1. Multimodal Concurrency: Response to 2005 Legislative Session Briefing for House Local Government Committee November 30, 2006 King Cushman Puget Sound Regional Council Mark Hallenbeck TRAC (Washington State Transportation Center)

2. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study2 Changes to GMA Focus on Local and Regional Multimodal Concurrency 2 SHB 1565 – 2005 session 3 sections 2 GMA changes + 1 study authorized

3. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study3 Concurrency Uses locally defined vision Balances land use (new development) with transportation system availability Where “transportation” is defined by “Level-of-service” (LOS)

4. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study4 Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems Most jurisdictions use single-modal roadway congestion as exclusive measure of performance This is a blunt instrument

5. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study5 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)

6. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study6 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

7. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study7 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

8. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study8 Further Findings We have weak regional land use / transportation decision making processes Regional transportation impacts of development are inadequately accounted for There are incentives to impose externalities on your neighbors

9. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study9 Constraints Gaps exist in the planning & certification process –Local development is not well integrated with financially constrained, regional transportation plans –Transit system plans are not directly coordinated with development plans Filling those gaps yields improvements

10. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study10 Recommendations Concurrency requires two tiers –Local concurrency –Regional concurrency

11. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study11 Recommendations Local concurrency –Permit / do not permit development –Modes included Those selected by as being the least cost method for providing the required mobility –Mode choice is not pre-ordained

12. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study12 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

13. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study13 Recommendations Regional concurrency –Measures the regional impacts of development –Intended to encourage development in those places where the regional movements it generates can be efficiently served –Reflects the public cost of regional externalities Requires an authorized regional entity –Can be an existing RTPO

14. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study14 Recommendations Definition of “regionally concurrent” or “regionally not concurrent” can be technical or political –TELUMI –Growth and transportation efficiency centers

15. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study15 Recommendations Result of regional concurrent / non- concurrent designation can be: –Financial (developers charged for size of regional impacts) –Non-financial (exemption from specific concurrency regulations)

16. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study16 TELUMI Transportation Efficient Land Use Mapping Index Sample map of King County showing composite measures indicating degree of transportation efficient areas

17. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study17 Recommendations 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)

18. Thank You Questions?

19. House Local Government Committee: Nov. 30, 2006Multimodal Concurrency Study19 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