HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1985-0391
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
INTRODUCED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY: Council
DATE: May 16, 1985
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -39
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN
FRINGE SUBAREA AS ESTABLISHED
IN ORDINANCE NO. 84 -37
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of April, 1984, the Whatcom
County Council enacted an ordinance establishing the Urban
Fringe Subarea in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan,
specifically Section K, Policy Statement 1.12 calls for the
establishment of a committee to develop a plan for the Guide
Meridian corridor; and
WHEREAS, as a result of that mandate a committee was
formed that developed a Transportation Improvement Plan establish-
ing a set of alternative guidelines and controls to improve
traffic circulation within the Guide Meridian corridor; and
WHEREAS, this plan was developed as the result of
countless committee hours, as well as a public hearing, and it
is very complete and comprehensive; and
WHEREAS, the plan itself complies with RCW 36.70.320
and has received a declaration of non - significance from the
Whatcom County SEPA Official; and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council has reviewed the
plan and hereby certifies the plan entitled Guide Meridian
Improvement Plan, March 1985, to be a portion of the Urban
Fringe Subarea, a component of the overall Comprehensive Plan
by amendment to Section K of the Urban Fringe Subarea by adding
two new sections.
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Urban Fringe
Subarea be amended as follows by adding the new sections:
The committee required in Section 1.12 was established
and in accordance with that section did develop a plan dealing
with the Guide Meridian Transportation corridor.
Section 1.13.1.
The committee developed a plan entitled the Guide
Meridian Improvement Plan, dated March 1985, Chapters I through V,
which is set forth in Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Chairperson of the
Whatcom County Council is authorized to certify the above -
mentioned plan as an addition to the Urban Fringe Subarea
Comprehensive Plan.
PASSED this 6th day of June 1985 .
ATTEST:
CAROL EBERGSON
Clerk of the Council
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
J.
RANDALL S, CfF11
Deputy Prose u ing Attorney
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
KUEHL, GhalrMan
(� APPROVED ( ) VETOED
�L Ja,.,, _
SHIRLEY VAN ZANTBN
County Executive
June 7. 1985
Date Signed by Executive
Published on May 22 and June 12, 1985
This Ordinance becomes effective on June 17. 1985
-2-
i
EXHIBIT "1" TO ORDINANCE NO. 85 -39
GUIDE MERIDIAN
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MARCH 1985
Whatcom County Executive
Shirley Van Zanten
Whateom Countv Council
Mary Kay Becker
R.W. "Rob" Muenscher
William P. Roehl
C.J. "Corky" Johnson
Whatcom County Planning Commission
John Vanderhage
Emil deWilde
Gregory Grant
Louise Greer
Al. Hickinbotham
Guide Meridian Transportation Corridor Analysis G
Craig Cole
Lion Hansev
Jim Hawlev
Peggy Hinton
Robert Rehpohl
Faruk Taysi
Alvin Vanl)alen
Faruk Taysi, Chairman Gary E. Kruger, *Wilsey and Ham Inc.
William P. Roehl, County Council Gary Orr, Property Owner
C.J. "Corky" Johnson, County Council Robert Tull, Attorney
,Emile deWilde, Planning Commission Albert Weivoda, Property Owner
Donald Hoffman, Wash. Dept. of Transportation
Supporting Staff
William G. Trimm, Planning Director
Vernon M. Umetsu, Planner I
Jeffery M. Monson, Bureau of Fngineering
Whatcom County Planning Department
401 Grand Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
(206) 676 -6756
GUIDE MERIDIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I. Purpose and Background .............. .................... ... 1
II. Objectives ...................... .............................3
III. Relationship of Land Uses to Trip Generation .......................... 3
IV. Concepts in Vehicular Traffic Planning and Engineering
A. Existing and Projected Traffic on the Guide ...................... 5
B. Roadway Capacity and Level of Service ......................... 6
C. The Need for Access Controls on the Guide ...................... 7
V. Procedures in Vehicular Traffic Planning and Engineering
A. The Overall Process ........ ............................... 7
B. Step -by -Step Procedures ..... ............................... 8
Step 1: Calculation of Total Trips Generated
Step 2: Calculation of Trip Generation for Critical
Turning Movements
Step 3: Determination of Turning Movement Thresholds
(Capacities) at Unsignalized Intersections
Step 4: Access Controls
TITLE 22
GUIDE MERIDIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN CONTROLS
Appendix A: Whatcom County Roadway Construction Standards
Bibliography
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Roadway Improvements to the Guide Meridian
Within the Study Area by the State Department
of Transportation ..... ...............................
2
Figure 2
Urban Fringe Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designations in the Study Area ..........................
4
Figure 3
Process For Turning Movement Capacity Analysis .............
8
Figure 4
Sample Calculation of Intersection
Capacity Analysis .... ...............................
13
Figure 5
North -South Road Alignment Options............
WCC 22.10.020
Figure 6
Area Roadway Network and Land Use Zoning ......
WCC 22.10.030
Figure 7
Cross - Section A -A: Standard and Flexible
Roadway Development Standards and Zoning
Requirements for "General Commercial" Areas ....
WCC 22.20.020
Figure 8
Cross - Section BB: Standard and Flexible Roadway
Development Standards and Zoning Requirements for
"Light- Impact Industrial" Areas ................
WCC 22.20.020
Figure 9
Prototypical Mid -Block Access Way .............
WCC 22.20.040
Figure 10
Illustration of Potential Access /Block
Development With a Front Access Roadway .......
WCC 22.20.050
Figure 11.
Illustration of Potential Access /Block
Development With a Rear Access Roadway .......
WCC 22.20.050
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Existing and Projected Average Daily
Traffic on the Guide Meridian ...........................
5
Table 2
Highway Access Considerations ..........................
6
Table 3
Peak Generation Rates . ...............................
9
Table 4
Distribution of Trips Generated
to Turning Movements ...............................
11
Table 5
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service .................
12
Table 6
Single Lane Turning Capacities for
Unsignalized Intersections on the Guide ...................
13
Table 7
Minimum private Roadway Standards............
WCC 22.20.010
Table 8
Rural Public Road Standards ..................
WCC 22.20.010
Table 9
Urban Public Road Standards ..................
WCC 22.20.010
Table 1.0
Alternative Building Setback and Landscaping
Provisions for General Commercial Districts ......
