Report for City of Camas Traffic Impact Fee Update · update the Camas Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)....

Report for

City of CamasTraffic Impact Fee Update

Prepared by

May 2012

Prepared for

City of Camas

Camas TIF Update May 2012

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Analysis ........................... 1

Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 1

Motor Vehicle Facilities ........................................................................................................... 3

Completed TIF Roadway Improvements ......................................................................... 3

Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 3

Intersection Operations ............................................................................................................. 5

Intersection Performance Measures ................................................................................. 5

Jurisdictional Mobility Standards ..................................................................................... 5

Existing Operating Conditions ......................................................................................... 6

Signal Warrants ................................................................................................................ 8

2005 Base Link Volumes .......................................................................................................... 8

Future Base Conditions ........................................................................................................... 10

Future Demand and Land Use ........................................................................................ 10

2035 Base Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 16

Future Base (2035) Operating Conditions .............................................................................. 18

2035 Base Link Volumes ............................................................................................... 20

Chapter 2: Improvements Alternatives Analysis ................................................24

Major Roadway Improvements............................................................................................... 24

Intersection Improvements...................................................................................................... 30

Roundabouts ................................................................................................................... 31

2035 Improved Operational Analysis ............................................................................. 32

Recommended TIF Improvements ......................................................................................... 34

Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................ 34

TIF Cost Comparison .............................................................................................................. 39

Chapter 3: TIF Structure ......................................................................................40

Recommended TIF Structure Summary ......................................................................... 42

Supporting Policy Recommendations ..................................................................................... 42

Reimbursement Costs ..................................................................................................... 42

Late Comer’s Agreements .............................................................................................. 43


Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Operations ..................................................... 6

Table 2: Camas Land Use Summary ............................................................................................ 12

Table 3: Existing and Future Projected Vehicle Trip Generation (PM Peak Hour) ..................... 13

Table 4: Future Base (2035) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Operations ................................... 19

Table 5: Summary of 2035 Link Volume Capacity Analysis ....................................................... 23

Table 6: 2035 PM Peak Hour Mitigated Intersection Level of Service ........................................ 25

Table 7: Future 2035 Signal Warrant Summary at Unsignalized Intersections............................ 30

Table 8: 2035 PM Peak Hour Mitigated Intersection Operations ................................................. 32

Table 9: Camas UGA TIF Improvements ..................................................................................... 35

Table 10: Staff Recommended TIF Fee ........................................................................................ 40

Table 11: TIF Structure Summary ................................................................................................ 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Study Area Roadway Characteristics .............................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 4

Figure 3: 2005 Link Volumes (V/C Plot) ...................................................................................... 9

Figure 4: TAZs ............................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 5: Travel Forecasting Model Process ............................................................................... 14

Figure 6: 2035 Base Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 17

Figure 7: 2035 Base Link Volumes ............................................................................................. 21

Figure 8: Traffic Volume Growth (2005 – 2035) ........................................................................ 22

Figure 9: 2035 Improved Volume-to-Capacity Plot ..................................................................... 29

Figure 10: TIF Project Locations ................................................................................................. 38

Figure 11: Proposed TIF Districts................................................................................................. 41


Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

City of Camas:

James E. Carothers, Engineering Manager/City Engineer

Phil Bourquin, Community Development Director

Eric Levison, Public Works Director

Agency Coordination Committee:

Ken Burgstahler WSDOT (Washington Department of Transportation)

David Ripp Port of Camas-Washougal

Mark Harrington SWWRTC (Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council)

Steve Schulte Clark County

Tahanni Essig Clark County

Phil Wuest City of Vancouver

Rob Charles City of Washougal

DKS Associates:

Chris Maciejewski, PE, PTOE

Julie Sosnovske, PE

Kevin Chewuk

Danella Whitt

Chapter 1: Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Analysis May 2012

Page 1

CHAPTER 1: EXISTING AND FUTURE BASELINE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

This chapter introduces the existing and future motor vehicle conditions that will be used to

update the Camas Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The Camas TIF was last updated in 2003. Over the

past eight years, the urban growth areas for Camas and other neighboring Cities have expanded

and therefore the needs for roadway and intersection improvements have changed. A key

element of the TIF update is to identify the areas impacted by the projected growth and

determine the associated transportation facility improvements needed to accommodate it.

Existing motor vehicle facility conditions were reviewed to identify deficiencies before the

traffic volume growth associated with new development was added to the roadway network in

Camas. This ensures that the updated TIF can associate costs with a nexus to development

impacts. The existing motor vehicle inventory data also represents the baseline to which future

growth in the City will be added, and will be used to help ensure that acceptable operations of

roadways and intersections is maintained as new development increases traffic volumes. The

following sections provide a summary of the study area, a description of the existing motor

vehicle facilities, and an inventory of existing traffic volumes and congestion levels at key

intersections in the study area.

Study Area

The study area is comprised of the Camas urban growth area (or Urban Growth Boundary),

which includes the entire Camas City limits, in addition to land just outside or adjacent to the

City limits that is planned for future annexation and urbanization.

Figure 1 shows the major roadways in Camas, as well as key study area intersections that were

reviewed for motor vehicle intersection operations. The study intersections included:

1. 6th Avenue/Norwood Street

2. 6th Avenue/Ivy Street

3. Division Street/6th Avenue

4. Adams Street/6th Avenue

5. Dallas Street/SR-500 (3rd Avenue)

6. SR-14/SR-500 (Union Street)

7. 3rd

Avenue/2nd

Avenue-4th Street

8. 3rd

Avenue/Crown Road

9. 6th Avenue/SR-500 (Garfield Street)

10. 14th Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street)

11. 18th Avenue/Division Street

12. 28th Avenue/Sierra Drive

13. 18th Avenue/Cascade Street

14. McIntosh Road/Brady Road

15. 16th Avenue/Brady Road

16. Pacific Rim Boulevard/Payne Road

17. Pacific Rim Boulevard/Parker Street

18. 38th

Avenue/Parker Street

19. Lake Road/Sierra Street

20. Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett Street)

21. 43rd

Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street)

22. Leadbetter Road/SR-500 (Everett Street)

23. Nourse Road-15th Street/283

rd Avenue

24. Lake Road/Parker Street

25. Lake Road/218th Avenue

26. 1st Street/Friberg Street-202

nd Avenue

27. 13th Street/Friberg Street

28. Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows Drive

29. Goodwin Road/Ingle Road

30. 28th Street/232

nd Avenue

512

SPEED

20

205

126

105

NO SCALE

STUDY AREA ROADWAY

CHARACTERISTICS

1Figure

LEGEND

- Posted Speed

- WSDOT Regionally Significant Highway (Non HSS)

Functional Classification

- WSDOT Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS)

- Arterial- Collector

SPEED

35

- Local Roadway

- Study Intersection0

500

500

1414

500

500

LAKE RD

LAKE RD

ST

6TH AV

AD

AM

S S

T

6TH AV

5TH AV

4TH AV

2ND AV

UN

ION

S

T

EPHERDHS RD

6T

H S

T

4T

H S

T

1ST

AV

DIV

ISIO

N S

T

BE

NT

ON

S

T

19TH AV19TH AV

18TH AV

28TH AV

18TH

BLVD

PACIFIC RIM

PAYNE

20TH ST 38TH

1ST ST

43RD AV 15TH ST

RD

AV

BYBEE

RD

18TH AV

23RD AV

AV

16TH AV

FOREST

HO

ME

FARGOS

T

10TH AV

7TH AV

6TH

AV

5TH

AV

IVY

ST

LEWIS & CLARK HWY

EVERGREEN HWY

BRADY

McINTOSH

RDR

D

RD

ST

ST

ST

AS

TO

R

ST

AS

TO

R

SIE

RR

AS

IER

RA

ST

ST

PA

RK

ER

192N

D

202N

D A

V

13TH ST

AV

RD

6TH AV

HWY

14TH AV

43RD AV

RD

283R

D A

V

EV

ER

ET

T R

D

267T

H A

V

218T

H A

V

LEWIS & CLARK HWY

Columbia River

Lacamas Lake

232N

D A

V

7TH ST

GA

RF

IELD

DALLA

S S

T

28TH ST

I ST

3RD AV

ST

NO

RW

OO

DS

T23RD ST

LEADBETTER DR

2

34

30

1

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242526

2728

29

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

35

SPEED

25

SPEED

35

SPEED

35

SPEED

35

SPEED

40

SPEED

40

SPEED

25

SPEED

35SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

35

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

25

SPEED

35

SPEED

35

SPEED

25SPEED

40

SPEED

40

SPEED

40SPEED

50

SPEED

35

SPEED

35

SPEED

30

SPEED

30SPEED

35

SPEED

40

SPEED

35

SPEED

35SPEED

40

SPEED

40

SPEED

25

SPEED

35

SPEED

50SPEED

40

SPEED

40

SPEED

35

SPEED

50

SPEED

45

SPEED

50

SPEED

50

SPEED

50

SPEED

25


Page 3

Motor Vehicle Facilities

Characteristics of the major roadways in the urban growth area of Camas were documented and

are presented in Figure 1. Data collected included functional classification, roadway cross-

section, and posted speed limits.

State Route (SR) 14 and SR 500 are the state highways in Camas. SR 14 is classified by the state

as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS)1, while SR 500 is classified by the state as a

Regionally Significant Highway. SR 14 runs east to west and connects the City of Camas to I-

205, the City of Vancouver, other nearby urban areas to the west, and the Columbia River Gorge

to the east. SR 500 generally winds north to south through Camas via the alignments of several

roadways, connecting SR 14 at the south to 28th

Street at the north.

Major roadways under City of Camas jurisdiction include Brady Road, Parker Street, Pacific

Rim Boulevard, SE 20th

Street/NW 38th

Avenue, NW 16th

/Hood/18th

, 1st Street, Lake Road,

Dallas Street (between 3rd

and 6th

), 3rd

Avenue and 6th

Avenue. Each of these roadways are

classified as arterials2 and generally provide for higher volumes of motor vehicle circulation

through the City.

Completed TIF Roadway Improvements

A few of the improvement projects included in the 2003 Camas TIF have been constructed.

These projects mitigated forecasted roadway deficiencies that resulted from new growth in

Camas. The completed projects include:

Leadbetter Road: Constructing a new two lane roadway from Parker Street to Lake Road.

1st Street/Lake Road: Widening 1

st Street and Lake Road to three or five lanes.

Existing Traffic Volumes

Motor vehicle activity at 30 intersections in the study area was collected during the weekday

evening peak hour (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) in the late spring and early summer of 2011. In

addition, historical motor vehicle count data from recent years (2007 to 2010) for 10

intersections was obtained3

and utilized to supplement the new count data. The count data was

used to analyze existing intersection operations at the study intersections, and is included in the

appendix. The existing evening peak hour traffic volumes developed for the study intersections

are displayed in Figure 2.

