FHWA/AASHTO Peer Exchange on Adapting an Organization to Deliver Complete Streets November 16, 2011.

FHWA/AASHTO Peer Exchange on Adapting an Organization to Deliver

Complete StreetsNovember 16, 2011

Project Overview

Introduction Background and Purpose of the Peer Exchange

Complete Streets in Practice

Status of Legislation and Policies

Participants

Peer Exchange Activities Summary of Presentations and Discussion

Conclusions and Key Findings

Research and Training Needs

2

Background

The Complete Streets Peer Exchange was identified as a high priority by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) Planning Capacity Building Subcommittee.

Michigan DOT was a major catalyst. FHWA Office of Planning selected ICF International to

facilitate and document the peer exchange. The Peer Exchange was held on November 16, 2011.

3

Purpose of the Peer Exchange

Bring together state DOT representatives from states with enacted statewide Complete Streets legislation or executive policies and states without legislation.

Help participants understand how other states have developed, implemented, and enhanced their Complete Streets programs.

Identify key practices and methods for adapting organizations to implement statewide Complete Streets legislation.

Provide information to help expand the number of states with Complete Streets legislation and statewide policy.

4

Research and Preparation

Introduction: Complete Streets in Practice

There is no unified definition of a Complete Street.

Each road segment should be planned and built within the context of its surroundings.

Some common elements of Complete Street design include: Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks or crosswalks.

Bicycle infrastructure such as bicycle lanes or bicycle parking.

6

Coordinated transit facilities such as bus pull-outs or transit right of way.

Aesthetic and safety improvements, including landscaping, contrasting pavement colors, and signage.

Introduction: Roles of State, Regional, and Local Government in Complete Streets

States can take the lead role in delivering Complete Streets: Adopt statewide legislation.

Select Complete Streets projects for state funding.

Organize and train planning, engineering, and design staff.

Create design manuals and guidance.

Local governments can play an important role: Pass ordinances supportive of Complete Streets.

Select Complete Streets projects for municipal or county funding.

Adopt design manuals and/or guidance documents.

MPOs and transit agencies can also influence the delivery of Complete Streets.

Adopt regional or agency-wide policies and design guidance, incorporate complete streets principles in project funding.

7

Introduction: Overview of the Status of Complete Streets Legislation 15 states have enacted some form of Complete Streets

legislation.

10 additional states have put statewide Complete Streets policies, design guidelines, or administrative procedures in place.

8

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

102030405060708090

Total: 300

Number of U.S. Policies Adopted by Year

Several hundred local governments have enacted Complete Streets policies.

About the Peer Exchange: Participants and Recruitment Recruitment focused primarily on state DOTs.

Individuals from MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments were also invited.

Final participation included representatives from thirteen state DOTs, two MPOs, one local government, one transit authority, AASHTO, FHWA, and the office of the Secretary of US DOT. State DOT representation included:

Enacted Legislation: seven states

Executive Policy: two states

No Policy: four states and one MPO*

9

About the Peer Exchange: Participants and Recruitment

10

States with legislation: CO, MA, MD, MI, FL, WA

States with executive policy: DE, NJ

States without legislation: AL, AR, AZ, GA, KS

Other organizations: Baltimore Metro Council, WMATA, Arlington County

Participants

11

Name OrganizationDebra Alfonso Michigan DOT

Russell Anderson

Maryland State Highway Administration

Regina Aris Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Scott Bradley Minnesota DOT

Ned Codd Massachusetts DOT

Sheree Davis New Jersey DOT

Kristin Haldeman

Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

Betsy Jacobsen

Colorado DOT

Jessie Jones Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

Barry Kiedrowski

Maryland State Highway Administration

Dustin Kuzan Maryland State Highway Administration

Dennis Leach Arlington County, Virginia

Name Organization

Tom Maxwell Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham, Alabama

Daniel Pass Georgia DOT

Ralph Reeb Delaware DOT

Paula Reeves Washington State DOT

Byron Rushing Georgia DOT

Michael Sanders

Arizona DOT

Dennis Scott Florida DOT

Joel Skelley Kansas DOT

Matt Hardy AASHTO

James Cheatham

FHWA

Kenneth Petty FHWA

Lilly Shoup USDOT Office of the Secretary

Summary of Peer Exchange

Summary of Peer Exchange Activities: Presentations The intro session included an overview of Complete Streets.

Seven participants (1-2 per session) presented on activities in their states.

Statewide Complete Streets Legislation: Michigan DOT

Adapting the State DOT: Maryland DOT and Arizona DOT

Developing and Implementing Complete Streets Programs: Minnesota DOT and Washington DOT

Delivering Complete Streets: Florida DOT and Colorado DOT

Barbara McCann (NCSC) gave a keynote lunch presentation on the Complete Streets movement nationwide.

13

Summary of Peer Exchange Activities: Discussion Highlights

Session 1: Statewide Complete Streets Legislation

Participants gave accounts of how and why Complete Streets legislation was adopted in their states.

