LUTC PKT 02-14-2000· :,'~!'.~'5i,.: '~:'~c,"':~' .' ',~' ....... ~ "~ C~t of Federal Wa
,~.~.~:.:.....:~.::.?~,.: ..,....~:.... .:::.... . ..... y .~ ..:.: . .Y Y
~:~'. !.::~'~i~?':'.:.i ..i '.?,{,:': .. '..~ · .~'"?::,.: ' - .... City Council
'~':?}'~}..~,..~.:~;'??'"'~':".'"., ..',": · '~" Land Use/Transpo,ation Commigee
:..~::~ ::.. . ~;.:..
~'~eC~:.~i:4; 2000 :.
5~50' ~m ~ '" ' ' ·
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
o
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
COMMISSION COMMENT
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Military Road South Drainage Improvements
Final Project Acceptance
B. Transportation Concurrency
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Cluster Subdivisions/Density Increases
Open Cut of ROW vs Boring
Endangered Species Act Update
SWM/CIP West Hylebos Channel Stabilization
Action Miller/5 min
Info Roe/Perez/30 min
7. ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Stephen Cl~fion, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
{FiLENAME \* upper
January 24, 2000
5:.30pm
City of Federal Way
City Cotmcil
Land Use/Transportation Committee
i:
city mn
Council Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Jeanne Burbjdge and Dean McColgan; Council Member Linda
Kochmar; City Manager David Mosely; Director of Community Development Services Stephen Clifton; Deputy Director of
Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank;
Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Senior
Planner Margaret Clark; Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Watkins called the meeting to order at 5:30.
APPROVAL OF MiNUTES
The minutes of the January 10, 2000, meeting was approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no additional public comment on non-agenda items.
COMMISSION COMMENT
There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions.
5. BUSiNESS ITEMS
North Fork West H~'lebos Fish Passage Improvement Proiect, Final Project Acceptance and Retainage Release -
No discussion. The Committee m/s/c the recommendation to place this issue on the February 1, 2000, Council
Consent Agenda.
Bo
21st Ave SW at SW 334~ St Traffic Signal & Sidewalk Improvements, Final Project Acceptance and Retainage
Release - No discussion. The Committee m/s/c the recommendation to place this issue on the February 1, 2000,
Council Consent Agenda.
The Committee discussed not requiring staff to attend the meeting if it is clear beforehand that no discussion will occur on
the issue the staff has placed before the Committee. The Directors of Community Development Services and Public Works
will be in attendance should any questions arise. Committee Members are to call the Chair if they feel no discussion is
needed and the Chair will make the decision and inform the staff.
Co
Planning Commission 2000 Work Program - The Committee continued its discussion of the 2000 Work
Program. Staff recommends that the highest priority be placed on completing the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments, and then the Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Staff has recommended that the Miscellaneous
Code Amendments be assigned to Madrona Consulting. With only one Long Range Planner, this would help
expedite the process and free up the time of the planner to concentrate on the comprehensive plan amendments
and/or other work items. Because they anticipate that more issues may arise, and because things are is such flux
right now, staff requested that the Committee postpone any action on the 2000 Work Program until about March.
The Committee agreed. The question arose as to whether the height bonus program should be added to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, or will height limits replace the height bonus? Further study needs to be done
on this issue. Discussion was held on how do we know the City complies with transportation concurrency. The
Committee requested a presentation on Transportation Concurrency at the February 14, 2000, LUTC meeting.
6. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers on February 14, 2000.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.
CITY OF~~.~,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUB3ECT:
February 1, 2000
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Ken Hiller, Deputy Public Works Director ~~
David H. Mo~nager
AG99-128; Military Road South Drainage Improvements - Final Project Acceptance
Back~lround:
The referenced project has been completed and the contractor is now requesting release of the retainage
associated with the project. Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council must accept
the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries
requirements.
The final construction cost for the Mi/itary Road South Dra/nage Improvements project was $97,908.73 which is
$12,041.00 below the approved construction contract budget, including 10% construction contingency, of
$:[09,949.73.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the following be placed on the March 7, 2000 Council Consent Agenda for approval:
1. Accept the Military Road South Drainage Improvements project in the amount of $97,908.73 as
complete;
2. Authorize release of contract retainage to Dennis R. Craig Construction, Tnc.
KM:kc
K:\LUTC\2000\Milita~RdDrainage.WPD
CITY OFfs,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Vi'A:
SUB3ECT:
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer
David H. Moseley, City Manager
February 8, 2000
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Managing Transportation Concurrency
BACKGROUND
Chair Watkins requested a work session to discuss how the City is handling concurrency requirements of the
Growth Management Act.
DZSCUSS[ON
Growth Manaqement Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires some jurisdictions to plan, while others may elect to do so.
In either case, their comprehensive plans are required to contain certain standards. RCW 36.70A.020 cites
the following transportation-related goals:
"(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multi modal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans."
"(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established
minimum standards."
RCW 36.70A.070 outlines mandatory elements of comprehensive plans. Subsection (6) spells out
requirements for a transportation element:
"A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element.
transportation element shall include the following sub-elements: (a)
(b)
The
Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
Facilities and service needs, including:
(i) An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services,
including transit alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel
levels as a basis for future planning;
(ii) Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a
gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be
regionally coordinated;
(iii) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities
or services that are below an established level of service standard;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(iv) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten-years based on the adopted land use
plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of
future growth;
(v) identification of system expansion needs and transportation system
management needs to meet current and future demands;
Finance, including:
(i) An analysis of funding availability to judge needs against probable funding
resources;
(ii) A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the
comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis
for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010
for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCVV 35.58.2795 for public
transportation systems;
(iii) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of
how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be
reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met;
Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of
the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of
adjacent jurisdictions;
Demand Management strategies.
"After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan
under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit
development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to
decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan,
unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are
made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public
transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation
systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the
development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development,
or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six
years."
"The transportation element described in this subsection, and the six-year plans required by
RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public
transportation systems, must be consistent."
Planninq Polices
The City's Comprehensive Plan adopted the following policies in response to GNA requirements:
TP7: Establish mobility levels of service appropriate for the alternatives and location.
TP8: Provide funding necessary for transportation needs at appropriate levels of service.
TPll: Coordinate street and roadway improvement programs with appropriate state, regional, and local
agencies.
TP12: Maintain the transportation forecasting model for use in impact analysis, capital facilities planning,
and monitoring of the plan.
TP15: Specify an appropriate arterial LOS which balances the economic, ecological, accessibility, and
livability needs of city residents, consumers, employers, and employees.
TP16:
The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in
accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (1994) operational analysis procedures. At signalized
intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service
E is defined as less than 60 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities
are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume/capacity ratio per person
rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation
of development impacts. For long-range transportation planning and concurrency analysis, a
volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed
operational analysis.
TP62:
Modify
(f)
(g)
(h)
0)
the development review process by:
Incorporating revised impact analysis procedures which comply with State GMA Concurrency
and other requirements. The revisions need to include revised Level of Service standards.
Streamlining to the extent possible to minimize private development costs. Where
developments are consistent with this plan, they should be allowed to proceed by mitigating
site impacts; developing appropriate components of the HOV, transit, non-motorized and
motorized chapters; and participating in an equitable citywide improvement funding or
mitigation payment program.
Incorporating requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Requiring explicit consideration of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as well as parking and
general circulation needs.
TP63:
Adopt a flexible level of service standard which employs a measurement factor that accommodates
demand management to help balance likely levels of growth, with opportunities to create a multi-
modal transportation system.
TP65:
Enhance a non-motorized system by the following actions:
(j) In instances where the citywide system of bike lanes, trail, and sidewalks crosses or abuts
new development or redevelopment, consider requiring the developer to mitigate the impact
of the development on the City's transportation system by constructing bike lanes, trails,
and sidewalks that interface with the existing system.
(k) Coordinate development of the non-motorized system with surrounding jurisdictions and
regional system extensions.
(I) Extend the existing system of City sidewalks to all streets.
TP81: Prioritize transportation projects considering concurrency, safety, support for non-SOY modes,
environmental impacts, and cost-effectiveness.
TP84: Develop a concurrency ordinance by 1998 as required by the GMA consistent with City's adopted
LOS standard.
TP85:
Develop a transportation impact fee by 1999 to simplify development review, assess militation fees
consistently and fairly, improve the City's ability to leverage grant funding for transportation funding,
and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new growth.
TP86:
Adopt interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to identify methods to assure consistency
between comprehensive plans, and adopt fair and consistent means of addressing the impacts of
growth and development between jurisdictions without undue administrative burdens.
Transportation Modelinq
Forecasts for future traffic volumes are developed using a transportation model. A transportation model is
a computer program wherein land uses and transportation networks are input and traffic volumes are output.
More sophisticated models can also forecast transit, HOV, bicycle, and pedestrian travel demand. Federal
Way's model is based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's model that has been simplified in areas far from
the City and provided more detail within the City.
The modeling process starts with defining the existing transportation system and land uses. The
transportation network is described by the location of major streets, travel speeds, and number of lanes on
each street. The land uses are defined by general types, (e.g. single-family residential, multi-family
residential, retail, office, industrial, and institutional), and is described for any given area called a
Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). For any given scenario modeled, there is a four-step process: trip
generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment.
Trip generation (how many people are coming and going) is calculated for each land use by TAZ. Trip
distribution is the calculation of the relative attractiveness between each TAZ (where are they going?). Mlode
split is defining what travel mode will be used by each trip (will they drive, take the bus, walk, bicycle, or car
pool?). Trip assignment is defining each trips's specific route (what streets's will they use to get there?).
All of these functions are defined by the relative cost and travel time of each trip with the goal of minimizing
both for each trip. The process is iterative to take into account areas of congestion, transfer times on the
transit system, local cost of parking, etc.
The model is first used to model existing conditions, and is then calibrated to reflect actual conditions as
closely as possible. Once the model is calibrated, future land use assumptions can be input to determine
how traffic generated by new development will use the transportation system. Then, new transportation
projects can be added to the transportation system to determine their effectiveness at reducing congestion
or efficiently moving people and goods.
The City's transportation model was developed in 1992, and was the basis for the transportation element
of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995. A minor update was completed in 1998 for the 1998
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. However, this did not update land use outside of the City, which
would affect traffic volumes entering and exiting the City. Staff is beginning to prepare for the next update
to be consistent with changes from other jurisdictions in 2000.
Transportation Improvement Plan
The Transportation l:mprovement Plan (-I-[P) is a six-year forecast of the City's needed transportation projects
within the financial constraints of the City. GlVlA as well as federal regulations require that the T~P be
constrained financially. In Washington State, this is complicated by the vagaries of grant funding selection
processes and the amount of funding available by Puget Sound Regional Council, King County,
Transportation Improvement Board, and Washington State Department of Transportation.
AS part of the Comprehensive Plan, a 20-year Capital Improvement Program is adopted that includes
transportation projects in the City consistent with the Plan. Annually, staff updates this list and ranks
projects based on the criteria adopted in TP81 of the Plan. A more detailed description of the scoring
process is included in Attachment A.
Level of Service Standard
The level of service standard is adopted in TP16 of the Plan. Its complexity is a result of the level of
precision required to avoid conflicts with development applicants over concurrency, yet still fit within a
concise policy. It has three components: (1) a planning level analysis that reduces the level of effort to
determine where concurrency problems may lie, (2) a more detailed operational analysis, and (3) a
weighting factor improves the level of service where HOV facilities are provided.
The planning level analysis is intended for consideration of transportation model output for future year traffic
forecasts. In the last Comprehensive Plan amendment, this allowed staff to focus on 27 intersections instead
of analyzing all 219 major street intersections in the City and its Potential Annexation Areas. If the model
output suggests that traffic volumes would be within 90% of capacity, a more detailed operational analysis
is conducted.
The detailed operational analysis is consistent with Highway Capacity Manual procedures. Level of service
for intersections is defined by average delay per vehicle. When this value exceeds 60 seconds, the level of
service is F. A second test is also provided in the adopted policy which specifies that an intersection can't
be over capacity. The relationship between capacity and level of service at intersections is not a linear
function, and in practice, the capacity threshold generally will be reached before the LOS threshold.
Tf the operational analysis shows that the intersection does not meet the LOS standard, the third test can
be applied if HOV facilities are present at the intersection. In it, the delay per vehicle is adjusted to account
for HOV usage. For instance, if 5000 vehicles per hour use an intersection that operates with 75 seconds
of delay per vehicle, and 50 buses with 40 passengers each and 1000 2-person carpools are using HOV lanes
through the intersection with an average delay of 25 seconds per HOV, the average delay per person is
49.84, hence the LOS standard would be met.
Currently, concurrency analysis is performed only for the evening peak hour. Other hours of the day or week
may have more significant capacity problems in some instances. In retail areas, lunch and weekend peaks
may actually be more congested. Freeway on-ramps may be most congested in the morning peak.
Intersections near schools often peak immediately before schools starts and after school ends for the day.
Whether concurrency testing should occur during other times of day is an important consideration in
developing CIP updates.
Development Review
The Traffic Division's review of development applications is fairly intensive as it involves all aspects of the
transportation network.
At preapplication meetings, Traffic Division staff will provide information on whether a Transportation Impact
Analysis (-I-~A) will be required, frontage street improvement requirements, access management
requirements, street and pedestrian connectivity needs, and any safety issues that may be present or created
by the development. For subdivisions, internal street requirements will also be reviewed. The determination
of whether a T[A will be required is based on staff's estimate of the number of new evening peak hour trips
generated by the development. If staff is unable to provide an estimate, the applicant will be required to
conduct a trip generation study of similar developments to develop an estimate.
Following the preapplication meeting, if a -I-IA is required, the applicant would submit a traffic engineer's trip
generation analysis and a proposed trip distribution for the development for staff review. Upon review and
approval, staff provides a Scoping Sheet, documenting the study area to be analyzed in the -I-~A, -I-~P projects
expected to be impacted, and any other study requirements. The outline to be used in drafting the TJ:A is
shown in Attachment B. It should be noted that the majority of the traffic data for the City's concurrency
analyses are generated from T~A's.
For SEPA, the applicant would submit a 'F[A and/or any studies requested at pre-app to resolve safety issues
or document a request for modification from any standard. Staff reviews and approves the -F[A and based
on the data therein, drafts conditions of SEPA approval. SEPA conditions typically include dedication of right-
of-way and mitigation. Frontage improvement required are code-based, and are generally not included in
SEPA conditions.
Mitiqation
Currently, mitigation may occur either by the applicant constructing the needed improvements or the
applicant voluntarily paying a pro-rata share towards improvements shown in the 'I-~P. If the need for an
improvement is documented in the -I-~A that is not included in the current -I~P, paying a pro-rata share
towards the improvement is not an option. The City must spend the pro-rata shares on the specified 'I'~P
project within 5 years of its collection, or refund it the developer.
The net result of the pro-rata share approach is that it requires government to fund the portion of the -I~P
project used by existing traffic, even if the -I-]:P project would not have been required if there were no new
development. Also, since developments that generate less than 10 evening peak hour trips do not contribute
mitigation, only larger developments pay mitigation fees. Furthermore, the larger the development, the
wider the area that is impacted by more than the 10 trip threshold, so larger developments pay more per
new trip generated.
Another alternative currently being considered by Public Work's staff for implementation in the year 2000
is the Traffic ]:mpact Fee. Tn this system, mitigation payments for transportation projects is calculated by
the City's cost of 'I'~P projects (subtracting out any grant funding) divided by the number of new trips
forecast for the 6-year T~P for a flat rate per new tip generated. This is more predictable for developers and
fair to all sizes of developments. It does not require extensive -I~A's to document relatively small impacts,
reducing expenses for applicants and review time for staff.
SUMMARY
Although the City does not have an explicit concurrency ordinance, staff is administering a Concurrency
Management System by maintaining the City's transportation model to identify concurrency needs, and
requiring T~A's for new development, which provides data in identifying new concurrency needs and
identifying SEPA-based pro-rata contributions for -I-~P projects. With the upcoming model update, staff will
be able to develop a more comprehensive proposal for a Traffic Impact Fee system and integrated
concurrency ordinance, which should provide a fairer and more predictable method of determining
appropriate mitigation for new development requiring less staff time for review. Any guidance from the
Committee on this proposal would be appreciated.
K:\LUTC\2000\managing concurrency.wpd
Transportation TIP/CIP Prioritization Criteria
Each project is rated on a scale of zero to five (five being best) on the following criteria:
Concurrency Requirement: If the project is needed now to maintain the level of service standards adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan, five points. If needed within six years (corresponding to the Transportation Improvement
Program requirements), four points. If needed within 20 years (corresponding to the Capital Improvement Plan
horizon), three points.
Level of Service Improvement: If a concurrency requirement, same score as Concurrency. Otherwise, estimated
number of levels of service improvement. For example, improvement from D to C, I point; E to C, 2 points.
Safety Improvement: If the project would improve the transportation safety at a high collision location or corridor,
points are assigned based on the existing collision experience.
Points Intersection Collision Rate Corridor Collision Rate
(Collisions per million entering vehicles) (Collisions per million vehi,cle miles)
0 0-0.50 0-1.0
I 0.50 - 1.00 1.0 - 2.5
2 1.00 - 1.50 2.5 - 5.0
3 1.50 - 2.00 5.0 - 10.0
4 2.00 - 2.50 10.0 - 25.0
5 >2.50 >25.0
HOV Supportive: Projects that add HOV lanes, 5 points; projects that reduce delays for transit, 1 point per LOS
improvement for transit vehicle movements.
Non-motorized Supportive: One point for each side of the street that sidewalks are added; 1 point each for each
side of the street that bike lanes are added; 1 point for improving pedestrian opportunities for crossing major streets.
Community Support: Subjective determination based on citizen complaints and estimate of impacts of project.
Air Quality: Same as LOS Improvement.
Ease of Implementation: Subjective determination based on project complexity, competitiveness for grant
applications, political opposition, environmental impacts, etc.
Benefit/Cost Ratio: Sliding scale based on the subtotal of points from all other criteria divided by estimated cost of
the project. The best ratio is defined as five points, the worst zero points, and all other projects are interpolated.
KSTRAFFIC\TIP CIP\RANKING.WPD
23Apr99
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES
Major new developments will require a TIA for building permits on collector and arterial streets and land use
actions.
Key terms to be defined are:
Major new development: A development generating 10 or more trips (entering and exiting) during any
peak hour. Developments generating a number of trips larger than this threshold value shall have a TIA
prepared to analyze impacts to the transportation system and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Impact: Any intersection, including site access driveways, in which the development generates 10 or more
trips in any one approach during any peak hour in the applicable horizon year shall be defined as impacted.
Horizon year: The future forecast year at which the future conditions without the proposed development
are compared to future conditions with the proposed development in order to determine the impacts of the
proposed development on levels of service and capacity. The horizon year for each phase of the
development shall be the greatest extent of the conditions shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE HORIZON YEAR
Greatest Extent of Mitigation Measures Applicable Horizon Year from Phase Completion
Revisions to Comprehensive Plan required 20 years
i Addition of through travel lanes to any arterial 10 years
New or revised traffic signal 5 years
None of the above 0 years
Appropriate mitigation measures: Any combination of street improvements or Transportation Demand
Management measures which reduce the number of trips generated by the development at an impacted
intersection below the impact threshold values in Table 2 or improve the level of service to E or better with
a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000 for signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersections or a
volume/capacity ratio of less than 1.000 for unsignalized intersections not controlled by an all-way stop.
Levels of service are defined by the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual and are shown in Table
3.
