HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 3100CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.3100,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,ADOPTING
THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE.
WHEREAS,the City of Renton has the authority to require that
transportation impacts be mitigated under SEPA;and
WHEREAS,the Growth Management Act requires that the City of
Renton adopt a Comprehensive Plan,including a Transportation
Element,by December 31,1994;
WHEREAS,this Transportation Element must include certain
sub-elements including Arterial,Transit,Non-Motorized,HOV,
Freight,a LOS policy,a Mitigation policy,and a Concurrency
policy;and
,WHEREAS,the City of Renton adopted an Interim Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan on December 20,1993,as a
working document;and
WHEREAS,the working document has been updated to provide
additional details for the mitigation sub-element;and
WHEREAS,this mitigation sub-element is consistent with the
City'S SEPA policy,the Growth Management Act,county-wide
policies,Renton Draft Comprehensive Plan,the regional 2020
Vision,the City's Commute Trip Reduction program,and ISTEA
programs;and
WHEREAS,the mitigation fees of the mitigation sub-element of
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan are based on
the completion of certain facilities under previous mitigation
programs;
1
RESOLUTION NO.3100
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON,DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.The above recitals are found to be true and
correct in all respects.
SECTION II.The City adopts the Transportation Element
including the mitigation sub-element under the City's SEPA
authority as a document that meets both SEPA and Growth Management
parameters.
SECTION III.The City adopts a traffic'mitigation fee of
$75.00 per vehicle trip as calculated by the methodology from the
City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document
dated August 1994 and supplemented December 1994.This fee
applies to all new development that is subject to SEPA review.
This fee shall not relieve the new development from providing site
specific.mitigation required to serve the property.
SECTION IV.The traffic mitigation fee will be readopted
as a fee under the Growth Management Act and reviewed periodically
thereafter.When readopted the legislation will include such
topics as credits,donations and other factors to be considered to
diminish this fee.The readopted legislation will also make
provisions for annual increases in the fee to adjust for inflation
and any transportation plan changes required to meet RentOn's LOS
Policy.
SECTION V.The City Council directs the staff and
administration to utilize this policy as guidance in mitigating
the environmental effects of new development.However,should any
applicant refuse to avail itself of the Traffic Mitigation Fee
2
RESOLUTION NO.3100
Policy,then the City staff and administration shall independently
analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed development on
the traffic facilities of the City.The City staff may require
the applicant to prepare studies for the City to assist it in such
independent analysis.Mitigation would then be imposed on the
basis of the independent analysis.Likewise,should the staff
reviewing a project determine that there are specific attributes
of the project that make this traffic mitigation policy inadequate
or unworkable,then the staff is authorized to require additional
studies and/or environmental review and to impose traffic
mitigation outside the scope of this policy.
SECTION VI.The administrative staff is also authorized
and directed to apply the trip mitigation fee in an equitable
manner,to negotiate fees under this policy in a manner that
utilizes sound engineering and legal principles,and to coordinate
and cooperate with developers and property owners to utilize sound
planning and engineering practices which reduce daily trips and
thereby reduce the need for transportation mitigation.
SECTION VII.The City rescinds the previous Transportation
Benefit Zone (TBZ)mitigation ordinances,but no refunds of those
fees are proposed as those fees are or soon will be fully
committed or expended.
SECTION VIII.For those developments that produce a much
higher than average sales tax revenue to the City,or will provide
a high number of well paying jobs,the staff will request
authorization from the City Council to negotiate an equitable
adjustment in the transportation mitigation fee,which equitable
3
RESOLUTION NO.3100
by the City Council.It is understood that the City Council will
have to set aside a portion of the tax revenue from the project or
find other funds within the municipal budget to make up the funds
lost through the equitable adjustment.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of December
1994.
Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 19th day of ....;D=-e.=....:..c..:..e.:..:.m~b....;;e..:..r _
1994.
~A~~
Richard M.Stredicke,Mayor pro tern
Approved as to form:
Law
RES.414:12/13/94.
Attorney
4
jT-5-1,
5
P;
3
• uxtmll,
N, !42
TX0
w
6,4
4g,
N 1�
K-j �2- I
M
g
qtr 8
s.
gg-BMVi
j�tf*- ?w� Fillfl_ - - "6 , - - -
2
p A MEW
f
w
V ZAC
W."g,
sn,
MW Im, Lf Mi4 p; ..........
_�fSR P Vi 11,
_121 ;5
;Opmip
ggg
&
IMOR
m
11 so 11011
%INS
M 6 NOW
-4 W,
R,
OR
g" 'K,'R"MM
,HR
um -W
'D
MOM
10 g
wM 64V?
2
_g R
WE
q
am aw
10
'ISR-AIR,
M11 In
ON, kr
_Lip
�Z.
1 Rldfimm a Now
0
pm
M
v ,�
-f.1w F �4
IK
N
v
lu",
pq.,,i jiG
ag
�U R
NO im
04 NO
g
IRMS
__W2
gy
ggp-sx
I MiNNIMAt OISAR,
g�
2-A
R'S Ip
-,Mm I
A-
E
WIRR
t A I ON
XiNRUI A §
�*g "A _1 -
WM
JLI
W,
J
X
Eliyr:-
"t#:.., - "WER'N'l-j.,
jg h 1:1�zl
NA"M '-1 .. .'='
MI,
r Ile
P-1,74N, YN, n-R, V. ANK"RUmm
-w
m
M.3 dl 1ROMM,
E
"New NO
V-,
M.
