Complete Streets - Cambridge SystematicsCOMPLETE STREETS PLANNING SNAPSHOT 6: NCHRP 8-36, Task 20 Complete Streets SEPTEMBER 015 Funded through the NCHRP 8-36 Research Series, these

COMPLETE STREETSPLANNING SNAPSHOT 6:

NCHRP 08-36, Task 120 – Complete Streets | 1

SEPTEMBER 2015Funded through the NCHRP 8-36 Research Series, these snapshots are designed to tell

you a little about the current state of a specific planning practice of interest today.

For more information about this NCHRP effort and to view additional snapshots please visit www.planningsnapshots.camsys.com.

Acknowledgment of Sponsorship This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08-36, Task 120, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.

Complete StreetsTo better understand how agencies currently are addressing and implementing Complete Streets, a survey of state DOTs and regional planning organizations was distributed on behalf of SCOP, AMPO, and NARC. 22 state DOTs, 17 MPOs, and 1 COG responded, providing the insights and information shared here.

State DOTMPO and Regional

COMPLETE STREETS IN IT IATIVES ARE INCREASINGLY COMMON: HOW IS YOUR COMPLETE STREETS APPROACH IMPLEMENTED?

88%of responding state DOTs and

83%of responding

regional agencies address Complete Streets in some way

6%

50%

22%

28%

28%

44%

17%

33%

36%

12%

40%

48%

16%

24%

52%

64%

State legislation

Informal policy/guidance

Other outreach

Training

Agency/government resolution

Project evaluation criteria

Design guidance

Formal policy

State DOTRegional

COMPLETE STREETS CONCEPTS ARE RELATIVELY NEW: HOW LONG HAS YOUR COMPLETE STREETS APPROACH BEEN IN PLACE?

1-5 years, 61% 5-10 years, 22% >10 years, 17%

PLANNING SNAPSHOT 6: COMPLETE STREETS

2 |

COMPLETE STREETS IN IT IATIVES ARISE FROM LEADERSHIP: WHAT PROMPTED DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR COMPLETE STREETS APPROACH?

9 ‘We identified walking as the second most common mode of travel in the State and realized that we needed to better facilitate travel by all modes’ – Michigan DOT

9 ‘Legislatively-appointed bike and pedestrian advisory board influenced and initiated our policy’ – Connecticut DOT

9 ‘State context sensitive design initiative and our selection as an FHWA Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program site’ – Metropolitan Council (MN)

9 ‘Combination of encouragement from state DOT and Department of Health and local interest in being prepared for potential state grant funding’ – Chelan Douglas Transportation Council

9 ‘Context Sensitive Solutions started our emphasis on the human environment and together with transit, MPO, and other community partners, we continue to develop and implement an integrated transportation approach’ – Utah DOT

9 ‘Included as scoring criteria in our long-range transportation plan. Strategies for the long-range plan include Complete Streets elements’ – Baltimore Metropolitan Council

9 ‘The Governor signed a law requiring the Department show how we complied and changed its procedures to institutionalize Complete Streets in the project development process’ – New York State DOT

9 ‘Design standards based on ADT and speed’

9 ‘Our approach requires that the roadway fits the context’

9 ‘Basically guidelines rather than prescriptive policy’

9 ‘A one size fits all approach would be burdensome and use resources inefficiently’

9 ‘Complete Streets policy allows for exceptions where:

» Population, travel, and attracters are scarce

» Environmental/social impacts outweigh need

» Safety would be compromised

» Total cost of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations excessively dispro-portionate to the need for the facility

» Purpose and scope of the specific project do not facilitate the provision of such accommodations

» Bicycle and pedestrian travel is prohibited by law’

COMPLETE STREETS ARE CONTEXT SENSIT IVE: HOW DOES YOUR COMPLETE STREETS APPROACH ALLOW FOR FLEXIB IL IT Y?

26%

70%

95%

94%

100%

100%

100%

Interstates

Principal Arterial (Other Expressways)

Principal Arterial(Other)

Minor Arterial

Major Collector

Minor Collector

Local

Which road types that you manage are included in your Complete Streets approach?

NCHRP 08-36, Task 120 – Complete Streets | 3

Incorporation into System Project and Planning Activities Incorporation into Funding Decisions

COMPLETE STREETS POLICIES INFLUENCE DECIS ION-MAKING AT ALL LEVELS: HOW ARE COMPLETE STREETS POLICIES INTEGRATED INTO THESE PROCESSES?

Project Design Activities

9 ‘Design criteria in our design manuals’

9 ‘Department has developed a Complete Streets Checklist. This checklist and related design guidance (Shared Lane Markings, Traffic Calming, etc.) are included in the Department’s Highway Design Manual’

9 ‘We have commissioned StreetPlan.net, a web-based, design dialog tool that helps communities design with Complete Streets in mind’

9 ‘Adopted the NACTO guidelines for urban street’

9 ‘Apply AASHTO and other national design guidelines’

9 ‘Context Sensitive Solution toolkit doesn’t include specific design guidance or standards, but includes direction on considerations for design and construction activities’

78%72%

67%

19%25%

Long-Range Plan Guidance

Short-RangeDecisions

Corridor Plans DesignatingComplete Streets

Routes

Other

58%

27%33%

Project Review and Evaluation

Prioritization Criteria Awardedfor Compliance

Other

System Project and Planning Activities

9 ‘Projects receive bonus points in project selection for including Complete Streets elements’

9 ‘Context Sensitive Solutions is a philosophy, the way we do business’

9 ‘Developed internal bicycle condition maps to identify where project could enhance bike routes’

9 ‘Integrated into our annual call for projects process. Complete Streets elements required as part of scoping and stakeholder engagement to ensure opportunities are considered prior to final design’

9 ‘Included in review letters of local land development applications (rezones, subdivisions, conditional use permits) and by member request’

Project Funding Decisions

9 ‘For our core systems, we have an asset management based process for directing funds. Our district offices provide project nominations based on their knowledge of location- specific needs’

9 ‘Used in Transportation Alternatives Program funding prioritization. Identified as a critical need for future updates to the LRP prioritization process’

9 ‘We attempt to consider the need for all users early in the planning for projects, so that if appropriate, the proper budget for projects can be developed early in planning’

9 ‘MPO policy will require Complete Streets approach on all federally funded projects, encourages on all others’

PLANNING SNAPSHOT 6: COMPLETE STREETS

4 |

WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU ENCOUNTERED IN ADVANCING COMPLETE STREETS?

DOES YOUR AGENCY T IE PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO COMPLETE STREETS?

IF YOUR AGENCY DOES NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESS COMPLETE STREETS, HAS YOUR AGENCY CONSIDERED A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY?

Example Measures

9 ‘Highway miles that accommodate bicyclists through wide shoulders or bike lanes’

9 ‘Level of Service standards for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit’

9 ‘Walkshed to grocery stores, public parks, public schools, transit stops, and medical facilities’

9 ‘Percentage of urban area roadway miles with sidewalks’

9 ‘Bicycling and walking mode share’

9 ‘Proportion and number of roadway injuries and fatalities by mode’

No, 67%

Yes, 33%

No, 50%Yes, 50%

State DOTs

Regional Agencies

Yes, currentlydeveloping, 33%

Considered but not

adopted, 17%

No, have notconsidered,

50%

9 ‘Addressing the funding implications during a time when funding is limited’

9 ‘Belief that this plan would bring additional burdens that would reduce economic competitiveness’

9 ‘Region is very slow growing and changes to existing streets rarely occur. When changes do occur they are usually federal aid projects’

9 ‘Challenge is making Complete Streets relevant for rural areas’

HOW ELSE IS YOUR AGENCY ADVANCING COMPLETE STREETS?

9 ‘Paved shoulder policy bicycle and pedestrian accommodation guidance’

9 ‘Bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan’

9 ‘State has formalized requirement to consider bike/ped facilities’

9 ‘Traffic studies include a range of potential bike/ped accommodations based on local bike/ped plans, crowd sourced bike utilization, and other related information’

NCHRP 08-36, Task 120 – Complete Streets | 5

COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION IS CREATIVE: WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT YOUR COMPLETE STREETS APPROACH?

9 ‘Early consultation with local agencies and citizens allows for unique solutions appropriate to the given context in planning, design, operations, or maintenance’

9 ‘Regionally sponsored, professionally facilitated Complete Streets Ordinance Workshops for cities. Periodic regional trainings on a variety of Complete Streets related topics’

9 ‘DOT has a goal of spending two percent of paving budget on expanding shoulders for bicyclists’

9 ‘Developed a check sheet process to assist projects and communities to evaluate alternatives that include biking and walking facilities as part of projects’

COMPLETE STREETS LENDS ITSELF TO PARTNERSHIPS: WHO HAVE YOU PARTNERED WITH TO IMPLEMENT COMPLETE STREETS APPROACHES?

