Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Harlem Avenue Corridor Plan:Corridor Planning Across Municipal
Boundaries Heather Tabbert, Manager, Local Planning and Programs
DivisionRegional Transportation Authority (RTA)
Jen McNeil Dhadwal, Principal Urban PlannerURS Corporation
April 24, 2012
RTA Local and Regional Planning
RTAPlanning, Oversight
and Funding
CTAChicago &
adjacent suburbs
MetraCommuter Rail
PaceSuburban Bus
ParatransitVanpool
RTA Local and Regional Planning
DuPage
Cook
Kane
Will
Chicago
McHenry Lake
Cook
• 8.5 million people• 3,700 square miles• 2M rides daily• 3.6 bil. passenger miles• 5,640 bus & rail cars• 381 rail stations• 334 bus routes• 7,200 route miles• 650 vanpool vehicles• $36 billion in assets
RTA Local and Regional Planning
TOD and Transit Improvement
County Transit Plans
Kane County – Randall Road
County Farm Road
SSMMA
Cicero Avenue
Funding and Technical Support: Community Planning Program
• Transit-Oriented Development Plans• Transit Improvement / Corridor Plans• Available since 1998• Funded over 100 planning studies• Annual Call for Projects• Eligibility: Local Governments and
Service Boards
URS Corporation –Chicago Planning Team
• Harlem Avenue Corridor Plano Client: Southwest Conference of Mayors
(COG)o Participating Jurisdictions: 10
municipalitieso Technical Committee: RTA, Pace, Metra,
CTA, IDOT• South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study
o Client: Chicago DOT and DHEDo Participating Jurisdictions: 8 wards, 13
community areaso Technical Committee: RTA, Pace, Metra,
CTAo Steering Committee: numerous civic
organizations and community/grass-roots groups
• Central Area Action Plano Client: Chicago DHEDo Participating Jurisdictions: 6 wards, 12
planning areaso Steering Committee: CDOT, RTA, Metra,
CTA, major institutions, numerous civic and neighborhood organizations
• Michigan / Grand River Transportation Study
o Client: Capital Area Transit Authority (CATA)
o Participating Jurisdictions: 2 municipalities, 2 townships
o Technical Committee: MPO, regional planning groups, MDOT, MSU
• Detroit Transit Alternatives Analysis and Woodward Avenue Light Rail Design
o Client: Detroit DOT o Participating Jurisdictions: 2
municipalities, numerous neighborhoods / planning districts
o Technical Committee: MDOT, MPO, Wayne County, Planning/Zoning and delegate neighborhood planning agencies
o Steering Committee: numerous civic organizations, community/grass-roots groups, regional planning agencies
Why Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning is Important
There are a LOT of jurisdictions!
Chicago Area:
7 Counties
284 Municipalities
1,400 units of local government
Main Players in Corridor Planning
RTA
Transit Service Boards
Counties
COGSCMAP
Cities
IDOT
Benefits of Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning
• Transportation is not local• Transportation and land
use coordination• Avoids piecemeal
approach• Connectivity• Consistency• Common goals• Consensus building• Implementation• Limited funding
Funding Availability
• Nature of federal funding is changing
• More competitive, less political
• Focus on projects with regional focus that benefits multiple areas
• Support from other agencies needed
• Innovative funding solutions needed
The Harlem Avenue Corridor Plan
A Successful Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Project
Harlem Avenue Corridor Plan
A comprehensive Corridor Plan that:• Addresses mobility and
accessibility, guided by Complete Streets principles
• Unifies the corridor while accommodating the diversity of member communities
• Achieves economic revitalization
• Focuses on implementation
Corridor Hot Button Issues• Issue #1 – Manage / mitigate
roadway congestion
• Issue #2 – Maximize redevelopment of opportunity sites
• Issue #3 -- Enhance commercial development
• Issue #4 -- Reinforce links to adjacent commercial districts
• Issue #5 – Encourage corridor as an employment generator
• Issue #6 -- Strengthen corridor and community identity
Transportation Planning
Traffic Management / ITS• Heavy traffic conditions at
many intersections and around expressways
Freight• Congestion around
industrial areas throughout corridor
Transportation Planning
Transit• Pace Service• Metra Service• CTA Service• Arterial Bus Rapid Transit
Pedestrians/Bicycles• Pedestrian Scale• Complete Sidewalks• Bicycle Facilities and
Linkage to Trails
Land Use and Economics
Land Use / Zoning• Compatible & incompatible
uses in close proximity• Safe access to/from high
trip generators
Economic Development• Employment corridor• Encourage growth and
diversification
Land Use and Economics
Open Space/Recreation• Numerous existing assets
o Forest Preserveo Local and Regional Trailso Parkso Golf courses
• Consider stormwatermanagement
• Provide connections between corridor and recreational centers
Urban Design
Parking• Curb cuts at safe locations• Shared parking opportunities
Design• Landscaped buffers and
plantings• Integrate transportation,
infrastructure and landscape• Wayfinding and signage
Recommendations
• Economic Development Sites• Transportation Improvement Projects• Urban Design Projects
Toyota Park Redevelopment Site
Bridgeview
95th Street Interchange Redesign and Redevelopment Plan
Oak Lawn and Bridgeview
Southwest Highway Improvements
Palos Hills, Chicago Ridge and Worth
159th Street Intersection Improvements
Orland Park and Tinley Park
Implementation• Ongoing RTA support to SWCM• Corridor communities excited to move forward• STP Funding availability• TIGER grant applications in 2011 and 2012 for 95th Street
project• Orland Park Transportation Plan• Pace: Toyota Park Transit Center
www.harlemcorridor.com
The Harlem Avenue Corridor Plan
In Retrospect….
Themes & Lessons Learned
Successes Challenges• Building upon strengths:
o Previous collaborationo Common goalso Strong, clear leadershipo Long-standing
relationships
• Dealing with differences in:o Capacityo Information and datao Current stateo Internal politics and
prioritieso Appetite for change
Capacity
What did we find? How did we deal with this?• Full time staff of
professionals• Part time staff /
volunteers• Jacks-of-all-trades
• One-on-one interviews• Tailored
communication and engagement approach based on skill and ability to respond
Information and Data
What did we find? How did we deal with this?• Robust, in-house• Old, paper-based• Black-box, externally-
managed
• Early and frequent detailed requests
• One-on-one interviews and field work
• Assembly of multiple sources
• First draft with follow-up, checking
• Line-in-the-sand stop to existing conditions task
Current State
What did we find? How did we deal with this?• Active projects and
forward planning• Stalled maintenance
efforts
• Proposed range of ideas, with consistent end goal
• Acknowledged uniqueness and successes
Internal Politics and Priorities
What did we find? How did we deal with this?• Different levels of
capacity for public investment and spending
• Collaboration and competition
• Spectrum of engagement
• Sought consensus on project goal andunderstanding of individual priorities
• Explicitly stated the enhancing role of project, not superseding local control
• Made recommendations within capacity and level of interest
Lessons Learned
• What we’d repeat:o Tailored / one-on-one communication + group work
sessions throughout the projecto Recognizing individual community successeso Listening before talkingo Proactive engagement of technical participantso Frequent communication with client / managerso Hawkeye budget management
• What we’ll plan for next time:o Variability in datao More proactive engagement of “low participators”
Q &AContact Information :
Heather Tabbert, AICPManager, Local Planning and Programs
Regional Transportation Authority312-913-3244
Jen McNeil Dhadwal, AICPPrincipal PlannerURS Corporation
