• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos
 

Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos

on

  • 843 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
843
Views on SlideShare
843
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

    Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos Presentation Transcript

    •      Complete  Streets  Initiative    San  Antonio   TEXAS  TRAILS  &  ACTIVE  TRANSPORTATION   February  1,  2012  
    • COMPLETE  STREETS  SAN  ANTONIO  2010  –  CPPW  grant  award      2011  -­‐  Policy  Adopted    2011  -­‐  Project  scoping    2012  -­‐  MMLOS  Training    2012  -­‐  BeLer  Block    2013  –  ConstrucOon  of  pilot      streets  2020  -­‐  Look  back  &  assess     2  
    • POLICY  PASSED  COUNCIL  SEPT  29  2011  1.  San  Antonio  supports  Complete  Streets  2.  San  Antonio  promotes  healthy  living  and  fitness  through   Complete  Streets  3.  San  Antonio  supports  pedestrian-­‐oriented  neighborhoods   through  Complete  Streets  4.  Commercial  corridors  shall  be  enhanced  through  the   applicaOon  of  Complete  Streets  5.  San  Antonio  will  maximize  benefits  of  investment  in  capital   projects  through  the  applicaOon  of  Complete  Streets.   3  
    • STRATEGIC  POINTS  OF  INTERVENTION  NATIONAL  RECOMMENDATIONS   SAN  ANTONIO  PROGRESS  1.  Community  Visioning  &   1.  SA2020  in  2011   Goal  Se_ng     2.  Major  Thoroughfare  Plan  2.  Plan  making   analysis  for  Complete  3.  Standards,  Policies  &   Streets  in  2012   IncenOves   3.  Policy  in  2011;  Standards  4.  Development  Work   in  progress  5.  Public  Investment   4.  Development  work   expected  2013  From:  Complete  Streets:  Best  Policy   &  Implementa7on  Prac7ces,   5.  Public  investment   APA  Planning  Advisory  Service   beginning  2012   Report  #559   4  
    • CURRENT  ACTIVITIES  •  Project  Scoping  through  2012  City  Bond  Program  •  Downtown  projects  starOng  @  Hemisfair  Park  •  CreaOng  metrics  for  Complete  Streets    •  Training  planners  &  engineers  in  MMLOS  analysis     Main  Avenue  in  downtown  San  Antonio   Espada  Road  –  part  of  the  Mission  Trail   5  
    • URBAN  LIVING  NEEDS  COMPLETE  STREETS   5000  people   projected  to  move   into  mixed  use   STREETSCAPEENHANCEMENTS planned  for   PARK Hemisfair  Park   MARIETPLACE TOWER OF THE AMERICAS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS 6  
    • PRIORITIES  FOR  PUBLIC  RIGHTS  OF  WAY  •  MulOmodal  TransportaOon   •  Bicycle,  Mass  Transit,  Pedestrian,   Vehicle  •  Traffic  Calming  •  Low  Impact  Development  (LID)  •  Placemaking  /  Economic   7  
    • COMPLETE  STREET  TYPOLOGIES  Mode  Considera9on  Based  on  Land  Use  Context  •  Downtown:  Pedestrian  Priority  •  Urban  Mixed  Use:  Transit-­‐Cars-­‐Pedestrian  •  Urban  Neighborhood:  Bikes-­‐Cars-­‐Pedestrian-­‐Transit  •  Suburban  Neighborhood:  Pedestrian-­‐Cars-­‐Bikes  •  Suburban  Commercial:  Cars-­‐Transit-­‐Pedestrian  •  Rural:  Cars-­‐Bikes   8  
    • DOWNTOWN  –  Pedestrian  Priority   9  
    • URBAN  NEIGHBORHOOD:  Pedestrian-­‐Bikes-­‐Cars-­‐Transit  PEDESTRIAN     CARS   CYCLING  Pedestrian  refuge  islands   Road  markings  &  signals   Bicycle  lanes  Street  trees  /  landscaping   Traffic  circles   IntersecOon  improvements  TRANSIT   On  street  parking   Buffers  Improved  transit  stops  Mid-­‐block  crossings   10  
    • TRADEOFFS  IN  THE  PUBLIC  ROW   76  FEET  RIGHT  OF  WAY   11  
    • MMLOS  Mulitmodal  Level  of  Service   evaluates  traffic  impacts  of   pedestrian,  bicycle  &  transit   faciliOes  Brief  version  conducted  for   Bond  project  evaluaOon   using  field  data  tool  City  staff  being  trained  in   Synchro  somware  to  assess   street  segments  proposed   for  Complete  Streets  Need  to  incorporate  uOliOes   within  the  ROW     12  
    • MMLOS  EVALUATION  TOOL  •  ExisOng  &  proposed  ROW  •  Average  Daily  Traffic  (ADT)  •  ExisOng  &  proposed  traffic  lanes    •  ExisOng  &  proposed  transit  routes  •  Is  route  idenOfied  on  SA  Bikes  plan?  •  Located  within  one  mile  of  greenway?  •  Provides  access  to  school,  park  or  recreaOon?  •  Within  ¼  mile  of  pedestrian  generator?   13  
    • SAMPLE  RESULTS   S Hackberry St @ Essex Place to E Drexel Ave COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 6.9 Proposed B PEDESTRIAN 2.36 LOSMin. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 6 Existing B 2.70Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available. COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 4.5 Proposed with C Bike Lanes 2.84 BICYCLE LOS Proposed without D Bike Lanes 3.57Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Existing D Righ-of-Way Considerations section below. Conditions 4.07 COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 7.8 14  
    • SAMPLE  RESULTS   RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS Available ROW 70 ft Availability of ROW assumes 5 minimum distance from back of sidewalk to ROW for utilities. A 6 ft ROW needed for Street Cross-Section Options: sidewalk is included for all street sections.ROW needed if bike lanes are added 92 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added 90 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if a shared use path is added 95 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added 100 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* 92 ft ROW INADEQUATE LANE DIET - Reduce Lanes from 12 to 11ROW needed if bike lanes are added 88 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added 86 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if a shared use path is added 91 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added 96 ft ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* 88 ft ROW INADEQUATEConsider reducing median width to accommodateComplete Streets Features.*Assumes uilities are placed in a 5 ft buffer between the sidewalk and curb, and the sidewalk is at the ROW line. Additional ROW orretaining wall may be necessary for grading. SCORING LEGEND The need for Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit considerations on the rodway are scored on a scale of 1 to 10. Score: Explanation: 1-4 Minimal need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Moderate need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should 4-7 incorporate features for this road user if right-of-way is available. High need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should include as 7-10 many features for this road user as possible 15  
    • MULTI-­‐MODAL  (MMLOS)  ANALYSIS  TOOL   Exis9ng  Cesar  Chavez  Blvd   Pedestrian  LOS  =  D     Proposed  Cross   Sec9on     Cesar  Chavez  Blvd     Pedestrian  LOS  =  C     16  
    • SAN  ANTONIO  COLLEGE  •  Located  1  ½  miles  north   of  downtown,  above  the   I-­‐35  freeway  •  36,000  daily  students  •  920  employees  •  8  county  service  area  •  5  transit  routes  •  No  dormitories  •  1  high  school  •  Minimal  off  campus   parking   17  
    • SAN  PEDRO  AVE  •  Major  north-­‐south   arterial  roadway  with   access  to  downtown  •  17,000  vehicles  per  day  •  3  frequent  transit  routes  •  VIA  offices  –  800+   employees  •  San  Pedro  Park  –  popular   year-­‐round  park   18  
    • SAN  PEDRO  AVE   19  
    • San Pedro from Cypress to Hildebrand COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 9.8 Proposed C PEDESTRIAN 2.87 LOSMin. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 6 Existing C 3.20Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available. COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 8.6 Proposed with C Bike Lanes 3.15 BICYCLE LOS Proposed without D Bike Lanes 3.88Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Existing D Righ-of-Way Considerations section below. Conditions 3.88 COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from C Florida DOTs 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 20  
    • MAIN  AVE  •  North-­‐south  collector   street  with  access  to   downtown  •  8300  vehicles  per  day  •  1  transit  route  •  Campus  +  business   “Main  Street”  •  Mixed  use  planned  •  On  SA  Bikes  plan   21  
    • Main Ave from Cypress to Hildebrand COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 9.8 Proposed C PEDESTRIAN 2.95 LOSMin. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.50Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available. COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 7.7 Proposed with C Bike Lanes 3.01 BICYCLE LOS Proposed without D Bike Lanes 3.73Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Existing D Righ-of-Way Considerations section below. Conditions 3.88 COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from C Florida DOTs 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 22  
    • W  ASHBY  PL  •  Local  street  with  bike   lanes  •  Connects  eastside  –   westside   neighborhoods  •  2500  vehicles  per  day  •  1  busy  transit  route  •  On  SA  Bikes  plan  •  Hilly   23  
    • W Ashby from San Pedro to Main COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 Proposed A PEDESTRIAN 1.97 LOSMin. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.05Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available. COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 Proposed with C Bike Lanes 3.12 BICYCLE LOS Proposed without C Bike Lanes 3.39Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Existing D Righ-of-Way Considerations section below. Conditions 3.62 COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from C Florida DOTs 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 24  
    • W  EVERGREEN  •  Neighborhood  street  -­‐           1  mile  long  •  Dead-­‐ends  at  San  Pedro  •  3500  vehicles  per  day  •  1  transit  route  •  No  pavement  markings     25  
    • W Evergreen from San Pedro to Main COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 Proposed B PEDESTRIAN 2.10 LOSMin. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.42Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available. COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 3.7 Proposed with C Bike Lanes 3.29 BICYCLE LOS Proposed without D Bike Lanes 3.56Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Existing D Righ-of-Way Considerations section below. Conditions 3.80 COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from C Florida DOTs 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 26  
    • TRAFFIC  CALMING  MEASURES    •  Roundabouts  •  Mini  traffic  circles    •  On  street  parking  •  Reverse  angle  parking    •  Curb  bulbouts  •  Pedestrian  refuge  islands  •  Improved  transit  stops  •  Mid-­‐block  crossings  •  Bicycle  lanes  •  Street  trees  /  landscaping   27  
    • ROAD  DIETS  /  LANE  DIETS   Research  by  NCHRP  and  others  point  to   increased  safety  for  both  road  diets  and   lane  diets  with  20-­‐40%  crash  reduc7ons  ROAD  DIETS  reduce  the  number  of   LANE  DIETS  reduce  width  of  lanes   lanes  in  a  roadway   Typical  is  12  m  to  11  m  –  can  go  to  10  Typical  is  4  lanes  to  3  with  center   m  in  some  instances   turn  lane   Parking  lane  widths  reduced  to  8  m  6000  vehicles  per  day  per  lane  is   Narrower  lanes  tend  to  slow  traffic   starOng  point  to  consider  road   speeds   diet   VIA  buses  require  12  m  lanes  Buses,  loading  trucks,  on-­‐street   parking  will  impact  LOS   28  
    • EXERCISE:  MAKING  COMPLETE  STREETS  •  Assess  available  ROW,  traffic  volume,  adjacent  uses,   number  of  desOnaOons  •  Determine  modal  priority:  pedestrians,  transit,  cars,   bikes  •  Develop  preliminary  street  cross-­‐secOon  •  Determine  whether  addiOonal  traffic  calming   methods  needed  –  roundabouts,  street  parking  etc.  •  Consider  ameniOes  such  as  landscape,  pedestrian   refuges,  mini-­‐plazas,  public  art  •  Develop  cross  secOons  with  traffic  calming   treatments     29  
    • Thank  you!   30