9 ‘Working with health organizations, municipalities, state/federal funding sources (e.g., Safe Routes to School, Transportation Alternative Program)’

9 ‘Consult with local jurisdictions in the project development phase. Must include public outreach, meetings with stakeholders, and identification of community goals and priorities’

9 ‘We started a Complete Streets Coordination group with stakeholders’

9 ‘Overarching Complete Streets Policy has provided a mechanism for the Department to efficiently coordinate with tribal governments, local governments, Safe Routes to School, transit, health, and other state or federal agencies. Examples include: nonmotorized road and trail projects, incorporation of nonmotorized elements in construction projects, and leveraging grant funds from multiple funding sources’

9 ‘Department of Health Active Communities regional trainings’

9 ‘Work with Department of Public Instruction to provide driver education information to public and private high schools’

9 ‘Work with Department of Tourism to promote biking and walking opportunities’

9 ‘Partner with a statewide advocacy group on a campaign for motorist, bicyclist, and pedestrian safety education and outreach’

Source: Boston Redevelopment Authority.

For more information about this NCHRP effort and to view additional snapshots please visit www.planningsnapshots.camsys.com.

Acknowledgment of Sponsorship This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08‑36, Task 120, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.

SEPTEMBER 2015

WHAT IS YOUR AGENCY ’S BEST EX AMPLE OF AN IMPLEMENTED COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT? 9 ‘The U.S. 36 Reconstruction project between Boulder and Denver includes a BRT/carpool lane and a separated 18-mile bikeway. http://36commutingsolutions.org/us‑36‑projects/u‑s‑36‑bikeway/’

9 ‘The Virginia Capital Trail created a 52-mile shared-use path and turned an entire corridor into a Complete Streets facility: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/newcaptrail_welcome.asp’

9 ‘Cumberland County Carlisle Road Diet (Pennsylvania): http://www.dewberry.com/news/article/2011/11/02/dewberry‑s‑carlisle‑road‑diet‑wins‑project‑of‑the‑year’

9 ‘During construction of Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake County, UDOT built two lanes in each direction from Redwood Road. Initial construction includes frontage roads in each with signalized intersections, bike lanes, and trails. A biking and walking trail runs adjacent to the entire corridor. http://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/’

9 ‘The M-53/Van Dyke road diet with buffered bike lanes in Warren (just north of Detroit) is a collaboration between the city of Warren, South-East Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), MDOT, the Detroit Eastside Community Collaborative and the Eight Mile Boulevard Association: http://www.macombdaily.com/general‑news/20150114/funding‑approved‑for‑hikebike‑path‑along‑van‑dyke‑from‑detroit‑into‑warren’

9 ‘State Highway 35/Tower Ave project in Superior, Wisconsin includes roadway improvements that balance the historic appearance of the downtown as well as providing bike and pedestrian facilities’

9 ‘Town of Newmarket, New Hampshire recently finished a downtown Complete Streets revitalization project that is a good example of Complete Streets efforts in a small, rural community’

9 ‘Ingersoll Avenue (Des Moines) converts a four-lane road into one lane in each direction along with a center turn lane and a bike lane, which has improved safety by 30 percent from before the conversion’

9 ‘SR 305 Bainbridge Island Olympic Drive project (Washington); enhanced bicycle accommodations were incorporated into the design while reducing minimum vehicle lane widths’

OTHER LINKS FROM RESPONDENTS ABOUT EFFORTS/POLICIES: 9 ‘Montana DOT’s Context Sensitive Solution Guide: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/consulting/context‑sensitive‑solutions.shtml’

9 ‘Pennsylvania DOT LPN User’s Guide: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Intranet/PennDOT/lpnforms.nsf/0/83AFD7C3DF50E2C3852578CB0079D6F9/%24FILE/ LPN_User_Guide.pdf‘

9 ‘Florida DOT’s new Complete Streets web site at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/CSI’

9 ‘Wisconsin DOT’s rural highway paved shoulder policy: http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/fdm/11‑15.pdf ’

9 ‘New York State DOT Complete Streets: https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/completestreets’

9 ‘Compass of Southwest Idaho: http://www.compassidaho.org/documents/prodserv/reports/CSLOSReportFinalMarch.pdf’

9 ‘Virginia DOT: http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/bike_ped_policy.pdf ’

9 ‘Information about Minnesota DOT’s policy, including a technical memo, work plan, performance snapshot, scoping guidance, studies and research, and more is available at: http://www.mndot.gov/completestreets’