Transportation-Oriented Design The Case for Transportation-Oriented Design Best Practices using the 4D’s Vision LA
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transportation-Oriented Design
• The Case for Transportation-Oriented Design• Best Practices using the 4D’s• Vision LA
A 20-Year Movement
Transportation-Oriented Design
Context-Sensitive Design
Transit-Oriented Design
New Urbanism
SmartGrowth
GHGReduction
TrafficCalming
SharedParking
Why Orient Around Transportation?
- It knits all our activities together:
Transportation is Integral
Photos courtesy of Urban Advantage
Consequences of Not Designing for Transportation
Traffic congestion Increased fuel consumption Reduced air quality Less livable communities Lower quality of life
Poor Transportation Orientation
Transportation-Oriented Attributes
Compact mixed-uses High density and diverse housing Pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented Interconnected multimodal street system Walkable destinations Maximize trip linking opportunities Synergy through mix of uses
- Diversity (Mixed Use)- Density- Design (functionality for peds, bikes, transit)- Destination (proximity of worthwhile places to go)
Promote the Four D’s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SuburbanCommunities
TOD Communities
Other
Walk
Bike
Transit
Auto Passenger
Auto Driver
7.73 tripsper day
6.50 tripsper day
Suburban vs. Transit Oriented Neighborhoods
TOD residents drive 10 miles per day less than suburban equivalent
Vision Los Angeles
Collaboration of LAEDC & EDF
Funding by B of A, Hewlett Foundation
Lead Consultant: Point C (David Grannis)
Fehr & Peers 11February 17, 2010
Denser & more diverse centers:
At existing activity centers & around transit stations (assume 2x density, 1.5 jobs/HH)
On corridors well served by transit (assume 1.5x existing density)
Land Use VisionGeneral Strategies
Fehr & Peers 12February 17, 2010
Land Use VisionPopulation Density—Existing
Fehr & Peers 13February 17, 2010
Land Use VisionPopulation Density—Vision Los Angeles
Fehr & Peers 14February 17, 2010
Land Use VisionEmployment Density—Existing
Fehr & Peers 15February 17, 2010
Land Use VisionEmployment Density—Vision Los Angeles
Fehr & Peers 16February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitGeneral Strategies
Reduced pricing (assume average fares cut in half)
Reduced headways (assume headways cut in half)
Fehr & Peers 17February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitFixed Guideway—Existing
Fehr & Peers 18February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitFixed Guideway—Vision Los Angeles
Fehr & Peers 19February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitRapid Bus—Existing
Fehr & Peers 20February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitRapid Bus—Planned & Vision Los Angeles
Fehr & Peers 21February 17, 2010
Employer Shuttles (e.g. Google Shuttle)
Expanded & New Area Shuttles (e.g. DASH)
Transportation Vision: TransitArea Shuttles
Fehr & Peers 22February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TransitArea Shuttles—Existing & Vision Los Angeles
Fehr & Peers 23February 17, 2010
Transportation Vision: TDMTargeted Employment Locations
Fehr & Peers 24February 17, 2010
Bike & Ped Enhancements More bike lanes Better facilities surrounding TOD’s
Congestion pricing and freight pricing (freeways) TDM in key employment centers Parking pricing at activity centers Car Sharing A better “operating system”
Complimentary Strategies
May 13, 2010 25
Travel ResultsCompared to Baseline
458,500 more daily transit boardings 682,000 Fewer Daily SOV Auto Trips
Equivalent to 254,000 cars off the road 5.1% decline in VMT per Capita 7,700 fewer accidents annually $270.3 Million in annual time saved $42.9 Million saved in annual fuel costs
BackgroundApproach Results Conclusion
Related Documents
