CNU Planning Guidance


Published on

May 2012 CNU Planning Presentation with FDOT District 5

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
1 Comment
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning! I am John Moore, and I am the project manager for FDOT in the development of planning guidance for Multi-modal corridor studies. Thank you for this opportunity to share how our transportation world is changing and how FDOT is changing in response to new challenges.
  • Throughout history, transportation professionals have played essential roles at defining points in our Nation’s building. As a profession, we have a history of meeting incredible challenges. In the 19th century, we literally crossed the continent and built the transcontinental railway linking the east and west coasts. Built between 1863 and 1869, the railway is considered one of the greatest American technological advances of the 19th century.
  • A hundred years later, President Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act into law and solidified the mission of enabling full vehicular mobility for Americans. Few could have imagined it would be possible to build such an extensive system of interstate highways.
  • But we did it, and the U.S. now boasts one of the largest networks of freeways in the world. Between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.
  • That was our mission 50 years ago, and we were able to accomplish it. Today, we are again faced with a new challenge brought about by a new set of contextual issues.
  • This financial reality is similar for us here in Florida. State transportation revenues are not keeping pace with increasing needs. These shortfalls mean that we are well short of needed transportation revenues to keep pace with projected needs. The chart on the left shows Florida’s transportation funding shortfalls through 2008. Estimates peg our State’s shortfall at $50 billion through 2031 (source: Governor Scott’s Regulatory Reform Transition presentation, December 21, 2010).
  • Safety is another reason for why we need to tweak our approach to transportation. More and more we are realizing that we are not designing our streets to be safe for all users. In 2008, the country had more than 5,000 cases of pedestrian fatalities and more than 100,000 of pedestrian injuries along roadways. American cities are also ranked among the worst in pedestrian fatalities when compared to other countries. This wheel represents pedestrian fatalities for major cities in the world. Each pair of shoes represent 1 pedestrian death per 100,000 residents. The US cities are all in the outer 3 rings.This problem is very acute in major cities within our state. In its latest findings, Transportation for America ranked 4 Florida metro areas among the most dangerous in the country for pedestrians (Orlando-Kissimmee, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami-Fort Lauderdale, and Jacksonville).
  • To bring it closer to a personal level, we know that transportation responses need to change because how we have accommodated personal mobility is becoming more and more unaffordable. Automobile reliance is simply becoming too costly. Gas prices are again at record high levels. Partly because of how our land use patterns have developed, families are spending close to a fifth of their income on transportation. We can no longer require every family to own multiple vehicles, as is the case in many of our communities today.
  • The changing context of transportation is also one where we need to provide mobility for those who may not be able to or choose not to drive. According to statistics, one in three Americans do not drive. This group is made up of 1/5 of older Americans, those under 16, and those who cannot afford to own or drive a vehicle.Demographic trends tell us that this group of people will be increasing, and we need to be ready to cater to their transportation need. By 2025, the number of people over the age of 65 will reach about 62 million, representing 18% of the population (nearly one in five Americans). 2009 National Household Travel Survey found that the percent of people who have stopped driving doubles each decade after the age of 65. The lack of opportunities to take transit, to bike safely, and to walk safely makes travel to the store, doctor, or to visit family and friends impossible.55% of older Americans living in inhospitable neighborhoods say they would walk and bike more often if the built environment improved. Sources:Surface Transportation Policy Project. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating Better Walking Communities.” 2003. American Public Transportation Association. 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book.2008 National Household Travel Survey. Non-drivers represent 29.8% of Americans. Of those over 65, non-drivers represent 20.79%.Steven Raphael and Alan Berube. “Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates: Implications for Evacuation Policy,” paper prepared for the Berkeley Symposium on “Real Estate, Catastrophic Risk, and Public Policy,” March 23, 2006,
  • Because of all these, our partner agencies have started refocusing their priorities and are asking the DOT for different things. Here is an example of requests that we are receiving. This happens to be MetroPlan Orlando (the MPO for the Metro Orlando area) shows that 23 out of the 40 projects requested are either predominantly multi-modal or include some multi-modal elements. Gone are the days when communities want straightforward widening projects and gone are the days when we can afford to built these straightforward widening projects.
