Transportation concurrency regulations aim to integrate land use and transportation by ensuring adequate transportation facilities exist concurrent with new development. However, concurrency is currently defined and measured mostly in terms of roadway congestion at the local level. This leads to an auto-oriented focus and lack of regional coordination in addressing transportation issues. Updates to concurrency rules could encourage a more multi-modal approach and regional solutions by measuring performance across all modes and jurisdictions.

1. Transportation Concurrency
The provision of
“adequate transportation facilities”
Integrating land use and transportation

2. Concurrency (the ideal):
The measurement process used to
regulate* the inter-relationship
between development and
transportation facilities and services
*Assumes that at some point transportation services will be
provided that allow attainment of growth called for in the
comprehensive plan

3. Concurrency
• State law allows each jurisdiction to
define its own concurrency system

4. Concurrency
Once you define “adequate transportation
facilities” (performance)
You can not allow development
unless those facilities (performance
levels) exist

5. Concurrency
Is (currently) almost always
defined in terms of
roadway congestion
• But you can define it differently if you wish – and new
legislation encourages a more multi-modal approach
to concurrency

6. Concurrency As Implemented
• You get what you measure
– If you only measure road congestion
– All problems/solutions are associated with
cars and roadway capacity
– Other transportation services are nearly
irrelevant

7. Multi-Modal Concurrency?
Currently: “multi-modal” means that:
a mode split calculation is done before
assigning vehicle volumes to the
roadway network

8. Concurrency: A Local Issue
• Different jurisdictions have
– Different goals/objectives for concurrency
– Different performance standards
• Your concurrency rules only apply
within your jurisdiction
– There is little / no regional coordination or
outlook

9. Cities
• Use concurrency to manage/direct their
development and/or transportation
infrastructure expansion
– Or they basically ignore it
• Design their procedures differently
– Because city goals differ
– The politics are different in each city

10. Different Uses of Concurrency
• To increase funding for transportation
projects
• To limit growth
• To regulate the speed of growth

11. Different Political Goals Means
• “Adequate” facilities change by
jurisdiction
– What is acceptable to me is not acceptable
to my neighbor

12. A Downside of Local Application
• Once traffic crosses a border (including
onto a state highway), its “not your
problem”
– Congestion that meets my standards but
not yours, is not my problem
– Trips I generate that cause your congestion
are not my problem

13. So
• Our problems/procedures are local,
But
• Many of our problems/causes/solutions
are regional

14. Concurrency As Implemented
• You get what you measure
– If you don’t measure state highways of
significance, then
– Don’t be surprised when those roads
• “generate” congestion on your local roads
• have very large congestion problems that cause
popular resistance to growth

15. How Do We Measure Roadway
Congestion?
• Level of Service (A- F)
– Delay, Speed, Density of Traffic
• Cheap mathematical estimation is
– Volume / capacity (v/c)
– So for concurrency, cities often use some
combination of v/c calculations

16. Changing the Rules Is Allowed
• State law allows jurisdictions to change
their concurrency system
• The changes must be made openly
– Limits are placed primarily to ensure Nexus
and Proportionality
– There are other legal restrictions

17. Nexus and Proportionality
• Nexus – the impact (standard) you are
measuring must be directly associated
with that development
• Proportionality – the mitigation you
require must be in proportion to the
development’s impact on that standard

18. So You Want A New Process?
• Selecting new performance measures
requires that cities understand
– What they want their transportation
system (and land use) to look like

19. So You Want A New Process?
• Cities must understand
– What they want out of their concurrency
program
• Money (or specific facility improvements)
• Control over the timing of development
• Ease of use, application and public
understanding
• To stop further development

20. A New Process
• Can be multi-modal
– Must be if you desire a multi-modal solution
• Requires an honest assessment that specific
transportation services can/will/should be
used by selected land uses
– Road performance is the correct measure in some
places
– But even in exurban cities, the congestion effects
on state routes may need to be considered

21. Honest Assessment?
• For example, if transit use is your goal:
– Are there sufficient park and ride spaces?
– Is the new development within walking distance of
frequent bus service? (1/8 – 1/4 mile)
– Is the bus service attractive? (frequent, goes to
logical places, etc.)
• This may mean one development is OK, but
another development 2-blocks over is not

22. Working Regionally
• Means giving up tight local control in
order to gain more regional control
• Without regional cooperation, the best
designed concurrency program can
easily fail due to regional pressures

23. Legislative Interest
• Current concurrency regulation is a
decent first shot, but is not achieving
what was intended
– Do we assert more state control?
– Do we tweak the existing regulations?
– Do we require more consistency in
process?

24. Legislative Concerns/Interest
• Congestion based concurrency measures
increase the cost of growth in urban centers
• Decreases relative cost of growth in far
suburbs
• While causing increasing congestion on major
routes

25. Study Team Issues
• What is the real intention of
Concurrency?
– Growth control (timing or denial?)
– Methodology? (Mathematics?)
– Funding?
– Politics?
– Institutional controls/directions

26. Study Team Issues
• Can/do we shift from purely local
control to more regional or statewide
control?

27. Current Study Issues
• Do we provide a mechanism for funding
alternative modes?
• Do we empower the region to enforce
regional solutions or at least regional
coordination?

28. Current Study
• How do we address:
– Transit
– Walking
– Biking
– Freight

29. More Information on Concurrency
• http://depts.washington.edu/trac/
concurrency/index.html
• Will be updated once we start to
produce new material