UATS Director’s Workshop Agenda

1. UATS Director’s Workshop Agenda April 30, 2001 • Introduction(12:30 – 12:35) • Development Review and Mitigation(12:35 – 2:10) Break (2:10 – 2:15) • Planning Assumptions(2:15 – 2:30) • Financing Sources(2:30 – 2:45) • Concurrency and System Performance(2:45 – 3:00)

2. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 1 • How much of the impact of development and redevelopment should be mitigated by the development?

3. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 2 • What type(s) of development, if any, should be exempt from mitigation (or allowed a lower level of mitigation)?

4. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 3 • Where will the City get the money to pay for the portion of transportation improvement costs that are not paid by development?

5. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 4 • Which types of transportation improvement does the City want to require development to mitigate?

6. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 5 • How specific is the City willing to be about the transportation improvement that will be funded by mitigation?

7. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 6 • What kind of criteria does the City want to use to determine the need for mitigation?

8. Development Review and MitigationIssue No. 7 • Should the mitigation program be used only in targeted areas, or does it need to be used throughout the City?

9. Planning Assumptions -Growth Assumptions • Is the city comfortable with the study area growth assumptions for 2010 and 2020 used by the Puget Sound Regional Council? Recommendation: • Review 2000 census against the PSRC’s 2000 base. • Compare the “pipeline” developments with the PSRC’s growth forecasts. • If those figures are reasonable, use the PSRC growth forecast for 2010 and 2020. • If not, adjustments should be made to the PSRC’s growth forecasts and create new trip tables that reflect the new growth forecasts.

10. Planning Assumptions -State Facilities • Should the UATS identify and evaluate facility improvement concepts located in the state right-of–way in the study area? • Should the UATS examine travel pattern shifts in the study area associated with the alternatives in the Trans-Lake Study EIS?

11. Planning Assumptions -State Facilities Recommendation: • Identify facility improvements in state right of-way within the study area. • Analyze changes in travel shifts associated with the Trans-Lake Washington Study capacity expansion options. • Focus on short-term actions that the WSDOT can take to improve the SR 520 corridor in the UATS.

12. Planning Assumptions -Montlake Bridge • Should the UATS evaluate options to rebuild the Montlake Bridge to handle traffic and non-motorized demand in the corridor? Recommendation: • Do not consider any option to widen the Montlake Bridge in the UATS. (It is possible that the Trans-Lake study could impact traffic flows in the Montlake Boulevard corridor, and major structural changes to the Montlake Bridge may be evaluated.)

13. Planning Assumptions -Freeway Access • Should the UATS evaluate cost and benefit of freeway access improvements in the Eastlake area, which is located outside the study area? Recommendation: • Do not consider changes to freeway access in the Eastlake area in the UATS

14. Planning Assumptions -Sound Transit • What should the UATS assume to be the Sound Transit light rail plan? Recommendation: • Assume that the light rail system in the original Sound Move Plan will be implemented with the three-year extension. • Assume that the light rail system will be extended to Northgate from University District as the highest priority upon completion of the first phase. • The UATS plan should prepare potential responses, such as changing prioritization of transit projects.

15. Financing Sources • Should the development of a transportation improvement plan be constrained? • Should the UATS investigate ways to raise additional revenues for facility improvements in the study area?

16. Financing Sources Recommendation: • Do not constrain ideas to improve the transportation system based on city’s current financial capability. • Discuss potential funding sources and identify steps needed to implement each funding source. The potential sources to be analyzed: • partnership with WSDOT on the Trans-Lake Washington and I-5 studies • joint funding with UW, King County Metro, and other transit agencies • new sources of funding such as LIDs, and impact fees

17. Concurrency and System Performance – System Performance • What “performance benchmarks” should the study use to identify transportation system deficiencies? Recommendation: • Roadway corridor: LOS E measured in average speed • Intersection: LOS E measured in average delay • Transit: Increase transit vehicle speeds and reliability, and service quality measured with headway to and from major centers. • Carpool/vanpool: Provide travel time incentives and pricing incentives without quantitative benchmarks. • Pedestrian/bicycle: Use qualitative benchmarks for pedestrian and bicycle systems without quantitative benchmarks.

18. Concurrency and System Performance - Concurrency • Is it appropriate to discuss the purpose of concurrency in the UATS? Recommendation: • The UATS should not directly address changes to the adopted concurrency level of service standards. • The city should update the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The “performance benchmarks” discussed above would be sufficient.