AGENDA #7a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Report on the Proposed Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Procedures
DATE: June 11, 2001
This report discusses proposed revisions to the current Town procedures and guidelines for preparing traffic impact analyses required for development applications.
The attached resolution would authorize the Manager to implement revised procedures and guidelines for preparing traffic impact analyses required for development applications effective October 1, 2001
.
During previous discussion of this item, the Council directed the Manager to determine costs and prepare recommendations concerning the Mobility Report Card concept presented to the Councilin 1999 by Mr. Ray Moe of the transportation consulting firm Balloffet and Associates. A staff report on the Mobility Report Card concept is provided as a separate item on tonight’s agenda.
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 topicsincluding comments and suggested guidelines for improving traffic impact analyses; and information about the Mobility Report Card concept for assessing the Town’s transportationsystem through data collection/analysis
.
At its planning session in January 2000, the Council established a number of goals and objectives
for the year, including: “Enhance the objectivity and usefulness of traffic impact analyses required for development applications.”. The Council questioned the objectivity of traffic impact analyses prepared by consultants who are directly paid by developers.
On January 8, 2001, the Council received a staff report (see Attachment 2) discussingproposed changes in the process and guidelines for preparing traffic impact analyses. The Council approved a resolution referringthe proposed guidelines for review and comment to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board, the Planning Board, the Transportation Board, theUNC-Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), Mr. Ray Moe, and local engineering firms.
In late January 2001 we provided copies of the proposed traffic impact analysis guidelines to theabove noted boards, to several engineering companies with offices serving Chapel Hill and the Triangle area, to the UNC-Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), and to Mr. Moe, for review and comment. We received comments from the three Town boards, the HSRC, Mr. Moe, and HNTB Corporation in Raleigh.
Appendix A includes a summary of the comments and suggestions we received, and notes our responseto each.
DISCUSSION
The attached Table One compares traffic impact analysis 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, submittal format, etc.
We note that all of the comparison communities require use of standard ITE trip generation and distribution methodologies;that Cary is the only community where traffic impact analyses are done by private consultants under contract to the Town government (and not working directly for developers); and that none of the comparison communities use in-house staff to perform analyses for private development projects.
USEFULNESS
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 and order 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
· 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 II 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.
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. However, long term analysis may be waived by the Town Manager based on the size and type of the development.
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.
We would expect to require the long term analysis only in those situations involving a particularly large development with commercial or office/institutional elements which could reasonably be expected to be both traffic generators and attractors, thereby creating impacts which could vary over time and which could impact both internal circulation and external transportation systems serving the development. Examples of the type of development that would likely be required to perform a long term analysis, if the Council adopts these guidelines, are Southern Village and Meadowmont.
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 ½ mile 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 VI.G. 7, page 11, 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 our ability 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. 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.)
OBJECTIVITY
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.
Alternative One would differ from the present situation in that the guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis would be much more specific about the content and format of such work. Town staff would also have a key role in deciding the boundaries of the study area, based on the guidelines. We believe that these two changes would result in less potential 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 for both impact and mitigation evaluation and for general planning purposes.
Alternative Two is intended to achieve more objectivity in the preparation of traffic analyses for new developments. Under this alternative, consultants would work directly for the Town and would take direction from the Town. The Town of Cary presently uses this procedure, and it has engaged several consulting firms to provide traffic impact analysis services on an as-needed basis. These firms have entered into an agreement with the Town of Cary that they willnot contract with developers who perform work in Cary. Once the cost of a study is established, it is added to other development fees so that the Town does not incur direct costs associated with traffic impact analyses for private development projects.
We note that in both alternatives, depending on the extent of revisions the Council may adopt in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, Town staff review time could increase because significantly more data would be presented with each development project.
The following table summarizes the pro’s and con’s of each alternative.
|
PRO |
CON |
|
|
Alternative One |
* Increased analytical content * More useful data |
* Questionable appearance of objectivity * Increased staff review time necessary * Longer development application process |
|
Alternative Two |
* Increased analytical content * Less questionableappearance ofobjectivity * More useful data |
* Increased staff review time necessary * Increased development fee * Longer development application process |
REVIEW COMMENTS
Appendix A includes review comments which we received regarding the proposed guidelines and procedures for traffic impact analyses required for new developments in Chapel Hill. Most of the revisions and edits suggested by the reviewers have been incorporated into the draft document where appropriate. Requested additional information and clarification have beenincluded in this report. Appendix A also includes a detailed summary of the comments and suggestions we received and the associated staff response.
PROCEDURE
If the Council wishes to implement the proposed revisions to the guidelines and procedures for traffic impact analyses, we suggest following the Cary model where the Town would engage private consulting firms to perform traffic impact analysesrequired for development applications, with the associated consultant costs included in the development application fees. We would consider engaging only those firms willing to enter into an agreement with the Town that, for the term of such engagement, they will not contract for services with any developer having current projects in Chapel Hill. Preference would be given to consulting firms who have not and do not do business with developers who are or have been active in Chapel Hill.
