HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-23 Public Comment - L. Semones - Fw_ Transportation Demand Management and the TISFrom:Linda Semones
To:Agenda
Subject:Fw: Transportation Demand Management and the TIS
Date:Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:48:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
attention Transportation Board
From: Linda Semones <lindasemones@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Nicholas Ross <nross@bozeman.net>; Linda Semones <lindasemones@hotmail.com>; Kathy
Powell <powellgriz@icloud.com>
Subject: Transportation Demand Management and the TIS
Dear Mr. Ross,
I listened to your very interesting UDC code update to the Transportation Board on March 22,
2023. It was truly fascinating to hear the amount of detail that you and Code Studio are dealing with
in the code update. The questions presented to the Transportation Board were eerily familiar;
Q1. Where and when should a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be required?
Q2. What should be included in a TIS?
Q3. When a TIS is required, how should it address traffic demand management?
For the last three years my friend Kathy Powell and I have been researching exactly how traffic
demand management is done in various cities around the country. This research began as a result of
the City of Bozeman cutting parking requirements to a minimum for downtown development, with
some officials wanting to completely eliminate any parking requirements. Not only were large B3
developments bringing more and more traffic into the city, but also these developments were
causing vehicles to park in the downtown neighborhoods in order to do business in the B3. The
quality of life in the residential neighborhoods was being negatively affected. It seemed to us that
the developers should be responsible financially for their fair share of the parking and transportation
dilemma. With the elimination of parking minimums, it seemed that the large scale developers were
being left off the hook for supporting both the city and the residential tax payers in sharing the
responsibility for developing a good transportation system, including parking.
Thanks to a member of the past Transportation Board, we stumbled upon an article about the
elimination of parking minimums in Buffalo, New York. It is called Minus Minimums; Development
Response to the removal of Parking Minimums in Buffalo (NY) iPages 396-408 | Published online:
12 Mar 2021 Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225. It took some
time for us to understand the basis of the Buffalo plan even partially. But we very quickly discovered
that the Buffalo Green Plan was comprehensive, and their planning not only included parking, but
also emphasized multi-modal transportation development in an integrated transportation system.
“ The adoption of the Green Code signified a shift to deprioritize automobiles and encourage
equitable alternatives such as active transportation and transit-oriented development (TOD) in
Buffalo. Article 8.2 of the Green Code introduced bicycle parking minimums; multiple-unit dwellings
require one bicycle space per five beds with a minimum of 90% long-term bicycle spaces (City of
Buffalo Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning, 2016). Article 5.1 of the Green Code includes a Metro
Rail overlay zone that promotes light rail TOD via increased building height minimums, increased
density requirements, and parking to the rear of buildings (City of Buffalo Mayor’s Office of Strategic
Planning, 2016). Article 8.4 of the Green Code introduced transportation demand management
(TDM) plans as a means to establish modal share objectives for developments seeking major site
plan approval (City of Buffalo Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning, 2016)” pg 4
We quickly discovered that in Buffalo, the TIS study submitted by developers was limited to
developments of over 5000 square feet. We discovered that developers were offered a whole menu
of ways to mediate their additional vehicular traffic added to the city. In Buffalo, the developers may
not have to mediate at all, if it can be shown by the TIS that they are not adding to vehicular traffic.
If it is shown with data that they are adding to vehicular traffic, the menu of mediations is not limited
to street construction and improvement. Also included is what we understood to be money in lieu
to be used for bike facilities, carpooling plans, shared parking, employee incentives and public transit
pass subsidies,
As you noted in your presentation the current UDC code for Bozeman’s TIS is limited to street
improvements or a payment in lieu. I was not sure from your presentation how that payment in lieu
is determined, or how that payment is used. Since any enlarging of the downtown streets in
Bozeman is impossible, the developers have received waivers. Why couldn’t the city of Bozeman
write a UDC code that would include the support of muti-modal transportation such as the code in
Buffalo? We know that your SAFE plan for the City of Bozeman includes the addition of traffic
calming features to our infrastructure. You also indicated that if a grant or some other form of
alternative funding were not found, that traffic calming would have to be paid for by taxing the
citizens. Why would this not be included in the TIS as well ? This would be especially beneficial if
the streets involved were at full build out.
Of the 3 questions you asked the Transportation Board, the third is the one that Kathy and I have
commented on before. We believe that staff should be directed to research allowing non-motorized
travel and the use of electric bikes in the TIS. Certainly funds are needed to protect pedestrians and
bikers on our city streets. We believe that the City should clarify the geographic extent of the TIS
study to include more than just collector streets and arterial roadways. The downtown streets, if
within the so called “circle of death” should be included. It is ironic that developers should use the
term “circle of death” when speaking of their finances, when in reality we have discovered over the
last year that without safety features for pedestrians and bikers, there is a real and terrifying circle of
death. There must be a way to make protection of non-vehicular traffic an integral part of the
transportation system development, accepted by developers and citizens. People come before
profits.
There are many issues in your presentation that will require Kathy and myself to seek your
expertise.
For example, the 15 year time period of the study or the issuing of just waivers is a
matter for city engineers.
The determination of a time period, AM or PM rush hour being the only time period
currently used, is also a question for staff and engineers.
Whether a TIS can be handled at an area planning level instead of a single development
area is a complicated issue that we would like to learn more about.
I am sure that the City professionals will be able to inform the public about these issues.
But the bottom line is that the Transportation Impact Study for developers and the Traffic Demand
Management plan should absolutely work together to create a livable, walkable, bikeable city. As
you say, right now the City only has carrots in the Traffic Demand Management Plan to encourage
the development of multi-modal systems. A well developed TIS plan and an enforceable TDM policy
could very well be the stick that you mentioned at the end of your presentation. I would prefer not
to use the word stick. The coordination of the TIS and the TDM seems like a logical decision, based
on the Community Plan, and fair to developers and citizens alike.
Kathy and I would love to be able to discuss your presentation with you. Perhaps we could meet at a
future date.
Sincerely,
Linda Semones 404 S Church Ave Bozeman MT
Kathy Powell 1215 S Third Bozeman MT