<%BANNER%>

A Study Assessing the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure Barriers and Land Use with Respect to Downtown Redevelopment

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024531/00001

Material Information

Title: A Study Assessing the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure Barriers and Land Use with Respect to Downtown Redevelopment A Case Study of Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kanarek, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beach, concurrency, downtown, transportation, vero
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Has infrastructure focused solely on supporting the automobile destroyed walkable, connected downtowns? Has zoning focused on separating uses destroyed downtowns? This study seeks to understand the role of infrastructure and downtown redevelopment within Florida municipalities. This study analyzes the steps taken to redevelop two Florida downtowns, Delray Beach and Stuart, and makes recommendations to redevelop downtown Vero Beach, Florida. Literature on the land use ? transportation relationship, the importance of preserving downtowns, Florida?s concurrency policy and downtown redevelopment strategies are all incorporated. The methodology is based on site visits, interviews with officials involved with the redevelopment process and a policy review of the redevelopment strategies of the listed case study cities. This study examines downtown Delray Beach and Stuart with a focus on transportation infrastructure to determine the ?core? of downtown. The researcher relies on the transect planning principles to assess the mix of uses, degree of connectivity, and pedestrian oriented environment within the downtown. These methods are used to determine the central core of the downtown and each outlying district. This study recommends the use of concurrency alternatives and a community redevelopment agency as a means to redevelop future downtowns within the State of Florida. This study also recommends greater emphasis be placed on multimodal transportation systems within downtowns as the primary concurrency alternative.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Kanarek.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024531:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024531/00001

Material Information

Title: A Study Assessing the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure Barriers and Land Use with Respect to Downtown Redevelopment A Case Study of Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kanarek, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: beach, concurrency, downtown, transportation, vero
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Has infrastructure focused solely on supporting the automobile destroyed walkable, connected downtowns? Has zoning focused on separating uses destroyed downtowns? This study seeks to understand the role of infrastructure and downtown redevelopment within Florida municipalities. This study analyzes the steps taken to redevelop two Florida downtowns, Delray Beach and Stuart, and makes recommendations to redevelop downtown Vero Beach, Florida. Literature on the land use ? transportation relationship, the importance of preserving downtowns, Florida?s concurrency policy and downtown redevelopment strategies are all incorporated. The methodology is based on site visits, interviews with officials involved with the redevelopment process and a policy review of the redevelopment strategies of the listed case study cities. This study examines downtown Delray Beach and Stuart with a focus on transportation infrastructure to determine the ?core? of downtown. The researcher relies on the transect planning principles to assess the mix of uses, degree of connectivity, and pedestrian oriented environment within the downtown. These methods are used to determine the central core of the downtown and each outlying district. This study recommends the use of concurrency alternatives and a community redevelopment agency as a means to redevelop future downtowns within the State of Florida. This study also recommends greater emphasis be placed on multimodal transportation systems within downtowns as the primary concurrency alternative.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Kanarek.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024531:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 A STUDY ASSES S ING THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BARRIERS AND LAND USE WITH RESPECT TO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF DELRAY BEACH, STUART AND VERO BEACH, FLORIDA By DAVID BRIAN KANAREK A THESIS PRES ENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 David Brian Kanarek

PAGE 3

3 To Mr. Morris Darby Gibbons thank you for taking a chance

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my supervisory committee. As my chair, Dr. Ruth Steiner guided me throughout the process and assisted me in re fining my research. Dr. Steiner also put up with my never ending questioning, and for that I am grateful. I would also like to thank my co-chair Dr. Kristin Larsen. From my first class with Dr. Larsen, she has consistently pushed me to become a better w riter and better student I would also like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout graduate school. My parents encouragement has been invaluable throughout the thesis process. In addition I would also like to thank my sister for her support Finally I would like to thank Jaimee Braverman for her support, understanding and patience. Next I would like to thank all of my previous teachers, advisors and counselors who have made me the person I am today. I would like to thank, Darby Gibbons, Bruce Wachter, Shannon Bow, Keith Yearwood. Without the ideas and knowledge these individuals introduced me to, I may not be writing this today. Finally I would like to thank my current and previous classmates. In particular I thank Travis Johnson, Emily Stallings, Laura Abernathy and Stephanie Murray for their support throughout this process. I would also like to thank Lauren Simmons for setting the bar, whether it be in the classroom or on the job, thank you. Finally, I would like to thank the U niversity of Florida for a great seven years.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. 9 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12 Case Studies ................................................................................................................................. 12 Conc lusion ................................................................................................................................... 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 19 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19 Land Use Tran sportation Relationship ................................................................................... 20 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 20 New Urbanism ..................................................................................................................... 20 Trans it Oriented Development ............................................................................................ 21 Transect Planning ................................................................................................................ 22 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 22 Fl orida Growth Management ..................................................................................................... 23 Implementation of 1985 Growth Management Act ........................................................... 24 Resulting Impacts Of Transportation Concurrency On Do wntowns ............................... 25 Downtown Redevelopment Strategies ....................................................................................... 27 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 27 Transportation Concurrency Alternatives .......................................................................... 28 Community Redevelopment Agencies ............................................................................... 29 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 29 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 32 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 32 Selection of Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 32 Study Approach ........................................................................................................................... 34 Review of Planning Documents and Policy Analysis ............................................................... 34 Personal Observations ................................................................................................................. 34

PAGE 6

6 Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 36 4 FINDINGS: STUART AND DELRAY BEACH ..................................................................... 37 Stuart ............................................................................................................................................ 37 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 37 Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 38 Historic Downtown (Section One) .............................................................................. 38 West CRA (Section Two) ............................................................................................ 40 North CRA (Section Three) ......................................................................................... 41 Multimodal Accessibility .................................................................................................... 41 Delray Beach ............................................................................................................................... 43 The Surrounding Dis tricts ................................................................................................... 43 The Study Area .................................................................................................................... 44 West Atlantic Avenue Neighborhood ......................................................................... 44 East Atlantic Avenue: Swinton Ave to South Federal Highway (section 2) ............ 45 East Atlantic Avenue: South Federal Highway to Intercoastal Waterway (section 2) .................................................................................................................. 46 East Atlantic Avenue: Intercoastal Waterway to A 1 -A (section 3) ......................... 47 Multi -Modal Accessibility .................................................................................................. 48 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 48 5 FINDINGS: VERO BEACH ...................................................................................................... 56 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 56 Transporta tion Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 58 Roadways ............................................................................................................................. 58 Florida East Coast Rail Line ............................................................................................... 59 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 60 Transit .......................................................................................................................................... 61 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 62 6 LESSONS LEARNED AND AP PLICATION OF A MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT IN VERO BEACH ............................................................ 65 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................................................... 65 Stuart ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Delray Beach ........................................................................................................................ 66 Application of a Multimodal Transportation District in Downtown Vero Beach, Florida .... 68 Potential Challenges to Redeveloping Downtown Vero Beach ............................................... 70 7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 75 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 82

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Comparison of multimodal characteristics of concurrency ar eawide tools ........................ 31 4 1 Surrounding Geographic Districts ......................................................................................... 50 5 1 Population Figures For Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach ........................................... 63

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Delray Beach TCEA ............................................................................................................. 16 1 2 City of Stuart TCEA ............................................................................................................. 17 1 3 Aerial Map of Downtow n Vero Beach, Florida. .................................................................. 18 4 1 Secti on One of St uart CRA/TCEA ...................................................................................... 51 4 2 Section Two of Stuart CRA/TCEA ....................................................................................... 51 4 3 Section Three of Stuart CRA/TCEA ..................................................................................... 52 4 4 Section Four o f Stuart CRA/TCEA ....................................................................................... 52 4 5 Section Five of Stuart CRA/TCEA ....................................................................................... 53 4 6 Image of FEC Rail i n Downtown Stuart ............................................................................... 53 4 7 West Atlantic Avenue, Delray CRA/TCEA ......................................................................... 54 4 8 East Atlantic Avenue (Section One) ..................................................................................... 54 4 9 East Atlantic Avenue (Section Two) .................................................................................... 55 4 10 East Atlantic Avenue (Section Three) .................................................................................. 55 5 1 US 1 crosswalk in Vero Beach ............................................................................................. 64 6 1 Te mporary reconfiguration of Federal Highway in Delray Beach ..................................... 72 6 2 Map of Vero Beach and Regional Transportation Network ................................................ 73 6 3 Map of Delray Beach and Regional Transportation Network ............................................. 73 6 4 Map of Stuart and Regional Transportation Network .......................................................... 74

PAGE 9

9 L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS CRA Community Redevelopment Agency DBDMP Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan DCA Department of Community Affairs FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FEC Florida East Coast Rail Line GMA Growth Management Act (1985) MMTD Multimodal Transportation District MSVB Main Street Vero Bea ch TCEA Transportation Concurrency Exception Area TCMA Transportation Concurrency Management Area TIF Tax Increment Financing

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D egree of Master of Arts i n Urban and Regional Planning A STUDY ASSES S ING THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BARRIERS AND LAND USE WITH RESPECT TO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT : A CASE STUDY OF DELRAY BEACH, STUART AND VERO BEACH, FLORIDA David Brian Kanarek May 2009 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Has infrastructure focused solely on supporting the automobile des troyed walkable, connected downtowns? Has zoning focused on separati ng uses destroyed downtowns? This study seeks to understand the role of infrastructure and downtown redevelopment within Florida municipalities. This study analyzes the steps taken to redevelop two Florida downtowns, Delray Beach and Stuart, and makes re commendations to redevelop downtown Vero Beach, Florida Literature on the land use transportation relationship, the importance of preserving downtowns, Floridas concurrency policy and downtown redevelopment stra tegies are all incorporated. The method ology is based on site visits interviews with officials involved with the redevelopment process a nd a policy review of the redevelopment strategies of the listed case study cities This study examines downtown Delray Beach and Stuart with a focus on tran sportation infrastructure to determine the core of downtown. The researcher relies on the transect planning principles to assess the mix of uses, degree of connectivity, and pedestrian oriented environment within the downtown. These methods are used to determine the central core of the downtown and each outlying district This study recommends the use of concurrency alternatives and a community redevelopment agency as a means to redevelop future downtowns within the State of Florida.

PAGE 11

11 This study also recommends greater emphasis be placed on multimodal transportation systems within downtowns as the primary concurrency alternative.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Focusing too much on mobility and traffic movement can result in sixlane highways that cut through neighborhoods, reducing accessibility to goods and services that are within walking distance and putting ped estrians and bicyclists at risk (Steiner, 2007, p 215) This quote by Dr. Ruth Steiner of the Urban and Regional Planning Departmen t at the University of Florida, is all too often a true scenario for many downtowns. The Florida concurrency policy has resulted in many state owned roadways, which also se rve as communities main street, being expanded for the automobile without considera tion for the pedestrian. Even in todays high technological society where people are just as likely to communicate via electronic devices as they are in person, downtowns sti ll serve as meeting places Downtowns are still places where people come together for face to face interaction; t o ensure this stays true, downtowns must maintain or increase their density and reduce the reliance of the automobile within the downtown (Steele, 2003) Downtowns that have been able to maintain a strong pedestrian orie nted core are often used as models in todays new urbanism communities. Why is it planners are reverting to the past when designing future downtowns, or for redevelop ing existing downtowns? Ha s the r e been too much emphasis on accommodating the automobile even though it has arguably resulted in a de cline of downtowns ? This research seeks t o explore the transportation -land use relationship within the context of three Florida downtowns. Case Studies The three downtowns discussed in this report take a dif ferent approach to Floridas mandated concurrency policy. Concurrency was introduced in the 1985 Florida Growth Management Act, requir ing adequate public facilities be in place at the time of new

PAGE 13

13 development. The absence of a strong vision for downtown d evelopment has resulted in wide six lane roads dividing our communiti es. Additionally, concurrency has resulted in developers seeking roadway capa city, often leading them to s ites outside of the urban area. Several policy and funding mechanisms presently exist to assist downtown redevelopment including: community redevelopment agencies, tax increment financing, form based codes, community development block grants and concurrency alternatives. However one question remains unanswered: how have cities incor porated concurrency alternatives into downtown redevelopment strategies while remaining within the States growth management framework ? The research on Floridas conc urrency alternatives is limited. H owever there is a multitude of research available on Fl oridas transportation concurrency policy. Based on the literature, interviews with planning officials and a lecture by Department of Community Affairs, Secretary Thomas Pellham, concurrency appears to have been an experiment gone wrong. The literature review relies heavily on the transportationland use linkage, and discusses the connection through three planning methods: transit oriented development, new urbanism and transect planning. This study focuses on the downtown redevelopment strategies of tw o Florida municipalities, Delray Beach and Stuart, in an attempt to take the lessons learned and apply them to create a balanced land use transportation redevelopment strategy for downtown Vero Beach, Florida (see Figures 1 1 through 1 3 for maps of each of these downtowns) The cities were chosen based upon their use of Florida s concurrency alternatives: Delray Beach is an example of a well implemented standard, Stuart i s a community still struggling with transportation infrastructure barriers, and Vero Beach, is a community that has not applied the states

PAGE 14

14 concurrency alternatives. Thus, e ach community has taken a different approach to Floridas mandated transportation concurrency requirement. Delray Beach and Stuart each utilize a transportation conc urrency exception area (TCEA) coupled with a community redevelopment agency (CRA). The TCEA tool is the most popular concurrency alternative with over 30 municipalities currently using the instrument as a means of encouraging redevelopm ent, infill, public transit and/ or downtown revitalization (D epartment of Community Affairs and University of Florida Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 2007) Although the Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan indicates the City will look into a transportation concurrency exception area, the city has yet to implement any such plan. The researcher chose a case study and interview approach to his research to allow for comparison between communities. The researcher selected these three case studies because: one does not utili ze any of the States transportation concurrency alternatives within their downtown, one uses a TCEA, however still struggles with transportation infrastructure as a pedestrian barrier in the downtown district, and one has eliminated transportation infrast ructure barriers to pedestrians within the downtown district. Conclusion This study aims to define the role of transportation infrastructure in the downtown redevelopment process through case study research and ultimately suggest a downtown redevelopment strategy for a downtown divided by transportation infrastructure barriers. Recognizing the importance of a strong mix of land uses the study bases the redevelopment recommendations on three planning techniques sensitive to the transportation land use relationship: transit oriented development, new urbanism and transect planning. Chapter 2 the literature review, focuses on the land use -transportation relationship, the role of concurrency in shaping Floridas growth, and s elected redevelopment strategies Next,

PAGE 15

15 Chapter 3 the methodology, discusses the research method and model, including a policy review, interviews with local officials, and field observations. Chapter 4 discusses the downtown transportation infrastructure findings of Stuart and Delray B each Chapter 5 includes the transportation and land use findings for Vero Beach Next, Chapter 6, includes the lessons learned from Stuart and Delray Beach. This C hapter also includes recommendations for the application of a multi -modal transportation district within downtown Vero Beach T his study concludes with Chapter 7, which includes recommendations for future research

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1 1 Delray Beach TCEA [Source: Palm Beach County Planning and Zoning Department 2005]

PAGE 17

17 Figure 1 2 City of Stua rt TCEA As Outlined In Red [Source: MSCW Inc 2008]

PAGE 18

18 Figure 1 3. Aerial Map of Downtown Vero Beach, Florida. Dark Blue Indicates Downtown District [ Sou rce: City of Vero Beach 2008a ]

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Transportation infrastruct ure and the consequential barriers defined by infrastructure play a major role in the morphology, attractiveness and quality of life of a downtown. In addition to transportation infrastruc ture one must also examine the type of l and use and spatial arrang ement of structures within a downtown when determining why some downtowns thrive while others merely serve as thoroughfares Three planning techniques are generally recognized as emphasizing the significance of the transportation-land use relationship and the ir importance within d owntown districts. These techniques are: new urbanism, transit oriented development and transect planning. Each of the three techniques emphasizes the importance of connectivity, mixture of land uses and preservation of quality of life. Successful downtowns incorporate all three characteristics and continu e to grow and prosper In addition to understanding the successful transportation land use relationship within downtown s one must fully understand both the state mandated gr owth management policies and economic principles that guide growth both within a downtown and on a larger scale Although this research does not focus on land use economics it is important to understand the bid rent theory This theory explains an increa se in land value resulting in increased density within a highly accessible central business district and decreasing costs of land outside the central business district as areas become less accessible (Balchin Isaac and Chen, 2000). It is the bid rent the ory that partially explains sprawl from a financial standpoint. Moreover when determining the accessibility of a business one must examine the greater transportation infrastructure network. Many of the urbanized areas within the State of Florida can part ially attribute their present transportation configurations to the state mandated concurrency policy.

PAGE 20

20 Understanding how communities implement concurrency and concurrency alternatives within downtown is crucial since it can influence the quality of life wi thin the downtown. Finally, for those communities that have made poor planning and transportation decisions in the past it is important to understand the available redevelopment options Two of the redevelopment tools that are discussed in this research a re community redevelopment agencies (CRA) and concurrency alternatives. F our concurrency a lternatives are presently available. T his study focuses on two of the four transportation concurrency exception areas (TCEA) and multimodal transportation district s (MMTD). Delray Beach and Stuart currently use TCEAs within their downtowns as a means of encouraging redevelopment. MMTDs are a natural progression of TCEAs This study explores the potential of applying an MMTD in downtown Vero Beach Land Use Tra nsportation Relationship Introduction When examining challenges to downtown redevelopment one of the most important and often most challenging to overcome is existing infrastructure and its impact on defining space When discussing infrastructure, this li terature focuses primarily on transportation, particularly roadways, sidewalks and bicycle safety measures. Understanding the role of infrastructure within downtowns is critical when assessing downtown redevelopment strategies. The following section examines literature on three of the most land use transportation sensitive planning practices, new urbanism, transect planning and transit oriented development. New Urbanism The new urbanism movement began in the 1980s as an alternative to the standard su burban cul de -sac community The new urbanism model relies on ten principles: walkability, connectivity, mixed use and diversity, mixed housing, quality architecture and urban design,

PAGE 21

21 traditional neighborhood structure, increased density, smart transporta tion, sustainability and finally quality of life (NewUrbanism, 2008) These ten principles attempt to bridge the gap in equity between pedestrians and drivers and assist in creating viable and vibrant spaces. The new urbanism model has been used as an infill method to redevelop downtowns throughout both Florida and the United States. Andres Duany (1992) faults the present use of Euclidian zoning as a reason for, rigid segregation of housing, commerce, and industry that leads to greater travel distan ce between uses, and further reliance on the automobile (Duany, 1992). The rigid segregation has led to an increase in automobile reliance and dominance, both inside and outside of downtowns creating environments that are uninviting for pedestrians (Dua ny, Plater -Zyberk, 1992). Transit Oriented Development Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is very similar and has many of the same characteristics as the new urbanism, however the primary difference is the emphasis on transit. Steiner and Calthorpe ex plain TOD as, a neighborhood incorporating a mix of land uses centered around a transit station (Steiner and Fischman 2008; Calthorpe, 1993). Calthorpe (1990) describes two types of TODs, urban and neighborhood TODs since one TOD model may not be a pprop riate for all settings (p. 2). Additionally Steiner (2008) quotes Calthorpe in describing a successful TOD on, three different scales: (1) downtown; (2) urban; (3) neighborhood with, highest density and intensity of developmentgreatest mixes of u sesand the highest level of transportation servicesin the downtown to the lowest density and intensityand less frequent transit servicein the neighborhood centers (Steiner & Fischman, 2008).

PAGE 22

22 Transect Planning Transect Planning is a third planning p rinciple that places an emphasis on the land use transportation relationship, and the proper location of structural density. Transect Planning is described as, eliminating the urbanizing of the rural such as office towers in otherwise pristine environm ents or, equally damaging, the ruralizing of the urban (Duany & Talen, 2002, p. 3) In essence Transect Planning equates to placing both appropriate structures and infrastructure in appropriate locations. These locations can be broken into six differe nt ecozones: Rural Preserve, Rural Reserve, Sub -Urban, General Urban, Urban Center, Urban Core (Duany & Talen, 2002, p. 3) Both density and intensity increase along with a mix of uses as one progresses from Rural Preserve to Urban Core, essentially a m atter of finding an appropriate spatial allocation of the elements that make up the human habitat (Duany & Talen, 2002, p. 3) Transect planning is commonly seen in major metropolitan areas with high intensity and density and appropriate roadway widths a nd speeds. Duany argues against, corporate office parks on the fringe of society along with the wide roadways leading to them. Instead dense development should be concentrated within the urban core (Duany & Talen, 2002, p. 3) Conclusion Whether one is examining a downtown through the principles of new urbanism, transit oriented d evelopment or transect planning, building structure location along with appropriate infrastructure is crucial to establishing a central core The connectivity and mixed use pr inciples of new urbanism, plus TOD s emphasis on transit and transect plannings appropriate location of structures all should be considered when planning downtown redevelopment. When discussing the land use transportation relationship, Steiner (2007) sta tes,

PAGE 23

23 Traditional neighborhood developmenta major component of multimodal planning, has the potential to reduce the impact of development on the transportation system generally, and on the adjacent arterials more particularly, through: (1) reduced automo bile trip generation, (2) higher rates of internal capture(3)more trips by alternative modes of travel, (4) more trip chaining and (5) reduced trip distan ce. ( p. 217) With an understanding of the three planning principles that address the land use tra n sportation relationship, attention is now focus ed on Floridas concurrency policy and its impact on communities downtown development. Florida Growth Management In 1985, the Florida Legislature approved the State Comprehensive Plan, a piece of legislatio n meant to serve as a, direction -setting document that provi des long range policy guidance for regional and local plans (Pelham, 2007 p. 9). The L ocal Government Comprehensive Plan Act (LGCPA) was also amended in 1985 requiring, regional and local pl ans to be consistent with the goals and policies of the state plan (Pelham, 2007, p. 9) Arguably the most important amendment to the LGCPA in 1985 required local governments to adopt plans that were consistent with the state and regional plans and provi ded for review and approval by the state land planning agency and for state financial sanctions against any local government that failed to adopt a local plan in compliance with state requirements (Pelham, 2007 p.10). The 1985 amendments als o included req uirements that, e very local government was to adopt adequate public facility or concurrency (Pelham, 2007 p.10). Concurrency ensured adequate public facilities were in place at the time of new development (Pelham, 2007) The six concurrency requiremen ts were: sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation1. As time progressed transportation concurrency would be the most challenging requirement to meet. To fully understand the impact of transportation co ncurrency, the policy must be examined over time and through a three phase process. 1 In 2005 the Florida Legislature added public schools to the list of concurrency requirements (DCA, 2009)

PAGE 24

24 Implementation of 1985 Growth Management Act To fully understand the implications of the 1985 G rowth M anagement A ct (GMA) on the Florida landscape one must exam ine the thr ee phases of the Act. Zadok describes the three phases in terms of signifi cance and chronological order Consistency is known as the GMAs organizing doctrine, with concurrency and compact development as the twin pillars of the policy base. Studies sho w that implementation started with concurrency and then evolved to compact development (Ben -Zadok, 2005, p. 2169). The consistency phase lasted from 1985 through 1993, and has been considered highly successful, due to the high percentage of municipalit ies within the state who complied with the GMA requirements (Ben -Zadok, 2005). This phase ultimately granted the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with the, ultimate authority to approve local plans and impose stringent legal sanctions. When a local plan was unprepared, DCA could prepare and enforce it on the community (Ben-Zadok, 2005, p. 2174). Concurrency is the next phase and also took place between 1985 and 1993. BenZadok argues concurrency was designed to control growth and enhance econ omic development (Ben Zadok, 2005, p. 2175). Concurrency was intended to control growth by insuring a, minimum level of service (LOS) standards required to accommodate projected growth. The locality must adopt rules prohibiting the issuance of a development permit that could bring a reduction of LOS below the standards (Ben Zadok, 2005, p. 2175). Therefore if incoming development were to cause any of the six public facilities LOS to drop below the designated minimum LOS, the development permit can be denied. One way developers could continue with their projects was by paying, concurrency fees as a prerequisite for permits ; these fees were then used towards improving the below LOS public facility, such as widening a road that was impacted by develop ment (Ben -Zadok, 2005, p. 2176). The fee was the responsibility of developers because

PAGE 25

25 the 1985 GMA did not hold the state responsible for funding concurrency, and many local governments could not finance the necessary improvements caused by increases in population and development. Compact development is the third and final im plementation phase o f the GMA The compact development phase existed between 1993 and 2002, and came about due to sprawling development infringing upon environmentally sensitive land (Ben -Zadok, 2005). Sprawl was the issue and focusing on transpo rt concurrency was the solution; new roads can greatly affec t sprawl or compact development; transport concurrency became the most crucial public facility (Ben Zadok, 2005, p. 2180). Legi slation was passed during the 1990s that addressed sprawl by creating flexible transportation concurrency tools (Ben Zadok, 2005). These tools are discussed later in this literature review. Ben Zadok links the implementatio n of concurrency to sprawl tha t ultimately led to increases in traffic congestion as can be seen by the following statistics, From 1983 to 1997 the average daily miles traveled by vehicles went up by 96 percent in Miami Dade and by 177 percent on Broward freeways (Ben -Zadok, 2005, p. 2183). Now with an understanding of the GMA and the result ing policies the affects of concurrency on downtowns will be review e d Resulting Impacts Of Transportation Concurrency On Downtowns W ith an understanding of the topdown planning structure and t he general requirements of concurrency, attention is now focused on the impact of concurrency on Florida downtowns. Extensive lit erature exists on the negative e ffects of urban sprawl, however a much smaller amount exists on the affects Florida concurrenc y has on downtown development patt erns. To discuss the impacts Anthony Downs (2003) argument against concurrency as a growth management tool is discussed. L ater Ruth Steiner (2007) asks: Is transportation concurrency an idea before its time? (p. 209)

PAGE 26

26 Anthony Downs (2003) argues against Floridas concurrency policy that it cannot and will not work. Dow ns argument has two principles; the first maintainis building more roads or expanding existing ones cannot prevent major roads from becoming overl oaded during peak hours (Downs, 2003, p. 13). The primary argument behind why concurrency will not work is that when new roads are constructed, those previously using alternative routes, will change their travel behavior to the new road, thus potentially causing the road to fail (Downs, 2003). Downs second point is based on constitutionality: In a Free Country, Limiting Overall New Development in a State Is Basically Unconstitutional (Downs, 2003, p. 14). He later summarizes Floridas concurrency pol icy as, Florida should not accept any more citizens unless it has enough roadways to provide both new and existing residents with a constant desired level of roadway mobility (Downs, 2003, p. 14). As an opponent of Floridas concurrency policy, Downs (2003) argues concurrency has led to sprawl and a decrease in the availability of affordable housing. Sprawl is created because, road concurrency drives a lot of new development out of built up areas into sparsely settled rural areas (Downs, 2003, p. 15). The result, discourages, smart growth policies like developing in -fill sites, redeveloping inner -city neighborhoods, and revitalizing downtowns (Downs, 2003, p. 15). The second negative affect involves the developer passing on the roadway costs from the developer to the homeowner thus increasing the cost of housing (Downs, 2003). Downs (2003) clearly does not believe Floridas concurrency is an adequate growth management tool; however he fails to recognize many of the changes made to the policy si nce 1985. To highlight these changes we focus on Steiners (2007) question regarding whether transportation concurrency was an idea before its time. Steiner, (2007) argues transportation concurrency has evolved and improved over time,

PAGE 27

27 state and local go vernment officials struggled with im plementation of transportation concurrencylevel of service standards on the state highway system, the standards used for roadway concurrency, the perception that transportation concurrency was causing sprawlbacklog of transportation projectsrequirement that facilities be availa ble concurrent with development (Steiner, 2007, p. 211 citing Boggs and Apgar, 1991; Pelham, 1992; Powell, 1993, 1994; Rhodes, 1991) Additionally, the lack of funding for a backlog of needed t ransportation improvements also proved challenging (Steiner, 2007, p. 211) The evolution of transportation concurrency can best be summarized as, conflicts over how best to meet the needs of the people in the community in the comprehensive plans (Steine r, 2007, p. 222). The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has closely protected capacity along state owned roadways, thus creating conflicts when these roads also serve as Main Streets for municipalities (Steiner, 2007). To remedy this Steiner (2 007) suggests, local governments need to build much better grid street networks for local traffic, better mixes of land uses to allow greater internal capture, and higher density developments (p. 222). Despite early difficulties transportation concurren cy has evolved, and there presently exists concurrency management or alternative tools, which will be discussed shortly. Downtown Redevelopment Strategies Introduction While extensive literature exists on methods of downtown redevelopment, the focus of the following section is on redevelopment through concurrency alternatives and comm unity redevelopment agencies. Transportation c oncurrency alternatives as allowed in the Florida Statutes enable communities to encourage development within their downtown with the three previously mentioned planning principles, new urbanism, transit oriented development and transect planning.

PAGE 28

28 Transportation Concurrency Alternatives The State of Florida recognizes the transportation concurrency requirement often has unin tended consequences including the, discouragement of urban infill and redevelopment (Florida Statutes, 163.3180 (5) (a)). The State also recognizes exceptions should be made when the unintended results, directly conflict with the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan (Florida Statutes, 163.3180 (5) (a)). The following section focuses on three concurrency alternatives: (1) transportation concurrency exception areas (TCEA); (2) transportation concurrency management areas (TCMA); (3) multim odal transportation districts (MMTD). Each was created for different reasons, however they all address connectivity and encourage redevelopment (Steiner, 2007) F or a table addressing all three alternatives, please see table 2 1. The FDOT defines TCEA a s, an urban area delineated by a local government where infill and redevelopment are encouragedwhere exceptions to the transportation concurrency requirement are made, providing that alternative modes of transportation, land use mixes, urban design, conn ectivity and funding are addressed (FDOT, 2006, p. 2) TCEAs are area specific and were created in 1993 (Steiner, 2007) As of February 2007, there were 29 TCEAs within the State (D epartment of Community Affairs and University of Florida Department of U rban and Regional Planning, 2007). Although the TCEA tool is the most used, it appears the State is pushing concurrency alternatives in a more multim o dal direction as seen in MMTDs. A second type of concurrency alternative are MMTD s MMTD s enable local governments to construct their comprehensive plan to assign secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to assuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit (Florida Statu tes 163.3180(15)(a)). The benefits to establishing an MMTD include greater pedestrian connectivity, and a reduction in costs associated with the automobile (Guttenplan, Davis, Steiner and Miller, 2003).

PAGE 29

29 The third and final concurrency alternative to be dis cussed are transportation concurrency management area ( TCMA ). Although TCMAs are the, least defined of all of the areawide exceptions [they] may be established in a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available (Steiner, 2007, p. 219). Much like the two previously mentioned concurrency alternatives, TCMAs are intended to promote infill development in portions of an urban area that support more efficient mobility alternatives, including public transit (Steiner, 2007, p. 219). Community Redevelopment Agencies Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA) serve as a tool to redevelop slum and blighted areas (Florida Statutes 163.360). Much like the concurrency alternatives, the legislatures goal is to encourage neighborhood revitalization in downtowns and to provide maximum opportunities for private enterprise to participate in the revitalization of the designated area (Hipler, 2007, p. 66) CRA s power ultimately depends on the governing board. Most of the power is derived through funding, and one major source of revenue often associated with CRAs is tax increment financing (TIF). TIFs can ultimately be set up in two ways, pay as you go basis where the annual stream of revenue is used to fund small projects, and the other is pay as you use financing where TIF revenues are used to pay debt service costs over the life of a p roject lasting 10 or more years (Hipler, 2007, p. 66) Conclusion The land use transportatio n relationship principles of new urbanism, transit oriented development and transect planning en courage multimodal activity, however due to the state mandated concurrency policy, these three planning techniques are typically difficult to implement without the application of a TCMA, TCEA or MMTD. The aforementioned planning techniques coupled with the authority provided through CRAs and funding through

PAGE 30

30 TIFs empower communities with the legal tools for downtown redevelopment. Increased attention to downtow n redevelopment and decreased reliance on the automobile will continue to be major hurdles for many Florida communities, due to the existing concurrency requirement. Change could be on the horizon based on a talk with DCA Secretary Thomas Pellham mentionin g potential changes to the state mandated concurrency requirement during the u pcoming legislative session.

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 1. Comparison of multimodal characteristics of concurrency areawide tools Objective of Characteristic TCMA TCEA MMTD Controls density of development X X Controls rate of development Controls timing of new development Controls amount of development (1) Controls location of development (1) Controls type of development X(2) X Accommodates development at established roadway l evel of service standards Coordinates facility and service capacity Discourages sprawl development X X(3) Encourages efficient development pattern X X(2) X Does not cause reduction in automobile LOS Addresses connectivity X(4) X(2) X Consid ers land use mix (1) X(2) X Promotes redevelopment X X X Promotes infill development X X (5) Promotes downtown revitalization X Promotes public transit X X X Promotes bicycling and walking X(2) X Uses areawide level of service X X Uses multimoda l level of service X Designates minimum size of acres X(4) (1) (1)These elements are discussed in the statutes, but no measure is provided. (2)These elements were added in Growth Management Reform Act of 2005. (3)These elements are not discussed in th e statutes, but are in implementation guidelines. (4)The TCMA may be established in a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common trips [163.3180(7)FSA] (5)MM TDs can be used in redevelopment and infill areas and for proposed development outside of the traditional municipal areas. [ Source: Steiner, 2007, p. 220 as adopted from: White, M.S., and PAster, E.L. (2003). Creating effective land use regulations through concurrency. Natural Resources Journal, 43, 753 759. and adopted from: Steiner, R.L., Li, I.,Shad, P., and Brown, M.B. (2003). Multimodal tradeoff analysis in traffic impact studies. Tallahassee, FL:Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Systems Planning]

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction When planning downtowns with strong connectivity, livability and mobility, one must understand the importance of both transportation infrastructure and mix of land uses to attain successful downtown developme nt and redevelopment. This study identifies Delray Beach and Stuart as communities with an understanding of the aforementioned characteristics, and whereas they have applied their knowledge of redevelopment into the creation of a CRA and TCEA. Both the D elray Beach and Stuart CRA/TCEA encompass the downtowns however each includes adjacent districts. These adjacent districts can serve as either a barrier or as an entryway to t he downtown. Despite including these adjacent districts within the CRA/TCEA this study focuses on downtowns central core and the transportation infrastructure within that core. In order to understand the transportation infrastructure within the downtowns of Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach the researcher has chosen to review pol icy documents, conduct site visits and interview individuals with knowledge of the downtowns Selection of Case Studies In an effort to develop recommendations for Vero Beach, two examples, Delray Beach and Stuart are studied based on their approach to t ransportation infrastructure and downtown redevelopment strategies. The researcher grew up in Vero Beach and has viewed the downtown as a resident but now seeks to improve the downtown through the eyes of an urban planning student. Prior to the case stud y selections the researcher also had a strong familiarity with downtown Stuart and has seen the changes to the area since the latest CRA update. Delray Beach was unfamiliar to the researcher before this study, however was selected due to the communitys r edevelopment strategies partly based on the transportation land use relationship.

