Options for Making Concurrency More Multimodal Response 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study2 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study3 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]

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study4 1.Cities & counties encouraged to incorporate multimodal improvements and strategies, especially in regional growth centers 2.RTPOs to develop “off-peak vehicle LOS for off-peak periods and total multimodal capacity for peak periods” for regional growth centers 3.Authorized study to help figure out how After 2 SHB 1565 (2005 Session)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study5 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study6 Current Conditions Uses locally defined vision Balances land use (new development) with transportation system availability Where “transportation” is defined by Level-of-service” (LOS)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study7 Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems Most jurisdictions use single-modal roadway congestion as exclusive measure of performance This is a blunt instrument

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study8 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)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study9 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study10 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)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study11 Needed: Concurrency system encouraging multimodal travel systems in areas where people increasingly choose to live/work Regional centers good start: real travel markets

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study12 TOTAL DAILY REGIONAL TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTION (Baseline to compare against centers) HOV 42.2%

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study13 TOTAL REGIONAL WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTION (Baseline to compare against centers) HOV 16.5%

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study14 WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTION By Location of Work Place HOV 25.1% HOV 11.6% 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study15 WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTION By Location of Household HOV 25.9% HOV 15.7% 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study16 WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTION By Location of Household and Work Place HOV 33.2% HOV 11.3% Household INSIDE Centers Work INSIDE Centers (4.6% of work trips) Household OUTSIDE Centers Work 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study17 What’s Needed? 1.What transportation/land use outcomes are desired? 2.What do we measure? 3.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)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study18 Desired Outcome The best functioning transportation system, given: –Available / permitted land uses –Available funding

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study19 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study20 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study21 Recommendations Local and Regional Components Concurrency requires two tiers to address gaps –Local concurrency –Regional concurrency

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study22 Recommendations Better 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study23 Recommendations Local – Few Changes Local concurrency –Permit / do not permit development –Based on existence of multimodal facilities and services –Can be uni-modal (automobile congestion)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study24 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study25 Recommendations Regional 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

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study26 Recommendations Regional Definition Definition of “regionally concurrent” or “regionally not concurrent” can be technical or political –TELUMI –Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTECs under CTR Program)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study27 TELUMI Transportation Efficient Land Use Mapping Index Sample map of King County showing composite measures indicating degree of transportation efficient areas

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study28 Domain Principal contribution to understanding land use and travel Specified variables/measures IDensity Identifies critical mass of different types of travelers and their corresponding travel needs  Residential Density [net]  Employment Density [net] IIMix of uses Measures distances between trip origin and destination, which affects mode choice  Proximity to groups of destinations (NC= Neighborhood Center) III Network Connectivity Measures route directness, affecting mode choice  Average street-block size IV Parking supply and management Measures the utility and price of car travel —especially in non-residential and popular destinations  % at-grade parking lots in commercial parcels V Pedestrian environment Captures support for walking and transit use. Often measured as level of comfort and safety an environment provides to non-driving travelers.  Topography  Traffic volume (School / Shopping Trips) IVAffordable housing Housing for a range of incomes/household types allows people to live closer to their work, which can shorten trips and/or affect mode choice.  % of mean assessed residential land and improvement value

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study29 Composite Map of TELUMI Measures % 8% Proportion of three TE classes Probability: # of bus riders > 37

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study30 TELUMI Composite Measures With Transit Corridors

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study31 Recommendations Results 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)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study32 Recommendations Change 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)

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study33 Recommendations Conditions 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!)

The End

House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007Multimodal Concurrency Study35 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