SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
WITH THE TOWN’S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999 AT 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m.
Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavão, and Edith Wiggins. Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Engineering Director George Small, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Long Range Planner Phil Mason and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Roger Waldon introduced Mr. Ray Moe of Ballofett and Associates, who had been selected as the Town’s Transportation Consultant.
Mr. Moe noted he had surveyed the area and wanted to offer a few observations. He said that traffic increases would create challenges for the Town in the future. Mr. Moe said that residents were driving a lot further to jobs and making more demands on the roads, noting that the infrastructure was not keeping up with those demands. He said that the Chapel Hill Transit System was good, but that Park/Ride lots should be expanded. Mr. Moe said that the Regional Transit planning was good, but there were some deficiencies. He said that the sidewalk system was disconnected and that there were major segments missing in the bicycle network. Mr. Moe said that the community wanted things to be better and that there would have to be some shifts in direction.
Mr. Moe listed the topics he felt needed discussion: (1) how to do traffic impact studies, (2) levels of service, (3) traffic calming, (4) how traffic flows, and (5) parking. He asked the Council how to proceed.
Council Member Brown asked how traffic impact studies were done. Mr. Moe listed several considerations: (1) who should prepare the studies, (2) how big a study area should be examined, (3) what was the time frame, and (4) trip budgets (reducing trips and accountability).
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Moe if he could be more explicit about what trip budgets meant. Mr. Moe said it was the study of how much traffic would be generated by developments.
Mr. Moe discussed the Traffic Impact Analysis Issues using questions and answers:
1. Do the traffic impact analysis being prepared adequately address traffic impacts of the proposed project? No—you get what you ask for.
2. Who should prepare traffic studies for proposed developments: the developer’s traffic consultant or City staff? Probably developer’s consultant with direction and guidance from the City staff.
3. Current requirements:
· Describe current development
· Evaluate existing conditions
· Generate project traffic
· Identify approved development traffic
· Assign approved development plus project traffic
· Evaluate proposed access
· Conduct intersection level of service and signal warrant analysis
· Recommend transportation improvements
4. Additional requirements for Non-Residential Developments:
· on-site circulation plans
· access locations
· parking analysis
· transportation demand management
Mr. Moe discussed the deficiencies of Current Traffic Study Requirements:
1. No definition on when a traffic study is required.
Recommendations:
· A traffic study is required for a new developer when daily traffic generation is more than 500, and more than 200 daily trips access an existing collector or local road.
· A revised traffic study should be prepared when changes in land use resulting in increased project traffic, or changes in access if proposed.
2. There are no procedures for establishing extent of study area.
Recommendation:
· The minimum traffic impact analysis shall contain: (1) adjacent streets, (2) nearest arterial intersection, and (3) all intersections where the project contributes a 5% impact over existing traffic volumes.
3. Cumulative development and background traffic growth procedures are not defined.
Recommendations:
·
Develop project notebook with summary sheets of
approved project description, trip generations, trip assignments and required
mitigation.
· Develop summary map of capital improvement projects.
· Develop annual background traffic growth rates.
4. No accountability for reducing trips based on pass-by traffic or transportation demand management (TDM).
· Encourage TDM and alternative modes, however establish a trip budget when traffic is measured and would restrict final development phases from being built or charge a fee for traffic volumes that exceed the budget
5. Trip distribution is often based on best guess.
Recommendations:
· Provide thorough discussion on logic for selecting trip distribution patterns.
· Consider use of traffic models for determining project trip distribution.
6. Only short term planning horizon evaluated.
Recommendation:
· Require both a short term and long term (2025) planning horizon evaluation.
Mr. Moe summarized the recommendations:
1. Update traffic impact analysis requirements.
2. Utilize city traffic model to evaluate trip distribution and project study area.
3. Develop a traffic impact analyses check list which must be complete before a study can be submitted for review.
4. Retain independent consultant to review specific elements or all of the traffic study as necessary.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council should have a threshold for what was or was not traffic impact. Mr. Moe said that lots of cities were grappling with thresholds and many jurisdictions had level of services D, others have accepted level E. He said that it was a community decision and he thought that level D was appropriate. Mr. Moe said that some cities accept other levels in certain specific areas.
