DelDOT Traffic Study Regulation Changes Face Public Scrutiny

Traffic congestion and concurrency law is the last stand against By-Right land use system forcing development into areas where it doesn't fit. DelDOT is taking a stand that traffic impact analysis is purely political and should not exist (SEE Adam Taylor story below)


Amendment to Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access (Based upon comments received) Comments and Responses - 11/15/12 

RE: DelDOT's Changes to Traffic Study Regulations - 
Submission by New Castle County Civic Umbrella Associations

December 31, 2012

Delaware Department of Transportation

PO Box 778

Dover, DE 19903

Re: Public Comment – Dec 14 Draft Amendment to Traffic Study Regulations

This past October, individual citizens, major civic organizations, and area legislators expressed their concerns about DelDOT’s proposed Amendment to the Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access.  On December 14, DelDOT issued a 2^nd draft of the proposed Traffic Study Regulations, and we were surprised and disappointed to read the new proposal.  After a lengthy public comment period, ostensibly designed to seek/incorporate upgrades to a 1^st draft offering inadequate protection to local communities, we see that DelDOT has both rejected important suggestions to protect the public interest while adding new language to further weaken current/proposed regulations. Our comments on this latest draft are detailed below.

Important Suggestions Rejected

1. Legal Authority. DelDOT failed to address the longstanding issue of “hot potato”, where DelDOT and the County each point to the other on responsibility for transportation infrastructure. Our reading of the law is that the State’s roads are fundamentally the responsibility of DelDOT. The below text, added by DelDOT in the latest draft, perhaps best illustrates the gulf between the public’s expectations and DelDOT’s perspective.  In the preamble discussing the purpose of Traffic Impact Studies, DelDOT has added these words “DIRECT REQUIREMENTS BY DELDOT TYPICALLY ARE LIMITED TO THE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS” (Sec 2.1).

2. Infrastructure Funding. DelDOT made no changes to the flawed infrastructure funding program whereby developers pay an assessment to DelDOT and are then free to proceed with development. This sets up a situation where developers can pay pennies on the dollar for improvements, the improvements never get made, and the public is left with a traffic nightmare that the taxpayer ends up eventually funding out of our own pockets.  There needs to be DIRECT LINKAGE – needed improvements are identified up front, and developers make (and pay for) the required upgrades CONCURRENT with the build-out of their project.  If this occurs within a TID, DelDOT can apportion the work across the responsible parties, but the developers fund and implement the work as a condition of occupancy.  This is the only way to protect the public.

3. Regional Impact. DelDOT failed to address developments with regional impact to the transportation system. The proposed "3rd road out limitation" specifically prevents this type of analysis and needs to be changed (Sec 2.5.2.2).  Some states such as Florida have a square footage threshold for major land developments that have regional impact.

4. Public Engagement/TIDs.  DelDOT’s responses to specific questions posed by the public continue to indicate their concerns regarding public involvement.  This is particularly significant given DelDOT’s push to broadly implement Transportation Improvement Districts with their long time horizons, complexity and limited role for the public.  As one citizen noted, TIDs may have the effect of further reducing public engagement in an environment where it’s already judged to be insufficient. 

New Language to Further Weaken Current/Proposed Regulations

We believe that traffic study regulations are needed that balance the interests of all stakeholders, supporting needed growth while preserving the character of our communities.  We strongly object to the following new language incorporated in the latest draft.  

1. Non-Residential Rezonings. The latest draft adds a clause that non-residential rezonings without a specific associated development plan should be CONSIDERED WITHOUT A TIS at all, and that the need for a TIS be evaluated when the development proposal is defined (Sec 2.3.1).  This is unacceptable to the community.

2. Existing Conditions. The latest draft REMOVED LANGUAGE that DelDOT will recommend a TIS if development is proposed for a non-rural area where existing conditions are currently below LOS D (Sec 2.3.1).  Again, this is unacceptable.

3. Calculation Methods. The latest draft curiously modified several calculation methods which appear to FURTHER WEAKEN CURRENT/PROPOSED REGULATIONS, and are unacceptable.

-Default Contribution Formula.  For situations in which a TID exists and no formula for developer contributions has been defined, the default formula for contributions is now proposed to be based on % of total traffic vs % of increased traffic, A MAJOR CHANGE (Sec 2.3.4).  To illustrate, lets examine a roadway with, say, 6,000 vehicles of peak hour traffic.  A development is proposed that adds 3,000 vehicles of peak hour traffic.  With no other nearby new developments underway, logic would require that 100% of needed road upgrades be funded by the developer creating the impact (using the % of increased traffic method).  DelDOT, however, is now proposing to use a % of total traffic method.  Under this calculation, the developer would only be required to fund 33% (3,000/9,000) of needed road upgrades, with the REMAINING 67% SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAXPAYER.

-Queuing Analysis Standard.  A Queuing Analysis is utilized to determine whether existing and proposed left hand turn lanes near developments are adequate. Current regulations specify that 98% of expected queues be accommodated at signalized intersections. DelDOT’s latest draft proposes toRELAX THIS TO 95% with the reasoning that it’s “consistent with our current practice”. In our view, the fact that DelDOT may not have followed established rules is no justification to relax existing requirements. This logic, carried forward, creates a host of unintended consequences. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment for the record and reiterate our offer to meet with you to develop a balanced approach that represents the interests of both the development community and the public.

Respectfully submitted,

Save Our County, Inc

     Joseph C. Kelly, Esq.

     Walter P. McEvilly, Jr., Esq.

     Tom Dewson

Chuck Mulholland, President-Civic League for New Castle County & Southern New Castle County Alliance

Fran Swift, President-Greater Hockessin Area Development Association

Bill Dunn, President-Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance

From the News Journal's December 20th story ~

Tom Dewson, a member of the Save Our County Coalition that is suing New Castle County for rezoning Barley Mill without sufficient traffic data, said DelDOT should have incorporated more of the public’s comments.

Dewson’s concerns include potential shortcomings of the proposed Transportation Improvement Districts and how developers will pay for road improvements. “On first read, DelDOT appears to have rejected important suggestions intended to protect the public interest while adding new language to further benefit the development community,” he said. “Citizens should be very concerned.”

Minor changes were made in response to public hearings held in each county and to written comments from the public include changing the word “may” to “shall” in one section and “must” to “may” in other. Those modifications were designed to address concerns by builders and residents alike that DelDOT was overreaching in the proposed reforms.

........New Castle County has a redevelopment program that is controversial because it allows developers to skip traffic-impact studies in exchange for building in already developed areas, rather than on farmland. That would be curtailed somewhat by the proposed changes, but not entirely, because not all areas will be within a Transportation Improvement District, acting Land Use General Manager David Culver said.

........Better land-use strategies by all three counties that don't rely on state traffic regulations as a primary way to derail major development projects. “Community activists and legislators have sought to use DelDOT’s traffic regulations as a last-ditch attempt to block a project, which is essentially a political goal,” [DelDOT's Goeff] Sundstrom said. “We think this new approach will better allow members of the community and developers to work with county officials to come up with reasonable land-use decisions.”

........DelDOT Planning Coordinator Bill Brokenbrough agreed. “You shouldn’t base your land-use planning on the outcome of a traffic-impact study,” he said. “The larger question of what you want your neighborhood to look like as it grows ought to be looked at in a more holistic manner. We hope these new regulations foster that kind of a dialogue.”........Brokenbrough said it will likely take six months to set the boundaries for the new districts, then at least two years to conduct traffic-impact studies for all of them.