SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

Contents 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 5.2 RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TO OTHER PLANS ...... 1 5.2.1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ...... 1 5.2.2 STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOALS (Washington Transportation Plan 2040) ...... 2 5.2.3 STATE RESILIENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 3 5.2.2 COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES...... 3 5.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY ...... 5 5.4 INVENTORY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM...... 5 5.4.1 STATE HIGHWAYS ...... 5 5.4.2 COUNTY ROADS AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ...... 6 5.4.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ...... 6 5.4.4 NON-MOTORIZED TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND TRAILS ...... 6 5.4.5 AIR ...... 7 5.4.6 WATER ...... 7 5.4.7 RAIL ...... 8 5.5 CAPACITY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...... 8 5.5.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ...... 8 5.5.2 ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ...... 9 5.5.3 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ...... 12 5.5.4 FORECAST OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ...... 13 5.6 FINANCIAL PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ...... 18 5.7 GOALS AND POLICIES ...... 20

5.1 INTRODUCTION

A safe and efficient transportation system for the movement of people and goods is needed to support existing and future development. The purpose of this plan element is to identify the types, location and extent of existing and proposed transportation facilities and services (air, water and land including transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle uses).

5.2 RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TO OTHER PLANS

5.2.1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT

This transportation element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to address transportation needs in Pacific County. It represents the county's policy plan for the next twenty (20) years and specifically considers the location and condition of the existing traffic circulation system, the projected transportation needs, and plans

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-1 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION for addressing future transportation needs while maintaining established level of service standards.

According to the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(6)), this transportation element must include the following: • An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services; • Level-of-service standards for all locally-owned transit routes; • Forecasts of traffic based on land use plans: • An overview of facilities and service needs; • An analysis of funding capability and a multi-year financing plan to fund needed improvements; • Intergovernmental coordination efforts; and, • Demand-management strategies.

The following GMA planning goals are relevant to the Transportation Element: • Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.020(3)). • Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner (RCW 36.70A.020(1)). • Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the State's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water (RCW 36.70A.020(10)). • Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts (RCW 36.70A.020(11)). • Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards (RCW 36.70A.020(12)).

5.2.2 STATE-WIDE PLANNING GOALS (Washington Transportation Plan 20401)

The following Washington Transportation Plan policy goals (RCW 47.04.280) are addressed throughout the goals and policies in this plan.

• Economic Vitality. Promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy. • Preservation. Maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services. • Safety. Provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation customers and the transportation system. • Mobility. Improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington State.

1 Washington State Transportation Policy Plan 2040 & Beyond, https://www.wtp2040andbeyond.com/ PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-2 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

• Environment. Enhance Washington’s quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment. • Stewardship. Continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system.

The Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP; updated 20162) is developed to identify Washington State’s traffic safety needs and to guide investment decisions in order to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and disabling injuries. The 2016 plan includes chapters on Improving the Traffic Safety Culture, New Technology and Traffic Safety; Evaluation, Analysis, and Diagnosis; and Legislation and Policy. Priority areas now include pedestrians and bicyclists and the older driver age threshold has been lowered from 75 to 70 years old.

Washington State addresses state interest in bicycle and pedestrian walkways in its Active Transportation Plan, scheduled for update by the Department of Transportation in 2021. “Active Transportation” is defined in this document to include the following: • walking or running; • the use of a mobility assistive device such as a wheelchair or power scooter; • cycling; and • the use of small personal devices such as foot scooters or skateboards.

This definition includes both traditional and electric-assist bicycles and other devices. The goals of the State include increasing safety for cyclists and pedestrians, while connecting comfortable and efficient walking and rolling networks of roadways and pathways.

5.2.3 STATE RESILIENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings and recommendations from the most recent Resilient Washington Subcabinet3 report emphasizes the need to prepare for devastating earthquakes and tsunami flooding. The state’s regional transportation networks, including bridges and roadways, are noted as especially vulnerable in the event of major geologic disasters related to the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Recommendations include WSDOT research to understand specific impacts from a major CSZ event and additional investment in retrofitting roadways and bridges to prevent structure collapse or degradation.

5.2.2 COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES

The County prioritizes projects which enhance the overall transportation system and connect to schools, parks and recreation areas, commercial areas, public transportation, employment centers,

2 Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp- content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2016/09/Target-Zero-2016-low-res.pdf 3 Washington Military Department’s Emergency Management Division, August 2017 https://mil.wa.gov/uploads/pdf/resilient-wa-subcabinet/rw-subcabinet-draft-reprt-with-appendices-9.22.17.pdf PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-3 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION existing bicycle or pedestrian networks, or planned regional trails. Even greater priority is given to projects completing a gap within the transportation network.

In addition to the GMA, comprehensive plans should be consistent with adopted county-wide policies. Policies developed for county-wide transportation facilities include:

Policy #3, Transportation Facilities and Strategies.

 A County-wide transportation plan should be developed pursuant to the GMA that is consistent with the land use element of the comprehensive plan.

 Transportation development and improvements should be concurrent with future commercial, residential and other land use development.

 The County-wide transportation planning effort should produce a methodology to evaluate the impact of development proposals and to identify necessary transportation improvements.

 County-wide transportation facility standards should be established by the county.

