april 2014 amended november 2016 - rtc: home page 1‐1: map of skamania county location .....5...

Regional Transportation Plan for

Skamania County, Washington

April 2014 Amended November 2016

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

Regional Transportation Plan for



Published: May2014 Amended: November 2016

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

Street Address Mailing Address1300 Franklin Street

Vancouver, WA 98660 P.O. Box 1366

Vancouver, WA 98666‐1366

Phone: 360‐397‐6067 Fax: 360‐397‐6132

http://www.rtc.wa.gov

Clark County

Skamania County

Klickitat County

City of Vancouver

City of Camas

City of Washougal

City of Battle Ground

City of Ridgefield

City of La Center

Town of Yacolt

City of Stevenson

City of North Bonneville

City of White Salmon

City of Bingen

City of Goldendale

C‐TRAN

Washington DOT

Port of Vancouver

Port of Camas‐Washougal

Port of Ridgefield

Port of Skamania County

Port of Klickitat

Metro

Oregon DOT

14th Legislative District





Introduction ii

Regional Transportation Plan for Skamania County

Preparation of this Report was funded by grants from the Washington State Department of Transportation and local funds from RTC member jurisdictions.

Title VI Compliance The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. RTC further assures that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether or not those programs and activities are federally funded.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

Materials can be provided in alternative formats by contacting the

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC)

at 360‐397‐6067 or [email protected].

Introduction iii


Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction: RTP Vision, Purpose and Goals .......................................................... 1

Vision ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 1Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Management Plan for the Columbia River National Scenic Area ..................................................................... 3SR‐14 Corridor Management Plan ................................................................................................................... 3

Transportation Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 3Guidelines and Principles ........................................................................................................................................ 4Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4Transportation Issues Addressed in RTP ................................................................................................................. 5Statutory Requirements ......................................................................................................................................... 6

State ................................................................................................................................................................. 6Intergovernmental Coordination .......................................................................................................................... 10

Skamania County Transportation Policy Committee ..................................................................................... 10Bi‐State Coordination ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Skamania County Regional Transportation Plan: Work Plan ................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2: Land Use, Growth and Transportation .................................................................. 13Land Use and Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 13

Management Plan for Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area .............................................................. 14Growth and Development .................................................................................................................................... 15

Growth in Skamania County .......................................................................................................................... 15General Land Uses in Skamania County................................................................................................................ 16Planned Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 17Population and Employment Forecast.................................................................................................................. 18Demographic and Travel Trends ........................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 3: Identification of Regional Transportation Needs .................................................. 21Current Functional Classification of the Regional Roadway System .................................................................... 21

Rural Principal Arterials .................................................................................................................................. 22Rural Minor Arterials ...................................................................................................................................... 22Rural Major Collector Roads .......................................................................................................................... 22Rural Minor Collector Roads .......................................................................................................................... 22Rural Local Roads ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Designation of the RTP Regional Transportation System ..................................................................................... 23Rural Major Collectors ................................................................................................................................... 24Forest Service Road System ........................................................................................................................... 24Port Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 24Airport Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 25Bridges ........................................................................................................................................................... 25

Introduction iv


Columbia River ............................................................................................................................................... 25Public Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 26Rail Facilities ................................................................................................................................................... 26Enhancements ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Growth in Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................... 27Future Travel Demand .......................................................................................................................................... 28Levels of Service .................................................................................................................................................... 28Level of Service Standards .................................................................................................................................... 29Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 30Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 30

Unstable Slopes .............................................................................................................................................. 32Tunnels ........................................................................................................................................................... 32Trucks ............................................................................................................................................................. 33

Preservation and Maintenance Need ................................................................................................................... 33Enhancement Need .............................................................................................................................................. 34Economic Development Need .............................................................................................................................. 34

Chapter 4: Financial Plan ....................................................................................................... 37Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 37Challenges and Accomplishments ........................................................................................................................ 37Revenue Sources ................................................................................................................................................... 38

Federal Funding ............................................................................................................................................. 38State Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 39Local Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 41Transit Revenues ............................................................................................................................................ 42

Revenue Assumptions .......................................................................................................................................... 42Cost Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................. 44Balancing Revenue and Cost ................................................................................................................................. 44

Chapter 5: System Improvement and Strategy Plan ............................................................... 47Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 47Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................................... 47Improvements ...................................................................................................................................................... 48Illustrative ............................................................................................................................................................. 48Miscellaneous Strategies and Solutions ............................................................................................................... 49

Bridge Deficiencies ......................................................................................................................................... 49Safety Deficiencies ......................................................................................................................................... 49Economic Development and Freight Transportation Deficiencies ................................................................. 49Non‐Motorized Transportation Deficiencies ................................................................................................. 50Transit Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................................ 50

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 50

Chapter 6: Performance Monitoring ...................................................................................... 53

Introduction v


Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 53Safety .................................................................................................................................................................... 53Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 53Preservation and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 54Special Studies ...................................................................................................................................................... 54

Chapter 7: Plan Development and Implementation ............................................................... 55Public Involvement in Regional Transportation Planning Process ........................................................................ 55RTP Implementation ............................................................................................................................................. 55RTP Update Process .............................................................................................................................................. 55

Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 57

List of Figures Figure 1‐1: Map of Skamania County Location ....................................................................................................... 5Figure 1‐2: Agency Structure ................................................................................................................................ 10Figure 1‐3: RTP Process ......................................................................................................................................... 12Figure 2‐1: Land Use/Transportation Cycle .......................................................................................................... 13Figure 2‐2: Growth in Skamania County ............................................................................................................... 16Figure 2‐3: Population, Housing & Employment, 1980 to Forecast 2030 ............................................................. 18Figure 4‐1: Transportation Revenue and Cost, 2014‐2035 ................................................................................... 45

List of Tables Table 2‐1: Skamania Workflow by County ............................................................................................................ 19Table 2‐2: Work Travel Mode ............................................................................................................................... 20Table 3‐1: Skamania County Public Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................ 27Table 3‐2: Traffic Volumes‐All Day (ADT) .............................................................................................................. 27Table 3‐3: Deficient Capacity Segment ................................................................................................................. 30Table 3‐4: Deficient Safety Segments, 2010‐2012 ................................................................................................ 31Table 3‐5: Rockfall Hazard Locations .................................................................................................................... 32Table 4‐1: Projected Revenue ............................................................................................................................... 43Table 4‐2: Projected Costs .................................................................................................................................... 44Table 5‐1: Transportation Improvement Projects ................................................................................................ 51Table 5‐2: Illustrative Needs ................................................................................................................................. 52

Introduction vi


Skamania County Transportation Policy Committee

Policy/Mission Statement

TheCommitteesupportstheimprovementofsafetyandefficiencyoftheregionaltransportationsysteminSkamaniaCounty.

TheCommitteesupportstransportationplanningandprojectdevelopmentthataddressestheimprovementofpublicsafetyalongtheregionaltransportationsystem.

TheCommitteesupportstheidentificationof“corridorsegments”throughouttheSkamaniaCountyregion,whichshouldbethefocusoftransportationimprovement,enhancement,multimodal,andmobilityfunding.

TheCommitteesupportsthecoordinationbetweenagenciesinidentifyingandaddressing,whenpractical,theneedsofamultimodaltransportationsystem.

Skamania County Member Jurisdictions SkamaniaCountyCityofNorthBonnevilleCityofStevensonPortofSkamaniaCountyWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation

Skamania County Transportation Policy Committee Members DougMcKenzie SkamaniaCountyCommissionerBenShumaker CityofStevenson,PlanningDirectorStevenHasson NorthBonneville,CityManagerPatAlbough PortofSkamaniaCounty, ManagerKrisStrickler WSDOT,SWRegionAdministrator

Staff and Other Participants: DevinReck WSDOT,SWRegionKenBurgstahler WSDOT,SWRegionMichaelWilliams WSDOT,SWRegionLarryDouglass SkamaniaCounty,PublicWorksTimHomann SkamaniaCounty,PublicWorksArleneJohnson SkamaniaCounty,SeniorServicesEricHansen CityofStevenson,PublicWorksPaulKoch PortofCascadeLocks,GeneralManagerMichelleSpatz MCEDD,Mobility ManagerMattRansom RegionalTransportationCouncilDaleRobins RegionalTransportationCouncil

Chapter 1: Introduction: RTP Vision, Purpose and Goals 1


Chapter 1: Introduction: RTP Vision, Purpose and Goals

TheRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)forSkamaniaCountyistheregion’sprincipaltransportationplanningdocument.ItrepresentsaregionaltransportationplanforSkamaniaCountyareadevelopedthroughacoordinatedprocessbetweenlocaljurisdictionsinordertodevelopregionalsolutionstotransportationneeds.ThefirstRTPforSkamaniaCountywasadoptedinApril1995.ThisupdatetotheSkamaniaCountyRTPwilluse2035asthehorizonyearandincorporatethelatestavailabledata.TheRTPisintendedtobeaplantomeetthetransportationneedsoverthenext20yearsbyimplementingaregionaltransportationplanningprocess.Thisintroductorychapterpresentsthevision,purpose,goals,scope,statutoryrequirements,anddecision‐makingprocessinvolvedindevelopmentoftheRTPforSkamaniaCounty.

Vision TheRTPisacollectiveefforttoaddressthedevelopmentofasaferegionaltransportationsystemthatwillsupportplannedeconomicgrowthandmaintaintheregion’sruralqualityoflife.

Purpose TheRTPidentifiesfutureregionaltransportationsystemneedsandoutlinestransportationplansandimprovementsnecessarytomaintainadequatemobilityandsafetywithinandthroughouttheSkamaniaCountyregion.Theregionmustplanforafutureregionaltransportationsystemthatadequatelyservesthepopulation,employment,andvisitorgrowthprojectedforSkamaniaCounty.The



RTP’sgoals,objectives,andpolicieswillguidethevariousjurisdictionsandagenciesinvolvedinplanningandprogrammingoftransportationprojectsthroughoutSkamaniaCounty.

Goals ThefollowinggoalswereusedtoguidethedevelopmentoftheSkamaniaCountyRegionalTransportationPlan:

Preservation:Maintainandpreservetheexistingregionaltransportationsystem.

SafetyandSecurity:Provideasafeandsecuretransportationsystem.

Economy:Provideatransportationsystemthatfosterseconomicdevelopment.

Finance:Provideforthedevelopmentofatransportationsystemthatefficientlyusesfinancialresources.

AccessibilityandMobility:Provideanintegratedandcoordinatedtransportationsystemthatincludesavarietyofmobilityoptions.

Environment:Provideatransportationsystemthatissensitivetothequalityoftheenvironmentandnaturalresources.

VisionandValues:Provideforviableandlivablelocalcommunities.

ManagementandOperations:Maximizeefficientmanagementandoperationofthetransportationsystem.

ThereisconsistencybetweenthegeneralRTPgoalsandthepoliciesestablishedbylocaljurisdictionsandagenciesaspartoftheirlocalcomprehensiveplanningprocess.TheRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)forSkamaniaCounty,where

applicable,willconsiderthegoalsestablishedintheManagementPlanfortheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicArea,SR‐14CorridorManagementPlan,andconsiderotherlongrangeplans.



Management Plan for the Columbia River National Scenic Area

Providetransportationfacilitiesthatmeettheneedsofthetravelingpublicandimplementthisplan’srecreationgoalsandobjectiveswhileprotectingscenic,natural,cultural,andrecreationresources.

Promotealternativemodesoftransportationtoimprovesafetyandenjoymentofthetravelingpublicandtohelpalleviatefuturetrafficdemand.

SR‐14 Corridor Management Plan

ImprovesafetyalongSR‐14withrespectfortheprotectionandenhancementofresources.

Enhancetheeconomyofcommunitiesalongthehighway.

DesignHighway14asanationalattractionbyprotectingandenhancingscenic,natural,cultural,andrecreationresourceswithinthehighwaycorridor,withrespecttolocalresidences,andbusiness.

ManagetheSR‐14Corridorinthemostefficientandeffectivemannerpossible.

Transportation Strategy TheRegionalTransportationPlanforSkamaniaCountyistheregion’stransportationstrategy.



Guidelines and Principles In1994,theStateLegislaturepassedlegislationthatrequiredRTPO’stoestablishGuidelinesandPrinciplesthatprovidedirectionforthedevelopmentofthetransportationelementsofcomprehensiveplans.Thefollowingrepresenttheseguidelinesandprinciples:

Identifyadequateareasforfuturecommercial,retail,andindustrialeconomicgrowth.Coordinateidentifiedeconomicgrowthareaswithanefficienttransportationsystem.

Identifyadequatelandforresidentialdevelopmentanddensitywithinurbanareasthatiscoordinatedwiththetransportationsystem.

Provideatransportationsystemthatsupportstheeconomicvitalityoftheregion,andprovidesforlong‐termfreightmobilityneedsandportaccess.

Providearangeofnon‐motorizedopportunitieswithintheregionaltransportationsystem.

Worktowardthedevelopmentofacoresystemofall‐weatherroadsforfreighttravel.

Encouragereducingtherelianceonthesingleoccupantvehiclebyprovidingothermodesoftransportation.

Encouragepresentandfuturerailroadrightofwaytobeutilizedfortransportationpurposes.

Enhanceintermodalfreightconnections.

Scope TheRTPforSkamaniaCountytakestheyear2035asitshorizonyear.Traveldemandfortheregionisforecastedforthisfutureyearandimprovementstothetransportationsystemarerecommendedbasedontheprojecteddemand.

TheareacoveredbytheRTPisthewholeofSkamaniaCounty.SkamaniaCountyislocatedinthesouthernpartofthestateofWashingtonalongthenorthbanksoftheColumbiaRiver.Stevenson,thecountyseat,liesapproximately45mileseastofPortland,OregonandVancouver,Washington(Figure1‐1).



Figure 1‐1: Map of Skamania County Location

Peopleandfreightmovethroughoutaregionaltransportationsystemwithoutconsiderationforcity,county,orstateboundaries.Sincetransportationproblemsextendbeyondjurisdictionalboundaries,theRTPmustanalyzethefuturetransportationneedsfortheentireregionwhilecreatingacooperativeframeworkforcoordinatingtheindividualactionsofvariousjurisdictions.

Transportation Issues Addressed in RTP

Transportationsystemmaintenance,preservation,andsafety.

Developmentofcorridorstoimproveeconomicdevelopmentpotential.

AccessibilityacrosstheColumbiaRiverintermsofcapacity,economicdevelopment,corridorlocation,andconnectingroadways.

Federal,state,local,andprivatesourcesofrevenuefortransportationprojects.

Accesstoports,airports,intermodaltransportationfacilities,majorfreightdistributionroutes,andrecreationareas.

Theneedtorelieveandpreventcongestionfromoccurringwhereitdoesnotyetoccur.



Theneedtoimprovecorridorswithsafetyproblems,includingfreightcorridors.

Theneedtoprovideamultimodaltransportationsystem;includingpedestrian,bicycle,bus,truck,rail,marine,andauto.

Theneedtoprovideenhancements(signs,viewpoints,kiosk,etc.),toassistvisitors.

Statutory Requirements

State

WithinWashingtonState,MetropolitanTransportationPlansareexpectedtobeconsistentwiththepolicyframeworkandobjectivesdescribedinthetransportationplanforWashingtonState.ThemostrecentWashingtonTransportationPlanWTP2030wasdevelopedbytheWashingtonTransportationCommissionandadoptedinDecember2010.

TheWTPisbasedonthefollowingfivetransportationpolicygoalsestablishedbytheLegislature:

EconomicVitality:Topromoteanddeveloptransportationsystemsthatstimulate,support,andenhancethemovementofpeopleandgoodstoensureaprosperouseconomy.

Preservation:Tomaintain,preserve,andextendthelifeandutilityofpriorinvestmentsintransportationsystemsandservices;

Safety:Toprovideforandimprovethesafetyandsecurityoftransportationcustomersandthetransportationsystem;

Mobility:ToimprovethepredictablemovementofgoodsandpeoplethroughoutWashingtonState;

Environment:ToenhanceWashington’squalityoflifethroughtransportationinvestmentsthatpromoteenergyconservation,enhancehealthycommunities,andprotecttheenvironment;and



Stewardship:Tocontinuouslyimprovethequality,effectiveness,andefficiencyofthetransportationsystem.

TheWashingtonStateHighwaySystemPlan(HSP)istheelementofWashington’sTransportationPlan(WTP)thataddressescurrentandforecaststatehighwayneeds.TheHSPincludesacomprehensiveassessmentofexistingandprojected20‐yeardeficienciesonthestate’shighwaysystem.Italsolistspotentialsolutionsthataddressthesedeficiencies.TheHSPisupdatedperiodicallywitheachversionbuildingonthelast.Thedocumentcoversallissuesrelatedtothestate’shighwaysystem.The2007‐2026versionoftheHSPtakestheWTP’sinvestmentguidelines,andidentifiesthehighwaysystemneeds,strategiesandperformancemeasurementsassociatedwiththeguidelines.

HSPPreservation:Pavementmaintenance,preservationof3,596statewidestructuresincludingbridges,andpreservationofotherhighwayassetsthatincludeunstableslopes,restareas,weighstationsanddrainageandelectricalrehabilitation.

HSPSafety:Theobjectiveofthesafetyprogramfocusesonprojectsreducingandpreventingfatalities,decreasingthefrequencyandseverityofdisablinginjuriesandminimizingthesocietalcostsofaccidents.Thepreventionofcrossoveraccidentsandrunofftheroadaccidentsisapriority.

HSPEconomicVitality:Identificationofhighly‐productivefreightinvestments.

HSPMobility:Bottlenecks,trafficincidents,badweather,workzones,poorsignaltimingandspecialeventsarethemostsignificantcausesofcongestion.HSPmobilitysolutionsincludestrategiestoaddresscongestionatbottleneckandchokepointlocations,timelyresponsetoandclearanceofincidents,aswellasprojectstoimprovesystemefficiencywheretrafficincongestedcorridorstravelsatspeedsbelow70%ofthepostedspeedduringthepeakhour.

HSPEnvironmentalQualityandHealth:Projectstoremoveculvertstorestorefishpassage,reducehighwaynoise,treatstormwater,reduceflooding,providepedestriancrossingsandbicycleconnections.

RecentWSDOTplansaredocumentedonWSDOT’sPlanningsectionwebsite.



Washington State’s Regional Transportation Planning Program

WashingtonState'sGrowthManagementAct,enactedin1990,approvedtheRegionalTransportationPlanningProgramwhichcreatedaformalmechanismforlocalgovernmentsandthestatetocoordinatetransportationplanningforregionaltransportationfacilities.TheGrowthManagementAct(GMA)authorizedthecreationofRegionalTransportationPlanningOrganizations(RTPOs)byunitsoflocalgovernment.SouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncil(RTC)isthedesignatedRTPOforthethree‐countyareaofClark,SkamaniaandKlickitat.In1994furtherstatelegislationclarifiedthedutiesoftheRTPOoutlinedintheGMAandfurtherdefinedRTPOplanningstandards.

ThedutiesoftheRTPO,asoutlinedintheGMAandSHB1928,include:

Designationoftheregionaltransportationsystem.

DevelopmentofasixyearregionalTransportationImprovementProgram(TIP),includingregionallysignificantprojects.TheTIPmustincludeafinancialplan.

DevelopmentofaRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP),toincludearegionaltransportationstrategy,identificationofexistingandplannedfacilitiesandprograms,LevelofServicestandards,afinancialplan,assessmentofregionaldevelopmentpatternsandcapitalinvestmentusingaregionaltransportationapproach.TheconceptofleastcostplanningistobeusedindevelopmentoftheRTP.TheRTPmustbereviewedatleasteverytwoyearstoensurethatitiscurrent.

Establishguidelinesandprinciplesfordevelopmentandevaluationofthetransportationelementsoflocalcomprehensiveplans.

DeveloparegionalLevelofService(LOS)standardfortheregionalsystemasrequiredbytheLOSBill.

TheRegionalTransportationPlanningProgramisdesignedtobeintegratedwith,andaugment,thefederallyrequiredMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)

program.TheRegionalTransportationPlanningProgramextendstransportationplanningbytheRTPO’storuralareasnotcoveredbythefederalprogram.TheRegionalTransportationPlanningProgramisalsointendedtotieinandbeconsistentwithlocalcomprehensiveplanning.

Theregionaltransportationplanningprocessshould:

Guidetheimprovementoftheregionaltransportationsystem.



Useregionallyconsistenttechnicalmethodsanddata.

Considerenvironmentalimpacts.

Ensureearlyandcontinuouspublicinvolvement.

Beconsistentwiththelocalcomprehensiveplanningprocess.

Beanongoingprocess.

Incorporatemultimodalplanningactivities.

Addressmajorcapacityexpansionandoperationalimprovementstotheregionaltransportationsystem.

Beapartnership,includingfederal,state,andlocalgovernments,specialdistricts,privatesector,generalpublic,andothersduringconception,technicalanalysis,policydevelopment,anddecision‐making.

TocomplywithStatestandardstheRTPshallincludethefollowingcomponents:

Descriptionofthedesignatedregionaltransportationsystem.

Regionaltransportationgoals,policies,andstrategy.

Regionallandusestrategy.Existingandproposedlandusesdefinedonlocalandregionalcomprehensivelanduseplansdeterminetheregionaldevelopmentstrategy.

Identificationofregionaltransportationneeds.Aninventoryofexistingregionaltransportationfacilitiesandservices,identificationofcurrentdeficiencies,andforecastoffuturetraveldemandwillbecarriedout.

DevelopmentofLOSstandardsconsistentwiththeLevelofServiceBill.

Developmentoffinancialplanfornecessarytransportationsystemimprovements.

Regionaltransportationsystemimprovementandstrategyplan.Specificfacilityorserviceimprovementswillbeidentifiedandprioritiesdetermined.

Establishmentofaperformancemonitoringprogram.Theperformanceofthetransportationsystemwillbemonitoredovertime.Themonitoringmethodology,datacollection,andanalysistechniquestobeusedwillbeoutlined.

PlansforimplementationoftheRTP.



Intergovernmental Coordination InordertomaketheRTPnotonlyaPlantoprovidecarefullythought‐outsolutionstotransportationissuesandproblemsbutalsoaPlanthatalljurisdictionscanimplement,aregionaltransportationplanningcommitteestructurehasbeenestablished.Consistentwiththe1990GMAlegislation,athree‐countyRTCBoardofDirectorshasbeenestablishedtoservetheRTPOregion.IndividualCountyCommitteesandBoardsalsoplayapartintheregionaltransportationdecision‐making.TheSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommitteecontinuestoguideSkamaniaCountyregionaltransportationpolicy.Theroleof,andrepresentationon,theRTCBoardofDirectorsandindividualCountyPolicyCommitteesisdescribedintheBylawsofSouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncil(lastamendedNovember2010)andInterlocalAgreementforEstablishmentoftheSouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncil.TheregionaltransportationcommitteestructureisoutlinedinFigure1‐2.

Figure 1‐2: Agency Structure

Skamania County Transportation Policy Committee

TheSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommitteewasestablishedtoprovideafocusforSkamaniaCountyregionaltransportationissuesandpolicies.ItiscomposedofrepresentativesofWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation



(WSDOT),SkamaniaCounty,theCityofStevenson,theCityofNorthBonneville,andthePortofSkamaniaCounty.

TheSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommitteecarriesoutregionaltransportationplanningactivitieswithinSkamaniaCounty.Otheragenciesandorganizationsarewelcometoparticipateasnon‐votingmembersofthecommittee.Specifically,theColumbiaRiverGorgeCommission,U.S.ForestService,andOregonpartneragenciesareinvitedtoparticipateontheSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommittee.

Bi‐State Coordination

SkamaniaCountyislocatedontheWashingtonsideoftheColumbiaRiverGorgeRegionandbi‐statetravelissignificantwithinthisregion.OregonandWashingtonjurisdictionsintheregionhaveahistoryofcoordinatingtheirtransportationandlanduseplans.Theseplanningeffortsensurethatregionallysignificantaspectsofthetransportationsystemareconsideredwithinabi‐statecontext.

RTCrepresentativesparticipateinbi‐statetransportationopportunitieswithOregonrepresentatives.ThisincludestheGorgeTransLinkgroup,bi‐statestudies,andotherbi‐stateopportunities.Inaddition,RTCwelcomesparticipationofOregonrepresentativesintheSkamaniaCountytransportationplanningprocess.CoordinationbetweenWashingtonandOregononbi‐statetransportationneedswillcontinuethroughtheregionaltransportationplanningprocess.

Skamania County Regional Transportation Plan: Work Plan AsafirststepinpreparationoftheSkamaniaCountyRTP,aworkplanwasdeveloped.(SeeFigure1‐3).TheworkplanoutlinesmajortaskstobecoveredinthedevelopmentoftheRTP.TheRTPisdesignedasabenchmarkplantomeetRTPOelementsrequiredbythe1990GMAlegislationandSHB1928legislationof1994.

Outline of RTP Chapters Chapter1: Introduction:RTPVision,Purpose,andGoals.TheRTPisintroducedanditsgeneralgoals,policies,statutoryauthority,andpurposearedescribed.TheRTPprocessisoutlinedaswellasregionaltransportationcommitteestructureandintergovernmentalcooperationandcoordinationoftheRTP.



Chapter2: RegionalLandUseandGrowth.SkamaniaCounty’sdemographicdata,developmenttrends,andregionaldevelopmentstrategyarediscussed.Existingandfuturelandusesanddevelopmentpatternsareidentified.

Chapter3: IdentificationofRegionalTransportationNeeds.Theregionaltransportationsystemisdesignatedanddefined.Thecharacteristicsandpatternsoftoday’sandfutureregionaltraveldemand,today’stransportationproblemlocations,andfutureregionalneedsaredescribed.Needscriteriasuchasaccessibility,levelsofservice,andsafetyareoutlined.

Chapter4: FinancialPlan.Revenuesourcesareidentifiedanddescribed,andaplanforfinancingtransportationsystemimprovementsispresented.

Chapter5: SystemImprovementandStrategyPlan.Recommendationsfordevelopmentoftheregionaltransportationsystemaremade.Regionaltransportationgoalsandpoliciesarereviewed.

Chapter6: PerformanceMonitoring.Performancemonitoringmeasuresaredescribed.MonitoringtheRTP’sconsistencywiththestatetransportationplan,localtransportationplans,landuseregulations,andregionaldemographicprojectionsareoutlined.

Chapter7: PlanDevelopmentandImplementation.ProvisionsfortheimplementationofthepublicindevelopmentoftheRTParedescribed.Provisionsfortheimplementationofregionaltransportationgoals,policies,andactionsestablishedbytheRTParedescribed.TheRTPreviewandamendmentprocessisoutlinedshouldchangingpolicies,financialconditions,orgrowthpatternswarrantamendmentofthePlan.TherequiredbiennialupdateoftheRTPisdescribed.

Figure 1‐3: RTP Process

Chapter 2: Land Use, Growth and Transportation 13


Chapter 2: Land Use, Growth and Transportation

Land Use and Transportation Transportationplanningisaboutmeetingthetraveldemandsofpeopleandgoods.Thetransportationsystemmustconnectpeopletojobsandservicesandconnectfreightandgoodstomarketsandconsumers.Indevelopingaregionaltransportationplan,thefundamentalrelationshipbetweentransportationandlandusemustberecognized,andtheeffectthatlanduseandgrowthhaveontransportationmustbetakenintoconsideration.TheLandUse/TransportationcycleisillustratedinFigure2‐1.

Figure 2‐1: Land Use/Transportation Cycle

Thelinkagebetweenlanduseandtransportationisacomplexissue,butonasimplelevelthelinkagecanbethoughtofasworkingintwoways:



1. Thespatialdistributionandtypeoflanduseactivityinfluencesboththedemandfortravelandtravelcharacteristics.Differenttypesoflandusegenerateandattractdifferingtrafficrates;forexample,retaillanduseswillgeneratemoretripsthanresidentiallanduses.

2. Improvingaccessbyexpandingthetransportationsystemallowsforthedevelopmentoflandthatwasformerlyinaccessible.

Landuseandtransportationareinter‐linkedbecauselanduseactivitieslargelydeterminetraveldemandanddesire.Whendifferentlandusesaresegmentedorsegregated,lengthoftripstendstoincrease.Forexample,peoplehavetotravelbetweentheirhomesandtheirworkplaces.Tomeetmobilityneeds,theselongertripsusuallyhavetobeservedbytheautomobile,thusreducingtheuseoftransportationalternatives,suchaswalkingortransit.

Management Plan for Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

Mostofthesouthern,morepopulousportionofSkamaniaCountyislocatedintheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicArea(ScenicArea).Thus,locallanduseisaffectedbytheguidelinesoftheManagementPlanfortheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicArea(ManagementPlan).In1993,SkamaniaCountyadoptedlanduseordinancesthatareconsistentwiththeManagementPlan.TheseordinancesadoptedbytheCountyprovideforlocalimplementationoftheManagementPlan.

TheManagementPlanincludesdirectionforfuturelanduseintheScenicArea.Thislandusedirectionwillinfluencetheregionaltransportationsystemandtravelpatterns.NewindustrialdevelopmentintheScenicAreacanonlybelocatedwithintheurbanareas.Thereisprovisionforsomenewcommercialandruralresidentialdevelopmentoutsideofurbanareas,mainlyinexistingruralcommunitieslikeSkamania.Denserresidentialdevelopmentandmoreintensivecommercialusesareencouragedtooccurwithintheexistingurbanareas.

ThecommunitiesofStevenson,NorthBonneville,Carson,andHomeValleyaredesignatedurbanareasthatareexemptfromtheManagementPlanguidelines.Landuseplanninginthesecommunitiesisgovernedbylocalcomprehensiveplans.



Growth and Development Sustainedeconomicdevelopmentandgrowthwithinaregionisdesirablebecauseoftheeconomicbenefitsthatincreasedemploymentandalargertaxbasecanbring.However,whilegrowthcancontributetothehealthofaregion’seconomy,itcanalsohavenegativeimpacts.Unmanaged,fastratesofgrowthcanhaveasevereimpactontheabilityofacommunitytoprovideservicesandinfrastructure.

Theneedtomaintaineconomicviability,andatthesametime,qualityoflifeisachallenge.Elementsthatcontributetoadesirablequalityoflifeincludejobopportunities,affordablehousing,ahealthyenvironmentwithcleanair,andrecreationalopportunities.Anefficient,safetransportationsystemcontributestothequalityoflifeforresidentsofaregionandcanactasanattractorforeconomicdevelopment.Conversely,atransportationsystemdependentondeterioratingandoutmodedfacilitiescanbeaninhibitortotheefficient,safemovementofpeopleandgoods.

Growth in Skamania County

SkamaniaCountyhasseenmoderategrowthinthelastfewdecades.TheU.S.CensusBureau,WashingtonState’sOfficeofFinancialManagement(OFM),andBureauofEconomicAnalysis(BEA)providedthefollowingdata.BEAemploymentincludesallwageandsalariedjobsaswellasproprietorsjobsthatincludessoleproprietor,self‐employed,andfarmemployment.

Between1990and2010thepopulationofthecountyincreasedby34%from8,289to11,066,whilethenumberofhousingunitsincreasedby43%from3,922to5,628.TheincreaseinBEAemploymentwas17%from2,582in1990to3024in2010.(SeeFigure2‐2)Muchofthegrowthoccurredbetween1990and2007,whilegrowthslowedbetween2007and2010.



Figure 2‐2: Growth in Skamania County

SkamaniaCountyhasseenalargeincreaseinrecreationactivity,duetotheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicArea,GiffordPinchotNationalForest,Mt.St.HelensVolcanicMonument,BeaconRockStatePark,SkamaniaLodge,InterpretiveCenter,andwindsurfing.Thegrowthofrecreationalactivitiesseeninthecountyinthelasttwodecadeshasincreasedseasonaldemandsontheregionaltransportationsystem.

Developmentofatransportationpolicyplanmustconsiderhowtoplanforatransportationsystemthatcansupportincreasesintraveldemandcausedbygrowthinpopulation,employment,andrecreationalactivity.Atthesametime,thissystemmustbeaffordableandminimizeenvironmentalimpactstomaintaintheruralqualityoflife.Asafe,efficienttransportationsystemcanworktoenhanceeconomicdevelopmentwithinaregion.

General Land Uses in Skamania County ThepopulationofSkamaniaCountyisconcentratedinthesouthernquarterofthecountyneartheColumbiaRiverandintheWindRiverValley.Thecountyhasdiverseenvironments,rangingfromthegentlyslopinglandsneartheColumbiaRivertoruggedandsteepmountainousevergreenforest.TheCascadeMountainstraverseSkamaniaCountyfromnorthtosouth.SkamaniaCountyhasatotalareaof1,656squaremiles,90%ofSkamaniaCountyisforestedand80%isapartofGiffordPinchotNationalForest.MuchoftheprivatelandownershipiswithintheNationalScenicArea.

AlmostathirdofthejobsinSkamaniaCountywereinthepublicsector,withlocalgovernmentaccountingforthemajorityofthejobs,especiallythoseineducational

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Population Housing Units BEA Employment

1990

2000

2010



services.Majorprivateemploymentsectorsincludeleisureandhospitalityandmanufacturing.

Theprovisionofpublicfacilitiesandservices,includingtransportation,isaprincipaldeterminantoflandusepatterns.AlthoughthegrowthinSkamaniaCountyhasbeenmoderate,muchofgrowthanddevelopmenthastakenplacenearthetransportationcorridorsoftheColumbiaRiverandStateRoute14.

Planned Land Use Comprehensiveplansarethemeansbywhichlocaljurisdictionscanplanfortheirfuturegrowthanddevelopment;theycanprovideaprocessforanticipatingandinfluencingtheorderlyandcoordinateddevelopmentofland.WithinWashingtonState,planningauthorityisdelegatedbythestatetolocalgovernmentsinRCW36.70A,35.63and35A.63.Comprehensiveplansarerequiredtohavealanduseelementshowingthegeneraldistributionandlocationoflandforvarioususes,aswellasacirculationelementshowingthestreetsystemandtransportationroutes.SkamaniaCounty,CityofStevenson,andCityofNorthBonnevilleallhavecurrentlyadoptedcomprehensiveplans.

TheScenicAreaActrequiredthataManagementPlanbedeveloped,whichincludeslandusedesignationsoutsideofurbanareas.In1991,theManagementPlanforScenicAreawasadopted.In1993,SkamaniaCountyadoptedlanduseordinancesthatareconsistentwiththeManagementPlan.TheseordinancesadoptedbytheCountyprovideforlocalimplementationoftheManagementPlan.

LocalcomprehensiveplansandtheManagementPlanfortheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicAreaencouragethefuturedevelopmentofresidential,commercial,andindustriallandsintheUrbanAreas.Thereisprovisionforthedevelopmentofsomecommercialandresidentiallandsoutsideoftheurbanareas.Inaddition,theSkamaniaCountyComprehensivePlanprovidesforotherlandusessuchasagricultureandtimber.



Population and Employment Forecast TheWashingtonStateOfficeofFinancialManagement(OFM)developspopulationforecastforallcountiesintheStateofWashington.Theirforecastcontainsalow,medium,andhighestimate.TheApril2012forecastdevelopedbyOFMfor2035populationinSkamaniaCountyrangedfromalowof11,325toahighof14,991.ForthepurposeoftheRegionalTransportationPlanamedium‐highforecastof13,279willbeused.The2035forecastrepresentsa20%or2,213increaseinpopulationfrom2010to2035.

HousingandemploymentforecastforSkamaniaCountyweredevelopedbyRTCbasedonpopulationforecastandhistoricaltrends.Estimated2035housingis6,772units.The2035forecastrepresentsa20%or1,144increaseinhousingunitsfrom2010to2035.Estimated2035BEAemploymentis3,607.This2035forecastrepresentsa17%or528increaseinemploymentfrom2010to2035(seeFigure2‐3).

Figure 2‐3: Population, Housing & Employment, 1980 to Forecast 2030

Demographic and Travel Trends Growthinpopulationandemployment,developmentandresultinglandusepatternstogetherwithitsdistributionallaffecttraveldemand.However,otherdemographicfactorsalsoinfluencetraveldemand.Thesefactorsincludehouseholdsize,workforceparticipation,employmentpatterns,andvehicleownership.

Householdsizeisoneofthemostsignificantdemographicfactorsthatinfluenceslanduseanddemandfortransportationservices.Between1970and2010there

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Population Housing Units BEA Employment



wasatrendtowardsmallerhouseholdsizeinSkamaniaCountyduetomoresingle‐personhouseholdsandsmallerfamilysize.Theaveragenumberofpersonsperhousingunitwas2.69in1970,buthadfallento1.97by2010.The2035forecastis1.95personsperhousingunit.

Anotherdemographictrendthateffectstraveldemandistheincreaseintwoormoreautohouseholds.Typically,theautosareusedtogettowork,forworkpurposeswhileatwork,torunerrandsatlunchtime,beforeorafterwork,andiftheyhaveafamilytotaketheirchildrentotheiractivities.Allresultinpeople’sincreasedrelianceontheautomobilethatpeopleconsidertheirmostconvenienttransportationmode.

Employmentpatternshavealsobeenchanging,witharelativedeclineseeninthetraditionalindustrialortimberjobsandanincreaseinservicesectoremployment.Withmoderntechnology,therehasalsobeenarapidgrowthinworkerswhoareabletoworkathome.Inaddition,asthetraditionaltimberjobsarelost,thereisatrendforSkamaniaCountyresidentstobeemployedinothercounties.TheU.S.CensusBureauAmericanCommunitySurvey2006‐2010showsthatapproximately51.2%ofthecountyresidentsworkedoutsideofSkamaniaCounty.Table2‐1showsdataofthoselivingand/orworkinginSkamaniaCounty.

Table 2‐1: Skamania Workflow by County

Place of Residence Place of Work 2000 2000

Percent 2010 2010

Percent 2000‐2010 Change

Skamania County Skamania County 2,032 47.7% 2,340 48.8% 308

Clark County, WA 896 21.0% 1,060 22.1% 164

Multnomah Co., OR 535 12.6% 510 10.6% ‐25

Hood River Co., OR 353 8.3% 260 5.4% ‐95

Klickitat Co., WA 205 4.8% 340 7.1% 135

Other Washington 63 1.5% 59 1.2% ‐4

Other Oregon 148 3.5% 179 3.7% 31

Other 27 0.6% 43 0.9% 16

Skamania Co. Employed Workforce 4,261 4,791 530

Skamania County Skamania County 2.032 79.4% 2,340 72.2% 308

Clark Co., WA 124 4.8% 260 8.0% 136

Multnomah Co., OR 61 2.4% 35 1.1% ‐26

Hood River Co., OR 70 2.7% 115 3.5% 45

Klickitat Co., WA 147 5.7% 340 10.5% 193

Other Washington 24 0.9% 43 1.3% 19

Other Oregon 76 3.0% 109 3.4% 33

Other 24 0.9% 0 0.0% ‐24

Employment within Skamania County 2,558 3,242 684



TraveldemandhasalsogrownasthenumberofregisteredvehiclesandpassengercarsinSkamaniaCountyhasincreasedinthepastseveraldecades.In2010,therewere5,500registeredpassengervehicleswithapproximately74.6%oftheSkamaniaCountyhouseholdshavingtwoormorevehiclesavailable.Therelationshipbetweenlanduseandtransportationshouldbecarefullyconsideredwhendevelopingavisionforfuturegrowthandgrowthpatterns.

TraveldemandforfreighttruckspassingthroughtheregiononSR‐14appearstobeincreasing.Trucksaccountforapproximately20%ofthevehicletrafficonSR‐14.TheadditionofthesetruckscreatesconflictswithothervehiclesusingtheSR‐14corridor.

ThereareseveraltrendsthataffectseasonaltraveldemandwithinSkamaniaCounty.First,isthetrendofadditionalretiredresidentswholiveinSkamaniaCounty,butspendtheirwintersinawarmerclimate.Theseresidentsaddtothelocaltrafficfromspringtofall.Second,istheincreasedpopularityoftheColumbiaRiverGorgeareaasarecreationalattractor.SinceitsdesignationasaNationalScenicArea,summertrafficvolumeshaverapidlyincreased.

Table2‐2alsoprovidesinformationthatcompares2000and2010CensusJourneytoWorkdata.Thisdatadisplaysseveraltrendsimpactingthecommutertraveltimes.First,thedatashowsthatcommutetimeshaveremainedaboutthesame.Second,theuseofcarpoolsdecreased.Third,therehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofpeopledrivealoneandworkingfromhome.

Table 2‐2: Work Travel Mode

Skamania County 2000 2000

Percent 2010 2010

Percent

2000 to 2010

Growth

2000 to 2010

Percent Change

2010 WA State

Percent

Drive Alone 3,238 76.0% 3,785 78.9% 547 16.9% 72.3%

Carpool 631 14.8% 425 8.9% ‐206 ‐32.6% 11.6%

Transit 21 0.5% 15 0.3% ‐6 ‐28.6% 5.6%

Bicycle or Walked 104 2.4% 100 2.1% ‐4 ‐3.8% 4.3%

Motorcycle/Other 26 0.6% 45 0.9% 19 73.1% 1.2%

Worked at Home 241 5.7% 425 8.9% 184 76.3% 5.1%

Totals 4,261 100.0% 4,795 100.0% 534 12.5% 100.0%

Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes) 29.2 n/a 30.0 n/a 0.8 n/a 25.4

Chapter 3: Identification of Regional Transportation Needs 21


Chapter 3: Identification of Regional Transportation Needs

Current Functional Classification of the Regional Roadway System Functionalclassificationisthegroupingofhighways,roads,andstreetsbythecharacterofservicetheyprovide.Comprehensivetransportationplanningusesfunctionalclassificationtodeterminehowtravelcanbechannelizedwithinthenetworkinalogicalandefficientmanner.Afunctionalclassificationdefinesthemajorrolethataroadorstreetserveswithinthetotalexistingandfutureroadwaynetwork.Insimpleterms,highways,streets,androadsfunctionasarterials,collectors,orlocalaccess.Arterialsprovidethehighestdegreeofmobilityandlimitedaccesstolocalproperty.Collectorsgenerallyprovideequalemphasisuponmobilityandlandaccess.Localroadsandstreetsemphasizelandaccessinlieuofmobility.

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)hastheprimaryresponsibilityfordevelopingandupdatingthehighwayfunctionalclassificationsystem.Theyworkcooperativelywithlocalandregionalagenciesindevelopingandupdatingthefunctionalclassificationsystem.TheFederalFunctionalClassificationsystemforSkamaniaCountyroadshasbeencompletedandresultedinacountywideuniformclassificationsystem.Generally,facilitiesclassifiedasMajorCollectororaboveinruralareasareeligibleforfederalfunding.FurtherinformationonthefunctionalclassificationofroadscanbefoundonWSDOT’swebsite.Astatewidemapofthefederalfunctional



classificationisavailable,allowingthezoomingintoKlickitatCountyandCitydetail.

ISTEAalsorequiredthatroadsbedesignatedasNationalHighwaySystem(NHS)facilities.CongressapprovedtheNHSSystemwithpassageoftheNationalHighwaySystemDesignationActof1995(NHSAct).InSkamaniaCounty,SR‐14hasbeendesignatedasanNHSfacility.In1999,thestatelegislatureadoptedHighwaysofStatewideSignificance.InSkamaniaCounty,theonlyhighwayfacilitydefinedas“ofStatewideSignificance”isSR‐14.

Adescriptionoftheruralfunctionalclassificationcategoriesfollows:

Rural Principal Arterials

Ruralprincipalarterialsaresub‐dividedintotwosets(1)interstatefacilitiesand(2)otherprincipalarterials.Ruralprincipalarterialsservecorridormovementshavingtriplengthandtraveldensitycharacteristicsofstatewideorinterstatetravel.Theyconsistofaconnectedruralnetworkofcontinuousroutes.

Rural Minor Arterials

Inconjunctionwiththeprincipalarterials,theruralminorarterialsformaruralnetworkwhichlinkcitiesandlargertownstogetherwithothermajortrafficgenerators.Theprincipalarterialsandruralminorarterialsarespacedatsuchintervalsthatalldevelopedareasofthestatearewithinareasonabledistanceofanarterialhighway.Minorarterialsshouldbeexpectedtoprovideforrelativelyhighoveralltravelspeedswithminimuminterferencetothroughmovement.

Rural Major Collector Roads

Ruralmajorcollectorsprovideservicetolargertownsnotdirectlyservedbythehighersystemsandtoothertrafficgeneratorsofequivalentimportance.Ruralmajorcollectorsservethemoreimportanttravelcorridorswithinthecounty.

Rural Minor Collector Roads

Ruralminorcollectorsarespacedatintervals,consistentwithpopulationdensity,tocollecttrafficfromlocalroadsandprovidedevelopedareaswithreasonabledistancetoacollectorroad.Ruralminorcollectorsprovideservicetotheremainingsmallercommunitiesandlinkthelocallyimportanttrafficgeneratorswithsurroundingruralareas.

Rural Local Roads

Localstreetsprovidedirectaccesstoabuttinglandandaccesstothehigherclassificationfacilities.Theyofferthelowestlevelofmobility.Theyarenot



intendedtocarrythroughtraffic;however,theydomakeupalargepercentageofthetotalstreetmileage.

Designation of the RTP Regional Transportation System Consistentwiththestate’sRegionalTransportationPlanningProgramPlanningStandardstheRTPregionaltransportationsystemhasbeendesignatedtoinclude:

1. Allstatetransportationfacilitiesandservices(includingstatehighways)

2. Alllocalprincipalarterials(thedefinitionofruralprincipalarterialscanbethesameasusedforfederalclassificationorberegionallydetermined).

3. Allothertransportationfacilitiesandservices,includingairports,transitservicesandfacilities,roadways,railfacilities,marinetransportationfacilitiesetc.thattheRTPOconsidersnecessarytocompletetheregionalplan.

4. Anytransportationfacilityorservicethatisregionallyneededorimpactsplacesintheplan,asdeterminedbytheRTPO.

AdetaileddescriptionofthedesignatedRTPRegionalTransportationSystemfollows:

1. AllstatetransportationfacilitiesandservicesInSkamaniaCountythiscategoryincludesStateRouteSR‐14andSR‐504.SR‐14providesthemaineast‐westaccessfromsouth‐westClark/SkamaniaCountylinetosouth‐eastKlickitat/SkamaniaCountylinealongthenorthbankoftheColumbiaRiver.Thefacilityhastwolanesineachdirectionandextends41.71milesthroughSkamaniaCountybetweenClarkCountyandKlickitatCountylines.SR‐504providesthemainaccessfromI‐5(CowlitzCounty)easttotheMountSt.HelensNationalVolcanicMonument.SkamaniaCountyhasidentifiedtheneedtoconnectSR‐504easttoU.S.ForestServicehighways.

2. Alllocalprincipalarterials:SR‐14andSR‐504aretheonlylocalruralprinciplearterials.

3. Allothertransportationfacilitiesandservicesconsiderednecessarytocompletetheregionaltransportationplan.Theseincludetransitservicesandfacilities,roadways,railfacilities,airports,marinetransportationfacilities,etc.



Rural Major Collectors

Alllocalruralmajorcollectorsaredesignatedaspartoftheregionaltransportationsystem.MajorcollectorsincludesuchfacilitiesasFirstStreet,RockCreek,FosterCreek,Gropper,Vancouver,Russell,Cascade,andColumbiaintheCityofStevenson;Evergreen,HotSprings,andEastCascadeintheCityofNorthBonneville;WindRiverRoad,Cook‐UnderwoodRoad,WashougalRiverRoad,SalmonFallsRoad,CanyonCreekRoad,Ryan‐Allen,Loop,KanakaCreek,andCurlyCreekintheCounty.

Forest Service Road System

WithmuchofSkamaniaCountylocatedwithintheGiffordPinchotNationalForest,theForestHighwaySystemplaysanimportantpartintheeconomyofSkamaniaCounty.ForestHighwaystobeincludedintheregionaltransportationsystemareForestRoads23,25,30,88,and90.

Port Facilities

SkamaniaCountyhasonePortDistrict;thePortofSkamaniaCounty,whichcoversmuchofthesouthernportionofSkamaniaCounty.ThePortofSkamaniaCountyisamunicipalcorporationoftheStateofWashington.ThePortcurrentlymaintainsanassetbaseofcommercial,industrial,recreationallands,buildings,andotherfacilities.

ThePort’sprimarymissioniseconomicdevelopmentandjobcreationinindustrialandcommercial‐relatedbusinesses.ThePortowns162acresinStevenson,Carson,andNorthBonnevilleincludingapproximately30,000squarefeetofcommercialspaceand120,000squarefeetofindustrialusespace.PublicaccesstorecreationalopportunitiesisanimportantpriorityforthePort.ThePortownsandmaintainsapproximately6acresofparklandwith1.5milesofwaterfrontinStevenson,andhasdeveloped1.1milesofwalkingpathswithinterpretivesignsandamenities.TheStevensonLandingdock,parks,beaches,andboatlaunchrampfacilitiesdrawavarietyofwater‐sportenthusiastsandtouristshelpingtoinvigoratethelocaleconomy.ThePort’sStevensonWaterfrontareaincludesaLevelIIElectricVehiclechargingstation.



Airport Facilities

TherearenopublicairfieldscurrentlyoperatinginSkamaniaCounty.However,thereareafewprivateairfields.PortlandInternationalAirport(PDX)islocatedinPortland,Oregonapproximately45mileswestofStevenson,south‐westoftheI‐205GlennJacksonBridge.Thisisaregionalairportwithdomesticandinternationalpassengerandfreightservice.

Bridges

AllpublicbridgesincludingColumbiaRiverbridgesaredesignatedaspartoftheregionaltransportationsystem.Thereareover30publicbridgeslocatedinSkamaniaCounty.TheBridgeoftheGodsandtheHoodRiverBridgearetheonlybridgescrossingtheColumbiaRiverfromOregontoWashingtonintheSkamaniaCountyregion.BothofthesebridgesaretollBridgeswhichareownedandoperatedbyOregonPortDistricts.Allbridgesareimportanttothemovementofpeopleandgoodswithintheregion.However,thosealongtheregionaltransportationsystemareessentialtotheregion.

Inaddition,theWashingtonStateLegislaturedesignatedanSR‐35corridorinthe1997legislativesession.SR‐35willprovideafuturelinkacrosstheColumbiaRivertoOregonintheBingen/WhiteSalmonarea.ADraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementforafuturerivercrossingintheSR‐35corridorwascompletedin2004,aTypeSizeandLocationStudywascompletedin2011,andaFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementwillbethenextstepintheprojectdevelopmentprocess.

Columbia River

Historically,theColumbiaRiverhasalwaysbeenanimportanttransportationcorridortoSkamaniaCounty.TheColumbiaRiver,asatransportationcorridor,isusedtomovegoodsandpeople.TourboatsvisittheColumbiaRiveranddockinStevenson.



Public Transportation

SkamaniaCountySeniorServicesprovidesgeneralpublicDial‐A‐RideserviceinSkamaniaCounty,adeviatedfixedrouteservicealongSR‐14intoClarkCounty,andoperatesavolunteerdriverprogram.Inaddition,SkamaniaCountySeniorServicesparticipatesinacoordinatedeffortlinkingtransitagenciesintheMid‐ColumbiaRiverGorgearea.Thesystemhasanumberofvehicletypesfromaccessibleminivanstoa26‐passengerbus.InadditiontoSeniorServices,thereareprivatefirmsthatprovidetransit/taxiservicetoPortlandInternationalAirport.

Although,thedial‐a‐rideserviceprovidespreferencetoseniorsandpersonswithdisabilities,allCountyresidentsareeligible.Themajorityofsystemtripsareformedical,socialservice,andshoppingpurposes.ThisservicedoesprovidetransportationserviceasfarwestasVancouver/PortlandandeasttoTheDalles.Out‐of‐countymedicaltripsaregivenpriorityovershoppingorpersonaltrips,althoughtrippurposesaregroupedwhenpossible.

TheSR‐14deviatedfixedrouteserviceconnectstoC‐TRAN’sFisherLandingTransitCenterinVancouver,makingthreeroundtripsperday(morning,midday,evening).TheservicebeganinJanuary2004andhasbeenverysuccessful.Thisserviceprovidesaccesstojobs,schooling,andothertrippurposeswithinthegreaterPortland/Vancouverregion.

TheGorgeTransLinkisanallianceoftransportationprovidersofferingpublictransportationservicesthroughouttheMid‐ColumbiaRiverGorgeareaaswellastodestinations,suchasPortlandandVancouver.ThegoalofthiscoordinationeffortistoimproveinterconnectivitybetweenthevarioustransitprovidersintheMid‐ColumbiaRiverRegioninbothOregonandWashington.

Rail Facilities

ThereisonemainraillineinuseinSkamaniaCountywhichprovidesfreightandpassengerservice.BurlingtonNorthernSantaFe(BNSF)ownsthismainline.The

BNSFVancouver/EasternWashingtonlinehastwotracksingoodconditionwithupto60trainsoperatingonthelinedaily.AmtrakalsohasanagreementwithBNSFtooperatepassengerserviceonthefreightcarrier’sraillines,providingservicefromVancouvertravelingeastthroughSkamaniaCountytowardSpokane.Sevendaysaweek,theAMTRAKEmpireBuildertravelsthroughSkamaniaCountybotheastandwestbetweenPortland,OregonandChicago,Illinois.AlthoughtherearenoAmtrakstationsinSkamaniaCounty,mostSkamaniaCountyresidentsarewithinanhourdriveofstationsinBingenorVancouver.

Alongthemainrailline,therearesevenpublicandnumerousprivaterailroadcrossingsinSkamaniaCounty.ThepublicrailroadcrossingsarelistedinTable3‐1.



Table 3‐1: Skamania County Public Railroad Crossings

Road Warning System

Cape Horn Road Stop Signs

SR 14 (St. Cloud) Warning Lights

SR 14 (Skamania Landing) Warning Lights

SR 14 (Skamania Landing) Warning Lights

Russell/SR 14 (Stevenson) Warning Lights and Drawbars

SR 14 (Cemetery) Stop Sign, Tracks Warning

SR 14 (Home Valley Park) Overhead/Side Lights, Drawbars

Enhancements

Transportationenhancementsaredesignatedaspartoftheregionaltransportationsystem.Enhancementsincludefacilitiesforbicyclesandpedestrians,scenicvistas,thematicsignage,reststops,androadsidebeautificationalongtheregionalroadnetwork.ExistingenhancementswouldincludefacilitiessuchasthePacificCrestTrail,CapeHornVista,theSR‐14bicycleroute,FranzLakeviewpoint,andotherenhancementswithintheCounty.Theregionhasidentifiedtheneedtodevelopasafeeast‐westbicyclefacilitythroughthecounty.

Growth in Traffic Volumes Asaresultofsocio‐economicanddemographicchangesdescribedinChapter2,SkamaniaCountyhasseenanincreaseintrafficvolumesovertheyears.WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationcompilestrafficcountdataalongStateRoutes.TrafficvolumesalongSR‐14intheColumbiaRiverGorgeNationalScenicAreavarybyseason,withsummertrafficvolumessignificantlyhigherthanwintertrafficvolumes.ExamplesofgrowthintrafficvolumesatselectedlocationsalongSR14inSkamaniaCountyarelistedinTable3‐2.

Table 3‐2: Traffic Volumes‐All Day (ADT)

Location Leg

2002

Volumes

2012

Volumes

%

Increase

Annual %

Increase

Bridge of The Gods S 2,500 2,800 12% 1.2%

SR‐14 at Clark Co. Line E 4,000 4,300 8% 0.8%

SR‐14 at Bridge of The Gods E 5,900 6,800 15% 1.5%

SR‐14 at Russell Ave. W 6,800 7,600 12% 1.2%

SR‐14 at Wind River Rd. W 6,100 6,700 10% 1.0%

SR‐14 at Wind River Rd. E 2,400 2,800 17% 1.7%

SR‐14 at Klickitat Co. Line W 5,200 8,900 71% 7.1%



Future Travel Demand FuturetraveldemandwasforecastedfortheSkamaniaregionbasedonhistorictrends,netchangesinlanduseandactivitylevels,applyingappropriatetrafficgenerationrates,andthenusingtripdistributioninformationtodeterminethedirectionoftravel.

TheRTPnetworkisconsideredtobethesametransportationnetworkasexiststoday.Itisusedonlyasabasecasescenarioforforecastingfuturetraveldemandandpotentialtrafficvolumesonroadsegmentsanddoesnotconstitutearecommendednetwork.TrafficvolumescoulddiffersignificantlyfromthosethatresultfromthefuturetripassignmentontotheRTPnetworkifsignificantchangestothepopulation,landuse,ortransportationsystemoccur.

BurlingtonNorthernSantaFeoperatestheeast‐westrailroadroutealongtheWashingtonsideoftheColumbiaRiverGorgeandthroughSkamaniaCounty.Thisrouteiscurrentlyexperiencingcapacityconstraintsandwillcontinueinthefuturewithoutsomekindofexpansion.TheColumbiaRiversystemisanimportanttransportationcorridorforthemovementofgoods.Inordertomeetthetraveldemandassociatedwiththiscorridor,itwillbeessentialtopreserveappropriatechanneldepthsandwidthsforshipping,andtomaintaincurrentlockhandlingcapacity.Walkingandbicyclingareintegralpartsofthetransportationsystem.Peoplewalkandbikeforvarioustrips.Walkingandbicyclingtripsareusuallyshortanddemandisgreaterinurbanareas.However,thereisademandforbicyclingfacilitiesalongSR‐14fortouringbicyclist.Publictransitisanimportantaspectofthetransportationsystem,especiallyforthosewithlimitedincome,elderly,anddisabled.Withanagingpopulationandpercapitaincomelowerthanthestateaverage,thedemandforpublictransitwillincreaseinSkamaniaCounty.

Levels of Service Levelsofservicestandardsrepresenttheminimumperformanceleveldesiredfortransportationfacilitiesandserviceswithintheregion.Theyareusedasagaugeforevaluatingthequalityofserviceonthetransportationsystemandcanbedescribedbytraveltimes,travelspeed,freedomtomaneuver,trafficinterruptions,comfort,convenience,andsafety.TheselevelsofservicearedesignatedAthroughF,frombesttoworst.LevelofserviceEdescribesconditionsapproachingandatcapacity.Foruninterruptedflowconditions,thefollowingdefinitions1apply:

LevelofServiceAdescribesfreeflowconditions,withlowvolumesandhighspeeds.Thegenerallevelofcomfortandconvenienceprovidedtothemotorist,passenger,orpedestrianisexcellent.

1 From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1985



LevelofServiceBisintherangeofstableflowbutthepresenceofotherusersinthetrafficstreambeginstobenoticeable.Freedomtoselectdesiredspeedsisrelativelyunaffected,butthereisaslightdeclineinthefreedomtomaneuverwiththetrafficstreamfromLevelofServiceA.

LevelofServiceCisstillintherangeofstableflow,butmarksthebeginningoftherangeofflowinwhichtheoperationofindividualusersbecomessignificantlyaffectedbyinteractionswithothersinthetrafficstream.Thegenerallevelofcomfortandconveniencedeclinesnoticeablyatthislevel.

LevelofServiceDrepresentshigh‐density,butstableflow.Speedandfreedomtomaneuverareseverelyrestricted,andthedriverorpedestrianexperiencesagenerallypoorlevelofcomfortandconvenience.

LevelofServiceErepresentsoperatingconditionsatornearthecapacitylevel.Allspeedsarereducedtoalow,butrelativelyuniformvalue.Comfortandconveniencelevelsareextremelypooranddriverorpedestrianfrustrationisgenerallyhigh.

LevelofServiceFdescribesforcedorbreakdownflow.Theseconditionsusuallyresultfromqueuesofvehiclesbackingupfromarestrictiondownstream.Operationswithinthequeuearecharacterizedbystop‐and‐gowaves,andtheyareextremelyunstable.

Level of Service Standards In1998theWashingtonStateLegislaturepassedHouseBill1487,otherwiseknownastheLevelofService(LOS)Bill.TheBillsetnewrequirementsrelatingtotransportationandgrowthmanagementplanning.Theintentofthelegislationwastoenhancethecoordinationofplanningeffortsandplanconsistencyatthelocal,regional,andstatelevel.Thekeyapplicableelementsinclude:

HighwaysofStatewideSignificance:TheStatemustgivehigherprioritytocorrectingidentifieddeficienciesontransportationfacilitiesofstatewidesignificance.DesignationofHighwaysofStatewideSignificance(HSS)wascompletedin1999.IntheSkamaniaCountyregion,theHSSsystemincludesSR‐14.WSDOThasestablishedanLOS‘C’forruralHSSfacilitieslikeSR‐14.

Non‐HighwaysofStatewideSignificance:Non‐HSSstatehighways,otherwiseknownasHighwaysofRegionalSignificance,inSkamaniaCountyincludeSR‐504.TheRTPOhasestablishedanLOS‘C’forruralnon‐HSS.



Capacity Analysis TheHighwayCapacitySoftwarewasusedtoanalyzelevelofservicewithintheSkamaniaCountyRegionbasedonP.M.peakhourtraffic.Inaddition,thereareseverallocationswithcapacitydeficienciesassociatedwithsubstandardcurvesandsteepgrades,whichcreateaparticularproblemintheColumbiaRiverGorgeareaduetothemixoftrucks,recreationalvehicles,andautos.DeficientsegmentsassociatedwithcapacityarelistedinTable3‐3.

Table 3‐3: Deficient Capacity Segment

Road Mile Post Deficient Capacity Segment LOS

SR‐14 21.77 ‐ 24.92 Clark Co. line to Half Bridge C

SR‐14 24.92 ‐ 27.87 Half Bridge to Prindle Rd. Vicinity C

SR‐14 27.87 ‐ 37.04 Prindle Rd. to North Bonneville. C

SR‐14 43.90 ‐ 47.44 Rock Creek Br. to Wind River Rd. C

Safety Analysis Improvingsafetyforallmodesoftransportationiscriticaltoimprovingqualityoflifeandimprovingaccessforallthecitizensoftheregion.WashingtonState’sStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan,TargetZero,establishesastatewidepolicyofzerofatalitiesandzerodisablinginjurycollisionsby2030.TargetZero,helpstoassessthesafetyneedsstatewide,encouragingandpromotinggoodsafetypracticesinthedesignandoperationofthetransportationsystem,aswellaspromotingsafetybysystemusers.TargetZerosetsstate‐widepriorities,providesaresourceforpotentialstrategies,andmonitorsoutcomeatastatewidelevel.

Attheregionalleveltrafficsafetyprioritiesaresetbaseduponthemostfrequentlycitedcontributingfactors.Morethanonefactoriscommonlyinvolvedinmostcollisions.Thisresultsineachfatalityandseriousinjurycollisionbeingrepresentedundermultiplefactors.Thefactorsinfatalandserioustrafficcollisionsareprioritizedbasedonthepercentageoftrafficfatalitiesandseriousinjuriesassociatedwitheachfactor.Table3‐4showstheSkamaniaCountyFatalityandSeriousInjuryFactorsbyPriorityLevels,basedonthe2010‐2012collisiondata.



TargetZeroincludesspecificobjectivesandstrategiestohelpreducetrafficfatalitiesandseriousinjuriesforeachoftheprimaryfactors.WithinSkamaniaCounty,thefocusshouldbeonimplementingstrategiesthataddressthehighestprioritizedfactors.

Table 3‐4: Deficient Safety Segments, 2010‐2012

Fatalities Serious Injuries

# of People % of Total # of People % of Total

Priority Level One

Motorcyclist 2 28.6% 29 59.2%

Speeding Involved 4 57.1% 15 30.6%

Impaired Driver Involved 4 57.1% 2 4.1%

Run Off the Road 2 28.6% 24 49.0%

Distracted Driver Involved 3 42.9% 8 16.3%

Priority Level Two

Opposite Direction 2 28.6% 7 14.3%

Young Driver 16‐25 Involved 1 14.3% 11 22.4%

Priority Level Three

Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants 1 14.3% 7 14.3%

Drowsy Driver Involved 1 14.3% 4 8.2%

Wildlife 1 14.3% 3 6.1%

Older Driver 75+ Involved 1 14.3% 1 2.0%

Heavy Truck Involved 0 0.0% 3 6.1%

Intersection Related 0 0.0% 2 4.1%

Work Zone 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Unlicensed Driver Involved 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pedestrian 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

School Bus Involved 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Bicyclist 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Vehicle‐Train 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 7 49



Unstable Slopes

WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)begantheirUnstableSlopeManagementSystemin1993.Thismanagementsystemincorporatedanumericalslopehazardratingsystem.Theratingsystemutilizesamatrixevaluatingelevencategories.In2004anenvironmentalassessmentofSR‐14unstableslopeswascompleted.Ofthesitesinvestigated,26priorityprojectswereidentifiedinSkamaniaCounty.PriorityprojectshadanUnstableSlopeManagementSystemratinggreaterthan200.Thosewithratingsabove300totalpointsrepresentarelativelyhighhazardslope.ABenefittoCost(B/C)Ratioisthenusedtodetermineprojectpriority.Table3‐4liststhe17remainingpriorityprojectsalongSR‐14inSkamaniaCounty.

Table 3‐5: Rockfall Hazard Locations

Road Mile Post Rating B/C Ratio Improvement

SR‐14 24.91‐25.00 315 1.70 Reslope

SR‐14 25.00‐25.20 369 0.34 Realign: Move Bridge

SR‐14 30.20‐30.34 279 2.27 Reslope

SR‐14 30.37‐30.46 345 1.22 Retaining/Buttress Wall

SR‐14 30.90‐31.10 219 1.12 Reslope/Realign/Bolts

SR‐14 46.46‐46.55 309 7.52 Reslope/Scaling/Bolts/Trim

SR‐14 46.61‐46.68 309 1.80 Realignment/Scaling/Bolts

SR‐14 53.33‐53.44 267 5.93 Scaling/Shotcrete/Bolts

SR‐14 53.56‐53.62 267 3.56 Euromesh/Scaling/Bolts/Mesh

SR‐14 54.80‐54.97 249 2.54 Reslope/Erosion Fabric

SR‐14 55.05‐55.35 327 1.59 Reslope/Erosion Fabric

SR‐14 55.60‐55.66 285 1.06 Scaling/Euromesh

SR‐14 55.88‐55.96 375 1.75 Reslope/Scaling

SR‐14 58.84‐58.93 315 1.03 Reslope/Scaling/Bolts

SR‐14 59.07‐59.14 261 8.06 Reslope

SR‐14 62.50‐63.00 501 1.31 Scaling/Euromesh

SR‐14 63.05‐63.20 429 3.14 Realign

Tunnels

TherearefivetunnelsalongSR‐14inSkamaniaCountybetweenmilepost58.08and60.27.Thesetunnelshavea24footpavementwidth,nolighting,andabicyclewarningsystem.Thetunnelsarearchedwithacenterclearanceseveralfeethigherthanthe12.9footclearanceattheouteredgeofthepavement.Severalofthetunnelsarelocatedoncurves.



Trucks

Interstate84(I‐84)andStateRoute14(SR‐14)areparalleleast/westhighwaystravelingthroughtheColumbiaRiverGorge.I‐84isa4‐laneInterstatefacilitylocatedinOregonandSR‐14isarural2‐laneStateHighwaylocatedinWashington.BothroutesarepartoftheNationalHighwaySystem(NHS).Bothroutesarepublicroutesthatareopentoalllegaltrucks.Asaruralhighway,SR‐14islessconducivetothroughtrucktrafficbecauseofsharpcurves,steepgrades,andheightrestriction.I‐84asanInterstateHighwayisthehighestroadclassificationandprovidesthehighestlevelofmobility,atthehighestspeed,foralonguninterrupteddistance.Assuch,throughtrucktrafficshouldbeencouragedtouseI‐84.

Preservation and Maintenance Need Ofoverwhelmingimportanceintheplanningfortheregionaltransportationsystemistheneedtomaintainandpreservetheexistingsysteminordertoprotecttheheavyinvestmentsalreadymadeinthesystem.TheRTPsupportsprojectsprogrammedintheTransportationImprovementProgramtomaintainandpreservetheregionaltransportationsystem.

APavementManagementSystemhasbeendevelopedforpavementconditiononallstateroadfacilities.Thissystemisintendedtoassistwiththeprioritizationofpavementpreservationandtorespondtorecentlyobservedconditionsandpredictprobablefutureconditions.WSDOTandlocaljurisdictionsvisuallyinspectpavementconditionsoffacilitiestodetermineneededmaintenanceandpreservation.ProjectsthathavereachedaconditionthatwarrantsrehabilitationareprogrammedintotheStateandlocalSix‐YearTransportationImprovementPrograms.



WashingtonStatehasdevelopedaBridgeManagementSystem,aproceduretovisuallysurveybridgeconditions.Thissystemisintendedtoassistwiththeprioritizationofbridgereplacementandmaintenance.Projectswithimmediateneedsareprogrammedintothe

StateorlocalSix‐YearTransportationImprovementProgram.Thereareseveralbridgesindeterioratingcondition,orofsubstandardwidth,andcannotaccommodatebicyclistandpedestriantraffic.Thesebridgeswillneedtobereplacedwithinthenext20years.BoththeHoodRiverBridge(PortofHoodRiver)andtheBridgeoftheGods(PortofCascadeLocks)areregularlyinspectedbytheOregonDepartmentofTransportation.MaintenanceandrepairsaremadebythePortsthatowneachbridge.

BurlingtonNorthernSantaFeRailroadmaintainstheBNSFmainraillinethroughSkamaniaCounty.PortofCascadeLocksmaintainstheBridgeoftheGods.ThePortofHoodRivermaintainstheHoodRiverBridge.TheU.S.ForestServicemaintainstheForestServiceroads.UnderthedirectionoftheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineerstheColumbiaRiverismaintained.LocaljurisdictionandWSDOTmaintainbicycleandpedestrianfacilities.

TheRegionalTransportationPlansupportsadditionaltransportationdollarsforthepreservationandmaintenanceoftheregionaltransportationsystem.Priorityshouldbegiventomaintaintheheavyinvestmentalreadymadeintheregionaltransportationsystem.

Enhancement Need Thereisaneedtodevelopandimprovefacilitiesforbicycles,pedestrians,scenicvistas,restareas,thematicsignage,roadsidebeautification,andotherenhancementswithintheSkamaniaCountyregion.TheRegionalTransportationPlansupportscosteffectiveenhancementstothetransportationsystem.

Economic Development Need Theprosperityofaregionisdependentontheprovisionoftransportationinfrastructuretosupporteconomicdevelopment.Themovementofgoodsbyhighway,rail,water,andairareessentialtotheeconomyofSkamaniaCounty.



TheRTPsupportsimprovementstothetransportationsystemthatwillgiveprimeconsiderationtoeconomicdevelopmentandthesafe,efficientmovementofpeopleandfreight.Specifically,freightproducedbyormaterialnecessaryfortheoperationofbusinessesandindustriesintheSkamaniaCountyregion.

TheRTPsupportstheimplementationofthe10‐YearPlanfortheBridgeoftheGods,whichidentifiesvitalimprovementsandmaintenanceneeds.TheBridgeoftheGodsisacriticalaccesspointforpeopleandgoodsinthemostpopulationportionofSkamaniaCounty.Theeconomicwell‐beingoftheregionisdependentontheBridgeoftheGods,whichprovidesessentialaccesstoemployment,services,andgoods.Thefacilityisaginganditisessentialthatexistingtollrevenuebededicatedtowardsfundingthe10‐YearPlan,toguaranteetheBridge’scontinualoperationformanymoreyears.

TheRTPsupportsthereplacementoftheHoodRiverBridge.TheHoodRiverBridgeprovidestheprincipleaccessforeasternSkamaniaCountytoemployment,services,andgoods.Thisfacilityisessentialtotheregionsdiversificationbyprovidingaccessandemploymentopportunities.Thisfacilityisimportantforthemovementoflocalgoodstomarket.Theexistingfacilityisnarrowandinadequatetohandlethedemandsoftheregion.Thefacilityisagingandwilllikelyneedtobereplacedwiththenext20years.ThelocaleconomydependsheavilyontheHoodRiverBridge,ensuringanadequatereplacementfacilityisahighpriorityfortheregion.

TheRTPsupportsimprovementstothetransportationsystemthatwillgiveprimeconsiderationtoeconomicdevelopmentandthesafe,efficientmovementofpeopleandfreight.Specifically,freightproducedbyormaterialsnecessaryfortheoperationofbusinessesandindustrieswithinSkamaniaCounty.

Chapter 4: Financial Plan 37


Chapter 4: Financial Plan

Overview PotentialtransportationimprovementprojectsproposedinthisPlanareintendedtomeettheRTPgoalsandpolicyobjectiveasoutlinedinChapterOne.Thesegoalsandpoliciesincludemakingthemostefficientuseofandenhancingtheexistingtransportationsystem.

Theavailabilityoffederal,state,andlocalmoneyswillhaveasignificantimpactontheabilitytofundproposedprojects.Thischapterdescribesrevenuesourcesanddiscusseschangestorevenuesourcesasaresultoffederalandstatelegislation.Theprojectionoffundingabilityisbasedonhistoricalfundinglevels.TheabilityoftheprojectedfundingtomeetRTPcostsisdetermined.

Transportationhastraditionallybeenfundedby“userfees”.Today,themajortaxsourcestofundtransportationarethegastax,vehiclelicenses,permits,andfees.Gastaxisimposedatthefederallevel($0.184pergallon)andatthestatelevel($0.375pergallon)andisdevotedtoroadwaypurposes.

Challenges and Accomplishments TheRTPfacesconsiderablechallengesforfundingthetransportationsystemintothefuture.Overthelastdecadefewerdollarshavebeenspentonthetransportationsystemastransportationrevenueshavedeclined.Asthetransportationsystemages,thecostofpreservingandmaintainingtheexistingtransportationsystemhasincreased.Thereisaneedtohaveapublicdiscussiononhowtransportationcostwillbepaidforinthefuture.



TheRTPwaslastadoptedin2012;sincethattime,anumberofimprovementshavebeencompletedontheregionalsystemwithinSkamaniaCounty.CompletedimprovementsincludetheCurlyCreekRoad,SR‐14CapeHornImprovements,andmaintenanceandpreservationprojects.

Plannedfuturetransportationimprovements,willcontinuetomaintainandenhancetheexistingtransportationsystem.WithoutadditionalrevenuetherewillbelimitedopportunitiestoimprovetheSkamaniaCountyregionaltransportationsystem.

Revenue Sources

Federal Funding

Thefederalgastaxandothertransportationfeesandtaxesarethemajorfederalrevenuesourcesforfederaltransportationfunding.OnJuly6,2012,thePresidentsignedintolawtheMovingAheadforProgressinthe21stCenturyAct(MAP‐21).MAP‐21providesfundingforfiscalyears2013and2014.MAP‐21restructurescoretransportationprogramswithprogramscreated,eliminated,orrestructuredunderotherprograms.ThisdocumentincludesabriefdescriptionofMAP‐21programs.

NationalHighwayPerformanceProgram(NHPP):ThisprogramprovidessupportfortheconditionandperformanceoftheNationalHighwaySystem(NHS),fortheconstructionofnewfacilitiesontheNHS,andtoensurethatinvestmentsofFederal‐aidfundsinhighwayconstructionaredirectedtosupportprogresstowardtheachievementofperformancetargetsestablishedintheState’sassetmanagementplanfortheNHS.UnderMAP‐21theNationalHighwaySystemisexpandedtoincludeallprincipalarterials.

SurfaceTransportationProgram(STP):ThisprogramprovidesflexiblefundingthatmaybeusedforprojectstopreserveandimprovetheconditionsandperformanceofanyFederal‐aidhighway,bridge,andtunnelonanypublicroad.Thisincludesimprovementstoroads,pedestrianandbicycleinfrastructure,andtransitcapitalprojects.STPfundsaredividedbetweenthefollowprograms:

STP‐Rural(STP‐R):FormulaallocationforprojectsoutsidetheUrbanAreaboundary.RTC(MPO)selectsprojectsforfunding.

STP‐State(STP‐S):FormulaallocationtotheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,foruseonStatehighwayprojects.TheStateselectsprojects.



Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Thisprogramisintendedtoachieveasignificantreductionintrafficfatalitiesandseriousinjuriesonallpublicroads.TheHSIPrequiresadata‐driven,strategicapproachtoimprovinghighwaysafety.

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

MAP‐21establishedanewprogramtoprovideforavarietyofalternativetransportationprojects,includingmanythatwerepreviouslyeligibleactivitiesunderseparatelyfundedprograms.TheTAPreplacesthefundingfromRecreationalTrails,SafeRoutestoSchools,andseveralotherdiscretionaryprograms,wrappingthemintoasinglefundingsource.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

CDBGfundsareadministeredbytheDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD).Fundscanbeusedforpublicfacilities,economicdevelopment,housing,andcomprehensiveprojectswhichbenefitlowandmoderateincomehouseholds.Projectsareselectedbythecounty.

Federal Lands Highways

TheFederalLandsHighwaysProgramprovidesfundsforprojectsthatimproveaccesswithinfederallands.

State Funding

TheStateGasTaxistheprimaryStatesourceofhighwaymaintenanceandarterialconstructionfunds:

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationadministersstateandfederalfundedstatehighwayprojects.Statetransportationrevenuesaredividedinto

separateprograms.Thebudgetfortheseprogramsisdeterminedbythestatelegislature.WSDOTthenprioritizesprojectsanddetermineswhichprojectscanbeconstructedwithinthebudgetofeachprogram.

Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Programs

TheWashingtonStateLegislaturecreatedtheTransportationImprovementBoard(TIB)tofosterstateinvestmentinqualitylocal



transportationprojects.TheTIBdistributesgrantfunding,whichcomesfromtherevenuegeneratedbythreecentsofthestatewidegastax,tocitiesandcountiesforfundingtransportationprojects.TheTIBidentifiesandfundsthehighest‐rankingtransportationprojectsbasedoncriteriaestablishedbytheBoardforeachprogram.

SmallCityProgram(SCP):Fundsprojectsthatpreserveandimprovetheroadwaysysteminamannerthatisconsistentwithlocalneeds(Incorporatedcitiesunder5,000population).Alocalmatchof5%orgreaterisrequired.

PedestrianSafety&MobilityProgram(PSMP):Fundsprojectsthatenhanceandpromotepedestriansafetyandmobilitybyprovidingaccessandaddressingpedestriansystemcontinuityandconnectivity.Alocalmatchof5%orgreaterisrequired.

FederalMatch:Providesthelocalmatchforfederallyfundedprojectsmeetingroutinesmallcityprogrameligibility.

PavementPreservationProgram:Providesfundingforrehabilitationandmaintenanceofthesmallcityroadwaysystem,insomecasesinpartnershipwithWSDOTorcountypavingprojects.

County Road Administration Board (CRAB)

TheCountyRoadAdministrationBoardwascreatedbytheLegislaturein1965toprovidestatutoryoversightofWashington’sthirty‐ninecountyroaddepartments.Theagencyandthetwograntprogramstheyadministerarefundedfromaportionofthecounties’shareoftheStatefueltax.

RuralArterialProgram(RAP):Thisprogramprovidesfundingforreconstructionofruralarterialroads.Proposedprojectsforthisprogramareratedbyaspecificsetofcriteriaincluding(1)structuralabilitytocarryloads,(2)capacitytomovetrafficatreasonablespeeds,(3)adequacyofalignmentandrelatedgeometrics,(4)accidentrates,and(5)fatalaccidentrates.Thisprogramgeneratesapproximately$19millionayearforcountyroadimprovements.

CountyArterialPreservationProgram(CAPP):Thisprogramprovidesfundingtoassistcountiesinpreservingtheirexistingpavedarterialroadnetworks.Fundingisprovidedtocountiesasdirectallocationbasedonpavedarteriallanemiles.Thisprogramgeneratesapproximately$14millionayearforcountyroadimprovements.



Washington State Public Works Board

ThePublicWorksBoardwascreatedbythe1985legislature.Themissionofthisboardis“toassistWashington’slocalgovernmentsandprivatewatersystemsinmeetingtheirpublicworksneedstosustainlivablecommunities.”Theyloanmoneyforpublicfacilities,includingroadsandbridges.

Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)

ThePublicWorksTrustFundhasapre‐constructionandaconstructionloanprogram.Theseloanprogramsprovidefundsfordesignwork,engineering,permitacquisition,environmentalreview,right‐of‐wayacquisition,andconstruction.Theseloanshavea5‐yeartermforpre‐constructionanda20‐yeartermforconstructionwithaninterestrateofonlyone‐halfpercent.

Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)

Thisfundwasestablishedbythelegislaturetomakeloansand/orgrantsforpublicfacilities,includingroads,whichwillstimulateinvestmentandjobopportunities,reduceunemployment,andfostereconomicdevelopment.TheDepartmentofCommunityTradeandEconomicDevelopmentadministerthisprogram.

WSDOT Grant Programs

WSDOTadministersmanytransportationrelatedgrantsthatareavailabletoagencies.However,manyoftheseprogramsaredependentonthelegislatureallocatingfunding.Theseprogramsoftenvaryfromyeartoyear.

Local Funding

Localrevenuecomesfromavarietyofsourcessuchasgastax,propertytax,salestax,permits,fees,andprivatedevelopment.

Local Gas Tax Revenue

Thisisthedistributionofthestategasolinetaxtothecitiesandcountiesbasedoneachjurisdiction’spopulation.

Road Improvement District (RID)

RID’scanbeformedandfundedbypropertiesbenefitingfromanimprovement.Theyareusuallyformedattherequestofpropertyowners.Localgovernmentwillbuildtheprojectusingrevenuebondsfromtheroadimprovementdistrict.



Frontage Improvement Agreements

Developmentsareoftenrequiredtoconstructfrontageimprovementsasaconditionoftheirdevelopment.Incaseswherethedevelopmentabutsaproposedroadimprovementproject,itmaybebeneficialforthedevelopertopaylocalgovernmentfortheirshareofthefrontageimprovementandforlocalgovernmenttoconstructtheimprovementaspartoftheoverallcapitalproject.

Transit Revenues

Revenuesourcesthathavebeendescribedpreviouslyaregenerallyintendedforroadwayimprovements.Thetransitsystem,includingseniortransportation,isgenerallyfundedbyfareboxproceeds,consolidatedstateandfederalgrants,Medicaid,andotherlocalfunds.Thesefundsareusedtopayforbothoperatingandcapitalcosts.

Farebox

PatronsoftheSkamaniadeviatedfixrouteservicepayafaretousetheservicebetweenSkamaniaCountyandVancouver.Thefarerevenuespayforaportionoftheoperatingcost.

Consolidated State and Federal Grants

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationisresponsiblefordistributingavarietyofstateandfederalgrantsforpublictransportationprograms.TheseprogramsincludeFederalSections5310,5311,5311(f),3037andStateRuralMobility,Paratransit/SpecialNeeds,andTransitFormulaRevenueEquity.WSDOTcreatedaconsolidatedapplicationprocessthatisusedforbothstateandfederalpublictransportationgrants.Bycreatingaconsolidatedapplicationprocess,applicantsonlyneedtosubmittheirproposalsforallfundingonceeverytwoyears.

Medicaid

EligiblemedicaltripsarefundedbyMedicaidtransportationfunds.

Local Funds

SeniorTransportationisfundedinpartbytheSouthwestAgencyonAgingandSkamaniaCounty.Inaddition,donationsfromlocalagenciesandpassengersassistwithoperatingcost.

Revenue Assumptions SHB1928requirestheRTPbe‘fiscallyconstrained’or“includeafinancialplandemonstratinghowtheregionaltransportationplancanbeimplemented,indicating



resourcesfrompublicandprivatesourcesthatarereasonablyexpectedtobemadeavailabletocarryouttheplan,andrecommendinganyinnovativefinancingtechniquestofinanceneededfacilities,services,andprograms.”Theremustbeabalancebetweenforecastrevenuesandcostsofidentifiedtransportationsystemimprovements.Withlimitedrevenuesavailableforfundingtransportationimprovements,themostcost‐effectivetransportationsolutionsmustbeidentifiedandselected.ThefollowingoutlinestheassumptionsandmethodologyusedfortheRTPrevenueforecast.

WSDOTprovidedhistoricaldatafortransportationrevenuesforyears2004‐2012(9‐yearperiod).

Totaltransportationrevenuewasestimatedfora21‐yearperiodthrough2035,usingthefollowingapproach:

1. CalculatedannualSkamaniaCountytransportationrevenueforyears2004‐2012;

2. Increasedannualrevenueby10%toreflecttherecoveryoftheeconomy;

3. Multipliedtransportationrevenueby80%toreflecttherevenueavailablefortheregionaltransportationsystem;

4. Multipliedregionaltransportationrevenueby21yearstoestimatetotalregionalrevenuegeneratedbySkamaniaCountythrough2035.

TheregionalrevenueestimateaccountsforthetrendthatSkamaniaCountyreceivesa$1.28returnforeverydollarcontributedbySkamaniaCountyresidents.

Assumedtheequivalentofanewstatewidetransportationfundingpackageof11.5centspergallon.WithSkamaniaCountyreceivingapproximately$5milliondollarsallocatedtoasingleproject,withadditionaldistributiontolocalgovernmentsformaintenanceandpreservation.

Assumedthecontinuationofthefederaltransportationrevenueatcurrentlevels.

TheRTPAssumesrevenueandcostsin2012dollars.

Table4‐1containsprojectedtransportationrevenuefortheregionaltransportationsystem.Basedonthisestimate,theSkamaniaCountyregionwouldhaveapproximately$91.7millionintransportationrevenueavailableoverthenext21years.

Table 4‐1: Projected Revenue

Revenues Annual Average 21 Years

Transportation Revenue $4,300,000 $90,300,000

State Revenue Package $240,000 $5,040,000

Totals $4,540,000 $95,340,000



Cost Assumptions

Thefollowingoutlinestheassumptionsandmethodologyusedtoestimatecosts:

Futuremaintenanceandpreservationcostwerebasedontrendsfromyears2004‐2009.Thefullmaintenanceandpreservationneedissignificantlyhigherthantheavailablecost.

Costfortransportationimprovementsarebasedonplanninglevelcostestimates.

Costforothermodessuchasrail,air,andriverareassumedtobemetoutsideoftheRTP.

Table4‐2containsprojectedtransportationcostfortheregionaltransportationsystem.Basedonthisestimate,theSkamaniaCountyregionwouldhave$69.3Millioninmaintenanceandpreservationcost,$26Millioninimprovementcosts,and$79.0Millioninillustrativeneeds

Table 4‐2: Projected Costs

Cost Type 21 Year Forecast

Maintenance & Preservation $69,300,000

Improvement Projects $26,040,000

Illustrative Needs $79,000,000

Balancing Revenue and Cost The“fiscallyconstrained”testfocusesonassuringthatthereisareasonableexpectationthatrevenueswillbeavailabletoprovideforthetransportationImprovementsidentifiedintheRTP.Basedontherevenueassumptionsdescribedinthischapter,thereareinsufficientresourceswithintheregiontomeetthemaintenance,preservation,andimprovementneedsoftheregionaltransportationsystem.Ifadditionalresourcesarenotobtained,therewillbeinadequatefundsforallofthetransportationimprovementneeds.ThefundingandcostdifferenceisillustratedinFigure4‐1.TomeetthefinancialconstraintsoftheRTP,someimprovementneedshavebeenmovedtoanillustrativelist.



Figure 4‐1: Transportation Revenue and Cost, 2014‐2035

$69.3 $26.0 $86.0

$95.3

0 50 100 150 200

Costs

Revenues

Millions of Dollars

Maintenance and Preservation

Improvement Projects

Illustrative Needs

Transportation Revenue

Chapter 5: System Improvement and Strategy Plan 47


Chapter 5: System Improvement and Strategy Plan

Overview Thischaptersummarizesthesolutionsandstrategiesneededtoprovideanadequatelevelofregionalmobilityoverthenext20years.Awiderangeofsolutionsandstrategiesareneededtomeettheregionaltraveldemand.Therearestrategiestoaddressthetraveldemandsideaswellastransportationsystemsupplyside,andstrategiestoincreasetheefficiencyoftheexistingregionaltransportationsystemaswellasstrategiestoprovideforasafertransportationsystem.ThesolutionsandstrategiesoutlinedinthischapterwillprovideSkamaniaCountyresidentswithawell‐maintained,structurallysound,saferegionaltransportationsystem.Indevelopingabalancedregionaltransportationsystem,itisnotonlycapacityandsafetydeficienciesthatmustbeaddressedbutalsopreservationandmaintenanceoftheexistingregionaltransportationsystem.Thischapterconcludeswithaprioritizedlistoftransportationsystemimprovements.

ThesolutionsandstrategiesfortheSkamaniaCountyregionaltransportationsystemhavebeendividedintosubheadings.Maintenanceisthedailyoperationsthatkeepthetransportationsystemsafe,clean,andefficient.Preservationisaninvestmentthatprolongsthelifeofthetransportationsystem.Improvementsaremodificationsthatincreasethesafety,mobility,andeffectivenessofthetransportationsystem.Miscellaneousincludesspecificimprovementswhichmaybeincludedunderoneoftheothersubheadingsoristiedtoaspecificfundingsource,thusnocostestimateisprovidedforthesestrategies.Illustrativeincludesadditionaltransportationprojectsthathavebeenidentifiedandcurrentlylacksourcesoffunding.

Maintenance

Ofprimeimportanceintheplanningfortheregionaltransportationsystemistheneedtomaintaintheexistingsystem.

Maintenancewilladdresstheday‐to‐dayactivitiesneededtokeepthetransportationsystemingoodworkingorder;dailyoperationsthatkeepthesystem



safe,clean,reliableandefficient.Suchactivitiesincludefillingpotholes,repairingbridges,repairingdrainageditches,repairingguardrails,replacingdamagedsigns,plowingsnow,removingrocks,andefficientlyoperatingtrafficsignals.Preservationcanprolongthelifeoftheexistingtransportationsystemthroughsuchprojectsasrepavingroads,rehabilitatingbridges,androckfallprotection.

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)andlocaljurisdictionsmonitortheconditionandoperationoftheexistingsystemandprogramprojectstomaintainandpreservethesystem.TheRTPsupportstheroutine,regularly‐scheduled,andnecessarymaintenanceandpreservationworkidentifiedbylocaljurisdictions.TheRTPsupportsmaintenanceandpreservationbeinggivenhighpriorityintheprogrammingoftransportationfunds.Theestimated21yearpublicmaintenanceandpreservationcostfortheregionaltransportationsystemis$69.3million.Thisdoesnotreflectthefullmaintenanceandpreservationneed.

Improvements Inaddition,theRegionalTransportationPlanrecommendstransportationimprovementsneededtoprovideanadequatelevelofsafetyandregionalmobilityfortheanticipatedgrowthintraveldemand.Improvementsshouldberelatedtoanidentifieddeficiency,asidentifiedinChapter3(safety,capacity,economicdevelopment,non‐motorizedmode,andbridge).Improvementswouldincludeaddinglanes,removingadangerouscurve,addingrestareas,addingscenicvistas,improvingsightdistance,addingaclimbinglane,realignmentofaroadway,andaddingalternativemodesoftransportation.Theestimated21yearimprovementcostis$26.0million.

Illustrative Projectsthataddressanidentifieddeficiency,butdonothaveidentifiedrevenue,arecontainedintheIllustrativeProjectList.Theseprojectsareconsidered“financiallyunconstrained,”becauseestimatedresourceswouldnotcoverprojectcosts.

TheIllustrativeProjectshave“conceptualimprovements”indicatedandestimatedcostsidentified.Theseconceptualimprovementswillnotbecomecommittedprojectsuntilfurtherstudyiscompleted,includingmovingthroughtheregionaltransportationplanningprocessandpotentialrevenuehasbeenidentified.Inmanycases,theIllustrativeprojectswillrequirefurtherstudyoffeasiblealternatives.Theestimated21yearimprovementcostis$74.5million.



Miscellaneous Strategies and Solutions TheRTPsupportsstrategiesforbridges,safety,economicdevelopment,non‐motorizedmodes,andtransitwhichwillsupportthemobilityofpeopleandgoodswithinSkamaniaCounty.

Bridge Deficiencies

Maintenance,preservation,andreplacementprojectsrequiredonbridgesareidentifiedthroughtheBridgeManagementSystem(BMS)administeredbyWSDOT.

Theregionhasidentifiedthelong‐termneedtoreplacethefunctionallyobsoleteHoodRiverBridge.Theregionmustcontinuetoworkcollaborativelyonthislong‐termtransportationneed.

Safety Deficiencies

Accidentsandtheirnumber,location,andtypearemonitoredbyWSDOTandlocaljurisdictions.Ifthereisdeemedtobeasafetydeficiency,thenremedialmeasuresareconsideredandcorrectiveactiontaken.

Economic Development and Freight Transportation Deficiencies

Theprosperityofaregionisdependentontheprovisionoftransportationinfrastructuretosupporteconomicdevelopment.EconomicdevelopmentemergedasaprimeevaluationcriterionforprioritizingprojectsfortheRegionalTransportationPlan.

WSDOThasadoptedaStatewideFreightandGoodsTransportationSystem,whichcategorizeshighwaysandlocalroadsaccordingtothetonnageoffreighttheycarry.WashingtonStatealsocreatedtheFreightMobilityStrategicInvestmentBoard(FMSIB)withamissiontocreateacomprehensiveandcoordinatedstateprogramtofacilitatefreightmovementbetweenandamonglocal,national,andinternationalmarketswhichenhancestradeopportunities.

TheWashingtonStateLegislaturehasdefinedthepurposeofthestate’sfreightrailprogramandplanningactivitiesandestablishedacomprehensivefreightrailpolicy.ThispolicydirectsWSDOTtomaintainandimprovethestatefreightrailsystemthroughbetterfreightrailplanning,bettercooperationtopreserveraillines,andincreasedfinancialassistancefromthestate.

WashingtonandOregonhaveidentifiedthedeepeningofthelowerColumbiaRiverchannelto43feetasessentialforthemovementoffreight.Thisimprovementwillhelpkeeptheregioneconomicallycompetitiveinthefuture.



Non‐Motorized Transportation Deficiencies

Thedevelopmentofnon‐motorizedtransportationmodesisastrategythatwillmaximizethecapacityoftheexistingtransportationsysteminurbanareas.Reducedrelianceonautomobilesislargelydependentonthedevelopmentofadequatesidewalksandbikeways.Pedestrianandbicycleneedsaremostappropriatelyidentifiedatthelocallevel.

Transportationdemandmanagement(TDM)strategiestoreducevehicletripsontheregionaltransportationsystemcanincludeuseoftransit,carpooling,vanpooling,workingofflex‐hoursand/orcompressedworkweek,andworkingfromhomewithuseofcommunicationstechnology.

Transportationsystemmanagement(TSM)isalsoastrategytomaximizetheefficiencyoftheexistingtransportationsystem.TSMmeasuresincludeawiderangeofstrategies,mostofwhicharerelatedtotheuseofintelligenttransportationsystems.Theseincludeincidentresponseprograms,programstomonitortravelconditions(weather/congestion),variablemessagesignagetoalertmotoristoftravelconditions,improvedcommunicationmeans,andIntelligentVehicle/HighwaySystems.OtherTSMelementsincludeminorcapitalupgradessuchaschannelizationattrafficintersections.

Transit Deficiencies

Transitisimportantinmeetingthemobilityneedsofthetransitdependent;thoseunabletodriveautomobilesbecauseofage,infirmity,disability,orlowincome.Transitcanalsomeetthemobilityneedsforcommutetripstoandfromemploymentcenters.

Conclusion TheRTPprovidesforstrategiesandsolutionstomeetregionaltraveldemandandtodevelopabalancedregionaltransportationsystemoverthe20‐yearplanningperiod.ProjectsareidentifiedintheRTPandthenprogrammedinthelocalTransportationImprovementProgram.Table5‐1providesalistingofneededimprovementsfortheregionaltransportationsystem.Thistableincludesalistofprojectsforwhichregionalneedhasbeenidentifiedandforwhichthereisstrongregionalcommitment.Thelistfocusesonsafetyimprovementssincethesearetheprojectsthataremostreadilyneeded.Thelistalsoidentifiesawiderangeoftransportationsystemimprovementsthatwillcontributetothedevelopmentofabalancedregionaltransportationsystem.

Aprioritizationprocesshelpstheregiontomakemosteffectiveuseoflimitedtransportationfundingtomeettransportationsystemimprovementneeds.TheprojectslistedinTable5‐1wereprioritizedbasedontheregionalprioritizationprocess.Thefollowingkeyissueswereconsideredintheprioritizationprocess:



1. Safety,

2. EconomicDevelopment,

3. Congestion,

4. Connectivity,

5. Support,and

6. Cost/Funding.

Table 5‐1: Transportation Improvement Projects

Rank Facility Mile Post Location Existing Condition Improvement Cost*

(millions)

Unranked All N/A Skamania County Existing transportation system

Preservation and Maintenance

Ongoing


Safety Improvements Ongoing


Transportation Enhancements

Ongoing

Unranked All N/A Skamania County Existing transit system Maintain and improve public transit

Ongoing

1 SR‐14 22.7‐26.4 Marble Rd. to Salmon Falls Rd.

One lane each direction Phase 3: Realign curves $8.0

2 SR‐14 47.5/49.3 Wind River Rd. Intersection

Skewed intersection Improve Intersection $5.0

3 SR‐14 41.5 Bridge of the Gods Intersection Improve Intersection $1.0

4 SR‐14 38.5 Hot Spring Way /Dam

At‐grade intersections Add WB deceleration and acceleration lanes

$0.5

5 SR‐14 21.7‐63.5 Countywide Rockfall

Rockfall Rockfall protection $10.0

6 SR‐14 44.9‐48.1 E. of Stevenson to Carson

One lane each direction with sharp curves

Corridor Feasibility Study

$0.2

7 SR‐14 58.0‐60.2 Tunnels 1‐5 Height restricted tunnels Feasibility Study: Lower grade by 6", ITS

$0.5

8 SR‐14 24.9‐27.9 Half Bridge to Prindle Rd.

One lane each direction Study: Extend WB Climbing Lane

$0.2

9 SR‐14 21.7‐63.5 Countywide Limited shoulders Study: Widen shoulder to 4'

$0.2

10 SR‐14 30.1‐30.7 East of Smith‐Cripe Rd.

One lane each direction, with sharp curves

Study: Realignment $0.1

11 SR‐14 63.32 Cook‐Underwood Intersection

At‐grade intersections Study: Intersection improvement

$0.1

12 Columbia River

N/A Stevenson Landing

Dock Study: Replace Public Dock

$0.1

13 SR‐14 42.9‐43.3 Stevenson Industrial Land

Driveways Feasibility Study: Industrial Land Access

$0.1

Total $26.0

*Theseareplanninglevelestimatesandadditionalworkwillbeneededtodetermineactualcost.

Table5‐2providesalistingofneededimprovementsalongtheregionaltransportationsystemthatdonothaveanidentifiedrevenuesource.Theseprojectswillbeaddedtothecommittedlistwhenadequatefinancialresourcesareidentified.



Table 5‐2: Illustrative Needs

Rank Facility Mile Post Location Existing Condition Improvement Cost*

(millions)

1 SR‐14 22.7‐26.4 Marble Rd. to Salmon Falls Rd.

One lane each direction Phase 4: Realign curves $7.0

2 SR‐14 21.7‐63.5 Countywide Rockfall

Rockfall Rockfall protection $10.0

3 SR‐14 44.9‐48.1 E. of Stevenson to Carson

One lane each direction with sharp curves

Realignment, widen shoulders, and rockfall

$20.0

4 SR‐14 58.0‐60.2 Tunnels 1‐5 Height restricted tunnels Lower grade by 6", ITS $5.0

5 SR‐14 24.9‐27.9 Half Bridge to Prindle Rd.

One lane each direction Extend WB Climbing Lane

$16.0

6 SR‐14 21.7‐63.5 Countywide Limited shoulders Widen shoulder to 4' $20.0

7 SR‐14 30.1‐30.7 East of Smith‐Cripe Rd.

One lane each direction, with sharp curves

Realignment $5.0

8 SR‐14 63.32 Cook‐Underwood Intersection

At‐grade intersections Intersection improvements

$2.0

9 Columbia River

N/A Stevenson Landing

Dock Replace Public Dock $1.0

Total $86.0

*Theseareplanninglevelestimatesandadditionalworkwillbeneededtodetermineactualcost.

Chapter 6: Performance Monitoring 53


Chapter 6: Performance Monitoring

Overview Thetransportationplanningprocessrequiresthatmonitoringofsystemperformancetakesplace.Monitoringoftheregionaltransportationsystem’sperformanceisanongoingactivity,whichataminimum,willoccuraspartofthereviewoftheRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP).TheRTPmustbereviewedatleasteverytwoyears.Severalelementsofsystemmonitoringactivitiesaredescribedbelow.

Safety Monitoringofaccidentratesandrockfallisanongoingactivityoftheregionaltransportationsystem.AccidentdatawillbecollectedandstudiedbasedonathreeyearaccidentrateaspartofeachRTPreview.Theaccidentrateswillbeusedtoidentifytheperformanceofthetransportationsystembyidentifyingdeficientroadsegments.Highaccidentlocationswillbeusedasatoolforidentifyingimprovementstrategiestoalleviateasafetyproblem.

Inaddition,WSDOTwillmonitorrockfall.FutureupdatesoftheRTPwillcontainthemostrecentrockfallinformation.Rockfalllocationswillbeusedasatoolforprioritizingrockfallimprovements.

Capacity Analysis Trafficvolumeswillbeusedasatoolformonitoringtrafficcongestionandforidentifyingimprovementstrategiestoalleviatethecongestion.TheHighwayCapacitySoftwarewillbeusedtoanalyzethelevelofservicealongtheregionaltransportationnetwork.Deficientsegmentswillbeanalyzedtoidentifyimprovementstrategiestoalleviatecongestion.

Chapter 6: Performance Monitoring 54


Preservation and Maintenance Local,regional,andstatetoolsarebeingusedtomonitorpreservationandmaintenanceneeds.WashingtonStatehasdevelopedaBridgeManagementSystemandPavementManagementSystemtoidentifydeficientconditionsalongroadwaysandbridges.Thesetoolsalongwithothertoolsareongoingactivitieswhichmonitorpreservationandmaintenanceneedsoftheregionaltransportationsystem.

Special Studies Localandstatestudiesandplansareoccasionallyundertakenwhichmonitortheperformanceofthetransportationsystem.Asthesespecialstudiesorplansarecompleted,theassociatedinformationwillbeincludedinthenextupdateoftheRegionalTransportationPlan.

Chapter 7: Plan Development and Implementation 55


Chapter 7: Plan Development and Implementation

Public Involvement in Regional Transportation Planning Process SouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncil(RTC)hasanadoptedpublicinvolvementprocessoutliningthepublicinvolvementeffortsinthedevelopmentofregionaltransportationplansandprograms.CopiesofthepublicinvolvementprocessareavailablefromRTC’sWebsiteoroffice.AllRTCBoardmeetingsandtheSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommitteemeetingsareopentothepublic.Publicinvolvementeffortsbuildfromthosecarriedoutatthelocallevelindevelopmentoflocalplansandprogrammingoftransportationprojects.

ApublicmeetingisheldtoadopttheSkamaniaCountyRegionalTransportationPlan.AmendmentstotheRTParepresentedtoboththeSkamaniaCountyTransportationPolicyCommitteeandtheRTCBoardofDirectorsfortheirconsiderationandadoption.Transportationissues,studies,plans,andprogramsareoutlinedandreportedonRTC’swebsiteathttp://www.rtc.wa.gov.

RTP Implementation Implementationofregionaltransportationgoals,policies,andactionsestablishedbytheSkamaniaCountyRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)arecarriedforwardthroughalocalandregionaldecision‐makingprocess.ThroughthelocaldevelopmentofaTransportationImprovementProgram(TIP),transportationneedsidentifiedintheRTPareprogrammedforreceiptoffunds.

RTP Update Process TheRTPistobereviewedatleasteverytwoyearsandhasbeenupdatedoramendedmanytimesovertheyears.Shouldchangingpolicies,financialconditions,orgrowthpatternswarrant,anRTPupdateoramendmentwilloccur.

Chapter 7: Plan Development and Implementation 56


ResultsandrecommendationsfromtransportationstudiesandimprovementswillbeincorporatedintofutureRTPupdates.Thenextreview/updatetotheRTPisanticipatedin2016.

Glossary 57


Glossary

Abbreviation Description

ADT Average Daily Traffic

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

BMS Bridge Management System

CAPP County Arterial Preservation Program

CDBG Community Development Block Grant

CERB Community Economic Revitalization Board

CRAB County Road Administration Board

FMSIB Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board

GMA Growth Management Act

HSP State Highway System Plan

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSS Highways of Statewide Significance

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991)

LOS Level of Service

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NHS National Highway System

NHPP National Highway Performance Program

OFM Washington State’s Office of Financial Management

Scenic Area Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

NHS National Highway System

PMS Pavement Management System

PTBA Public Transportation Benefit Area

RID Road Improvement District

RTC Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RCO Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office

RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization

SHB Senate House Bill

SR‐ State Route

STP Surface Transportation Program

TAP Transportation Alternatives Program

TDM Transportation Demand Management

TIB Transportation Improvement Board

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TSM Transportation System Management

VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

WTP Washington Transportation Plan

Glossary 58


april 2014 amended november 2016 - rtc: home page 1‐1: map of skamania county location .....5...

Documents