|
|
|
Columbus' Traffic Standards Code--The Ultimate "Fair Share" Proposal |
. |
|
Deneen M. DeRodes, AICP, Beth Clark, Stephen R. McClary
|
Author Info |
Columbus grew from 134 square miles in 1950 to 193 square miles in 1969 and reached 211 square miles in mid-1997. Columbus is a city that benefitted enormously from an aggressive growth policy initiated in the 1950s. It is also a city that, in the 1980s began to suffer the growing pains associated with that same territorial expansion.
The city's love affair with growth coupled an aggressive annexation policy with a sewer and water policy that allowed the suburbs to grow as well. Columbus could continue to expand, the suburbs could continue to expand, and Columbus could control the growth through the regional sewer and water system.
As recently as the late 1980s, it was a written development policy of the city to engage in no long range planning because it reduces the flexibility of the private sector. As the growing pains grew increasingly painful, however, this "growth at any cost" attitude began to change.
Evidence of the problem had mounted.
A prime directive of the planning process for the community was that the comprehensive plan result in mechanisms to better balance the welcome private development and growth with the public infrastructure necessary to serve it. Columbus planners recognized the need. It was only later that Columbus planners would truly recognize the challenge.
As the planning process proceeded, plan drafts included transportation recommendations which featured a balanced system: a thoroughfare plan; policy guidance for public transportation, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities; and--for the first time for Columbus--a level-of-service standard and proposed requirements for developer provision of roadway facilities necessary to maintain the designated level of service upon completion of the development.
The approach taken was to set level-of-service "D" as the minimum standard and to require developers to provide roadway improvements necessary to maintain the standard at the time of development approval. Relevant development approvals were to include rezoning, variance, special permit, subdivision, and building permit. When the final draft was released for public review, controversy ensued. After the Development Commission approved the plan and requested staff to fine-tune some of the language, the "11th hour" people came forward, delaying the plan's City Council adoption for 15 months and causing to be removed from the plan the heart of the traffic standard recommendations.
The fine-tuning process involved countless discussions with opponents of various plan provisions. Some fine-tuning amounted to quibbling over largely meaningless syntax issues. The heart of the fine-tuning process, however, centered on the level-of-service recommendations and endless debates over the "what-ifs." Ultimately, the city's decision was to delete these provisions in order to permit the plan and its other 600+ recommendations to go forward for adoption--thus paving the way for critical development policy to be put into place.
This decision--difficult for the battle-weary staff and unpopular with the community--did, however, open the door to another opportunity to develop important transportation policy. The Columbus Comprehensive Plan would go forward without the level-of-service recommendations, but with companion ordinances calling for and detailing a separate process to develop a level-of-service ordinance which was to consider level-of-service "D" and mandatory developer participation in roadway improvements at the time of all development approvals. All three ordinances were passed by Columbus City Council in December 1993. The stage was set for a three-and-a-half year process which resulted in a precedent-setting traffic standards code for Columbus.
Subsequent to the initial preparation of code language by the working group, the Plan Implementation Program recommended the formation of an advisory committee to provide additional input. The Traffic Standards Advisory Committee included representatives of the development community, the neighborhoods, and other local and regional agencies.
The Plan Implementation Program also included direction on the contents of the Traffic Standards Code. It recommended:
In fact, the working group visited Indianapolis in July 1993 to discuss that city's approach to traffic impact studies, as their program was successful in obtaining roadway infrastructure improvements from developers of major projects. Indianapolis was identified as a likely model for the Columbus code during early research into traffic standards. The working group learned that Indianapolis operated in a slightly different environment than Columbus, however.
In Indianapolis, very little undeveloped land existed with zoning capable of supporting major traffic-generating projects, whereas in Columbus, there was believed to be a significant amount of undeveloped land in potentially high-impact zoning classifications. The Columbus contingent decided to augment the Indianapolis model to account for this difference by proposing that the code apply to building permit applicants in addition to those seeking rezoning.
The inclusion of building permits in the Traffic Standards Code proposal was recognized as necessary in Columbus to create a fair and equitable situation. A major project which required rezoning could have the same impact on the roadway system as a major project for which appropriate zoning was already secured, and in the absence of the traffic standards requirements at the building permit application stage, no improvements would be required of that applicant, leading to an unfair circumstance.
