Community Input July 20 th , 2017
Community InputJuly 20th, 2017
Opening/Welcome
▪ Nina Vetter
▪ Susan Watkins
Master Plan Background▪ Renew North Nevada Avenue project area was identified
by the City as an Economic Opportunity Zone in 2013
▪ Project given: Vehicle and pedestrian safety standards and infrastructure standards must be addressed.
▪ Master Plan was approved by City Council in March 2017
▪ Master Plan Purpose
▪ Build on existing opportunities…▪ - Large and small businesses
▪ - Established neighborhoods
▪ - Transportation connections and nearby
▪ infrastructure improvements
▪ - UCCS campus and National Cyber Security Center
▪ - University Village
▪ - Access to regional trails
▪ To create a thriving community gateway
Transportation Sub-Plan Intent
▪ One of the first steps in beginning ▪ implementation the of Master Plan
▪ Transportation Sub-Plan Goals
▪ Improve roadway connections in and around the project corridor to serve businesses and residents.
▪ To enhance safety and efficiency for all users.
▪ Address the current and future transit needs of the corridor and improve transit access to and from the Colorado Springs community.
▪ Encourage land use decisions that are sensitive to impacts on car trip generation.
Master Plan VisionProvides a Guide
Agenda
▪ 6:00 PM Opening/Welcome
▪ 6:10 PM Agenda Review
▪ 6:20 PM Transportation 101
▪ 6:30 PM Main Presentation
▪ 6:50 PM Questions for Clarification
▪ 7:00 PM Small Group Workand Report Out
▪ 7:50 PM Wrap-Up and Next Steps
Workshop Rules
▪ Say what you think
▪ Be brief so everybody gets a chance to talk
▪ Listen carefully and with respect to the opinions and beliefs of others
▪ Be open to compromise
▪ Hold your questions until after the presentation
Transportation& Land Use
▪ Inseparable Elements of Community
Troy Russ, AICP
National Best Practices: Integrating Transportation and Land Use
The character of a community responds to the design and function of the transportation investment
Bone Structure
Street Network = Bone StructureBone Structure
Bone Structure – Land Use ArrangementBone Structure: Land Use Arrangement
Bone Structure: Streetscape
The Bone Structure – Building StockBone Structure: Architecture
Co
nve
nti
on
al A
pp
roac
h
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
Man
agem
ent
More Pavement
Mo
re L
anes
Mo
re R
oad
s
ITS
Mo
re C
ars
Anticipate Forecast Accommodate
Land Use Travel Road Capacity
generates demands
Land Use/Transportation
ConventionalLand Use/Transportation
Cycle
Land Use
Travel
Definesgenerates
Road Character
Changes
generates
Land Use
Changes
Defines
TravelRoad Character
Land Use
Travel Patterns Road Capacity
Road Capacity Travel Patterns
Land Use
Land Use/Transportation
Travel
Generates
Community character
Defines
Integrated- Land Use/Transportation
Land Use
Travel Patterns &Mode Split
Capacity
Integrated Land Use/Transportation
Lateral Approach
Streetscape and Urban Design
User View and Comfort
Context-Sensitive Design
Traffic Calming
Personal Security
Land Use Density and Mix
Road Network Connectivity
Shared Economy
Pricing
Telecommuting/ E-Commerce
Parking Supply
Lane Limits
Change LOS Standards
Manage, Not “Solve”Co
nve
nti
on
al A
pp
roac
h
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
Man
agem
ent
More Pavement
Mo
re L
anes
Mo
re R
oad
s
ITS
Mo
re C
ars
Transit
Bicycling
Walking
Complete Streets
HOV
No Network – BIG ROADS: - Little walking and bicycling
- Less effective transit- Higher VMT
- Higher speeds- More turning movement
- Less safe
Street Network
Connected Network – SMALL ROADS:- More walking and bicycling
- More effective transit - Lower VMT
- Lower speeds- Less turning movement
- More safe
Street Network
2 2
2
2
2
4
66
4
Same Total
Lanes
More Capacity
• VMT
• Turns
• Clearance Time
• Signal Phase
Street Network
800
600
400
200
Ca
pa
city o
f A
dd
itio
na
l
Th
roug
h L
an
e (
VP
H)
Lane Capacity
Park Once District
Street Network: Land Use and Travel Patterns
P
Shop
OfficeSchool
Park
Walk
DrivePark
MOC’s
Park Once District
Street Network: Land Use and Travel Patterns
Sp
ee
d (
MP
H)
60
20
30
40
50
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Hourly Vehicles Per Lane
Maximum Volume 25-
30 Miles Per Hour
Speed / Flow Relationship
30 mph 25 mph
20 mph 15 mph
Design Speed, Geometrics, and Safety
Mismatched –Speed/Access. Both mismatched with Environment
Design Speed, Geometrics, and Safety
Matched –Speed/Access. Both mismatched with Environment
Design Speed, Geometrics, and Safety
Matched – Environment/Speed/Access.
Design Speed, Geometrics, and Safety
▪ Vehicle Travel Lane
▪ Approx. 800 people/hour
▪ Local Bus (15 min. Headway)
▪ Approx. 200 people/hour (Can supplement arterial capacity!)
▪ Enhanced Bus (5 min. Headway)
▪ Approx. 1,200 people/hour
▪ Light Rail (15 min. Headway)
▪ Approx. 2,400 people/hour
Transit Mobility
500 feet
500’
¼-mile
People will walk over ½-mile, within a quality walking environment.
Understand the Pedestrian
Developed by Steve Price
in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City,Tennessee
Understand the Pedestrian
Developed by Steve Price
in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City,Tennessee
Understand the Pedestrian
Understand the Pedestrian
Developed by Steve Price
in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City,Tennessee
Transportation Plan
▪ Needs
▪ Strategies
Ted Ritschard
Project Manager
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Existing ConditionsCurrent Zoning Overview
▪ 245.7 acres zoned as Light Industrial (M-1)
▪ 99.5 acres zoned as General and Intermediate Business (C-6, C-5)
▪ 31.3 acres zoned as Public Facility (PF)
▪ Other zones include R-1, R-2, R-4, R5, PUD, PBC,
28%
57%
3% 7%4% Business
Industrial
Planned UnitDevelopmentPublic Facility
Residential
Existing ConditionsTraffic Operations
Austin Bluffs/Garden of the Gods Intersection
▪ Heavy Left-turn movements (~400 vph) for the EB, WB, and SB approaches
▪ Heavy eastbound/westbound thru-traffic (~1400 vph)
▪ Significant Queuing▪ Traffic model indicates EB LTL
spillover
AM Peak LOS / PM Peak LOS
Existing ConditionsTraffic OperationsOther Intersections▪ Excess Capacity at Mt View
Lane and Winters Drive on Nevada Avenue
▪ Excess Capacity at the Cascade Avenue and Stone Avenue intersections on Fillmore
▪ Fillmore / Nevada approaching poor operations with EB queuing on Fillmore / Nevada spills over west of TejonAvenue
AM Peak LOS / PM Peak LOS
Transportation & Redevelopment▪ Master Plan identifies preferred land-
uses▪ Includes the redevelopment of many of the
existing industrial uses to office, commercial, and residential
▪ Trip generation was performed to evaluate the change in traffic patterns
Austin Bluffs to Mt View Lane
Mt View Lane to Commerce Street
Commerce Street to South of Polk Street
Transportation & RedevelopmentTrip Generation by Land-Use Comparison
▪ Each land-use is unique in terms of how many trips it generates
▪ Redeveloping an existing land-use may have a positive net trip generation (e.g. change from industrial to office use) or a negative change
▪ The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates were reference to estimate the potential change in trips for this study
Uses Trip Generation Rate (Daily) Unit
Industrial Trip (Primary Existing Use)6.97 per 1,000 Square Feet
Office Building11.03 per 1,000 Square Feet
Research and Development
(Potential Cyber Security uses)8.11 per 1,000 Square Feet
Specialty Retail Center44.32 per 1,000 Square Feet
Apartments6.65 per Dwelling Unit
Transportation & RedevelopmentOverall Trip Generation Forecast
Transportation & RedevelopmentFuture Forecasted Traffic Operations▪ Overall daily traffic can increase by 52
percent north of Mount View Lane and 39 percent south of Winters Drive (including background traffic growth 0f 0.5 percent per year)
▪ Assuming Nevada Avenue has an estimated capacity of 39,800 vpd, additional lane capacity will be needed north of Winters Drive.
FDOT Generalize Service Volumes
Transportation Strategy Choices
1. Improve Vehicular Capacity on Nevada Avenue
2. Leverage Network Capacity
3. Move People, Not Just Cars
Strategy 1:Improve Nevada Avenue
More
Efficiency
Syste
m
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ITS
Mo
re C
ars
▪ Improvements can:▪ Increase Efficiency
▪ Enhance Safety
▪ Provide Access Management
▪ Benefits can be immediate and relatively low cost
▪ These can be considered as incremental short-term improvements (0 – 5 years)
Co
nve
ntio
nal A
pp
roa
ch
Improve Nevada Avenue▪ Specific improvements can include:
▪ Strategic closures of median openings and access drives to reduce conflict points
▪ Curb / Gutter / Sidewalk
▪ Traffic signal re-optimization
▪ Dedicated bicycle lanes
▪ Intersection improvements (Mount View Lane, Winters Drive)
Example: Access ManagementExpo Center
Concern:
▪ Existing median opening only serves one parcel
Potential Improvement:
▪ Shift the existing opening to the south and extend the access drive to Cascade
Strategy Benefit:
▪ Provides multi parcel access for more efficiency
▪ Allows for the opportunity to expand the E/W network connectivity
▪ Reduces block sizes (Increases walkability and fits the desired character)
▪ Well managed arterials are often 40-50 percent safer (FHWA)
Close Median Opening
Example: Access Management
Significant Investments for Significant Change▪ Adding Lanes
▪ Improvements to Austin Bluffs/Garden of the Gods Intersection▪ Alternative/innovative intersection
▪ Interchange
1.04
0.74
0.85
Displaced Left Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn
3.1
3.2
3.3
2
4.2
5
3525
1298
608
6.2 E-W
6.1 N-S
2.29
0.70
Partial Displaced Left Turn 7244.1 N-S
3.4
Median U-Turn
883
1517
3664
1.29
0.96
0.96
1113
1537
0.77
0.60
0.62
0.48
0.65
0.81
0.65
1.29
1 1.17 11FULL
S-W
N-E
S-EQuadrant Roadway
CSRL
E-W
FULL
1968
716
3039
1298
Conventional
Conventional Shared RT LN
Results for Intersections
0.70
3
14
1
2.06
4
6
0.87
5
0.94
0.93
1391
0.78
0.93
90.97
10
2
N-W
1182
1364
0.74608
716 667
16711340
7.1 N-S
1629
7.2 E-W
1046
996 1239
771 956
78.1 N-S
13
8.2 E-WPartial Median U-Turn
1046
7
1537
12
15
2307
2.29
1.441.44
0.96
0.96
0.90
0.85
0.67
0.94
1.04
0.770.77
0.84
0.45 0.38
0.45
0.45
1.90
0.81
0.42
0.42
2.06
1494
2071
0.55
0.95
RankingSheetTYPE OF INTERSECTION#CLV V/CCLV V/C CLV V/C CLV V/C CLV V/C
Z o ne 1
( N o rt h )
Z o ne 2
( S o ut h )
Z o ne 3
( E a s t )
Z o ne 4
( W e s t )
Z o ne 5
( C e nt e r) Overall v/c
Ratio
1441
0.85
0.70
0.87
1876 1.17
1126
0.93
1251
1494
1556 0.97
0.38
1.23
667
3293
1.02
1362 1500
1078
1227 1227
2.20
BenefitsFHWA Intersection Type Matrix (CAP-X)
Example: Continuous Flow Intersection
▪ Similar to one being currently constructed at Woodmen and Union
▪ Provides enhanced LOS where there are significant left turning movements
▪ Limits access near intersection
Strategy 2: Leverage Network Vehicle Capacity
▪ Enhance network connectivity to better use available capacity
▪ Also creates opportunities to decrease block size and improve the pedestrian/bicycle environment by connecting to existing trail systems
Mixture of Uses
Road NetworkPedestrian-Oriented Environment
Compact Development
ImplementationDetails
ImplementationDetails
Restore Monument Creek Bridge
Potential Intersection Improvements
Northwest Creek Side Road
Extend Cascade Avenue; Require Bridge over Templeton Gap
Floodway
Improve Cascade Streetscape (3-lane cross section, sidewalks, Bicycle lane)
Potential Intersection Improvements
Potential Intersection Improvements
Potential Traffic Signal
Potential Intersection Improvements
Combined Traffic BenefitsFuture Forecasted Traffic Operations▪ It is estimated that approximately 4,000 –
5,000 daily trips can be diverted to Mark Dabling Boulevard and Cascade Avenue.
▪ Overall daily traffic growth is reduced on Nevada by 19 percent north of Mount View Lane and 14 percent south of Winters Drive (includes background traffic growth 0f 0.5 percent per year)
▪ Intersection performance increases at Mount View Lane, Winters Drive, and Fillmore Street.
Additional ConnectionsBlock Building – As redevelopment occurs
Identify opportunities to build pedestrian friendly blocks
More streets connect to Nevada with regular signal spacing and fewer driveways
Strategy 3: Move More People, Not Just Cars
▪ Position Nevada Avenue for high frequency transit service
▪ Expand pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure (trail system)
Lateral Approach
Transit
Bicycling
Walking
HOV/HOT Lanes
Transit Layout
Transit Implementation
Bridge Crossing Rock Island Trail
Trail Implementation
▪ Nevada Avenue multi-use trail
▪ Enhance connectivity to Pikes Peak Greenway trail using new roadway bridges over Templeton Gap and Monument Creek
Trail Layout
Summary
▪ Transportation Choices Exist
▪ These Choices can support the Vision of the Master Plan
▪ How we choose to move shapes more than the facilities we use
Questions or Clarifications
▪ Preparation for small group activities
Small Group Instructions
1. Review and discuss as a group each of the three strategies.
2. Decide as a group what excites you about each strategy and what concerns you about each strategy. List that on the blue group response form in the middle of your table. Be as specific as you can with your responses.
3. If you have questions, raise your hand and a resource person will come to assist you.
4. Choose someone in your group to report out your work once all groups have finished.
5. Please complete your individual response form.
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
▪ Reminders▪ Individual response form on your way out▪ Please sign in so we can keep you posted▪ Responses from tonight will be on the website – address on your agenda
▪ Open House
▪ View and comment on the recommended Transportation Sub-Plan
▪ Learn more about the zoning overlay recommendations to be submitted to City Council
▪ Thank you and good night