Community Feedback Summary of Survey Results...20 2.38 Within 1 mile of shopping/office center, a hospital or an urgent care facility 2.38 Complete sidewalk on one side of street,

Neighborhood Complete Streets Program Guide Draft Criteria

Community Feedback – Summary of Survey Results

June 2015

2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary …………………………..………………….. p. 3-7

II. Table of Survey Respondents’ Ranking of Draft Criteria ………... p. 4

III. Summary of Survey Responses by Section ...……..……………… p. 8-45

IV. Appendices …………………………………………………………p. 46

Draft Program Guide …………………………………………. Appendix A

Survey Questions ……………………………………………... Appendix B

Criteria Rankings from Survey Responses …………………… Appendix C

3

Executive Summary

Background & Introduction

Arlington’s Neighborhood Complete Streets (NCS) Commission, along with County staff, has

worked to develop a new Neighborhood Complete Streets program. The NCS program will be

administered by the Division of Transportation. The new NCS program is intended to

complement current complete street projects that are occurring on non-commercial arterial

streets as well as the Neighborhood Conservation program.

In the fall of 2014, the NCS Commission produced a Draft Program Guide (see Appendix A) to

address the application of these policies to neighborhood streets. The Commission and staff

conducted focused community engagement to solicit feedback. The process included

presentations to transportation related commissions and committees and an online survey. The

online survey provided a vehicle to solicit feedback from a broad cross-section of the community

on the criteria that will be used to rank potential NCS projects.

Guided by the community feedback, the NCS Commission intends to update the NCS Draft

Program Guide and present it to the County Board for adoption in 2015.

Online Survey

As part of the new NCS program, proposed projects would be ranked in order to objectively

prioritize them. Gaining feedback from the community on the program goals and potential

ranking criteria was the primary focus of the online survey. The survey was conducted for six

weeks in January-February 2015. A copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix B.

A total of 974 online surveys were completed. Overall, 85% of respondents either fully support

or somewhat support the Neighborhood Complete Streets Program Goals as drafted. Within the

survey results specifically addressing the ranking criteria, point allocations and weight for

criteria, there also emerged prominent themes from the more than 1,800 write-in comments.

Generally, respondents agreed with the criteria that would be used for ranking potential projects

as outlined in the NCS Draft Program Guide, as well as the weight (point allocations) for the

individual criteria.

Below is a list that summarizes the results for both the criteria rankings and the write-in

comments. The full report provides a more detailed summary of the feedback received through

the survey.

4

All Respondents - Summary of Criteria Rankings

NCS Program Goals Support - 1,330 Respondents 1.41* (67% Fully Support + 18% Somewhat Support)

Ranking Weighted

Average** ALL RESPONDENTS (974-1,115 Respondents)

1 3.55 No sidewalks on either side of street

2 3.36 Street paving in disrepair

3 3.26 Reported preventable crashe(es) within the past 48 months

4 3.24 Daily vehicle volume above 1,000

5 3.22 Existence of a speeding problem as defined by the NTC Program Guide

6 3.18 Necessity for upgrade to water or sewer lines in street

7 3.13 Within 1/2 mile of elementary school, and 3/4 mile of secondary schools

8 3.09 Street drainage/flooding problems

9 3.02 Inadequate street lighting

10 2.95 37-72 dwelling units per acre

11 2.92 Within 3/4 mile of Metrorail station

12 2.90 Commercial/mixed use GLUP designation

13 2.85 Incomplete sidewalk on one side of street

14 2.73 School bus stop on the street

15 2.65 Street designated as an official or unofficial bicycle route on AC Bikeway Map

15 2.65 Daily vehicle volume between 500-1000


17 2.62 Sparse street tree canopy

17 2.62 Street section intersects with or connects to a multi-use trail

18 2.59 Within 1/4 mile of transit bus stop

19 2.43 Street section intersects with a bicycle route, official or unofficial, on the AC

Bikeway Map

20 2.38 Within 1 mile of shopping/office center, a hospital or an urgent care facility

2.38 Complete sidewalk on one side of street, but too narrow or obstructed

22 2.37 Within 1/2 mile of a park or athletic field



25 2.13 Unobstructed sidewalk on one side of street, but no curb ramp(s)

Color Legend:

Sidewalk Conditions

Traffic Hazards & Safety

Infrastructure Conditions

Pedestrian Attractors/Generators and Connectivity

Mapped Bicycle Route

Street Traffic Volumes

Land Use/GLUP Designation

Other Street Improvement Opportunities

* NCS Program Goals Weighted

Average Scale = 0-2.0

** Priority Scale for Ranking of

Criteria = 0-4.0

5

Write-in Comments Summary - Common Themes Overall

Ranking criteria should also:

Consider the street context

Consider the actual pedestrian and bicyclist use of a street not surrogate metrics

Consider the aesthetics and character of a street

Consider the cost effectiveness of projects

Consider the connectivity of projects. Greater support for projects that link to other

sidewalks, trails and streets

Consider street problems such as poor sightlines and visibility

Consider “near misses” when counting crashes

Pay more attention to environmental issues

Strong support for:

Sidewalk projects that link to schools

Safety improvements

Bike lanes

Wider sidewalks

Accessibility improvements, such as curb ramps

Projects in areas with high traffic volumes

Projects in areas with higher densities

Street paving

Increased enforcement to address problems

Other ideas:

Use a sliding scale regarding distance when assigning points

On-street parking impacts should be rated

6

Comments Summary - Suggestions for Additional Criteria

Sidewalk Condition:

Sidewalk usability

Sidewalk in disrepair

Drainage on sidewalks leading to ice

Sidewalk obstructed or narrow

Traffic Hazards

Reckless driving (not stopping at stop signs)

Sightlines and visibility

Traffic Hazards - Crashes:

Define “preventable”

Include near misses, unreported incidents, pedestrian incidents

Areas where school buses experience traffic danger

Areas where parking patterns create safety hazards

Areas that are in close proximity to high-speed roadways

Infrastructure – Inadequate Street Lighting

Define “inadequate”

Add “at intersection or commercial driveway”

Add “near Metro or major bus stops”

Amount of light pollution from existing lights

Infrastructure – Drainage/Flooding Problems

Define “problem”

Pedestrian Attractors

Amount of pedestrian traffic

Inadequate parking

Pedestrian Attractors: ½ mile of elementary or ¾ mile of secondary

Use APS’ definition of “Walk Zone”

Include community centers, other community services

Define: use “as the child walks” not “as the crow flies”

Pedestrian Attractors: School bus stop on the street

Add set distance

Amend to “within ¼ mile, including cross streets”

Include ART or Metro bus stops

Pedestrian Attractors: ¼ mile of Transit bus stop

Define transit bus stop

Breakup by frequency – more points for greater frequency

Include all bus stops

7

Pedestrian Attractors: Shopping/hospital

Separate shopping from hospital and urgent care

Add Post Office

Hospital distance should be ½ mile

Pedestrian Attractors: Park/field

Include bars as recreation areas for adults

Increase to 1 or 1.5 miles

Bicycle Route

Separate official and unofficial

Street Traffic Volumes – 1,000+vpd

Transit route

Pedestrian vpd

Bicycle vpd

School bus trips vpd

Other Improvement Opportunities

Add Power Undergrounding or Above Ground Power Lines

Other Comments

“Walkability" or “low walkability index"

Number and quality of crosswalks

Distance between existing crosswalks

Pedestrian connectivity should be more emphasized than pedestrian "density" which is what

many of these criteria amount to

Proximity of alternative routes to the same destination

Ability to cross roads safely (Presence of crosswalks & pedestrian signals), esp on busy roads

Proximity to Bike share (Capital Bikeshare) stations and/or shared vehicle (Zipcar) locations

High bike/ped demand areas

Grade of the street (i.e. hills)

Topography - Potholes and on-and-off bike lanes are more worrisome on steep hills (e,g,

Military Road) than on flats.

Aesthetics of streets

Cost-benefit analysis

Corner Intersections

Lack of stop signs

Number of traffic lights or how significant the intersections

Lack of turn lanes and turn lights at intersections, either onto or off of major roads.

Street parking – support preservation of on-street parking

Opportunities for cleaner streets, reducing run-off from streets

Likelihood of pollutants entering the waterways

Improvements History – prioritize little to none

% of households with children

neighborhood demographics-singles, families, elderly

Number of students living a certain distance to a school or park

8

Summary of Responses by Survey Section

9

NCS Program Goals

Program Goals - Summary of Write-In Comments & Themes

A total of 258 write-in comments were received regarding Program Goals. Among the comments, several

themes were identified and are listed below. Several suggestions were offered for potential project locations

and some respondents shared suggestions for language changes. Also included below is a sampling from the

comments received.

Theme categories, in order of frequency with the top being most frequent comment type and the bottom

being the least. Often the number of comments listed will not total the number of write-in comments

received. This is because suggestions for project locations, and inapplicable, miscellaneous comments are

not included in the listing of themes.

Implementation should consider context of the location/be site specific (58)

Do not like bike lanes (24)

Support Complete Streets Initiatives (20)

Do not support Complete Streets Initiatives (18)

Need better enforcement or enforcement would solve issues (16)

Safety (13)

Sidewalks support (12)

Traffic calming devices – negative (12)

Costs should be considered (11)

Traffic calming devices – positive (8)

Like bike lanes/designated space for bicyclists (6)

10

Desire an increase in emphasis on aesthetics and/or trees (6)

Street lighting – positive (4)

Street lighting – negative (3)

Sidewalks negative (3)

Program Goals - Suggestions for Language Changes

First bullet states "safe and convenient" as a fact when it might not be (complete streets are often not

the most direct routes and cyclists and pedestrians can still be struck by parked and moving

vehicles). Recommend deleting second sentence entirely. Second bullet, "Feel safe and comfortable"

is subjective as some people will never feel that way no matter what you do. Recommend replacing

with "maintain full awareness of other street users."

I do not see where the consideration for keeping the feel of a neighborhood is included in these

goals.

Please add language about "promote a pleasant and attractive atmosphere"

Should have an objective definition off on the safe Street before suggesting anything. Only receive

streets should then be subject to a float for implementing the program.

Somewhere on the priority list should be getting from place to place in a timely manner. All the

other goals can be met by banning automobiles (which, based on observation, is an Arlington goal),

but it is also necessary to life to be able to get around.

The first bullet should include comfortable, e.g. "Complete streets provide safe, comfortable, and

convenient access

There is no mention of addressing residential traffic problems in concert with the affected

neighborhood(s).

a goal of improving the envirnomental suitability should be included

A goal should be to bring sidewalks into ADA compliance

Agree with goals but there should be minimum standards: 1) make safe and convenient for

pedestrians. County continuous sidewalks -- for the greater good of the community. Individual

houses should not be able to block installation. It hurts the whole neighborhood.

Program Goals - Sampling of Comments

"Complete Streets" and "consistent/comprehensive" text fails to address the need for cost-benefit

anaylsis. (I disagree that each and every street must be 'complete.')

"Complete streets" are too " busy". There is too much going on.

Achieving these goals is essential to economic health of the county and the well being of its citizens.

Adding more and/or better street lights should also be included in making streets safe

Depends on street lighting; our neighborhood is overlit as it is, can affect sleep quality

Bicycles and cars do not mix. Almost all bicycle riders do NOT comply with any traffic laws. It is

diffcult enough to drive with pedestrians who not follow traffic signals or cross in cross walks.

Bike lanes do not make sense when they parallel a major bike path--e.g., Wilson Boulevard is 2

blocks over from the Custis Trail. Bicyclists do not belong on major arterials where the minimum

practiced speed is faster than they can maintain.

Can't respond without knowing what county interprets "improvements" to be. County solutions are

not always necessary or cost effective.

