HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-97 RESOLUTION NO..q-q7
A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles
adopting a transportation services and facilities
plan (TSFP).
WHEREAS, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Policy
A.3. calls for the development of a transportation (streets, bikeways and pedestrian walkways)
services and facilities plan; and
WHEREAS, the City' s adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Policy
A.5. states that said plan shall be consistent with the general level of service standards established in
the Comprehensive Plan, establish detailed level of service standards which, at a minimum, meet all
local, state and federal health and safety requirements and may also establish desired level of service
standards including an inventory of current facilities, measurements of current and future service
capacities, the determination of future service and facility improvements necessary to serve the twenty
year vision of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and a financial feasibility analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Policy
A.6. states that said plan shall also include specific actions and requirements for bringing street
facilities that fall below the required level of service standards into compliance while encouraging
reduced reliance on single occupant vehicle trips encouraging the use of alternate modes of
transportation with incentive programs for and from local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element
requires said plan to include a future US 101 corridor to meet long-term local and regional
transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element states
that said plan shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the County-Wide Planning Policy, and
the State's Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the proposed TSFP reviews air, marine, public, and non-motorized
transportation as well as roads and highways, including sections on transportation standards, existing
deficiencies, forecasting, projected needs, and funding; and
WHEREAS, requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C
RCW) have been met; and
WHEREAS, public review and comments were solicitated during the development
of the plan, at a public hearing before the City Council and Planning Commission;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT ANGELES to adopt the Transportation Services and Facilities Plan attached as Exhibit "A"
to be used when planning future transportation and development projects.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 6th~ day of May ,1997.
.'Prospet~ Ostrowski, Mayorz
ATTEST:
Becky J: U~a, ~y Cl~r~ -
~PRO.~ED AS TO FO~:
Crm~utsoff, C~5 ARomey
City of Port Angeles
.... Transportation Services and
Facilities Plan
Port Angeles, Washington
- October 1996
ENTRAN¢O
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
PORT ANGELES TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS ES- 1
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ES-1
TRAFFIC FORECASTING ES-2
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS ES-3
Travel Patterns ES-4
Multimodal Center ES-5
Public Involvement ES-5
Pedestrian Facilities ES-6
Non-motorized Transportation ES-6
Project Cost Estimates ES-6
Scenario Prioritization ES-7
Project Prioritization ES-7
FUNDING ES-9
Revenue Sources ES-9
Impact Fee Program ES-9
Concurrency Management System ES- 10
Funding Transportation Needs ES. 10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
CITY OF PORT ANGELES BACKGROUND 1-2
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND FACILITIES PLAN 1-5
Purpose 1-5
OTHER DOCUMENTS 1-5
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles 1-6
Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan 1.6
Clallam County Comprehensive Plan 1-7
Port Angeles Regional Comprehensive Plan 1-7
CHAPTER 2 PORT ANGELES TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS 2-1
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 2-1
Functional Classification System 2-1
950051 Reports / Master / Table of Contents (7119/96) / jb i
Table of Contents
Non-Motorized Transportation Standards 2-2
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS 2-4
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) 2-4
Transit Level of Service 2-6
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY
AND DEFICIENCIES 3-1
ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 3-1
Inventory Data Source 3-1
Arterial Streets 3-1
Commercial Vehicle Routes 3-15
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 3-15
AIR TRANSPORTATION 3-21
MARINE TRANSPORTATION 3-22
PUBLIC TRANSIT 3-23
Deficiencies 3.23
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 3-28
Pedestrian Facilities 3-28
Bicycle Facilities 3-29
School Walkway Program 3-30
Non-Motorized System Deficiencies 3-33
CHAPTER 4 TRAFFIC FORECASTING 4-1
MODEL CALIBRATION 4.1
Background 4-1
Study Area and Zone Structure 4.1
Network 4.2
Land Use and Trip Assignment 4-2
Model Accuracy 4-5
2014 FORECASTS 4-5
Land Use 4.5
Future Network Scenarios 4-6
CHAPTER 5 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS 5-1
ROADWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 5-1
New Facilities 5-1
Transportation Systems Management 5-2
ii 9~ / Repo~ls / Maste~ / Table of Conten~s (7/19/96) / jb
Table of Contents
Model Network Scenarios 5-2
Projected Travel Patterns and Average Daily Traffic Volumes 5-6
Future Intersection Level of Service 5-10
Multimodai Facility 5-14
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5-15
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities 5-15
Lincoln-Peabody Couplet 5-16
Lauridsen. Race Alternative 5-16
White Creek Crossing Alternative 5-16
Heart of the Hills Parkway 5-16
NON.MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 5-17
Pedestrian Facilities 5-17
Bicycle Facilities 5-17
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 5-21
Existing Deficiency Improvements 5.21
Other Network Improvements 5-24
PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION 5.27
Scenario Prioritization 5-27
Project Prioritization Criteria 5-29
Prioritization of Improvement Projects 5-29
CHAPTER 6 FUNDING, REVENUE, AND IMPACT FEES 6-1
INVENTORY OF CURRENT REVENUE SOURCES 6-1
Street Fund 6-1
Real Estate Excise Tax 6-2
Federal Funds 6-3
Public Works Trust Fund 6-3
Transportation Improvement Account 6-3
Local Improvement District 6-3
Other Sources 6-4
POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES 6-4
Taxation 6-4
Fees 6-5
Debt 6-6
Local Assistance Programs 6-6
Special Districts 6-7
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM PROTOTYPE 6-8
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 6-9
Concepts of Concurrency Management 6-9
Table of Contents
Elements of a Concurrency Management System 6-10
FUNDING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 6-12
REFERENCES R-1
GLOSSARY OF TERMS G-1
APPENDIX
A - Arterial Street Inventory Database
B- Arterial Street Inventory Summary Statistics
C - Midblock Accident Summary
D - 1995 Existing Intersection Level of Service Calculations
E- 1995 Intersection Level of Service Calculations
F- Intersection Accident Summary
G - Development of Port Angeles Traffic Model
H - 2014 Level of Service Summary by Scenario
I- Open House Comments
J - Impact Fee Prototype
K - Concurrency Management System Procedural Prototype
FIGURES
I. I Project Vicinity 1-3
3.1 Roadway Functional Classification System 3-3
3.2 Changes Made to Functional Classifications from the City's
Comprehensive Plan and ElS 3-4
3.3 1994 Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes 3.9
3.4 Level of Service 3-17
3.5 Intracity Transit Routes 3-25
3.6 Pedestrian Facilities 3-31
3.7 Bicycle Survey Results--Priority Corridors in
Need of Bicycle Facilities 3-32
4.1 Model Zone Structure 4-3
4.2 Existing Network 4-4
5.1 New Facilities/Corridors 5-3
iv 95005 / Reports / Master / Table o! Contents (7/19/96) / jb
Table of Contents
5.2 Lincoln/Peabody Couplet 5-5
5.3 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts Given
Different Network Scenarios 5-7
5.4 Intersection Level of Service By Network Scenario 5-11
5.5 Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan 5.19
TABLES
ES. 1 Network Scenarios ES-3
E5.2 Improvement Project Cost Estimates By Priority ES-8
2.1 Urban Functional Classification
Description and Typical Distribution 2-2
2.2 Minimum Street Design Standards by
Functional Classification 2-3
2.3 Bicycle Way Functional Classification 2-4
2.4 Level of Service Description and
Threshold Values for Signalized Intersections 2-5
2.5 Clallam Transit Service Performance Standards 2-6
3.1 Recommended Functional Classification Distribution 3-5
3.2 Arterial Street Characteristics 3-6
3.3 Percentage of Arterial Streets by
Width and Number of Lanes 3-7
3.4 Collector Arterial Street Existing Conditions 3-8
3.5 Minor Arterial Street Existing Conditions 3-11
3.6 Principal Arterial Street Existing Conditions 3-11
3.7 Port Angeles Six. Year
Transportation Improvement Program 3-14
3.8 1994 P.M. Peak Intersection Planning
Level of Service Analysis 3-19
3.9 Port Angeles Six. Year
Transportation Improvement Program 3-21
3.10 Clallam Transit Route Summary 3.24
3.11 Clallam Transit Service Performance Indicators
June 1995-May 1996 3-27
3.12 Transit Level of Service 3-28
3.13 Arterial Street Pedestrian Facilities 3-29
4.1 Twenty. Year Household Growth 4-5
4.2 Base Package Improvements 4-7
5.1 Network Scenarios 5-6
5.2 Number of Intersections at Each Level of Service 5-13
5.3 Number of Intersections Experiencing a Change in LOS 5-14
950051 Ret3o~s / Maste~ I Ex~c, Summ (7119/96) Ijb V
Table of Contents
5.4 Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan 5-18
5.5 Arterial Roadway Widening Project Cost Estimates 5-22
5.6 Pedestrian Facility Project Cost Estimates 5-23
5.7 Major Capital Improvements by Network Scenario and
Associated Planning-Level Cost Estimate 5-25
5.8 Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan
Planning. Level Cost Estimates 5-26
5,9 Scenario Performance Measures 5-27
5.10 Cost Benefit Analysis 5-28
5.11 Prioritization of Major Capital Improvement
Projects for Scenario III 5-30
5.12 Prioritization of Pedestrian
Facilities Improvement Projects 5-31
5.13 Prioritization of Interim Bicycle Facih'ties
Plan Improvement Projects 5-32
5.14 PriorJtizatioa of Arterial Roadway
Widening Improvement Projects 5-33
5.15 Improvement Project Cost Estimates By Priority 5-35
6.1 Revenue Sources and Amounts for the City of Port Angeles 6.2
vi 95005 / Reports I Master / Table of Contents {7/19/96) Ijb
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
ADT average daily traffic
apmv accidents per million entering vehicles
apmvm accidents per million vehicle miles
AWDT average weekday daily traffic
CAPP County Arterial Preservation Program
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CMS Concurrency Management System
CRAB County Road Administration Board
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
FAS Federal Aid Secondary System
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
GMA Growth Management Act
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
LID Local Improvement District
LMEA Labor Market and Employment Analysis
LOFT Local Option Fuel Tax
LOS level of service
LTA Local Transportation Act
MVET Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
MVFT Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
PWTF Public Works Trust Fund
RAP Rural Arterial Program
RATA Rural Arterial Trust Account
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RID Road Improvement District
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SR State Route
950051 Ref~orts / Master / Table of Contents (7/19/96) / jb vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TBD Transportation Benefit District
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Transportation Improvement Account
TIB Transportation Improvement Board
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TSFP Transportation Services and Facilities Plan
TSM Transportation Systems Management
UATA Urban Arterial Trust Account
UGA urban growth area
v/c volume-to-capacity ratio
VHT vehicle hours of travel
VMT vehicle miles of travel
vpd vehicles per day
vph vehicles per hour
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
viii g~oo5 / Re~orts / Master / Table ot Content, (7/19/96)/ih
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Transportation Services and Facilities Plan
(TSFP) is to supplement and expand the goals and policies stated
in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles.
This TSFP addresses the City's transportation standards, existing
deficiencies, traffic forecasting, future transportation system
needs, and funding. A brief summary of these topics follows.
PORT ANGELES TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS
Design standards for each roadway functional classification are
documented in the City's Urban Services Standards and
Guidelines. The City's functional classification standards also
include pedestrian facility standards, which require sidewalks on
both sides of arterial streets. There are currently no standards for
bicycle facilities.
Operational standards for intersections are based on a planning-
level analysis for level of service (LOS), comparing critical volume
to intersection capacity (v/c ratio). Port Angeles standards require
LOS D or better at both signalized and unsignalized intersections,
which corresponds to a 0.9 v/c ratio.
Transit operations standards used for this TSFP are from the
Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (1995). The standards are
based on a supply and demand LOS methodology, and require
LOS D operations or better.
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Roadway deficiencies were based on City standards by functional
classification, intersection planning-level LOS in the p.m. peak
hour, accident rates, citizen comments, and the City's 1994
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
City's Functional Classification Standards. Chambers, Fourth,
Fifth, and "M" Streets, and Marine Drive meet City standards. All
other designated collector, minor, and principal arterials do not
meet the recommended width and/or curb and gutter standard.
Intersection LOS. Eighth Street and Lincoln Street is the only
intersection currently operating below the recommended LOS D
standards. This intersection currently operates in the p.m. peak
hour at LOS E.
Executive Summary
Accident rates. Accident rates were calculated for Port Angeles
streets based on a three-year accident history. Accident rates
were mostly below the State's 1994 average accident rates. Of
the six locations with accident rates higher than the State's
average, only one location on Front Street (from Lincoln Street to
Valley Street) has a significant number of accidents, which may
indicate a design deficiency.
Citizen Comments. Citizen comments indicated a need for
another east/west corridor through the City, and intersection
improvements at the First Street/Front Street/Golf Course Road
intersection for maneuverability and sight distance. Citizen
requests also have included reducing through traffic on the C
Street Extension, and upgrading Rose Street, Thistle Street, O
Street, and 14th Street to meet City functional classification
standards.
City TIP. The City's TIP also identifies existing traffic-related
deficiencies. Many projects to correct these deficiencies involve
realigning or reconstructing existing corridors or intersections to
improve operations, others involve interconnecting or adding
traffic signals, and some propose constructing new facilities.
Transit. Clallam Transit provides good route coverage within the
City limits, however, the area east of the City only has access to
the intracity service by using an intercity bus from SR 1 01. Transit
supply and demand LOS calculations revealed the lowest LOS
was C, indicating transit operations do not have any current
deficiencies.
Pedestrian Facilities. Most collector, minor, and principal
arterials do not have continuous, uninterrupted sidewalk on both
sides of the road. Some road segments provide sidewalk which is
not continuous, not paved, or only on one side of the road. In
most cases, these segments meet almost fifty percent of the design
standard for each one's respective functional classification.
TRAFFIC FORECASTING
A computer model was created to determine future traffic volumes
and demands on the transportation system. The Port Angeles
Travel Model was created based on existing and proposed land
use, existing facility capacity, employment concentrations, and
existing travel patterns and volumes. The Port Angeles Travel
Model has a high degree of accuracy in that about 94 percent of
the variation in observed traffic was accounted for by the model.
ES-2 9=51 Ref:~rts I Master/ExecSumm {7/17/96} / jc
Executive Summary
Using the model's traffic forecasts, new and revised street facilities
were modeled to accommodate the projected growth.
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS
The future year model network was used to evaluate different
network scenarios. Each scenario implemented the current 6-year
TIP projects, while different combinations of new facilities and a
transportation systems management strategy (TSM) varied by
scenario (table ES.l). Two new facilities modeled were: White
Creek Crossing and Heart of the Hills Parkway. White Creek
Crossing is a two- to three-lane extension of Lauridsen Boulevard
eastward from Ennis Street to Golf Course with a bridge over
White Creek. Heart of the Hills Parkway will be a two-lane
facility beginning outside the eastern Port Angeles Urban Growth
Area (UGA), and extending southwesterly and westerly from
SR 1 01 to Race Street, near the Mount Angeles Road/Heart of the
Hills Parkway intersection.
Table ES.1
Network Scenarios
Scenario
I II III IV V VI VII
1 994 Existing Network
201 4 Network with TIP
Improvements
White Creek Crossing
Heart of the Hills Parkway ·
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet · · ·
A third transportation improvement was a TSM strategy for the
SR 101 corridor through the City which would convert Lincoln
Street (which already serves as a portion of SR 101) and Peabody
Street to a one-way couplet. Lincoln Street would operate as a
three-lane one-way facility southbound, while Peabody Street
would operate as a three-lane one-way facility northbound. The
couplet would join the existing one-way couplet of Front Street
and First Street on the north, with the two-way Lauridsen
Boulevard on the south.
95005 / Reports / Master / ExecSumm (7/17~J~) / lc ES-3
Executive Summary
Five different networks using different combinations of these three
facilities were modeled and analyzed for the 2014 planning year.
For comparison, the current (1994) base network and future
(2014) base network without these improvements were also
modeled. Network scenarios are shown in talkie £S.1.
Travel Patterns
^n 11 to 68 percent increase in average daily traffic (ADT) was
witnessed over the 20 years between the 1994 and 2014 base
networks (Scenarios I and II), with an average 34 percent increase
for the whole network.
Traffic shifts significantly as new facilities are added to the
network. Adding White Creek Crossing (Scenario Ill) decreases
ADT 30 percent at the eastern portion of First Street and Front
Street, while Golf Course Road and White Creek Crossing
absorbed the shift in traffic. Lincoln Street and Race Street near
Lauridsen Boulevard also showed noticeable decreases in ADT.
Adding both White Creek Crossing and Heart of the Hills Parkway
(Scenario IV) decreases traffic 43 percent on the eastern end of
First and Front Streets. The Heart of the Hills Parkway shifts some
traffic from Golf Course Road (57 percent decrease) and White
Creek Crossing (37 percent decrease). The Heart of the Hills
Parkway carries between 13,400 and 17,100 vehicles per day
(vpd). Lauridsen Boulevard traffic increases about 19 percent
over Scenario III and 57 percent over Scenario II. Lincoln Street
continues to have a lower ADT.
Adding the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet (Scenario V) significantly
affects traffic on Lincoln Street, but has little to no affect on the
remaining network. The ADT on Lincoln Street decreases
approximately 35 percent, while traffic on Peabody Street
increases slightly indicating drivers are using alternate routes
northbound to First Street. Near First and Front Streets, volumes
increase on Peabody Street and near Lauridsen Boulevard.
Adding White Creek Crossing (Scenario VI), Heart of the Hills
Parkway (Scenario VII), and the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet shifts
traffic in much the same way as it does without the Lincoln/
Peabody Couplet. In fact, ADTs are nearly the same with or
without the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet. Traffic increases were
projected on Race Street, Lauridsen Boulevard, and Golf Course
Road.
ES-4 9~051 Reports / Master I ExecSumm (7/17/96) / jc
Executive Summary
Between 40 and 46 signalized and unsignalized intersections
were analyzed in each scenario. Based on model volumes and
improvements in the TiP only, seven intersections will be below
the LOS D standard in 2014. With proposed improvements in
place, the number of substandard intersections ran§es from three
to six in 2014.
Multimodal Center
A multimodal center has been proposed for downtown Port
Angeles to promote use of alternative forms of transportation in
and around the Port Angeles UGA. Currently, a study is
underway to analyze need, location, and services to be supplied
by the center. Because of the many unknowns, the multimodal
center was not used in the model forecasting.
Public Involvement
An Open House for the Port Angeles TSFP was held in the Fall of
1 995 to inform the community about the work completed to date
on the TSFP and gather comments.
The majority of participants at the open house were very
concerned about improving pedestrian and bicycle routes
throughout the City. Comments received included:
· Improve pedestrian and bicycle routes
· Negative impacts of the Lincoln/Peabody couplet on
residential and commercial communities along the streets
· Lauridsen Boulevard to Race Street would provide an
alternative cross-town route especially for commercial
traffic if growth were limited along the route
· Increase in traffic on Race Street with Lauridsen Boulevard
to Race Street new cro~s-town route would not I~e
acceptable due to the school and narrow bridge
· Against truck traffic going through residential areas which
would occur with Lauridsen Boulevard to Race Street as a
new cross-town route, trucks are least disruptive through
downtown
· White Creek Crossing provides an easier access to east SR
1 01 businesses
Executive Summary
· Heart of the Hills Parkway would provide a good
secondary eastern access route
· Transportation demand management strategies should be
implemented before any road improvements are made
Pedestrian Facilities
The City has committed to providing sidewalks on approximately
20 existing arterial segments and many access streets (local)
(School Walkway Program, TIP 1994). The remaining portions of
First Street, Front Street, Fifth Street, "C" Street, and Ennis Street
should also be considered for sidewalks to meet City standards.
These sidewalks would connect to existing ones and would make
a safer environment for pedestrians.
Non-motorized Transportation
Based on preliminary results from a bicycle survey and
engineering judgment, an interim bicycle facilities plan for future
facilities was developed. The City intends to finalize a bicycle
facilities plan in the future based on additional studies and
research. The City also will consider constructing bicycle
facilities with any new development or redevelopment when the
need for such a bicycle way or trail is apparent.
Project Cost Estimates
Planning-level cost estimates were prepared for the improvements
needed to bring the transportation system up to City design
standards and to complete the projects listed in the City TIP. The
estimates are as follows:
· Widening existing streets to City standards, approximately
$33.5 million
· Providing pedestrian facilities, which includes widening or
replacing bridges as needed, approximately $22.1 million
Planning-level estimates also were made for the capital
improvements projects and are as follows:
· Constructing new roadway facilities and implementing TSM
improvements, approximately $10.5 to $15.1 million for
ES-6 ,~s i Re~orts / Master / ExecSumm (7117/96) / jc
Executive Summary
Scenario II, Scenario V, Scenario Ill, and Scenario VI (in order
of increasing cost)
· Constructing Heart of the Hills Parkway Scenario VII at
approximately $32 million in capital improvements
In addition, a planning-level estimate was made for providing
bicycle facilities described in the Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan.
The cost is approximately $6.3 million.
Scenario Prioritization
The six 2014 scenarios were analyzed to determine which one
would be the most economical and effective for the City to pursue
over the next two decades. Three measures of effectiveness were
used: intersection LOS, vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and vehicle
miles of travel (VMT). A decrease in either VMT or VHT as
compared to the base scenario (Scenario II) indicates a positive
impact on traffic flow.
The VHT and VMT for Scenarios III through VII were compared to
the base scenario (Scenario II) to determine the net increase or
decrease in VHT and VMT. A cost/benefit ratio for each
effectiveness measure and each scenario were calculated and
ranked from most (1) to least (5) cost effective. The ranks were
totaled for each scenario.
This ranking considered only traffic operational measures of
effectiveness. Considering traffic effectiveness, fundability,
environmental impacts, and public acceptance for each scenario,
Scenario III (White Creek Crossing) was selected as the City's
future transportation network plan.
Project Prioritization
Project prioritization for Scenario III improvements was based on
safety need or benefit; capacity need or benefit; circulation and/or
access need or benefit; whether it is a transit route, major/key
bicycle route, and/or existing School Walkway Program facility;
preservation of existing facilities; cost and cost-effectiveness;
environmental impact; funding opportunities; and its effect on
enhancing the City's economic viability.
Among the high priorities were:
Executive Summary
· White Creek Crossing. Connect Golf Course Road and
Lauridsen Boulevard over White Creek.
· Tumwater Truck Road. Complete the SR 101 interchange
adding the east on and off ramps.
· First Street and Golf Course Road Intersection
Improvements. Add a third eastbound through lane
through the intersection and drop the lane at Delguzzi
Drive, Add a second westbound le~t-turn lane.
· Pedestrian Facilities. Add or complete sidewalks along
Peabody Street, Lauridsen Boulevard, Race Street, Pare
Avenue, Fifth Street, and others (see School Walkway
Program).
· Bicycle Facilities. Add or complete bicycle facilities along
Lauridsen Boulevard, Race Street, Golf Course Road, First
Street, Front Street, and Lincoln Street.
Generally, 50 percent of the total cost for high priority projects
will be spent on roadways, while approximately 25 percent each
will be spent on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Cost estimates
by priority are summarized in table ES.2. If all projects are
completed within the next two decades, the City would spend
approximately $73.4 million, or about $3.7 million per year
(disregarding inflation). High priority projects, or projects the City
should complete within the next 5 to 10 years, total $13.1
million.
Table ES.2
Improvement Project Cost Estimates By Priority
Cost Estimates1
High Medium Low
Projects Priority Priority Priority Total
Capital Improvement $ 6,343 $ 1,911 $ 6,296 $14,550
Pedestrian Facility 3,391 11,571 7,111 22,073
Improvement
Bicycle Facility Improvement 3,351 1,029 5,629 10,009
Arterial Roadway Widening --- 2,610 24,176 26,786
Improvement
Total Cost: $13,085 $17,121 $43,212 $73,418
1. In thousands of dollars
ES-8 ,~00~ / Reports i Master / Exe<=Summ (7/17/96)
Executive Summary
FUNDING
The City is faced with a substantial list of improvement projects
totaling approximately $73.4 million. These projects are needed
to satisfy the City's design standards, and to address capacity or
circulation deficiencies. In addition, the City is also responsible
for the maintenance and upkeep of the transportation system.
Revenue Sources
Existing revenue sources for the City of Port Angeles include the
"street fund" (comprised of property taxes and the motor vehicle
fuel tax), real estate excise tax, Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act funds, aquatic lands enhancement funds, public
works trust fund, transportation improvement account,
Transportation Enhancement Program, Pedestrian Facility
Program, and bridge replacement federal funds. The City's
annual revenue sources from 1991 to 1995 have ranged from
$129,000 to $1,1 81,000.
Funding for transportation-related projects come from a complex
mix of federal, state, and local sources. Some potential sources
are: the local option fuel tax, motor vehicle excise tax, local
option vehicle license fee, impact mitigation fee, and the urban
arterial trust account. Chapter 6 provides a detailed discussion of
these and other sources.
Impact Fee Program
An impact fee may be justified if new development results in a
need for additional transportation capacity, but generates
insufficient transportation taxes for the City to pay for that
capacity. It must be shown that the additional capacity for which
a development is charged is no more than is necessary to mitigate
the development's impacts.
The recommended method to calculate a new site's use of the
capacity added by planned growth-related improvements is to
measure direct and indirect use on a case-by-case basis. A site
may use an improvement either directly by adding new trips to
the network, or indirectly by using capacity vacated when existing
trips are diverted to the improvement.
A prototype of the impact fee was tested on the City's selected
transportation scenario in which the Heart of the Hills Parkway
was not included. This prototype example, recommended in
Chapter 5, generated an impact fee of $150 per peak hour trip.
95005 / Reports / Ma~ter / ExecSumrn (7/17/96) / jc ES-9
Executive Summary
Concurrency Management System
The concurrency requirements of the GMA state that local
jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit
development approval if the development causes the LOS on a
transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in
the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the
development's impacts are made concurrently with the
development. The law may be interpreted to mean that a
development which will violate an adopted LOS standard could
win approval if, at the time of approval, the jurisdiction has made
financial commitments to improvements or management strategies
that will restore the LOS standard no more than six years
following approval.
The basic elements of a concurrency management system are:
[] develop LOS standards for both arterials and transit routes
[] develop a policy upon which the developer has the option
of contributing toward the cost of a remedy should the
system fall below standard
[] adopt transportation demand management measures which
would reduce the trip generation associated with a
proposed development
A transportation impact fee program could be a policy in which
the developer can contribute towards the cost of a remedy should
the system fall below the standard. If the City chooses not to use
an impact fee program, they should calculate the applicant's
contribution towards the concurrency improvement as though it
were impact fee-based. That is the cost paid by the developer for
the improvement should be equivalent to the development's use
of the improvement. However, because it would not be an
impact fee, as authorized in RCW 82.02, the City would have to
treat the fee either as a voluntary contribution or use another
statutory authority such as the State Environmental Policy Act.
Funding Transportation Needs
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires an "analysis of
funding capability to judge needs against probable funding
resources". Of the $73.4 million of improvements identified in
this TSFP, $14.5 million are capacity-related improvements to be
E S- 10 g~5 / R~ / M..t~r / E~ecSumm (7/17/~)/jc
Executive Summary
completed over the next 20 years, while $6.3 million of those
improvements are to be completed within the next six years.
The City's current six-year TIP identifies an additional $29.7
million worth of projects to be completed over the next six years.
Many of these projects are not capacity-related improvements.
Others identified in this plan are lower priority projects and could
be completed beyond the six-year time frame. The 41 projects
identified in both the six-year TIP and this TSFP constitute $36
million.
Based on historic levels of transportation funding, the City
projects revenues over the next six years totaling $3.2 million,
which is $32.8 million short of the amount needed to complete
the 41 projects.
Three distinct options are available to provide the region with an
opportunity to develop a policy for closing the gap between
available revenue and the funds needed for the improvements in
this TSFP. The options are to reduce costs, postpone
improvements, or identify new revenue sources.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Services and Facilities Plan (TSFP) is
organized into six chapters:
· Introduction: contains a brief overview of the City's
existing policies that guide its future transportation needs.
This chapter also briefly describes the City's existing
transportation environment and challenges.
· PortAngeles Transportation Standards: presents the current
standards used by the City and other agencies to measure
the adequacy of their facilities. The chapter includes a
recommendation for minimum arterial level of service
(LOS) via intersection analysis, as well as standards and
guidelines the City currently uses in the planning and
design of arterial streets.
· Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies:
includes a detailed inventory of existing arterial street
services, including pedestrian facilities, shoulders, curb
and gutter, and on-street parking, as well as the number of
lanes serving each direction of travel. An inventory of
other transportation modes is included, such as marine, air,
transit, and non-motorized transportation. Existing
deficiencies, as measured by failure to meet or exceed City
standards, and an improvement implementation plan to
correct current deficiencies are included when applicable.
· Traffic Forecasting: details the development of a computer
transportation model used to forecast future transportation
growth based on existing traffic trends and facilities, as
well as future land use development and new
transportation facilities.
· Future Transportation System Needs: presents the
transportation alternatives that were analyzed using the
computer model. Each alternative reflects different
transportation strategies for the future, and the future
transportation needs for each alternative are given. A
planning-level cost estimate is provided for each needed
improvement, as well as a project prioritization scheme for
the most likely alternatives to be implemented.
95005 / Reports / Master / Chapter1 (7/17/96) / jc 1 - 1
Introduction
· Funding, Revenue and Impact Fees: describes sources of
funding for proposed transportation improvements and
potential sources of revenue and an impact fee to assist in
financing these projects.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES BACKGROUND
The City of Port Angeles is located on the northeastern coastline
of the Olympic Peninsula. It is the largest of the peninsula cities
and is located in Clallam County, with its closest neighboring
city, Sequim, located approximately 17 miles east. The popula-
tion of the City of Port Angeles in 1993 was 18,270 which slightly
exceeded the projected growth for 1994.
The City of Port Angeles is characterized by a downtown grid
system of roadways, with State Route (SR) 101 supplying the only
major east/west corridor through the City. Physical challenges of
the roadway system include a series of creeks and ravines that
interrupt roadways and limit through movements. In addition, the
City is bordered to the south by the Olympic National Park and to
the north by the Strait of Juan De Fuca, which forces growth to
the east and west and limits the ability to locate another major
east/west corridor around the City. The City's other transportation
amenities include an international airport; a ferry service to
Victoria, Canada; a coastal pedestrian/bicycle trail; and an
intercity and intracity transit system. As a result, the City attracts a
substantial amount of tourists, adding to its existing traffic
challenges. Figure 1.1 shows the City and its urban growth area
(UGA).
With SR 101 currently being the only major east/west corridor
traversing the City of Port Angeles and its UGA, the corridor
experiences average daily traffic (ADT) volumes between 12,200
and 23,200 vehicles per day (vpd) in the growth area outside the
City limits, and as high as 40,200 vpd within City limits. As a
result, congestion related problems are experienced frequently
along the SR 101 corridor through Port Angeles.
1-2 9~05 / Re~orls i Master I Chapter1 (7117/96) / jc
~ ~ pu lu~e~u ~uno~
~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ p~ eOJUO~
~ ~ ..... I
~ I
~ I
Introduction
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND FACILITIES PLAN
Purpose
The purpose of this TSFP is to supplement and expand upon the
goals and policies of the transportation element in the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles adopted June 28,
1994. This TSFP consists of recommendations and implemen-
tation plans to guide the development of the City's transportation
system in support of the City's vision for the future.
The TSFP is intended to ensure that the City's transportation
infrastructure and its management meet the needs of the City's
population for safe, efficient, and economical local transportation
and access to regional transportation facilities and services. It is
intended that the plan:
· Support, coordinate, and integrate with other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan, including the land use and
capital facilities elements
· Inventory all the transportation facilities and services of
each transportation mode in the City and its UGA
· Establish a minimum LOS standard for all arterials and
transit routes consistent with the Growth Management Act
· Analyze system deficiencies and present an action strategy
to address the identified deficiencies
· Promote efficient use of the existing transportation system
components through Transportation Systems Management
(TSM), and reduce the growth of single-occupant vehicle
travel via Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
OTHER DOCUMENTS
The Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive
plans of cities and counties are consistent both internally and
externally. That is, the individual plans must contain goals and
policies that are consistent within their own jurisdiction as well as
with neighboring or overlapping jurisdictions. The plans that
were pertinent to developing the Port Angeles TSFP, with
particular attention to the transportation elements, were reviewed.
As a result of this review, inconsistencies were found regarding
the functional class designations of roadways common to the
City's comprehensive plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
95005 1 Re~3o~ls I Master / Cha~3terl (7117196) Ije 1-5
Introduction
(DEIS), and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This
situation is addressed later in Chapter 3 of the TSFP. No other
apparent inconsistencies between plans were discovered,
although some plans were more specific with regard to their
intent of certain goals and policies. This section presents a brief
overview of the documents.
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Angeles was adopted
in June 1994. Its purpose is to document the City's goals and
policies and visualize the direction the City will take in the next
20 years. Specific elements contained within the Comprehensive
Plan include growth management, land use, transportation,
utilities and public ser vices, housing, conservation, capital
facilities, and economic development.
The transportation element has only two goals:
· to develop a coordinated multimodal transportation system
which serves all areas of the city and all types of users in a
safe, economical, and efficient manner; and
· to improve circulation patterns across and within the
community.
These two goals are supported by twenty-five policies, ranging
from the addition of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, to
consideration of TSM measures before adding capacity.
Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan
A DEIS for the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan was
issued on March 8, 1993, while the FEIS was issued on August 6,
1993. Both the DEIS and FEIS address environmental impacts
associated with implementing the goals and policies outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the DEIS and FEIS
address environmental hazards associated with air quality, water
quality, and land resources.
1-6 95o05 / Reports / Master / Chapter1 (7117/96) I ~c
Introduction
Clallam County Comprehensive Plan
The Clallam County Comprehensive Plan, like the City's
Comprehensive Plan, is intended to establish a framework for
coordinated and comprehensive planning which will help the
county and its cities to manage growth in a manner which best
represents the desires of its residents. The plan also establishes
goals and policies that are of a county-wide nature, including
forest and mineral lands; urban growth and sprawl; transportation;
economic development; affordable housing; natural, historical
and cultural resources; and utilities and capital facilities. The
County's Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that
pertain directly to the City of Port Angeles. The County's
Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners on January 4, 1995.
Port Angeles Regional Comprehensive Plan
The intent of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, as stated in the
plan itself, is to refine and further the objectives of the Clallam
County Comprehensive Plan. The regional plan provides a guide
for coordinated and orderly growth and development of the land
and physical improvements in the unincorporated areas of the
Port Angeles Regional planning area. This area generally consists
of the area west of Siebert Creek and east of Lake Sutherland,
excluding the Crescent School District. The plan contains
policies pertaining to transportation systems and issues including
SR 1 01, rural and urban roads, roadway standards, non-motorized
facilities, and airport and marine terminals. The plan was
adopted on January 30, 1995.
95005 / Reports / Master I Chapter1 (7117/96) / jc 1 - 7
CHAPTER 2
PORT ANGELES TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS
This chapter describes the use of two types of standards for
transportation facilities which were used to measure deficiencies
in the City of Port Angeles system. The first, desi§n standards for
roads and hi§hways, are quantitative, and typically establish
minimum lane widths, minimum and maximum grades, minimum
turning radii, design speed, etc. Design standards for roadways
and non-motorized facilities in the City of Port Angeles are
defined by the functional classification of the road. The second,
operational standards, which are more qualitative, establish a
minimum standard for measuring how well the roadway should
function based on the roadway's traffic volumes and geometric
design. Operational standards typically measure the degree to
which a roadway or other transportation facility has reached
capacity by using a rating system known as level of service (LOS).
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
Functional Classification System
The City of Port Angeles has established road and highway design
standards based on functional classification as given in its Urban
Services Standards and Guidelines, City of Port Angeles
Department of Public Works, March 1995.
The functional classification of a roadway defines its purpose and
design constraints. In both urban and rural areas, four functional
classifications exist:
· principal arterial
· minor arterial
· collector arterial
· access streets (local)
An urban principal arterial, however, can perform a different
function and have different design standards than a rural principal
arterial, as is also the case with the other three functional classes.
Because the scope of this project involves the City of Port Angeles
and its urban growth area (UGA), the urban functional
classification system applies. This system is defined in A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 1990,
and is summarized in table 2.1. Table 2.1 also presents a typical
distribution by volume and mileage for each classification.
95005 1 Reports / Master I Chapter2 {7/17/96) / jc 2-1
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
Table 2.1
Urban Functional Classification Description and Typical Distribution
Range
Functional Travel Mileage
Class Description Volume (%) (%)
Principal Serves major centers of activity; highest traffic volume 40 to 65 5 to 10
corridors; serves most trips entering and leaving urban area
and through trips; serves significant intra-urban travel
between major suburban or business districts; fully and/or
partially controlled access.
Minor Interconnects and augments principal arterials; serves trips 5 to 40 5 to 20
of shorter distance and lower level of mobility than
principal arterials; more emphasis on land access; does not
usually penetrate identifiable neighborhoods.
Collector Provides land access and traffic circulation within 5 to 10 5 to 10
residential, commercial, and industrial areas; distributes
trips from arterial system to ultimate destination and vice
versa.
Access Comprises all facilities not classified as a higher class; 10to 30 65 to 80
(Local) permits direct access to abutting land uses; connects to
higher class systems; Iow level of mobility; discourages
through traffic movement.
Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington O.C., ?990.
Shown in table 2.2 are some of the design standards as defined in
the City's Urban Services Standards, and Guidelines (1995).
Although the City specifies minimum standards for right-of-way,
pavement width, parking lanes, grades, curb, etc., the current City
policy does not include standards for the provision or design of
shoulders.
Non-Motorized Transportation Standards
The Port Angeles Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (1995)
also provides standards for sidewalks by functional classification
of the roadway. According to the guidelines, sidewalks are
required on both sides of all principal, minor, and collector
arterials.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (1994) is consistent with these
standards and recommends that "pedestrian and bicycle paths ...
be an integral part of the circulation system." In addition to the
2-2 9=5 / Refx)~ls I Master / Chapter2 [7/17/96) / jc
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
functional classification design standards, the City and school
system have developed a school walkway program, which
specifies priority roadways which are slated for pedestrian
sidewalks within the City's 1994 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Table 2.2
Minimum Street Design Standards by Functional Classification
Principal Minor Collector Access
Design Standard Arterial Arterial Arterial Streets
Right-of-Way (ft) 70 ft. min. 60 ft. min. 60 ft. min. 60 ft. min.
Pavement Width (ft) 48 ft. 44 ft. 40 ft. 34 ft.
Parking Lane 10 ft. 10 ft. 8 ft. both sides
Minimum Grade 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Maximum Grade 5.0% 7.0% 7.0% 10.0%
Curb required required required required
Design Speed (mph) 45 35 30 25
Source: Information reproduced from Table A--Minimum Street Design Standards, Urban Services Stan-
dards and Guidelines, Department of Public Works, City of Port Angeles, September 27, 1995, pg. 3-3.
Bicycle ways and trails are also addressed in the City's Standards
and Guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines require the
construction of bicycle ways and trails with "any new
development or redevelopment...when the need for such a
bicycle way or trail is indicated in the Port Angeles Trail Plan...or
where traffic analysis or traffic planning indicates that substantial
bicycle usage would benefit from a designated bicycle facility."
As of the date of this TSFP, the City has not yet developed a
formal bicycle plan. Bicycle ways are further categorized in the
standards, as shown in table 2.3.
9,5005 / Re,ports / Master / Chapter2 (7/17/96) / jc 2-3
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
Table 2.3
Bicycle Way Functional Classification
Classification Description
Class I Bicycle Path: A separate trail for use principally by bicyclists,
but may be shared with pedestrians. These facilities are
separated from motor vehicle roadways.
Class II Bicycle Lane: A portion of a road that is designated by signs
and/or pavement markings for bicycle use. These facilities are
usually adjacent to the motor vehicle roadway.
Class Ill Bicycle Route: A road that is designated with signs as a bicycle
route, where bicycle usage is shared with motor vehicles on the
street or, less desirably, with pedestrians on a sidewalk or
walkway.
Class IV Shared Roadway: A facility within commercial and high-
density urban centers where sidewalk bicycling is not
permitted. No special designations or design criteria are
directed toward bicycle use. A 1 4-foot (minimum) outside
travel lane is required when a roadway is designated a shared
bicycle way.
Source: Information reproduced from Table A--Minimum Street Design Standards, Urban Services Stan-
dards and Guidelines, Department of Public Works, City of Port Angeles, March 1995, pg. 3-10.
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
The measure of how well an arterial roadway operates is generally
based on intersection operations as opposed to corridor
operations because the corridor capacity is constrained by the
capacity at intersections located along the roadway, especially as
intersection spacing decreases. The Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM), Transportation Research Board Special Report 209
Washington, D.C. (1994) provides procedures for measuring the
quality of operations at signalized and unsignalized intersections,
known as LOS. The HCM gives two procedures for calculating
LOS, one for design purposes and one for planning purposes. For
the design procedure, the LOS is ranked from ^ to F, based on the
amount of time vehicles are calculated to be stopped at the
intersection during the peak traffic periods. For a planning-level
estimate of LOS, the ranking system of A to F is associated with
calculating threshold volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios during peak
2-4 9~. / Reports ! Master / Chapter2 (7/17/96) / jc
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
traffic periods. The volume used in the calculation is not the total
volume traveling through the intersection in a given amount of
time, but rather a "critical" review of conflicting movements
traveling through the intersection in different directions at the
same time. Table 2.4 lists brief descriptions of each LOS as given
in the HCM, as well as threshold values for a detailed operational
(stopped delay) and planning-level (v/c ratio) LOS analysis.
Table 2.4
Level of Service Description and Threshold Values
for Signalized Intersections
Stopped Delay1
LOS Description (sec/veh) v/c Ratio2
A Progression is extremely favorable; most vehicles D < $ v/c < 0.6
arrive during green phase and do not stop at all.
B Good progression, short cycle lengths, or both; more 5 < D _< 15 0.6 < v/c _< 0.7
vehicles stop than with/OS A.
C Fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both; some 15 < D < 25 0.7 < v/c < 0.8
cycle failures witnessed; frequency of stopped
vehicles is significant, though many still pass through
without stopping.
D Unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high 25 < D < 40 0.8 < v/c < 0.9
v/c ratios; many vehicles stop; individual cycle
failures3 are noticeable.
E Poor progression, long cycle lengths, high v/c ratios; 40 < D < 60 0.9 < v/c < 1.0
individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
F Oversaturation - arrival flow rates exceed capacity; D > 60 v/c > 1.0
high v/c ratios; many individual cycle failures.
1. Detailed operational analysis
2. Planning level analysis
3. Individual cycle failure means that a car waits through more than one red light.
v/c = volume to capacity
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985; and
Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980.