 A County-wide transportation needs assessment should be an element of the six-year transportation plan (reference Table 5-7).

 The finance element of the transportation plan should show the ability of the county to fund existing and proposed transportation improvements in the unincorporated areas of the county.

 The County should strive through transportation system management strategies to optimize the use and maintenance of existing roads in order to minimize the construction costs and impacts associated with roadway facility expansion.

 The County should establish consistent roadway standards, level of service standards and methodologies, and functional classification schemes to ensure consistency throughout the county.

 State, regional or County facilities that generate substantial travel demand should be sited along or near major transportation and/or public transit corridors.

 The County should seek to foster a transportation system which is planned, balanced and compatible with land use densities so that adequate mobility and movement of goods and people can be maintained.

 The County should ensure that any transportation planning undertaken in the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan is consistent with current emergency management efforts in planning for emergency earthquake and tsunami evacuation routes. Resilience is the ability of our communities and businesses to adapt and bounce back in the face of extreme adversity. Transportation is central to that ability.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-4 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

5.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY

The specified levels of transportation service (LOS) standards that are adopted in this plan will be maintained through upkeep of the existing circulation system and expansion of transportation services where needed. The Highway Capacity Manual (current edition), together with the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) Level of Service standards, is used in this plan. The level of service standards for transit facilities have been linked to the level of service standards for the street system. These standards provide measurable criteria to judge the adequacy of roadway service provision.

The process of establishing level of service standards requires the county to make quality of service decisions explicit. As specified in the GMA, new developments will be prohibited unless transportation improvements to accommodate the impacts of development or funding strategies for such improvements are made concurrent with the development or will be financially planned to be in place within six years.

5.4 INVENTORY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

5.4.1 STATE HIGHWAYS

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for maintenance of the following state highways through Pacific County:

 SR 4 - traverses along the northern edge of the Columbia River, then traverses east through Naselle and into Wahkiakum County before terminating in Kelso.

 SR 6 - traverses east from the City of Raymond, through the Willapa Valley. It passes through the communities of Menlo, Lebam and Frances before leaving the county heading east to Chehalis.

 SR 100 - provides access from Ilwaco to Cape Disappointment State Park and the U.S. Coast Guard Station.

 SR 101 - provides primary access through the County, traversing from Grays Harbor County in the north, through the cities of Raymond and South Bend, then south along the east shore of Willapa Bay to Seaview, Long Beach and Ilwaco. SR 101 continues south along the north shore of the Columbia River through Chinook to Megler, where it crosses the Columbia River into Astoria, Oregon.

 SR 103 - provides access to the Long Beach Peninsula. The highway traverses north from the community of Seaview, through the City of Long Beach, terminating in Ocean Park.

 SR 105 - enters Pacific County in Grayland, providing access to North Cove and Tokeland before terminating at the City of Raymond.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-5 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

 SR 401 - connects the Megler area at the Washington/Oregon border to SR 4 at the community of Naselle.

5.4.2 COUNTY ROADS AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS

State highways and arterials are maintained by Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and city streets within the incorporated cities of Ilwaco, Long Beach, Raymond, and South Bend are maintained by those municipalities. All other roads within the County are maintained by Pacific County or are private, unmaintained roads. Three functional classifications of roadways exist within the county: arterial, major collectors, minor collectors, and local access roads.

An arterial road is a relatively continuous roadway with relatively high traffic volumes, long average trip lengths, and high operating speed. A collector road is a roadway that serves travel of intra-county rather than statewide importance and includes those routes where predominant travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes. Typically, “major collector” roadways are longer in length than “minor collector” roadways, with lower connecting driveway densities and higher speed limits. Major collector routes typically have higher annual average traffic volumes.

Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the principal major and minor collector roadways in the County.

Roadways within Pacific County should be designated according to the standards within A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (current edition), and the guidelines of the Washington State Department of Transportation as mandated by RCW 47.05.021.

5.4.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Bus service in Pacific County was initiated in January 1980 and is provided by the Pacific Transit System. The system provides service along several fixed routes throughout the County. Weekday service is also provided to Astoria Oregon, and to Aberdeen in Grays Harbor County. Demand response service (Dial-A-Ride) is provided to disabled persons and to persons not having easy access to fixed route services.

5.4.4 NON-MOTORIZED TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND TRAILS

RCW 47.30.020 directs governments and public agencies to incorporate safe trails and paths in the design of roadways for joint usage of rights-of-way by vehicles and pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. The construction and use of multi-purpose trails and bike lanes should be encouraged whenever possible. Shoulder bike lanes are currently provided on only a few of the County’s major collector roads and State highways due to insufficient road shoulder widths.

Over the twenty-year planning horizon of this Plan update, increased presence is anticipated of recreational cyclists using electric-engine assist equipment (“ebikes”). Wider shoulders and dedicated bike lanes where feasible are recommended to safely accommodate the much faster speeds attainable by these electric-engine cycles than conventional bicycles. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-6 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

The “Willapa Hills State Trail Park” is managed by Washington State Parks. This 56-mile trail lies atop the historical Burlington Northern Railroad route between Chehalis and the Raymond/South Bend. In June of 1993, commercial rail operations ceased and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquired the railroad right-of-way for used as a non- motorized trail. In Pacific County, the trail corridor follows the Willapa River and SR 6 as it descends from Pluvius in eastern Pacific County and passes through the small rural communities of Frances, Lebam and Menlo, entering the City of Raymond and continuing to the City of South Bend. The trail remains unimproved west of mile 27 all the way to the Raymond city limits near mile 52.4 At that junction in Raymond, the trail transitions into asphalt for five (5) miles between Raymond and South Bend to its terminus at a small trailhead accessed by Highway 101.

