Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Similar a Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos
Similar a Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos (20)
Más de BikeTexas
Más de BikeTexas (20)
Creating a Complete Street Active Transportation Network - Marita Roos
- 1. Complete Streets Initiative San Antonio TEXAS TRAILS & ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION February 1, 2012
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. 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
- 5. 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
- 6. URBAN LIVING NEEDS COMPLETE STREETS 5000 people projected to move into mixed use STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS planned for PARK Hemisfair Park MARIETPLACE TOWER OF THE AMERICAS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS 6
- 7. PRIORITIES FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY • MulOmodal TransportaOon • Bicycle, Mass Transit, Pedestrian, Vehicle • Traffic Calming • Low Impact Development (LID) • Placemaking / Economic 7
- 8. 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
- 9. DOWNTOWN – Pedestrian Priority 9
- 10. 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
- 11. TRADEOFFS IN THE PUBLIC ROW 76 FEET RIGHT OF WAY 11
- 12. 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
- 13. 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
- 14. SAMPLE RESULTS S Hackberry St @ Essex Place to E Drexel Ave COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 6.9 Proposed B PEDESTRIAN 2.36 LOS Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 6 Existing B 2.70 Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4 Sidewalk and buffer widths shown are minimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widths are 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 3.57 Additional 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
- 15. 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 INADEQUATE ROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added 90 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if a shared use path is added 95 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added 100 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* 92 ft ROW INADEQUATE LANE DIET - Reduce Lanes from 12' to 11' ROW needed if bike lanes are added 88 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added 86 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if a shared use path is added 91 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added 96 ft ROW INADEQUATE ROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* 88 ft ROW INADEQUATE Consider reducing median width to accommodate Complete 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 or retaining 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
- 16. MULTI-‐MODAL (MMLOS) ANALYSIS TOOL Exis9ng Cesar Chavez Blvd Pedestrian LOS = D Proposed Cross Sec9on Cesar Chavez Blvd Pedestrian LOS = C 16
- 17. 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
- 18. 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
- 19. SAN PEDRO AVE 19
- 20. San Pedro from Cypress to Hildebrand COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 9.8 Proposed C PEDESTRIAN 2.87 LOS Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 6 Existing C 3.20 Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4 Sidewalk and buffer widths shown are minimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widths are 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 3.88 Additional 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 DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 20
- 21. 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
- 22. Main Ave from Cypress to Hildebrand COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 9.8 Proposed C PEDESTRIAN 2.95 LOS Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.50 Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2 Sidewalk and buffer widths shown are minimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widths are 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 3.73 Additional 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 DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 22
- 23. 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
- 24. W Ashby from San Pedro to Main COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 Proposed A PEDESTRIAN 1.97 LOS Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.05 Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2 Sidewalk and buffer widths shown are minimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widths are 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 3.39 Additional 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 DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 24
- 25. W EVERGREEN • Neighborhood street -‐ 1 mile long • Dead-‐ends at San Pedro • 3500 vehicles per day • 1 transit route • No pavement markings 25
- 26. W Evergreen from San Pedro to Main COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS SCORE 10 Proposed B PEDESTRIAN 2.10 LOS Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 5 Existing B 2.42 Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2 Sidewalk and buffer widths shown are minimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widths are 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 3.56 Additional 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 DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1. 26
- 27. 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
- 28. 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
- 29. 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
- 30. Thank you! 30