2005 State of Mobility Report - City of Bellevue

CHAPTER 3: Level of Service and Concurrency
• 112th Avenue NE at NE 8th Street in the
Downtown MMA
• 148th Avenue NE at NE 8th Street in the East
Bellevue MMA
• 150th Avenue SE at the I-90 eastbound off-ramp
in the Eastgate MMA
• Coal Creek Parkway at Forest Drive in the
Newcastle MMA
Application: Concurrency
The Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) requires local jurisdictions to prohibit
development unless transportation improvements
to accommodate the impacts of development are
made concurrent with the development. Thus,
concurrency is an assessment of whether current
and planned transportation facilities are adequate to
handle the projected demand created by proposed
developments. The City compares “Concurrency
LOS” against the LOS standard for an area to
determine compliance as specified in the traffic
standards code, consistent with the GMA.
Concurrency LOS considers existing land use plus
proposed developments that have construction
permits in relation to the transportation network
that would be in place upon the completion of all
funded projects in the Capital Investment Program
(CIP). If a proposed development would trigger a
violation of the LOS standard, the City must:
• Deny the development or
• Expand the capacity of the streets affected by the
development or
• Secure a financial commitment to construct the
facility needed to meet the LOS standard within
six years.
If a project fails the concurrency test, the developer
has the opportunity to reduce the scale of the
project or change the mix of land uses to produce
fewer trips, delay the project, or fund the necessary
improvements directly. As a result, Bellevue
development projects may be changed, but are not
usually stopped because of concurrency.
The City monitors concurrency on an annual basis
to capture changes in LOS created by completed
and proposed developments and transportation
capacity projects. The City met its concurrency
requirement for 2005, as it has every year since
concurrency testing began. Table 3-E outlines
the concurrency areawide average LOS for the
2004 and 2005. Assuming the completion of all
projects in the 2005-2011 CIP, four of the city’s
Mobility Management Areas show Level of Service
improvements in 2005 as compared to 2004.
Review proposed developments and require mitigation of traffic impacts where necessary. Prohibit
development approval if the development will cause the area level of service in one or more Mobility
Management Area to fall below the adopted standard, unless demand management or other system
improvements are provided to mitigate the transportation impacts.
Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-37
26
2005 State of Mobility Report Chapter 3