  • So this is how we used to approach transportation (and land use) planning. Lane use happens, it generates travel, and demands roadway capacity. How is land use integrated in this process. At the most, future land use is anticipated, traffic is forecasted by a model based on roadway speeds, and the future investments are expected to accommodate whatever demand this results to.
  • Today, we at the DOT is asking ourselves, “can we do this differently?” Can transportation investments, first of all be multi-modal in nature, help manage travel (allowing for less travel or multiple modes of travel), and help influence and be coordinated with land use.
  • Indeed multi-modal mobility requires for land use to be fully integrated with transportation. We need the facilities- roadways, transit systems, sidewalks, etc to walk, bicycle, and take transit on. We also need the places that these facilities connect to where we can safely and comfortably walk, bicycle, drive and take transit to. To achieve this, FDOT has started to make some changes.
  • We actually have tools in our toolbox that pertain to livability and multi-modal needs. Chapter 21 of the PPM actually refers specifically to livable communities. However, note that Chapter 21 tells us that prior to being able to apply these guidelines, we need involvement of the right stakeholders and incorporation of TDLC intent at the PLANNING and Project Development processes.
  • If we can do more robust planning, and begin to ask the right questions, we should be able to transition from simply asking our partners “what project do you want,” to determining “what problems do we have” first, “what opportunities do we have”, and “how can we leverage the investment in commuter rail to make our communities more competitive and sustainable”.
  • I’d like to share with you a quick example of DOT led planning study recently completed. This is one of 3 pilot projects that FDOT District 5 and we have partnered closely with Lake~Sumter MPO and with the local municipalities in South Lake County.
  • Briefly, here’s the process we used during the SR 50 study:Beginning from the rationale for the study (the challenge at hand)More detailed understanding of the problem (done through stakeholder interviews, mapping and analysis, and field work, traffic modeling and analysis) and the major findingsThe planning charrette that resulted in corridor guiding principles and ideas for future scenariosDevelopment of corridor-wide and demonstration site scenarios based on ideas from the charretteConclude with a corridor action plan
  • The section of SR 50 is a 4-lane arterial that has historically served regional commuting trips between Lake County and Orlando. Because of increased traffic demand, the Department is widening the roadway to 6-lanes. However, future projections show that if land use patterns continue as they are, traffic demand will exceed the 6-lane capacity.
  • Fast forward to 1999, the Orchards are now gone and…
  • By the end of the last decade, the area has changed to low-density single-use suburban development.
  • To give you a little more context, SR 50 used to be a regional road linking Clermont with Downtown Orlando.
  • The development of the system of Toll Roads changed the nature and function of SR 50. The new toll roads captured a lot of the regional mobility needs.
  • And SR 50 with land uses changing to a more urban/suburban nature, has the challenge of a redefined role– one that has a local need- both from a placemaking and a mobility perspective.
  • The preconceived notion that traffic on SR 50 was regional in nature and therefore required a regional solution was one of the biggest things proven incorrect at the beginning of the study. We tracked all the vehicles carrying a bluetooth signal from one end of the corridor to the other end. This was done during both the AM and PM peak periods, only half to 70% of the traffic that begins from one end of the corridor actually goes past the other end. Most of the corridor traffic actually has a destination on the corridor or goes to a cross street along the corridor. Meaning, this traffic on a state road “meant for regional trips”, is actually local traffic.
  • Why is local traffic on SR50? Because there is not other option. These two maps show that the new network built along SR 50 actually doesn’t facilitate local serving trips, and forces traffic to stay on SR 50.The map on the left is Downtown Clermont (west of US 27) and the map on the right is east of US27. Notice the difference in terms of block size and the “density” of streets between the two. Without even visiting these two places, you can probably tell that one can navigate Downtown Clermont by foot or bicycle much more comfortably than east of Downtown. The connected street network on the left also allows for multiple routing options, a good thing to disperse traffic and for enabling better transit service.
  • Having defined our challenge, and collected and analyzed data; we brought the community together and conducted a planning charrette.
  • The charrette resulted in a number of things, including a set of Corridor Guiding Principles. The most telling of these principles that summarizes the vision of the corridor is the fifth principle, “turn the car around.” The charrette participants recognize that they would like to continue to move beyond a place that is a “bedroom community” of Orlando to a complete community and a true destination.
  • The first scenario is typical of conventional suburban development, not unlike what is approved for the site. [Orient audience on where SR 50, CR 50, and West Orange Trail are. You can pick from the bullet points below on how to describe the two scenarios] This development has a number of large-format commercial development set back from SR 50, with out-parcel restaurants, banks, or gas stations. A single-family residential neighborhood is developed along CR 50 disconnected from vehicular or pedestrian connection to the commercial uses along SR50. A driveway provides service function along the back side of the development but is not intended for public use. Storm water retention ponds are located on the low-point of the site, not accessible to the public. The storm water ponds and the driveway create a separation between the development and the South Lake Trail. Lastly, a large portion of the site is dedicated to parking. Drive aisles within the site provide vehicular circulation but very few have sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks. Along CR 50 is a residential single-family neighborhood developed separately from the commercial use and with no pedestrian or vehicular connection to the commercial uses. One single entry point is located on CR 50.Scenario B shows the same types of uses found in the first scenario (and more) but developed in a more integrated fashion and with a mix of densities. The resulting development shows comparable yield for office/commercial and considerably more residential dwelling units. The land uses are connected by a framework of local streets and organized in smaller mixed-use urban sized blocks. Internal streets will be developed with appropriate pedestrian and bicycling facilities. Land uses on the site can be accessed from various entry points along SR 50 and Old CR 50.Building heights range from one to four storeys, with most buildings being one and two-levels. Residential building types include townhomes, single-family, apartments, condominiums, and live-work units. Storm water ponds are shared and designed as water features integrated into a linear park along the South Lake Trail and is a community resource accessible from the development. A network of multi-use trails connects to the West Orange Trail and a system of alleys provides additional access.The residential neighborhood on CR 50 is connected to the larger development via a local two-lane roadway. Traffic in this case does not have to solely rely on SR 50 and CR 50 doing the heavy lifting and more trips can be done using short, internal trips that can be done either through driving, bicycling, or even walking.One major difference between the two scenarios is the ability to accommodate multi-modal mobility. As you can see, Scenario A has not provided any additional roadway capacity and multi-use facilities while the second scenario has. This new network of roadway can provide alternative route for driving as well as potential transit service routes. In the case of Scenario B, transit can be provided so it is closer to the land use being served.A set of performance measures were developed to gauge how well each of the scenarios achieve the five Corridor Guiding Principles. With almost all the demonstration site indicators, Scenario B ranks higher than Scenario A, showing that Scenario B can better provide SR 50 community members multiple options for traveling along the Corridor and accessing their daily needs, while also preserving the natural assets of the area.Other performance measures of note are the housing density, the number of housing units, and length of streets with ped/bike facilities. These 3 performance measures are all indicators of transit-readiness of a development. We also conducted a trip-generation analysis on both schemes and the results show that Scenario B has a lot more percentage of trips captured internally and generates 60% of Scenario A’s traffic.
  • Other performance measures of note are the length of pedestrian friendly streets (these are streets with uses fronting it), the housing density, the number of housing units. These 3 performance measures are all indicators of transit-readiness of a development. We also conducted a trip-generation analysis on both schemes and the results show that Scenario B has a lot more percentage of trips captured internally and generates 60% of Scenario A’s traffic. The point is that the two land development scenarios resulted in two different transportation demands. One allows and supports the notion of multi-modal travel, while the other would depend on more automobile travel. So you see, simply building a facility that has bicycle lanes, transit accommodations, and sidewalks, doesn’t make multi-modal happen.
  • This is another view of Scenario B showing the community park space. SR 50 is along the top of the drawing. As you can see. Mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail uses surround a community park space.
  • This shows how transit can be incorporated into the development.
  • Various street cross-sections for the system of local and regional-serving streets.
  • Lastly, barrowing from one of your own, from Peter Katz’s work; the FDOT is also beginning to recognize that different forms of transportation investments yield different economic development opportunities. Peter’s work shows that urban mixed used development can generate tax returns many times the number of a single-use suburban development, on a per square foot basis. Something like Scenario B would provide a better tax yield compared to the first scenario.
  • Although scenario B will be more modest than this mixed-use development shown. I’d like to borrow from Peter Katz again and emphasize this message of a well-thought out investment can yield a great return and use up less resources. This product on the left undoubtedly required more proactive land use and transportation thought and partnership. Southgate + Walmart= 55.4 acres=1,145,028.Mixed Use 5 Points = 1,491,486.
  • I’d like to close with a couple of slides. This first one is from a promotional material of a community along SR 50. It shows a map of the area and the ways on how quickly you can get out of a the community.
  • This next one is a collage of the places the SR 50 community told us they treasure. As the FDOT evolves, we stand as a willing partner in supporting you on this second vision. Just as you, we would like to invest in infrastructure that can provide access to and support complete places.
  • I hope that the SR 50 case study and this presentation have given you a glimpse of how FDOT is changing to respond to the new realities today. We recognize that our role as a department and how we interface with land use need to change to fully realize our new roles. Whereas we were reacting to land use decisions in the past and were a passive reviewer, we would like to be a partner in together achieving livability and economic development goals of our communities. From singular focus on automobile mobility to being context sensitive. We obviously don’t have all the resources and the skills to achieve this, but we want to be an active partner in making decisions that affect not just mobility but the overall quality of life of our communities.
  • CNU Planning Guidance

    1. 1. NOT YOURGRANDFATHER’SDOT:How Florida’s DOT is taking Multi-Modal Mobility tothe next level John P. Moore Florida Dept. of Transportation District 5 Jane Lim-Yap Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
    2. 2. crossing the continent
    3. 3. Interstate Highway System “We are pushing ahead with a great road program, a road program that will take this Nation out of its antiquated shackles of secondary roads… It will be a nation of greatprosperity, but will be more than that: it will bea nation that is going ahead every day. With…our population increasing at five every minute,the expanding horizon is one that staggers the imagination.” October 29, 1954
    4. 4. 210,896 lane miles in less than 50 yearsSource: FHWA
    5. 5. our new challenge
    6. 6. limited revenues 0.40% 0.35% Highway Account 0.30% $1 trillion National transportation funding shortfall through Highway Trust Fund Receipts 0.25% 2015* (Percent of GDP) 0.20% 0.15% $200 billion 0.10% National revenue gap per year* Transit Account 0.05% * Source: Transportation for Tomorrow Report, The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, December 2007. 0.00%Source: Congressional Budget Office and “Life in the Slow Lane”, The Economist, April l 28, 2011
    7. 7. funding shortfall Florida Metro Area Transportation Funding Shortfall Estimates $50 billion FDOT estimated funding gap over next 20 years Governor Scott’s Regulatory Reform Transition presentation, December, 2010. 1997 2002 2008 1997 2002 2008Source: MPOAC Situational Analysis, December 2010
    8. 8. increased safety concerns 5,000 2008 Pedestrian/bicyclist deaths in the U.S. 120,000 2008 Pedestrian/bicyclist injuries in the U.S.Source:, Transportationfor America, Dangerous by Design Report.
    9. 9. increased costs of drivingApril 2011 18% of an average household budget spent on transportation (2011) 4.8 billion hours of time was spent in traffic in 2009 Sources: U.S. Department of Energy; Bureau of Labor Statistics, TTI Mobility Report 2010, Seattle Times.
    10. 10. changing travel patterns 23% Drop in amount of driving by 16 to 34 year olds from 2001 to 2011 Source: Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy VMT Personal Income Population GrowthSource: MPOAC Situational Analysis, December 2010
    11. 11. focus on expanding mobility more thanBy 2025: half1 in 5 Americans of older Americans would rather drive lesswill be over 65one thirdof all Americans don’tdrive Sources: Surface Transportation Policy Project. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating Better Walking Communities.” 2003; APTA 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book; 2008 National Household Travel Survey; Steven Raphael and Alan Berube. “Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates: Implications for Evacuation Policy,” paper prepared for the Berkeley Symposium March 2006,
    12. 12. requests are changing MetroPlan Orlando Prioritized Projects List 23 of 40 projects requested are multi-modal
    13. 13. Conventional Approach Land Use Travel Road Capacity GENERATES DEMANDS Anticipate Forecast Accommodate (Based on Speed)
    14. 14. Integrated Transportation & Land UseTransportation Travel Land UseInvestments HELP INFLUENCES MANAGE Multi-Modal Manage Coordinate
    15. 15. Ingredients to multi-modal mobility Place to comfortably and safely walk, bicycle, take transit, or drive on Places to conveniently walk to, bicycle to, reach by transit, or drive to
    16. 16. FDOT Plans Preparation ManualChapter 21TRANSPORTATION DESIGN FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES“It is the policy of the Department to consider TransportationDesign for Livable Communities features on the State HighwaySystem …”Principles:1.Safety of all modes2.Balancing community values and mobility needs3.Efficient use of energy resources4.Protection of the environment5.Coordinated land use and transportation planning6.Local and state economic development goals7.Complementing and enhancing existing Department standards and processes credit: Eric E Johnson / Flickr
    17. 17. stronger planning leads to better results Integrating Land Use & TransportationWhat What What How can weprojects problems do opportunities leverage ourdo you we have? do we have? investments towant? make us more sustainable and competitive?
    18. 18. Transportation & CommunityBuildingStrategies from the SR 50 Multi-ModalCorridor Study
    19. 19. SR 50 planning process Corridor Action Plan1 2 3 4 5 6
    20. 20. the challenge• 4-lane major arterial, recently widened to 6 lanes• Future travel demand far exceeds future capacity• Limited alternative parallel network• Roadway being used for BOTH local and regional trips• Designated a multi-modal corridor in TRANSPORTATION 2035• Multi-modal solutions viable only with land use strategies Lake Lake Apopka Minneola Citrus Tower Hancock SR 50 Avalon Johns Lake Lake Minnehaha Hartwood Marsh
    21. 21. 1974 The Turnpike - now completed - provides a new and faster connection to N & S Florida Residential development continues S & E of downtown Commercial Development starts along SR 50 near US 27 Small subdivisions become a more common as a development type
    22. 22. 1999 Rapid residential development occurs Citrus Tower Blvd becomes a major connection to SR-50
    23. 23. 2010 Some development on previously approved master planned communities continues Few sections of local network added Development of large commercial parcels becomes common Most of undeveloped land is located along the south side of SR 50 and East of US 27
    24. 24. regional context
    25. 25. regional context
    26. 26. regional context
    27. 27. Corridor used for local traffic Weekday AM Peak East Bound Traffic Weekday PM Peak West Bound Traffic
    28. 28. Network does not support effective multi-modal local trafficHistoric Clermont Newer developmentStreet Network East of Clermont
    29. 29. hands-on interactive sessions
    30. 30. community values & guiding principles1 2 3 4 5Preserve & Preserve Historic More Play Enhance Local “Turn the CarCelebrate Our Character & Connectivity & Around”Landscape Sense of Place Walkability
    31. 31. Scenario AScenario B Potential Bus StopExisting RoadwayProposed RoadwayExisting Multi-use TrailProposed Multi-use Trail
    32. 32. comparing the scenarios
    33. 33. demonstration site – scenario B
    34. 34. demonstration site – scenario B
    35. 35. a system of complete streets
    36. 36. tax yield and development types ($ per acre) $803,000 per acre $21,752 per acre $3 per acreSource: Sarasota County, Peter Katz (fmr Smart Growth Director),Presentation to the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, September 2009
    37. 37. what this means 1 Acre 21 Acres Super Walmart moderate mixed-use high-rise = 34 Acres + Southgate MallSource: Sarasota County, Peter Katz (fmr. Smart Growth Director),Presentation to the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, September 2009
    38. 38. your vision
    39. 39. your vision
    40. 40. Evolving DOT Role Livability & OtherCSS &Multi-Modal Community GoalsMobilityAutoThrough-put Reactive to land Proactive Partner use decisions • Integrated Land Use & • DRI Review Transportation Plans • Comp. Plan Review • Planning Guidance • Driveway Permitting • Transit and TOD Planning • Freight Mobility credit: Pablo Abreu / Flickr
    41. 41. thank you! John Moore Jane Lim-Yap