This report reviews current thoroughfare planning practices in several Florida counties, as well as those of selected cities and counties in other states. The purpose of the review is to offer insight and guidance to Hillsborough County on the current state of the practice in Florida, and any best practices that may benefit the County as it updates its Corridor Plan.
CUTR-2022-02 Final Report
Corridor Planning and Preservation Best Practices Hillsborough County Corridor Plan Study
Prepared For Hillsborough County
Prepared by USF Center for Urban Transportation Research
February 10, 2022
2022
Project Team Kristine M. Williams, AICP, Principal Investigator Tia Boyd
Taylor Dinehart Charles Clarke
Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of Hillsborough County, in the interest of information exchange. The County assumes no liability of the contents or use thereof. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Hillsborough County.
ii
Accommodation Statement In accordance with the requirements of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Hillsborough County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. Persons with disabilities who need an accommodation for this document should contact the Hillsborough County ADA Office at (813) 276-8401; TTY: 7-1-1.
iii
Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Legal Review ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Current Practices........................................................................................................................................... 3 Recommended Strategies............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1 - Introduction.....................................................................................................................9 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 – Florida’s Legal Context ...................................................................................................11 The Early Years............................................................................................................................................ 11 Corridor Management in Florida Statutes .................................................................................................. 12 Rough Proportionality and Unconstitutional Conditions............................................................................ 13 Multimodal Fees and Mitigation................................................................................................................. 15 Additional Florida Caselaw.......................................................................................................................... 16 Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, 2019 WL 580259 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2019).......................... 16 Pembroke Center v. Dept. of Transp, 64 So. 3d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) ................................... 17 Hernando County v. Budget Inns of Florida, Inc., 555 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) .................... 18 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 3 – Florida Corridor Management Practices .........................................................................21 Hillsborough County ................................................................................................................................... 21 Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan ......................................................................................... 22 Corridor Management Regulations.................................................................................................... 24 Transit Corridor Planning and Preservation ....................................................................................... 26 Greenways and Trails ......................................................................................................................... 28 Supporting Street Network Development .......................................................................................... 33 Context and Area Type ....................................................................................................................... 33 Tallahassee-Leon County ............................................................................................................................ 36 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................. 37 Leon County Corridor Management Regulations ............................................................................... 40 Indian River County..................................................................................................................................... 45 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................... 46 Indian River County Corridor Management Regulations ................................................................... 51 Orange County ............................................................................................................................................ 54 Orange County Comprehensive Plan.................................................................................................. 54 Orange County Corridor Management Regulations........................................................................... 55 Broward County .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Broward County Trafficways Plan ...................................................................................................... 58 Broward County Comprehensive Plan................................................................................................ 61 Context Sensitive Corridors................................................................................................................. 61 Broward County Corridor Management Ordinance ........................................................................... 64 St. Lucie County........................................................................................................................................... 65 St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan................................................................................................. 66
iv
St. Lucie County Corridor Management Ordinance............................................................................ 68 Alachua County ........................................................................................................................................... 75 Alachua County Mobility Plan ............................................................................................................ 76 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 82 Chapter 4 – Context Sensitive Corridor Plan Practices .......................................................................84 Context and Multimodal Elements ............................................................................................................. 84 Indianapolis-Marion County............................................................................................................... 84 El Paso, Texas ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Fort Worth, Texas............................................................................................................................... 98 City of Bastrop, Texas ....................................................................................................................... 103 Montgomery County, Maryland....................................................................................................... 105 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 109 Chapter 5 – Other Relevant Topics..................................................................................................111 Parallel Relievers and Service Roads......................................................................................................... 111 Technology (ACES) .................................................................................................................................... 114 Smart Roads Classification Systems ................................................................................................. 116 Resilience and Vulnerability...................................................................................................................... 120 Network Spacing and Resilience....................................................................................................... 120 Rail Corridor Preservation and Management ........................................................................................... 123 Chapter 6 - Strategies for County Consideration..............................................................................130 References.....................................................................................................................................133 Appendix - Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................141
v
List of Figures Figure 1. Dolan v. City of Tigard .................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2: Proposed mobility hubs for SouthShore transit study................................................................. 28 Figure 3. Existing, studied, and conceptual trail facilities........................................................................... 31 Figure 4. Existing & proposed trails & shared use paths ............................................................................ 32 Figure 5. Hillsborough County context classification system. .................................................................... 34 Figure 6. Hillsborough County corridor context classification map............................................................ 36 Figure 7. Future Right-of-way needs map modifications............................................................................ 40 Figure 8. Extended roadway grid network map.......................................................................................... 47 Figure 9. Example of Murphy Act reservations and releases. .................................................................... 48 Figure 10. Indian River County Subdivision Collector Map, September 2010, ........................................... 50 Figure 11. Broward County Trafficways Plan .............................................................................................. 59 Figure 12. Broward County Trafficways Plan Legend ................................................................................. 60 Figure 13. Excerpt of the Trafficways Plan with MLK Jr. Blvd inset. ........................................................... 63 Figure 14. St. Lucie County Thoroughfare Network Right-of-Way Protection Plan ................................... 68 Figure 15. St. Lucie County Future ROW Network Map ............................................................................. 71 Figure 16. St. Lucie County Greenways & Trails Facility Map ..................................................................... 74 Figure 17. Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, Future Traffic Circulation Corridors Map...................... 80 Figure 18. Indianapolis-Marion County ROW Standards and Design Guidelines Table.............................. 86 Figure 19. Indianapolis-Marion County ROW Standards and Design Guidelines Table (continued). ......... 87 Figure 20. Indianapolis-Marion County Context Area Map ........................................................................ 88 Figure 21. Proposed right-of-way flow chart. ............................................................................................. 89 Figure 22 Definitions of “proposed right-of-way” by type of road segment.............................................. 90 Figure 23 Indianapolis-Marion County Arterial Network Map. .................................................................. 91 Figure 24. Special corridors map for greenways and railroad corridors..................................................... 92 Figure 25. City of El Paso Major Thoroughfare Plan Map. .......................................................................... 94 Figure 26. El Paso Area Type Map............................................................................................................... 95 Figure 27. Future Land Use Map highlighting Compact Urban Areas......................................................... 96 Figure 28. Fort Worth process for selection of typical roadway cross sections. ........................................ 99 Figure 29. Fort Worth Street type map. ................................................................................................... 100 Figure 30. Example code and implied right-of-way application. .............................................................. 102 Figure 31. Excerpt of typical sections and how to read them. ................................................................. 102 Figure 32. Bastrop 2040 Major Thoroughfare Map/Transportation Master Plan Street Grid. ................ 104 Figure 33. Montgomery County area types (road code areas)................................................................. 106 Figure 34. Montgomery County map of adopted planned transitways. .................................................. 108 Figure 35. Example of a designated bicycle pedestrian priority area....................................................... 109 Figure 36. Service road funded by KDOT access management set-aside funds. ...................................... 112 Figure 37. Parallel access roads in Hays, Kansas....................................................................................... 112 Figure 38. Proposed service road realignment along SR 50 in Hernando County. ................................... 113 Figure 39. Service roads in Okaloosa County along US Highway 98. ........................................................ 113 Figure 40. Access roads on Pine Island Road in Cape Coral. ..................................................................... 114 Figure 41. Anticipated phases in the deployment of EVSE infrastructure in Florida................................ 115 Figure 42. Dedicated smart road lane examples. ..................................................................................... 118 Figure 43. Smart Road Classification Framework ..................................................................................... 119 Figure 44. Composite analysis of vulnerability and criticality................................................................... 120 Figure 45. Illustration of ideal arterial network spacing. .......................................................................... 121 Figure 46. Adaptation of ideal network spacing in Salt Lake City, Utah. .................................................. 123
vi
Figure 47. NCDOT rail corridor preservation ............................................................................................ 126 Figure 48. Rail corridor in Salt Lake Area .................................................................................................. 128 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Florida Thoroughfare Plan Practices........................................................................... 4 Table 2. Context Sensitive Features of Selected Thoroughfare Plans .......................................................... 5 Table 3. Draft Mobility Section Objectives and Policies ............................................................................. 23 Table 4. Draft Mobility Section Trails Objectives and Policies.................................................................... 29 Table 5. Context Based Classification System in the Mobility Section Draft .............................................. 35 Table 6. Tallahassee-Leon County Corridor Management Policies ............................................................ 37 Table 7. Leon County Future Right-of-Way Needs ..................................................................................... 41 Table 8. Blueprint 2020 Trust Fund Accounts............................................................................................. 43 Table 9. Indian River County Corridor Management Policies ..................................................................... 48 Table 10. Indian River Minimum right-of-way requirements. .................................................................... 50 Table 11. Indian River County Minimum Right-of-Way Widths.................................................................. 52 Table 12. Orange County Setbacks by Functional Classification................................................................. 56 Table 13. Horizon West Block Length and Depth Standards. ..................................................................... 57 Table 14. Excerpt of Optional Trafficways Corridors Criteria ..................................................................... 62 Table 15. Documentation of MLK Jr. Blvd Design Criteria Adjustments for Trafficways............................ 64 Table 16. St. Lucie County Corridor Preservation Objectives and Policies ................................................. 66 Table 17. Minimum Right-of-Way and Typical Section Requirements. ...................................................... 69 Table 18. Mixed Use Area Roadway Standards. ......................................................................................... 70 Table 19. Alachua County Ranking Criteria for Future Corridor Evaluation ............................................... 79 Table 20. Summary of Thoroughfare Plan Practices in Florida Counties.................................................... 83 Table 21. El Paso Area Types Used for Context Classification .................................................................... 95 Table 22. Thoroughfare Design Standards by Context and Area Type ....................................................... 96 Table 23. Design Criteria for New & Reconfigured Thoroughfares ............................................................ 97 Table 24. Basic and Optional Cross Sections for El Paso Thoroughfares .................................................... 98 Table 25. Excerpt of the B3 Development Tables..................................................................................... 105 Table 26. Context Sensitive Features of Selected Thoroughfare Plans .................................................... 110 Table 27. Connected Roadway Classification System (CRCS) Framework Overview................................ 117
vii
Executive Summary This report reviews current thoroughfare planning practices in several Florida counties, as well as those of selected cities and counties in other states. Topics include the policy and planning context for corridor management in Florida, best practices for integrating land use context and modal options, and how resilience to climate change and emerging technology may be reflected in contemporary thoroughfare plans. The purpose of the review is to offer insight and guidance to Hillsborough County on the current state of the practice in Florida, and any best practices that may benefit the County as it updates its Corridor Plan. A table defining acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the report is provided in the Appendix. Legal Review Few if any changes were identified in Florida’s legislative criteria for corridor preservation and management since the 1995 corridor management legislation was enacted. Corridor management under Florida law begins with the designation of transportation corridors in the state-mandated local comprehensive plan, and is supported by goals, objectives and policies that are adopted in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S. Plans or regulations with an unclear purpose or that appear aimed primarily at suppressing right-of-way costs in advance of acquisition have been deemed unconstitutional. Valid public purposes indicated in Florida planning law (s.163.3164(48), F.S.), include “to promote orderly growth, to meet the concurrency requirements of this chapter, and to maintain the integrity of the corridor for transportation purposes.” Other valid public purposes include measures demonstrated to protect the public health, safety and welfare. To carry out the thoroughfare plan, local governments must adopt certain measures to manage corridor development. These include measures to avoid development in the path of a planned transportation project, require mitigation of development impacts, offset any hardship on property owners, and manage roadway access as development occurs. During development review, techniques such as on-site density transfers, setback waivers, and interim use agreements can be used to preserve land ownership and development rights while ensuring that the right-of-way remains clear of major structural improvements. Local governments may also require some property to be dedicated (conveyed) from a private owner to the public for future transportation right-of-way. Subdivision regulations routinely require dedication of land for local and collector roads needed to serve a development and any site-related improvements. However, mandatory dedication of right-of-way for thoroughfares is subject to constitutional limitations. There must be an “essential nexus” between the impacts of the property and the permit conditions (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, US 1987), and the amount of the exaction must be roughly proportionate in nature and degree to the impacts of the regulated activity (Dolan v. City of Tigard, US 1994). Dedication of right-of-way outside of these guidelines is subject to compensation in some fashion. Property owners may be compensated through impact fee credits, density credits, fee simple payments, or some combination of methods. Providing an escape hatch in situations where the regulations would pose a substantial hardship (e.g., permit or buy) further ensures a legally defensible process. This combination of factors differentiates local government programs in Florida from the official map and
1
development moratoria exemplified in Joint Ventures v. FDOT litigation and suggests the viability of long reservation periods based on long range planning horizons or even build-out plans. However, caselaw suggests that the longer the horizon for preserving future right-of-way, the more tenuous the balance in enforcing preservation policies. Advance acquisition programs may be beneficial in this regard. The legal context for corridor management in Florida is further defined by an increasing emphasis on multimodal transportation planning in Florida planning law. The 2011 Community Planning Act required local governments in Florida to develop multimodal plans coordinated with future land use plans, removed transportation concurrency as a requirement, and encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility funding systems. Many have enacted mobility plans and fees or concurrency based multimodal mitigation fees to help ensure that developments pay their proportionate share of the cost of transportation facilities. The legalities of impact fees have been litigated over many years. A recent legal analysis for the City of Port St. Lucie extends this analysis to multimodal mobility fees. The study indicates that mobility fees must be both proportional and reasonably connected to the need for new multimodal transportation projects and the mobility benefits provided to those who pay the fee (s.163.31801(4)(f-h), F.S.). As stated in the report (Paul, August 2021): “The “dual rational nexus test” requires a local government to demonstrate that there is a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the “Need” for additional (new) capital facilities (improvements and projects) to accommodate the increase in demand from new development (growth), and the “Benefit” that the new development receives from the payment and expenditure of fees to construct the new capital improvements….The calculation of the City’s Mobility Fee based on person travel demand documents and quantifies the connection between the provision of multimodal person capacity and the person travel demand generated by new development travel, in accordance with dual rational nexus and rough proportionality test.” An internet search and a 2016 study of the application of mobility fees in Florida found no evidence of case law challenging their specific features (Renaissance Planning, 2016). Concern over the potential for litigation, particularly in light of the widespread variation in these fee systems, led the Florida League of Cities to issue a 2021 legislative brief on mobility plans. The brief called for legislation to provide guidance for the creation and adoption of alternative transportation mitigation systems like mobility plans and fees noting “Absent legislative guidance, city ordinances on mobility plans and mobility fees are open to attack over differing legal interpretations of the current state statute.” Nonetheless, in determining the validity of local regulatory actions, courts will review whether the action is consistent with and based upon a local comprehensive plan. Local governments that have designed mobility plans and fees with careful attention to statutory requirements and with the dual rational nexus and rough proportionality tests in mind appear to be on strong legal footing. A multimodal approach to corridor management is essential to the ability of local governments to plan for future growth. An important consideration is internal consistency of the vision expressed in the multimodal plan, quality of service and design criteria, and the corresponding mitigation program. These factors demonstrate public purpose and need for new facilities, benefits received by new development, and how the mitigation is related and proportionate to the impacts of new development.
2
Current Practices A thoroughfare plan is ultimately a right-of-way preservation document that allows the orderly development of a transportation network to support future growth. From a planning perspective, the review indicates that contemporary thoroughfare plans are increasingly context sensitive and emphasize a multimodal or complete streets philosophy. Several of the plans reviewed identify area types to guide the design of transportation corridors in relation to their planned land use context and modes. Rather than widely-spaced thoroughfares fed by disconnected local and collector roads, they promote a dense and connected network that supports multimodal activity. These and other integral strategies influence right-of-way needs and advance a more comprehensive vision of the design of the future transportation system. Contemporary thoroughfare plans serve as a preliminary tool for defining which multimodal design elements and users are prioritized for each roadway type and land use context. The desired thoroughfare network is mapped, including area and street types, with preliminary identification of modal elements. It is then used to define the corresponding right of way needs and cross section design concepts for purposes of corridor preservation and management. Some of the plans also provide a framework for more detailed assessment of cross section design and modal needs by segment, and guide decisions on building type and intensity to reinforce the planned modal elements. As regulatory documents, the plans also include procedures and explanations to guide amendments, exceptions and updates. An observation on Florida thoroughfare plans, as compared to the handful of plans reviewed nationally, is a less detailed emphasis on integrating area type or context, non-auto modes, and complete streets design concepts at the thoroughfare planning level. Nonetheless, steps are clearly being taken to address those issues and especially in the context of mobility planning practices. In the process, local governments in Florida are broadening their impact fees and mitigation methods to strengthen corridor management plans and practices from a multimodal perspective. Table 1 summarizes corridor management strategies applied in Florida thoroughfare plans. Table 2 summarizes context-sensitive features of selected thoroughfare plans reviewed for the study.
3
Table 1 . Summary of Florida Thoroughfare Plan Practices
ROW Needs Map
Mandatory Dedication
Jurisdiction
Planned Roadways
Non-auto Modes
Preservation Measures
Network and Connectivity
Area Type and Context
Advance ROW Acquisition
Transit Map 15, ROW needs not specified Greenways Master Plan Addressed in notes and policy Greenways Master Plan
Plan policies and regulations
Restrictions on encroachment, density/intensity credits, clustering, interim uses
Hillsborough
Context Based Classifications (not yet in practice)
County Map 25, ROW needs not specified
Yes
No
Parallel relievers
Restrictions on encroachment, on-site density transfer, clustering, waiver of deviation, waiver of review fees, interim uses
Comp Plan policies and regulations
Tallahassee- Leon County
Future Rights-of-Way Needs Map and table
Plan to address in next update
Blueprint 2000 Intergovernmental Agency
Yes
Planned Development Master Plans
Offsite improvements, lot size adjustments Impact fee credits or purchase of additional ROW
Murphy Act purchases
Includes bicycleways and sidewalks per adopted plans
Yes, to local road standards
Implements Subdivision Collector Map
Indian River County
Extended Roadway Grid Network Map and ROW table.
No
Impact fees, gas tax, sales tax
Network connectivity for TND, mixed use
Opportunity purchases
Pedestrian connectivity index
Density credits
Orange County Based on LRTP map
Not specified
Yes
No
No
Urban village districts and Master Plans (Welaunee Arch, Horizon West)
Impact fee credits
Context sensitive corridors Complete streets guidelines
Broward County Planning Council
Trafficways Plan Map, ROW needs specified
Yes, by deed or easement Restrictions on encroachment
Urban Core, Urban Main Street, or Urban Residential
Addressed at local government level.
No
Restrictions on encroachment, road impact fee credits Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) and TDR Credits in certain planned developments
In planned development overlays only (Towns, Villages, and Countryside and North St. Lucie County Special Area Plan)
In selected situations only
St. Lucie County Thorough-fare Network Right-of- Way Protection Plan
Context Zones (In Rural Land Steward-ship Area Overlay)
May acquire land or right-of-way in advance of need
Not specified
Jenkins Road Special Area Plan
Compensation where otherwise applicable Restrictions on encroachment
Mobility Plan
Bicycle lanes, sidewalks, express transit, multi-use paths
Mandatory connectivity and internal street networks in Urban Cluster
Multimodal transportation mitigation funds placed in special revenue/mobility project trust funds
Alachua County
Future Traffic Circulation Corridors Map
Yes
Urban cluster districts
Multimodal mitigation fee credits
Includes bike/ped facilities
4
Table 2 . Context Sensitive Features of Selected Thoroughfare Plans
Jurisdiction Area types
Corridor Typology
Multimodal Elements in ROW
Design Types/Cross Sections
Application
Detailed network maps by planning area
Draft design criteria for new and reconfigured thoroughfares and basic and optional cross sections by area type
Expressway, Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector
Modal elements identified in basic and optional cross sections
El Paso, Texas Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban, and Rural
Draft suggests regional intergovernmental compact. Plans to add multimodal network & update cross sections
Street Type Map (Activity, Commerce/Mixed-Use, Neighborhood Connector, Commercial Connector, and System Link); Lanes Map, Bicycle Network Map Transit Vision: Major Services map. Special corridor designations State Highway System, Primary Multimodal Streets, Local Connector Streets, Rural Streets, Multimodal Connections (Trails and Shared-Use Paths) on Map 5.1 2040 Major Thoroughfare Map, with additional cross section variations in B3 code (13 street types) Freeway, Arterial, Collector (non- thoroughfare), Local (non-thoroughfare), Special Corridors (Beltline RR, Greenway) Includes arterials, plus Parkways, Primary Residential Streets, Business Streets, Industrial Streets, Country Roads, Country Arterials, and Rustic Roads and Exceptional Rustic Roads.
Area types implicit in street type descriptions
Typical section selection process uses inputs including modal elements to code a range of typical sections for each street type
MTP specifies a suite of cross-sections for each segment based on modal priorities and available ROW
Fort Worth, Texas
MTP provides ample guidance and detailed procedures for flexibility
Special districts with unique street types
Place Types Nature, Rural, Neighborhood, Neighborhood Mix, Core, Employment Center, Civic Space, Planned Development District
Typical cross sections for functional classification and place types are shown in plan and B3 Code
Bastrop, Texas
Modal elements depicted in cross sections
Standards in B3 Code are adjustable
Target widths and cross section elements identified in ROW Standards and Design Guidelines table for each road type, based on number of lanes, speeds and area type
Indianapolis- Marion County
The ROW Standards and Design Guidelines Table specifies modal elements for each combination
Design guidelines are prototypical, not “one- size-fits-all”
Context Areas: Compact and Metropolitan
Master Plan guides street design
Montgomery County, Maryland
Pedestrian priority areas, Transit components of the plan are mapped and considered in design
Context Sensitive Design Standards, cross sections, target speeds
Road Code: Urban, Suburban, Rural
Target speeds based on road classification and area types
5
Recommended Strategies The report concludes with alternative strategies for consideration by the County as it updates the corridor plan. The strategies are supplemented with examples from the review of best practices. • Establish a clear and integrated vision of the future thoroughfare system, with flexibility and supporting technical documentation. o Consider packaging the Corridor Plan as a concise visual document referenced in the comprehensive plan that conveys vision, modal and design elements (see for example, The Indianapolis-Marion County, Fort Worth, and City of Bastrop Thoroughfare Plans). It could also be an integral part of the mobility plan. o Advance more specific corridor management and network enhancement strategies through individual Community Plans and adopt these by reference in the Corridor Plan. o Identify implementing strategies and procedures. For example, Broward County has supporting documentation for the trafficways plan map that details the implementation process, including amendments and waivers. The City of Fort Worth has a “suite” of cross section types coded to different streets and corresponding ROW widths , while allowing for “interim cross sections” for certain situations in which constructing the full cross section dictated by the Master Thoroughfare Plan would be infeasible or cost prohibitive. • Classify all thoroughfares by function, area type or context, and modal accommodations. o Broward County has “Context Sensitive Corridors” depicted on their thoroughfare plan which are highlighted in green on the map and fall into one of three categories: Urban Core, Urban Main Street, or Urban Residential. These corridors are tied to Specific Plans that govern ROW. o The Fort Worth, Texas Thoroughfare Plan depicts “Street Types” by evaluating the streets’ respective land-use contexts and the various transportation modes needing to use each street. The five “Street Types” are Activity Streets, Commerce/Mixed-Use Streets, Neighborhood Connectors Commercial Connectors, and System Links. o The Indianapolis-Marion County Thoroughfare Plan map depicts “Context Areas” labeled as either compact or metropolitan. These disparate geographical areas are used to apply different standards including ROW. The plan incorporates right-of-way needs for all modes, providing design guidance on multi-modal facilities, and providing guidance on conflicting modal priorities (also Greenways as special corridor designations). o The El Paso Thoroughfare Plan identifies areas as compact urban or drivable suburban to differentiate thoroughfare design intentions. o Montgomery County, Maryland defines pedestrian priority areas and transit corridors and defines target speed by road classification and area type. • Adapt the thoroughfare plan to an idealized grid and include supporting network concepts. o NCHRP Report 917 provides a process for adapting a large, planned thoroughfare network to an ideal grid and prioritizing new corridors for preservation. o Indian River includes a “Extended Roadway Grid Network” in their thoroughfare plan as logical extensions of roadways to undeveloped portions of the county. The county enforces a Subdivision Collector Map to ensure that proposed development extends subdivision collector roadways to landlocked parcels.
