Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT...
-
Upload
baldric-copeland -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT...
Multimodal Transportation Districts and Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal PlanningAreawide Multimodal Planning
Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOTMartin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOTCherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. PlanningCherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning
Florida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationDistrict 7District 7
March 18, 2008March 18, 2008
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm
Course AgendaCourse Agenda
• Introductions
• Overview of Goals and Concepts
• DeLand: A Multimodal Transportation District Case Study
• Application of Multimodal Planning - Multimodal Transportation Districts: The What, Why, Where, Who, and How
• Linking Land Use and Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service Exercise
• Tallahassee MMTD Evaluation
Multimodal Areawide PlanningMultimodal Areawide PlanningConcepts and ApplicationsConcepts and Applications
Florida Department of Florida Department of TransportationTransportation
Systems Planning OfficeSystems Planning Office
March 2008March 2008
ObjectiveObjective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:– Concurrency in Florida– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation– Multimodal Areawide Planning
Evolution of Concurrency in FloridaEvolution of Concurrency in Florida
• 1985: Growth Management Act• 1989-1991: Comprehensive Plans• 1993: Project Level and Areawide Exceptions• Late 1990’s: Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports/Update of Local Comprehensive Plans• 1998: Transportation and Land Use Study
Committee• 1999: Multimodal Transportation Districts• 2001: Growth Management Study Committee• 2005: Growth Management Act (SB 360)• 2006 & 2007: Backlog Discussion
Concurrency in FloridaConcurrency in Florida
1985 • Teeth of growth
management• New development
should pay for itself• Infrastructure should
be in place and available at time of impact
2007• Unintended
consequences• Concerns about
multimodalism and community design
• Backlog of projects• Funding Dilemma• Public-private
partnerships
• Why – required by law (163.3180 F.S. and 9J-05.0055 FAC) to provide for ‘adequate public facilities’
• Who – Implemented by local governments and is a local government responsibility
• When – At the time of development order/building permit approval (Non-DRI’s)– Previously may have occurred at time of certificate of
occupancy
ConcurrencyConcurrency
Transportation Concurrency ProcessTransportation Concurrency Process
• Establish LOS Standards in Local Comprehensive Plan
• Implement Concurrency as Part of Land Development Regulations
• Calculate Level of Service on Major Roadways
• Calculate the Availability of Capacity as a Part of Development Review
ConcurrencyConcurrency
• Intent– Responsible
growth by requiring local governments to improve roads
• Assumes– Local governments
have the funds to improve roads
• Reality– Locals may not have
adequate funds– May lack support to increase
funds– Can’t build your way out
• Unintended Consequences – Urban sprawl– Urban “infill sprawl” – using
up every last drop of capacity within a CMS
Options Beyond Basic Concurrency SystemOptions Beyond Basic Concurrency System
• Redefine LOS Standard
• Project Specific Exceptions– Projects that Promote Public Transportation
• Areawide Exceptions– Transportation Management Area (TCMA)– Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
(TCEA)– Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD)
“Each local government shall establish a level of service standard for each public facility within its boundary…”
9J-5.005(3) Department of Community Affairs Concurrency Rule
Level of Service StandardsLevel of Service Standards
• Adopted in specific facilities elements and Capital Improvements Element
• Adequate and based on data and analysis – For roadways – must adopt standards for facilities on
future traffic circulation map
– For Strategic Intermodal System – Must adopt standards of FDOT (Rule 14-94, FAC)
– For other functionally classified roadways must adopt ‘adequate’ standards
– LOS standards are typically A-F, but sometimes are a specific number of vehicles/trips.
Long-Term Transportation Concurrency Long-Term Transportation Concurrency Management System (LTTCMS)Management System (LTTCMS)
• Application – Improvement Needed– There must be an improvement which can solve the
concurrency (LOS) problem
• Requirements – Funding– Long term schedule of capital improvements
• Monitoring– May include interim LOS standards– Annual CIP– During EAR
Provides an Exception Until Improvement Made
TCMA – Averaging ConditionsTCMA – Averaging Conditions
• Application – Infill and Redevelopment– Compact area – Existing road network with multiple viable alternative
travel paths or modes.
• Requirements – Areawide Mobility– Promote infill and redevelopment– Provide mobility
• Monitoring– May include areawide LOS standard– During EAR
TCEA – Infill & RedevelopmentTCEA – Infill & Redevelopment
• Application – Land Use– Less than 10% developable vacant land
• Residential > 60%, then at least 5 DUs/acre• Non-residential >60%, then FAR at least 1.0
– Designated urban redevelopment area– Designated downtown revitalization area
• Requirements – Mobility, Funding– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,
network connectivity– Justify size of area
• Monitoring– During EAR
MMTD – Non-Auto Mobility FocusMMTD – Non-Auto Mobility Focus
• Application – Priorities– Primary priority is safe, comfortable, and attractive
pedestrian environment, convenient interconnection to transit
– Secondary priority is vehicle mobility
• Requirements – Mobility, Funding– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,
network connectivity
• Monitoring– May establish multimodal LOS standards– During EAR– 2 year reporting
Comparison of Transportation Concurrency Comparison of Transportation Concurrency Areawide ExceptionsAreawide Exceptions
1: MMTD’s require a minimum population and employment, but this figure is not area specific.
2: The TCMA may be established in “a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common purpose.”
3: Discussed in statute, but no measure provided.
TCMA TCEA MMTD
Density requirement Yes Yes --- 1
Must be infill oriented Yes Yes ---
Limited area Yes 2 --- 3 --- 3
Areawide Level of Service Yes --- 3 Yes
Multimodal Level of Service --- --- 3 Yes
Addresses land use --- 3 Yes Yes
Addresses connectivity Yes 2 Yes Yes
Addresses Impacts to SIS Yes Yes Yes
Common RequirementsCommon Requirements
• Amendment to the comprehensive plan• Evaluate impacts to surrounding areas
– Be careful about solving one problem but creating other problems
• Financial feasibility– Funding strategy to accomplish goals
• Monitoring– Minimum is part of Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR)
Course ObjectiveCourse Objective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:– Concurrency in Florida– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation– Multimodal Areawide Planning
MMTD LegislationMMTD Legislation
F.S. 163.3180 (15)(a) allows:–Establishment of Multimodal Transportation Districts under local government comprehensive plans designating an area assigning priority to:
• Safe comfortable and attractive pedestrian environment
• Convenient interconnection to transit• Secondary priority to vehicle mobility
F.S. 163.3180 (15)(b):– Local governments shall use professionally
accepted techniques for measuring level of service for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and trucks.
– FDOT shall develop methodologies used to assist local governments in implementing this multimodal level of service analysis
– DCA and FDOT will provide technical assistance to local governments in applying these methodologies
MMTD LegislationMMTD Legislation
In Response to Legislation FDOT has:In Response to Legislation FDOT has:
• Developed level of service methodology and analysis tools for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes
• Prepared the Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook to detail methodology and techniques for multimodal areawide planning
• Prepared Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts report to provide model comp plan amendments and land development regulations to local governments
• Prepared Safe Ways to School – The Role in Multimodal Planning report to define the special needs of schools in consideration of MMTDs
MMTD LegislationMMTD Legislation
Course ObjectiveCourse Objective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:– Concurrency in Florida– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation– Multimodal Areawide Planning
Goal of Multimodal Areawide PlanningGoal of Multimodal Areawide Planning
To encourage and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation ultimately resulting in the reduction of automobile usage and vehicle miles of travel
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use
MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities
• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service
• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets
Population
At least 5,000 in residential population
Employment
A range, from 1:1 to 3:1, of population to employment
Appropriate Scale of DevelopmentAppropriate Scale of Development
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use
MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities
• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service
• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets
Buildings & Services Adjacent to Sidewalk
Urban DesignUrban Design
Short Block Lengths & Dense Street Network
Urban DesignUrban Design
Pedestrian Friendly
Urban DesignUrban Design
Urban DesignUrban Design
Transit Friendly
Urban DesignUrban Design
Freight and Delivery Access for Businesses
Urban DesignUrban Design
Ten Steps To WalkabilityCompact, lively town center
Low speed streets, distributed volumes
Neighborhood schools and parks, within 1/4 mile of residences
Public places with inviting features: benches, restrooms, shade, water and art
Convenient, safe and efficient crossings
Affordable, inspiring, well maintained streets and homes
Land use and transportation partnerships
Celebrated public space and public life, parades, markets, festivals, awards
Many people of all ages and abilities walking many hours
Fine grained streets, many trails, transit links
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use
MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities
• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service
• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets
Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Three or more significant, mutually supporting land uses, one of which is residential
Physical and functional integration of uses
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Supporting Land Uses
OfficeLocal ServicesMedical ServicesHotelRestaurantsShoppingRecreational/CulturalConvenience RetailGym/Health ClubEducational/Day CareCollege/UniversityGov’t Agency
Significant Land Use:
Employment and
Schools
Significant Land Use:
Residential
Handbook, Page 23
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Preferred Ratio of Uses
Land Uses
Open/Parks/Recreational
Office/Commercial/Lt. Industrial
Residential
Preferred Ratio
5% - 15%
30% - 70%
20% - 60%
Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses
Organization of Land Uses Promoting a Central Core
MEDIUM DENSITY(Townhouse, Garden Apartment, Retail and Service)
HIGH DENSITY(Mixed Use, Commercial, Retail, Apartment and Institutional)
High Capacity Transit Station
LOW DENSITY(Single Family, Retail and Service
Boundary of Walking Distance
1/4 Mile
1/2 Mile
Primary Service Boundary
Handbook, Page 26
Land Use: Land Use: OrganizationOrganization
Area in open development preferably 160 acres..in any case it should house enough people to require one elementary school. Exact shape not essential but best when all sides are fairly equidistant from center.
A shopping district might be substituted for church site
Shopping districts in periphery at traffic junctions and preferably bunched in form.
Only neighborhood institutions at community center
Ten percent of area to recreation and park space
Interior streets not wider than required for specific use and giving easy access to shops and community center
Source: The Fractured Metropolis, Jonathan Barnett, 1995
Roads connect where possible
Site reserved for civic building
Short face of blocks along boulevards
Only neighborhood shops & institutions at the center
The bus stopshere
A playground in each quadrant
School locatedto beshared byadjacentneighborhood
Parkway corridor along boulevard
Mixed use street anchored by corner shopping district
Shops & offices along boulevards
Shopping centers at high traffic intersections
Parking lot designed as plaza
Area: Preferable 160 acres to house enough people to support 1 elementary school Preferable shape: All sides are fairlyequidistant from thecenter
Handbook, Page 31
Land Use: Land Use: OrganizationOrganization
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
MAJOR TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CORRIDOR
HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG THE CORRIODRS CONCENTRATED IN AREAS WITH HIGH INTERMODAL POTENTIAL
DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM ACTIVITY CENTERS INCREASES
Handbook, Page 27
Land Use: Land Use: Densities and IntensitiesDensities and Intensities
TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CORRIDOR
HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED INSIDE OF ARTERIAL BOUNDARY OF DISTRICT
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERSFOCUSED WITHIN DISTRICT
MAJOR ARTERIAL OR INTERSTATE
DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM MAJOR ARTERIAL INCREASES
Handbook, Page 28
Land Use: Land Use: Densities and IntensitiesDensities and Intensities
Desirable Densities and Intensities
Residential Land Use (DU/Acres)
Commercial Land Use (Emp/Acre)
Multimodal Potential
1 - 3 1 - 39 Poor.
4 - 6 40 - 59Marginal. Possibility for success.
7 - 14 60 - 99Good. Supports bus transit
15+ 100+High. Supports high capacity transit.
Handbook, Page 25
Land Use: Land Use: Densities and IntensitiesDensities and Intensities
Appropriate Organization, Densities and Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land UsesIntensities of Land Uses
Appropriate Organization, Densities and Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land UsesIntensities of Land Uses
Appropriate Organization, Densities and Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land UsesIntensities of Land Uses
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use
MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities
• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service
• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets
• Existence of regional transportation connections
• Good multimodal connectivity to the regional connections
Transportation: Transportation: Regional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity
• Connected, continuous pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks
• Amenities exist that make multimodal usage a pleasant experience
• Land use elements combine with the transportation systems to promote multimodal usage
Transportation: Transportation: Availability of Different ModesAvailability of Different Modes
Multimodal Transportation NetworksMultimodal Transportation Networks
Multimodal Transportation NetworksMultimodal Transportation Networks
• Network connectivity for all modes is critical for a successful MMTD
• An index can be used to rate the level of network connectivity
• Index is based on the polygon methodology
Transportation: Transportation: Network ConnectivityNetwork Connectivity
Pedestrian Connectivity Index1 Mile
1 Mile
1 2
3
4 5 6 7
8 9
10 1112 13
14 15
16
17 18
19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26
27 29 29 30 31 32
33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43 44 45
46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Street System
Pedestrian Network
Shared Use Path
District BoundaryHandbook, Page 34
Bicycle Connectivity Index
1 Mile
1 Mile
1 2
3
4 5 6 7
8 9 1011 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26
28
27
29
30 31 32 33 34 35 36
37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Street System
Pedestrian Network
Shared Use Path
District BoundaryHandbook, Page 35
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• FDOT has developed multimodal LOS methodology
• Define the modal networks– Pedestrian– Bicycle– Transit– Auto
• For LOS analysis, the network consists of functionally classified collectors and above
• Pedestrian LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user
• Factors include:– Presence of sidewalk– Buffers between sidewalk and motor vehicle
travel lanes– Presence of protective barriers– Width of outside travel lanes and bicycle lanes– Motor vehicle traffic volume– Motor vehicle speed
Handbook, Page 43
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Bicycle LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user
• Factors include:– Presence of designated bike lane or paved
shoulder– Pavement width– Traffic volume in outside lane– Motor vehicle speed– Percentage and number of trucks– Pavement surface condition
Handbook, Page 43
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Each factor is weighted by relative importance
• Weighting validated by a statistically significant sample
• Numerical LOS score is computed and converted to letter LOS grade
• Numerical score generally ranges from 0.5 to 6.5
Transportation: LOS Analysis
Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Thresholds
Level of Service ScoreA <=1.5
B >1.5 and <=2.5
C >2.5 and <=3.5
D >3.5 and <=4.5
E <4.5 and >=5.5
F >5.5
Handbook, Page 44
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Transit LOS is based on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
• Evaluates the user’s perception of the quality of the transit route
• Transit availability is the is the most important factor
• Transit LOS determined by frequency of service and adjusted by – Hours of Service– Pedestrian LOS
Transportation: LOS Analysis
Transit Level of Service: Availability of ServiceBus
LOSHeadway
(Min.)Frequency(Bus/Hr) Comments
A < 10 > 6 No schedule needed
B 10 –14 5 – 6 Frequent service
C 15 – 20 3 – 4 Maximum desirable wait time
D 21 – 30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders
E 31 – 60 1 Service available during hour
F > 60 < 1 Service unattractive to all users
Handbook, Page 45
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Areawide LOS is determined for each mode within the district
• This areawide modal LOS is a measure of the coverage of modal service within the district, or a Quality of Service. The modal QOS is a length weighted average, by facility.
• Recommended minimum QOS thresholds are:
Pedestrian
Transit
Bicycle
Automobile
C C D FIHS/LGCP
Non-motorized oriented
C D C FIHS/LGCP
Type of MMTD
Transit-Oriented
Non motorized-Oriented
C
C
C
D
D
C
FIHS/LGCP
FIHS/LGCP
Handbook, Page 43
Transportation: LOS Analysis
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use
MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities
• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service
• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
• Areawide Quality of Service brings together the land use and transportation analyses
• Integrates land use and transportation through:– Definition of each modal network – Mobility within each modal network– Ability of the population to use these
facilities
To Determine the Areawide Quality of Service, the following steps are used:
Step 1. Define Major Modal Facilities
Identify the major transportation facilities, by mode, within the district
Handbook, Page 47
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Step 2. Establish User Service Areas on the Defined Facilities for Each Mode
Accepted user ranges are ¼ mile for pedestrians and ½ mile for bicycles
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Step 3. Determine % of population and employment within the user service areas which measures the multimodal potential.This step evaluates the ability of the district population to use the facilities
User Service Area
Example:
User Service Area Contains:
50% of District Employment
50% of District Population
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Step 4. Determine LOS for each mode on each facility
Use LOS analysis
LOS C
LOS B
LOS A
LOS A
LOS B
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Step 5. Determine each modal Quality of Service within the district. Modal QOS is determined as a length weighted average of facilities Levels of Service.
LOS C
LOS B
LOS A
LOS A
LOS B
Example:
QOS for this mode: B
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Step 6. Compare the QOS for Each Mode with the Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on the % of Population and Employment Located within the User Service Area
Areawide Quality of Service is determined by this comparison.
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Comparison of Areawide Quality of Service (QOS) and Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on Percentage of Population and Employment within the Service Area
Examples:Modal QOS B
% of Population & 50% Employment in Service Area
Areawide Mobility E
Modal QOS B
% of Population & 87% Employment in Service Area
Areawide Mobility B
Within Service Area
Areawide Quality of Service 90% - 99% 90% - 99% Modal QOS or LOC A, whichever is worse
80% - 89% Modal QOS or LOC B, whichever is worse 70% - 79% Modal QOS or LOC C, whichever is worse 60% - 69% 50% - 59% Modal QOS or LOC E, whichever is worse 1% - 49% Modal QOS F
Modal QOS or LOC D, whichever is worse
Handbook, Page 51
% Population and Employment
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service
Linking Land Use & Transportation:Recommended Performance Targets
• 80% of all facilities contained in the bicycle and pedestrian networks should operate at LOS C or better
• All parcels within ¼ mile of a transit stop should be served by pedestrian facilities operating at LOS C or better
• 80% of employees and population should be located within ¼ mile of a transit stopHandbook, Page 43
FDOT QLOS Resources to Help FDOT QLOS Resources to Help
• LOS Issue Papers• Updated LOSPLAN 2007
software• Q/LOS Training• MMTD Handbook & Training• Growth Management
Training• 2002 Q/LOS handbook• Research• Website
78
ResourcesResources
• Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook
• Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts
[email protected](850) 414-4906
• FDOT LOS Website:
www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm 79