WCC 22.30.030
Table 11.
Alternative Building Setback and Landscaping
Provisions for Light Impact Industrial Districts .....
WCC 22.30.030
GUIDE MERIDIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
State of Washington Route 539, Guide Meridian, extends from the Canadian
Border to Bellingham. The existing two-lane highway is designated by the State as
a rural minor arterial and has experienced annual increases in traffic volume since
1975. As the volume has increased, proportionate increases in congestion
problems have occurred between the Bellingham city limits and Smith Road where
eight crossroads and numerous driveways intersect the Guide.
The Urban Fringe Subarea Plan, a component of the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan,. envisions the lands along the Guide Meridian corridor
between the Bellingham city limits and the vicinity of Horton Road as a major
center of land use activity. The extent of this area is generally defined by the
boundaries of the Light Impact Industrial zone district. Development of the
envisioned land uses in this area would significantly aggravate the existing
congestion and accident rates on the Guide Meridian unless corrective actions are
taken.
The County council has recognized the need to take early, positive steps to
minimize traffic problems on the Guide Meridian through the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan and the establishment of the Guide Meridian Transportation
Corridor Analysis Group. The focus of the council's actions and directives is to
develop and implement a program which will enhance and maintain the ability of
the Guide Meridian to carry "through" traffic, while providing safe and efficient
"local access" to the urban land uses planned within the Guide Meridian corridor
between the Bellingham city limits and Horton Road.
The coordinated efforts of the state, county and the private - sector have resulted
in a commitment of state funds to improve the Guide Meridian from its present
two -lane configuration to a five -lane corridor from the Bellingham city limits to
the Horton Road area (see Figure 1). This enhancement of the Guide Meridian's
capacity to carry through traffic will be completed at no direct cost to the county
or adjacent land owners.
The Guide Meridian Transportation Corridor Analysis Group was composed of
representatives from state, city,. and county governments, property owners,
interested citizens and a professional transportation engineer and planner. The
committee has developed a plan and official control for public and private
improvements to the Guide Meridian transportation corridor, which are
necessitated by adjacent land use development, in order to maintain its existing
and enhanced ability to carry through traffic.
The following sections describe the objectives which provide the direction for the
formulation of this transportation improvement plan, the transportation principles
which were the basis for the recommended actions,. and the actions, standards and
responsibilities of specific parties.
2
(i
-ry
. piew urownecuon ox
Improved Guide Meridian
o,
U,1F- P-C>AC>
MAI, SK AAA
DIVISION MOAN
RN9
FIGURE I
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GUIDE MERIDIAN WITHIN THE STUDY
AREA BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
42
T-1
-
ff-71-
za
7
100f t.
right-of-way
C.
Z
allowance
W-T
.
..............
o,
U,1F- P-C>AC>
MAI, SK AAA
DIVISION MOAN
RN9
FIGURE I
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GUIDE MERIDIAN WITHIN THE STUDY
AREA BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
3
11. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this plan are listed below and provide the direction for the
formulation of site specific access control schemes, alternative development
standards and public /private responsibilities:
In recognition of the newly planned urban land uses along the Guide
Meridian, to improve the function of the Guide as a primary arterial while
providing for safe and efficient access to local business and industrial
properties.
To develop a set of flexible development standards that provide for the
relaxation of various zoning and engineering standards in order to enhance
the ability of public and private sectors to provide a safe and efficient
local access roadway link between commercial and industrial land uses, and
the Guide Meridian.
To define the roles and responsibilities of State and Local governments in
designing and improving the Guide and local access roads.
To develop a local access control scheme that stipulates the level of access
control improvements with the volume of traffic generated by various land
use types.
To formulate a long -range transportation plan that provides the public and
private sectors with a detailed improvement plan for arterial, collector,
and local access roadways as well as associated landscaping requirements.
To provide for economic feasibility in the design and improvements of the
transportation network affecting both the public and private sectors of the
community.
III. RELATIONSHIP OF LAND USE TO VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION .
The existing land uses within the Guide Meridian corridor are characterized by
single - family residences with limited pockets of commercial and industrial
activities while forest and agricultural uses predominate east and west of the
Guide. This sporadic, low- density development is. in large part due to the
nonspecific nature of the previous Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
lack of urban level services. With the development of the Urban Fringe
Comprehensive Plan and related zoning, the provision of urban services by the
City of Bellingham and the improvement of the Guide Meridian to a five -lane
arterial, lands adjacent to this roadway should experience urban growth and
development in the near future.
In general, the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan proposes commercial and industrial
development to occur along the Guide Meridian from Kellogg Road north for
0.7 mile (see Figure 2). These commercial, industrial and urban- residential land
uses are planned to extend approximately one - quarter mile to the east of the
Guide and three - quarter mile to the west of the Guide. Within each major land
use designation, the potential exists for a myriad of different use_ s which generate
and contribute various amounts of vehicle trips to the traffic along the Guide
Meridian.
4
�1
RU
RU
v� w�
FIGURE 2
URBAN FRINGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN TAE STUDY AREA
legend
UR urban reserve
URM urban reserve medium
RU rural
GC general commercial
LI light industrial
5
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has compiled extensive studies on
the actual number of trips generated by different types of land uses and has
published their findings in the Trip Generation Manual (1983). This information,
along with the findings of various other studies and the judgement of professionals
in the field, has been applied to the Guide Meridian Transportation Corridor
planning area to develop a specific trip generation matrix. The matrix would be
used in the comprehensive planning of a roadway network and in calculating the
amount of traffic contributed to the Guide by a single development. An
explanation of the Matrix is presented in Section V -131.
IV. CONCEPTS IN TRAFFIC PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
A. Existing' and Proiected Traffic on the Guide
In 1983, the average daily traffic volume (ADT) on the Guide was 22,600 at I -5,
decreasing to 10,400 three miles north (beyond the new commercial developments
just north of the I -5 interchange at Smith Road) and remaining relatively constant
until the Lynden turn -off. Immediately beyond this point, traffic decreases to
8,800 north of Front Street, to 5,300 at SR 5,46 eleven miles north of I -5, and
finally to 3,300 at the Canadian border fifteen miles north of I -5. Average annual
traffic growth rates between 1980 and 1983 range from 5.87% at the junction with
I -5 to 2.20% for the segment from Smith Road to the Canadian border. Traffic
levels in the study area (beyond the commercial developments just north of the I -5
interchange) are estimated to have remained constant between 1980 and 1983.
