|
|
Transportation
Organization of this Chapter
The Transportation Chapter is divided into the following sections:
The Introduction describes the intent of the Transportation Chapter. It also describes the relationship of the Transportation Chapter to the vision of Redmond’s future as well as to other Comprehensive Plan chapters.
The Planning Context describes how the Transportation Chapter responds to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies.
The Transportation Policies are divided into the following areas:
A. The Framework Policies summarize the vision for the transportation system and establish the fundamental objectives to guide the development of that system.
B. Travel Demand Forecasts Policies are designed to guide development of the City’s transportation system through the year 2012.
C. Transportation and Land Use Policies are designed to link land use and transportation objectives.
D. District Management Policies establish Transportation Management Districts throughout the City to identify the mobility needs and strategies for individual areas within Redmond.
E. Service Standards and Concurrency Policies address development of transportation service standards.
F. Transportation Facility Plan Policies call for identifying and implementing a long-range Transportation Facility Plan.
G. Transportation Finance Plan Policies describe how the Transportation Facility Plan will be funded.
H. Regional Public Transportation Policies address how Redmond fits into the regional transportation strategy for the Puget Sound area.
I. Local Public Transportation Policies call for developing and maintaining a Transit Development Plan that outlines the transit services and facilities needed to support the City’s land use plan and mobility objectives.
J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies call for developing safe, attractive and efficient bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems.
K. Transportation Demand Management Policies call for implementation of transportation demand management techniques to address transportation problems.
L. Parking Management Policies address strategies involving parking supply and price as a way to create an environment more conducive to transit usage.
M. Circulation System Management Policies guide development of future projects for City streets.
N. Air Quality Policies address how the City’s transportation system relates to air quality.
O. Neighborhood Protection Policies strive to protect the City’s neighborhoods from traffic impacts.
P. Regional Coordination Policies call for interjurisdictional coordination with other cities and entities within the region to ensure consistency of transportation policies.
(Ord. 1847)
Introduction
he intent of the Transportation Chapter is to establish policies to guide the development of the City’s transportation system in support of the City’s vision for the future. The policies are designed to guide the actions of both public agencies, such as the City, as well as private decisions related to individual developments.
The Transportation Chapter helps to achieve Redmond’s vision by:
▀ Assuring that transportation investments are prioritized to support growth in the locations targeted in the land use plan and that the types of transportation investments and strategies are appropriate to the wide range of land uses envisioned for the City;
▀ Emphasizing the development of a range of transportation alternatives in addition to the single-occupant vehicle so that all Redmond citizens have viable means for travel. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality and availability of public transportation services;
▀ Encouraging the use of cost-effective transportation strategies, such as public transit and travel demand management, in order to lower transportation system costs and, hence, costs to the public;
▀ Protecting the environment by requiring consideration of visual, air and noise impacts of transportation projects when they are prioritized for funding and encouraging environmental sensitivity during their design and construction;
▀ Ensuring that adequate infrastructure is available to meet the demands of a vital, growing local economy and that established transportation service standards are maintained; and
▀ Protecting highly valued residential neighborhoods against the negative effects of overflow traffic which can result from urban levels of arterial traffic congestion.
The Transportation Chapter is closely tied to other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Transportation Chapter provides mechanisms for exempting affordable housing from impact fees in order to promote the affordable housing goals established in the Housing Chapter. The Transportation Chapter also calls for regional high capacity transit service for Overlake and Redmond’s Downtown in order to support the types of development intensities permitted there by the land use plan. Finally, the Transportation Chapter contains strong policies to provide a safe and efficient bicycle system, which will improve community access to parks planned in the Parks and Recreation Chapter.
(Ord. 1847)
Planning Context
he type and quality of transportation systems within the City influence the activities which take place. Good circulation patterns enhance the land use of the area they serve. The proper mix of motorized and non-motorized facilities in a commercial core lend to a better shopping and business environment. The design and application of collectors and local streets and associated pedestrian and bicycle facilities provide for a safer, quieter and more attractive neighborhood. Circulation patterns, both present and future, must reflect the land use patterns which they serve.
Along with promoting desired land uses, good transportation planning also will enhance the health, safety and welfare of the City’s residents. An efficient transportation system reduces air and noise pollution. Properly designed and classified roads and intersections prevent injuries and accidents. In areas where land uses justify them, public transit and bicycle routes help expand opportunities for mobility and reduce congestion, pollution and parking space needs.
