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

June 2012

2012 ITE Western District Conference

Don Samdahl, P.E., PTP

Julie Morgan, AICP

The NewTransportation Planning Paradigm

Past Planning Practices

Uncontrolled growth

The good old days?

3

The Problem - or is it?

Striking the Right Balance

Land Use Growth

Financial Resources

Adequate Facilities (LOS

Standard)

Transportation Plan

Typical Planning Paradigm

Land Use Plan Example

Transportation Plan Example

Typical Planning Responses- Variation 1

Big Regional projects are essential to our future

Funding will be there

Typical Planning Responses- Variation 2

Wish and pray that congestion goes away- the minimalistic approach

The Result of Today’s Paradigm

Disconnect between Planning & Reality

Source: New York Times

The Reality

1. Performance Standards

2. Land Use Plans

3. Funding Availability

Out of Balance

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

Shifting the Paradigm

• 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

LOS: In the Eye of the Beholder

To a driver: LOS ATo an economist: LOS F

To a driver: LOS FTo an economist: LOS A

Whose LOS is most important?

Illustration of Alternative 5 (bicycle/pedestrian bridge) and analysis by mode

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sec

on

ds

HCM Intersection LOS = C

PM Peak Hour Delay

Option 5 28.7 29.8 64.2 15.1 28.1

Vehicle Buses Pedestrian Bicycle Average

Source: Conventional Level of Service Analysis, Thresholds, and Policies Get a Failing Grade, Milam and Mitchell, 2007

Moving Closer to Balance

• More realistic performance standards

• More transparent planning processes

18

Example 1- A Traditional Multimodal Transportation Plan

TMP Recommendations Cost

($Million)

Streets $ 528

Street Widening $ 247

Intersections $ 65

Railroad Grade Separations

$ 171

New Streets $ 45

Pedestrians and Bicycles 20

Transit 5

Total $ 553

19

How Have we Paid for these Transportation Improvements?

• Traditional Funding Sources– Grants

– Local Improvement Districts

– City General Funds

– Developer Environmental Mitigation Agreements

20

Typical Transportation Funding Plan

• Use Existing Funding Sources• Seek New Funding Sources

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

Typical Transportation Funding Plan

• Use Existing Funding Sources• Seek New Funding Sources

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

How to Achieve Better Balance?

Choices

• Modify expectations about traffic operations (reduce LOS thresholds)

• Modify design standards

• Change prioritization criteria

• Reduce vehicle demando Change land use plans

o Increase cost of vehicle travel

Depend on other community values

Balanced, layered multimodal networks that serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight/goods movement.

Example 3-A Balanced Transportation Plan with Constraints

Burien Auto / Truck Priority Routes

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

What to do?

• Identify other funding sources

• Adjust LOS standards (matched to values)

• Reexamine land use growth expectations

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

Broadening Impact Fee Programs- Embrace all Modes

SHIFTING THE PARADIGM

Questions?

Don Samdahld.samdahl@fehrandpeers.com(206) 576-4242

Co-authorJulie Morgan