APWA Regional Mobility Plan

P L A N N I N G FO R R E G I O N A L
M OB ILITY:
I nte g ra ting Tra ns po rta tio n a nd
L a nd U s e
“Connecting People and Places”

A P W A Florida C ha pter C onferenc e
A pril , 2012

Connecting People and Places

Today’s Presentation
Introduction of Speakers

Vision for the Development of the Regional Mobility
Plan

Planning Approach

Implementation: Achieving the Vision


Today’s Speakers
Harry R eed, AI C P
Executive Director, Capital Region Transportation
Planning Agency
Beverly Davis, AI C P
Project Manager, RS&H
 Bruce L andis, PE, AI C P
Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.
Jack K ostrzewa
Planning Manager, Capital Region Transportation
Planning Agency


The Vision


The Capital Region…

Gadsden
Leon Jefferson

Wakulla


The Capital Region is…


What’s
Causing
This?


Growth Patterns


Tallahasse
e-
After 1960


Tallahasse
e-
City
Center


Regional Mobility Plan
for the
Capital Region Transportation
Planning Agency
(CRTPA)


R e g iona l M obility P la n
Previous L ong R ange Planning Efforts

L ong R ange Bicycle and Transit
Transportatio Pedestrian Development
n M aster Plan
Plan Plan


R egional M obility Plan
Transit Development Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan
Long Range Transportation
Plan


Full partnership with transit agency
Focus of the Plan

Moving people and goods, not autos

“Complete Streets” designed to provide access and
mobility to all users

Interconnectivity and local network

Identifying needs by corridors


T he Future: G row th P a tterns


The Capital Region in the future…
Like this? Or Like this?


Ultimate Transportation and L and Use M ix
Maxim land use and density
ize
Minim environm
ize ental and stormwater impacts
Reduce carbon footprint
Provide opportunities to generate revenue to support the
transportation system


The Regional Mobility Plan is
About the Future


Planning for Regional Mobility:
Developing the Plan


Traditional Planning
Traditional transportation planning
Focus on moving vehicles quickly and efficiently
Little to no consideration of land use
Short term solutions with long-term
consequences
Planning separately for transportation
components


Traditional Planning
Traditional approach results
Auto oriented development
Lack of viable modal
alternatives
Continued congestion
Separation of land uses
Lack of connectivity


Utilizes a New Approach
Focus of the Plan

Moving people and goods, not autos

“Complete Streets” designed to provide access and
mobility to all users

Interconnectivity and local network

Identifying needs by corridors


Data Collection Establish Goals &
Baseline and Objectives
Future
Conditions Future Scenarios

Determine Needs
Funding Assessment Sector Analysis
Constraints
Corridor Analysis

Prioritize Needs Develop Regional Mobility
Recommendation Plan
s

Coordination and Public Participation


Coordination
A number of initiatives focusing on specific
transportation issues
Visioning and partnership efforts
Efforts focused on sustainability and environmental
issues
Other regional projects
Projects and studies focused on transit


Transportation Initiatives
 Tennessee Street
Improvem Plan
ent
 Woodville Highway
Corridor Study
 Capital Circle NW/ SW
 Capital Cascades Park
 Multim odal
Transportation District
 Transit


Public Participation
Project C ommittees

Technical Subcommittees
 Specific areas of expertise
P ro jec t A dvis ory C o m m ittee
One representative from each Technical
Subcommittee
Stakeholder Advisory C ommittee
 Agency and governm representative
ent


Transportation Forum
Public Workshops
Identified issues and opportunities
Surveys and workshop exercises
Goals and Objectives
Developm of future growth scenarios
ent
Strategies
Project selection and prioritization
Regional Mobility Plan draft


Data and Existing Conditions
Data
Local, State and National sources
Agencies and local jurisdictions
Existing Conditions
Population/Employment
Demographics
Com unity Resources
m
Travel Patterns
Infrastructure
Attractions
Intrinsic Resources
 Environmental, Historic and Cultural


Planning Framework
Required planning factors (SAFETEA-LU)
Vision established by CRTPA Board
Goals and objectives
Quality Growth principles

CRTPA Vision Statement

"Create an integrated regional multimodal transportation
network that provides the most options for moving people
and goods economically, effectively and safely while
protecting the environment, promoting economic
development and maintaining a high quality of life with
sustainable development patterns.“


Goals and Objectives
MULTIMODALISM
COORDINATION PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION

ECONOMIC
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCE
PROTECTION &
CONSERVATION
ACCESS SECURITY

SAFETY &
CONNECTIVITY FINANCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH
FEASIBILITY


Strategies
Application of goals and objectives
Prioritization and performance measures
Regional * Multimodal access, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, is provided to and between activity centers
* Public venues, such as government facilities, recreational facilities, are served by bicycle, pedestrian and transit

Urban
* Connectivity between transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks
Urban * All parcels within 1/4 mile of a transit stop should be served by a pedestrian facility that operates at LOS C or better
* Increase modal share for transit, bicycles and pedestrians
* 80% of population and employees should be located within 1/2 mile of a transit stop

Rural
* 80% of all bicycle and pedestrian facilities should operate at LOS C or better

* Modal network gaps are eliminated
* Commuter and intra-regional roadways incorporate facilities for transit, bicycles and pedestrians, as appropriate,
and that operate at LOS C or better
* Modal networks meet the connectivity index of 50 polygons per square mile in designated growth areas
* With new developments, cul-de-sacs should include, at a minimum, pedestrian connections
* Safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to schools
* Schools are connected to adjacent neighborhoods within 1 mile by pedestrian and bicycle facilities
* Mobility options are provided for all populations
* Design elements provide for viable, safe and pleasant multimodal usage (complete streets)
* Blocks longer than 600 feet should incorporate mid-block pedestrian crossings
* Access management techniques are used to maximize capacity
* Design elements are in keeping with community character
* Facilities incorporate design elements that minimize negative impacts on communities and resources
* Design elements minimize negative environmental impacts
* Facilities incorporate design elements that minimize negative impacts on communities and resources
* Design elements maximize efficiency for freight movement on designated freight routes
* Design elements do not impact efficiency on designated evacuation routes
* Improvements are coordinated with other plans

* Increase modal share for bicycles and pedestrians
Rural
* Public venues, such as government facilities, recreational facilities, are served by bicycle and pedestrian facilities
* Multimodal access, bicycle and pedestrian, is provided to and between activity centers
* Commuter options, such as park and ride facilities and/or transit are provided along identified commuter routes


Future Scenarios
Identification of three scenarios
Board, committees and public workshop input
Business As Usual
Quality Growth
Quality Growth “Plus”
Identified development constraints
Conservation areas
Environmentally sensitive areas
Other community resources
Identified target growth areas
Public workshop input
Coordination with local planning staff and local
comp plans


Future Scenarios
Identified target growth areas
Public workshop input
Coordination with local planning staff and
local comp plans
Identify the transportation implications for
the scenarios
Increasing densities in growth areas for
scenarios 2 and 3
Assign future development based on
constraints and growth areas
Utilize regional travel demand model to
identify future needs


Business As Usual


Quality Growth


Quality Growth Plus


Costs of Development
Typical Development and Network C ompact Development and C onnected
M ultimodal Network


Sector Plans
5 Sector Plans
Com unity character
m
Intrinsic resources
Recom endations and policy developm
m ent


Corridor Planning
Identification of
corridor tiers
Inter-regional
Intra-
regional/com uter
m
Intra-regional/local
Identification of
standards/cross-sections
by tier
Complete Streets


Plan Development
Input from scenario,
sector, and corridor
planning efforts
Project identification
Cost estimates
Funding estimates
Project prioritization


Plan Components
L ong R ange Transportation
Plan
Multimodal Cost constrained plan
Multimodal Vision plan
Transit Development Plan
Standard planning horizon
Extended planning horizon
coordinated with LRTP
Bicycle Pedestrian M aster Plan
Trail and Greenways


Financial Resources
Anticipated Revenues
Information provided by FDOT District 3
Available funds include anticipated
state/federal funds and any local funds
State and Local funds dedicated to specific
systems, programs and/or projects, such as:
 SIS/FIHS
 Maintenance
 Local paving and maintenance
 Transit operating funds
 Blueprint

Cost constrained revenue estimates only
include federal/state/local non-dedicated funds


Financial Resources
Federal requirement:
Project costs and revenues developed in present day
dollars and in Year of Expenditure dollars
Inflation factors provided by FDOT District 3
Adopted TIP (2011 – 2015) considered as com itted
m
Revenues and costs inflated by tier
 Tier 1: 2016 – 2020
 Tier 2: 2021 – 2025
 Tier 3: 2026 – 2030
 Tier 4: 2031 – 2035
Cost feasible plan m balance expenditures to revenues
ust


Development of Cost Feasible Plan
Identified the following for plan development
Existing project status
Major project priority list
 Identified projects to address priorities through operational
projects, transit, bicycle and/or pedestrian projects
Project assessm ranking
ent
Connectivity
Financial balancing by tier

Cost Feasible Plan Highlights
Quincy By-Pass and Quincy Loop in Tier 1
Expanded transit service
Express Bus Service – Crawfordville, Monticello,
Havana
Park and Ride Lots and Satellite Transfer Centers
Expansion of local transit service
Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements comprise the
majority of improvements
Access Management
Implementation of medians and service roads (US 319)
Intersection improvements on US 319
Intersection safety improvements

Cost Feasible Plan Highlights
Shared use paths, including Capital City to the Sea
Trail
Development and regular updates of regional Bicycle
Map
Implem entation of Trails and Greenways Plan
recommendations
Gadsden County Sector Plans
Operations studies for one-way pairs
Projects funded from other sources
Strategic Intermodal System
Blueprint
Private


The Regional Mobility Plan
Integrated, multimodal Cost
Feasible Plan


Implementation:

Achieving the Vision


Roadway Corridor Strategies
and
Local Government Tools


Growth Focus Areas


Roadway Corridor Strategies
 Link and Serve the Growth Focus Centers

 Plan for Fiscally Sustainable Transportation

 “Livability” Focus: Fuel Savings, GHG

Reduction, More “Active” Transportation
 Optimize the Right-of-Ways; “Complete the

Street”


Corridor Strategy Types
 Urban Center Arterials

 Suburban Arterials

 Rural Arterial Roadways

 Small Cities Urban Arterials


Dense Urban Center Arterials
 Function within RMP Vision

 Existing Conditions & Trends

 Recommendations for Actions

 Benefits (Fiscal Sustainability, “Livability”)

of Actions


Function within RMP Vision
Existing Conditions & Trends
Recommendations for Actions
Benefits (Fiscal Sustainability, “Livability”)
of Actions

Graphic from K2 Urban
Corp


of Actions

Travel
LOS
Mode
Auto D
Bicycle D
Pedestrian D
Transit D


Recommendations for Actions

Bicycle Boulevards

Travel
LOS
Mode Road Re-stripes
Auto E
or Diets
Bicycle B

Roadway Optimizations: Pedestrian B
Transit, Bicycling & Walking Transit B


of Actions


Corridor Strategy Types
Urban Center Arterials

Suburban Arterials

Rural Arterial Roadways

Small Cities Urban Arterials


Suburban Arterials
of Actions Travel
LOS
Mode
Auto E
Bicycle E
Pedestrian E
Transit E


Suburban Arterials

Travel
LOS Suburban Flex-Streetscape
Mode
Auto C-D
Bicycle B-C
Pedestrian B-C
Transit B-C


Suburban Flex-Streetscape
Pioneers & Precursors



Suburban Flex-Streetscape

§
Enhanced roadway capacity & safety
§
Enhanced business economics
§
Compact development
§
Reduced reliance on hydrocarbons
§
More active transportation, hence population


Suburban Arterials

Safe & Effective
Mid-block Pedestrian
Crossings
Travel
LOS
Mode
Auto C-D
Bicycle B-C
Pedestrian B-C Multi-modal facilities “Pairing”
Transit B-C

Roadway Optimization:
Restripes, “Diets” and Buffered Bikelanes
Photo by Sprinkle Consulting,
Inc.


Local Government Tools


Source: What
Fuels will Move
Us? Barker, Bill.
ITE Journal.
July 2010


One Key to Directing Growth…
1. Plan & Influence Development Economics

Graphic from K2 Urban Corp

Regional Growth “Engines”

50,000 students & employees

50,000 + employees

15,000 students &
employees
15,000 students & employees


Land Development Growth “Pioneers”


Land Development Growth “Roof-top Followers”


RMP Development Scenarios
“Quality Growth Plus”
(Compact / Infill)

Quality Growth
Business-as-Usual (Contiguous / USA fringe)
(Scattered / Linear)

Long-term Operation & Maintenance Commitment

Public Service Percent of Avg. Annual Cost

Education………………….. 40%
Public Safety..……………. 8%
Roads………………………. 30%
Wastewater……………….. 11%
Fire/Rescue; Water; Parks; Solid Waste..........
11%
Source:Duncan and Associates. The Search for Efficient Urban
Growth Patterns: A Study of Fiscal Impacts of Florida
Development. Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth
Patterns and DCA. Tallahassee FL, 1989.

Impacts on Traffic Activity

Form / Location Avg. Traffic Trip Length

Duncan’89 FDOT (335.067, F.S.) Weighted Avg.

Business-as-Usual
(Scattered / Linear) 8.3 mi 12.1mi 11.2mi

Quality Growth
(Contiguous / USA fringe) 6.4mi 9.6mi 8.8mi

“Quality Growth Plus”
(Compact / Infill)
6.8mi 4.9mi 5.4mi


100 lot subdivision


Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)


Streets & Roadways Maintenance

* Excluding I-10 Costs and Traffic

Data Sources: City of Tallahassee Annual Budget, Leon County
Annual Budget, Leon County CIP, FDOT Historical Work
Program, and FDOT Countywide VMT Estimate


Costs of Development Location

(P/A, 3%, 35)


Public and Partner “Buy-I n”
Stakeholder /Partner C ommittees
Representatives from federal and state agencies; local
governm adm
ent inistrative, planning and public works
departm ents; regional agencies; specific technical fields;
and universities


Public and Partner “Buy-I n”

I ntensive Public Participation

R g o a Mo i it P a
e i n l bl y l n- C m
o m nt S r e
u i y u v y

The Capital R egion Transportation Planning Agency (CRTPA) and StarM etro are wor king toget her to develop a regional mobi ty plan that wil address
li l
the existing and future mobility needs in the region. The Plan includes Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon and W akulla Counti es. Y U O I I N I N E E !
O R PNO S E D D

P r I: W e e d y u l v ?
a t h r o o i e _____ Gadsden ____ J efferson X L o
e n ___ W akulla City?
_________Z ip _________Zi p 3 3 1 Z pC d
2 0 - i o e _________Zip Code T la a s e
al h s e
Code Code
P r II
a t : Pe s
l a eC IR L y u c o c a o t t e f l o i g s a e e t c n e n n
C E o r h i e b u h o l wn t t m ns o c r i g S r n l
t o gy A r e
g e N i h rA r e
et e g e Ds g e
i a r e S r n l
t o gy
t et a s o t t o s s e
h r n p r a i n y t min t e r g o .
h e i n A r e
g e N rD s g e
o i a r e D a r e
is g e
1. Traffic congestion is a maj or probl em i n my area. 5 4 X 2 1
2. Traffic congestion is a maj or problem i n the four county regi on. 5 4 X 2 1
3. M ore trav el options are needed t o help pe ople get to work. 5 X 3 2 1
4. M ore bi cycle and pedestrian faci lities are n eeded X 4 3 2 1
5. There should be a focus on safe bic ycle and pedest an access t
ri o schools X 4 3 2 1
6. Regional t ransi servi
t ce should be avai lable 5 X 3 2 1
7. Development patterns di rectly affect tr ansportat ion and mobi ty.li 5 4 X 2 1
8. I woul d use an alt ernative to my c ar i i were availabl
f t e and convenient 5 X 3 2 1
P r II : P e s C R L w i hf c o s y u t i ka e v r i
a t I l a e I C E hc a t r o hn r e y m o t n ,s m w a
p r a t o e h t V r
ey Im o t n
p r a t S m w a
o e h t N t
o D nt
o ’
im o t n ,o n t i
p r a t r o m o t n , o w e h r y ud n t k o
p r a t r h t e o o ’ n wo h v n o in o .
r a e o p i n Im o t n
p r a t Im o t n
p ra t Im o t n
p ra t K o
n w
9. M aintenanc e of the existing transportati on faci ties
li X 4 3 2 1
10. Specific designated truc routes are important
k 5 X 3 2 1
11. Incor porating transpor tati on fac ty designs that rec
ili ogniz ed and 5 X 3 2 1
enhance the charac ter of the area
12. Improving transportati on c onnecti ons between key pl aces i n the regi on. 5 X 3 2 1
13. Better public transportati on opti ons 5 X 3 2 1
14. M ore mult imodal options 5 4 X 2 1
15. Incor porating land use and devel opmen pattt erns i nt o transportation 5 X 3 2 1
planning
P r IV I
a t : na dt o t
d i i n o t a s o t t o , pe s
r np ra i n l a ei d c t t ei
n i a e h m o t n eo e c
p r a c f a h V r
ey Im o t n
p r a t S m w a
o e h t N t
o D nt
o ’


Agency C oordination

Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of C ommunity Affairs
Apalachee R egional Planning C ouncil
School Boards
C ommuter Services of North Florida
1000 Friends of Florida
Tall Timbers R esearch Station


R egional L ocal G overnment C oordination
 Elected officials
 Staff


Parameters for the Project

Multimodal
Meets Federal and State Requirements

16 Page Scope of Work vs. 75 Page Scope of Work
Wide Range of Flexibility
Gave the Opportunity for New Approaches
Very Little about the Project is Prescriptive, Very Little.


Achieving the Vision (My F Words)


Keep the participants in the discipline that you are discussing.
Keep the “buzz words” consistent and ensure that there is an understood
definition.
Embrace the fact that you don’t know everything.
Play devil’s advocate role.
Don’t lose sight of what the effort is supposed to produce.
Give them the freedom to discover how difficult it is.


You have got to be flexible to make this work.

Let them explore concepts and ideas.

Don’t interrupt or interfere with the process.

Take the time to fully develop concepts and ideas.

Help only when asked.


Have faith in the people you are working with.
Have faith that they will debate every idea to death.
Have faith that they will try to meet a deadline.
Have faith that they will stick with it through to the end of the project.
Have faith.


There will be failure.

Failure is a good thing.

Learn to get the most out of the failure.

It may be more of a step backwards than a failure.

Deal with it and move on.


Stick with it.

Don’t walk out of a meeting frustrated say what you need to say.

Bite your tongue hard but realize it will heal.

Keep the task horizon in mind and keep pushing it.


Thank everyone for the time they have put into the process.

Have “them” present the results.

Have “them” keep pushing the approved task.

Do what you have to do to keep “them” on the project.

Pizza goes a long way.



The Goals and Objectives Committee
Comprised of members from technical, citizens, and multimodal groups.
Originally started with 25 – 30 members.
After first meeting… 15 – 20 members.
After first month… 10 – 12 members.
After second month… 7 – 10 members.
By task end… 5 – 7.


In the past…..
Year 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
To support and enhance economic vitality of the Capital Region.
Regional Mobility Plan, CRTPA Board from a Retreat….
The Regional Mobility Plan should be based on a principle of sustainability
principle of
that will serve all citizens in the region in the future through an
sustainability
interconnecte
interconnected, safe and secure network. The integrated transportation
safe and secure integrate d
network will support a prosperous regional economy and help conserve the
network regional d natural
region’s natural and recreational assets.
economy recreational and
assets


Leads to this…..


The Goals and Objectives Group….
Connectivity
Enhance local and regional connectivity to effectively and safely move people
and goods using multiple modes of transportation.
Economic Development
Create and maintain a transportation infrastructure that provides energy- and
time-efficient intermodal movement of goods, services, and labor to and
within urban areas in the region.
Natural Resource Protection/Conservation
Provide a transportation system that provides access and mobility, supports
compact growth and protects the region’s natural environment.


Are they vastly different in content? No.
Was history re-written? No.
Are they understandable to citizens? Yes.
Did the citizens present them? Yes.
Were they debated by the elected officials? No.
Were they understood by the elected officials? Yes.
Did the elected officials approve them? Yes.
Did the citizens stay with the project? Yes.


Goals and Objectives Timeline
Original Timeline – April 2009 through June 2009

Modified Timeline - April 2009 through November 2009,
including:

Three meetings in July
Three meetings in August
Two meetings in September
Two meetings in October
One in November

Time Invested by Citizens – over 500 hours!!!


Other Phases with Same Approach

EVERYTHING!!!!


C ontinuing Agency C oordination
Utilization of R egional M obility Plan in
conjunction with adopted C omprehensive Plan
C FP Project implementation underway:
L ake Ella median implementation
6th Street sidewalks
Franklin Boulevard
L afayette Street
Jefferson, Wakulla, and G adsden Bike/Ped studies

P L A N N I N G FO R R E G I O N A L
M OB ILITY:
I nte g ra ting Tra ns po rta tio n a nd
L a nd U s e
“Connecting People and Places”

QU E S TION S

APWA Regional Mobility Plan

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to APWA Regional Mobility Plan (20)

More from APWA Florida Chapter Tampa 2012 Annual Meeting and Trade Show (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

APWA Regional Mobility Plan