November 3, 2008
TO: CMP Workgroup
FROM: Transportation Drafting Subcommittee
SUBJECT: Draft Transportation Element Amendments
The Transportation Drafting Subcommittee (TDS) held two meetings via conference call on October 15, 2008 and October 28, 2008. The charge
of the TDS was to develop and reach a consensus on amendments to 6C-21.205 F.A.C. The attached amendments are intended to bring the rule
in line with contemporary thinking on transportation impact analysis and multi-modal transportation, as well as, refine the rule based on our
experiences with campus master planning to date. The TDS also discussed revising the overall master plan format as used in Georgia (Sasaki
Template) and opportunities for alternative mitigation options (Multi-modal Transportation District and Proportionate Fair Share). There was a
consensus of support for both an alternative format and inclusion of alternates mitigation options and multi-model districts as options in the rule.
Amendments to 6C-21.205
The attached amendments can be generally categorized into the following: language clean-up; deletion of data and analysis requirements that were
difficult to ascertain, not useful or unnecessary; and addition of newer concepts and nomenclature. For instance, data requirements for fire lanes,
inventory of off-campus parking, classification of roadways on campus, size and surface material (of pedestrian facilities), and inventory of violent
crimes, were deleted as unnecessary. The changes are noted in the attached strikethrough/underlined document.
Throughout our discussions a number of issues that were related to transportation, but not necessary regarding an amendment to 6C-21.205
F.A.C., were raised. The TDS felt there needed to be improved and consistent defining of “Context Areas” since such areas are the basis of much
of the required analysis and potential mitigation. The committee also felt the “10% Rule” (Section 1013.30(a) F.S.) for required amendments needs
to be clarified. Lastly, how to resolve the issue that certain aspects of the CMP process are statutory (CDA’s and “10% Rule”) and not rule-based
needs additional discussion.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 1 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
VISION (optional): Identify Transportation Guiding Principles that reinforce the Campus Master Plan Vision Statement and describe the outcome or
desired end-state for the campus transportation system including facilities and services that extend into the context area. These Guiding Principles should
be compatible with Vision Plans of the host local government (if applicable), and describe the philosophical approach that justifies goals, objectives,
policies and projects of the Campus Master Plan Transportation Element.
PURPOSE DATA & ANALYSIS PLAN ELEMENTS
The purpose of this task is to assess and make 1. Inventory and assess parking located on a. Map(s) of existing and proposed university
recommendations for the transportation system campus and off-campus if owned or parking facilities with a schedule of
for all modes of travel (bicycle, pedestrian, controlled by the University. The development for new or modified parking
bus/transit, and motor vehicle) both on campus assessment shall include campus parking facilities.
and in the off-campus context area. demand for the base year and projected year b. Goals, objectives and policies (GOPs) for the
that incorporates allowance for provision and management of parking
transportation demand management policies facilities, including transportation demand
that may reduce parking demand. The strategies that may reduce parking demand.
assessment shall also consider parking c. GOPs to establish timing or priorities for
demand for special events, as applicable. development of future campus parking
2. Inventory and assess transit facilities and a. Map(s) of existing and proposed transit
services on campus and in the context area facilities and services on campus and in the
including: context area.
service providers; b. GOPs for the provision and management of
routes; transit facilities and services including
stop locations; cooperation with outside agencies that
frequency of service; provide transit service to the university
ridership; campus if applicable. These GOPs shall
vehicle capacity; and seek to maximize utilization of pubic or
planned service modifications identified
in the local government comprehensive c. GOPs to establish timing or priorities for
plan’s capital improvement element, development of future transit facilities and
transit agency’s service plan or other services.
comparable planning document.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 2 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
3. Inventory and assess facilities and services a. Map(s) of existing and proposed bicycle and
for bicycling and walking including existing pedestrian facilities.
and planned facilities on campus and in the b. GOPs for the provision and management of
context area. bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services
including programs that encourage the use of
non-motorized transportation. These GOPs
shall seek to maximize utilization of pubic or
c. GOPs to establish timing or priorities for
development of future campus bicycle and
4. Inventory and assess opportunities to a. Map(s) of walking distances on campus and
implement transportation demand in the context area.
management strategies, including strategies b. GOPs to coordinate transportation facilities
that link transportation and future land use and services with future land uses, both on
such as transit-oriented design and walkable campus and in the context area.
5. Inventory and assess safety of the on- a. Map(s) of proposed transportation safety
campus transportation system users mitigation projects with a development
including: schedule, if applicable.
traffic crash data for bicycles; pedestrians b. GOPs to reduce the number and severity of
and motor vehicles; traffic crashes including physical
lighting assessment for bicycle and modifications and provision of educational
pedestrian facilities; and programs or partnerships.
identification of high traffic crash c. GOPs to establish timing or priorities for
locations and other safety concerns on development of future campus transportation
campus. safety mitigation projects.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 3 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
6. Inventory planned new roads or road a. Map(s) and schedule of development for
modifications with cost estimates identified planned and programmed roadways and road
in the local government comprehensive modifications on campus and in the context
plan’s capital improvement element, the area.
regional long-range transportation, and the
university’s capital improvement program,
7. Inventory and assess roadways on campus a. Map(s) of proposed campus roadway
and in the context area including: modifications including transportation
adopted level of service (LOS); system management and resurfacing
traffic counts; projects.
maximum service volumes; b. GOPs for the provision and management of
pavement condition; and campus roadways including LOS standards
road designations (i.e. FDOT Strategic to be used for analyzing campus roadway
Intermodal System and local capacities.
government Constrained Facilities). c. GOPs to establish timing or priorities for
development of future campus roadway and
This assessment shall also include evaluation of traffic circulation modifications.
opportunities to implement transportation d. GOPs to reduce the impact of university-
system management strategies that address related traffic on roadways in the context
intersection, operations and safety components area.
of the roadway system. e. GOPs to provide coordination with the host
community for traffic circulation, transit,
parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
Transportation Element Requirements Page 4 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
8. Assess roadway capacity on campus and in a. GOPs to provide procedures for mitigation
the context area for the campus master plan of off-campus transportation impacts in the
base year and projected year including context area, including provisions for a cost-
assessment of: feasible approach to implementing any
mode split; necessary off-campus transportation system
transportation demand strategies; and modifications.
This assessment shall utilize traffic analysis
zones (TAZs) and methodologies acceptable to
the host local government based upon a
framework to be established by the FBOG for
assessment of university traffic impacts
significantly affecting off-campus roads in the
context area. This assessment shall include:
Map(s) and/or data tables to identify
transportation facilities and services on
campus and in the context area that will
be operating below the adopted level of
service standard in the projected plan
Map(s) and/or data tables to identify
deficient transportation facilities and
services for all modes on campus and in
the context area that are significantly and
adversely impacted by university-
generated travel demand in the projected
Transportation Element Requirements Page 5 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN REGULATION 6C-21
October 29, 2008 Transportation Subcommittee Agreed on Edits
6C-21.205 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.
The purpose of this element is to plan for future motorized and non-motorized traffic circulation systems to ensure provision of adequate transit, circulation
and parking facilities to meet future university needs; to ensure the provision of adequate pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities to meet the future
needs of the university; and to coordinate the location of these facilities planned in the host community in the context area. The Transportation Element shall
address Transit, Roads, Parking, Pedestrian and Other Non-Vehicular Circulation.
(1) TRANSIT, CIRCULATION AND PARKING DATA REQUIREMENTS. This sub-element shall be based, at a minimum, on the following data
requirements, pursuant to subsection 6C-21.203(2), F.A.C.
(a) An inventory of existing on-campus parking facilities and any off-campus parking facilities that are owned or controlled by the university.
(c) An inventory of accident locations and number of accident occurrences on campus.
(Existing roadway designations in the context area including FDOT Strategic Intramodal System and local government Constrained Facilitiy designations.
(f) The current adpopted levels of service of the roadways on-campus and within the context area including existing traffic counts and maximum service
(g) Traffic counts at all major university entrances/exits.
(h) Existing university trip generation data.
(i) Existing traffic analysis zones (TAZs) of the host local government within which university facilities are located.
(j) Established public transit or university-provided transit routes on campus and in the context area indicating location of stops, frequency of service,
ridership and capacity of the vehicles.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 6 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
(2) TRANSIT, CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. This element shall be based upon the following analyses which
support the campus master plan (a) An analysis of the future parking needs for students, faculty and staff and types of special events for the planning period.
(b) An analysis of the amount of land required to provide the amount of parking calculated in subparagraph (2)(a).
(c) An assessment of the capacity of university lands to accommodate the amount of parking calculated in subparagraph (2)(a), including a determination of
how much of the parking would have to be provided in structures.
(d) An analysis of practical methods to accommodate the amount of parking calculated in subparagraph (2)(a) on the university campus.
(e) An analysis of off-campus lands in the context area that may be available for university parking and the parking capacity of those sites.
(f) An analysis of the impacts of off-campus university owned parking on the context area and alternatives for minimizing these impacts.
(g) An analysis of the projected traffic volumes/capacities and levels of service on university roads and roads in the context area, including an analysis of the
traffic circulation model used by the host community in projecting traffic circulation in the context area.
(h) An analysis of transportation improvements that would be required to to meet the on-campus future traffic circulation needs of the university.
(i) An analysis of transportation improvements that would be required in the context area, based on the additional traffic projected to be generated by the
university including a cost feasible approach to implementing some or all of these projects that will become the basis of any campus development agreement fair
share cost assessment.
(j) An analysis of additional public or university-provided transit that will be required to meet the future needs of the university for the planning period.
(k) An analysis of the opportunities to implement transportation system management and transportation demand management techniques and strategies to
minimize off-site impacts on roadways within the context area.
(l) The planned location of future facilities, with accompanying parking to serve these facilities.
(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSIT, CIRCULATION AND PARKING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.
(a) The sub-element shall include one or more goals for the provision of future transit, auto circulation, and parking facilities.
(b) The sub-element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal which address:
1. The provision of parking facilities on or off the campus to meet future university needs;
2. The provision of future traffic circulation improvements both on the campus and in the context area to meet future university needs;
Transportation Element Requirements Page 7 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
3. Improvements (including scheduling) to public or university-provided transit service and facilities required to meet future university needs; and
4. Coordination of transportation system improvements with the future land uses shown on the future land use map or map series, and with those
improvements identified in the host community’s comprehensive plan.
(c) The element shall contain one or more policy statements for each objective which:
1. Establish programs or administrative procedures to accommodate future parking and auto circulation requirements (including system management,
demand management, and safety) on campus and minimize off-site impacts within the context area;
2. Establish programs to maximize utilization of public or university-provided transit;
3. Establish administrative procedures for coordinating on-going traffic circulation, transit and parking facility improvements with similar improvements
being undertaken by the host community;
4. Establish the timing or priorities for development of traffic circulation, transit, and parking facilities on-campus; and
5. Establish level of service standards for analyzing roadways within the university’s jurisdiction.
(d) The Transit, Circulation and Parking Sub-Element shall be described, at a minimum, in the Transportation Element Map and explanatory text. This map
along with companion narrative shall identify the location and description of proposed transit, circulation and parking facilities on the university campus. The
map and text shall be accompanied by explanatory tabular information as applicable.
(4) PEDESTRIAN AND NON-VEHICULAR CIRCULATION DATA REQUIREMENTS. This sub-element shall be based, at a minimum, on the
(a) An inventory of existing pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities on the university campus(es) illustrating the location, and facility type.
(b) The planned location of future facilities.
(c) An inventory of existing pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities located within the context area.
(d) An inventory of the planned pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities located in the host community in the context area, illustrating the
location, and facility type.
(e) An inventory of existing problem areas on-campus related to pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation, including accidents involving, pedestrians and
An inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle facility lighting.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 8 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
(5) PEDESTRIAN AND NON-VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. This element shall be based upon the following analyses
which support the campus master plan pursuant to subsection 6C-21.203(2), F.A.C.
(a) An analysis of the amount and type of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities that will be required to meet the needs of projected university
enrollment, including the basis for this analysis.
(b) An analysis assessing the need for pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities in the context area with reference to those facilities serving areas of
off-campus student housing, or other off-campus student activities.
(6) REQUIREMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN AND NON-VEHICULAR CIRCULATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.
(a) This sub-element shall contain one or more goals for the development of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities on campus.
(b) The sub-element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal which address at a minimum:
1. The coordination of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities to be developed on-campus, with those to be developed off-campus by the host
community in its local comprehensive plan, bicycle plans or traffic circulation plans;
3. 4. The provision of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities required to meet future university needs.
(c) The sub-element shall contain one or more policy statements for each objective which address:
1. The timing or priorities for development or improvement (including lighting and safety) of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities on-campus;
2. Ensuring coordination with the host community regarding issues related to the provision of pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities;
4. Establishing programs to maximize utilization of pedestrian and non-vehicular modes of travel; and
(d) The Pedestrian and Non-Vehicular Circulation Sub-Element shall be described, at a minimum, in the Transportation Element Map and explanatory
text. This map along with companion narrative shall identify the location, size and character of the proposed pedestrian and non-vehicular circulation facilities
on campus and in the context area. The map and text shall be accompanied by explanatory tabular information as required.
Specific Authority 240.209(1), (3)(q), 240.155(22) FS. Law Implemented 240.155(3) FS. History–New 2-15-94.
Transportation Element Requirements Page 9 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION OPTIONS
The following details options used by local governments in Florida to address concurrency management requirements associated with state
statutes. For a point of reference, the State Universities in Florida thru FS 1013.30 are provided a special option know as “fair share” when
determining a campus’s transportation impacts to the host community (local government). Neither statutes nor administrative code provides the
methodology for developing the actual “fair share” calculations, however, there is a body of professional work that generally guides these
assessments. The key advantages the Universities, and some would say the host communities as well, have in using the “fair share” assessments
are that the mitigated improvements are NOT required to be in a CIP/CIE and once paid, the University’s Campus Master Plan can be
implemented in what is termed a “pay-and go” condition. In other words, the University is not held to typical “concurrent” standards.
Name of Application: Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD)
Purpose and Intent: MMTDs are enabled by state statute as a transportation concurrency alternative that places primary emphasis on improving
mobility for non-auto travel modes (public transportation, walking, bicycling) and secondary emphasis on providing additional roadway capacity.
Mobility strategies focus on connectivity of streets, including parallel routes, and travel modes to create a more balanced transportation system.
Data Needed to Apply: Multimodal Transportation Districts establish level of service standards for all modes using “quality of service” measures
defined by the Florida Department of Transportation. The measures vary by mode, but generally focus on convenience, comfort and accessibility
of travel modes, rather than capacity. The Comprehensive Plan must establish level of service standards for each mode, with a financially feasible
plan to achieve those standards, demonstrated through the adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Improvements Element
(CIE). MMTDs must also identify potential impacts to Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), and define appropriate mitigation strategies,
such as parallel facilities, transit service or other measures that preserve the integrity of the SIS. There is a biannual monitoring reporting
requirement to measure progress.
Examples: City of Destin (adopted in 2006); City of Tarpon Springs (adopted 2008); City of Temple Terrace (adopted 2008). Others are pending
in Kissimmee (transmitted 2008), Boca Raton, Tallahassee and the Gateway area of Pinellas County (state pilot project).
How it Works: Development occurring within a Multimodal Transportation District does not need to mitigate roadway level of service
deficiencies as long as there is a financially feasible plan and development framework to improve other modes. MMTDs must be supported by
policies and design guidelines for new development and redevelopment that support a greater mix of complementary land uses (employment,
commercial and residential), building proximity, and higher percentage of mode share among travel modes. MMTDs may vary considerably in
size, but the district should function as a relatively compact, well-defined, and unified area with transportation serving to connect logical origins
Transportation Element Requirements Page 10 of 11 Draft 10/29/08
Name of Application: Proportionate Fair Share (Prop Share Agreements)
Purpose and Intent:
Prop Share Agreements are enabled by state statute as a transportation concurrency mitigation option. In many communities within the State, the
term concurrency is taken literally in that the required transportation facilities (capacity) was required to be in place “concurrent” with the impacts
associated from the development. In many cases this meant that a development was required to construct or fund the construction of the needed
improvement (i.e., turn lanes, widen road, etc). This placed a “disportionate” burden on developments/projects given that their actual impacts
represented only a portion of the added capacity from the improvement.
Data Needed to Apply:
The Comprehensive Plan must establish level of service standards for roads and transit, with a financially feasible plan to achieve those standards,
demonstrated through the adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Additionally, each
community must develop a calculation methodology by which it determines related impacts and costs. Communities can only apply prop share
agreements for transportation improvements contained in their adopted CIP/CIE.
City of Jacksonville was one of the first in the state to apply a “fair share” assessment for concurrency management for mostly large projects or
areas of the City. Their program was a forerunner to the prop share methodologies and the City, like virtually every other local government, has
adopted a Prop Share program.
How it Works:
Development projects enter the permitting system much as they have normally done, but now are subject to a prop share calculation should their
project analysis indicate impacts to roadway segments scheduled for improvement in the CIP. The project is allowed to pay their prop share
amount and continue with the permitting and construction process without the transportation improvement needed “concurrent” with the
Transportation Element Requirements Page 11 of 11 Draft 10/29/08