1 / 18

Concurrency Management & Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation

Concurrency Management & Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation. Concurrency Management System Study Network Alternatives. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA EXISTING & PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS. Existing Requirements Trips < = 1,000: Address adjacent roads

osric
Download Presentation

Concurrency Management & Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Concurrency Management & Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation

  2. Concurrency Management System Study Network Alternatives

  3. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA EXISTING & PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS Existing Requirements • Trips < = 1,000: Address adjacent roads • Trips > 1,000: 5% of roadway capacity • Buildout & Intersections Analysis - Implicit Proposed Requirements • Trips < = 1,000: Address adjacent roads • Trips > 1,000: 5% County Roads Capacity • Trips > 1,000: 3% State Road Capacity • Buildout & Intersections Analysis - Explicit

  4. PROPOSED STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE: ADDRESS PER BOCC DIRECTION Trips < 1% of adjacent roads capacity: No Impact Trips < 1% of adjacent roads capacity + Roadway Operates > = 110% capacity: Two (2) miles Trips > = 1% of adjacent roads capacity: All roadways where trips > = 1% of capacity

  5. TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ALLOWABLE IMPACT TWO (2) LANE ROADWAY Percent Daily Capacity Equivalent Single Family Subdivision 2 Lane Road (14,600 Daily Capacity) • 1% • 2% • 3% • 4% • 5% • 15 Units • 30 Units • 45 Units • 61 Units • 76 Units • 146 Trips • 292 Trips • 438 Trips • 584 Trips • 730 Trips

  6. TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ALLOWABLE IMPACT FOUR (4) LANE ROADWAY Percent Daily Capacity 4 Lane Road (35,700 Daily Capacity) Equivalent Single Family Subdivision • 1% • 2% • 3% • 4% • 5% • 5% + • 37 Units • 75 Units • 110 Units • 150 Units • 185 Units • 255 Units • 357 Trips • 714 Trips • 1,071 Trips • 1,428 Trips • 1,785 Trips • 2,450 Trips

  7. EXAMPLE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON FT. CLARK BLVD ALLOWABLE IMPACT TO NEWBERRY ROAD Existing CMS Study Area Proposed CMS Study Area Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 49,000 Capacity (MTPO) 2,450 Daily Trips = 5% of Capacity Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 35,700 Capacity (FDOT) 1,071 Daily Trips = 3% of Capacity Ft. Clark Blvd 255 Unit SF Subdivision 110 Unit SF Subdivision Newberry (SR 26)

  8. EXAMPLE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON FT. CLARK BLVD ALLOWABLE IMPACT TO NEWBERRY ROAD ALTERNATIVE - 1% OPTION Alternative One (1) Percent CMS Study Area Existing Study Area Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 34,700 Capacity (FDOT) 347 Daily Trips = 1% of Capacity Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 49,000 Capacity (MTPO) 2,450 Daily Trips = 5% of Capacity Ft. Clark Blvd 255 Unit SF Subdivision 35 Unit SF Subdivision Newberry (SR 26)

  9. Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation

  10. Don’t build Reduce size of project Conduct traffic analysis Wait until capacity is added Add capacity Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation HOW CAN A DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS A TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY DEFICIENCY?

  11. Alternative Option to meet Transportation Concurrency Proportionate share of cost for new capacity Equitable way to address Concurrency Allows road to “temporarily” operate below LOS standard Promotes sound Capital Improvements Planning Transportation Planning Reduces potential for moratorium WHAT IS PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION?

  12. PAY & GO Developer Pays Contribution and Builds PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION Developer Pays Contribution and Builds + Capacity project is included in: Five-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Long Term Concurrency Management Plan MUST BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!! PAY & GO vs. PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION

  13. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING & PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE MITIGATION 1. Five-Year Capital Improvements Program • First three (3) years – project fully funded • Years four (4) & five (5) - Proportionate share applicable 2. Long Term Concurrency Management Plan • 10 Year Horizon • Adopted into Comprehensive Plan & CIP 3. By Adopted Resolution, added to CIP or LTCMS 4. MUST BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!!

  14. WHAT DOES FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE MEAN? Roadway or Intersection in CIP/LTCMS must be backed by: • General Revenue Funds • Sales Tax • Gas Tax • Impact Fees • Bonding REASONABLY ANTICIPATE PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED by: • Developers • County • FDOT

  15. IS PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE NEEDED!! ROADWAYS OVER OR NEAR CAPACITY

  16. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT & PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE RECAP!! • Modification to Transportation Network Evaluation • Alternative to address Concurrency deficiency • Roadway or Intersection must be deficient • Project “NOT” in CIP / LTCMS – County Option to Add • Project in CIP / LTCMS – Is a Developer right • Project MUST be FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!! • Transportation Concurrency is an issue

  17. NEXT STEP!! DEVELOPMENT OF LONG TERM CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLAN

  18. QUESTIONS ?? COMMENTS !! DISCUSSION

More Related