MIN M
R
g�
'V_ m X
'WI
t!
R
, --- —2, a
WNI �ZR,- --.k A
gww M JOE'), �p
g
X
a
2H
ME,9
gim,
ma 3
wv. Mr.
Xt. AMU R �Awmwmzar M
rg" *--go. ITS WIN 01,
gg w
gom
aw-
gew
OMEN NVE
p,
gj
g*
gm
m
IN m
a Rq-
z a v Zia
M
mg,
gg;
u
m
INV
P
wry
M-3
_4,m
.0
-MR"
gg
ON
in
ni
A R
gn� wu
INA-M % 0
CRS- rdH, a
Q p
R
W
M
g S N
N ANON' N M-Se-iN
ON
awgmyT IWI q
0 th" 0
4oh"F'Oft Ofl A
_21M 4"0
, 1
A,
MIMI.Flt
_Q
oag
W V
%m
;gg
IM
A Nj
Q, RPM. -�N
Nzi RA
R UN.
U
A&
A
k 011
IS
I��AMNIYW' ON
V �.S%_N
, f - ZWM�
4�
pT� "OR
C',+.-. ..
ggg
W
73s- pK
R
NO lar
IN
N 'o
IS
WIN
OW
_P�
MUMM
�m q A ,
A em
O'l- R-
11V
S
ft
'm "Ov
'V
%
M R
E
R
N"
G-W�* �4
2z, -.g
P.
0
Me
gm�
v
......... 3R
5-4,
gfp,�Tj g
%'J�
lit
W,
2
A K
_5 41�5k?
1,4A
-W-
w�
_P
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT
Table of Contents
r Introduction ................ 1
Transportation Plan Cost...................................................................................1
FundingRequirements ......................................................................................2
Future Development Trip Generation....................................................................3
Mitigation Trip Rate Fee ...................................................................................3
Appendix A: 20-Year Transportation Plan -Project and Program List and Costs .............7
Appendix B: Trip Generation Methodology.....................................................:.....12
cw—
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION
f
The City of Renton has adopted a new, transportation mitigation policy as part of the Interim
Transportation Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Resolution No.
3027, 1993), and further refined in the Draft Final Transportation Element. This mitigation policy
serves as the framework for a city-wide transportation mitigation payment system, which when adopted
by the City Council, will replace existing Transportation Benefit Zones (TBZs) mitigation assessment
programs. The new transportation mitigation program includes the assessment of a mitigation fee as
future development's fair share contribution towards ensuring that the cumulative impacts of new
development can be mitigated. In addition to this fee, the City of Renton may require site-specific
improvements to mitigate on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts from new development.
The new development mitigation fair share cost has been determined based on a 20-year city-wide
transportation improvement program, development's fair share cost of the 20-year transportation
program, and the city-wide total daily vehicle trip increase forecasted from future development. The
vehicle trip rate fee resulting from this process multiplied by the total daily vehicle trip increase
generated by a specific development project determines the developer mitigation fee for that
development.
The purpose of this Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document is to explain the methodology
behind the development of the developer mitigation vehicle trip rate fee.
r
i
TRANSPORTATION PLAN COST
k.
The City has developed a 20-year (1995-2015) transportation plan, detailed in the Draft Final i..
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes arterial, HOV, transit, and non-
motorized components. This plan is designed to accommodate anticipated growth in the city with no
decrease from the present level of service (LOS). Renton uses a non-traditional LOS measure based on
the system wide performance of all vehicle modes. Renton's LOS program is detailed in the City of
Renton Level of Service Document prepared by the Transportation Systems Division.
The planning cost estimate for the 20-year transportation plan is $134 million. The costs of the
various components of the plan are summarized in Table 1, below. The costs for the arterial, HOV
and non-motorized components represent Renton's costs (including Renton's share of responsibility
under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions) in 1994 dollars.. The transit cost
includes only local match for Renton's local feeder system improvements, intermodal stations, park
and ride lots, signal priority and other transit.amenities. The annual program costs supportand
supplement the other components and are a necessary element of maintaining level of service
standards.
TABLE 1
RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Arterial Plan: _ $ 45,669,000
HOV Plan: _ $ 33,090,000
Transit Plan: _ $ 25,000,000
} N n-m orized Plan:
$ 4,641,000
Annual Programs: _ $ 25,600,000
Total 20-Year Cost = $ 134,000,000
A list of the projects and programs in the 20-year transportation plan and planning level cost estimates
for each are provided in Appendix A of this document. A listing of 20-year proposed transit
improvements and planning level costs is provided in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document.