Stopped delay should be used as a measure of LOS only when
existing conditions are well-defined. For instance, to perform the
calculation, signal timing and existing traffic turning movements
must be known. Because these items are usually just estimates in
the future, the planning LOS analysis is typically used to measure
operations at intersections for a document such as the TSFP. For
this reason, intersection LOS in this document always refers to a
planning-level analysis.
95005 / R~o~s / Master / Chapter2 (7/17/96) / jo 2-5
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
The City's Comprehensive Plan (1994) recommends LOS D as the
standard for all arterials, while the Clallam County
Comprehensive Plan (1995) recommends LOS D for both urban
streets and tourist state highways and LOS C for rural highways.
The Port Angeles Regional Comprehensive Plan (1995)
recommends LOS C for county roads.
It is recommended that the City of Port Angeles continue to
enforce a LOS D standard for all intersections and streets,
including streets or intersections involving a state highway. This
standard is consistent with recommendations made in other
applicable comprehensive plans and maintains a tolerable LOS
for motorists driving through or in the City of Port Angeles and its
UGA.
Transit Level of Service
With a transit LOS ranking system from A to F, the Clallam County
Comprehensive Plan (1995) recommends a supply and demand
LOS D standard for transit. The plan also details the methodology
for determining both the supply and demand LOS. However, it
should be noted that Clallam Transit does not use this
methodology. Clallam Transit uses service performance standards
instead which evaluate the following criteria: passengers per run,
passengers per mile, passengers per hour, cost recovery ratio, and
cost per passenger.
The service performance standards as used by Clallam Transit are
calculated for three separate service categories defined by the
route. The three categories are Intercity, urban, and rural routes.
Each category has its own standard for each performance
indicator. Table 2.5 presents the minimum standards for each
performance indicator and each service category as used by
Clallam Transit for the period June 1995 to May 1996.
Table 2.5
Clallam Transit Service Performance Standards
Service Passengers Passengers Passengers Cost Recovery Cost per
Category per Run per Mile per Hour Ratio Passenger
Intercity 8.19 0.28 9.64 2.59% $8.37
Urban 3.09 0.73 1 6.33 4.97% $4.53
Rural 3.23 0.11 5.20 1.35% $16.70
2-6 950051 Reports / Master / Chapted2 (7/17/96) / jc
Port Angeles Transportation Standards
The other transit standard methodology, as outlined in the
Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (1995), defines supply LOS
based on a travel time comparison between traveling a specific
route by vehicle and by transit, and on headway (time) between
successive buses. The supply LOS included in the Clallam
County Plan requires that a passenger should experience a travel
time no greater than 1.5 times that of a car if headways are greater
than 75 minutes, or a travel time no greater than 2.5 times that of
a car if headways are less than 60 minutes.
Demand LOS is based on the number of passengers using the bus
versus the number of available seats on the bus. A demand
LOS D indicates that all seats on the bus are taken and between
10 and 25 percent of the people on the bus must stand.
95005 ! Re~oor~s / Master / Chaplet2 (7/17/96} / ~c 2-7
CHAPTER 3
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
INVENTORY AND DEFICIENCIES
ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
Inventory Data Source
This chapter documents the status of the existing City of Port
Angeles infrastructure. To compile this information, an inventory
of existing facilities was conducted and the standards described in
Chapter 2 were applied. Each mode of transportation is described
in more detail in the sections that follow.
Existing facilities were inventoried by either acquiring data from
the responsible agency or collecting data in the field. A field data
collection effort was initiated over a two-day period from April
17-1 8, 1994 to obtain inventory data that could not be acquired
from public agencies. The inventory of roadways was made on
designated arterial streets. A list of designated arterial street~ was
compiled based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) which all differed slightly. The list
included arterial streets in both the City and urban growth area
(UGA).
Arterial street inventory data collected in the field specifically
consisted of street widths, number of lanes, type of edge and
pedestrian facilities, and intersection configurations at signalized
intersections.
Signalized intersection phasing schemes also were documented in
the field in order to conduct a level of service (LOS) analysis at
these intersections. The p.m. peak-hour turning movement counts
were made by the City during the months of June and July 1995.
Arterial Streets
A database of arterial streets was created based on the completed
inventory. This database combines existing data maintained by
the City and supplements it with data collected in the field. The
database contains the following:
· arterial street name and segment endpoints
95005 / Report-, I Master I Chapt®¢3 (7117/96) / jc 3-1
~ r -
~ ~e~ /.' '] .............. ) '....~
, ~ .
IS SOl~9 N
'. . ~._, I ..............
................. ~ , -
~/ ,, - ~,,,~,, ..... ~, ,-~
~ '. ,,
L ........
............. P~ ~ PlO
%~ , ~ '~ ~: ' . .~ ~ ..
~ ~ ~ /2,,D ~ '- .
~,' ~ ¢, ,-.'
I
~ /'~/ I
.......... I ~
~ , ........ ~ ~ ~ ,'~ ~ ~
/ ~ ~ , .
, ...... ~: ~ ,
,/ ~ .~--~..-~ ~ -- ~ .......
,," ~. __zz_ ............. :.~_ _i_~_~'
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
· pavement width
· number of lanes, edge and pedestrian facilities, curb and
gutter, and parallel parking for each direction of travel
· direction of roadway
· arterial class as given by the DEIS, FEIS, and
Comprehensive Plan
· segment length
· median facilities
· speed limit
Although pavement condition is not currently included in the
database, the City is interested in including and maintaining the
pavement condition of each street in the City after a formal
Pavement Management System has been implemented. The
entire database and its code sheet are provided in ^ppendix ^.
The database was used to summarize the information presented in
the remainder of this section.
Location and Functional Classification
As was previously indicated, a functional classification system for
roadways in and around Port Angeles is provided in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, DEIS, and FEIS. Minor inconsistencies exist
between the various documents concerning the functional
classification of some streets. Therefore, the functional classifica-
tion of all roadways in the City of Port Angeles and its UGA were
re-evaluated based primarily on the criteria listed in table 2.1.
Other factors considered in determining the revised functional
classification were average weekday daily traffic (AWDT)
volumes, previous functional classifications, City official's
recommendations, and connectivity.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the recommended functional classification
system, based on this re-evaluation. Figure 3.2 illustrates the
changes that were made to the functional classification system
compared to that presented in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
DEIS, and FEIS. A comparison of the approximate mileage
distribution of the new functional classification system with the
ranges provided previously in table 2.1 are shown in table 3.1.
3-2 950051 Reports / Master I Chapter3 {7/17/96} / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.1
Recommended Functional Classification Distribution
Estimated
Functional Class Linear Miles Distribution Typical Distributiona
Principal Arterial 1 0.2 7% 5 to 1 0%
Minor Arterial 6.5 4% 5 to 20%
Collector Arterial 37.7 26% 5 to 1 0%
Access Street = 92b 63% 65 to 80%
a. See table 2.1 for source of information.
b. Total mileage of access streets (local) is unknown. Mileage was based on proportion of principal,
minor, and collector street mileage to an estimate of total street mileage.
As shown in figure 3.1, the two principal arterials in the Port
Angeles area are SR 101 and Race Street. State Route 101 serves
through traffic entering and leaving the City and provides service
to the surrounding rural areas, while Race Street serves a major
activity center in the City, the Olympic National Park entrance.
Within the City limits, the SR 1 01 corridor is made up of portions
of First Street and Front Street (one-way couplet), Lincoln Street,
and Lauridsen Boulevard.
The minor arterial system is comprised of the remaining portions
of First Street and Front Street west of Lincoln Street; portions of
C Street, Eighth Street, Marine Drive, Golf Course Road, and
Lauridsen Boulevard; and the entire length of the Tumwater Truck
Route. These streets supplement the principal arterial system and,
in most cases, interconnect the principal arterials.
More than 50 streets, or portions of them, make up the collector
arterial system. These arterials provide property access and traffic
circulation within residential, commercial, and industrial areas
and supplement the minor arterial system.
Existing Geometric Conditions
As shown in table 3.2, approximately 40 miles of arterial streets
are located within the City limits and an additional 15 miles in
the UGA. Approximately 86 percent of the City's arterial streets
do not have painted/marked shoulders. More than half of these
streets are wide enough to allow parallel parking, and/or maintain
950051 Rel3orts / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96] / jc 3-5
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
a shoulder although they are not currently striped for these uses.
(For the purpose of consistency, if a street was wide enough to
allow parallel parking, but the additional width was not
specifically striped for a shoulder, the additional paved area was
coded in the database as parallel parking.) In the UGA,
49percent of the arterial streets do not have a painted/
marked shoulder. Overall (City and UGA), about half the arterials
have either a painted/marked shoulder or parallel parking.
Table 3.2
Arterial Street Characteristics
All Arterials
City UGA1 City & UGA
Miles of ... 40 15 55
Percent of gravel/dirt shoulder < 6 feet 2 0 2
Percent of gravel/dirt shoulder > 6 feet 2 3 2
Percent of paved shoulder < 6 feet 2 20 7
Percent of paved shoulder > 6 feet 8 28 14
Percent of no shoulder 86 49 75
Percent of para~JeJ parking 48 6 36
Percent of shoulder and/or parallel parking 56 34 50
UGA refers to that part of the growth area outside the City limits.
~lote: For the purpose of consistency, if a street was wide enough to allow parallel parking, but th(
extra width was not specifically striped for a shoulder, the additional paved area was coded
in the database as parallel parking.
[UGA = urban growth area
Table 3.3 lists the percentage of two-, three-, four-, and five-lane
arterials within the City limits, UGA, and both the City and UGA.
In addition, the table lists the percentage of roads by overall
width, including shoulders and parking. A detailed breakdown
by arterial classification can be found in Appendix B. As can be
seen in table 3.3, 89 percent of the arterials in the City and UGA
are two-lane roads, with the majority of those being between
31 to 40 feet wide.
3-6 9=51 Reports / Maste~ t Chapter3 (7/17/96) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.3
Percentage of Arterial Streets by Width and Number of Lanes
Number Width Percent of Arterials Located In...
of Lanes (feet) City UGA1 City & UGA
2 All 92 80 89
2 11 to20 6 6 6
2 21 to 30 27 41 30
2 31 to 40 46 41 45
2 41 to 50 21 11 1 8
2 51 to60 1 0 1
3 All 7 0 5
3 31 to 40 47 0 47
3 41 to 50 53 0 53
4 All 1 7 2
4 41 to 50 100 0 16
4 51 to 60 0 1 00 84
5 All I 13 4
5 61 tO 70 100 88 89
5 71 tO 80 0 12 11
1. UGA refers to that part of the growth area outside the City limits.
Note: Total mileage of arterial streets located within the City limits is 39.76 miles, and
15.14 miles within the UGA. Italicized and bold entries represent all the facilities
for the number of lanes shown.
UGA = urban growth area
Existing geometric conditions for each designated collector,
minor, and principal arterial segment within the City and UGA
are shown in tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6, respectively.
Average Weekday Daily Traffic
The 1994 ^WDT volumes on many of the arterial streets in Port
Angeles are shown in fi§ure3.3. The SR 101 corridor
experiences the highest traffic volumes of all arterials in the City,
although portions of the Marine Drive/First Street/Front Street
corridor west of SR 1 01, Race Street, and Eighth Street experience
^WDTs upwards of 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd).
95005 / Reports / Maste~/Chapter3 (7/17/96) /jc 3-7
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.4
Collector Arterial Street Existing Conditions
Segment Existing Conditions
Width No. Parking
Arterial Street From... To... (ft) Lanes Curb Ped. Fac. Shoulders Fac.
Ahlvers St. Laurel St. Peabody St. 21-39 2 discont, none none discont.
Airport Rd. Lauridsen Blvd. SR 101 22 2 none none none none
Baker St. Third Ave. SR 101 22 2 none none none none
Bay St. Larch Ave. Lees Creek Rd. 22 2 none none none none
Black Diamond Rd. Lauridse~ Blvd. Fors Rd. 25 2 none none discont, discont.
Brooks Ave. Lees Cree~ Rd. SR 101 25 2 none none none none
Campbell Ave. Mt. Angeles Rd. Porter St. 20 2 none none none none
Cedar St. Second St. Eighth St. 22-42 2 cont. none none discont.
Chambers St. Front St. Eighth St. 38 2 cont. discont, none cont.
Cherry St. Second St. Fifteenth St. 23-38 2 discont, nrlycont, none discont.
Dry Creek Rd. SR 101 Edgewood Dr. 16-26 2 none none none none
Edgewood Dr. Lower Elwha Dr. Airport Rd. 27 2 none none paved < 6' none
Ediz Hook Coast Guard Hill St. 19-34 2 discont, min. discont, none
Eighteenth St. L St. end 22-29 2 none min. none none
Eighth St. I St. C St. 37 2 cont. discont, none cont.
Eighth St. Race St. Chambers St. 40 2 cont. none none cont.
Ennis St. entrance to Rayonier Lauridsen 30-39 2 cont. discont, none discont.
Fairmont Ave. Lauridsen Blvd. SR 101 19-20 2 none none discont, discont.
Fifth St. Ennis St. Cherry St. 24-39 2 discont, discont, min. cont.
Fifth St. Tumwater St. L St. 39 2 cont. disc'ont, min. cont.
Fourth St. Hill St. Evans St. 38, 2 cont. none none cont.
Gales St. SR 101 Third Ave. 23 2 none none discont, none
Golf Course Rd. Sixth St. Maddock Rd. 18-39 2 discont, m;n. none discont.
-till St. Marine Dr. Fourth St. 29 2 none none discont, none
St. Sixteenth St. Fifth St. 39 2 discont, none none cont.
L St. Eighteenth St. Lauridsen Blvd. 22 2 none none none none
Larch Ave. SR 101 Bay St. 22 2 none none none none
Laurel St. Lauridsen Blvd. Ahlvers Rd. 29-39 2 discont, none none discont.
Lauridsen Blvd. Tumwater Truck Rt. Airport Rd. 22 2 none none discont, none
Lees Creek Rd. Bay St. Brook Ave. 16 2 none none none none
Liberty St. Park Ave. Lauridsen Blvd. 24 2 none discont, discont, none
Lower Elwha Rd. Milwaukee Dr. Ext. Edgewood Dr. 20-22 2 none none discont, none
M St. Fourth St. Tenth St. 38 2 cont. mm. none cont.
Marine Dr. Tumwater Truck Rt. Hill St. 33 2 cont. nrlycont, none discont.
Milwaukee Dr. N St. Tenth St. 18-35 2 discont, none min. none
Monroe Rd. SR 101 Mariah Wind Wy. 24-36 2 discont, d;scont, discont, discont.
Mount Angeles Rd. Race St. Scrivner 21 2 none none none none
Mount Pleasant Rd. SR 101 Garling Rd. 24-37 2 discont, none none none
N St. Milwaukee Dr. Eighteenth St. 19-45 2 discont, min. none discont.
Old Mill Rd. Ahlvers City Limits 20-38 2 discont, none none discont.
Park Ave. Laurel St. Liberty 21-39 2 discont, discont, none discont.
Peabody St. Front St. Lauridsen Blvd. 39 3 cont. nrlycont, none discont.
Peabody St. Lauridsen Blvd. Ahlvers Rd. 40 2 cont. discont, none cont.
Pine St. Lauridsen Eighth St. 24-38 2 d'~scont, discont, none discont.
Porter St. Campbell Ave. Park Ave. 23 2 none none none none
Second St. Cherry St. Marine Dr. 23-50 2 cont. discont, none discont.
Sixteenth St. L St. C St. 22-38 2 discont, none gone discont.
Tenth St. Milwaukee St. I St. 18-37 2 discont, none none none
Third Ave. Gales St. Baker St. 18 2 none none none none
Tumwater St. Fifth St. Marine Dr. 20 2 cont. discont, none none
Valley St. First St. 6th St. (theoret.) 35-48 2 discont, disc'ont, none discont.
Notes: Italicized entries indicate where existing conditions fall short of design standards.
discontinuous = discont.; continuous = cont.; nearly continuous = nrtycont.; minimal = min.; pedestrian facilities = ped. fac.;
parking facilities = parking fac.
3- 8 9=5 / Reports / Master / Chapted3 (7/17/96)
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.5
Minor Arterial Street Existing Conditions
Segment Existing Conditions
Wklth No. Parking
Arterial Street From... To... (ft) Lanes Curb Ped. Fac. Shoulders Fac.
C St. Lauridsen Eighth St. 39 2 cont. discont, none cont.
Eighth St. C St. Race St. 26-47 2 discont, nrlycont, none none
First St. Marine Dr. Lincoln St. 50 2 cont. cont. none cont.
Front St. Lincoln St. end 41-48 2 cont. cont. none cont.
Golf Course Rd. First St. Sixth St. 39 2 cont. discont, none discont.
Lauridsen Blvd. Ennis St. Lincoln St. 24-49 2 cont. min. discont, none
Marine Dr. First St. Tumwater Truck Rt. 48 2 cont. cont. none none
Tumwater Truck Rt. Marine Dr. SR 101 24-36 2-3 none none discont, none
(SR 117)
Notes: Italicized entries indicate where existing conditions fall short of design standards.
discontinuous = discont.; continuous = cont.; nearly continuous = nrlycont.; minimal: min.
Table 3.6
Principal Arterial Street Existing Conditions
Segment Existing Conditions
W'~lth No. Ped. Parking
Arterial Street From... To... (ft) Lanes Curb Fac. Shoulders Fac.
First St. Lincoln St. Golf Course Rd. 50 2 cont. nrlycont, none cont.
Front St. Golf Course Rd. Lincoln St. 38-41 2-3 cont. discont, min. discont.
Lauridsen Blvd. Lincoln St. Fifteenth St. 50 2 cont. none none cont.
Lincoln St. Lauridsen Blvd. Front St. 41-49 2-4 cont. cont. none cont.
Race St. Front St. Mt. Angeles Rd. 21-43 2-4 discont, discont, min. discont.
SR 101 Golf Course Rd. Deerpark Rd. 60-72 4-5 discont, discont, paved >&< 6' none
SR 101 Lauridsen Blvd. Dry Creek Rd. 36-48 2-3 none none paved > 6' none
Notes: Italicized entries indicate where existing conditions fall short of design standards.
discontinuous = discont.; continuous = cont.; nearly continuous = nrlycont.; minimal = min.
Because SR 101 is currently the only major east/west corridor tra-
versing Port Angeles and its UGA, the corridor experiences an
AWDT between 12,200 and 23,200 vpd in the growth area
outside the City limits, and as high as 40,200 vpd within City
limits. As a result, congestion related problems are experienced
frequently along the SR 101 corridor through Port Angeles.
Arterial Street Existing Deficiencies
Functional Classification
The functional classification standards presented in table 2.2 were
used to identify arterial street segments falling short of design
standards. Existing conditions shown in tables :3.4, 3.$, and 3.6
were italicized if they did not meet those standards.
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
With the exception of portions of Chambers Street, First Street,
Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Eighth Street, "M" Street, Peabody
Street, and Marine Drive, all designated collector, minor, and
principal arterials are narrower than the recommended width,
and/or do not have curb and gutter. The remaining 53 street
segments listed in tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 would, at a minimum,
require widening to meet design standards. Design standards
pertaining to pedestrian facilities were not addressed in this
section, but will be addressed later in this document. It is also
important to note that right-of-way, grade, and design speeds
could not be field verified. Verification of these criteria may or
may not identify additional design standard shortfalls.
It is recommended that criteria pertaining to shoulders be added
to the City's design standards. Furthermore, it is recommended
that paved shoulders should be required on all minor and
principal arterials, and recommended on collector arterials.
Accident Summary
An accident analysis was conducted at midblock segments using
accident data from January 1992 to December 1994, and 1994
traffic counts.
Because the number of accidents occurring at a midblock section
is dependent on the traffic volume and section length being
analyzed, accidents are usually reported as a rate. For this
analysis, midblock accidents were reported as accidents per
million vehicle miles (apmvm). Expressing accident occurrences
as rates enables a relative comparison between midblock
segments. For this reason, a segment with the most accident
occurrences does not necessarily mean the same segment will
have the highest accident rate.
Accidents occurring at midblock segments were defined as those
occurring more than 150 feet from an intersection. A total of
192 midblock accidents occurred over the three-year period in
Port Angeles, with an average of 64 midblock accidents per year.
Of the 28 segments at which midblock accidents occurred, count
data and segment lengths were available for 24 locations, which
represents approximately 97 percent of the accidents. Accident
rates were calculated at these 24 segments on a block-by-block
basis. Segment values were obtained by averaging the individual
block accident rates. Rates for each segment ranged from 0.2 to
6.8 accidents per million vehicle miles. The segment with the
highest accident rate was Tenth Street from Milwaukee Drive to I
3-12 9~5 / Ref~orts / Master / Chapt®K3 (7/17/96) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Street (6.8 apmvm), while the segment with the most accidents
was First Street between Lincoln Street and Delguzzi Drive
(33 accidents). A list of locations, number of accidents, and
segment midblock accident rates are given in ^ppendix C.
The 1994 Washington State average accident rate for urban
principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials was
2.83, 3.21, and 4.23 accidents per million vehicle miles,
respectively (Washington State Department of Transportation,
Planning & Programming Service Center, Olympia 1994).
Accident rates were mostly below the State's 1994 average
accident rates. The random nature of accidents can result in
significant deviations from the average, especially when the
number of accidents is Iow. These deviations, therefore, do not
necessarily indicate a specific safety hazard. Of the six locations
with accident rates higher than the State's average, only one
location on Front Street (from Lincoln Street to Valley Street) has a
significant number of accidents. Nine of the 1 9 accidents at this
location involved a fixed object or parked vehicle, which may
indicate a parking design deficiency is partly responsible for the
higher than average accident rate. A more detailed accident study
may reveal a deficiency. Based on WSDOT's 1994 average
accident rates for the state and accident rates calculated for the
remaining Port Angeles streets, there does not appear to be any
significant roadway deficiencies related to safety.
Citizen Comments
Resident comments or questions at public open house meetings,
and/or letters to officials in the Public Works Department often
identify locations with limited sight distance where movements
are difficult to execute, unsafe situations, and other traffic-related
challenges. The City received one citizen request which
identified two areas of interest. The first is the need for another
east/west corridor through the City. This deficiency is addressed
later in this document as a result of an analysis using the Port
Angeles traffic model. The second issue was an intersection
related deficiency which also is addressed in the Signalized and
Unsignalized section of this chapter.
In the past, however, the City has received other comments on
areas that are having traffic problems/deficiencies. Some of the
citizen comments have addressed: using the C Street Extension as
a through street at high speeds is unsafe, upgrading Rose Street
and Thistle Street from gravel roads to meet City Standards for an
access street (local), and reconstructing 0 Street (from 12th Street
95005 / Reports ! Master / Chac~lsr3 (7/17/96) / jc 3-1 3
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
to 14th Street) and 1 4th Street (from O Street to Milwaukee Drive)
to meet City Standards for an access street (local).
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
The City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) also
identifies existing traffic-related deficiencies. Many of the projects
involve realignment or reconstruction of existing corridors or
intersections to improve operations. New facilities planned for
the next six years are the extension of Milwaukee Drive to Lower
Elwha Road and a crossing over White Creek that would provide
a second east/west corridor through the City. Table 3.7 lists
roadway improvements that are in the Port Angeles TIP (1 995).
Table 3.7
Port Angeles Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
New Facility
Reconstruction Construction Other Improvements
Lauridsen White Creek Eighth St. Bridge Inspections
Blvd./Airport Rd. Crossing
Lauridsen Blvd. ("L" Milwaukee Dr. Commercial Alley Reconstruction
to Tumwater Truck extension to Lower
Rte.) Elwha Rd.
Pine St. Lauridsen Blvd. Bridge Widening
Eighth St. (Race to Eighth St. Bridge Replacement
Cherry)
Fifth St. (Lincoln to
Ennis)
Peabody St.
Laurel St./
Ahlvers Rd.
Tenth St.
("1" to Flores)
Park Ave.
Eighteenth St.
(Landfill to "M")
Source: City of Port Angeles Six-Year Transportation Program (1995)
3-14 9~51 Reports / Ma~ter / Chapter3 (7/17/9~) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Commercial Vehicle Routes
The only designated commercial vehicle route in the City of Port
Angeles is the Tumwater Truck Route (SR 117), from SR 101 to
Marine Drive. This route primarily serves eastbound SR 101
traffic entering Port Angeles, and also provides a westbound exit
from the port area. Trucks are not prohibited from using Lincoln
Street or any other arterial street in the City. There has been
increasing concern over using First Street and Front Street,
especially in the downtown area, as a truck corridor because of
existing congestion in this area.
The City is currently considering using Lauridsen Boulevard as an
alternative truck route. Use of this proposed access to/from
SR 101 on the east side of the City would require trucks to use
Race Street because of grade restrictions. Using Race Street,
however, would only partially alleviate truck use on First and
Front Streets. A long-range alternative would be to construct a
roadway across White Creek connecting Lauridsen Boulevard and
Golf Course Road. Steep grades on Golf Course Road (7.5 to 14
percent), however, would have to be reduced to make the truck
reroute effective. This alternative would effectively reroute most
through trucks around the downtown/waterfront area of Port
Angeles.
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
Intersections are the portion of the transportation network most
often perceived as being deficient. This is especially true of
signalized intersections, because they cause delay for through
traffic and they are a point of conflict and interaction with other
vehicles. For the most part, however, traffic signals serve their
purpose by creating gaps in traffic for all movements (e.g. left-
turns), making everyone share the burden of delay. To determine
how well Port Angeles intersections operate, a LOS analysis for all
signalized and some unsignalized intersections was conducted
based on the existing configuration, signal phasing and traffic
volumes. The results are presented here.
Intersection Locations
There are currently 22 signalized intersections within the Port
Angeles City limits and three signalized intersections within the
UGA outside of the City. Most of these intersections are located
along the SR 101 corridor, including First Street, Front Street, and
95005 / Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96) / jc 3-15
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Lincoln Street. Other locations include intersections along Race
Street, Fifth Street, Eighth Street, and Tumwater Truck Route. In
addition, there are five unsignalized intersections within City
limits that are either planned for signalization in the City's Six-
Year TIP (1994), or City officials perceive the need for future
signalization.
Existing Intersection Volumes
The p.m. peak-hour turning movement counts were conducted
during the months of June and July 1 995 between 3:45 p.m. and
5:15 p.m. However, daily counts indicate that in some areas of
Port Angeles (generally downtown) the peak travel volumes occur
during midday. Level of service calculations and p.m. peak-hour
turning movement counts are provided in Appendix D.
Deficiencies
Intersection Level of Service
A planning-level LOS analysis was conducted on the
25 signalized intersections and five unsignalized intersections in
the study area. Table :3.8 lists the critical volumes, v/c ratios, and
LOS (where applicable) for each intersection. Figure 3.4 illus-
trates each intersection's location and its corresponding LOS.
Based on the results of the intersection planning-level LOS
analysis, there is one signalized intersection currently operating
below the recommended LOS D standard--the Eighth Street and
Lincoln Street intersection. This intersection currently operates at
LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. One reason for the Iow LOS is that
the southbound right-turn volume is substantial (1 87 vehicles per
hour), but there is not an exclusive right-turn lane. By adding an
exclusive right-turn lane, a planning-level LOS analysis revealed
the intersection would operate at LOS C. This LOS calculation
can be found in Appendix E.
-The intersection of First Street and Coif Course Road has a unique
geometry that allows the westbound SR 101 through traffic to
remain in motion through all phases of the cycle length. This is
possible by providing the eastbound left-turn movement and the
northbound through/left movement with an exclusive acceleration
lane on westbound SR 101 (Front Street), and because two of the
four legs of the intersection are composed of one-way traffic only.
3-16 9=51 Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7/17196) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.8
1994 P.M. Peak Intersection Planning Level of Service Analysis
Intersection Critical
of... and... LOS v/c ratio Volume
Signalized Intersections
Eighth Street Cherry Street B 0.64 960
Eighth Street Lincoln Street E 0.92 1,261
Eighth Street Peabody Street A 0.59 837
Eighth Street Race Street B 0.66 908
Fifth Street Lincoln Street A 0.53 795
Fifth Street Peabody Street A 0.53 735
First Street Ennis Street C 0.76 1,1 43
First Street Golf Course Road B 0.68 966
First Street Laurel Street A 0.50 745
First Street Lincoln Street A 0.40 601
First Street Oak Street A 0.34 514
First Street Peabody Street A 0.59 881
First Street Race Street B 0.61 910
Front Street Ennis Street B 0.63 941
Front Street Laurel Street A 0.46 693
Front Street Lincoln Street C 0.70 1,051
Front Street Oak Street A 0.48 726
Front Street Race Street B 0.66 997
SR 101 Delguzzi Drive B 0.60 901
SR 101 Kolonels Way A 0.54 749
SR 101 Monroe Road B 0.61 872
SR 101 Mt. Pleasant Road B 0.66 936
Lauridsen Boulevard Race Street A 0.53 791
Lauridsen Boulevard Lincoln Street A 0.39 560
Marine Drive Tumwater Truck Road B 0.60 906
Unsign~lized Intersections
Eighth Street C Street D n/a n/a
Fifth Street Race Street D n/a n/a
Hill Street Marine Drive A n/a n/a
Lauridsen Boulevard Laurel Street D n/a n/a
N Street Eighteenth Street A n/a n/a
95005 / Re~s / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96) / j~ 3-19
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Therefore, the westbound through volume was not included in
the analysis, and the intersection was treated as a T-intersection.
Although the LOS analysis indicates this intersection currently
operates at LOS B in the p.m. peak hour, extreme delays have
been witnessed. The delay is such that eastbound through traffic
does not clear the intersection in one cycle length and some
vehicles often wait through two or more cycles before clearing the
intersection. This condition indicates that either the traffic
volumes measured in the field are incorrect, or the existing signal
timing has not been optimized. If the volumes used in the
analysis are too Iow, then one solution would be to add a third
through lane on the eastbound leg (First Street) and continue it
through the intersection on eastbound SR 101 to Delguzzi Road,
where it would become a right-turn. (This analysis is shown in
Appendix E.) Otherwise, a revised signal timing scheme based on
the available volumes should be considered for this intersection.
Intersection Accident Summary
An accident analysis for intersections in the Port Angeles area was
conducted using accident data from January 1992 to December
1994, and 1994 traffic counts.
Because the number of accidents occurring at an intersection is
dependent on the traffic volume entering the intersection,
accidents are usually reported as a rate. For this analysis,
intersection accidents were reported as accidents per million
entering vehicles (apmv). Expressing accident occurrences as
rates enables a relative comparison between intersections. For
this reason, an intersection with the most accident occurrences
does not necessarily mean the same intersection will have the
highest accident rate.
There were a total of 607 accidents at 142 intersections in Port
Angeles over the three-year period, producing an average of
202 accidents per year. Accident rates were calculated for the
48 intersections which had available traffic count data
(representing approximately 56 percent of the accidents over the
three-year period). At these 48 intersections, between zero and
three accidents per million entering vehicles occurred each year,
with the intersection of First Street and Golf Course Road
experiencing the highest accident rate. A list of the
48 intersections and corresponding number of accidents and
accident rate is given in Appendix F.
3-20 95005 / Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7117/96) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Citizen Comments
As identified by one resident of Port Angeles, a traffic challenge
exists at the intersection of First Street/Front Street/Golf Course
Road. The resident believes that the acceleration lane on
westbound Front Street for eastbound U-turn movements and
northbound left/through movements is a difficult maneuver and
often is complicated by congestion problems due to the high
westbound through volume. In addition, the unique geometry of
the intersection causes additional maneuvering challenges for
patrons of surrounding retail and restaurant businesses. The
citizen also noted sight distance problems related to vegetation
along Front Street. This intersection has been noted by others in
the past as well.
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
The City's TIP also identified projects that involve the coordina-
tion or addition of traffic signals. Table 3.9 lists these projects.
Table 3.9
Port Angeles Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
Intersection Reconstruction Signalization
Lauridsen Blvd./Washington St. Eighth St./Cherry St.
Golf Course Rd./SR 1 01 Preemption revision on all signals
Hill St./Marine Dr. Eighth St./"C" St.
Tumwater Truck Rte./SR 1 01 City-wide signal interconnect
Source: City of Port Angeles Six-Year Transportation Program (1995)
AIR TRANSPORTATION
The William R. Fairchild International Airport is within the City
limits of Port Angeles, but was originally owned by Clallam
County. Initial construction began in 1934, and over the years,
the airport has had several different owners and purposes. Today,
the airport is owned by the Port of Port Angeles, with its primary
purpose to develop flow of passengers and cargo through the
airport and create economic benefits for the county. The majority
95005 / Repe~t, / Marie,' / Cha/pter3 (7/17/96) / ~ 3-21
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
of funds used in operating the airport come from airlines, tenants,
and users of the airport.
The airport is served by one carrier, Horizon Airlines, with 10
daily flights to Seattle. The airline also provides service to
Victoria, British Columbia. With a full-time U.S. Customs and
Immigration Service at the airport, Horizon Airlines has found it
increasingly more convenient to stop in Port Angeles for customs
before continuing onto Seattle and thus avoiding the international
arrivals congestion at SeaTac Airport. This convenience is
witnessed in the total enplanements trend over the last 10 years,
which has shown a net increase of approximately 159 percent
since 1985, to 77,840 in 1994.
Four carriers provide air freight services at the airport, including
Horizon Airlines, Federal Express, United Parcel Se~ice, and
Pony Express. Air freight has increased almost every year since
1982, with a net increase of approximately 58 percent to 335 tons
in 1992.
Access to the airport is currently via Eighteenth Street and
"L" Street. The AWDT volumes for these two roadways is 2,500
vpd and 3,000 vpd, respectively, or between 250 and 300
vehicles per hour (vph) during the peak hour (figure 3.3). These
volumes are well below capacity (20,000 vph) for the two-lane
suburban roads servicing the airport.
MARINE TRANSPORTATION
Port Angeles has two ferry services located off of Railroad Avenue
in downtown, with marine access into the Port Angeles Harbor.
The vehicle/pedestrian ferry service is owned by Black Ball
Transport, Inc. which has been operating between Port Angeles
and Victoria, British Columbia since December 1959. The M.V.
Coho is a roll-on, roll-off vehicle and passenger vessel. Vehicle
capacity varies from 50 to 110 vehicles, depending on vehicle
lengths and types. Maximum passenger capacity is 1,000. The
company is a privately owned company receiving no government
or other operating funds. Total foot passengers and vehicle
transport has decreased by approximately 16 and 12 percent,
respectively, since 1989, with a total of 197,304 foot passengers
and 290,250 vehicles using the service in 1994. Peak service on
the ferry occurs during the summer months, with approximately
60 percent of its yearly boardings during the four months from
June to September.
3-22 g~oo~ / Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
The Victoria Rapid Transit service is a pedestrian only ferry
serving Victoria and Port Angeles from May to October. The
privately owned company has been operating since 1990 and
owns one high-speed vessel. The ship's maximum occupancy is
150 passengers, and it makes three round trips per day. Crossing
time is approximately one hour. The ferry company transports
between 30,000 and 60,000 passengers annually, with the
summer months being the peak season.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
The City of Port Angeles is served by Clallam Transit, which
provides intracity routes to Port Angeles, and also provides
intercity routes for Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Sappho, La Push,
Clallam Bay, Sekiu, and Neah Bay. The system consists of five
intracity routes in the Port Angeles area and three intercity routes
with direct service from Port Angeles. Table 3.10 presents a brief
description of each route, while figure 3.$ illustrates the intracity
bus routes.
Deficiencies
Level of Service
The service performance standards used by Clallam Transit were
presented previously in table 2.5. The service performance
indicators were calculated by Clallam Transit for each route for
the period from June 1995 to May 1996. The results are
presented in table 3.11. Entries shown in bold did not satisfy the
performance standard for that route's service category. Routes 14
and 26 both failed to meet performance standards for passengers
per mile. Route 14 also exceeded the standard cost per passenger
threshold. Clallam Transit uses this data to determine if a route
modification, schedule modification, route termination, service
cut, fare increase, and/or target marketing needs to occur.
95005 / Report. / M..t®r / Che/pter3 (7/17196) / jc 3-23
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.10
Clallam Transit Route Summary
Weekday Headway
Route AM PM Off Service
Number Route Destinations Peak Peak Peak Day
Intracity Routes
20 Transfer Station, Peninsula 30 min. 30 min. 30 min. 6:25 a.m.-
College, Plaza Shopping Center, 7:00 p.m.
Olympic Memorial Hospital,
Transfer Station
21 Plaza Shopping Center, 30 min. n/a n/a 7:40 a.m.-
Peninsula College, Port Angeles 9:55 a.m.
High School, Court House
22 Transfer Station, Lincoln St., 30 min. 30 min. 30 min. 6:55 a.m.-
Laurel St., Ahlvers Rd., Port 7:00 p.m.
Angeles High School, Peabody
St., Court House, Transfer
Station
24 Transfer Station, Lincoln St., 30 min. 30 min. 30-60 6:25 a.m.-
Eighth St., Cedar St., Pine St., C min. 7:30 p.m.
St., Fairgrounds, I St., Transfer
Station
26 Transfer Station, Marine Dr., 30 min. 30-60 30-120 6:30 a.m.-
Fifth St., M St., N St., 18th St., min. min. 9:45 p.m.
Fairgrounds, Airport, Elwha
Tribal Center, Edgewood Rd.,
Lauridsen Blvd., Tumwater
Truck Rte., Transfer Station
Intercity Routes
10 Transfer Station, Lincoln St., n/a 2-3 hours 5 hours 6:30 a.m.-
SR 101, SR 112, Joyce, Lyre 11:15 p.m.
River Park
14a Transfer Station, SR 101, 2 hours 2 hours 2-3 hours 4:15 a.m.-
Sappho and Forks $:30 p.m.
30b Transfer Station, Plaza Shopping 30 min. 30 min. 30-140 6:15 a.m.-
Center, SR 101, Sequim min. 11:15 p.m.
Source: Clallam Transit Summer Schedules June 1995.
a. This route provides transfer to Route 15 to La Push and Route 16 to Clallam Bay, Sekiu, and
Neah Bay.
b. This route provides transfer to Route 31, Old Olympic Highway to Sequim.
3-24 95005 / Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96)
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.11
Clallam Transit Service Performance Indicators
June 1995-May 1996
Cost
Passengers Passengers Passengers Recovery Cost per
Route No. per Run per Mile per Hour Ratio Passenger
Intercity Routes
14 15.27 0.25 10.32 2.76% $10.87
30 16.81 0.98 28.18 8.20% $3.66
Urban Routes
20 7.91 2.78 50.07 15.76% $1.90
21 7.04 1.41 35.21 10.52% $2.85
22 6.31 2.20 40.69 12.76% $2.35
24 5.92 1.63 34.40 10.58% $2.84
26 5.33 0.69 24.66 6.84% $4.39
Rural Routes
10 8.86 0.36 13.08 3.62% $8.29
Source: Clallam Transit System
The Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (1995) provided
existing supply and demand LOS for each transit route providing
direct service to Port Angeles. These routes and their
corresponding LOS are shown in table 3.12. For both supply and
demand, the lowest LOS was C, indicating there is no current
deficiency with transit operations.
95005 / Re~po~ts / Master / Chapter3 (7/17/96) / jc 3-2 7
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Table 3.12
Transit Level of Service
Level of Service
Route Number Demand Supply
Intracity Routes
2O C C
21 B B
22 B B
24 B B
26 A B
Intercity Routes
10 C C
14 B B
30 C B
Source: Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (1995) January 1995.
Route Coverage
As shown in fi§ute 3.5, Clallam Transit currently serves Port
^ngeles mostly within the City limits. ^lthough coverage within
City limits appears to be more than adequate, the UGA to the east
of the City only has access to the intracity service by using an
intercity bus from SR 101. However, it is unknown whether the
demand for transit service exists in the eastern UGA.
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
Non-motorized transportation facilities consist of pedestrian,
equestrian, and/or bicycle paths. The City has many pedestrian
facilities, including a waterfront trail and limited exclusive bicycle
designated facilities. There are no designated equestrian trails in
the City.
Pedestrian Facilities
As shown in tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6, eight of the 66 designated
collector, minor, and principal arterial segments have continuous,
uninterrupted sidewalks on both sides of the road. These arterials
are comprised of First Street (two segments), Front Street, Lincoln
Street, Marine Drive, Cherry Street, Peabody Street, and Eighth
3-2 8 9=51 Retorts / Master I Chapter3 (7/17/96) / jc
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Street which are likely the roadways most traveled by pedestrians
in the City, especially during summer tourist season. As shown in
table 3.13, approximately 42 percent of the City's arterials have
continuous paved sidewalks, while two percent of the UGA
arterial streets have continuous paved sidewalks.
Table 3.13
Arterial Street Pedestrian Facilities
All Arterials
City UGA City & UGA
Miles of ... 40 15 55
Percent of paved sidewalks 42 2 31
Percent of dirt/gravel sidewalks 1 11 4
Percent of discontinuous sidewalks 7 0 5
Percent of no sidewalks 50 87 60
An additional 17 road segments provide sidewalk with either
periodic interruptions in continuity, unpaved segments, or
sidewalk on only one side of the road. In most cases, these road
segments have sidewalks on more than 50 percent of their length,
and therefore would probably require minimal effort and funding
to complete. Figure 3.6 (page 3-31) illustrates sidewalk locations
at designated collector, minor, and principal arterials. Roadways
not highlighted in figure 3.6 were not field verified and may or
may not have pedestrian facilities.
A waterfront trail currently extends from the coast guard station
on Ediz Hook along Marine Drive and the waterfront to
approximately the Rayonier Mill. This trail is expected to be
extended eastward.
Bicycle Facilities
Port Angeles has two designated bicycle facilities, consisting of
the Waterfront Trail, shared with pedestrians, and a bicycle only
lane located along Race Street from the Visitors' Center and the
Olympic National Park entrance to Lauridsen Boulevard. There
are also paved shoulders along SR 101 that are used frequently by
bicyclists.
95005 / Re~orts / Master / Ch~oter3 (7/17/96) / jc 3-29
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
In November 1995, a questionnaire was prepared and distributed
to a regional bicycle association in the Port Angeles area to solicit
some input regarding bicycle traffic and use in and around Port
Angeles. Approximately 24 completed surveys were returned to
the City. The survey indicated that most bicycle travel was either
recreational (38 percent) or equal proportions of recreational and
commuter travel (46 percent).
In addition, the survey indicated approximately one-third of the
respondents (known bicyclists) use a bicycle instead of other
modes of transportation up to 25 percent of the time when
traveling around the City, while two-thirds of the respondents
typically use a bicycle for up to 50 percent of their travel needs.
More than half (58 percent) of the respondents indicated they
made between 21 and 30 one-way trips using all modes of
transportation in a typical week. Approximately 70 percent of the
respondents predicted that they would increase their bicycle
usage and decrease their demand on other modes of
transportation if designated bicycle lanes were made available on
all principal and minor arterial streets in Port Angeles.