The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Transportation Chapter include the following:
▀ Forecasts of travel for at least 10 years based on the adopted land use plan, including description of the land use assumptions used in estimating travel demand;
▀ Regionally coordinated level of service (LOS) standards for arterials and public transportation, including specific actions needed to bring into compliance any facilities or services that are below the established LOS;
▀ Identification of transportation system improvements needed to meet current and future demands; and
▀ Creation of a Transportation Financial Plan, which should include analysis of funding capacity, a multi-year financing plan and a requirement that funding or land use assumptions shall be revisited should identified needs prove unattainable.
The Countywide Planning Policies for King County require that the Transportation Chapter include the following:
▀ Recognition of the Vision 2020 Plan as the framework for providing regional mobility and guiding development;
▀ Recognition of the Puget Sound Regional Council as the primary forum for supporting a continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative (“Three-C”) transportation planning process;
▀ Accommodation of High Capacity Transit (HCT) by those jurisdictions with designated Urban Centers through provision for HCT rights-of-way, stations and supporting transit facilities;
▀ A regionally coordinated pedestrian and bicycle element, including incorporation of funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements into the local Capital Improvement Program;
▀ Support for expanded people-carrying capacity of existing facilities and reduced priority for general capacity improvements which promote Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV) usage;
▀ Establishment of mode-split goals for non-SOV travel, including identification of measures to achieve such goals;
▀ Establishment of inter-jurisdictionally coordinated level of service (LOS) standards which reflect development patterns, growth management objectives and the availability of alternative means of travel;
▀ Recognition of preservation and maintenance of existing transportation facilities as a high priority for capital investment; and
▀ Structuring of impact fees, where implemented, so that new development contributes its fair share and to provide for interlocal agreement to collect impact fees for impacts on adjoining jurisdictions.
The Transportation Chapter fully complies with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies. It addresses all mandates in a fashion which is consistent with the intent of the legislation and, at the same time, is consistent with the vision of Redmond’s future.
(Ord. 1847)
Transportation Policies
A. Framework Policies
he following Transportation Framework Policies represent the most basic principles which guide the development of transportation planning plans, policies and strategies. Policy statements outlined in each of the Transportation Chapter subsections that follow relate either directly or indirectly to the Framework Policies.
FTR-1 Implementation of the City’s land use plan and the regional growth strategy, Vision 2020, shall be the primary consideration when planning, developing, maintaining and administering the City’s transportation system.
FTR-2 The City’s transportation system shall promote mobility for Redmond citizens and workers by providing a range of equally practical transportation alternatives. The transportation system shall emphasize facilities and services which support and encourage transit, ride sharing, bicycling and walking as practical alternatives to use of the single-occupant vehicle (SOV).
FTR-3 The City’s transportation system shall be based on the principal of honoring individual choices and preferences regarding personal transportation while at the same time striving to reflect the true cost of transportation alternatives in plans, policies and regulations.
FTR-4 The City shall maintain a transportation planning, funding and implementation framework which distributes costs and benefits equitably, assures adequate provision of needed infrastructure and
offers reasonable levels of certainty regarding transportation system development.
B. Travel Demand Forecasts
he Transportation Chapter policies and plans are designed to guide development of the City’s transportation system through the year 2012. Those policies and plans are based on land use assumptions consistent with the City’s land use plan as described in the Land Use Chapter. That land use plan would provide for significant amounts of new residential and commercial development, and associated population and employment, in the City by the year 2012, as shown in Table TR-1, below:
Table TR-1
Redmond Urban Development
1993 Actual and 2012 Projected
1993 Base
2012 Forecast
Increase
% Increase
Commercial Space (Million GFA)
16.9
30.8
13.89
82%
Employment
39,026
80,714
41,688
107%
Residential Units
16,517
26,395
9,878
60%
Population
38,987
56,550
17,563
45%
GFA = Square Feet of Gross Floor Area
The Transportation Chapter policies and plans are also based on an assumption that land uses surrounding the City will develop in a pattern consistent with the Vision 2020 growth strategy. Land use and transportation forecasts which were developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and which assume development of 14 “Urban Centers” in King County, were integrated into the assumptions underlying the Transportation Chapter.
The City uses a traffic forecasting model it has developed jointly with the Cities of Kirkland and Bellevue. That model uses the land use assumptions noted above as inputs in order to forecast changes in travel demand in the Redmond area. Due to the significant development envisioned in the land use plan by the year 2012, there are associated increases in travel demand forecast for Redmond. Table TR-2 highlights expected changes in travel demand in terms of vehicle miles of travel, arterial link congestion and intersection congestion.