PAGE 33

33 In addition all three downtowns are located within the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the fourth district of the Florida Department of Transportation, creating a similar regulatory environment The consistent regulatory environment is significant and can be seen as beneficial to Vero Beach due to the governing bodies familiarity of using the available redevelopment tools. The benefit of using Delray Beach is the experience the City has with downtown redevelopment. The original CRA was adopted in 1985, and has undergone multiple updates and revisions with the most recent being adopted on November 18, 2008. In addition to the CRA, the City with assistance fro m the Florida Department of Transportation adopted a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area in 1995. This TCEA, includes the downtown area from I 95 to A 1 -A (City of Delray Beach CRA, 2008) At present the TCEA has been in use for 13 years, allowi ng implementation to occur and effects to be documented The second major benefi t to using Delray Beach, is the existence of similar infrastructure as Vero Beach. Delrays main east -west roadway, Atla ntic Avenue also serves as the Main S treet, and is al so intersected by two, one -way pairs each two lanes (Federal Highway). In the case of Vero Beach, 14th Avenue, also known as Main Street, is not a major arterial, however the roadway is intersected by two one -way pairs one three lanes, the other four Historic downtown Stuart serves as the second case study based upon it s implementation and use of a CRA and TCEA. First established in 1986, the Stuart CRA has undergone updates and expansions in 1998 and 2002. The TCEA was established in 2001 as a means to further encourage redevelopment in the downtown district and encompasses the same boundaries as the CRA. Downtown Stuart is composed of narrow streets, on-street parking, and buildings with entrances in both the front and rear creating a pedes tr ian -friendly environment, in a non-grid

PAGE 34

34 form. M uch like Delray Beach and Vero Beach Stuart has the opportunity for TOD based activit y centers within their downtown because of the proximity to the rail line. Study Approach Through using a case study app roach the researcher compare s and contrast s each downtowns transportation infrastructure network and redevelopment strategies A policy review coupled with site visits allow the researcher to determine if in fact these municipalities are following thr ou gh with their plans. In addition to policy review and site visits t his study conducts interviews with local planning officials in order to gain a local perspective. Review of Planning Documents and Policy Analysis When addressing the planning and policy analysis the researcher could not find directly comparable documents for each downtown. However, t he primary documents relied upon include : d owntown master p lan s, community redevelopment plan s, Future Land Use Elemen t s and Transportation Element s of comprehensive plans and land development regulations In addition, Delray Beach and Stuart offer CRA updates providing detailed and up to date information on the downtown district. These updates are used in this study to provide localized comparisons between the CRA and the surrounding city. Census tract data is used sparingly partly due to the last update coming in the year 2000. The second reason census tract data is not included throughout this study is due to the boundaries not aligning with the downtow n districts. Personal Observations This study accounts for the comfort level of pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles within the downtown district by considering the physical composition of aspects such as : width of roadways and sidewalks, available buffe r between travel lanes and sidewalks, travel speed of vehicles along the roadway and urban structural density. In addition to observing the transportation infrastructure, attention is paid to building placement and configuration within the

PAGE 35

35 downtown. By m easuring the aforementioned characteristics, this study determine s the impact of transportation infrastructure on downtown redevelopment. In the case of downtown Delray Beach, the study area is divided into four geographic districts. The districts span f rom Atlantic Avenue and I 95 ea st to Atlantic Avenue and A 1 -A. T his corridor serves as both the entry to the downtown from I 95 and as Main Street. Downtown Stuart is divided into five geographic districts based on proximity to the historic downtown dis trict. Through focusing on specific block segments within the Delray Beach and Stuart CRA s, this study seeks to locate the core of the downtown. Upon establishing the central core the researcher determines if specific transportation and land use char acteristics are present and if these same characteristics are found in the adjacent districts. Rather than focusing on specific geographic districts downtown Vero Beach is discussed by each element that makes up the land use transportation relationship These elements include roadway network, transit and pedestrian facilities and types of land use. This method is used due to the small geographic are a shown in F igure 1 3 and the continuing roadway infrastructure patterns through the downtown. The resea rcher determine s if characteristics of new urbanism, transit oriented development or transect planning principles can be found in and around the core of the downtown. Interviews When gathering data through interviews, the researcher is confronted with the question of who m to interview. In this study interviews are conducted with municipal planners, CRA department heads, and community organizers. These people were chosen because they are believed to be the most familiar with their respective citys downtow n master plan. The researcher chose not to interview downtown business owners, due to their potential biases, and unfamiliarity with the planning process. The researcher also chose not to interview local politicians due to the highly political process pla nning can becom e.

PAGE 36

36 Conclusion Through a three -step approach of policy review site visits and interviews, the resea rcher determines the affects of transportation infrastructure within downtown districts Delray Beach and Stuart serve as examples and th e lessons learned from each are applied when discussing the applicability of a concurrency alternative in downt own Vero Beach. The following C h apter includes the findings regarding the transportation infrastructure and land use within Stuart and Delray Beach and the impacts on pedestrians.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS: STUART AND DELRAY BEACH This research focuses on the role of transportation infrastructure in downtown redevelopment specifically the impact of m ulti -modal transportation wi thin downtowns. The foll owing C hapter report s the findings for Downtown Stuart and Downtown Delray Beach. Each has a CRA and TCEA in place and has experienced varied results from both redevelopment tools. To gain greater perspective on each CRA the results of the redevelopment are discussed by dividing each CRA into districts. The individual districts allow the researcher to define a central core district, and discuss its relationship of the surrounding districts. Stuart Introduction In an effort to redevelop their downtown the City of Stuart fir st designated their CRA in 1986. As a means of funding the CRA, a TIF was established with identical boundaries. S ince then the CRA has undergone two expansions and is presently 694 acres, stretching beyond the historic central core. The CRA as seen in F igure 1 2 extends to both the north and south sides of the St. Lucie River. As is the case in Delray Beach, Stuarts Transportation Concurrency Exception Area has the same boundaries as the CRA. The City of Stuart passed Ordinance Num ber 177901 in February, 2001 To Establish a Traffic Concurrency Exemption Area within the city; establishing goals, objectives and policies to promote neighborhood integrity and urban redevelopment (City of Stuart, 2001). In addition to the TCEA, the C RA implements five overlay zoning districts; creating more cohesive development within CRA. Now, roughly eight years later the researcher examines the impacts of the TCEA within designated sections of the CRA.

PAGE 38

38 Study Area For discussion pur poses the resear cher divides the CRA into five sections. The first section contains the historic downtown, and is bound to the north by the St. Lucie River, to the west by the F lorida East Coast r ail line (FEC), to the south by S.E. 7th St (also known as M artin Luther K ing Street), and to the e a st by the CRA boundary. The second section lies directly west of the first and also contains portions of historic downtown Stuart This section uses the FEC Rail line as its east boundary line, the south and west boundaries are served by the CRA boundary, and the north boundary is the St. Lucie River. The third section is located north of the St. Lucie River and shares its south, east and west boundaries with the river ; while the north boundary is defined by N.W. Wright Blvd. T he fourth sections northern border is S.E. 7th St. with all other borders serving as the CRA boundary. The fifth and final section is defined by N.W. Wright Blvd to th e south, and the CRA boundaries to the north, east and west. (For a map of each please refer to Figures 4 1 4 5) For the purposes of this study, the researcher has chosen to exclude the northern -most and southeastern -most sections of the CRA, this includes sections four and five from the previous discussion. These sections have been exclu de d due to their distance and lack of connectivity to the historic downtown area. Historic Downtown (Section One) Due to the visible differences in both infrastructur e and land use, section one is divided into a north and south section with SE Ocean Blvd. serving as the dividing line. The advantage of dividing this section is that although increased density and stronger grid connectivity are found within the northern half, the southern half offers two additional employment centers and a large park. In add ition, based on observations SE Ocean Blvd does not serve as a barrier to between the northern half and the southern half of the historic downtown section.

PAGE 39

39 The northern half of section one consists of four overlay zoning districts. These are: Historic D owntown District, Urban General, Urban Waterfront and Urban Center ( MSCW Inc, 2008). Each overlay has different requirements however all permit buildings heights of up to 35 feet with an extension of 45 feet by meeting additional requirements. The one exc eption is the historic downtown distri ct only allowing structures up to 35 feet in height (City of Stuart, 2008 a ). Despite the building height restrictions, the district maintains relatively intense density and strong connectivity reinforcing t his distri ct as the core of downtown. Th e roadway infrastructure consists primarily of one -way streets with on-street parking and two roundabouts Andres Duany was hired by the City to create a downtown Master Plan in 1988, one of the roundabouts, aptly named conf usion corner was under consideration for conversion to an intersection managed by stop lights. Further research indicated confusion corner ranked 20th for traffic accidents in Stuart, and therefore Duany decided to create his plan around the roundabout instead of reconfiguring the intersection (Duany, Plater Zyberk, 1992). As measured by the researcher, every road, i ncluding side roads contains on-street parking and nearly every road offers a sidewalk on each side of the road. In addition when speaking with City of Stuart plann ers regarding this section, the r e were no evident transportation infrastructure impediments to pedestrians (T. Reetz, personal communication, December 29, 2008) The southern half of section one (as seen in F igure 4 1 ) has a much d ifferent infrastructure element; This area is entirely designated an Urban General overlay zoning district Block lengths within the southern half of section one are much longer, and the land use in the area varies significantly from the northern ha lf The predominant uses within this area are parks and recreation, government and a water treatment plant. In addition this area contains a significant number of off -street surface parking. Despite this section being located just across the street

PAGE 40

40 from the previously mentioned section, there are stark differences. For example, there were significantly fewer pedestrians within this district than the previously mentioned. West CRA (Section Two) S ection Two i s comprised of four zoning overlays: Urban General, Urban Highway, Urban Neighborhood and Urban Waterfront. Much like the previously mentioned zoning overlays, the Urban Highway overlay has a maximum building height of 35 feet, with a conditional height of 45 feet. Unlike Section One, Section Two has four major transportation infrastructure impediments to a successful multimodal downtown. The first is the FEC rail line. Tom Reetz, of the Stuart Planning Department, indicated in an interview that the FEC rail line has been a major divider within the downtown (T. Reetz, personal communication, December 29, 2008) As can be seen in F igure 4 6 the FEC rail line divides the southern portion of the CRA into two east and west districts. Based on site visits, the researcher noticed an increase in pedestria n activity on the east side of the FEC rail line, with few pedestrians crossing the rail at the two crossings within downtown. The second major in frastructure impediment within S ection Two are the roundabouts at each rail crossing. Confusion corner located in Section O ne, is just east of the rail line, however vehicles enter the roundabout from six different directions, thus creating an intimidating environment for pedestrians. The second crossing also has a roundabout, located on the west side of the FEC rail line. This roundabout allows vehicles to enter from five different directions however the researcher felt slightly safer navigating through this roundabout and across the rail road tracks. The third and final infrastructure impediment within t his section is Federal Highway This six lane roadway serves as both a divider within certain portions of the CRA, and also as the CRA boundary line. The street offers sidewalks along both the north and south sides, however based on researcher field stud ies pedestrian traffic was minimal.

PAGE 41

41 North CRA (Section Three) Section Three arguably outside of downtown is included in this study and offers one natural barrier, the St. Lucie River and two man -made barriers the FEC rail line and the Federal Highway Bri dge. The Federal Highway Bridge, a wide six lane bridge serves as a physical barrier both south of the St. Lucie River and north of the Riv er. Although not mentioned by c ity staff, the researcher observed the raised roadway covers a span of a mile on b oth the southern and northern sides of the St. Lucie River. This roadway creates a barrier for pedestrians seeking to traverse east to west and vice versa. Multimodal Accessibility Based on field research all three of the previously mentioned sections have adequate sidewalks for pedestrians with the exception of the approaches to the two roundabouts In addition, bicycle lanes are very hard to find t he only bicycle lanes found by the researcher were along Federal Highway Bridge, and portions of North D ixie Highway. Each of these bicycle lanes do not continue into the downtown, and therefore create a barrier to the central core of the downtown. The City does offer a downtown transit service. The service runs from 11:00am to sun-set and the sole transit vehicle is an extended golf cart capable of carrying ten people (Mayfield, 2007) Based on interviews with the City Planning Department the golf cart approach appears to satisfy present transit demand within the downtown (T. Reetz, personal communica tion, Dece mber 29, 2008) Additionally, according to the City Planning Department during the season (typically December through March) the City offers horse and buggy rides at night throughout the downtown (T. Reetz, personal communication, December 29, 2008). H owever this does not appear to offset any vehicle trips through the downtown (T. Reetz, personal communication, December 29, 2008)

PAGE 42

42 On the c ounty and regional level three transit services are offered within the downtown. The first is a para -transit service offered by the Council on Aging of Martin County with weekday service from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm (Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2006) The second is a fixed route transit system that runs two days a week, serving primari ly the condominiums along East Ocean Boulevard, Martin Memorial Hospital, downtown Stuart and various retail locations along U.S.1 (Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2006) The third and final transit service offered within downtown Stuar t is the Treasure Coast Connector, a fixed route service providing service between downtown Stuart and downtown Fort Pierce to the north (Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2006) The Treasure Coast Connector offers only once hourly service at one stop in downtown Stuart at Martin Memorial Hospital (Council on Aging of St. Lucie Inc, 2005) The researcher believes this stop should remain, however to enhance the multi -modal capacity of the downtown, an additional stop should be added closer to the center of the downtown. Downtown Stuarts transportation infrastructure enables the area to offer multiple modes of transportation to and from the downtown with easy acces s into and out of the downtown, however their still remains a division between the east and west side of the rail road tracks. Most of the downtown activity occurs on the east side of the rail road tracks, and until greater connectivity is attained between the sides, the researcher feels the two sides will remain divided. CRA Assisted Redevelopment : Downtown Stuart has undergone redevelopment through assistance from CRA funds, Community Development Block Grants, and funding from both Martin County and the City of Stuart. Some of these projects include the funding of the downtown shuttle service, informational kiosks, and recruitment of new business to the downtown district (Wessler, 2008) The CRA funding has been primarily generated through the

PAGE 43

43 TIF district. As of September 30, 2007, the TIF district was generating $1.8 million annually for the CRA (Wessler, 2008) In addition to the projects listed included in the CRA annual report, newly constructed buildings can be found throughout the downtown, indicating recent redeve lopment. Delray Beach Similar to Stuart, Delray Beach uses a CRA, TCEA and TIF as a means of promoting downtown redevelopment. All three redevelopment areas share the same boundary. The Delray Beach CRA and TIF w ere established in 1985 and have undergone multiple updates, while the TCEA was established in 1995. The following reports the findings of four sections of Atlantic Avenue in downtown Delray Beach to reveal how the TCEA and Delray Beach CRA are used in conjunction, as redevelopment tools. Additionally a summary is provided for the West Atlantic Avenue Neighborhood; the first area seen by those exiting I 95, making their way to downtown Delray Beach. The Surrounding Districts In addition to the specified, West Atlantic Avenue neighborhood, ce ntral core and beach study areas, the surrounding districts as specified within the Delray Beach CRA Plan must also be noted. The eight sub-districts are: Beach Area, Central Core, West Atlantic Avenue Neighborhood, Northwest Neighborhood, North Federal H ighway, Northeast (Seacrest/Del Ida Neighborhoods), Osceola Park, Southwest Neighborhood. Table 4 1 provides information on the area (acres) housing units, residents, general land use and zoning for each of the eight districts. The Southwest neighborhoo d is both the largest in area, and has the highest population, meanwhile the beach area is the smallest in area, and has the fewest residents. These two areas

PAGE 44

44 are within the CRA and TCEA, however they are not included in this study due to the distance to the downtown district. The Study Area For the purpose of this study, Atlantic Avenue is divided into East and West Atlantic Avenue. The West Atlantic Avenue section is measured from I 95 east to Swinton Avenue. For this study East Atlantic Avenue throug h d owntown Delray Beach, is divided into three study sections The first of the three first sections is 0.32 of a mile and extends from Swinton Avenue along E. Atlantic Avenue east to South Federal Highway (also known as SE/NE 5th Avenue) The second se ction measuring 0.24 of a mile is from South Federal Highway east along E. Atlantic Avenue to the Intercostal waterway. The third and final section is 0.35 of a mile and is measured from the Intercoastal waterway to A 1 -A (See Figure 4 7 for a map of all three sections) Atlantic Avenue is divided into the previously mentioned sections to provide distinction between the center of the downtown and the outward progression. The following four sections of the Delray CRA, all lie within the Delray Beach Tran sportation Concurrency Exception Area. This area adopted in 1995, exempts new development and redevelopment in the area from being subject to the Countys traffic concurrency requirements (City of Delray Beach C RA 2008, p. 41) The impact of widening roads within this area would have destroyed the fabric of the neighborhoods, as will be discussed in the following sections (City of Delray Beach C RA 2008) West Atlantic Avenue Neighborhood West Atlantic Avenue as seen in Figure 4 7 is one of two entr ances into Delray Beach, however it is the I 95 exit that serves as a gateway to the downtown and is 0.8 of a mile in length. The road is owned by FDOT and at the I 95 off ramp consist s of six t ravel lanes divided by a median. H owever as one progresses eastward toward downtown, the road chang es to four

PAGE 45

45 travel lanes with on -street parking and a median (City of Delray Beach C RA 2008) Despite this portion of roadway being within the state designated TCEA, this section is not as multi -modal as the three o ther sections of roadway for the reasons outlined below. As indicated in the Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan (DBDMP), West Atlantic Avenue has many deficiencies, some of which have been updated since approval of the Plan in 2002, and others which are in the plan, however have yet to be addressed. The DBDMP, highlights the excessively wide travel lanes and excessively wide parking lanes as just two of the negative elements of this area (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002) Since this pla n was adopted in 2002, the Delray CRA has funded projects such as, streetscape improvements, purchase of blighted properties and landscaping, to improve the area (City of Delray Beach C RA 2008) Although these projects have improved this corridor, the c orridor still lacks the necessary infrastructure elements for a multimodal corridor. The roadway is still intimidatingly wide to cross, and portions of this corridor lack the dense urban fabric, due to either vacant property, large setbacks, or parking in front of the building. In addition the researcher did not feel comfortable walking along the roadway due to the posted vehicular travel speed of 40 m.p.h. and the lack of a protective buffer between the travel lanes and the sidewalk. East Atlantic Aven ue: Swinton Ave to South Federal Highway (section 2) This area is arguably the heart of downtown. This is the one stretch of Atlantic Ave. owned by the City of Delray Beach (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002) The fact this section is owne d by the City and not the State is significant and can be distinguished on both ends of this section of roadway. At the intersection of Swinton Avenue and Atlantic (the west end of this section) the road narrows from five lanes to two lanes with on -street parking. On the opposite end, at the intersection of South Federal Highway and Atlantic the road changes from c ity owned, (two lanes plus on street parking) two travel lanes, two turning lanes, and on street

PAGE 46

46 parking (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Cou ncil, 2002) The width of roadway is n ot the only change between the city owned and s tate owned sections of roadway, the sidewalks also vary in size f rom eleven feet down to six in s tate owned portions (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002) De spite the width changes between sections, the transition on the east intersection has the same right -of -way of 66 feet, whether east or west of Federal Highway (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002) This area also has a high density that is created not through tall buildings but with buildings constructed close to one another, and available parking placed in the rear of the buildings. Traveling through this area, either by means of automobile, walking or bicycling creates a very different se nse for each. Automobiles are forced to slow down due to a lowered speed limit of 25 m.p.h, however more importantly, the good congestion in the area forces people to slow their vehicles. On street parking is available on both sides of the road forcin g vehi cles to slow and also providing a buffer for pedestrians walking through the area. Pedestrians have wide, eleven -foot sidewalks, with both tree and awning shade provided in most areas. Due to the slow speed of automobiles, bicycles are also afforde d safe passage. One major potential infrastructure barrier in this corridor is the FEC rail line. Although roughly twenty trains travel through the area on a daily basis, restaurants, bars, and even residences can be found along the railroad tracks (Trea sure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002). Based on two visits to the area, pedestrians freely cross the tracks alongside a wide shoulder. East Atlantic Avenue: South Federal Highway to Intercoastal Waterway (section 2 ) If the previously mentioned sect ion is the heart of downtown, this short section of roadway is the next closest both in proximity and in morphology. This section is nearly a quarter of a mile, however the roadway consists of two travel lanes, two turning lanes, on-street parking on

PAGE 47

47 both sides, and has a six -foot wide sidewalk on the north side, with the south sidewalk being located on private property (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2002) The dense urban fabric continues through this area, however the primary d etractor to th is area are two, one -way roads (Federal Highway North and South) intersecting Atlantic Avenue. Each of the one -w ay roads is three lanes with on -street parking. Here, Federal Highway does not completely divide downtown, due to the continued slow speed of vehicles and the structural density albeit somewhat less as one travels e ast along Atlantic Avenue. Th e lack of a roadway serving as a divider is not the case in all downtowns as will be discussed when the researcher discusses downtown Vero Beach. East Atlantic Avenue: Intercoas tal Waterway to A -1 -A (section 3 ) The third and final section of East Atlantic to be explored is the section from the west side of the Intercoastal waterway to A 1 -A. This area is 0.35 of a mile and consists of four travel lanes (two measure eleven feet, two measure twelve feet) on -street parking along both the north and south edge of the roadway, and eight -foot wide sidewalks. The total right of way for this area, (excluding the bridge) is 80 feet (Treasure Coast Regional Plan ning Council, 2002) The right of way in this section is a 14 -foot increase over the heart of downtown and although that may seem insignificant, the setbacks along this road create a far less pedestrian friendly atmosphere. This section has strong a s trong grid network and walkable block lengths. Based on site visit observations, this section has fewer pedestrians, possibly attributed to the draw -bridge, despite the wide sidewalk along the bridge. In addition to the roadway infrastructure, the types of uses also should be discussed. As discussed in the literature review, the types of uses and location of those uses is in stark contrast in this section of the roadway, as compared with the heart of downtown. This section contains, one deep set back h igh rise residential condominium, coupled with two hotels, each

PAGE 48

48 with parking in front of the building detracting from the urban fabric Interspersed are commercial structures that are buffered from the roadway with dense landscaping. Multi -Modal Accessibi lity Based on field observations, the East Atlantic Avenue corridor does exhibit multimodal characteristics. The area has successfully eliminated pedestrian barriers in the specified sections above, West Atlantic Ave nue does have a decreased sense of ped estrian safety possibly due to noticeably wider vehicle travel lanes increased traffic speeds and a reduced buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. In addition to walking and bicyc ling, mass transit is also available throughout the study area Located just outside of the TCEA and west of I 95 is a Tri Rail Station offering rail service within Palm Beach, Broward and Miami Dade Counties. Connecting the Tri -Rail station to downtown Delray Beach affords two options, either the Palm Beach County P alm Tran bus service, or a free-of -charge Delray Beach shuttle service called the Downtown Roundabout During site visits the researcher noticed a large number of people entering the downtown through each of the three mass transit systems. Conclusion Due to the e xisting transportation infrastructure configurations of downtown Stuart and downtown Delray Beach, each community has had different results. Delray Beach has successfully eliminated transportation infrastructure barriers along Atlantic Ave. Stuart has be en successful in concentrated a majority of the downtown activities on the east side of the FEC rail. De lray Beach is fortunate because a commuter rail is located just outside of the TCEA, encouraging multimodal transportation. Despite the roundabouts, d owntown Stuart is relatively pedestrian friendly. Each community has achieved varied degrees of success in their efforts to revitalize their downtowns, however Stuart arguably remains divided by the FEC rail line which

PAGE 49

49 cuts through the center of the CRA. Downtown Stuart also lacks the connected sidewalk and bicycle lane network that exists in downtown Delray Beach.

PAGE 50

50 Table 4 1 Surro u nding Geographic Districts Sub Areas Area (Acres) Housing Units* Residen ts General Land Use Zoning Beach Area 69 510 5 50 Commercial/ Residential CBD, CF, RM Central Core 264 594 995 Commercial/ Residential CBD, CBD RC, OSSHAD, RM, CF West Atlantic Avenue Neighborhood 187 491 1,116 Commercial/ Governmental/ Residential CBD, CF, OSSHAD, RO, R1 -A, RM Northwest Neighborho od 250 643 1,857 Residential R 1 A, RM, CF, OSR North Federal Highway 205 363 577 Commercial/ Residential CBD, GC, AC, PRD, R 1 -A, RL, RM Northeast (Seacrest/Del Ida) Neighborhood 260 804 2,066 Residential R 1 A, R 1 AA, RL, RM, CF, MIC, RO, NC Osceol a Park 170 452 1,577 Light Industrial/ Commercial/ Residential CBD, CBD RC, AC, GC, CF, R 1 -A, RM, OSR Southwest Neighborhood 556 1,867 6,520 Residential / Industrial CF, LI, R 1 A, RM, OSR Housing units and residential counts from 2000 census. [ Source : City of Delray Beach CRA Plan ] AC Automobile Commercial CBD Central Business District CBD RC Central Business District Railroad Corridor CF Community Facilities GC General Community LI Light Industrial MIC Mixed Industrial and Commercial Dist rict OSR Open Space and Recreation OSSHAD Old School Square Arts District PRD Planned Residential Development R 1 Residential Single Family RL Residential Medium Density RM Residential Multifamily RO Residential Office

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4 1 Sect ion One of Stuart CRA/TCEA Green Line Indicates North and South Subsections Source: Google Maps Figure 4 2. Section T wo of Stuart CRA/TCEA Source: Google Maps

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4 3. Section Three of Stuart CRA/TCEA Source: Google Maps Figure 4 4. Sect ion Four o f Stuart CRA/TCEA Source: Google Maps

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 5 Section Five of Stuart CRA/TCEA Source: Google Maps Figure 4 6 Image of FEC Rail in Downtown Stuart

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 7 West Atlantic Avenue, Delray CRA/TCEA Source: Google Maps Figure 4 8 East Atlantic Avenue (Section One) Source: Google Maps

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 9 East Atlantic Avenue (Section Two) Source: Google Maps Figure 4 10. East Atlantic Avenue (Section Three) Source: Google Maps

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS: VERO BEACH Vero Beach is located in southeast Indian River County along Floridas Treasure Coast and as of 2007 has a population of 16,980 persons (U.S. Census, 2007a ). Much like many Florida communities Indian River County experienced growth in the 1990s and 2000s, however much of the population growth occurred outside of the Vero Beach city limits. The city had a population of 17,350 in 1990 and 17,705 in the year 2000 (U.S. Census, 2007a ). The c itys population varies depending on the time of year, with a large number of seasonal r esidents. Three activity centers are recognized in and near Vero Beach, the beach district, downtown and a n indoor shopping mall located just west of the city limits. Downtown Vero Beach is characterized by the transportati on infrastructure which dissect the area. Th is Chapter discuss es and analyzes the present transportation infrastructure characteristics within the downtown as defined in F igure 1 3 and makes recommendations for a transportation concurrency alternative program based on the lessons learn ed from both Stuart and Delray Beach. Study Area Due to size of area and community size population estimates within downtown Vero Beach are much smaller than both Stuart and Delray Beach, with an estimated 108 people living within the downtown district (S ee Table 5 1 Population Figures) (Claritas, 2007) When looking at the journey to work breakdown of those 108 people, a smaller percentage drive s alone to work when compare d with the city as a whole (Claritas, 2007). In addition, when compared with the rest of the City a greater percentage of individuals within the study area rely on transit to get to work (Claritas, 2007). The travel to work numbers are significant showing there is potential demand for a walkable downtown with both jobs and residences

PAGE 57

57 Unlike Stuart and Delray Beach, the City of Vero Beach does not use a CRA or TCEA as a means of approaching downtown redevelopment; instead, the City has undertaken multiple planning charettes and devised a downtown action plan. T he City of Vero Beach is examined by transportation infrastructure type and land use The downtown has two major transportation infrastructure networks within the downtown and one located jus t east of the downtown. SR 60 and the FEC rail line can be found within the downtow n boundaries and US -1 is located east of th e downtown boundary as seen in F igure 1 3. In addition to transportation infrastructure it is key to note the land use and building orientation w ithin downtown Vero Beach Through planning documents, interviews with planning officials and community meetings a downtown action plan was published by a private planning firm in August 2008. The downtown action plan prioritizes redevelopment objectives within the downtown district. The objectives of the downtown acti on plan are: Highest Priority o Establish long term funding for Main Street Vero Beach. o Create a Downtown Master Plan. Second Highest Priority o Adopt form -based development criteria and development incentives. o Prepare inventory of downtown historic structures /evaluate applicability of local preservation ordinance. o Streetscape Improvements. Third Highest Priority o Evaluate applicability of a TIF or other financial mechanism to fund downtown capital projects. o Prepare marketing brochures for vacant parcels/opportu nity sites. o Set aside funds for future property purchases. o Evaluate redevelopment and re use of underutilized buildings. o Streetscape improvements. o Traffic evaluation of SR 60 realignment impacts. Lowest Priority o Develop and implement building faade grant program. o Evaluate and prioritize undergrounding of overhead utility lines. o Streetscape improvements. (Land Design South, 2008)

PAGE 58

58 Transportation Infrastructure Roadways SR 60 travels east to west across the State of Florida and as the road enters downtown Vero Beach, it splits into two one -way r oads divided by a city block. Based on citizen opinion from a the local newspaper S.R. 60, also called 20th St and 19th Pl, also called, the twin pairs acts as a pedestrian barrier between the north and south sections of downtown Vero Beach (Isenberg, 2007). When referring to the twins pairs and downtown redevelopment the Vero Beach Press Journal maintains The area needs traffic calming measures to make the downtown a destination rather than an area to drive through and past (Isenberg, 2007). East 20th Street offers four travel lanes through the downtown with an existing LOS of D and a LOS standard of D (City of Vero Beach, 2008b ). West 19th Street offers three travel lanes through downtown with an existing L OS of D and a LOS standard of D (City of Vero Beach, 2008 b ). Al together these seven lanes of traffic are more travel lanes than the portion of I 95 traveling through Indian River County. In 1992, S R 60 was reconfigured in order to add additional capacit y to the roadway (T. McGarry, personal communication, December 22, 2008) Prior to the one way configuration, each road had two -way traffic creating greater connectivity yet resulting in reduced capacity (T. McGarry, personal communication, December 22, 2 008) When discussing the vehicular and pedestrian advantages and disadvantages of one -way streets, the researcher refers to the Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook. The primary question is, Will this treatment merely let people drive into a nd out of the downtown faster or is there some other significant benefit to all roadway users? (University of North Carolina Highway Research Center, 1999) The answer according to a local downtown revitalization organization, Main Street Vero Beach, is

PAGE 59

59 yes at its present configuration the downtown is merely something people drive through ( M. Kovachev, personal communication, December 31, 2008) SR 60 is the primary east -west road throughout the City, however the downtowns main street is 14th A venue. This road is a north -south two -lane road with both parallel and slanted on street parking. The existing LOS is a C an d the LOS standard is a D (City of Vero Beach, 2008b ). Six -foot sidewalks are included on each side of the roadway. T he center of down town is located on 14th Ave between 20th Street and 22nd Street. Based on site visits the researcher determined this area had the strongest sense of urbanism of the downtown. Located just outside of the downtown boundary is US 1 As seen in F igure 1 3, US 1 runs parallel to the FEC rail and has an existing LOS of D and a LOS standard of D (City of Vero Beach, 2008b ). Although located outside of the downtown district, US 1 has the ability to serve as either an additional barrier or bridge to pedestrians from the east attempting to enter the downtown district. At its present configuration the road serves as a barrier to downtown. The only available crosswalk crossing US 1 lacks adequate pedestrian facilities. As can be seen in Figure 5 1, the crosswal k at US1 and 23rd St does not have a complete sidewalk, failing to provide a safe zone for pedestrians F lorida East Coast Rail Line The FEC Rail line serves as the east boundary for the downtown district. Unlike Delray Beach, the rail line is solely use d for freight through downtown Vero, thus reducing the number of trains, however also limiting the transportation options. Based on interviews the rail does not appear to be a determent to pedestrians entering the downtown, however a field visit indicated a lack of sidewalk s at one of the four rail intersections, which could reduce the likelihood of pedestrian crossings.

PAGE 60

60 Land Use The downtown district is designated Mixed Use (MX) with a zoning Downtown District overlay. The goals of the downtown district are reducing urban sprawl, encouraging infill development with the ultimate goal of having a downtown where people can live, work and have recreation opportunities in the same area (City of Vero Beach, 2008c ). Under the downtown district overlay, a va riety of uses are allowed and structures are allowed a maximum height of 50 feet (City of Vero Beach, 200 8 c ). Based on site visits only four buildings in the downtown district come close to the allowable building height, thus creating the potential for redevelopment. The overlay district does not require a concurrency study un til, infrastructure exceed s se rvice level standards (City of Vero Beach 2008c ). Finally, the district also forces parking to the rear of buildings and allows for a reduc tion in parking spaces (City of Vero Beach, 2008c ). Although the right mix of uses for an active downtown is not found in Vero Beach, the Land Development Regulations as presently written do not appear to be the culprit. Based on an interview with Tim McGarry (20 08) the poor mix of land use is attributed partially to poor planning decisions in the past and to the downtown land owners. In addition, McGarry (2008) also places the blame on current market conditions. Building height, density and mixture of land use s are not the only factors that contribute to downtown, structure orientation is also crucial when looking at placemaking and the connection with transportation. Phil Matson, of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization, believes certain structures within the downtown could have been sited differently to create a more urban feel to the downtown ( P. Matson, personal communication, December 31, 2008) Based on site visits, the new Indian River County Courthouse appears to be one of the buil ding s in question. This building, which rests between 20th St. and 21st St. faces west, away

PAGE 61

61 from the downtown. In addition the main entra nce of the building faces a two-story parking garage. This placement has the potential of encouraging individuals t o park, enter the courthouse and conduct business then exit without spend ing time in the downtown district. If the courthouse faced downtown and the parking garage remained in its present position individuals might be more likely to enter the downtown. The central question is the land use transportation relationship, and a major part of the transportation discussion is transit. The next section discusses downtown Vero Beachs bus transit system, as part of the larger Indian River County bus transit system. Transit The City of Vero Beach is presently served by the Indian River County Go Line, a mass transit system with eleven fixed routes on an hourly schedule. Six of the eleven routes share a transfer station located in downtown Vero Beach creating transit connections between th e downtown and the rest of the c ounty. T he transfer station is located within walking distance to many of the downtown restaurants and stores Because of the ideal location of the transfer station, Vero exhibits some of the characteristics of a TOD. Although the transit system is reliable with hourly s ervice, the transit stops do not seem adequate. Based on field visits, not all transit stops within the downtown in clude a bench or shelter from the elements Providing shel ter from the elements could encourage a greater number of transit riders especially due to the extreme heat and rain during the summer season. The future could offer another transit option by way of the FEC rail line. Based on an interview with Phil Ma tson and a conversation with Florida Department of Community Affairs Secretary Thomas Pelham, passenger rail service could potentially extend into Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River Counties ( P. Matson, personal communication, December 31, 2008) If

PAGE 62

62 passe nger rail service were to return to downtown Vero Beach, the downtown could experience redevelopment in the way of a TOD. Conclusion The C ity of Vero Beach has great potential, and has recognized the need to redevelop their downtown, however has yet to de al with their potential transportation concurrency issues. Future development is limited due to roadways within the downtown that are either already at or near LOS standards. With an understanding of the existing land use s and transportation infrastructu re attention is now focused on the lessons learned from Stuart and Delray Beach in order to make recommendations for Downtown Vero Beach

PAGE 63

63 Table 5 1. Population Figures For Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach Population Delray Beach Stuart Vero Beach Ci tywide 2007 2000 1990 64,112 60,020 47,180 15,964 14,633 11,936 16,980 17,705 17,350 CRA Year 2000 Estimate Year 2007 Estimates 15,528 2,740 Study Area Year 2000 Estimate Year 2008 Estimate 2,661 518 108 Sources: U.S. Census, 2007a; U.S. Census, 2007b; U.S. Census, MSCW Inc, 2008; City of Delray Beach, 2008

PAGE 64

64 Figure 5 1. US 1 crosswalk in Vero Beach

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 6 LESSONS LEARNED AND APPLICATION OF A MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT IN VERO BEACH Lessons Learned Stuart Downtown Stuart incorporates aspects of both transect planning and new urbanism and has the existing infrastructure available for a TOD. The density and mix o f uses is strongest at the core; and although downtown Stuart may not be considered urban in comparison to major metropolitan areas, the central core of downtown is the densest section of the CRA. In addition the central core also offers the greatest transportation options despite being divided by the FEC rail line. If Stuart were to be afforded passenger rail serv ice, the downtown could have the potential for a TOD based development. The transportation infrastructur e impacts of the Stuart TCEA have led to an increase in downtown redevelopment, however not all modes of transportation have been thoroughly addressed within the TCEA. Based upon an interview with Teresa Lamar Sarano, Stuarts CRA director, the TCEA has been somewhat of a double -edged sword ( T. Lamar -Sarno, personal communication, December 29, 2008). Lamar -Sarno credits the TCEA for encouragement of downtown redevelopment, however also states that, not enough attention is paid to the multimodal aspects of the CRA (T. Lamar Sarno, personal communication, December 29, 2008) This lack of atte ntion can be seen in F igur e 4 6 with on ly two downtown rail crossing each managed through roundabouts, creating an int imidating pedestrian crossing. Despite strong pedestrian facilities on both sides of the rail, the researcher attributes the lack of pedestrian activity and business activity to the west of th e FEC rail line due to the lack of connectivity between the east and west side of the FEC rail line. One possible remedy, pending approval from FDOT would be to construct a pedestrian only rail crossing between the north and south

PAGE 66

66 roundabouts. Constructi ng a pedestrian only rail crossing could protect pedestrians from vehicles and possibly spur re development on the west side of the rail. Site visits indicate the central core of the downtown and even the surrounding districts have strong pedestrian facili ties except for the two rail crossings. In addition to the lack of multimodal transporta tion options, Ms. Lamar Sarno (2008) also discusses the perceived lack of parking by business owners within the downtown district. This perception is due to Policy 15 .3 of the City Comprehensive Plan. This policy allows for flexible parking requirements and shared parking within the downtown district (City of Stuart, 2008 b ). The result has been fewer parking directly in front of businesses, and increased parking in o pen lots forcing downtown visitors to walk a short distance to reach their destination (T. Lamar Sarno, personal communication, December 29, 2008) In terms of land use, Stuart offers a strong mix of land uses within the central core of the downtown, however site visits indicate most businesses close early in the evening. This results in a downtown that is void of pedestrian activity at night except when performances are taking place at the theater located downtown. Delray Beach Delray Beach incorporat es principles from all three planning techniques discussed in the literature. The downtown central core is arguably the densest district and has the greatest mix of uses and transportation options. As one travels outward from the central core the surroundings change from urban to suburban similar to the transect planning principles. In addition, due to the proximity of passenger rail service and multiple bus routes the downtown also has many of the characteristics of a TOD These planning techniques cou pled with the TCEA has led to significant redevelopment within the downtown.

PAGE 67

67 D owntown Delray Beach offers greater multimodal accessibility than downtown Stuart despite each utilizing a TCEA Pedestrians are afforded wide sidewalks (eleven feet in some p laces) and an environment free of infrastructure barriers. Both bus and train transit services are offered in or adjacent to the CRA. Unlike Stuart, the FEC rail crossing in Delray has a wide shoulder on both the north and south side of the roadway, providing protection from automobiles for pedestrians. Similarly to Stuart many of the redevelopment programs have been fun ded through state and federal grants and the money generated through the TIF district The TIF shares the same boundaries as the CRA /TCEA and as of 2007 generated $14.9 million (MSCW Inc, 2008) Although the revenue generated has the potential of decreasing in todays slow economy, the importance of the TIF funding cannot be underestimated. The first les son Vero Beach should learn from Delray Beach is the management of the Federal Highway through downtown. Federal Highway once organized similarly to SR 60 in Vero Beach, still remains two, one -way roads, however traffic calming techniques prevent this ro adway from serving as a barrier. Within Delray Beach Federal Highways travel lanes have been reduced from six lanes to four lanes with parallel parking on each side of the roadway (Kimley Horn and Associates, 2005) In addition to reducing the number of travel lanes, the width of the new travel lanes have been reduced from 13 feet and 12 feet to a consistent 11 feet (Kimley Horn and Associates, 2005) This temporary reconfiguration as illustrated in F igure 6 1 is made possible by plastic tubing preventing vehicles from traveling in the outside lanes aside from parking. Based on an interview with Vince Wooten (2008) of the Delray CRA the reconfiguration appears to be working as intended.

PAGE 68

68 The second lesson Vero Beach should learn from Delray Beach is D elrays useage of an east -west one -way downtown bypass. Designed as alternate route to Atlantic Avenue the two one -way roads, one north of Atlantic Avenue and one south of Atlantic Avenue are soon to be converted to two-way traffic in 2009 (V. Wooten per sonal communication, December 18, 2008) Although the one -way streets simplify pedestrian crossing, drivers complain ed of difficulty accessing the businesses located along the one -way roads ( V. Wooten personal communication, December 18, 2008) By re -c onfiguring Federal Highway and the downtown bypass system, downtown Delray Beach has created a stronger transportation grid throughout the downtown. Delray Beach has made mistakes along the way, including the downtown bypass system, and has learned to try road configuration and traffic calming measures on a temporary basis before making major reinvestment s Application of a Multimodal Transportation District in Downtown Vero Beach, Florida L essons learned from the TCEAs and CRAs in both Stuart and Delray B each, assist in determining the applicability of a multimodal transportation district within downtown Vero Beach. The application of an MMTD was chosen over a TCEA due to the MMTDs focus on transportation by other means than single occupant vehicle. Base d on interviews and reviews of the land development regulations, the capital improvement plan and the comprehensive plan, the researcher has determined downtown Vero Beach is ripe for a multimodal transportation district overlay. According to the Comprehe nsive Plan, many of the roadways at present configuration are either at the level of service threshold or are nearing capacity and a concurrency alternative such as a n MMTD could promote downtown redevelopment. The following is a list of recommendations b y the researcher :

PAGE 69

69 1 Transfer ownership of SR 60 from FDOT to C ity of V ero Beach between 21st Avenue to 8th Avenue also known as US-1 Transfer of ownership a llow s the City greater flexibility in potential road re -configuration with a emphasis on multimodal accessibility. Coordination and communication, including financing decisions, between the City and FDOT must oc cur if a transfer of ownership is to take place. In addition the City must be able to accept the financial burden of road ownership. 2 Reduce th e number of travel lanes on SR 60 to two east bound and two west bound, with parallel parking where appropriate. This could lead to decreased vehicle speeds and parking would be a potential buffer between the travel lanes and the sidewalk. Coordination be tween FDOT and the City must occur if a reconfiguration were to occur while under FDOT ownership. FDOT may not be willing to transfer ownership after recently funding the resurfacing of SR 60. 3 Encourage bulb-outs at intersections along SR 60 between 21st Avenue and 8th Avenue. Bulb -outs encourage vehicles to slow, and makes pedestrians more visible. Depending on ownership of the roadway the City may need to provide the funding for the project. 4 Advocate passenger rail service with a stop in the downtown d istrict, to encourage a surrounding transit oriented development Passenger rail service h as the potential to lead to economic development within the downtown and takes cars off the roads. Coordination must occur between the state, the owners of the FEC rail and local communities along the potential passenger rail line. Initial funding may need to occur to update or construct a new rail station. 5 Encourage more residential and less commercial development within the downtown district The downtown populat ion will increase, hopefully helping the existing businesses and eventually leading to future businesses growth within the downtown. This could potentially lead to gentrification 6 Creation of multimodal transportation district in conjunction with Florida Department of Transportation Encourage future development within the downtown without incurring LOS challen ges, potentially l ead ing to fewer cars on the road. Funding would need to be appropriated for transportation improvements including widening of s idewalks and funding a downtown shuttle service. 7 Creation of community redevelopment agency with a dedicated funding mechanism such as a TIF A CRA with a dedicated funding mechanism can have legal authority over decisions in the downtown district, and ca n provide long -term leadership. Educating residents and business owners within the downtown of the benefits is vital to a successful CRA. 8 Reduce the number of signs within the downtown and make large entrance signs to the district Reducing the number of driver distractions along SR 60, will enhance the aesthetic appeal along the roadway. Instead, larger signs should be used as a means of informing drivers they are entering the downtown district

PAGE 70

70 9 Strengthen the downtown overlay zoning district to a poss ible form based zoning district. Form based code can create the urban feel which is presently lacking within the downtown district. T he form based code implemented must be suited to the characteristics of Vero Beach. These recommendations overlap with La nd Design Souths recommendations. However, the researcher disagrees with the order of Land Design Souths priorities. SR 60 should be a higher priority due to the high travel speed of vehicles along the roadway and the negative effect on pedestrians T he single most beneficial action by the City to redevelop downtown would be to create a CRA with a dedicated funding source. By creating a CRA and educating the downtown merchants of the benefits of a CRA consisten t leadership and planning can be establi shed. Potential Challenges to Redeveloping Downtown Vero Beach Due to three existing activity centers either in or near the City limits, there may not be enough residents to support a redeveloped downtown. Unlike Delray Beach, which has a much larger p opulation base and is also close to large population centers Vero cannot draw from neighboring communities. Stuart is similar in population to Vero Beach, however Stuart s neighboring communities have large r population centers than Vero Beachs neighborin g communities In addition to population limitations, Vero Beach must overcome the lack of regional transportation infrastructur e options (as seen in Figures 6 2 6 4 ). Traffic east of downtown Vero Beach must travel through the downtown to reach both I 95 and Floridas Turnpike creating a channeli ng effect through the downtown. Delray Beach offers the greatest degree of connectivity due to a number of regional east -west and north -south roadways. Downtown Stuart offers fewer regional transportation o ptions than Delray Beach and is intersected by a regional

PAGE 71

71 north -south thoroughfare however there are a greater number of roadway options than Vero Beach. Finally, Vero Beach must also overcome citizen opposition to change. As a lifelong resident of Vero Beach, the researcher is well aware of the keep things as they are mentality among many of the residents. All of these factors must be addressed, in order to set realistic goals for the downtown.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 6 1 Temporary reconfiguration of Federal High way in Delray Beach

PAGE 73

73 Figure 6 2 Map of Vero Beach and Regional Transportation Network Source: Google Maps, 2009 Figure 6 3 Map of Delray Beach and Regional Transportation Network Source: Google Maps, 2009

PAGE 74

74 Figure 6 4 Map of Stuart and Region al Transportation Network Source: Google Maps, 2009

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION Poor planning, coupled with t he affects of Floridas transportation concurrency policy of ensuring adequate public facilities at the time of new development has left its mark on t he State. This impact is seen more prominently in communities where roads owned by the state also serve as communities Main Streets Florida cannot continue its present course Without developing concurrency alternatives our downtowns are limited by the capacity of the roadways that travel through them. T his study s eeks to examine the applicability of a multimodal transp ortation district for downtown V ero B each Flo rida based on lessons learned from case studies of transportation concurrency exception ar eas in Stuart and Delray Beach, Florida. Based on site visits and interviews the Stuart TCEA has been success ful in encouraging redevelopment. However, the primary drawback is the lack of attention to multimodal accessibility, including, a lack of adequa te transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities Similar to Stuart, Delray Beach implements a TCEA as a means of downtown redevelopment. However, Delray has done a better job of incorporating multimodal transportation facilities within the downtown. This i s evidenced by wide sidewalks for pedestrians, a dense building fabric passenger rail service, and two bus services within the downtown Despite todays slow economy Delrays CRA is still has adequate funding to assist new business with rent and offering grants for faade improvements. A portion of this funding is generated through the TIF. Th rough policy review, interviews and site visits the researcher believes downtown Vero Beach is ripe for redevelopment. Should passenger rail service come to dow ntown Vero Beach, it would provide an additional regional north -south transportation network. This could lead to a reduction of vehicle s accessing SR 60 on their way to I 95. By doing this the City could potentially justify reducing the number of travel lanes of SR 60 through downtown Vero Beach,

PAGE 76

76 thus creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. Currently Vero Beach struggles with a three and four lane east -west roadway through their downtown. M ajor changes do not appear to be on the horizon, becaus e of 2008 FDOT funded resurfacing of the roadway. Because roadway reconfiguration may not be feasible at this point in time, Vero Beach must ensure future development within the downtown be consistent with the Downtown Action Plan. Increased building den sity and a reduction of surface parking should be the Citys priorities. MMTDs have a potentially great future in the state, that is unless the Florida Legislature makes dramatic changes to transportation concurrency requirements. When asked about potential concurrency changes on a recent visit t o the University of Florida, DCA Secretary Thomas Pellham indicated the Florida Legislature could be eliminating transportation concurrency in urban areas. The effect of eliminating transportation concurrency wi thin urban areas could potentially encourage downtown redevelopment throughout the state. This is especially true in downtowns limited by the capacity of the state owned roadways Even if transportation concurrency is eliminated, municipalities must be prudent, in their zoning to entice development, and not continue sprawl policies. Future Research Recommendations : P resent ly there is a lack of information available indicating whether the redeveloped downtowns will continue to thrive. In order to determine the long term success rate of these redeveloped downtowns the following questions must be considered. Have people moved back to downtowns void of transportation infrastructure barriers, because it is perceived as new and trendy place to live ? Additionally, what have been the long term effects to local governments budgets, especially those whose downtowns use TIF or some other taxing mechanism ? With significant budget shortfalls occurring in many local

PAGE 77

77 governments, future research could determine the s everity of the financial shortfalls between municipalities with and with out TIFs. Finally, additional research should be directed to determining the multimodal accessibility of Florida downtowns with and without passenger rail. Although all three communities discussed in this study were constructed along the FEC rail line, only Delray Beach offers rail service anywhere close to the downtown. Delray Beach, Stuart and Vero Beach each present distinct downtowns with their own set of challenges. Vero Bea ch can learn from Delray Beachs successful management of Federal Highway, and apply it to SR 60. Stuart can teach Vero Beach how to handle the impact of rail crossings in heavily traveled pedestrian areas. This studys recommendations must be considered along with the Downtown Action Plan, when redeveloping downtown Vero Beach. In order to have a successful, thriving, vibrant downtown, Vero Beach must learn from the successes and failures of downtown redevelopment in Stuart and Delray Beach.

PAGE 78

LIST OF RE FERENCES Balchin, P, Issac, & Chen, J (2000). Urban Economics A Global Perspective Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrove Ben Zadok, E. (2005, November). Consistency, concurrency and compact development: Three faces of growth management implementat ion in Florida. Urban Studies 42(12), 21672190. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from Academic Search Premier Database Calthorpe Associates and Mintier & Associates. (1990). Transit -oriented development guidelines. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://library.ceres.ca.gov/cgi bin/doc_home?elib_id=2027 Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. City of Delray Beach CRA. (2008, November). City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Plan. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.delraycra.org/images/stories/cra%20plan.pdf City of Stuart. (2001, February) Ordinance Number 177901 Stuart, FL : Author City of Stuart. (2008a ). Chapter Three Overlay Zones. City of Stua rt, Land Development Regulation Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.mu nicode.com City of Stuart. (2008b). Policy 15.3. City of Stuart Transportati on Element of Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.municode.com City of Vero Beach.(2008a ). Downtown Vero Beach Map. Vero Beach FL: Author. City of Vero Beach. (2008b). Transportation Element of City of Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan. Vero Beach, FL: Author. City of Vero Beach. (2008c). Title VI Zoning Article X Downtown District. City of Vero Beach Code of Ordinanc es Retrieved October 12 2008, from http://www.municode.com Civic Design Associates (2006). Community Redevelopment Plan, City of Stuart. Houston, TX. Civic Design Associates Claritas. (2007). Demographic Data Retr ieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.sitereports.com Council on Aging of St. Lucie Inc. (2005) Routes and Maps Retrieved November 15, 2008, from Treasure Coast Connector: http://treasur ecoastconnector.com/routes/route1.php Department of Community Affairs. (2009). School Planning and Coordination. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/SchoolPlan ning/

PAGE 79

D epartment of Community Affairs and University of Florida Department of Urban and Regional Planning (June, 2007). A Guide for The Creating and Evaluation of Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/transportation/Files/AGuideCreationEvaluationTCEAs. pdf Downs, A. (2003). Why Floridas concurrency principles (for controlling new development by regulating road construction) do not and cannot work effectively. Transportation Quarterly 57(1), 1318. Retrieved October 26, from Wilson Web. Duany, A., & Plater Zyberk, E. (1992, Winter92). The Second Coming of The American Small To wn. Wilson Quarterly 16(1), 19. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from Academic Search Premier D atabase. Duany, A., & Talen, E. (2002, Summer2002). Transect Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 245, Retrieved November 20, 2008, from A cademic Search Premier Database. Florida Department of Transportation. (2006). Working with transportation concurrency exception a reas Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.d ot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/growthmgt/tcea.pdf Florida Legislature. (2008). Florida Statutes, Chapter 163: Concurrency. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ Googl e (2009). Google Maps. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://maps.google.com/ Guttenplan, M., Davis, B., Steiner, R., Miller, D. (2003) Planning-level areawide multimodal level -of -service analysis Performance meas ures for congestion management Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMLOScm.pdf Hipler, H. (2007, July). Tax I ncrement Financing in Florida: A Tool for Local Government Revitalization, Renewal, and Redevelopment. Florida Bar Journal, 81(7), 66 71. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Isenberg, B. (2007, September 18). Plans On Table T o Energize Downtown Vero Beach. Vero Beach Press Journal. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/sep/18/30plans -ontable to -ener gize downtown-vero beach/ Kimley Horn and Associates. (2005). US 1 Corridor Enhancement Project. West Palm Beach, FL: Kimley -Horn and Associates. Land Design South. (2008). Downtown Action Plan. West Palm Beach, FL: Land Design South.

PAGE 80

Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization. (2006, June). Martin County Transit Development Plan. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:777 8/portal/page?_pageid=914,1372844&_dad=portal&_sche ma=PORTAL Mayfield, J. (2007, December 19). Success Drives Downtown Tram. Martin County News. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/dec/19/30success drives -downtown-tram/?feedback=1#comments MSCW Inc. (2008). Evaluation of the 2002 Stuart Community Redevelopment Plan. Orlando, FL: MSCW Inc. New Urbanism.org. (2008). Pri nciples of New Urbanism. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.newurbanism.org Palm Beach County Planning and Zoning Department (2005). Delray TCEA. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.pbcgov.com/pzb/maps/pdfs/compplan/TE15_4_TCEAS_Details3_Eff_110105. pdf Pellham, T. (2007). A Historical Perspective for Evaluating Floridas Evolving Growth Management Proces s. In T.S. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.) Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise (pp. 209 226). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Steele, D. (2003). Transportation and Future of Dowtnown. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/2050/downtown.pdf Steiner, R. (2007) Transportation Concurrency: An Idea Before its Time? In T.S. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, & H.T. Higgins (Eds.) Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise (pp. 209 226). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Steiner, R. & Fischman, A. (2008). Does Land Use and Transportation Coordination Really Make A Difference In Creating Livable Communities ? Unpublished. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. (2002) Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://www.mydelraybeach.com/NR/Delray/ExternalAttachments/Downtown%20Plan/Intr oduction.pdf University of North Carolina Highway Research Center. (1999). Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.dot.stat e.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/ped06_11.pdf

PAGE 81

U.S. Census Bureau (2007a). Fact Finder. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://factfinder.c ensus.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id= 16000US1274150&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Vero+Beach&_cityTown=Vero+B each&_state=04000US12&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt =fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=nul l®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry= U.S. Census Bureau. (2007b). Fact Finder. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://factfinder.census .gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US12 74150&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Stuart&_cityTown=Stuart&_state=04000US12 &_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010 &_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=nul l&qr_name=null®=null%3A null&_keyword=&_industry= Wessler, C. (2008, March). CRA Annual Report 2007. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://cityofstuart.us/images/sto ries/Development/PDF/CRAnnualRpt07.pdf

PAGE 82

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David B. Kanarek was born in Vero Beach, Florida in 1983. David is the youngest of two children. He graduated from Saint Edwards School in the spring of 2002 and began classes at the Universi ty of Florida in the summer of 2002. David graduated cum laude with a bachelors degree in political science and a minor in urban and regional planning in December 2006. Immediately after graduation David began working toward his masters in urban and re gional planning in January of 2007. Throughout both undergraduate and graduate school David interned in the public and private sector of planning In addition he spent a summer with a private developer. Through these experiences David began to develop t he ideas behind this research. Upon graduating David plans to move to South Florida for a position with a private planning firm.