Regional Complete Streets Study APPENDICES

Regional Complete Streets Study APPENDICES APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS CHECKLIST APPENDIX B: REFERENCES AND RESOURCES APPENDIX C: BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY APPENDIX D: DESIGN STANDARDS COMPARISONS APPENDIX E: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR COMPLETE STREETS COMPATIBILITY june 2012

APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS CHECKLIST The evaluation criteria outlined previously will be used to identify roadway facilities that would be most suitable for complete street treatments. In order to determine what types of complete street elements may be appropriate for a given roadway, the design checklist is provided to help prioritize individual treatments and further guide policy and funding decisions. This checklist can be used by developers and regional and local jurisdictions to identify suitable ways to incorporate complete street design into a project or roadway facility. The checklist will compile information on land use and context, existing and future operating conditions, adopted plans and policies, community, and safety of a given roadway facility. This information is then used to determine which elements may be suitable for that facility and give appropriate guidance on how these elements may be best accommodated. The checklist may also be used for roadway facilities not recognized as candidates for complete street treatments according to the evaluation criteria but may benefit from certain complete street elements. For these facilities, the checklist can provide guidance on how to best accommodate all users within that context. A 1 P age

Context and Function Land Use Context and Demand What are the predominant land uses in the area? What trip generators (existing and future) in the area that may attract walking, bicycling and transit users? Example generators may include parks, public facilities, educational institutions, high density land uses, downtowns, shopping areas, and medical centers among others. Resources may include local comprehensive plans, specific plans, and redevelopment plans. Facility Attributes What is the available right of way? How has the allocation of ROW been prioritized among the various modes? What existing challenges would the proposed project address for transit, bicycle and pedestrian access? Identify existing accommodations for transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Measure lane widths, available right of way for complete street improvements and other roadway design attributes. Identify existing challenges facing bicycles, pedestrians and transit users, including inconvenient lane configurations, fast vehicle speeds, lack of pedestrian crossings, narrow or missing sidewalks, and long signal cycles, among others. A 2 P age

Function What is the function, role and classification of the roadway in the transportation network? Identify the functional classification of the project. Identify the design vehicle, LOS standards, and role of the roadway. Functional classifications may include local, collector, or arterial. Identify truck routes in the project area. What pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections does the roadway provide? Identify major pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections provided by the roadway. Is the roadway the primary connection between destinations? Connectivity How is the facility connected to the surrounding transportation network? Analyze the street network surrounding the project area. Are surrounding streets well connected to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access? Crashes Is there a high amount of crossing activity that occurs? What is the accident history along the facility? Consult available Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) data to identify crash hot spots involving pedestrians, bicycles and transit. A 3 P age

In the project design, how have you considered crashes involving bicycles, pedestrians and transit along the facility? Resources consulted may include: Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) crash data, local police data, and history of complaints from pedestrians and bicyclists. Operations Transit Is the roadway on the existing or planned transit network? What connections are available to the larger transit network? What is the existing amount of transit activity along the roadway? What accommodations, if any, have been considered to enhance transit access in the project area? Work with RTC to identify existing and planned transit in the project area. Identify transit connections through the project area to major destinations in the area. Examples: peak frequency, span of service, ridership, capacity Examples: bus bulbs, bus shelters, streetscape improvements, real time bus arrival information, transit only lanes, and signal priority for transit. A 4 P age

Bicycling What existing or planned bicycle facilities are provided in the project area? What connections are available to the larger bike network? What accommodations, if any, have been considered to enhance bicycle access in the project area? Identify existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project area. Facilities may include bicycle paths, bicycles lanes, bicycle routes, bicycle parking, actuation at signals, and pavement markings. Identify bicycle connections through the project area to major destinations in the area. Examples: bicycle paths, bicycles lanes, bicycle routes, bicycle parking, actuation at signals, and pavement markings. Will the proposed project hinder bicycle movement? Examples: removal of roadway shoulder, narrowing curb lane, large corner radii, multiple right turn or left turn lanes, roadway widening, longer signal lengths, and elimination of bicycle facilities. Walking What existing or planned pedestrian facilities are provided in the project area? What is the existing and projected amount of pedestrian activity in the project area? Identify existing and planned pedestrian facilities in the project area. Is there a high level of pedestrian activity in the project area? Will future land uses and improvements support additional pedestrian activity? Is there latent demand for pedestrian facilities in the project area? A 5 P age

What accommodations, if any, have been considered to enhance bicycle access in the project area? Will the proposed project hinder pedestrians? Examples: sidewalks, crosswalks, bulb outs, street furnishings, pedestrian scaled lighting, and street trees/landscaping. Examples: roadway widening (increases pedestrian crossing distance), longer signal lengths, crosswalk removal, eliminating existing pedestrian facilities. Vehicles What are the existing and projected roadway volumes and capacity for vehicles? What is the vehicle speed of the roadway? Identify existing and projected roadway volumes and capacities for vehicles. If volume to capacity ratio is below 0.6, provide an explanation for why excess capacity is provided. A 6 P age