TABLE 2: IMPACT THRESHOLDS
l, Impact, ,p~,ameter I ,,, Threshold I
Site-Generated Traffic Volume 10 vehicles per hour in both directions
Minimum Signalized or All-Way Stop- E
Level of Controlled Intersection
Service
Other Unsignalized Intersection None
Maximum Volume/Capacity Ratio (Xc) 1.000
TABLE 3: LEVELS OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of Service Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
(Average Delay per vehicle in Seconds) (Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds)
A < 5.0 < 5.0
B 5.0- 10.0 5.0- 15.0
C 10.0 - 20.0 15.0 - 25.0
D 20.0 - 30.0 25.0 - 40.0
E 30.0 - 45.0 40.0 - 60.0
F > 45.0 > 60.0
Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
CONTENTS
Review and approval of Transportation Impact Analyses shall be subject to meeting the following criteria as
applicable.
The document shall be prepared under the direction of a Civil Engineer with experience in traffic engineering
registered in the State of Washington. Final documents shall bear the seal of the responsible Engineer.
The City will use a transportation model in order to provide reasonable future traffic volumes and trip
assignments. The cost of model runs as required in order to supply data to the applicant as well as review of the
TIA shall be borne by the applicant. A deposit towards these costs will be paid by the applicant at an
introductory meeting with City staff. Actual costs will be applied to the deposit. Costs beyond the deposit will
be paid by the applicant upon approval of the development or withdrawal of the application. Model runs will
generally cost approximately $100 per run.
The following outline should be used in order to facilitate expedient review by the city.
I. Inventory Existing and Proposed Land Use.
A. Existing Land Use.
1. Proposed Site's Land Use.
2. Proposed Site's Physical Location.
3. Proposed Site's Physical Characteristics. Design constraints to proposed development.
B. Proposed Land Use.
1. Change in Land Use.
2. Other Developments Approved in Vicinity. City will provide listing.
Inventory Existing and Planned Transportation System.
A. Scope of Impact Analysis. Describe the location of new facilities and existing facilities impacted
by increased traffic. Increased traffic is defined as 10 or more trips in both directions during any
peak hour, all intersections created by driveways serving the site, local street segments used by
the development to access the collector and arterial street network, and all intersections of
collector and arterial streets.
B. Existing Transportation System. All pertinent data in the City's possession will be supplied by
the City. All other data required for the TIA shall be provided by the applicant. The TIA shall
address the following:
II.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Street Network by Functional Classification.
Geometrics of Network and Intersections.
Traffic Control Locations.
Signal Timing and Signal System Operation.
Site Access Points.
Existing Right-of-Way.
Hourly Traffic Counts, less than 2 years old.
o
Turning Movement Counts, less than 2 years old, including peak hour factors, percentage
of trucks, numbers of buses stopping, and pedestrians.
9. Accident Data, last 3 calendar years.
10.
Identification of Safety Inadequacies. This is defined by any of the following conditions
over a three-year period:
An accident rate of more than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles at an
intersection.
An accident rate of more than 10.0 accidents per million vehicle miles on a
roadway segment.
11. Transit Service. Existing and planned facilities.
12. Bicycle Facilities. Existing and planned facilities.
13. Pedestrian Facilities. Existing and planned facilities.
III. Forecast of Conditions Without Development.
Selection of Horizon Year(s). The estimated year of completion of each phase of the
development shall be analyzed for capacity and level of service. In addition, the horizon year for
each phase of the development shall be determined by the extent of mitigation measures as
shown in Table 2 and described below.
Plan revisions required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase of
the development requires revisions to the most current, approved version of the
Comprehensive Plan e.g. revised location or classification of collectors or arterials,
conditions twenty years following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and
analyzed.
Arterial widening required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase
of the development requires the addition of through traffic lanes to any arterial,
conditions ten years following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and
analyzed.
o
Signal revisions required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase
of the development includes new or modified signalization, conditions five years
following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed.
Minor or no improvements required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for
any phase of the development does not involve any of the improvements cited above,
conditions at the time of completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed.
Annual Growth Rate. When available, the City will supply volumes for forecast years from the
City's transportation model. Otherwise, the applicant will develop forecasts extrapolated from
modeled forecast years or historic volume data.
Add Impacts of Adjacent Major Developments Pending and Approved. The City will supply
copies of applicable Transportation Impact Analyses, if available. The applicant would not be
required to develop any missing data.
IV. Development-Related Traffic.
mo
Identify Critical Hours (hours of largest impact) for analysis, in conjunction with City Staff. Any
or all of these peak hours may apply.
1. Morning Peak
2. Noon Peak
3. Afternoon (School) Peak
4. Evening Peak
5. Saturday Peak
6. Sunday Peak
Bo
Calculate Trip Generation. Development proposals with multiple phases of construction shall
include all phases of the development for the purpose of calculating trip generation. If only a portion
if the subject land parcel is proposed for development, trip generation shall include the buildout of
the remainder of the land parcel under current zoning, or if the proposal involves a zone change, the
proposed zoning. The latest version oflTE's Trip Generation shall be used as applicable. For land
uses not listed in Trip Generation, studies for similar development in similar regions may be used
upon approval by City Staff. Pass-by trips shall also be quantified, if applicable. No reduction will
be given for diverted link trips without data supporting the revised assignment of those trips.
Co
Trip Distribution. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the
applicant shall provide trip distribution data for approval by City staff.
Do
Modal Split. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the applicant
shall provide modal split data for all modes for approval by City staff.
mo
Trip Assignment. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the
applicant shall provide trip assignment data for approval by City staff. No movement shall have
more trips assigned to it than capacity allows.
V. Forecast of Conditions With Each Phase of Development
A. Combine Non-Site Traffic and Site-Related Traffic
1. Morning Peak
2. Noon Peak
3. Afternoon (School) Peak
4. Evening Peak
5. Saturday Peak
6. Sunday Peak
Bo
Capacity and Level of Service Analysis. Highway Capacity Manual procedures shall be used.
Ideal saturation flow rates greater than 1900 vehicles per hour of green per lane should not be
used unless otherwise measured in the project vicinity. Signal timing used in capacity analysis
must have a cycle length no greater than 150 seconds. Minimum phase lengths shall allow for
adequate pedestrian crossing time at 4 seconds for walk and 4 feet per second for clearance
(unless majority of pedestrians are elderly or children, in which case longer pedestrian timing
may be required), and be 15 seconds for protected left-turn phases and 10 seconds for
protected/permissive left-mm phases. Arrival types at signalized intersections will be supplied
by the City, if available from the City's TRANSYT-7F models. Queue lengths shall be
calculated at the 95th percentile. All impacted intersections as defined in II.B shall be analyzed.
Access Management Standards. City standards are summarized in Table 4. On state highways,
the minimum spacing is 250 feet, or as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4: ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
Minimum Spacing (feet)** Minimum
Through Signal
Access Traffic Left-Turn Right-Turn Right-Turn Progression
Classification Median Lanes Crossing Movements Left-Turn Out In Out In Efficiency***
I Raised 6 Only at signalized Only at 330 150 150 40%
intersections signalized
intersections
2 Raised 4 330 330 330 150 150 30%
3 Two-Way 4 150 150* 150* 150* 150* 20%
Left-Turn
Lane
4 Two-Way 2 150' 150' 150' 150' 150' 10%
Left-Turn
Lane
Accesses tbr Single Family Residences are exempted.
Greater spacing may be requuired in order to minimize conflicts with queued traffic to the 95~ percentile queue length.
If the existing efficiency is less than the standard, new or revised signals may not reduce the existing efficiency.
VI.
D. Identify Safety-Related Constraints.
Mitigation Measures.
A. Issues to be Considered:
1. Design Vehicle Requirements
2. New Facilities (all modes)
3. Geometric Modifications
4. Traffic Control Modifications
5. Timing of Implementation with Respect to Phases of Development
6. Sight Distance Requirements. If required by staff, intersection sight distance shall be
analyzed in accordance with AASHTO for the site conditions using posted speed limits.
B. Planned and Committed Improvements on Affected Transportation Network. Data will be
supplied by the City.
C. On-Site Improvements. Improvements to streets abutting the development shall be in accordance
with City ordinances and design standards. If frontage improvements would be required on a
street where a City project is proposed in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), the applicant shall pay a share of that project based on the proportion of the
frontage length to the length of frontage to be constructed by the project or, if the project is
designed, the applicant shall pay a share of the project based on the design engineer's cost
estimate for facilities to be provided on the frontage. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide the
frontage improvement based on the adopted Comprehensive Plan roadway section.
Off-Site Improvements. All improvements shall meet current City standards. Developments
impacting City projects as shown in the City's current 6-Year Transportation Improvement
Program by 10 or more peak hour trips shall either provide the project or pay a pro-rata share of
the project, calculated as the number of new peak hour trips generated by the development
divided by the estimated total peak hour traffic volume at the time that phase of the development
is completed. If a project has been deemed to be fully funded by the Public Works Director, the
pro-rata share will be calculated based on the design engineer's current cost estimate and funding
from federal and state grants. If frontage improvements are also provided on a TIP project, the
cost of the frontage improvements provided by the development would be subtracted from the
cost of the TIP project before calculating pro-rata share of mitigation for off-site improvements.
Levels of Service. Signalized intersections and all-way stop controlled intersections shall
have a level of service of E or better and a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000. Other
unsignalized intersections shall have a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000 on all
movements.
Local streets and collectors. The use of traffic control devices to reduce impacts on
residential streets should be negotiated with local neighborhood groups with the goal of
reducing neighborhood infiltration of development-generated spillover traffic.
o
New or revised traffic signals. Signals proposed as mitigation shall meet at least one
MUTCD warrant for signalization in the applicable horizon year. Minor street
movements having an unsignalized level of service of A should not be included in
meeting volume warrants. Warrant analysis for left-turn phasing shall be conducted for
new or revised signals, using the mode recommended by the majority of the following
procedures: LTAP, TRC 212 procedures, and Oregon Department of Transportation
Traffic Signal Policy. Progression analysis using current versions of PASSER II and
TRANSYT-7F shall be provided for new or revised signals if located within one-half
mile of signals existing or listed in the City's current Capital Improvement Program.
4. Turn lanes.
ao
Left-turn lanes. Guidelines from Highway Research .Record 211 should be used
to analyze the need for left-turn lanes. Washington State Department of
Transportation Design Manual Figure 910-6 may also be used. Generally, all
signalized approaches should have left-turn lanes where left-turns are permitted
on two-way streets.
b. Right-turn lanes. Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual
VII.
Figure 910-10 should be used for right-turn lanes at unsignalized intersections.
Guidelines for Right-Turn Treatments at Signalized Intersections (ITE Journal,
February 1995) should be used for warrants for right-tm lanes at signalized
intersections. City staff will provide copies of these guidelines if requested.
E. Internal (On-Site) Transportation System. All systems shall meet current City codes and design
standards. Issues to be considered:
1. Design Vehicle Requirements. Turning radii, vertical clearances, etc.
2. Facility Requirements (all modes)
3. Traffic Control Requirements. Signing, striping.
4. Driveway Design. Width, throat length.
5. Parking Requirements
6. Special Features
F. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans. When TDM plans are proposed as
mitigation measures, the applicant may submit a report to Public Works Traffic Division to
document the success of the TDM Plan one year after occupancy of the development. Upon
approval, the applicant may be refunded any traffic mitigation fees collected for the development
based on the percentage of reduction in vehicular trips, up to 20%.
G. Analysis of Proposed Mitigation Measures. The greatest horizon years identified in IIII.A for
each phase of the proposed development shall be analyzed.
Appendices
A. Maps not contained in the body of the report.
B. Count data used for analysis.
C. LOS calculations (detailed summary sheet from HCS signalized OK). Software output must
explicitly state all input and phase lengths used in analysis (NOTE: Traffix does not met this
requirement).
D. Warrant worksheets for signals, all-way stops, protected turn phasing, right and left-turn lanes,
intersection sight distance, etc.
E. Signal progression analyses. All input and output.