There is considerable work remaining to complete the trail in Pacific County. Most of the former railroad bridges require shoring up, decking and safety rails. Many miles of trail are rough or nearly impassible because it is surfaced with the rough ballast rock that was installed historically to support the railroad tracks. As funding becomes available to Washington State Parks, improvements are planned to refurbish the entire trail.

The “Discovery Trail” is a, 8.5-mile paved pedestrian-bicycle trail constructed in the dunal area from the City of Long Beach to the City of Ilwaco and connecting to Cape Disappointment State Park. Maintenance on the Discovery Trail is provided by the City of Long Beach, the City of Ilwaco and Washington State Parks. Extensions to this trail are proposed to reach other areas of the Peninsula and establish a connected system.

5.4.5 AIR

There are two port-owned airports within Pacific County: the Port of Ilwaco Airport (in Ilwaco) and the Port of Willapa Harbor Airport (near Raymond). Both facilities provide limited general aviation services and only accommodate small aircraft. No commercial air service exists to the county. The nearest larger airport with paved, lighted runways and supporting instrument navigation is the Warrenton-Astoria Regional Airport (airport abbreviation AST), owned and managed by the Port of Astoria, Oregon. AST supports the air operations of United States Coast Guard sector Columbia River.

5.4.6 WATER

With the large amount of river frontage and associated harbors in Pacific County, waterways historically facilitated considerable transport of goods and people. While ships no longer handle freight and passengers on a scheduled basis, waterfront commerce including commercial fishing remains important. Ocean-going vessels, barges, and fishing boats regularly visit the Ports of Chinook, Ilwaco, Peninsula, and Willapa Harbor. Regular maintenance of navigation channels to these Ports and within their marinas is encouraged to support recreational and commercial boat access to Port facilities.

The Ports of Longview, Kalama, and Vancouver in Washington, and the Ports of Portland, St.

4 Mileage as measured by Washington State Parks from the Willapa Hills Trailhead near Chehalis, Washington. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-7 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Helens and Astoria in Oregon all depend on deep-draft navigation provided along the Columbia River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains a deep-draft channel in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers from Astoria, Oregon to Portland, Oregon, connecting to the overall Columbia-Snake River transportation system further east. The jetty system at the mouth of the Columbia River (including Jetty “A” and North Jetty in Pacific County) are important navigational structures supporting orderly sediment transport from these rivers, including sand sediments that directly feed Pacific County beaches on the Long Beach Peninsula. Regular refurbishment of these jetties (“A”, North, and South) is required to address deterioration from ongoing storm activity and wave action. USACE is expected to continue to prioritize their investment in dredging operations in the Columbia River and monitoring and maintaining overall jetty integrity.5

5.4.7 RAIL

No rail service is presently provided nor planned anywhere in the County.

5.5 CAPACITY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

5.5.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

The GMA requires that level of service (LOS) standards be adopted for all major routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the transportation system (RCW 36.70A.070(60(a)). Level of service is an estimate of the quality and efficiency of facilities and services provided. It is a measure that describes the operational conditions on roadways and transit systems. Once a community establishes LOS, they are used to measure whether existing facilities and services are adequate to serve its citizens, or whether there are deficiencies that should be corrected.

The County has adopted Level of Service standard A through F as the minimum criteria for the quality of service provided at peak hours and for the average daily conditions for roadway segments on all collectors. These definitions are conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms of both the user’s perception of service quality and the operational variables used to describe them.

The LOS standard is based on the ratio of volume (V) to capacity (C) as follows6:

LOS A: V/C<0.60 Primarily free-flow traffic operations at average travel speeds. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speed and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delays at intersections are minimal.

LOS B: 0.60

5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters website and news releases, reporting on regular jetty repairs 2020. 6 From the Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016 PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-8 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions.

LOS C: 0.70

LOS D: 0.80

LOS E: 0.90

LOS F: V/C>1.0 Traffic flow operations at extremely low speeds. Very low speeds, volumes exceed capacity, long delays. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. It marks the point where arrival flow exceeds discharge flow.

5.5.2 ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to set levels of service standards for transportation facilities. A regional transportation planning organization (RTPO) is formed through a voluntary association of local governments, including cities, counties, WSDOT, tribes, and ports. Pacific County participates in the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Both the Southwest Washington RTPO and Pacific County have adopted the level of service standards shown below.

LOS C Roads in rural areas. LOS D Roads within city limits.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-9 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Figure 5-1 County Roadway Classification, Long Beach Peninsula Area

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-10 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Figure 5-2 County Roadway Classification, Northwest County Area

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-11 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

5.5.3 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE

Capacity The capacity (C) of Pacific County's streets can be estimated from WSDOT tables that present general capacities of different types of roads. The capacity of Pacific County's collectors can be derived from Table 5-1 below, under the headings "Undivided Arterial, 2 or 4 lane" and "Collector, 2 lane undivided." These capacity values represent peak hour conditions for the County roadways.

