senior landscape architect & planner jweesner@kittelson · 2020. 3. 30. · source: dangerous...

John Paul (JP) Weesner, PLASenior Landscape Architect & Plannerjweesner@kittelson.com

Agenda

• Why Complete Streets for Florida?

• What Are Complete Streets?

• Implementing Complete Streets onFlorida’s Space Coast

Complete Streets for Florida

Source:Dangerous by Design 2014

Metro Area Pedestrian Danger Index(PDI)

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 244.28

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 190.13

Jacksonville, FL 182.71

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 145.33

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 131.26

Birmingham-Hoover, AL 125.60

Houston-Sugar Land – Baytown, TX 119.64

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 119.35

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 118.64

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC_SC 111.74

2014: Most Dangerous US Cities for Walking

Complete Streets for Florida

Complete Streets for Florida

• Childhood Obesity(1970-2000)• Has increased 3x for

Children (Ages 6-11)1

• Childhood Diabetes• 1/3 of American Children

(Born in 2000) willdevelop diabetes in theirlifetime2.

Source:1United States Government Accountability Office. (2005) Childhood Obesity: Most Experts Identified Physical Activity and the Use of Best Practices as Key to SuccessfulPrograms. Washington, D.C.2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005) Nutrition and the Health of Young People. Retrieved April 24, 2006 fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/nutrition/pdf/facts.pdf.

Source:* 2010 Census; ** US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2006-2010)

Complete Streets for Florida

• Americans Over 65 20% of Brevard County*

• Under 15 16% in Brevard County*

• Below the Poverty Line 11% of Brevard County (5% do not

own automobiles)*• Total Brevard County Population

that need Alternatives toAutomobiles 47% of Brevard County Residents

33%AMERICANSDON’T DRIVE

55%AMERICANS

WOULDRATHER

DRIVE LESS

What areComplete Streets?

Source: Complete Streets Coalitionwebsite; Dan Burden - photograph

Complete Streets arestreets designed and

operated to enable safeaccess for ALL USERS.

Complete Streets:

Complete Streets: Speed Matters

Odds ofPedestrianFatality at20 MPH is

5%

Odds ofPedestrianFatality at30 MPH is37-45%

Odds ofPedestrianFatality at40 MPH is

80%

Complete Street: Design Matters

Cross Section Elements: Vehicle LanesNarrow down travel lanes. Provide refuge islands.

Cross Section Elements: Bicycle FacilitiesProvide comfort & safety for bikes along the street.

Can also be a parallel multi-use path.

Complete Street: Design Matters

Cross Section Elements: On-Street ParkingSupports adjacent land uses. Buffers pedestrians.

Complete Street: Design Matters

Cross Section Elements: Landscape/Furnishings ZoneProvides shade, amenities, and places to sit.Helps to create vibrancy and “sense of place.”

Complete Street: Design Matters

Cross Section Elements: Pedestrian ZoneMinimum of 5 feet clear.

8 feet better for two-way travel.

Complete Street: Design Matters

Implementing Complete Streetson the Space Coast

A brief timeline…

2010 - Orientation

• Little $$ to Spend – Hitby Recession & Cuts toNASA

• Introduced Principles toCommittees and TPOBoard

• Introducing CompleteStreets was adopted as agoal as part of 2035 LRTP

• Funding proposed forFDOT Work Program

2011 - TPO Municipality Training

TPO & Municipality Training• Free training• One full day• National staff• Interactive class• Outdoor field work

Tool-Kit Creation• Draft resolutions• Sample policies• Presentation template• Staff support• National recognition

Complete Streets Resolutions &Comprehensive Plan

AmendmentsSpace Coast TPOBrevard County9 Municipalities

Funding Earmarked forConstruction

Results?

2010 – 2011 Total Investment

• $15,000

Complete StreetsEvaluation

Methodology

2012-13 – Project Identification

Goals:

• Identify List of PriorityProjects

• $18 Million forConstruction (3 years)

3 PhaseScreening ProcessPhase 1:Project IdentificationPhase 2:Feasibility AnalysisPhase 3:Project Selection

Suitable AreasScore

Existing BicyclePedestrian and

Transit Generators

Future BicyclePedestrian and

Transit Generators

Tourism

Parks andRecreation Areas

Ph

ase

1

Suitable Areas

Functional Accessibility Score80th Percentile and Above

Bike, Pedestrian, & Transit GeneratorsRedevelopment Areas & CDBG Target Areas

TourismHistoric Districts, Arts Districts, &

Tourists Sites

Parks¼ Mile Buffer Around all Parks

Identifying Suitable Areas

Suitable Areas

1 – Least Suitable2 – Less Suitable3 – Suitable4 – Most Suitable

Metric

Safety

Sidewalks

Bicycle Lanes

Pedestrian/Bicycle Five YearCrash Analysis

Support/Expand ExistingMultimodal Investments

Proximity to ExistingSidewalk or Bicycle LanesTransit

Permeability ofRoadway/ Compatibility

with MultimodalTransportation

Posted Speed

Traffic Volumes

Ph

ase

1

Opportunity Corridors

Metric Criteria Points

Safety

Sidewalks• Provided on both sides• Missing on 1 side• Missing on both sides

012

Bicycle Lanes

• Bike Lanes Provided and/or Roadways with ADT lessthan 3,000 vpd

• Missing on roadways with volumes greater than3,000 vpd

0

2

Pedestrian/Bicycle FiveYear Crash Analysis

• Less than 2 crashes• 2 to 4 crashes• 5 or more crashes• Fatality

0123

Expand Ex.Multi-ModalInvestments

Proximity to ExistingSidewalk or Bicycle Lanes

• New sidewalk would connect to existingsidewalks; Extend an existing sidewalk along anarterial or collector road;

• New bicycle facility would connect to existingbicycle facilities; Extend an existing bicycle facility

21

21

Transit • One or more routes located along the corridor• One or more routes traverse the corridor

31

Permeabilityof Roadway

Posted Speed

• 25 to 30 mph• 35 mph• 40 to 45 mph• Over 45 mph (Segment Not Considered)

210

N/A

Traffic Volumes• Under 3,000 vpd• 3,000 to 18,000 vpd• Over 18,000 vpd

210

Opportunity Corridor Scoring Criteria

Phase I Screening Criteria

Suitable Areas Score:• 3 or Greater

Opportunity Corridor Score:• 7 or Greater

65 Corridors Listed

“Long List” of Corridors

2013 - Phase 2Feasibility Analysis Scoring Criteria

1. Meet Complete Streets ProjectCriteria (established by 2010-11 Resolutions)

2. Complete Streets Goals Supportedby Municipality (willing to match or partially fundand build project)

3. Timeline/Constructability (within 3 Years)

2013 - Design Workshop

PURPOSE: Refine “Long List”to Candidate Corridors forPhase 2 Analysis

• Met with 9 Municipalities

• Removed Corridors Already inProcess

Design Workshop

• NarrowedTravel Lanes

• Medians

• Bulb-Outs

• Landscape

• Bus Stops &Shelters

• Lighting

• Traffic CalmingMeasures

• PedestrianAmenities

Proposed Section & Amenities

Candidate ProjectsFrom 65 Corridors, 11Corridors moved to Phase 3

1. Singleton Avenue, Titusville2. Hopkins Avenue, Titusville3. N Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral4. Peachtree Street, Cocoa5. Florida Avenue, Cocoa6. Minutemen Causeway, Cocoa Beach7. Pineapple Avenue, Melbourne8. Hickory Street, Melbourne9. Front Street, Melbourne10.Country Club Road, Melbourne11.Palm Bay Road, Palm Bay

2013 - Phase 3Project Ranking Score Criteria

1. Quality of Complete Streets Project

2. Cost/Benefit Analysis

3. Land Uses Supported

4. Supports Bike/Pedestrian/TransitInfrastructure/Planning

5. Complete Streets Goals Supported byMunicipality

Metric Criteria

Quality ofComplete Streets

Project

MMLOS Pedestrian and bicycle LOS as calculated by HCM 2010 criteria

Ability to Cross RoadwayProposed design speed

Average distance between pedestrian crossings

Pedestrian amenities included lighting/street furniture/bus stop amenities/landscaping

Cost/ BenefitAnalysis

Cost per mile

Crash history Number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes between 2006-2011

Percent of bicycle facilities added Percent coverage as compared to existing conditions

Percent of pedestrian facilities added Percent coverage as compared to existing conditions

Coordination with other projects Programmed improvements along or adjacent to corridor

Land UsesSupported

Residential Units within a half mile

Commercial Acreage within a half mile

Schools/parks /civic uses served by projectwithin ½ mile Number within a half mile

Tourism Historic districts or tourist site cluster areas served

Multimodal Supportive Land Use Areas andRedevelopment Districts

If located within a multimodal supportive future land use,redevelopment area, or CDBG target area

Supports Bike/Pedestrian/

TransitInfrastructure/

Planning

Ridership of transit route served Ridership on route as a percent of total ridership on SCAT in2012

Serves area with low automobile ownershiprates

Proximity to future rail stations Located within a quarter or mile of a future rail station

Connection the existing or proposed regionaltrail system Located within a quarter or mile of a proposed regional trail

Complete StreetsGoals Supported

by MunicipalityLocal matching funds Percent of project costs covered by local funds

RecommendedProjects

Hickory Street in Melbourne

Hopkins Avenue in Titusville

Atlantic Avenue in Cape Canaveral

Peachtree Street in CocoaFlorida Avenue in Cocoa

Minutemen Causeway in CocoaBeach

From 11 Corridors, 6 Corridorswere Recommended to be

Constructed

• Public Engagement• Conceptual Development• Construction Feasibility + Cost

Estimation• 30% Conceptual Documentation

2014 – Engagement & Concepts

Public Engagement

More Data Collection, Section Alternatives

PreferredAlternative

CivicDistrict

Land Use/ Character DistrictsCharacter Districts, Innovative Ideas

Curbless, “Festival Street” for Park & Civic Setting

Vision – Festival Street

Vision – Festival Street

Vision – Complete Street

Vision – Complete Street

2013-14: Planning Investment

Evaluation MethodologyFeasibility Studies

Concept Development

Multi-Use PathwaysMulti-Use Pathways

Traffic CalmingTraffic Calming

Transit StopTransit StopLow Impact StormwaterLow Impact Stormwater

$664,000

Design/Construction Investment

$16,233,699Federal SurfaceTransportationFunds

$5,787,099 Local Match

$22,020,798 TOTAL INVESTMENT

2015: Earmarked Funding forConstruction

Thank You!