Date post: | 20-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | congress-for-the-new-urbanism |
View: | 443 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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: [email protected]