Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning

1. Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Multimodal Planning Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT Cherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning Florida Department of Transportation District 7 March 18, 2008 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

2. Course Agenda • Introductions • Overview of Goals and Concepts • DeLand: A Multimodal Transportation District Case Study • Application of Multimodal Planning - Multimodal Transportation Districts: The What, Why, Where, Who, and How • Linking Land Use and Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service Exercise • Tallahassee MMTD Evaluation

3. Multimodal Areawide PlanningConcepts and Applications Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office March 2008

4. Objective • To Become Familiar With and Understand: • Concurrency in Florida • Multimodal Level of Service Legislation • Multimodal Areawide Planning

5. Evolution of Concurrency in Florida • 1985: Growth Management Act • 1989-1991: Comprehensive Plans • 1993: Project Level and Areawide Exceptions • Late 1990’s: Evaluation and Appraisal Reports/Update of Local Comprehensive Plans • 1998: Transportation and Land Use Study Committee • 1999: Multimodal Transportation Districts • 2001: Growth Management Study Committee • 2005: Growth Management Act (SB 360) • 2006 & 2007: Backlog Discussion

6. Concurrency in Florida • 1985 • Teeth of growth management • New development should pay for itself • Infrastructure should be in place and available at time of impact • 2007 • Unintended consequences • Concerns about multimodalism and community design • Backlog of projects • Funding Dilemma • Public-private partnerships

7. Concurrency • Why – required by law (163.3180 F.S. and 9J-05.0055 FAC) to provide for ‘adequate public facilities’ • Who – Implemented by local governments and is a local government responsibility • When – At the time of development order/building permit approval (Non-DRI’s) • Previously may have occurred at time of certificate of occupancy

8. Transportation Concurrency Process • Establish LOS Standards in Local Comprehensive Plan • Implement Concurrency as Part of Land Development Regulations • Calculate Level of Service on Major Roadways • Calculate the Availability of Capacity as a Part of Development Review

9. Concurrency • Reality • Locals may not have adequate funds • May lack support to increase funds • Can’t build your way out • Unintended Consequences • Urban sprawl • Urban “infill sprawl” – using up every last drop of capacity within a CMS • Intent • Responsible growth by requiring local governments to improve roads • Assumes • Local governments have the funds to improve roads

10. Options Beyond Basic Concurrency System • Redefine LOS Standard • Project Specific Exceptions • Projects that Promote Public Transportation • Areawide Exceptions • Transportation Management Area (TCMA) • Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) • Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD)

11. Level of Service Standards • Adopted in specific facilities elements and Capital Improvements Element • Adequate and based on data and analysis • For roadways – must adopt standards for facilities on future traffic circulation map • For Strategic Intermodal System – Must adopt standards of FDOT (Rule 14-94, FAC) • For other functionally classified roadways must adopt ‘adequate’ standards • LOS standards are typically A-F, but sometimes are a specific number of vehicles/trips. “Each local government shall establish a level of service standard for each public facility within its boundary…” 9J-5.005(3) Department of Community Affairs Concurrency Rule

12. Long-Term Transportation Concurrency Management System (LTTCMS) • Application – Improvement Needed • There must be an improvement which can solve the concurrency (LOS) problem • Requirements – Funding • Long term schedule of capital improvements • Monitoring • May include interim LOS standards • Annual CIP • During EAR Provides an Exception Until Improvement Made

13. TCMA – Averaging Conditions • Application – Infill and Redevelopment • Compact area • Existing road network with multiple viable alternative travel paths or modes. • Requirements – Areawide Mobility • Promote infill and redevelopment • Provide mobility • Monitoring • May include areawide LOS standard • During EAR

14. TCEA – Infill & Redevelopment • Application – Land Use • Less than 10% developable vacant land • Residential > 60%, then at least 5 DUs/acre • Non-residential >60%, then FAR at least 1.0 • Designated urban redevelopment area • Designated downtown revitalization area • Requirements – Mobility, Funding • Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies • Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes, network connectivity • Justify size of area • Monitoring • During EAR

15. MMTD – Non-Auto Mobility Focus • Application – Priorities • Primary priority is safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, convenient interconnection to transit • Secondary priority is vehicle mobility • Requirements – Mobility, Funding • Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies • Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes, network connectivity • Monitoring • May establish multimodal LOS standards • During EAR • 2 year reporting

16. Comparison of Transportation Concurrency Areawide Exceptions 1: MMTD’s require a minimum population and employment, but this figure is not area specific. 2: The TCMA may be established in “a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common purpose.” 3: Discussed in statute, but no measure provided.

17. Common Requirements • Amendment to the comprehensive plan • Evaluate impacts to surrounding areas • Be careful about solving one problem but creating other problems • Financial feasibility • Funding strategy to accomplish goals • Monitoring • Minimum is part of Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)

18. Course Objective • To Become Familiar With and Understand: • Concurrency in Florida • Multimodal Level of Service Legislation • Multimodal Areawide Planning

19. MMTD Legislation • F.S. 163.3180 (15)(a) allows: • Establishment of Multimodal Transportation Districts under local government comprehensive plans designating an area assigning priority to: • Safe comfortable and attractive pedestrian environment • Convenient interconnection to transit • Secondary priority to vehicle mobility

20. MMTD Legislation F.S. 163.3180 (15)(b): • Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring level of service for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and trucks. • FDOT shall develop methodologies used to assist local governments in implementing this multimodal level of service analysis • DCA and FDOT will provide technical assistance to local governments in applying these methodologies

21. MMTD Legislation In Response to Legislation FDOT has: • Developed level of service methodology and analysis tools for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes • Prepared the Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of ServiceHandbook to detail methodology and techniques for multimodal areawide planning • Prepared Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts report to provide model comp plan amendments and land development regulations to local governments • Prepared Safe Ways to School – The Role in Multimodal Planning report to define the special needs of schools in consideration of MMTDs

22. Course Objective • To Become Familiar With and Understand: • Concurrency in Florida • Multimodal Level of Service Legislation • Multimodal Areawide Planning

23. Goal of Multimodal Areawide Planning To encourage and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation ultimately resulting in the reduction of automobile usage and vehicle miles of travel

24. Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal: • Appropriate Scale of Development • Urban Design • Land Use • Mix • Organization, Densities and Intensities • Transportation • Regional Connectivity • Multimodal Availability • Network Connectivity • Level of Service • Linking Land Use and Transportation • Areawide Quality of Service • Recommended Performance Targets

25. Appropriate Scale of Development • Population • At least 5,000 in residential population • Employment • A range, from 1:1 to 3:1, of population to employment

26. Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal: • Appropriate Scale of Development • Urban Design • Land Use • Mix • Organization, Densities and Intensities • Transportation • Regional Connectivity • Multimodal Availability • Network Connectivity • Level of Service • Linking Land Use and Transportation • Areawide Quality of Service • Recommended Performance Targets

27. Urban Design Buildings & Services Adjacent to Sidewalk

28. Urban Design Short Block Lengths & Dense Street Network

29. Urban Design Pedestrian Friendly

30. Urban Design

31. Urban Design Transit Friendly

32. Urban Design Freight and Delivery Access for Businesses

33. Ten Steps To Walkability Compact, lively town center Many people of all ages and abilities walking many hours Low speed streets, distributed volumes Celebrated public space and public life, parades, markets, festivals, awards Public places with inviting features: benches, restrooms, shade, water and art Fine grained streets, many trails, transit links Land use and transportation partnerships Neighborhood schools and parks, within 1/4 mile of residences Affordable, inspiring, well maintained streets and homes Convenient, safe and efficient crossings

34. Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal: • Appropriate Scale of Development • Urban Design • Land Use • Mix • Organization, Densities and Intensities • Transportation • Regional Connectivity • Multimodal Availability • Network Connectivity • Level of Service • Linking Land Use and Transportation • Areawide Quality of Service • Recommended Performance Targets

35. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses • Complementary Mix of Land Uses • Three or more significant, mutually supporting land uses, one of which is residential • Physical and functional integration of uses

36. Supporting • Land Uses • Office • Local Services • Medical Services • Hotel • Restaurants • Shopping • Recreational/Cultural • Convenience Retail • Gym/Health Club • Educational/Day Care • College/University • Gov’t Agency Significant Land Use: Significant Land Use: Residential Employment and Schools Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses Handbook, Page 23

37. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses

38. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses

39. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses

40. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses Preferred Ratio of Uses

41. LOW DENSITY (Single Family, Retail and Service Primary Service Boundary MEDIUM DENSITY (Townhouse, Garden Apartment, Retail and Service) HIGH DENSITY (Mixed Use, Commercial, Retail, Apartment and Institutional) High Capacity Transit Station 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile Boundary of Walking Distance Land Use: Organization Organization of Land Uses Promoting a Central Core Handbook, Page 26

42. Area: Preferable 160 acres to house enough people to support 1 elementary school Preferable shape: All sides are fairly Roads connect where possible Site reserved for civic building Area in open development preferably 160 acres..in any case it should house enough people to require one elementary school. Exact shape not essential but best when all sides are fairly equidistant from center. A shopping district might be substituted for church site equidistant from the center Short face of blocks along boulevards Shopping districts in periphery at traffic junctions and preferably bunched in form. Only neighborhood shops & institutions at the center Only neighborhood institutions at community center The bus stops here Shops & offices along boulevards A playground in each quadrant Mixed use street anchored by corner shopping district Ten percent of area to recreation and park space School located Interior streets not wider than required for specific use and giving easy access to shops and community center to be shared by Shopping centers at high traffic intersections adjacent neighborhood Parking lot designed as plaza Parkway corridor along boulevard Source: The Fractured Metropolis, Jonathan Barnett, 1995 Land Use: Organization Handbook, Page 31

43. Land Use: Densities and Intensities MAJOR TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CORRIDOR DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM ACTIVITY CENTERS INCREASES MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG THE CORRIODRS CONCENTRATED IN AREAS WITH HIGH INTERMODAL POTENTIAL Handbook, Page 27

44. Land Use: Densities and Intensities HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED INSIDE OF ARTERIAL BOUNDARY OF DISTRICT MAJOR ARTERIAL OR INTERSTATE TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE CORRIDOR MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS FOCUSED WITHIN DISTRICT DENSITY DECREASES AS DISTANCE FROM MAJOR ARTERIAL INCREASES Handbook, Page 28

45. Land Use: Densities and Intensities Desirable Densities and Intensities Handbook, Page 25

46. Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land Uses

47. Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land Uses

48. Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land Uses

49. Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal: • Appropriate Scale of Development • Urban Design • Land Use • Mix • Organization, Densities and Intensities • Transportation • Regional Connectivity • Multimodal Availability • Network Connectivity • Level of Service • Linking Land Use and Transportation • Areawide Quality of Service • Recommended Performance Targets

50. Transportation: Regional Connectivity • Existence of regional transportation connections • Good multimodal connectivity to the regional connections