1 Highways of Statewide Significance, WSDOT, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/HSS/Default.htm

2 City of Camas Transportation Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Designations, December 2007.

3 Historical Count Data obtained from the City of Camas.

2005 EXISTING PM PEAK HOURTRAFFIC VOLUMES

2Figure

NO SCALE

- Study Intersection

LEGEND

- Lane Configuration

- Stop Sign

- Traffic Signal

00

- Volume Turn Movement

RightThruLeftLT TH RTHL

Hard Left

- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume000

500

500

14

LAKE RD

LAKE RD

ST

6TH AV

AD

AM

S S

T

6TH AV

5TH AV

4TH AV

2ND AV

UN

ION

S

T

6T

H S

T

4T

H S

T

1ST AVD

IVIS

ION

ST

BE

NT

ON

S

T

19TH AV19TH AV18TH AV

28TH AV

18TH

BLVD

PAYN

E

20TH ST 38TH

1ST ST

43RD AV 15TH ST

RD

AV

BYBEE

RD

18TH AV

23RD AV

AV

16TH AV

FOREST

HO

ME

FARGO

ST

10TH AV

7TH AV

6TH AV

5TH

AV

IVY

ST

LEWIS & CLARK HWY

EVERGREEN HWY

BRADY

McINTOSH

RD

RD

RD

ST

STST

AS

TO

RS

TA

ST

OR

SIE

RR

AS

IER

RA

ST

ST

PA

RK

ER

20

2N

D A

V

13TH ST

RD

6TH AV

14TH AV

43RD AV

RD

283

RD

A

V

EV

ER

ET

T R

D

26

7T

H A

V

21

8T

H

A

V

LEWIS & CLARK HWYColumbia River

Lacamas Lake

23

2N

D A

V

7TH ST

GA

RF

IELD

28TH ST

I ST

3RD AV

ST

2

34

30

1

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242526

2728

29

NO

RW

OO

DS

T

00

RD

DR

RD

DALLAS

ST

RD

500

14

500

1. 6th Ave./Norwood St. 2. 6th Ave./Ivy St. 3. Division St./6th Ave. 4. Adams St./6th Ave. 5. Dallas St./SR-500 (3rd Ave.) 6. SR-14/SR-500 (Union St.) 7. 3rd Ave./2nd Ave. (4th St.) 8. 3rd Ave./Crown Rd.

9. 6th Ave./SR-500 (Garfield St.) 10. 14th Ave./SR-500 (Everett St.) 11. 18th Ave./Division St. 12. 28th Ave./Sierra Dr. 13. 18th Ave./Cascade St. 14. McIntosh Rd./Brady Rd. 15. 16th Ave./Brady Rd. 16. Pacific Rim Blvd./Payne Rd.

17. Pacific Rim Blvd./Parker St. 18. 38th Ave./Parker St. 19. Lake Rd./Sierra St. 20. Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett St.) 21. 43rd Ave./SR-500 (Everett St.)

22. Leadbetter Rd./SR-500 (Everett Rd.) 23. Nourse Rd.-15th St./283rd Ave. 24. Lake Rd./Parker St. 25. Lake Rd./218th Ave. (Payne St.) 26. 1st St./Friberg St.-202nd Ave.

27. 13th St./Friberg St. 28. Goodwin Rd./Camas Meadows Dr. 29. Goodwin Rd./Ingle Rd. 30. 28th St./232nd Ave.

45 580

THLT50

81090 RT

THLT

10495

60LTTH

RT

RT

20 10 10

LTTHRT

50

10

THLT

45

84015 RT

THLT

15525

0LTTH

RT

RT

30 5 10

LTTHRT35

5052570 THRT

LTRT

125

715 THLT

55

375

THLT

RT

5160

5LT

THRT

10

145

585 RTTH

LT

05

5 LTTH

RT

4013570

THLT

RT

80230

30LT

THRT

20

36585 RT

THLT

658535 LTTH

RT

7575510

90 10 85

5 5 5

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

851035

20 RT

TH

LT

1510

15

6010

70RT

THLT

LT

TH

RT

1534545

THLT

RT

2545065 LTTH

RT

653200

85 0 70

5 0 5

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

150470

5 RT

TH

LT

521520

THLT

RT

515

5LT

THRT

6020

20 RTTH

LT

530050 LTTH

RT

105

105

THLT

23520

45 275

TH

RTLTRT

10525 TH

LT 25110 RT

LT

35 45

THRT308025

35 25 35

5 20 45

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

50105

15 RT

TH

LT

5450

110

0 5

0 0 0

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

14585

0 RT

TH

LT

220

5

LTTH

330

120

RTTH

1080LT

RT

807595

20 110

110

25 155

160

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

20105

20 RT

TH

LT

032015

10 5 0

135 0 15

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

10290215 RT

TH

LT

103020

155

175

15

30 195 30

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

2156545 RT

TH

LT

3585105

25 180

45

55 150

215

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

2517060 RT

TH

LT

7010

0

RTLT

315105 RT

TH225

75LT

TH

180

325

THLT135275 RT

LT

110

180

THRT

305

155

RTTH

30120LT

RT170

25

LTTH

60 275

THLT555 RT

LT

5 140

THRT

50 95

THLT1555 RT

LT

5 65

THRT1025540

30 365

200

160 15 60

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

30365200 RT

TH

LT

10 65

LTRT

10530 TH

LT

35410TH

RT

80 35

LTRT

170490 TH

LT

45350TH

RT

6575

RTLT

340

35

RT

TH

225

30LTTH10

25040

5 10 5

65 10 70

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

0300

40 RT

TH

LT

7017

5

11080

THRT

LTRT

110

295

THLT

019010

5 5 5

50 5 15

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

5290

60 RT

TH

LT

YIELD

RightThruLeftLT TH RT


Page 5

Intersection Operations

This section covers the existing traffic operating conditions at the study intersections. Included is

a description of the intersection performance measures, jurisdictional operational standards, and

an existing traffic operational analysis.

Intersection Performance Measures

Level of service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios are two commonly used

performance measures that provide a gauge of intersection operations. In addition, they are often

incorporated into agency mobility standards. Descriptions are given below:

Level of service (LOS): A “report card” rating (A through F) based on the average delay

experienced by vehicles at the intersection. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where

traffic moves without significant delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. LOS D

and E are progressively worse operating conditions. LOS F represents conditions where

average vehicle delay has become excessive and demand has exceeded capacity. This

condition is typically evident in long queues and delays.

Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio: A decimal representation (between 0.00 and 1.00) of

the proportion of capacity that is being used (i.e., the saturation) at a turn movement,

approach leg, or intersection. It is determined by dividing the peak hour traffic volume by

the hourly capacity of a given intersection or movement. A lower ratio indicates smooth

operations and minimal delays. As the ratio approaches 1.00, congestion increases and

performance is reduced. If the ratio is greater than 1.00, the turn movement, approach leg,

or intersection is oversaturated and usually results in excessive queues and long delays.

Jurisdictional Mobility Standards

The mobility standards for the study intersections vary according to the agency of jurisdiction for

each roadway. Of the 30 study intersections, seven are under state jurisdiction (including

intersections along SR 14 and SR 500), two are under county jurisdiction (Nourse Road-15th

Street/283rd

Avenue and 28th

Street/232nd

Avenue), while the remaining intersections are under

the jurisdiction of the City of Camas.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requires a level of service “D”

or better for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) in urban areas4, including SR 14. In

addition, WSDOT requires a level of service “E” or better for Regionally Significant State

Highways (non-HSS) in urban areas, including SR 500. Clark County requires a level of service

“E” or better for unsignalized intersections, unless signal warrants are met, then a level of service

“D” would be required.5 The City of Camas operating standards require that a level of service

"D" and a volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 or better to be maintained for all intersections.6

4 Level of Service Standards for Washington State Highways, WSDOT, January 1, 2010.

5 Clark County Code, Section 40.350.020, Transportation Concurrency Management System.

6 City of Camas Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Policy TR-20, March 2004.


Page 6

Existing Operating Conditions

The existing motor vehicle operating conditions at the study intersections were determined for

the evening peak hour based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology7

for signalized

and unsignalized intersections. The conditions include the estimated average delay, level of

service (LOS), and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of the study intersections and are shown in

Table 1.8

Table 1: Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Intersection

Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay

Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity

Signalized Intersections

Dallas Street/SR-500 (3rd Avenue) E 9.7 A 0.61

SR-14/SR-500 (Union Street) D 30.2 C 0.92

3rd

Avenue/2nd

Avenue-4th Street D 0.90 5.5 A 0.31

3rd

Avenue/Crown Road D 0.90 9.9 A 0.39

38th Avenue/Parker Street D 0.90 15.1 B 0.41

Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 13.6 B 0.49

43rd

Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 9.5 A 0.37

Lake Road/Parker Street D 0.90 13.7 B 0.51

1st Street/Friberg Street-202

nd Avenue D 0.90 8.4 A 0.35

13th Street/Friberg Street D 0.90 7.5 A 0.38

All-Way Stop Intersections

28th Avenue/Sierra Drive D 0.90 8.6 A 0.24

16th Avenue/Brady Road D 0.90 13.3 B 0.54

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Parker Street** D 0.90 10.8 B 0.46

Unsignalized Intersections

6th Avenue/Norwood Street D 0.90 53.6 A/F 0.65

6th Avenue/Ivy Street D 0.90 33.6 A/D 0.28

Division Street/6th Avenue D 0.90 19.2 A/C 0.30

Adams Street/6th Avenue** D 0.90 15.4 A/C 0.37

6th Avenue/SR-500 (Garfield Street) E 16.9 A/C 0.26

7 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000.

8 Detailed intersection analysis worksheets are attached in the technical appendix.


Page 7

Intersection

Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay

Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity

14th Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 67.1 A/F 0.75

18th Avenue/Division Street D 0.90 10.1 A/B 0.17

18th Avenue/Cascade Street D 0.90 9.3 A/A 0.13

McIntosh Road/Brady Road D 0.90 16 A/C 0.29

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Payne Road D 0.90 15.6 A/C 0.33

Lake Road/Sierra Street D 0.90 12.5 A/B 0.28

Leadbetter Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 9.7 A/A 0.17

Nourse Road-15th Street/283

rd Avenue E 9.3 A/A 0.08

Lake Road/218th Avenue/Payne Street D 0.90 17.8 A/C 0.22

Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows Drive D 0.90 13.7 A/C 0.22

Goodwin Road/Ingle Road D 0.90 17.1 A/C 0.37

28th Street/232

nd Avenue E 14.7 A/B 0.17

Note:

*Mobility Standard is for City of Camas, except for SR-14, which is WSDOT HSS, SR-500, which is WSDOT Non HSS, and

Nourse Road-15th Street/283rd Avenue and 28th Street/232nd Avenue, which is for Clark County.

**Intersection configuration not allowed in HCM analysis, therefore intersection configuration was modified in Synchro to allow

for capacity analysis

Bolded and Shaded indicates mobility standard is not met

Signalized or AWS intersections: All Movements Unsignalized intersection: Worst Movement

LOS = Level of Service of Intersection LOS = Level of Service of Major Street/Minor Street

Delay = Average Delay of Intersection Delay = Approach Delay of Worst Movement

V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio of Intersection V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio of Worst Movement

(except for AWS where V/C is for worst movement)

During the evening peak hour, all study intersections operate within jurisdictional standards, with

the exception of the 6th

Avenue/Norwood Street and the 14th

Avenue/SR 500-Everett Street

intersections. The 6th

Avenue/Norwood Street intersection operates at level of service of “F” on

the minor street approach due to the high traffic volumes on 6th

Avenue causing long delays for

northbound traffic on Norwood Street waiting to find an acceptable gap to turn left onto 6th

Avenue.

At the 14th

Avenue/SR 500-Everett Street intersection, the eastbound approach operates at level

of service of “F” due to high traffic volumes from the uncontrolled southbound movement (SR

500-Everett Street) preventing traffic from 14th

Avenue to finding an acceptable gap to turn left

onto SR 500-Everett Street.


Page 8

Signal Warrants

A signal warrant analysis was performed for the unsignalized study intersections not meeting

mobility standards to determine if side-street volumes are high enough to justify (i.e. warrant) the

construction of a traffic signal. The only unsignalized intersections not meeting mobility

standards under existing conditions were the 6th Avenue/Norwood Street and 14th Avenue/SR-

500 (Everett Street) intersections. For this analysis, the MUTCD9 Warrant #3 (peak hour) was

assessed using 2011 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. Based on the peak hour warrant, neither of

these intersections would meet the signal warrant criteria. The signal warrant analysis

worksheets are attached in the appendix.

