Multimodal - Renaissance Planning Group

citiesthatwork.com

Multimodal - Renaissance Planning Group

Multimodal Transportation Planning

Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?

Whit Blanton, AICP

RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP

for

Florida Department of Transportation - District 4

June 23 & 24, 2009


Workshop Agenda

Introductions

Overview of Multimodal Planning

Community Buy-In and Participation

Land Use and Urban Form

Modal Considerations and Characteristics

Funding and Implementation Options

Final Thoughts and Q/A


Objectives

Understand Multimodal Planning Key Principles

Identify Methods and Strategies for Planning and

Implementation

Cultivate Local Stakeholder and Community Buy-In

Provision of Resources for Future Implementation


Overview - The BIG Idea

Transportation is only one component of

“Community”

– Need to fit the transportation system within a

broader framework

– Transportation is NOT about LOS

– Transportation must relate to all other

components of community

Economic development

Housing and quality of life

Education and recreation

Public and environmental health


Overview - Multimodal Vocabulary

Key terms:

Multimodal

– Mobility

– Accessibility

– Proximity

– Connectivity

– Quality of Service

– Availability


Why Multimodal Planning?

Encourages and provides for the use of

alternative modes

Increases travel options

Reduces automobile use

Reduces vehicle miles traveled and

greenhouse gas emissions

Encourages pedestrian-oriented

streetscapes

Provides opportunities for recreation

and exercise


Where Multimodal Planning?

Areas where public facilities already exist

Alternative modes of transportation needed

– Transit routes and stops, bike lanes, sidewalks,

multiuse paths

– Typically associated with:

Areas of greater congestion

Diversity of uses

Increased densities

Proximity to schools and civic uses


Ask the Audience!

How many of you have multimodal

plans?

What barriers or obstacles to

multimodal planning and/or

development you have experienced?

Don’t be shy…


Potential Obstacles

Political Level

Fear of density

Maintain status quo

Comfort with a focus on road/traffic measures

Administrative Level

Comprehensive plan may not provide mixed-use land uses

Policies or regulations not supportive of, or silent on,

pedestrian/bicycle/transit modes

Disconnect between planning and engineering

departments

Reliance on other agencies/entities

Funding


Senate Bill 360

SB 360 Overview

“Community Renewal Act”

Signed into law June 1, 2009

Designates and defines Dense

Urban Land Areas (DULAs)

Affects transportation

concurrency

– Automatic TCEAs in DULAs

– Broader ability to utilize TCEAs in

non-DULAs


Impact of SB 360

Automatic Transportation Concurrency

Exception Areas (TCEAs):

– Municipalities that qualify as DULAs

– Urban service areas adopted into the

comprehensive plan, and which are located within a

county that qualifies as a DULA

– A county, and its municipalities, with a population of

at least 900,000, which is a DULA, but does not

have a designated urban service area

–Some exceptions: Broward and Miami-Dade

counties retain their existing concurrency systems


Impact of SB 360

Non-DULA allowable TCEA locations

– For Municipalities

Urban infill areas

Community redevelopment areas

Downtown revitalization areas

Urban infill and redevelopment

Urban service areas, or areas within a designated urban

service boundary

– For Counties

Urban infill areas

Urban infill and redevelopment areas

Urban service areas


Impact of SB 360

Existing TCEAs enveloped by new regulations

– Now entire local government boundary covered

Mobility Plans

– Adopt into Comp Plan, and implement,

transportation and land use strategies to support

and fund mobility within TCEA, including alternative

modes

– Required within two years after area designated

July 1, 2011 for automatic TCEAs in DULAs

Sanctions may be imposed for failure to adopt

transportation/land use strategies


Impact of SB 360

Designating a TCEA does not limit a local

government’s home rule power to adopt

ordinances or impose fees

DCA and FDOT working to prepare

recommendations regarding mobility fees

Local government must consult FDOT for

potential impacts to Strategic Intermodal

System (SIS)

