Jefferson County Public Works has declined to include a DBET planning study on its draft 2016-2021 TIP.

Despite the requests of many agencies, organizations and individuals (and in disregard of the County’s legal duties), the draft TIP provided by JCPW to the Commissioners and for public comment includes nothing for a bypass of SR 20 over Eaglemount.  You can view the project spreadsheet for JCPW’s draft 2016-2021 TIP here. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/publicworks/pdf/TIP/2016-2021/2016_2021TIP_%20DRAFT.pdf.

Notably missing is anything about an Eaglemount bypass:  no planning project, no feasibility study, no mention whatsoever of that segment of SR 20.  Nothing.

Why?  Why didn’t Public Works at least propose a planning project to determine whether a bypass was viable?  That’s what the law requires.  That’s what many in the Community have called for.  That’s what makes common sense.

About two months ago, a Public Works employee indicated to Jeff Selby and me that three things were needed to get the Discovery Bay East Trail on to the Jefferson County TIP:

        

Topography:  The County needed a DBET plan that effectively dealt with the difficult topographical challenge over Eaglemount hill. 

Landowners:  The County needed some assurance that the affected land owners would agree to the DBET on their properties.

Funding:  The County needed a reasonable funding plan for the project.

See my blog post dated August 27, 2015, http://discoverybaytrail.blogspot.com/2015/08/jefferson-county-has-done-fine-job-with.html  All three were provided.  On September 22, 2015, I wrote a detailed letter to the Director of the Department of Public works, which fully addressed the department’s questions regarding topography and landowners.  As previously reported in this blog, I informed the Director that multiple routes exist to bypass SR 20 over Eaglemount, and that key landowners had all expressed their willingness to consider parts of a bypass trail on their land.  Then, on October 7, 2105, I sent a memorandum to Jeff Selby showing that funding for planning project for the DBET was available from multiple possible sources.  I understand that on October 11^th Jeff sent a copy of that funding memorandum to the Public Works Director.   

I never received a reply to my letter or funding memo, however; not even an acknowledgment that they had been received. (I had hand delivered my letter to the Public Works office and to the County's Administrator's office.)  

On October 10, 2015, an article was published in the Peninsula Daily News about the upcoming Freddy Pink Concert to benefit the ODT.  Here’s a link to the article:  http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20151013/news/310139997/port-townsend-concert-saturday-to-raise-funds-for-larry-scott-trail. Among other things, the article quoted Jeff Selby talking about the DBET bypass.

On October 12, 2015, the JCPW Director emailed Mr. Selby in response to the PDN article. The Director's email argued that a multipurpose trail bypass would be too expensive and is unnecessary.  Here is the entirety of his email, in green, followed by my point-by-point response:

“Where did you get an estimate of $1 million to build the trail from 4 corners to Disco Bay as quoted in the PDN?  Did you have an engineer estimate that?"

Mr. Selby has responded to this question by stating that he was asked what the ODT costs have been per mile, and that he was very careful to state that the costs have varied wildly depending on many factors, some of which he specified (former RR grade vs. new trail, cost of property, easements, terrain, design, engineering, etc.).  Mr. Selby told the PDN that the cost of the mile between the SR20 underpass and the Cape George Trailhead, for example, was $168K, as was reported in the PDN at the time of its completion.  He represented that other, more complex sections of trail (e.g., Maynard) could be "over a million", without specifying the actual cost, or any dollar amount at all. 

“My estimate with engineering, permitting, right of way, and construction is $3 to $4 million without paving and $4 to $5 million with paving using costs from bid tabulations on recent projects.  For road bikes to use it as a viable alternative to SR-20 it will need to be paved.  The gravel base and crushed surfacing alone would be $1 million.”

By “paved,” the Public Works Director apparently means either a crushed surface like most of the LSMT, or an asphalt surface like most of the ODT in Clallam County.  For road bikers, either surface works well, as shown by the daily road bike traffic on the LSMT and the ODT in Clallam County.

“Taking a relatively straight course (power lines) is 7 miles.  Constructing it to keep grades under 5% (ADA) or 8% for short segments, will add 20% to that so it would be about 9 miles.” 

The route option delivered to the Public Works Department on September 22, 2105, included route sections on Discovery Road/Four Corners Road (paved); Anderson Lake Road (paved); Grouse Lane (gravel but acceptable for many non-motorized users); and Fairmount Road/Fairmount Hill Road (paved).  If those existing County roads were used for the trail – at least initially -- it would leave approximately 6.3 miles that would have to be surfaced with either crushed rock or asphalt.  A planning study will reconcile this discrepancy. 

“It will not be possible to use existing logging roads since right of way acquired with public funds cannot leave the landowner with any rights to use the roads for logging etc.”

