Multimodal Transportation Districts and
Areawide Multimodal Planning
Martin Guttenplan, AICP - FDOT
Cherie Horne, AICP –Tallahassee / Leon Co. Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
District 7
March 18, 2008
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm
Course Agenda
• Introductions
• Overview of Goals and Concepts
• DeLand: A Multimodal Transportation
District Case Study
• Application of Multimodal Planning Multimodal Transportation Districts: The
What, Why, Where, Who, and How
• Linking Land Use and Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service Exercise
• Tallahassee MMTD Evaluation
Multimodal Areawide Planning
Concepts and Applications
Florida Department of
Transportation
Systems Planning Office
March 2008
Objective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:
– Concurrency in Florida
– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation
– Multimodal Areawide Planning
Evolution of Concurrency in Florida
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1985: Growth Management Act
1989-1991: Comprehensive Plans
1993: Project Level and Areawide Exceptions
Late 1990’s: Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports/Update of Local Comprehensive Plans
1998: Transportation and Land Use Study
Committee
1999: Multimodal Transportation Districts
2001: Growth Management Study Committee
2005: Growth Management Act (SB 360)
2006 & 2007: Backlog Discussion
Concurrency in Florida
1985
• Teeth of growth
management
• New development
should pay for itself
• Infrastructure should
be in place and
available at time of
impact
•
•
•
•
•
2007
Unintended
consequences
Concerns about
multimodalism and
community design
Backlog of projects
Funding Dilemma
Public-private
partnerships
Concurrency
• Why – required by law (163.3180 F.S. and 9J05.0055 FAC) to provide for ‘adequate public
facilities’
• Who – Implemented by local governments and
is a local government responsibility
• When – At the time of development
order/building permit approval (Non-DRI’s)
– Previously may have occurred at time of certificate of
occupancy
Transportation Concurrency Process
• Establish LOS Standards in Local
Comprehensive Plan
• Implement Concurrency as Part of Land
Development Regulations
• Calculate Level of Service on Major
Roadways
• Calculate the Availability of Capacity as a
Part of Development Review
Concurrency
• Intent
– Responsible
growth by requiring
local governments
to improve roads
• Reality
– Locals may not have
adequate funds
– May lack support to increase
funds
– Can’t build your way out
• Assumes
– Local governments
have the funds to
improve roads
• Unintended Consequences
– Urban sprawl
– Urban “infill sprawl” – using
up every last drop of
capacity within a CMS
Options Beyond Basic Concurrency System
• Redefine LOS Standard
• Project Specific Exceptions
– Projects that Promote Public Transportation
• Areawide Exceptions
– Transportation Management Area (TCMA)
– Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
(TCEA)
– Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD)
Level of Service Standards
• Adopted in specific facilities elements and Capital
Improvements Element
• Adequate and based on data and analysis
– For roadways – must adopt standards for facilities on
future traffic circulation map
– For Strategic Intermodal System – Must adopt standards
of FDOT (Rule 14-94, FAC)
– For other functionally classified roadways must adopt
‘adequate’ standards
– LOS standards are typically A-F, but sometimes are a
specific number of vehicles/trips.
“Each local government shall establish a level of service
standard for each public facility within its boundary…”
9J-5.005(3)
Department of Community Affairs Concurrency Rule
Long-Term Transportation Concurrency
Management System (LTTCMS)
• Application – Improvement Needed
– There must be an improvement which can solve the
concurrency (LOS) problem
• Requirements – Funding
– Long term schedule of capital improvements
• Monitoring
– May include interim LOS standards
– Annual CIP
– During EAR
Provides an Exception Until Improvement Made
TCMA – Averaging Conditions
• Application – Infill and Redevelopment
– Compact area
– Existing road network with multiple viable alternative
travel paths or modes.
• Requirements – Areawide Mobility
– Promote infill and redevelopment
– Provide mobility
• Monitoring
– May include areawide LOS standard
– During EAR
TCEA – Infill & Redevelopment
• Application – Land Use
– Less than 10% developable vacant land
• Residential > 60%, then at least 5 DUs/acre
• Non-residential >60%, then FAR at least 1.0
– Designated urban redevelopment area
– Designated downtown revitalization area
• Requirements – Mobility, Funding
– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies
– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,
network connectivity
– Justify size of area
• Monitoring
– During EAR
MMTD – Non-Auto Mobility Focus
• Application – Priorities
– Primary priority is safe, comfortable, and attractive
pedestrian environment, convenient interconnection
to transit
– Secondary priority is vehicle mobility
• Requirements – Mobility, Funding
– Adopt, fund and implement mobility strategies
– Address urban design, appropriate land use mixes,
network connectivity
• Monitoring
– May establish multimodal LOS standards
– During EAR
– 2 year reporting
Comparison of Transportation Concurrency
Areawide Exceptions
TCMA
TCEA
Density requirement
Yes
Yes
Must be infill oriented
Yes
Yes
Limited area
Yes
Areawide Level of Service
MMTD
---
1
---
---
3
---
Yes
---
3
Yes
Multimodal Level of Service
---
---
3
Yes
Addresses land use
---
3
Yes
Yes
Addresses connectivity
Yes
2
Yes
Yes
Addresses Impacts to SIS
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
3
1: MMTD’s require a minimum population and employment, but this figure is not area specific.
2: The TCMA may be established in “a compact geographic area with an existing network of
roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common
purpose.”
3: Discussed in statute, but no measure provided.
Common Requirements
• Amendment to the comprehensive plan
• Evaluate impacts to surrounding areas
– Be careful about solving one problem but creating
other problems
• Financial feasibility
– Funding strategy to accomplish goals
• Monitoring
– Minimum is part of Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR)
Course Objective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:
– Concurrency in Florida
– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation
– Multimodal Areawide Planning
MMTD Legislation
F.S. 163.3180 (15)(a) allows:
–Establishment of Multimodal Transportation
Districts under local government
comprehensive plans designating an area
assigning priority to:
• Safe comfortable and attractive pedestrian
environment
• Convenient interconnection to transit
• Secondary priority to vehicle mobility
MMTD Legislation
F.S. 163.3180 (15)(b):
– Local governments shall use professionally
accepted techniques for measuring level of service
for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and
trucks.
– FDOT shall develop methodologies used to assist
local governments in implementing this multimodal
level of service analysis
– DCA and FDOT will provide technical assistance to
local governments in applying these methodologies
MMTD Legislation
In Response to Legislation FDOT has:
• Developed level of service methodology and analysis
tools for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes
• Prepared the Multimodal Transportation Districts and
Areawide Quality of Service Handbook to detail
methodology and techniques for multimodal areawide
planning
• Prepared Model Regulations and Plan Amendments
for Multimodal Transportation Districts report to
provide model comp plan amendments and land
development regulations to local governments
• Prepared Safe Ways to School – The Role in
Multimodal Planning report to define the special
needs of schools in consideration of MMTDs
Course Objective
• To Become Familiar With and Understand:
– Concurrency in Florida
– Multimodal Level of Service Legislation
– Multimodal Areawide Planning
Goal of Multimodal Areawide Planning
To encourage and facilitate the use of
alternative modes of transportation
ultimately resulting in the reduction of
automobile usage and vehicle miles of
travel
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development
• Urban Design
• Land Use
 Mix
 Organization, Densities and Intensities
• Transportation
 Regional Connectivity
 Multimodal Availability
 Network Connectivity
 Level of Service
• Linking Land Use and Transportation
 Areawide Quality of Service
 Recommended Performance Targets
Appropriate Scale of Development
 Population
 At least 5,000 in residential population
 Employment
 A range, from 1:1 to 3:1, of population to
employment
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development
• Urban Design
• Land Use
 Mix
 Organization, Densities and Intensities
• Transportation
 Regional Connectivity
 Multimodal Availability
 Network Connectivity
 Level of Service
• Linking Land Use and Transportation
 Areawide Quality of Service
 Recommended Performance Targets
Urban Design
Buildings & Services Adjacent to Sidewalk
Urban Design
Short Block Lengths & Dense Street Network
Urban Design
Pedestrian Friendly
Urban Design
Urban Design
Transit Friendly
Urban Design
Freight and Delivery Access for Businesses
Ten Steps To Walkability
Compact, lively
town center
Many people of all
ages and abilities
walking many hours
Low speed streets,
distributed volumes
Public places with
inviting features:
benches, restrooms,
shade, water and art
Neighborhood
schools and
parks, within
1/4 mile of
residences
Fine grained
streets, many trails,
transit links
Affordable,
inspiring, well
maintained
streets and
homes
Celebrated public
space and public life,
parades, markets,
festivals, awards
Land use and
transportation
partnerships
Convenient, safe and
efficient crossings
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development
• Urban Design
• Land Use
 Mix
 Organization, Densities and Intensities
• Transportation
 Regional Connectivity
 Multimodal Availability
 Network Connectivity
 Level of Service
• Linking Land Use and Transportation
 Areawide Quality of Service
 Recommended Performance Targets
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
 Complementary Mix of Land Uses
 Three or more significant, mutually
supporting land uses, one of which is
residential
 Physical and functional integration of uses
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Supporting
Land Uses
Significant
Land Use:
Residential
Handbook, Page 23
Office
Local Services
Medical Services
Hotel
Restaurants
Shopping
Recreational/Cultural
Convenience Retail
Gym/Health Club
Educational/Day Care
College/University
Gov’t Agency
Significant
Land Use:
Employment
and
Schools
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Land Use: Complementary Mix of Land Uses
Preferred Ratio of Uses
Land Uses
Preferred
Ratio
Open/Parks/Recreational
5% - 15%
Office/Commercial/Lt. Industrial
30% - 70%
Residential
20% - 60%
Land Use: Organization
Organization of Land Uses Promoting a
Central Core
LOW DENSITY
(Single Family,
Retail and
Service
Primary Service
Boundary
MEDIUM DENSITY
(Townhouse, Garden
Apartment, Retail
and Service)
HIGH DENSITY
(Mixed Use, Commercial,
Retail, Apartment and
Institutional)
High Capacity
Transit Station
1/4 Mile
1/2 Mile
Boundary of Walking
Distance
Handbook, Page 26
Land Use: Organization
Area in open development
preferably 160 acres..in any
case it should house enough
people to require one elementary
school. Exact shape not
essential but best when all sides
are fairly equidistant from center.
Shopping districts in
periphery at traffic
junctions and
preferably bunched in
form.
A shopping district might
be substituted for church
site
Area: Preferable 160 acres to
house enough people to
support 1 elementary school
Preferable shape: All sides
are fairly
equidistant
from the
center
Only neighborhood
institutions at
community center
Roads connect
where possible
Site reserved for
civic building
Short face of
blocks along
boulevards
Only neighborhood
shops & institutions at
the center
The bus stops
here
A playground in
each quadrant
Ten percent of
area to recreation
and park space
Interior streets not wider
than required for specific
use and giving easy access
to shops and community
center
Mixed use street
anchored by corner
shopping district
School located
to be
shared by
adjacent
neighborhood
Shopping
centers at high
traffic
intersections
Parkway corridor along
boulevard
Source: The Fractured Metropolis, Jonathan Barnett, 1995
Handbook, Page 31
Shops &
offices along
boulevards
Parking lot
designed as
plaza
Land Use: Densities and Intensities
MAJOR TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
CORRIDOR
DENSITY DECREASES AS
DISTANCE FROM ACTIVITY
CENTERS INCREASES
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG THE CORRIODRS
CONCENTRATED IN AREAS WITH HIGH
INTERMODAL POTENTIAL
Handbook, Page 27
Land Use: Densities and Intensities
MAJOR ARTERIAL
OR INTERSTATE
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
FOCUSED WITHIN DISTRICT
DENSITY DECREASES AS
DISTANCE FROM MAJOR
ARTERIAL INCREASES
Handbook, Page 28
HIGHER DENSITIES ALONG
CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED
INSIDE OF ARTERIAL BOUNDARY
OF DISTRICT
TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN/
BICYCLE CORRIDOR
Land Use: Densities and Intensities
Desirable Densities and Intensities
Residential Land Use Commercial Land Use
(DU/Acres)
(Emp/Acre)
Handbook, Page 25
Multimodal Potential
1-3
1 - 39
Poor.
4-6
40 - 59
Marginal. Possibility
for success.
7 - 14
60 - 99
Good. Supports bus
transit
15+
100+
High. Supports high
capacity transit.
Appropriate Organization, Densities and
Intensities of Land Uses
Appropriate Organization, Densities and
Intensities of Land Uses
Appropriate Organization, Densities and
Intensities of Land Uses
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development
• Urban Design
• Land Use
 Mix
 Organization, Densities and Intensities
• Transportation
 Regional Connectivity
 Multimodal Availability
 Network Connectivity
 Level of Service
• Linking Land Use and Transportation
 Areawide Quality of Service
 Recommended Performance Targets
Transportation: Regional Connectivity
• Existence of regional transportation
connections
• Good multimodal connectivity to the
regional connections
Transportation: Availability of Different Modes
• Connected, continuous pedestrian,
bicycle and transit networks
• Amenities exist that make multimodal
usage a pleasant experience
• Land use elements combine with the
transportation systems to promote
multimodal usage
Multimodal Transportation Networks
Multimodal Transportation Networks
Transportation: Network Connectivity
• Network connectivity for all modes is
critical for a successful MMTD
• An index can be used to rate the level
of network connectivity
• Index is based on the polygon
methodology
Pedestrian Connectivity Index
1 Mile
4
5
6
7
10
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
1
3
12
13
14
15
9
8
16
17
1 Mile
Handbook, Page 34
18
27
29
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Street System
Pedestrian Network
Shared Use Path
District Boundary
Bicycle Connectivity Index
1 Mile
5
4
3
8
6
7
2
1
11
10
9
13
14
12
18
17
15
16
22
23
26
27
24
25
28
29
35
36
19
Handbook, Page 35
21
20
1 Mile
30
31
32
33
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Street System
Pedestrian Network
Shared Use Path
District Boundary
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• FDOT has developed multimodal LOS
methodology
• Define the modal networks
–
–
–
–
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Transit
Auto
• For LOS analysis, the network consists of
functionally classified collectors and above
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Pedestrian LOS measures the performance of
the facility with respect to the perception of
comfort and safety by the user
• Factors include:
– Presence of sidewalk
– Buffers between sidewalk and motor vehicle travel
lanes
– Presence of protective barriers
– Width of outside travel lanes and bicycle lanes
– Motor vehicle traffic volume
– Motor vehicle speed
Handbook, Page 43
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Bicycle LOS measures the performance of the
facility with respect to the perception of
comfort and safety by the user
• Factors include:
– Presence of designated bike lane or paved
shoulder
– Pavement width
– Traffic volume in outside lane
– Motor vehicle speed
– Percentage and number of trucks
– Pavement surface condition
Handbook, Page 43
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Each factor is weighted by relative
importance
• Weighting validated by a statistically
significant sample
• Numerical LOS score is computed and
converted to letter LOS grade
• Numerical score generally ranges from
0.5 to 6.5
Transportation: LOS Analysis
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Level of Service Thresholds
Level of Service
Score
A
<=1.5
B
C
>1.5 and <=2.5
>2.5 and <=3.5
D
E
F
>3.5 and <=4.5
<4.5 and >=5.5
>5.5
Handbook, Page 44
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Transit LOS is based on the Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
• Evaluates the user’s perception of the
quality of the transit route
• Transit availability is the is the most
important factor
• Transit LOS determined by frequency of
service and adjusted by
– Hours of Service
– Pedestrian LOS
Transportation: LOS Analysis
Transit Level of Service: Availability of Service
Bus
LOS
Headway
(Min.)
Frequency
(Bus/Hr)
A
< 10
>6
B
10 –14
5–6
Frequent service
C
15 – 20
3–4
Maximum desirable wait
time
D
21 – 30
2
Service unattractive to
choice riders
E
31 – 60
1
Service available during
hour
F
> 60
Handbook, Page 45
<1
Comments
No schedule needed
Service unattractive to all
users
Transportation: LOS Analysis
• Areawide LOS is determined for each mode
within the district
• This areawide modal LOS is a measure of the
coverage of modal service within the district, or
a Quality of Service. The modal QOS is a
length weighted average, by facility.
• Recommended minimum QOS thresholds are:
Type of MMTD
Pedestrian
Transit-Oriented
C
C
D
FIHS/LGCP
FIHS/LGCP
Non motorized-Oriented
Non-motorized
oriented
C
C
D
D
C
C
FIHS/LGCP
FIHS/LGCP
Handbook, Page 43
Transit
Bicycle
Automobile
Elements Needed to Accomplish This Goal:
• Appropriate Scale of Development
• Urban Design
• Land Use
 Mix
 Organization, Densities and Intensities
• Transportation
 Regional Connectivity
 Multimodal Availability
 Network Connectivity
 Level of Service
• Linking Land Use and Transportation
 Areawide Quality of Service
 Recommended Performance Targets
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
• Areawide Quality of Service brings
together the land use and transportation
analyses
• Integrates land use and transportation
through:
– Definition of each modal network
– Mobility within each modal network
– Ability of the population to use these
facilities
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
To Determine the Areawide Quality of Service,
the following steps are used:
Step 1. Define Major Modal Facilities
Identify the major transportation facilities, by mode,
within the district
Handbook, Page 47
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Step 2. Establish User Service Areas on
the Defined Facilities for Each Mode
Accepted user ranges are ¼ mile for pedestrians
and ½ mile for bicycles
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Step 3. Determine % of population
and employment within the user
service areas which measures the
multimodal potential.
This step evaluates the ability of the district
population to use the facilities
Example:
User Service Area Contains:
50% of District Employment
50% of District Population
User Service Area
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Step 4. Determine LOS for each
mode on each facility
Handbook, Page 48
LOS B
LOS C
LOS A
LOS A
LOS B
Use LOS analysis
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Step 5. Determine each modal
Quality of Service within the district.
Modal QOS is determined as a length weighted
average of facilities Levels of Service.
Example:
LOS B
LOS C
LOS A
LOS A
LOS B
QOS for this mode: B
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Step 6. Compare the QOS for Each
Mode with the Level of Coverage (LOC)
Based on the % of Population and
Employment Located within the User
Service Area
Areawide Quality of Service is determined by this
comparison.
Handbook, Page 48
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Areawide Quality of Service
Comparison of Areawide Quality of Service (QOS) and
Level of Coverage (LOC) Based on Percentage of Population and
Employment within the Service Area
% Population and Employment
Within Service Area
Areawide Quality of Service
90%
Modal QOS or LOC A, whichever is worse
90% - 99%
99%
Modal QOS or LOC B, whichever is worse
80% - 89%
Modal QOS or LOC C, whichever is worse
70% - 79%
Modal QOS or LOC D, whichever is worse
60% - 69%
Modal QOS or LOC E, whichever is worse
50% - 59%
Modal QOS F
1% - 49%
Handbook, Page 51
Examples:
Modal QOS
B
Modal QOS
B
% of Population &
50%
Employment in Service Area
% of Population &
87%
Employment in Service Area
Areawide Mobility
Areawide Mobility
E
B
Linking Land Use & Transportation:
Recommended Performance Targets
• 80% of all facilities contained in the
bicycle and pedestrian networks should
operate at LOS C or better
• All parcels within ¼ mile of a transit stop
should be served by pedestrian facilities
operating at LOS C or better
• 80% of employees and population
should be located within ¼ mile of a
transit stop
Handbook, Page 43
FDOT QLOS Resources to Help
• LOS Issue Papers
• Updated LOSPLAN 2007
software
• Q/LOS Training
• MMTD Handbook &
Training
• Growth Management
Training
• 2002 Q/LOS handbook
• Research
• Website
78
Resources
• Multimodal Transportation
Districts and Areawide
Quality of Service Handbook
• Model Regulations and Plan
Amendments for Multimodal
Transportation Districts
martin.guttenplan@dot.state.fl.us
(850) 414-4906
• FDOT LOS Website:
www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm
79