transect types - investwithviolet.com · stormwater quality impacts of gsi ... easton, downtown...

Insight2050 Technical Assistance Program:

Violet Township Community Center Project

Transect Types: Street Design Guidelines and Land Use Considerations

MORPC

7/13/2018

2

The insight2050 Technical Assistance (TA) Program provides assistance from MORPC staff to local government members within the

boundary of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the planning of transportation and community development efforts

related to the findings of insight2050 and goals of MORPC’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Through the TA Program, MORPC staff will assist member communities with specific planning services related to transportation, air

quality, traffic, and other projects that support consideration of transportation in land use planning and/or demonstrate the benefits

of various modes of transportation.

MORPC does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, familial status, religion or

disability in programs, services or in employment. Information on non-discrimination and related MORPC policies and procedures is

available at www.morpc.org.

http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf

3

Table of Contents

How to Use this Resource 4

Roadway Classifications 5

Performance Standards 6

Pedestrian Priority 7

Pedestrian Priority Matrix 8

Pedestrian Places 9

Pedestrian Places Street Design Guidelines 10

Pedestrian Supportive Places 11

Pedestrian Supportive Street Design Guidelines 12

Pedestrian Tolerant Places 13

Pedestrian Tolerant Street Design Guidelines 14

Pedestrian Intolerant Places 15

Glossary 16

4

How to Use this Resource

This document is meant to be guiding resource for Violet Township staff. The document contains

roadway classifications, performance standards, and a general framework for street design

guidelines and land use considerations that support pedestrian activity and active transportation

as well as appropriate vehicle access.

The first part of this document details federal functional classifications and project-scale

performance standards. The second part integrates design guidelines and land use

considerations through a Pedestrian Priority Matrix and design guidelines matrices. This resource

is meant to be interactive—click hyperlinked text and identified links to jump around the

document and access external resources.

Picture sources: MORPC

5

Roadway Classifications

Local

Local roads provide direct

access to abutting land

uses, typically local

residences and businesses.

The majority of roadways in

the United States are

classified as local. 1

Principal Arterial

Principal Arterial roads also

provide a high level of

vehicle mobility in both

rural and urban areas.

Unlike expressways,

Principal Arterials provide

access to adjacent land

uses. 1

Minor Arterial

Minor arterial roads provide

connectivity between the

Principal Arterial system

and provide vehicle mobility

for moderate length trips.

Minor arterials in rural

contexts tend to have

higher travel speeds and

minimum interference. 1

Collector

Collector roads provide

connections between the

arterial network and local

roads. Subtle differences

between Major and Minor

collector roads generally

involve speed limit, traffic

volumes, travel lanes, and

curb cuts. 1

Expressway

Expressways offer a high

level of vehicle mobility,

typically on roadways with a

physical barrier between

directional travel lanes.

Expressways do not allow

access to adjoining land

uses. 1

As Violet Township strives for a Focused Growth approach to development at the Refugee Rd. / Pickerington Rd. site, it is important to remember the inherent

connection between movement and place. Standard roadway classifications may not be able to fully capture that relationship, however this document aims to be a

holistic resource by integrating roadway classifications, street design guidelines, and land use considerations. Design guidelines that consider multimodal mobility,

adaptability, and compatible development can help the township create a context-sensitive network that is walkable, efficient, and equitable for all Violet Township’s

residents and visitors. This resource also includes performance standards which can help the township establish measureable outcomes against which to gauge

projects’ progress and success.

The way we classify our roads has implications for local transportation, land use, and economic development policies and projects. According to the federal functional

classifications used by MORPC, typologies are assigned based on a roadway’s role in providing access and mobility in the region. A roadway’s classification is closely

connected to eligibility for federal funds. It may seem that the typologies are a hierarchy of vehicle movement but when classifying roads we can take into account the

capacity of our all our streets—Expressways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local roads—to move the pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders,

emergency vehicles, and various other non-vehicle roadway users that are part of the community.

Footnotes

1. ODOT, Highway Functional Classification System: Concepts, Procedures, and Instructions

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/MajorPrograms/Documents/FunctionalClassificationProcedures.pdf

6

Multimodal Mobility

Linear feet of new sidewalks or multi-use paths created

Square footage of pedestrian-only public spaces (i.e. plaza)

created

Number of enhanced crosswalks

Miles of on-street bicycle routes created

Number of transit trips generated

Frequency of transit vehicles

Mode shift from single-occupancy vehicle to walking, bicycling, or

transit

Transportation Safety

Number and severity of crashes

Number of crashes involving pedestrians or cyclists

Percent of vehicles exceeding speed limit

Emergency vehicle response time

Environmental

Number of new street trees

Number of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) projects

Stormwater quality impacts of GSI

Percentage of recycled materials used in construction

Number of low-energy lighting fixtures

Equity

Mode shift by age group, gender, income, disability status, race,

and/or ethnicity

Number of crashes involving pedestrian or cyclists by age, gender,

income, disability status, race, and/or ethnicity

Number of ADA compliant curb ramps

Number of ADA compliant Accessible Pedestrian Signals for

visually impaired pedestrians

Linear feet of “first—and—last mile” transportation connections

added

Number of placemaking projects that embrace local and historical

arts and culture

Diversity of labor force used for construction projects

Non-single-occupancy vehicle access to amenities by age, gender,

income, disability status, race, and/or ethnicity

Economic

Number of temporary / permanent jobs created

Changes in property value

Amount of private investment generated

Performance Standards As the FHWA writes in their Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures, “performance management techniques promote informed decision-

making by relating community goals to the measurable effects of transportation investments. Key steps in performance management are to decide what to measure in

order to capture the current state of the system, to set targets to improve those measures, and to use the measures to evaluate and compare the effects of proposed

projects and policies.” As the Community Center project proceeds the vision for the site network will evolve and new challenges and opportunities will arise. Because of

this, the performance measures below do not specify precise numbers to target. However, they are examples of the types of performance measures that Violet Township

can use to monitor the progress towards the multimodal, safety, environmental, equity, and economic goals of the township as they relate to transportation.

http://www.mvphip.org/content/sites/bassett/Mark_Fenton/Guidebook_for_Developing_Pedestrian__Bicycle_Performance_Measures.pdf

7

Pedestrian Priority Most roads accommodate vehicles—in fact, roadways often prioritize vehicle movement over other types of

transportation options. In order to encourage equal consideration for the multimodal transportation and

mobility needs of all people, this document uses specific language about the capacity of a roadway for

pedestrian activity and vehicle movement. Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) and Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE) released a collaborative report, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A

Context-Sensitive Approach, to guide for communities like Violet Township working towards transitioning high-

vehicle-capacity roads into pedestrian-friendly spaces that appropriately accommodate traffic.

The following pages in this document use the terminology defined by CNU and ITE:

“Pedestrian Places—mixed-use areas with a significant pedestrian presence, not dominated by, and

sometimes prohibiting, vehicles;

Pedestrian Supportive—mixed-use areas with moderate to significant pedestrian presence;

Pedestrian Tolerant—areas that minimally accommodate pedestrians but do not support a high

level of pedestrian activity and are usually vehicle dominant

Pedestrian Intolerant—areas with little support for walking or that prohibit pedestrians are vehicle

dominant.”

Opposite to the Pedestrian Priority range, the matrix also uses a range of Vehicle Priority, defined below:

Vehicle Place—roadways that prioritize vehicle movement with little to no consideration for multimodal mobility

Vehicle Supportive—roadways that still primarily prioritize vehicle movement, but with appropriate infrastructure to support multimodal transportation options

Vehicle Tolerant—areas that accommodate vehicle traffic, but have a well-connected multimodal network that encourages active

transportation through street design and compatible land use

Vehicle Intolerant—areas that are primarily for pedestrians and may prohibit vehicle traffic altogether always or for special events.

Prioritized

Supported / Accommodated

Unsafe / Prohibited

Mode choice encouraged by

street design guidelines

Pedestrian Priority Scale Legend

The legend above is for the Pedestrian Priority Scale on the following pages.

http://library.ite.org/pub/e1cff43c-2354-d714-51d9-d82b39d4dbad


8

Pedestrian Places Pedestrian Supportive Pedestrian Tolerant Pedestrian Intolerant

Vehicle

Intolerant

Vehicle

Tolerant

Vehicle

Supportive

Vehicle

Places

Click the highlighted text to see Land Use Considerations. Click the pictures to see Street Design Guidelines.

Pedestrian Priority Matrix

9

Pedestrian Places are designed with

pedestrians and cyclists in mind first and

should support a wide range of land uses.

In these spaces, mixed-use, commercial

retail, and commercial office land uses

should be prioritized. Compact residential

and civic land uses are also encouraged.

Street design and land use for Pedestrian

Places should provide opportunity for

social and economic activity through

flexible and design-oriented zoning codes,

placemaking, and street furniture.

Pedestrian Places can range from vehicle

supportive to vehicle intolerant. It is

important that regardless of the level of

vehicle capacity, pedestrian places

provide infrastructure for safe and

affordable multimodal transportation

options that are accessible and inviting

for all people.

Pedestrian Places

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Places Design Guidelines

Examples of Pedestrian Places from across the region—Worthington, Easton, Downtown Columbus, Dublin, New Albany, and Gateway

District in Columbus.

Picture Sources: MORPC

https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/

http://creativeplacemaking.t4america.org/our-eight-approaches/

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2

10

Pedestrian Places—Design Guidelines Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local

Travel Zone Design

Number of Lanes 4 - 6 2 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 3

Width of Lanes 11' 10 - 11' 10 - 11' 9 - 11'

Traffic calming Raised medians

Bus bulbs

Raised medians

Roundabouts

Chokers

Bus bulbs

Textured pavement

Raised medians

Traffic circles

Chokers

One-way streets

Textured pavement

Speed bumps

Chicanes

Mini-traffic circle

Chokers

One-way streets

Pedestrian Zone Design

Curb Zone 6" - 1' 6" - 1' 6" 6"

Buffer /

Furnishings Zone

2' - 6'

Grass / trees / landscaping / GSI

Street lights / signage / banners

Benches / trash cans

Bike racks

Bus shelters

2' - 5'




Bike racks

Bus shelters / bus stops

2' - 4’




Bike racks

2' - 4’



Pedestrian Through Zone 5' - 12' 5' - 8' 5' 5'

Frontage Zone

2' - 6’

Planters / landscaping

Outdoor seating

Café seating

2' - 6’


Outdoor seating

Café seating

0 - 6’


Outdoor seating

Café seating

0’ - 2'


Outdoor seating

Intersection

Design

Signalized crosswalks

Curb extensions

Extended crossing time


Mid-block signalized crosswalks

Pedestrian refuge areas

Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks

Raised intersections


Unsignalized crosswalks


Mid-block unsignalized crosswalks


Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks





Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks


Bicycle Zone Design Barrier-separated bike lane

5' - 7'

Barrier-separated bike lane

Buffered bike lane

5' - 7'

Buffered bike lane

Bike lane

Sharrows

MUP ≥ 10'

Buffered bike lane

Bike lane

Sharrows

MUP ≥ 10'

Parking Design Structured parking

Wall / hedge enclosed surface lots

Shared surface lots

Free/metered on-street parking

Diagonal on-street parking

Structured parking

Screening

Rear/alley-access surface lots

Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts

Free/metered on-street parking


Structured parking

Screening


Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts

Free on-street parking

Screening

Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Places Land Use Considerations

11

The infrastructure needed for a road to be

Pedestrian Supportive will be different

based on the road classification and

adjacent land use. Regardless of vehicle

capacity, Pedestrian Supportive roads

require a well-connected network that gives

active transportation users safe access to

necessary and recreational amenities.

Higher vehicle-capacity roads can support

mixed-use, commercial retail, and

commercial office land uses. Lower vehicle-

capacity roads can support mixed-use,

neighborhood commercial, compact

residential, civic, and institutional land

uses.

Flexible zoning practices, “Park Once and

Walk” parking policies, placemaking, and

design guidelines are useful tools for

creating roads that support active

transportation options while still

accommodating vehicle traffic.

Pedestrian Supportive Places

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Supportive Design Guidelines

Examples of Pedestrian Supportive roads from around the region and the country—London, New Albany, Bridge Street District in Dublin,

Columbus, Westerville, Easton, and Kentlands, MD.

Picture Sources: MORPC, DPZ

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/faq_details.cfm?id=3478

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/faq_details.cfm?id=3478

http://creativeplacemaking.t4america.org/our-eight-approaches/


http://www.dpz.com/Projects/8805

12

Pedestrian Supportive—Design Guidelines Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local

Travel Zone Design

Number of Lanes 4 - 6 2 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 3

Width of Lanes 11' 10 - 11' 10 - 11' 9 - 11'

Traffic calming Raised medians

Bus bulbs

Raised medians

Roundabouts

Chokers

Textured pavement

Raised medians

Chokers

Textured pavement

Speed bumps

Chokers

One-way streets


Curb Zone 6" 6" 6" 6"

Buffer /

Furnishings Zone

2' - 6'




Bike racks

Bus shelters

2' - 5'




Bike racks

2'




Bike racks

2'



Pedestrian Through Zone 5' - 12’ 5' - 8’ 5' 5'

Frontage Zone 2'


Outdoor seating

2'


Outdoor seating

2'


Outdoor seating

2'


Outdoor seating

Intersection

Design


Curb extensions





Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks






Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks




Curb extensions

Raised crosswalks


Bicycle Zone Design Buffered bike lane

Buffered bike lane

Bike lane

Sharrows

Buffered bike lane

Bike lane

Sharrows

MUP ≥ 10'

Sharrows

MUP ≥ 10'

Parking Design Structured parking

Wall / hedge enclosed surface lots

Shared surface lots



Structured parking

Screening


Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts



Screening

Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts


Screening

Shared surface lots

Minimal curb cuts

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Supportive Land Use Considerations

13

Pedestrian Tolerant roads prioritize vehicle

movement over multimodal transportation. They

are often characterized by wide travel lanes, wide

intersections, frequent curb cuts, dispersed land

uses, large setbacks, and large amounts of

surface parking. Low population density and

development intensity are indications that

Pedestrian Tolerant infrastructure may be

sufficient to meet residents’ multimodal needs.

When striving for a focused growth approach to

new development, Pedestrian Tolerant roads are

suitable along industrial, low density residential,

and agricultural land uses.

Pedestrian Tolerant roads may not encourage

mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to

walking or cycling, but they do provide essential

connections to jobs and other key services,

particularly for low-income people. Pedestrian

Tolerant roads must still be safe and accessible to

all users. Where appropriate, principal arterials

and minor collectors should prioritize additional

intersection infrastructure and signage in order to

increase pedestrian and cyclist safety, visibility,

and comfort.

Pedestrian Tolerant Places

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Tolerant Design Guidelines

Examples of Pedestrian Tolerant roads from around the region— Columbus, Westerville, Easton, and Plain City.


14

Pedestrian Tolerant—Design Guidelines Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local

Travel Zone Design

Number of Lanes 4 - 6 2 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 3

Width of Lanes 11' 10 - 11' 10 - 11' 9 - 11'

Traffic calming Raised medians Raised medians

Roundabouts Raised medians Speed bumps


Curb Zone 6" 6" 6" 6"

Buffer /

Furnishings Zone

2'


Street lights / signage


Bus shelters

2'



1’6” - 2'



1’6” - 2'



Pedestrian Through Zone 5' 5' 5' 5'

Frontage Zone NA NA NA NA

Intersection

Design


Curb extensions




Curb extensions





Bicycle Zone Design Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane

Bike lane

Bike lane

MUP ≥ 10'

Sharrows

MUP ≥ 10'

Parking Design Wall / hedge enclosed surface lots

Shared surface lots

Screening

Shared surface lots

Screening

Shared surface lots

Screening

Shared surface lots

Back to Matrix Pedestrian Tolerant Land Use Considerations

15

Pedestrian Intolerant roads are not just those

without any multimodal infrastructure – inadequate

facilities can also render a street functionally

Pedestrian Intolerant. Sidewalks that are not wide

enough, lacking ADA ramps, or that are obstructed

can create mobility challenges for people. Bike

lanes on high speed, high vehicle capacity roads

may intimidate all cyclists but the most experienced

and confident (less than 1% of riders). Pedestrian

Intolerant roads can encourage unsafe behavior

that leads to collisions and injuries.

When coupled with dispersed commercial retail or

commercial office uses, roads without sufficient

multimodal infrastructure can encourage single-

occupancy vehicle trips due to concerns about

safety, inconvenience, and access to desired

destinations. For those whose mobility options may

be limited, Pedestrian Intolerant roads deny them

the opportunity to safely get to the amenities they

need and/or want. Aside from expressways or other

roads where pedestrians are legally prohibited, it is

almost never appropriate to completely exclude

pedestrian infrastructure as doing so can

disproportionately impact low-income families, the

elderly, people with disabilities, women, and/or

people of color.

Pedestrian Intolerant Places

Back to Matrix

Examples of Pedestrian Intolerant roads from around the region and country—Polaris, Columbus, Gahanna, and Louisville, KY.


https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746

16

Glossary

Barrier-separated bike lane

Bike lane

Buffered bike lane

Bus bulb

Bus shelter

Bus stop

Chicane

Choker / Curb extension

Crossing time (signal

phasing)

Curb cuts

Curb zone


Frontage Zone

Furnishings zone

Green Stormwater

Infrastructure (GSI)

Metered on-street parking

Mid-block signalized

crosswalk

Mid-block unsignalized

crosswalk

Mini-traffic circle

Multi-use path (MUP)

Parking lot design

Pedestrian refuge area

Pedestrian through zone

Planters

Raised crosswalk

Raised intersection

Raised median

Roundabout

Screening

Shared parking

Sharrows

Signage


Speed bump

Street furniture

Structured parking

Textured pavement

Trees


Click the links below for more information about each street design element.

Linked sources: MORPC Complete Streets Toolkit, NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, Montgomery County Planning Commission Sustainable Green Parking Lots

http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf#page=45



https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/bus-bulbs/





























https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9735/Green-Sustainable-Parking-Guide-2_10_2016-Web#page=47



http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_streetscape_wayfinding.cfm








http://www.morpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CS_Toolkit_Web_Lo_Res.pdf

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/bus-bulbs/

https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9735/Green-Sustainable-Parking-Guide-2_10_2016-Web