Appendix A - Thurston Regional Planning Council

Transcription

Appendices
Appendix A
Glossary
Access Management
The careful control of the location, design and operation of all
driveways and public street connections to a roadway, to
improve roadway safety and efficiency.
Accessibility
A measure of the ability or ease of all people to travel among
various origins and destinations.
The use of advanced electronics, computer and communications
technologies to manage transit operations and provide real time
information to transit users.
Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS)
technologies to manage traffic flow, and traffic system
information, to improve safety and efficiency.
Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS)
technologies to provide real time information to travelers.
Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT)
2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS)
Created by the Legislature in 1998, ACCT promotes coordination
of transportation resources for people with special transportation
needs. The Council is comprised of state agencies, transportation
providers, consumer advocates and legislators. TRPC plays an
active role in coordinating these transportation resources in the
Thurston region.
Alternative Fuels
Sometimes referred to as “clean fuels,” this category includes any
motor fuel other than ordinary gasoline which may result in lower
levels of air pollutants or more efficient use of resources.
Alternative fuels include natural gas, liquid propane, biodiesel,
ethanol, methanol, electricity and some gasoline blends.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
This federal civil rights legislation mandated significant changes in
transportation, building codes, and hiring practices to prevent
discrimination against people with disabilities. The Act requires
transit agencies to supply complementary or supplemental
paratransit services within ¾ mile of fixed routes to people who,
because of their disability, are unable to use the fixed route
system.
A-1
Appendix A
Arterial
A class of street characterized by high vehicular capacity used
primarily for through traffic rather than for accessing adjacent
land.
Attainment Area
An area considered to have air quality at least as good as the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) health
standards used in the Clean Air Act. An area may be an
attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area for
others. A “non-attainment area” reflects an area that does not
meet the standard for designated pollutants.
Automated Vehicle Location (AVL)
Real-time information regarding the location and status of
vehicles, using technologies such as Global Positioning Systems
(GPS).
Base Year
The foundation year which establishes a starting point for
subsequent data collection and analysis. Base year data is
“calibrated” – tested to ensure it reflects actual conditions.
Biodiesel
A clean burning alternative fuel produced from domestic,
renewable resources such as recycled oil from the food industry.
Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but can be blended with
petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. Biodiesel can be
used in diesel engines with no modification and is biodegradable,
nontoxic, and free of sulfur and aromatics.
Brokerage System
An association of transportation providers, managed by a broker
or agent who makes transportation arrangements for a specific
clientele, such as seniors or persons with disabilities.
Bulb-Out
A construction of curbing that reduces the width of the street.
Often used to provide space for parking, a transit stop or to
reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Sometimes referred to as
“curb extension.”
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
A-2
A division of the United States Department of the Interior, the
BIA is responsible for the administration and management of 56
million acres of land held in trust by the United States for
American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. Developing
forestlands, leasing assets on these lands, directing agricultural
Appendix A
programs, protecting water and land rights, developing and
maintaining infrastructure, providing for health and human
services, and economic development are all part of this
responsibility in cooperation with the American Indians and
Alaska Natives.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Roads System (BIA Roads)
Those existing and proposed roads for which the BIA has or
plans to obtain legal right(s)-of-way. This includes only roads for
which the BIA has the primary responsibility to construct,
improve, and maintain.
The number of people, vehicles, or amount of goods that can be
served by a transportation facility or program. The term is most
often used to describe the number of vehicles served by a
roadway.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
The part of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan that includes an
inventory of capital facilities, and the proposed location and
funding for future construction projects.
Carpool
An arrangement where two or more people share the use and
cost of private vehicles to travel together to and from a prearranged destination. For purposes of the Commute Trip
Reduction law, the trip must be a commute trip and the people
must be age 16 or older. (See Drive Plus.)
Capacity
Clean Air Act (CAA)
A federal law that identifies sources of air pollution and calls for
specific strategies to attain and maintain federal air quality
standards. “Mobile sources” (vehicles) are a primary source of
pollution.
Collector
A roadway linking traffic on local roads to the arterial road
network. A collector balances the need for mobility and throughput with the need for access to adjacent land uses.
Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR)
State legislation requiring employers in the state’s 10 largest
counties to implement measures to reduce the number of single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
by their employees during the peak travel periods. Thurston
County is one of the affected counties. (RCW 70.94.521-551)
A-3
Appendix A
Commute Trips
Regular trips made from home to a fixed work or school location,
regardless of the distance or mode used. Currently, commute
trips represent about 20% of the travel on this region’s
transportation system. The remaining trips are often referred to
as “discretionary trips.”
Commuter
A person who travels regularly between home and work or
school.
Commuter Rail
Also called metropolitan or regional rail, a passenger railroad
service designed mainly for commuters serving a heavy volume
of traffic, generally within and between metropolitan and highdensity suburban areas. Typically, Commuter Rail is limited to
only one or two stations in the central business district.
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan)
The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to adopt
a long range plan to guide all development activity. One element
of the Comprehensive Plan is the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP).
Concurrency
Under the Growth Management Act, jurisdictions must ensure
that new development does not outstrip the jurisdiction’s ability
to support the growth. Either supporting infrastructure must be in
place (“concurrent with the development”) to accommodate
transportation impacts, or a financial commitment must be in
place to provide the improvements or strategies within six years.
Conformity
A process in which transportation plans and spending programs
are reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with federal clean
air requirements.
Congestion
A condition that prohibits movement on a transportation facility
at optimal legal speeds. Congestion is often characterized as
“recurrent” - resulting from constant excess traffic or
“nonrecurring” - resulting from special events, incidents or
accidents.
Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ)
A-4
A federal program that funds projects and activities which reduce
congestion and improve air quality. Areas qualify for these funds
based on non-attainment status.
Appendix A
Context Sensitive Design (CSD)
This term refers to a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that
involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that
fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic,
community, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety
and mobility. CSD considers the total context within which a
transportation improvement project will exist.
In planning, a linear segment of land that connects major
residential areas and destinations. A corridor may contain a
number of streets, highways, and transit routes, and may follow
an interstate, freeway or major roadway. A corridor may be
limited to a single jurisdiction or span multiple jurisdictions.
Delay
The additional travel time experienced by a traveler (driver,
passengers, walker, bicyclist) beyond what would reasonably be
desired for a given trip.
Destination
The point or location where a trip ends.
Drive Plus
Adopted by the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Work Group,
this refers to vehicles occupied by more than one individual – the
driver. (See Carpool.)
Corridor
Eighteenth Amendment
An amendment to the Washington State Constitution passed in
1944 stating that motor vehicle license fees, gas tax, and certain
other state revenue may only be used for highway purposes. The
Washington State Ferry System is considered a “highway” under
the 18th Amendment.
Emissions Inventory
A complete list of sources and amounts of pollutant emissions
within a specific area and time interval.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
A document required by the National Environmental Policy Act
and Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act for major
projects or legislative proposals significantly affecting the
environment. A tool for decision making, it describes the positive
and negative effects of the undertaking and cites alternative
actions.
A-5
Appendix A
Environmental Justice (EJ)
Refers to a Federal Executive Order that requires agencies to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate disproportionately high and adverse
effects of policies, programs, projects and other activities on
minority and/or low income populations. The order implies that
no population of people should be forced to shoulder a
disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts of
pollution or environmental hazard due to a lack of political or
economic strength.
Equilibre Multimodal/Multimodal Equilibrium (EMME/2)
A software program used to forecast future travel demand on an
existing or planned transportation facility, and to evaluate the
performance of a given segment of the system. TRPC used this
multimodal model for the 2025 RTP.
Express Bus Service
Fixed route transit service with a limited number of stops.
Intercity Transit and Pierce Transit provide Express Bus Service
to Tacoma.
Facility
The means by which a transportation mode is provided or
supported. A facility may refer to such elements as a road,
sidewalk, Park-and-Ride Lot, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lane.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, with
jurisdiction over highways.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that
funds and regulates transit planning and programs.
Fixed Route
Transit service that is regularly scheduled and repeatedly operates
over a set route.
Government-to-Government Relations
Describes the manner of working with Indian tribes that
recognizes their right to self-government and supports tribal
sovereignty and self-determination.
Growth Management Act (GMA)
A-6
State legislation passed in 1990 that requires urban counties and
their associated jurisdictions to cooperatively develop and
periodically update plans related to issues such as land use,
infrastructure, services, and housing. Under GMA, the Regional
Appendix A
Planning Council is responsible for creating and maintaining a
Regional Transportation Plan and for certifying that the
transportation elements of each jurisdiction meet GMA
requirements. (RCW 36.70a and RCW 47.80)
Heavy Rail
An electric powered rail transit system, typically a metro or
subway, operating on a completely grade separated right-ofway, with high operating speeds.
Transit systems operating on a fixed guideway, dedicated rightof-way, or freeway/express facility, designed to carry a large
number of riders at faster speeds than conventional transit.
Frequent and express bus service, passenger ferries, and rail are
examples of HCT.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
A passenger vehicle that carries at least one passenger in addition
to the driver, such as a carpool, bus, or vanpool.
High Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOV Lane)
A roadway travel lane dedicated exclusively for buses, carpools,
vanpools and certain other qualifying vehicles, including
motorcycles. In Washington State, HOV lanes are signed with a
diamond symbol, so are sometimes referred to as “diamond”
lanes.
High Capacity Transit (HCT)
High Speed Rail
An intercity passenger rail system operating on exclusive rights of
way. This form of rail serves densely traveled corridors with high
operating speeds (up to 300 miles per hour) and limited stops.
Highway and Local Programs (H&LP)
A division of the Washington State Department of Transportation
responsible for overall administration of federal funding programs.
Highway System Plan (HSP)
The state-owned component of the Washington Transportation
Plan, this document is updated every two years and forms the
basis for the Transportation Commission’s biennial budget request
to the Legislature.
Impact Fee
A fee imposed on new development activities as partial financing
for public improvements such as public streets and roads, publicly
owned parks, and school facilities.
A-7
Appendix A
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
Public roads that are located within or provide access to an
Indian reservation or Indian trust land or restricted Indian land
(which is not subject to fee title alienation without the approval
of the federal government), or Indian and Alaska Native villages,
group or communities which Indians and Alaskan Natives reside,
whom the Secretary of the Interior has determined are eligible for
services generally available to Indians under federal laws
specifically applicable to Indians. Roads on the BIA Road
System are also IRR roads.
Indian Reservation Roads Inventory (IRR Inventory)
An inventory of roads and bridges which meet the following
criteria: a) public roads strictly within reservation boundaries, (b)
public roads that provide access to lands, to groups, villages and
communities in which the majority of residences are Indian, c)
public roads that serve Indian lands not within reservation
boundaries, and d) public roads that serve recognized Indian
groups, villages, and isolated communities not located within a
reservation.
Indian Tribal Government (ITG)
Duly formed, recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe.
Infrastructure
A term connoting the physical underpinnings of society at large,
including, but not limited to roads, bridges, transit, waste
systems, public housing, sidewalks, utility installations, parks,
public buildings, and communications networks.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
A wide range of advanced electronics, computer and
communications technologies that improve the safety and
operating efficiency of existing and future transportation facilities
or services. Common examples of ITS include central dispatch
for road emergency assistance, freeway traffic maps shown on
television or the Internet to warn motorists of accidents, devices
that show “real time” location of transit vehicles and programs
that help travelers plan trips.
Intercity Rail
Passenger rail service provided for occasional business and leisure
travel between cities, typically with a single stop in each city
served. Usually shares or leases track from freight railroads.
A-8
Appendix A
Intercity Transit (I.T.)
I.T. is Thurston County’s public transportation provider.
Intermodal
Multiple types or “modes” of transportation working together in
an interconnected, efficient, integrated system. The ability to
connect and make connections among various modes of
transportation, such as automobile, motorcycle, truck, bus, train
plane, bicycle, pedestrian, boat and ship.
This federal act revolutionized the way transportation decisions
were made, and revenues spent, at the federal, state, and local
levels. The Act placed a strong emphasis on coordination among
local, regional, and state agencies with a mandate to better
integrate transportation and land use decision-making processes.
System preservation and management became at least as
important as system expansion. ISTEA required a coordinated,
comprehensive, and financially-constrained long-range
transportation strategy. The original act expired in 1997 and was
reauthorized as TEA21 in 1998.
Jurisdiction
This term refers to the authority of government to conduct
activities and generally refers to tribes, states, counties and cities.
For purposes of this Plan, the term is inclusive of federal and state
agencies, and port and transit districts.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA)
Land Use
The way that specific portions of land or the structures on the
land are used, such as commercial, residential, retail, industrial. A
land use plan establishes strategies for the use of land to meet
identified community needs.
Latent Travel Demand
Demand for travel that does not currently exist, but which would
be encouraged by the expansion of transportation capacity.
A-9
Appendix A
Level of Service (LOS)
A method of measuring operational traffic conditions. State law
allows agencies to use any number of performance measures to
evaluate operational efficiency of the transportation system, as
long as it is coordinated regionally. Currently, this region uses the
traditional Volume-to-Capacity ratio, or V/C ratio, of a given
roadway segment during the busiest two hours of the evening
commute period. As the volume of traffic on a roadway during
the peak commute time approaches the designed capacity,
congestion increases. LOS may use a grading system, with “LOS
A” representing free flow and “LOS F” reflecting stop and go or
failing traffic flows.
The term is most often used as a performance measure for
automobile traffic. Some jurisdictions have attempted to define
level of service standards for other modes, such as biking.
Light Rail
Also known as street cars, trams or trolleys, this electric
powered rail system can operate in a variety of places – from on
the street with automobile traffic to separate rights of way. With
stations set every one-half to one mile, this form of rail has
slower average operating speeds and less capacity than heavy
rail.
Local Street
A street intended solely for access to properties contiguous to it.
Maintenance Area
Any geographic region designated “nonattainment” under the
Clean Air Act, and subsequently redesignated to attainment –
subject to the requirement to develop and implement a
maintenance plan.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
An agency designated by the governor to administer the federally
required transportation planning in a metropolitan area. Every
urbanized area with a population over 50,000 must be served by
an MPO. MPOs provide continuing, coordinated, comprehensive
transportation planning in urbanized areas and serve as a forum
for cooperative decision making. The most visible MPO products
include a 20-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a threeyear Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and
an annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
A - 10
Appendix A
TRPC serves as the designated MPO for the urbanized area of
Thurston County. Thurston County’s MPO boundary is
approximately that of the Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater urban
growth area, with the inclusion of the Cooper Point peninsula.
Mobile Source
Under the Clean Air Act, the pollution caused by mobile sources
such as motor vehicles, aircraft, seagoing vessels, and other
transportation modes. Mobile Source pollutants are carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), or volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and small particulate
matter (PM10).
The ability of people or goods to move or be moved from place
to place. Mobility also refers to the ease and safety with which
desired destinations can be reached.
Mode
A particular form or means of transport – such as walking,
traveling by automobile, bus or rail, or riding a bicycle. Some
modes avoid trips, such as compressed work weeks or telework.
Mode Split
The proportion of total trips using various specified modes of
transportation, such as the percentage of people carpooling,
driving alone, or riding the bus.
Mobility
Multimodal
Refers to the availability of multiple transportation options,
especially within a system or corridor. A concept embraced by
recent federal legislation (ISTEA, TEA21), a multimodal
approach focuses on the most efficient way of transporting
people or goods from place to place – combining truck, train,
bicycle, automobile, bus, or foot.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Federal standards created by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) that set allowable concentrations and exposure
limits for various pollutants.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Establishes national environmental policy and goals for the
protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment,
and provides a process for implementing these goals.
A - 11
Appendix A
National Highway System (NHS)
The federal transportation system designated by Congress, which
includes nationally significant interstate highways and roads for
interstate travel, national defense, intermodal connections, and
international commerce.
Nonattainment Area
Any geographical area, as defined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), whose air quality does not meet
federal air quality standards (NAAQS) designed to protect public
health.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Travel accomplished by cycling, walking, skating, wheelchairs or
other assistive devices not involving a motor vehicle.
Olympic Region
One of six Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) geographic regions that deals with state transportation
issues. The Olympic Region includes Thurston County, and is
headquartered in Tumwater.
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA)
One of seven regional air pollution control agencies located
throughout the state, ORCAA is a local government agency with
regulatory and enforcement authority in and for Clallam, Grays
Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties.
ORCAA was established in 1968 after passage of the Clean Air
Washington Act (RCW 70.94). The agency is responsible for
enforcing federal, state, and local air pollution standards and
governing air pollutant emissions from new and existing sources.
Origin
The point or location where a trip begins.
Park-and-Ride Lot (Park-and-Ride)
A parking facility for individuals to transfer from one mode to
another – usually from a private vehicle to a carpool, vanpool, or
public transportation.
Particulate Matter (PM), (PM10)
Any material that exists as solid or liquid in the atmosphere.
Particulate matter may be in the form of fly ash, soot, dust, fog,
or fumes. Small particulate matter, PM10, is less than 10 microns
(one millionth of a meter) in size and is too small for the nose and
lungs to filter. PM10 is the major cause of air pollution in the
Thurston region.
A - 12
Appendix A
Pavement Management System (PMS)
A systematic process that gathers, analyzes, and summarizes
pavement information for use in selecting and implementing costeffective pavement construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance
programs. Pavement includes all road surface types including
paved, gravel, and improved or unimproved earth.
Peak Period
The time of the day when the maximum amount of travel occurs.
Generally, there is a morning peak period (a.m. peak) and an
afternoon peak period (p.m. peak).
A person who travels on foot or who uses assistive devices, such
as a wheelchair, for mobility.
Performance Measure
A measure of how well a program, project, activity or system is
functioning.
Person Trip
A one-way trip made by a person from one place to another by
any mode of travel.
Public Transportation
Transportation by bus, rail, vanpool, or other conveyance, either
publicly or privately owned, serving the general public or special
service on a regular and continuing basis (but not including school
buses, or charter or sightseeing service).
Pedestrian
Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA)
In legal terms, a PTBA is a municipal corporation created under
state law to provide public transportation services within a
specific geographical area. In common use, the term refers to the
area in which a transit agency provides service.
Ramp Metering
Traffic-responsive regulation of vehicle entry to a freeway,
typically via sensor-controlled freeway ramp stoplights.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
Federally required document produced by TRPC that identifies all
federally funded projects for the current three-year period. The
RTIP is developed every year. Any federally-funded project
must be included in the RTIP and the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). To satisfy this requirement, the
RTIP is occasionally amended to add projects recently awarded
funding.
A - 13
Appendix A
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The long-range transportation strategy for the Thurston region.
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)
State-designated agency created to ensure that regional
transportation planning is consistent with county-wide planning
policies and growth strategies for the region. TRPC is the
Planning Organization for Thurston County, which is a singlecounty RTPO.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
The laws or statutes of Washington state, as enacted and
amended.
Roundabout
A circular intersection with a curved design that is engineered to
keep traffic moving safely while accommodating pedestrians and
bicycles.
Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)
A vehicle carrying only one occupant – the driver. Often referred
to as “driving alone.”
Special Needs Transportation
Refers to the needs of people, including their personal attendants,
who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or
age are unable to transport themselves or purchase
transportation.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Enacted in 1971, the Act provides the framework for agencies to
consider the environmental consequences of a proposal before
taking action. SEPA also gives agencies the ability to condition or
deny a proposal due to identified likely significant adverse
impacts. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for
private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting
regulations, policies or plans.
State-Interest
The portion of the state transportation system that is owned and/
or operated by local jurisdictions, agencies and private
corporations, and is of importance to the entire transportation
system.
State-Owned
A - 14
The portion of the state transportation system that is owned and/
or operated by the state, including state highways, Washington
State Ferries, and state airports.
Appendix A
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Federally required document identifying all federally-funded and/
or regionally significant projects in the state. Projects must be
included in the STIP before applicants can use federal money
awarded to their projects. In order for a project to be included in
the STIP it must first be included in the RTIP.
The primary federal funding program resulting from ISTEA and
TEA21 that provides money for a wide range of transportation
projects. Approximately $2.4 million per year of STP funds are
awarded to projects selected by TRPC through a regional
prioritization process. TRPC awards funds every 2-3 years to
projects that support funding priorities established by the Council.
In 2001, TRPC awarded $7.5 million to projects throughout the
region.
These funds may be used for capital projects such as ridesharing
projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit safety
improvements and transportation control measures. Other eligible
activities include planning activities such as transit research and
development, environmental analysis and wetland mitigation.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Advisory body to the Transportation Policy Board on
transportation issues, primarily technical in nature. All member
jurisdictions are eligible to participate. Currently the TAC is made
up of transportation staff from Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Yelm,
Thurston County, Intercity Transit, and WSDOT Olympic Region.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Telework
The use of telephones, computers and other technology to work
from a location other than the conventional office. Teleworking
or telecommuting substitutes technology for a trip to work.
Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC)
A 18-member council of governments representing the cities of
Lacey, Olympia, Rainier, Tenino, Tumwater, and Yelm; the town
of Bucoda; Thurston County; Intercity Transit; Port of Olympia;
Thurston County PUD #1; Griffin School District; North Thurston
Public Schools; Olympia School District; Confederated Tribes of
the Chehalis Reservation; and the Nisqually Indian Tribe.
Thurston Conservation District and Timberland Regional Library
are Associate Members and The Evergreen State College is a
Charter Member Emeritus.
A - 15
Appendix A
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
A geographic area that ranges in size from a few blocks to
several square miles. TAZs are characterized by population,
employment and other factors, and serve as the primary unit of
analysis for transportation modeling purposes. The Thurston
region has approximately 800 TAZs.
Transit Dependent
Persons who rely on public transit or paratranist services for most
or all of their transportation needs.
Transportation
The act of conveying persons or things from one place to another,
through personal or communal means. As used in the Thurston
region, it includes all modes of transportation, not just cars and
trucks.
Transportation Enhancement (TE)
TE projects “enhance” or contribute to an existing or proposed
transportation project. Examples of such activities include
providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities; converting abandoned
railroad rights-of-way into trails; historic preservation; acquiring
scenic easements; landscaping; archaeological planning and
research; mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff; and
mitigating the negative impacts of a project on a community by
providing additional benefits.
Transportation Equity Act For The 21st Century (TEA-21)
This is the federal act that superseded ISTEA in 1998.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
A six-year list of projects developed by each jurisdiction or tribal
government, in compliance with state or federal requirements. A
project is ineligible for funding unless included in the TIP.
(Comparable to a Tribal TIP.)
Transportation Policy Board (TPB)
A - 16
Advisory body to the Regional Council that focuses specifically
on regional transportation issues. All members of TRPC are
eligible to be active members of the TPB. The TPB also includes
other representatives of community interests, and local state
legislators as required by state law. Active members on the TPB
include Lacey, Olympia, Tenino, Tumwater, Yelm, Thurston
County, Intercity Transit, and Port of Olympia; as well as
representatives from the WSDOT Olympic Region, Washington
State Department of General Administration, a large private
employer (Providence St. Peter Hospital), two citizen advisors
and several state legislators.
Appendix A
TDM focuses on the “demand” rather than the “supply” side of a
transportation system. TDM encompasses strategies intended to
support personal travel choices in an effort to better manage the
capacity resources of the transportation system and improve
operating efficiency. Examples of TDM tools range from
“incentive” type programs like employer-subsidized bus passes,
compressed work weeks, and telework options, to “market
measures” like employee-paid parking and variable-rate toll roads
with rates based on time-of-day travel. The State’s Commute
Trip Reduction program is a TDM element. Effective land use
planning also supports TDM, since the way a community is built –
and the kind of travel options it provides – will influence
individual travel behavior.
Travel Demand Model
A system for analyzing a regional transportation network. The
model is typically a software program or suite of programs that
use a series of mathematical equations that simulate or represent
choices people make when traveling. The model also analyzes
the performance of existing and future transportation facilities
under a variety of scenarios that can be modified by the user.
TRPC currently uses a modeling product called EMME/2.
Tribal Member
Travel Demand Management (TDM)
A member of a tribe as determined by tribal membership rules.
Tribal Sovereignty
This term is used to describe the unique legal status of federally
recognized Indian tribes. As domestic dependent nations, tribes
exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and
territory.
Tribe
Generally, the term “tribe” refers to “Indian tribe” or “federally
recognized tribe” and may also refer to State recognized tribes
which are not Federally recognized but which are eligible for
certain federal benefits and privileges under specific federal laws.
Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (T-TIP)
(Tribal TIP)
A multi-year, financially constrained list of proposed
transportation projects to be implemented within or
providing access to Indian lands during the next
three to five years. It is developed from the tribal priority
list. (Comparable to TIP.)
A - 17
Appendix A
Trip
In modeling terms, a one-way, non-stop journey between a single
origin and a single destination, such as from home to work. For
modeling purposes, each trip segment counts as a trip, for
example stopping at the grocery store on the way home from
work constitutes two trips.
Trip Purpose
The reason for a trip - such as work, shopping, school, or
medical appointment.
Trust Lands
Trust lands are lands that are held by the federal government in
trust status for an individual tribal member or a federally
recognized tribal government; trust lands are restricted and not
subject to fee alienation without the approval of the federal
government.
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
A federally-required annual report describing TRPC’s regional
transportation work program and budget, detailing the various
state and federal funding sources that will be used. It reflects the
state fiscal year (July 1-June 30) and is developed in the third
quarter of the fiscal year for the ensuing fiscal year.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
The principal direct federal funding and regulating agency for
transportation facilities and programs. FTA and FHWA are
contained within the USDOT.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
The federal agency charged to protect human health and
safeguard the natural environment – air, water, and land.
Universal Design
Transportation systems designed to accommodate a wide range
of users, including people with disabilities and other special needs.
Urban Growth Area (UGA)
Under the Growth Management Act, those areas designated by
cities and counties, and delineated by the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), where urban growth will be encouraged.
Vanpool
A vanpool refers to an organized ridesharing arrangement in a van
occupied by seven to 15 people traveling together for their
commute trip.
A - 18
Appendix A
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The number of miles traveled on roadways by a vehicle for a
specific time period, usually per year. VMT is calculated by
multiplying the total road section length by the total number of
vehicles that traveled over that section within a given time. VMT
does not consider the number of passengers those vehicles are
carrying.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Air pollutants that derive from vehicle exhaust, paint thinners,
solvents, and other petroleum-based products. A number of
VOCs are toxic.
The ratio of flow rate to capacity for a transportation facility.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
State agency rules and regulations. The WACs also detail how
state agencies shall organize and adopt rules and regulations.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
The agency responsible for transportation at the state level.
Washington Transportation Plan (WTP)
A long-range transportation plan for the state of Washington
prepared by WSDOT.
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C Ratio)
Weigh-in-Motion (WIM)
A system that allows motor carriers equipped with special
technology to proceed on the highway at normal speeds while
their weight is electronically inspected by in-pavement scales and
readers.
Zoning
The regulation by a municipality (city, town, or county) or tribe
of the use of land within its jurisdiction, and of the buildings and
structures located there, in accordance with a general plan.
A - 19
Appendix B
Locally Significant Projects
If locally significant projects are so important, why aren’t they
identified through the regional transportation planning process? Local
agencies are best qualified to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and
program these projects. They perform detailed, operational traffic
analysis and system evaluation, and work with citizen groups and
local advisory boards to prioritize competing needs. Local agencies
can best respond to quickly changing needs and opportunities. This
challenging, but essential, function can be best carried out at the local
level.
The 2025 RTP recognizes locally significant projects included in the
current adopted six-year Transportation Improvement Programs,
Capital Facilities Plans, Tribal Transportation Improvement
Programs, or Transit Development Plan as priority needs. As local
entities update those plans throughout the term of this RTP, the new
lists are incorporated by reference as the local priority needs
recognized by this Regional Transportation Plan.
The Regional Transportation Plan focuses on regionally significant
projects – major projects that influence travel patterns and traffic
flow over large areas. While important, these are not the only
meaningful investments made in the region. Smaller scale, locally
identified investments that address needs like pavement
preservation, system safety, intersection efficiency, sidewalk infill,
on-street bike lanes, and shoulder upgrades also make the
transportation system work. These locally significant projects are
essential to the safe and efficient functioning of the transportation
system.
To become involved in the development and review of these local
programming efforts, contact the appropriate Public Works
Department or TRPC.
B-1
Appendix C
Trends and Forecasts
This appendix presents a glance at some of the types of data that
informs the Thurston region’s Travel Demand Forecast Model
(Appendix I Modeling Process). Tables and figures clearly indicate
the Thurston Region is growing. Between 1990 and 2000, Thurston
County’s population increased by over 46,000 people, or 28 percent
(Table C-1). Yelm’s population grew nearly 63 percent in the same
period (Table C-2). While most residents have observed these high
levels of growth, they may not realize that by 2025 we anticipate
nearly 120,000 new neighbors within Thurston County’s borders.
The individual choices we make – whether we drive alone, carpool,
or take the bus, and the time we leave for work all have a
cumulative effect on the region’s transportation system (Table C-9).
As more homes are built in cities, urban growth areas, and rural
unincorporated Thurston County, a greater demand is placed on
services such as police, fire, transit, sewers, and schools (Table C-6).
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a tool to guide the
region’s transportation needs 20 years into our future. The project
recommendations, policies, goals, and planning priorities are largely
built upon assumptions based on forecast data derived from past and
present conditions. Information is gleaned from federal, state,
regional, and local agencies to provide a comprehensive “glimpse”
into how the future might unfold.
Additional lifestyle choices, economic conditions and other factors
determine:
•
•
The number of people working in the household,
•
•
•
•
How close to work we live,
Whether children are driven to school, take the bus, bike, or
walk,
How long we commute,
The number of vehicles we own (Table C-16), and
The number of miles we choose to drive (Figure C-1).
Maps C-1 and C-2 illustrate the region’s 2025 forecasted residential
and employment densities. Much of this density appears to
concentrate in the urban areas. However, residents living in
unincorporated Thurston County will be sharing the road with their
rural neighbors on the way to their city jobs. Maps C-3 to C-6
display the average travel time in minutes, for segments of four major
C-1
Appendix C
corridors, between 2000 and 2025. Average travel times will
gradually increase for south county residents traveling north in the
morning and returning home in the evening. Average travel times will
also increase for people using Interstate 5 – no matter which way
they are traveling or where they work.
The 2025 RTP raises many issues and questions. By asking
questions, probing for more information, and working together to
study these issues, our community can travel to the future.
&HQVXV
3RSXODWLRQ
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
&HQVXV
1XPEHU
&KDQJHWR
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
7RWDO
,QKRXVHKROGV
,QJURXSTXDUWHUV
6RXUFH&HQVXV7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQQLQJ3DFNDJH&733
C-2
3HUFHQW
Appendix C
Table C-2
Small Area Population Estimates and Population Forecast,
Thurston County Jurisdictions, 1990-2025
1990
Bucoda
Total
Lacey
Olympia
Rainier
Tenino
Tumwater
Yelm
Estimate
2000
2003
Forecast
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
536
628
645
619
629
633
637
641
City
19,279
31,226
32,240
36,218
39,856
42,882
45,757
48,049
UGA
25,127
28,632
29,652
31,746
35,624
40,082
43,768
46,648
Total
44,406
59,858
61,892
67,964
75,479
82,964
89,525
94,697
City
33,729
42,514
42,860
45,440
48,080
51,034
54,020
56,969
UGA
7,195
9,269
9,859
10,639
12,940
16,467
19,627
22,057
Total
40,924
51,783
52,719
56,078
61,019
67,501
73,647
79,025
City
991
1,492
1,515
1,626
1,794
1,914
2,022
2,127
UGA
65
163
169
157
166
173
179
186
Total
1,056
1,655
1,684
1,783
1,961
2,088
2,201
2,314
City
1,566
1,292
1,447
1,495
1,502
1,503
1,510
1,538
UGA
193
151
155
130
149
170
186
365
Total
1,485
1,598
1,650
1,632
1,652
1,680
1,724
1,931
City
9,976
12,698
12,740
14,200
15,179
16,461
17,991
19,423
UGA
6,053
7,281
7,542
8,849
10,157
12,025
14,768
18,742
Total
16,029
19,979
20,282
23,050
25,336
28,486
32,758
38,165
City
1,337
3,289
3,830
4,377
5,561
6,681
7,730
8,559
UGA
1,360
1,095
1,123
1,221
1,268
1,635
2,128
2,827
Total
2,697
4,384
4,953
5,597
6,829
8,316
9,858
11,386
Total
708
811
824
1,316
1,517
1,700
1,876
2,064
Total Cities
67,140
93,294
95,325
103,982
112,601
121,116
129,696
137,334
Total UGAs
40,700
47,401
49,324
54,057
61,821
72,252
82,532
92,890
107,840
140,695
144,649
158,039
174,422
193,368
212,228
230,223
53,398
66,660
70,151
78,368
85,365
91,931
98,502
104,035
161,238
207,355
214,800
236,406
259,787
285,299
310,730
334,258
Grand Mound UGA
Total Urban Areas
Rural Unincorporated County
Thurston County Total
Census
Jurisdiction
Sources: The Profile, 2003; Thurston Regional Planning Council.
Explanation: UGA is unincorporated Urban Growth Area. UGA figures include that population outside the city limits but within the long-term Urban Growth Management
boundary, and population growth by annexation. Census and estimates are for April 1 of each year.
C-3
Appendix C
Table C-3
Population Increases through
Migration and Natural Increase
Thurston County, 1950-2003
Interval
1950-1960
Initial
Population
Terminal
Population
Total
Change
%
Increase
% of
Change
Net
Migration
% of
Change
44,884
55,049
10,165
22.6%
6,817
67.1%
3,348
32.9%
1960-1970
55,049
76,894
21,845
39.7%
6,756
30.9%
15,089
69.1%
1970-1980
76,894
124,264
47,370
61.6%
7,530
15.9%
39,840
84.1%
1980-1990
124,264
161,238
36,974
29.8%
11,675
31.6%
25,299
68.4%
1990-2000
161,238
207,355
46,117
28.6%
10,847
23.5%
35,270
76.5%
2000-2003
207,355
214,800
7,445
3.6%
2,948
39.6%
4,497
60.4%
Sources: The Profile, 2003; Thurston Regional Planning Council.
Explanation: Data are from April 1 of each year.
+RXVHKROG7\SH
&HQVXV
1XPEHU 3HUFHQW
&HQVXV
1XPEHU 3HUFHQW
&KDQJHWR
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
7RWDO
SHUVRQKRXVHKROG
SHUVRQKRXVHKROG
SHUVRQKRXVHKROG
SHUVRQKRXVHKROG
RUPRUHSHUVRQKRXVHKROG
;
;
;
0HDQQXPEHURISHUVRQVSHUKRXVHKROG
;1RW$YDLODEOH
C-4
Natural
Increase
Appendix C
(
!"#$!%&
'
%XFRGD
7RWDO
/DFH\
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
2O\PSLD
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
5DLQLHU
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
7HQLQR
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
7XPZDWHU
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
<HOP
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
*UDQG0RXQG8*$
7RWDO
7RWDO&LWLHV
7RWDO8*$V
7RWDO8UEDQ$UHDV
5XUDO8QLQFRUSRUDWHG&RXQW\
7KXUVWRQ&RXQW\7RWDO
&KHKDOLV5HVHUYDWLRQ
1LVTXDOO\5HVHUYDWLRQ
-XULVGLFWLRQ
6RXUFH5HJLRQDO%HQFKPDUNVIRU7KXUVWRQ&RXQW\7KXUVWRQ5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLO
C-5
C-6
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
7RWDO
7XPZDWHU
<HOP
*UDQG0RXQG8*$
6LQJOH)DPLO\
6RXUFHV5HJLRQDO%HQFKPDUNVIRU7KXUVWRQ&RXQW\7KXUVWRQ5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLO
7KXUVWRQ&RXQW\7RWDO
7RWDO'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
7HQLQR
7RWDO8UEDQ$UHDV
5XUDO8QLQFRUSRUDWHG&RXQW\
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
5DLQLHU
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
2O\PSLD
7RWDO&LWLHV
7RWDO8*$V
&LW\
8*$
7RWDO
7RWDO
/DFH\
-XULVGLFWLRQ
%XFRGD
)
!*+$!%&
'((
Appendix C
Appendix C
.
/4%
:RUNHUV
\HDUVDQG
RYHU
&HQVXV
1XPEHU
&HQVXV
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
&KDQJHWR
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
7RWDO
0DOH
)HPDOH
6
7
+
&HQVXV
9HKLFOHV$YDLODEOH
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
&HQVXV
1XPEHU
&KDQJHWR
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
7RWDOKRXVHKROGV
YHKLFOHDYDLODEOH
YHKLFOHDYDLODEOH
YHKLFOHVDYDLODEOH
YHKLFOHVDYDLODEOH
YHKLFOHVDYDLODEOH
RUPRUHYHKLFOHVDYDLODEOH
;
;
;
0HDQYHKLFOHVSHUKRXVHKROG
;1RW$YDLODEOH
C-7
Appendix C
8:8;$/4
:RUNHUV\HDUVDQG
RYHU
1XPEHU
&HQVXV
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
7RWDO
&DUSRROHG
3XEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
LQFOXGLQJWD[LFDE
%LF\FOHRUZDONHG
:RUNHGDWKRPH
<#/4
1RQ$W+RPH:RUNHUV
7RWDO
&HQVXV
1XPEHU 3HUFHQW
&HQVXV
1XPEHU 3HUFHQW
&KDQJHWR
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
/HVVWKDQPLQXWHV
WRPLQXWHV
WRPLQXWHV
WRPLQXWHV
WRPLQXWHV
WRPLQXWHV
;
;
;
RUPRUHPLQXWHV
0HDQWUDYHOWLPHWRZRUNPLQXWHV
;1RW$YDLODEOH
C-8
&KDQJHWR
'URYHDORQH
0RWRUF\FOHRU
RWKHUPHDQV
&HQVXV
Appendix C
#=<#%/4
&HQVXV
&HQVXV
1RQ$W+RPH:RUNHUV
1XPEHU
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
&KDQJHWR
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
7RWDO
DPWRDP
DPWRDP
DPWRDP
DPWRDP
DPWRDP
SPWRSP
DPWRDP
3HUFHQW
/4$
>
&RXQW\RI:RUNVLWH
7KXUVWRQ:$
&KDQJHWR
3HUFHQW
1XPEHU
3LHUFH:$
/HZLV:$
.LQJ:$
0DVRQ:$
*UD\V+DUERU:$
.LWVDS:$
6QRKRPLVK:$
&RZOLW]:$
&ODOODP:$
3DFLILF:$
&KHODQ:$
<DNLPD:$
:KDWFRP:$
%HQWRQ:$
&ODUN:$
6RXUFH86&HQVXV%XUHDX
C-9
C - 10
1980
1,138
26
1,636
3,381
1,276
8,607
1,637
6,273
18,594
42,568
Average # Employees/Month
1990
1995
2000
1,632
1,858
1,807
36
68
63
2,982
2,982
3,690
4,241
4,131
4,073
1,720
1,705
2,216
13,201 15,374 16,680
2,125
2,635
2,906
11,699 15,884 19,603
26,813 29,807 33,193
64,449 74,444 84,231
Source: The Profile, 2003; Thurston Regional Planning Council.
Industry Category
Ag., Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans. & Public Utilities
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Finance, Ins., Real Estate
Services
Government
Total Employment
2001
1,797
57
3,571
3,765
2,232
16,702
3,131
19,573
34,258
85,086
1980
2.7%
0.1%
3.8%
7.9%
3.0%
20.2%
3.8%
14.7%
43.7%
100.0%
Percent of Total Employees
1990
1995
2000
2001
2.5%
2.5%
2.1%
2.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
4.6%
4.0%
4.4%
4.2%
6.6%
5.5%
4.8%
4.4%
2.7%
2.3%
2.6%
2.6%
20.5%
20.7%
19.8%
19.6%
3.3%
3.5%
3.5%
3.7%
18.2%
21.3%
23.3%
23.0%
41.6%
40.0%
39.4%
40.3%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table C-13
Average Monthly Covered Employment by Industry
Thurston County, 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2001
Appendix C
Appendix C
?+>
$QQXDO
5LGHUVKLS
3RSXODWLRQ
5LGHUVKLS
SHU&DSLWD
<HDU
6RXUFHV5HJLRQDO%HQFKPDUNV7KXUVWRQ5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLO
(
8
8>/4
'@''
7UDYHO0RGH
%DVH
<HDU
'ULYH$ORQH
&DUSRRO
7UDQVLW
&:: :DON
%LNH
2WKHU
8QLQFRUS&RXQW\
/DFH\
2O\PSLD
7XPZDWHU
<HOP
8QLQFRUS&RXQW\
/DFH\
2O\PSLD
7XPZDWHU
<HOP
8QLQFRUS&RXQW\
/DFH\
2O\PSLD
7XPZDWHU
<HOP
6RXUFH7KH3URILOH7KXUVWRQ5HJLRQDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLO
([SODQDWLRQV5HSRUWHGE\ZRUNVLWHORFDWLRQ7KH:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH&RPPXWH7ULS5HGXFWLRQODZVWLSXODWHVWKDWDOOHPSOR\HUVZLWKRUPRUHHPSOR\HHV
DUULYLQJDWDZRUNVLWHGXULQJWKHPRUQLQJFRPPXWHSHULRGPXVWWDNHPHDVXUHVWRUHGXFHWKHVKDUHRIGULYHDORQHWULSVDQGWKHQXPEHURIYHKLFOHPLOHV
WUDYHOHG'DWDLVEDVHGRQPDQGDWHGHPSOR\HHVXUYH\V
&::UHIHUVWR&RPSUHVVHG:RUN:HHNZKHUHE\IXOOWLPHHPSOR\HHVFRPSUHVVWKHLUVFKHGXOHVLQWRVRPHWKLQJOHVVWKDQWKHWUDGLWLRQDOGD\ZRUNZHHN
C - 11
Appendix C
)
#7
+
>
'.
3RSXODWLRQ
&RXQW
$YJ$QQXDO5DWH
RI&KDQJH
&RXQW
$YJ$QQXDO5DWH
RI&KDQJH
7KLUW\<HDU&KDQJH
6RXUFHV86%XUHDXRIWKH&HQVXV:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWRI/LFHQVLQJ753&
Figure C-1
Driver and Vehicle Trends in Thurston County, 1980-2002
Number of Drivers/Vehicles
<HDU
5HJLVWHUHG9HKLFOHV
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
1999
2001
Year
Registered Vehicles
Licensed Drivers
Sources: Department of Licensing; TRPC.
C - 12
Explanations: The methodology for determining if a truck was registered (versus a title transfer) prior to May 2000 used the
combination of fees collected. The effect of Referendum 49 was to undercount old trucks (the $30 rebate eliminated the excise tax).
Appendix D
Inventory of Facilities
Inventorying and mapping the Thurston Region’s existing
transportation and related capital facilities and services is a daunting
task for all jurisdictions from the smallest cities like Tenino to the
larger agencies like the Washington State Department of
Transportation, however accurate information is essential to the
transportation planning process. The RTP creates a big-picture view
of the transportation facilities and choices available to users entering,
traveling through, traveling within, or leaving the Thurston region.
Transportation planning strives to integrate travel options seamlessly
for the user, creating intermodal travel. Driving to the Hawk’s
Prairie Park and Ride Lot, taking the Intercity Transit Express Bus to
Tacoma, and then walking 4 blocks across city intersections and
sidewalks to work represents intermodal travel.
Federal law requires streets and roads to function as a hierarchal
network to serve accessibility and mobility. Surface streets include
our local neighborhood streets, arterials, and major highways like
Interstate 5 and U.S. Highway 101 (Map D-2). The region is paved
with over 1,950 centerline miles of connected streets and highways,
allowing for movement of people, goods, and services via car, van,
truck, bus, or non-motorized vehicle. The road network supplies
accessibility to daily destinations such as schools, grocery stores, and
employment sites; serves longer distances within our region; and
connects to state and national highways.
The Regional Transportation Plan is required to inventory existing
transportation facilities within the planning boundary (Map D-1).
The Thurston Region hosts a plethora of inter- and intra-connected
modes of travel. While the automobile remains the most common
mode of travel, other viable travel modes are available and essential
for an integrated transportation network.
Although most users of surface streets are auto drivers, other modes
of travel occur with increasing frequency. Intercity Transit’s routes
serve the urban portions of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Yelm.
Grays Harbor Transit and Mason Transit provide transit service to
and from Grays Harbor County and Mason County respectively.
Both Intercity Transit and Pierce Transit serve passengers traveling
to and from Pierce County (Map D-3). Intercity Transit also
maintains three regional park and ride lots that support the transition
from auto to transit.
D-1
Appendix D
The number of bicycles using the road network is growing. In 2000,
over 2,500 bicyclists commuted to work on an average day, by
2025 over 4,000 cyclists will pedal to work in the region. The cities,
County, and the state continue to build or add bicycle lanes on the
region’s roadways. As new roads are created or old roads rebuilt,
bicycle lanes become an integral component.
Rail, marine, and air transportation have a significant historical and
current role in the Thurston region. The Centennial Rail Station
allows local residents and tourists to travel via rail to Eastern and
Western Washington – and the United States. Residents of south
rural Thurston County observe the multiple daily occurrence of
freight by rail. Travel by boat is also possible with private and public
marine facilities dotting the shores of Budd Inlet. The Port of
Olympia’s Marine terminal supports water-borne freight movement.
The Port of Olympia Airport supports national air travel and the
Western Air Park provides private air travel facilities (Map D-4).
Several former rail lines have been converted or are in the process of
converting to multi-use trails. The Chehalis Western Trail and the
Yelm-to-Tenino Trail are versatile trail facilities, stretching across
several jurisdictions and allowing residents to travel by walking,
running, bicycling, horseback riding, or rollerblading. These stand
alone trails take people to their destinations without the interference
of vehicular traffic. The trail network provides a viable travel
corridor for many destinations and purposes – recreation, commuting
to work and school, and health and fitness. (Map D-5).
As more people use the transportation network, the existing
infrastructure becomes strained with volume, accidents, and
mechanical failures. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) will
supply travelers with timely information on roadway conditions,
allow emergency and law enforcement personnel to respond more
rapidly, and help notify public works crews or tow truck drivers to
clear roadway obstructions. Several projects, including traffic
cameras, are planned for installation and operation in the near future
(Map D-6). In addition, WSDOT, TRPC, local law enforcement
agencies, and local public works/transportation departments jointly
developed the I-5 Corridor Incident Management Detour Routes.
The portion of I-5 from the south Thurston County border to south
Tumwater is complete. The remaining northern urban portion of
Thurston County is in development. These routes will be used when
a major incident blocks all lanes in one direction and the blockage is
expected to last for more than two hours (Map D-7).
D- 2
Whether traveling by foot, bike, car, bus, train, boat, or airplane, the
network functions to deliver passengers, services, and freight safely
and efficiently.
Appendix E
Regulatory Requirements
State and Federal guidelines stipulate the elements and processes for
creating and maintaining the Regional Transportation Plan. In many
instances, the requirements overlap, emphasizing the connection
between state and federal regulation and goals.
Federal Requirements for the RTP
•
Include both long-range and short-range strategies and
actions that lead to the systematic development of an
integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates
the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, and
addresses current and future transportation demand.
•
Be reviewed and updated every three years in maintenance
areas to confirm its validity and its consistency with current
and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and
trends, and to extend the forecast period.
•
Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and
goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of
the plan.
•
Identify adopted management and operations strategies (e.g.,
traveler information, traffic surveillance and control, incident
and emergency response, freight routing, pricing, public
transportation management, travel demand management,
telecommuting, parking management, and intermodal
connectivity) that address the need for improved system
performance and delivery of services to users under varying
conditions.
•
Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation
facilities.
•
Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to
preserve the existing transportation system (including
operational improvements, resurfacing, and rehabilitation of
existing and future roadways and transit facilities).
•
Describe all proposed projects in sufficient detail to develop
cost estimates. Reflect a multimodal evaluation of the
transportation, socioeconomic, environmental, and financial
impact of the overall plan.
Develop a transportation plan addressing at least a 20-year planning
horizon. The plan shall:
E-1
Appendix E
Reflect comprehensive long-range land use plans and
development objectives; state and local housing goals and
strategies, community development and employment plans
and strategies, and environmental resource plans; work force
training and mobility plans and strategies; energy conservation
goals; and the metropolitan area’s overall social, economic,
and environmental goals and objectives.
•
•
Indicate proposed transportation enhancement activities.
•
Include an air quality conformity analysis ascertaining that the
projects, programs, and services identified in the long-range
plan will not cause the region to exceed its maintenance area
motor vehicle emissions budget of 776.36 tons/year for
PM10 (particulate matter).
•
Include an ITS integration strategy for the purposes of guiding
and coordinating the management and funding of ITS
investments supported with FHWA funds to achieve an
integrated regional system. The strategy will clearly assess
existing and future ITS projects that affect regional integration
of the ITS system, and identify projects which directly
support national interoperability.
•
Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of
proposed transportation investments with already available
and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall
compare estimated revenue from existing and proposed
funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be
available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of
constructing, maintaining, and operating the total (existing plus
planned) transportation system over the period of the plan.
Financial estimates shall be developed in cooperation among
the MPO, WSDOT, and transit operators. Local, state, and
federal revenue estimates will be developed, and any
shortfalls identified. Proposed new revenues to cover
shortfalls shall be identified, including strategies for ensuring
their availability for proposed investments. Existing and
proposed revenues shall cover all forecasted capital,
operating, management, and maintenance costs.
In addition, the plan shall provide adequate opportunity for public,
official and citizen involvement in development of the plan before
MPO approval. Prepare technical and other reports to assure
E-2
Appendix E
documentation of the development, refinement, and update of the
transportation plan, and make these reports reasonably available to
interested parties.
State Requirements for the RTP
•
Identify existing or planned transportation facilities, services,
and programs, including both capital and non-capital
programs and services, regardless of mode.
•
Establish level of service standards, at a minimum, for all
state highways other than those of statewide significance,
and state ferries, if applicable.
•
Build upon applicable portions of existing local
comprehensive plans and processes, and promote a regional
perspective into the local comprehensive planning process.
•
Use regionally coordinated, valid and consistent technical
methods and data to identify and analyze needs and future
travel demands based on common regional assumptions
about growth, population, employment, and mode split, that
recognize planning requirements of the GMA, and which are
consistent with population forecasts prepared by the Office
of Financial Management.
•
Describe performance measures for use in evaluating the
regional transportation system over time and assessing
effectiveness of plan implementation measures.
•
Assess regional development patterns, capital investment,
and other measures necessary to ensure preservation of the
existing and future regional transportation system
(operations, resurfacing, rehabilitation) for roads, transit,
non-motorized facilities, and rail corridors as applicable.
•
Assess regional development patterns, capital investments,
and other measures necessary to make the most efficient use
of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
congestion and maximize the mobility of people and goods.
•
Set forth a proposed regional transportation approach,
including capital investments, service improvements,
programs, and travel demand management measures to guide
Prepare and periodically update a regional transportation plan that is
consistent with county-wide planning policies. The plan shall:
E-3
Appendix E
development of an integrated, multimodal regional
transportation system. The plan shall identify priority levels
for these investments to guide local jurisdictions and the state
in implementation of the plan.
•
Consider environmental impacts related to development of
the regional transportation policies and facilities.
•
Include a financial plan demonstrating how the regional
transportation plan can be implemented, indicating resources
from public and private sources that are reasonably expected
to be made available to carry out the plan, and
recommending any innovative financing techniques if
necessary. If funding is insufficient, the region must at least
reassess regional transportation strategies to ensure that
transportation needs fall within probable funding levels.
•
Assure conformity with Washington Clean Air Act
requirements by demonstrating that the aggregate impact of
all projects, programs, and services identified in the longrange plan for implementation does not exceed the
maintenance area motor vehicle emissions budget of 776.36
tons/year for PM10.
•
Be based on a least cost planning methodology appropriate
to the region that identifies the most cost effective facilities,
services, and programs.
•
Be reviewed biennially for currency.
All transportation projects, programs, and travel demand
management measures within the region that have an impact on
regional facilities or services must be consistent with the plan and
with the adopted regional growth and transportation strategies.
E-4
Appendix F
Public Involvement
This excerpt from Thurston Regional Planning Council’s Public
Participation Policy clearly defines the region’s belief in the
importance of public involvement. Since adoption of the 2020 RTP,
TRPC continued to ask the public their views about transportation –
the system in general or specific elements and concepts.
•
A series of focus groups on Transportation Finance resulted
in excellent insight on what the public wants in the
transportation system and who should finance those desires.
•
An informal “opinionnaire” was widely distributed, asking:
“What elements of the transportation system are important
to you and your family,” and “What elements are important
to the community?”
•
“Getting There” and “Planning to Stay,” two open, televised
forums discussed many aspects of the interconnections
between land use and transportation, and helped participants
understand the impact of policies on the community.
•
The COMPASS Community Assessment, a multi-agency,
multi-jurisdictional effort asked transportation, land use and
environmental questions in the larger context of health,
safety, education and other community issues. It consisted
of written surveys to elected officials and community
leaders; random telephone surveys; more than 25 targeted
focus groups around the region; and special outreach efforts
to minority residents through translation, group seminars and
one-on-one interviews.
TRPC’s Public Participation
Policy is available at
www.trpc.org
“…to provide opportunity for appropriate
broad-based, early, continuous, and meaningful public
participation in all planning, programs and projects.
TRPC further intends to encourage an on-going forum
for the discussion of regional issues, striving for an
open exchange of information and ideas. The plan calls
for a broad range of public information and participation
opportunities supplying complete information, timely
public notice and full access to key decisions.”
F-1
Appendix F
•
•
As a follow-up to the COMPASS project, TRPC participated
in the Facing our Future Forum, with a work group on
transportation, land use and environment.
Special outreach to the tribal communities, through surveys
administered as part of a community event and one-on-one
interviews.
In addition to the public, TRPC seeks partnerships on specific issues
and regularly convenes forums to discuss topics such as Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Transportation Insurance, and Context
Sensitive Design. TRPC also monitors meetings and activities of
jurisdictions within and around the Thurston region, listening for ideas
and concerns that might have relevance at the regional table.
Policy makers recognize that members of the public have busy
schedules, busy lives, and little time to attend meetings. They also
realize that the 2025 RTP is not a radical departure from the current
community vision. Certainly, the format has changed and expanded
with a few more projects on the list. However, this Plan poses many
questions that will shape TRPC’s work over the next few years. The
Council brought the Plan to the public, but also will encourage
residents to participate in the TRPC work program priorities –
tactical aspects of how we determine if the system is working, what
constitutes equitable development fees, where the trail system
connects to the community and the role of rail in the Thurston region.
In preparing the 2025 RTP, TRPC met all public involvement
requirements, including timely legal notice, posting the Draft Plan on
www.trpc.org, distributing copies to all Thurston County Timberland
Regional Libraries, and providing copies, in appropriate form, as
requested. Thurston County residents commented in a variety of
ways: Online, by phone, fax, e-mail, website or regular post. All
public comment was considered and many changes resulted from this
important input. Written public comment and responses begin on
page F-5.
All meetings of the Transportation Policy Board and the Thurston
Regional Planning Council are open to the public and include
opportunity for public comment. TRPC routinely posts meeting
notices and agendas on the agency website and notifies the media, a
self-identified mailing list, and all Council and TPB members. The
RTP was a regular item on both group’s agendas until final adoption.
F-2
Appendix F
Much of the early work on this Plan was performed by a work group
comprised of members of the Council, TPB and the Technical
Advisory Committee. The RTP work group meetings were open to
the public and any policy maker was welcome to attend. At each
TRPC and TPB meeting, the work group reported on their efforts
and discussed the status of the Plan.
Specific Outreach Efforts
At the beginning of the 60-day public comment period, TRPC
notified hundreds of individuals and groups about the availability of
the Draft Plan and methods for receiving more information and
commenting. Overview materials and Draft Plans were provided in
hard copy and electronic format as required by law and as
requested. Copies were made available to all the libraries in the
region and the Plan was posted on the TRPC website. A special
email account and phone line were established for easy access to
Plan information.
During the public comment period, TRPC presented Plan overviews
to 16 groups – over 300 individuals – representing policy makers,
jurisdictional staff and the public. These presentations ranged from
school boards to state agencies and Rotary Clubs to the Board of
County Commissioners. Participants were supplied with handouts
about the Plan, urged to discuss the issues and encouraged to submit
written comments.
TRPC’s strategy for public outreach was to bring the Plan to the
public, not the public to the Plan. Policy makers and staff traveled
around the region and sought to integrate transportation issues into
other discussions.
In addition to these full presentations, TRPC also added the 2025
RTP to the meeting agendas of social service, transportation
provider, planner and citizen groups, including representatives from
minority, low income and rural communities. These “mini”
presentations to approximately 100 individuals brought high level
awareness of the Plan’s issues to a broad audience.
TRPC hosted three public meetings and a public hearing on the Plan.
The events were held at various times of day and in varied
geographical areas of the region. Although sparsely attended –
approximately 25 total – good discussions ensued on a variety of
topics, resulting in a range of comments. As in the case of all public
outreach, events were held at venues accessible to persons with
disabilities. Every effort was made to select locations with transit
service.
F-3
Appendix F
Local media supported public outreach efforts, with several stories in
the local daily newspaper and regular information on local radio
about the Plan, emphasizing public meeting dates and methods for
comment.
Public outreach does not end with adoption the 2025 Regional
Transportation Plan. The RTP lays out an ambitious set of priority
work programs – land use, system performance, funding, system
efficiency, rail, freight, trails – all enriched by public dialogue. One
element specifically calls for increased efforts to bring more people
into the transportation decision-making process.
Public Comment
F-4
Comment on the Draft Plan took many forms – discussion at public
presentations and meetings, informal phone and email conversations,
and formal written comment in letter, email and handwritten form.
While the Plan was modified through all these avenues, only the
written comment and response is included in this section. TRPC
appreciates the time the public took to read the Plan, expressing their
concerns and support.
Appendix F
Commenter: Andrea Fontenot, Public Works Director, Port of Olympia
Date: January 9, 2004
Format: Letter
Issue: Goals and Policies Chapter 3 – Aviation and Marine Transportation.
Response: Because of the early submittal of the Port of Olympia comments, all technical changes
suggested by Ms. Fontenot were incorporated into the Draft Plan released in January 2004 and included in
the Final Plan.
F-5
Appendix F
Commenter: Jennifer Bowman, Community Planner, Federal Transit
Administration
Date: February 10, 2004
Format: Email
Hi Thera,
Believe it or not, I read each and every page. I have a few comments that should be considered as
comments from FTA to which your agency should respond (informal, email response is fine). They mostly
concern air quality, fiscal constraint and environmental justice. After that, I have many general comments
that should be considered as comments from a peer, rather than a federal agency.
First—good job. It’s readable but doesn’t talk down. The presentation is tasteful and clear, with good use
of white space. TRPC’s use of people pictures emphasizes that the plan is about people, not just roads.
Fiscal Constraint—do you have any documentation that a 5% balance deficit is acceptable? I generally see
fiscal plans presented as balanced. If a gap is identified, a strategy is identified to close the gap. (Whether
a truly balanced plan is realistic in the case of any MPO is another issue). Dave—do you have any thoughts
on this topic? Thera—there are several detailed fiscal constraint questions mixed in with the rest below.
Air Quality
H-1 Rephrase 1st sentence to ...2025 Regional Transportation Plan conforms to the State Implementation
Plan for...” CAA requires that your program not exceed the standards, but you “conform” to the SIP.
H-5 Are forecasts from 1999 really the most recent you have? They’re 5 years old! After census data
came out didn’t TRPC go back and refresh the forecasts?
Environmental Justice
F Have you done any special outreach to the low income and other traditionally underserved?
F Does your agency have a public involvement plan? If so, tell the reader how to obtain a copy. (If not, I
think you’re required to have one.)
ES-5 Bottom of page, first bullet. Suggest rephrasing “Improving integration of transportation and land use
planning.”
ES-6 Top of page, last bullet. Suggest rephrasing “Increasing involvement of the regional ....”
ES-7 Cost>Rev I’m not sure this works for fiscal constraint in a AQ maint area. Does the CAA give us
any guidance?
1-2 1st full para. “Recent changes to the region’s air quality attainment status under the Clean Air Act
changed both the...”
1-3 Overlapping box. “Comply with Air Quality rules” or “Conform to the SIP”
1-3 State box. Currency or consistency review?
1-3 Bottom line. “... air quality attainment status...”
1-4 Above Combined. Currency or consistency?
F-6
Appendix F
2-2 Second to last bullet. You must demonstrate conformity to the horizon of your LRTP. Going beyond
the 20 year requirement has created problems for some areas and projects.
2-3 Last bullet. The reference to SEPA is left hanging. Consider adding explanation “...relies primarily on
SEPA for....add text here.”
2-5 Freight. Does TRPC participate in the Freight Mobility Round Table organized by PSRC? I would
guess you have many of the same issues since Olympia and Seattle are pretty close as far as freight is
concerned.
2-3 1st para. Locally significant projects, if federally funded, need to be included. Sometimes we see
“consistent with the plan” rather than specifically “included in the plan”.
2-16+ Several projects do not include estimated cost. How have you done fiscal constraint? There must
be some numbers somewhere.
2-18 A4+ I would think the total estimated cost of a regionally significant project should be listed. You’ll
also list the private contribution in revenue.
2-33 For consistency, include $ estimates here too. Even a range would be helpful.
2-44 Are all HSP projects included in your plan? If so, it can’t be fiscally constrained. You could have a
separate section of “unfunded” projects.
3-1 First line. “...into a more detailed...”
3-1 lower case “...transportation relationships...” and “...relationships: between...”
2-7 You’re dancing around a Congestion Management System. Although it is a requirement for TMA’s,
you might think about organizing your efforts along the lines of a CMS.
3-17 Third bullet from bottom. Transportation Management Areas have specific meaning in federal
planning regulations. They are urbanized areas with greater than 200,000 population. Suggest finding
another term.
3-25 IT cannot take over school bus routes and provide transportation strictly to students. Any federally
assisted bus that they operate must be available to the public.
3-26/7 Kudos for bike investments. I’m in the bike lane all the time. It’s never congested.
3-28/9 It’s surprising to see the contrast between public comments for bikes and peds.
3-39 Kudos on outreach to other neighboring counties.
3-40 18.h Consider adding FTA/FHWA/EPA.
Chapter 4—Suggest adding a narrative summary. Currently the reader is left hanging. Help the reader
understand the relationship between the book ends, recommended projects in Chapter 2, the various
alternative scenarios. Appendix G provides good summary information and the presentation seems clearer
to me—maybe pattern after that? I find the pie charts confusing, partly due to page flipping and not really
being clear what was trying to be demonstrated. Maybe a table showing all variable factors? Help the
reader understand how the AA gave you the 2025 recommendations.
Appendix I Good consumable description.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the comments.
F-7
Appendix F
Issue: Fiscal Constraint
Response: The Recommendations and Finance chapters were reviewed and modified to reflect satisfy
Federal Transit Administration concerns.
Issue: Environmental Justice
Response: Modifications were made to the Executive Summary and Public Involvement Appendix F to
emphasize the region’s strong commitment to Environmental Justice and public involvement, with a link to
the agency’s Public Participation Plan.
Issue: Air Quality
Response: TRPC modified Air Quality Conformity Appendix H to resolve outstanding issues. Updating
the forecast entails several years of effort, which is underway for the 2030 horizon, incorporating the 2000
census data. This updated forecast should be available for the next Plan update.
Issue: Technical Suggestions
Response: Many of the informal technical suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan.
Commenter: Michael Boyer, Environmental Planner, Washington State
Department of Ecology
Date: February 11, 2004 (2 Emails on same date)
Format: Email
Email 1
Hi Thera,
I have five specific clarification-type comments, primarily associated with the “who does what” and
conventional terminology used in the AQ regulatory environment. Also, I liked the maps that are included in
the plan, and the on-line interactive map was a hit among several of us. Good work on putting all of this
together! My comments should be non-controversial, but I copied everyone on your list in case anyone has
objections or additional comments.
1. Page H-1, first paragraph, first sentence: You want to say that the Transportation Plan conforms with
the PM10 Maintenance Plan, not with the federal standards for PM10. The maintenance plan is the
document that demonstrates conformity with the federal standards for PM10. I would say, “This appendix
documents that the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan conforms with the requirements of the Thurston
County PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter) Maintenance Plan.”
2. Page H-1, last paragraph, 4th sentence: Add “ tailpipe” to sentence to say, “Components of mobile
source particulates include vehicle tailpipe emissions ...”.
3. Page H-2, first paragraph, first sentence: I would substitute “PM10” for “particulate matter”, since we
also have standards for PM2.5, and we used to have standards for TSP (total suspended particulate).
4. Page H-2, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: I should say, “EPA’s Transportation Conformity Regulations
required that the maintenance area ...”, rather than just “EPA”.
F-8
5. Page H-3, top of page paragraph (from previous page): Substitute “Thurston County PM10 Maintenance
Plan” for “EPA”. EPA regulations and guidelines define the required elements in a maintenance plan, such as
evaluating the need for transportation control measures (TCMs). The local air authority, as the lead for
Appendix F
developing the plan, determines whether TCMs are actually needed to meet or maintain the AQ
standards. The state submits the plan to EPA for approval. The maintenance plan actually identifies the
required or not required TCMs.
Email 2
Thera: I missed one other comment in my notes – Mike
1. Executive Summary, page ES7, 4th sentence, Add a comma to statement to read, “Air quality is
generally very good in Thurston County, improving ..”
Issue: Technical Suggestions
Response: Many of the informal technical suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan.
Commenter: Denis Curry
Date: February 12, 2004
Format: Comment Sheet/Handwritten
I am concerned that there is a preconceived view that trails & bike lanes meet transportation needs. They
are beneficial for a number of reasons – safety, exercise, etc. However documentation as to actual use
does not appear to be available. Before starting an expansion, efforts should be made to gather usage data
at various times of day, days of week and periods of the year. Using interns for origin destination studies is
a possibility. It is really important to:
Issue: Air Quality Terminology
Response: TRPC modified Air Quality Conformity Appendix H to resolve outstanding issues.
a) document usage
b) determining the reasons for the use, to see the extent, if any, that walking or biking contribute to
transportation
Issue: Trails and bike facilities as transportation elements.
Response: No Change
The Regional Transportation Plan recognizes and values biking and walking as legitimate and important
modes of transportation, and supports appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
F-9
Appendix F
Commenter: Andrea Lipper
Date: March 2, 2004
Note: See Appendix G – Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – for
Response to environmental portion of comments.
I was impressed by TRPC’s presentation at our (City of Olympia) Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory
Committee meeting. (BPAC)
Thank you for working on trails projects. The development of non-motorized trails and their
interconnectedness will bring more recreation-minded people to our county. While also improving our
quality of life.
I am also in favor of expanded passenger rail. If Amtrak comes into downtown Olympia this will
encourage much more walking, biking, and less reliance on the automobile. Many people liked the idea of
taking the train up to Seattle or Portland; but once we’re in the car driving to the Amtrak way out in Lacey
– it’s almost not worth it.
I grew up in Montreal, which for a city of 2 million people has little traffic congestion problems. This is due
to extensive public transportation, including the subway system, commuter trains, busses, etc. As roads
become congested in Thurston County (and elsewhere), commuting by rail becomes a much more attractive
option.
I support your values and emphasis on environmental impact, efficiency. And integrating land use planning.
I would support impact fees on new developments of off-set costs for road expansion and maintenance.
Additional comments about the 2025 RTP will be compiled by our BPAC group.
Issue: Trails, Rail, Public Transportation
Response: No Change.
The Plan contains an appropriate balance of recommendations and policies for all modes. The Priority
Work Program in Recommendations Chapter 2 calls for work to better define the region’s rail and trail
visions and to investigate equitable transportation development fees.
F - 10
Appendix F
Commenter: Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, Office of
Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Date: March 4, 2004
Format: Letter
Note: See Appendix G – Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
F - 11
Appendix F
Issue: Archaeological and cultural sites and historic properties were not addressed in the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Response: The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in Appendix G was modified to
address the Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s recommendations.
Commenter: Chris Hawkins (3 comments)
Date: March 4, 2004
Consider: Developing a multi-modal level of service in addition to adjusting levels of service on roadways
in U.G.A.s and unincorporated county.
Why: LOS standards should support desired land use, not create an incentive to develop/live in areas that
we expect to have lower density (level of Service D in UGA and LOS C in county are higher than our urban
core (LOS E).
Complete the streets: In addition to routine accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians in all new
roadway projects, I think the plan should emphasize means of addressing existing deficiencies in safety and
convenience for these modes of transportation and provide this as guidance for local transportation
facilities programming as well as development of priority bicycle/pedestrian projects.
F - 12
Appendix F
Mr. Chris Hawkins said, “I have been following regional transportation planning for quite some time. I think
I commented at the last hearing that was held as the Regional Transportation Plan was updated back in 96
or 97. So, I have a few comments and a little perspective to offer. First off, I want to acknowledge it is an
incredible plan and there obviously has been a lot of good work done here and this is a very impressive
document and a lot of good thinking has gone into it. I think it is a big improvement, in general, over the
previous Regional Transportation Plan. I do have some constructive criticism. I think it’s a little
disappointing that there is not more of a distinction or difference between the different options that are
included in the plan. And, from my perspective in particular, I am concerned that there is not a strong
qualitative difference. Generally, when you are looking at options, you want to see some matter of choice
involved in those options. But, it appears this plan is assuming that we are going to have an incredible
increase in vehicle miles traveled, that our use of automobiles will continue to increase into the future, which
translates into more traffic congestion and more air pollution in our local area. I think that is something that
we need to come to terms with because it really is a matter of our quality of life here in Thurston County.
So, I would like to see a little more attention given to some other options or perhaps more emphasis given
to such things as really looking at how land use interacts with transportation and seeing how we can retool
our land use to make our transportation demand less on our overall system.
I think another key option to consider is that some projects are too costly. If you look at the contrast in
one particular indicator between the full build and the preferred alternative to the no build option, you will
see there is one indicator where there is a big qualitative difference and that is in the total impervious area.
This is something that has a huge impact on our water quality and salmon habitat and other wildlife habitat.
So that is one distinction between the three different options. Yet, the preferred option is definitely tilted
way to the side of the full build option in terms of the total impervious area that is created by a new road.
Another thing that if we must acknowledge there is going to be increased demand on our transportation
system and we know that we are going to need new capacity, I hope that the policy board and the plan
will do something that I think was recommended by people across the spectrum at the last hearing about
the Regional Transportation Plan, and that was to focus closely on key intersections, because we can’t
afford to always widen roads. (If) we focus on key intersections and come up with strategy around those
intersections, we might find it is a lot more cost-effective in terms of congestion relief, in terms of quality of
life in the neighborhoods nearby those roadways that are experiencing traffic congestion. I think the plan
has some great points of emphasis on fixing on what we have first. But it leaves a lot of the details of that
up to the local jurisdictions. I think the plan is laudable and it is focusing on wringing out as much efficiency
from the existing system that we have as it possibly can, but I think the regional plan can give more
guidance to local jurisdictions about how to do that. And, in particular, I am thinking of examples from the
place where I live, which is Olympia, and how the City of Olympia has been able to piggy back onto its
road maintenance projects as least cost road maintenance strategy. It has been able to piggy back onto
that improvement in sidewalks and bicycling that have made the system function better for a whole host of
modes not just moving more automobiles. And so, that’s been done with simple investments in putting
down striping paint on roadway to create a larger shoulder for a bike lane and that allows more people to
use that roadway and it becomes a more efficient roadway as a result. So that is where a cost-effective
thing could be more emphasized in the Regional Transportation Plan and passed along to the local
jurisdictions as kind of policy guidance.
Date: March 15, 2004
Format: Oral Public Testimony at Public Hearing
F - 13
Appendix F
I wanted to also make a point that in discussions at the Olympia level, we talked a lot about the need to
try to come up with new ways of measuring the capacity of a roadway than just the motor vehicle level
of service. This was something that some of us that are involved in that discussion had hoped would
come as part of regional transportation plan process. This is something that I would like the policy board
to consider too. I think it is actually mentioned in the plan, but there is not really a project dedicated to it
yet but I want to see some emphasis there on developing multi-modal level of service that allows us to
measure what’s the total capacity of a corridor including all modes, not just movement of motor vehicles.
Because, what we are really talking about in transportation is creating better access for people to places
they want to go – to school, to work, places to shop. We can accomplish that in a number of different
ways and it doesn’t always have to involve moving large vehicles. There are more efficient ways in
accomplishing that.
And, finally in addition to the multi-modal level of service, I noticed a few things in the bicycling section of
the goals and policies that was a little disturbing to me. There is some inclusion of comments there that I
think could be construed as pretty inflammatory. I am not used to seeing those right in a section that is
talking about the goals and polices. I am wondering if the policy board had considered putting those in an
appendix along with all the other comments rather than them right in there with goals and policies.
Because, when you include comments like that it seems like the policy board wants to emphasize this kind
of negative perspective on one particular mode and I know that there are a lot of people in this
community that could share some similar thoughts about motor vehicles and how they think that is a very
damaging aspect for our community and should be restricted. So, I think that is something the policy
board could consider is trying to move those into a more appropriate place – an appendix in the Regional
Transportation Plan.
So quickly to summarize, I will submit some written comments as well. But, I think the plan is doing well
and it’s heading us in some good direction but I think it needs to be considering a few more options than
what you are seeing in front of you. Among those options should be a heavy emphasis on fixing things
first and getting the maintenance down making it cost effective investments during that maintenance in
improving the streets for all users and completing the streets. Finally, looking at new ways of measuring
our overall capacity in the transportation system by using a multi-modal level of service. Thanks very
much I appreciate your time.”
Format: Email
To: Thurston Regional Planning Council
From: Chris Hawkins
Re: Comments on the 2025 RTP for Thurston County
Dear Thurston Regional Planning Council members and staff,
Please consider these comments on the draft Thurston Regional Transportation Plan 2025. I hope they
assist in moving us toward the goal of an efficient, safe and multi-modally integrated transportation
system, a huge benefit to this and future generations.
F - 14
Appendix F
I offer the following thoughts about the plan as a whole: Improved Content and Specificity - Overall, the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is an improvement, especially in that there is further detail on the
specific strategies that will be pursued on various modes of transportation.
I appreciate the inclusion of the separate chapters considering bicycling, walking and other modes that may
have been lumped together in previous plans. These modes often require different treatments and have
unique forms of accommodation. They should be treated with the additional specificity that your new
format allows.
Troubling Lack of Progress It’s disappointing that there is not a more pronounced contrast among the options that are considered by
the plan, particularly in terms of automobile miles traveled (which translates into more traffic congestion
and more air pollution).
I think the options should include a more assertive land-use and transportation shift, including drawing in
Urban Growth boundaries to a size that truly reflects a 20 to 25 years-of-growth planning horizon rather
than the 50-75 years which is currently the case. Another key tool that appears not be given much
discussion yet is modifying the level of service standards (see below). I hope these points will be
addressed early on and be part of the vision-reality disconnect workshops and discussion over the next
few years.
I agree with many of the suggestions made in the second chapter of the RTP (the Work Program Priorities
regionally to make improvements to measures are good). However, I think the rubber may not be meeting
the road here when I look at the resulting projection of the recommended alternative in terms of its impact
on our quality of life here. The project list still seems to point us toward auto-dependency long into the
future.
Some Other Options
Level of Service: modifications and a needed new tool It seems that our Level of Service (LOS) standards may be working counter to the land-use goals of growth
management when we have higher service standards in UGAs, the unincorporated County and on edges of
the Urban Growth boundaries (at least in northern Thurston County). There should be some projects
identified to address this change in performance measure, and since we frequently hear that such changes
need to occur at the regional level, this plan appears to be the place for such a discussion.
I had hoped, given the interest that individual jurisdictions such as Olympia have shown in developing a
Multi-Modal LOS and aforementioned reasoning that this requires regional coordination, that there would be
more development of the concept in this edition of the RTP. At the very least this should be included
among the “Measures to Support Multimodal Transportation System Objectives” under goal #2 (p. 3-9).
This will help our region begin to measure the capacity of our roadways in more than the terms of the
current motor vehicle-based LOS. The Recommendations under “System Performance Measures” (p. 2-3)
are a good start in this area, but the region needs to hasten its movement in this direction, preferably with
modification in this plan or at any rate before the updating for the 2030 RTP.
F - 15
Appendix F
Complete the streets The plan should include greater emphasis and policy direction to individual jurisdictions to steer roadway
investments so as to, as the plan states in Policy 9.a., (p. 3-22) “Support design and construction of
multimodal streets and roads.” I think there are excellent models of jurisdictions seeking to fix gaps and
discontinuities in the facilities for non-motorized transportation as part of routine maintenance projects. I’m
thinking particularly about Olympia’s Bicycle Facilities Plan, wherein a small expenditure is added from
capital facilities programs in bicycle facilities and sidewalks to finish missing portions of these nonmotorized elements when a street is being overlayed. Costs are saved when work is done on these
facilities at the same time that equipment and crews are already mobilized.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizen Oversight Convening a regional bicycle advisory committee, perhaps accompanied by those who can also speak to
pedestrian needs, will be an effective way to generate an updated project list of regional improvements.
Often, for pedestrians and other non-motorized modes, their facilities are overlooked (except for trails),
but there are numerous intersections and corridors that are true regional facilities that should be considered
for their importance as regional non-motorized connections. I think the plan should include guidance to
local jurisdictions to form advisory committees of this sort for their local facilities planning.
Summary
The Regional Transportation Plan for Thurston County should acknowledge as a highest priority the current
lack of connectivity for non-motorized modes between jurisdictions. These modes (including bicycling,
walking or skating) are the ones accessible to all and cheapest to provide facilities for. They have the
added benefit of providing healthy physical activity. The public health dimension of our transportation
choices, and the fact that some provide us with much more healthy physical activity as part of our daily
lives, is one that I do not find adequately addressed in this plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan, and I hope you find these suggestions useful in
your deliberation toward a final 2025 RTP.
Issue: Alternatives Analysis – Cost of Projects and Distinction Between Options
Analysis pointed to issues that are identified as TRPC work program priorities in Recommendations
Chapter 2.
Issue: Performance Measures (Multimodal Level of Service)
The Recommendations in Chapter 2 enable policy makers to explore alternate system performance
measures for use in subsequent plans and evaluations.
Issue: Complete the Streets
Response: Language was added to the “Measures to Support Biking Objectives” in Goals and Policies
Chapter 3 (Biking) to emphasize inclusion of biking and walking improvements as part of the street/road
pavement programs where appropriate.
F - 16
Appendix F
Issue: Bicycle Advisory Committee
The Bicycle Goals and Policies element includes “reconvene a regional bicycle advisory committee” as a
measure to support biking objectives.
Issue: Biking – Importance as Mode
Response: No Change
From Recommendations for a Regional Trails Plan, to Goals and Policies supporting a multimodal system,
to “an interconnected grid of local streets and roads to increase individual travel options,” the Plan
recognizes the importance of connectivity for all modes. The Plan contains an appropriate balance of
biking recommendations and policies relative to other modes.
Issue: Bicycles – Public Comment
Response: No Change
Quotes used in Goals and Policies Chapter 3 were gathered through TRPC outreach. Their purpose
throughout the Chapter is to provide context for the issues and opportunities facing each mode or policy
element, with comments representing the diversity of public opinion. The region’s commitment to biking
often provokes strong response – both positive and negative.
Issue: Key Intersections
Response: The Recommendations in Chapter 2 were modified to specifically call out key intersections as
part of the corridor studies, sub-area plans and assessment areas that focus on exploring options. Most
intersection projects are best identified and addressed through local processes.
Issue: Biking – Health Impacts
The Plan acknowledges the importance of transportation choices to human health in Goals and Policies
Chapter 3 (Environmental and Human Health) and Environmental Considerations Chapter 6.
Issue: Cost Effectiveness
Response: No Change
The Finance Chapter includes a policy encouraging cost and benefit consideration in the allocation of
transportation funds. In addition, the Recommendations Chapter contains a work program priority to
develop appropriate benefit/cost analysis tools for use in regional and local analysis.
Commenter: Priscilla Terry
1) I would like to go on record as a supporter of rail. We should tackle the congestion problem now. We
will lose economic vitality if we do not.
2) I’m concerned about seniors – they shouldn’t drive, but they have no option – the solution may be
cheaper and easier than we think.
F - 17
Appendix F
Issue: Rail
Response: No Change
The Plan has an appropriate balance of rail recommendations and policies relative to all other modes and
issues. Recommended work over the next several years will better define the region’s rail vision for the
2030 Plan.
Issue: Seniors
Response: No Change
The Goals and Policies Chapter 3 (Barrier-Free Transportation) addresses this issue.
Commenter: Taylor Pittman
•
Emphasize rail use
•
Emphasize public transportation
•
Key intersections important to focus on, don’t widen roads
bike lanes whenever possible
•
Complete streets in progress
•
Take out inflammatory remarks re: bicycles
Bicycling is a contribution to community health!
Thank you for your work –
Issue: Rail
Response: No Change
2030 Plan.
Issue: Public Transportation
Response: No Change
The Plan contains an appropriate balance of transit recommendations and policies relative to other modes.
Issue: Key Intersections
Response: The Recommendations in Chapter 2 were modified to specifically call out key intersections as
part of corridor studies, sub-area plans and assessment areas that focus on exploring options. Most
intersection projects are best identified and addressed through local processes.
Issue: Complete the Streets
Response: Language was added to the “Measures to Support Biking Objectives” in Goals and Policies
Chapter 3 (Biking) to emphasize inclusion of biking and walking improvements as part of the street/road
pavement programs where appropriate.
F - 18
Appendix F
Response: No Change
Mr. Brady Clark thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak and be part of the process. “I am a
student at The Evergreen State College and I am involved there in promoting alternative commuting. So I
can appreciate how difficult it is to consider some of the things on a very small level. I was working
through the plan and didn’t get a chance to really read it over. But, I wanted to share with you some of the
things that I have experienced since I moved here a year ago, and I wanted to start by saying that they are
mostly positive. I previously lived in Portland, which I have come to understand, is somewhat of a model
for bicycling and public transport in the region. I also understand it is a quite a bit larger than the area here.
So, when I came to Olympia I was I impressed with the efforts that are underway here. I was able to put
my bike on a bus and get around pretty easily. So, I want to thank you for that. However, I have noticed
a lot of things don’t connect up and I am interested in the multi-modal aspects of the plan and encouraging
work on that. So, just personally, one thing I enjoy doing is – I don’t have a car – and I just have a bicycle.
I am one of those fully committed people and I think that it is a luxury right now to have the time to do
that. With more bike lanes and integration of the rail, I really feel like it’s something I will continue to do in
the future as I get out in the working world. So, that’s a concern of mine because it is one of the few things
that I can do in my schedule towards maintaining good health. It’s not only transportation for me but it’s
also keeps me healthy and allows me to think about things. So, I guess the only comments that I really had
on the plan was I was surprised by some of the negative comments from motorists towards bicycles, which
is certainly understandable. It’s understandable, but I guess I question about it being in the plan because it
seems like wanting to represent a lot different of opinions is one thing but I guess I wanted to put out a
more positive approach. I guess I will close with that. Thank you for your time.”
Commenter: Brady Clark
In response to a question from Mayor Clarkson, Mr. Clark said he travels mostly in Olympia and Lacey.
He also travels by Amtrak. Mayor Clarkson asked if had any experience with traveling in bike trails and
bike lanes and if he has had any problems. Mr. Clark said he is a seasoned biker but there are a number of
instances where a lane will end all of a sudden and cars will not know what to do with that. Generally, he
finds people pretty respectful. But, he said he also felt that he holds up traffic because he often he rides in
the road rather than on the sidewalk.
Response: No Change
From the recommendation for a Regional Trails Plan, to Goals and Policies supporting a multimodal system,
recognizes the importance of connectivity for all modes. The Plan contains an appropriate balance of biking
recommendations and policies relative to other modes.
F - 19
Appendix F
Response: No Change
Commenter: Mike Behler
Mr. Mike Behler said he was representing himself. “I want to mention based on the previous speaker’s
comments about the multi-modal thing that is the issue I am concerned about. I also volunteer at the
Amtrak Station as one of the volunteers twice sometimes three times a month and I too would echo the
concern about the multi-modal connections that I think are possible that we could even create today and
not wait until 2025. The I.T. schedule out here does not really sync out well with the arrival of the
Cascade service. I realize the Starlight is infamous for its being late out of Los Angeles. I live, by the way,
right down the tracks and I am well aware of the frequency of the trains and whether they are on time or
not. So, I think multi-modal connections even with the existing corridors is an important issue. I too,
looked at the plan but did not read the whole plan, unfortunately. But, I got a sense that the rail wasn’t
spoken to the level that I think it should be for 2025. Just about 30 years ago I was on an advisory
committee in a different county transportation committee down in another state. And, they struggled with
what was in essence another I.T. system at that time. They were struggling with how to finance it as it
was at the height of the oil situation back in the early-middle 70s. And, they worked their way through
that and I what I was struck with then and also now is that 2025 seems to be a long way but if you look in
time realize that 20 years is not a great length of time especially for those of us who have been around for
a while. So I would strongly encourage the staff and the Council to still keep their eye on building on
existing capacity. Now, we can leverage those connections between bikes and buses and cars, the park
and ride lots. There is a wonderful opportunity out there at the Amtrak Station that was taken advantage
by local citizens when they built that facility using park and ride money, etc. That is a good example is
how we can leverage that for the future. I am concerned that we also preserve corridors whether for
roads or for bike trails.
In 1986, I wrote a letter to Les Eldridge when he was County Commissioner advocating that we preserve
rails to trails possibility for the old road out to Gate, the old railroad. It was a little activity I was engaged
in at that time advocating that. So, I think trying to preserve capacity for the future is another important
thing for the plan to try to encourage jurisdictions to do, again, whether it’s for rail or for bikes. We don’t
know what the future might hold for us.
F - 20
The third thing I would like to comment on I was also seriously suggesting that we look at the
demographics of the population. That is, where the older population might be locating or what kind of
housing for the different kinds of ages of population. As we know, folks my age and perhaps older will be
going into retirement years not too many years from now. The population, I suggest that we are going to
be serving, will perhaps be a different proportion of the population that might require more public
transportation or more accessible transportation and may not be as able to drive vehicles as they once
Appendix F
But overall, I was pleased with the general theme and tone and the very difficult job to encompass a wide
range of existing problems, and try to work your way through again given the constraints of funding.
Because it seems to me that one of our major constraints in this area as in the state is not the lack of ideas,
but the lack of money to pay for those wonderful ideas. But, in closing I want to thank the Board, the
Council, and the staff and I realize it was a lot of effort and energy that has gone into putting this plan
together and it will be again in another year and half to start the next five-year plan. So again, thank you for
the opportunity and I will make more comments once I read the whole plan, but again I think it’s a good job
and with those comments I’ll stop.”
Issue: Rail
Response: No Change
2030 Plan.
Issue: Preserving Choices
Response: The Region has a strong commitment to preserving abandoned rail lines, which is expressed
through policy and funding. The Rail Plan called for in Recommendations Chapter 2 will address
preservation.
were and where we locate those or where we allow those locations to be existing will also drive it. I think
the lady said from the staff, in terms of the relationship between housing and transportation they feed each
other. So the mix of housing and the mix of the population, not just the location of the population, is
something that should be looked at perhaps a little more. Maybe it has been, and I apologize if it’s in the
plan and I just haven’t picked it up.
Issue: Seniors
Response: No Change
The Goals and Policies Chapter 3 (Barrier-Free Transportation) addresses the transportation side of this
issue, while the emphasis on better integrating Land Use and Transportation Planning, mentioned throughout
the Plan explores the land use side, including residential.
Commenter: Henry Hollweger
Mr. Henry Hollweger said he has lived in the area for about 25 years or so. “I have seen major changes in
my time. Perhaps, I am a little picky because I am use to driving down this little road to town and it was
very easy at one time to get through this town and now it’s becoming more and more difficult with the
traffic. About a year ago I was walking through Lacey as I had to get some work done on my car and as a
pedestrian, I kind of like to walk. I found it rather difficult to get through Lacey and I have also had the
same trouble in parts of Olympia also, just walking. It doesn’t seem to very pedestrian-oriented. Just
getting across the streets with those lights is very, very difficult sometimes for me. Living out in the rural
community like I do on South Bay where I live, I have a house there, its nice and we have a bicycle path
there and there really is no problem as far as pedestrians walking in that area. But when you get off that
F - 21
Appendix F
main drag there ah, boy, I think the bicyclists and the people that walk in the road, kind of take there life in
their hands. It’s so difficult. And I don’t know just how you would approach to remedy a problem like
that because it seems to be awful expensive because you have the waterways going through there so your
roads are rather narrow. But still, with a concept that you are trying to approach here, perhaps there are
some innovative ways to make a reasonable approach so that we people out in the rural areas where we
kind of enjoy the birds and things like (that) could walk on the road without jeopardizing ourselves I think.
I kind of volunteer for the parks quite a bit and one of the parks and also the trails, evasive plants is one of
my things. I was walking on the Olympia trail and was talking to a friend of mine, which is right next to the
freeway there, and she could not stand where that new trail is going in there because of the sounds of the
freeway. I consider it kind of like a white sound, like maybe the ocean or something like that. I have
become very used to it. But, she did mention one thing that made an impression on me and that was the
road kill. Road kills is the wild creatures. And, I was thinking, that with these trails they are talking about
bridges going over some of the highways over here and I was wondering if there was some kind of design
maybe a fence that you could direct the wildlife that would go over the bridges instead of having them
killed so much. Oh, and another thing in the parks. It’s just fantastic it seems like more and more
everybody has to have a dog or two dogs. And, they are not little tiny dogs anymore, they are dogs for
protection in a lot of cases, and these people need, they need room for these dogs to maneuver. With the
new subdivisions going up there has to be some kind of provision for not only pedestrians, but you have
these dogs. Otherwise you have a major problem. Thank you.”
Issue: Walking
Response: No Change
The Plan has an appropriate balance of walking recommendations and policies relative to other modes and
issues, stressing that “Every traveler is a pedestrian at the beginning and end of the trip.” Local agencies
are working steadily to enhance pedestrian safety.
Issue: Wildlife and Animals
Response: No Change
The Plan’s Goals and Policies encourage context sensitive design and minimize road crossings through
habitat corridors to protect wildlife. Wildlife crossing issues and dog-walking concerns are highly site and
project specific, and are best addressed at the local level during project design.
Commenter: Hugh O’Neil (3 comments)
Make new growth pay 110% of the transportation costs associated with itself.
Please take the comments about “those darn bikes” out of the Plan.
More bike trails.
More rail freight.
F - 22
Appendix F
Format: Email
Dear Thurston Regional Planning Council Folks:
When I review the project lists I see a very different picture from the vision. With the exception of the 4th
Avenue Bridge project (which is nearly complete and shouldn’t be on the list) the vast majority of the
money and projects are concentrated on the periphery of our urban area. This is a fatal flaw many times
over. Most of the capacity projects seem perversely designed to allow just what we say we don’t want
— to encourage sprawl into the suburban and rural areas. If we continue to spend millions of dollars and
add road capacity right up to the urban growth boundaries (and in some cases across it) wouldn’t we
expect to see more people living on the fringes and beyond? Won’t this just exacerbate our transportation
problems and costs in the future?
If we build it (capacity on the fringes), they (we) will come. The question is, where are we to live? Do we
want a compact urban area that can support multiple modes or do we want a sprawling suburbia (aided
and abetted by peripheral capacity projects) that gobbles up every farm and forest area in the County?
I support your efforts to bridge the vision/reality disconnect, to make consistent development and
transportation expectations, and to lengthen the planning horizon. That effort, once completed, would be
the basis of an effective plan. I ask that you do not adopt a regional transportation plan nor approve a
project list until that vision/reality process is complete.
I read the draft plan and it has many fine-sounding goals. We have a fine vision and we seem to recognize
that in reality we are falling (tragically for our fair County) well short of this vision. I wish our electeds,
staff, and others (and hopefully some citizens will be involved) in the Vision-Reality Disconnect process
every success and loads of courage and wisdom, because frankly, we ain’t gonna get to our vision with this
20 year plan.
Format: Email
Karen:
Thanks for coming out to Ecology and presenting the draft plan and patiently answering questions. One
issue I wanted to follow up on was my comment on the anti-bicycle comments (e.g. “those damn bikes”
etc.) contained in the chapter on bikes. You suggested that I read the plan (which I have done) and see if it
contained a balance of comments.
I cannot see how the plan could contain a balance of comments, since there isn’t a chapter on cars. The
dominant mode is just assumed. There would be nowhere to put a comment such as “those damn cars.”
This comment aside, good luck with your work. It is very important to our community. Thanks for all you
do.
Issue: Finance – Growth Pays for Growth
Response: No Change
Recommendations in Chapter 2 on Funding Measures call for an exploration of equitable fee structures,
within the confines of current law.
F - 23
Appendix F
Response: No Change
often provokes strong response – both positive and negative. While the Plan does not contain a Goals and
Policies section on automobiles, some Goals and Policies include comments that reflect frustration with
cars: “We’ve got to make people a higher priority than cars” and “If we value clean air we’re going to have
to ask whether we can really continue to relay on the gas-guzzling car.”
Response: No Change
Issue: Rail
Response: No Change
2030 Plan. The Plan specifically recommends exploring all aspects of freight mobility, convening “regional
freight interests to examine issues in freight modes like truck, rail, aviation, marine and pipelines.”
Issue: Land Use and Transportation
Response: No Change
References to the importance of better integrating land use and transportation planning and policies are
included in many sections of the Plan. The Vision/Reality Disconnect Project called for in
Recommendations Chapter 2, seeks to “better align marketplace realities with the visions and obligations
spelled out in Comprehensive Plans.” That discussion will include “fringe” development.
Commenter: Jesse Barham
Format: Email
Thurston County Regional Planning Council,
Having reviewed portions of the draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, and am disturbed by some of
the public comments quoted in the bicycling section of the Goals and Policies portion of the plan. The
negative comments contained in this portion of the plan are inflammatory and have no place in a document
of this type. In no other section of the plan did I see any plainly biased and inflammatory language. As a
frequent bicyclist, I realize that some people have a negative view of bicyclists, but including negative
language in this document validates and may encourage discrimination against bicyclists. Safe bicycle and
pedestrian access is vital to developing livable communities and encourages human-scale interaction with
the environment and between its inhabitants. An inordinate proportion of my local tax dollars go to
F - 24
Appendix F
subsidize automobile infrastructure, while at the same time bicycle and pedestrian access is routinely
neglected and under-funded. Human-powered transportation should not be placed at a lower priority than
automobiles. I would appreciate a more balanced approach to these issues in regional planning documents.
Sincerely
Issue
Response: No Change
Commenter: Jim Lazar, Chairman, Olympia Safe Streets Campaign
Format: Email
Comments on Draft Regional Transportation Plan
Jim Lazar, Chairman Olympia Safe Streets Campaign Box 1423
Olympia, WA 98501 360-786-1822
Response
Response: No Change
The Draft Regional Transportation Plan contains some excellent policy guidance for future transportation
decisionmaking in our community.
It ties the linkage between land use and transportation more closely. It discusses least-cost transportation
planning concepts. It recognizes the importance of certain regional projects which might not get the
standing they deserve on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
However, in each of these areas, the RTP merits improvement. These comments are intended to focus
policy-maker attention on certain continuing problems which a decade of regional transportation plans have
not yet adequately addressed.
First, the RTP remains too focused on expenditures for major road-widening projects that are unaffordable,
regardless of whether they have merit otherwise.
Second, the RTP does not provide for adequate study of alternatives to road capacity additions. These can
include land use changes, new analytical approaches, or in the form of new transportation technologies.
Third, there is a bit of discussion of cost-effectiveness and least-cost planning, but few tools to actually
implement these concepts.
F - 25
Appendix F
Fourth, the RTP recognizes multi-jurisdictional motorized projects and trail projects, but not the
importance of multi-jurisdictional non-motorized transportation planning.
Finally, the RTP backs away from technological substitutions for physical travel addressed in the 2020
RTP. These must be given greater standing.
Major Road Widening is Infeasible
The RTP identifies dozens of new road widening projects. Experience over the past decade tells us that the
funding to achieve these is not feasible. Policy makers will not impose, and the regional building industry
will not support tax and fee increases to achieve the financing for these projects.
The 2020 RTP assumed that both a local Motor Vehicle Registration Surcharge and a local Motor Vehicle
Fuel Tax would be approved by 2002. Neither was achieved, and neither is currently proposed.
The City of Olympia has failed to complete most of the road widening projects listed in it’s 1996 Capital
Facilities Plan. Harrison Avenue Phase 2, Fones, 18th Avenue, and others were planned for completion by
2002. These projects remain pretty much where they were nearly a decade ago.
Doug Deforest, representing the Olympia Master Builders, testified during consideration of the 2020 RTP
that the region should “focus on key intersections.” This remains good counsel today.
The most egregious example of this failed thinking is the continued inclusion of Yauger Way Extension in the
RTP, at page 2-20. This is a $10 million project. However, it requires both the City of Olympia and
WSDOT to do separate portions of the project, as shown on Map 2-2. WSDOT made it clear that funding
for this project was dependent upon R-51 passage. It did not pass. The project is NOT listed as a WSDOT
project in Table 2-9 of the Draft 2025 RTP. However, it is STILL listed as a project for Olympia at Page
2-20. Yauger extension should be deleted as a local project unless and until it is included in the WSDOT
project list; the City of Olympia cannot connect this road to SR-101 without state participation, and
certainly cannot afford the $10 million project cost on its own.
The deletion of this project, of course, creates more severe potential congestion in the area. This probably
means it is necessary to downzone much of the remaining undeveloped area in West Olympia. The RTP
must provide this guidance to the City.
Each of the proposed road widening projects needs to be examined to see if state participation is required,
and if so, if state participation is funded within existing state revenue sources. Those that do not pass this
test – such as Yauger Way Extension – should be deleted, and land use adjustments made accordingly.
Specific Recommendations:
•
Remove all road widening projects for which funding is less than “probable” meaning a 50%
likelihood that the adjusted level of service will be exceeded during the first 14 years of the Plan
(meaning that construction would be required during the 20-year plan period.
•
Remove any projects which are dependent upon State participation, such as Yauger Way, if the
projects are not identified in the WSDOT 20-year project plan.
Alternatives to Road Widening
There are many alternatives to road widening that need to be explored in a coordinated, regional fashion.
F - 26
Appendix F
Each road proposed for widening should be examined to determine if intersection improvements alone can
provide needed congestion relief. At the time of the 2020 RTP, the modern roundabout was just entering
the lexicon of transportation planning. Today it is an important tool in congestion relief. Each of the
corridors identified for capacity enhancement should be examined for feasibility of single-lane roundabouts,
to ascertain whether this change alone will provide improved traffic flow. Again, the counsel of Doug
Deforest: “Concentrate on key intersections” should be observed.
The Olympia City Council considered a reduction in the level of service for Mud Bay / Harrison Rd. during
consideration of it’s current Capital Facility Plan. It was advised by its staff that such a change would need
to be done “at the regional level” as part of this RTP update. Apparently that interest of the Council was
not communicated to the drafters of the RTP update, as this adjustment the LOS is not included.
The relationship between land use, transportation investment, and LOS is fairly well understood. At Page 416, the draft RTP shows the relationship between infill and drive-alone travel. This tells us we should be
concentrating our efforts on infill, rather than on sprawl. By reducing the LOS in the peripheral areas to
match that in the core areas, we are at least removing the bias in favor of sprawl that currently exists.
Corridor analysis is discussed at page 4-25, but it needs to consider not only the motor vehicle capacity of
a road, but also the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle capacity of those roads. A roadway that fails to meet
motor vehicle needs, but adequately serves all other modes may be at least as great an asset to the
community as one that permits unconstrained motor vehicle travel, but is hostile to non-motorized modes.
A paper on MMLOS, presented to the Olympia Planning Commission several years ago, is attached to these
comments. It discusses how to prepare corridor analysis, and how to properly credit each mode in
computing a corridor level of service.
Modifying the Level of Service in the peripheral areas of the cities is another important tool in bringing
project needs and available funding into balance. There are two different tools that should be considered.
First, a reduction of the LOS in the peripheral areas from “D” to “E” to be consistent with that in urban
areas should be adopted. Second, tools to implement multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methods
should be developed.
While the RTP recognizes the importance of walkable communities, neighborhood identification, and land
use density, it does not make concrete recommendations to actually change existing policies that are leading
us the opposite direction.
•
Reduce the level of service in the UGMA from D to E, at least on the west side of Olympia.
•
Provide language reading: “Nothing in this Plan precludes an individual jurisdiction from adopting a
multi-modal level of service methodology that considers modes other than motor vehicle congestion
in determining a corridor level of service measurement.
Cost-Effectiveness
The draft RTP gives lip service to cost-effectiveness and least-cost planning, but does not actually propose
the use of any tools to achieve these. Least-cost planning (also known as Integrated Resource Planning)
was originally developed in the electric utility planning field, and spread to transportation about a decade
ago through the efforts of Chuck Collins (Northwest Power Planning Council) and Dick Watson
(Washington State Energy Office).
F - 27
Appendix F
First and foremost, the jurisdictions need to start measuring the “congestion-relief per dollar of expenditure”
for each proposed project they identify. Currently, the practice of the jurisdictions is to take a population
forecast, plug it into a transportation model, predict congestion points, and identify projects to resolve the
congestion. The critical next step should be to then compare those alternative projects, and determine
which are “cheap” and which are not. Those which can be implemented cheaply (primarily intersection
improvements) should be planned for construction. Those which are expensive generally should not, and
those areas should be considered candidates for land use adjustments to prevent congestion from
developing.
A simple example demonstrates this. The City of Olympia has identified both Harrison Avenue Phase II and
Boulevard Road as areas for congestion mitigation based on projected land use and development. The
former has a projected cost of about $5 million for less than a mile of roadway, and the latter about
$2 million for intersection improvements at three intersections. Both would provide about the same personhours per day of congestion relief. Therefore, the “cost” per person-hour of the Harrison Avenue project is
about two and one half times as great as the Boulevard Road project. Prioritizing alternatives on a “bangfor-the-buck” criteria was recommended to the City by the Olympia Planning Commission many years ago.
In this particular case, it comes back to the counsel of Doug Deforest: “Concentrate on key intersections.”
The RTP should provide for a “cost per person-hour” calculation of the congestion mitigation cost for each
identified project. Given constrained funding, those which are lower in cost should proceed, and those
which are more expensive should become candidates for land use reassessment.
•
Utilize a cost-effectiveness measure for all congestion-related projects, that measures the number
of minutes of misery relief (congestion for motor vehicles; exposure to traffic for bicyclists and
pedestrians) provided per dollar of expenditure. Utilize this information in ranking the priority of
projects.
Non-Motorized Projects
The draft RTP lists multi-jurisdictional trail projects in Table 2-7, but fails to include priority regional nonmotorized transportation projects other than trails.
Sometimes a bicycle or pedestrian project at the intersection of two jurisdictions is more important to the
combined community than it is to either of the individual jurisdictions. Two (of many possible) examples
make this point:
The bicycle and sidewalk improvements to 18th Avenue, between Boulevard Road and Fones Road
would connect the entire SE Olympia bikeway network to the Chehalis Western Trail (the portion from
Fones to the Trail is funded and in design currently). This is the east fringe of Olympia, and the west
fringe of Lacey. This was identified as a Priority Regional Bicycle Project as early as the 2015 RTP. It
is still a needed improvement.
A bicycle/pedestrian connection between the west side of the Ken Lake neighborhood and 13th Avenue
SW would permit bicycle traffic from the Black Lake and South Sound Community College area to
reach the Kaiser Road overpass, and bypass the congested Black Lake / Cooper Point intersection.
This is the west edge of Olympia, and unincorporated Thurston County.
F - 28
Appendix F
Eight years ago, TRPC convened a Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee (REBAC) to identify priority
bicycle connections. The good news today is that half of the projects they identified as priority projects are
now complete. Many remain to be completed. Having a list of these projects provides guidance to
jurisdictions in applying for Enhancement grants. The REBAC list should be restored to the RTP.
Further, a group such as the REBAC should be reconvened to look at all non-motorized improvements in
the same context as the REBAC looked at bicycle improvements.
•
Reconvene the Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee to develop a prioritized list of regional
bicycle improvement needs.
•
Add bicycle and pedestrian connections to locations such as 13th Avenue SW, that would permit
bicycles to avoid highly congested locations such as Black Lake / Cooper Point.
Alternatives to Physical Travel
The internet has changed our way of life. Since the 2020 RTP, broadband internet facilities have been
extended into the areas where about half of the Thurston County population lives. More and more of us are
working from home one or more days per week, attending meetings by video or audio teleconference, and
filing reports and legal papers electronically.
At the time of the 2020 RTP, the Olympia City Council agenda was a 500-piece mailing job each week.
Today most of that is handled by a single email. The entire packet is posted to the web each week, saving
citizens (me) the need to visit City Hall to pick up documents. The Olympia Planning Commission agenda
and attachments are posted on the web.
A serious TRPC project needs to be dedicated to “virtual” transportation planning, with the same level of
expertise and the same level of funding that goes into “concrete” transportation planning. The RTP needs to
get serious about electronic alternatives to physical travel. Examples of this would include:
•
Requirements that new residential developments be “wired” for broadband internet access to
facilitate virtual transportation;
•
Requirements that public agencies webcast their meetings; TRPC and the TPB could be pioneers in
this regard.
•
Providing equal access to transportation funding for “virtual” transportation projects as is provided
for “pavement” transportation projects.
•
Identify and map the existing and proposed “electronic highway” network in the County, and the
segments that need development in the 6-year and 20-year plans in order to have every population
center fully wired.
•
Incorporate internet capacity enhancements as a criteria in evaluating transportation grant
applications.
•
Incorporate internet capacity in the calculation of “level of service” recognizing that in some areas
people can get their needs met without having to physically go anywhere.
F - 29
Appendix F
I hope that these recommendations are considered by the TPB and TRPC, and incorporated into the
revised RTP. It’s time to move forward on redefining our transportation goals to focus on measures that
improve people’s lives – including modifications to the measurement of Level of Service to include bicycle
and pedestrian movements, and recognizing that virtual transportation is increasingly an alternative to
physical transportation. Respectfully Submitted,
Issue: Road Widening
Response: To comply with state and federal requirements, the long-range plan must look at and plan for
growth over a 20+ year horizon, not a 14 year horizon. This is a financially feasible plan, especially when
viewed in light of funding issues that are beyond local and regional control. The 2020 RTP included 87
construction projects for road widening and new connections, and relied on two new road-supportive tax
increases. The 2025 RTP includes 42 construction projects for widening and new connections, and no new
tax increases.
Regarding coordination of regional and state project lists, Mr. Lazar’s comments as well as questions raised
elsewhere in the public process about other state-partnership projects have resulted in the inclusion of
other projects on “duplicate” lists in the Final Plan, including the Lacey project for a feasibility study of a
potential Carpenter Road / I-5 interchange and the Chehalis-Western Trail.
Issue: Alternatives to Road Widening
Response: The RTP includes a work program recommendation to evaluate alternate system performance
measures, providing an opportunity to revisit UGA service standards in a coordinated manner, if
appropriate. Any changes approved to adopted regional performance measures could be reflected in
future RTP amendments and updates.
Regarding Mr. Lazar’s concern that the Plan might preclude certain strategies, Final Plan language was
modified to clarify the RTP supports local agencies trying innovative approaches to address the unique
needs of individual strategy corridors, including considering alternatives to motor vehicle congestion when
defining LOS.
Issue: Cost Effectiveness
Response: No Change
The Finance Chapter includes a policy encouraging cost and benefit consideration in the allocation of
transportation funds. In addition, the Recommendations Chapter contains a work program priority to
develop appropriate benefit/cost analysis tools for use in regional and local analysis.
Issue: Non-Motorized Projects
Response: No Change
The Bicycle Goals and Policies element includes “reconvene a regional bicycle advisory committee” as a
measure to support biking objectives. However, as with street and road analysis, a different level of
analysis is needed for the regional network than for the finer-grained local network, where analysis and
decisions are best made locally.
Regional network needs should be the focus of a group such as a regional bicycle advisory committee.
Such needs could then be included in future RTP amendments and updates.
F - 30
Appendix F
Issue: Alternatives to Physical Travel
Response: No Change
Mr. Lazar suggests several new development and public agency requirements for use of technology. These
decisions are best addressed at the local level, although there is nothing in the RTP that precludes
jurisdictions from doing this.
The 2025 RTP places increased emphasis on technology in both policy and projects, building on previous
investments in developing a Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture. The RTP project list
identifies regional transportation technology priorities that build on the ITS architecture and partnerships
established in compliance with federal law. If need for mapping is warranted, there is nothing in the project
recommendations or policies to preclude it.
Commenter: Karen Messmer
Format: Email
Comments on 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Submitted March 22, 2004 by Karen Messmer
Regional Issues
Regarding incorporating Internet capacity into LOS calculations, the recommended work program element
to evaluate alternate system performance measures could allow exploration of this option.
‘Selecting performance measures that best evaluate the entire multimodal system.’
The transportation system needs to provide for all types of users. While we are hoping to encourage
increasing use of transit for some trips, we must also build a system that supports walking. For most users,
a trip on the bus will also require some travel on foot to get to or from the bus stop to their destination.
This is why it is critical that all parts of the system are built with future increased us of transit – and walking
– in the design. Building more lanes and increased motor vehicle capacity without appropriate consideration
for future transit/walking could actually work against our aim to increase transit use. (by making high traffic
areas in-hospitable to pedestrians)
It is very important that we not only ‘study’ – but also actually adopt and begin to employ a much more
inclusive view of ‘level of service’ for transportation planning. (multi-modal level of service) This needs to
be implemented at the regional and local levels.
There are examples of measures being used in other locations, so we don’t need to invent this here.
‘Designing and building a regional trails system’
The same comment can be made about trails as the comment above about transit. In order to use the trail
system for transportation or recreation, residents will need to make their way to the trail from their home
or business. The trail ‘system’ will serve many more users if it is supported by a safe street system nearby.
Since our trail system is reaching far into the rural areas - perhaps we should be developing ‘park and bike
ride’ lots at strategic trail junctions. (Secure parking for your car while you ride into the urban area on your
bicycle.)
F - 31
Appendix F
Level of service and ‘assessment areas’
The concept of “strategy areas’ – now called ‘assessment areas’ – needs to be approached more
aggressively. We cannot simply ‘watch and study’ these areas. We should be looking for the most
promising methods for commute trip reduction and traffic management and employing them in these areas.
The cost for more active programs such as encouragement of flextime and ride sharing seems trivial
compared to the costs from traffic problems in these areas. From an environmental perspective, the
pollution from idling cars is enough to cause alarm such that we should be working harder on alternatives
for these problem areas.
Meanwhile, not far from some of our most congested ‘assessment’ areas, we should be reducing level of
service to a more realistic acknowledgment of urbanization. Specifically the western portion of Harrison
Avenue should be reduced to level of service E in order to align it with the rest of that corridor.
Other areas should be re-examined for a realistic level of service. As we face continuing funding constraints
for the transportation system, we should be making a more realistic plan for what we can achieve in the
urban growth and near-urban areas. It just does not seem feasible to continue to provide very high levels of
service in the ‘urban fringe’ areas while we cannot even find the means to resolve failing parts of the system
inside the urban area.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Issue: Performance Measures
Response: No Change
Recommendation on Performance Measures in Chapter 2 enables policy makers to explore alternative
system performance measures, for use in subsequent plans and evaluations.
Issue: Regional Trails System
Response: No Change
Recommendation on Regional Trail Strategy in Chapter 2 enables policy makers to explore all aspects of
this part of the region’s multimodal system.
Issue: Level of Service
Response: No Change
The RTP did not include analysis of changes in LOS and it would not include a “spot change” without
coordinated, detailed operational level of analysis with the affected jurisdictions. The RTP does include a
work program recommendation to evaluate alternative system performance measures, which would
provide an opportunity to revisit service standards in a coordinated manner, if so desired. Any changes
approved to adopted regional performance measures would be reflected in future Plan amendments and
updates.
Issue: Assessment Areas
Response: Final Plan language was modified to clarify that the RTP supports local agencies trying
innovative approaches to address the unique needs of individual strategy corridors, including considering
alternatives to motor vehicle congestion when defining LOS.
F - 32
Appendix F
Commenter: Pat Carlson
Format: Email
Dear Council Members:
Please consider the plight of College Street.
Pedestrians choosing to ride the bus or even someone wanting to walk across College St. to Harry’s
Market, take their lives in hand. I’ve seen a kid fall off his bike into College St., & have twice seen cars
plow onto the sidewalk to hit a fence & utility pole. We’re talking about a straight-stretch of supposed
35-m.p.h. road here.
The only saving grace is the walk lights at Mountain View Elementary & Komachin Middle School, which
gives those tiny breaks in traffic.
The City of Lacey told me more round-a-bouts are one option; another is to take out a row of houses.
They are very aware of this problem, but nothing is in the works.
Surely, something can be done to make this road more residential/pedestrian/bike/bus rider friendly!
Thank you for your consideration.
Issue: College Street
Response: No Change
The RTP recognizes the challenges on College Street, characterizing it as both a strategy area and an
assessment area. This analysis, best done at the local level, will likely address multimodal and safety
aspects of this important corridor.
The older, established neighborhoods between Pacific Ave. & 45th are suffering because turning left onto &
off of College is DANGEROUS! There is not a middle lane such as found south of 45th. College Street has
become a constant flow of cars, with massive growth still in the making.
Commenter: Dennis Bloom, Planning Manager, Intercity Transit
Format: Email
Note: Mr. Bloom’s comment references concerns expressed orally by Tumwater
City Council Member and Intercity Transit Authority Member Karen Valenzuela
at several RTP presentations.
Thera
Attached, please find a suggested edit to the Transit paragraph (p ES-3) of the Executive Summary.
Tumwater Councilmember Karen Valenzuela has expressed a concern at a couple of our recent Transit
Authority meetings with the last sentence of the text. She felt that it had not conveyed the fact that
Intercity Transit has begun a process of re-establishing services (starting in February 2003) from the time a
F - 33
Appendix F
few years ago when the loss of local revenues (2000 - 2002) had a significant impact on the level of transit
service in Thurston County. Over those few years the question became the viability of public transit to
meet even some of the basic community needs, let alone the projections stipulated in the previous Regional
Transportation Plan.
As you know, many of those concerns were abated with voter approval of an increase in local sales tax for
transit. Those funds began to be collected in 2003 and I.T.’s first service increase in years went into effect
February 2003. Councilmember Valenzuela therefore suggested that re-wording of the sentence was in
order to let others know that public transit had re-bounded and was actively re-establishing service. In
short, she was looking for clarity to what she felt might be some ambiguity about transit’s future. Hopefully
the suggested edit I’ve attached works for you as well. Please feel free to share any thoughts you have if
you feel it should be altered/edited again.
I would also suggest that under the TDM section of the Executive Summary (pg ES-3) that “vanpooling”
would be an appropriate addition to the list of alternative modes.
One final (but small) note is that the map of IT routes (pg D-5) has a number of routes that are hard to
distinguish due to line weight. I found from speaking to others that they had mistaken the lines as roads, and
wondered why the route wasn’t shown. In reality the line they were looking at was the route. I think you’ll
see what I mean when you look at the map.
Thanks again for all the hard work you and others at the TRPC put into the plan’s update. Very impressive!
Regards,
Transit) Also during this time, transit increased substantially in the region, only to lose 40%
Attachment: (Transit)
of its funding base through state initiatives and legislative actions. While service continued, it was
necessarily reduced. The service area was refocused to the urban core of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater,
with connecting service to Yelm. Local support for transit, in the form of a voter approved sales tax
increase, improved transit service although it will be some time before service returns to previous levels has
helped to re-establish service that had been cut. On going efforts to rebuild the fleet, improve passenger
amenities and bring service back to previous levels is under way.
Issue: Transit
Response: These technical suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan.
F - 34
Appendix F
Commenter: Grant Beck, Director, Department of Community Development,
City of Yelm
Format: Letter
Issue: Support for Plan
F - 35
Appendix F
Commenter: Dennis Ritter, Public Works Director, City of Lacey
Format: Letter
F - 36
Appendix F
F - 37
Appendix F
F - 38
Appendix F
F - 39
Appendix F
F - 40
Appendix F
Issue: Administrative Costs
Response: No Change
Long-range regional transportation forecasts are based on Budgeting and Accounting Reporting System
(BARS) data using codes established by the Washington State Auditor’s Office. Data is submitted by local
agencies as a part of their required annual cost and revenue reporting. Administrative costs for the 25-year
long-range regional forecast, based on local experience, account for 13% of total street and road costs. As
an example of local experience, the City of Lacey’s administrative costs ranged from 18% reported in 1998
to 9% reported in 2000.
Issue: Transit
Response: Finance Chapter 5 supplies full detail of the issues summarized in the Executive Summary.
Transit accounts for 37% of the regional transportation revenue forecasted for this plan, supported by
funding generated by transit-specific sources. The Executive Summary language was modified to clarify
expense details.
Issue: Compliance with Civil Rights, Americans with Disabilities Act and other Laws
Response: The RTP must… “Comply with laws governing civil rights; respect the needs of older
Americans and persons with disabilities; and foster social equity.” This summarizes the intent of the many
federal and state laws that apply to Thurston Regional Planning Council and most local agencies. These
include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 {P.L. 101-336}; Federal Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century {P.L. 105-178}; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 {42 U.S.C. 2000d}; the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 {42 U.S.C. 6101}; the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 {P.L. 100-209};
and Executive Order 12898 – 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Environmental Justice – 1994).
Issue: Land Use Options
Response: No Change
Analysis of alternative land use scenarios was conducted in summer of 2003 at the direction of the RTP
Work Group, as an important part of the Draft Plan development. Alternatives Analysis Chapter 4
documents this analysis. Mode split in the defined city centers increased significantly in the “Infill”
scenario.
Barrier-free transportation is a phrase that refers not just to providing facilities as required in the Americans
with Disabilities Act, but also the special mobility and participation needs of others. TRPC’s plans and
processes are reviewed for how they support applicable laws and directives.
Language was modified in Goals and Policies to recognize the cost of these requirements and the Plan’s
intent to support implementation of state and federal regulations.
Issue: Commute Trip Reduction Benefits
Response: No Change
Readers interested in the effect of investments and land use on trip choice – whether for work trips, as
intended by the Commute Trip Reduction law or for all trips – are encouraged to look at Chapter 4,
Alternatives Analysis. Various alternatives were evaluated for their effect on this region’s transportation
system and this Plan. Details specific to this region are summarized for each alternative.
F - 41
Appendix F
Issue: Funding
Response: No Change
This recommended work program priority will allow the region’s policy makers to explore issues regarding
funding of capacity projects.
Issue: Congestion Analysis
Response: Language was modified to clarify that TRPC and local agencies will analyze these areas to
determine why they show congestion and identify appropriate solutions. The Plan does not assume that all
assessment areas will necessarily point to a congestion problem. It is possible that model refinements may
be needed to more accurately reflect future congestion.
Issue: Project Costs
Response: No Change
The RTP provides planning level estimates except where more detailed local estimates are available.
Where possible, costs for regionally significant projects were taken directly from adopted 2003-2008 local
plans, since those costs reflect the most current local, detailed estimates. Costs for projects that were
included in the 2020 RTP and estimated for that effort were adjusted to 2000 – the Plan’s base year –
costs. A methodology was developed by the TAC for projects that were “new” to the 2025 RTP,
reflecting a somewhat more streamlined and generalized approach than that used in the 2020 RTP. A
standard generic cost was used for assessment areas, with the understanding that some would be more
expensive and some would be less when they actually occur. The TAC’s work during Plan development
validated that the different estimation processes used by local agencies were roughly comparable.
Issue: Project List – College Street corridor from I-5 to 37th Ave SE
Response: No Change
This is still designated not as a project, but as a “strategy corridor,” consistent with its designation in the
2020 RTP. Strategy corridors indicate areas where local agencies will look at a range of mobility and
access solutions to address congestion issues, not simply road widening. Each corridor will necessitate its
own strategy to address its unique conditions. When specific measures or projects are identified, they will
be included as appropriate in subsequent plan updates, or addressed directly through locally significant
projects identified through the local planning process.
Issue: Project List – Project S8, Marvin Road Extension
Response: No Change
TRPC staff recommended, and the TAC concurred, that until a specific feasibility study has been
completed, no construction costs will be identified for any of these new connections. This approach was
applied to all new connections with the exception of the “Yauger Way Extension,” for which a preliminary
feasibility study was done as part of the Value Engineering Study for the Crosby Boulevard/Cooper Point
Road/US 101 interchange. The intent is to not presume that a corridor will be built until after a local
agency has determined that it is actually feasible, recognizing that several corridors have been identified for
many years, even though they face significant barriers. When the local agency completes a feasibility study
and moves a project from a tentative concept to something more definite, it could move to the
construction project category in future RTPs.
F - 42
Appendix F
Issue: Project List – 26th Avenue NE connection from Sleater-Kinney Road to Marvin Road
Response: No Change
The TAC recommended that this project be combined with the 31st Avenue Connection feasibility study
(Project S7). This will result in a coordinated corridor strategy for improving east-west mobility between
Sleater-Kinney Road and Marvin Road.
Issue: Project List – Transit Funding
Response: No Change
Although a limited amount of potential transportation revenue in this region is available for any type of
project, for purposes of this long-range forecast most transit revenues are assumed to be generated from
transit-specific sources.
Issue: Project List - Project B1 and 14th Ave/Elizabeth Road Bridge
Response: No Change
The “Bridging the Gap” project is specific to the physical gap between the north and south segments of the
Chehalis-Western Trail, not to retrofitting existing facilities. Retrofit of this bridge was not suggested
during development of the project list.
Issue: Project List – Project L8, Mullen Road/Log Cabin Extension
Response: No Change
Project L8 is not the Log Cabin/Mullen Road Extension, which is included as a construction project. L8
refers to the resulting levels of congestion that appear to be generated when that connection is completed.
Demand for that facility, when completed, appears to exceed the capacity intended in its preliminary
design. The TAC generally agreed that the RTP should not recommend a widening of the future Log Cabin/
Mullen Road Extension at this time. Instead, by identifying this as an assessment area, the Plan
acknowledged that a closer look at southeast urban area mobility issues is needed to better understand
what these levels of congestion indicate and how to best address them.
Issue: Project List – Project F2
Response: No Change
Federal direction requires that the RTP address Intelligent Transportation System needs, represented here
as “Transportation Technology Projects and Studies.” Project F2, like most transportation projects, serves
multiple functions.
Issue: Project List – Relationship Between Project F8 and F2
Response: No Change
Project F2 addresses bus transit services provided by Intercity Transit and some special needs transit
providers. Project F8 addresses public agency fleet management – municipal vehicles – such as pool cars
and maintenance equipment.
Issue: Project List – Relationship Between Project O8 and B1
Response: This is a joint local/state effort as equal partners. As such, it is identified on both lists.
Questions raised elsewhere in the public process about state partnership projects have resulted in the
inclusion of three other projects on “duplicate” lists, including the Lacey project for a feasibility study of a
potential Carpenter Road / I-5 interchange. The Final Plan reflects this change.
F - 43
Appendix F
Issue: Mode Split
Response: No Change
This plan is balanced and pragmatic in its approach to mode split and travel choice. Predicted mode splits
do not reflect the optimistic “60/40” splits suggested in earlier plans. The policy maker initiative to look
closer at this perceived “vision reality disconnect” and its implications is already underway.
Issue: Long Distance Commuting
Response: No Change
This policy reflects the large number of commuters who leave Thurston County every day to go to work,
and an increasing number who commute into the region. This policy is consistent with current direction and
practice, as evidenced by the Pierce, Grays Harbor, and Mason Transit buses that provide connections to
Thurston County every day; I.T. connections to the north; and support for a “regional pass program” that
promotes seamless transit transfers.
Issue: Public Involvement
Response: No Change
Regional policy makers recognize state and federal requirements for supplying alternative formats and
languages when requested and the value of accessible processes, which ensure that language and format are
not a barrier to participation.
Issue: Alternative Fuels
Response: No Change
A 25-year transportation plan necessarily reflects a high level budget overview, so does not speculate on
the detail of relative costs of different fuels. The Plan assumes that fuel will continue to be roughly the
same percentage of transit’s operating cost over the life of the plan as it is today. If that assumption
changes significantly, it will be modified in future RTP amendments and updates.
Issue: Technical Changes
Response: Many of the technical suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan.
F - 44
Appendix F
Commenter: C. Jonathan Neel
Format: Letter
C Jonathan Neel
Comments on Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Carpenter Road Improvements – Martin Way to Pacific – A High Priority
March 24, 2004
Dear Thurston County Regional Planning Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. I own a 3.5
acre property located at 612 Carpenter Road, SE. I strongly recommend that you make the planned
Carpenter Road improvements from Martin Way to Pacific a top priority.
There are many reasons why this road segment needs to be widened and realigned both horizontally and
vertically as soon as possible. These reasons include:
Public Safety – During rush hour commuter traffic is nearly bumper-to-bumper in this road segment. The
hill crest South of Motors and Controls is a particularly serious hazard. The sight lines are very bad,
especially with the apartment complex access across the road from my property. I have personally seen
several near and 3 actual accidents at that location. In one case there were serious injuries caused by an
accident at the apartment house. I was the first person on-scene and helped divert traffic and assist Medic
I personnel stabilize injured people.
Thurston County Regional Planning Council
2404 Heritage Court SW #B
Olympia, WA 98502-6301
Divert Commercial Traffic from Critical Arterials – Improving Carpenter Road would take considerable
commercial truck traffic strain off of the 3 existing North-South arterials – Marvin, Rd, College St, and
Sleater-Kinney.
North County Economic Development – This roadway improvement is also important because it will help
facilitate growth within the planned growth area from Hawks Prairie through the entire Britton Parkway
commercial corridor.
Transportation Management – This project is a keystone to the eventual construction of freeway ramps at
the Carpenter Road/I-5 Bridge. It is also important that this arterial improvement be completed soon
because it will help take the traffic load off of Martin Way by allowing Britton Parkway to accommodate
the traffic for which it was designed.
Environmental Protection – I recognize that expediting the planned Carpenter Road improvements from
Martin Way to Pacific Avenue will cost quite a lot of money and will require some finessing and
accommodation of the important environmental values that will be impacted by widening the causeway
across the small lake (Lake Lois?).
F - 45
Appendix F
However, this environmental impact should not be a huge problem. There is enough public property to use
material “cut” soil from the lake shore to compensate for any habitat loss. The cut material could be used
as either fill for the expanded Carpenter Road bed or possibly disposed of on my property just a short
distance up the hill. Also if there was an excess material balance from the vertical road realignment it could
also disposed of on my property just a couple of hundred feet away – if that would help facilitate the
project.
In summary, I believe that public safety concerns and economic needs demand that the proposed
Carpenter Road improvements from Martin Way to Pacific Avenue be made a Top Priority in the regional
plan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please call me if I can answer any questions or if I can
help expedite the project.
Sincerely,
Issue: Carpenter Road
Response: No Change
The Plan recognizes Carpenter Road as an important regional corridor, which is included in the project list.
Detailed planning and project prioritization will occur at the local level.
Commenter: Lucia Perillo
Format: Email
Dear TRPC people:
I have reviewed the regional transportation plan electronically and have a few comments. I am the
theoretical representative of the “disabled community” on the city’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory
committee, but I’m writing now as just a citizen (the committee’s comments will be formalized and passed
on to the city council.)
I typed “bicycle,” “pedestrian,” and “disabled” into the web version of the plan, and got relatively few
hits—the bicycle component of the plan pretty much sent me to Climate Solutions. Since trip reduction and
mass transit services would seem to be critical to the development of the region, the non-automotive
component of the plan seems insubstantial.
In connection with this, I was also interested in whether there was a development limit on what are called
the old “farm to market” roads—can these collectors keep expanding indefinitely? (I couldn’t find this
answer.)
I was impressed by the inclusion of the plan—I found information on West Bay, for example (I’m interested
on the development of the shoreline because I live near it.) Some of this info was well out of date,
however.
F - 46
The issue of isolation of disabled rural residents is an important one that was mentioned once—there are no
transit options past the limited service area for Dial-a-Lift, and it’s pretty much impossible now to get to
Seattle (where specialized medical care is available that disabled people tend to need.) I didn’t find much on
the linkage of Olympia to points north for those of us who don’t drive.
Appendix F
Or, for that matter, for people who do. My husband, for example, commutes to Seattle. Because he
works odd hours, there are no viable alternatives for him but to drive solo in a car (this seems a real lack to
me, since I grew up in the suburbs of New York where train service to the city is available almost round the
clock.) I know there are pragmatic reasons why the rail lines around here are not upgradeable, but the
regional plan ought to prevent a vision, paper and ink being inexpensive commodities.
What would have also helped me as I searched the plan electronically is more live links—that I could have
clicked on an acronym, for example, and obtained its meaning. This is a simple web site design comment
that could be easily fixed (I assume) by a good tech person (more hypertext.) That person would also
(presumably) keep the site better updated.
Issue: Multimodal System
Response: No Change
The Plan includes language in Goals and Policies Chapter 3, which specifically promote “non-automotive”
initiatives. Policies and measures support a multimodal system, barrier-free transportation, travel demand
management as well as a commitment to public transportation, biking and walking.
Issue: Rural Concerns
Response: No Change
One of the Recommendations calls for an evaluation of rural roads, recognizing that perhaps the 5-lane
maximum regional standard may not fit the character of these rural areas.
Issue: Persons with Special Needs
Response: No Change
The Barrier-Free Transportation Policy language speaks to this issue, calling for increased coordination
activities and other innovative transportation choices for persons with special needs, especially in the rural
areas. The region is currently working with public and private entities on transportation options for rural
residents.
With much appreciation for all the hard work that went into preparing this document, Lucia Perillo
Issue: Rail
Response: No Change
The plan has an appropriate balance of rail recommendations and policies relative to all other modes and
issues. Recommendations call for work over the next several years to better define the region’s role vision
for the 2030 plan.
Issue: On-line Access to Plan
Response: No Change
TRPC will explore ways of improving on-line access to documents.
F - 47
Appendix F
Commenter: Caroline
Format: Email
I just returned from a visit to London and Paris.
We are at least 30 years behind in transportation choices. Also, citizens in these dense cities are resorting
to two wheeled vehicles and extremely small and compact cars that get good mileage. What are we doing
in the good ole US? Getting fat and lazy...how can we possible even consider two wheels or a small
car...and buying Humvees with cool colors.
Our transportation issues are almost hopeless until the ‘average’ citizen...GETS the message & wakes up to
the fact that we are heading down a self destruct road with our greed and our egomania.
Construct needs to begin TODAY.
Gas prices need to go OUT OF SITE.
People need to WANT to change.
Issue: Comparison to European Transportation Systems
Response: No Change
These issues are referenced in the RTP in many ways:
Public Transportation & Land Use – In addition to various cites in the Goals and Policies Chapter, the Land
Use recommendations call for examining the connections between transportation and land use including
achieving the density needed to support public transportation strategies such as transit and rail.
Environmental and Human Health – In the Goals and Policies Chapter 3 the Plan recognizes how certain
land uses and a multimodal transportation system support physical activity and human health. This same
section also promotes the use of alternative fuels and technologies.
Public Information – The importance of public outreach and education is another strong recommendation in
the Plan, calling for innovative methods of highlighting the array of transportation choices, and the impacts
of those decisions.
Commenter: Dorothy Gist
Format: Email
Dear TRPC staff:
I have reviewed the five year regional transportation plan and am responding with a quote from today’s
New York Times editorial, titled “The Path to A Healthier America”:
“Expending calories instead of gasoline flattens stomachs and strengthens legs. Having fewer cars on the
road would also lead to cleaner air. The nation would be thinner and healthier and would breathe easier.
Perhaps lawmakers should take a walk and think it all over.”
F - 48
I am distressed that the five year plan suggests widening Littlerock Road, Tumwater Blvd, and Yelm
Highway. This is not a transportation plan; it is a automobile and truck plan. Transportation means creating
a system in which people can safely go where they want and need to go: work, school, play, social. A
Appendix F
good plan would give us options and safe routes to where we need to go: sidewalks, bike lanes, bus routes,
and streets. The proposed plan is very focused on cars and not on people getting places on foot, by bike
or by bus or train. The proposed plan encourages sprawl and low-density development. Where are the
new bike paths? Where is a light rail system connecting to the Sounder? Where is the West Bay trail?
Issue: Multimodal System for Human Health
Response: No Change
The RTP is a long range 20-year plan that includes traditional road projects, but equally emphasizes the
need for a multimodal system. This Plan looks at modeled future congestion in a unique way, with further
exploration of alternatives in many areas, rather than an assumption that the solution is a capacity project.
The Recommendations, and Goals and Policies chapters call for a continued focus on bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, as well as safety and environmental and human health. Recommendations include exploration of
rail and specifically call for a Trails Plan to address important multimodal connections.
Commenter: Victoria Blazejewski
Format: Email
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am curious as to your position on the proposed NASCAR Track in Yelm and how it will affect the overall
planning of transportation.
I hope you’ll add the human element to the regional transportation plan and decrease the emphasis on motor
vehicles.
An 80,000 seat spectator arena is being planned on 14,000 acres in a residential area of the incorporated
City of Yelm.
How will that impact transportation? Are there provisions set aside for the construction of roads to
accommodate this influx? As a resident of unincorporated Yelm, I understood our traffic situation to be
fairly bad and that no money was available for road improvements. So how can a track be proposed
within the City Limits?
Your insight would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Issue: Sports Facility in Yelm
Response: No Change
While the Plan does not specifically comment on this proposed project, it does recognize the importance of
integrating land use and transportation planning efforts in Recommendations Chapter 2. Future updates of
this plan will address the Yelm development if it actually occurs.
The Plan also includes projects that support mobility options in the Yelm area.
·
New Connections or Alignments: 510/507 Loop (Y2 and Y3)
·
Corridor Studies and Sub-Area Plans: Marvin Road Extension – Connection Study.
·
Assessment Areas: Rural Corridor Strategy.
F - 49
Appendix F
Commenter: Enrico Baroga
Format: Letter
Comments on the Draft Regional Transportation Plan.
Submitted by: Enrico Baroga
Page 3-1: The basic operation of the transportation system is not included as a policy element under
system management; it should be. Items such as running traffic signals, sweeping, and snow and ice control
are critical for the operation of the transportation system. Some of these operational activities are very
important to bicyclists and pedestrians as well as motorized transportation.
Page 3-2: Under System Components, a list of transportation modes is listed. However, the first item
(streets, roads, and bridges) is not a mode in the same way that all other listings are. To be consistent, it
should be something like “private-use motor vehicles”. The language describing this mode would need only
slight revisions to reflect the corrected heading.
Page 3-3: Under Environmental and Human Health, the sole focus is on minimizing adverse impacts. Some
mention should be made how the modes of bicycling and walking actually add value to human health.
Page 3-13: In addition to exploring innovative signing options, innovative pavement marking and improved
visibility of traffic signals should be included.
Page 3-15: Policy language should be included that states that maintenance and preservation of the existing
infrastructure is the top priority and adequate funding of these activities shall take precedence over
capacity or mobility improvement projects.
Page 3-26: Policy 11c. Language describes some key dedicated corridors to form the backbone of the
non-motorized system. If one views the “backbone” as the main part of a transportation infrastructure,
then our backbone should be roads that accommodate motorized and non-motorized transportation. Siting
and constructing new non-motorized trails is too costly and challenging to ever have enough to support
bringing bicycling and walking up to a level of utilization similar to motorized transport. Separate trails are
great, but they are mostly for recreational use.
Page 3-26: Under Challenges for Biking. There is a negative tone for bicyclists (cyclists who don’t obey the
law exacerbate negative opinion) and a decidedly different tone for motorists (don’t see bicyclists and
inadvertently crowd them). These should be balanced. Some bicyclists intentionally and knowingly don’t
obey the law which causes problems. Other bicyclists just don’t think about driving laws or their
surroundings which also leads to problems. Similarly, while there are a lot of drivers who inadvertently
crowd or cut-off bicyclists, there arc plenty who intentionally disregard the rights and safety of bicyclists
out of a non-willingness to share the road.
Page 3-27: Under Measures. Seems like something is missing regarding something that can be done for due
consideration of bicycle travel as roads are designed, constructed, and preserved (overlayed).
Page 3-28: Under challenges: Similar to my comment on bicycle challenges. There are some walkers who
cause their own problems (both inadvertently and on purpose) and motorists that do the same thing. This
should be added as a challenge:
F - 50
Appendix F
Page 3-29: Under Measures. I fully support the last bullet regarding public funding of sidewalks. The more I
think about this, the more I think that maintenance of sidewalks should be a public responsibility instead of
the individual landowner’s responsibility. As we try and increase walking as a mainstream transportation
mode, we should be providing the upkeep of the basic pedestrian infrastructure through public financing
instead of relying on landowners for this.
Issue: Operation of the System
Response: No Change
Basic operation of the system is implied in many Goal and Policy statements. Goals 4 (System Safety and
Security) and 5 (System Maintenance and Repair) set forth the Region’s policy of safety and preservation
as the highest priorities. One example specific to the comment is “ensure sweeping and maintenance
activities are adequately scheduled and address the entire curb-to-curb or shoulder-to-shoulder need,
including bike lanes and multiuse shoulders.”
Issue: System Components
Response: No Change
While “Streets, Roads, and Bridges” is not a mode, per se, it addresses the network that supports many
modes. Policies such as 9.a which emphasizes a multimodal street and road network and 9.g which calls
for interconnected streets to increase individual travel options illustrates the region’s commitment to a
transportation network that supports all modes.
Page 3-29: Under Measures. A bullet should be added to evaluate some type of modest property tax
incentive for the homeowner who makes the choice to purchase a home in close proximity to their
workplace and walks to work on a regular basis. The same would apply to other non-motorized transport
such as bicycling.
Issue: Human Health
Response: No Change
Policy 18.f recognizes this connection: “Use compact urban development and the non-motorized forms of
transportation it supports as a means of encouraging overall physical activity and community health.” In
the Biking Goals and Policies Chapter 3, the “clean” natures of biking is recognized under “Why Biking is
Important,” as well as a similar notation on walking. Chapter 6 Environmental Considerations includes an
entire section on personal health as relates to transportation choices.
Issue: Signage
Response: Language was modified in the Plan to broaden the discussion of signage.
Issue: Maintenance and Preservation Priority
Response: No Change
Policy 5.a clearly states the high priority of “maintenance, preservation, operations and repair of the
existing transportation system.”
Issue: Multimodal “Backbone”
Response: No Change
The Plan calls for a mix of non-motorized facilities, including separate trails as well as accommodation on
streets, roads and bridges. The Plan consistently calls for a multimodal network in design, construction and
preservation. One example: Goal and Policy 9.a Streets, Roads and Bridges: “Support design and
construction of multimodal streets and roads.”
F - 51
Appendix F
Issue: Driver and Bicyclist Behavior
Response: While the actions of both drivers and bicyclists are addressed in Chapter 3, modifications
were made to this section to include reference to these behaviors.
Issue: Finance
Recommendations on Funding Measures call for an exploration of equitable, sustainable transportation
finance.
Commenter: Karen Brown
First, I admit I have only read the Goals & Policies of this Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. I
appreciate that it includes Public Transportation, biking & walking & rail. These alternative modes of
transportation are so important. In order to get people out of their cars, particularly the SOV, we must
provide good facilities for alternative modes and efficiency for public transportation.
The plan focuses too much on accommodating cars. Instead of “designing safe & efficient facilities that can
carry growling numbers of vehicles through neighborhood corridors,” we should be working to significantly
reduce the number of SOV trips made by all of us so that the number of vehicles using the roads in not a
growing number.
In the Biking Section (11. 3-26) I would like to see more positive comments about biking. Yes, I am one of
the “die-hards out there who’ll ride their bikes in any kind of weather,” and I think a goal of this community
should be to get the average Jane or Joe to ride, if not in any kind of weather, then somewhat periodically.
In the Walking Section (12. 3-28) signal timing could be addressed. As a pedestrian, it would be wonderful
to walk up to a crosswalk, push the button, & have the walk signal come on soon, rather than having to
wait for the signal to go through its cycle.
Also, I’d like to see more inpavement lighting at crosswalks to signal drivers there is a pedestrian in the
crosswalk (at unsignalized crosswalks). These measures send a message to the pedestrian that he/she
matters and h/she is encouraged to walk more.
In the Environmental & Human Health Section (18 3-40) – I don’t think we can plan for more cars and
think we are going to maintain a healthy environment & human health. As a society, we don’t factor in the
true cost of a project. The environmental damage in the future is not factored in today – the present.
Then, when the future comes & is here, we now can’t afford to repair the damage. Presently we say we
can’t “afford” to pay for salmon recovery. If today’s costs to the salmon had been factored in – way back
when – then maybe those projects could not have been “afforded” to be built. But our salmon would be
much better off today.
Thank you for all the efforts & thoughts that went into the plan and thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
F - 52
Appendix F
Issue: Reducing SOV Trips
Response: No Change
The Plan balances all modes and supports design and construction of multimodal streets and roads (Policy
9.a) as well as support for Travel Demand Management goals. The streets and roads carry transit vehicles,
school buses, service vehicles, and bikes, and single occupancy vehicles.
Issue: Pedestrian Amenities
Response: No Change
The Plan calls for a “direct, safe, interconnected pedestrian network” which could include elements such as
signal timing and inpavement lighting, but does not dictate a one-size-fits-all approach for all facilities. Many
of these design decisions are best made at the local level.
Response: No Change
F - 53
Appendix F
Commenter: David Leighow, Urban Planning and Right of Way Program