14

Participants discussed the roles of advocates and champions in their states. Key advocates and champions were:

Public health advocates

Legislators and public officials

Transit communityMaryland views Complete Streets as being safe, effective, reliable, accessible, and context sensitive.

Summary of Peer Exchange Activities: Discussion Highlights

Session 2: Adapting the State DOT

Participants discussed challenges with staffing roles and spheres of responsibility. Key challenges were:

Disagreement and different backgrounds leads to varied interests.

Liability is often noted as a problem with Complete Streets among resistant groups, which makes it challenging for supporters to gain momentum.

Timing and organizational change can be major roadblocks.

Participants offered potential solutions to others’ challenges with staffing and spheres of responsibility.

15

Summary of Peer Exchange Activities: Discussion Highlights

Session 3: Developing and Implementing Complete Streets Programs

Discussion included benefits of community design process, agency coordination, and CSS as a business model.

Participants discussed the role of transit in Complete Streets. Challenges for transit agencies include increasing transit ridership and

improving movement without degrading automobile access to roadways.

Paratransit costs are very high, so improving the fixed-route system is important.

Dedicated lanes pose challenges for bicyclists and bus drivers.

Transit needs to be involved in some aspects of the decisionmaking process because transit is a key component of the roadway.

16

Summary of Peer Exchange Activities: Discussion Highlights

Session 4: Delivering Complete Streets

DOTs have very different organizational structures.

Participants discussed their experience and challenges with regional design guidance and working with MPOs.

17

Local and regional policies are an important part of delivering Complete Streets, particularly in states without legislation.

Only $250,000 of the total $15,700,000 spent per mile to construct a roadway is allocated towards ADA compliance. Source: WSDOT

Conclusions and Findings

Conclusions and Key Findings

Get policy in place first. Legislation and executive policies are semi-permanent, thereby outlasting staff and administrative changes. This requires:

Building momentum: a growing list of interested people and organizations.

A legislative champion: someone who introduces the bill and pushes for its passage.

Favorable timing: good timing can come from a variety of sources, including a change in party control of the chamber; a growing economy; an interested governor or committee chair; a slow legislative session; or a spate of recent bicycle/pedestrian fatalities.

19

Conclusions and Key Findings

Adapt the organization. Changes to procedure or administrative structure can help introduce Complete Streets concepts into an organization that is entrenched in more conventional ways of thinking.

Design Smart. The most successful projects include new approaches to intersection design, safer crosswalks, landscaping and street trees, and pedestrian-scaled lighting. These projects also promote interaction between the street use and adjacent buildings, businesses, and other activities.

20

Conclusions and Key Findings Integrated design includes: involving transit in the

Complete Streets discussion; Context Sensitive planning; design that is appropriate for limited spaces; intergovernmental and interagency coordination.

21

TH 169, St. Peter, MN; Source: MnDOT State Route 14, Bingen, WA; Source: WSDOT

Conclusions and Key Findings

Collect data and measure performance. It has not been common practice to measure the performance of a street for all modes at the same time. Collecting data and measuring performance has three principal goals:

Tie project selection to goals: When planning agencies are armed with better data, they can develop and use more complete project selection criteria, which results in funded projects that are the most cost-effective at enhancing the agency’s goals.

Ensure Complete Streets level of service: To date, there have been relatively few attempts to measure the level of service for all modes on a street segment.

Demonstrate success to senior management: When performance measurement can prove the success of Complete Streets, it will gain support from senior managers and policy-makers.

22

Research and Training Needs

Unified design reference. There is a need for such a tool that can be adapted in different states/regions. The manual would:

Assemble common components/best practices from existing guides.

Identify a variety of design standards for Complete Streets infrastructure.

Help planners interact with engineers and contractors.

Performance measures. Complete Street professionals need a set of quantitative and qualitative performance measures to evaluate the merits of projects.

23

Research and Training Needs

Frameworks for data collection. Data collection must be cost effective, or it will be difficult to justify to senior managers. Data collection frameworks should be:

Easy to use with minimal training.

Interoperable statewide, if not nationally.

Capable of measuring all modes and should feed into a level of service framework.

24

Complete Streets in rural areas. Many participants—even those from states with major cities—expressed a need for research, materials, and training with an emphasis on small towns and rural areas.

Nearly half of Michigan’s most recent local Complete Streets policies are in rural areas or small cities.

Research and Training Needs

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the “Green Book”).

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach (ITE & CNU 2010).

Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO).

Model Design Manual for Living Streets (UCLA 2011).

Pedestrian & Bicycle Roadway Design – Safe, Smart and Defensible (Michigan DOT).

Saving Lives, Time, Money: Building Better Streets (CNU 2009).

Several design guides from states, MPOs, and local governments.

25

Put existing material to use. Complete Streets initiatives have generated a wide variety of research reports, guides, and other materials. Groups like FHWA, AASHTO, and NCSC act as clearinghouses for this information. Existing materials mentioned at the peer exchange include:

Thank you

Add presenter contact info