The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About022 90 -I~ Ofj : p/}J ~ -10 ·qo 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the matter of x Adoption of the Glen x Cove Transportation Plan x RESOLUTION NO. 22-90 WHEREAS, it was determined that there was a need to develop short and long range transportation improvement programs to facili tate traffic access and circulation and improve traffic safety within and through the Glen Cove area, and WHEREAS, sound planning principles require such a plan to be reflective of current needs, desires, and interests of the citizens to whom it relates, and WHEREAS, a series of three workshops and public hearings have been conducted to solicit public input into said revised plan, and WHEREAS, the plan promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners do hereby ~prove and certify the Glen Cove Transportation Study, dated~auð ~ ¡1C¡9ö as attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners will diligently uphold, promote, and maintain the integrity of the principles, goals, and policies contained herein, which may include the adoption of official controls deemed necessary to assure the systematic execution of said plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS,74 DAY OF~¡u~'/191£. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6:-:: "X , ,..~" f '....,.', ". ' ,../".' t, ~,~ '" '" ~ ( ....... I:' '. / '" 'I '" . I " I 'f , \ : ~ \. I·'. ,~ ,: . ' . I· ...../. .,1. :I ,.'...,. . , - '" . SEAL:. " .) ).~. ~ . :£ ' ? -~~ð--~-(_., r{ ~ø"-¡: <1-..--( ..._ George C. rown, Chairman I~ BI' G. Brown, Member /') \, / . "-.' - , (';{;i ¿f i. ,;;:4/.., c.', >;(¿'~/.:. ;t 2.;;,' .æ;..;1 {,.-- Larry:!. Denn1son, Member AP~/ Jo F. Raym6nd ' p I / ¡d Iß ¡:';; 00 21 GLEN COVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY January 8,1990 Prepared for: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Prepared by: 1œ Trans~o ~ 14715 Bel-Red Road- Suite 100 BeDevue, WA 98007 ,,',;)'OC ~ 16· ,dJ])Q1.22 GLEN COVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared for: Jefferson County Department of Public Works January 8, 1990 Prepared by: The TRANS PO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98007 ~wt. '-','11:, 1.23 ~'---"_.'--"-'-----_._-_.- ...."'.~-~- TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND AN'D SWDY PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SWDY PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TRANSPORI'ATION SYS1'EM AN.ALYSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SR 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . .5 Dlscove'fY" Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Jacob Miller Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Mill Road/Paper Mill Truck Route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Thomas Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 Glen Cove Industrial Area Collector Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 14 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Project Ustlngs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Project Costs and Funding Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Project VlclI11ty Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. Existing Street System and Daily Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3. Recommendations Short-Range (1-6 Year) Transportation Improvement Plan. . . . . .17 4. Recommendations Long-Range (1-15 Year) Transportation Improvement Plan. . . . . 18 LIST OF TABLES 1. Recommendations - Short-Range (1-6 Year) - Transportation Improvement Plan. . . .19 2. Recommendations - Long-Range (1-15 Year) - Transportation Improvement Plan. . . 22 3. Cost Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 ;.VI. 1ft,. œ: 1.24 BACKGROUND AND STUDY PURPOSE In June 1988. Jefferson County adopted policies to direct growth in the Highway 20 corridor Just south of the City of Port Townsend. The corridor policies were developed to allow business growth in the area. while "protecting the uUlity. safety. and aesthetics of the corridor." These policies established corridors for frontage roads to provide access to busi- nesses in the industI1al area. On the east side of SR 20. Otto Street was designated as the collector road. The Louisa Street Corridor (see Figure 4 - Recommendations) was desig- nated as the collector road to serve property access on the west side of SR 20. Access to SR 20 is to be limited to a series of collector roads which w1llintersect with the highway. In addition. the Highway 20 Corridor Policies state that a roadway access should be developed within the abandoned railroad right of way. crossing under SR 20 at the existing railroad bridge. These policies are intended to provide adequate access for future developments in the area while maintaining the capacity and safety of SR 20 to accommodate thru tramc. Since then. the county has received applications for new developments within that area. Some of these permit applications requested that Jefferson County vacate existing rights of way and allow construction of new roadways to serve property development. The Jefferson County Department of Public Works did not want to develop the requested road- ways or vacate existing right of way on a piecemeal basis. and selected the TRANSPO Group of Bellevue. Washington to conduct this study. In that regard. this study supplements the Highway 20 Corridor Policies by providing a comprehensive evaluation of future transporta- tion system needs for the Glen Cove area. The purpose of the Glen Cove Transportation Study is to identify short and long- range road improvements in and around the Glen Cove Industrial area. As shown in Figure 1. the study area is located southwest of Port Townsend. SR 20. the primary highway serving Port Townsend. bisects the study area. The primary study area includes the unincorpo- rated section on both sides of SR 20 between Old Fort Townsend Road and the Port Townsend city limits. For continuity. the study area also includes the SR 20 corridor as it enters the City of Port Townsend. The city portion of SR 20 was recently studied by the city as part of the 89265.01 The TRANS~ Group, 1Fð.: . > 'fiR' 12~ ,JØL. ' ,.¡.'. UI:I Page 1 " North .. \ \ " '. "V ~.OHcrION ." 1$, , , , " v'.,.. It. .. or <> ........ -.----... ~ \0"- ,,"&1~ 10 ,0 »~.,.r~f ...p <JI .- \' -\ ,. % o -< z C'I 0 í c z .. [11 ... -t .. GLEN COVE TRANSPORT A TIOM STUDY Figure 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP î6~w;¡ œ .¥.ðL .1.26 100 Trans~o ~ 89265.01 . The TRANS PO Group, Inc. Page 2 Gateway project. Conceptual plans for the SR 20 (Sims Way) coITidor were adopted by the city in May 1988. The Glen Cove Transportation Study also supplements the city's Gateway project study. Much of the study area on either side of SR 20 is designated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive PLan for industrial uses. This designation also would allow commercial and residentlal uses within the area. The study area includes the Port Townsend Paper Corpo- ration mill. A small residentJal community is located near Carroll Avenue and S 8th Street in the central part of the study area, With other individual residences scattered throughout. In addition to ident1fy1ng the roadways needed to seIVe future development in and around the industrial area. this study also evaluated options to improve truck routing to/from the Port Townsend Paper Company mill. The current travel patterns for trucks results in circuitous routing and potentlal safety hazards. The analysis of a future truck route was incorporated with the road planning for the industrial area to provide a compre- hensive transportation system. A primaIy purpose of this study is the identification of a collector road system to serve the Glen Cove area. This analysis is based on a 15-year horizon, during which a large portion of the area may be developed. The study also