Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Harrison Rue, ICF International
APA Conference, Los Angeles
April 16, 2012
Creating Livable Streets and Corridors (S526)
2 icfi.com |
Overview
What is livability in transportation?
FHWA livability resources: a new approach to
transportation planning
Incorporating livability into the transportation planning
and project development process
–Completing the streets and networks
–Multimodal corridor strategies
–Cost-effective management and operations strategies
–Design guides and policies
–Measuring performance
3 icfi.com |
HUD-DOT-EPA Livability Principles
Provide more transportation choices
Promote equitable, affordable housing
Enhance economic competitiveness
Support existing communities
Coordinate and leverage Federal policies and
investment
Value communities and neighborhoods
4 icfi.com |
Livability in Transportation Guidebook
Developed by FHWA & FTA
Designed as a general
practitioners resource
For use by State DOTs,
MPOs, and others in the
advancement of livable
communities
Available on the FHWA Livability Website http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/guidebook/
5 icfi.com |
Why livability; why now?
We have built one of the world’s largest and best
highway networks
We have not yet put the same effort into completing a
system that works as well for walking, wheeling, or
taking transit –Balanced approach can maximize the effectiveness of existing
investments
–By targeting transportation funding to support reinvestment in
existing communities, we can build more choice, convenience,
and cost-effectiveness into the transportation system
6 icfi.com |
Livability in Transportation: Background
Long practiced at local & regional level
Many state policy efforts
Variety of ‘brand names’
– livability, sustainability, smart growth, walkable communities,
new urbanism, healthy neighborhoods, active living, transit-
oriented development, complete streets, etc.
The common element is that
transportation planning is no
longer a stand-alone exercise
In service to broader community
goals
7 icfi.com |
What is livability in transportation?
Livability in transportation is about using the quality, location, & type of
transportation facilities & services available to help achieve broader
community goals such as access to good jobs, affordable housing,
quality schools, & safe streets. This includes:
Addressing road safety & capacity issues through better planning &
design
Maximizing & expanding new technologies such as intelligent
transportation systems & quiet pavements
Using travel demand management approaches in system planning &
operations
Developing high quality public transportation to foster economic
development
Community design that offers residents & workers the full range of
transportation choices
Strategically connecting the modal pieces - bikeways, pedestrian
facilities, transit services, & roadways-into a truly intermodal,
interconnected system
8 icfi.com |
Creating Livable Communities An FHWA Primer Incorporating livability into each step of the transportation planning
& decisionmaking process
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/creating_livable_communities/
9 icfi.com |
Benefits of Incorporating Livability
Transportation and land use — support compact,
connected communities
Small ‘town center’ development
guide growth to protect natural and working lands
Environmental — reduced footprint
Reduced GHGs from increased walking/biking
Compact development requires less land
Health and social — reduced obesity, improved
sense of community
Increased convenience for walking/biking to
destination
Public places created
Economic — efficiently use available resources and
boost local economy
Improve multimodal access to jobs;
reinvent/reinvest in existing corridors
10 icfi.com |
Networks and connectivity Key strategy in urban, suburban, and rural areas
11
Why complete the streets & networks? It’s the best way to maximize capacity of existing
roadways – at affordable costs
12
Boulevard Design Characteristics “People Friendly Streets”
Four-lane cross section
Two-lane cross section
Streetscape
Buildings brought to street for
enclosure / interest
Landscaped medians provide crossing refuge
On-street parking
protects pedestrians
Bus amenities
include shelters
and by-pass lanes
13
Transportation Network Reduces Auto Travel and Congestion
The proximity of
activities within
communities
promotes walking
and transit
The proximity of
communities to each other
makes auto trips shorter
The network makes travel
more efficient by
providing multiple travel
choices
A
C
B
14
Hydraulic Road - Existing conditions
15
Hydraulic Road – Complete Street
Extending & connecting the grid with complete streets,
plus block-by-block redevelopment provides Transit
Targets & mode choice
16
Hydraulic Road - Complete Street
Completing the landscaping provides enhanced walking
& wheeling choices and business environment
17
REDESIGNED INTERSECTIONS
REDESIGNED INTERSECTIONS
FUTURE PARALLEL ROAD
AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
Small town revitalization - Lovingston, VA
Route 50 Rural Traffic Calming, VA
Community-Driven Goals:
• Increase quality of life
• improve conditions for pedestrians,
• create safe and attractive streets
• reduce the negative effects of
automobiles on the environment.
Objectives:
• slow traffic & reduce collisions
• reduce the need for police enforcement
• provide more greenery
• enhance historical, agriculture, & natural setting
• increase access to main street
• accommodate but not invite through traffic.
