6/14/2012

1

Planning Urban Roadway SystemsPlanning Urban Roadway Systems

Don Samdahl

Chris Breiland

• Review the ITE Report “Planning Urban

Roadway Systems”

• Understand the principles of planning urban

roadway systems

• Define a layered network

• Show how layered networks and MMLOS fit

together

Presentation

A Long History

Planning Urban Roadway Systems

3

Chapters

1. Introduction

2. Context for roadway systems

3. Principles of roadway systems

4. Roadway system characteristics

5. Planning process

6. Special issues

7. Implementation

Planning Urban Roadway Systems

• Planning = Focus on overall planning

• Urban = Focus on urban and suburban

• Roadway = Entire public right-of-way;

multimodal emphasis

• Systems = Look at entire network; holistic view

Planning Urban Roadway Systems Building Upon Urban Thoroughfare RP

• Focused on Corridors

• Context Sensitive Design

• Streetscape/Intersection

• Best Practices Street Design

• Focused on Networks

• Balanced for all modes

• Best Practices for Networks

6/14/2012

2

Traditional Conventional

Context

7

• Fragmented systems

• Major roadways

overloaded

• Limited multimodal

provisions

Consequences

8

• Limited opportunities to

reconfigure network

• Constrained ROW and

geography

• Public doesn’t understand value

of network connectivity

• Outdated codes

• Reactive rather than proactive

planning

Planning Challenges

9

Balanced, layered multimodal networks that safely serve people of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists.

Principles 1 & 2: Balance

Principle 3: Connectivity

� Overall less capacity

� Higher number of crashes*

� Not ped/bike/transit friendly

� Slower emergency response**

� Overall more capacity

� Fewer, less severe crashes

� Multiple direct travel options

� Ped/bike/transit friendly

� Fewer/shorter auto trips

� Faster emergency response**Sources: * Research in 24 cities, 130,000 crashes

** City of Charlotte, NC

Conventional:

Disconnected, Separate Uses

Traditional:

Connected, Mixed UsesHave a high degree of connectivity to help provide multiple routing options for users (including emergency services).

Challenges of a Connected Network:

• Streets have been there for a

long time

• Right-of-way is constrained

• Street connections difficult to add

– Natural barriers

– Residents & developers oppose

connections

• Outdated codes

Solution: connect to the degree practical – at least non-motorized

Tra

dit

ion

al

Co

nv

en

tio

na

l

Principle 3: Connectivity

6/14/2012

3

Appropriate to the land use patterns and urban form that are served.

Principle 4:

Appropriate Network Density Treat roadways as public spaces that influence urban environments.

Principle 5: ROW=Public Realm

Use all of the public right-of-way

To relate to private development

Go beyond the street

Be environmentally and fiscally responsible.

Principle 6: Sustainable Functional Classifications Don’t Always

Work� Context Factors

� Land Use Type

� Development Densities

� Form (e.g. height and setback)

� Corridor Users

Conventional

New Typologies

Layered Networks

� Complete Streets =

accommodate all modes

if possible

� Layered Networks =

provide priority to

particular mode to

improve efficiency and

safety

� Identify integrated

modal network

Layered

Networks

Have Been

Around for

Awhile

6/14/2012

4

Transit Networks

Connectivity - Connected roadways allow for a variety of transit routings, as well as

better pedestrian connections to access stops.

Roadway Spacing - Within a connected roadway network, the ideal spacing for transit-compatible roadways is one half mile

within a grid pattern to allow everyone to be within a quarter mile of transit.

Roadway Design - Improved access to transit, combined with a pedestrian oriented environment.

Land Use Planning - Planning and regulations to promote clustering of

development and mixed use Transit Oriented Development.

Bicycle Networks

� Network needs a variety of bike

facilities for different bike users

A: Advanced, experienced

B: Basic, most potential

C: Children, less confident

� Network may include

� Bike Routes (share the road)

� Bike boulevards (minor streets)

� Bike lanes

� Trails and pathways

� Type of rides

� Time of day

� Trip purpose

� Weather

Route Selection Factors

Layered Network Layered Network

Network Spacing

� Three principal determinants of roadway spacing

� Trip density

� Travel characteristics

�Design and physical characteristics

� Roadway Networks should consider adequate spacing to

accommodate all modes of transportation

Different treatments at different locations23

Charlotte, NC Access Route for FS 31

~1½ miles

~½ mile

300’ gap in road

NCourtesy of Danny Pleasant, AICP Charlotte Dept of Transportation

24

6/14/2012

5

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Fire Station

Station 2

Station 15

Station 14

Station 24

Station 22

Station 19

Station 9

Station 31

Station 31 w/Shelley

Greater connectivity Less connectivity

Charlotte, NC Households per Fire Station

Courtesy of Danny Pleasant, AICP Charlotte Dept of Transportation25

Balance and prioritize design to meet street’s purpose

Multi-Modal Quality of Service

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

• Comfort based

• LOS based on:

� Autos: quality of service

� Transit: quality of

service; comfort

� Bikes: comfort

� Pedestrians: comfort

• Accounts for:

� Street cross-section

oTravel lanes

oBike lanes

oParking

o Landscaping

o Sidewalk

oBus Shelters

� Speed of traffic

� Vehicle volume (ADT)

HCM 2010 MMLOS Case Study:

Tukwila, WA• Citywide calculation of

pedestrian, bicycle, and

auto LOS

• Grant funded

• More than 70 auto and

bicycle segments and

more than 350

pedestrian segments

• Extensive data collection

• Custom GIS application

Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS

6/14/2012

6

Auto LOS Lessons Learned

• LOS results generally met expectations,

particularly for bicycles

• Some surprises: Lack of a sidewalk did not

lead to automatic LOS F

• Difficult to score LOS A or LOS F

• Not sensitive to urban form/adjacent land

uses

• Not tuned to identifying mitigations

• Need for clear policy guidance and design

standards

Need for Clear Policy Multi-Modal Quality of Service

One Idea: Person-Delay

Illustration of Alternative 5 (bicycle/pedestrian bridge) and analysis by mode

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Se

co

nd

s

HCM Intersection LOS = C

PM Peak Hour Delay

Option 5 28.7 29.8 64.2 15.1 28.1

Vehicle Buses Pedestrian Bicycle Average

Person Delay

6/14/2012

7

City of Burien, WA

Layered Modal Networks and MMLOS

Auto / Truck

Priority

Routes

LOS E- Downtown Burien

LOS D- Vehicle Priority Roadways

LOS C- Other Roadways

Transit

Priority

Routes

Emphasis

•All day, frequent transit service

•Transit stop

amenities•Minimal transit

delay

•Good pedestrian access

Pedestrian

Priority

Routes and

Areas

Needs:

•17-18 miles of

new sidewalks on

arterials and

collectors

•Wide shoulders

on local streets

where possible

Bicycle

Priority

Routes

Emphasis

•Use of local streets and

selected arterial

corridors•Adequate

treatments at

intersections•Limited stop

frequency

Chapter 5: Planning Process

Planning Issues

• Environmental Sustainability

• System Continuity

• Travel Demand Management

• Traffic Operations/ Control

• Economic Impacts

• Network Resiliency

• Fiscal Considerations

• Capacity for Vehicular Travel

Demand

42

6/14/2012

8

Chapter 6: Special Issues

• Suburbanization of Rural Roadway Systems

• Urbanization of Suburban Systems

• Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)

• Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

• Junctions and Intersections (signals, roundabouts)

• Traffic Calming

• Road Dieting

• One-Way and Two-Way Streets

• Freeways, Surface Streets, & Service Roads

43

Traditional Neighborhood Development

• Design buildings, site, streetscape, and streets as one

• Shared use = multimodal with ped/bike emphasis

• Low speeds

• High connectivity

Illustration: LSL Planning, Inc.

44

Transit-Oriented Development

• Networks influence ridership

• Transit priority operations/design

• Pedestrian connectivity and

crossings

• Bike accommodations

• Parking management

• Balanced multi-modal system

45

Traffic Calming & Road Diets

• Retrofit vs. built-in

• Replace facility-oriented

planning with a system-

oriented planning effort

• Anticipate impacts on

adjacent facilities and other

modes

• Assess and mitigate impacts

across the multi-modal

system

46

Two-Way

• Less capacity

• More crashes

• Lower speed

• Better wayfinding

• Conversion expensive (signals)

One-Way v Two-Way (Lansing, Oakland-Saginaw)

Existing: One-way

Illustration: LSL Planning, Inc.

One-Way• More capacity

• Fewer crashes• Higher speed

• Complicates wayfinding

Two-way Conversion

47

Planning for the Freeway Interface

• Functional area of the interchange

• Arterial spacing

• Access management

48

6/14/2012

9

We’ve Come a Long Way

49

1969