11

Does not address managing environmental issues (minimizing run-off, erosion other environmental

management issues) that can preserve our infrastructure, environment and aesthetics.

Flexibility in application of uniform objective criteria would provide for implementing best solutions

in particular situations that may warrant an "exception"

Focus should be on routes to Metro, schools, and other places with significant ped/bike traffic

Goals need to explicitly include all areas of Arlington. Many residents live in areas that may not be

considered "residential" such as the Crystal City area. Also I do not see anything about minimizing

congestion and traffic volume. This goal is very important to overall quality of life and would need

to be coordinated with/provide guidelines for business development and construction efforts.

I am a very active bicyclist and to a lesser extent pedestrian so fully support complete streets.

I am concerned about the over use of traffic calming

I don't know what percentage of streets should be "complete" - some roads should be just for

cars/buses and that's all, and not for bikers or walkers

I oppose speed humps, which increase traffic on alternate routes. Other traffic calming methods are

better.

i ride my bike to and from work (EFC to DC) in the warmer months and I really appreciate this

effort.

i support the goals but not if the costs outweigh the benefits

If "minimizing reliance on police resources" means traffic cameras then I am opposed.

In the past, reduction of road width and corners has taken away valuable space for bicyclists. This

was very unfortunate.

Motorists find it too easy to drive fast on roads. The only solution is engineering the street to slow

them down.

No mention is made of the aesthetics of a street. Lighting; vegetation; beautification etc. In my

opinion that should be at least in the top three of priorities. People act more responsibly when they

are in an environment that pleases them. The published goals sound just like a typical "planning"

mantra and have not been given enough constructive thought.

Pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders should be placed at a higher priority than motorists. Motorists

have been priority 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for more than 60 years - it's time the priority be placed on other

modes of travel.

Streets are not defined. I don't understand why bikes need to take up road lanes on boulevards and

major roads when bike routes are already in place. With an increasing density, you have to be

ignorant to assume traffic will not increase, yet we are finding ways to limit traffic flow.

Streets should be foremost for automobile traffic. Bicyclists on busy streets are a dangerous

addition.

Support the work to make streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians. Need particular focus around

schools.

Utilities should be undergrounded.

Within reason I support these types of initiatives although I am apprehensive that they go overboard

(i.e. - traffic bumps every 10 yards, random/unnecessary round-a-bouts, etc.).

you forgot apple pie

12

Sidewalk Conditions

Sidewalk Conditions – No Sidewalk on Either Side – Comment Themes

There were 122 write-in comments for this criterion.



Consider street usage and volumes (30)


Suggestions for language tweaks (7)

Sidewalks on one side is ok (6)

Decrease point values (3)

13

Enforcement (2)

Increase Point Values (1)

No Sidewalk on Either Side – Priority Value or Criterion Language Suggestions

Priorities should be given to sidewalks that can be completed along an entire block, instead of partial

sidewalks.

Priority should be given to existing sidewalks.

Let each neighborhood decide based on OPEN and TRANSPARENT and INCLUSIVE surveying

Particularly around schools. We live near and walk to Taylor elementary and there is a lot of traffic in

the morning. There should be a complete set of sidewalks as it is not safe for families who walk.

There should be a sidewalk on every street in this county. Frankly, I'm not sure how this questionnaire

works, because the sidewalk choices can only be one for any given street. Any non-existent, incomplete,

or compromised sidewalk should always take precedence. In this urban area, pedestrians should not be

forced into the street under any circumstances, unless perhaps it's a cul de sac..

Both this criterion and the "incomplete sidewalk" are safety issues as well as transit and liveability so

should have the highest marks.

This should be the highest priority if it is along any walk route to school.

Though further priority should be given based on potential route usage (to schools, shopping,

employment)

None of these four criteria relate to connectivity. A block with no sidewalk on either side, but that ends

on each side with 3-way intersections (i.e. a one-block street) is less important than one that has poor

conditions but is the "missing link" in a heavily-traveled pedestrian route that otherwise has good

facilities. Consider reducing the points for this and creating a 5th or 6th criterion that relates to

pedestiran volume and/or connectivity.

Unless a majority of neighbors object.

This largely depends on the potential of the street for walking trips and auto traffic volume. A cul-de-

sac does not need sidewalks. A through street near schools, transit, and/or retail should have sidewalks

on both sides.

Many neighborhood streets are perfectly safe for pedestrians without sidewalks, as long as drivers are

sufficiently coerced to slow down and pay attention. With high enough traffic volumes, it is most

efficient to build sidewalks.

This should be a top priority. I live on a street where children have to walk down the middle to get to

school, emergency vehicles have had trouble getting through, and other problems. It is an accident

waiting to happen.

Sidewalk Conditions – No Sidewalk on Either Side – Sampling of Comments

Sidewalks on 1 side is sufficient

I would suggest considering whether the street is heavily travelled by pedestrians and the extent to

which sidewalks would actually be used. Consideration should also be given to whether sidewalks

available one or two blocks over.

NO FACTOR should get more than 6 points; otherwise the Program is just disguised traffic calming,

NOT COMPLETE Streets

Depends on whether it's an arterial street. Would not recommend for side streets unless part of a

curb/gutter/drainage project.

Consider what else is surrounding the area. For example, if there is a bike trail, a sidewalk may be

unnecessary.

14

Especially important (1) if condition exists on just part of a block, and/or (2) if it's a school walk route.

safe streets & sidewalks.

if neighbors want it. on some very quiet street, it's not a priority.

I think safety should trump owners who don't want sidewalks!

This is absolutely critical. I live 1/2 mi. from Metro and many streets have no sidewalks.

Installation of sidewalks should not be at the discretion of property owners. I believe it to be a county

responsibility to see that every street has a sidewalk on at least one side.

No building permits issued without sidewalks.

of course you need sidewalks!

This is really important for kids walking to school

This is a serious and long running issue on certain streets, including my own (30th St. N.). Sidewalks

are fundamental to any 'complete street' program.

Arlington is full of walkers, bikers, and crazy A-type drivers. Sidewalks are a must for safety

Both this criterion and the "incomplete sidewalk" are safety issues as well as transit and liveability so

should have the highest marks.

Sidewalk Conditions – Incomplete Sidewalk on One Side of the Street - Write-In Comment Themes

There were a total of 54 write-in comments for this criterion.


Safety (13)

Prioritize based on street usage or volumes (5)

Sidewalks – support (10)

Sidewalks only on one side of the street is ok (12)

Sidewalk Conditions – Incomplete Sidewalk on One Side of the Street - Suggestions for Language Changes

No new comments; none that were different from suggestions for the “No sidewalk on Either Side of Street”

criterion.

Sidewalk Conditions – Incomplete Sidewalk on One Side of the Street - Sampling of Comments

This situation could be more hazardous than no sidewalks depending on width of street, zoning,

congestion, cut-through traffic, environmental issues, grade, etc.

While having a sidewalk on one side of the street is a start, in order to be truly pedestrian friendly and

safe, sidewalks must be maintained on both sides of the street.

Without sidewalks on both sides of street, walkers need to cross. Scary for those of us with kids

walking to and from school.

A sidewalk that suddenly ends will often cause pedestrians to jaywalk.

A street with incomplete sidewalk is no better than a street with no sidewalk. It's as useful as half filling

a long haul route airplane's fuel tank.

as long as a safe option exists on one side of the street

Best if complete, but okay if the other side of the street has a full sidewalk. Preferably with NO utility

poles obstructing passage.

If one side has a sidewalk, that is sufficient

15

Sidewalk Conditions – Complete Sidewalk on One Side But Too Narrow - Summary of Write-In Comment

Themes

There were 60 write-in comments for this criterion, including several suggestions for potential project

locations.

Safety (16)




Narrow sidewalks are sufficient (11)


Enforcement (7)

Preserve trees (1)


Sidewalk Conditions – Complete Sidewalk on One Side But Too Narrow - Suggestions for Language Changes

A narrow sidewalk is OK, an obstructed sidewalk is NOT. This is a poor question

a sidewalk should be useable.

A sidewalk that is not wide enough for a wheel chair or stroller should not "count" as a sidewalk at all.

Thefore, if a street has a sidewalk on only one side, and that sidewalk is too narrow, the street should get

the same priority as another street with no sidewalks.

Current sidewalk width do not consider older residential areas.

Sidewalk Conditions – Complete Sidewalk on One Side But Too Narrow - Sampling of Comments

Cyclists on sidewalks cause problems for pedestrians, particularly for seniors like me.

Depends on if on a major street

Depends on the pedestrian volume and importance of the street

Depends upon busy-ness of street and safety concerns. If there's a sidewalk, it should be safe.

Four feet wide seems wide enough to me.

I marked this lowest priority, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that it's important.

If there is a sidewalk, it needs to be suitable for wheelchair users.

If there is a sidewalk, it should be up to standards

Many citizens have objected to the widening of existing sidewalks on neighborhood streets. For one, this

often involves taking of what little front yards many residents have. It also reduces the area available for

setback, which can restrict the property owner's ability to renovate/add on to a structure. Existing

neighborhood street sidewalk width is often adequate and may even be wider than on some arterials.

Staff arbitrarily decided to adopt a wider standard for neighborhood streets than for some more heavily

traversed (pedestrian wise) streets. Adding to the pavement, increases the amount of

impermeable/impervious surface areas, making it harder to reach our responsibilities under the revised

Chesapeake Bay Act requirements.

16

Sidewalk Condition – Unobstructed sidewalk but no curb ramp - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes


Curb ramps are necessary to sidewalks (23)


Increase point values (4)

Safety (4)


Curb ramps are ok, not necessary (3)



Cost should be considered (2)


Suggestion for additional criterion (1)

Sidewalk Condition – Unobstructed sidewalk but no curb ramp - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Need to add sidewalk in disrepair. A big issue.

no curb ramps is really an obstructed sidewalk because its unusable to certain people. More points

should be assigned.

What's the difference between unobstructed and complete? What importance do curb ramps provide as

it pertains to sidewalk conditions?

Count driveway ramps when close to corners.

I would give this item a value of 6 points, not the proposed 2 points.

Sidewalk Condition – Unobstructed sidewalk but no curb ramp - Sampling of Comments

We need sidewalks but dont take away driving laes or parking.

Help out parents with strollers, wheelchairs, people with walkers and canes and crutches.

How many residents need the curb ramps? In my neighborhood, it's very very few

If there is a sidewalk, it needs to be suitable for wheelchair users.

17


Traffic Hazards & Safety – Existing of a Speeding Problem - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 103 write-in comments for this criterion and many suggestions for potential project locations.

Safety (16)


Speed Cushions – negative (13)

Enforcement would resolve most issues (5)






Traffic Hazards & Safety – Existing of a Speeding Problem - Suggestions for Language and Point Changes

Speeding should not be the only criteria. Some routes preferred by commuters seem to generate VERY

POOR driving behaviors as I watched 5 consecutive cars cross a double yellow line yesterday on Arl

Ridge Rd to pass a MetroBus at a stop.

Speeding should be weighted in part by traffic volume. Speeding alone, on a lightly traveled street is

less problematic than speeding on a heavily used residential street.

Near Schools and Parks highest concern

18

I would add reckless driving--that may, or may not, include speeding--but is equally dangerous (e.g.,

failure to fully stop at stop signs). Also, greater focus on residential neighborhood streets.

Speed is important, but so are sight lines and visibility. Consider adding criteria for hazard

identification that are not merely limited to speed.

The thresholds in the NTCP are too high and do not include other mitigating factors such as volume,

sightlines, commercial traffic use, etc.