2005 Base Link Volumes

To help understand the traffic flows and corridor conditions throughout the entire study area, the

regional travel demand model developed by the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation

Council (SWWRTC) was customized for use in Camas. Roadway link data, including estimated

volumes and approximate levels of congestion, can be plotted from the model for sketch-level

purposes.

Figure 3 shows 2005 model link volumes with links having volume-to-capacity ratios over 0.80

colored to indicate the relative level of congestion. In addition, approximate intersection level of

service is indicated as well. This figure does not represent Highway Capacity Manual

calculations, but gives a general indication of the performance of the network.

Based on Figure 3, the worst congestion occurs along SR 14, 6th

Avenue and 1st Street/Lake

Road.

9 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 Ed., Federal Highway Administration, November 2004.

NO SCALE

2005 PM PEAK HOUR

LINK VOLUMES & V/C

INTERSECTION LOS

3Figure

Volume000

LEGEND

Streets Intersections

Note: Model Volumes - Not Post-Processed


Page 10

Future Base Conditions

The need for transportation improvements within Camas depends on the level of future

development and the corresponding traffic volumes. The 2003 Camas Traffic Impact Fee was

based on a 2023 traffic forecast. This TIF update uses a 2035 land use forecast to assess future

traffic growth. A detailed mesoscopic transportation forecast model was developed for the study

area from the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council’s (RTC) regional travel

demand forecast models (base year 2005 and future year 2035) to assess the growth in traffic.

The projected growth in traffic was then added to existing volumes to determine traffic volumes

for the forecast year 2035. This chapter provides a general description of the forecast

methodology and summarizes future roadway operations resulting from the growth in traffic.

More detailed information about the forecasting methodology can be found in the Focus-Area

Mesoscopic Forecasting Methodology memorandum, in the appendix.10

Future Demand and Land Use

The City of Camas TIF addresses additional facilities that are required to serve future growth.

The RTC urban area transportation forecast model was used to determine traffic growth and

future volumes in Camas. This forecast model translates land uses into person travel, selects

modes, and assigns motor vehicles to the roadway network. These traffic volume projections

form the basis for identifying potential roadway deficiencies and for evaluating alternative

circulation improvements. This section describes the forecasting process, including key

assumptions and the land use scenario developed from the existing Comprehensive Plan

designations and allowed densities.

Projected Land Uses

Land use is a key factor in developing a functional transportation system. The amount of land

that is planned to be developed, the type of land uses, and how the land uses are mixed together

have a direct relationship to expected demands on the transportation system. Understanding the

amount and type of land use is critical to taking actions to maintain or enhance transportation

system operation.

For transportation forecasting, the land use data are stratified into geographical areas called

transportation analysis zones (TAZs), which represent the sources of vehicle trip generation.

There are approximately 60 RTC TAZs within the Camas TIF study area. As part of the previous

Camas TIF update (2003), a detailed land use inventory was conducted for the Camas Urban

Growth Area. Information collected from that effort was used to disaggregate RTC “parent”

transportation analysis zones (TAZs) into smaller “child” TAZs (see Figure 4). The 60 RTC

TAZs were subdivided into about 140 TAZs.

10

Memorandum from DKS Associates to Mark Harrington, RTC, May 20, 2011. Focus-Area Mesoscopic

Forecasting Methodology.

14

EC

B

14 EB

LAKE

K14 WB

192N

D

T

BLAIR

I

G

1ST

6TH

Y

32ND

A

O

38TH

34TH

S

PARK

ER 283R

D

18TH

R

M

F

23RD

EVER

ETT

H

4TH 3RD

232N

D

267T

H

UBRAD

Y

176T

H

L

EVERGREEN

LACAMAS

312T

H

INDEXCR

OWN

PACIFIC RIM

SIERR

A

LEADBETTERD

X

WASH

OUGA

L RIV

ER

V

J

Z

GOODWIN45TH

27TH

MCINTOSH

30TH

BROW

N

175T

H

249T

H

MILL PLAIN

SHEPHERD

2ND

14TH

P

11TH

REILLY19TH

DAHL

IA

43RD

293RDJULIA

187T

H

303R

D

7TH

BRUNNER

DIVI

SION

10TH

IONE

277T

H

ZEEK

319T

HHATHAWAY

271S

T

JOY

15TH

5TH

327T

H

244T

H

ADDY

ROBINSON

COFF

EY

HOOD

22ND

PAYN

E

9TH

DALLAS

KROHN

272N

D

28TH

24TH

Q

DELP8TH

44TH

195T

H

314T

H

WEAKLEY

FOREST HOME

OAK

201S

T

42ND

WOODBURN

W

292N

D

FARGO

IVY

322N

D

KENT

20TH

BYBEE

N

ASTO

R

VAN

VLEE

T

177T

H CASC

ADE

WEST

RIDG

E

305T

H

LOGA

N

HILL

259T

H

WEIR

21ST

16TH

326T

H

17TH

310TH

179T

H

60TH

FRAN

KLIN

WALDEN

284T

H

13TH

35TH

FRIB

ERG-

STRU

NK

POLK

25TH

185T

H

JAME

S

181S

T

ALPINE

47TH

196T

H

SUNRISE

EL REY

CAMAS MEADOWS

302N

D

33RD

37TH

DRESSER

BENT

ON

STAUFFER

HAYE

S

189T

H

LOOKOUT RIDGE

BASS

UNIO

N

ALEXANDRA

IRIS

AMMETER

274T

H

257T

H

OGDE

N

318TH

WHITM

AN

NOURSE

31ST

41ST

252N

D

KNAPP

12TH

304T

H

202N

D BIRCH

ILWAC

O

DOGWOOD36TH

186TH

DEER

FERN

273R

D

300T

H

328T

H

YALE

191S

T

WHITN

EY

ASPE

N

39TH

LECH

NER

194T

H

248T

H

TREE

IFIC

29TH

CLIFF

SIDE

178TH

242ND

MARINA

WILLOW

SQUIR

E

282N

D

26TH

199T

H

GARF

IELD

307T

H

UTAH

ZENI

TH

LEWIS AND CLARK

PERRY

193R

D

NEVADA

182N

D

BEEC

H

229T

H

INGL

EWOO

D

OSTENSON CANYON

ELM

VINCA

180T

H

SINGLETREE

GRAND RIDGE

297T

H

MAPL

E

184TH MA

RYLA

ND

265T

H

KLIC

KITAT

75TH

EMILY

190T

H

SUMN

ER

261ST

245T

H238T

H

295T

H

313TH

BARL

OW

237T

H

NIGH

TSHA

DE

CEDAR

188T

H

270T

H

VALL

EY

DRAK

E

77TH

STRO

NG

183RD

GREE

LEY

COUC

H

FORD

ADAMS

ASH

DOUG

LAS

TROU

T

OAKRIDGE

FRONT

PARK

JACK

SON

ELLIOT

QUAR

TZ

197T

H

173RD

ARTZ

296T

H

EAGLE

LARK

SPUR

BAMBOO

VIEW RIDGE

TIDLAND

WATK

INS

174T

H

NORW

OOD

178T

H 183R

D

26TH

31ST

5TH

DRAK

EQ

17TH

10TH

191ST

32ND

22ND

HILL

33RD

10TH

A

BIRCH

28TH

3RD

12TH

FRANKLIN

TROUT

47TH

2ND

LACA

MAS

182ND

31ST

I

P

11TH

5TH

1ST

176TH

10TH

24TH

3RD

15TH

14TH

19TH

23RD17

6TH

2ND

35TH

14TH

18TH

38TH

42ND

KLIC

KITAT

3RD

22ND

5TH

L7TH

7TH

36TH

9TH

6TH

7TH

25TH

20TH

41ST

8TH

33RD35TH

Y

181S

T

6TH

J

190T

H17TH

4TH

22ND

6TH

15TH

31ST

29TH

17TH

11TH

9TH

23RD

6TH

I

202N

D

Q

10TH

P

12TH

196T

H

25TH

A

5TH

10TH

6TH

25TH

13TH

10TH

LEADBETTER

16TH

30TH

11TH

24TH

32ND

14TH

NORW

OOD

20TH

277T

H

S

H4TH6TH

VALL

EY

2ND

16TH

14TH

26TH

IVY29TH

3RD

23RD

H

35TH

26TH

S

2ND

8TH

25TH

1ST

23RD

11TH

17TH

9TH

IONE

5TH

13TH

26TH

12THB

8TH

180TH28

TH

14TH

8TH

9TH7TH

25TH

4TH

202N

D

18TH

R

17TH

10TH

I

9TH

J

F

177T

H 23RD

3RD

199TH

2ND

7TH

16TH

7TH

30TH

VALLEY

5TH

5TH

14 G

277T

H

U

2ND E

X

24TH

9TH

6TH

A

23RD

14TH

12TH

7TH

6TH

8TH25

2ND

BENT

ON

A

16TH

15TH

21ST

188T

H

175TH

I

GARF

IELD

F

6TH

20TH

F

9TH

25TH

11TH

15TH

R

HOOD

30TH

12TH

23RD

6TH

15TH

14

18TH 19TH

15TH

7TH

3RD

8TH

3RD

18TH

11TH

4TH

6TH

6TH

8TH

19TH

12TH

196TH

L

T

G

9TH

15TH

Q14

6TH

25TH

25TH

J

6TH

319T

H

9TH

14TH

16TH

27TH

304T

H

1ST

21ST

30TH

36TH

37TH

9TH

32ND

282ND

7TH

IVY

22ND

SIERRA

43RD

F

196T

H V

H

14TH

15TH

I 20TH7TH

7TH

17TH

IVY

19TH184TH

28TH

36TH

6TH

P

31ST

9TH

177TH

277T

H

202N

D

9TH

9TH

I

30TH

1ST I

12TH

18TH

D

27TH

14

32ND

D

488

393

484

486

632

494

392

483

492

487

429

437

659

416417

631

427

482

485

394

247

279

400

278

397

424

653425

409

401

414

432

418

426

406

395

420

248

407

408

411

301302

404

651

264

396

433

412

481

635

422

438405

421

480

399

489

439

419652

263

415

410

428

398

441

402630

430

277276

249

629

423

413

403

244

490

261

245

275

431

488

900

484

494

632

486

392

483

492

487

429

659

482

631

437

247

279

278

424

397

441

427

418

432

249

426

248

302

420

395

969

301

977

958

264

394

651

393433

438

653

489

480

485

901

439

953

419

263

652

481

971

952

915

922

415

423

926

912

428

956

411

959944

425

416

400

414

935

963

401

398

924

422

965

961

413

421

931

962

921

630

934

430

277

967

629

949

925

903

902

911

276

923

947

916

417

909

978

950954

412

951

976

955

968

408

244

937

975

946948

940

406

913

908

964

399

930

929

914

945

941

910 972904

938

957

907

407

974

245

405

933

966

410

939

246

402

261

396

932

928

905

920

490

943936

917

918

919

434

906

973

403

927 404

970

300 LegendCity LimitsCamas TAZsRTC TAZs

±Figure 4

Transportation Analysis Zones


Page 12

The purpose of the disaggregation is to more accurately load traffic onto the street network.

Overall, the land uses assumed are consistent with RTC’s land use assumptions, which were

recently reviewed and updated, regionally.

The disaggregated land use data was reviewed by City staff and refined to reflect local planning

efforts. Table 2 summarizes the land uses for the base year model (2005) and the future scenario

(2035) within the Camas study area. While these summaries only outline land use in Camas for

the purposes of this study, the travel demand forecasts that have been evaluated reflect the

regional land use growth throughout the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. Table 2 indicates

that significant growth is expected in Camas in the coming decades.

