Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/08/2015 - SAFE ROUTES TO EVERYWHERE PRIORITIZATIONDATE: STAFF: September 8, 2015 Rob Mosbey, Chief Construction Inspector Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Program Manager Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort/DAR General Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Safe Routes to Everywhere Prioritization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review prioritization of three key components, Pedestrian Sidewalks, Bicycle Infrastructure, and Bus Stop Improvements, regarding the extension of the City’s sales and use tax “Building on Basics” (BOB 2.0) capital projects program. Safe Routes to Everywhere will be coordinated with Engineering, FC Moves and Safe Routes to School, Transfort, the Streets Maintenance Program (SMP), and Capital Projects to coordinate construction and adjust project timing to complement and enhance the effectiveness of projects. It is imperative that staff have methodology to identify critical projects given the extent of infrastructure needs throughout the community. Coordination is built into the prioritization processes to help guide project selection and design. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the Prioritization Processes and potential solutions/strategies? 2. As the Prioritization Processes are finalized, are there other areas of concern where staff should focus? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Balanced transportation systems are fundamental to healthy and economically strong communities. Access to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities can provide a higher quality of life by allowing safe and easy access to jobs, schools, retail, community services, parks and playgrounds, and friends and family. In addition, health is improved by providing a built environment that facilitates physical activity. A significant portion of the BOB 2.0 quarter cent sales tax extension funds are allocated to making improvements to the community’s pedestrian, bicycle, and bus stop infrastructure over the course of the tax’s ten year term. Funding totals in this comprehensive “Safe Routes to Everywhere” package of projects include:  Pedestrian/Sidewalk/ADA Compliance: $14,000,000  Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements: $5,000,000  Bus Stop Improvements: $1,000,000 Safe Routes to Everywhere is a unique collaboration of departments all working within Planning, Development and Transportation (PDT). The partnership calls for the creation of safe and practical routes for people traveling under their own power to get where they need to go with seamless connections to public transportation. Historically the “seamless connections” have been the most neglected piece of the City’s transportation system. Safe pathways for walking, bicycling, and/or using a wheelchair work together with transit to provide access for all people regardless of whether they drive. The vast majority of trips taken by bus usually end with a walk or bike ride to or from homes, office and other typical destinations. Therefore, sidewalks, bike routes, and bus stops can be considered low-cost means to maximize benefits of investments in our transit system. All transportation modes work best when “knitted” together into complete systems. Filling strategic gaps in existing walking and bicycling networks to access the transit network is one of the best ways to minimize cost and September 8, 2015 Page 2 maximize impact. While dedicated funding is essential to build better transportation networks, staff has put policy, plans, and programs in place to guide prioritization and scheduling of these project improvements: Bus Stop Improvements Transfort serves just over 500 bus stops; some do not currently meet the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Based on recent estimates, approximately 64% of bus stops in Transfort’s service area are not compliant with the newly adopted Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines or with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These non-compliant stops fall into three categories: (1) noncompliant bus stops; (2) noncompliant bus stops with surrounding infrastructure deficiencies; and (3) new bus stops which will be fully upgraded following a two year evaluation process. Transfort continues to inventory bus stops to gain a more accurate understanding of ADA compliance needs. A full inventory will be complete by the end of 2015. Transfort Bus Stop Improvement Plan The City recently received requests from community interests to increase the number of annual bus stop improvements; therefore, a plan has been recently submitted as part of the budgeting offers to accelerate Transfort's planned implementation of bus stop improvements in accordance with Transfort's Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines. If the budget offer is funded on an annual basis for nine years and combined with BOB 2.0 funding, it is anticipated that Transfort will be able to achieve full compliance by 2025. The proposed plan concerns itself only with bringing existing bus stops into compliance with the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines and not with construction of new bus stops or surrounding infrastructure deficiencies beyond ADA accessible pathways and connections. Various capital projects within BOB 2.0 and the Pedestrian Plan funds will also assist in making ADA accessible connections to Transfort Bus Stops to improve overall ADA accessibility within our pedestrian network. Transfort’s Bus Stop Improvement Plan currently prioritizes bus stop improvements in areas that do not meet the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines and meet the following criteria:  Mid-high ridership (> 50 boardings per day),  Demographic considerations such as youth, senior, disabled and low-income population concentrations within ¼ mile of the stop  Stops with high exposure to the elements Currently, bus stops are upgraded and installed with the following funding sources: Noncompliant Bus Stops  BOB 2.0 - $100,000 annual for 10 years (this is currently the only dedicated funding for bus stop improvements).  Grant Funding when available - Funding varies upon availability and type of grants. Noncompliant Bus Stops as a result of Surrounding Infrastructure Deficiencies  City Capital and Maintenance Projects - Only applies when a capital project and maintenance includes an area with a bus stop.  Private Development - Only applies if a bus stop is adjacent to development project. New Bus Stops Following 2 Year Service Development Period  Transfort’s Advertising Contractor - Any new bus stop requested by Transfort is installed per the Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines by the advertising contractor.  Private Development - Only applies if a bus stop is adjacent to development project. September 8, 2015 Page 3 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements During the previous round of Building on Basics funding for bicycle infrastructure, dollars dedicated to bicycle improvements were leveraged to match grant funds and complete network connections such as the Spring Creek Trail overpass and extension. This philosophy of prioritization combined with opportunity was carried forward into the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. Built around the concept of a connected low-stress network of bicycle facilities, the Plan assigns quantitative and qualitative ratings to corridors based on the following factors:  Plan goals  Bicycle demand analysis  Crash history  Public input  Triple bottom line analysis  Opportunities for quick implementation  Geographic equity  Planning-level costs Final determination of project phasing relies not only on the numeric rankings of projects, but also on opportunities for additional grant funding and efficiencies such as combining with resurfacing or construction projects. The project types represented in the plan document include spot improvements at intersections, wayfinding and signage, and enhanced bicycle lanes. Additional projects include protected bike lanes on key arterial streets, beginning with pilot projects like the one on Laurel Street east and west of College Avenue. Because the protected bike lanes are substantially different from the low-stress corridor projects, they are ranked according to additional criteria specific to the project type. Examples of projects ranked with high priority to be completed between 2015 and 2017 are:  Mason Street Bicycle Lanes  Laurel Street Protected Bike Lanes  Pitkin Low Stress Corridor (matching federal grant dollars)  Intersection spot improvements (for example, Prospect and Heatheridge)  Hampshire buffered bike lanes  Swallow buffered bike lanes  Bicycle wayfinding Additional information on bicycle infrastructure project selection methodology can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/pdf/2014BicycleMasterPlan_adopted_final.pdf Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements The City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan (2011) addresses citywide pedestrian needs and is a data-driven approach based on the importance for safe, sustainable walking within City limits. The Pedestrian Needs Assessment (2013) provides a comprehensive sidewalk inventory, identifies sidewalk inadequacies, and identifies inadequate handicap accessibilities according to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Pedestrian Needs Assessment surveyed 515 street miles (1,030 miles/5,441,500 lf) of sidewalks, cataloged the condition of all existing sidewalks in a database, and determined City and ADA compliance of 34,300 ramps within the City right of way. There are approximately 198 miles (1,046,000 linear feet) of missing sidewalk connections and 6,420 missing accessible ramps. This is respectively 19% of the total sidewalks and 19% of the accessible ramps. The Pedestrian Needs Assessment data and Pedestrian Plan form the basis for project prioritization and scheduling over the next ten years. Goals for this program include:  Increase the Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) rating,  Reduce the number of non-ADA compliant sidewalks and accessible ramps September 8, 2015 Page 4  Reduce injuries related to tripping hazards  Create connectivity along high volume pedestrian corridors and Safe Routes to School corridors  Ultimately provide “complete” streets that function for all modes of travel A Sidewalk Prioritization Model was developed based on a scoring system and coordination with the Pedestrian Plan. The scoring system was designed to be easy to use, but thorough in its assessment of need. The model provides a numerical score for each pedestrian facility - existing and missing. Prioritization was given based on Pedestrian Generators/Demand, Equity, and Corridor Function/Characteristics. Following is a list of pedestrian trip generators used to determine priority:  Right-of-way  Sidewalk Status  Downtown  University or College  Enhanced Travel Corridors  Parks  Trails  Hospitals  Schools  City Buildings/Services  Community Services (Post Offices, Libraries, etc.)  Senior Facilities  Low Income Housing  Bus Stops  Street Classification  Floodplains Point values were assigned to distances from the destinations, decreasing as the distance increased. For example, the area within ¼ mile of a school received a higher point value than area within ½ mile. Point values for all category destinations were overlapped and added together, resulting in a “blanket” of point values covering the City. Facility attributes such as condition and ADA compliance were also assigned point values, which were added to the points generated by location. Facilities were ranked with highest point values being top priority. The model is based on current data and provides a logical methodology for maximizing funds and resources. Engineering staff has been seeking feedback via online survey and discussions with the Commission on Disability and the Transportation Board. Based on the information received, staff intends to adjust the model’s demands and ratings, incorporate Transfort’s bus stop prioritization, and provide separation of school systems (High School and Elementary School). For a complete review of the Sidewalk Prioritization Model, please visit the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/pdf/pedneedsreport.pdf Similar to the Bus Stop and Bicycle infrastructure improvement programs, the Sidewalk Prioritization Model will also collaborate with the Street Maintenance Program, FC Moves, Parking Services, and Poudre School District projects for cost efficiencies and to minimize impacts to the public. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Engineering staff met with the Commission on Disability and the Transportation Board to review the Pedestrian Improvement Program - Sidewalk Prioritization Model. Following are the findings and comments from both groups:  Based on survey data walking distances are concurrent with the existing program.  Increase distance for bus stops - Currently bus stops are prioritized in the system at 200’. Staff intends to increase this distance to ¼ mile with incorporation of the bus stop prioritization model. September 8, 2015 Page 5  Schools component should be separated (High School & Elementary) for additional safety measures - The survey has indicated that Elementary students would walk a shorter distance; therefore, should be ranked higher to improve safety for younger children walking/biking to school.  Incorporate Natural Areas component to the rating system - Staff is reviewing the system to determine if the component is part of the parks database. The bicycle project prioritization was developed through the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, which was recommended by the Transportation Board and adopted by City Council. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff held multiple internal meetings with various departments to ensure that City Council has the input needed to develop guidelines that will provide the best return on investment along with prioritizing the values for our community. Significant public outreach regarding the prioritization model was conducted with the Commission on Disability, Transportation Board, and an online survey in an effort to raise awareness of the prioritization system, identify questions and concerns that the community may have, and gather suggestions for consideration regarding revisions to the rating system. Staff held, participated in, or attended the following:  Multiple communities reviewed for procedures of prioritization - Methodology based on best practices of City of Seattle - Pedestrian Master Plan.  2 internal staff team meetings  3 Commission on Disability meetings - provided sidewalk program updates.  1 Transportation Board meeting  1 online survey - the online survey was distributed via social media, the City’s main website, and the Lagoon Series at CSU. Staff will continue to communicate with these groups to provide updates that will help identify types of needs to make improvements to our overall transportation network. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) SAFE ROUTES TO EVERYWHERE 9-8-2015 Rick Richter / Paul Sizemore / Kurt Ravenschlag ATTACHMENT 1 2 Safe Routes to Everywhere 1 Direction Sought From Council What feedback does Council have regarding the Prioritization Processes and potential solutions/strategies? 2 As the Prioritization Processes are finalized, are there other areas of concern where staff should focus? 3 Safe Routes to Everywhere Pedestrian Prioritization Bus Stop Prioritization Bike Prioritization 4 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Pedestrian • Citywide 1,030 sidewalk miles 34,300 ramps • Assessment Results 198 miles – missing sidewalk 6,420 – missing ramps • Data Management ArcGIS Deighton 5 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Pedestrian Prioritization Factors: • ADA Compliance • Sidewalk Status • Pedestrian Demand • College/Schools • Mason & Enhanced Travel Corridors • Parks/Trails • Hospitals/Community Services • Street Characteristics • R.O.W. / Bus Stops / Floodplain • Public Outreach • Commission on Disability • Transportation Board • Online Survey 6 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Pedestrian 1 4 Goals of Prioritization Adjust Prioritization Model Limits & Ratings Develop New Prioritization Project List http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/pedneeds.php SMP & Capital Projects Collaboration 2 4 Bus Stop Prioritization Integration 3 7 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Pedestrian Assess Prioritize Plan Implement Prioritize 8 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Pedestrian/Bus Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bus Transfort system-wide: • 507 Bus Stops • Approximately 64% are not in compliance with ADA Noncompliant Categories: 1. Bus stop only 2. Bus stop and surrounding infrastructure 3. New stops awaiting 2-year evaluation process 9 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bus Improvement Prioritization • High Ridership Stops Including: locations with frequent ramp use • Vicinity to disabled, senior, youth and low-income population densities Housing, employment, schools, social services • High Exposure to the Elements Traffic speed, limited shelter 10 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bus How are stops improved? • Transfort • BOB 2.0 funds • Grants • Leveraging Opportunities • Street Maintenance • Engineering Capital Projects • Development • Advertising Contractor • Advertising Revenue 11 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bus 12 Obstacles to Upgrades: • Limited Public Right- of-Way • Adjacent public infrastructure • Sidewalks and ramps • Site Constraints • Drainage • Grade •Etc. Harmony and Corbett (Eastbound) Laporte and Overland (Eastbound) Shields and Swallow (Northbound) Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bike BOB (2006-2015) funded bicycle infrastructure and planning. • Prioritization + Opportunity 2014 Bicycle Master Plan: • 2020 low-stress network • Data-driven prioritization and corridor phasing • Opportunistic (leverages planned improvements) 13 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bike Prioritization Factors: • Demand • Safety • Public input • Triple bottom line • Geographic equity • Opportunities for quick implementation •Flexible •Cost 14 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bike 15 2015-2016 Phasing 2014 Bicycle Master Plan Safe Routes to Everywhere: Bike Sample 2015-2017 Project Implementation • Mason Street bicycle lanes • Laurel Street protected bike lanes • Pitkin low-stress corridor and intersection improvements (leveraging Transportation Alternative Program grant) • Spot Improvements (e.g., Prospect & Heatheridge) • Hampshire buffered bike lanes • Swallow buffered bike lanes • Bicycle wayfinding 16 17 Safe Routes to Everywhere Pedestrian Improvement Program Street Maintenance Program Capital Projects Transfort FCMoves 18 Safe Routes to Everywhere 1 Direction Sought From Council What feedback does Council have regarding the Prioritization Processes and potential solutions/strategies? 2 As the Prioritization Processes are finalized, are there other areas of concern where staff should focus? SAFE ROUTES TO EVERYWHERE 9-8-2015 Rick Richter / Paul Sizemore / Kurt Ravenschlag End of Presentation 21 Safe Routes to Everywhere 22 Safe Routes to Everywhere: Ped = total points 2 4 8 15 8 4 23 Safe Routes to Everywhere Plan Implementation PRIORITIZE Data-driven Collaboration Opportunity 24 Safe Routes to Everywhere 1 3 Potential Limitations Funding Available Resources Duration of Program Implementation 2 3