Multimodal Transportation Concurrency

Is the Promise of Multimodal Transportation Concurrency a Lasting Legacy or a Flash of Green at Sunset?

By Whit Blanton, AICP

Florida’s Growth Management framework depends on the alignment of statewide, regional and local goals through development of policies that guide public investment and private development activities. Concurrency – the timing of services and infrastructure commensurate with the impacts of new development – has been the analytical foundation for those policies for nearly three decades. Yet, Florida’s transportation concurrency system is a crazy quilt of methods, procedures, tools and strategies that, in actual application, is often poorly integrated with a vision for local growth, regional priorities or the policies between two or more adjacent local governments. Legislative initiatives like those introduced this year, and last year’s HB 697 requiring local governments to incorporate greenhouse gas reduction strategies into comprehensive plans, further muddles the picture. After 30 years, Florida is still searching for a coherent and strategic approach toward improving mobility and livability, enhancing economic competitiveness and providing sufficient funding for needed transportation improvements.

While the 2009 Florida Legislature is poised to enact additional new provisions that exempt “dense urban areas” from conventional transportation concurrency and level of service impacts on the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) – that network of regional highways, ports and intermodal terminals defined by the Florida Department of Transportation as having statewide significance – local governments will still have plenty of work to do to get the desired transportation system that meshes with their land use, economic development, environmental and myriad other goals.

Ideally, transportation concurrency should adhere to three basic principles:

1. Provide incentives to direct growth and redevelopment within defined geographic areas that make sense based on a regional framework plan and the local context;

2. Target sufficient public funding and developer mitigation to projects in a timely manner that helps realize the shared planning objectives for the area, and

3. Reinforce the desired physical design and connectivity of places as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code

Few local governments have achieved all three of those principles under conventional transportation concurrency. More typically, concurrency has functioned as an accounting exercise to exact money or complete road capacity projects based on actual and potential, or “paper” trips, without any real alignment with a long-term vision. That’s begun to change with Multimodal Transportation Districts, an alternative form of concurrency that’s been available to local governments since 2000, but that has only recently drawn much statewide interest. With more changes to growth management pending in the name of economic recovery, it seems a timely point to share some of the approaches to Multimodal Transportation Districts and how they are being structured to achieve those first principles.

An Overview of Multimodal Transportation Districts

Under the premise of “what you measure is what you fund,” a Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) essentially allows local governments to shift the emphasis in concurrency from speed-based measures such as roadway level of service and travel time to a more broadly-defined set of performance measures addressing all modes. Roadway capacity and delay are not ignored in an MMTD, but they become secondary considerations to connectivity of modes and quality of service measures for bicycling, walking and transit. The Florida Department of Transportation has developed methods for evaluating bicycling, walking and transit quality of service, which relate to the comfort and convenience of these modes from the user’s perspective. These measures consider such factors as the type of pedestrian or bicycle facility and transit service, the speed and volume of adjacent street traffic, whether there is a buffer between the sidewalk and travel lane, the condition of the pavement, and the availability, frequency and span of public transportation service. The measures result in a road segment by segment rating of quality of service conditions from A to F, similar to that of conventional concurrency.  The methods also entail areawide measures for street connectivity.

These methods are described in FDOT’s Quality/Level of Service Handbook and accompanying software tools, which are readily available from the Department’s planning web pages. They provide a useful screening tool for conditions and potential solutions to improve the environment for non-auto travel. However, they are essentially facility-based measures oriented toward the roadway right-of-way realm, with little attention paid to the land use and urban design features that are critical to more people walking, riding bicycles and using transit. Thus, local governments, such as Destin and Tarpon Springs, the state’s first two approved Multimodal Transportation Districts, have incorporated an urban form analysis that looks at building setbacks, horizontal and vertical mix of uses, and other factors related to walkability. Achieving concurrency in a MMTD is like a three-legged stool. All the legs must be in place for it to stand on its own. The three-part test for any development should consider the following:  A site plan that meets design standards established for the district to promote use of non-auto travel modes;

1. Provision of on-site multimodal facilities, such as long-term bicycle parking, cross-access between parcels, transit shelters and sidewalks that connect from the public right-of-way to the building entrance, and
2. Contribution toward off-site improvements in mobility and access strategies that strengthen the travel options within the district.

By removing the constraints of adhering to roadway level of service that help streamline development, local governments can focus instead on ensuring the right design features and funding mechanisms are in place to make real gains in mobility for all users of the transportation system. The key is making the process predictable by establishing a clear policy framework, defining specific multimodal projects that will be completed to support the district, and incorporating multimodal-supportive design standards into the land development code. With that foundation, it is possible to substantially shorten the development review process for multimodal districts and attract the right kinds of development as the economy recovers.

Targeting Development

The first step in creating an MMTD or TCEA is sizing the district so it truly targets desired development and redevelopment opportunities within a multimodal framework. Ideally, it should be easier to develop within the defined geographic area, and harder (and/or more expensive) to develop outside.  Within the boundary, development should conform to clearly defined principles, policies and standards that fit the context – from a market standpoint as well as an environmental perspective. Is it a downtown central business district or a transit node in a smaller scale village center?  The intensity, scale and character of the area will define the appropriate mix of mobility strategies as well as determine the opportunity to leverage private investment for shared public purposes.

So how should you define the district? Having complementary land uses, with a sufficient mix of uses in a relatively compact area is a good start. At a basic level, this means having both residential and non-residential uses in close proximity. In the case of Tarpon Springs, the MMTD boundary was defined to be larger than the Community Redevelopment Area because the CRA lacked housing opportunities and was surrounded by residential neighborhoods. It also included Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital, located south of the CRA, to capture an important employment center. The City had to be very clear that the MMTD would foster development only within the CRA, but that multimodal connections would be strengthened between residential areas and the downtown redevelopment area. Similarly, in Kissimmee, the proposed boundary includes the City’s airport, the Valencia Community College campus and residential areas located beyond the CRA. Jobs-housing balance is one indicator of complementary uses, but it’s more important that the boundary makes sense from both regional and local perspective. For instance, the Gateway Area in mid-Pinellas County is identified as a “regional anchor” by the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority because of its concentration of employment despite not having a defined downtown. A Gateway regional MMTD under evaluation by Pinellas County’s local governments and the FDOT would serve to provide the local multimodal network and transform the land use pattern into a series of centers that could better support potential regional transit investments linking Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater.

 

 

Larger districts, such as the Gateway Area in Pinellas County, may require multiple centers for targeted investments

What Shape Should a Multimodal District Take?

The shape of the district sets the framework for selected mobility strategies, land use/urban design features and, perhaps most importantly, the basis for funding multimodal improvements.  Guidance from FDOT is that multimodal districts should not be focused on a road segment or specific site. The district needs to be large enough in size to accommodate these complementary land uses and enable an areawide transportation strategy that effectively connects logical trip origins and destinations. A rule of thumb is a minimum two square mile area. Most districts will likely take polygon form as an area boundary centered on an activity center focal point – a downtown, redevelopment area, medical complex or education institution. That’s been the case with the MMTDs and TCEAs adopted or planned thus far in Florida. However, a good case could be made that a multimodal district focused on a rail line or other “premium” transit investment in a corridor could take more of a linear shape following the transit line, with station areas serving as development focal points. The key issue would be how much area on either side from the line should the boundary cover. Perhaps like a pig in a python, the boundary would become wider at the station areas to address pedestrian, bicycle and transit access to those intermodal station areas with highest density, and narrower in between, where it would focus primarily on the first parcel or block away from the line. The advantage to this approach is that all the property owners and developers along the transit line would have a direct benefit, and vested interest, in providing financial support to the capital and on-going operating costs of the system. These kinds of considerations can be crucial to the success of the district.

In most areas supporting a multimodal district, even downtowns, there are variations in development intensity, scale and use. The larger the district, the more this becomes an issue for policy and design consideration.  For instance, Lakeland is comprised of multiple “design districts” that may be used to structure the design elements and mitigation strategy for types of development occurring in those areas. If it’s a large area, such as the 10,000-acre Gateway area of Pinellas County, or a citywide MMTD, as Boca Raton is proposing, sub-districts are needed. This is necessary because the size of the MMTD study area makes it difficult to evaluate changes in facilities or services on the multimodal quality of service measures. For example, the sheer size of the area and number of road segments limits how much a given project can move the quality of service grade for a given mode from an E to a D. Smaller is better to move the needle in a positive direction with programmed or completed projects. In addition, the difference in character within the study area enables the focus of mobility strategies to vary from sub-district to sub-district, with a different project mix and associated cost.

In Boca Raton’s proposed citywide district, there are five sub-districts that guide development and transportation strategies based on the context in different parts of the City. The City’s approach is to define focal points where the greatest potential for change exists, and where intermodal connectivity is highest. Even though it is citywide in scope, the City is being careful to ensure the MMTD is not a one-size-fits-all that could threaten residential neighborhood stability, character and compatibility with adjacent areas. Each MMTD sub-district is anchored by an Activity Center (there can only be one) along with a core for the Activity Center that serves as the hub or focal point for the development. This is the highest density node within the activity center, and the place where multiple modes converge. It should also feature prominent public gathering places like parks, plazas and fountains. Examples of the sub-district Activity Centers include Mizner Park in Downtown Boca Raton, Florida Atlantic University/Boca Community Hospital, the Town Center Mall, and the area surrounding the Tri-Rail station.

The proposed MMTD also targets development at an appropriate scale in other areas. Development standards have been prepared for Village Centers (smaller scale than an Activity Center), a Transit Corridor (Federal Highway), and remaining areas of the City, which focus more on connectivity and less on changes in development. The figure and table below explains this basic framework.

 

Site Design – Adding Flexibility and Achieving Results                                     

In the early stages of implementing the state’s first MMTD, theCity of Destin encountered difficulties getting all development applicants to adjust their site plans to promote walkability, either for because of the type of development or site physical constraints. It became necessary to add flexibility to the development review process to encourage a menu of “quality design features” that achieved the objectives for the MMTD. The City created a development review menu that uses a point-based system to give developers the flexibility of finding the right mix of site design features and off-site mobility contributions to achieve a minimum number of points based on geographic location and development intensity. More points are required for the most intense developments, and points can be achieved in several ways, such as through reductions in on-site surface parking, providing a transit facility, building orientation, provision of on-site amenities, and creating access to an adjacent site. Payments to a community sidewalk fund or parking mitigation fee can also be used to obtain points. This system was based in part on the City of Gainesville’s TCEA, which requires developments in one of its two zones to achieve a minimum point total for multimodal design features. The Destin “quality design features” checklist is being adapted for Charlotte, NC to conform to its Centers, Corridors and Wedges land use vision, and has been tailored to Boca Raton’s citywide MMTD. The menu, shown in the graphic illustrating its application for a prototypical suburban development, indicates how point totals may be achieved in each of eight separate categories related to transportation network and site design features. Point totals vary depending on whether the site is in an Activity Center, Village Center, Transit Corridor or remaining part of the City. The applicant fills out the checklist based on its proposed site plan, and the checklist automatically calculates the number of points earned for each category. If there is a deficit between points earned and points required, the developer must either change the site plan to add more design features or contribute to off-site mobility improvements, such as for transit operations or sidewalks elsewhere.

 

Defining Mobility Strategies

Through experience working with the Florida Department of Transportation, having a regional perspective is key. The state has focused on protection of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) in its review of MMTDs and TCEAs. This has meant local governments must look at parallel street connections to provide additional corridor capacity, provision of additional transit within the state road corridor, reduction of automobile trips through Transit-Oriented Development and demand management measures, and Intelligent Transportation Systems to manage system operations more efficiently. Unless legislation changes the state’s priorities, local governments must define firm funding commitments in their capital improvement programs – through public or private sources – to mitigate impacts to the SIS.  

These are certainly valid concerns to protect the integrity of regionally significant roads like I-95, I-4, US 19 or I-10, but there is another, larger regional element to think about. A regional framework plan that defines environmental areas to preserve, mixed use activity economic centers for job growth and affordable housing, and transportation systems to provide access and lay the proper foundation for desired types of development provide the strongest possible structure for multimodal plans to actually work. Consensus on these framework plans is very difficult to achieve, but efforts like OneBay.org in West Central Florida and MyRegion.org in Central Florida, among others, can create the vertical alignment of values, goals, policies and strategies necessary to leverage public and private investment that produces real and lasting results. This type of context can provide the necessary support to target multimodal investments where they can have the most meaningful impact rather than spreading out limited dollars on band-aid remedies to every road segment with a significant and adverse impact from future development. 

Within Multimodal Transportation Districts, the bottom line is there should be an appropriate array of mobility improvements, with priorities defined and periodically reviewed. It’s not all trails, buses and bicycle facilities. For such districts to work effectively, they need a combination of regional, community-wide and local (subdivision or site-related) mobility strategies for all modes.

Quality of service scores using the FDOT methods and software provide a good indicator of where conditions are poor and how they could be improved to achieve a target quality/level of service score, but do not define the type of strategy. The key is to avoid chasing a level of service score with segment-by-segment improvements, and focus instead on overall multimodal system connectivity and continuity. For example, the proposed regional MMTD in the Gateway Area of Pinellas County focused on increasing the frequency of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s most productive routes serving the district as a basis for meeting transit quality of service targets. In Boca Raton, the transit focus is on implementing a series of high frequency shuttles to connect places of employment, education and housing with Tri-Rail. In Tarpon Springs, east-west bicycle facility improvements are needed to connect with the Pinellas Trail.

Funding the MMTD

Ultimately, it all comes down to money. The financial feasibility test of comprehensive plans requires a commitment to mobility improvements for MMTDs and TCEAs in the Capital Improvements Element and/or through a Long Term Concurrency Management System. Finding revenues to support a TCEA or MMTD is a big hurdle, particularly in this economic situation with scarce revenues at every level. Returning to first principles of targeting and streamlining future development, the MMTD provides an excellent framework for a creative funding approach that matches public and private sources.

One concept gaining currency is the creation of a “mobility fee” as a basis for generating revenue and streamlining concurrency review at the local level. This concept is similar to the state’s proportionate fair share requirement in that it assigns future development a pro rata share of the cost of needed mobility improvements to achieve a target multimodal quality/level of service standard. However, a mobility fee is different from proportionate fair share in the way it is calculated. In various forms, this general approach is being considered in Tarpon Springs, Kissimmee, Tallahassee, Alachua County and Fort Myers, and was included in state legislation that failed to pass in the 2007 Session. The mobility fee can be tailored to each sub-district within a larger MMTD to reflect the different mix of needed mobility strategies and their associated cost, or it can apply throughout a smaller MMTD.

In essence, the mobility fee as explored in the Tarpon Springs, Kissimmee and Pinellas Gateway MMTDs is based on the anticipated amount of future development occurring within the MMTD district or sub-district boundary, and the cost of multimodal mobility strategies to achieve quality/level of service targets in the horizon year. The fee can take into account both capital facilities and operating costs, such as the cost to provide more frequent transit service. Also, unlike a conventional road impact fee, the mobility fee is tied to achieving an areawide future condition, and therefore may be applicable to addressing existing deficiencies, such as a road segment with no sidewalk or a lack of frequent bus service. For example, the local government conducts an analysis of the existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit level of service, and determines each to be an E condition overall throughout the district. A set of improvements is identified to achieve a B level of service score for each mode and an areawide overall score, and adopts that target in the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for mitigating the impacts of new growth.

The first step is to estimate the future number of trips expected to be generated within the district (or sub-district). This can be based on an estimate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) using the Trip Generation report for future infill and likely redevelopment, or by using the travel demand model to determine future trips for a “with and without” analysis. This establishes a “trip bank” that serves as a basis for identifying any individual development’s proportion of the improvement cost. The next step is to determine the total cost of needed mobility improvements in the study area. The key question here is what other sources of funds (e.g., sales tax, gas tax, general revenue, farebox, etc.) may be used for some improvements, and which projects remain unfunded. For instance, one option may be that the mobility fee could only be used to cover the cost of transit operations, leaving road projects and sidewalk/bicycle projects to be funded by existing or more conventional funding sources. As each development enters the process, it must define its share of the total future trips in the district, and pay a per trip mobility fee as part of the site plan approval. The amount of the fee could be reduced or increased depending on the number of points achieved in the quality design features menu described previously.

Ideally, the mobility fee would be in place of or a payment made in lieu of the existing impact fee within each sub-district.  However, a more practical approach may be to issue a credit against the transportation impact fee within the sub-districts to avoid creating a disincentive for desired development within the district. Keeping the mobility fee in one bank, including all multimodal projects rather than a set of pots for each mode, is critical to deriving an areawide benefit from the mobility improvements funded through the fee program. Setting priorities is a key step in allocating the revenues generated to “catalyst” projects or those that provide the most benefit.

Monitoring Progress

Whether through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process or a biannual monitoring report, as typically requested by the state for MMTDs, it’s a good idea to monitor progress toward achieving the stated mobility goals.  There isn’t much guidance on what a monitoring report should contain, but it is important that the report tell an effective story about accomplishments, challenges and any changes in conditions or priorities. It is not necessary to update the quality/level of service scores for each monitoring report, but there should be a set of standard transportation and land use performance measures that reflect how well the multimodal system functions over time. For instance, has development contributed to a greater mix of uses? Is overall density increasing? How many sidewalk gaps have been filled? Is the jobs-housing balance improving?

Some Lingering Issues

Multimodal Transportation Districts are still new and unproven enough that many thorny questions remain without a great answer. A few are summarized here to perhaps generate some dialogue within the profession:

1. How should later phases of approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) be addressed within an MMTD? Through their development agreements, DRIs have been granted certain entitlements in exchange for commitments to specific roadway capacity improvements. It is not clear how DRIs could renegotiate the terms of their agreements to instead pay for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements, which could be considerably less expensive.

2. If a portion of a long transit line passes through an MMTD, what is the best way to ensure equitable and adequate funding for the capital and operating cost of the line? If the developments in the MMTD fund only a proportion of the cost, what guarantees can be made that the rest of the money will be there to run the service?

3. Along those lines, to truly capture logical travel patterns, an MMTD may need to encompass multiple jurisdictions, yet outside of the DRI process this has not been addressed in state law. Further guidance and even incentives are likely needed to encourage consistent sub-DRI multimodal concurrency approaches in adjacent jurisdictions. 

4. Over time, the MMTD should contribute to a lower automobile trip generation rate and reduced trip lengths. What are the best ways to estimate these future impacts to determine a proportionate share cost of mobility improvements?  

There is clearly much work ahead to create and sustain a proper multimodal transportation planning framework in Florida and among each of its local governments. The methods and policies will continue to evolve with each experience and the results of current research projects funded by the Departments of Transportation and Community Affairs. As the 35-year experiment in growth management continues, the promise of truly integrating land use and transportation in a workable growth management system is tantalizingly close. It is achievable with a commitment of wise leadership and sound investment. Our state’s future depends on those commodities not being in short supply for very long.

 

Whit Blanton, AICP, is vice president of Renaissance Planning Group and serves on the executive committee of APA’s Divisions Council. He lives in Winter Park.

Resources:

Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation (2003)

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf

Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts, Florida Department of Transportation (2004)

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDregs.pdf