Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026001 TIA+ ReviewPage 1 of 6 TIA+ A more robust traffic impact analysis Overview The City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board (SSPB) and Office of Planning and Economic Development (OPED) are contemplating ways to modify the City’s traffic impact analysis (TIA)1 procedures. At present, certain developments are required by the SSPB to prepare a TIA. Almost invariably, TIAs submitted by applicants demonstrate no significant impact, relieving the applicant of responsibility for any changes (improvements) to the roadway system. This document proposes more efficient and cost-effective procedures that are aligned with best practices, identify design features, and advance City goals. The first three sections provide information and context on TIAs and procedures. The last section proposes a set of criteria for future TIAs. Should the Board approve this document, OPED will craft procedures and submission requirements for projects going forward. This effort to alter the City’s traffic impact requirements rose out of discussions amongst the SSPB, the City’s Complete Streets Advisory Board (CSAB), and OPED staff. This document was prepared by SSPB Member Michael King, RA, and Board Chair Mark Pingel. It was peer reviewed by five industry professionals: Peter Faith, PE, of the CSAB; Rick Chellman, PE, Chair of the Portsmouth, NH Planning Board; Anthony Russo, Principal Transportation Planner, SLR Consulting; David Fields, FAICP, former Chief Transportation Planner of the City of Houston; and Eric Dumbaugh, PhD, Professor, Florida Atlantic University. It was reviewed by SSPB Legal Counsel Leah Everhart, Esq. Background Evaluating traffic impacts is similar to evaluating impacts to other infrastructure, such as the sanitary sewer or electrical grid. The underlying premise is that new developments should not overtax the existing system, or contribute to expanding it. To use an analogy, data centers have high demands for electricity and cooling water, which may overtax the existing systems. It is common to require conservation techniques (low flow toilets, water meters, off-peak electrical use) to manage impacts. Requirements for TIAs and thresholds thereof are within the purview of local Planning Boards. Not only do TIAs help them during their consideration of land use applications, but also in their analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may result from proposed development when exercising their obligations pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).2 Current practice typically only addresses the motor vehicle portion of the “impact” associated with a particular project. DEC’s Short Environmental Assessment Form Workbook offers the following, non-regulatory guidance: “…a project generating fewer than 100 peak hour vehicle 1 A TIA may also be known as a Traffic Impact Assessment or a Traffic Impact Studies (TIS). The terms are used interchangeably. 2 https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr. TIA plus 20260827.docx Page 2 of 6 trips per day will not result in any significant increases in traffic.”3 Various jurisdictions use other thresholds or combine them with other factors. Neighboring communities of Clifton Park and Wilton have reformed their TIA process in recent years. While they still require TIAs, they have added an impact fee to their application process. Clifton Park uses a fee based on development square footage ($0.6875/ sq ft). Wilton previously calculated a traffic fee based on square footage. Now they have a list of projects and the fee they collect toward a particular project is based on AM/PM peaks trips. Impact fees are routinely used elsewhere.4 For example, Burlington, VT charges $1213.83 per new PM peak hour vehicle trip.5 Reforming TIA procedures Many jurisdictions now require a multimodal approach that examines the existing and proposed impacts to walking and bicycling as well as to motor vehicle travel. In addition and where applicable, transit trips are also typically included in current studies. This current practice is demonstrated, in part, by publications of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). One of those is the Traffic Impact Study “Shell” or template that NYSDOT has published since at least 2014. While otherwise comprehensive, this template does not contain the word “walking” and both “pedestrian” and “bicycle” are only included where they are required to be noted if involved in a motor vehicle crash.6 The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has recognized this deficiency and has studied the idea of a more multimodal TIA process in recent years. In 2023, the ITE published it Recommended Practice document “Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis for Site Development (MTIASD) - an ITE Recommended Practice” which contains general guidance for an expanded TIA process.7 The usefulness of the Level of Service (LOS) metric8 traditionally employed in most TIAs has been called into question and is being reformed/replaced throughout the industry.9 Jurisdictions are shifting from LOS to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is seen as more reflective of induced travel/traffic.10 The traditional TIA process generally contributes to what is known as induced traffic or demand.11 For example, Project A sits on a Road B. The project is expected to generate X 3 https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr/eaf-workbooks/part-1-project- information/q8-traffic-transportation. 