Transportation, Parking & Roads

Similar documents
Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

ATTACHMENT 4 - TDM Checklist. TDM Checklist Overview

PURPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY 54% Corridor Need 1. Corridor Need 2. Corridor Need 3. Corridor Need 4. Corridor Need 5

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Solana Beach Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS)

Transportation Master Plan Advisory Task Force

Circulation in Elk Grove includes: Motor vehicles, including cars and trucks

PenPlace SPRC #6. September 27, DRAFT

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

Report. Typical Sections. City of Middleton, WI

Chapter 7. Transportation. Transportation Road Network Plan Transit Cyclists Pedestrians Multi-Use and Equestrian Trails

5/31/2016 VIA . Arwen Wacht City of Sacramento Community Development Department 300 Richards Blvd., 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95811

BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Providence Downtown Transit Connector STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

Virginia Hospital Center Expansion

Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

Project Narrative Old Durham Road/Old Chapel Hill Road Complete Streets Project

CPC Parking Lot Riverside Drive. Transportation Rationale

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2004 CMR:432:04

Kennedy Plaza and Providence Downtown Transit Connector PUBLIC MEETING. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

Arlington Public Schools Abingdon Elementary School Site Evaluation Preliminary Transportation Findings

Roads and Vehicular Traffic Design Principles. Roads and Vehicular Traffic Recommendations

Public Workshop #2. September 14, 2016

6/22/2018 VIA . Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager City of Rancho Cordova Planning Department 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

ELEMENT 11 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

Locally Preferred Alternative Report May 27, North-South Corridor Study

North Coast Corridor:

Los Altos Hills Town Council - June 18, 2015 Palo Alto City Council June 22, AGENDA ITEM #2.B Presentation

Develop a Multi-Modal Transportation Strategy (Theme 6)

Chapel Hill Transit: Short-Range Transit Plan. State of the System Report

Chapter 2: Standards for Access, Non-Motorized, and Transit

Bicycle Master Plan Goals, Strategies, and Policies

Item to be Addressed Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Complete Streets Guidelines

Arlington Public Schools Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation Transportation Networks. Thomas Jefferson Working Group Meeting #6 November 10, 2014

OCALA/MARION TPO CITY OF BELLEVIEW CORRIDOR PLAN STUDY PRESENTATION TO THE BELLEVIEW CITY COMMISSION JANUARY 25, :00 PM

Welcome. Background. Goals. Vision

T1-A - Service Reduction (Re-sizing)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1 STUDY OVERVIEW Study Scope Study Area Study Objectives

Existing Transportation System

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

CURBSIDE ACTIVITY DESIGN

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE & STRATEGIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN. APPENDIX L - Mobilitiy Component Implementation Matrix

Existing Transportation System

Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility

Arlington s Master Transportation Plan

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CRITERIA

5/7/2013 VIA . RE: University Village Safeway Expansion (P13-019)

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2

Building Community Partnerships for Mobility:

3/10/2016 VIA th Street, Suite 203 Sacramento, CA

WELCOME. City of Greater Sudbury. Transportation Demand Management Plan

Living Streets Policy

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

2018 Transportation Survey October 17, Prepared by:

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Section 8. Partnerships and Funding

UNC Transportation Fair

Beyond First First Last Last Mile Strategies. APA National Conference April 3, 2016 Chelsea Richer, AICP Fehr & Peers

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

2025 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Temple Terrace Florida. Mobility Element. Adopted by City Council June 30, 2009

Madison Urban Area and Dane County. Bicycle Transportation Plan Summary. September Introduction. Bicycle Plan Scope and Planning Process

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Measuring the Distribution and Costs of Congestion. Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute

12/4/2016 VIA . RE: Grocery Outlet Del Paso (DR16-328)

6/14/2013 VIA . Evan Compton, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Sacramento 300 Richards Blvd Sacramento, CA 95814

We believe the following comments and suggestions can help the department meet those goals.

Vision: Traditional hamlet with an attractive business/pedestrian friendly main street connected to adjacent walkable neighborhoods

ROUTES 55 / 42 / 676 BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

STATION #3 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES

9/25/2018. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Bianca Popescu, Transportation Planner

Exit 13/Golden Triangle Study FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

University of Victoria Campus Cycling Plan Terms of Reference. 1.0 Project Description

THE PHILADELPHIA COMPLETE. an overview

CITY OF BURIEN, WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM

Transportation-Demand Management Community Presentation

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

C C C

City of White Rock. Strategic Transportation Plan. May 16, 2005

June 3, Attention: David Hogan City of San Mateo 330 W. 2oth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN SMITHS FALLS, ONTARIO; A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO SITES

Provide Employee Parking

Welcome. If you have any questions or comments on the project, please contact:

City of Novi Non-Motorized Master Plan 2011 Executive Summary

Town of Milton. Derry Green Corporate Business Park Secondary Plan. Transportation Strategy Report Final. December 2010

Sacramento Grid 2.0. The Downtown Transportation Study

Moving Cambridge. City of Cambridge Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Centre. March 7, :00 8:00 PM.

1 st and 2 nd Street Couplet FAQ s

lowercase tod Rail~Volution October 22, 2013 Melanie Hare

WELCOME TO OPEN HOUSE # 1 June 14, 2017

Sebastopol Charter School Traffic Management Plan

Transportation Element

ROADSOADS CONGESTION HAMPTON SYSTEMYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Part II Roadway Congestion Analysis Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation

Transcription:

Transportation, Parking & Roads

Design Carolina North as a walkable community Design the transportation system and development patterns (i.e., urban design elements such as density, building design, mix of uses, open space, etc.) to encourage self-propelled based transportation (walking, biking, etc.) as the primary means of travel and to promote a vibrant community Integrate on-site bike and pedestrian routes with existing and planned local facilities Design complete streets to minimize speeds, maximize peaceful coexistence of all modes, and minimize conflicts between pedestrian, bicycles and vehicles Create vehicle-free zones where appropriate

Main Campus Mode Splits Mode Employees 2001 2004 2010 Existing Existing Projected Ratio Ratio Ratio Drive alone 0.72 0.61 0.54 Carpool/vanpool 0.06 0.05 0.08 Bus 0.06 0.08 0.12 Bicycle 0.03 0.02 0.03 Walk 0.02 0.02 0.02 Park-and-ride 0.07 0.15 0.17 Other 0.04 0.06 0.04

Other Campus Employee Mode Splits Mode UNC Main Campus (2004) Cornell U of Wisconsin Stanford U of Washington Drive Alone 61% 56% 50% 58% 39% Carpool / Vanpool 5% 17% 14% 11% 13% Transit 8% 14% 10% 18% 36% Walk 2% 9% 6% 2% 5% Bicycle 2% 3% 14% 10% 7% Park & Ride 15% - - - Other 6% 1% 6% 1% <1%

Design Carolina North as a walkable community Design the transportation system and development patterns (i.e., urban design elements such as density, building design, mix of uses, open space, etc.) to encourage self-propelled based transportation (walking, biking, etc.) as the primary means of travel and to promote a vibrant community Integrate on-site bike and pedestrian routes with existing and planned local facilities Design complete streets to minimize speeds, maximize peaceful coexistence of all modes, and minimize conflicts between pedestrian, bicycles and vehicles Create vehicle-free zones where appropriate Possible metrics: 100% of employees who live on campus walk/bike to work 10% of employees who live off campus walk/bike to work 100% of residents and employees walk/bike between campus activities 100% of roads/paths have acceptable pedestrian Level of Service 100% of roads/paths have acceptable bike Level of Service (Employees also includes students working or taking classes on site)

Pedestrian Enhancements Sidewalks on both sides of the street Separate sidewalk from the travel lanes with landscape buffer Minimize pedestrian exposure Reduce crossing width at intersections Limit driveways Provide street furniture, shade Connectivity, short blocks

Cycling Enhancements Provide bike lanes and bike paths Encourage biking through amenities: Incorporate covered bike parking into new buildings if possible Showers and lockers Short and long-term bike parking

Design Carolina North as a walkable community (cont) Design the transportation system and development patterns (i.e., urban design elements such as density, building design, mix of uses, open space, etc.) to encourage self-propelled based transportation (walking, biking, etc.) as the primary means of travel and to promote a vibrant community Integrate on-site bike and pedestrian routes with existing and planned local facilities Design complete streets to minimize speeds, maximize peaceful coexistence of all modes, and minimize conflicts between pedestrian, bicycles and vehicles Create vehicle-free zones where appropriate Possible metrics: Internal transportation system connects to 100% of external pedestrian paths and bike routes The 85 percentile for traffic speeds on any street does not exceed the design speed limit for that street

Maximize use of transit at every phase of development Design site to maximize opportunities to travel by transit from outset Design site for efficient transit movement as a priority element Focus most intensive development around transit nodes Identify, preserve and retrofit corridors for future transportation needs Reserve land for transit center Use rail corridor for high speed transit to extent feasible

Existing Transit System CHT BUS ROUTES TTA REGIONAL BUS ROUTES PTP FIXED ROUTES EXISTING PARK N RIDE LOTS PROPOSED PARK N RIDE POTENTIAL PARK N RIDE

DCHC Long-Range Transit Plan Express Buses: Express Buses: Hillsborough Hillsborough Chapel Hill / Durham Chapel Hill / Durham (by 2015) (by 2015) Regional Rail Phase 1 Regional Rail Phase 1 Duke Extension (after Duke Extension (after initial segment) initial segment) P+R (by 2015) P+R (by 2015) Park-and- Park-and- Ride Sites Ride Sites P+R (by 2015) Regional Rail Phase 1 Regional Rail Phase 1 (funding sources under review) (funding sources under review) P+R (by 2020) Regional Rail Phase 1 Regional Rail Phase 1 North Raleigh Extension North Raleigh Extension (after initial segment) (after initial segment) P+R (by 2015) P+R (by 2015) TTA Phase 2 Fixed Guideway TTA Phase 2 Fixed Guideway (by 2020) (by 2020) High-Capacity Transit High-Capacity Transit (Eubanks Southern Village by 2030, (Eubanks Southern Village by 2030, I-40-Carrboro Plaza by 2030) I-40-Carrboro Plaza by 2030) Express Buses on I-40 Express Buses on I-40 HOV lanes (by 2030) HOV lanes (by 2030) Based on DCHC MPO and CAMPO 2005 Long Range Transportation Plans. Alignments shown are indicative. Programmed completion dates shown in parentheses.

Main Campus Mode Splits Mode Employees 2001 2004 2010 Existing Existing Projected Ratio Ratio Ratio Drive alone 0.72 0.61 0.54 Carpool/vanpool 0.06 0.05 0.08 Bus 0.06 0.08 0.12 Bicycle 0.03 0.02 0.03 Walk 0.02 0.02 0.02 Park-and-ride 0.07 0.15 0.17 Other 0.04 0.06 0.04

Other Campus Employee Mode Splits Mode UNC Main Campus (2004) Cornell U of Wisconsin Stanford U of Washington Drive Alone 61% 56% 50% 58% 39% Carpool / Vanpool 5% 17% 14% 11% 13% Transit 8% 14% 10% 18% 36% Walk 2% 9% 6% 2% 5% Bicycle 2% 3% 14% 10% 7% Park & Ride 15% - - - Other 6% 1% 6% 1% <1%

Maximize use of transit at every phase of development Design site to maximize opportunities to travel by transit from outset Design site for efficient transit movement as a priority element Focus most intensive development around transit nodes Identify, preserve and retrofit corridors for future transportation needs Reserve land for transit center Use rail corridor for high speed transit to extent feasible Possible metrics: The following percent of commuters use transit: 10% within the next 10 years 25% within the next 25 years 30% within the next 50 years 100% of development is located within walking distance of a major transit stop Transit vehicles can travel at an average speed of no less than 15 mph within Carolina North Land is reserved for transit corridor(s) on and off site Land is reserved for transit center(s) on site

Minimize SOV use through policies, programs, and incentives Design each phase of Carolina North to be accessible, and to progressively reduce reliance on SOV use and on-site parking Apply travel demand management experience form Main Campus Promote greater use of strategies such as telecommuting and flexible work hours Automate administrative processes to minimize travel within and between campuses Provide incentives for using alternative modes Provide services and amenities that minimize the need to leave site Provide strong connections to Main Campus Possible metrics: No more than the following percent of employees drive alone to work: 60% within the next 10 years 50% within the next 25 years 40% within the next 50 years

Minimize SOV use through policies, programs, and incentives (cont) Design each phase of Carolina North to be accessible, and to progressively reduce reliance on SOV use and on-site parking Apply travel demand management experience form Main Campus Promote greater use of strategies such as telecommuting and flexible work hours Automate administrative processes to minimize travel within and between campuses Provide incentives for using alternative modes Provide services and amenities that minimize the need to leave site Provide strong connections to Main Campus Possible metrics: Reduction in vehicle miles traveled compared to a typical mixed-used development in the Triangle Region X % within the next 10 years X % within the next 25 years X % within the next 50 years 5% employees who participate in telecommuting, flex-hours and compressed work weeks

Minimize SOV use through policies, programs, and incentives (cont) Design each phase of Carolina North to be accessible, and to progressively reduce reliance on SOV use and on-site parking Apply travel demand management experience form Main Campus Promote greater use of strategies such as telecommuting and flexible work hours Automate administrative processes to minimize travel within and between campuses Provide incentives for using alternative modes Provide services and amenities that minimize the need to leave site Provide strong connections to Main Campus Possible metrics: 50% of daily service/retail needs satisfied on site Frequent transit service is provided to primary off-site service centers Provide at least one full-time TDM coordinator on site 100% of employees receive orientation and on-going education/information on transportation options

Minimize SOV use through policies, programs, and incentives (cont) Provide strong connections to Main Campus Possible metrics: 100% of travel between Carolina North and Main Campus is non-sov 100% of the pedestrian route between Carolina North and Main Campus has acceptable pedestrian Level of Service 100% of the bike route between Carolina North and Main Campus has acceptable bike Level of Service The maximum waiting time for transit service for travel between Carolina North and Main Campus is: 10 minutes in peak periods/15 minutes in off-peak period within the next 10 years 5 minutes in peak periods/10 minutes in off-peak period within the next 25 years The transit trip between the center of Carolina North and UNC Hospitals takes no longer than: 15 minutes in peak periods/10 minutes in off-peak period within the next 10 years 10 minutes in peak periods/10 minutes in off-peak period within the next 25 years

Provide minimum amount of needed parking Maximize use of satellite parking for those who choose to drive Minimize amount of impervious surface Maximize opportunities for shared use of parking

Existing Park-and-Ride

Parking Space Comparison UNC Main Campus: 1 space per 2 employees Other campuses Cornell: 1 space per 2 employees U of Wisconsin: 1 space per 2.4 employees

Provide minimum amount of needed parking Maximize use of satellite parking for those who choose to drive Minimize amount of impervious surface Maximize opportunities for shared use of parking Possible metrics: The following number of employee parking spaces is provided on site: 1 spaces for every 2 employees within the next 10 years 1 spaces for every 2.5 employees within the next 25 years 1 spaces for every 3 employees within the next 50 years Provide adequate satellite parking, served by high quality transit, for those who choose to drive but are not accommodated on campus

Design site and individual phases to minimize impacts of construction traffic Possible metrics: 100% of construction traffic uses designated truck routes for all projects

Design a delivery and servicing system that provides convenient access to each building while minimizing conflicts w/ other modes Possible metrics: All buildings have 2 or more available delivery/service parking spaces that can be accessed without impacting pedestrian circulation No delivery/service vehicles are parked on sidewalks or illegally

Design site and transportation system with the flexibility to adapt to a variety of future transportation scenarios Possible metrics: All recommendations from agencies (Towns, County, DCHC MPO, NCDOT, and University) regarding flexibility are incorporated into the plan

Respect surrounding neighborhoods Minimize undesirable transportation impacts Provide appropriate connections Possible metrics: No more than a 10% increase in vehicles traveling on neighborhoods streets No increase in vehicles parked on neighborhoods streets 100% of people living in adjacent neighborhoods who walk/bike to campus

Develop a plan to address capital and recurring funding needs for transportation, particularly transit Possible metrics: A funding plan is prepared that ensures 100% of capital and recurring funding

Partner with local, regional and state transportation agencies Develop a phased transportation plan and improvements Develop regional transportation initiatives to encourage use of alternatives Obtain and leverage funding for transportation improvements Possible metrics: 100% of all transportation improvements are incorporated into adopted local, regional and state transportation, plans, programs and initiatives