Advanced Planning for Better Transportation and Land Use Integration Presentation by John P. Poorman, Staff Director Capital District Transp. Committee Albany, NY April 29, 2003 518-458-2161 Old Approach Transportation in Old Context Land use, economy is an external “given” Transportation needs can be forecast Engineering standards are central to all aspects of system and facility design Negative impacts are to be minimized New Approach Transportation in New Context True engineering issues: load limits, life cycle costs construction specifications Societal choices: LOS standards (vs. land use compatibility) design speed (85th percentile, etc.) bike, pedestrian accommodations design volumes New Approach Transportation in New Context Examples of Similar Societal Choices Vehicle priority / pedestrian priority Highway design standards/development design standards Snow removal / incident management Level of Service / Level of Compatibility New Approach Transportation in New Context Transportation is only about quality of life economic vitality / jobs access environmental health / enhancement social connectivity / community health physical health / security Transportation projects are often the principal public means of achieving other objectives Broader Context Revised Project Objectives Moving away from: transportation as an end rule and standards-based decisions – 2034 queue lengths and Level of Service Moving toward: transportation as a means to an end multiple objectives and tradeoff analysis – traffic flow improvements, not “solutions” – improved community structure – sense of place, viability – operational reliability Advanced Planning Asking the right questions at the right time State, Regional policies • system design Community planning • funding priorities Corridor design • modal roles Project development • economic strategy Advanced Planning Asking the right questions at the right time State, Regional policies • community identity Community planning • streets and land use Corridor design • development approach Project development • preservation needs Advanced Planning Asking the right questions at the right time State, Regional policies • place identity / gateways Community planning •street design concept Corridor design • access management Project development • site design Advanced Planning Asking the right questions at the right time State, Regional policies • engineering design Community planning • operations plans Corridor design • implementation Project development Advanced Planning Goals Determine desired development, transportation structure Resolve direction outside project glare Seek opportunities to implement over time Refine, keep vision current Advanced Planning Benefits Prepares community to guide private development Saves time in eventual transportation project design Can save $ (tradeoff between LOS and compatibility may yield more modest project) Advanced Planning Continuous Interaction Regional Transportation Land Use Community, Corridor Advanced Planning Continuous Interaction Regional Transportation Land Use Community, Corridor Simple Example Wolf Road Wolf Road Study, GEIS, Regional Plan, NYSDOT policy cumulative development analysis funding package service road system sidewalk project, pedestrian priority ITS system Wolf Road Rehab Project full sidewalks, countdown pedestrian signals driveway consolidation ITS signal tie-in relocated intersection CDTC’s Linkage Program Linking Transportation and Land Use Key recommendation of regional plan: local assistance in integrating transp. and land use Locally-initiated community-based studies Shared funding (MPO + local) Annual solicitation Connection to regional plan Advance local planning agenda Prioritized by regional impact CDTC’s Linkage Program Significant Impact Thirty-six studies authorized in 4 years $1.5 to $ 2.0 million invested 23 different sponsors (county, city, town, village, housing authority, non-profit) Major influence on local plans Clarified vision for some state highway corridors Results seen in TIP candidate list CDTC’s Linkage Program Examples Urban projects minority area commercial revitalization minority area gateway development inner city residential parking issue neighborhood traffic calming urban “village” redevelopment truck access for industrial development waterfront redevelopment CDTC’s Linkage Program Examples Suburban projects mixed use master plans conversion of strip area to “town center” “downtown” driveway, street, bike, ped standards architectural standards industrial zone master plan corridor land use, street design visioning CDTC’s Linkage Program Examples Rural projects hamlet preservation, traffic calming village business district parking, circulation NY 5 Study What was the NY5 Study? Recommendation in regional plan re: rail transit Policy stance: 1. Rail + dense development = regional benefit 2. Rail w/o dense development unwarranted. 3. No need to explore rail further unless: a. Development is feasible (market realities) b. Development is desired (community visioning) 4. If feasible and desirable, undertake MIS. NY 5 Study What was the NY5 Study? Addressed the following: 1. Regional function for the 16-mile Corridor 2. Market potential for development / redevelopment 3. Community vision for the corridor and surrounding neighborhoods 4. Community actions to achieve the preferred future 5. Highway and transit investments to achieve the preferred future www.ny5.org Existing NY 5 Conditions The Corridor in the Region 16.5 miles from Albany to Schenectady. Through 5 communities. 15% of households & 30% of jobs are within 1/2 mile of the Corridor. Higher transit ridership than some light rail lines (8,000 per day) 25% transit dependent Corridor Issues Reduced Economic Strength Traffic Backups & Safety Concerns Lack of identity, cohesiveness lead to “anywhere” character of much of the corridor Auto-oriented development and roadway design are “unfriendly” to pedestrians and bicyclists Corridor Opportunities Traditional character of downtowns and some corridor neighborhoods High quality & affordable residential neighborhoods Central location within Region supports jobs and retailing Existing bus service provides frequent & reliable service Process Community Visioning Principal Questions Were Not Transportation Questions: Is intense corridor development feasible? Is intense development desirable? If yes to both, then consider light rail. If no to either, consider alternatives. In any case, determine the vision for community structure. Community Input Charettes, Open Houses, Newsletters, Surveys to shape a vision Survey Results Are today's traffic levels and congestion acceptable if transit, walking, and bicycling are improved on Route 5? Not Sure No Yes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Survey Results Does the Newsletter illustrate a Vision we should work to achieve? Not Sure No Yes 0 100 200 300 400 500 Specifics Analysis of Existing Conditions, Future Trends and Community Input Modest regional growth expected Work needed to preserve corridor’s role Community support for: reconfiguration/restructuring but not:: intensification/densification Respect for street rights-of-way limitations Results Preferred Future Not Dependent Upon Growth Desired design strategies work under all circumstances mixed-use development place identity (gateways, etc.) community structure : revitalization + linkages Multi-modal improvements can work under all circumstances Incremental BRT improvements pedestrian, bicycle, safety, landscaping signal coordination, other ITS technology Achieving the Preferred Future Implementation Paths Transportation Funding Immediate: Corridor-Wide Signal Coordination ($5 M) ($12 M) Bus Hardware for Priority Treatment ($4 M) State Street: Fehr Ave. to Furman St. ($3 M) Next 5 Years: New "BRT" stations ($2 M) ($3 M) ($32 M) ($44 M) New BRT buses ($6 M) ($8 M) New shuttle buses (up to $2M) ($4 M) Central Ave: Everett to Albany city line ($12 M) ($16 M) Downtown State Street Redesign ($10 M) ($13 M) Revise Zoning, Site Design Standards Over 20 Years: Reconstruct many of the remaining sections ($120+ M) Boulevard treatment in limited locations Bus lanes and bypasses where needed More stations, buses, greater bus frequency Utility relocation/undergrounding Further local efforts for economic revitalization Implementation Steps Municipal Endorsement of Study Recommendation (completed) MPO adoption (completed) Street Design Guidebook (completed) BRT plan (underway); Zoning Revision Analysis (underway); Architectural Standards (underway) Neighborhood Planning (underway) Construction projects (in design) A Tour of the Preferred Future Corridor-wide Transportation Improvements Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Features Improved Shelters Electronic Rider Information Systems A Tour of the Preferred Future Corridor-wide Transportation Improvements Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Features Dedicated Transit Infrastructure – Dedicated Lanes – Queue Jumper Lanes – Signal Preference A Tour of the Preferred Future Corridor-wide Transportation Improvements Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Faster boarding Smart-Cards A Tour of the Preferred Future Urban Strip Swinburne Park Existing Condition Preferred Future Scenario A Tour of the Preferred Future Suburban Strip Albany Auto Row - Urban Design and Streetscape Character A Tour of the Preferred Future Suburban Strip BRT in dedicated lane A Tour of the Preferred Future The Suburban Strip Colonie Village Center Infill of parking lot with mixed-use buildings, village green, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) transfer station Local access lane separates local and through traffic Mixed-use buildings with retail on the ground floor with potential for cafes fronting onto the village green Strong pedestrian connections between retail and adjacent neighborhoods A Tour of the Preferred Future The Suburban Strip Colonie Village Center Existing Condition Future Scenario Village Green Transit Station A Tour of the Preferred Future Regional Mixed-Use District New Karner Road Future Build-out Existing Condition Initial Street Improvements A Tour of the Preferred Future Suburban Strip Lisha Kill - a rural separator A Tour of the Preferred Future Urban Core Vale Neighborhood Full Build-Out A Tour of the Preferred Future Urban Core Nott Terrace Resource Allocations Of every $100 in federal project dollars: Metropolitan Planning Community Planning Assistance Corridor Planning ~$0.81 Project Development, Engineering Resource Allocations Metropolitan Planning Community Planning Assistance Corridor Planning ~$5.00 - Project Development, Engineering 15.00 Concluding Remarks Transportation in Context Asking right questions at right time Advanced Planning at community, corridor level Cost savings in project development Shift resources to achieve better results? Concluding Remarks Transportation in Context Asking right questions at right time Advanced Planning at community, corridor level Cost savings in project development Shift resources to achieve better results? Concluding Remarks Transportation in Context Asking right questions at right time Advanced Planning at community, corridor level Cost savings in project development Shift resources to achieve better results? Concluding Remarks Transportation in Context Asking right questions at right time Advanced Planning at community, corridor level Cost savings in project development Shift resources to achieve better results? Concluding Remarks Transportation in Context Asking right questions at right time Advanced Planning at community, corridor level Cost savings in project development Shift resources to achieve better results?
Pages to are hidden for
"NY5 Central Avenue State Street The Future of the Corridor"Please download to view full document