These capacity values are then converted to total daily “carrying-capacity” of roadway segments. The carrying capacity can be derived by increasing the peak hour capacities in Table 5-1 by a factor of ten (10). The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) volume capacities are commonly used in evaluating roadway segment deficiencies and operational conditions of rural arterials and collectors. Typically, the peak hour capacity values (Table 5-1) are used in assessing intersection operations and signal system analyses for higher volume locations, which are more common in the urban areas.

For the purposes of this study, ADT capacity values will be used to evaluate level of service conditions for the collector roadways in the County, and segments of the state highway system. Table 5-2 shows the potential capacity of the primary roadways in the County. In evaluating the calculated volume/capacity ratios for each roadway, LOS C will be used as the threshold (V/C ratio between 0.70-0.80) in determining capacity deficiencies and operational conditions.

Volume Traffic volume counts for County roads were provided by the Pacific County Department of Public Works. The traffic counts in Table 5-1 reference the most recent (2017) Pacific County Road Log, indicating average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on selected portions of county roadways. These traffic counts are believed representative of traffic conditions experienced under 2017 conditions.

TABLE 5-1 GENERAL HIGHWAY PEAK HOUR CAPACITIES1

Level of Service Type of Facility A B C D E Undivided Arterial, 2 lane 470 790 1,180 1,420 1,570 Undivided Arterial, 4 lane 820 1,360 2,040 2,450 2,720 Collector, 2 lane undivided 390 650 970 1,170 1,290 Collector, 2 lane divided 510 850 1,270 1,520 1,690 Bridge/Causeway, 2 lane 660 1,090 1,640 2,050 2,460 Rural Highway, 2 lane 800 1,330 1,990 2,390 2,650 1 Peak Hour Capacity typically represents ten percent of the Daily Traffic Volume Capacity.

These estimated traffic volumes will be used as the base year condition in evaluating present traffic operations and current capacities of the county roadways. However, it is expected that calculated LOS and V/C ratios for the 2020 base-year will be an estimated measure of traffic volume and may not accurately depict existing conditions for some of the primary roadway segments.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-12 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Implementing a comprehensive traffic count program is recommended to create a current database of traffic volumes and usage on the county roadway system.

Traffic volumes (Annual Average Daily Traffic counts, or AADTs) for State Routes within Pacific County are reported by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The most recent (2019) AADT volumes were used as 2020 base-year conditions for the purposes of this study.

Existing Level of Service - 2017 Based on the V/C calculation shown in Table 5-2, all of Pacific County's collectors presently operate at an acceptable LOS A condition. The results of the V/C calculations for the state highway routes, as presented in Table 5-3, indicate that each of the primary highway segments will also operate at an acceptable LOS A for 2040 conditions. This indicates that existing roadways have sufficient capacity for the current traffic demand.

The LOS analysis is based on average annual traffic conditions and does not reflect the peak traffic fluctuations observed during summer months on the coastal highway corridors. Seasonal peak conditions are addressed in Section 5.5.4 below.

While the analysis indicates that all roadways have sufficient capacity for current traffic levels, other conditions exist that require facility improvements. Types of improvements include pavement overlays, shoulder widening, installation of guardrail, bridge replacements, alignment modifications and other safety enhancements. These types of improvements are identified on the County's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

5.5.4 FORECAST OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Volume To estimate traffic volumes that will occur in the year 2040, base condition traffic volumes (as reported by Pacific County Public Works and Washington State Department of Transportation) are forecast to increase by growth rates that reflect historical usage of County and State roadways. The growth assumptions are based on the most recent ten (10) years of historical AADT counts and applied to the next 20-year planning horizon to project AADT for 2040. Tables 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 show both historical, current, and forecasted AADTs for major County and state roadway segments. Note that some traffic count information is unavailable (marked “N/A”) where county and/or state recording activity ceased.

Forecast Level of Service - 2040 Based on the traffic estimates made for the year 2040 as shown in Tables 5-5 and 5-6, the majority of County and State roadways will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS A condition. However, traffic volume on the Astoria-Megler Bridge at Milepost 0 for U.S. Highway 101 is expected to nearly reach capacity for that intersection (over 15,500 AADT is projected by 2040, nearly at the 15,700 capacity). And because the results of this analysis reflect average annual traffic conditions and do not depict seasonal peak conditions, it is likely to understate expected episodic volumes on both County roadways and State routes.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-13 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Seasonal Peak Traffic Conditions The Long Beach Peninsula and other portions of Pacific County are heavily influenced by summer tourist travel and seasonal events (holiday festivals and celebrations, clamming and fishing openings). During the peak summer months, traffic volumes near Long Beach are typically 20 to 30 percent higher than the annual average volumes used for the previous analysis. If seasonal peak traffic volume adjustment are applied, AADT projections suggest that peak volumes will exceed capacity in the year 2040. Table 5-7 shows the V/C and Level of Service for selected roadways during peak summer usage. Although peak traffic conditions are not typically used as the threshold for determining system improvements, infrastructure investment to increase capacity is recommended for particular “at risk” roadway segments.