evaluated possible solutions to existing roadway deficiencies to provide a basis for road improvements over the next five to six years. These improvements tend to be lower cost projects which will improve safety and minimize capacity problems in the near future. They have been evaluated in the context of the longe-range transportation system needs. The short and long-range transportation improvement plans will provide a solid foundation for decision making within the study area. The recommended plan also sets forth project priorities to assist Jefferson County, other agencies, and private developers in allocating available funds for transportation projects in the area. 89265.01 - Vftë TRJ~'~~~p:iP 1.27 , . Page 3 STUDY PROCESS The Glen Cove Transportation Study was largely developed over a four-month pertod between May and August 1989. The study was comprised of the following five work tasks: · Study Issues Identlfication · Inventory of Existing Conditions · Traffic Forecasts · Deficiencies Analyses and Transportation Systems Alternatives · Recommended Transportation Improvement Program. The consultant team was directed throughout the study by means of a series of workshops and public meetings. In order to receive timely input. the workshops were held prtor to the completion of key work elements. Speciflcally. three workshops were held to discuss study issues and analysis of existing conditions. deficiencies analyses and trans- portation systems alternatives. and the draft reconunendations. The workshops included agency representatives from the Jefferson County Depart- ment ofPubl1c Works. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOI). the City of Port Townsend. the Jefferson County Planning Commf~~ion. Jefferson County Planning and BuJIdJng Department. the Economic Development Council of Jefferson County. and the Jefferson County Parks Department. In addition to agency representatives. the workshops were open to key property owners and a representative of the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. Public meetings also were held during the course of the study. The public meetings were used to disseminate study findings and to solicit input and comments from the gen- eral public. Copies of meeting handouts were avai1able from the Jefferson County Depart- ment of Public Works throughout the study, 89265.01 The TRANSPOil'l\l. ',' P, Inc. r-n 12Cl _ VOL. J:Ø ~~ tQ . 0 Page 4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSES The following discussion provides an ovelView of existing and forecasted traffic con- ditions within the study area. It is organized by major travel corridors and/or subareas within the study area. A discussion presenting options for truck routes to serve the area is included with the analysis of the Mill Road corridor. The recommended short and long- range plans are summarized in the next section. For reference, Figure 2 summartzes the existing street system and existing daily traffic volumes within the study area. SR20 SR 20 is the major highway connecting Port Townsend and SR 101 southwest of the study area. Within the study area, SR 20 is a two-lane asphalt roadway with paved shoul- ders on both sides of the highway. Left-turn storage lanes exist at major intersections within the study area. South of the city l1m1ts, the posted speed l1m1t is 50 miles per hour (mph). with 30 to 40 mph speed l1m1ts within the City of Port Townsend. The highway is constructed in rolling terrain with grades of 5 percent or more for short sections. The highway currently carries up to 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd). During the AM peak hour, the major travel flow is northeasterly into Port Townsend. The major traffic flow is reversed during the PM peak hour. Currently. an estimated 70 to 80 percent of the PM peak hour traffic flow along SR 20 goes thru the study area. with relatively minor side street tramc flows. Even with the high thru traffic volumes and speeds. side street traffic accessing SR 20 experiences only minor delays. Delays to thru traffic on SR 20 are mJn1- mJzed by the use of left-turn storage lanes and acceleration lanes at key intersections. Traffic safety along SR 20 was identified as a major issue during the early phase of the study. Analysis of records maintained by WSDar indicated that accident occurrence along SR 20 within the study area had decreased sfgnificantly between 1985 and 1988. The decrease was largely attributed to reconstruction and widening of the roadway in 1987. which added left-turn lanes and provided wider, paved-road shoulders. 89265,01 The.T~~S~î~~ œ. :129 Page 5 , , , I I I I , I , I , L._' " North . . ..... ~: :::~ - CAPe Mill ~ ~900 ..- : FRED 1/ Glen Cove 0' 0" co: a' 0:' .,... t: SETON Rd. 300 ~! ~! 0' g f i .,....: : OLD FORT TOWNSEND Rd. .. i ~.::..:::.. ............::..:: :::::: ::::: ,:.:.:.. .,...,...,.,............................ - :.;.;: :j:f~:j:j:~{:j 22-28 ft Wide-Asphalt Surface mmml22-28 ft WIde-Bituminous Surface 111111/1122-28 ft Wide-Gravel Surface :.:.:.:. 18-21 ft Wide-Bituminous Surface ~ < 18 ft Wide-Bituminous Surface 10,900-1987/1988 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes 'GLEN COVE TRANSPORTATION. STUDY Figure 2 EXISTING STREET SYSTEM AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES TOO Trans~o £m{J 89265.01 TheTR~f'G1'6~J.AM :~QtJ~ . 1.30 Page 6 Locations along SR 20 which st1ll experience accidents each year include the com- mercial area near Thomas Street (within the City of Port Townsend). Many of these acci- dents involve vehicles entering and exiting businesses in the corridor, which have poorly defined driveways. Other accident locations include SR 20, just south of Fredericks Street. and at the intersection of Seton Road. The number of accidents at these locations is not unusually high, given the traffic volumes. but does indicate potential problem areas. A number of accidents also have occurred over the past several years on the section of SR 20 east of M1ll Road. State accident records indicate that wildlife were involved in a number of these accidents. Additional stgnage warning drivers of the hazard should be constdered in the corridor. Comments received during the study indicated that the SR 20 intersection with Mill Road is also a potential safety problem due to lfmited sight distances. Because of the sight distance restrictions, trucks exiting the paper mill typically use Thomas Street resulting in circuitous travel and adding to potential safety problems at that location. Reducing the posted speed lfmit to improve safety along this section of SR 20 was discussed during several of the workshops. Currently. it is unlikely that WSDar criteria for establtshing posted speed lfmits would warrant such a reduction. Reducing the speed lfmit without meeting the technical criteria is not desirable. and may result in traffic enforcement problems. A lower average travel speed would. however. reduce the existing sight distance deficiencies at Mfll Road. Between 1982 and 1987, traffic volumes on SR 20 within the study area have grown 7 to 10 percent per year. Due to the higher base year traffic volumes, the percentage growth rate is expected to decrease. However. signtftcant increases in traffic are still expected over the next several years. The increase in traffic along SR 20 will be comprised of two elements-thm traffic and local traffic. 