Moving Back Towards Complete Streets
Transportation Education SeriesOctober, 2013
Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview
Complete Streets Movement
Complete Streets Ordinances
Complete Street Implementation
The Complete Streets Movement
The Complete Streets Movement
The Complete Streets MovementThe Complete Streets Movement
National effort to design and operate the entire right-of-way network with all users in mind
Enhance livabilityProvide travel choicesPromote healthier communitiesSupport redevelopment and economic prosperity
Complete Street ObjectivesComplete Street Objectives
Ease congestion using available resourcesSafely accommodate all modes of travelMake the most of limited ROW and limited resources
Complete Streets Movement and Infrastructure StewardshipComplete Streets Movement and Infrastructure Stewardship
PlanningNetworks and destinations
Designing Details of dimension, alignment, materials, functions
BuildingFunding and executing the plan. Identifying needs and opportunities.
OperatingPutting things into motion to work efficiently and conveniently.
MaintainingSustaining durability. Standing up under use.
Con
vent
iona
l App
roac
h
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
Man
agem
ent
More Pavement
Mor
e La
nes
Mor
e R
oads
ITS
Mor
e C
ars
Traditional Street System DevelopmentTraditional Street System Development
7
Con
vent
iona
l App
roac
h
MoreEfficiency
Syst
em
Man
agem
ent
More Pavement
Mor
e La
nes
Mor
e R
oads
ITS
Mor
e C
ars
Complete Street System DevelopmentComplete Street System Development
8
Lateral Approach
User View and ComfortContext-Sensitive DesignTraffic CalmingPersonal Security
TransitBicyclingWalkingHOV/HOT Lanes
Complete StreetsComplete Streets
Complete Streets are streets for everyone.
They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users.
People of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across streets in a community, regardless of how they are traveling.
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 walkto and from train stations.
Source: National Complete Streets Coalition
Complete Streets OrdinancesComplete Streets Ordinances
Complete Streets Ordinance HistoryComplete Streets Ordinance History
1971 “Routine Accommodation” adopted by Oregon.1990 Americans with Disabilities Act1998 Transportation Equality Act for the 21st Century.2005 “Complete Streets” coined by the National Complete Streets Coalition. 2010, “…USDOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects.”To date, 500 city, county and state agencies have adopted complete streets policies.
Why Adopt a Complete Streets Policy/OrdinanceWhy Adopt a Complete Streets Policy/Ordinance
EndorsementTo change everyday transportation planning and design practice.To establish political and community support for change.
LongevityTo establish practices that endure change.To administer ongoing public works practices.
VisionTo express goals and aspirations
Guiding PrinciplesTo gradually create a complete network of streets for all modes.To apply solutions community- and system-wide.
Where Street Ordinances are HappeningWhere Street Ordinances are Happening
500 agencies have adopted complete street ordinances
34 state-level ordinances and policieshttp://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-state-policies.pdf
Cities with Complete Streets OrdinanceApproximately 60 large cities with population of >250,000 Approximately 54 mid-size cities with population of 100,000 to 250,00Approximately 90 small cities with population < 100.000
Source:http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-rural-2.pdf
Ordinance ContentOrdinance Content
“Whereas” = The Reasons for Actions
“Therefore” = The Actions to be Taken
“Whereas” Content = The Reason for Actions“Whereas” Content = The Reason for Actions
DefinitionWhereas, the Complete Streets concept is an initiative to design the public right-of-way to adequately accommodate all users of a corridor, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people with disabilities, the elderly, motorists, freight providers, emergency responders, utility providers, and adjacent land users; and….
Goals and BenefitsWhereas, a Complete Street approach will foster economic growth, prioritize safety, create greater connectivity between neighborhoods and amenities, meet the mobility needs of all users, be context sensitive and aesthetically pleasing, reduce traffic congestion and positively impact the health of the community; and….
“Whereas” continued“Whereas” continued
Approach/AdministrationWhereas, this Complete Streets Policy is written to empower and direct citizens, elected officials, government agencies, planners, engineers and architects to use an interdisciplinary approach to incorporate the needs of all users into design and construction of roadway projects; and….
Whereas, this policy dictates that appropriate accommodations be made so all modes of transportation can function safely and independently in current and future conditions. This approach demands careful multi-modal evaluation for all transportation corridors integrated with best management strategies for land use and transportation; and….