I am not aware of any statute or legal rule stating that “right of way acquired with public funds cannot leave the landowner with any rights to use the roads for logging etc.”  Unless there is a statute or legal rule to that effect, there is no apparent reason why a landowner’s conveyance of a fee interest or easement could not reserve rights to use the conveyed property for access to its forest lands and for transport of its forest products.  This question, among others, would be answered in the planning project.

“(they could not run on the trail surface without destroying it)”

It is unclear exactly what the Public Works Director means by “run on the trail surface without destroying it.”  What trucks or equipment might “run” on the surface, and when, and for how long, and which would “destroy” the trail surface?  Exactly how would the “surface” be constructed?   Could it be designed and constructed so as to not be “destroyed” if it was used from time-to-time by the grantor?  A planning study would answer these questions.  I know from personal observation that logging trucks sometimes use parts of the ODT in Clallam County and have not “destroyed” it, and I know from personal observation that light-duty JCPW trucks sometimes use the Larry Scott Memorial Trail for inspections, maintenance and restoration, without causing any apparent damage. 

 “or to close the right of way during timber activities or during high fire danger.” 

Again, these questions need to be addressed in the planning process.  The DBET could be located in part on recently-harvested Pope Resources or DNR timberlands where no harvests are likely for decades.  Other “timber activities” might be non-destructive to a trail and only minimally disruptive to trail use.  Planning will tell.  

And as to fire closures, whether privately owned or owned by the County, a trail ought to be closed if and when using it creates a significant risk of a forest fire. 

“The trail would have to be constructed on all new alignment requiring clearing and grading.” 

Careful and thorough trail planning will establish whether “all new alignment requiring clearing and grading” would be required, or whether some existing logging and access roads could be used.  It appears to us that in many cases, existing roads could be resurfaced – as was done on parts of the ODT in Clallam County.  A planning study would answer this question. 

“The Larry Scott Trail, which is 7.5 miles long and used existing railroad grades and roads for over 50% of its length, cost $3.5 million uninflated to current dollars (including engineering, permitting, right of way, and construction admin).  It costs $35,000/yr ($5,000/mile) to maintain (danger tree removal, brush cutting, mowing, sign replacement, trash removal, grading and patching, storm debris cleanup).  The 3,900 feet of trail at Disco Bay will cost $1.5 million.  We are currently building 3,500 feet of single lane gravel road on the West End at a cost of nearly $500,000 + r/w and engineering.”

A trail planning project would provide the County with current cost estimates for this proposed trail, so the County would not have to base its decision on older projects with “uninflated” dollars, the extraordinary costs of the riparian project at “Disco Bay,” etc.

“From the 2010 County Non-Motorized Plan regarding this section of Trail:

“The Trail would be a back country route that uses existing utility easements, logging roads, and constructed trails. Trail advocates have taken the lead in planning this segment of the route. From the west side of Discovery Bay to Clallam County, the Trail could be on or adjacent to County Roads and Highway 101.”

This is a recreational back country trail segment (i.e. the “Adventure Trail” in Clallam Co.) which should be developed and maintained by trail groups similar to models used all over the country (see Methow Valley Trails Association for a successful local example with over 200 miles of trail).  The Trails Coalition could get landowner agreements with Pope and others and start building trail immediately.  Landowner agreements are free and the landowner can retain rights so using existing roads is viable in this model.  See model of trails with Pope over at Port Gamble (the Stottlemeyer Trails).”

It is not clear why the Public Works Director quoted only these three sentences from the County’s 2010 Update to its Non-Motorized Plan.  That Update can be viewed at  http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/publicworks/pdf/Non-Motorized%20Plan/2010Final/8%20Goals%20&%20Objectives.pdf  The County website links to this page at http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/publicworks/active_transport.asp#NMTplan

It seems that by quoting just three sentences from the Update, and specifically emphasizing the words “back country,” the Director is suggesting that Jefferson County decided in 2010 that the bypass trail would not be a multi-user recreational trail like the ODT and the LSMT, but rather single-track mountain bike trail like the “Adventure Trail” in Clallam County and the “Stottlemeyer Trails” in Kitsap County.  (The Clallam County Adventure Route is “built for active mountain bikers and equestrians. It has 25 miles of double and single track riding over hilly, forested terrain. It is a very well-constructed, well-drained, well-maintained, 3 ft wide packed earth trail.” http://www.olympicdiscoverytrail.com/side_trips/adventure_route.html  The Stottlemeyer Trail is “a fun trail system with good single track and fun obstacles. Uphill and light downhill with lots of single track linked with small logging roads.” https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/port-gamble-stottlemeyer-trails.)

