Post on 16-Jan-2015
description
CNU XVII: Experiencing the Urbanism: The Convenient Remedy
Balancing Mobility & CommunityCost Saving for Freeway Teardowns: Replace, Prevent, Remove
Prepared by:
TROY RUSS, AICPPrincipalGlatting Jackson Kercher Anglin, Inc.
June 13, 2009
Past & FutureBaton Rouge
Early Settlement Pattern: 1700s-1900
• Population: 11,000• River & Rail Economy
Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
Initial Suburban Growth:1900 – 1960
• Population: 125,000• Industrial Expansion (Oil)• Growing road infrastructure
Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
Highway Expansion:1960 – Present
• Population: 230,000 (Baton Rouge)
• 412,000 (East Baton Rouge Parish)
• Interstate access and urban expansion
I-12
US 61
US 6
1 Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
I-10
Central
What’s Next? 21st Century
• Horizon Plan: Focused Growth Centers (Major Regional, Regional, Community)
• Intensified Corridors?• Town intensification?
(Baker, Zachary, etc.)
I-12
I-10
US 61
US 6
1
Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
Central
What’s Next? 21st Century
• Baton Rouge Loop??• Intercity Passenger
Rail??
I-12
I-10
US 61
US 190
US 6
1
Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
Central
What’s Next? 21st Century
• Baton Rouge Loop??• Intercity Passenger
Rail??
I-12
I-10
US 61
US 190
US 6
1
Baker
Zachary
Plaquemine
Addis
Brusly
Port Allen
Denham Springs
Walker
Baton Rouge
Central
Relationship
Transportation / Land Use
Conventi
onal A
ppro
ach
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
M
an
ag
em
ent
More Pavement
More
Lanes
More
Roads
ITS
More
Cars
Conventional Approach
Land Use/Transportation“The Concept”
Anticipate Forecast Accommodate
Land Use Travel Road Capacity
generates
demands
Plan
ProgramEnginee
r
Traffic Needs
Local Plans Local InputPublic
Information
OtherBuild
1 2 3 4 5
Project
Widen
Words
Typical Regional Program
Public InputTechnicians Input
Wid
en
20-Year Forecast
Capacity
Years
Land Use & Transportation – Ideal Traffic Planning
Actual
Induced Traffic
Forecast
Capacity
Years
Wid
en
Land Use & Transportation – The Reality
Widen Road
Reduce Delay
Reduce Cost
Move Home
Range Farther
Drive More
Own More Cars
FIRST ORDE
R
SECOND
ORDER
THIRD ORDER
Chain of Impacts
HigherCarbon
Footprint
Increased Energy Demand
LoseBusiness &
Jobs
Community
Disinvestment
Big Box
InactivityEpidemic
More VMT
IncreasedHouseholdTransportat
ion Costs
Congestion
Wid
en
Congestion
Congestion
Tra
ffic
Wid
en
Capacity
Years
Choice
Reduced Options
No Option
Road Size, Not Congestion, is the Choice
Transportation Statistics
Results Over the Last 50-Years
1) Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Growing Faster Than Population Growth
2) Longer Commute Times
3) Decreased Transit Ridership
Charlotte’s Population Per Acre1950-2005
3.63.483.563.52
4.964.85
6.98
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Persons Per Acre
Land Use Statistics
Decreased Density . . Increased Sprawl
The physical impacts of all this inactivity
• Increased risk of obesity
• Increased risk of major diseases• Diabetes• Cardiovascular
disease• Colon cancer
• Increased symptoms of depressionand anxiety
• Poorer development and maintenance of bones and muscles
Social Statistics
Shelter 19Transportation 17.9Food 13.7Insurance & Pensions 9.6Other Household 7.5Utilities 6.8Health Care 5.4Entertainment 5Apparel & Services 4.8Education 2.1Miscellaneous 8.2
Total 100
Shelter 19%
Transportation 17.9%
Food 13.7%
Insurance & Pensions 9.6%
Other Household 7.5%
Utilities 6.8%
Health Care 5.4%
Entertainment 5.0%
Apparel & Services 4.8%
Education 2.1%Misc. 8.2%
Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project: Driven to Spend – The Impact of Sprawl on Transportation Expenditure
Household Statistics
Photographer: rosevita. Used through license agreement with morguefile.com
Environmental Statistics
Cultural Statistics
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Cumulative Needs Existing Sources of Revenue
Current Dollars (in Billions)
Cost to “Improve” = $3.4 trillion
Cost to “Maintain” = $2.8 trillion
$2.4 trillion
Gap to “Improve" = $1.0 trillion
Gap to “Maintain" = $415 billion
Source: Cambridge Systematics, April 2006
Budgetary Statistics(PENNDOT 2006-2015)
“The problems we have created cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them….”
Image Source: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. Original copyright expired.
Accept Congest
IncreaseDelay
IncreaseCost
Improve
Home
Change Modes
Drive Less
Own Fewer Cars
FIRST ORDE
R
SECOND
ORDER
THIRD ORDER
Chain of Impacts
LowerCarbon
Footprint
DecreasedEnergy Demand
KeepBusiness &
Jobs
Community
Reinvestment
Main Street
HealthyCommuniti
es
LessVMT
DecreasedHouseholdTransportat
ion Costs
Supply and Demand
Pri
ce
Demand
New “Market” Price Points
Old Policy
USA Today,May 24, 2008
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth.
People will get sick and tired of traffic congestion and...
Karl RasmussenState Traffic Engineer, Minnesota
…and move into the city.
Karl RasmussenState Traffic Engineer, Minnesota
Case Study: Chattanooga, TN
Riverfront Parkway
Chattanooga: A Transformative Vision
Tennessee River
Geo
rgia
Ave
nue
Ch
est
nu
t A
ven
ue
Riverfront Parkway
4th Street
6th Street
MLK Boulevard Mab
el A
venue
3rd Street
Lin
dsay
Str
eet
Hou
ston
Str
eet
Riverfront Parkway –Traffic Flow – Year 2000
13,339 ADT(1,262) AM Peak
19,998 ADT(2,050) AM Peak
19,482 ADT(1,728) AM Peak
Tennessee River
Geo
rgia
Ave
nue
Ch
est
nu
t A
ven
ue
Riverfront Parkway
4th Street
6th Street
MLK Boulevard Mab
el A
venue
3rd Street
Lin
dsay
Str
eet
Hou
ston
Str
eet
Riverfront Parkway –Traffic Flow – Year 2005
Riverfront Parkway Looking From Walnut Street Bridge to Market Street Bridge: 2000
Riverfront Parkway Looking From Walnut Street Bridge to Market Street Bridge: Vision
Riverfront Parkway Looking From Walnut Street Bridge to Market Street Bridge: 2005
21st Century Waterfront – 2005
Chestnut S
treet
US
27
4 th Street
Chattanooga: A Transformative Vision
Case Study: Trenton, N J
Use Network to Balance Traffic Impacts
The Historic Riverfront
The Change for Mobility
Time to Reclaim the River
• Reclaim the Delaware River Waterfront• Improve Access to Waterfront• Improve Safety and Provide Traffic
Calming• Promote Urban and Economic
Redevelopment • Provide Environmental Enhancements
along Assunpink Creek and Delaware River
Project Goals
Riverfront & Park Space
Travel Time Runs
Cass Street Fro
m I-195
South Warren Street
Calhoun StreetParkside Avenue
Lee Street
Sullivan Way
13m26s
45s
1m59s2m10s42s1m15s Market
Street
1m40s
Difference AM Peak Hour = 2m 01s
Difference PM Peak Hour = 5 4s
Case Study: Flemington, NJRegulating Redevelopment to Build Transportation
Infrastructure ITE Best Project Award 2009
Existing Land Use
• Commercial strip development along Route 31 and US 202
• Undeveloped agricultural lands converting to commercial and industrial uses
• Still lots of undeveloped land (opportunity to shape future development pattern)
Industrial
Undeveloped Land
Commercial
Flemington 1850s
Flemington
South Branch River
Flemington Today
Route
202
Existin
g R
t.
31
Rt. 12 Flemington Circle
• Sparse Network
• Three routes all meet at “Flemington Circle”
Flemington – On the Books
Route
202
Existin
g R
t.
31
Rt. 12 Flemington Circle
• 4-lane Bypass
• Widen existing Rt. 31 from 2 to 4 lanes
• Grade Separate “Flemington Circle”
• 100% Designed, $100 million (not funded)
Flemington CircleFlemington Circle• Bypass
– Grade Separated Circle traffic volumes & Levels of Service
LOS C
LOS C
Development Pressure
Currently planned or approved (Red)
Considering Development (Red outline)
Undeveloped (Green)
• Lots of moving pieces that can sill be influenced
An Alternative Concept:“South Branch Parkway”
• An at grade “parkway”
• New network connections to provide parallel routes to 202 and 31
• Work with property owners to manage access and support approved development plans
• Integrated Land Use and Transportation Strategy
• $20 million
Phasing: Secondary Connections
• Private Development required to build secondary network.
• Separate the Rt. 202, 31, &12 movements
• Transform circle to square
• Continue development of parallel street south of 202
• New site development standards that focus on the street & pedestrian environment
• Separate the Rt. 202, 31, &12 movements
• Transform circle to square
• Continue development of parallel street south of 202
• New site development standards that focus on the street & pedestrian environment
“ Circle to Square ”
“ Circle to Square”
Connectivity Planning
LOS CLOS C LOS B
LOS B
Conventional Planning
Case Study: Montgomery County, PA
Context & Fiscal Responsibility
The Concept for US 202 Has Changed Significantly Over the Years
No Build Option
NBCP Option
$111M
Project Cost
Parkway Option
$206M
$161M
Project Cost
Cost toComplete
Total Project Cost
Expressway Option
$383M
Project Cost
$465M
Cost toComplete
Total Project Cost
No Significant Relief to Section 700 or Other Local Roads
93% of the Trips are Local Trips Rather than Regional Through Trips
Most trips are best served by a complete network of local roads
Only 7% oftrips on US
202are regional
through trips.
37% of all tripsbegin or end inthe study area.
56% of all trips are
completely local,beginning andending in the
studyarea.
Travel Times and Total Travel
Which brings more travel into the corridor
The Expressway significantly reduces travel time for regional through
trips…
NB
NB
CP
Park
wa
yE
xpre
ssw
ay
0 500,000 1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
Total Travel (VMT)Travel Time from Doylestown to Plymouth Meeting (Minutes)
NB
NB
CP
Park
wa
yE
xpre
ssw
ay
60
50
403020100
Evaluation
The Goal is to Maximize Benefits to Local Trips
The Goal is to Maximize Benefits to Local Trips
NEW SOLUTION
A complete network of local roads rather than one new regional route.
Case Study: Charlotte, NCCost to Value
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
29 / 29 WeaveThe Need
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
29 / 29 WeaveThe “Fix” – 1998 Version
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Rocky River Station
29 / 29 WeaveThe New “Fix”– 2007 Version
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Rocky River Station
29 / 29 WeaveThe Problem
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Process
1) Conducted one-on-one stakeholder interviews October 4th and 5th:• Crescent Resources• Stewart Family (During
UCP Study)• I-85 partnership –
Shawn McClaren & John Smith
• Diane Carter, George Shield, & Bob Henderson
• Steve Mogowan & Mary Hopper (Volvo Dealership & UCP)
• CDOT & E&PM• Office of Economic
Development• CMPC• CATS
Rocky River Station
Existing Conditions
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Issues & Concerns:
1) Limited Street Network• Requires 29 / 49 to
accommodate all existing and future traffic.
• Limits the potential for an Urban Boulevard.
• Limits the Transit Oriented Development Potential of the Study Area.
2) Roadway Design Speed and Access• Limits Pedestrian Oriented
Development
• Limits Land Development Potential.
• Prohibits Rocky River Station.
Rocky River Station
These streets are critical to the success of the 29 / 49
Intersection and can be developed as
property is developed without City money:
1) Extension of the 85 Connector to City Boulevard.
2) Creation of North / South Parallel Road from connector to McCullough Drive (Harris)
3) Extension of Shopping Center Drive Over I- 85
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Primary Street Network
Rocky River Station
I- 8
5
Nor
th T
ryon
City Boulevard
The 85 Connector
Rocky River
City Boulevard Station
Design of the streets should follow
those identified in the City’s Urban
Street Design Guidelines:
1) Boulevards (Red)• North Tryon• City Boulevard
2) Avenues (Blue)• Commercial• Residential
3) Main Streets (Yellow)• Rocky River Station
4) Local (Black)• Commercial• Residential
Recommended Street Classification
Rocky River Station
If?What
Community
Plan Program
Traffic Needs
Local Plans
1 2 3 4 5
ProjectOther
Widen / or Network
Design Dialogue
Vision
Plan
ConnectionsMore Small Roads
Less TravelBike Routes
Sidewalks, TreesGreat Streets
Great NeighborhoodsTraffic Calming
Partners
BusinessNeighborhoodsVisitor Needs
Public Input Throughout
Land Use/Transportation
Road Design Travel Land Usemanages
influences
• Lead Land Use
• Condition Protects
• Manage Supply
“Courage is being scared… but saddling up anyway.”
— John Wayne