The suggested procedure would be as follows:
1) The Town would engageat least two interested consulting firms to perform studies on an as-needed basis for developmental proposals that require traffic impact analyses. Selected consultants would be required to sign an agreement as described above.
Prior to the submittal of a developmental application, the applicant would be required to complete a traffic impact analysis determination form. This form would provide information necessary for the Townto determine if a trafficimpact analysis is necessary. If an analysis is required, Town staff and one of the consultantsengaged by the Town for services would establish the specific scope of the analysis, after which the consultant would provide the Town with a written proposal including costs and a schedule for completion of the analysis and report.
3) The applicant would then be notified of the cost and schedule to complete the necessary traffic impact analysis. If the developer wishes to proceed, a pre-application fee of 110% of the cost of the study would be collected by the Town and the study would be initiated.
4) Once the study is completed and approved by Town staff, it would be delivered to the applicant to be included with other materials necessary for submittal of a development application to the Town. If excess pre-application fees remained after completion of the consultant’s study, those funds would be returned to the applicant.
We believe that engaging consultants as outlined above would comply with theCouncil’s adopted Policy for Selection of Architectural and Engineering Professional Services.
CONCLUSION
We think that it would be possible to enhance the usefulness and the perceived objectivity or credibility of traffic impact analyses required for development applications. We believe that this could be achieved most effectively by revising the guidelines and procedures for these analyses, and by retaining private consultants to perform the studies as outlined in this report.
Although these changes could be expected to increase both the time and cost of the development application process, we know of no more effective method of achieving the Council’s goal of enhancing the usefulness and objectivity of traffic impact analyses required for development applications.
We think that the earliest possible effective date for implementing the proposed guidleines would be October 1, 2001. This would allow time for us to solicit and evaluate proposals from interested consulting firms. Provided we receive acceptable proposals, we would select two or three firms and enter into agreements to engage their services on an as needed basis. We would expect to give preference to firms that do not do business with developers thathave current or past projects in Chapel Hill.
We think that the proposed changes could also increase the staff time necessary to identify the specific analysis requirements appropriate for each development, and to review and approve the analysis findings. If the Council so directs, we will implement the proposed guidelines and monitor the associated staff time requirements. If staff time impacts are significant, we will report that information to the Council and provide recommendations for relieving those impacts to the extent possible.
Appendix A includes specific review comments made by each advisory board, the Highway Safety Research Center, and HNTB Corporation (the only consulting firm that responded to our request for comments) as well as Town staff responses to the review comments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation Board: Voted 6-0 recommending that the Council approve the concept of retaining private consulting engineering firms to conduct traffic impact analyses required for development applications; and recommending that the Council approve the proposed guidelines and procedures with revisions noted in the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action (Appendix A). We have responded to the applicable board comments, questions, andrevisions in this report and in the attached draft of the revised guidelines and procedures.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: Voted 5-0 recommending that the Council approve the concept of retaining private consulting engineering firms to conduct traffic impact analyses required for development applications; and recommending that the Council approve the proposed guidelines and procedures with revisions noted in the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Action(Appendix A). We have responded toapplicable board comments, questions, and revisions in this report and in the attached draft of the revised guidelinesand procedures.
Planning Board: Voted 8-0 recommending that the Council approve the concept of retaining private consulting engineering firms to conduct traffic impact analyses required for development applications and requestedthat furtherinformation be providedregarding specific implementation procedures for this concept; and recommending that the Council approve the proposed guidelines and procedures with consideration of the concerns and questions noted in the attached Planning Board Recommendation memorandum (Appendix A). We have responded to applicable board comments, questions, and revisions in this report and in the attached draft of the revised guidelines and procedures.
TownManager: That the Council adopt the attached resolution which would the revised guidelines and procedures for traffic impact analyses required for development applications.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Revised Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis (p. 10).
2. January 8, 2001 Memorandum (p. 25).
3. Table 1 – Comparison of TIA Provisions in Several Communities (p. 31).
4. Appendix A including (p. 32):
__ Summary of the Comments and Staff Response
__ Comments/Action from the Transportation Board
__ Comments/Action from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Board
__ Comments/Action from the Planning Board
__ Comments from Mr. Ray Moe, LSA Associates (pages with edits only)
__ Comments from UNC-Highway Safety Research Center
__ Comments from HNTB Corporation
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND CHANGING THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES (2001-06-11/R-13)
WHEREAS, one of the Town Council’s stated goals is to enhance the objectivity and usefulness of traffic impact analyses required for development applications; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received and reviewed revised Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Procedures and has considered alternatives for conducting traffic impact analyses intended to achieve that goal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the revised guidelines and procedures for preparing traffic impact analyses; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to solicit proposals from and to select private engineering consulting firms to be engaged by the Town to perform traffic impact analyses for development applications in accordance with the procedure outlined in the attached report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the effective date for implementation of the revised guidelines is October 1, 2001.
This the 11th day of June, 2001.