'Ibm traffic includes traffic that has no ori- gin or destination within the study area, while local traffic can be defined as having at least one trip end within the study area. The forecasted traffic growth will not require major widening of the highway. suffi- cient capacity should exist beyond the year 2000. In order to maintain thm-traffic flow along SR 20. several improvements were evaluated. These included construction of I1gbt- turn deceleration lanes at major intersections, closing the west approach of the Mfll Roadl Discovery Road intersection. and developing a series of offset 'T' intersections which would allow development of left-turn acceleration lanes. These types of improvements separate 89265.01 The TRANSPO Groli' ~C,.' ~'J6l: Ift,~ 00 1.31 Page 7 thru traffic from local trame, thereby maintaining roadway capacity and reduCing potential safety problems. Other potential improvements along SR 20 included consolidating and delineating driveways in the commercial area on either side of Thomas Street. Construction of a two- way left-turn lane along this section of roadway would be desirable to accommodate longer range traffic forecasts. In order to improve truck access and general traffic safety at the intersection of Mill Road and SR 20, vegetation should be cut back and existing business signs relocated. These actions would increase the available sight distances at the intersection. Easements from adjacent property owners would likely be required to complete these improvements. In order to accommodate longer range growth in the Glen Cove industrtal area with- out severely limiting the capacity of SR 20, it is desirable to minimize direct access to the highway from adjacent properties. This concept is consistent with the adopted Highway 20 Conidor Policies. This study reconfirmed the use of Otto Street and Louisa Street as frontage roads within the industrtal area. These frontage roads and accompanying east- west collector roads are discussed in more detaJ1later in this section. Discovery Road Discovery Road is a two-lane arterial to the west of SR 20. It is oriented southwest to northeast and provides an alternative to SR 20 for tramc to and from some locations within Port Townsend. Discovery Road passes within 100 feet of SR 20 at its intersection of Mill Road. Currently, strtping along the roadway is faded. making it dJfficult to delineate travel lanes or the edge of roadway. Within the study area, Discovery Road carries less than 2.000 vpd. Much of the traffic using Discovery Road accesses the roadway at Cape George Road. Forecast traffic volumes would not require widening of the roadway to add capacity. Existing deficiencies along Discovery Road include narrow travel lanes and minimal shoulders. Sight distance also is a problem at intersections within the study area, The ... 89265.01 The TRANS PO Group, fj ','., 32 VOL ,Œ,-G ;çtJl1. 00 1 . , Page 8 sight distance restrictions are greatest at the Jntersection of D1scoveIY Road and Jacob Miller Road. Sight distance problems at the Jacob Miller Road Jntersection are related to both the skewed angle of the intersection and differences in roadway grade. Analysis of accident records confirm the problems at this intersection. Short-term options to resolve the probe lem include closing the east approach (Jacob M1l1er Road) of the intersection. This would result in traffic sh1ftJng to the M1l1 Road/SR 20/DiscoveIY Road intersection, which was not desirable due to the close intersection spacing at that location. Other potentlaI short-range improvements include cutting back vegetation and regrading the area within the right of way to improve visibility. Easements may be required to maintain acceptable slopes within the right of way. Relocating the stop bars and stop signs on the east and west approaches also would eIÙlance visibility at the intersection. Installation of a flashing trafilc control beacon was evaluated to improve detlnition of the intersection. Longer range plans could Include Significant regrading and reaJignment of the intersection and DiscoveIY Road northeast of the Intersection. Relatively minor safety problems also exist at the intersection of DiscoveIY Road and Cape George Road. Accidents at this intersection typiCally involve eastbound traffic on Cape George Road failing to stop at the intersection and running off the road. Improved signage would be appropriate to minimize future problems at the intersection. This inter- section could be realigned and constructed to allow the addition of an approach from the east side of DiscoveIY Road. This new road would provide access to properties east of DiscoveIY Road and could tie into a possible future northward extension of Louisa Street. These new connections would redirect traffic to and from the south on SR 20 away from the aforementioned intersection of Jacob Miller Road/D1scoveIY Road. As trafflc volumes increase along DiscoveIY Road, it would be appropriate to widen the roadway to CUlTent standards, including shoulders. The shoulders would aJlow drivers to move their vehicles clear of the travel lanes if they were disabled. The shoulders also would eIÙlance pedestrian safety. 89265.01 The TRANSPO GI'QfAðD. C. . ;, VOl J.D·· I'M,¡, on. 1.33 Page 9 Jacob Miller Road Jacob Miller Road is a two-lane facility providing access to low-density residential areas northwest of the study area. It also provides access to the Jefferson County landfill and recycling center. The section of Jacob Miller Road between S 2nd Street and SR 20 is 22-feet wide with narrow shoulders. Jacob Miller Road between SR 20 and Discovery Road averages a 10 percent grade with fairly steep approaches at both intersections. The steep grade results in the previously dJscussed sight distance problems at Discovery Road. The grade also makes it difficult for truck tramc, including those destined to the landfill. Short-tenn and longer range Improvements at the intersections with Discovery Road were dJscussed as part of the Discovery Road analysis. West of S 2nd Street, Jacob Miller Road makes a 90-degree turn to the north. This section of roadway is approximately 20-feet wide with narrow shoulders. The bend in Jacob Miller Road is currently delineated with one advance warning and a single chevron sign. Although no accidents were reported at this location between 1984 and 1988, dJscus- stons with the emergency vehicle operators indicate that the location has been a safety problem. Due to the relatively high speeds (40 to 45 mph) observed approaching the curve, additionaJ stgnage and reflector1zed markings would be appropriate. Jacob Miller Road could be extended southward to tie into a northward extension of Louisa Street, as shown in Figure 4. This extension would allow traffic destined to and from SR 20 south of the study area to bypass the Jacob Miller Road intersection with Discovery Road and SR 20. This extension would require acquisition of right of way which could be too costly, given limited county transportation funds. Extending Jacob Miller Road southward would require closure of the existing S 2nd Street intersection with Discovery Road. Design of the new intersection of the Jacob Miller Road extension with Discovery Road should be to current standards in order to eliminate possible future safety hazards that now exist at other intersections in the area. Longer range Improvements could also include upgrading the roadway west and north of S 2nd Street to 22-feet wide plus shoulders. 89265.01 The TRANSPOGrðup, Inc. .V&. 1&r;~ 00.