The working group developed an outline of the desired product-a users' guide-that included elements recommended in the Plan Implementation Program. The group then spent several months developing language to produce a draft document for the advisory committee's use. One important outcome of the working group's efforts was the determination of a level-of-service standard for the city. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of delay at intersections, measured in seconds and described in worsening order as levels "A" through "F". Level-of-service "D" characterizes a delay of 25.1 to 40 seconds. While it is not the most desirable level of operation, the working group determined that it was the most realistic standard, representing a steady flow of traffic, for a growing urban area such as Columbus. Additionally, level-of-service "D" is identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as an appropriate operational goal.
From the outset, the development industry sought exceptions to the requirement that level-of-service D be established as a city-wide standard, because the implication was that if a major project caused traffic flow to fall below LOS D, that project would be required to undertake infrastructure improvements to return the roadway's operation to LOS D in order to receive a positive recommendation on the development's rezoning or building permit application. The industry cited the difficulty of determining which parcels would be subject to the requirements of the code, particularly in the case of building permit applicants.
As it was clear that they could debate the entire concept of a traffic standards code on the basis of their objections to its application to building permits, the advisory committee agreed to proceed at first by considering the draft language only as it applied to rezoning and subdivision approvals. Following the achievement of general agreement on the code requirements in these situations, the committee would return to the issue of application of the code to building permits. This decision allowed the work on draft language to progress.
Many of the meetings throughout the first six months involved the application of the draft language to hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the development industry's concerns. With the requirement that LOS D be maintained, their major concern was that the last parcel in an area to develop might be the one to cause the level of service to become unacceptable, although each preceding development had contributed traffic. The list of exceptions--when the requirement to maintain LOS D would not be enforced--grew with each meeting, and each additional exception became more general, so that virtually any project could be exempt from the code's requirements with a clever argument.
One of the initial exceptions drafted by the staff working group was for designated transit corridors. The working group proposed that the level-of-service standard be relaxed to LOS E in corridors where there was a significant transit presence. Transit corridors would be identified by the regional transit agency in cooperation with the city, and the working group expected that these corridors would represent areas where urban density--both built and on the roadways--was acceptable and expected. Unfortunately, the working group had developed this exception while there was discussion of the establishment of a light rail system in Columbus, and in the months between the drafting of the transit corridor exception and the advisory committee's review, light rail became a significantly less likely option for the future. Eventually, this exception was removed from the draft Traffic Standards Code altogether.
Staff was unable to make a successful argument in favor of disapprovals for applicants who failed to ensure the maintenance of LOS D. As a result, the list of exceptions became a point of contention. Because of this issue, as well as several other ongoing policy-related debates, staff suggested that the advisory committee suspend the meeting schedule until guidance could be obtained from the city administration.
In July 1995, the working group met with the directors of the Department of Trade and Development and the Department of Public Service to clarify Administration support for the direction of the code and the eventual application of the code to building permits. At this time, the directors expressed their comfort with the draft Traffic Standards Code and felt that it was necessary to include building permits in the code requirements.
Following this meeting, the working group still had two concepts under consideration: 1) the developer must make improvements that are roughly proportional to the amount of traffic contributed by that project, and 2) at a certain level-LOS D-improvements need to be made that are not necessarily proportional to the developer's contribution to traffic, whereas above LOS D, no improvements are necessary. An attempt was made to resolve these two concepts prior to returning to the advisory committee by suggesting that every developer address the impacts of her own project by returning the roadway's level of service to that which existed prior to that development.
After several meetings, the working group was still wrestling with the issues put to the two department directors only two months earlier, so another meeting was held with them. The group asked the directors how they would have the code handle development on roads currently operating below LOS D, the proposed standard. The options were to deny development approvals for the project or to approve them if the developer accommodated the traffic generated by the project. The directors opted for adherence to the existing informal approach, which stipulated that if a road was operating below LOS D, the traffic from the project must not worsen the level of service.
Another important aspect of this meeting was the shift from enforcing LOS D as a standard. Instead, it was agreed upon as a goal, which was consistent with the approach used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This move was also seen as a tactical one which might allow the city to persuade the development industry to accede to the inclusion of building permits in the list of development approvals impacted by the code.
With this shift in direction on the part of the city, the advisory committee was reconvened after a three-month hiatus. At this meeting, staff distributed a revised draft of the Users' Guide reflecting the changes proposed over the break. Among the changes was the removal of all exceptions in favor of language that the city may relax requirements if the necessary improvements are not in the best interests of the city due to physical or environmental limitations or if the city chooses to finance the improvements.
The working group also proposed that language in the draft code be adjusted to include more projects by altering when a project would fall under the requirements of the code. This was considered as a way to make up for the loss of the LOS D standard, however after internal discussions in the Division of Traffic Engineering and Parking--the agency with primary responsibility for reviewing traffic impact studies--that suggestion was discarded.
With the agreement of the advisory committee though, language was added to allow the city to request a traffic impact study for projects that otherwise would not fall under the requirements of the code. This option would be exercised when unusual circumstances specific to a project warranted the completion of a traffic impact study in the professional judgment of the city's engineers. This provision is consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers' guidance manual.
After a few more months of minor revisions, the advisory committee was satisfied with the product--the Users' Guide--as it related to rezoning and subdivision approvals. In January 1996, almost a year and a half after the advisory committee's first meeting, it was time to return to discussion of whether building permits should be included in those development approvals impacted by the Traffic Standards Code.
Again, the advisory committee tackled a tough problem by breaking it down and dealing with its parts. In this case, the committee suggested that a decision be made whether to require building permit applicants to complete a traffic impact study. The other part of the issue was to decide if the code should require building permit applicants to complete roadway improvements.
Generally, the committee members agreed that requiring a traffic impact study was acceptable, since most developers want to be sure that their customers can reach the new development. In many cases, then, they would complete a study for their own purposes, so for the city to require one would not be a burden. For the city to require improvements based on the outcome of the traffic impact study, on the other hand, was still creating opposition.
The committee considered several approaches meant to quell the concerns of the development industry that requiring the expense of roadway improvements late in the project--at the building permit stage--would cause undue hardship. One suggestion was to grandfather building permit applicants into the code to avoid unforeseen expenses late in a current or pending project. This gave rise to questions of how to alert landowners who might be impacted by the new code.
The city could describe the need for building permit applicants to be included in the provisions of the code on the basis of fairness to rezoning applicants, but since it was unable to identify the amount and location of undeveloped land with zoning that would allow for a land use that would likely require a traffic impact study, it could not demonstrate that need. And since the city could not identify the potentially-impacted parcels, it could not demonstrate that it had a way to notify owners of such land of the new requirements. Given these shortcomings, the development representatives on the advisory committee continued their opposition to the requirement that building permit applicants be required to complete roadway improvements.
The city and the advisory committee had reached an impasse. In an attempt to gauge the general community's support for the inclusion of building permits in the requirements of the Traffic Standards Code, a public meeting was held in July 1996. The purpose of the meeting was to collect input on the proposed Traffic Standards Code that might assist the committee in breaking the deadlock over the building permit issue.
The public meeting was heavily attended by representatives of the development industry, while attendance by members of the general public was sparse. The overwhelming message delivered at the public meeting was that the development community was opposed to the inclusion of building permits in the code, because the building permit stage is too late in the development process to require additional studies and to introduce new expenses.
Given the response at the public meeting, the advisory committee approved a motion with only one dissenting vote to limit the code to rezoning, zoning variance, special permit, and preliminary subdivision plat approvals. In the absence of an acceptable notification procedure, the committee decided that building permit applicants should not even be required to complete traffic impact studies. A motion to approve the draft Users' Guide with the changes to remove the building permit language passed unanimously.
The following month, two years after its initial meeting, the advisory committee reviewed the legislative language that accompanied the Users' Guide and accepted it. Similarly, the Traffic Standards Code was recommended for approval by the Columbus Development Commission in November 1996 and was adopted by City Council in February 1997. Subsequently, the Users' Guide was jointly promulgated as rules and regulations by the Directors of Trade and Development and Public Service. The rules and regulations are referred to in the ordinance.
The first is for land uses that generate more than 400 pass-by trips during the peak hour of the roadway or the peak hour of the use, whichever is greater in the horizon year. This category generally includes fast food restaurants, service stations, supermarkets, convenience markets, and shopping centers. The second category includes land uses that are primarily destinations, or basically all other land uses. These land uses require a traffic impact study if they generate more than 200 trips during the same peak hours. Both peak hours are measured in a horizon year, which is defined as project build-out or ten years in the future, whichever is later.
And, as discussed above, non-major developments can be required to complete a traffic impact study if circumstances specific to the project warrant. This decision is made by the city's traffic engineers, and the request must be made within 30 days of the receipt of a development application by the Division of Traffic Engineering and Parking.
The traffic impact study is prepared in accordance with the terms described in the MOU and submitted to the city for review by members of the Department of Public Service and the Department of Trade and Development within the established time frame. If changes are necessary in the study, the city returns it to the applicant for modification. However, if no changes are required and the city accepts the traffic impact study, the city may engage in negotiations with the applicant about the recommended roadway improvements and identify those improvements the applicant will actually undertake. Following a successful negotiation, staff recommends the approval of the development application based on traffic issues.
In addition to detailing the study preparation process, the Traffic Standards Code also assigns responsibilities to both the study preparer and the city review team. Along with assignment of responsibilities, the code also requires that the preparer be a professional with training and experience in traffic engineering and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer with similar training.
Once a traffic impact study has been completed for a piece of property, no other traffic study will be required unless development plans change significantly between the time that one development approval is granted and another is sought.
Importance of the Users' Guide The Users' Guide is a relatively non-technical handbook to inform citizens, engineers, consultants, developers, and city staff about the Traffic Standards Code. It provides consistency in the request process, the preparation process, and the review of traffic impact studies. Additionally, it serves to promote increased understanding of traffic impact issues among those involved in the development process.
The major shift in the direction of the code--from the possibility of denying development applications that failed to make required roadway improvements to advocating a level of service goal and requiring proportional contributions--might have been avoided. Had staff been more prescient, we could have anticipated what we needed to do to fully brief the two department directors. Had each director been fully aware of the impacts of the initial proposal, and the likely opposition, staff might have been advised prior to presenting the initial draft to the advisory committee of the approach desired by the city administration. And, had the approach been the same, staff might have stood on more firm ground during policy debates. However, the difficult nature of the debates inherent to discussion of a traffic standards code is evidenced by the need for multiple meetings with department leadership. It is likely that similar meetings may have occurred even with more complete groundwork at the beginning of the process.
The process itself was tremendously dominated by development interests. Two citizens sat on the advisory committee, with two alternates for their seats, but they were often outvoted by the preponderance of developers and real estate attorneys. The city's attempt to hear from the community and bolster support for the inclusion of building permits in the code requirements was the public hearing, which did not meet that goal. In the final analysis, staff concluded that the issues attendant to traffic standards are more technical and long-term than those which typically interest the general public.
In conclusion, the Traffic Standards Code is a useful tool for the management of infrastructure improvements. It does not remove the burden for upkeep of the transportation system from the city, but it does free capital funds that the city previously had to commit to keep pace with traffic problems caused by development. This will allow the city to concentrate capital funds on necessary projects in the central city, as opposed to those dollars being drawn to the newly-developing areas. What was once a voluntary process which resulted in some, but not all, projects contributing to roadway improvements has become a legislated system of fairly acquiring each developer's proportional share of the improvements necessary to allow Columbus to continue to grow without the traffic snarls of the past.
The Traffic Standards Code raises the bar on the type and amount of information given to the city about the condition of its roads and improvements which may be necessary to serve development. As the base of information grows with each additional study, the city will be able to gain a comprehensive look at the true impacts of development on its roadways, and with the Traffic Standards Code in place, those impacts will no longer be completely financed by the city.
Deneen M. DeRodes, AICP, Long Range Planner
Beth Clark, Long Range Planning Manager
Stephen R. McClary, Planning Administrator
City of Columbus Planning Office