Evaluation of Current Methodology to Determine Traffi c Concurrency Task Work Order No. 20 February 2013 Miami-Dade MPOEvaluation of Current Methodology to Determine Traffic Concurrency Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Study Coordination ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Study Advisory Committee ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Input/Recommendations from the SAC (PTC) .................................................................................... 2 3.0 Review of Concurrency Management Programs .................................................................................... 3 3.1 Transportation Concurrency Statutes in Florida ................................................................................. 3 3.1.1 History of Transportation Concurrency ....................................................................................... 3 3.1.2 Community Planning Act of 2011 ................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Transportation Concurrency Programs in Florida ............................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Alachua County, Florida ............................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 City of Hialeah, Florida ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.3 City of Miami, Florida ................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.4 Orange County, Florida ................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.5 Pasco County, Florida ................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Transportation Concurrency in Other Areas ....................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Bellingham, Washington .............................................................................................................. 9 3.3.2 King County, Washington ........................................................................................................... 13 3.3.3 Redmond, Washington .............................................................................................................. 14 3.3.4 Montgomery County, Maryland ................................................................................................ 17 4.0 Assessment of the Current Methodology ............................................................................................. 19 4.1 Current Concurrency Approach in Miami‐Dade County ................................................................... 19 4.1.1 Miami‐Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan ........................................... 19 4.1.2 Administrative Order 4‐85 ......................................................................................................... 20 4.1.3 Chapter 33‐G, Service Concurrency Management Program, Code of Miami‐DadeCounty ....... 21 4.2 Miami‐Dade County Concurrency Assessment Matrix ..................................................................... 21 4.3Assessment of the Current Miami‐Dade County Concurrency Management Program .................... 24 5.0 Analysis of Best Practices ...................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Summary of Best Practices ................................................................................................................ 26 5.1.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1.2 Mobility Fee Considerations ...................................................................................................... 27 5.3 Recommendations to Improve the Current Methodology ............................................................... 28 6.0 Developing Scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 32 6.1 Scenario #1: Multimodal Transportation Concurrency .................................................................... 32 6.1.1 Land Use Type Calculations........................................................................................................ 32 6.1.2 Person‐Trip Calculation Methodology ....................................................................................... 36 6.1.3 Weighting ................................................................................................................................... 38 6.1.4 Calculation Tools ........................................................................................................................ 38 6.1.5 Scenario#1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 39 6.2 Scenario #2: The Mobility Fee Approach .......................................................................................... 40 6.3 Recommended Approach ................................................................................................................. 42 7.0 Alternative Approaches ........................................................................................................................ 42 i Miami-Dade MPOEvaluation of Current Methodology to Determine Traffic Concurrency 7.1 Development of Alternatives to the Current Concurrency Program in Miami‐Dade County ........... 43 7.2 Comparative Analysis of the Proposed Alternatives ......................................................................... 43 “Keep Current Program” Alternative .................................................................................................. 43 “Minimal Change” Approach .............................................................................................................. 45 “Alternative Approach” ....................................................................................................................... 46 7.3Summary of the Proposed Alternatives ............................................................................................. 47 8.0 Evaluation of Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 48 8.1 Evaluation Approach ......................................................................................................................... 48 8.2 Scenario Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 49 8.2.1 Program Implementation and Methodology ............................................................................. 51 8.2.2 Traffic Improvement .................................................................................................................. 52 8.2.3 Transit Operation ....................................................................................................................... 53 8.2.4 Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................. 54 8.2.5 Capital, Maintenance and Operating Costs ............................................................................... 55 8.2.6 Jurisdictional Boundaries ........................................................................................................... 56 8.2.7 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 57 8.3 Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................................................... 58 9.0 Recommendations for Miami‐Dade County’s Current Concurrency Management System ................. 59 9.1 Recommended Amendments to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan ........................... 59 9.2 Recommended Action Plan for the Alternative Approach ................................................................... 60 10.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 66 List of Tables Table 1: City of Bellingham’s LOS Criteria for Motorized and Non‐Motorized Modes ............................... 10 Table 2: King County LOS by Average Travel Speed .................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Montgomery County Arterial Mobility LOS................................................................................... 18 Table 4: Montgomery County Transit Mobility LOS ................................................................................... 18 Table 5: Relationship between Arterial and Transit LOS, Montgomery County, WA ................................