Complete StreetsDRAFT Implementation Strategies Plan

DRAFT October 2020

Sarasota County Complete Streets Implementation

Strategies Plan

DRAFT October 2020

Prepared For:

DRAFTPrepared By:

Contract 2019-259 | Work Assignment 1 | PO 193324

Prepared in Coordination with the Sarasota County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Complete Streets Implementation

Executive Summary

In 2016, the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a Comprehensive Plan that established Complete Streets objectives and policies for the County. Complete Streets is a national movement and concept that, at its root, aims to integrate people, place, and mobility for all roadway users into the planning, design, engineering, operating, and maintenance of the transportation network. In concurrence with the County’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, direction was provided to develop strategies for implementing and integrating Complete Streets objectives from the Comprehensive Plan into the County’s departments, programs, and transportation planning process. This document has been developed to serve as a roadmap to guide the implementation and fulfill the Comprehensive Plan’s Complete Streets objectives.

The Implementation Plan developed a flexible design approach to provide guidance on Complete Streets elements that should be integrated into the County’s transportation projects. The Flexible Design Matrix is based on a Complete Streets approach that aims to safely accommodate the various users of a roadway by considering Sarasota County’s context, surrounding land uses, street function, and the needs of a diverse set of roadways users. This approach uses the following elements as primary considerations when making design recommendations:

• Functional Classification – A street classification system defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan that describes the access type, service characteristics, and general trip type of the different streets. • Context Classification – A classification that systematically incorporates the County’s roadway connectivity, development patterns, and land use and intensities into the design of roadways to support safe and comfortable travel for anticipated roadway users. The successful implementationDRAFT of Complete Streets relies on the integration of Complete Streets elements into existing plans, design guidelines, programs, project development, evaluation methods, and the transportation decision-making process. The Implementation Plan outlines several processes, programs, and key documents that should be reviewed for updates to help take the County’s Complete Streets from policy to process. The five primary categories of implementation include the following:

• Administrative Changes – Recommends updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Land Development Code to reflect the Context Classification System and recommendations from the Flexible Design Matrix.

ii

Complete Streets Implementation

• Project Delivery Changes – Defines the types of projects that trigger the requirement for consideration of Complete Streets elements and those that are exempt from Complete Streets requirements. • Program Enhancements – Outlines education and outreach opportunities to improve the success of program implementation and options to expand existing programs such as Ride and Stride and the Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Advisory Committee. • Funding Strategies and Sources – Provides an overview of funding opportunities for the implementation of Complete Streets projects in Sarasota County. • Performance Measures and Evaluation – Identifies benchmarked targets to allow for accountability and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Complete Streets Program.

This Implementation Plan concludes with a detailed list of actional steps, informed by the previous sections of the Plan, to support the County in implementing Complete Streets throughout the transportation network.

DRAFT

iii

Complete Streets Implementation

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 What Are Complete Streets? ...... 2 Benefits of Complete Streets ...... 2 Complete Streets in Florida ...... 6 Sarasota County Complete Streets Policy ...... 6 2040 Comprehensive Plan Mobility Element Core Principles ...... 7 2040 Comprehensive Plan Complete Streets Policy ...... 8 Current Complete Streets Efforts ...... 10 Compete Streets Approach...... 11 Functional Classification ...... 11 Context Classification ...... 13 Flexible Design Guidance ...... 17 Complete Streets Implementation ...... 28 Administrative Changes ...... 29 Project Delivery Changes...... 30 Program Enhancements ...... 32 Funding Strategies and Sources ...... 34 Performance Measures and Evaluation ...... 37 Actionable Steps Towards Implementation ...... 38

Appendices DRAFT Appendix A – Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan Complete Streets Objectives and Policies Appendix B – Flexible Design Guidance Matrix Appendix C – Complete Streets Project Checklist

iv

Complete Streets Implementation

List of Figures

Figure 1: Functional Classification ...... 13 Figure 2: Context Classification Transect ...... 14 Figure 3: Expected User Types and Use by Context Classification ...... 16 Figure 4: Sarasota County Preliminary Context Classification ...... 16 Figure 5: Urban General (C4) – Major Collector Design Example ...... 25 Figure 6: Suburban Commercial (C3C) – Major Arterial...... 25 Figure 7: Suburban Residential (C3R) – Major Collector ...... 25 Figure 8: Suburban Residential (C3R) – Minor Collector...... 26

List of Tables

Table 1: Context Classification Characteristics...... 15 Table 2: Flexible Design Guidance Matrix ...... 18

DRAFT

v

Complete Streets Implementation

Introduction In 2016, the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Plan that established Complete Streets objectives and policies. In concurrence with the County’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, direction was provided to develop strategies for implementing and integrating Complete Streets into the County’s departments, programs, and process. This document has been developed to serve as a roadmap to guide the implementation and fulfill the Comprehensive Plan’s Complete Streets objectives. It should be noted that this document is intended to be a living document that should be amended periodically to reflect new standards, updated best practices, and Sarasota County’s evolving transportation system.

The Complete Streets Implementation Strategies Plan is organized into the following sections:

• What Are Complete Streets? – Introduces Complete Streets, provides an overview of the benefits of Complete Streets and background information on the State of Florida’s Complete Streets efforts. • Sarasota County Complete Streets Policy – Provides an overview of the framework of Complete Streets policies and how the County’s Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives provide direction on the implementation of Complete Streets. • Complete Streets Approach – Introduces the County’s approach to Complete Streets and outlines the components of the proposed Complete Streets Flexible Design Guidelines. • Complete Streets Implementation – Outlines the steps for integrating the Complete Streets goals, policies, and design guidance into the County’s transportation programs and processes; also identifies the initial procedures and processes that need to be reviewed and updated to successfully implement the County’s Complete Streets approach alongDRAFT with performance measures and strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of the County’s Complete Streets efforts. • Actionable Steps Towards Implementation – Incorporates elements from the previous sections and presents a list of actionable steps to help the County implement Complete Streets.

1

Complete Streets Implementation

What Are Complete Streets? Complete Streets is a national movement and concept that, at its root, aims to integrate people and place into the planning, design, engineering, operating, and maintenance of the transportation network. The Complete Streets movement believes that the streets and transportation networks of our communities must allow all people, regardless of age, ability, income, or any other demographic to safely, comfortably, and conveniently access homes, employment, schools, health facilities, shops, and other destinations by the mode of their choice – on foot or by bicycle, public transportation, car, or truck.

Complete Streets programs are an important recognition that our roadways are the largest public space and a vital part of safe and livable communities. Communities will often use Complete Streets to envision and facilitate a transportation network that reflects not only the long-term goals of their region but also their unique character. This includes design treatments that are compatible with the contexts of land use, development patterns, and overall needs of a community, neighborhood, city, or town.

Benefits of Complete Streets More than 1,300 government entities, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), states, MPOs, counties, and cities, have adopted and implemented Complete Streets. Many agencies have gone beyond the adoption of a Complete Streets policy or resolution and have developed Complete Streets implementation and action plans that identify specific strategies and design standards used to implement the Complete Streets policy and vision. Something these agencies have in common is that they have all recognized the benefits that Complete Streets provide in helping create not only safer communities but communities that are livable and accessible to all roadway users.

The benefits of Complete Streets are wide-ranging and, often, a variety of benefits can be met through lower-cost changes in roadway design or streetscaping. As examples, street trees can improve roadway safetyDRAFT by helping reduce traffic speeds while also providing shade to enhance the pedestrian and sidewalks environment, and providing a safe place for bicyclists to travel can encourage the use of non-motorized travel while also improving overall public health. The benefits of Complete Street designs and programs include accessibility and safety improvements, a more robust and efficient transportation system, bolstered economic development and resiliency, and environmental stewardship.

Safety Between 2013 and 2018, there were 52,401 crashes on Sarasota County roadways resulting in 220 fatalities and 2,268 severe injuries (fatal + incapacitating injury). Complete Streets have the potential to significantly improve roadway safety through systemic changes to the

2

Complete Streets Implementation

planning, design, and engineering of roadways. Federal, state, regional, and local governments are recognizing that streets should and must be planned, designed, built, and operated in a manner that prioritizes the safety, comfort, access, and mobility of all users to curtail and eventually end roadway crashes and deaths. The adoption and implementation of Complete Streets has been recognized as an essential first step in diminishing crashes and traffic-related deaths throughout the nation.

In addition to improving the overall safety of the transportation system for all potential users, Complete Streets can provide the mechanisms for targeted safety improvements based upon surrounding land uses and demographics. For example, a Complete Streets program can provide flexible design treatments and expectations for the provision of safety infrastructure at and surrounding schools, with the knowledge that special considerations need to be made to ensure the safety of children and students going to and from school. These efforts can partner with programs such as Safe Routes to School and leverage funding to improve access and safety for students. Similarly, with a large aging population in many areas, a flexible Complete Streets program can provide treatments such as extended crossing times at intersections in locations with higher known percentages of older adult populations. Generally, it is important to provide flexibility as a built-in part of the design and planning process to accommodate the varying demands and populations that use a roadway.

Efficiency A Complete Streets approach to roadway planning and design holds the opportunity to improve the overall efficiency of the transportation system through maximizing the value and use of the existing transportation infrastructure and network and identifying opportunities to further the County’s overall transportation vision. Complete Streets projects and plans can improve access to transportation for all potential users and enable the safe and comfortable use of all modes as a means of primary transportation. Enabling this sort of safe and comfortableDRAFT access to essential destinations for residents who choose transportation by foot, bicycle, transit, or automobile can aid in reducing congestion on the county’s roadways, reduce maintenance costs, and shift mode share.

This can be achieved through recognizing the various demands and uses of a roadway and how they change based upon land use context, function, modal priority, and community input. A roadway passing through a rural town or city should operate and accommodate modes and users differently than a roadway in a suburban or natural setting. A Complete Streets approach recognizes these differences and provides a mechanism through which to build roadways and network that are reflective of the community around them and their needs.

3

Complete Streets Implementation

Economic Development Complete Streets have the potential to give planners and engineers the tools and mechanisms through which to build roadways that are reflective of the community and its needs; Complete Streets can improve the overall livability, character, and subsequent economic development of an area. A roadway that reflects the surrounding land uses and community needs can bolster the aesthetics of a community, neighborhood, or downtown and foster an environment in which people wish to visit, spend time, and, ultimately, spend money. The creation of a safe and accessible transportation network for all users and modes can facilitate development through creating places people want to live and work.

Sarasota County has a robust and interconnected regional trail network that provides a variety of economic development and tourism benefits. Complete Streets takes an overall transportation network approach to planning and designing infrastructure for various modes; projects must be considered based on how they integrate into the overall system. A Complete Streets policy and plan can further the overall vision of the regional trail network through strategies such as identifying gaps between facilities or providing comfortable on- road facilities that connect to and from the trail network to the towns and cities of the region.

The furthering of this overall trail network vision can aid Counties in developing their tourism and ecotourism industries, attracting visitors nationwide to traverse their trail system and enjoy the beauty of the natural environment.

According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, Complete Streets can provide a more balanced transportation system that bolsters economic growth and stability through efficient and accessible pedestrian and bicycle connections between major activity centers.

Environment Complete Streets can help Sarasota County achieve its sustainability, public utilities, and quality of life goals. Streets areDRAFT often the largest public spaces owned by local governments and have the potential to provide a plethora of environmental benefits with thoughtful design and streetscaping. As the largest conveyors of stormwater during rain events, agencies have an opportunity to design their roadways to capture, store, and clean water rather than discharge it directly to a surface-water body. This can be achieved through the integration of low-impact, vegetation-based stormwater control systems such as rain gardens and bioswales, which can be placed in medians, crossing islands, or along the curb.

The use of stormwater control infrastructure can further the aesthetics and character of a roadway or neighborhood further fostering an environment that encourages economic

4

Complete Streets Implementation

development. Similarly, the addition of trees to the streetscape can provide environmental benefit through air filtration, ecosystem habitat, and stormwater control all while creating a more inviting sidewalk environment through the creation of a tree canopy and increased shade coverage. Trees can create living and nesting places for birds, improving the biodiversity of urban environments and creating a supportive system for critical ecosystem development. Using Florida native plants can support pollinator species such as bees and other essential insects while not putting undue strains on maintenance or water resources.

In addition to the direct environment benefits derived from streetscaping, the potential reduction in single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use and dependency from providing safe, connected, and comfortable infrastructure for all modes and users can improve air quality and reduce noise pollution through decreased emissions, congestion, and vehicle miles traveled. Complete Streets, by encouraging more walking and bicycling, can help residents achieve necessary levels of exercise and contribute to improved public health.

Equity Transportation equity means recognizing that different people experience different barriers when accessing the transportation system. People of color and low-income families are more likely to use other transportation modes than a personal vehicle and are also more likely to be injured or killed in traffic accidents.1 Although new transportation facilities are required to be ADA compliant, many parts of the transportation network create barriers for people with disabilities such as lack of curb ramps, lack of audible or tactile signals for visually-impaired pedestrians, or short crossing times at intersections.2 Complete Streets is an approach in which streets are designed to provide a choice of mobility options and foster transportation equity, healthy lifestyles, and vibrant communities. Complete Streets are intended to enable safe use and support mobility for all users, particularly vulnerable users and underinvested and underserved communities.

In considering equitable access to transportation, Complete Streets provides the flexibility to take into consideration diverseDRAFT modes of transportation, including but not limited to walking, biking, driving, wheeling/rolling, riding public transit, car sharing/carpooling, using paratransit and taxis, delivering goods and services, and providing emergency response transportation. In creating transportation options, it ensures that residents and visitors, including children, older adults, and those without access to a motor vehicle, are able to access education, employment, recreation, religious and cultural institutions, and friends and family.

1Smart Growth America, “Complete Streets Mean Equitable Streets.” www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets. 2 Smart Growth America, “Complete Streets Help People with Disabilities.” www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets.

5

Complete Streets Implementation

Complete Streets in Florida In response to continued national and state attention on the high rate of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities in Florida, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) began a proactive approach to reducing the number of serious and fatal injury crashes across the state, particularly those that involve non-motorized users.

FDOT adopted a Complete Streets policy in 2014 and adopted a Complete Streets Implementation Plan in 2015. Following the Implementation Plan, FDOT released the Florida Design Manual (FDM), which systematically incorporates Complete Streets elements in the planning and design of State-maintained roadways based on context classification.

FDOT’s Context Classification System was designed to systematically incorporate the uses and intensities of surrounding land use into the design of roadways. The adopted context classification consists of eight classes that are determined based on the roadway users, surrounding land use, regional and local travel demand, and the challenges and opportunities of each roadway user. The context classification then determines key design criteria for all non-limited-access State roadways. Although existing conditions are the primary factor in determining context classification, FDOT’s classification methodology recognizes that land uses may change over time and allows projects to examine future land use and allowable densities to examine whether context will change in the future and whether a roadway should be designed to reflect existing conditions or potential future conditions.

Since FDOT adopted a Complete Streets approach in 2014, numerous cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) across the state have embraced Complete Streets and adopted their own policies or used Complete Street design principles in their roadway projects. Sarasota County has also established a Complete Streets approach in its Comprehensive Plan, and FDOT’s Context Classification System and design guidance from the FDM have helped inform the Complete Streets flexible design guidelines developed in this Implementation Plan. DRAFT Sarasota County Complete Streets Policy An effective Complete Streets Policy directs planners, designers, and engineers to consistently plan, design, build, operate, and maintain roadways with all users and all abilities in mind and ensures that considering the needs of all users and modes becomes the norm. Sarasota County’s Comprehensive Plan provides policy to guide the County in managing growth to meet the future economic, social, physical, and environmental needs of the County and its residents.

6

Complete Streets Implementation

Sarasota County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2016, establishes the County’s commitment to Complete Streets and a transportation system that provides safe and comfortable access to all users and diverse modes of transportation in all projects. The Comprehensive Plan’s Mobility Element establishes Core Principles that set the direction of the County’s transportation goals, objectives, and policies; these Core Principles center on the core tenets of Complete Streets. The Mobility Element further outlines a Complete Streets approach through policies that require the development of a Complete Streets program and regulations to ensure that a well-balanced multimodal transportation system is developed in a context-sensitive manner to address the safety and accessibility of all roadway users while improving the overall quality of life for Sarasota County residents.

Although the main Complete Streets objectives and policies are covered in the Mobility Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Complete Streets approach touches all the other Elements of the Plan. The main objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that provide directive for Complete Streets are identified in the following pages, and the full list of policies and objectives that apply to Complete Streets is provided in Appendix A.

The strategies identified in this document will round out the directives set by the policies in the Comprehensive Plan by supporting best practices and identifying the steps to implement Complete Streets. The approach and implementation strategies in this document were developed around the Comprehensive Plan’s core transportation principles and are designed to direct the integration and implementation of Complete Streets throughout Sarasota County.

The core principles of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Mobility Element include the following:

• Build a connected transportation system that is safe, efficient, and connected while offering alternative modes and being environmentally-conscious. • Promote connectivity, mobility, and accessibility within and between neighborhoods, employmentDRAFT lands, retail areas, schools, places of worship, parks, open spaces, and commercial areas. • Integrate land use, transportation, and parking, both locally and regionally, to create an affordable and accessible, transportation system that encourages health and livability. • Support multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel will ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities. • Identify transit as a primary component of an overall multi-modal transportation system in Sarasota County.

7

Complete Streets Implementation

2040 Comprehensive Plan Complete Streets Policy The main Complete Streets policy statements that require the development of Complete Streets in Sarasota County are included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Objective 1.4, Complete Streets and its respective policies. However, many more objectives and policies are included in the Mobility Element and throughout other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan that create the framework and directives for the Implementation Plan. As noted, these objectives and policies are provided in Appendix A.

TRAN OBJECTIVE 1.4 – COMPLETE STREETS

The Multi-Modal Transportation System shall enable County residents the opportunity to live and travel utilizing an integrated, inter-modal transportation system based on complete streets design principles and the latest technological innovations and trends including sharing of vehicles and bicycles and where applicable transport via water.

TRAN Policy 1.4.1 – Maintain a Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan for Sarasota County as a coordinated effort between Sarasota County and the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization and continue to provide for safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities which link new and existing development for both transportation and recreational purposes.

TRAN Policy 1.4.2 – The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan for Sarasota County shall identify multi-modal transportation improvements for bicycle and pedestrian consideration and also include a list of bicycle and pedestrian network improvement areas for inclusion into the Sarasota Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Capital Improvement Program, and for other funding sources.

TRAN Policy 1.4.3 – Establish and implement Complete Streets strategies in order to accommodate users (bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians) of all ages and abilities, improve public health and safety, active mobility and environmental quality by creating and maintaining a multimodalDRAFT network for all roadways. Complete Street strategies shall apply, at a minimum, to all new construction and reconstruction of collector and arterial roadways.

TRAN Policy 1.4.4 – Maintain provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to encourage unified developments to provide for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in their plans consistent with guidelines and standards contained in the Land Development Regulations.

TRAN Policy 1.4.5 – Maintain provisions in the Land Development Regulations so that all new construction and reconstruction of collector and arterial roadways shall provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle mobility. New construction or reconstruction should encourage pedestrian connections through sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities between private property and right-of-way, prioritizing projects that will enhance connectivity to existing

8

Complete Streets Implementation

facilities. Where feasible Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards to ensure pedestrian safety should be applied.

TRAN Policy 1.4.6 – All new residential subdivisions with residential lots one acre or less in size shall provide for pedestrian access.

TRAN Policy 1.4.7 – All schools, parks and recreation facilities and planned developments shall provide pedestrian and bicycle access. Where feasible; sidewalks and bicycle facilities provided with road construction projects shall be connected to existing sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the construction.

TRAN Policy 1.4.8 – The Land Development Regulations shall require pedestrian and bicycle linkages between adjacent land uses and off-site connections to adjacent retail, employment, recreation, civic and educational uses.

TRAN Policy 1.4.9 – Periodically review the Multi-Modal Transportation System to ensure consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long Range Transportation Plan in furtherance of coordinated intermodal management of the region’s surface and water transportation system.

TRAN Policy 1.4.10 – Transportation decisions will take into consideration the needs of the county’s aging and disabled populations, with a goal of enabling the mobility of residents of all abilities and encouraging aging-in place. Beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), opportunities exist to facilitate independent mobility throughout life, such as longer pedestrian crossing times, wider sidewalks, off-road paths for electric scooters or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, and other ideas should be encouraged.

TRAN Policy 1.4.11 – Coordinate efforts with neighboring counties to improve inter-county transit service. DRAFT

9

Complete Streets Implementation

Current Complete Streets Efforts Through the policies and objectives explicated in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the County has already taken the first steps towards incorporating a Complete Streets and context-sensitive approach to the design and maintenance of their roadways. The County has incorporated various elements into transportation projects, such as adding bicycle lanes where there previously were none and including shared-lane markings where appropriate and where traditional bicycle lanes could not be accommodated.

A current example of integrating Complete Streets elements into a transportation project are the improvements to West Dearborn Street and South McCall Road that are being proposed by the Englewood Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Although this is not a full Complete Streets project, the conceptual designs include elements that reflect the context of the adjacent land uses and increase the comfort and safety of all roadway users. The features in the conceptual plan include angled on-street parking, new landscaping, wider sidewalks, redesigned benches and amenities, and decorative lighting.

Conceptual renderingDRAFT of West Dearborn Street typical block treatment

10

Complete Streets Implementation

Complete Streets Approach A critical component of Complete Streets is that they vary in design and function and the elements of roadway design depend on the form and scale of land use, the function of the roadway within the greater transportation network, and the availability of right-of-way. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) have embraced flexibility in design and the idea that roadway designers should be provided with the ability to use professional judgment in applying guidelines rather than applying a purely prescriptive design approach. This flexible approach allows transportation planners, designers, and operators to focus on providing a safe transportation system for all users that connects people to the places they need and want to go in ways that meet the needs of all modes and are sensitive to community character, livability, and quality of life. To take a flexible approach, understanding the various characteristics of the County’s roadway network is essential for ensuring that roadway design and operations align with the uses and demands placed upon a roadway.

A flexible design approach is based on safely accommodating the various users of a roadway by considering community context, surrounding land uses, street function, and the needs of a diverse set of roadways users has been developed. This flexible approach uses the function and context of a roadway as the primary considerations when making design decision.

Functional Context Flexible Design Classification Classification Guidance

Functional Classification Transportation networks are made up of a variety of streets that each serve different functions. Designating streetsDRAFT by functional classification (or type) serves to organize streets by their intended use and what they connect to. Sarasota County has its own street classification system, as defined in the Mobility Element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, that describes access type, service characteristics, and general trip type of the different streets. Whereas Freeway/ Expressway is included in the County’s classification, it is not included in the Complete Streets design approach, as these limited access facilities are specifically designed for high-traffic, high-speed motor vehicles. The County’s functional classifications included in the Complete Streets flexible design approach are as follows and shown in Figure 1:

11

Complete Streets Implementation

• Major Arterials facilitate relatively long trip lengths at moderate-to-high operating speeds with somewhat limited access to adjacent properties. They generally serve major centers of activity in urban areas and have the highest traffic volume corridors. – Examples – US-41, Fruitville Rd, Laurel Rd, Sumter Blvd • Minor Arterials provide somewhat shorter trip lengths than major arterials and generally interconnect with augment major arterial routes at moderate operating speeds and allow somewhat greater access to adjacent properties than major arterials. – Examples – Gulf of Mexico Dr, Bahia Vista St, Haberland Blvd • Major Collectors collect and distribute significant amounts of traffic between arterials, minor collectors, and local roads at moderate-to-low operating speeds. Major collectors provide for more accessibility to adjacent properties than arterials. Examples – Webber St, Harbor Dr S, Biscayne Dr • Minor Collectors collect and distribute moderate amounts of traffic between arterials, major collectors, and local roads at relatively low operating speeds with greater accessibility than major collectors. – Examples – Lockwood Ridge Rd, Dr Martin Luther King Jr Way, Shamrock Dr, Ortiz Blvd • Significant Local Roads are local roads that provide a limited mobility function. They serve the accessibility role of local roads but have traffic characteristics and a collection/ distribution function of low-volume collector roads. Typically, the roadways are residential subdivision streets characterized by higher volumes than local roads. Traffic volumes are high enough that traffic calming, traffic abatement, or additional or enhanced pedestrian and bicycle amenities may be needed to ensure that the road can serve its local road function. – Examples – DebrecenDRAFT Rd, Jamaica Rd/Seminole Dr, Plantation Blvd • Local Roads generally provide access to abutting properties. Local roads have relatively low traffic volumes, operating speeds, and trip lengths and minimal through-traffic movements. When high traffic volumes compromise a local road’s ability to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the road should be considered for designation as a significant local road. – Examples – Cocoanut Ave, Nokomis Ave, Raywood Ave

12

Complete Streets Implementation

Figure 1: Sarasota County Functional Classification

Context Classification FDOT’s Context Classification System was designed as part of its Complete Streets program and aims to systematically incorporate roadway connectivity, development patterns, and land use and intensities into the design of roadways to support safe and comfortable travel for anticipated roadway users. The Context Classification System is comprised of eight context classifications that are informed by users along the roadway, surrounding land use, regional and local travel demand,DRAFT and the challenges and opportunities of each roadway user. Context classification is determined by a series of qualitative and quantitative primary measures. Primary measures for assessing the proper context classification for a roadway are:

• Land use • Building height • Building placement • Fronting uses • Location of off-street parking • Roadway connectivity (e.g. intersection density, block perimeters and length)

13

Complete Streets Implementation

If the primary measures conclude in an indeterminate context classification based on FDOT’s adopted standards, secondary measures and professional judgment are used to finalize the context classification:

• Allowed residential density • Allowed office/retail density • Population density • Employment density In addition to existing context, the FDOT Context Classification System recognizes that land uses may change over time; projects may examine future land use and allowable densities to examine whether a context will change in the future and whether a roadway should be designed under existing conditions or potential future conditions. Figure 2 is a transect of the context classifications and shows how classifications change as the surrounding land uses change along the roadway. Error! Reference source not found.

Figure 2: Context Classification Transect

Table 1 provides descriptions of the context classifications and their general characteristics, and Figure 3 is useful for understanding context classification, as it shows the expected user types by context classification, which can help in determining the design features necessary to meet the needsDRAFT of roadway users. Figure 4 shows the preliminary context classification of the roadways in Sarasota County based on FDOT’s classification methodology. As new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects are proposed, the context class of the project segment should be reassessed to ensure that the classification is reflective of the development patterns and expected roadway users.

14

Complete Streets Implementation

Table 1: Context Classification Characteristics

Context Classification Distinguishing Characteristics Primary Land Uses Lands preserved in a natural or C1 – wilderness condition, lands Conservation Land, Open Natural unsuitable for development due Space, or Park to natural conditions. Sparsely settled lands; may C2 – include agricultural land, Agricultural or Single-Family Rural grassland, woodland, and Residential wetlands. Small concentrations of developed areas surrounded Retail, Office, Single-Family or C2T – immediately by rural and Multi-Family Residential, Rural Town natural areas; includes many Institutional, or Industrial historic towns. Mostly residential uses within Single-Family or Multi-Family C3R – Suburban Residential large blocks and a disconnected Residential or sparse roadway network. Mostly non-residential uses with large building footprints and Retail, Office, Multi-Family C3C – Suburban Commercial large parking lots within large Residential, Institutional, or blocks and disconnected or Industrial sparse roadway network. Mix of uses set within small blocks with a well-connected roadway network. May extend Single-Family or Multi-Family C4 – long distances. Roadway Residential, Institutional, Urban General network usually connects to Neighborhood Scale Retail, or residential neighborhood Office immediately along corridor or behind uses fronting roadway. Mix of uses within small blocks DRAFTwith a well-connected roadway network. Typically concentrated Retail, Office, Single-Family or C5 – around a few blocks and Multi-Family Residential, Urban Center identified as part of a civic or Institutional, or Light Industrial economic center of a community, town, or city.

15

Complete Streets Implementation

Source: FDOT Context Classification Guide Figure 3: Expected User Types and Use by Context Classification

DRAFT

Figure 4: Sarasota County Preliminary Context Classification

16

Complete Streets Implementation

Assigning context classification is an essential component of implementing Complete Streets and developing a transportation network that safely meets the needs of all existing and anticipated users. Agencies can adopt different design criteria and standards based upon context classification if they are ensuring that the needs of the users will be met. To help promote consistency in design and in the way that context classification is assigned in Sarasota County, the Complete Streets design guidelines use a context classification similar to FDOT’s Context Classification System. Note that in FDOT’s Urban Core (C6) designation is not included in the County’s design approach because it is applied only within urbanized areas with populations of greater than 1,000,000 people; therefore, this designation is not applicable within Sarasota County.

Flexible Design Guidance Many different nationally-recognized design manuals and guidebooks, including the FDM and the Draft 2018 Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Florida Greenbook), provide guidance for Complete Streets. A common theme of these guides and manuals is the understanding that designing for the safety and comfort of a roadway’s most vulnerable users will result in one that better serves the safety of everyone and enhances the economic and social health of the community.

Identifying the needs of all users at the early stages of a project assures that the project’s scope defines all necessary improvements and that the budget is adequate for design, right-of-way, and construction. The Flexible Design Guidance Matrix was created as a supplemental tool to the FDM and the Florida Greenbook for the development of Complete Streets projects in Sarasota County. The Matrix uses context classification, functional classification, and anticipated users to inform key design specifications such as design speeds, lane widths, and types of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and freight facilities to be included in the design concept (Table 2). This Matrix should be used early in projects to identify the needs of roadwayDRAFT users and the preferential facility types for each transportation mode. A detailed version of the Matrix is provided in Appendix B.

17

Complete Streets Implementation

Table 2: Flexible Design Guidance Matrix

Sarasota County Functional Class

Context Flexible Significant Major Minor Major Minor Local Classificatio Design Local Arterials Arterials Collectors Collectors Roads n Guidance Roads Design Speed 45-65 mph 45-65 mph 30-60 mph 30-50 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph

Sidewalk 5 ft sidewalk or shared use path where demand is demonstrated or paved shoulder (≥ Facilities C1 – Natural 5ft) Bicycle Facilities* Travel 12 ft 12 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft 11 ft 11 ft Lanes** Design Speed 45-65 mph 45-65 mph 30-60 mph 30-50 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph

Sidewalk 5 ft sidewalk or shared use path where demand is demonstrated or paved shoulder (≥ Facilities C2 – Rural 5ft) Bicycle Facilities* Travel 12 ft 12 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft 11 ft 11 ft Lanes** Design Speed 35 – 45 mph 35-45 mph 30-45 mph 30-45 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk 5-10 ft 5-10 ft 5-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft 5-6 ft Facilities

Separated Separated Separated Separated facility, facility, C2T – Rural facility, facility, buffered buffered Buffered Shared street Town Bicycle buffered buffered lane, lane, lane or or Facilities* lane, or lane, or standard standard standard neighborhood parallel parallel (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane greenway facility facility or parallel or parallel facility facility

Travel 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11ft Lanes** Design Speed 35-55 mph 35-55 mph 30-45 mph 30-40 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk 6-10 ftDRAFT 6-8 ft 6-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft Facilities Separated Separated Separated Separated facility, facility, C3R – facility, facility, buffered buffered Buffered Shared street Suburban Bicycle buffered buffered lane, lane, lane or or Residential Facilities* lane, or lane, or standard standard standard neighborhood parallel parallel (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane greenway facility facility or parallel or parallel facility facility Travel 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Lanes** 35-55 Design Speed 35-55 mph** 30-40 mph 30-40 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph mph**

18

Complete Streets Implementation

Sarasota County Functional Class

Context Flexible Significant Major Minor Major Minor Local Classificatio Design Local Arterials Arterials Collectors Collectors Roads n Guidance Roads Sidewalk 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft Facilities Separated Separated Separated Separated facility, facility, facility, facility, buffered Buffered Shared street C3C – Bicycle buffered buffered buffered lane, lane or or Suburban Facilities* lane, or lane, or lane, or standard standard neighborhood Commercial parallel parallel parallel (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane greenway facility facility facility or parallel facility Travel 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Lanes** Design Speed 30-45 mph 30-45 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph 20-30 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft Facilities Separated Separated facility, Separated Separated lane, buffered facility, facility, Buffered Shared street C4 – Urban buffered on Bicycle lane, buffered buffered lane or or General street lane Facilities* standard lane, lane, standard neighborhood or on (5 ft) lane, standard standard (5 ft) lane greenway parallel or parallel (5 ft) lane (5 ft) lane streets facility Travel 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Lanes** Design Speed 25-35 mph 25-35 mph 25-35 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 8-12 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft Facilities Separated Separated Separated facility, facility, lane, buffered buffered Buffered Standard Shared street C5 – Urban buffered on Bicycle lane, lane, lane or (5 ft) lane or Center street lane Facilities* standard standard standard or shared neighborhood or on (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane, (5 ft) lane street greenway parallel or parallel or parallel streets DRAFTfacility facility Travel 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Lanes** *The posted/travel speed of the roadway should be a primary determinate when identifying the preferred bicycle facility; shared use paths should also be considered where separated bike lanes are indicated. **Width depends on SIS facility designation, heavy truck volumes, and transit needs. ***Bus stops and shelters should be considered along transit routes, especially along high ridership routes. The Design Guidance Matrix was developed with the acknowledgment that there is no one- size-fits-all approach and that all roadways have different constraints and priorities and require different tradeoffs and accommodations. By taking a network approach, the County will be able to evaluate the overall system to identify opportunities to provide a comprehensive network of modal options that balance transportation needs.

19

Complete Streets Implementation

To keep the Design Guidance Matrix relevant, a best practices review should be completed periodically, and the Matrix should be updated with the new practices so it can continue to be an effective Complete Streets design tool.

Design Guidance Matrix Definitions The Flexible Design Guidance Matrix identifies several different types of bicycle facilities. The following is a summary of many of the various bicycle facility types that should be considered when evaluating and designing roadways for Complete Streets.

• Standard Bicycle Lane – A standard bicycle lane is the portion of a roadway designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Standard bicycle lanes are designated by a bicycle symbol pavement marking and striping, they are a minimum of 4-feet wide if no curb and gutter are present and 5-feet wide with curb and gutter. While standard bicycle lanes can accommodate a wide variety of bicyclists, along busier roadways and roadways with higher speed limits, the typical users are those who are most comfortable riding with traffic. While not considered a preferred facility for developing a low-stress bike system, standard bicycle lanes can be an effective way to provide connections to destinations and in between facilities when other options are not feasible.

• Buffered Bicycle Lane – Buffered bicycle lanes are standard bicycle lanes with a designated (painted) buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent travel lane. Buffered bicycle lanes are typically 6- to 7-feet wide, the additionalDRAFT space between people biking and adjacent motor vehicles provides an additional degree of comfort to bicyclists and should be considered as a preferred treatment when bicycle lanes are being considered.

• Separated Bicycle Facility – Separated bicycle facilities include both separated on- street bicycle lanes and shared use paths located directly adjacent to the roadway (within the right-of-way).

20

Complete Streets Implementation

o Separated Bicycle Lanes are one-way or two-way exclusive bicycle lanes that are located within the roadway and are physical separated from motor vehicle traffic using a vertical element such as flex-posts, bollards, raised medians, curbs, landscaping, on-street parking, or other rigid barriers. Roadways with separated bicycle lanes should also include a sidewalk to accommodate pedestrians. Design care must be taken at intersections and driveways when considering separated bicycle lanes; the FDM Chapter 223 and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide include detailed design guidance on the application of separated bicycle lanes.

o Shared Use Paths are facilities physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and can be located either within the roadway right-of-way or within an adjacent independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may be used by people biking and/or walking and are typically a minimum of 8 to 10 feet wide. Shared use paths may substitute for a sidewalk and bicycle lanes when higher (> 35 mph) traffic speeds are present.

• Bicycle Boulevard – Bicycle boulevards, also known as neighborhood greenways or neighborhood bikeways, are low-volume, low-speed, low-stress streets that are designated and designedDRAFT to give people biking and walking modal priority. Bicycle boulevards enhance safety and comfort by using design treatments such as signage, pavement markings, speed and/or volume reduction features and crossing improvements. These treatments encourage through movements of bicyclists while discouraging similar through-trips by non- local motorized traffic. Bicycle boulevards also provide low-stress conditions for people walking and make streets safer for people to

21

Complete Streets Implementation

drive on and often connect or go through neighborhoods.

• Shared Street – Shared streets are streets that are prioritized for pedestrian and bicycle usage. They are typically low-volume residential streets where drive-through traffic is discouraged, while still allowing motor vehicle access for residents, deliveries, and emergency personnel. The concept of a shared street is to remove the formal distinctions between spaces dedicated to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorized vehicles to create a space that is equally shared by everyone with users becoming increasingly aware and respectful of each other.

Supporting Design Elements In addition to the design elements identified in the Design Guidance Matrix, the following list provides some common concepts and design elements that are often incorporated into the development of Complete Streets:

• Design Speed – Vehicular speed has a measured impact on both comfort and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Higher vehicular speeds increase the difficulty for pedestrians to cross a street, as larger gaps are required between vehicles. Additionally, higher speeds increase the force with which a vehicle strikes another vehicle, pedestrian, or bicyclist, leading to more severe injuries and less likelihood of survival. Traffic calming measures such as narrower lane widths, roadside landscaping, speed humps, and curb extensions are design tools that can be used to design roads with lower speeds to significantly increase the safety for all roadway users and the quality of the bicycle and pedestrian experience. • Roadway and Travel DRAFTLane Width – Wider streets, especially those with wider travel lanes (> 11 ft) typically experience higher average speeds than narrower streets with narrower travel lanes. Considering expected roadway users when determining lane width is an essential component of Complete Streets to ensure that appropriate space is allocated to serve the expected transportation modes (walk, cycle, transit, personal vehicle, freight). • Block Length – Reducing the unimpeded block length or the distance drivers may travel without being required to slow or stop provides more crossing opportunities and can help in managing travel speeds.

22

Complete Streets Implementation

• Connectivity – Network connectivity is significant in reducing travel distance for all modes, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, where gaps in the network are more common and can act as barriers to mobility. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities – Lack of sidewalks and bicycle facilities suppresses travel by these modes and can increase danger for those who choose to travel on foot or by bicycle. Sidewalks should be present along all arterial and collector roadways in urban areas. Travel speed and traffic volume should be the primary determinants for identifying preferred bicycle facilities. A dedicated bicycle facility should be considered for all roadways with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 vehicles per day and roadway speed greater than 30 mph. Where separated bicycle facilities are a preferred option, shared-use paths should also be considered. • Curb Extensions – Curb extensions, or bulb-outs, reduce the effective crossing distance of the roadway by extending the curb line into the roadway. They have many pedestrian benefits, including reduced crossing distances and enhanced visibility between pedestrians and other roadway users. • Curb Return Radii – Corner radius has a significant impact on an intersection, as larger curb radii encourage turns at higher speeds and smaller curb radii reduce speeds, shorten pedestrian crossing distances, and improve sight lines. Curb radii should balance the needs for both the design vehicle (larger trucks) and multimodal traffic. • Marked Crosswalks – Careful consideration should be given to when to mark a crosswalk and when enhanced crossing treatments are needed. • Raised Landscaped Medians – Raised medians provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing a roadway, allowing them to negotiate one direction of travel at a time; they also can help in managing roadway travel speeds. • Landscaping/Street Furniture – Horizontal separation from a roadway by use of shade trees and streetDRAFT furniture adds to pedestrian comfort and sense of safety and helps to manage roadway travel speeds. • Parking – On-street parking serves as a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians on sidewalks; it also supports local commercial use along a roadway and encourages stores to orient their storefronts towards the sidewalk. • Driveway Crossings – Driveway design has a considerable influence on pedestrian safety and comfort, as driveways typically cross sidewalks and put pedestrians in direct conflict with motor vehicles. • Lighting – Street lighting is a critical component of a comfortable and safe roadway environment.

23

Complete Streets Implementation

• Bus Stops – Comfortable, accessible, and safe bus stops improve the value of transit to the community. Amenities can include benches, trach receptacles, shelters, lighting, bicycle racks, bus schedules, maps, bus arrival information, and public art. • Lane Repurposing – Lane repurposing, or road diets reduce the number of travel lanes on a roadway in exchange for features such as bicycle lanes, expanded sidewalks, on-street parking, or landscaping. • Green Stormwater Infrastructure – Bio retention and filtration planters, swales, stormwater trees, and permeable pavement can be integrated into the right-of-way to manage stormwater runoff and enhance street aesthetics. • Accessibility Standards – A requirement that facilities in the public right-of-way be built to accommodate needs of older adults and persons with disabilities. Accessible standards can go beyond compliance with the ADA to include elements such as longer pedestrian crossing times, wider sidewalks, and off-road paths for electric scooters, among many others.

Design Examples for Context and Functional Classification Combinations Application of the Flexible Design Guide Matrix along with incorporation of Complete Streets design elements can result in streets that better accommodate all users of all abilities. Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 provide conceptual illustrations of how Complete Streets could influence design along some of the more common street types in Sarasota County. Typical section dimensions for Complete Streets elements are provided for four street types—Urban General (C4) – Major Collector, Suburban Commercial (C3C) – Major Arterial, Suburban Residential (C3R) – Major Collector, and Suburban Residential (C3R) – Minor Collector. For each example, varying dimensions are established based on the standards described in the Flexible Design Guide Matrix and create possible typical sections. The typical section dimensionsDRAFT shown in these figures are representative of typical right-of- way widths found in Sarasota County. The dimensions may not necessarily reflect ideal widths but are shown in a manner to display appropriate Complete Streets elements without exceeding the assumed right-of-way and number of travel lanes; lane elimination, reconstruction, and new construction of roadways may provide opportunities to further enhance streets to accommodate additional elements. Wider dimensions for elements such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and buffer/landscape zones should be provided if conditions are feasible. On roadways where the posted speed limit is anticipated to be 40 mph or greater, the preferred bicycle facility type is considered to be a separated facility (either on- or off-street), as these provide users with a higher level of comfort and are most likely to attract a wider range of people to bicycle for transportation purposes.

24

Complete Streets Implementation

Figure 5: Urban General (C4) – Major Collector Design Example

Figure 6: SuburbanDRAFT Commercial (C3C) – Major Arterial

Figure 7: Suburban Residential (C3R) – Major Collector

25

Complete Streets Implementation

Figure 8: Suburban Residential (C3R) – Minor Collector

Additional Design Guides and Manuals The Flexible Design Guide Matrix and design elements noted previously provide guidance on design features and elements for various components of the street based on context and use. In conjunction with already-established design and engineering standards and Federal and State standards, these elements help establish the base towards implementing Complete Streets. It should be noted that the Complete Streets design elements in the Design Matrix and throughout this document do not supersede required federal and State roadway design standards.

In addition to the Design Matrix, several other design guidelines and manuals should be consulted for appropriate Complete Streets solutions; these include, but are not limited to the following:

• FDOT Design Manual (FDM) – Establishes geometric and design criteria for FDOT projects. FDOT’s Context Classification System defines eight context classifications that define various builtDRAFT environments. Each context has specific transportation and land use characteristics, development patterns, and design criteria that guide the planning of roadway design elements. Different street elements are essential to different built environments, such as urban and suburban. This context-based approach ensures that user needs and transportation functions are incorporated into the planning process. • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide – Guides developed by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) are supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for designing safe multimodal facilities. Most recommended treatments are either supported or not impeded by the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Design standards (MUTCD). The Urban Street Design Guide is a toolbox of

26

Complete Streets Implementation

strategies and tactics to enable practitioners to employ strategies that make streets safe, livable, and lively and includes tools for every mode of transportation and specific intersection design elements. • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide – Designed to create unique solutions for every kind of urban street and provides three levels of guidance—required, recommended, and optional. It also includes strategies for all bicycle user ages and abilities. • NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide – Provides best practices for sustainable stormwater management with rights-of-way. It was developed by public works, transportation, and water departments to provide policy and program strategies on green infrastructure, innovative street design, performance measures of streets, and site design for bioretention facilities. • NACTO Transit Street Design Guide – Provides design guidance for transit facilities and transit service on urban streets. Transit design goes beyond enhancing transit stops and involves creating transit-friendly intersections and travel lanes and implementing smart technology to enhance rider quality. • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide – Serves as a resource to help transportation practitioners consider the trade-offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. It builds upon other FHWA resources that promote design flexibility and support connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks and outlines a process for identifying the desired bikeway type and assessing and refining potential options based on real-world conditions and decision-making factors. This process is intended to accelerate the delivery of high-quality multimodal projects that improve safety for everyone and meet the transportation needs of people of all ages and abilities. • FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide – Outlines planning considerations and designDRAFT options for separated bike lanes. The guide features case studies that highlight notable practices and lessons learned and serves as a resource for practitioners and stakeholders as they plan and design separated bike lanes and implement connected bike networks. • FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks – Intended as a resource for transportation practitioners in small towns and rural communities. It applies existing national design guidelines in a rural setting and highlights small town and rural case studies. It addresses challenges specific to rural areas, recognizes how many rural roadways are operating today, and focuses on opportunities to make incremental improvements despite the geographic, fiscal, and other challenges that many rural communities face.

27

Complete Streets Implementation

• AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO Green Book) – Comprehensive reference manual that provides guidance for planning, education, and administrative efforts in formulating street design standards. The current 2018 edition specifically addresses geometric design elements of highways and streets. • USDOT/FHWA: Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts – Federal guidebook that supports practitioners on transit access, road diets, and intersection design to provide creative solutions that help practitioners reduce multimodal conflicts, enhanced network connectivity, and apply design flexibility. • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach – Guidelines that are a context- sensitive methodology for land use and building form and matching street elements and context zones. The purpose is to instruct practitioners in using context-sensitive elements in Complete Streets designs. A thoroughfare type is also provided instead of the traditional functional methodology. • ITE Implementing Context Sensitive Design on Multimodal Thoroughfares: A Practitioner’s Handbook – 2017 update to the first ITE guide provides guidance on transitioning urban and suburban areas into walkable and multimodal communities. Understanding the project corridor and surrounding land context allows a community to link physical street elements to multimodal goals and policies. • MUTCD Green Book –Published by FHWA, defines nationwide standards on traffic control device installation and maintenance on public streets, highways, and bikeways. Also defines standards for pedestrian and bicycle control signals, lane markings, and signage to ensure adequate space and warning is given to vehicular users. The MUTCD was updated in 2018 to include new technologies to better support connectivity,DRAFT safety, and efficiency in the transportation network. Complete Streets Implementation This section identifies the initial procedures and processes needed to fully integrate Complete Streets into the County’s transportation program and process. The successful implementation of Complete Streets relies on the integration of Complete Streets concepts into existing plans, design guidelines, programs, project development, evaluation methods, and the transportation decision-making process. The following outlines several processes, programs, and key documents that should be reviewed for updates to help take the

28

Complete Streets Implementation

County’s Complete Streets from policy to process. The five primary categories of implementation include:

• Administrative Changes • Project Delivery Changes • Program Enhancements • Funding Strategies and Sources • Performance Measures and Evaluation

Administrative Changes In addition to the Complete Streets policy, current and future administrative policies may need to be considered to address initiatives that arise from the implementation of the Complete Streets approach. Complete Streets should be integrated or considered for applicability in new manuals, guides, procedures, and policies developed in the future.

Designating a lead department or position to champion the Complete Streets process is an effective way to ensure that the Complete Streets policies are implemented throughout the county. Sarasota County should continue to review relevant national, State, and local research and best practices to develop a process and timeline for updating and revising its major documents to include necessary Complete Streets elements. The lead department or position can keep track of these updates and promote coordination among County departments with interests in the activities that occur within the right-of-way.

Comprehensive Plan Sarasota County’s Complete Street Policy is included in the existing Mobility Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and other supporting Complete Streets policies are referenced throughout the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan currently references context-sensitive design; however, updating the Plan to include specific reference to the Complete Streets Implementation Plan, contextDRAFT classification, and the Flexible Design Guidance Matrix will be critical updates in solidifying the tools and guidance necessary for the implementation of a truly accessible multimodal network. Additionally, including references to context classification and flexible design approaches will support the County in achieving the Comprehensive Plan goals for placemaking, economic development, environmental protection, and a multimodal network.

As Complete Streets are successfully implemented in Sarasota County, there may be the need to update the Complete Streets Policy (TRAN OBJ 1.4) in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes in the county’s transportation network. An alternative option would be to take the Complete Street objectives and policies from the Comprehensive Plan and adopt them as a standalone official County policy.

29

Complete Streets Implementation

Unified Development Code The County’s Unified Development Code (UDC) has made many significant advancements in countywide land development regulations and required transportation improvements that will positively impact the implementation of Complete Streets. In Article 13, Subdivision or Site Development Plan Regulations Section 124-253, Transportation Regulatory Provisions, the UDC adopts the most recent edition of the FDM, among other FDOT design standards, as the minimum roadway standards within the county. The FDM has formally integrated context classification and Complete Streets design standards into the design and engineering stages of roadway planning, and it is recommended that the County update the remaining sections of the Subdivision or Site Development Plan Regulations to acknowledge and plan for land use context, functional class, and design speed, as referenced in the Complete Streets Implementation Plan. Additionally, the County should require, as a part of the Subdivision or Site Development Plan Regulations, that developers submit a preliminary context classification system of their internal roadways as well as any anticipated changes to context for all roadways abutting or connecting to the development based upon the County’s Context Classification System as referenced in earlier in this document.

Updates and amendments to several of the specific sections of note are the following:

• Chapter 124, Article 13, Subdivision or Site Development Plan Regulations, Section 124-253 Transportation Regulatory Provisions (b) (4) a. Street Improvements: − Update street, sidewalk, and bicycle standards and widths to reference Flexible Design Guidelines and current FDM standards. − Update reasons for determining deferment of requirement of sidewalk construction to reference Flexible Design Guidelines and Complete Streets Exceptions. − Update to include option for off-street shared-use paths as low-stress bicycle and pedestrian facilitiesDRAFT, as referenced in the Flexible Design Guidelines. Impact fees policy, as described in Chapter 70, Articles III–IV, should be reviewed for impact fee credits. The Complete Streets flexible design guidance in the Implementation Plan should be considered in determining which transportation amenities will count toward impact fee credits and which transportation amenities will be required.

Project Delivery Changes Complete Streets can be achieved through major projects or incrementally through smaller improvements and reconstruction. It is important to define the types of projects that will trigger the requirement for consideration of Complete Streets elements. Defining these not

30

Complete Streets Implementation

only will provide clear direction to County staff but also will provide clear expectations and criteria for developers interested in developing in the county.

Complete Streets principles should apply to the priority multimodal corridors identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the following projects:

• New construction or widening (e.g., safety, intersection, and bridge projects) • Major reconstruction • Some types of Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) projects, including those that change the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway (e.g., reduction of travel lane widths, lane elimination projects, etc.) In many cases, sound engineering, planning, and landscape architecture judgment produce context-sensitive designs that will account for unique circumstances of different users, streets, neighborhoods, and activity centers. However, the County recognizes that not all roadways are suitable for all Complete Streets elements and that there are conditions for which it may be inappropriate to provide pedestrian, bicycle, or other Complete Streets elements. The County should consider the following situations as exceptions:

• Standard maintenance activities and pavement preservation activities (e.g., mowing, sweeping, spot repair, surface treatments such as chip seal) • Design features that would put roadway users at a relatively high safety risk • Cost of providing Complete Streets facilities would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use • Equivalent alternative already exists or is programmed in the TIP/CIP as a separate project for the specific use being exempted • Demonstrated absence of current and future need Consideration also should be given to how to phase and coordinate Complete Streets along longer roadways and/or roadways that may have multiple construction phases to minimize facility gaps and interruptionsDRAFT in connectivity. A Complete Streets Checklist has been developed to support the County in identifying projects that qualify for Complete Street elements or exceptions (see Appendix C). The checklist ensures that roadway projects comply with the intent of the Complete Streets policy and Implementation Plan and should be used in the project development phase and reviewed by the Sarasota County Public Works/Transportation Department. Although the checklist ensures that Complete Streets guidelines are consistently applied, it can also be used to guide future planning and design decisions and help facilitate discussions among planners, designers, engineers, elected officials, and the public on the implementation of Complete Streets.

31

Complete Streets Implementation

Program Enhancements In addition to process and project delivery improvements, several program enhancements can be made to help successfully implement Complete Streets in Sarasota County. The following sections outline education, outreach, and program opportunities that should be explored by the County.

Education and Outreach Support Incorporating the Complete Streets approach into Sarasota County’s practices will require ongoing education and training for both internal staff and Committees as well as external stakeholders and governments. The County should consider establishing a framework for providing ongoing training to internal staff as documents and procedures are updated and revised to ensure that changes are interpreted correctly and are used effectively throughout the County. The County’s citizen advisory committees and councils involved with transportation-related issues also should be included in this education and training, including:

• Bicycle Pedestrian Trail Advisory Committee • Citizen Advisory Committee for Public Transportation • MPO Citizens Advisory Network (multi-jurisdictional) • Traffic Advisory Council • Sarasota Community Traffic Safety Team The County should ensure that external governments, stakeholders, and consultant staff are aware of the changes to Complete Streets policy and procedures to ensure consistency in application of the practices established through the Program. This can include:

• FDOT • Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) • Regional planning organizations • City governments DRAFT • Consultants • Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations • Public health partners • Economic development partners • Community members or organizations Some local governments have found it useful to set up a Complete Streets Committee or task force to spearhead public information campaigns, review and evaluate the performance of Complete Streets implementation, review project designs, coordinate with government agencies, and monitor policy exemptions, among other tasks. A new committee can be created, or the duties of the Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Advisory

32

Complete Streets Implementation

Committee’s mandate can be expanded to include Complete Streets. Over time, as the Complete Streets program becomes institutionalized, the committee may not need to be active.

FDOT has resources available on statewide Complete Streets implementation and application that may be beneficial to local governments and staff for contextualizing Complete Streets, processes, and purpose. In addition, Sarasota County may benefit from continuing to participate in the annual Gulf Coast Safe Streets Summit, an event hosted by FDOT and local MPOs that focuses on sharing best practices, advocating for active transportation and public health, and providing valuable networking opportunities. The event is West Central Florida’s preeminent educational event aimed at encouraging the implementation of Complete Streets.

Ride & Stride Program Programs that provide information and equipment to residents and visitors for accessing multimodal facilities play a vital role in the successful implementation and use of Complete Streets. Sarasota County currently runs the Ride & Stride program that focuses on the following initiatives:

• Support Sarasota County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • Encourage use of alternative transportation and healthy lifestyles and promote vibrant and safe communities. • Educate and promote bicycle and pedestrian programs. • Support a united message throughout the organization to encourage thoughtful intent to pursue good health and quality of life in Sarasota County. Through the Ride & Stride program’sDRAFT outreach and education initiatives, Sarasota County staff have provided the following safety equipment and educational materials and supported the development of the following facilities:

• Front and rear bike lights – 4,000 • Shoe lights – 3,000 • Bike bells – 1,500 • Tire lights – 3,000 • Helmets – 875 • Education materials – 1,500 • Bike maps – 5,000

33

Complete Streets Implementation

• Sharrows – 23 lane miles Although the Ride & Stride program has focused primarily on bicycle and pedestrian initiatives, the program could provide a good foundation for implementing and furthering Complete Streets efforts. The Ride & Stride program has already established bicycle and pedestrian partnerships within the county and can build on these connections to seek opportunities to partner with additional organizations that have mandates that align with Complete Streets initiatives (such as public health organizations, non-governmental organizations, economic development partners, and citizen advocacy groups). These organization can support the County in connecting with the public and can provide support in the design and development of additional Complete Streets infrastructure projects. Diversifying and expanding the Ride & Stride program to include Complete Streets can improve access, education, and awareness about the program and increase overall use of the Complete Streets network throughout the county.

Community Engagement An effective public engagement process is essential in ensuring that Complete Streets efforts are meeting the community’s needs and have its support. Complete Streets is a context-sensitive approach to roadway design that benefits from early and ongoing communication with project stakeholders for educational outreach, input, and feedback purposes. Effective public engagement is necessary throughout the entire implementation process, including both the planning and project phases. Public engagement should be specifically considered during Complete Streets project development phases. In the project phase, public engagement provides community and agency stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback on specific Complete Streets projects. This can include specific safety issues in the study area, contributing circumstances, and treatments that the public thinks may benefit the area and roadway users. Ultimately, having the community’s participation is critical for ensuring that Complete Streets projects are benefiting the community equally and that safe, comfortable, aDRAFTnd convenient transportation networks that serve community need are being developed.

Funding Strategies and Sources This section provides an overview of funding opportunities for the implementation of Complete Streets projects in Sarasota County. The County is encouraged to seek funding for large-scale infrastructure projects as well as small-scale, more cost-efficient interim projects to build a comprehensive multimodal network of safe, comfortable, and convenient transportation options for all Sarasota County residents and visitors.

The long-term objective is for Complete Street elements to be considered integral components of transportation projects and not just add-ons; however, it is recognized that

34

Complete Streets Implementation

many current funding opportunities and projects require seeking separate or dedicated funding for construction of Complete Street elements.

Funding sources can include, but are not limited to, federal funds and competitive/discretionary grant programs and public/private partnerships. Funding opportunities can be sought individually, by the County, or in collaboration with adjacent municipalities, the MPO, SCAT, or FDOT. The County should work with the MPO to identify Complete Streets projects for inclusion in the Priority Project List and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), as this can increase access to federal funds and discretionary grants.

The following is a list of opportunities for funding Complete Streets that the County could pursue individually or in collaboration with their partners:

• County Incentive Program (CIGP) – Grants to counties for improving a transportation facility including transit located on the State Highway System (SHS) or that relieves traffic congestion on the SHS. • Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) – Provides funding to improve regionally-significant transportation facilities in regional transportation areas defined by Florida Statutes. State funds are available throughout Florida to provide incentives for local governments and the private sector to help pay for critically- needed projects that benefit regional travel and commerce. • Recreational Trails Program (RTP) – Funding administered through the FDOT State Safety Office; awards subgrants for projects that address priority area programs identified in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) and activities that improve traffic safety and reduce crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities. Subgrants may be awarded for assisting in addressing traffic safety deficiencies, expansion of an ongoing activity, or development of a new program. Government agencies, agencies, law enforcement agencies, State colleges and universities, school districts, fire departments, public emergency service providers,DRAFT and certain qualified non-profit organizations are eligible to receive funding. • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grants – Several FTA grant opportunities are available that may be used to fund the design, construction, and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle projects that enhance or are related to public transportation facilities. Potential eligible projects include pedestrian and bicycle access to a public transportation facility and transit enhancements such as pedestrian access, walkways, and bicycle access, including bicycle storage facilities and equipment for transporting bicycles on public transportation vehicles.

35

Complete Streets Implementation

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grants – A variety of grant opportunities are provided for stormwater and green infrastructure, brownfield projects, and sustainable design strategies. • Safe Routes to School (SRTS) – Funding program under Transportation Alternatives (TA) that allocates funds for infrastructure improvements, enforcement, tools, safety education, and incentives that encourage walking and bicycling to school. SRTS is 100% funded and managed through FDOT on a cost-reimbursement basis. Programs can be implemented by a DOT, MPO, local government, school district, or school. • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – Allocated annually to cities and urban counties for a wide range of community development activities directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods, encouraging economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be eligible uses of these funds. Eligibility for participation is based on population data. • Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) – Grant funding for repairing, rebuilding, and enhancing transportation infrastructure that will have a significant local or regional impact. The program gives special consideration to projects that emphasize improved access to reliable, safe, and affordable transportation for communities in rural areas, such as projects that improve infrastructure condition, address public health and safety, promote regional connectivity, or facilitate economic growth or competitiveness. State and local governments, transit agencies, port authorities, and MPOs can receive BUILD grants. • Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail Program – Managed by FDOT, funds non-motorized, paved shared-use trails that are part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System Priority Trail Map coordinated by the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT). DRAFT • Fixed Guideway Modernization (Section 5309) – Federal program that provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. Eligible bicycle projects include bicycle racks for buses, shelters, and equipment. Sate and local governments agencies, including transit agencies are eligible recipients. • Local General Fund – Used for daily and long-term operations of the State, County, or local government and can be used to pay for building and maintaining infrastructure. • Local Option Fuel Tax (LOFT) – Florida law authorizes local governments to impose several types of local option taxes, including LOFT. County governments are

36

Complete Streets Implementation

authorized to levy up to 12 cents of local option fuel taxes in three separate levies on fuel sold within the county. The funds from the fuel tax are used for transportation expenditures. • Local Option Sales Tax – Florida law authorizes local governments to impose several types of local option taxes including a Local Government Infrastructure discretionary sales tax, a sales surtax that applies to all transactions subject to the State sales and communications services taxes. The funds from the tax are used for local infrastructure projects. • Road Impact Fees – Local governments are permitted to impose a one-time regulatory fee on development to provide for capital facilities’ costs made necessary by growth and development. Road impact fees are intended fund costs associated with increasing the capacity of arterial and collector roads within the local government’s transportation network. • Mobility or Multimodal Impact Fees – Local governments are permitted to impose a one-time regulatory fee on development to provide for capital facilities’ costs made necessary by growth and development. Mobility fees are intended to fund costs associated with transit improvements, including improvements or expansions to roadways and bike/pedestrian infrastructure

Performance Measures and Evaluation Evaluating the effectiveness of the Complete Streets Implementation Plan and Complete Streets Policy is integral in building and maintaining a context-sensitive transportation network that provides safe, comfortable, and efficient access for all transportation modes and users.

Demonstrating the success and impacts of Complete Streets projects is an important component for ensuring successful implementation. Monitoring progress against benchmarked targets allowsDRAFT for transparency and accountability. Establishing performance measures also helps to inform decisions regarding project scoping, selection, and funding. Showing the success of Complete Streets demonstrates the benefits that result from investing in Complete Streets projects and works to ensure that the implementation of Complete Streets projects will result in safe, comfortable, efficient, accessible, and connected multimodal transportation options for all residents of Sarasota County.

Measurable data and targets that the County could collect and monitor on a regular basis to evaluate the effectiveness of its Complete Streets program include, but are not limited to the following:

37

Complete Streets Implementation

• Mileage of new bicycle infrastructure (bicycle lanes, trails, neighborhood greenways, etc.) • Linear feet of new pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, trails, etc.) • Number of new accessible pedestrian curb ramps installed • Type and number of pedestrian/bicycle friendly signage and landscaping improvements, including street trees, street furniture, and lighting • Percentage of transit stops accessible via sidewalks and bicycle facilities • Transit passenger trips (annual ridership) • Pedestrian and bicycle counts, including high need/use areas • Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to activity/employment centers and key destinations • Share of regional households within ½ mile of transit • Share of regional employment with ½ mile of transit • Total number of children walking or bicycling to schools • Percentage of bus stops with transit amenities (benches, shelters, bicycle racks, etc.) • Miles of narrowed travel lanes or repurposed travel lanes • Vehicular trip lengths • Vehicle miles traveled per capita • Rate of crashes, injuries, and fatalities • Economic benefits of Complete Streets projects (land value, parking utilization, retail vibrancy, etc.)

Actionable Steps Towards Implementation The actions outlined in this section provide clear steps that will ensure that Complete Streets are integrated into the County’s transportation projects moving forward. Implementation of these actions along with the utilization of the flexible design options presented in this document will equip the County with the necessary foundation to implement its Complete StreetsDRAFT policies. Initial Actions (within 2 Years) • Categorize all County streets based on the combination of context and functional classification. • Conduct a thorough review of County policies, street design standards, development ordinances, and other regulatory guidelines for compliance with Complete Streets and update as necessary. • Review and update engineering standards to incorporate the Flexible Design Guidance, particularly context classification, into the design standards.

38

Complete Streets Implementation

• Evaluate subdivision regulations to encourage connectivity in residential areas. • Develop and require a Complete Streets Checklist to ensure that all projects within the public right-of-way comply with the intent of the Complete Streets policies and objectives and that the guidelines are being applied consistently as part of the project approval process. • In addition to Transportation and Public Works, include staff from Planning and Development Services, Neighborhood Services, Transit, and Health and Safety at scoping meetings in the project review process and early in the design stages for opportunities of Complete Streets recommendations. • Identify all resurfacing (3R) and maintenance projects scheduled for the next five years; analyze for Complete Streets opportunities. • Develop an annual and five-year master list and map of priority projects from County departments to review opportunities to leverage funding and implement Complete Streets projects. • Create a tool to establish baselines and determine post-project findings for various performance measures.

Secondary Actions (within 5 Years) • Establish a Complete Streets Advisory Committee that includes geographically- diverse members and stakeholders from businesses and organizations who meet regularly (e.g., each quarter). The committee would serve as a public review committee to discuss and review Complete Streets projects throughout the county with technical guidance from staff. • Conduct special area and corridor studies to support development of Complete Streets projects. • Identify opportunities to preserve corridors and rights-of-way for future non- motorized enhancementsDRAFT. • Integrate existing trails into the transportation network and plan future trails as part of the County’s transportation network. • Develop and apply Road Safety Assessment tools for all modes for project identification or review (e.g., FHWA STEP program). • Enact temporary, pop-up, or demonstration projects that have the potential to showcase Complete Streets improvements with minimal investment and on an expedited timeframe; these can be pilot or demonstration projects that allow solutions to be tested before a significant investment is required.

39

Complete Streets Implementation

• Use or develop project prioritization criteria for funding and development of priority projects. • Seek diversified funding to not only mitigate larger infrastructure costs such as street redesigns, intersection projects, or resurfacing but also focus on other less expensive interim Complete Streets projects such as restriping, signal timings, neighborhood greenways, and landscaping. • Update performance measures and tools based on usage and outcomes.

Ongoing Actions • Continue to coordinate with other agencies to ensure project consistency and adherence to Complete Streets standards. • Continue to work with neighborhoods, businesses, organizations, and social support agencies to meet transportation needs. • Provide training and educational opportunities for staff on national and State Complete Streets best practices and innovations. • Work toward certifications for healthy communities and develop and support targeted active transportation programs (e.g., Ride & Stride, Bike-Friendly Communities, Walk-Friendly Communities, etc.).

DRAFT

40

Complete Streets Implementation

Appendix A Comprehensive Plan Complete Streets Policies

DRAFT

Complete Streets Implementation

Appendix A – Comprehensive Plan Complete Streets Policies The following section includes a full list of objectives that apply to Complete Streets Policies in Sarasota County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

Mobility Element Objective 1.1 Develop to create a financially feasible thoroughfare system:

• TRAN Policy 1.1.1: The Countywide Multi-Modal Construction and Maintenance Program should: o Accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders’ complete streets design principles into the Countywide Multi-Modal Construction and Maintenance Program. o Coordinate multi-modal transportation improvements with future needs of public transport facilities (airports, seaports, transit). o Give the highest priority to multi-modal transportation projects that address mobility in Urban Areas. • TRAN Policy 1.1.4: Sarasota County recognizes the interconnection between land use decisions and transportation needs and options and will work to ensure the transportation impacts are considered in land use decisions and vice versa. Land use strategies and development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled will be encouraged. Objective 1.3 Sarasota County shall provide for a safe, convenient, energy efficient, interconnected, multi-modal transportation system: • Tran Policy 1.3.3: For significant local roads operating below LOS C, the County shall identify and program improvements that will minimize the impacts of motorized vehicle traffic on bicycle and pedestrian quality of service. • Tran Policy 1.3.5: Develop multi-modal Quality Level of Service standards for bicycles and pedestriansDRAFT by 2020. • Tran Policy 1.3.14: Implement a “Green Infrastructure” multi-modal transportation network throughout Sarasota County. Objective 1.4 The Multi-Modal Transportation System shall enable County residents the opportunity to live and travel utilizing an integrated, inter-modal transportation system based on complete streets design principles and the latest technological innovations and trends including sharing of vehicles and bicycles and where applicable transport via water. • TRAN Policy 1.4.1 Maintain a Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan for Sarasota County as a coordinated effort between Sarasota County and the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization and continue to provide for safe and

A-1 Complete Streets Implementation

convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities which link new and existing development for both transportation and recreational purposes. • TRAN Policy 1.4.2 The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan for Sarasota County shall identify multi-modal transportation improvements for bicycle and pedestrian consideration and also include a list of bicycle and pedestrian network improvement areas for inclusion into the Sarasota Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Capital Improvement Program, and for other funding sources. • TRAN Policy 1.4.3 Establish and implement Complete Streets strategies in order to accommodate users (bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians) of all ages and abilities, improve public health and safety, active mobility and environmental quality by creating and maintaining a multimodal network for all roadways. Complete Street strategies shall apply, at a minimum, to all new construction and reconstruction of collector and arterial roadways. • TRAN Policy 1.4.4 Maintain provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to encourage unified developments to provide for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in their plans consistent with guidelines and standards contained in the Land Development Regulations. • TRAN Policy 1.4.5 Maintain provisions in the Land Development Regulations so that all new construction and reconstruction of collector and arterial roadways shall provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle mobility. New construction or reconstruction should encourage pedestrian connections through sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities between private property and right-of-way, prioritizing projects that will enhance connectivity to existing facilities. Where feasible Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards to ensure pedestrian safety should be applied. • TRAN Policy 1.4.6 All new residential subdivisions with residential lots one acre or less in size shall provide for pedestrian access. • TRAN Policy 1.4.7 All schools, parks and recreation facilities and planned developments shall provideDRAFT pedestrian and bicycle access. Where feasible; sidewalks and bicycle facilities provided with road construction projects shall be connected to existing sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the construction. • TRAN Policy 1.4.8 The Land Development Regulations shall require pedestrian and bicycle linkages between adjacent land uses and off-site connections to adjacent retail, employment, recreation, civic and educational uses. • TRAN Policy 1.4.9 Periodically review the Multi-Modal Transportation System to ensure consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long Range Transportation Plan

A-2 Complete Streets Implementation

in furtherance of coordinated intermodal management of the region’s surface and water transportation system. • TRAN Policy 1.4.10 Transportation decisions will take into consideration the needs of the county’s aging and disabled populations, with a goal of enabling the mobility of residents of all abilities and encouraging aging-in place. Beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, opportunities exist to facilitate independent mobility throughout life, such as longer pedestrian crossing times, wider sidewalks, off-road paths for electric scooters or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, and other ideas should be encouraged. • TRAN Policy 1.4.11 Coordinate efforts with neighboring counties to improve inter- county transit service. Objective 1.7 Multi-Modal Transportation Improvements shall be designed in a context sensitive manner and incorporate appropriate complete street principles based upon the location of the improvement within the community: • Tran Policy 1.7.1: Promote sustainable, context sensitive landscaping principles for all multi-modal transportation improvements in conjunction with Complete Streets design principles.

Objective 3.1 Continue to improve coordination of public transportation for the general public, minority and/or low-income populations, and the special needs of the transportation disadvantaged, with adjacent communities.

• Tran Policy 3.1.7 Consider the existing and future needs of public transit services and the needs of riders in the planning, programming and construction of roadway improvements including sidewalks, neighborhood projects and trails.

Objective 3.2 states to coordinate land use planning and land development based upon existing major trip generators or attractors, safe and convenient transit terminals with the provision of public transit service.

• Tran Policy 3.2.1Establish requirements for developments so that they support the use of public transit byDRAFT providing bus stop pads, pedestrian connections between development, public sidewalks and bus stops, and, at major developments, other bus stop passenger amenities including the provision of easements for the location of bus passenger shelters and bus stop safety modifications.

Land Use Element FLU Policy 1.2.11: Development a comprehensive mobility strategy that includes but is not limited to:

o Multi-modal land use planning to ensure that new developments and existing neighborhoods maximize the potential of non-automotive (e.g.,

A-3 Complete Streets Implementation

transit, walking, bicycling) access to a broad range of land uses and to encourage inter-neighborhood connection. o Locating affordable housing along existing or planned transit services to allow households to reduce their transportation costs. o Transit-oriented and active living design guidelines to help guide new development and redevelopment. o Design requirements for integrating transportation facilities into neighborhoods as amenities so as to enhance the character of the neighborhoods and minimize the impacts. • FLU Policy 1.2.12: Encourage mixed use and/or higher densities along mobility and multi-modal corridors to support transit and other modes of transportation. • FLU Policy 4.3.2.: As part of a Mobility Plan adopted per provisions of the Transportation Mobility Element, the County may develop multimodal supportive land use overlays within all or a portion of a Mobility Plan area that allows for additional density and intensity, mixture of uses, additional height, reduced parking along with other incentives to promote a land use pattern that supports walking, bicycling and transit use. • HOU Policy 1.5.7: Promote and incentivize designs that promote neighborhood gathering, stimulate social relationships and build networks of neighborhood support. • HOU Policy 1.5.8: Promote and incentivize neighborhood designs that promote active lifestyles and healthy living through walkability and bikability, neighborhood parks, transit access and other techniques. • HOU Policy 1.5.9: Promote the sustainability and livability of neighborhoods through neighborhood plans. • HOU Policy 1.6.1: Ensure a compatible relationship between new housing and circulation patterns and encourage pedestrian and bicycle interconnectivity and transit friendly communities in order to minimize traffic impacts and promote healthy lifestyles. • HOU policy 1.6.9: EstablishDRAFT strategies that seek to balance the location of existing jobs and future job growth with the location and cost of housing within a geographic area to facilitate the ability of those working in the County to live near where they work and minimize transportation costs.

Environmental Systems Element • ENV Policy 3.1.3: Reduce pollution generated by motor vehicles by promoting cleaner burning, energy efficient vehicles, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid electric, and all electric vehicles and alternate fuels such as biodiesel and fuel cell technology, as well as through public education and encouraging the following:

A-4 Complete Streets Implementation

o the creation of mixed land use centers and residential form which utilizes clustering and Planned Unit Development (PUD) styles of design; o vegetative buffers between arterial roadways and residential neighborhoods (TRAN Policy 1.7.3, Transportation Chapter); and o the use of alternative modes of transport including public transit, bicycle and pedestrian paths/corridors and light rail (Policy 1.4.7, TRAN Goal 2, and TRAN Objective 2.1). • ENV Policy 4.2.2: Protect beaches, dunes and coastal vegetation from vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic by providing vehicular parking, and by managing pedestrian traffic. • ENV Policy 4.2.3: Encourage use of transit to access public beaches, bicycle use through the provision of bicycle paths and storage racks and planning for appropriate transit services.

Public Utilities Element • Water Policy 1.1.4: As part of the basin master planning program, the county shall identify: o Where the improvements of drainage facilities are not feasible or desirable, alternative methods may be employed including, but not limited to, off-line reservoirs, parks designed for flooding, and floodways. If the completion of improvements to provide the adopted minimum level of service standards for existing development or existing roadways would result in unacceptable adverse economic or social impacts to specific areas, a level of service less than the adopted minimum may be accepted for the specific area. • Water Policy 1.1.6: As the county develops stormwater management facilities, all system improvements shall be developed with consideration for aesthetics and the possibility of incorporation into the county park system. • Water Policy 1.3.2: Stormwater Quantity: Stormwater management systems shall provide for adequate control of stormwater runoff. Road access: roads shall be passable during flooding.DRAFT Roadway flooding <6” depth at the outside edge of pavement is considered passable.

Economic Development Element Econ Obj 2.2: Support practices that encourage the attraction and development of a workforce that is younger, inclusive and diverse.

• Econ Policy 2.2.1: Support the implementation of regulations that focus on the development of diverse housing options, multi-modal transportation and enhanced social amenities.

A-5 Complete Streets Implementation

• Econ Policy 2.2.2: Advocate for the elimination of regulations that prohibit the development of diverse housing options, multi-modal transportation and enhanced social amenities.

Econ Obj 5.1: Encourage and protect land and buildings for targeted businesses.

• Econ Policy 5.1.1: Develop quality infrastructure that connects places designed to retain talented people who have the flexibility to work from any location.

Econ Obj 5.2: Support transportation infrastructure, particularly roads, public transit and air transportation needed to support Targeted Industries.

• Econ Policy 5.2.1: Anticipate and meet the expanding mobility needs of residents, businesses and visitors. • Econ Policy 5.2.3: Support public transportation initiatives that will provide enhanced mobility connection between the workforce and employers.

Quality of Life Element Parks Obj 1.3: Improve recreational access to parks facilities for all Sarasota County residents and visitors.

• Parks Policy 1.3.1: Encourage the Sarasota County Area Transit System (SCAT) and Public Works to link major residential developments with county parks. • Parks Policy 1.3.2: Develop plans to resolve automobile parking inadequacies at water access parks, public beaches and beach accesses, where appropriate and feasible. • Parks Policy 1.3.5: Exceed minimum accessibility requirements where feasible, particularly related to outdoor recreation.

Parks Obj 1.6: Plan and provide trails within Sarasota County and its municipalities for recreation, mobility and economic development, consistent with the County’s Trails Master Plan and the State of Florida Trails Program.

• Parks Policy 1.6.1: ContinueDRAFT developing an interconnected system of bikeways, footpaths, blueways, and/or nature trails, including the expansion of the local rails- to-trails program, linking parks, schools, libraries, beaches, barrier islands and residential areas.

Libraries Obj 1.2: Improve access to public library facilities for Sarasota County’s population by providing public transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and access for people with physical disabilities. It is recognized that enhanced technological capabilities in or to Sarasota County Public Libraries also increases public access.

A-6 Complete Streets Implementation

• Libraries policy 1.2.1: Continue to encourage public transit service to or near existing public libraries and to new public library facilities as they are added to the Sarasota County Public Libraries. • Libraries policy 1.2.2: Bicycle and pedestrian access to public libraries should be consistent with all goals, objectives and policies in the Transportation/Mobility Chapter in The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Parking at public libraries will be provided consistent with applicable Land Development Regulations.

School Obj 1.2: Enhance community and neighborhood design through effective school facility design and siting standards.

• School Policy 1.2.3: All public schools shall provide bicycle and pedestrian access. Bicycle access to public schools should be incorporated in the county-wide bicycle plan. • School Policy 1.2.4: Sarasota County will have the lead responsibility for providing sidewalks along the frontage of pre-existing development within the two mile distance, in order to ensure continuous pedestrian access to public schools. Priority will be given to cases of hazardous walking conditions. Specific provisions for constructing such facilities will be included in the Capital Budget adopted each fiscal year. • School Policy 1.2.5: In coordination with the School Board, the County will evaluate school crossing zones to consider safe crossing of children along major roadways. The County will prioritize existing developed and subdivided areas for sidewalk improvements, such as schools with a high number of pedestrian and bicycle injuries or fatalities, schools requiring courtesy busing for hazardous walking conditions, schools with significant walking populations, but poor pedestrian and bicycle access, and needed safety improvements. • School Policy 1.2.6: The County will require new development at the time of construction plan (final subdivision or site plan) to provide for safe walking conditions consistent with Florida’s safe ways to school program: 1. New developments adjacentDRAFT to school properties shall be required to provide a right-of- way and a direct safe access path for pedestrian travel to existing and planned school sites, and shall connect to the neighborhood’s existing pedestrian network; 2. For new development and redevelopment within 2 miles of an existing or planned school, the County shall require complete, unobstructed and continuous sidewalks along the corridor that directly serves the school, or qualifies as an acceptable designated walk or bicycle route to the school. • School Policy 1.2.8: The County and the School Board will work to find opportunities to collaborate on public transit and school bus routes to better serve citizens and students.

A-7 Complete Streets Implementation

Appendix B Complete Streets Flexible Design Guidance Matrix

DRAFT

Complete Streets Implementation

Sarasota County Functional Class Major Minor Major Minor Significant Context Flexible Design Local Roads Classification Guidance Arterials Arterials Collectors Collectors Local Roads Design Speed 45-65 mph 45-65 mph 30-60 mph 30-50 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph Sidewalk Facilities 5 ft sidewalk or shared use path where demand is demonstrated or paved shoulder (≥ 5ft) C1 – Natural Bicycle Facilities* Travel Lanes** 12 ft 12 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft 11 ft 11 ft Design Speed 45 – 65 mph 45-65 mph 30-60 mph 30-50 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph Sidewalk Facilities C2 – Rural Bicycle Facilities* 5 ft sidewalk or shared use path where demand is demonstrated or paved shoulder (≥ 5ft) Travel Lanes** 12 ft 12 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft 11 ft 11 ft Design Speed 35 – 45 mph 35-45 mph 30-45 mph 30-45 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk Facilities 5-10 ft 5-10 ft 5-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft 5-6 ft Separated Separated Separated Separated Facility, Facility, Facility, Facility, Buffered Lane Shared Street or C2T – Rural Town Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Bicycle Facilities* Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Standard (5 ft) Standard (5 ft) or Standard (5 Bicycle or Parallel or Parallel Lane, or Lane, or ft) Lane Boulevard Facility Facility Parallel Facility Parallel Facility Travel Lanes** 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11ft Design Speed 35-55 mph 35-55 mph 30-45 mph 30-40 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk Facilities 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft Separated Separated Separated Separated C3R – Suburban Facility, Facility, Facility, Facility, Buffered Lane Shared Street or Residential Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Bicycle Facilities* Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Standard (5 ft) Standard (5 ft) or Standard (5 Bicycle or Parallel or Parallel Lane, or Lane, or ft) Lane Boulevard Facility Facility Parallel Facility Parallel Facility Travel Lanes** 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Design Speed 35-55 mph** 35-55 mph** 30-40 mph 30-40 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk Facilities 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft 5-8 ft 5-6 ft Separated Separated Separated Separated C3C – Suburban Facility, Facility, Facility, Facility, Buffered Lane Shared Street or Commercial Buffered Lane, Bicycle Facilities* Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Standard (5 ft) or Standard (5 Bicycle or Parallel or Parallel or Parallel Lane, or ft) Lane Boulevard Facility Facility Facility Parallel Facility Travel Lanes** 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Design Speed 30-45 mphDRAFT 30-45 mph 30-40 mph 30-40 mph 20-30 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk Facilities 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft Separated Separated Separated Separated C4 – Urban Lane, Buffered Facility, Facility, Facility, Buffered Lane Shared Street or General On Street Buffered Lane, Bicycle Facilities* Lane or on Standard (5 ft) Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, or Standard (5 Bicycle Parallel Lane, or Parallel Standard (5 ft) Standard (5 ft) ft) Lane Boulevard Streets Facility Lane Lane Travel Lanes** 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft Design Speed 25-35 mph 25-35 mph 25-35 mph 20-35 mph 20-30 mph 20-30 mph Sidewalk Facilities 10-12 ft 10-12 ft 8-12 ft 6-10 ft 6-8 ft 6-8 ft Separated Separated Separated C5 – Urban Lane, Buffered Facility, Facility, Buffered Lane Standard (5 ft) Shared Street or Center On Street Buffered Lane, Buffered Lane, Bicycle Facilities* Lane or on Standard (5 ft) Standard (5 ft) or Standard (5 Lane or Shared Bicycle Parallel Lane, or Parallel Lane, or ft) Lane Street Boulevard Streets Facility Parallel Facility Travel Lanes** 10-12 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft 10-11 ft

*The posted/travel speed of the roadway should be a primary determinate when identifying the preferred bicycle facility; shared use paths should also be considered where separated bike lanes are indicated. **Width depends on SIS facility designation, heavy truck volumes, and transit needs. ***Bus stops and shelters should be considered along transit routes; especially along high ridership routes.

B-1 Complete Streets Implementation

Appendix C Complete Streets Checklist

DRAFT Complete Streets Checklist Introduction

Sarasota County’s Complete Streets Checklist is a planning tool for staff to ensure that roadway projects in Sarasota County comply with the intent of the Complete Streets policies in the Comprehensive Plan which require “implementation of Complete Streets strategies to accommodate users (bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians) of all ages and abilities, improve public health and safety, active mobility and environmental quality by creating and maintaining a multimodal network for all roadways.

The Complete Streets Checklist will be used during project scoping and development and will be reviewed by the Sarasota County Public Works/Transportation Department for to ensure consistency in the application of the County’s Complete Streets policies and guidelines.

What Projects Use the Checklist?

In accordance with the County’s Complete Streets policies, the application of Complete Streets elements applies to new construction and reconstruction of roadways within the jurisdiction of or maintained by the County, including but not limited to intersection projects, capacity projects, safety projects, bridges, and other transportation facilities funded by Sarasota County.

The County recognizes that not all roadway projects and conditions are suitable for all Complete Streets elements and that there are conditions where it may be inappropriate to provide pedestrian, bicycle, or other Complete Streets elements (i.e., along limited access roadways). It is advised to refer to the County’s Complete Streets policy and implementation guidelines for a examples of project types and situations when Complete Streets elements may be exempt.

When is the Checklist Completed? This Checklist is to be completedDRAFT before the engineering phase, preferably at the end of a planning study or conceptual design. A follow-up review of the design elements should be completed during the design phase, towards with end of preliminary engineering or with 30 percent construction document submittals. This will allow for modifications in the design if an issue is identified during the completion of the checklist.

1 Complete Streets Checklist Complete Streets Checklist

Project Name:

Project Manager/Contact Name:

Contact Email Address: Contact Phone Number:

Contact Address:

Project Information

Project Limits/Study Area:

Project Location/Jurisdiction:

Project Purpose/Description: DRAFT

2 Complete Streets Checklist Project Corridor Existing Conditions

Project Corridor Functional Classification:

☐ Freeway | ☐ Major Arterial | ☐ Minor Arterial | ☐ Major Collector | ☐ Minor Collector ☐ Significant Local Road | ☐ Local Road

If there are multiple classifications, please define the classifications and limits in the following box:

Project Corridor Context Classification:

☐ C1 – Natural | ☐ C2 – Rural | ☐ C3C – Suburban Commercial | ☐ C3R – Suburban Residential | ☐ C4 – Urban General | ☐ C5 – Urban Center

If there are multiple classifications, please define the classifications and limits in the following box:

Number of Travel Lanes:

☐ 2 Lanes | ☐ 4 Lanes | ☐ 6 Lanes | ☐ Other (explain)

What are the current average travel lane widths?

Median Type:

☐ Undivided | ☐ Divided (Raised) | ☐ Divided (Painted) | ☐ Other (explain) DRAFT Are there existing sidewalks?

☐ Yes, Both Sides |☐ Yes, One Side Only |☐ Yes, but Significant Gaps | ☐ No

If there are existing sidewalks, what is the typical sidewalk width (ft)?

Are there any existing access or mobility considerations, including ADA compliance?

☐ Yes | ☐ No

3 Complete Streets Checklist Are there existing bicycle lanes?

☐ Yes |☐ Yes, but Significant Gaps | ☐ No

If there are existing bike lanes, please answer the following:

Bike Lane Width (ft):

Is the bike lane buffered?

☐ Yes | ☐ No

Is the bike lane physically separated from travel lanes?

☐ Yes | ☐ No

Existing Right-of-Way Width (ft): Existing Pavement/Curb-to-Curb Width (ft):

Insert an image or typical existing cross-section of the project corridor showing the existing lane configuration and non-motorized accommodations:

DRAFT Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): 85th Percentile Speed (if known):

Average Daily Traffic: Peak Hour Traffic (bi-directional):

What is the average distance (ft) between controlled stoppings (signalized intersections)?

4 Complete Streets Checklist Are there existing vehicle safety concerns along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is there a documented or perceived issue with speeding along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Have the pedestrian and bicycle conditions along the project corridor, including pedestrian and/or bicycle treatments, safety issues, volumes, important pedestrian/bicycle/transit connections, and lighting been evaluated?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Do pedestrians and bicyclists regularly use the project corridor for commuting or recreation?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Are there existing physical or perceived impediments to pedestrian or bicycle use along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is there a higher than normal incidence of pedestrian/bicycle crashes along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Have the existing volumes of pedestrians and/or bicyclists, including crossing activity at intersections and midblock, been collected or provided?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Are there existing concerns along the project corridor regarding truck/freight safety, volumes, or access? DRAFT ☐ Yes |☐ No

Is there dedicated transit service along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is roadway lighting present along the corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

5 Complete Streets Checklist Are there existing street trees, planters, buffer strips, or other landscaping along the corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is there existing or proposed on-street parking?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Are there any schools along or proximate the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Are there any parks or recreational/community centers along or proximate the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Are there any hospitals or senior care facilities located along or proximate to the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Have you identified the predominant land uses and densities within the project corridor, including any historic districts/sites or special zoning districts?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project corridor located within or adjacent to an area identified as having a higher propensity of transportation disadvantage population?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project located in an area identified in the future land use map or zoning map as a high-density land use area? ☐ Yes |☐ No DRAFT Are there any planning documents that address existing or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit user conditions along or proximate to the project corridor (e.g., Safety Audits/Studies, Master Plan, Redevelopment Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans)?

☐ Yes |☐ No

6 Complete Streets Checklist Is it Likely that the Project will Impact Drainage/Stormwater?

☐ Yes |☐ No

If yes, describe how the project will address drainage/stormwater impacts:

Are there any unique features or qualities and/or other information about the existing project corridor conditions that should be noted?

Proposed Design Conditions

For each question please provide a brief description for how the item is addressed, not addressed, or not applicable. Include documentation to support your answers.

Proposed Right-of-Way Width (ft): Proposed Pavement Width (ft):

Proposed Number of Travel Lanes: Proposed Travel Lane Width (ft): DRAFT Proposed Median Width (ft): Proposed posted speed limit (MPH):

Proposed sidewalk width (ft): Proposed bicycle lane width (ft):

Proposed number of controlled crossings:

7 Complete Streets Checklist

Is the project proposing any change to the number of travel lanes along the project corridor? If yes, please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project proposing any change to the average travel lane widths? If yes, please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project proposing any change to the average pavement width? If yes, please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project proposing any median modifications? If yes, please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Will the project require significant right-of-way? If yes, please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the project proposing any changes to the posted speed limit along the project corridor? If yes, please describe. ☐ Yes |☐ No DRAFT

Has a speed study been conducted?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Is the proposed design speed consistent with the context of the roadway and level of pedestrian and bicycle activity?

☐ Yes |☐ No

8 Complete Streets Checklist Is the project proposing any new signalized and/or controlled stopping locations?

☐ Yes |☐ No

If yes, please list locations where new signalization/controlled stopping is being proposed:

Does the proposed project design address existing measured safety issues and concerns?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design address pedestrian accommodations and/or provide opportunity for enhanced infrastructure, connectivity, and conditions? Examples include sidewalks, crosswalk markings, mid-block crosswalks, geometric modifications, reduced crossing distances, pedestrian signals and beacons, lighting, and median safety islands. Please describe.

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design address bicycle accommodations and/or provide opportunity for enhanced infrastructure, connectivity, and conditions? Examples include bicycle lanes, shared-use paths, bicycle boulevard treatments, connections to trails or other existing bicycle facilities, wayfinding, pavement markings, and intersection treatments.

☐ Yes |☐ No DRAFT Have you coordinated with Sarasota County Area Transit to accommodate and enhance transit access and amenities within the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design address the existing and desired/anticipated transit conditions along the project corridor?

☐ Yes |☐ No

9 Complete Streets Checklist Does the proposed project design address accommodations for those with access or mobility challenges such as the disabled, elderly, and children, including ADA compliance?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design provide site and driveway access that safely manages pedestrian/bicycle conflicts with vehicles?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design follow the appropriate national, state, and local design standards or guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle facilities?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design consider the desired future walking and bicycling conditions within the project area including safety, comfort, and convenience along with connections to important destinations, and the quality of the walking and biking environment?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Overall, does the proposed design balance vehicle mobility with the mobility and access of all other roadway users?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed project designDRAFT include opportunities to enhance roadway/intersection lighting?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Does the proposed design include landscaping, street trees, planters, buffer strips, or other landscape enhancements?

☐ Yes |☐ No

10 Complete Streets Checklist Does the proposed streetscape design maintain adequate visibility for all roadway users at intersections and driveways?

☐ Yes |☐ No

Insert an image or typical cross-section of the proposed corridor design showing the proposed lane configuration and non-motorized accommodations:

DRAFT

11