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 Planning Concepts 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. 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 Concurrency

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. Methodologies –‘Checkbook’ – Existing trips and reserved trips subtracted from capacity at LOS standard – says when available balance (capacity) is 0 –‘Growth rates’ – Counts are grown by a growth rate to account for additional years growth and compared to capacity at standard –Others, variations on these two themes Concurrency

10. Technical / Data Challenges –Adjacent growth (background and pass-through) –Measuring impacts –Tracking impacts Guidance –DCA / CUTR “Best Practices” Concurrency

11. Concurrency Intent –Responsible growth by requiring local governments to improve roads Assumes –Local governments have the funds to improve roads 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

12. 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)

13. “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 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Concurrency Options Summary LTTCMS – Exception until improved within 10 or potentially 15 years TCMA – Averaging of conditions to support infill & redevelopment TCEA – Infill & redevelopment MMTD – Non-auto mobility focus

19. 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. TCMATCEAMMTD Density requirement Yes --- 1 Must be infill oriented Yes --- Limited area Yes 2 --- 3 Areawide Level of Service Yes--- 3 Yes Multimodal Level of Service ------ 3 Yes Addresses land use --- 3 Yes Addresses connectivity Yes 2 Yes Addresses Impacts to SIS Yes

20. 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)

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

22. 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

23. 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 MMTD Legislation

24. 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 Service Handbook 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 MMTD Legislation

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

26. 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

27. 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

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

29. 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

30. Buildings & Services Adjacent to Sidewalk Urban Design

31. Short Block Lengths & Dense Street Network Urban Design

32. Pedestrian Friendly Urban Design

34. Transit Friendly Urban Design

35. Freight and Delivery Access for Businesses Urban Design

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

37. 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

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

39. 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 : Employment and Schools Significant Land Use: Residential Handbook, Page 23

40. Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses

43. Preferred Ratio of Uses Land Uses Open/Parks/Recreational Office/Commercial/Lt. Industrial Residential Preferred Ratio 5% - 15% 30% - 70% 20% - 60% Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses

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

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

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

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

48. Desirable Densities and Intensities Residential Land Use (DU/Acres) Commercial Land Use (Emp/Acre) Multimodal Potential 1 - 31 - 39Poor. 4 - 640 - 59 Marginal. Possibility for success. 7 - 1460 - 99 Good. Supports bus transit 15+100+ High. Supports high capacity transit. Handbook, Page 25 Land Use: Densities and Intensities

49. Appropriate Organization, Densities and Intensities of Land Uses

52. 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

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

54. Connected, continuous pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks Amenities exist that make multimodal usage a pleasant experience Land use elements combine with the transportation systems to promote multimodal usage Transportation: Availability of Different Modes

55. Multimodal Transportation Networks

57. Network connectivity for all modes is critical for a successful MMTD An index can be used to rate the level of network connectivity Index is based on the polygon methodology Transportation: Network Connectivity

58. Pedestrian Connectivity Index Handbook, Page 34

59. Bicycle Connectivity Index 1 Mile 1 2 3 4 567 89 10 1112 1314 1516 17 18 19 20 21 2223 2425 26 28 27 29 30 31 3233 3435 36 3738 3940 414243 44 45 46 47 48 4950 51 5253 5455 565758 59 Street System Pedestrian Network Shared Use Path District Boundary Handbook, Page 35

60. Transportation: LOS Analysis FDOT has developed multimodal LOS methodology Define the modal networks –Pedestrian –Bicycle –Transit –Auto For LOS analysis, the network consists of functionally classified collectors and above

61. Pedestrian LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user Factors include: –Presence of sidewalk –Buffers between sidewalk and motor vehicle travel lanes –Presence of protective barriers –Width of outside travel lanes and bicycle lanes –Motor vehicle traffic volume –Motor vehicle speed Handbook, Page 43 Transportation: LOS Analysis

62. Bicycle LOS measures the performance of the facility with respect to the perception of comfort and safety by the user Factors include: –Presence of designated bike lane or paved shoulder –Pavement width –Traffic volume in outside lane –Motor vehicle speed –Percentage and number of trucks –Pavement surface condition Handbook, Page 43 Transportation: LOS Analysis

63. Each factor is weighted by relative importance Weighting validated by a statistically significant sample Numerical LOS score is computed and converted to letter LOS grade Numerical score generally ranges from 0.5 to 6.5 Transportation: LOS Analysis

64. Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Thresholds Level of ServiceScore A<=1.5 B>1.5 and <=2.5 C>2.5 and <=3.5 D>3.5 and <=4.5 E =5.5 F>5.5 Handbook, Page 44 Transportation: LOS Analysis

65. Transit LOS is based on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual Evaluates the user’s perception of the quality of the transit route Transit availability is the is the most important factor Transit LOS determined by frequency of service and adjusted by –Hours of Service –Pedestrian LOS Transportation: LOS Analysis

66. Transit Level of Service: Availability of Service Bus LOS Headway (Min.) Frequency (Bus/Hr)Comments A< 10> 6No schedule needed B10 –145 – 6Frequent service C15 – 203 – 4Maximum desirable wait time D21 – 30 2Service unattractive to choice riders E31 – 60 1Service available during hour F> 60< 1Service unattractive to all users Handbook, Page 45 Transportation: LOS Analysis

67. Areawide LOS is determined for each mode within the district This areawide modal LOS is a measure of the coverage of modal service within the district, or a Quality of Service. The modal QOS is a length weighted average, by facility. Recommended minimum QOS thresholds are: Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Automobile CCDFIHS/LGCP Non-motorized orientedCDCFIHS/LGCP Type of MMTD Transit-Oriented Non motorized-Oriented C C C D D C FIHS/LGCP Handbook, Page 43 Transportation: LOS Analysis

68. 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

69. Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service Areawide Quality of Service brings together the land use and transportation analyses Integrates land use and transportation through: –Definition of each modal network –Mobility within each modal network –Ability of the population to use these facilities

70. To Determine the Areawide Quality of Service, the following steps are used: Step 1. Define Major Modal Facilities Identify the major transportation facilities, by mode, within the district Handbook, Page 47 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

71. Step 2. Establish User Service Areas on the Defined Facilities for Each Mode Accepted user ranges are ¼ mile for pedestrians and ½ mile for bicycles Handbook, Page 48 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

72. Step 3. Determine % of population and employment within the user service areas which measures the multimodal potential. This step evaluates the ability of the district population to use the facilities User Service Area Example: User Service Area Contains: 50% of District Employment 50% of District Population Handbook, Page 48 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

73. Step 4. Determine LOS for each mode on each facility Use LOS analysis LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS B Handbook, Page 48 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

74. Step 5. Determine each modal Quality of Service within the district. Modal QOS is determined as a length weighted average of facilities Levels of Service. LOS C LOS B LOS A LOS B Example: QOS for this mode: B Handbook, Page 48 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

75. Step 6. Compare the QOS for Each Mode with the Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on the % of Population and Employment Located within the User Service Area Areawide Quality of Service is determined by this comparison. Handbook, Page 48 Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

76. Comparison of Areawide Quality of Service (QOS) and Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on Percentage of Population and Employment within the Service Area Examples: Modal QOS B % of Population & 50% Employment in Service Area Areawide Mobility E Modal QOS B % of Population & 87% Employment in Service Area Areawide Mobility B Within Service Area Areawide Quality of Service 90%- 99% 90% - 99% Modal QOS or LOC A, whichever is worse 80%- 89% Modal QOS or LOC B, whichever is worse 70%- 79% Modal QOS or LOC C, whichever is worse 60%- 69% 50%- 59% Modal QOS or LOC E, whichever is worse 1%- 49% Modal QOS F Modal QOS or LOC D, whichever is worse Handbook, Page 51 % Population and Employment Linking Land Use & Transportation: Areawide Quality of Service

77. Linking Land Use & Transportation: Recommended Performance Targets 80% of all facilities contained in the bicycle and pedestrian networks should operate at LOS C or better All parcels within ¼ mile of a transit stop should be served by pedestrian facilities operating at LOS C or better 80% of employees and population should be located within ¼ mile of a transit stop Handbook, Page 43

78. FDOT QLOS Resources to Help LOS Issue Papers Updated LOSPLAN 2007 software Q/LOS Training MMTD Handbook & Training Growth Management Training 2002 Q/LOS handbook Research Website 78

79. Resources Resources Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts martin.guttenplan@dot.state.fl.us (850) 414-4906 FDOT LOS Website: www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm 79