Connecting Transit Corridors

839 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
839
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
76
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Connecting Transit Corridors

  1. 1. Centers & Corridors Context<br /><ul><li>Centers & Corridors concept originated in 1993 Regional Transportation Plan; informed local Comp Plans</li></li></ul><li>Strategy Corridors Context<br /><ul><li>Strategy Corridors adopted in 2020 RTP – </li></ul> we can’t build our way out of congestion<br />Strategy Corridors<br />Olympia<br />Lacey<br />Tumwater<br />
  2. 2. High Density Corridor Context<br /><ul><li>Lacey & Olympia zoned for High Density Corridors & Mixed Use Areas based on centers and corridors concept; Tumwater planning for that now.</li></ul>Corridor Zoning Districts<br />Strategy Corridors<br />Olympia<br />Lacey<br />Tumwater<br />
  3. 3. <ul><li>15 minute or less transit service is key to competing with driving
  4. 4. Minimum 22 people per acre needed for frequent service to be efficient </li></ul>Frequent Transit Service<br />Strategy Corridors<br />Olympia<br />Lacey<br />Tumwater<br />Transit Corridor Context<br />
  5. 5. <ul><li>2010 Transit-Supportive Densities
  6. 6. Residential Density: 7+ units per acre</li></ul>OR<br /><ul><li>Employment Density: 25+ employees per acre</li></ul> <br />Lacey<br />Olympia<br />OR<br /><ul><li>Combined Employment and Residential: 22+ people per acre</li></ul> <br />Tumwater<br />Transit-Supportive Densities<br />
  7. 7. <ul><li>Regional strategy corridors w/ 0:15 transit and compatible land use activities – primary focus area for retrofit</li></ul>Martin Way<br />Westside<br />Pacific <br />Olympia<br />Lacey<br />Capitol<br />Way<br />Tumwater<br />Smart Corridors<br />
  8. 8. Composite RDI Walk Distance Score<br /><ul><li>Early 20th Century development
  9. 9. Tight street grid
  10. 10. Mixed-use</li></ul>RDI Pilot Study<br />
  11. 11. Composite RDI Walk Distance Score<br /><ul><li>Late 20th Century
  12. 12. Commercial Re-development
  13. 13. Long blocks
  14. 14. Interchange access</li></ul>RDI Pilot Study<br />
  15. 15. Composite RDI Walk Distance Score<br /><ul><li>Late 20th Century
  16. 16. Regional commercial center
  17. 17. Long blocks</li></ul>RDI Pilot Study<br />
  18. 18. Transit Route 61 Ridership<br />Sleater-Kenney<br />East Bay Drive<br />Marvin<br />Kinwood<br />Focused Transit Stop Analyses<br />
  19. 19. Route 61: East Bay Drive Stop<br /><ul><li>Challenges:
  20. 20. Land Consolidation
  21. 21. Connectivity retention
  22. 22. Achieve Density
  23. 23. Opportunities:
  24. 24. Good connectivity Design & Distance to Transit
  25. 25. Good land mix Diversity</li></li></ul><li>Route 61: Sleater-Kinney Stop<br /><ul><li>Challenges:
  26. 26. Big box retail functions as barrier between schools and transit
  27. 27. Poor connectivity Design
  28. 28. Opportunities:
  29. 29. Good Distance to Transit
  30. 30. Land mix Diversity re-development potential</li></li></ul><li>Route 61: Kinwood Stop<br /><ul><li>Challenges:
  31. 31. Narrow commercial strip buffering single-family, affordable residential
  32. 32. Opportunities:
  33. 33. Good Distance to Transit
  34. 34. Decent Density
  35. 35. Non-motorized connector options
  36. 36. Transit-supportive, Land mix Diversity re-development potential with affordable housing</li></ul>Neighborhood Impermeability<br />
  37. 37. Route 61: Marvin Stop<br /><ul><li>Challenges:
  38. 38. Big, regional commercial retail buffering single-family residential
  39. 39. Proximity to I-5 interchange
  40. 40. Opportunities:
  41. 41. Good Distance to Transit
  42. 42. Decent Density with larger land parcels
  43. 43. Higher land value
  44. 44. Transit-supportive, Land mix Diversity re-development potential with affordable housing</li></ul>Neighborhood Impermeability<br />
  45. 45. Follow-up Analyses<br /><ul><li>Layer Transit Data and RDI/Walk Distance analysis with:
  46. 46. Socio-economic data (e.g. affordable housing)
  47. 47. Land and Building Valuation for Re-development Potential (Density)
  48. 48. Diversity – Land Use Mix
  49. 49. Martin Way Design - Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (a big challenge)
  50. 50. Improving Distance to Transit and Destination accessibility </li>

×