Blogs

1

Q: Can traditional roadway systems include the walk-out basements that developers and homeowners want?  If not, how will planners and developers be convinced to switch to traditional systems in suburban areas

A: There are many examples where traditional roadway systems are used with a variety of housing types.  Walk out basements are often easier to provide where there is a grade change; you can still have a grid or modified grid street system where grades vary.  But certainly some housing types are more suitable for traditional roadway systems than others.  Many suburbs have “reinvented” their housing by adding more variety (and often more density) for “aging in place” or to attract young professionals looking for a different, smaller, residential type.

2

Q: Can the roadway network always guide how the adjacent roadside will develop, or does the roadside development actually define how the roadway should develop?  Or is it a mixture of both?  Is one option preferable to another?

A: Often the land use influences the transportation but the type of roadway design also influences the types of land uses attracted to a corridor or district.  Best to have a multi-disciplinary approach linking land use/zoning with the planning and design of the transportation system.  In either scenario, coordinated planning is easier than a retrofit later. 

3

Q: do you have numbers of jobs and people per square area that support different levels of transit service (e.g. 100 people and jobs per hectare for 10min transit service

A: There are some rule of thumbs for population and employment density typical with different types of transit (see table).  Variables to consider include factors such as demographic profile of residents and employees (i.e. potential transit users), level of congestion, cost of parking, comparison of travel time reliability and level of congestion.

4

Q: Aside from the improved emergency response, how does one convince residents who live on a cul-de-sac that it is preferable to have improved connectivity?  Many people choose to live in such locations simply because there is no through traffic. Consequently, there is a reduced incidence of cut through traffic and typically lower vehicle speeds.

A: When planning for future street extensions, it is important to provide visual cues of the planned extension like “future street extension” signs at stub streets. Be sure the connected network has a policy basis in the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision regulations/unified development code, and regularly remind community officials of the benefits of connectivity like those noted in the presentation and the Proposed Recommended Practice.  One thing we did not have time to show, but that can be effective, is to show how much congestion can result from disconnected streets.  And how connectivity, at least for peds and bikes, encourages more walking and biking for healthier communities.  Be sure to get support from benefiters like fire, police, school bus routers, DPW (snow plowing), the post office, public health advocates etc.  Also consider street design options that include traffic calming measures; design the streets for the target speed, not 10 mph over the desired speed.

5

Q: Can you elaborate on 4 to 3 conversions?

A: The proposed RP provides guidelines on how to apply roadway diets. Some professionals often use rules of thumb noted in the RP is where traffic volumes on a 4 lane road are less than 20,000 vehicles per day, a conversion to 3 lanes might be considered.  Some agencies have found 15,000 and under is a fairly straightforward conversion, 15K-18K-20K may require additional study of peak hour operations at intersections.  Some communities have had success with volumes in the low to mid 20’s.   Most studies show speeds go down slightly with a 4 to 3 conversion, but not always.  One before and after study found little difference in speed with a belief it was because the context remained the same (deep building setbacks, parking in front, no trees or other features to give the motorist the perception they should slow down).  So context matters.

Some factors to consider in addition to traffic volumes are 1) if crashes are a problem (crashes typically are higher with 4 lanes compared to 3),  2) the number of driveways (more access points that cause conflicts on 4 lanes might have safer access with 3 lanes), 3) the volumes of buses or trucks (buses that stop frequently when there is only one travel lane can cause more congestion), 4) if the road is a main route for fire trucks or ambulances and 5) what will you do with the extra width? Bike lanes, wider sidewalks, more green space?

6

Q: We're having some problems locally with unsignalized midblock and roundabout pedestrian crossings on arterials.  Have you seen approaches that work well to balance the needs of the drivers and the pedestrians in these cases?

A: Examples and explanation given by B. Strader include mid-block ped activated signals, curb bump outs, medians, more visible ped crossings, signs that say “yield to pedestrians, min $50 fine”  New crossing guidelines have been established for multi-lane roundabout approaches to improve crossings for pedestrians, especially the vision impaired. The new Highway Safety Manual has some examples and this subject is often featured in sessions at the ITE annual meeting.

7

Q: In the alternative 2,3,4 [example of rural to suburban transition in Opal VA], was any convincing required that going through the middle would not disconnect the community?  Was the context of the road in alternatives 2 and 3 substantially different than alternative 4?

A:  The three alternatives were specifically developed to minimize the disruption and disconnect of the community which was proposed to develop on both sides of the formerly rural arterial.  The growth from a crossroads to a “village” led to the notion that a new network was required to serve the community, rather than letting strip development take place on either side of a busy roadway.  By keeping the arterial in place and providing rear access rather than access from the arterial, pavement width was reduced, enabling better and safer pedestrian crossings, and better pedestrian movement along the arterial, since it would have fewer curb cuts.  Alternative 4, a bypass, was distinctive (and similar to many historical efforts to deal with similar issues), but it raised different concerns about the economic viability of the developer investment.  Any bypass would also have created a stronger barrier than found in Alternatives 2 or 3, a barrier which would be recognized when development in the longer term happened on the far side of that bypass.

8

Q: Are there network evaluation tools?

A:  Traditional travel demand models do not do a good job of analyzing different network plans.  This is partially due to the size of the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) and how they load onto a transportation network.  Some studies have used traffic simulation models with fine-grained roadway networks to better evaluate the effects of network designs.  We are not aware of any tool that is specifically designed to evaluate various networks.

9

Q: Discuss your experience of Fire services accepting road diets and other such improvements.

A:  Typically, Fire departments are opposed to any traffic calming devices under the guise that they slow down emergency vehicles.  This opposition is often mitigated on local streets by implementing devices such as speed cushions or mountable roundabouts that facilitate movement of large vehicles with minimal delay.  Some agencies have had some success with conducting demonstrations of such devices with fire department personnel to dispel preconceived expectations.

10

Q: How do we acquire rights of way without it being a taking, and how do we pay for the improvements that are required? 

A:  The assembly of privately held land for a public purpose is a taking, and as such, requires compensation to the owner.  The challenge to avoid typing up public funds in such land is addressed creatively by communities in different ways, often as a function of local and state laws.  Some corridors in Michigan have used an advance acquisition program where the DOT negotiates and purchases future ROW before development is approved.  Many agencies have used zoning incentives to encourage the donation or dedication of planned future ROW.  If a land use plan, the supporting zoning, and the transportation plan are developed in concert, then that frequently is the time that the landowner receives compensation in terms of certain plan or zoning benefits which offset the “taking” of his land.   The challenge to the agency staff is less one of funding the acquisition, and more of ensuring that the permitted type and density of use are compatible with the multi-modal system which can be built on the dedicated right-of-way.

11

Q: Is there any action at the state level to adopt context-sensitive roadway design and land use similar to roadway functional class?

A:  Some states have implemented CSS programs to varying degrees.  The speakers are not aware of which, if any, DOT’s are adding CSS elements or are considering the layered or multi-modal/CSS approach recommended in the RP.   The ITE RP “Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares:  A Context Sensitive Approach”, may provide additional insights.

12

Q: Can you speak more about methodologies to balance and prioritize? Have you looked at Kevin Kingsbury's (Idaho) work on street profiles?

A:  Chapter 7 of the draft RP speaks to the issues regarding the implementation of a plan, including balancing competing interests and setting priorities.  The RP, however, was not intended to bring forward specific methodologies for priority setting, but rather to establish the need for it, and some fundamental principles on how to do it in a manner which achieves consensus and therefore action to implement high priority improvements.  The reader should consider other sources for more methodological guidance, including resources from ITE, for the American Planning Association, and from TRB. 

Kingsbury’s work is creative in addressing the movement towards Complete Streets, as it provides a practical approach to the assessment of the base case by answering “how complete are our streets?”  It answers that question through an audit, through a graphical profile tool, and through consideration of the context and function of the street (or, in the RP’s parlance, the roadway).  His approach may well prove useful as one tool to help a community begin the evolution of its future roadway network by a multi—modal assessment of how well the network serves the community today. 

13

Q: On the access management slide, what is the basis for the 455 ft driveway spacing?

A: The diagram was an example from Michigan.  It was meant to be illustrative as opposed to specifically prescriptive.  There is a wealth of information and guidance regarding Access Management that can be reviewed to learn what is best applied to your situation.  A search of the ITE website is one way to find publications and training.  A very comprehensive set of Access Management information was developed by the TRB Committee on Access Management (AHB70).  The Resources section of the TRB committee web site provides much information including "The 10 Principles of Access Management", an interactive graphic, and the 2006 CD-ROM Library, which contains a wealth of access management documents and resources. National conference proceedings dating from 1993 are included, as well as the leading handbooks and papers from around the country.  The 2007 ITE Compendium contains the proceedings from the 7th National Access Management Conference (Park City, UT, August 2006) as well as ALL the prior proceedings from the 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 conferences, plus a dozen NCHRP Syntheses reports pertaining to AM, plus the FHWA video "Safe Access is Good for Business", plus the Utah DOT video "Benefits of Raised Medians". 

14

Q: How do we get state DOTs and their consultants to be sensitive to / follow these considerations when doing projects in urban areas?  Many current standards appear to conflict.

A: As noted in the presentation, many city and state codes are outdated with respect to roadway planning and design.  This proposed recommended practice can be used by ITE and other professionals to educate those who are resistant to the newer roadway system concepts. Some of the material in the RP is new, but most of it has been discussed in the profession for a while, and most of it is evolutionary in approach, rather than revolutionary.  The Committee that prepared the RP debated how far to push the envelope with the RP, and the conclusion was that evolutionary change would be more readily adopted by state and municipal transportation agencies than a more radical overhaul of conventional transportation planning.  The Committee welcomes comments on whether the draft RP hit that target.

15

Q: Can you provide the presentation on the ITE Web site?  Thanks - very informative!

A: Will provide the PDF copy and you can download it from www.ite.org/education/PURS/

16

Q: Some municipalities are making 50 to 60 year plans / visions, while others are using 25-35 year horizons.  What does this manual recommend in terms of planning horizons? 

A: Congratulations to you if you can produce a 50 plus year plan.  Most agencies we are aware of plan for a 20-30 year horizon, which often pushes the limits of any travel demand forecasting models.  The recommended practice does not recommend a horizon but recommends that the roadway network plan should evolve from the long-term vision of the community.  There are two time-frames which are essential to any sound planning effort.  One is the envisioned future end-state which should be far enough in the future to permit the implementation of the plan and still have useful life to the facilities funded by public investment.  The second is the time frame associated with the update of the plan, which should be an evolving document that reflects changes to the community’s vision as well as externalities which impact the community and its plan.