LUTC PKT 02-22-2010City of Federal Way
City Council
' Land Use/Transportation Committee
February 22, 2010 . City Hall
5:30 .m. Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
(Electronic)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/Description
A. Approval of Minutes: February 1, 2010
B. Transportation Level of Service Study Session
4. OTHER
Action
Presenter Page or info
LeMaster 2 Action
Perez 6 Action
Council
Date Time
N/A 5 min.
3/2/2010
Action 60 min.
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Monday, March 1, 2010.
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members --- City Staff
Dini Dudos, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Di�ector ofParks, Pub/ic Works and Emergen�y Management
Jim Fe7e/% Member Darlene LeMaster, Adminislrative A�sistant II
lack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701
G. �LUTC�LUTCAgeridas and Summaries IOIOIz ZZ-10 LUTCAgenda.doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
February l, 2010 City Hall
5:30 PM City Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos and Committee Members Jim Ferrell and Jack Dovey
present.
Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmaz
Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Deputy Public
Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, Director of Community Development
Services Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner David Lee,
Associate Planner Matt Herrera, City Attorney Patricia Richardson, Surface Water Manager Will Appleton, Street Systems
Project Engineer John Mulkey, ESA & NPDES Coordinator Hollie Shilley and Administrative Assistant II Darlene
LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment:
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Forward
Topic Title/Description to Council
A. Approval of the January 4, 2010 LUTC Minutes
Committee approved January 4, 2010 LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
N/A
B. Proposed Deferment of Open Space Fee-in-lieu and Regional Stormwater Facility Fee TBD
Matt Herrera presented information on this item. Committee Member Ferrell asked if Planning
Commission gave any reason as to why they did not concur with the recommendations of Sam
Pace and Garret Huffman. Mr. Herrera responded that the Planning Commission's main basis
for their recommendation was that these aze optional. Developers have an option to make
improvements themselves in lieu of paying a fee.
Mr. Appleton presented an illustration of the three basins that support the remaining
undeveloped, developable land in response to Committee Member povey's inquiry as to how
many parcels could be affected by these fees. Mr. Appleton also explained that currently,
developers would pay a stormwater facility fee as they receive engineering approval for the
plat ("preliminary plat approval"). Mr. Appleton also noted that if State standards were to
change (ie. NPDES permit), there would be no advantage to paying stormwater facility fees.
The following public comment was received:
Sam Pace, Seattle/King County Association of Realtors — Mr. Pace wanted to note four
items:
2
Land Use/Transportation Committee
February 1, 2010
- There are benefits to both developers and the City by delaying the collection of impact
fees to the point of sale.
- There are no environmental risks associated with the proposed delay of collection of
impact fees as all the stormwater facilities are in pdace.
- There were parties that would have diked to attend the Planning Commission's January
6, 2010 public hearing, but either didn't receive notice of the meeting or found out about
it at the last minute.
- Referencing the stormwater facility fee being optionad.... Due to current financial
constraint on developers, improving the site is not an option.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Assocdation of King and Snohomish Counties — Mr.
Huffman wanted to make the Committee aware that the development indusriy is facing
difficult lending times. Banks are not financing for impact and mitigation fees. This has
forced developers to look for other ways to pay fees. Mr. Huffman supports and
encourages the Committee to consider dooking at all fees and giving the developer the
option to defer fees to closing of sale. Mr. Huffman o, f,�'ered his services to help the Ciry
draft some options for consideration.
Committee Member povey asked if in this recommendation there is a contingency plan in
place so that the City collects the fees regazdless of whether or not the lots/homes are sold.
Mr. Huffinan replied that a contingency plan could be worked out. Mr. Huffinan encouraged
the Committee to table this topic until six months to one yeaz from now, giving time for all
fees that the developer pays to be reevaluated and hopefully deferred back to the point of sale.
Chair Duclos commented that she would like to learn more about why fees at closing did not
work for Pierce County.
Director Fevvins noted that there is currently nothing in the 2010 work program that would
address the fees collectively. The open space fee-in-lieu and the stormwater facilities fees aze
the last of the fees to be reevaluated. Also, there are currently no new development projects
that wouid influence Council to make a decision on this right away.
Dave Main, President of the Master Builders Association — Mr. Main pointed out what
the City will dose if developers choose not to develop in our City. Mr. Main supports fees
to be paid at closing and suggested a lien on the titde to be disclosed to purchaser with
fees collected at closing of sale or within 24 months of certificate of occupancy, whichever
happens first. Fees will be built into a home's purchase price.
Mayor Kochmar commented that she is not sure if Council intends considering a change in
collection of fees for an indefinite period. Council will want to reevaluate collection of fees
again as the economy improves.
Duana Kolovskova, Legal Council for Master Builders Association — Ms. Kodovskova
requested that staff work with developers to find a way for the City to collect their fees
and devedopers to be able to afford their projects. Ms. Kolovskova presented a sample
covenant in use by another agency that had been tailored to Federal Way for evaluation.
In regard to collection of fees at time of closing, Ms. Kolovskova felt that the situation
with Pierce Co. is d�erent and would not apply to Federal Way.
Chair Duclos asked staff to set up a committee of staff and developers, to reevaluate fees and
the collection of them, and to return to LUTC in approximately six months for a study session
and to finalize a committee recommendation. Mr. Huffman returned to the podium to request
that LUTC act upon this sooner than six months, suggesting as soon as two weeks from now.
Committee directed staff to meet with individuals associated with land development and
return to LUTC within the next two months for a study session to work out the specifics
regarding this topic.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
G:\LUTC�LUTC Agendas and Summazies 2010�2-0]-10 Miautes.doc 3
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 February 1, 2010
C. Amendment to the FWRC to Expand the Size of Health Clubs in the BN Zone
D. NPDES Requirements: SWMP and Annual Report
Will Appleton introduced Hollie Shilley who presented information on this item. There was
no public comment. Ms. Shilley shared that there were 44 IDDE cases in 2009, the majority
consisting of automotive discharge, construction waste, restaurant grease, and leaking
dumpsters. Dan Smith, Water Quality Coordinator, runs the City's IDDE program and is
involved with investigations and citarions. There is a trigger or threshold for the state Dept. of
Ecology to get involved. There is also an interagency compliance task force for large spills.
David Lee presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Mr. Lee noted
that all BN zones will be evaluated in 2010 as part of the 2010 Work Plan.
Committee forwarded Option #l, adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as
presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
2/16/2010
Ordinance
1 S` Reading
2/16/2010
Consent
Mr. Appleton clarified that stormwater sewer system does not combine any sanitary sewer
system with stormwater. The stormwater sewer system only contains surface water.
�
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
2009 Easter Lake Flood control Project — Project Acceptance and Retainage Release
2/16/2010
Consent
F.
G.
H.
Will Appleton presented information on this item. There was no public comment or
discussion.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
Ordinance for t6e Relinquishment of a Portion of S 320` St to the State of Washington 2/16/2010
John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Ordinance
1�` Reading
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
S 348` St at ls` Ave S— LUD Design Construction Interlocal Agreement
2/16/2010
Consent
John Mulkey presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell
S 348` St at 1S` Ave S— PSE Gas Letter of Understanding
Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
John Mulkey presented informarion on this item. There was no public comment.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0
2/16/2010
Consent
G:U.i1TC�[.UCC Agendas and Sumrosries 2010�2A1-]0 Minutes.dce 4
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4
4. OTHER
Director Roe addressed the committee, requesting the full Council attend the 2/22/2010 LUTC meeting for a
Transportation Level of Service study session.
1. 2010
5. FUTURE MEETING
Due to the upcoming holiday, the February 15, 2010 LUTC will be cancelled. The next regular LUTC meeting will be
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM.
Attest:
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
CONIlVIITTEE APPROVAL:
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
G:�I.UTCU.UTC Agendas and Summaries 2010�2-01-10 Minutes.doc 5
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBTEC'r: Transportation Level of Service Standard
POLICY QUESTION Should the Transportation Level of Service Standard be revised?
COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent ❑ Ordinance
❑ City Council Business
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE February 22 , 2010
■
■
Public Hearing
Other
STAF'F' REroR'r BY: Rick Perez P.E. City Traffic En ineer DEPT: Pubhc Works
_..�_....-----......�.__.__............_.__........--�--._......---.._._._.._...z.._._..._._. � _._..._..._.—....—.._.._..__...._�_..._..........__.._ _.._.._^� ----�--�-- --
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated February 22, 2010.
Options Considered:
1. Maintain the current LOS standard.
2. Maintain the current LOS standard, using Median U-Turn Intersections ("Michigan Lefts").
3. Lower the LOS standard to v/c of 1.10 and eliminating the LOS E threshold.
4. Lower the LOS standard to v/c of 1.20 and eliminating the LOS E threshold.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks Council direction on the appropriate transportation level of service
standard.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: .Z l�t � DIRECTOR APPROVAL: �
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Committee recommends Option _ be forwarded to the March 2, 2010 City
Council Consent Agenda for approvaL
Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1� reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) 6 ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/20Q6 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2010
TO: Land Use / Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer �
SUBJECT: Transportation Level of Service
BACKGROUND:
City Council requested that staff examine the appropriateness of the current Transportation Level of
Service (LOS) standard. Particular concerns expressed include the impact of large intersection
improvements on pedestrian comfort and the aesthetics of the public environment, a perception that large
arterials were being favored over providing improved connectivity, and budgetary impacts of concurrency
to meet the current LOS standard. Attachment A is the memo that outlines the last discussion on the
topic, on August 5, 2008.
Staff needs direction on how to proceed on this topic in order to prepare the next Transportation
Improvement Plan, which is required to be adopted by July 31, 2010. In addition, the removal of three
projects by the Council in adoption of current Transportation Improvement Flan is likely to trigger
concurrency failures with development proposals that appear to be moving forward, which could result in
mitigation requirements that would stall these developments. If the Level of Service standard is to be
revised, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required.
