1. TEN YEARS LATER…
Implementing Multi-Modal LOS
in Fort Collins, Colorado
What worked,
What didn’t, and
Where are we heading?
Mark Jackson, AICP
Transportation Group Director
City of Fort Collins, CO
CNU June 19, 2009
1

2. The City of Fort Collins
• Mid-size community of 137,000 in Northern CO
• Home to Colorado State University
• Diverse, progressive community
2

3. The City of Fort Collins
• Developed and implemented Multi-Modal LOS
Standards in 1999
• Created a “Complete Streets” culture within the
organization (before it was cool)
• Changed expectations for City Staff and Developers
alike
• Many positives realized, but some missteps and
lessons learned
• Hits, Misses & Future Direction
3

4. What Makes Great Streets?
• Serve PEOPLE
• All Modes - Autos, Bikes, Peds, Transit,
RVs, Trucks, Trains, etc.
• Functional - Mobility & Utilities
• Attractive & Inviting Streetscapes
• Active Land Uses – Day & Night
4

5. Multimodal Standards: •ROW
•Travel Lanes
Based on City Plan &
Master Street Plan •Medians
•Parking
Design Standards Vary by
Facility Type & Location •Bike Lanes
•Parkway
Transportation Impact
Study includes all modes •Sidewalk
•Utilities
Street include auto,
pedestrian, bicycle and
transit elements
5

6. Tools for an effective
Multi-modal Transportation System
Complete Streets: Many tools in the toolbox:
St reet •Corridor & District Plans
Syst em •Land Use Code
7 Signals
10 Landscaped Medians •Master Street Plan
8 Safet y
4 Drainage
5 Buses IRRIGATION
•Street Standards & Design Manuals
1 Str eet Vehicles
IRRIGATION
•LOS Manual & TIS Guidelines
STORM
SEWER
2 Bike Lanes SEWER
•Outreach & Education
BUS
WATER
DRIVEWAY
9 Parkways IRRIGATION
3 Sidewalks ELECTRIC DUCTS
IRRIGATION
CABLE
ELECTRIC
PHONE
6 Ut ilit ies
CABLE
•Adequate Public Facilities
GAS
WATER
STORM SEWER
•City Plan Comprehensive Plan
SEWER
6

7. Multimodal LOS Standards:
Automobile
Goes beyond traditional volume/capacity based LOS
•Access
•Connectivity
•Continuity
Differentiates between Activity Centers, Commercial
Corridors, Mixed Use Districts
7

8. Multimodal LOS Standards:
Automobile
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards
8

9. Multimodal LOS Standards:
Destination Areas:
Pedestrian •Recreation Sites
•Residential Areas
LOS Criteria:
•Institutional Sites
•Directness
•Office Buildings
•Continuity
•Commercial Sites
•Street Crossings
•Industrial Sites
•Visual Interest & Amenities
Location Areas:
•Security
•Pedestrian District
•Activity Center/Corridor
•Transit Corridor
•School Walk Area
9
•Other

10. Multimodal LOS Standards:
Bicycle
Based on Connectivity to Bike facilities in connecting
corridors
Bike Corridors may contain 1 of 3 types of facilities:
On-street lanes
Off-street paths
On-street routes
10

11. Multimodal LOS Standards:
Transit
Based on Route
characteristics & Land Use
characteristics
Standards developed during
Transit Development Plan
Standards evaluate service Service Level Standards:
planned by 2015
Hours of service
Mixed Use Centers & Frequency of service
Commercial Corridors Travel time factor
or Peak load factor
11 Remainder of service area

12. Integrating Multi-Modal Accessibility
into the Development Review
Process, Operations & Maintenance
Real Life Lessons:
•Hits
•Misses
•Next Steps
12

13. Development Review Real Life Lessons:
Hits:
New development provides good connectivity and continuity
Proactive approach reduces City’s capital infrastructure burdens
Education of & buy-in from developers, engineers & planners
(eventually)
Better interconnectivity between modes, higher modal splits
Misses:
Easy when economy and development demand is strong
Difficult to implement in infill areas
Qualitative criteria often confusing and inconsistent
Transit service assumptions not being realized
Next Steps:
Update APF Policy and Process
13
Review & Update LOS standards for Infill Development

14. Results: Real Life Lessons
Hits: Culture Change in the Community!
•Transit Ridership up 15% in 2008; still rising
•Three new transit routes added
•Mason Corridor BRT becoming a reality
•Gold Level Bicycle Community
•Bike Culture Acceptance
•Community Expectations
14

15. Hits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FC
• Robust system of off
street trails and on
street paths
• Functional and efficient
• Built in Bike Population
(CSU Students)
• Hired Bicycle
Coordinator in 2006
• Programs and Public
Private Collaboration
• Popularity has exploded
in last two years!
15

16. Hits: Rise of the Bike Culture in FC
• 2008 Gold Level Bicycle
Community Award
• Private Sector Jumping
on the Bandwagon!
16

17. Hits: Community Expectations
• At first, neighbors,
developers and buyers
fought “new” standards
• Now, it is seen as an
asset and amenity
• Ped/Bike accessibility,
connectivity
• A different feel than
“Anywhere USA”
17

18. Misses: On the Ground Realities
Several Challenges & Lessons Learned over the Years:
• Maintenance challenges
• Enforcement issues
• Dealing with other Local Agencies
• Making the fit with existing development
18

19. Misses: On the Ground Realities
Maintenance Challenges
• Sometimes theory doesn’t
quite translate into function
– Setback standards vs.
utility space needs
– Inset parking vs. drainage
and snow removal
– Who maintains the ped
connection?
– Colored, Raised
Crosswalks
19

20. Misses: Enforcement Issues
Good intentions, but:
– Early attempts
confusing, frustrating
– Eventually became
self-policing
– People still want to
park in front
20

21. Misses: Dealing with Other
Local Agencies
Counter-Intuitive and Self-
Defeating:
• School Districts!
– New School Locations
– Incomplete
connections
– Located on major
arterials
– No options but SOV
21

22. Misses: Making it Fit
with Existing Development
• Some New Urbanist
development on urban
fringe
• Great internal
connectivity and design
meets old or County
standard facilities
• How to link old
& new?
22

23. Moving Forward: Trends & Changes
• Infill Development
– review & revise standards
– retrofit multi-modal needs to old infrastructure
– Capitalize on development opportunities
– Transit Oriented Development a reality
• Evolving from rigid standards to solution oriented
approach
• Integrate sustainability into design
• Changing revenue structure threatens progress
23

24. Many Thanks To:
• Kathleen Bracke, AICP: Transportation Planning Director
• Ted Shepard, AICP: Chief Planner
• Sheri Langenberger, PE: Engineering Dev. Review
• Marc Virata,PE: Engineering Dev. Review
• Many developers, designers, professionals, and leaders
who have helped us make this real
24

25. City of Fort Collins – Resource List:
•Multimodal Level of Service Standards:
http://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineering/GMARdStds/ApdxH%2010-01-02.pdf
• Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards:
http://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
• Fort Collins Pedestrian Level of Service Manual:
http://fcgov.com/transportationplanning/pdf/levelofservice.pdf
Contact: Mark Jackson, AICP, Transportation Group Director
phone: (970) 416-2029 or via e-mail: mjackson@fcgov.com
25