Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council eases egress-level standard in traffic impact analysis to help redevelopment
Summary
York County Council approved a text amendment to the land development code adjusting Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for site egress movements, loosening the standard for new developments and providing limited relief for existing sites with marginally failing egresses.
York County Council on Jan. 21 approved a text amendment to Section 154.365 of the county’s Land Development Code that revises Level of Service (LOS) criteria used in traffic impact analyses (TIAs) for site egress movements. The change lowers the LOS requirement for new developments from D to E for egress movements and allows existing developments to accept a higher delay in certain circumstances, subject to limits.
Jonathan, a county planning/transportation staff member, told the council the tweak is narrowly targeted to the egress movement — the delay that drivers experience when leaving a site — and is intended to make redevelopment on existing corridors more feasible without requiring extensive traffic mitigation. He explained that the maximum change for new developments translates to a roughly 25‑second increase at signalized intersections (LOS D allows up to 55 seconds; LOS E up to 80 seconds) and a smaller change at unsignalized intersections.
“It's really a maximum difference of a 25 second delay,” Jonathan said, describing the proposal.
Staff said the amendment does not alter capacity or delay on the main thoroughfare itself but instead affects internal delay at the driveway or development egress point. Examples included a site on Highway 160 where staff had recommended eliminating a left‑turn egress during peak periods; under the amendment that site could retain full access and accept a larger internal delay, giving drivers the option to wait for a left turn at off‑peak times or choose alternative routing.
The Planning Commission recommended the amendment in a 7‑0 vote. Supporters said the change helps promote infill development on corridors that already have thoroughfare capacity and can reduce pressure to push development further into rural areas. Some council members raised safety questions and asked how the proposed standard aligns with state Department of Transportation practices and signal warrants; staff replied the amendment is site‑specific and most affected egress movements involve unsignalized access.
Council voted to approve the amendment in the meeting; staff said the change is within planning and design best practices and is intended as a limited, technical fix rather than a wholesale rewriting of access management policy.