Route 50 Rural Traffic Calming, VA
Rt. 50 Design context zones transition from rural highway to towns
Route 50 & Route 15
Gilberts Corner Linked Roundabouts
• A system of roundabouts
at a rural highway
intersection addresses
increasing congestion &
safety issues
• Addition of a new
triangular ‘cut-off’ road,
with two new
roundabouts, removes
excess turning
movements from the main
roundabout
• Rural character is
preserved, along with
potential for compact
growth
21 icfi.com |
Multimodal corridor strategy Key strategy in urban, suburban, and rural areas
Multimodal Investment Strategy
Integrated, multimodal T&LU planning
Link cities & suburban corridors, growing
rural counties, and small towns
All-hands-on-deck public process
Include business and developers
Inter-agency collaboration & tech team
Focus on implementing the vision
Tie to local comprehensive plans &
DOT project programming
Multimodal Investment Strategy
Use projects to demonstrate state-of-the
art practices and policy changes
Voluntary participation using
incentives, not mandates
Target $$ toward strategic solutions
Put new $$ to work in support of new ideas
Leverage private investment
Use public funds to ‘connect the dots’
24
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Typical suburban roadway with auto-oriented shopping
25
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Urban grade separation (in distance) and multimodal
boulevard – 4 lanes each direction plus turn lanes (with
median islands for safety)
26
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Mixed-use infill development on existing aging shopping
centers
27
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Additional block-by-block redevelopment provides Transit
Targets and enhanced walking and wheeling choices
28
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Additional block-by-block redevelopment provides Transit
Targets and enhanced walking and wheeling choices
29
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Additional block-by-block redevelopment provides Transit
Targets and enhanced walking and wheeling choices
30
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Landscaping matures over time
31
US29 facing south toward Rio Road
Zoomed in toward grade-separated intersection
32 icfi.com |
TDM and corridor operations
33 icfi.com |
TDM and corridor operations
34
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Becoming a Transit-Ready neighborhood center
35
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Medians and pedestrian improvements
36
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Continue public improvements
37
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Mixed-use infill development on individual properties
38
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Continue infill development
39
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Landscape matures over time
40
Transforming ‘Gasoline Alley’ Add transit service as market grows
41
Street design guidelines
City of Charlotte, NC Urban Streets Design Guidelines focus on
designing roadways for all users for different community context zones
42
Rural County design guidelines
Fluvanna County, VA
43
Nelson County Comp Plan – rural area
Complete Streets in Practice
There is no unified definition of a Complete Street.
Each road segment should be planned and built within the context of its surroundings.
Some common elements of Complete Street design include:
Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks or crosswalks.
Bicycle infrastructure such as bicycle lanes or bicycle parking.
•44
Coordinated transit facilities such
as bus pull-outs or transit right of
way.
Aesthetic and safety
improvements, including
landscaping, contrasting
pavement colors, and signage.
Status of Complete Streets Legislation
15 states have enacted some form of Complete Streets legislation.
10 additional states have put statewide Complete Streets policies, design guidelines, or administrative procedures in place.
•45
Several hundred local
governments have
enacted Complete
Streets policies.
Roles of State, Regional, and Local Government in Complete Streets
States can take the lead role in delivering Complete Streets:
Adopt statewide legislation.
Select Complete Streets projects for state funding.
Organize and train planning, engineering, and design staff.
Create design manuals and guidance.
Local governments can play an important role:
Pass ordinances supportive of Complete Streets.
Select Complete Streets projects for municipal or county funding.
Adopt design manuals and/or guidance documents.
MPOs and transit agencies can also influence the delivery of Complete Streets.
Adopt regional or agency-wide policies and design guidance, incorporate complete streets principles in project funding.
•46
47 icfi.com |
Measuring performance
EXAMPLE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Transit Accessibility.
– How usable is the transit network in terms of getting people to the top community destinations?
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
– How much are people driving on a daily basis?
Bicycle and Pedestrian Mode Share.
– How many daily trips are made by walking or biking?
