Loading...
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