Dan Ross NextGen ppt FINAL

Bridging the Gap

Strategies for Transit and Active Transportation

Next Generation Transportation Certificate

Happy Projects

Stories of success are often similar.

Stories of failure are plentiful, diverse, and entertaining.

Course Outline

1. Introduction

2. Define Strategies and Skills

3. Positive and Negative Examples

Approximately 45 minutes

Course Presenter

Dan Ross, CPEng. (NZ), MUP

Senior Transportation Planner, Opus International Consultants, Ltd.

North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Formerly

- Transit Planner – Edmonton Transit System

- Senior Transportation Consultant – Opus, Auckland, NZ

- Traffic Planner/Borough Planner – New York City DOT

- Associate City Planner – New York City DCP

Why This Topic?Similarities towards active transportation and transit

Burden of proof is on you

- Gatekeepers

- Prejudices

- Responsive strategies

- Different delivery and outcomes

Why This Topic?

High Level plans have similar intentions

• Higher PT/AT trips

• Reduced emissions

• Denser development

• Translate ‘down’ to specific plans

New York, NY

Auckland, NZ

Vancouver, BC

Edmonton, AB

A Common Path

High Level Policy

Priority Statement

Program/Schedule of Projects

Feasibility?

Planners

Engineers

Investigation

Some Success

1st Ave Complete Street –New York, NY

Dunsmuir St. bike lanes –Vancouver, BC

Beach Rd cycle lanes –Auckland, NZ

Some Success – NYC

NYCDOT

- Cycle mode increases, not at expense of transit

- Fewer crashes, reduced risk

Other SuccessAuckland, NZ – North Shore to CBD

New Zealand Transport Agency

Other Success

Vancouver, BC

City of Vancouver

Metro Vancouver

Setbacks

Daily Mail UK

MySanAntonio.com

Washington Post

Setbacks

Toronto Sun

Gothamist NYC

Obstacles – Public OppositionBike lanes vs. Parking/Business loss

Brooklynpaper.com

Chicago Gazette

Obstacles – Public OppositionMalcolm MayesElitism/’Social Engineering’ Edmonton Sun

NY Daily News

The Onion

Old Perceptions Dying Hard‘Boondoggle’ and Public Menace Double Standard

New Zealand Herald, 2007

Old Perceptions Dying Hard

Calgary Sun

NY Daily News

‘Boondoggle’ and Public Menace Double Standard

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

High Level Policy

Priority Statement

Program/Schedule of Projects

Feasibility?

Planners

EngineersInvestigation

Planners and EngineersPlanners Engineers

Responsible for this Responsible for this

Traffic Engineers

Decision Making Factors

• Applied Precedence

• Common Sense

• Methodology

• Ethics

• Empathy - for motorists

Engineers are people, too

Considerations

• Design/Engineering Standards Guidelines

• Need for defensible decisions

• What’s worked before?

Guiding Methodology

1. Effects on Traffic – short and long term

2. Constructability – how much and where?

3. Whole life costs – operations and maintenance

Minimal Considerations

‘Business Case’

1. Traffic Impacts

2. Constructability

3. Operations and Maintenance

4. Other elements to consider

Traffic ImpactsDo Minimum/Do Nothing vs. Proposal

2. What will happen to affected/displaced traffic?

- modelling, route analyses, mode shift?

Traffic ImpactsBe Prepared to Discuss

1. What is an ‘acceptable’ impact?

- i.e., LOS, v/c ratio, peak impacts

3. How many people are affected? Not just cars

- Quantify comparative impacts

Example 1Broadway Blvd – New York, NY

• Road diet for major Manhattan street; 33rd

St – 59th St

• Not possible without extensive network modelling

• Led to Greenlight for Midtown projects

• Continuously monitored and updated

Example 1 – con’t.Broadway Blvd – New York, NY

• Willingness to experiment

• Reduced capacity impacts verified

• Low-cost treatments in short term

• Adjustments made with monitoring


Before After

B’way south of 59th St


Before After

Times Square

Example 2

Cycle Boulevards – Auckland, NZ

Hillsborough Rd /Quona Ave

Dominion Rd /Memorial Ave

• 1st attempt at Portland-style bike boulevards

• Suburban areas with few impacts, design changes

• Some capacity analysis ultimately required

Example 2 – con’t.Auckland Cycle Boulevards

• Originally rerouted 0.5km to south to new signalized intersection

• Crossing impacts forced into scope

• No adverse impacts – approved

Dominion Rd/Memorial Ave

Example 2 – con’t.Auckland Cycle Boulevards

Hillsborough Rd/Quona Ave

• Full signalization preferred

• Alternative scenarios forced into scope

• Impacts deemed too severe; signalized crossing accepted

Constructability

• Schedule/Programme?

• Simple and cheap is good

Example 3Ngahue Drive – Auckland, NZ

New StonefieldsDevelopment

(former quarry)

Auckland Council GIS Viewer

cycling facilities

cycling facilities • 1.5km connecting

cycle way

• On strategic network

• 3m-5m wide boulevard/berm next to golf course

• No room for on-road facilities

Example 3 – con’t.Ngahue Drive – Auckland, NZ

• Utility poles, drainage, structural, encroachment, arboreal issues

• $2.1M - $6.4M cost

• Residential side imperfect but cheaper

• Optics of cost vs. inability to provide quality (it’s only money)

Google Street View

Example 4Materials

Auckland, NZFort Street Shared Space

• High-quality redesign

• Full consultation

• NZ$23M for 800m

Jean Batten Place

Before

After

Example 4 – con’t.Materials

New York, NYNYCDOT Plaza Program

Pearl St Plaza, Brooklyn

• Concrete, asphalt only

• Local partnerships

• Minimal design, cost

• Potential for staging

Corona Plaza, Queens

Operations and Maintenance

Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects

Design Elements

Example 5

• Sustainability initiative from Transportation Master Plan

• NACTO-influenced

• Application constraints

- curb build-outs

- lane widths

www.edmonton.ca


Design Elements

Example 5 – con’t.

Curb Extensions

City of Edmonton –Complete Streets Guidelines, 2013


Design Elements


City of Edmonton –Complete Streets Guidelines, 2013

Preferred Lane Widths


Design Elements


Bad for Bulb-outs

Curb Extensions

• No plow equipment for curb extensions

• Delay until existing fleet is upgraded


Design Elements


Preferred Lane Widths

Seasonal Road Diet

• ‘Windrow’s reduce curbside widths

• Alberta min. is 4.2m to compensate

• National Ass’n of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

• Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) over LOS – CEQA

• Multimodal LOS Analyses

• Improved GIS applications

• Data collection techniques

• Social Media outreach

• Tasteful Obstinacy – not new

New-ish Resources

New-ish Resources – con`t

`NYCDOT Current Projects`

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/current-projects.shtml

‘California Senate Bill (SB) 743’

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743

‘Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines’

Summary

• Burden of Proof is on you

• Know your implementation context

• Consider risks during planning

• Challenge engineers

• Build your Business Case

Building a Better Business Case

1. Traffic Impacts

2. Constructability

3. Operations & Maintenance

• What will happen to traffic?

• Analysis in scope or RFP

• How will this thing be built?

• Timing of construction

• Materials

• Minimum access requirements?

• How will it function?

• Who will maintain?

Burden of proof is on you

THANK YOU

[email protected]

Dan Ross - LinkedIn

ca.linkedin.com/pub/dan-ross

Dan Ross NextGen ppt FINAL

Documents