- 1.34 Page 10 - Mill RoadIPaper Mill Truck Route Mill Road connects SR 20 to the Port Townsend Paper Corporation's mill. It is 20- feet wide with m1n1mal shoulders. Less than 1,000 vpd currently use the roadway. Approximately 25 percent of the southeast/eastbound traffic (toward the paper mill) is classifted as trucks. Trucks leaving the paper mill tend to use Thomas Street to avoid the previously described sight distance restriction at the SR 20/M1ll Road intersection. ExIsting and forecasted traffic volumes do not indicate a need for Improved capaCity along the roadway. However. resuIÍacing or reconstruction of portions of the road would be desirable to better accommodate truck traffic. Alternatives to Improving Mill Road and Thomas Street as primary access routes to and from the paper mill include using the abandoned Seattle and North Coast Railroad right of way. The railroad right of way intersects with Thomas Street approximately 140 feet north of Mill Road adjacent to the entrance to the paper mill. The right of way crosses Thomas Street at-grade while crossing under SR 20. West of SR 20. the right of way also crosses under Discovery Road. Using the abandoned railroad right of way for an access route was identified in the Highway 20 Corridor Polides. During the workshops and public meetings. the project was identlfi.ed as a high priority. The key design issue with using the railroad right of way for a truck route revolved around the connection to SR 20, Several options were evaluated. including an interchange type facility providing access to and from the south. The interchange concept consisted of a northbound SR 20 off-ramp near the existing Glen Cove Road/SR 20 intersection connect- ing to the northbound truck. route in the railroad right of way. Southbound trucks (and general traffic) would be routed under SR 20 to a southbound on-ramp. In this manner. trucks (and general traffic) to and from the paper mill could avoid the SR 20/Mill Road and SR 20/Thomas Street intersections. Detailed analysis of this interchange concept identified several design problems. One of the largest of these problems involved safely merging the trucks with southbound SR 20 traffic. In order to meet WSDaf design guidelines. trucks making the merge should be traveling at speeds of 35 mph or greater. Due to the 3 percent grade that would be 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. . ~(Jl .,).6· t~ 0fJ :135 Page 11 required on the ramp. the analysis determined that this speed criterion could not be met. An option to meet the WSDOT criteria was the construction of a southbound hill climbing lane. The 4-5 percent grade of SR 20 between Fredericks Street and Seton Road would require the h1ll-climb lane to extend south of Old Fort Townsend Road. a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. Another issue with a southbound on-ramp at this location is related to the proxim- ity of the intersection ofW Fredericks Street and SR 20. The southbound on-ramp would be located within 450 feet of the W Fredericks Street intersection. Due to the grade and orientation of the southbound on-ramp. sight distances for traffic exiting W Fredericks Street would be restricted. Furthermore. it is not advisable to design roads that require drivers to make several Important decisions within such a short distance and time. Options to resolve the southbound on-ramp issues included closing W Fredericks Street and developing a new collector road several hundred feet to the south. This option did not reduce the need for the long hill-clImb lane. The effectiveness of the series of collector roads on the west side of SR 20 also would decrease because their spacing would be reduced. Extension of the southwestbound truck route to the Louisa Street corridor was identlfled as an effective option. By connecting at Louisa Street. trucks (and general trafilc) would be able to access southbound SR 20 at W Fredericks Street. Seton Road, and/or Old Fort Townsend Road once these streets are completed and Louisa Street is developed. It would be important to complete Louisa Street south to Seton Road to enable trucks to by- pass the 4-5 percent grade along this section of SR 20. Due to funding constraints on the above options. it may be necessary to complete an interim truck route. The interim facUity could connect to an extension of Otto Street at Glen Cove Road. This would allow southbound traffic to access W Fredericks Street or Seton Road via Otto Street. A left turn would still be required to access SR 20 southbound. but these movements would not be hampered by the restricted sight distances, as they are at Mill Road. Connection of Otto Street, north of Glen Cove Road. to the railroad right of way would effectively el1m1nate the opportunity to ut1llze the existing Glen Cove Road corridor as a northbound off-ramp. In lieu of the northbound off-ramp, traffic would be directed to exit 89265.Q1 The TRANSPO G~P, Inc. ..., ~ VOC 1St tw tVJ 1.36 Page 12 ---~------ SR 20 at W Fredertcks Street or Seton Road and turn north onto Otto Street. Trucks could also use Mill Road to access the paper m1l1. These movements could be enhanced by devel- opment of right-turn deceleration lanes on SR 20. North of Glen Cove Road. the truck route could be developed in a couple of loca- tions. One option would be to continue in the existing ratlroad I1ght of way to Thomas Street and the paper mill. This option utl1fzes the existing grades which are under 2 percent, thereby Improving the efficiency of trucks in the corridor. Another option would be to connect the existing right of way to a westerly extension of MU1 Road. This extension would provide a collector road through a large area of unde- veloped property between S 8th Street.and the raJIroad I1ght of way. Mill Road would also need to be improved to enhance truck traffic flow. The improvements to Mlll Road could range from resurfacing to major reconstruction. including vertical realignment. Closure of the west leg of the S 8th Street "Y" and realignment of the east 'Y' intersection also would be desired under this option. Closure of the west leg should include provisions to relocate the exIstlng fire hydrant which selVes that area. Acquisition of the abandoned railroad right of way would be paramount to develop- ing such a truck access route. Acquisition of the right of way could take several years and. therefore. should be commenced at the earliest possible date. Since the truck route pr1mar1ly serves the paper mill traffic, the mill may be willing to assist Jefferson County in the acquisition and development of the route. Other local property owners also may wish to assist in this project to improve accessibility to their properties. Thomas Street Thomas Street is a 22-foot wide roadway with minimal shoulders. It provides north- south access to and from the paper mill to SR 20 within the City of Port Townsend, South of Workman Street, grades along Thomas Street exceed 10 percent. Existing traffic vol- umes along Thomas Street are less than 1,000 vpd. These relatively low traffic volumes are expected to continue in the future. Much of the traffic on Thomas Street are trucks exiting the paper mill. As presented in the discussion of Mlll Road, trucks exiting the paper mlll use Thomas Streèt to avoid the 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, I~,:~. m1.37 . '~~ ;¡U· tMi 011 Page 13 limited sight distances at the intersection of SR 20 and Mill Road. The steep grade of Thomas Street. does however. make it difIlcult for loaded trucks to utilize this alternative route. The previously described truck route using the abandoned raflroad right of way would elJmJnate the need for trucks to use Thomas Street. Due to the low exiSting and forecasted traffic volumes no major improvements to Thomas Street were identlfled. Widening the existing roadway to provide shoulders for dis- abled vehicles and for limited pedestrian use could be considered as a lower priority. long range project. Glen Cove Industrial Area Collector Streets Analysis of existing and future road needs in the Glen Cove Industrial area rein- forced the Highway 20 Corridor Policies designation of the Otto and Louisa Street corridors to provide access and circulation within the industrial area. Much of the right of way already exists in these corridors. with much of Otto Street already built. Due to their prox:tmity to SR 20. these frontage roads will provide convenient access for industrial uses without allowing indMdual driveways to SR 20. On the east side of SR 20. Otto Street would connect from Glen Cove Road to Old Fort Townsend Road. Access to SR 20 would be provided at Fredericks Street. Seton Road. and Old Fort Townsend Road. TIlls spacing provides good dispersion of traffic to and from the industrial area. Otto Street is currently being constructed northward to connect to Glen Cove Road. This connection provides local access and allows the Glen Cove Road/SR 20 intersection to be closed. The Glen Cove Road/SR 20 intersection has limited sight distance and selVes only 100 vpd. As described for the truck route. Otto Street could be extended further north to tie into a truck route using the railroad right of way. This connection would provide an interim two-way facility until the truck route could be extended to Louisa Street. and Louisa Street is completed. Right of way also should be maintained for a parallel collector road at the eastern boundaxy of the designated industrial area (see project N27 on Figure 4). This corridor 89265,01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. ,.