31.07.080 Future needs and alternatives.
This section of the Transportation Element explains expected increases in traffic volumes and identifies potential traffic problems. The Transportation Plan for improvements and expansion will be based on the following analyses:
•Analysis of Roadway Capacity Improvements
•Analysis of Roadway Safety Improvements
•Analysis of Projected Transportation Needs
(1) Analysis of Needed Capacity Improvements. After completing the inventory of existing capacity, the City of Forks has decided that LOS C at peak hour is a reasonable and achievable standard for the major arterial roadways. Design standards as described above will be used to evaluate all other roadways in the City’s planning area. Many of the roadways currently provide this level of service or better. However, if maximum build-out potential was to occur, many of the roadways within the FUGA would be at a substandard level of service (see Table 6). The County and the City must coordinate planning efforts to ensure that necessary roadway improvements occur to these areas.
The following analysis addresses those improvements identified by the Regional Planning Commission as having a direct impact upon the transportation network of the FUGA. These areas and projects should be considered in the development of future transportation improvement plans by both the County and the City of Forks. In addition, funding for such projects should be reviewed as part of any long-term planning done by either the City or the County.
(a) Construction and expansion of sidewalks outward from the central core of the FUGA towards the major residential population centers.
(b) Widening and paving of the following roads (as identified on Map 14):
•East Division Street.
•Rankin Road.
•Fern Hill Road.
•Bogachiel Way between Russell and Cook roads.
•Cook Road.
•D. Mansfield Road.
(c) Increase circulation by connecting the following streets:
•Connect Woodpecker Lane to Big Pine Way.
•Connect Chuckhole Way to Big Pine Way.
•Connect Big Pine Way to Merchant Road or Big Burn Place.
•Connect Merchant Road to East Division, after the improvement and widening of East Division past Peterson Road.
•Connect Eden Street to Campbell Street.
•Connect E Street with Peterson Street.
•Connect Wiley Street with Russell Road.
(d) Identify a means of providing addition ingress/egress to the Terra Eden.
(e) Identify means of relieving congestion within the core business sector of the FUGA.
(2) Analysis of Needed Safety Improvements. Additionally, accident frequency data for the past five years was obtained from the Washington Department of Transportation District Office, County Sheriff’s Office, and from the City’s Police Department records. Map 7 shows a rough plotting of these accident statistics.
The following roadways and intersections were identified as having a high accident frequency:
•Bogachiel Way.
•Calawah Way.
•Russell Road.
•Merchant Road and Calawah Way intersection.
The Regional Planning Commission recommends that the City of Forks and the County study these areas to determine what improvements could be made to increase the level of safety for residents and drivers within the FUGA. As part of such a study, the following improvements should be considered to alleviate potential hazards: traffic signal modification, improved roadway maintenance, pedestrian displays at signal installation, lane modification, and segments of bicycle and pedestrian ways. Where the needed improvement is relatively small and requires an expenditure of less than $5,000, high priority should be given to these projects in order to reduce accidents in the near future.
As previously mentioned, only improvements of relatively large scale requiring an expenditure of greater than $10,000 are included in the capital facilities element. Therefore, improvements to this high accident frequency location will be included in the County and the City of Forks annual budget.
(3) Analysis of Projected Transportation Needs.
(a) Future Roadway Needs. The City is a member of the Olympic Regional Transportation Planning Organization jurisdiction, and future traffic conditions were predicted with the aid of regional transportation studies, the established level of service standards, and the designated land uses that are in the land use element. These projections were used to determine the needed improvements and new roadway facilities for the next 10 years.
In determining projected roadway needs, the City attempted to plan for the projected transportation volumes in a cost effective manner that would not leave the City with underutilized capacity. In the past, roadways have been over-built for the use they receive. These roads are costly to build and maintain. Narrower roads could provide routine and emergency access in most residential neighborhoods and will use less paving materials, have lower maintenance costs, and reduce surface water runoff.
The land use element projects the City’s growth to occur evenly, without any new major trip generators or attractors. Future land use trends were expressed in terms of number of dwelling units, auto ownership, total employment, and traffic volume. A number of alternative transportation plans were considered as the City went through an iterative process to balance transportation, land use, and fiscal planning goals.
(b) Future Transit Needs. The City relies on a regional bus system for transit service. Improvement of the transit system is a priority for the City. The City will examine the opportunities for expanding regional transportation through cooperation with the County transit system. One priority should be the expansion of main line routes (SR 101) to seven days a week, in order to provide an alternative method of tourist travel.
(c) Future Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Needs. As identified in the inventory, there is a need for sidewalks and bicycle trails throughout the FUGA. Providing trails from new residential developments to recreational areas should be a priority for the City in assessing development trends. The City should work with trail organizations and government agencies to encourage the development of a Cape Alva to LaPush Trail, the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT), the Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) to the coast (via the Goodman Creek mainline along the Bogachiel River, from the mainline to the Rayonier mainline, then to the Third Beach Trail), and other regional trail systems; i.e., a headlands connector from Third Beach to First Beach, when trail routes are chosen. Where trails travel in proximity to the urban growth area, the City should encourage feeder trails. In addition, providing additional bicycle racks in the commercial center will be encouraged.
In addition to encouraging development of the PNT, ODT, and other related trails, the City should encourage development of the 20-mile Elk Creek Mountain Bike Loop connecting Forks to the Bogachiel River via the Klahane Campground.
(4) Coordination of Transportation Facilities and LOS Standards. Intergovernmental coordination is essential for the most cost-effective provision of transportation services. The City does not possess the resources nor is it fiscally responsible for addressing all of the traffic circulation system needs that might be identified through transportation planning. The City has reviewed the plans of nearby cities, the County, and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization, and has assessed the impact of their plans on the transportation facilities in Forks. The City is confident that the level of service standards and Transportation Plan adopted in this element are not inconsistent with the level of service standards or plans of other jurisdictions. The City is also confident that the financial resources necessary to achieve the goals of the Transportation Plan will be available. The identification of funding sources for transportation improvements is in the capital facilities element.
(5) Six-Year Financing Plan. The Six-Year Financing Plan for transportation is the result of an iterative process that balances the goals of all Comprehensive Plan elements. In addition, the objectives and policies in the Transportation Plan have been modified to reflect their financial feasibility. Financial planning for transportation used the same process as financial planning for capital facilities. However, the timing and funding for transportation are restricted by the concurrency requirement and the binding nature of level of service standards. The City is required to create a six-year financing plan for both transportation and capital facilities, however, for transportation the City is also required to provide such services concurrently with new development.
In addition, existing and new transportation facilities must meet the adopted level of service standards. Therefore, as new development occurs, expenditures on maintenance of existing facilities must be adequate to continue provision of the adopted levels of service. Although not required in capital facilities planning, the operating costs of transportation facilities become important factors in ensuring that a moratorium on new development will not be needed. The funding mechanisms and funding sources that will be used for transportation improvements are described in the capital facilities element. The capital facilities element also indicates the financial mechanisms that will be used to address funding shortfalls.