Further study is recommended to determine the extent of improvements needed on State highways and County roadways. The preparation of a comprehensive “Long Beach Peninsula Area Transportation Study” is encouraged to evaluate specific areas of traffic congestion, intersection operations, travel delays and emergency evacuation routes due to much of the County lying within the Tsunami Inundation Zone mapped by the Washington Geologic Survey.7 This study will necessarily require collaboration between all affected jurisdictions including Pacific County, WSDOT, and the Cities of Long Beach and Ilwaco. The results of the study will enable each jurisdiction to plan roadway and intersection improvements, determine locations of potential new roadway links, identify potential emergency evacuation routes and equipment staging areas, and develop an implementation strategy to invest in recommended improvements.

TABLE 5-2 PACIFIC COUNTY ROADS 2009 AND 2017 LEVELS OF SERVICE

2009 2017 Major Collector Vicinity AADT1 AADT Capacity V/C LOS Sid Snyder Drive Long Beach 1,902 2,260 11,700 0.20 A Pioneer Road Long Beach 1,090 1,575 12,900 0.10 A Cranberry Road Pacific Beach 573 550 12,900 0.05 A 227th Place Klipsan Beach 687 1,010 11,700 0.07 A Bay Avenue Ocean Park 1,105 1,197 12,900 0.11 A Joe Johns Road Ocean Park 650 329 12,900 0.06 A 295th Street Ocean Park 1,250 1,940 11,700 0.13 A Vernon Avenue Ocean Park 4,574 4,600 12,900 0.44 B Oysterville Road Oysterville 420 620 11,700 0.04 A Sandridge Road Peninsula 2,794 ---- 12,900 0.27 A Bay Center Dike Road Bay Center 391 457 11,700 0.04 A Knappton Road Naselle 198 258 11,700 0.02 A N. Nemah Road Nemah River 312 ---- 11,700 0.03 A School Street Willapa 570 334 11,700 0.06 A Camp One Road Willapa 1,149 413 11,700 0.12 A Monohan Landing Rd Raymond 1,943 946 11,700 0.20 A

7 Reference “Tsunami Hazard Maps of Southwest Washington”, Map Series 2018-01, published by the Washington Geologic Survey within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-14 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

2009 2017 Major Collector Vicinity AADT1 AADT Capacity V/C LOS Lindgren Road North Cove 256 ---- 11,700 0.03 A Smith Andersen Road North Cove 208 ---- 11,700 0.02 A Tokeland Road Tokeland 600 736 11,700 0.06 A 1 AADT equals Average Annual Daily Traffic.

TABLE 5-3 STATE ROUTES LEVELS OF SERVICE 2010 AND 2019

State Mile Vicinity 2010 2019 Capacity V/C LOS Route Post AADT AADT SR 4 0.06 After SR 101 1,700 2,000 15,700 0.1 A 4.75 Before SR 401 1,800 2,500 15,700 0.1 A 4.75 After SR 401 2,600 2,800 15,700 0.2 A 8.54 County Line n/a 1,800 15,700 0.1 A SR 6 0 After SR 101 5,700 5,400 15,700 0.4 A SR 100 0.06 After 2nd Ave. SW 1,000 1,100 15,700 0.1 A 2.97 After Fort Canby 770 810 15,700 0.1 A SP Spur SR 101 0 Oregon State Line 7,200 9,300 15,700 0.4 A 9.43 At Alt. SR 101 5,800 ,7400 15,700 0.2 A 13.4 Before SR 103 5,100 5,500 15,700 0.3 A 13.4 After SR 103 2,800 3,000 15,700 0.2 A 58.5 Before SR 6 11,000 11,000 27,200 0.4 A Roundabout 58.5 After SR 6 12,000 12,000 27,200 0.4 A Roundabout 63.1 Before Smith Creek 4,400 4,900 15,700 0.3 A Road SR 103 0 After SR 101 7,700 8,100 15,700 0.5 A 1.02 Before 10th Street 8,200 8,300 15,700 0.5 A 11.1 Before Vernon/Bay 4,200 4,600 15,700 0.3 A Aves. 13.3 After Joe John’s 980 1,100 15,700 0.1 A Road SR 105 18.6 Before Tokeland 1,100 1,100 15,700 0.1 A Road SR 401 0 After SR 101 2,300 2,900 15,700 0.1 A 11.3 After So. Valley 3,000 3,000 15,700 0.2 A Road 12.1 Before SR 4 3,000 3,200 15,700 0.2 A

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-15 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

TABLE 5-4 PACIFIC COUNTY ROADS PROJECTED 2040 LEVELS OF SERVICE

2009 to 2019 Projected 2017 AADT 2040 Major Collector Vicinity AADT Capacity Growth Rate AADT8 Sid Snyder Drive Long Beach 2,260 18.8% 3,191 11,700 Pioneer Road Long Beach 1,575 44.5% 3,288 12,900 Pacific Cranberry Road 550 12,900 Beach -4.0% 507 Klipsan 227th Place 1,010 11,700 Beach 47.0% 2,183 Bay Avenue Ocean Park 1,197 8.3% 1,405 12,900 Joe Johns Road Ocean Park 329 -49.4% 84 12,900 295th Street Ocean Park 1,940 55.2% 4,673 11,700 Vernon Avenue Ocean Park 4,600 .57 % 4,673 12,900 Oysterville Road Oysterville 620 N/A N/A 11,700 Sandridge Road Peninsula ---- N/A N/A 12,900 Bay Center Dike Road Bay Center 457 16.9% 624 11,700 Knappton Road Naselle 258 30.3% 438 11,700 Nemah N/A N/A N. Nemah Road ---- 11,700 River School Street Willapa 334 -41.4% 115 11,700 Camp One Road Willapa 413 -64.1% 53 11,700 Monohan Landing Rd Raymond 946 -51.3% 224 11,700 Lindgren Road North Cove ---- N/A N/A 11,700 Smith Andersen Road North Cove ---- N/A N/A 11,700 Tokeland Road Tokeland 736 22.7% 1,107 11,700