FUNDING REQumEMENTs
Sources of revenue for funding the 20-year transportation plan are as follows:
Annual 20 ear Total
♦ Gas &Vehicle tax $0.67 million $13.4 million
♦ Grant funding $3.57 million $71.4 million
♦ Business license fee $1.89 million $37.8 million
Total $6.13 million $122.6 million
(Funding Required $6.7 million $134 million)
Funding source assumptions are based upon the City of Renton's 1994-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). It is assumed that the gas tax and vehicle tax will continue at the current
level of$0.67 million per year. It was also assumed that current level of grant funding ($3.57 million
per year) will be maintained. Business license fee revenue of$1.89 million per year assumes: that the
current level of$1.80 million per year will continue; that inflation at 4% per year over the next twenty
years will devalue the $1.80 million per year to $1.40 million per year.; and, that the employment
increase forecasted for the City of Renton over the next twenty years will. adjust the $1.40 million per
A year upward to an average of$1.89 million per year.
Developer mitigation will be expected to make up the difference between the required funds, $134.
million, and funds supplied by the above sources, $122.6 million. Therefore, developer mitigation's
share is expected to be $11.4 million. The total Transportation Finance Program is:
2
4,
• Ki
Annual 20-Year Total f2.Share
♦ Gas & Vehicle tax
$0.67 million $13.4 million
♦ Grant funding $3.57 million 10%
♦ Business license fee $71.4 million 53%
$1.89 million $37.8 million 28%
♦ Mitis
ation $0.57 million $11.4 million
9%
Total $6.7 million $134.0 million
100%
Less emphasis on developer mitigation recognizesource
predictable (or stable) as other sources. The irregularity of development projectstion and thusOf transfunluneve ng not as
w
.s;
of mitigation revenue contribute to the unpredictability of developer mitigation. (Stable sources of
transportation funding are a requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
FUTURE DEvELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
Establishing a vehicle trip rate fee that will yield $11.4 million in developer mitigation is based on the
number of vehicle trips generated between1990 and 2010 by new development within the Renton city f,
limits. To determine the tri '
p generation expected over this 20-year period, travel demand analysis was
conducted using equations based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) trip generation parameters.
These same parameters were used in the City of Renton's travel demand forecast model.
The increase in trip generation between 1990 and 2010 was completed first for person trips and then
converted to vehicle trips for mitigationu oses. T
ment City-wide
able 2 summarizes the increase m vehicle trips
attributable to new develo
P ty-wide between 1990 and 2010.
TABLE 2
2010 1990 Total Increase Average Vehicle Total 7n,
Person Trips Person Trips Person Trips Occupancy Vehicle Trips
832,697 548,499 * 284,198
1.29 220,300 **
* Includes activity density factor adjustment. See Appendix B for discussion.
** Rounded to nearest hundred.
Table 2 shows that 220,300 new vehicle trips are forecast for all development between 199
0 and the
year 2010. For further information on the methodology used in forecasting the number of vehicle trips
generated by new development see Appendix B of this document.
MITIGATION TRip RATE FEE
Up to this point, development's share of the cost of the City of Renton's 20-year transportation plan to
mitigate future developments traffic impacts (in addition to site-specific mitigation) has been identified
as $11.4 million. Also, the total increase in daily vehicle trips generated from future development by
3 '
i
2010 has been estimated to be 220,300. The next step is to establish a mitigation trip rate fee per daily
vehicle trip.
However, before establishing the vehicle trip rate, it is appropriate to recognize local efforts to
encourage economic development in the City of Renton. Discussions with the Mayor's Economic
Development Coordinator have focused on the need for flexibility in the mitigation trip rate fee to
allow for possible credits as an incentive to retail development city-wide. .
To address the issue of development incentives, four scenarios were developed for providing the $11.4
million in developer mitigation required over twenty years. Three of these scenarios examine the
impact on providing the $11.4 million resulting from a reduction in the vehicle trip rate fee as
incentive for retail development. The four scenarios are described asfollows:
OMON 1: City-wide trip rate applied to all new development.
Estimated 20-year vehicle trip increase = 220,300 **
** Based on 2010 person trip increase forecasts for City of Renton and average vehicle
occupancy of 1.29. See Appendix B for further details.
?S:
Therefore,
City-wide Trip Rate = $11,400,000
220,300 vehicle trips = $52 per vehicle trip
OPnON 2: City-wide trip rate. .Separate trip rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail
development.
Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate = $10 per vehicle trip (a $42 reduction from
the $52 trip rate in Option 1)
Estimated CBD Core Area and Retail Vehicle Trip increase = 129,000 **
Estimated Office/Manufacturing /Educational/Residential
vehicle trip rate increase = 91,300 **
** Rounded to the nearest hundred. See Appendix B, Table 1 and Table 3 for
information on the determination of these vehicle trip estimates.
Therefore,
Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate =
$11,400,000 - (129,000 x $10/vehicle trip) _ $110 per vehicle trip
91,300 vehicle trips
4
JOW
OPTION 3: City-wide trip prate. Separate trip rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail
development. —
y
Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate — $25 per vehicle trip (a $27 reduction from
the $52 trip rate in Option 1)
Therefore,
Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate =
$11,400,000 - (129,000 x $25/vehicle trip)
91,300 vehicle trips = $90 per vehicle trip
OPTION 4: City-wide trip rate. Separate trip rate for CBD core area and city-wide retail
development.
Assume CBD core area and Retail Trip Rate = $35er vehicle
the $52 trip rate in Option 1) P e trip (a $17 reduction from
i.