~ 'f·' :·;t";"; ,. ; ~~ .1 .ii09- Page 14 138 probably will not need to be constructed untU the Industrial properties approach full devel- opment. However. maintaining and/or acquiring the right of way is an important element In serving future development In the area, West of SR 20. Louisa Street is aptly located to provide access and circulation to the industrtal area. Access to SR 20 would be provided via W Fredericks Street. Seton Road. and Old Fort Townsend Road. Extension of Louisa Street south to Seton Road Is an important element of a truck route since It allows trucks to bypass the 4-5 percent grade along that section of SR 20. Extension of Louisa Street to Old Fort Townsend Road is not crit1cal and could be constructed concurrent with development of adjacent properties. As discussed under the Jacob Miller Road analysis. Louisa Street could be extended northward to Discovery Road. This extension could tie Into a southerly extension of Jacob Miller Road. providing a continuous north-south route. This extension w1ll require crossing the raJlroad right of way. A bridge structure would not likely be required for the crossing. As with the east side of SR 20. right of way should be maintained and obtained at the western boundaxy of the designated Industrtal area (see project N27 on Figure 4). TI11s I1ght of way would provide for future development of a parallel north-sOuth collector road. Seton Road. W Fredericks Street. and Old Fort Townsend Road also would be extended west from Louisa Street to prOVide a grid street system west of SR 20. Much of the area In the designated Industrial area was platted several decades ago. The plats Include fairly small lots COIUlected by relatively closely spaced streets. East-west orientated streets are platted at approximately 250-foot distances with north-south streets every 350 feet. Current Industrial developments typically Include larger lots with private access drtveways and on-site circulation. With the exception of the aforementioned collec- tor roads. many of these streets may never be required and could be vacated to enable con- solidation of properties and potential developments. Any potential vacation of existing rlght of way should be carefully reviewed as part of a proposed development plan. Jefferson County should review traffic access needs to all affected properties to ensure that safe. convenient access is maintained. Direct access to SR 20 should be restricted to the designated collector roads. 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group,~ : , ~ 1.39 . VDI. ;;l 0 'fafiE .tJY Page 15 RECOMMENDATIONS Project Listings Evaluation of indiv1dualimprovement projects was completed based on criteria derived from the goals and issues identified early in the study process. IndMdual projects wlùch best met these criteria were combined to define short and long-range transportation improvement programs. Estimates of potential costs of each project were developed, and each project was asstgned a relative priority. It should be noted that the project priority Is omy a guide to the relative importance of the project to the overall transportation systems needs within the study area. These projects must also be weighed against other Jefferson County, WSDOT, and/or City of Port Townsend transportation improvement projects. Furthennore, due to funding constraints and/ or various funding sources, a low cost, lower priority project may be constructed prior to a higher priority project. Project priorities should be reassessed annually as part of each agencies six year road planning program. The draft recommendations were presented at the third project workshop. Based on comments received at the workshop, subsequent analyses were completed to reassess pro- jects and their priorities. Based on the revised project priorities, the study recommenda- tions were ßnaljzed. The ßnal recommendations include both short and long-range trans- portation improvement programs. Figures 3 and 4 depict the recommended short and long- range improvements, respectively. More detail regarding each project is presented in Table 1 (Short Range) and Table 2 (Long Range). The short-range program Is intended to help solve existing and short-tenn capacity and safety deficiencies. These projects are generally lower cost capital or maintenance improvements. They would be completed over the next six years. Most of the projects in the short-range program would be the responsibility of Jefferson County. WSDOT and Port Townsend also have a lJmited number of lower cost projects ident1fled. The omy new construction project identified in the short-range program Is the northerly extension of Otto Street, wlùch Is currently under construction by the adjacent property owner. 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Page 16 ,val lB~aO 1.40 -~.,.,...-.- " North ¡, ~(; W'A'¥#A W......... VA 'YM' CITY LIMITS ---------- WOAK.\AAN St ..' ...,.." .' ... .' f () '" § GLEN co:.... co .:. "1) II) . . 0- 1: . ' -.--{!D · ~ NS.' · · FÃEDERJCKS St, Treatment Pond Glen Cove L7 - II) o l- I- o SETON Rd. o ... a: II) - ~@] OLD FORT TOWNSEND Rd. ...... New Construction ~f Access Consolidation o ð. mmm ~ @] Intersection Improvements ObstacleNegetatlon Removal Slgnlngs and Markings Road Surface Improvements Project Number * 'NOTE; P-Po/icyl\ction L- ~ Cost Proj6ct N_ N8w Constructionl Major Reconstruction Projea GLEN COVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 3 RECOMMENDATIONS SHORT RANGE (1 - 6 YEAR) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN 100 Trans~o GrOOp 89265.01 The TRANSPO Grod~nc. 18, ,;f-A£:f m :141 Page 17 "---- " Nort h ....... Treatment Pond - o .r:: - CI co Glen Cove .. .. .. .. .. .. V N27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " seTON~Rd. ~. i · .. · ~ · ~ · ~ ~:""""..,,- · ,. - OLD FORT TOWNSEND Rd. ~ New Construction Major Widening/Reconstruction ...... 11111111111111 Minor Reconstruction """""""" Future Collector Road Corridor ·NOTE; p. percy Aaion L-LDww Cost Proi«:t N. New Constru<::tiotV Møjtx RtIoonstruc:ticn Project . o ~ Intersection Improvements * Project Number Major Intersection Reconstruction GLEN COVE TRANSPORTATION. STUDY 89265,01 FIgure 4 RECOMMENDATIONS LONG - RANGE (1 -15YEAR) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ., . .VOl'.· ,16 t.~':~2 The TRANSPO Group,'lnc. .... . The Trans~o GuUp Page 18 Table 1. Recommendations - Short-Range (1 to 6 year) . Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potential Project catego~ - Project Location - Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1) Project Description Agenc~2) ($1.0ooS)(3) priority{4) I. MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS AND POLICY ACTIONS A. Signing and Marking Improvements l3 Jacob Miller Road @ Discovery Road Jefferson County .5-1 Arst - Relocate stop signs. resbipe stop bars and instaR additional advance warning signs. L6 Jacob Miller Road Jefferson County .5-1 Second (West of S 2nd Street) - Add chevron signs and reftectorized edge-of-roadway marki~s at curve. L10 Cape George Road @ Discovery Road Jefferson County ,7-1.5 Third - Provide advance warning signs and improved markings. including reftectorized signs, L16.1 Discovery Road Jefferson County 1·2 Arst (Cape George Road to SR 20) - Resbipe centerline and fog lines. L16.2 Discovery Road Port Townsend 1-2 Arst (SR 20 to McPherson Street) . Resbipe centerline and fog lines. L20 SR20 WSDOT .7·1.5 FI/'st (Old Fort Townsend Road to Thomas Street) - Add additional advance signing for trucks destined to papermill via Mill Road. - Add wildlife crossing warning signs based on accident experience. B. Obstade and Vegetation Removal L1 Mill Road @ SR 20 WSDOT - Cut back vegetation and relocate signs to improve sight distance. May require additional easements on both sides of SR 20 south of the intersection. 1-2 Rrst L5 Jacob Miller Road @ Discovery Road Jefferson County . Cut back vegetation on all approaches and regrade slopes in northeast and southwest quadrants. 5-10 FI/'st 89265.01 ~ðL' . 16':'f~ti ,00> The TRÀN~PO Group, Inc. 143 Page 19 Table 1. (Contiooed) Recommendations - Short-Range (1 to 6 year) - Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potential Project catego~ . Project Location· Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1} Project Description Agenc~2) ($1,ooos)(3) Priority<4} C. Road SUlface Improvement L14 Mill Road Jefferson County 25-50 Third (SR 20 to Thomas SITeet) · ReStJface roadway. If funding is available, this project should be replaced by long-range project N3.1. D. Policy Actions P1 SR20 WSDOT 5-15 First (west of Mill Road to east of Thomas Street) Port Townsend - Develop plan with property owners to consolidate Property owners and delineate driveways. P4 Glen Cove Road Jefferson County .5-1 Second (SR 20 to extension of Otto StreeQ · Close roadway when Otto Street Extension completed (see N5.1). II. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT/TRAFFIC CONTROL l4 Jacob Miner Road @ Discovery Road Jefferson County 5-10 First - Install intersection control beacon. l7 SR 20 @ Fredericks Street WSDOT 15-20 Second · Construct north-to-east and south-to-west deceleration and right-turn lanes. l8.1 SR 20 @ Seton Road WSDOT 5-10 Second · Construct north-to-east deceleration and right-turn lanes. L19 SR 20 @ Mill Road WSDOT 5-10 Second - Construct north,to-sou1t1east deceleration and right-turn lane, Note: If funding for the long-range 1ruck route is available, this project should be deleted from 1t1e plan (see projects N1.1, N1.2, N1,3). 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group" lifi., ~V~ JlIJtJALf 00 1.44 Page 20 11b111. (Con1inued) Recommendations· Short·Range (1 to 6 year) . Transportation Improvement Plan Project Catego~ . Project Numben 1) Project Location - Project Description Responsible Agenc~2) Range of Potential Costs ($1.0005)(3) Project priority{4) III. New Construction N5.1 Otto Street Extension I (Fredericks Street to Glen Cove Road) - Construct new roadway. PJivate parties to develop the road to minimum standards (also see project N5.2 in long-range improvement plan). Private Jefferson County NA(5) Second(5) Notes: (I) Project fUTlber refers to map on FtgUfe 3. The number does not indicate priority-it only provides a key to the project location map. (2) wsoor refers Ð the Washington State Department of Transportation. Road projects listed for private responsibility should be constructed to mirJmllTJ standards by the adjacent property owners as they develop their property. As traffic volumes warrant Jefferson County should Lf]gfade facility to coIector road standards. (3) Costs kJ 1989 dolars. Potential costs do not include engineering or right-of-way acquisition. Capital and maintenance costs may vary depending on actual constroction standards, right-of-way requirements, and utility relocation needs, (4) Relative project priority. In general, funding for first priority projects is desired by 1991; second priority by 1993; and third priority projects by 1995. Due Ð frIdng constraints and various funding sources, lower priority projects may be constructed prior to higher priority projects. (5) Project axrenlly I.I7d8t construction by private developer. 89265,01 The TR~PO G46!1t1J'- 00 :145 Page 21 --...--------- ~ Table 2. Recommendations· Long-Range (1 to 15 year) - Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potential Project catego~ - Project Location· Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1) Project Description Agency(2) ($1,ooOS)(3) Priori~4) I. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS l8.2 SR 20 @ Seton Road WSDOT 5-10 Second - Construct south-to-west deceleration , and right-turn lane as development on west side of SR 20 occurs. Also see project N23. II. MINOR RECONSTRUCTION L13.1 Thomas Street Jefferson County 30-40 Third (MUI Road to city limits) · Widen road to add shoulders. L13,2 Thomas Street Port Townsend 30-40 Third (city limits to SR 20) - Widen road to add shoulders. L17 Discovery Road Jefferson County 30-40 Second (SR 20 to Cape George Road) - Widen road to 22 feet plus shoulders. L1S Jacob Miller Road Jefferson County 20-30 Third (S 2nd Street to landfiU entrance) · Widen road to 22 feet plus shoulders, III. MAJOR INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION N3.2 Mill Road @ 8th Street Wye Jefferson County 5-10 Second · Realign S 8th Street to "r intersection. Close west leg of Wye. Project not needed with N1.4 N15 Cape George Road @ Discovery Road Jefferson County 20·25 Third - Reconstruct and realign to create a four -leg Private intersection, Also see project N11 (new construction.) N17 Jacob Miller @ Discovery Road Jefferson County 5-10 Rrst - Reconstruct, realign, and regrade aU inter- section approaches to reduce sight distance restrictions. 89265.01 VOl f6 .~~f ro 146 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Page 22 Table 2. (Continued) Recommendations -long-Range (1 to 15 year)· Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potentiat Project catego~ - Project location - Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1 ) Project Description Agency(2) ($1,ooos)(3) Priori~4) IV. MAJOR ROADWAY WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION N3.1 Mill Road Jefferson County 90-100 First (S 8th Street to Thomas Street) . Reconstruct road to 22-feet wide plus shoulders. If funds are available for this project, short- range project l14 would be deleted. N3.3 Mill Road Jefferson County 25-30 First (S 8th Street to railroad crossing) (Optional project) - Reconstruct road to 22-feet wide plus shoulders. If funds are available, would eliminate need for l14. This project is needed if project N1.1 is selected instead of N2. N21 SR20 WSDOT 125-150 First (east of MiD Road to Sherman Street) - Widen roadway to provide two-way Ieft-bJm lane. V. NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS N1.1 Railroad Truck Route Jefferson County 100-125 First (MOl Road to 1,200 feet south of Mill Road) (Optionat project) . Construct two-way truck route in railroad right of way. Project N1.1 is an option to project N2. Project N1,1 also requires completion of project N3.3. Project could include bicycle lanes. N1.2 Railroad Truck Route Jefferson County 100-125 First (1,200 feet south of MOl Road to Otto Road Extension) . Construct two-way truck route in railroad right of way. Project could include bicycle lanes. N1.3 Railroad Truck Route Jefferson County 150-175 Second (Otto Road Extension to Louisa Street Extension) - Construct westbound truck route and bicycle lane. (Note: Future design studies may provide option for two-way truck route and westbound bicycle lane under the overcrossing.) N1.4 Railroad Truck Route (Thomas Street to Mill Road) Jefferson County 200-250 First - Construct two-way truck route in railroad right (Optional project) of way. Projects N3.1, 3,2, and 3.3 would not be required with N1.4. Project could include bicycle lanes. 89265,01 The TR~ Gl~n!Afl no 147 Page 23 Table 2. (ContInued) Recommendations· Long-Range (1 to 15 year)· Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potential Project catego~ . Project Location· Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1) Project Description Agenc~2) ($1.ooos)(3) Priority{ 4) N2 Mill Road Extension Jefferson County 100-125 First (S 8th Street Wye to railroad right of way) · Construct two..Jane truck route and collector street Option to project N1.1. N5.2 Otto Street Extension II Jefferson County SO- 75 First (Fredericks Street to Glen Cove Road) · Upgrade minimum road standards (project NS,1) to collector road standards. N5.3 Otto Street Extension III Jefferson County 25-SO First (Glen Cove Road to Railroad Right of Way) · Construct two..Jane truck route. Project should be developed with projects N1.2 and NS.2. N11 Laurence Street Corridor Jefferson County 100-125 Third (Discovery Road to S 2nd Street) Private - Construct two-lane collector road. Project should coincide with development of adjacent properties. Project ties into project N15 (intersection recon- struction). N12 Jacob Miller Road Extension Jefferson County 225-275 Third (Jacob Miller Road to railroad right of way) Private · Construct two..Jane collector road connecting to Louisa Street at railroad right of way. Close S 2nd Street between Jacob Miller Road and Discovery Road. N13 Louisa Street Jefferson County 50-75 Second (Railroad Right of Way to W Fredericks Street) Private - Construct two..Jane collector road. Project should coincide with local development and should be con- structed prior to completion of Nt.3. N22 W Fredericks Street Jefferson County 25-50 First (Louisa Street to SR 20) Private - Construct two..Jane collector road as adjacent properties develop. N23 W Seton Road Jefferson County 25-50 Second (Louisa Street to SR 20) Private - Construct two..Jane collector road as adjacent properties develop. 89265,01 1J01.. 16n{,€ .00' 1.4B The TRANSPO Group. Inc. ' Page 24 Table 2. (Continued) Recommendations - Long-Range (1 to 15 year)· Transportation Improvement Plan Range of Potential Project catego~ . Project Location· Responsible Costs Project Project Numbe 1) Project Description Agency(2) ($1.0005)(3) Priority{ 4) N24.1 Louisa Slreet Jefferson County 150-175 Second CN Fredericks Slreet to W Seton Road) Private . Construct two-lane collector road as adjacent properties develop. N24.2 Louisa Street Jefferson County 150·175 Third (W Seton Street to Old Fort Townsend Road) Private - Construct two-lane collector road as adjacent properties develop. N25 Old Fort Townsend Road Jefferson County 25·50 Third (SR 20 to Louisa Street) Private - Construct two-lane collector road as adjacent properties develop. Should tie into N24.2. N26 Otto Street Jefferson County 125-150 Third (Seton Road to Old Fort Townsend Road) Private . Construct two-lane collector road as adjacent properties develop. N27 Glen Cove Industrial Area Future Collector Roads Jefferson County Third - Obtain rights of way and develop collector roads as Private required to serve new development in industrial area. Notes: (1) Project number refers to map on Rgure 4. The number does not indicate priority-it only provides a key to the project location map. (2) WSDOT refers to the Washington State Department of Transportation. Road projects listed for private responsibility should be constructed to minimum standards by the adjacent property owners as they develop their property, As traffic volumes warrant, Jefferson County should upgrade facUity to collector road standards. (3) Costs kJ 1989 dollars. Potential costs do not include engineering or right-of-way acquisition. Capital and maintenance costs may vary depending on actual construction standards, right-of-way requirements, and utility relocation needs, (4) Relative project priority. In general, funding for first priority projects is desired by 1998; second priority by 2001; and third priority projects by 2005. Due to funding constraints and various funding sources. lower priority projects may be constructed prior to higher priority projects. 89265,01 .~ VOl 16: -tALi ,fitl 149 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Page 25 The long-range transportation Improvement program is ident1fied for implementa- tion over the next 15 years. The long-range program identlfies several new construction projects, including options for constructing a new truck route from the paper mill to SR 20 using all or part of the abandoned railroad right of way. Options for this project include reconstructing the section of Mill Road between Thomas Street and S 8th Street. At S 8th Street, the truck route could be constructed through private properties and finally connecting to the railroad right of way. The truck route in that location would provide an excellent collector road to selVe future development in that part of the study area. This option would be most cost effective If the link between Mill Road and the railroad right of way (project N2) were constructed as part of development of these properties. Using the railroad right of way all the way from Thomas Street to SR 20 has the advantage of a consistent grade of less than 2 percent. The Mill Road option would require substantlal reconstruction to eltm1nate the rolling grade along that route, if determined necessary. It is recommended that Jefferson County pursue funding for acquiring the railroad right of way from Thomas Street to Louisa Street. Highest priority should be given to the sectJon between SR 20 and Mill Road. Acquisition and construction of this section would allow an interim truck route using Otto Street, the railroad right of way, and Mill Road. ThJs interim facility would elJrninate the need for trucks to ut1l1ze the Mill Road/SR 20 intersection or Thomas Street to exit the paper mill. Most other new construction projects recommended in the long-range plan focus on providing access and circulation within the Glen Cove industrial area. These include con- struction of Louisa Street; extension of Otto Street; and construction of W Fredericks Street, Seton Road, and Old Fort Townsend Road west of SR 20. Longer range projects include extending Jacob Miller Road southward to connect to a northerly extension of Louisa Street. In order to improve access and circulation within that area, Cape George Road could be extended easterly in the Lawrence Road right of way. These improvements should be constructed as adjacent properties are developed. The oruy major improvement to SR 20 is the future widenJng to provide a two-way left-turn lane in the business district on either side of Thomas Street. A two-way left-turn 89265.01 The TRANSPO GroupJ", '. 00 va~ .10, fAt£ .' 1.50 Page 26 lane will separate thru traffic from local oriented traffic. This project would tie into the existing two-way left-turn lane on SR 20 Just east of the study area. Other long-range projects include major reconstruction of the intersections of Discovery Road/Jacob M1lIer Road; Cape George Road/Discovery Road: and S 8th Street! Mill Road. Project Costs and Funding Strategies Potential project costs were estimated based on Jefferson County's planning level cost model. OIÙY construction costs were estlmated-engineerfng and right-of-way acqui- sition are not included. The costs do not account for the spec1fic design features or con- struction standards, but utilize an average cost per mile of new construction or reconstruc- tion. Detailed cost est1mates will need to be developed prior to implementation of a spec1fic project or projects. Table 3 summarizes the potentlal project costs in 1989 dollars. The recommended Short-Range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for just over $100,000 in improvements. These costs reflect the intent of the Short-Range TIP to provide low cost improvements that can be 1mplemented within the next several years. Much of the costs associated with the short-range improvement program may be considered maintenance related. These include striping, marking, and resigning projects, as well as cutting back vegetation or other obstacle removal and roadway resurfacing. Capital projects in the short-range program would primarily include intersection improve- ments and traffic control. The construction of Otto Street between W Fredericks Street and Glen Cove Road also would be considered a capital project. However, Otto Street is cur- rently being constructed to minJrnum collector road standards by the adjacent property owner, and was not included in the cost summary. The recommended Long-Range TIP calls for over $1.9 II1.il11oq In funds, excluding engineering and right-of-way acquisition. The greatest percentage of potentlallong-range project costs is identified as Jefferson County !private responsibility. Projects idenUfted as 89265,01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. . '.... ',,' -, :151 18tM.