What isn't on here and should be is the ongoing failure of drivers to honor ped right of way in marked

pedestrian crosswalks and at lights. This is a very urgent safety issue that needs to be addressed

especially around and in Fairlington..

Nowhere near as important as crashes caused by lighting and drainage issues.

Should be given much higher number of points. Ridiculous that speeding gets less points than sidewalks.

Please pay attention to high traffic streets that children use to access school, such as Lee Hwy.

Travel lanes need to be narrowed and other engineering solutions implemented to slow motorists down.

Any testing done of speed should be public and certainly available to the neighborhood. Criteria should

be clear and public and not manipulated.

How can it be that this survey has only 2 traffic hazard/safety criteria? This survey is inadequate with

respect to safety.

10 points seems excessive unless this program is just a disguise for the old traffic calming group.

Traffic Hazards & Safety – Existing of a Speeding Problem - Sampling of Comments

The residents of the neighborhood should have meaninful input on what will happen to their streets and

the county should be responsive to this input. Note: if stop signs don't always work, the ocassional

traffic ticket will reinforce their usefulness.

If cars speed on a particular street, even if traffic is light, that is a major problem

If there are no accidents, then the speed os mpt a problem and the posted speed is too low. With traffic

congestion so severe on major arteries, we should not allow the residents of alternative routes to demand

"traffic calming" devices to slow traffic on their own block.

Speding not a significant problem in most Arl. Neighborhoods.

Speeding in neighborhoods is NOT ok. Must be addressed.

Traffic calming is vastly overrated in value.

Traffic calming should be a high priority given that accidents over 35 miles per hour with pedestrian are

usually fatal.

Traffic Hazards & Safety – Reported Preventable Crashes - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 60 write-in comments for this criterion including several suggestions for potential project locations.





Sidewalks on one side is ok (6)

Safety (6)

Enforcement (3)


19


Cost should be weighted (2)


Traffic Hazards & Safety – Reported Preventable Crashes - Suggestions for Language Changes

A crash can happen for many reasons, one random crash doesn't indicate lack of safety

All motor vehicle collisions (whether between motarists, with non-motarists or objects) should be

considered a "crash".

Crashes not a significant problem in most Arl. Neighborhoods.

Depends what causes the accidents. If poor street conditions/infrastructure, then fix the streets, if

distracted driving or ignoring traffic laws, then consider driver education/remediation.

There should also be consideration for reported "near misses", as collected by the ACPD nonemergency

number.

This bothers me. Doesn't take into account near misses, which happen every day.

This is a flawed metric as many accidents go unreported.

Aren't all crashes preventable? Cars? Bikes? Pedestrians? Please define.

Do you mean vehicle/pedestrian crashes? or any crashes?

Highest priority should be given to accidents to pedestrians. I am not sure crashes alone captures that.

how do you define preventable?

How in the world would you determine this?

need more information on 'preventable'

Now THAT is up to interpretation. This just gets better and better!

Preventable by drivers' behavior changes or by improving existing street conditions?

Who determines 'preventable' - if you do it, all accidents should be reported and published although I

recognize that the County does not want to publish it because it could be a liability issue.

The concept of Preventable Crash is too subjective to use.

The County needs to do a better job of surveying and monitoring streets to determine areas of existing or

potential problems, rather than wait for a certain number of reportable accidents.

What exactly are preventable crashes?

There should be additional criteria in this area. What about pedestrian incidents? What about traffic jams

that create unsafe conditions for pedestrians to cross? What about areas where school buses experience

traffic danger? What about areas where parking patterns create safety hazards? What about areas that are

in close proximity to high-speed roadways? There are many more criteria that staff could use. Having

only two criteria in this category severely limits the definition of "Traffic Hazards and Safety"

This is ridiculously subjective. 99% of crashes are "preventable". This standard could be used to mess

up traffic because of a few poor/inattentive drivers.

This depends on the number of crashes and their severity.

This is a better metric than neighborhood opinion

This should depend on what the cause of the accidents was. I also think it is important to understand

who makes the determination that an accident was preventable and what criteria is used. and who

determines they were d

You should add a special category for intersections with fatalities, then consider injuries, then "crashes"

20

Traffic Hazards & Safety – Reported Preventable Crashes - Sampling of Comments

Four way stop signs, better traffic light timing, coordinated turn signals at each major intersection for all

directions will help move cars and keep drivers from taking cut-throughs into smaller neighborhoods.

At what cost. You can make it safe by posting cops, but at what cost

If there are preventable crashes at a location, it should be determined why they were preventable and

measures should be taken to eliminated those reasons.

Safety should be the highest priorty.

Speeding is common and getting worse on the street outside my development. Does the County know

this? I never see anyone being ticketed.

This should be a consideration but it's not that important. Sometimes, there are a host of issues that

cause those crashes and they should not get merit just because there have been accidents.

yes, by all means fix these type problems

21

Infrastructure Conditions

Infrastructure Conditions – Inadequate Street Lighting - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes



Safety (14)

Street Lighting – positive (12)

Street Lighting – negative (11)

LEDs – negative (11)

Desire definition of “inadequate” (11)





Infrastructure Conditions – Inadequate Street Lighting - Suggestions for Language and Point Changes

"inadequate" is fuzzy. Aren't there brightness measures?

Must be defined - what is "inadequate"

By whose standards? Some want nighttime daylight.

i hope there's an objective standard for 'inadequate lighting'

22

I'm torn on this one. Lighting is SO important for feeling safe, especially for women at night. The less

crowded an area is, the fewer pedestrians there are but the more the light is needed. If a street has

pedestrian traffic at all, it needs light. If it doesn't (just bikes/transit/cars), then this drops to a low

priority.

Inadequate lighting at an intersection or commercial driveway should take priority over other inadequate

lighting.

Priority to reduce light pollution also.

Streets going to Metro or major bus stops should have highest priority for lighting

Light pollution is more of a problem than so-called inadequate street lighting. The new LED lights are a

complete disaster.

Lighting is an important component of safety. Recommend 8 points.

Infrastructure Conditions – Inadequate Street Lighting - Sampling of Comments

The County is over lighting with LED lights producing extremely bright conditions in commercial

districts and unacceptably bright lighting in residential areas. Please turn down the light levels.

Absolutely!!! TOO many neighborhood streets are too dark, especially in residential areas, where it is

not always easy to see pedestrians walking around at night--often IN the street because there are no, or

inadequate, sidewalks.

Adequate lighting would be very helpful particularly with the poor condition of Arlington streets and all

the obstructions in the streets. There is a sidewalk bump-out in our neighborhood which protrudes will

into the intersection. There is no lighting nor even any reflection tape. It is very hard to see at night.

Visitors and cab drivers have to be warned.

Again, on small residential streets, too much public lighting looks too suburban and contributes to light

pollution

I think it's generally ok for it to be dark at night. We have too much light pollution!

Inadequate street lighting discourages every mode of travel except by personal vehicle. It is unsafe and

often encourages crime in the area.

lighting protects pedestrians, and it's easier to drive when you can see too!

Infrastructure Conditions – Street Drainage/Flooding Problems - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes


Safety (13)




Cost should be a consideration (1)

Infrastructure Conditions – Street Drainage/Flooding Problems - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

This needs to be more detailed or perhaps turned into tiers. I can see some drainage issues being 6

points in severity, while others would rate only a point or two.

Define "problem."

Depends on severity of drainage/flooding problems

23

flooding is relative. fix the worst first.

Drainage is good in my opinion.

Water retention should be the priority for almost all locations, not rapid drainage. Rapid drainage in

most locations aggravates flooding and pollution downstream. Pervious not impervious surfaces are

what is needed. Do your homework on this before making more plans to pave!

During inclement weather, this can be worse than inadequate street lighting.

Flooding causes problems for all travelers. This should be given a high priority.

Flooding damages residential property, decreases property values, and inhibits pedestrian activity.

It depends on how bad the problem is - take care of routes to schools first

Infrastructure Conditions – Street Drainage/Flooding Problems - Sampling of Comments

How much traffic is there on the street? Is it fiscally sound to dig up and regrade a street that sees

occasionally flooding?

Streets need concrete curbs! Areas with asphalt curbs/no curbs do not suffice.

In my 42 years in Arlington County I have not encourntered significant (nor indeed, since Four Miile

Run was fixed - any) drainage/flooding problems.

Unaddressed draining/flooding has a major short- and long-term impact on the condition of our streets,

sidewalks, neighborhoods, etc. The proliferation of construction projects that go unmonitored in terms of

run-off, construction traffic and its impact, poor landscaping/grading to prevent erosion, etc. is a

concern.

Only affects the area during certain times, but can be hazardous to all modes of travel.

Safety issue. Storm drains and street grading need to drain the travel surface. Where inflitration can

occur, raingardens should be used to reduce the storm water damage to streams. But, in providing

raingardens, canopy trees should be allowed and encouraged. it is silo thinking to only address SWM

issues adjacent to the street without also allowing trees to act as stormwater sponges, shade the

pavement, clean the air and add aesthetic character to the neighborhoods.

24

Pedestrian Attractors/Generators & Connectivity

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ¾ m of Metrorail Station - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes



¾ or Distance is too narrow – should be expanded (9)

¾ or Distance is too far – should be less (8)

25





Safety (1)

Consider Cost (1)

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ¾ m of Metrorail Station - Suggestions for Language Changes

ranking priority by distance to transit is meaningless in arlington - streets farther from the metro might

need highest priority because they DONT have other options and those nearest because of the volume of

pedestrians or the safety issues.

Should a sliding scale: 6 points for .5 miles, 4 points for 3/4 and 2 points for 1 mile radii

Sorry metro is no more important than the rest of arlington. If you want to use amount of pedestrian

traffic that is a better measure for urgence.

There should be even more points if it's less than 1/2 mile or 1/4 mile.

How about existence of nearby alternate routes?

How is distance calculated? As the crow flies?

Infrastructure improvements need to happen where all forms of transit occur. Recommend you up it to a

mile to accomodate those who use other forms of transit to get to metrorail (e.g., Columbia Pike, Wilson

Blvd west of Ballston, Glebe corridor, etc). May also want to include bus depots like Shirlington since it

functions like a metrorail. This should get more points in my opinion.

Should also take into account conditions that mitgate against it such as inadequate parking, or space

restrictions

Although complete streets would encourage use of Metro and make it more pleasant to get to a Metrorail

station, streets nearby Metro in Arlington tend to already be fairly "complete" (improvements could

always be made, of course). Might be more impactful to focus on streets by bus stops since the potential

to radically change those streets for the better is greater.

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ¾ m of Metrorail Station - Sampling of Comments

Please pay attention to areas with high potential for development, such as East Falls Church metro

The lack of sidewalks is a severe problem in south arlington where there are more pedestrians walking

to bus stops. This criteria will infuriate the civic associations south of 50.

Private sector has this covered.

we need pedestrian friendly areas near to metro for those who park and walk, and those who are in the

neighborhood

For the most part, these exist already and aren't the highest need.

Pedestrian Attractors – ½ m of Elementary, ¾ m of Secondary - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 78 write-in comments for this criterion and a few suggestions for potential project locations.


Distance is too narrow – should be expanded (8)


26


Safety (4)


¾ or Distance is too far – should be less (1)

Consider Cost (1)

Enforcement (1)

Pedestrian Attractors – ½ m of Elementary, ¾ m of Secondary - Suggestions for Language Changes

Barcroft students come from several miles away; besides many buses traverse Barcroft that serve other

schools; meaningless metric

Maybe consider awarding points proportional to route usage and distance. There is a cul-du-sac directly

across from Oakridge Elementary (just an example, I think the sidewalks are fine there) which should

not get a point bonus by proximity when it is not a route to the school.

More points should be awarded here to encourage complete streets that allow for children to walk or

bike to school.

