In the last few years many rapidly growing cities have adopted traffic level of service (LOS) standards that restrict new development to available street capacity. These standards go beyond the usual general plan goals for reducing traffic congestion in that they takeaway from elected decision makers the authority to approve any proposed land development that would cause traffic levels of service to exceed these standards. Most of the statutory LOS standards that have been adopted to date, however, tend to be so inflexible that they result in de facto growth moratoriums. They fail to recognise both the impacts of through traffic generated outside of their jurisdiction and the fact that other community goals occasionally may supersede the single-minded goal of eliminating traffic congestion. Some agencies subsequently have had to "stretch" the technical analysis to fit more development under a given level of service ceiling. They spread out the peak periods, they average the level of service over several intersections, or they simply use higher saturation flows in the capacity analysis. A better approach is to leave the technical calculations alone and to write into the los standards administrative provisions for dealing with "overriding considerations" and "special circumstances" beyond the city's control. These provisions, backed by the appropriate policies and procedures, provide a flexible and responsive traffic policy that does not have to be stretched in order to avoid a building moratorium. This paper presents the experiences of a selected group of California cities that have had statutory los standards in effect for several years. These standards are described, their weaknesses critiqued, and the results of two recent court tests briefly reviewed. A suggested model los policy then is presented that would provide improved administrative flexibility while still constraining the rate of land development to the rate of street construction.
Samenvatting