Options for Making Concurrency More Multimodal Response to 2005 Legislative Session

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 HallenbeckTRAC (Washington State Transportation Center)

Ruth SteinerUniversity of Florida

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


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]


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)


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


Current Conditions

• Uses locally defined vision

• Balances land use (new development) with transportation system availability

• Where “transportation” is defined by Level-of-service” (LOS)


Effectiveness of Existing Concurrency Systems

• Most jurisdictions use single-modal roadway congestion as exclusive measure of performance

• This is a blunt instrument



• 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)



• Impacts on regional travel ignored under current locally-focused process

• Local success balancing land use/transportation often overwhelmed by regional traffic impacts


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)


Needed:

• Concurrency system encouraging multimodal travel systems in areas where people increasingly choose to live/work

• Regional centers good start: real travel markets


TOTAL DAILY REGIONAL TRIPSMODE DISTRIBUTION

(Baseline to compare against centers)

HOV 42.2%

SOV47.8%

OTHER3.3%

WALK5.9%

HOV 138.4%

HOV 2 1.4%

BUS (PUBLIC TRANSIT)

2.4%

BICYCLE1.0%


TOTAL REGIONAL WORK TRIPSMODE DISTRIBUTION

(Baseline to compare against centers)

HOV 16.5%

WALK3.1%

SOV78.1%

BICYCLE1.7% OTHER

0.6%

HOV 16.6%

HOV 2 2.1%


7.8%


WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Work Place

WALK5.3%

HOV 16.0%

HOV 2 1.8%

BUS (PUBLIC

TRANSIT)17.3%

OTHER0.6%

SOV66.7%

BICYCLE2.2%

BICYCLE1.4%

HOV 17.0%

OTHER0.6%

BUS (PUBLIC

TRANSIT)2.4%

HOV 2 2.3%

WALK1.8%

SOV84.7%

HOV25.1%

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


WALK2.0%

SOV80.0%

OTHER0.6%BUS

(PUBLIC TRANSIT)

6.9%

HOV 2 2.1%

HOV 16.7%

BICYCLE1.6%

WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Household

HOV25.9%

HOV 15.7%

Household INSIDE Centers(8.1% of work trips)

Household OUTSIDE Centers(91.8% of work trips)

OTHER0.0%

WALK14.7%


18.1%

HOV 15.2%

HOV 2 2.6%

SOV56.9%

BICYCLE2.5%

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


HOV 16.2%

HOV 2 1.7%


25.2%

WALK25.5%

OTHER0.0%

SOV38.3%

BICYCLE3.0%

WORK TRIPS MODE DISTRIBUTIONBy Location of Household and Work Place

HOV33.2%

HOV 11.3%

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

SOV84.9%

WALK1.8% OTHER

0.6%

HOV 2 2.2%

BUS (PUBLIC

TRANSIT)2.0%

HOV 17.1%

BICYCLE1.4%


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)


Desired Outcome

• The best functioning transportation system, given:

– Available / permitted land uses

– Available funding


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


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


RecommendationsLocal and Regional Components

• Concurrency requires two tiers to address gaps

– Local concurrency

– Regional concurrency


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


RecommendationsLocal – Few Changes

• Local concurrency– Permit / do not permit development

– Based on existence of multimodal facilities and services

– Can be uni-modal (automobile congestion)


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


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


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)


TELUMI Transportation Efficient Land Use Mapping Index

Sample map of King County showing composite measures

indicating degree of

transportation efficient areas


Domain Principal contribution to understanding land use and travel Specified variables/measures

I DensityIdentifies critical mass of different types of travelers and their corresponding travel needs

Residential Density [net] Employment Density [net]

II Mix of usesMeasures 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)

IV Affordable 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


Composite Map of TELUMI Measures

0-33 33-67 67-100

84%

8% 8%

Proportion of three TE classes

Pro

babi

lity:

# of

bus

ride

rs >

37


TELUMIComposit

e Measures

WithTransit

Corridors


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)


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)


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!)

The End


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

Documents

Options for Making Concurrency More Multimodal Response to 2005 Legislative Session