Reinventing Neighborhoods with Transportation Investment

Facts show that home values are 40% higher near transit. People want to live near transit for convenience, for property values, and for employment opportunities. More and more people, young and old, want to live in higher densities where they can use multiple modes of transportation as they see fit. 

When it comes to choosing a residence, Millennials (20 & 30 somethings):

• Prefer walkable neighborhoods
• Close to transit
• Accessible to jobs
• Will trade square footage for these things
• More bike rides
• Less miles driven
• 26% have no drivers license

Case Study - Cleveland RTA (HealthLine, Little Italy-University Center, Euclid Corridor) 

The Silver Line (BRT) is a 5 miles long stretch with 36 stops that links downtown with University Center. Cleveland found success through:

Closing a street to through traffic yet allowing cyclist, pedestrians, and transit
Creating a new multi-modal transit center where one can get:
 * Express buses
 * Shuttles to Park & Rides
 * Train
Multi-modal Stations along the route
Rail-like Service and Image:
 * Dedicated lanes
 * Priority lights
 * Greater speed limits
 * Reduced travel times
Economically diverse communities
 * HUD homes and affordable housing near market price condos

Funding Sources

• State grants
• FHWA
• City (Capital Improvement Program)

Plan for Minimum and Maximums for:

• Parking time limits
• Setbacks

Leveraging Resources: Stringing the pearls of finance, politics, and development

Political

• Buy in/support
• Engagement
• Shared vision

Financial

• Funding for improvements
• Return
• TIGER funds

How to be Successful

• Aggressive land assembly
• Mixed use development
• Prioritization of density
• Bring business to the street
• More bike facilities
• Make it a campaign
• Public-Private Partnerships
• Don't forget management and maintenance
• Provide lighting, progressive way finding

For more information visit:
http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/

Source: APA National Conference Session

Illinois Livable and Sustainable Transportation (I-LAST) Rating System and Guide

Chicago
Source: Google Search

The I-LAST rating system and guide is a sustainability performance metric system developed by the Joint Sustainability Group of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the American Council of Engineering Companies–Illinois (ACEC-Illinois) and the Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (IRTBA).

I-LAST serves as:

• Resource Guide
• Checklist
• Rating System

It is completely voluntary to utilize the rating system and guide. However, the I-LAST system was created because:

• There was no organized approach to sustainable design in transportation
• The current market is too reactive to public demands, as opposed to being proactive
• Existing sustainable practices often go unrecognized
• Future sustainability requirements are likely

The purpose of the guide is to:

• Provide a comprehensive list of practices that have the potential to bring sustainable results to highway projects.
• Establish a simple and efficient method of evaluating transportation projects with respect to livability, sustainability, and effect on the natural environment.
• Record and recognize the use of sustainable practices in the transportation industry.

Audiences of the I-LAST System:

• Engineers
• Project Managers

Applications of the I-LAST System:

• Guide to existing practices
• Source for information
• Comprehensive approach

Cost implications of using the system:

• Can be used if finances are very limited
• There are no extra administrative costs
• The cost is for results, not documents

Over 150 sustainable items that can be considered in the design of highway projects. The items fall under one of these 8 categories:

1. Planning
2. Design
3. Environmental
4. Water Quality
5. Transportation
6. Lighting
7. Materials
8. Innovation

For more information visit:
www.irtba.org/greencouncil

Source: APA National Conference Session

Neighborhood-Based Transportation Plans

Jackson Heights
Source: Google Images

Jackson Heights
Source: Google Images

One of the first sessions I attended was a presentation on the New York DOT's approach to neighborhood-based transportation plans in Jackson Heights and Chinatown. The best thing about this case study is that they were able to complete the planning process, from start to finish, in about two years time.

The Approach

The most important aspect of the plan is that the process is guided by the community. The community identifies the issues that they want to see addressed. Short term, non-capital improvements help combat the community perception that planners always do studies and research and nothing ever happens.

Recommendations

• Avoid technical rigor
• Utilize scalable techniques
• Be flexible - if it's not working change it immediately!
• Ex. No one is at your meeting. Bring the meeting to the people. Go to a neighborhood park, community or senior centers
• Community meetings
• Day and evening
• Provide child care
• Have meetings in increments
• Provide translators
• Provide food 
• Games make planning issues fun
• Hold in different locations to get a wide range of perspectives from the same neighborhood
• Neighborhood walks/tours
• Engage the whole community
• Bring out the family

In Jackson Heights and Chinatown

Chinatown
Source: Google Images

Issues

• No loading area - double parking
• Bike lane becomes a de facto delivery dock
• Buses and cars have to maneuver around trucks into oncoming traffic
• Congested sidewalks so pedestrians are always in the street

Solutions

Chinatown
Source: Google Images

• Make a street a one way - traffic runs smoother during run hours
• Wider sidewalks
• Community validates solutions:
• Street surveys on the proposed solution for implementation
• Web portal for post implementation comments and concerns - provides information in real time

Challenges

• New model - may have to work out kinks/problems
• Time - spending time nurturing relationships in the neighborhoods
• Cost

Lessened Learned

• Give yourself time
• Remember it's impossible to reach everyone
• Nurture project and community champions
• Develop a press strategy
• Demonstrate how the publics comments were incorporated into the plan
• The community will participate if they believe input will be taken seriously and they can see tangible changes

For more information visit:

http://a841-tfpweb.nyc.gov/jackson-heights/

Source: APA National Conference Session

Chicago!!!

This past week I had the pleasure (and funds) of attending the American Planning Association National Conference in Chicago, Illinois. I attended many sessions in which I was able to learn so much about implementing transportation plans. I got a chance to explore the city and take in its culture and history. I had a great time chatting with planners, other students, and vendors. Over the next week I'll be sharing what I learned from the sessions at the conference. Happy reading!

Non-motorized Level-Of-Service Rating Factors

Feature	Definition	Indicators
Network continuity	Whether sidewalks and paths exist, and connect throughout an area.	§  Portion of streets with nonmotorized facilities. §  Length of path per capita. §  Network connectivity and density (kilometers of sidewalks and paths per square kilometer).
Network quality	Whether sidewalks and paths are properly designed and maintained.	§  Sidewalk and path functional width. §  Portion of sidewalks and paths that meet current design standards. §  Portion of sidewalks and paths in good repair.
Road crossing	Safety and speed of road crossings	§  Road crossing widths. §  Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. §  Average pedestrian crossing time. §  Quantity and quality of crosswalks, signals and crossing guards.
Traffic protection	Separation of nonmotorized traffic from motorized traffic, particularly high traffic volumes and speeds.	§  Distance between traffic lanes and sidewalks or paths. §  Presence of physical separators, such as trees and bollards. §  Speed control.
Congestion and user conflicts	Whether sidewalks and paths are crowded or experience other conflicts.	§  Functional width of sidewalk and paths. §  Peak-period density (people per square meter) §  Clearance from hazards, such as street furniture and performers within the right-of-way. §  Number of reported conflicts among users. §  Facility management to minimize user conflicts.
Topography	Presence of steep inclines.	§  Portion of sidewalks and paths with steep inclines.
Sense of Security	Perceived threats of accidents, assault, theft or abuse.	§  Reported security incidents. §  Quality of visibility and lighting.
Wayfinding	Guidance for navigating within the station and to nearby destinations.	§  Availability and quality of signs, maps and visitor information services.
Weather protection	User protected from sun and rain.	§  Presence of shade trees and awnings.
Cleanliness	Cleanliness of facilities and nearby areas.	§  Litter, particularly potentially dangerous objects. §  Graffiti on facilities and nearby areas. §  Effectiveness of sidewalk and path cleaning programs.
Attractiveness	The attractiveness of the facility, nearby areas and destinations.	§  Quality of facility design. §  Quality of nearby buildings and landscaping. §  Area Livability (environmental and social quality of an area). §  Community cohesion (quantity and quality of positive interactions among people in an area). §  Number of parks and recreational areas accessible by nonmotorized facilities.
Marketing	Effectiveness of efforts to encourage nonmotorized transportation.	§  Quality of nonmotorized education and promotion programs. §  Nonmotorized transport included in Commute Trip Reduction programs.

Source: Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2012