TABLE 5-5 STATE ROUTES PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE 2040

State Mile Vicinity 2010-2019 Projected 2019 Route Post Growth 2040 Capacity AADT Rate AADT9 SR 4 0.06 After SR 101 2,000 18% 2,768 15,700 4.75 Before SR 401 2,500 39% 4,823 15,700 4.75 After SR 401 2,800 8% 3,247 15,700 8.54 County Line 1,800 N/A N/A 15,700

8 Projections apply the 2009 to 2017 growth rate to the 20-year period 2020 through 2040. 9 Projections apply the 2009 to 2017 growth rate to the 20-year period 2020 through 2040. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-16 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

State Mile Vicinity 2010-2019 Projected 2019 Route Post Growth 2040 Capacity AADT Rate AADT9 SR 6 0 After SR 101 5,400 -5% 4,847 15,700 SR 100 0.06 After 2nd Ave. SW 1,100 10% 1,331 15,700 2.97 After Fort Canby 810 5% 896 15,700 SP Spur SR 101 0 Oregon State Line 9,300 29% 15,516 15,700 9.43 At Alt. SR 101 7,400 28% 12,046 15,700 13.4 Before SR 103 5,500 8% 6,397 15,700 13.4 After SR 103 3,000 7% 3,444 15,700 58.5 Before SR 6 11,000 0% 11,000 27,200 Roundabout 58.5 After SR 6 12,000 0% 12,000 27,200 Roundabout 63.1 Before Smith Creek 4,900 11% 6,077 15,700 Road SR 103 0 After SR 101 8,100 5% 8,963 15,700 1.02 Before 10th Street 8,300 1% 8,504 15,700 11.1 Before Vernon/Bay 4,600 10% 5,518 15,700 Aves. 13.3 After Joe John’s 1,100 12% 1,386 15,700 Road SR 105 18.6 Before Tokeland 1,100 0% 1,100 15,700 Road SR 401 0 After SR 101 2,900 26% 4,610 15,700 11.3 After So. Valley 3,000 0% 3,000 15,700 Road 12.1 Before SR 4 3,200 7% 3,641 15,700

TABLE 5-6 PROJECTED 2040 PEAK LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SELECTED ROADWAYS AND HIGHWAYS

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-17 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

State Mile Vicinity 2019 Projected Capacity Projected V/C LOS Route Post AADT 2040 Peak AADT AADT10 SR 101 0 Oregon 9,300 15,516 15,700 20,180 0.99 E State Line

9.43 At Alt. SR 7,400 12,046 15,700 15,660 0.77 C 101

5.6 FINANCIAL PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

Table 5-7 shows the planned transportation improvements within Pacific County for the next six years. As indicated above, no improvements are needed in order to continue providing the adopted level of service on Pacific County's major roads. Regardless, the county remains committed to providing the best transportation system within funding capabilities for its citizens. While no capacity projects are proposed, safety and preservation projects are necessary. The various project classifications of Safety, Preservation, and Capacity are defined below.

 Safety improvements reflect current road safety standards applied by county engineers. The projects are for "spot" type improvements to improve safety. They include such things as guardrail, spot roadway alignments, channelization, and traffic signal installations.

 Preservation improvements are upgrades to the existing roadway system to address current design standards. These improvements do not generally add additional lanes except at select intersections. The needed improvements provide greater lane width, improve roadway curves, or load carrying capacity. They may include safety features and add paved shoulders for multiple uses. Separate facilities may also be provided for pedestrians and bicycles.

 Capacity improvements provide new roads, new lanes, or other improvements that provide greater traffic carrying capacity of existing roads to meet the needs of new growth.

The proposed projects include those that could receive matching funds from state and federal grant programs, for which there is considerable competition and limited grant funding. In addition to the availability of grant funds, there is the question of difference in priority between the county and the granting agency. It is not unusual for the County's second choice project to be the first choice of the granting agency. Because of this, the County typically submits more projects than there is a likelihood of receiving grant funding. This Transportation Improvement Plan, particularly in the later years, reflects more projects than are anticipated to be grant funded. A "working reserve" fund balance is desired to be maintained in the County Road Fund.

If the County is faced with transportation funding shortfalls, any combination of the following strategies should be used to balance revenues and public facility needs:

10 Peak projections assume 30% increase over 2040 numbers in Table 5-5. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-18 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

 Increase revenues through use of bonds, new or increased user fees or rates, new or increased taxes, regional cost sharing, or voluntary developer funds.

 Decrease level of service standards if consistent with Growth Management Act Goals.

 Reprioritize projects to focus on those related to concurrency.

