Options for Making Concurrency More Multimodal Response to 2005 Legislative Session

1. Options for Making Concurrency More MultimodalResponse to 2005 Legislative Session Working Session with House Local Government Committee January 18, 2007 King Cushman Puget Sound Regional Council Mark Hallenbeck TRAC (Washington State Transportation Center) Ruth Steiner University of Florida

2. Presentation Overview • Study background • Concurrency Basics • How is concurrency working • Look at travel market and “centers” plans for central Puget Sound • Support for different multimodal concurrency standards in centers • Recommendations Multimodal Concurrency Study

3. Concurrency & GMA Linkages First 3 GMA Planning Goals • Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. • Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. [(RCW 36.70A.020] Multimodal Concurrency Study

4. After 2 SHB 1565 (2005 Session) • Cities & counties encouraged to incorporate multimodal improvements and strategies, especially in regional growth centers • RTPOs to develop “off-peak vehicle LOS for off-peak periods and total multimodal capacity for peak periods” for regional growth centers • Authorized study to help figure out how Multimodal Concurrency Study

5. Current Conditions • GMA acknowledges interconnection of land use and transportation • State → Regional → Local Plans: call for consistency • But… lack legal foundation to assure consistency in performance … • Lack “actionable” decision connection to link land use and development decisions to regional highway and transit facilities needed to support that development • Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), local transportation elements (of comp. plans) and transit plans not financially connected • i.e., State – Reg’l – Local $$ not prioritized/linked to help implement plans Multimodal Concurrency Study

6. Current Conditions • Uses locally defined vision • Balances land use (new development) with transportation system availability • Where “transportation” is defined by Level-of-service” (LOS) Multimodal Concurrency Study

7. Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems • Most jurisdictions use single-modal roadway congestion as exclusive measure of performance • This is a blunt instrument Multimodal Concurrency Study

8. Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems • Roadway performance measurement works for some areas • Rural • Lightly developed ex-urban areas • Does not work well where auto travel provides only portion of mobility serving area • especially poor if local plan goals/policies call for expanding alternative modal travel (transit, rideshare, bike, walk) Multimodal Concurrency Study

9. Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems • Impacts on regional travel ignored under current locally-focused process • Local success balancing land use/transportation often overwhelmed by regional traffic impacts Multimodal Concurrency Study

10. Study Challenge How to make concurrency more multi-modal? i.e., how do we include and deliver… • Transit (facilities and services) • Walking (facilities and connectivity) • Biking (facilities and continuity) • Freight (access to/from centers and intermodal facilities) Multimodal Concurrency Study

11. Needed: • Concurrency system encouraging multimodal travel systems in areas where people increasingly choose to live/work • Regional centers good start: real travel markets Multimodal Concurrency Study

12. TOTAL DAILY REGIONAL TRIPSMODE DISTRIBUTION(Baseline to compare against centers) HOV 42.2% Multimodal Concurrency Study

13. TOTAL REGIONAL WORK TRIPSMODE DISTRIBUTION(Baseline to compare against centers) HOV 16.5% Multimodal Concurrency Study

14. WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Work Place HOV 11.6% HOV25.1% Work INSIDE Centers(35.6% of work trips) Work OUTSIDE Centers(63.4% of work trips) • HOV rate = 25.1% INSIDE vs. 11.6% OUTSIDE CENTERS • BUS (Public Transit) rate = 17.3% INSIDE vs. 2.4% OUTSIDE Multimodal Concurrency Study

15. WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Household HOV 15.7% HOV25.9% Household INSIDE Centers(8.1% of work trips) Household OUTSIDE Centers(91.8% of work trips) • WALKING rate = 14.7% INSIDE vs. 2.0% OUTSIDE CENTERS • HOV rate = 25.9% INSIDE vs. 15.7% OUTSIDE • BUS (Public Transit) rate = 18.1% INSIDE vs. 6.9% OUTSIDE Multimodal Concurrency Study

16. WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Household and Work Place HOV 11.3% HOV33.2% Household INSIDE CentersWork INSIDE Centers(4.6% of work trips) Household OUTSIDE CentersWork OUTSIDE Centers(59.9% of work trips) • WALKING rate = 25.5% INSIDE/INSIDE vs. 1.8% OUTSIDE/OUTSIDE • HOV rate = 33.2% INSIDE/INSIDE vs. 11.3% OUTSIDE/OUTSIDE • BUS (Public Transit) rate = 25.2% INSIDE/INSIDE vs. 2.0% OUTSIDE/OUTSIDE Multimodal Concurrency Study

17. What’s Needed? • What transportation/land use outcomes are desired? • What do we measure? • How do we ensure available funds go to what we have said is important? • Are we willing to get around in a variety of ways? • Are we willing to limit development if funds are not available? • (These may be answered differently regionally than locally) Multimodal Concurrency Study

18. Desired Outcome • The best functioning transportation system, given: • Available / permitted land uses • Available funding Multimodal Concurrency Study

19. Constraints • Have weak regional land use and transportation decision making processes • Regional transportation impacts of development inadequately accounted for • There are incentives to impose externalities on your neighbors Multimodal Concurrency Study

20. Constraints –continued • Gaps exist in the planning & certification process • Local development not well integrated with financially constrained, regional transportation plans • Transit system plans not directly coordinated with regional transportation or local development plans • Filling those gaps yields improvements Multimodal Concurrency Study

21. RecommendationsLocal and Regional Components • Concurrency requires two tiers to address gaps • Local concurrency • Regional concurrency Multimodal Concurrency Study

22. RecommendationsBetter Measures • We must use multimodal concurrency measures where multiple modes are needed to serve development • Again, centers good focus to start • These measures are likely to change by locality • Choice of measures should be driven by the local transportation plan Multimodal Concurrency Study

23. RecommendationsLocal – Few Changes • Local concurrency • Permit / do not permit development • Based on existence of multimodal facilities and services • Can be uni-modal (automobile congestion) Multimodal Concurrency Study

24. Example Local Systems • For urban centers: • Weighted average of HOV and SOV travel times from center to key population centers • For developing regions: • Roadway performance + availability of park and ride spaces * • For suburban regions • Roadway LOS adjusted for level of transit service Multimodal Concurrency Study

25. RecommendationsRegional Concurrency • Measures regional impacts of development • Reflects the public cost of regional externalities • Encourages development in places where regional mobility most efficiently served • Identifies regional multimodal transportation investment needs • Requires an authorized regional entity • Can be an existing RTPO Multimodal Concurrency Study

26. RecommendationsRegional Definition • Definition of “regionally concurrent” or “regionally not concurrent” can be technical or political • TELUMI • Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTECs under CTR Program) Multimodal Concurrency Study

27. TELUMI Transportation Efficient Land Use Mapping Index Sample map of King County showing composite measures indicating degree of transportation efficient areas Multimodal Concurrency Study

28. Multimodal Concurrency Study

29. Composite Map of TELUMI Measures Proportion of three TE classes 84% Probability: # of bus riders > 37 8% 8% 0-33 33-67 67-100 Multimodal Concurrency Study

30. TELUMIComposite Measures WithTransit Corridors Multimodal Concurrency Study

31. RecommendationsResults of Regional Designation • Result of regional concurrent / non-concurrent designation can be: • Financial (developers charged for size of regional impacts - could go into regional system fund) • Non-financial (exemption from specific concurrency regulations) Multimodal Concurrency Study

32. RecommendationsChange in Regional Authority • Regional authority must control/influence transportation funding • All regional modes must be eligible for funding • Roads • Transit • Can be existing funds or new funds • Regional impact charge • Oversight of a portion of existing funding (e.g., transit service funding) Multimodal Concurrency Study

33. RecommendationsConditions to Achieve Changes • Benefits in land use / transportation coordination occur most often when… • Clarity provided on specifically desired outcomes • Incentives exist to encourage that behavior • Disincentives exist to discourage other behavior • But choice is left to individuals • (Don’t decree – incentivize!) Multimodal Concurrency Study

34. The End

35. Possible Local Measures • Urban Centers: • Travel time measures by mode (car / shared ride) • Between activity centers • Along key corridors • Exurban areas • Facilities based: • Roadway LOS • Availability of Park & Ride spaces • Suburban areas • Arterial LOS modified based transit services • CBD exempt if TMA is in place Multimodal Concurrency Study