City of TampaCity of Tampa

Transportation Concurrency Transportation Concurrency

Exception Area UpdateException Area Update

Tampa Bay Applications GroupTampa Bay Applications Group

August 21, 2008August 21, 2008

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

�� Background & TCEA Update Background & TCEA Update

ObjectivesObjectives

�� Data & AnalysisData & Analysis

�� Policy ApproachPolicy Approach

Background & ObjectivesBackground & Objectives

�� ConcurrencyConcurrency

�� Concurrency Exception AreasConcurrency Exception Areas

–– RationaleRationale

–– Risks/IssuesRisks/Issues

�� TampaTampa’’s TCEA (1998 s TCEA (1998 –– 2008)2008)

�� TCEA Update ObjectivesTCEA Update Objectives

Concurrency Concurrency -- DefinitionDefinition

�� Adequate public facilities must be in Adequate public facilities must be in

place at the time development impacts place at the time development impacts

occur.occur.

–– LOS Standards Adopted by local LOS Standards Adopted by local

government (except SIS/TRIP)government (except SIS/TRIP)

Concurrency Concurrency -- DefinitionDefinition

�� Adequate public facilities must be in Adequate public facilities must be in

place at the time development impacts place at the time development impacts

occur.occur.

–– Oh Brother!Oh Brother!

�� 3 years 3 years –– old school concurrencyold school concurrency

�� 5 years 5 years –– proportionate fair shareproportionate fair share

�� 10 or even 15 years 10 or even 15 years –– long term CMSlong term CMS

�� Never Never –– improvements which improvements which ““significantly significantly

benefit the impacted transportation systembenefit the impacted transportation system””

�� Seems ReasonableSeems Reasonable…… Except:Except:

–– Roads arenRoads aren’’t sewerst sewers

Quality of Life

Health, Safety, & Welfare

Transportation Concurrency Transportation Concurrency

Exception AreaException Area

�� Another way to say it:Another way to say it:

–– CountervailingCountervailing planning and public planning and public policy goals may come into conflict with policy goals may come into conflict with the requirement that adequate public the requirement that adequate public [transportation] facilities and services be [transportation] facilities and services be available concurrent with the impacts of available concurrent with the impacts of development.development.

WhatWhat’’s a Countervailing s a Countervailing

Goal?Goal?

New Development

Revenue

Capital and Operating

Countervailing GoalsCountervailing Goals……

Operations

�� Constrained RoadsConstrained Roads–– CostCost

–– LivabilityLivability

�� Create Multimodal Create Multimodal ““HabitatHabitat””

�� Apply Latent InfrastructureApply Latent Infrastructure–– UtilitiesUtilities

–– SchoolsSchools

–– ParksParks

�� Preserve Preserve GreenspaceGreenspace/Sustainability/Sustainability

Concerns/RisksConcerns/Risks

�� Impact to SIS/Regional Transportation Impact to SIS/Regional Transportation

System and EconomySystem and Economy

–– Dynamic equilibrium or Malthusian Dynamic equilibrium or Malthusian

dilemma?dilemma?

–– In the valleyIn the valley……

Density

Time

Roadway NetworkCarrying Capacity

Transit/MultimodalSupportive Density

Concerns/RisksConcerns/Risks

�� Development not paying fair shareDevelopment not paying fair share

�� Development getting out of handDevelopment getting out of hand

Tampa TCEA 1998 Tampa TCEA 1998 -- 20082008

�� Evolution of Evolution of AreawideAreawide DRIsDRIs & 1985 & 1985

Comprehensive Plan (Tiered LOS)Comprehensive Plan (Tiered LOS)

�� Concern over FIHS FacilitiesConcern over FIHS Facilities

�� Pay (Impact Fee) and Go!Pay (Impact Fee) and Go!

�� Endeavor to Persevere!Endeavor to Persevere!

–– Encourage, promote, etcEncourage, promote, etc……

Tampa TCEA 1998 Tampa TCEA 1998 -- 20082008

�� CriticismsCriticisms

–– Impact to low density neighborhoodsImpact to low density neighborhoods

–– Does not do enough to focus growthDoes not do enough to focus growth

–– Lack or clear mass transit planLack or clear mass transit plan

–– Gandy BoulevardGandy Boulevard……

TCEA Update ObjectivesTCEA Update Objectives

�� Provide Mechanisms to Focus GrowthProvide Mechanisms to Focus Growth

�� Statutory RequirementsStatutory Requirements

–– Justify size and areaJustify size and area

–– Document multimodal mobility optionsDocument multimodal mobility options

–– Document SIS impacts/mitigation strategiesDocument SIS impacts/mitigation strategies

–– Develop policy linkage between urban form, Develop policy linkage between urban form,

mobility plan, and concurrency exemptions mobility plan, and concurrency exemptions

Data and AnalysisData and Analysis

–– Justify size and areaJustify size and area

–– Document multimodal mobility optionsDocument multimodal mobility options

–– Document SIS impacts/mitigation Document SIS impacts/mitigation

strategiesstrategies

Size and AreaSize and Area

�� Florida Administrative Code 9JFlorida Administrative Code 9J--5.00555.0055–– Less Than 10% Vacant LandLess Than 10% Vacant Land

–– At Least 5 Dwelling Units / Gross Residentially At Least 5 Dwelling Units / Gross Residentially Developed AcreDeveloped Acre

�� Compared to Hillsborough Urban Services Compared to Hillsborough Urban Services Boundary Boundary (2000 TBRPM Z Data)(2000 TBRPM Z Data)

–– 15% of Acreage15% of Acreage

–– 33% of Dwelling Units33% of Dwelling Units

–– 50% of Employment50% of Employment

SIS ImpactsSIS Impacts

�� SIS Demand Select Zone AssignmentSIS Demand Select Zone Assignment–– 40% E40% E : E : E (Trips Pass Through TCEA)(Trips Pass Through TCEA)

–– 49% E : I 49% E : I (One Trip(One Trip--End in TCEA)End in TCEA)

–– 11% I : I 11% I : I (Both Trip(Both Trip--Ends in TCEA)Ends in TCEA)

�� Plan to MitigatePlan to Mitigate–– Make Surface Street Traffic Ops and Capacity Make Surface Street Traffic Ops and Capacity Improvements (where cost feasible)Improvements (where cost feasible)

–– Concentrate new development within existing business Concentrate new development within existing business centers or along centers or along ““PrimaryPrimary”” transit corridorstransit corridors

–– Encourage Development Within Urban Services BoundaryEncourage Development Within Urban Services Boundary

Overall Roadway ConditionsOverall Roadway Conditions

2005

2015

2025

Mobility Options/NeedsMobility Options/Needs

�� No Specific Guidance for No Specific Guidance for TCEAsTCEAs

�� Used Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) Used Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) MeasuresMeasures–– Appropriate Scale of Development Appropriate Scale of Development

–– Complementary Mix of Uses Complementary Mix of Uses

–– Land Uses Promoting Multimodal UsageLand Uses Promoting Multimodal Usage

–– Acceptable Separation of Land UsesAcceptable Separation of Land Uses

–– Appropriate Density and Intensity of Use Appropriate Density and Intensity of Use

–– Appropriate Organization of Land UsesAppropriate Organization of Land Uses

–– Regional Regional IntermodalIntermodal Connectivity Connectivity

–– Interconnected Multimodal NetworkInterconnected Multimodal Network

–– Acceptable Level of Service for Each Mode Acceptable Level of Service for Each Mode

–– Acceptable Acceptable AreawideAreawide Quality of Service for Each ModeQuality of Service for Each Mode

Organization of Land Uses Organization of Land Uses

(With Respect to Transit)(With Respect to Transit)

�� 85 % of Dwelling Units & 91% of 85 % of Dwelling Units & 91% of

Employees Served by TransitEmployees Served by Transit

Total

Dwelling

Units

Total

Employees

Dwelling Units

Served by a

Transit Route

% of Dwelling

Units Served by

a Transit Route

Employees

Served by a

Transit Route

% of Employees

Served by a

Transit Route

TCEA 125,900 316,300 106,900 85% 287,800 91%

Interconnected Interconnected

NetworkNetwork

�� Average of 100 Average of 100

Blocks/Square MileBlocks/Square Mile

�� 50 Blocks/Mile is 50 Blocks/Mile is

AdequateAdequate

�� River & Interstates River & Interstates

Are Main Are Main

Connectivity BreaksConnectivity Breaks

AreawideAreawide Q/LOSQ/LOS

�� Level of Service x Population ServedLevel of Service x Population Served

�� For Transit Acceptable Q/LOS is:For Transit Acceptable Q/LOS is:

–– LOS LOS ““CC”” for 70% of Jobs and Populationfor 70% of Jobs and Population

�� For Current Transit Service & Year 2000 ZFor Current Transit Service & Year 2000 Z--

Data LOS Data LOS ““CC”” Service Applies to:Service Applies to:

–– 37% of Employees37% of Employees

–– 17% of Dwelling Units17% of Dwelling Units

Needs:Needs:

�� HART Transit HART Transit

Emphasis Corridor Emphasis Corridor

Plan (or Similar Plan (or Similar

Investment)Investment)

�� $125 $125 -- $200m over 20 $200m over 20

yearsyears

�� $1500 $1500 -- $4000 per $4000 per

new Unit of new Unit of

DevelopmentDevelopment

Policy ApproachPolicy Approach

�� Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan Policies EnableEnable Variation in Variation in

SubSub--Area Review and Mitigation ProceduresArea Review and Mitigation Procedures

�� SubSub--Area Policies Consider:Area Policies Consider:

–– Magnitude of Project ImpactsMagnitude of Project Impacts

–– Planned Mass Transit SystemPlanned Mass Transit System

–– Urban Form StandardsUrban Form Standards

�� Procedural Details to be Established in Land Procedural Details to be Established in Land

Development CodeDevelopment Code

�� Downtown Downtown RevitalizationRevitalization–– Downtown & Downtown & Channel District Channel District CRAsCRAs

–– Downtown Downtown AreawideAreawideDRIDRI

�� Downtown Downtown

RevitalizationRevitalization

�� Urban Urban

RedevelopmentRedevelopment

–– WestshoreWestshore DRIDRI

–– TIATIA

–– Drew Park CRADrew Park CRA

–– USFUSF

–– Heights, Central Heights, Central

Park, Park, YborYbor CRAsCRAs

–– Port AuthorityPort Authority

�� Downtown Downtown RevitalizationRevitalization

�� Urban Urban RedevelopmentRedevelopment

�� MixedMixed--Use Corridor Use Corridor VillagesVillages–– Major Commercial Major Commercial CorridorsCorridors

–– Concurrency Concurrency Exemption Exemption Dependent on Cost Dependent on Cost Affordable Transit Affordable Transit PlanPlan

�� Downtown Downtown

RevitalizationRevitalization

�� Urban Urban

RedevelopmentRedevelopment

�� Urban InfillUrban Infill

–– Remainder South of Remainder South of

FletcherFletcher

�� All Development Required to:All Development Required to:–– Be Consistent with Comprehensive PlanBe Consistent with Comprehensive Plan

–– Mitigate Site Traffic ImpactsMitigate Site Traffic Impacts

–– Pay Standard Assessment (i.e. Impact Fee)Pay Standard Assessment (i.e. Impact Fee)

Review and Mitigation FrameworkReview and Mitigation Framework

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

�� Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;–– Consistent with Urban Form/CodeConsistent with Urban Form/Code

1

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

1

�� Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;

–– Consistent with Urban Form/CodeConsistent with Urban Form/Code

–– Served by Planned Mass Transit InfrastructureServed by Planned Mass Transit Infrastructure

–– Large Project Site Impacts (Potentially Extending to Large Project Site Impacts (Potentially Extending to

Adjacent Signals) are AddressedAdjacent Signals) are Addressed

2

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

2

�� Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;Exempt from Roadway Mitigation if;

–– Consistent with Urban Form/CodeConsistent with Urban Form/Code

–– Served by Planned Mass Transit InfrastructureServed by Planned Mass Transit Infrastructure

–– Large Project Site Impacts (Potentially Extending to Adjacent Large Project Site Impacts (Potentially Extending to Adjacent

Signals) are AddressedSignals) are Addressed

–– Neighborhood Traffic Impacts MitigatedNeighborhood Traffic Impacts Mitigated

3

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

3

�� Exempt from Roadway Mitigation ifExempt from Roadway Mitigation if

–– Roadway System Impacts are De Roadway System Impacts are De MinimusMinimus

–– Moderate and Large Projects Must Offset Impacts:Moderate and Large Projects Must Offset Impacts:

�� Construct ImprovementsConstruct Improvements

�� Proportionate Fair Share and/or Proportionate Fair Share and/or

�� Neighborhood Traffic ManagementNeighborhood Traffic Management

4

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

4

5

�� Not Exempt from Concurrency; Not Exempt from Concurrency;

–– However, Most Development Vested by Prior Dev OrdersHowever, Most Development Vested by Prior Dev Orders

–– Any New Development Agreements ShouldAny New Development Agreements Should

�� Restore Cost Affordable LOS StandardRestore Cost Affordable LOS Standard

�� Prop Share at CityProp Share at City’’s Discretions Discretion

5

InfillArea

DowntownCore

OutsideTCEA

Redev.Area

RoadwayMitigationRequirements

Mixed-UseCorridor

Land Development Code Land Development Code

Concepts:Concepts:

�� Mass Transit Service AreaMass Transit Service Area

�� Alternative LOS MeasuresAlternative LOS Measures–– CutCut--line or subline or sub--area system performancearea system performance

–– Duration of CongestionDuration of Congestion

�� Neighborhood MitigationNeighborhood Mitigation–– Traffic CalmingTraffic Calming

–– Bike & Pedestrian FacilitiesBike & Pedestrian Facilities

�� Implement TOD/TND FormImplement TOD/TND Form--Based Based CodeCode

Infrastructure Planning:Infrastructure Planning:

�� Update Transportation Impact FeeUpdate Transportation Impact Fee

�� Identify Roadway/Intersection Identify Roadway/Intersection

ImprovementsImprovements

–– Impact Fee Project ListImpact Fee Project List

–– Remaining Projects Eligible for PFSRemaining Projects Eligible for PFS

�� Coordinate w/ HART for Coordinate w/ HART for ““PrimaryPrimary””

Transit Corridor networkTransit Corridor network

Contact:Contact:

Jean Dorzback, P.E.Jean Dorzback, P.E.

Transportation Planning ChiefTransportation Planning Chief

City of Tampa, Transportation DivisionCity of Tampa, Transportation Division

Jean.dorzback@tampagov.netJean.dorzback@tampagov.net

Demian Miller, AICPDemian Miller, AICP

Sr. Project ManagerSr. Project Manager

Tindale Oliver & Assoc. IncTindale Oliver & Assoc. Inc

dmiller@tindaleoliver.comdmiller@tindaleoliver.com