD NAME:	Minor Arterial
Study Time Period:	Daily
Analysis Date:	REVISED 08-30-93
User Notes:	DISK: PT TNSD 3 FILE:A\U2L-1T
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
K FACTOR:	0.100 (0.06 - 0.20)
D FACTOR:	0.540 (0.50 - 1.00)
PHF:	0.900 (0.70 - 1.00)
ONE-DIRECTION ADJUSTED
SATURATION FLOW RATE	1,700 (1300 - 2000)
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Urbanized, Transitioning, or
Rural Developed Area:	T (U, T or R)
POSTED SPEED LIMIT (mph):	35 (55,50,45,40,35)
MEDIANS (Y/N):	N
LEFT TURN BAYS (Y/N):	N

PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME

LOS:	A	B	C	D	E
	30	100	570	850	1,300

PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS)

LOS:	A	B	C	D	E
	50	190	1,060	1,570	2,410

AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)

LOS:	A	B	C	D	E
	500	1,900	10,600	15,700	24,100

Urban Two-Lane Uninterrupted Highway Level of Service Tables

U2LN_TAB Version 1.0

Developed by: E. Shenk, D. McLeod, C. McShane and G. Brown

DESCRIPTION
ROAD NAME:	Minor Arterial-SR20
Study Time Period:	Daily
Analysis Date:	REVISED 08-30-93
User Notes:	DISK: PT TNSD 3 FILE:A:\U2L-1T
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS	....Range.....
K FACTOR:	0.100 (0.06 - 0.20)
D FACTOR:	0.540 (0.50 - 1.00)
PHF:	0.900 (0.70 - 1.00)
ONE-DIRECTION ADJUSTED
SATURATION FLOW RATE	1,700 (1300 - 2000)
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Urbanized, Transitioning, or
Rural Developed Area:	T (U, T or R)
POSTED SPEED LIMIT (mph):	35 (55,50,45,40,35)
MEDIANS (Y/N):	Y
LEFT TURN BAYS (Y/N):	Y

PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME

LOS:	A	B	C	D	E
	30	130	710	1,040	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

TABLE 3 - 2
GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S
AREAS TRANSITIONING INTO URBANIZED AREAS OR AREAS OVER 5,000 NOT IN URBANIZED AREAS*

STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS UNINTERRUPTED FLOW						FREEWAYS
Group A (less than 0.50 signalized intersections per mile) (Warning: For a specific analysis a facility's uninterrupted portions and the portions subject to capacity constraints should be evaluated seperately.)
Lanes	Level of Service					Lanes	Level of Service
Divided	A	B	C	D	E		A	B	C	D	E
2 Undiv.	170	630	740	910	1210	4	1230	1900	2710	3270
4 Div.	540	1370	1790	2100	2480	6	1850	2850	4060	4900
6 Div.	810	2080	2700	3150	3710	8	2160	3800	5410	6540
						10	3060	4750	6770	8370
INTERRUPTED FLOW						NON-STATE ROADWAYS MAJOR CITY/COUNTY ROADWAYS
Group B (0.50 to 2.49 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes	Level of Service					Lanes	Level of Service
Divided	A**	B	C	D***	E***	Divided	A**	B**	C	D	E
2 Undiv.		560	710	770	790	2 Undiv.			520	650
4 Div.		1250	1510	1660	1670	4 Div.			1140	1420
6 Div.		1920	2330	2510	2510	6 Div.			1760	2150
Group C (2.50 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile)						OTHER SIGNALIZED ROADWAYS (signalized intersection analysis)
Lanes	Level of Service					Lanes	Level of Service
Divided	A**	B**	C	D	E	Divided	A**	B**	C	D	E
2 Undiv.			450	640	710	2 Undiv.			250	490
4 Div.			990	1410	1550	4 Div.			540	1100
6 Div.			1500	2170	2350
Group D (more than 4.50 signalized intersections per mile)						ADJUSTMENTS DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED
Lanes	Level of Service					(alter corresponding directional volume indicated percent)
Divided	A**	B**	C**	D	E	Lanes	Median	Left Turn Bays		Adjustment Factor
2 Undiv.				530	680	2	Divided	Yes		- 5%
4 Div.				1170	1190	2	Undivided	No		- 15%
6 Div.				1800	2260	Multi	Undivided	Yes		-5%
						Multi	Undivided	No		-20%
						ONE-WAY (alter corresponding directional volume indicated percent)
						One-Way Lanes		Corresponding Two-Way Lanes		Adjustment Factor
						2		4		-20%
						3		6		-20%

*    The table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which the table is derived should be for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques. Values shown are hourly directional volumes based on the 1945 Highway Capacity Manual and Florida traffic, roadway and signalization data. To convert to annual or daily traffic volumes, these values must be divided by an appropriate D factor and K100 factor. (Warning: do not use a peak to daily traffic factor; a K100 must be used. The table's input value assumptions and level of service criteria appear on the back.

**   Cannot be achieved.

***   Volumes are comparable because interaction capacities are reached.

Source:    Florida Department of Transportation, 1991.

TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Scenario 1: Generalized Annual Growth Rate of 1.5%

STREET NAME	FROM	TO	1992 TRAFFIC	BKGRD GROWTH @1.5%	AREA A @0.70% GROWTH	AREA B @2.30% GROWTH	AREA C @3.20% GROWTH	2012 TRAFFIC	LOS
Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	12255	4251	1835			18340	D
Water St.	Ferry Terminal	Monroe St.	9600		1437			11037	E
Washington St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2200		329			2529	C
Jefferson St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2100		314			2414	C
Lawrence St.	Kearney St..	Benton St.	3000		449			3449	C
Lawrence St.	Benton St.	Tyler St.	4000		599			4599	C
12th St.	Sheridan St.	Landes St.	3244		486			3730	C
Discovery Bay Rd.	City Limit	Sherldan St.	6000			3455		9455	D
Discovery Bay Rd.	19th St.	Hastings Ave.	2300		344			2644	C
19th St.	Sherldan St.	San Juan	6500			3743		10243	E
Hastings Ave.	City Limit	San Juan Ave.	2500				2194	4694	C
F St.	San Juan	Cherry St.	3200				2808	6008	C
F St.	Cherry St.	Tyler St.	3000				2633	5633	C
49th St.	Cook Ave.	San Juan	1700				1492	3192	C
Admirality	San Juan	Redwood St.	2100				1843	3943	C
Cook Ave.	Hastings Ave.	49th St.	1000				878	1878	C
McPherson St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	3244			1868		5112	C
Sheridan St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	7200			4146		11346	F
Sheridan St.	Discovery Bay Rd.	Hastings Ave.	3244			1868		5112	C
Landes St.	12th St.	19th St.	3244		486			3730	C
Kearney St.	Sims Way	Blaine St.	6100				5353	11453	F
San Juan	Blaine St.	49th St.	1700				1492	3192	C
Walker St.	Washington St.	Blaine St.	3244		486			3730	C
Walker St.	Blaine St.	F St.	3200		479			3679	C
Cherry St.	F St.	Redwood St.	3000		449			3449	C
Redwood St.	Cherry St.	49th St.	1500		225			1725	C
Tyler St.	Jefferson St.	F St.	3000				2633	5633	C
Quincy St.	Water St.	Jefferson St.	3200				2808	6008	C
Monroe St.	Water St	Lawrence St.	2300		344			2644	C

(*) Traffic volume shown is calculated from a trip generation/distribution analysis, instead of the percentage of growth analysis.

TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Scenario 2: Generalized Annual Growth Rate of 3.0%

STREET NAME	FROM	TO	1992 TRAFFIC	BKGRD GROWTH @1.5%	AREA A @1.40% GROWTH	AREA B @4.30% GROWTH	AREA C @5.80% GROWTH	2012 TRAFFIC	LOS
Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	12255	4251	3928			20434	E
Water St.	Ferry Terminal	Monroe St.	9600		3077			12677	F
Washington St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2200		705			2905	C
Jefferson St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2100		673			2773	C
Lawrence St.	Kearney St..	Benton St.	3000		962			3962	C
Lawrence St.	Benton St.	Tyler St.	4000		1282			5282	C
12th St.	Sheridan St.	Landes St.	3244		1040			4284	C
Discovery Bay Rd.	City Limit	Sherldan St.	6000			7926		13926	F
Discovery Bay Rd.	19th St.	Hastings Ave.	2300		737			3037	C
19th St.	Sherldan St.	San Juan	6500			8587		15087	F
Hastings Ave.	City Limit	San Juan Ave.	2500				5221	7721	C
F St.	San Juan	Cherry St.	3200				6682	9882	D
F St.	Cherry St.	Tyler St.	3000				6265	9265	D
49th St.	Cook Ave.	San Juan	1700				3550	5250	C
Admiralty	San Juan	Redwood St.	2100				4385	6485	C
Cook Ave.	Hastings Ave.	49th St.	1000				2088	3088	C
McPherson St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	3244			4286		7530	C
Sheridan St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	7200			9512		16712	F
Sheridan St.	Discovery Bay Rd.	Hastings Ave.	3244			4286		7530	C
Landes St.	12th St.	19th St.	3244		1040			4284	C
Kearney St.	Sims Way	Blaine St.	6100				12738	18838	F
San Juan	Blaine St.	49th St.	1700				3550	5250	C
Walker St.	Washington St.	Blaine St.	3244		1040			4284	C
Walker St.	Blaine St.	F St.	3200		1026			4226	C
Cherry St.	F St.	Redwood St.	3000		962			3962	C
Redwood St.	Cherry St.	49th St.	1500		481			1981	C
Tyler St.	Jefferson St.	F St.	3000				6265	9265	D
Quincy St.	Water St.	Jefferson St.	3200				6682	9882	D
Monroe St.	Water St	Lawrence St.	2300		737			3037	C

(*) Traffic volume shown is calculated from a trip generation/distribution analysis, instead of the percentage of growth analysis.

TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Scenario 3: Generalized Annual Growth Rate of 4.5%

STREET NAME	FROM	TO	1992 TRAFFIC	BKGRD GROWTH @1.5%	AREA A @2.20% GROWTH	AREA B @6.10% GROWTH	AREA C @7.90% GROWTH	2012 TRAFFIC	LOS
Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	12255	4251	6683			23189	E
Water St.	Ferry Terminal	Monroe St.	9600		5236			14835	F
Washington St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2200		1200			3400	C
Jefferson St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2100		1145			3245	C
Lawrence St.	Kearney St..	Benton St.	3000		1636			4636	C
Lawrence St.	Benton St.	Tyler St.	4000		2181			6181	C
12th St.	Sheridan St.	Landes St.	3244		1769			5013	C
Discovery Bay Rd.	City Limit	Sherldan St.	6000			13609		19609	F
Discovery Bay Rd.	19th St.	Hastings Ave.	2300		1254			3554	C
19th St.	Sherldan St.	San Juan	6500			14743		21243	F
Hastings Ave.	City Limit	San Juan Ave.	2500				8938	11438	F
F St.	San Juan	Cherry St.	3200				11441	14641	F
F St.	Cherry St.	Tyler St.	3000				10726	13726	F
49th St.	Cook Ave.	San Juan	1700				6078	7778	C
Admirality	San Juan	Redwood St.	2100				7508	9608	D
Cook Ave.	Hastings Ave.	49th St.	1000				3575	4575	C
McPherson St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	3244			7358		10602	E
Sheridan St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	7200			16331		23531	F
Sheridan St.	Discovery Bay Rd.	Hastings Ave.	3244			7358		10602	E
Landes St.	12th St.	19th St.	3244		1769			5013	C
Kearney St.	Sims Way	Blaine St.	6100				21810	27910	F
San Juan	Blaine St.	49th St.	1700				6078	7778	C
Walker St.	Washington St.	Blaine St.	3244		1769			5013	C
Walker St.	Blaine St.	F St.	3200		1745			4945	C
Cherry St.	F St.	Redwood St.	3000		1636			4636	C
Redwood St.	Cherry St.	49th St.	1500		818			2318	C
Tyler St.	Jefferson St.	F St.	3000				10726	13726	F
Quincy St.	Water St.	Jefferson St.	3200				11441	14641	F
Monroe St.	Water St	Lawrence St.	2300		1254			3554	C

(*) Traffic volume shown is calculated from a trip generation/distribution analysis, instead of the percentage of growth analysis.

TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Scenario 4: BUILD-OUT

STREET NAME	FROM	TO	1992 TRAFFIC	BKGRD GROWTH @1.5%	AREA A	AREA B	AREA C	2042 TRAFFIC	LOS
Sims Way	City Limits	Ferry Terminal	12255	4251	16299			32805	F
Water St.	Ferry Terminal	Monroe St.	9600		12768			22368	F
Washington St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2200		2926			5126	C
Jefferson St.	Walker St.	Quincy St.	2100		2793			4893	C
Lawrence St.	Kearney St..	Benton St.	3000		3990			6990	C
Lawrence St.	Benton St.	Tyler St.	4000		5320			9320	D
12th St.	Sheridan St.	Landes St.	3244		4315			7559	C
Discovery Bay Rd.	City Limit	Sherldan St.	6000			31860		37860	F
Discovery Bay Rd.	19th St.	Hastings Ave.	2300		3059			5359	C
19th St.	Sherldan St.	San Juan	6500			34515		41015	F
Hastings Ave.	City Limit	San Juan Ave.	2500				20600	23100	F
F St.	San Juan	Cherry St.	3200				26368	29568	F
F St.	Cherry St.	Tyler St.	3000				24720	27720	F
49th St.	Cook Ave.	San Juan	1700				14008	15708	F
Admirality	San Juan	Redwood St.	2100				17304	19404	F
Cook Ave.	Hastings Ave.	49th St.	1000				8240	9240	D
McPherson St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	3244			17226		20470	F
Sheridan St.	Sims Way	Discovery Bay Rd.	7200			38232		45432	F
Sheridan St.	Discovery Bay Rd.	Hastings Ave.	3244			17226		20470	F
Landes St.	12th St.	19th St.	3244		4315			7559	C
Kearney St.	Sims Way	Blaine St.	6100				50264	56364	F
San Juan	Blaine St.	49th St.	1700				14008	15708	F
Walker St.	Washington St.	Blaine St.	3244		4315			7559	C
Walker St.	Blaine St.	F St.	3200		4256			7456	C
Cherry St.	F St.	Redwood St.	3000		3990			6990	C
Redwood St.	Cherry St.	49th St.	1500		1995			3495	C
Tyler St.	Jefferson St.	F St.	3000				24720	27720	F
Quincy St.	Water St.	Jefferson St.	3200				26368	29568	F
Monroe St.	Water St	Lawrence St.	2300		3059			5359	C

(*) Traffic volume shown is calculated from a trip generation/distribution analysis, instead of the percentage of growth analysis.

Land Use: 210
Single-Family Detached Housing

Description

Any single family detached home on an individual lot is included in this land use category. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision.

Additional Data

Information on transit trip ends is not available.

Information on person trip ends is not available.

Information on truck trips is not available.

Inofrmation on vehicle occupancy is not available.

Peake 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 dwelling unit.

Average automobile ownership:

1.6 vehicles per dwelling unit.

The studies were conducted at sites throughout the United States and Canada in the late 1960's through late 1980's

Independent variables:

Although the number of vehicles and number of residents have high correlations with average weekday vehicle trip ends, these variables have limited use. This is because the number of vehicles and residents is difficult to obtain, many studies did not contain these data, and these data are difficult to predict. The number of dwelling units has a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends, and is generally the independent variable of choice because it is contained in most studies, is easy to project, and convenient to use.

Adjustment factors:

This land use includes data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, and ages. Consequently, there is as wide a variation in trips generated within this category as there is between different residential land uses. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central business district (CBD) had a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. However, other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and hereby development, also had an effect on the site trip generation.

Single-family detached units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses because they are the largest units in size and have more residents and more vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they are generally located further away from shopping centers, employment areas, and other trip attractors than are other residential land uses; and they have fewer alternate modes of transportation available because they are not as concentrated as other residential land uses.

A study performed for the Federal Highway Administration1 developed adjustment factors for average weekday vehicle trip rates for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These characteristics included household size, vehicle ownership, and dwelling density. The adjustment factors shown below are to be added to or subtracted from the average weekday trip generation rates, using dwelling units as the independent variable. Any combination of adjustment factors may be applied to the trip generation rate. However, if residential characteristics are not available, then the average rate or equation would be utilized. Peak hour trip generation rates can be adjusted by the ratio of the average weekday adjusted trip rate to the average weekday trip rate.

Characteristic: Household size	Adjustment Factor2
1-2	-3.4
2-3	-1.8
>3	0.0
Characteristics: Vehicles Owned	Adjustment Factor2
0-1	-1.5
1-2	0.0
>2	+2.9
Characteristic: Density (D.U. per Acre)	Adjustment Factor2
0-3	0.0
3-5	0.0
>5	-0.1

Source Numbers

1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 71, 72, 84, 91, 98, 100, 105, 108, 110, 114, 117, 119, 157, 167, 177, 187, 192, 207, 211, 246, 275, 283, 293, 300, 319, 320

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Kellerco, January 1985.

2 Adjustment factor to be added to (or subtracted from) the average weekday vehicle trip generation rate per dwelling unit.

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLES OF RURAL AND URBAN CROSS SECTIONS

APPENDIX D
NEW CORRIDOR ESTIMATES

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% of construction costs for contingencies

$4 per square foot of acquired right-of-way

15% of construction costs for design engineering and permitting

15% of construction costs for construction engineering and administration

10% 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. Construction	$10 - 12M.
New "E-W" Road Construction	$ 6 - 8M.

NEW CORRIDOR ESTIMATES

CORRIDOR	HOWARD ST.	NEW E-W ROAD
LENGTH	13100 LF	6650 LF
BASIC CONSTRUCTION @ $2.0M/MILE	4.96	2.52
ILLUMINATION @ $.01M/MILE	0.25	0.13
WETLAND REPLACEMENT @ $0.5M/MILE	0.12	0.06
CONTINGENCIES @ 15% OF CONST. COSTS	0.74	0.38
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION @ $.174M/ACRE	2.54	1.57
DESIGN ENGINEERING & PERMITTING @ 15% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS	0.74	0.38
CONST. ENGINEERING ANDADMIN. @ 15% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS	0.74	0.38
AGENCY ADMINISTRATION COSTS @ 10% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS	0.5	0.25
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS (MILLIONS)	10.59	5.67