1

TEN YEARS LATERTEN YEARS LATER……Implementing Multi-Modal LOS

in Fort Collins, Colorado

What worked, What didn’t, andWhere are we heading?

Mark Jackson, AICPTransportation Group DirectorCity of Fort Collins, COCNU June 19, 2009

2

The City of Fort CollinsThe City of Fort Collins• Mid-size community of 137,000 in Northern CO• Home to Colorado State University• Diverse, progressive community

3

The City of Fort CollinsThe City of Fort Collins• Developed and implemented Multi-Modal LOS

Standards in 1999• Created a “Complete Streets” culture within the

organization (before it was cool)• Changed expectations for City Staff and Developers

alike• Many positives realized, but some missteps and

lessons learned• Hits, Misses & Future Direction

4

What Makes Great Streets?What Makes Great Streets?• Serve PEOPLE

• All Modes - Autos, Bikes, Peds, Transit, RVs, Trucks, Trains, etc.

• Functional - Mobility & Utilities

• Attractive & Inviting Streetscapes

• Active Land Uses – Day & Night

5

Multimodal Standards:Multimodal Standards: •ROW

•Travel Lanes

•Medians

•Parking

•Bike Lanes

•Parkway

•Sidewalk

•Utilities

Based on City Plan & Master Street Plan

Design Standards Vary by Facility Type & Location

Transportation Impact Study includes all modes

Street include auto, pedestrian, bicycle and transit elements

6

Tools for an effective Tools for an effective

MultiMulti--modal Transportation Systemmodal Transportation SystemMany tools in the toolbox:Complete Streets:

ELECTRIC

DRIVEWAY

GASPHONE

STORM SEWERSEWER

STORMSEWER

SEWER

WATER

WATER

2 Bike Lanes

CABLE

4 Drainage1 St reet Vehicles

8 Safet y

9 Parkways

5 Buses

7 Signals10 Landscaped Medians

IRRIGATION 6 Ut ilit ies

IRRIGATION

IRRIGATION

IRRIGATION

CABLE

ELECTRIC DUCTS

BUS

St reetSystem

3 Sidewalks

•Corridor & District Plans

•Land Use Code

•Master Street Plan

•Street Standards & Design Manuals

•LOS Manual & TIS Guidelines

•Outreach & Education

•Adequate Public Facilities

•City Plan Comprehensive Plan

7

Multimodal LOS Standards:Multimodal LOS Standards:

AutomobileAutomobileGoes beyond traditional volume/capacity based LOS

•Access

•Connectivity

•Continuity

Differentiates between Activity Centers, Commercial Corridors, Mixed Use Districts

8

Multimodal LOS Standards:Multimodal LOS Standards:

AutomobileAutomobileMotor Vehicle LOS Standards

9

Multimodal LOS Standards:Multimodal LOS Standards:

PedestrianDestination Areas:

•Recreation Sites

•Residential Areas

•Institutional Sites

•Office Buildings

•Commercial Sites

•Industrial Sites

PedestrianLOS Criteria:

•Directness

•Continuity

•Street Crossings

•Visual Interest & Amenities

•SecurityLocation Areas:

•Pedestrian District

•Activity Center/Corridor

•Transit Corridor

•School Walk Area

•Other

10

Multimodal LOS Standards:Multimodal LOS Standards:

BicycleBicycleBased on Connectivity to Bike facilities in connecting corridors

Bike Corridors may contain 1 of 3 types of facilities:On-street lanes

Off-street paths

On-street routes

11

Multimodal LOS Standards:Multimodal LOS Standards:

TransitTransitBased on Route characteristics & Land Use characteristics

Standards developed during Transit Development Plan

Standards evaluate service planned by 2015

Service Level Standards:Hours of service

Frequency of service

Travel time factor

Peak load factor

Mixed Use Centers & Commercial Corridorsor

Remainder of service area

12

Integrating MultiIntegrating Multi--Modal Accessibility Modal Accessibility into the Development Review into the Development Review Process, Operations & MaintenanceProcess, Operations & Maintenance

Real Life Lessons:

•Hits

•Misses

•Next Steps

13

Development Review Real Life Lessons:Development Review Real Life Lessons:Hits:New development provides good connectivity and continuity

Proactive approach reduces City’s capital infrastructure burdens

Education of & buy-in from developers, engineers & planners (eventually)

Better interconnectivity between modes, higher modal splits

Misses:Easy when economy and development demand is strong

Difficult to implement in infill areas

Qualitative criteria often confusing and inconsistent

Transit service assumptions not being realized

Next Steps:Update APF Policy and Process

Review & Update LOS standards for Infill Development

14

Results: Real Life LessonsResults: Real Life Lessons

Hits: Culture Change in the Community!

•Transit Ridership up 15% in 2008; still rising

•Three new transit routes added

•Mason Corridor BRT becoming a reality

•Gold Level Bicycle Community

•Bike Culture Acceptance

•Community Expectations

15

Hits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FCHits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FC• Robust system of off

street trails and on street paths

• Functional and efficient• Built in Bike Population

(CSU Students)• Hired Bicycle

Coordinator in 2006• Programs and Public

Private Collaboration• Popularity has exploded

in last two years!

16

Hits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FCHits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FC• 2008 Gold Level Bicycle

Community Award• Private Sector Jumping

on the Bandwagon!

17

Hits: Community ExpectationsHits: Community Expectations• At first, neighbors,

developers and buyers fought “new” standards

• Now, it is seen as an asset and amenity

• Ped/Bike accessibility, connectivity

• A different feel than “Anywhere USA”

18

Misses: On the Ground RealitiesMisses: On the Ground Realities

Several Challenges & Lessons Learned over the Years:• Maintenance challenges• Enforcement issues• Dealing with other Local Agencies• Making the fit with existing development

19

Misses: On the Ground RealitiesMisses: On the Ground RealitiesMaintenance Challenges• Sometimes theory doesn’t

quite translate into function– Setback standards vs.

utility space needs– Inset parking vs. drainage

and snow removal– Who maintains the ped

connection?– Colored, Raised

Crosswalks

20

Misses: Enforcement IssuesMisses: Enforcement IssuesGood intentions, but:

– Early attempts confusing, frustrating

– Eventually became self-policing

– People still want to park in front

21

Misses: Dealing with Other Misses: Dealing with Other Local AgenciesLocal Agencies

Counter-Intuitive and Self-Defeating:

• School Districts!– New School Locations– Incomplete

connections– Located on major

arterials– No options but SOV

22

Misses: Making it Fit Misses: Making it Fit with Existing Developmentwith Existing Development

• Some New Urbanistdevelopment on urban fringe

• Great internal connectivity and design meets old or County standard facilities

• How to link old & new?

23

Moving Forward: Trends & ChangesMoving Forward: Trends & Changes• Infill Development

– review & revise standards– retrofit multi-modal needs to old infrastructure– Capitalize on development opportunities– Transit Oriented Development a reality

• Evolving from rigid standards to solution oriented approach

• Integrate sustainability into design• Changing revenue structure threatens progress

24

Many Thanks To:Many Thanks To:• Kathleen Bracke, AICP: Transportation Planning Director• Ted Shepard, AICP: Chief Planner• Sheri Langenberger, PE: Engineering Dev. Review• Marc Virata,PE: Engineering Dev. Review• Many developers, designers, professionals, and leaders

who have helped us make this real

25

City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins –– Resource List:Resource List:

•Multimodal Level of Service Standards:http://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineering/GMARdStds/ApdxH%2010-01-02.pdf

• Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards:http://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm

• Fort Collins Pedestrian Level of Service Manual:http://fcgov.com/transportationplanning/pdf/levelofservice.pdf

Contact: Mark Jackson, AICP, Transportation Group Director phone: (970) 416-2029 or via e-mail: mjackson@fcgov.com