– Required to plan for mitigation to impacted SIS

facilities


Impact of SB 360: Possible DULAs


Overview of

Multimodal Planning

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


Multimodal Planning

Overview

General Steps

Key Ingredients

Context

Types of Improvements

Benefits


Steps for Multimodal Planning

Understand the land use and

community context

– Define focal points and community assets

Existing

Desired

Inventory current conditions

– Land uses

– Vacant land

– Transportation network


Steps for Multimodal Planning

Identify needs or improvements

– Capital projects

– Programs

– Operations and maintenance

Estimate costs and determine

funding options

Prioritize based on community input

Develop and document policies and

programs

Implement policies and programs

Monitor and evaluate progress


Key Ingredients for Multimodal Planning

Land Use

Mix

Organization

Densities and Intensities

Urban Design

Access

Visibility

Convenience

Public space


Key Ingredients for Multimodal Planning

Transportation

Regional Connectivity

Network Connectivity

Multimodal Availability

Linking Land Use and Transportation

Correct modes for development pattern

Timing and coordination

Funding and Implementation

Interagency coordination

Customization

Involvement


Multimodal Context

Urban area with active downtown, suburban

bedroom community, rural town, fishing

village?

Economy oriented toward tourism or nonservice

sector employment?

Need good multimodal connectivity to

regional transportation networks:

– Sidewalks

– Bike lanes

– Transit routes

– Roadways


Types of Improvements

Codify pedestrian-oriented

urban design principles

Increase transit routes or

headways

Provide universal sidewalks

and cross-development

accessibility

Link residential areas and

employment/shopping

destinations for all modes

Demand management


Types of Improvements

Multimodal transportation addresses:

– Home-to-work trips

– Other types of trips in the course of a day

General maximum preferred travel distances 1 :

– Walking – ½ mile or less

– Biking – 2 miles or less

– Transit – 5 miles or less

Combinations of each mode increase

available and likely travel areas

1

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/tod_docs/walking_distance_abstracts.pdf


Multimodal Benefits

Quality of Life

– Social interconnections

– Sense of place

– Greater connections to green

spaces

– Healthier residents

Economic

– Potential shoppers linger longer

– Attracts new shoppers

Meet Community Goals


Multimodal Benefits

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reductions

– Compact, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development

reduces energy use 20-40% 1

– Public transportation: displaces personal vehicle travel,

reduces CO 2 emissions 3.9 million tons per year 2

– Modest increases in walking and cycling could save 4-

10 billion gallons of fuel and 30-90 million tons of CO 2

annually 2

1

Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Center for Smart Growth, “Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban

Development and Climate Change,” Washington, D.C. January 2008. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html

2

Gotschi , T. and K. Mills. Active Transportation for America: The case for increased federal investment in bicycling and walking. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2008.


Multimodal Benefits

U.S. Annual CO 2 emissions in 2005 = 7.2 billion tons

20% from transportation = 1.44 billion tons

Average share per person = 3.69 tons

1 mile of driving = 1 pound of CO

1

2

Commute 30 miles round trip per work day

Generate 3.75 tons of CO 2 per year

Ride bicycle 1 day per work week

Generate 3.0 tons of CO 2 per year

Avoid 0.75 tons of CO 2 per year!

1

Gotschi , T. and K. Mills. Active Transportation for America: The case for increased federal investment in bicycling and walking. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2008.


Multimodal Benefits

Decreases in VMT

– “Mixed-use growth reduces total travel…plentiful jobs

within 4 miles of home significantly reduce VMT” 1

– “Modest increases in bicycling and walking could lead

to an annual reduction of 70 billion miles of

automobile travel” 2

1

Cervero, R. and M. Duncan. 2006. Which reduces vehicle travel more: Jobs-housing balance or retail-housing mixing?. JAPA, 72:4.

2

Gotschi , T. and K. Mills. Active Transportation for America: The case for increased federal investment in bicycling and walking. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2008.


Multimodal Benefits

Self-propelled modes are exercise

– Walking (~ 200 calories burned per hour) 1

– Cycling (~ 400 calories burned per hour) 1

– New term: “Active Transportation”

1

Source: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm


Module A:

Context and

Community Buy-In

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


Context and Community Buy-In

Community Vision

– Where does your community want

to be in five, 10, 20, or 50 years?


Context and Community Buy-In

What is most important to your community?

– Economic Revitalization?

– Increased Tourism?

– Redevelopment of infill parcels?

– Historic Preservation?

– Open Space Protection?

– Recreation Opportunities?