Support/Popularity of the ConceptWhereas, the City Engineering Division, the County Public Works Division, the City Office of Sustainability, the Light Gas & Water Utilities, Health Providers, Modal Advocates, Realtors Association, Emergency Service and Enforcement Providers, and private citizens endorse the development of this policy; and….
“Therefore” = The Actions to be Taken“Therefore” = The Actions to be Taken
VisionThe City shall create an attractive, vibrant public realm that supports the diverse qualities of our neighborhoods and provides a robust, balanced transportation network that is safe, financially responsible, serves all users, and considers multiple modes of transportation.
InstitutionalizationAll relevant departments, boards and commissions shall make this Complete Streets Policy an integral part of their planning and programming by reviewing plans, guides, regulations and standard drawings to comply with this ordinance.
Transportation infrastructure shall be planned, constructed, reconstructed, and maintained according to this ordinance, with routine consideration for the variety of users whom they serve and for the opportunities to provide multiple benefits (social, environmental, economic, and health), enhancing the function, appearance and livability of the community.
“Therefore” continued“Therefore” continued
Exclusions/ExceptionsAppropriate justifications for non-compliance with this Complete Streets Policy are:
Where prohibited by law, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities within interstate corridorsWhere compliance would substantially impair unique characteristics of great public value, such as historical importance.Where scarcity of population or other factors such as the physical character or context of the built environment surrounding the public right-of-way indicates an absence of current or future need.
Infrastructure Design GuidanceThe City Department of Engineering shall partner with relevant City, County, State, MPO and transit agencies to create a Street Design Manual for use in all City departments. The Street Design Guide will serve as a toolbox of design guidelines that reflect national Complete Streets best practices for sidewalks, shoulders, automobile lane widths, bicycle lanes, special transit lanes, curb ramps, audible crossing signals, crosswalks, median islands, curb extensions, transit stops, utility accommodations, site furniture, street trees, grass strips, etc.
“Therefore” continued“Therefore” continued
ImplementationIn order to implement this Complete Streets Policy, the City shall
Pursue additional planning efforts in collaboration with the County and MPO.Incorporate a project ranking matrix that complies with this Complete Street Policy into its annual CIP review process before the FY2014 CIP budget development.
PlanningIn order to assure that transportation decisions encourage and support a vision for optimal land-use throughout the City, the City should consider the following planning efforts within three years:
A comprehensive land-use planA complete streets Implementation Plan that will delineate and prioritize strategic transportation investments to build a transportation network that serves all users.
Ongoing Expectations and ResponsibilitiesOngoing Expectations and Responsibilities
Elected LeadersAuditors, Purchasing AgentsPublic Works AdministratorsPlannersCode EnforcementBudget/Funding AllocationStaffingInter-Agency Coordination/Cooperation
So what does a Complete Street Ordinance change?
Complete Street Implementation
Emerging Practices and ToolsEmerging Practices and Tools
Transportation System Plans (TSP)Project Prioritization MethodsHighway Capacity Manual’s Multimodal Level-of-Service (MMLOS)Highway Safety Manual (HSM)Lane Reductions (Road Diets)Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (NCHRP 562)State and City Complete Streets Design Guide
Transportation System Plans
Juneau Comprehensive PlanJuneau Comprehensive Plan
CHAPTER 4. TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND AMENITIES
POLICY 4.2. IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CBJ TO PROMOTE A BALANCED, WELL-INTEGRATED LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES SAFE, CONVENIENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT ACCESS AND FACILITATES THE MOVEMENT OF COMMODITIES.POLICY 4.3. IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CBJ TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO AUTOMOBILES AS A MEANS OF REDUCING CONGESTION AND AIR POLLUTION AND CONSERVING ENERGY.http://www.juneau.org/cddftp/compplan/Compplan_TOC.htm
Anchorage Metropolitan Transportation in 2035Anchorage Metropolitan Transportation in 2035
Summary of 2035 Transportation System NeedsInitial Road Project Screening ProcessPolicy Recommendations
http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/AMATS/Pages/2035MTP.aspx
Summary of 2035 Transportation System NeedsSummary of 2035 Transportation System Needs
“The capital improvements needed to meet the 2035 travel demands within the metropolitan area are listed in Table 5-9 for roads, Table 5-10 for public transportation , and Table 5-11 for non-motorized transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, and trail). The projects in these tables are not listed in priority order. The sum of the capital costs for these improvements exceeds $4 billion (in 2010 dollars).”
