Should developers be held accountible for creating extra traffic on area roads?

[roadman65]

I live near a Wal Mart Neighborhood Market which is Wal Mart's version of a grocery store without the whole entire store. Anyway before this particular store was built, traffic on a nearby arterial ran smoothly for the short stretch in the vicinity of the store before it was built.  Most of this disruption in traffic flow is due to the signal that was installed at the time the store was opened.  The signal causes now half mile long back ups in both directions on the main road which can even cause two light waits on what once ran traffic at a 50 mph smooth flow.  This all basically happened over night!

Being from Central Florida I have seen so much of this with sprawl all around constantly taking place.  One shopping center goes up or one Big Box Store gets built and roads that were free flowing become a stop an go urban like travel experience.  Then those who commute the routes have to leave 15 minutes earlier to compensate for these new businesses opening up and when an accident takes place leaving an extra half hour early for work will still make you ten minuets late at times.

Maybe it is me, but when you look at it objectively it it like this.  You have a company or corporation looking to expand and make more money for themselves, so they build businesses in undeveloped areas of many regions where population is increasing nearby.  They are making hand over fist in profits at this, however the rest of us who live on paycheck to paycheck suffer.

We suffer as many of us now have to spend more money in gas waiting for additional signals that are now added, traffic jams that never existed before,  and other related stuff.  Not to mention the extra time we have to allot as a five minuet trip once before is now 15 minuets to accomplish.  Overall we lose time as well as money while some man in a business suit and fancy office makes thousands of dollars more a year in salary off of this.

Roads take years to catch up in expansion as we have to deal with not only money, but planning and as we already know many areas of the US are already 10 to 15 years behind on roads needing upgrades maybe even in some areas longer years behind with tougher access to funds and stricter environmental laws.  So where does that leave us who commute each day just to make a few bucks?  To have to flex ourselves, meanwhile others are getting big paybacks for this.  Plus the big thing is they put our whole communities in a compromising position as having outdated roads and a far behind in times system, and pay nothing into our society.  Not to mention creating problem areas for tomorrow as far as crime as well.

Should not big developers who build be held accountable for what problems they create on our roads after their means of expansions?

[oscar]

Often developers have to pay for widening roads adjacent to their new businesses.  And local governments sometimes leave short unwidened gaps in their road systems (such as divided roadways merging into one, then soon becoming divided again), expecting and yearning for developers who can be forced to fill those gaps.

I don't know if Florida law is different, or your locality is for some reason (such as stupidity and/or campaign contributions) not as aggressive as it should be.

[1995hoo]

Around here what Oscar describes is sometimes called a "proffer," depending on the sort of development at issue and the scale of what's to be done.

But your state law may restrict the local government from preventing development. I don't know how Florida law works, but here in Virginia, the locality does not have much authority to prevent a developer who owns appropriately-zoned land from building on it (and it's not as simple as just re-zoning the land to a different use). Some level of proffers are about the most the locality can usually extract.

[jeffandnicole]

Speaking generally, a developer has to submit a traffic plan when building commercial, residential, or other types of properties.  It will note the amount of traffic the development is expected to generate. 

The result is there will usually be some sort of improvement directly in front of the development, which could range from widened shoulders to turn lanes to additional travel lanes to a traffic light.  But the further away you go, the chances are the plan will say there won't be much more additional traffic brought in by the project.  And in general, the local officials will take that report as is.

I'll quote two things you said: 

Roads take years to catch up in expansion as we have to deal with not only money, but planning and as we already know many areas of the US are already 10 to 15 years behind on roads needing upgrades maybe even in some areas longer years behind with tougher access to funds and stricter environmental laws.  So where does that leave us who commute each day just to make a few bucks?  To have to flex ourselves, meanwhile others are getting big paybacks for this.  Plus the big thing is they put our whole communities in a compromising position as having outdated roads and a far behind in times system, and pay nothing into our society.  Not to mention creating problem areas for tomorrow as far as crime as well.

Should not big developers who build be held accountable for what problems they create on our roads after their means of expansions?

When it's said and done, both the residential and commercial development contributed to the increased traffic.  The first increase occurred when the residential development was built.  The second increase occurred when the businesses were built.  Compared to existing conditions, the first development will say they are only impacting traffic a little.  The second development, reviewing conditions since the first development was built, will say they will only impact traffic a little as well.

Note...each little improvement doesn't impact traffic much.  The overall additions impact traffic greatly.  And that's a big reason how developers can get around needing to spend money to add to the transportation system, because it's not solely their development that contributed to the issue.

[vdeane]

There's a fix for that: if a light needs to be added, the developer should be accountable even if their development solely only adds "a little traffic".

[wxfree]

If there's a city or other public authority in charge of zoning and permitting, I don't developers should have that liability.  Obviously, if a developer owns a large piece of land and is building a neighborhood, he can reasonably be expected to build the roads in the neighborhood, as well as funding expansions or improvements to existing roads where his neighborhood roads intersect.  But I don't see how it's a developers liability to fund expansion of adjacent or nearby roads necessitated by the increase in traffic.  That development will produce property tax revenue, and sales tax revenue if it's commercial.

Treating the new businesses and residents differently seems unfair to me.  If I build a store next to your store that's been there for years, do your customers have more right to the road than mine?  We both generate traffic, why is it only my traffic that's offensive, why do I have to pay more than you do?  You driving the same route you've been driving for years adds as much traffic as each car driven by a new resident or going to a new store, so you're equally responsible for the problem.

If the city didn't want the extra traffic, they shouldn't have zoned the land that way, or issued a permit to build that way.  To me, it's the public authority's responsibility.  The state's laws may allow new tax revenue to be dedicated to the area, and even without that dedication, it would be logical to improve roads that need improving using the new revenue.

Obviously a lot of people disagree with my view, given the laws that exist, but that's how I see it.

[bandit957]

Should not big developers who build be held accountable for what problems they create on our roads after their means of expansions?

Absolutely.

[bandit957]

But your state law may restrict the local government from preventing development. I don't know how Florida law works, but here in Virginia, the locality does not have much authority to prevent a developer who owns appropriately-zoned land from building on it (and it's not as simple as just re-zoning the land to a different use).

Isn't that the whole point of local government?

[1995hoo]

But your state law may restrict the local government from preventing development. I don't know how Florida law works, but here in Virginia, the locality does not have much authority to prevent a developer who owns appropriately-zoned land from building on it (and it's not as simple as just re-zoning the land to a different use).

Isn't that the whole point of local government?

Depends on how your state is structured. Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state. Distilled to a much-oversimplified gist, that means the local governments have only the powers explicitly granted to them by the Commonwealth; any other powers remain in Richmond. Moreover, if there is any doubt about whether a power has been granted to the local government, then the courts (and the local government) are to presume it has not been granted.

[DeaconG]

Often developers have to pay for widening roads adjacent to their new businesses.  And local governments sometimes leave short unwidened gaps in their road systems (such as divided roadways merging into one, then soon becoming divided again), expecting and yearning for developers who can be forced to fill those gaps.

I don't know if Florida law is different, or your locality is for some reason (such as stupidity and/or campaign contributions) not as aggressive as it should be.

A good number of municipalities in Florida have impact fee laws that are for that purpose: you want to build this mega development, you"ll help pay to expand the roads that run by or through it; or it doesn't get approved.

In my area we had a developer that wanted to plonk 700-800 homes just north of me, the main street running through the area was a two-lane road that was already getting congested when they planned the development, and the developers screamed when the county said "you"ll pay the impact fee to widen the road or we'll sit on your building permits".

Then the housing crash happened and the developer walked away after years of trying to get the county to change it's mind. Poor babies.

[Brandon]

But your state law may restrict the local government from preventing development. I don't know how Florida law works, but here in Virginia, the locality does not have much authority to prevent a developer who owns appropriately-zoned land from building on it (and it's not as simple as just re-zoning the land to a different use).

Isn't that the whole point of local government?

Local government varies from state to state, and even within states.  I'll use Illinois as an example.  We have non-home rule municipalities and home rule municipalities.  Home rule municipalities have great control over development and taxation when compared to non-home rule municipalities.  Then there's unincorporated areas where the county has control over the development.  Then we have the issue of IDOT versus county versus municipal roads.  Around here, county and municipal roads are more likely to be widened and improved while the IDOT road languishes.

[UCFKnights]

In Orange County, they have to pay impact fees per square foot based on the business type, so Walmart likely already did pay for a roadway expansion. However, Orange County just puts the funds into the transportation funds and looks and what the next project on the schedule is, and not what is being built, and goes ahead and does that. Also, I'm guessing you're somewhere in East Orlando, and Orange County tends not to care about that area at all as its student dominated... an area where most will likely not vote in local elections

[jeffandnicole]

For the anti-view: That same local government that's allowing the businesses to come in also allowed you to live in that same area.  And guaranteed, the people that lived there before you did disapproved of the new residential development around them.