Analysis Conducted
Staff has prepared four alternatives for consideration by the Council. These are by no means exhaustive,
merely illustrative. Staff will present simulations of traffic conditions at various levels of service to assist
Council in determining what would be acceptable levels of traffic congestion. In addition, staff has made
planning level cost estimates for the cost of maintaining a given level of service to accommodate 2035
land use forecasts, and estimated pedestrian crossing times at major intersections as a measure of the
impacts of intersection widening at example intersections. It should be noted that the 2035 foreeasts
include a number of regionally significant assumptions about the roadway network, including:
• Link Light Rail �vould connect Federal Way to Seattle and Tacoma, with stations located at Star
Lake Park and Ride Lot, Federal Way Transit Center, and South Federal Way Park and Ride.
• The Triangle Project to reconstruct the I-5 / SR 18 interchange would be fully completed.
The current LOS standard is a volume/capacity ratio of less than 1.00, literally meaning that the
intersection must operate within capacity. In addition, signalized intersections must operate at Level of
Service E(with less than an average delay of 80 seconds per vehicle) using a 120-second cycle length.
Common to all alternatives are a number of improvements to address unsignalized intersection failures
that would be addressed by adding turn lanes, and/or construction of roundabouts or traffic signals, at an
February 22, 2010
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Transportation Level of Service
Page 2
estimated 2010 cost of $34 million. Beyond these, intersections failing the current LOS standard by 2035
are shown in the table below in descending order of v/c ratios:
Over 1.20
Over 1.10
Over 1.00
1.41
1.38
1.37
1.29
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.21
1.20
11 8
1.18
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.12
1.11
O1 8
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.05
1.02
1.02
SW 356"' St & 21" Ave SW
S 320 St & 1�` Ave S
S 348 St & 16 Ave S/ Enchanted Pkwy S
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S
S 336�' St & Pacific Hwy S
S 348 St / SW Campus Dr & l Ave S
S 320 St & I-5 Southbound Ramps
SW 336 St & 21S` Ave SW
S 320 St & 25 Ave S/ Gateway Center Blvd
SW 320 St & 21S` Ave SW
S 336 St & 1 Way S
S 320 St & 11 Pl S
S 348�' St & 9 Ave S
S 324` St & Pacific Hwy S
S 320 St & 23` Ave S
S 320 St & 20 Ave S
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S
S Star Lake Rd & Military Rd S
S 320 St & Weyerhaeuser Way S
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S
S 304 St & Pacific Hwy S
S 356 St & l Ave S
The costs associated with projects to improve the LOS of these intersections varies, not only by whether
the intersection fails a given LOS, but also by the scope of the project intended to maintain that LOS. For
example, a project to return S 320` Street and 1�` Avenue S to a v/c of 1.20 will be smaller in scope and
cost than one to return the intersection to a v/c of 1.10. As such, the cost to maintain a lower v/c ratio
increases exponentially.
Due in part to the recession and due to our transportation improvements, we currently ha�e no LOS
failures. The last two we had were S 356�` Street & Pacific Highway S(v/c 1.04, now improved), and SW
340`� Street & 35�' Avenue SW (v/c 1.12, volume dropped about 20%). However, the City now has a lot
of vacant commercial property that could re-fill without any land use actions, and the added traffic
generated by these now-vacant properties could trigger additional LOS failures.
Alternative Intersection Treatments
Staff evaluated several alternative innovative high-voluxne intersection treatments to address LOS
deficiencies. Attachment B illustrates those considered, and the table below summarizes how staff
determined their suitability in Federal Way.
8
February 22, 2010
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Transportation Level of Service
Page 3
1 Median U-Turns aka R/W impacts for U-turns +
Michi an Lefts
2 Jughandles R/W impacts at intersections comparable to -
interchan es; not edestrian friendl
3 Su erstreet Hi h volume cross streets diverted �
4 Paired Intersection R/W impacts for "backage" roads; needs street -
'd
5 Continuous Flow R/W and access restrictions; not pedestrian -
Intersection friendl
6 Florida T Limited a licabili ; not edestrian friendl -
7 Roundabouts R/W at intersections; Regulations may require +
si alization
8 S lit Intersection R/W im acts -
9 uadrant Roadwa R/W im acts -
10 Bowtie R/W im acts, no track record 4
11 Doublewide No track record; not edestrian friendl -
12 Echelon Interchan e Access and visual im acts �
13 Center Turn Overpass Limited R/W impacts; visual impacts O
CTO
14 Single Point Urban High cost, access impacts; not pedestrian -
Interchan e SPUI friendl ; visual im acts
15 Michigan Urban High cost; visual impacts -
Diamond (MUD)
Interchan e
16 Contra-Flow Left R/W impacts; visual impacts -
CFL Interchan e
17 Tight Diamond Poor arterial progression and access, visual -
Interchan e im acts
18 Square Loop Need street grid, visual impacts 4
Interchan e
l9 Diverging Diamond Access impacts, visual impacts, poor arterial -
Interchan e ro ession
20 . Windmill Interchan e R/W Im acts, visual im acts � -
Based on this analysis, staff evaluated the most promising concepts: Michigan Lefts and roundabouts, at
two major intersections, and compared them to traditional intersection widening concepts. The
intersections used were lg` Avenue S at S/SW 320`� Street, and 21 Avenue SW at SW 336�` Street / SW
Campus Drive.
