Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Traffic Impact Regs: Dazed and Confused?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A centerpiece of the Kaine administration’s transportation policy is a 2006 law that requires major rezoning projects in Virginia to undergo traffic impact analysis. The goal is to ensure that local government officials understand the level of traffic that proposed developments will dump onto local and regional road networks before granting approval.

The idea is a simple one, but, as always, the execution is easier than it looks. Assistant Secretary of Transportation Jimmy Carr oversaw the drafting of regulations late last year, and now the Virginia Department of Transportation is holding a series of workshops around the state to make sure all the stakeholders — VDOT staff, local government officials, land developers — all understand the regulations. So far, so good.

But problems are emerging, I hear from one of my correspondents, who attended a VDOT session in Chester yesterday.

On the positive side, he said, the session was well attended, and the presentation covered all major topics. People are encouraged by VDOT’s proactive outreach. And attendees received free highlighters and calculators!

On the problematic side, my source said, many questions went unanswered. For example, who is covered by the “527 regulations,” as the regulations are called? Attendees could not get clear answers. Concludes my correspondent: “Following this latest training seminar, consultants are crazy if they don’t assume every potential development will meet the 527 regs.”

Intructors frequently brushed aside hypothetical questions with a we-don’t-think-we’ll-see-that-situation-very-often, so-we’ll-just-deal-with-that-on-a-case-by-case basis response. My source’s concern: “Hear me now and believe me later, EVERY case will become a ‘case-by-case basis’”.

And a final point: Mixed use developments are becoming increasingly prevalent in Virginia, driven by the conviction that they generate far less traffic on critical collector roads and arteries than traditional development does. Says my source: “The regs — though recently updated — include outdated methodologies that will particularly impact mixed use.” He’s concerned that the impact studies will overstate the traffic impact of many mixed use projects, thus discourage use of a beneficial land use strategy.

I have no idea whether this kind of feedback filters back up to senior Kaine administration officials, or whether the top dogs get told everything is just hunky dory. But the Kainiacs cannot afford to see this signature initiative flounder. Someone needs to ride herd on the training-and-outreach process to make sure the initiative doesn’t plunge the development sector into a state of confusion.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

7 responses to “Traffic Impact Regs: Dazed and Confused?”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    naaahhh… there are LOTS of well-qualified traffic planning and engineering consultants who know the content of these workshops – soup to nuts.

    this is not rocket science for most rezones unless we are talking about mega-rezones or Comp Plan changes like we saw with Loudoun last year and even then – there are companies with the capabilities required to properly anlayze.

    There are well-known and well and long-used industry protocols for traffic analysis and generation for individual – even major projects.

    The usual problem in Va is a local BOS and/or planning department that:

    1. – does not see the need – (aka turnip truck land…)

    2. – does not really want to know and wants the growth no matter what – (aka stupidland or crookedland)

    3. – is more than willing to unquestionaingly accept an analysis from a consultant who is paid for by the developer.

    yeah.. sure there are lots of “what if” scenarios.. and perhaps room for different views of potential traffic impacts from sorta-unique proposals , but the locality ALWAYS has the responsibility to perform due diligence and if there are questions/concerns to require a second analysis to confirm the first .. make sure it is an independent one.

    and at the end of the process – if there is still doubt – a responsible BOS will go with the decision that errs on the side of and BENEFITS the taxpayers and not the developer.

    It’s not like a developer is going to go away and the land will never be subsequently developed despite what many of them say .. when they cannot get a sweetheart arrangement.

    Get the best deal you can.. even if it takes the 4th or 5th proposal.

    The bigger problem that is harder to deal with is – local/regional traffic on arterials beyond the immediate vacinity of the proposed development – similiar to what VDOT did last year with Loudoun County.

    Say you have 5 major proposals scattered throughout a region – and the traffic they generate rather than being primarily locally-sourced – is regional or inter-regional in nature.

    Chances are.. very high.. that if these projects are proposed in different jurisdictions that the cumulative traffic impacts to the region will not be analyzed.

    If THIS is what the workshops are about.. then I take back everything I said above. 🙂

  2. Tobias Jodter Avatar
    Tobias Jodter

    You can view some of their handout materials here:

    http://www.dsbava.org/meetingminutes/Traffic%20Impact%20Analysis_VDOT.pdf

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    thanks for sharing the very excellent and informative slides.

    But I fear that VDOT’s day-to-day involvement in the actual review process will be a real loser in the long run.

    What developers and local planners need is a consistent, uniform and reliable process and already VDOT is letting folks know .. that the process will not be very efficient.

    Bad Karma.

    The perception is that often, what VDOT brings to the table, is bureacratic tangles (often of their own making) and delays.. for no apparent reason other than it seems to be their institutional tendancy.

    The fact that an investor is losing money over the delays or a local government is totally hamstrung until VDOT acts does not appear to faze VDOT at all sometimes.

    I agree – that VDOT should implement the regs but the actual analysis work should be done by VDOT-pre-approved consultants – following the established VDOT standards and paid for by entirely by the developer.

    If those regs, standards, etc need to evolve as lessons are learned – then fine.. let them but let’s not turn VDOT into even more of a bureaucratic monster it already is.

    A key question in my mind – is will these regs function the same way whether a locality takes over it’s own roads or not?

    They should. The regs should be at a level that they can be followed – no matter whether VDOT is implementing them or a locality is implementing them.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Bacon & Mr. Gross,

    Why don’t you attend some of the training sessions so you do not have to rely on hearsay testimony of those who have axes to grind. They are free for a less than one day session.

    Also, the regulations are being implemented in phases, with three VDOT Districts beginning on July 1 – Richmond, Salem, and Northern Virginia.

    Third, VDOT and those who developed the regulations have stated repeatedly that it is a work in process, that it is new system, and that it WILL need refinement as it develops.

    Finally, remember who called for these regulations to be developed and in a hurry? The General Assembly.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Mixed use developments are becoming increasingly prevalent in Virginia, driven by the conviction that they generate far less traffic on critical collector roads and arteries than traditional development does. Says my source: “The regs — though recently updated — include outdated methodologies that will particularly impact mixed use.” He’s concerned that the impact studies will overstate the traffic impact of many mixed use projects, thus discourage use of a beneficial land use strategy.”

    It sems to me that this is exactly the problem. Mixed use development is being driven by the conviction that they generate far less traffic…..

    Where is the proof?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly happy if this turns out to be so: but at present I don’t believe there is sufficient proof to support the position.

    “this is not rocket science for most rezones”

    So, if it isn’t rocket science, then why is it so hard to find the proof?

    Now we find, that the regs, based on a long used handbook, are suddenly suspect — for fear that the studies won’t agree with our preconcieved notions.

    We are concerned that the impact studies will overstate the traffic impact of many mixed use projects, thus discourage use of a beneficial land use strategy.

    But how do we know if the impacts are overstated (or not, or understated) without impartial studies?

    What we are doing is, frankly, insane.

    We are making policy which has, as an underfooting, no basis whatsoever. And the policy has, as a goal, meeting requirements which are constantly shifting.

    Talk about pouring money down the drain.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Chances are.. very high.. that if these projects are proposed in different jurisdictions that the cumulative traffic impacts to the region will not be analyzed.”

    Larry makes a good point here.

    Then he goes onto destroy it by asking “will these regs function the same way whether a locality takes over it’s own roads or not?”

    We need to be careful here. It is true that there are regional impacts to cumulative local decision. I suppose that, by extension, you could say ther are national impacts to cumulative regional decision.

    Under those conditions, it would be logical for every developer to expect to need to promote his develoopment to the locals, VDOT, the Regional Government, the State, and ultimately the congress, and all at his own expense.

    How much do you suppose a home will cost then?

    I think, that if you can convince, or bribe, your nearest neighbors, and next nearest neighbors into not opposing your plans, then you should be allowed to do whatever – regardless of what “interested parties” from the other end of the county or state have to say.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “cumulative traffic impacts to the region …a good point here .. destroyed by the idea that regs function the same way whether a locality takes over it’s own roads or not?”

    yup.. I erred…

    It took me the night to see the problem.

    The problem is dual:

    1. – first, JLARC pointed out several years ago just how antiquated and irrelevant VDOT district boundaries are – which, in turn, determine how they implement policy – like regional impacts of not only proposed roads but land-use.

    2. – second – non-VDOT entities currently recognize metro areas primarily as MSAs upon which the Fed-mandated MPO’s are based.

    One might argue that MSA are not done right either -as EMR does – but there is no question that they are more appropriate for planning purposes than VDOT districts.

    (we also need to align the Va Planning Districts similarily I belive)

    I’m not opposed to the concept of VDOT districts – per se – but in areas that are recognized MSAs and have MPOs – the obvious question is WHO should be reviewing locality plans that have Regional impacts?

    That’s the problem.

    The GA tasked VDOT to do a job – that they are not corporately organized to deal with – effectively and it’s not like the issue has not been brought up before – by none other than JLARC.

    so.. VDOT plods along… and while anon 6:46 suggests attendance at the workshops – I would point out and suggest that as far as I know – VDOT did not notify the public nor invite them – to read and comment, much less attend.

    If the answer to JLARC – on something as important as the district boundary issue is .. essentially silence .. why would anyone think they’d really want to listen to others?

    VDOT has an institutional history and reputation with regard to feedback – and change.

    Mr. Shucet had an excellent sense of the problem and made heroic efforts to get them on a better track…but I don’t see that effort – continuing….

    anyhow.. if these workshops do not deal with regional impacts and VDOT is not organized to review proposed land-use changes – both Comp Plan and major rezones – in that context – then they might be just as irrelevant as the current district boundaries are.

    This is not rocket science at all.

    The folks as VDOT surely know the disparity between the MPO boundaries and the VDOT boundaries and from a corporate perspective should have responded – on their own – with a moderization intiative to the GA – and they .. as far as I know – have not.

Leave a Reply

Read More