www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com

Steering/Technical Committee Meeting Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 1:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M.

COMPASS, Conference Room 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100

Meridian, Idaho

**Agenda**

I. Consent Agenda Page 2 * A. Approval of the May 6, 2010, Meeting Minutes II. Discussion/Information Items

A. Review Master Street Map Next Steps – Steve Price Page 6 * B. Review Variable Level of Service without Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Justin Lucas

C. Review Menu of Joint Mitigation Strategies on Hypothetical Corridor – Patricia Nilsson

D. Status Report - Cumulative Impacts Analysis on a Development – Justin Lucas

III. Action Items

A. Establish July 8, 2010, Steering Committee Agenda IV Other V. Adjournment

* Attachments

T:\FY10\700 Services\761 Blue Print for Good Growth\Steering Committee\agenda06 10 10.doc

1

www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com

ITEM I-A

Steering/Technical Committee Meeting Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:00 A.M. to Noon

COMPASS, Conference Room 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100

Meridian, Idaho

**Minutes**

I. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the February 4, 2010, Meeting Minutes

Deanna Smith moved and Patricia Nilsson seconded moving Consent Agenda Item A – Approval of the February 4, 2010, Meeting Minutes to an Action Item to consider Nichoel Baird Spencer’s request to modify the February 4, 2010, meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously. Nichoel Baird Spencer requested clarification to her statement in the second paragraph on page 5 of the February 4, 2010, meeting minutes to read:

Nichoel stated that from the City of Eagle’s perspective the goals in the City’s original resolution to support BGG have been met, which was to provide better communication between transportation and land use planning, better accountability, and a multi jurisdictional process.

The point of the clarification is that the City of Eagle drafted a unique statement of support and it was not the same as the rest of the jurisdictions.

Patricia Nilsson moved and Charles Trainor seconded approval of the February 4, 2010, meeting minutes, as requested by Nichoel Baird Spencer. Motion passed unanimously.

II. Information/Discussion Items

A. Review March 11, 2010, Consortium Meeting Matt Stoll stated after discussion at the March 11, 2010, Consortium meeting, the Consortium agreed with the Steering Committee’s recommendation to move forward in developing a menu of joint mitigation strategies to be used to offset land use decisions that have negative impacts upon the transportation system beyond what were envisioned in the long-range transportation plan and the Blueprint for Good Growth plan. The Consortium also agreed with Sally’s recommendation that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Committee’s work has been completed up to this point.

2

www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com

The Consortium directed that the Steering Committee present the menu of strategies that could be used on an example corridor to the Consortium at the June 2010 meeting. Matt noted that subsequent discussions with staff concluded that the effort is a city/county land use issue and should be lead by the either the cities or county with input from ITD and ACHD.

Patricia Nilsson agreed to lead the effort, but said the work product will not be ready by the June 10, 2010, Consortium meeting. Patricia said she will coordinate a subgroup of the Steering Committee to assist in the process. State Street will be used as the hypothetical case study, as it is cross jurisdictional and is part of the local system and the state system. B. Review May 17, 2010, COMPASS Board Retreat

Matt Stoll stated that the May 17, 2010, COMPASS Board Retreat will be conducted in a workshop format. The agenda will include presentations from Elaine Clegg representing Idaho Smart Growth regarding its Quality Infill Report; Ed Miller and team representing the Urban Land Institute will present the ULI Mayors’ Forum report on downtown development; and Clay Carley representing the development community will discuss how to incentivize development in downtowns and core areas. Charles Trainor will review the vision of Communities in Motion. Carl Miller will report on what other metropolitan planning organizations have done to incentivize development.

The goal of the retreat is to have a regional discussion that will foster action in individual jurisdictions.

III. Action Items

A. Establish Process for Developing Joint Mitigation Strategies

The process was discussed under Information/Discussion Item A.

Sally Goodell moved and Deanna Smith seconded approval of the process for developing a menu of joint mitigation strategies as outlined by Patricia Nilsson. Motion passed unanimously.

B. Establish June 10, 2010, Consortium Agenda

After discussion, the Steering Committee members agreed to request that the June 10, 2010, Consortium meeting be canceled. This will allow time for staff to develop agenda items with substance for the September 9, 2010, Consortium meeting.

Sally Goodell discussed the merit of bringing the key principals of Blueprint for Good Growth back to the Consortium for review. Now that the Master Street map has been completed, the question is where to go from here to make it as useful as possible. It was agreed that the Steering Committee will meet June 10, 2010, July 8, 2010, and August 5, 2010 to develop work products.

3

www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com

The Steering Committee suggested the following agenda items for discussion at the September 9, 2010, Consortium meeting:

• Review Master Street Map Next Steps • Review Variable Level of Service without an Adequate Public Facilities

Ordinance • Review Cumulative Impacts Analysis on a Development

IV. Other None. V. Adjournment The meeting recessed at 11:00 am.

T:\FY10\700 Services\761 Blue Print for Good Growth\Steering Committee\Minutes\minutes05 06 10.doc

4

5

                      ITEM II‐B 

**This white paper is a brief analysis of Level of Service that was completed several months ago when ACHD was looking at variable level of service. It focuses on LOS in the development environment. Further discussions and analysis are need to see how LOS can be used for capital project planning.**  

 

Variable Level of Service Analysis 

Level of Service Level of service (LOS) is a measure by which the quality of service on transportation infrastructure is calculated. In general existing or projected traffic counts during the PM peak hour are used to establish the LOS on a roadway. The LOS system uses the letters “A” through “F”, with “A” being best and “F” being worst to describe congestion levels along streets, roads, and highways during that one hour peak. LOS is also frequently used in long range planning, roadway design, comprehensive plan analysis, and development approval to measure the need for roadway improvements based on existing or projected service levels.   Uniform LOS standards are commonly established for broad areas or specific corridors, and road improvements are done when the established LOS is projected to be exceeded. For example LOS “E” may be established for the peak hour for all major arterial streets within a transportation system regardless of location or land use context.  While this type of measurement works in some cases a more detailed approach to LOS, which allows LOS to vary by geography or time of day, is also used. This more detailed approach is known as Variable Level of Service (VLOS).  

Variable Level of Service ‐ Geographic Through TLIP and APFO a different approach to LOS is being proposed. One of the TLIP products is a map that designates different levels of service for areas and corridors based on their geographic location and land use context.  Geographic based VLOS works by allowing a lower level of service in downtown areas and select urban corridors while elevating the level of service standard in rural areas where little or no development is planned. For example, a major arterial street in the downtown core, where congestion is more acceptable, may be designated LOS “E” or “F”. Another major arterial street, located in a more rural area, may be designated LOS “B”.   Allowing more congestion and lower LOS in certain areas is intended to promote infill and discourage growth outside areas planned for development. In areas with lower LOS standards developers would not be required to build as much transportation infrastructure because a higher level of congestion would be allowed. In areas where higher LOS is required, the developer’s cost to add infrastructure will be greater, thus ensuring development in fringe areas bears the cost of unplanned transportation infrastructure.   The geographic based VLOS concept is well understood. Implementing LOS standards that vary by geography and land use context is essential to the success of the APFO. The only major concern about geographic VLOS is the LOS “F” designation that would be allowed on select corridors and in urban centers.   

6

LOS “F” Concerns In general LOS standards are a trigger that ensures a certain level of congestion is not exceeded on a roadway. If a road is designated LOS “E” and proposed developments are projected to push the LOS on that roadway to LOS “F”, mitigation measures can be required of developers to maintain LOS “E” on that roadway. This trigger applies to all levels of service designations except LOS “F”. Once a roadway reaches LOS “F” further degradation is effectively unlimited and there is no  threshold that triggers mitigation measures.  This issue raises some questions that should be carefully considered.   

• Once level of service “F” is reached how can we manage increasing levels of congestion on that roadway in relationship to both time (peak hour spread) and geography (spillover)?   

• What mitigation measures if any should be required of development projects that impact roads that have already reached LOS “F”? 

• When should mitigation measures be required, at LOS”F”, or at some point past LOS “F”?  

Variable Level of Service ‐ Time To help solve these issues, TLIP consultants initially recommended the use of time based VLOS which uses a second hour of measurement, beyond the peak hour as a limit on congestion levels.  The purpose of a second hour of measurement is to limit the duration and/or intensity of peak hour congestion levels by monitoring LOS for more than just one hour. For example a street would be allowed to reach LOS “F” for the peak hour but would have to maintain LOS “E” for the second hour of measurement, which could be immediately before or after the peak hour, or at some other time of day.  This option was studied at length by ACHD staff and after several internal workshops, and interviews conducted with other jurisdictions that use a second hour of measurement, some key findings were made.  The first and most significant of these findings is that no jurisdiction has effectively implemented a second hour of measurement as a tool for development review. This finding is very significant considering that a key purpose of the time based VLOS concept was to be used as part of APFO as a tool for mitigation requirements. Furthermore, there are several technical issues that prevent the second hour measurement from being easily translated into a usable standard. Most of the jurisdictions contacted used the second hour of measurement for long range planning purposes, were it does appear to have some usefulness.  

Other Options for Limiting LOS “F” Since time based VLOS does not solve the LOS “F” concerns some other boundaries need to be established on streets designated LOS “F”.  These boundaries will help ensure that high levels of congestion are not spilling over unreasonably and that appropriate mitigation is required from developments that impact LOS “F” corridors. Several ideas to achieve this have been discussed.   

1. Require alternative mitigation for all developments that are proposed along streets or roadways that have reached LOS “F”. The alternative mitigation measures could include implementation of travel demand management to lower the number of trips generated by a development, a contribution to a city specific transit fund that would be used to create alternative transportation options with in each city, or addition of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to promote alternative means of transport.   

2. On corridors that reach LOS “F” use V/C ratios to measure levels of congestion. V/C ratios provide LOS standards in numeric format and can be used to establish thresholds beyond “F”. For example, if the V/C ratio that corresponds with LOS “F” is designated at 1.0, then mitigation thresholds could be set at 1.2 or 1.5.  

7

 3. Establish overlay designations along LOS “F” corridors. The mitigation requirements for each 

overlay designation may vary by location and the required mitigation could be tailored to that specific area. Overlay areas could be geared toward bicycle travel, transit, or whatever alternative mode is most viable in that area.   

4. Create a process where a developer could provide improvements to other parts of the transportation system in order to improve overall roadway capacity or to enhance non‐auto travel modes. The improvements would be within the project site vicinity or within the area affected by the project's vehicular traffic impacts. For example a developer may be required to increase capacity along a corridor parallel to the roadway that has reached LOS “F”.  

 Other options to limit LOS “F” may also be available. ACHD will continue researching these options to assist the cities and county with APFO implementation.    

8

9