The survey also requested that the respondents indicate which
corridors, in their opinion, are priority corridors for bicycle
facilities. Among the suggestions were Lauridsen Boulevard, the
SR 101 corridor, Race Street, Peabody Street, Heart of the Hills
Parkway, and Tumwater Truck Route. Figure 3.7 illustrates the
survey results and indicates whether the bicycle facility's intended
use would be commuter or recreational.
School Walkway Program
The City maintains a school walkway program which is included
in its six-year TIP. The program funds the construction of new
pedestrian facilities on roadways located near schools that do not
currently have sidewalks. Designated roadways anticipated to
have sidewalks added within the next six years are shown in
figure 3.6. The program includes many non-arterial streets, or
access streets (local), which are not required by the City's design
standards to have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
3-30 g~051 Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7117/g6} / je
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
Non-Motorized System Deficiencies
Standards for Non-Motorized Modes
The City of Port Angeles' design standards for roadways
(functional classification) was the primary basis for determining
existing deficiencies of non-motorized facilities. There are
currently no standards for bicycle facilities, although the City's
Comprehensive Plan (1994) acknowledges the need for them.
Most of the designated collector, minor, and principal arterials do
not have continuous, uninterrupted sidewalks on both sides of the
road. The City's design standards require sidewalks on both sides
of the roadway, for all arterial classifications.
Locations with continuous sidewalks on both sides of the
roadway are First Street (two segments), Front Street, Lincoln
Street, Cherry Street, Marine Drive, Peabody Street, and Eighth
Street which are likely the most pedestrian traveled roadways in
the City, especially during tourist season. Completion of the
School Sidewalk Program would add about 20 more arterial
roadway segments to the list of roadways meeting City design
standards, plus many access streets (local) would also benefit from
the addition of sidewalks. The City intends to maintain funding
for the School Walkway Program and ensure its completion.
Many of the remaining road segments provide sidewalks which
are not continuous, are not paved, or only have sidewalk on one
side of the road. In most cases, these segments are within more
than fifty percent of meeting the design standard for its functional
class.
Public Involvement Comments
The survey distributed to a local bicycle association indicated a
need for bicycle facilities in and around the Port Angeles UGA;
however, because of the distribution group, the results of the
survey should be considered biased. The primary purpose for
distributing the survey to known bicycle users was to obtain
information from a reliable source as to where existing
deficiencies exist and what corridors should receive priority
consideration for bicycle facilities. In this respect, the survey was
successful in identifying several corridors, including Lauridsen
Boulevard, the SR 101 corridor, Race Street, Peabody Street, Heart
of the Hills Parkway, and Tumwater Truck Route.
95005 / Re~3orts / Master / Chal3t®r3 {7/17/96) / j¢ 3-33
Existing Transportation Inventory and Deficiencies
It is difficult to determine the level of deficiency that exists for
bicycle facilities because the true demand is unknown.
A transportation demand management policy would be supported
if the City chose to offer the public other modes of transportation
by supplying more bicycle facilities. Depending on the level of
deficiency that exists for bicycle facilities, those corridors shown
in figure ::].7 would be locations the City would consider first for
bicycle facilities.
Pedestrian Accident Summary
There have been several pedestrian accidents in Port ^n§eles
recently, and the Eib/police have be§un an educational pro§ram
to raise drivers' awareness of crosswalks. ^lthough pedestrians
have the right-of-way when in marked crosswalks in many
jurisdictions, realistically it is up to pedestrians to maximize their
own safety. Studies show that up to 85, percent of pedestrian
accidents were the pedestrian's fault'.
One of the most popular pedestrian misconceptions is that they
are safe if they cross the street in a marked crosswalk. However,
studies show that pedestrian accidents actually increase at
locations where an unmarked crossing was converted to a marked
crossing'. Even when flashing lights are installed, most studies
conclude that there is little to no significant reduction in
pedestrian accidents2. One possible conclusion from these
studies could be that marked crosswalks and electronic devices
give pedestrians a false sense of security, causing them to be less
cautious.
To improve safety, the City will continue educational programs
targeted at pedestrians. The City also may consider having
marked crosswalks only at signalized intersections.
1. Heraty, Margaret I. Review of Pedestrian Safety Research. Contractor Report 20. Crowthorn,
Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory. 1986.
2. Robertson, H.D. Signalized Intersection Controls for Pedestrians. Ph.D Dissertation,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland. 1983.
3-34 9~00~ / Reports / Master / Chapter3 (7117/96) / jc
CHAPTER 4
TRAFFIC FORECASTING
MODEL CALIBRATION
Background
The Port ^n§eles travel model was developed to:
· translate the City's recently adopted comprehensive land
use plan into Ion§-ran§e travel demand estimates
· test planned and proposed transportation system improve-
ments
· assist the City in completing the transportation portion of
its comprehensive plan as required by the state's Growth
Management Act (GMA)
The model could provide a technical basis for calculating impact
fees authorized by the GMA, and may also be used to determine
whether planned new developments meet the GMA's
concurrency requirements.
The model was developed using a commercial package known as
TMODEL2', vended by the TModel Corporation.
Study Area and Zone Structure
The study area extends beyond the boundaries of the Port Angeles
Urban Growth Area (UGA), as described in the Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan DEIS.2 It extends from the Elwha River on
the west to Morse Creek on the east, and from Ediz Hook on the
north to a line roughly paralleling Little River Road on the south.
Within this area, 150 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were
established to serve as the locations of trip origins and
destinations in the travel model. At points where major streets
entered or exited the study area, a particular type of TAZ known
as an external station was defined to account for trips leaving or
entering the study area. External stations were used in the model
1. TMODEL is a registered trademark of the TModel Corporation.
2. Draft Environmental Impact .Statement for the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan,
Nancy ARyan & Company, March 8, 1993, p. I-2.
95005 / Reports / Me, ster / Chapter4 (7118/96) / je 4-1
Traffic Forecasting
to represent State Route (SR) 101, SRl12, Heart of the Hills
Parkway, and the Black Ball Ferry Terminal along the study area
boundary.
Figure 4.1 shows the travel model zone structure and the location
of external stations. The TAZs were designed to contain areas of
homogeneous land use and common points of access to the street
system.
Network
The model network included all arterials in the study area, and
many facilities below the arterial level. The TAZs were connected
to the network by special links known as centroid connectors, so
named because they join the center of development (or centroid)
of a zone to the rest of the network. Links connected to external
stations were given lengths intended to approximate the portion
of a typical trip extending outside the study area. The model
network is shown in figure 4.2.
The TMODEL2 permits each street segment, or link, to be given
characteristics such as class, directional characteristic (one-way or
two-way), number of lanes, length, nominal (or posted) speed,
and capacity, which collectively aid in determining each link's
operational status such as operating speed, congestion, and attrac-
tiveness.
Land Use and Trip Assignment
Based on the 1990 Census and the data from the Washington
State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and
Employment Analysis (LMEA) section, the number of employees
by place of work were determined. Using estimated land use in
each TAZ, vehicular trip generation rates for the afternoon peak
hour, and the travel time separation between TAZs, the demand
for travel in the afternoon peak can be forecast as a set of hourly
vehicle volumes from every TAZ to every other TAZ. This
representation of travel demand, known as a trip table, is then
assigned to the existing street system, or network as shown in
figure 4.2, using the shortest time paths (taking into account the
effects of congestion) between TAZs. The model is considered
calibrated when its predicted hourly volumes match observed
traffic counts with a sufficient level of accuracy. A detailed
description of the model development is provided in ^ppendix G.
95005 / Ref3orts / Master/Chal3ter4 (7/18/~6) I jo 4-2
Traffic Forecasting
Model Accuracy
The primary measures of accuracy for the Port Angeles travel
model were the correlation, slope, and intercept between model
volumes and directional afternoon peak hour traffic counts at 220
locations. Secondary measures included average error per link
and actual versus predicted vehicle miles of travel. The final
correlation factor, or R2, of the Port Angeles model was 0.939,
with slope 0.941 and intercept -32. The R~ may be interpreted to
mean that about 94 percent of variation in observed traffic was
accounted for by the model--a high degree of accuracy,
approaching the practical limits of the data from which models
are constructed. The slope and intercept indicate little overall
bias in the model.
2014 FORECASTS
Land Use
Household and Employment Growth Assumptions
The Port Angeles travel model was used to estimate 2014 traffic,
based on 20-year growth projections in the City of Port Angeles
Comprehensive Plan. The DEIS indicates that the number of
households will increase by 2,177 in the City and UGA.' Of this
amount, 1,742 would be single-family, and 435 multi-family, as
shown in table 4.1.
Table 4.1
Twenty-Year Household Growth
Single-Family Multi-Family Total
City 1,391 413 1,804
UGA 351 22 373
Total 1,742 435 2,177
This household growth (amounting to about 22 percent of existing
households) was allocated to the Port Angeles model TAZs in
1. Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan DEI5, p. 11-77.
95005 / Reports / Master / Chapt®r4 (7/18/96) / jc 4-5
Traffic Forecasting
proportion to the total vacant developable land in each TAZ
weighted by the current fraction of developed land in residential
use. Vacant developable land was est~ T~ated as total area
reduced by the sum of developed and pu~ ~c (open space) land.
In this way, vacant developable land was used as the basic
indicator of supply, while the fraction of land in residential use
was used as an index of the attractiveness of each TAZ for
residential development. The resulting household growth
estimates for each TAZ were added to 1994 household estimates.
The Comprehensive Plan derives its employment projections from
the current ratio of employees per household.~ For this reason, it
was assumed that the 1994-2014 growth in total employment
would equal the estimated household growth of 22 percent. The
Comprehensive Plan is very general, however, as to the probable
location of this employment within the UGA. For the sake of this
transportation plan, it was assumed that future employment (by
sector) would be located in proportion to existing employment in
each TAZ.
Growth at External Stations
It was assumed that trips originating/ending inside the study area
but ending/originating outside the study area would increase at
the same rate as households and employment. However, growth
of traffic traveling through the study area was estimated by a
different method. Based on a ten-year history of traffic volumes
available from the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT), on SR 101 between Port Angeles and
Sequim, a linear extrapolation indicated that 1994 average
weekday traffic volumes would increase from 19,892 to 36,072
by the year 2014, a growth of 81 percent. Therefore, the Port
Angeles through trip table was increased by 81 percent as an
estimate of 2014 through traffic.
Future Network Scenarios
To evaluate planned and proposed street improvements, the 2014
trip table was loaded on six future network scenarios containing
different subsets of improvements.
1. Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan DEI$, p. IV-11.
4-6 9=5 / Re~otts / Master / Chapter4 (7/18/96) I jc
Traffic Forecasting
A "base" package consisted of projects taken from the City of Port
Angeles Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),
together with one additional capacity improvement required to
mitigate existing deficiencies. These projects were common to all
future network scenarios and are shown in table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Base Package Improvements
Location Type of Improvement
First Street/Peabody Street Signalization
Fifth Street/Race Street Signalization
Eighth Street/Cherry Street Signalization
Eighth Street/'C' Street Signalization
Lauridsen Blvd./Airport Road Realignment of intersection
Tumwater Truck Route/Hwy 101 Construct second half of diamond
interchange
Milwaukee Drive, 'N' to 1 8th Construct new 2-lane arterial
Milwaukee Drive, 1 8th to Lower Construct new 2-lane arterial
Elwha Road
First Avenue, Ennis to Delguzzi1 Widen from two to three lanes
1. Source: Entranco (all others from Port Angeles Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program)
Three other major improvements also were tested in various
combinations. They were:
· White Creek Crossing- Extend Lauridsen Boulevard across
White Creek to Golf Course Road.
· Heart of the Hills Parkway - Construct a new two-lane
arterial from the junction of Heart of the Hills Parkway and
Mount Angeles Road across White, Ennis, and Morse
Creeks to SR 1 01 east of Deer Park Road.
· Lincoln Street/Peabody Street One-Way Couplet - Convert
Lincoln and Peabody Streets to operate as one-way
southbound and northbound, respectively.
95005 / Retorts / Master / Chapter4 (7/18/96) / jc 4-7
CHAPTER 5
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS
ROADWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
State Route (SR) 101 is currently the only major east/west corridor
traversing the City of Port Angeles and its urban growth area
(UGA). The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the corridor
are between 12,200 and 23,200 vehicles per day (vpd) in the
UGA outside the City limits, and as high as 40,200 vpd within
City limits. As a result, congestion related problems are common
along the SR 101 corridor through Port Angeles. Two new
corridors have been proposed in the City's Comprehensive Plan
(June 1994) to alleviate traffic on SR 101. In addition,
transportation systems management (TSM) strategies have also
been proposed for the corridor.
As was briefly addressed in Chapter 4, the future year model
network was evaluated using several network scenarios. Each
scenario consists of different combinations of the projects in the
City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),
including the two new corridors and TSM strategies. This section
describes the projects, model scenarios, and the model analysis
results.
New Facilities
The two new facilities proposed in the Comprehensive Plan
include the White Creek Crossing and the Heart of the Hills
Parkway. White Creek Crossing is a two- to three-lane extension
of Lauridsen Boulevard eastward from Ennis Street to Golf Course
Road, which would require a bridge structure over White Creek.
The new facility is intended to attract westbound vehicles from
SR 101 at Golf Course Road and eastbound vehicles from SR 101
at Lincoln Street.
Heart of the Hills Parkway will consist of both a new facility and
an upgrade of existing facilities. The new corridor would be a
two-lane facility beginning outside the eastern Port Angeles UGA,
and would extend southwesterly from SR 101 to Deer Park Road.
From Deer Park Road, the new facility would generally continue
in a westerly direction to Race Street, in the vicinity of the Mount
Angeles Road/Heart of the Hills Parkway intersection. At this
point, the corridor would be upgraded on Race Street to City
95005 / Ret3orts / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jc 5-1
Future Transportation System Needs
design standards north to Lauridsen Boulevard. Figure5.1
illustrates the approximate location of both new facilities.
Transportation Systems Management
Another alternative for meeting transportation needs is to
implement TSM strategies, in which the existing network is used
more efficiently with the intent of alleviating traffic problems. A
TSM strategy that has been suggested for the SR 101 corridor
through the City is to convert Lincoln Street (which already serves
as a portion of SR 1 01 ) and Peabody Street to a one-way couplet,
which would operate exactly like the Front Street and First Street
couplet. In this alternative, Lincoln Street would operate as a
three-lane one-way facility southbound, while Peabody Street
would operate as a three-lane one-way facility northbound. The
couplet would join the existing one-way couplet of Front Street
and First Street on the north, with the two-way Lauridsen
Boulevard on the south. Figure 5.2 illustrates the Lincoln/
Peabody Couplet.
Model Network Scenarios
Five different networks were analyzed for the 2014 planning year,
in which the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet, White Creek Crossing,
and Heart of the Hills Parkway also were modeled. For
comparison, the current (1 994) base network and future (2014)
base network without these improvements were modeled in
various combinations. The only improvements modeled in the
2014 base network were those planned in the current Port
Angeles six-year TIPs (see table 4.2). None of the TIP
improvements should significantly affect SR 1 01 traffic.
Each network with its set of transportation improvements was
labeled Scenario I, II, etc. Table 5.1 lists each scenario and its
corresponding network. Networks were created on the
assumption that White Creek Crossing would be the first new
facility constructed to alleviate traffic congestion. The Heart of
the Hills Parkway will only be constructed if the White Creek
Crossing does not meet demand and congestion continues.
Therefore, a scenario with only the Heart of the Hills Parkway
facility was not tested. The Lincoln Street/Peabody Street one-
way couplet was incorporated into three scenarios, including the
201 4 base network and the couplet as the only improvement; the
couplet and White Creek Crossing; and the couplet, White Creek
Crossing, and Heart of the Hills Parkway.
5-2 9=5 / Re,ports / Master Chapter5 {7/18/96) / jc
Couplet
Existing
One-Way
/
/ ~~ / Couplet
/
Legend
~ Proposed corridor
~ ~, Approx. urban growth boundary
......... Ci~ limits line
~ ~ Crai~Ave
Rivers/s~eam Cam
~ Olympic National ~rest
Figure 5.2
· N T R A N ~ O Li ~ /~ b a-'nco'n--ea-o-y~ ~t-oup'e-
Legend ~'-
I = ~ 994 ~se ne~ork
II = 2014 Base ne~ork with 6-year T.I.R ~,, ~; ~' ....
III = Scenario II wi~ White Creek Cm~ing ~ ~ /
IV = Scenado III wi~ Head-of-the-Hills Par~ay
V = Scenario II with Lincoln SVPeabody St One-Way ~uplet
VI = Scenario V with ~ite Creek Crossing ' '"'~,
VII = Scenado VI with Head-of-the-Hills Parkway
~ ~ ~ Proposed new facili~es
-- -- -- Approx. u~an gro~h ~unda~
- ........ Ci~ limi~ line
Rive~stream
~ Olympic National Forest
Figure 5.3
E N T R A N ~ O Average Daily Traffic Forecasts By Network Scenarios
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.1
Network Scenarios
Scenario
II III IV V VI VII
1994 Existing Network
2014 Network with Base
Improvements
White Creek Crossing
Heart of the Hills Parkway
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet
Shifts in traffic patterns and/or additional vehicle traffic occurred
as a result of implementing the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet, White
Creek Crossing, or Heart of the Hills Parkway, either individually
or any combination of the three improvements. Changes in traffic
patterns will alleviate congestion problems in some areas, but
may cause congestion problems in new areas not currently
designed to accommodate the shift in traffic. Each network
scenario modeled has a unique set of capital improvement
projects associated with it as a result of the associated shifts in
traffic patterns.
Projected Travel Patterns and Average Daily Traffic Volumes
The purpose of the model analysis is to determine if implementing
a TSM strategy or constructing a new facility will cause a shift in
travel patterns, decrease or increase traffic, or both. A useful tool
to measure traffic fluctuations is ADT. The ADT for each scenario
at select locations is shown in figure $.3. An 11 to 68 percent
increase in ^DT was witnessed over the 20-year planning period
between the 1994 and 2014 base networks (Scenarios I and II),
with an average 34 percent increase. The following sections
present the projected effect each scenario (111 to VII) would have
on travel patterns and ADT.
5-6 9~5 / Reports / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
White Creek Crossing (Scenario III)
With the addition of the White Creek Crossing to the 2014 base
network (Scenario III), the ADT at the eastern portion of First
Street and Front Street drops from 51,700 vpd in Scenario II to
36,300 vpd, a decrease of 15,400 vpd or about 30 percent.
However, both Golf Course Road and the new White Creek
Crossing show an increase in ADT to approximately 1 7,500 vpd.
Lauridsen Boulevard traffic between Ennis Street and Lincoln
Street increases slightly from 13,000 vpd to 17,100 vpd
(32 percent), while SR 101 traffic west of the City remains
virtually unchanged. Lincoln Street shows a decrease (13 to 20
percent) in traffic between Front Street and Lauridsen Boulevard.
Another noticeable shift in traffic is on Race Street near Lauridsen
Boulevard, where the ADT decreases from 15,500 vpd to 9,300
vpd (40 percent) when the White Creek Crossing is constructed.
White Creek Crossing and Heart of the Hills Parkway (Scenario IV)
When both the White Creek Crossing and the Heart of the Hills
Parkway (Scenario IV) are constructed, traffic on the eastern end
of First and Front Streets decreases from 51,700 vpd in Scenario II
to 29,700 vpd, or a 43 percent decrease. The Heart of the Hills
Parkway also shifts traffic from Golf Course Road (57 percent
decrease) and White Creek Crossing (37 percent decrease). The
Heart of the Hills Parkway carries between 13,400 and 17,100
vpd over its length. Lauridsen Boulevard traffic increases to
20,400 vpd when the Heart of the Hills Parkway is constructed
(Scenario IV), which is about 19 percent higher than in
Scenario III and 57 percent higher than in Scenario II. Lincoln
Street experiences up to an additional 14 percent decrease in
ADT over Scenario III.
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet (Scenario V)
Implementing the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet, in addition to the
2014 network (Scenario V) significantly affects traffic on Lincoln
Street, but has little to no affect on the remaining network. The
ADT on Lincoln Street decreases from 21,600 vpd in Scenario II
to 14,000 vpd near First and Front Streets and from 14,800 vpd to
9,600 vpd near Lauridsen Boulevard, a decrease of approximately
35 percent. It would be expected that the decrease in traffic on
Lincoln Street would be transferred to Peabody where a similar
magnitude increase would be witnessed. Traffic on Peabody
95005/Ref3o~ts/Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) /jc 5-9
Future Transportation System Needs
Street did increase; however, the increase was not as high as
expected. Near First and Front Streets, volumes on Peabody Street
increased from 10,400 to 13,100 vpd while traffic near Lauridsen
Boulevard increased from 4,700 to 5,400 vpd. These smaller
increases in traffic on Peabody Street indicate that drivers are
using alternate routes northbound to First Street.
Afl Improvements (Scenarios VI and VII)
The addition of White Creel< Crossing (Scenario VI) and Heart of
the Hills Parkway (Scenario VII) to the 2014 network with the
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet shifted traffic in much the same way as
was modeled without the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet (Scenarios III
and IV). In fact, ADTs on the new facilities are nearly the same
with or without the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet, while similar traffic
decreases were forecast on First Street, Front Street, Lincoln Street,
Peabody Street, and Race Street. Traffic increases were projected
on Race Street, Lauridsen Boulevard, and Coif Course Road.
Future Intersection Level of Service
Forty intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, were
analyzed in each scenario using the critical lane methodology
described in Chapter 2 (planning-level analysis) documented in
Transportation Research Board Circular 212 (1980). The NCAP
software program was used for these calculations. In Scenarios
III, iV, VI, and VII, an additional one to six intersections, created
by construction of the new facilities, were analyzed. Figure 5.4
illustrates the location of each intersection analyzed and its
corresponding level of service (LOS) based on projected traffic
patterns for each scenario. The intersection number in figure $.4
corresponds to the LOS matrix and not to the number of
intersections analyzed. A detailed list of intersections and
corresponding LOS, critical volume, and volume-to-capacity ratio
for each scenario is given in Appendix H.
5-10 9~o~J Reports / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) I jc
Future Transportation System Needs
A summary of the number of intersections at each LOS for each
network scenario is shown in table 5.2. The table also indicates
the number of intersections below the LOS D standard given
existing geometry for each network scenario.
Because of shifts in traffic, some previously unsignalized
intersections met signal warrants and were therefore modeled as
signalized intersections. Therefore, in some scenarios, a
particular intersection may be signalized, while in another
scenario it is not signalized. Intersections which change
signalization status from scenario to scenario include Front Street
and Peabody Street, Peabody Street and Lauridsen Boulevard,
Park Avenue and Race Street, Race Street and Fifth Street, and
Race Street and Heart of the Hills Parkway.
Table 5.2
Number of Intersections at Each Level of Service
Scenario
LOS I II III IV V VI VII
A 23 13 19 25 17 21 28
B 8 8 6 11 7 7 9
C 3 7 6 0 4 5 2
D 2 5 5 4 7 5 4
Total 40 40 41 46 40 41 46
Based on model volumes, there are currently four intersections
below the LOS D standard in Port Angeles, with three additional
intersections expected to be added to the list by 2014. With
proposed improvements in place, the number of substandard
intersections ranges from three to six in 2014.
Table $.3 summarizes the number of intersections with an
improved, unchanged, or worse LOS than was experienced in the
base network. For instance, the 2014 base network (Scenario II)
was compared to the 1994 base network (Scenario I), while the
2014 networks with improvements (Scenarios III, IV, V, VI, and
95005 / Re~o~ts / Master Chal~e~5 (7/18/96) / jc 5-1 3
Future Transportation System Needs
VII) were all compared to the 2014 base network without
improvements (Scenario II). The forty intersections common to all
seven scenarios were compared.
Table 5.3
Number of Intersections Experiencing a Change in LOS
Scenario Comparison
II to I III to II IV to II V to II VI to II VII to II
Improved LOS 2 11 18 12 14 20
Unchanged LOS 13 24 17 26 22 1 8
Worse LOS 25 5 5 2 4 2
The network with the Lincoln/Peabody couplet (Scenario V) and
the network with all the transportation improvements
(Scenario VII) had the fewest intersections experiencing a worse
LOS, while the networks with both the White Creek Crossing and
Heart of the Hills Parkway (Scenarios IV and VII) experienced the
highest number of intersections with an improved LOS.
Multimodal Facility
A multimodal center has been proposed for the downtown Port
Angeles area and would help promote use of alternative forms of
transportation in and around the Port Angeles UGA. Although an
exact location and services available for the facility are currently
unknown, the center is expected to serve both as an information
center and as a major transfer point for the existing transit service.
It is also expected to have access to the ferry system, to provide
shuttle service to and from the airport and/or Hurricane Ridge in
the Olympic National Park as well as existing and proposed Hotel
Convention Center facilities. It will be essential to supply the
facility with safe and adequate non-motorized access for
pedestrian and bicyclist needs.
Currently, a study is underway which is analyzing the need for a
multimodal facility, as well as potential locations for its placement
and the services to be supplied by the center. Depending on the
exact services offered by the proposed multimodal center, its size,
and its location, the facility may require some additional
transportation mitigation such as adding new or improving
existing pedestrian facilities, bicycle lanes, larger turning radii to
5-1 4' 95005 1 Reports / Master Chapter5 (7118/96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
accommodate buses, parking facilities, and adding capacity at
various intersections and roadways. However, these transporta-
tion improvements cannot be specifically determined until the
multimodal center's services, location, and size are determined.
Because of the many unknowns, the multimodal center was not
used in the model forecasting; however, it can always be
represented at a later date when specifics are known.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An Open House for the Port Angeles Transportation Services and
Facilities Plan was held on October 12, 1995 from 5:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m. at the Vern Burton Memorial Community Center in Port
Angeles. The meeting was publicized through public service
announcements sent to KONP Radio, KAPY Radio, and Northland
Cable. The objective of the public meeting was to inform the
community about the work completed to date on the
Transportation Services and Facilities Plan and gather their input.
A total of 11 people attended the meeting.
A series of informational display boards and maps were used to
describe the proposed system of arterials and access streets (local)
in Port Angeles, potential pedestrian and bicycle needs, and
proposed alternate routes across and around town. Project team
members from the City, and the consulting firms were on-hand to
explain the project and answer questions. People were invited to
review the displays and ask questions of the project team. They
also were asked to record their comments and concerns on flip
chart pads and on comment forms distributed to all attendees. A
total of eight comment forms (or additional comments) were
returned by November 1, 1995. Copies of the comments are
provided in Appendix I. The list of flip chart comments received
is provided in Appendix I.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
The majority of participants at the open house were very
concerned about improving pedestrian and bicycle routes
throughout the City. One stated concern was the need to think of
bicycles as a vehicle on the road--a mode of transportation not
just a means of recreation.
One respondent was very supportive of the City exploring
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) solutions to traffic,
rather than building new roads.
95005 / Reports / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jo 5-1 5
Future Transportation System Needs
Lincoln-Peabody Couplet
The majority of the comments received by the City stated a
preference for Lincoln Street to be the southbound leg and
Peabody Street to be the northbound leg should a one-way
couplet become necessary. Several respondents did not feel the
one-way couplet was a good solution to traffic congestion. Their
criticisms centered on the impact to the residential community
along Peabody Street and the commercial community along
Lincoln Street.
Lauridsen-Race Alternative
A corridor including Lauridsen Boulevard (from Lincoln Street to
Race Street) and Race Street has long been considered as a
possible alternative crosstown route, especially for commercial
vehicles. This option was presented at the open house. One
respondent felt creating another east-west route was advisable,
however, felt it would be necessary to limit growth along such a
street to avoid additional congestion in the future. Another was
concerned about the increase of traffic on Race Street, while a
third disliked the idea because of the presence of the school and a
narrow bridge.
Several respondents were not supportive of moving truck traffic
into residential areas and felt trucks were least disruptive traveling
through the downtown.
White Creek Crossing Alternative
Several respondents were supportive of this alternative to create
an easier access to east SR 101 businesses; however, one
respondent cautioned that TDM should always be the first action
prior to road improvements.
Heart of the Hills Parkway
Of the two people who commented on this route, one thought it
would be a good idea to create a secondary eastern access route,
and the other thought it was a bad idea as a new route would
make it easier for people to drive and lessen the incentive to use
alternative modes of transportation.
5-16 9~5 / Reports I Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
Pedestrian Facilities
The City has committed to providing sidewalks over a period of
time on approximately 20 existing arterial segments and many
access streets (local) through the School Walkway Program, which
is included in the City's TIP. Location of these sidewalks are
shown in figure 3.6. Other arterial segments not included in the
School Walkway Program that are currently deficient by City
standards and that should be considered for sidewalks are the
remaining portions of First Street, Front Street, Fifth Street, "C"
Street, and Ennis Street. These facilities would provide
connectivity among existing facilities and a safer environment for
pedestrians.
New roadway facilities will be subject to City approval and
design standards, which require construction of pedestrian facili-
ties for new roads. All new development and new roadway
facilities will provide sidewalk as per City design standards.
Bicycle Facilities
Based on preliminary results of the bicycle survey described
previously and engineering judgment, an interim bicycle facilities
plan for future facilities was developed for this study. Figure 5.5
illustrates the interim bicycle facilities plan, while table 5.4
provides a list with facility bounds. The City intends to finalize a
bicycle facilities plan in the future based on additional studies
and research.
The City will also consider the construction of bicycle facilities
with any new development or redevelopment when the need for
such a bicycle way or trail is apparent or where traffic analysis or
traffic planning indicates that substantial bicycle usage would
benefit from a designated bicycle facility.
95005 / Re~orl~ / Ma,ter Chapt®~5 (7/18/96) / ~c 5-1 7
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.4
Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan
Location Facility Bounds
Marine Drive From existing Ediz Hook Facilities to Second Street
Second Street From Marine Drive to First Street/Front Street junction
Fi rst Street Entire length
Front Street Entire length
SR 1 01 From UGA Boundary to Lauridsen Boulevard and Golf
Course Road
Eighth Street From Race Street to C Street
Lauridsen Boulevard From SR 101 to Golf Course Road
Park Avenue From Lauridsen Boulevard to Laurel Street
Heart of the Hills Parkway Entire length
Golf Course Road From SR 1 01 to White Creek Crossing
Race Street From Waterfront Trail to Mount Angeles Road
Lincoln Street From Front Street to Lauridsen Boulevard
Laurel Street From Lauridsen Boulevard to Park Avenue
Peabody Street From Lauridsen Boulevard to Park Avenue
Tumwater Truck Road From Waterfront Trail to Second Street to SR 1 01
C Street From Fifth Street to Lauridsen Boulevard
Milwaukee Drive From Lower Elwha Road to Fourth Street
Discovery Trail From existing easterly waterfront endpoint to Deer Park
Road
Fourth Street From Milwaukee Drive to Hill Street
Hill Street From M~rine Drive to Fourth Street
5-18 9~51Re,po~ts / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Existing Deficiency Improvements
Roadway Widening
Strict adherence to the City's design standards requires widening
many designated arterials. Tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 summarized
arterials that fell short of City design standards. A planning-level
cost estimate was made for increasing existing street widths to
current design standards. Although many of these streets do not
necessarily require the additional width for capacity reasons
either now or by the year 2014, the additional street widths could
be used for bicycle facilities, shoulders, on-street parking, bus
priority lanes, or HOV lanes. The planning-level cost estimate
associated with widening existing streets to City standards is
approximately $33.5 million. Project cost worksheets for each
project can be found in a separate document provided to the City,
entitled Improvement Project Notebook. Projects associated with
minor street widening are represented by RO- project numbers
followed by "b" (e.g. RO-42b) in the project notebook. Project
locations, project numbers, and associated planning-level cost
estimates have been briefly summarized in table 5.5.
Pedestrian Facilities
A planning-level cost estimate was made for each pedestrian
facility (projects RO-1 through RO-66) required by either the
City's design standards or because the facility is part of the School
Walkway Program. A summary of projects, project numbers, and
associated planning-level cost estimates is provided in table $.6.
For a more detailed description of each project, refer to the
Improvement Project Notebook provided to the City. The total
cost associated with these projects is $22.1 million, which
includes the cost of widening or replacing bridges in some cases.
95005 / Reports / Master Chapt®r5 (7/18/96) / jc 5-21
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.5
Arterial Roadway Widening Project Cost Estimates
Planning Planning
Project Level Cost Project Level Cost
Number Project Name Estimate Number Project Name Estimate
RO-1 b Milwaukee Drive $461,000 RO-35b Fifth Street $62,000
RO-2b N Street $402,000 RO-36b Lauridsen Boulevard $926,000
RO-4b Hill Street $290,000 RO-37b Race Street $470,000
RO-6b Tenth Street $981,000 RO-39b Park Avenue $1,41 4,000
RO-9b Sixteenth Street $940,000 RO-41b Ahlvers Road $436,000
RO-10b Eighteenth Street $2,784,000 RO-42b Old Mill Road $783,000
RO-12b L Street $489,000 RO-43b Mount Angeles Road $1,446,000
RO-14b Tumwater Street $1,900~000 RO-44b Campbell Road $282,000
RO-15b Marine Drive $378,000 RO-45b Porter Street $495,000
RO-16b Tumwater Truck Road $1,693,000 RO-51 b Golf Course Road $495,000
RO-17b Lauridsen Boulevard $1,796,000 RO-52b Baker Street $721,000
RO-19b Airport Road $999,000 RO-53b Gates Street $724,000
RO-20b Dry Creek Road $1,009,000 RO-54b Lees Creek Road $1,093,000
RO-21b SR 101 $2,189,000 RO-55b Larch Avenue $721,000
RO-27b Cedar Street $397,000 RO-56b Bay Street $910,000
RO-28b Pine Street $169,000 RO-57b Third Avenue $330,000
RO-29b Cherry Street $719,000 RO-59b Monroe Road $782,000
RO-30b Second Street $148,000 RO-61 b Mount Pleasant Road $1,233,000
RO-33b Ennis Street $197,000 RO-62b Edgewood Drive $1,878,000
RO-34b Fifth Street $316,000
Subtotal $15,201,000
Subtotal $18,257,000 Total $33,458,000
§-22 ~=5/Re~orts ! Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) /jc
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.6
Pedestrian Facility Project Cost Estimates
Planning Planning
Project Level Cost Project Level Cost
Number Project Name Estimate Number Project Name Estimate
RO-1 Milwaukee Drive $119,000 RO-33 Ennis Street $210,000
RO-2 N Street $202,000 RO-34 Fifth Street $66,000
RO-3 Fourth Street $82,000 ROo35 Fifth Street $59,000
RO-4 Hill Street $88,000 RO-36 Lauridsen Boulevard $1,126,000
RO-5 M Street $85,000 RO-37 Race Street $83,000
RO-6 Tenth Street $431,000 RO-38 Laurel Street $329,000
RO-7 Fifth Street $249,000 RO-39 Park Avenue $388,000
RO-8 Eighth Street $100,000 RO-40 Park Avenue $119,000
RO-9 Sixteenth Street $231,000 RO-41 Ahlvers Road $134,000
RO-10 Eighteenth Street $483,000 RO-42 Old Mill Road $196,000
RO°I 1 I Street $208,000 RO-43 Mount Angeles Road $237,000
RO-12 L Street $91,000 RO-44 Campbell Avenue $47,000
RO-13 C Street $108,000 RO-45 Porter Street $97,000
RO°I 4 Tumwater Street $28,000 RO-46 Liberty Street $134,000
RO-15 Marine Drive $90,000 RO-47 Washington Street $45,000
RO-16 Tumwater Truck Road $293,000 RO48 Chase Street $93,000
RO-17 Lauridsen Boulevard $333,000 RO-49 Georgiana Street $186,000
RO-18 Fairmont Avenue $100,000 RO-50 Penn Street $93,000
RO-1 9 Airport Road $185,000 RO-51 Golf Course Road $134,000
RO-2 0 Dry Creek Road $177,000 RO-52 Baker Street $134,000
RO-21 SR 101 $804,000 RO°53 Gates Street $142,000
RO-22 Sixth Street $271,000 RO-54 Lees Creek Road $152,000
RO-23 Seventh Street $80,000 RO-55 Larch Avenue $134,000
RO-24 Twelfth Street $169,000 RO-56 Bay Street $169,000
RO-25 E Street $81,000 RO-57 Third Avenue $50,000
RO-26 D Street $138,000 RO-58 Pioneer Road $99,000
RO-27 Cedar Street $262,000 RO-59 Monroe Road $358,000
RO-28 Pine Street $160,000 RO-60 SR 1 01 $2,120,000
RO-29 Cherry Street $65,000 RO-61 Mount Pleasant Road $298,000
RO-30 Second Street $29,000 RO-62 Edgewood Drive $482,000
RO-31 Peabody Street $223,000 RO-66 Eighth Street $8,129,000
RO-32 Chambers Street $65,000
Subtotal $16,043,000
Subtotal $6,030,000 Total $22,073,000
95005 / Reports / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / jc 5-23
Future Transportation System Needs
Other Network Improvements
New Roadway Facilities and TSM Improvements
Table 5.7 lists all major capital improvement projects required for
each modeled network scenario. In addition, table 5.7 lists an
associated p~anning-level cost estimate for each capita~
improvement project, with a total capital improvement cost
projection provided in the last row. Planning level cost estimates
were summarized on individual project sheets for each project
and include construction, engineering design, and right-of-way
costs where applicable. An improvement project notebook
containing all project cost estimates was provided to the City and
can be used as a reference if a detailed description of the project
is desired.
Total capital improvement costs range between approximately
$10.3 and $15.0 million for Scenario II, Scenario V, Scenario III,
and Scenario VI (in order of increasing cost). However, the large
capital investment associated with the Heart of the Hills Parkway
makes Scenario VII peak at approximately $32 million in capital
improvements. As was presented in table $.3 previously,
between 18 and 20 intersections witnessed a better level of
service (LOS) when the Heart of the Hills Parkway was
implemented, whereas between 3 and 14 intersections witnessed
a better LOS when the Heart of the Hills Parkway was not
implemented.
Bicycle Facilities
A planning-level cost estimate was made for each bicycle facility
included in the Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan. A list of specific
projects and associated planning-level cost estimates are provided
in table 5.8. The total cost associated with these projects is
$6.3 million.
5-24 ~00~ / Reflo~ts / Ma~er Chapter5 (7/18/96) / j~
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.7
Major Capital Improvements by Network Scenario and
Associated Planning Level Cost Estimate
(in $000)
Network Scenario
Project Project No.a II III IV V VI VII
Lincoln Peabody Couplet S-9 $220 $220 $220
Heart of the Hills Parkway RL-1 $17,563 $17,563
White Creek Crossing RL-2 $4,610 $4,610 $4,610 $4,610
Milwaukee Drive RL-3 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922
Aiq~ort Road RL-4 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671
Tumwater Truck Road RL-5 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007
Signalize Peabody/Front I-1 $120 $120 $120
Signalize Peabody/Lauridsen I-2 $120 $120 $120 $120
Signalize Race/Fifth I-3 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
Signalize Lauridsen/Lau rel I-4 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
Signalize C/Eighth ~-6 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
SB Right-turn Lane @ Lincoln/Eighth S-1 $40 $40
EB Thru Lane on First from Golf S-2 $726 $726
Course to Delguzzi and WB Left-turn
Lane @ First/Golf Course
Median Acceleration Lane @ S-3 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226
Airport/SR 101
EB Right-turn Lane @ Lauridsen/Laurel S-4 $23
NB Right-turn Lane @ Lauridsen/Laurel S-5 $28 $28
EB Left- and Right-turn Lanes and WB S-6 $312
Right-turn and Thru Lanes @
Lauridsen/Race
EB Right-turn Lane and WB Thru Lane S-7 $249
@ Lauridsen/Race
EB Thru Lane @ Lauridsen/Lincoln S-8 $333
EB Thru Lane on First from Ennis to RM-1 $1,116 $1,116
Delguzzi
Total Cost by Network Scenario $10,365 $14,550 $31,739 $11,096 $14,982 $32,068
a. See improvement Project Notebook for detailed planning-level cost estimates by project number.
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.8
Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Location Project No.a Planning ~ vel Cost Estimate
Marine Drive ---
Second Street RO-30 $86,000
First Street RO-63 $105,000
Front Street RO-64 $1,303,000
SR 101 RO-21 $1,1 90,000
Eighth Street RO-66 $576,000
Lauridsen Boulevard RO-36, RL-2 $646,000
Park Avenue RO-40 $176,000
Heart of the Hills Parkway RL-1 n/a
Golf Course Road RO-51 $207,000
Race Street RO-37 $125,000
Lincoln Street RO-65 $52,000
Laurel Street RO-38 $359,000
Peabody Street RO-31 $126,000
Tumwater Truck Road RO-16 $434,000
C Street RO-13 $67,000
Milwaukee Drive RO-1, RL-3 $176,000
Discovery Trail RO-67 $453,000
Fourth Street RO-3 $120,000
Hill Street RO-4 $130,000
Total $6,331,000
a. See Improvement Project Notebook for detailed planning-level cost estimates by proiect number.
5-26 9=5 / Reports I Master Chai3ter5 (7/18/96) I jc
Future Transportation System Needs
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Scenario Prioritization
The six future year scenarios were analyzed to determine the most
economical and efficient scenario which the City should pursue
over the next two decades. Three measures of effectiveness were
used in the decision-makin§ process: intersection LOS, vehicle
hours of travel (VHT), and vehicle miles of travel (VMT).
Intersection level of service for each scenario was presented
earlier in this chapter (see tables 5.2 and $.3). Table 5.9 lists the
model predictions for VMT and VHT for each scenario. A
decrease in either VMT or VHT as compared to the base scenario
(Scenario II) indicates a positive impact on traffic flow.
Table 5.9
Scenario Performance Measures
Vehicle Vehicle
Scenario Hours of Travel Miles of Travel
I 1,903 58,928
II 2,744 79,292
III 2,666 79,147
IV 2,466 78,398
V 2,762 79,383
VI 2,680 79,273
VII 2,486 78,605
Similar to the procedure performed in table 5.3 for the LOS
analysis, the VHT and VMT for Scenarios III through VII were
compared to the base scenario (Scenario II) to determine the net
increase or decrease in VHT and VMT as a result of transportation
improvements. A cost/benefit ratio for each effectiveness measure
and each scenario is shown in table 5.10. The cost/benefit ratios
were also ranked from the most cost effective (1) to the least cost
effective (5), and the ranks were totaled for each scenario, as
shown in table 5.10. Theoretically, this procedure concludes that
the scenario with the least total rank score is the most cost
effective scenario.
95005 / Rw/)o~ts / Master Chapter5 (7/18/96) / j¢ 5-27
Futura Transportation System Needs
Table 5.10
Cost Benefit Analysis
LOS VHT VMT
C/B C/B C/B Rank
Scenario Ratioa Rank Ratiob Rank Ratioc Rank Total
III $262 3.5 $54 3.0 $29 0.2 6.7
IV $668 10 $77 8.4 $24 0.0 1 8.4
V $46 0 $41 0 -$9d 10 10
VI $185 2.2 $72 7.2 $243 9.6 19
VII $556 8.2 $84 10 $32 0.4 18.6
a. Thousands of dollars per each improved LOS.
b. Thousands of dollars per vehicle hour traveled.
c. Thousands of dollars per vehicle mile traveled.
d. An increase in VMT occurred in this scenario, which is not a benefit. Therefore, this scenario was
assigned the highest (worst) rank.
The analysis shown in table 5.10 ranks the scenarios based on
traffic operational measures of effectiveness only. Based on these
traffic measures only, the most cost effective network for the
future is Scenario III, in which all six-year TiP projects are
implemented and the White Creek Crossing is constructed.
However, other issues, such as fundability, environmental
impacts, and public acceptance were also considered before a
particular scenario was chosen on which to proceed.
With regard to fundability, both the Lincoln/Peabody Couplet
($220,000) and White Creek Crossing ($4,610,000) appear to be
realistically fundable projects based on the City's approved 1996
TiP budget ($4,012,473). The Heart of the Hills Parkway
($17,563,000) could be fundable, but sources of funding may be
less predictable and dependable for the future.
Environmental concerns regarding the Lincoln/Peabody couplet
are minimal because the roadways are existing facilities, in which
improvements would be more "cosmetic" rather than capacity
related. The White Creek Crossing alternative has environmental
impacts regarding White Creek, and affected nearby
neighborhoods. The Heart of the Hills Parkway alternative
impacts the environment substantially more than the other two
5-28 gms/Reports I Master Chapted5 (7/18/96) /jc
Future Transportation System Needs
alternatives. The parkway would cross five creeks, displace
several homes, and affect wildlife substantially, just to name a few
environmental impacts.
Public acceptance of each of the alternatives based on the open
house meeting held in October, 1995, seems to indicate that the
most popular alternative is the White Creek Crossing. Both the
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet and Heart of the Hills Parkway received
mostly negative comments from the public.
Considering the traffic effectiveness as presented in table 5.10,
and the fundability, environmental impacts, and public
acceptance of each scenario, Scenario III (White Creek Crossing)
was selected as the City's future transportation network plan.
Project Prioritization Criteria
With Scenario III as the City's future year network, prioritization
of improvement projects specific to Scenario III was made. The
priority of projects is a function of many criteria that are not
necessarily applicable to all projects. A list of prioritization
criteria used for the Port Angeles improvement projects is
provided below:
· Safety need or benefit
· Capacity need or benefit
· Circulation/access need or benefit
· Transit route
· Major/key bicycle route
· Existing School Walkway Program facility
· Preservation of existing facilities
· Cost
· Cost-effectiveness
· Environmental impact
· Funding opportunities
· Enhance City's economic viability
Prioritization of Improvement Projects
Tables 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, and 5.14 reorder all improvement
projects specific to Scenario III by priority, and by capital
improvement projects, pedestrian facility projects, bicycle facility
projects, and road widening projects, respectively. The tables
also total the project costs by priority.
95005/Report~ / Master Chapt®r5 (7/18/96) / jc 5-2 9
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.11
Prioritization of Major Capital Improvement Projects for Scenario III
Project Planning Level
Project Name Number Cost Estimate
High Priority Projects
White Creek Crossing RL~2 4,610,000
Tumwater Truck Road RL-5 1,007,000
EB Thru Lane on First from Golf Course to Delguzzi S-2 726,000
and WB Left-turn Lane at First/Golf Course
Subtotal Cost $6,343,000
Medium Priority Projects
Signalize Race/Fifth I-3 $ 120,000
Signalize C/Eighth I-6 120,000
Airport Road RL-4 1,671,000
Subtotal Cost $1,911,000
Low Priority Projects
Signalize Lauridsen/Laurel I-4 $ 120,000
Milwaukee Drive RL-3 5,922,000
Median Acceleration Lane at Airport/SR 101 S-3 226,000
NB Right-turn Lane at Lauridsen/Laurel S-5 28,000
Subtotal Cost $6,296,000
TOTAL COST ALI PROJECTS $14,550,000
5-30 950051Repods I Master Chapter5 (7118/96) I jc
~ z ~6 ' 6~ 666666 ' ' ' 6 ' ' 666 o.~
· ~ >
._ ~ <~~ ~
~ .e z oooo 6 666666 666666666~ =
- 6666~6666666~0
~ .~
= ~ ~ ~
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.13
Prioritization of Interim Bicycle Facilities Plan
Improvement Projects
Project Planning Level
Project Name Number Cost Estimate
High Priority Projects
Lauridsen Boulevard RO-36 $ 926,000
Race Street RO-37 470,000
Golf Course Road RO-51 495,000
First Street RO-63 105,000
Front Street RO-64 1,303,000
Lincoln Street RO-65 52,000
Subtotal Cost $3,351,000
Medium Priority Projects
Eighth Street RO-66 $ 576,000
Discovery Trail RO-67 453,000
Subtotal Cost $1,029,000
Low Priority Projects
Milwaukee Drive RO-1 $ 461,000
C Street RO-13 67,000
Tumwater Truck Road RO-16 1,693,000
SR 101 ROo21 2,1 89,000
Fourth Street RO-3 120,000
Second Street RO-30 148,000
Peabody Street RO-31 126,000
Laurel Street RO-38 359,000
Hill Street RO-4 290,000
Park Avenue RO-40 176,000
Subtotal Cost $5,629,000
TOTAL COST $10,009,000
95005 ! Reports / Uaster Chapter5 (7/18~96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
It is important to reiterate that most road widening projects are a
result of bringing existing arterials up to City design standards,
and are not necessarily required for capacity reasons. As a result,
these projects were given a lower priority than most of the other
projects. In some cases, a bicycle facility project and a road
widening project may be proposed for the same segment of
roadway. If the road widening project does not relate to capacity,
but to meeting City design standards, the two projects could serve
the same purpose, i.e. the road could be widened to meet City
design standards, and the extra width could be used for a bicycle
facility. In these special cases, the higher cost estimate for the
two projects was associated with the higher priority project and
the lower priority project was not assigned a cost estimate. This
eliminates the possibility of "double costing" the same project.
Among the high priorities for all project types were the following:
· White Creek Crossing. Connect Golf Course Road and
Lauridsen Boulevard over White Creek.
· Tumwater Truck Road. Complete the interchange at
SR 1 01 by adding the east on and off ramps.
· First Street and Golf Course Road Intersection
Improvements. Add a third eastbound through lane
through the intersection and drop the lane at Delguzzi
Drive. Add a second westbound left-turn lane.
· Pedestrian Facilities. Add or complete sidewalks along
Peabody Street, Lauridsen Boulevard, Race Street, Park
Avenue, Fifth Street and others. Most locations coincide
with the School Walkway Program.
· Bicycle Facilities. Add or complete bicycle facilities along
Lauridsen Boulevard, Race Street, Golf Course Road, First
Street, Front Street, and Lincoln Street.
Generally, 50 percent of the total cost for high priority projects
will be spent on roadways, while approximately 25 percent each
will be spent on pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Cost estimates by priority for improvement project types are
summarized in table 5.15. If all projects were to be completed
within the next two decades, the City would spend approximately
$73.4 million, or about $3.7 million per year (disregarding
inflation). High priority projects, or projects the City should
complete within the next 5 to 1 0 years, total $13.1 million.
5-34 95005 / Reports / Master Chai:)tsr5 (7/18/96) / jc
Future Transportation System Needs
Table 5.15
Improvement Project Cost Estimates By Priority
Cost Estimates1
High Medium Low
Projects Priority Priority Priority Total
Capital Improvement $6,343 $1,911 $6,296 $14,550
Pedestrian Facility $3,391 $11,571 $7,111 $22,073
Improvement
Bicycle Facility Improvement $3,351 $1,029 $5,629 $10,009
Arterial Roadway Widening --- $2,610 $24,176 $26,786
Improvement
Total Cost: $13,085 $17,121 $43,212 $73,418
1.In thousands of dollars
95005 / Repo.s / Master / Chal3ter5 (7/24/96) / jc 5-35
CHAPTER 6
FUNDING, REVENUE, AND IMPACT FEES
In recent years, a combination of rapid growth, aging capital
facilities, inflation, and competing needs for limited public dollars
has contributed to an increasing gap between the needs of
transportation systems and the abilities of most jurisdictions to
pay for them. This scenario is no different for the City of Port
Angeles. As has been outlined in the previous chapters, the City
is faced with a substantial list of improvement projects totaling
approximately $73.4 million, that are needed to satisfy the City's
own design standards, and to address capacity or circulation
deficiencies. In addition to these improvement projects, the City
is also responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the
transportation system.
The City of Port Angeles is responsible for the planning,
construction and maintenance of transportation facilities within
the incorporated City limits, while Clallam County is responsible
in the unincorporated areas, even within the urban growth area.
This chapter identifies current and potential revenue sources,
including an impact fee, for transportation related planning,
construction, and maintenance. It also satisfies the Growth
Management Act (GMA) requirements by recommending a
balance between transportation system needs and stable revenues
expected to be available during the next 20 years.
INVENTORY OF CURRENT REVENUE SOURCES
Sources of existing revenue for the City of Port Angeles are shown
in table 6.1. Revenues for many of the sources are unpredictable
and vary from year to year, while revenues from the street fund
have been more or less decreasing. This reflects the fact that
funds have been diverted from the street fund to other non-road
improvement projects.
The following sections describe the revenue sources listed in
table 6.1.
Street Fund
The street fund is comprised of several revenue sources, with
property taxes and state-levied gasoline taxes constituting
approximately 98 percent of the fund. In 1994, the property tax
95005 / Reports / Master Chapter6 (7/18/96) / jc 6-1
T' 1 ......... I
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
generated approximately $600,000 for the street fund, while the
gas tax generated approximately $41 5,000. Of this money, the
majority pays for City personnel and supplies. The remaining
portion is used for street mair'~tenance or improvement projects
and represents approximately the amount shown in table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Revenue Sources and Amounts for the City of Port Angeles
(in Thousands of Dollars)
Revenues
Actual Projected
Revenue Source 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Street Fund $125 $170 $152 $149 $95 $ 121
Property Taxes
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
Real Estate Excise Tax 0 0 257 79 148 27
ISTEA Funds 0 0 0 412 80 0
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Funds 0 75 0 0 41 0
Public Works Trust Fund 0 0 702 0 0 0
Transportation Improvement Account 0 0 0 0 118 128
Bridge Replacement Federal Funds 0 0 70 0 0 0
Other 4 0 0 0 0 185
Total $129 $245 $1,181 $640 $482 $461
Real Estate Excise Tax
The City has also imposed a Real Estate Excise Tax which taxes
the sale of real property up to a maximum of 0.25 percent. This
money may be used to fund capital improvements for
transportation related projects. The City has collected as much as
$257,000 per year from this funding source and has used the
revenues to fund reconstruction of Marine Drive, construction of
sidewalks downtown, and installation of pedestrian lighting both
downtown and on the Waterfront Trail.
6-2 9=5 / Repmls i Master Ch~ot®r6 (7118/96) / jc
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
Federal Funds
Due to the topography and many creeks running through Port
Angeles, the City has had to construct and maintain many bridges.
Funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of the bridges in Port
Angeles has been through federal bridge replacement funds in the
past.
Other federal revenues for the City were acquired through the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These
funds were used for the construction and right-of-way acquisition
of the Waterfront Trail, and to fund this Transportation Services
and Facilities Plan (TSFP). With ISTEA expiring in 1997, these
funds cannot be relied upon as a future source of revenue.
Public Works Trust Fund
The Public Works Trust Fund is a Iow cost loan for public works
improvements or emergencies, or it can be a zero interest loan
with a 25 percent local match for upgrading planning efforts. The
City of Port Angeles has used the fund in the past to fund projects
totaling just over $700,000, including the Marine Drive
reconstruction.
Transportation Improvement Account
The Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) is administered
through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and provides
funding which uses revenues from the state gas tax and local
matching funds. The TIA provides funding for transportation
projects aimed at relieving traffic congestion created by economic
development or growth. Selection criteria under the urban
program considers multi-agency, multimodal, congestion/safety,
economic development, and local match issues. The City is
currently using TIA funds for the design and construction of the
Lauridsen Boulevard/Airport Road realignment, the Pedestrian
Facility program, and a feasibility study for the multimodal
facility, which would provide a central location to access all
modes of transportation.
Local Improvement District
One source of revenue the City of Port Angeles has not used
recently but has implemented in 1996 is the Local Improvement
District (LID). Property owners within an LID are assessed the
costs of road improvements primarily benefiting them. The City
95005 / Reports / Master Chapter6 (7/18/96) / jc 6-3
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
typically issues an improvement bond to finance the
improvements, and then assesses benefiting property owners to
pay off the bonded debt. An LID has no continuous source of
funding after the bonded debt has been paid off. The City of Port
Angeles is currently developing an LID to fund street
improvements in the upper Golf Course Road/Melody Lane area.
Other Sources
Other revenue sources such as the sale of City property, Clallam
County funds, or interest from investments also are used to fund
transportation improvements.
Currently, no revenues are generated from or used for public
transit in the study area. Transit service is provided by Clallam
Transit, which has its own operating budget and revenue sources.
POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES
Revenues generated for transportation-related projects originate
from a complex mix of federal, state, and local sources. This
section presents funding sources that may be available to the City
of Port Angeles and/or Clallam County for transportation-related
expenditures.
Taxation
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT) (RCW 82.36). The MVFT is a tax
on motor vehicle fuel applied at the state level. The MVFT is
currently 27 cents per gallon. Approximately 30 percent of the
revenues generated from the MVFT are distributed to cities and
counties. The WSDOT receives up to 50 percent directly, and
administers the distribution of the rest through various programs.
Local Option Fuel Tax (LOFT) (RCW 82.80). The purpose of the
LOFT is for the operation, preservation, and construction of
streets, county roads, and state highways; development and
implementation of public transportation and high-capacity transit
improvements; and purchase of right-of-way. The LOFT generates
funds for highway purposes at the County and City level, by
adding up to ten percent (2.3 cents per gallon) of the statewide
MVFT to the local fuel tax. This option would be subject to
county-wide voter approval and certain planning provisions.
Revenues would be distributed back to the County and City on a
weighted per capita basis.
6-4 9~, / Retorts / Maste~ Chapte~ (7/18/96) / jc
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) (RCW 82.44). The MVET is
collected at the state level at two percent of the fair market value
of motor vehicles. The proceeds are distributed to the state ferry
system, the state general fund, the state motor vehicle fund, Puget
Sound Capital Construction, and transportation fund.
Property Tax. Real and personal property taxes are a major
revenue source for road improvements. Property taxes are
collected at the county level. Statutory and constitutional state
laws set limits on this taxing authority. The maximum tax levy for
road mileage is set at $2.25 per $1,000 assessed value (RCW 84-
52). Property taxes collected in one year cannot exceed 106
percent of the amount levied in the highest of the three most
recent years, with the exception of additional amounts
attributable to new construction (RCW 84.55). Voter approval is
needed to exceed this amount.
Real Estate Excise Tax (RCW 82.46). Taxing districts may impose
a tax on the sale of real property up to a maximum of one-quarter
of one percent (0.25%). This tax may be used to fund capital
improvements for transportation-related projects.
General 5ales Tax. The general sales tax is imposed on the
purchase of certain goods and services. A percentage of the
proceeds may fund transportation-related projects.
Bicycle Facilities. Funding for bicycle facilities is available from
the state through the motor vehicle fund. This fund is comprised
of gas tax and motor vehicle registration fees. Revenue is
distributed to local agencies for bicycle improvements, to
WSDOT for highway and ferry facility improvements, to the State
Patrol for safety and enforcement, and to the Department of
Licensing for costs of collecting gas taxes and registration fees.
Fees
Local Option Vehicle License Fee (RCW 82.80.020). Used for
several transportation-related activities, this fee would be imposed
at the county level but would apply to both incorporated and
unincorporated areas. Up to $15.00 could be charged per
vehicle registered in the County. Revenues are distributed in the
same manner described for the LOFT.
Impact Mitigation Fee (Local Transportation Act and RCW
39.92). The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C)
allows local governments to impose conditions on an action to
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts.
Transportation impact fees can be negotiated on a project-specific
basis. The Local Transportation Act (LTA) authorizes the
collection of impact fees through the establishment of impact fee
programs. Key program elements include establishing a
comprehensive transportation plan with a six-year capital
improvement program, developing a capacity percentage
formulated fee collection, and identifying geographic areas that
would benefit from transportation improvements.
Debt
General Obligation Bonds (RCW 39.36.020). Under Washington
State law, a County may issue general obligation bonds for
general county purposes (not to exceed 2.5 percent of the actual
value of all taxable property). The two categories of general
obligation debt are: "limited" and "unlimited"; no combination of
the two may exceed the 2.5 percent restriction. The County
Council may, by ordinance, authorize the issuance of limited tax
general obligation debt in an amount up to 3.4 percent of actual
value without a vote of the electorate. Issuance of unlimited tax
debt requires voter approval. The debt service on unlimited tax
debt is secured by excess tax levies, whereas the debt service on
limited tax bonds is secured by the general mileage with a ceiling
of $1.80 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Special/Assessment Debt. Local improvement bonds are repaid
from a specified source of revenues, e.g. special assessments,
rather than from general fund tax revenues.
Local Assistance Programs
Federal Aid Secondary System (FAS). The FAS provides funding
for improvements on County federal aid secondary routes in rural
areas.
Rural Arterial Trust Account (RATA). The RATA was established
to finalize the construction and improvement of county major and
minor collectors in rural areas. The RATA is administered under
the Rural Arterial Program (RAP) which is administered by the
County Road Administration Board (CRAB).
Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA). The general purpose of
the UATA is to create highway revenues to alleviate and prevent
6-6 ,~, / Re~orts / Maste~ Cha~pte~6 (7/18/96) I jc
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
intolerable traffic congestion in urban areas. The UATA is
administered by the TIB.
Transportation Improvement Account (TIA). The TIA is
administered by the TIB and provides funding which uses
revenues from the state gas tax and local matching funds. The
TIA provides funding for transportation projects aimed at relieving
traffic congestion created by economic development or growth.
Selection criteria under the urban program considers multi-
agency, multimodal, congestion/safety, economic development,
and local match issues.
County Arterial Preservation Program (CAPP). Administered by
CRAB, CAPP provides funding to preserve rural and county
arterials.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The purpose of
the CDBG program is to fund projects which would benefit Iow-
and moderate-income households. Projects include local
housing, public facilities, economic development, and
comprehensive projects. The program is administered by the
Washington State Department of Community Development.
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). Three funding programs are
available to cities, counties, and special districts. The PWTF
construction program provides Iow cost loans for public works
improvements; the PVVTF emergency program provides Iow cost
loans for remedying public works emergencies; and the PVVTF
capital improvement planning program provides zero interest
loans with a 25 percent local match for upgrading planning
efforts.
Special Districts
Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD) (RCW 36.73). One or
more TBDs can be established in Clallam County for funding road
improvements. Such improvements must be consistent with state,
regional, and local transportation plans; reduce congestion
attributable to economic growth; and be partially funded by local
government and/or private developers. New taxes can be
authorized for TBDs. A TBD is also a method of packaging
existing financing techniques, such as revenue and general
obligation bonds, excess property tax levies, and benefit and
development assessments. The TBDs have no dependable source
of income, however, so a revenue bond is unlikely to get a bond
rating.
95005 / Repod. s / Maste~ Cha~te~6 (W18/96) / jc 6-7
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). Local improvement districts
can be created within TBD boundaries and may cross
jurisdictional boundaries, although they are administered by City
government. Property owners within an LID are assessed the
costs of road improvements primarily benefiting them. The City
typically would issue an improvement bond to finance the
improvement(s), and then assess benefiting property owners to
pay off the bonded debt. An LID has no continuing source of
funding after the bonded debt has been paid off.
Road Service Districts (RCW 36.83). Similar to TBDs, Clallam
County may form road service districts to fund capital costs for
bridge and road improvements. Unlike TBDs, their purpose is not
limited to economic development.
Road Improvement Districts (RCW 36.88). Road improvement
districts (RIDs) are county funding mechanisms, which are funded
and managed in the same manner as LIDs.
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM PROTOTYPE
An impact fee may be justified if an increment of new
development results in a need for additional transportation
capacity, but generates insufficient transportation taxes to pay for
that capacity, it must be shown that the additional capacity for
which a development is charged is no more than is necessary to
remedy the development's impacts. A prototype for calculating
transportation impact fees in the City of Port Angeles was
developed and is presented in detail in Appendix J. The
following section summarizes this impact fee prototype.
The recommended method meets a strict standard of evidence
relating a site of new development to its impacts, while at the
same time, a system approach is recommended to measure both
the direct and indirect usage of planned improvements by a given
site of new development.
The recommended method to calculate a new site's use of the
capacity added by planned growth-related improvements is to
measure use on a case-by-case basis. A site may use an
improvement either directly (i.e., adding all new trips to the
network) or indirectly, by using capacity vacated by existing trips
diverted to the improvement. The recommended method
measures both kinds of use.
6-8 95005 / Ret:x~rts / Maste¢ Ch~pte~ (7/18/96) Ijc
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
The authority for transportation impact fees is contained in
RCW 82.02. Under RCW 82.02, a site of new development may
not be charged taxes and impact fees for the same set of
improvements, and should benefit to the same extent as existing
development from funding sources external to the jurisdiction.
The recommended method adjusts an impact fee for external
funds and for transportation taxes expected to be paid by the site.
A prototype of the impact fee concept was tested on a network
containing the proposed Milwaukee Drive, SR101frumwater
interchange improvements, White Creek crossing, Heart of the
Hills Parkway, and First Street widening. A hypothetical site of
new development adding 200 peak-hour trips to the downtown
area was used. Without adjusting for external funding or growth-
related local taxes paid by the site, a fee of $900 per peak hour
trip was obtained. This amount is specific to the capital program
tested and would be different for other sets of proposed
improvements. For example, a second prototype was tested in
which the Heart of the Hills Parkway was not included. This
prototype example represents the selected transportation
improvement scenario for the City of Port Angeles as presented in
Chapter 5. Under this scenario, an impact fee of $150 per peak
hour trip was obtained (without adjusting for external funding or
growth-related local taxes paid by the site).
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
This section briefly describes concepts of the concurrency
requirements of the Growth Management Act, and suggests a set
of procedures that could be used by the City of Port Angeles to
meet those requirements. A more detailed description of the
process is provided in Appendix K.
Concepts of Concurrency Management
The concurrency requirements of the GMA, contained in
RCW 36.70A, are as follows:
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by
jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan
under section 4 of this act, local jurisdictions must
adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit
development approval if the development causes the
level of service on a transportation facility to decline
below the standards adopted in the transportation
element of the comprehensive plan, unless
95005 / Re~orts / Master ChapterS (7/18/96) / jc 6-9
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development. These strategies may
include increased public transportation service, ride
sharing programs, demand management, and other
transportation systems management strategies. For the
purposes of this subsection "concurrent with the
development" shall mean that improvements or
strategies are in place at the time of development, or
that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years.
The law may be interpreted to mean that a development which
will violate adopted level of service standards could win approval
if, at the time of approval, the jurisdiction has made financial
commitments to improvements or management strategies that will
restore the level of service (LOS) standard no more than six years
following approval.
Elements of a Concurrency Management System
The basic problem of a concurrency management system (CMS) is
to grant the right of new development, in order of application, to
use existing and expected excess street or transit capacity. Excess
capacity refers to the amount of vehicles or persons that can be
added to existing traffic before the facility exceeds LOS standards.
In such a system, the capacity available to a given applicant will
depend on previously filed applications. In addition, it is
inevitable that developments that have been approved, and upon
which subsequent applications depend, may not actually ever be
constructed, because circumstances may intervene to force an
applicant to revise or abandon development plans even after a
building permit has been issued. In this case, other subsequent
applicants may have been denied approval that would now be
eligible.
In the following sections, the basic elements of a possible CMS
are described, and an approach to the administrative challenges
of such a system is offered.
Level of Service Standards
The definition of excess capacity available for new development
depends on LOS standards. The GMA defines LOS standards as
one aspect of the transportation element of comprehensive plans,
6-1 o ,~05 / Reports / Ma~t®r Chal~te~6 (7/18/96)
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
for jurisdictions planning under the GMA. The LOS standards
must include both arterials and transit routes.
As has been presented in Chapter 2, the LOS standard for a street
segment in Port ^ngeles is dependent on the capacity at
intersections, and is LOS D. For transit, a supply and demand
LOS concept was adopted in the Clallam County Comprehensive
Plan, which is adequate for the City of Port Angeles' needs. The
transit standard in this plan is LOS D.
in the simplest terms, a proposed development which causes
traffic volumes to exceed the defined LOS D standard on a
facility, or causes transit vehicle loading to be above the transit
standard, would not meet the concurrency test--unless
committed improvements could be expected to increase street or
transit service capacity within six years of the development's
approval.
Options for Meeting the Concurrency Requirement
The City has attempted to anticipate growth and plan appropriate
capital improvements through this TSFP; but the science of land
use forecasting is inexact enough that unanticipated growth will
inevitably occur. Even when growth is anticipated, there may be
budget constraints that limit the jurisdiction's ability to respond.
In such cases, the City should consider whether transportation
improvements are justified and physically feasible given the new
development. The developer should then be given the option of
contributing toward the cost of the remedy, provided his
contribution is consistent with a predefined policy.
If the City chooses to use a transportation impact fee program, the
capital improvement needed to attain concurrency may be added
to the impact fee capital program, and the fee calculated in the
usual way. Contribution by the City toward the improvement
(assuming it could be completed within six years) would then
satisfy the concurrency requirement. The main advantage of an
impact fee approach is that the cost of improving a facility will
not fall on the single developer whose project caused violation of
LOS standards; rather, the cost of the improvement will be spread
over his project and future projects using the improvement.
However, a developer should have the option of contributing
more than his/her share of the cost of an improvement needed for
concurrency. The excess contribution should be credited against
the balance of his/her total impact fee. Contributions beyond the
Funding, Revenue, and Impact Fees
level of his/her calculated impact fee may be accepted as
voluntary, or repaid from future impact fees collected for the
concurrency improvement.
If the City chooses not to use an impact fee program, they should
calculate the applicant's contribution toward the concurrency
improvement as though it were an impact fee. That is, the cost
paid by a developer for an improvement should be equivalent to
the development's improvement. However, because the "fee"
would not be an impact fee, as authorized in RCW 82.02, the
jurisdiction would either have to treat it as a voluntary
contribution or use another statutory authority, such as SEPA.
As an alternative, a developer may elect to adopt transportation
demand management (TDM) measures to reduce the trip
generation associated with his proposed development. Examples
of such measures would include transit or carpool subsidies,
staggered or flexible work hours, and telecommuting options or
incentives. By ordinance, such strategies could be assumed to
produce standard percentage reductions in trip generation, with
the jurisdiction reserving the right to require evidence that the
programs are in place and functioning as projected.
FUNDING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires an "analysis of
funding capability to judge needs against probable funding
resources". Of the $73.4 million of improvements identified in
this TSFP, $14.5 million are capacity-related improvements to be
completed over the next 20 years. All other improvements
identified in this plan satisfy City design standards, or are bicycle
facility improvements (which are neither considered capacity
improvements nor are they a City standard). Of the $14.5 million
worth of capacity-related improvements, $6.3 million were given
a high priority and therefore, should be completed within the next
six years (see table 5.11).
In addition to the $6.3 million of capacity-related improvements
identified in this study to be completed in the next six years, the
City's current six-year TIP identifies other projects totaling $29.7
million. These projects include maintenance, overlay, bridge
inspection and replacement, bicycle facility, street lighting, street
scaping, multimodal terminal construction, and sidewalk related
projects. Many of these projects are not capacity-related
improvements, while others were identified in this plan as lower
priority projects and could be completed beyond the six-year time
6-12 9~5 / Ref3o~ls / Master Chapt®r6 (7/18/96) / je
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Access Street Streets or roadways that are not classified as a principal, minor, or
collector arterial. An access street typically permits direct access
to abutting land uses, connects higher class systems, represents a
Iow level of mobility, and discourages through traffic movement.
Base Network The network representing all streets and transportation facilities
that currently (1994) exist in Port Angeles and the surrounding
Urban Growth Area. The base network does not include any
planned or proposed facilities.
Bicycle Facility Any path, lane, route, or shared roadway specifically designated
in some manner as being open to bicycle travel, either for the
exclusive use of bicycles or shared use with other modes of travel.
Capital Long-term physical street improvements, traditionally identified
Improvements with public transportation investments.
Carpool An arrangement in which two or more people share the use
and/or cost of traveling in privately owned automobiles between
fixed points on a regular basis.
Collector Arterial A street or roadway that typically provides land access and traffic
circulation within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. It
distributes trips from the arterial system to the ultimate destination
and vice versa.
Comprehensive A document that defines a jurisdiction's goals and policies and
Plan visualizes the direction the jurisdiction will take over the next
twenty years. Specific elements usually contained in a
comprehensive plan include growth management, land use,
transportation, utilities, housing, conservation, capital facilities,
economic development, parks and recreation, and the
environment.
Concurrency A management system which prohibits development if the
Management development causes the level of service to decline below
System standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the
development impacts are made concurrently with the
development.
95005 / Re,port~ / Master GIc~sa~ (7/18/g~) ! jc G- 1
Glossary Of Terms
Congestion Heavy traffic volumes make movement on the street or roadway
at optimal legal speeds difficult.
Corridor In planning, a broad geographical band that follows a general
directional flow or connects major sources of trips. It may
contain a number of streets, highways, and transit lines or routes.
Critical Volume The sum of all conflicting movements, or movements that cannot
occur at the same time, at an intersection. The critical volume is
used in a volume-to-capacity calculation.
Cycle Failure ^ cycle failure is when a vehicle must wait through more than
one cycle length at a signalized intersection before clearing the
intersection.
Cycle Length The time in seconds allotted to a traffic signal to permit all
movements to proceed through the intersection at least once.
Deficiency Specific to this plan, a deficiency exists when a transportation
facility does not operate at or is not designed to meet a pre-
determined standard.
Delay Time lost by a traveler due to congestion. Delay is measured by
the time needed to reach destinations at the posted speed limits
versus a slower congested speed. A specific delay, known as
stopped delay, refers to the time spent by a traveler when the
vehicle is not moving.
Employment Center Locations having a concentration of jobs or employment.
Environmental A document that addresses environmental impacts associated
Impact Statement with implementing one or more proposed actions.
Facility A physical structure allowing a transportation mode to operate
(i.e., arterial streets, sidewalks, bicycle trails, etc.).
Functional A roadway designation system that categorizes roadways by
Classification purpose, intent and design constraints.
Grade Crossing A crossing of highways, railroad tracks, other guideways, and/or
pedestrian walkways at the same level (grade).
Grade Separated The use of tunnels, bridges, and other structures to separate
conflicting movements by levels. Conflicting movements can be
the same or different modes of travel.
G-2 95005/Reports / Master/Glossary (7/18/96) I jc
Glossary Of Terms
Growth State legislation passed in 1990 and subsequently amended
Management Act which requires long-range comprehensive plans prepared by
cities and counties to be balanced with supporting transportation
infrastructure.
Heart of the Hills One of three major transportation improvement alternatives
Parkway proposed in this plan intended to alleviate traffic congestion in
the future. Specifically, this project involves construction of a
new two- to three-lane facility from SR 101 (east of Deer Park
Road) to Race Street (near or at the intersection of Race Street,
Heart of the Hills Parkway, and Mount Angeles Road).
Impact Fee A charge imposed on growth which is proportionate to the cost of
transportation improvements made necessary by growth (i.e., new
development).
Intercity Transit Transit service that is provided between two or more cities.
Intersection An intersection accident, as defined in this plan, is a vehicle-
Accident related accident that occurred within 150 feet of two or more
intersecting streets.
Intracity Transit Transit service that is provided within one city.
Land Use A specific type of development, which is generally associated
with a particular property.
Level of Service A gauge for evaluating system performance for roadways, transit,
and non-motorized and other transportation modes.
Lincoln Street/ One of three major transportation improvement alternatives
Peabody Street proposed in this plan to alleviate traffic congestion in the future.
One-Way Couplet Specifically, this project involves converting Lincoln Street and
Peabody Street into one-way streets in opposing directions.
Measure of A quantitative representation used to measure how well an
Effectiveness activity, task, function, or implemented project has performed.
Midblock Accident A midblock accident, as defined in this plan, is a vehicle-related
accident that occurred more than 15,0 feet away from two or more
intersecting streets.
95005 / Reports / Master Glossary {7/18/96) / jo G-3
Glossary Of Terms
Minor Arterial A street or roadway that typically interconnects, augments, and
serves trips of shorter distance and lower level of mobility than
principal arterials. A minor arterial generally does not usually
penetrate identifiable neighborhoods and places more emphasis
on land access than a principal arterial.
Mitigation Measures required to improve a transportation facility to a specific
standard.
Mobility The ability of any individual to move about the region.
Mode A particular form of travel distinguished by the means of
transportation used, such as foot, bicycle, vehicle, bus, train,
boat, plane, etc.
Model A computerized mathematical representation of traffic movement
through a network based on existing and future traffic volumes,
employment centers, land uses, population, and capacity.
Multimodal Concerned with or involving more than one transportation mode.
Network In planning, a computerized system of links and nodes that
describes a transportation system. In highway engineering, the
configuration of highways that constitutes the total system, and in
transit operations, a system of transit lines or routes usually
designed for coordinated operation.
Network Scenario As pertaining to this plan, a network scenario refers to a unique
set of transportation improvements coded into the model network.
There were seven network scenarios modeled in this plan.
Non-Motorized Generally referring to bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, or other
modes of transportation not involving a motor vehicle.
Origin-Destination A study of where person or vehicle trips begin and end. It may
Study also include trip purposes and frequencies.
Paratransit Transit service that is publicly or privately operated, scheduled or
dispatched on demand, and providing point to point transit
service. Normally used in specialized applications with user
eligibility limitations (e.g. elderly, handicapped, etc.) or where
demand is not sufficient to support fixed route service.
G-4 9~051Re~ts / Master / Glossary (~118/96) I jc
Glossary Of Terms
Park-and-Ride An access mode to transit and other HOV modes in which
patrons drive private automobiles or ride bicycles to a transit
station, stop, or carpool/vanpool waiting area and park the
vehicle in the area provided for that purpose.
Peak Period The period of the day during which the maximum amount of
travel occurs. It may be specified as the morning (a.m.) or
afternoon or evening (p.m.) peak.
Principal Arterial A street, roadway, or highway that serves major centers of activity
and usually has the highest traffic volumes in the region. A
principal arterial serves most trips entering and leaving urban
areas and through trips, thus serving significant interurban travel
between major suburban or business districts. It is usually fully or
partial ly controlled access.
Prioritization The act of categorizing Transportation Improvement Programs
into three separate groups (high, medium, and Iow) giving
projects in some groups precedence over projects in other groups.
With respect to this plan, it was intended that high priority
projects should be completed within the next six years.
Public Regular transportation service by bus, rail, paratransit, van,
Transportation airplane, or ship offered by a public operator.
Right-of-Way Property purchased for and expected to contain transportation
facilities.
School Walkway A program funded by the City of Port Angeles that completes,
Program repairs, or constructs sidewalks around schools to improve
circulation and safety.
Transportation Well-defined areas in the transportation model that were designed
Analysis Zone to contain consistent land use and common points of access to
the street system.
Transportation The quantity of transportation desired by users.
Demand
Transportation The concept of managing or reducing travel demand rather than
Demand increasing the supply of transportation facilities. It may include
Management programs to shift demand from single-occupant vehicles to other
(TDM) modes such as transit and ridesharing, to shift demand to off-peak
periods, or to eliminate demand for some trips.
95005/Retorts/Master Glossa~/(7/18/96) /jc G-5
Glossary Of Terms
Transportation The six-year, specific multimodal program of regional
Improvement transportation improvements for highways, transit, and other
Program (TIP) modes. The TIP consists of projects drawn from the TSFP as well
as local plans and programs. The projects are directed at
improving the overall efficiency and people-moving capabilities
of the existing transportation system.
Transportation A document intended to support and expand upon the goals and
Services and policies of the transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan.
Facilities Plan The TSFP is intended to ensure that the City's transportation
(TSFP) infrastructure and its management meet the needs of the City's
population for safe, efficient, and economical local transportation
and access to regional transportation services and facilities.
Transportation Increasing travel flow on existing facilities by implementing
System improvements such as ramp metering, signal synchronization, and
Management (TSM) removal of on-street parking. Improvements typically have a Iow
capital cost, require little major construction, and can be
implemented in a relatively short time frame.
Urban Growth Area The urban growth area, as defined in this document, is the area
outside the Port Angeles City limits where urban growth is
expected within the next twenty years. The urban growth area
boundary is shown in figure 1.1 in Chapter 1.
Vehicle Hours of On highways, the aggregate amount of time spent by all travelers
Travel in the region on all facilities for a specified time period.
Vehicle Miles of On highways, a measurement of the total miles traveled by all
Travel vehicles in the region for a specified time period.
Volume-to- A measure of potential roadway capacity. The ratio of the
Capacity Ratio existing amount of critical vehicular volume for a roadway or
intersection to the amount of designed capacity on the roadway
or intersection.
White Creek One of three major transportation improvement alternatives
Crossing proposed in this plan intended to alleviate traffic congestion in
the future. Specifically, this project involves the extension of
Lauridsen Boulevard to Golf Course Road, which involves the
crossing of White Creek.
G-6 9=5 / Reports / Master I Glossary (7/18/96} / jc
APPENDIX A
Arterial Street Inventory Database
Arterial Street Database Coding -- Port Angeles
Number of Lanes -- Median
1 e thor back-to-back LTL, or TWLTL
Pedestrian Facilities
0 no sidewalks
1 gravel/dirt sidewalk
2 paved sidewalk
3 d scont nuous s dewa k
Edge Facilities
0 Jno shoulder
1 Jgravel dirt shoulder < 6 feet
2 Jgravel dirt shoulder > 6 feet
3 Jpaved shoulder < 6 feet
4 Jpaved shoulder > 6 feet
unless paved areas were striped as a shoulder,
it was not coded as a shoulder. Parallel parking
indicates the road is wide enough for the additional
pavement to act as a shoulder if needed.
Curb and Gutter
I O1 no curb and gutter
curb and ~utter I
Parallel Parkinc~
J 0 Jno parallel parking
I
1 Jparallel parkin~ !
Direction of Roadway
I 1 Inorth/south
2 Jeast/west J
Arterial Class
p principal arterial
m minor arterial
c collector arterial
tkl 4/11/96 ARTCODE.XLS
ooo EEEEEEEEEEEEEooooooo ooooooooooEEEEEEEooooooooooo
ooEoooooEEEEEEEEEEEEEoOo oooEEEEoouooouuoEEEEEEEooooooooooo
E EEEE EEE EEE E E E Eooo oooooooooE EEEE E E ooooooooooo
~0000000 00~0~0000000000000~0~0 0~0~
~0000000 00~0~0000000000000~0~0
~0000000 0 000000~00~0~0
0000000~00000000000000000000000~00~000000000000000000000
0000000~00000000000000000000000~~0000000000000000000000
000000000~0~0~~0000~0~000000000~000~~0~0~0~000~0~0
~ o mm ~ m
~ ~ o
0
000
O~ fi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 L) Q_ (]_ 0 0 0._ t"') El 0 0 0 0 El. O. 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ',3 0 0 0..
~,~ 0 ',3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 fl F 0_ Q_ Q_ 0 (3 0.. 0.. (]. ID.. r] []. (1 f~ 0 0 0 0 O. (]. f1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D. 0._ (]_ (]_ 0 0
>,
Z
o oo oooooo oooo oo ooooo
o
Z
~,~ ~ o o o o o o4 o o o o o o o o o o o'~ o o o o4 o o o o ~' ~~' *~' ~o ¢') ~t ~' ~t 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~]' ~' ~t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z
Z
0
E~ "~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o ~ o o o o o
~ 0
z
~ _d_ o o o o o u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o E E E E o o o o o o o o o o o o E E o o
~o
4::~ o o o o E E E E E E o u E E o o o o u o o o o o o o o o o o o o aaaao o o o o o o o o o o o E E o
~ oooo ouooo ooE EE ooooooooooo o EE
Z
Z
~ ~
~ 0
0
Z o
~ oooooomooooooooooooooo~o~ooo~oo~o~mo~oooooooooom ooo~oo
Z
~ '~ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-ooooo
z o~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E-- ~
a ~ ~ 9
~ +
~888ggg8888~~n: ~~.~E EE~3B~
APPENDIX B
Arterial Street Inventory
Summary Statistics
APPENDIX C
Midblock Accident Summary
Accident Summary at Midblocks
Street Segment Number of I Accident
Between,.. AccidentsI Rate *
Cherry St. Marine Dr. & 15th St. 1 0.2
8th St. ~ I St. & C St. 1 0.4
Tumwater Truck Rd. Marine Dr. & Lauridsen Blvd. 4 0.4
Golf Course Rd. 1st St. & Lindberg Rd. 1 0.4
Ennis St. Water St. & 5th St. 1 0.5
Marine Dr. Tumwater St. & Pine St. 8 0.5
Lauridsen Blvd. Lincoln St. & Ennis St. 5 0.5
Front St. Lincoln St,. & Golf Course Rd. 26 0.6
~th St. C St. & Race St. 20 0.8
1st St. Lincoln St. & Delguzzi Dr. 33 0.9
Lincoln St. Front St. & Lauridsen Blvd. 14 1.0
Race St. Front St. & Park Ave. 11 1.1
18th St. McDonald St. & O St. 3 1.1
Park Ave. Peabody St. & Race St. 2 1.1
Yumwater St. Marine Dr. & 5th St. 1 1.1
5th St. Cherry St. & Ennis St. 6 1.3
C St. 5th St. & Lauridsen Blvd. 4 2..5
1st St. Valley St. & Lincoln St. 17 2.6
Peabody St. Front St. & 3rd St. 2 3.4
Peabody St. Park Ave. & Viewcrest Ave. 3 3.9
Front St. Valley St. & Lincoln St. 19 3.9
16th St. C St. & D St. 1 4.6
Park Ave. Lincoln St. & Peabody St. 2 4.6
10th St. Milwaukee Dr. & I St. 1 6.8
5th Street L St. & Tumwater St. 1 n/a
Ediz Hook Coast Guard Gate & Diashowa Mill 2 n/a
Old Mill Rd. Rhodes Rd. & Scrivner Rd. 2 n/a
Porter St. Olympus Ave. & Craig Ave. 1 n/a
Accidents per million vehicle miles per year
cfc 4/11/96 ACCTOTAL.XLS
APPENDIX D
1995 Existing Intersection
Level of Service Calculations
Critical #ovemenl: AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
intersection: CHERRY STREET/gTH STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
Problem Statement: CHD CS0893EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOHETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECX Step 6b. VOLU~E ADJUST#ENT FOR
I Approach 3:CHERRY ST ....... Approach ..... ! ~ HULT]PNASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
J 1 I ^ : -1- '2- -3- -4- PossibLe VoL~ne Adju~ted
~ R L I N a.No. of change : 60 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
8TH STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLume to next
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 120 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ ¥ ¥ v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 .$ A2B1 691(A2+B2) OR 642(Al+B1) 691
LTH-^> <--TH al.Opposing voic~e : 585 598 105 20i' A3B~ 269(A3+B3) OR 165(A4+B4) 269!
TH--· <v-LTH in vph :
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 15 2 49? 393
RT-'¥ < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 135 122 617 513
I T T H T T 18TH STREET vph (l~e) :
I H H I Ig. Left turn voLu~e : 10~ ~ 60 62
I Approach 4:CHERRY ST h.is volume · cap. : NO NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUHES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step 7. SUN OF CRITICAL VOLLIHES
I I
I 1 I 691(A2B2)+269(A~B3)+O()+O()
I Approach 31 ....... 2 8 6 .......
3: LT= 60 I I I 2:RT= 5/+ /, 3 0 ^+ 5& = 960 vph
TH= 83 I I I TH=S3~ +l* <+S31 .......................................
R?= 1Z/* I v I LT= &/+ < v · v- ~/+ Step 8. INTERSECT]ON LEVEL OF
.......................... SERV I CE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 uith table
Is I
Approach 1--· .......
I:LT= 106 I ^ I 4: RT= ~ 554 +> + I + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH=~4 I ~ I TH= ~9 ~+v
RT= 4/+ I I I LT= 62 .............. Geometric Chsnge:
I Approach 4~ I 6 5 4 I Signal Chsnge:
I 2 9 & I VoLume Chsnge:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUMES, in vph COI~ENTS
(t~o phase signaL)
--^ AHD <-- A1B2 AND I Approach 3~
--> Oe v-- /OR A2~1 I I
I I ANo < ^ AZa/+ A~O I
~·OR I I /ORA4eZ I 207 I
Approach 1
v < .... 585
106 .... ^ <
I Approach 2
I 62 I
....................................... I I
Al--> A~I ~1~-- a3 <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach 41
A2 <-- A4 I 82 --^ 84 I> V/C Ratio = .6~
Critical NoveM~t AnaLysis: PLANNING CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: LINCOLN STREET/STH. STREET Design Hour: 1~ EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: LSO895EX
S~ 1. [DEHT[FY ~E GENTRY St~ ~. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. ~L~ ~JUST~NT F~
] A~r~ch ]:L%N~LN ST ....... A~r~ch ..... ~LT%PHASE S%GNAL O~RLAP
~ 1 1 { * :-1- -2- -3- -~- PossibLe Vol~ Adj~t~
I R L I N a.No. of cha~e : 0 0 0 0 Prob- Crit;cat Car~over Cr~t~cat
8TH STREET I R T T T L { inte~a~s/h~r : abie Vol~ to ~xt
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT ca.city ~ : 0 0 0 0 Phase in ~ ~ase ~n
A~r~ch 1 < < I > > ~--RT cha~e (~) : .......................................
1 LT--A v v v <*-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : 0 0 0 0 B2B1 ~(B1) 181- ~= 106(82)
LTH-*> <--TH d.~s~ vot~ : 0 0 0 0 A1B2 106(82) ~16- 10~ 310(A1)
TH--> <v-LTH ~n ~ : A1A2 ~07(~) ~ 310(A1) 407
1 RTH-~ ~ ~ ~ v--LT 1 e. LT ca.city ~ : 0 0 0 0 ~B3 59(~) 69- 59= 10(B4)
RT--v < < I > > A~r~ch 2 gr~ (~) : ~ 10(~) 61~- 10= 6~(~) 10
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT ca~ci~ ~n : 0 0 0 0 ~A~ 6~(~) ~ ~6(A~)
I T T H T T 18TH STREET ~ (~e) :
I H H I g. LefZ Zurn vo~ : 0 0 0 0
I~ ~ I ~"~ :
J A~romch ~:L~NCOLN ST h.ls yoL~ > Cap. :
(g>f) ?
Step Z. IDEIT1FY VOLUHES, in ~ Step 5. ASSIGN LANE ~L~ES, in ~ Step 7. ~ OF CRiTI~L ~L~E$
I I
~ 1 ~ ~ 181(B182)+407(AZ)~9(B3B4)~(~)
~ A~roach 3J ....... 8 2 6
S: LT= 6911 I 2:RT= 71 7 ? 9 ~+ 71 = 1~61 ~
;.= ~;; I I I TH= 336 + + I ,* 336 ======= .............. ========= .... ===
RT= 187 ~ ~ ~ LT= ~ < V > v' ~ Step 8. [HTERSECTZ~ LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--A~roach 2 (c~re step 7 ~ith table 6)
lEI
A~roach 1--> .......
I:LT= 181 I ~ I ~: RT= 51 381 +> I + + Step 9. RECAL~LATE
T,= ~8~ I I I TH= 29~ ~5 +v
RT= 35 I II LT= 59 ....... 2 ....... Ge~tric Change:
I A~roach ~1 I ~ 9 ~ I sight Change:
I 9 5 I I VoL~ Change:
Step ~. ~OENTIFY PHASING St~ 6a. CRZT]CAL VOL~ES, in ~ C~HENTS
(t~o ~ase signaL)
--* v-- aZB1 I A~roach ]1
I I
--~ AND <-- A1B2 ANO I
--> OR v-- /OR AZB1 I
'-> <-- A1A2 ..........................
A~roach 1
> I See Step 6b.
v > ~ I I /OR A~B] Amroach 2
I ~ ASA~ .........................
~ I I I
....................................... I I
A2 (-- Aa I B2 --* B4 I> V/C Ratio = .92
CaLcuLation Form 1
lnzers~tim: P~Y STREET/STH STREET O~Jgn H~r: I~5 ~ISTING
St~ 1. IDENTIFY ~NE GENTRY St~ ~. LEFT T~N CHECK St~,~. ~E ~T~NT F~
I ~r~ch 3:PEA~Y ST ....... A~rHch ..... KLTiP~SE SIGNAL ~R~P
J 1 1 ] * :-1- -2- -3- -~- P~slbLe VoL~ Adjat~
I R L J N ~.HO. Of ch~e : 0 O ~ ~ Pr~- Crtt~csL C~r~r Crlticmi
8TH STREET I R T T T L J JntervaLs/h~r : able
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT ca,city on : 0 0 120 120 Phase
A~roach 1 < < I > > ~--RT cboe (~) :
1 LT--~ v v v <~-RTH 1 c.G/C rar~o : 0 0 .5 .5 ~B~
LTH-~> <--T~ d.~sing voL~ : 0 0 1&3 2~2 B2B~ 105(BZ) ~ 18(B1) 105
1 RTH-Y> ~ ~ ~ v--LT 1 e. LT ca~cJw ~ : 0 0 ~57
RT--v < < I > > A~roec~ 2 gre~ (~) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT ca~ci~y Jn : 0 0 5~ ~
I H H J g. Left turn voL~ : 0 0 56
I A~r~ch ~:PEAB~Y ST h.ls voL~ > cap. : NO NO:
(g~f) ? : J
s~ep ~. IDENTIFY VOLU~ES, in v~ S~ep 5. ASSIGN LANE VOL~ES, Jn ~ Step ~. ~ OF CRITICAL VOLU~ES
I I
~ 1 1 I
I A~roach 3[ ....... 2 1 5 .......
3: LT= 56 I J j 2:RT= 80 ~ 8 6 *+ 80
;,=~8 I I I ~,=~ +~ I <+368 ............
RT= 12~ J v J LT= 18 < v > v- 18 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEaL OF
.......................... $ERV I CE
<--A~rooch 2 (c~re step 7 with table 6)
IAI
A~roach 1--> .......
I:LT= 105 I ~ J ~: ET= 17 ~10 +> I + + Step 9. REaL.LATE
T.= ~10 I I I T.= 12~ 3~ *v
RT= 3Z I ~ [ LT= ~2 ....... 1 ....... G~tric Cboe:
I A~roach ~ I ~ 2 1 I Sight Chame:
I 2 6 7 ) Vot~ ~a~e:
S~ep 3. ]DENTIFY PHASING St~ 68. CR[TZCAL ~L~ES, In ~ C~ENTS
(two ~nse si~t)
I I AND < ' ~a~ AND I A~roach 31
"> <-' A1A2 ..........................
A~roach 1
S~ Step 6b.
A~roach 2
.........................
I
....................................... I
A2 <-- A~ ~ B2 --* B~ ~> V/C Ratio = .5~
Critical Noveeent AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcutstio~ Form 1
Intersection: RACE STREET/STH STREET Design Hour: 1995 EX[STING
Prc~DLem StltWf~t: ~ RSO~EX
Step 1. %DENTIFY LANE GEOt4ETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step%Sb. VOLUME ADJUSTMENT FOR
I Approach ]:RACE STREET ....... Approach ..... HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I I 1 I ^ : '1° -2- -3- -&- PossibLe Votu.e AdjustedI
I R L I H a.No. of change : 0 0 0 O'Prob- Crttloai Carryover Critical
8TH STREET J R T T T L J intervaLs/hour : ~ab{e VoLume to f~ext VoL~ne J
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 Phase in Vl~ phase in Vl~ J
Approach 1 < < I > > ^-oRT change (vl:)h) : .......................................
1 LT--^ v ¥ v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : 0 0 0 0 g~S3 22(B4) 53- 22= 31(83) 22
LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing ¥otu~e : 0 0 0 0 A4B3 31(93) 431- 31= 400iA&) 31
TH--> <¥-LTH in vph : A3A& 508(A3) OR 400(A4) 508
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 B261 21(B1) 2(~- 21= 243¢GZ) 21
RT--¥ < < I > · Approach 2 green (vph) : AlS2 2&3(62) 1~0- 243- O(A1) 243
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 0 0 0 0 A1A2 83(A2) OR O(A1)
I T T H T T JST, STREET vph Cboe) :
I H H } g.Left turn ¥oicme : 0 0 0 0
I Approach &:RACE STREET h.is votive · cap. :
(g·f) ? :
Step 2. IDEHTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUfqES, in vph Stap 7. SUM OF CRitiCAL VOLUIdES
I 1 3 I 53(B&B3)+508(A3)+2~(B1B2)+83(A2)
I Approach 3] ....... 2 8 2 .......
3: LT-- 22 I I J 2:RT: 2~ 8 0 2 ^+ 23 = 908 vph
T.:3~O Ii I T.: 60 *+ I ,* 6O
RT= 128 I v I LT= 21 < v > v- 21 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... $ERVI CE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with tsbte 6)
I e I
Approach 1-o>
I:LT= 26~ J ^ J 4: RT= 19 90 +> J + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH-- eO I I I TH--4~Z ~O0+v
RT-- 100 J I I LT- 53 ....... ~ ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 J 5 I 1 I Signal Change:
I 3 Z 9 J Voiuae Change:
Step 3. IOENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CR]TICAL VOLUMES, in vph COIdl4ENTS
(t~o phase signaL)
I < e~s3 I Approach 3I
· I I I
I I ANO < ^ A3e~ ANO I I
I ^ A3A4 ..........................
v I Approach q
--^ v-- BZB1
See Step 6b.
--^ ANO ~-- A1BZ AND
--; OR v-- /OR AZS~ Approach 2
....................................... I
v~ I i I Approe~h 41
AZ ~-- A/, I 6Z --^ S~ I> ¥/C Ratio = .66
Critical #ovement AnaLysis: PLANNING CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: LI#COLN STREET/STH STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: L$OSgSEX
Step 1. IDEHTIFY LANE GEONETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step 6b. VOLLIHE ADJUST#ENT FOR
I Approach 3:LINCOLN ST ....... Approach ..... ~ HULTIPNASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ : -1- -2- -3- -4- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
] R L I N a. No. of change : 60 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
5TH STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLume to next
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 120 Phase in v~ phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--ET change Cvph) = .......................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 .5 A2B1 229(A2+B2) OR 163(Al+B1) 229
LTH-^> <--TH 1 d. Ol~osing votLme : 188 105 475 534 J[3S4 5~6CA3+B3) OR 511CA&+B&) 566
TH--> <Y-LTH in vph :
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT e. LT capacity on : 412 495 17_5
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 532 615 245 186
J T T g T T JSTfl STREET v~ Cb+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn votuae : 41 58 36
I1 1 I in Vlah :
I Approach 4:LINCOL# ST h.ls volume · cap. : NO NO HO NO:
(g>f) ? : I
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUHES, in vph StepS. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step 7. $U~ OF CRITICAL VOLUNE$
I I
I 5 I 229(A2B2)+566(A~B3)+O()+O()
I Approach 31 ....... 3 0 3 .......
3: LT= 36 J J J 2:RT= 58 & 0 6 ^+ 58 = 79S vph
TH= SOO II I T.= 13o * * I < 130 .... - = = - .....
RT= 34 I v I LT= 58 < v · v+ 58 Step 8. [#TERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 uith table 6)
IAI
Approach 1--·
I:LT= &l I ^ I 4: RT= 50 8~+> I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 86 I I I TH= &25 19 +v
RT= 19 I I I LT= 32 ....... 4 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 I 3 2 5 I sig~,t Chsnge:
I Z 5 0 I VoLume Change:
Step 3. IDEHTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUHE$, in vph COI~IENTS
(two phase signaL)
--^ AND <-- AIB2 AND I Approach 31
--> OR v-- /OR A2B1 I
I IAao < ^ A3B4 AND I I
v > OR I I /OR A4B3 I s~ I
............. I ............. I
Approach 1
v < .... 188
41 ..... <
I Approach 2
A1 "> A3 I a~ v" B3 41 I I
v ^ I I I Approach 41
A2 <-- A4 I B2 --^ B4 I> V/C Ratio = .53
Critical Ho~t AnaLysis: PLJ~NN%NG CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: PEABODY STREET/5TH STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Staten~.nt: (:HO PSO595EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOMETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUME ADJUST#ENT FOR
I Approach 3:PEABODY ST ....... Approach ..... HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ :-1- -Z- -3- -&- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
I R L I N a.No. of change : 0 0 0 0 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
5TH STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : iabLe Volume to next Volume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 'Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I > > ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : 0 0 0 0 B2B1 35(B1) 135- 35= 100(B2) 35
LTH-^> <--TH al.Opposing voL~xne : 0 0 0 0 A1B2 100¢B2) 11&- 100= 14(A1) 100
TH--) <Y-LTH in vph : A1A2 158(A2) OR 1&(Al) 158
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 B4B3 IS(B4) 36- 25= 11(B3) 25
RT--Y < < I > · Approach 2 green Cvph) : A4IG 11CB3) 306- 11= :~95(A&) 11
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 0 0 0 0 A3A4 &O6(A3) OR 295(A4) 406
I T T H T T 15TH STREET vph (l~e) :
I H H I g.Left turn ¥otune : 0 0 0 0
I1 1 I invph :
I Approach 4:PEABODY ST h.ls volume · cap. :
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vl~ Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I 1 2 I 135(B1B2)+158CA2)+36CB~B3)+406(A3)
I Approach 31 ....... 1 8 :) .......
TH= 287 I I I TH= 130 + + I <+ 130 ................ = ......................
RT= 119 I v I LT= ;35 < V · v' 35 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERV l CE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
IAI
Approach 1--· .......
.......... ' ..... ---------- 135 -^ < ^ · =======================================
I:LT= 135 I ^ I 4: ET= 26 97 +> I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 97 I I I TH= 280 17 +v
RT= 17 I I I LT= 36 ....... 2 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 I 3 8 2 I signal Change:
I 6 0 6 I VoLume Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUMES, in vph CONMEHTS
(t~o phase signaL)
--^ v-- BIB1
I I
--^ AND <-- A1B2 AND
--· OR v-- /OR AgB1 I
--> <-- A1AZ ..........................
Approach 1
I < 6483
· I See Step 6b.
I I AHD < AA3B4
v · OR I I /OR A483 Approach 2
I ^ ~A4 .........................
v I I I
Al--> ~1 81,,- 63 <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach 41
A2 <-- A4 I 82 --^ 84 I> V/C Ratio = .53
Critical Idovefflent AnaLysis: P~NNING CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: ENNIS STREET/lST STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Stategltent: ~ ESO195EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOMETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step 6b. VOLURE ADJUSTI4ENT FOR
I Approach 3:ENNIS STREET ....... Approach ..... * 14ULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
J 1 1 I ^ :-1- -2- -:3- -&- PossibLe VoLlzne Adjusted
I R L I N a.No. of change : 0 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover . Critical
1ST STREET J R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLume to next VoL~ae
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 120 120 120 Phase in
Approach 1 < < J · · ^--RT change (~h) : .......................................
I LT.-^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : 0 .5 .5 .5 A&B3
L. TH-^· ~--TH d.~siH voL~ : 0 1~ 19:3 119 AIB2 902(A1) ~ 61(B:)) 902
2 TH--> <v-LTH in vph :
RTH-V> ^ ^ ^ ¥--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 &O? ~81
1 RT--¥ < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 0 120 527 601
I m T H T m I1ST STREET ~ph (b.e) :
I H H I IN.Left turn vot~Bne : 0 0 1:30 0
I 1 I I invph :
I Approach 4:ENNIS STREET h. Is volume · cap. : NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLIJHES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step ?. SUN OF CRITICAL VOLUHES
I
I 1 1 I 241(A~gJ~)+902(A1)+OC)+O()
I Approach 3J ....... 1 ~ .......
3: LT= 130 I I I 2:RT= 0 9 0 = 1143 vph
TH= 1~9 II ITH= 0 II ....................................
RT= 0 I v I LT= 0 v · Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
Icl
Approach 1--> 61 -^ - ......
I:LT= 61 I ^ I 4: RT= 159 902 -> I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
T,=~804I II T,= 34 3~-v
RT= 31 I I I LT= 0 ....... 1 ....... Geometric Change:
IApproach41 I 3 s I sig.,L Change:
I 4 9 I VoLume Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUHES, in vph COIdl4ENTS
(two phase signaL)
I I AND < ^ A384 AND I Approach
v · oR I I /oR A4B:3 I
-'^ A1BZ I
-'> I ~30
Approach 1
902 .... > ^
I Approach 2
....................................... I I
A~--> A~I e~ v-- B3 <1 I I
v ^ I I I Approach 4
A2 <-- A4 I 62 --^ B4 I> V/C Ratio = .76
Critical #ov~t ~J~aLysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
Intersection: GOLF COURSE ROAD/FZRST/FRONT STREET Design Ho~r: 1~ EXISTZNG
Problem Statement: OND GNFSgSEX
Step 1. ZDENTIFY LANE GEUMETRY Step 4. LEFT TURN CHECK Step 6b. VOLUME ADJUST#ENT FOR
I Approach 3:NONE ....... Approach ..... HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I I ^ : -1- -2- -3- -4- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of change : ~) 0 60 0 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
FIRST/FRONT SI R T T T L I intervals/hour : able Votu~e to next Votune
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 0 120 0 Phase in v~h phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vTdl) : .......................................
LT..^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 O .5 0 AZB1 53(B1) ~/,3- 53= 590(AZ) 53
LTH-^> <--TH 2 d. Opposing voLune :1286 0 67 0 A1A2 692(A1) OR 590(A2) 692
2 TH--> <v-LTH in Vl~ : A483 221(B3) OR 47'CA4) 221
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT CApacity on : 0 0 533 0
I RT--v · < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 120 0 653 0
I T T H T T IHIGHNAY 101 vph Cb+e) :
I H H I !g. Left turn volume : 0 0 0 0
Iq ~1 invph :
I Approach &:GOLF COURSE R h.ls votmm · cap. : NO NO
Cg>f) ? :
Step :). IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I I 745(B1A1 )+?.~1(B3)+0()+0()
J Approach 31 ..............
:3: LT= 0 I I I Z:RT= 0 <- 64:3 = 966 vph
TH= 0 I I I TH=la86 <- 6~3 .....................................
RT= 0 I v I LT= 53 v- 53 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with tabLe 6)
I R I
Approach 1--· .......
.......................... 692 -> < · ===============================
I:LT= 0 I ^ I 4: RT= 67 692 -> I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH=1383 I II TH= 0 254 'v
RT= 25&, I I I LT= 221 ....... 2 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 I 2 6 ] Signal Change:
I 1 7 I VoLmm Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASZNG Step 6a. CRITZCAL VOLUMES, in vph COMMENTS
(t~o phase signet)
<- - A2B1 ] Approach :3 I
v-- I I
-'> <" A1A2 I
I I
< ^ A4B$ ..........................
Approach 1
See Step 6b.
Approach 2
I I
Al--> ~1 B~v-- "~ <1 I I
v ^ I J I Approach 41 ExcLusive right turns reduced :30 ~
A2 <-- A4 I B2 --^ B~ I> V/C Ratio = .68
Critical Novenent AnaLysis: PLANN%NG CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: LAUREL STREET/1ST STREET Design Hour: 199~ EXISTING
ProbLem Stetement: C~D LAO195EX
Step 1. iDENTiFY LANE GEONETRY Step &. LEFT TURN C#ECI( Step~6b. VOLUNE ADJUSTHENT FOR
I Approach 3:LAUREL ST ....... Approach ..... I~ULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 I ^ :-1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of change : 0 ~0 0 60 Prob- Critical Carryover critical
1ST STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLume to next VoL~ae
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 120 0 120 Phese in v~ phase
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ ¥ ¥ ¥ <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : 0 .5 0 .5 AIB2 548(A1) OR 8~¢B2)
1 LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing voL~e : 0 996 0 0 B~ 197(84) 197
1 TH--· <v-LTH in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 600
RT--v · · I > > Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. If.LT cap.city in : 0 120 0 720
I T T H T T IIST STREET I vph Cb+e) :
I N H I lo. Left turn voLu~e: 0 0 0 0
I I I in~ph --
I Approach &:LAUREL ST Ih.ls volume · cap. : NO NO:
I Co>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTXFY VOLUHES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUNES, in vph Step 7. SUH OF CRITICAL VOLUHES
I I
I 1 I 5/+8(A1)+197(B&)+O()+0()
] Approach $I ....... 9 .......
3: LT= 197 I I I 2=.= 0 7 = 745 v~
T,= 0 11 I T,= 0 I = .......... = ............... ==
RT= 0 I v I LT= 0 · Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
IAI
Approach 1--> .......
I:LT= 8~ I ^ ] 4: RT= 0 448 +> Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= ~96 I I I TH= 0 548 -·
RT= 0 I I I LT= 0 .............. Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 I I Signal Chenge:
I I VoLume Change:
Step 3. iDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUHES, in Vl~ COI4HENT$
(two phase signaL)
--^ A1B2 ] Approach
--> I I
· I ~97 I
Approach 1
54,~ ....·
I I
....................................... I I
A~--> ~1 a~v-- Bi <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach 41
A2 <-- A4 I 82 --^ B4 I> V/C Ratio =
CriticeL #oveaent Analysis:
Calculation Form 1
intersection: LINCOLN STREET/lST STREET De;iOn Hour: 1~ EXISTING
Problem Statement: ~ LSO195EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEUMETRY Step &, LEFT TURN CHECK Step%Sb. VOLUNE ADJUSTNE#T FOR
I Approach 3:LINCOLN ST ....... Approach ..... HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ :-1- -2- -3- -&- Possible Volume Adjusted
I R L I N a.No. of change : 60 60 60 60 Prob- Critical . Carryover Critical
1ST STREET I R T T T L I intervals/hour : able Volume to next Volume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 120 Phase in vph phase ir1 vph
Approach I < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 .5 A1B2 301(Al+B1) OR /.8(A2+82) 301
LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing volume : 0 788 /,00 300 A]B~ 300(A~+IL~) OR 296(A&+B&) 300
2 TH--> <v-LTH in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT e. LT capacity o~ : 600 0 200 300
1 RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vid1) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 720 120 320 /.201
I T T. r T I1ST STREET Vl~ (b+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn votme : ~8 0 118 0
I 1 11 inv~
I Approach /,:LINCOLN ST h.ls voLt~e · cap. : NO NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. iDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRiTiCAL VOLUMES
I I
I 3 1 I 301 (A1B1)+300(A3B3)+O()+0()
I Approach 31 ....... 0 1 .......
3: LT= 118I I I2:RT= 0 0 8 -- 601 vph
T,=300 II I T.= 0 II =' .................. = .............
RT= 0 I v I LT= 0 v > Step 8. ]NTERSECTiOR LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
IAI
Approach 1--· /,8 -^
.......................... 301 '> A > =====================================
I:LT= /,8 I ^ I /,: RT= 22~ 301 -> I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 602 I I I TH-- 178 186 -v
ET= 186 i I I LT= 0 ....... 1 2 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach /,1 I 7 2 I Signal Change:
I 8 2 I Volume Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITiCAL VOLUMES, iff vph COMMENTS
(two phase signal)
--^ AND <-- A1B2 AND J Approach ]]
--> OR v-- /OR AZB1 I
I I AND< ^ ALS/* AaO I I
v>oe I I /ORA/,. I 300 I
Approach 1
V V .... 0
301 .... · <
J Approach 2
Ol
A1">A3I ely'- "3 <1 I I I
v ^ I J [ Approach /,1 I Exclusive right turns reduced 30
A2 <-- A/, I B2 --^ B~ I> I V/C Ratio ·
Critical HoveI~t AneLyIJS: PLANNING CaicuLatJon ForI 1
Intersection: OAK STREET/1ST STREET Design Hour: 199~ EXISTING
ProbLem State,eric: CIO 0S0195EX
Step 1. %DENTIFY LANE GEOHETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUNE ADJUSTMENT FOR
I Approach 3:OAK STREET ....... Approach ..... ; HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ : -1- -Z- -3- -&- Poastbie Voiu~e Adjusted
~ R L I N a.No. of change : 0 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover Criticst
1ST STREET ] R T T T L I interYats/hour : able Voi~me to next VoLume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 120
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--PT change Cvph) : .......................................
LT--^ v ¥ v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : 0 .5 .5 .5'A4B.~ 169(A&+B&) OR 3Z(/G+B3) 169
1 LTH-^> <--TH al. Opposing volume : 0 650 ~8 32 A1B2 345¢A1) OR ~/,(B2) ~5
TH--> <v-LTN in vph :
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ ¥--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 552 568
RT--¥ · · I · · Approach 2 grea~ Cvph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 0 120 672 688
IT T H T T IlST STREET vph Cb+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn volume : 0 0
I 1 I i.~ :
I Approach &:OAK STREET h. Is roi. uae · cap. : NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUHES, in ~ Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step 7. SUN OF CRITICAL VOLUNES
I
I 1 I 169(A~I~)+34SCA1 )+0( ),4.0( )
I Approach 31 ....... 3 8 2 .......
3: LT= 209I I I 2:RT= 0 2 9 1 = 51& v~
TN= s~ I I I ~"= 0 + + I =====================================
PT= 0 I v I LT= 0 ¥ · · Step 8. INTERSECT]ON LEVEL OF
.......................... ' SERVICE
<--Approach Z (compare step 7 with table
IAI
Approach 1--· 3/, +^ - ......
.......................... 305 +) A ·
I:LT= 34 I ^ I /+: RT= /~+ 338 +> + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
T,=6~3 I I I T.= ~ 7+v
PT= 7 I I I LT= 0 .............. Geometric Change:
I Approach ~I I ~I SignaL Change:
I ~ ~ I voL.~ Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLU~E$, in vph CONHENTS
(t.o p~ase signaL)
I I AND < ^ A]B& AND I
Approach 3I
~ · OR I I /OR A~.~ I I
--^ A~.2 I I
--· I~Z~ I
Approach 1
I Approach
~ I
A~--> A~I 81 ~-- ES <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach /*l
AZ <-- A4 Iaz-.^ ~I> v/c Ratio = .3/~
Critical I~ovement AnaLysis: PI. AliNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: PEABOOY STREET/1ST STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: CND PSO195EX
Step 1. [DENT]FY LANE GEONETRY Step /,. LEFT TURN CHECK Step 6b. VOLLNE ADJUSTNENT FOR
~ Approach 3:PEABODY ST ....... Approach ..... ~ HULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ :-1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe VoLl~te Adjusted
I R L I N s.No. of change : 0 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
1ST STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLmm to next VoLume
............. T H H H T - ............ b. LT capacity on : O 120 120 120 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I :' > ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ ¥ ¥ ¥ <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : 0 .5 .5 .5 A&S3 ]05(AA+SA) OR 22D(A3+B3) 305
LTH-^> <--TH d. Oppasing volume : 0 1233 380 220 A182 576(A1) OR 31(82) 576
2 TN--> <v-LTN in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ ¥--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 220
1 RT--v · · } > > Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. ~f.LT capacity in : 0 120 ~0 500
J T m H T T JlST STREET ~ (b~e) :
J H H J g.Left turn volume : 0 O 72 0
I ~ ~1 in~ :
{ Approach &:PEABODY ST h.ls volume > cap. : NO NO
(g>f} ? :
Stap 2. IDENTIFY VOLUISES, fn vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUHES
I I
I 2 I $05¢A&gS)+576¢A1)+O()+O()
~ Approach 31 ....... 2 7 .......
3: LT= 72 I I I 2:RT--- 0 0 2 ut 881 vph
TH= 2;0 II I TH= 0 II ...........
RT= 0 J v I LT= 0 ¥ > Step 8. iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (campare step 7 with table
IAI
Approach 1--> 31 -^ - ......
I:LT= 31 J "I 4: RT= 333 5?6 -> I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH--lIS:> I I ] TH-- &? 81-v
RT= 81 I I I LT= 0 ....... 3 ....... : Geometric Change:
J Approach &l I & 3 I Signal Change:
J 7 3 I VoLume Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUHES, in vph COHHENTS
(two phase signaL)
I I AND < ^ A~B~ AND I Approach 3I
v·O. I I /oeA&B3 I I
--~ A~SZ I I
'" I 72 I
Approach 1
576 .... > ^
I Approach 2
....................................... I
Al--, ~1 B~¥-- B3 <1 I I
v ^ [ I [ Approach &[ ExcLusive right turns reduced 30
A2 <-- A& [ 82 --^ 84 I> V/C Ratio =
Critical #ovemont Ans[ysta: PLANNING CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: RACE STREET/lST STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: CHI) RSO19SEX
Step 1. IDE#TZFY LANE GEOMETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUME ADJUSTHENT FON
I Approach 3:RACE STREET ....... Approach ..... MULT[PHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 I I ^ : -1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of change : ~0 ~0 ~0 60 Prob- Critical Carryover CriticalI
1ST STREET I R T T T L I intervals/hour : able Voi~ne to next Vo[~ne
............. T N # H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 120 !Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · > ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTN c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 .5 AIB2 5/,9(Al+B1) OR 114(A2+B:~) 5/*9
LTH-^> <--TH d.Opposing voLmm : 0 11/.0 604 378 A&R3 :~1(A&+84) OR 301(/G+B]) 361
2 TH--· <v-LTH in vph
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT e. LT capacity on : ~)0 0 0 222
1 RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. ~f.LT capacity in : 720 120 120 342
I T T, T T IlST STREET v~ (b+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn volume : 13/* 0 56 0
I 1 1 I tn~ :
I Approach &:RACE STREET h.ls voLtzne · cap. : NO NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? : I
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. StJH OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I ] I 5/*g(A1B1 )+361(A4B/*)+OC )+0()
I Approach 31 ....... 0 7 5 .......
~: LT= 56 ] I I ;:ET= 0 1 76 =910 vph
T.= 37S I I I T.= 0 I + + ...................... ===== ...........
RT= 0 I v I LT= 0 v v · Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERV! CE
<--Approach :~ (compare step 7 with table 6)
lB I
Approach 1--· 13/* -^ .......
.......................... 5/,9 - · ^ · ==================================== I
I:LT= 134 I ^ I 4: RT= 436 5/.9 -> I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
T.=1098 I
ET= 42 I I I LT= 0 ....... 1 4 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach 4l I 6 ] I Signal Change:
I 8 6 I VoLume Change:
Step 3. [DENT]FY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUl4ES, in vph COflNENTS
(two phase signaL)
"^ AND <-- A1B2 AND
--> OR v-- /OR A2B1 I I
I I AND < ^ A~a4 AND I I
v·OR I I /ORA/*83 I ~6 I
............. I ............. I
Approach 1 I
· v .... 0
549 .... · ^
I Approach 2
I 3o51
^1--> A~I Sl~-- e3 <1 I I I
v
A2 <-- A4 I B2 --^ B4 I> I V/C Ratio = .61
Critical #ove~-nt Ar~LYOia: PLANNING
CaLcuLation For, 1
Intersection: ENNIS STREET/FRONT STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: OND ESFS9~EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEORETRY ~ Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUME ADJUST#EHT FOR
I Approach 3:ENNIS STREET I ....... Approach ..... HULT%PHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 I ^ I : -1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
I R L I N la.No, of change : 60 0 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover CriticaL
FRONT STREET I R T T T L I I intervaLs/hour : able VoL~lne to next VoL~lne
............. T H H H T ............. Ib. LT capacity on : 120 0 120 120 Phase in
Approach 1 < < I > > ^--RT 1 change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 0 .5 .5 A38~ 181(A3+B3) OR 34(A&+B~) 181
LTH-^> <--TH 2 d. OpposJng votme :1561 0 34 1/~0 A2B1 760(A2) OR 134(B1) 760
TN--> <v-LTN in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 566 460I
RT--~ · · I · · Approach 2 green Cvph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 120 0 686 580I
I T T H T T I FRONT STREET vph Cb+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn vot~ne : 0 0 0 ¢1I
I 1 1 I invph -.- I
I Approach &:ENNIS STREET h. Is volume · cap. : NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUHE$, in ~ Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUHES, in vph Step 7. SUN OF CRITICAL VOLUNE$
I I
[ I 181(A383)+?60(A2)+O()+O()
I Approach 31 ....... ? 6 .......
3: LT= 0 I I I 2:RT= 41 5 5 ^- 41 = 9/+1 vph
TH= &5 I I I TH=15:)O + + ·- 760 ..................................
RT= 75 I v I LT= 134 · v <- 760 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... v- 134 SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 ~Jth table
I ~ I
Approach 1--> .......
I:LT= O J ^ J ~: RT= 0 J I Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 0 I '1 I TH= 34
ET= 0 I I I LT= ~)1 .............. IGea.etric Change:
I Approach &l I /, 3 I IsigneL Change:
I 1 ~ ] Ivot~.~ Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRIT[CAL VOLUMES, in vph CONMENTS
Ct~o phase signal)
I ] AND < ^ A~B4 ANO
v·Oe I I /ORA~eZ I I
<-' A2B1
~" I 1~0 I
Approach 1
v · ....
Approach 2
A~--· ~l ely-- e:~ <1 I I
v ^ I I I Approach
A2 <-- A/, I B2 --^ B/+ I> V/C Ratio = .63
Critical Nove~It AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: LAUREL STREET/FRONT STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statefaent: add LAFSgSEX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEONETRY I Step /*. LEFT TURN CHECK Step 6b. VOLUNE ADJUST#ENT FOR
I Approach 3:LAUREL STREETI ....... Approach ..... ' NULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I I I ^ J : -1- -Z- -$- -/*- PossibLe VoLtine AdJt~tedJ
I R L I U Ia. No. of change : 60 0 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover critical
FRONT STREET J R T T T L I I intervaLs/hour : able VaiLing to next VoLume
............. T H H H T ............. Ih. CT capacity on : lZ0 0 120 120 Phase in
Approach 1 < < I · · ^*-RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ ¥ ¥ ¥ <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : .5 0 .5 .5 A3B~ 1/*2(A~3+B3) OR ~6(A/*+g/*) 1/,2
LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing volume : 888 0 46 72 A2B1 551(A2) OR 178(B1) 551
TH--> <¥-LTH 1 in vph :
RTH-Y> ^ ^ ^ ¥--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 55/* 528
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 gree~t (Vial) :
............. L L T R R ............. if. LT capacity in : 120 0 67& 648
I T T H T T I FRORT STREET ~ (b+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn voL~ne : 0 0 0 70
I Approach /,:LAUREL STREET h.ls votune · cap. : NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step :). IDENTIFY VOLtJHES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUNES, in ~)h Step 7. SUN OF CRITICAL VOLUNES
I I
I I 1/*2(JL3B3)+551(AZ)+O()+O()
I Approach 31 ....... 2/* .......
3: LT= 0 I I J :)aRT= 58 6 6 ^+ 58 = 69~ vph
RT= :)6 J v I LTu 178 · v ·+ :337 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... v+ 1713 SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
IAI
Approach 1-->
1aLT= 0 I ^ I /*: RT= 0 I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 0 I II TH-- /*6 I
RT; 0 I I I LT= 70 I .............. Geometric Change:
I Approach 41 I I ? 4 I Signal Cha~e:
I I 0 6 I Votune Change:
Step :3. [DE~ITIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLU~qES, Jn vph COIdlqENTS
(tm) phase signaL)
I I AND < ^ A~8~ AND I Approach 3I
v > oR I I /oR A/*B~ I I
<-- A2B1 I I
~" I 72
Approach 1 I
v · .... 551
Approach :)
....................................... I I
A~--> A~I S~ ~-- BI <1 I I
~^ I I I Approach /*1
A:) <-- A/* I B2 --^ g/* I> V/C Ratio = ./*6
Critical Noveneflt AnaLysts: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersect[afl: LINCOLN STREET/FRONT STREET Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: CHD LSFS95EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEONETRY Step /~. LEFT TURN CHECK Step
[ Al:~roach 3:LINCOLN ST ....... Approach ..... 14ULTIPNASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 I ^ : '1' -2' '3- -&- Possible Voit~e Adjusted
I R L · I N a. No. of change : 60 0 ~0 ~0 Prob- Critical Carryover critical
FRONT STREET I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able Vot~ne to next VoLume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity en : 120 0 120 120 Phase in vph phase in
Approach 1 < < I > · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ v v v <^-RTH 1 c.6/C ratio : .5 0 .5 .5
LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing volume :10:5~ 0 11/+ 21/+ AZB1 715(A2) ON :5]0(B1) 715
TH--· <v-LTH 1 in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT e. LT capacity on : 0 0 /~
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 120 0 ~0~ 50~
I T T. T T IFRONT STREET vph (b+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn voL~aM : 0 0 0 110
I Approach /+:LINCOLN ST h.is volume · cap. : NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. [DENT]FY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I 1 I
I Approach ]] ....... 2 8 .......
]: LT= 0 I I I 2:RT= 15~, 8 6 ^+ 15/+ = 1051 vph
TH= 1~ I ] I TH= 880 + + <+ 561
RT= 28 I v I LT= ]]0 < v <+ ]19 Step 8. iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... v+ ]]0 SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 uith table
Icl
Approach 1--· .......
I:LT= 0 I ^ I /+: RT= 0 I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 0 I II
RT= 0 I I [ LT= 110 ....... 1 1 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach /+l I 2 1 [ Signal Change:
I 2 a, I Vol~, Change:
step :~. [OENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUMES, in vph CO~94ENTS
(two phase signaL)
I I AND < ^ A]B, ANO I Approach ]1
~·OR I I /ORA~S] I I
<-- A2S~ I I
~" I 2~ I
Approach 1 ]
v < .... 715
Approach 2
I 122 I
....................................... I I
A1--> A~I Sl ~-- ~ <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach /+1
A2 <-- A/, I B2 --^ B~ I· V/C Ratio = .7
critical Hovement AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: ON( STREET/FRONT STREET Design Hour: 19~5 EXISTING
Probim Statement: C~ OSFS95EX
St~ 1. [DENTIFY L~E ~ETRY $t~ ~. LEFT ~N CHECK ~ St~. ~L~E ~JUST~NT F~
~ ~r~ch 3:~ STREET ....... ~r~ch ..... ~ ~LTIP~SE SISAL ~R~P
~ I I ~ : -1- -2- -3- -~-~ PossibLe Vot~ Adj~t~
I R L I H 'a.~o. of cha~e : ~ 0 ~ ~Pr~- Critical Car~r Critical
FReT STREET ] R T T T L ] ~nte~ats/h~r : labte Vot~ to ~xt Vot~
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT ca,city ~ : 120 0 120 1ZOIPhase in
A~roach 1 < < I > > *--RT 1 cha~e (~) : I .......................................
LT--* v v v <&-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 0 .5 .5 ~ I~(~B]) ~ ~9(A4+B4) 162
LTH-~> <--TH I d.~si~ voL~ : ~ 0 ~9 125 A2B1 5~(A2)
TH--> <v-LTH 1 ~ ~ :
RTH-~ ~ ~ ~ v--LT e. LT cm~city ~ : 0 0 551
RT--v < < ~ > > A~roach 2 gr~ (~)
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT c~city in : 120 0 671
I T T. T T I FR~T STREET ~ (~e) :
~ H H I g. Left turn vot~ : 0 0 0 37
A~roach ~:~ STREET h.[s ~t~ > cap. : NO NO NO: (g>f) ? :
St~ 2. ]DENT]FY VOL~E$~ in ~ Step 5. ASSIGN LANE ~L~ES~ in ~ St~ 7. ~ OF CR[T]~L ~L~ES
I I
I I 162(~83)+5~(A2)+0()+0()
I A~roach 31 ....... 8 3 .......
3: LT= 0 I I I Z:RT= ;1 9 6 ~- Z1 =
TH= 36 I [ I TH= ~3 + + <- 5~ ......... ~ ..........................
RT= 89 I v I LT= ZZ1 < v <+ 2~
.......................... ~ ZZO SERVICE
<--A~roach Z (c~re
IAI
A~roach 1--> .......
I:LT= 0 I ~ I ~: RT= 0 + + I St~ 9. RE~LCULATE
T,= 0 I II ~,= ~; I
RT= 0 I I I LT= ]7 .............. IG~tric Change:
I 7 9 I IVoL~ Change:
Step ~. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRZTI~L VOLUHE~, in ~ C~ENTS
(two ~ase
I I ~o < ~ ~B~ AND I A~roach ]1
<-- AZB~ I I
~" I~' I
A~roach 1 I
v < ....
I A~roach Z
I ~7 I
....................................... I I
A~--> ~1 ~;v-- si <1 I I
v ~ I I I A~roach ~1 Exct~ive right tur~ r~
AZ <-- A~ I BZ --~ B~ I> V/C Ratio = .~8
Critical #ore.mt AnaLysis: PLANNING CaLcuLation Form 1
]ntersecti~: RACE STREET/FReT STREET O~i~ H~r: 1~5 EXISTZNG
Pr~[~ Star--t: ~ RSF$95~
$t~ 1. IDENTIFY L~E GE~ETRY $t~ ~. LEFT ~N CHEC~ ~ St~. ~L~E ~JUSTHENT F~
~ A~r~ch 3:~CE STREET ....... A~roach ..... ~ ~LTiPHASE $[G~L ~RLAP
I 1 1 I * : -1- -2- -3- '~'1 PossibLe Vot~ Adj~t~
I R L I N a. No. of cha~e : ~ 0 ~ ~l.Pr~- Critical Car~ver Critical
FReT STREET I R T T T L I ~nte~a~s/h~r : able VoL~ to ~t VoL~
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT ca~c~ty ~ : 120 0 120 120 Phase in ~ ~ase ~n ~
A~roach 1 < < I > > ~--RT cha~e (~) : .......................................
LT--~ v v v <~-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : .5 0 .5 .5 ~ l~(~+B]) ~ 102(A~+8~)
LTH-~> <--TH 1 d.O~si~ vo[~ :1622 0 102 76 A2B1 811(~) ~ ~(B1) 81'
TH--> <v-LTH ~n ~ :
RTH-~ ~ ~ ~ v--LT 1 e. LT ca,city ~ : 0 0 498
RT--v < < I > > A;roach 2 gre~ (~) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT ca~c~ty in : 120 0 618 ~1
I T T. T ; IFe~T STeE;; ~ (~e) = I
I H H I g. Left turn vol~ : 0 0 0 162I
I~1 I ~"~ : I
I A~oach ~:RACE STREET h.Z~ ~t~ > cap. : NO NO
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. ]DEHTZFY ~L~ES, in ~ St~ 5. A$$ZGN ~NE ~L~$, in ~ St~ 7. ~ OF ~ITZ~L ~L~ES
I I
I I 1~(~B3)+811(A2)~()+OC)
~ A~roach ~1 ....... ~ 5 .......
~,= s~ II I T,=~S~ II <+~S ......................... = ...........
RT= ~Z I v I LT= ~ < v <- 811 St~ 8. [HTERSECTZON LEaL OF
.......................... v- ~ ~ERVICE
<--A~roach 2 (c~re step 7 ~ith table ~)
Is I
A~roach 1--> .......
.......................... I < < * = .................................
I:LT= 0 I * I ~: RT= 0 I I + + Step 9. RECAL~TE
~,= 0 I I I T,=~oz I
ET= 0 I I I LT= 162 I ....... 1 1 ....... 6mtrfc Change:
I A~roach ~1 I I ] 3 0 I Sig~ Cha~e:
I I 2 0 2 I Vot~ Cha~e:
Step 3. IDE~T]FY PHAS[HG St~ 6a. CRIT[~L ~L~ES, in ~ C~ENTS
I I AND < ~ ~B~ AND I A~r~ch 3I
<-- A2B1 I
'" I ~ I
A~roach 1
v < .... 811
A~roach 2
....................................... I I I
· ~--> ~1 a~-- a3 <1 I I I
v * I I I I A~o,=h ~1 ExcLusive righttur~ r~c~ 30 ~
A~ <-- A~ I a2 --~ a~ I> I V/C ~aZ~o = .~
Critical #ov~Rent AnaL~ts: PL~#NZNG CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: DEL ~ZZ% DRI~/HIGH~AY 101 Design Hmr: 1~5 EXISTZNG
Pr~Lm StltKt: ~ DDHI~EX
St~ 1. IDEKIFY ~E ~ETRY St~ ~. LEFT T~N CHECK St~,~. ~L~E ~JUSTKNT F~
I A~r~ch 3:. - ...... A~r~ch ..... ~LTZP~SE SZ~AL
J I * : -1- -2- -3- -~- PossJbie VoL~
............. T H H H T ............. Jb.bT ca~c~ty ~ : 120 120 120 0 Phase
A~r~ch 1 < < I > > ~--RT change (~) : .......................................
LT--~ v v v (~-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 0 A483 ~(B3) ~ 13(A4) 38
LTH-~> <--TH 2 d.~si~ vot~ :1385 1702 18 0 A1B2 ~(A1+81)
1 TH--> <v-LTH iff ~ :
1 RTH-~ ~ ~ ~ v--LT 1 e. LT ca.city ~ : 0 0 582
RT"v < < J > > A~roach 2 gr~ (~) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT ca~ci~ Jn : 120 1~ ~2 OJ
I TTHTT I~101 ~(~e) : J
J H H I ~g. Left turn voi~ : 0 12 0 OJ
I~ ~l ~n~ : I
St~p Z. IDEnTiFY ~L~ES, ~n ~ St~p ~. AS~ ~HE ~L~ES, ~n ~ St~ ~. S~ OF CRIT[~L ~LUHES
~ I
3~ ~T~ 0 I I I Z~T~ 0 ~-~
iH= 0 I I I TH=3385 <' 693 ................... ===== ...........
ET= 0 ] v ~ LT= 12 v- 12 Step 8. iNTERSECT[~ L~L OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--A~roach 2 (c~re st~ 7 .ith table 6)
I.1
A~roach 1--> .......
.......................... 8~1 ') ~ )
I:LT= 0 I ~ I ~: RT= 18 82~ +> } I Step 9. REaL,LATE
TH=16~ I I I TH= 0 27 +v
RT= 27 I [ I LT= 38 .............. Ge~tric Cha~e:
Step 3. iDEnTIFY PHASING Step Ea. CRiTiCAL ~L~ES, in ~ ~EHTS
(t~o ~ase
< ~ A~83 ~ A~roach 3~
--> OR v-- /~ A2B1 I I
I .............I .............
A~r~ch 1 I
851 .... > <
A~-*~ ~1 B~-- B3 ~1 I I
v ~ J ~ ~ A~roach ~ ExcL~ve r~ght turns r~ 30
A2 <-- A~ I B2 --~ ~ I> V/C Ratio =
Critical #ovement Anatysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
]nl:ersection: KOLONELS UAY/HIGHT/AY 101 Design Hour: 1995 EX]$T~HG
ProbLem Statement: I~D k'~Hlg5EX
Step 1. IDE14TIFY LA14E GEOHETRY Step &. LEFT TUR14 CHECK Step 6b. VOLUHE AD4USTI4E14T FOR
I Approach 3:KOLONELS ~Y ....... Approach ..... HULT[PHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ : -1- -2- -3- -4- PossibLe VoL~e Adjusted[
I R L I 14 a.14o, of change : 0 60 0 0 Prob- Critical Carryover
HI/Y 101 I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoLume to next VoLume
............. T H H 14 T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 120 0 O!Phase in ~ phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I > · ^--RT change (vph) : ....................................... I
1 LT.-^ V V V <^-RT. 1 c.G/C r, tio : 0 .5 0 0 Ate6 13SCAt) OR zg(e~) 13SI
LTH-^> <--TH 1 d. OpposJng voL~ne : 0 110:] 0 0 A663 /~(A~) OR 32¢B3)
1 T.--> <v-LTH in vph : A1B2 112(B2) 552- 112= ~O(A1) 1121
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e.LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 A1A2 /~O(A1) OR 639¢A2)
............. L L T R R ............. f.L? capacity in : 0 120 0 0
I H g I g. Left turn votuae : 0 18 0 0
I ~ I in v~ :
I Approach 6:KOLONELS UY h. Zs voL~ame · cap. : NO
Cg>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUHES, in vph S~ep 5. ASSZGN LANE VOLUldES, in v~ Step 7. SUI4 OF CRITICAL VOLLIHES
I 1 I 135(AS)+44(A4)+S~(B2A1)+O( )
....... .......
3: LT= 39 I I I 2:;~= 27 5 009 ^+ 27 =
;H= 0 I I I TH= 850 ++++ <+ 412 ==== ..............................
RT= 135 I v [ LT= 18 < v v · <- 439 Step 8. [#TERSECT[014 LEVEL OF
.......................... v- 18 SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 gith table 6)
I^ I
Approach 1--> 112 -^ .......
............. ............. 55~) - · < A · ==============================-
I:LT= 11:~ I ^ I 4: RT= 12 532 +> + I + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH=IO~3 I I I ~,= 0 20 +v
RT= 20 I I I LT= :32 .............. Ge~letric Change:
] Approach 41 I :~ 1 I Signal Change:
I 2 0 2 I VoL~e Change:
Step 3. [DE14TIFY PHAS[14G Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLUI4E$, in v~h COHHE14TS
(t~o phase signaL)
I I A~ I Approach ~1
· I I
< ^ ^4a~ I I
--^ A1B2 ..........................
--> Approach 1
--> <-- A1A2
See Step 6b.
Approach 2
I
....................................... I I
v^ I I I Approach 41
^2<-- Ab I .2--^ 61·
Critical Novement Analysis: PLANNING Calculation Form 1
Intersection: HONROE STREET/HIGH,lAY 101 Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLem Statement: #SHlgSEX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOIdETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step&6b. VOLUHE ADJUSTNENT FOR
I Approach :3:HORROE ST ....... Approach ..... HULTIPHASE S%GNAL OVERLAP
I 1 } ^ : -1- -2- -3- -&- Possible Volume Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of ch~ge : 0 0 60 60 iProb- Critical Carryover Critical
HTdY 101 I R T T T L I intervals/hour : able VoLu~e to next Volume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT cepmcity on : 0 0 120 120 'Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I > · ^--RT change (vph) : ........................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : 0 0 .5 .5lA&B3 125(A4+B4) OR 90(A3+B3) 125
LTH-^> <--TH 1 d.Ol~oos~ng volume : 0 0 &l 19 IB2B1 16(B1) OR 7(B2) 16
1 TH--· <v-LTH in vph : A1A2 731(A1) OR 613(A2) 731
1 RT#-v> ^ ^ ^ vo-LT 1 e.LT c81~city on : 0 0 559 581
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vloh) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT caplctty fn : 0 0 679 701
I T T H T T IHWY 101 vph Cb+e) :
I H H I ig. Left turn voLm~ : 0 0 84 71
I ~ I ~n vph
I Approach 4:I*3~ROE ST h.ls voL~ne · cap. : NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. iDENTiFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in v~N Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUHE$
I I
I I 125(A484)+1&(B1 )+731 (Al)+0( )
I Approach 31 ....... 1 8 .......
3: LT= 8~11 I 2:RT= 33 8 1 4 ^+ 33 -872 v13h
TH= 11 I I I TH'1192 +I * <* 58o
RT= 8 I v I LT= 16 < v > <- 613 Step 8. iNTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... v- 16 SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (coaQare step 7 with table
Approach 1--> 7 -^ .......
.......................... 731 -> < ^ · =====================================
I:LT= 7 I ^ I /*: RT= ]& 670 +> + I + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TI4=lZ,01 I [ I TM= 7 61 +v
RT= 61 I [ [ LT= 71 .............. Geometric Change:
I Approach /*l I 7 3 I Signal Change:
I 1 7 4 I ~VoLume Change:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRITICAL VOLU~ES, in vph COIqNENTS
(t~o phase s~gnat)
I [ AND < ^ A384 AND I Approach 3I
v>oR I I /ORA~a3 I I
..A v-- a2a~ I I
I I
--> <-- A1A2 ..........................
Approach 1
See Step 6b.
Approach Z
I I
....................................... I I
Al--> A~ I a~v-- a3 <1 I I
VA I I I APProach ~1
AZ <-- A~ I aZ --^ a& I> v/c Ratio = .61
CriticaL Movement AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Fora 1
lntersectim: HT. PLEASANT ROAD/HIGHUAY 101 Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLe~ States.at: ~D #PH195EX
Step 1. iDENTIFY LANE GEOHETRY Step &. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUHE N)JUST#ENT FOE
I Approach 3:#T PLEASANT R ....... Approach ..... I~JLTIPHASE SlGHAL OVERLAP
I I ^ : '1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe Vot~zae Adjusted
I R L J N s.No. of change : 60 0 ~0 0 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
H~ 101 I R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoL~e to next Vo[u~e
............. T H N H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 0 120 0 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I > > ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : .5 0 .5 0 A4B3 1~8(A4) OR 168(83) 168
LTH-^> <--TH 2 d.Opposing vot~e :1119 0 ZO 0 AZB1 17(B1) 560- 17= 543(AZ) 17
1 TH--> <v-LTH in vph : IA1A2 751(A1) OR 543(A2) 751
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 580 0I
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) : I
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 120 0 700 0I
I T T H T T IHVY 101 vph (b+e) : I
I " " I Ig. Lefttur. voLu~: 0 0 0 OI
I 1 I i. ~ph : I
I Approach 4:lqT PLEASANT R h.[s votL~e > cap. : NO NO
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step ?. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
J ] 168(A4)*?68(BIA1 )+0()+0()
I Approach 31 ..............
]: LT= 0 I I I 2:HT= 0 <- S60 = 936 v~
T,= 0 I I I T,=1119 <- S60 ---- ........... === ................ === ....
RT= 0 I v I LT= 17 v- 17 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (c~mpare step 7 with table 6)
I ~ I
Approach 1--> .......
I:LT= 0 I ^ I 4: RT= 20 KG2 +> + I + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH=1383 I I I TH= 0 119 +v
RT= 119 [ I I LT= 168 ....... 1 ....... Geometric Change:
I Approach &l I 4 2 I SignaL Change:
I 8 0 0 I VoLume Change:
Step :3. [DEHTIFY PHAS[HG Step 6a. CRXTXCAL VOLUMES, in vph COMMENTS
(two phase signaL)
< ^ A4B3 I Approach 3 I
I I I I
<-- A2B1 I I
--> <-- A1A;~ ..........................
Approach I
See Step 6b.
Approach 2
I I
A~--> A~I si v-- s3 <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach 41
A2 <-- A4 I B2 --^ B~ I> V/C Ratio = .66
Critical #ovemont AnaLysis: PLAJINING
CaLcuLation Form
intersection: RACE STREET/LAURZDSEN BOULEVARD Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLm Statement: CIND RSLB95EX
Step 1. iDENTiFY LANE GEORETRY Step /*. LEFT TURN CHECK Step,gb. VOLLIIE ADJUSTNENT FOR
I Approach 3:RACE STREET ....... Approach ..... NULT]PHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 I ^ :-1- -2- -3- -&- PossibLe Votune Adjusted
] R L I N a. No. of change : 60 60 60 60 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
LAURZDSEN BLVI R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : able VoL~e to next VOi~lne
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 120 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ v v v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : .5 .5 .5 .5 A2B1 263(A2+B2) O~ 130(Al+B1) 263
LTH-^> <--TH d. Oppoaing voLuae : 98 123 337 &55 A]B/* 528(A3+B]) OR 36~(A/*+B~) 528
1 TH--· <v- LTH in vph :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 502 /*77 263 1/,5
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (V~l) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT capacity in : 622 597 383 265
I T T. T T ILAUR]DSEN BLV vph CbOe) :
I H H I g. Left turn voLune : 165 7 27 73
I Approach /*:RACE STREET h.is voL~ne · cap. : NO NO NO NO:
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. iDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. ~ OF CRITICAL VOLU~ES
I
I 1 3 I 263(A2B2)+528(A3B:3)+0C)+0()
I Approach 31 ....... 3 2 2 .......
3: LT= 27 I I I 2:RT= 22 5 0 7 ^+ 22 = 791 vph
TH= ]20 I I I T,= 76 + + I <+ 76 ==== .......=====================
RT= 1:35 I v I LT= 7 < v · v- 7 Step 8. iNTERSECTiON LEVEL OF
.......................... $ERV! CE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 with table
IAI
Approach 1--> .......
I:LT= 165 I ^ I &: RT= 7 68 -> I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 6~ I I I T.=:3:30 55+v
RT= 55 I ]1 LT= 73 ....... :3 ....... IGeometric Change:
J Approach 41 I 7 3 I IsJgnaL Change:
I 3 0 7 I IvoLu.e Change:
Step 3. iDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRiTiCAL VOLLAqES, in vph COMMENTS
(tWo phase signaL)
--^ AND <-- A1H2 AND [ Approach :3I
--> OR ¥-- /OR A2B1 I I
I I AND < ^ A3B~. AND
v · OR I I /oR A/*B3 I /*55 I
Approach 1
v < .... 98
165 ..... <
I Approach
I 731
....................................... I
^~--> A31 a~v-- ~ <1 I I
v^ I I I Approach /*1
A2 <-- A/, I g2 --^ B/~ I> V/C Ratio = .53
Critical Hovefluflt Anatysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: TUM~/ATER TRIJCK RC)AD/K~R]NE DRIVE Design Hour: 1995 EXISTING
ProbLm Statement: ~ TRHI)95EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEUMETRY Step 4. LEFT TURN CHECK: Step 6b. VOLUME ADJUST#ENT FOR
I AI~°ach 3:T~TER TRK ....... Approach ..... ~ HULTIPNASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I I ^ : -1- -2- -3- -4- PossibLe VoLume Adjusted
[ R L I g e.go. of change : 60 60 60 0 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
HARINE DRIVE I R T T T L J intervaLs/hour : obte VoLume to next VoLume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 120 120 120 0 Phase in vph phase in
Approach 1 < < [ · > ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
LT--^ ¥ ¥ ¥ <^-RTH c.G/C rstto : .5 .5 .5 0 A~IL3 18~(A&} OR 37(B3) 182
LTH-^> <--TH 1 d.Opposing volume : 47.3 &86 260 0 AlE? 72&(Al+81} OR &Z3(AR+B2) 724
1 TH--> <V-LTH in ~ :
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 177 11& 3~,0 0
1 RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f.LT ear.city Jn : ~97 Z34 4~) 0
I T T H T T I.AR1NE DRIVE vph ¢~e) :
I H H I g. Left turn volume : 0 283 0 0
I Approach 4:T~TER TRIC h.ls volume · cap. : NO YES NO
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vl~ Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUI4 OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
[ I 182 (A4)+F2&(A1B 1 )+0( )+0( )
I ~mroach 31 I ..............
3: LT= 0 I I I 2:RT= 0 <- 423 = 906
TH= 0 I I I T.=4~ v-283 .....................................
RT= 0 I v I LT= 283 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 Nith table
181
Approach 1--> .......
I:LT= 0 I ^ I 4: RT= 260 ~1 -· I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH;4~ I I I TH= 0 45-v
RT= 45 I I I LT= 37 ....... 2 ....... 'Geometric Chsnge:
I Approach 41 I 3 6 I Sis~.L Chloe:
I ? 0 I volune Ch.nge:
Step 3. IDENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CRZTICAL VOLUMES, in Yph CONMENTS
(t~o phase signaL)
< ^ A4B3
I I I I
Approach 1
¥ .... 283
Approach
....................................... I I
v ^ I I
AZ <-- A4 I a~ --^ ~ I> V/C Ratio =
LOCATZON:C STREET/EIGHTH STREET NAHE:TKL C08~EX
HOURLY VOLUHES Grade OZ
N=I
V12 "
I &6 N
I Vll
I I
..... ' .... "'-'=='= I I v~o
N= 2 <1 V l> ........... VA" 8
Grade 0~. < .......... VS-- 248 N=
4 --Vl ............. v .......... V&-- 273
191 --V2 ............ · major read Grade
19 --V3 ............ v <l ^ J> EIGHTH STREET
v8 I Y~ELO
N= 2 25 I Date of Counts:1995 EXTSTZN
V9 Time Period:PM PEAK
minor road 285 PreveiJJng Speed:3S
C STREET PHF:O,9
Grade 0 Z PopuLation:lB
VOLLME ADJLIST#EHTS
.o,,..,-,,tno. I'~1 21 :~1 41 si ~1 ?1 ;I ;1'o1'~11'~:~1
vot.,..~ ¢~) I ~.1 '~9'11 191 2~1 2~.81 81 61 2sl 2851 '1/.I 46
VoLC~m),Tab. lO.1l 41XXXXlXXxxl ~O01xxxxlxxxxl ?1 281 ~"1 151
~L~E$ IN PCPH J
2 I
V12 J
I s~ I
I v~ I
I I ~5 I
............. "======= I I v~o ....... - ............ =
<l v I> ........... v6 ....
< .......... rS" ==
4 --Vl ............. v .......... V4-- 300
.................. w.=v? I I ......................
I v~ I I
I w I
LOCAT[O#:C STREET/EIGHTH STREET NAHE:TKL C0895EX
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street J /-> V9 J <-/ V12
ConfLicting FLows, Vc 1/2 V]+V2=Vc9 1/2 V~+VS=Vc12
10+ 191= 201 vph &+ 2&8= P':;2 ~
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.lO.2) &.5 (secs.) 5 (sets.) ~
Potential Capacity,Cp(FiglO.3) Cp9 = 1000 pcph Cp12 = 931 pcph
[ of Cp utilized (Vg/Cpg)xlO0= 31.4~ (V12/Cp12)x100= .2%
]mpadance Factor, P (Fig.lO.S) P9= .76 P12= 1
Actual Capacity, Cm Cmg=Cp9= 1000 pcph Cm12=Cp12= 931 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Hajor Street J v-- V~ J --^ Vl
Conflicting FLows, Vc V3+V2=Vc& V6+VS=Vcl
19+ 191= 210 vph 8+ 248= 256 vph
Critical Gap~ Tc (Tab. 10.2) 5 (sets.) 5 (sets.)
Potential Capacity,Cp(FiglO.~) Cp4 = 971 pcph Cpl= 927 pcph
~ of Cp utilized (V4/Cp4)xlO0= 30.9'~ (V1/Cpl)xlO0= .G~
Impedance Factor, P (Fig.lO.S) P~= .76 PI= 1
Actual Capacity, Cm C~=Cp~= 971 pcph Cml=Cpl= 927 pcph
STEP ~ : TH From Ninor Street J ^ V8 J v Vll
Conflicting FLo~s, Vc .SV'5+V2+VI+V6+VS+V&=Vc8 .SV6+VS+V¢+VS+V2+V1=Vc11
10+ 191+ ~+ 8+ ~+ 2~8+ 273+ 19+
248+ 273= ~4 vph 191+ 4= 739 ~
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.lO.2) 6 (sets.) 6 (secs.)
Potentia[ Capacity, Cp(FiglO.~) Cp8 = ~96 pcph Cp11 = 394 pcph
~ of Cp utilized (VS/CpS)xlO0= 7.1~ (V11/Cp11)x100= 1~.9~
[mpedance Factor, P (Fig.lO.5) P8= .96 Pl1= .92
Actual Capacity, Cm CmS=CpSxPlxP& Cm11=CpllxPlxP~
]01= ]96x lx.T&pcph 299= ]9~x 1x.75pcph
STEP 4 : LT From Minor Street I <-\VT I \-> VlO
Conflicting FLows, Vc VcS(step~)+V11+V12=Vc? VcllCstep~)+V8+V9=Vc10
734+ 46+ 2= 782vph 739+ 25+ 285= 104~vph
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. lO.Z) 6.5 (secs.) 6.5 (sets.)
Potential Capacity,Cp(FiglO.3) Cp? = ~20 pcph CplO = 215 pcph
Actual Capacity, Cm CmT=Cp?xPlxP4xPllxP12 CmlO=CplOxP4xPlxP8xP9
= 320x lx.76x.92x 1 = 215x. T&x 1x.96x.76
= 224 pcph = 119 pcph
LOCAT%ON:C STREET/EIGHTH STREET MANE:TEL C0895EX
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
APPROACH HOVEHE#TS 7,8,9
CR CR LOS LOS
NOVEHENT V(PCPH) CHCPCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CH-V) (CSHoV) 04 CSH
7 7 22& 282 217 2&7 C C
8 28 ~01 282 273 2&? C C
9 31& 1000 ~ A
APPROACH HOVENENT$ 10~11,12
CR CR LOS LOS
MOVEMENT VCPCPH) CHCPCPH) CSHCPCPH) CCH'V) (CSH-V) CH CSN
10 15 119 228 lO& 160 D D
11 51 299 228 2&8 160 C D
12 2 931 228 929 160 A D
HAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS
HOVEHENT V(PCPH) CH(PCPH) CR(CH-V) LOS
1 ~ 927 9?.3 A
~ 300 971 671 A
CONNENTS:
LOCATZON:RACE STREET/FIFTH STREET NAHE:TKL RSO595EX
HOURLY VOLU~ES Grade OX
26
V12
I 49 N>
I v~
='=='"== .......====== I I VlO =====-=========-======
N= 1 <1 v I> ........... V6-- ~
Grm:Je 0~. < .......... V~-- 458 N= 1
22--V1 ............. v .......... V4-- 11
549 --~ ............ · me jot road Grade
18 --V~ ............ v <l ^ l> RACE STREET
6 I I I STD, ~
v8 I I VIELD
N= I 36 I I Date of Count$:l~5 EXISTIN
V~ I Time Period:Pfl PEAK
mino~' road 7 I Prevailing Speed:35
FIFTH STREET I PIIF:.9
Grade 0 [ I PopuLation:lBO00
VOLUHE ADJUST#ENTS
.ov~nt.o. I ~1 21 31 ~1 si 61 71 si 911011~I~21
vo~ ¢~ I 221 S~I lal ~1 4SSI 331 ~1 361 71 171 4~1 261
VotC~,Ta~.~O.~l 241XXXXlX~Xl ~ZlXX~I~XXl 71 401SI ~1 541 2¢1
VOLUHES IN PCPH
V12
I v~ I
I I ~9 I
...................... I I v~o
<1 v I' ........... v6
< .......... VS" ==
2/* "Vl ............. v .......... V4" 12
== "V2 ............ >
I ~ I I I
I v8 I I
I ~o I I
I v9 I
I ~ I
LOCATION:RACE STREET/FIFTH STREET NAHE:TKL RSO595EX
STEP 1 : RT From NJnor Street J /-> W J <-/ V12
Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/Z V~+V2~Vc9 J 1/2 V~=Vc12
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.lO.2) 5 (s~s.) I 5
Pot~tia[ Ca~city,Cp(FiglO.3) C~ = ~ ~ { CplZ
~ of Cp uti[iz~ (~/C~)xlO0= 1.~ .~ (V12/CplZ)xlO0=
[~nce Factor, P (Fig.lO.5) Pg= .~ ~ P12= .98
Act~[ Ca.city, ~ ~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~12=Cp12=
STEP 2 : LT Fr~Najor Street ~ v-- V4 ~ --~ Vl
Conflicting F[o~s, Vc ~*~=Vc~ V~VS=Vcl
18+ 549= 567 v~ 33+ 45~ ~91
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.lO.2) 5 (sacs.) 5 (sacs.)
Potential Ca~city, Cp(FiglO.3) C~ = 656 ~ Cpl= 718
~ of Cp uti[iz~ (V~/C~)xlO0- 1.~ (V1/Cpl)xlO0- 3.3~
l~ance Factor, P (Fig.lO.5) P~= .~ PI= .98
Actual Ca.city, ~ ~=C~= 655 ~ ~l=Cpl= 718
STEP 3 : TH Fr~ Ninor Street ~ ~ ~ J v Vll
Conflicting Flows, Vc ~.5~+~+VI+V~eV~=Vc8 .SV~+V~+~+~+Vl~cll
~ 5~ 22+ 33+ 17+ ~5~ 11+ 18+
~58+ 11= 1082 ~ 54~ 22= 10~
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. lO.2) 6 (s~s.) 6 (sacs.)
Potentia~ Ca~city,Cp(FiglO.3) C~ = 2~2 ~ Cp11
~ of Cp uCi[iz~ (VS/C~)xl~= 16.5~ (V11/Cp11)x100=
I~ance Factor, P (Fig.lO.5) P~ .89 Pl1=
Actual Ca.city, ~ C~=C~xPlxP~ ~11=CpllxPlxP~
2~5= 2~2x.98x.~ ~8= 2~Sx.~x.~
STEP ~ : LT Fr~ Ninor Street ~ <-~ V7 ~ %-> VlO
Conflicting F[ous, Vc VcS(st~)+Vll+V12=Vc7 Vc11(ste~)+~+~=Vc10
1082+ &~ 2~ 1157~ 10~+ ~+ 7= 1118~
Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. lO.2) 6.5 (s~s.) 6.5
Potential Ca~city,Cp(FiglO.~) Cp7 = 1~ ~ CplO = 195
Actual Ca.city, C; ~7=CpTxP1xP~xP11xP12 ~lO=CplOxP~xPlxPSxP9
= 18~x.~x.~x.~x.98 = 195x.~x.98x.89x.~
= 1~ ~ = 167
LOCATION:RACE STREET/FIFTH STREET #M4E:TKL RSO59SEX
SHARED LANE CAPACZTY
APPROACH HOVEHE#TS 7,8,9
CR CR LOS LOS
140VENEHT V(PCPH) CN(PCPH) CSHCPCPH) CCH-V) (CSN-¥) CH CSH
7 7 1~6 239 139 186 D D
8 40 235 239 195 184, D D
9 8 ~ 239 656 18~ A D
APPROACH HOVE#ENT$ 10,11,12
CR CR LOS LOS
HOVEHENT V(PCPH) CH(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CH-V) (CSH'V) CH CSH
10 19 167 268 1~8 166 D D
11 5~ 238 268 18~, 166 D D
12 29 ~ 268 70& 166 A D
HAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS
NOVEHEHT V(PCPH) CH(PCPH) CR(CN-V) LOS
1 26 718 696 A
6 12 656 6~ A
COHHE#TS:
LOCATZON:HILL STREET/NAR[gE DRIVE INAHE:TKL HSHD95EX
HOURLY VOLUHE$ ^ VOLUHES IN PCPH
#
#a jot street:NARZNE DR;VE
N= 1 (---VS--- 58 (---VS---
Grade 166---V2---> v---V&--- 115 ---V2---> v---V4--- 127
0~. 3&---V3---v N= 1 ---V3---v
oat° of co. ts: I I I i I I I I
~'~EX~ST~.G I V7 W IXSTO~ I V? W I
Time Period:I I I I YXE,. I I I I
Approach Speed: #fnor Street: Grade
25 C STREET 0~(
PHF: .9 #z 2
Po~JLatio~: 18
VOLUHE ADJUSTHENTS
VoLt.me (vph) I ~561 ~ I ~5 I 581 ~01
vot(~),a~ Tabto ~O.~IXXXXXXXXlXXXXXXXXl ~27IXXXXXXXXl
STEP 1 : RT From Hinor Street I /-> V9
ConfLicting FLo,s, Vc I 1/2 V3+V2= 17 + 166 = 183 v~CVc9)
Criticat Gap, Tc ITc= 5.5 secs (Tab.lO.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp I cpg= 908 I:)cph (Fig.lO.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm I Cmg=Cpg= 908 pcph
STEP 2 : LT Fro~ #ajor Street I v-- V4
Confticting FLous, Vc I V3+Y2= ~34 + 156 = ?00 v~¢Vc4)
Criticat Gap, Tc ITc= 5 sets (Tab.lO.Z)
Potential Capacity, Cp I Cp~= 980 pcph (Fig.lO.3)
~, of Cp utilized and Xmpadance Factor I (V4/CI~)xlO0= 13~( P4= .92
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.lO.5) I C~=CI~= 980 pcph
STEP 3 : LT Frcxn Nfnor Street I <-\ V7
==============================================================================
ConfLicting FLo~s~ ¥c I 1/:)
I 17+ 156 + 58 + 115 =
Critical Gap, Tc ITc= 6.5 sets CTab. lO.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp J CpT= 591 pcph (Fig.lO.3)
Actual. Capacity, Cm I CmT=Cp?xP4= 591 x .92 = 54~ pcph
SHAREO LANE CAPACXTY SH = (V?tVg)/((VT/Cm?)+(V9/CaJg)) jf ~ane Js shared
CR CR LOS LOS
MOVEMENT VCPCPH) CMCPCPH) CSHCPCPH) CCM-V) CCSH-V) 04 CSH
7 11 5~4 533 A
9 79 908 829 A
4 127 980 853 A
LOCATION:LAIJRiDSEN BLVO/LAUREL ST. JNAME:TKL LSLB9SEX
HOURLY VOLUNES ^ VOLUHGS IN PCPN
Najor ,treet:LAUR~DSE# BLVD.
Grade ]~Z---92-- o~ ¥--oV6°-- 5Z ---V2-
1995 EX,STiNG I V7 V9 I X STOP
Approach Speed: #Jnor Street: Grade
]5 C STREET
PHF: .9 N= 1
Poputm;ion: 18000
VOLUHE ADJUSTMENTS
.ov~. I ~ I z I ~ I ; I ? I ;
voL-.,.: c~) I 392 I z3s I 52 I :)28 I ~08 I 8:3
VoL¢~),see TabLe lo.llxxxxxxxxlxxxxxxxxl 5? Ixxxxxxxxl
STEP 1 : RT From #inor Street I /-> V9
ConfLicting FLo~, Vc I 1/2 V]+V2= 118 + 392 z 510 vph(Vc9)
Critical Gap, Tc ITc= 5.5 secs
Potential Capacity, Cp I Cp9= 618 pcph (Fig.lO.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm I Cm9uCp9= 618 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Ha jot Street I v--
ConfLicting Fio,s, Vc J ~J+V2= ~5 + ~92 = 62? vph(Vc~)
Critical Gap, Tc ITc= 5 secs (Tab.lO.2)
PoCenCia~ Capacity, Cp } Cp~= ~12 pcph (Fig.lO.I)
~ of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor } (V&/Cl~)xlO0= 9.~ P&= .94
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.lO.~) [ Cm~-Cp4= 612 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street I <-\ V7
ConfLicting FLo~sv Vc I 1/2
I 118 + ]92 + ZZ8 + SZ = 790 vph(VcT)
Critical Gap, Tc ITc= 6.5 secs (Tab. lO.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp I CpT= :]16 pcph
Actual Capacity, Ca, I CmT=Cp7xP6= :]16 x .9& = 297 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (VT+V9)/((V7/CmT)+(W/Cmg)) if Lane is shared
CR CR LOS LOS
HOVEHENT V(PCPH) CH(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (C~-V) (CSH-V) CN CSH
7 119 ~97 383 178 173 D D
9 91 618 383 527 173 A D
6 57 612 555 A
LOCATiON:N STREET/EIGHTEENTH STREET ImU~E:TKL NS1895EX
HOURLY VOLUMES VOLU~ES IN PCPH
Major street:E[GTHEENTH STREET v
N= 1 *---V~--- 67 *---V$---
Grade 46---V2---) v---V4--- 10 ---VZ---~ v---V4--- 11
0~. Z?---V]---v #= 1 ---V~--ov
~,~eo~c~-~a: I I I I I I I
1995 EXXSTZNG J V? V9 I X STOP
Time Period: I I I I YXEI. D I I I I
~PEAK I 28 141 I 31
Approach Speed: Ninor Street: Grade
25 C STREET
PHF: .9 Nm 1
Poputat ion: 18
VOLUI4E AD JUSTI4ENTS
Mow*,,~ntno. I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I ? I 9 I
VoLu,e CYp~) I 46 I 27 I 10 I 6? I
VoLC~ph),$eeTabLelO.1IXXXXXXXXlXXXXXXXXI 11 IXXXXXXXXl 31 I 151
STEP 1 ; RT From Hinor Street I /-> V9
ConfLicting FLoua. Vc ] 1/2 V3+V2= 14 + 46 = ~0 vph(Vcg)
Critical Gap. Tc ~Tc= 5 seca
Potential Capacity, Cp I Cpg= 1000 pcph (Fig,lO.3)
Actual Capacity, CB I cmg=cpg= 1000 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Ha jot Street I v-- V4
ConfLicting Frogs, Vc I V3+V2= 27 + 46 = 73 vphCVc4)
Criticat Gap, Tc ITc= 5 seca (Tab.lO.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp I Cp4= 1000 pcph
% of Cp utilized and impedance Factor I (V&/Cp4)xlO0= 1.1% P~= .99
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.lO.5) I Cn~=Cp~= 1000 pcph
=============================================================================
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street I <o\ V7
ConfLicting FLora, Vc I 1/2 V3+V2+VS+V4-
I 1/~ + ~6 * ~7 + 10 = 137 vphCVcT)
Critical Gap, Tc I To= 6.5 seca rTab.lO.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp I CpT= 783 pcph (Fi9.10.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm ~ CmT=CpTxP4= ?83 x .99 = 775 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY S# = (V7,,.Vg)/((VT/CmT)+(Vg/Cmg)) tf Lane is shared
CR CR LOS LOS
HOVENENT V(PCPR) CNCPCPg) CSHCPCP~) (CH-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH
7 31 77~ 836 744 790 A A
9 15 1000 836 985 790 A A
4 11 1000 989 A
APPENDIX E
1995 Intersection
Level of Service Calculations
Critical Movement AnaLysis: PLANNING CalcuLation Form 1
Intersection: LINCOLH STREET/STH STREET Oesign Hour: 1995 EXISTING
Problem Statement: LSO895EX
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOMETRY Step ~. LEFT TURN CHECK Step~6b. VOLUME ADdUSTMENT FOR
I AI~°r°ach ~:L~NCOLN ST ....... Approach ..... MULT~PHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I 1 1 1 I ^ : -1- -2- -~- -~- Possible Volume Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of change : 0 0 0 0 Prob- Critical Carryover Critical
8TH STREET [ R T T T L I interva[s/hour : able Vo[~ane to next Volume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 0 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
1 LT--^ v v v <^-RTH 1 c.G/C ratio : 0 0 0 0 82B1 75(S1) 181- 75= 106(B2) 75
LTH-^> <--TH d.Opposing voL~ne : 0 0 0 0 AlS2 106(82) 416- 106= ]10(A1) 106
TH--> <v-LTH in vph : A1A2 407(A2) OR ~10(A1) 407
1 RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 0 01~.3 59(B3) 69- 59= 10(B4) 59
RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) : IA3B4 10(B4) 427- 10= &17(A~) 10
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 0 0 0 01A3A4 417(A3) OR 346(A4) 417
I T T H T T laTH STREET vph (b+e) :
I H H I g. Left turn volume : 0 0 0 0I
I1 1 I ~n~ = I
I Approach ~:LINCOLN ST h.ls volume> cap. : :
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IDENTIFY VOLUMES, in vph Step S. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I 1 4 I 181(B1B2)+407(A2)+69(B3B~)+417(A3)
I Approach 31 ....... 8 2 6 .......
]: LT= 69 { { iZ:RT= 71 7 7 9 ^+ 71 = 1074 vph
TH= 427 II I TH= 336 Ill <* 336 .......................................
RT= 187 I v [ LT= 75 < v · v- 75 Step 8. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step ? gith table 6)
Icl
Approach 1--· .......
.......................... 181 -^ < ^ · =======================================
I:LT= 181 I ^ I 4: RT= 51 381 +> I + + Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 381 I I I TH= 295 35 +v
eT= ~S I II LT= 59 [ ....... 2 ....... iGeometric Change:
I Approach 41 I I s 9 s I Signal Change:
I I 9 s 1 I vot~ Change:
Step ]. ~DENTIFY PHASING Step 6a. CR[TICAL VOLUMES, in vph COHMEHTS
(t~o phase signal)
--^ v-- a2gl I Approach 3I
I I
--^ AND <-- A1B2 AND
--> OR v-- /OR A2B1
Approach 1
I < s483
· I see step 6b.
IIAND < ^ A~B~ ANO
v · oR II /Oe A~a~ Approach
I ^ A~A4 .........................
v ^ I J
A2 <-- A4 I aZ --^ 84 [> V/C Ratio = .78
Critical Movement AnaLysis: PLANNING
CaLcuLation Form 1
Intersection: GOLF COURSE ROAD/FIRST/FRONT STREET Design Hour: 1995 MOOIFIEO
ProbLem Statement: CMO GRFS
Step 1. IDENTIFY LANE GEOMETRY Step 4. LEFT TURN CHECK I Step 6b. VOLUME ADJUSTMENT FOR
I Approach 3:NONE ....... Approach ..... I ~ MULTIPHASE SIGNAL OVERLAP
I I ^ : -1- -2' -3- -4'I PossibLe VoLuile Adjusted
I R L I N a. No. of change : 0 0 60 OlProb- Critical Carryover Critical
FIRST/FRONT SI R T T T L I intervaLs/hour : labte VoLLm~e to next VoLume
............. T H H H T ............. b. LT capacity on : 0 0 120 0 Phase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 < < I · · ^--RT change (vph) : .......................................
I LT--^ v v v <^-RTH c.G/C ratio : 0 0 .5 OB1 106(B1) 106
LTH-^> <--TH d. Opposing volume : 0 0 134 0 A1B2 667(A1) OR 186(B2) 667
3 TH--> <v-LTH in vph : A4B3 442(B3) OR 94(A4) 442
RTH-v> ^ ^ ^ v--LT 1 e. LT capacity on : 0 0 466 0
1 RT--v < < I · · Approach 2 green (vph) :
............. L L T R R ............. f. LT capacity in : 0 0 586 0
[ T T N T T INIGNgAY 101 vph (b+e) :
I g H I g. Left turn volume : 0 0 0 0
I1 1 I invph
I App¢oach 4:GOLF COURSE R h.ls vottxne · cap. ~ NO
(g>f) ? :
Step 2. IOENTIFY VOLUMES, ~n vph Step 5. ASSIGN LANE VOLUMES, in vph Step 7. SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES
I I
I I 106(B1)+667(A1)+442(B3)+O()
I Approach 31 ..............
3: LT= 0II I 2=RT=o v- 106 = 12~S vph
TH= 0 II I TH= 0 .......................................
RT= 0Iv I LT= 106 Step 8. %NTERSECT]ON LEVEL OF
.......................... SERVICE
<--Approach 2 (compare step 7 ~ith table 6)
1~6-^ I o I
Approach I--> 667 -> .......
I:LT= 186 I ^ I 4: RT= 134 667 -> I I I Step 9. RECALCULATE
T,=2000 I II T,= 0 SOS-v
RT= 508 I I I LT= 442 ....... 4 1 ....... IGeometric Change:
I Approach 41 [ 4 3 I [Signal Change:
I 2 4 I Ivotume Change:
Step 3. IOENTIFY PHASING Step 62. CRITICAL VOLUMES, in vph COMMENTS
(two phase signaL)
v-- al
I I
--^ A1B2 I I
--> I I
< ^ A483 ..........................
I I Approach 1
See Step 6b.
Approach
I I
A1 '-> A3 I gl v-- B3 <1 I I
v ^ I I
A2 <-- A4 I 82 --^ 84 I> V/C Ratio = .8S
APPENDIX F
Intersection Accident Summary
Accident Summary at Intersections
Intersection I Number of Accident
of"- Iand...