– Student/Senior Mobility?


Context and Community Buy-In

Need to Engage

Stakeholders

– Regional

– Community

– Neighborhood

Consensus Building

– Neighborhood meetings

– One-on-one discussions

– Focus groups

– Charrettes

– Interagency agreements


Case Studies

Tampa Bay Partnership

– Since 1995, regional

visioning led by business

community

– Focus on stimulating

economic growth and

development

– Building consensus for

region’s future

– Worked to craft legislation

creating TBARTA


Case Studies

One Bay

– Organization consisting of 5 regional entities,

including Tampa Bay Partnership

– Followed Reality Check, a day-long visioning

workshop in 2007

– Held follow-up workshops throughout region

– Outlined 4 possible 2050 development

scenarios

– Indicators included:

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Automobile Trips Generated


Case Studies

City of Tarpon Springs Multimodal

Transportation District (MMTD)

– Small city in large county

– Residents proud of unique local

character

Historic downtown and sponge docks

Gridded street network

Some multimodal facilities

– Consensus determined need for

additional multimodal facilities

Additional sidewalks

Bicycle lanes

Downtown transit circulator


Case Studies

Orange County – Innovation Way

– Corridor linking UCF to Orlando

International Airport

– Developing conceptual land use

framework for undeveloped

southeast Orange County

Two visioning workshops in 2005

Facilitated small groups utilized

electronic polling to decide on Vision

Statements for the framework plan


Case Studies

City of Bradenton/Palmetto

Downtown Mobility Study

– Blends technical analysis and

public participation

– Directs growth and redevelopment

to the downtowns of these

connected cities

Employment centers

Bisected by state highways

– Identify alternative traffic

circulation and mobility strategies


Case Studies

Tallahassee-Leon County MMTD

– Example of effective implementation

Staff coordinator to ensure multimodal

options are always considered

County divided into 5 planning zones

with similar land use and transportation

characteristics

– MMTD is only one zone (Zone 5)

– Community feedback through

informative website

http://www.capitallegacyproject.com/


Module B:

Land Use and Urban Form

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


Land Use and Urban Form

Creating places

– Functional, comfortable spaces people want to

go to, and linger

Different areas require different strategies

– Small locale needs may not be achieved with

large-scale urban plans

Goal is compact urban form

– Pedestrian-oriented and human-scaled

Mix of land uses

– Vertical or horizontal mixing


Land Use and Urban Form

Three or more significant land uses that are

mutually supportive:

– Retail

– Office

– Residential

– Hotel/motel

– Entertainment

– Cultural/Civic

– Recreational

Physical and functional integration of components

– Continuous pedestrian connections

– Variation of architectural elements

– Non-reflective windows at street level


Complementary Mix of Land Uses

Significant

Land Use:

Residential

Supporting

Land Uses

Office

Local Services

Medical Services

Hotel

Restaurants

Shopping

Recreational/Cultural

Convenience Retail

Gym/Health Club

Educational/Day Care

College/University

Gov’t Agency

Significant

Land Use:

Employment

and

Schools


Land Use and Urban Form

Walkability

– Pedestrian-oriented design

– Shorter block lengths

– Increased safety for pedestrians

– Increased access for pedestrians

– Enhanced street crossing opportunities


Land Use and Urban Form

Form-based Codes

– Provides design standards and criteria for

particular districts

– Less focus on land use

– More focus scale, massing, facades

– Are regulatory, not advisory

Speed-related vs. Proximity-related

– Different ways to increase mobility

Roadway and auto-centric vs. alternative options

Closer destinations encourage travel by non-auto

modes


Land Use and Urban Form

Potential Benchmarks:

– Appropriate densities and intensities

– Inclusion of mixed and

complementary land uses

– Jobs/housing balance

– Connected networks

– Street-level pedestrian-oriented uses

– Adequate sidewalk and buffer widths

– Context sensitive parking provisions


Case Studies

Pinellas Livable

Communities

– Initiated by MPO’s Livable

Communities Task Force

– Development of model

Comprehensive Plan

Policies and Land

Development Codes for

local governments


Case Studies

Pinellas Livable Communities

– Identified need to encourage development

supporting compact, walkable areas with

complementary mix of uses in proximity to

transit stops

– Based on 4 D’s:

Density, Diversity, Design, Destinations


Case Studies

City of Sarasota Bayfront

Connectivity Charrette

– Implementation of

Downtown Master Plan

2020

– Maintains urban design

and streetscape themes

from Master Plan


Case Studies

City of Sarasota Bayfront

Connectivity Charrette

– Reconnect Downtown to

the Bayfront

– Requires changing

character of US 41 through

downtown area

– Emphasis on pedestrian

comfort


Case Studies

City of High Springs

– Small town, distinct sense of place

– CRA established in 1986

Downtown core district

Use of tax increment financing for

improvements

– Adaptive reuse of historic downtown

buildings to preserve original

streetscape

– Emphasis on live-work and mixed

uses

– Pedestrian-oriented, bicycle friendly


Module C:

Modal Considerations

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


Modal Considerations

Availability of different modes and modal

interconnectivity

– Connected, continuous pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and

road networks

– Amenities to make multimodal usage a pleasant

experience

– Land use elements combine with transportation

systems to promote multimodal usage


Modal Considerations

Pedestrians

– Connectivity to schools, parks, civic, residential

areas, and employment areas

– Safety at all roadway crossings

– Provision of safe and appropriately placed crossings


Modal Considerations

Pedestrians

– Convenient access to buildings and

destinations, including transit

facilities

– Parking considerations

Reduction of available parking

On-street parking

Locations

Pricing

– Access and driveway management


Modal Considerations

Pedestrians

– Pedestrian-related urban

design elements

Benches

Protection

– Awnings

– Trees

– Arcades

Fountains

Lighting

Width

Smooth surface

– Benefits wheelchairs,

strollers


Modal Considerations

Pedestrians

– Potential benchmarks

Presence/condition/width of

sidewalk

Buffer from vehicle traffic

Motor vehicle speed

Motor vehicle volume

Access to transit facilities

Connectivity

Street crossing enhancements


Modal Considerations

Bicycling

– Location

– Network connectivity

Safe pathways from origins

to destinations

Storage facilities available

Consideration at

intersections

– Bicycle-related roadway

details

Bicycle detection at

intersections

Bicycle lane maintenance


Modal Considerations

Bicycling

– Enforcement of safety

regulations

For cyclists

For drivers

– Potential benchmarks

Motor vehicle speed

Total width of pavement

Pavement surface condition

Availability of bike lane/paved

shoulder

Gap reductions

Connectivity

Number of lane miles


Modal Considerations

Levels of Transit

– Neighborhood

Connections to local service

– Local

Serves arterials

Major destinations

Connections to regional system

– Willingness to walk to transit

¼ mile to rubber tire

½ mile to light rail

1 mile or more to commuter rail


Modal Considerations

Transit

– Transit provider coordination

County and intraregional bus routes

Commuter rail

Local community buses or shuttles

– Local government role

Coordination with intraregional and commuter

providers

– Stations and stops

– Easements and infrastructure (shelters)

– Connectivity with local service

Provision of local service


Modal Considerations

Transit

– Operational issues

Provider desire for

network efficiency

– Hours of service

– Geographic coverage

– Cost recovery

Community desire for

passenger lingering and

exploration

Funding constraints and

opportunities

Long-term implementation

vs. short-term progress

1

Source: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm

– Development patterns

Land use mix

Accessibility

– Ease of pedestrian access

Predictability

Density and intensity

minimums 1

– Local bus: 4-15 du/ac

– Light rail: 9 du/ac

– BRT: 12 du/ac

Transit Oriented

Development

– Bus or rail station at center

– Surrounded by higherdensity

development


Modal Considerations

Transit

– Potential benchmarks

Service frequency (headways

and vehicles/hour)

