Complete Streets Initiative San Antonio
TEXAS TRAILS & ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION February 1, 2012
2
COMPLETE STREETS SAN ANTONIO
2010 – CPPW grant award 2011 -‐ Policy Adopted 2011 -‐ Project scoping 2012 -‐ MMLOS Training 2012 -‐ BeLer Block 2013 – ConstrucOon of pilot
streets 2020 -‐ Look back & assess
2
3
POLICY PASSED COUNCIL SEPT 29 2011
1. San Antonio supports Complete Streets
2. San Antonio promotes healthy living and fitness through Complete Streets
3. San Antonio supports pedestrian-‐oriented neighborhoods through Complete Streets
4. Commercial corridors shall be enhanced through the applicaOon of Complete Streets
5. San Antonio will maximize benefits of investment in capital projects through the applicaOon of Complete Streets.
4
STRATEGIC POINTS OF INTERVENTION
1. Community Visioning & Goal Se_ng
2. Plan making 3. Standards, Policies &
IncenOves 4. Development Work 5. Public Investment
From: Complete Streets: Best Policy & Implementa7on Prac7ces, APA Planning Advisory Service Report #559
1. SA2020 in 2011 2. Major Thoroughfare Plan
analysis for Complete Streets in 2012
3. Policy in 2011; Standards in progress
4. Development work expected 2013
5. Public investment beginning 2012
NATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SAN ANTONIO PROGRESS
5
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
• Project Scoping through 2012 City Bond Program • Downtown projects starOng @ Hemisfair Park
• CreaOng metrics for Complete Streets • Training planners & engineers in MMLOS analysis
Main Avenue in downtown San Antonio Espada Road – part of the Mission Trail
6
URBAN LIVING NEEDS COMPLETE STREETS
5000 people projected to move into mixed use planned for Hemisfair Park
STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE
TOWER OF THE AMERICAS
PARK
MARIETPLACE
7
PRIORITIES FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY • MulOmodal TransportaOon
• Bicycle, Mass Transit, Pedestrian, Vehicle
• Traffic Calming • Low Impact Development (LID) • Placemaking / Economic
8
COMPLETE STREET TYPOLOGIES
Mode Considera9on Based on Land Use Context • Downtown: Pedestrian Priority • Urban Mixed Use: Transit-‐Cars-‐Pedestrian • Urban Neighborhood: Bikes-‐Cars-‐Pedestrian-‐Transit • Suburban Neighborhood: Pedestrian-‐Cars-‐Bikes • Suburban Commercial: Cars-‐Transit-‐Pedestrian • Rural: Cars-‐Bikes
9
DOWNTOWN – Pedestrian Priority
10
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Pedestrian-‐Bikes-‐Cars-‐Transit
PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian refuge islands Street trees / landscaping TRANSIT Improved transit stops Mid-‐block crossings
CYCLING Bicycle lanes IntersecOon improvements Buffers
CARS Road markings & signals Traffic circles On street parking
11
TRADEOFFS IN THE PUBLIC ROW
76 FEET RIGHT OF WAY
12
MMLOS
Mulitmodal Level of Service evaluates traffic impacts of pedestrian, bicycle & transit faciliOes
Brief version conducted for Bond project evaluaOon using field data tool
City staff being trained in Synchro somware to assess street segments proposed for Complete Streets
Need to incorporate uOliOes within the ROW
13
MMLOS EVALUATION TOOL
• ExisOng & proposed ROW • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) • ExisOng & proposed traffic lanes • ExisOng & proposed transit routes • Is route idenOfied on SA Bikes plan? • Located within one mile of greenway? • Provides access to school, park or recreaOon? • Within ¼ mile of pedestrian generator?
14
SAMPLE RESULTS
2.36
Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 62.70
Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.
2.84
3.57
4.07
S Hackberry St @ Essex Place to E Drexel Ave
D
CProposed withBike Lanes
ExistingConditions
DBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes
Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.
4.5SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
B
COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE 6.9
B
Proposed
Existing
PEDESTRIANLOS
7.8
15
70 ft
92 ft90 ft95 ft100 ft92 ft
88 ft86 ft91 ft96 ft88 ft
ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are added
LANE DIET - Reduce Lanes from 12' to 11'
ROW needed if a shared use path is added
ROW needed if bike lanes are added
Availability of ROW assumes 5' minimum distance from back of sidewalk to ROW for utilities. A 6 ft sidewalk is included for all street sections.
ROW INADEQUATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS
ROW INADEQUATE
ROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* ROW INADEQUATE
Score:
7-10
ROW INADEQUATE
SCORING LEGEND
High need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should include as many features for this road user as possible
Available ROW
ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if bike lanes are addedROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added
ROW needed for Street Cross-Section Options:
ROW INADEQUATE
Moderate need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user. Roadway should incorporate features for this road user if right-of-way is available.
1-44-7
ROW needed if sidewalk buffers are added ROW INADEQUATEROW needed if a shared use path is added ROW INADEQUATE
ROW INADEQUATE
*Assumes uilities are placed in a 5 ft buffer between the sidewalk and curb, and the sidewalk is at the ROW line. Additional ROW or retaining wall may be necessary for grading.
The need for Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit considerations on the rodway are scored on a scale of 1 to 10.
Minimal need for incorporating Complete Street components for this road user.
Explanation:
ROW needed if bike lanes and sidewalk buffers are addedROW needed if bike lanes are added & utilities are placed in buffer strip* ROW INADEQUATE
Consider reducing median width to accommodate Complete Streets Features.
SAMPLE RESULTS
16
MULTI-‐MODAL (MMLOS) ANALYSIS TOOL
Exis9ng Cesar Chavez Blvd
Pedestrian LOS = D
Proposed Cross Sec9on Cesar Chavez Blvd
Pedestrian LOS = C
17
• Located 1 ½ miles north of downtown, above the I-‐35 freeway
• 36,000 daily students • 920 employees • 8 county service area • 5 transit routes • No dormitories • 1 high school • Minimal off campus parking
SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE
18
SAN PEDRO AVE
• Major north-‐south arterial roadway with access to downtown
• 17,000 vehicles per day • 3 frequent transit routes • VIA offices – 800+
employees • San Pedro Park – popular
year-‐round park
19
SAN PEDRO AVE
20
2.87
Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 63.20
Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 4Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.
3.15
3.88
3.88
San Pedro from Cypress to Hildebrand
D
CProposed withBike Lanes
ExistingConditions
DBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes
Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.
8.6SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
C
COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE 9.8
C
Proposed
Existing
PEDESTRIANLOS
10
VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from Florida DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1.C
21
MAIN AVE
• North-‐south collector street with access to downtown
• 8300 vehicles per day • 1 transit route • Campus + business “Main Street”
• Mixed use planned • On SA Bikes plan
22
2.95
Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 52.50
Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.
3.01
3.73
3.88
Main Ave from Cypress to Hildebrand
D
CProposed withBike Lanes
ExistingConditions
DBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes
Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.
7.7SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
C
COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE 9.8
B
Proposed
Existing
PEDESTRIANLOS
10
VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from Florida DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1.C
23
W ASHBY PL
• Local street with bike lanes
• Connects eastside – westside neighborhoods
• 2500 vehicles per day • 1 busy transit route • On SA Bikes plan • Hilly
24
Calculate Score
1.97
Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 52.05
Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.
3.12
3.39
3.62
W Ashby from San Pedro to Main
D
CProposed withBike Lanes
ExistingConditions
CBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes
Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.
10SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
A
COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE 10
B
Proposed
Existing
PEDESTRIANLOS
10
VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from Florida DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1.C
25
W EVERGREEN
• Neighborhood street -‐ 1 mile long
• Dead-‐ends at San Pedro • 3500 vehicles per day • 1 transit route • No pavement markings
26
2.10
Min. Complete Street Sidewalk Width (ft): 52.42
Min. Complete Street Buffer Width (ft): 2Sidewalk and buffer widths shown areminimum values for a Complete Street. Wider widthsare desireable if ROW is available.
3.29
3.56
3.80
W Evergreen from San Pedro to Main
D
CProposed withBike Lanes
ExistingConditions
DBICYCLE LOS Proposed withoutBike Lanes
Additional Right-of-Way may be required to install bike lanes. Refer to the Righ-of-Way Considerations section below.
3.7SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
B
COMPLETE STREETS BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
SCORE 10
B
Proposed
Existing
PEDESTRIANLOS
10
VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS Score is intended only for preliminary planning purposes. LOS is calculated from Florida DOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Generalized Planning Analysis Table 1.C
27
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
• Roundabouts • Mini traffic circles • On street parking • Reverse angle parking • Curb bulbouts • Pedestrian refuge islands • Improved transit stops • Mid-‐block crossings • Bicycle lanes • Street trees / landscaping
28
ROAD DIETS / LANE DIETS
ROAD DIETS reduce the number of lanes in a roadway
Typical is 4 lanes to 3 with center turn lane
6000 vehicles per day per lane is starOng point to consider road diet
Buses, loading trucks, on-‐street parking will impact LOS
LANE DIETS reduce width of lanes Typical is 12 m to 11 m – can go to 10
m in some instances Parking lane widths reduced to 8 m Narrower lanes tend to slow traffic
speeds VIA buses require 12 m lanes
Research by NCHRP and others point to increased safety for both road diets and lane diets with 20-‐40% crash reduc7ons
29
EXERCISE: MAKING COMPLETE STREETS
• Assess available ROW, traffic volume, adjacent uses, number of desOnaOons
• Determine modal priority: pedestrians, transit, cars, bikes
• Develop preliminary street cross-‐secOon • Determine whether addiOonal traffic calming methods needed – roundabouts, street parking etc.
• Consider ameniOes such as landscape, pedestrian refuges, mini-‐plazas, public art
• Develop cross secOons with traffic calming treatments
30
Thank you!
Top Related