Initial Road Project Screening ProcessInitial Road Project Screening Process
“Because of the approximately $525 million shortfall in road project funding identified in Chapter 6, it was necessary to strategically pare the list of roadway projects originally identified as needed to meet the 2035 travel needs….Each future road project was scored by using the six criteria identified in Table 7-1.”
Project Screening CriteriaProject Screening Criteria
Page 7-5. 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Policy RecommendationsPolicy Recommendations
Comprehensive PlansFinancial IssuesPublic InvolvementTransportation SystemRoadsPublic TransportationNon-Motorized System
FreightRegional ConnectionsCongestion ManagementCoordination of Local PlansMaintenance and OperationsEnvironmental Concerns
Explore the feasibility of “Complete Streets” legislation at the state and/or local level.
-Page 8-12. 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation SystemFairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System
The FMATS Plan was adopted July 2010 and has the following chapters:
Plan Requirements and GoalsExisting Conditions (Mode-specific)Future Needs (Mode-specific)Regional Corridor AlternativesFreight PlanProject PrioritiesFinancial PlanAir-Quality Analysis
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service
Why Measure Level-of-ServiceWhy Measure Level-of-Service
Provides a consistent, systematic evaluation and documentation of conditions
Puts results in terms that transportation professionals and the public can understand
Provides an objective way to identify needs and prioritize improvements
Provides a way to evaluate different improvements and mitigations
What Does LOS Look Like for Each Mode?What Does LOS Look Like for Each Mode?
Uses of Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)Uses of Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Quantify operational tradeoffs among modes for a given streetscape feature or strategy
Help prioritize transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements
Assist and inform the public involvement process
Document compliance with Complete Streets directives
Highway Safety Manual
Road Diets
Reasons for Eliminating Traffic LanesReasons for Eliminating Traffic Lanes
CapacityThere is residual capacity. Time can be managed to create residual space.
SafetyMultiple lanes pose a threat or liability.Fewer lanes keep things simple and predictable
OpportunityRepurposing space can improve or expand benefits
CapacityCapacity
Lane UsageIntermittent DelaysMinor Cross Street Intersections and DrivewaysMajor Signalized Intersections
SafetySafety Highway Safety Manual CMF Clearinghouse Findings
Countermeasure CMF
Road diet (Convert 4-lane undivided road to 2-lanes plus turning lane) 29
Introduce TWLTL (two-way left turn lanes) on rural two lane roads 36
Introduce TWLTL (two-way left turn lanes) on rural two lane roads 35
Introduce TWLTL (two-way left turn lanes) on rural two lane roads 47
Narrow cross section (4 to 3 lanes with two way left-turn lane) 37
Narrow cross section (4 to 3 lanes with two way left-turn lane) 46
Narrow cross section (4 to 3 lanes with two way left-turn lane) 24
Narrow cross section (4 to 3 lanes with two way left-turn lane) 31
Narrow cross section (4 to 3 lanes with two way left-turn lane) 37
Crash Modification Factor (CMF) — produces an estimate of the percentage reduction in crashes due to a particular countermeasure. The factor can vary for different scenarios, such as for different traffic volume scenarios. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/resources_hsm.cfm
SafetySafety
OpportunitiesOpportunities
Technical ResourcesTechnical Resources
Road Diet Handbookhttp://www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf
Proven Safety Countermeasureshttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
NCHRP Report 562Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized CrossingsNCHRP Report 562Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
A systematic methodology that accounts for :Pedestrian crossing popularity (a minimum of 20 people crossing a street during an hour)Pedestrian crossing delay
Depending on the pedestrians’ delay, crossing opportunities are supported by:
Requiring traffic to stop (with a red signal or beacon indication)Enhancing the visibility of crossings (with static full-time features)Alerting drivers to the real-time presence of pedestrians (with features that are active only when pedestrians are present)
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf
Roadway Design
Professional Design GuideProfessional Design Guide
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. Released 9/23/13“A blueprint for the 21st century streetscape, the Urban Street Design Guidedemonstrates how streets of every size can be reimagined and reoriented as safe, sustainable public spaces for people walking, driving, biking, and taking transit. In cities, streets must serve multiple purposes, from storefront or doorstep to throughway. The Guide emphasizes the core principles for making urban streets great public places with an instrumental role in building communities.”http://nacto.org/2013/09/23/cities-release-new-guide-on-world-class-street-design/
ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach Released 3/10
“This report has been developed in response to widespread interest for improving both mobility choices and community character through a commitment to creating and enhancing walkable communities. Many agencies will work towards these goals using the concepts and principles in this report to ensure the users, community and other key factors are considered in the planning and design processes used to develop walkable urban thoroughfares”http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-036A-EX
State DOT Design GuidesState DOT Design Guides
FHWAhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/10julaug/03.cfmNorth Carolinahttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/wp-content/themes/CompleteStreets_Custom/pdfs/NCDOT-Complete-Streets-Planning-Design-Guidelines.pdfWashingtonhttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A49BBBE7-16BC-4ACE-AF2B-3C14066674C9/0/CompleteStreets_110811.pdfTennesseehttp://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeped/CompleteStreets.pdfGeorgiahttp://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/PoliciesManuals/roads/DesignPolicy/GDOT-DPM-Chap09.pdf
City Complete Street Design GuidesCity Complete Street Design Guides
Philadelphia 6/4/09http://philadelphiastreets.com/handbook.aspx
Chicago 4/13/13http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/future_projects_andconcepts/news/2013/mar/complete_streetsdesignguidelines.html
Bostonhttp://bostoncompletestreets.org/about/
Charlottehttp://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/transportation/plansprojects/pages/urban%20street%20design%20guidelines.aspx
San Franciscohttp://www.sfbetterstreets.org/why-better-streets/designing-complete-streets/
Tacomahttp://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/planning_and_development_services/planning_services/complete_street_design_guidelines_project/
Thank You!Thank You!
Questions & Discussion
Gary KatsionEmail: [email protected]: (907) 433-8101
Mike ColemanEmail: [email protected]: (503) 535-7420
Hermanus SteynEmail: [email protected]: (503) 535-7455
Questions & Discussion
Gary KatsionEmail: [email protected]: (907) 433-8101
Mike ColemanEmail: [email protected]: (503) 535-7420
Hermanus SteynEmail: [email protected]: (503) 535-7455
Pedestrian LOS: Model FactorsPedestrian LOS: Model Factors
LinkSidewalk presence and clear width (+)
Vehicle volume and speed in outside travel lane (–)
Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside vehicle lane widths (+)
Buffer presence and width (+)
On-street parking utilization (+)
IntersectionPermitted left turn, right-turn-on-red volumes (–)
Cross-street motor vehicle volumes and speeds (–)
Crossing length (–)
Average pedestrian delay (–)
Right-turn channelizing island presence (+)
Bicyclist LOS: Model FactorsBicyclist LOS: Model Factors
LinkBicycle lane, shoulder, and outside vehicle lane widths (+)
Vehicle volume and speed in outside travel lane (–)
Heavy vehicle percentage (–)
Pavement condition (+)
Bicycle lane presence (+)
On-street parking utilization (–)
Number of access points on right side (–)
IntersectionCross-street width (–)
Transit Passenger LOS: Model FactorsTransit Passenger LOS: Model Factors
Segment
Access to transit (pedestrian link LOS) (+)
Wait for transit (frequency) (-)
Riding transit (perceived travel time rate)
Excess wait time due to late bus/train arrival (–)
Actual bus travel speed (+)
Bus stop amenities (+)
On-board crowding (–)
Motorist LOS: ScoringMotorist LOS: Scoring
Vehicle LOS thresholds based on percent of free-flow speed
< 1.0 > 1.0> 85% A F
68% to 85% B F51% to 67% C F41% to 50% D F31% to 40% E F
< 30% F F
LOS by Critical V/CTravel Speed / Base Free Flow Speed
The critical volume‐to‐capacity ratio is based on the through movement in the analysis direction at the downstream intersection
Funding Prioritization
Slides from Hermanus’ presentation