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES AND RESOURCES Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices Report on complete streets policies and practices. Created by the American Planning Association and the National Complete Streets Coalition. ISBN: 978 1 932364 83 5 (Note: Chapter 5 of this report is available online at http://www.completestreets.org/web docs/resources/cs bestpracticeschapter5.pdf) Great Streets Study and analysis of various street types and urban spaces that seeks to determine what makes a street great. Allan Jacobs ISBN: 978 0 262600 23 1 National Complete Streets Coalition Website A wealth of information on complete streets. Includes policy implementation guides, compiled facts relating to complete streets, and resources for further research. www.completestreets.org America Walks: Benefits of a Walkable Community Links to publications regarding the economic, physical health, and mental health benefits of walkable communities. http://www.americawalks.org/resourc es/benefitsofawalkablecommunity/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center Website Portal to useful information on promoting walking and cycling. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/ PBIC Case Study Compendium An extensive collection of short case studies covering pedestrian and bicycle projects in the United States and Canada. Published by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/down loads/pbic_case_study_compendium.p df Sample Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans Links to several pedestrian and bicycle plans at the state, regional, local, and site levels. A 7 P age

Pedestrian: http://www.walkinginfo.org/develop/s ample plans.cfm Bicycle: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/develop/ sample plans.cfm Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California Publication by the California Department of Transportation with design guidelines for making streets more accommodating to pedestrians and cyclists, including traffic calming. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/su rvey/pedestrian/tr_may0405.pdf Florida Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook Publication by the Florida Department of Transportation with design guidelines for pedestrian friendly facilities. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/su rvey/pedestrian/tr_may0405.pdf Pedestrian and Streetscape Guide An extensive pedestrian design toolkit. Sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.ga.us/travelingin georgia/bikepedestrian/documents/ped_st reetscape_guide_june05.pdf The National Center for Bicycling and Walking: Library Portal to publications on creating pedestrian and bicycle friendly places. http://www.bikewalk.org/library.php Creating Walkable Communities A guide for local governments Guidelines for creating walkable communities. Includes a section on planning specific issues: comprehensive plans, zoning, site plans and design review, and retrofitting existing areas. http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/ncbwp ubwalkablecomm.pdf Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission Complete Streets Checklist A checklist for project sponsors to check the project s adherence to the Complete Streets Policy. Includes a short list of possible design elements on p. 7 A 8 P age

http://www.morpc.org/trans/complet estreets_morpc_cs_checklistfinal201 0 03 31WithAppendices.pdf Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities Principles and guidelines for designing places amenable to pedestrians and cyclists. Includes case studies. http://ite.org/bookstore/rp036.pdf A Guide to Transit Friendly Streets A short article by the Project for Public Spaces with five strategies for creating transit friendly streets. http://www.pps.org/transitfriendlysts/ Project for Public Spaces: Transportation Articles Portal to a number of articles about placemaking on streets. http://www.pps.org/placemaking/artic les/transportation articles/ Transit Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities, Chapter 2 Ideas on how to create transit friendly streets. Published by the Transportation Research Board. http://www.contextsensitivesolutions. org/content/reading/transit friendly streets 2/resources/transit friendly streets 2/ ContextSensitiveSolutions.org: Publications A library of literature regarding context sensitive solutions (an approach to transportation similar to complete streets). http://www.contextsensitivesolutions. org/content/reading/?rtype=p Main Streets: Flexibility in Design and Operations Design guidelines for creating streets that are more amenable to alternate modes of transportation, especially pedestrian. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/cont ext/main streets flexibility indesign.pdf A 9 P age

City of Tacoma: Complete Streets Design Guidelines Project Tacoma, Washington s web page for their complete street program. Includes guidelines for mixed use centers and residential areas. Contains several diagrams and photos. Main Page: http://www.cityoftacoma.org/page.as px?hid=11665 Mixed Use Guidelines: http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/ CompleteStreets/MUC_CS_Final.pdf provide some ideas for the implementation of RTC s plan. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices /ocp/complete_streets_files/complete Streets_IP03 10 10.pdf National Complete Streets Coalition: Implementation FAQ Information to aid in the implementation of a complete streets program. http://www.completestreets.org/chan ging policy/implementation faq/#css Residential Guidelines: http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/ CompleteStreets/Res_CS_Final.pdf Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan Caltrans plan for the implementation of its complete streets program. May A 10 P age

Document 1 America Walks: Benefits of a Walkable Community 2.1 City of Tacoma: Complete Streets Design Guidelines Project, Mixed Use 2.2 City of Tacoma: Complete Streets Design Guidelines Project, Residential 3 Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices 4 Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan 5 Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares 6 ContextSensitiveSolutions.org: Publications 7 Creating Walkable Communities A guide for local governments 8 Florida Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook Sources http://www.americawalks.org/resources/benefitsofawalkablecommunity/ http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/completestreets/muc_cs_final.pdf http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/completestreets/res_cs_final.pdf ISBN: 978-1-932364-83-5 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets_files/completestreets_ip03 10 10.pdf http://ite.org/bookstore/rp036.pdf http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/?rtype=p http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/ncbwpubwalkablecomm.pdf http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/florida%20pedestrian%20facilities%20planning %20and%20Design%20Handbook.pdf A 11 P age

9 Great Streets ISBN: 978-0-262600-23-1 10 Guide to Transit-Friendly Streets 11 Main Streets: Flexibility in Design and Operations 12 Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Complete Streets Checklist 13 National Center for Bicycling and Walking: Library 14 National Complete Streets Coalition Website 15 National Complete Streets Coalition: Implementation FAQ 16 PBIC Case Study Compendium 17 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California 18 Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center Website 19 Pedestrian and Streetscape Guide http://www.pps.org/transitfriendlysts/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/context/main streets flexibility in design.pdf http://www.morpc.org/trans/completestreets_morpc_cs_checklistfinal2010 03 31WithAppendices.pdf http://www.bikewalk.org/library.php www.completestreets.org http://www.completestreets.org/changing policy/implementation faq/#css http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/pbic_case_study_compendium.pdf http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/tr_may0405.pdf http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/ http://www.dot.state.ga.us/travelingingeorgia/bikepedestrian/documents/ped_streetscape_guide_june05.pdf A 12 P age

20 Planning and Designing for Pedestrians 21 Project for Public Spaces: Transportation Articles http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_713_3269.pdf http://www.pps.org/placemaking/articles/transportation articles/ 22. 1 22. 2 Sample Pedestrian Plans Sample Bicycle Plans http://www.walkinginfo.org/develop/sample plans.cfm http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/develop/sample plans.cfm 23 Transit-Friendly Streets http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/transit friendly streets 2/resources/transit friendly streets 2/ 24 Knoxville Regional TPO Complete Street Guidelines 25 Louisville Complete Streets Manual 26 East-West Gateway Digital Design Guide http://www.knoxtrans.org/plans/complete_streets/guidelines.pdf http://services.louisvilleky.gov/media/complete_streets/complete_streets_manual.pdf http://www.greatstreets stl.org/index.php A 13 P age

TABLE A2 References by Topic Documents 1 10 DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Design Guidelines* L 13-56 7-34, 41-44 30, 33-34, 79-99 55-185 L 21-77 42-179 270-289, 291-297, 298-303, 304-307 X Sense of Place 8-9 277-281, 295-297, 306-307 Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) G ADA 24-25 9-10 42 146 16, 28, 30 42-47 X Traffic Calming 49, 55 11-12, 14-16, 41-44 19, 70-75 115-116, 127-141 X Streetscape 15-18, 50-56 12, 18-21, 28-29 89, 98, 99 95-112 21, 59-65, 77 49-55, 163-165 293-295, 298-301 X Sidewalks 15-17 G G 59-65 49-55 X Vegetation 50-56 12, 18-21, 28-29 89, 98, 99 G 64-65 293-295 Furniture 62 18 89 57, 95, 108-163- 165 298-301 X A 14 P age

DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Shelters 97 G 62, 77 109 Funding 68-70 39, 53, 70, 72, 75-76, 102 9 G 13-15 Federal 68 39, 53, 72 13 State 69-70 13-14 Local 68-69 72, 75-76 14-15 Private Ordinances 6 37-38 203, 210 88-100 Zoning 203 89-100 Comprehensive Plan 6 37-38 88-89 Supportive Land Use G 86 203 7-8, 89, 98-100, 105 303-304 Density G G 7-8, 105 303-304 A 15 P age

DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixed Use G 86 G 89 304 Housing G Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) G 98-100 Maintenance G 40-41 G 65-69, 86 54, 81, 102, 104 289-291 Funding 68-70 Responsibility 40-41 66 54 Programming 40-41 69, 86 54 Policy 60, 75 59-60 39-40, 53, 82, 83-84, 102-104 9, 12-21 94-96 Federal State 83-84 9, 12-21 Regional 39, 53, 82 Local 60, 75 59-60 A 16 P age

DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Travel Modes 23, 24, 41-46 9-12 25, 27, 61-62, 88-90, 96-97 124-130, 140-148, 169-171, 175-179 19, 34-36, 61, 75-77 20-21, 183 X Pedestrian 23 9-10 89 140-141, 169-171 G G G X Bicycle 23 10-11 88-89, 97 124-130, 175-176 61 183 Transit 24, 41-46 11-12 90, 96-97 141-148, 176-179 19, 75-77 G X Auto 24 90 G 19 20-21 G X Freight G G 34-36 Road Types 7, 27-28, 50 46-50 26, 29 Local 7, 50 G 48-50 26, 29 A 17 P age

DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Collectors & Arterials 7, 27-28, 50 48-50 26 Other 7, 63 42 4, 13-22, 46-47, 50-52, 72, 86, 104, 105 25-39, 92-93, 97, 114-115 4, 7-10, 14-16, 18, 27, 38-42, 76, 80, 81, 89, 108-109 3, 4, 29-39, 108-109, 111-117, 120-121, 177, 178 8-9, 15, 302 X Safety 7 42 4 27-30 97 4, 8-9, 14-16, 27, 81 3, 4, 29-39, 177 8-9, 15 X Access G G 86 92-93, 114-115 8, 38-42, 76, 80, 108-109 108-109, 111-117, 120-121, 178 302 Implementation Challenges 63 13-22, 46-47, 50-52, 72, 104, 105 6 7-10 A 18 P age

DOCUMENT # 1 2.1 2.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Connectivity/Circulation G 86 25-39 18, 89 "G" indicates a general reference; "L" indicates a library of resources; "A" stands for "appendix"; "X" indicates the presence of a topic in a document without page numbers *Page references for subtopics under "Design Guidelines" may also contain information not related to design. A 19 P age

TABLE A3 References by Topic Documents 11 20 DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Design Guidelines* 7-19 6-8, 19-27 L L X G V.1-VI.25, IX.2-IX.6 L 21-212 9-16, 41-122 Sense of Place 31 Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) G X G ADA 42-44, 55, 57-59, 68, 70, II.3-II.4, 74, 80, 81, 15 G V.5, IX.17-32 83-84, 93, 95, IX.18 98, 99, 103-104, 106, 108, 121 Traffic Calming 7-19 7 127-132, 185 V.27-V.35, IX.19-IX.23 66, 141-143, 165-177 74-79 Streetscape 109-110, 13-19 16 X 113, 115-116, 166, 167, 191-193, 233- V.21-V.25 22, 89-117, 199-200, 208-210 69-73, 83-95, 98-99, 116-117 238 A 20 P age

DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sidewalks 109-110, 14 16 113, 115-116, 167, 191-193, V.21-V.25 89-117, 208-210 69-73, 83-95 233-238 Vegetation 17 16 X G V.23 98-99, 105-106, 108, 199-200 98-99, 116-117 Furniture 16 16 G G 103-105, 199-200 85, 93-95 Shelters 166 G Funding 6 X G IV.1-IV.10 Federal X G IV.2-IV.3, IV.8-IV.9 State G IV.3-IV.6, IV.9-IV.10 Local G IV.7, IV.10 Private X G Ordinances 69-70 29 A 21 P age

DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Zoning 29 Comprehensive Plan G Supportive Land Use 3, 11 G III.7-III.8 73, 115-116, 187-188, 204-205 10, 20-22, 24-30, 89-92 Density G 27-28 Mixed Use G 204-205 20-22, 89-92 Housing G Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 187-188 28 Maintenance 10 G V.22-V.23 73, 115-116 Funding 10 Responsibility 10 83 V.22 73 Programming Policy 4 14 X G i-iv, II.1-II.9 Federal 14 X II.2-II.4 A 22 P age

DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 State 4 X 177 i-iv, II.5-II.9 Regional X Local X Travel Modes 36-37, 45, 48, 54, 56, 60, V.1-V.26, 68, 80, 84, VII.1-VII.28, 90, 91, 93, 14-15 6, 7, 16, 17 X VII.20- VII.22, 55, 102-103, 110, 179-189 95, 98, 100, 101, 102, VII.25-104, 106, VII.27 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119 Pedestrian V.1-V.26, VII.1-VII.17, 14-15 G X G VII.20- VII.22, G G VII.25- VII.27 Bicycle G 17 X G VI.1-VI.25, VII.1-VII.13, 102-103, 110 G VII.16- A 23 P age

DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 VII.28 Transit 36-37, 45, 48, 54, 56, 60, 68, 80, 84, 90, 91, 93, G 6, 7, 16 X G VII.16- VII.18 55, 179-189 95, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119 Auto G G X G G G Freight G G Road Types 4, 19, 20, 22-27 G 174-175 51, 71-73, 89, 92, 96 Local 4, 22, 26-27 51, 72-73, 89, 96 Collectors & Arterials 4, 19, 20, 22-25 G 174-175 51, 71-73, 92, 96 A 24 P age

DOCUMENT # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Other 9-11, 33-35, X 199-200, 237-238 VII.7-VII.13, VII.16- VII.18, IX.24-IX.26 41-42, 58-59, 61, 63, 112-113, 160, 162, 194-196, 197-199, 207-14, 32-36, 80-81, 108 212 Safety G G G VII.7-VII.13, VII.16- VII.18, IX.24-IX.26 9-11, 58-59, 160, 162, 207-212 35-36, 108 Access G G 199-200 VII.16- VII.18 33-35, 41-42, 61, 63, 112-113, 197-199 80-81 Implementation Challenges X 237-238 Connectivity/Circulation G 194-196 14, 32-34 "G" indicates a general reference; "L" indicates a library of resources; "A" stands for "appendix"; "X" indicates the presence of a topic in a document without page numbers *Page references for subtopics under "Design Guidelines" may also contain information not related to design. A 25 P age

TABLE A3 References by Topic Documents 21 26 DOCUMENT # 21 22 23 24 25 26 Design Guidelines* L L 9-35 5-10, 21-44, 59-155 X Sense of Place Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) ADA 21, 23-25 Traffic Calming 5-7 Streetscape 17-18, 22, 28 7-8, 23-25, 29, 38 X Sidewalks 17-18 7-8, 23-25, 29 X Vegetation 28 7-8 X Furniture 28 7-8 Shelters 22 38 Funding 47-48 X Federal 48 X State A 26 P age

DOCUMENT # 21 22 23 24 25 26 Local 48 X Private 48 X Ordinances 46-47 X Zoning 46 X Comprehensive Plan Supportive Land Use 35-36 X Density 35 X Mixed Use 36 X Housing Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Maintenance X Funding Responsibility Programming Policy 43-45, A A 27 P age

DOCUMENT # 21 22 23 24 25 26 Federal 43-44, A State A Regional A Local A Travel Modes 13-14, 20-23 11-20 X Pedestrian G G 11-12 X Bicycle 13-14, 20-22 13-15 X Transit G 22-23 16-19 X Auto G G 20 Freight G 20 Road Types G 10, 20, 22, 59-125, 126-155 X Local G 10, 20, 22, 126-155 X Collectors & Arterials G 10, 20, 22, 59-125 X Other 33, 36-37, 39- X A 28 P age

DOCUMENT # 21 22 23 24 25 26 41, 46 Safety 39-40 G X Access 33, 36-37 G X Implementation Challenges 39-41 Connectivity/Circulation 37, 46 X "G" indicates a general reference; "L" indicates a library of resources; "A" stands for "appendix"; "X" indicates the presence of a topic in a document without page numbers *Page references for subtopics under "Design Guidelines" may also contain information not related to design. A 29 P age

APPENDIX C: BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY EXAMPLE 1: METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, CALIFORNIA Key Issues Addressed: Funding & Political Acceptance The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the San Francisco Bay area. In the summer of 2006, the MTC adopted Resolution 3765, which formally adopted the recommendations found in Routine Accommodation of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, a study published by the MTC that same summer (see Sources / Resources below). The study s recommendations state that projects funded all or in part with regional funds (e.g. federal, STIP, bridge tolls) shall consider the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as described in Caltrans Deputy Directive 64. While the recommendations from the study provide general principles for the routine accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians, the MTC went a step further to ensure that those principles were followed. It adopted a routine accommodation checklist (see Sources / Resources) in 2008, which asks more specific questions about how a certain project will or will not accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. It addresses issues such as travel demand, safety, consistency with existing plans, and the addition or removal of hindrances to cyclists and pedestrians. According to the checklist, it is intended for use on projects at their earliest conception or design phase. Although every project does not require routine accommodation, every local jurisdiction applying for funds Figure C1 First page of MTC's Complete Streets Checklist through the MTC must complete the checklist for every project. The completed checklists must then be made available to the public through county congestion management agency websites, and copies must be furnished to the applicable county s bicycle and pedestrian advocacy committee. A 30 P age

Such an approach increases transparency in the usage of regional transportation dollars and places more accountability on local governments to incorporate complete street principles in their projects. Because the checklist is intended for use on projects at their earliest conception or design phase, the public would ideally have the opportunity to review the checklist before a shovelful of dirt was turned on the project. This may give local governments incentive to incorporate complete street principles in the early designs of their projects to avoid public opposition. The checklist approach also allows for some flexibility; it allows the MTC to ensure that cyclists and pedestrian accommodations were considered for proposed projects, but it does not require the MTC to mandate the incorporation of complete street principles for every project. For that same reason, the checklist approach makes the encouragement of cyclist and pedestrian accommodations more politically palatable to local governments. The checklist provides a means to ensure that local governments follow Resolution 3765, but the MTC also provides useful information on its website as to how local governments can plan for bicyclists and pedestrians. Its Safety Toolbox, for example, covers a wide range of topics, such as how to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian circulation into the general plan and the zoning code. The toolbox also provides links to sample plans of other governmental entities. Sources / Resources 1. Resolution 3765: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/b icyclespedestrians/res3765final.pdf 2. Routine Accommodation Checklist: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/b icyclespedestrians/routine_accommodation_c hecklist_final.pdf 3. Routine Accommodation of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area (study): http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/b icyclespedestrians/routine_accommodation_s tudy.pdf 4. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices (ISBN: 978 1 932364 83 5), p. 53 5. Safety Toolbox: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/b icyclespedestrians/safety/framework.htm A 31 P age

EXAMPLE 2: KNOXVILLE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION, TENNESSEE Key Issue Addressed: Design Guidance The Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) adopted published its Complete Streets Design Guidelines document in July 2009. This document was a result of the TPO s mission, started in 2008, to make streets in the region more complete. The effort began with two separate suburban corridor studies that made recommendations on how to make those streets more complete. Most of the document s main body (not including the appendix) is dedicated to design guidelines relating to a number of issues, such as speed, lane width, sidewalks, traffic signals and lighting. The document also includes information on what complete streets are and why they are important, the importance of design flexibility, the connection between land use and transportation, the challenges of implementing complete streets, and tools for implementation. The publication itself is not a policy document; it is rather a manual to assist those wishing to create complete streets. However, the appendix provides USDOT s Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidance Policy Statement, Tennessee DOT s Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy, and other sample complete street policies. The Knoxville Regional TPO has a webpage dedicated to the Complete Streets Study that resulted in the final Complete Streets Design Guidelines document. In addition to the document itself, the site provides the complete streets policies of Knoxville, Tennessee DOT, and the FHWA; a number of presentations on complete streets; and links to two corridor stu Figure C2 Complete Streets Study webpage dies. As of January 2011, the webpage reports that the TPO is working with state and local governments to find funding sources to implement the projects identified in the Complete Streets Study. In addition to its Complete Streets Design Guidelines document, the TPO has also adopted a regional bicycle plan. The most recent update to the plan was adopted in 2009, and it is a sup A 32 P age

plement to the 2002 plan. The two plans emphasize different issues. Collectively, the plans address policy, vision, design, maintenance, enforcement, education, safety, outreach, funding, and implementation challenges, among other topics. The Bicycle Accommodation Policy found in the 2002 plan is consistent with complete street principles, as it requires appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities [to] be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas, except under certain conditions. On its website, the TPO reported some success in the increase of bicycle commute rates, which may be attributable, at least in part, to its bicycle plan: The American Community Survey data just released by the Census Bureau shows that Knoxville s bike commute rate increased 120% from 2008 to 2009 (from 416 to 917 people). The survey records people who use bicycling as their primary commute mode. This increase is consistent with the increases seen in bicycle counts conducted twice a year by the TPO, and reaffirms why Knoxville recently received the Bicycle Friendly Community Award. Only seven of the 70 largest cities in the country had a larger percentage increase during this time and many cities actually saw a decrease in bike commute rates. The reported share of commuters using bicycles as their primary travel mode is still relatively small (about 1%), but the substantial increase from 2008 to 2009 gives some encouragement for the future. To further accommodate cyclists, a bill (HR3131/SB3057) was passed in July 2010 which allows those traveling on a bicycle to pass through red stop lights when the automatic detection fails to detect the cyclist. Cyclists must come to a complete stop and wait long enough to determine that they have not been detected, and then may only pass through the intersection when it is safe to proceed. This is the kind of legislation that helps encourage people to use the alternative travel modes which complete streets seek to accommodate. It is evident that the Knoxville has exerted effort to make its streets better suited to supporting multiple travel modes, and it appears that results are beginning to be realized. Sources / Resources 1. Knoxville Regional TPO s Complete Streets Study webpage: http://knoxtrans.org/plans/comple te_streets/index.htm A 33 P age

2. Regional Bicycle Plan webpage: http://knoxtrans.org/plans/bikepla n/index.htm 3. Regional Bicycle Program webpage: http://knoxtrans.org/plans/bikepro g.htm EXAMPLE 3: LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY Key Issue Addressed: Design Guidance Louisville, Kentucky became a regional government when it consolidated with Jefferson County in 2003, creating Louisville Metro. After the consolidation, Metro saw opportunities to reverse the previous trend of autodependency and adopted its Complete Streets Policy and Complete Streets Manual to help achieve that end. The Complete Streets Policy is a very simple, one page document that outlines general principles. The current version was adopted as an amendment to Metro s Cornerstone 2020 comprehensive plan in 2008. Simply stated, transportation and development projects, both new and retrofit, must include bicycle and pedestrian ways (except under certain conditions), rural streets must have shoulders when feasible, pedestrian facilities must allow people to travel safely and independently, and transportation infrastructure must be contextsensitive to its natural or built surroundings. While Metro s policy speaks in very general terms, the Complete Streets Manual supplements the policy by providing more detailed guidance. Chapter 2 provides a design framework, breaking down streets into distinct elements and functional types. Chapter 3 classifies and sub classifies the various users of a street and identifies facilities related to each class of users. Chapter 4 provides the guidelines for the design of roadway facili Figure C3 Section view" example ties. Chapter 5 touches briefly on streetscapes. The manual s appendix includes several pages of example complete street typologies to illustrate possible options for complete street design. The typologies are shown in both section view (showing a cross section of the street) and plan view (an overhead perspective). There are virtually an infinite amount of variations in the way a complete street could be designed, but this section of the manual is at least useful in giving designers some ideas from which their own specific designs can be formed. A 34 P age

While the manual does provide guidance on the design of complete streets, neither it nor the policy provides clear guidelines for implementation. The plan amendment was left vague, because city staff did not know what would actually work. Chris French, Metro s planning coordinator, said, You need to be open to let experience dictate what needs to happen to implement the change. City staff admits that implementation has been slow so far, but paved shoulders have started being added to new road projects in rural areas. Despite the currently slow implementation, a framework has been established that will foster the incorporation of complete street principles in future projects. Sources / Resources 1. Complete Streets Ordinance: http://services.louisvilleky.gov/me dia/complete_streets/complete_st reets_ordinance.pdf 2. Complete Streets Manual: http://services.louisvilleky.gov/me dia/complete_streets/complete_st reets_manual.pdf 3. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices (ISBN: 978 1 932364 83 5), p. 82 EXAMPLE 4: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Key Issue Addressed: Funding San Diego County has adopted a regional half cent sales tax to help support transportation improvement projects. The tax was first adopted in 1987, and an extension for the program was approved by voters in 2004, extending the tax out to 2048. The program is administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (or SANDAG, the region s MPO) and is expected to raise approximately $14 billion for transportation improvements. Figure C4 TransNet Early Action Projects map TransNet provides funds to a variety of transportation projects, including freeways and highways. However, the TransNet requires that projects using its funds make accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians when practical. As stated in the ordinance, A 35 P age

All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the costs of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. A good deal of TransNet funds go to cities and counties for street and road projects at the local level (the usual level for complete streets). An update on TransNet s progress dated May 2010 states that since it took effect in 2008, the TransNet extension has distributed $91.4 million to the region s 18 cities and the County of San Diego to fix, maintain, and expand our local streets and roads. The update also reports on the progress of bike and transit projects: Two important cycling projects opened in 2009. In April, San Diego leaders joined avid cyclists to open a scenic new 1.1 mile addition to the Bayshore Bikeway along south San Diego Bay. Plans call for the Bayshore Bikeway to eventually stretch 24 miles all the way around San Diego Bay. A month later, the Lake Hodges bicycle and pedestrian bridge partially paid for with Trans Net funds opened to the public. In addition, SANDAG instituted the new TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program, distributing $9.7 million to local municipalities in 2009 to help pay for 14 planning and capital improvement projects that support compact, transit oriented development. A sub program of TransNet is the Smart Growth Incentive Program (or SGIP). The SGIP distributes funds for transportation and transportationrelated infrastructure improvements and planning efforts that support smart growth development.the goal of the SGIP is to fund public infrastructure projects and planning activities that will support compact, mixed use development focused around public transit, and will provide more housing and transportation choices. The SGIP grants are separated into two categories: planning grants and capital grants. The planning grants can be used for comprehensive planning efforts (e.g. specific area plans or community plans ) or for smallerscale neighborhood planning activities (e.g. traffic calming or mobility plans ). SANDAG has published guidelines on its website to inform applicants of what kinds of projects are eligible and how projects will be evaluated. Separate guidelines and evalu A 36 P age

ation criteria are given for planning and capital grants (see Sources / Resources below for web links). The SGIP grant requirements certainly encourage projects that would make streets more complete. Planning project eligibility requirements foster principles shared by complete streets, such as [encouraging] transit, pedestrian, and bicycle trips ; [improving] internal mobility, and [enhancing] sense of place. Most, if not all, eligible capital grant projects would also enhance streets to make them more complete. Examples include pedestrian street crossings, traffic calming, and on street bike lanes. Although all TransNet funds do not go to transportation improvements for complete streets, the means by which funds are generated and distributed are exemplary and widely applicable. A half cent sales tax is a relatively small burden for individuals to bear especially in places like San Diego where there is strong bicycle/pedestrian advocacy and the result is billions of dollars to fund transportation improvements throughout the region. Such a funding program could be adopted by governmental jurisdictions of other geographic sizes (not just regional) in order to achieve their goals of making their streets more complete. Sources / Resources 1. TransNet May 2010 Update: http://www.keepsandiegomoving.c om/documents/transnet/transnet _update_2010.pdf 2. TransNet Ordinance: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/pr ojectid/projectid_341_8806.pdf 3. TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program webpage: http://sandag.org/index.asp?projec tid=340&fuseaction=projects.detail 4. TransNet Planning Grant Guidelines: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/pr ojectid/projectid_340_8984.pdf 5. TransNet Capital Grant Guidelines: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/pr ojectid/projectid_340_8985.pdf 6. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices (ISBN: 978 1 932364 83 5), pp. 72, 75 EXAMPLE 5: EAST WEST GATEWAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, MISSOURI Key Issues Addressed: Political Acceptance & Design Guidance The East West Gateway Council of Governments is the metropolitan planning organization in the St. Louis, Missouri area. Its Legacy 2035 longrange transportation plan outlines its Great Streets Initiative, which aims A 37 P age

not only to create complete streets, but to center communities around vibrant streets with multiple transportation modes, lively neighborhoods and a strong sense of community. The Council of Governments conducted its Great Streets Symposium in 2006 as part of its initiative. Planners, engineers, and policy makers were invited to learn about complete streets, and more than 160 attended. National and local experts discussed how great streets can provide economic activity and visually attractive surroundings while still moving travelers of multiple modes safely and efficiently. A technical workshop was then held in February 2007 to help local communities design their own great streets. The Digital Design Guide a website that includes design guidance for both the street itself and the buildings that front the street was created later that same year (see Digital Design Guide under Sources/Resources). After its education efforts, the Council of Governments solicited proposals for demonstration projects that incorporated great street principles. Four projects out of 40 submittals were awarded funds for project studies Labadie, Manchester Road, Natural Bridge Road, and South Grand (see Demonstration Projects under Sources/Resources). Labadie is a small, rural hamlet in Franklin County. Its town center has a small town feel with shops and unique restaurants, and despite its small size, it is a popular destination. Labadie has the opportunity to capitalize on its existing strengths by making improvements to its pedestrian facilities, enhancing the already quaint, small town atmosphere, and attracting more patrons to support new businesses. Figure C5 Concept plan for Natural Bridge Road Manchester Road is a corridor that passes through the communities of Manchester, Winchester, Ballwin, Ellisville and Wildwood. As of January 2011, online visioning surveys have been posted on the East West Gateway s website for the preferred roadway and land use plan. The Natural Bridge Road Corridor also passes through multiple jurisdictions. Its concept plan shows a variety of land uses, including neighborhood mixeduse zones and a transit oriented development around a MetroLink light rail station. A 38 P age

South Grand Street is a nationally recognized historic district in St. Louis. The corridor s master plan created as a result of the Great Streets Initiative asks how it can balance the desires of commuters driving through the corridor, residents and property owners, and business owners and how to address the functionality of the street and enhance the vitality of the neighborhood using limited funding to create a plan that is implementable and supported by the community. The American Planning Association s Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices guide explains the strength of the Great Street Initiative s approach: The strength of the Great Streets Initiative lies in its ability to transcend simply mandating complete streets principles. Instead, it utilizes the council s resources to convince local jurisdictions that it is in their best interests to incorporate Great Streets principles into their projects. The council has held symposiums and workshops in order to encourage planners and engineers at the local level to consider how Great Streets can work within their communities and what these principles have to offer their local economies. According to Terry Freeland, the manager of the Transportation Corridor Improvement Group at the council, these communities are beginning to need the workshops less and less because the training is allowing them to start considering these things themselves. The Great Streets Initiative is an outstanding example of how stakeholders are more likely to accept change if they are invited to participate in the process as opposed to being told what to do at the end of the decision making process. Sources / Resources 1. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices (ISBN: 978 1 932364 83 5), p. 21 2. Demonstration Projects: http://www.ewgateway.org/great Streets/greatstreets.htm#Demonst rationproj 3. Digital Design Guide: http://www.greatstreetsstl.org/index.php A 39 P age

APPENDIX D: DESIGN STANDARDS COMPARISONS APPENDIX D: DESIGN STANDARDS COMPARISONS A 40 P age

APPENDIX E: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR COMPLETE STREETS COMPATIBILITY Not all streets need (or even should) include every element typical of complete streets; certain criteria generally dictate which elements are appropriate. In other words, a street s appropriate level of completeness depends upon its context. For example, it would probably be impractical to place light rail or bus rapid transit on a road that runs through a rural area with low population density. Conversely, urban centers can have relatively high levels of pedestrian and bicycling activity, so bike lanes, wide sidewalks, and traffic calming measures may be appropriate for those conditions. The following evaluation factors were developed and applied to all roadways included in the RTC Streets and Highways Master Plan. The evaluation helps to locate candidate facilities that would experience the greatest benefit from complete street treatments. This is meant to be one tool used in identifying potential locations for complete street treatments. Each evaluation factor is described below and includes: Block Pattern and Connectivity; Safety; Roadway Design; Mobility; and Land Use Context It should be noted that the factors considered tend to favor streets that already have some level of accommodation for multiple modes. Block Pattern and Connectivity A well connected network of streets and pathways is an important part of enhanced mobility for multiple modes. An interconnected grid helps disperse traffic, allows for smaller, more human scaled streets. Recent development patterns in the Las Vegas Valley have tended to have limited connectivity and block patterns with large blocks and few intersections. However, earlier development included wellconnected block patterns. Evaluation Methods The connectivity analysis considers the street network to identify areas with high connectivity, which is an indicator of improved mobility for transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists. The connectivity for each street segment is a function of surrounding streets (links), intersections (nodes), cul de sacs and block length. Low connectivity Below average connectivity Average connectivity Above average connectivity High connectivity A 41 P age

Safety Complete street treatments can help improve safety by creating safe spaces to walk, bicycle, catch the bus, or cross the street. Complete streets can help reduce crashes through comprehensive safety improvements for pedestrians, bicycles, transit users and motorists. Improvements such as sidewalks, medians, and traffic calming measures can all improve pedestrian safety. Evaluation Methods Evaluation for safety is based on the number of crashes involving a bicycle or pedestrian for each roadway segment. A higher number of crashes indicated a greater need for complete streets. Few crashes per mile Below average crashes per mile Average crashes per mile Above average crashes per mile High crashes per mile (greater need for complete streets) Roadway Design Complete street treatments tend to be more suitable on certain types of roadways, including Streets, Avenues and Boulevards as described in the next chapter. These facilities include varying types of collectors and arterials. Roadway design also refers to the availability of space for complete street treatments. Furthermore, streets with slower posted speed limits tend to be more accommodating for complete streets because bicycles and pedestrian are more comfortable and safer where vehicle speeds are slower. Evaluation Methods For the evaluation of streets in the Las Vegas region, vehicle speeds, facility rights of way (ROW) and number of lanes were assessed. Streets with slower speeds and where ROW was not constrained were considered better candidates for complete street treatments. Traffic Lanes and Right of way Low Arterial with 5+ lanes Medium Collector with 3+ lanes or major arterial with 5+ lanes High 2 lanes or major collector with 3+ lanes Post Speed Limits Low Over 40 mph Medium 31 40 mph High Up to 30 mph Low accommodation for complete street treatments Below average accommodation for complete street treatments Average accommodation for complete street treatments A 42 P age

Above average accommodation for complete street treatments Most accommodating for complete streets treatments Mobility Mobility refers to the movement of people using all modes, including walking, bicycling, transit and automobiles. Roadways designed for more users may already include complete street treatments, such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and enhanced transit facilities, among others. Evaluation Methods For the evaluation of streets in the Las Vegas region, mobility for pedestrians, bicycles, transit users and automobiles was assessed. Roadways accommodating more users are considered to be better suited for complete streets improvements. Depending on the level of preferential treatments, each street segment assessed by mode as described below. Transit Low Not on transit network Medium Local transit route OR low frequency route High High priority transit route OR high frequency route Bicycles Low Roadway segment not in the Alternative Mode Master Plan Medium Existing bicycle lane or route High Adopted bicycle lane or route Pedestrians Low Enhanced/ADA compliant sidewalk High Basic or no sidewalk infrastructure Automobile Low Not Collector/Arterial High Collector/Arterial in RTC Master Plan Low mobility (few modes accommodated) Below average mobility Average mobility Above average mobility High mobility (Most modes accommodated) Land Use Context As described in the previous section, land use context is an important consideration when evaluation suitable locations for complete street treatments. Evaluation Methods Evaluation for land use context is based on zoning regulations and special development areas identified by each jurisdiction. Based on its proximity to land use each street segment was evaluated based on the following. A 43 P age