Manager, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Date: April 6, 2004 (oral comments submitted prior to March 25, 2004)
Format: Letter (received via Email)
F - 54
Appendix F
Issue: Fiscal Constraint.
Response: The Recommendations and Finance chapters were reviewed and modified to satisfy Federal
Highway Administration concerns.
Issue: Environmental Justice.
Response: Modifications were made to the Executive Summary and Public Involvement Appendix F to
emphasize the region’s strong commitment to Environmental Justice and public involvement, with a link to
the agency’s Public Participation Plan.
F - 55
Appendix G
Fact Sheet
Description
The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is an update of the
2020 plan, as required by state and federal law. The RTP serves as a
strategic blueprint for the region’s transportation system, providing a
20 year forecast of regional transportation needs. The plan focuses
on those “regionally significant” facilities that change the way traffic
flows throughout the region. Alternatives considered in the RTP
include 1) a recommended set of studies and projects that balance
mobility, cost, environmental impact and choice, 2) the “2025 no
new capacity revenue” (no action) alternative where only currently
funded projects would be completed, and 3) the “2025 unlimited
capacity revenue” alternative where road capacity was modified to
try to meet the existing Level of Service (LOS) standards for regional
facilities.
Proponent and Lead Agency
2404 Heritage Court SW, #B
Olympia, WA 98502
(360) 786-5480
Responsible Official
Lon Wyrick, Executive Director
Contact
Jailyn Brown, Associate Planner
Contributors
Jailyn Brown – writer
Shanna Stevenson - writer and reviewer
Steven Morrison - reviewer
Karen Parkhurst - reviewer
Janet Rhoades - researcher
Bhanu Yerra - transportation modeler
DSEIS Issued
January 26, 2004
Comment Period Ended
March 25, 2004, 5 p.m.
Final 2025 Regional Transportation Plan: Guiding Our Future
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)
G-1
Appendix G
G-2
Location of Document
and Supporting
Technical Reports
The FSEIS is included as Appendix G in the 2025 RTP, and is
available separately or with the complete text of the RTP in several
formats:
° Online at www.trpc.org
° On Compact Disc
° Printed as the FSEIS alone or with the RTP full text.
To obtain a CD or printed copy of the FSEIS, contact TRPC at (360)
786-5480.
How Comments
were Received
Comments on the DSEIS were submitted in writing:
° Electronically
° By fax
° By post
Public Meeting
Dates and Locations
Three public meetings and a public hearing were scheduled to
facilitate public comment on the RTP and the DSEIS.
°
°
Public Hearing
March 15, 2004, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m.
Public Meetings
March 4, 2004, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
March 8, 2004, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
March 11, 2004, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.
Expected Final Action
April 23, 2004 (subject to change) – Issue a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the 2025 RTP. Additional
environmental review will be completed for individual projects
included in the 2025 RTP as required by state and federal law.
Expected Plan Adoption
May 7, 2004 (subject to change) – The Thurston Regional Planning
Council is expected to adopt the 2025 RTP at their regularly
scheduled meeting in May 2004.
Appendix G
Table of Contents
Fact Sheet ......................................................................................................................................................... G-1
1. Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... G-5
2. 2025 RTP Update .....................................................................................................................................G-13
Background ..........................................................................................................................................G-13
Planning Requirements .........................................................................................................................G-13
Transportation and Land Use ..............................................................................................................G-14
Plan Development and Evaluation ......................................................................................................G-15
3. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................G-16
•
•
•
•
2025 No New Capacity Revenue (No Action) .................................................................................G-17
2025 Unlimited Capacity Revenue .....................................................................................................G-17
2025 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................G-18
Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward ...........................................................................G-19
4. Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation ...................................................................G-20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Air .........................................................................................................................................................G-21
Energy ...................................................................................................................................................G-25
•
•
•
•
Water ...................................................................................................................................................G-27
Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................................................................................G-31
Noise .....................................................................................................................................................G-33
Land Use ..............................................................................................................................................G-35
Transportation ......................................................................................................................................G-37
Historic and Cultural Preservation ......................................................................................................G-40
5. Public Comment and Response ................................................................................................................G-44
Projects ..........................................................................................................................................................G-62
References ......................................................................................................................................................G-65
Distribution List ..............................................................................................................................................G-67
List of Tables
Table G-1:
Population and Employment Statistics for Thurston County ................................................. G-5
Table G-2:
Comparison of Regional Transportation Plans ........................................................................ G-7
G-3
Appendix G
Table G-3:
Summary of 2025 RTP Alternatives ....................................................................................... G-8
Table G-4:
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................................................G-10
Table G-5:
Maintenance Area PM10 Emissions ...................................................................................... G-23
Table G-6:
Maintenance Area and Regional VMT in 2025 ..................................................................... G-26
Table G-7:
2025 New Paved Roadway Surface Estimate ..................................................................... G-29
Table G-8:
Project Distribution by Watershed for 2025 ........................................................................ G-30
Table G-9:
Increases in Thurston County Population, Lane Miles and VMT, 2000 to 2025 ............... G-38
Table G-10: List of Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................... G-62
Table G-11: Identified Cultural Resources in Thurston County, April 2004 ............................................ G-41
G-4
List of Figures
Figure G-1: 2025 New Paved Roadway Surface ...................................................................................... G-29
List of Maps
Map G-1:
PM10 Maintenance Area ....................................................................................................... G-24
Map G-2:
No Build Alternative – Projects by Watershed ................................................................... G-70
Map G-3:
Recommended Alternative – Projects by Watershed ......................................................... G-71
Map G-4:
Full Build Alternative – Projects by Watershed .................................................................. G-72
Appendix G
1. Summary
The 2025 RTP is based on the regionally adopted 2025 population
and employment forecast. This is sometimes referred to as the land
use forecast because it estimates and distributes population and
employment across Thurston County based on current land use
requirements. General population and employment characteristics
are presented in Table G-1. As this table shows, the county’s
population is expected grow by more than 50% by 2025.
Table G-1
Population and Employment Statistics
for Thurston County
Factor
Population
Housing Units
Employment
Government
Industry
Service
Current
214,800
86,652
112,000
33,250
16,375
61,900
A glossary of terms is
included in Appendix A of
the RTP to assist readers
with technical terms and
abbreviations. Typically,
these terms and
abbreviations are also
defined the first time they
are used in the FSEIS.
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is
being prepared for the 2025 Thurston Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The 2025 RTP is an update of the 2010 and 2020 Plans
prepared in 1993 and 1998, respectively. The RTP must be updated
every 3-5 years. It is developed within a set of guidelines and
requirements provided by federal and state government. The RTP is
required to be integrated with other planning processes, such as local
comprehensive plans, and local and state transportation improvement
plans (TIPs). The RTP models future transportation conditions,
addressing challenges in the transportation system that influence
regional traffic flows.
Projected 2025
334,000
146,200
161,000
42,100
21,800
96,900
Note: Current population and housing units figures are for
2003. Current employment figures are for 2000. Detail may not
add due to rounding.
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Profile1 and
Population and Employment Forecast 2.
G-5
Appendix G
Where people live and work in 2025 will have a considerable impact
on how the transportation system functions in the future. By looking
out 20 years, the region begins to identify future issues and potential
projects or other solutions to address them. This type of long range
planning allows jurisdictions to consider the needs of the community,
develop a range of solutions to address those needs, and weigh the
consequences of those options, including the environmental impacts
and options for mitigation.
The 2025 RTP is the third in a recent series of regional long range
transportation plans. The plans were motivated by new state and
federal legislation. In the early 90s, the state adopted the Growth
Management Act (GMA) and the federal government implemented
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA). These pieces of legislation recognized the strong
relationship between land use and transportation, and the value of a
transportation system that integrates several modes and services to
meet travel needs. The Thurston region adopted, in 1993,
“Transportation Futures 2010 – Making Connections,”3 updated in
1998 with “TransAction 2020.”4 These plans, together with the
2025 RTP, represent the evolution in regional transportation
understanding, based on insight about the close relationship between
how land is used and where transportation facilities and services are
located. Table G-2 summarizes some key tenets and evolution in
thinking in these plans.
The 2025 RTP considered three alternatives for the regional
transportation future. These included:
G-6
•
2025 No New Capacity Revenue (No Build Alternative, the
no action alternative) depicts the transportation network’s
condition if only those projects that are currently funding
secured are built between 2000 and 2025.
•
2025 Unlimited Capacity Revenue (Full Build Alternative)
depicts conditions if regional transportation issues are
liberally addressed with road widening to meet current level
of service (LOS) standards.
•
2025 Recommendation (Recommended Alternative, the
preferred alternative) balances the attempt to meet LOS
through additional capacity with available revenue,
environmental considerations, and other concerns.
Appendix G
Factor
Planning Horizon
1993 RTP
1998 RTP
2004 RTP
2010
2020
2025
Key Themes
Ɣ Calls for high-density,
mixed use urban forms.
Ɣ Emphasizes connecting
regional infrastructure.
Ɣ Assumes an ambitious
reduction of drive-alone
rate.
Ɣ Acknowledges that
rectifying old land use
patterns will take more
time than originally
anticipated.
Ɣ Recognizes the region
can’t build its way out of
congestion and limits
road width to community
appropriate scale.
Ɣ Requires financial
constraint.
Ɣ Poses key areas of
research for future
transportation decision
making.
Ɣ Identifies regionally
significant rural corridor
issues.
Ɣ Explores land use
patterns and alternative
performance measures.
Land Use
Assumptions
High density core area
and corridor concept.
Based on new
Comprehensive Plans
and zoning adopted
pursuant to GMA.
Consistent with
Comprehensive Plans
and zoning. Begins
investigating impacts of
alternative land use on
the transportation
system.
Funding Plan
Included
Yes, general.
Yes, more specific,
calling for new funding
sources to meet project
need.
Yes, specific and
constrained by projected
available future funding.
Phasing Plan
Included
No.
Yes, short- and longterm.
Yes, financial analysis is
phased and a series of
issues are outlined for
analysis between plan
updates.
Prioritizes Existing
System Upkeep
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Table G-2
Comparison of Regional Transportation Plans
G-7
Appendix G
Table G-3 compares the alternatives in summary form, using the
status of the transportation system in 2000, before the February
2001 earthquake, as a baseline for the transportation model in
projecting 2025 conditions. More discussion of the alternatives is
provided in sections 3 and 4 of the FSEIS.
Table G-3
Summary of 2025 RTP Alternatives
Component
Base Year 2000
No Build
Road Capacity
& Alignment
Projects
Existing
5
Recommended
46
Full Build
55
Lane Miles
(% increase)
2,477
N/A
2,521
2%
2,618
6%
2,755
11%
Daily VMT
(% increase)
7,200,690
N/A
13,527,030
88%
13,611,440
89%
13,686,150
90%
Transit
Existing level of service.
Similar to base year.
Additional service within
existing boundary.
Similar to base year.
Note: Lane miles are calculated for regionally significant facilities included in the regional transportation model. VMT
is vehicle miles traveled, an estimate of Thurston residents’ total motorized travel. The increased transit service in the
2025 recommended alternative is based on Intercity Transit's 2003-2009 Transit Development Plan.
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Transportation Model and Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan.
Each of the alternatives from the 2025 RTP was evaluated against
eight elements of the natural and built environment – air, energy,
water, wildlife habitat, noise, land use, transportation and historic
and cultural preservation – consistent with the environmental review
performed for previous plans. Table G-4 summarizes the findings of
the FSEIS. As indicated in the table, mitigation measures for each
alternative are similar.
G-8
This is a long range strategic plan that addresses general, collective
outcomes of changes to the regional transportation network. Vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) underlies many of the environmental indicators
of the network. The RTP shows that VMT will approximately
double by 2025, however, the difference in VMT between
alternatives is relatively small. Environmental impacts may be more
dispersed among the alternatives, depending on the affected media
and number of projects. This is discussed in Section 4 impact
assessments. At the regional level, mitigation measures for each
alternative are similar.
Appendix G
Specific project impacts will still need to be identified and mitigated
in each project specific environmental review. The jurisdiction
proposing each project will complete a project specific
environmental review compliant with applicable state and federal
requirements. Such a review will consider the individual and unique
environmental issues presented by each proposal, seeking public
input on the project and it’s environmental assessment.
G-9
Appendix G
Table G-4
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
AIR
The urban portion of Thurston
County is a federally
designated PM10
maintenance area. All three
alternatives fall well below the
PM10 maintenance area
budget.
No Build
The lowest PM10
concentration.
Recommended
The highest PM10
concentration, still falling
well below the
maintenance area limit.
Full Build
A slightly lower PM10
concentration than the
recommended
alternative.
ENERGY
Regional vehicle miles
traveled are expected to
nearly double by 2025,
implying increased energy
consumption. The 2025
supply of oil and alternative
fuels, as well as changes in
transportation technology are
difficult to forecast.
Individualized transportation –
like the car – is expected to
continue to play a primary role
in 2025.
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Based on VMT, all alternatives have similar energy impacts. Future factors like
engine performance, the types of fuels used, and oil supply cannot be sufficiently
projected to identify distinguishing characteristics among the alternatives.
WATER
Impervious surface increases
under each alternative,
impacting primarily the Budd
Inlet/Deschutes River and
Henderson Inlet watersheds
draining to Puget Sound.
No Build
Adds 44 lane miles and
49 acres of impervious
surface.
Mitigation Measures: Meet PM10 constraint, support TDM measures, encourage
multimodal friendly development, promote technology improvements and alternative
fuels, monitor PM10 and CO.
Mitigation Measures: Develop alternative fuels, offer multimodal alternatives,
continue TDM measures, encourage transportation efficient mixed-use development,
move freight by fuel efficient modes, improve congestion to reduce idling.
Recommended
surface.
Full Build
surface.
Mitigation Measures: Limit impervious surface, minimize crossings through
sensitive areas, comply with local, state and federal laws for protecting water quality
and managing stormwater.
Note: PM10 is particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. TDM is transportation demand management, using techniques such
as ride sharing, flexible hours and telework to reduce peak period commuter travel.
This table is continued on the following page.
G - 10
Appendix G
Table G-4 , continued
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Wetlands and sensitive
habitats may be impacted by
some projects.
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
The exact location and nature of the projects will determine wetland and sensitive
habitat impacts.
NOISE
Traffic noise increases
commensurate with VMT. It
will be experienced more
widely than today in all three
alternatives with increased
rural traffic and dispersed but
increasingly dense
population.
LAND USE
Urban areas are not
developing as densely as
intended, while rural areas are
developing faster than
envisioned. Changing this
direction will take more than
marginal shifts in future land
use, raising the question of
appropriate rural level of
service.
No Build
Noise will increase along
most existing roads with
increased VMT.
Recommended
New roads will bring
traffic noise closer to
some populations and
wildlife.
Full Build
New roads and road
widening along
traditionally rural roads
will increase exposure to
noise in rural areas.
Mitigation Measures: Curb generalized impacts with land use and TDM controls.
Implement project specific improvements, like physical barriers, where volume and
speed warrant.
No Build
Does not address many
of the demands future
land use will put on
transportation.
Recommended
Projects focused to
address urban and rural
mobility challenges for
projected development.
Full Build
Provides additional
capacity for expanding
rural population who are
commuting to the urban
core.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation is highly site specific. Discourage road crossings
through environmentally sensitive areas, minimize impacts to fish bearing streams,
and promote context sensitive design.
Mitigation Measures: Encourage efficient mixed-use development, provide
transportation facilities consistent with adopted land use plans, further integrate land
use and transportation planning, and assess rural level of service standards.
G - 11
Appendix G
Table G-4, continued
TRANSPORTATION
Population and VMT will both
outstrip capacity increases to
the regional transportation
network. Regional VMT will
grow even faster than VMT in
the urban areas, underscoring
rural transportation issues.
No Build
5 projects, increasing
regional lane miles 2%,
result in widespread
failure to meet level of
service and generalized
congestion. These
projects are funding
secured, meeting
financial constraint.
Recommended
46 projects contribute a
6% increase to regional
lane miles. Many of
these projects are in the
urban area, although key
projects are expected to
improve rural mobility and
congestion. This
alternative is financially
constrained.
Full Build
55 projects increasing
regional lane miles 11%.
Much of this capacity is
on facilities serving rural
areas. The cost of this
alternative would exceed
financial constraint
without new revenues.
Mitigation Measures: Build facilities compatible with approved land use that are
multimodal and safe, prioritize system upkeep, promote TDM strategies and use of
advanced transportation technologies, advocate for system efficient alternatives
such as transit, biking and walking, and comprehensively review growth patterns and
costs of providing service.
HISTORIC & CULTURAL
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
PRESERVATION
Historic and cultural
The exact location and nature of the projects will determine impacts to historic and
resources may be impacted
cultural resources.
by some projects, and
information on such resources
is dynamic.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation is highly project specific. Minimize crossings through
sensitive areas. Meet explicit local, state and federal requirements specific to historic
preservation.
G - 12
Appendix G
2. 2025 RTP Update
Background
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared for the 2025 Thurston Regional Transportation Plan
update. The planning area includes the geographic area of Thurston
County, Washington.
Interstate 5 runs through the heart of the region, providing access to
neighboring metropolitan areas north and south, but also dividing
Thurston communities and creating gaps for local travelers by foot,
bike and automobile. The regional transportation system is
comprised of dozens of transit routes, over 2,000 miles of roadway,
hundreds of miles of bike lanes and sidewalks, almost 90 miles of rail,
a marine terminal and a regional airport.1
Since the 1960s, Thurston County has been among the fastest
growing counties in the state. Forecasts predict that the county’s
current 214,800 population will grow to 334,000 by 2025.1 Now,
one in four workers commutes outside the region to work, more than
travel into Thurston County for employment. The proportion of
outbound commuters is expected to grow even more by 2025.
The region experiences 52
clear days each year with
an average annual rainfall
of 51 inches.1
Unique geographical factors in Thurston County guide land use and
transportation policies and strategies. The coastal lowlands, prairies,
flatlands, Cascade foothills, and numerous lakes, rivers and wetlands
draw people to the area, but also direct where development and
transportation facilities can locate.
Planning Requirements
State and federal guidelines stipulate the elements and processes for
creating and maintaining the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In
many instances the requirements overlap, emphasizing the connection
between state and federal regulation and goals.
Requirements specific to federal law compel the RTP to look at least
20 years into the future and project the region’s needs, conditions
and resources. Within that 20-year horizon, the Plan must contain
short- and long-range strategies.
The federal government also requires that the Plan address Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) – technologies that help the region
better communicate with travelers, more efficiently manage the
system and more quickly respond to emergencies.
G - 13
Appendix G
Because of the region’s air quality conformity status (as a PM10
Maintenance Area), federal regulations require a three-year update
cycle for the Plan.
The state calls for integration and compliance among local land use
plans, county-wide planning programs and the state transportation
plan. Like the Thurston region, the state also recognizes the
relationships between land use and transportation, requiring land use
assumptions to be included in transportation modeling.
State regulations focus on standards and measurements, requiring the
RTP to determine regional level of service (LOS) standards, as well
as how system performance will be measured over time. The state
also requires the Plan to be reviewed biennially for currency.
State and federal guidelines both require the RTP:
•
•
Actively engage the public in planning and implementation.
•
Promote efficiency, security, safety and maintenance of the
system.
•
•
Integrate modes of moving people and freight.
•
Encourage the use of technology to support planning and
operations.
•
Carefully appraise the relationship between community
desires and resources, and outline realistic financial and policy
solutions.
Comply with civil rights laws, respect the needs of older
Americans and persons with disabilities, and foster social
equity.
Consider environment and quality of life, and address
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Transportation and Land Use
Transportation planning is closely linked to land use planning – a
chicken and egg relationship. Which comes first – where people live
and work, or where roads and other infrastructure are located for
traveling to home and work? In truth, each has a powerful effect on
the other, and on the way the community looks and functions.
G - 14
The regional transportation planning process, in the form it’s taken
over the last decade, is closely related to land use planning, both by
legislation and common understanding. The RTP is based upon the
regionally adopted land use forecast that predicts how many
residents will call the Thurston region home in 2025, as well as where
they will live and work. The population and employment forecast
Appendix G
information is then used to develop a sophisticated transportation
model, calibrated to real life, which predicts where and how we will
travel during certain periods of the day – morning, midday, and
evening rush hour.
Plan Development and Evaluation
The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the third in a series
of transportation plans. Beginning in 1993 with the “Transportation
Futures 2010,”3 and updated in 1998 with “TransAction 2020,”4 the
2025 RTP extends the timeframe of the transportation and land use
models to 2025, and assesses the changes and progress since the
previous plans.
For over a year, policy makers and staff have crafted the public
draft. The Thurston Regional Planning Council, Transportation Policy
Board, Technical Advisory Committee, and a specially formed RTP
Work Group (with representation from all three groups) guided the
development and content of the plan. The Air Quality Consultation
Group (made up of representatives from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, Washington State Department of Ecology and
Washington State Department of Transportation) also played a key
role in helping the region understand and meet the newly applied air
quality conformity rules.
This information is analyzed in coordination with local transportation
plans to create a list of “regionally significant” projects – those
projects that support major travel routes in the region. Built or
implemented by state, city, county, tribal, transit and port agencies,
these projects are spread across many jurisdictions and can greatly
impact the way traffic moves in a local area. Hence, the RTP
provides a regional look, but actual projects still fall on individual
entities to execute.
With analysis complete, the Plan recommends a set of projects and
studies to meet future transportation challenges. This
recommendation meets financial and air quality conformity
requirements and constraints.
The Draft 2025 RTP was released for public review and comment in
January 2004, concurrent with the DSEIS review. Local
governments, tribes, and community groups were briefed on the
Plan. Public meetings were held to gather additional comment. The
public was also encouraged to comment on the DSEIS and the Plan in
writing, either by email or regular post.
G - 15
Appendix G
When the public comment period closed in March, public comment
was summarized for the FSEIS and the Plan. Policy makers and staff
reviewed and responded to the comments, made appropriate
changes to the Plan, and issued a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (FSEIS). Plan adoption is expected in early May
2004, subject to change.
3.
LOS, or level of service, is
the set of regionally
adopted standards to
evaluate transportation
system performance. The
Thurston region’s LOS
standard is based upon a
generally embraced
measure called V:C ratio,
the ratio of the volume of
traffic on a roadway to its
designed capacity. The
monikers A to E represent
increasingly higher values
of V:C. That is, different
roadways are expected to
have different densities of
traffic appropriate to their
use. If a roadway’s V:C
ratio exceeds its adopted
LOS standard, it is said to
fail.
Base year 2000 includes
2,477 miles of roadway with
a regional daily VMT of
7,200,690. The alternatives
add between 44 and 278
lane miles in 2025. VMT in
2025 is expected to roughly
double in all three
alternatives.
G - 16
Alternatives
The 2025 RTP was developed using the regional road network as it
existed in 2000, before the February 2001 earthquake. This baseline
provided a starting point for evaluating proposed projects.
Three alternatives were considered in development of the 2025 RTP.
The first and third of these represent “bookends” in the range of
possibilities where the recommendation would be developed. The
second – the Plan recommendation – lies between, adding some
system capacity while meeting financial and air quality conformity
constraints.
The alternatives are based on the regionally adopted land use
forecast,2 projecting the distribution of population and employment in
2025 based on currently adopted land use requirements. The
region’s adopted LOS standards were used in each alternative:
•
LOS E or better in core areas and high density urban
corridors.
•
•
LOS D or better elsewhere inside the Urban Growth Areas.
LOS C or better outside the Urban Growth Areas.
The alternatives also retained the regional policy limiting maximum
street width to five lanes for local roads. The five lane standard
includes two through lanes in each direction, plus an auxiliary turn
lane, with additional channelization at intersections as warranted.
The RTP continues the concept of “strategy corridors,” for use
where road widening is not a preferred option in addressing
congestion. This includes corridors that are already at a five lane
width, where adjacent land use physically constrains the available
road right-of-way, or where environmentally sensitive areas would
be impacted. These corridors are allowed to be more congested
than their LOS standards require, suggesting different approaches are
needed to maintain access in these areas.
Appendix G
These alternatives were modeled using EMME/2. This transportation
modeling software allows analysis of factors such as time of day,
mode split and travel time in addition to traditionally modeled p.m.
peak travel conditions.
2025 No New Capacity Revenue (No Build
Alternative – No Action)
Mode split is the proportion
of total trips using various
specified methods (or
modes) of transportation,
such as the percentage of
people carpooling, driving
alone, or riding the bus.
•
•
Represents the no action alternative for the FSEIS.
•
Excludes any project for which local agencies are currently
collecting development fees unless already fully funded.
Excludes projects that have received grants for design or
right-of-way acquisition unless funding was also secured for
construction.
The “No New Capacity Revenue” alternative – or “no build”
alternative – depicts LOS conditions in 2025 if the only capacity
projects completed between now and then were those already fully
funded. The no build alternative:
Has five regional roadway capacity projects – two in Lacey,
one in Olympia, and two in Tumwater. Assumes no
additional revenue for road capacity projects other than
what was already secured.
The RTP projects were developed from a year 2000 base,
consistent with modeling and fiscal baselines. Regional projects that
acquired most of their funding and began construction in or after
2000 are included in the no build alternative. Many of these are
underway or even complete at the time of FSEIS preparation. All the
projects from the no build alternative are included in the full build and
recommended alternatives.
The no build alternative’s
five roadway capacity and
alignment projects add 44
lane miles with a projected
2025 VMT of 13,527,030
daily. See the Projects
section for a list of no build
projects.
2025 Unlimited Capacity Revenue (Full Build
Alternative)
The “Unlimited Capacity Revenue” alternative – or “full build”
alternative – depicts LOS conditions in 2025 if the region tried to
build its way to meeting LOS with road construction. The full build
alternative:
•
Has 55 regional roadway capacity and alignment projects,
spanning Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Yelm, Thurston
County, and WSDOT’s state highways. The five projects in
the no build alternative are part of the full build project list.
•
Includes all the projects identified in the no build alternative
plus unfunded projects to try to rectify outstanding LOS
problems.
G - 17
Appendix G
The full build alternative’s
55 roadway capacity and
alignment projects add
278 lane miles with
projected 2025 VMT of
13,686,150 daily. See the
Projects section for a list of
full build projects.
•
Relies on locally adopted six-year Transportation
Improvement Plans (TIPs), WSDOT’s Highway System Plan,
the 2020 RTP, and the transportation model to identify
projects.
•
Focuses primarily on the urban core of Lacey, Olympia and
Tumwater, with some notable additions expanding capacity
along long stretches of rural roads in Thurston County, such
as widening Old Highway 99, Rainier Road, SR 8, SR 507
and SR 510. This widening is extremely expensive, and raises
many issues and concerns about land use, LOS standards,
modeling intricacies, and financial constraint.
2025 Recommendation (Recommended Alternative
– Preferred Alternative)
The recommended
alternative’s 46 roadway
capacity and alignment
projects add 141 lane miles
with projected 2025 VMT of
13,611,440 daily. See the
Projects section for a list of
recommended projects.
The 2025 recommendation – or recommended alternative – begins
with the base list of funding secured projects. It then adds the
projects in the locally adopted six-year transportation improvement
plans . These projects have undergone local operational analysis
verifying need and are actively supported by their local jurisdiction
which is pursuing funding. The recommended alternative:
•
Has 46 roadway capacity and alignment projects within the
jurisdictions of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Yelm, Thurston
County, Port of Olympia, WSDOT and The Evergreen State
College.
•
Increases transit service within the recently reduced urban
service area, in accordance with Intercity Transit’s adopted
long-range plan.
•
Was tested to investigate how changes in land use might
influence the needs of the transportation network, and what
new performance indicators might be used to evaluate the
transportation network.
•
•
Falls between no and full build alternatives in scope.
•
Converts many of the rural capacity projects proposed in the
full build alternative to studies.
Identifies the rural capacity issue as an important area of
study.
The recommended alternative also presents a set of regionally
significant issues to address, including:
G - 18
•
•
Better integration of transportation and land use planning.
Development of additional multimodal performance
indicators.
Appendix G
•
Establishment of an equitable and sustainable transportation
funding mechanism.
•
•
•
•
Consideration of the future role of rail in the region.
Improvements for freight movement.
Design of a regional trail system.
Additionally, the recommended alternative incorporates a number of
studies and non-road projects, including:
•
•
Corridor and mobility studies.
•
•
•
•
Transit projects and studies.
Assessment study areas where additional road capacity is
constrained.
Regional trail projects and studies.
Transportation technology projects and studies.
State highway system projects and studies.
Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward
In addition to the region’s adopted land use forecast, three land use
options were examined in the recommended alternative. Each option
moved approximately 5,400 dwelling units (about 9% of the housing
that will be built between 2000 and 2025) without defining the
mechanism for accomplishing the shift.
•
City Center Infill moved housing growth from rural Thurston
County outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to within a
½ mile radius of the city centers of Lacey, Olympia,
Tumwater and Yelm.
•
Accelerated Rural Growth moved housing growth from
within the city boundaries of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and
Yelm to rural Thurston County outside the UGA – essentially
the opposite trend proposed in City Center Infill.
•
Urban Growth Area Shift concentrated development within
the UGAs of Lacey, Olympia, Rainier, Tenino, Tumwater and
Yelm, moving it from the outer parts of the cities’ UGAs to
nearer the city limits of each jurisdiction.
Chapter 2 of the RTP
describes the recommendation in more detail. It lists
the regionally significant
issues, projects and studies
included in the recommended
alternative.
Improved interaction with citizens and policy makers in
transportation decision making.
G - 19
Appendix G
The options were evaluated using LOS standards and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). These smaller shifts in land use – only tested on the
recommended alternative – did not substantially change traffic
impacts to the regional network.
Additionally, mode split, time-of-day, and corridor travel time were
investigated as appropriate performance indicators. These new
measures, tested on the recommended alternative, show promise for
use in future LOS standards, but require additional analysis. The tests
produced some clear messages:
•
•
Travel time between most points in the region will increase.
•
•
Average vehicle miles traveled will increase.
Between the rural south County and the city centers, a large
a.m. in-bound commute and corresponding p.m. out-bound
commute will occur.
How land use develops will affect mode split, particularly in
urban areas.
4. Affected Environment, Significant
Impacts, and Mitigation
The FSEIS adds information and analysis to supplement the
information in the previous EIS (1993) and SEIS (1998) for the 2010
and 2020 regional transportation plans, respectively. It addresses
new alternatives and incorporates the regionally adopted 2025
population and employment land use forecast. The FSEIS is
programmatic – examining the overall context of changes to the
regional transportation system. It evaluates the area-wide
environmental impacts of policies, guidelines and regionally significant
transportation facilities discussed in the 2025 RTP. Project specific
environmental analysis will be completed for individual projects
proposed in the 2025 RTP as they are developed.
The FSEIS is developed in compliance with the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).5,6 SEPA defines the general form
and content of the SEIS, and includes a list of natural and built
elements of the environment to consider in assessing adverse
impacts. Consistent with the 2010 and 2020 environmental review,
the 2025 RTP FSEIS addresses:
G - 20
•
•
•
•
Air
Energy
Water
Wildlife Habitat
Appendix G
•
•
•
•
Noise
Land Use
Transportation
Historic and Cultural Preservation
Individual projects will require separate environmental review in
addition to this FSEIS. The jurisdiction sponsoring the project will
need to prepare an environmental document compliant with
applicable state and federal requirements, which solicits public input
on the proposal.
Air
Affected Environment
Motor vehicles release air pollutants in their exhaust and other ways.
Vehicles such as cars, trucks, buses, RV’s, and motorcycles are
called nonpoint or onroad mobile emission sources. They are one of
the many sources of air pollution such as outdoor burning, residential
woodstove combustion, and industrial emissions.
In Washington State, motor
vehicles comprise 55% of
the air pollution sources. 7
The following sections discuss the affected environment and potential
significant adverse impacts resulting from the no build, full build and
recommended alternatives. They also describe measures to mitigate
negative impacts to the natural and built environment.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
vehicle emissions of the most concern are particulate matter (PM),
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Pollutants emitted by
vehicles, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical plants
and other sources can also react chemically in the presence of
sunlight to create ground level ozone (O3).8
Factors that determine the amount of emissions from motor vehicles
include:
•
•
•
Number of trips (cold and hot engine starts).
Vehicle miles traveled and vehicle condition.
Fuel sources and travel characteristics (such as the level of
congestion and driving style).
The degree of environmental damage is influenced by topographical
and climatic conditions (dispersion and dilution), population density
(exposure), and sensitivity of local ecosystems.8, 9
G - 21
Appendix G
Mobile PM10 sources
include vehicle emissions
(primarily diesel engines),
road dust, tire and brake
wear. Nationally, between
1970 and 1997, transportation related PM10
emissions decreased
26%. 8, 9
Areas that experience
persistent air quality
problems are designated by
the EPA as non-attainment
areas. The federal Clean Air
Act requires additional air
pollution controls in these
areas. Each non-attainment
area is declared for a specific
pollutant within a specific
boundary. 11
Modern emissions control equipment significantly reduced the rate at
which vehicles emit tailpipe pollutants. Lead emissions have been
virtually eliminated due to the phase-out of leaded gasoline.
Nationally, onroad vehicle emissions have fallen since the 1970s
despite rapid growth in vehicle travel. However, increasing vehicle
travel continues to threaten air quality in many urban areas.8
In the Thurston region, air quality is generally very good, and has
improved measurably over the past two decades. In the 1980s, the
region’s air quality suffered from high levels of PM10 (particulate
matter less than 10 microns in size). The national standard for PM10
averaged over a 24 hour period is 150 micrograms,10 but in 1985 the
region’s maximum readings hovered in the range of 250 micrograms
according to the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA –
formerly the Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency). While motor
vehicles contributed to those levels, the major source of regional
PM10 emissions at the time was residential woodstove combustion.1
In the late 1980s, the federal government designated the urbanized
part of the Thurston region as a non-attainment area for PM10.
ORCAA launched an aggressive campaign to curb PM10 through the
use of more efficient woodstoves and restrictions on outdoor
burning. As a result, the region experienced a steady decrease in
PM10, falling below the national standard since 1990 and well below
that standard today. In 2000, the PM10 non-attainment area was
re-designated as a maintenance area and allocated a PM10 budget –
a ceiling for acceptable PM10 levels. This budget includes an
individual upper limit for regional PM10 emissions from motor
vehicles in the maintenance area.
The Thurston region is an attainment area for carbon monoxide and
ozone.
Potential Significant Adverse Impacts
High levels of air pollutants can impact peoples’ outdoor activities
and those with heart or lung disease, asthma, or challenged immune
systems. Impacts may be immediate, cumulative and/or long lasting,
and range from discomfort, to disease or disorientation, and
potentially to death. This depends on the type and concentration of
the pollutant, as well as the exposure and condition of the individual.
Air pollutants may also impact wildlife and habitat. Sulfur dioxide,
for example, is a component of acid rain which can damage fish
habitat and populations.8, 12, 13, 14
G - 22
PM10 is the primary air pollutant of concern addressed in this FSEIS
because of the region’s regulatory status. PM10 is a public health
concern because small particles can become trapped deep in the
lungs, causing wheezing and reducing the lung’s ability to absorb
Appendix G
While motor vehicles and other sources release a variety of air
pollutants, air quality in the region remains generally good. Because
of the regulatory status, transportation sources are allocated a PM10
budget of 776.36 tons per year. The Regional Transportation Plan
must demonstrate that travel on the regionally significant projects
within the maintenance area proposed in the Plan for 2025 does not
exceed the budget. An EPA PM10 emissions model projects the
impacts of existing and new regional facilities using maintenance area
and regional VMT estimates. The results, presented in Table G-5,
show PM10 emissions will increase under each of the 2025
alternatives. However, all alternatives’ PM10 projections fall well
below the transportation budget ceiling.
More details about the
PM10 modeling and its
assumptions may be found
in the 2025 RTP’s Appendix
H, Air Quality Conformity.
Table G-5
Maintenance Area PM10 Emissions
Scenario
Maintenance Area
Average Daily
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Base Year 2000
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Transportation Budget
oxygen. PM10 exposure is associated with chronic diseases such as
emphysema, chronic bronchitis, cancer, and cardiovascular
complications. Pre-adolescent children, elders, and people with preexisting respiratory disease are most susceptible. Particulate matter
in high concentrations may also impair visibility, change the chemical
and nutrient balance of soil and water where it settles, and erode or
stain structures.8, 13, 14
Maintenance Area
Annual PM Peak Hour
PM10 Emissions
(tons/year)
2,397,360
3,796,660
3,934,630
3,897,810
Not applicable
417.6
576.3
597.2
591.6
776.36
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Transportation Model. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency MOBILE 6.2 Model.
Mitigation Measures
The RTP’s goals, policies and programs:
•
Constrain the RTP to regional projects that do not exceed
the PM10 maintenance area budget.
•
Continue implementation of transportation demand
management goals and policies that promote mixed-use urban
development to reduce the need for auto travel; improve
G - 23
Appendix G
Map G-1:
Thurston Region PM10 Maintenance Area
access to public transportation, ridesharing, bicycling and
walking; encourage employers to help change commute
patterns through telework, flex-time and compressed work
weeks; and promote park-and-ride lot use and development.
G - 24
•
Support the region’s existing commute trip reduction (CTR)
programs. CTR is reducing the statewide drive alone rate
over 9%, eliminating 21,000 vehicles from the roads each
day, and avoiding 5,000 tons of air pollutants.
•
Promote consistency between land use and transportation
with development that supports non-motorized and transit
travel.
•
Encourage multimodal system development, decreasing the
need for drive alone trips.
•
Expand the use of transportation technologies to improve
system operations, which often improves air quality.
•
Promote appropriate levels of public transportation and
increase the share of all trips made by biking and walking.
•
Promote alternative fuels and technology developments that
reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Appendix G
•
Coordinate closely with the ORCAA and EPA in meeting
federal Clean Air Act requirements. Provide more
transportation modeling and other technical support,
developing better links between monitoring and
modeling of air quality between ORCAA and TRPC.
•
Continue road construction and maintenance practices that
prevent and reduce the amount of road related particulate
matter in the air.
•
Continue regional benchmark assessment of PM10 and
carbon monoxide, monitoring for any degredations in outlook
as early warning indicators.
Individual projects will require separate environmental
review in addition to this FSEIS. The sponsoring
jurisdiction will pursue project specific environmental
review for each proposal, compliant with applicable state
and federal requirements, which solicits public input on the
proposal.
Air quality conformity requires an annual regional demonstration that
the maintenance area PM10 transportation budget is not exceeded.
Additionally, some individual projects may need to show local hot
spot conformity.
Energy
Average fuel consumption of motor vehicles has steadily improved
since the mid 1970s, from 12.1 miles per gallon in 1976 to 17.1 miles
per gallon in 2001, with passenger cars averaging 22.1 miles per
gallon.15 However, combustion engines are still generally highly
inefficient, and physical and political constraints continue to
jeopardize global oil supplies.
Vehicle technologies are changing. Combustion engines may be
fueled by alternative sources, such as biodiesel, and are being paired
(in some cases replaced) by alternative engines, such as electric. The
early 21st century has seen the first viable gas-electric hybrid cars
come to the mass market, with additional designs on the horizon.
Biodiesel is a clean burning
alternative fuel produced
from domestic, renewable
resources such as recycled
oil from the food industry.
It is difficult to predict the state of global oil supplies or vehicle
technology by 2025, but alternatives to standard combustion engines
are likely to play a more prominent role in transportation. A
substantial share of future travel will likely still rely on individualized
modes of transportation.
G - 25
Appendix G
With VMT roughly doubling by 2025 in the Thurston region, and
energy costs probably rising, the cost of fueling future vehicles may
rise as well.
Generally, future fuel consumption will be tied to VMT. As
Table G-6 shows, daily VMT is expected to increase approximately
60% in the urban areas of Thurston County by 2025 and nearly
double region-wide. While the differences in VMT among
alternatives are relatively small, making a comparison with fuel
consumption today is difficult. Many factors come into play, such as
the supply and cost of oil and alternative fuels, as well as
developments in transportation technology. If all factors remained
relative and comparable to today, vehicle fuel consumption would
nearly double in 2025.
Table G-6
Maintenance Area and Regional VMT in 2025
Alternative
Base Year 2000
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Maintenance Area
Average Daily VMT
2,397,360
3,796,660
3,934,630
3,897,810
Regional
Average Daily VMT
7,200,690
13,527,030
13,611,440
13,686,150
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Transportation Model.
Mitigation Measures
The RTP’s goals, policies and programs support:
G - 26
•
•
Development of alternative fuels.
•
Continuation of transportation demand management
programs encouraging fuel conscious behaviors such as
carpooling and telework.
•
Implementation of land use policies emphasizing
transportation efficient high density mixed use development.
•
Movement of freight, as appropriate, by rail or other modes
that may be more fuel efficient.
•
Improvements in congestion to minimize idling time that
wastes fuel.
Extension of a multimodal system offering alternatives to
driving.
Appendix G
proposal.
Water
Thurston County’s waters serve residential, commercial and
recreational uses. These water resources provide drinking water for
residential and business uses, and support agriculture, fish and shell
fisheries as well as a variety of water sports. Local rivers and
streams provide habitat for spawning salmon. The abundance of
water resources creates a diverse and prolific habitat for plants and
animals.
Surface waters in Thurston County flow to both the Pacific Ocean
and Puget Sound Basins. Watersheds in the Pacific Ocean Basin all
drain to the Chehalis River, accounting for 43% of the flows and
including the Black River, Skookumchuck River, West Capitol
Forest, and Chehalis River Watersheds. The remaining 57% flows
into the Puget Sound Basin through two large and three smaller
watersheds: Budd Inlet/Deschutes River, Nisqually River, Eld Inlet,
Henderson Inlet and Totten Inlet. Thurston County has
approximately 6,300 acres of open surface water with 108 lakes
distributed primarily in the Puget Sound Basin and concentrated in a
band across the middle of the County. Additionally, the County is
home to over 3,000 wetlands, ranging from bogs, freshwater ponds,
and marshes to swamps and tidal estuaries.1, 16, 17
Thurston County is located
at the southern most reach
of Puget Sound, a saltwater
inland sea, with coastline
extending 130 miles to
form the northern border of
the County. 1
Approximately 99% of Thurston County drinking water supplies
come from groundwater. More than 1,200 public water supplies and
over 8,000 private wells tap these aquifers for drinking water.
Groundwater also supplies water to sustain stream flows during the
dry season.1 Nearly all groundwater in Thurston County begins as
rain or snow within the County where soils allow infiltration to local
aquifers. In the northern part of the County, four major aquifers
layer atop each other with two clay-rich layers between. Much of
southern Thurston County has a single shallow aquifer, which
regularly causes groundwater flooding during the wet season.16
Transportation contributes to water pollution through stormwater
runoff from impervious roadway surfaces and through leaking or
improper disposal of oil and other hazardous materials used in motor
vehicles.
G - 27
Appendix G
Nationally, an estimated 46% of vehicles leak hazardous fluids – oil,
transmission, hydraulic and brake fluid, and antifreeze. Of the 1.4
billion gallons of lubricating oils used in automobiles, upwards of 40%
are burned in the engine or lost through leaks, while another 180
million gallons are disposed of improperly to sewers or the ground.9
In 1992, WSDOT estimated
meeting stormwater runoff
water quality and flood
control requirements would
cost 0.2¢ to 0.5¢ per VMT
annually for state operated
facilities. 9
Stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots may contain toxic
metals, suspended solids and hydrocarbons that originate largely
from automobiles. Roads and parking lots have hydrologic impacts,
sometimes concentrating stormwater, decreasing recharge,
contributing to flooding, creating physical barriers to fish passage,
reducing plant canopy adjacent to lakes and rivers, or impacting
wetlands.
Benchmark 17 of the Regional Benchmarks Report assesses the
impact of impervious surface in Thurston County’s basins, citing a
relationship between stream health and total impervious surface. At
10% impervious area, a basin transitions from protected to impacted
stream health, with stream health degraded at 30%. The benchmark
finds a positive assessment today, in that the number of basins in
Thurston County with more than 10% impervious surface did not
increase between 1985 and 2000. Three basins have a total
impervious surface greater than 30% and eight have between 10%
and 30%, but all had more than 10% impervious surface in 1985.
Several basins are nearing the 10% threshold.18
No build, full build and recommended alternatives all increase
impervious surface, primarily in the more urbanized areas of the Budd
Inlet/Deschutes River and Henderson Inlet Watersheds (Figure G-1,
Maps G-2, G-3 and G-4). The recommended alternative results in
half the additional impervious surface of the full build alternative
(Table G-7). Currently, Thurston County has about 26,000 acres of
total impervious surface, spread over 471,655 acres of land.19 In
2025, these alternatives would add between 50 and 400 acres of
regional road facilities (less than 2% of current impervious surface).
The accompanying land use – development of houses, buildings,
parking lots, driveways and other impervious surfaces – will have a
much greater impact on total impervious surface.
G - 28
Appendix G
Figure G-1
2025 New Paved Roadway Surface
400
300
200
100
0
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Table G-7
2025 New Paved Roadway Surface Estimate
Alternative
New Road Lane Miles
Added in 2025
Acres of Paved Surface
500
Total New Paved
Surface in Acres
No Build
44
49
Recommended
141
205
Full Build
278
404
Note: Lane miles are calculated for regionally significant facilities included
in the regional transportation model.
G - 29
Appendix G
Table G-8
Project Distribution by Watershed for 2025
Pacific Ocean Basin
Alternative
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Black
River
Chehalis
River
Skookumchuck
River
West Capitol
Forest
0
1
0
0
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Puget Sound Basin
Budd Inlet/
Deschutes
River
3
19
21
Alternative
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Eld
Inlet
Henderson
Inlet
Nisqually
River
Totten
Inlet
0
4
2
2
18
17
0
4
8
0
0
1
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Geographic Information Systems.
Mitigation Measures
The RTP goals, policies and programs promote water quality
protection:
G - 30
•
Limiting impervious surface area and avoiding, decreasing
and/or treating stormwater runoff from transportation
facilities.
•
Minimizing road crossings through environmentally sensitive
areas.
•
Using planning, design and construction measures that
minimize negative impacts on priority fish-bearing streams.
•
Continuing compliance with applicable local, state and federal
environmental requirements such as handling stormwater and
managing impacts in critical areas.
proposal.
Appendix G
Wildlife Habitat
Wetlands, a unique type of habitat, have received special attention
because they perform important ecological functions, sustaining
diverse species and providing critical habitat to more than half of all
endangered fish and amphibian species in the United States. They
also support flood control, mitigate erosion damage, and improve
water quality.
Approximately half of the wetlands existing at the founding of the
United States have disappeared. In 1997, the conterminous United
States had 105.5 million acres of wetlands, 95% of them freshwater.
Wetlands have been rapidly disappearing nationally, at an average
rate of 58,500 acres each year, but the rate of decline has slowed
over the last decade. Forested wetlands experienced the greatest
decline of all wetland types. Wetland losses nationally are attributed
to urban development (30%), agriculture (26%), silviculture (23%),
and rural development (21%). The issue of wetland habitat is not
limited to destruction, but also includes degradation that impacts the
species dependent on them.20, 21
Many species – birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish – live in
Thurston County. Changes in the plant community, caused by
changes in hydrologic or other conditions, especially impact those
species by limiting or eliminating habitat. Since water supply is often
a major limiting factor for many animals, the riparian communities
lying along river, stream, lake or pond banks are of special
importance.
In Western Washington, more than half the wetlands have been lost.
Historically, the cause was often agricultural conversion, but today
urban and suburban development play a more prominent role.
Wetland fragmentation and increasing urban runoff challenge wetland
habitats.22
Thurston County is replete with wetland environments, with over
3,000 wetlands, ranging from bogs, freshwater ponds and marshes to
swamps and tidal estuaries. The extent and diversity of the County’s
wetlands has made it the focus of a state study. Begun in 2002, the
study analyzes amphibian, fish and invertebrate species, hydrology
and projected water quality.23
While the annual increase in new road miles is relatively small, roads
can have a substantial impact on fish and animal habitat. Roads may
split natural habitats, trap wildlife in too small a habitat, disrupt
G - 31
Appendix G
species movement, impair essential species behaviors, cause injury to
wildlife in collisions, introduce invasive plant species, or introduce
more human access and development.
The exact nature and location of these projects is yet to be
determined, and their impact on wetlands and sensitive habitats will
have to be evaluated in the project specific environmental reviews.
proposal.
Mitigation Measures
The RTP goals, policies and programs promote habitat protection by:
•
Discouraging road crossings through designated
environmentally sensitive areas and habitat corridors.
•
Using transportation planning, design and construction
measures that minimize impacts on priority fish-bearing
streams.
•
Promoting context sensitive design.
The RTP works in the broader context of county-wide, state and
federal environmental protections. Local Critical Areas Ordinances
(CAOs), a set of development regulations, protect wetlands, stream
corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, areas that recharge groundwater
sources used for drinking water, flood plains and geological hazards
(like steep slopes). Thurston County’s local jurisdictions are required
to revise their CAOs by December 2004 using the best available
science.27
The Washington State Department of Transportation has taken a
watershed approach to protecting water quality and wildlife,
directing transportation mitigation funds to maximize environmental
benefit and reduce mitigation costs. Since 1996, the agency has
sought cooperative, long-term solutions benefiting people, fish and
wildlife resources. WSDOT is developing tools to evaluate
ecosystem function and identify problems leading to contamination,
changes in stream flows, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
WSDOT’s programs also improve environmental management and
mitigation.24
G - 32
Appendix G
Habitat impacts are very site specific. Individual projects
will require separate environmental review in addition to
this FSEIS. The sponsoring jurisdiction will pursue project
specific environmental review for each proposal, compliant
with applicable state and federal requirements, which
solicits public input on the proposal.
Noise
Traffic noise is a combination of noises produced by engine
operations, tires/pavement contact, aerodynamic effects, and
vibrating structures. It is increased by faulty equipment such as
mufflers and conditions that cause heavy engine labor, such as steep
grades. Horns and car alarms also contribute. Heavy trucks, buses
and motorcycles also cause more noise per vehicle than cars.8, 9, 25
Traffic noise depends on the volume and speed of traffic, as well as
the number of trucks in the traffic flow. It increases with speed,
volume, stops (causing more accelerations), and the proportion of
trucks, buses and motorcycles. Noise is reduced by distance, terrain,
vegetation, and obstacles (natural and manmade).8, 9, 25
According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, studies of
automobile noise costs typically range from 0.1¢ to 2¢ per vehicle
mile, but actual noise costs are probably much higher. Most studies
assess the effect of traffic noise on residential property values. The
Washington State Department of Transportation may spend $5,500
to $20,000 per exposed household to reduce traffic noise levels.9
•
2,000 vehicles per hour
sound twice as loud as
200 vehicles per hour.
•
Traffic traveling 65 mph
sounds twice as loud as
traffic traveling 30 miles
per hour.
•
One truck traveling 55
miles per hour sounds
as loud as 28 cars
traveling the same
speed. 25
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cites a national estimate
for 1980 where over one third of the U.S. population was regularly
exposed to transportation noise that caused annoyance, with lesser
percentages reporting disruption of normal speech level, communication interference, muscle/gland reactions, and changes in motor
coordination. Noise also may affect wildlife in areas adjacent to
roadways. 8
Traffic noise will increase under all three alternatives, resulting from:
•
•
More total traffic and vehicle miles traveled.
•
More traffic diverting from heavily traveled corridors to
neighborhood and rural roads.
More traffic on less traveled corridors, particularly those
serving rural areas today.
G - 33
Appendix G
•
More residents living in housing built along today’s rural
corridors that will experience more traffic in the future.
In addition to the impacts to human health, noise may impact
sensitive adjacent wildlife. For example, some nesting birds are
especially susceptible to noise impacts. Noise may also negatively
influence property values. However, exact regional impacts are
difficult to quantify.
Mitigation Measures
Traffic noise may be addressed in a three part strategy: Motor
vehicle control, land use control, and roadway planning and design.
Motor vehicle noise control is primarily addressed at the federal and
state level through environmental design requirements that also result
in quieter automobiles.
The RTP includes goals, policies, and programs that support land use
and roadway planning to mitigate noise impacts, such as:
•
•
•
Encouraging the use of non-motorized and transit travel.
•
Ensuring road projects adequately meet transportation needs,
while functioning in harmony with their surroundings, and
adding lasting value to the communities they serve.
•
Minimizing road crossings through designated sensitive
habitat.
Using street designs to encourage safe driver behavior.
Endorsing compact urban and suburban development to
reduce the overall distance that people need to travel.
It is important to evaluate the nature and extent of noise impacts at
the individual project level where specific mitigation actions may be
used. For example, physical barriers, changes in paving material, or
designs that control speed may all contribute to mitigating sound
impacts.
proposal.
G - 34
Appendix G
Land Use
Thurston County is one of the fastest growing counties in the state
and a fast growing area in the United States. The projected average
annual growth rate is 0.83% in the United States, 1.19% in
Washington State, and 1.86% in Thurston County. Thurston County
had approximately 214,800 residents in 2003 and 112,000 full and
part time jobs in 2000. By 2025, the population is expected to swell
to 334,000 with nearly 161,000 jobs.1,2 This population and
employment forecast (often called the land use forecast) is used to
predict where growth will occur in the region. It is based on locally
adopted land use plans that regulate where houses and businesses
may be built. The RTP’s transportation model incorporates the land
use forecast, shaping the projects proposed in the Plan.
Where transportation facilities are built and the types of
transportation services furnished can substantially shape the
surrounding land use. Conversely, where homes and businesses are
built can cause demand for additional roads and transportation
services, sometimes where they are expensive and inefficient to
deliver.
The transportation system performs other important land use roles
beyond traveling to home and work. It provides access to health
and social services, emergency services, shopping, entertainment, and
recreation.
In Thurston County, residents have access to a number of public
lands offering a variety of activities such as boating, fishing, hiking,
camping, and wildlife viewing. Thurston County residents enjoy
almost 50,000 acres of state and federal lands, including 3,000 acres
at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 842 acres at Millersylvania
State Park, and approximately 40,000 acres in the Capitol Forest.
The regional transportation system, with its roads, sidewalks, bike
lanes, trails and public transit service, provides access to these
recreational facilities, and in many aspects functions as part of the
recreation system.
The 2025 Plan analyzed the sensitivity of this land use and
transportation relationship by testing a shift of approximately 9% of
future housing growth among city centers, the urban growth area and
the rural county. The impacts of these shifts on the overall regional
transportation system were quite small, suggesting that emerging land
use and transportation patterns may be difficult to change.
G - 35
Appendix G
Projected 2025 increases in housing development in the rural portions
of the county create a large in-bound a.m. flow to the urban areas
and corresponding p.m. out-bound flow. This change represents an
important shift in how the regional transportation network performs,
and indicates an underlying land use issue in the urban and rural areas.
The no build alternative includes a few projects supporting
forecasted growth in the urban core, but does not expand
commensurate with development in 2025. It does not address
important mobility challenges in either the urban or rural portions of
the region.
The full build alternative provides additional capacity for the
expanding rural population commuting to the urban core. Widening
long sections of rural roadways is very expensive. The forecasted
pattern of development does not create enough urban density to
make alternative transportation modes work well, such as walking,
biking and convenient transit service, as called for in the region’s
development plans. The pattern of development may create more
suburban communities, requiring a re-assessment of service
provisions.
The recommended alternative’s projects address mobility challenges
posed by forecasted development. This alternative also outlines a
set of regionally significant issues, many that directly address land use
challenges or shape future land use options.
Mitigation Measures
The RTP’s goals and policies, and work program encourage:
G - 36
•
Transportation efficient mixed-use development where
appropriate.
•
Transportation facilities that support the location of jobs,
housing, industry and other activities as called for in adopted
land use plans.
•
•
Further integration of land use and transportation planning.
•
Policy analysis of issues such as passenger rail and freight
movement that impact development.
•
Analysis of rural level of service standards, determining their
appropriateness with respect to land use plans and projected
patterns of growth.
Development of a regional trail system and sidewalks that
allow alternative modes of access to workplaces, homes, and
recreational facilities.
Appendix G
proposal.
Transportation
The RTP is based on a system of regionally significant roadways that
provide the main thoroughfares in the community. It assesses overall
transit service and investigates available parking policies to support
transportation demand management goals. It guides development of
sidewalks, bike lanes, trail facilities, transit facilities and services, and
intermodal freight and passenger facilities – important aspects of the
regional transportation system.
Regional transportation planning has traditionally focused on
managing commute trips – those trips from home-to-work, or vice
versa. The traditional commute times – morning and evening rush
hour – are generally considered as the periods when the system
experiences the most demand, and when well defined travel
alternatives may be available. By 2025, commute trips will make up
approximately 19% of all trips in the Thurston region. Of these
commute trips, 83% are projected as driving alone, 9% sharing a
ride, 3% transit and 5% biking or walking. However, if all trips
throughout the day are considered, 52% are drive alone, 38% are
sharing a ride, 1% are by transit, and 9% are by walking or biking
(primarily walking). The transportation system serves a number of
travel needs, and many of those trips are shared.
“Trip” in transportation
modeling parlance is travel
from one single destination
to another. For example, a
morning journey from
home, to school, to the
coffee shop, to the dry
cleaner, and finally to work
would constitute 4 trips in
the model.
In 2025, the regional transportation system will be asked to support
nearly twice as much travel as it does today. Reliance on the car, or
similar forms of autonomous long distance travel is expected to
continue, with transportation making up an increasing percentage of
household expenditures. In 2001, the average American household
spent 19.3% of the household income – about $7,600 – on
transportation, second only to housing expenses. A hundred years
earlier, only 2% of household income was spent on
transportation.28,29
G - 37
Appendix G
Population, employment, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and lane miles
are not expected to grow proportionately between now and 2025,
as shown in Table G-9. While population is expected to increase by
61%, employment expands more slowly, and daily regional VMT
grows more rapidly. Some trends in population and land use help
explain this diversity. In 2025, land use is projected to be more
sprawling, with employees, on average, driving farther to work. This
includes the larger number of residents who will be traveling out of
Thurston County to work.
Table G-9
Increases in Thurston County Population,
Lane Miles and VMT, 2000 to 2025
Alternative
No Build
Recommended
Full Build
Population
Jobs
Projects
Lane Miles
61%
44%
5
46
55
2%
6%
11%
Maintenance Area
Daily VMT
58%
64%
63%
Regional Daily
VMT
88%
89%
90%
Note: Lane miles are calculated for regionally significant facilities included in the regional transportation model. The
maintenance area is the area defined for the PM10 transportation emissions budget and is roughly equivalent to the urban
areas of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater.
Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Profile1 and Transportation Model.
In comparing VMT, the maintenance area (or urbanized portion of
the county) will experience a slower increase in VMT than the overall
region. While travel will increase all over the region, roads outside
the urban area will experience even larger increases than the cities.
The no build alternative does little to address the demand for
transportation facilities indicated by the size and pattern of growth
projected for the region in 2025. It adds only five projects with a
2% increase in lane miles to the regional road network, all in the
urban core. VMT for this alternative is slightly lower in both the
maintenance area and the region than the other two alternatives. The
transportation model indicates the no build alternative lacks
important mobility projects and results in widespread failure to meet
level of service standards.
G - 38
All projects in the no build alternative have secured funding. None of
the future revenues in this scenario are spent on increasing regional
capacity or efficiency. It foregoes much of the revenue the region
Appendix G
The full build alternative has 55 projects adding capacity to the
regional network, and increases the network lane miles by 11%. The
difference in lane miles between the full build and recommended
alternatives, 5% of total regional capacity, consists primarily of rural
capacity projects. VMT in the maintenance area is nearly as high as
the recommended alternative, and slightly higher than the
recommended alternative if considered region-wide. The
transportation model shows the full build alternative improves many
urban and rural congestion problems. Adding the amount of rural
road capacity called for in the full build alternative is very expensive.
The full build alternative could not meet financial constraint without
instituting new sources of funding.
The recommended alternative includes 46 projects that increase
regional lane miles by 6%, with both urban and rural projects helping
to ease congestion along some of the most challenging corridors in
the region. Level of service problems still exist in this alternative, but
they are improved over the no build alternative, including
improvements in both the urban and rural areas. The recommended
alternative also calls for study of the rural roads challenges to
develop appropriate transportation standards for the projected land
use and viable projects to improve mobility on these facilities.
could expect to win in competitive grant processes. If current
funding trends and limitations continue, system preservation, repair,
and maintenance would continue to be under-funded.
The recommended alternative meets the financial constraint criteria.
The financial forecast includes no new local option taxes or any
special earmark of state funds.
Mitigation Measures
Goals, policies and programs in the RTP reduce and control
development impacts of and on transportation facilities. The RTP:
•
•
Encourages facilities compatible with approved land use.
•
•
Promotes safer facilities.
•
Promotes the increased use of travel demand management to
reduce peak period drive alone trips.
Endorses multimodal transportation options that are barrier
free.
Prioritizes the repair, maintenance and preservation of the
existing infrastructure.
G - 39
Appendix G
•
Advances transportation technology to improve the
transportation system safety and efficiency.
•
Advocates increased public transportation, biking and
walking to improve system efficiency and options.
•
Calls for a more comprehensive look at growth patterns and
the cost of providing public services such as transportation.
proposal.
Historic and Cultural Preservation
Thurston County’s rich legacy of pre-historic and historical cultural
resources extends back thousands of years to the earliest habitation
of the Coastal Salish people, ancestors of the members of the current
Nisqually Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation.
Prior to permanent non-Native settlement in 1845, the area was
explored by the Vancouver Expedition (1792) and the American
Wilkes Expedition (1841). The first non-Native American settlers
originally located around the falls of the Deschutes River in what is
now Tumwater, and later in Olympia (1846). The promise of free
land through the Donation Land Claim Act in 1850 drew settlers who
established homesteads on the open prairies as well as along the
rivers of the county.
In 1854, the Nisqually, Squaxin Island, Muckleshoot and Puyallup
peoples signed the Medicine Creek Treaty, ceding their rights to 2.5
million acres of Western Washington tribal lands in exchange for the
guarantee of reservation lands and hunting and fishing rights. The
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation never signed a
treaty with the United States and were awarded reservation lands in
1864 by Executive Order.
G - 40
As the governmental center for Washington Territory and State,
Olympia developed first along its waterfront, then extended south
and, after the bridging of Budd Inlet, to the west and east. Other
communities developed around logging and lumber processing,
farming, sandstone quarrying and other industries. The advent of the
railroad through the county – as early as 1873 – also spurred
development much like the later 20th century routing of the first
state highways.
Appendix G
Related to its long history of human habitation, the county has
significant cultural resources that have been documented through
historic preservation efforts beginning locally in the 1950s.
Historic resources include archaeological sites, historic sites,
buildings, cemeteries, objects and structures ranging from the
important Native American village site on Mud Bay to the historic
Bush Butternut Tree.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation undertook a comprehensive
survey of historic resources of Thurston County. Additional surveys
have occurred since that time, and in 2003 Thurston Regional
Planning Council updated the database and created a map of these
resources. As an ongoing project, the Council also maintains this
database. The jurisdictions of the county can access the database to
meet requirements for protection of historic resources.
Table G-11 shows the 1,329 cultural resources for Thurston County
identified in the database in April 2004. This dynamic list is updated
regularly with new information.
Additionally, the Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation maintains a confidential record of known
archaeological sites that should be consulted in evaluation of potential
impacts to these resources.
Table G-11
Identified Cultural Resources in Thurston County, April 2004
Jurisdiction
Bucoda
Lacey
Olympia
Rainier
Tenino
Tumwater
Yelm
Thurston County (uninc.)
Thurston County Total
Survey/
Inventory
Local
Register
State
Register
2
241
564
2
26
179
168
132
1314
0
6
215
0
0
15
6
41
283
1
4
35
2
3
7
0
21
73
National
Register
1
2
27
1
2
7
0
17
57
Total
3
242
572
3
27
179
170
133
1329
Explanations:
This table does not include archaelogical resources, nor does it reflect tribal cultural resources.
The total number of properties does not equal the sum of the jurisdictions because some properties are
listed on more than one register.
G - 41
Appendix G
The Nisqually Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe and Confederated Tribes of
the Chehalis Reservation all have cultural resource staff that must be
consulted in evaluating potential impacts to resources. Not all
properties or sites are published, and knowledge about their location
and significance is a tribal matter.
The cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater and Yelm, and Thurston
County have established historic preservation programs using general
funds. This funding commitment reflects the communities’ goals to
identify and protect significant cultural resources. Each of these
jurisdictions has established a historic inventory of properties, a
register of historic places, and procedures for identifying cultural
resources and mitigating significant impacts on these resources.
SEPA is intended to help “preserve important historic, cultural and
natural aspects of our national heritage.” Development proposals
evaluated under SEPA consider adverse impacts to environmentally
sensitive or special areas, such as historic resources. Using federal
funds for projects also requires consideration of project impacts under
Section 106, 36 CRF Part 8 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and 43 CFR Part 10, Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act. The acts require federal agencies to take into
account the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties and
aboriginal lands, affording the Regional Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Section 106
process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns early in
the planning process through consultation among agencies and other
interested parties regarding the impacts of projects on historic and
culturally significant properties. The goal is to identify historic or
culturally significant properties potentially impacted by a project, assess
the impacts and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse
impacts.
Impacts to be evaluated include:
G - 42
•
Physical changes to resources such as bridges, tunnels, or
other existing transportation infrastructure.
•
Effects of road widening on the historic setting or integrity of
the building or objects.
•
Effects on roadside historic elements including mounting stones,
siphons or other elements.
•
•
Air pollution impacts on resources due to increased traffic.
For archaeological resources, disturbance or infringement on
cultural landscapes.
Over 1,300 cultural resources are identified in the Regional Council’s
database alone, with another group of archaeological and tribal
resources that exist but are not publicly identified. These lists are
dynamic, with more detailed and new information being added over
time. The nature of these impacts is highly site specific and
dependent upon the particular design and construction of individual
projects. Some of the projects included in the no build,
recommended and full build scenarios are adjacent to currently listed
cultural resources. However, determining the nature of their impacts
on historic or archaeological resources is a complex, project specific
activity. When the individual projects are actually designed and
constructed, additional information on the resources may also be
available. So it is important for each project to be evaluated in the
specific context and timeframe in which it is designed with up-todate information and in consultation with interested parties as
provided for in SEPA and under Section 106.
Mitigation Measures
The guiding principles, goals and policies in the RTP support the
preservation of cultural and archaeological resources. The RTP:
•
Supports investments that contribute to a community’s
overall sense of place.
•
Calls for road crossings to be minimized through designated
environmentally sensitive areas.
•
Encourages a multimodal system with options for nonmotorized and transit travel which may lessen some
transportation impacts on cultural and archaeological
resources.
•
Promotes coordination and good communication among
agencies and with the communities impacted by
transportation projects.
Appendix G
State and federal regulations require careful and specific
consideration of project impacts on cultural resources, and local
jurisdictions have enacted their own policies for historic resources,
such as:
•
Retaining historic structures and finding compatible
contemporary uses that incorporate the historic structures as
appropriate.
•
Retaining, repairing, and restoring a structure’s distinguishing
historic architectural features, particularly exterior features.
G - 43
Appendix G
Moving historic structures to appropriate similar
environments where contemporary, compatible uses require
minimal alteration.
•
Providing for rehabilitation of another historic structure
elsewhere to replace a structure that is demolished or which
has its historic features destroyed.
•
Placing interpretive markers to describe the significance of a
site or associated persons or events.
•
Requiring professional measured drawings and photographs
before a historic structure is demolished, cataloging those
photos and drawings with the Historic Commission.
proposal. This includes compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act for projects with federal
funding. Environmental project review of historic and
cultural resources in Thurston County should at least
include consultation of the Thurston Regional Planning
Council’s cultural resources database, the Washington State
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s
confidential list of known archaeological sites, and the
Nisqually Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe and Confederated
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation resources. Projects
should abide by local historic resource policies as
applicable.
5.
G - 44
•
Public Comments and Responses
While some comments were specific to the DSEIS, many comments
regarding environmental impact were imbedded within remarks
regarding the overall contents of the RTP. To address this in the
FSEIS, a complete version of each commentator’s remarks is included.
If the remarks were more broadly focused on the RTP, then that portion
which is relevant to the DSEIS is presented in italics for easy reference
by the reader. A response to each comment is included at the end of
each commentator’s remarks. It summarizes the issue raised by the
commentator, and provides a response from the agency.
Appendix G
G - 45
Appendix G
Response to comment dated March 4, 2004 from
Stephenie Kramer, Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Issue:
Archaeological and cultural sites and historic properties
were not addressed in the DSEIS.
Response: The FSEIS incorporates an analysis of the impacts of the
Regional Transportation Plan on historic and cultural
resources. This includes a description of the affected
environment, potential significant adverse impacts, and
mitigation measures.
G - 46
While some of the projects included in the no build,
recommended and full build scenarios are adjacent to
currently listed cultural resources, determining the nature
of their impacts on historic or archaeological resources is
a complex, project specific activity. When individual
projects are designed and constructed, additional
information on the resources may also be available. It is
important for each project to be evaluated in the specific
context and timeframe in which it is designed with up-todate information and with interested parties as provided
for in SEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and
the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act.
Appendix G
Comment
Comments on 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Submitted March 22, 2004 by Karen Messmer
Regional Issues
The transportation system needs to provide for all types of users.
While we are hoping to encourage increasing use of transit for some
trips, we must also build a system that supports walking. For most
users, a trip on the bus will also require some travel on foot to get to
or from the bus stop to their destination. This is why it is critical that
all parts of the system are built with future increased us of transit –
and walking – in the design. Building more lanes and increased motor
vehicle capacity without appropriate consideration for future transit/
walking could actually work against our aim to increase transit use.
(by making high traffic areas in-hospitable to pedestrians)
It is very important that we not only ‘study’ – but also actually adopt
and begin to employ a much more inclusive view of ‘level of service’
for transportation planning. (multi-modal level of service) This needs
to be implemented at the regional and local levels.
There are examples of measures being used in other locations, so we
don’t need to invent this here.
‘Selecting performance measures that best evaluate the entire
multimodal system.’
‘Designing and building a regional trails system’
The same comment can be made about trails as the comment above
about transit. In order to use the trail system for transportation or
recreation, residents will need to make their way to the trail from
their home or business. The trail ‘system’ will serve many more users
if it is supported by a safe street system nearby.
Since our trail system is reaching far into the rural areas - perhaps we
should be developing ‘park and bike ride’ lots at strategic trail
junctions. (Secure parking for your car while you ride into the urban
area on your bicycle.)
Level of service and ‘assessment areas’
The concept of “strategy areas’ – now called ‘assessment areas’ –
needs to be approached more aggressively. We cannot simply
‘watch and study’ these areas. We should be looking for the most
promising methods for commute trip reduction and traffic
management and employing them in these areas. The cost for more
active programs such as encouragement of flextime and ride sharing
seems trivial compared to the costs from traffic problems in these
G - 47
Appendix G
areas. From an environmental perspective, the pollution from idling
cars is enough to cause alarm such that we should be working harder
on alternatives for these problem areas.
Meanwhile, not far from some of our most congested ‘assessment’
areas, we should be reducing level of service to a more realistic
acknowledgment of urbanization. Specifically the western portion of
Harrison Avenue should be reduced to level of service E in order to
align it with the rest of that corridor.
Other areas should be re-examined for a realistic level of service. As
we face continuing funding constraints for the transportation system,
we should be making a more realistic plan for what we can achieve in
the urban growth and near-urban areas. It just does not seem feasible
to continue to provide very high levels of service in the ‘urban fringe’
areas while we cannot even find the means to resolve failing parts of
the system inside the urban area.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Karen Messmer.
Issue:
Idling cars in strategy and assessment areas cause air
pollution. More work should be done to find
alternatives for these problem areas.
Response: No change to the FSEIS.
The RTP promotes improved understanding and
better coordination among local and regional partners
to address access and mobility issues in both strategy
corridors and assessment areas. The intent is to
identify and implement an appropriate range of
solutions that meet the unique needs of these
corridors and areas based on a solid understanding of
the issues specific to each area.
G - 48
Appendix G
Comment
March 2, 2004
I am also in favor of expanded passenger rail. If Amtrak comes into
downtown Olympia this will encourage much more walking, biking,
and less reliance on the automobile. Many people liked the idea of
taking the train up to Seattle or Portland, but once we’re in the car
driving to the Amtrak way out in Lacey – it’s almost not worth it.
I grew up in Montreal, which for a city of 2 million people has little
traffic congestion problems. This is due to extensive public
transportation including the subway system, commuter trains, busses,
etc. As roads become congested in Thurston County (and
elsewhere), commuting by rail becomes a much more attractive
option.
I support your values and emphasis on environmental impact,
efficiency, and integrating land use planning. I could support impact
fees on new developments to off-set costs for road expansion and
maintenance.
I was impressed by TRPC’s presentation at our (City of Olympia)
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting (BPAC). Thank
you for working on trails projects. The development of nonmotorized trails at their interconnections will bring more recreationminded people to our county while also improving our quality of life.
Additional comments about the 2025 RTP will be compiled by our
BPAC group.
Andrea Lipper
Andrea Lipper.
Issue:
The comment expresses support for values and emphasis
on environmental impact reflected in the RTP.
G - 49
Appendix G
Comment
Comments on Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Carpenter Road Improvements – Martin Way to Pacific – A High
Priority
March 24, 2004
Dear Thurston County Regional Planning Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2025
Regional Transportation Plan. I own a 3.5 acre property located at
612 Carpenter Road, SE. I strongly recommend that you make the
planned Carpenter Road improvements from Martin Way to Pacific
a top priority.
There are many reasons why this road segment needs to be widened
and realigned both horizontally and vertically as soon as possible.
These reasons include:
Public Safety – During rush hour commuter traffic is nearly bumperto-bumper in this road segment. The hill crest South of Motors and
Controls is a particularly serious hazard. The sight lines are very bad,
especially with the apartment complex access across the road from
my property. I have personally seen several near and 3 actual
accidents at that location. In one case there were serious injuries
caused by an accident at the apartment house. I was the first person
on-scene and helped divert traffic and assist Medic I personnel
stabilize injured people.
Divert Commercial Traffic from Critical Arterials – Improving
Carpenter Road would take considerable commercial truck traffic
strain off of the 3 existing North-South arterials – Marvin, Rd,
College St, and Sleater-Kinney.
North County Economic Development – This roadway improvement
is also important because it will help facilitate growth within the
planned growth area from Hawks Prairie through the entire Britton
Parkway commercial corridor.
Transportation Management – This project is a keystone to the
eventual construction of freeway ramps at the Carpenter Road/I-5
Bridge. It is also important that this arterial improvement be
completed soon because it will help take the traffic load off of
Martin Way by allowing Britton Parkway to accommodate the
traffic for which it was designed.
G - 50
Environmental Protection – I recognize that expediting the planned
Carpenter Road improvements from Martin Way to Pacific Avenue
will cost quite a lot of money and will require some finessing and
Appendix G
accommodation of the important environmental values that will be
impacted by widening the causeway across the small lake (Lake
Lois?).
In summary, I believe that public safety concerns and economic
needs demand that the proposed Carpenter Road improvements
from Martin Way to Pacific Avenue be made a Top Priority in the
regional plan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please call me if I
can answer any questions or if I can help expedite the project.
C. Jonathan (Jon) Neel
C. Jonathan Neel
Issue:
Widening Carpenter Road may impact sensitive
environmental habitat. This may be expensive. Cut
material could possibly be disposed on nearby property,
which could help cut costs.
However, this environmental impact should not be a huge problem.
There is enough public property to use material “cut” soil from the
lake shore to compensate for any habitat loss. The cut material
could be used as either fill for the expanded Carpenter Road bed or
possibly disposed of on my property just a short distance up the hill.
Also if there was an excess material balance from the vertical road
realignment it could also disposed of on my property just a couple of
hundred feet away – if that would help facilitate the project.
Addressing specific impacts and opportunities for a
Carpenter Road project are beyond the scope of this
regional FSEIS. Individual projects require separate
environmental review in addition to this FSEIS. The
sponsoring jurisdiction, in this case the City of Lacey, will
pursue project specific environmental review for any
proposal, compliant with applicable state and federal
requirements, which solicits public input on the particular
proposal. Mr. Neel’s comments will be forwarded to the
City of Lacey transportation staff.
G - 51
Appendix G
Comment
Re: Comments on the 2025 RTP for Thurston County
Dear Thurston Regional Planning Council members and staff,
Please consider these comments on the draft Thurston Regional
Transportation Plan 2025. I hope they assist in moving us toward
the goal of an efficient, safe and multi-modally integrated
transportation system, a huge benefit to this and future generations.
I offer the following thoughts about the plan as a whole: Improved
Content and Specificity - Overall, the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) is an improvement, especially in that there is further detail on
the specific strategies that will be pursued on various modes of
transportation.
I appreciate the inclusion of the separate chapters considering
bicycling, walking and other modes that may have been lumped
together in previous plans. These modes often require different
treatments and have unique forms of accommodation. They should
be treated with the additional specificity that your new format
allows.
I agree with many of the suggestions made in the second chapter of
the RTP (the Work Program Priorities regionally to make
improvements to measures are good). However, I think the rubber
may not be meeting the road here when I look at the resulting
projection of the recommended alternative in terms of its impact on
our quality of life here. The project list still seems to point us toward
auto-dependency long into the future.
Troubling Lack of Progress It’s disappointing that there is not a more pronounced contrast among
the options that are considered by the plan, particularly in terms of
automobile miles traveled (which translates into more traffic
congestion and more air pollution).
I think the options should include a more assertive land-use and
transportation shift, including drawing in Urban Growth boundaries
to a size that truly reflects a 20 to 25 years-of-growth planning
horizon rather than the 50-75 years which is currently the case.
Another key tool that appears not be given much discussion yet is
modifying the level of service standards (see below). I hope these
points will be addressed early on and be part of the vision-reality
disconnect workshops and discussion over the next few years.
G - 52
Appendix G
Some Other Options
Level of Service: modifications and a needed new tool -
I had hoped, given the interest that individual jurisdictions such as
Olympia have shown in developing a Multi-Modal LOS and
aforementioned reasoning that this requires regional coordination,
that there would be more development of the concept in this edition
of the RTP. At the very least this should be included among the
“Measures to Support Multimodal Transportation System Objectives”
under goal #2 (p. 3-9). This will help our region begin to measure the
capacity of our roadways in more than the terms of the current
motor vehicle-based LOS. The Recommendations under “System
Performance Measures” (p. 2-3) are a good start in this area, but the
region needs to hasten its movement in this direction, preferably with
modification in this plan or at any rate before the updating for the
2030 RTP.
It seems that our Level of Service (LOS) standards may be working
counter to the land-use goals of growth management when we have
higher service standards in UGAs, the unincorporated County and on
edges of the Urban Growth boundaries (at least in northern Thurston
County). There should be some projects identified to address this
change in performance measure, and since we frequently hear that
such changes need to occur at the regional level, this plan appears to
be the place for such a discussion.
Complete the streets The plan should include greater emphasis and policy direction to
individual jurisdictions to steer roadway investments so as to, as the
plan states in Policy 9.a., (p. 3-22) “Support design and construction
of multimodal streets and roads.” I think there are excellent models
of jurisdictions seeking to fix gaps and discontinuities in the facilities
for non-motorized transportation as part of routine maintenance
projects. I’m thinking particularly about Olympia’s Bicycle Facilities
Plan, wherein a small expenditure is added from capital facilities
programs in bicycle facilities and sidewalks to finish missing portions
of these non-motorized elements when a street is being overlayed.
Costs are saved when work is done on these facilities at the same
time that equipment and crews are already mobilized.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizen Oversight Convening a regional bicycle advisory committee, perhaps
accompanied by those who can also speak to pedestrian needs, will
be an effective way to generate an updated project list of regional
improvements. Often, for pedestrians and other non-motorized
modes, their facilities are overlooked (except for trails), but there are
G - 53
Appendix G
numerous intersections and corridors that are true regional facilities
that should be considered for their importance as regional nonmotorized connections. I think the plan should include guidance to
local jurisdictions to form advisory committees of this sort for their
local facilities planning.
Summary
The Regional Transportation Plan for Thurston County should
acknowledge as a highest priority the current lack of connectivity for
non-motorized modes between jurisdictions. These modes (including
bicycling, walking or skating) are the ones accessible to all and
cheapest to provide facilities for. They have the added benefit of
providing healthy physical activity. The public health dimension of
our transportation choices, and the fact that some provide us with
much more healthy physical activity as part of our daily lives, is one
that I do not find adequately addressed in this plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan, and I hope
you find these suggestions useful in your deliberation toward a final
2025 RTP.
Sincerely,
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins.
Issue:
The alternatives considered did not provide a
pronounced contrast in vehicle miles traveled, implying
more congestion and air pollution.
G - 54
The RTP considered alternatives that range from 5 to 55
capacity projects, increasing lane miles between 2% and
11%. Underlying this analysis is a regionally adopted
population and employment forecast, predicting how and
where land will be used in 2025. The transportation
model essentially shows that if growth occurs where and
to the extent it is expected from the population and
employment forecast, that congestion will increase, as
will the level of PM10. However, under all scenarios
PM10 levels are expected to stay well below the
maintenance area ceiling for transportation sources.
Congestion will also get worse. The analysis of RTP
alternatives focused on developing that combination of
projects which balances available revenues with
completing important mobility projects and addressing
Appendix G
the worst areas of congestion. Additionally, the
recommended action proposes analysis of a number of
regional issues related to mobility. Regional air quality
under any of the scenarios remains good. Efforts will
continue to improve mobility and provide alternative
modes to mitigate congestion and air quality impacts.
G - 55
Appendix G
Comment
First, I admit I have only read the Goals & Policies of this Draft 2025
Regional Transportation Plan. I appreciate that it includes Public
Transportation, biking & walking & rail. These alternative modes of
transportation are so important. In order to get people out of their
cars, particularly the SOV, we must provide good facilities for
alternative modes and efficiency for public transportation.
The plan focuses too much on accommodating cars. Instead of
“designing safe & efficient facilities that can carry growling numbers
of vehicles through neighborhood corridors,” we should be working
to significantly reduce the number of SOV trips made by all of us so
that the number of vehicles using the roads in not a growing number.
In the Biking Section (11. 3-26) I would like to see more positive
comments about biking. Yes, I am one of the “die-hards out there
who’ll ride their bikes in any kind of weather,” and I think a goal of
this community should be to get the average Jane or Joe to ride, if
not in any kind of weather, then somewhat periodically.
In the Walking Section (12. 3-28) signal timing could be addressed.
As a pedestrian, it would be wonderful to walk up to a crosswalk,
push the button, & have the walk signal come on soon, rather than
having to wait for the signal to go through its cycle.
Also, I’d like to see more inpavement lighting at crosswalks to signal
drivers there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk (at unsignalized
crosswalks). These measures send a message to the pedestrian that
he/she matters and h/she is encouraged to walk more.
In the Environmental & Human Health Section (18 3-40) – I don’t
think we can plan for more cars and think we are going to maintain a
healthy environment & human health. As a society, we don’t factor
in the true cost of a project. The environmental damage in the future
is not factored in today – the present. Then, when the future comes
& is here, we now can’t afford to repair the damage. Presently we
say we can’t “afford” to pay for salmon recovery. If today’s costs
to the salmon had been factored in – way back when – then maybe
those projects could not have been “afforded” to be built. But our
salmon would be much better off today.
Thank you for all the efforts & thoughts that went into the plan and
thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Karen Brown
G - 56
Appendix G
Karen Brown
Issue:
Potential future environmental impacts from more cars
are not adequately addressed today. An example is the
current cost of salmon recovery which should have been
previously addressed.
The Regional Transportation Plan provides a broad look
at environmental issues by necessity. Each project, as it
is brought forward, will undergo thorough and detailed
environmental review, which is the only way to address
the site specific nature of many of the environmental
issues. Our region is projected to grow, which will
necessitate some demand for transportation. The
Regional Transportation Plan takes a balanced approach
to addressing that demand by providing some necessary
improvements in roadway infrastructure, promoting
improved operations, and expanding transit and other
non-motorized transportation options. Environmental
protection will be factored into each project. Regionally,
additional protections are being factored in by programs
and policies like the countywide critical areas ordinances
that limit development in sensitive areas and regional
watershed planning that improves water quality and
quantity management. Federal and state regulation, in
addition to our own regional rules, now better protect
salmon and other natural resources.
G - 57
Appendix G
Comment
(Excerpt: Testimony given by Henry Hollweger at
the Public Hearing on March 15, 2004.)
I kind of volunteer for the parks quite a bit and one of the parks and
also the trails, evasive plants is one of my things. I was walking on
the Olympia trail and was talking to a friend of mine, which is right
next to the freeway there, and she could not stand where that new
trail is going in there because of the sounds of the freeway. I
consider it kind of like a white sound, like maybe the ocean or
something like that. I have become very used to it. But, she did
mention one thing that made an impression on me and that was the
road kill. Road kills is the wild creatures. And, I was thinking, that
with these trails they are talking about bridges going over some of
the highways over here and I was wondering if there was some kind
of design maybe a fence that you could direct the wildlife that would
go over the bridges instead of having them killed so much.
Henry Hollweger
Issue:
Traffic noise impacting new trails.
Noise impacts are addressed in the FSEIS, including goals,
policies and programs that support mitigation of noise
impacts. It is important to evaluate that nature and
extent of noise impacts at the individual project level
where specific mitigation actions may be used.
Issue:
Directing wildlife onto bridges over highways to reduce
road kill.
Impacts to wildlife due to collisions is addressed in the
Wildlife Habitat section of the FSEIS. The RTP goals,
policies and programs help protect wildlife by
discouraging road crossings through designated
environmentally sensitive areas and habitat corridors, as
well as promoting context sensitive design. Habitat
impacts, such as wildlife collisions are very site specific.
Individual projects will need to address the impacts and
potential mitigation through project specific
environmental review.
G - 58
Appendix G
At the Public Hearing, Mayor Clarkson addressed the
issue:
Mayor Clarkson advised when I-5 was designed, trails
for animals were designed. Also, if someone encounters
animals killed on the freeway, cards are available at all
rest stops throughout the state to fill out and send in to
the Department of Transportation to indicated where
that occurred so the department can consider that in
future design and attempt to mediate the animal crossing.
The cards should be completed for animals that weigh
more than 70 pounds.
G - 59
Appendix G
Comment
(Excerpt: Testimony given by Chris Hawkins at the
Public Hearing on March 15, 2004.)
I think it’s a little disappointing that there is not more of a distinction
or difference between the different options that area included in the
plan. And, from my perspective in particular, I am concerned that
there is not a strong qualitative difference. Generally, when you are
looking at options, you want to see some matter of choice involved
in those options. But it appears this plan is assuming that we are
going to have an incredible increase in vehicle miles traveled, that our
use of automobiles will continue to increase into the future, which
translates into more traffic congestion and more air pollution in our
local area.
I think another key option to consider is that some projects are too
costly. If you look at the contrast in one particular indicator
between the full build and the preferred alternative to the no build
option, you will see there is one indicator where there is a big
qualitative difference and that is in total impervious area. This is
something that has a huge impact on our water quality and salmon
habitat and other wildlife habitat. So that is one distinction between
the three different options. Yet, the preferred option is definitely
tilted way to the side of the full build option in terms of total
impervious area that is created by a new road.
Chris Hawkins
Issue:
The alternatives considered did not provide a
pronounced contrast in vehicle miles traveled, implying
more congestion and air pollution.
Mr. Hawkins raised this issue in his written comment of
March 25, 2004. A more detailed response is included
with that comment and is referenced here.
G - 60
Appendix G
Issue:
Total impervious surface associated with each alternative
is significantly different, representing impacts to water
quality and wildlife habitat, including salmon. Total
impervious surface of the recommended alternative is
more like the full build than no build alternative.
Water impacts were assessed using estimates of total
impervious surface resulting from each alternative. These
ranged from 49 acres of new impervious surface for the
no build alternative to 404 acres for the full build
alternative. At 205 acres, the recommended alternative’s
impervious surface fell mid way between the no build and
full build alternatives. Impacts in the range of a few
hundred acres are relatively small with respect to the
26,000 acres of impervious surface currently existing in
Thurston County. The analysis points out that perhaps
the larger issue is accompanying land use – development
of houses, building, parking lots, driveways and other
impervious surfaces – that will have a much greater
impact on total impervious surface. Roads provide
access, but it is the distribution of homes and businesses
that will have the biggest impact on impervious surface.
Assumptions about 2025 population and employment
(land use) did not change in any of the alternatives. The
alternatives considered but not carried forward evaluated
what impacts modest shifts in the location of housing
might have on the transportation network. The finding
showed essentially very little impact on the demand for
services on the regional road network. This implies the
issue of impervious surface is primarily driven by
development pressures.
G - 61
Appendix G
Projects
Table G-10
List of Proposed Projects
ID
Project Name
Jurisdiction
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Lacey
Lacey
Lacey
Olympia
Tumwater
C10
One-Way Couplet Project
Sleater-Kinney/6th Avenue Realignment
Yelm Highway Widening
4th/5th Avenue Corridor & Bridge Project
Tumwater Boulevard (Airdustrial Way)
Widening
Littlerock Road Widening
Elderberry Road Upgrade
Mud Bay Road Capacity Project 1
Harrison Avenue (Mud Bay Road) Widening,
Phase II
Yelm Highway Capacity Project 1
C11
Carpenter Road Capacity & Safety Project
C12
Marvin Road Widening - Britton Parkway to
North City Limits
Rainier Road Widening Inside UGA
Martin Way & I-5 Interchange Improvements,
Phase 1
Martin Way & I-5 Interchange Improvements,
Phase 2
Fones Road Widening, Phase 1
18th Avenue (Fones Road) Widening,
Phase 2
Old Highway 99 Widening 1
Old Highway 99 Widening 2
Yelm Avenue West Widening
Old Highway 99 Rural Capacity Project
Pacific Avenue Capacity Project
Rich Road Capacity Project
Britton Parkway, Phase II
Black Lake Boulevard Widening
C6
C7
C8
C9
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
Tumwater
Thurston County
Thurston County
Olympia
No-Build Recommended Full-Build
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Thurston County &
Olympia
Lacey
x
x
x
x
Lacey
x
x
Lacey
Lacey
Lacey & WSDOT
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lacey & WSDOT
x
x
Olympia
Olympia
x
x
x
Tumwater
Tumwater
Yelm
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Lacey
Tumwater & Olympia
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
This table is continued on the following page. For a key to project IDs, please refer to the Explanation at the end of this table.
G - 62
Appendix G
Project Name
Mullen Road Extension
College Street NE Extension
Decatur Street Connection
Log Cabin Road Extension
Olympia Avenue Extension
A6
Runway 17/35 Roadway Modifications
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
Tyee Drive Extension
Trosper Road/I-5 Interchange Improvements
510/507 Loop - North Section (Y3)
510/507 Loop - South Section (Y2)
Yauger Way Extension
Hogum Bay Road Truck Route
Hawks Prairie Road Extension
New South Tumwater Connector
Evergreen Parkway Repair and Upgrade
O1
O2
I-5 Widening from Lewis County to Maytown
SR 510 Widening (Old Pacific Highway to
Mudd Run Road)
Steamboat Island Interchange, Stage 2
US 101/SR 8 Interchange Retrofit
O3
O4
Jurisdiction
Lacey
Lacey
Olympia
Olympia
Olympia & Port of
Olympia
Port of Olympia,
Tumwater, Thurston
County & WSDOT
Tumwater
Tumwater
Yelm
Yelm
Olympia & WSDOT
Lacey
Lacey
Tumwater
The Evergreen State
College
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ID
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
x
x
This table is continued on the following page. For a key to project IDs, please refer to the Explanation at the end of this table.
G - 63
Appendix G
ID
FB1
FB2
FB3
FB4
FB5
FB6
FB7
FB8
FB9
FB10
FB11
FB12
FB13
FB14
FB15
FB16
FB17
FB18
FB19
FB20
Project Name
Lacey Boulevard One-Way Conversion
Mud Bay Road Capacity Project 2
37th Avenue/Herman Road Widening
3rd/6th Avenue Extension
12th Avenue Extension, Phase II
Ensign Connector
Hoffman Road Widening
Sargent Road Widening
(191st to196th Ave SE)
Old Highway 99 Widening (I-5 to Tenino)
Old Highway 99 Widening (79th Avenue to
Waldrick Road)
Rainier Road Widening South of UGA
Carpenter Road SE Capacity Project (Pacific
Avenue to Martin Way)
Marvin Road Widening (Pacific Avenue to
Mullen Road)
SR 12 Widening (Old Highway 99 SW to I-5)
US 101 Widening (SR 8 to Mason County)
I-5 Widening (North of Martin Way)
SR 507 Widening (Pierce County to Tenino)
SR 510 Widening (Marvin Road to Old
Pacific Highway)
Rainier Road Extension (138th Street to
SR 507)
196th Avenue SW Widening (Sargeant Road
to Elderberry Road)
Jurisdiction
Lacey
Thurston County
Lacey & Olympia
Lacey
Olympia
Olympia
Olympia
Thurston County
x
x
x
x
S9, S10
x
S12
x
L13
x
x
Thurston County
Thurston County
x
x
Thurston County
Lacey
L1
S1
x
x
Thurston County
L5
x
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
Thurston County
O5
O6
L2
Thurston County
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Explanation:
Except for FB (Full Build), all projects refer to projects and studies described in greater detail in Chapter 2 (Recommendations) of
the 2025 RTP. In the RTP, some collaborative projects involving both local agencies and WSDOT are identified both as A (new
connections and alignments) and O (state highway projects). For clarity and to avoid duplication, those projects are only listed
once in FSEIS Table G-10, as A projects. This includes projects A9 and A10, which are also listed as project O11, and Project
A11, which is also listed as project O10.
ID field:
C - capacity projects which expand exisiting roadways
A - new connections and alignments that add new roads or move the location of existing roads
O - state highway projects which add roadway capacity or interchange projects
FB - projects that were only included in the full build alternative, such as road widening and new roadway development
Recommended Field:
Several of the full build projects were revised as studies in the Recommended alternative.
They are indicated in the Recommended column by the project identifier assigned in the RTP.
S - corridor studies and sub-area plans
L - assessment areas
O - state highway studies
G - 64
Appendix G
References
1. Thurston Regional Planning Council, The Profile, 21st Edition,
2003.
2. Thurston Regional Planning Council, Population and
Employment Forecast for Thurston County, 1999.
3. Thurston Regional Planning Council, Transportation Future
2010 Thurston Regional Transportation Plan, 1993.
5. Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental
Coordination Section, SEPA Handbook, 1998.
6. Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 43.21C State
Environmental Policy, 2000.
7. Washington State Department of Ecology Air Quality Program,
2000 – 2002 Air Quality Trends Report, 2002.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Indicators of
the Environmental Impacts of Transportation, 1999.
9. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Transportation Cost and
Benefit Analysis, 2003.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003.
4. Thurston Regional Planning Council, TransAction 2020
Regional Transportation Plan Update, 1998.
11. Washington State Department of Ecology, Re-designating
Non-attainment Areas, 1999.
12. Washington State Department of Ecology, Health Effects from
Automobile Emissions, date unknown.
13. Washington State Department of Ecology, Focus on Major Air
Pollutants: Particulate Matter, 1998.
14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, PM – How
Particulate Matter Affects the Way We Live and Breathe,
2000.
15. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review
2002, 2002.
16. Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic Preservation,
Thurston County Water Resources Profile, 1996.
G - 65
Appendix G
17. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston
County Wetlands Project, 2003.
18. Thurston Regional Planning Council, Regional Benchmarks for
Thurston County, 2003.
19. Thurston Regional Planning Council, The Relationship of Land
Cover to Total and Effective Impervious Area, 2003.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency, America’s
Wetlands: Status and Trends, 2003.
21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report to Congress on the
Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United
States 1986 to 1997, 2003.
22. Washington State Department of Ecology, The Economic
Value of Wetlands, 1997.
23. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston
County Wetlands Project, 2002.
24. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Taking the High Road, 2001.
25. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise,
1992.
26. Thurston Regional Planning Council, Geographic Information
Systems, 2003.
27. 1000 Friends of Washington, Critical Areas Ordinances, 2003.
28. Surface Transportation Policy Project, Transportation Costs
and the American Dream, 2003.
29. Surface Transportation Policy Project, Transportation and
Housing, date unknown.
G - 66
Appendix G
Distribution List
Federal Agencies
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
United States Army, Fort Lewis
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of General Administration
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Transportation, Headquarters
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympic Region
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
State Agencies
Regional Agencies
Thurston Regional Planning Council Members
Transportation Policy Board Members
Town of Bucoda
City of Lacey
City of Olympia
City of Rainier
City of Tenino
City of Tumwater
City of Yelm
Thurston County
Port of Olympia
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
Economic Development Council of Thurston County
Timberland Library (Lacey, Olympia, Tenino, Tumwater and Yelm
branches)
G - 67
Appendix G
The Evergreen State College Library
Intercity Transit
Grays Harbor Transit Authority
Mason County Transit Authority
Pierce Transit
Twin Transit
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments
Grays Harbor Council of Governments
Lewis County Planning
Mason County Planning
Peninsula RTPO
Pierce County Planning
Puget Sound Regional Council
Tribes
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Squaxin Island Tribe
Organizations
Black Hills Audubon Society
Carnegie Group
Capital Bicycling Club
Capitol Land Trust
Climate Solutions
Environmental Resource Center
Sierra Club – Sasquatch Group
South Sound GREEN
SPEECH
Sustainable Community Round Table
Thurston County League of Women Voters
Transportation Connections
WashPIRG
Cooper Point Journal
Green Pages
South Sound Business Examiner
G - 68
Appendix G
Tenino Independent
Tacoma News Tribune
The Daily Chronicle
The Nisqually Valley News
The Olympian
Works in Progress
Lacey Chamber of Commerce
Olympia – Thurston County Chamber of Commerce
Tenino Chamber of Commerce
Tumwater Chamber of Commerce
Yelm Chamber of Commerce
KGY Radio Station
KXXO Radio Station (MIXX 96)
G - 69
Appendix H
Air Quality Conformity
This appendix documents that the Regional Transportation Plan
conforms with requirements of the State Implementation Plan for
particulate matter 10 microns in size or less (PM10), and with the
Thurston County PM10 Maintence Plan. The federal Clean Air
Act, the Washington Clean Air Act, and the federal Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century require this finding of conformity.
Additionally, this appendix provides background on air quality
conformity and issues specific to the region, the consultation process
used to develop and validate conformity findings, and results of the
technical conformity analysis.
Air Quality Conformity
The federal Clean Air Act and Washington State’s Clean Air Act
identify the air quality performance standards that regions must
meet. These standards govern air pollution caused by mobile sources
– like motor vehicles and other transportation modes – as well as
by stationary sources, like manufacturing plants or home fireplaces.
Transportation conformity ensures transportation investments do
not contribute to a worsening of air quality in a region or preclude
its ability to improve unhealthy air quality. Federal 40 CFR Part 93
and state WAC 173-420 identify governing rules.
State and federal guidelines establish the standards for healthy
air quality. A region that meets these standards is considered to
be an attainment area. Nonattainment areas do not meet these
standards, and have unhealthy levels of air pollutants. A region
may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment
area for another pollutant. A region may be redesignated from
nonattainment to maintenance area if it successfully demonstrates an
ability to address its air quality problems for a period of time. This
redesignation status applies to the Thurston region.
The Thurston region is an attainment area for Carbon Monoxide
(CO) and Ozone (O3). Part of the Thurston region is a maintenance
area for Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to airborne
particulate matter that is less than 10 microns in size, making it too
small to be filtered by the nose and lungs. Components of mobile
source particulates include vehicle tailpipe emissions, road dust, tire
wear and brake wear. These result in tiny airborne particles that
pose hazards to people with asthma or other respiratory problems,
as well as the very young and the very old who have vulnerable
respiratory systems. Significantly, it is also a by-product of wood
burning.
H-1
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
Background for the Thurston Region
In the late 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
designated the Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater urban area as a nonattainment area for PM10. PM10 is particulate matter less than 10
microns in aerodynamic diameter. Air samples indicated that wood
smoke generated the vast majority of the pollution. The Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency (then, the Olympic Area Pollution Control
Authority) was authorized to develop and implement strategies that
would reduce the PM10 problem. Most effective of the measures
identified by the Clean Air Agency were restrictions on outdoor
burning and the kinds of wood-burning stoves that people can use
in the urban area. Because the problem was so heavily attributable
to wood burning, no transportation conformity requirements were
imposed and no transportation control measures were identified,
even though the region was designated non-attainment.
Figure H-1 illustrates the Clean Air Authority’s success in mitigating
the PM10 problem. Particulate
levels have steadily decreased
Figure H-1
since the late 1980s, with current
Thurston County PM10 Trends
levels at roughly one third of that
allowed under clean air policies.
Mobile source emissions account
for about 25 percent of the total,
according to the Clean Air Agency.
Because of its success in mitigating
the particulate problem, in 1997
the Clean Air Agency sought
a redesignation in conformity
status from non-attainment to
maintenance area. After careful
consideration, EPA granted that
request in November 2000.
That status redesignation triggered
a change in TRPC’s role and in
the region’s transportation requirements, in particular in the newly
designated maintenance area. The white area in Map H-1 identifies
the official, federally-designated maintenance area.
H-2
The region had been successful in reducing particulate matter to low
levels. With the resulting PM10 levels so low, transportation sources
now accounted for about a quarter of the total level that remained,
or one-twelfth the allowable emissions. EPA’s Transportation
Conformity Regulations required that the maintenance area of the
Appendix H
Thurston region would now have
to comply with transportation
conformity requirements, although
again, the Thurston County PM10
Maintenance Plan identified no
transportation control measures.
Map H-1
Thurston Region PM10
Maintenance Area
This “after the fact” conformity
designation makes Thurston
one of the very few regions in
the nation to have been exempt
from transportation conformity
requirements when it had an air
pollution problem but then had to
comply with those requirements
after air quality improved.
Transportation conformity
requirements stipulate that
TRPC must adopt a long-range
transportation plan that successfully
demonstrates that the projects
it includes will not cause the region’s air quality to deteriorate.
Specifically, projects in the plan must not:
•
Cause or contribute to any new violation of the federal air
quality standards for PM10.
This appendix demonstrates that the projects and programs
identified in this plan will not cause or contribute to a new
violation of the air quality standards for PM10.
•
Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of
the standards.
No violation of the air quality standards occurred since
the late 1980s, therefore the projects and programs
recommended in this plan cannot increase the frequency or
severity of existing violations.
•
Delay timely attainment of the standards.
The region has attained healthy air quality standards,
therefore the projects and programs recommended in this
plan cannot delay timely attainment of those standards.
Once this has been demonstrated in the long-range plan, those
projects can then be included in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) with confidence that they will not
cause a violation of clean air standards.
H-3
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
When TRPC learned of the EPA determination and met with
officials on the Air Quality Consultation Group in September 2002,
the region was operating from its 2020 RTP. That Plan was not
developed with this transportation conformity requirement in place,
so did not demonstrate conformity. The region was placed into what
is referred to as a “lapsed status” for conformity. This put restrictions
on the region until a 2025 RTP that successfully demonstrated
conformity was developed and adopted.
Requirements stipulate that unless a conforming long-range plan
is in place, only certain kinds of projects can proceed. Those are
project-types identified by both state and federal agencies as being
exempt from air quality conformity requirements since they do not
negatively affect PM10. The Federal Clean Air Act (40 CFR 93.126)
and the State Clean Air Act (WAC 173-420-110) specifically identify
those types of projects.
Air Quality Consultation
TRPC meets regularly with the state’s Air Quality Consultation
Group. Comprised of representatives from the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology,
the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Washington State Department of
Transportation, the Consultation Group provided direction on how
to comply with requirements without jeopardizing project funding
during TRPC’s unusual status.
Experts on the Consultation Group provided guidance in the
development of an air quality conformity model used to demonstrate
the region’s compliance with mandated requirements. The Group
reviewed assumptions, methodologies, and process, and reviewed
findings regarding any exempt projects before they could proceed.
The mandated air quality modeling procedures are contained in this
appendix, as well as the data assumptions and results. They were
included in the Draft Plan to ensure the widest possible distribution
for public review.
Technical Procedure
The technical procedure for air quality conformity analysis involves
estimation of PM10 emissions from mobile sources by integrating
the regional travel demand model with EPA’s latest emission factors
model MOBILE 6.2. Federal conformity rule identifies the criteria
H-4
Appendix H
and procedures that guide the conformity process (40 CFR 93.109),
and establishes a conformity criterion (§ 93.118(a)), which states
that:
“This (Conformity) criterion is satisfied if it is demonstrated
that emissions of pollutants or pollutant precursors…are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
established in the applicable implementation plan…”
WAC 173-420-065 details the matching state equivalent conformity
criterion. The latest state implementation plan (SIP) that addresses
our region determined a mobile source emissions budget of 776.36
tons per year by 2010. Since the emission budget established in
the SIP is for year 2010, emissions are calculated for that year in
addition to 2005, which is base year for this plan, and 2030, which
is the forecast year. To comply with § 93.118(b) which requires
that intermediate years not be separated by more than 10 years to
be consistent – meaning complying with the emissions budget – a
conformity analysis for year 2020 was also performed.
Mobile source emissions consist of two components:
•
Vehicle exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear – emissions that
are directly attributable to the vehicles, and
•
Road dust – emissions that depend on road surface material,
vehicle load, and weather.
Exhaust, tire and brake wear emission factors are calculated
using MOBILE 6.2. These emission factors, represented in grams
per VMT, are combined with the VMT of the maintenance area
(estimated using the travel demand model) resulting in auto
emissions, represented in tons per year.
Road dust emissions are calculated following the same procedure
used in establishing the emissions budget. In that procedure, the
road dust emission factor used is 0.6321 grams/VMT for a dry day
with less than 0.01 inches of rain. And in the original procedure it is
assumed that Thurston County has 164 days with at least 0.01 inches
of rainfall in a year. The road dust emission factor is multiplied by
the number of dry days and the maintenance area VMT to obtain
road dust emissions in tons per year.
Total PM10 mobile source emissions for the maintenance area
are obtained by combining vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear
emissions with road dust emissions.
H-5
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
Model Assumptions
Federal conformity rule § 93.110 mandates use of the latest planning
assumptions. This requires using the latest population, employment
and traffic estimates of the current and future year, and the latest
transit operating policies and services. Since the adopted land use
and employment are from the latest population and employment
forecasts, the region complies with this requirement. All other
transportation assumptions in the analysis employed the regional
travel demand modeling assumptions.
Following the requirements in § 93.118, all regionally significant
capacity projects identified in this plan for the entire region – not
just the maintenance area – that can be modeled are included for
estimating the congestion in 2030. Since implementation years are
not established for projects, no basis exists to justify which regionally
significant projects will be completed by 2010 and 2020. Therefore,
VMT for these years are obtained by linearly interpolating between
the base and future year.
TRPC performed the emission factors analysis with the most current
vehicle registration distributions provided by the Washington
State Department of Ecology. Default values supplied with the
analysis tool are used for annual mileage accumulation rates and
VMT fractions. Mileage accumulation rates represent the total
annual travel accumulated per vehicle of a given age and individual
vehicle category. VMT fractions allocate VMT to different vehicle
categories. Other relevant data required for the analysis is obtained
from “MOBILE 6\6.1\6.2 Input Parameters and Processing” prepared
by the Air Quality Program of Washington State Department of
Ecology. The last section of this appendix presents the MOBILE 6.2
input files used in the analysis.
Results and Conclusions
The conformity analysis must show that the estimated PM10
emissions in the maintenance area are less than the mobile
source emissions budget of 776.36 tons per year established in the
maintenance plan. The emissions depend on total number of vehicle
miles traveled in the maintenance area, the mobile emission factors,
and the road dust emissions factors. Tables H-1 and H-2 present
total PM10 mobile emissions and emission factors, respectively.
H-6
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
Maintenance Area Average
Daily VMT (miles per day)
Total PM10 Mobile Emissions
(tons per year)
2005
2,630,480
434.37
2010
2,929,098
465.43
2020
3,526,334
536.66
2030
4,123,570
624.73
Table H-2
Auto and Road Dust Emission Factors
Auto Emission Factors (Grams/VMT)
Road Dust Emission
Factors (Grams/VMT)
Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Auto Total
2005
0.0406
0.0095
0.0125
0.0627
0.6321
2010
0.0251
0.0095
0.0125
0.0472
0.6321
2020
0.0084
0.0096
0.0125
0.0305
0.6321
2030
0.0067
0.0096
0.0125
0.0288
0.6321
Table H-1
Maintenance Area VMT and Total PM10 Mobile Emissions
As shown in Table H-1, the PM10 mobile emissions for maintenance
year and intermediate years are less than the emissions budget of
776.36 tons/year. Therefore, the transportation projects identified in
this Plan do not degrade the region’s air quality. The Plan complies
with state and federal clean air requirements.
MOBILE 6.2 Input Files
The MOBILE 6.2 input files for 2005, 2010, 2020, and 2030 are
presented below. The vehicle registration distribution values are
not presented in this section due to space limitations. Contact
the Thurston Regional Planning Council for the complete
documentation.
Under current law, diesel fuel will be required to meet a reduced
sulfur content limit of 15ppm on or before September 1, 2006.
Therefore, following Department of Ecology’s suggestions, a diesel
sulfur content of 320ppm was used for 2010, and a diesel sulfur
content of 15ppm was used for 2020 and later.
H-7
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
2005 Mobile 6.2 Input File
****************
MOBILE6 INPUT FILE
Header Section
****************
POLLUTANTS
:
PARTICULATES
RUN DATA
****************
REG DIST
FUEL PROGRAM
NO REFUELING
****************
: SO4 OCARBON ECARBON GASPM LEAD BRAKE TIRE
Run Section
****************
: examples\aq2030\reg20042.txt
: 1
:
Scenario Section
****************
SCENARIO RECORD
: Thurston County: January 2005
CALENDAR YEAR
: 2005
EVALUATION MONTH
: 1
MIN/MAX TEMP
: 31.6 44.4
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY : 23.0
FUEL RVP
: 14.3
PARTICLE SIZE
: 10.0
DIESEL SULFUR
: 320
PARTICULATE EF
: PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV
PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV
END OF RUN
****************
MOBILE6 INPUT FILE
Header Section
****************
POLLUTANTS
:
PARTICULATES
RUN DATA
****************
REG DIST
FUEL PROGRAM
NO REFUELING
****************
Run Section
****************
: examples\tip0608b\reg2006.txt
: 1
:
Scenario Section
****************
SCENARIO RECORD
CALENDAR YEAR
: 2010
EVALUATION MONTH
: 1
MIN/MAX TEMP
: 31.6 44.4
FUEL RVP
: 14.3
PARTICLE SIZE
: 10.0
DIESEL SULFUR
: 320
PARTICULATE EF
END OF RUN
H-8
June 1, 2007
Appendix H
****************
MOBILE6 INPUT FILE
Header Section
****************
POLLUTANTS
:
PARTICULATES
RUN DATA
****************
REG DIST
FUEL PROGRAM
NO REFUELING
****************
Run Section
****************
: examples\tip0608b\reg2006.txt
: 1
:
Scenario Section
****************
SCENARIO RECORD
CALENDAR YEAR
: 2020
EVALUATION MONTH
: 1
MIN/MAX TEMP
: 31.6 44.4
FUEL RVP
: 14.3
PARTICLE SIZE
: 10.0
DIESEL SULFUR
: 15
PARTICULATE EF
END OF RUN
****************
MOBILE6 INPUT FILE
Header Section
****************
POLLUTANTS
:
PARTICULATES
RUN DATA
****************
REG DIST
FUEL PROGRAM
NO REFUELING
****************
Run Section
****************
: examples\aq2030\reg2006.txt
: 1
:
Scenario Section
****************
SCENARIO RECORD
CALENDAR YEAR
: 2030
EVALUATION MONTH
: 1
MIN/MAX TEMP
: 31.6 44.4
FUEL RVP
: 14.3
PARTICLE SIZE
: 10.0
DIESEL SULFUR
: 15
PARTICULATE EF
END OF RUN
H-9
June 1, 2007
Appendix I
Transportation Modeling
Process
All models are wrong, but some are useful.
- George Box
Regional transportation planning shapes the transportation policies,
strategies, and programs for the region resulting in an integrated
multi-modal system that moves people and goods efficiently. As
part of the planning process, transportation demand modeling
facilitates the evaluation of alternatives for current and future
problems, helping to guide long-range transportation infrastructure
investment decisions. Modeling also provides information to
jurisdictional engineers and planners for localized analysis of shortrange transportation issues.
What is a transportation model and how is it used
in the planning process?
Simply put, the transportation demand model is a set of mathematical
procedures and equations that represent the choices that people in
this region make to travel. Traffic on the roads results from
individual decisions like where to travel, when to travel, and how to
travel. Land use decisions such as where to live, where to work, and
where to shop also greatly impact our travel behavior. To account
for all these decisions and to asses the impact of such individual
choices on our community and transportation system, engineers
formulate mathematical procedures and equations that are applicable
to our region.
Introduction
The amount and detail of available data constrains the formulation of
such procedures and equations. This leads to making reasonable
assumptions on unavailable data regarding the travel behavior in the
region. The modeler tests these assumptions, procedures and
equations for their capability to replicate the current state of the
travel behavior by comparison with actual traffic counts. The model
is adjusted until it reasonably estimates the present state of traffic
movement.
After testing the viability of these equations and assumptions,
forecasts are made. Typically, models estimate the trips made in a
future year – 10 to 20 years from now – for a forecasted future land
I-1
Appendix I
use and the current transportation infrastructure. This tests the
capability of the current system to hold the future traffic. Such a
process reveals the road sections that are most likely to become
congested in a future year. Alternative solutions are proposed to
solve the congestion, and the model evaluates their performance.
Why is transportation modeling needed?
I-2
In addition to the federal requirement for model use in regional plans,
transportation modeling is highly applicable for allocating scarce
resources in a way that benefits the region’s transportation network.
Transportation models support informed and judicious transportation
investment decisions. Models provide a platform to identify future
problems, potential solutions, and the outcome of employing such
solutions. Policy makers can compare these alternatives and either
select the most promising option or propose measures and policies to
alleviate the problem.
Transportation models help to build high quality transportation
systems, reducing environmental impact, minimizing traffic
congestion, and avoiding dangerous travel patterns and undesirable
land use patterns.
Map I-1
2001 Thurston County Traffic Analysis Zones
Appendix I
Modeling Steps
The modeling process involves a step-by-step evaluation of
travelers’ choices. Since it is impractical to obtain information
regarding every traveler in the region, a certain level of aggregation
and generalization is required. Modelers perform such tasks in a
way that makes them statistically significant. To facilitate the
aggregation, the whole region is divided into small, manageable
geographical locations. In technical terms, these locations are
called Traffic Analysis Zones or TAZs (Map I-1).
•
How often to travel - Trip Generation
•
Where to travel - Trip Distribution
•
Which mode of transportation to use - Mode Choice
•
What route to take - Traffic Assignment
These decisions are aggregated for everyone in a TAZ. The
relationship between individual decisions and their aggregated form is
shown in Figure I-1. “When to travel?” is not considered here, but
the entire travel demand model process can be performed after
deciding the time of the day of the analysis.
Evaluation of travelers’ choices primarily distinguishes among four
transportation decisions:
Trip Generation: How often to travel?
This step estimates the total number of person trips from each TAZ
by aggregating all travelers’ decisions of how often to travel. If the
TAZ contains commercial/office locations, then the total number of
person trips also includes how often people travel to these locations.
This step of the model employs land use, population and economic
forecasts. It also uses the estimated values of how frequently people
travel to different types of land uses like school, college, office, or
shopping. The 1998 Household Travel Survey for Thurston County
forms the basis for calculating trip frequency by land use.
For each TAZ, since each trip has two ends, the model distinguishes
trips produced and trips attracted. Trips produced are the trips that
originate in the TAZ, and trips attracted are those that end at the
TAZ. Person trips are categorized according to their purpose –
home-based work trips, home-based shopping trips, or non-homebased trips depending on the requirement of the analysis.
I-3
Appendix I
Figure I-1
Relationship between Individual and Aggregated
Travel Decisions
Trip Distribution: Where to travel?
The previous step gives the analyst the total number of trips that are
produced (originating) and attracted (ending) for a given TAZ.
However, it does not answer the question of where the originating
trips end or where the ending trips begin. This step of travel demand
modeling – trip distribution – answers the question: How many trips
from a given TAZ, downtown Olympia for example, are going to
other TAZs, such as Capital Mall or Yelm. From a different
perspective, this step can also be viewed as an aggregated form of
individual travelers’ decisions of where to travel because it calculates
the number of trips between two TAZs.
The most popular method used for trip distribution is the gravity
model. The rationale for this method is that a destination TAZ with
more activity (measured in terms of trips attracted and trips
produced) attracts more trips from any given origin TAZ and fewer
trips if farther from the origin TAZ. The “farther” measure reflects
not just the geographical distance, but also the travel time between
the TAZs.
I-4
If a sufficiently long time period is selected – a day – the total
number of trips produced in this time-period in the whole region is
exactly equal to the total number of trips attracted to the region.
However, the results from the gravity model might not represent this
balance. Therefore, the whole step is performed repeatedly until this
balance between trips produced and attracted is achieved.
Appendix I
Mode Choice: Which mode of transportation to use?
Once the “how often and where to travel” questions are answered,
the next step is to choose a transportation mode. This step primarily
categorizes the trips between a given origin TAZ and destination
TAZ according to the transportation modes, such as drive alone,
carpool, vanpool, transit, bike or walk. This step categorizes the
trips between TAZs according to the individual traveler’s choice of
transportation mode.
•
The characteristics of the traveler – such as income or age;
•
The characteristics of the mode – bus frequency, bike lanes,
waiting time for the mode, or in-vehicle travel time.
Analysts most commonly employ Logit models for this step. These
models are highly mathematical and predict the probability that a
given traveler chooses a particular mode. For this region, this step
uses data from the 1998 Household Travel Survey and 1999
Onboard Transit Ridership Survey conducted by TRPC and Intercity
Transit.
Traffic Assignment: What route to take?
Next, the modeler estimates the specific roads or transit routes taken
by these travelers. Using that route information, this step computes
the traffic on the roads and transit ridership.
The analysis of the choice of mode considers many factors:
Known as traffic assignment, this step assigns trips between a given
origin and destination TAZ pair to a calculated route. When trips
between all origin and destination pairs are assigned to their
respective routes, the traffic builds on the transportation system
resulting in the traffic volumes on each road. Usually auto assignment
(assigning cars to their route) is done separately from transit
assignment (assigning ridership to fixed bus routes).
The simple way of estimating a route between TAZs is to compute
the shortest path that takes the least travel time. In the case of auto
assignment, if congestion and its effects are also included in
calculating the travel time of the routes, this process needs to be
performed repeatedly until a solution is obtained.
Since the actual routes taken are different from the shortest path,
highly mathematical techniques like Deterministic User Equilibrium
and Stochastic User Equilibrium that use non-linear programming and
optimization techniques are often employed. The rationale for these
methods is that a traveler cannot improve his travel time by changing
his current route while other travelers are still following their routes.
I-5
Appendix I
That means every traveler between a given origin and destination
TAZ pair experiences the same travel time irrespective of the route
they take.
Limitations of Transportation Models
Transportation demand modeling can be used for a variety of
applications, but has certain limitations. A modeler must carefully
decide how the capability of the model matches a specific analysis
purpose.
I-6
Generally the data used for formulation of transportation models is
large enough to produce a statistically significant model. However,
due to the inherent complexity of travel behavior, specific aspects of
travel behavior such as transit ridership by elders might not be
captured. Alternative methods or surveys are often recommended
for analysis of such aspects.
Since transportation models are used for regional forecasts, it is
acceptable to ignore certain details regarding travel behavior at
specific areas or specific times. Traditionally, for example, the travel
behavior on weekends is not included in the model.
Other limitations are inherent in the model. It is:
•
Insensitive to some policies. For example, the model may not
reflect impacts of an increase or decrease in parking cost or
gasoline price on travel behavior.
•
Unable to model certain behaviors. Trip-chaining, a travel
behavior that involves traveling to different activities before
returning to the starting point (Home – Coffee – Work –
Shop – Home), is treated differently. Surveys often do not
record instances of such behavior, making that analysis
statistically infeasible.
•
Incapable of modeling the effects of CTR or other TDM
measures.
•
Unable to consider the inter-relationship between
transportation investment and land use, because land use is a
constant.
•
Unable to connect time-of-day variations. The effects of
flexible work schedules, telework and related policies are
hard to capture without external data support.
Appendix I
References
Beimborn, Edward and Kennedy, Rod. Inside the Black Box: Making
Transportation Models Work for Livable Communities, Citizens for a
Better Environment, Milwaukee, WI, 1996.
Rutherford, Scott. An Introduction to Urban Travel Demand
Forecasting, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1992.
Demand modeling is a macroscopic way of looking at travel behavior
with application more in planning than in operations and maintenance.
Traffic simulation models are more appropriate for those functions.
Demand modeling deals with navigational issues and traffic simulation
deals with maneuvering issues. Due to this basic distinction, travel
demand models cannot resolve all issues and are inappropriate for
certain purposes. For example, queue lengths and waiting time at an
intersection need alternative models, not transportation demand
models. Similarly, the model cannot be used to estimate the increase
in pedestrian and bike traffic if better pedestrian facilities are
provided.
I-7
Appendix J
The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan is the third in a series of
transportation plans. The first plan, “Transportation Futures 2010”
was written in 1993 and updated in 1998 with “TransAction 2020.”
These plans laid the foundation for a $309 million investment in
transportation projects in the region from 1993 through 2001. This
includes completed projects (60%), projects underway, and projects
with committed funding. Federal, state and local sources contributed
roughly equal shares to finance these investments. The largest
investments were in capacity, maintenance, preservation and
replacement projects. Safety, efficiency and non-motorized capacity
projects also received substantial investments.
In the period from 1993 through 2001, 341 projects were initiated,
as listed in Table J-1. Private development contributed to many of
these projects and completed other local improvements not reflected
in the project total. Of these projects, 112 included bike and
pedestrian improvements. The 39 regionally significant projects
identified in “Transportation Futures 2010” and/or “TransAction
2020” represents a $140 million investment.
Project Accomplishments
J-1
Appendix J
Table J-1
Summary of Project Accomplishments 1993 through 2001
Seventh/Main/Sixth/River Streets Rehabilitation
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Funded
AGENCY
Bucoda
PROJECT
Bucoda
Resurfacing Priorities
Bucoda
Bucoda Sidewalk Project
Complete
Cap High School
Bike Lockers (10) - Construction and Installation
Complete
Climate Solutions
Olympia Neighborhood Connections Plan
Complete
Climate Solutions
Thurston County Bicycling Guide Map
Complete
Climate Solutions
Tumwater Trails Plan
Funded
Climate Solutions
Transportation Access Project (as 'Energy Outreach Center')
Complete
Climate Solutions
"Smart Moves in Thurston County Schools" TDM Curriculum
Underway
Intercity Transit
Purchase 5 expansion vanpool vans (90-X221)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Lacey Transit Center - ROW and construction
Complete
Intercity Transit
Lacey Transit Center design (90-X162)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Olympia Transit Center - ROW, Design, and Construction
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 2 expansion paratransit vans (90-X162 STP)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 7 expansion buses (90-X130)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Funded
Intercity Transit
Underway
Intercity Transit
"Village Vehicles" Vanpool Program - Phase 2
Funded
Intercity Transit
"Village Vehicles" Vanpool Program - Phase 1
Underway
Intercity Transit
Capital preventive maintenance (90-X228)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 4 replacement buses (90-X201)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 3 replacement paratransit vans (90-X221)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 4 replacement paratransit vans (03-0122)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 5 replacement buses (03-0109)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Purchase 5 replacement vanpool vans (90-X228)
Complete
Explanation: 1Project Status refers to project activity as of January 2002.
Complete - project completed
Underway - project visibly underway or about to start
Funded - a specific grant is secured (or other committed funding); project has not yet been started
J-2
Appendix J
Intercity Transit
Intercity Transit
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Complete
Intercity Transit
Funded
Intercity Transit
Funded
Intercity Transit
Replace 2-way Radio System
Funded
Intercity Transit
Underway
Intercity Transit
Underway
Intercity Transit
Underway
Intercity Transit
Underway
Intercity Transit
Bus stop improvements (90-X189 STP)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Centennial Station Parking Lot Expansion
Complete
Intercity Transit
Bicycle racks (90-X177 STP)
Complete
Intercity Transit
Centennial Station Platform Improvements
Underway
Intercity Transit
Regional rideshare program (90-X228 STP)
Complete
Intercity Transit
"Local Travel Agency" Trip Planning Assistance - Phase 1
Funded
Intercity Transit
"Local Travel Agency" Trip Planning Assistance - Phase 2
Funded
AGENCY
PROJECT
Lacey
Marvin Rd/I-5 Interchange Expansion
Complete
Lacey
Willamette Drive Extension
Complete
Lacey
Britton Parkway - New Regional Connection
Complete
Lacey
Complete
Lacey
Martin Way Capacity, Overlay and Bike Lane Project from
College St to Desmond Dr
Marvin Rd Upgrades - Hogum Bay to Britton Pkwy
Complete
Lacey
Mullen Road Extension *** ROW ONLY ***
Complete
Lacey
Lacey
Carpenter Road Widening (w/County) *** DESIGN ONLY ***
Marvin Rd (SR 510) Widening - I-5 to City Limits (w/WSDOT)
Funded
Lacey
Yelm Highway Retrofit - College St to Ruddell Rd
Funded
Lacey
Signal Coordination in CBD - Phase I
Complete
Lacey
Pacific Ave/Lacey Blvd One-Way Couplet - Preliminary Engineering
Complete
Table J-1, continued
Funded
J-3
Appendix J
AGENCY
Lacey
Signal Coordination - Phase II
Lacey
Sleater-Kinney / 6th Avenue Realignment
Funded
College Street and 45th Roundabout
Underway
Lacey
Pacific Ave/Lacey Blvd One-Way Couplet Conversion &
Resurfacing
Marvin Road Landscaping Enhancements
Underway
Complete
Lacey
Enterprise Drive NE - Rehabilitation
Complete
Lacey
19th Avenue SE Resurfacing
Complete
Lacey
8th Avenue SE Resurfacing
Complete
Lacey
Martin Way East Roadway Rehabilitation
Funded
Lacey
Martin Way West Roadway Rehabilitation
Funded
Lacey
Pacific Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation
Funded
Lacey
Sleater-Kinney Road Rehab & Upgrade
Funded
Lacey
College Street Roadway Rehabilitation
Funded
Lacey
Martin Way Enhancements
Complete
Lacey
Sidewalk Program Investments 1994 (22nd Avenue)
Complete
Lacey
Sidewalk Program Investments 1995
Complete
Lacey
45th Avenue Multimodal Upgrades & Drainage Improvements
Underway
Lacey
Ruddell Road Utility Undergrounding
Complete
Lacey
College Street at 37th Avenue - Signalization
Complete
Lacey
Martin Way Auxiliary Lane & Interchange Imp
Complete
Lacey
Ruddell Road at 22nd Avenue - Signalization
Complete
Lacey
Citywide Pedestrian Signing
Complete
Lacey
Martin Way and Galaxy Drive Traffic Signal
Funded
Lacey
School Crosswalk Beacon Installation (w/NTPS)
Underway
Nisqually Tribe
Street Addressing and Signing Project
Funded
Olympia
Complete
Olympia
Martin Way and Sleater-Kinney Rd Intersection Improvement,
south leg
Log Cabin Road Connection *** PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
ONLY ***
Mud Bay Road Widening - Phase I
Complete
Olympia
Cooper Pt and Black Lake EB to NB Right Turn Lane
Complete
Olympia
J-4
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Lacey
Lacey
PROJECT
Complete
Appendix J
Olympia
Cooper Pt and Carriage St Traffic Signal
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Olympia
Cooper Pt and Evergreen Park Dr Intersection Improvements
Complete
Olympia
Mud Bay at Cooper Pt Intersection , EB Left and Right Turn Lanes
Complete
Olympia
Pacific Ave and Pattison St Traffic Signal
Complete
Olympia
Underway
Olympia
4th/5th Avenue Corridor - Bridge Rehabilitation, Harrison/West Bay
Widening & Roundabout
Evergreen Park Drive at Cooper Point - Traffic Signal Upgrade
Complete
Olympia
Legion Way at Eastside Street - Traffic Signal Upgrade
Complete
Olympia
Mud Bay at Cooper Pt Intersection Upgrade, Widen north leg
Complete
Olympia
Traffic Signal Interconnect (4th Ave)
Complete
Olympia
Traffic Signal Upgrades (State & 4th), Interconnect (Cooper Pt &
Pacific)
4th Ave Preservation Project
Complete
AGENCY
Olympia
PROJECT
Complete
Olympia
Cain Rd Overlay & Bike/Pedestrian Imp
Complete
Olympia
Capitol Way Resurfacing Project
Complete
Olympia
Cooper Point Road Preservation and Median Project
Complete
Olympia
Harrison Avenue Preservation and Median Project
Complete
Olympia
1993 Street Overlays - Division St
Complete
Olympia
2000 Seal Coat/Thin Overlay Program
Complete
Olympia
2001 Seal Coat/Thin Overlay Program
Complete
Olympia
Asphalt Overlay Program (Pacific Ave: I5 to Lacey City Limits; Lilly
Rd: Pacific Ave to Martin Way; Madison Ave: Division to Rogers)
Complete
Olympia
Asphalt Overlay Program Research
Complete
Olympia
Boulevard Rd Overlay
Complete
Olympia
Capitol Way Concrete Panel Repair (Carlyon to 26th)
Complete
Olympia
Cooper Pt Rd Overlay (Harrison Ave to Limited Lane)
Complete
Olympia
Eastside St Overlay (I-5 Ramp to State)
Complete
Olympia
Ensign Rd Overlay
Complete
Olympia
Harrison Ave Overlay (West leg at Cooper Pt Rd)
Complete
Olympia
Jefferson St Overlay (11th Ave to Union Ave)
Complete
J-5
Appendix J
Olympia
Lakeridge Dr Slide Study
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Olympia
Least Cost Paving Program
Complete
Olympia
Log Cabin Overlay (Boulevard Rd to North St)
Complete
Olympia
Martin Way Earthquake Repair
Complete
Olympia
McPhee Rd Overlay
Complete
Olympia
Mottman Rd Reconstruction adjacent to SPSCC
Complete
AGENCY
PROJECT
Olympia
North St Overlay and Sidewalk
Complete
Olympia
Pavement Management Administration
Complete
Olympia
Plum/State/4th/5th Paving Projects (PW Trust Fund Loan)
Complete
Olympia
State Ave Overlay and Bike Lane, Phoenix Ave Overlay
Complete
Olympia
Unpaved Street Improvements
Complete
Olympia
Unpaved Street Improvements
Complete
Olympia
Wilson St Overlay (State Ave to N City Limts)
Complete
Olympia
Black Lake Boulevard Preservation Project
Funded
Olympia
Sleater-Kinney Road Preservation, Bike Lane, and Sidewalk Project
Funded
Olympia
Conger Ave Restripe for Bike Lanes (Cooper Pt to Division St)
Complete
Olympia
Morse-Merryman/Hoffman Sidewalk Project
Complete
Olympia
Boulevard Road Bike Lanes
Complete
Olympia
Capitol Blvd Sidewalk Construction - I-5 to Carlyon
Complete
Complete
Olympia
Harrison Ave Sidewalk Construction - Milroy to Cushing
Olympia
State Ave Sidewalk Construction - Wilson to Cherry
Complete
Olympia
9th Avenue Sidewalk (Black Lake to Caton Way)
Complete
Olympia
1993 Street Access Improvements (ADA)
Complete
Olympia
1993/1994 Sidewalks (Pine Ave: Lybarger St to Fir St;
Fir St: 5th Ave to Legion Way)
1994 Street Access Improvements (ADA)
Complete
Olympia
Olympia
1995 Sidewalk Projects
Complete
Olympia
1995/1996/1997 Street Access Improvements (ADA)
Complete
Olympia
1996 Sidewalks (Bigelow: Garrison to Central)
Complete
Olympia
1997 Sidewalks ( Ethridge: Bethel to Fir)
Complete
J-6
Complete
Appendix J
Olympia
Olympia
PROJECT
1997 Sidewalks (Galloway: O'Farrell to Eskridge; Eskridge:
Galloway to Quince; O'Farrell: Galloway to Galloway)
1997/1998 Street Access Improvements (ADA)
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Complete
Olympia
1998 Bicycle Improvements (4th Ave: Plum St to Edison St, State
Ave: Pacific Ave "Y" to Pear St, Henderson Blvd: South City Limits
to I-5, Division St: Harrison to Conger, Boulevard Rd: I-5 to Pacific)
Complete
Olympia
1998 Sidewalks (Evergreen Park Drive; Ethridge: Quince to Bethel)
Complete
Olympia
2000/2001/2002 Street Access Improvements (ADA) and Audible
Signals
2002 Sidewalk Program (City Council Emphasis Work)
Complete
Olympia
Complete
Olympia
Bethal St Sidewalk (Jasper to 25th CT)
Complete
Olympia
Bicycle "Racks on Demand" - Bike Parking in Downtown
Complete
Olympia
Bicycle Parking Facilities in CBD
Complete
Olympia
Bicycle Program Administration
Complete
Olympia
Capitol Way Bike Lanes (State Ave to Market St)
Complete
Olympia
Division St Improvements, Bike Lanes (Scammel Ave to 27th Ave)
Complete
Olympia
Eastside St Sidewalk - Realign Sidewalk South of Wheeler Ave
Complete
Olympia
Complete
Olympia
Mottman Rd/R. W. Johnson Blvd Culvert Replacement for Future
Bike Lanes and Sidewalk
Olympia Neighborhood Connections
Complete
Olympia
Olympia Neighborhood Connections, Phase I
Complete
Olympia
Olympia Woodland Trail - Purchase ROW
Complete
Olympia
Ped Xing Program Administration
Complete
Olympia
R.W. Johnson Blvd. Sidewalk
Complete
Olympia
School/Pedestrian Walking Study
Complete
Olympia
Sidewalk Program Administration
Complete
Olympia
Street Access Improvements (ADA) Administration
Complete
Olympia
Thurston County Bicycling Guide Map
Complete
Olympia
1997 Bikeway Projects (Legion Way: Capitol Way to Plum St;
Eastside St: I5 to Boulevard)
18th Avenue Corridor Multimodal Upgrades (Hoffman Rd to East
City Limits)(Includes Overlay)
Complete
Olympia
AGENCY
Funded
J-7
Appendix J
Olympia
9th Avenue Enhancement Project and Overlay
PROJECT
STATUS1
Funded
Olympia
Bowman Avenue Sidewalk Project
Funded
Olympia
South Westside Traffic Calming - 4th and Division Semidiverter, 4th
and Cushing Traffic Circle, 4th Ave Two-way Angle Point east of
Decatur, 5th Ave Two-way Angle Point Between Rogers and
Percival, 5th and Percival Curb Bulb-outs, 5th and Foote Traffic Cir
Complete
Olympia
Complete
Olympia
1996 Traffic Calming - 7th and Boulevard Diverter, 7th and
Frederick Circle, 9th and Sawyer Circle, Frederick - 7th to 4th,
Wilson - 7th to 4th
McCormick St - North to Henderson
Complete
Olympia
Neighborhood Traffic Calming - Temporary Devices
Complete
Olympia
Decatur St Predesign
Complete
Olympia
Streetlight Replacement - 4th Avenue, from Bridge to Washington
Complete
Olympia
Streetlight Replacement - 4th Avenue, from Turner St to
Pacific Ave 'Y'
Streetlight Replacement - 4th Avenue, from Washington to Plum
Complete
AGENCY
Olympia
Olympia
PROJECT
Olympia
Complete
Olympia
Fones Road at Boulevard - Signalization
Complete
Funded
Olympia
5th & Jefferson RR Xing Crossing Signals
Complete
Olympia
8th Ave RR Xing Crossing Signals
Complete
Olympia
Capitol Way at 21st - Signal Upgrade
Complete
Olympia
Legion & Jefferson RR Xing Crossing Signals
Complete
Olympia
Pedestrian Safety Upgrades - 4th/Fairview and State/Wilson
Complete
Olympia
RW Johnson Railroad Crossing Upgrade
Complete
Olympia
4th/5th Avenue Corridor - Traffic Calming/Pedestrian Upgrades
Underway
Olympia
Olympia
Downtown Parking Meter Program - Phases 3 (2001), 4 (2002)
Downtown Parking Meter Program - Phases 1 (1999), 2 (2000)
Complete
Complete
Olympia
4th Ave Bridge TDM Public Education Program
Underway
J-8
Complete
Thomas St (Madison to Farwell) and Bush Ave (Kenyon to
Division)Traffic Calming
Boulevard Rd/Fones Rd/18th Ave Intersection Improvements
Appendix J
Port of Olympia
PROJECT
Plum Street Rehabilitation
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Port of Olympia
Marine Drive Reconstruction Project
Funded
Rainier
Priority Roadway Resurfacing Projects
Funded
Rainier
Annual Roadway Maintenance
Underway
Sandman Fnd.
Sandman Tugboat Restoration
Underway
Tenino
Garfield/Lincoln/Howard/Keithahn/2nd St Rehabilitation
Complete
Tenino
McClellan Street Resurfacing Project
Complete
Tenino
E Park Avenue Upgrades and Maintenance
Funded
Tenino
Sussex St/Wichman St/Lincoln St Sidewalk Project
Complete
Thurston County
Fairview Road Culvert Replacement & Pedestrian Undercrossing
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Steilacoom Rd Bridge - Environment Mitigation
Pleasant Glade Culvert Replacement
175th Ave Bridge Replacement
Hawks Prairie Road NE Upgrade (Marvin to Carpenter)
Complete
Funded
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Henderson Blvd Rehabilitation - Airdustrial to Deschutes River
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Littlerock Road Upgrade (113th to 128th)
Martin Way Bridge Replacement (M-14) (M15)
Marvin Road Upgrade (Mullen to Walthew)
Moon Road Bridge Replacement
Old Pacific Highway Bridge Replacement (O-11)
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Rainier Road Upgrade (BNRR to near Fir Tree Rd)
Complete
Thurston County
Reservation Road Upgrade (BNRR to Old Pacific Hwy)
Complete
Thurston County
Rich Road Upgrade (East Olympia to Rixie Rd)
Complete
Thurston County
Steamboat Island Road Upgrade (Gravelly Beach to 69th Ave)
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Waldrick Rd Bridge / BNRR Underpass
Pacific Ave SE (Carpenter to Steilacoom)
Delphi Rd Bridge (E-2)
Black Lake Blvd (62nd Ave to Tumwater City Limits)
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Yelm Hwy "S" Curves (Spurgeon Creek Rd to Meridian Rd)
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Morningside Rd Bridge (M-11)
Bald Hills Rd SE (RR Crossing to 4 Corners)
McElfresh Rd Bridge (MC1)
Complete
Complete
Complete
AGENCY
J-9
Appendix J
Thurston County
Thurston County
Meadows Rd Bridge (M4)
Yelm Hwy Phase 4 (Rich Rd to Lacey City Limits)
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Skookumchuck Rd Bridge (S5)
Vail Rd Bridge (V3)
Blvd Rd SE (Yelm Hwy to Olympia City Limits)
Case Rd SW (93rd Ave to 113th Ave)
Old Pacific Hwy (Durgin to SR-510)
Hawks Prairie Road Upgrade (Carpenter to South Bay)
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Funded
Thurston County
Thurston County
Marvin Road Upgrade ( Walthew to Pacific)
Reservation Road SE Upgrade (SR-510 to BNRR)
Funded
Funded
Thurston County
Boulevard Road Bike Lanes (Yelm Hwy to 41st Ave)
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Chehalis-Western Trail - Yelm Highway Bridge
Gate to Belmore Rail Acquisition
Martin Way Sidewalk - North Side, Carpenter Road to Lacey C/L
Complete
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Yelm-Tenino Trail - Phase I
Hensley/11th Avenue/Horne Street Sidewalk Project
Complete
Funded
Thurston County
Thurston County
Lydia Hawk School - Pedestrian Path
Martin Way Sidewalk - South Side, from Kinwood St to Lacey C/L
Funded
Underway
Thurston County
Thurston County
Yelm-Tenino Trail - Phase II
Ring Road Corridor Study (East-West Corridor Study)
Underway
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
110th Ave Br Guardrail Retrofit at Bloom's Ditch
110th Ave Br Guardrail Retrofit at BNRR
Holmes Island Br Guardrail Retrofit at Long Lake
Complete
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Kinwood Intersection Channelization & Signalization (at Martin Way)
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Martin Way at Nisqually Road - Signalization
Martin Way Illumination & Kingham Signal
Martin Way/Meridian/Duterrow Intersection Realignment,
Signalization
Complete
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Mullen Road Railroad Underpass Upgrade
Old Hwy 99/Offut Lake Intersection - Channelization Improvements
Complete
Complete
Thurston County
Steilacoom/Duterrow/Deerbrush Intersection
Complete
AGENCY
PROJECT
J-10
Appendix J
Thurston County
Traffic Safety Projects (small) - Various Locations 2001
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Vail Road Curve Realignment
South Bay / Lilly Rd Intersection Upgrade
Evergreen Parkway / Mud Bay Interchange
36th Avenue / Libby Road Intersection Widening
Complete
Complete
Complete
Funded
Thurston County
Bald Hills Rd Realignments & Upgrade (Smith Prairie to Vail Rd)
Funded
Thurston County
Duterrow Road Realignments and Upgrade (Steilacoom to
Martin Way)
Old Hwy 99/88th Ave Traffic Signal & Intersection Upgrade
Funded
AGENCY
Thurston County
Thurston County
PROJECT
Funded
Thurston County
Old Hwy 99/93rd Avenue Intersection Realignment &
Channelization
Pacific Ave / Kinwood Street Intersection Upgrade
Funded
Funded
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thurston County
Thomsen Road Railroad Crossing Upgrade
Vail Road/148th Avenue Intersection Upgrade
School Crosswalk Beacon Installation (w/NTPS)
Funded
Funded
Underway
Thurston County
Traffic Safety Projects (small) - Various Locations 2002
Underway
TRPC
Tribal Transportation Program - Phase 2
Funded
TRPC
Tribal Transportation Program - Phase 1
Underway
TRPC
Regional ITS Architecture
Complete
Tumwater
Airdustrial Way Extension - Capitol Blvd to Henderson Blvd
Complete
Tumwater
Capitol Blvd Widening, Rehabilitation, Upgrade - Dennis St to 'X' St
Complete
Tumwater
Complete
Tumwater
Cleveland Ave/Yelm Hwy Widening - Phase II (South St to
Henderson)
Cleveland Avenue Widening - Phase I (South St to North St)
Complete
Tumwater
RW Johnson Boulevard Connection - 25th to Mottman Rd
Complete
Tumwater
Littlerock Rd Widening & Multimodal Upgrade - Trosper Rd to
73rd Ave
Capitol Blvd Turn Lane Addition - 'M' St to Trosper Rd
Funded
Tumwater
Tumwater
Complete
Tumwater
Airdustrial Way Turn Lane & Multimodal Upgrade - Capitol Blvd
to I-5
Capitol Blvd Overlay and Street Lighting Project - 'M' St to 'X' St
Underway
Funded
Tumwater
Capitol Blvd - 'C' Street Sidewalk Connection
Complete
J-11
Appendix J
Tumwater
Capitol Blvd Sidewalk Addition - 'M' St to 'E' St
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
Tumwater
Second Ave - Trosper Rd to 'G' St Multimodal Upgrades
Complete
Tumwater
Second Avenue Bike Lanes & Sidewalks - 'H' St to Trosper Road
Complete
Tumwater
Black Lake Boulevard Multimodal Upgrade
Funded
Tumwater
Second Ave Sidewalk Addition - Linwood Ave to Trosper Rd
Funded
Tumwater
Underway
Tumwater
Henderson Blvd Multimodal Upgrade - Yelm Hwy to
Deschutes River
Deschutes Parkway Area Historic Lighting
Complete
Tumwater
Littlerock Rd at Israel Road - Realignment and Signalization
Complete
Tumwater
Old Highway 99 Signalization, at Henderson Boulevard
Funded
WSDOT
US 101/Crosby Blvd/Cooper Pt Rd Interchange Expansion
Complete
WSDOT
I-5 Widening - 93rd Ave I/C to Airdustrial Rd I/C
Complete
WSDOT
Complete
WSDOT
US 101 - Black Lake Blvd I/C & Black Lake Blvd to SR 5 - Widening
& Constructed Urban I/C
I-5/Trosper Road Interchange Widening/Signals
Funded
WSDOT
SR 510 (Marvin Rd) Widening - I-5 to Pacific Ave
Funded
WSDOT
SR 510 (Marvin Rd) Widening - Pacific Avenue to Martin Way
Funded
WSDOT
I-5 Widening - Maytown I/C to 93rd Ave I/C
Underway
AGENCY
PROJECT
WSDOT
I-5 Stormwater Retrofit, Sleater-Kinney-Marvin
Complete
WSDOT
US 101/Black Lake Blvd Interchange - Roadside Restoration Project
Complete
WSDOT
Crosby Blvd/Cooper Point Road/US 101 Interchange - Landscaping
Funded
WSDOT
McAllister Creek Outfall - Stormwater Retrofit
Funded
WSDOT
Murray Creek Outfall - Stormwater Retrofit
Funded
WSDOT
Woodland Creek Outfall - Stormwater Retrofit
Underway
WSDOT
Complete
WSDOT
SR 8 I/C to BLK LK I/C WB to MP 18 - Overlay/Paver and Replace
Guard Rails
I-5 Preservation - Airdustrial to Capitol Lake
Complete
WSDOT
Nisqually River Bridge - Engineering Study
Complete
WSDOT
Replace Black Lake Bridge
Complete
WSDOT
South Puget Sound Seismic Retrofit
Complete
J-12
Appendix J
WSDOT
SR 510 Overlay, Old Pacific Hwy - Reservation Rd
PROJECT
STATUS1
Complete
WSDOT
Thurston County Bridge Preservation
Complete
AGENCY
PROJECT
WSDOT
US 101/SR 8 Slide/Unstable Slope Repair
Complete
WSDOT
US 12/183rd to Joselyn Paving
Complete
WSDOT
Various Overlay and Resurfacing Projects
Complete
WSDOT
McAllister Creek Culvert & Tide Gates - Replaced failed facilities
Funded
WSDOT
Mud Bay Ramps - Resurface and upgrade guardrails
Funded
WSDOT
Nisqually River Bridge - Scour Protection Installation
Funded
WSDOT
SR 507/First St to SR 702 Paving
Funded
WSDOT
Sleater-Kinney Road Undercrossing
Complete
WSDOT
"Capitol to Capitol Trail" Construction Project - Vicinity
Delphi/Mud Bay
Airdustrial-Little St - Landscaping/Erosion Control
Funded
WSDOT
WSDOT
Complete
Complete
WSDOT
Plum St to Henderson Blvd (Vicnity I-5) - Added SB lane & Revised
Signal
SR 510 - Left Turn Lanes at Bingo Hall
WSDOT
Steamboat Island at US 101 - Interchange
Complete
WSDOT
US 12 - Forstrom Rd to Denmark Rd - Left Turn Channelization &
Modified Signal in Rochester
Complete
WSDOT
Vail Road - 2-way Left Turn Lane
Complete
Complete
WSDOT
Vail Road - Left Turn Channelization
Complete
WSDOT
Mud Bay Bridge Safety Improvements
Complete
WSDOT
Airdustrial at I-5 Northbound - Ramp Widening and Channelization
Funded
WSDOT
Pacific Ave at I-5 Southbound Off-ramp - Signalization
Funded
WSDOT
Funded
Yelm
SR 507/Old Military Road Remove Reverse Curve/Realign to
Simple Curve
Y2/Y3 Corridor and Environmental Study - Phase I
Complete
Yelm
Y2/Y3 Corridor and Environmental Study - Phase II
Complete
Yelm
Edwards Street NW Multimodal Upgrades (Between Yelm Ave and
Coates St)
Complete
J-13
Appendix J
AGENCY
Yelm
PROJECT
STATUS1
Funded
Yelm
103rd Avenue Multimodal Upgrades (Between West Rd and
Creek St)
East Yelm Ave Sidewalk Retrofit (ADA Compliance) Between 2nd
and 3rd Street
'Prairie Line' Railroad Acquisition
Yelm
5-Corners Intersection Realignment and Signalization
Complete
Yelm
East Yelm Avenue Safety Improvements & Multimodal Upgrades
(Between 4th and 5-Corners)
Purchase of (2) vans for rural mobility program
Underway
Yelm
J-14
PROJECT
Yelm Comm Svc
Funded
Complete
Funded

Appendix A - Thurston Regional Planning Council

Transcription

Similar documents

New Surespan Brochure 64960

Directions to GeoData - Thurston GeoData Center

www.ci.tumwater.wa.us

THE FUTURE X NETWORK A BELL LABS PERSPECTIVE

Event recycling brochure

the legal brief - Thurston County Bar Association

TRPC TMIP Presentation - Thurston Regional Planning Council

talkin - Thurston County

of the show here http://billtmiller.com/vampirecant thanks to Bill T

Neighborhood Garage Sale - Orchard Hills