AGENDA ## (01/05/01 3:00 PM)8

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Report on Draft Revisions to the Town Traffic Impact AnalysisStatement Guidelines

for Consideration in Enhancing the Objectivity and Usefulness of Traffic Impact Analyses Required for Development Applications

DATE:             January 8, 2001

This report provides information and alternatives for revising the guidelines and procedures for preparing traffic impact analyses required for development applications. The goal is to enhance the objectivity and usefulness of the analyses and associated reports submitted to the Town concerning the traffic impacts of new developments.

Adoption of the attached resolution would refer the draft guidelines to the Transportation Board, the Planning Board, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board, and local engineering firms for review and comment.

BACKGROUND

On March 24, 1999, the Town Council held a work session with Ray Moe of Balloffet Associates to discuss the Town’s transportation policies, including procedures and requirements for traffic impact studies for new development. On July 7, 1999, the Council received a summary report with recommendations from Mr. Moe on a variety of transportation related topics, including comments concerning traffic impact analyses and an example of suggested guidelines for developing such analyses. A copy of Mr. Moe’s report is attached for reference.

At its planning session in January 2000, the Council established a number of goals and objectives for the year. One of those goals was to “Enhance the objectivity and usefulness of traffic impact analyses required for development applications.” The Council questioned the objectivity of Traffic Impact StatementAnalysiss prepared by consultants who are being paid by developers.

Presently, Traffic Impact StatementAnalyseiss are required to be submitted for all major development proposals. While Tthere are written guidelines for developers and their consultants to follow as they prepare analyses, they are neither official nor definitive. Town staff currently review all studies presented for methodologyfor methodology and reasonableness of assumptions made. Mr. Moe and others have suggested that our guidelines be made more rigorous and that we start requiring more extensive analysis.

DISCUSSION

We reviewed the sample guidelines provided by Mr. Moe and contacted other communities in North Carolina to inquire how they handle traffic impact analyses. The attached table compares criteria relating to traffic impact analyses among several area communities.

The table compares submittal requirements for Chapel Hill, Cary, Durham, Greensboro, and Raleigh in relation to standards recommended by The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The standards in each community vary with regard to when studies are required, delineation of the required study area, and submittal format. All of the comparison communities require use of standard ITE trip generation and distribution methodologies.

We note that the Town of Cary is the only community we contacted where traffic studies are done by private consultants under contract to Cary, and not working directly for developers. The other communities establish requirements for traffic studies, which are then done by private consultants under contract to developers. This is the method currently used in Chapel Hill. None of the communities we contacted use in-house staff to perform traffic studies for private development projects.

THE USEFULNESS ISSUE

The Council expressed interest in trying to improve the usefulness of traffic impact analyses. In an effort to obtain information and data that is both comprehensive and useful, we prepared draft guidelines to specify exactly what we need and the format in which it should be presented.

If a Traffic Impact Analysis is necessary, the Town currently requires developers to analyze traffic impacts primarily with regard to trip generation and capacity. We think that broader and more comprehensive study is needed to accurately assess the traffic impact(s) of new developments. The draft guidelines cover the following key areas:

· When traffic impact studies are required

· Inclusion of short-term and long-term analyses (planning horizons)

· Identification of study area boundaries

· Guidelines for traffic impact study waivers

· Project impact analyses and special analysis requirements

· Identification and recommendations for mitigation measures

· Including analysis of pedestrian and bicycle movements.

The attached draft guidelines include specific information about what we would expect to be included in traffic analyses and how we would expect it to be presented. The following discussion briefly outlines the key issues which are covered in detail in the draft guidelines.

WHEN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES ARE REQUIRED – The draft proposes that a study be required for new development or redevelopment activity based on the criteria presented. The draft guidelines list several criteria for consideration of a study waiver by the Town Manager. The draft also includes criteria for determining when restudies and/or updates would be required. (See section B, page 1, of attached draft guidelines.)

SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ANALYSES – According to the draft, each study would analyze traffic impacts for the short term and for the long-term, taking into consideration expected development and surface transportation improvements. (See Section E, page 3, of attached draft guidelines).

The intent of the short term analysis would be to investigate the early impact of the proposed project on the existing roadway network. The short term horizon year would be defined as one year after full occupancy of the development or development phase. If the project occurred over multiple phases, each phase would be evaluated one year after full occupancy of that phase.

KUMAR - Do we now require a different TIS for each phase? I believe that a phasing plan is approved by staff after Council action. If that is true, would it be practical and effective to have the TIS amended by the consultant in a technical fashion along with the approval of the phasing plan?

The long term analysis would provide a snapshot of expected future traffic conditions in the development study area. This analysis would include both public and private improvements (if any) that could reasonably be expected to occur in the study area within the long term planning horizon. The long term horizon year would be determined by the Durham/Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional Model. The current horizon year is 2025, which changes each year to reflect a 25-year period.

The long term analysis would discuss transportation conditions in the future based on known and expected development which would have either positive or negative effects on the transportation systems in the study area. The intent would be to identify, to the extent possible, changes which could reasonably be expected to occur over time in the study area and to relate those changes to future traffic impacts. Such information would be useful to the Town in determining and/or confirming the future adequacy of existing and planned transportation improvements in the study area. It would also provide a reasonable basis for evaluating thoroughfare plans and identifying offsite improvements which should be discussed with future developers in the study area.

STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES – The draft includes a set of specific criteria to be used in identifying the required study area, including percentage impact levels which would require that an intersection be studied regardless of its proximity to the development. (See section F.2.b, page 5, of the attached draft guidelines.)

The limits of the study area would be based on the size and extent of the proposed development, and an understanding of existing and future land use and traffic conditions at and around the site. The reasons the study area was selected would be described in the traffic study in sufficient detail that the reviewer and decision-maker could understand the reasoning. The draft proposes that the study area would contain:

· adjacent streets,

· nearest arterial/arterial intersection(s),

· site driveways,

· internal roads,

· all signalized or potentially future signalized intersections, either current or future years, where:

- the project contributes a 10 percent impact (during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at level of service C or better; or

- the project contributes a 5 percent impact (during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour) to any approach leg of the intersection where the intersection is operating at level of service D or worse.

· pedestrian and bike facilities within a ten-minute walk or bicycle ride to/from the site, and identification of any attractions (existing or approved) within the above pedestrian and bicycle limits.

PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSES AND SPECIAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS – The draft language would allow the Town to require special studies on a site specific basis if conditions warrant special consideration. These could include pedestrian traffic studies, accident analyses, air-quality impact evaluations, etc. (See section F.7, page 12, of attached draft guidelines.)

Determination of when and which special analyses might be required would be made by the Manager on a site specific basis, depending on conditions which cannot be specifically identified and quantified in advance. For instance, a pedestrian traffic study might be required for a given development because of the proximity a bus stop across a busy street, regardless of the volume of pedestrian traffic that may be involved. Setting specific criteria for special studies could tend to limit opportunities to require them in some cases where the study data would be very useful, or could require work that is not truly necessary in other cases.

MITIGATION MEASURES/RECOMMENDATIONS – The draft language would require that traffic mitigation measures be identified in all studies, including associated recommendations, including associated recommendations. Implementation of the identified measures might or might not be the responsibility of the developer, depending on the circumstances involved. (See section F.9, page 12, of the attached draft guidelines.)

THE OBJECTIVITY ISSUE

The Council was also interested in the objectivity of traffic impact analyses. Under our current procedures, when the Town requires submittal of traffic impact studies, those studies are typically performed by consultants hired and paid by developers. This relationship could allow bias or the appearance of bias. We think there are three possible alternatives to our current procedure:

1. Alternative One: The Town could continue to require submittal of traffic impact analyses performed by consultants hired by developers, but revise the guidelines governing the content of those analyses as, for example, outlined in the attached draft guidelines; or

2. Alternative Two The Town could contract with private consulting firms to perform necessary traffic impact studies for proposed developments, with the associated consulting costs covered by increased development fees; or

3. Alternative Three: The Town could hire additional staff and purchase necessary equipment to allow the Town to prepare traffic impact studies in-house for proposed developments, with the associated costs covered by increased development fees.

Alternative one would differ from the present situation in that the guidelines for Traffic Impact Statements would be much more specific about the content and format of such work in the requirements regarding content would be more rigorous. The staff would also have a key role in deciding the boundaries of the study area. We believe that these two changes would result in less leeway for bias or the appearance of bias, and it would make it easier for staff to review all assumptions which underlie the arithmetic. The proposed changes would also improve the usefulness of the reports.

Depending on the extent of changes in the guidelines, and the amount of data and analysis required, Town staff review time could increase significantly. If the Council is interested in pursuing this alternative, we would evaluate the impacts on Town staff and report back before a final decision is made.

The second alternative is intended to achieve more objectivity in the preparation of traffic studies for new developments. Under this alternative, consultants would work directly for the Town and take direction from Town. The Town of Cary presently uses this procedure. They have several consulting firms on retainer, all of whom have pledged not to work for developers who work in Cary. Once the cost of a study is set with the developer, it is added to other development fees, so that the Town has no risk of accruingcquiring unexpected costs. We would again note that, depending on the extent of revisions the Council may adopt in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, Town staff review time could increase significantly and we would need to evaluate those impacts and report back to the Council before a final decision is made.

The third alternative would require Town staff to develop Traffic Impact Statements. This process would allow the Town to produce exactly the type of statement that it wants, assuming staff and equipment were sufficient. However, we think it could place Town staff in a position of potential liability for unforeseen or unexpected conditions which may result from a private development project. It could result in the inefficient use of resources if we were to have the resources needed to respond in a timely manner to all development proposals. It would give the Council less leeway, and we also believe that this approach could sometimes result in a conflict of interests for staff assigned to carry out the work.

Implementation of this procedure, with or without revisions to the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, would require considerable additional staff and equipment. If the Council is interested in pursuing this alternative, we would need to identify the additional staff and equipment necessary for provision of the associated engineering services. None of the communities we contacted are using this procedure.

CONCLUSION

We think that it would be possible to enhance the objectivity and usefulness of traffic impact analyses required for development applications. This report suggests possible means of achieving that goal, all of which would increase cost and work for both developers and Town staff. Because changes in substance and procedures discussed in this report could have significant and multiple impacts, we think that it would be advisable to solicit input from Town boards and local engineering firms to assist the Council in determining what, if any, changes it might wish to make in the requirements and procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis submittals required for development applications.

MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt the attached resolution referring this report and attachments to the Transportation Board, Planning Board, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board for review and recommendations, and directing the Manager to send this report and the draft revisions to the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines to local engineering firms to seek their input.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Comparison of Sample Community TIA Provisions (1 Pagep. 8).

2. Revised Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis (16 Pagesp. 9).

3. Ray Moe’s Summary Report dated June 30, 1999 (7 Pagesp. 25)

A RESOLUTION REFERRING THE REPORT AND DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TO THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO SEND COPIES OF THE REPORT AND DRAFT REVISIONS TO LOCAL ENGINEERING FIRMS TO SEEK THEIR INPUT (2001-018-081/R-11 )

WHEREAS, it is one of the Town Council’s stated goals to enhance the objectivity and usefulness of traffic impact analyses required for development applications; and

WHEREAS, to achieve that goal, draft revisions to the Town’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines have been prepared and procedural alternatives have been identified; and

WHEREAS, the Council realizes that the draft guideline revisions and procedural changes could significantly impact both work and costs associated with development applications and reviews, and thus require careful consideration from all perspectives prior to implementation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council refers the report and draft revisions to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to the Transportation Board, the Planning Board, and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board for review and recommendations by February 28, 2001.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to send copies of the draft guidelines revisions to local engineering firms to seek their input by February 28, 2001.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the boards and firms reviewing the draft guidelines consider and comment on not only the substance of the guidelinesdraft revisions but also on the procedural alternatives for preparing traffic impact analyses required with development applications.

This is the 8^th dDay of January, 2001