In fact, as examination of the 2010 Plan Update shows, the County did not decide in 2010 to link the LSMT and ODT with a single-track mountain bike “adventure” type trail.  To the contrary, the Plan as updated in 2010 contemplated a multipurpose recreational trail exactly like the LSMT.  

First, the Updated Plan defined “multipurpose trails” under the heading 8.1 Multipurpose trails:

Multipurpose trails may be developed to link major environmental assets, park and recreational facilities, community centers, and historical features throughout Jefferson County and with adjacent jurisdictions. Generally, multipurpose trails may be developed to provide for one or more modes of recreational and commuter travel including hiking, biking, equestrian, and other non-motorized trail uses where appropriate.

To the extent possible, multipurpose trails may be developed within corridors separate from vehicular or other motorized forms of transportation. For example, multipurpose trails may be located on former railroad alignments, utility easements or in separate property alignments. In some instances, the trail may be developed as an improvement within the right-of-way of established vehicular or other transportation corridors.

Typically, multipurpose trails may be developed in accordance with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. Multipurpose trails may provide 2-way travel on asphalt, very fine crushed rock, compact dirt, or other base of varying widths. The trails may be usable by all age and skill groups, and handicap accessible.

Next, the 2010 Plan Update described potential feasibility studies of multipurpose trails under the subheading “proposed trails”:

Proposed trails

The following trail systems may be developed to provide combined hike, bike, horse, and other appropriate non-motorized trail use opportunities within the area subject to feasibility studies with appropriate public and private participants. The trails generally follow railroad, public road, and utility right-of-way corridors, but may be located on public and/or private property where owners approve.  [Italics in original; underlining added]

The Updated Plan then specifically identified four possible routes for a multipurpose trail from Four Corners Road to Discovery Bay:  two versions of the ODT Utility Route, and two versions of the ODT Forest and Lakes Route. 

The 2010 Plan included a graphic of a “multipurpose” trails:

It also included a map of the four possible multipurpose bypass trails:

Thus, it is simply not a fact that in 2010 Jefferson County decided to link the LSMT and the ODT with a back county “adventure”type trail.  To the contrary, the County’s 2010 updated Plan shows that the planned a multipurpose LSMT-like recreational trail as the link between the LSMT and the ODT.  

Of course, the “trail advocates [who] have taken the lead in planning this segment of the route” – primarily the Peninsula Trails Coalition – never advocated for or planned  a single track trail, but always promoted a multipurpose trail that would get all non motorized users, including road bikers, walkers, strollers and the disabled off SR 20.  Building a good single-track mountain bike trail with fun obstacles will not solve the problems or bring the desired benefits to the County.

“This recreational trail is ineligible for County road fund dollars which are inadequate for current transportation facilities anyway.  The County’s non-motorized transportation spending will be focused on our communities like Hadlock and Quilcene where we have current and planned projects that connect people to community facilities.  Parks and Recreation cannot fund its existing facilities (gym needs a roof, volunteers had to raise money to repave Quilcene tennis courts, volunteers running Leland campground, etc.) let alone a new trail system (existing trails at Gibbs Lake and Indian Island in the Parks system are volunteer built and maintained).  Tax payers shot down the concept of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) to provide dedicated park/rec funding.  Same story in Sequim with the MPD.”

I believe the Director is rightly concerned about funding.  A planning project will determine how much money will be needed for the trail and what grant funds are available to build it.  But without a planning project on the TIP, no grant funding can be obtained – even for the planning project itself. 

“No one is forced to ride a bike on SR-20 over Eaglemount.  I’m a bike rider and I wouldn’t do it.  This is a purely recreational choice (and a bad one) when very good viable alternatives exist.  The 17.7 mile route down Center Rd, SR-104, US 101 has 8-foot shoulders (or more) and under 5% grades.” 

The Director clearly agrees with everyone else that SR 20 is a “bad” choice for bicyclers  He “wouldn’t do it.”  Yet hundreds of walkers and riders a year – if not thousands – make this choice when they reach the end of the LSMT (on the north) or the end of the ODT (on the south), because the “alternative” is not a good choice at all.  Using the Director’s figures, the detour adds more than 10 miles to the route.  Worse, it takes pedestrian and riders from the LSMT southeast onto the very busy and sometimes very narrow SR 19, south on Center Road, northwest onto SR 104 (which carries almost all of the Peninsula traffic from the Hood Canal Bridge to points west), and then north onto SR 101 where traffic counts are between 5000 and 10,000 vehicles a day.  Few cyclists and walkers make that bad choice.

“The county and DOT have already invested heavily into these facilities and continue to do so (for example recently completed and planned asphalt overlays on Center Rd.)  Many people come to our county already to ride these routes which provide exceptional scenery not to mention they actually go by County businesses that can benefit from tourism visitation and spending (Spring Rain Farm, Finn River Cidery, Chimacum Corner Farmstand, Farms Reach Café, to name a few).  By contrast, the route over Eaglemount completely avoids all county businesses.  Otherwise, trail tourism is likely to be concentrated in Port Townsend (whose residents do not pay the County road tax) and Clallam County (again, not contributing to Jefferson County road tax).”