Priority for pedestrian safety improvement consideration, but less for liveability or transit improvements.

Should be expanded to include the full walk-zone for each school (mile for elementary, etc) and higher

points (should have higher priority than bus stop because it's kids, including older ones walking on their

own or in groups)

Expand to 1 mile or 1.5 miles respectively given that bus transportation is only provided beyond these

distances. Our neighborhood children walk 1.49 miles to middle school. Include community centers in

this criterion.

How about existence of nearby alternate routes?

How is distance calculated?

Should also take into account conditions that mitgate against it such as inadequate parking, or space

restrictions

These distances should correspond to APS policy on "walk zones" -- one mile for ES, 1.5 for MS and

HS

This should not be measured "as the crow flies" but rather "as the child walks" If a street is 3/4 mile

from a secondary school, but across 395 or a golf course, then it's not a fair criterion. As well, there

should be extra points if it's on a route many kids actually use to get to school.

I would add more community services, such as Post Offices, to this criteria

I am single and have no children, so this is of little interest to me

my highest priorities would be places where kids walk

Pedestrian Attractors – ½ m of Elementary, ¾ m of Secondary - Sampling of Comments

Encouraging children to walk to school can have lifelong health and wellness benefits in addition to

reducing parking issues.

Critical, our most vulnerable citizens!

School Crossing guards are not enough? What about enforcing the school zone speed limit?

Kids, parents, teachers coming & going - high traffic areas and safety needs to be a priority

27

Pedestrian Attractors – School Bus Stop on the Street - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 42 write-in comments for this criterion and a few suggestions for potential project locations.






Safety (1)

Pedestrian Attractors – School Bus Stop on the Street - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Don't most important neighborhood streets have at least one school bus stop? This doesn't seem to

narrow down priorities.

Just put cameras on the buses and call it a day.

Kids in my neighborhood do fine without such "amenity." Waste of money- and too mud catering to

helicopter parents. NO

meaningless metric; many busses must traverse the same street in a neighborhood even if there are no

student stops

let the school board handle this.

This is a moving target and suggests a decision-making process that may be backwards. Rather that put

this criteria here, APS should consider where its bustop locations based on an assessment of the current

conditions of the proposed street locations.

Why are school bus stops located on streets with unsafe conditions in the first place. If safety problems

exist, isn't this something that APS should address.

Needs better definition. Some streets are really really long.

Nice goal, but this is probably a lot of streets! Should perhaps be within one-quarter mile of a stop, so as

to include cross streets.

or adjoining street. Higher points such as 12

Or ART or METRO

The points awarded here are far too low...a major aspect of complete streets is walkability and safety,

crucial characteristics for a bus stop location.

Pedestrian Attractors – School Bus Stop on the Street - Sampling of Comments

Bus stops can be moved. Schools cannot.

Safety begins at home, not s county responsibility

Students should be able to wait for the bus on a sidewalk- not on someone's driveway or in their yard.

We need designated stops for local streets that are well-marked for all to see and know, with signs that

indicated cars should slow down in those areas.

This should be addressed with sidewalks and reliable pedestrian crossings.

28

Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1/4 m of Transit Bus Stop - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 39 write-in comments for this criterion and a couple of suggestions for potential project locations.


Distance too far – should be decreased (2)






Safety (1)

Enforcement (1)

Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1/4 m of Transit Bus Stop - Suggestions for Language & Point Changes

Should be broken into categories based on bus frequency (or simply size of road), with more points for

higher frequency roads

This would include nearly my entire neighborhood (Aurora Highlands) and so would be meaningless in

terms of prioritization. 4 Points is also too high

ADA compliance at curbs

How is distance calculated?

highest priority should go to bus routes

I would argue that any sort of bus stop is a reason for greater concern. Buses stop on Quaker Lane and

speeding motorists come to a screeching halt all the time--no one should feel danger when

entering/exiting a bus.

More points should be awarded for projects that would benefit bus transit users.

these are lowest priority because they largely exist. Serve the taxpaying residents with good quality,

consistent sidewalks first.

100 yards maybe...

It depends on the number of residents actually served by the particular street.

Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1/4 m of Transit Bus Stop - Sampling of Comments

Important because a bus that can get out of the way is a bus that doesn't block car traffic.

This should be addressed with sidewalks and reliable pedestrian crossings.

Use of bus should be encouraged as alternative to car or metro

What are the environmental impacts????

29

Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1 m of Shopping, Hospital - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes








Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1 m of Shopping, Hospital - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Awarding 1 point for this category is absurd. Complete streets in and of themselves are not as useful

without the access for everyone to community resources and economic centers, otherwise the purpose of

complete streets is defeated. Improving complete streets around these centers creates a more livable and

economically strong city.

I'd give 4 points for a hospital but 1 for a shopping center

I'd separate these destinations and prioritize health care

One point seems low for health facilities; I would not rate these the same as for shopping/office centers.

should separate hospital/urgent care from shopping/office. Hospital/urgent care should be higher

priority and points.

these are lowest priority because they largely exist. Serve the taxpaying residents with good quality,

consistent sidewalks first.

Why does shopping get a large footprint than Metro? A higher percentage of people go to work, than go

to Nordstroms.

Again, add Post Office

Define shopping center? Officer Center? Two stores? 4 businesses?

How is distance calculated? What is the definition of a shopping center? Office Center? I would guess

that every area would have one of these within a mile depending on the method by which "within one

mile" is calculated.

If you need a hospital, odds are not good that you'll be able to trek a mile. Perhaps 1/2 mile is more

reasonable/appropriate?

This would cover a majority of roads in Arlington-overbroad.

Pedestrian Attractors – Within 1 m of Shopping, Hospital - Sampling of Comments

hospital and urgent care in particular! A traffic problem due to an unprepared problem can be life or

death near a hospital!

Do people walk one mile to the hospital these days?

Umm that's all of arlington

County responsibility

It depends on the number of residents actually served by the particular street.

If all this is implemented, the whole dang county will get overbuilt. What are you people up to? Leave

us ALONE

30

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ½ m of Park/Athletic Field - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes








Distance too narrow – should be increased (1)

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ½ m of Park/Athletic Field - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

A general comment on this whole section, why is there no effort made to assess the volume of

pedestrian and bike traffic as a factor in assigning points?

More points if closer or a main access route.

These facilities often have a lot of kids. I'd like to see them considered like schools to some extent.

Almost every street is within the milages listed here - what a silly metric!

How is distance calculated.

Why not a point for being half a mile from a bar? Since we're concerned about everyone's ability to get

to their idea of fun...

1 or 1.5 miles. FitArlington? Walk to school distance? See above.

Pedestrian Attractors – Within ½ m of Park/Athletic Field - Sampling of Comments

Again most of arlington

any public field needs good transit options and walkways for pedestrians who need access to the area.

traffic should be aware of these crosswalks and signs put up to notify drivers of potential pedestrian

traffic

Parks attract kids, families, pedestrians, bikers, drivers looking to park cars

Reduction of parking issues and an increase in facility use.

31

Mapped Bicycle Route

Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Route on Bikeway Map- Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 55 write-in comments for this criterion and a few recommendations for potential project locations.



Bike lanes – negative (6)


Safety (4)

Bike lanes – support (3)



Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Route on Bikeway Map - Suggestions for Language Changes

I give a LOT more weight to an official route than unofficial; maybe give them different sets of points.

Include Bike Boulevard designation!

Yes for official, no for "unofficial" whatever that means.

Clarify "unofficial"

32

Official Bicycle Routes are not necessarily the best routes to ride on. It would be better to look at

amount of bicycle traffic.

Is there no criteria for bicycle suitability - adding bike facilities where they aren't called for on the plan?

And is 3 points really enough for a street in the bike plan, especially if the bike plans haven't been

implemented? If a street is unreconstructed, and hasn't had planned bike facilities installed, this should

be a top priority

Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Route on Bikeway Map - Sampling of Comments

Are streets designated as "unofficial? bike routes? Wouldn't any route that wasn't official that is used by

one or more people on a recurring basis become an "unofficial" route?

All roads should be designated as bike routes - most people can't read a map

Focus should be on expanding and improving trails; as a daily biker, streets designed for cars will

NEVER be safe

If a bike trail is parallel to a potential bicycle route, the addition of such designate road/bicycle route is

duplicative. It makes the roadway too busy unnecessarily.

Not required as cyclists should just follow traffic laws.

Mapped Bicycle Route – Intersects with Multi-Use Trail- Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 27 write-in comments for this criterion with a couple of suggestions for potential project locations.





Cost should be considered (1)

Mapped Bicycle Route – Intersects with Multi-Use Trail - Suggestions for Language Changes

2 points for connects to, 1 for intersects with.

More points should be given to completing connectivity of trail dedicated to bike/multi-use trails.

Not enough cyclists to justify expense to tax payers

What is most needed here is improved lines of sight for motorists, cyclists AND pedestrians. Prohibit

parking within 30-50 feet of intersection, depending on vehicle speed limit. Consider moving existign

curb about half way into parking lane, the remaining half is needed to permit bikes to make safe turns on

and off roadway. ensure sufficiently wide apron for pedestrians and cyclists to share intersection.

This is far too low a priority ranking that will ensure bike facilities are overlooked in street

reconstruction

This is imperative! I'm currently riding with 4 lanes of car traffic on Wilson, or the "bike lane to

nowhere" on Carlin Springs, to get to Bluemont/W&OD. PLEASE PLEASE make this equal to an

official bicycle route points.

Mapped Bicycle Route – Intersects with Multi-Use Trail - Sampling of Comments

Depends on the trail. Some trails are more important than others.

33

Current infrastructure does not allow for easy transition between multi-use paths and streets. These

intersections are incredibly dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) and this is an opportunity for vast

improvement in multimodal travel in the area.

Improved signage on both trail and street prior to intersection of trail and street might improve things.

Not all drivers or bikers know where these intersections are.

On smaller local streets, signs can indicate bike usage, but to take away parking or give over a whole

lane for bikes is extreme, and just slows car traffic.

Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Intersects with Route on Bike Map- Summary of Write-In Comment Themes




Bike lanes - support (1)


Costs should be considered (1)

Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Intersects with Route on Bike Map - Suggestions for Language Changes

again useless designation without dedicated bike lanes on street

I find this category very confusing. As someone who rides a bike, I am highly in favor of having

dedicated bike lanes or trails that connect places I would want to go.

Too few points! A kack of trees carries twice the weight as extending the bike network?

Mapped Bicycle Route – Street Intersects with Route on Bike Map - Sampling of Comments

Lines of site continue to be the key consideration.

This would really help people with finding bicycle-friendly streets.

We do need a safe way for cyclists to connect to our wonderful system of bike paths. Local streets

should have wider, marked sidewalks to accommodate bikes and walkers

we need the system to be interconnected

We need to do more to protect cyclists from cars!

34


Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume above 1,000 - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 52 write-in comments for this criterion including several nominations for potential project

locations.



Safety (6)

Street usage and volumes should be a priority (2)


Sidewalks – positive (1)

Bike lanes – positive (1)


Enforcement (1)

Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume above 1,000 - Suggestions for Language Changes

Introducing a volume standard biases against streets where walking/biking take place. Vehicle volumes

correlate well with transit routes (which i don't see as an explicit criteria) and pavement conditions, both

of which are better standards to use

There should be points awarded for pedestrian and bycycle volume that are greater or equal to this

amount.

35

I think more points should go towards this than 2 or some adjustment by the number of blocks having

the higher volume involved in the project.

If daily volume is that high, priority should be given to creating an extra lane for cars not for bikes.

Bikes shouldn't be on such busy roads anyway.

Raise the number of points. More than 6.

Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume above 1,000 - Sampling of Comments

Do you mean a high traffic road is a positive or a negative? I would treat this as a high priority

detractor.

I would argue that the County should not rely solely on volume---that some streets (especially

residential) that have low volume (but heavy pedestrian use) are as important to address as major roads

that may have substantial vehicle traffic, but low pedestrian use.

For safety of all, not for faster travel. I am not in favor of improving streets so cars can go faster - that

adds to safety issues in my opinion. There are more crashes and injuries on 66 and 50 than there are on

the slower streets despite their improvements and lack of ped or bicycle interference.

If people live on double-yellow streets they cannot expect that they will be able to slow traffic or reduce

the number of cars who use that street. signage can help alert drivers to particular issues or trouble spots

Volume alone is not a bad thing

Volume is not a problem with adequate Illuminated & controlled crossings

Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume 500-1,000 - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 23 write-in comments for this criterion, including one suggestion for a potential project location.


Safety (3)

Street usage and volumes should be a priority (2)

Increase point volumes (1)

Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume 500-1,000 - Suggestions for Language Changes

eliminate this one and insert points for a large number of school bus round trips daily

Raise the number of points. More than 4.

Street Traffic Volumes – Daily volume 500-1,000 - Sampling of Comments

When volume is lower, danger is perceived to be lower; drivers are more likely to be distracted or speed.

these streets have the greatest potential to change (vs. 1000+ which could be a highway)

Volume is not a problem with adequate illiminated & controlled crossings

36

GLUP/Land Use Designation

GLUP – 1 to 10 Dwelling Units - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes


GLUP – 1 to 10 Dwelling Units - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Should this get any points, really? Why not just combine and make 1-15. Do we really have that many

areas that this creates a significant and distinguishable sample size?

redevelopment leads to funding. priority should go to stable neighborhoods where private sector

contributions unlikely

37

I don't think this should be set by dwelling density but by use of the streets either by vehicles or

pedestrians. Some low density areas may have many users of their streets for transit - or as a

destination, e.g. to access a park.

Consider other factors, proximity to schools/community centers, public transportation, commerce;

neighborhood long-range development plan.

Arlington is a crowded county, and will only get increasingly crowded over time. Any street with

residences on it should be prioritized.

GLUP – 1 to 10 Dwelling Units - Sampling of Comments

This series of questions is irrelevant to safety conditions, which is what should determine priorities.

Also, budget constraints could mean that granting more points for more dwellings will result in

problems in single family residential neighborhoods will be ignored across the board.

Street usage is more important than number of dwellings per acre



GLUP – 11 to 15 Dwelling Units - Suggestions for Language Changes

None


Response as given means it is a priority to consider the increased density, NOT to implement

where appropiate

unless near school



GLUP – 16 to 36 Dwelling Units - Suggestions for Language Changes

None


Would this really be a "neighborhood" street with this much density? I think not. And if this much

density is being added to a site, wouldn't the developer and/or property owner have some responsibility

under the site plan process for contributing to any or all necessary street improvements?

key issue here is whether there are enough indigenous parking spaces for the number of residents in the

dwelling

access largely exists for high volume/commercial locations--so this is a lesser need/priority



38

GLUP – 37 to 72 Dwelling Units - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

* Should be more points for highest density

GLUP - 37 to 72 Dwelling Units - Sampling of Comments


concentrate on where people/walkers are, with much higher priority

Exclude undevelopable land (parks, etc)

In commercial zoned areas, there needs to be more efficient use of the space.

GLUP – Commercial/Mixed Use - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes


GLUP – Commercial/Mixed Use - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Not appropriate for a so-called neighborhood program.

This should depend on the commercial density. 5 points for low density commercial, 10 for medium,

and 15 points for high.


expand to area around mixed use, for people who walk there, high priority

GLUP – Commercial/Mixed Use - Sampling of Comments

Developers should pay for this, not taxpayers.

Not applicable to warehouse/industrial areas

39


Other Opportunities – Paving in Disrepair - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 50 write-in comments for this criterion, including several nominations for potential project

locations.

Suggestion for additional criterion (4)



Other Opportunities – Paving in Disrepair - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Why is street paving only 2 points ? This should be your number ! priority!! A bicycle map gets 4

points, for Pete's sake

Other Opportunities – Paving in Disrepair - Sampling of Comments

All paving issues should be high priority. Our streets should not have pot holes or cracks and holes.

Assuming this means that the other improvement will be undertaken at the same time, with some sort of

cost sharing

40

I think this should be the first priority for any funds -- streets should be repaired before we even consider

making them part of a "complete streets program."

It makes economic sense to make all improvements at the same time.

POWER LINES should be moved underground; Arlingtonians have TOO MANY power outages.

Moving power lines underground should be a HIGH PRIORITY and done BEFORE any sidewalk or

street repairs/ enhancements to avoid building and destroying.

streets in disrepair is a safety issue

This makes sense only because it can make things more efficient (replace what you were about to repair

anyway).

This should be part of the regular street maintenance program.

Other Opportunities – Necessity for upgrade to water/sewer lines - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

There were 23 write-in comments for this criterion, including several nominations for potential project

locations.

Infrastructure maintenance should be separate program (3)


Consider costs (3)

Power lines/Utility undergrounding (2)

Water main breaks (2)

Other Opportunities – Necessity for upgrade to water/sewer lines - Suggestions for Language Changes

None.

Other Opportunities – Necessity for upgrade to water/sewer lines - Sampling of Comments

Again, there are no parameters given. Certainly, if water and sewer lines are failing, then the county has

a responsibility to repair/replace them. If other improvements are needed at the same time, it might make

sense to do all work at once IF THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THE ADDITIONAL WORK BEING

PROPOSED.

infrastructure needs to be modernized to prevent problems going forward. If a street is due for paving,

then work on those pipes at the same time.

Use this opportunity to install pervious pavement and other water retention opportunities!

I have more power problems than water problems. Why isn't power on here?

shouldn't this be planned separately and worked around?

street improvements often seem to be made and then get ripped up because of scheduled swer or water

lines. Better coordination seems warranted

Other Opportunities – Street Tree Canopy - Summary of Write-In Comment Themes


Support Existing Trees (6)

Support Adding Trees (5)

Safety (4)

Reduce Points (2)

41

Other Opportunities – Street Tree Canopy - Suggestions for Language or Point Changes

Requires long-term collaborative planning. The trees wont grow if other environmental concerns are not

addressed (run-off, erosion, chemical treatments, etc.)

Should be 1 point, not equivalent to a school bus stop on the street.

only include if to prevent removing trees

Other Opportunities – Street Tree Canopy - Sampling of Comments

Trees are great, plant more, but do not impede walkways. Use medians or traffic circles to add more

greenery, or other creative ways.

PLANT TREES PLEASE, with runoff diversion and retention.

We continue to urbanize in Arlington. Plant more trees to soften this mass building.

Re-forestation of our streets with high canopy native trees should be an absolute priority. Lots of tree

canopy has been lost in the last decade due to real estate developemnts

safety first, then we can later think of the trees and look.

Should be high priority for County to replenish tree canopy where possible.

Is presupposes that all tree canopy is good tree canopy. What does Dominion Power have to say about

this?

Why is this relevant?

Sometimes the improvement with trees takes away parking and makes it harder to navigate. South 23rd

St between Joyce and Inge--we got two trees, but lost a parking space. An easy alley entrance is now a

difficult entrance/exit.

Beats sidewalks - keeps the shade and stops us from looking like Baltimore.

This is a nice to have, not a criterion

Honestly, this becomes an issue of aesthetics; safety should take top priority. Those who plant trees are

planting them too close together without regard for root growth; these very quickly become huge

problems with branches blocking signage and roots disrupting pavement.

42

Additional Comments

A total of 279 respondents offered additional comments after completing the criteria ranking section.

Additional Comments- Summary of Write-In Comment Themes

Suggestions for additional criteria (57)

Survey – negative (50)


Nominations for specific project locations (19)

Safety (13)


Sidewalks – positive (10)

Enforcement (10)


Traffic calming- positive (7)

Street trees and aesthetics – positive (6)

Survey – positive (6)

Complete Streets Initiative – negative (5)

Traffic calming – negative (4)

Bike lanes – positive (4)

Consider costs (4)

Lighting – positive (3)

Street trees – negative (2)

Complete Streets Initiatives – positive (2)

Lighting – negative (1)

Sidewalks – negative (1)


Additional Comments - Suggestions for Additional Criteria

Actual use of the street by people, as opposed to planned use.

This is a very difficult task, I think -- trying to come up with a quantitative ranking measure that

prioritizes "complete streets" projects for funding. I do understand the preference for objectivity and the

"fairness" concerns served by objective criteria, but I really wonder whether any set of criteria can

usefully measure the need for complete streets projects. One measure I might consider using is the

typical urban measures of "walkability," since those with low "walkability indexes" suggest a need for

complete streets funding.

The lack of any points for measured pedestrian or bycycle volume is a glaring omission. Number and

quality of crosswalks should also be added. Pedestrian connectivity should be more emphasized than

pedestrian "density" which is what many of these criteria amount to. Add points where improvements

should *shorten* (not merely improve) ped/bike routes. Consider whether grade of the street (i.e. hills)

should be a factor.

43

Better connect priorities with high bike/ped demand areas based on analysis of land use/destinations.

Also look to create multimodal connectivity between bike/ped/transit.

Function, beauty and safety should be driving the criteria for the changes.

How about some cost-benefit analysis?

proximity of alternative routes to the same destination

Seems like it would make sense if there was something that tied priority to elements/policies in the

Master Transportation Plan.

speeding and lack of stop signs no places for pedestrians to cross without fear of getting run over must

have a criteria and high ranking

% of households with children

neighborhood demographics-singles, families, elderly

Number of students living a certain distance to a school or park.

Ability to cross roads safely (Presence of crosswalks & pedestrian signals), esp on busy roads

Above ground power lines that could be buried during work

Adequate lighting is my main concern.

Are there bike share (Capital Bikeshare) stations and/or shared vehicle (Zipcar) locations nearby?

Corner Intersections and Inadequate Parking Enforcement

Density of retail should be considered if it is not. Areas of high density should be given higher priority.

Volume of pedestrian and cyclist traffic should perhaps also be considered.

I didn't see anything that takes into consideration if an how many traffic lights there are or the number of

or how significant the intersections. Seems like this should be a consideration, especially if there is

going to be a change.

I think some criteria for street parking should be included.

I'm not sure what this would be called, but there should be something about distance between existing

crosswalks as well as lack of turn lanes and turn lights at intersections, either onto or off of major roads.

This is a major problem on Columbia Pike.

In general, there does not seem to be an points to improving the aesthetics of streets or the County.

There is also nothing about efforts that might lead to cleaner streets, reducing run-off from streets, or

improvement in parking (where street parking is necessary.)

Intersection safety - having great sidewalks and bike lanes is important but there are tons of dangerous

intersections in Arlington. Flooding issues are more important if they are also causing freezing issues

with the sidewalk. Good pedestrian paths should connect ALL neighborhoods (and that can be enhanced

by improving pedestrian conditions at intersections.

likihood of pollutants entering the waterways

Maybe some consideration of topography. Potholes and on-and-off bike lanes are more worrisome on

steep hills (e,g, Military Road) than on flats.

PARKING! We need more neighborhood street parking.

See individual comments above. Further to subject of drainage issues, the practice of building up layers

of resurfacing material on streets without curb and gutter creates drainage problems. For such streets

(and there may not be that many, an intelligent first step is to undertake serious milling to return these

streets closer to their original height before undertaking drainage improvements.

Some consideration of on-street parking patterns as they relate to bike lanes and crosswalks.

Temp parking near Metro should be included. Parking in Fairlington should be saved.

very most important criteria should be to make bus routes fully accessible

Water management issues are critical as the frozen water on the sidewalks and crosswalks makes it very

hazardous to walk to work.

Areas with little to no improvement history should be given prioritized.

44

Comments on Existing Criteria

What does population density have to do with projects?

Completeness of bicycle network. If a street is a missing link in the bike network, it needs to be

addresses sooner than others.

Pedestrian and/or Bicycle counts- you have car traffic counts, but nothing on highly used ped. or bike

usage.

Pedestrian volume, accidents/near accidents

Yes. Repair of curbs across the county not in need of repair? Low priority.

Priority should be given to highest traffic streets first.

Priority should be routing buses away from neighborhood streets and over to shared common areas

(major arterials or public lots); better street lighting; prompt pothole repair/repaving; enforcement of

sidealk ordinances. Thanks.

proximity to transit stops,metro, shopping centers shoud not be a factor as all neighborhodd streets

shoudl be treated equally regarding location

Safety of children walking to school should be highest priority - many streets within walking boundaries

have no sidewalks and parking on both sides of street.

Sidewalks and bike trails should form complete routes - focus on connector segments.

Yes--for bicycles, criteria/priority should be given to projects that get them OFF the sidewalks and onto

designated/dedicated street areas.

Getting bicycles off sider walks is a very high priority for me.

I am interested in adding speed tables in neighborhoods and keeping intersections unclogged

If streets are being improved this is a good opportunity to also underground utilities along that street.

Prioritize green-space/trees, maintaining/adding parking, free traffic flow. and TURN LANES (ex. along

Glebe)

Safety and pedistrian crossings inadequately covered

A point system is useful for prioritizing, but the residential community that is impacted must play an

important and meaningful role in the development of the plans for the road alterations. Their

suggestions should play an important and meaninful role in any final plan and not just condoned and

then ignored. Don't keep proposing "gold plated" solutions when simple changes can do the job.(e.g. the

million dollar bus stop). When it comes to traffic calming, enlarge your toolbox options--e.g. stop signs.

Bring back the "Arlington Way" and not be condescending.when dealing with the interested parties that

may not agree with you.

Additional Comments - Sampling of Comments

The county must adopt a consultative approach including all affected residents, not just those on the

target section of the street. The county should abandon the very rigid construction criteria in favor of a

more flexible approach that takes streets' residents' needs into consideration. We have many small

streets that don't need the "upgrade" which will destroy their individuality and charm. The advice of

civic associations should be important in ranking projects.

I appreciate what it attempting to be done here, I really do. But please, work on potholes, work on

ensuring the proper sidewalk, etc. These bicycling lanes, pushing cars- especially parked ones- further

in the street- do not seem to be helpful.

45

In terms of bike infrastructure, roads with room for true protected bike lanes (aka cycle tracks) should be

given highest priority. A safe cycle track network is *essential* to allowing biking to become a viable

alternative to driving. Bike lanes that put cyclists in between fast moving travel lanes and parked cars (ie

door zone) are better than nothing, but will not induce new riders onto the road as they do not create an

adequate perception of safety. You will find very few parents who are comfortable with their children

using traditional bike lanes. Arlington has recently completed projects that could have swapped the bike

and parking lanes to create a true cycle track, rather than placing cyclists just feet away from speeding

drivers (see Kirkwood Rd). This may interfere with bulbouts but cities across the world have found

solutions to this problem (e.g. ramps or tapered curbs) so Arlington can too.

The most important thing is that no project should automatically qualify just because it would have

under the old traffic calming guidelines or because of lack of sidewalks. Any potential project should be

required to have at least two, if not three, factors present before it could be considered. The NCSC

should be reconstituted with members that had NOTHING to do with the old traffic calming program.

Neighborhood approval should be required before any project could be recommended to the County

Board.

The most important thing is that no project should automatically qualify just because it would have

under the old traffic calming guidelines or because of lack of sidewalks. Any potential project should be

required to have at least two, if not three, factors present before it could be considered. The NCSC

should be reconstituted with members that had NOTHING to do with the old traffic calming program.

Neighborhood approval should be required before any project could be recommended to the County

Board.

Complete Streets should promote appropriate use of streets, i.e., minimize the ability of motarists to use

neighborhoods as "cut throughs", maximize effective drainage techniques, and limit light pollution

within neighborhood streets. Pedestrian walkways should be equipped with cameras to ticket drivers

who fail to honor pedestrian ROW in xwalks.

I want to see way more divisions between bike lanes and street lanes as has happened in South

Arlington. I didn't see any place to add this comment. This is a great town for biking but cars drive in

the bike lanes ALL the time. I also want to register that the block on Little Falls Rd between Ohio and

Nottingham is way too narrow. This a major thoroughfare at rush-hour and it is in front of a school.

The school sidewalk should be moved closer to the school and the road widened here.

NCSC should consider installing more 4 way Stop signs at more intersections. For instance, the one at

Barton and Pershing has been a great improvement. There could also be more along 9 St. North

between N. Cleveland to N. Danville.

Need to reassess lane widths. narrowing vehicle lanes to create bike lanes increases the risk of

vehicular accidents. Also, you need to devote some resources to enforcement of traffic laws by cyclists.

I have narrowly avoided being struck by cyclists both as a pedestrian and while driving a car, by cyclists

who are not obeying traffic laws and switch between riding in lanes or on sidewalks and pedestrian

crossings (including against traffics lights) with no notice or signal that they are switching.

perhaps street should be part of a "moderate" thoroughfare, a two-lane street that connects other, more

major thoroughfares

Please consider what you are doing to congestion and air quality by slowing down traffic to a crawl. We

need more space for cars, not less.

20 minutes later -

A formula does not aways work. In some cases it appears that Arl Cty ignores the site and how it is

used. The end result is that things are made worse, not better.

DRAFT: 10/26/14 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM

Introduction This Neighborhood Complete Streets (“NCS”) Program Guide describes the implementation of Arlington’s “Complete Streets” policy in Arlington’s residential neighborhoods. From 2007 – 2011, the County Board adopted various components of the County’s Master Transportation Plan (“MTP”). The MTP “Goals and Policies” adopted November 13, 2007,1 emphasizes “Complete Streets” as a central objective of the MTP. The Goals and Policies states that “Arlington’s policy is to use existing rights‐of‐way more efficiently through: integration of transportation and land use, and more effective integration and balancing of travel modes through the implementation of Complete Streets and [Transportation Demand Management/Transportation System Management].”2 What is a Complete Street? It is “a street designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.”3 What does a Complete Street look like? There is no single description for Complete Streets. Each is designed to fit its particular community’s needs. A complete street “may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, roundabouts, and more.”4 Arlington currently is developing Complete Streets projects on Columbia Pike and other arterial streets to improve safety and access for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists on non-commercial arterial streets as well as improve street aesthetics, storm water management, and bio-retention. This Program Guide addresses application of these policies to neighborhood streets.

1 Master Transportation Plan, Goals and Policies Summary, adopted November 11, 2007 (“Goals and Policies”). This document can be accessed on the County Government’s website under Department of Environmental Services/Projects and Planning/Capital Projects. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/environmentalservices/dot/planning

2 Goals and Policies at 4.

3 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq

4 Ibid.

Appendix A

Neighborhood Complete Streets Program [MONTH] __, 2014 (DRAFT: 10/26/14) Page 2

Chapter 1 of this Program Guide discusses the objectives and policies of the NCS Program. Chapter 2 discusses the implementation of the Program, including the process for developing and recommending NCS projects for consideration by the County Board.

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS

A “Complete Streets” policy “ensures that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind – including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and their riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”5 Hundreds of communities across the United States have adopted Complete Streets policies.6 Consistent with this evolving community-support approach, Arlington’s Complete Streets policy “is a commitment that all future transportation projects will take into account the needs of everyone using the road. Implementation of that policy is where the work truly begins. The day-to-day decisions a transportation agency and community leaders make in funding, planning, design, maintenance, and operations should be aligned to the goals of that adopted policy document.”7 As Arlington’s population continues to grow, transportation needs will grow as well.8 The 2011 Master Transportation Plan-Streets Element (“MTP-SE”) establishes a goal of accommodating projected transportation demand as of 2030 while limiting motor vehicle traffic growth to a five percent increase over 2005 levels. Achieving those goals will require substantial increases in non-automobile travel, principally public transit, carpooling, walking and bicycling.9 To enable greater use of non-automobile transportation, Arlington’s street network must become more accommodating of alternative modes of transportation.10 Arlington is committed to the safety and livability of its multi-functioning streets. Reflecting that commitment, the MTP-SE includes the Complete Streets policy in the design of streets in residential neighborhoods, as well as arterial streets that traverse residential neighborhoods.11

Complete Streets accommodate the transportation needs of all surface‐ transportation users, motorists, transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians; they are

5 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets.

6 Smart Growth America (“SGA”) and the Complete Streets Coalition (“NCSC”), “The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2012,” (“Best 2012 CS Policies”) at 3.

7 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/implementation.

8 Arlington Master Transportation Plan - Streets Element adopted February 12, 2011 (“MTP-SE”) at 8.

9 Id., at 8; See also, Arlington Master Transportation Plan ‐ Pedestrian Element –July 2008, at 22; SGA and NCSC, Best 2012 CS Policies,” at 5.

10 Arlington Master Transportation Plan ‐ Pedestrian Element –July 2008, at 22.

11 MTP-SE at 3.


also designed to support the type and character of planned/existing adjacent land uses. Complete Streets also promote environmental quality, enhance community identity and values, and respect historic resources, including neighborhoods and commercial areas. To understand the concept of Complete Streets, it is important to think beyond the roadway itself to its overall encompassing environment and potential uses.

Arlington has applied the underlying principles of Complete Streets in various County programs prior to formal adoption of the Complete Streets policy in the MTP. For example, programs such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTC);12 the Car-Free Diet; the Predictable, Alert and Lawful (PAL) initiative; Walk Arlington; and Bike Arlington, among others, all have elements that are included in the Complete Streets policy. This NCS Program Guide provides criteria and a process for identifying safety and livability problems. The Guide also includes a range of strategies to address problems, such as completion of missing elements of the residential street infrastructure to enhance pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle safety and convenience. The program will also promote education, safety, and enforcement campaigns along with a new, enhanced delivery process. The NCS Program will incorporate traffic calming, but as part of a broader approach to street design, in place of the previous NTC Program. Thus, the NCS Program will continue to address speeding problems on neighborhood streets, in part through use of the “toolbox” approved by the County under the former NTC Program. However, the NCS Program will consider broader concerns, criteria, and approaches. Program Goals: The NCS Program is intended to (1) make streets safe for all users of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and other users13 and (2) preserve or enhance

12 The County initiated the NTC Program In 1999, with the central goal of changing driver behavior and the culture of neighborhood street use from ʺcars firstʺ to ʺpeople first.ʺ The program relies on road modifications to slow traffic, including traffic circles, raised crosswalks, speed humps, turning and truck restrictions, and “nubs” (curb extensions) to address this goal. To date, Arlington has completed NTC projects on more than 70 streets. After-project studies have confirmed the traffic calming contribution to the complete streets purpose. The Arlington County Board eliminated funding for the NTC Program effective July 1, 2013, with the understanding that the NTC Program “will be incorporated into the County’s Complete Streets Program” with an expanded scope for the current Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee (NTCC). 13 “As public funding and private redevelopment provide opportunities, those streets should be upgraded to provide essential street functions such as safe and convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, emergency vehicles, and proper storm water management.” MTP-SE, p. 32.


neighborhood character and desired community attributes.14

The NCS Program Goals are derived from the MTP (MTP-SE, p. 2):

“Construct and manage streets to be ‘Complete Streets.’ Streets should be safe and comfortable for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists and other users.”

“Provide safe and convenient access on all streets.”

“Minimize rates of injuries and accidents for each mode of transportation with a goal that transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists feel safe and comfortable to all times when traveling in Arlington.”

Improved access, safety and livability in residential areas.

Support compliance with traffic laws while minimizing reliance on police resources.

Address residential traffic problems in a fair, consistent and comprehensive manner through application of uniform objective criteria.

The NCS Program implementation will be coordinated with other County complete streets programs to accomplish the objectives of the Master Transportation Plan. The NCSC will receive guidance from the County Board through a Board liaison and via the project approval and funding process.

CHAPTER II: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROCESS The NCS Program will have responsibility for (1) selecting streets for development of Complete Streets projects; (2) providing guidance to County Staff in the development of those projects; (3) facilitating communication between County Staff, project stakeholders and other interests, such as residents, neighborhood civic associations, and advisory groups in the development of projects; and (4) recommending those projects to the County Board for funding. In connection with its adoption of the NCS Program, the County Board has established a new citizen advisory group, the Neighborhood Complete Streets Commission (“NCSC”). The NCSC will (1) participate with County Staff and interested stakeholders in the selection, development, approval and implementation of NCS Projects, (2) make funding recommendations to the Board regarding particular NCS projects, and (3) participate with County Staff in developing neighborhood traffic safety education programs. The NCSC will also advise the Board with respect to the adoption, implementation and review of the NCS Program, as well as recommending new policies and strategies based on NCS Program experience and evolving best practices in other jurisdictions. The NCSC shall carry out the following functions:

14 “Preservation or enhancement of neighborhood character and desired community attributes should also be primary considerations in developing street projects.” MTP-SE, p. 27.


1. Provide advice and input to the County Board and County Staff with respect to

developing the NCS Program processes to be adopted by the County Board, including project selection criteria, project prioritization, public outreach to encourage participation, and public traffic safety education.

2. Provide advice to County Staff in connection with implementing the NCS Program

processes approved by the Board, including calls for new projects, and ongoing advice regarding developing and implementing NCS projects.

3. Participate with County Staff in administrating the ranking system used by the NCS

program to prioritize potential neighborhood complete streets projects. 4. Make funding recommendations to the County Board regarding proposed NCS Projects. 5. Participate with County Staff in developing neighborhood traffic safety education

programs such as the PAL (Predictable/Alert/Lawful) program. 6. Recommend new policies and strategies to the County Board based on NCS Program

experience and evolving best practices in other jurisdictions. The NCS process will include the following procedural steps:

County Staff receives requests and complaints, and evaluates and ranks streets for NCS Program consideration

NCSC select street(s) for developing projects based on the ranking and the availability of adequate financial and Staff resources

Communicate identified problems and preliminary range of potential project elements with stakeholders; consideration of their comments

Consider viable mitigation alternatives and determination of project limits and elements

Determine final proposed project elements

Define scope and process for stakeholder approval, if applicable

NCSC public funding hearing; NCSC submission of recommendations to the County Board for funding and construction

Project Engineering

Construction, and construction communication,

Post-operational evaluation


In July 2014, the County Board approved and incorporated certain elements of the former NTC Program into the NCS Program.15 The NTCC was tasked with developing the NCS Program, which will include traffic calming as a strategy. Thus, the new NCSC is the successor to the former NTCC.

The NCS program will focus on improved walking connectivity, upgrade of street crossings, (particularly within school walking zones), and modifying incomplete streets with an aim at changing motorist behavior to manage vehicular speeds and minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. This new program is intended to enhance the delivery/construction of sidewalk, curb, gutter, on-street parking, bus stops, landscaping, bio-retention, street lights, drainage, and curb ramp facilities on neighborhood streets within Arlington. The NCS program is also intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in residential neighborhoods, improve traveler safety and convenience, and provide for local access to residences and community resources.

The first step in the process will be to identify and evaluate neighborhood streets for program eligibility, and to assign those streets a ranking score to determine the priority in which they will be selected for project development. Problems such as missing, incomplete or inadequate sidewalks and street crossings, inadequate lighting, documented traffic speeding and other safety problems involving intersection sight lines and general visibility would fall within the scope of the program. The NCS Program process anticipates that requests will vary considerably in complexity and scope. Consequently, the specific process for development of each project will be tailored to the circumstances of that project. This Chapter sets forth in general terms the steps that such a project would ordinarily follow. The principal objectives of the process are to ensure that (1) safety issues have primacy; (2) evaluations and project rankings are based on objective criteria; (3) verifiable factual information supports all projects; (4) all affected stakeholders are made aware of potential projects and have an opportunity to provide input during project development; and (5) NCS resources are distributed throughout the County through a problem-severity ranking system based on consistently applied, objective criteria. In developing projects, the NCS Program will coordinate when appropriate with complementary programs, such as the Safe Routes to School program, BIKE Arlington, WALK Arlington, and Street Lighting. In addition, the NCS Program will work with appropriate County offices to disseminate information to the public regarding the NCS Program.

1. Project Initiation

Requests for evaluation of a particular neighborhood street for the Complete Streets Program can be initiated in a variety of ways. Residents can petition the Department of Environmental

15 The Board included in the NCS Program the definition of a “speeding problem” as defined in the NTC Program Manual, as well as the speed hump criteria.


Services Staff to evaluate a street for an NCS project. Alternatively, a civic association or a Board- or Manager-appointed advisory group may request a street evaluation. In addition, County Staff could initiate a project request based on, for example, the anticipated impact of construction of a new school.

Project scopes will vary. A project could involve one or a few contiguous blocks of a street. Alternatively, a project could be limited to a single intersection with poor sight-lines, unclear pedestrian crossing areas, or continual problems with stop sign running.

2. Project Prioritization

A numerical scoring system has been developed to prioritize Complete Streets requests for development. Each street for which a request has been submitted will be evaluated and scored by County Staff. The assigned score will affect the order of priority in which the street will be considered for project development and funding.

The scoring system is based on criteria relevant to the objectives of complete streets. Thus, such factors as traffic volume, pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, sidewalk widths and condition), bicycle access, and traffic safety (speeding, sight lines) will be evaluated. Appendix C sets forth the point system used to score project requests.

Streets will be ranked in accordance with the numerical score. The NCSC will select streets from the list for project development based on the availability of capital funding and Staff resources.16

3. Project Development

NCS Staff will coordinate project development in consultation with appropriate County Staff from other affected County programs, including emergency responders. The NCSC will monitor ongoing project status, and some individual NCS members will participate in the community engagement process.

4. Community Engagement

Community participation at appropriate points during the course of an NCS project will be integral to the success of the overall NCS program. As part of project identification, the County will make a public call for nominations that identify potential Neighborhood Complete Street project locations. These locations will then be investigated by staff for applicability to the NCS program. If applicable, staff will identify a preliminary project area and scope in order to rank all projects. The current project ranking will be posted publicly on the County’s website.

16 If the Police, the Fire Department, or DES personnel believe that a particular street condition presents a danger to the public, and a street design change is needed to eliminate or mitigate the danger, the NCS can recommend to the Board that a project be approved without a prior engagement process. In such cases, construction would proceed with advance notice to the neighborhood and consultation only to the extent consistent with the urgency of the situation.


Considering that project size, scope, complexity, and proposed elements will vary, it will be necessary to customize the public participation process for each project. Projects will be selected to move forward to plan development at an NCSC meeting, which are open to the public. At this point, staff will create a public participation process plan for each project selected, which will be reviewed by the NCSC. The goal of the plan is to identify the anticipated process to be followed during the progress of the project in order to consult with community stakeholders. This consultation will consist of obtaining community feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. The community can expect to be kept informed, for their concerns to be heard and acknowledged, and to receive information on how public input influenced the final decision/outcomes for the project. Community stakeholders involved in the consultation would include but not be limited to: immediate project area residents, external area residents, current and future users of the street and project amenities, businesses, local community activity centers, the commercial sector, non-profits, visitors (not applicable to all projects), other County departments, etc. At a minimum, the public participation process plan shall include:

Approximate project location

Identify community stakeholders/stakeholder groups

Identify the public process to be used to consult with community stakeholders in project design aspects; identify the points in the project when the community will be consulted with or notified regarding the project

Project timeline or estimate of length

Identify outreach mechanisms, methods, tactics for connecting with community stakeholders

Annually, or as appropriate, finalized NCS plans will be considered for funding. The NCSC will hold periodic funding sessions to formally vote on NCS project recommendations to the County Board. These meetings are also open to the public. In making a formal recommendation to the County Board to fund an NCS project, the NCSC will consider the results and feedback from the project’s public engagement process, including positions taken by neighborhood civic associations and individual street users, among others, either written or presented directly during the funding session. The NCSC’s decision to recommend a particular project to the Board for funding will not, however, be governed by the support or opposition of any given individual or organization.

5. Project Funding

The NCS Program anticipates capital funding support through a combination of Pay-Go and Bond funding for capital improvements, as well as budgeted funds for program administration. Other County Programs, including the Neighborhood Conservation (NC) program, also implement Complete Streets policies on neighborhood streets. However, the NCS Program is intended to focus specifically on projects to improve neighborhood street walking and biking connectivity


and street crossings, particularly within school walking zones, to manage vehicle speeds and to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts that would not normally be funded through the NC program. The activity level of the NCS Program will inevitably depend on the level of funding. In initiating and proceeding with development of individual projects, the NCSC will take into consideration whether available NCS or complementary program funding would support the potential cost of a given street project, recognizing that a precise cost project will not be possible without detailed review. The NCSC will hold periodic funding sessions to formally vote on NCS project recommendations to the County Board. These meetings will be open to the public. The evaluation point system discussed above is used to select projects and to prioritize projects based on objective criteria indicating need for a complete streets project; they are not funding points as such. In approving a recommendation to the County Board to fund an NCS projects, the NCS will consider community input, including positions taken by neighborhood civic associations and individual street users, among others, either written or presented directly during the funding session. The support or opposition of any given individual or organization will not, however, govern the NCSC’s decision whether to recommend a project to the Board.

6. Project Implementation

The NCSC will monitor the progress Staff’s implementation of Board-approved NCS projects and actual versus projected project costs.

7. Project Evaluation

Before-and-after studies are important for building a base of evidence for the effectiveness of the Complete Streets Program, allowing the County to target investment in Complete Streets projects based on effectiveness. The NTC Program measured changes in vehicle traffic speeds before and after implementation of traffic-calming projects. As a project is developed, the NCSC and Staff will develop metrics that can be used to evaluate that project. “Performance measures must be closely tied to planning goals: each must measure a relevant aspect of system performance. If the goal is to increase walking and bicycling or to improve safety for these modes, then performance measures should measure these outcomes.”17

17 Complete Streets: Best Policy And Implementation Practices, at 56.

COMPLETE STREETS PRIORITY RANKING GUIDELINES

I. Problem Identification/Basis for Qualification

A. Sidewalk Conditions:

No sidewalks on either side of street (12 points)

Incomplete sidewalk on one side of street (6 points)

Complete sidewalk on one side of street, but too narrow (less than four feet) or obstructed (up to 6 points based upon severity)

Unobstructed sidewalk on one side of street, but no curb ramp(s) (2 point)

B. Traffic Hazards & Safety:

Existence of a Speeding Problem as defined by the NTC Program Guide (10 points)

Reported preventable crash(es) within the past 48 months (10 points)

C. Infrastructure Conditions:

Inadequate Street Lighting (6 points)

Street drainage/flooding problems (6 points) ___________________________________________________________________ Score of Group I = Minimum Score Required to Qualify = 10 points

II. Environment and Street Utilization Considerations D. Pedestrian Attractors/Generators and Connectivity

Within three-quarters of a mile of Metrorail station (4 points)

Within one-half mile of elementary school, and three-quarters of a mile of secondary schools (4 points per school).