 Decrease the cost of the facility by changing project scope, or finding less expensive alternatives.

 Decrease the demand for the public service. This could involve instituting measures to slow or direct population growth or development, for example, developing only in areas served by facilities with available capacity until funding is available for other areas, or by changing project timing and phasing.

 Consistent with the GMA, revise the Comprehensive Plan's land use and rural areas element to change types or intensities of land use as needed to match the amount of transportation facilities that can be provided.

TABLE 5-7 PLANNED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

Year of Project Name Milepost Cost Funding Construction From / To Source 2019 Camp One Heckard Intersection $ 160,000 HSIP, CRF

2019 Safety Guardrail $ 255,762 HSIP, CRF 2019 Parpala Road 5.92 6.92 $ 375,000 STPR, CRF

2019 Fowler Culverts $ 180,000 CRF 2020 South Nemah Bridge 0.72 $ 2,400,000 BROS, CRF 2020 Butte Creek Road 1.32 2.32 $ 375,000 STPR, CRF 2020 Stringtown Culvert Replacement 0.12 0.17 $ 480,000 RAP, CRF 2020 North Nemah Road 0.32 0.77 $ 500,000 RAP, CRF 2020 Niawiakum Bridge 7.65 $ 2,400,000 BROS, CRF 2020 Rue Creek Culverts 2.01 $ 100,000 WCRI

2020 Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail $ 1,470,000 FLAP

2020 Smith Creek/SR101 Intersection $ 250,000 HSIP, CRF 2020 Udell Hansen Road 0 0.73 $ 290,000 CRF 2021 Butte Creek Road 2.32 3.16 $ 325,000 STPR, CRF 2021 South Fork Road 3.6 5.52 $ 1,550,000 RAP, CRF 2021 North River Road 0 4.78 $ 1,560,000 STPR, CRF 2022 Raymond-South Bend Road 1.45 1.62 $ 541,000 RAP, CRF 2022 School Street 0 0.24 $ 250,000 RAP, CRF 2022 Falls River Bridge 2.47 $ 1,050,000 BROS, CRF

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-19 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Year of Project Name Milepost Cost Funding Construction From / To Source 2022 Camp One Road 2.07 3.31 $ 1,225,000 RAP, CRF 2023 South Fork Bridge #1 Rehab 3.04 $ 250,000 BROS, CRF 2023 County Line Bridge 0.07 $ 2,500,000 BROS, CRF 2023 Heckard Road 0 1.02 $ 875,000 STPR, CRF 2023 Heckard Bridge Rehab 0.79 $ 500,000 BROS, CRF 2023 Willapa Road 4.43 4.75 $ 1,500,000 RAP, CRF

2023 Smith Creek/Butte Creek Intersection $ 250,000 CRF 2023 Lilly Wheaton 0 1.35 $ 750,000 CRF 2023 67th Place 0 2.36 $ 1,000,000 FLAP 2023 North Valley Road 0 2.07 $ 1,000,000 STPR, CRF 2023 Mill Creek 0.7 2.73 $ 715,000 CRF

2023 67th/68th Extension $ 500,000 CRF 2023 Smith Creek Road 13.72 14.75 $ 500,000 STPR, CRF 2023 Lebam Bridge Rehab 0.32 $ 250,000 BROS, CRF 2023 Fern Creek Bridge Rehab 0.11 $ 250,000 BROS, CRF 2023 Davis Creek Bridge 1.58 $ 1,275,000 BROS, CRF 2023 Surfside Bridge 0.88 $ 1,000,000 BROS, CRF 2024 Bay Center Bridge Rehab 0.02 $ 200,000 BROS, CRF 2024 Smith Creek Road 12.72 13.72 $ 500,000 STPR, CRF 2024 Nemah Valley Bridge Rehab 0.05 $ 100,000 BROS, CRF 2024 Hyland Stringer 0 1.3 $ 780,000 CRF 2024 Oxbow Road 0 1.62 $ 972,000 CRF 2024 250th Street 0 0.49 $ 300,000 CRF 2024 Dixon Road 0 1.38 $ 828,000 CRF 2024 Williams Creek Road 0 1.01 $ 606,000 CRF

2024 Misc. Safety Enhancement $ 150,000 CRF

2024 Misc. Culvert Replacement $ 150,000 CRF Funding Legend: CRF County Road Fund STP Surface Transportation Program BROS Bridge Replacement Off System RAP Rural Arterial Preservation P&T Paths and Trails Fund FHWA Federal Highway Administration FLAP Federal Lands Acquisition Program

5.7 GOALS AND POLICIES

The goals and policies of the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan are intended to provide guidance for decision-making processes subject to this plan. Goals and policies do not apply to incorporated cities, but rather, only to unincorporated areas of the County.

Goal T-1 The transportation system should complement the land use and rural areas element of the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan.

Policy T-1.1: Land use decisions regarding types and levels of development intensity PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-20 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

should determine the types and levels of transportation facilities to be provided within the unincorporated County. Land use and transportation goals and decisions should be integrated with one another and coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions.

Policy T-1.2: Future land use projections based on the population projections within the Comprehensive Plan should be used to determine the need for additional rights-of-way corridors and other improvements.

Policy T-1.3: Where roadway construction or improvement which serves designated land use intensities is not feasible, such land use designations or the level of service should be reviewed.

