Changing Complete Streets Policy: A Brief Guidebook
Summary An effective Complete Streets policy does not assume that local legislatures and communities know what Complete Streets are. Instead, good Complete Streets policies understand and complement their community’s context and focus on practical, affordable, measurable, and flexible solutions. The best Complete Streets policies continuously update to reflect changes in their communities – and have codified rules and guides clearly into their Codes of Ordinances. Inside this document you will find a menu of optional policy elements, methods to share this information with your constituencies, and an editable policy template to mold to complete your streets.
Table of Contents
Summary 1 Policy Elements 3 Sets a vision 3 Specifies all users 3 All projects 4 Exceptions 5 Creates a network 5 All agencies and all roads 5 Design criteria 5 Context-sensitive 6 Performance measures 6 Implementation 6 Resources 6 Understanding the Complete Streets Approach 7 State Legislation 9 Model State Complete Streets Legislation 9
Image on Page 1 Courtesy of Michican Municpal League and can be accessed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ michigancommunities/6101792736/in/pool-micompletestreets/
Page 2 Policy Elements Regardless of a policy’s form, the National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of a comprehensive Complete Streets policy, as discussed below. For more details on writing a strong, appropriate policy for your community, see our Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook.
An ideal Complete Streets policy: § Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets § Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles. § Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way. § Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions. § Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes. § Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. § Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs. § Directs that Complete Streets solutions will complement the context of the community. § Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. § Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy
Sets a vision A strong vision can inspire a community to follow through on its Complete Streets policy. Just as no two policies are alike, visions are not one-size-fits-all either. In the small town of Decatur, GA, the Community Transportation Plan defines their vision as promoting health through physical activity and active transportation. In the City of Chicago, the Department of Transportation focuses on creating streets safe for travel by even the most vulnerable – children, older adults, and those with disabilities.
Specifies all users A true Complete Streets policy must apply to everyone traveling along the road. A sidewalk without curb ramps is useless to someone using a wheelchair. A street with an awkwardly placed public transportation stop without safe crossings is dangerous for riders. A fast-moving road with no safe space for cyclists will discourage those who depend on bicycles for transportation. A road with heavy freight traffic must be planned with those vehicles in mind. Older adults and children face particular challenges as they are more likely to be seriously injured or killed along a roadway. Automobiles are an important part of a ‘complete’ street as well,
Page 3 as any change made to better accommodate other modes will have an effect on personal vehicles too. In some cases, like the installation of curb bulb-outs, these changes can improve traffic flow and the driving experience.
All projects For many years, multi-modal streets have been treated as ‘special projects’ requiring extra planning, funding, and effort. The Complete Streets approach is different. Its intent is to view all transportation improvements as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation passengers. Under this approach, even small projects can be an opportunity to make meaningful improvements. In repaving projects, for example, an edge stripe can be shifted to create more room for cyclists. In routine work on traffic lights, the timing can be changed to better accommodate pedestrians walking at a slower speed. A strong Complete Streets policy will integrate Complete Streets planning into all types of projects, including new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance.
Page 4 Exceptions Making a policy work in the real world requires developing a process to handle exceptions to providing for all modes in each project. The Federal Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel named three exceptions that have become commonly used in Complete Streets policies: 1) accommodation is not necessary on corridors where non-motorized use is prohibited, such as interstate freeways; 2) cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; 3) a documented absence of current or future need. Many communities have included their own exceptions, such as severe topological constraints. In addition to defining exceptions, there must be a clear process for granting them, where a senior-level department head must approve them. Any exceptions should be kept on record and publicly-available.
Creates a network Complete Streets policies should result in the creation of a complete transportation network for all modes of travel. A network approach helps to balance the needs of all users. Instead of trying to make each street perfect for every traveler, communities can create an interwoven array of streets that emphasize different modes and provide quality accessibility for everyone. This can mean creating bicycle boulevards to speed along bicycle travel on certain low-traffic routes; dedicating more travel lanes to bus travel only; or pedestrianizing segments of routes that are already overflowing with people on foot. It is important to provide basic safe access for all users regardless of design strategy and networks should not require some users to take long detours.
All agencies and all roads Creating Complete Streets networks is difficult because many agencies control our streets. They are built and maintained by state, county, and local agencies, and private developers often build new roads. Typical Complete Streets policies cover only one jurisdiction’s roadways, which can cause network problems: a bike lane on one side of a bridge disappears on the other because the road is no longer controlled by the agency that built the lane. Another common issue to resolve is inclusion of Complete Streets elements in sub-division regulations, which govern how private developers build their new streets.
Design criteria Communities adopting a Complete Streets policy should review their design policies to ensure their ability to accommodate all modes of travel, while still providing flexibility to allow designers to tailor the project to unique circumstances. Some communities will opt to re-write their design manual. Others will refer to existing design guides, such as those issued by AASHTO, state design standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
Page 5 Context-sensitive An effective Complete Streets policy must be sensitive to the community context. Being clear about this in the initial policy statement can allay fears that the policy will require inappropriately wide roads in quiet neighborhoods or miles of little-used sidewalks in rural areas. A strong statement about context can help align transportation and land use planning goals, creating livable, strong neighborhoods.
Performance measures The traditional performance measure for transportation planning has been vehicular Level of Service (LOS) – a measure of automobile congestion. Complete Streets planning requires taking a broader look at how the system is serving all users. Communities with Complete Streets policies can measure success through a number of ways: the miles of on-street bicycle routes created; new linear feet of pedestrian accommodation; changes in the number of people using public transportation, bicycling, or walking (mode shift); number of new street trees; and/or the creation or adoption of a new multi-modal Level of Service standard that better measures the quality of travel experience. The fifth edition of Highway Capacity Manual, due out in 2010, will include this new way of measuring LOS. Cities like San Francisco and Charlotte have already begun to develop their own.
Implementation Taking a Complete Streets policy from paper into practice is not easy, but providing some momentum with specific implementation steps can help. Some policies establish a task force or commission to work toward policy implementation. There are four key steps for successful implementation: 1) Restructure procedures to accommodate all users on every project; 2) Develop new design policies and guides; 3) Offer workshops and other educational opportunities to transportation professionals, community leaders, and residents; and 4) Institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users.
Resources DOWNLOAD: Elements of an ideal Complete Streets policy DOWNLOAD: Complete Streets Policy Development 101: Presentation DOWNLOAD: Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook
Page 6 Understanding the Complete Streets Approach The National Complete Streets Coalition focuses on creating culture change, process change, and re-prioritization inside the sophisticated and established profession of transportation planning and engineering to ensure roads are designed, operated, and maintained for all users. We have a strong track record, achieving significant change in the transportation landscape in only a few years.
In the realm of street design, engineers are the licensed professionals charged with safe and efficient operation of the transportation system. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps inappropriate, for elected officials to tread into the territory of prescriptive street design. We have learned that engineers are inherently problem solvers, and the best way to change their focus is to change the definition of the problem. With the complete streets concept, we are working to change the paradigm from “moving cars quickly” to “providing safe mobility for all modes.”
In our systems approach to Complete Streets, the redefinition of the problem is the purview of decision-makers, while the final approval of the designs to achieve the desired outcomes lies with the traffic engineers. We have found that a cooperative approach with street designers and traffic engineers is critical to effective policy implementation. We have learned that success ultimately relies on cultivating positive relationships and strategic partnerships inside the profession, as we ask them to do things that are new, complex, and counter to traditional engineering mindsets.
Our approach is working. We see systems change taking place in locations from California to North Carolina to the upper Midwest. Professionals in places with Complete Streets policies are building streets that have safe, convenient places for people to walk, bicycle, and catch the bus. Based on this experience, we believe that the most effective complete streets laws or policies primarily engage decision makers in an appropriate role of setting a new standard of intent and defining desired outcomes, rather than attempting to force specific changes through an enforcement mechanism.
Using Policy to Establish a New Social Norm The power of the term “Complete Streets” is that it fundamentally redefines what a street is intended to do, what goals a transportation agency is going to meet, and how the community will spend its transportation money. It breaks down the traditional separation of ‘highways,’ ‘transit,’ and ‘biking/walking,’ and instead focuses on the desired outcome of a transportation system that supports safe use of all modes, as appropriate.
The most powerful Complete Streets policies state the new intent clearly and directly. For example, the City of Seattle ordinance reads: “SDOT will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users, as provided for below.”
In contrast, legislated policies focused on defining the specific infrastructure to be installed to create a “complete street” can be problematic. In this case, “Complete Streets Elements” becomes a synonym for the most obvious bicycle/pedestrian/transit features of a roadway, such as bike lanes and sidewalks. This framing perpetuates the separation of modes and the perception that a road for cars is fundamentally different from the road for other users, that only some roads should be “complete streets,” and that these roads require special ‘amenities.’ Furthermore, it can
Page 7 lead to decisions that multimodal improvements must be funded separately from ‘mainstream’ transportation programs. This compartmentalization sends advocates right back where they started: fighting for additional funding, instead of changing the fundamental priorities of the agency and of existing programs and funding.
In addition, attempting to define the specific transportation elements used in a Complete Streets approach could lead to a debate at the decision-maker level on which elements would be included. This may lead to a prescriptive policy that would be resisted by transportation agencies as stepping too far into their area of expertise. In our experience, these details are better dealt with in the implementation phase, rather than in the body of a law or ordinance.
Keeping these points in mind can help communities focus on creating a Complete Streets policy with a clear and strong intent, yet with the flexibility to help transportation professionals do their jobs.
Page 8 State Legislation Instituting a Complete Streets policy at the state level is essential in creating transportation networks that give citizens the transportation choices and the access to destinations they need and want. States control many community roadways and often set the standard for streets in cities and counties. The development of Complete Streets legislative language should take into account existing policy and practice, and state politics. Rather than a single model policy, we are offering a menu of policy choices, based in large part on existing state-level policies from around the country, including state laws, transportation commissioner resolutions, and executive orders.
A state legislation toolkit, produced by AARP in coordination with the National Complete Streets Coalition, offers additional guidance and materials that may be used in a statewide Complete Streets effort. It includes the below model legislative language as well as the reasons for the use of that language. Contents include comments on existing state legislation related to Complete Streets, information on potential partners that might support Complete Streets efforts, basic strategic guidance and resources, and insight into ways five states are working toward the implementation of Complete Streets policies.
Download: Complete Streets in the States: A Guide to Legislative Action, 2013
Model State Complete Streets Legislation The model legislation below is based largely on existing language in state statutes. Read Legislative Elements Explained, available in the toolkit, for an explanation and for commentary about the model.
Section 1. Complete Streets 1.1 Vehicular, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian modes are integral to the transportation system, and the [state Department of Transportation] shall view all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers. 1.2 All transportation projects receiving federal or state funds shall improve safety, access, and mobility for users of all ages and abilities, who are defined to include pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and their passengers, motorists, transporters of commercial goods, persons with disabilities, older adults, and children. 1.3 Accommodations for all users shall be included in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operations of any state, county, or local transportation facilities receiving funds from the [Department of Transportation]. The [department] shall aim to create a safe, comprehensive, integrated, and connected network to accommodate all users in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context. 1.4 The [Department of Transportation] shall use the latest and best design standards as these apply to bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and highway facilities, including the latest editions of the following: a. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) b. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach: An ITE Recommended Practice (Institute of Transportation Engineers) c. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) d. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
Page 9 e. Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (United States Access Board) f. [Other relevant federal, state, or local guidance as appropriate] 1.5 The [Department of Transportation] may provide assistance to and coordinate with local and regional agencies in developing and implementing complementary Complete Streets policies. In the development of projects within municipal boundaries, the [department] and municipality shall share expertise in multimodal transportation planning. 1.6 The [Department of Transportation] shall modify its procedures, documents, training systems, and performance measures in a timely manner to ensure that the needs of all users of the transportation system are included in all phases of all projects. The [department] shall create an implementation plan, including a schedule and a public and local or regional government outreach plan, in consultation with the Advisory Board, as outlined in section 3.
Section 2. Exceptions 2.1 The provision of facilities pursuant to section 1 shall not be required if the [commissioner of transportation or other senior management title] determines, with respect to a highway, road, or street, that: a. Use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists, or other users is prohibited by law b. The cost of new accommodation would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use c. There is a demonstrated absence of future need as determined by factors including current and future land use, current and projected user volumes, population density, and crash data 2.2 The agency shall consult local and regional plans and leaders, as appropriate, in assessing exceptions. 2.3 Documentation on any granted exceptions shall be made publicly available and shared with the Advisory Board as established in section 3.
Section 3. Advisory Board 3.1 There is established a Complete Streets Advisory Board within the [Department of Transportation] for the following purposes: a. Providing education and advice to the state Transportation Commission [or other board], county road commissions [or other similar organizations], municipalities, interest groups, and the public b. Making recommendations to the [department] on restructuring procedures, updating design guidance, providing educational opportunities to employees, and establishing new measures to track success in multimodal planning and design c. Submitting to the legislature, through the [department], annual reports as outlined in section 3.4 3.2 The members of the Advisory Board shall be appointed by the Governor’s office and shall include one member representing each of the following: a. The [state Department of Transportation] b. The state Transportation Commission [or similar] c. The [state Department of Public Health] d. Licensed engineers with expertise in transportation e. [State] chapter of the American Planning Association [or equivalent] f. [State association of counties] g. [State municipal league] h. A major local or regional public transportation agency i. AARP [state] j. An organization interested in the promotion of bicycling k. An organization interested in the promotion of walking l. An organization representing persons with disabilities
Page 10 m. An automobile and/or trucking transport organization n. Other interested parties as determined by the Governor 3.3. [Set terms for Advisory Board, such as term limits, a meeting schedule, and the appointment of the chairperson.] 3.4 By [date] and annually [on date] thereafter, the Advisory Board shall submit a report to the Governor, the Commissioner of Transportation [or similar title], and the legislature [or relevant committee(s) thereof] on the status of the implementation of section 1. a. Reports should include information such as the following: i. A summary of specific actions taken by the Department[ of Transportation] in the preceding year to improve the safety, access, and mobility of roadways for all users as defined in section 1.2 ii. Any identified statutory recommendations to facilitate Complete Streets implementation iii. Modifications made to or recommended for protocols, guidance, standards, or other requirements to facilitate Complete Streets implementation iv. The status of the development of multimodal performance indicators v. Information collected from agencies on the percentage of trips made by foot, bicycle, and public transportation, together with the target level of the use of these modes vi. Crash statistics by mode, age, road type, location, and other relevant factors vii. Other, related information that may be requested by the Governor b. Such reports shall be coordinated with a representative or representatives of the [Department of Transportation].
Section 4. Effective Date 4.1 This Act shall take effect on [date], provided that section 1 shall apply to any transportation project for which a preliminary design has been completed on or before [January 1 after a full calendar year].
Page 11