Obviously, most people don't see it that way.  I had a friend who was very vocal in his local town because the farm behind him was getting ready to be developed for housing.  He bought his current home because it looked over that farmland.  His current home?  That was built in a development which was previously farmland, which someone else now has to look at.  Many people have the false view that once they're house is built, all other development must cease.

The only reason businesses want to build in most areas is because the residential population is there to support those businesses.  Remove the residents, and you remove the need for businesses. 

So in the end, you only have you to blame for the madness!

There's a fix for that: if a light needs to be added, the developer should be accountable even if their development solely only adds "a little traffic".

At least in Jersey, courts have ruled the other way.  Or, they will say "ABC Shopping center will increase traffic 10%, so the developer is responsible for 10% of the cost of the light".  In a way, it's somewhat fair because like I said above, the developer is building there only because the resident base supporting it.

There is some give and take too.  If it's on a state road in NJ, the developer need access permits with NJDOT, and NJDOT will tell them what's required based on current guidelines.  There's probably a little give and take, depending on what's required.  If the developer doesn't feel they should bear the responsibility of adding a light, they will probably fight NJDOT.  On the other hand, if the developer is going to make millions on their project, they may decide it's not worth the time to fight what's relatively cheap to them, and will take on the cost of redoing an intersection, adding a light, etc, in order to move their project along. 

[hbelkins]

Obviously, most people don't see it that way.  I had a friend who was very vocal in his local town because the farm behind him was getting ready to be developed for housing.  He bought his current home because it looked over that farmland.  His current home?  That was built in a development which was previously farmland, which someone else now has to look at.  Many people have the false view that once they're house is built, all other development must cease.

I can relate. When I lived in Winchester, Ky., there was a vacant field across the street from us. We weren't happy when some homes were built on it, including right across from our house, but hey ... we have private property rights in the United States and people ought to be able to build on their own property if they want to.

[cpzilliacus]

Around here what Oscar describes is sometimes called a "proffer," depending on the sort of development at issue and the scale of what's to be done.

But your state law may restrict the local government from preventing development. I don't know how Florida law works, but here in Virginia, the locality does not have much authority to prevent a developer who owns appropriately-zoned land from building on it (and it's not as simple as just re-zoning the land to a different use). Some level of proffers are about the most the locality can usually extract.

This is an area where Virginia is quite different from Maryland. 

Maryland state law allows counties to have "home rule" charters, which means they may do many things on their own, even if the General Assembly has not explicitly authorized them to (curiously, one exception is traffic laws - Maryland's local governments may not enact traffic ordinances that create new "moving" violations for which a driver gets "points" on his or her license, though automated traffic enforcement is allowed, since it is not considered a "moving" violation).  Counties without "home rule" charters are run by a Board of Commissioners, and they have to get approval from Annapolis in order to enact many ordinances (rather like all counties in Virginia).

Home-rule counties in Maryland can (and many do) have so-called adequate public facilities ordinances (APFO), which allows county governments to force developers to fund school and transportation improvements (and sometimes other things) in exchange for getting development approvals.  As I understand it, the Virginia General Assembly does not allow counties in the Commonwealth to enact APFO.

[cbeach40]

Dealing with development stuff so often, I can tell you exactly how this works in Ontario. I'm sure much of it has some parallels elsewhere.

As part of any development - commercial, residential, institutional, etc - the proponent creates a traffic impact study. The appropriate agencies (municipal, MTO if near enough to a provincial highway) receive a copy for their review and approval prior to development being allowed to take place.

1. Traffic Growth:
- Background traffic - this is traffic that would be on the roadway whether or not the development is built
- Trip generation - the number of trips expected to be generated by the development (based on factors like trips per square footage of retail, per number of dwelling units, etc.)

2. Network Impact:
- Are any improvements necessary in order for traffic to function properly? Are new lanes, turn tapers, signals required? Are these as a result of the background traffic growth or does the development trigger them? Well, that's what the traffic impact study and the subsequent review of it is supposed to determine.

3. Paying for the improvements:
- If it's the developer's actions that will trigger the need for improvements, then they will pay for it. If the background growth has triggered it, they won't. If it's a combination (for example, if widening is needed, but the development requires new signals too) then it's proportionally split, as you may as well do all the work at once and save going back in there for more construction.
- Additionally, municipalities in Ontario do collect development fees , which go not only to the the immediate road improvements, but also contribute to the overall increased demand on the infrastructure and services. To put it one way, development fees pay to grow the city, taxes are to run and maintain it.


That's the short, short, short version of it.