Population forecasts for Whatcom County range from 3% growth annually to the
year 2000 (Canadian Impact Stud) to 1.27% annually through 1990 projected by
the State OTTice of Financial Management (11/82). The 1980 to 1990 employment
growth in Whatcom County is expected to be 2.4% annually (imputed from
Canadian Impact Study). The use of 2.5% annual traffic growth on the Guide
appears to be a reasonable rate to use for estimates of total traffic for access
control evaluation.
Use of a 2.5% annual growth rate yields the ADT and peak hour traffic estimates
on the Guide shown in Table 1 (assume 1980 ADT is 11,500 north of Bakerview
Road about one mile north of I -5).
TABLE 1
E3dsting and Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
on the Gtdde Meridian
Year
ADT
Peak Hour+
1980
11,500
1,150
1983
12,400
1,240
1985
13,000
1,300
1990
14,700
1,500
1995
16,700
1,700
2000
18,850
1,900
+ Peak traffic (both ways) is approximately 10% of ADT.
* Canadian Impact Study estimates an average annual growth rate of 2.7%.
on
B. Roadway Capacity and Level of Service
The primary focus of this study is to ensure the smooth flow of north -south traffic
along the Guide. The ease that vehicles move along the Guide is described as its
level of service (LOS). In general, level of service refers to a broad range of
combinations between the capacity of a roadway (as expressed in vehicles per
hour) and the actual number of vehicles using the roadway. This idea of relating
roadwav capacity to roadway usage is the key concept in later determining when
traffic controls should be implemented to mitigate the deteriorating effects of
additional' traffic on roadway capacity and what those controls should be.
The primary operations factor affecting roadway capacity on the Guide is turning
movements at intersections. In traffic planning, intersections are found at all
access points to the Guide including driveways from single - family residences and
business areas as well as public roadways.
This study will focus on turning movements at "T " -tvpe intersections, as are
commonly formed by access roads to developments on the Guide, and the use of
fewer through street intersections to increase capacity on the Guide. This
approach directly addresses the concerns identified in Section I, Purpose and
Background.
Access points to arterials modify traffic operating conditions in many ways. The
following concerns in Table 2 describe traffic operations as related to access:
Capacity
0
0
0
G
C
TABLE 2
HIGHWAY ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS
With heavy traffic, even a few cars turning across or onto the main
highway can cause severe congestion.
Spacing traffic lights at intervals of less than 1,000 to 1,200 feet reduces
the ability of a vehicle to progress through successive signals.
The difference in overall capacity between good and poor progression can
he the equivalent of one full lane.
Example:
Road capacity with perfect progression = ?,,000 cars per hour of green per
lane.
Road capacity with no progression = 1,500 cars per hour of green per lane.
Capacity of Guide Meridian at 1,200 -foot access road
spacing = 32,000 ADT.
Capacity of Guide Meridian at 600 -foot access road
spacing = ?,5,000 ADT.
Land Use
o Collector access encourages more coherent development.
Accidents
o Each driveway is an intersection.
o Intersections experience higher rates of accidents.
o With equal volumes on two main highways, the one with the fewest
driveways or intersections per mile has the fewest number of accidents.
Other
o Pedestrians and bikes are easier to design for off of major highways.
Of particular note is that as traffic volumes on the through route increase, it
becomes more and more difficult for drivers to enter the main traffic flows. This
is due to the behavior of drivers; drivers are less likely to attempt a merge,
turning or crossing maneuver as average gaps in the traffic stream become
smaller and less frequent. At some point, there are no "acceptable" gaps in main
street traffic, and delays to traffic trying to enter become extreme; drivers then
take more risks to escape further delay, and the access point suffers a great
increase in traffic accidents.
C. The Need for Access Controls on the Guide
As area growth increases traffic volumes, it will also, if left unchecked, decrease
roadway capacity on the Guide. Roadwav capacity would be reduced due to
interruptions to the smooth flow of through traffic by vehicles turning at
intersections. These interruptions would be especially significant due to vehicles
decelerating or accelerating in turning movements at the growing number of
unsignalized intersections formed by access roads to private developments
directly along the Guide.
Clearly, if roadwav capacity is to be maintained or improved to accommodate the
projected traffic increases, some form of control over turning movements at
unsignalized intersections will be necessary. The turning movements which would
be critical are left and right turns out onto the Guide and left turns in from the
Guide. Right turns in from the Guide do not significantly reduce roadway
capacity. The remainder of this study discusses when and what controls on turning
movements at unsignalized intersections would be necessary.
V. PROCEDURES IN TRAFFIC PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
A. The Overall Process
This section presents the concepts and objectives of transportation planning in a
step -by -step procedure to evaluate the effects of intersections formed by the
access roads to specific developments. The result of these procedures will be to
identify when access controls on turning movements in and out of a development
should be applied and what movements should be allowed.
E:3
The procedure described on the following pages is schematically described in
Figure 3.
FIGURE 3
PROCESS FOR TURNING MOVEMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1. Calculate in -out total trips generated by a
land use development during the peak traffic
hour.
2. Distribute the total number of trips by turning
movement during the traffic peak hour. .
3a. Identify capacity for each tvpe 3b. (7ompare the trips generated for
of turning movement at LOS C. each movement with the lane
This establishes the threshold capacity for each movement.
for implementing access controls.
4. Turning movements where trips
generated exceeds land capacity
shall be prohibited.
R. Step -by -Step Procedures
Step 1: Calculation of total trips generated.
A determination about the need for access controls is a function of
both current peak traffic volumes and the additional volume of traffic
generated by various kinds of land use activites. This section will
show how to calculate the total trips generated by various land use
activities.
A standard reference for trip generation is the ITE Trip Generation
Manual which is widely used by traffic engineers and planners. There
are many classes of land use, and the number of trip generation
categories is quite extensive. For this analysis, the high ranges of
trip generation were used for more general categories of land use.
Table 3 lists the in -out peak hour generation rates per acre or other
units where more applicable.
In general, to calculate the total in -out peak hour trips generated for
a given land use, the analyst would (1) classify the use as being in one
(or more as appropriate) of the use categories in Table 3;
(2) determine the project size in the appropriate units as specified in
TA' E 3
111 V GEI- %ATION k1TES
Preliminary Draft
P.M. PEAK
U S E GENERATION RATE
PEAK HOUR GENERATION BY
ACRES
(UNLESS OTHER SPECIFIED)
1
AC.
2
AC.
4
AC.
8
AC.
16
AC.
24
AC,
32
AC.'
IN
OUT
IN 1
OUT
IN 2
OUT
IN 4
OUT
IN 8
OUT
IN 16
OUT
IN 24
OUT
IN 32 OUT
Truck Terminal
3.0
3.4
3.0
3.4
6.0
6.8
12.0
13.6
24.0
27.2
48.0
54.5
72.0
81.6
96.0
108.8
Gen'l Industrial
4.5
7.5
4.5
7.5
9.0
15.0
18.0
30.0
36.0
60.0
72.0
120.0
108.0
180.0
144.0
240.0
Gen'1 Light Industrial'
6.9
13.6
6.9
13.6
13.8
27.2
27.6
54.4
55.2
108.8
110.4
217.6
165.6
326.4
220.8
435.2
Gen'1 Heavy Industrial
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
16.0
16.0
32.0
24.0
48.0
32.0
64.0
Industrial Park
3.0
9.4
3.0
9.4
6.0
18.8
12.0
37.6
24.0
75.2
48.0
150.4
72.0
225.6
96.0
300.8
Manufacturing
2.0
6.3
2.0
6.3
4.0
12.6
8.0
25.2
16.0
50.4
32.0
100.8
48.0
151.2.
64.0
201.6
Warehousing
4.0
14.8
4.0
14.8
8.0
29.6
16.0
59.2
32.0
118.4
64.0
236.6
96.0
355.2
128.0
473.6
Mini- Warehousing
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
60.0.
60.0
80.0
80.0
Single Family Detl
1.9
1.1
1.9
1.1.
3.8
2:2
7.6
4.4
15.2
8.8
30.4
17.6
45.6
26.4
60.8
35.2
Apartment 20 DU /acre
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
16.0
16.0
32.0
32.0
64.0
64.0
96.0
96.0
128.0
128.0
Apartment 12 DU /acre
4.8
2.4
4.8
2.4
9.6
4.8
19.2
9.6
38.4
19.2
76.8
38.4
115.2
57.6
153.6
76.8
Resid.Condo 8 DU /acre
3.0
1.4
3.0
1.4
6.0
2.8
12.0
5.6
24.0
11.2
48.0
22.4
72.0
33.6
96.0
44.8
Mobile Home 6 DU /acre
1.7
1.1
1.7
1.1
3.4
2.2
6.8
4.4
13.6
8.8
27.2
17.6
40.8
26.4
54.4.
35.2
Retirement 12 DU /acre
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
19.2
19.2
38.4
38.4
57.6
57.6
76.8
76.8
Recreation Home(DU)
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
3.2
2.4
4.8
3.2
6.4
I'.U.D. 8 DU /acre2
4.0
2.4
4.0
2.4
8.0
4.8
16.0
9.6
32.0
19.2
64.0
38.4
96.0
57.6
128.0
76.8
Recreational
1.8
1.8
County Park
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
Golf Course
0.05
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
3.2
0
4.8
0
6.4
Racquet Club
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
4.2
4.0
8.4
8.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
High School(Student)
0.07
0.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hospital(Bed)3
0.46
0.81
4.6
8.1
9.2
16.2
18.4
32.4
36.8
64.8
73.6
129.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nursing Home(Bed)3
0.05
0.16
0
1.6
1.0
3.2
2.0
6.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Clinic(1000sgft)
2.25
2.25
2.2
2.2
4.5
4.5
9.0
9.0
18.0
18.0
36.0
36.0
54.0
54.0
72.0
72.0
General Office
4.8
24.2
4.8
24.2
9.6
48.4
19.2
96.8
38.4
193.6
76.8
387.2
115.2
580.8
153.6
774.4
Medical Office
7.2
24.7
7.2
24.7
14.4
49.4
28.8
98.8
57.6
197.6
115.2
395.2
172.8
592.8
230.4
790.4
Post Office(1000sgft)
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
11.4
11.4
22.8
22.8
.45.6
45.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Office Park
7.9
44.7
7.9
44.7
15.8
89.4
31.8
178.8
63.2
357.6
126.4
715.2
189.6 1072.8
252.6
1430.4 cO
Research Center
1.0
8.7
1.0
8.7
2.0
17.4
4.0
34.8
8.0
69.6
16.0
139.2
24.0
208.8
32.0
278.4
P.M. PEAK
U S E GENERATION RATE
IN OUT
Specialty Retail
37.0
37.0
Discount Stores
21.0
28.5
Hardware /Paint
36.8
36.8
Shopping Center /50ksf4
7.2.
7.2
50 -100k
2.4
2.7
100 -300k
2.6
2.9
300 -400k
2.1
2.3
Preliminary Draft
TABLE 3
PEAK HOUR GENERATION FACTOR (ACRES UNLESS OTHER SPECIFIED)
1 AC. 2 AC. 4 AC. 8 AC. 16 AC. 24 AC, 32 AC.
IN 1 OUT IN 2 OUT IN 4 OUT IN 8 OUT IN 16 OUT IN 24 OUT IN 32 OUT
37.0 37.0 74.0 74.0 148.0 148.0 296.0 296.0 592.0 592.0 888.0 888.0 1184.0 1184.0
21.0 28.5 42.0 57.0 84.0 114.0 168.0 228.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
36.8 36.8 73.6 73.6 147.2 147.2 294.4 294.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA-- - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NA- - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NA- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NA- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Restaurant(1000sf) 5
2.74
1.69
2.7
1.7
5.5
3.4
11.0
6.8
21.9
13.5
44.8
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hi Turnover(1000sf)
9.9
4.0
9.9
4.0
19.8
8.0
39.6
16.0
79.2
32.0
158.4
64.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Drive- In(1000sf)
17:0
14.6
17.0
-14.6
34.0
29.2
68.0
58.4
136.0
116.8
272.0
233.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Car Sale(1000sf)
1.76
2.32
1.8
2.3
3.5
4.6
7.0
9.3
14.1
18.6
28.2
37.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
Service Station(site)
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Car Wash(site)
55.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Truck Stop(site)
47.0
35.5
.47.0
35.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stipermarket -acre
81.7
77.2
81.7
77.2
163.4
154.4
326.8
308.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Convenience 24 hour
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(site)
Wholesale(1000sf)
0.10
0.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.4
3.2
3.2
Furniture (1000sf )
0.03
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Walk -in Bank(1000sf)
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.8
11.8
23.6
23.6
47.2
47.2
94.4
94.4
141.8
141.8
188.8
188.8
Drive -in Bank(1000sf)
14.0
15.1
14.0
15.1
28.0
30.2
56.0
60.4
112.0
120.8
224.0
241.6
336.0
362.4
448.0
483.2
Insurance -acre
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
18.0
18.0
36.0
36.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation Manual, 1982; as adapted by
Wilsey and Ham, Inc. and the Whatcom County Planning Department.
1 - Single Family Detached. Assume 3 dwelling units (DU) per acre.
2 - Planned Unit Development
3 - 'Trips Per Bed. Change acre units to multiples of 10 beds.
4 - 1,000 Square Feet. o
5 - Hi Turnover, Sit -Down Restaurant.
11
Table 3 (i.e., acres, square feet, beds, etc.); and (3) multiply the
project size by the PM peak, in and out, trip generation rates in
Table 3. These final two figures will be the total in -bound trips and
total out -bound trips which are generated by the project during the
peak traffic hour on adjacent streets.
Please note that some "Use" categories use units other than acres
(i.e., Hospitals use the number of beds in the facilityl. It will also be
necessary to interpolate between given acreage values.
Step 2: Calculation of trip generation for critical turning movements.
Step 1. yields the gross number of peak hour, in -bound and out -bound
trips gener. ated by the project. It is now necessary to distribute these
trips into the turning movements possible at a "T" -type intersection
(left turn out, right turn out, left turn in and right turn in) in order to
compare the turning movement volume with intersection turning
movement capacity in Step 3.
In distributing the total in and out trips of a development (from
Step 1) to the appropriate turning movements, it was assumed that
65 90 of all traffic is to and from the south. Thus, distributinz turning
movements will also be affected by what side of the Guide it is
located on. Table 4 shows the distribution of all peak hour trips into
turning movements. Right turn in movement volumes were not
calculated because intersection capacity for such turns are so large as
to make such figures meaningless.
TABLE. 4
DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS GENERATED TO TURNING MOVEMENTS
Turning
Movement
Left Turn Out
Right Turn Out
Left Turn In
Project located
on east side
of Guide
Total Out x 0.85
Total Out x 0.35
Total In x 0.65
Project located
on west side
of Guide
Total Out x 0.15
Total. Out x 0.F5
Total In x 0.35
As the Guide becomes more developed, the directional north -south
traffic flows should approach a 50 -50 split. Directional splits should
be reevaluated when ADT in the subject area of the guide reaches the
18,000 to 20,000 range.
Step 1: Determination of turning movement thresholds (capacities) at
unsignalized intersections.
The determination of turning movement thresholds renuires that an
LOS be identified as the desirable level of operation for
intersections. LOG in this case refers to the abilitv of drivers to
enter or cross main street traffic flows where sivnals are not
provided.
12
Level of service at unsignalized intersections is described in Table 5.
TABLE 5
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE*
Reserve
Level of
Expected
Capacity **
Service
'Traffic Delay
400 or more
A
Little or no delav
300- 399
B
Short traffic delay
200 - 29q
C
Average traffic delays
100- 199
D
Long traffic delays
0 - 99
E
very long traffic delays
Less than 0
E-
Failure - extreme congestion
(any value)
F
Intersection blocked by external causes
* Transportation Research Circular 21.2, January, 1980.
** Reserve capacity refers to the hourly volume of vehicles that can be
added to the driveway volume for any level of service (LOS). For
example, if there are sufficient gaps in traffic for F00 left turns hourly,
and presently 250 vehicles make that movement, the reserve capacity is
(600- 250 =350) and the LOS is R. Another it vehicles would decrease the
reserve capacity to 299, and the LOS to C, and average delays would be
increased. If 350 cars were added, the reserve capacity would be 0 with
an LOS of E; delays would be very long and intolerable.
A suggested standard for LOS is "C ", or a reserve capacity exceeding
200. Using LOS C as a standard ensures adequate provision for through
traffic and yet allows a fairly flexible approach to allowing access to
abutting properties.
For the analysis of roadway and turning capacity at LOS C, several
simplifying assumptions were .made. First, it was assumed that peak
traffic on the Guide is 15,000 ADT or less, and the peak directional
traffic flows would be split 65% in the heavy direction and 35ao in the
light traffic direction. Further, separate lanes for right and left turns
out of driveways were assumed. Once these conditions are defined, a
traffic capacity analysis can be completed for various combinations of
land use and traffic flows.
The lane capacities for each of the three movements have the threshold
values shown in Table 6 (Lane capacity at LOS r as calculated from
TRC', No. ?1.2). These threshold values should be reevaluated when the
ADT on the Guide reaches the 18,000 to 20,000 range.
13
TABLE 6
SINGLE LANE TURNING CAPACITIES FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ON THE GUIDE'
.East Side of Guide
o Left Turns Out - Up to 10 per hour for Level of Service C and up
to 50 for LOS D.
o Right Turns Out - Up to 100 for LOS C and up to 200 for LOS D.
o Left Turns In - Up to 1,000 for LOR C and 1.,100 for LOR D2.
West Side of Guide
o Left Turns Out - Same as above
• Right Turns Out - Up to 300 for LOS C and 400 for LOS D.
• Left Turns In - Up to 1,300 for LOS C and 1,400 for LOS D?.
1. Transportation Research Board, National. Academy of Sciences,
"Transportation Research Circular," No. 212, January, 1480.
2. Assuming adequate storage lane capacity.
Step 4: Access Controls
Any turning movement with forecast trip volumes greater than
intersection turning movement capacities at LOS C should be
prohibited. This prohibition should be made a condition to
development. The county should also reserve the right to restrict all
other turning movements as warranted by increased traffic volumes
on the Guide.
A developer of any parcel shall have the option to conduct the
necessary traffic studies to demonstrate why the development need
not conform to the general access policy. That is, traffic capacity
studies can be completed that show why the particular access
restrictions imposed by these guidelines are too severe. This could
happen when a proposed development has significantly lower trip
generation rates than those used in preparing this analvsis.
A typical analysis applying the above steps is shown in Figure 4 below.
FIGURE 4
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF U47ERSECIION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Assumptions
o Fast side of Guide
o Development proposals include a 115,000 square foot shopping center, a
separate car wash and 2.0 acres of mini warehouses.
14
Std:
Trip Generation
Shopping Center (115,000 square feet)
.115 times 2.6 in, and 2.9 out
= 299 in, and 334 out
Car Wash = 55 in, and 55 out
- Mini Warehouse
(2.5)(2.5) = 5 in, and 5 out
Total 359 in, and 394 out
Step 2 and 3:
Left Turn Out Demand - (.65)(394) = 257
Which exceeds threshold of 10 or 50 (either LOS C or D)
Right Turns Out (all) = 394
Which exceeds threshold of 100 or 200 (either LOS C or D)
All 394 out trips were assigned to "right turns out" when the forecast of
"left turns out" exceeded the lane capacity threshold.
Left Turns In - (.35)(359) = 126
Which is less than the thresholds of 1,000 or 1,100 (for LOS C or D)
This analysis indicates that an off Guide, north -south access road should be
developed to carry out -bound traffic to the nearest, suitable east -west through
roadway. Traffic would be able to make left or right turns where this through
roadway intersected the Guide.
This access scheme is consistent with the concept of trading many low- capacity
intersections, which would significantly reduce capacity on the Guide, for fewer
high - capacity intersections which would have substantially less capacity impacts.
This is discussed in greater detail in the Guide Meridian Improvement Plan
Controls (Title 22, Whatcom County Code).
APPENDIX A
Whatcom County Roadway Construction Standards
Whatcom County Development Standards
Ordinance 84 -106
EASEMENT WIDTH 30' OR 601
4' I6 - 24'
02 1 •O2 :I
/ \ .o1-
SUBGRP.DE .02 -I
ZZ" CoMPAC.TE.D DEPTH 5/8% 0 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE
8`, COMPACTED DEPTH GRAVEL OR 6" OF I' /Z'- 0 CRUSHED SURFACING, BASE CoURSE
NOTES = 1) GRAVEL ROADS SERvING MORE THAN Z. LOTS SHALL HAVE A PAVED APPROACH
TO INTERSECTING COUNTY ROAD EXTENDING FROM PROPERTY LINE.
2) MAXIMUM GRADE. IS 1207, WHICH MAY BE EXCEEDED PtLpVl(>ING No PRACTICAL
ALTERNATIVE EXISTS AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
3) ROADS SERVING 6 OR LESS LOTS SHALL BE GRADED THE. 'FVLL 24' WIDTH
UNLESS IT 15 PROVEN IMPRACTICAL.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR RURAL PRNATE ROADS
bo NLT SCALE S ERv I N G ACREAGE TRAC T�
WNATCOM COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WOKS
Q
F
45
MINIMUM HAMMERHEAD
7
CONFIGURATION
o >
ac
I
IL
TURN- AROUND
o Q
AREA
a
I
I PAVED APRON SHALL RE
of
TES
v c
I
j Z" COMP. DEPTH ASPHALT
o
Q
I CONCRETE PAVEMENT
i
N
a N
15 MIN. RADIUS I
I CLASS '15' (3s, MIN,
tL
I
VAR►ES
RADIUS)
Ib� MIN.
I
Z
o
I
z
ix
0-0-0
0
= s
z
uj
rq f"
--O
I
J V
F- F
I
EASEMENT WIDTH VARIES
I
I 3O' To 60'
RIGHT OF WAY LINE I
I
�
4
�
Z
a
cl
N
J
o
T
go
_
l9
ot
IF
M
41
_
f
0
COUNTY_ ROAD
CL
J
— N
N
PAVEMENT
F
Qo
d7
TYPICAL INTERSECTION
MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR RURAL PRNATE ROADS
bo NLT SCALE S ERv I N G ACREAGE TRAC T�
WNATCOM COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WOKS
Q
NOTES -
40' MIN. (URBAN)
- - I - - - � - - I
6" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH CLA55 5 GRAVEL OR
¢" OF II /2"-O CRUSHED SVRF'ACING QASE
1) ALL DISTURF�ED GROUND INCLUDING GRAI,ED ROADWAY SHALL SE SEEDED ANb HAVE A SATISFACTORY
STAND OF GRASS PRIOR TO FINALIZATION OF PEKt -IIT.
2) T "5- EWTIkE SUBGRADE AND AI.L .SURFACING MATF -DUALS SHALL. BE COMPACTED WITH APPROVED
COMPACTION EQVIAM'ENT TO 950/, 0>" THE MATERIALS MAXIMUM DENSITY.
3) MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC ROAD IS THE RESPONSIBILITY 01F THE INDIVIDUALS HOLDING AN
ACCESS PERMIT.
4) CONTACT COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEC.RING m tm 1MUM STAINDARD FUR
FOP. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA AND REQUIRENIENTS
FOP. OPENING PVaLIC OPEN HAG PUBLI C RIGHT OF WAY
DO NC'"
WHATCOtl COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORK
A- 2
Z_
L
�N
N
50I ROW (MIN.
ELL
4 II II 41
LIGHT B►TUMINOUS
q 11
I TREATMENT CLASS A
PER WA. STATE SPECS. 7
OR EQUIVALENT.
r 3'��C�P�o: .- •'.:'. °�.•�••° •o' c..o,•-•O..'.a :-_°-.'o _ °- v. "O•,'G °•o.':o••'�'•.o: -• ;
�i.... �.�� \��111= 1111111 �111�1111-�Ill� ill` =1111— II = 1111 =J 111= �111�1111_�I�t�l I = 1111= 1111�111�111- X1111= 1111IIII�IIk -III
3 ;1
!S/PRcp
=1 i I ��MAx, eREa
L— 2" MIN. COMP. DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACING
TOP COURSE INCLUDING SNOULbERS.
