A Traffic Ordinance Report

In May of 2001, Smart Growth Aiken presented to the City a position paper titled Smart Traffic Growth Management. Its stated purpose was to promote and improve the safety of our roadways by developing an agenda for meeting the growing problem of traffic congestion. The immediate problems were the congestion at the Whiskey Road/Pine Log Road intersection and in the south Whiskey Road corridor. It proposed an ordinance modeled after that of Hilton Head Island which requires that every new development plan meet traffic impact screening standards before the plan will be approved. The criteria for such an ordinance would require:

1. The adoption of traffic service level maximums for critical intersections;
2. Conducting traffic studies on a regular basis for monitoring the service levels;
3. Requiring a traffic impact study for each new proposed development plan; and
4. Granting approval only to those development plans for which the traffic impact analysis come within the adopted traffic service level maximums.

It is now almost three years since the City called attention to this problem and since Smart Growth provided input. Today the City still has no traffic ordinance. It is appropriate that we review the history and perhaps go back to our origin, back to Square Number One.

A Recap Up Of Events To Date

April 2001 The ARCADIS “Whiskey Road Traffic Corridor Study “ of April 6, 2001, reported “The Pine Log Road/ Whiskey Road intersection functions at LOS of F southbound in the P.M. peak hour”. (LOS is “level of service” and F is 100% capacity). It also reported “Traffic volumes are growing at a rate of approximately 2.25% per year…”

May 2001 Smart Growth Aiken produced the position paper on “Smart Traffic Growth Management” which was promulgated to our city officials

July 20, 2001 Smart Growth was invited to assist in the City’s traffic planning project.

August 16, 2001 Smart Growth met with Ed Evans, furnishing him a traffic management handbook and a collection of traffic management ordinances.

August 27, 2001 Preparatory for a City Council work session on traffic ordinances, Smart Growth furnished Mr. Evans with traffic lexicography and talking points.

September 4, 2001 The City Council met in a work session. The subject of a traffic management program as proposed by Smart Growth Aiken was not addressed.

October 2001 At Mr. LeDuc’s invitation. Mr. Mac Burdette, the City Manager for Mt. Pleasant, SC gave a talk to the City Counsel setting out that Mt. Pleasant solved its out-of-control traffic problem by implementing a traffic management ordinance, an infrastructure impact fee ordinance, and a philosophy that “You have to learn to say no to the developers—it is hard to do—but you have to do it.”

April 11, 2002 Aiken retained a traffic consultant, Roger Dyer.

October 27, 2002 Based upon consultations with the City Manager, Roger Dyer submitted to Ed Evans a “simulated ordinance”

October 31, 2002 The City Manager presented to the City counsel a “Traffic Impact Ordinance” for discussion at a work session on November 4, 2002.

November 4, 2002 Roger Dyer and City Manager presented the “Traffic Impact Ordinance” to the City Council. Smart Growth Aiken attended the work session and made public comments on the misdirection of the proposed ordinance.

November 5, 2002 Smart Growth presented the City Council and City staff a written critique of the “Traffic Impact Ordinance” which summarized in part that:

• The plan does not meet the immediate problem of Whiskey Road congestion
• It is incomplete because it does not include traffic administration provisions or limits on permissible traffic volume
• It does not manage traffic congestion but only assesses a penalty for unmitigated traffic problems created and proposes traffic impact fees to generate revenue.

Developers objected to the traffic impact fee part which the City Council struck from the ordinance. What was left provided only for traffic impact and only a penalty payment for unmitigated traffic problems created by the development.

January 1, 2004 No ordinance of any kind.

Where Are We Now

There has been no traffic study for the Whiskey Road-Pine Log intersection since April of 2001 and no state traffic study of related areas since 2002.

The Current Kroger Proposal to build a new, bigger and better Kroger store with a gas station and “another building” at the corner of Pine Log and Whiskey roads will dramatically increase the traffic on both Pine Log and Whiskey Roads. Kroger’s desire to increase the people traffic though its store will increase the vehicle traffic. A pass-thru gas station will exacerbate the traffic problem. We understand that the Kroger traffic study measures only the incremental traffic over Dillards, which has not been there for two years. If so, this incorrectly understates the traffic increase we can expect.

The Current Proposal for Development at Centennial Parkway and Whiskey would replace a low volume traffic church property with a higher volume commercial use. We can expect that to contribute to the Whiskey Road traffic congestion

The Current Talk of a Sam’s Club replacing Krogers at Pine Log and Silver Bluff will raise the traffic service level at Pine Log Road/ Silver Bluff Road and intersection.

A Critique

Smart Growth Aiken has offered a tested plan for meeting the Pine Log Road-Whiskey Road traffic problem. It requires an ordinance providing for 1) a city traffic administrator, 2) setting of traffic service levels, 3) traffic impact studies for each development plan, and 4) the authority to deny any development plan for which the impact study indicates that the traffic will increase beyond a level of traffic accommodation. It requires that the City have the fortitude to say “no”.

The City’s traffic ordinance project provided the opportunity for creating an effective traffic management program. Instead it was converted into an ordinance of penalty and traffic impact fees. The traffic impact fee part has been scrapped. The remaining traffic study part without provision for traffic management use is a meaningless exercise.

It is past time to act on a traffic management ordinance that will focus on obtaining for the city control over the explosion of traffic at our critical intersections. The City has the information to create that ordinance now and can deal with a citywide traffic ordinance later. But before anything can be accomplished, a determination must be made by the City Council that it can and will say “no” to developers. Only then can we have an effective traffic ordinance and control of traffic at our critical intersections.

IT IS TIME TO GET BACK TO SQUARE NUMBER ONE.
Note: Jim Wetzel is Vice Chairman of Smart Growth Aiken