VI. THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The intent of this element is to provide direction for the City's overall transportation system- Carrying out the coals, policies and implementation steps of this element will result in a comprehensive transportation system that will adequately handle Port Townsend's existing and future travel needs. The future transportation system is designed to provide for the movement of people and goods, ranging from the movement of cars and trucks, individuals on foot or bicycle, to commuters using the ferry or transit system.
As an attractive residential community and a regional visitor destination, the City of Port Townsend may face substantial new residential and commercial growth over the next twenty years. Improved transportation services will be required to accommodate the needs of a larger community. Many existing roadways are narrow and lack adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Because most roadways were built without substantial underlying base materials, they are inadequate and difficult to maintain.
In addition to the need for people to get around and for safe and efficient emergency services to our homes, schools and businesses, many residents are concerned that wider, more developed roads would significantly alter our small town character. Many also worry that the cost of better roads, coupled with higher housing and utility costs, will cause our town to become too expensive for many working families.
The comprehensive approach taken in this element will allow the community to avoid the piecemeal transportation planning which typically happens in reaction to development on a project by project basis. In addition to dealing with circulation needs within the City, this element also addresses transportation issues associated with people and goods traveling through Port Townsend.
Growth Management Act Requirements
One of the central goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) (Chapter 36.70A RCW) is to establish a direct link between land use and transportation. This linkage is largely made through the concurrency requirement of the GMA which ensures that transportation facility needs created by a specific development are in place at the time a permit is issued for development
To further coordinate land use and transportation, the GMA requires a transportation element to address the following subject areas:
|
o |
A description of land use assumptions used in estimating travel1; |
|
o |
Facilities and service needs based on an inventory of existing facilities, travel forecasts and level of service standards2; |
|
o |
Finance, including an analysis of funding capability and a multi-year financing plan3; and |
|
o |
In addition, the Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations (Chapter 365-195-325 WAC) recommend that the plan include local and regional goals and policies for the following transportation modes, where applicable:
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
The Act also requires a "reality check," through the capital facilities element, to determine if the proposed transportation improvements can be afforded. The Capital Facilities and Utilities Element of this Comprehensive Plan includes an assessment of probable funding sources. If the funding for transportation improvements falls short of identified needs, one or a combination of the following actions must be pursued:
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
The land use pattern must be changed to ensure that identified levels of service will be met. |
The GMA also requires counties to develop county-wide planning policies that provide a framework for the development of city and county comprehensive plans. The purpose of these policies is to ensure a level of coordination and consistency between the cities and counties. Adopted in December of 1992, the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP) (see City Resolution No. 92-112 and County Resolution No. 128- 92) includes a policy on "County-wide Transportation Facilities and Strategies" (i.e., CWPP #5). The policy requires county-wide coordination on transportation issues, for example, transit and airport facilities. The policy also provides guidance for preparing this Transportation Element, including level of service standards. concurrency, and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies.
Major Transportation Issues Facing Port Townsend
The major transportation issues facing Port Townsend include:
1. What standards or policies are needed to help control speeds and to assure that streets are safe, affordable to construct, and narrow enough to assure that our small town character is protected?
2. How should the Plan promote nonmotorized travel? What modes of travel should be encouraged? How can we assure safety between pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles?
3. Should the City establish scenic arterial standards for Cook Ave and other future arterials?
4. Should the City promote a comprehensive trail system network throughout town?
5. What policies should the City implement to avoid short-sighted street vacations?
6. What effect would permanent passenger ferry service between Port Townsend and other urban areas have on Port Townsend's growth, land use, and parking and transportation network? How can the City plan to gain desirable results and reduce potential adverse impacts of such future service?
7. How can the City relieve parking and congestion Downtown? What role should the City play in increasing the use of the Park-and-Ride lot?
8. Many residents have urged additional spending to improve deteriorated roads. How do transportation improvements rank against other City-wide needs? What are the priorities for transportation improvements? Should the City consider impact fees for transportation improvements?
9. What level of service standards are appropriate for arterials and collectors?
10. How can the increased need for Downtown parking be accommodated? What role will the Park-and- Ride facility play in the Downtown parking strategy? Is there a need for ferry passenger walk-on parking?
11. What is the role of traditional transportation providers in facilitating current and future telecommunications technologies?
12. What impact will telecommunications improvements have on traditional transportation systems? The goals, policies and implementation steps of this element seek to address these issues while providing a transportation network that is in keeping with the character of the City.
POLICY DIRECTION FOR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
In general, the range of solutions available to address transportation needs falls into two categories: those that increase the capacity of the existing system; and those that decrease the demand for improvements. In short, we can choose to build more and bigger roads or drive fewer cars. Often, solutions to transportation needs involve strategies from both demand side and supply side categories. In addition to goals and policies, this section provides guidance for future transportation improvements over the next twenty years.
Policy Direction for Local Street System Needs
Local streets needs will be addressed primarily through new street development standards adopted as development regulations that implement this Comprehensive Plan. Local streets should meet the standards concurrent with their development. On neighborhood collectors and local access streets, standards that allow narrower streets will help achieve other City goals, including:
1. Maintaining neighborhood scale and character: Narrower streets define a pedestrian scale that people prefer and one that is more compatible' with residential development.
2. Lowering construction and maintenance costs: Narrower streets cost less to build and reduce the "forever" pavement maintenance costs to the City. (Note: There will be higher costs for landscaping and sidewalks in areas where higher density is desired and expected, but development costs should be offset by the increased density allowed).
3. Saving vegetation and trees: Narrower streets mean less disruption of existing vegetation.
4. Reducing stormwater runoff: Less pavement means less dirty water (e.g., pollutants from autos, fertilizers, pesticides, and other contaminants) getting into Puget Sound.
5. Encouraging traffic safety: Narrower streets discourage through traffic and force drivers to slow down. Wide lanes and streets encourage people to drive over the speed limit, a major cause for concern in neighborhoods.
6. Encouraging better land use: Narrower streets reduce the amount of land reserved for vehicles.
7. Keeping higher density areas livable: Narrower tree-lined streets in higher density areas will encourage people to walk and use the transit system.
The Draft Street Standards (see Appendix 4 to the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996) describe several options for arterials, major collectors, neighborhood collectors, and local access streets. The pavement and lane widths should be as narrow as possible while still assuring safe functioning for cars, transit, bikes, pedestrians, and City vehicles (e.g., fire engines). The Draft Street Standards should be reviewed during the preparation of development regulations. The policy direction provided by this Comprehensive Plan will guide the development of those standards.