811 MIN. COMP. DEPTH CLASS B GRAVEL OR 4611 MIN. COMP. II/2 - -O
CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE .
NOTE5; I) IN THE CASE. OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, LIGHT BITUMIMOUS 5URF'ACE TREATMENT (LBST) MAY BE USED IN AREAS WHERE NO
PARCEL OF LANb MAY bE SOLD TIAAT IS LI_SS THAN S ACQES IN SIZE AND WHERE ADT WILL NOT EXCEED 400. WHEN
PROPERTY 5EING DEVELOPED IS PHYSICALLY SEPARATED V,q MILE OR FURTHER FROM A 9ARb SURFACED COUNTY ROAD,
THE CONNECTING ACCESS MAY &E SURFACED WITI,I L65T.
2) THE LBST SECTION SHALL CONSIST OF TWO ASPHAILT
APPLICATIONS FOLLOWED WITH A SEAL COAT APPLIED LIGHT BITUMINOUS SURFACE
WITHIN OWE YEAR OF THE SECOND ASPHALT APPLI -
CATION. TREATMENT SECTION
DO NOT SCALE
A-3
50 MINOR ACCESS
60' LOCAL 4. GE.NFRAL ACCESS
z 4' -C Ili _ it, 4-6
,�N I
N I
/ 3. -\,�A •p. o•,•,,• o -o� •moo, o•.• °'o•' °' o. o - °- "D�'o•• °•'o.- ° -,o - "° o: -c-.o_ o.- •- • -o
/ARF
Mqx RRFo
SEE SECTION 2, 102 2, MIN. COMP. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS,.g FOR MINOR
AND LOCAL ACCESS ROADS (21/2" MIN, FOR GENERAL ACCESS ROAD5).
2" MIN. comp. 5/6 " -0 CRUSHED SURFACING, TOP COURSE
a" MIN. COMP. Cl.ASa B GRAVEL OR 6 "MIA(. COMP. lye 0 CRUSHED SURFACING
BASE COURSE,
NOTES: 1) THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAR SECTION, INCREASED THICKNESS OF
Do NOT SCA!..E
m
SURFACING
MATER A-LS MAY BE REQUIRED AS
PER SECTION 2.432
2)
SHOULDERS
SHALL BE PAVED FULL WIDTH AND
MINIMUM 2 11!CHES DEF'TF! WHERE BIKEWAYS ARE REQUIRED.
3)
(o " MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH OF ASPHALT
TREATED BASE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BASE
AlNb TOP
COURSES.
4)
SHOULDER
6' WNLN
WIDTH SNAIL BE WIDENED TO
POTENTIAL A4T EXCEEDS 400.
r �1 ^�^�
LI �`.AL , MI iyOR , � Gt:NERAL ACCESS R
Do NOT SCA!..E
m
r
�E
me =
I1'— 12'
MIN. 2 — LANE
11' — 12'
—Q,
_z
f
REV i
—.OIL I 1
o . �•$
2• SU6GRAC RIFE E SLOPE .ot � 1
MA1rRR fo
COMPACTED DEPTI-I
* SEE SECTION 2.1o2 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS „e ,
COMP. 518"-0 CRUSNEO 5URFACiING TOP COURSE,
COMP, CLASS B GRAVEL. OR COMP I I/2 w• 0 CRUSHED
SURFACING BASE COURSE,
r
A
NOTES; 1) TH15 DRAWING ILLUSTRATES ATYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SECTION. ACTUAL. SURFACING SHALL ISS BASED
ON 60ILS AND TRAFFIC ANALgSES AS PER SECTION 2.403
2) EQUIVALENT ASPHALT TREATED BASE MAY BE USED.
3) 514OULpERS SHALL BE PAVED FULL WIDTH AND MINIMUM 2 INCHES DEPTH WHERE BIKEWAYS ARE REQUIRED.
4) ASPHALT CONCRETE DEPTHS GREATER THAN 21/2 INCHES SHALL BE APPLIED IN SEPARATE LIFTS.
DO NOT SCALF-
MINOR AND MAJOR
COLLECTORS
RURAL_ PUBLIC ROADS•
WHATCOM COUtj -T\I 01E.t,�T. 0F" PWSLIG WORKS
A -5
X 5 C 5F- C.T'!0 N 2.10-7
EASEMENT WIDTH 30 OR 50'
LL 20 MIN. COMPACTED OEPTN ASPH, GONC. PAVEMENT GL.46",
2" MIN, COMP, DEPTH 5�e1- O CRUSHED SURrrAGING TOP COURSE.
B" MIN. COMP. DEPTH CLASS B GRAVEL. OR 4-"OF I� /2-0 CRUSHED SURFACING
BASE COURSE.
NOTES: I) THIS
SECTioN
APPLICABLE
TO PRIVATF ACCESS
ROADS ONLY
2) 1 - 2
LOTS
REQUIRES A
30' EASEMENT
AND
12' GRAVEL SURFACE_
3-4.
LOTS
REQUIRES A
30' EASEMENT
AND
W PAVED SURFACE-
5 - B
LOTS
REQUIRES A
501 EASEMENT
AND
20' PAVED SURFACE.
c: OR
h\Ot „E LOTS
RF:QvIRES PUBLIC RoP.D
IMPROVEMENT STANbkP -DS_
3) MA-YtMQI -I GRADE IS 15° %,, WHICIA MAV BE EXCEEDED PROVIDING NO rPACTICAL. ALTERNATIVE EXISTS
AND SUBJECT To APPRoVAL OF THE. ENGINEER. (5EE SECTION LIC3)
4) STOk” SEWERS SHALL BE. REQUIRED WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY W4 THE COUNTY ENGINEER.
Do NOT SCALE
A-6
I
r
:O
I
40'MIN.- MINOP, ACCESS STREETS
44'MIN.- LOCAL ACCESS STREETS
60' MIN.- GEWULACCESS STREETS
36` - GENER.4,L ACCESS (3G'•• B!Jl ROUTF.)4J
ce S' MIN. 28' - LOCAL ACCESS
// I2 4
MIN.
24' - MINOR ACCESS
.02:1
I
8, MIN.
4�
,021
_ _ _ •0• IIII-
IIII •,o•.• o. °'^D. ° - P- D• .o• .o .O. •'p.'O� .o .p •I' 1 / \�r� /S.
I
11 /l
2" MIN. COMP. DEPTH CLASS "9 ASPHALT
/Z'CEMF.NT CONCRETE /6" CONCRETE FOR MINOR AND LOCAL ACCESS 4 "CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ROADS (212 MIN. FOR G::NMAI_ ACCESS ROADS).
CURB � GUTTER - SEE " MIN. COMP. DEPTH 5 /9' -0
DRAWING NO, A-10. CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN - SEE
RUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,
SEC. 2.500
4�� CEMENT CONCRETE . COMP. DEPTH CLASS B GRAVEL OR 6" MIN.
SIDEWALK. COMP, II�21- 0 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE
COURSE.
NOTES : 1) THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE ROA,0 SECTION. INCREASED THICKNESS OF
SUR;'ACING MATERIALS MAV 8E REQUIRED AS PER SECTION 2.4,02
2) to" MIN. COMP. DEPTH ASPHALT TREATED BASE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BASE AND TOP COURSES.
3) SIDEWALKS SHALL BE REQUIRED AS PER
SECTION 2.201
LOCAL MINOR � GENERAL ACCE TSS SREE
4) RIFF R Tr SECTIONS 2.io3� �. 2.4.10 I y
b-� NOT SCALE.
A -1
n
0
SHOULDER
COLLECTOR ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (4 -LANE
WIDTH
SNLpER GURS
40' 361
40' 4s'
1
62' 481
10' MIN. 7�
ri D!
4'
I
SUBGRADE
SLOPE •FY : I
COMP, DEPTH
CLASS S ASPHALT CONCRETE-
DEPTHS > 21/2 SHALL BE APPLIED
IN LIFTS.
'J 4'�CEMENT CONCRETE 51DEWALK
(SEE SHEI =T 8 -5)
COMP, DE.PT14 51g'� O CP vsH . SURF Tx, CATCH BASIN $ STORM DRAIN - SEE
COMP, DEPTH CLASS B GRAVEL OR COMP. I %Z " -0 SEC. 2.500
CRUS14ED SURFACING BA5E COURSE
NOTES' 1) THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES A TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE
SECTION. ACTUAL SURFACING DESIGN SHALL BE BASED ON
SOIL AND TRAFFIC ANALYSES, PER SECTION Z4 C,
2) EQUIVALENT ASPHALT TREATED BASE MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BASE AND TOP COURSES,
3) SIDEWALKS SHALL SE REQUIRED AS PER
SECTION 2.2Z91
4) REFER TO SECTION` 9,103 ?•4-00 FOR ADDITIONAL
DETAILS •
5) SEE SECTION FOR COMMERCIAL STREET
REQUIREMENI-S.
RIGHT OF \NM (MIN.)"
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 70 FT.
MINOR ARTERIAL 60 FT.
COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 60 FT.
COMMERCIAL STREET 60 FT.
DO NOT SCALE
MAJOR AND SECONpARy ARTERIALS,
COLLECTORS, AND COMMERCIAL STREETS
URBAN PUBLIC ROADS
WHATCOM COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
}
Q
IES
t-
o w
w W
A Q
wa
1.5
POWER AND COMM.
m
CL
3' 10,
GAS SANITARY SEWER -
MIN. DEPTH TO 6E.
APPROVED BY THE
COUNTY CNGINEER.
VARIES
1L ~
O �
W '
0 w
w
a
a
IIII -!�I
NOTES - 1)GAS AND WATER LINE SHALL BE ON OPPOSITE. SIDES OF THE ROAD.
2) POWSR, AND COMMUWICATION5 CAN C'E LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
3) UTILITIES LWct,TED IN DITCH AREA SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COVER OF 30 INCHES BELOW DITCH BOTTOM UNLESS
APPROVED OTHERWISE. UTILITIES LOCATED IN THE
ROAD OR SHOULDER AREA SHALL IiAVE A MINIMUM
COVER (F 3E INCHES FROM SURFACE. STANDARD UTILITY LOCATION
41' ALTE.R'�A�l�EL`i� UTILITIE5 MA's BE LOCATi.C) ii4
RURAL ROAD SEC ,T
ION S
ER rM iI; -5 OU?SIIiG THE RnAD RIGHT OF
DC 7•:OT ^CALF WHATCOM COUNT`! DEPT. OF PUBLIC WOR
I�
4.0'- BO'
POWER , COMM. f GAS
-1III
k s'
SANITARY SEWER -
MIN. DEPTH TO BE
APPROVED BY THE
COUNTY ENGINEER.
STORM SEWER -
MIN. DEPTH Q.
CoVER.(BOTH
SIDES)
WAT E R
NOTES' 1) GAS AND WATER LINES SHALL- BE ON OPPoS%TE. SIDE5 OF THE ROAD.
2) POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS CAN BE LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE of THE RIGHT OF WAN.
3) UTILITIES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COVER of 36 INCHES.
4) SEE SECTION 2.120 AND 2.602 STANDARb UTILITY Lo "A`rioNS
5) ALTERNA'CIVEI Y, UTILITIES Mf \V 6E LOCATED IN
EASE_McNTr: OUTSIDE TOE ROAD RIGHT Or WAY. URBAN ROAD SECTIONS
po NOT SCALE,
WHATCOM COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
D -2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C. 1984.
City of Bellingham, Ordinance No. 8027: "An Ordinance Establishing Street Standards
for Future Street Improvements in the City of Bellingham."
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. Portland, OR. 1982.
Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. Highway Capacity
Manual. Washington, D.C. 1965.
Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. "Transportation
Research Circular" No. 212. Washington, D.C. January, 1980.
Washington State Department of Transportation. Design Manual. Olympia, WA. 1982.
Whatcom County Engineering Bureau, Department of Public Works. Whatcom County
Development Standards. Bellingham, WA. 1.984.
Whatcom County Planning Department. Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan.
Bellingham, WA. April, 1984.
Whatcom County Planning Department. Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance.
Bellingham, WA. April, 1984.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rosenberg, Thomas. Bellingham City Engineer. November, 1984.
Schwantes, Larry. Washington State Department of Transportation. November, 1984. .
Jurica, Robert. Whatcom County Assistant Engineer. October, 1.984.
Anderson, Dwayne. Washington State Department of Transportation. June, 1984.