statewide context for local street design

31
Presented by Matt Crall Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development November 3, 2009 Statew ide Context for Local Street Design

Upload: congress-for-the-new-urbanism

Post on 11-Jul-2015

368 views

Category:

Technology


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Presented byMatt Crall

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and

Development

November 3, 2009

Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Page 2: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)

• 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)

• 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039

• 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines

History

Page 3: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)- 1991 -

• Land Development and Conservation Commission (LCDC)

• Consistency: Land use with Transportation

• Street standards not addressed

Page 4: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)- 1991 -

• All modes

• Renewed emphasis on:

• Walk

• Bike

• Transit

• Neighborhood Quality > Mobility Through

• Streetscape

Page 5: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)- 1991 -

Page 6: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•Street Width

•Result of concerns about connectivity• Cut through traffic

• Fewer cul-de-sacs - Could lead to more asphalt

• Lower density

•Different Pattern -> Different Design

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 7: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

National research recommending narrow streets

ITE

ULI

ASCE

NAHB

APA

AASHTO

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 8: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

“On residential streets where the primary function of the street is to:

•provide land service [ ]acces s and•foster a s afe and •pleas ant environment”

AASHTO recommends narrow streets

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 9: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•“at least one unobstructed moving lane must be ensured even where parking occurs on both sides.”

•“8 m [~26 feet] roadway is typical”

•“3.6 m [~11.8 feet] center travel lane”

How narrow?

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 10: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Celebration

Kentlands

NationalExamples

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 11: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

OregonExamples

CorvallisYamhill

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 12: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Intent“...consider and reduce excessive standards for local streets and accessways in order to

•reduce the cost of construction,

•provide for more efficient use of urban land,

•provide for emergency vehicle access while

•discouraging inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds, and which

•accommodate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation.”

Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045 (7)

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 13: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Requirement“Local governments shall establish standards for local streets and accessways that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility.”

Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0045 (7)

TPR amendment adding 0045(7)- 1995 -

Page 14: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)

• 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)

• 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039

• 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines

History

Page 15: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• Road standards adopted by local government supersede standards in fire codes;

• Consultation with fire agencies.

1997 Legislation

Page 16: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•House Bill 3508

•Requested by Joint Fire Service Legislative Committee

•Uncontroversial

•No amendments

•House: passed unanimously

•Senate: Passed, 3 nays

•Governor: signed

•Codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 368.039

1997 Legislation

Page 17: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•Governing bodies set street standards

•Cities

•Counties

•May supersede fire code

(1) When the governing body of a county or city adopts specifications and standards, including standards for width, for roads and streets under the jurisdiction of the governing body, such specifications and standards shall supersede and prevail over any specifications and standards for roads and streets that are set forth in a uniform fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal, a municipal fire department or a county firefighting agency.

Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039

Page 18: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•Must be an official action

•Charter

•Comprehensive Plan

•Ordinance

(2) This section applies to specifications and standards for roads and streets adopted by the governing body of a county or city in a charter, acknowledged comprehensive plan or ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS chapter 92, 203, 221 or 368.

Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039

Page 19: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• Consult with firefighters before adopting:

• Consider firefighters’ needs when adopting

(3) Before adopting or amending any comprehensive plan, land use regulation or ordinance that establishes specifications and standards for roads and streets, a governing body of a county or city shall consult with the municipal fire department or other local firefighting agency concerning the proposed specifications and standards. The county or city governing body shall consider the needs of the fire department or firefighting agency when adopting the final specifications and standards.

Oregon Revised Statutes 368.039

Page 20: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• 1991 – Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)

• 1995 – TPR amendment adding 0045(7)

• 1997 – Legislation ORS 368.039

• 2000 – Neighborhood Street Guidelines

History

Page 21: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

•Convened by DLCD

•Broad range of interests

•Consensus

•Local decision process

Page 22: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

28-foot wide - Parking on both sides

Page 23: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

28-foot wide - Parking on both sides

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

Page 24: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

24-foot wide - Parking on one side

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

Page 25: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

24-foot wide - Parking on one side

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

Page 26: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

20-foot wide - No on-street parking

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

Page 27: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

20-foot wide - No on-street parking

Neighborhood Street Guidelines - 2000 –

Page 28: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

•Avoid “one size fits all”

DLCD Advice for Local Governments

Page 29: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• High-density neighborhoods

• Higher-volume, “neighborhood” collector or “subcollector”

• Evacuation routes

• Farm equipment access roads

Wider Streets are Appropriate for:

DLCD Advice for Local Governments

Page 30: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• Avoid “one size fits all”

• Street design – Not just width

• Address emergency response concerns

• Compact development -> More people close to stations

• Connectivity -> Multiple routes

• Careful with limitations or restrictions

DLCD Advice for Local Governments

Page 31: Statewide Context for Local Street Design

• Transportation & Growth Managementwww.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/

(look for Local Street Planning)

• Matt [email protected] 503-373-0050 x272Department of Land Conservation

and Development635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150SALEM OR 97301-2564

Further Information