FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Implementation

Below are more questions and answers, regarding implementation of a complete streets policy.

They are derived from an American Planning Association web seminar on complete streets, with answers provided by planning staff from Boulder, Colorado, Chris Conklin of VHB, (who worked on the Massachusetts Project Guide), and Barbara McCann from the National Complete Streets Coalition.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

What is the best way to educate residents about the value of complete streets?

Show them pictures of existing local streets that are 'complete,' side by side with photos of incomplete roads in areas where pedestrians and other users struggle.  Explain that with a complete streets policy, all roads can be made nominally safe for pedestrians and other non-drivers (but also be clear that this is a flexible policy that won't mandate a single 'look' for every road).  Use the basic power-point provided on the complete streets webpage and fact sheets with statistics on the benefits of complete streets.  In our experience, most people understand the benefits intuitively through photographs.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Funding

How does private development contribute to complete streets?

Example from Boulder, CO:  In Boulder, the transportation master plan (TMP) includes facility plans for all modes.  In addition, in areas anticipated for significant change/redevelopment the master plan has been refined further through "area plans" and the adoption of transportation network plans to provide a detailed plan for where new streets, bike, and facilities are required.  Through redevelopment, applicants are required at a minimum to reserve the necessary right-of-way and to build their share of these facilities.  The TMP can be found at here.

What federal funds are available for complete streets?

Example from Boulder, CO:  The City of Boulder has secured federal funding for multimodal projects through the Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) competitive TIP process.  This is done through funding categories for congested regional corridors, STP, CMAQ, and Enhancements.  The city put significant effort into making sure that the MPO project eligibility standards and the scoring process were structured to support multimodal (complete street) investments.  To date, the city has not sought federal earmarks through our Congressional delegation.  Boulder has also received funding for bike/pedestrian improvements through the new federal Safe Routes to School program.

A large portion of transportation funding is targeted toward congestion relief for motorists.  When a philosophy is taken that balanced multimodal capacity supersedes maximizing motor vehicle flow, does this create a constant shortage in funding to address congestion?

Complete streets is about balancing out a transportation system that has emphasized motor vehicle movement to the exclusion of other, existing users of the roadway.  Those other users -- bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders -- have been there all along, but their needs have been too often ignored and their safety imperiled.  Complete streets policies and procedures recognize and correct this, but they do not in themselves require a certain percentage of spending on other modes.  Designing streets for all users does not automatically mean spending large sums of money and including such features from the beginning can make any additional costs negligible.

On the issue of congestion, many communities are recognizing that automobile capacity expansion projects have a limited ability to reduce congestion (see Schrank, D. and Lomax, T. (2005) Urban Mobility Report).  The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) found that providing more travel options, including bicycling and walking facilities, are important elements in reducing congestion.  Streets that provide travel choices can give people the option to avoid traffic jams and increase the overall capacity of the transportation network.  Portland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado have both been successful in addressing traffic congestion in this way.

Cost

How realistic is DOT policy when "excessive cost" gives local staff an excuse to ignore complete street principles?

If there is a cost exception in a complete streets policy, it must be carefully defined for the correct project scope.  The policy must also include a clear procedure for justifying this and any other exception.  This procedure should require high-level approval from a senior manager, so that simply 'ignoring' the complete streets principle is not an option.

Economic Benefits

Do you have any data that shows the economic impacts of complete streets compared to traditional road design (i.e., property value changes, etc.)?

Dan Burden tells the story of a complete street treatment in West Palm Beach Florida that resulted in a $150,000 increase in home sale prices on the street in just one year.  In Washington DC, they are so convinced that creating complete streets will improve economic performance that they have instituted the "Great Streets" program.  See www.greatstreetsdc.com.

More information on economic benefits is coming soon; watch the 'Benefits' section of the website.

DESIGN

What percentage of a road would you suggest should be dedicated for vehicles?  What percentage for other travel methods (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, etc)?

The portion of road space dedicated to different users will vary according to the profile of the current and projected future users of the road; there is no hard and fast percentage.  For example, a street at a city center which serves many pedestrians will need wider sidewalks and median islands; a major transit corridor should be designed with more features that help buses travel quickly and provide for the movement of those boarding and disembarking; a road through a corridor where strip shopping centers are being replaced by higher-density mixed use buildings would likely need an investment in features to better accommodate the projected increase in pedestrians.  No single figure for lane width or budget expense can cover the variety of circumstances.

Emergency Vehicles

Creating safe and attractive bike/pedestrian environments is often challenged by proponents of the primacy of the emergency vehicle who believe that wider/straighter/sterile is always better.  How have you been able to overcome this conflict?  Have any issues arisen after completion? 

Please see the poster "Emergency Access" (1.6mb PDF), created by Dan Burden, for a few suggestions.

Bike lanes vs Riding with traffic

Some people promote cyclist integration into motorist travel as a safer than segregation transportation lanes.  What is your opinion about painted or striped cyclist lanes vs. non-painted or integrated cyclist travel?  Are their studies on what design is safer and more functional?

Bicycle lanes serve an important purpose in giving space to cyclists, and in indicating to motorists that bicyclists will be present, particularly on higher-volume higher-speed roadways.  Studies show they do improve cyclist safety and confidence.  However, bike lanes are not necessary for bicycle travel.  Lower volume, lower speed roadways don't need them, and experienced cyclists will share lanes with cars without hesitation.  So it is not an either/or question, different facilities serve different purposes, as well as users with different levels of experience.      

Green Infrastructure

Where is the optimum placement for trees along roadways when you are working to include bicycles, sidewalks, and the utility rights-of-way?

Example from Massachusetts:  The MassHighway guide suggests planting at the back of the sidewalk, where the greatest soil volume and water absorption capacity exists.  Conflicts with utilities are often a concern that needs to be addressed with street tree placement.

Repaving

Often, when a city resurfaces streets, traffic lanes are made wider to accommodate the car and the re-striping process happens automatically without review that considers adding bicycle lanes or striping wider outside lanes to accommodate cyclists.  How can residents and planners collaborate with public works to address this issue?

First, a complete streets policy should include repavings in its procedures, including a direction to assess the corridor's use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users and stripe accordingly.  Second, all transportation improvement projects can be submitted and reviewed by citizen advisory committees.  For example, the Bay Area MPO in California has recently required that the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees get copies of every Project Initiation Document for review.

Complete Streets vs Context Sensitive Solutions

Are there significant differences between the "Complete Streets" concept and the "context sensitive solutions to road design" concept developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? 

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) initiatives have traditionally emphasized non-transportation changes to improve the integration of the highway into the community.  Framing bike/ped/bus/disabled access in this way constricts them as optional 'amenities' rather than as essential transportation modes; as one wag put it, "bicyclists and pedestrians are not context."  CSS has also emphasized stakeholder involvement in special planning processes, rather than routine inclusion of all modes in everyday transportation planning.  That may be changing, recent Context-Sensitive Solutions workshops have emphasized 'mainstreaming' the process, and there has been greater emphasis on including all road users.  The movement for context sensitive solutions has been crucial in changing practices at transportation agencies and stands side by side with complete streets.

The National Complete Streets Coalition has suggested this short explanation for inclusion in the new ITE/CNU Context Sensitive Solutions guide:

"While Context-Sensitive Solutions involve stakeholders in considering a transportation facility in its entire social, environmental and aesthetic context, complete streets policies are a reminder that providing for safe travel by users of all modes is the primary function of the corridor.  Under complete streets, basic facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and disabled travelers are necessities, rather than optional items.  Their needs must be included regardless of their presence or lack thereof at stakeholder meetings.  All modes and users are important on all thoroughfares."

Note also that the new Massachusetts guide addresses contest-sensitivity and multimodalism as separate but equally important issues.

Bus Pull-outs

Bus pull-outs make sense as they remove buses from general traffic and preserve throughput. In reality, these tend to strand buses, as they're put at the mercy of drivers yielding to them. We have a proposed BRT corridor calling for this, yet doesn't this design ultimately diminish bus headways and make transit less attractive? How do you "calm" the cars in congested urban centers while allowing buses to operate efficiently and without delay?

Example from Boulder:  We tend to install bus pull-outs on a fairly conservative basis for the very reasons you have identified.  Many of the pull-outs that do exist in Boulder are located at the far side of signalized intersections which allows operators to easily pull out during the red signal phase.  Also, because of the impact to transit operations, we usually try to only install them when necessary to maintain adequate auto traffic flow.  Boulder has recently installed one bus pull-out along one of our future BRT corridors; however, it is attached to an acceleration lane to allow for easier merging.  Where right-of-way permits we are working to provide continuous bus/bike/right-turn only lanes in order to better facilitate transit along congested corridors.

More on complete streets and transit can be found in the Complete Streets and Transit Workshop report.