Goal T-2 Develop and maintain Pacific County’s transportation system so that it sustains and grows the region’s economy.

Policy T-2.1: Promote strategic partnerships.

1. Work with stakeholders such as government, tribal, private sector, and transit partners.

2. Provide adequate transportation facilities and services to foster economic growth.

3. Participate in transportation and economic development partnerships that support jobs and industry.

4. Continue working with stakeholders to enhance the system’s capacity to connect people with jobs, commerce, and schools in ways that are cost- effective and convenient to ensure transportation investments and policy decisions generate maximum economic benefit.

Policy T-2.2: Support the local economy.

1. Provide safe and convenient access to area businesses and industry to support a strong local economy.

2. Encourage transportation planning and investments produce the infrastructure needed to support the economic development envisioned in adopted land use and community development policies.

3. Enhance access for tourism and outdoor recreation opportunities through transportation policies and investments.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-21 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Goal T-3 The transportation system should be coordinated with neighboring cities and other transportation providers.

Policy T-3.1: The County should coordinate with other jurisdictions, including the Pacific Transit System, to plan, fund, and implement multi-jurisdictional projects necessary to meet shared transportation needs (including right-of-way preservation and purchase). All efforts should be made to maintain consistency with the Pacific Transit System’s Comprehensive Plan.

Goal T-4 The transportation system should promote safe and efficient access to land while maintaining the integrity of the arterial roadway system.

Policy T-4.1: The County should adopt standards that limit access to present and planned future State-managed arterials; access should be channeled where possible to local or collector roadways that connect to arterials.

Policy T-4.2: Land development should have adequate access and circulation for public service vehicles.

Policy T-4.3: Compatible street and road standards should be maintained among Pacific County jurisdictions.

Policy T-4.4: The current beach access roads should be maintained.

Goal T-5 The transportation system should provide mobility for all citizens regardless of age, handicap or income and should be encouraged as a means to promote additional tourism within Pacific County.

Policy T-5.1: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be promoted, wherever reasonable, to provide access between schools, recreation areas, business areas, public facilities and activity centers.

Policy T-5.2: Bicycle and pedestrian trails should be promoted and developed, wherever possible, to ensure coordination among potential users.

Policy T-5.3: Bicycle and pedestrian trails within the dunes should be designed and constructed to provide an alternative means of access for fire-fighting purposes and emergency access.

Goal T-6 The transportation system should enhance the health, safety, and welfare of Pacific County citizens.

Policy T-6.1: Sufficient travel lane capacity should provide safe vehicular travel in major

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-22 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

corridors.

Policy T-6.2: Highways and roadways should be designed and maintained consistent with geometric and structural standards that reduce the risk of serious injuries and fatalities in the event of accident.

Policy T-6.3: Traffic control devices, channelization, and appropriate signalization and signing should be utilized to improve the safety and operation of county roadways.

Policy T-6.4: Prepare for emergencies.

1. Identify critical gaps needed to ensure system redundancy for emergency management purposes and develop an implementation strategy for addressing priority deficiencies.

2. Collaborate with local, state, federal, tribal, emergency response, and military partners to minimize risks associated with catastrophic events through transportation system design and construction, and pre-event planning.

3. Identify highways and roadways potentially subject to tsunami inundation or those that are to serve as evacuation routes for congestion bottlenecks and deficiencies, and develop strategies for improving the ability of the highways and roadways to survive and continue to provide service during and following such events.

Policy T-6.5: Promote safety for all modes of travel.

1. Account for the mobility needs of an aging population when considering signage, pedestrian crossings, roadway markings, maintenance and lighting.

2. Consider the mobility needs of walkers, cyclists, and transit riders in the development of street standards, site design, access management, and intersection control.

Goal T-7 The costs of transportation improvements associated with new development should be reasonably assigned to the developer.

Policy T-7.1: New development should be prohibited unless 1) the transportation system can accommodate the impacts of development, 2) necessary transportation improvements occur simultaneously with the development, or 3) a funding strategy is in place to ensure that necessary transportation improvements will occur within 6 years.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-23 SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION

Policy T-7.2: The peak period volumes generated by such development should be used as the primary measurement in establishing the proportionate share of street improvement which a proponent will be required to assume.

Policy T-7.3: Each phase of such development should be accompanied by a program to provide mitigation of off-site traffic impacts.

Policy T-7.4: If the County is faced with transportation funding shortfalls, any combination of the following strategies should be used to balance revenues and public facility needs:

 Increase revenues through use of bonds, new or increased user fees or rates, new or increased taxes, regional cost sharing, or voluntary developer funds.

 Decrease level of service standards if consistent with Growth Management Act Goals.

 Reprioritize projects to focus on those related to concurrency.

 Decrease the cost of the facility by changing project scope, or finding less expensive alternatives.

 Decrease the demand for the public service. This could involve instituting measures to slow or re-direct population growth or development.

 Consistent with the GMA, revise the Comprehensive Plan's land use and rural areas element to change types or intensities of land use as needed to match the amount of transportation facilities that can be provided.

Policy T-7.5: A "working reserve" fund balance should be maintained in the County Road Fund for emergencies, unanticipated safety upgrades, or similar County road needs.

PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2020 – 2040) JANUARY 2021

PAGE 5-24