Presentation on theme: "UATS Director’s Workshop Agenda April 30, 2001 Introduction (12:30 – 12:35) Development Review and Mitigation (12:35 – 2:10) Break (2:10 – 2:15) "— Presentation transcript:
UATS Director’s Workshop Agenda April 30, 2001 Introduction (12:30 – 12:35) Development Review and Mitigation (12:35 – 2:10) Break (2:10 – 2:15) Planning Assumptions (2:15 – 2:30) Financing Sources (2:30 – 2:45) Concurrency and System Performance (2:45 – 3:00)
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 1 How much of the impact of development and redevelopment should be mitigated by the development?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 2 What type(s) of development, if any, should be exempt from mitigation (or allowed a lower level of mitigation)?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 3 Where will the City get the money to pay for the portion of transportation improvement costs that are not paid by development?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 4 Which types of transportation improvement does the City want to require development to mitigate?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 5 How specific is the City willing to be about the transportation improvement that will be funded by mitigation?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 6 What kind of criteria does the City want to use to determine the need for mitigation?
Development Review and Mitigation Issue No. 7 Should the mitigation program be used only in targeted areas, or does it need to be used throughout the City?
Planning Assumptions - Growth Assumptions Is the city comfortable with the study area growth assumptions for 2010 and 2020 used by the Puget Sound Regional Council? Recommendation: Review 2000 census against the PSRC’s 2000 base. Compare the “pipeline” developments with the PSRC’s growth forecasts. If those figures are reasonable, use the PSRC growth forecast for 2010 and 2020. If not, adjustments should be made to the PSRC’s growth forecasts and create new trip tables that reflect the new growth forecasts.
Planning Assumptions - State Facilities Should the UATS identify and evaluate facility improvement concepts located in the state right-of–way in the study area? Should the UATS examine travel pattern shifts in the study area associated with the alternatives in the Trans-Lake Study EIS?
Planning Assumptions - State Facilities Recommendation: Identify facility improvements in state right of-way within the study area. Analyze changes in travel shifts associated with the Trans- Lake Washington Study capacity expansion options. Focus on short-term actions that the WSDOT can take to improve the SR 520 corridor in the UATS.
Planning Assumptions - Montlake Bridge Should the UATS evaluate options to rebuild the Montlake Bridge to handle traffic and non- motorized demand in the corridor? Recommendation: Do not consider any option to widen the Montlake Bridge in the UATS. (It is possible that the Trans-Lake study could impact traffic flows in the Montlake Boulevard corridor, and major structural changes to the Montlake Bridge may be evaluated.)
Planning Assumptions - Freeway Access Should the UATS evaluate cost and benefit of freeway access improvements in the Eastlake area, which is located outside the study area? Recommendation: Do not consider changes to freeway access in the Eastlake area in the UATS
Planning Assumptions - Sound Transit What should the UATS assume to be the Sound Transit light rail plan? Recommendation: Assume that the light rail system in the original Sound Move Plan will be implemented with the three-year extension. Assume that the light rail system will be extended to Northgate from University District as the highest priority upon completion of the first phase. The UATS plan should prepare potential responses, such as changing prioritization of transit projects.
Financing Sources Should the development of a transportation improvement plan be constrained? Should the UATS investigate ways to raise additional revenues for facility improvements in the study area?
Financing Sources Recommendation: Do not constrain ideas to improve the transportation system based on city’s current financial capability. Discuss potential funding sources and identify steps needed to implement each funding source. The potential sources to be analyzed: partnership with WSDOT on the Trans-Lake Washington and I-5 studies joint funding with UW, King County Metro, and other transit agencies new sources of funding such as LIDs, and impact fees
Concurrency and System Performance – System Performance What “performance benchmarks” should the study use to identify transportation system deficiencies? Recommendation: Roadway corridor: LOS E measured in average speed Intersection: LOS E measured in average delay Transit: Increase transit vehicle speeds and reliability, and service quality measured with headway to and from major centers. Carpool/vanpool: Provide travel time incentives and pricing incentives without quantitative benchmarks. Pedestrian/bicycle: Use qualitative benchmarks for pedestrian and bicycle systems without quantitative benchmarks.
Concurrency and System Performance - Concurrency Is it appropriate to discuss the purpose of concurrency in the UATS? Recommendation: The UATS should not directly address changes to the adopted concurrency level of service standards. The city should update the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The “performance benchmarks” discussed above would be sufficient.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.