june 2012 2012 ite western district conference don samdahl, p.e., ptp julie morgan, aicp the new...
TRANSCRIPT
June 2012
2012 ITE Western District Conference
Don Samdahl, P.E., PTP
Julie Morgan, AICP
The NewTransportation Planning Paradigm
Past Planning Practices
Uncontrolled growth
The good old days?
3
The Problem - or is it?
Striking the Right Balance
Land Use Growth
Financial Resources
Adequate Facilities (LOS
Standard)
Transportation Plan
Typical Planning Paradigm
Land Use Plan Example
Transportation Plan Example
Typical Planning Responses- Variation 1
Big Regional projects are essential to our future
Funding will be there
Typical Planning Responses- Variation 2
Wish and pray that congestion goes away- the minimalistic approach
The Result of Today’s Paradigm
Disconnect between Planning & Reality
Source: New York Times
The Reality
1. Performance Standards
2. Land Use Plans
3. Funding Availability
Out of Balance
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
Shifting the Paradigm
• 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
Community Values Matter
LOS: In the Eye of the Beholder
To a driver: LOS ATo an economist: LOS F
To a driver: LOS FTo an economist: LOS A
Whose LOS is most important?
Illustration of Alternative 5 (bicycle/pedestrian bridge) and analysis by mode
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sec
on
ds
HCM Intersection LOS = C
PM Peak Hour Delay
Option 5 28.7 29.8 64.2 15.1 28.1
Vehicle Buses Pedestrian Bicycle Average
Source: Conventional Level of Service Analysis, Thresholds, and Policies Get a Failing Grade, Milam and Mitchell, 2007
Moving Closer to Balance
• More realistic performance standards
• More transparent planning processes
18
Example 1- A Traditional Multimodal Transportation Plan
TMP Recommendations Cost
($Million)
Streets $ 528
Street Widening $ 247
Intersections $ 65
Railroad Grade Separations
$ 171
New Streets $ 45
Pedestrians and Bicycles 20
Transit 5
Total $ 553
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
Percent of Maximum Eligible Fees
33% 50% 67% 100%
Cost per Trip $4,493 $6,807 $9,121 $13,614
Approximate Impact Fee Revenues ($ millions)
Grade Separation Projects $22.3 $33.8 $45.3 $67.6
Other City Projects $40.0 $60.7 $81.3 $121.3
Total $62.3 $94.5 $126.6 $188.9
Impact Fee Program
21
City adopted 30%= $56 Million Revenue
22
Typical Transportation Funding Plan
• Use Existing Funding Sources• Seek New Funding Sources
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
Current fee imposed per dwelling unit
Fee required to meet
LOS threshold
$5,400 $37,000
How to Achieve Better Balance?
Choices
• Modify expectations about traffic operations (reduce LOS thresholds)
• Modify design standards
• Change prioritization criteria
• Reduce vehicle demando Change land use plans
o Increase cost of vehicle travel
Depend on other community values
Balanced, layered multimodal networks that serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight/goods movement.
Example 3-A Balanced Transportation Plan with Constraints
Burien Auto / Truck Priority Routes
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
What to do?
• Identify other funding sources
• Adjust LOS standards (matched to values)
• Reexamine land use growth expectations
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
Broadening Impact Fee Programs- Embrace all Modes
SHIFTING THE PARADIGM