1st St. Delguzzi Dr, 1 0
Front St. Washington St. 3 0
Marine Dr. Tumwater St. 2 0
Cedar St. Marine Dr. 3 0
Marine Dr, Tumwater Truck Rd. 4 0
5th St. Cherry St. 1 0
Lauridsen Blvd. Peabody St. 2 0
Front St. Oak St, 3
loth St. St. 1 0
5th St. Race St. 4 0
1st St Oak St 3 0
16th St. St. 1 0
Front St. Penn St. 7
Hill St. Marine 2
Front St. Peabody St. 6 C]
18th St. N St. 1 0
8th St. !Cherry St. 6 0
1st St. Ennis St. 9 0
Lauridsen Blvd. Lincoln St. 6 0
5th St. Peabody St. 4 0
Front St. Race St. 11 0
Front St, Laurel St. 7 0
5th St, Lincoln St. 8 0
Lauridsen Blvd. Tumwater Truck Rd. 3 0
Ennis St. Lauridsen Blvd. 1 0
Bth St. Pine St. 8 0
Bth St. Peabody St. 8 1
1st St. Laurel St. 9 1
1st St. Peabody St. 11 1
E~th St. I St. 3 1
Ennis St, Front St. 16 1
8th St. Race St. 12 1
18th St, L St. 3 1
8th St. Lincoln St. 19 1
C St. Lauridsen Blvd. 5 1
Front St. Lincoln St. 21 1
1st St. Lincoln St. 26 1
Lauridsen Blvd. Race St. 11 1
1st St. Race St. 23 1
Park Ave. Peabody St. 4 1
5th St. C St. 3 1
8th St. C St. 14 1
Campbell Ave. Mt. Angeles Rd. 2 1
Park Ave. Race St. 10 1
cfc 4/11/96 ACCTOTAL.XLS
Accident Summary at Intersections
Intersection I Number of Accident
of'-' land"'I Accidents Rate *
2nd St. Valley St. 6 1
Park Ave. Laurel St. 7 2
5th St. Chambers St, 8 2
1st St. Golf Course Rd. 11 3
cfc 4/11/96 ACCTOTAL.XLS
APPENDIX G
Development of
Port Angeles Traffic Model
Pal¢ch 10,doc
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
OF THE PORT ANGELES TRAVEL MODEL
HT Associates
March 1996
MODEL CALIBRATION
Background
The Port Angeles travel model was developed in order to: translate the city's recently adopted
comprehensive land use plan into long-range travel demand estimates; test planned and proposed
transportation system improvements; and assist the city in completing the transportation portion
of its comprehensive plan as required by the state's Growth Management Act (GMA). The
model could provide a technical basis for calculating impact fees authorized by the GMA, and
may also be used to determine whether planned new developments meet the GMA's concurrency
requirements.
The model was developed using a commercial package known as TMODEL2,~ vended by the
TModel Corporation.
Study Area and Zone Structure
The study area extends beyond the boundaries of the Port Angeles Urban Growth Area (UGA),
as described in the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan DEIS.2 It extends from the Elwha River
on the west to Morse Creek on the east, and from Ediz Hook on the north to a line roughly
paralleling Little River Road on the south. Within this area, 150 traffic analysis zones (TAZs)
were established to serve as the locations of trip origins and destinations in the travel model. At
points where major streets entered or exited the study area, a particular type of TAZ known as an
external stations was defined in order to account for trips leaving or entering the study area.
External stations were used in the model to represent Highway 101, Highway 112, Heart of the
Hills Parkway, and the Black Ball Ferry Terminal along the study area boundary.
Figure 1 shows the travel model zone structure and the location of external stations. The TAZs
were designed to contain areas of homogeneous land use and common points of access to the
street system. Their boundaries are generally consistent with Census tract boundaries, since
Census tracts were the basic geographic unit of both household and employment data. The TAZ
boundaries also reflect, to the extent possible, the city's planning area boundaries as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan,-~ since these areas were the basis for many of the plan's land use
projections.
t TMODEL is a registered trademark of the TModel Corporation.
2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, Nancy ARyan &
Company, March 8, 1993, p. I-2.
~ Ibid., p. 11-38.
950415\t cp~rCq'~t ra~ls plalfiappend- g [7/1'9/961
Page (;-3
Network
Thc model network included all arterials in the study area, and many facililies below the arterial
level. TAZs were connected to the network by special links known as centroid connectors, so
named becat, sc they join the center of develop~nent, or centroid, of a zone to the rest of the
network. Links connected to external stations were given lengths intended to approximate the
portion of a typical trip lying outside the study area. The model network is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Existing Network
TMODEL2 permits each street segment, or link, to be given characteristics such as class,
directional characteristic (one-way or two-way), number of lanes, length, nominal (or posted)
speed, and capacity. For the Port Angeles model, these variables were used as follows:
Table 1: Link Characteristics
Variable DefinitiOn Value Range
Class Functional class / delay class I (principal), 2 (minor), 3 (collector), 4 (non-
arterial), 99 (centroid connector)
Area Open Varies
Typc hnprovement flag I (new),.2 (i~np"roved)
Direction One-way or two-way i or 2
Lanes Direclional through lanes 1-3
Capacity Max. directional vehicles per hour 1000-1400 per lane (9000 fi)r centroid connectors)
Lcn~jth Segment length in miles Varies
Speed Posted speed in rnph 15-55 rnph
951~l%cpmts~.ansplan\alq~cml g 17/19.t96) ~p
For a given link, the variable class was used to designate the congestion delay function to be
applied in determining Ihe link's operating speed, based on a comparison of the link's traffic
volume and coded capacity. The majority of two-lane streets (one lane each way) were given
capacities of 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) each way. Capacity per through lane was adjusted
according to the guidelines shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Capacity Guidelines
Cross Section Coded Thru Lanes Capacity/Thru Lane
2 lanes (2-way) I each way 1,000 - 1,200a
3 lanes (2-way) I each way 1,400
4 lanes (2-way) 2 each way 1,400
5 lanes (2-way) 2 each way 1,400
2+ lanes (I-way) 2+ each way 1,400
al,200 used for Hwy 101 west of Tumwater Truck Route
Each intersection, or node, was also assigned various characteristics as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Node Characteristics
Variable Definition Value Range
Class Control type ! (centroid), 2 (signal), 3 (other), 4 (zone loading
point), 99 (shape point)
Area Open Open
Type Open Open
Capacity Max. entering vehicles per hour 50% of sum of capacities of enterin~ links
SDL 1,2,3 Special delay links (3 allowed) ID of approaches controlled by stop si~n
Base Delay Fixed time penalty at node (Not used)
As with links, the value coded for node class was used to designate the congestion function to be
applied in calculating intersection delay for trips entering a given node. Zone centroids and
network shaping points (used to define road curves or turns) were given high capacities to
prevent distortion of travel times, since such nodes were not used to represent actual
intersections.
1994 Land Use
Census Tract Data for Households and Employment
The primary source of household data in the model study area was the 1990 Census.
Employment data were requested from the state Employment Security Department, Labor Market
and Employment Analysis (LMEA) section. By matching employer zip codes to Census tract
boundaries, LMEA was able to provide second quarter, 1994 covered employment, broken down
by category and Census tract of employer. The matching success rate was approximately 90%.
All employment estimates represent the number of employees by place of work, and thus are
distinct from the Census concept of employed persons by place of residence.
95(~lS~'eporls\t~anSl*last\apFCnd~g (7/19/'96) ~.p
Pagc (; 5
Land use variables were defined as follows:
SF Single-family households and mobile homes
MF Multi-family households
RET Retail
F1RES Finance, insurance, real estate, and services
GOV Government, excluding school but including college staff
MFG Manufacturing and industrial
WTCU Wholesale, transportation, communication, and utilities
ED Education (school) employment, public and private
FI'E Full-time-equivalent college students
OTHER Other covered employment
The study area comprises all of Census tracts 9807-9813 and portions of 9814 and 9815. For
these tracts, the estimates of households and employment shown below were used as controls in
estimating TAZ households and employment.
Table 4:1994 Census Tract Household and Employment Estimates
Tract SF MF RET FIRES GOV MFG WTCU ED OTHER FTE
9807 1326 921 35 66 31 440 140 60 0 0
9808 i 202 422~ 76 131 0 15 82 30 0 0
9809 814 3121 587 635 399 166 78 10 130 0
9810 501 3421 117 487 1061 46 54 21 37 0
9811 1340 167: 471 566 315 557 124 10( 61 1306
9812 695 299! 911 943 153 641 154 {3 119 0
9813 1107 481 282 79 0 77 154 60 74 0
9814a 451 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9815a 507 19~ 0 56 0 113 67 0 0 0
Totals 7943 17091 2478 2963 1959 2054 854 281 420 1306
a Part of tract lies outside study area; values are estimates for study area portion
Allocation from Census Tracts to TAZs
The city's zoning and street maps were obtained as AutoCAD (.DWG) files and imported to
Visual CADD 1.2, a Windows computer-aided design and drafting package. TAZ boundaries
were defined as polygons in a separate layer; aerial photos (obtained from a series recently
completed for the city) were then used to estimate the developed areas within each TAZ, and
these areas were defined as another layer. Developed acres by type of zoning were then
calculated for each TAZ.
A program was written in QuickBASIC to allocate Census tract household and employment
totals to TAZs in proportion to developed acreages categorized by zoning designation. Different
95005~reports\tmnsplan~append-g {7/19196) ~kp
Page
combinations and wcighls of developed acres were tested until the resulting allocations appeared
reasonable when compared to known values. The purpose of this procedure was to produce, for
each tract, a probable distribution of land use consistent with the tract's pattern of zoning.
In some cases, locations of unique or easily identifiable types of development were given
separate designations to ensure correct allocation; examples include schools, government offices,
college, and hospital, all zoned 'PBP' and thus difficult to distinguish from parks and open space.
The allocation variables were as follows:
Table 5: Land Use Allocation Variables
Land Use Acreage Used to Allocate Zoning Designations
SF Low + med. density residential RS-9, RS-7, RMD, RTP, PRD
MF High density residential RHD
RET Com~nercial CN, CSD, CA, CBD
FIRES Commercial/2 + office + hospital CN, CSD, CA, CBD, CO, PBP ~
GOV Commercial/2 + ;~ovt. + college CN, CSD, CA, CBD, PBP b
MFG Commercial/4 + industrial CN, CSD, CA, CBD, IL, IH (M2)
WTCU Commercial/4 + industrial CN, CSD, CA, CBD, IL, IH (M2)
ED Schools (public and private) School sites
OTHER Commercial + office + industrial CN, CSD, CA, CBD, CO, IL, IH (M2)
FTE (Allocated manually) Peninsula College
Olympic Memorial Hospital
Government offices, Peninsula College
As the table indicates, some categories of employment were assumed to occur in more than one
zoning category--for example, FIRES in CN, CSD, CA, CBD, CO, and PBP. Similarly, some
zoning categories (such as CBD) were assumed to contain a range of commercial uses with
varying likelihoods.4
The resulting estimates of 1994 land use are shown in Appendix A.
Trip Generation
Trip Purposes
Trip generation is the process of estimating trip ends for each TAZ as a function of the types and
magnitudes of land use located in the TAZ. Trip ends are usually estimated separately for each
of several trip purposes. Trip purposes are generally thought to have distinct characteristics:
typical generators, trip lengths, time-of-day characteristics, and so on. In the Port Angeles
model, five trip purposes were used:
4 The designations CO, CN, CSD, CA, and CBD allow single-family residential develop~nent as well--but this use
was considered more likely to occur in residential areas than in commercial areas, particularly as the commercial
uses intensify over time.
950(15krel~)rts\trans plan~append- g (7/I 9/96) ~kp
i;a~c (i 7
· HBW Home-based work
· HBC Home-based college
· HBO Home-based other
· HBS Home-based school
· NHBCV Non-home-based and commercial vehicle
The term "home-based" means that the trip begins at home and is matched by return trip ending
at home; non-home-based and commercial vehicle trips describe trips that occur, generally,
between commercial locations.
Trip Generation Rates
The Port Angeles model was designed to predict afternoon peak hour conditions. As such, its
trip generation rates were in the form of P.M. peak vehicle origins and destinations. As a first
approximation, the model's trip generation rates were derived from a set of daily person trip rates
developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council; these rates were converted to afternoon peak
vehicles using average vehicle occupancies, peaking factors by trip purpose, and directional
factors by trip purpose that have been developed for travel models in King County.
Initial trials of the model indicated that total traffic was being underestimated. For the sake of
simplicity, all of the afternoon peak-hour rates were increased by 25%, but the explanation could
lie either with the land use estimates or trip generation rates. The LMEA employment estimates,
for example, are underestimates by definition (since non-covered employment is excluded); on
the other hand, traffic peak percentages for Port Angeles could be expected to be higher than in
King County, where peak-hour travel is to a great extent governed by capacity constraints.
The final trip generation rates are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: P.M. Peak Trip Generation Rates
Note: Values are shown times 100
HBW HBC HBO HBS NHBCV
O D O D O D O D O D
SF 9,5 37.8 0.6 3.5 22.6 27.9 0.9 0.9 6.1 6. I
MF 7,5 30.3 0.5 2.8 18.1 22.3 0.6 0.6 4.9 4.9
RET 30,1 5.4 0.0 0.0 39.3 28.4 0.0 0.0 46.9 46.9
FIRES 25.9 4.6 0.0 0.0 14.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 14.8 14.8
GOV 25.9 4.6 0.0 0.0 i 4.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 14.8 14.8
MFG 28.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5
WTCU 28.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5
ED 25.9 4.6 0.0 0.0 14.4 10.4 26.1 26.1 14.8 14.8
OTHER 28.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5
FTE 0.0 0.0 36.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
95005~-eports\tran splan~appc nd - g (7/19/96 ) ~kp
Page (;-8
External Station Trips
In a calibrated model, trips al external stations, by definilion, must equal actual traffic counts.
Trips leaving the area are treated as having destimttion trip ends, and trips entering are treated as
having origin trip ends. Within this constraint, however, the modeler must distinguish between
two types of trips: through trips, also referred to as external-external (X-X) trips; and trips
having just one end within the study area, sometimes referred to as internal-external (I-X) trips.
I-X trips at external stations must be stratified among the trip purposes being modeled so that, for
each purpose, every trip entering the study area will have an internal destination, and every trip
leaving the study area will have an internal origin.
By examining the pattern of traffic on likely through routes, it is often possible to make an
educated guess as to the volume of through traffic without resorting to the expense of an origin-
destination survey. In the case of Port Angeles, the external stations west of town carry much
lower P.M. peak volumes than those east of town, and as such set a very low upper limit on the
volume of through traffic. Even at these locations, however, it would be unlikely for all trips to
be through trips, so the approximate volume of through trips was further reduced to about one-
half of the observed volumes entering and leaving the study area at the western external stations,
representing Highways 112 and 101. The remaining external station trip ends were divided
among HBW, HBO, and NHBCV trip purposes approximately in the same proportions generated
within the study area.
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is the procedure by which trip origins are linked to trip destinations, resulting in
a trip table whose rows are zones of trip origin and whose columns are zones of trip destination.
Each cell of row i and column j contains the number of P.M. peak trips from zone i to zonej.
The standard procedure offered in the TMODEL2 software, known as distribution and
assignment, was used to build the 1994 trip table in the Port Angeles model.
A set of trip origins for a given trip purpose and from a particular zone could theoretically find an
equal number of matching destinations at many different sets of destination zones..As an
example, all of the origins could find matching destinations within either a short distance or a
long distance. From surveys of travel behavior, however, a great deal is known about the
frequency of trips occurring at different distances (or at different travel times) for each trip
purpose. By specifying, for a given trip purpose, a probability of trip interchange for every
increment in travel time, it is possible to match the trip length frequency distribution known to
characterize that trip purpose. One set of procedures that transforms zone-to-zone travel times
into trip-making probabilities for each trip purpose, and links trip origins with destinations
according to those probabilities, is referred to as the gravity model.~
s If the magnitudes of development in two zones arc thought of as the masses of two objects in space, and if their
separation in travel time is thought of as separation in space, then the w~lume of travel between the two zones would
be analogous to gravitational attraction between the two objects.
95005~reporLs\tran:~plan~append-g (7/19/96} ~kp
Pa~¢
TMODEL2 offers the following functional form of the gravity model:
probability index = i / ( time beta + constant * time alpha).
where probabili~, index represents the likelihood of a trip based on travel time alone, and the
parameters beta, alpha, and constant are user-defined. For the Port Angeles model, these
parameters were taken from a gravity model calibrated by the Puget Sound Regional Conference
(PSRC). They have been used with success in developing other travel models in the Puget Sound
region.
Table 7 contains the gravity model parameters used in the Port Angeles travel model.6
Table 7: Gravity Model Parameters
Parameter: Beta Constant Alpha
Purpose:
HBW 2.40 240 -0.10
HBC 2.40 70 -0. I 0
ItBO 3.00 60 0
HBS 3.00 30 0
NItBCV 4.00 200 0
Trip Assignment
Assignment Method
Trip assignment is the procedure used to load a trip table onto a computerized representation of
the street network, using paths that minimize travel time for every zone pair. Most packages,
including TMODEL2, offer capacity restrained assignment procedures designed to simulate the
effects of congestion, based on delay functions which compare assigned volumes to link and
intersection capacities.
A method known as incremental assignment was used in the Port Angeles model. With this
method, the trip table is divided into several increments and loaded one increment at a time.
Prior to each loading increment, the link and intersection delay functions are used to re-calculate
network operating speeds, based on link and intersection volumes accumulated to that point. In
this manner, the incremental assignment technique is able to approximate the effects of traffic
congestion and delay on travelers' behavior. If enough increments are used the resulting
assignment should approach equilibrium conditions, meaning that for any zone-to-zone
interchange, the travel time cannot be improved by choice of a different path. In TMODEL2,
however, because of the use of integers in trip table calculations, the benefits of additional
6 For a more complete description and discussion ol' the functional form used by the TMODEL2 gravity model, the
reader is referred to Appendix A of the TMODEL2 Users Manual.
95(N)5\rel~las\lran~ plan~append-g (?/19/96) ~kp
increments may be offset by thc prolil~ralion of rounding errors. In thc Port Angeles model, four
increments were employed in the pattern: 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%.
During incremental assignment, thc TMODEL2 user may choose to have the current trip table
increment re-distributed based on network operating speeds from the previous increment,
representing the idea Ihat travelers may modify their choice of destination as congestion
intensifies. This method was used to build the Port Angeles model trip tables.
Delay Functions
TMODEL2 is unusual among travel modeling packages in providing separate delay functions for
network links and intersections. In principle, this approach is more realistic than calculating
delay as a function of link characteristics only; in an urban area (with the exception of limited
access facilities), it is usually the case that congestion at intersections is at least as significant as
congestion due to link "side friction."
In most travel models, a link's capacity is intended to represent its maximum theoretical flow,
intersection constraints aside. The concept is analogous to the maximum flow rate of a water
pipe. Intersections, on the other hand, are restrained by the fact that two links share a single
point and must alternate in using it. In practice, only certain traffic movements conflict, and it is
the sum of these conflicting movements on a per-lane basis that defines the intensity of use of the
intersection. TMODEL2 does not perform an analysis of conflicting movements in the traffic
assignment procedure, but the user may specify for each intersection a "capacity" which is
compared to the total entering volume in calculating intersection delay.
A widely-accepted function known as the BPR formula was used to estimate delay due to link
congestion. This function has the form:
speedc = speeder / ( 1 + a * ( volume / capacity )b)
where speedt~ is loaded link speed, speeder is nominal (uncongested) speed, and a and b are
specified by the user. For intersections, TMODEL2 provides a function of the form:
delay = a * (volume ~capacity)b + base delay
where delay is expressed in minutes per entering vehicle, volume and capacity are expressed in
number of vehicles entering the intersection, a and b are user-specified parameters, and base
delay is the average delay under ideal conditions. To simulate the effects of one-, two-, or three-
way stop controlled intersections, TMODEL2 permits assignment of the delay to specific legs;
otherwise delay is divided among to all entering legs to represent intersections that are either
signalized, uncontrolled, or all-way stopped.
TMODEL2 allows the user to specify a different delay function for every value of class coded to
links and intersections. In the Port Angeles model, the TMODEL2 default delay function
parameters were used for all link and intersection class values.
qS0(}5~'ep~rls\transphm~appcnd-ff 17/19/961 qcl~
Page (;-I I
Model Accuracy
The primary measures of accuracy of the Port Angeles travel model were the correlation, slope,
and intercept between model volumes and directional afternoon peak hour traffic counts at 220
locations. Secondary measures included average error per link and actual vs. predicted vehicle
miles of travel. The final R2 of the Port Angeles model was 0.939, with slope 0.941 and
intercept -32. The R2 may be interpreted to mean that about 94% of variation in observed traffic
was accounted for by the model--a high degree of accuracy, approaching the practical limits of
the data from which models are constructed. The slope and intercept indicate little overall bias in
the model.
2014 FORECASTS
Land Use Forecast
Household and Employment Growth Assumptions
The Port Angeles travel model was used to make estimates of 2014 traffic, based on 20-year
growth projections contained in the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. The plan DEIS indicates
that the number of households will increase by 2,177 in the city and UGA.7 Of this amount,
1,742 would be single-family, and 435 multi-family, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: UGA 20- Year Household Growth
Single-Family Multi-Family Total
Within City 1,391 413 1,804
Outside City 351 22 373
Total !,742 435 2,177
Separately for each of the above four categories, this household growth (amounting to about 22%
of existing households) was allocated to the Port Angeles model TAZs in proportion to the total
vacant developable land in each TAZ weighted by the current fraction of developed land in
residential use. Vacant developable land was estimated as total area reduced by the sum of
developed and public (open space) land. In this way, vacant developable land was used as the
basic indicator of supply, while the fraction of land in residential use was used as an index of the
attractiveness of each TAZ for residential development. The resulting household growth
estimates for each TAZ were added to 1994 household estimates.
The Comprehensive Plan derives its employment projections from the current ratio of employees
per household.8 For this reason, it was assumed that the 1994-2014 growth in total employment
would equal the estimated household growth of 22%. The Comprehensive Plan is very general,
however, as to the probable location of this employment within the UGA. For the sake of this
Port Angeles Cotnprehensive Plan DEIS, p. II-77.
Ibid., p. IV-I 1.
95005~eports~rallsplan~apF, end-g (7/19/96) \kp
transportation plan, it was assumed that fntur¢ cmploymenl (by sector) would locale in
proporlion m cxisling employment m each TAZ.
Appendix B contains the 2014 land use projections used in the model traffic forecasts.
Growth at External Stations
It was assumed that trips having one end inside and the other outside would increase at the same
rate as internal households and employment. However, through traffic growth was estimated by
a different method. A ten-year history of traffic volumes was available for the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) permanent traffic recorder (PTR) number 69, located
on Highway 101 between Port Angeles and Sequim. A linear extrapolation of this history
indicated that 1994 average weekday traffic of 19,892 would increase to 36,072 by the year 2014,
a growth of 8 ! %. Therefore, the Port Angeles through trip table was increased by 81% as an
estimate of 2014 through traffic.
Future Network Scenarios
In order to evaluate planned and proposed street improvements, the 2014 trip table described
above was loaded on six future network scenarios containing different subsets of improvements.
A "base" package consisted of projects taken from the six-year transportation improvement plans
of Port Angeles, together with one additional improvement proposed by Entranco. These
projects are shown below in Table 9.
Table 9: Base Package Improvements
Location Type of Improvement
First Street/Peabody Street Signalization
Fifth Street/Race Street Signalization
Eighth Street/Cherry Street Signalization
Eighth Streel]'C' Street Signalization
Lauridsen Blvd./Airport Road Realignment of intersection
Tumwater Truck Route/Hw¥ I01 Construct second half of diamond interch.
Milwaukee Drive, 'N' to 18th Construct new 2-lane arterial
Milwaukee Drive, 18th to Lower Elwha Rd Construct new 2-lane arterial
First Avenue, Ennis to del Guzzi ~ Widen from two to three lanes
Source: Entranco (all others from Port Angeles Six-Year TIP)
Three other major improvements were also tested in various combinations. They were:
· White Creek Crossing - extend Lauridsen across White Creek to Golf Course Road;
· Heart of the Hills Parkway - construct a new two-lane arterial from the junction Heart
of the Hills Parkway and Mount Angeles Road across White, Ennis, and Morse
Creeks to Highway 101 west of Bagley Creek Road;
· Highway 101 one-way couplet - convert Lincoln and Peabody to operate as one-way
southbound and northbound, respectively.
95(~}5~cports\lransplan~ppcnd-g (7/19./96) ~p
I'agc G- 13
The locations of link capacity improvements are shown in Figure 3. The base package and three
additional improvements were arranged in six scenarios lettered A-F, as shown in Table 10.
Table I0: Future Network Scenarios
Scenario: A B C D E F
Base Package ......
White Creek Crossing
Heart of the Hills Parkway · ·
Lincoln/Peabody Couplet · · ·
Figure 3: Proposed Capacity Improvements
Findings
The 2014 trip table was loaded on each scenario, and link volumes together with turning
movements at 51 locations were transmitted to Entranco for detailed analysis. However, general
conclusions can be drawn about the scenarios based on aggregate measures such as vehicle-hours
and vehicle-miles of travel. These measures are shown in Table I 1.
95{g)5~¢pott~\uansplan~ppcnd-g (7/19/96) 'tkp
Page G- I 4
Tabh, I I: Eristing ami Future Network Pe~formam'c Meaxures
Scenario VHT VMT
1994 1,903 58,928
2014 No Action 2,779 79,545
2014 A 2,744 79,292
2014 B 2,666 79,147
2014 C 2,466 78,398
2014 D 2,762 79,383
2014 E 2,680 79,273
2014 F 2,486 78,605
In terms of vehicle hours and vehicle miles of travel, all of the scenarios offer some improvement
over the No Action case. The greatest savings in both measures appear to be produced by
Scenarios C and F, which differ from B and E, respectively, by the addition of the proposed
Heart of the Hills Parkway.
95005~epon.q\transplan~a ppe nd - g (7/19/96
APPENDIX A: ESTIMATED 1994 LAND USE
95(g)5~ep, t~lrat~splanXappcnd g (7/19/96) ~kp
1994 Port Angeles Land Use
lu294-6.xls
TAZ SF MF RET FIRES GOV MFG WTCU ED OTHER FTE
1 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 203 64 0 0 0
3 0 0 23 43 7 49 16 0 0 0
4 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
6 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 84 27 0 0 0
13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
15 114 0 8 15 2 17 5 0 0 0
16 126 0 0 1 0 34 11 0 0 0
17 94 0 1 3 0 46 15 0 0 0
18 79 92 2 3 1 4 1 0 0 0
19 22 0 1 1 0 2 1 31 0 0
20 115 0 7 12 0 0 1 0 0 0
21 73 0 7 12 0 0 1 0 0 0
22 124 0 15 26 0 0 2 0 0 0
23 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 107 0 12 21 0 0 1 30 0 0
25 115 95 4 7 0 1 7 0 0 0
26 217 125 10 17 0 1 7 0 0 0
27 9 0 4 8 0 3 17 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 5 26 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 201 90 9 16 0 0 1 0 0 0
32 100 0 7 12 0 0 1 0 0 0
33 0 112 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 9 80 72 55 23 11 0 16 0
37 0 0 157 141 107 44 21 0 32 0
38 0 100 17 16 12 5 2 0 3 0
39 0 58 91 95 62 26 12 0 20 0
40 4 103 45 107 214 18 21 0 10 0
41 0 36 5 31 534 2 2 0 2 0
42 6 0 39 212 182 15 18 0 15 0
43 0 188 5 47 24 2 2 0 3 0
44 0 96 17 15 12 5 2 0 3 0
45 0 48 94 85 64 27 13 0 19 0
46 83 0 30 27 20 8 4 0 6 0
47 78 0 36 33 25 10 5 10 7 0
48 76 0 16 37 74 6 7 0 4 0
49 55 0 7 16 32 3 3 0 2 0
50 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0
51 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9~(~5~ns~t~n~plan~p~nd g (7/19~6 ) ~p
105 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 0 0 0 0 0 9 17 0 2 0
109 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 0 0 38 11 0 9 19 0 10 0
112 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 0 0 115 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 0 0 14 4 0 4 7 0 4 0
117 0 0 35 10 0 9 17 0 9 0
118 0 0 30 8 0 7 14 0 8 0
119 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0
120 0 0 44 12 0 11 21 0 11 0
121 0 0 61 17 0 15 30 0 16 0
122 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 107 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
128 0 3 0 0 0 24 14 0 0 0
129 0 3 0 0 0 25 15 0 0 0
130 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 0 6 0 0 0 60 36 0 0 0
133 4 1 0 56 0 3 2 0 0 0
134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
136 134 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 70 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 258 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 193 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 dummy
143 dummy
144 0 0 65 76 13 77 17 0 8 0
145 dummy
146 e~emal
147 e~emal
148 e~emal
149 e~emal
150 e~ernal
TOTALS 7944 1708 2532 2965 1958 2039 823 281 407 1306
52 243 0 26 23 18 7 3 0 5 0
53 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 227 0 38 128 26 11 5 0 18 0
56 265 15 0 38 0 0 0 0 2 0
57 0 0 0 0 0 302 73 0 20 0
58 0 0 143 90 22 44 11 0 12 0
59 67 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 2 0
60 0 0 0 0 0 58 14 0 4 0
61 0 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 16 0
62 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 58 37 9 18 4 0 5 0
64 0 46 145 105 36 45 11 0 13 0
65 0 0 152 102 23 47 11 0 13 0
66 0 0 140 88 21 43 10 0 11 0
67 0 50 0 17 0 0 0 0 1 0
68 130 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 64 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 0 0 139 88 21 43 10 0 11 0
72 0 0 134 85 20 41 10 0 11 0
73 107 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
75 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 50 27 31 5 31 7 0 3 0
77 62 0 16 28 3 19 4 0 3 0
78 20 0 18 21 3 21 5 0 2 0
79 83 0 19 22 4 22 5 0 2 0
80 8 0 3 11 1 4 1 0 1 0
81 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 79 0 12 14 2 14 3 5 2 0
83 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 54 62 10 63 14 0 7 0
86 0 0 78 93 15 94 21 0 10 0
87 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 156 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 0 0 60 70 11 71 16 0 8 0
90 0 0 119 139 23 141 31 0 15 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0
94 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 1306
96 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 7 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0
101 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX B: PROJECTED 2014 LAND USE
~15 ~( 5\[~'f)t,rlsttlanspian~appcl~d g ~7/19/96) %kp
2014 Port Angeles Land Use
fylu2-3.xls
TAZ SF MF RET FIRES GOV MFG WTCU ED OTHER FTE
1 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 246 77 0 0 0
3 0 0 28 52 8 59 19 0 0 0
4 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0
6 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 102 33 0 0 0
13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
15 136 0 10 18 2 21 6 0 0 0
16 131 0 0 1 0 41 13 0 0 0
17 101 0 I 4 0 56 18 0 0 0
18 83 92 2 4 1 5 I 0 0 0
19 22 0 1 1 0 2 1 38 0 0
20 115 0 8 15 0 0 1 0 0 0
21 73 0 8 15 0 0 1 0 0 0
22 124 0 18 31 0 0 2 0 0 0
23 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 145 0 15 25 0 0 1 36 0 0
25 115 95 5 8 0 I 8 0 0 0
26 261 132 12 21 0 I 8 0 0 0
27 9 0 5 10 0 4 21 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 6 31 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 I 6 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 217 92 11 19 0 0 1 0 0 0
32 100 0 8 15 0 0 1 0 0 0
33 0 113 0 0 0 2 15 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 9 97 87 67 28 13 0 19 0
37 0 0 190 171 129 53 25 0 39 0
38 0 100 21 19 15 6 2 0 4 0
39 0 58 110 115 75 31 15 0 24 0
40 4 103 54 129 259 22 25 0 12 0
41 0 38 6 38 646 2 2 0 2 0
42 6 0 47 257 220 18 22 0 18 0
43 0 188 6 57 29 2 2 0 4 0
44 0 96 21 18 15 6 2 0 4 0
45 0 48 114 103 77 33 16 0 23 0
46 83 0 36 33 24 10 5 0 7 0
47 78 0 44 40 30 12 6 12 8 0
48 76 0 19 45 90 7 8 0 5 0
49 55 0 8 19 39 4 4 0 2 0
50 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0
51 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 266 0 31 28 22 8 4 0 6 0
53 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 '239 0 46 155 31 13 6 0 22 0
56 282 15 0 46 0 0 0 0 2 0
57 0 0 0 0 0 365 88 0 24 0
58 0 0 173 109 27 53 13 0 15 0
59 87 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 2 0
60 0 0 0 0 0 70 17 0 5 0
61 0 0 0 371 0 0 0 0 19 0
62 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 70 45 11 22 5 0 6 0
64 0 46 175 127 44 54 13 0 16 0
65 0 0 184 123 28 57 13 0 16 0
66 0 0 169 106 25 52 12 0 13 0
67 0 50 0 21 0 0 0 0 1 0
68 130 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 64 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 0 0 168 106 25 52 12 0 13 0
72 0 0 162 103 24 50 12 0 13 0
73 107 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
75 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 50 33 38 6 38 8 0 4 0
77 62 0 19 34 4 23 5 0 4 0
78 20 0 22 25 4 25 6 0 2 0
79 83 0 23 27 5 27 6 0 2 0
80 8 0 4 13 1 5 1 0 1 0
81 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 79 0 15 17 2 17 4 6 2 0
83 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 65 75 12 76 17 0 8 0
86 0 0 97 113 18 114 25 0 12 0
87 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 196 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 0 0 73 85 13 86 19 0 10 0
90 0 0 144 168 28 171 38 0 18 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0
94 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 0 0 1580
96 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 33 277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0
101 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95[XIS\rel~rL~lr~s plan~appcnd-g ('7/l 9196) \kp
107 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 0 0 0 0 0 11 21 0 2 0
109 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lll 0 0 46 13 0 11 23 0 12 0
112 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 0 0 139 19 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 0 0 17 5 0 5 8 0 5 0
117 0 0 42 12 0 11 21 0 11 0
118 0 0 36 10 0 8 17 0 10 0
119 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0
120 0 0 53 15 0 13 25 0 13 0
121 0 0 74 21 0 18 36 0 19 0
122 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 107 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
128 0 3 0 0 0 29 17 0 0 0
129 0 3 0 0 0 30 18 0 0 0
130 134 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 0 6 0 0 0 73 44 0 0 0
133 6 1 0 68 0 4 2 0 0 0
134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
136 134 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 70 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 258 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 193 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 dummy
143 dummy
144 0 0 79 92 16 93 21 0 10 0
145 dummy
146 external
147 e~ernal
148 external
149 external
150 external
TOTALS 9685 2122 2987 3496 2353 2374 975 340 483 1580
t)ti(X)SMcpun~'~l~anspla~l~pp~nd-g (7/19/96) \kp
APPENDIX C: LISTING OF MODEL FILES
Port Angeles Travel Model Files
Excepl as noted, all l'iles are in TMODEL2 tk,rmat
File Description
Nctwork
94-36.1nx, .nde 1994 calibrated links, nodes
94-36.1vx 1994 pm peak counts (in volume field)
14a-4.lnx, .nde 2014 scenario A links, nodes
14b-4.1nx, .nde 2014 scenario B links, nodes
14c-4.1nx, .nde 2014 scenario C links, nodes
14d-4.1nx, .nde 2014 scenario D links, nodes
14e-4.1nx, .nde 2014 scenario E links, nodes
14f-4.1nx, .nde 2014 scenario F links, nodes
94-25.neq Functions for node capacity calculation
Turn Movement Input
94-34.tri 1994 turn movement in )ut
14a-2.tri 2014 turn movement in >ut for scenario A
14b-2.tri 2014 turn movement in >ut for scenario B
14c-2.tri 2014 turn movement in >ut for scenario C
14d-2.tri 2014 turn movement in >ut for scenario D
14e-2.tri 2014 turn movement in ~ut for scenario E
14f-2.tri 2014 turn movement in >ut for scenario F
Turn Penalties
all.tnp Turn penalty locations, all networks
all.tpt Turn penalty types, all networks
Delay Parameters
defauit.ldc Congestion function for links
default.hdc Congestion function for nodes
Land Use/Trip Generation
94-5.1u2 1994 land use
fy-2.1u2 2014 land use
94-7.tgf PM peak trip generation rates
94-23.ond 1994 origin/destination
14-6.ond 2014 origin/destination
94-48.ttb Final 1994 trip table
14na-6.ttb Final 2014 trip table (l¥om No Aclion network)
94-3.tti 1994 through trip table
14-3.tti 2014 through trip table
saz-8.dwg Model zone boundaries (AutoCAD file)
(Port Angeles Travel Model Files, conlinued)
9500S\repmls\lransplan~al~l~cnd-g ~7/19/96) \kp
File Description
Assignment Procedure
94-48.dna Final calibration run; generates 1994 trip table
14na-6.dna Final 2014 No Action run; generates trip table for all 2014 runs
14a-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario A
14b-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario B
14c-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario C
14d-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario D
14e-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario E
14f-5.dna Assignment for 2014 scenario F
Loaded Network/Turn Files
94-48.11x, .tm Final calibration run
14na-6.11x, .trn 2014 No Action run
! 4a-5.11x, .tm 2014 scenario A run
14b-5.11x, .tm 2014 scenario B run
14c-5.11x, .tm 2014 scenario C run
14d-5.11x, .trn 2014 scenario D run
14e-5.11x, .trn 2014 scenario E run
14f-5.11x, .trn 20 ! 4 scenario F run
Miscellaneous
road3.1yr 1991 TIGER file converted to TModel layer
94-36.dic, .nam Street name files for graphic editor
9~}5~reports\translllan\apl~.'nd g {7/19/961 ~kp
APPENDIX H
2014 Level of Service
Summary by Scenario
A
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ccc c ~ ~ c~ c
~o ~o ooo ~o ooo ooo ooo Oc~ ~c c c~ c '~ ' ' c
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ' c~ ccc c = = c~ c~ c
o '~ ooo ~0 ~oo ~oo ~0 o--~ ~ c~ ccc c ~ ~ c~ = ~ ~ 0 0 000 o
~ ~ ~ 0o
~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~0 ~ 0~ ~do ~ ' 0~ ~ ~c c ccc
~ ~ ~n ~ ~o o~e ~o~ o~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ' 0~ ~ 0~ Oc~ ccc cc= c c ~ c '~
~ ~ ~ ~ c c~ ~c: cc: c :: c
~ > ooo o~o ooo ~ ~0o ooo ooo ~ c c~ c c c c c ~ c c ~ c ~ ~ c
, ~ = ~ >> >
- ~ ~ 0
APPENDIX !
Open House Comments
FLIP CHART NOTES
· The problem is too many SOV's. The solution is NOT build more roads, it's
decrease the number of SOV's, Put $$ into transit and safe bicycling
facilities, zone for confined development. Let it be slow to travel in private
autos - give the advantage to alternative transportation.
· Improve signing for SR 101 - people miss left turn to Lincoln, coming from the
east.
· Improve signing for bike routes on principal/minor arterials. Not just
bikepaths.
· Truck route through downtown - speed/volume/dust/etc.
· Material used for crosswalks throughout downtown - I thought we removed
this material a year ago? Now at seems to have reappeared??
· Diagonal parking along one side of downtown one-ways (1st and Front)
· Bike width on bridges
· More shoulder - west of M Street on 10th
(bike lane) - east and west of Lauridsen
- Edgewood
· Sidewalk west of E Street on 8th, sidewalks extending entire block, not just lot
to lot.
· Designate and improve the truck route (SR 117) as a bicycle route from the
waterfront to 101 going west.
· Bike facilities are NOT pedestrian facilities - they are ON-road transportation
facilities. Should be included in design standards for principal and minor
arterials.
· If there is a one-way couplet with Lincoln-Peabody, I like Lincoln northbound
and Peabody southbound to preserve the travel view down Lincoln to the
water and the spit and the historical buildings.
· Better accessibility to Fairchild Airport? Route from 101 west poorly directed.
Access from 8th - very confusing to tourist/outsider.
:' leo - elesl:ffansportauonbe ces'anfl'eacllltles
' ' ~'.*."',~,'~ ' ~ .... :~ U .~ '~."~'.'~'t.'~"~','~'~- ~ ..... ' ........ -~-..'-~'x. - -:~.'~'.-, · ~*:~.',~.~ ;,~v~,'~'~ ~:~**~, .
~ur ~np~ ~s ~m~Mant to us. .. Please Iake a few m~nuI~ to wnte down some ~mments r~ard~ng the PoM Anoel~ TranspoMa~on
' ,'{Roadway Func~,onal ~lasslf,cabons:~~;:}~O~i~¢~q :~2.~¢~:~'~[[~.'¢
.. , , ~;~ '~4~,~;~ .~ ;~;{:~ ,~;:;;~-~.:~,7~,,~: :*.'.~2:~:;'>;.:: .:'~. ?::?* "~(-~,~* ~:."¢
:;"~'~'~"~' o~%~"+~ '~'~":~7~'~'"'~'¢r~'~"~'~'>,';~ .... ¢:~' "'~ '~'~':~ ~-' -~ .... ~'' '*'-:* ' :'-"~;~;~-' '. '/ U': ~"'z'*'-'~-~'~ . ~' '~' '~*¢-. " ..... , '
Port Angeles :~ansportation Services and Facilities Plan Comments,.
Your input is important to us.' Please take a few minutes to write down some comments regarding ~he Port Angeles Transportation-
Services and Facilities Plan.'
¢l'asSiflcations: .... ' ":
1. Roadway Functional ': .... 2 '"._~.. ....
. -, :,."A t..,~-k-,;-; ,.. " - ', " ' ' ' "' '" ' ' '
3. RoadAItematives: ''~' ,-' "'.-, '"~-,'" ' ' ....
Alternative east, i~est.-Y;~'Sstown arterial (Lauriclsen-GOlf Gourse) - ~""" -'
Port Angeles:T~ansportation Services.and Facilities Plan Comment~-~':?-:..
, our input is im~dant to us~, Pl~e"~ke'a few min~ to ~e do~ ~me ~mments r~arding ~eP~ ~gel~ Trans~on' ' ' ' * ~,._ '~' .... '-:-~:- -
· ~ e. ~ ---
. ....... ..... ._... , __
Leanne Jenklns 335 Eas't'TWelfth'St~i/e! p'ort Angeles,:WA 98362 (360)452-107I
October 23, 1995
321 E~t Fi~ S~t
P.O. Box 1150
Pofl Angeles, WA 98362 _
Dear Mr. Pittis:
I read with n great deal of consternation the recent article in the Peninsula Daily News (10/I 3/95)
regarding traffic revisions to Peabody Street. First and foremost, I was disturbed by the very idea of
turning Peabody into a one-way street, re-routing a good portion of commercial traffic from Lincoln Street
through a se~:ies of residential neighborhoods. But I was also surprised that you were proposing this
scheme ['or public discussion be{bre talking to residents in that corridor. Whatever the driving public
thinks about this proposal, it is the individual homeowners and collective neighborhoods that will absorb
the negative impacts of trnffic, noise, and property devaluation. These arc the people you should be
listening to first.
Additionally, you might want to consider the needs and concerns of commercial operations along
Lincoln Street. ! suspect that Safeway, the gas stations, and the restaurants depend to a great extent on
drive-by traffic (especially incoming, or southbound, traffic), particularly during thc summer tourist
season. I can't believe they would support the removal of half of their potential customers
I would suggest that before you proceed any Further with this proposal, you make contact with
neighborhood residents in a setting which allows them to seek information and voice concerns. As a
property owner directly affected by this proposal, I expect to be very involved in these discussions and will
be looking for you to propose alternatives that retain quality neighborhoods in the City of Pon Angeles.
SincerelY,L~ -' ~
lOTIql F~.{B1
August 26, 1995
_ RECE[V.
Director of Public Works
City of Port Angeles
Dear Jack, ,
I told Penny I think Ben ought to sell you two a house in
Four Seasons Ranch. Then you could experience the PA 5:00pm
rush-hour firsthand.
Seriously, though, I know you are aware of what a bottleneck
traffic gets into on First Street going east in the late afternoon.
I feel certain this situation can be eased. Please consider the
following suggestions.
1. Lengthen the light at Ennis_ Even when traffic is light, you
can hardly ever move through the Ennis intersections without
having to stop or at least slow for a light or traffic already
waiting at the light. You need to keep traffic moving through
those intersections. A longer light would help.
2. Lengthen the light between trips at Golf Course Road. It should
stay green long enough to clear the intersection.
3. Get rid of that light at Del Guzzi!!L It is and always was a
mistake to have it there. Traffic on 101 stops in both directions
at the whim of every single car that meanders out of that drive.
Drivers can make turns out of Del Guzzi just as they do from the
plaza parking lot or from Baker St. The light at Golf Course Rd.
is enough for the break in traffic. Please 9et rid of that
light.
well there it is. Sounds easy enough to me. I hope you'll
look at this situation and work to alleviate that frustrating traffic
situation.
Very truly yours,
~lson
October 13, 1995 r~o~.
Pon ~;-WA ~8362
I r~ in the 1~ pap~ ofplms to rcroute tr~c t~ough
co--ems on the plus w~ch were outlined in ~e paper.
Linco~ea~d7 on,wa7 couplet - I have nev~ ~ p~cul~ly ~ hvor of ~s con,pt. I feel
~ for the people who live dong P~body Street - to sudde~y have a m~n hghway in fiont of
~ek hour. ~m, the gradient of Peabody is not ad~uate for a ~ate ~way in places ~d it
wo~d ~uire aubst~tlal improvem~ts. If the problem Mth L~cotn Stre~ is the lack ora le~
mm l~e at 8th'Str~ it would be f~ cheaper to buy the e~ra dght o[way needed to add a mm
l~e ~h~ it would be to move ~If the ~ghway ov~ to Peabody.
M~ng Lincoln no~hbound and Pmbody south~und would be a bad idea ~s would require
~1 ~e h~way tr~c to cross each other's path tMce, once at ~udd~n ~d once ~ Fir~ Street.
~ tr~c on the h~way would ne~lessly have to ~el t~ough moplights at ~ch lo~tion
u~s ~ ove~s was in,led at each location. ~ted, there would be stoplights at ~ese
locations ~ay - but th~ would have hr more tr~c th~ lhey would iftr~c w~ routed
diff~enfly. It would be b~er ffLincoln were made the southbound route ~d P~dy the
" no~und route. Ihus crossing oftr~c would not be necess~ ~d tr~c would flow much
~er.
The view of the water is nice as one travels down Lincoln, but we should not route traffic down
Lincoln just for that reason. Drivers eyes are better to be on the road, not on the view. Instead
we should have more areas like Haynes (sp?) Park where people can pull off and enjoy the view.
Lauridsen Bypass -' Relieving some of the pressure off of Front and First by extending Lauridsen
(or some other east-west street) tl~ough to Golf Course Road might help if the City were to
restrict development along the selected route. It will do little good to identify a new cross-town
route intended to pass traffic quickly and then allow high traffic generators to build up along it.
Every stop light and every left turn movement will hinder the flow of traffic. We'd end up with
two congested roadways.
Truck Traffic - We've got to keep in mind that the destiny of much of our truck traffic are the
mills and the log yards in the downtown vicinity. Forcing these trucks uptfill and around town
only to come back down the truck roule is inefficient. We should accep! the fact that truck traffic
is integral to our economy and not try to drive it out of town.
Page 1
APPENDIX J
Impact Fee Prototype
IMPACT FEE PROTOTYPE
City of Port Angeles
HT Associates
March 1996
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents concepts and a prototype for calculating transportation impact fees in
the City of Port Angeles. The method presented meets a strict standard of evidence
relating a site of new development to its impacts; at the same time, a system approach is
recommended in order to measure both the direct and indirect usage of planned
improvements by a given site of new development.
SUMMARY
If an increment of new development results in a need for additional transportation capacity,
but generates insufficient transportation taxes to pay for that capacity, then an impact fee
may be justified. It must be shown that the additional capacity for which a site is charged is
no more than is necessary to remedy the site's impacts.
The recommended method of calculating the usage of improvements by new development
is to measure, on a case-by-case basis, a site's use of the capacity added by planned
growth-related improvements. A site may make use of an improvement either directly (i.e.,
literally) or indirectly, by using capacity vacated by existing trips diverted to the
improvement. A method that measures both kinds of use is recommended.
The authority for transportation impact fees is contained in RCW 82.02. Under RCW 82.02,
a site of new development may not be charged taxes and impact fees for the same set of
improvements, and should benefit to the same extent as existing development from funding
sources external to the jurisdiction. A method is presented for adjusting an impact fee for
external funds and for transportation taxes expected to be paid by the site being charged.
A prototype of the impact fee concept was tested on a network containing the proposed
Milwaukee Drive, Hwy 101/Tumwater interchange improvements, White Creek crossing,
Heart of the Hills Parkway, and First Street widening. A hypothetical site of new
development adding 200 peak-hour trips to the downtown area was used. Without adjusting
for external funding or growth-related local taxes paid by the site, a fee of $900 per peak
hour trip was obtained. This amount is specific to the capital program tested and would be
different for other sets of proposed improvements.
IMPACT FEE CONCEPTS
Rationale for Transportation Impact Fees
A transportation impact fee may be defined as a charge imposed on growth, proportionate
to the cost of transportation improvements made necessary by growth. The rationale for
transportation impact fees rests on the idea that a specific instance of growth may create or
impac! Fee Prototype Page J-3
It is often assumed that the jurisdiction making a land use decision and the jurisdiction
making road improvements are one and the same, but in Washington State this will rarely
be the case. Clearly, a development located in one jurisdiction may impact roads managed
by another jurisdiction. The most obvious example of this is the Washington State
Department of Transportation, which manages most of the arterials in the region but has no
land use authority; but the problem can exist whenever a trip crosses from one city to
another or from a county road to a city road. The problem could be corrected through
interlocal agreements, consistent impact fee concepts, and consistent level of service
standards.
Legal Requirements of an Impact Fee Program
The 1990 Growth Management Act provided explicit authority for municipalities to enact
impact fees. Under RCW 82.02, municipalities
that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 are authorized to
impose impact fees on development activity, providing that the financing for
system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance
between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely
on impact fees.
Essentially, RCW 82.02.050 requires that fees be charged only for system improvements
reasonably related to the new development; that the fee shall reflect the new development's
proportionate share of responsibility for such improvements; and the improvements for
which the fee is charged should reasonably benefit the new development. Impact fees may
not be collected for, or used to correct, existing deficiencies, and may not be the sole
source of funding for growth-related improvements.
Under RCW 82.02.060, the local ordinances must include a schedule of fees based on a
formula "or other method." This formula is required to incorporate several elements. It
must include the cost of public facilities necessitated by growth, adjusted for the extent to
which past or future fees or taxes paid by new development are "earmarked for or
proratabte to the particular system improvement." It must include consideration of the
availability of funding other than impact fees, "the cost of existing public facilities
improvements," and "the methods by which public facilities improvements were financed."
The formula must provide credit for dedication of land or construction of improvements in
lieu of the impact fee, and it may be adjusted to reflect unusual circumstances, or to reflect
studies and data submitted by the developer. RCW 82.02.060 requires that the formula
establish "one or more reasonable service areas within which it shall calculate and impose
impact fees for various land use categories per unit of development." The section allows
impact fees to be charged for improvements constructed prior to the new development's
application, to the extent such improvements serve growth.
RCW 82.02.070 requires that impact fee receipts be deposited to separate interest-bearing
accounts for each type of public facility. For each account, the jurisdiction must produce an
annual report showing the source of all funds added and the public improvements for which
the funds have been expended. An impact fee generally must be expended or encumbered
Impact Fee I'rototypc I'a? .I 5
calculation requires only a forecast of the trips generated by the site in question. The
method avoids the problem with volume shares that makes the fee per trip a function of the
length of the time frame (or amount of total growth) over which the costs are allocated. For
these reasons, the capacity share approach is recommended. Although theoretically it
could be applied in either aggregate or disaggregate form, for reasons already cited the
disaggregate method is preferred.
Direct and Indirect Use
When a trip generated by a site of new development literally traverses a capital
improvement, this could be termed direct use. Travel models are able to trace the paths in
a street network used by trips to and from a particular site; and this technique, known as
selected zone assignment, has been used by many jurisdictions to determine the volume of ·
site trips using planned capital improvements. On each improvement, the selected zone
volume, corresponding to the site of proposed development, is divided by the
improvement's capacity added, and the result is a capacity share.
The method does give a tangible result, but not always a correct one. This can best be
explained in terms of an example. Imagine a corridor consisting of one road operating just
at its capacity of 1,000, and assume that the jurisdiction containing the corridor plans to add
a second parallel facility, equivalent in capacity (and other operating characteristics) to the
first. Assume, finally, that the majority of trips in this corridor will be indifferent between the
two facilities--they can as easily use one as the other.
The jurisdiction uses a travel model to determine, for each site of growth generating trips in
the corridor, the number of trips on the new road. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that
there are no real alternatives to these facilities, and it is known with reasonable certainty
that a particular site will add approximately 200 trips to the corridor. Without using a travel
model, it is clear that the corridor capacity will increase by 1,000, and of that increase, 200
will be consumed by the site in question. The capacity share should be 20%. But the
modeler finds only 100 site trips on the new facility, and erroneously concludes that the
capacity share is 10%.
How can this be? The travel model is sufficiently realistic that when the new facility was
added, existing trips divided themselves between the two facilities. Conditions on both
roads were much improved over the original single facility; in effect, the capacity added by
the new road was divided between the two. When the site trips were added, they divided
between the two roads in a similar fashion--lO0 trips on each. The 100 site trips on the new
road may be said to make direct use of the added capacity; the 100 site trips on the existing
road may be said to make indirect use, because they occupy capacity vacated by existing
trips diverted to the improvement.
Although it is possible to recognize the situation in this simplified example, volume shifts in a
realistic network can be difficult to interpret. A more sophisticated method is needed to
obtain the correct capacity share whenever there is a possibility that existing trips will divert
to the improvement under consideration. Such a method has been suggested by the
Impact Fee Prototype Page J 7
Unlike the capacity share based on selected zone trips, this formula takes into account the
tendency of new capacity to be distributed throughout a corridor by diversion of existing
trips onto the improvement. Because it relies on volume shifts rather than selected zone
volumes, it provides the correct capacity share even when a site's use of an improvement is
completely indirect.
In the example given above of 200 site trips in a corridor whose capacity of 1,000 is doubled
by a new link, assume that the new link is shown with a directional capacity of 50 vehicles
per hour in the existing network and 1,000 in the improved network. Then the existing
capacity (ec) of the improvement would be 50, and the existing volume (ev) would be 48
under equilibrium conditions. The base or improved capacity (bc) would be 1,000, and
volume of existing demand on the new link (bv) would be 500. With the addition of 200 site
trips to the corridor, the volume of existing plus site trips on the new link (sv) would be 600.
The predicted corridor capacity share would then be:
400(600 - 500)
= 0.21
(1,000)(48) - (500)(50)
which is close to the desired value of 0.20 at the corridor level.4
It should be noted that the result is the same whether existing traffic is greater than or less
than existing capacity--the calculation represents growth divided by capacity added.-s In
practice, when the sum of site capacity shares for a given improvement reached 100%, the
capacity added by the improvement would be considered fully charged for.
Direction and Time of Day of the Deficiency
Ordinarily, an improvement will be symmetric--meaning equal capacity will be added in both
directions--but the added capacity may be needed in one direction only in the afternoon,
and in the other direction only in the morning.
A site of new development may not add as much traffic in the direction of a given deficiency
as it does in the reverse direction. That is, its character may be contrary to the prevailing
peak direction. The relevant site traffic is the volume predicted to occur at the time, and in
the direction, of peak demand on the improvement for which fees are to be charged.
Credit for Road Taxes
RCW 82.02 requires that for the sake of calculating impact fees, the cost of planned
improvements must be reduced by the amount representing local road taxes (or other road
charges, excluding impact fees) expected to be paid by new development. A similar
adjustment must be made for grants or sources of funds external to the jurisdiction. These
reductions are made so that new development will not pay twice for the same improvement,
4 A discrepancy hclwccn thc actual and calculalcd corrid()r capacity shares is inlroduccd hv [l~c nccd t() ascribe
some capacity lo phmned new links in the exisling network. In this example, Ihe increase in c()rrid()r capacily
was technically 950 rather than I.O00, and 200/950 = 0.2105.
$ The formula does no! address the policy question of wl~ed~er capacity added ~o a deficienl facilil.~ is primarily
to correcl Ibc deficiency, or provide for growlh (possibly perpetuating thc deficiency).
Impact l:ee l'r~t~l.¥pe Pa~¢ ,~-9
variables ec, ev, bc, by, and sv, as previously defined, although it was necessary to obtain
sv (the sum of existing and growth traffic on the improved network) in two steps in order to
avoid the limitations on Tmodel2 assignment precision. The corridor share formula was
then used to calculate capacity shares for a hypothetical site of 200 new P.M. peak trips
located in the downtown area, and these shares were compared with the results that would
be obtained using site trips only on proposed improvements.
The existing trip table was the final 1994 trip table created for the calibrated model.
Although this trip table was created in a distribution and assignment run of the model, it was
reassigned as an input file using ten increments on the existing network. This approach--
using a fixed trip table rather than the dynamic trip table feature of Tmodel2--was found to
be necessary because of precision limitations of Tmodel2 trip tables. Proposed new links,
including Milwaukee Drive, new ramps associated with the Hwy 101/Tumwater interchange,
the White Creek crossing, and Heart of the Hills Parkway, were included in the existing
network with their planned design speeds, but capacities of only 100. Capacities and
assigned volumes on these links were taken as the variables ec and ev, respectively; on
links recommended for widening, such as First Street, the existing capacities and assigned
volumes were interpreted in the same manner.
The base network was then created by "activating" all planned improvements in the city's
six-year TIP together with the above proposed new links and widening projects (the actual
network used was Scenario C). The variables bv and bc were obtained by assigning the
existing trip table to the base network in ten increments.
The variable sv is defined as the sum of existing trips plus trips associated with a particular
site of new development, loaded on the base network. Normally this would be obtained by
creating a trip table consisting of existing trips plus the site of new development, and
assigning this trip table to the base network; but this method was found to be too
susceptible to rounding errors in the Tmodel2 assignment procedure. Other approaches
were tried, including the addition of growth trips (i.e., the increment in trips represented by
the site) to a base network pre-loaded with existing traffic; but this approach effectively
suppressed the possibility for existing trips to be diverted by growth trips. The method that
proved effective was to pre-load the base network with growth trips, and then add existing
trips in ten increments. The resulting volumes were used as the variable sr.
In practice, the existing and base networks, once developed and loaded, would not have to
be re-created for each site; each site to be evaluated would simply require an assignment to
the base network. Also, it may be feasible to pre-calculate fees for residential
developments in all of the predominantly residential TAZs in the model, so that a proposed
residential development in such locations would not require a new mod~l run. The existing
and base networks would be relatively static but should be updated periodically to reflect
either changes in existing conditions or revisions to the list of planned capital improvements.
Preliminary project cost estimates were furnished by Entranco for the proposed Heart of the
Hills Parkway, White Creek Crossing, Milwaukee Drive, Tumwater/Hwy 101 interchange,
and First Street, and for each improvement the costs were expressed on a per-lane-mile
basis. The results are shown in Table 2.
Impact
Credit for Local Taxes
For the City of Port Angeles, a site of new development would be likely to pay only two local
taxes for street purposes: the street levy of property value, and the first 0.25% of the real
estate excise tax (REET). Fuel taxes are imposed and distributed by the state, and
therefore fall in the category of external funding. Although some general obligation bonds
issued by the city are outstanding, none was for the purpose of capacity improvements.
Receipts from the street levy are entirely claimed by the city's street maintenance and
operations programs, including administration. Therefore, no credit against impact fees
would be required for this tax.
Only the first 0.25% REET is currently imposed. All of the revenues from this source are
reserved to pay debt service on outstanding bond issues for capital improvements.
However, none of these improvements would be considered street capacity projects to
support growth, so again no credit would be required.
In order to meet the requirement of RCW 82.02.050 (2) that a jurisdiction may not rely solely
on impact fees to fund capacity improvements, some local tax revenues or external funds
must be applied to all capacity improvements for which impact fees will be imposed.
Although local taxes may increase the city's total revenues for such improvements, they
cannot increase the total (tax and fee) liability of new developments paying impact fees.
The unadjusted impact fee given above can be thought of as defining the maximum that a
new development would be obliged to pay for such improvements in the form of either taxes
or impact fees.
Adjustment for External Funding
The adjustment for external funding is closely related to the requirement in the CMA that
capital improvements be financially feasible.
Adjustment of the cost basis of improvements to reflect external funding must be based on
a specific program of impact fee projects together with forecasts of expected external funds,
local tax revenues, and impact fee revenues. The time period for these projections should
be sufficient that fees collected in the first year could begin to be encumbered on projects
commencing in the sixth year; therefore, a planning horizon of at least twelve years seems
appropriate.
As with other funding sources, impact fee revenues may be programmed to capacity
improvements on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, external funds and local tax revenues
may be seen as paying for a portion of the capacity added by each improvement, and
impact fees as funding the remaining capacity. The fee calculated for a trip on a specific
improvement would be the same, regardless of the portion of the project paid for by external
or local revenues; the level of funding other than impact fees would have only the effect of
shortening or lengthening the period over which impact fees must be collected. If the time
period required to recover a project's costs through impact fees is too long, the jurisdiction
must consider either finding additional revenues, or scaling back the improvement. A
project whose costs cannot be recovered in the time period covered by the capacity
program may be too large or may have an inadequate benefit/cost ratio.
APPENDIX A:
"DIVIDING A PUBLIC GOOD"
1992 COMPENDIUM OF TECHNICAl. PAPERS
ITE ANNUAL MEETINg:;
inl'orlnalion to calculate thc fee from a aclual rates of growlh. There also exists,
single model run roi' each sile. by definition, the possibility that users of
two identical improvements will pay very
Concepts of Usage different prices.
The discussion that follows is intended A capacity share solves this problem by
only to clarify the technical problem of defining a fixed unit of consumption of the
calculating a site's usage of a set of improved facility, analogous to a reserved
improvement links in a travel model "space." This approach presents an
within the constraints described above, unambiguous set of choices to developers.
King County considered many policy The unit price is independent of the
issues--such as the question of credit for amount consumed; once the price is
road taxes expected to be paid by a new determined, the only question is how
development--that belong to the more rapidly thegoodwill be "purchased." This
general topic of equity in an impact fee places the burden on the planning agency
program. A full treatment of these issues to recommend improvements which are
lies beyond the scope of this paper, actually needed, but it is hard to argue that
it belongs anywhere else.
An early question was whether to calculate
a site's share of responsibility for an Capacity share was the concept chosen by
improvement as a volume share or a King County for its fair-share formula.
capacity share. In the first case, the share Like many jurisdictions, the county
might be calculated as the ratio of site trips ultimately settled on a method of
to expected total growth trips; in the calculating capacity share that might be
second, as the ratio of site trips to capacity termed direct usage. The well known
added by the improvement. The objective capability of travel models to track trips of
in either case is to assign to each instance a particular zone throughout a network
of growth the responsibility for additional was used to identify development-related
capacity made necessary by that growth, traffic on each improvement link; and the
but the technical implications are very fee for each improvement was calculated
different, as the ratio of development-related trips to
capacity added by the improvement.?
The problem with a volume share is the
obvious one of forecasting future This formula has a serious drawback. As
development, particularly in light of the an example, imagine a corridor consisting
fact that the rate and location of of one route with adirectional capacity of
development may be sensitive to the !,000 and existing volume of 1,000, and
impact fee so calculated. This is a assume that a second parallel route of the
chicken-and-egg problem thai arises same type is to be constructed to support
whenever the price of a shared good is growth of 600 trips. It should be clear that
averaged among its users. Even neglecting the growth's capacity share for this new
this sensitivity, the fee for any given link would be 600 / 1000 or 60%: bul this
facility is a moving target, depending on
the latest growth forecast and inevitable
? Thc county's Ibrmula also gave credil Ibr any unused m
discrepancies between thc forecast and "exc,-ss" capacity present in the existing network, but for thc
sake ol clarity Ibis aspecl o[ thc tbrmula has been omilted
ec existing capacity of the link (directional) Derivation of the Corridor Capacity
Share
ev existing volume on the link (directional)
bc base capacity: improved directional The comdor capacity share can be defined
capacity of the link using corridor variables as:
by base volume on the link, found by - G
assigning existing demand to the base CS - SV BV _ __
BC - EC CA (!)
(improved) network
sv site volume on the link, found by assigningwhere G represents growth and CA
the site demand set to the base network represents capacity added by any
improvements in the corridor. In the
The terms er, by, sv are assumed to be example shown in Figure 1, the corridor
model values at equilibrium from a peak capacity share would be:
hour, capacity restrained travel model.
At the corridor level, define the following CS = 1600-1000 ___600 _ 0.6.
analogous terms: 2000 - 1000 1000
EC existing capacity of the corridor The problem of identifying the corridor for
a particular improvement link has already
EV existing volume in the corridor been described. But if the characteristics
of a corridor could be inferred from the
BC base (improved) capacity of the corridor, characteristics of its individual links, it
including all planned improvements would be possible to calculate a corridor
BV base volume in the corridor; equal to EV capacity share from link information
at the corridor level alone. Replacement of the above corridor
variables by their link counterparts does
SV site volume in the corridor, found by not produce the correct result, as can be
assigning the site demand trip table to the shown from the example in Figure 1
base network above. Given the link values:
For a given improvement link, the ec = 0
difference between existing and base bc= 1000
capacity is capacity added (ca). The by=500
difference between the site and base
sv = 800,
volumes on the base network represents
growth (g) on a particular link resulting and substituting these into the corridor
from the proposed development. These capacity share formula, we have:
variables have corridor counterparts: CA
is the sum of capacity added by all 800-500
improvements in the corridor, and G is the CS - 9__ - 0.3,
1000 - 0
sum o1' growth trips from a given site on
all links in the corridor, which is incorrect.
('v .(,w'- hr) ev-(xt,-hv)
CS (hc.ev)-(bv.ec)' (12) CS -- (bc.ev)_{bv.ec) (1000.10)-(500.10)
This forlnula gives the corridor capacity
share for a given improvement link and which is the true corridor capacity share,
site, expressed purely in terms of variables obtained strictly from data on the
observed on the improvement link itself, improvement link.
Notice that the expression requires the link
terms ev and ec. This is the reason for Multiple Improvements In a Corridor
including all planned new links in the
existing network as dummy links with low One question not directly addressed as yet
capacities. The formula can only gather is the possibility that a corridor containing
reformation regarding existing capacity in one improvement link ma), contain other
the corridor from conditions on existing improvement links as well. If the capacity
facilities. By treating every link share formula cannot give the correct
improvement as, in effect, a widening result for all such improvements in a
project, this information can be obtained, single pass, it will have limited practical
(It should be noted that an assignment value.
algorithm of high precision, such as the
"equilibrium algorithm," may be needed This situation is illustrated in Figure 3.
for reliable estimates of ev on the dummy The new link of capacity 1000, shown in
links.) Figure 2, has been replaced by two new
links of capacities 600 and 400
Does the formula work? Figure 2 respectively. In all other respects,
illustrates the problem described in Figure conditions are unchanged from Figure 2.
1, but with the planned new link shown as
a dummy link of capacity 10 in the
Corridor Link
existing network. Variables: Variables:
E(':, = 1000 ev: 990 by: 500 sv: 800
Existing route
E\ 1000 ec = 1000 bc = 1000
Corridor Link B( 2000
Variables: Variables: B~ 1000 ev = 6 bv = 300 sv = 480
ev = 990 bv = 500 sv = 800 S~ =1600 New link #1 ec=6 bc = 600
EC = 1000 Existing route. .->
EV = 1000 ec = 1000 bc = 1000 ev = 4 by = 200 sv = 320
BC = 200O New link #2
ec = 4 bc: 400
BV = 1000 ev = 10 bv = 500 sv=800
SV = 1600 New link
Oc = 10 bc = ~O0O Fig, '.re 3: Multiple Improvement Corridor
Figure 2: Existing, Base, and Site
Volumes What result should be expected here'? The
total capacity added at the corridor level is
Using equation (12) for corridor capacity the same as before, as is the total increase
share and thc improvement link data in demand due to growth. Analytically.
shown above, we obtain: makes no difference whether thc capacity
is added as one facility or two. Therefore,
the capacity shares for new links I and 2
should be 0.6, and this is in fact thc case:
APPENDIX K
Concurrency Management System
Procedural Prototype
(no! Iransmlttedl
C()NCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROCEDURAl, PROTOTYPE
City of Port Angeles
HT Associates
May 1996
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum describes concepts of the concurrency requirements of the Growth
Management Act. and suggests a set of procedures that could be used by the City of Port
Angeles to meet those requirements.
CONCEPTS OF CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
The concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), contained in RCW
36.70A. are as follows:
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or
who choose to plan under section 4 of this act, local jurisdictions must adopt
and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the
development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline
below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the
comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the
development. These strategies may include increased public transportation
service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation
systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection
"concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies
are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in
place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years.
The intent of the concurrency requirement, according to the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC 365-195-210) is that "adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of
development occur."
The term "adequate" is based on the jurisdiction's adopted level of service (LOS) standards.
Thc six-year time frame within which such level of service standards must be met may be
assumed to start on the diitc of approval of a new development. On this basis, the law may be
interpreted to mean that a development which will violate adopted level of service standards
could win approval il'. ill the time of approval, the jurisdiction has made financial
commitments to improvements or management strategies that will restore the LOS standard
no more than six years tk)llowing approval. The intent of this provision seems to be that a
(.'oncurreno' Management Nystem Procedural Prototype Page K- ~,
LOS Averaging
Many jurisdictions have lkmnd it helpful to use areawide averaging of facilities' performance
levels to describe LOS, based on the theory that in most transportation systems, traffic on a
deficient facility has Ihe option of diverting to nearby alternatives. Of course, the presence of
the deficiency is, in itself, evidence that the alternatives are not as attractive, and that such
diversion must not be cost-free. That is, if a single segment of the transportation system
regularly fails, then it can be concluded that the rest of the system has no remedy to offer--at
least not in the immediate range of conditions.l From this standpoint, the use of area-wide
averaging is questionable. There is value, however, in averaging conditions, either
geographically or by class of facility, with the pragmatic objective of reducing the sensitivity
of LOS calculations to minor aspects of access or layout of a site of proposed development.
That is, the impact of a proposed development should not be overly determined by details of
site design that may change several times prior to actual construction. For this reason alone,
some form of averaging is recommended.
Flexible LOS Standards
Some jurisdictions have argued that uniform LOS standards tend to promote sprawl, since
conditions in urbanized or developed locations tend to be worse than in suburban or rural
locations. For this reason, it is argued, downtown areas (for example) should not be expected
to meet standards as high as in residential neighborhoods. There are two main problems with
this reasoning.
First, it is the purpose of the concurrency requirement to prohibit new development where
public transportation facilities are inadequate; this implies that if the jurisdiction in question
is unable or unwilling to remedy the deficiency, then the development either should not
occur, or should occur elsewhere. This effect is clearly the intent of the law; and if it is also
the result, then the law has succeeded. The assertion that this constitutes sprawl amounts to
an assertion that the law is defective--a possibility that lies beyond the scope of this analysis.
Second, development can occur outside of the built-up area of a given jurisdiction without
contributing to "sprawl." It could do so by locating in another development center, perhaps
even a new one. It could also do so by locating in a suburban employment center, in some
cases: it could be argued that such centers merely make use of road capacity in the reverse
direction from the traditional peak flow, without enlarging the urban form.
For these reasons, a single LOS standard is recommended even though flexible standards
appear to be allowed under WAC guidelines interpreting the GMA.
~ As condilmns worsen, ol course, cvcn very I'm qclched route ahcrnalivcs may begin to bc attractive.
('oncurrt, ncv Managemen! ,~¥stem Procedural l~rott~lyl~t' Page
generation, with thc .iurisdiction reserving thc righl lo require evidence that the programs are
place.
I}ROCEDURES FOR Al)MINISTERING THE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1'o set up a CMS, it is recommended Ihat the .jurisdiction use the following procedures.
I. Define LOS standards as part of the comprehensive planning process,
including districts or classes ol' [acilities to be used for LOS averaging, if
desired.
2. Establish a travel model calibrated to existing conditions.
3. Identify "pipeline" growth--developments that have granted approval but
are not yet in place--and add the traffic associated with such growth to the
model trip table representing existing conditions, to produce a "pipeline" trip
table.
4. Identify six-year street (or transit) capital improvements to which the city
has made a financial commitment, and add them to the existing network to
make a "CIP" network. Assign the pipeline (existing plus approved
development) trip table to the CIP network, identify remaining deficiencies,
and determine whether adjustments should be made to the six-year program.
5. Begin continuous processing of development applications, treating each
application as independent of the others. Applications that meet concurrency
requirements and obtain approval should be docketed until such time as the
travel model is updated. Withdrawals or revisions of previously approved
applications should be docketed as well.
6. Periodically--as the pace of development applications or CIP revisions may
warrant--remove all approved developments or development amendments
from the holding docket, and add the traffic associated with each development
(or amendment) to the pipeline trip table. At the same time, make any
required adjustments to the model street network to reflect either new
construction or changes in the six-year CIP.
7. Following this update, resume processing development applications as
before.
8. FollowinB each periodic update, publish model information identifying
those arterials or ll'ilnsit t'acilities that are deficient or close to being deficient.
This inl'ormation could be poslcd al Ibc building permil counter and made
available by newslcltcr, electronic bulletin hoard, etc.
ADDENDUM TO TSFP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This addendum to the Transportation Services and Facilities Plan (TSFP), prepared-by Entranco
Consulting Engineers in October, 1996, addresses revisions and additions resulting from Public
Hearing comments, Planning Commission suggestions, and items bevond the scope and time frame
of the study. These are as follows:
· White's Creek Crossing recommendation modification
· Clarification of Non-motorized facilities
· Modification of the Street Classifications
· Modification of the Speed Limit Ordinance
1. White's Creek Crossing recommendation modification
After discussion of the TSFP recommended Scenario III (White's Creek Crossing), the Planning
Commission initially suggested a modified routing (Scenario IIIA) which would meet initial needs and
reduce the overall costs. This revision eliminated the physical crossing of White's Creek by
elimination of that portion east of Race Street. This modified route would have been from the
Tumwater Truck Route to Race Street and then north on Race Street to First Street. Following City
Council heatings and further discussion Public Works Engineering staff provided an additional
alternate (Scenario IIIB) for consideration which included the Planing Commissions routing as an
initial phase and added the routing for future crossing of Whites Creek. The routing for the Whites
Creek crossing would leave the interim routing at Race and Lauridsen and proceed southerly to join
with the proposed Heart of the Hills Parkway near Porter Street. The Heart of the Hills Parkway
parallels the BPA power line eastward and ultimately will rejoin SR-101 easterly of Deer Park Road.
This would result in a routing that could be extended easterly crossing Whites, Ennis, Lee's and
Morse Creek in stages and fulfill the City Council goal for a future alternative east/west route. The
Proposed Scenario IIIB extends this routing to the current City Limits east of Golf Course Road.
The sequencing, description and costs of the Racea'Lauridsen Alternate Route are as follows:
Interim Routing.
A. Lincoln/Lauridsen Blvd Signal upgrade
and intersection (Council Goal) S 453,000.00
B. Lauridsen Blvd/Race Street
Bridge widening and intersection revisions $1,812,000.00
C. Tumwater Truck Route Interchange $1,007,000.00
Interim Subtotal $ 3,272,000.00
Heart of Hills Connection/Whites Creek Crossing $ 6,210,000.00
Total $ 9,482,000.00
2. Clarification of Non-motorized facilities
Although the TSFP does discuss and suggest bicycle and pedestrian facilities, it was not intended to
be a comprehensive plan for these facilities. The recommendation is to adopt the suggestions
contained in the TSFP on an interim basis and direct the established non-motorized advisory
committee to prepare a non-motorized addendum to the TSFP. The non-motorized addendum should
have as a minimum included in it:
· definition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
· proposed routes
· design and construction standards to be used
3. Modification of the Street Classifications
The TSFP recommends several changes to the City's arterial system. This will require revision of the
Ordinance that designates arterial classifications, to be consistent with the TSFP.
The Ordinance should be revised to reflect the following TSFP recommendations:
· Streets to be eliminated from collector arterial designation are:
Street Name Termini
10th Street Milwaukee Dr. to Flores Street
12th Street 'C' Street to 'O' Street
14th Street 'N' Street to Milwaukee Dr.
16th Street 'B' Street to 'C' Street
'A' Street 5th Street to Lauridsen Blvd
Francis Street Front Street to 8th Street
Penn Street Front Street to 6th Street
· Streets to be changed from collector arterial designation to minor arterial designation are:
Street Name Termini
Lauridsen Blvd Lincoln Street to Race (Mod.for IIIB).
Golf Course Road BPA Esm't. to First St. (Mod.for II1B).
Marine Dr. Cedar Street to Valley Street
First Street Valley Street to Lincoln Street
Front Street Lincoln Street to Valley Street
Streets to be added to the collector arterial designation are:
Street Name Termini
8th Street Race Street to Chambers Street
Fairmont Ave. SR 101 to Lauridsen Blvd.
4. Modification of the Speed Limit Ordinance
The final item would be to upgrade the speed limit Ordinance to adjust the speed limits to be
consistent with the revised street classifications and the 85 percentile speeds.
N 2PROJECTSL93-24\TRANPLN2.GWK
Table 5.7 [Revised]
MajorCapital Improvements by Network Scenario and
Associated Planning Level Cost Estimate
[in $000]
Network Scenario
Proiect Proj. No. II II1 Ilia IIIb IV V VI VII
IJncoln Peabody Couplet S-9 $220 $220 :$220
Heart of the Hills Parkway RL-1 $17,563 $17,563
White Creek Crossing RL-2
Lincoln/Lavrideen Bh~d. Signal & intersection $453 $453 $453 $453
_. Lauhdeen Blvd/Raco Stree~ Bndge Widen $1,612 $1,812 $1,812
c. White Creek Bridge and arterial extension $4,610 $0 $6,210 $4,610 $4,610 $4,610
Milwaukee Drive RL-3 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,922 $5,622 $6,922 $5,922
Airport Road RL-4 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671 $1,671
Tumwater Truck Road RL-5 $1,007 $1.007 $1.007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007 $1,007
Signalize Peabody/Front 1-1 $120 $120 $120
.......... PeabodylLauridsen I-2 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
Signalize
Sig n__a_l',~...e Race/Fifth I-3 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
lSignalize Lauridsen/Laurel I..4 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
....................... 1-6 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
Signalize C/Eighth
fSB Right-Turn lane ~ Lincoln/Eighth S-1 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40
EB Thru Lane on F rst from Golf Course S-2 $726 $726 $726 $726
Lane ~.~ First/Golf Course Road
Median Acceleration Lane ~. Airpo~SR 101 S-3 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226 $226
EB Right-Turn Lane (~ Lauddeen/Laurel S-4 $23 $23 $23 $23
............................ Lauridsen/Laurel S-5 $28 $28 $28 $28
NB Right-Turn Lane ~
iEB Left and Right-Tum Lanes and WB S-6 $312 $312
Right-Turn and Thru Lanes ~ Lauridse~/Race
[EB Right-Turn Lane and WB Thru Lane S-7
!EB Thru Lane ¢~ Lauddeen/Lincoln S-8 $333
EB Thru Lane on First from Ennis to DelGuzzi Dr. RM-1 $1,116 $1,116
Total Cost by Network Scenario $10,365 $16,998 $12,388 $18,910 $31,739 $11,548 $14,982 $32,068
n:~vks~ojects~93-24V~able5_7.wk4
The Non Motorized Advisory Committee recommends that the City of Port Angeles apply for and
maintain a bicycle friendly community designation. The criteria is easy to meet and designation
would be good for the economy, environment, and enjoyment of many of the citizens, adults as
well as children.
The criteria is as follows:
PRIMARY CRITERIA - (Must do all of the following)
1. The City must establish a written policy designed to develop and maintain
"bicycle safe streets and pathways." This has been done by the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Services and Facilities Plan.
2. The City shall budget and spend $1.00 per capita per year on bicycle
facilities and events. The City could asic the Chamber of Commerce and
the North Olympic Visitors and Convention Bureau to use part of the
monies given to them to put safe bicycle routes on maps and work with
bicycle clubs to put on events.
3. The City shall pass an annual proclamation recomizing May as "National
Bicycle Month" and designate one day in May as "Bike to Work Day."
This is simple and costs nothing. There are groups out there who would
plan events.
4. The City shall establish a bicycle advisory committee and designate a
bicycle issues contact person on the City staff.. This has already been
done. The Nonmotorized Advisosry Committee can act as the City's
Bicycle Advisiory Committee, and Tom Riepe of the City's Police
Department and Gary Kenworthy of the City's Public Works Department
are the contact people on the City staff.
SECONDARY CRITERIA - (Must do two of the following)
1. The City of Port Angeles Police Department shall establish a program to
teach bicycle safety in schools stressing the wearing of helmets. The City
of Port Angeles has a bike safety program in place and a police officer
who coordinates the program.
2. The community shall sponsor at least one annual cycling event. This
should not be a problem.
3. The community shall publish bicycling information identifying suggested
routes and safety. The bicycle club is interested in doing this.
4. The community shall provide public bicycle parking facilities and
encourage private bicycle parking facilities. Encourage multi-modal
project to put in bicycle parking. Encourage all new construction or
remodeling or remodeling to provide for some bicycle parking.
Meeting the primary and secondary criteria for a bicycle friendly city should be very easy to
attain. Therefore, to gain a bicycle friendly city designation would be quite easy to achieve at a
very low cost to the City of Port Angeles.
NONMOTOltlZED ROUTING SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
for the Draft Comprehensive Transportation Services and Facilities Plan (TSFP)
Page 2-2 -- add reference to ASHTO standards in Urban Services Standards & Guidelines (1995)
Page 2-3/Table 2.2 - add bicycle and pedestrian standards per ASHTO and correct narrative to
reflect the Committee's master bicycle routing plan
Page 24Frable 2.3 -- add whole definition from WSDOT Class II regarding unidirectional
requirement
Page 3-28 - correct overstatement about continuous sidewalks to replace "uninterrupted" with "or
nearly continuous"
Page 3-29 -- correct overstatement about paved shoulders on Race Street
Figures 3.6 & 3.7 - add new master bicycle routing plan as Figure 3.6B and replace Figure 3.7 with
the Committee's master pedestrian routing plan
Page 3-30 - delete last sentence of first section which starts with "Figure 3.7"
Page 3-33 -- correct statement about continuous sidewalks to add "or nearly continuous"
Page 3-34 -- correct first sentence in the last paragraph to read "To improve safety, the City will
pursue educational programs targeted at pedestrians and motorized users."
Page 5-17 -- add narrative about pedestrian facilities priorities and another about bicycle facilities
priorities
Page 5-17/Figure 5.5 and 5-18/'table 5.4 -- replace interim bicycle facilities plan with the
Committee's master bicycle routing plan and update Figure 5.5 and Table 5.4
Pages 5-21 and 5-23/Table 5.6 -- correct cost figures to be accurate for pedestrian facilities only
Pages 5-24 and 5-26/Table 5.8 -- correct cost figures to be accurate for bicycle facilities only
Page 5-29 - replace interim bicycle plan and School Walkway Program with the Committee's master
bicycle and pedestrian routing plans
Tables 5.12 and 5.13 -- revise to be more like Table 5.11
Page 5-34 - revise priorities for pedestrian and bicycle facilities per the Committee's routing plans
and priorities
Page 5-35/Table 5.15 -- correct cost figures to be accurate for pedestrian and bicycle facilities only
07
Pedestrian Facility Projects (Keplaces Table 5.6)
Location Project Cost in Location Project Cost in
O00"s O00's
#Milwaukee Drive KO-1 $119 *Peabody St. RO-31 $129^
#Fourth Street RO-3 $82 Ennis St RO-33 $103
~rIill St. RO-4 $88 Race St. RO-37 $163
#Francis Street none Laurel St. RO-38 $575
gWaterfront Tr. none *Park Ave. RO-40 $295^
RO-39 $388
SR 101 E. to Monroe RO-60 $490 Ahlvers Road RO-41 $134
Front St. RO-64 ? *Mt. Angeles Rd. RO-43 $41
First St. N/A Campbell Ave. RO-44 $47
"N" St. RO-2 $202 *Porter St. RO-45 $97
*"M" St. RO-5 $85 Liberty St. RO-46 $134
*Tenth St. RO-6 $342 *Chase St. RO48 $93
FitCh St. RO-34 $13 Baker St. RO-52 $134
*Eighth St. RO-66 $100 Gates St. RO-53 $142
*Sixteenth St. RO-9 $231 Pioneer St. RO-58 $99
*"I" St. RO-11 $208 Edgewood Dr. RO-62 $482
*Lauridsen Blvd. RO-36^ $901 ^
Fairmont Ave. RO-18 $100 Pine St. RO-28 $160
SR 101 W. to city limit RO-36^ $151^ Cherry St. RO-30^ 179^
RO-29
*W. Sixth St. RO-22 $271
*W. Seventh St. RO-33 $80
*W. Twelfth lit. R0-24 $169
*"E" St. RO-25 $81
*"D" St. RO-26 $138
Cedar St. RO-27 $262
# = Olympic Discovery Trail component
* = School Walkway Program ^ = includes bicycle lane costs
Prioritization of Bicycle Projects (Replaces Table 5.13)
High Priority project cost estimate
number
Olympic Discovery Trail Components
First St. RO-63 $105,300
Front St. RO-64^ Not Available
SR 101 east
Medium Priority
Eighth St. RO-66^ Not Available
Race St. RO-37 $45,300
Lauridsen Blvd. RO-36^ Not Available
^ ~- project significantly exceeds nonmotorized
Prioritization of Pedestrian Projects
High Priority project cost estimate
number
Olympic Discovery Trail components
First St.
Front St. RO-64^ Not Available
SR 101 east (to Monroe) RO-60 $490,000
Medium Priority per current funding program
School Walkway Program RO- $2,869,000
5,6,66,9,11,
36,22,33,24,
25,31,39,40,
43?45748
^ -- project significantly exceeds nonmotorized