Table 2: Camas Land Use Summary

Land Use 2005 2035 Increase % Increase

Households (HH) 7,021 14,124 7,103 101%

Retail Employees (RET) 446 3,447 3,001 673%

Other Employees (OTH) 5,755 14,797 9,042 157%

The land use growth listed in Table 2 is different than the land use growth used to develop the

2003 Camas TIF. The 2023 land use used in the 2003 TIF indicated that households would

increase by 66%, slightly less than the amount identified for 2035. The 2035 forecast identifies a

significant increase in retail employment growth when compared to the 2023 forecast (a 673%

increase in 2035 versus 32% increase in 2023). Other employment growth assumed for 2035 is

generally comparable to what was assumed for 2023 (157% in 2035 versus 144% in 2023). The

land use developed for the 2035 forecasts includes areas north and east of Lacamas Lake, which

were not planned for in the 2023 employment forecast.

At the base year (2005) level of land development, the transportation system generally operates

without significant deficiencies in the study area. As land uses are changed in proportion to each

other (i.e. there is a significant increase in employment relative to household growth), there will

be a shift in the overall operation of the transportation system. Retail land uses generate higher

amounts of trips per acre of land than do households and other land uses. The location and design

of retail land uses in a community can greatly affect transportation system operation.

Additionally, if a community is homogeneous in land use character (i.e. all employment or

residential), the transportation system must support significant trips coming to or from the

community rather than within the community. Typically, there should be a mix of residential,

commercial, and employment type land uses so that some residents may work and shop locally,

reducing the need for residents to travel long distances.


Page 13

RTC Area Transportation Model

A determination of future traffic system needs in Camas requires the ability to accurately

forecast travel demand resulting from estimates of future population and employment for the

City. The objective of the transportation planning process is to provide the information necessary

for making decisions on when and where improvements should be made to the transportation

system to meet travel demand as developed in an urban area travel demand model as part of the

Regional Transportation Plan update process. RTC uses VISUM, a computer based program for

transportation planning, to process the large amounts of data for the Clark County area. For the

Camas TIF Update, the RTC model was used to forecast 2035 travel with substantially more

detail added into the Camas area as described previously.

Traffic forecasting can be divided into several distinct but integrated components that represent

the logical sequence of travel behavior (Figure 5). These components and their general order in

the traffic forecasting process are as follows:

Trip Generation

Trip Distribution

Mode Choice

Traffic Assignment

Trip Generation

The trip generation process translates land use quantities (number of dwelling units, retail, and

other employment) into vehicle trip ends (number of vehicles entering or leaving a TAZ or sub-

TAZ). The RTC trip generation process is elaborate, entailing detailed trip characteristics for

various types of housing, retail employment, non-retail employment, and special activities.

Typically, most traffic impact studies rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

research for analysis.11

The ITE trip rates are used in implementing TIF fee calculations because

they provide a greater link between specific land use and vehicular traffic. The model process is

tailored to variations in travel characteristics and activities in the region and is useful for

establishing area-wide TIF rates.

Table 3 illustrates the estimated growth in vehicle trips generated within the Camas area during

the PM peak period between 2010 and 2035. It indicates that vehicle trips in Camas would grow

by approximately 137 percent between 2010 and 2035 if the land develops according to the land

use forecasts, with the majority of growth occurring in the north part of the city. This growth is

significantly higher than the 95% growth identified in the 2003 TIF, which is consistent with the

change in land use forecasts. Assuming a 25-year horizon to the 2035 scenario, this represents an

annualized growth rate of about 2.9 percent per year.

Table 3: Existing and Future Projected Vehicle Trip Generation (PM Peak Hour)

Camas UGA 2005 2035 2035-2005 Change

Trips 10,313 24,483 14,170 137%

11

Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report, 8th

Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008.

NO SCALE

TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCESS

LEGEND

5Figure

- Posted Speed

- WSDOT Regionally Significant Highway (Non HSS)

Functional Classification

- WSDOT Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS)

- Arterial- Collector

SPEED

35

- Local Roadway

- Study Intersection0

Road NetworkData

Land Uses

Trip GenerationRates

BUILD/REVISENETWORK

DISAGGREGATETAZ's

TRIPDISTRIBUTION

TRIPGENERATION

TRAFFICASSIGNMENT

LoadedRoad Network

INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS

Traffic VolumeProjections

Levels ofService

CirculationTesting

TransportationSystem

Mitigation


Page 15

Trip Distribution

This step estimates how many trips travel from one zone in the model to any other zone.

Distribution is based on land uses, trip purpose, and on factors that relate the likelihood of travel

between any two zones to the travel time between zones (including the influences of congestion).

In projecting long-range future traffic volumes, it is important to consider potential changes in

regional travel patterns. Although the locations and amounts of traffic generation in Camas are

essentially a function of future land use in the city, the distribution of trips is influenced by

regional growth, particularly in neighboring areas in Clark County, including Vancouver and

Washougal. The trip distribution from RTC’s regional model was incorporated into the Camas

mesoscopic focus-area model to ensure regional consistency.

Mode Choice

This is the step where it is determined how many trips will be by various modes (single-occupant

vehicle, transit, truck, carpool, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.). The 2005 mode splits are incorporated

into the base model and adjustments to that mode split are projected for the future scenario,

depending on any expected changes in transit or carpool use. These considerations are built into

the forecasts used for 2035, consistent with the RTC regional travel demand model.

Traffic Assignment

Trip assignment involves the determination of the specific travel routes taken by all of the trips

within the transportation network. This step was performed using VISUM modeling software.

Model inputs included the transportation network (i.e., road and intersection locations and

characteristics, as determined from maps and field inventories) and a trip distribution table

(determined using methodology described previously in this memorandum). Iterated equilibrium

assignment was then performed using estimated travel times along roadways and delays at

intersection movements.12

The path choice for each trip was based on minimal travel times

between locations. Model outputs include traffic volumes on roadway segments and at

intersections.

12

Roadway travel times were calculated based on distance and travel speed. Intersection movement delays were

calculated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Detailed lane geometry, traffic control, roadway cross-sections, and roadway travel speed information is required

for model accuracy.


Page 16

Model Application to Camas

The future base network was developed through coordination with City of Camas staff. The

improvements included in the base year model are those projects with secured funding. The base

2035 roadway network included the following projects:

SR 14 Camas-Washougal Widening and Interchange Improvements:

o Widening of SR 14 from two lanes to four lanes from the end of the West Camas Slough

Bridge to Union Street (SR 500)

o Construction of a split-diamond interchange at Union Street and 2nd

Street

Includes four new roundabouts, north and south of SR 14 at Union Street and 2nd

Street

SE 20th Street Improvement from SE Armstrong Road to SE 192

nd Avenue – widen existing portion to

three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks and extend to SE 192nd

Avenue.13

2035 Base Traffic Volumes

Intersection turn movements were extracted from the model at key intersections for both the base

year 2005 and forecast year 2035 scenarios. These intersection turn movements were not used

directly, but the increment of the year 2035 turn movements over the 2005 turn movements was

applied (added) to existing (actual 2010) turn movement counts in Camas, since 2010 counts

were determined to be comparable to 2005 counts. A post-processing technique following

NCHRP 255 methodology was used to refine model travel forecasts to the volume forecasts used

for future intersection analysis. The turn movement volumes used for future year intersection

analysis can be found in the technical appendix. The traffic volumes developed for the Future

2035 Base are shown in Figure 6.

13

Loan payback remnant may be required in new TIF calculation.

2035 BASE PM PEAK HOURTRAFFIC VOLUMES

6Figure

NO SCALE

- Study Intersection

LEGEND- Lane Configuration

- Stop Sign

- Traffic Signal

00

- Volume Turn Movement

RightThruLeftLT TH RTHL

Hard Left

- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume000

500

500

14

LAKE RD

LAKE RD

ST

6TH AV

AD

AM

S S

T

6TH AV

5TH AV

4TH AV

2ND AV

UN

ION

S

T

6T

H S

T

4T

H S

T

1ST AVD

IVIS

ION

ST

BE

NT

ON

S

T

19TH AV19TH AV18TH AV

28TH AV

18TH

BLVD

PAYN

E

20TH ST 38TH

1ST ST

43RD AV 15TH ST

RD

AV

BYBEE

RD

18TH AV

23RD AV

AV

16TH AV

FOREST

HO

ME

FARGO

ST

10TH AV

7TH AV

6TH AV

5TH

AV

IVY

ST

LEWIS & CLARK HWY

EVERGREEN HWY

BRADY

McINTOSH

RD

RD

RD

ST

STST

AS

TO

RS

TA

ST

OR

SIE

RR

AS

IER

RA

ST

ST

PA

RK

ER

20

2N

D A

V

13TH ST

RD

6TH AV

14TH AV

43RD AV

RD

283

RD

A

V

EV

ER

ET

T R

D

26

7T

H A

V

21

8T

H

A

V

LEWIS & CLARK HWYColumbia River

Lacamas Lake

23

2N

D A

V

7TH ST

GA

RF

IELD

28TH ST

I ST

3RD AV

ST

2

34

30

1

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242526

2728

29

NO

RW

OO

DS

T

00

RD

DR

RD

DALLAS

ST

RD

500

14

500

Roundabout

1. 6th Ave./Norwood St. 2. 6th Ave./Ivy St. 3. Division St./6th Ave. 4. Adams St./6th Ave. 5. Dallas St./SR-500 (3rd Ave.) 6a. SR-14 (North Roundabout) 7. 3rd Ave./2nd Ave. (4th St.) 8. 3rd Ave./Crown Rd.

9. 6th Ave./SR-500 (Garfield St.) 10. 14th Ave./SR-500 (Everett St.) 11. 18th Ave./Division St. 12. 28th Ave./Sierra Dr. 13. 18th Ave./Cascade St. 14. McIntosh Rd./Brady Rd. 15. 16th Ave./Brady Rd. 16. Pacific Rim Blvd./Payne Rd.

17. Pacific Rim Blvd./Parker St. 18. 38th Ave./Parker St. 19. Lake Rd./Sierra St. 20. Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett St.) 21. 43rd Ave./SR-500 (Everett St.)

22. Leadbetter Rd./SR-500 (Everett Rd.) 23. Nourse Rd.-15th St./283rd Ave. 24. Lake Rd./Parker St. 25. Lake Rd./218th Ave. (Payne St.) 26. 1st St./Friberg St.-202nd Ave.

27. 13th St./Friberg St. 28. Goodwin Rd./Camas Meadows Dr. 29. Goodwin Rd./Ingle Rd. 30. 28th St./232nd Ave.

New Interchange To Replace Existing

Intersection

6b. SR-14 (South Roundabout)

95 1512

5THLT100

1160

140 RTTHLT

30580

155LTTH

RT

RT

25 15 10

LTTHRT

55

10

THLT

180

101030 RT

THLT

30675

5LTTH

RT

RT

95 5 10

LTTHRT35

63025155 THRT

LTRT

135

885 THLT

55

485

THLT

RT

5160

5LT

THRT

10

155

745 RTTH

LT

0555 LT

THRT

THLT

RT

LTTH

RT

RTTH

LT

LTTH

RT

4025375

5 190

50

25 45 105

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

51025 RT

TH

LT

4520

20

14510

70RT

THLT

LT

TH

RT

571565

THLT

RT

25690215 LTTH

RT

2255250

325

5 195

514

0 5

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

24083020 RT

TH

LT

548025

THLT

RT

520

5LT

THRT

6520

20 RTTH

LT

548570 LTTH

RT

120

130

THLT

44570

35 465

TH

RTLTRT

10525 TH

LT 35130 RT

LT

85 180

THRT3511025

45 30 35

5 75 50

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

50185

20 RT

TH

LT

251050

110

0 5

5 0 0

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

115150

5 RT

TH

LT

350

10

LTTH

345

235

RTTH

10115LT

RT

14575105

50 230

185

25 245

125

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

90210

20 RT

TH

LT

5563545

140

25 50

175 5 10

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

70345395 RT

TH

LT

1010030

335

315

20

115

375 40

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

33065

105 RT

TH

LT

60245155

165

410

170

180

265

340

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

145385135 RT

TH

LT

9531

0

RTLT

765230 RT

TH475

230LT

TH

330

420

THLT530485 RT

LT

380

330

THRT

640

155

RTTH

80210LT

RT505

60

LTTH

240

485

THLT70310 RT

LT

25 255

THRT

235

390

THLT25225 RT

LT

25 360

THRT1052540

45 20 10

340 20 195

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

50925670 RT

TH

LT

190

375

LTRT

2101270 TH

LT

110805TH

RT

255

90

LTRT

3301365 TH

LT

275840TH

RT

140180

RTLT

930

155

RT

TH

735

145

LTTH15

880145

15 15 10

150 15 395

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

10710

75 RT

TH

LT

9544

0

260170

THRT

LTRT

355

690

THLT

2054515

25 10 25

50 10 45

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

65675130 RT

TH

LT

6013545

90400

30

20

53085

1359035 8505

5 20 60

0 15 5

LT

TH

RT

RTTHLT

LTTHRT

1552510 RT

TH

LT

YIELD

RightThruLeftLT TH RT


Page 18

Future Base (2035) Operating Conditions

The 2035 base motor vehicle operating conditions at the study intersections were determined for

the evening peak hour based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology14

for

signalized and unsignalized intersections. The conditions include the estimated average delay,

level of service (LOS), and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of the study intersections and are

shown in Table 4.15

During the evening peak hour, all signalized study intersections operate within jurisdictional

standards, with the exception Lake Road/Parker Street and 13th

Street/Friberg Street. The Lake

Road/Parker Street intersection, while operating at an acceptable level of service, exceeds the

City’s volume-to-capacity mobility standard by 0.02, a small amount. However, the intersection

at 13th

Street/Friberg Street would operate at level of service F and significantly exceed the

City’s volume-to-capacity standard.

Two of the three all-way-stop controlled intersections would exceed the City’s mobility standard,

although current tools do not allow correct analysis of the intersection at Pacific Rim

Boulevard/Parker Street. The level of service shown, E, reflects an analysis that assumes fewer

lanes than currently exist at this intersection, due to analysis limitations. It is likely that this

intersection would operate slightly better than what is reported. However, the 16th

Avenue/Brady

Road intersection does operate poorly, level of service F, and improvements should be

considered at that location.

Ten of the unsignalized study intersections deteriorate to a LOS of E or F due to the growth in

motor vehicle volumes. These intersections are located on arterial roadways, including 6th

Avenue, SR 500/Everett Street, Lake Road, Pacific Rim Boulevard and Goodwin Road/28th

Street.

14

2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000. 15

Detailed intersection analysis worksheets are attached in the technical appendix.


Page 19

Table 4: Future Base (2035) Evening Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Intersection

Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay

Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity


Dallas Street/SR-500 (3rd Avenue) E 13.7 B 0.74

3rd

Avenue/2nd


3rd

Avenue/Crown Road D 0.90 20.8 C 0.69

38th Avenue/Parker Street D 0.90 31.1 C 0.84

Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 67.1 E 1.04

43rd

Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 15.0 B 0.66

Lake Road/Parker Street D 0.90 38.7 D 0.92


nd Avenue D 0.90 15.3 B 0.71

13th Street/Friberg Street D 0.90 96.7 F 1.22


28th Avenue/Sierra Drive D 0.90 9.9 A 0.37

16th Avenue/Brady Road D 0.90 88.4 F 1.24

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Parker Street** D 0.90 41.3 E 1.07


6th Avenue/Norwood Street D 0.90 >200.0 C/F >2.0

6th Avenue/Ivy Street D 0.90 182.7 A/F 0.55

Division Street/6th Avenue D 0.90 24.2 A/C 0.51


6th Avenue/SR-500 (Garfield Street) E 46.4 A/E 0.58

14th Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E >200.0 A/F >2.0


18th Avenue/Cascade Street D 0.90 16.5 A/C 0.14

McIntosh Road/Brady Road D 0.90 24.6 A/C 0.43

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Payne Road D 0.90 128.4 A/F 1.05

Lake Road/Sierra Street D 0.90 93.9 B/F 1.07

Leadbetter Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 88.0 A/F 1.03


rd Avenue D 0.90 9.3 A/A 0.08


Page 20

Intersection

Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay

Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity

Lake Road/218th Avenue/Payne Street D 0.90 >200.0 B/F >2.0

Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows Drive D 0.90 >200.0 B/F >2.0

Goodwin Road/Ingle Road D 0.90 >200.0 A/F >2.0

28th Street/232

nd Avenue D 0.90 132.5 A/F 0.93

Roundabout Intersections

Union/”C” Street (north) D 7.9 A 0.45

Union/11th Street (south) D 4.3 A 0.20

*Mobility Standard is for City of Camas, except for SR-14, which is WSDOT HSS and SR-500, which is WSDOT Non HSS

**Intersection configuration not allowed in HCM analysis, therefore intersection configuration was modified in Synchro to allow

for capacity analysis


Signalized or All Way Stop intersections: All Movements Unsignalized intersections: Worst Movement

LOS = Level of Service of Intersection LOS = Level of Service of Major Street/Minor Street



(except for AWS where V/C is for worst movement)

2035 Base Link Volumes

In addition to the intersection operation analysis, corridor performance was examined to

determine if the growth in traffic volumes exceeded capacity on major routes (arterial and

collectors) or if significant volume was added to local or neighborhood routes. Figure 7 shows

model link volumes for the 2035 Base condition. Similar to Figure 3, the volume-to-capacity

ratios shown do not reflect Highway Capacity Manual analysis, but give a general idea of areas

of concern. It shows that a number of key corridors are significantly impacted by growth

between 2010 and 2035. Figure 8 shows traffic volume growth between 2005 and 2035. Table 5

lists a summary of the corridor performance findings. The issues identified in Table 5 could

potentially be mitigated with access control, roadway widening, parallel route improvements, or

new parallel facilities to relieve congestion. Strategies and alternatives for mitigating these

concerns will be addressed in Chapter 2.

NO SCALE

2035 PM PEAK HOUR

LINK VOLUMES & V/C

INTERSECTION LOS

7Figure

Volume000

LEGEND



NO SCALE

LINK VOLUME GROWTH

(2035-2005)

8Figure

Volume000

LEGEND


Page 23

Table 5: Summary of 2035 Link Volume Capacity Analysis

Roadway Limits Issues

SR-14 192nd to 6th Avenue Growth of approximately 2,200 vehicles in the

PM peak hour

PM peak volumes approaching capacity in

eastbound direction

Lake Road Parker Street to Everett

Street/SR 500

Growth of approximately 1,000 vehicles in the

PM peak hour

PM peak volumes approach or exceed capacity

in eastbound direction

13th Street/

Goodwin Road/

28th Street

192nd

to 242nd Growth of 800 to 1,200 vehicles in the PM

peak hour

PM peak volumes approach or exceed capacity

of the existing roadway

SR 500 Everett to 242nd Growth of 900 to 1,200 vehicles in the PM

peak hour

PM peak volumes exceed capacity of existing

roadway

SR 500/

Everett Street

Lake Road to Leadbetter

Road

Growth of 800 to 900 vehicles in the PM peak

hour

PM peak volumes approach capacity of

existing roadway

242nd

Avenue North of 28th Street Growth of approximately 900 to 1,100 vehicles

in the PM peak hour

PM peak volumes exceed capacity of existing

roadway northbound

1st Street/

Lake Road

192nd

Avenue to Parker

Street

Growth of about 1,500 vehicles in the PM peak

hour

PM peak volumes approach capacity of

existing roadway

Chapter 2: Improvement Alternatives Analysis May 2012

Page 24

CHAPTER 2: IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Between 2005 and 2035, the traffic volume within Camas’ Urban Growth Area (UGA) is

forecast to grow by 137 percent. Future deficiencies were identified using WSDOT’s and the

local jurisdiction’s thresholds for mobility standards. Improvements to the Camas street system,

including intersection improvements, roadway improvements, or new roadways, were considered

and a package of recommended improvements was determined. This chapter discusses the

recommended roadway improvements, including benefits, costs and related policies.

Major Roadway Improvements

Several roadway improvements were identified to address the intersection capacity and roadway

capacity issues identified in the Existing and Future Baseline Conditions section, previously.

Several of the roadway improvements that were tested and recommended were projects

originally recommended in the 2003 TIF Update. Other projects include new facilities to serve

the North UGA Expansion area, or other improvements determined to meet the latest future

forecast demands. Table 6 lists the recommended major roadway improvements and describes

their benefits.

Figure 9 shows the volume-to-capacity ratios with the proposed improvements in place.

Table 6: 2035 PM Peak Hour Mitigated Intersection Level of Service

Roadway Limits Description Benefits

Goodwin Road 192nd

Avenue to Friberg Street An improvement is needed to provide

additional capacity between Vancouver

and Camas. No specific project has been

identified, but could include:

widening of 13th Street

constructing an 18th Street

connection

or a combination of the two

Modeling shows there will be a high

travel demand in the future between

Vancouver and northern Camas. Either

two three-lane corridors or one five-

lane corridor will be needed to connect

192nd and Goodwin/28th.

Goodwin Road Friberg Street to Ingle Road High travel demand along this corridor

will require a five-lane section to provide

capacity between Vancouver and

northeastern Camas.

Capacity improvement for key corridor

Safety improvement for key corridor

Goodwin Road Ingle Road to 242nd

Avenue Traffic forecasts indicate a three-lane

section, in combination with the

proposed 242nd

Extension/East-West

Arterial Roadway will provide sufficient

capacity in this corridor

Lower cost than originally anticipated

(3-lane vs. 5-lane section

Improved capacity and safety

Camas Meadows

Drive

Payne to Lake Road Extend Camas Meadows Drive from

Payne Street to Lake Road along

Larkspur alignment as a three-lane

collector

Improved capacity and safety

Improves operation of Lake/Parker

intersection

Eliminates the need to widen 1st/Lake

to accommodate eastbound through

traffic

Ingle Street

Extension (New

East-West

Connector)

Extend Ingle Street south and

east between Goodwin/28th and

232nd

Street

Provides an alternative route into north

portion of Camas, eliminating the need

for a five-lane section on Goodwin

between Ingle and 242nd

Avenue

Provides additional capacity

Provides access to new development

area


232nd

Street

Improvement

Widen and improve 232nd

Street

between 28th Street and 9

th Street

In conjunction with the Ingle Street

Extension, eliminates the need for a five-

lane section on Goodwin between Ingle

and 242nd

Avenue



area

9th Street

Improvement

Widen and improve 9th Street

between 232nd

Avenue and 242nd

Avenue Extension

In conjunction with the Ingle Street

Extension and the 232nd

Street

Improvement, eliminates the need for a

five-lane section on Goodwin between

Ingle and 242nd

Avenue



area

242nd

Avenue

Extension

28th Street to 14

th Street Construct new high-speed (45 mph) 3-

lane roadway

Provide a high mobility roadway

connection as an alternative to SR 500

(which would otherwise have high

demands in the future)

Provide access to new development

New East-West

Arterial

14th Street to SR 500 (Everett

Street)

Construct new high-speed 3 lane

roadway

Provide a high-speed, high-capacity

roadway connection as an alternative

to SR 500

Provide access to new development

NE Everett Street 35th Avenue to New East-West

Arterial

Widen to 3 lanes Provide turn lane capacity for adjacent

development and growth in through

traffic

23rd

Street

Extension

43rd

Avenue to 283rd

Avenue New 2 lane, minimum access roadway Provide access to new development

Provide additional connectivity in the

area


23rd

Street

Realignment

283rd

Avenue to 23rd

Street Construct connection between 23rd

Street

Extension terminus on 283rd

Avenue

south of 23rd

Street to 23rd

Street

Provide a direct connection between

the new 23rd

Street Extension (at 283rd

Avenue) and the existing 23rd

Street,

providing access east toward

Washougal

Friberg Street 1st Street to 13

th Street Widen to 3 lanes Provide turn lane capacity for adjacent


traffic

38th Avenue

Extension

192nd

to Bybee Construct new 3 lane roadway Provide a direct connection to 192nd

with adequate capacity rather than a

residentially fronted two lane street

38th Avenue

(West)

Bybee to Parker Widen to 3 lanes Provide turn lane capacity for adjacent


traffic

38th Avenue (East) Parker to 650 feet west of Dahlia Widen to 3 lanes Provide turn lanes and increased

capacity for development

Bybee

Realignment

199th Avenue to 20

th Street Realign to meet new signalized

intersection

Current alignment of Bybee would not

be access spacing standards between

the new signal planned west of 202nd

Avenue


Page 28

Notes:

13th Street/18

th Street Corridor: It is recognized that additional capacity (five lanes total) is needed

between NE 192nd

Avenue (in Vancouver) and NE Goodwin Road (in Camas). The area between

these two points is located within Clark County and, while there are multiple alignment options,

there are issues related to each. The most desirable option, in terms of vehicular demand and

connectivity, would be a new route along the 18th Street alignment. However, there are known

environmental issues with this alignment which would make development of a project very

difficult. Another alternative would be to widen NE 13th Street between 192

nd Avenue and

Goodwin Road, however, this alignment goes through a neighborhood, and would require

acquisition of residential property to build a five-lane section. A third alternative would provide

two three-lane roadways, however, both environmental and neighborhood issues would need to

be addressed. This analysis assumes that some sort of connection is provided (to be determined at

a later date), that would provide capacity for the equivalent of a five lane roadway.

Previous analysis has indicated that a five-lane section would be required along the Goodwin/28th

corridor. Current analysis indicates that with the planned improvements in the North UGA area,

including a parallel collector route, a three-lane section will work between Ingle and 242nd

Avenue. Right-of-way should be reserved for a five-lane section, as ultimately, it may be

required.

In the 2007 Framework Plan, it was recommended that Camas Meadows Drive be realigned to

intersect with 1st Street/Lake Road at Larkspur/Parker Street. A key purpose of this realignment

was to consolidate access and the need for additional traffic signals along 1st Street/Lake Road.

Alternatives to this realignment were considered, such as improving the existing Payne Street

alignment. However, the Larkspur alignment significantly improves operations at the Lake

Road/1st Street/Parker intersection and preserves pedestrian access on all intersection approaches.

Pedestrian access may have been at risk on the west approach to the intersection due to the high

number of eastbound right turns/northbound left turns that can be reduced by extending Parker

north to align with Camas Meadows Drive. Camas Meadows Drive will be improved between

Payne Street and Lake Road as a three-lane collector.

The previous TIF Update recommended improvements to Crown Road. However, current

analysis reflects changing development patterns with an increased traffic shed to the north.

Current modeling indicates that the current capacity of Crown Road should be adequate to

accommodate future growth in Camas.

NO SCALE

2035 PM IMPROVED

PEAK HOUR LINK VOLUMES

& V/C INTERSECTION LOS

9Figure

Volume000

LEGEND




Page 30

Intersection Improvements

Intersection capacity deficiencies not solved with the major roadway projects were addressed by

adding turn lanes, providing signalization or a roundabout where warranted. Eight unsignalized

intersections met peak hour signal warrants for the forecast year 2035, as listed in Table 7.

Volumes used to determine whether signal warrants were met can be found in the appendix.

Table 7: Future 2035 Signal Warrant Summary at Unsignalized Intersections

Intersection Existing Peak Hour Warrant 2035 Peak Hour Warrant

6th

Avenue/Norwood Street No Yes

6th

Avenue/Ivy Street No No

SR 500/14th

Avenue No No

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Payne Rd No Yes

Lake Road/Sierra Street No Yes

Leadbetter/SR 500 (Everett) No Yes

Nourse Road – 15th

Street/283rd

No No

242nd

/28th

Street No Yes*

Lake Road/218th

/Payne No No

Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows No Yes

Goodwin/Ingle No Yes

28th

/232nd

Avenue No No

Brady/16th

No Yes

Parker/Pacific Rim No Yes

* No existing count available, future volume estimated based on model volumes

None of these locations met signal warrants under existing conditions. Traffic pattern changes

are planned at one of the intersections (Leadbetter/SR 500) that would mitigate the need for a

traffic signal at this location. Two additional locations were identified as potential roundabout

locations (Everett Street/SR 500/Lake Road and 6th Avenue/Norwood Street), and are addressed

below. The recommended TIF signal improvements are at the following nine locations:

6th Avenue/Norwood Street

Pacific Rim Boulevard/SE Payne Road

Lake Road/Sierra Street

Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows Drive

Goodwin Road/Ingle Street

Brady Road/16th Street

Parker Street/Pacific Rim Boulevard

242nd

/28th Street


Page 31

Roundabouts

Roundabouts are being considered as alternatives to improvements at Everett Street/SR 500/Lake

Road and 6th

Avenue/Norwood Street for different reasons. Each is discussed below:

Everett Street/SR 500/Lake Road: This intersection is currently signalized and will not meet

operational standards in 2035 with its existing configuration. Due to a bridge immediately north

of the intersection, the addition of an additional southbound lane (which would address the

capacity deficiency) would be extremely costly, potentially more than $5 million. There is some

undeveloped land, however, to the east of the intersection that may be suitable for reconfiguration

with roundabout control. Coincidentally, the land is owned by the City’s Parks Department. Due

to the relatively balanced traffic volumes approaching the intersection, the availability of land

nearby and the constraint of the bridge to the north, the potential for a roundabout at this location

was evaluated. Based on the projected 2035 volumes, a partial multi-lane roundabout at this

location would operate at level of service B, well within the acceptable standards for both the

City of Camas and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Since this intersection is

located along SR 500, input and cooperation from WSDOT will be essential.

Recommendation: A roundabout would function well at this location. Both turn lane and

roundabout improvement options should be considered as design options. Include the lower

cost of the two options for TIF funding.

6th Avenue/Norwood Street: This intersection is currently unsignalized. The level of service for

side street traffic is poor (LOS F) today and is projected to decline even further in the future.

While traffic signal warrants would be met at this location in the future, a traffic signal at this

location may be disruptive to the large volume of traffic traveling east and west through the

intersection. A roundabout would allow continuous flow for these heavy movements, while

allowing side street traffic a much improved level of service. An additional benefit of a

roundabout at this location is its potential to slow traffic coming off of SR 14 an entering the City

of Camas. It could be a natural transition from the high speeds on the state highway to slower

speeds in town. This roundabout would incorporate ramps to and from SR 14, so input and

cooperation from WSDOT is essential. The cost of a roundabout at this location would be

substantial, however, due to grade issues, potentially in the multi-million dollar range. A traffic

signal would cost substantially less, so a signal will be recommended at this location as part of

this TIF Update.

Recommendation: Install a Traffic Signal rather than a Roundabout at this location due to

cost.


Page 32

2035 Improved Operational Analysis

Intersection capacity analysis was conducted at each of the study intersections, including the

recommended major roadway improvements and intersection projects. Table 8 lists the results of

the analysis. Each of the study intersections operates at a LOS of D and v/c ratio of 0.90 or

better, with the exception of 6th

/Ivy, 6th

/Garfield, Lake/Payne and 28th

/232nd. Each of these

intersections operate at a LOS E or F for the minor street left turn. Signal warrants are not met at

any of these locations and volume-to-capacity ratios for affected movements are relatively low

(less than 0.90), therefore no further improvements are recommended. These locations should be

monitored to determine if signalization does become warranted at some time in the future with

local development.

Table 8: 2035 PM Peak Hour Mitigated Intersection Operations

Intersection Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity


Dallas Street/SR-500 (3rd Avenue) E 13.9 B 0.74

3rd

Avenue/2nd


3rd

Avenue/Crown Road D 0.90 20.8 C 0.69

38th Avenue/Parker Street D 0.90 33.8 C 0.85

43rd

Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 13.5 B 0.60

Lake Road/Parker Street D 0.90 53.1 D 0.90


nd Avenue D 0.90 21.3 C 0.77

13th Street/Friberg Street D 0.90 26.4 C 0.84

New Signals

6th Avenue/Norwood Street D 0.90 25.8 C 0.63

16th Avenue/Brady Road D 0.90 15.7 B 0.76

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Parker Street D 0.90 20.1 C 0.48

Pacific Rim Boulevard/Payne Road D 0.90 14.5 B 0.59

Lake Road/Sierra Street D 0.90 25.9 C 0.77

Goodwin Road/Camas Meadows Drive D 0.90 29.6 C 0.90

Goodwin Road/Ingle Road D 0.90 31.7 C 0.73


28th Avenue/Sierra Drive D 0.90 11.4 B 0.43


Page 33

Intersection Mobility Standard*

LOS V/C

Delay Level of

Service

Volume/

Capacity


6th Avenue/Ivy Street D 0.90 84.1 A/F 0.32

Division Street/6th Avenue D 0.90 28.4 A/D 0.66


6th Avenue/SR-500 (Garfield Street) E 47.8 A/E 0.58

14th Avenue/SR-500 (Everett Street) E Not an intersection, as proposed


18th Avenue/Cascade Street D 0.90 16.4 A/C 0.02

McIntosh Road/Brady Road D 0.90 33.7 A/D 0.53

Leadbetter Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E Right-in/Right-out only, as proposed


rd Avenue D 0.90 14.5 A/B 0.28

Lake/Payne D 0.90 52.6 B/F 0.81

28th Street/232

nd Avenue D 0.90 62.4 A/F 0.56

Roundabout Intersections

Lake Road/SR-500 (Everett Street) E 22.0 C 0.92

Union/”C” Street (north) E 16.1 B 0.59

Union/11th Street (south) E 13.0 B 0.16

*Mobility Standard is for City of Camas, except for SR-14, which is WSDOT HSS and SR-500, which is WSDOT Non HSS


Signalized or All Way Stop intersections: All Movements Unsignalized intersections: Worst Movement

LOS = Level of Service of Intersection LOS = Level of Service of Major Street/Minor St



(except for AWS where V/C is for worst movement) Roundabout intersections: Worst Movement


Page 34

Recommended TIF Improvements

The improvements identified to mitigate future growth impacts to the transportation system are

listed in Table 9 and shown in Figure 10. Cost estimates were completed for each project, which

include all project related costs, with potential right-of-way costs shown separately. The projects

are not listed in order of priority. Prioritization should occur in coordination with the CIP

process. All TIF improvements include sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for bicyclists, and

transit facilities for buses and park-and-riders. This improvement program meets the TIF

requirement to establish a nexus between capacity needs and future land use.

The updated TIF project listing, while extensive, is not intended to represent the comprehensive

listing of all transportation improvement in Camas. Other transportation improvements (turn

lanes, street modernization, traffic calming, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements

beyond those programmed) may be built as part of fronting development improvements, SEPA

required mitigation, or other processes.

Cost Estimates

Cost estimates were developed for each improvement based upon 2011 dollars. Past construction

information in the region was utilized as a basis for updates to the unit costs from the previous

TIF Update study (2003). Each roadway project was estimated, including the total project cost of

the roadway improvement including engineering, construction, and landscaping. In addition, the

TIF eligible portion is listed as well. The TIF eligible portion is described later, but generally

consists of curb-to-curb plus storm sewer costs. Where projects go outside of the Camas UGA,

TIF eligible project costs include only the expected Camas share, based on growth. Potential

right-of-way costs are shown separately.

Table 9: Camas UGA TIF Improvements

Element Improvement Project Improvement Total Construction

Project Cost

(millions)

TIF Eligible

Cost (millions)

A Goodwin Road

(Lacamas Creek to Ingle Road)

Widen from 2 to5 lanes between Friberg Street and Ingle Road $4.9 $4.5

B Goodwin Road

(Ingle Road to 232nd

Avenue

Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between Ingle Road and 232nd

Avenue $6.4 $4.5

C Goodwin Road

(232nd

Avenue to 242nd

Avenue

Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between 232nd

Avenue and 242nd

Avenue

$3.2 $0.8

D New East-West Collector (extend

Ingle Road to 232nd

Avenue)

Extend Ingle Road south of Goodwin/28th as a 3 lane road to 232

nd

Avenue

$7.4 $5.1

E Improve 232nd

Avenue Improve 232nd

Avenue to 3 lane Collector from NE 28th Street to 9

th

Street. Includes 2 new roundabouts at intersection with new East-West

Collector and at 9th Street

$7.8 $4.7

F Improve/Extend 9th Street Improve 9

th Street to 3 lane collector from 232

nd Avenue to existing

terminus and extend to new 242nd

Avenue Extension

$3.7 $2.9

G Extend 242nd

Avenue south to 9th

Street

Extend and widen to 3 lanes between 28th to 9

th Street $9.5 $4.5

H New East-West Arterial New 3 lane roadway between 9th Street and SR 500/Everett Street $11.5 $9.0

I Widen NE Everett Street Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between 35th Avenue and the new East-

West Arterial

$4.7 $3.6

S 192nd

-Goodwin Connector Camas share (39%) of potential connection between 192nd

and

Goodwin. Specific project and alignment to be determined.

(North proportionate cost only)

$2.8 $0.9

North Roadway Projects $61.9 $40.5


Project Cost

(millions)

TIF Eligible Cost

(millions)

J Woodburn Drive

(Greg Reservoir area)

New 2 lane roadway between 15th Street and 283

rd Avenue. $5.3 $3.8

K 23rd

Street Realignment Realign 23rd

Street east of 283rd

Avenue to intersect with new East-West

Collector

$0.6 $0.5

L Friberg (1st Street to 13

th

Street)

Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between 1st Street and 13

th Street $5.0 $3.9

M Extend Camas Meadows

Drive

Extend Camas Meadows Drive from Payne Street to Lake Road as a three

lane collector, includes signal modification at Lake/1st/Parker

$3.8 $2.9

N 38th Avenue Extension New 3 lane roadway between 650 feet east of Bybee and 500 feet east of

192nd

$2.7 $2.0

O Bybee Realignment Realign Bybee between NW 199th and SE 20

th $1.2 $1.0

P Widen 38th Avenue (West)

(650 feet east of Bybee to

Parker)

Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between 650 feet east of Bybee and Parker

Street

$4.7 $3.7

Q Widen 38th Avenue (East)

(Parker Street to 800 feet

west of Dahlia)

Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes between Parker Street and Astor Street $2.9 $2.2

R Goodwin Road

(Friberg Road to Lacamas

Creek)

Widen from 2 to5 lanes between Friberg Street and Ingle Road and

Lacamas Creek

$5.9 $4.8

S 192nd

-Goodwin Connector Camas share (39%) of potential connection between 192nd

and Goodwin.

Specific project and alignment to be determined.

(South proportionate cost only)

$4.0 $1.3

South Roadway Projects $36.1 $26.1

Total Roadway Projects (North + South) $98.0 $66.6


Project Cost

(millions)

TIF Eligible Cost

(millions)

1 242nd

Avenue/Goodwin/28th Install a traffic signal. Add SB left turn lane. $0.5 $0.14

2 Ingle Road/28th Street Install a traffic signal. $0.25 $0.25

3 232nd

Avenue/22nd

Street Install roundabout $0.5 $0.27

4 232nd

Avenue/9th Street Install roundabout $0.5 $0.50

5 SR 500/New Road

(242nd

Avenue Extension)

Install traffic signal $0.25 $0.25

6 SR 500/Leadbetter Install median, converting intersection to right-in/right-out only access $0.05 $0.05

North Intersection Projects $2.05 $1.45

9 Camas Meadows

Drive/Goodwin Road

Install traffic signal. $0.25 $0.25

10 Lake Road/Sierra Street Install traffic signal. $0.25 $0.25

11 Lake Road/Everett Street/

SR 500

Install roundabout with two approach lanes on west, east and south legs,

and one approach lane on north leg due to bridge limitations to north.

$2.0 $2.0

12 14th/Everett/SR 500 Install barrier restricting access to intersection from south and west

approaches.

$0.05 $0.05

13 6th Avenue/Norwood Street Install traffic signal $0.25 $0.25

14 Payne Road/

Pacific Rim Boulevard

Install Traffic Signal $0.25 $0.25

15 Brady Road/16th Avenue Install Traffic Signal $0.25 $0.25

16 Parker Street/

Pacific Rim Boulevard

Install Traffic Signal $0.25 $0.25

South Intersection Projects $3.55 $3.55

Total Cost of Intersection Improvement Projects $5.6 $5.0

Right-of-Way Costs $32.3 $8.0

Total TIF Improvement Cost (Roadway + Intersection) $135.9 $79.6

NO SCALE

10Figure

LEGEND

00

City of Camas

TIF PROJECT LOCATIONS

A

00- Roadway Projects

- Intersection Projects00

North District TIF Projects

- Roadway Projects

- Intersection Projects00

South District TIF Projects

500

14

500

500

500

14

87

2

9

1

4

10

12

11

13

14

15

16

3

5

6

N

O

P Q

SS R

A

B

D

C

E G

F

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P Q

A

PX

X

S

LAKE RD

LAKE

RD

ST

6THAV

AD

AM

SST

6TH

AV

5TH

AV

4TH

AV

2ND AV

UN

ION

ST

SHEPHERD RD

6T

H

ST

4T

HS

T

1ST

AV

DIV

ISIO

N

ST

BE

NT

ON

S

T

19TH AV19TH AV

18TH AV

28TH AV

18TH

BLVD

PACIFIC RIM

PAYNE

20TH ST 38TH

1ST ST

43RD AV15TH ST

RD

AV

RD

18TH AV

23RD AV

AV

16TH AV

FOREST

HO

ME

FAR

GO

ST

10TH AV

7THAV

6TH

AV

5TH

AV

IVY

ST

LEWIS&

CLARKHWY

EVERGREEN

HWY

BRADY

McINTOSH

RDR

D

RD

ST

ST

ST

AS

TO

R

ST

AS

TO

R

SIE

RR

A

SIE

RR

AS

TS

T

PA

RK

ER

19

2N

D

20

2N

DA

V

13TH ST

AV

RD

6THAV

HWY

14TH AV

43RD AV

RD

28

3R

DA

V

EV

ER

ET

TR

D

26

7T

HA

V

21

8T

HA

V

LEWIS & CLARK HWY

Columbia River

Lacamas

Lake

23

2N

DA

V

7TH ST

GA

RF

IEL

D

DALLAS

ST

28TH ST

I ST

3RD AV

ST

NO

RW

OO

D

ST

23RD STX

192nd to GoodwinConnector Area

Chapter 3: TIF Structure May 2012

Page 39

TIF Cost Comparison

The cost of transportation improvements in the current TIF Update is expected to be about $100

million in today’s dollars, not including right-of-way costs. This reflects anticipated growth

related needs through 2035. Previous project improvement costs were developed as part of three

different projects:

Camas TIF Update (2003): about $27 million in 2003 (plus right-of-way costs)

North UGA Transportation Improvement Framework Plan: about $119 million in 2007

(plus right-of-way costs)

Greg Reservoir Improvements: about $3.94million in 2005 (includes only TIF eligible

costs, right-of-way costs would be additional)

The current TIF Update would reflect a combination of the three as well as any new

improvements identified. While construction costs increased since 2003, they have also come

down, particularly after 2008. Cost estimates across all time periods listed above would be

relatively comparable. While the current TIF update costs appear to be lower than the three plans

previously developed, it should be considered that some projects previously identified have

already been constructed or are underway (previous cost estimate shown):

1st Street/Lake Road – constructed (~$3.0 million)

Leadbetter Road – constructed (~$3.8 million)

SR 14 – project underway (~1.8 million contribution)

Other projects are not included, for a variety of reasons:

18th

Street Corridor – 192nd

to Goodwin: It is recognized that some sort of improvement

is necessary to provide additional capacity between 192nd

and Goodwin. This area is

outside of the Camas UGA and there are multiple options for providing the needed

capacity. It could be a new corridor along the 18th

Street alignment, widening of 13th

Street, or some combination of the two. (~$7.8 million)

6th

Avenue restriping/Road Diet: ($.71 million)

38th

Avenue Extension (Astor to Sierra): ($2.5 million)

Extend Camas Meadows Drive: (~$1.8 million)

Widen and realign Camas Meadows Drive to 1st/Lake/Parker: (~$4.5 million)

Widen Crown Road: (~$14.2 million)

Other projects were modified:

NE 28th

Street between 232nd

and 242nd

(reduced from 5-lane section to 3-lane section)

(~$5.9 million before vs. ~$3.7 million for the current project)

38th

Avenue Widening (Parker to Astor): ($3.1 million) – the scope of this project was

reduced to include the area between Parker and approximately 800 feet west of Dahlia

Street, reducing the overall cost slightly.


Page 40

CHAPTER 3: TIF STRUCTURE

The current traffic impact fee calculation methodology has been utilized since 2003. The basis of

the calculation is the assessment of PM peak hour vehicle trips from the Institute of

Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report and a cost rate applied

to each trip-end on a citywide basis. Chapter 5 of the previous TIF study provides background

into the basis of the TIF. The following sections summarize the key components of the staff’s

recommended proposed TIF update:

TIF will be collected based on PM peak hour trip generation rates

Two TIF districts will be formed (see Figure 11) with project costs allocated either to the

North district or the South district, with the exception of the 192nd

/Goodwin connector

project, which would be allocated between the districts proportionate to their use of the

connector, based on growth.

TIF will fund curb-to-curb plus storm sewer costs

TIF will fund right-of-way outside the UGA proportionate to the expected Camas share

of each project

TIF will fund 20% of right-of-way inside the UGA

TIF costs will be indexed at 3.9% per year, with new rates taking effect the first of each

year

Table 10 summarizes staff’s recommendation and the anticipated TIF fee associated with this

recommendation, along with adjustments that would be made based upon a 60% reduction factor

(as described previously).

Table 10: Staff Recommended TIF Fee

TIF Fee Summary North South

Curb-to-Curb+Storm+ROW* $10,619 $4,042

60% reduction Factor -$4,248 -$1,617

2011 Net Rate $6,371 $2,425

2012 Net Rate $6,620 $2,520

2013Net Rate $6,878 $2,618

2014 Net Rate $7,146 $2,720

2015 Net Rate $7,425 $2,826

2016 Net Rate $7,715 $2,936

2017 Net Rate $8,015 $3,051

2018 Net Rate $8,328 $3,170

2019 Net Rate $8,653 $3,294

* Includes ROW outside the UGA + 20% of ROW inside UGA

494492

488

900

490

441

489

484

632

486

392

493

483

487

429

499

315

659

482

491

631

437

430

247

439

300301

279

275

278

302

424

397

243

427

418

432

249

426

248

420

395

969

977

958

264

394

651

393433

263

244

299

438

246

653480

485

298

901

953

440238

419652

481

273

434

971

952

313

915

922

415

423

926

912

428

956

411959

944

314

410

425

285

272

416

259

400

414

935

261

963

401

398

274

924

245

262422

965

961

413

421

931

962

921

630

934

260

277

967

629

949

925

903

902

911

276

923

258

947

916

417

909

978

950 954

412

951

976

955

968

284

408

937

975

939

946 948

435

940

406

913

908

402

964

399

257

323

930

929

914

945

941

910

271

972904

431

938

957

409

396

932

907

407

928

974

905

405

431

920

933

943

936

917918

919

942

966

927

270

906

973

403

404

970

242

297296

256

14

EC

B

14 EB14 WB

1ST

J

LAKE

192N

D

T

BLAIR

I

G

164T

H

18TH

Q

162N

D

172N

D

6TH

Y

32ND

34TH

A

O

W

EVERGREEN

S

292N

D

PARK

ER 283R

D

R

INGLE

232N

D

LM

F

23RD

EVER

ETT

H

4TH

MILL PLAIN

3RD

K

267T

H

U

BRAD

Y

176T

H

ADDY

LACAMAS

INDEX

38TH

261S

T

CROW

N

WASH

OUGA

L RIVE

R

PACIFIC RIMSIE

RRA

160T

H

LEADBETTER

STAUFFER

D

X

242N

D

V

29TH

IRELAND

Z

GOODWIN

27TH

252N

D

MCINTOSH

30TH

BROW

N

175T

H

249T

H

187T

H

SHEPHERD

155T

H

40TH

2ND

44TH

14TH

AMMETER

11TH

REILLY19TH

WYLIE

46TH

DAHL

IA

43RD

37TH

293RD

P

JULIA

316TH

35TH FISHER

303R

D

7TH

BRUNNER

10TH

IONE

277T

H

ZEEK

319T

HHATHAWAY

271S

T

JOY

166T

H

327T

H

5TH

244T

H

CAVITT

52ND

ROBINSON

COFF

EY

HOOD

22ND

PAYN

E

9TH

DALLAS

167T

H

KROHN

BAYP

OINT

272N

D

15TH

28TH

24TH

DELP8TH

MCGILLIVRAY

195T

H

314T

H

WEAKLEY

281S

T

FOREST HOME

OAK

201S

T

42ND

36TH

VILLAGE

WOODBURNGEORGE

48TH

FARGO

222N

D

269T

H

IVY

322N

D

KENT

20TH

BYBEE

EDMUNDS

N

ASTO

R

320TH

VAN

VLEE

T

177T

H

CASC

ADE

305T

H

LOGA

N

HILL

259T

H

335T

H

332N

D

39TH

49TH

21ST

STILE

S

16TH

328T

H32

6TH

17TH

310TH17

9TH

60TH

NOBLE

284T

H

13TH

169T

H

FRIB

ERG-

STRU

NK

WOOD

POLK

25TH18

5TH

154T

H

238T

H

286T

H

246T

H

JAME

S

181S

T

ALPINE

196T

H

SUNRISE

EL REY

302N

D

33RD

248T

H

TECH

CEN

TER

DRESSER

BENTON

HAYES

189T

H

168T

H

BASS

47TH

UNIO

N

233R

D

ALEXANDRA

COOP

ER27

4TH

257T

H

171S

T

318TH

WHITM

AN

NOURSE

31ST

TRUMAN

BIRCH

41ST

12TH

247T

H

304T

H

202N

D

DOGWOOD

50TH

LEBRAUN

276T

H

45TH

DEER

FERN

MATNEY

156T

H

273R

D

300T

H

330T

H

312T

H

174T

H

191S

T

LECH

NER

329TH194T

H

TREE

IFIC

163RD

CLIFF

SIDE

178TH

289T

H

157T

H

MARINA

WILLOW

SQUI

RE

182N

D

282ND

26TH

199T

H

278T

H

299T

H

307T

H

UTAH

288T

H

161S

T

PERRY

165T

H

193R

D

229T

H

337T

H

159TH

INGL

EWOO

D

OSTENSON CANYON

186T

H

ELM

180TH

MAPL

E

275T

H

184TH

158TH

265T

H

KLICKITAT

75TH19

0TH 331S

T

245T

H

295T

H

313TH

170T

H

237T

H

NIGH

TSHA

DE

188T

H

270T

H

VALLE

Y

77TH

STRONG

183RD

COUNTRY

FORD

ADAM

S

ASH

FRONT

FERN

RIDG

E

PARK

JACK

SON

ELLIOT

QUAR

TZ

173R

D

297T

H

VIEW RIDGE

OREGON

180T

H

15TH

9TH

177T

H

V

14TH

21ST

9TH

17TH

35TH

41ST

31ST

176TH

14

332N

D

3RD

Y

A

9TH

U

I

12TH

LACAMAS

34TH

6TH

172N

D

29TH

3RD

11TH

47TH

25TH

43RD

35TH

3RD

18TH

B

6TH

157T

H

P

13TH

169TH

HH

191ST

36TH

J

34TH

182ND

42ND

39TH

47TH

K7TH

R

27TH23

RD

161ST

45TH

14TH

36TH

12TH

25TH

29TH

165T

H

38TH39TH

8TH

38TH

17TH242ND

8TH

37TH

3RD

43RD

159TH

UTAH

F

L

A

176T

H 18TH

12TH

48TH

6TH

187T

H

14TH

1ST

A

178T

H

34TH

4TH

3RD

16TH

38TH

184T

H

9TH

11TH

20TH

41ST

29TH

156T

H

36TH

5TH

175T

H

30TH

10TH

16TH

35TH

36TH

V

H

12TH

5TH

20TH

15TH

F

164T

H

31ST

171S

T

25TH

6TH

R

27TH

Y

15TH

164T

H

13TH

43RD

15TH

X

15TH

157T

H

15TH

29TH

19TH

9TH

6TH

16TH

28TH

7TH

29TH

159T

H

3RD

32ND

27TH

162N

D

35TH

J

40TH

18TH

31ST

277T

H

267T

H

20TH

T

16TH

11TH

162ND

3RD

G

R

28TH

9TH

165T

H

5TH

36TH

A

13TH

156T

H

A

5TH

6TH

32ND

I

25TH

9TH

179T

H

10TH

31ST

155T

H

12TH

S

D

157T

H

44TH

40TH

5TH

13TH

42ND

11TH

14TH

330T

H

E

44TH

16TH

1ST

274T

H

242N

D

U

304T

H

IVY

30TH

9TH

49TH

168T

H

18TH 14TH

16TH

H

X

6TH

17TH

12TH

167T

H

46TH

8TH

6TH

4TH 252N

D

1ST

S

42ND

3RD

22ND

3RD

25TH

155T

H

12TH

5THG

23RD

20TH

15TH

38TH

16TH45TH

9TH

6TH

6TH

312T

H

23RD

35TH

28TH

177TH

1ST

9TH

IVY

38TH

22ND

11TH

20TH

P

V

9TH

21ST

10TH

9TH

23RD

168T

H

2ND

I

39TH

166TH

6TH3RD

45TH

6TH

9TH

154T

H

22ND

332ND

5TH

15TH

12TH

12TH

27TH

335T

H

W

31ST

5TH

28TH

2ND

164TH

12TH

5TH

U

26TH

34TH

31ST

186T

H

17TH

P

29TH

P

27TH

IVY

14

35TH

9TH

18TH

38TH

28TH

J

9TH

14

M

22ND

Y

312T

H

X

K

6TH

8TH

319TH

307T

H

3RD

7TH

166TH

1ST

2ND

14

33RD

L

8TH

27TH

34TH

J2ND

237TH

I

6TH

32ND

7TH

14TH

14TH

C

F

31ST

15TH

36TH

10TH

24TH

2ND

15TH

16TH

Z

272ND

24TH

182N

D

11TH

28TH

16TH

6TH

10TH

38TH

23RD

20TH

14TH

34TH

T

30TH 27TH

27TH

I

39TH

36TH

23RD

R

6TH

14 I

6TH

15TH

302N

D

LegendCity LimitsNorth DistrictCamas UGACamas TAZs

±Figure 11

Proposed TIF Districts


Page 42

Recommended TIF Structure Summary

Table 11 summarizes the recommended TIF structure.

Table 11: TIF Structure Summary

TIF Element Basis

Land Use

Categories Latest Edition of ITE Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report

Trip Generation Based upon highest one hour trip rate in the 4 PM to 6 PM time period from ITE

Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report

Pass-by and

Diverted Linked

Trip Adjustment

Reductions allowed for pass-by and diverted linked trips for land use codes as

documented in the Trip Generation Handbook, or with data approved by the City

Engineer

Trip Length Not Included

Area of Coverage 2 Districts (North District and South District) per Figure 11

Point of TIF

Collection Building Permit issuance or as otherwise provided by code

TIF Project

Priorities Set by the City of Camas Adopted CFP, 6-year street plan, and annual budget.

Inflation Use Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Cost Indices to

index TIF as noted in the TIF Rates Alternatives Analysis Memo (see appendix).

Changes in Trip

Rates

Where a use is not addressed in the ITE Trip Generation: An ITE Report, the

applicant may be requested to provide research counts of comparable sites, per ITE

recommended practice

Credits

Only for construction projects listed in the TIF. Credits not issued unless work is

completed. Credits will be issued based on the cost estimate of the TIF project, the

reduction factor, and the TIF rate multiplier. When projects are partially completed,

a prorated credit based on percentage of the TIF cost estimate will be applied.

Exemptions Per Camas Municipal Code.

Appeals Approved or denied by the Board of Adjustment.

Supporting Policy Recommendations

Reimbursement Costs

Washington state law allows for the collection of some reimbursement costs within the TIF. A

bond has been taken out against the TIF to build the previously completed Parker Street and

Lake Road projects. The current balance of the bond debt is $3,077,193.67.

Since the bond was taken out with the intent of paying it back using TIF funds, this amount is

included in the updated TIF.


Page 44

Late Comer’s Agreements

Where projects are undertaken and the timing of development does not match with the need for

the improvement, the City may undertake the full street improvement and assess late comers

agreements with fronting property owners that, at the time, do not participate in funding their

share of the fronting improvements costs. At the time this fronting land eventually develops, the

City would collect the equivalent balance of roadway improvement costs through the late

comer’s agreement. This would assure that the TIF is financially solvent and that the fair cost of

the street improvements is allocated appropriately to fronting properties – even though at the

time of improvement some of the properties are not ready to develop.

Appendix May 2012

Page 1

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Traffic Counts

Appendix B: Existing Level of Service Analysis

Appendix C: Existing Signal Warrants

Appendix D: Focus-Area Mesoscopic Forecasting Methodology Memo

Appendix E: Land Use Assumptions (by TAZ)

Appendix F: Future (2035) Level of Service Analysis

Appendix G: TIF Rate Alternatives Analysis Memo

Appendix H: Future (2035) Improved Level of Service Analysis

Appendix I: Future (2035) Signal Warrants

Appendix J: Cost Estimates

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC COUNTS

APPENDIX B

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C

EXISTING SIGNAL WARRANTS

APPENDIX D

FOCUS-AREA MESOSCOPIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY MEMO

APPENDIX E

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS BY TAZ (TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONE)

APPENDIX F

FUTURE (2035)

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX G

FUTURE (2035) SIGNAL WARRANTS

APPENDIX H

TIF RATE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MEMO

APPENDIX I

FUTURE (2035) IMPROVED

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX J

COST ESTIMATES

Report for City of Camas Traffic Impact Fee Update · update the Camas Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)....

Documents

Transcript of Report for City of Camas Traffic Impact Fee Update · update the Camas Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)....