Therefore,
Office/Manufacturing/Educational/Residential Trip Rate =
i.
_$11,400,000 - (129,040 x $35/vehicle trip)
91,300 vehicle trips = $75 per vehicle trip
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF TRIP RATE OPTIONS
OPTIONS TRIP RATE
Option 1: City-wide trip rate
$ 52 per vehicle trip
Option 2: City-wide trip rate r
CBD Core Area &Retail development
$10 per vehicle trip
Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $110 per vehicle trip
Option 3: City-wide trip rate
CBD Core Area&Retail development 25
per vehicle trip
Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $90 per vehicle trip
Option 4: City-wide trip rate
CBD Core Area &Retail development
Office, Manufacturing, Educational, Residential development $35 per vehicle trip
P $75 per vehicle trip
In reviewing the four trip rate options with representatives
representatives of the downtown business community,P es of the Chamber of Commerce,
there was a favorable response for a mitigation trip rate fee ethatt proCity vided ncil the opportunity p i Committee,
for development incentives, for credits
5
Another factor that must be considered in establishing the mitigation fee per vehicle trip is the
residential development exemption from mitigation allowed under SEPA rules. Currently a single.
family or multi-family residential development of five units or less in the City of Renton does not
trigger mitigation requirements. Whether the City will continue with this residential development
threshold or possibly increase this threshold (provisions under SEPA allow raising the residential
development threshold) over the next 20 years is difficult to predict. Also, the impact this might have
on the total increase in daily vehicle trips and on the developer mitigation funds required over the next
20 years is difficult to predict. Therefore, it is assumed that the mitigation per vehicle trip rate will
need to allow for the impact from the residential development exemption threshold.
With the understanding that there is a need: to recognize the support from community representatives
and the City Council Transportation Committee for credits to encourage development; and,. to allow
for future possible exemptions from mitigation requirements related to residential development, a fifth
mitigation trip rate scenario, Option 5, was developed.
Option 5: City-wide trip rate
♦ Allow for residential development exemptions from $75 per vehicle trip for all
mitigation g new development ='
♦ Allow for credits to encourage development
g �
Recommended Tri Rate Fee: Establishing a city-wide t'
P g ty-wide transportation mitigation trip rate fee of $75
per vehicle trip generated by all new development is recommended for adoption by the City of Renton. :
Also as part of this recommendation a development may qualify for reduction of,the $75er vehicle
trip fee through credits for development P t
g p t incentives, construction of needed Renton transportation
P
program improvements through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management
programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result 4
from such credits will be determined on a case-by-case basis during the development permitting
process.
It is also recommended that the $75 trip rate be evaluated over time to ensure.that this fee: encourages
economic .development; and, provides the developer mitigation share of the funding necessary to
implement the transportation program identified to maintain the City of Renton's transportation level of
service.
6
t
APPENDIX A
20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN-'PROJECT AND PROGRAM LIST AND COSTS
l
ii
I,:
00 00000000000
..� X00 00000000000 00 ... 0 0
'o00 00000000 00C 0000 0
O C 0 0 0 0 O
(, w � M O O O O N O 0 00 0 0 0 O O O C�
ci OOOO hp, 00N000 C O t O h et M \0 �o to O O r O �i 't �
in to to N �O M -- �O ,., N .c17
as �7 64
x 6
H
o w [ U
O y y y
•a. o c a ay3i y aCi aCi c a>0) c c � to
H
a) ami CL) z ani ani aa)) aoi aoi 0 [ c O
cu
co
CIO m cc cri
m 3 ca cc ca >
O 0 a) II •v 3 o 0 0 R R 3 3 cv
0 • O O O w %, % W o a) p a) p f�3
xzC7 xrxxv, aaCQ zxxxx zxza II
V
y
U c4 <[
W ccs x
y C
o 'z
a)
Ln �t w a)
Zr Ln
0 > o A
cc
Nb M ' N 3
�.
y OC
+' C
> Q G
C7 c p s� w L. N J vn (n
O E i� � Q
v�
�
d38a)
3
•Ca
�
U>, w- o
o ✓2 > 0F O con
O
't3
O �
O O
p
pz O ca � .G y
O V
L40) R 0 0z
w2 00
Gai Q ., a) a) O E'" y a) O O
z a) C p u O
GG F O O y b «+
.+
f/) RS C U.
I~ Q)
H _ �
_ p
.b
O C
CL a � a) ..� C � a) C � > t� V] > R.
C a) N
W C O cC > > N COi
v� v� v� O
O Q
N O
col) 3 3 a 3 '� 3 3 a C
c W C � M
o � _ a�
x
o o ' C C C C c 46
as ri C) cz r° IV O cn `'
II
.a s�
a
0
04 �,
Q a) o
2 U cC UO _ M
Q
los
cc� `�
N ti. ca 3 O U
++ p
Cp O R t� M Co
cz a) O N d C ., p y U
o x C a) •o N o 0o v) �? 3 a� O cNa Cs:
a) � a>i O oQ � � cOb > 3 a�i � > v> >
cz = °" o D ;� Q o Q y
y 3 O &.C53 0 o m C a) h N h o .� .R > ccz
cz3
o aQ
O x o c -� an > o
ca GQ
cluM o
axrnU 0zv3 Oa � A
g..
C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0, o 0 0 0 0 o rn
0 0 0 �o o rt o o o
C h M tr N N N M
� M
C3�i 69 64
H
C C �
C c� ctf G s3. L1. p, 33, U
U U E E
C C C C C ¢
G d d
O
p
A O O C of Q' a' v' po o p
y p O
CD O y ai o p p
.o O . O ° 1,3 u .cz Q' cz Co .
J) 0 0
64
a x > > > > > > > p o 0
o
w w x x x x x x � � �
v II u u
FHH 0
000u
°a � 333x
a o .�
a~
z
0 o o o
¢ = � 3 •�. `'-' www
78
ccs O L
> 0 0 ti
►.i sx �j _
O
O •� V1 > ¢ O O O O .
p O s � �.
i W
0
0 O O C) c z.
i c a� .�I po 0 0 0
E-y a>i >, W a>i O m 0 0 0 0
x � C _
¢ .. � 0 0 Z O � o 0 0 0
,.a 0 3 0 0 0 �, 0 pooco
C 0 C
C) U ti c � C> \ `10 � 664 6�4 6N4
0
II it II II
a � � �n C4
Ito
0 0 0
C
a o C, e 4,es�
CIO Z c poo O
o 00p0
4: L > o p o 0
Q 0\0 t
C �J cCU 64 64 64 4,19,
^ a4 II II II II
cz J CIS
cz
O ud
O sl Z cz N C>1
C14 cz
cz 0 on to
�+ 3 N ccz 0 V]
O
C 'J y Z �I CV ca ca cts. cv
vOi C O M 0 C-4
00 cl a> M ;? y ;?
q 41) a 3 a 0 0 0 0
'� 1 .0 = .5 >It
� v v� a. 0
a`z' cn n 0� a. v `n
i
fir O O O D O
Q O O O O p
U C41 op
C N
rte.+ M
a
U
o �
H ci
- O � ani •'�
V A >
O a" ami a'4 9
a a 0. �
W
a
a
a �
d' Q -4
cz
00
cc
CJ
cz
W aOa Gl, W Q.
0
o
0
z
z o
0
� a
CJ
3 c �
0
APPENDIX A
PENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ANNUAL PROGRAMS AND ESTIMATED FUNDING NEEDS
Program Estimated Annual Estimated 20-Year
Funding Funding.
Street Overlay $ 380,000 $ 7,600,000
Roadway Reconstruction 100,000 2,000,000
Transportation Demand Management 40,000 800,000
Walkway Program 70,000 1,400,000
Transit Program 30,000 600,000
Arterial HOV Program 30,000 600,000
Bridge Inspection and Repair 100,000 2,000,000
Traffic Maintenance/Operations/Safety
♦ -Traffic Signal Improvement 50,000 1,000,000
♦ Traffic Signal Loop Replacement20 000 400,000
♦ Traffic Sign Replacement 20000
♦ Light Pole Replacement 400,000
20,000 400,000
♦ Sidewalk Replacement 10,000 200,000
♦ Traffic Safety Program 70,000 1,400,000
♦ Traffic Systems Efficiency 50000
♦ Railroad Crossing Safety Program 30000 1 ,600,000
600,000
Arterial Circulation Program
150,000 3,000,000
Project Development/Predesign 90,000 1,800,000
WSDOT Coordination 10,000 200,000
Mitigation/Concurrency (TBZ Planning) _ 10.000 200,000
TOTAL $ 1,280,000 $ 25,600,000
I
11
APPENDIX B
TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY
12
Appendix B
Trip Generation Methodology
The mitigation fee program is based on establishing a trip rate that will yield $11.4 million in
required mitigation funding based on the number of trips generated by development occurring
between 1990 and 2010. To determine the trip generation expected over this 20 year period,
travel demand analysis was conducted using equations based on the PSRC's trip generation
model parameters. These are the same parameters used in the City's travel demand models. For
mitigation purposes, trip generation was completed by land use category, rather than by trip type,
which is most common. Figure 1 summarizes the coefficients used to generate trips for each land
use type. Five categories of land use were considered: Retail, manufacturing/industrial, office,
education, and residential. Trip generation estimates were conducted for these uses. Total
person trips are calculated as follows:
• Residential = HH Productions + HH University Productions + HH School
Productions + HHAttractions
• Retail=Retail Productions + Retail Attractions
• Office= Office productions + Off ce Attractions
•
Manufacturing=Manufacturing Productions +Manufacturing Attractions
• Education=Education Productions +Education Attractions
Residential. Manufacturing. & Education TriX
To determine the number of trips generated by new development, the travel demand equations
were applied using 1990 and 2010 input data. To determine trips attributed to new residential,
manufacturing, and educational developments, trip generation was calculated for 1990 and 2010.
The difference in trips between these two years represents the increase in trips due to new
development. This approach is valid for all of the land uses listed above except for retail and
office.
Retail& Office Trips
For retail and office trips, changing trip rates due to increased land use activity (denser
development) requires using a different method than that described above. The problem is that
as land use,densities intensify, trip rates decrease (there is less demand/employee for travel by
vehicle). Therefore, existing developments create fewer trips at a future date than they did
previously. The intensity of density is measured in modeling by an activity density factor (AD).
If the AD changes between the years measured (1990 and 2010), then the difference in trips
between the two years will not fully measure trips due to new development.
c:\sr\model\mitigat'\newgrowt\explain.doc
Figure 1: Summary of Coefficients for Determining Productions and Attractions by Land Use Type
PRODUCTIONS
HH produced trips=1.934*(POP)+2,241*(HSD)-2.086*(LIH)-0.866*(LMIH)+0.274*(UMIH)+1.223*(UIH)
HB Univ.=0.220*(HSD)
HB School=0.368*(POP-GRP)-0.327(HSD)
NON-HOME BASED+COMMERCIAL PRODUCTIONS:
HH prod=0.689*(SFH)+0,262*(MFH)
Retail
Activity Density=1(low) Retail attracted trips=6.107*.(RET)
Activity Density=2(med) Retail attracted trips=3.726*(RET)
Activity Density=3(high) Retail attracted trips=1.378*(RET)
Office
Activity Density=1(low) Office attracted trips=1.971*(OFF)
Activity Density=2(med) Office attracted trips=1.179*(OFF)
Activity Density=3(high) Office attracted trips=0.744*(OFF)
Manufacturing=0.413*(MAN)
Education=1.102*(EDU)
ATTRACTIONS
HH attracted lips=2.282*(SFH)+0.88*(MFH)
Retail r
Activity Density=I(low) Retail attracted trips=17.022*(RET)
Activity Density=2(med) Retail attracted trips=8.274*(RET)
Activity Density=3(high) Retail attracted trips=4,17*(RET) k
Office
Activity Density=1(low) Office attracted trips=6.34*(OFF)
Activity Density=2(med) Office attracted trips=3.625*(OFF)
Activity Density=3(high) Office attracted trips=2.67*(OFF)
Manufacturing attracted trips=1.76*(MAN)
Education attracted trips=26.83*(EDU)
KEX
(model attribute)
POP=Population mol
HSD=Households mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5
LIH=Lower Income Households mo2
LMIH=Lower/Middle Income Households mo3
UMIH=Upper/Middle Income Households moo
UIH=Upper Income Households mos
SFH=Single Family Households (1-(mo7/100)*(mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5)
MFH=Multi-Family Households (mo7/100)*(mo2+mo3+mo4+mo5)
Activity Density Factor . md6
RET=Retail Employment mdl
OFF=Office Employment md2
MAN=Manufacturing Employment md3
EDU=Education Employment mW
GRP=Group Quarters mo6
Since a facility in 2010 generates fewer modeled trips than the same facility in 1990 (due to an
change in the activity density factor from 1 to 2), simply measuring the increase in total trips
between 1990 and 2010 will not provided an accurate assessment of trips generated by new
developments.
Figure 2: The Effects of Changing Activity Density Factors on Trip Generation
1990 Generated Trips 2010 Generated Trips
AD Factor= 1 AD Factor=2
Trips generated by
facilities existing prior
to 1990.
Trips generated by
facilities developed
2,800 1990-2010.
JAD
Adjustment
T 1,500 Actual Trips due to
A trips=1300 if the NEW development
change in AD factor
is not considered
F t
l Consider the following example,which is also illustrated in Figure 2:
Suppose the following information is known:
1. A zone(AD= 1)generates 3,000 daily retail trips in 1990.
2. New development in that zone results in 1,500 new daily retail trips by 2010.
I 3. This zone has become more dense and is modeled as anAD=2 in 2010.
4. The existing 1990 developments generated 2,800 trips (rather than 3,000) in 2010 due
to the change in AD from 1 to 2.
The total trips in 2010 would then be 4 500 new+ 2 800 existing). If one looked
P �300 (1, � g)
only at the 1990 and 2010 trip generation (and did not consider the change in AD), it
would appear that only 1,300 additional trips are attributable to new development (4,300 -
3,000). The actual number of trips generated by new development is 1,500 of course (see
` number 2 above). The total number of new trips generated was masked by the decrease
1
c:lsrlmodel\mitigati\newgrowtlexplain.doc
in existing trips due to the change in activity density factor. An AD Adjustment, or
change in trips generated by existing development, occurs between these two years.
New retail and office trips may be generated by a second method. Trip generation is computed
under 2010 conditions, but the increase in employment (2010-1990) is substituted for total 2010
employment. Trip generation will then show directly trips caused by new development. For land
uses other than office and retail, this approach yields identical results to the first approach. Trips
attributable to new development are summarized in Table 1. Person trips have been converted to
vehicle trips for mitigation purposes. A detailed breakdown of trip generation by microzone is
shown in Table 2. The column titled AD Adjustment shows the adjustment for trips from
existing 1990 facilities due to a change in the activity density factor. Person trips as generated by
the model and vehicle trips based on an average vehicle occupancy of 1.29 are shown. The
vehicle occupancy is a model generated number based on the predicted 2010 conditions.