Hours of service

Geographic coverage

Passenger load

Reliability

Comparison to auto travel

time

Access to stops and

destinations

Comfort and information at

stops


Modal Considerations

Roadways

– Gridded street network

– Short block lengths

– Traffic calming infrastructure

and treatments

– Potential benchmarks

Speed

Number of lanes

Lane width

Right-of-way width

Access management

Intersection treatments


Modal Considerations

Interaction and integration

The devil is in the details…


Modal Considerations

Interaction and integration

The devil is in the details…


Case Studies

City of St. Petersburg

– City Trails

Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan

adopted in 2003

Increase from 60 to 93 miles of

bicycle facilities by 2008, and 150

miles at end of planning horizon

Sidewalks expanded from 350 to

450 miles

Three major shared-use trail projects

Neighborhood traffic calming

installations


Case Studies

City of St. Petersburg

– City Trails

Network will connect 47

schools, 40 parks and other

major attractors

In 2007 instituted colored

bicycle lanes to improve

safety on heavily traveled

streets

Enforcement of pedestrian

rights at mid-block crossings

Road diets

ITS at intersections


Case Studies

City of Kissimmee

Multimodal Transportation District

Adopted policies to shape land use and urban

design for redevelopment and new development

Encompasses downtown CRA, hospital district,

airport, and US 192 (principal arterial)

Plan for future intermodal center at downtown

Amtrak station and Greyhound depot


Case Studies

City of Kissimmee

Multimodal Transportation District

Focus on increasing walkability and pedestrian

connectivity with transit

– Local

– Regional

Measured through Quality of Service (QOS) for

transit, pedestrians, bicycling


Post-Break Game Time!

“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Using your Multimodal Checklist handout, and for

the next 5-10 minutes:

– Examine each of the six photos

– Determine any good multimodal qualities seen in the

picture

– Spot the not-so-good multimodal qualities

– Create a list of appropriate solutions to make the scene

a more inviting multimodal place

We’ll go through the photos together after you’ve

made your lists


Game Time: Photo 1


Game Time: Photo 2


Game Time: Photo 3


Game Time: Photo 4


Game Time: Photo 5


Game Time: Photo 6


Game Time: Bonus Photo


Module D:

Funding and Implementation Options

Florida Department of Transportation

June 2009


Funding and Implementation Options

Cost Comparison

Infrastructure costs:

– 1 mile urban, 4-lane roadway = $20M - $80M

– 1 mile multi-use path = $50k - $300k

– 1 mile of sidewalk = $100k

– 1 mile bicycle lane = $30k - $40k

User costs:

Mode

Cents per Mile

Car 59

Transit 24

Bicycle 5

Walking 0

Source: Gotschi , T. and K. Mills. Active Transportation for America: The case for increased federal investment in bicycling and walking. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2008.


Funding and Implementation Options

Federal Funding Sources

Transportation Enhancement (TE)

– Processed through MPOs for community, environmental,

aesthetic improvements

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

– Funds for projects that reduce emissions in NAAQS Non-

Attainment and Maintenance areas

– Current NAAQS maintenance areas include Tampa and

Miami metro areas

– Ground-level ozone criteria strengthened in 2008

From 0.08 to 0.075 ppm

May result in additional non-attainment

areas and potential funding availability


Funding and Implementation Options

Federal Funding Sources

Surface Transportation Program (STP) Flexible

Funding

– Projects on Federal-aid highways

– Transit capital projects

– Intercity bus terminals and facilities

MPO Congestion Management Process (CMP) and

Coordination

State Transit Funding Sources

FDOT Congested Corridor Grants

FDOT Service Demonstration Grants


Funding and Implementation Options

Local Funding Sources

General Revenue

Grants

– Numerous sources; competitive with no guarantees

– Consider non-traditional sources

Department of Health

Department of Energy

Special Assessment

Impact Fees or Fee Reductions

In-Lieu Fees and Mitigation

– Developers provide multimodal facilities or contribute to dedicated

trust funds

Development Requirements


Funding and Implementation Options

Local Funding Sources

Proportionate Fair Share

– Based on roadway concurrency and available trips

– Calculates single project impacts to roadway LOS

– Fee based on mitigation needed to maintain LOS

Congestion Pricing

– Higher rates charged for peak hour driving

– Charge for area access

Incentives to encourage provision of infrastructure


Funding and Implementation Options

Local Funding Sources

Trip or VMT-based Mobility Fees

– Tied to actual distances driven

– DCA/CUTR examining possible application in FL

– FDOT/UF studying analytical aspects of VMT-based fees

– Three Options:

1. Road User Fee – general replacement of gas tax

2. Modified Impact Fee – uses VMT and planning area mobility

needs; more targeted to location

3. Adapted Transportation Utility Fee – a.k.a. Street Utility Fee

– Current working concept combines elements of

#’s 2 and 3

=


Funding and Implementation Options

Local Funding Sources

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

– Established in specific area

– Takes time to yield significant results

Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTUs)

– Established at county or municipal level

Community Development Districts (CDDs)

– Created by developers to more quickly provide

infrastructure and services to future residents

– SB 360 revised Ch. 190, F.S. (Community Development

Districts)


Funding and Implementation Options

Implementation Tools Overview

Continual staff oversight

Comprehensive Plan

Land Development Code

Development orders

Capital and operating plan


Funding and Implementation Options

Implementation Tools

Staff vigilance

Multimodal coordinator (MMTzar)

Comprehensive Plan Amendments

– Overlay districts

Focus energy in specific places

Standards and expectations in particular areas

– Establish mixed-use future land use designations

– Policies incorporating multimodal and pedestrianoriented

design elements

– Identify benchmarks and strategies for effectiveness


Funding and Implementation Options

Implementation Tools

Land Development Regulations

– Quantifies and implements the standards

identified in comprehensive plan

Documents explicitly identifying

expectations and roles

– Developers Agreements

– Interlocal Agreements

– Joint Planning Agreements

– Compacts


Funding and Implementation Options

Implementation Tools

Capital Improvement Program

– Projects:

Help meet goals

Contribute toward benchmarks

Have measureable characteristics

– Link project, policy, outcome

Project

Location

Related

Objective

or Policy

Contribution to

Benchmark

Intersection

improvements

1 st St. &

2 nd Ave.

Economic

Vitality

1 intersection of

8 in downtown

(Sample)


Ideas to Remember:

Most policies are readily implemented

through subarea planning

Policies should set performance targets

Policies should consider interrelationships

between uses

Safety, convenience, and aesthetics are

important components

Policies should connect to the overall

multimodal or mobility goal


Case Studies

City of Altamonte Springs TCEA

– Provides development performance

criteria and improvement options based

on trip generation and proportionate

impacts to adjacent roads

Development impact levels 1-6

Groups performance standard options for

developers:

– Operational, Capacity, Enhancement,

Innovation

– Monitoring based on implementation of

mobility strategies measured against

benchmarks

– Potential projects, with projected costs,

within TCEA identified


Case Studies

City of Gainesville

– Plan East Gainesville (PEG)

Coordinated by Gainesville MTPO

Special Area Action Plan

– Premium transit on Archer Road

– Connecting limited number of future mixed use

centers/urban villages

– Considers land use, transportation, environment, utilities

Example of effective implementation

– List of multimodal projects identified, and funded

Study funded by: Alachua County, City of

Gainesville, FDOT, Gainesville Regional Utilities,

and the MTPO


Multimodal Wrap Up

Successful multimodal

plans incorporate:

– Community buy-in and

participation

– Land use and urban form

– Modal considerations and

characteristics

– Funding and

implementation options


Final Thoughts & Questions


Staff Contacts

Florida Department of Transportation

District 4

– Andrew Riddle

(andrew.riddle@dot.state.fl.us)

– Lois Bush

(lois.bush@dot.state.fl.us)

Renaissance Planning Group

– Whit Blanton

(wblanton@citiesthatwork.com)

– Karen Kiselewski

(kkiselewski@citiesthatwork.com)


Definitions

• Access Management: The control and regulation of the

spacing and design of driveways, medians, median openings,

traffic signals and intersections on arterial roads to improve

safe and efficient traffic flow on the road system.

• Demand Management: A set of strategies that promote

increased efficiency of the transportation system by

influencing individual travel behavior.

• Intermodal: Relating to the connection between any two or

more modes of transportation.

• Mode: Any one of the following means of moving people or

goods; aviation, bicycle, highway, paratransit, pedestrian,

pipeline, rail, transit, space, water.

Multimodal: Denotes the use of more than one mode to serve

transportation needs in a given area.

Source: FDOT, Office of Policy Planning. www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/glossary


Definitions

• Mobility: The degree to which the demand for the movement

of people and goods can be satisfied.

• Livable Community: A neighborhood, community or region

with compact, multidimensional land use patterns that ensure

a mix of uses, minimize the impact of cars, and promote

walking, bicycling and transit access to employment,

education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services.

• Quality of Life: All of the characteristics of an area’s living

conditions, including housing, education, transportation

infrastructure, leisure time offerings, climate, employment

opportunities, medical care, environment.

• Vision(ing): A description of the future physical appearance

and qualities of a community.

Source: FDOT, Office of Policy Planning. www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/glossary


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

• Pedestrians and Bicycles

Pedestrian ways shall be provided between parking areas and

from building entrances to surrounding streets, external

sidewalks and development outparcels.

A 20 foot wide pedestrian easement shall be provided to

connect cul-de-sacs, or pass through blocks that are in excess

of 600 feet.

Policy 2.2.1.2: The City shall continue its efforts to establish

city-wide continuity of bikeways, particularly between major

sources of and destinations for vehicle trips in the City.

Source: City of Palm Beach Gardens, Comprehensive Plan


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Transit

A development located on an existing or planned transit route may be required to

build a transit stop or contribute to a dedicated transit fund.

For planned facilities, funds may be collected and held in escrow for future use.

Policy 3.3.2: Broward County and the MPO shall provide for an energy-efficient public

transit network through implementation of, but not limited to, the following

programs, activities, or actions:

1. Maintaining public transit vehicles so that they operate at their maximum level, replacing

older inefficient public transit vehicles with energy efficient ones.

2. Increase the public transit mode split from the current 1.15 percent to 1.23 percent by

2011 through strategies such as appropriate transit route planning, decreasing peak-hour

headways along the 14 most heaviliy used routes from 30 to 15 minutes, improving

accessinility of public transit facilities, and through promotion of public transit.

3. Monitor public transit mode split and annually report the findings.

4. Continue to impleemnt bicycle racks on all new buses in its fleet.

5. Continue to explore long-term high capacity transportation alternatives such as light rail,

trolleys, monorail, and other alternative people movers.

6. Continue to assist municipalities in delivering community bus service for residents.

Source: Broward County, Comprehensive Plan


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Parking

Surface parking lots shall not be located in front of buildings or between the

building and the public right-of-way. Surface parking shall be located behind

buildings, internal to the block, and provide pedestrian connections to

adjacent lots.

Provide minimum bicycle parking standards for all development.

Policy 2.2.4.2: By December 31, 2009, the City shall review the Land

Development Regulations to consider incentives and accommodate the

needs of compact four and two wheel vehicles (such as hybrids, smart cars,

and vespas/scooters, etc.) by assessing the parking requirements and other

provisions of the code.

Source: City of Palm Beach Gardens, Comprehensive Plan


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Parking

Promote the reduction of on-site parking through on-street

parking provisions and shared parking, and shall establish

parking maximums for all development within the City.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Support multimodal transportation by developing land use

plans and policies that encourage mixed-use land use patterns,

pedestrian-oriented site design, and direct higher density

development toward locations served by transit, which will also

help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a reduction

in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Transportation Demand Management

Policy TR-1.1.17: The City of Miami will coordinate with South Florida

Commuter Services and the Florida Department of Transportation to

support and encourage City employee participation in alternative modes of

transportation by offering Downtown employers and their employee’s

alternatives to driving to work alone. The City will also work with the South

Florida Commuter Services to ensure consistent implementation of the

City’s Section 14-182 “Transportation Control Measures” and provide

assistance to employers and businesses required to implement the

measures. In addition, the City will utilize the South Florida Commuter

Services to establish the transportation demand management (TDM)

requirements for all future and existing employers with more than 50

employees in the City. The City of Miami will lead by example in developing

TDM strategies for City employees to support the TCEA.

Source: City of Miami, Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

• Quality of Service

The City establishes the following minimum quality of

service standards and performance targets for transit,

bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the municipal

limits:

a) Eighty percent of all the bicycle and pedestrian

facilities shall function at LOS C or better by 2035;

b) All parcels within ¼ mile of a transit stop should be

served by pedestrian facilities operating at LOS C or

better; and

c) Eighty percent of the employees and dwelling units

in a district will be located within ½ mile of a transit

stop.


