During the city staff's review of site plans for transportation impacts, certain thresholds (or benchmarks) will be used to determine if the project will adversely effect the transportation system within its area of influence.
A format similar to that now being used by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) has been incorporated into these guidelines to evaluate the transportation impacts of a project in this city. Based on the ECFRPC standards, the following is offered: These standards related to recommendations that may be specified by this city concerning transportation impacts in site plan development applications. These standards relate to the analysis of significant transportation impacts.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of these standards shall be to provide the city developers submitting applications for site plan development a clear procedure for analyzing significant transportation impacts.
(B) Objective. The objective of the city is to protect the taxpayer investment and the integrity of the road system and to prevent a condition that would cause the system to cease to function at a satisfactory service level as a consequence of a single large project, or along one corridor, a series of smaller projects.
(C) Definitions.
(1)
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS). LOS is the ability of a roadway to carry traffic based upon:
- Speed and travel time
- Travel interruptions or restrictions
- Freedom to maneuver
- Safety
- Driving comfort and convenience
- Economy
(a)
LEVEL OF SERVICE A. A condition of free flow, accompanied by low volumes and high speeds. Traffic density will be low, with uninterrupted flow speeds controlled by drive desires, speed limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
(b)
LEVEL OF SERVICE B. In the zone of stable flow, with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed and lane of operation. Reduction in speed is not unreasonable, with a low probability of traffic flow being restricted. The low limit (lowest speed, highest volume) of this level of service has been associated with service volumes used in the design of rural highways.
(c)
LEVEL OF SERVICE C. In the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are closely controlled by high volumes. Most drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, change lanes or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained, with service volumes perhaps suitable for urban design practice.
(d)
LEVEL OF SERVICE D. Approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds being maintained though considerably affected by change in operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low, but conditions can be tolerated for short periods of time.
(e)
LEVEL OF SERVICE E. Cannot be described by speed alone, but represents operations at even lower operating speeds than in Level D, with volumes at or near the capacity of the highway. At capacity speeds are typically, but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 m.p.h. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppages of momentary duration.
(f)
LEVEL OF SERVICE F. Describes forced flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are above capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. The section under study will be serving as a storage area during parts or all of the peak hour. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of the downstream congestion. In the extreme, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
(2)
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC. Consists of: existing traffic; growth in ambient/ background traffic; and other major developments either planned or currently under way.
(3)
PROJECT TRAFFIC. Includes existing and new traffic generated by the specific project under review.
(4)
TOTAL TRAFFIC. Includes background traffic and project traffic.
(5)
LINK. The roadway between two intersections.
(6)
INTERSECTION. The junction of two or more roadways.
(7)
SIGNIFICANCE. A comparative test of the effect of a project's traffic to the facility's capacity at LOC "C".
(8)
ADVERSITY. A comparative test of the total traffic projected in a project for a roadway link or intersection to the appropriate service volume for analysis.
(9)
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT). Represents the average of quarterly traffic counts performed throughout the year.
(10)
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC. Represents the portion of daily traffic which utilizes the roadway during times of peak travel.
(11)
PRIMARY IMPACT AREA. That area established by the city staff as representing the roadway system potentially receiving significant impacts by the project.
(12)
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD). That portion of a highly urbanized area where the predominant land use is intense business activity. Characterized by high density development, large numbers of pedestrians, commercial vehicles, loadings of goods and people, a large demand for parking space, and a high degree of turnover in parking.
(13)
FRINGE AREA. The portion of an urbanized area immediately outside the CBD. Exhibits a wide range of business activities (small businesses, light industry, warehousing, automobile service centers and intermediate strip development, with some concentrated residential areas). Traffic in these areas generally involves trips that do not have an origin or destination within the area. There is less pedestrian traffic and lower parking turnover than in CBD. However, large parking areas serving the CBD might be present.
(14)
RESIDENTIAL AREA. An area within the urbanized area in which the predominant land use is residential development (small businesses may be present). Characterized by a few pedestrians and low parking turnover.
(15)
OUTLYING BUSINESS DISTRICT. An area within the influence of an urbanized area that is normally separated by some distance from the CBD and its fringe area, but that has the intense activity characteristic of a central area. The principal land use is business, and there may be heavy traffic or through movements, causing vehicles to operate at lower speeds than in fringe areas. Also characterized by large demand for parking and high turnover and moderate pedestrian traffic. This category does not include off-street shopping on one side of a street only. Moderate to heavy strip development on both sides of a street shall be considered as outlying business district areas.
(16)
RURAL. A sparsely developed area within the influence of an urbanized area in which the predominant land use is other than those described in the four preceding categories.
(D) Minimum level of service standards. Prior to determining significance and adversity of a DRI's traffic to the roadway system, the city staff in cooperation with the developer shall establish an acceptable LOS for the primary impact area. The following guidelines shall be used to establish the accepted level of service for peak hours based upon the type of roadway condition as defined below:
Type of Roadway Condition | Peak Hour LOS |
CBD
|
D
|
Arterial
|
D
|
Collectors
|
D
|
Local road
|
C
|
The type of roadway condition determination shall be based upon existing development patterns for the area under study.
(E) Definition of a significant roadway. A roadway shall be considered
SIGNIFICANT if it is:
(1) A state road;
(2) An intercounty road that is not a state road;
(3) A road that leads to a regional activity center; or
(4) A road linking two or more state roads and that carries a significant amount of background and project traffic.
(F) Test for significance. Roadway facilities which meet the condition as defined in (E) above shall be examined for significance of traffic impacts. If the peak hour traffic generation of the Applicant's Development meets or exceed 10% of the capacity of service Level "C" for a particular facility, regardless of the acceptable LOS as specified above, then an impact shall be considered significant.
(G) Test for adversity. Roadway facilities which meet the Test for Significance in (F) above shall be examined for adversity of the traffic impacts. If the projected total (background and project) peak hour volume exceeds the maximum service volume for the agreed-upon conditions, then a regionally significant impact shall be considered adverse.
(H) Determination of mitigation improvements. If a project causes significant and adverse traffic impacts, then economic commitments and/or improvements shall be considered necessary to mitigate these impacts. An evaluation shall be performed to determine how these significant and adverse traffic impacts are to be met. The following principles shall apply in formulating final recommendations relative to traffic impacts:
(1) Where service levels are below the permitted LOS for a particular facility, and it is determined that a significant portion (as defined above) of that traffic is attributable to the project, then the developer may not proceed with the development unless mitigative measures/ improvements are identified which would provide an acceptable service level at the peak hour or which would result in the project's share of the traffic decreasing below 10% of the Service Level "C" capacity as defined in (F) above, and funding commitments for such measures/improvements are secured and committed to occur within the next phase of development. However, before the final phase, the applicant must also demonstrate that the construction of that phase will not adversely affect service levels (as defined above), or demonstrate that the necessary improvements to accommodate the final phase are funded and scheduled to occur during the final phase. Otherwise, the final phase should not occur.
(2) If an adequate improvement is scheduled to occur in the most currently adopted Capital Improvement Program/ Transportation Improvement Program (CIP/TIP), then such improvement will be acceptable as a mitigative procedure. Other written commitments by the developer that will be considered by the city toward the mitigation of the project's impacts will include the following:
(a) Developer-built roadway improvements;
(b) Voluntary impact fee contributions;
(c) Countywide/Citywide Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) or impact fee ordinance;
(d) Transportation System Management (TSM) measures; and
(e) Interlocal agreements.
If funds derived through impact fees, MSTU payments or interlocal agreements are not sufficient to cover the cost of needed improvements as described in (H)(1) above, or if those needed improvements are not completed in a timely fashion as required in (H)(1) above, no waiver of the stated minimum LOS shall be allowed.
(I) Monitoring guidelines. Monitoring of projected impacts may be stipulated within the recommendations when any of the following conditions are evidenced:
(1) If the project under construction consists of a development program exceeding ten years in duration.
(2) If the area surrounding the proposed project is experiencing rapid development.
(3) If basic assumptions change due to the addition or deletion of roadways contrary to those presumed in the study.
(4) If service levels in the area are inadequate on existing roadways and no major improvements are anticipated.
(J) Alternate methods of evaluation. The city reserves the option to evaluate mitigation measures necessitated by project impacts utilizing recommendations other than those described above. The itemizing of specific improvements that in the judgment of the city would adequately ameliorate project impacts, may be recommended as an alternative to the LOS recommendations set forth in division (H)(1) and (H)(2) above.
(K) Costs of review of traffic impact analysis and review of mitigation measures. Any applicant whose application shall include a traffic impact analysis and presentation of mitigation measures as a part of the review and approval process shall pay such costs as the city shall incur or the review of the applicant's traffic impact analysis and if required, review of the applicant's proposed mitigation measures. Costs shall include but not be limited to the actual costs to the city for services of outside consultants including but not limited to professional engineers, traffic engineers, urban planners and the actual costs by time of city staff and/or contract employees utilized in the actual review.
(Res. 343, passed 12-21-89)