February 22, 2010
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Transportation Level of Service
Page 4
Roundabouts
Federal Way was the first agency in Washington State to use a two-lane roundabout, at Weyerhaeuser
Way S at 33'� Place S, as part of the development of East Campus. Modern roundabouts (as opposed to
rotaries constructed in the 1940's and `50's in the Northeast) have established an enviable safety record,
with roughly 90% less fatal collisions and 70% less injury collisions than signalized intersections. They
can usually accommodate at least as much volume as a signalized intersection with less delay and
queuing. The biggest drawbacks to roundabouts are that they require more right-of-way at intersections,
which makes them difficult to retrofit in developed areas on high-volume intersections, and that visually-
impaired pedestrians have difficulty iri determining when there are adequate gaps in oncoming traffic for
crossing. As a result of this last issue, the US Access Board has proposed requiring all multi-lane
roundabouts be signalized, which would significantly reduce, if not outright eliminate, the advantages that
roundabouts have over signalized intersections.
Nonetheless, Council has provided staff direction to consider roundabouts as an alternative to signalized
intersections in recognition of the safety benefits as well as the ability to minimize street corridor
widening.
Median U-Turn Intersection Treatments ("Michigan Lefts")
Median U-Turn entails lower construction and right-of-way costs than many conventional options and
improves safety by eliminating left turns at the intersection. To turn left, vehicles must drive roughly 600
feet past the intersection and cross the median in a U-turn lane, from which they can safely re-enter
traffic, with a signal if necessary, and make a right turn onto the side street.
These also perform better from a safety perspective, with a 60% reduction of collisions overall, and a
75% reduction in injuries compared to traditional signalized intersections. The reduction in left-turn
phases also simplifies the ability to coordinate traffic signals, and if the U-turn needs signalization, it can
provide pedestrian crossing opportunities as well.
There are no known cases in which a median U-turn design has been implemented and later removed for
safety, capacity or other deficiencies. While new locations have created accident, enforcement, and
educational issues during the first several months of operation, these issues have in all cases been
overcome and are less prevalent in newer applications.
Although not widely used outside of Michigan, a few have been constructed in Maryland, Florida, and
Louisiana. Metropolitan Phoenix has adopted design standards to begin implementation of the concept
with new arterials. What would make Federal Way unique is that we do not have wide medians to
accornmodate U-turn movements, and what are referred to as "loons" would need to be constructed to
accommodate U-turns for larger vehicles.
1 Avenue S& S/SW 320 Street
All alternatives for this project include widening l Avenue S to 5 lanes between S 316�' Street and S
320`� Street and replacement of the fire signal. A 3-lane roundabout fails due to the high volumes on
westbound S 320``' Street. T'he widest legs of the intersection using Michigan Lefts are westbound S 320�'
Street and southbound 1S' Avenue S.
10
February 22, 2010
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Transportation Level of Service
Page 5
21 Avenue SW & SW 336` Street / SW Campus Drive
This intersection improvement is less expensive than ls Avenue S& S 320�' Street because corridor
widening isn't required. However, volumes are high enough that even a 3-1ane roundabout fails, and
would have to be large enough to require complete building acquisition on three corners, thus driving this
cost much higher than other alternatives. The Michigan Left alternative also assumes complete
signalization of the northerly driveway of Fred Meyer on 21S` Avenue SW and driveways near the Jack in
the Box restaurant on SW 336�' Street, providing frequently-requested signalized pedestrian crossings at
these locations.
System Impacts
As a result of impressive performance of the Michigan Lefts against traditional intersection widening,
staff compared the City's ability to maintain various levels of service against the Michigan Left. The
alternatives analyzed are:
• Maintaining the current LOS standard
• Maintaining the current LOS standard, using Median U-Turn Intersections ("Michigan Lefts")
• Lowering the LOS standard to v/c of 1.10 and eliminating the delay threshold
• Lowering the LOS standard to v/c of 1.20 and eliminating the delay threshold
Staff evaluated citywide implementation of Michigan Lefts against the traditional widening projects under
the various v/c ratios under consideration, and found that the Michigan Left concept resulted most
measures of effectiveness being roughly equivalent to having a volume/capacity ratio between 1.0 and
1.1, but at less cost and requiring less widening, and at a cost comparable to the improvements required to
maintain a v/c of 1. L
11
February 22, 2010
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Transportation Level of Service
Page 6
It should be noted that in some instances, the Michigan Left treatment may not always perForm better or
cost less than traditional intersection treatments. Preliminarily, the following intersections may not be
good candidates for Michigan Lefts, due to left-turn volumes being so high as to need dual U-turn lanes,
thus negating the desire to minimize roadway width:
• 23'� Avenue S& S 320�' Street
• 16�' Avenue S/ Enchanted Parkway S& S 348�' Street
• 1 Way S& S 336�' Street
• 21�` Ave SW & SW 356�' Street
Therefore, as with the Council direction on roundabouts, staff proposes to evaluate this option on a case-
by-case basis. In order to gauge the effects of the Michigan Left treatment, it may be best to construct a
pilot project before adopting a Citywide standard. However, allowing the use of Michigan Lefts would
provide the opportunity to maintain the current LOS standard, thus avoiding the need for Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Attachments: A. Memo to Council dated August 5, 2008
B. Innovative Intersection Treatments
cc: Project File
Day File
12
�t¢�c�.�rnent A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 2008
TO: City Council
VIA: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operating Officer, Emergency Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT• Transportation Level of Service Standard
BACKGROUND
City Council requested that staff examine the appropriateness of the current Transportation Level of
Service (LOS) standard. Particular concerns expressed include the impact of large intersection
improvements on pedestrian comfort and the aesthetics of the public environment, a perception that large
arterials were being favored over providing improved connectivity, and budgetary impacts of concurrency
to meet the current LOS standard. This memo outlines how level of service is measured, how it has been
used since the City's incorporation, and its impacts on economic development, public safety, and capital
budget needs. Options for revising the currently-adopted standard are also reviewed. Most of the
information contained herein was developed for a memo to the Land Use and Transportation Committee
on December 4, 2006.
LOS Defined
LOS is an attempt to grade the transportation system user's experience through quantifiable means.
Procedures used almost universally within the United States are provided in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board. Transportation facilities are graded A
through F based on ranges of values established in the HCM. For urban streets, the predominant
measures are delay and volume/capacity ratios, but the HCM uses different measures for different types
of facilities. The ranges for a given grade also reflect the typical user expectation. For instance, the delay
equated with a LOS F for unsignalized intersections is less than that for signalized intersections. In
general, LOS A refers to free-flow conditions with minimal user delay, wherein the traveler is virtually
unimpeded by conflicting traffic. By comparison, LOS F represents conditions where the traveler has
limited mobility with stop-and-go, forced flow conditions. The attached graphic demonstrates the various
levels of service on a freeway. Value thresholds used for urban arterial intersections are shown in the
table below:
13
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 2 of 10
City's Historical Use of LOS
The 1995 Comprehensive Plan adopted a policy TP16 using strictly volume/capacity ratios of less than
0.90.
14
Illustration 3-8. Level-of-service D.
Illustration 3-5. Z,evel-of-service A.
Illustration 3-9. Level-of-service E.
I/lustratian 3-6 Level-of-service B.
Illustration 3-10. Level-of-service F.
Illustration 3-7. Level-of-service C.
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 3 of 10
The 1998 Comprehensive Plan revised this policy to raise the v/c ratio threshold to 1.00, added a LOS
requirement of E, and required the use of 120-second cycle lengths at signalized intersections.
In addition, language was added to TP60, establishing a policy where intersections failing this LOS
standard may then be measured using delay per person rather than per vehicle, essentially giving greater
weight to high-occupancy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In practice, this clause of TP60
has been difficult to implement, due to the resource needs to determine occupancy of each vehicle
entering an intersection.
The level of specificity in the City's LOS standard is surprising to many professionals. In particular, the
use of the 120-second cycle length is a deliberate constraint. The purpose is to provide a limit that can
sustain pedestrian access, achieve good signal coordination (perceived lack of signal coordination is a
large source of complaints received by Traffic Division), and reduce intersection qu�uing, the last of
which is a major source of mid-block collisions. It also puts a constraint on intersection widening. By
considering pedestrian crossing times in the capacity analyses, larger intersections require longer
pedestrian crossings, which uses an increasingly larger portion of the cycle length. T'his leaves less time
for left-turn phases. To compensate, turn lanes can be added, but that also increases pedestrian crossing
times, and so the benefit adding turn lanes may be lost by the increased pedestrian crossing time.
Conversely, the policy on how LOS is calculated, ignoring pedestrian crossing times, would improve
calculated LOS, on paper at least.
Longer cycle lengths can be used to reduce LOS failures, but at the expense of longer queues at
intersections (which can lead to an increase in mid-block and rear-end collisions), and increased waits for
pedestrians.
The volume/capacity ratio (v/c) is an irnportant criterion for achieving signal coordination. If v/c is over
1.00, the queue of traffic does not dissipate in a single cycle, thus defeating signal coordination efforts.
This becomes tied to air quality issues. If vehicular stops and delay are minimized, motor vehicle
emissions are reduced. On the other hand, many argue that delay reduction strategies encourage more
driving, negating the delay-reduction gains of signal coordination and capacity improvements.
Purpose of LOS Standards
Agencies adopt LOS standards to plan for growth, prioritize transportation projects, and to determine
appropriate mitigation of the impacts of development. In Washington, adoption of a LOS standard for
transportation is required under the Growth Management Act (GMA). In addition, GMA requires
adoption of a concurrency process, whereby the City would certify that adequate capacity will exist
within six years to accommodate the development. If capacity to accept the traffic generated by the
development does not exist or cannot be created within six years, state law requires the City to not
approve the development.
Project Prioritization
Projects are developed in the Comprehensive Plan in order to meet long-range goals for accommodating
growth and development of a transportation system that supports all modes of travel. In addition, each
year the City revises a Transportation Improvement Plan, adopting projects that the City intends to
construct within a six-year timeframe. Every project in the Comprehensive Plan is prioritized annually.
This requires staff to develop land use forecasts for a six-year timeframe, run the City's travel demand
model to develop traffic volume forecasts, analyze each major intersection ta determine which
intersections would not meet the LOS standard, and identify which projects would conect the LOS
failure.
15
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 4 of 10
Staff considers two strategies for correcting LOS failures; one is to improve the intersection where the
failure occurs, and the other is to provide alternative routes to allow traffic to bypass the failing
intersection. Historically, correcting the failing intersection has been more cost-effective most of the
time. However, as we reach limits of what is feasible to construct at an intersection without resorting to
grade separation, providing new connections will become more cost-competitive. One option favoring
the latter approach may be to set arbitrary limits on the maximum number of lanes to favor other
approaches. One clause of TP60 already does this: "When arterials require more than four through lanes
to maintain the adopted LOS, additional travel lanes will be for HOV's." We could adopt similar limits
for the number of left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes.
Project prioritization criteria include:
• Concurrency Requirement
• LOS Improvement
• Collision Rate Improvement
• Collision Severity Improvement
• HOV Supportive
• Non-Motorized Supportive
• Community Support
• Air Quality Improvement
• Ease of Implementation
• BenefitlCost Ratio
Essentially, three of the 10 criteria are based on LOS, two on safety, two on support for non-SOV users,
two on cost, and one on public support. Nine of these criteria have been in use since 1996, with a second
safety criterion added in 2000. However, this change had little effect as most safety issues were also
concurrency issues.
Based on the project prioritization, staff proposes and Council adopts the TIP annually.
The relationship between the TIP and concurrency is not accidental; GMA requires that for development
to be considered concurrent, the capacity to absorb the impacts of the development must be dependent on
a financially viable plan toprovide the transportation capacity within the same six-year timeframe.
Other Types of LOS Standards
Due to GMA requirements, among others, a number of different strategies have been employed by
different agencies to develop a LOS standard that attempts to balance competing priorities for funding,
congestion, safety, land use goals, economic development, and support for other modes of transportation.
Locally, many agencies rely on v/c ratios for its simplicity. Rather than measure only the evening peak
hour, many average the top two peak hours. Because some intersections may have intractable problems,
but alternate routes are available, some agencies create zones and average LOS values within each zone.
Similarly, a few agencies adopt screenlines at strategic locations and average v/c ratios on corridors that
traverse the screenline. Some agencies use a travel time standard on predefined arterial segments. Any of
these approaches allow the use of differing LOS standards for different areas.
Impacts of Revising the LOS Standard
The City incorporated the same year as the passage of GMA. Both efforts were fueled in part by
frustration over inadequate mitigation of the impacts of development. Hence a key component of GMA
16
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 5 of 10
was the requirement for transportation concurrency. Frustration over traffic congestion has continued to
fuel efforts to improve transportation funding. Citizen surveys over the previous two budget cycles
identified transportation and public safety as the two highest priorities for increased funding. More recent
regional surveys for the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit have shown that
transportation is by far the most critical regional problem.
Below is a summary of the non-enterprise fund capital needs identified in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
and what projects have been funded:
GMA explicitly addresses options for reconciling LOS standards with budgetary shortfalls:
• Increase the level of funding
• REVise the land use assumptions to lower travel demand
• Revise the prioritization process to fully fund capacity needs
• Lower the LOS standard to meet available funding
The Comprehensive Plan responds to each of these concepts as follows:
"Modifying the LOS standard cannot be recommended because safety problems usually result from
increased congestion and adversely impact air quality and transit operations where HOV facilities do
not exist. The adopted LOS standard accounts for HOV's and transit by basing it on average delay per
person rather than delay per vehicle."
"Reprioritizing improvements to address capacity would result in a lack of funding for safety and
non-motorized transportation. This would be inconsistent with adopted goals and policies to
encourage non-motorized transportation and maintain roadway safety."
"Lowering transportation demand to match available capacity would restrict the City's ability to
fixnction as an urban center consistent with county and regional plans. Furthermore, the City has little
ability to reduce traffic through the City caused by growth in neighboring jurisdictions or overflow
from congested freeways."
"Therefore, improvement in funding for transportation appears to be the most realistic alternative: '
LOS and Transportation Safety
Some advocates of "Smart Growth" strategies suggest that congestion is not something to be avoided, but
should be accepted as a reasonable accommodation to encourage use of alternative modes of
transportation. These advocates ignore the impacts of two major issues with respect to ramifications of
acceptance of greater levels of congestion. One of these is safety, the other is freight movement.
17
Transportation funding, although having the highest total cost, has lagged other City-funded capital
programs in terms of ineeting identified needs. Compounding this disparity is that roughly half of the
transportation funding has been from grants, and the Parks project list did not include the Community
Center.
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 6 of 10
To illustrate the extent of roadway collisions, the following table provides data on the relative frequency
of crime and roadway collisions in the United States:
Hence these roadway improvements have avoided 121 collisions annually, a societal cost reduction of
$1,512,500 annually. It should be noted that two of the five locations where collision rates have increased
are located where traffic volumes have increased significantly since project completion and are in need of
additional improvements. This finding is consistent with national research, which has found a correlation
between high volume/capacity ratios and collision rates. It is also important to note that this has not come
at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclists. In 1997, the City averaged 36 reported collisions involving
bicyclists and pedestrians, whereas since 2000 we are averaging one per year.
18
Thus roadway safety could be considered as much a public safety issue as fighting crime. The following
table also outlines the safety improvements achieved in the City by improving LOS on a project-level
basis:
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 7 of 10
LOS and Freight Mobility
Although congestion encourages use of alternative modes, this is not an option for freight movement in
Federal Way. Congestion then influences economic development, particularly for industrial land uses,
but also retail uses. Congestion overall increases costs for the entire population as the cost to ship goods
increases with increased travel time.
LOS and Transit Mobility
In order for transit to be more viable, the difference in travel times between single-occupant vehicles and
transit needs to be reduced. Transit as a mode is not helped if buses are in the same congestion as other
vehicles. Reserved rights-of-way or lanes become increasingly important to transit travel times as
congestion increases. Federal Way Comprehensive Plan policy TP60 provides for HOV lanes when
arterials need to be widened to six through lanes. How successful this strategy is will be revealed when
the SR 99 HOV lanes are completed on Phase IV and Bus Rapid Transit is implemented. Our forecasts
suggest that as many people will be moved in the SR 99 southbound HOV lane as in the general purpose
lanes.
LOS and the Character of the Roadway System
This topic is subjective in that all roadways function with a"balance point" between efficiently moving
people and goods, and providing an aesthetically pleasing corridor. Given that most of Federal Way's
environment is already constructed, transforming this environment comes at a high cost. The primary
function of arterial streets is to move people and goods safely and efficiently and, with the goal of a
vibrant city, having this occur in a visually-pleasing, pedestrian-friendly environment. Roadway features
that the City incorporates into its street projects in order to meet this goal include:
• Wide sidewalks and landscaped planter strips to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic;
• Landscaped raised medians on major arterials to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and
provide additional green space, reducing impervious surfaces and maintenance costs;
• Signal coordination plans that take into account adequate pedestrian crossing times;
• Consideration of roundabouts and other intersection treatments in lieu of signalized intersections
for major intersection improvements;
• Accessible pedestrian signals upon request by visually-impaired pedestrians;
• Countdown pedestrian signals, which are showing signs of significant safety benefits;
• Street trees in planter strips and raised medians to visually focus drivers on the immediate
foreground, which helps reduce vehicular speeds;
• Minimizing pedestrian crossing distances by using raised medians and right-turn islands, as right-
of-way allows; and
• Arterial HOV lanes to encourage improved transit service and maintain mobility.
LOS and Economic Development
There is no consensus on the relationship between higher levels of service in urban areas and economic
development. "Smart Growth" advocates suggest that economic development opportunities will increase
as higher densities are achieved. "Smart Growth" critics argue that increased congestion reduces the
population of market areas, and increases development costs, housing costs, and labor rates. It may be
that the balancing of these factors may be location- or industry-specific.
19
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 8 of 10
Similarly, if transportation mitigation costs become too high, it could drive development away from areas
where it is desired. But if it is too low, congestion could constrain the ability of a development to reach
its market potentiaL
How this applies in Federal Way is complicated by the fact that most of the residential area of the City is
not directly served by the regional transportation system for either highways or transit. The majority of
both commute and shopping trips must traverse the commercially-zoned properties to reach the regional
transportation system and are therefore impacted by congestion in the commercially-zoned areas. The
majority of traffic entering and leaving the City funnels into the major arterials that are served by
interchanges on I-5, as noted in the following figure from the Comprehensive Plan. Although
improvements are planned for all three interchanges on I-S, only one has partial funding for construction,
so short term relief is not forthcoming, and long-term relief is highly speculative. Even assuming these
interchange improvements are funded for construction (at current estimates of roughly $400 million), over
$500 million would be needed to fund planned improvements on City streets by 2030.
20
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 9 of 10
TRAVEL PATTERNS FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS
IN THE FEDERAL WAY PLANNING AREA
SCALE� 1' = 5,000' DATE� DEGEMBER 1995
� � �� _ ' .� � \
LEGEND -- - '� � ` '
, � �' �
`�' �.J ,
-•-����•�•�•�•� FEDERAI WAY G[TY LIMITS �� ^i � - 1 �� �i� �� ��
� � � � � POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA
s���� TRAFFIC FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS �
.���
Thic awp is 7ntended For use as o grnpM�cnt rvprtsan4otion o��y
The C�ty of Federo� �/cy nakes no war�cnSy ps to fes cccuracy
. N .� _ _
S_:[:'..; .-
..._:� ��-:' .........
_ ~.��
7 P - � ; 3�a:::.
S __��
ana' G
GIS DIVISION
Options
� fi
��fi,
�_
��
`�
I
c � �.
= f�j
r —
(� � �
0
�
(
"'""�`
� ' �
� r - 5���_. -
� i ffi�_
/ _ - �•- ' �
r:E�=:F-s�" �
��_::-�::a� �:.
_-_:__�:-__-:__
= .--_-=__�>=__ =--
i-.:;��"�,���-r ti
�-��_;_�z__ _
---�- �^ ^__ �
E_�::===�.�r - �__
�_ --_:--_�:ts_= '
' "__"_'"_ '— __ N:
.__.i_____.. W
� �::�:HK '..
;���°.-:��_::-_=.._—'- ;7
: _ ;:}:_., -_ :-'' -- ='
.�`..�_'.' '-'�"'. -
�''�^:'' ' '— __
- _ _'- __-'_:�' . _
i�;.�"��' ___- . _ '
_ �� ;�- _ .
' �, r`_ �f
/!� �
- _
Options for revising the LOS standard can be divided by the procedure necessary to revise it; one is a
matter of Public Works policy, and the other requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. For the
former, the only flexibility is defining the period over which LOS is measured. No specific time period is
mentioned in TP 16, so it could apply to individual hours, a two-hour average, or over a whole day. The
drawback to extending beyond the evening peak hour is that it could dramatically increase workload as
we currently only use our travel demand model for the evening peak hour. Merely to analyze one more
21
August 5, 2008
City Council
Transportation Level of Service Standard
Page 10 of 10
peak period, the morning peak for example, would double the workload for travel demand forecasting and
concurrency analyses.
By comparison, expanding the evening peak analyses period to two hours would only require minor
model calibratian issues. ,However, a cursory analysis suggests that this would drop the traffic volumes
used in a capacity analysis less than 5%, and thus it would not have a significant impact on the number of
projects proposed in the TIP, and would only defer the need for a"borderline" project for up to three
years.
Conversely, one issue that staffwould like clarified is whether the Council would want to see the LOS
standard applied to other peak hours. Due to our commercial retail base, congestion peaks on weekends
in many intersections are worse than the weekday evening peak. Occasionally, commuters can create
congestion in the morning peak hour. Similarly, certain land uses, such as schools, movie theaters, and
amusement parks, can create periods of congestion outside of any traditionally measured peak hour.
Other considerations for revising the level of service standard include impacts to recently completed and
ongoing projects, and viability of grant funding for capital projects.
Impacts to Other Projects
Projects involving planning for transportation projects could be affected by a revised LOS standard,
which could result in revisiting existing documents and revising the scope of projects underway. These
include:
• City Center Pdanned Action: The mitigation was based on a pro-rata share mitigation approach to
fund projects on the then-current TIP and a new project that was triggered by the Planned Action.
• Ciry Center Access: The most important finding of the Phase 1 Design Study was that, under our
current LOS standard, FHWA agreed that it was not realistic to assume that we could meet travel
demand without the added access by 2030. A different LOS standard might weaken this
argument, and would require that much of the work be redone.
• Tra�c Impact Fee: Since the rate of a TIF is driven by the adopted TIP, and the TIP is driven by
the LOS standard, staff has put a hold on this consultant contract, until the quesrion of the LOS
standard is resolved.
Grant Viability
Many grant programs are dependent on the ability to show that a project improves roadway LOS. To the
extent that a revised LOS standard makes this difficult to demonstrate, it will be difficult to attract grant
funding for transportation projects.
Work Plan
If the Council would like to consider revising the LOS standard, staff would propose that any LOS
standard revision be analyzed using consultant forces due to workload, and that this could be funded by
the remaining fund balance for the Traffic Impact Fee project, and dedicate $50,000 of the 2009 budget to
complete the Traffic Impact Fee project.
cc: Project File
Day File
K:\LUTC�2008\08-05-08 Trensportation LOS.doc
22
Attachment B
Michigan Left/Median U-Turn
23
Jughandle Intersectionss
24
Superstreet Intersections
25
Paired Intersections
26
Continuous Flow Intersections (CFI)
2�
Florida T Intersection
n_:�,::
�.
28
Roundabouts
29
Split Intersection
30
Quadrant Roadway
31
Bowtie
32 10
Double Wide
33 11
Echlon Interchange
34
12
Center Turn Overpass (CTO)
35
l3
SPUI
36 14
Michigan Urban Diamond (MUD) Interchange
37
15
Contraflow Left (CFL) Interchange
38
16
Tight Diamond
39
17
Square Loop Interchange
40
18
Windmill Interchange
41 19
Diverging Diamond Interchange
42
20