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Implementation

Policy 4-5.3.5: Although development within the TCEA is

exempt from traffic concurrency, new development and

redevelopment shall submit to the City a Concurrency

Management Application, and when necessary as directed

by the City’s Land Development Code (LDC), a traffic

impact analysis (TIA). The TIA shall evaluate all roadways

identified by the City. The evaluation shall follow

professional standards and requirements found in the

City’s LDC. Exemption from concurrency does not exempt

any development from conducting a TIA necessary to

evaluate traffic safety and operational standards or from

installing road and access improvements necessary to

promote public safety.

Source: City of Altamonte Springs, Comprehensive Plan


Best Practices: Transportation Policies

Implementation

Policy 4-5.4.1: To measure the achievements towards meeting or

exceeding the City’s multimodal mobility goal, the City establishes the

following indicators:

a) By year 2020, 50 percent of all internal trips for Activity Centers occur

through modes other than a single-occupant automobile; 40 percent of

trip origination external to Activity Centers shall occur by modes other

than a single-occupant automobile.

b) By year 2020, 20 percent of all trips within the TCEA shall occur through

modes other than the single-occupant automobile. To measure the

achievements towards meeting this indicator, the City will utilize ridership

data from LYNX fixed route service, any local transit circulator such as the

proposed FlexBus and future commuter rail station.

c) By year 2015, the single-occupant automobile as a mode to work shall

decrease from 83 percent to 65 percent within those census boundaries

containing the Activity Centers and TCEA.

Source: City of Altamonte Springs, Comprehensive Plan


Best Practices: Land Use Policies

• Street Network

The street network shall be comprised of a system of

interconnected and direct routes with a connectivity

index of 50 or more polygons per square mile.

• Site Access Management

Mid-block and rear alleys shall be used where feasible

for access to parking, utilities, service and loading areas

in order to keep the number of required curb cuts along

primary access routes to a minimum.


Best Practices: Land Use Policies

• Site Design

Buildings with facades greater than 50 feet in length

shall be broken down in scale by means of the

articulation of well-proportioned and separate areas or

bays. Strategic elements include the variation of

architectural treatment and elements such as colors,

materials and heights. These characteristics shall be

quantified in the Land Development Code.


Best Practices: Land Use Policies

Mixed Land Use

A mix of uses shall be maintained that will include

employment, shopping, services, residential and

recreational opportunities.

Vertical Land Use

All buildings shall provide retail or service uses at the

street level to promote a pedestrian-oriented

environment.


Resources

Land Use/Urban Design & Placemaking

– Pinellas Livable Communities

http://www.pinellascounty.org/MPO/livablecommunity.htm

– City of Sarasota Bayfront Connectivity Charrette

http://www.sarasotagov.com/InsideCityGovernment/Conte

nt/Downtown/bayfron_dt_hp.html

– City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan

http://www.sarasotagov.com/Planning/DowntownPlan/Pla

nDocument.html


Resources

Land Use/Urban Design & Placemaking

– Project for Public Spaces

http://www.pps.org/

– Surface Transportation Policy Project

http://www.transact.org/

- National Trust for Historic Preservation

http://www.preservationnation.org/

- Center for Transportation and the Environment

http://cte.ncsu.edu/cte/


Resources

Other Planning and Implementation Tools

– Quality/Level of Service (Q/LOS) &

Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for

Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD)

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

htm

– Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm

– Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/index.htm

– Context Sensitive Design (CSD)

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm57.htm


Resources

Bicycle/Pedestrian

– http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/ped_bike.s

htm

– http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/

– http://www.bikewalk.org/index.php

– http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bikeped.htm

Transit

– http://www.floridatransit.org/default.htm

– http://www.apta.com/

– http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/TransitResour

ceGuide.PDF


Resources

Transportation Studies

– “The Road..Less Traveled: An analysis of vehicle miles traveled trends in

the U.S.” (Puentes and Tomer; Brookings, 2008).

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tomer_puent

es.aspx

– Primer on Transportation and Climate Change (AASHTO, 2008).

http://downloads.transportation.org/ClimateChange.pdf

– Active Transportation for America: The case for increased federal

investment in bicycling and walking. (Gotschi and Mills; Rails-to-Trails

Conservancy, 2008).

http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/atfa/ATFA_200

81020.pdf


Multimodal Transportation Planning

Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?

Thank you!

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines