Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hudson staff favor trip‑generation analyses and reserve full impact studies for higher‑threshold projects
Summary
Commissioners and staff agreed the city will typically require a trip‑generation analysis for most applications and reserve full traffic impact studies for projects that meet engineering thresholds (examples cited: 15 trips vs 100‑trip cumulative thresholds). Staff will confirm guidance in the Hudson traffic manual.
Hudson planning staff and commissioners clarified the city's approach to traffic analysis during the Appendix A work session, agreeing that a trip‑generation analysis will be required in most cases while a full traffic impact study will be asked for when engineering identifies a threshold that justifies deeper study.
Speaker 2 framed the issue as one of thresholds and engineering judgment: "How about traffic impact study or trip generation analysis as determined by city staff," he said, adding that many small projects generate only a handful of peak‑hour trips and do not need a full study. Commissioners gave examples to illustrate the difference: Speaker 2 cited hypothetical projects producing "15 trips in the peak AM hour and 15 in the PM hour" as instances where a trip‑generation analysis suffices, while Speaker 2 and others referenced a 100‑trip cumulative threshold used elsewhere to trigger more extensive review.
Why it matters: the distinction affects applicants' pre‑application costs and the level of engineering effort required. A trip‑generation analysis is shorter and less costly than a full traffic impact study; reserving the latter for projects meeting clear thresholds aims to balance applicant burden and public‑safety/circulation oversight.
Commissioners asked staff to verify whether the "Hudson guideline manual for the preparation of a traffic impact study" remains the operative reference and to confirm the decision threshold with engineering. Staff said they would consult engineering and incorporate language that allows staff to require a traffic impact study when needed.
Next steps: staff will check the guideline manual and recommend clear language on when a trip‑generation analysis suffices and when a traffic impact study is mandatory. That recommendation will be included in the Appendix A redline to be circulated to the commission.
