Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos

Complete Streets Initiative San Antonio

TEXAS TRAILS & ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION February 1, 2012

2

COMPLETE STREETS SAN ANTONIO

2010 – CPPW grant award 2011 -‐ Policy Adopted 2011 -‐ Project scoping 2012 -‐ MMLOS Training 2012 -‐ BeLer Block 2013 – ConstrucOon of pilot

streets 2020 -‐ Look back & assess

2

3

POLICY PASSED COUNCIL SEPT 29 2011

1.  San Antonio supports Complete Streets

2.  San Antonio promotes healthy living and fitness through Complete Streets

3.  San Antonio supports pedestrian-‐oriented neighborhoods through Complete Streets

4.  Commercial corridors shall be enhanced through the applicaOon of Complete Streets

5.  San Antonio will maximize benefits of investment in capital projects through the applicaOon of Complete Streets.

4

STRATEGIC POINTS OF INTERVENTION

1.  Community Visioning & Goal Se_ng

2.  Plan making 3.  Standards, Policies &

IncenOves 4.  Development Work 5.  Public Investment

From: Complete Streets: Best Policy & Implementa7on Prac7ces, APA Planning Advisory Service Report #559

1.  SA2020 in 2011 2.  Major Thoroughfare Plan

analysis for Complete Streets in 2012

3.  Policy in 2011; Standards in progress

4.  Development work expected 2013

5.  Public investment beginning 2012

NATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SAN ANTONIO PROGRESS

5

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

•  Project Scoping through 2012 City Bond Program •  Downtown projects starOng @ Hemisfair Park

•  CreaOng metrics for Complete Streets •  Training planners & engineers in MMLOS analysis

Main Avenue in downtown San Antonio Espada Road – part of the Mission Trail

6

URBAN LIVING NEEDS COMPLETE STREETS

5000 people projected to move into mixed use planned for Hemisfair Park

STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS

STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS

NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE

TOWER OF THE AMERICAS

PARK

MARIETPLACE

7

PRIORITIES FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY •  MulOmodal TransportaOon

•  Bicycle, Mass Transit, Pedestrian, Vehicle

•  Traffic Calming •  Low Impact Development (LID) •  Placemaking / Economic

8

COMPLETE STREET TYPOLOGIES

Mode Considera9on Based on Land Use Context •  Downtown: Pedestrian Priority •  Urban Mixed Use: Transit-‐Cars-‐Pedestrian •  Urban Neighborhood: Bikes-‐Cars-‐Pedestrian-‐Transit •  Suburban Neighborhood: Pedestrian-‐Cars-‐Bikes •  Suburban Commercial: Cars-‐Transit-‐Pedestrian •  Rural: Cars-‐Bikes

9

DOWNTOWN – Pedestrian Priority

10

URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Pedestrian-‐Bikes-‐Cars-‐Transit

PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian refuge islands Street trees / landscaping TRANSIT Improved transit stops Mid-‐block crossings

CYCLING Bicycle lanes IntersecOon improvements Buffers

CARS Road markings & signals Traffic circles On street parking

11

TRADEOFFS IN THE PUBLIC ROW

76 FEET RIGHT OF WAY

12

MMLOS

Mulitmodal Level of Service evaluates traffic impacts of pedestrian, bicycle & transit faciliOes

Brief version conducted for Bond project evaluaOon using field data tool

City staff being trained in Synchro somware to assess street segments proposed for Complete Streets

Need to incorporate uOliOes within the ROW

13

MMLOS EVALUATION TOOL

•  ExisOng & proposed ROW •  Average Daily Traffic (ADT) •  ExisOng & proposed traffic lanes •  ExisOng & proposed transit routes •  Is route idenOfied on SA Bikes plan? •  Located within one mile of greenway? •  Provides access to school, park or recreaOon? • Within ¼ mile of pedestrian generator?

14

SAMPLE RESULTS

2.36

Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 62.70

Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.

2.84

3.57

4.07

S Hackberry St @ Essex Place to E Drexel Ave

D

CProposed withBike Lanes

ExistingConditions

DBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes

Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.

4.5SCORE

COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS

SCORE

COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS

B

COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS

SCORE 6.9

B

Proposed

Existing

PEDESTRIANLOS

7.8

15

70 ft

92 ft90 ft95 ft100 ft92 ft

88 ft86 ft91 ft96 ft88 ft

ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added

LANE DIET - Reduce Lanes from 12' to 11'

ROW needed if a shared use path is added

ROW needed if bike lanes are added

Availability of ROW assumes 5' minimum distance from back of sidewalk to ROW for utilities. A 6 ft sidewalk is included for all street sections.

ROW INADEQUATE

RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS

ROW INADEQUATE

ROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* ROW INADEQUATE

Score:

7-10

ROW INADEQUATE

SCORING LEGEND

High need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should include as many features for this road user as possible

Available ROW

ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes are addedROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added

ROW needed for Street Cross-Section Options:

ROW INADEQUATE

Moderate need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should incorporate features for this road user if right-of-way is available.

1-44-7

ROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if a shared use path is added ROW INADEQUATE

ROW INADEQUATE

*Assumes uilities are placed in a 5 ft buffer between the sidewalk and curb, and the sidewalk is at the ROW line. Additional ROW or retaining wall may be necessary for grading.

The need for Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit considerations on the rodway are scored on a scale of 1 to 10.

Minimal need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user.

Explanation:

ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are addedROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* ROW INADEQUATE

Consider reducing median width to accommodate Complete Streets Features.

SAMPLE RESULTS

16

MULTI-‐MODAL (MMLOS) ANALYSIS TOOL

Exis9ng Cesar Chavez Blvd

Pedestrian LOS = D

Proposed Cross Sec9on Cesar Chavez Blvd

Pedestrian LOS = C

17

•  Located 1 ½ miles north of downtown, above the I-‐35 freeway

•  36,000 daily students •  920 employees •  8 county service area •  5 transit routes •  No dormitories •  1 high school •  Minimal off campus parking

SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE

18

SAN PEDRO AVE

•  Major north-‐south arterial roadway with access to downtown

•  17,000 vehicles per day •  3 frequent transit routes •  VIA offices – 800+

employees •  San Pedro Park – popular

year-‐round park

19

SAN PEDRO AVE

20

2.87



3.15

3.88

3.88

San Pedro from Cypress to Hildebrand

D


ExistingConditions



8.6SCORE


SCORE


C


SCORE 9.8

C

Proposed

Existing

PEDESTRIANLOS

10

VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE

LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from Florida DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1.C

21

MAIN AVE

•  North-‐south collector street with access to downtown

•  8300 vehicles per day •  1 transit route •  Campus + business “Main Street”

•  Mixed use planned •  On SA Bikes plan

22

2.95



3.01

3.73

3.88

Main Ave from Cypress to Hildebrand

D


ExistingConditions



7.7SCORE


SCORE


C


SCORE 9.8

B

Proposed

Existing

PEDESTRIANLOS

10



23

W ASHBY PL

•  Local street with bike lanes

•  Connects eastside – westside neighborhoods

•  2500 vehicles per day •  1 busy transit route •  On SA Bikes plan •  Hilly

24

Calculate Score

1.97



3.12

3.39

3.62

W Ashby from San Pedro to Main

D


ExistingConditions

CBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes


10SCORE


SCORE


A


SCORE 10

B

Proposed

Existing

PEDESTRIANLOS

10



25

W EVERGREEN

•  Neighborhood street -‐ 1 mile long

•  Dead-‐ends at San Pedro •  3500 vehicles per day •  1 transit route •  No pavement markings

26

2.10



3.29

3.56

3.80

W Evergreen from San Pedro to Main

D


ExistingConditions



3.7SCORE


SCORE


B


SCORE 10

B

Proposed

Existing

PEDESTRIANLOS

10



27

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES

•  Roundabouts •  Mini traffic circles •  On street parking •  Reverse angle parking •  Curb bulbouts •  Pedestrian refuge islands •  Improved transit stops •  Mid-‐block crossings •  Bicycle lanes •  Street trees / landscaping

28

ROAD DIETS / LANE DIETS

ROAD DIETS reduce the number of lanes in a roadway

Typical is 4 lanes to 3 with center turn lane

6000 vehicles per day per lane is starOng point to consider road diet

Buses, loading trucks, on-‐street parking will impact LOS

LANE DIETS reduce width of lanes Typical is 12 m to 11 m – can go to 10

m in some instances Parking lane widths reduced to 8 m Narrower lanes tend to slow traffic

speeds VIA buses require 12 m lanes

Research by NCHRP and others point to increased safety for both road diets and lane diets with 20-‐40% crash reduc7ons

29

EXERCISE: MAKING COMPLETE STREETS

•  Assess available ROW, traffic volume, adjacent uses, number of desOnaOons

•  Determine modal priority: pedestrians, transit, cars, bikes

•  Develop preliminary street cross-‐secOon •  Determine whether addiOonal traffic calming methods needed – roundabouts, street parking etc.

•  Consider ameniOes such as landscape, pedestrian refuges, mini-‐plazas, public art

•  Develop cross secOons with traffic calming treatments

30

Thank you!

Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos

Documents

Transcript of Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos