Transpor T a T
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Download Toolkit for a School Route Review
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION DEWCH I NI GERDDED I’R CYMRU YS GOL Toolkit for a School Route Review A step by step guide to running a School Route Review Help us create a walking nation We are Living Streets Cymru, part of the UK charity for everyday walking and the people behind the Walk to School Campaign. We’ve got a big ambition: that every child that can, walks to school. Useful links Run your own School Route Review livingstreets.org.uk/who-we-are/wales Advertise your event – download a poster to put up at school. Invite parents, Councillors and local residents – download template letters in Welsh or English. Living Streets - Walk to School livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/walk-to-school Living Streets - WOW Walking Challenge livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/wow Living Streets - Park and Stride Guide livingstreets.org.uk/media/2035/park-and-stride-print.pdf Active Travel Act wales.gov.uk/active-travel Sustrans - Active Journeys sustrans.org.uk/active-journeys-school-wales The Daily Mile thedailymile.co.uk/ Keep Wales Tidy keepwalestidy.cymru If you would like this toolkit or further information by email please contact [email protected] Contents What is a School Route Review? 2 Why carry out a School Route Review? 3 Step 1 - getting ready to review 5 Classroom ideas Lesson plan Step 2 - walking the walk 11 Carrying out the School Route Review Step 3 - reporting the review 14 Case studies 16 Malpas Court Primary School - Newport St Mellons Church in Wales Primary School - Cardiff Nant-y-Parc Primary School - Caerphilly School Route Review Checklist 22 Poster 26 1 What is a School Route Review? A School Route Review is a great way of discovering some of the things that might stop families walking to school. -
Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper
City of Ashland, Ashland Transportation System Plan Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper To: Jim Olson, City of Ashland Cc: Project Management Team From: Adrian Witte and Drew Meisel, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Task 7.1.O White Paper: “Shared Streets and Alleyways” - DRAFT Direction to the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission Five sets of white papers are being produced to present information on tools, opportunities, and potential strategies that could help Ashland become a nationwide leader as a green transportation community. Each white paper will present general information regarding a topic and then provide ideas on where and how that tool, strategy, and/or policy could be used within Ashland. You will have the opportunity to review the content of each white paper and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, and ideas in a joint Planning Commission/Transportation Commission meeting. Based on discussions at the meeting, the material in the white paper will be: 1) Revised and incorporated into the alternatives analysis for the draft TSP; or 2) Eliminated from consideration and excluded from the alternatives analysis. The overall intent of the white paper series is to explore opportunities and discuss the many possibilities for Ashland. Shared Streets Introduction Shared Streets aim to provide a better balance of the needs of all road users to improve safety, comfort, and livability. They are similar to European concepts such as the Dutch based ‘Woonerf’ and the United Kingdom’s ‘Home Zone’, with some distinct differences. This balance is accomplished through integration rather than segregation of users. By eschewing many of the traditional roadway treatments such as curbs, signs, and pavement markings, the distinction between modes is blurred. -
City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018
DRAFT City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Vision and Goals .................................................................................................... 1 Background/History of the Community ............................................................... 2 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Process ................................................................................................................... 3 Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 3 II. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 6 Forecasts and Current Demographics .................................................................. 7 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................. 10 Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 15 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 24 Special Resource Protection .............................................................................. -
Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Final Report
Arterial Transitway Corridors Study April 2012 Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Connetics Transportation Group Luken Architecture CR Planning April 2012 Final Report i CONTENTS Table of Contents Introduction to the Arterial Transitway Corridors Study ................................................................................................ 1 Why were these corridors selected for study? ......................................................................................................................................................2 What problems does the study address? (Purpose and Need) .........................................................................................................................3 What is Arterial Bus Rapid Transit? ........................................................................................................................................................................4 Study Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................................................................................................5 What was studied in the ATCS?......................................................................................................................................... 7 Physical Concept Plans ............................................................................................................................................................................................7 -
AGENDA Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting February 18 at 4:30 P.M
AGENDA Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting February 18 at 4:30 p.m. Virtual Meeting via Zoom Web access / call‐in instructions to be sent separately Item: Action Requested: Chair Victoria Reinhardt 1. Call to Order/Introductions Chair Victoria Reinhardt 2. Approval of the Agenda Approval Chair Victoria Reinhardt 3. Summary of July 23, 2020 Meeting Approval All 4. Member Updates Discussion Frank Alarcon, Ramsey County 5. State and Federal Legislative Update Information Public Works 6. 2021 Draft Workplan and Budget Andy Gitzlaff, Ramsey County Information Public Works Andy Gitzlaff, Ramsey County 7. Rush Line BRT Project Update Information Public Works Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 and 13D.04 Subd. 3, the Chair of the Rush Line Corridor Task Force has determined that an in‐person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the declared state and local emergencies. Committee members will participate by telephone or other electronic means. In addition, it may not be feasible to have any committee members, staff or members of the public present at the regular meeting location due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the declared emergencies. The meeting broadcast will be available online and a link to view the broadcast can be obtained by registering here. Members of the public and the media will be able to watch the public meeting live online. For questions related to this material, please contact Andy Gitzlaff at 651‐266‐2772 or [email protected]. Rush Line Corridor Task Force – February 18, 2021 1 Agenda Item #3 Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting July 23, 2020, 4:30 – 6:00 pm via ZOOM Draft Meeting Summary MEMBERS: Tom Fischer, Little Canada Councilmember Ben Montzka, Chisago County Commissioner John Mikrot, Pine County Commissioner D. -
To Stop the Use of Property Intentionally
Glossary of Planning Terms Access Management: Access picking fruit, feeding animals, or staying at management is the process of balancing a Bed & Breakfast on a farm. the competing needs of motor vehicle mobility and land access. Access Americans with Disabilities Act management provides access to land (ADA): A comprehensive, federal civil development while simultaneously rights law that prohibits discrimination on preserving the safe and efficient flow of the basis of disabilities in employment, traffic, including bicyclists and state and local government programs and pedestrians, on the roadway system. activities, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Accessory Dwelling Unit: An independent dwelling unit that is clearly Apartment: A dwelling unit used subordinate to a single-family detached exclusively for lease or rent as a residence. dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling. It may be Archeological Resources: Places that internal or external to the main unit. have the potential to yield information about the past through study of the Adaptive Reuse: Rehabilitation or landscape and remains of previous human renovation of existing building(s) or intervention on the landscape. structures for any use(s) other than the present use(s). Architectural and Cultural Heritage: Places, people, objects, stories, traditions, Affordable Dwelling Unit: Refers to and ideas from and about the past that units required under the Affordable relate to us today. Dwelling Unit Ordinance, units are committed for a 30-year term as affordable Architectural and Historic Surveys: to households with incomes at 60 percent Studies of the properties within a or less of the area median income. -
Bird Rock1-4
LA JOLLA HERMOSA La Jolla Hermosa Boulevard BACKGROUND This historic trolley car street has an unusual width for present day residential homes. Block lengths are very long in several areas, adding to potential for speeding. 6' 6’ 10’ 4' 10’ 6' 6' Residents are concerned with speed (31 mph in most ROW 50 Feet areas), and the wide crossing distances for pedestrians. Typical Cross Section Some spillover commercial and work center parking Bike Lanes affects residents. Refuge Islands V PHASE ONE Tree Wells Maintain full The Walkable Communities proposed plan includes access to all bike lanes. The southern portion can provide diagonal driveways parking on one or both sides of the roadway. Traffic volumes here are very low, and a narrower lane street section will create a quiet, peaceful atmosphere. Bike lanes should be dropped in this section, allowing more maneuvering width for bicyclists. A mini-roundabout is also recommended for Forward and La Jolla Hermosa for this phase. A mini-roundabout on La Jolla Hermosa and Colima can also be considered for this phase. Bike lanes should be 6.0 feet wide and marked with an outer stripe, 8.0 inches wide. Parking lanes should be marked with 4.0 inch stripes, and be 6.0 to 7.0 feet wide. Travel lanes should be narrowed to about 10.0 feet. This reduced visual width to travel lanes can reduce speeding by many drivers. It is common to see reductions of speed of 7.0 miles per hour. PHASE TWO OR THREE Refuge islands (short medians) and increased landscaping can be added in Phase Two. -
Design Guidelines
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Downtown Aberdeen 6 CHAPTER OUTLINE: OVERVIEW OVERVIEW These recommended guidelines originate from and adhere to national design standards as defined by the American SIDEWALKS AND Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), WALKWAYS the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Highway GREENWAY TRAIL Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the MARKED CROSSWALKS NCDOT. Another major source of information in this chapter is CURB RAMPS the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, found online at http://www.walkinginfo.org. Should the national standards be RAISED OR LOWERED revised in the future and result in discrepancies with this chapter, MEDIANS the national standards should prevail for all design decisions. A ADVANCE STOP BARS qualified engineer or landscape architect should be consulted for the most up to date and accurate cost estimates. BULB-OUTS PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS/ The sections below serve as an inventory of pedestrian UNDERPASS design elements/treatments and provide guidelines for their ROUNDABOUTS development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent minimum standards for TRAFFIC SIGNALS creating a pedestrian-friendly, safe, accessible community. The PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape architect or engineer upon LANDSCAPING implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the NCDOT for specific ROADWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS design solutions. STREET FURNITURE AND WALKING ENVIRONMENT TRANSIT STOP TREATMENTS The Pedestrian and Bicyle Information Center, AASHTO, PEDESTRIAN SIGNS AND the MUTCD, nationally WAYFINDING recognized trail standards, BRIDGES and other sources have all informed the content of this TRAFFIC CALMING chapter. -
Access Restrictions: Liveable Streets, Play
L E P T S HORT POLICY BRIEFS - 3 J u n e 2 0 1 9 CITIZENS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS vulnerable users, especially children. To reduce the impact they have on children’s ACCESS RESTRICTIONS: LIVEABLE STREETS, health, several boroughs have been PLAY STREETS AND SCHOOL STREETS implementing school streets, including Lewisham, Islington and Camden. EVIDENCE Hackney has published a guide for local authorities who wish to explore the - One in three children in the UK are growing possibility of implementing school streets. up in cities with unsafe levels of particulate Boroughs and UK public authorities can pollution (Unicef UK, 2017). implement the measure by using - Exposure to air pollution may be harming all experimental traffic orders, which allow organs of the body (Schraufnagel & al., parking authorities to modify traffic or 2019). parking regulations for an 18-months period - 63% of teachers would support a ban on requiring no prior public consultation: motor vehicles outside schools (Sustrans, consultation takes place alongside the trial, 2019). allowing for citizen feedback on the actual - Nearly a third of children ages 2-15 are effects of the scheme. There may be some overweight or obese (UK National public backlash, but results tend to be government, Childhood obesity action plan, positive in the long run, with high levels of 2017). acceptance once the scheme is in place. This was the case in the pilot led by CHALLENGE S Croydon. Changing the way streets are used to Expanding on school streets and in prioritise pedestrians and vulnerable partnership with Public Health England, road users by restricting motorised thirteen boroughs are experimenting with vehicle access to some streets. -
Active Transportation Plan
Active Transportation Plan nd 2 Edition Adopted by the Fridley Council February 11, 2020 Engineering Department Community Development Department February 2020 1 Introduction The City of Fridley is committed to providing residents with safe opportunities for walking, biking, and other non-automobile transportation. The Active Transportation Plan (the Plan) guides the City’s planning and construction of infrastructure needed for a well-maintained sidewalk and trail system. The 1st edition of the Plan was written in 2013 based on the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In the following years, many of the Plan’s original goals have been achieved and a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been developed. This 2nd edition reflects the progress that has been made as well as the new Comprehensive Plan goals related to Active Transportation. Purpose This plan’s purpose is to guide the City’s installation and maintenance of infrastructure needed to achieve mobility equity and support opportunities for active transportation (walking, biking, assisted mobility, transit, etc.). It is well documented that increased walking and biking improves health and quality of life. Additionally, improved active transportation infrastructure can increase a community’s desirability, encourage higher spending at commercial establishments, and reduce crime. Shifting travel from vehicles to transit, bikes, and walkways also decreases the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation, which is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a city such as Fridley, where residents face many barriers to movement due to high- volume roadways and railways, a well-developed trail and sidewalk network is particularly important to increasing sense of place and community connection. -
November 15, 2017 the Honorable Paul
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp November 15, 2017 The Honorable Paul Torkelson, Chair The Honorable Scott Newman, Chair House Transportation Finance Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 381 State Office Building 3105 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Linda Runbeck, Chair The Honorable Scott Dibble House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy Ranking Minority Member Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 417 State Office Building 2213 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Frank Hornstein, DFL Lead The Honorable Connie Bernardy, DFL Lead House Transportation Policy & Finance Committee House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy 243 State Office Building Committee Saint Paul, MN 55155 253 State Office Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 RE: 2017 Guideway Status report Dear Legislators: The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council, is pleased to provide the 2017 Guideway Status report as required under 2016 Minnesota Statutes 174.93, subdivision 2. This report updates information for eight guideway corridors currently in operation, construction or design, and thirteen more that are in planning or analysis phase, or that were at the time of the last report in 2015. The capacity analysis looks at regional guideway funding needs and resources related to capital, operations and capital maintenance for the next ten years. If you have specific questions about this report or want additional information, please contact MnDOT’s Brian Isaacson at [email protected] or at 651 234-7783; or, you can contact Met Council’s Cole Hiniker at [email protected] or at 651 602-1748. -
School Street Closures and Traffic Displacement Project: a Literature Review with Semi-Structured Interviews 2
School Street Closures and Traffic Displacement Project: A Literature Review with semi-structured interviews 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose, background and approach ....................................................................................................... 5 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Street closures – definition, development and context ................................................................... 5 Definition of road safety for the purposes of this review ................................................................ 6 Overall review inclusion criteria ...................................................................................................... 7 Study design .................................................................................................................................... 7 Dates ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Geography ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Search terms ................................................................................................................................... 7 Supplementation of