The citizens of Port Townsend wish to create a safe and pleasant environment for walking and bicycling by: maintaining existing pedestrian walkways and bikeways, extending the network through City-sponsored projects and private development, and prioritizing our efforts according to safety needs and affordability.
David L. Peterson, City Engineer, Project Director
Eric R. Toews, Eric R. Toews and Associates
This excerpt from the community direction statement of the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation on which this Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was developed. It describes a community that invites us to walk or ride a bicycle to its many desirable destinations.
Through the extensive community involvement surrounding the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan it became clear that an extensive, integrated, and safe non-motorized system was a high priority for the residents of Port Townsend. This plan endeavors to respond to the values and desires of the community by establishing the framework for this system.
The purpose of this Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is to guide and promote the development of improved facilities for pedestrians (including those in wheelchairs), bicyclists, and transit users. It is first and foremost a transportation plan that seeks to identify a network of pedestrian walkways, and bikeways to connect neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, and other destinations. Enhancement of recreational opportunities is a secondary benefit that accrues from this Plan. The Plan is intended to be broad in scope addressing the needs of residents and visitors, workers and recreational users.
The Committee members, who helped draft this Plan, recognized that we all rely to some degree on the automobile. The intent of this plan is to provide a broader range of transportation choices and to make roadways safer for everyone. The street system and the non-motorized network must work in parallel. Among the benefits of an improved non-motorized system are: reduced traffic congestion, reduced need to expand roadway systems, reduced environmental impacts, and improved health, safety, and tourism.
As the vision statement was taken from the Comprehensive Plan, so too are the goals for the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. They are taken directly from three Comprehensive Plan sections: the overall transportation goal, the open space and trails goal, and the non-motorized goal itself.
The Comprehensive Plan includes extensive policy and discussion related to non-motorized issues. This Non- Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to incorporate this direction, and to create an implementation plan that reflects its Comprehensive Plan heritage. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are cited related to non-motorized facilities are included in Appendix E. The following list summarizes overall direction given by the Comprehensive Plan.
♦ Provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a system of facilities, incentives, and services, that fully support trip- making connections between residential areas, employment centers, shopping, recreational facilities, schools, public transit and other public services
♦ Support trip-making by developing an integrated City-wide sidewalk/pathway plan including on and off-road trails to establish safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation.
♦ Develop a safe and convenient environment for walking and bicycling by physically separating pedestrian and vehicle traffic
♦ Provide for safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian use on all public streets and rights-of-way.
♦ Establish non-motorized transportation links between public facilities, commercial areas, and higher density residential areas.
♦ Design the trail system to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, cultural resources, shoreline access areas, and employment centers.
♦ Prepare a "Safest Route to School" map to ensure that safety and accident prevention for pedestrian and bicycle travel to school receives the highest consideration.
♦ Design trails to be accessible to people with disabilities where topography will allow.
♦ Identify existing unopened street rights-of-way, utility corridors, and drainage corridors for use in developing the trails system.
♦ Locate trails in areas that are important to preserve as open spaces, such as wooded areas, drainage corridors, shorelines, and scenic vistas.
♦ Walkways and bike lanes should be required in proximity to all arterials, collectors, and streets near multi-family and commercial development.
♦ Require new development and redevelopment to incorporate transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly design elements.
♦ Establish and adopt design and maintenance standards as part of the Non-Motorized Plan to ensure that the implementation and maintenance of nonmotorized improvements are coordinated and consistent in design and construction.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan describes a city-wide transportation system that links residential neighborhoods with commercial districts and recreational facilities. Connections to facilities outside the city limits are also included. Key features that were considered include: access to Fort Worden, walk routes to school, improved facilities on major arterial and collector streets, the urban waterfront, existing off-road trails, and open space corridors. Access to and along the waterfront is of particular interest and requires coordination with the Port of Port Townsend. Opportunities also exist to coordinate routes and amenities with the Jefferson Land Trust along the proposed wildlife corridor and other open space areas.
The plan considers the future development of new commercial retail and mixed-use centers to serve neighborhoods and anticipates additional traffic volumes on many roads as the population of the City expands in the next 20 years.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to accommodate a broad range of users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and both residents and visitors. The plan addresses the needs of those who walk or bike as part of their daily routine, those who are more occasional or recreational users, and those who walk or bike to public transit. The skill level and abilities of users are considered with particular attention given to the needs of children and less able individuals.
This plan identifies existing, as well as future corridors, for pedestrian and bikeway connections. A primary consideration in outlining the plan was the availability of public rights-of-way. Port Townsend is fortunate to have extensive rights-of-way dedicated through the historical platting of land. Approximately 30 per cent of the total land area in the City is platted as public rights-of-way. Where possible the connections proposed in this plan are located in these rights-of-way. The plan indicates rights-of-way that are to be preserved for non-motorized use. While these are desired routes to remain unopened to vehicles, it is recognized that property owners have a right to access their property and rights-of-way to be preserved for trails cannot block access to a property. The City will work with property owners to minimize the intrusion of roads into the off-road non-motorized network.
♦ Working with new development to explain the benefits of incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian connections
♦ Establishing pedestrian and/or bikeway connections as a mitigating measure for the impacts of property development
This Plan presents a long-term vision for the development of a logical and comprehensive non-motorized transportation network. It will take many years to see the full results of this planning effort. The overall vision of the Plan is designed to mesh with the city- wide buildout in 40 years or more at densities established by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This Plan sets the framework for a city-wide non-motorized system, but also recognizes that needs and conditions will change over time.
While this Plan includes a detailed list of non-motorized needs as identified by the non-motorized committee, specific facility improvements recommended in this plan are aimed at a 10-year implementation period. As many of the facilities envisioned are related to the development of private property, incremental development of facilities will continue over a much longer period. The City will endeavor to act as a catalyst by providing key pieces of the system. Though the system will develop gradually, a major goal of the participants in the planning process is to see some immediate and visible outcomes of the plan.
The City will pursue a number of approaches to implementing the plan. Small scale projects such as sidewalk infill, curb ramp installations, and spot improvements will be done with City funds dedicated to non-motorized improvements as outlined in this plan. Larger scale projects that have broad appeal or solve safety concerns will most likely be funded through grant funds. The City has been successful in acquiring pedestrian improvement grants, particularly for walk routes to school.
Private property development will also play a role in the development of a non-motorized network. Individual homeowners may be required to install or repair sections of sidewalk. Some improvements could come through the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). Larger development projects may include pedestrian walkways or bikeways as an amenity or to mitigate the impact of the development. For the private developer, the walkway and bikeway system plans give guidance on how their project will connect to, and form part of a larger non-motorized system.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan builds on a rich heritage of community participation in the planning process. This plan considers and is intended to integrate with existing plans which have some bearing on pedestrian or bicycle issues. The following is a summary of plans and facilities which have provided direction for this plan.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the community vision and provides the overall policy direction for the development of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. It includes a land use plan that guides future development and identifies potential open space corridors along which trails may follow. The Comprehensive Plan defines the character, scale and relationship of uses that support walking and bicycling as a form of transportation.
The zoning map, adopted in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, is a vital element in the consideration of a non-motorized network. The map designates commercial, manufacturing, mixed-use, and high density residential areas which may be candidates for non-motorized transportation improvements.
This plan was developed to provide urban design guidelines in an area of rapid change and growth. The plan addresses use of public and private space, height and bulk of structures, housing, open space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and connections to adjacent neighborhoods.
A major component of the plan is the Waterwalk. The goal of the Waterwalk, as stated in the plan, is to "provide and maintain a safe, convenient, community-oriented public access way along the water's edge. The Waterwalk is a coordinated system of connected pathways, sidewalks, passageways between buildings, and shoreline access points that increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for walking and chances for personal discoveries along Port Townsend's Urban Waterfront."
This plan defines a vision for the Sims Way Corridor. In addition to improving the visual quality and enhancing the economic vitality of the area, one of the primary goals of this plan is "to provide a safe corridor to and through the community for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles."
♦ Consolidating vehicular access lanes to minimize traffic crossing and improve safety conditions
♦ Creating a pedestrian "hillclimb" in the unopened Jefferson Street rights-of-way from Kearney to Walker Street
Jefferson Transit provides fixed-route bus service within the City of Port Townsend, and provides connections to the Quimper Peninsula and beyond. This Non-Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to promote convenient access to all transit stops.
The Arterial Street Plan proposes street classifications and locations of future roads. Street classifications will impact the location and types of non-motorized facilities associated with city streets. The Arterial Street Plan was adopted within the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, except for the northwest quadrant of the city where streets rights-of-way are to be preserved on an interim basis for potential future arterials.
In response to the Comprehensive Plan, a set of Engineering Design Standards has been adopted. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan makes recommendations for modifications to some of these standards.
A preliminary draft of a Non-Motorized plan was prepared in 1993, but was never adopted. Much of the work in that draft was incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan Policy.
The Larry Scott Memorial Park will connect Port Townsend with the greater Quimper Peninsula, and the Olympic Discovery Trail. The first phase of the park was built in 1998, along the abandoned railroad line between Mill Road and the Boat Haven. Access to the Boat Haven is provided by an easement granted by the Port of Port Townsend. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan recognizes the linear park as an important transportation and recreation link to Jefferson County, and seeks to provide convenient access and connections to the trail.
The Wildlife Corridor Project identifies a series of wetlands and open space in the northwest area of the city that provide critical habitat for native flora and fauna. Jefferson Land Trust seeks to protect these areas through a number of strategies that would minimize disturbance of the wildlife corridor. The Non- Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to harmonize its objectives with the goals of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project. Facilities will be planned to be compatible and of low impact and some areas of the corridor will be avoided entirely. This plan attempts to minimize the number of paths crossing the corridor.
The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan inventoried existing parks and recreation resources, and made specific recommendations for proposed park development and maintenance of facilities. Among its many references to the need for trail facilities, the plan summarizes that, "The City must plan for a comprehensive trail system to accommodate the recreational and safety needs of all. This system will connect neighborhoods with each other, recreational areas, viewpoints, commercial districts, and regional trail systems, while limiting conflict between different users. Greenways respecting wildlife will be incorporated wherever possible."
In the early 1980's a master plan for Kah Tai lagoon had as one of its components the provision of walking and jogging trails compatible with the wildlife habitat, and the provision of handicap access to some of the eastern perimeter of the lagoon. A 1983 IAC grant allowed for construction of these facilities which are maintained by the City of Port Townsend Parks Department.
The Park and Recreation Functional Plan (1997) was developed concurrently with the Non-Motorized Plan. The Park Plan establishes potential locations for new parks that will need non- motorized access. A survey conducted as part of the parks plan reinforced the desire of the citizen's of Port Townsend for improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There was a positive response to financially supporting open space and trails. A summary of this survey is outlined below. A full description of the survey methodology can be found in the Parks and Recreation Functional Plan.
The survey found that the most commonly used facilities in town were: Chetzemoka Park, Kah Tai lagoon, Pope Marine Park, and Terrace Steps. Residents in the northwest of the City also valued the Winona and Levinski wetlands and the numerous trails in this area.
The highest rated improvement was for continuous trails around the city. Next came sidewalk additions and improvements followed by on-street painted bicycle lanes.
Over 78% walk, jog, or hike for recreation daily or weekly. Almost 30% of respondents used a bicycle for recreation on a daily or weekly basis. The largest percentage of walking commuters was found in the older areas of town where higher densities and facilities exist.
Beach combing, walking, hiking and bicycling scored high as important activities.
Satisfaction was expressed with developed beach access, and neighborhood parks and trails for walking. The highest dissatisfaction was with existing bike lanes.
The weighted scores show more trails for walking and exercise as the clear leader, in spite of a high satisfaction level. Wildlife corridors, bike lanes (corresponding to a high dissatisfaction level), and bicycling trails all follow closely.
The comprehensive nature of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan suggests that coordination with affected agencies will be important. The implementation of this plan also requires coordination between the various departments within the City, including public works, planning, and the parks department. Affected agencies include:
A plan that responds to the needs and desires of the community could not have been developed without the help of the non- motorized committee. This committee met bi-weekly for nearly a year to bring this plan to completion. The following paragraphs summarize the key stages in the development of the Plan.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee was appointed by the Mayor on the recommendations of the Transportation Committee. The 12 member committee was composed of citizens at large who had responded to newspaper advertisements; individuals representing affected organizations such as the School District, realtors and Jefferson Transit; Council members; and a Planning Commissioner.
At this meeting, the committee and the general public identified a list of non-motorized transportation issues. The product of this meeting was a set of questions that the Non-Motorized Committee would attempt to address.
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives were outlined at this meeting. The Park Plan survey and Engineering Design Standards were presented to the Committee
A tour of 34 locations which represented non-motorized transportation issues in Port Townsend was conducted to prepare the committee for a design charrette.
The first design charrette was an all day public workshop during which the committee followed the methodology described in Chapter 2 to establish a non-motorized transportation network concept. The committee defined user groups, evaluated existing conditions, identified destinations, established a network concept, and developed a draft system plan.
During this meeting the committee identified a system of streets, that would eventually include bike lanes and improved shoulders, to serve as the Bikeway System.
At this meeting the committee evaluated the costs and benefits of sidewalks as a major part of the pedestrian system plan, and formulated policy language that would require sidewalks in more dense residential areas but would provide flexibility in how and when they where installed.
A second all day public workshop allowed the committee to finalize the non-motorized network plan, develop project lists, and identify priority projects.
This meeting was devoted to reviewing the project list and refining project priorities.
During this meeting the Committee discussed issues and opportunities related to creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly Downtown.
This chapter describes the methodology used to develop the plan for a city-wide non-motorized transportation network. Since the plan endeavors to respond to the unique attributes of this community, it is important to understand the people the system will serve, the types of destinations they wish to access, the state of existing facilities, and the community's vision of how the city should develop. The planning process to address these issues included the following steps:
To establish the framework for a non-motorized transportation system it is important to first understand whom the system will serve. User groups were defined and used during the planning process as a means to evaluate whether the needs of the individual user were being met. The map of planned facilities was evaluated from the perspectiveof each of the user groups to determine where an overlap of needs occurred, and where gaps in the system existed.
The user groups considered were: commuters, recreational users, utilitarian users, and school children. Users were defined in relation to their motivation for making a trip rather than by their chosen mode or skill level. A commuter may walk to work on one day or may elect to ride a bike on another. Whether the user is disabled or not makes little difference in the need for a safe and comfortable journey to work. The type, location, and characteristics of facilities must take into account the needs of these groups. Table 2.1 summarizes the user groups, needs, and destinations.
Recreational users are those who use facilities for pleasure or exercise. They include mountain bikers, joggers, naturalists, dog walkers, casual walkers, boaters, and campers. Recreational users choose routes through quieter areas, where possible, away from major roads or activity centers. Their destinations include parks and open space, running and hiking trails, and sports facilities.
Recreational users tend to seek a more varied experience than commuters or utilitarian users. Scenic vistas, points of interest, and topographic change add to the quality of experience for a recreational user. Hikers, joggers, and exercisers seek out routes with a moderate challenge. Others, such as naturalists, will seek places of relative quiet in forested, wetland, or coastal natural areas. Recreational users are able to share facilities with other non-motorists, although clear definition of bicycle and pedestrian lanes may be necessary in shared-use situations. Recreational users may require access to bus stops and transit facilities.
Commuters are those who travel from home to work or school. Their needs tend to be for direct routes with little interruption by stops or route changes. Arterial streets with bike lanes and uninterrupted pedestrian walkways serve them well if they connect directly to major destinations. Because streets usually provide even surfaces and the most direct routes, bicycling commuters typically share roadways with motorists. Pedestrian commuters appreciate sidewalks along the busy streets on which businesses are typically located. Commuters may also seek pathways that are separated from streets and may choose less busy routes if convenient facilities and direct routes exist. Pedestrian and bicyclist commuters both require convenient access to transit facilities.
Utilitarian users are motivated by a variety of purposes, including: shopping, personal errands, entertainment trips, and visiting friends. Their needs are for facilities within their neighborhoods that provide easy access to neighbors, bus stops, and commercial areas. Like commuters, utilitarian users usually choose direct routes for shopping and errands. They may often choose side streets or quieter routes for less pressing errands and to visit friends. Bicyclists desire a well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets or they may travel on side roads or paths. Utilitarian users are willing to accept some out of direction travel to avoid perceived hazards or to take a more pleasant route.
School children walking or hiking to school need safe routes. Short distances to school are needed with little out of direction travel. Typically, young children will walk up to '/2 mile to school if safe facilities are provided. Their needs are for a high degree of separation from automobile traffic, safe and simple street crossings, clearly marked routes, walkways with consistent and even surfaces, and signals and lighting where necessary.
Identifying major destinations throughout the city establishes what the trip generators are and where transportation links are needed. The inventory map. Figure 2.1, illustrates major destinations in Port Townsend. The following sections describe the various types of destinations and the condition or availability of non-motorized facilities in their vicinity.
Schools witness a concentration of vehicular and non-motorized traffic. The Port Townsend School District includes two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school. Each of them is located along a primary collector or arterial street. Non-motorized users in school zones include students, teachers, and other employees. High vehicular traffic volumes occur during the pickup and drop off of school children. Providing better non-motorized facilities has been shown to encourage more children to walk to school. For safety reasons, children should have physical separation from high volume vehicular traffic.
The extent of walkways and bikeways in school zones vary from site to site. Blue Heron Middle School recently saw improved pedestrian access with the installation of sidewalks and raised crosswalks along San Juan Avenue. A trail now connects from 49th Street to an entrance behind the school. Access problems remain however, particularly from the East and from south of F Street. Center Street has no pedestrian facilities and the crossing on Cherry Street is problematic. Sidewalks end just north of the school and south at F Street. There are problems at the intersection of Hastings and Discovery, the curve on Discovery near San Juan, F Street, and San Juan south of F Street.
The streets surrounding the High School have a patchwork of sidewalks. Blaine Street sees high student traffic both in vehicles and on foot and has poor facilities for non-motorized users. Fir Street has sidewalks from F Street but a poor road edge north of F Street.
At Mountain View Elementary, Cherry Street, Blaine Street and Walker Street have few or no facilities. Cherry Street has only a rudimentary foot path. Kearney Street has an asphalt sidewalk on one side, but there is no separated walkway along 19th Street west of Kearney.
At the Grant Street Elementary School there are few pedestrian facilities for children to walk to school on. Sidewalks exist in front of the school but not enroute. Children who walk to school do so on use paths. There is a path along Discovery Road and a crossing mid-block. Sheridan Street between 19th and Hastings is scheduled for sidewalk improvements on one side in 1998.
Port Townsend's open space includes a number of City and County parks, a state park, lagoons, a municipal golf course, public beaches, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and large parcels of undeveloped land. Distributed throughout the city, parks and recreational facilities vary in size and character from the small Pope Marine Park along the urban waterfront to the Port Townsend and Point Hudson Marinas to the 443 acre Fort Worden State Park. Open spaces are important destinations for pedestrians and bicyclists, and can also serve as through routes. Kah Tai Lagoon is a destination as much as it is a through route between Uptown and the Sims Way commercial area. Improved non-motorized access can help to improve the overall experience and can reduce parking needs in parks. Considering potential through routes in parks or open space can provide an attractive alternative to walking along the street.
Commercial areas in Port Townsend lie primarily along the Sims Way Corridor, Kearney Street, Uptown, the Historic Downtown District and Point Hudson and the Boat Haven. The Boat Haven and Point Hudson are centers for marine related commercial activity. In addition, three satellite commercial areas are envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan to serve the developing neighborhoods in the city. A health care related commercial zone is located along Sheridan Street adjacent to the hospital.
The character of existing commercial areas vary. The Sims Way Corridor (SR 20) is automobile oriented with retail services such as hardware, lumber, auto-parts, groceries, and fast food. High vehicular traffic volume, long street crossings, extensive parking lots, and the lack of walkways, or bike lanes make it a problematic area in which to walk or bike. The lack of traffic lights makes it difficult to cross the street. Evidence that the adopted Gateway Plan is being implemented can be seen in the gradual development of pedestrian walkways and landscaping in the corridor. There are many single-family and multi-family neighborhoods adjacent to this corridor.
The Downtown Historic District has a scale and mix of uses which is pedestrian oriented. However, inappropriate parking, decaying sidewalks and infrastructure, difficult intersections, and gaps in the sidewalk network on Washington Street and some side streets, detract from a potentially pedestrian friendly area. Non-motorist users include visitors, commuters, shoppers, and the recreational user. The City has adopted the Gateway Plan and the Urban Waterfront Plan which serve as guides for pedestrian improvements in this commercial area.
The Boat Haven and Point Hudson are employment areas and see a large number of commuters. Many commute to work by bike or on foot along sparsely developed facilities. Non- motorist users in these areas are potentially numerous and are in particular need of improved walkway facilities and access to transit. The Port of Port Townsend has been steadily improving facilities at the Boat Haven since 1994.
The paper mill, while not within the city limits, is a major employer and destination point. Discovery and Sims Way are major streets connecting to Mill Road, and neither has significant pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The Larry Scott Trail will greatly improve access between the Boat Haven and the mill.
The Ferry Terminal is a major destination and a large generator of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. While pedestrian access to the Historic Downtown is developed, poor links to the commercial areas west on Sims Way and the Park-and-Ride discourage bicycle and pedestrian traffic due to comfort and safety concerns. The remarkably short distance to Sims Way and Kearney is not realized by pedestrians because of the unpleasant walking environment.
Distinct residential neighborhoods can be identified throughout the town (Figure 2.2), giving the town an interesting and varied character. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities in most residential areas are minimal, and non-motorists depend on local access streets and informal trails. Sidewalks exist in the more established sections of the uptown neighborhood but are not continuous, requiring pedestrians to use a combination of streets and sidewalks. Informal trails exist throughout the city, though they are mostly unimproved, unmarked, and serve a limited range of users.
The locations and condition of existing facilities were inventoried to determine what links already exist and whether they are adequate. The Inventory Map, Figure 2.1, identifies existing facilities in Port Townsend. The map highlights sidewalks, bikeways and trails. Table 2.2 provides a summary listing of these facilities. The following is a brief description of existing facilities.
Only 6% of Port Townsend's roads have sidewalks along their frontage. It can be seen from Figure 2.1, that most of the sidewalks are in the Historic District. Even in this district the existing sidewalk network is often discontinuous and fragmented. Most residential areas have no sidewalks, although they may have some improved or informal trails. Few sidewalks have ADA curb ramps, though the City has made a concerted effort to install them at intersections in Uptown and in the downtown commercial area.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the existing trails network, both formal and informal. One of the charms of Port Townsend is the innumerable paths that people have created wherever the need arose. Recognizing established paths is an important consideration in developing this plan: it is much easier to provide a facility where people already walk than to estimate where they might walk. Though there are many informal trails in town, many trails lack continuity, and are often rugged, limiting the range of users and season of use. Many of the informal trails are on or adjacent to city rights-of-way; however, in some cases the trails cross private property.
Developed trails have become an increasingly important part of development projects. Recent development projects that incorporate trails include: the Business Park, Rosewind, Fowler's Park, and Hamilton Heights.
In the absence of pedestrian walkways, the shoulders of roads are used by pedestrians. The mowing and scraping schedule for roadway edges does not factor pedestrian needs. Consequently, pedestrians must often cope with encroaching vegetation and uneven walking surfaces.
Although bike lanes have been developed on several streets including 19th Street, Howard Street and part of San Juan Avenue, in general the arterials and collectors in town have poor shoulders, no bike lanes and are not bicycle friendly. Notable bicycle problem areas exist along Sims Way, Discovery, F Street, Hastings Avenue, Water Street, 49th Street, Washington Street and San Juan Avenue.
Amenities which support and encourage non-motorized use include such items as benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, pedestrian oriented lighting, or directional information. These facilities exist in places, though there is no consistent treatment or standard throughout the city
Bicycle parking facilities have become more evident lately in both public and private locations. Parking facilities include those at City Hall, at schools, at the Park-and-Ride, the Boat Haven and Shipyard, Safeway, Seafirst, and Henery Hardware. The Printery and InterWest Bank provide some of the few covered bicycle parking facilities. The Post Office and Jefferson County Courthouse conspicuously lack bicycle parking.
Street designations in Port Townsend include a major arterial (Sims Way/SR 20), a network of minor arterials and collector streets, and a grid system of local streets. Arterial and collector streets are highlighted on the Inventory Map for their potential as bicycle lanes or routes. Many of these streets, however, are in need of improved pavement width and shoulders to accommodate bicycles. Also on this map are new streets proposed as part of the Arterial Street Plan. Many street rights- of-way in Port Townsend are currently unopened. Approximately 30% of Port Townsend's land is in rights-of- way, offering tremendous opportunities for the development of non-motorized facilities that are separated from the street if some of the streets are not opened to automobile travel.
Port Townsend is served by Jefferson Transit which provides public bus transportation in the city, county, and to connecting services from other cities such as Seattle and Port Angeles. Existing bus routes connect Port Townsend's commercial areas, parks, and public facilities along arterial and collector streets. Bicycle racks and wheelchair lifts are available on all routes.
Ferry service from Port Townsend to Whidbey Island is provided by Washington State Ferries. Priority boarding and unloading is given to pedestrians and bicyclists. There are bicycle parking areas at either end of the ferries and covered waiting areas for pedestrians.
The network concept, Figure 2.2, illustrates destinations, neighborhoods, and conceptual links between destinations. This diagram was developed during the non-motorized charrette when the committee was asked to think in terms of important linkages rather than specific routes, and to consider options beyond existing streets. The network concept gives overall guidance on how a non-motorized network should function. The concept drawing illustrates a main objective of the plan: to design a network of non-motorized facilities which provide circulation and linkages throughout the city. The various sizes and direction of the graphic arrows suggest a hierarchy and order within the system. Various neighborhoods are identified as distinct areas to be linked within the non-motorized system.
This plan seeks to develop a transportation system that meets the needs of all users and that builds on the routes, networks and facilities that are already used. This section describes the basic components that comprise the proposed non-motorized network. The pedestrian and bicycle elements of this plan describe them in more detail and provide typical cross-sections. Figure 2.3 provides a profile of how these components relate to one another.
Arterial and collector streets are main thoroughfares that will ultimately include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Neighborhood connectors are intended to provide routes across town to the identified destinations and links between and within neighborhoods. Neighborhood connectors may be sidewalks or pathways adjacent to streets or pathways on alignments separate from streets, within unopened street rights-of-way. Pathways will generally be shared facilities serving walkers and bicyclists.
Shortcuts are typically one-block pathways on unopened rights- of-way that connect between streets. They are often unimproved, but are envisioned to be signed and cleared.
The multi-use trail is a wide, arterial trail generally separated from city streets. Its purpose is to provide non-motorists the greatest variety of experience and the least amount of conflict with motorized traffic. It is routed, wherever possible, through parks and potential open spaces, adjacent to drainage corridors, and along existing trails and unopened street rights-of-way. It is located adjacent to streets in as few places as possible, and only where it is necessary to provide continuity. The multi-use loop is routed on slopes with moderate grades to accommodate a wide range of users. It will serve all user groups and will accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and in some cases equestrians.
This chapter outlines a comprehensive network of pedestrian routes and facilities that provide access and mobility throughout the town. One of the primary goals of this plan is to define the policies and standards that will lead to a program to maintain and enhance the walkability of Port Townsend. The need and desire for a pedestrian friendly town was expressed strongly in the community discussion surrounding the development of the Comprehensive Plan. This plan also focuses on preserving connections people have established with informal trails, and identifies routes for the establishment of new walkways.
We are all pedestrians. Whether walking or in a wheelchair, this is the most basic form of transportation. At some point each day we are likely to go somewhere without using an automobile. We go to a friend's house, to the video store, to work, or to a bus top. Even when driving we begin and end each trip as a pedestrian.
Some people in the community tend to walk more than others, particularly the poor, the young, and the elderly. The young and the elderly account for 41% of Port Townsend's Population*. Port Townsend
The young and the elderly account for 41% of Port Townsend's population
|
| |
ALL trips begin and end with a walk
| |
has a greater percentage of elderly than the state average. Senior citizens are at particularly high risk. People over the age of 65 make up 13% of the American population; but they account for 23% of all pedestrian deaths.** As the elderly are steadily becoming a larger segment of the population, the need for safe and convenient pedestrian facilities becomes more pronounced.
For those unable or unwilling to drive an automobile, the ability to walk safely about the community contributes directly to their independence: children need not be reliant on their parents for trips to school, and the elderly can move about freely. The American Automobile Association (AAA) estimated that the costs of owning and operating a new car in 1993 averaged $4,705 if driven 10,000 miles. Elderly citizens, on fixed incomes, may be able to forgo this added cost if they can walk safely to their destinations or a bus stop.
Being able to walk anywhere in town is part of the charm of living in Port Townsend. Most destinations are relatively close and the neighborhoods are pleasant to walk through. With new development this pattern has started to change. In recent years, commercial uses have become more segregated: large, automobile-oriented, commercial establishments exist along Sims Way, while entertainment uses and specialty shops tend to locate Downtown. Residential neighborhoods may be close to some types of commercial destinations but not others. The construction of pedestrian oriented facilities has not kept up with new development.
The ability to walk comfortably about the community is a measure of the quality of life. When walking we are more in touch with our community because we see and experience more as we move along the street. A sense of community is developed as people see and recognize their neighbors. People on the streets makes the town a more lively and safe place to live. Enabling people to walk by providing safe facilities can only increase the livability of the town.
"For those unable or unwilling to drive an automobile, the ability to walk safely about the community contributes directly to their independence."
| |
A 1994 study on the impact of greenways on house prices and public safety in the Denver area found that trails are an amenity to the neighborhoods around them and increase the desirability of the property. The study was conducted by the Conservation Fund, Colorado State Trails Program. Major findings of the study were: of the real estate agents interviewed, 73% believed a home adjacent to a trail would be easier to sell and 55% agreed the home would sell for more than a comparable home in a different neighborhood. These figures fell to 64% and less than 10% respectively for homes located one block away from the trail. Public safety was not an issue according to residents and patrol officers.
Pro Bike News, April 96
As a tourism destination, the ability to walk around town contributes to Port Townsend's economy. Walking tours take in the scenic vistas and historic landmarks. The pleasant and varied walking experiences in town attract tourists who appreciate the small town scale and character.
The distances we can and do walk can be surprising. It is not unusual for a person to walk two miles while in a shopping center. Pedestrians are likely to travel up to one mile on a commute trip (Approx. 20 minutes). According to the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey, 27% of all travel trips are less than one mile in length, suggesting that pedestrian travel can replace a significant number of automobile trips.
With more people walking traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, and wear and tear on roads can all be reduced
| |
Some trips, especially short utilitarian trips up to 1/4 mile, can be more convenient or even faster on foot. For utilitarian trips, pedestrians are typically willing to walk a 1/4 mile (5 minutes). Under normal conditions the mobility impaired are limited to trips under 750 feet. The walking environment affects perceived walking distances. The distance people are willing to walk is increased when safe, secure and comfortable facilities are provided.
Walking can benefit the individual and the community as a whole. A person who routinely walks to work is also exercising. Walking contributes to a more efficient transportation system by eliminating the need for unnecessary automobile trips. With more people walking traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, and wear and tear on roads can all be reduced.
MOBILITY vs. ACCESS
Mobility can be defined as the ability to travel between areas. Connections that link neighborhoods with shopping centers, employment areas, and other neighborhoods provide this ability. As these imply a form of thoroughfare they are high pedestrian traffic volume corridors that form direct links between areas.
Access refers to shorter distance connections within neighborhoods or commercial areas. These connections tend to cover shorter distances, but are more comprehensive. In a commercial district, for example, sidewalks would provide access to and between businesses. Because of the variety of potential destinations, access facilities need to form a dense grid.
Access trips can include: trips from the house to a bus stop, from a parking lot to a shopping center, between adjacent businesses, and to connections with the larger pedestrian network.
THE WALKWAY SYSTEM PLAN
Figure 3.2 presents the Walkway System Plan for the city. The system plan is a vision for a logical and comprehensive transportation network for pedestrians. It has a hierarchy of pedestrian facilities that function similar to arterial, collector and local streets. As with the street system, local access facilities feed into neighborhood connectors, which in turn feed into a major arterial trail or a street with walkways. The system forms a comprehensive grid that provides both access and mobility throughout the city.
The walkway system includes and builds on the street system. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways have distinct roles that complement each other. Sidewalks have advantages for on-street pedestrian travel: they provide separation from vehicle traffic, have the lowest maintenance costs, and offer the highest level of accessibility for disabled citizens, and people with baby strollers. Unpaved pathways require a great deal more maintenance than sidewalks, but they are less expensive to install and when designed correctly will be strategically placed to provide greater mobility-resulting in higher traffic volumes that will help to keep the trail clear of encroaching vegetation.
The map of the Walkway System Plan (Figure 3.2) does not distinguish between facilities located on streets and those on separate alignments. It intends to show important connections that can be sidewalks or pathways located on the street frontage, or pathways separate from a roadway.
The Walkway System Plan indicates to the City and the private developer pedestrian connections that need to be established or protected. For the City, the walkway plan serves to emphasize important connections that the City may actively pursue. For the private developer, the Walkway System Plan gives guidance on how their project connects to, and forms part of a larger pedestrian system. The walkway alignments shown in the plan indicate preferred routes. The actual alignment of the walkway may vary when actually proposed or constructed depending on local conditions; however, the functionality of the routes indicated on the map need to be preserved. The following sections describe the features of the walkway system plan in more detail.
Objective: Implement the Walkway
System Plan | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary |
|
|
|
♦ Preserve designated rights-of-way for non- motorized use |
√ |
|
|
♦Adopt Engineering design standards that incorporate the policies of this plan |
√ |
|
|
♦Require new development to establish pedestrian connections in conformance with the Walkway System Plan |
√ |
|
|
♦Ensure that the walkway network is available 24 hours per day |
√ |
|
|
♦Streets should not be opened across walkway alignments where an alternative access to the property exists |
√ |
|
|
♦Preserve existing trails and connections where possible |
√ |
|
|
♦Walkways should be built on public land or dedicated easements |
√ |
|
|
Directed Actions
|
|
|
|
♦Work with volunteers to establish and maintain pedestrian pathways |
|
√ |
√ |
♦Develop a checklist to guide staff review of project proposals |
√ |
|
|
♦Develop a coordinated sign program which provides a user friendly guide to the location of pedestrian walkways |
|
√ |
|
♦Review and update the Walkway System Plan |
|
|
√ |
♦Provide pedestrian links to new park facilities |
√ |
|
|
MULTI-USE LOOP TRAIL
This "all-purpose" non-motorized trail is a unifying loop that circumnavigates the city, connecting neighborhoods and major commuter and recreational destinations. The trail, when completed, will provide all user groups with a variety of experiences and few potential conflicts with cars. The loop trail can enhance pedestrian mobility by providing more direct routes or a more pleasant walking environment than the street system. It will also serve bicyclists as it is considered a bike path.
The multi-use trail is typically on an alignment separate from streets, which minimizes the cross flow of motorized traffic. The trail corridor is to be preserved with minimal street crossings. It is routed, wherever possible, through parks and potential open space, adjacent to drainage corridors, and along existing trails and unopened streets.
The following list summarizes the criteria for establishing and implementing the multi-use trail.
♦ Alignment separate from the roadway
♦ Minimize street crossings
♦ Minimize grade changes
♦ Connect major destinations
♦ Locate along open space, drainage corridors, and through parks where possible
♦ Connect to Larry Scott Park and Fort Worden
♦ Provides a route to school
Since the multi-use trail will function as a major non-motorized transportation arterial about the city, neighborhood connectors and Planned Unit Development (PUD) walkways may connect to the trail to access distant destinations. This multi- use trail can also act as a catalyst for the development of other pathways; developers may be more interested in including walkways in their site design if they feel they make logical connections to a greater area.
Surfacing material and trail widths will vary according to anticipated use and the location in the city. A trail that is on native soil but is cleared and signed may be a first step in developing the multi-use trail. In the short-term, work on developing the trail may focus on acquiring and developing the trail route. The more urban and heavily used portions of the trail would ultimately be paved asphalt and wider, while the more rural areas may be a narrower crushed rock (quarry fines) trail.
The Portage Trail
The easternmost section of the multi-use trail follows a series of wetlands that were once used by Native Americans as a portage route between Port Townsend Bay and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This section of the trail could serve to emphasize the natural and cultural history of the corridor and could provide an opportunity for public education.
The Portage Trail winds its way through the varied terrain of the lowlands, connecting the County and Larry Scott Memorial Park with the Park-and-Ride, shopping areas, the Boat Haven, the golf course, schools, Chinese Gardens and Fort Worden State Park. The trail serves people leisurely touring the city, residents making specific trips, and children on their way to school.
Objective: Construct key segments of the Multi-use Trail | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Preserve designated rights-of-way along the trail alignment | √ | | |
♦Require development to provide connections to the multi-use trail where appropriate | √ | | |
Directed Actions
| | | |
♦Work with volunteers to construct portions of the trail | √ | | |
♦Work with property owners to acquire easements | √ | | |
♦Work with the Land Trust and the parks department to establish a trail near Winona and Levinski wetland | √ | | |
♦Actively pursue grants to develop the "Portage component of the Multi-use trail | √ | | |
♦Establish links between the Waterwalk and the multi-use trail | | √ | |
♦Develop an interpretive program for the trail | | | √ |
♦Coordinate with Jefferson Transit to ensure that the park-and-ride facilities are functioning as a multi-modal station linking directly to the non- motorized network | √ | | |
♦Work with Jefferson County and the Port to integrate the multi-use trail with Larry Scott Park | √ | |
|
The Waterwalk
The Waterwalk is a coordinated system of connected pathways, sidewalks, passageways between buildings, and shoreline access points that increases the amount and diversity of opportunities for walking and chances for personal discoveries along Port Townsend's Urban Waterfront. The Waterwalk -- conceived as an element of the Urban Waterfront Plan and partially developed -- forms an important link between the Downtown, the ferry terminus, and the Portage Trail.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTORS
The Walkway System Plan shows a system of primary and secondary neighborhood connectors which function as major and minor collectors for pedestrians. The purpose of delineating these neighborhood routes is so that the connectivity that they provide can be seen throughout the city and preserved. The walkway network includes sidewalks and pathways along streets and pathways separate from a street. The preferred facility is a pathway separate from a street on a dedicated rights- of-way. Primary connectors provide through routes covering longer distances between neighborhoods and major destinations. Secondary connectors are shorter connections which address access within a neighborhood. The following sections discuss sidewalks and pathways and provide typical cross-sections.
Off-Street Pathways
The road network does not always provide the most direct connection to a destination. Because pedestrians do not tolerate the same out-of-direction travel as automobiles, there is a need to seek more convenient links. The off-street pathway system seeks to support the street system by providing: more direct connections, greater separation from traffic, and a more pleasant walking experience. Pedestrian pathways are the preferred facility when on undeveloped rights-of-way. This plan seeks to expand opportunities for off-street pathways by reserving street rights-of-way for non-motorized use and by requiring new subdivisions to include a walkway plan.
Objective: Establish a system of neighborhood connectors | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Preserve designated rights-of-way for neighborhood connectors | √ | | |
♦Require new development to establish neighborhood connectors in conformance with the Walkway System Plan where appropriate | √ | | |
♦Provide off-street pathways as neighborhood connectors where possible | √ | | |
♦New development should preserve the functionality of designated neighborhood connectors | √ | | |
♦Streets should not be opened across walkway alignments where an alternative access to the property exists | √ | | |
♦Preserve existing trails and connections where possible | √ | | |
Directed Actions
| | | |
♦Establish pathways in unopened rights-of-way | | √ | √
|
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Pathways on Local Streets
Sidewalks or pathways may be provided for neighborhood connectors along the street frontage where there is no alternative for a separated walkway. Neighborhood connectors may alternate between sidewalks or pathways on streets and pathways that are not associated with a street. Sidewalks or pathways adjacent to streets would occur in places where it was not possible to maintain the unopened rights-of-way.
SHORTCUTS
Shortcuts can be a simple, inexpensive way to improve pedestrian access where the road system does not provide the most convenient route. In most instances, a shortcut will need improvement such as signing it as a public way and occasional clearing. There are numerous existing shortcuts in the city. Officially designating these paths not only helps to indicate that they are for public use, but also protects them from development or encroachment. New shortcuts may be established in areas to improve access. Though shortcuts have a way of establishing themselves, in some instances a logical connection may not be made because the link appears to be private or is overgrown. The City can help to blaze trails and to clarify where public land is available.
The more popular shortcuts in town are virtually self- maintaining. They are mainly on native soil and are very narrow. A typical through block access is a distance of 250 feet compared to the 750 feet required to walk around the block via the street. A shortcut that replaces a walk around a single block reduces the overall trip by 500 feet or 2 minutes for each block that the trip is shortened by. If pedestrians are likely to walk within a 1/4 mile zone (5 minutes) for utilitarian trips, a shortcut that reduces the trip distance to a commercial area by even 500 feet can greatly increase the likelihood of making the trip on foot.
Objective: Preserve existing shortcuts and develop new shortcuts as part of the Walkway System Plan | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Preserve unopened rights-of-way along shortcuts where possible | √ | | |
♦Restrict parking at access points to shortcuts | √ | | |
Directed Actions
| | | |
♦Identify existing shortcuts to protect | √ | √ | √ |
♦Work with volunteers to establish shortcuts | | √ | |
♦Sign existing shortcuts | | √ | |
♦Encourage new development to include shortcuts as part of their walkway plans | √ | |
|
SAFEST WALK ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Walk routes to school are where pedestrian facilities are most needed and the most likely to be used heavily. Approximately 1/3 of pedestrian miles traveled in the United States are for school-related purposes by people 14 years and older. When younger children are included this proportion is even higher.
Improving the safety of the walk routes to school is a key goal of this plan. Children ages 5 to 14 constitute only 14 percent of the American population, yet they were involved in 27% of the pedestrian/automobile collisions during 1988. Young pedestrians, under 15 years of age, experience a pedestrian/automobile collision involvement rate twice that of all pedestrians.
Children walking to school not only eliminates the need for driving or bussing the children to school, but also enhances the safety of the school zone. Some of the highest traffic volumes of the day occur near schools as parents pickup and drop off children. The streets adjacent to the schools become the most congested and dangerous at precisely the time that children are present. Mountain View Elementary estimates that at least 1/3 of their students are chauffeured to school. Providing better non-motorized facilities will help to separate children from the high volume of vehicular traffic and may ultimately reduce these volumes as more children walk to school.
The streets adjacent to the schools become the most congested and dangerous at precisely the time that children are present
| |
Safest walk route to school plans typically cover a one-mile radius from the school. A recent study done by the City of Tacoma suggests that students within a half mile of the school are likely to walk if they have a reasonably safe route. The perceived safety of the route has as much to do with facility design and the presence of sidewalks, as it does with the perception of the neighbor hood. Developing safer access to school includes not only the physical facilities but is also dependent on education, enforcement, and an operation plan-traffic control and/or supervision.
The City and the School District have already worked together to develop a safest route to school map. This map was distributed to students and advertised as the safest walk route to school.
The desired Safest Walk Route to School Map (Figure 3.3) envisions a network of pathways and streets with sidewalks or pathways providing the most direct and convenient access to schools. Development adjacent to these routes are required to install sidewalks as per the City's Engineering Design Standards.
Objective: Make designated walk routes to school safer and continuous | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦ Adopt the walk route to school map which will indicate where sidewalks or pathways are required | √ | | |
Directed Actions | | | |
♦ Pursue grants in conjunction with the schools for sidewalk infill | | √ | |
♦ Develop off-street pathways as alternative routes to school | | √ | |
♦ Give the highest priority to City projects that are on walk routes to school | √ | | |
♦ Work with the school to update the preferred route to school map | | √ | √
|
SHARED STREETS
The Non-Motorized Transportation Committee discussed the concept of shared use of local access streets, where pedestrians use the vehicle lane. It was felt that in some instances streets could be safe for pedestrians, such as: short dead-end streets, streets on a broken grid with limited through streets, street with alternate pathways, streets with low traffic volumes, or streets with traffic calming.
The Committee did not make specific recommendations on shared streets for the following reasons:
♦ Existing Engineering Design Standards provide guidance on creating shared streets
♦ The city has little experience with traffic calming and the results of traffic calming can be unpredictable
♦ The safety of low volume or calmed streets can change as development occurs
♦ Traffic calming could be relatively expensive on narrow local streets
♦ Traffic calming can be problematic for cyclists
LOCAL STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
One of the difficult issues the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee addressed was the need for sidewalks on local access streets. The Committee concluded that sidewalks on local access streets are an important component of pedestrian facilities in town. As the town grows future pedestrian needs must be anticipated. Although many residential areas in town do not have the densities that support the need for sidewalks, future development will change this. Experience has shown that retrofitting sidewalks into neighborhoods can be problematic.
Why Sidewalks?
The following are some of the benefits attributed to sidewalks. Sidewalks provide distinct separation between pedestrians and vehicles and an area reserved for pedestrian use only. As such, they are an inherently safe pedestrian facility. Because they can be built adjacent to any street, a sidewalk system can provide the same accessibility that roads provide and are fully accessible to people of all abilities.
Sidewalks are the most cost effective pedestrian facility because of their durability. In Port Townsend, sidewalks were first built in the late 1880s. A city sidewalk tax was established to construct approximately five miles of sidewalk in the Uptown area. In the 1930's, Roosevelt's New Deal prompted construction of an additional three miles of sidewalk. These sidewalks are still in use 60-100 years later and have required minimal maintenance.
Sidewalks provide a high level of safety by separating pedestrian and vehicle traffic. While traffic calming and narrow local streets help to reduce speed, making the street safer, their effectiveness tends to be highly variable. Local conditions on a particular street are dependent on a number of factors that are difficult to control for any period of time. Resident parking habits, landscaping, maintenance and how the local street connects to the greater area will affect how safe the street is.
Sidewalks are particularly effective at meeting the needs of children. At street comers they have an edge at which to "stop, look and listen". They have a refuge from which to assess the situation, and a clearly defined safe place to walk towards. Even if children play in the street they have somewhere to retreat to if a car approaches.
Sidewalks can help reduce pedestrian/vehicle accidents rates. Twice as many collisions with pedestrians occur on streets without sidewalks compared to those with sidewalks*. In Port Townsend, of the 22 accidents involving pedestrians in the last 10 years, 10 occurred on local streets. For children and the elderly, the majority of deaths and injuries as result of collisions with automobiles occur on streets in or near residential areas. Most children are killed or injured not far from their homes, up to 200 feet for 0-3 year olds, up to half a mile for 14 year old children.
Sidewalks help to define pedestrian space. Drivers are more aware of where to expect walkers, especially at comers with sidewalks. The curb prevents automobiles from infringing on pedestrian space as they round a comer. In inclement weather, and in the winter when it is dark earlier in the day, sidewalks separate pedestrian from drivers whose visibility is reduced.
Between 80-90% of all journeys begin and end at the home
| |
The hard surface and edge of a sidewalk helps people with visual impairment to navigate.
Between 80-90% of all journeys begin and end at the home. Access to a house can be as important as providing access between commercial establishments. In commercial areas, sidewalks serve a great number of people but they do not serve the individual's needs in returning home. To make walking a viable transportation option, access to the home is critical.
Maintaining small town character and the use of sidewalks are not necessarily incompatible concepts. Small town character can be maintained by landscaping between the sidewalk and the roadway. Landscaping helps to reduce the visual impact of the width of the street, and makes for a more pleasant walking experience. Early photographs of Port Townsend reveal pastoral views of streets with sidewalks and rows of majestic trees with a green canopy arching over the street.
Sidewalks can increase the value of an individual's property. Though Jefferson County does not place a specific assessed value on sidewalks, they are viewed as a desirable facility that contributes directly to the overall assessment of a neighborhood. Neighborhoods with sidewalks tend to receive a higher valuation than areas without sidewalks.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines recommend that "sidewalks used for pedestrian access to schools, parks, shopping areas and transit stops and placed along all streets in commercial areas should be provided along both sides of the street. In residential areas, sidewalks are desirable on both sides of the street, but need to be provided on at least one side of all local streets."
Non-Motorized Transportation Committee Considerations
[The following section includes minor revisions suggested by the Planning Commission. Major revisions were not recommended, and the intent and direction of this section may be inconsistent with policy change recommendations made by the Planning Commission]
This section provides detail on some of the issues the Non- Motorized Transportation Committee considered as background to understanding the role of sidewalks. The Committee discussed the issue of sidewalks on local streets at length, and the majority came to agree on the need for sidewalks. Some of the questions they considered are listed below.
Sidewalks are envisioned on local access streets where densities are 4 houses per acre or greater (i.e., 4 houses along a street). Flexibility is provided in the design guidelines to support the rational development of sidewalk facilities. Where densities do not currently warrant sidewalks a deferral may be granted by the signing of a No Protest Agreement between the City and the developer for the future installation of sidewalks. In existing neighborhoods, sidewalks could generally be installed as part of a street redevelopment under an LID.
We are all young and able, someday we won't be
-Committee Member
| |
Can it be safe and comfortable for people to walk on local streets?
The committee agreed that while they felt comfortable walking on most local streets they did not feel it was always appropriate for children or the elderly. A committee member commented "we are all young and able, someday we won't be". They acknowledged that if 40% of the City's population was under 15 and over 65, there was a large number of people that would benefit from sidewalks.
Can trails be a substitute for sidewalks?
People with baby buggies, in a wheelchair, or simply walking, benefit from the smooth surfaces sidewalks provide in all weather. Trails must be properly constructed and well maintained to provide a surface condition comparable to sidewalks. If a pathway is not maintained by someone it will lose its existence. The City cannot afford to maintain trails on all local streets, and maintenance agreements with individual property owners would be problematic. A committee member observed "a trail may be in the best interest of a property owner right now, but it may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood in the long-term."
Why require sidewalks at a density of 4 units per acre?
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends sidewalks at this threshold. In addition, sidewalks support the use of mass transit and transit service is generally understood to be effective at 4 units per acre or greater.
Why not have sidewalks on just one side?
Sidewalks should generally be placed on both sides of a street. For development review, coordinating which side of the street the sidewalk should be on becomes complicated. With a sidewalk on only one side it is no longer clear who pays for it or who maintains it. A sidewalk on only one side prompts walkers to cross the street, increasing the possibility of a collision with an automobile. With sidewalks on only one side there is the possibility of two additional crossing conflicts*, or a person staying on the roadway when they cannot cross.
How can we be flexible on when sidewalks are installed?
By allowing a deferral if there are no sidewalks in the area and where densities are lower than 4 units per acre, sidewalks would only be built when they are warranted.
How can we make the cost of a sidewalk less of a burden on the individual property owner?
Sidewalks are the least expensive pedestrian facility for the City in the long-term. An LID can help to reduce the initial cost of a sidewalk and to amortize it over 20 years. Because of mobilization costs in some cases it may be more efficient to build full blocks of sidewalks than 100 feet of sidewalk. By forming an LID the property owner can pay for the sidewalk in small payments over a number of years.
"My association of sidewalks is with a sense of neighborhood and community. The lack of sidewalks I associate not so much with rural towns, but with suburbia"
-Committee Member
| |
How can we avoid having 100 foot sections of sidewalk that go nowhere?
By allowing individual property owners a deferral, sidewalks would generally be built when there are other sidewalks in the vicinity. In some cases, sidewalks may be added 50 or 100 feet at a time when there is a likelihood of a connection that will be developed.
How can we require sidewalks on local streets when there are hardly any on arterial streets?
The City will work towards installing sidewalks on priority routes and arterial and collector streets. Because many of the arterial streets are developed the City may need to contribute to sidewalk improvements. By requiring sidewalks on more dense local streets the City hopes to avert a long-term potential cost of
Will we be losing our small town character?
The Uptown District is the heart of old Port Townsend and it has the most sidewalks. Sidewalks would only be required at densities that approximate the Uptown. Lower densities, in outlying areas would not have sidewalks. A committee member commented "My association of sidewalks is with a sense of neighborhood and community. The lack of sidewalks I associate not so much with rural towns but with suburbia".
Will property owners be responsible for the repair of sidewalks in front of their house?
The repair and maintenance of sidewalks is already the property owner's responsibility by city ordinance.
How will an LID be formed?
In developing areas when densities reach 4 units per acre the City will move towards forming an LID. If the City is not prepared to move forward, or an LID is not viable, the builder will be granted a deferral.
If someone builds a house can they build a sidewalk and not participate in an LID?
An LID can only assess a property owner for a benefit they accrue. If they already have a sidewalk in front of their house they would not need to pay more.
Will we need an LID administrator?
The City is already considering moving towards the use of LIDs for street improvements. If this program continues, sidewalk LIDs become the responsibility of city staff administrating the LIDs.
How can a local neighborhood have input on how sidewalks are built or propose alternative to sidewalks?
The standards will include a provision for local input. Sidewalk locations can be adjusted and alternatives to sidewalks can be proposed. Forming an LID involves a negotiation process between the City and residents. The City will work with residents towards what is appropriate for the area and provides equivalent pedestrian access and safety. However, cost of installation should not be a criterion for deviation from the standard.
Will people on arterial or collector streets be paying for a facility that everyone uses?
Many people living on arterial streets access their house from an adjacent local street. As with anyone else they would pay for the improvement along the local street. Is some cases, such as with the recent project on San Juan Avenue, the city will build sidewalks as part of road construction.
What about corner lots?
Comer lots are generally more desirable and already have higher assessments. However, to ease the burden it is proposed that the City pay Vi the cost of a sidewalk needed on the additional side of a comer lot.
Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) 12.12.030
| It shall be the responsibility of every occupant or owner of property abutting upon a public sidewalk to maintain the sidewalk at all times in a condition that is fit and safe for purposes of public travel and is free of any and all obstructions or defects, including, but not limited to, snow, ice, and mud.
| |
INTRODUCTION
This section provides detail on the Bikeway System Plan that comprises a major component of the overall non-motorized network. Though bicyclists will continue to have access to all streets, the Bikeway System Plan identifies a network of roads and trails that will serve as principal routes for bicyclists. It also defines policies and standards that will enhance the safety of bicycling in Port Townsend.
WHY BICYCLE FACILITIES?
Bicycling is the most efficient form of transportation known, and can be a credible alternative to the automobile. A typical bicyclist is able to bike 3-5 miles in 15-25 minutes. Nationally, approximately of 63% all commuting trips-for both bicyclists and motorists-are within 5 miles* of home. The average commute time a person will tolerate-by any mode-has consistently been between 20 and 30 minutes. Bicycling, therefore, can be a realistic commuting option throughout Port Townsend where commuting distances within the city are less than 2 miles.
~Bicycle Facility Vision~
| Bicycle Facility Vision Statement developed by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee
| In the City of Port Townsend the bicycle is a viable transportation option. Users of all abilities feel comfortable riding a bicycle to destinations in town. An interconnected network of bike lanes, routes and trails links neighborhoods and destinations throughout the city, as well as points outside the city. Bicycle parking is conveniently located at all destinations. Commuters can leave their bicycles unattended in secure facilities that are protected from the elements.
| Streets designated for bicycle travel have smooth surfaces, safe shoulders, and are regularly swept free of debris. All school children receive basic education on bicycle safety. Bicycle riders transfer conveniently onto buses, ferries and other public transit connecting to destinations in the state. Visitors and residents alike welcome the clear signage and street markings.
| |
Bicycle commuting is gaining favor nation-wide. The number of people commuting by bike nationally doubled between 1980 and 1993. Approximately 3.2 million Americans were riding to work in 1993.* A bicycle properly outfitted with waterproof carriers and lights can easily accommodate most utilitarian and commuting trips. A bike can safely hold at least two bags of groceries, and can carry work material and a change of clothes for commuters.
Children are among the largest groups of bicycle users nationally. Perhaps as a result of large numbers and relatively low skill levels, children aged 16 and younger account for approximately half of bicycle fatalities according to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. Well designed bicycle facilities can help improve the safety of children. Safety concerns extend to local streets as well, emphasizing the need to make all streets safer for the bicyclist.
Bicycles can serve a greater portion of the population than the automobile because children are included as users, and not just passengers. More bicycles are sold each year than automobiles*, suggesting that bicycles are almost universally available. The fact that we do not see more extensive bicycle use is not due to limited availability of bicycles or the range of users, but to people's perception of the bicycle as a credible transportation mode. This plan seeks to outline a bikeway system plan that will help stimulate a culture of bicycle use. In Davis, California, 25% of all trips are made by bike. Part of this success can be attributed to the fact that 1/3 of all streets in Davis have bike lanes. In addition, Davis has numerous trails and parking facilities that support bicycle use.
Bicycling benefits not only the bicyclists but the larger community as well. The universal benefits of bicycling include: reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air pollution, reduced wear and tear on roads, reduced crashes and property damage, reduced need for additional roads and parking, and increased healthiness. All of these benefits contribute to the livability of a community.
~Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) 10.20.030~
adopted by ordinance 623.3 in 1897
| No person shall throw or deposit or cause to be thrown or deposited on any bicycle path any coal, stones, mortar, shells, tacks, glass, or wire, or any solid or liquid vegetable substance of such character as to be liable to injure a bicycle, or any part thereof, or to impede the progress of a bicycle.
| |
The Bicycle System Plan recommends improvements in the widths and striping of particular streets. Improvements in the road surface benefit both the motorist and the bicyclist. A bicycle lane or shoulder reduces the number of cars that drive over the edge of pavement, which helps to maintain the integrity of the road edge. Smoother and better maintained roads make for a more pleasurable and safer driving experience for both the motorist and the bicyclist. Bicycling helps to make the transportation system more efficient by minimizing unnecessary automobile trips.
"a good transportation system minimizes unnecessary transportation"
| |
Bicycle tourism contributes directly to Port Townsend's economy. Its scenic beauty and strategic location on the Olympic Peninsula make Port Townsend a natural destination for tourists. The Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development places bicycle tourism as one of their top ten requests for information on their hotline during summer months. While no specific numbers are available for individual tourists, some significant events and tour groups pass through Port Townsend. The 1997 "AIDS Ride For Reason" saw 700 bicyclists and 200 support staff journey through Port Townsend. The MS Ride had a similar turnout. The Backroads tour group routinely brings bicycling tourists to Port Townsend during the summer months. Good bicycle facilities can help to support and promote bicycle tourism.
CLASSIFICATION OF BICYCLISTS
An effective bicycling network must accommodate a wide range of user abilities. Bicyclists vary in their skill levels and in the purpose of their trip. Chapter 2 outlines non-motorized users in broad terms. The following table summarizes user needs specific to bicycles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) skill level equivalent is indicated for each user group to generalize user ability.
TABLE 4-1 - CLASSIFICATION OF USERS
User | Skill | Needs |
|---|
Recreational User |
♦Variable skill level |
♦Route markings
♦Desire off-road facility or quiet, scenic streets |
Commuter
(Group A - Advanced Bicyclist)* |
♦Highest skill level
♦Will often share vehicle lane |
♦Direct, high speed routes
♦Few stops and cross-traffic
♦Desire sufficient roadway width or shoulder area on which to ride |
Utilitarian User
(Group B - Basic Bicyclist)* |
♦Intermediate skill level
♦Basic knowledge of traffic laws
♦not comfortable sharing vehicle lane |
♦Desire well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets
♦Prefer low-speed, low volume streets
♦Willing to accept some out of direction travel to avoid perceived hazards |
School Children
(Group C - Children)* |
♦Low skill level
♦Not always aware of hazards
♦may choose routes unsuitable to ability |
♦Prefer safe, low volume, low speed local streets, or separated pathways
♦Older children may take advantage of bike lanes on arterial and collector streets
♦Shortest routes
♦Few street crossings
|
TYPES OF BIKEWAYS
The following bikeway designations are adopted by the City and are based generally on the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) design manual guidelines. Typical roadway sections that illustrate these designations accompany the description.
Class I (Bike Path): is typically a paved facility separated from the roadway that is dedicated to the exclusive use by bicycles and pedestrians. This facility may form part of the multi-use trail. The Class I bike path should be designed so as to minimize intersections with motorized traffic. A bike path adjacent to the roadway is rarely a suitable replacement for bike lanes on arterial or collector streets: numerous cross-streets, driveways, and unsignaled intersections may prove to be a hazard. In areas of high pedestrian traffic, wider path widths or separate facilities may be required.
Class II (Bike Lanes): are areas of the roadway that are striped and signed for preferential use by bicyclists. Bicycle lanes promote orderly traffic flow by specifying lines of demarcation between bicycles and motor vehicles. Bicycle lanes are appropriate on high traffic volume streets where a greater separation between modes is desired. A dedicated lane allows cyclists to pass stopped traffic and provides a greater buffer from passing or parked cars. Bicycle lanes typically have pavement markings indicating a reserved lane and flow direction. They are often marked to help guide the cyclist through intersections.
In addition to striping, the Class II designation suggests improvements such as augmented sweeping programs, more stringent maintenance requirements, and special signal facilities. Bike lanes also serve to advertise the bicycle network. Users become aware of advantageous routes, while drivers are made aware of the presence of cyclists.
Class III (Bike Routes): are roads on which cyclists share the travel lane with motor vehicle traffic. They provide continuity of the bikeway system in areas where roadway widths limit the ability to provide bike lanes, or where the situation does not warrant them. The main purpose of a bike route is to connect destinations along convenient or scenic corridors.
The routes will be signed and mapped to let residents and tourists know of the existence of a particularly advantageous route, and to alert motorists to the presence of bicycles on the roadway. The non-motorized committee recommends that bike routes have fog lines with 2 to 4 feet of paved roadway outside the fog line plus a 2 foot shoulder where possible.
Class IV (Shared Roadway): is a roadway that has been identified and mapped as a satisfactory place to ride and that connects some destination points. The streets typically have lower traffic volumes, or may have constraints that limit other bikeway facilities. No signing or special striping is provided.
Trails: Many of the neighborhood connectors outlined in the previous chapter are envisioned to be shared facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use. Should bicycle use cause either conflicts with pedestrians or degradation of the pathway, the facility may need to be upgraded to accommodate both uses.
BIKEWAY SYSTEM PLAN
The Bikeway System Plan for the City is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Both existing and planned bikeways are shown. Typical cross-sections are illustrated with the description of the facility type in the previous section and street-by-street recommendations are included in Table 4-2. While the Bikeway System Plan represents a long-term goal for each of the designated streets, short-term improvements are also recommended to ameliorate the most critical road conditions.
The Bicycle System Plan seeks to meet the needs of all users. Commuters and Utilitarian users will appreciate the comprehensive network of roads with bicycle facilities that link major destinations. School children will find pathways and bicycle lanes in proximity to their schools. Recreational users can follow scenic routes, with signs indicating destinations and distances.
Where practical, the City will redevelop or upgrade existing primary City roadways to include bicycle facilities consistent with the Bicycle System Plan
| -Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.11
| |
A cyclist-based approach was used by the Non- Motorized Committee to develop an overall bicycle route plan. While developing the Bicycle System Plan Map, the Non-Motorized Committee members evaluated: user needs, bikeway classifications, general route selection criteria (WSDOT design manual), location criteria in policy 5.15 of the Comprehensive Plan, and personal preferences.
As the bicycle is considered a vehicle by Washington State law with distinct rights to use the roadway, the street system forms the backbone of the system plan.
The extensive network of bike lanes envisioned is based on the desire for a high degree of separation between modes to allow all segments of the cycling population access to major destinations through a variety of routes.
Bicycle routes were employed to connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes, in areas where roadway limitations prevented the use of bike lanes, or where traffic volumes did not warrant them. On some hilly sections a combination of features is envisioned for the uphill segment: a Class II climbing lane and a Class III bikeway on the downhill portion.
Off-road bicycle facilities complement the street system. The goal of the off-road system is to provide separation from the roadway with few street crossings. Off-road pathways can provide more convenient or comfortable connections than the street system allows. Existing informal trails are found throughout the city. Popular bike trails can be found in: Kah Tai Lagoon Park, Cappy's Trails, and Fort Worden State Park. Proposed off-road bikeways will be shared with pedestrian traffic. The multi-use trail accommodates high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic with wide paths and stable surfacing.
Objective: Develop bicycle network that meets the needs of all users | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Adopt the bikeway system map | √ | | |
♦Provide class II bike lanes on all new arterials and collectors | √ | | |
♦Require new development to provide bikeway facilities that implement the Bikeway System Plan | √ | | |
Directed Actions
| | | |
♦Revise engineering standards to include the recommendations of this plan | √ | | |
♦The City will work to upgrade existing primary roadways to complete the short-term proposals of the Bikeway Plan | | √ | #8730; |
♦Establish a budget line item for bicycle facility improvements and maintenance | | √ | |
♦Install share the road signs on class III bikeways | | √ | |
♦Install bicycle route signs on class III bikeways | | √ | |
♦Work with WSDOT to install bike lanes on SR20 | | √ |
|
TABLE 4-2 BIKEWAY PLAN - SPECIFIC STREET DETAIL
Street | Future Class | Short-term
<5 years | Long-term
>5 years | Comment |
|---|
Lawrence Street | II | improved shoulders and bike lanes | | |
Cherry Street | III | Fog lines | Improve paved shoulder to 3' min | |
Sheridan Street
Sims way to 19th Street | II | Stripe bike lanes | | |
Sims Way
Bluff Corridor | II | Restrict parking | Bike lanes | Access management, On-street parking issue, *Gateway Plan |
Sims Way
Sheridan to Landes | II | Improved shoulder | Bike lanes | |
San Juan
F to 19th | II | | Improved shoulder | |
F Street
San Juan to Tyler | II/III | Restrict parking
Improve road edge | Climbing lane
Downhill shoulder | Uphill Class II |
Washington Street | II uphill | Stripe uphill bike lanes | | |
Cook Avenue
Peary to City limit | III | Fog lines | Climbing lane, 2-3 foot shoulder | |
49th Street
Cook Ave. to San Juan Avenue | III | Fog lines | Widen shoulder | Traffic calming may be used on narrowest portion |
Discovery Road
hastings to San Juan | III | Improved shoulder | | Improve angle of intersection
for sight distances |
Discovery Road
19th to City limits | II | | Improved shoulder / Bike lanes | Class III as first stage |
Walnut and Jackson Street
Monroe to Reed | II | | Bike lanes | Two streets form a one-way couplet |
14th Street and 12th Street
Sheridan to landes | II/III | | Climbing lane
Downhill shoulder | 12th as class III downhill
14th as class II uphill |
Landes Street
12th Street to 19th Street | III | Stripe fog lines
|
| |
Sheridan to Discovery
| II | Stripe fog lines | Improved shoulder | |
Kearney Street | II | | Improved shoulder / bike lanes |
|
INTERSECTIONS
Intersections pose a challenge for bicyclists: they are typically areas with confusing signals, striping, and automobile behavior. Not surprisingly, the majority of bicycle-vehicle accidents occur at intersections. Experienced cyclists may feel comfortable jousting with automobile traffic. However, the majority of users are uncomfortable moving through intersections. The following techniques can be used to make intersections safer and more comfortable for cyclists:
♦ Striping to help the cyclist safely navigate the intersection.
♦ Traffic signal loop detectors that can be activated by bicyclists will help facilitate the crossing.
♦ Reduced use of free right turn lanes (slip lanes)
In Port Townsend, a number of intersections pose special problems for cyclists and are in particular need of redesign or bicycle striping to make them safer for cyclists. A number of these are identified in the project list in Appendix D.
Objective: Improve Intersection Safety
for Bicyclists | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with plan | <5 years | 5-10 years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Ensure that all demand actuated traffic signals are capable of detecting bicycles, and that they are placed and striped accoding to WSDOT design guidelines | √ | | |
♦Utilize AASHTO and WSDOT standards in the design of intersections | √ | | |
Directed Actions | | | |
♦Identify problem intersections and redesign to improve bicycle safety | | √ | √
|
BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES
Bicyclists, like motorists, require convenient and safe parking at their destination. As the bike network develops and ridership increases, the need for adequate parking facilities should also increase. Bicycle facilities are important not only to encourage use by bicyclists, but also to avert problems associated with improvised parking. Bicycles placed against walls, trees, windows, and on the ground may prove hazardous to pedestrians, automobiles and private property. In addition, bicycles that are improperly parked will be more prone to theft and vandalism. At places of employment, such as the Boat Haven, or anywhere that bicycles may be parked for extended periods, efforts should be made to provided covered parking of some kind.
Comprehensive Plan 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.
| |
Objective: Ensure bicycle parking and support facilities are available at destinations | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to highlight key policies, the full text of implementing policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt
with plan | <5 years | 5-10
years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Require bicycle parking facilities in new public, commercial and multi-family development | √ | | |
Directed Actions | | | |
♦Complete the inventory of existing bike rack locations | √ | | |
♦Work with existing employers to provide bicycle parking | | √ | |
♦Install bike racks at all city facilities | | √ |
|
This chapter provides a list of priority projects that address the most critical needs in the non-motorized network. The tables and maps of projects are intended to guide where and how City resources are used to improve the non-motorized transportation system. The project list considers financial constraints and attempts to establish realistic expectations of how much the City can accomplish over a 10-year planning horizon. The focus of this chapter is on city sponsored projects and does not include non-motorized facilities that will be installed in conjunction with private development.
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND VISUALIZATION
The Non-Motorized Transportation Committee met for a one- day charrette to develop an action plan for implementing the non-motorized system. The Committee reviewed the proposed pedestrian and bicycle connectors on a neighborhood basis and identified key improvements needed immediately and in the longer term.
Projects that were identified by the committee addressed the following issues:
♦ known safety concerns
♦ problem intersections
♦ key connections that need to be made, particularly for routes to school
♦ projects that would provide an immediate or visible impact
♦ improvements needed in terrain and materials
Appendix C provides the complete list of project needs as identified by the Non-Motorized Committee.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Since the deficiencies of the existing system and the needs of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle network far outweigh currently available resources, an attempt was made by the committee to prioritize projects. This prioritization was first accomplished using a "dot voting" method by the committee participants whereby each person allocated a total of 20 votes to the projects they considered to be the most important. The projects were then ranked based on the total number of votes earned.
The project identification and prioritization was done on a subjective basis with committee members using the following criteria to evaluate the proposed improvements:
♦ provides for multiple modes (pedestrian and bike)
♦ addresses existing safety concerns
♦ forms part of the safest route to school network
♦ implements other plans (e.g. Gateway, Urban Waterfront)
♦ provides a demonstrable improvement
♦ demonstrates a low-cost / high gain ratio
♦ connects to other facilities
♦ serves high density, multi-family, commercial or,
♦ serves high vehicular or pedestrian volume areas
To further refine the project priority list, financial limitations were included. Staff attributed unit costs to each of the projects in the project list in order to calculate total project costs for each of the implementing time periods (i.e. 0-5 years, 5-10 years and >10 years). Two funding scenarios were developed to serve as targets for facility improvements. Anticipated base level funding was projected over a 10-year period to a total of approximately $1 million. An additional $1.5 million in facility improvements ($2.5 million over ten years) was considered in order to assess the impact of an exceptional funding source. Chapter 7 discusses funding in more detail. Project priorities were reviewed and adjusted by the Committee and staff to match these funding scenarios.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
Figure 5.1 illustrates the base level funding program and project priorities, with the exceptional funding added in Figure 5.2. The priority projects are listed in the tables at the end of this chapter. These projects are intended to be a guide for the City and/or volunteer groups as to where to invest the limited resources of time and money and which major projects to take on first.
The full project list is included in Appendix C and identifies approximately $8 million in needed improvements. The funding source "other" in the tables signifies the projects to be implemented if exceptional funding becomes available.
IGP's
The Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee identified several projects that could be implemented with minimal time and effort and that would have a meaningful impact and add visibility to the City's pedestrian and bicycle facility improvement efforts. These projects, affectionately known as "instant gratification projects" are contained in Table 5.3. Some of these projects are also included in the detailed project tables.
UNIT COST
The following unit costs were used for the planning-level estimate of construction costs for the various non-motorized facilities. Construction and total project costs are shown. They represent construction costs and do not include ongoing maintenance. Requirements and cost estimates for maintenance are discussed in Chapter 6. Total project costs include engineering, project management, and contingencies. Lump sum costs have also been estimated for certain categories of improvements, such as intersections, without defining explicitly what may be done. The costs provided below are based on recent construction projects completed in the city. These are generalized planning-level estimates that were used in establishing overall project priorities. Detailed project level estimates will be needed for planning site specific improvements.
Construction Costs: Labor and Materials
Cleared Path* | | $1/ft
| Developed Trail** | | $7/ft
| Asphalt Path | | $12/ft
| Sidewalks (concrete)*** | | $15/ft
| Multi-use trail | | $18/ft
| Paint Stripes**** | | $0.20/ft
|
Total Project Costs: Labor, Materials, Engineering, Project
Management and Contingencies
Sidewalk (concrete)*** | | $20/ft
| Asphalt Multi-use Trail | | $25/ft
| Paved Shoulder (both sides)**** | | $50/ft
|
Lump Sum Costs
Intersection Improvements | | $50,000 |
ADA ramp / Bulbout | | $10,000/corner |
Traffic Signal | | $200,000 |
Speed Table | | $30,000
|
TABLE KEY
Funding Sources:
City - City funds (principally Real Estate Excise Tax (REET))
Shoulder - City street funds designated for shoulder improvements
Vol. - City funds used to seed volunteer efforts
DOT - Washington State Department of Transportation improvements on SR20
Other - Exceptional funding source
TABLE 5.3 IGPs
♦Publish maps of the walkway and bikeway system |
♦Place curb stops to prevent automobiles encroaching
on the sidewalk at: the pope marine building, the high
school, and other locations |
♦Acquire tools for trail building and make them
available to the public (McCleod, Pollaski) |
♦Move boxes that block crosswalk at the post office |
♦Improve access to Baby Buggy trail |
♦Establish the Jefferson Hillclimb as an undeveloped
shortcut |
♦Scrape road edge on San Juan between 19th and F
Street |
♦To be Completed
|
TABLE 5.1 MULTI-USE TRAIL PROJECTS |
Segment
Description of Actions
| Funding Source | Timing |
Length (Ft.)
|
Cost
|
Comments
(Other considerations)
|
|---|
Lead | Other | 0-5yrs | 5-10yrs |
|---|
Portage Trail - F Street to Ft. Worden |
Prepare information on the vision for the trail | City | | X | | | | |
Pursue Grant funding | City | | X | | | | |
F Street to Center Street | | | | | | | |
Secure property or easement through valley | Other | Dev. | X | | | $100,000 | Funding source needed |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | X | | 1,500 | $750 | |
Install trail and sign | City | | X | | 1,500 | $10,500 | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | City/Dev. | | X | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Center to W Street | | | | | | | |
Install trail and sign | City | | | X | 3,000 | $21,000 | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | City/Dev. | | X | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Fort Worden | | | | | | | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | | | X | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
Larry Scott Trail to Golf Course (19th Street) |
Larry Scott to Park-and-Ride | | | | | | | |
Develop Route through Port | Grant | Port | | X | 1,000 | $20,000 | Work with Port of PT |
Park-and-Ride to Kearney | | | | | | | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | X | | 2,500 | $50,000 | |
Improve connection to park and ride | City | | X | | 150 | $3,000 | |
Install signage at park and ride | City | | X | | 4 | $1,000 | |
Kearney to 19th Street | | | | | | | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | | X | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
Golf Course (19th Street) to F St. |
Kearney to Cherry Street | | | | | | | |
Identify and clear golf course route | Vol. | | X | | 1,800 | $900 | |
Install multi-use trail and sign | Grant | | | X | 1,800 | $36,000 | |
Cherry to F Street | | | | | | | |
Identify and clear golf course route | Vol. | | X | | 1,800 | $900 | |
Install multi-use trail and sign | Other | | | X | 1,800 | $36,000 | |
Winona Creek Trail (49th to Hastings Ave.) |
49th to Winona | | | | | | | |
Crushed rock overlay and sign along sewer easement | Vol. | | X | | 3,500 | $12,250 | |
Improve access along Willamette and East Sapphire | Vol. | | X | | 1,500 | $5,250 | |
Winona to 35th | | | | | | | |
clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | 3,500 | $1,750 | |
Install Trail | Vol. | | | X | 3,500 | $12,250 | |
35th to Hastings | | | | | | | |
Research access issues
clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | 2,200 | $1,100 | |
Blue Heron to 52nd | Route to school |
Install multi-use trail | Grant | Dev. | X | | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
North Beach Loop (Fort Worden to 49th) | Improve existing |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | X | | 3,500 | $1,750 | Route to school |
49th to Winona Creek |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | 2,000 | $2,000 |
|
TABLE 5.2 NON-MOTORIZED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIST |
Segment
Description of Actions
| Funding Source | Timing |
Length (Ft.)
|
Cost
|
Comments
(Other considerations)
|
|---|
Lead | Other | 0-5yrs | 5-10yrs |
|---|
Sims Way |
City limits to Downtown | | | | | | | |
Stripe bike lanes | DOT | | | X | 29,000 | $5,800 | |
Access management (curbs, temporary improvements) | DOT | | | | | | Work with DOT |
Ferry to Park-and-Ride | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on south side | Other | Grant | | X | 3,500 | $70,000 | |
Kearney intersection | | | | | | | |
Redesign intersection | City | DOT | X | | 1 | $50,000 | |
Longer crossing times | City | | X | | | | |
Consider ped xing with traffic stopped | City | | X | | | | |
Bluff Corridor | | | | | | | |
Restrict parking | City | | X | | | | Gateway Plan |
Sheridan to Howard | | | | | | | |
Sidewalks on south side | Other | DOT/City | | X | 3,600 | $72,000 | |
Sheridan to Landes | | | | | | | |
Improve shoulder | DOT | | X | | 2,600 | $65,000 | Work with DOT |
Howard to City limits | | | | | | | |
Clear path on south side and sign | Vol. | | X | | 3,500 | $1,750 | Gateway Plan |
Improve intersections and ped xing zones | | | | | | | |
Traffic light at Howard | Dev. | | X | | | $200,000 | |
Crossing at Hancock | Other | | | X | | | |
Crossing at Sheridan | Other | | | X | | $50,000 | |
Crossing at Benedict to Boat Haven | Grant | | X | | | $50,000 | |
Discovery Road - San Juan to Hastings | Route to school |
Improve visibility | City | | X | | | | Clearing |
Bike climbing lane (widen shoulder) | Shoulder | | X | | 1,000 | $25,000 | |
Trail on one side | Vol. | | X | | 1,000 | $3,500 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 1,000 | $20,000 | |
Discovery Road - Hastings intersection | Route to school |
Add crossing island and crosswalk | Other | | | X | 1 | $50,000 | |
Consider one way queuing for traffic flow | City | | | X | | | |
Consider alt. Route for ped and bikes | City | | | X | | | |
Discovery Road - Sheridan to Howard |
Speed table at Grant Street School crossing | Grant | | X | | | $30,000 | |
Speed table at Hancock | Grant | | X | | | $30,000 | |
Towne Points to Howard | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,300 | $46,000 | |
Town Pointe to Sheridan | | | | | | | |
Trail on north side | Grant | | X | | 2,500 | $17,500 | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,500 | $50,000 | Route to school |
Intersection improvements for ped xing and transit | | | | | | | |
Cherry Street - Walker Street to W Street | Route to School |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | 6,000 | $42,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 6,000 | $120,000 | |
Direct traffic to Fort Worden | City | | | X | | | |
Jackson/Walnut (and alternative routes) |
Clear Chestnut and sign | Vol. | | X | | 1,500 | $750 | |
Improve and sign Madison shortcut | Vol. | | X | | 500 | $1,750 | |
Evaluate One-way couplet, Roosevelt to Reed | City | | | X | | | |
Walnut | | | | | | | |
Trail on one side | City | | X | | 2,500 | $17,500 | |
F Street - Fir to Tyler | Route to school |
Improve shoulder on south side and restrict parking | City | | X | | 1,500 | $37,500 | |
Improve trail on south side | City | | | X | 750 | $5,250 | |
Sidewalk on north side | City | | X | | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Install sidewalk to Blaine one side | Grant | | X | | 300 | $6,000 | |
F Street - San Juan to Fir | Route to school |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | X | | 2,200 | $55,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | X | | 2,200 | $15,400 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,200 | $44,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,200 | $44,000 | |
Evaluate alt. bike/ped route | City | | | X | | | |
Sheridan | Route to school |
Hastings to 19th | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on south side | Grant | City | X | | 2,400 | $48,000 | |
Crosswalks at Hastings | City | | X | | 1 | $400 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 4,800 | $960 | |
Hastings to Umatilla | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
Hastings - Sheridan to Discovery | Route to school |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | 2,300 | $16,100 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 4,600 | $920 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,300 | $46,000 | |
Harrison at Post Office |
Move newspaper boxes | City | | X | | | | |
Install bike racks | City | | X | | 2 | $600 | |
Add 250 feet of sidewalk (Clay to Franklin) | City | | | X | 250 | $5,000 | |
Lawrence | Route to school |
Infill sidewalks on north side | City | Grant | X | | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Bike lane striping | City | Grant | X | | 3,000 | $600 | |
Improve missing shoulder for bike lane | City | Grant | X | | 1,000 | $25,000 | |
ADA retrofits and bulbouts in commercial area | City | Grant | | X | 4 | $40,000 | |
19th - Walker to Sheridan | Route to school |
Add crosswalk at Landes | City | | X | | 1 | $400 | |
Traffic Calming at Xwalk at SanJuan | Other | | X | | 1 | $30,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 5,000 | $100,000 | |
Sherman Street - Sims to 16th |
Trail in unopened rights-of way | City | | X | | 3,000 | $21,000 | Route to school |
Walker Street - Blaine to Lawrence | Route to school |
Sidewalk on west side | Grant | | X | | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Taylor and Water Intersection |
Bulbouts on north side | City | | | X | 2 | $20,000 | |
4-way stop | City | | X | | 1 | $400 | |
Quincy, Adams and Jefferson |
Improve baby buggy trail and approaches | City | | | X | 250 | $1,750 | |
ADA accessibility at intersection and around corner | City | | | X | 4 | $40,000 | |
Crosswalk at Jefferson and Taylor | City | | X | | 1 | $400 | |
San Juan - Blue Heron to 49th |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 4,000 | $800 | |
Signage | City | | X | | 4 | $2,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | 2,000 | $14,000 | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
Center - San Juan to Cherry | Route to school |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | 1,600 | $11,200 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 1,600 | $32,000 | |
Point Hudson - Jackson |
Consider no thru traffic on Jackson and sign | City | | | X | | | |
San Juan - F to 19th | Route to school |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | | X | 6,000 | $150,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | | X | 6,000 | $1,200 | |
Trail on one side | Grant | | X | | 3,000 | $21,000 | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
12th Street - McPherson to Haines |
Trail on one side | Grant | | | X | 5,200 | $36,400 | |
Sheridan - Sims to 19th | Route to school |
Stripe bike lanes | City | | X | | 8,000 | $1,600 | |
Sidewalks - Hospital to Sims Way | Grant | | | X | 1,000 | $20,000 | |
Sidewalk - Hospital to 19th (east side) | Other | | | X | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Crossing - Hospital to 9th Street | City | | | X | 1 | $400 | |
Hastings - City Limit to Howard |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 5,000 | $1,000 | |
Hastings - Howard to Sheridan |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 7,000 | $1,400 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 3,500 | $70,000 | |
Landes - 12th to 19th |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 3,600 | $720 | |
Howard - Hastings to 35th |
Improve surface for bikes and pedestrians | City | | | X | 2,000 | | |
Umatilla - San Juan to Silver |
Fog lines | City | | X | | 6,400 | $1,280 | |
Consider one-way loop with Woodland | City | | | X | | | |
Umatilla |
San Juan to Sheridan | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 3,200 | $64,000 | |
Blaine Street |
Walker to Tyler | | | | | | | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 2,600 | $52,000 | |
Tyler to Monroe | | | | | | | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Cook Avenue |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | 1,500 | |
Washington Street - Sims Way to Walker |
Bike climbing lane | City | | X | | 500 | $100 | |
Washington Street - Taylor to Filmore |
Bike climbing lane | City | | X | | 1,000 | $200 | |
49th - San Juan to Cook Avenue |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | 3,800 | $76,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | $760 | |
Jefferson Hillclimb | Gateway Plan |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | X | | 300 | $1,050 | |
23rd Street - Sherman to Rosecrans |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | X | 1,000 | $3,500 | |
Gise Street - 14th to 10th |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | X | 1,400 | $4,900 | |
10th Street - to Grant Street School |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | X | | 1,000 | $3,500 |
|
Maintenance is often the hidden cost associated with the expansion or construction of any new facility, but the usefulness of a non-motorized system will be contingent on regular and appropriate maintenance. Maintenance practices should reflect the need to maintain non-motorized facilities as transportation corridors accessible in all weather conditions to all people. As the non-motorized transportation system expands, maintenance activities and budgets must considered.
Maintenance costs can be reduced by establishing design standards for walkways and bikeways that consider maintenance needs. The material and method of construction play a significant role in how frequently facilities will require attention. There are many examples in town where poor construction techniques have resulted in facilities that are not used. For example, some gravel trails installed as little as two years ago are overgrown with weeds, while concrete sidewalks installed at the turn of the century are still functioning with very little maintenance. Poorly maintained facilities not only discourage use but can be more costly in the long run if the facility degrades to the point where it requires complete replacement.
WHO MAINTAINS?
Maintenance of the non-motorized network will require a partnership of city staff, residents, and business owners. Bikeways on streets will be maintained by the City. Much of the maintenance associated with bicycle lanes will be a simple expansion of the care given to the vehicular portion of the roadway. Some additional costs may be incurred by more frequent sweeping and additional road striping.
Off-street bikeways and pathways installed by the City will also be maintained by the City. Volunteer groups will be encouraged to adopt unpaved pathways to help reduce the City's maintenance costs.
The maintenance of the Larry Scott Memorial Trial is defined in an interlocal agreement between the Port, the County and the City. The Port of Port Townsend maintains walkways in the Boat Haven, Point Hudson and other areas that fall within its jurisdiction.
Some parts of the walkway system will be maintained by private individuals or associations. The maintenance and repair of sidewalks constructed along the street frontage is, by existing City ordinance, the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.
Facilities installed in a subdivision or PUD may be required to be maintained by the developer or homeowner association. In recent years the City has moved towards more stringent maintenance requirements for new development. Some existing, privately maintained walkways in town include:
♦ The Business Park
♦ Bell Street
♦ Rosewind
♦ Hamilton Heights
TYPICAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Bicycle lanes
Bicycle lanes require periodic sweeping, restriping and surface repair. Though much of the maintenance associated with bicycle lanes will be a simple expansion of the care given to the vehicular portion of the roadway, adding a bike lane does increase maintenance time. Car traffic generally keeps the roadway clear of gravel and leaves, however, the material swept away by cars will end up in the bicycle lane at the edge of the roadway, where it will remain in place unless a regular sweeping program is followed. Bicycles are also more susceptible than the automobile to uneven surfaces. Bicycle lanes will require the extra care and attention of the road crew.
Bicycle lanes require repainting similar to vehicular traffic lanes. Painting of the white lines for the bike lanes or fog lines is usually necessary once per year. Some lines or symbols that do not receive high traffic volumes may be painted less frequently.
Sidewalks
Concrete sidewalks can be the most cost-effective pedestrian facility in the long-term because of their low maintenance requirements. Though they are initially more expensive than a crushed rock path, sidewalks can last 50 years or more with very little maintenance.
Routine maintenance on sidewalks is limited to clearing the edges of brush, and mowing the planting strip. As the sidewalk wears the occasional repair of cracks will be needed. Neglected repairs can lead to growth of vegetation which will further break up the sidewalk, possibly resulting in entire sections needing to be replaced. Buckled sidewalks may require grinding, or may need to be replaced. Most severe sidewalk damage is a result of tree roots and can be reduced by proper tree selection.
Existing sidewalks in poor condition are routinely marked by City crews. Many of Port Townsend's sidewalks are over 100 years old and some are now in need of repair. As an interim safety measure, uneven walking surfaces should be marked. When time allows, raised surfaces may be ground to reestablish a uniform walking surface.
By City ordinance, the maintenance and repair of sidewalks is the responsibility of adjacent property owners. Long-term maintenance costs could be greatly reduced if problems were taken care of before they became severe.
Road Shoulders
Regular mowing and scraping of roadway edges will provide for pedestrian access in areas where walkways are unavailable.
Pathways and Trails
The maintenance costs for unpaved pathways, as a transportation system, will tend to be higher than recreational trails because of the need for all weather and universal access. On all except the most highly used pathways, pedestrian volume may not be sufficient to maintain a clear pathway. Even on highly traveled pathways, the cleared surface tends to be reduced to a single file path approximately 2 feet wide. Maintenance requirements on pathways will be determined by the selection of materials and the construction techniques used. Compaction of the base, the use of a geotextile, and proper drainage can help to reduce erosion and weed intrusion problems on the pathway. Proper maintenance can reduce long- term costs by deferring the need for surface renewal.
Unpaved pathways are susceptible to erosion problems. Improper drainage will cause low spots that fill with water and become muddy, or will create troughs. Troughs can funnel water along the pathway surface causing it to erode rapidly. Proper initial grading is important to prevent problem spots from arising. As an example, several locations on the Business Park trail had water ponding. Drainage solutions were improvised by creating drainage trenches along sections of trail. Though the drainage problem was solved, the surface of the trail is now very uneven.
Another important aspect of pathway maintenance is vegetation control. Grass, weed, and tree roots adjacent to the pathway can quickly ruin the pathway surface. The installation of a weed barrier (geotextile) can help to reduce maintenance needs.
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS
Driveways and Gravel Streets
Gravel on the road from driveways and gravel streets can be a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians. Paved aprons reduce the likelihood of gravel being swept onto the roadway; reducing the maintenance needed and making the street safer. On existing driveways without an apron, property owners should be encouraged to sweep away gravel that has washed into the roadway.
Unpaved walkway junctions with roads may also benefit from the installation of an apron. The apron would help to define the access point to the walkway and would reduce the amount of debris on the roadway.
Pathway and Trail Construction
The following description is a summary of trail building guidelines found in "Trails for the 21st Century". The base preparation for trails is similar to that of sidewalks.
The difference between a smooth trail and a rough trail is not so much the material used to surface that trail, but rather the ground preparation. There are three components in trail construction: the subgrade, the subbase, and the trail surface.
The subgrade is the native soil mass of the landscape; the subbase is a manmade layer of stone and rock constructed on top of the subgrade; the trail surface is the material installed on top of the subbase. As a unit, the structural qualities of these three individual components determine the strength and quality of a trail.
Vegetation: The trail surface and foundation must be protected from the damage caused by vegetation. Vegetation should be cleared and stumps and roots removed along each edge of the trail for at least 5 feet. This helps to prevent roots and later growth from eventually encroaching on the trail subgrade, subbase, or trail surface. However, small shrubs and goundcover will still be needed to stabilize the soil.
Subgrade: The subgrade is the trail's foundation. The suitability and structural properties of the subgrade will determine how the subbase and trail surface must be designed and constructed. A trail may traverse a number of different soil types. Ideal soils are firm and well-drained.
Four soil qualities are important considerations in trail construction: susceptibility to freezing, permeability, bearing strength, and shrink and swell. Fine-grained soil particles can be pushed towards the surface by frost disrupting the trail surface. The permeability of the soil will determine how well it drains. Poorly drained soils will cause the trail surface to develop water ponds. Unsuitable native soil may need to be replaced by coarser material. Saturated soils cannot support as much weight as well-drained, moist soils. Low bearing strength can cause a trail to rut under normal usage. Expansive soils can expand and contract causing the surface of a trail to crack.
Drainage: Proper drainage of surface and subsurface water must be considered in the design and construction of a trail. Surface water runoff moves on top of the ground, creating rills and troughs. Subsurface runoff moves through the soil horizontally or vertically depending on the soil type and permeability. The design objective is to maintain the water- flow level that existed before the trail was developed.
Surface water runoff can be mitigated using three methods: swales, ditches, and sheet flow. For subsurface drainage four approaches can be used: pipe to carry off excess water, French drains, trenches filled with permeable material that collect water and route it toward a detention area, and sloped or contoured underground drainage channels, where subsurface water is encourage to flow through the trail cross section unimpeded.
Subbase: The purpose of the subbase is to transfer and distribute the weight from the trail surface to the subgrade. The subbase serves a vital drainage function, preventing water from migrating up from the subgrade into the trail's surface. It also allows natural cross drainage to flow through the trail.
The thickness of the subbase is dependent on the subgrade. As a general rule the subbase should be 4 to 8 inches thick. Four inches is sufficient if the subgrade is in excellent condition; up to 8 may be necessary if the subgrade is of poor quality. The base should be compacted with a roller that weighs at least as much as the anticipated load.
Geotextile: Geotextile is placed between the subgrade and subbase and maintains the integrity of the subbase by preventing it from migrating into the subgrade. It also helps to reduce the growth of weeds through the trail surface and improves drainage.
ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
Table 6.1 illustrates maintenance costs to be used for planning purposes. The figures assume a high level of maintenance suitable for a transportation corridor that is accessible in all weather conditions to all people. As the City becomes more familiar with maintaining non-motorized facilities, more detailed maintenance costs can be derived.
These figures can be used to evaluate the long-term maintenance commitment of proposed non-motorized improvements. Staff time needed for maintenance is estimated as Full-time Equivalent (FTEs) per unit.
TABLE 6.1 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
Facility | Yearly Maintenance | Materials
Resurfacing | Labor
FTE |
|---|
Sidewalks | Property owner | N/A | N/A |
Pathway | 1,000 feet
Twice a year - 2 person crew
40 hrs/year
includes: mobilization, edge clearing, raking
and weed removal, erosion repair, disposal of
material, and garbage removal
Monthly mowing and garbage removal
6 months of year 1 person crew
12 hrs/year
assumes maintenance that provides surface conditions suitable to ADA requirements and somewhat comparable to sidewalks | $3,000/1,000 feet
every 10 years
assumes maintenance
routine reduces
resurfacing to every 10
years | 0.028 FTE/
1,000 feet |
Shortcut
(native soil) | 250 feet
Twice a year - 2 person crew
8 hrs/year
includes: mobilization, edge clearing, erosion repair, disposal of material, and garbage removal | N/A | 0.017 FTE/
1,000 feet |
Shortcut
(developed) | 250 feet
Twice a year - 2 person crew
12 hrs/year
includes: mobilization, edge clearing, raking and weed, removal, erosion repair, disposal of material, and garbage removal
Monthly mowing and garbage removal
6 months of year 1 person crew
3 hrs/year | $500/100 feet
every 10 years | 0.032 FTE/
1,000 feet |
Bicycle
Lane | Painting - lines and symbols
3 person crew - 100 hrs.
Sweeping - 4 times per year
1 person - 40 hours
assumes 8 miles of bike lane, and pavement maintenance
as part of street maintenance | $500/year | 0.01 FTE/
mile
|
Existing Maintenance
The Kah Tai Lagoon trail is the only pathway currently maintained by City of Port Townsend Parks department that is used as a transportation corridor. The compacted quarry fine surface is approximately 6 feet wide. High traffic volumes along the pathway help to minimize the maintenance requirements. The pathway was last resurfaced approximately 5 years ago.
10 Year Maintenance Estimate
The 10 year estimate of maintenance for proposed projects is 1.99 FTE. Much of the maintenance included in this figure can be attributed to trails that have been installed as interim facilities in place of sidewalks. In addition, the cost saving of trails to be built contingent on volunteer maintenance has not been included. The maintenance costs suggest that the City must closely monitor the maintenance implications of new facilities and must be creative in developing ways to reduce these costs. As the City becomes more familiar with maintaining non-motorized facilities, more detailed cost estimates can be used to reevaluate the project list.
Projects anticipated in a 5 year horizon include: | | FTE
| ♦ | | 13,700 feet of trails | | .38
| ♦ | | 3,500 feet of multi-use trail | | .10
| ♦ | | 46,400 feet of the bikeway system | | .46
| ♦ | | 1,250 feet of developed shortcuts | | .04
| ♦ | | 2,500 feet of undeveloped shortcuts | | .04
| Total | | 1.02
|
Projects anticipated in a 5-10 year horizon include: | FTE
| ♦ | | 26,900 feet of trails | | .75
| ♦ | | 3,000 feet of multi-use trail | | .08
| ♦ | | 6,000 feet of bikeway system | | .06
| ♦ | | 1,250 developed shortcuts | | .04
| ♦ | | 2,500 undeveloped shortcuts | | .04
| Total | | 97 |
MAINTENANCE INITIATIVES
There exists a number of opportunities to support positive maintenance practices and to reduce maintenance costs.
Spot Repair Post Card Program
The Spot Repair Post Card Program would be used by citizens to help the Public Works Department identify local maintenance problems. Identified problems would be resolved as resources allow.
50/50 Sidewalk program
Through this program the City would help share the cost of repairing a deteriorated sidewalk with property owners on a 50/50 basis. Funding for this program will limited and will be administered according to location, need and condition.
Adopt-a-Trail Program and Community Supported Maintenance
Individuals and community groups can be encouraged to devote time to maintain specific trails. These groups include schools, community and service programs, and seniors. In addition, maintenance work could be used to fulfill the community service requirements of public offenders
Proposed Maintenance Program
The table insert outlines the proposed action items and guidelines for maintenance issues related to this Non-Motorized Plan.
Objective: To ensure adequate
maintenance of existing and proposed
facilities | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to
highlight key policies, the full text of implementing
policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt with
plan | <5 years | 5-10
years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Establish a bikeway and walkway maintenance
budget line item | | √ | |
♦Adopt design standards that minimize long-term
maintenance | √ | | |
Directed Actions
| | | |
♦Establish a regular maintenance and sweeping
program for bicycle facilities aimed at bicycle
lanes, shoulders and separated paths | | √ | |
♦Encourage property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks | | √ | |
♦Work with property owners to repair sidewalks
along important pedestrian connectors | | √ | |
♦Develop an adopt-a-trail program for volunteers
to maintain trails. | | √ | |
♦Established a spot repair postcard program | | √ | |
♦Identify gravel driveways and intersections that
cause shoulder debris problems and work with
property owners to remedy the situation | | √ | |
♦Assist property owners with the repair of
sidewalks to the extent that funds are available | | √ | |
♦Identify streets with shoulders that are used as
important pedestrian connections and implement a shoulder maintenance schedule that meets the needs of pedestrians. | | √ |
|
This plan outlines an ambitious program to improve non-motorized facilities in Port Townsend. To construct and maintain these facilities will require a combination of existing operation and maintenance, capital funding sources, volunteers, state or federal grants, private developers, and careful coordination with related projects.
This chapter details current and potential funding options for implementing the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan.
CURRENT FUNDING SOURCES
Non-motorized improvements are currently part of the transportation capital improvement program. The construction of non-motorized facilities has relied on four funding sources:
existing City funds, road projects, developer impact mitigations, and State and Federal grants. Significant and active use of volunteers will be strongly encourage to enhance available funding. In 1997, Washington cities typically received 67% of transportation funding from local sources, 10% Federal, and 23% from the State.
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
The Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that 35% of REET money be dedicated to non- motorized projects. For the last several years the City has devoted approximately $55,000 a year, of the $150,000 total REET dollars, to pedestrian and bicycle projects. This fund has been used to complete projects throughout the city including: bulb-outs on Water Street, sidewalks on San Juan Avenue, and curb ramps downtown.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.9
| Earmark sufficient and dedicated funding/or construction of non-motorized 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.
| |
Road Projects
Road related facilities such as bike lanes and shoulders have been installed by the City as part of road construction or reconstruction. Because non-motorized facilities are part of the roadway standard, many of the funds directed towards roadway improvement also apply to non-motorized facilities. The city receives approximately $65,000 per year in arterial street funds from the State that are used for capital projects related to streets improvements.
Development Mitigation
Private development has helped to build the non-motorized transportation system in two ways: by constructing roads that include non-motorized facilities, and by providing walkways or bikeways as part of the overall site plan and for impact mitigation. The State subdivision act requires that a proposed subdivision include streets, alleys, "and other public ways" and include "sidewalks and other planning features" that assure safe walking conditions to school.
Bike lanes on Howard Street were installed by private development as were trails and pathways in several new developments. The City's Engineering Design Standards require that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be included in new development.
Grants and Loans
The City of Port Townsend has been successful in acquiring a number of grants that improve non-motorized related facilities, including IAC grants for the reconstruction of Union Wharf and State pedestrian safety grants for improvements on safe walk routes to school. The federal ISTEA program has also provided major funding for street and sidewalk construction in Port Townsend. The following list highlights grants received in recent years:
Project | Grant | Amount |
Union Wharf | IAC | $2,000,000 |
Safe Route to
school | TIB | $70,000 |
San Juan Avenue | ISTEA | $413,000* |
Kearney Street | ISTEA | $88,000 |
|
Grants usually require a local match so the City's funds can be leveraged with grant dollars. Considerable staff time is required in pursuing grants and in their administration. Targeting grants with a high probability of success will help to ensure a more cost-effective effort.
Coordinated Projects ("Piggy-Backing")
The City has been successful at coordinating projects to make funding go further. Projects that are related and compatible can often use a specific funding source fulfill a number of different needs. For example, the stormwater utility fund was used for a neighborhood stormwater detention pond that also included a shortcut for Hendricks street residents.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.5
| Thirty-five percent (35%) of the revenues of generated from the (two) one-quarter percent real estate excise tax funds should be reserved for non-motorized projects.
| |
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The following sections describe local. State, and Federal options that are potential sources of additional funds to implement the Non-Motorized System Plan.
LOCAL OPTION
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
The City currently dedicates approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the revenues generated from the (two) one-quarter percent real estate excise tax funds to non-motorized projects. Proposed budgets should be examined to see if this percentage could be increased to more rapidly implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan related to non-motorized travel.
Street Vacation Fund
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 9.6 directs that street vacation monies be earmarked for a reserved transportation system improvement account for the purchase of rights-of-way or transportation facility easements. These funds could be used to obtain multi-use path corridors. It should be noted that part of the intent of this plan is to discourage street vacations that align with the proposed non-motorized network.
Voluntary Utility Billing Check Off
The City has considered a utility bill check off as a method to raise funds for parks and open space, but has yet to move forward with it. An additional check off could be added for utility customers to elect to contribute to non-motorized improvements. As an example, if 100 people a month contributed 5 dollars, the yearly total would be $6,000. A check off for non-motorized projects, however, would compete with other programs seeking to raise funds in this manner.
User Fees
A fee charged to users of the non-motorized system, such as a bicycle registration fee, would directly assess those who benefit from the proposed improvements. These fees have been supported by some bicycle advocates. Port Townsend currently requires bicycle registration. However, registration programs for bicycles have been unsuccessful due to the difficulty of enforcement and the high cost of administering such a program in comparison to the revenue it generates. Moreover, registration could go against the intent of Comprehensive Plan policy by discouraging the use of one alternative transportation mode
Road Impact Fees
Impact fees would require new development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements, based on its proportionate share of the impact. Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.2(g) directs the City to consider impact fees for roads. A street impact fee study, which should also consider non-motorized facilities, is needed to evaluate this option.
Local Option Fuel Tax and Vehicle License Fee
Jefferson County can elect to instigate a local option fuel tax or vehicle license fee. These funds could be used to fund general transportation improvements including non-motorized facilities. Washington State Law (RCW 47.30) requires cities and counties to set aside a minimum of 0.5 percent of their motor vehicle fuel taxes (half cent gas tax) for trails and paths.
Transient Accommodation Tax
In the past the use of these funds was limited to the visual arts, conference or sports facilities, stadium and coliseums. The legislature recently allowed for the use of these funds to be more at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. In addition, to promoting tourism, the proceeds of this tax have been used for a number of projects including the renovation of the Pope Marine Building, and to support the Golf Course Clubhouse. Several facilities listed in this plan provide services directly related to accommodating visitor needs such as: the Waterwalk, connections to the ferry, and the Portage Trail. These projects could be funded under this program if sufficient funds are available.
Local Street Utility Tax
Street utility fees were restricted by a Supreme Court ruling on the City of Seattle's street utility in November 1995. If a street utility is implemented the Comprehensive Plan recommends that at least 25% of the revenues generated from a utility tax should be earmarked for non-motorized transportation system improvements.
General Fund
A budget line item could be established to fund projects that have community-wide benefits. Non-motorized projects must then compete with other city needs for this type of funding.
Local Improvement District (LID)
LIDs are self-taxing districts in which property owners cooperate financially to improve facilities including streets and utilities. The cost of the improvement is shared equitably and assessed to the property tax. The costs of a project may then be amortized over 20 years.
General Obligation Bonds
A bond may be an option for specific projects that have community-wide appeal and value. These are tax-supported bonds used to finance government capital improvements. A bond would require a public vote for approval and will reduce the City's capacity to seek additional debt for other projects. The Non-Motorized Transportation Committee expressed keen interest in pursuing a bond for a specific program such as sidewalks on walk routes to school or a section of the Multi-use Trail.
Private Funds and Bequests
Some projects may be able to generate funding from individuals. The Portage Trail, for example, may be an attractive option for a private bequest. The City could work towards a program that would acknowledge private donations with such items as plaques, benches, engraved bricks etc.
STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
IAC - Outdoor Recreation Grant Program
This grant program, administered by the IAC, provides funding for acquisition of land and development of facilities for outdoor recreation. Projects are eligible if adequate maintenance is guaranteed and they meet the priorities identified in the local parks plan.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
WSDOT may provide pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements as part of their state route improvement projects which would include SR20 to the ferry terminal. The City needs to work with the DOT to increase the priority and ranking of SR20 on the State's highway plan. Improvements along this corridor should be focus on implementing the recommendations of the Gateway Plan and on pedestrian and bicycle routes on the SR20 bridge crossing the Olympic Discovery Trail approaching the City limits.
Community Economic Strategies Fund (CESF)
The CESF provides resources to local and regional organizations for high priority economic development on a competitive basis. Non-motorized facilities related to commercial development may qualify for funding.
Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA)
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides competitive grants, under the UATA program, "To alleviate and prevent traffic congestion." Projects that may qualify for this funding would include walk routes to school and projects in commercial areas.
Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides competitive grants that serve as the required local match to obtain federal funding. The funds may be used, "To alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development and growth."
Public Works Trust Fund
The Washington State Department of Community Development provides low-interest revolving loans to fund critical public works projects at the local level. This program makes up a very small percentage of Washington city revenue for transportation.
Tourism Promotion Program
This is a program by the Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development program that provides matching grants for tourism promotion and planning.
Coastal Zone Management Program
This is a Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) program which provides grants for shoreline access projects including trails. Funding for recommended improvements in the Urban Waterfront Plan should be sought.
Aquatic Land Enhancement (ALEA)
This is a Washington Department of Natural Resources program to fund land acquisition and development for water-related activities including water access trails. May be suitable for Waterwalk projects. The program requires a 25% local match, with a maximum grant of $75,000 per project.
The Community Economic Revitalization Board
This agency provides grants and low-interest loans to "timber communities" for "projects that result in new or expanded manufacturing or tourism jobs." This should be applicable for projects to pedestrianize downtown or improve access to the ferry terminal, (e.g. sections of the Waterwalk from Kearney to the ferry dock.).
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Washington Department of Community Development provides grants that target communities and neighborhoods which are principally low and moderate income. Funds may be used for "street improvements" which presumably includes pedestrian facilities. The maximum grant awarded in a one-year period is $500,000. This program makes up a very small percentage of Washington city revenue for transportation.
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
ISTEA
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA of 1991 provides an extensive array of funding sources for non motorized facilities. Funding categories range from transit related items to recreational trails. NEXTEA and BESTEA are currently being considered as successors to ISTEA and may change the funding structure.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
This fund, managed by the IAC, allows local park and recreation departments to apply for grants up to $75,000 (with a 50/50 local match) for a wide variety of recreational project; that include bikeway facilities.
Objective: Provide adequate funding for
non-motorized facility construction and
maintenance. | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to
highlight key policies, the full text of implementing
policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt
with plan | <5
years | 5-10
years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | nbsp; |
♦Continue to reserve 35% of REET money for
non-motorized use | √ | | |
♦ Coordinate projects, where possible, to
maximize benefits "piggy-backing" | √ | | |
♦Give a higher priority to street improvement
projects that also have bicycle or pedestrian
benefits | √ | | |
♦ Maximize the use of ISTEA and other State
funds for non-motorized facility improvements | √ | | |
Directed Actions | | | |
♦Actively pursue other funding sources for non-
motorized facility improvements | | √ | |
♦Work with the WSDOT to have implementation
of the Gateway Plan ranked higher in the state
transportation funding list | | √ | |
♦Pursue an LID program for neighborhood
projects | | √ | |
♦Continue to work with the Non-Motorized
Committee to develop the 'exceptional' funding
program | | |
|
PROPOSED FUNDING PROGRAM
Table 7.1 shows the proposed funding program for non- motorized projects. The table includes two categories of funding: (1) continued funding at historical levels which includes grant funding sources, and (2) new sources that could provide additional funds for more rapid implementation of the non-motorized network.
The "base level" funding scenario generates approximately $100,000 per year from a range of sources and matches the "base level" capital projects plan in Chapter 5 of $1 million dollars of new facilities over 10 years. To expand the Capital Improvement Program to include the 'exceptional' funding projects, additional funding sources must be developed through grants, bonds, additional gas taxes, etc. Table 7-1 lists potential new sources and what the potential income could be from these sources. To meet the expanded Capital Improvement Program in Chapter 5 of $2.5 million over 10 years, an average of an additional $150,000 per year in funding must be secured. It will be a task of the Non-Motorized Committee, after this plan is adopted, to continue to examine funding options and to develop recommendations for additional funding.
The insert box describes programs to implement the project funding portion of this plan.
TABLE 7.1 NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES FUNDING PROGRAM
Funding Source | Basis | Average yearly Funding Level* |
|---|
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|---|
Base Funding Level |
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) | | | | | | | |
Sidewalks | 13% of REET (.13 * $155,000) | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 |
Bike/Pedestrian | 23% of REET (.23 * $155,000) | 35,000 | 35,000 | 35,000 | 35,000 | 35,000 | 35,000 |
General Fund (Parks) | | | | | | | |
Trails construction** | General Fund Allocation | | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 |
Arterial Street Fund (ASF) | | | | | | | |
Shoulder Widening | 30% of ASF (.30 * $65,000) | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 |
Grants | | | | | | | |
State (TIB) | Oil Rebate Grant | 68,000 | | | | | |
Federal (ISTEA) | Based on 6-year historical levels | | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 |
Private Sector Development | | | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
|
TOTAL BASE FUNDING LEVEL | | 143,000 | 105,000 | 105,000 | 105,000 | 105,000 | 105,000 |
|
Potential New Funding Sources |
Utility Bill Voluntary Contribution | 100 People @ $3/month | | | 3,600 | 3,600 | 3,600 | 3,600 |
Grants | | | | | | | |
ISTEA | | | 30,000 | 30,000 | 30,000 | 30,000 | 30,000 |
IAC | | | | | | 40,000 | 40,000 |
Additional REET Funding | 10% add'l REET | | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
Local Option Fuel Tax &/or License Fee
(Requires Jeff City Adoption) |
| | | | | 40,000 | 40,000 |
Bond Issue 4000 | houses @ $3.00 per month
($36 per year per household) | | | 144,000 | 144,000 | 144,000 | 144,000 |
Impact Fees | 100 new houses per year @ $100 | | | | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 |
New State Legislation | | | | | 30,000 | 30,000 | 30,000 |
|
POTENTIAL NEW FUNDING SOURCES | | $0 | $45,000 | 192,600 | $232,600 | $312,600 | $312,600 |
|
NEW FUNDING SOURCE 'GOAL' | | | | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000
|
Note: This table includes City sponsored projects only. Additional projects and facilities will be implemented by new development in conformance with this plan and the Engineering Design Standards.
Providing the facilities for non-motorized users comprises only one aspect of increasing bicycle and pedestrian use and safety. The attitudes and behaviors of both motorists and those walking or hiking play a large role in determining the comfort and safety of non-motorists. Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement encompasses the human element of the non-motorized program.
If an intent of the Non-Motorized Plan is to get greater numbers of people to walk or bike, then there must be a concomitant effort to encourage the safe use of the facilities. For non- motorists to safely take advantage of new facilities and to avert potential conflicts that these facilities may create there needs to be emphasis on building a knowledge base and improving skill levels. For example, while the proposed multi-use trail will be designed to accommodate both bicyclist and pedestrian, there is still a need to establish an etiquette for sharing space.
The education, encouragement, and enforcement concepts tend to overlap. Education can help to diminish the need for enforcement, and helps to promote bicycling and walking. The need for enforcement can be often be as a result of inadequate education.
PEDESTRIAN ISSUES
Research shows that pedestrian accidents are not random, unrelated events. They are situations that occur over and over-situations in which the driver, the pedestrian, or both, make errors that threaten the pedestrian's life and safety.
These are risky situations that could be avoided. For example, the following recurring events account for the majority of pedestrian accidents
♦ Darting out-usually between parked cars
♦ Dashing across an intersection-usually too late for a driver to stop
♦ Turning, merging, or backing up of a vehicle-usually the driver concentrates on maneuvering the car and doesn't see the pedestrian.
♦ Stopped bus-when the pedestrian walks in front of the bus and is hidden just before walking in to oncoming traffic
♦ multiple threat-usually one vehicle stops for a pedestrian and blocks the pedestrian from view of other oncoming traffic*
BICYCLIST ISSUES
There are many bicyclists who know how to ride a bicycle, but relatively few bicyclists who are aware that Washington State Law considers bicycles to be a vehicle, and that they must follow the rules of the road. For example, Washington State Law requires the reporting of accidents, including bicycles, which involve more that $500 damage to any one party, injury or death. Knowing the rules of the road does not necessarily help a cyclist ride comfortably in traffic.
Pedestrians are often frustrated by cyclists riding on the sidewalk or passing them very quickly and closely without warning. Motorists are irritated by bicyclists who fail to stop a traffic signals, ride in the wrong direction, fail to signal or fail to yield.
MOTORISTS ISSUES
Like pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists have a fairly low regard for pedestrian laws. A recent AAA study, cited in Oregon's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, found that nearly 50% of motorists were unaware of basic pedestrian laws. In addition to the knowledge of the law, there is a need for common sense, or an awareness of pedestrian and bicycle needs and potential sources of conflict.
Motorists exceeding the speed limit are unlikely to consider the implications of this behavior on the likely outcome if they hit a pedestrian. Motorists sometimes turn without looking for pedestrians whose path they are crossing, particularly in right turn situations. They are often unaware of the need to yield or do not actively look for pedestrians in the roadway. Motorists do not always adjust their or caution in inclement weather or after dark when pedestrian and bicyclists are less visible.
Motorist and bicycle collisions occur primarily when the motorist turns left in front of an oncoming bicycle, motorist turns right in front of bicycle traveling the same direction, motorists running a stop sign or signal. Contrary to the cyclists fear very few motorist bicycle collisions occur with the motorist running into the back of a cyclist. The exception to this is when a bicyclists turns left from the right hand side of the road without scanning, yielding, signaling, and having correct lane positioning.
Basic and simple driving habits can make a significant improvement in bicycle and pedestrian safety and include:
♦ Being courteous to cyclists and pedestrians
♦ Looking for cyclists before opening a car door
♦ Expecting a cyclist to be present on the roadway particularly in comers
♦ Waiting behind a cyclist until adequate passing roadway width is available.
♦ Understanding that cyclist have the right to take the lane because of inadequate road width to permit passing or because of conditions that are unsafe for the cyclist to ride on the right side of the road.
♦ Driving slower -speed makes little difference in travel time within the limited range of the city -more reaction time to avoid accident and fatality
♦ Expecting pedestrian on the roadway and yielding
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE
A number of activities and initiatives have taken place in Port Townsend that both educate and encourage non-motorized users. Enforcement has tended to variable
Education
♦ The Ped Bee program is a State supported program that promotes pedestrian safety. It was first brought to Port Townsend as part of the Key City Challenge, and include the support of the Police Department. The Ped Bee program was used as a publicity tool to raise awareness, and did not include the full educational element of the program.
♦ In 1996 the City of Port Townsend worked with the School district to establish Safest Routes to School. This plan builds on the concern for student safety by working towards desired safe routes to school.
♦ The Port Townsend Bicycle Association in conjunction with the City of Port Townsend Recreation Program, Summer Enrichment camp helped to provide helmets and hold bike safety sessions every week of camp in 1995, 1996, and 1997.
♦ The Kiwanis has held bicycle Rodeos to teach safety and riding skills.
♦ Blue Heron Middle School, as part of PE classes in 1996 and 1997, has held three class sessions of the Cascade Bicycle Club Intermediate School Bicycle Program.
♦ The League of American Bicyclists in conjunction with the City of Port Townsend Recreation Department held an adult bicyclist education class in 1996.
Encouragement
♦ The Port of Port Townsend has installed 5 bicycle racks at the Port Townsend Boat Haven
♦ Jefferson Transit has accommodated bicyclists by providing bicycle racks on all its buses.
♦ The Port Townsend free wheels program operated in 1991 and 1992. The program provided green bicycles at key points throughout the city for the use of the general public.
♦ The Key City Challenge has been a successful program to encourage alternative modes of transportation, and is sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, Jefferson Transit, the Main Street Program, and the City of Port Townsend. The program challenges employers and employees to use alternative transportation for an entire work week. The program relies on publicity and some prizes.
Enforcement
♦ The Police Department has, on occasion, handed out local business product vouchers for good bicycle riding behavior. It has also issued warnings for inappropriate cycling behavior.
Comprehensive Plan 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.
| |
WHAT TO DO
Education
Schools should play an important role in planning and conducting a community bicycle and pedestrian safety program. They should establish an instruction program that will foster the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for safe walking, bicycling and driving. Walking is the main transportation mode used by school-aged children, so pedestrian safety instruction should be as important as learning the rules of the road in driver's education.
Encouraging and providing safe facilities for children to walk to school will have long-term benefits. Children accustomed to walking to school, will accept it as a means of transportation and will except the facilities in place to make it possible.
Teaching our children safe walking and bicycling habits is a joint duty of parents, schools, law enforcement and volunteers. With the rise of sedentary lifestyles in America, the safe route to school is an excellent opportunity to have parents walk or bicycle with their child to school. Having educational programs that are active and repetitive are important. The following list is an outline of a general education program.
♦ K-3rd grade learn safe pedestrian habits
♦ 3rd grades learn safe hiking habits
♦ 4th-8th grades learn skills to ride bikes to school (traffic skills)
♦ 9-12th grades -cycling as a sport/ transportation/health -Drivers Ed Class, learn as a motorist who to share the roads with bicycles
The National Bicycling and Walking Study's Case Study No. 12, Incorporation Consideration of Bicyclists and Pedestrian into Education Programs, indicates there are a number of topic typically covered in elementary schools that have pedestrial safety programs.
♦ Locating the edge of the road
♦ Search procedures before entering the road midblock
♦ Search procedures where there are visual screens
♦ Search procedures at intersections
♦ Search procedures when there are parked cars
♦ Search procedures while crossing the road
♦ meaning of signal lights and signs
The case study also outlines some topics that are covered less frequently, but should be included in an education program.
♦ Wearing something light or bright to be conspicuous
♦ Using crosswalks
♦ Planning a safe route
♦ Walking along the road (procedures when there are no
♦ Walking along the road (procedure; sidewalk)
♦ Walking in parking lots
♦ Judging gaps in traffic (including understanding distance and time considerations and reaction time)
♦ Safety considerations in bad weather
♦ Types of vehicles sharing the roadway - cars, trucks, school buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles
Likelihood of Pedestrian Fatality in a Crash |
Motorists Speed
(mph) | Chance of Pedestrian Fatality |
20 | 5% |
30 | 45% |
40 | 85% |
Source: Pedestrian Transportation Plan 1997 Madison, WI
|
"Children frighten us by behaving around traffic just the way we do" -Dan Burden FDOT
| |
Often insurance concerns prohibit the training of cyclists in actual conditions and instead training is taught in parking lots or in gyms attempting to simulate actual conditions. This is appropriate for the younger children but actual practice on city streets such as with Drivers Ed is invaluable. This is possible when the importance of bicycle education is recognized and when a joint effort of schools, law enforcement and volunteers can provide an adequate balance of classroom education and student teacher ratio for safe conduct of on street bicycle training.
There is also a need for the education of people whose work has an impact on pedestrian and bicycle issues. Engineers need to know pedestrian and bicycle friendly design practices, street crews should be aware of construction and maintenance concerns, and police need to know of enforcement issues. A basic professional knowledge base can help to ensure a consistent consideration of non- motorist issues.
ENFORCEMENT
An enforcement program implies a greater commitment of police staff time. It should target problem areas to optimize limited staff time. The need for enforcement can often be the result of neglected or poor education.
Bicyclist traffic violations tend towards ignoring traffic signals. Inappropriate adult cycling behavior needs enforcement and education. Pedestrian and bicyclists need to be aware of the laws and must understand that whether they are a motorist, or cyclists that they must still obey the law and can receive a ticket for a violation. The police could play a role by: rewarding good behavior with vouchers, handing out warning or potentially requiring remedial class for repeat offenders.
Several motorist violations have particularly significant impacts on pedestrian safety. The chances of a pedestrian fatality increase exponentially as motorist speed increases. Therefore, a motorist exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for conditions can have fatal consequences for a pedestrian. Motorists failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks is also a significant problem for pedestrian, especially in heavy traffic where there are few gaps in traffic adequate for crossing.
ENCOURAGEMENT
Expanding non-motorized facilities is an obvious way to help encourage more users. As more streets are striped for bicycle lanes the availability and extent of the bicycle network becomes more visible. More trails and sidewalks will invite people to walk.
The City could investigate incentives for employees to walk or bike to work. With the limited parking available inn the downtown a concerted effort by the City could relieve some of the parking pressures,
Objective: Provide adequate funding for
non-motorized facility construction and
maintenance. | Timing |
|---|
*The policies in this table are summaries intended to
highlight key policies, the full text of implementing
policies may be found in Chapter 10 | Adopt
with plan | <5
years | 5-10
years |
|---|
Policy Summary | | | |
♦Ensure street crews and inspectors receive
adequate training in non-motorized issues | √ | | |
♦Identify a staff member that will be current on
non-motorized design issues | | √ | |
Directed Actions | | | |
♦Continue to the support the Ped Bee program
incorporating the full education program | √ | | |
♦Work with the School District to promote the
safest route to school and to expand non-
motorized education programs | | √ | |
♦Work with the School District to provide
teacher training and materials on bike and
pedestrian safety | | √ | |
♦Make presentations to the School Board on the
benefits of a bike and pedestrian safety program | | √ | |
♦The standing Non-Motorized Committee should
help to coordinate a community based safety
and education program | | √ | |
♦Investigate incentives for City employees to
walk or bike to work. | | √ | |
♦Work with the Police Department to address
enforcement needs | | √ |
|
This chapter covers several issues that apply to the Plan in general including pedestrian-friendly site design, universal accessibility, and the Downtown Business District.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY DESIGN
Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.5 states that "Whenever feasible, new development and redevelopment shall be required to incorporate transit-supportive and pedestrian-friendly design elements and features." This plan recommends that Pedestrian Facilities Design Guidebook (September 1997, WSDOT) be adopted and used as a guide in the development review process.
UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY
The City is committed to providing universal accessibility in implementing the Walkway System Plan. Universal accessibility is achieved in a number of ways. The increased emphasis on sidewalks in parts of the city will allow greater mobility in not only commercial areas but residential areas as well. Pedestrian pathways should be constructed so that the materials provide a firm, smooth surface. Some shortcuts may not be graded or improved but will be cleared to a minimum of 4 feet. New sidewalks will include curb ramps at crossing points. Existing sidewalks with continue to be retrofitted with curb ramps, and repaired.
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT
The Downtown Business District is a draw to residents and visitors alike. While the ambiance of the crowded streets attracts walkers, significant improvements could be undertaken to make the Downtown area more pedestrian friendly. The Non-Motorized Transportation Committee felt that the Downtown area required a more detailed plan that was beyond the scope of this study, and that the development of such a plan should include business owners and other affected groups. The following is a list of potential pedestrian improvements to the Downtown area identified by the Non-Motorized Committee.
Street Improvements
♦ Add bicycle lane striping
♦ Consider a one-way traffic flow loop
♦ Try an occasional closure to cars of selected streets or portions of streets (e.g.. One day per week or month or for a few hours on selected days).
♦ Close selected streets for festivals
♦ Install more pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections
Pedestrian Improvements
♦ Provide more pedestrian scale lighting
♦ Widen the sidewalk on the water side of Water Street
♦ Encourage sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vendors
♦ Encourage activities / businesses that bring people Downtown at night
♦ Encourage vendors on Union Wharf
♦ Add bicycle lane striping
♦ Consider a one-way traffic flow loop
♦ Try an occasional closure to cars of selected streets or portions of streets (e.g. One day per week or month or for a few hours on selected days).
♦ Close selected streets for festivals
♦ Install more pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections
Access to the Downtown
♦ Improve the "Baby Buggy" (Cherry Tree) trail surface and access
♦ Slow traffic and improve crosswalk safety across from Swain's at Polk Street (speed table, pedestrian actuated lights, better painting)
♦ Improve pedestrian access to the Downtown, by filling in missing sidewalk links and street lighting, and by providing safe street crossing
Park-and-Ride
♦ Provide signs to the Park-and-Ride
♦ Work with Jefferson Transit to provide more frequent transit service from the Downtown to the Park-and-ride
♦ Work with the Main Street Program and public and private employers to encourage use of the Park-and-Ride by employees and employers.
It is recommended that the proposed Non-Motorized Standing Committee or an independent Downtown advisory group be established to work with the Main Street Program and the Chamber of Commerce to review these suggestions and implement those on which a consensus can be reached.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan sets a broad and ambitious agenda to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the City. Implementation of this plan will require the combined resources of city staff, elected officials, and citizens, as well as the participation of agencies at the state and federal level. This plan represents a long-term goal and it is recognized that full implementation may take 20 years or more.
This chapter describes and summarizes how the non-motorized plan will be implemented, and includes the policies that will guide the implementation process. A brief discussion of the elements of implementation is followed by implementing policies.
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?
This plan includes a long-term vision to guide development, and an integrated plan of proposed capital facility improvements. It is recognized that it may take 20 years or more to carry out the full vision set forth in this plan. However, this plan also includes a directed 10-year capital program to implement the priority projects identified by the Non-Motorized Committee.
WHO WILL CARRY OUT THE PLAN?
Non-motorized facility improvements will be implemented through a variety of methods including:
♦ City Initiatives
♦ Development Requirements
♦ Volunteer Efforts
City Initiatives
City staff will have responsibility for the following:
General Tasks
♦ Maintain a library and resources on non-motorized issues and design
♦ Monitor maintenance costs
♦ Maintain the street and walkway network
♦ Work with property owners to encourage maintenance of sidewalks and pathways
♦ Encourage existing businesses to provide bike and pedestrian amenities
♦ Develop and adopt development regulations that implement the plan
Projects
♦ Prioritize, design and manage construction projects
♦ Develop and carry out the yearly capital improvements program
Development Review
♦ Review new developments for conformance with this plan
♦ Identify and preserve rights-of-way for non- motorized use
♦ Revise design standards as necessary to incorporate the guidance from this plan and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design features
♦ Preserve non-motorized connections with minimal street crossings of walkways.
Development Requirements
New development will be required to meet the standards and guidelines in this plan. Some of these requirements are to:
♦ Include bike, pedestrian and transit supportive facilities in site design
♦ Provide connections to the bicycle and pedestrian networks
♦ Dedicate easements for non-motorized facilities
♦ Site design should be pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly as described in this plan
Volunteer Efforts
This plan recognizes the important role volunteer efforts can have in developing new facilities and in maintaining existing trails. This plan seeks to increase citizen participation through the creation of an advisory committee and by supporting volunteer efforts.
Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee
It is a recommendation of this plan that a non-motorized committee meet regularly as a City advisory committee. The committee will undertake the following tasks
♦ Explore and recommend additional funding programs
♦ Develop a sign and logo program
♦ Organize volunteer efforts
♦ Assist in determining project priorities with Staff
♦ Develop and implement an education program
♦ Review amendments to the Walkway System Plan, Safest Walk Route to School Map, and the Bikeway System Plan
♦ Review the Capital Facility Plan
Volunteer Support
To fully implement this plan the City will rely on volunteer efforts. By making a clear commitment to supporting volunteers the City hopes to encourage greater participation in both the construction and maintenance of facilities. The City's aim is to encourage and support citizens by putting tools in place which can help them to participate in creating the network. In this way, the development of some parts of the non- motorized system will be dependent on the degree of interest and commitment expressed by the community.
The City Engineering Group will review proposals for trail blazing, improvements, or maintenance. The proposal will be evaluated based on its potential neighborhood impact, and on the availability of staff time to assist the project. The City will only grant approval for the development of a facility that is on city owned land or rights-of-way.
If a proposal is approved, the city will provide the following assistance:
♦ A City employee will be designated as a contact person for volunteer efforts.
♦ Permission will be granted to work in the right-of- way.
♦ Mapping and flagging will be performed to locate the trail on city owned land or rights-of-way. The City will locate the facility so that there is certainty that the trail is within the right of way. The City is not obligated to perform a survey and may deny the application if the location of the right of way is in question.
♦ The City will contact affected property owners to inform them of the project, and will attempt to resolve issues of concern.
♦ The City may provide equipment and/or material
♦ Public Works permit fees will be waived for trail construction by volunteers.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
The following implementation policies have their foundation in the 1996 Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, and the efforts of the Non-Motorized Transportation Planning Advisory Committee. As this plan is a functional plan expressly required by the Comprehensive Plan, the policies contained in this chapter are intended to be consistent with and partially implement the Comprehensive Plan. Appendix E contains the full text of the Comprehensive Plan policies supporting this Plan. Policies in the first section, numbered as 1.XX, refer to development requirements. Policies in section 2, numbered as 2.XX provide direction to City officials, most often in relation to staffing and capital budget issues.
For the purpose of these policies, development is defined by PTMC 12.04.030. "Development" means (1) construction of a new dwelling unit, mixed use center, commercial or manufacturing establishment, or other new structure on a vacant lot or parcel; or (2) a redevelopment or change in the intensity of the use of an existing structure that creates an appreciable impact on existing infrastructure.
SECTION 1
General
NMTP Policy 1.1: Adopt and use the Walkway System Plan Map (Figure 3.2), the Safest Walk Route to School Map (Figure 3.3), and the Bikeway System Plan Map (Figure 4.1) for overall system design, designation of bikeway facility types, identification of future walkway alignments, protection of unopened rights-of-way, and the review and mitigation of development projects.
NMTP Policy 1.2: Require that public walkways and bikeways be located within dedicated public easements or rights-of-way.
NMTP Policy 1.3: Ensure that required walkway improvements are open for use 24 hours a day, unless site specific conditions show that 24-hour use is reasonably likely to pose a hazard to adjacent property owners.
NMTP Policy 1.4: Where appropriate to mitigate the impacts of a development, require development to dedicate easements and/or construct portions of the Non-Motorized System which may include: neighborhood connectors, the Multi-Use Trail, shortcuts, sidewalks or pathways.
NMTP Policy 1.5: Allow flexibility for alternative alignments, provided that the overall functionality, access, and connectivity of the Non-Motorized System is preserved.
NMTP Policy 1.6: Where appropriate to mitigate impacts, require that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be provided in development and that they be considered as an essential component of the transportation system.
NMTP Policy 1.7: Require pedestrian and bicycle friendly design features to be incorporated into development so as to minimize the potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.
Protection of Rights-of-Way
NMTP Policy 1.8: Require that unopened rights-of-way mapped as part of Walkway System Plan connections be preserved for non-motorized use as shortcuts, neighborhood connectors, safest routes to school, and/or the multi-use trail, where feasible and reasonable in view of cost impacts to the development.
1.8.1 Minimize the opening of streets across walkway alignments identified by the Walkway System Plan.
1.8.2 Allow for alternative walkway alignments, that may change which rights-of-way are protected, based on site conditions and the viability of the walkway connection.
Subdivisions and PUDs
NMTP Policy 1.9: Require pedestrian and bicycle facilities within new developments that meet the needs of a wide range of users (e.g., utilitarian, commuters, schoolchildren, and recreational) in relation to the probable impact of the proposal.
NMTP Policy 1.10: Ensure that the design of pedestrian facilities within new developments considers the full range of pedestrian abilities, including children, the elderly, and the physically disabled.
NMTP Policy 1.11: Require internal connections in new developments that form a pedestrian-scale grid as described in Chapter 3.
NMTP Policy 1.12: Work with new development at the earliest possible stage (preapplication conference) to implement comprehensive plan policy 4.8 directing the use of a grid or modified street grid pattern that may include: shortcuts; connecting cul-de-sacs; and mid-block connections between loop streets and long blocks.
NMTP Policy 1.13: Where required, pedestrian and bicycle access to and through new subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) should be aligned in directions where future non-motorized connections are likely to occur.
NMTP Policy 1.14: Require that site designs for new development preserve existing trails or maintain the connections that existing trails provide to the extent that these provisions mitigate the impacts of the development.
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Pathways
NMTP Policy 1.15: Require development to provide sidewalks or pathways along local street frontage.
1.15.1: Allow sidewalk and pathway deferrals in areas where density along a street frontage is developed at less than five units per acre, provided that the developer signs a no protest agreement for the future formation of a Local Improvement District (LID). No protest agreements should establish reasonable predictability for developers with regard to required improvements.
1.15.2: Allow sidewalk and pathway waivers in instances where the presence of dead-end streets, or other features suggest that there is little or no potential for pedestrian and automobile through traffic.
1.15.1: Allow sidewalk and pathway waivers for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
1.15.4: Allow alternatives to sidewalk and pathway installation for local access street designs that achieve comparable levels of safety, accessibility, and low maintenance.
Universal Accessibility
NMTP Policy 1.16: Require or provide crossing signals that are audible at all intersection traffic lights.
NMTP Policy 1.17: Ensure that crossing times and distances at intersection traffic lights are safe and appropriate for all pedestrians.
NMTP Policy 1.18: Require pedestrian connections to be reasonably barrier-free and direct to the extent natural characteristics (e.g., topography) of the region will allow.
NMTP Policy 1.19: Require paved aprons and curb cuts for unpaved pathways that intersect with paved roads.
Facility Design
NMTP Policy 1.20: Use the AASHTO (i.e., American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials) and WSDOT (i.e., Washington State Department of Transportation) design guidelines and accepted bicycle and pedestrian facility design practices in the design and striping of intersections.
NMTP Policy 1.21: Establish a no-parking space at access points to off-road walkways.
NMTP Policy 1.22: Require signage for off-road walkways to identify them as public ways.
NMTP Policy 1.23: Amend the Engineering Design Standards to encourage street names to be imprinted at intersections for new concrete sidewalks.
Bicycle Facilities
NMTP Policy 1.24: Require development in commercial, institutional, and multi-family zones to provide bicycle parking.
NMTP Policy 1.25: Ensure that all demand actuated traffic signals are capable of detecting bicycles, and that they are placed and striped according to WSDOT design guidelines.
Transit Supportive Design
NMTP Policy 1.26: Require transit friendly site design and the provision of transit (and school bus) stops and sidewalk or pathway connections to transit stops, where necessary to mitigate the impacts of a development
SECTION 2
Maintenance
NMTP Policy 2.1: Establish a regular maintenance and sweeping program for bicycle facilities aimed at bicycle lanes, shoulders and separated paths.
NMTP Policy 2.2: Establish a line-item in the annual budget for bikeway and walkway maintenance.
NMTP Policy 2.3: Ensure that maintenance or re-paving of streets factors the needs of bicyclists for smooth pavement
(note: this policy applies to all streets, including those not designated as bikeways).
NMTP Policy 2.4: Identify streets with shoulders that are used as important pedestrian connections and implement a shoulder maintenance schedule that considers the needs of pedestrians.
NMTP Policy 2.5: Ensure that road paving and maintenance priorities are consistent with, and implement, the Bicycle System Plan.
NMTP Policy 2.6: Identify gravel driveways and intersections that cause shoulder debris problems, and work with property owners to remedy the situation.
NMTP Policy 2.7: Establish a spot repair postcard program.
NMTP Policy 2.8: Work with property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks.
NMTP Policy 2.9: Encourage and assist property owners with the repair of sidewalks on important sidewalk links, to the extent that funds are available, and in a manner consistent with Chapter 12.12 PTMC
Funding
NMTP Policy 2.10: Monitor non-motorized maintenance costs and consider the impact of new capital projects on operation and maintenance budgets and staffing levels.
NMTP Policy 2.11: Continue to dedicate 35% of all real estate excise tax (REET) revenue for non-motorized improvements.
NMTP Policy 2.12: Where possible, coordinate transportation capital improvement projects with the construction of non- motorized facilities (i.e., "piggy-backing") in order to maximize the use of available revenues.
NMTP Policy 2.13: Consider as a higher priority those street projects which include bicycle and pedestrian improvements in conjunction with the street improvements.
NMTP Policy 2.14: Maximize the use of federal Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds for non- motorized facility improvements.
NMTP Policy 2.15: Encourage the use of volunteers to clear, construct and maintain trails.
NMTP Policy 2.16: Actively pursue other funding sources for non-motorized facility improvements.
Education, Encouragement, & Enforcement
NMTP Policy 2.17: Provide street crews and inspectors with adequate training in non-motorized design, construction issues, and maintenance issues.
NMTP Policy 2.18: Identify a staff "lead" to remain current on, and be responsible for addressing non-motorized design and construction issues.
Park & Recreational Facilities
NMTP Policy 2.19: Ensure that park facilities are provided with adequate pedestrian access consistent with this plan and the City's development regulations.
NMTP Policy 2.20: Enhance pedestrian access to viewpoints designated in the Waterfront Access Plan and the Park and Recreation Functional Plan.
Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination
NMTP Policy 2.21: Work with Jefferson County and the State Department of Transportation to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to Port Townsend along State Route 20 and 19 (e.g., by improving bicycle lanes, widening bridges, managing access, adding sidewalks, adding signals at crossings, and implementing the Gateway Plan).
NMTP Policy 2.22: Work with the Port of Port Townsend to improve Non-Motorized access through the Boat Haven and Point Hudson
NMTP Policy 2.23: Coordinate with Jefferson Transit to ensure that the park-and-ride facilities are functioning as a multi-modal station linking directly to the non-motorized network
Other
NMTP Policy 2.24: Periodically review and amend the Walkway System Plan Map and the Bikeway System Plan Map to include additional shortcuts, neighborhood conectors, safest routes to school, bikeways, and rights-of-way not to be opened.
NMTP Policy 2.25: Pursue a LID program to install the non- motorized improvements envisioned in this plan.
NMTP Policy 2.26: Develop a non-motorized checklist to use in the review of site development plans.
NMTP Policy 2.27: Work with new development and existing major employers (i.e., commercial, manufacturing, institutional uses) to encourage them to install bicycle-related facilities including: covered parking facilities; lockers for storing helmets and other gear; and showers.
NMTP Policy 2.28: Make the Pedestrian Facilities Guidebookavailable to developers to assist in site design .
NMTP Policy 2.29: Develop a coordinated sign program which provides a user-friendly guide to the location of pathways
LEGEND
– – – – – – – | | Pedestrian Facility (sidewalk or trail)
| ●●●●●●●● | | Bicycle Facility (bike lane or route)
| ●●●● | | Multi-use Trail
| 
| | A School
| 
| | Church
| 
| | Public Building
| 
| | Commercial Area
| 
| | Transit Stop
| 
| | Key Intersection
| 
| | Viewpoint
|
Note:
The key neighborhood issues, and associated maps, listed in this appendix were identified early in the NTMP committee process during a brainstorming session. This list may not be consistent with the committee's later prioritization of projects.
UPTOWN & DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS
KEY ISSUES
Strengthen connections between uptown and downtown areas, with improvements at:
■ "Baby-buggy trail"
■ Tyler - Jefferson - Quincy route
■ Staircase
Improve nonmotorized facilities on network of primary collector and arterial streets.
■ Sim's Way to Water Street
■ Lawrence, Cherry, and "F" Streets
Focus on improvements near and on routes to schools.
■ Port Townsend High School
■ Mountain View Elementary
Add site amenities (bike racks, etc.) at commercial and public facilities.
■ Uptown & downtown retail areas
■ Post office, City Hall, Library, etc.
Assist nonmotorists up hills with bike climbing lanes and / or resting areas.
■ "F" Street
■ Jefferson Street - Quincy to Tyler
■ Lawrence Street - Kearney to Walker
Improve key intersections with crosswalks and / or traffic calming. Development of multi-use trail route through golf course and Kah - Tai Lagoon
■ Access through Port of Port Townsend (Kah-Tai)
■ Safety issues through golf course.
FORT WORDEN AND NORTH SAN JUAN VALLEY
KEY ISSUES
Improve network from Uptown through neighborhoods north to Fort Worden.
■ Jackson, Monroe, & Walnut Street route (north - south)
■ Cherry and Redwood Street route (north - south)
■ Center, Admiralty, and "W" Streets (east - west)
Focus on improvements near Blue Heron School and on school routes. Direct automobile traffic to Fort Worden to use Cherry Street. Develop and / or maintain shortcuts within neighborhoods. Add crosswalks and traffic calming at key intersections and park entrances. Develop multi-use route from golf course north through neighborhoods to Fort Worden.
■ Easement, access, & buffer issues through neighborhoods
NORTH BEACH AND NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS
KEY ISSUES
Improve facilities along corridor formed by Cook Avenue, 49th Street, and San Juan Avenue.
■ Sidewalks and/or roadside trail along corridor
■ Continued bike lanes/route along San Juan Ave and 49th Street
■ Climbing lane/rest area up steep slope of Cook Avenue bike route.
Strengthen connections to North Beach, Fort Worden, Fairgrounds, and neighborhood commercial area.
■ Kuhn Street as primary neighborhood connector serving bike, ped, and transit.
Develop multi-use routes:
■ "Portage Trail" - North Beach to Fort Worden; access issues through state park
■ "Winona Creek Trail"; compatibility & design issues with wetland corridor
■ "Blue Heron Trails": access and connections to school area.
Encourage enjoyment of scenic vistas & overlooks.
■ Add amenities such as benches, interpretive information, etc.
HASTINGS AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD
KEY ISSUES
Strengthen grid network formed by Howard, Sheridan, Discovery, & San Juan (north - south), Umatilla, ,35th, & Hastings (east-west).
Accommodate nonmotorists with up-hill climbing lanes and/or rest areas.
■ Umatilla
■ Discovery Road
Focus on facilities along routes to school.
■ Sheridan Street and local streets near Grant Street Elementary
Provide access to 35th Street Park.
Make improvements to key intersections along Discovery, Hastings, and 19th.
Develop multi-use route along "West Side Trail."
■ Access/easement issues through properties
SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
KEY ISSUES
Improve conditions along Sim's Way arterial from city entrance to downtown.
■ Safety issues at key intersections
■ Add bike lanes, street trees, and sidewalks
Improve Sheridan Street as a primary north - south connector.
■ Add bike lanes, street trees, and sidewalks
Provide access to public facilities such as the hospital, park & ride, and commercial areas.
■ Develop connectors along secondary streets as well as primary
Improve connections to Grant Street School.
Develop multi-use routes connecting to Larry Scott Trail.
■ "West Side Trail" connection at Mill Street.
■ "Portage Trail" connection at Haines Street
TO BE COMPLETED BY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Note:
"Prior Votes" refers to the first stage of prioritization that the NTMP committee undertook. These votes indicate the general importance of street or trail projects, independent of financial constraints. This ranking was used by the committee to guide its work in establishing project priorities that considered financial limitations and the need to provide a balance of facility types.
DETAILED PROJECT LIST |
Multi-Modal Trail |
|---|
Prior Votes | Segment
Description of Actions | Funding Source | Timing | Type | Length (Ft.) | Cost | Comments |
|---|
Lead | Other | 0-5yrs | 5-10yrs | >10yrs |
|---|
14 | Portage Trail - F Street to Ft. Worden |
Prepare information on the vision for the trail | City | | X | | | | | | |
Pursue Grant funding | City | | X | | | | | | |
F Street to Center Street | | | | | | | | | |
Secure property or easement through valley | Other | Dev. | X | | | Property | | $100,000 | Funding source needed |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 1,500 | $750 | |
Install trail and sign | City | | | X | | Trail | 1,500 | $10,500 | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | City/Dev. | | X | | Multi | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Center to W Street | | | | | | | | | |
Install trail and sign | City | | | X | | Trail | 3,000 | $21,000 | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | City/Dev. | | X | | Multi | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Fort Worden | | | | | | | | | |
Install multi-use trail | Other | | | X | | Multi | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
12 | Larry Scott Trail to Golf Course (19th Street) |
Larry Scott to Park-and-Ride | | | | | | | | | |
Develop Route through Port | Grant | Port | | X | | Multi | 1,000 | $20,000 | Work with Port of PT |
Improve Haines St. intersections for bike and ped. | Grant | | | | X | Intersection | | $50,000 | Coordinate with DOT |
Park-and-Ride to Kearney | | | | | | | | | |
Install trail along Sims Way | Grant | | | | X | Trail | 2,500 | $17,500 | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | X | | | Multi | 2,500 | $50,000 | |
Improve connection to park and ride | City | | X | | | | 150 | $3,000 | |
Install signage at park and ride | City | | X | | | | 4 | $1,000 | |
Kearney to 19th Street | | | | | | | | | |
Install trail from Sims Way to 19th | Grant | | | | X | Trail | 2,000 | $14,000 | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | | X | | Multi | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
10 | Golf Course (19th Street) to F St. |
Kearney to Cherry Street | | | | | | | | | |
Identify and clear golf course route | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 1,800 | $900 | |
Install multi-use trail and sign | Grant | | | X | | Trail | 1,800 | $36,000 | |
Cherry to F Street | | | | | | | | | |
Identify and clear golf course route | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 1,800 | $900 | |
Install multi-use trail and sign | Other | | | X | | Trail | 1,800 | $36,000 | |
2 | Winona Creek Trail (49th to Hastings Ave.) |
49th Street to Winona | | | | | | | | | |
Crushed rock overlay and sign along sewer easement | Vol. | | X | | | Multi | 3,500 | $12,250 | |
Improve access along Willamette and East Sapphire | Vol. | | X | | | Trail | 1,500 | $5,250 | |
Winona to 35th Street | | | | | | | | | |
clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | | Path | 3,500 | $1,750 | |
Install Trail | Vol. | | | X | | Trail | 3,500 | $12,250 | |
Install multi-use trail | Grant | | | | X | Multi | 3,500 | $70,000 | |
35th to Hastings | | | | | | | | | |
Research access issues | | | | | | | | | |
clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | | Path | 2,200 | $1,100 | |
Install Trail | Grant | | | | X | Trail | 2,200 | $15,400 | |
Install multi-use trail | Grant | | | | X | Multi | 2,200 | $44,000 | |
1 | West side Loop (Hastings to Sims) |
Hastings to 20th | | | | | | | | | |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | | | X | Path | 2,500 | $1,250 | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | | | X | Multi | 2,500 | $50,000 | |
20th to 13th Street | | | | | | | | | |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | | | X | Path | 4,000 | $2,000 | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | | | X | Multi | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
13th to Discovery | | | | | | | | | |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | | | X | Path | 2,500 | $1,250 | |
Install multi-use trail | City | | | | X | Multi | 2,500 | $50,000 | |
Blue Heron to 52nd | Route to school |
Install Multi-use trail | Grant | Dev. | X | | | Multi | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
| | | | | | | | | Improve existing |
| North Beach Loop (Fort Worden to 49th) | Route to school |
Clear path | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 3,500 | $1,750 | |
Install trail | Grant | Dev. | | | X | Trail | 3,500 | $24,500 | |
| 49th to Winona Creek |
Clear path and sign | Vol. | | | X | | Path | 2,000 | $2,000 | |
Install trail | City | | | | X | Trail | 2,000 | $14,000 | |
Install multi-use trail | Grant | | | | X | Multi | 2,000 | $40,000 |
|
DETAILED PROJECT LIST |
Non-Motorized Improvement Project List
|
Prior Votes | Segment
Description of Actions | Funding Source | Timing | Type | Length | Con-
struction
Cost | Comments |
|---|
Lead | Other | 0-5yrs | 5-10yrs | >10yrs |
|---|
| Sims Way |
| City limits to Downtown | | | | | | | | | |
25 | Stripe bike lanes | CITY | DOT | | X | | Striping | 29,000 | $5,800 | Coordinate with DOT |
| Improve shoulder | DOT | | | | X | Shoulder | 7,000 | $175,000 | |
| Access management (curbs, temporary improvements) | CITY | DOT | | | | | | | |
25 | Ferry to Park-and-Ride | | | | | | | | | |
| Sidewalk on south side | Other | Grant | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,500 | $70,000 | |
10 | Kearney intersection | | | | | | | | | |
| Redesign intersection | City | DOT | X | | | Intersection | 1 | $50,00 | |
| Longer crossing times | City | | X | | | | | | |
| Consider pedestrian crossing with traffic stopped | City | | X | | | | | | |
| Bluff Corridor | | | | | | | | | |
| Restrict parking | City | | X | | | | | | Gateway plan |
| Sheridan to Howard | | | | | | | | | |
| Sidewalks on north side | Dev. | City | | | X | Sidewalk | 3,600 | $72,000 | |
| Sidewalks on south side | Other | City | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,600 | $72,000 | |
| Sheridan to Landes | | | | | | | | | |
| Improve shoulder | DOT | | X | | | Shoulder | 2,600 | $65,000 | |
| Howard to City limits | | | | | | | | | |
| Clear path on south side and sign | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 3,500 | $1,750 | Gateway Plan |
| Sidewalks both sides | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 7,000 | $140,000 | |
| Improve intersections and ped crossing zones | | | | | | | | | |
| Traffic light at Howard | Dev. | | X | | | Light | | $200,000 | |
| Crossing at McPherson | City | DOT | | | X | Light | | $200,000 | |
| Crossing at Hancock | Other | City | | X | | Intersection | | $50,000 | |
| Crossing at Sheridan | DOT | Dev. | | X | | Intersection | | $50,000 | |
| Crossing between Sheridan and McPherson | City | | | | X | Intersection | | $50,000 | |
| Crossing at Benedict to Boat Haven | Grant | | X | | | Intersection | | $50,000 | |
21 | Discovery Road San Juan to Hastings | Route to school |
| Improve visibility | City | | X | | | | | | |
| Bike climbing lane (widen shoulder) | Shoulder | | X | | | Bike lanes | 1,000 | $25,000 | |
| Trail on one side | Vol. | | X | | | Trail | 1,000 | $3,500 | |
| Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 1,000 | $20,000 | |
| Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 1,000 | $20,000 | |
| Bike lanes (widen shoulder) | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 2,000 | $50,000 | |
| Discovery Road - Hastings Intersection | Route to school |
| Add crossing island and crosswalk | Other | | | X | | Intersection | 1 | $50,000 | |
| Consider one way queuing for traffic flow | City | | | X | | | | | |
| Consider alt. Route for ped and bikes | City | | | X | | | | | |
| Discovery Road - Hastings to 19th |
| Intersection improvements for ped Crossing | | | | | | | | | |
| 19th street "Y" | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $25,000 | |
| 24th Traffic circle | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $50,000 | |
| Trail on one side | Vol. | | | | X | Trail | 3,000 | $10,500 | |
| Sidewalks on both sides | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 6,000 | $120,000 | |
| Discovery Road - Sheridan to Howard |
| Speed table at Grant street crossing | Grant | | X | | | Table | | $30,000 | |
| Speed table at Hancock | Grant | | | X | | Table | | $30,000 | |
| Towne Points to Howard | | | | | | | | | |
| Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,300 | $46,000 | |
| Town Pointe to Sheridan | | | | | | | | | |
| Trail on north side | Grant | | X | | | Trail | 2,500 | $17,500 | Route to school |
| Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,500 | $50,000 | Route to school |
| Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 2,500 | $50,000 | |
7 | Intersection improvements for ped xing and transit | | | | | | | | | |
| 6th Street for trail crossing | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $30,000 | |
| Howard - Potential traffic circle | Dev. | | | | X | Misc. | | $50,000 | |
| Eddy Street - need safe crossing | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $30,000 | |
| 14th St. - Close at Catherine | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $10,000 | |
| McPherson - traffic circle | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $50,000 | |
| Towne Point -(reroute to McPherson?) | City | | | | X | Misc. | | $30,000 | |
6 | Consider 14th to McPherson reroute | City | | | | X | Misc. | | | |
13 | Cherry Street - Walker Street To W Street | Route to school |
Improve shoulders | Shoulder | | | | X | Shoulder | 12,000 | $300,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | | Trail | 6,000 | $42,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 6,000 | $120,000 | |
Direct traffic to Fort Worden | City | | | X | | | | | |
12 | Jackson/Walnut (and alternative routes) |
Clear Chestnut and sign | Vol. | | X | | | Path | 1,500 | $750 | |
Trail on Chestnut | City | | | | X | Trail | 1,500 | $10,500 | |
Improve and sign Madison shortcut | Vol. | | X | | | Trail | 500 | $1,750 | |
Evaluate One-way couplet, Roosevelt to Reed | City | | | X | | | | | |
Walnut | | | | | | | | | |
Trail on one side | City | | X | | | Trail | 2,500 | $17,500 | |
Widen shoulders | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 5,000 | $125,000 | |
10 | F Street - Fir to Tyler | Route to school |
| Improve shoulder on south side and restrict parking | City | | X | | | Shoulder | 1,500 | $37,500 | |
| Improve trail on south side | City | | | X | | Trail | 750 | $5,250 | |
| Sidewalk on north side | City | | X | | | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
| Install sidewalk to Blaine one side | Grant | | X | | | Sidewalk | 300 | $6,000 | |
| Bike lanes | City | | | | X | Bike lanes | 3,000 | $75,000 | |
1 | Realign Van Ness to 90 degree | City | | | | X | Intersection | 1 | $25,000 | |
10 | F Street - San Juan to Fir | Route to school |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | X | | | Shoulder | 2,200 | $55,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | X | | | Trail | 2,200 | $15,400 | |
Bike climbing lane | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 2,200 | $55,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,200 | $44,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,200 | $44,000 | |
Evaluate alt. bike/ped route | City | | | X | | | | | |
9 | Sheridan | Route to school |
Hastings to 19th | | | | | | | | | |
Trail on north side | City | | | | X | Trail | 2,400 | $16,800 | |
Sidewalk on north side | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 2,400 | $48,000 | |
Sidewalk on south side | Grant | City | X | | | Sidewalk | 2,400 | $48,000 | |
Widen shoulders | Shoulder | | | | X | Sidewalk | 4,800 | $120,000 | |
Crosswalks at Hastings | City | | X | | | Crosswalk | 1 | $400 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 4,800 | $960 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 4,800 | 120,000 | |
Hastings to Umatilla | | | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
7 | Hastings - Sheridan to Discovery | Route to school |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | | Trail | 2,300 | $16,100 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 4,600 | $920 | |
Improve and widen shoulder | Shoulder | | | | X | Shoulder | 4,600 | $115,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,300 | $46,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 2,300 | $46,000 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 4,600 | $115,000 | |
7 | Harrison at Post Office |
Move newspaper boxes | City | | X | | | IGP | | | |
Install bike racks | City | | X | | | IGP | | | |
Add 250 feet of sidewalk (Clay to Fanklin) | City | | | X | | Sidewalk | 250 | $5,000 | |
Curb ramps from Lawrence to Post Office | City | | | | X | ADA | 3 | $30,000 | |
6 | Lawrence | Route to school |
Infill sidewalks on north side | City | Grant | X | | | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Infill sidewalk on south side | City | Grant | | | X | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Bike lane striping | City | Grant | X | | | Striping | 3,000 | $600 | |
Improve missing shoulder for bike lane | City | Grant | X | | | Shoulder | 1,000 | $25,000 | |
ADA retrofits and bulbouts in commercial area | City | Grant | | X | | ADA | 4 | $40,000 | |
6 | 19th Walker to Sheridan | Route to school |
Add crosswalk at Landes | City | | X | | | Crosswalk | 1 | $400 | |
Traffic Calming at Xwalk at San Juan | City | | X | | | Calming | 1 | $30,000 | |
Remove pavement and separate sidewalk (consider boulevard with street trees) | City | | | | X | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 5,000 | $100,000 | |
6 | Sherman Street - Sims to 16th |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | City | | X | | | Trail/ROW | 3,000 | $21,000 | Route to school |
5 | Walker Street - Blaine to Lawrence | Route to school |
Trail on east side | City | | | | X | Trail | 1,500 | $10,500 | |
Sidewalk on west side | Grant | | X | | | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Sidewalk on east side | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
Improve intersection at Blaine | City | | | | X | Intersection | 1 | $50,000 | |
5 | Taylor and Water Intersection |
Bulbouts on north side | City | | | X | | Bulbout | 2 | $20,000 | |
4-way stop | City | | X | | | Stop | 1 | $400 | |
5 | Quincy, Adams and Jefferson |
Improve baby buggy trail and approaches | City | | | X | | Trail | 250 | $1,750 | |
ADA accessibility at intersection and around corner | City | | | X | | ADA | 4 | $40,000 | |
Widen shoulder on Quincy and Jefferson to downtown | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 2,800 | $70,000 | |
Crosswalk at Jefferson and Taylor | City | | X | | | Crosswalk | 1 | $400 | |
Sidewalk on one side of Quincy / Jefferson | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 1,400 | $28,000 | |
Bicycle climbing lane on Quincy / Jefferson | City | | | | X | | 2,800 | $70,000 | |
4 | San Juan Blue Heron to 49th |
Traffic calming at Admiral Dr. and 49th | City | | | | X | | 1 | $30,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 4,000 | $800 | |
Signage | City | | X | | | Sign | 4 | $2,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | X | | | Trail | 2,000 | $14,000 | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 2,000 | $40,000 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 4,000 | $100,000 | |
4 | Center - San Juan to Cherry | Route to school |
Trail on one side | City | | | X | | Trail | 1,600 | $11,200 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 1,600 | $32,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 1,600 | $32,000 | |
4 | Point Hudson - Jackson Street |
Consider no thru traffic on Jackson and sign | City | | | X | | | | | |
Consider Sidewalk at Jefferson/Monroe Intersection | City | | | | X | | | | |
Consider Improving pedestrian design in whole area | City | | | | X | | | | |
6 | San Juan - F to 19th | Route to school |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | | X | | Shoulder | 6,000 | $150,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | | X | | Striping | 6,000 | $1,200 | |
Trail on one side | Grant | | | X | | Trail | 3,000 | $21,000 | |
Improve crossings at F and at 19th | City | | | | X | Intersection | 1 | $50,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 6,000 | $150,000 | |
3 | 12th Street - McPherson to Haines |
Trail on one side | Grant | | | X | | Trail | 5,200 | $36,400 | |
3 | Rosecrans - Discovery to 23rd |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | City | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 1,800 | $12,600 | Route to school |
2 | Sheridan-Sims to 19th | Route to school |
Stripe bike lanes | City | | X | | | Striping | 8,000 | $1,600 | |
Sidewalks - Hospital to Sims Way | Grant | | | X | | Sidewalk | 1,000 | $20,000 | |
Install access to shopping center from 7th | Dev. | | | | X | Stairs | 1 | $5,000 | |
Sidewalk-Hospital to 19th (east side) | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Sidewalk on west side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
Crossing - Hospital to 9th Street | City | | | X | | Crosswalk | 1 | $400 | |
2 | Hastings - City Limit to Howard |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 5,000 | $1,000 | |
Sidewalk on both sides | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 5,000 | $100,000 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 5,000 | $125,000 | |
2 | Hastings - Howard to Sheridan |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 3,500 | $24,500 | |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | | | X | Shoulder | 7,000 | $175,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 7,000 | $1,400 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,500 | $70,000 | |
Bike lanes on both sides | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 7,000 | $175,000 | |
1 | Landes - 12th to 19th |
Improve shoulder | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 3,600 | $90,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 3,600 | $720 | |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 1,800 | $12,600 | |
Improve crossing at 19th | City | | | | X | Intersection | 1 | $50,000 | |
1 | 16th St. - Landes to Discovery |
Trail in unopened right-of-way | Vol. | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 3,000 | $21,000 | |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 1,200 | $8,400 | |
1 | Howard - Hastings to 35th |
Improve surface for bikes and pedestrians | City | | | X | | | 2,000 | | |
Improve intersection for ped crossing (consider traffic circle) | City | | | | X | | 1 | $50,000 | |
Sidewalks on both sides | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
Bike lanes | Grant | | | | X | Bike lanes | 4,000 | $100,000 | |
1 | Umatilla - San Juan to Silver |
Improve shoulder | Shoulder | | | | X | Shoulder | 6,400 | $160,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 6,400 | $1,280 | |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 3,200 | $22,400 | |
Sidewalk on one side | Grant | | | | X | Sidewalk | 3,200 | $64,000 | |
Consider one-way loop with Woodland | City | | | X | | | | | |
1 | Umatilla |
Silver to 35th street park | | | | | | | | | |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 3,000 | $21,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | | | X | Striping | 6,000 | $1,200 | |
Sidewalks on one side | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 3,000 | $60,000 | |
Bike lanes or signed route | City | | | | X | Bike lanes | 6,000 | $150,000 | |
San Juan to Sheridan | | | | | | | | | |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,200 | $64,000 | |
| Blaine Street |
Walker to Tyler | | | | | | | | | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 2,600 | $52,000 | |
Tyler to Monroe | | | | | | | | | Route to school |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 1,500 | $30,000 | |
| Cook Avenue |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 7,500 | $1,500 | |
Climbing lane and Improved shoulder | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 7,500 | $187,500 | |
| Howard St. (or alt)-Discovery to Hastings |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 2,000 | $14,000 | |
Consider off-road alt. alignment to arterial | City | | | | X | | | | |
Sidewalks on both sides | Dev. | | | | X | Sidewalk | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
Bike lanes | Dev. | | | | X | Bike lanes | 4,000 | $100,000 | |
| Washington Street (Quincy to Sims Way) |
Fog lines | City | | | | X | Striping | 8,000 | $1,600 | |
Sidewalks both sides | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 8,000 | $160,000 | |
Widen shoulders | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 8,000 | $200,000 | |
Sims way to Walker Street | | | | | | | | | |
Bike climbing lane | City | | X | | | Strip | 500 | $100 | |
Taylor to Filmore | | | | | | | | | |
Bike climbing lane | City | | X | | | Strip | 1,000 | $200 | |
| Kearney Street |
Bike lanes | City | | | | X | Bike lanes | 1,800 | $45,000 | |
| Tremont |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail | 2,000 | $14,000 | |
Sidewalks both sides | City | | | | X | Sidewalk | 4,000 | $80,000 | |
| 49th - San Juan to Cook Avenue |
Sidewalk on one side | Other | | | X | | Sidewalk | 3,800 | $76,000 | |
Fog lines | City | | X | | | Striping | 3,800 | $760 | |
Improve shoulder | City | | | | X | Shoulder | 3,800 | $95,000 | |
| Jefferson Hillclimb | Gateway Plan |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | X | | | Trail/ROW | 300 | $1,050 | |
| Towne Point Loop |
Trail (Work with Towne Point - NO ROW) | City | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 2,800 | $19,600 | |
| 25th Street - San Juan to Hamilton Heights |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 7,000 | $24,500 | |
| Elm Street - Hastings to Cook |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 3,000 | $10,500 | |
| Sherman St. - Discovery to Umatilla |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | City | | | | X | Trail / ROW | 4,700 | $32,900 | |
| 23rd St. - Sherman to Rosecrans |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | X | | Trail/ROW | 1,000 | $3,500 | |
| 114th St. - Landes to Sheridan |
Trail on one side | City | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 1,600 | $11,200 | |
Bike climbing lane | City | | | | X | Bike lanes | 1,600 | $40,000 | 12th street as Class III |
| Gise St. - 14th to 10th |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | X | | Trail/ROW | 1,400 | $4,900 | |
| 10th St. - Gise to McPherson |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 3,200 | $11,200 | route to school |
| 12th St. - Sherman to Thomas |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 1,300 | $4,550 | |
| Hancock - 16th St. to Discovery |
Improve existing trail | City | | | | X | Trail/ROW | 500 | $3,500 | route to school |
| 10th Street - to Grant Street School |
Trail in unopened rights-of-way | Vol. | | X | | | Trail/ROW | 1,000 | $3,500 |
|
|