£ tJ(}- Page 27 ,Val Table 3. Cost Summary(1) A. Short·Rang. Transportation Improvement Program· Potential Costs (Thousands of Dollars) Responsible Priority<4) Agency(2) Rrst Second Third Total Jefferson County 17.3 1.5 38,6 57.4 Jefferson County/Private(2) _(3) _(3) WSOOr(2) 12,6 32,5 45,1 Port Townsend 1.5 1.5 Total 31.4 34.0 38.6 104.0 B. long·Range Transportation Improvement Program· Potential Costs (Thousands of Dollars) Responsible Agenc~2) Jefferson County Jefferson County/Private(2) WSOOr(2) Port Townsend Rrst Priority<5) Second Third 35.0 Total 725,0 1,022.5 145.0 35.0 460.0 37.5 137,5 205.0 60.0 262.5 722.5 7.5 Total 635.0 495.0 817.5 1,927.5 (I) Costs in 1989 dollars. Potential costs do not include engineering or right-of-way acquisition. Capital and mainte- nance costs may vary depending on actual construction standards, right-of-way requirements, and utility relocation needs. (2) WSOOT refers to the Washington State Department of Transportation. Road projects listed for private responsibility should be constructed to minimum standards by the adjacent property owners as they develop their property. As traffIC volumes wanant, Jefferson County should upgrade facility to collector road standards, (3) Project currently under construction by private developer. (4) Relative project priority. In general, short-range funding for first priority projects is desired by 1991; second priority by 1993; and third priority projects by 1995. Due to funding constraints and various funding sources, lower priority projects may be constructed prior to higher priority projects. (5) Relative project priority. In general, long-range funding for first priority projects is desired by 1998; second priority by 2001; and third priority projects by 2005. Due to funding constraints and various funding sources, lower priority projects may be constructed prior to higher priority projects. 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 18,~!· 00 Page 28 ~ \fa!. 152 joint Jefferson County/private responsibility pr1mar:f1y include construction or extension of new collector roadways to seIVe further property development. It has been the policy of Jefferson County to have adjacent property owners develop these roads to minimum stan- dards for collector roads to serve property access needs. Jefferson County would then complete the roadway with a bituminous or asphalt suIface, as necessary, when certain levels of traffic volumes are reached. In order to enhance construction of these collector roads, which are needed to assist property development. Jefferson County could work with the property owners to establish Road Improvement Districts (RIDs) and/or Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). These methods would help ensure equity in the costs of developing new roadways and would spread the costs over a longer pertod of time. Another option for completing the collector road system in areas that were previ- ously plotted include trading construction of roadways for vacation of existing right of way that would no longer be needed. This process must ensure that the public benefit of these roads is at least equal to the value of the to-be-vacated rtght of way. Assurances are also required that safe and convenient access (without direct access to SR 20) will be provided to all properties in the affected area. Another $700,000 in potentlal construction costs are included as only Jefferson County's responsibility. These costs are largely related to construction of the new roadway in the abandoned railroad right ofway. Since this fac1l1ty will largely benefit trucks from the paper mill, the county should work with Port Townsend Paper Corporation to determine if prtvate funds are available for this project. The prtvate funds could be justlfted based on reduced fuel and operations costs and safer truck operations from the mill. As a mechanism to reduce costs, the recommended plan calls for construction of the truck route through private property between the railroad rtght of way and S 8th/Mill Road (see project N2). This portion of the truck route could be constructed as part of develop- ment of properties in that corridor. In return, these properties would have improved access to and from SR 20. A key element to the truck route is acquisition of the abandoned railroad right of way. Jefferson County and the paper mill should work both together and with local prop- erty owners to ensure its availability at a fair and reasonable prtce, 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, 1"j·..S ftO· _ VOl 1, ,t~ u :153 Page 29 Other potential project costs include $145,000 for WSDOT to construct a two-way left-turn lane on SR 20 from east of Mill Road to Shennan Street. If adjacent properties owners and/or the City of Port Townsend identify this project as a key element, they could work together to help WSDOT fund the improvement. This funding could come from an RID or other local transportation improvement funding sources. 89265.01 The TRANS PO Group, Inc. . vat.. 18 tAtf 00 1.54 Page 30 CONCLUSION The Glen Cove Transportation Study has ident1fted short and long-range trans- portation improvement projects which can help mitigate existing capacity and safety prob- lems, and provide for future growth In the area. The study recommends a proposed collec- tor road system to facil1tate local access and circulation without undue impacts on SR 20, the primary thru-trafflc route. A key element of the study calls for constructing a new road in the abandoned rail- road right of way. When completed, the new road will greatly enhance truck routing from the Port Townsend Paper Corporation mill, The new route also will improve access to undeveloped properties in the central part of the study area. Short-range improvements focus on improving safety at several intersections. Safety improvements include a vartety of signing and road marking projects, as well as cut- ting back vegetation and removing obstacles to improve sight distances. Installation of a traffic control beacon at the intersection of Discovexy Road and Jacob Miller Road is also recommended. The recommendations include a relative prtority and potentlal construction cost. and ident1ftes a responsible agency for developing the project. The project priorities should be reviewed annually, in context of the update of the respective six year road programs. It should be noted, however. that due to funding availability, lower priortty projects may be funded prtor to higher priority projects. These projects also must be evaluated in the con- text of other Jefferson County and WSDOT transportation needs and priorities. The construction cost range included in the sununaxy is based on a planning level analysts-specific construction features or standards were not analyzed. Jefferson County will need to work closely with affected property owners, the paper mill. and WSDOT to atTange for equitable funding and tJrnely construction of these projects. 89265.01 The TRANSPO Group, Inc. . VOL 16 rMi 00 1.55 Page 31