4 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/development_impact_fees.aspx, https://www.cutr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Evaluation-of-the-Mobility-Fee-Concept- CUTR-Webcast-04.21.11.pdf. 5 https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/728/Impact-Fees. 6 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation- systems/repository/Typical%20TIS%20requirements%20033115.pdf. 7 https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/transportation-planning/multimodal- transportation-impact-analysis-for-site-development-mtia/. 8 https://vtpi.org/tdm/tdm129.htm. 9 https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/level-service-case-studies, https://t4america.org/resource/community-connectors/what-they-mean/level-of-service/, https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/135966-vehicle-miles-travelled-level-service-and-soon-be- insolvent-transportation-trust-fund, 10 https://www.vtpi.org/ITEJ_VMT_as_a_Metric_July2024.pdf. 11 https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/induced_traffic_and_induced_demand_lee.pdf. TIA plus 20260827.docx Page 3 of 6 number of trips. The roadway capacity is Y. If X causes the capacity to exceed Y, then an “improvement” is required, i.e. a lane is to be added. Paradoxically, as the additional lane makes it easier for cars to travel, this mitigation measure tends to exacerbate the issue as larger roads tend to encourage or induce more traffic. While the impact of any one development might indeed be small, each contributes to the overall cumulative impact of development. One of the shortcomings of individual TIAs is that they tend to result in a “last one in, pays” result in which the most recent development becomes responsible for the total cost of improvements, while only responsible for a portion of the impacts necessitating the improvements. Changes to the roadway system should be evaluated and implement on a holistic network level. This is best performed by the City, not individual applicants.12 Applicants should be required to contribute to their portion of any impact and mitigation, but the full cost of development should not be their burden alone. TIAs and Saratoga Springs The current TIA process does not align well with Saratoga Springs’s vision of a more compact, dense, walkable, multi-modal future. TIAs are generally concerned with delay to drivers at intersections, with little attention paid to other aspects of “traffic” in town, including walking, cycling, public transport, street/path connectivity, intersection crossing length, etc. The TIS prepared for the 25 New Street application is typical.13 There is scant mention of walking or cycling. No mention is made of the 450 bus on Ballston Avenue. There is no discussion of connectivity to Aletta Street or Railroad Run, both adjacent to the site. The TIS prepared for the Matrix project on South Broadway is another example.14 Its primary focus appears to be arguing against a traffic signal at the development or making any road improvements at the applicant’s expense. It addresses only vehicle level of service on intersections 2000 feet from the site, but does not mention crossing the street to Spa Park. In fact, the adjacent Spa Park is not mentioned at all. It claims safety is not an issue because the historic crash rate on South Broadway is below the threshold; yet the prevailing speed of 57 mph is usually fatal for people walking or cycling. There was a recent fatality on or near this route. There is no discussion of shared parking, intra-site trips, efforts to manage traffic, walking to town, nor anything about cycling. The roadway network in many parts of Saratoga Springs can be described as “full”. Broadway downtown will never be widened, nor turn lanes added. The homes lining Lake Avenue will not be moved back 10 feet to accommodate another lane. West Avenue will remain three lanes for the foreseeable future. In this sense, TIAs are unnecessary as the reality is that the mitigations or improvements that TIAs generally point to – adding road capacity – cannot occur in many areas of Saratoga Springs. TIAs typically predict vehicle trips. This can be a moving target, as it is in the interest of the applicant to minimize the impact of new trips. In that parking is a rough proxy for trips, a more accurate and useful approach may be to calculate the number of net new parking spaces on a site/building plan. This is consistent with Saratoga Springs’s Comprehensive Plan.15 12 https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm76.htm#_Toc252264028. 13 TIS prepared April 23, 2024, revised November 5, 2024. 14 TIS prepared November 22, 2025. 15 https://www.saratogaspringsny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3928/2015-Comprehensive-Plan, pages 37-38. TIA plus 20260827.docx Page 4 of 6 Lastly, TIAs do not typically explore alternate or non-traditional solutions to increased traffic such as shared driveways, sidewalk and path connections, shared parking, inter-parcel connections, etc. TIA plus 20260827.docx Page 5 of 6 Criteria for TIAs The SSPB requires the following from applicants to analyze traffic impacts and other transportation/mobility related issues. These will form the basis for a set of application requirements that will be created by OPED. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to provide justification for any item that they assess as not applicable to their TIA submittal and that they do not include. 1. Study area map 1.1. A study area map with streets, number of travel and turn lanes, sidewalks, bus stops, bus shelters, bike lanes, multi/shared-use paths, trails, crosswalks, and other elements of the transportation network. 1.2. The study area is to include all transportation facilities (streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, bus stops, etc.) within one-quarter mile of the site perimeter, and select facilities (as determined by OPED) within one-half mile of the site perimeter. 2. City plans 2.1. A narrative describing how the proposed project will advance goals and specific recommendations found in City plans (Comprehensive, Missing Sidewalk Links, Open Space, Complete Streets, Greenbelt Trail, etc.).16 3. Parking and trips 3.1. The number of net new parking spaces: number of new parking spaces proposed minus the number of existing spaces to be retained. Applicants are encouraged to minimize the number of spaces using applicable exemptions (sharing, on-street, land bank) found in UDO Section 10.6.17 3.2. The number of net new (subtract existing from total) motor vehicle (MV) trips using best current practices: the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model,18 the Institute of Transportation Professionals’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,19 or a more local source (for example internal research). Applicants are encouraged to offer strategies to minimize new external, peak-hour MV trips via transportation demand management (TDM).20 3.3. The number of net new walking and cycling trips.21 Applicants are encouraged to evaluate walking and cycling facilities in the study area and propose improvements (paths, crosswalks, sidewalks) to encourage walking and cycling trips. 3.4. Existing and proposed travel times (walking, cycling, driving, transit) between the project site and destinations within the city (City Hall, library, local school, dog run, nearest 16 https://www.saratogaspringsny.gov/2410/Sustainability-and-Resiliency. 17 https://www.saratoga-springs.org/DocumentCenter/View/17791/A10---Parking-2024. 18 https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/mixed-use-trip-generation-model. 19 https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation-v2/trip- generation-info/. 20 https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/index.php. 21 https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/countingestimating.php. TIA plus 20260827.docx Page 6 of 6 grocery store, nearest park, etc.). These can be calculated using readily available navigation apps. 4. Traffic safety 4.1. A summary of recommendations found in relevant safety analyses produced within the past five years. 4.2. Speed data for select streets, specifically maximum and 85th percentile speeds per hour over a representative 24-hour period. 4.3. Three-year crash data for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle. A crash cost analysis using the KABCO scale.22 An analysis of Economic Costs, QALY Costs, and Comprehensive Costs in most recent dollars. An analysis of crashes per number of lanes and crashes per average daily traffic (ADT). A comparison of crashes to other locations in the city. 4.4. Intersection sight distance analyses at signalized intersections. Gap and stopping sight distance analyses at unsignalized intersections, driveways, bus stops, and other points where people walking or cycling would be expected to cross the street. 4.5. A proposal for countermeasures to manage speeds and reduce crashes without limiting access for pedestrians and cyclists.23 5. Traffic volume 5.1. Vehicle, transit, truck, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes for representative time periods on select streets and paths. 5.2. Existing and proposed volume to capacity (v/c) ratio per hour on select streets, including percentage increase/decrease. 5.3. A queue analysis to determine if the proposed project will routinely impede access to surrounding properties. 5.4. A proposed set of improvements that align with City plans, and/or make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Improvements should generally not lead to induced vehicle traffic (roadway widening, new turn lanes), nor should they fixate on localized peak hour traffic delays. 6. To ensure transparency, OPED is to be copied on all correspondence during the review process between the applicant and other jurisdictions (NYSDOT, Saratoga County, etc.). 22 https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2025- 10/CrashCostFactSheet_508_OCT2025.pdf. 23 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures.