Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT Cherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning

Multimodal Transportation Districts and Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal PlanningAreawide Multimodal Planning

Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOTMartin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOTCherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. PlanningCherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning

Florida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationDistrict 7District 7

March 18, 2008March 18, 2008

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

Course AgendaCourse Agenda

• Introductions

• Overview of Goals and Concepts

• DeLand: A Multimodal Transportation District Case Study

• Application of Multimodal Planning - Multimodal Transportation Districts: The What, Why, Where, Who, and How

• Linking Land Use and Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service Exercise

• Tallahassee MMTD Evaluation

Multimodal Areawide PlanningMultimodal Areawide PlanningConcepts and ApplicationsConcepts and Applications

Florida Department of Florida Department of TransportationTransportation

Systems Planning OfficeSystems Planning Office

March 2008March 2008

ObjectiveObjective

• To Become Familiar With and Understand:– Concurrency in Florida– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation– Multimodal Areawide Planning

Evolution of Concurrency in FloridaEvolution of Concurrency in Florida

• 1985: Growth Management Act• 1989-1991: Comprehensive Plans• 1993: Project Level and Areawide Exceptions• Late 1990’s: Evaluation and Appraisal

Reports/Update of Local Comprehensive Plans• 1998: Transportation and Land Use Study

Committee• 1999: Multimodal Transportation Districts• 2001: Growth Management Study Committee• 2005: Growth Management Act (SB 360)• 2006 & 2007: Backlog Discussion

Concurrency in FloridaConcurrency in Florida

1985 • Teeth of growth

management• New development

should pay for itself• Infrastructure should

be in place and available at time of impact

2007• Unintended

consequences• Concerns about

multimodalism and community design

• Backlog of projects• Funding Dilemma• Public-private

partnerships

• Why – required by law (163.3180 F.S. and 9J-05.0055 FAC) to provide for ‘adequate public facilities’

• Who – Implemented by local governments and is a local government responsibility

• When – At the time of development order/building permit approval (Non-DRI’s)– Previously may have occurred at time of certificate of

occupancy

ConcurrencyConcurrency

Transportation Concurrency ProcessTransportation Concurrency Process

• Establish LOS Standards in Local Comprehensive Plan

• Implement Concurrency as Part of Land Development Regulations

• Calculate Level of Service on Major Roadways

• Calculate the Availability of Capacity as a Part of Development Review

ConcurrencyConcurrency

• Intent– Responsible

growth by requiring local governments to improve roads

• Assumes– Local governments

have the funds to improve roads

• Reality– Locals may not have

adequate funds– May lack support to increase

funds– Can’t build your way out

• Unintended Consequences – Urban sprawl– Urban “infill sprawl” – using

up every last drop of capacity within a CMS

Options Beyond Basic Concurrency SystemOptions Beyond Basic Concurrency System

• Redefine LOS Standard

• Project Specific Exceptions– Projects that Promote Public Transportation

• Areawide Exceptions– Transportation Management Area (TCMA)– Transportation Concurrency Exception Area

(TCEA)– Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD)

“Each local government shall establish a level of service standard for each public facility within its boundary…”

9J-5.005(3) Department of Community Affairs Concurrency Rule

Level of Service StandardsLevel of Service Standards

• Adopted in specific facilities elements and Capital Improvements Element

• Adequate and based on data and analysis – For roadways – must adopt standards for facilities on

future traffic circulation map

– For Strategic Intermodal System – Must adopt standards of FDOT (Rule 14-94, FAC)

– For other functionally classified roadways must adopt ‘adequate’ standards

– LOS standards are typically A-F, but sometimes are a specific number of vehicles/trips.

Long-Term Transportation Concurrency Long-Term Transportation Concurrency Management System (LTTCMS)Management System (LTTCMS)

• Application – Improvement Needed– There must be an improvement which can solve the

concurrency (LOS) problem

• Requirements – Funding– Long term schedule of capital improvements

• Monitoring– May include interim LOS standards– Annual CIP– During EAR

Provides an Exception Until Improvement Made

TCMA – Averaging ConditionsTCMA – Averaging Conditions

• Application – Infill and Redevelopment– Compact area – Existing road network with multiple viable alternative

travel paths or modes.