Many County businesses would disagree with, and possibly resent, the Director’s assertion that “the route over Eaglemount completely avoids all county businesses” and that “trail tourism is likely to be concentrated” in Port Townsend Clallam County.  Specifically, on the north, nearby inns (like Chevy Chase), stores (like the Four Corners Store) and restaurants (like the Discovery Bay Golf Course restaurant and the Chimacum Café) will benefit from increased non-motorized recreational traffic on the ODT.  In the middle, Eaglemount Rockery Cottages/Motel and the Eaglemount Winery will both benefit.  And on the south at Discovery Bay, motels (like the Valley View Motel), resorts (like the WorldMark Discovery Bay resort), restaurants (like Fat Smitty’s and Snug Harbor), stores (like the Discovery Bay Store), and shops (like Lucky Deer Trading) will all benefit.  Generally, the Director was correct in 2009 when he called the LSMT – which itself goes directly by no County businesses -- “such a great investment for the community."  http://www.ptleader.com/news/last-section-of-larry-scott-memorial-trail-is-funded/article_1c0e0d8c-5743-5f5e-85ab-c41f295a9436.html.  The DBET will be the same.

    

“Development of an Adventure style route over Eaglemount by the Trail coalition will serve many trail user groups including hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians (these groups are already using portions of this area).  True road bikers will not use a gravel surfaced trail and are unlikely to use a paved one either, preferring to stick to the road shoulder since it is inappropriate and unsafe to ride at road bike speeds on a shared use trail.  That leaves the recreational bike touring group which has good viable on-road alternatives.” 

The bald statement  that “true road bikers will not use a gravel surfaced trail” is contradicted every day by road bikers using the Larry Scott Trail, and the assertion that road bikers are “unlikely to use a paved one either” is contradicted every day by road bikers on the paved ODT in Clallam County.  Saying “That leaves the recreational bike tour groups …” entirely excludes important user groups often seen on the LSMT or the ODT, including:

·      Mobility impaired persons, sometimes using walkers, wheelchairs or paracycles

·      Moms or dads with strollers

·      Fitness walking groups

·      Small-wheel users such as rollerbladers, skateboarders and rollerskiers

·      Slow and unsteady cyclists, and novice and youth bikers

·      Families with little “weavers, wobblers and training wheelers”

“My recommendation is that the Trails coalition get busy developing a recreational trail by working with Pope similar to the Stottlemeyer example in Port Gamble."

It seems odd that the Public Works Director, while expressing his view that the County should do nothing for the proposed DBET project – not even a planning study -- would tell the PTC to “get busy” and build a limited-purpose alternative to the multipurpose trails described in the County’s own plans.  The all-volunteer PTC has tirelessly supported Clallam and Jefferson Counties in designing and building over 70 miles of multipurpose trails last 25 years, and has actively assisted the Counties on an ongoing basis in maintaining those trails.  It has been “busy,” and will continue to be, but it cannot take over the government’s role in doing transportation improvement planning and development.

“You don’t need a sophisticated routing study to do this.”

A sophisticated planning study is necessary, however, as the first step in developing a multipurpose trail that can serve all of the user groups, meeting AASHTO, ADA and WSDOT standards. To move ahead there has to be a plan.  All of the stakeholders need to know exactly what needs to be done; who can and should do it (considering their resources); how much it will cost; and the timing for expenditure of funds (if a “phased” approach is used). A complete and thorough study by a professional and experienced planner should provide the answers everyone needs. 

The County is at the center of this and is the key to getting it done.  By putting the planning project on its TIP, and funding the planning study, the County will not only develop the information needed for its own decision-making; it will also give the trail proponents and facilitators the information they need to move ahead with the stakeholders and funding sources.  Putting the planning project on the TIP and funding it is not the same as funding the trail itself.  But the planning project will set the next steps in motion. 

“That [a Stottlemeyer-type trail] will be a great project and I look forward to using it.  I am a regular user of the Adventure Trail in Clallam County and the Stottlemeyer trails in Port Gamble.  All volunteer built.   All volunteer maintained.”

An adventure trail for mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians will not solve the SR 20 safety problems; will not link the two multipurpose trail stubs that Jefferson County has constructed so far; will not best serve the County’s businesses and citizens; and will not lawfully complete the County trail plans that have so carefully been drawn by the County over the decades.  Instead it will leave in place a gaping hole in the ODT and non motorized users on the dangerous highway -- all to the detriment of the County economy.