Council Member Evans said that some cities were using level C, which did not encourage pedestrians or bikes. She added that Chapel Hill was in a corner of the County where other jurisdictions were developing areas over which Chapel Hill had no control and asked Mr. Moe how to deal with the situation. Mr. Moe said that the Town could use a traffic model or other alternatives, such as using different levels in different areas of the community.
Council Member McClintock asked Mr. Moe what other cities were doing with developments creating much more traffic. She said she would like to have something in place to deal with this problem and was looking for creative ways of doing this. Mr. Moe used overheads to respond:
Level of Service Analysis
Issue: Currently the city only required level of service analysis for automobiles. Often mitigation necessary to offset automobile traffic impacts impact alternative travel modes.
Recommendation: Update level of service requirements for all modes. These standards might include accepting roadway levels of service below “D” in activity areas provided improved levels of service could be achieved for alternative modes.
Automobile:
Conduct signalized intersection levels of service analysis based on progression signal timing, not independent signal timing.
Pedestrian Levels of Service (LOS):
1. Directness
· The measure of directness is simply how well an environment provides direct pedestrian connections to destinations such as transit stops, schools, parks, commercial areas, or activity areas.
· The LOS directness measure is based on a ratio of the actual distance from a trip destination divided by the minimum distance (as the crow flies) between those two points.
2. Continuity
· Continuity is a measure of both the physical consistency and type of pedestrian sidewalk, and the visual connection from one block to the next.
3. Street Crossings
Elements of measurement of the pedestrian safety in crossing a street
· Number of lanes
· Median refuge areas
· Crosswalks
· Signed indication
· Lighting levels
· Pedestrian character
· Sight distance
4. Visual Interest and Amenity
· The attractiveness of the pedestrian network can range from visually appealing to appalling. Compatibility with local architecture and enhancements, such as fountains, benches, and lighting, improve visual interest of the area for pedestrians.
5. Security
Measurement of the pedestrians’ sense of security
· Pedestrians require a sense of security, both through visual line of sight with vehicle drivers and separation from vehicles. Major portions of the city’s sidewalks along arterials are narrow and adjacent to high-volume, high-speed travel lanes. Other sidewalks are intimidating because they are not visible to the motorist and surrounding activities. Pedestrian sidewalks and corridors should also be examined based on lighting levels and sight distance.
Pedestrian Levels of Service Targets by Plan Area:
· Pedestrian Districts
· Activity Corridors and Centers
· School Walking Areas
· Transit Corridors
· Other areas within city
Bicycle (Types)
· Off street bike path paths—recommended 5 feet
· On street bike lane
· On street bike route
Bicycle Levels of Service
· Directly connected to both North-South and East-West bike lane or bike path
· Directly connected to either a North-South or East-West bike lane or bike path and indirectly (within ¼ mile via bike route) to the other
· Indirectly connected to both a North-South and East-West bike lane or bike route via a bike route
· Indirectly connected to either a North-South or East-West bike lane or bike route via a bike route
· Connected to a bike route
· No direct or indirect connection
Mayor Waldorf said that in Chapel Hill there were various neighborhoods—the University and downtown; older neighborhoods; and larger neighborhoods, some with grids, others with cul-de-sacs—with no sidewalks or bike paths. She asked Mr. Moe if he knew of other communities with these considerations and what were they doing or what he suggested be done to connect these neighborhoods. Mr. Moe said that there were a number of applications for procedures for newer developments on a case by case basis.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Moe how the Council could address the idea of a traffic consultant working for a developer and only complying with the minimum requirements. Mr. Moe said that the Town should have requirements for full disclosure of the Town’s needs and its vision for the future.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Moe if there were options for a Town to require a developer to pay for the off-site improvements. Mr. Moe said that there were many different ways to do that, and that many states required off-site improvements.
Council Member Evans asked how the issues of widening the roads for bike paths, by taking down street trees, taking part of peoples’ property, or taking away parking lanes, would be weighed. Mr. Moe said that the travel lanes could be reduced to 11 feet, and added that the NC Department of Transportation needed to change some of its regulations.
Council Member Evans asked Mr. Moe to share with the Council some of his observations from traveling around the Town. Mr. Moe said that the pedestrian phase was adequately timed, but that some improvement was needed at the north-west corner of Hamilton Road and NC 54 which had a wide radius. He said that the Town could modify the radius to make it shorter with a curbed extension and a minimal island could extend the median. Mr. Moe said that improvements in the pedestrian crossing at this intersection could be made by coloring them for visibility.
Council Member McClintock said that the Town had to establish a nexus with the developments, and needed to be fair and have a certain set of plans.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Moe if, in the Traffic Impact Study, he included his recommendations as to what the staff direction could be in order to have a closer link with what the consultant was doing. Mr. Moe said that the key was that you got what you asked for, and the staff had to have a more direction than it had now.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Moe if all the recommendations for implementation were on the slides that he showed. Mr. Moe said that they were.
Council Member Brown asked if he had a document which he had prepared for other communities and that could be provided to the Council. Mr. Moe said that he would be willing to provide a document to the Council in hopes that it could be applied to Chapel Hill.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Moe how the Council could exempt a developer who wanted to build affordable housing from the fixed requirements. Mr. Moe said that a development would have to reach a certain number of houses before the requirements would kick in. He said he would like to look into what other communities were doing for affordable housing. Mr. Moe said he felt it was a large consideration for people who service a community to be able to live in that community and not have to travel to it for their jobs.
Council Member Bateman said that the Council had scheduled a public hearing on an adequate facilities ordinance and asked Mr. Moe what his feelings were on the relationships with other towns and counties as to how the ordinance would apply, since it would only be a Chapel Hill ordinance. Mr. Moe said that there were other communities who were doing this. He said that there were ways to work with developments no matter what their size, so that all could contribute something to improvement overall.
Council Member Evans asked Mr. Moe what would happen if the Town required the developers to contribute to the greenways, and they decided that it would be so expensive that they would not develop small projects and only build one-half million dollar homes. Mr. Moe said that the Council was the body that established the threshold, and generally what he saw was that communities that required the fees were still being developed. He said that they were the ones that have had the growth, were desirable, and had the popularity.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Moe to talk about limiting parking spaces. Mr. Moe said that the key requirements were changing the balancing of levels of service—whether it was discretionary to customers or employees. He said that customer parking was usually about 85 percent utilization. Mr. Moe said that the Town needed to look at the uses, and where the uses were located. He said that there was a reversing of the trend of requiring minimum and maximum amount of parking spaces in communities.
Council Member Bateman asked if the Town should work in isolation to the other communities which were growing in the area, with the requirements of an adequate public facilities ordinance. Mr. Moe said that it might be better to do this for the entire County, but that it could be complicated. He said he would be glad to look at this question and report back to the Council.
Council Member Foy asked if Mr. Moe was aware of any communities which had been successful in managing their transportation changes as they grew. Mr. Moe said four communities had been successful: Davis, Annapolis, Burlington and Boulder. He said that Davis had taken a unique approach which held that bikes and pedestrians were the most important; Boulder put a limit on growth and housing prices skyrocketed but bicycle programs grew. Mr. Moe said he thought that Chapel Hill should apply a balance.
Council Member Wiggins said that she had been very impressed, during her first visit to Boulder, with the greenways and the long walkways. She asked Mr. Moe if he had evaluated Chapel Hill’s Transportation Management Plan, which was a part of Chapel Hill’s approval process. Mr. Moe said that he had not but would be glad to evaluate it. He said that some foreign countries were using the Modern Roundabouts Concept. Mr Moe said that the concept was called “wide nodes and narrow roads,” and he showed a 1996 video to the Council to illustrate that the Roundabout idea meant (1) fewer conflict points, (2) lower speeds, and (3) easier decision making. Mr. Moe noted that the main benefits to the Modern Roundabouts were safety, capacity, economy, environment, and beauty.
Mr. Moe showed a slide illustrating the Splitter Island which slows speed; moves traffic along, instead of having to stop for traffic lights; and pedestrians can cross over two lanes of traffic going one way. He said that some Modern Roundabouts were used in freeway interchanges.
Council Member McClintock said that she thought Roundabouts were a good idea, but was concerned with pedestrian crossings. Mr. Moe said that the Modern Roundabout was different from traffic circles, and that the design had come a long way.
Council Member McClintock asked Mr. Moe how a system for requirements could be built into the public facilities ordinance. Mr. Moe said that the Comprehensive Plan should have a map of what the community would want for the future.
Council Member McClintock asked Mr. Moe how important it was to have a model for transportation. Mr. Moe said that a model was basically a tool for giving guidance, and he encouraged the Council to create a model to answer “what if” planning questions.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Moe what he had observed in the Chapel Hill traffic calming devices.
Mr. Moe, using overheads, noted the following:
Traffic Calming
Draft Chapel Hill Neighborhood Traffic Management:
· Step 1: Receive neighborhood request for traffic management (must address area of influence with 2/3 petition signatures)
· Step 2: Town conducts traffic study
· Step 3: Town and resident traffic committee develop project design
· Step 4: Report to Council to fund or place on waiting list
· Step 5: Monitor and follow up report
Why is Traffic Management requested?
· High traffic volumes
· Excessive travel speeds
· Traffic accidents
· Schools
· Street design, i.e. lack of sidewalks or narrow travel lanes
Solutions:
1. General laws, statutes, and ordinances (key is enforcement—photo radar)
· speed limits
· parking regulations
2. Traffic Control Devices
· stop signs
· regulatory and warning signs
3. Geometric Design features
· street closures
· semi-diverters
· intersection channelization
· traffic circle
· chicanes
· chocker
· speed humps
· pavement surface treatment
Issues:
· Cause: poor design, congestion/cut through traffic
· Responsibility: neighborhood or town
· Rerouting of problem
· Increased vehicle miles traveled
· Cure worse than the illness
· Emergency equipment
· No speed hump is perfect
· Who pays?
Recommendation 1:
Develop and implement neighborhood solutions based on capital improvement management plan.
· Neighborhood education and awareness program
· Neighborhood speed watch—warning tickets
· Enforcement—patrols, radar speed cameras, smart trailers
· Engineering—signing, pavement markings
Recommendation 2
Develop capital improvement traffic management plan and test with temporary devices (requires neighborhood agreement)
· Cones, barrels
· Barricades
· Removable speed humps
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Moe to comment on whether he thought a public awareness campaign could be successful. Mr. Moe said it could work but it would take a large effort.
Mayor Waldorf said she thought that if high school students get traffic violations for speeding or running traffic lights, their parking privileges at school could be taken away as an incentive towards safe driving. She also wondered if posting signs at the entranceways of the community noting that bikers and walkers were a concern of the Town would be a good idea.
Council Member Wiggins reported a very effective sign in black and white on Kingston Drive which read “Please Drive Slowly,” and asked if the Town had posted it. Mr. Horton said he did not know, but the Town was working on the use of various signs.
Council Member McClintock asked if there was any special safety provided for people who walk in crosswalks. Mr. Horton said that has been a courtesy for cars to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, but that Chapel Hill did not have a law.
Council Member McClintock said that she would like to see an effort to encourage such a law. Mr. Moe said that it worked well in California and is a state law, and he would encourage the Town to urge that it become a State law.
Council Member Evans asked if the Town was doing some testing on Hillsborough Street. Mr. Horton said yes, and it was intended to give motorists some indication that they were in an area where they needed to be particularly cautious.
Mayor Waldorf asked where the Council wanted to go from this point. She asked if they wanted a written summary of what Mr. Moe had presented and a follow-up report. The Council agreed that they did.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Moe to include in the report his recommendations of what direction the Council could or should take.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Moe to include the implementation of what he recommended.
Council Member Evans said that it could be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Moe to include his recommendations on how to improve traffic impact analysis, and develop a mobility report card, and LOS standards for pedestrians and bikers. Mr. Moe said that he had pamphlets prepared for another town and he would distribute them to the Council.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that Mr. Moe and the staff work together to bring the Council a follow-up report.
Mr. Horton said he would like suggestions on which items would have the most impact, for the least dollars, in the shortest time.
Mayor Waldorf thanked Mr. Moe and said that she was glad that he had said that Chapel Hill did not need its own model and could use the Durham/Orange County model. Mr. Moe said that it could be modified to Chapel Hill’s specifics.
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:50 p.m.
The minutes of March 24, 1999 were adopted on the 26th day
of April, 1999.
_______________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC
Town Clerk