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
35
Embed
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 Hallenbeck TRAC (Washington State Transportation Center) Ruth Steiner - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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]
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 4
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, 2007 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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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)
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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)
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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)
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 12
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%
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 13
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%
BUS (PUBLIC TRANSIT)
7.8%
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 14
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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 15
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%
BUS (PUBLIC TRANSIT)
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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 16
HOV 16.2%
HOV 2 1.7%
BUS (PUBLIC TRANSIT)
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%
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 17
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, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 18
Desired Outcome
• The best functioning transportation system, given:
– Available / permitted land uses
– Available funding
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 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
House Local Government Committee: Jan. 18, 2007 Multimodal Concurrency Study 20
Constraints –continued
• Gaps exist in the planning & certification process– Local development not well integrated with