Statewide Context for Local Street Design
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Statewide Context for Local Street Design

on

  • 564 views

Presentation of Matthew Crall, land use and transportation planner with Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development, at CNU's Emergency Response and Narrower Streets Workshop, Nov. 3, ...

Presentation of Matthew Crall, land use and transportation planner with Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development, at CNU's Emergency Response and Narrower Streets Workshop, Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Ore.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
564
Views on SlideShare
563
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Statewide Context for Local Street Design Statewide Context for Local Street Design Presentation Transcript

    • Presented by Matt Crall Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development November 3, 2009 Statewide Context for Local Street Design
      • 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
      • 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)
      • 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039
      • 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines
      History
    • Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - 1991 -
      • Land Development and Conservation Commission (LCDC)
      • Consistency: Land use with Transportation
      • Street standards not addressed
    • Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - 1991 -
      • All modes
      • Renewed emphasis on:
        • Walk
        • Bike
        • Transit
      • Neighborhood Quality > Mobility Through
      • Streetscape
    • Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - 1991 -
      • Street Width
      • Result of concerns about connectivity
        • Cut through traffic
        • Fewer cul-de-sacs - Could lead to more asphalt
        • Lower density
      • Different Pattern -> Different Design
      TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
    • National research recommending narrow streets ITE ULI ASCE NAHB APA AASHTO TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
      • “ On residential streets where the primary function of the street is to:
        • provide land service [ access] and
        • foster a safe and
        • pleasant environment”
      AASHTO recommends narrow streets TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
      • “ at least one unobstructed moving lane must be ensured even where parking occurs on both sides.”
      • “ 8 m [~26 feet] roadway is typical”
      • “ 3.6 m [~11.8 feet] center travel lane”
      How narrow? TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
    • Celebration Kentlands National Examples TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
    • Oregon Examples Corvallis Yamhill TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
      • Intent
      • “ ...consider and reduce excessive standards for local streets and accessways in order to
        • reduce the cost of construction,
        • provide for more efficient use of urban land,
        • provide for emergency vehicle access while
        • discouraging inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds, and which
        • accommodate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation.”
      • Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045 (7)
      TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
    • Requirement “ Local governments shall establish standards for local streets and accessways that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility.” Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045 (7) TPR amendment adding 0045(7) - 1995 -
      • 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
      • 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)
      • 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039
      • 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines
      History
      • Road standards adopted by local government supersede standards in fire codes;
      • Consultation with fire agencies.
      1997 Legislation
      • House Bill 3508
      • Requested by Joint Fire Service Legislative Committee
      • Uncontroversial
        • No amendments
        • House: passed unanimously
        • Senate: Passed, 3 nays
        • Governor: signed
      • Codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 368.039
      1997 Legislation
      • Governing bodies set street standards
        • Cities
        • Counties
      • May supersede fire code
      • (1) When the governing body of a county or city adopts specifications and standards, including standards for width, for roads and streets under the jurisdiction of the governing body, such specifications and standards shall supersede and prevail over any specifications and standards for roads and streets that are set forth in a uniform fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal, a municipal fire department or a county firefighting agency.
      Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039
      • Must be an official action
        • Charter
        • Comprehensive Plan
        • Ordinance
      • (2) This section applies to specifications and standards for roads and streets adopted by the governing body of a county or city in a charter, acknowledged comprehensive plan or ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS chapter 92, 203, 221 or 368.
      Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039
      • Consult with firefighters before adopting:
      • Consider firefighters’ needs when adopting
      • (3) Before adopting or amending any comprehensive plan, land use regulation or ordinance that establishes specifications and standards for roads and streets, a governing body of a county or city shall consult with the municipal fire department or other local firefighting agency concerning the proposed specifications and standards. The county or city governing body shall consider the needs of the fire department or firefighting agency when adopting the final specifications and standards.
      Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039
      • 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
      • 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)
      • 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039
      • 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines
      History
    • Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
      • Convened by DLCD
      • Broad range of interests
      • Consensus
      • Local decision process
    • Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 – 28-foot wide - Parking on both sides
    • 28-foot wide - Parking on both sides Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
    • 24-foot wide - Parking on one side Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
    • 24-foot wide - Parking on one side Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
    • 20-foot wide - No on-street parking Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
    • 20-foot wide - No on-street parking Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –
      • Avoid “one size fits all”
      DLCD Advice for Local Governments
      • High-density neighborhoods
      • Higher-volume, “neighborhood” collector or “subcollector”
      • Evacuation routes
      • Farm equipment access roads
      Wider Streets are Appropriate for: DLCD Advice for Local Governments
      • Avoid “one size fits all”
      • Street design – Not just width
      • Address emergency response concerns
        • Compact development ->
        • More people close to stations
        • Connectivity -> Multiple routes
      • Careful with limitations or restrictions
      DLCD Advice for Local Governments
      • Transportation & Growth Management
      • www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/
      • (look for Local Street Planning)
      • Matt Crall
      • matthew.crall@state.or.us
      • 503-373-0050 x272
      • Department of Land Conservation
      • and Development
      • 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150
      • SALEM OR 97301-2564
      Further Information