Map TR-1 provides a summary of the growth in arterial volumes forecast between 1993 and the year 2012 along key analysis screen lines.
C. Transportation and Land Use
any of today’s transportation problems are the result of an historically inadequate link between land use and transportation objectives. This Plan strengthens the transportation system’s support of the local and regional land use plans. Conversely, the manner in which land uses develop at the local and regional levels greatly affects the ability of the transportation system to provide a range of mobility alternatives. The objective of providing viable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle requires strong land use measures be put in place.
TR-1 To support the land-conserving goals of the Growth Management Act, Vision 2020 and the Countywide Planning Policies, the City’s transportation system shall be planned and developed to encourage growth in existing urban areas and, in particular, in the City’s centers, Downtown and Overlake.
TR-2 Transportation plans, policies, strategies and facilities shall support local land use and urban design objectives.
Table TR-2
Arterial System Performance Indicators
1993 Actual and 2012 Projected
Vehicle Miles of Travel
(PM Peak Hour)
Arterial Link
Volume/Capacity
Ratio (PM Peak Hour)
Intersection
Volume/Capacity
Ratio (PM Peak Hour)
Transportation
Management
District
1993 Actual
2012 Forecast
% Increase
1993 Actual
2012 Forecast*
1993 Actual
2012 Forecast*
1. Downtown
22,405
31,566
41%
0.55
0.68
0.61
0.80
2. NE Redmond
13,067
18,946
45%
0.45
0.58
0.58
0.75
3. Willows and Sammamish Valley
13,132
19,695
50%
0.64
0.70
0.96
0.86
4. Grass Lawn
10,136
12,530
24%
0.57
0.72
0.81
0.98
5. Overlake
32,611
43,144
32%
0.56
0.69
0.81
0.90
6. Viewpoint
5,659
7,563
34%
0.32
0.41
n/a**
n/a**
7. SE Redmond
9,592
18,318
91%
0.62
0.56
1.31
0.83
City Total
106,602
151,762
42%
0.54
0.65
0.76
0.85
* Data for Year 2012 assumes completion of Redmond Transportation Facility Plan projects, and successful implementation of transportation demand management, parking, and transit supportive policies and programs.
** No signalized arterial intersections within this Transportation Management District.
TR-3 New development and redevelopment shall be required to incorporate transit and pedestrian supportive measures such as:
A. Providing secure and attractive pedestrian spaces;
B. Providing adequate sidewalks, bikeways, pathways and crosswalks;
C. Minimizing walking distances between buildings and streets, sidewalks and transit stops;
D. Clustering buildings near each other, near streets and near intersections, where appropriate;
E. Preserving the connectivity of the pedestrian, bicycle and street system;
F. Reducing vehicle speeds, walkway crossing distances and improving visual character of neighborhood streets (through measures such as reduced street widths); and
G. Designing transit access into large developments, considering bus lanes, stops and shelters as part of the project.
TR-4 Emphasize planning of land uses which minimizes the demand for travel by:
A. Providing for a mixture of compatible, complementary uses in close proximity to each other, and
B. Providing for a balance of employment and housing within the City limits.
Map TR-1
TR-5 Transportation improvements should be designed to include architectural features, landscaping and artwork that compliment the surrounding natural and built environment.
D. District Management
he City of Redmond is characterized by a relatively broad range of land use and transportation environments. Areas such as Downtown and Overlake exhibit relatively high employment and residential densities, with those densities planned to increase significantly as growth occurs. In contrast, areas such as Grass Lawn and Education Hill have lower residential densities and little or no employment, and planned growth is relatively small.
Due to such variations in land use pattern and growth objectives, the transportation needs and associated strategies for each area may vary significantly. Primary transportation concerns may vary from minimizing automobile noise and safety impacts in residential areas to enhancing the transit and pedestrian environment in intense commercial areas. For each area of the City, a specific mixture of transportation strategies is likely to best meet the needs of that area — no single approach to transportation system management will work for all areas in the City.
In all situations, however, it is true that a baseline amount of mobility must be provided within each area of the City. Mobility refers to that ability of people to travel to meet their daily living needs: to commute to work, to obtain community services, to go to school, to shop, to recreate and so on. Mobility emphasizes the movement of people and goods, not simply vehicles, and does not reflect a preference of automobiles over alternative modes of travel. Providing an adequate level of mobility to community members, through whatever strategy or combination of strategies is most appropriate, is critical to maintaining a high quality of life in Redmond.
Identifying the mobility needs and strategies for individual areas within Redmond cannot be effectively accomplished through a general, Citywide process. Rather, the neighborhood planning process, which focuses on the specific characteristics and dynamics of the sub-area of the City and which provides better opportunities for citizen participation, is a more appropriate mechanism for identifying and satisfying the mobility needs of Redmond’s sub areas.
TR-6 Establish Transportation Management Districts (TMD) throughout the City to guide development of plans, policies and strategies. Land use patterns and objectives, neighborhood boundaries, street patterns, transit and non-motorized access and travel patterns shall guide the designation of TMD boundaries.
The map entitled “TR-2: Transportation Management District Boundaries” designates TMD boundaries and is incorporated into this subsection.
Map TR-2
TR-7 Each Transportation Management District shall be ensured reasonable access to travel options or mobility, though the strategy for providing mobility may vary from district to district. The neighborhood planning process shall be used to develop transportation plans, policies and strategies which best support the needs of each transportation management district.
In some cases, the natural boundaries for Transportation Management Districts may transcend City boundaries and include portions of adjoining jurisdictions, as is the case in Overlake. In such cases, effectively satisfying the needs of a neighborhood may require coordinating transportation planning and programming activities with other jurisdictions. The development of interlocal agreements may be necessary to ensure that mobility strategies and mitigating measures are properly carried out.
TR-8 Where appropriate, establish multi-jurisdictional Transportation Management Districts and jointly plan and implement mobility strategies for such districts, including the designation of mobility objectives, the establishment of service standards and concurrency regulations, and development of interlocal funding mechanisms, such as impact fees. Develop and execute interlocal agreements, where appropriate, to ensure implementation of mutually agreed mobility strategies.
E. Service Standards and Concurrency
ransportation service standards are a mechanism for establishing the community’s expectations for the performance of specific aspects of the transportation system. In urban settings such as Redmond, service standards have customarily been associated with performance measures for congestion at signalized intersections. That type of measure focuses on the performance of the transportation system from the point of view of the auto motorist. There are other types of service standards for roadways, such as those which measure road segment usage, as well as standards for alternative modes such as public transit service.
The Growth Management Act mandates that local jurisdictions adopt transportation service standards for arterial roadways as well as for transit routes. The Countywide Planning Policies and associated King County guidelines provide additional direction how such standards should be developed, including varying the standards by land use objectives and measuring the performance of the system as a whole rather than focusing on single locations or facilities.
The Growth Management Act also mandates that local jurisdictions must adopt policies and regulations which require that new development be permitted only to the extent that locally adopted transportation service standards are maintained.
TR-9 Evaluate and ensure the adequacy of the transportation system by establishing and monitoring transportation service standards. Service standards shall promote the following objectives:
A. Emphasize transportation system performance rather than focusing on individual locations;
B. Vary to reflect differing development patterns and objectives;
C. Vary according to the availability of alternative means of travel;
D. Reflect community goals in other areas such as land use, environmental protection, congestion management and economic development; and
E. Use Transportation Management Districts as the basis for setting and measuring standards.
TR-10 All proposed development shall be reviewed to ensure that adequate transportation facilities and/or strategies are in place or shall be in place within six years of the development’s occupancy or operation and that adopted City of Redmond service standards will be maintained.
A. Any development which would cause the level of service to fall below adopted service standards for any Transportation Management District shall not be approved for development.
B. Where the level of service is already below the adopted standard, new development shall not be approved where the result would be further degradation in the level of service.
The Growth Management Act requires the City to establish level of service standards for all arterials within the City. Traditionally, arterial level of service has been measured by assessing the performance of each individual roadway link or intersection. However, as areas become more urbanized, as is occurring in Redmond, the performance of arterial streets, and the travel experience of those using those streets, becomes related more to the performance of the street and intersection network functioning as a system. Individual congestion points become less critical as long as there are alternative travel routes available. Table TR-3 provides an overview description of average intersection level of service.
TR-10A The City shall develop an inventory of state-owned highways, and shall monitor the state-established level of service on these highways. The City shall also examine the impact of traffic on these highways.
For inventory purposes, the three state highways in Redmond are shown on Map TR-3A and are listed below:
A. SR-202, known as Redmond-Woodinville Road and Redmond Way, is an arterial connecting Woodinville with Fall City. Approximately 4.8 miles of SR-202 are in Redmond.
B. SR-520 is a freeway that connects Redmond to I-405 in Bellevue and I-5 in Seattle. Approximately 4.3 miles of SR-520 are located in Redmond.
C. SR-908, known as Redmond Way, is an arterial connecting Redmond with Kirkland. Approximately 2.2 miles of SR-908 are within Redmond.
The state-established level of service (LOS) for state highways in urban areas is LOS D, with an equivalent volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90. The volume-to-capacity ratio for SR-202 and SR-908 is measured as an average volume-to-capacity ratio of the transportation system intersections located on each route. The volume-to-capacity ratio of SR-520 is based on the link capacity of the freeway. Table 4A depicts the level of service for all three highways.
For concurrency analysis purposes, the City of Redmond uses the intersection level of service for all intersections on SR-202 and SR-908 as part of the calculation of level of service for each of the seven Redmond Transportation Management Districts. The link based volume-to-capacity ratio used to determine the level of service on SR-520 is not used in Redmond’s concurrency calculations.
TR-11 The service standard of the arterial street system shall be evaluated by calculating the average level of service of those intersections within each Transportation Management District which are critical to system function. The service standards for each Transportation Management District are shown in Table TR-4.
In some instances, City objectives in areas other than transportation mobility may be deemed to possess overriding significance. For example, the City may establish objectives for the provision of affordable or special needs housing, for the expansion of important human services, such as day care, or the development of critical community facilities, such as libraries or hospitals. In such cases, it may be in the City’s best interests to provide an exemption from transportation service standards for specific types of land uses which clearly satisfy critical community objectives.
TR-12 The City may exempt the following land uses from transportation service standards described in Section E, where these land uses significantly advance broad public policy objectives:
A. Child day care facilities, if not operated for profit;
B. Public transportation facilities;
C. Public parks and recreational facilities;
D. Social service facilities, if privately operated and not for profit;
E. Low income housing;
F. Public libraries;
G. Hospitals, if not operated for profit; and/or
H. Publicly funded educational facilities.
A large percentage of travel which occurs in Redmond is regional in nature. In other words, trips that are made through Redmond have their origin or destination, or both, outside of the City limits. Redmond has little direct control over the generation of a significant percentage of travel in Redmond. Similarly, development in Redmond is responsible for a significant amount of travel in neighboring jurisdictions and Redmond has the most direct control over the generation of that travel. Therefore, due to the regional nature of travel, effectively managing and maintaining service standards through concurrency controls requires coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.
TR-13 Develop interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that require development within Redmond to mitigate significant impacts that it generates on the transportation system of neighboring jurisdictions in violation of that jurisdiction’s concurrency service standard. Prior to entering into such an agreement, the City shall require that the concurrency service standards of the neighboring jurisdiction are consistent with policies TR-9 through TR-12.
Table TR-3
Description of Average Intersection Level of Service
LOS Categories
Definition
(Average Volume/
Capacity Ratio)
Description
(Subjective Impression of User)
LOS A
Less than or equal to 0.600
Highest driver comfort, little delay, free flow.
LOS B
0.601 - 0.700
High degree of driver comfort, little delay.
LOS C
0.701 - 0.800
Some delays. Acceptable level of driver comfort. Efficient traffic operation.
LOS D+ (High D)
0.801 - 0.850
Some driver frustration. Efficient traffic operation.
LOS D- (Low D)
0.851 - 0.900
Increased driver frustration. Long signal cycle length.
LOS E+ (High E)
0.901 - 0.950
Near capacity. Notable delays. Low driver comfort.
Difficulty of signal progression.
LOS E- (Low E)
0.951 - 1.000
At capacity. High level of congestion. High level of driver frustration.
LOS F
Above 1.000
Break-down flow. Excessive delays.
Table TR-4
Arterial and Transit Service Standards with Mode Split Targets
Transportation
Management
District
Arterial Intersection
Level of Service Standard
(Area average of intersections)
Transit
Level of Service Standard
(% of land uses within 1/4 mi of 30
minute, peak hour transit service)
Mode Split Targets
Level of Service Standard
(% daily trips by modes other than
Single Occupant Vehicle)
Letter Value
Maximum
V/C RatioResidential Land uses
Employment Land Uses
1993
2012
1. Downtown
E+
0.95
100%
100%
