1. June 2012 2012 ITE Western District Conference Don Samdahl, P.E., PTP Julie Morgan, AICP The New Transportation Planning Paradigm

2. Past Planning Practices Uncontrolled growth The good old days?

3. 3 The Problem - or is it?

4. Striking the Right Balance Land Use Growth Financial Resources Adequate Facilities (LOS Standard) Transportation Plan

5. Typical Planning Paradigm

6. Land Use Plan Example

7. Transportation Plan Example

8. Typical Planning Responses- Variation 1 Big Regional projects are essential to our future Funding will be there

9. Typical Planning Responses- Variation 2 Wish and pray that congestion goes away- the minimalistic approach

10. The Result of Todays Paradigm Disconnect between Planning & Reality Source: New York Times

11. The Reality 1.Performance Standards 2.Land Use Plans 3.Funding Availability Out of Balance

12. Evolving Community Values Recognizing Choices and Tradeoffs Sustainability (ecology, environmental, economy) –Accessibility (people and goods) »Mobility Hierarchy of Modes (size) –Pedestrian –Bicyclist –Bus –Auto –Truck –Train

13. Shifting the Paradigm

14. Balancing Objectives Reducing vehicle travel time Increasing pedestrian crossing times, delay, and exposure to vehicles Increasing distances between land uses Increasing stormwater runoff Removing riparian habitat Increasing heat island effect Community Values Matter

15. LOS: In the Eye of the Beholder To a driver: LOS A To an economist: LOS F To a driver: LOS F To an economist: LOS A

16. Whose LOS is most important? Illustration of Alternative 5 (bicycle/pedestrian bridge) and analysis by mode Source: Conventional Level of Service Analysis, Thresholds, and Policies Get a Failing Grade, Milam and Mitchell, 2007

17. Moving Closer to Balance More realistic performance standards More transparent planning processes

18. 18 Example 1- A Traditional Multimodal Transportation Plan

19. 19 How Have we Paid for these Transportation Improvements? Traditional Funding Sources –Grants –Local Improvement Districts –City General Funds –Developer Environmental Mitigation Agreements

20. 20 Typical Transportation Funding Plan Use Existing Funding Sources Seek New Funding Sources

21. Percent of Maximum Eligible Fees 33%50%67%100% Cost per Trip$4,493$6,807$9,121$13,614 Approximate Impact Fee Revenues ($ millions) Grade Separation Projects$22.3$33.8$45.3$67.6 Other City Projects$40.0$60.7$81.3$121.3 Total$62.3$94.5$126.6$188.9 Impact Fee Program 21 City adopted 30%= $56 Million Revenue

22. 22 Typical Transportation Funding Plan Use Existing Funding Sources Seek New Funding Sources

23. Example 2-City of Manteca, CA – In Need of a Paradigm Shift? There is a disconnect between land use utilization patterns in the adopted Plan and the financial reality of constructing the infrastructure necessary to accommodate that utilization. - Community Development Action Plan, January 2008 Current fee imposed per dwelling unit Fee required to meet LOS threshold $5,400$37,000

24. How to Achieve Better Balance? Choices Modify expectations about traffic operations (reduce LOS thresholds) Modify design standards Change prioritization criteria Reduce vehicle demand o Change land use plans o Increase cost of vehicle travel Depend on other community values

25. Balanced, layered multimodal networks that serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight/goods movement. Example 3- A Balanced Transportation Plan with Constraints

26. Burien Auto / Truck Priority Routes

30. But Can the City Afford this Plan? Proposed Transportation Plan $ 360-400 M over 20 years $ 16-20 M annually to achieve desired LOS Funding Realities Historic Capital Expenditures= $5 M annually Next 20 years= $100M

31. What to do? Identify other funding sources Adjust LOS standards (matched to values) Reexamine land use growth expectations

32. Other Approaches: Eliminate Traditional LOS Metrics Paso Robles: daily capacity utilization St Helena: accessibility Emeryville: Quality of Service Fort Collins: multi-modal LOS Redwood City: balance needs of all users

33. Broadening Impact Fee Programs- Embrace all Modes

34. SHIFTING THE PARADIGM

35. Questions? Don Samdahl d.samdahl@fehrandpeers.com (206) 576-4242 Co-author Julie Morgan