1 / 35

June 2012

The New Transportation Planning Paradigm. 2012 ITE Western District Conference Don Samdahl, P.E., PTP Julie Morgan, AICP. June 2012. Uncontrolled growth. Past Planning Practices. The good old days?. The Problem - or is it?. Striking the Right Balance. Land Use Growth.

heath
Télécharger la présentation

June 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The New Transportation Planning Paradigm 2012 ITE Western District Conference Don Samdahl, P.E., PTP Julie Morgan, AICP June 2012

  2. Uncontrolled growth Past Planning Practices The good old days?

  3. The Problem - or is it?

  4. Striking the Right Balance Land Use Growth Transportation Plan Adequate Facilities (LOS Standard) Financial Resources

  5. Typical Planning Paradigm

  6. Land Use Plan Example

  7. Transportation Plan Example

  8. Big Regional projects are essential to our future Funding will be there Typical Planning Responses- Variation 1

  9. Wish and pray that congestion goes away- the minimalistic approach Typical Planning Responses- Variation 2

  10. The Result of Today’s Paradigm Disconnect between Planning & Reality Source: New York Times

  11. Performance Standards Land Use Plans Funding Availability The Reality Out of Balance

  12. Evolving Community Values • Recognizing Choices and Tradeoffs • Sustainability (ecology, environmental, economy) • Accessibility (people and goods) • Mobility • Hierarchy of Modes (size) • Pedestrian • Bicyclist • Bus • Auto • Truck • Train

  13. Shifting the Paradigm

  14. Community Values Matter • Balancing Objectives • Reducing vehicle travel time • Increasing pedestrian crossing times, delay, and exposure to vehicles • Increasing distances between land uses • Increasing stormwater runoff • Removing riparian habitat • Increasing heat island effect

  15. LOS: In the Eye of the Beholder To a driver: LOS A To a driver: LOS F To an economist: LOS F To an economist: LOS A

  16. Illustration of Alternative 5 (bicycle/pedestrian bridge) and analysis by mode Whose LOS is most important? Source: Conventional Level of Service Analysis, Thresholds, and Policies Get a Failing Grade, Milam and Mitchell, 2007

  17. Moving Closer to Balance • More realistic performance standards • More transparent planning processes

  18. Example 1- A Traditional Multimodal Transportation Plan

  19. How Have we Paid for these Transportation Improvements? • Traditional Funding Sources • Grants • Local Improvement Districts • City General Funds • Developer Environmental Mitigation Agreements

  20. Typical Transportation Funding Plan • Use Existing Funding Sources • Seek New Funding Sources

  21. Impact Fee Program City adopted 30%= $56 Million Revenue

  22. Typical Transportation Funding Plan • Use Existing Funding Sources • Seek New Funding Sources

  23. Example 2-City of Manteca, CA – In Need of a Paradigm Shift? “There is a disconnect between land use utilization patterns in the adopted Plan and the financial reality of constructing the infrastructure necessary to accommodate that utilization.”- Community Development Action Plan, January 2008

  24. How to Achieve Better Balance? • Choices • Modify expectations about traffic operations (reduce LOS thresholds) • Modify design standards • Change prioritization criteria • Reduce vehicle demand • Change land use plans • Increase cost of vehicle travel Depend on other community values

  25. Balanced, layered multimodal networksthat serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight/goods movement. Example 3- A Balanced Transportation Plan with Constraints

  26. Burien Auto / Truck Priority Routes

  27. But Can the City Afford this Plan? Proposed Transportation Plan • $ 360-400 M over 20 years • $ 16-20 M annually to achieve desired LOS Funding Realities • Historic Capital Expenditures= $5 M annually • Next 20 years= $100M

  28. What to do? • Identify other funding sources • Adjust LOS standards (matched to values) • Reexamine land use growth expectations

  29. Other Approaches: Eliminate Traditional LOS Metrics • Paso Robles: daily capacity utilization • St Helena: accessibility • Emeryville: Quality of Service • Fort Collins: multi-modal LOS • Redwood City: balance needs of all users

  30. Broadening Impact Fee Programs- Embrace all Modes

  31. SHIFTING THE PARADIGM

  32. Don Samdahl • d.samdahl@fehrandpeers.com • (206) 576-4242 • Co-author • Julie Morgan Questions?

More Related