School bus stop on the street (2 points)

Within 1/4 mile of transit bus stop (4 points)

Within one mile of a shopping/office center, a hospital or an urgent care facility (1 point)

Within one-half mile of a park or athletic field (1 point)

E. Mapped Bicycle Route

Street designated as an Official or Unofficial Bicycle Route on the Arlington County Bikeway Map (3 points)

Street section intersects with or connects to a multi-use trail (2 points)

Street section intersects with a bicycle route , official or unofficial, on the Arlington Bikeway Map (1 point)

F. Street Traffic Volumes

Daily vehicle volume above 1,000 (2 points)

Daily vehicle volume between 500 and 1,000 (1 point)

G. Land Use / GLUP Designation

1 to 10 dwelling units per acre (2 points)




Commercial / mixed use (5 points)

H. Other Street Improvement Opportunities

Street paving in disrepair (2 points)

Necessity for upgrade to water or sewer lines in street(2 points)

Sparse street tree canopy (2 points) __________________________________________________________________ Score of Group 2 = Total Score =

Page 1

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking Criteria

This survey includes background information before the questions begin. Overall, it should take approximately 510 minutes to complete. Thank you, in advance, for sharing your thoughts.

Background Neighborhood Complete Streets Commission (NCSC) was established in July 2014 to advise the County Board on transforming Arlington’s neighborhood streets into ‘Complete Streets’ as described in the County’s Master Transportation Plan.

What are Complete Streets? Complete streets are streets intended for everyone, including: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. They make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work.

Members of the Neighborhood Complete Streets Commission, working with County staff, have been working to create a new Neighborhood Complete Streets (NCS) program to be administered by Arlington’s Division of Transportation.

Arlington currently is developing and implementing Complete Streets projects on some arterial streets to improve safety and access for all intended users on noncommercial arterial streets as well as improve street aesthetics, stormwater management, and bioretention (i.e. elements ranging from grass or planting strips to rain gardens). This new NCS program is intended to complement the current work on arterial streets and the Neighborhood Conservation program. A draft Program Guide has recently been completed by the NCSC to address the application of these policies to neighborhood streets. The NCSC intends to present the Program Guide to the County Board for approval in 2015.

Goals of the Neighborhood Complete Streets Program:

l Make streets safe for all users of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and other users; and l Preserve or enhance neighborhood character and desired community attributes.

Sample of Neighborhood Complete Street:

Background

What is this survey for?

Appendix B

Page 2

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaWhat is this survey for? A key element of the program and the NCSC is seeking feedback from the community on the prioritization of the ranking criteria that will be used to identify NCS projects.

This feedback will influence the NCSC and County staff as they work to create a final program guide that will ultimately be presented to and adopted by the County Board.

Following adoption of the Neighborhood Complete Streets Program Guide by the County Board, the program will kick off with a formal request of the public for nominations of problem street locations for project consideration.

Please rate your level of support for the following set of goals for the new Neighborhood Complete Streets Program. The following goals are stated in the County Board approved Master Transportation Plan.

Program Goals:

l Construct and manage streets to be "Complete Streets". Complete streets provide safe and convenient access for all modes of travel including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists and other users.

l Minimize rates of injuries and accidents for each mode of transportation with a goal that all users feel safe and comfortable at all times when traveling in Arlington.

l Improved access, safety and livability in residential areas. l Support compliance with traffic laws while minimizing reliance on police resources. l Address residential traffic problems in a fair, consistent and comprehensive manner

through application of uniform objective criteria.

Project Prioritization A numerical scoring system has been developed to prioritize Complete Streets requests for development. Each problem street location for which a request has been submitted will be evaluated and scored by County Staff. The assigned score will affect the order of priority in which the problem street location will be considered for project development and funding.

Below you will find the proposed point system to be used to score project requests. The NCSC would like your feedback on the criteria shown, and the relative point ratings. Responses will be used to consider whether they should be adjusted.

Neighborhood Complete Streets Program Goals

Fully Support Somewhat SupportNeither Support or

OpposeSomewhat Oppose Fully Oppose

NCS Program Goals nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Ranking Criteria

Comments regarding program goals

Other

Other

Page 3


Rate the criteria below on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest priority, and 1 being the lowest priority for the areas within a potential project street. Please also feel free to comment on the individual criterion or the proposed point allocations in parentheses.

Sidewalk Conditions


*

4 Highest Priority 3 Medium Priority 2 Some Priority 1 Lowest Priority Do not include

No sidewalks on either side of street (12 points)

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Comments

Incomplete sidewalk on one side of street (6 points)


Comments

Complete sidewalk on one side of street, but too narrow (less than four feet) or obstructed (up to 6 points based upon severity)


Comments

Unobstructed sidewalk on one side of street, but no curb ramp(s) (2 points)


Comments

*4 Highest Priority 3 Medium Priority 2 Some Priority 1 Lowest Priority Do not include

Existence of a speeding problem as defined by the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Guide (10 points)


Comments

Reported preventable crash(es) within the past 48 months (10 points)


Comments

Other

Page 4

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaInfrastructure Conditions *


Inadequate street lighting (6 points)


Comments

Street drainage/flooding problems (6 points)


Comments

Group II Environment and Street Utilization Considerations

Page 5


Rate the criteria below on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being most important, or highest priority, and 1 being of least importance or lowest priority. Please also feel free to comment on the individual criterion or the proposed point allocations in parentheses.

Pedestrian Attractors/Generators and Connectivity

*


Within threequarters of a mile of Metrorail station (4 points)


Comments

Within onehalf mile of elementary school, and threequarters of a mile of secondary schools (4 points per school).


Comments

School bus stop on the street (2 points)


Comments

Within 1/4 mile of transit bus stop (4 points)


Comments

Within one mile of a shopping/office center, a hospital or an urgent care facility (1 point)


Comments

Within onehalf mile of a park or athletic field (1 point)


Comments

Page 6

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaMapped Bicycle Route



Street designated as an official or unofficial bicycle route on the Arlington County Bikeway Map (3 points)


Comments

Street section intersects with or connects to a multiuse trail (2 points)


Comments

Street section intersects with a bicycle route, official or unofficial, on the Arlington County Bikeway Map (1 point)


Comments


Daily vehicle volume above 1,000 (2 points)


Comments

Daily vehicle volume between 500 and 1,000 (1 point)


Comments

Page 7

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaLand Use/General Land Use Plan Designation





Comments



Comments



Comments



Comments

Commercial / mixed use (5 points)


Comments


Street paving in disrepair (2 points)


Comments

Necessity for upgrade to water or sewer lines in street(2 points)


Comments

Sparse street tree canopy (2 points)


Comments

Additional Comments or Advice

Page 8

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaPlease share any additional comments you may have about the ranking criteria here. Is there any missing criteria or advice on what the NCSC should consider in ranking project nominations? (Click "Next" to go on)

The following demographic questions are optional. They are included in this survey as part of a larger effort by the Division of Transportation to assess its public outreach and engagement efforts and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Have you participated in Arlington County Government public processes before?

If you reside in Arlington, how many years have you lived here? If not, please skip to next question.

Where do you live?

In what ZIP code is your home located? (enter 5digit ZIP code; for example, 22219)

Demographics (optional)

6

Yes, frequently

nmlkj

Yes, occasionally

nmlkj

Yes, rarely

nmlkj

No, never

nmlkj

Apartment renter

nmlkj

Condo owner

nmlkj

Townhouse renter

nmlkj

Townhouse owner

nmlkj

Single family house renter

nmlkj

Single family house owner

nmlkj

Other (please specify)

nmlkj

Page 9

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaEmployment Status: Are you currently...?

Do you have a disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities)?

What is your gender?

What is your ethnicity? (Select all that apply)

Employed for wages

nmlkj

Selfemployed

nmlkj

A student

nmlkj

Military

nmlkj

Retired

nmlkj

Not working

nmlkj


nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj

Male

nmlkj

American Indian or Alaskan

gfedc

Asian or Pacific Islander

gfedc

Black or African American

gfedc

Hispanic or Latino

gfedc

White/Caucasian

gfedc


gfedc

Page 10

Neighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaNeighborhood Complete Streets Ranking CriteriaWhat is your age?

If you would like to view the current results of this survey, click here. Please be aware you have not submitted your survey yet remember to come back to click submit.

NCS Program Creation Updates

18 to 24

nmlkj

25 to 34

nmlkj

35 to 44

nmlkj

45 to 54

nmlkj

55 to 64

nmlkj

65 to 74

nmlkj

75 or older

nmlkj

NCSC Draft Report - Survey Results

Criteria Rankings and Weights

Draft

Report

Ranking

Draft

Report

Points

Allocation

Overall

Survey

Ranking

Overall

Weighted

Average

Criterion Name Criterion Category

1 12 1 3.55 No sidewalks on either side of street Sidewalk Conditions

2-3 10 3 3.26Reported preventable crash(es) within the past 48

monthsTraffic Hazards & Safety

2-3 10 5 3.22Existence of a speeding problem as defined by the NTC

Program GuideTraffic Hazards & Safety

4-6 6 8 3.09 Street drainage/flooding problems Infrastructure Conditions

4-6 6 9 3.02 Inadequate street lighting Infrastructure Conditions

4-6 6 13 2.85 Incomplete sidewalk on one side of street Sidewalk Conditions

7 6 (up to) 23 2.38Complete sidewalk on one side of street, but too narrow

or obstructedSidewalk Conditions

8-9 5 10 2.95 37-72 dwelling units per acre Land Use/GLUP Designation

8-9 5 12 2.9 Commercial/mixed use GLUP designation Land Use/GLUP Designation

10-13 4 7 3.13Within 1/2 mile of elementary school, and 3/4 mile of

secondary schools

Pedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity

10-13 4 11 2.92 Within 3/4 mile of Metrorail stationPedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity


10-13 4 20 2.59 Within 1/4 mile of transit bus stopPedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity

14-15 3 15 2.65Street designated as an official or unofficial bicycle route

on AC Bikeway MapMapped Bicycle Route


16-23 2 2 3.36 Street paving in disrepair Other Street Improvement Opportunities

16-23 2 4 3.24 Daily vehicle volume above 1,000 Street Traffic Volumes

16-23 2 6 3.18 Necessity for upgrade to water or sewer lines in street Other Street Improvement Opportunities

16-23 2 14 2.73 School bus stop on the streetPedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity

16-23 2 18 2.62 Sparse street tree canopy Other Street Improvement Opportunities

16-23 2 19 2.62Street section intersects with or connects to a multi-use

trailMapped Bicycle Route


16-23 2 27 2.13Unobstructed sidewalk on one side of street, but no curb

ramp(s)Sidewalk Conditions

24-27 1 16 2.65 Daily vehicle volume between 500-1000 Street Traffic Volumes

24-27 1 21 2.43Street section intersects with a bicycle route, official or

unofficial, on the AC Bikeway MapMapped Bicycle Route

24-27 1 22 2.38Within 1 mile of shopping/office center, a hospital or an

urgent care facility

Pedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity

24-27 1 24 2.37 Within 1/2 mile of a park or athletic fieldPedestrian Attractors/Generators and

Connectivity

14

2.73

Median Ranking

Median Overall Weighted

Average

Draft Report Group 1 (Top Tier)

Appendix C

Community Feedback Summary of Survey Results...20 2.38 Within 1 mile of shopping/office center, a hospital or an urgent care facility 2.38 Complete sidewalk on one side of street,

Documents