48 icfi.com |
Focused investment strategies
Review available funds/projects across all partners (inc private)
Re-purpose $$ ‘accruing’ into multimodal corridor target areas
Target short-term action:
–TDM, operational & access, transit & walk-bike improvements, connect-the-dots links to private investment
Complete the Networks
49 icfi.com |
Focused investment strategies
Complete the networks & build transit-oriented &
transit-ready corridors
Align major facility design with the surrounding network
& community context
Link land use & redevelopment decisions with
transportation investments
Jeff Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
April 16, 2012 | APA Seminar
Freeways to Boulevards: Lessons from San Francisco and other cities
Los Angeles Freeway Network – Same Scale
Vancouver Freeway Network – Same Scale
San Francisco Freeway Network – Same Scale
New Orleans – Sam Scale
San Francisco Planned Freeways, 1940s
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
San Francisco Freeway Revolt, 1950s and 1960s
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
The Ferry Building and the Embarcadero Freeway, pre 1980
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
The Embarcadero Freeway
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
San Francisco Earthquake, 1989
Source: Flickr user: California Watch
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Embarcadero ramps removal, 1991
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Alternative Concept for Embarcadero Tunnel
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
San Francisco waterfront
24
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Results
• Housing units up 54%, 1990-2000 (a 74% increase above nearby ‘control’ areas)
• Jobs up 23%, 1990-2005 (a 318% increase above nearby ‘control’ areas)
• 75% increase in transit commute trips
• Freeway reduced home values by average of $118,000
“From Elevated Freeways to Surface Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco,” by Robert Cervero, Junhee Kang, and Kevin Shively. Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley, December 2007.
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Central Freeway removal
Source: Amit Ghosh, San Francisco Planning Department
Octavia Boulevard, Before
Octavia Boulevard Redesign
Steve Boland, Nelson\Nygaard
Octavia Boulevard, After
Octavia Boulevard
“From Elevated Freeways to Surface Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco,” by Robert Cervero, Junhee Kang, and Kevin Shively. Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley, December 2007.
• Freeway built 1959 • Damaged 1989 • Upper deck removed 1996 • Third vote for boulevard, 1999 • Final demolition, 2003 • Boulevard open 2005 • Before replacement, carried
90,000 cars per day • Octavia: 45,000 cars per day • September headline of the San
Francisco Chronicle : “Traffic Planners Baffled by Success: No Central Freeway, No Gridlock, and No Explanation.”
Octavia Boulevard
“From Elevated Freeways to Surface Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco,” by Robert Cervero, Junhee Kang, and Kevin Shively. Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley, December 2007.
• Freeway reduced home
values an average of $116,000
• With freeway: Housing prices 66% of median; after: 91% of median.
• Nearly 1,000 new housing units, of which half are permanently affordable.
Caution: Social Equity After boulevard, 12% increase in whites, and 33%
decrease in African American residents in neighborhood.
To minimize displacement and provide advantages for existing residents:
Capture property value increase and invest in existing businesses, cultural institutions, neighborhood stabilization.
Limit gentrification by zoning for smaller units, less parking.
Invest in permanently affordable housing.
Form neighborhood nonprofits and direct resources to them.
Ensure that impetus for change arises from within the neighborhood.
What happened to Central Freeway traffic?
San Francisco Department of Park and Traffic, 2006
Traffic on alternate routes increased by no more than 10%
Image: sfcityscape
Image: sfcityscape
Image: sfcityscape
Image: sfcityscape
Image: sfcityscape
Image: sfcityscape
Freeway Challenges: Traffic Impacts
Major Advantage: Speed, Especially for Long Distance Travel
Major Disadvantage: Local Access Constraint
Freeway capacity limited by capacity of ramps where freeway meets city grid.
Freeways don’t always increase network capacity – they may simply move the traffic bottleneck from one place to another.
If freeways interrupt the city street grid, they may remove as much network capacity as they create
Abu Dhabi: Limited Connectivity
• 18 lanes of through traffic
• Up to 2,000 vehicles per lane hour
• Up to 36,000 vehicles per hour
Abu Dhabi: Low Connectivity
Vancouver: High Connectivity
• 100 lanes of through traffic
• Up to 700 vehicles per lane hour
• Up to 70,000 vehicles per hour
• No freeways = twice the capacity!
Freeway Challenges: Economic Impacts
Major Advantage: Real Estate Value
Freeways create real estate value for auto dependent, far away places by providing speedy access to jobs and services
Major Disadvantage: Real Estate Value
Freeways reduce real estate value around them by eliminating direct access and increasing noise
Typically, urban freeways may cut adjacent real estate value by half; removing freeways doubles adjacent real estate value (Milwaukee, San Francisco data);
Freeway Challenges: Social Impacts
Major Advantage: Convenience for Cars
High speed, simple connections for cars
Major Disadvantage: All other Modes
Urban freeways make walking uncomfortable, dangerous and/or impossible
If passengers can’t cross the street, transit does not work
By excluding other modes, freeways increase the auto trip generation rate, meaning new capacity may be filled because more people must drive.
NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2012
Jeff Tumlin 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105 415. 284.1544
Paula Reeves
Manager, Community Design
WSDOT’s Highways & Local Programs Division
Creating Livable Streets and Corridors (S526)
Washington State’s Experience
American Planning Association Conference
Los Angeles, CA
April 16, 2012
Key Topics
• Creating livable streets – Washington example
• Working with State DOT’s
• Recent projects – success stories
What steps are we taking?
• Developing new policies and guides (planning,
design, construction and maintenance)
• Restructuring procedures to accommodate all
users
• Offering workshops and other trainings
• Instituting better ways to measure performance
• Developing a project funding mechanism
Milestones in State Policy
• WSDOT Livable Communities Policy, 2000
• CSS Executive Order, 2003
• Design Guidance and Training, 2005 – Understanding Flexibility in Transportation, Washington
• State Funding for Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety, 2005
• AASHTO Environmental Excellence Award, 2006 – Best Organizational Integration of Context Sensitive Design
• State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan adopted, 2008
• Complete Streets Bill (ESHB 1071) passed, 2011
• Flexible Design Bill (HB 1700) passed, 2012
4
Recent Milestones in Federal Policy
• Federal Highway Administration Issues Livable Communities Policy, June 2009
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm
• USDOT Policy on Biking and Walking, March 2010 http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html
• 2010 FHWA applies Livable Communities criteria to all discretionary grant programs:
--Provide more transportation choices.
--Promote equitable, affordable housing.
--Enhance economic competitiveness.
--Support existing communities.
--Coordinate policies and leverage investment.
--Value communities and neighborhoods.
WSDOT Community Design –
Developing Streets for Everyone
Typical “Complete Street” Elements
Source: Association of Washington Cities
2008-09 Study:
State Highways as Main Streets
The Issues
• City streets operate as state highways
• Design affects community livability and safety
• Scope, schedule and budget changes on these streets/highways
The Research
1. System Analysis
2. Case Studies
Storefront Studio Program
University of Washington
College of Built Environments
Department of Architecture
Variables Units of Measure State Route within City Limits Y, N
Highway of Statewide Significance Y, N
National Highway System Y, N
State Access Control Classification Y, N
Federal Functional Classification Principal arterials, Minor arterial
streets, Collector streets,
Local streets
Design Speed MPH
Posted Speed MPH
Year of Incorporation Year
Freight Classification
T-1 more than 10 million tons per year;
T-2 4 million to 10 million tons per year;
T-3 300,000 to 4 million tons per year;
T-4 100,000 to 300,000 tons per year;
T-5 at least 20,000 tons in 60 days
Collision History Number of collisions involving
bicyclists and pedestrians
What’s a Main Street Highway? Step 1: Screening
Ste
p 2
–
De
fin
ing
Main
Str
ee
t H
igh
wa
ys
Variables Units of Measure
Proportion of visible buildings that are commercial Percentage (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
Proportion of street frontage with dead space Percentage (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
Proportion of street frontage with parked cars Percentage (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
Proportion of street frontage with tree canopy Percentage (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
Number of travel lanes Number both directions
Average travel lane width Feet
Average shoulder width Feet
Average median width Feet
Average sidewalk width Feet
Total curb to curb width Feet
Total back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk width Feet
Posted speed limit MPH
Crosswalk spacing Feet
Visible curb extensions (y, n) Y,N
Average building setback Feet
Average building height (stories) Stories
Uniform building height (y, n)) Y,N
Number of pedestrians visible Count
Average daily traffic Volume
Visible bicycle lane Y ,N
Visible buildings that are historic Y,N
Findings
• Scope changes:
-- More common on Main Street Highways
-- 48% of all projects vs. 38% on other parts of the state system
• Retrospective review:
-- 40 projects or 20% of WSDOT’s scope, schedule and budget
changes could have directly benefited from additional community
design
• Average estimated saving per project:
-- Over $9 million dollars or 30% of project cost
• New Funding Program – Complete Streets (2011 Washington Legislation – ESHB 1071)
• New Design Approach (2012 Washington Legislation –HB 1700)
Implementing the Research
Example: State Route 14 – Bingen
Working with State DOT’s on joint projects
• Locate your advocate within the State DOT -Often the office administering federal aid
• Communicate early and often -Understand what is in plans and standards
• Anticipate a review process
• Involve the public in your project
• DO NOT give up -Where there is a will there is a way
• Clarify expectations, roles and responsibilities -Different goals?
-Who is the general contractor?
-Use a master contract for joint projects
Recent Success Stories
Before After
Haxton Way, Whatcom County, WA
Before After
State Route 99 - Des Moines, WA
Before After
Factoria Trail – I-405 - Bellevue, WA
Before After
State Route 203 - Carnation, WA
WSDOT Resources & Contacts…
WSDOT’s Complete Streets website
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Planning/MainStreets.htm
UW Storefront Studio website
http://www.storefrontstudio.org/
State Highways as Main Streets: A Study of Community Design and Visioning
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/700/733.1.htm
Paula Reeves
Manager, Community Design Assistance
[email protected], 360-705-7258