Narrow Streets & Emergency Vehicles
Many decisions about street widths have been driven by a desire to accommodate the largest emergency vehicles (usually fire trucks). To help them decide how much narrower streets can be, some communities have taken emergency vehicles for test drives in older neighborhoods with narrow streets. While community standards for the protection of life and property must be maintained, decisions about roadway pavement widths should also consider the disadvantages of extensive paved areas (e.g., poor aesthetics, higher maintenance and development costs, increased stormwater runoff, and poor land use).
In many areas across town, large hammerhead turnarounds have been built to allow turning movements for fire trucks. These standards should be reviewed during the preparation of development regulations. Street standards should be developed to assure easy fire and emergency safety access while allowing narrower streets which preserve the small town atmosphere the community desires.
Stormwater Treatment on Local Access & Neighborhood Collector Streets
The Draft Street Standards (see Appendix 4 to the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996), show some alternatives for treating stormwater on streets. While the use of swales is widely accepted as the most effective way to handle stormwater, placement of swales on the edge of local access and neighborhood collector streets can interfere with pedestrian activity.
Wherever possible, swales should be incorporated into front yards, blending with the landscaping. Underground, back of lot, or shared detention ponds are other options, especially in higher density areas where the "people function" of neighborhood streets is a high priority. Higher density development may cause more disturbance of a site during construction. This may allow for the construction of some alternative stormwater treatment facilities on the site.
Where minimal site disturbance in needed (e.g., when constructing at lower densities), it is desirable to incorporate stormwater improvements only on the portions of the site that will be disturbed as part of construction. New street standards should factor concerns and include options for stormwater treatment. The standards should ensure that stormwater improvements are attractive and walkable for the increasing numbers of people that are expected to use them. The Draft Street Standards should be reviewed during the preparation of development regulations. The policy direction from this Comprehensive Plan will guide the development of those standards.
Policy Direction on Arterial, Major Collector & S.R. 20 Needs
Because of the increase in population projected for the City of Port Townsend between 2000 and 2024 (i.e., 4,985), several new roadways and arterials may be needed (see the Draft Arterial Street Plan contained in Appendix 5 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996).
The Gateway Development Plan sets the policy direction for future improvements for S.R. 20/Sims Way. This Plan is incorporated by reference as a subarea plan within this Comprehensive Plan. The design guidelines within the Gateway Development Plan should be used for reviewing new development and redevelopment projects in the Gateway Subarea. Recommended transportation improvements are shown in Table VI-1 on pages VI-10 and VI-11 and should also be included in the six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City should work closely with the state to acquire state or federal funding to implement the Gateway Development Plan.
The Draft Arterial Street Plan suggests future arterials and collectors, and provides policy direction for a new functional classification system for Port Townsend's transportation system. Street standards for arterials and collectors should be reviewed during the preparation of development regulations. The policy direction from this element and the Draft Arterial Street Plan will guide the development of these standards. [Ord. No. 2879, § 1.7, (February 7, 2005)].
Policy Direction on Nonmotorized System Needs (Pedestrians, Bicycles & Trails)
Creating a pedestrian-friendly city will require a good network of sidewalks, walkable streets and bike routes to encourage use by pedestrians, transit riders and bike riders. Supporting these users is important if the goals of this Transportation Element are to be achieved. In addition, under the new street standards, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and landscaping should become integral parts of the street. This will help to support the goal of creating narrow streets that provide for nonmotorized opportunities. The new standards will also help to attract pedestrians and cut down on vehicle travel, especially in higher density areas and where development and infill is desired. The goals and policies of this Plan make it clear that building a nonmotorized system is a high priority.
This element lays the groundwork for overall improvements in the City's nonmotorized circulation system. Much work has been completed, as described in the Draft Comprehensive Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, March 1993. The Transportation Committee should continue to develop and refine this Plan. The Plan should seek to create an integrated network of nonmotorized improvements that provide incentives to walk or bike across town. The Plan should identify areas where sidewalks need to be completed. Informal trails and unopened rights-of-way should be identified as integral components of the Nonmotorized Plan. Appropriately, this network should also link up with other modes of transportation including transit and ferry service.
The street improvements listed in this Plan and shown on Table VI-1 on pages VI-10 and VI-11 will include bike lanes and pedestrian walkways on all arterials and major collectors. These will be built as new roads are built or as existing roads are widened, and are noted in the explanation of planned street improvements. In addition, special projects may be funded to connect bike lanes and pedestrian facilities on existing streets where other road widening projects are not needed. This will be important on routes that connect major employment and shopping areas with residential areas so that bicycle commuters can be encouraged. Support services such as bike racks and storage lockers will also be encouraged.
On neighborhood collector and local access streets, bike riders will use the vehicle lane for travel (i.e., a Class IV bike lane). In some areas, planned trails (both on and off street) can serve as part of the bike commuter network. A portion of the nonmotorized improvements will be paid for as new development and redevelopment occurs. Other improvements will be included in the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element of the Plan as funds become available.
Unimproved Street Rights-of-Way
Most of Port Townsend's unimproved streets were platted in the late 1800s. As outlined in the goals and policies of this element, it may not be in the best interest of the public to improve all of the currently platted streets. By not improving all platted streets, there will be a reduction in the amount of new paved surfaces, stormwater run-off, and long-term maintenance costs to the City. Specific street and/or alley vacations are not recommended or proposed by this Plan. However, the following criteria should be considered when determining which streets should be left unimproved:
1. Street continuity and property access: The transportation network must provide for vehicular and pedestrian travel while ensuring access to all platted lots.
2. Utility Plans: The decision to leave some streets unimproved must take into account, and be consistent with, the recommendations of current utility and capital facility plans and programs.
3. Consistency with this Comprehensive Plan: Decisions to leave street rights-of-way unimproved must be consistent with the Land Use Element and all other relevant provisions within this Comprehensive Plan.
4. Preservation of open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs): The street network should be designed to minimize opening of new streets, to preserve open spaces and ESAs, as well as enhancing pedestrian and other modes of nonmotorized travel. Construction of trails and other open space improvements may be required in lieu of the street Also, wetlands and wildlife habitat corridors should be protected by leaving key rights-of-way undeveloped.
The total land area dedicated to public roadways and road rights-of-way is 1,202 acres, representing nearly 26% of the total land area within Port Townsend. Opened rights-of-way occupy slightly less area than closed rights- of-way (600 acres open v. 602 acres closed).
Specific street rights-of-way which could be left unopened for a variety of public uses should be identified in the Nonmotorized Plan. Links between unimproved rights-of-way and proposed roadways, drainage corridors, trails and open spaces and ESAs should be identified in the Nonmotorized Plan and coordinated with the Open Spaces and Trails Plan recommended within the Land Use Element of this Plan.
Level of Service (LOS) Standards & Concurrency Management
Setting standards for levels of service involves trade-offs between the cost of providing a high level of service (LOS) and the amount of traffic congestion people are willing to accept. Determining how much congestion drivers will tolerate before they are willing to pay for more road capacity is a political as well as a technical question. New facilities and improvements are expensive, and their costs are ultimately borne by everyone.
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), comprehensive plans must establish LOS standards for transportation facilities. Thus, a primary purpose of this element is to establish and measure levels of service to support the transportation and land use goals established for the City and the region, and to meet concurrency requirements. The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) recommends that roads within urban growth boundaries (i.e., City of Port Townsend) have a LOS D. Urban/Tourist corridors, which are rural corridors that carry urban levels of traffic, for example S.R. 20, are also recommended by the PRTPO to have a LOS D. Because the GMA requires these standards to be "regionally coordinated," this element proposes that the LOS standard for the City of Port Townsend's arterials and collectors be established as LOS D.
As discussed earlier. Port Townsend and the PRTPO use the Highway Capacity Manual approach for measuring future congestion and levels of service. This approach for measuring levels of service takes into account only vehicle movements on segments of road or at intersections. The GMA requires that the LOS standards be met concurrent with growth. This means if the LOS falls below D, growth may not occur unless new roadway capacity is added. In many areas of town, such as the Gateway Corridor, road widening (i.e., more than three lanes) should be a last resort, since it would create undue hardships on adjacent property owners and businesses. Likewise, road widening discourages pedestrian use and is contrary to citizen desires for narrower streets. Thus, there is a need to encourage actions and roadway improvements that will decrease auto dependence.
To help retain the City's small town atmosphere and to promote a walkable town, the City should consider developing a multi-modal LOS approach in the future. This approach may be critical in the City's continuing efforts to meet the concurrency requirements of the GMA. If we only measure vehicle capacity, new development could be denied in the very areas where we want to encourage more jobs and housing. The City should develop public transportation LOS standards in cooperation with Jefferson Transit to include transit and rider access standards for streets and new development as well as a minimum level of fixed routs transit service hours. This will set a threshold of necessary transit service for the City and ensure that public transit and other alternative modes will become more integral parts of the City's future transportation system.
The City should also study and consider setting LOS standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. la addition. promotion of transportation demand management (TDM) strategics could also alleviate the need to build or expand roadways, and make the transportation system operate more efficiently and carry more vehicles and people. By looking for new ways to define and measure levels of service based on Comprehensive Plan goals, this element seeks to assure the continuation of levels of service that the community can afford, while meeting its vision for the future comprehensive transportation network.
Policy Direction for Transportation Demand Management
Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies focus on measures that reduce the demand for new or expanded facilities and make the overall transportation system more efficient. Examples of TDM improvements include: signalization and signage; pedestrian-triggered signals; traffic calming devices; park-and-ride lots; parking management programs; and street improvements that facilitate transit, pedestrian and bicycle use. The following transportation demand strategies are directed.
The traffic calming principles directed by this Plan seek to maximize mobility while creating a more livable community. Taken together, they recognize that streets do not only serve the needs of motorists. Streets also allow for social interaction, walking, and cycling. This element directs the City to pursue strategies to reduce traffic flow and preserve the character of commercial and residential areas. The principle objective is to encourage motorists to slow down and pay more attention to pedestrians and bicyclists. Ultimately, these strategies should cause through traffic to choose alternate, more appropriate routes on arterial streets.
The application of specific strategies to individual streets should be carefully considered to ensure that the desired effect is achieved. Traffic calming strategies should be studied and included in the Street Standards prepared to partially implement this Comprehensive Plan. A process for neighborhoods to propose traffic calming measures, including funding, should also be described in the Street Standards. Examples of traffic calming strategies include:
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
|
o |
Transit & Park-&-Ride Promotion
The goals and policies of this element strive to promote the use of public transit. Since the City is not a provider of transit, it must work closely with Jefferson Transit to implement the transit LOS standards identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, the City should coordinate with Jefferson Transit to establish a TDM program to encourage the use of the Park-and-Ride facility and to reduce employee parking needs in the Downtown.
To encourage transit use, the City should identify support services and facilities that can be included in the options for mitigation of vehicle trips caused by development, especially in the Downtown, Gateway Corridor, and future high density commercial and mixed use areas. These facilities may include transit-supportive facilities, as well as bike lanes, sidewalks, street lights, and landscaped areas. Those areas of town which grow at a relatively low density, single-family residential development pattern, do not justify significant increases in transit service. However, new commercial and multi-family residential development, and especially public facilities, assisted living facilities, boarding houses, and group homes, should be designed to accommodate transit needs and services during site selection and site plan development.
The City should coordinate with the Washington-State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferry Division to carry out the recommendations of the Gateway Development Plan regarding ferry vehicle queuing and vehicle holding. In addition, the City and WSDOT should implement the parking and management recommendations of the 1993 WSDOT Report. Efforts to improve ferry and bus schedules are ongoing and should be supported by the City to increase mobility and to decrease the number of single occupancy vehicles arriving at the ferry dock. The City should also work with WSDOT and Jefferson Transit to develop transit service between Port Townsend and the Kingston ferry terminal.
The City should coordinate with the Port of Port Townsend to develop a moorage float and dock facility for' passenger ferries and other seasonal cruise boats at the Quincy Street dock facility. A head tax should be collected on vessels disembarking in Port Townsend. Revenues collected should be earmarked for pedestrian facility improvements in the Historic District.
The City should advocate the establishment of Port Townsend to Seattle passenger ferry service to support tourism and economic development, and should encourage WSDOT to study the feasibility of direct vehicle ferry service between Seattle and Port Townsend. [Ord. No. 2670, § 1.8 (December 7, 1998)].
Future parking management in Port Townsend should pursue a variety of alternative parking strategies, and should take into account the City's overall transportation system goals. This Plan encourages parking management control rather than costly public investment in building new parking lots. It also acknowledges that we cannot, and do not wish to, build enough parking lots to accommodate all cars.
The parking management strategy seeks a balance in providing adequate space for cars, but also provides incentives for people to use cars less frequently. It encourages the use of a shuttle bus for visitors or employees to the Historic Downtown, promotes TDM techniques, and explores new ideas to minimize potential environmental and community impacts by constructing smaller parking lots scattered throughout town. For the most part, however, the control of future transportation and parking problems must be addressed through strategic planning and proactive management involving the City, Jefferson Transit, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and business and property owners.
Parking problems are most apparent in the Downtown. It is unlikely that enough parking can be supplied to meet future demand. Accordingly, the Haines Street Park-and-Ride facility should become an essential part of the Downtown parking management strategy. In the short term, Jefferson Transit should initiate a visitor shuttle to and from the Park-and-Ride facility for summer tourist use. Over the long-term, the City should work with Jefferson Transit, WSDOT State Ferries Division and Main Street to increase the use of the Park-and-Ride facility by ferry walk-on passengers. Downtown and Port employees, and Downtown residents.
The City should amending the parking code to reduce off-street parking requirements for redevelopment and new development in the Commercial Historic District. Instead of inflexible standards which require the establishment of off-street parking spaces, the City's parking code should allow the use of alternative transportation modes, TDM techniques, and the required use of the Park-and-Ride facility, as options to providing new off-street parking spaces. This could be achieved through the use of maximum and minimum parking spaces or by reduced parking requirements for developments served by alternative modes (e.g., the use of the Park-and-Ride facility, installation of bike racks, etc.). Parking management strategies and parking code requirements should distinguish between areas where nonmotorized improvements are desired (i.e., the Commercial Historic District and future mixed use centers), and areas that are more auto-oriented (i.e., community commercial and manufacturing areas).
The preparation of new parking lot standards provides an important opportunity to limit the amount of additional impervious surfaces created by development within the City. Because new developments require hard surfaces that do not allow water to penetrate the ground, it is important to rethink traditional parking lot standards to achieve the goal of reducing impervious surfaces.
For example Port Townsend's current code requires that about 51% of commercial sites be developed for parking (not counting another 4% required for minimum landscaping requirements, such as a five foot landscape perimeter). Nearly 32% of each multi-family site is set aside for parking areas under the existing regulations. Reducing the design size of the paved areas within the community will reduce the amount of new impervious surfaces and help to protect the City's small town character.
|
1. Develop off-site parking, establish shuttle service, and expand transit service. |
|||
|
2. Develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities for access to, and travel within, the Downtown area. |
|||
|
San Juan Avenue |
1. Perform 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 three percent per year. |
|||
|
Sheridan Street |
Discovery Bay Road |
1. Establish a traffic monitoring program on Sheridan. Include a.m., p.m., 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 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 one and two 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 |
|||
|
2. Establish a 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 three 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, and connect new retail development to residential areas with bicycle routes). |
|||
|
Discovery Bay Road |
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. Acquire additional ROW width to permit future improvements. |
|||
|
3. Preserve ROW for four lanes, but avoid building to preserve roadway character. Build only if growth rate exceeds three percent per year. |
|||
|
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. |
|||
|
S.R. 20/Sims Way |
1. Follow recommendations of Gateway Development Plan (i.e., intersection improvements). |
||
|
Hastings Avenue |
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. |
||
TRANSPORTATION GOALS & POLICIES
The following goals, policies and implementation steps have their foundation in the PT 2020 Report, the Community Direction Statement contained in Chapter in of this Plan, and the efforts of the Transportation Citizen Workgroup.
Overall Transportation Goal: To develop a safe, integrated, multi-modal public and private transportation system for the efficient movement of people of all abilities and goods, with cost-effective facilities and minimum environmental impact.
Goal 1: To promote a balanced, affordable, reliable, convenient and efficient transportation system which supports the Land Use Element and Community Direction Statement of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1.1: Ensure that transportation system improvements are compatible with adjacent land uses. This includes developing routes for commercial vehicle traffic away from residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2: Encourage mixed-use centers that increase housing near commercial centers and promote multi- modes of travel.
Policy 1.3: Provide a transportation system network that enhances neighborhood development and infill.
Policy 1.4: Seek to locate new community facilities near transit routes and in areas convenient for easy access by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy 1.5: Design street and level of service (LOS) standards to serve a varied land use pattern, which includes higher standards for commercial areas and mixed-use centers, and lower standards for fringe areas.
Policy 1.6: Design roads and other transportation facilities to preserve as many trees as feasible and to contribute to an attractive visual image that retains our small town atmosphere.
Policy 1.7: Minimize air pollution and environmental impacts by promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation, reducing growth of auto traffic, maintaining acceptable traffic flow, and siting transportation routes so they do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy 1.8: Establish a street-use permit system for the private use of public street rights-of-way that includes appropriate criteria for uses, termination provisions, and annual fees.
Policy 1.9: Encourage uses in neighborhood mixed-use centers that promote "tele-commuting" and nonmotorized modes of transportation.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
Goal 2: To coordinate the planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and programs of Jefferson County, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Ferries Divisions, the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), the Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson Transit, and utility providers. [Ord. No. 2670, §1.9 (December 7, 1998)].
Policy 2.1: Continue to participate in the PRTPO for funding of regional transportation improvements and in the planning and implementation of the Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan.
Policy 2.2: Coordinate with affected agencies to design regional transportation systems to support urban growth within designated urban growth areas (UGAs).
Policy 2.3: Establish and maintain a joint City-County program for reviewing and resolving inter- jurisdictional transportation concerns in, or affecting. Port Townsend's UGA. Include representation from Jefferson Transit and the Port of Port Townsend. [Ord. No. 2670, §1.10 (December 7, 1998)].
Policy 2.4: Review and comment on all major land developments in Jefferson County which may affect the regional transportation system serving the City.
Policy 2.5: Coordinate transportation planning and improvements with the transportation and land use plans of Jefferson County, and cooperate with the County and Port of Port Townsend to identify opportunities to maximize benefits with limited financial resources.
Policy 2.6: Support the development of regional bicycle transportation corridors that link regional commercial and employment areas. This system does not supersede local bicycle planning efforts, but does demonstrate the need for continuity in design and implementation of bicycle facilities throughout the Quimper Peninsula area.
Goal 3: To provide a comprehensive arterial street system which provides adequate and efficient mobility and access to and within Port Townsend for residents, visitors and businesses.
Policy 3.1: The City's arterial street system shall be consistent with the adopted Land Use Map, and the Draft Arterial Street Plan should be used as a guide for development of the future arterial street system: 3.1.1 Adopt and implement the recommendations of the Draft Arterial Street Plan, except for those recommendations relating to the area lying north of Hastings Avenue and west of San Juan Avenue (i.e., the northwest quadrant).
3.1.2 Following adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, complete a public involvement process and study that reviews a range of collector/arterial options and recommends future road alignments for the area lying north of Hastings Avenue and west of San Juan Avenue, (i.e., include the recommendations of the Draft Arterial Street Plan and a "no action" alternative as options for review). At a minimum, the study should take into consideration the following:
a. Land use and zoning designations as modified by this Comprehensive Plan;
b. The presence of ESAs, including steep slopes, wetlands, and drainage corridors;
c. Projected future traffic generation, both at the end of the 20 year planning horizon, and at build-out; and
d. Possible changes in travel behavior, including the use of alternative modes.
3.1.3 Integrate the selection of a "preferred" option for road alignments in the northwest quadrant with the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan.
3.1.4 Pending the completion of the process and study outlined in policy 3.1.2 above, use Figure VI-1 on page VI-14 as a guide to preserve options for possible future road alignments by:
a. Requiring rights-of-way of adequate width as a condition of development approval in currently unplatted areas;
b. Requiring appropriate setbacks along possible future road alignments as a condition of development approval; and
c. Limiting driveways and other access points onto possible future road alignments as a condition of development approval.
Policy 3.2: Maintain or attain traffic flow through arterial and collector intersections at an established minimum level of service for each street classification to minimize traffic congestion.
3.2.1 Adopt arterial level of service standards that focus on measures of mobility and promote the use of transit, rideshare programs, and nonmotorized travel modes.
3.2.2 Assure that arterial level of service standards reflect the existing and planned development patterns and land use growth objectives envisioned for the various planning sub-areas of the City.
Policy 3.3: Utilities should be placed underground as arterial street improvements are made.
Policy 3.4: Provide adequate setbacks for residential uses along arterials to protect adjoining properties from noise, dust, and traffic safety impacts.
Policy 3.5: Provide safe and attractive sidewalks or pedestrian pathways and bike lanes on both sides of all arterials.
Policy 3.6: Develop a Concurrency Management Strategy for the City's arterial street system that will guide future programming and administration of the arterial system.
Policy 3.7: Enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing driveways on all arterials. Where driveways are allowed, require joint use at property lines, when feasible.
Policy 3.8: Design arterial streets to fit the character of the areas through which they pass. Develop scenic arterial street standards for certain areas of town, (e.g., Cook Avenue).
Policy 3.9: Follow the recommendations described in the Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan to fund and construct S.R. 20 improvements. Aggressively pursue funding from federal, state, and private sources for these improvements.
Policy 3.10: Street lights and on-street lighting should balance aesthetic and safety concerns with economic considerations including operations and maintenance costs.
Policy 3.11: Construct on-site lighting to assure that direct light emitted above the horizontal is minimized. On-site lighting should be hooded and shielded so that it is directed to the project site and so that direct light does not impact adjacent property.
Policy 3.12: Provide street lights commensurate with the neighborhood and ultimate level of density based upon the following prioritized criteria:
a. Enhancement of pedestrian and vehicular safety;
b. Existing and projected traffic volumes;
c. Location of school or transit stops;
d. High density land uses;
e. Proximity to nearest intersection; and
f. Other relevant state, federal, local or utility design requirements.
Policy 3.13: Encourage streets that promote the small town character of the community by preserving existing vegetation or by providing street trees.
Policy 3.14: Encourage the establishment of planting strips with adequate width for appropriate vegetation, including street trees (i.e., 5 feet or more in height) as an integral part of street construction or reconstruction.
Policy 3.15: Develop recommendations regarding tree and vegetation retention and management within City rights-of-way.
Goal 4: To develop a fully integrated local street system which accommodates various transportation modes depending upon individual neighborhood characteristics.
Policy 4.1: Establish street development standards for City streets that reflect a reasonable balance between initial expense and long-term operations and maintenance costs.
Policy 4.2: Incorporate street standards for transportation facilities that safely accommodate:
a. Drainage and other utilities;
b. Neighborhood motor vehicle traffic and parking;
c. Emergency and service vehicles;
d. Pedestrians;
e. Bicycles;
f. Mail boxes;
g. Garbage and recycling services;
h. Public transportation access
i. Street Lights; and
j. Street trees.
Policy 4.3: Encourage the use of "narrow streets" to help retain the City's small town atmosphere and to minimize the amount of paved area to reduce construction costs, storm water runoff and heat buildup. The level of service for collectors, local access roads or residential streets should reflect a balance between safety, efficiency, and the maintenance of small town character.
Policy 4.4: Ensure that the City's street development standards result in safe streets and are compatible with the standards contained in the State Department of Transportation (i.e., DOT) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Policy 4.5: Encourage local access and residential traffic only on local streets to minimize traffic noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. Discourage through access by installing traffic calming devices and/or by allowing certain streets to remain unopened to motor vehicles.
Policy 4.6: Designate certain viewpoint street ends and, where appropriate, provide signs, benches and safety barriers to encourage public use and to prevent encroachment from neighboring residents.
Policy 4.7: Allow street closures (or do not allow some streets to be opened) in certain areas so the street grid is broken in an effort to promote more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Streets designated to be closed or to remain unopened should be identified within the Nonmotorized Plan.
Policy 4.8: Encourage applicants for new subdivisions and PUDs to build streets on a grid or a modified grid pattern. If cul-de-sacs are used, require that cul-de-sacs connect to on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and provide for a sufficient number of thoroughfares (connections to arterials, collectors or feeders) for public transit and emergency access.
Nonmotorized Transportation - Pedestrian & Bicycle Systems
Goal 5: To create a safe and convenient environment for walking and bicycling through the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities which are integrated with roads and other transportation facilities.
Policy 5.1: Adopt and implement the Draft Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan to guide development of pedestrian and bicyclist improvements.
Policy 5.2: Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle use on all developed public street rights-of-way, consistent with adopted street standards.
Policy 5.3: Provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a system of facilities, incentives, and services, that fully support trip-making connections between residential areas, employment centers, shopping, recreational facilities, schools, public transit and other public services within the City. The City should develop a safe and convenient environment for walking and bicycling by:
a. Physically separating pedestrian and vehicle (including bicycles) traffic:
b. Encouraging separated internal pedestrian circulation systems in new or redeveloping commercial-retail districts;
c. Developing policies that address conditions warranting illumination of a street crossing;
d. Providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) approved wheelchair ramps and other aids to enhance safe mobility of the handicapped;
e. Giving special consideration to pedestrian and bicyclist opportunities in school, park, sports and commercial areas; and
f. Developing a City-wide sidewalk/pathway plan including on and off-road trails to establish safe integration of bicycle and pedestrian circulation.
Policy 5.4: Safe, convenient walkways and bike lanes should be required in proximity to all arterials and collectors and other streets near multi-family and commercial development.
Policy 5.5: Walkways and bikeways should be required where appropriate in planned unit development (PUD), subdivision and plat approvals.
Policy 5.6: Encourage pedestrian access to the transit system by providing safe, convenient walkways and crosswalks on streets near transit stops.
Policy 5.7: Require walk lights and bicycle activated signal detection at traffic control signals.
Policy 5.8: Encourage bicycling as an alternative to single-occupancy automobile travel by promoting employer provision of bicycle facilities at employment sites and bicycling access to and on transit facilities.
Policy 5.9: Earmark sufficient and dedicated funding for construction of nonmotorized system improvements through programs such as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Local Improvement District (LID), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Neighborhood Enhancement Programs or as part of new residential or commercial development.
Policy 5.10: Establish and adopt design and maintenance standards as part of the Nonmotorized Plan to ensure that the implementation and maintenance of nonmotorized improvements are coordinated and consistent in design and construction.
Policy 5.11: Where practical, redevelop or upgrade existing primary City roadways as bicycle routes to promote bicycle travel, consistent with the Bicycle System Plan.
Policy 5.12: With the City as an active partner, pursue limited improvement districts (LIDs) or business improvement districts (BDDs), to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Policy 5.13: Prepare a "safest route to school" map to assure that safety and accident prevention for pedestrian and bicycle travel to school receives the highest consideration. The City and School District should jointly prepare the map and work together in the design and construction of transportation facilities in and adjacent to school zones. The safest route to school should include transportation facilities that:
a. Provide pedestrian pathways on streets connecting to, or within, the school zone, and pedestrian facilities that are physically separated from vehicle and bicycle traffic;
b. Locate appropriate signs to alert motorists entering school zones;
c. Install adequate lighting facilities along roadways and pathways;
d. Use appropriate traffic-calming devices in school zones;
e. Establish crosswalks in areas of good sight visibility, lighting and proximity to connecting modes;
f. Provide bike facilities that accommodate a range of bicycle skills; and
g. Promote safe and convenient pedestrian and nonmotorized access to bus transportation.
Policy 5.14: Develop educational programs that promote awareness of the "safest route to school." The Police Department and School District should provide "hands-on" training for the safe use of bikeways and pathways as well as vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic controls such as stop signs, signals, and crossing guards.
Policy 5.15: The development of the Nonmotorized Plan should consider the following locational criteria:
a. Safest route to school;
b. Directness;
c. Access points;
d. Available width;
e. Automobile parking on-street;
f. Number of delays;
g. Traffic volumes;
h. Truck and bus traffic;
i. Barriers and grades resulting from surface topography;
j. Pavement surfaces;
k. Maintenance costs;
l. Environmental compatibility;
m. User conflicts;
n. Security;
o. Cost/finding;
p. Vehicular accident history of associated streets where possible; and
q. Vehicle crossings and driveways.
Policy 5.16: Adopt the following definitions for nonmotorized ways based upon the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual 1989:
a. Bikeways: Any trail, path, part of a highway or shoulder, sidewalk, or any other travel way specifically signed and/or marked for bicycles;
b. Class I Bike-way (Bike Path): A separate trail for the principal use of bicycles;
c. Class II Bike-way (Bike Lanes): A portion of a street designated by signs and/or pavement markings for preferential bicycle use;
d. Class III Bike-way (Bike Route): A street designated with signs as a bicycle route and is shared with other transportation modes;
e. Class IV Bike-way (Shared Roadway with No designation): A publicly maintained street that is not designated with signs and/or pavement markings as a bikeway but is accessible to bicyclists;
f. Equestrian Trail: Any designated trail on which horses are permitted to travel;
g. Pedestrian Walkway: A continuous way designated for pedestrians and separated from : the through lanes for motor vehicles by a physical barrier or space;
h. Sidewalk: Sidewalks are paved, parallel, and adjacent to streets and normally used for utility placement purposes; and
i. Water Trail: A water-oriented trail which provides a designated route to, on, or along fresh and/or salt water in which the water is the primary point of interest.
Policy 5.17: Review all development proposals and street development permit applications for conformance with the Open Space and Trails and Nonmotorized plans. Designated open space and trails should be preserved or acceptable locations provided. New developments should provide connections to the open space and trail system.
Policy 5.18: Establish nonmotorized transportation links between public facilities, and commercial and higher density residential areas.
Policy 5.19: Designate certain right-of-way corridors for nonmotorized use only. Streets designated as "not to be opened" should be preserved as open space, utility easements or part of the nonmotorized transportation network.
Policy 5.20: Establish pedestrian walkway widths, types and materials to accommodate varying levels of pedestrian traffic and to ensure that streets are "pedestrian friendly" depending upon the district in which the use occurs.
Policy 5.21: Coordinate with Jefferson Transit to ensure that park-and-ride facilities are functioning as multi-modal stations linked directly to the nonmotorized network.
Policy 5.22: Commercial or mixed use project designs should consider internal pathway linkages to other pathways and adjacent uses.
Policy 5.23: Bike lanes designated as per Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and Washington State Department of Transportation (ASHTO/WSDOT) requirements shall be maintained to the same level as the motor vehicle travel lane portion of the roadway.
Policy 5.24: Adopt the following transportation classification to facilitate development of nonmotorized transportation facilities:
a. Bikeways:
Class III (Bike Routes - Designated and Mapped);
Class IV (Bike Routes - Mapped Only);
b. Pedestrian Pathways:
c. Mixed Use Connections (connecting to larger system):
Mixed Use Recreational: Includes pedestrian, bike, equestrian; and
Urban (defined by concrete or asphalt, and uses, for example roller blading).
Goal 6: To encourage adoption of land use regulations and strategies that promote transit and ferry use and links to alternative modes.
Policy 6.1: Encourage zero foot frontage setbacks for commercial uses on streets with bus facilities to encourage transit use. Locate parking in the rear or to the sides of buildings.
Policy 6.2: Require street level pedestrian uses in buildings m commercial, office, or mixed-use centers with bus routes and nearby bus facilities to stimulate activity and interest.
Policy 6.3: In areas where growth is expected, but bus service is not yet available, bus/pedestrian serviceable site plans should be required for new subdivisions, planned unit developments (PUDs), and commercial and multi-family housing developments so that bus and pedestrian use is practical when it becomes available.
Policy 6.4: Use this Transportation Element and the Jefferson Transit Comprehensive Plan as the basis for establishing future transit routes.
Policy 6.5: Whenever feasible, new development and redevelopment shall be required to incorporate transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly design elements and features.
Policy 6.6: Encourage public transit as a preferred mode of visitor travel to and from Downtown and other major visitor destinations within the City and region, through the use of the Park-and-Ride transit facility.
Policy 6.7: Promote the use of the Park-and-Ride facility to serve employees in the Commercial Historic A District, Boat Haven District, and other designated activity and employment centers in the City and County in order to intercept trips by single-occupant vehicles, thereby reducing traffic and parking congestion.
Policy 6.8: Coordinate transit and ferry schedules to increase the use of the Haines Street Park-and-Ride facility for ferry walk-on passengers and other long-term users.
Policy 6.9: As appropriate, provide needed infrastructure to support public and private transit-oriented development.
Policy 6.10: In coordination with Jefferson Transit, establish standards within development regulations that identify when transit-supportive improvements (e.g., pull outs, shelters, and appropriate pedestrian access to transit facilities) will be required for new commercial, residential, and public facility stops along established or planned transit routes. In the preparation of development regulations, consider the following:
a. Requiring all new residential developments of five or more dwelling units to provide appropriate transit-supportive improvements;
b. Requiring all new commercial buildings equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in size to provide appropriate transit-supportive improvements; and
c. Conditioning all roadway construction within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned route to incorporate transit-supportive improvements.
Policy 6.11: Promote transportation demand management (TDM) programs among large employers and employment centers to encourage transit, ride sharing and nonmotorized travel.
Policy 6.12: Encourage the Jefferson Transit and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division to design and provide facilities that foster bicycle use through:
a. Provision of secure bicycle parking at park-and-ride lots, stations and employment centers;
b. Accommodation of bicycles on bus routes where designated as part of bicycle route system: and
c. Design future vessels and vehicles to safely accommodate bicycles.
Policy 6.13: Support the expansion of passenger-only ferry services from Port Townsend to other Puget Sound urban areas as well as the San Juan Islands and Victoria, B.C., and cooperate with state and federal governments and the Province of British Columbia to explore the feasibility of direct ferry service from Port Townsend to these locations.
Policy 6.14: Encourage handicapped accessible improvements that meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on the Washington State Port Townsend-Keystone Ferry.
Policy 6.15: Coordinate with the WSDOT Ferries Division and Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) to set a level of service (LOS) standard for the Port Townsend- Keystone ferry. The City should encourage a LOS standard of a one-boat wait on weekdays and a two-boat wait on weekends.
Policy 6.16: Petition the WSDOT Ferries Division to study alternatives relating to parking needs for short- term and long-term ferry and vehicle queuing operations. In conjunction with the City and Jefferson Transit, the WSDOT Ferries Division should:
a. Examine and implement operational improvements that would reduce the impacts on the Port Townsend Police Department;
b. Promote the use of Jefferson Transit's Park-and-Ride facility for walk-on ferry passengers and long-term parking patrons (this should include the coordination of transit/ferry schedules); and
c. Study ferry queuing alternatives to mitigate traffic congestion and safety hazards on S.R. 20/Water Street, including:
(i) Expansion of ferry terminal to alleviate on-street queuing impacts:
(ii) The acquisition and development of Indian Point by WSDOT Ferries Division for use as an off-street holding area for queuing of ferry traffic; and
(iii) Alternatives to existing ferry queuing lane to add vehicle holding capacity.
Goal 7: To encourage City, Transit and private interests to establish coordinated parking strategies to achieve overall transportation goals and to ensure that parking standards do not act as a deterrent to new development or redevelopment.
Policy 7.1: Encourage private developers to address parking demand by participating in the cost of shared parking facilities, agreement with others for the joint use of parking spaces and through the use of bicycles, carpools, transit, and the Park-and-Ride facility.
Policy 7.2: Encourage private and public employers to provide bicycle parking facilities on or near their properties.
Policy 7.3: Develop and implement reduced parking requirements in order to: encourage new development and the adaptive reuse of historic structures; limit the construction of new impervious surfaces; and provide for parking needs.
7.3.1 Review, and where appropriate, reduce off-street parking requirements for new commercial development.
7.3.2 Reduce parking requirements to provide incentives for the revitalization, adaptive reuse, and preservation of existing historic structures within the Downtown Parking District and commercial zones lying within the National Register Historic District.
7.3.3 Distinguish between areas where nonmotorized transportation should be encouraged as a top priority (i.e., the National Register Historic District), and areas that are likely to be more auto-oriented (i.e., the Gateway Commercial District).
Policy 7.4: Implement parking strategies that maximize the ability for the greatest number of people to use the Downtown, emphasizing the accommodation of "person trips" rather than automobile parking places, thereby minimising adverse traffic and parking impacts on the Commercial Historic District.
Policy 7.5: Develop a Parking Management Plan that encourages short-term and discourages long-term (i.e., 4 or more hours) parking in the Commercial Historic District and other commercial areas, to ensure vital retail activities.
Policy 7.6: Property owners should be responsible for providing parking and for managing parking demand generated at the site, to avoid any spill-over parking on neighboring properties and streets.
Policy 7.7: Develop parking lot design standards that assure pedestrian friendly parking facilities by f providing protected pedestrian links between parking facilities and employment and other service centers, arterials, transit facilities, and green space.
Policy 7.8: New and redeveloped residential areas should be planned to accommodate adequate off-street parking. This will encourage narrower streets.
Policy 7.9: Parking and driveways should be prohibited on arterial streets unless a determination is made that adequate right-of-way exists to provide mobility, safety and alternative modes of transportation.
Policy 7.10: Develop and promote incentive programs that enable property owners to reduce parking demand.
Policy 7.11: Ensure that off-street parking continues to be the primary source of parking supply for mixed use centers and commercial corridors within the City.
Policy 7.12: Continue to maintain existing on-street parking in neighborhoods where off-street parking in neighborhoods is inadequate, by protecting parking first for residents, and second for customers and visitors.
Policy 7.13: Manage the supply and location of off-street parking in commercial areas to support a balance of travel modes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7.14: Consider parking pricing policies for on-street parking to reduce parking impacts in the Downtown and to promote alternative transportation modes (e.g., Park-and-Ride facility, bicycles, etc.).
Level of Service (LOS) & Concurrency Management
Goal 8: To set an appropriate level of service to reduce traffic congestion and to increase the efficiency and safety of the overall transportation system by maximizing the use of existing facilities.
Policy 8.1: New streets must be constructed to City street standards.
Policy 8.2: The City should adopt a clearly defined and consistent policy describing which existing facilities are maintained by the City. There should be four categories of streets:
a. Arterials and collectors;
b. Accepted streets;
c. Not accepted streets with past obligations; and
d. Not accepted streets with no maintenance obligation.
Those substandard streets that the City has maintained in the past, shall be maintained as lowest priority. If existing streets are not listed as maintained by the City but are not safe to carry emergency access vehicles, the City may assess residents to maintain the street.
Policy 8.3: Ensure that any transportation improvements or strategies required to mitigate impacts are constructed or financed concurrent with development or require either a construction or financial commitment for the necessary improvements within six years of the date a permit is issued.
Policy 8.4: Establish and implement a Concurrency Management System to monitor the level of service standards. This process includes:
a. Monitoring level of service standards and providing adequate funding;
b. Rationing transportation capacity during the development approval process;
c. Monitoring available transportation capacity with:
(i) Development approvals;
(ii) Traffic Counts;
(iii) Public safety response times;
(iv) Complaints;
(v) Revenue collections;
(vi) Transportation model runs; and
d. Analyzing external influences on concurrency management system, including nonmotorized travel.
Policy 8.5: Adopt and implement level of service (LOS) standards on roads, that generally correspond to level of service D (LOS D). Recognize that maintaining this level of service will result in some peak-hour auto congestion, especially during peak tourist days. However, this LOS will minimize transportation facility costs, promote a shift to alternate modes, and minimize long term negative environmental and community impacts.
Policy 8.6: If traffic from a proposed development causes degradation of City-owned roads below the planned road level of service (LOS D), or causes unacceptable community and environmental impacts, the developer will be required to adequately mitigate these negative impacts or a development permit cannot be issued.
Policy 8.7: Establish a LOS for public transportation that provides a minimum of 4,800 annual transit revenue service hours provided for trip origins and destinations in Port Townsend (i.e., this is the equivalent of Jefferson Transit's 1994 fixed route circulator routes on weekdays and one on weekends). As a minimum planning guideline, the City should have seven-tenths of an hour of in-town transit service per citizen per year. This should increase to one hour of service per citizen per year by 2020. (Note: This guideline is not to be used for concurrency purposes).
Policy 8.8: The City should study and consider setting a level of service standard for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. [Ord. No. 2879, § 3.1, (February 7, 2005)].
Goal 9: To preserve long-term options for the future public use of public rights-of-way.
Policy 9.1: Encourage the use of existing, underused, or undeveloped street rights-of-way to provide nonmotorized public access.
Policy 9.2: Set aside specific unopened rights-of-way for greenways, regional stormwater drainage facilities, and pedestrian access on trails.
Policy 9.3: Take advantage of integrated corridors such as transmission lines, unopened street rights-of-way, and other public lands for trail or bicycle path connections.
Policy 9.4: Use the following criteria to consider if public rights-of-way should be vacated or left unimproved:
a. Street continuity and property access;
b. Future utility needs, including stormwater facilities, and capital facilities plans;
c. Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Elements, as well as the overall Comprehensive Plan; and
d. Preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy 9.5: Prohibit the vacation of street-ends that abut shoreline areas or marine bluffs. Preserve these areas for public access and public viewpoints.
Policy 9.6: Earmark street vacation monies to a reserved transportation system improvement account for the purchase of rights-of-way or transportation facility easements.
Policy 9.7: Discourage street vacations until the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan is adopted, in order not to forgo future public use opportunities.
Policy 9.8: Seek to eliminate the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides on City-owned land and rights- of-way.
Goal 10: To raise revenue to fund planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of needed transportation system improvements.
Policy 10.1: Ensure that the City's six-year Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Program is coordinated and consistent with the City's Transportation Element.
Policy 10.2: Secure adequate long-term funding sources for transportation through a variety of methods. These methods may include, but are not limited to:
a. Encouraging public/private partnerships and/or cost sharing agreements for financing transportation projects that remedy existing transportation problems, or that foster economic growth in Port Townsend (this private sector involvement may include: Transportation Demand Management programs. Negotiated Transportation Agreements and/or small area plans where developers provide transportation improvements such as integrated transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections into new developments, and mitigation payment systems such as impact fees);
b. Encouraging the use of local improvement districts (LIDs) by property owners to upgrade roads to meet City road standards or "Benefit Area Improvement District" financing for transportation improvements where local benefits are clearly identified;
c. Requiring impact mitigation payments through a concurrency management system;
d. Seeking funding from the federal or state sources, such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program, the Transportation Improvement Account (TIA), and the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF);
e. Exploring the establishment of a street utility fund; provided that:
(i) The fund is used for the operation and development of transportation facilities and programs; and
(ii) Policies and a budget are established for the allocation of funds raised by the utility, and at least 25% of the revenues generated from the utility are earmarked for nonmotorized transportation system improvements;
f. Earmarking monies received from street vacations for the purchase of rights of-way; and
g. Impact fees that require new development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements, based on its proportionate share of the impact. [Ord. No. 2670, §1.11 (December 7, 1998)].
Policy 10.3: Transportation improvements and expenditures should be prioritized according to the following ranking:
a. Projects that correct safety hazards in the transportation system, with the highest priority given to the safest routes to school;
b. Projects that maximize local transportation revenue sources by using (obtaining) federal or grant monies;
c. Projects that are coordinated with other construction activities such as City projects relating to stormwater, water or wastewater utilities as well as projects which coordinate with other private or public utilities (e.g., Puget Power, US West, etc.);
d. Projects that incorporate nonmotorized improvements or transportation demand techniques with street Improvements; and
e. Projects that correct roadways with high maintenance costs that are prioritized according to a pavement management system.
Policy 10.4: Normal maintenance and street repair should generally be funded from revenues received from gas tax monies and from associated utility funds (e.g., stormwater) in relation to the benefits received by that utility for improvements made to the utility during maintenance and repair work.
Policy 10.5: Thirty-five percent (35%) of the revenues generated from the (two) one-quarter percent real estate excise tax funds should be reserved for nonmotorized projects.
Policy 10.6: Cost of establishment, improvement and/or maintenance of City streets, sidewalks, trails and other transportation facilities should be equitably shared by those most likely to benefit from these improvements.
Policy 10.7: Ensure that the City's participation in a local improvement district (LID) is proportionate to the benefits derived for the general public.
Goal 11: To develop a comprehensive transportation system through public and private financing strategies, development regulations and concurrency, transportation demand management (TDM) and other incentive programs.
Policy 11.1: Review all rezones and Plan amendments to ensure consistency with the Transportation Element and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 11.2: Develop standards and criteria that allow for the consistent and predictable review of street development applications. The criteria shall include adequate flexibility to preserve natural features and trees where possible.
Policy 11.3: Establish a street standards variance process that includes specific criteria which address unique circumstances associated with a proposed street development.
Policy 11.4: Proceed with the development of a coordinated TDM Program to be adopted by the City with involvement of Jefferson Transit and the private sector.
Policy 11.5: Develop a TDM Implementation Plan that includes, at a minimum, the following strategies:
a. Parking management programs for the Commercial Historic District and new developments that provide incentives for encouraging park-and-ride use and nonmotorized travel;
b. Transportation management and support services to enhance transit use;
c. Demand management regulation to create an environment in which arterials and collectors can operate more efficiently;
d. Monitoring and program evaluation to assess the success of various strategies and to determine how well each program is achieving its target goals;
e. Study and encouragement of tele-commuting as a TDM strategy; and
f. Development and implementation of a comprehensive public education and community involvement program aimed at more efficient use of the City's transportation system, and long-term changes in travel behavior that will minimize the need for road building programs.
Policy 11.6: Prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance as part of the City's concurrency management system. Incorporate TDM actions as impact mitigation measures for development.
A description of land use assumptions used in estimating travel is contained in the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996.
Please refer to footnote # 1 above.
An analysis of funding capability and a multi-year financing plan is contained within the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of this Comprehensive Plan {set Chapter VII).