4/21/2011

1

MOBILITY PLANNING STRATEGIES AND CONCEPTS

Center for Urban Transportation Research/USF

OVERVIEW

Background

Mobility Planning Concept

CUTR/USF

Case Examples

Strategies and Resources

2

BACKGROUND: THE “CONCURRENCY” ISSUE

Concurrency is a growth management concept intended to ensure that the necessary public

facilities are available concurrent with the

CUTR/USF

3

impacts of development.

4/21/2011

2

PROBLEMS WITH CONCURRENCY

Complex Inequitable Lack uniformity

CUTR/USF

Too focused on roadways

May work against growth management

objectives 4

CUTR/USF

MULTI-MODAL EMPHASISRealization that we can’t build ourselves out of congestion

5

CONCURRENCY CHRONOLOGY

CUTR/USF

YEAR ACTION

1985 FL Growth Management Act – Concurrency becomes law

1992 FDOT adopts Statewide Minimum LOS Standards for SHS

1993 Introduction of TCEAs, TCMAs, and LTCM

6

1999 Introduction of MMTDs

2005 Proportionate fair share mitigation

2006 FDOT LOS Standards limited to SIS and FIHS

4/21/2011

3

COMMUNITY RENEWAL ACT 2009

• Dense urban land area = TCEA• Not subject to state-imposed concurrency requirementsDULA = TCEA

CUTR/USF

•Land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within 2 years

TCEA REQUIREMENTS

7

POLK

LAKE

LEVY

MARION

BAY

OSCEOLA

VOLUSIA

DIXIE

TAYLOR

DUVAL

LEON

WALTON

CLAY

ORANGE

PASCO

GULF

ALACHUA

LIBERTY

JACKSON

PUTNAM

BREVARD

BAKER

SANTAROSAOKALOOSA

NASSAU

CITRUS

MADISON

COLUMBIA

STJOHNS

SUMTER

HILLSBOROUGH

WAKULLA SUWANNEE

CALHOUN

HOLMES

FLAGLER

GADSDEN

FRANKLIN

HAMILTON

LAFAYETTE

WASHINGTON

HERNANDO

UNION

SEMINOLE

ESCAMBIA

JEFFERSON

GILCHRIST

BRADFORD

BREVARD

BAY

POLK

LAKE

LEVY

MARION

BAY

OSCEOLA

VOLUSIA

DIXIE

TAYLOR

DUVAL

LEON

WALTON

CLAY

ORANGE

PASCO

GULF

ALACHUA

LIBERTY

JACKSON

PUTNAM

BREVARD

BAKER

SANTAROSAOKALOOSA

NASSAU

CITRUS

MADISON

COLUMBIA

STJOHNS

SUMTER

HILLSBOROUGH

WAKULLA SUWANNEE

CALHOUN

HOLMES

FLAGLER

GADSDEN

FRANKLIN

HAMILTON

LAFAYETTE

WASHINGTON

HERNANDO

UNION

SEMINOLE

ESCAMBIA

JEFFERSON

GILCHRIST

BRADFORD

BREVARD

BAY

POLK

LAKE

LEVY

MARION

BAY

OSCEOLA

VOLUSIA

DIXIE

TAYLOR

DUVAL

LEON

WALTON

CLAY

ORANGE

PASCO

GULF

ALACHUA

LIBERTY

JACKSON

PUTNAM

BREVARD

BAKER

SANTAROSAOKALOOSA

NASSAU

CITRUS

MADISON

COLUMBIA

STJOHNS

SUMTER

HILLSBOROUGH

WAKULLA SUWANNEE

CALHOUN

HOLMES

FLAGLER

GADSDEN

FRANKLIN

HAMILTON

LAFAYETTE

WASHINGTON

HERNANDO

UNION

SEMINOLE

ESCAMBIA

JEFFERSON

GILCHRIST

BRADFORD

BREVARD

BAY

DULAs/TCEAs

CitiesPopulation >5,000 and pop density >1,000

CountiesPopulation >1 million

CUTR/USF

COLLIER

LEEPALMBEACH

MIAMI-DADE

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

MONROE

HIGHLANDS

MARTIN

MANATEE HARDEE

DESOTO

STLUCIEOKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

SARASOTA

INDIANRIVER

PINELLAS

COLLIER

LEEPALMBEACH

MIAMI-DADE

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

MONROE

HIGHLANDS

MARTIN

MANATEE HARDEE

DESOTO

STLUCIEOKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

SARASOTA

INDIANRIVER

PINELLAS

COLLIER

LEEPALMBEACH

MIAMI-DADE

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

MONROE

HIGHLANDS

MARTIN

MANATEE HARDEE

DESOTO

STLUCIEOKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

SARASOTA

INDIANRIVER

PINELLAS

LegendDULA Municipalities

Non-DULA Municipalities

DULA County Urban Service Boundaries

Counties with DULAs

Counties with no DULAs

pand/or pop density > 1,000

8

COMMUNITY RENEWAL ACT 2009

Evaluate and consider the implementation of a mobility fee to replace the existing transportation concurrency management system

CUTR/USF

9

The mobility fee should be designed to provide for mobility needsensure that development mitigates its impacts proportionatelyfairly distribute the fee among the governmental entities that maintain the impacted “roadways”promote compact, mixed-use, and energy-efficient development

4/21/2011

4

TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY V. MOBILITY FEE

CUTR/USF

• Charged only when capacity has been exceededTransportation

concurrency

10

• Charged to all new development for the transportation service it will consumeMobility fee

• A fee alone won’t achieve the intent of transportation concurrency

• Build on existing planning framework • Mobility fee is a tool for implementation

Planning approach

CUTR/USF

MOBILITY PLANNING CONCEPT

11

MOBILITY PLANNING CONCEPT

BASICS OF THE MOBILITY FEE PLANNING APPROACH

Mobility fee is closely

CUTR/USF

Countywideapplication

Interlocalagreements

12

Mobility fee is closely tied to land use and

transportation plans.

agreements

Mobility plan

Mobility fee

4/21/2011

5

COUNTYWIDE APPLICATION

Mobility -The ability of people to make

trips to satisfy their needs or desires by

walking, driving, riding a bicycle,

CUTR/USF

• Travel is regional from an economic perspective

WHY COUNTYWIDE?

13

riding a bicycle, riding public transit, or any combination

of modes of transportation.

• Transportation system is seamless

• Addresses cross-jurisdictional impacts

• Reduces incentive for leap-frog development

• Equity for public sector – local governments share responsibility

EXAMPLE OF PMT/VMT

AlachuaGainesville Newberry

14

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – 120 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS

Gainesville Alachua Newberry

VMT 6,528 7,471 9,232

AlachuaGainesville Newberry

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

15

4/21/2011

6

REGIONAL VISIONING INITIATIVES

16

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS

County-wide or multi-county agreement

Includes all local governments and transportation providers in each county

CUTR/USF

Procedures forProcedures for

Establishing project priorities

Fee calculation and distribution

Cross-jurisdictional coordination

17

MOBILITY PLAN

Land use and urban design

strategies

Transportation network,

services and strategies

CUTR/USF

MOBILITY PLANincorporated into local government comprehensive plan

Improvement programs and

fees

18

4/21/2011

7

Network Improvement

Multimodal Environment

Supporting Plans and Guidelines

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES

Mobility Mobility PlanPlan

Operations and Safety Implementation

19

MOBILITY FEE

CUTR/USF

Target Funding

• Cost of projects in mobility plan

• Subtract committed revenue

• Base year

FRAMEWORK

Service areas

20

Estimate PMT/VMT

growth

Base year PMT/VMT

• Horizon year PMT/VMT

Calculate rate

• PMT/VMT growth times the rate or fee to obtain target funding level

Q/LOS standards

Project priorities

Credits/fee reductions

Site-related improvements

• state highways• arterial corridors• parallel relievers• interstate crossings• regional transit• regional multiuse trails• system-wide operational enhancements

MOBILITY FEE (CONT.)

Countywide tier fee

Mobility

CUTR/USF

enhancements

• collector streets• network connections• transit routes or circulators•bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Local tier fee

Mobility fee

21

4/21/2011

8

CUTR/USF

CASE EXAMPLES

22

CASE EXAMPLES

FEE DISTRIBUTION

CUTR/USF

Benefit District 1 Priorities

23Tallahassee/Leon County

ALACHUA COUNTY MOBILITY PLAN

D U

SE

•TOD•TND•Activity Centers•Urban Cluster TA

TIO

N •Multimodal Plan

•BRT•Roadway N

DIN

G •Mobility Fee •Bonds•Infrastructure

AssessmentI f

LAN Urban Cluster

•Policies•Proactive

outreach

TRAN

SPO

RT Connections

•Lanes over I-75 •Bicycle-

pedestrian network

FUN •Infrastructure

sales tax•State/Federal

transit $

Mobility Plan Strategies24

4/21/2011

9

ALACHUA COUNTY – POTENTIAL TOD/TNDMOBILITY: ALACHUA COUNTY’S PLAN TO EFFECTIVELY LINK LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

CUTR/USF

Center for Urban Transportation Research/USFSource: http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/transportation_planning/index.php 26

ALACHUA COUNTY – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTSMOBILITY: ALACHUA COUNTY’S PLAN TO EFFECTIVELY LINK LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

CUTR/USF

Center for Urban Transportation Research/USFSource: http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/transportation_planning/index.php 27

4/21/2011

10

JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN

D U

SE

•5 development areas

•Mobility-friendly communities TA

TIO

N •Multimodal Plan

•Expanded transit network N

DIN

G •Mobility Fee •Mobility zones•Mobility

reduction strategies

LAN communities

TRAN

SPO

RT •Bicycle-

pedestrian network

FUN strategies

Mobility Plan Strategies28

JACKSONVILLE – DEVELOPMENT AREASCUTR/USF

Center for Urban Transportation Research/USF29

MOBILITY FEE PLANNING APPROACH

Mobility fee is closely tied to land use and

transportation plans

CUTR/USF

• Mobility needs are both local and regional Countywideapplication

•Mechanism for implementation•Establishes rules

Interlocalagreements

30

transportation plans.

Provide for mobility needs

•Strategies for mobility•Project prioritiesMobility plan

•Provides partial funding mechanism•Additional funding needed for transit

operating costsMobility fee

4/21/2011

11

CUTR/USF

STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES

31

STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES

USER GUIDE AND CHECKLIST FOR MOBILITY PLAN REVIEW

For use by FDOT and Local Governments

CUTR/USF

32

PURPOSE OF MOBILITY REVIEW GUIDE

Framework for the development and review of local government mobility plans

33

Provide guidance on what may constitute acceptable land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility

4/21/2011

12

OBJECTIVES OF THE PRACTICE

Advance transportation and land use (mobility) planning best practices

Address all modes AND the built environment

34

Acknowledge the value of corridor management strategies to improved mobility on the state transportation system

Acknowledge the difficulty of measuring the benefit of certain land use and transportation best practices known to improve mobility

NOT a prescriptive approach, but one that supports critical analysis

Detailed instructions for use of checklist

Description of Categories, Elements, and Criteria

MOBILITY REVIEW GUIDE

35

“Notes” describe how each Criterion may be addressed in the plan

Spreadsheet template

Categories, Elements, Criteria

CHECKLIST

36

“Notes” in the Guide describe how each Criterion may be addressed in the plan

4/21/2011

13

ELEMENTS IN EACH CATEGORYSupporting Plans and Guidelines

State

L l

Multimodal Environment

Organization and location

Mi

Network Improvement

Major roadway

L l t t

Operations and Safety

Demand management

Access

Implementation

Coordination

I ti

37

Local

Regional

Mix

Density/intensity

Multimodal policy

Local street

Bicycle/pedestrian

Transit

Access management

Transit

Ped/bike

Incentives

Monitoring

Funding

Organization & Location

Cores/activity centers

Mix

Complementary mix in centers

Density/Intensity

Minimum density in centers

Multimodal Policy

Bike/ped priority in centers

CRITERIA FOR EACH ELEMENTCATEGORY: MULTIMODAL ENVIRONMENT

Transit compatible/TOD

Location of industry/freight

uses

Vertical mix

Proximity of goods/services to residential areas

Density near transit stops

Urban design that supports density

Parking mgt

Streetscape/station area amenities

Multimodal TIA

38

Photos courtesy of City of Gainesville

4/21/2011

14

  CRITERIA  NOTES 

ME1.1 Designates and reinforces strong central core(s) and urban activity centers of varying sizes and compositions. 

Helps reduce VMT. Plans should focus employment and commercial activities into a strong central city/village core. Larger cities and counties may also have regional activity centers outside of this core.  Locate smaller employment centers and commercial/service nodes of 

Table 2: Multimodal Environment (ME1) Organization and Location Criteria

CRITERIA NOTES

varying sizes in proximity to residential neighborhoods. 

ME1.2 

Transit‐compatible land uses are defined and required to locate on existing or planned transit corridors with direct access to transit. This should include but is not limited to transit‐oriented developments (TOD). 

A detailed description of transit compatible land uses is contained in Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts. See also the FDOT Transit Oriented Development Guidelines (draft to‐date, see web for updated version) for detailed guidelines on varying types of TOD depending on context (e.g. urban core, urban general, suburban, rural).  The report Mixed Income Housing Near Transit offers strategies for increasing the affordable housing supply as part of transit oriented developments to offset the tendency to cater only to high income markets in these locations. 

ME1.3 

Ensures that industrial and other freight‐related uses locate in proximity to and have direct access to major transportation routes and intermodal stations or other freight transfer locations. 

Proper location and direct access to major transportation routes and/or ports and airports help reduce impacts on the surface street system and improve efficiency of freight movement.  

40

WILL THIS BE EASY?

TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENTTRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Land use & Transportation Q alit of ser iceA safe, efficient,

i t ll

NO, BUT IT WILL RESULT IN BETTER COMMUNITIES!

transportation strategies to support

and fund mobility

Urban infill

Compact urban form

pstrategies to reduce

GHGs

Energy efficient land use

Reduce VMT

Quality of service

Access mgt

Alternative modes

Network connectivity

environmentally sustainable

transportation system that

enhances the quality of life in our

communities

42

4/21/2011

15

QUESTIONS?

FOR REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS, ETC.

www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/MobilityFees/index.cfm

Karen Seggerman ‐ seggerman@cutr.usf.eduKristine Williams   kwilliams@cutr usf edu

CUTR/USF

Kristine Williams  ‐ kwilliams@cutr.usf.edu

43

Center for Urban Transportation Research/USF