|
Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Puget Sound Regional Council
Click HERE for graphic. Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board Mayor "Mitch" Mitchusson, City of Poulsbo - Kitsap County Cities/Towns. . . . . President County Executive Doug Sutherland, Pierce County - Chair, Operations Committee . . .Vice President County Executive Bob Drawal, Snohomish County -. . . . . .Chair, Transportation Policy Board Councilmember Jim Street, City of Seattle - . . . . Chair, Growth Management Policy Board Mayor Roger Bergh . . . . City of Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County Suburban Cities Councilmember Sharon Boekelman . . . . . . . . .City of Bonney Lake, Plerce County Suburban Cities Mayor Earl Clymer. . . . City of Renton, King County Suburban Cities Commissioner Aubrey Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington State Transportation Commission Commissioner Patricia Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . Port of Seattle Commissioner Billie Eder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kitsap County Councilmember Robert Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Tacoma Comnissioner Jack Fabulich . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Port of Tacoma Councilmember John Garner. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Snohomish County Mayor Ed Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Everett Mayor Jeanne Hansen. City of Snoqualmie, King County Suburban Cities Mary McCumber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive Director Councilmember Sherry Harris. . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Seattle Councilmember Bruce Laing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinq county County Executive Gary Locke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Councilmember Terry Lukens . . . . . . . . . . . City of Bellevue, King County Suburban Cities Secretary Sid Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . Washington State Department of Transportation Commissioner Ed Morrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port of Everett Mayor Harold Moss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Tacoma Mayor Norman B. Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Seattle Councilmember Barbara Skinner. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pierce County Councilmember Cynthia Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . King county Councilmember Christopher Vance. . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan, December 1994 Puget Sound Region Council, Seattle, Washington Funding for this report was provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. This report and any portion thereof may be duplicated in any form without periwission of the Puget Sound Regional Council, provided the following reference is cited: Additional copies of this report or its background information may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 (206) 464-7532 Persons with disabilities may request this document be prepared and supplied in alternate forms by calling (206)464-7532. Persons with hearing imparements may call (206)464-7248 (TDD). Primary Policy Oversight for Development of Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan Transportation Policy Board County Executive Bob Drewel, . . . . . . . . . . . .Snohomish County Councilmember Martha Choe, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seattle Mayor Roger Bergh. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Snohomishh County Cities Councilmember Cheryl Chow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seattle Councilmember Bob Edwards. . . . . . . . King County Suburban Cities Councilmember Maggi Fimia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Councilmember Mark Foutch. . . . .Thvrston Regional Planning Council Councilmember Nona Ganz. . . . . . . . . .King County Suburban Cides Commissioner Gary Grant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ports (Seattle) Councilmember Bruce Laing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Renee Montgelas . . . Washington State Department of Transportation Connie Niva. . . . . . . .Washington State Transportation Commission Commissioner Matt Ryan . . . . . . .Kitsap Regional Planning Council Commissioner Mike Shelton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Island County Senator Sylvia Skratek . . . . .Legislative Transportation Committee Mayor Carl Stegman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pierce County Cities Councilmember Bill Stoner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pierce County Representative Jeanette Wood . Legislative Transportatio,7 Committee Ex-Officio Members: Don Bullard. . . . . . . Chair Transportatlon Enhancements Commlttee Dan Cantrell . . . . . . . . . . . Washington Environmental COU,7Cil Roland Dewhurst. . . . . . . . . . . .Assoclated General Contractors Jerry Fay. . . . . Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Bill Hoffman . . . . . .Chair, Regional Project Evaluation Committee Dan O'Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greater Seattle Chamber Preston Schiller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sierra Club John Thompson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pierce County Labor Council Paul Toliver . . . . . . . Chair, Transportation Operators Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Draft MTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Comments Welcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Growth, Travel Trends and Transportation Issues Challenging the Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Region's Transportation Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Factors Contributing to the Region's Traffic Congestion . . . 8 Significant Issues Considered in Developing the Draft MTP . .14 Regional Financial Capacity Considerations. . . . . . . . . .15 III. Regional Planning/Policy Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 VISION 2020-The Region's Adopted Growth and Transportation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 VISION 2020 Update-Refining the Region's Growth and Transportation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Policy Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 IV. Principles and Considerations Which Have Guided Development of the Preferred implementation Strategy. . . . .25 The Inadequacy of the Current Metropolitan Transportation System in Meeting Future Travel Demand. . . . . . . . . . . .26 The Region's Strategic Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 V. Development of the Preferred Implementation Strategy. . . . .30 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Implementation Strategy Packages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Evaluation of the Implementation Strategy Packages. . . . . .31 Surrunary of Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Summary of Quantitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Overall Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Additional Implementation Strategy Alternative to be Considered in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 VI. The Preferred implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Overview and Sununary Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Details of the Preferred Implementation Strategy. . . . . . .49 Proposed Maintenance and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Proposed System Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Proposed Demand Management Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Proposed Regional System for Nonmotorized Travel. . . . . . .56 Proposed Facility Improvements/Expansions to Provide Additional Transportation Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Major Investment Study Candidate Projects and Other Major Regional Transportation Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Proposed Freight/Goods Movement Program . . . . . . . . . . .75 Aviation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Regional Financial Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 VII. Air Quality Conformity of the Preferred Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Puget Sound Region Air Quality Status . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Consultation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Status of SIP Transportation Control Measures . . . . . . . 92 Area Classification and Confomiity Analysis Requirements. . 92 MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria All Pollutants and Time Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Technical Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 VIII. MTP Rermement Studies to be Undertaken in 1995 and 1996. . 104 Appendix A MTP Implementation Strategy Development Process . A-1 Appendix B Supplemental Financial Information. . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C Travel Time Analyses Supporting the Preferred Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Appendix D PSRC Air Transportation Resolutions . . . . . . . D-1 Appendix E Meeting Summary: Scoping Meeting on Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Puget Sound Regional Council's Metropolitan Transportation Plan. . . . E-1 Appendix F Consideration Given ISTEA Planning Factors in Developing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan . F-I LIST OF TABLES II-1. Comparison of Transportation System Performance. . . . . 7 II-2. Regional Population and Employment Forecasts by County . 9 V-1. Comparison of Package Performance Based on Evaluation Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 V-2. System Performance in Year 1990 (Baseline) and 2020. . .35 VI-1. System Performance Associated with the Preferred Implementation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 VI-2. Analysis Results for Prototypical Pricing Measures in the Central Puget Sound Region (1994). . . . . . . . . . . .53 VI-3. Proposed Facility Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 VI-4. Major Investment Study Status for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 VI-5. Aviation Trends and Forecasts, Four-County Puget Sound Region-All Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 VI-6. Financially Constrained Program. . . . . . . . . . . . .84 VI-7. Preferred Draft MTP Implementation Strategy. . . . . . .86 VII-1. Status and Applicable Periods of Nonattaimnent Areas . .93 VII-2. Applicable Criteria and Procedures for Nonattaimnent Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 VII-3. Conformity Analysis Results for Carbon Monoxide Source Emmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 VII-4. Conformity Analysis Results for Ozone Precursor Mobile Source Emmisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 VII-5. Conformity Analysis Results for Particulate Matter . . 102 LIST OF FIGURES I-1. The Central Puget Sound Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II-1. Vehicle Miles Traveled, Population and Employment in the Central Puget Sound Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II-2. Congestion and Delay on Major Roadways: 1990 . . . . . . 5 II-3. Congestion and Delay on Major Roadways: 2020 (No Action) 6 II-4. Total National Transportation Costs by Mode. . . . . . .13 II-5. Sources and Uses of Transportation Funds in the Central Puget Sound Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 VI-1. Congestion and Delay on Major Roadways: 2020 (Preferred Implementation Strategy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 VI-2. Proposed Regional Nonmotorized-Transportation (NMT) System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 VI-3. Facility Improvements under Phase I. . . . . . . . . . .69 VI-4. Facility Improvements under Phase II . . . . . . . . . .70 VI-5. Combined Phase I and Phase 11 Facility Improvements. . .71 VI-6. The Metropolitan Freight Transportation System . . . . .77 VI-7. Changes in Revenue to Support the Preferred Implementation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 VII-1. Designated Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants .90 VII-2. Forecasted Carbon Monoxide Emissions: Daily and PM Peak Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 VII-3. Forecasted Hydrocarbon and Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions: Daily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 VII-4. Forecasted Particulate Matter (PM-10) Emissions: Daily .94 LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS MTP-1 Baseline/Framework Report (May 1994) MTP-2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Component (May 1994) MTP-3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Component (May 1994) MTP-4 Transit Component (May 1994) MTP-5 High Occupancy Vehicle Component (May 1994) MTP-6 Streets and Highways Component (May 1994) MTP-7 Marine/Ferries Component (May 1994) MTP-8 Freight and Goods Component (May 1994) MTP-9 Aviation Component (May 1994) MTP-10 Financial Component: Preliminary Tax Base Projections (May 1994) MTP-II Glossary (May 1994) MTP-12 Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Technical Report (September 1994) MTP-13 Congestion Management System Work Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region (September 1994) MTP-14 Preliminary Staff Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan (October 1994) MTP-15 Regional Freight Mobility (September 1994) MTP-16 Aviation System Planning Summary (September 1994) MTP-17a Evaluating Congestion Pricing Alternatives for the Puget Sound Region (August 1994) MTP-17b Selected and Annotated Bibliography on Congestion Pricing Measures (August 1994) MTP-17c Modeling Congestion Pricing Alternative for the Puget Sound Regional Council (August 1994) VISION 2020 (October 1990) Draft VISION 2020 Update (December 1994) MTP/VISION 2020 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (December 1994) 1. INTRODUCTION THE 1995 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN The transportation component of VISION 2020, which was adopted in October 1990, provided a long-range, coordinated multinodal transportation strategy integrated with a growth management strategy for the central Puget Sound region. The current metropolitan transportation planning effort is focused on a preferred implementation strategy that will advance our transportation vision in light of new federal and state transportation, air quality and growth management legislation, a changed economic environment, and major funding constraints. The Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) responds to federal mandates contained in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments. This legislation requires that the current long-range transportation plan in VISION 2020, which is a broad policy-based strategic plan, be much more explicit in defming long-term transportation strategies and investments for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Additionally, the state's Growth Management Act requires that long-range development assumptions of cities and counties be balanced with the transportation infrastructure that can support such development and be compatible with the VISION 2020 growth and transportation strategies. Click HERE for graphic. In the absence of legal mandates to prepare the MTP, it would still be in our region's best interest to prepare such a plan. Most of our acute transportation problems and potential solutions under consideration are regional in nature. We currently invest approximately $1.3 billion annually within our region on our transportation system in public expenditures alone. Individuals and businesses invest many times more than this amount each year. As all levels of government search for funding for many competing demands, an overall blueprint is needed to guide the public investment of transportation dollars to ensure maximum benefit to the region. In addition, many aspects of our lives are influenced by the type of transportation system available and how it operates. Access and mobility are important to our personal lives, to the economic health of the region, and to the overall quality of our lives. Following the public and agency review and comments on this draft MTP document, the final MTP is scheduled for adoption by the Puget Sound Regional Council's General Assembly in April 1995, in order to preserve the uninterrupted flow of federal transportation funds into the region. The MTP will be the central Puget Sound region's first statement of long-range transportation planning goals, objectives, strategies and actions which provide and integrated December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter 1) Page 1 response to the mandates of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the federal 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). As an overall blueprint to guide the region's long-term transportation investments, the MTP will be responsive to the dual needs of providing users of the region's Metropolitan Transportation System with greater transportation options and improving intermodal connections. PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT MTP The primary purpose of the Draft MTP is to facilitate and stimulate discussion among all interested public and private parties within the region as part of the update of VISION 2020 and development of a fmal MTP. The Draft MTP describes in detail the following: - Travel trends and major transportation issues challenging the region as it seeks to implement VISION 2020; - The principles and major considerations which have guided selection of the preferred implementation strategy; - The strategic options available to the region to implement the transportation component of VISION 2020; - A description of the preferred implementation strategy; and - The air quality conformity finding for the preferred implementation strategy. PROGRAM LIMITATIONS FOR NEW PROJECT REQUESTS Until the draft MTP satisfactorily completes public and environmental review requirements in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and is subsequently adopted by the Regional Council's General Assembly, proposed project amendments or modifications to the adopted 1994-96 Regional Transportation Improvement Program will be limited to those project requests that can demonstrate full consistency with the existing VISION 2020 Multicounty Policies and are found to be exempt from regional air quality emissisons analysis. COMMENTS WELCOME The Regional Council encourages all interested citizens and agencies to review this Draft MTP and provide comments to the Regional Council. In order to properly document any concerns or suggestions for change in a timely manner prior to fmat adoption by the General Assembly in April 1995, please provide written comments no later than February 6, 1995, to the attention of: Ralph Cipriani, MTP Project Manager Puget Sound Regional Council 101 1 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1035 December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter 1) Page 2 II. GROWTH, TRAVEL TRENDS AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES CHALLENGING THE REGION THE REGION'S TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA Given the growth anticipated in the central Puget Sound region, it is unreasonable to assume the region can build itself out of traffic congestion. Reflecting national trends, annual vehicle miles traveled in the region have continued to grow at a faster rate than population and employment (See Figure II-1). Click HERE for graphic. The region lacks the financial capacity to add enough streets and highways to bring service levels to those attained 10 and 20 years ago. Extensive portions of the region's freeway and arterial network are congested during peak periods. Figure II-2 indicates the extent of current congestion in terms of a ratio or the amount of actual traffic on the major highway segments (volume) divided by the given capacity that the particular roadway can actually handle. This volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is then used to show how many hours of peak-period congestion are experienced on a daily basis. Many of our most important highways are congested most of the day at levels that were unacceptable, even at peak hours, just a few years ago. By the year 2020, if major changes in the attitude and behavior of the traveling public, do not occur, the congested portions of the region's freeway and arterial network would be far more extensive than they are today and the delays experienced by users will be much longer (See Figure II-3). As a result of the public's unwillingness to tolerate the destructive intrusions of major highways through built-up areas, and because of the region's geographic constraints, there are few open corridors available to construct major new highway facilities. With respect to transit, existing dispersed regional land use patterns make it financially impossible to deliver transit service to all areas served by the automobile. Furthermore, the region has little control over the demographic and socioeconomic changes that in many instances are the result of national and international trends. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 3 For these reasons, it is not realistic to assume congestion and automobile dependency can be eliminated, but they can be better managed and complemented with cost-effective alternative modes of transportation. The data in Table II-1 indicates that transportation system performance in the year 2020 will deteriorate significantly if the projects, programs and development patterns similar to those advocated by VISION 2020 are not actively pursued. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 4 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 5 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 6 To manage congestion and dependency on the automobile, and maintain federal air quality standards, the region needs to focus on both the transportation projects identified in VISION 2020, and on the operating environment in which travel choices are made. It is becoming more apparent that changes to the transportation operating envirom-nent are the most effective means to influence the way in which regional travel takes place. The operating environment includes: land use and development patterns; the degree of access to various forms of transportation; the actual costs of providing, operating and using various forms of transportation; the price and availability of fuel; and fiscal and taxation policies that may provide incentives or disincentives to use various forms of transportation. New and expanded transportation facilities will help the region meet future travel demand to move people, freight and services, but strategic changes in the operating environment are likely to be needed to ensure that the region's infrastructure (existing as well as new) is used efficiently and wisely. Click HERE for graphic. (1) Assumes facilities which comprise 1996 TIP network. (2) PM peak period is assumed to be 3 hours in duration. (3) Does not include nonmotorized trips. (4) Carpool designates nontransit trips with 2 or more individuals in vehicle. December 1994 DRAFT NMTROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 7 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE REGION'S TRAFFIC CONGESTION Population/Employment Growth The region's traditional management of population and employment growth is a principal difficulty in enhancing mobility and miniinizing traffic congestion over the long term. It is not growth, per se, but the way we have traditionally chosen to distribute new growth within the region that has contributed to traffic congestion. Federal guidelines require that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) develop population and employment forecasts based on the most recent and best information available. The Regional Council has updated its 1988 population and employment forecasts (the most recently adopted) using national and regional data through 1993. These forecasts are scheduled to be adopted as part of the MTP and the VISION 2020 Update in the Spring of 1995.1 Year 2020 estimates are currently under review by the Regional Technical Committee. The region's population is forecast to increase from 2.7 million residents in 1990 to 4.1 million in 2020. Similarly, the region's employment is forecast to grow from 1.4 million in 1990 to 2.2 million in 2020.1 Table II-2 breaks down population and employment growth forecasts by county for the period from 1990 to 2020. VISION 2020 recognizes that the travel demand resulting from these increases will make it virtually impossible to restore service levels on the region's freeways and arterials to those the region experienced in previous decades. (1) Comprehensive plans developed and adopted by cities and counties in the central Puget Sound region under the state's Growth Management Act (GMA) must be based on population forecasts prepared by the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management (OFM). OFM's most recent forecasts were prepared in 1992 and will be updated in 1995. The Regional Council's review and certification of local transportation plans for consistency with the regional transportation plan (pursuant to RCW 47.80) will recognize local governments' requirement to use OFM population forecasts. As part of the forecast updating process, the Regional Council will work with OFM to seek to reconcile its population and employment forecasts, developed under federal guidelines, with OFM's population forecasts, developed under state guidelines, so that one set of population forecasts will be available to planners and policy makers in the fourcounty region. Current Regional Council 1995 population forecasts and 1992 OFM population forecasts differ by only 2% through the year 2012. (2) Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, Preliminary 1994 Updated Forecast. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 8 Click HERE for graphic. Year 2020 estimates are currently under review by the Regional Technical Committee. Employment does not include construction and resources. Automobile Preference Similar to other American metropolitan regions, the central Puget Sound region exhibits a collective preference for automobile use. All indications are that this preference is increasing. Availability of automobiles/light trucks has been a contributing factor in the rapid growth of vehicle miles traveled. In recent years, the number of registered vehicles in the four-county region has been growing at a much faster rate than the increase in population. By 1991, there was nearly one registered vehicle for every man, woman and child in the region. Additionally, a growing proportion of area residents are registered drivers. These figures provide a partial explanation of why traffic volumes are growing faster than both population and employment. One result of more drivers and more vehicles available is that more people are driving alone to work. According to U.S. Census data, the proportion of workers in the region who drove alone to work increased from 64 percent in 1980 to 73 percent in 1990. Socioeconomic Changes Another major factor contributing to growth in traffic in recent years is the increasing proportion of adults who work. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of women age 16 and over in the region who worked increased from less than 60 percent to 67.5 percent. As a result, the proportion of people age 16 and over in the region who worked grew from 71.6 percent to 75.4 percent, causing substantial increases in the number of home-to-work trips. Many of these trips occur during peak travel periods of the day. The increase in labor force participation has increased the proportion of households with two wage-eamers, and decreased the proportion of households with an adult who stays at home. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 9 This has resulted in even more trip-making per household - much of which is for nonwork purposes. Household travel surveys conducted in the region in 1971 and 1987 indicate that the average number of daily trips per household increased 28 percent during this period. More significantly, a 33 percent increase in trips per household between home and nonwork destinations occurred during the same period. Land Use Patterns During the last 20 years, the region's growth has continued to decentralize. Residential densities have dropped 30 percent since 1970 and ample parking has become a standard feature in sprawling, low density employment locations. Among the many effects of population shifts to suburban areas is the tendency of households to make more trips as well as longer trips. Declining Share of Trips By Transit The central Puget Sound region reflects national trends with respect to transit patronage. Between 1961 and 1990, though the absolute number of total daily transit trips increased, the proportion of all trips by transit within the region declined from 5.2 percent to 3.3. percent. Transit's share of the travel market for work trips has declined in a similar fashion. Considerable investment in, and implementation of, innovative programs by the region's five major transit operators has been modestly successful in increasing actual total ridership, but even these efforts have been unsuccessful in reversing the decline of transit's share of the total travel market. Continued decentralization of housing and employment, coupled with low density patterns of development, results in increasing difficulty in meeting travel demand in suburban and outlying portions of the region. Major Growth in Freight/Goods Movement As population, and the services it requires, has increased and dispersed, the need for additional air, trucking, rail and water transport has increased. In addition, the central Puget Sound region has achieved an important milestone as a major international center of waterbome commerce, especially as a gateway to North America for Pacific Rim trade. his has required efficient access from ports to rail mainline facilities as well as increased capacity on rail mainlines serving the region. Excellent port facilities and rail/highway infrastructure have helped make the region competitive with other West Coast ports. Both deep-water and inland ports within the region have been able to keep up with the growth in cargo handling. However, in the future it may be difficult to accommodate forecasted demand. Cargo handling is expected to continue to grow, with containerized cargo showing the most dramatic increases. The region's two container-handling ports at Seattle and Tacoma together have increased their share of international cargo containers passing through West Coast ports from 23 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 1990, a trend that is expected to continue. The number December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter U) Page 10 of container units handled by the Port of Seattle is expected to increase by 50 to 80 percent from 1994 to the year 2003. Container units handled by the Port of Tacoma are expected to grow similarly due, in part, to improved ground transportation access with the completion of State Route 509 within the city of Tacoma, enabling removal of the Blair Waterway bridge. Intermodal rail traffic (ship to rail, or vice versa) is expected to grow most rapidly (by up to 127 percent for the Port of Seattle). Air freight movements at Sea-Tac International continue to increase each year. Additional air transportation capacity is needed to meet future air freight demand. Studies indicate that Sea-Tac International will reach effective aircraft operational capacity by the year 2000. These trends will provide the region with major challenges as it seeks to continue moving freight and goods efficiently within and through the region while improving overall regional mobility. Subsidized Automobile Use A substantial portion of the capital and operating costs associated with the transportation system in this country are paid through government subsidies rather than fees and taxes paid by system users. The creation of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in 1956 initiated the largest domestic public works program in the world's history. Today, the U.S. Deparunent of Transportation estimates that roadway-user taxes and fees (such as gas taxes and vehicle excise taxes) pay for about 60 percent of public expenditures for roadway construction, maintenance and administration. Federal tax policies reflect a bias toward subsidizing automobile use. Prior to 1992, employers were able to deduct the full cost of parking provided for employees, but could deduct just $21 per month for each employerprovided transit pass. In 1992, Congress reduced but did not eliminate the bias, capping the allowable deduction for parking at $155 per month and raising the allowable transit deduction to $60. Proposed legislation requiring employers to provide workers with the option of "cashing out" the value of each parking space, and thereby eliminating the bias toward automobile use, has not yet received broad-based support in Congress. National energy policy has kept gasoline prices lower than most other nations: a gallon of gasoline cost roughly the same in 1994 constant dollars as it did before the 1970s energy crisis. After accounting for inflation, the price of gasoline has declined steadily over the past two decades. Meanwhile, gasoline prices in other industrialized countries are two, three, or four times as high as in the United States, largely due to dramatically higher fuel taxes. For example, in 1990, the cost per gallon of premium gasoline including taxes was $1.04 in the U.S. compared with $3.40 in France, $4.27 in Italy, $3.05 in Japan and $2.72 in West Germany. In many cases, the additional fuel taxes are used to pay for a far greater proportion of the public costs of transportation, including both investments in facilities and mitigation of negative side-effects such as environmental degradation, which is not widely acknowledged and is paid for less directly in the U.S. (3) Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 11 A study published by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in 1993 examined the issue of subsidization of the automobile. The study found that policymakers generally take into account the most direct and quantifiable costs in making transportation investment decisions: direct goverm-nent expenses and passenger fares. The external and societal costs of passenger vehicle use are largely ignored, as are some personal costs of automobile use such as insurance and depreciation. The study estimates total national passenger ground transportation costs, including personal, government, and societal costs, at $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion per year (in 1990 dollars). Of this amount, the external cost (societal plus governmental costs) was $380 to $660 billion, or the equivalent to a cost of $3.70 to $6.50 per gallon of gasoline. Some of the annual "hidden" external costs of automobile use include: - Pavement wear and road maintenance, $64 billion after user fees; - Local services, such as snow removal, parking enforcement, and roadside waste disposal, $8 billion; - Energy use, such as oil industry subsidy, trade imbalance, and military expenditures to protect foreign oil supplies, $45 to $150 billion; - Congestion, including increased emissions, lost productivity due to delay, higher insurance costs due to accidents (and not including any amount assigned to stress), $11 billion; ' - Parking costs, underpriced due to tax subsidy and high availability, induce additional driving leading to increased fuel use and pollution, $25 to $100 billion; - Accidents that result in personal injury, property loss, and public service costs, $98 billion; - Noise, which damages health, reduces productivity, and reduces property value, $2.7 to $4.4 billion; - Pollution, including air and water degradation (with no estimate of wetlands loss) and loss of crops and wildlife, $120 to $220 billion; and - Other costs such as loss of land and historic buildings, inequity in the transportation system for nonautomobile users, and urban sprawl. ___________________________ (4) The Price of Mobility-Uncovering the Hidden Costs of Transportation, Peter Miller/John Moffet, Published by Natural Resource Defense Council, October 1993. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 12 Figure II-4 compares the annual cost of automobile use with the amount spent for bus and rail transportation. The large hidden cost (societal plus governmental subsidy) for automobile use is very evident. The NRDC argues that in order to provide transportation services at the lowest total cost to society, these hidden costs need to be accounted for in transportation investment decisions. Funding Barriers In the region's 1994-1996 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) approved by the Regional Council in October 1993, 41 percent of regionally allocated federal funds were dedicated to traditional roadway projects, while 59 percent were committed to intermodal and transit projects, transportation enhancements, and other innovative projects. This allocation of federal funds may represent an historic shift in funding within regional priorities, but it is only an incremental step toward shifting the balance of spending from highway and roadwa construction to other transportation priorities. If all public expenditures on transportation in the region are taken into account, highway and roadway building continues to dominate public transportation investment. Although 59 percent of regionally allocated federal funds went to nontraditional projects in the 1994-1996 TIP, the actual dollar amount represents only about two percent of total transportation expenditures by public agencies in the region. The shift in regionally allocated federal funds toward alternate transportation investments resulted, in part, from ISTEA's provisions for flexible funding. But local governments and the State and U.S. Departments of Transportation have struggled to make flexible funding work in practice after projects are approved in the TIP. Procedures for the fmal technical and financial processing of projects are still geared toward traditional highway projects, and are slowly being adapted to new types of projects such as procurement of altemative-fuel vehicles, transportation demand management programs, and construction/support of nomnotorized transportation facilities and programs. It is connnon for the practical administration of new program opportunities to lag behind the policy direction and intent of such programs. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 13 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPING THE DRAFT MTP A number of significant issues related to current regional travel patterns, overall transportation system design, and transportation investment helped shape the region's strategic implementation alternatives for analysis and consideration as part of the plan development process. These major issues include: - Failure to adequately charge for the true cost of automobile use and other transportation services. - Insufficient investment in alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. - The need to refocus transportation investments away from projects/programs targeted at miniinizing/redistributing commute trips (approximately 17 percent of all travel), and toward minimizing/redistributing trips of all purposes. - The need to address both short (82 percent of current daily travel involves trips under 10 miles in length) and long tripmaking in long-range system facility plans. - The tendency of projects/program investments to inadequately address the access/mobility needs of the young, elderly, disabled and low income populations. - The need to balance access/mobility/congestion-management concerns with economicgrowth and envirorunental-quality concerns. - Lack of broad regional transportation system access/mobility performance indicators to establish priority for multiinodal projects. - Continued decentralization of jobs resulting in increasing suburb-to-suburb travel patterns and poor employment access from "central cities" areas to growing suburban employment sites. - Lack of pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environments at the community and regional level. - The historic inability to effectively address sometimes conflicting objectives of reducing single-occupant vehicle travel while simultaneously improving efficiency of freight and goods movement on the same roadways. - The need to establish a conscious relationship between the pattern of transportation system investments and landuse development objectives and strategies. - The need to examine the potential role of advanced telecommunications technologies in changing intra-regional travel patterns and redefining transportation access. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 14 REGIONAL FINANCIAL CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS Financial capacity refers to the region's ability to generate sufficient revenues, over the period being examined by the MTP, to pay the costs of existing and new transportation facilities and services. It can be thought of as determining the total financial program that defines the affordability of the MTP. Explicit recognition of the region's financial capacity to implement the MTP is both good public policy and a federal requirement. It serves as a litinus test of the MTP's fundamental assumptions: can the region pay for the proposed new transportation improvements, and at the same time provide for the preservation, maintenance and operation of existing facilities and services? Federal metropolitan transportation planning regulations reinforce this discipline. The Financial Element of the MTP must include an estimate of revenues for all existing and contemplated sources of funds, and demonstrate that these revenues cover all capital and operating costs of the metropolitan transportation system (MTS). Currently, the region receives and spends approximately $1.3 billion annually for the basic physical components of its transportation system. This amount is allocated approximately as follows: (1) state and federal highways, 24.3 percent; (2) city streets, 19.5 percent; (3) county roads, 18.9 percent; (4) public transit 29.2 percent; and (5) state ferries 8.1 percent. The expenditures for city streets and county roads include current expenditures for pedestrian and bicycle path improvements. A summary of the sources and uses of transportation funds is presented in Figure II-5. Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter II) Page 15 III. REGIONAL PLANNING / POLICY FRAMEWORK VISION 2020-THE REGION'S ADOPTED GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY VISION 2020 adopted in 1990, is the long-range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region encompassing King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. It supports more compact, people-oriented living and working places, and seeks to reverse trends that have created increased numbers of low-density, auto-dependent communities. VISION 2020 calls for containing growth by restricting the expansion of urban areas and conserving surrounding farn-dands, forests and open spaces. It focuses a significant amount of new employment and housing into mixed-use centers that are served by an efficient, transit- oriented, multimodal transportation system. It represents a major public policy commitment to both managed growth and the efficient provision of public services and facilities, particularly transportation investments that emphasize transit, ridesharing, demand management and the maintenance of current facilities. VISION 2020 was this region's first major attempt to come to grips with the challenges of growth and traffic congestion. A long-range transportation plan in combination with the growth management strategy forms an integrated vision for the future. However, the transportation component of the plan is very general and does not fully address specific implementation strategies. Actual locations and types of facilities, specific alignments and technologies, interrelationships among various facilities, and numerous other refinements were not addressed in VISION 2020. It was acknowledged when VISION 2020 was adopted in 1990 that these recommended transportation improvements would serve as a framework within which detailed refinements would take place overtime. Since then local jurisdictions, transit agencies, the Washington State Department of Transportion, the Regional Transit Authority, and others have worked in cooperation with the Regional Council to detail more specifically how, when, and where these regional transportation improvements should be provided. VISION 2020 UPDATE-REFINING THE REGION'S GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY The adoption of VISION 2020 in 1990 preceded the enactment of changes in federal transportation policy and adoption of state growth management legislation. Adoption of the Growth Management Act in 1990 and its amendments in 1991 and 1993 resulted in a new round of local, countywide, and regional planning throughout King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties. ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Ammendments have established the need to develop a Metropolitan Transportation Plan which is much more detailed than the transportation component contained in the existing VISION 2020 document. For these reasons, as well as the continued challenge of growth, VISION 2020 is currently being updated. The update will incorporate the MTP as the transportation component of December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 16 VISION 2020. The MTP will satisfy all state and federal regional transportation planning requirements. Addressing the region's transportation problems while complying with new federal and state transportation, air quality, and growth management legislation is a complex task requiring the transportation component of VISION 2020 to be significantly expanded. The VISION 2020 Update provides a more detailed integrated growth, economic and transportation strategy that clarifies the regional vision and refines the multicounty planning policies. This strategy includes integrating recently completed local and countywide plans into the updated VISION 2020 to ensure that our regional vision is consistent with and reflects emerging growth management plans of the region's cities and counties. Most important, the VISION 2020 Update includes specific strategies and actions to implement the regional vision and monitor its progress. Overall Transportation Strategy The overall transportation strategy embodied in the VISION 2020 Update promotes the development of a coordinated multimodal transportation system that is integrated with and supported by the growth management strategy. The urban growth strategy in VISION 2020 is intended to locate growth within defined urban growth areas, creating compact urban conununities, concentrating growth into centers and urban travel corridors that support centers and compact communities. This strategy is designed to foster a greater mix of land uses, a more complete and efficient network of streets and other public rights-of-way, and, in general, support an urban envirom-nent which is more amenable to walking, biking, and using transit. To support this growth strategy, transportation improvements and programs will be focused on establishing a more balanced transportation system, shifting emphasis from highways and single-occupant vehicle movement to transit, people and goods movement. A balanced system would provide opportunities for selecting among different travel options, including private automobile, public transit, ridesharing, walking, and biking, to move around and throughout our communities. To develop and support a transportation system providing a variety of travel options, the region needs to focus less on conventional "supply-side" transportation expansion projects, and more on the operating environment in which travel choices are made. Some of the factors which comprise the operating envirom-nent include: land use and development patterns; the degree of access to various forms of transportation; the actual costs of providing, operating and using various forms of transportation; the price and availability of fuel; and fiscal and taxation policies that may provide incentives or disincentives to use various forms of transportation. Influencing transportation's operating environment involves redirecting transportation policies and investments from the old approach of simply increasing capacity that responds to travel demand, to a new approach of supporting and encouraging new travel trends. Supplying additional capacity mainly for the automobile has not solved transportation problems; it has resulted in worsening congestion and air quality problems. The transportation strategy December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 17 addresses both the capacity expansion necessary to establish a variety of travel options and the changes in travel required to reduce auto dependence. Four broad policy areas, described below, provide a framework for the transportation strategy. Optimize and Manage the Use of Transportation Facilities and Services. Efficient management of existing transportation facilities and services can significantly influence how well our transportation system works. A top priority of system management is to invest in the maintenance and preservation of the present transportation system to ensure that past investments are protected and that the system remains safe and usable long into the future. Transportation system management activities includes ramp metering and priority HOV lane access for transit vehicles. These measures increase the capacity of existing transportation facilities without adding major new infrastructure. Manage Travel Demand Addressing Traffic Congestion and Environmental Objectives. Transportation demand management (TDM) is the term for programmatic strategies designed to make efficient use of the transportation system. Specifically, demand management strategies attempt to increase transit ridership, vehicle occupancy, walking and bicycling, and reduce the lengths of some trips, move them to off-peak periods, or eliminate them altogether. Demand management can reduce single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby reducing traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and fuel consumption. In the last decades, the number of trips people are making has grown at a much faster rate than population. Transportation demand management strategies are designed to slow this trend. Focus Transportation Investments Supporting Transit and Pedestrian- Oriented Land Use Patterns. The land use and development patterns of communities have an enormous effect on how people travel. Transportation investment also influences how land is developed. The relationship between land use and transportation must be considered when making any land use or transportation decision. Encouraging land use patterns that support reduced dependence on automobile travel is one of the most effective ways of changing travel behavior. Expand Transportation Capacity Offering Greater Mobility Options. To provide for future mobility needs and achieve VISION 2020 objectives, additional transportation capacity will be needed, primarily to support alternatives to automobile travel. Increasing travel options begins with improving opportunities for pedestrian travel which, in turn, improve opportunities for transit use and other alternatives to the automobile. Major capacity expansion is needed in public transit service as well as walking and bicycle facilities if the region is to realize the goals of VISION 2020. POLICY FRAMEWORK The VISION 2020 Update establishes multicounty planning policies which, as required by GMA, articulate the overall policy direction of the region. Multicounty policies included in the draft VISION 2020 Update provide direction for transportation planning and investment decisions and form the policy framework for development of the MTP. The multicounty December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 18 policies provide direction for development in urban growth areas, contiguous and orderly development, siting of regional capital facilities, housing, growth in rural areas, open space and resource protection, economic development, and transportation. Because the VISION 2020 Update is an integrated growth management, economic, and transportation strategy, the MTP policy framework is comprised of general, "framework" policies from each of these areas as well as more specific transportation policies. Multicounty Framework Policies RG- 1 Locate development in urban growth areas to conserve natural resources and enable efficient provision of services and facilities. Within urban growth areas, focus growth in compact communities and centers in a manner that uses land efficiently, provides parks and recreation areas, is pedestrian-oriented, and helps strengthen communities. Connect and serve urban communities with an efficient, transit-oriented, multi-modal transportation system. RC-2 Coordinate provision of necessary public facilities and services to support development and to implement local and regional growth planning objectives. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that is efficient, cost-effective, and conserves resources. Emphasize interjurisdictional planning to coordinate plans and implementation activities and to achieve consistency. RF-3 Strategically locate public facilities and amenities in a manner that adequately considers alternatives to new facilities (including demand management), implements regional growth planning objectives, maximizes public benefit, and minimizes and mitigates adverse impacts. RH-4 Provide a variety of choices in housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population. Achieve and sustain an adequate supply of low-income, moderateincome and special needs housing located throughout the region. RR-5 Preserve the character of identified rural areas by protecting and enhancing the natural environment, open space and recreational opportunities, and scenic and historic areas; support small-scale farming and forestry uses; permitting lowdensity residential living and cluster development maintained by rural levels of service. Promote cities and towns in rural areas as locations for employment, mix of housing types, urban services and cultural activities. RO-6 Use rural and urban open space to separate and delineate urban areas and to create a permanent regional greenspace network. Protect critical areas, conserve natural resources, and preserve lands and resources of regional significance. RE-7 Foster economic opportunity and stability, promote economic well-being, and encourage economic vitality and family wage jobs while managing growth. Support effective and efficient mobility for people, freight, and goods that is consistent with the region's growth and transportation strategy. Maintain region- December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 19 wide information about past and present economic performance. Assess future economic conditions that could affect the central Puget Sound region. RT-8 Develop a transportation system that emphasizes accessibility, includes a variety of mobility options, and enables the efficient movement of people, goods and freight, and information. Multicounty Transportation Policies Optimize and Manage the Use of Transportation Facilities and Services... RT-8.1 Develop and maintain efficient, balanced, multi-modal transportation systems which provide connections between urban centers and link centers with surrounding communities by: a. Offering a variety of options to single-occupant vehicle travel; b. Facilitating convenient connections and transfers between travel modes; c . Promoting transportation and land use improvements that support localized trip-making between and within communities; d. Supporting the efficient movement of freight and goods. RT-8.2 Promote convenient interrnodal connections between all elements of the regional transit system (bus, rail, ferry, air) to achieve a seamless travel network which incorporates easy bike and pedestrian access. RT-8.3 Maintain and preserve the existing urban and rural transportation systems in a safe and usable state. Give high priority to preservation and rehabilitation projects which increase effective multimodal and interinodal accessibility, and serve to enhance historic, scenic, recreational, and/or cultural resources. RT-8.4 Maximize multimodal access to marine ferry routes through: a. Coordinated connections to land-based transit service; b. Safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian linkages; c. Preferential access for high-occupancy vehicles, and freight and goods movement on designated routes. RT-8.5 Encourage public and private sector partnerships to identify freight mobility improvements which provide access to centers and regional facilities, and facilitate convenient intennodal transfers, to and through, the region. RT-8.6 Promote efficient multimodal access to interregional transportation facilities such as airports, seaports, and inter-city rail stations. RT-8.7 Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and efficient travel through rural areas, appropriate rural zoning and strong commitments to access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to prevent unplanned growth in rural areas. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IH) Page 20 RT-8.8 Support transportation system management activities, such as ramp metering, signalization improvements, and transit priority treatments, to achieve maximum efficiency of the current system without adding major new infrastructure. RT-8.9 Develop and periodically update regional transportation system performance standards to assist in the development of level-of-service standards for state owned and/or operated transportation facilities which seek to assure effective coordination and mutual benefit between local and state transportation systems. Manage Travel Demand Addressing Traffic Congestion and Environmental Objectives RT-8. 10 Promote demand management and education programs that shift travel demand to non-single occupant vehicle travel modes and to off-peak travel periods, and reduce the need for new capital investments in surface, marine and air transportation. RT-8.11 Goals reflecting increased proportional travel by transit, high occupancy vehicle, and non-motorized travel modes should be established jointly by local jurisdictions and transit agencies to achieve reduced dependence on single-occupant vehicle travel to urban centers. RT-8.12 Emphasize transportation investments that provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel to and within urban centers and along corridors connecting centers. RT-8.13 Develop transportation system pricing strategies to manage travel demand, finance transportation system improvements, and establish a more direct relationship between the consumers which use transportation systems and the costs for development, maintenance, and operation of the transportation systems. RT-8.14 Support opportunities to use advanced transportation and information technologies which demonstrate support for regional growth and transportation strategies. Focus Transportation Investments Supporting Transit and Pedrestrian-Oriented Land Use Patterns RT-8.15 Integrate land use and transportation solutions that offer the best opportunity to reduce air pollution, conserve energy, and protect the natural envirorunent. RT-8.16 Investments in transportation facilities and services should support compact, pedestrian-oriented land use development throughout urban communities, and encourage growth in centers. RT-8.17 Promote transportation improvements that support the redevelopment of lowerdensity, auto-dominated arterials to become more pedestrian and transit compatible urban transportation corridors. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter HI) Page 21 RT-8.18 Encourage a mix of land uses and densities at major transit access points to meet passenger needs and offer an opportunity to reduce vehicle trips. RT-8.19 Promote the development of local street patterns and pedestrian routes that provide access to transit services within convenient walking distance of homes, jobs, schools, stores, and other activity areas. RT-8.20 Support the establishment of high capacity transit stations that advance regional growth objectives by: a. Maximizing opportunities to walk, bike or take short transit trips to access regional transit stations; b. Locating stations within urban centers and at sites supporting development of concentrated urban corridors; c. Providing direct, frequent and convenient regional transit service between urban centers; and d. Providing system access to urban areas in a manner that does not induce development in rural areas. RT-8.21 Regional high capacity transit station area guidelines should be developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council in cooperation with the Regional Transit Authority, WSDOT, local transit agencies, and local jurisdictions to establish regionally consistent expectations of appropriate development in the vicinity of high capacity transit stations (including rail, major bus, and ferry) that best support and assure effective utilization of the regional transit system. RT-8.22 The regional high capacity transit station area guidelines should be used by transit agencies and WSDOT in developing interlocal agreements with local jurisdictions for station area planning that set forth conditions for development and access around high capacity transit stations. RT-8.23 Compliance with regional high capacity transit station area guidelines, in conjunction with other regional policies, should be addressed by the Regional Transit Authority in developing the regional rail system within corridors. RT-8.24 Local jurisdictions that are served (or will be served) by high capacity transit stations should develop specific station area plans as part of their comprehensive planning efforts that provide for development, services and facilities sufficient to support efficient transit service commensurate with the regional investment in transit. Local station area plans should be consistent with regional high capacity transit station area guidelines, and at a minimum address land use and density, transit-supportive development regulations, urban design, parking, and nonmotorized and motorized access. December 1994 DRAFt METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 22 Expand Transportation Capacity Offering Greater Mobility Options RT-8.25 Promote an interconnected system of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on limited access freeways that provides options for ridesharing and facilitates local and express transit services connecting centers and communities. Assure safe and effective operation of the HOV system at intended design speed for transit vehicles while also enabling the region to assure attaimnent and maintenance of federal and state air quality standards. RT-8.26 Promote and support the development of arterial HOV lanes and other transit priority treatments in urban areas to facilitate reliable transit and HOV operations. RT-8.27 Promote and assist in coordinated development and operation of higher speed intercity rail corridor services and facilities connecting the Puget Sound region with effective interregional and interstate transportation mobility which may reduce highway and air travel demands in such corridors. RT-8.28 Support effective management and preservation of existing regional air transportation capacity and ensure that future air transportation capacity and phasing of existing airport facilities needs are addressed in cooperation with responsible agencies. Coordinate this effort with long-range comprehensive planning of land use, surface transportation facilities for effective access, and development of financing strategies. RT-8.29 Ensure adequate capacity to serve cross-sound travel demands that focuses on foot-passenger travel and freight and goods movement. Promote convenient connections for foot-passengers to the regional transit network. RT-8.30 Develop a regionally coordinated network of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles which provides effective local mobility, accessibility to transit and ferry services and connections to and between centers. RT-8.31 Support the development of roadways when they are needed to provide more efficient connections f,)r a comprehensive road network to move people and goods when such roads will not cause the region to exceed air quality standards. RT-8.32 Transportation investments in major facilities and services should maximize transportation system continuity and be phased to support regional economic development and growth management objectives. RT-8.33 Improve intermodal connections between high capacity transit stations, (including ferry terminals, rail stations, and bus centers), major transfer points, and the communities they serve, primarily through more frequent and convenient transit service. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 23 RT-8.34 Support opportunities to redevelop the road system as multi-modal public facilities which accommodate the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, transit, high-occupancy vehicles, automobiles, and trucks. RT-8.35 Develop a high-capacity transit system along congested corridors that connects urban centers with frequent service sufficient to serve both community and regional needs. RT-8.36 Encourage, when possible, the use of local labor when building regional transportation systems and components which could generate new economic and employment opportunities. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter III) Page 24 IV. PRINCIPLES AND CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE GUIDED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY If the region is to achieve the goals set out in VISION 2020, it needs to re-examine the way in which it defines its transportation problems and develops solutions. In an era of scarce public financial resources, it is essential that public investments made in the region's transportation system yield the greatest possible benefits. VISION 2020 will serve as the overall backdrop from which these determinations can be made. The Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board reached a consensus that was affirined in their joint meeting on March 10, 1994, that development of a preferred implementation strategy for the MTP should be guided by the following: - Assure adequate maintenance, preservation and safety of existing transportation systems. o Identify both "access" and "mobility" needs. - Address transportation problems using an integrated "systems" approach (rather than assembling fragmented projects). - Recognize the need to identify optimal system solutions that address congestion in a manner compatible with both air quality and economic development objectives. - Recognize there is no single solution to transportation problems; a comprehensive approach requires a combination of short- and long-range solutions. - Consider the needs of all transportation system users (people, freight/goods, communications). - Predicate long-range solutions on what the region can realistically afford. - Support achievement of growth management and economic development strategies. - Evaluate ability of current legal and institutional structures and financial mechanisms to efficiently and effectively implement desirable transportation system solutions. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IV) Page 25 THE INADEQUACY OF THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN MEETING FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND The consequences of forecasted population and travel growth on the existing Metropolitan Transportation System if major improvements and supporting actions are not taken by 2020 to improve overall system efficiency are summarized below. The hours of PM peak period congestion on the region's freeways would increase 344 percent, from 150,000 hours in 1990 to 660,000 hours in 2020. Average travel speeds on the regional highway system would continue to deteriorate, from 26 mph in 1990 to 18 mph in 2020, also affecting transit. The proportion of the regional highway network suffering from PM peak period congestion would increase from 12 percent in 1990 to 27 percent in 2020. - Freeway system would increase from 27 percent to 45 percent congested. - Regional arterials would increase from 8 percent to 27 percent congested. Little/no progress would be made meeting regional and local transportation goals to improve mobility and offer incentives to shift from current auto dependency (especially single- occupant vehicles) to more balanced transportation options and travel in the future. - Single-occupant vehicle travel would only be reduced from 68 percent of all travel in 1990 to 65 percent in 2020. - During peak periods, single-occupant vehicle use would decline only from 73 percent in 1990 to 72 percent in 2020. - Carpool use for work trips would experience little measurable improvement, from 20 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2020. - Though the total number of transit trips would increase, transit share of all trips would actually decline from 4 percent in 1990 to 3.9 percent in 2020. THE REGION'S STRATEGIC OPTIONS The transportation system performance described above was viewed as an unacceptable scenario by the Transportation Policy Board during its initial review of the region's strategic options to maintain and enhance regional mobility and access. There was general consensus that the region's preferred implementation strategy should focus on achieving three broad objectives in order to maintain and enhance mobility and access in an environment of rapid growth: 1) Improve the efficiency of various components of the current Metropolitan Transportation System; 2) manage travel demand by modifying the operating December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IV) Page 26 environment in which travel choices are made; and 3) Implement responsible capacity expansion projects that support local and regional policies for various transportation modes. Since World War II, as in other metropolitan regions, the focus of the state and region's transportation programs has typically been limited to adding highway capacity when addressing travel or congestion problems. The benefits of singularly adding capacity have been found to be deficient and such short-range benefits are slowly eroded over time. With the adoption of VISION 2020, there is now a regional consensus, supported by new federal directions under ISTEA, as to how to improve the regional transportation system through a more balanced approach using all three of the above objectives, i.e., optimize current systems, manage travel demand, and selectively improve system capacity. Achieving each of these three broad objectives involves an array of alternatives and choices with respect to how they are implemented and to what extent they are individually relied upon to improve overall mobility and access. Improving the Efficiency of the Current Metropolitan Transportation System. Effective system management measures should be designed to increase the capacity of existing transportation facilities without adding major new infrastructure. Many of these measures are already being pursued in the region. The MTP will provide an opportunity to coordinate various programs to achieve greater efficiency and long- term cost-effectiveness. Examples of system management programs which could be given increased funding/priority under the MTP include: - Consideration of transit and nomnotorized transportation needs during the maintenance and preservation of regionally significant street and highway facilities; - Improvement of intermodal connections by providing convenient pedestrian and bike access to transit and marine ferry services; - Intersection modifications, including traffic channelization at intersections, intersection widenings, exclusive turn lanes, and turn prohibitions; - Street and highway modifications, including removal of @n- street parking, continuous two-way left turn lanes for undivided roads, one-way streets, bus turnout bays, and signal interconnect and coordination programs; - Freeway and arterial projects, including traffic surveillance and incident control, ramp metering, high occupancy vehicle treatments including HOV lane access for transit vehicles, reversible traffic lanes, access control; and - Development of a Congestion Management System, as mandated by federal law, which provides strategies to alleviate congestion and enhance the mobility of persons and goods including methods to monitor and evaluate performance, identify alternative actions, assess and implement cost-effective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IV) Page 27 Managing Travel Demand by Modifying the Operating Environment. Travel demand management measures are collectively a strategic option which need to be considered to assist in acconunodating future travel demand. Managing travel demand is necessary due to inadequate financial resources to add the amount of transportation capacity that would otherwise be necessary to provide mobility for an additional 1.4 million residents. Demand management measures would also assist the region in meeting the environmental objectives of VISION 2020 and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The region can draw upon demand management measures from five broad areas: Growth Management/Land Use Strategies-Concentrating population and employment growth in compact communities and in centers, as well as providing a mix of land uses within walking and short commute distances of each other can be an effective demand management strategy. Transportation Pricing-Various pricing strategies, which address the historic subsidies provided for automobile use by increasing the cost of single occupant vehicle use, can be effective ways to manage demand either on specific transportation facilities or regionwide. Four pricing strategies were identified, after considerable review of available strategies, as having potential for application in the central Puget Sound region: 1) Automatic vehicle identification-based tolls, 2) Parking charges, 3) Annual charges for vehicle miles traveled, and 4) Supplemental fuel taxes. Employer-Based Programs-These single-occupancy vehicle trip reduction programs have been implemented for some time as a result of local ordinances and passage of the state's Commute Trip Reduction law. Demand Management Supportive Facilities/Services-Transportation facilities that support the other demand management strategies by providing alternative travel options are critical to the success of an overall demand management program. These include transit facilities/service, pedestrian, bicycle and high occupancy vehicle facilities/service. Telecommunications-It is too early to determine whether the rapid advances occurring in the telecommunications field will reduce automobile dependency. The Regional Council is undertaking a major study to determine the range of transportation impacts of widespread application of emerging technologies. We do know that the widespread application of these technologies will have impacts on future trip distribution, peak periods and trip types. Adding Transportation Capacity to the Metropolitan Transportation System. Due to major increases in population and employment growth anticipated in the region over the next 25 years, increasing transportation system efficiency and modification of the transportation operating enviromnent will be inadequate to alleviate congestion and mobility problems in specific corridors. Additional transportation capacity will also have to be supplied. Various state, regional and local govenunents/agencies are advancing capacity expansion projects for rail, ferries, HOV and streets/highways. The region must demonstrate to federal agencies that these programs/projects adding transportation capacity, in aggregate, respond to the following factors identified in ISTEA: December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IV) Page 28 System Preservation/Efficiency: System additions should not compromise the preservation of existing facilities, and should be considered only after maximizing efficiency on existing facilities. - Energy Conservation: System additions must be consistent with applicable federal, state and local energy conservation programs, goals and objectives. - Congestion Relief: System additions should help relieve and prevent congestion, and they should not result in greater system congestion. - Land Use: System additions should promote land use that supports non-single occupant vehicle travel within communities and among communities and centers. - Intermodal Access: System additions should give high priority to programs/projects that provide facilities and coordinate services to make access to and transfers between modes efficient and effective. - Management Systems: System additions should provide facilities and coordinate service to maximize efficiency of the existing Metropolitan Transportation System for maximum mobility of people, goods and information, reduced fuel consumption and reduced air pollution. - Freight movement: System additions should enhance the ability of the transportation system to accommodate freight, service and information deliveries in a timely and reliable manner. - Life-cycle Costs: System additions should be designed and developed using life-cycle costs. - Economic/Environmental Effects: System additions must consider overall social, economic, energy, and environmental impacts. - Transit Improvements: System additions should give priority to programs/projects that expand and enhance transit services and increase the use of such services. - Transit Security: System additions should include capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems and that would enhance personal and property security for users and operators of the Metropolitan Transportation System. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter IV) Page 29 V. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED IMPLEMIENTATION STRATEGY BACKGROUND Development of the MTP challenged the region to determine new ways to link transportation investments to the strategies and policies embodied in VISION 2020. The diversity among user groups of the regional transportation system made development of a long-range strategy designed to implement the transportation component of VISION 2020 a complex undertaking. During the last year, extensive input was received from the PSRC Policy Boards, committees, and working groups throughout the process of developing the preferred implementation strategy. Appendix A: MTP Implementation Strategy Development Process summarizes this process. Many of the strategies and policies contained in the preferred implementation strategy have already been supported regionally through their incorporation into new comprehensive plans at the local level under the state Growth Management Act. Other strategies and policies called for by VISION 2020, which are beyond the ability of local governments to implement individually, are new. These new strategies will require additional analysis and scrutiny before they can be evaluated at a level of detail comparable to local initiatives. Traditionally, transportation policies, programs and investments have been evaluated based on their ability to provide additional transportation capacity. Whether defined by volume/capacity ratios, level-of-service measures, or total passenger volumes crossing specific locations, the single goal of most state, regional and local transportation programs has been to enlarge transportation systems. As a result, the range of transportation options analyzed has traditionally been limited to the addition of capacity. It will no longer suffice to measure the effectiveness of transportation investments by counting vehicular movements, or even people and goods movement. The individual propensity to consume all available transportation capacity appears unlimited; however, the collective willingness to provide additional transportation capacity meets continual resistance. Transportation performance should be measured against a broad affay of shared goals: advancing the region's growth management strategies, maintaining quality of life, preserving the enviromnent, and enhancing economic vitality as well as capacity expansion and management criteria. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PACKAGES Development of the MTP originally included an evaluation of four packages to assist in formulating a preferred implementation strategy. A fifth package will be addressed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as a result of Transportation Policy Board discussions in November 1994. (A description of the fifth package can be found at the end of this chapter.) The four packages already analyzed are described below. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 30 Package 1: Financially Constrained provided a "subsistence-level" package of preservation, maintenance, and transportation system management approaches, on the assumption that the regional financial outlook would be severely constrained. The package included small increases in freeway, arterial and transit system capacity over the 1990 baseline. Package 2: Moderate Capital Investment Focus assumed that the level of local transit tax necessary would be approved to complete the first phase of the high capacity transit system. The package also included some new revenue to complete WSDOT's core HOV system. Moderate investments would also be made for completing "missing links" in the regional highway network, expanded transit service and terminal facilities, and incremental improvements for nomnotorized travel. This package did not test measures to influence travel behavior beyond existing employer-based demand management programs. Package 3: Demand Management Focus assumed full build-out of the regional high capacity transit system, completion of freeway and major arterial HOV improvements, and additional incremental investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and special freight-and-goods access facilities. The revenues needed to fund these facilities would be raised initially through traditional sources such as fuel and sales taxes. These initial funding sources would be supplemented through nonconventional sources such as greatly increased fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees based on miles traveled, and road and parking pricing strategies. This package was designed to connect transportation revenues closely with system use and to minimize the growth in overall vehicle travel. Package 4: Capital Investment Focus assumed the same package of transportation facility and system improvements as Package 3. The revenues needed to support this substantial investment, however, would be generated from conventional sources including sales, motor vehicle excise, and fuel taxes. Because of the reliance on conventional funding sources, this package did not test measures to influence travel behavior beyond existing employer-based demand management programs. EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PACKAGES The four packages were assembled to test a combination of investment and revenue enhancement strategies designed to: - Maintain, preserve and improve the safety of the existing network of transportation facilities; - Add capacity to meet future growth through appropriate investments in new facilities with a major emphasis on transit and HOV, supported by lower-cost transportation system management improvements and, where required, new vehicle capacity; and - Use demand management strategies in new ways both to change travel behavior and to generate the revenue needed to support a more efficient transportation system. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 31 The fundamental purpose of the analysis was to assist in developing transportation investment strategies that would support the region's vision of integrating growth management, transportation and the regional economy by accommodating the bulk of future growth within an interconnected set of higher-density, transit-friendly, pedestrian-oriented centers contained within the urban growth boundary. The general goals of VISION 2020's transportation component and ISTEA planning requirements were organized into the following broad categories to provide a framework for evaluating the four implementation strategy packages. - Maintenance and Preservation: The underlying assumption was that the most costeffective capacity is already built and should not be allowed to deteriorate. All four packages evaluated included the same amount of funding for maintaining and preserving existing transportation systems. - Safety: This category addressed two components of transportation safety: minimizing accidents, injuries, and fatalities; and minimizing the impact of accidents and disabled vehicles on facility operations. All four packages included the same approach to transportation safety. - Transportation System Management: This category included noncapacity improvements to transportation systems that would enhance their operation. The amount and type of transportation system management improvements were the same for all four packages. - Transportation Demand Management: This category included both traditional employer-based demand management strategies such as the Statewide Commute Trip Reduction Act, and pricing strategies that directly influence transportation demand through pricing of vehicle and facility use. The traditional demand management strategies were included in all packages while the pricing strategies were evaluated only in Package 3. - Capacity Expansion: The greatest amount of new capacity would result from major investments in transit and HOV facilities. All of the packages included some new capacity ranging from a small increase in Package 1 to significant increases in Packages 3 and 4. - Access and Equity: The evaluation of packages included an analysis of equity and access from a geographic and social perspective. The analysis considered which areas of the region and which user groups would be positively or negatively impacted by the different packages. - Land Use and Economic Development: These fmal two categories differed from the other seven because they represented an end result of implementing the various packages. Each package was evaluated based on its support for overall regional goals pertaining to land use (growth management) and economic development. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 32 SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Table V-1 provides a qualitative summary of the comparison among the four packages relative to each other with respect to performance in the categories identified. An equal sign indicates that the package met a minimum threshold in the goal area. By definition, Package 2 met a minimum threshold in each of the goal areas. A "plus" sign indicates that the package performed better than the established threshold in Package 2. A "minus" sign indicates that the package failed to meet the established threshold in Package 2. Click HERE for graphic. Qualitative analysis demonstrated that the four packages would offer dramatically different results for the region. - Package 1, which measured the impacts of exclusive reliance on available funding, provided the poorest performance results. The analysis showed that this package of transportation improvements failed to support the land use goals of VISION 2020, resulted in a substantial increase in freeway and arterial congestion, offered the least improvements for air quality, and ultimately would negatively impact the region's economic development. - Package 2, which assumed a moderate increase in the gas and sales taxes to support a balanced package of transportation improvements, met minimal goals. While it would shift investment to support VISION 2020 goals, funding shortages would prevent their full implementation. If the transportation improvements in Package 2 were implemented, regional air quality would continue to worsen but would still likely meet Clean Air Act requirements. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 33 - Package 3, because it would implement new pricing strategies and funding sources, would offer the greatest rewards. It also may be the most difficult to implement because it requires a substantial change in public transportation policy. This approach would best address equity concerns voiced at RTA workshops and public hearings to raise transportation revenues from transportation sources, not from general sales taxes. By effectively pricing system use, this package would offer the greatest potential to reinforce VISION 2020 goals, support growth in centers, and shift travel demand to non-SOV modes of travel. It also would offer the most positive impacts on regional air quality. - Package 4, which assumed conventional funding sources to implement the same transportation improvements identified in Package 3, would offer some improvements to mobility and land use goals, but would have significantly less impact on managing travel demand and thus alleviating congestion and reducing emissions. Its primary advantage over Package 3 would be that it would not require fundamental legal, political and institutional changes to implement. SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS In addition to the qualitative assessment of the packages against the major goal areas, a quantitative assessment of the packages was prepared. This quantitative assessment was based on results from the Regional Council's regional travel demand forecasting model. Table V-2 summarizes the results of the modeling efforts and identifies the relative differences among the packages for major Metropolitan Transportation System performance indicators. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 34 Click HERE for graphic. The following summary highlights the important performance differences among the parkages when compared with current and forecasted performance of the current Metropolitan Transportation System: - 1990. Transportation system performance in 1990 was included in the table to provide a frame of reference for comparing the performance of the different packages in 2020. In 1990, there was an average of 63.4 million daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 150,000 hours of delay during the PM peak three-hour period. - 2020 Trend. This data represented transportation system performance in 2020 without any improvements to the current Metropolitan Transportation System. It also provided a frame of reference for comparison with the four 2020 packages. Daily VMT would increase by more than 60 percent and PM peak period delay would increase by nearly December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 35 350 percent compared to 1990. There was little difference in the overall transportation system mode split compared to 1990. - 2020 Package 1. Little improvement was forecasted in overall system performance compared to the 2020 Trend package. Similar increases in daily VMT and in PM peak period delay, when compared with the 2020 Trend, were identified (close to 290 percent above 1990). The facility improvements associated with this package would have little positive effect on systemwide performance. - 2020 Package 2. This package resulted in very little improvement in systemwide performance when compared to Package 1. Daily VMT increased about 55 percent and PM peak-period delay increased by 250 percent above the 1990 baseline. As expected, the percent mode split for transit for all trips was more than twice as high as Package I because of added transit investment. However, the percent carpool mode split for this package decreased by a similar amount. Therefore, the overall single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode split for all trips in Package 2 remained about the same as in Package 1. - 2020 Package 3. Because of significant demand management emphasis assumed in this package, there was a greater improvement in systemwide performance when compared to any of the other packages. Daily VMT for this package was approximately 10 percent less than for the other packages. Forecasts of the hours of delay during the PM peak period on the region's arterial/freeway network reflect the best performance for this package compared to the other packages. PM peak hours of delay under this scenario would be only slightly greater than in 1990. This represents outstanding performance considering this scenario would be meeting the travel demands of an additional 1.4 million people. The SOV mode split for both work and nonwork trips was also substantially lower compared to the other packages. This package clearly demonstrated that significant transportation system performance benefits can be achieved when major capital investments in transit and HOV systems are combined with significant pricing disincentives for the single-occupant vehicle. - 2020 Package 4. There was minor improvement in systemwide performance compared to Package 2, but the incremental performance improvement for Package 4 may not be worth the substantial increase in investment over Package 2. The analysis results for Package 4 clearly indicated the importance of the pricing strategies in Package 3 to complement the significant increase in facility investment assumed in both Packages 3 and 4. Without pricing strategies, the benefits obtained by making improvements in the transportation system would be questionable. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The results of both the qualitative and quantitative analysis clearly highlighted the importance of implementing strategies that affect travel demand in conjunction with transportation supply increases. This conclusion was supported by the substantial decrease in regional congestion and vehicle miles traveled in Package 3 compared to the other packages. Without the direct link between transportation system user fees and facility improvements, the region would December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PIAN (Chapter V) Page 36 continue to be dominated by automobile travel and most of it by people driving alone. The strategies assumed in Package 3 appear to present the region with its best opportunity to advance the land use and economic development goals of VISION 2020. In reaching this conclusion, it was important to consider broader regional goals and value created by travel, as opposed to continuing the traditional approach of measuring travel itself. Making this shift from measures of volume and capacity to measures of value is a challenge that needs to be continually emphasized throughout the implementation phase of the MTP. If the region is not able over the long term to make the shift toward more value- oriented solutions, transportation investments on the supply side will continue to prove ineffective in responding to the inevitable increase in travel demand that will occur during the next 25 years if the current operating enviromnent is not modified. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ALTERNATIVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Based upon discussion at the Transportation Policy Board meeting on November 10, 1994, an additional implementation strategy alternative is being prepared. The results of the analysis for this alternative will be incorporated into the Draft Supplemental Envirorunental Impact Statement (SEIS) being prepared under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the Draft MTP. This document will be released on December 23, 1994. Stronger Environmental Focus for the Additional Alternative. The additional alternative implementation strategy will be characterized by a focus on accelerated investment in bus transit and nomnotorized transportation alternatives and reduced investment in new arterial and highway capacity expansion projects. Following are the primary assumptions that provide the foundation for preparing this alternative, and for analyzing it to identify the extent to which it would affect 2020 travel demand. Transportation Supply Assumptions: - The highway network to be assumed in the regional transportation model for the year 2020 will be the same network that exists today, with only those approved arterial and highway projects currently funded and reflected in the 1994-96 TIP. - The HOV system identified in Package 3, which represents WSDOT's commitment to a complete HOV system for the central Puget Sound region in 2020, would be tested in the regional travel demand models based upon lane conversions rather than on new lane construction. Additionally, operating assumptions of the HOV system will be modified to increase the carrying capacity of the system. - The regional rail and express bus systems assumed in Package 3, which reflect completion of the RTA's Master Plan, will also be assumed in this alternative. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 37 - The local bus transit networks identified in Package 3 will also be assumed to be fully improved in this alternative, but the amount of service would be greatly expanded to accommodate mode shifts expected to occur assuming transportation pricing strategies are employed. - Passenger ferry service will be tripled over current capacity, but no additional auto ferry capacity will be assumed. Transportation Demand Assumption: - The same transportation pricing strategies employed in Package 3 will be assumed at the same levels for this alternative. Land Use Assumption: - The same land use assumptions underlying Package 3, which are based upon local GNM comprehensive plans, will be used for this alternative. The assumptions described above relate to transportation facilities and services which are required to be in the regional transportation model to enable a review of the impact of various strategies on affecting future travel demand. In addition to these factors, this alternative will assume various system operation and investment policies and environmental mitigation not currently contained in any of the other policies, most of which will be analyzed qualitatively. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter V) Page 38 VI. THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY DESCRIPTION In developing the draft MTP, federal transportation planning requirements outlined in ISTEA were viewed as a starting point to identify a preferred long-range transportation investment strategy. It is fortunate for the central Puget Sound region that ISTEA direction on transportation priorities is consistent with policies previously adopted and currently being advanced in VISION 2020. ISTEA requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to place highest priority on maintenance and preservation of existing transportation systems before committing to expansion of those systems. A preliminary financial capacity assessment for the region indicated that current revenue sources are marginally adequate to maintain and preserve all modes of the existing transportation systems (local and regional). The preliminary assessment found that little revenue is available for desired expansion projects/prograins for any mode. A similar financial conclusion was reached by the Washington State Transportation Commission and presented to the Regional Council earlier this year as the state began developing its Transportation System Plan. In addition to constraints due to the region's current financial capacity, another major factor influencing development of the preferred implementation strategy relates to Clean Air Act requirements and environmental quality in general. To continue the flow of federal transportation ftmding into the region, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan must stand the test of air quality conformity. Developing an MTP that meets Clean Air Act requirements and promotes maintaining and improving the desired mobility and quality of life as embodied in VISION 2020-assuming an additional 1.4 million people and another .7 million jobs in the region by the year 2020-is a major challenge. It requires that the region's final MTP include a commitment to develop significant demand management strategies in the long-term. As has often been said, We can't build our way out of congestion and growth issues. This adage holds true now more than ever. The preferred implementation strategy responds to the three primary ISTEA requirements pertaining to long-range transportation plans: 1) that Liey be financially constrained and ensure maintenance of the current Metropolitan Transportation System; 2) that they be multimodal in nature to provide users with options in moving people, goods and services and; 3) that they improve internodalism to ensure efficient and user-friendly transfers between modes, whether for people or goods. As noted previously, the preferred implementation strategy is based upon a recognition that modifying the transportation operating environment is essential if major travel changes are to be achieved. The benefits accrued from modifying the transportation operating environment are quantifiable. Table VI-1 compares the Metropolitan Transportation System's performance in 2020 based on current trends, to its performance in 2020 based on implementation of the preferred strategy. Due to significant emphasis on comprehensive demand management, the preferred strategy reflects substantial improvement in all areas of transportation system December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 39 performance compared with what would occur if current trends were to continue. (Figure VlI shows those segments of the Metropolitan Transportation System that would experience congestion subsequent to implementation of the preferred strategy. To compare with congestion based on the "trends" scenario, see Figure II-3.) Over the long term, implementation of the preferred strategy would result in: - Fewer vehicle miles traveled during the PM peak, - Higher average speeds on the arterial/freeway network during the PM peak, - Fewer hours of delay on the arterial/freeway network during the PM peak, - Reduced single-occupant vehicle use, - Increased use of carpools and transit, and - Less congestion on the region's arterials during the PM peak. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 40 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 41 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 42 Several notes of caution are necessary to interpret the performance indicators for the preferred implementation strategy. As an analytical tool, the modeling was conducted to determine overall effectiveness of demand management, primarily through pricing strategies. The results identified in Table VI-1 clearly demonstrate that major transportation system performance benefits can be achieved when major capital investments in HOV and transit are combined with pricing disincentives for use of the single- occupant vehicle. However, it should be recognized that the performance of the preferred strategy is based on the aggregate benefits of the four major pricing strategies tested. It is highly unlikely that all four of the strategies would actually be implemented simultaneously and at the levels modeled. Each of the pricing strategies will be modeled individually to determine its discrete effectiveness in contributing to reductions in congestion, vehicle miles traveled and tripmaking. This information will be useful in further analyzing the appropriateness and ramifications of specific pricing strategies and the most appropriate phasing for implementation. It is important that discussions regarding the specific pricing strategies to be included in the final MTP and corresponding pricing levels include a recognition that these strategies cannot be implemented individually without having negative secondary effects. For example, if congestion pricing were to be employed on the region's freeway network at pricing levels that proved to be extremely effective in reducing congestion on the freeway system, the region's arterial system might be expected to correspondingly experience more congestion. It is critical that optimal pricing levels be sought for each strategy advanced, to maximize benefits to all components of the Metropolitan Transportation System and all users of the system. The pricing strategies would be most effective if they are implemented in such a way and at such levels that support%wISION 2020 objectives and minimize negative consequences or unwanted outcomes. Influencing transportation's operating environment will involve redirecting transportation policies and investments from the old approach of simply increasing capacity to respond to travel demand, to a new approach of supporting and encouraging new travel trends. Supplying additional capacity mainly for the automobile has not solved transportation problems; it has resulted in worsening congestion and air pollution. The transportation strategy and policies address both the capacity expansion necessary to establish a variety of travel options and the changes in travel required to reduce auto dependence. As described below, four broad policy areas and two of narrower focus provide a framework for the transportation strategy. Maintain, Preserve and Manage Transportation Facilities and Services Efficient management of existing transportation facilities and services can significantly influence how well our transportation system works. A top priority of system management is to invest in the maintenance and preservation of the present transportation system to ensure that past investments are protected and that the system will remain safe and usable long into the future. Transportation system management activities include ramp metering and priority HOV lane access for transit vehicles. These measures increase the capacity of existing transportation facilities without adding major new infrastructure. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 43 Central to the system management strategy is the retrofitting of regional streets and arterials for transit and nomnotorized travel opportunities during maintenance and preservation. This retrofitting increases both intermodal opportunities and Metropolitan Transportation System capacity. Short Te%w. Maintenance and preservation of streets/highways that are funded by regional discretionary funds will be given high priority if those facilities are designed to accommodate nomnotorized travel and transit service. Incorporating sidewalks, bike trails, and transit priority treatments where appropriate may increase total project costs somewhat, but will significantly improve alternatives to driving alone. Long Term. The long-range system management component is identified within the region's federally mandated Congestion Management System (CMS) work plan. The Congestion Management System will include methods to monitor and evaluate performance, identify alternative actions, implement cost-effective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions. Manage Travel Demand Addressing Traffic Congestion and Environmental Objectives Transportation demand management (TDM) is the term for programmatic strategies designed to make efficient use of the transportation system. Specifically, demand management strategies attempt to increase transit ridership, vehicle occupancy, walking and bicycling, and reduce the lengths of some trips, move them to off- peak periods, or eliminate them altogether. Demand management can reduce single-occupant vehicle travel, thereby reducing traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and fuel consumption. During the past several decades, daily household trip-making has grown at a much faster rate than the population. Transportation demand management strategies are designed to slow this trend. Traditional TDM strategies have focused almost exclusively on reducing commute trips, but nonwork trips account for 80 percent of all trips. In both the short and long terms, the region needs to find new demand management strategies that reduce single-occupant vehicle trips for all travel purposes. Short Term. Conventional demand management strategies that will be used in the short term include incentives to encourage transit patronage, ridesharing, pedestrian/bicycle t%wvel, telecommuting, teleconferencing, flexible and alternative work schedules, and TDM- supportive land use. Long Term. Over the long term, the region will need to implement stronger disincentives to discourage drive-alone trips. The preferred strategy calls for transportation pricing mechanisms to provide these disincentives. Market-based incentives and disincentives have the potential to reduce travel demand and air pollution, while providing funds to finance transportation alternatives. Pricing mechanisms attempt to counter the negative results that occur from the artificially low costs of driving alone. These costs are kept below true market levels through numerous December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 44 subsidies (road construction, parking, fuel) and through the failure to price peak use of facilities-i.e., drivers are not held accountable for the costs they impose on other users when they enter an already-crowded facility, as telephone users are when they call long distance during peak times. The failure to price peak use efficiently leads individual drivers to overuse the facilities, resulting in wasted time, fuel, and other resources. The artificially low cost of driving alone also imposes significant handicaps on transit and carpools. Long term measures would likely include some combination of the following pricing mechanisms tested in an extensive transportation pricing study undertaken by the Regional Council: - Automatic Vehicle Identification-based travel fee: Automatic vehicle identification equipment could be used to price the regional freeway and arterial system to maintain efficient service levels on all links. Prices would vary among links as a function of volume and capacity. - Annual vehicle miles traveled charge: Fees could be paid in proportion to miles driven when license plates are renewed. - Parking charges: Workers driving alone in the region would pay a minimum daily fee for parking at the workplace. - Fuel tax increases: As with present fuel taxes, increased fuel taxes would be paid at the pump. Focus Transportation Investments on Supporting Pedestrian-Oriented Land Use Patterns The land use and development patterns of communities have an enormous effect on how people travel, and conversely, transportation investments can dramatically influence how land is developed. VISION 2020 fosters a land form characterized by a greater mix of land uses, a denser network of streets, pathways and other public rights-of-way, and, in general, an urban environment which is more amenable to walking, biking, and using transit. Creating and supporting pedestrian-oriented land use patterns includes consideration of appropriate location, intensity, and configuration of various land uses, such as housing, jobs, stores, and schools. In addition, land use patterns are in part comprised of and shaped by the roads, sidewalks, pathways and other public infrastructure that we use to travel, whether by foot, car, bus, or bike. Promotion o f walking, bicycling and transit use for short, localized trips is the most effective way to shift from motor vehicle use. Short Term. In the short term, desired land use patterns will be promoted through programming decisions made in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Priority for regional-discretionary funds in the TIP will be given to areas that have land use characteristics advocated in VISION 2020 or that can demonstrate a strong commitment toward achieving these land use objectives through local plans. Specific TIP criteria and guidelines will be developed in cooperation with local governments to implement this strategy. Targeting December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 45 transportation investments in this way will provide a regional incentive for creating land use patterns that support walking, biking, and transit use. Long Term. Over the long term, transportation investments will be oriented toward establishing a regional network of facilities for walking and biking such as that already existing for cars. The preferred implementation strategy proposes investment in three major pedestrian/bicycle program areas to create a comprehensive nomnotorized transportation network throughout the central Puget Sound region: - A regional network of nonmotorized transportation facilities: A network of safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities will link centers and other regional attractions such as major recreation and employment areas. The network will promote bicycling and walking as viable options for commuting, recreation, and other intra-regional travel opportunities. It will also allow for safe pedestrian and bike access across major transportation corridors. - Local networks for nonmotorized travel: A more localized network of safe and convenient routes for bicycling and walking to and within centers will reduce the need for auto trips. Local networks will include sidewalks and bicycle routes with safe crossings at arterials and intersections to directly link residential neighborhoods and centers. - Pedestrian connections to transit: Transit services and nonmotorized travel will be better integrated through improvements to transit facilities as well as by shaping growth in the vicinity of transit stations. Transit facility improvements could include bicycle storage at major transit stops, secure and attractive waiting areas, and improved bike carrying capacity on transit facilities. Improvements around transit stations will be supported by investments that help achieve land use changes that promote transit use. Expand Transportation Capacity Offering Greater Mobility Options To provide for future mobility needs and to achieve VISION 2020 objectives, additional transportation capacity will be needed, primarily to support alternatives to automobile travel. Increasing travel options begins with improving opportunities for pedestrian travel, which in turn, improves opportunities for transit use and other alternatives to driving alone. Major capacity expansions in public transit service as well as walking and bicycle facilities are needed if we are to realize the goals of VISION 2020. Short Term. The preferred strategy includes several core system additions which either meet or are likely to meet legal requirements of being "financially constrained"; that is, their funding sources are already identified. These currently financially constrained projects comprise the short-term additions to the Metropolitan Transportation System. They assume a moderate level of system expansion achieved by moderate increases in conventional transportation financing sources to benefit all modes, including: - Phase I of the Regional Transit Authority's (RTA) rail/bus system plan: Phase I includes a light rail transit system from downtown Seattle to the north, south and east, and December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 46 a commuter rail system operating on Burlington Northern tracks between Everett in Snohomish County and Lakewood in Pierce County. The locations of the north and south termini of the light rail system are still being debated by the RTA board members. The location of the east terminus will be in the Overlake area of Bellevue/Redmond. - Completion of WSDOT's core HOV system: The core system includes 282 miles of freeway HOV lanes, 16 miles of HOV lanes on multilane highways, and 75 miles on arterial streets beyond the current Metropolitan Transportation System. - Completion of a portion of the "missing links" in the regional highway network: These links include an additional 4.7 miles of freeways, 5.1 miles of multilane highways, and 66.1 miles of arterial streets beyond the current Metropolitan Transportation System. Long Term. The preferred implementation strategy identifies a number of long-term projects necessary to implement the transportation and land use goals found in VISION 2020. They are considered long term because they are not currently financially constrained (i.e., they do not have funding sources already identified). - Completion of the entire RTA system plan: The total RTA system includes a 105-mile rapid rail system connecting Seattle to Everett, Tacoma, Bellevue, and other regional centers. - Completion of all freeway and major arterial HOV facilities currently identified by WSDOT: Beyond the short-term, financially constrained improvements listed above, WSDOT has identified the long-term need for an additional 52 miles of freeway HOV lanes, 25 miles of HOV lanes on multilane highways, and 18 miles on arterial streets. - Completion of the remaining missing links in the regional highway network: Beyond the short-term, financially constrained improvements listed above, WSDOT has identified the long-term need for an additional 7 miles of multilane highways and 4.8 miles of arterial streets. No additional long-term needs have been identified for freeways. - Incremental expansion of nonmotorized transportation facilities. - Special freight and goods access facilities. As noted above, the transportation pricing strategies assumed in the preferred implementation strategy have the potential to raise large amounts of revenue that could be reinvested in the transportation system. These investments would be made in transit, HOV, nomnotorized transportation facilities, and improved access for freight and goods movements. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 47 Improve Freight and Goods Mobility ISTEA requires explicit consideration of freight and goods movement as part of developing the MTP. The economic competitiveness of the region and its product users and suppliers throughout the world also depends on the maintenance and improvement of the freight transportation system. The Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable has developed a list of actions to be considered for incorporation into the final MTP. The following represents a brief summary of those recommendations. Institutional. Inclusion of freight criteria, such as nonencroachment on freight rail corridors by passenger rail, as part of plan review guidelines to be applied under the GMA; modification of the Transportation Improvement Program process to give "equivalent consideration" to improved freight movement in order to pursue the region's economic and air quality goals; freight-focused analysis of major investments; subarea studies to improve port/airport access and local freight flows; completion and maintenance of a freight transportation data base and information system to identify and assess the value of alternative proposed actions. Operational. Development and implementation of a one-stop permit system for oversize loads; placement of weigh stations within port properties; protection of freight mobility from lane policies intended to restrict future general purpose lanes; extension of gate hours at port terminals. Infrastructural. Designation and efficient review of the roadway portion of the regional freight and goods transportation system; development of a mutually acceptable strategy for the mixed-rail (freight and passenger) corridor between Seattle and Tacoma, including identification of strategic locations requiring highway grade separations; preparation of a design manual and guidelines for freight transportation facilities; development and improvement of on-dock rail capacity at ports. Meet the Region's Aviation Needs The region's adopted strategy for meeting long-term commercial air transportation needs includes conditional authorization of a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International airport, subject to achievement of noise reduction and feasible demand management objectives and environmental review. In addition, The Regional Council has recommended establishment of procedures to allow for incentives and compensation for proximity impacts of the siting of public facilities such as airports, and evaluation of potential substitutes for certain types of air travel, including high speed rail. (For further details and an historical overview of aviation planning in the region, see "Aviation Program.") December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 48 DETAILS OF THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION The preferred implementation strategy places highest priority on the maintenance and preservation of existing transportation systems and services. In requiring long-range transportation plans to be financially- constrained, ISTEA links maintenance and preservation objectives to maximizing efficiency through system management and to increasing opportunities for intermodal travel. ISTEA requires that long range transportation plans "...assess capital investment and other measures necessary to ensure the preservation of the existing Metropolitan Transportation System ... and make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the mobility of people and goods." ISTEA also explicitly links the use of maintenance and preservation programs to the increase of intermodal opportunities noting that, "In meeting maintenance and preservation requirements, funds may be obligated for ... any such construction or reconstruction necessary to accommodate other transportation modes." The preferred implementation strategy meets ISTEA requirements with respect to maintenance and preservation from both policy and program perspectives. A preliminary financial assessment of capital investment for the region has shown that current funding mechanisms are marginally adequate to provide for maintenance and preservation. Implicit in the preferred implementation strategy is a recognition that effective maintenance and preservation programs are the most cost-effective means of assuring and providing capacity for the Metropolitan Transportation System. Maintenance projects conserve the safety, efficiency and cleanliness of the modal facilities and services comprising the Metropolitan Transportation System, while preservation projects are designed to extend the effective life of the existing modal components. Preservation projects are typically broader in scale than maintenance projects and represent a cost- effective approach to meeting travel demand requirements. PROPOSED SYSTEM MANAGEMENT In addition to investing in transportation infrastructure and managing transportation demand, the preferred implementation strategy includes short- and long-term operational and management changes to achieve maximum efficiency from current transportation facilities and services. As a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA), the region, through the Regional Council, is required to develop a Congestion Management System (CMS) as part of the metropolitan planning process, under federal law (23 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Subpart E). The federal regulations define the CMS as "a systematic process that provides information on transportation system performance and alternative strategies to alleviate congestion and enhance the mobility of persons and goods." The CMS will identify specific transportation management system improvements to be implemented in the long term. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 49 Until the region's CMS is adopted, the system management strategy will be to proceed with current commitments to expand and improve the efficiency of transportation facilities. This will be done by employing programs such as ramp metering, transit-priority HOV-Iane access, and procedures to respond to traffic incidents that can cause congestion. Other system management improvements that add capacity without requiring major new infrastructure additions will continue to be implemented where appropriate: - Intersection modifications: traffic channelization at intersections; intersection widening; exclusive turn lanes; turn prohibitions; one-way streets; signal interconnect and coordination programs; bus turnout bays; railroad grade separations. - Street/highway modifications: removal of on-street parking; continuous two-way left turn lanes for undivided roads; traffic surveillance and incident control; ramp metering; high occupancy vehicle priority treatments; reversible traffic lanes; access control. In general, the CMS must include methods to monitor and evaluate performance, identify alternative actions, assess and implement cost-effective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions. The performance measures are to be developed jointly by the state, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and operators of major modes of transportation. In this region, performance measures are being developed by WSDOT, the Regional Council, public transit operators, and other freight/goods interests. The core of the CMS planning process centers on the identification and evaluation of congestion mitigation strategies. A detailed description of the planning process to be employed to further refine the region's commitment to transportation system operational and management changes is provided in the Congestion Management System Work Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, Puget Sound Regional Council, September, 1994. PROPOSED DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The preferred implementation strategy relies heavily on transportation demand management (TDAP strategies which attempt to encourage people to modify their travel behavior, especially in the future when the impact of population growth on transportation facilities will be significant. One of the first MTP implementation actions should be the establishment of a regional TDM oversight group. The purpose of this group would be to coordinate TDM actions, not to assume local TDM efforts. Just as state law established the Rapid Transit Agency (RTA) to oversee development of a regional transit system, a similar TDM body could ensure that TDM efforts and resources are consolidated, strengthened and supported throughout the region. Membership of the TDM oversight group should include staff-level representation from local and regional governments, public transit agencies, appropriate state agencies, and business, community, environmental and other public forums. The Regional Council could facilitate coordination. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 50 A list of tasks to be undertaken by the TDM oversight group would include the following: - Define the regional TDM program - Coordinate existing strategies and develop new ones as appropriate - Identify costs and funding sources - Identify appropriate legislative actions where required - Develop a regional public education and marketing strategy - Coordinate timing of regional TDM strategies and provision of non-SOV alternatives - Define the roles and responsibilities of TDM participants - Policy oversight - Administration - Funding - Evaluation - Develop a system to monitor and evaluate the effects of TDM strategies on a regional basis Typically, because nonwork trips are more difficult to address due to their diversity of origin, destination and purpose, most TDM measures (including those identified in VISION 2020 and those currently in practice) are designed to influence the work trip. But, since nonwork trips comprise about 80 percent of all surface travel, the regional TDM program needs to address nonwork trips as well. To meet the needs of the region as it continues to grow and to ensure that TDM strategies remain viable in the context of regional changes such as those associated with land use patterns and alternative travel modes, refinement of the regional TDM program should be considered an ongoing process. Implementation of broad TDM strategies is essential if the region is to respond to specific state and federal mandates. For example, under state law RCW 47.80.030, the region must establish level-of- service standards for state-owned or state-operated transportation facilities. Due to the additional 1.4 million residents expected to live in the region by the year 2020, it will be virtually impossible to maintain established level-of-service standards without utilizing TDM strategies to reduce demand on those facilities. In addition to minimizing and redistributing travel demand, TDM strategies can also be highly cost-effective. When implemented in conjunction with supply-side improvements, they can help realize the full potential of those improvements. RCW 47.80.030 mandates that the regional transportation plan must be "based on a least- cost planning methodology that identifies the most cost-effective facilities, services and programs." Federal law (ISTEA) requires that investment analyses for major capacity expansion projects consider alternatives-including TDM-prior to committing to major investment in roadway or transit infrastructure. Effective TDM strategies can support greater utilization of the proposed investments and/or eliminate the need for some of the planned infrastructure. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 51 In the short term, the preferred implementation strategy advocates that the region's TDM efforts continue to focus on promoting and supporting ridesharing, ridematching, telecommuting, teleconferencing, transit use, flexible and alternative work schedules, nonmotorized travel, carpool subsidies, indirect market incentives, and land use strategies. To be effective in reducing growth in tripmaking and vehicle miles traveled in the region in the long term, TDM strategies must be more comprehensive and targeted at all trips, not just work commute trips. Regional data indicates that nonwork trips are growing at a faster rate than work trips and comprise a far greater proportion of the total of all trips. A more market oriented, user-based approach to TDM is being recommended over the long term. Market incentives and disincentives can reduce travel demand and air pollutants, while providing transportation alternatives and new sources of transportation financing. In most parts of the region, congestion and vehicle miles traveled per capita continue to grow and the percentage of trips on transit continues to decline. Significant air quality improvements in the region in recent years have come mainly from fleet and fuel performance improvements, not from local TDM measures. Many experts have long held that the explanation for this trend lies in the failure to provide appropriate pricing signals to users of congested facilities during periods of peak use. When drivers add their vehicles to the traffic stream on an already-crowded highway, they impose significant, additional delay costs on other travelers. Although the individual travelers bear their own portion of the congestion burden, most are oblivious to the costs imposed on other motorists. As would be the case with other utilities such as electricity and long distance telephone use, the failure to price peak use efficiently leads individuals to overuse the facility, resulting in greater use of time, fuel, and other resources than would be the case if the highway were properly priced. Besides these impacts, the pricing distortion also imposes handicaps on the performance of transit and carpool alternatives. The congestion that results from this overuse can stimulate inefficient investment in highway capacity. Typically highway capacity is added to congested links; if, however, congestion is a result of improper pricing, investments in additional capacity may be inappropriate. Market based pricing schemes can be viewed as measures to normalize the highway pricing and investment process. They represent a step toward treating highway capacity in the same manner that other valuable commodities and services are treated in a market economy. Because the term congestion pricing suggests a narrow range of policy options, most experts use the term transportation pricing to describe the broader policy arenas outlined here. Congestion pricing is one form of transportation pricing. Transportation Pricing. Transportation pricing strategies are considered as long-term actions due to the complexity, public education requirements, and technical/logistical problems inherent in their implementation. The region needs to examine and resolve a number of general issues about how to go about implementation of pricing strategies during the development of the MTP. Resolution of these more specific issues can be deferred to future MTP amendments and refinements. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 52 Earlier this year, the Regional Council undertook an extensive transportation pricing study which included review and evaluation of a wide range of pricing options and modeling of four pricing alternatives. (See Evaluating Congestion Pricing Alternatives for the Puget Sound Region, ECO Northwest, BRW Inc., Deakin/Harvey/Skabardonis, September 1994 (MTP 17).) Preliminary results of the potential effectiveness of these alternatives in reducing travel demand and their corresponding revenue-generating capabilities are provided in Table VI-2 below. Click HERE for graphic. (1) Strategies are adjusted for approximately equivalent revenue generation. (2) Weekday vehicle miles traveled, estimated at 61 million in 1990. (3) Total weekday one-way vehicle trips, estimated at 8.7 million in 1990. (4) Weekday vehicle hours of travel, estimated at 2.1 million in 1990. (4) Weekday gallons of fuel consumed, estimated at 3.4 million gallons per day for private autos and light trucks in 1990. It should be noted that the combined-strategies scenario shown in the above table demonstrates the potential impact from pursuing all four strategies. It is recognized that realistic implementation of these strategies would involve carefully balancing a much reduced combination of the individual levels if more than one strategy were to be implemented. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 53 From a systemwide perspective, the various pricing strategies could have a substantial impact in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), total trips and weekday vehicle hours of travel in the region. All of these benefits are consistent with the goals of VISION 2020. The pricing measures also provide a substantial benefit in terms of revenue-generating potential, as shown in the final column of the table. Emission-reduction estimates were also documented in the congestion pricing study; these reduction levels are generally consistent with the VMT reductions shown above. The individual measures, at the pricing levels shown above, could reduce the 1994 daily VMT by about 1.0 to 3.6 percent, or .6 to 2.2 million vehicle miles in the four-county region. Taken together, the combined effect of all four measures could reduce daily VMT by about 7 percent or 4.3 million vehicle miles. The travel reductions shown for the four pricing strategies combined are highly speculative because there is little or no empirical evidence available nationally on the effects of multiple pricing strategies. However, the reductions shown here are generally consistent with similar planning efforts that evaluated the potential effectiveness of various pricing strategies in California. As noted in Modeling Congestion Pricing Alternatives for the Puget Sound, different pricing levels were selected for testing each of the pricing measures for 1994 and 2020. For each level tested, the resulting amount of revenue was also estimated. The pricing levels tested and the resulting effectiveness for each strategy in 1994 are described below: - Regionwide congestion pricing. Fees tested for all congested facilities were set in proportion to unconstrained congestion levels, resulting in higher fees on more congested facilities. The average fee for all priced facilities ranged from $.07 to $.12 per mile in 1994 and 2020, respectively. The maximum fee for an individual roadway ranged from $.90 to $1.30 per mile. While the potential of this measure to reduce vehicle miles traveled and number of trips is not as high as that of the mileage-based fee, the reductions in vehicle hours of travel and fuel consumption are higher. This difference is due to the fact that it is the only measure that prices a facility in direct proportion to its level of congestion. - Regionwide employee parking charge. Parking charges of $1.70 to $3.00 per day for single-occupant vehicles were evaluated for 1994 and 2020. This pricing level was chosen because it is approximately the amortized value of a typical suburban employee parking space. On its own, this measure is less effective than the others in terms of its potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled. - Fuel fees. Fuel fees ranging from $.40 to $2.00 per gallon were tested for 1994 and 2020. The $.40 tax in 1994 has vehicle miles traveled and trip reduction potentials similar to those of congestion pricing and employee parking charges, but its potential to reduce fuel consumption is understandably higher. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 54 - Mileage-based fees. This strategy was found to be the most effective VMT and trip reduction measure. Mileage-based fees ranging from $.02 to $.05 per mile were evaluated for 1994 and 2020. At the pricing levels shown in the above table, the VMT reduction produced by the mileage-based fee would be more than three times that of the parking fee, and more than two and a half times the reductions produced by the fuel fee. While each of the transportation pricing strategies has advantages and disadvantages, the mileage-based fee clearly has the greatest potential VMT- and trip-reduction benefit when the four measures are compared on an equal annual revenue-generation basis. The mileage based fee results in consistently high reductions in all four of the travel-related categories shown in the above table. The regionwide congestion pricing strategy would result in greater travel-time and fuel-consumption reductions; however, the VMT and trip reductions would be significantly lower than those realized with the mileage-based fee strategy. In 1993, the state legislature established a new program, The New Partners: Public Private Initiatives in Transportation, to test the feasibility of privately financed transportation improvements in Washington. A statutory framework to pursue public/private transportation initiatives has been developed. The Regional Council will be working closely with WSDOT to carefully coordinate programs being advanced by the state, to reconcile them with long term pricing strategies being contemplated in the region through the MTP planning process. During the coming months, the following steps need to be part of the decision-making process for selecting and implementing the most appropriate pricing strategy(ies) for the region: - Screen candidate pricing strategies and select the most appropriate for further consideration. - Identify and affect any institutional or legislative changes that would be needed to implement the selected strategy(ies). - Establish potential fee ranges for each of the selected strategy(ies). - Establish a process for reinvesting the revenues generated from the pricing strategy(ies) into the transportation system. - Identify and resolve inequities that are created for particular population segments and user groups. - Identify and resolve technical issues and costs associated with implementation. Transportation pricing strategies show great potential for influencing travel behavior and reducing SOV travel. However, the public cannot be expected to accept such measures until and unless they can see the benefits to be realized through implementation. Public education must become an integral part of a successful regionwide transportation pricing strategy, along with supportive land use and provision of adequate alternatives to driving alone. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 55 Telecommunications. To be an effective long-term guide for regional transportation decision-making, the MTP must be flexible enough to account for the rapid socioeconomic and technological changes that impact personal travel, travel patterns, and transportation needs. One set of changes that will have a major impact on travel involves the rapid advances and applications taking place in telecommunications. Many transportation market segments are already in the midst of totally redefining what transportation means to the consumer. The Regional Council has undertaken an important study to identify those transportation markets that will be most affected by telecommunications in the future. The novelty and diversity of these changes makes it difficult to estimate their impacts. The project will identify possible outcomes by developing a core data base which future studies will refine and augment. The project includes the use of an expert review panel comprised of local economic leaders and others who will both affect and be affected by technological innovations in the telecommunications and computer industries. The panel's purpose is to review the possible impacts of various technologies on the region's transportation systems. A variety of technologies are being considered, including those related to communications and the electronic transfer of information and funds; telecommuting and other revisions in work practices; system management and other travel related developments; and the restructuring of specific industries to take advantage of these new technological applications. The project's initial phase will identify the potential application of various technologies over the MTP's 25-year planning horizon. The project's second phase will initiate construction of a data base of subpopulations and geographic areas most likely to be affected by the technologies identified, their overall impact on trip volumes, their impact on specific trip types, and their impact on trip timing. The project will also employ a value-neutral methodology that will allow for the possibility that these technologies may increase, rather than decrease, trip volumes or certain trip types. While other metropolitan regions are recognizing the significance of telecommunications in their transportation futures, no other region is assessing the possible impacts of specific technologies on regional trip-making and travel patterns to the extent involved in the Regional Council's project. Preliminary results are expected to be made available at the January 1995 Telecommunities Conference. Final results will be incorporated into future refinements of the MTP. PROPOSED REGIONAL SYSTEM FOR NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL The preferred implementation strategy calls for a significant increase in facilities that support pedestrian and bicycle travel Short trips, including those that provide access to transit and across busy roadways, have been identified as the most fertile ground for encouraging a shift from motor vehicle use to December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 56 walking and bicycling. Improving the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is critical to advancing these forms of transportation. Investment in three major pedestrian/bicycle program areas will create a comprehensive regionwide transportation network for nomnotorized travel modes. Figure VI-2 conceptually depicts the three components of the proposed regional nomnotorized- transportation system: linking communities at the regional level, shifting from vehicle trips to nonmotorized trips at the local level, and providing intermodal connections at rail, ferry, and other transit stops. The removal of physical barriers and improved maintenance of the pedestrian/bicycle network are key aspects of all three program areas. Such improvements, along with regional design/maintenance standards and public information campaigns, will make the system safer, more accessible and more likely to be used. Development of a Regional Network of Nonmotorized-Transportation Facilities. A network of safe and convenient bicycle/pedestrian facilities provides greater opportunities for regional or intercommunity non-motorized travel. These facilities will link central places and other regional attractions such as major recreation and employment centers. The Regional Council will facilitate coordination among local jurisdictions in the region to ensure implementation of the regional network. A regional network of nonmotorized transportation facilities will promote the use of bicycles for commuting and for travel between central places. It will also provide safer access for bicyclists and pedestrians along and across the major regional transportation corridors identified in the MTP. These regional facilities will also help accommodate the growing demand for recreational travel by bicycle. Development of Local Networks for Nonmotorized Travel Short, intracommunity trips offer great potential for substituting bicycling and walking for vehicle trips. However, a safe and convenient environment for bicycling and walking must be available before this potential can be realized. Therefore, a high priority will be placed on the development of local bicycle and pedestrian networks in and around central places identified as part of the overall VISION 2020 planning process. Local networks will include sidewalks and bike routes that link residential neighborhoods to central areas, safety crossings at intersections in central areas, and access to and across principal arterials. The Regional Council will promote the use of common design standards to accommodate nomnotorized travel on regional streets and highways and encourage local governments to assess the adequacy of their local transportation facilities for nomnotorized travel. The detail of the local bicycle and pedestrian networks should be developed by local jurisdictions, since the overwhelming majority of the streets involved are under local control of cities and counties rather than the state. Where state routes pass through local nomnotorized transportation networks, WSDOT and the local jurisdictions should cooperate to ensure that bicycle/pedestrian access to and across state routes is enhanced. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 57 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 58 Development of a Transit Network that is Fully Accessible to Pedestrians and Bicyclists The regional transit network envisioned in the MTP can be made significantly more effective by ensuring that all services, transit centers, stations and stops are fully accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians. Successful integration of nomnotorized travel modes into the regional transit system can improve the viability of both transit and nomnotorized travel. Some of the elements that can improve accessibility are bike storage, secure waiting areas, and bike lanes and sidewalks that integrate the surrounding community. (See Figure VI-2.) Implementing the nomnotorized travel connections to the transit network can be achieved without new and expensive separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The preferred implementation strategy calls for common design standards for streets and highways around transit facilities to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided. PROPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS/EXPANSIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY The preferred implementation strategy includes a limited amount of capacity expansion to complement system and demand management efforts in responding to the pressures that population and employment growth are anticipated to produce over the next 25 years. Phased Development and a New Financial Approach In October 1994, the Transportation Policy Board reaffirmed the region's VISION 2020 commitment to pursue development of a complete regional transportation system. It was decided that this system development would be refined and implemented in two phases. Phase II offers two very different approaches for financing the completion and operation of the system. - Phase I: 1995-2005 Initial System Expansion The first phase involves actions to be initiated between 1995 and 1999. These actions offer more efficient and effective regional mobility options with a moderate level of new capital investments. The proposed Phase I improvements include implementation of the first phase of the Regional Transit Authority's regional transit system plan. This step assumes approval of a local ballot measure proposed for early 1995 to authorize a combination of local sales and motor vehicle excise taxes (MVET). If approved, these local funds will be supplemented by state and federal financing. Another proposed Phase I component is construction of a large share of WSDOT's planned regional HOV system. This includes what WSDOT has called its "Core" HOV lane program, which currently is not fully financed. It is assumed that additional funding will be provided through legislative action authorizing a modest increase in the state motor fuel tax. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 59 See Table VI-3 for a detailed list of proposed Phase I facility improvements. - Phase II: 2005-2020 System Completion: Phase II offers two funding alternatives for completion and operation of the regional transportation system. The process for deciding which alternative to utilize to complete system improvements will be conducted during the Phase I implementation period. Alternative 1 - (Preferred) - Demand Management & Transportation Pricing: This alternative requires coordinated study and planning to develop one or more broad new pricing strategies. These new strategies will return to old market-based transportation concepts that called for transportation investments to be funded by transportation users. This user-based financing helps to manage demand for vehicle capacity while financing transportation alternatives. In addition to maintaining and operating existing systems, the revenues would be used to develop or expand and operate new systems such as HOV lanes, regional high capacity transit, local transit improvements, grade separations and access improvements for freight and goods movement, and pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. Alternative 2 - Conventional Transportation System Financing: This alternative would implement the same capital investments found in the preferred alternative above; however, the investments would be paid for through conventional public funding mechanisms. Those mechanisms could include extension or increase of the local sales/MVET taxes used to finance the first phase of the regional transit system plan, and state legislative actions to increase fuel taxes and/or MVET revenues. The following table provides a detailed list of capacity improvements (by mode) in Phase I and Phase II. The major rail, HOV and freeway improvements are displayed in map form in Figures VI-3 through VI-5. NOTES: - This project list is tentative. It is intended to provide a general overview of the range and types of projects currently contemplated by project sponsors. Actions by the Washington Transportation Commission, WSDOT, the Regional Transit Authority and other local governments may result in modifications over the next several months. Improvements listed include only major projects involving new construction. They do not yet include widenings on existing alignment. The Final MTP, however, will include all major improvement projects. - "1994-1996 TIP" designates that portions of the project's funding are included in the 1994-1996 Transportation Improvement Plan. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 60 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 61 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 62 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 63 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 64 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 65 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 66 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 67 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 68 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 69 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 70 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 71 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY CANDIDATE PROJECTS AND OTHER MAJOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Federal metropolitan planning regulations [23 CFR 450.318], require a Major Investment Study (MIS) for significant, federally funded transportation investments. A Major Investment Study identifies all reasonable alternative strategies for addressing the transportation demands and other problems at a corridor or subarea level of the metropolitan region. It also must expand the consideration of options early in the planning process so that local and State officials have a broader array of choices to improve the performance of the transportation system. Regulations define a major investment as a "high-type highway or transit improvement of substantial cost that is expected to have a significant effect on capacity, traffic flow, level of service or mode share at the transportation corridor or sub-scale area" [23 CFR 450.104]. Regulations also provide examples of projects that may require a Major Investment Study: - construction of a new partially controlled access principal arterial; - extension of an existing partially controlled access principal arterial by one or more miles; - capacity expansion of a partially controlled access principal arterial by at least one lane through widening or an equivalent increase in capacity produced by access control or technological improvement; and - construction or extension of a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility or a fixed guideway transit facility for a distance of one or more miles, or a substantial increase in transit service on a fixed guideway facility. The determination of the need and scope of a Major Investment Study, including alternatives considered, issues addressed, and roles of participating agencies, requires the participation of several actors: Federal Transit Agency, the Federal Highway Administration, the Washington State Department of Transportation, transit operator(s), the Regional Council, local officials, environmental and resource agencies, and where appropriate, community development agencies, major governmental housing bodies, and operators of other major modes of transportation. Some regionally significant projects do not require major investment studies; for example, those with National Environmental Protection Act documents completed prior to November 29, 1993.(1) Table VI-4 identifies currently known regionally significant projects under consideration for a Major Investment Study. While the federal regulations require only federally-funded projects (1) Where the NEPA document was initiated prior to November 29, 1993 but not yet completed, the MIS requirement is under discussion between the study sponsor and with FHWA/FTA, the state DOT, transit operator and MPO to determine if there is a need to revise the scope of analysis. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 72 to undergo a Major Investment Study, an additional group of nonfederally funded regionally significant projects is included in the table. These projects clearly support regional transportation policies and are included in the event federal funding becomes available. The information provided in the matrix indicates whether a project requires a Major Investment Study and its current status. Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 73 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 74 Click HERE for graphic. PROPOSED FREIGHT/GOODS MOVEMENT PROGRAM Consideration of freight and goods movement is a critical element that was missing from previous regional transportation plans. With new federal requirements to incorporate freight and goods mobility into the MTP, a process that will result in a freight-and-goods MTP amendment is currently underway. Freight and goods transportation forms an integral part of the logistics system of every firm in the region. It provides for the flow of materials from suppliers to manufacturers and for the distribution of goods from manufacturers to wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. Lower transportation costs reduce the cost of manufacturing and distributing goods and contribute to economic growth and the creation of jobs. Figure VI-6 depicts the relationship between the MTP and the metropolitan freight transportation system. The metropolitan freight transportation system operates simultaneously at local, regional, state, national, and international levels. The central Puget Sound region is an important gateway on the Pacific Rim. Automobiles, cellular telephones, apples, computer equipment December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 75 and software, clothing, and hundreds of other items continuously move through the region's seaports and airports and over its streets, highways, and railroads. Over two million sea-going containers move through the region each year. Action is needed to maintain and improve the freight transportation system. The economic competitiveness of the central Puget Sound region and its product users and suppliers throughout the world depends on these actions. The value of the various actions to be included in the final MTP must be measured in terms that are meaningful to the many affected logistics systems. Transportation costs, transit time, order-cycle time, schedule reliability, and safety comprise a comprehensive set of criteria that measures the relevant impacts of alternative proposed actions and estimates their values. Pursuant to the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the region is working to incorporate freight and goods movement into the MTP through the efforts of the Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. Representatives include shippers, carriers and associated interests of the central Puget Sound region. The group has developed a generalized list of actions to be considered (below). During the next year, they will refine the list to include specific projects and programs to be incorporated into the MTP. (See "Regional Freight Mobility," September 1994 (MTP-15) for details about the recommendations.) During the next year, specific regionally significant programs and projects and their potential funding sources will be identified and prioritized. Recommendations for Institutional Actions Puget Sound Regional Council: - Include freight criteria (e.g., nonencroachment of rail corridors) as part of the plan review guidelines to be applied under the Growth Management Act by June of 1995. - During FY 1996, modify the Transportation Improvement Program process to give equivalent consideration to improved freight movement and thus to the pursuit of the economic strategy and air quality goals of the region. Assure completion of the subarea studies necessary to identify, evaluate, and rank freight projects. - Include within the FY 1996 annual work program: (1) identification and analysis of major investments and (2) subarea studies to improve port and airport access and to improve freight flows through other subareas such as the Kent Valley, Redmond, and Everett areas (e.g., a needed grade crossing study). - Continue to work with the Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable. - In cooperation with WSDOT, complete and maintain the freight mobility relational data base and information system (as part of the Internodal Management System) that can be used to identify and evaluate alternative proposed actions. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 76 Click HERE for graphic. Recommendations for Freight/Goods Operations Department of Transportation: - Develop and implement a one-stop system for oversize loads (See draft "Weight Restrictions and Road Closures" report, WSDOT, October 1994). - In cooperation with the Regional Council and the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, consider the placement of weigh stations on port properties. - Protect freight mobility from lane policies intended to restrict future single-occupancy vehicle lanes. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 77 Ports: - Convene and work with labor unions, stevedoring and drayage firms, and shipping lines to extend gate hours at terminals. Recommendations for Infrastructure Department of Transportation: - In cooperation with the Regional Council and local governments, designate and periodically review the roadway portion of the regional freight and goods transportation system to clearly define the significance of this designation (design standards, special incident management capabilities, improved signage, etc.). Advance key projects through an efficient review and programming process (State Transportation Improvement Program/Regional Transportation Improvement Program). - In cooperation with the Regional Council, consider use of high capacity transit (HCT) funds to identify strategic locations requiring highway grade separations for the proposed Seattle- Tacoma commuter/freight rail corridor. Puget Sound Regional Council: - In cooperation with WSDOT, secure state HCT funds to convene stakeholders to outline a mutually acceptable strategy for the mixed rail corridor between Seattle and Tacoma, addressing: (1) long-term mixed facility and operational options and actions (beyond 2000), (2) safety concerns, (3) economic implications, and (4) the relationship to near term grade- separation projects. - Preparation of a design manual and guidelines for freight transportation facilities. - Convene truck, bicycle, and pedestrian interests to jointly address the synchronization and optimization of pedestrian/highway intersections. Ports: - Develop and improve on-dock rail capacity, and help foster growing railroad cooperation as part of a mutually acceptable public-private strategy to improve intermodal freight mobility within and through the region. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 78 AVIATION PROGRAM The first regional aviation plan was completed in the late 1960s and has been updated periodically. The 1988 Regional Airport System Plan (RASP), adopted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG-forerunner to the Puget Sound Regional Council), looked at the components of the regional airport system, and offered a detailed series of recommendations regarding commercial aviation and general aviation. The 1988 RASP recommended that planning be conducted to address commercial aviation needs and then, if needed, adjustments could be made to general aviation capacity at airports that might potentially be impacted by the conclusions and recommendations from the commercial aviation studies. As with other elements of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the Regional Council's consideration of aviation needs is addressed in federal law (the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), state law (the Growth Management Act), and in the Interlocal Agreement signed by all Regional Council members. Commercial Aviation. For commercial aviation planning, the 1988 RASP recommended that the PSCOG, in cooperation with the Port of Seattle as the operator of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, should complete a detailed evaluation of the region's long-term commercial air transportation needs. This resulted in the Flight Plan Project (1989-92) and subsequent decision processes and studies. The Regional Growth and Transportation Strategy (VISION 2020) adopted by PSCOG in 1990 and reaffirmed by the Regional Council in 1991, provided for a future amendment to include an aviation element based on the work of the Flight Plan Project. Forecasted regional needs at Sea-Tac International, which serves most of the commercial passenger and cargo aviation needs for the region and much of the state, have been subsequently updated in the Port of Seattle Master Plan Update (Technical Report #5, April 12, 1994). Table VI-5 shows that projected annual passenger volumes for the region are expected to double between 1993 and 2020. However, during the same period, the number of aircraft operations that are forecasted to handle these passengers (the measure most directly related to runway capacity) are forecast to increase by about 30 percent. This more moderate trend in the growth in aircraft operations is largely due to the expected replacement of smaller aircraft, especially commuter aircraft, with larger aircraft. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 79 Table VI-5. Aviation Trends & Forcasts(1) Four -County Puget Sound Region--All Airports Current & Forecast Period Forecast Measure 1993 2000 2010 2020 Air Passenger Activity Total Annual passengers (millions) 18.8 23.8 30.6 38.2 Annual aircraft operations 339,459 379,200 405,800 441,600 Air Cargo Activity (annual metric tons) Sea-Tac Internation 381,541 510,000 680,000 880,000 (1990) Boeing Field 22,199 35,249 - 78,734 (1)Sources: Master Plan Update, Technical Report No. 5, April 12, 1994, Port of Seattle; Project II Report, October 1992, A-1, Washington State Air Transportation Commission. The capacity and current efficiency of the airfield at Sea-Tac International is determined by the rate at which aircraft can arrive and depart using the two existing runways, in one hour. This rate is then annualized using a level of acceptable delay for each arriving or departing operation that is based on local weather conditions and the daily operational demand profile experienced at the airport. Using this method, the efficient annual capacity is calculated to be about 380,000 operations (arrivals and departures). Forecasts suggest that Sea-Tac International will reach its efficient operational capacity around the year 2000. The airport's capacity is greatly affected and reduced by regional weather conditions. Poor weather, which occurs about 40-45 percent of each year, affects the air traffic safety procedures and reduces the airport from operating two streams of arriving aircraft to one stream. This occurs because the two existing runways are too close together (800 feet between centerlines) to both be used for landing aircraft during these periods of poor weather. A third runway appropriately separated from the existing runways would eliminate this problem and provide the same capacity to land aircraft in poor weather that now exists in good weather. In addition to runway and airspace capacity, airport capacity is also bounded by airport terminal capacity and ground access capacity. These three constraints (airspace, runway, and terminal/ground access) are being addressed in the Port of Seattle's airport Master Plan Update, with the ground access issues also being addressed in the highway, transit and freight and goods elements of the updated regional MTP. In seeking to find the best method of meeting the region's long- term commercial air transportation needs, the Regional Council General Assembly in April 1993 adopted Resolution A-93-03 (see Appendix D), which called for the region to pursue a flexible dual December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 80 track approach. The General Assembly directed the region to pursue both a major supplemental airport and, subject to conditions, a third runway at Sea-Tac International. These conditions were: (1) the feasibility of a major supplemental airport and whether it could be put into service in time to eliminate the need for a third runway; and (2) implementation of noise reduction objectives and feasible demand and system management actions. The major supplemental airport was subsequently defined as being of sufficient size to accommodate two parallel runways capable of independent operations. The noise reduction objectives and demand and system management actions were to be independently evaluated. In October 1994, at the end of Phase I of the supplemental airport feasibility assessment, the Executive Board adopted Resolution EB- 94-01 (see Appendix D). By this resolution, the Executive Board concluded that no feasible sites for a major supplemental airport were to be found within the four-county region and ceased further airport studies to identify such potential sites. This action reaffirmed the General Assembly's approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International, upon satisfactory conclusion of the on-going evaluation by an independent expert panel of the noise and demand and system management conditions set out in Resolution A-93-03, and the completion of the Port of Seattle's environmental impact review process. In addition, the Board recommended working with the State Legislature to establish cooperative regional and state procedures to enact legislation allowing for substantial and equitable incentives and compensation for communities impacted by the proximity of essential public facilities. The Executive Board further recommended cooperative actions by the state, local governments and regional transportation planning organizations to examine and seek implementation of options for air and ground travel within the Northwest that could address long-term air travel and inter-regional ground travel needs, with such options including consideration of high speed rail (See Chapter III for policies promoting high speed rail). General and Military Aviation. In addition to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the regional aviation system includes a large number of general aviation airports and two military airports. Non-military airports of national significance in the central Puget Sound region are listed as part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS is maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and includes the inventory from the Washington State Continuous Airport System Plan, 1993 (Figure 1-6). Airports in this classification are: Auburn Municipal Airport, King County International Airport (Boeing Field), Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field), Renton Municipal Airport, Bremerton International Airport, Tacoma Narrows Airport, Arlington Municipal, Crest Airpark, Harvey Airfield, Pierce County Airport (Thun Field), Vashon Island, and two seaplane bases (Lake Washington and Lake Union). Other smaller scale general aviation airports that are open to the public were generally listed in the 1988 Regional Airport System Plan (RASP, Table 1). Two military airports within the region are located in Pierce County: McChord Air Force Base and Gray Army Airfield (Fort Lewis). In addition, the Air National Guard has a renewable lease (currently good until 1998) for the use of Paine Field in Snohomish County. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 81 Since 1988, national forecasts and recent trends have shown little or no-growth in general aviation needs. General aviation is expected to grow by about one percent per year at Paine Field and Boeing Field (Project II Final Report: Air Transportation Demand, Aviation Industry Trends, and Air Capacity in Washington Through 2020, Washington State Air Transportation Commission, p. 4-27). With regard to potential future helicopter and tiltrotor issues and opportunities, the Regional Council has a modest coordinating role to work with the WSDOT Aviation Division and inform local city or county land use agencies about any possible operational or siting issues that might result from options being examined in this area by the WSDOT. REGIONAL FINANCIAL STRATEGY Financial Strategy Summary The financial strategy for implementing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) describes the financial actions necessary to maintain, preserve and improve the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) through the horizon year of the plan -- 2020. "Financial actions," as used herein, are changes to existing sources of transportation funds necessary to fully fund all components of the MTP. These components include public transit, state highways, state ferries, county roads, city streets, nomnotorized pedestrian and bicycle projects, and freight and goods improvements.(1) The considerations which underlie the MTP financial strategy are summarized as follows: - The region's current financial capacity is marginally sufficient to meet preservation and maintenance needs in the short run, but is inadequate to fund additional short- or long range multimodal transportation improvements envisioned in the MTP's preferred alternative. For the period 1996-2020, current-law revenue is projected to be approximately $36.9 billion, versus $60.5 billion in expenditures (constant 1994 dollars) included in the MTP. - Several options exist for closing this gap, including increases to the state motor fuels tax suggested by historical trends, exercise of local option taxes already authorized by state law, introduction of roadway pricing mechanisms, and changes to state transportation revenue allocations which would address the existing imbalance between revenue generated within the region and revenue received by the region. (1)Comprehensive cost estimates for a fully inclusive listing of regional project and local program needs for county roads and city streets are still in process and will be completed as local GMA plans are completed prior to scheduled final MTP adoption in Spring '95. Although the MTP includes selected arterial improvements, and carries forward current annual city and county expenditures, extraordinary preservation costs and non-MTP roadway improvements are not included at this time. 2" Current-law" revenue is that produced by applying currently authorized tax rates to the projected tax base. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 82 - The preferred financial strategy is based upon on a phased implementation program. This program assumes a first phase covering the initial 10 years of transportation improvements with moderate increases in traditional transportation taxes (e.g., sales tax for transit and motor fuel tax increases for roadway related improvements). The second major phase for the last 15 years of the program assumes implementation of one or more of the innovative demand management/transportation pricing options previously described. This strategy incorporates and supports tax increases that are already anticipated by the Regional Transit Authority and the WSDOT and sets the stage for transition to more effective transportation funding that would be closely tied to direct use and benefits in the system rather than depending upon general taxes. The financial strategy recognizes the constraints of the existing financing structure while planning for a transition to a more flexible financing environment. The considerations which underlie this strategy are presented in the sections below. This financial environment would seek to: - Support growth management and economic policies; - Establish a clear, long-term relationship between costs for developing and operating improved mobility options and benefits from more effective regional mobility options; - Reduce transportation system dependency on revenue sources not directly linked to transportation system costs and benefits. Current Financial Capacity The region's current financial capacity can be established by examining the constraints or opportunities that exist when projecting current-law revenues and comparing these revenues to planned expenditures for transit, highways, county roads, city streets, state ferries, nomnotorized projects, and freight and goods improvements that "fit" those revenues. Between 1996 and 2020, current-law revenues are projected to be $36.9 billion. This projection derives from a series of tax base forecasts' which are tied to a regional econometric model maintained by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Existing tax rates were applied to the projected tax base to produce the revenue projections. It is important to note that no new taxes, nor increases in existing tax rates (e.g., for state or federal fuel taxes) were assumed to occur during this period. Nonetheless, the current-law revenue projection still includes some growth in revenue as compared to the 1992 base cited earlier in this report. This reflects expansion in the tax base occasioned by regional growth, which is partially offset by constant tax rates for motor fuels and other factors which tend to diminish the real value of the revenue stream. The estimated program costs for the Financially Constrained Program are shown in Table VI-6. These costs are "constrained" to estimates of projected current law revenues. A complete breakdown of assumptions for sources of (1)See Technical Paper No. MTP-10, Preliminary Tax Base Projections, May 1994. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 83 current law revenues and a more detailed breakdown of modal program costs can be found in Appendix B. Click HERE for graphic. DECEMBER 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 84 Key Financial Issues and Options Shortfall for Preferred implementation Strategy. Estimated costs for all modal components of the preferred implementation strategy in the Draft MTP are projected to be approximately $60.4 billion. These expenditures include maintenance and operations, preservation and capital improvements for the major components of the MTS: transit ($25.9 billion); highways ($14.4 billion); county roads ($7.5 billion)(1); city streets ($7.4 billion)(2); state ferries ($3.2 billion); nomnotorized ($1.5 billion); and freight and goods $0.6 billion). These estimates include programmatic expenditures identified in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Regional Transit System Master Plan, adopted recently by the Regional Transit Authority. When comparing the preferred implementation program costs to revenues available under current- law projections, one sees that the MTP faces a shortfall of approximately $23.5 billion for the period 1996-2020. The need for changes in revenue to support the preferred implementation strategy is graphically contrasted below in Figure VI-7. The overall estimated program costs for the Preferred Draft MTP Implementation Strategy are shown on the following page in Table VI-7. A more detailed breakdown of these Preferred Strategy expenditures by mode and more detailed related assumptions about their revenue sources is found in Appendix B. Click HERE for graphic. ___________________________ (1) County roads expenditures may be understated because only a subset of county roads improvements are included in the MTP. Also, preservation costs may be understated. A refinement to this estimate is underway. (2) Similar qualifications apply to city street expenditures as noted above for county roads. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 85 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 86 The following paragraphs provide a summary discussion on a number of financial issues and options that offer approaches and choices by which the revenue shortfall for the preferred regional implementation strategy might be addressed. Potential for Implementing Unused Financial Capacity. The Legislature has authorized several types of local option transportation taxes (i.e., fuel tax, motor vehicle license fee, parking tax, and commercial and street utility charges) which could potentially generate a few hundred million dollars in new transportation revenues. Why have these local option taxes been so little used? A review of available local option transportation taxes suggests that the reason some are not used is that such taxes are to be applied only within a given local jurisdiction or county, placing that local jurisdiction or county at a competitive pricing disadvantage with its neighbors. Also, local option taxes such as the local option gas tax can often be conveniently avoided by the driving public due to regional mobility. To be useful and practical for application, policy makers may wish to reconsider how local options are being offered. They may wish to require a regionwide application in order to make them locally effective. The public referendum allowed for the Regional Transit Authority is a wider use of a "local option" tax that has regional application. Other existing local options may have greater benefit and utility if they are reexamined for potential legislative changes. Regional Revenue Imbalance. The financial analysis for development of the Draft MTP has found that the central Puget Sound region receives less transportation funding revenue than it generates under current law. This is due to the motor fuel tax formula distribution to local jurisdictions. The current formula may not be fully compatible with legislative intent under the Growth Management Act. A region such as the central Puget Sound region that is vigorously proceeding with implementation of Growth Management Act goals and guidelines finds itself collectively (cities and counties) receiving less proportional motor fuel revenues with each successful action for city incorporation or annexation. The difference in the amount of the fuel tax returned to cities and counties under the current formula favors a periodic redistribution of fuel taxes to those counties which have had the least city incorporation or annexation activity. Additionally, this apparent imbalance in the total amount of motor fuel taxes returned to the region reflects the fact that state transportation system investment in this region has come to be a proportionately smaller portion of total statewide highway system expenditures. The bottom line is that the region is estimated to be losing approximately $75-100 million per year. This is not an issue that could be addressed by the region alone as it involves changes to a well established revenue distribution pattern that will take a great deal of statewide discussion. Address Diminution of Motor Fuels Tax Revenues. An analysis was conducted of the historical trend of real fuel tax yield per actual vehicle miles travelled and how this compared with periodic increases in state and federal fuel taxes. The conclusion reached from this analysis is that while periodic increases in fuel taxes have been achieved over time, such increases are not occurring at a rate or in a timely manner to keep up with inflation or meet additional transportation funding needs related to demographic and economic growth. Unlike current major revenue sources for transit systems, which generally keep pace with inflation and assure basic system upkeep, motor fuel tax revenues, which support roadways/highways, December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 87 do not keep up with inflation and have diminishing annual value. Much needed expansion for transit and much neglected attention to improvements for freight and goods and nomnotorized transportation is not possible under a constrained financial program. Motor fuel taxes linked to an appropriate cost index would keep pace with inflation, and more frequent periodic increases in fuel taxes would allow this transportation tax source to keep up with real population and economic growth within the State of Washington. Transportation Pricing and Demand Management. These new transportation pricing strategies return to old market-based transportation concepts which raised revenues while shifting and managing travel demand. The strategies involve collecting user fees from those benefiting from mobility offered by the regional transportation system. As noted in the earlier discussion on demand management with transportation pricing concepts, revenues from potential application of such concepts could generate over $400 million per year and could be used to address any number of essential transportation purposes: assuring adequate maintenance and operation of existing systems; expanding and operating new multimodal mobility options such as HOV lane system development, regional high capacity transit system development, local transit system improvements, grade separations and special access considerations to improve freight and goods movements; and development of an extensive local network of regionally coordinated pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Implementation Strategies As noted in the initial summary to the Financial Strategy section, the Draft MTP is basing the long term financial feasibility for the preferred implementation strategy on achievement of positive policy action with respect to the latter two options noted above -- Addressing Diminution of Motor Fuel Tax Revenues and Transportation Pricing through Demand Management. This is not to say the other issues/options should not be addressed, but they are assessed to be less realistic in achievement and offer less direct support for local and regional growth management and transportation policy objectives. Should these other elements be successfully addressed, especially the Regional Revenue Imbalance, they would offer the region an opportunity to seek lower applications of pricing levels for the other two preferred strategies. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VI) Page 88 VII. AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY OF THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This section of the Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan documents the procedure used to determine that the preferred implementation strategy conforms to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The conformity analysis and a positive finding of conformity are required by the federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Washington Act. Positive conformity findings will allow the region to proceed with implementation of transportation projects in a timely manner. Transportation conformity is a mechanism for ensuring that transportation activities-plans, programs and projects-are reviewed and evaluated for their impacts on air quality prior to funding or approval. The intent of transportation conformity is to ensure that new projects, programs and plans do not impede an area from meeting and maintaining air quality standards. The Federal Clean Air Act defines conformity to a state implementation plan as conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity or number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. In addition, activities may not cause or contribute to new violations, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with the timely attainment of air quality standards or the required interim emissions reductions toward attainment. Provisions of federal and state conformity regulations establish the process by which the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration and metropolitan planning organizations determine the conformity of highway and transit projects. PUGET SOUND REGION AIR QUALITY STATUS The central Puget Sound region is currently defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being in nonattainment for three pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM1O). Figure VII-1 shows the location of the nonattainment area boundaries. The region has been classified by the EPA as "moderate plus" for CO. The classification means that the region has shown recent emissions levels or design values over 12.7 parts per million but less than 16.4 parts per million averaged over an 8-hour period. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO is 9 parts per million averaged over an 8 hour period. The CO SIP, submitted to EPA by the state Department of Ecology in January 1993, is currently being reviewed by EPA for approval. A supplement to the CO SIP addressing the establishment of a "mobile-source emissions budget," a revised attainment demonstration, and contingency measures, was approved by Ecology and submitted this past summer to the EPA. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 89 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 90 The region is classified as "marginal" for Ozone. Marginal areas are defined as having emissions or design values between 0.121 and 0. 138 parts per million for the second highest peak hour of a day. The design value for the Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area is 0.131 parts per million. The 1993 Ozone SIP is currently under review by EPA. Three areas in the region are designated as nonattainment for PM sub 10. These areas include the Seattle Duwamish River industrial area, the Kent Valley industrial area and the Tacoma Tideflats area. The Kent Valley SIP was approved by EPA last year. The Seattle Duwamish SIP received a conditional approval earlier this year. Approval is pending for the Tacoma Tideflats SIP. The central Puget Sound region has individual SIPs for each pollutant and individual SIPs for each PM sub 10 nonattainment area, resulting in one SIP for carbon monoxide, one for ozone and three for the PM sub 10 nonattainment areas. The carbon monoxide and ozone conformity analysis is based on both the 1983-4 Carbon Monoxide and Ozone SIPs as well as revisions to the SIPs submitted to EPA in January 1993 and September, 1994. SIPs prepared for the three PM sub 10 areas were originally developed in the mid- 1980's and numerous revisions have taken place since that time. The conformity analysis for PM sub 10 will reflect the SIPs and revisions made where appropriate. The region's nonattainment areas have met the Clean Air Act requirements regarding applying for redesignation to "maintenance" status. A maintenance plan is required by the Clean Air Act to be adopted before a region can be formally redesignated as attaining federal air quality standards. Transportation plan and program conformity analysis and a finding of conformity with the maintenance plans, once they are adopted, will remain a regular part of the transportation programming process. CONSULTATION PROCESS Federal Clean Air Act regulations, as identified in the federal conformity rule (Section 51.416), require formal consultation procedures for conducting conformity air quality analysis of regional transportation plans. Further, the Clean Air Washington Act (WAC 173-420-070) reinforces the federal requirements for consultation. The consultation procedures for the Draft MTP conformity analysis are consistent with the Regional Council's Public Participation Plan, which is in compliance with the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Rule [23 CFR part 450] as well as the above federal and state conformity regulations. A major task identified under the consultation procedures requirements is the presentation of key staff assumptions pertaining to the process for conducting this plan conformity analysis. Consistent with past practice, the Regional Council held a scoping meeting with federal, state and local agencies to present the staff interpretation of conformity tests that are required and key analysis assumptions. The scoping meeting was held on September 28, 1994. Notification of the meeting was made through public announcements in local newspapers, and through the Regional Council's Transportation and Air Quality Advisory Committee. The membership on the committee includes staff from the EPA, Washington State Departments of Transportation and Ecology, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, local cities, December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 91 counties and transit agencies, and the business community and environmental interests. Those invited to the meeting included representatives of the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Departments of Transportation and Ecology, and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. (See Appendix E for a summary of the September 28, 1994 Scoping Meeting.) STATUS OF SIP TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES According to the federal conformity rule, the Draft MTP must provide for the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) from an applicable SIP ( 51.418). TCMs are projects, programs or actions listed in the SIP that will aid in the elimination or reduction of the severity or number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and help expeditiously attain and maintain those standards. TCMs can be strategies to increase the efficiency of existing transportation facilities, reduce travel demand, or lower the amount of emissions in vehicles leading to measurable vehicle emissions reductions. TCMs were identified in the 1983-4 Carbon Monoxide and Ozone SIPS. Almost all of these TCMs have been completed; a few have been programmed for the next phase of work needed to reach completion. The revised January 1993 CO and Ozone SIPs do not contain any TCMS. The state Department of Ecology has indicated that the region is projected to attain federal standards by the required attainment dates without the need for any TCMS, due in part to the projected effectiveness of the state-mandated vehicle inspection and maintenance programs and the use of oxygenated fuels during the winter. In addition to the analysis performed by Ecology, the region has met the requirements for requesting redesignation as a maintenance area for all criteria pollutants because monitored data have shown that the region meets federal air quality standards. AREA CLASSIFICATION AND CONFORMITY ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS The federal conformity rule provides several sets of criteria and procedures for determining conformity to help areas make the transition from the initial guidance to full implementation of the rule. The conformity tests to be conducted are determined on the basis of the region's nonattainment classification and the type and current EPA approval status of the applicable SIP. Areas in the central Puget Sound region are currently classified by the EPA as follows: - Carbon Monoxide - Moderate Plus - Ozone - Marginal - Particulate Matter - Moderate (Three Areas: Seattle Duwamish River, Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tideflats) The boundaries of these areas are identified in Figure VII-1. These boundaries define the December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 92 areas for conformity analysis for each pollutant. In the 1980's, the Washington State Department of Ecology submitted SIPs for all criteria pollutants which were subsequently approved by EPA. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments, Ecology submitted updated SIPs to EPA in 1993 for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter areas. To date, only the Particulate Matter SIP for the Kent Valley Area has been approved by EPA. According to the federal conformity rule, the status of SIP completion, submittal and approval all affect the type of conformity tests that are required for the Draft MTP. The 1993 SIP submittals for carbon monoxide and particulate matter are defined as "control strategy" SIP revisions because they contain specific strategies for controlling emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements for demonstration of attainment. Because the control strategy SIP for the Kent Valley area has been approved by EPA, the conformity rule defines this area as in the "control strategy period." The Seattle Duwamish River and Tacoma Tideflats areas and the region's carbon monoxide area are defined by the rule as in the "transitional period" because their control strategy SIPs have been submitted but not yet approved. Finally, the 1993 SIP submittal for ozone is defined as an attainment SIP, and the ozone area is therefore classified as in "Phase 11 of the interim period." Table VII-I summarizes the region's nonattainment classifications, type and current EPA approval status of the applicable SIPS, and the applicable "period," as defined by the final conformity rule, for determining conformity criteria and procedures: Click HERE for graphic. Based on these categorizations, 51.410 of the federal conformity rule identifies the applicable criteria and procedures for determining conformity of regional transportation plans. Table VII- 2 summarizes the sections of the final conformity rule which contain the criteria and December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 93 procedures required for conformity tests for each area. Following the table, each section is described in greater detail. Table VII-2. Applicable Criteria and Procedures for Nonattainment Area Nonattainment Area Pollutant Applicable Criteria and Procedures All areas All pollutants 51.412, 51.414, 51.416, 51.418(b) Puget Sound Carbon monoxide 51.428, 51.436 Puget Sound Ozone 51.436 Kent Valley Particulate matter 51.428 Seattle Duwamish River Particulate matter 51.428, 51.442 Tacoma Tideflats Particulate matter 51.428, 51.442 MTP CONFORMITY ANALYSIS CRITERIA ALL POLLUTANTS AND TIME PERIODS Section 51.412: The conformity determination must be based on the latest planning assumptions Section 51.414: The conformity determination must be based on the latest emissions estimation model available. Section 51.416: Plan conformity analysis must be made using consultation procedures identified in the conformity rule. Section 51.418: The Transportation Plan provides for the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) from the applicable SIP. MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria - Carbon Monoxide Section 51.428: The Transportation Plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in the applicable SIP or submitted SIP revision. Section 51.436: The transportation plan must contribute to carbon monoxide and ozone emissions reductions in nonattainment areas. MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria - Ozone Section 51.436: The transportation plan must contribute to carbon monoxide and ozone emissions reductions in nonattainment areas. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 94 MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria - Particulate Matter (Seattle Duwamish River and Tacoma Tideflats) Section 51.428: The Transportation Plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in the applicable SIP or submitted SIP revision. Section 51.442 The Transportation Plan must contribute to or not increase particulate matter emissions. MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria - Particulate Matter (Kent Valley) Section 51.428: The Transportation Plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in the applicable SIP or submitted SIP revision. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The discussion below describes background on the specific tests that were used to test for SIP conformity. The descriptions include major staff assumptions that were agreed to at the September 28, 1994, scoping meeting. The federal conformity rule includes procedures for developing regional emissions for transportation plan conformity analysis (51.452). The conformity analysis must include modeling of all regionally significant projects. As defined by the conformity rule, a regionally significant project is: "a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel." [emphasis added] In addition, although projects that are not regionally significant are not required to be modeled, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or VMT reductions, from such projects "must be estimated in accordance with reasonable professional practice." Projects, programs, and activities which will not be explicitly modelled, but for which VMT reduction and emissions benefits will be estimated, fall into three general categories: - Pricing measures, such as increases to gas taxes; - Nonmotorized improvements; and - Transportation demand management programs. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 95 In general, modeling procedures above and beyond what is explicitly required for conformity analyses in the central Puget Sound region, but which have been the previous practice of the Regional Council, were used for this analysis. The Draft MTP conformity analysis is based on the use of the most current socioeconomic, travel and emissions information. The Draft MTP and plan conformity analysis are based on updates the Regional Council has prepared of its 1988 population and employment forecasts using national and regional data through 1993. These forecasts will be adopted as part of the MTP and the VISION 2020 update during the Spring of 1995. The emissions for carbon monoxide and ozone analysis were generated by output from the Regional Council's travel forecast model and the EPA-required MOBILE5a emissions factor model. The most recent settings for the MOBILE model are consistent with the recent SIP revision mobile-source emissions inventory. The model settings were coordinated with the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation. Both carbon monoxide and ozone conformity analyses require a comparison of a "baseline" alternative with an "action" alternative for each analysis year (51.436) A "baseline" scenario for an analysis year is defined as all in-place regionally modelable highway and transit facilities and activities; all ongoing transportation demand management or transportation system management activities; and completion of all regionally modelable nonexempt projects, regardless of funding source, which are undergoing construction or right-of-way acquisition, coming from the current conforming Transportation Improvement Program, or having completed the State Environmental Policy Act/National Environmental Protection Act process. The "action" scenario is defined as the baseline scenario plus new projects proposed in the Draft MTP and proposed to be completed by the analysis year. For the carbon monoxide and ozone tests, emissions resulting from "action" alternatives were compared with those resulting from a "baseline" alternative for the years 1995, 2000, 2010, and 2020. Carbon Monoxide During the transitional period, the Draft MTP must pass specific tests to meet federal conformity requirements. For carbon monoxide moderate-plus areas (such as the Puget Sound region), the conformity analysis must show that the total emissions (regional emissions totals) produced by projects in the Draft MTP, plus activity on the existing travel network, do not exceed the total emissions that were produced in 1990. Further, the total emissions produced by the Draft MTP (action alternative) must not exceed the level of emissions produced by the Draft MTP without the new projects (baseline Alternative). The Draft MTP action scenario must also produce lower emissions than the CO SIP motor vehicle "budget. "The budget is a ceiling of total emissions that cannot be exceeded. The mobile source emissions budget is defined as the 1995 inventory of emissions in the CO SIP. The SIP revision updates the SIP inventory using MOBILE5a and the most recent model settings. The conformity rule requires that future-year scenarios be included in the analysis through the horizon year of the Draft MTP (2020). December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 96 Daily carbon monoxide emissions estimates were used for this analysis, consistent with the SIP budget. Adjustments were made to the daily emissions estimates for consistency with the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), since the SIP inventory and budget was developed using HPMS-adjusted estimates. In addition to the daily emissions estimates, 3 hour afternoon peak period emissions estimates for carbon monoxide were also analyzed. No adjustments were made to the three-hour emissions estimates for consistency with Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), since none of the required comparisons under this test involve HPMS-adjusted estimates. Ozone Since the Puget Sound region is defined in a less serious nonattainment category for ozone, fewer conformity tests are required. The ozone analysis for the Puget Sound region must show that the Draft MTP action scenarios produce fewer emissions than the 1990 baseline levels. In addition, the conformity test must include a comparison of the action and baseline scenarios for the 1995 and analysis years no more than ten years apart (2000, 2010, and 2010). A comparison of the action scenarios against an ozone budget is not required although the EPA recommends that states and regions adopt budgets for marginal-class nonattainment areas. The ozone analysis describes emissions totals for ozone precursors (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides). Particulate Matter With respect to particulate matter, the federal conformity regulations require that the TIP either contribute to particulate matter emissions reductions or not increase existing emission levels ( 51.442). To develop regional emissions for the particulate matter analysis, the Regional Council replicated the methodology used by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to develop the SIP emissions inventories. As required by the federal conformity rule, the conformity tests included comparing the 2020 Draft MTP with each particulate matter SIP emissions budget (mobile source inventory) and with the year 1990 emissions estimates. Comparisons with analysis years no more than 10 years apart is also required. FINDINGS Carbon Monoxide The Draft MTP(1) meets the conformity tests required by the federal conformity rule [40 CFR Part 51]. As shown in Table VII-3 below, the Draft MTP shows lower emissions than the SIP budget for each analysis year. Each of the "action" alternatives also show lower emissions relative to the corresponding year "baseline" alternatives. The three-hour afternoon peak period emissions reflect the same patterns as the daily totals. (1)Within this section, the term "Draft MTP" is synonymous with the term "preferred implementation strategy" described in previous sections of this document. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 97 The trend over the years for carbon monoxide is lower emissions. This is due, in part, to improvements to vehicle operations, wintertime oxygenated fuels, and vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. While the 2020 Draft MTP shows emissions levels that meet the conformity tests, these data levels are beginning to increase. This trend reflects the continued increase in vehicle miles traveled as well as future increases in congestion outstripping the benefits of the above-mentioned programs. By not implementing the Draft MTP, the region would begin to approach emissions levels that may threaten air quality as defined in the SIP. Figure VII-2 provides a graphic summary of the Draft MTP conformity results under provisions of the Carbon Monoxide SIP. Click HERE for graphic. Ozone The Draft MTP meets the conformity tests required by the federal conformity rule for ozone. As shown in Table VII-4 below, the Draft MTP shows lower emissions than the 1990 levels. Each of the "action" alternatives shows lower emissions relative to the corresponding year "baseline" alternatives. ___________________________ (2) No SIP budget for 3-hour PM carbon monoxide peak emissions. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 98 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 99 The trend over the years for ozone precursors is similar to carbon monoxide in that emissions tend to decrease until the 2020. This is also reflective of improvements in vehicle operations, and vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Figure VII-3 provides a summary of the Draft MTP conformity results under provisions of the Ozone SIP, and ozone emissions results for all analysis years. Click HERE for graphic. Particulate Matter As shown in Table VII-5, all particulate matter areas meet the conformity tests as required. For the Seattle-Duwamish nonattainment area, the 2020 Draft MTP shows lower emissions than the SIP budget level. The action alternative also shows lower emissions levels than the 1990 baseline levels. All analysis years (1995, 2000, 2010) show levels less than the SIP budget and the 1990 baseline. The Draft MTP also shows conformity with the Kent Valley SIP. The Draft MTP produces lower emissions than the SIP budget levels. The plan also shows lower emissions relative to the 1990 baseline levels. As in the Seattle-Duwamish analysis, all analysis years are lower than the budget and 1990 levels. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 100 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 101 Finally, for the Tacoma Tideflats area, the Draft MTP also meets the conformity tests. The Draft MTP produces lower emissions than the SIP budget levels. The plan also produces lower emissions relative to the 1990 baseline levels. Finally, all analysis years have lower emissions than the SIP budget and the 1990 baseline. Figure VII-4 provides a summary of the particulate matter emissions results for all nonattainment areas and analysis years. Table VII-5. Conformity Analysis Results for Particulate Matter (Mobile Source Emissions in Daily Kilograms) Year/Scenario Seattle-Duwamish Kent Valley Tacoma Tideflats SIP Budget 1,946 849 1,381 1990 Baseline 2,221 480 841 1995 1,632 350 675 2000 1,750 363 700 2010 1,811 386 739 2020 Action 1,761 414 793 CONCLUSIONS The Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan meets the conformity tests as identified by federal and state conformity regulations. The conclusion from the analysis provides sufficient basis for the Regional Council to issue a finding that the preferred implementation strategy contained in the Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan conforms to the Carbon Monoxide, Ozone and Seattle-Duwamish River, Kent Valley and Tacoma Tideflats Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 102 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VII) Page 103 VIII. MTP REFINEMENT STUDIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN 1995 AND 1996 Part of the Regional Council's FY 1995-1996 Work Program will be directed at developing more specific information for major, newly emerging elements of the MTP. The major refinement studies, the results of which will be considered as possible amendments or addendums to the 1995 MTP at a later date, are described below. Transportation Pricing Strategies. The Council will conduct sensitivity tests and policy analyses to examine the mobility and air quality benefits of specific candidate pricing concepts. The results of these efforts will provide the foundation for looking at which concepts might be appropriate for the region and how they could be implemented. Telecommunications Technologies. Continued research and analysis will be conducted regarding the potential role of telecommunications technologies in the region's transportation future. With assistance from consultants, staff has already begun an examination of the interactions between telecommunications and surface travel within the region. The examination acknowledges the certainty of telecommunications continuing as a critical force in shaping travel demand. The transportation strategies, programs and projects currently contemplated for implementation within the 25- year planning horizon should be reviewed at some later date against the information resulting from the telecommunications research. Freight and Goods Mobility Element. Efforts will continue during the next year to identify and prioritize specific regionally- significant programs and projects which would enhance freight and goods mobility within the region. Regional Nonmotorized-Transportation System. The Regional Council will initiate and coordinate a planning effort among local jurisdictions to identify a specific regional network of nonmotorized-transportation facilities that would eventually provide greater opportunities for intra-regional and inter- community nonmotorized travel. Emergency Preparedness. The MTP should be responsive to the eventuality of major natural disasters and emergencies; for example, an interplate or subduction zone earthquake of high magnitude on the Richter Scale. In general, the two aspects of emergency preparedness most relevant to systemwide transportation planning include optimizing system flexibility to accommodate recovery to normal conditions as soon as possible and structural integrity of transportation facilities to minimize loss of life and property. By promoting travel alternatives to the automobile, the Draft MTP leans in the direction of optimizing transportation system flexibility should the region's freeway system sustain major damage. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area illustrates the significant role that transit, telecommunications and other non-SOV alternatives played in assisting to keep the region mobile during the recovery period. Previous planning efforts have focused on specific aspects of emergency preparedness related to transportation such as WSDOT's Division of Aviation helicopter system planning effort in 1993-94. To date, no comprehensive emergency preparedness emergency preparedness planning has been December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VIII) Page 104 completed for the central Puget Sound region. In future MTP planning cycles, emergency preparedness planning should receive greater attention and the results should be used to update and refine the MTP. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Chapter VIII) Page 105 APPENDIX A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. APPENDIX C TRAVEL TIME ANALYSES SUPPORTING THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY APPENDIX C TRAVEL TIME ANALYSES SUPPORTING THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Average daily travel times offer an important indicator of the transportation system's performance. Increases in travel delay demonstrate a reduction in system mobility. The Regional Council has conducted a number of different analyses of travel times to measure system performance. Under trend conditions, the average number of hours of delay (that is, the difference between free flow speed and congested speed) experienced during the daily PM-peak period for year 2020 is forecasted to reach 666,000, while the 2020 forecast under the preferred implementation strategy is 189,000, a difference of 72 percent. Another method the Regional Council used to identify the advantages of the preferred implementation strategy moved from a forecast of hours of delay for the entire system to an analysis of the distribution of travel times within the region. For this analysis, the region was divided into 832 transportation analysis zones (TAZ) for which average trip-times to other TAZs were computed. The boundaries of the TAZs were generally consistent with 1990 census tract and block group boundaries. The analysis allows the Regional Council to map average PM-peak vehicle travel times from one TAZ to each of the other TAZs in the region. Please refer to Supporting Document MTP-12, the MTP Technical Report, for greater clarification of the TAZ structure and regional transportation modeling. The following maps depict travel time comparisons of 2020 Trend versus 2020 Preferred Implementation Strategy for the central business districts of Bellevue, Everett, and Tacoma. The most significant difference is the greater extent of travel possible in 15-30 minute and 30-45 minute thresholds. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-1 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-2 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-3 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-4 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-5 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-6 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix C) Page C-7 APPENDIX D PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL AIR TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTIONS Puget Sound Regional Council RESOLUTION A-93-03 A RESOLUTION of the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council Amending the 1988 Interim Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) for Long-Term Commercial Air Transportation Capacity Needs of the Region WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council, designated under federal and state laws as the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the central Puget Sound region, is responsible for adopting and maintaining regional growth management and transportation strategies for the region; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council has adopted VISION 2020: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region to guide growth management and transportation decisions and actions in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties; and WHEREAS, VISION 2020 seeks to assure that the people of this region continue to enjoy an outstanding and improving quality of life that includes a vibrant economy, a healthy environment, and livable communities connected by a multimodal, transit-oriented transportation system that emphasizes accessibility and enables the efficient movement of people, goods and freight; and WHEREAS, with respect to assessments of commercial air transportation needs, the Regional Council acknowledges long term forecasting uncertainties, and the reduction on a day-to-day basis of current airport capacity at Sea-Tac Airport during bad weather conditions; and WHEREAS, VISION 2020, as the Regional Transportation Plan for the region, includes the 1988 interim Regional Airport System Plan with language that called upon the region to "proceed expeditiously with the detailed evaluation and selection of a preferred regional air carrier system alternative," and which now needs to be amended to reflect the Regional Council's recent planning and deliberations regarding the long-term commercial air transportation capacity needs of the region; and WHEREAS, jurisdictions in the region agree to site regional transportation facilities in a manner that reduces adverse societal, environmental and economic impacts; seeks equity and balance in siting and improving the region's transportation system; and addresses regional growth planning objectives; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council, through the Flight Plan Project, has sought to address policy, environmental, and procedural concerns through a variety of products and processes, including the following: 216 First Avenue South - Seattle, Washington 98l04 - (206) 464-7090 FAX 587-4825 (a) The Regional Council, acting jointly with the Port of Seattle, completed a nonproject Final Environmental Impact Statement evaluating various system alternatives for meeting projected demands and their noise and other environmental impacts, and (b) The Regional Council conducted a series of workshops, decision meetings, open houses, and a public hearing, to listen to the concerns and suggestions of community groups, individuals and interests that could be affected by a regional commercial air transportation capacity decision; and WHEREAS, as a part of this effort, the Regional Council finds that commercial air transportation is important to the region's economy, and that additional commercial air transportation capacity needs to be identified and preserved, and implemented when needed at some point in the future; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council finds that there is no perfect air transportation capacity solution, but that whatever solution is adopted must be part of an integrated transportation system that includes air and marine transportation as well as roadways and rail, that demand management and system management should be utilized to make the most efficient use of the existing system, and that any solution must not result in a decrease in safety and must address noise; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council further finds that the adopted solution should be flexible, must be consistent with the growth management planning that is occurring in the region, and should be financially feasible; and WHEREAS, the Regional Council Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board have developed and refined this recommendation to the Regional Council General Assembly; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the interim Regional Airport System Plan is consistent with the VISION 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Regional Council Executive Board recommends that the General Assembly adopt the following elements of a Regional Airport System Plan amendment: That the region should pursue vigorously, as the preferred alternative, a major supplemental airport and a third runway at Sea-Tac. 1. The major supplemental airport should be located in the four-county area within a reasonable travel time from significant markets in the region. 2. The third runway shall be authorized by April 1, 1996: a. Unless shown through an environmental assessment, which will include financial and market feasibility studies, that a supplemental site is feasible and can eliminate the need for the third runway; and b. After demand management and system management programs are pursued and achieved, or determined to be infeasible, based on independent evaluation; and c. When noise reduction performance objectives are scheduled, pursued and achieved based on independent evaluation, and based on measurement of real noise impacts. 3. The Regional Council requests consideration by the Federal Aviation Administration of modifying the Four-Post Plan to reduce noise impacts, and the related impacts on regional military air traffic. 4. Evaluation of the major supplemental airport shall be accomplished in cooperation with the state of Washington. 5. Proceed immediately to conduct site-specific studies, including an environmental impact statement, on a Sea-Tac third runway; 6. Eliminate small supplemental airports, including Paine Field, as a preferred alternative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board is directed to: 1. Take all necessary steps to assure efficient, effective and economical implementation of this resolution. 2. Negotiate with the Port of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation and other responsible agencies, as necessary, to assure the implementation of this resolution. 3. Assure that implementation of this resolution is at all times in compliance with the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 4. Report to the General Assembly on the results of its actions at the next regularly scheduled Assembly meeting or at such special meeting of the Assembly as the Board may call. ADOPTED by the General Assembly this 29th day of April, 1993. Bill Brubaker, Councilmember Snohomish County President, Puget Sound Regional Council Attest: Mary McCamber, Executive Director Puget Sound Regional Council RESOLUTION A-93-03: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS As adopted by the Regional Council Executive Board August 26, 1993, and September 23, 1993 COORDINATION: The Puget Sound Regional Council, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Port of Seattle, and the Federal Aviation Administration will establish a coordinating committee of representatives from each agency to monitor and report back on the following efforts to implement Resolution A-93-03. A memorandum of understanding will be developed by the affected agencies to formalize this implementation process. 1. MAJOR SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY A. The Puget Sound Regional Council, in cooperation with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), leads feasibility study. A working group of public and private advisors provides advice on analyses, reviews findings, and comments on feasibility study issues. Public information and involvement provided through a variety of options to be developed in the fall of 1993. B. Consultants apply technical screening criteria to sites in 4-county area (King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap). Screening criteria are developed by the consultants subject to review b the coordinating committee and review and action by an appropriate Regional Council policy board. C. 1. If no sites exist, advise Executive Board and other interested parties. If Executive Board concurs, process ends. Substantial weight shall be given to the consultants' conclusion. (Mid-1994). 2. If sites exist, consultants continue with environmental, financial, legal, and market feasibility studies. D. Feasibility study issues: 1. Is there a major supplemental airport site which is feasible (i.e., environmentally, economically, market, legally)? What is (are) the site(s)? Who would be the airport sponsor? 2. When would a major supplemental airport be operational? E. The Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel (See Appendix A, Expert Panels) independently evaluates the feasibility study's technical conclusions, i.e., the answers to the questions in paragraph D, and additionally considers: 1. What are the existing capacity constraints at Sea- Tac International Airport? 2. What will be the demand and delay at Sea-Tac International Airport until and after a major supplemental airport becomes operational? 3. What will be the consequences (e.g., economic, environmental) of the anticipated delay at Sea-Tac International Airport? If it can be developed in a timely manner, initial data for these three questions will be developed during the Port of Seattle Master Plan and EIS preparation process. F. The Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel concludes whether a major supplemental airport eliminates the need for a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The Panel's conclusions are transmitted to the Regional Council. 1. If the Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel concludes that a major supplemental airport is feasible, the Regional Council Executive Board determines whether to develop an amendment process to incorporate the specific site or sites into the Regional Transportation Plan. 2. As it relates to the third runway, the Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel's conclusion shall be reviewed by the Regional Council Executive Board for final determination. Substantial weight shall be given to the conclusion of the Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel. II. DEMAND MANAGEMENT/SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STUDY A. The Puget Sound Regional Council, the FAA, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Port of Seattle will identify appropriate lead agencies to analyze demand management and system management options: including pricing mechanisms, gate controls, and high speed rail. B. The lead agency for each option will analyze that option to determine its feasibility, considering the time frame for implementation and the likely extent of its impact on future operations at Sea-Tac International Airport. C. Lead agency conclusions are then subject to independent evaluation by the Expert Arbitration Panel. 2 D. Expert Arbitration Panel determines which demand management/system management options are feasible, considering the reasonableness of methods and assumptions employed by the lead agencies, as well as issues such as long term regional goals, existing contractual obligations and legal constraints, safety, operational efficiency, and expense. (1994-1995). E. Conclusions of this Expert Arbitration Panel regarding which Demand Management/System Management options are feasible (including timeframe and impact) will be provided to the Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel. (See Feasibility Study, Part I.E.2.) F. The Expert Arbitration Panel (working on demand and system management issues) determines whether all earlier identified feasible measures are being pursued and achieved. (1996) 111. NOISE REDUCTION PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES A. The PSRC Resolution A-93-03 calls for aircraft noise reduction objectives that are scheduled and are being pursued. The following programs are responsive to this regional request (See Appendix B for descriptions of these programs): 1. The Sea-Tac Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program, which are established in Mediated Noise Abatement Actions for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, as agreed to by the Mediation Committee on March 30, 1990; 2. Port of Seattle restrictions on the performance of aircraft powerback operations and on aircraft engine run-ups which are established in the Sea-Tac International Airport Schedule of Rules and Regulations and which are intended to address issues related to certain ground source noise; and 3. Acoustical Insulation Program as set forth in the Port of Seattle Resolution 3125, as amended. B. Verification that the Port is achieving the objectives of the Acoustical Insulation program and ground source noise restrictions (as specified in III.A.2 and 3) will be accomplished by semi-annual reports by the Port to PSRC. C. A method of independent validation needs to be developed that the Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program noise reduction objectives are sufficient to cause a reduction in measurable real ("on-the-ground") noise by 1996. The validation methodology shall utilize the measurement of on-the-ground noise by the existing airport noise monitoring system at Sea-Tac Airport. 3 D. The Port of Seattle will lead the development of the validation methodology in close cooperation with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. In the event the Coordinating Committee members are unable to agree on a valid methodology, the specific points of disagreement may be referred to the Expert Arbitration Panel for prompt resolution upon request of two or more Committee members. E. In accordance with the recommended validation method, the Port of Seattle would collect and present the required noise data. In the interim, the data will be presented to the Executive Board semi-annually. F. In early 1996, the Expert Arbitration Panel will determine whether the noise reduction objectives are being pursued and achieved and resulting in a reduction in measurable on-the-ground noise. If the Panel is unable to so determine, it will notify the Executive Board. APPENDIX A EXPERT PANELS NOTE: Other specifics regarding the Expert Panels will be the subject of an MOU between the Regional Council, the Port of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration. 1. There would be up to three Expert Panels established to review issues concerning (1) the major supplemental airport; (2) Sea-Tac operational issues related to demand management/system management and noise reduction performance activities. 2. Each panel would be comprised of three people. At least one person would be a member of all panels. The Panels would have additional overlapping membership in areas where there is need for the same or similar experience and expertise, particularly in the areas of noise and demand/system management. (If memberships overlap significantly, the need for three separate panels could be avoided.) 3. The panels would be appointed by the Secretary of WSDOT, considering criteria established in the MOU. The Coordinating Committee would develop a list of candidates to be considered by the Secretary. 4. The panel established to review issues concerning the major supplemental airport will provide a recommendation to the Executive Board and will be known officially as the "Major Supplemental Airport (MSA) Expert Review Panel." The MSA Expert Review Panel will be convened upon completion of the environmental assessment, which will include a financial, legal and market feasibility study. The panel's recommendation shall be given substantial weight by the Executive Board. 5. The panel(s) reviewing demand/system management and noise issues will make final, binding decisions and will be referred to as Expert Arbitration Panel(s). a. The Expert Arbitration Panel established to review Sea-Tac International Airport demand and system management issues will initially convene in 1994 to determine the feasibility of demand management and system management options. The Panel's conclusions regarding feasible demand and system management options on Sea-Tac operations will be reported to the MSA Expert Review Panel. The demand and system management Expert Arbitration Panel will convene in early 1996 to determine whether feasible demand management and system management options are being pursued and achieved. b. The Expert Arbitration Panel to review noise issues will convene in 1994 to validate the methodology to determine whether the Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations programs are sufficient to cause a reduction in on-the-ground noise by 1996. (The Panel may be convened earlier to resolve specific points of disagreement upon request of two or more Coordinating Committee members in the event Coordinating Committee members are unable to agree on a validation method.) The Panel will reconvene in late 1995 or early 1996 to determine 1 whether the noise reduction performance objectives are being pursued, and achieved as scheduled based upon its independent evaluation of information generated through measurement of on-the- ground noise by the noise monitoring system around Sea-Tac International Airport. 6. Procedures will be established to ensure that the panels conduct their business in an objective and expeditious manner. Time limitations and participation guidelines will be established to ensure a fair opportunity for PSRC members and other stakeholders to participate. Procedures may provide for oral or written presentations, or both. 2 APPENDIX B GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NOISE PROGRAMS 1. NOISE BUDGET: The purpose is to achieve an annual reduction in noise energy produced by aircraft operations. The budget includes annual maximum noise energy for each year between 1991 and 2001. 2. NIGHTTIME LIMITATIONS PROGRAM: The purpose is to phase out Stage 2 aircraft during nighttime hours. In 1994, the time period will be extended to 10:30 p.m. to 6:45 a.m., and in 1995, the time period will be extended to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 3. ACOUSTICAL INSULATION PROGRAM: The purpose is to insulate up to 5,000 eligible single-family residences in the existing Noise Remedy Program, provided such residences are included on the waiting list as of December 31, 1993. The rate of insulation for such residences can be assessed in December 1995 in accordance with these objectives, as set forth in the Port of Seattle Resolution 3125, as amended. 1 Puget Sound Regional Council RESOLUTION NO. EB-94-01 A RESOLUTION of the Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, Washington, WHEREAS, regional studies completed by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, the Washington State Air Transportation Committee, and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) have clearly identified a near-term air transportation capacity problem at Sea- Tac International Airport, and concluded that the addition of a third all-weather runway at Sea-Tac would provide adequate capacity for the region through the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the PSRC General Assembly adopted Resolution A-93-03 approving the addition of a third Sea-Tac runway subject to certain conditions, including studying the feasibility of siting a major supplemental airport in the four-county region, and delegating implementation of the resolution to the PSRC Executive Board; and WHEREAS, the PSRC Executive Board established Implementation Steps and has responsibility for the Regional Council's work program, budget and contracts; and WHEREAS, the Executive Board concludes that there are no feasible sites for a major supplemental airport within the four-county region and that continued examination of any local sites will prolong community anxiety while eroding the credibility of regional governance; and WHEREAS, the need for a major supplemental airport continues to be questioned, especially in light.of emerging long-term- transportation initiatives, including high speed rail and demand/system management programs which may reduce long-range air travel demand; and WHEREAS, State law fails to address the issue of incentives and compensation beyond normal mitigation for those communities which are recipients of essential public facilities; and WHEREAS, the cost of building a major supplemental airport would impose a substantial new financial encumbrance which would conflict with other important regional obligations, while the cost of building a third Sea-Tac runway would be met with already identified revenues; and WHEREAS, air carriers have stated their opposition to the concept of supplemental airports, citing the market-driven economic realities of their industry; and WHEREAS, a broad spectrum of labor, business, and community groups support the addition of a third Sea-Tac runway to meet the near- term air transportation capacity needs of the region. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 99104-1035 (206) 464-7090 - FAX 587-4825 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Board further clarifies that the "Resolution A-93-03: Implementation Steps" adopted by the Executive Board allow the Executive Board to determine whether the Regional Council should go forward with additional supplemental airport studies and pursuant to that authority, the Executive Board determines that further studies should not be undertaken. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision of the Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council is to affirm the General Assembly's approval of a third runway for Sea-Tac, provided the project meets the independent evaluation of the noise and demand management conditions set out in Resolution A-93-03, and satisfies the environmental impact review process. FURTHER, the Executive Board recommends that the region work with the State to enact legislation allowing for substantial and equitable incentives and compensation for communities impacted by the proximity of essential public facilities. FURTHER, the Executive Board recommends that the State, in cooperation with appropriate local jurisdictions and regional transportation planning organizations, implement a comprehensive process for evaluating all options to meet the State of Washington's long-term air travel and inter-regional ground transportation needs, including high speed rail. ADOPTED by the Executive Board this 27th day of October, 1994. Mayor Richard Mitchusson City of Poulsbo President Attest: Puget Sound Regional Council Mary McCumber, Executive Director APPENDIX E MEETING SUMMARY: SCOPING MEETING ON AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL'S METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX E MEETING SUMMARY: SCOPING MEETING ON AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL'S METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Wednesday, September 28, 1994 The meeting was convened by Puget Sound Regional Council staff to clarify with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the assumptions to be used and procedures to be followed in the process to conduct the air-quality conformity analysis on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Additionally, the meeting was intended to allow the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington State Departments of Transportation (WSDOT) and Ecology (Ecology), the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), and other interested representatives of the public to provide input. This consultation prior to entering into a plan or program conformity analysis meets the requirements of the state (WAC 173-420-070) and federal (40 CFR Part 51) Conformity Rules Attendance: Gary Idleburg, Ecology; Martin Palmer, Peter Downey, Michael Scaringi, WSDOT; Brian O'Sullivan, PSAPCA; Stephanie Cooper, EPA; Lisa Hanf, Bill Kappus, FHWA; Nick Roach, Larry Blain, Karen Richter, Jon Layzer, Steve Fitzroy, Ralph Cipriani, PSRC. [Note: questions, comments, and discussion during the course of the presentations are highlighted in the text with the symbol: - Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Steve Fitzroy at 1:10 p.m. in the 6th Floor Board Room of the Puget Sound Regional Council. Steve reviewed the purpose of the meeting and the agenda for the meeting. The agenda package was mailed to participants in advance. Attendees were asked to introduce themselves. Meeting Summary of May 19,1994, Scoping Meeting on Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the PSRC Federal FY 1994-1996 Transportation Improvement Program Major Amendment The meeting summary from the most recent air quality conformity scoping meeting was included in the agenda packet for informational purposes. Steve Fitzroy asked if attendees had any questions about the meeting summary. There were no questions. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Overview Ralph Cipriani provided an overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) development process, current status, and future steps. Three handouts were distributed during the course of the presentation (attached). December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-1 The MTP must deal with two major areas: socioeconomic forecasts and travel trends. Travel trends are discouraging, in terms of reducing vehicle trips and reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT), if the trends we've observed over the last 10 or 15 years continue. But based on projected demographic changes -- higher percentages of elderly and youth in the region, and lower percentages of the middle age groups that travel the most -- these trends are not expected to continue. Demographic changes could help moderate some of the trends of growth in travel, but in general, VMT are expected to increase substantially. Also, current forecasts predict that the region's population will grow by 1.4 million people and 700 to 800 thousand jobs will be added in the region by the year 2020. These trends are comparable to those anticipated in most metropolitan areas in the "sun belt": southern California, the Bay Area, Phoenix. The MTP cannot affect the socioeconomic trends given current institutional and cultural constraints, but it can affect the travel trends. The core of the MTP strategy is to try to affect the travel trends, primarily through demand management. The track record over the last 10 years of TDM programs is not impressive, primarily because TDM has been undertaken in a fragmented, piecemeal fashion. These previous approaches will not get at the core of the problem. The MTP will examine a more comprehensive demand management strategy to deal with the anticipated long-term growth for both conformity and mobility purposes. In trying to target all trips, and not just the work trip, and trying to develop a truly regional approach, the MTP strategy relies heavily on pricing. It may not be realistic to assume that such pricing will be built into the current planning cycle, but the MTP will increase awareness among elected officials, and will help planners get a sense of decision makers commitment to pricing as a long-term strategic direction. The next MTP could have legally-binding commitments or actual mechanisms to put pricing strategies in place. The current MTP will provide a simple, straightforward case that if plans only focus on the transportation supply side -- regardless of mode -- they will fail to address the underlying problems in the long term, both in terms of air quality and in terms of mobility. In addition to helping moderate travel demand, pricing offers a second major benefit: it provides a revenue source to feed back and enhance the transportation system -- for mobility of people, freight, services, and information. The MTP will build a case for pricing as another way out of the financial crunch, because the financial constraint problem is significant. Analysis of the region's long-term transportation finances will show local elected officials that if they support pricing as a demand management strategy, it would free up both current and future local general revenues to use for other purposes that in many cases may be perceived as more critical, such as health care, social services, education, or criminal justice. Generally, there is a growing awareness of the inappropriate pricing built into the current transportation system. The current pricing is an underlying factor in the incredible growth in travel and VMT, especially among single occupant vehicles. ["Figure IV-1. 1995 MTP Modelling Assumptions" was distributed] What MTP is testing by analyzing four packages is the effectiveness of broad-based regional strategies for implementing the transportation component of VISION 2020. The packages being analyzed are not plan alternatives. VISION 2020 -- which was adopted in 1990 -- is the existing plan in the region. What this planning cycle is focused on is finding a more detailed implementation strategy for December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-2 VISION 2020. Some people have objected that this planning cycle did not start all over from the beginning, but that was not the direction given by elected officials in the region, or by the Regional Council's upper management. Recognizing this approach, Regional Council staff spent several months, many meetings and extensive dialogue with state and local agencies and environmental groups, developing four basic packages for analytical purposes to test major strategies and provide some options for the elected officials in developing a final strategy for the plan. Staff also collapsed the 15 planning factors from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) to create evaluative measures to get a broader sense of what the four packages could accomplish rather than constraining the analysis to the typical performance indicators of VMT and vehicle trip reductions. The goal is to analyze these packages in terms of what they would accomplish in all of those other areas, such as equity, system management, maintenance and preservation. The 1990 Baseline package represents the current transportation system and operating environment, for SEPA purposes. The "baseline" for planning purposes -- a minimal level of action" -- is what is identified as Package 1. Package 1 is also the financially constrained package, reflecting "business as usual" over the next 25 years, with current revenues. This package includes minor revenue increases that would accrue based on inflation, since most of our revenue sources are based on sales or fuel taxes. From a systemwide perspective, however, the revenue increase is not enough to do anything new or different. Package 2 is the moderate capital investment package. This package would represent a moderate increase in assumed revenues over the 25 year period that, above and beyond Package 1. In terms of facilities, the major differences are the construction of a major portion of WSDOT's core High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system and Phase I of the Regional Transit Project. Package 3 and Package 4 both include the complete build-out on the supply-side of the VISION 2020 plan for rail and HOV and missing links in the freeway system. This represents the maximum expansion of the transportation network that will be modelled. The charts express supply figures in dollars, number of facilities, or route-miles of transit. The charts are intended to illuminate differences among the packages, rather than providing an exact picture of the investment level in a particular mode in each package. They show the incremental changes to the existing system in each package. The figures do not show the proportional increase to existing facilities which is minuscule, even in Packages 3 and 4. In contrast, planned highway and HOV expansions in comparable regions in the country such as Phoenix and Denver (particularly Phoenix) include far more extensive new general purpose facilities, above and beyond what exists today. On the transit supply side, the Regional Transit Project is assumed to be built out in Packages 3 and 4, and only incrementally phased in Package 2. Only the commuter rail component is assumed in Package 1. With respect to other transit improvements, there would be minimal improvements in Package 1, mostly financed through current revenues by shifting operations. In Package 2, there would be some local service expansion and commuter service expansion focused primarily around supporting Phase I of the Regional Transit Project. Packages 3 and 4 December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E)Page E-3 would include a lot more traditional transit/bus services, both commuter and local. Similarly, with respect to Park & Ride lots, there would be minimal expansion in Package 1, a little more in Package 2, and the full VISION 2020 expansion -- 20,000 additional space -- in Packages 3 & 4. Vehicle operating costs are assumed to remain consistent across all of the packages. The reason for this is to allow a true comparison of the major pricing strategies, which lie elsewhere. Similarly, we're keeping transit fares consistent across the packages. This does not mean that there could not be policies or programs in the MTP that support reduction in transit fares, but the goal is to test alternative plan strategies, particularly those for which there is not yet a good understanding of the effectiveness. The most critical set of strategies being tested are the four pricing strategies contained in the last two rows. These strategies, which were arrived at through extensive research by consultants and discussion with the Regional Project Evaluation Committee, seem to be the most appropriate for this region -- the most feasible in terms of implementation and most likely to make a real difference. For parking costs, some assumptions are already built into the model that replicate the current situation, primarily for downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. What will be tested are efforts to expand both the spatial coverage of the fee area by applying parking pricing to more traffic analysis zones in the region, and to expand the range of dollar costs, particularly in Package 3. Existing research suggests that changes in parking costs provide the strongest potential leverage for affecting mode split and travel demand. The fuel tax base represents the current fuel tax forecast for the region based on trends over the last 15 or 20 years. In Packages 2, 3 and 4 we assume some increases in fuel taxes above and beyond the trend. Package 3 really gets at the full range of pricing strategies by including a VMT charge and an Automatic Vehicle Identification travel fee. Later, with further iterations of the modelling, staff will attempt to break out the individual pricing strategies to determine which strategies are most effective. Some effectiveness data are available based on research conducted in California on elasticities associated with these pricing strategies, and it is assumed that the Puget Sound region will not deviate substantially in terms of reductions in VMT and resulting air quality benefits associated with these strategies. But this planning process will apply the strategies directly in regional modeling efforts to come up with absolute numbers both in terms of demand management and in terms of revenue generation. Karen Richter clarified that Packages 3 and 4 have the exact same facilities, and that only the financing is different, with expansion in Package 3 financed primarily through the four pricing mechanisms. Package 4 assumes that the region would need to repeatedly return to the legislature and to the voters for additional revenues, which seems unlikely to succeed in the era of Initiative 601. This provides a carrot for decision makers -- by including pricing strategies, users of the system pay for the future expansion. Peter Downey asked about the effect of price elasticities in Package 3 -- response to pricing strategies could change the need for the build-out of capital facilities. Ralph Cipriani affirmed that Regional Council staff are interested in examining this in future model runs, since this would require additional iterations of the modeling based on initial modeling output. Staff see the December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-4 reduced need for capital facilities as another carrot for decision- makers with respect to pricing strategies, and hope to conduct the additional modeling in December. Brian O'Sullivan asked for clarification about what the four packages represent. Ralph Cipriani clarified ' that the four packages are purely for analytical purposes, and are not plan alternatives. Staff hope to translate the results of the analytical exercise into a series of very clear options and tracks for elected officials. Ralph also clarified that Package 2 was recommended by the Transportation Policy Board as the beginning point, rather than looking at the financially constrained Package I as the baseline option. Preliminary analysis suggests that we can find reasonable funding options for all of the improvements identified in Package 2, which represents a fair amount of the supply side identified in VISION 2020. But staff have also cautioned decision makers that financing these transportation supply options may not adequately address mobility or air quality needs, and that pricing strategies to address the demand side may be necessary. Staff anticipate that it will be difficult to get political support for the demand side alternatives. Efforts to date have focused on developing a commitment to examining the demand-side strategies; staff will now work to identify the potential benefits of these strategies. Ralph also clarified that specific conformity tests will not be completed for all four packages, although modeling to examine the overall air quality impacts of each package will be completed as part of the technical analysis. The results of the air quality modeling will be a key piece of information to convey to decision- makers about the effectiveness of alternative strategies. Peter Downey asked about the long-term certainty of a commitment by today's political bodies to measures such as pricing, and encouraged the Regional Council to go ahead with conducting the full conformity test on all four packages. Ralph Cipriani responded that the conformity regulations adequately address the possibility of decision-makers reneging on commitments, and that the Regional Council does not have the staff resources or time to pursue this approach. Also, Regional Council staff are trying very hard to make clear the fact that the packages are not plan alternatives, but alternative packages for analytical purposes only. The preferred strategy to be released for public review in December will likely be a hybrid of the four packages, bearing the closest resemblance to Package 2. This preferred strategy will be the interim MTP for conformity purposes with FHWA to provide for continued funding of projects in the existing TIP. It is likely that additional modeling will need to be conducted for conformity of the final plan to be adopted in March, 1995. Gary Idleburg asked about the financial feasibility of a strategy including some or all of the Regional Transit Plan, which will require voter approval. Ralph Cipriani clarified that Phase I of the Regional Transit Project, included in Package 2, would depend on a successful public vote in 1995; inclusion of this phase would satisfy the financial feasibility test of ISTEA. Until further work is done to identify financing mechanisms, however, inclusion of subsequent phases through the full build-out of the Regional Transit Project would not meet the financial feasibility test. Again, this issue makes clear the importance of pricing strategies as a source of revenue, because the full build-out, which is consistent with the existing VISION 2020, cannot be included in the new MTP under conformity and ISTEA planning regulations unless revenue sources are clearly identified. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-5 ["Alternative Implementation Strategy. . ." and "Additional Considerations" handouts were distributed]. The first handout briefly summarizes what decision-makers would be committing to if they only approved what is currently included in Package 2, and nothing else. The expected message based on the technical analysis is that this action might be enough to pass conformity, although there's a chance that it will not due to population and employment growth in the region. But even if Package 2 meets the required air quality tests, it does not fulfill the shared commitment to address regional mobility issues, or other regional goals expressed in VISION 2020. Package 2 is simply the bare minimum staff feels can be defined under the financially constrained definition on the supply side. The second handout summarizes the additional strategies, focusing on the demand and financing sides, that decision-makers need to consider. These strategies are grouped into four policy areas that deal with demand management, pricing, and alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel such as non-motorized. Summary of Technical and Procedural Assumptions for Analysis Nick Roach reviewed the summary of technical and procedural assumptions for the MTP conformity analysis, which was included in the agenda package. Conformity Requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 require areas not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to make use of transportation plans, programs, and projects to support State Implementation Plans (SIPS) in bringing the areas into attainment of the standards. Once federal air quality standards are attained, the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects in these areas continue to support Maintenance Plans aimed at maintaining air quality standards. The CAAA's conformity rule provides specific criteria and procedures, or tests, for ensuring that regional transportation plans and improvement programs, and regionally significant projects, conform with SIP and Maintenance Plan goals of attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects cannot: - cause or contribute to any new violation of the federal air quality standards; - increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of the standards; or - delay timely attainment of the standards. Since portions of the Puget Sound region have been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being in nonattainment of the carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter standards, regional transportation plans and programs and regionally significant transportation projects in the region must meet the conformity tests. The Puget Sound Regional Council, as the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the region, must successfully complete the conformity tests specified in the rule before adopting a new or amended transportation plan or improvement program. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-6 Conformity analyses will be conducted for the Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which is to be released for public scrutiny by the Regional Council's Executive Board in December, 1994, and for the MTP, which is to be formally adopted by Regional Council's General Assembly in March, 1995. To ensure adequate time for public review and comment, the results of the Regional Council's MTP conformity finding and analysis results will be released on November 10, 1994. Overall Conformity Requirements for Transportation Plans In addition to specific conformity tests, the conformity rule identifies several overall requirements for transportation plans to meet conformity requirements. For example, 51.400 of the rule defines the frequency with which conformity determinations are required for transportation plans, programs, and projects. For transportation plans, conformity determinations must be made at least every three years. As a result, the conformity determination for the current regional transportation plan -- VISION 2020 -- lapses on November 14, 1994. After this date, only projects identified as exempt from the air quality requirements in 51.460 of the rule may proceed to implementation, until a new conforming plan is adopted. The conformity rule also contains requirements for consultation among MPOS, State and local air agencies, State and Federal Departments of Transportation, and the EPA to reach consensus on specific technical and procedural issues associated with implementing the rule in specific regions (51.402). In the central Puget Sound region, these requirements are met through the consultation procedures outlined in the "Conformity Guidebook," prepared by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation in coordination with the other agencies listed above. The consultation requirements also include a requirement for a proactive public involvement process, which is met through the conformity scoping meeting (held September 28, 1994), and through the subsequent public notice and review process conducted according to the Regional Council's Public Participation Plan. Finally, the conformity rule echoes content requirements for regional transportation plans and requirements for the plan to be financially constrained as outlined in the U.S. Department of Transportation's metropolitan planning regulations. These requirements are explicitly addressed in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Determining Conformity Criteria and Procedures On November 24, 1993, EPA issued the final conformity rule in the Federal Register. The rule provides several sets of criteria and procedures for determining conformity to help areas make the transition from the initial guidance to full implementation of the rule. The conformity tests to be conducted are determined on the basis of the region's nonattainment classification; and the type and current EPA approval status of the applicable SIP. Areas in the central Puget Sound region are currently classified by the EPA as follows: - Carbon Monoxide - Moderate Plus December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-7 - Ozone - Marginal - Particulate Matter - Moderate (Three Areas: Seattle Duwamish River, Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tideflats) The boundaries of these areas are shown in Figure 1. These boundaries define the areas for conformity analysis for each pollutant. In addition, emissions analysis results will be provided for the entire four-county region. In 1982, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted SIPs for all criteria pollutants which were subsequently approved by EPA. Pursuant to the CAAA, Ecology submitted updated SIPs to EPA in 1992 for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter areas. To date, only the Particulate Matter SIP for the Kent Valley Area has been approved by EPA. According to the federal conformity rule, the status of SIP completion, submittal and approval all affect the type of conformity tests that are required for the MTP. The 1992 SIP submittals for carbon monoxide and particulate matter are defined as "control strategy" SIP revisions because they contain specific strategies for controlling emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAAA requirements for demonstration of attainment. Because the control strategy SIP for the Kent Valley area has been approved by EPA, the conformity rule defines this area as in the "control strategy period." The Seattle Duwamish River and Tacoma Tideflats areas and the region's carbon monoxide area are defined by the rule as in the "transitional period" because their control strategy SIPs have been submitted but not yet approved. Finally, the 1992 SIP submittal for ozone is defined as an attainment SIP, and the ozone area is therefore classified as in "Phase 11 of the interim period." December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-8 Table I summarizes the region's nonattainment classifications, type and current EPA approval status of the applicable SIPS, and the applicable "period," as defined by the final conformity rule, for determining conformity criteria and procedures: Click HERE for graphic. PSAPCA staff subsequently noted that EPA may have recently issued a conditional approval of the SIP for the Seattle Duwamish River PM sub 10 area. Staff will follow-up to clarify the status of this SIP and will adjust the conformity tests applied to this area accordingly. Based on these categorizations, 51.410 of the federal conformity rule identifies the applicable criteria and procedures for determining conformity of regional transportation plans. Table 2 summarizes the sections of the final conformity rule which contain the criteria and procedures required for conformity tests for each area. Following the table, each section is described in greater detail. The discussion of each section also includes a summary of the Regional Council staff assumptions for the tests for concurrence by the Federal Highway Administration. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-9 Click HERE for graphic. MTP Conformity Analysis Criteria and Procedures and Key Staff Assumptions Section 5l.412: The conformity determination must be based on the latest planning assumptions - As required by this section, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) will include a discussion of changes in transit operating policy (including fares and service levels) and assumed transit ridership since the last plan conformity analysis. - The MTP will include key assumptions for issues such as the identification of regionally significant projects modeled, definition of exempt and non-exempt projects, etc. - The MTP and plan conformity analysis will be based on the Regional Council's latest available, population and employment forecasts, not the most recently adopted forecasts which are several years old. Section 51.414: The conformity determination must be based on the latest emissions estimation model available. - MOBILE5a will be used for the analyses for carbon monoxide and ozone precursors. - The most recent MOBILE5a model settings will be used (e.g., wintertime oxygenate fuel rate=2.7); these settings have been coordinated with the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation, and will be consistent with settings used for the most recent SIP revision. The most recent SIP revision is expected to be submitted by Ecology to EPA on September 30, 1994. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-10 - PART 5 particulate matter emissions model has not been published in Federal Register. There is, at a minimum, a three-month grace period between publication in the Federal Register and the requirement to use the model in conformity analyses. Therefore, due to the timing of this conformity analysis, PART 5 will not be used. The conformity analysis for PM sub 10 will be qualitative in nature, consistent with previous analyses. Note: see subsequent discussion regarding PM sub 10 test. Brian O'Sullivan asked if anyone had any clearer idea of when the PART 5 model would be officially released. Staff from WSDOT and PSRC noted that a version of PART 5 is already available, but that it has not been officially announced in the Federal Register, and that EPA generally provides a three-month grace period following publication in the Federal Register before new models must be used in conformity tests. Nobody was able to provide a clearer indication of when PART 5 would be officially released. Use of PART 5 may be required for the conformity analysis to be conducted for the final MTP in March, 1995. Peter Downey requested clarification of a related issue -- whether the Kent Valley SIP for PM,,, which has been conditionally approved by EPA, includes any TCMs or control strategies related to transportation. Brian O'Sullivan said that the SIP does not contain TCMS, and that the major issue in the Kent Valley area had been an industrial point source which is no longer in operation. Section 51.416: Plan conformity analysis must be made using consultation procedures identified in the conformity rule. - The conformity analysis must meet consultation procedural requirements that are consistent with the MPO public involvement processes as required under ISTEA's metropolitan and state planning processes rule. The state is required to revise the SIP to include formal consultation procedures identified in the conformity rule. However, these detailed consultation procedures are not in affect until EPA approves the SIP revision. In the interim, the Regional Council will follow its own public involvement procedures as well as the consultation procedures outlined in the "Conformity Guidebook" prepared by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation. Peter Downey clarified that the federal conformity rule does not require that the state conformity rule include the federal consultations sections verbatim, but the issue of consultation procedures in the state rule still needs to be resolved. Section 51.418: The Transportation Plan provides for the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) from the applicable SIP. - The MTP will identify existing TCMs and the most recent schedule for implementation. - A positive conformity finding must include a statement that the MTP will not interfere with the timely implementation of TCMS. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E- 11 Peter Downey asked what TCMs remained from the 1982 SIP that have not yet been completed. PSRC staff noted that remaining SIP were primarily Park & Ride lots or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities, all of which have been receiving funding and are making progress toward completion. When the 1994-1996 TIP was adopted in October, 1993, 207 of 223 TCMs from the 1982 SIP had been completed. Section 51.428: The Transportation Plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in the applicable SIP or submitted SIP revision. - The conformity analysis for carbon monoxide will compare projected motor vehicle emissions with the 1995 emissions inventory to be submitted to EPA by Ecology in a SIP revision in September, 1994. This SIP revision updates the SIP inventory using MOBILE5a and the most recent model settings. - Analysis years for carbon monoxide for this test will be 1995, 2000, 2010, and 2020. - Adjustments will be made to carbon monoxide emissions estimates for consistency with Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) forecasts, since the emissions budget in the SIP was based on HPMS-adjusted estimates. - Daily carbon monoxide emissions estimates will be used for this analysis, consistent with the SIP budget. - As described under 51.414, the "budget" analysis for particulate matter will be qualitative in nature. Brian O'Sullivan asked for clarification on what would happen to the budget when a Maintenance Plan with a revised budget is submitted. The applicable budget depends on the EPA approval status of the SIP and Maintenance Plan submissions. Until EPA approves a SIP with a budget, each new budget submitted to EPA as part of a SIP revision or Maintenance Plan becomes the applicable budget. Once EPA approves a SIP revision with a budget, that budget remains the applicable budget until a subsequent budget is approved by EPA. In theory, the region's SIPs should be approved by EPA prior to the submission of Maintenance Plans. If this is the case, the SIP budgets will remain in effect as the applicable budgets until EPA approves the Maintenance Plans. Section 51.436: The transportation plan must contribute to carbon monoxide and ozone emissions reductions in nonattainment areas. - For this test, emissions resulting from "action" scenarios will be compared with those resulting from "baseline" scenarios for carbon monoxide and for ozone precursors (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides), for the years 1995, 2000, 2010, and 2020. "Action" and "baseline" scenarios have previously been referred to as "build" and "no-build" scenarios, because these terms were used in the initial EPA/FHWA guidance. In the future, the terms "action" and "baseline" will be used, consistent with the terms used in the conformity rule. - The "baseline" network shall include: all in-place regionally modelable highway and transit facilities and activities; all ongoing TDM or TSM activities; and completion of all regionally December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-12 modelable non-exempt projects, regardless of funding source, which are undergoing construction or right-of-way acquisition, come from the current conforming TIP, or have completed the SEPA/NEPA process. - Emissions resulting from the "action" scenarios for carbon monoxide and ozone precursors in all analysis years will also be compared with estimated 1990 emissions. - No adjustments will be made to emissions estimates for consistency with HPMS, since none of the required comparisons under this test involve HPMS-adjusted estimates. - Daily emissions estimates will be analyzed for carbon monoxide and ozone precursors; 3 hour morning peak period emissions estimates for carbon monoxide will also be analyzed. - Emission totals for the four-county region for carbon monoxide and ozone precursors will also be analyzed. Peter Downey asked why the AM Peak period emissions for carbon monoxide were analyzed instead of the PM Peak period emissions, although most observed exceedances occur during the PM Peak period. Larry Blain pointed out that prior to this year, the Regional Council did not explicitly estimate PM Peak period travel and emissions. The AM Peak period was analyzed previously because it drives the home-to-work mode choice model. However, the Regional Council will now be breaking up the day into three periods: AM Peak, PM Peak, and the remainder of the day. All parties agreed that since the PM Peak period data would now be available, it would be more appropriate to use these figures for this test. Section 51.442 The transportation plan must contribute to or not increase particulate matter emissions. - As described under 51.414, this analysis will be qualitative in nature. Note: see subsequent discussion regarding PM sub 10 test. Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation-Related Emissions (51.452) Analysis will include explicit modeling of all regionally significant projects. As defined by the conformity rule, a regionally significant project is: "a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel." [emphasis added]. In addition, although projects which are not regionally significant are not required to be explicitly modelled, the vehicle miles travelled (VMT), or VMT reductions, from such projects, "must be estimated in accordance with reasonable professional practice." Projects, programs, and activities which will not be explicitly modelled, but for which VMT reduction and emissions benefits will be estimated, fall into three general categories: December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-13 - pricing measures, such as increases to gas taxes; - non-motorized improvements; and - transportation demand management programs. It should be noted that the analysis cannot take emissions "credit" for projects, programs, or activities which require a regulation in order to be implemented, such as changes to the State's vehicle inspection and maintenance program, unless the regulation has already been adopted by the enforcing agency. Finally, as specified in 51.452(c), modelling procedures which are above and beyond what is explicitly required for conformity analyses in the central Puget Sound region, but which have been the previous practice of the Regional Council, will be maintained. Overview of Schedule Nick Roach provided an overview of the schedule for the conformity analysis (copy attached) which clarifies the specific steps the Regional Council will go through in completing the analysis, and the timing of the steps. Nick pointed out, in particular, the need to complete the analysis according to the schedule to provide adequate time for the formal public review period. Additional Question Bill Kappus asked for clarification on the analysis planned for particulate matter. Since the SIPs submitted for particulate matter SIPs were all control strategy SIPS, they all contained attainment demonstrations and therefore budgets. Gary Idleburg confirmed that the SIPs did include attainment demonstrations. According to the conformity rule, therefore, the inventories included in these SIPs should be recognized as the budget. Bill Kappus requested, then, that the Regional Council perform the analyses required by the conformity rule, outlined previously, but that these analyses should be conducted in a quantitative, not qualitative, fashion. The group discussed the significance of on-road mobile sources in the particulate matter emissions inventory. Peter Downey pointed out that the particulate matter problems in the three non- attainment areas have been cleared up largely through elimination of point sources or improvement of off-road mobile sources. Larry Blain was concerned that the emissions inventories in the SIPs might be overly restrictive because they did not explicitly allocate any safety margin to on-road mobile sources. Regardless of this issue, however, most of those present agreed that the conformity rule does not allow discretion or latitude, that the conformity tests must be conducted in a quantitative fashion. Gary Idleburg believes that a standardized emissions factor was used to estimate mobile-source particulate matter emissions for the SIPS. Nobody at the meeting was able to provide any additional information about how the mobile-source emissions inventories in the PM sub 10 SIPs were prepared. Regional Council staff agreed to follow-up on this issue. Regional Council staff will work with Ecology and PSAPCA to get better information about the methodology used in developing the SIPS, and will develop a proposed quantitative methodology for completing the applicable conformity tests for concurrence by FHWA and EPA. Brian O'Sullivan suggested that December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-14 Regional Council staff consult with Jerry Pade of PSAPCA on this issue, since is the most familiar with the particulate matter SIPS, and is working on the PM sub 10 inventories for the Maintenance Plans. Peter Downey felt that the time dedicated to clarifying and addressing this issue should be minimized, since the particulate matter problems in this region have been substantially addressed through improvements to point sources and non-road mobile sources. Peter Downey also encouraged the group to think about these issues as the Maintenance Plans are developed to avoid potential future problems. Larry Blain summed up by clarifying the actual comparisons that would be made to satisfy the conformity tests. For carbon monoxide, the Regional Council will compare for each analysis year (I 995, 2000, 20 1 0, and 2020) the daily carbon monoxide emissions from the MTP network - adjusted by the method used to develop the emissions inventory (using HPMS) -- with the emissions budget from the SIP. For action versus baseline comparisons, the baseline network will consist of the existing transportation network plus projects that are in the current TIP, are under construction, are through NEPA/SEPA, or fit other criteria described in the rule. Trip generation and distribution for the baseline scenarios will be the same as for the action scenarios, and only the mode choice and assignment cycles will be performed separately for the baseline network. Emissions resulting from these baseline scenarios will be compared with emissions from the actions scenarios based on the WP. Action scenario emissions for all analysis years will also be compared with 1990 emission. These action/baseline/1990 comparisons will be performed for daily emissions of ozone precursors, and daily and PM Peak period emission of carbon monoxide. Nick Roach invited attendees to submit written comments if they become aware of any additional issues during the next two weeks. Peter Downey asked how the Congestion Management System relates to the MTP. Nick Roach said that the CMS will be subtitled as an element of the MTP, and it will be an important tool for identifying future TCMs or other strategies to address air quality issues. Public Comment There were no public comments. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix E) Page E-15 APPENDIX F CONSIDERATION GIVEN ISTEA PLANNING FACTORS IN DEVELOPING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix F) Page F-1 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix F) Page F-2 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix F) Page F-3 Click HERE for graphic. December 1994 DRAFT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Appendix F) Page F-4 Click HERE for graphic. The Regional Council extends sincere appreciation to the Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Growth Management Staff Advisory Committee, the Transportation operators Committee, the Regional Technical Committee, the Transportation Enhancements Committee, and the many technical working groups for their work in the preparation of the Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
