Complete Streets workshop presentation
Post on 19-May-2015
1879 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
A Complete Streets Approach to Getting from Place to Place
Transportation Education Series – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Mary Taylor Raulerson May 20, 2010
Transportation Education Series – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Mary Taylor Raulerson May 20, 2010
What are Complete Streets?
practicaldesign
pedestrians
Multi-modalContext sensitive
green streets
network
mobilitytransit
accessboulevardsEconomic development
sustainable
bicyclists
What are complete streets?
Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street.
Source: Complete Streets Coalition website; Dan Burden - photograph
Where do they stop?
How do they differ along the transect?
Drawings by James Wassell
T1 T2 T3
T4 T5 T6
What is the role of the street?
Conventi
onal A
ppro
ach
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
M
an
ag
em
ent
More Pavement
More
Lanes
More
Roads
ITS
More
Cars
A Balanced Transportation Approach
Lateral Approach
Impr
ove
Qualit
y of
Tra
vel
User View and Comfort
Context-Sensitive Design
Traffic Calming
Personal Security
Move Less People, Fewer M
iles
Intensify land use densities
Promote Mixed Use Development
Pedestrian Oriented Design
Demand Management – Pricing, e-commerce, telecommuting, etc…
Lane Limits
Change Standards
Manage, Not “Solve”
Conventi
onal A
ppro
ach
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
M
an
ag
em
ent
More Pavement
More
Lanes
More
Roads
ITS
More
Cars
Transit
Bicycling
Walking
HOV/HOT Lanes
Mov
e Pe
ople
, Not
Car
s
Great Streets
Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jacksonfor Johnson City Tennessee
Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jacksonfor Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles
Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jacksonfor Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles
Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jacksonfor Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles
The Transportation World is Changing
“Sustainability must be reflected in all our infrastructure investments…
… it implies a commitment to the principles of livability...
The era of one-size-fits-all transportation projects must give way to one where preserving and enhancing unique community characteristics, be they rural or urban, is a primary mission of our work rather than an afterthought.”
Secretary Ray LaHood, US DOTJanuary 21, 2009
• Enhance integrated planning and investment. integrate housing, transportation, water infrastructure, and land use planning and investment.
• Redefine housing affordability. Develop housing affordability measures that include housing and transportation costs.
• Redevelop underutilized sites. Target development to locations with infrastructure and transportation choices.
• Develop livability measures and tools.
• Align HUD, DOT, and EPA programs.
Partnership on Livability
Source: EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/dced/2009-0616-epahuddot.htm)
EPA, HUD, and DOT Partnership on Livability
1. Provide more transportation choices
2. Promote equitable, affordable housing
3. Enhance economic competitiveness
4. Support existing communities
5. Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment
6. Value communities and neighborhoods
Source: EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/dced/2009-0616-epahuddot.htm)
What is Livability?
Choices
family
Opportunitiesresource efficiency
healthy living
diversity
communityJobs
educationparksEconomic development
sustainability
infrastructure
Mobility options for all.
Housing choice.
Access to jobs.
Healthy and active living.
Strong neighborhoods.
Great gathering places.
Vibrant Town Centers.
Thriving Rural Villages.
Access to local food.
Environmental Stewardship.
Free-range learning.
Free-range learning.
Working ports.
Well-maintained infrastructure.
So…. what is Livability?
Conventi
onal A
ppro
ach
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
M
an
ag
em
ent
More Pavement
More
Lanes
More
Roads
ITS
More
Cars
. . . we were asked to move more cars.
A Balanced Transportation Approach
Lateral Approach
Impr
ove
Qualit
y of
Tra
vel
User View and Comfort
Context-Sensitive Design
Traffic Calming
Personal Security
Move Less People, Fewer M
iles
Intensify land use densities
Promote Mixed Use Development
Pedestrian Oriented Design
Demand Management – Pricing, e-commerce, telecommuting, etc…
Lane Limits
Change Standards
Manage, Not “Solve”
Conventi
onal A
ppro
ach
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
M
an
ag
em
ent
More Pavement
More
Lanes
More
Roads
ITS
More
Cars
Transit
Bicycling
Walking
HOV/HOT Lanes
Mov
e Pe
ople
, Not
Car
s
• Transportation agencies and/or their partners do not have a clear or unified vision of what they want (Visioning)
• Established project development processes and organizational structures may limit transportation projects from achieving today’s livability goals (Planning and Process)
• Transportation policies may not support livability goals and objectives (Policy)
• Difficult decisions and livable projects require long-term and trusting partnerships (Partnership)
• Delivering livability at the project level requires new design approaches (Design)
Challenges to implementing livable transportation projects
• Transportation agencies and/or their partners do not have a clear or unified vision of what they want (Visioning)
Albany Visions Plan
Route 1 Vision
Overcoming challenges - Visioning
Albany Visions Plan
• Regional-level visioning
• Attract growth by leveraging investments
• Aligned LRTP with a broad set of community-responsive project types
• Emphasized a broad range of modes and community needs in project definition and programming
Albany Visions Plan
• Developed 25 guiding principles that:• Plan and build for all modes of transportation• Preserve and manage the existing investments• Develop the region’s potential to grow into a “uniquely
attractive, vibrant and diverse metropolitan area”• Link land use and transportation planning
• Linkage forum – mandatory regional roundtable of municipal planners to address regional planning issues at the local level (state has no oversight or approval functions for local plans)
• Match project choice processes to vision
Route 1 Vision
• Project-level visioning
• 110 mile corridor – experiencing significant growth and traffic congestion
• Aligned multiple, interconnected livability issues into a cohesive development and investment strategy
• Supported by state and localities through MOU and policies
Route 1 Vision
• Project-level visioning
• 110 mile corridor with 21 towns
• Experiencing significant growth and traffic congestion
• Aligned multiple, interconnected livability issues into a cohesive development and investment strategy
• Supported by state and localities through MOU and policies
Route 1 Vision
• Lessons learned• Building a vision requires agreement on problems,
solutions and follow-through• Visioning is inspirational and educational, and
requires trust• Visioning is more effective when it incorporates land
use and transportation
• Even in a home rule state, a collaborative visioning process ca be the basis for successfully implementing integrated land use and transportation policies
• Established project development processes and organizational structures may limit transportation projects from achieving today’s livability goals (Planning and Process)
Charlotte Centers and Corridors Plan
Route 1 Plan
Washington DOT CommunityDesign Assistance Office
Overcoming challenges – Planning and Process
Charlotte Centers and Corridors Plan
• Began with comprehensive regional vision, followed by aggressive policy and infrastructure response and organizational structure of city departments
• Integrated Plan and Vision galvanized community support for sustainable growth and transit investments
• Passed sales tax referendum for $1 billion for transit
Charlotte Centers and Corridors Plan
• Began with comprehensive regional vision, followed by aggressive policy and infrastructure response and organizational structure of city departments
• Integrated Plan and Vision galvanized community support for sustainable growth and transit investments
• Passed sales tax referendum for $1 billion for transit
Centers & Corridors Vision
Foster an Integrated Approach
Station Area Planning
Invest Strategically
Station Area Planning
Ensure Stewardship
CATS
Station Area Planning
Scaleybark Road Station
Station Area Planning
WashDOT Community Design Assistance
• Multi-disciplinary teams within Central Office
• Includes planners, engineers, facilitators, and conflict resolution professionals
• Help communities communicate with DOT
• Increases trust, decreases cost
• Transportation policies may not support livability goals and objectives (Policy)
• Difficult decisions and livable projects require long-term and trusting partnerships (Partnership)
• Delivering livability at the project level requires new design approaches (Design)
Challenges to implementing livable transportation projects
1. Money counts
2. Leverage and preserve existing investments
3. Choose projects with high value/price ratio
4. Safety always and maybe safety only
5. Look beyond level-of-service
6. Accommodate all modes of travel
7. Enhance local network
8. Build towns not sprawl
9. Understand the context; plan and design within the context
10. Develop local governments as strong land use partners
Policy, design and partnerships
Land Use Context + Roadway Type
Land Use Context
• Land use context – land area comprising unique combination of land uses, density, building form
• Common place types found in every PennDOT district
RURAL
SUBURBAN CORRIDOR
TOWN / VILLAGE CENTER
TOWN / VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD
URBAN CORE
SUBURBAN CENTER
SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD
Land Use Contexts
RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN
Rural Suburban Neighborhood
Suburban Corridor
Suburban Center
Town/Village Neighborhood
Town Center Urban Core
DENSITY UNITS
1 DU/ac - 8DU/ac
1 DU/ac – 8DU/ac
2 – 30 DU/ac 3 – 20 DU/ac4 – 30 DU/ac
8 – 50 DU/ac
16 – 75 DU/ac
BUILDING COVERAGE
NA <20% 20% - 35% 35% - 45% 35% - 50% 50% - 70% 70% - 100%
LOT SIZE/AREA
20 acres5,000 – 80,000 sf
20,000 - 200,000 sf
25,000 – 100,000 sf
2,000 – 12,000 sf
2,000 – 20,000 sf
25,000 – 100,000 sf
LOT FRONTAGE
NA50 to 200 feet
100 to 500 feet
100 to 300 feet
18 to 50 feet25 to 200 feet
100 to 300 feet
BLOCK DIMENSIONS
NA400 wide x varies
200 wide x varies
300 wide x varies
200 by 400 feet
200 by 400 feet
200 by 400 feet
MAX. HEIGHT
1 to 3 stories
1.5 to 3 stories
retail-1 story; office 3-5 stories
2 to 5 stories2 to 5 stories
1 to 3 stories
3 to 60 stories
MIN./MAX. SETBACK
Varies 20 to 80 feet 20 to 80 feet 20 to 80 feet 10 to 20 feet 0 to 20 feet 0 to 20 feet
Defining the Land Use Contexts
Land Use Context + Roadway Type
Transportation Context
Roadways in Context
• Know the land use context
• Know the role of the roadway within the network
• Know the roadway type
• Set the desired operating speed
• Refer to the Matrix for the starting design values
Design Using the Principles
Regional Arterial
Community Arterial
Community Arterial
Definition: The speed of traffic that, in the expert judgments of the highway engineer and community planner, best reflects the function of the roadway and the surrounding land use context.
Simple Definition: The speed at which we would like vehicles to travel.
Desired Operating SpeedAlso Known as “Design To” or “Target Speed”
• Forge a stronger relationship between posted speed limit, design speed and operating speed
• Relate roadway type to land use context
• Use roadway and roadside design elements to encourage compliance with the posted speed
Why Desired Operating Speed?
Transportation + Land Use
Involved in task Partially involved in task Additional Involvement New partial involvement
• Sharing Smart Transportation message
• Strategic discussions with partner agencies and organizations and local municipalities
• Outreach activities and interactive workshops with local officials and professionals
1. Increasing Partnership Efforts
Pennsylvania Community Transportation Initiative
Type of Project# of
Selections% of Total Selections
Total Funding for Selected Projects
% of Total Funding
Bicycle/Pedestrian 9 18% 9,230,405$ 16%Roads/Intersections/Local Network 6 12% 9,937,000$ 17%Intermodal/Transit-oriented Development 13 26% 14,007,200$ 24%Land Use & Transportation Planning/Redevelopment
13 26% 7,666,500$ 13%
Streetscape/Traffic Calming 8 16% 18,158,887$ 31%Regional Planning 1 2% 285,000$ 0%
TOTAL 50 100% 59,284,992$ 100%
• Applications received: 403 requesting $600 million
• Applications selected: 50 granting $59.3 million
Hot Topics – What needs to change for better livability?
• Land use is a local decision, transportation is a state or regional responsibility; but community building should be everyone’s responsibility
• Limited “community planning” skills and expertise in transportation agencies
• Silos created by how transportation and land uses entities are organized
• Mission and Goals of Agencies are very different; partnerships are critical to success
• Limitations are set by Federal Funding Requirements
What are complete streets in your
community? What is livability to you?
top related