• Requirements – Areawide Mobility– Promote infill and redevelopment– Provide mobility

• Monitoring– May include areawide LOS standard– During EAR

TCEA – Infill & RedevelopmentTCEA – Infill & Redevelopment

• Application – Land Use– Less than 10% developable vacant land

• Residential > 60%, then at least 5 DUs/acre• Non-residential >60%, then FAR at least 1.0

– Designated urban redevelopment area– Designated downtown revitalization area

• Requirements – Mobility, Funding– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,

network connectivity– Justify size of area

• Monitoring– During EAR

MMTD – Non-Auto Mobility FocusMMTD – Non-Auto Mobility Focus

• Application – Priorities– Primary priority is safe, comfortable, and attractive

pedestrian environment, convenient interconnection to transit

– Secondary priority is vehicle mobility

• Requirements – Mobility, Funding– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,

network connectivity

• Monitoring– May establish multimodal LOS standards– During EAR– 2 year reporting

Comparison of Transportation Concurrency Comparison of Transportation Concurrency Areawide ExceptionsAreawide Exceptions

1: MMTD’s require a minimum population and employment, but this figure is not area specific.

2: The TCMA may be established in “a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common purpose.”

3: Discussed in statute, but no measure provided.

TCMA TCEA MMTD

Density requirement Yes Yes --- 1

Must be infill oriented Yes Yes ---

Limited area Yes 2 --- 3 --- 3

Areawide Level of Service Yes --- 3 Yes

Multimodal Level of Service --- --- 3 Yes

Addresses land use --- 3 Yes Yes

Addresses connectivity Yes 2 Yes Yes

Addresses Impacts to SIS Yes Yes Yes

Common RequirementsCommon Requirements

• Amendment to the comprehensive plan• Evaluate impacts to surrounding areas

– Be careful about solving one problem but creating other problems

• Financial feasibility– Funding strategy to accomplish goals

• Monitoring– Minimum is part of Evaluation and Appraisal Report

(EAR)

Course ObjectiveCourse Objective


MMTD LegislationMMTD Legislation

F.S. 163.3180 (15)(a) allows:–Establishment of Multimodal Transportation Districts under local government comprehensive plans designating an area assigning priority to:

• Safe comfortable and attractive pedestrian environment

• Convenient interconnection to transit• Secondary priority to vehicle mobility

F.S. 163.3180 (15)(b):– Local governments shall use professionally

accepted techniques for measuring level of service for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and trucks.

– FDOT shall develop methodologies used to assist local governments in implementing this multimodal level of service analysis

– DCA and FDOT will provide technical assistance to local governments in applying these methodologies


In Response to Legislation FDOT has:In Response to Legislation FDOT has:

• Developed level of service methodology and analysis tools for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes

• Prepared the Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook to detail methodology and techniques for multimodal areawide planning

• Prepared Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts report to provide model comp plan amendments and land development regulations to local governments

• Prepared Safe Ways to School – The Role in Multimodal Planning report to define the special needs of schools in consideration of MMTDs


Course ObjectiveCourse Objective


Goal of Multimodal Areawide PlanningGoal of Multimodal Areawide Planning

To encourage and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation ultimately resulting in the reduction of automobile usage and vehicle miles of travel

Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:

• Appropriate Scale of Development• Urban Design• Land Use

MixOrganization, Densities and Intensities

• TransportationRegional ConnectivityMultimodal AvailabilityNetwork ConnectivityLevel of Service

• Linking Land Use and TransportationAreawide Quality of ServiceRecommended Performance Targets

Population

At least 5,000 in residential population

Employment

A range, from 1:1 to 3:1, of population to employment

Appropriate Scale of DevelopmentAppropriate Scale of Development






Buildings & Services Adjacent to Sidewalk

Urban DesignUrban Design

Short Block Lengths & Dense Street Network


Pedestrian Friendly



Transit Friendly


Freight and Delivery Access for Businesses


Ten Steps To WalkabilityCompact, lively town center

Low speed streets, distributed volumes

Neighborhood schools and parks, within 1/4 mile of residences

Public places with inviting features: benches, restrooms, shade, water and art

Convenient, safe and efficient crossings

Affordable, inspiring, well maintained streets and homes

Land use and transportation partnerships

Celebrated public space and public life, parades, markets, festivals, awards

Many people of all ages and abilities walking many hours

Fine grained streets, many trails, transit links






Complementary Mix of Land Uses

Three or more significant, mutually supporting land uses, one of which is residential

Physical and functional integration of uses

Land Use: Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land UsesComplementary Mix of Land Uses


Supporting Land Uses

OfficeLocal ServicesMedical ServicesHotelRestaurantsShoppingRecreational/CulturalConvenience RetailGym/Health ClubEducational/Day CareCollege/UniversityGov’t Agency

Significant Land Use:

Employment and

Schools

Significant Land Use:

Residential

Handbook, Page 23




Preferred Ratio of Uses

Land Uses

Open/Parks/Recreational

Office/Commercial/Lt. Industrial

Residential

Preferred Ratio

5% - 15%

30% - 70%

20% - 60%


Organization of Land Uses Promoting a Central Core

MEDIUM DENSITY(Townhouse, Garden Apartment, Retail and Service)

HIGH DENSITY(Mixed Use, Commercial, Retail, Apartment and Institutional)

High Capacity Transit Station

LOW DENSITY(Single Family, Retail and Service

Boundary of Walking Distance

1/4 Mile

1/2 Mile

Primary Service Boundary

Handbook, Page 26

Land Use: Land Use: OrganizationOrganization

Area in open development preferably 160 acres..in any case it should house enough people to require one elementary school. Exact shape not essential but best when all sides are fairly equidistant from center.

A shopping district might be substituted for church site

Shopping districts in periphery at traffic junctions and preferably bunched in form.

Only neighborhood institutions at community center

Ten percent of area to recreation and park space

Interior streets not wider than required for specific use and giving easy access to shops and community center

Source: The Fractured Metropolis, Jonathan Barnett, 1995

Roads connect where possible

Site reserved for civic building

Short face of blocks along boulevards

Only neighborhood shops & institutions at the center

The bus stopshere

A playground in each quadrant

School locatedto beshared byadjacentneighborhood

Parkway corridor along boulevard

Mixed use street anchored by corner shopping district

Shops & offices along boulevards

Shopping centers at high traffic intersections

Parking lot designed as plaza

Area: Preferable 160 acres to house enough people to support 1 elementary school Preferable shape: All sides are fairlyequidistant from thecenter

Handbook, Page 31

Land Use: Land Use: OrganizationOrganization

MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS

MAJOR TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CORRIDOR

HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG THE CORRIODRS CONCENTRATED IN AREAS WITH HIGH INTERMODAL POTENTIAL

DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM ACTIVITY CENTERS INCREASES

Handbook, Page 27

Land Use: Land Use: Densities and IntensitiesDensities and Intensities

TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CORRIDOR

HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED INSIDE OF ARTERIAL BOUNDARY OF DISTRICT

MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERSFOCUSED WITHIN DISTRICT

MAJOR ARTERIAL OR INTERSTATE

DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM MAJOR ARTERIAL INCREASES

Handbook, Page 28


Desirable Densities and Intensities

Residential Land Use (DU/Acres)

Commercial Land Use (Emp/Acre)

Multimodal Potential

1 - 3 1 - 39 Poor.

4 - 6 40 - 59Marginal. Possibility for success.

7 - 14 60 - 99Good. Supports bus transit

15+ 100+High. Supports high capacity transit.

Handbook, Page 25


Appropriate Organization, Densities and Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land UsesIntensities of Land Uses



Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:





• Existence of regional transportation connections

• Good multimodal connectivity to the regional connections

Transportation: Transportation: Regional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity

• Connected, continuous pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks

• Amenities exist that make multimodal usage a pleasant experience

• Land use elements combine with the transportation systems to promote multimodal usage

Transportation: Transportation: Availability of Different ModesAvailability of Different Modes

Multimodal Transportation NetworksMultimodal Transportation Networks

Multimodal Transportation NetworksMultimodal Transportation Networks

• Network connectivity for all modes is critical for a successful MMTD

• An index can be used to rate the level of network connectivity

• Index is based on the polygon methodology

Transportation: Transportation: Network ConnectivityNetwork Connectivity

Pedestrian Connectivity Index1 Mile

1 Mile

1 2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9

10 1112 13

14 15

16

17 18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26

27 29 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Street System

Pedestrian Network

Shared Use Path

District BoundaryHandbook, Page 34

Bicycle Connectivity Index

1 Mile

1 Mile

1 2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9 1011 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19

20 21

22 23

24 25

26

28

27

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Street System

Pedestrian Network

Shared Use Path

District BoundaryHandbook, Page 35

Transportation: LOS Analysis

• FDOT has developed multimodal LOS methodology

• Define the modal networks– Pedestrian– Bicycle– Transit– Auto

• For LOS analysis, the network consists of functionally classified collectors and above

• Pedestrian LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user

• Factors include:– Presence of sidewalk– Buffers between sidewalk and motor vehicle

travel lanes– Presence of protective barriers– Width of outside travel lanes and bicycle lanes– Motor vehicle traffic volume– Motor vehicle speed

Handbook, Page 43


• Bicycle LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user

• Factors include:– Presence of designated bike lane or paved

shoulder– Pavement width– Traffic volume in outside lane– Motor vehicle speed– Percentage and number of trucks– Pavement surface condition

