Transcript Slide 1
Walking and Biking the Busiest Roads Around Atlanta: a Bike/Ped Plan that establishes non-motorized transportation among regional-scale priorities PRO WALK PRO BIKE 08 Transforming Communities` Regan Hammond, Principal Planner Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta GA Christopher Fellerhoff, Staff Planner Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Tampa FL Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta – The Bicycle: A Plan and Program for its Use as a Mode of Transportation and Recreation (1973). – ISTEA (1991) – Bicycle and Pedestrian Taskforce (1992) – Atlanta Region Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Plan(1993). – Updates: 1995, 2002. Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta – All provided policy direction and included project lists – Lacked a strategic vision for the prioritization of federal funds for bike/ped in the Atlanta region. – Projects recommended did not come together to form a complete network. Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta – New Plan developed in 2006-2007 – Established a strategic focus to integrate non-motorized planning with regionally significant transportation issues – Developed a prioritization process for bike/ped funding assistance Regionally Significant Issues in Metro Atlanta • • • • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Environmental Justice Mobility • • • • Accessibility Safety Healthy Living “Livability” Initiatives Congestion Mitigation “Livability” Initiatives Plan Goals and Objectives • Written to address regionally significant issues, strengthening the link between bike/ped and existing regional priorities Plan Goals and Objectives Priority Corridors and Centers • Roadways of the Regionally Strategic Transportation System Priority Corridors and Centers • Regionally Significant Nodes • • • • • LCI study sites Cities with population greater than 5,000 County Seats Major transit facilities Major “activity centers” Priority Corridors and Centers • Plan recognizes that full bicycle network includes all streets How to Measure Performance: Conditions that Affect Cyclists • • • • • • Effective Travel Width for Bicyclists On-Street Parking Encroachments Volume of Motor Vehicles Speed of Traffic Proportion of Heavy Vehicles Pavement Surface Condition Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. Performance Measure: Bicycle Level of Service Model Bicycle LOS = a1ln(Vol15/L) + a2SPt(1+10.38HV)2 + a3(1/PC5)2 - a4(We)2 + C Vol15 L SPt = volume of directional traffic in 15-minute time period = total number of through lanes = effective speed limit (see below) HV PC5 We SPt = 1.12ln(SPP -20) + 0.81 SPP = Posted speed limit = percentage of heavy vehicles = FHWA’s five point surface condition rating = Average effective width of outside through lane Existing Conditions (2006) • Bicycle Level of Service • Study network of 690 miles in 18 counties • Results for 642 miles • Distance Weighted Average of 4.54 = Bicycle LOS “E” Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) •Bicycle Level of Service = “E” Existing Conditions (2006) •Bicycle Level of Service = “E” Existing Conditions (2006) •Bicycle Level of Service = “E” Existing Conditions (2006) Latent Demand Method •Predicts probability of non-motorized trips based on proximity of generators and attractors... if impedance were removed Latent Demand Method • Used 2001 NHTS trip lengths for walking and biking for: • • • • • Work Trips ( also used for higher ed.) Shopping School Trips Social Recreational Trips Trips to Access Transit Existing Conditions (2006) • Pedestrian Conditions • Sample analysis of longitudinal conditions at high demand nodes with Pedestrian Level of Service Model • Discussion of challenges of crossings, both at intersections and mid-block locations Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Pedestrian Policy Review • PEDS Survey 2006- 6 of 13 counties had standard sidewalk requirements in place • Remaining counties had variable requirements • Staff vigilance drives action, rather than policy Bike Policy Review • On street facilities may be included overlay districts or other special cases • Staff vigilance drives action rather than policy Existing Conditions (2006) • Bicycle conditions are very challenging • Walking conditions are very challenging • Policies are inconsistent across the region Needs Assessment • What level of accommodation is appropriate on this class of roadway? Needs Assessment • Community workshops to “find the level” • Bike/Ped Levels of Service “C” chosen as a general target; • Bike Ped LOS “B” for high activity areas Needs Assessment • Recommended strategies for improvement • • • • LOS met Re-striping Widen shoulder Detailed Corridor Study Needs Assessment • Consideration of Alternative Routes Needs Assessment • Consideration of Alternative Routes Needs Assessment • Strategically evaluating projects’ contributions to regional goals requires prioritization based on those goals Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • Magnitude of need Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • Latent Demand Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • Congestion Measure Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • “Votes” from Workshops Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • “LCI” Bonus Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • “Station Community” Bonus Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • “Local Policy” Bonus Needs Assessment • Prioritization Process priority 0.3LOS 0.2 Dm 0.2Cg 0.1Pub 0.05 LCI .0.05Sta 0.1Pol Cost • Unit cost per mile of recommended improvements Policy Initiatives and Outcomes • Strategic targeting of facility investments • Corridors best suited to mode shift • Supplement to practices of routine accommodation and “complete streets” • Georgia DOT has incorporated bicycle accommodation into design for roadways of the Plan’s study network Policy Initiatives and Outcomes • Implement “Complete Streets” • Set expectation for all future planning, design, and accommodation • Development review regulations to include bike/ped accommodation in new projects • Training for planners and design engineers Policy Initiatives and Outcomes •Identify re-striping candidates Policy Initiatives and Outcomes • Identify re-striping candidates • Adopt a protocol for finding “excess pavement” • “Free” facilities when coordinated with resurfacing • Find opportunities with new construction, reconstruction, and widening projects Policy Initiatives and Outcomes •Improve Crossing at un-signalized intersections and mid-block locations Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Policy Initiatives and Outcomes • Increase availability of end-of-trip facilites • Parking, lockers, showers, etc. for new development – either required of incentivized • End-of-trip facilities are an important piece of the mode-shift puzzle Policy Initiatives and Outcomes • Improve Neighborhood Connectivity for Bikes/Peds Figure 4.1 – Sample Atlanta Region Neighborhood with Potential Connecting Pathways Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Improve Neighborhood Connectivity for Bikes/Peds • Establish guidelines for ensuring bike/ped connectivity between neighborhoods and among adjacent land uses • Typical Metro Atlanta development patterns discourage short trips that can be made by bike ped Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Promote bike/ped planning and implement bike/ped programs Policy Initiatives and Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Promote bike/ped planning and implement bike/ped programs • Changing the mindset of planners engineers, elected officials, public • Will lead to better implementation of other policies • Programs Going Forward... •Places bike/ped planning in the context of established regional priorities •Applied technical analysis to bike/ped decision making •Provides toolkit for local planning •Clear framework for evaluating future project funding assistance