Complete Streets Working Group

January 30, 2017

Why are we doing this?• Clearly recognized public need for well-designed multi-

modal facilities• Connect with FDOT Complete Streets Implementation

including Complete Streets Handbook anticipated Dec 2017

• Provide local practitioners with tools calibrated to provide context-sensitive designs

Multimodal Typology

Context & Street Framework

Inventory of Standards and Design Guidance

Typical Sections &

Final Document

We are Here

Schedule & Process

Final Document & Presentations

Benefits of Complete Streets• Mobility• Health• Equity• Safety• Environment• Sustainability

Need• Dangerous By Design

• Florida ranks as the most dangerous state for pedestrians

• Disproportionate impacts on:• People of color• Low income individuals• Elderly

• Health impacts• Reliance on vehicles reduces physical activity• Local pollution harms those living closest to major

roadways

Safety Motive

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Flor

ida

Palm

Bea

ch

Pedestrian Fatality Trends

Palm Beach Florida

Data Source: Florida Department of Safety and Motor Vehicles

Safety Motive

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Flor

ida

Palm

Bea

ch

Bicycle Fatality Trends

Palm Beach Florida

Data Source: Florida Department of Safety and Motor Vehicles

Health Motive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Adults who are inactive orinsufficiently active (2013)

Adults who are overweight (2013) Adults who are sedentary (2013) Adults who meet aerobicrecommendations (2013)

% Comparisons of Health Indicators

Palm Beach FloridaData Source: Florida Department of Safety and Motor Vehicles

Resources Consulted• The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO Green Book)

• United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

• USDOT Achieving Multimodal Networks:Applying Design Flexibility & Reducing Conflicts

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

Urban Streets Design Guide• NACTO Urban Bicycleway Design Guide (2nd Edition)• NACTO Transit Streets Design Guide• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual

(PPM)• FDOT Florida Greenbook• FDOT Complete Streets Implementation Plan• Complete Streets Design Guidelines from Best Practice Jurisdictions• Palm Beach County Engineering Standards

Guidelines Outline1. Introduction2. Best Practices3. Multi-modal Street

Typology Framework4. Blended Typology

Approach and Design Guidance

5. Implementation and Actions

Street Typology

Street Typology

Street Typology

Street Typology

Street Realms

Pedestrian Realm

Lane Width

Lane Type FHWA Recommended Width

Rural

FHWA Recommended

Width Urban

Arterial 11-12’ 10-12’

Collector 10-12’ 10-12’

Local 9-12’ 9-12’

Lane Type Recommended Width

Through Lane 10’

Bus/Truck Lane 11’

Turn Lane 10’

Parking Lane 8’

Recommended Widths

FHWA Guidance

Bicycle Facilities• Cycle track (sometimes called separated

bicycle lane or protected bicycle lane)

Image Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

Bicycle Facilities• Raised cycle track

• Vertically separated• Typically are at an intermediate

level between the roadway and sidewalk

• May be at the same level as the sidewalk

• Curbing• May be conventional curbing or

mountable curbing

Image Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

Bicycle Facilities• Buffered bicycle lane

• Flush roadway surface

• Separated by pavement striping

• Contra-flow bicycle lane

• Allows for both directions of bicycle travel on a one-way street

Image Source: Boston Transportation Department

Bicycle FacilitiesElement Recommended Minimum

Lane Buffer Lane Buffer

Cycle Track 7’ 3’ (next to parked cars) 5’ 3’ (next to parked cars)

Two-way Cycle

Track12’ 3’ (next to parked cars) 8’ 3’ (next to parked cars)

Raised Cycle Track6.5’

1’ for vertical element

3’ (next to parked cars)5’

1’ for vertical element

3’ (next to parked cars)

Buffered Bicycle

Lane4’ 3’ 5’ 20”

Bicycle Lane 6’ n/a 4’ n/a

Contra-Flow

Bicycle Lane6’ 3’ 5’ 6”

Transit FacilitiesLane Type Minimum Width

Curb Lane 11’

Offset Lane (bulb-out stations) 10’

Dedicated Median lane 11’

Combined Bicycle/Bus Lane 12’

Curb Radii

Land Use ContextActual

Curb Radius

Effective

Curb Radius

(the vehicular

path)(2)

Minimum (1)

All intersection corners w/o vehicle

turns5’ N/A

Urban Core, Urban General 5’ 10’

Suburban, Rural Town 15’ 20’

Rural, Natural 30’ 35’

Maximum

All intersection corners w/o vehicle

turns5’ N/A

Urban Core, Urban General 20’ 25’ (3)

Suburban, Rural Town(4) 30’ 35’

Rural, Natural (5) 45’ 50’

(1) - Minimum is generally desirable except where

circumstances warrant wider curb radii.

(2) - Bicycle lanes and parking lanes may increase the

effective curb radius.

(3) - Effective curb radius may be increased to 30 feet in

urban core and urban general areas to accommodate a bus

or a truck along certain corridors.

(4) - Consider alternate strategies such as recessed stop bars

and mountable curbs in unusual situations where 30 feet

maximum actual curb radius cannot be met.

(5) - Where the potential for conflicts with pedestrians is high

and intersection geometry necessitates an effective radius

greater than 50 feet, evaluate installation of a channelized

right-turn lane with a pedestrian refuge island.

Curb RampLand Use

ContextMinimum Desired Maximum

Curb Ramp

WidthAll 4

Width of

Pedestrian

Walking Zone

Width of Sidewalk Realm

Curb Extension

WidthAll 4 8

Do not block an existing or potential

bicycle lane

Curb Extension

LengthAll

Width of

Curb Ramp20

As needed to improve pedestrian

visibility and prohibit parking near

intersection

Crossing

Refuge Island

Width

All 6 10 Width of Median

Summary Table – Urban CoreContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

Urban CorePedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 5 12 8 25 8 10 10 16 5 10

Constrained 1 10 5 16 5 10 9 6 20 25

Main

Connector

Target 4 10 6 20 8 10 10 16 5 10

Constrained 1 8 5 14 5 10 9 6 20 25

Community

Connector

Target 4 10 6 20 7.5 10 10 0 5 10

Constrained 1 6 4 11 4 10 9 0 20 25

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 1 6 5 12 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 5 10

Constrained 0 5 4 9 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 20 25

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Summary Table – Urban GeneralContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

Urban GeneralPedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 1 10 6 17 8 10 10 18 5 10

Constrained 1 8 5 14 5 10 9 6 20 25

Main

Connector

Target 1 8 6 15 8 10 10 16 5 10

Constrained 1 5 5 11 5 10 9 6 20 25

Community

Connector

Target 1 10 6 17 7.5 10 10 0 5 10

Constrained 1 5 4 10 4 10 9 0 20 25

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 1 6 5 12 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 5 10

Constrained 0 5 4 9 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 20 25

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Summary Table – SuburbanContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

SuburbanPedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 1 6 7 14 8 10 10 18 15 20

Constrained 1 5 4 10 5 10 9 6 30 35

Main

Connector

Target 1 8 7 16 8 10 10 16 15 20

Constrained 1 6 1 8 5 10 9 6 30 35

Community

Connector

Target 1 6 5 12 7.5 10 10 0 15 20

Constrained 1 6 1 8 4 10 9 0 30 35

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 1 5 4 10 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 15 20

Constrained 1 5 1 7 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 30 35

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Summary Table – Rural TownContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

Rural TownPedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 0 6 6 12 8 10 10 6 15 20

Constrained 0 5 5 10 5 10 9 4 30 35

Main

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 8 10 10 6 15 20

Constrained 0 6 0 6 5 10 9 6 30 35

Community

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 7.5 10 10 0 15 20

Constrained 0 6 2 8 4 10 9 0 30 35

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 0 5 5 10 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 15 20

Constrained 0 5 2 7 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 30 35

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Summary Table – RuralContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

RuralPedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 0 6 6 12 8 12 11 6 15 20

Constrained 0 5 5 10 6 11 10 4 30 35

Main

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 8 12 11 6 15 20

Constrained 0 6 0 6 6 10 10 6 30 35

Community

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 7.5 11 11 0 15 20

Constrained 0 6 2 8 6 10 9 0 30 35

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 0 5 5 10 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 15 20

Constrained 0 5 2 7 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 30 35

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Summary Table – NaturalContext-Sensitive

GuidanceAll Dimensions in Feet

NaturalPedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Intersection

Frontage

Zone

Pedestrian

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

Total

Width

Bicycle

Facility

Through

Lane

Turn

Lane

Center

Median

Curb Radii

(Actual)

Curb Radii

(Effective)

Major CorridorTarget 0 6 6 12 8 12 11 6 15 20

Constrained 0 5 5 10 5 11 10 4 30 35

Main

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 8 12 11 6 15 20

Constrained 0 6 0 6 5 10 10 6 30 35

Community

Connector

Target 0 6 6 12 7.5 11 11 0 15 20

Constrained 0 6 2 8 4 10 9 0 30 35

Neighborhood

Streets

Target 0 5 5 10 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 15 20

Constrained 0 5 2 7 n/a^ n/a* n/a 0 30 35

^ Neighborhood streets will typically provide shared lane markings to provide Bicycle accommodations* Per MUTCD Section 3B center line markings are only required on urban arterial and collectors with a traveled way of 20’ or more and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater

Traffic Calming• Center median islands• Neckdowns• Mid-block crosswalks• Speed tables• On-street parking• Curb extensions

Image Source: NACTO

Next Steps• Continue Content Development of the

Complete Streets Design Guidelines• Development of Draft Typical Sections • Submit Draft Documentation for Review • Next Meeting April 2017