Redlands Measure G: The Facts About Traffic Congestion
By: Dave Scheirer
Tags: Measure G, Traffic, Redlands, Urban Planning

Well, I would love to see an interview with anyone who believes that Measure G will reduce traffic congestion in Redlands since I can’t find any support for it. That misinformation makes me question all the “Facts” related to the “Yes on Measure G” campaign. My view of traffic congestion related to Measure G follows.

The decades of studies alluded to only apply to existent high-density urban areas before adding mass transit. Appropriate examples in Southern California are the LA Metro Purple Line nine-mile extension to Westwood or the Gold Line 12-mile extension to Montclair. People already live in these built-out areas, and new mass transit offers an alternative to travel by car. As a result, these projects may take vehicles off the road during standard commuting times.

City on Measure G — Increased Traffic is Likely

However, those examples are not appropriate to Redlands. The Redlands Planning Department estimates that the passage of Measure G could result in 5,000 to 6,000 more people living in the Transit Villages Planning Area. And the City of Redlands web page of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Measure G discusses traffic in this manner. “Traffic impacts are unknown, but it is likely that traffic may increase.” In sum, the City confirms that increased traffic is likely.

Measure G Eliminates Traffic Levels of Service (LOS) Requirements

Regarding the purported myth that Measure G eliminates traffic congestion standards. The same City of Redlands FAQ page states, “Currently, street intersections with traffic levels of service (LOS) C must maintain that level of service. Measure G eliminates that requirement for intersections within the Transit Villages Planning Area.” That’s gobbledygook to anyone who’s not a traffic engineer. I’m not a traffic engineer either but I’ll do my best.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS)

Some people note that LOS is irrelevant since the State of California has been requiring the use of VMT for defining California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts since Dec 2018. But, the new law still allows level of service (LOS) analysis for congestion management. (Reference) Since the topic is traffic congestion in downtown Redlands, LOS is still the correct metric.

The Highway Capacity Manual from the Transportation Research Board defines LOS. For arterial roads and signalized intersections it identifies traffic levels of service (LOS) from A to F as follows:

LOS A — Free flow with unimpeded maneuverability. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal.

LOS B — Stable flow with slightly restricted maneuverability. Stopped delays are not bothersome. (slight delays)

LOS C — Stable flow with somewhat more restrictions in making mid-block lane changes than LOS B. Motorists will experience appreciable tension while driving. (acceptable delays)

LOS D — Approaching unstable flow where small increases in volume produce substantial increases in delay and decreases in speed. (tolerable delays)

LOS E — Unstable flow with significant intersection approach delays and low average speeds. (intolerable delays)

LOS F — Forced flow with extremely low speeds caused by intersection congestion, high delay, and adverse signal progression. (congested and queues fail to clear)

Visual representation of the six levels of service given letter designations A to F.

Measure G eliminates the requirement for LOS C (appreciable tension while driving) from developments within 782 acres (approx 2 miles x 1/2 mile) of the heart of Redlands. If anyone believed that Measure G would reduce traffic congestion, why was the requirement for LOS C removed?

To be fair, maintaining LOS C in the Transit Villages will probably be too expensive. But I’m afraid I have to disagree with Measure G in eliminating all LOS requirements in the Transit Villages. The Nebraska DOT objective in urban areas is LOS D. In contrast, Reston, VA accepts LOS E. It appears that the Redlands City Council has capitulated to LOS F (approaching gridlock).

Is Measure G a Well Thought Out Plan to Ease the Housing Crisis?

To be clear, I understand and agree with the need to start addressing sustainable development immediately and solving housing, traffic, and environmental issues for our children and grandchildren. Therefore, I’m all for the train and mixed-use “Transit Villages” taller than 35 feet. But I’m not for either without understanding and mitigating traffic congestion.

The State requirements for more housing makes it likely that the City of Redlands will be mandated to allow 4,487 more dwelling units within the city limits by 2025. (Reference) More dwelling units mean more traffic. I agree that mixed-use development near mass transit may result in less additional vehicle miles traveled in the region compared to the alternative of added housing scattered around the City. However, concentrating all the added housing and traffic in the urban center while eliminating traffic congestion requirements in that area isn’t a well thought out plan.

The following statement from the City’s FAQ, coupled with the elimination of traffic congestion requirements, doesn’t provide much reassurance. “The City will continue to evaluate the street network of the Transit Villages Planning Area with the review and adoption of the Transit Villages Specific Plan, and recommend improvements to the street network as necessary.” Traffic congestion shouldn’t be addressed in an ad hoc manner. Traffic is key infrastructure that should be considered early and holistically.

Increased Traffic is Likely and Measure G Will Remove LOS Requirements

In sum, the City of Redlands position on traffic congestion with Measure G is:

Traffic impacts are unknown, but an increase in traffic is likely .

. We’ll recommend street network improvements with the review and adoption of the Transit Villages Specific Plan.

with the review and adoption of the Transit Villages Specific Plan. For developers, Measure G will remove requirements to meet traffic Levels of Service (LOS).

More Traffic Congestion Downtown or More Traffic in the Outer Areas?

The City’s position, combined with the misleading “Yes on G” premise of reduced traffic congestion, makes me uneasy. I’d feel less apprehensive if the City had been more proactive in understanding and laying out the traffic implications for voters. For example, it would have been appropriate to communicate the situation as follows:

Yes on Measure G means more traffic congestion downtown. We’ll no longer hold developers to a level of service (LOS) requirement at street intersections. However, we will recommend street network improvements as the Transit Villages Specific Plan is reviewed and adopted.

No on Measure G means changing commercial and agricultural zoning to residential in the outer areas of Redlands. More traffic will occur in those areas. Developers will need to meet a LOS C requirement (acceptable delays) in the outer areas. Note: I can’t find the City’s assessment of traffic congestion in this case. I don’t know if the outer areas have sufficient existing capacity or not.

Where to Put New Housing in Redlands?

In sum, the City of Redlands should add new housing where existing and future infrastructure can support it. That probably means a combination of new housing downtown AND new housing in the outer areas. The City should have started with a traffic analysis of the Transit Villages area to determine how much new housing could be added without making traffic congestion intolerable. And then the remainder of new units to meet the state requirement would be rezoned in the outer areas of Redlands.

Some of the “Yes on G” claims cause me to apply the brakes.

Recommended Measure G Articles

- Redlands Cultural Battle On As Measure G Angles To Undo Growth Controls, San Bernardino County Sentinel

- With Measure G, Redlands Joins The Debate Over Housing And Transit-Oriented Development, KVCR

About Me

I’ve lived in Redlands for more than 30 years and hope to live here another 30 years. I care about the “Jewel of the Inland Empire.” I’m not a business owner, land developer, politician, government employee, or traffic engineer.