Table 1: Trips,Person and Vehicle
2010 1990 AD Total Increase Total Increase
Adjustment Person Trips Vehicle Trips
(832,697 - 558,765) + 10,266 = 284,198 220,300* Total Trips
(313,047 - 156,851) + 10,266 = 166,462 129,000* Retail&CBD**
(519,650 - 401,914) + 0 = 117,736 91,300* Non-CBD**
Manufacturing,
Office,Educational,
Residential
'Assumes AVO of 1.29 (284,198+1.29=220,300) Rounded to the nearest hundred
•'See Table 3 for determination of retail and CBD person trips.
f
Summary gfZip Generation
In some cases, the number of trips attributable to new development does not equal the difference
in trips between 1990 and 2010. This is due to a change in the intensity of development, which
is measured by the activity densityfactor (AD). By directly modeling the change in trips using
change in employment, 284,198 new person trips (220,300 vehicle trips) are forecast between
1990 and 2010. 166,462 (129,000 vehicle trips) of these trips will be retail generated trips or
CBD generated trips.
Table 2: Increase in total person trips(1990-2010)due to new development
(2010 trips-1990 trips)+Loss Due to Activity Density Factor shifts=Increase
Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips
1 41603 3,374 187 0 3,595 11,758
2 6,777 2,061 3 0 1,071 9,912
8 0 0 0 0 1,255 1,255
11 347 0 0 381 -27 701
12 0 0 0 0 -28 -28
13 0 0 0 0 566 566
14 0 0 0 0 165 165
15 0 0 0 0 209 209
16 0 0 0 0 610 610
18 208 141 11 0 151 511
19 1,341 889 67 436 48 2,782
20 416 283 28 0 197 924
21 1,503 1,006 76 669 -82 3,192
22 0 0 0 0 61 61
23 0 0 0 0 -78 -78
24 0 0 0 0 -17 -17
25 0 0 0 0 583 583
26 0 0 0 0 -426 -427
27 5,112 3,416 254 1 -12 8,771
28 2,429 1,621 122 0 -420 3,752
29 0 0 0 0 -430 -430
30 0 0 1 0 -351 -351
31 0 0 1 0 -364 -363
32 0 0 0 4,492 -626 3,866
33 0 0 3 0 -568 -565
34 0 0 0 0 369 369
35 2,961 1,970 143 0 -946 4,128
36 15,080 4,430 87 0 4,065 23,662
37 486 141 2 0 -300 329
38 717 208 4 355 687 1,971
39 1,180 349 7 0 76 1,611
40 116 33 0 0 82 231
41 0 0 1 0 638 639
42 4,094 1,205 32 0 2,401 7,732
43 6,707 1,970 41 0 -2 8,716
44 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 -141 -141
46 0 0 0 0 -264 -264
47 0 0 0 0 -1,163 -1,163
48 0 0 -1 0 700 699
49 0 0 0 0 2,401 2,401
50 0 0 0 0 489 489 .
51 0 0 0 166 968 1,134
52 0 0 0 0 -225 -225
53 0 0 - 0 0 -1,328 -1,328
57 0 0 0 0 230 230
58 0 0 0 0 -55 -55
59 0 0 0 0 -6 -6
60 0 0 0 130 -410 -279
61 0 0 0 0 -230 -230
66 0 0 0 494 -385 108
67 0 0 1 0 481 482
680 0 0 0 766 766
71 0 4,471 -4 0 5,589 10,056
72 5,Oi9 01 1,176 0 15 6,210
c:\sr\model\tnitigatAnewgrowt\explain.doc
Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips
73 1,596 0 330 0 0 1,926
74 4,094 0 706 0 155 4,955
75 3,469 0 359 0 0 3,828
76 4,279 0 1,002 0 0 5,281
77 0 0 4 0 0 4
78 0 50,672 0 0 0 50,672
79 8,303 0 1,150 0 8 9,462
80 8,604 0 -7 0 5 8,602
81 278 0 99 0 8 384
82 116 0 30 0 -57 89
83 0 0 31 0 0 31
84 2,290 0 97 0 -2 2,384
85 5,227 0 0 0 35 5,262
87 0 4,388 0 0 0 4,388
88 0 0 0 0 -143 -143
89 0 0 0 0 -168 -168
90 0 0 1 0 -237 -236
91 0 0 0 0 532 532
93 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 0 0 0 0 122 122
95 0 0 4 0 -140 -136
97 0 0 2 0 0 2
98 3,000 1,811 1 320 2,613 7,745
99 432 96 1 0 26 555
100 .0 0 0 0 103 103
101 0 0 1 30 -18 13
102 0 0 0 0 -211 -211
103 0 0 -18 0 0 -18
104 1,488 898 0 0 1,135 3,521 i
105 1,572 946 -1 0 1,154 3,671
106 1,176 711 0 0 961 2,848
107 1,836 1,105 0 0 1,392 4,333
108 1,524 917 0 263 1,319 4,024
109 420 255 0 0 378 1,053
110 936 562 0 0 794 2,292
111 1,032 624 2 0 910 2,568
112 1,056 639 0 32 908 2,636
113 876 533 0 0 992 2,402
114 1,068 644 0 0 1,204 2,916
115 936 562 2 2 1,024 2,526
116 984 591 0 0 1,075 2,650
117 1,044 629 10 0 1,187 2,869
118 1,020 620 0 0 911. 2,550
119 828 500 0 0 725 2,053
120 2,604 1,571 0 0 2,555 6,730
121 1,248 749 0 0 1,063 3,060
122 1,176 706 0 0 1,321 3,203
123 0 0 0 0 -2 -2
124 0 0 0 0 -106 -106
125 0 0 0 0 -157 -157
126 0 0 0 0 -77 -77
127 0 0 0 0 45 45
128 0 0 0 0 0 0
129 0 0 -5 0 425 430
130 0 0 0 428 -353 75
131 0 0 1 0 -350 -350
1320 0 -21 0 -2 -23
133 0 0 01 0 0 0
Microzone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips
134 0 0 -460 0 -334 -794
135 0 0 -611 0 -8 -619
136 0 0 -606 0 0 -606
137 0 0 6 0 0 6
138 0 0 0 0 942 942
139 0 0 1 0 -80 -79
140 0 0 0 0 -591 -590
141 0 0 6 0 -329 -324
142 1,318 715 0 0 543 2,576
173 2,590 0 393 0 0 2,984
174 0 0 22 0 0 22
175 0 0 30 0 0 30
176 439 0 12 0 0 451
177 0 0 5 0 6 10
178 2,775 0 5 0 0 2,781
179 0 0 -81 0 -0 -81
180 0 0 8 0 -376 -368
181 0 0 0 0 6 6
TOTALS 130,7301 99,0101 4,7541 8,2001 41,504 284,198
For microzone locations see figure 3
Table 3: Increase in total person trips for CBD and Retail Development.
Zone Retail Trips Office Trips Manufacturing Trips School Trips Residential Trips Total Trips
1 38,417 50,672 4,751 0 -179 93,661
2 10,662 4,388 620 0. -58 15,613
3 3,060 1,844 -18 30 2,060 6,977
4 15,516 9,193 16 297 14,402 39,424
5 7,680 4,630 2 320 6,957 19,588
6 0 0 -5 428 -1,515 -1,091.
7 0 0 -1,690 0 -344 -2,034
8 0 0 5 0 109 113
10 0 4,471 -3 790 7,556 12,814
11 55,394 23,811 1,077 6,335 12,516 99,133
Total 130,730 99,010 4,754 8,200 41,504 284,198.
CSD 23,047 13,896 15 457 21,36458,779
CBD+Retail=130,730 total Retail trips+58,779 total CBD trips-23,047 Retail trips occurring in the CBD=166,462 person trips
•For CBD and zone locations see figures 4 and 5
c:\sr\model\mitigati\ncwgrowt\explain.doc
FA AMa
F.
■
111111. �-- . _ 1(■i � _ �;.
HIM
Iwo
\�1���� 1'�`'" ►�, Ili, ,., fY �,- �'r-
M.
Big "I
Cit y of Renton
R
i
as
Figure 4
.^ate.,-.'-•.?3:"�'?",'•,Y.�_� t�•cy�:z%^� T � c �„��
IN-
M "�>,:.��.':n:�v✓i It.QY'N.:'n:. i{•-�xv)>iv i•,.,rv.•n
';•:�^v�'.
12�
/�
L r„�. Y.:C,L�/��iL� •2!4r •�•.�,'r,',.<'.,t�",`'i'.:;Yiy,.'ri�r"iy%G� � G
T`v^'p`YV�`v✓'i N..nv.4:vS.vj v:.•...v,h::wn..,.v..
' �f:`,:,,.I:,..,.2:.Jm4ttiL:x�,7,L,',Y�•.?tx.-^.^•j.,",:`c�.,.:G;;:y,,;.,•.. !y'r!'e \1���
:^::2�,:::>7^:a �rr%tf:.,,:yi:^`.'•'. ..•.kw.`>^``^"':,'.'.,• ht .�^',..`�'t>:SCr.~
:--.m"„�r,�a✓ra�,yns;3;ir.�.::vr.,•w x�•;• —� � � :1
��NO119 -r �
^ !"n v w rh zu�x nos 1,
-Y.i•/.. CG.G,2:.A�t: ,�2C.•Ii<q• �. �I'' Not ToSde
14
16 z
(I► 1 I I
� Ir
L l
WO
19
s 6 -TTr
Y n IS �
1 ie
4-
�,1 1 b
!
l?' $6 1 •t•
1 1 1 City.of Rcnton Zonc Groups
1. Renton Valley
I. 2. Black River
TL ~ 3. Rainier/Grady
1 4. Downtown Core
S. North Downtown
6. North Renton Residential
7. North Rencon Industrial .
8. Skyway
9.
14. Southeast Renton >
11. Kennydale/Highlands
>C'y'
Figure 5 I
i
1 I I
i Lake Washington
i I 1
405
I I • I
137
135 136
I 134 < Nam sr
� � o
a
1 97
138
N 6th tt
132
128 /
12 - 30)
Q ' N Ad St �
# 127 13 St
Rehm Ave
124
XX
RiNK 123
- *�s_��: ::::t>:;:-::: -.`�•::�.i�c�c-• -..::-;-,. X33:'-'
• 164
101 105 (� O
WON
~ 103
W + .0
ONWW
- O
102 a �
r
�r
City of Renton
4 515
Central.Business District
167 I (CBD) Core Area
j