Handbook, Page 43


• Each factor is weighted by relative importance

• Weighting validated by a statistically significant sample

• Numerical LOS score is computed and converted to letter LOS grade

• Numerical score generally ranges from 0.5 to 6.5


Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Thresholds

Level of Service ScoreA <=1.5

B >1.5 and <=2.5

C >2.5 and <=3.5

D >3.5 and <=4.5

E <4.5 and >=5.5

F >5.5

Handbook, Page 44


• Transit LOS is based on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

• Evaluates the user’s perception of the quality of the transit route

• Transit availability is the is the most important factor

• Transit LOS determined by frequency of service and adjusted by – Hours of Service– Pedestrian LOS


Transit Level of Service: Availability of ServiceBus

LOSHeadway

(Min.)Frequency(Bus/Hr) Comments

A < 10 > 6 No schedule needed

B 10 –14 5 – 6 Frequent service

C 15 – 20 3 – 4 Maximum desirable wait time

D 21 – 30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders

E 31 – 60 1 Service available during hour

F > 60 < 1 Service unattractive to all users

Handbook, Page 45


• Areawide LOS is determined for each mode within the district

• This areawide modal LOS is a measure of the coverage of modal service within the district, or a Quality of Service. The modal QOS is a length weighted average, by facility.

• Recommended minimum QOS thresholds are:

Pedestrian

Transit

Bicycle

Automobile

C C D FIHS/LGCP

Non-motorized oriented

C D C FIHS/LGCP

Type of MMTD

Transit-Oriented

Non motorized-Oriented

C

C

C

D

D

C

FIHS/LGCP

FIHS/LGCP

Handbook, Page 43


Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:





Linking Land Use & Transportation:Linking Land Use & Transportation:Areawide Quality of ServiceAreawide Quality of Service

• Areawide Quality of Service brings together the land use and transportation analyses

• Integrates land use and transportation through:– Definition of each modal network – Mobility within each modal network– Ability of the population to use these

facilities

To Determine the Areawide Quality of Service, the following steps are used:

Step 1. Define Major Modal Facilities

Identify the major transportation facilities, by mode, within the district

Handbook, Page 47


Step 2. Establish User Service Areas on the Defined Facilities for Each Mode

Accepted user ranges are ¼ mile for pedestrians and ½ mile for bicycles

Handbook, Page 48


Step 3. Determine % of population and employment within the user service areas which measures the multimodal potential.This step evaluates the ability of the district population to use the facilities

User Service Area

Example:

User Service Area Contains:

50% of District Employment

50% of District Population

Handbook, Page 48


Step 4. Determine LOS for each mode on each facility

Use LOS analysis

LOS C

LOS B

LOS A

LOS A

LOS B

Handbook, Page 48


Step 5. Determine each modal Quality of Service within the district. Modal QOS is determined as a length weighted average of facilities Levels of Service.

LOS C

LOS B

LOS A

LOS A

LOS B

Example:

QOS for this mode: B

Handbook, Page 48


Step 6. Compare the QOS for Each Mode with the Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on the % of Population and Employment Located within the User Service Area

Areawide Quality of Service is determined by this comparison.

Handbook, Page 48


Comparison of Areawide Quality of Service (QOS) and Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on Percentage of Population and Employment within the Service Area

Examples:Modal QOS B

% of Population & 50% Employment in Service Area

Areawide Mobility E

Modal QOS B

% of Population & 87% Employment in Service Area

Areawide Mobility B

Within Service Area

Areawide Quality of Service 90% - 99% 90% - 99% Modal QOS or LOC A, whichever is worse

80% - 89% Modal QOS or LOC B, whichever is worse 70% - 79% Modal QOS or LOC C, whichever is worse 60% - 69% 50% - 59% Modal QOS or LOC E, whichever is worse 1% - 49% Modal QOS F

Modal QOS or LOC D, whichever is worse

Handbook, Page 51

% Population and Employment


Linking Land Use & Transportation:Recommended Performance Targets

• 80% of all facilities contained in the bicycle and pedestrian networks should operate at LOS C or better

• All parcels within ¼ mile of a transit stop should be served by pedestrian facilities operating at LOS C or better

• 80% of employees and population should be located within ¼ mile of a transit stopHandbook, Page 43

FDOT QLOS Resources to Help FDOT QLOS Resources to Help

• LOS Issue Papers• Updated LOSPLAN 2007

software• Q/LOS Training• MMTD Handbook & Training• Growth Management

Training• 2002 Q/LOS handbook• Research• Website

78

ResourcesResources

• Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook

• Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts

[email protected](850) 414-4906

• FDOT LOS Website:

www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm 79

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT Cherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning