Charles Brown, MPA 2012 National APA Planning Conference April 14-17, 2012 Los Angeles, CA

CREDITS This session has been approved by the Landscape Architecture Continuing Education System to provide 1.25 PDH/HSW for ASLA members. New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Overview Background NJDOT Policy Adoption Complete Streets Summit NJDOT Internal Changes Complete Streets Leadership Roundtable Complete Streets Evaluation Report 2012 New Jersey Bike and Walk Coalition Summit Economic Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation NJ Ambassadors in Motion NJ Municipal and County Policies Regional Complete Streets Workshops Statewide Supporters New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Background A Complete Street is designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Background: Pre-2009 Typical Street in New Jersey New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Background Complete Street Concept New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Background: Pre-2009 New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Background: 2009 New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

NJDOT Policy Adoption: 2009 Strongest Policy in the Nation! Establish a checklist Develop/support new technologies Consider connections for SRTS, SRTT, transit villages, etc. Implement training for staff Establish performance measures Exemption requires NJDOT Commissioner approver New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Complete Streets Summit: 2010 Agencies Keynote Address Policy Cost, Funding and Maintenance Lunch and Liability 101 Design and Safety Liability New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Complete Streets Presentations: 2010 In what is likely to be looked back on as a game changing moment, the NJDOT has adopted an internal Complete Streets policy, becoming only the second state in the nation to do so. -- Brent Barnes, Director, Statewide Planning, NJDOT New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

NJDOT Internal Changes: 2010 Staff Trained Complete Streets Checklist Additional Point on Local Aid Application Integration of Complete Streets Elements into Capital Project Delivery Process Subject Matter Expert Review New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

C.S. Leadership Roundtable: 2011 Agencies Purpose of Meeting Organizational Reports and Updates Coordinate Education Efforts Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Recommended Performance Measures New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

C.S. Evaluation Framework: 2011 Research Objective Methodology Report Structure Recommended State and Municipal Evaluation Framework Next Steps New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

2012 NJ Bike and Walk Summit New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

New C.S. Related Projects: 2012 Economic Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation in NJ New Jersey Ambassadors in Motion (NJ AIM) New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Complete Streets Policies in the State: 2012 1. Atlantic City, City of (December 7, 2011) 23. Raritan, Borough of (June 27, 2011) 2. Bloomfield, Township of (March 7, 2011) 24. Red Bank, Borough of (August 9, 2010) 3. Denville, Township of (November 24, 2010) 25. Ridgewood, Village of (June 8, 2011) 4. Dover, Town of (March 27, 2012) 5. Emerson, Borough of (August 17, 2010) 6. Freehold, Township of (April 2, 2012) 7. Frenchtown, Borough of (March 2, 2011) 8. Harvey Cedars, Borough of (December 2, 2011) 9. Hoboken, City of (November 15, 2010) 10. Jersey City, City of (May 25, 2011) 11. Lawrence, Township of (September 21, 2010) 12. Linwood, City of (February 23, 2011) 13. Maplewood, Township of (February 21, 2012) 14. Maywood, Borough of (June 16, 2011) 15. Monmouth County (July 22, 2010) 16. Montclair, Township of (October 6, 2009) 17. Netcong, Borough of (August 12, 2010) 18. Ocean City, City of (October 13, 2011) 19. Pleasantville, City of (November 21, 2011) 20. Point Pleasant, Borough of (June 21, 2011) 21. Princeton, Borough of (March 13, 2012) 22. Princeton, Township of (March 12, 2012) 26. State of New Jersey (December 3, 2009) 27. Trenton, City of (March 1, 2012) 28. West Windsor, Township of (July 19, 2010) 29. Vineland, City of (September 27, 2011) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 8 2009 2010 2011 2012 29 Complete Streets Policies Adopted As of April 3, 2012 13 6 New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Trainings: 2012 REGIONAL COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHOPS 42 Certified Engineers in Training February 23, 2012 at NJDOT Headquarters New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Trainings: 2012 New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

How do I find this Information? The New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Supporters of Complete Streets New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

State of Complete Streets in NJ New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Contact Charles Brown, MPA charles.brown@ejb.rutgers.edu James Van Schoick, AICP jimvans@ejb.rutgers.edu New Jersey BPRC Help Desk bikeped@ejb.rutgers.edu New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

NJDOT Complete Streets Video Plainsboro, NJ Jersey City, NJ New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center www.njbikeped.org

Liability and Complete Streets A New Jersey Case Study Janine G. Bauer, Esq.

Liability & Immunity Q. Does pursuit of safety through adoption of a Complete Streets policy and infrastructure changes expose a public entity to liability, or is it immune from liability? A. It depends on whether the changes are made in conformance with the Tort Claims Act, often called Title 59, which governs public entity liability in N.J.

Which Takes Precedence: Immunity or Liability? Any immunity provision under the TCA prevails over any liability provision Kahrar v. Borough of Wallington

Q. What is the Most Important Immunity for Complete Streets to be Successfully Implemented? A. Plan or Design Immunity N.J.S.A. 59:4-6

What is Plan / Design Immunity? The law states: Neither the public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the plan or design of public property, either in its original construction or any improvement thereto, where such plan or design has been approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the Legislature or the governing body of a public entity or some other body or a public employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved. N.J.S.A. 59:4-6 (a)

Get Your Plan Approved First Plan/design or improvement must be approved by an official body Plan/design or improvement must be approved by a public employee exercising discretion (e.g., the engineer)

How Does Plan or Design Immunity Attach to Your Project? Plan, design or improvement must be built in conformity with standards previously approved by authorized entity or person. The approved feature of the plan must sufficiently address the condition that is the subject of the claim to demonstrate the official s discretionary approval

Examples of Standards Previously Approved Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (FHWA, The Green Book) Older Driver Highway Design Book Highway Capacity Manual ADAAG Guidelines

More Examples of Standards Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Designing Sidewalks and Trails (FHWA) Building a True Community (PROWAAC) Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Guide (U.S. Access Board)

Additional Standards Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999, AASHTO) Designing Walkable Urban Thorofares (ITE)

If The Project Is Built in Conformity with Previously Approved Plan / Design A public employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval of plan or design will be protected from liability. A public entity will be protected from liability where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved.

Question from an engineer: If we encourage people to use roads that have little or no shoulder, are we potentially liable in the event of an accident involving a bicyclist riding in the shoulder? Encourage --how? By adopting a policy? Share the road sign? Stripe a bicycle lane into the roadway that is too narrow? Or which has potholes and is not maintained? Adopting a policy will not impose liability. Installing a share the road sign will not impose liability. Striping a lane that does not meet AASHTO standards may result in a dangerous condition.

Mode of Travel is Irrelevant to Liability or Immunity If the design or plan is not in conformance with approved standards, then liability may attach. Conversely, if the design or plan is in conformance with previously approved standards, immunity will attach regardless of which mode the traveler was using walking, bicycling or driving a car.

Accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel safely is not liability-inducing. Therefore, don t do nothing.

How Long Does Plan/Design Perpetual Immunity Last? Cannot be lost even if later knowledge shows a design or plan to be dangerous, or later circumstances render it dangerous Manna v. State

Q. What Causes Liability to be Imposed? A. Plaintiff Must Prove Five Things Before Liability will be Imposed on a Public Entity

NJSA 59:4-2 Liability generally A public entity is liable for injury caused by a condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:

a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or a public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under section 59:4-3 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition; and Public entity s behavior was palpably unreasonable.

Important Elements of Liability Public property property owned or controlled by the public entity. 59:4-1 Dangerous condition creates substantial risk of injury when used with due care and in manner reasonably foreseeable. 59:4-1 Reasonably foreseeable or substantial risk one that is not minor, trivial or insignificant. Polyard v. Terry, 160 N.J.Super. 497 (1978) Dangerous condition is the cause of injury.

AND, EITHER Negligent or wrongful act or omission of employee within scope of employment created the dangerous condition Public entity had actual or constructive notice of dangerous condition in sufficient time to protect against it. Constructive notice condition existed for such a period of time and obvious in nature in the exercise of due care should have discovered. 59:4-3 Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485 (1985)

Additionally, Action or inaction of public entity must be palpably unreasonable. Palpably unreasonable usually a fact Q for the jury

Case Study: Polzo v. County of Essex Fatal cycling accident Cyclist hit 1.5 depression in road shoulder County initially won motion for Summary Judgment Based on no actual or constructive notice 59:4-2(b) Appellate Division 8/2010 reversed Summary Judgment and remanded back to trial court Question of fact whether County s failure to have routine inspection program of its highways created dangerous condition and whether failure to have any program was palpably unreasonable

Maintenance Polzo v County of Essex was presented as a dangerous condition case, however, the depression in the roadway the cyclist hit highlights the significant role of maintenance has in preventing unsafe conditions from developing for bicyclists and pedestrians. Many accidents are caused by faulty roadway or sidewalk conditions that could have been spotted and repaired through a functional maintenance program. Prepare your maintenance personnel for their depositions!

Polzo Outcome Supreme Court (Jan. 2012): unanimous decision. County did not create a dangerous condition by failing to notice a 1.5 depression in the shoulder. Plaintiff offered no evidence that the shoulder was routinely used as bicycle lane, which might implicate a different standard of care. The generally intended purpose of the shoulder is for emergency use. Plaintiff cannot show that the depression on the shoulder was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.

Polzo Outcome County did not act in a palpably unreasonable manner by failing to fill the depression, even if County noticed it. Liability attaches to a public entity only when a pothole or depression on a roadway constitutes a dangerous condition; the public entity either causes the condition or is on actual or constructive notice of it; and, if so, the public entity s failure to protect against the roadway defect is palpably unreasonable. See N.J.S.A. 59:4-2.

Questions on Liability or Immunity Defenses?

MAKING COMPLETE STREETS A REALITY: IMPLEMENTATION AND DESIGN WORKSHOP FOR COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

OVERVIEW AND LESSONS LEARNED NJDOT Complete Streets Policy Workshop goals Target audience Workshop details Overview of curriculum Lessons learned Red Bank, NJ

NEW JERSEY S COMPLETE STREETS POLICY Aim is to create a comprehensive, integrated, interconnected multi-modal network Adopted in December 2009 Ranked the strongest policy in the nation Support from the top down Considers all users and modes Implementation through all phases Exemptions must have Commissioner sign-off Emphasizes statewide outreach and training

IT S THIS SIMPLE: JUST THREE PAGES

WORKSHOP GOALS Integrate Complete Streets into everyday practice across the state NJDOT is committed to outreach and training Pace of adoption is steady but slow Need to overcome skeptics and misconceptions Follow up to 2010 presentations

TARGET AUDIENCE Those who will write, adopt and implement Complete Street policies and improvements New Jersey municipalities and counties Elected officials and professional staff

FORMAT OF WORKSHOP SESSIONS Three sessions plus hands on exercises: Planning and Implementation Liability Complete Streets Design Duration is one-half day Workbook for each participant Slides with scripted notes CD with NJDOT Complete Streets Video Exercise handout materials List of available resources

OVERVIEW OF CURRICULUM I. UNDERSTANDING COMPLETE STREETS II. III. Definitions and Benefits Examples The Cost of Incomplete Streets PLANNING FOR COMPLETE STREETS Creating a Complete Streets Policy Implementing the Policy LIABILITY AND COMPLETE STREETS DESIGNING COMPLETE STREETS Understanding Context Typical Cross Sections Street Zones and Roadside Elements Beyond the Cross Section TRANSFORMING THE INCOMPLETE STREET WRAP-UP

PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION I. UNDERSTANDING COMPLETE STREETS Definitions and Benefits Examples The Cost of Incomplete Streets PLANNING FOR COMPLETE STREETS Creating a Complete Streets Policy Implementing the Policy West Windsor, NJ

COMPLETE STREETS EDUCATIONAL VIDEO What are complete streets? Costs of incomplete streets Benefits of complete streets Cost effectiveness Case studies: Haven Ave and Rt. 52 Causeway Bridge, Ocean City Case Study: Hoboken bike lane network NJDOT commitment This is the new way of doing business

VIDEO Plainsboro, NJ Jersey City, NJ

INGREDIENTS OF A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY 1. Purpose and intent 2. Definition of users and modes 3. Types of improvements 4. Design standards 5. Exemptions 6. Implementation plan

2. DEFINITION OF USERS AND MODES Users include: Pedestrians Bicyclists Transit passengers/ vehicles All ages and abilities Youth Older adults Persons with mobility limitations Trucks/goods movement Other users? New Brunswick, NJ

EXAMPLE: USERS AND MODES Point Pleasant lists many user groups: the benefits of Complete Streets include improving safety for all citizens, including pedestrians, bicyclists, children, children in carriages, mobility scooters, wheel chairs, older citizens, non-drivers and the mobility challenged as well as those that cannot afford a car or choose to live car free Palisades Park, NJ Rio Grande, NJ

LIABILITY AND DESIGN I. UNDERSTANDING COMPLETE STREETS II. II. III. Definitions and Benefits Examples The Cost of Incomplete Streets PLANNING FOR COMPLETE STREETS Creating a Complete Streets Policy the Policy LIABILITY AND COMPLETE STREETS DESIGNING COMPLETE STREETS Understanding Context Typical Cross Sections Street Zones and Roadside Elements Beyond the Cross Section TRANSFORMING THE INCOMPLETE STREET WRAP-UP Plainfield, NJ Princeton, NJ

LIABILITY AND COMPLETE STREETS Perception that Complete Streets create liability can be an obstacle NJ Tort Claims Act provides immunity for planning, design, and improvements Design must conformity with applicable standards This immunity is perpetual Accommodating transit, bicycles and pedestrians safely is not liability-inducing

I. UNDERSTANDING COMPLETE STREETS II. III. Definitions and Benefits Examples The Cost of Incomplete Streets PLANNING FOR COMPLETE STREETS Creating a Complete Streets Policy Implementing the Policy LIABILITY AND COMPLETE STREETS DESIGNING COMPLETE STREETS Understanding Context Typical Cross Sections Street Zones and Roadside Elements Beyond the Cross Section TRANSFORMING THE INCOMPLETE STREET WRAP-UP

Arterial Main Street Collector Residential Rural TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

COLLECTOR STREET DESIGN TEMPLATES

SHARED OR SEPARATED TRAVEL MODES Lower travel speeds and greater land use access than Arterials Shared or separate accommodations, based on context

COLLECTOR STREET WITH SHARROWS Princeton, NJ Princeton, NJ

STREET ZONES

PEDESTRIAN REALM Extends from the property line to curb Should be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act Broken into several sub-zones

Haddonfield, NJ

TRANSFORMATION: INCOMPLETE SIDEWALK Plainsboro, NJ

FILLING IN THE GAP Plainsboro, NJ

TRANSFORMATION: UNPROTECTED CROSSING Multiple deficiencies along this State highway Very long crossing with no pedestrian refuge Conflicts with vehicle turning movements Princeton, NJ

COMPLETE THE CROSSING Princeton, NJ

TRANSFORMATION: MISSING CROSSWALK Atlantic City, NJ

SIGNALIZE THE CROSSING Atlantic City, NJ

LESSONS LEARNED Many still need to be convinced Education and outreach are continuous Communicate what s in it for the locals Need to know how to understand and counteract misconceptions and opposition Good pictures tell the story Identify and leverage success stories Need good examples of residential and suburban projects Most New Jersey improvements are retrofits Number one message: This is the new way of doing business

WHERE AND WHEN? Twelve workshop sessions across N.J. By invitation only Press release to go out soon Consultant team teaching curriculum Anticipate April through June Scheduling and invitations