49
Bridging the Gap Strategies for Transit and Active Transportation Next Generation Transportation Certificate
Bridging the Gap
Strategies for Transit and Active Transportation
Next Generation Transportation Certificate
Happy Projects
Stories of success are often similar.
Stories of failure are plentiful, diverse, and entertaining.
Course Outline
1. Introduction
2. Define Strategies and Skills
3. Positive and Negative Examples
Approximately 45 minutes
Course Presenter
Dan Ross, CPEng. (NZ), MUP
Senior Transportation Planner, Opus International Consultants, Ltd.
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Formerly
- Transit Planner – Edmonton Transit System
- Senior Transportation Consultant – Opus, Auckland, NZ
- Traffic Planner/Borough Planner – New York City DOT
- Associate City Planner – New York City DCP
Why This Topic?Similarities towards active transportation and transit
Burden of proof is on you
- Gatekeepers
- Prejudices
- Responsive strategies
- Different delivery and outcomes
Why This Topic?
High Level plans have similar intentions
• Higher PT/AT trips
• Reduced emissions
• Denser development
• Translate ‘down’ to specific plans
New York, NY
Auckland, NZ
Vancouver, BC
Edmonton, AB
A Common Path
High Level Policy
Priority Statement
Program/Schedule of Projects
Feasibility?
Planners
Engineers
Investigation
Some Success
1st Ave Complete Street –New York, NY
Dunsmuir St. bike lanes –Vancouver, BC
Beach Rd cycle lanes –Auckland, NZ
Some Success – NYC
NYCDOT
- Cycle mode increases, not at expense of transit
- Fewer crashes, reduced risk
Other SuccessAuckland, NZ – North Shore to CBD
New Zealand Transport Agency
Other Success
Vancouver, BC
City of Vancouver
Metro Vancouver
Setbacks
Daily Mail UK
MySanAntonio.com
Washington Post
Setbacks
Toronto Sun
Gothamist NYC
Obstacles – Public OppositionBike lanes vs. Parking/Business loss
Brooklynpaper.com
Chicago Gazette
Obstacles – Public OppositionMalcolm MayesElitism/’Social Engineering’ Edmonton Sun
NY Daily News
The Onion
Old Perceptions Dying Hard‘Boondoggle’ and Public Menace Double Standard
New Zealand Herald, 2007
Old Perceptions Dying Hard
Calgary Sun
NY Daily News
‘Boondoggle’ and Public Menace Double Standard
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
High Level Policy
Priority Statement
Program/Schedule of Projects
Feasibility?
Planners
EngineersInvestigation
Planners and EngineersPlanners Engineers
Responsible for this Responsible for this
Traffic Engineers
Decision Making Factors
• Applied Precedence
• Common Sense
• Methodology
• Ethics
• Empathy - for motorists
Engineers are people, too
Considerations
• Design/Engineering Standards Guidelines
• Need for defensible decisions
• What’s worked before?
Guiding Methodology
1. Effects on Traffic – short and long term
2. Constructability – how much and where?
3. Whole life costs – operations and maintenance
Minimal Considerations
‘Business Case’
1. Traffic Impacts
2. Constructability
3. Operations and Maintenance
4. Other elements to consider
Traffic ImpactsDo Minimum/Do Nothing vs. Proposal
2. What will happen to affected/displaced traffic?
- modelling, route analyses, mode shift?
Traffic ImpactsBe Prepared to Discuss
1. What is an ‘acceptable’ impact?
- i.e., LOS, v/c ratio, peak impacts
3. How many people are affected? Not just cars
- Quantify comparative impacts
Example 1Broadway Blvd – New York, NY
• Road diet for major Manhattan street; 33rd
St – 59th St
• Not possible without extensive network modelling
• Led to Greenlight for Midtown projects
• Continuously monitored and updated
Example 1 – con’t.Broadway Blvd – New York, NY
• Willingness to experiment
• Reduced capacity impacts verified
• Low-cost treatments in short term
• Adjustments made with monitoring
Example 1 – con’t.Broadway Blvd – New York, NY
Before After
B’way south of 59th St
Example 1 – con’t.Broadway Blvd – New York, NY
Before After
Times Square
Example 2
Cycle Boulevards – Auckland, NZ
Hillsborough Rd /Quona Ave
Dominion Rd /Memorial Ave
• 1st attempt at Portland-style bike boulevards
• Suburban areas with few impacts, design changes
• Some capacity analysis ultimately required
Example 2 – con’t.Auckland Cycle Boulevards
• Originally rerouted 0.5km to south to new signalized intersection
• Crossing impacts forced into scope
• No adverse impacts – approved
Dominion Rd/Memorial Ave
Example 2 – con’t.Auckland Cycle Boulevards
Hillsborough Rd/Quona Ave
• Full signalization preferred
• Alternative scenarios forced into scope
• Impacts deemed too severe; signalized crossing accepted
Constructability
• Schedule/Programme?
• Simple and cheap is good
Example 3Ngahue Drive – Auckland, NZ
New StonefieldsDevelopment
(former quarry)
Auckland Council GIS Viewer
cycling facilities
cycling facilities • 1.5km connecting
cycle way
• On strategic network
• 3m-5m wide boulevard/berm next to golf course
• No room for on-road facilities
Example 3 – con’t.Ngahue Drive – Auckland, NZ
• Utility poles, drainage, structural, encroachment, arboreal issues
• $2.1M - $6.4M cost
• Residential side imperfect but cheaper
• Optics of cost vs. inability to provide quality (it’s only money)
Google Street View
Example 4Materials
Auckland, NZFort Street Shared Space
• High-quality redesign
• Full consultation
• NZ$23M for 800m
Jean Batten Place
Before
After
Example 4 – con’t.Materials
New York, NYNYCDOT Plaza Program
Pearl St Plaza, Brooklyn
• Concrete, asphalt only
• Local partnerships
• Minimal design, cost
• Potential for staging
Corona Plaza, Queens
Operations and Maintenance
Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects
Design Elements
Example 5
• Sustainability initiative from Transportation Master Plan
• NACTO-influenced
• Application constraints
- curb build-outs
- lane widths
www.edmonton.ca
Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects
Design Elements
Example 5 – con’t.
Curb Extensions
City of Edmonton –Complete Streets Guidelines, 2013
Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects
Design Elements
Example 5 – con’t.
City of Edmonton –Complete Streets Guidelines, 2013
Preferred Lane Widths
Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects
Design Elements
Example 5 – con’t.
Bad for Bulb-outs
Curb Extensions
• No plow equipment for curb extensions
• Delay until existing fleet is upgraded
Edmonton Complete Streets Pilot Projects
Design Elements
Example 5 – con’t.
Preferred Lane Widths
Seasonal Road Diet
• ‘Windrow’s reduce curbside widths
• Alberta min. is 4.2m to compensate
• National Ass’n of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
• Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) over LOS – CEQA
• Multimodal LOS Analyses
• Improved GIS applications
• Data collection techniques
• Social Media outreach
• Tasteful Obstinacy – not new
New-ish Resources
New-ish Resources – con`t
`NYCDOT Current Projects`
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/current-projects.shtml
‘California Senate Bill (SB) 743’
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743
‘Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines’
Summary
• Burden of Proof is on you
• Know your implementation context
• Consider risks during planning
• Challenge engineers
• Build your Business Case
Building a Better Business Case
1. Traffic Impacts
2. Constructability
3. Operations & Maintenance
• What will happen to traffic?
• Analysis in scope or RFP
• How will this thing be built?
• Timing of construction
• Materials
• Minimum access requirements?
• How will it function?
• Who will maintain?
Burden of proof is on you