6
o El Paso, Texas, extends its arterial and collector grid using dashed lines on the thoroughfare plan map. o The Bastrop, Texas Thoroughfare Plan includes a well-connected grid network that establishes a long-range vision for a highly connected, multimodal street system throughout the City of Bastrop, including the local street network. It may be an interesting model for use in more location specific strategies relative to compact urban areas. o Alachua County incorporated numerous new corridors and connections in an effort to relieve congested and constrained corridors by providing alternative parallel corridors, and improve accessibility to town centers or activity centers. Issues considered included spacing standards to develop more of a grid network. o Identify opportunities for complete streets projects and transit corridors to connect to greenways and multiuse trails. Clearly designate greenways and multiuse trails as transportation, not recreational, facilities. For example, Indianapolis-Marion County includes Greenways as special corridor designations. o Update and assign the County access classifications to County arterial and collector roadways to reinforce the thoroughfare plan. Integrate multimodal and context sensitive features, such as alleys and block spacing in urban contexts and safe, continuous access to transit stops. o Implement street network connectivity in urban contexts. See Alachua County and Leon County for additional helpful examples of network connectivity provisions. o Consider designating future Smart Corridors to focus investments in technology enhancements in these areas and manage right-of-way needs, using the emerging smart road classification systems. o Integrate FDOT Electric Vehicle (EV) Master Plan locations and possible locations on other County thoroughfares, to support expansion of EV charging stations. The State is developing an innovative funding program to promote such installations (e.g. “Green” Bank, Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) loan). o Montgomery County enacted a new policy and guidelines for permitting EV charging stations on the curb for homes lacking driveway and garage access. Consider developing a policy to ensure proper management of the right-of-way for EV charging along major corridors. • Increase network redundancy and designate vulnerable routes for management. o Designate routes vulnerable to flooding and other threats by assigning segments to categories shown in Figure 44 and associate the links with specific adaptation and mitigation strategies requiring additional right-of-way. o Designate priority routes lacking parallel relievers and/or connections to alternative facilities and increase redundancy of the network through strategies to provide alternative routes in the event of an incident or evacuation. • Establish a dedicated funding source for corridor management projects and acquisition of right of way. o Tallahassee - Leon County practices of interest include: Established Blueprint 2000 Intergovernmental Agency, under a board comprised of the County and City commissions, has authority to approve the purchase of • Anticipate and integrate new designations as technology evolves .
7
real estate for future Blueprint projects, including early acquisition of transportation right of way with sales tax proceeds. Enacted intergovernmental agreement between Leon County, FDOT and the City of Tallahassee to allow proportionate fair share funds to accumulate in an account earmarked for the completion of major transportation projects, rather than spread throughout the community on smaller projects. Leon County road impact fees are placed in a Countywide Road Impact Fee Trust Account for use on designated state roads. Money deposited into the trust fund account that is not immediately needed is invested by the county and city, and income derived from those investments go back into the trust fund. o Indian River County engages in ‘opportunity purchases’ for advanced right of way acquisition. When a parcel comes up for sale on a corridor planned for widening, the county may either purchase the whole parcel or a portion of the parcel and sell the residual. Funds for land acquisition come from a combination of traffic impact fees, a six-cent local option gas tax, and a one-cent county-wide sale tax. o Alachua County has a concurrency-based multimodal transportation mitigation program that provides funding toward a variety of multimodal improvements on planned corridors within its urban service area or “urban cluster”.
8
Chapter 1 - Introduction The Hillsborough County Corridor Plan was first adopted in 2005 for the purpose of identifying and managing roadway corridors needed to support future growth. The current plan includes thoroughfares identified for improvement by the Hillsborough Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) and County long range transportation planning processes. Future roadway corridors are designated on a map, with needed rights-of-way based on the planned number of lanes, other related plans, and associated County design standards. County land development regulations implement the Corridor Plan with provisions that allow staff to work proactively with landowners to preserve the needed rights-of-way as development occurs. Subsequent transportation project development activities define the project, which is then programmed for construction through the capital improvement process. Strategies to manage development access and promote local street and sidewalk networks, including safe access to transit stops, are also employed to protect the safety, mobility functions, and livability of the corridor. The County corridor management process provides many benefits to the public. It offers predictability to property owners and prospective developers, preserves the right-of-way needed for the planned thoroughfare system, coordinates the design of access with the planned functions of the facility, and helps minimize adverse impacts to homes, businesses, and the natural and built environment. A variety of strategies are available in the regulatory program and employed by the County to protect private property rights and investment backed expectations of those whose land is impacted by a planned future corridor. The County is now in the process of updating its Corridor Plan, including integrating multimodal needs and plans in response to future growth. This study offers guidance to the County on best practices and strategies that may benefit the County in that update. The study explores the changing policy and planning context for corridor management since adoption of the current Corridor Plan. It then examines contemporary corridor management practices in Florida, including strategies for transit and multiuse corridors, and examines best practices for integrating land use context and area type, and how resilience to climate change and emerging technology may be reflected in contemporary corridor management programs. A separate section explores rail corridor preservation strategies and examples. The report concludes with alternative strategies for consideration by the County as it updates the corridor plan. A table defining acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the report is provided in the Appendix. Background Much has changed in planning practice since the County adopted its first Corridor Plan and implementing ordinance. Chapter 163 was amended in 2011 directing local governments to plan for a safe and convenient multimodal transportation system, concurrency was retained as a planning and not regulatory tool, and a multimodal “mobility” plan and fee concept were advanced by the Florida legislature to help guide the next generation of transportation plans. In addition, implementation of Complete Streets became a policy priority of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and land use “context” zones were established by the FDOT to ensure future roadway planning and design would be sensitive to area type and the needs of all system users. In response to these changes, the County is developing Complete Streets guidelines and a Draft Mobility Section of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted a Context Based Classification System (January 2022).
9
Adding to this is the advent of electric, connected and automated vehicles (AV/CV) and efforts to plan for deployment of these technologies. “Smart corridors” with connected, automated and electric vehicles are becoming a growing reality, with testbeds in Tampa and other areas of Florida., and FDOT has adopted a statewide Electric Vehicle Master Plan (FDOT, 2021) for the development of electric vehicle charging station infrastructure along the State Highway System. Planners are also examining the implications of climate change on existing and planned transportation corridors. Studies are underway in the Tamp Bay region, for example, to identify and develop strategies for those facilities most vulnerable to extreme weather events, storm surge and flooding. Contemporary corridor plans (aka thoroughfare plans) are therefore focused on much more than implementing new highways and road widening. They now focus on moving people and not cars, and integrate a broad range of land use and transportation strategies and modal priorities, while also considering the potential impacts of climate change and technology. The plans identify area types to help guide the design of transportation corridors in relation to their planned land use context and modes. They also go beyond the traditional widely-spaced thoroughfare systems fed by disconnected local and collector roads, to promote a more connected network that reduces arterial congestion and supports multimodal activity. These integral strategies influence right-of-way needs and implementation strategies to achieve a more comprehensive vision of the future transportation system.
10
Chapter 2 – Florida’s Legal Context Legal authority for corridor management in Florida is provided to local governments through two state laws – Chapter 163 (Community Planning Act) and Chapter 337 (Transportation). Corridor management in Florida is defined as the “coordination of the planning of designated future transportation corridors with land use planning within and adjacent to the corridor…” (Chapter 163.3164(30) F.S.) It includes, but is not limited to, right of way preservation and access management. Right-of-way preservation is the coordinated application of measures to obtain control of or protect the right-of-way for a planned transportation facility. Access management is the coordinated planning, regulation, and design of access between roadways and land development. The Florida legislature instituted access management in 1988 in part to “assist in the coordination of land use planning decisions by local governments with investments in the State Highway System…” (Chapter 335.181(b), F.S.) The Early Years In 1988, “Transportation Corridors” legislation authorized FDOT and local governments to designate transportation corridors for protection by recording an official map. Local governments were then required to withhold development permits in the mapped corridors for a five-year period through a centerline setback requirement (Rivkin Associates, 1996). In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that these right-of-way protection provisions were unconstitutional and a violation of due process, Joint Ventures v. Florida Department of Transportation, 563 So. 2d at 625, 626 (Fla. 1990). One reason was the onerous nature of the five-year blanket moratorium on development within mapped rights-of-way, which could be extended for another five years without a purchase commitment from the State. In addition, the stated purpose of the statute was to freeze or otherwise hold down land values in anticipation of condemnation. FDOT argued that allowing development permits to be issued in mapped rights-of-way would increase the cost of future land acquisition if the state were to initiate condemnation proceedings. Weighing eminent domain law and the potential 10-year reservation period with no purchase commitment, the Court concluded that the statute was “a thinly veiled attempt to acquire land by avoiding the legislatively mandated procedural and substantive protection” and a deliberate attempt to “depress land values in anticipation of eminent domain proceedings.” The decision resulted in a halt to FDOT corridor protection actions, as alternatives were explored. In 1993, the Florida Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a county’s thoroughfare plan map and policies were also unconstitutional in Palm Beach County v. Wright, 612 So. 2s 709 (Fla. 1993). The thoroughfare plan was adopted as part of the local comprehensive plan and plan policies prohibited land use activities in the mapped corridors that would impede development of the future transportation network. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the County thoroughfare plan map, distinguishing it from the state official map in Joint Ventures for several reasons: • Adequate transportation facilities must be provided concurrent with the impacts of development under Florida law (concurrency) and this avoids the need to curtail development, thereby benefiting affected property owners; • The map has a foundation in a state mandated comprehensive plan, which includes objectives for right-of-way preservation, consistent with Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code;
11
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12-13 Page 14-15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42-43 Page 44-45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48-49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88-89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98-99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120-121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126-127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130-131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138-139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148-149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog