Clark County staff propose multimodal standards and an active-transportation network, flagging 160 segments for upgrades

Clark County planning staff on April 16 presented a proposal to update the comprehensive plan's transportation element with multimodal performance standards and a draft active-transportation network that would guide capital projects and grant applications.

The proposal centers on adopting multimodal level-of-service (MMLOS) measures that evaluate not just vehicles but walking, rolling and bicycling. "The purpose of the transportation element is to present a plan for transportation facilities and services needed to support the county's 2025 2045 future land use map," said Susan Poisoner, who led the presentation. The package includes seven subelements (land-use assumptions, state-facility impacts, local inventories and performance metrics, active transportation and ADA transition, finance, intergovernmental coordination and demand management).

Why it matters: House Bill 1181 (2023) amended the Growth Management Act to require counties to reduce per-capita vehicle miles traveled and to include active-transportation inventories and multimodal performance standards. Staff said aligning the county's transportation element with those changes will affect the 20-year capital facilities plan, the arterial atlas and the impact-fee program.

What staff recommended and why: Transportation planner Harrison Houston described the recommended metric for active modes: level of traffic stress (LTS), a 1-to-4 scale that ranks how comfortable and safe facilities are for pedestrians and bicyclists. "Level of traffic stress is an evaluation methodology that's used to rank roadway segments on how comfortable and safe they are for pedestrians and bicyclists," Houston said.

Staff proposed keeping existing motor-vehicle standards and adding LTS thresholds for active modes: LTS2 or better within the Vancouver urban growth area and LTS3 or better on rural corridors identified as regionally significant by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC). Houston and Poisoner said RTC currently identifies two rural corridors for regional active-transportation significance (N.E. 72nd Avenue and N.E. 10th Avenue between Vancouver and Ridgefield), and RTC is evaluating whether other routes should be added.

Draft network and deficiencies: Staff showed a draft active-transportation network (the required active-transportation component under GMA) and said a working analysis has flagged roughly 160 roadway segments with some deficiency that would need corridor-level review. Poisoner said staff has identified about 84 miles of missing sidewalks on higher-volume roads as part of the project screening used to build the 20-year project list.

Financing and implementation: Poisoner acknowledged the scope and cost of work ahead: staff will run regional travel-demand models with RTC and Metro once the preferred land-use alternative is selected, create a transportation needs analysis, and produce a 20-year capital facilities plan and planning-level cost estimates with consultants. She emphasized grant competitiveness: many state and federal grant programs score projects higher when they improve facilities from a higher-stress rating to LTS2.

Commissioner questions focused on feasibility and context-sensitivity: commissioners asked whether a "divided" lane must be a physical barrier or sometimes just striping, how LTS scores vary by roadway speed and context, how many people currently bicycle versus targeted mode-shift goals, and whether the county should specify preferred facility types to avoid disjointed implementation. Poisoner said LTS and facility choices are context-sensitive; project-level detail would be addressed at the design stage, while the comp-plan standards and street-and-road standards would provide county-preferred approaches.

Next steps: Staff will refine the draft active-transportation network with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, finalize a 20-year project list and planning-level cost estimates for the CFP and finance subelement, update impact-fee analysis to reflect adopted projects, and submit the package to RTC for certification. The Planning Commission's recommendation will then be considered by the County Council at scheduled hearings.

The county provided no final adoption vote in this work session; staff said much of the modeling and detailed cost work depends on the selection of the preferred land-use alternative and on any schedule established by the Growth Management Hearings Board.