Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 Noteworthy Local PoliciesForeword Noteworthy Local Policies That Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicy cle Networks provides local and state agencies w ith the tools to create a solid policy platform to support the creation of multimodal transportation networks for users of all ages and abilities. The guidebook is intended to assist local and state governmental agencies in developing and applying policies and provide evidence to support po licy adoption. The guidebook showcases opportunities to make street networks more complete, more livable, and safer for all users. The guidebook first defines a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network. The guidebook then identifies six key elements of a successful policy framework to achieve a complete network and provides suggestions for implementation. The accompanying case studies, organized by the six key element categories, showcase noteworthy examples from across the country of how policies can support safe and complete street networks. Sections within each case study describe the policy of note with characteristics of the municipality in which it was enacted and examples of similar case studies if they exist. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in this document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors , who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation . This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Publication Number: FHWA-SA-17-006 ii TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I. Report No. FHWA-SA-17-006 I 2. Governm e nt Acces sion No. NIA 3. Recipient 's Cataloe. No. NIA 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date oteworth y Local Po li c ies t hat Support Safe and Com ple te Pedest ri an and Bicycle Novem ber 20 16 et works 6. Performing Organization Code IA 7. Author(s) H ug h Lo uch, Dara O'By rn e, Catrin e M ac hi , Kriste n O'Toole , Matthew 8. Performing Organization Report No . Va nooste n, Ha nn a h Twa dd e ll , Lind say Ma rtin NIA 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. !CF, 9300 L ee H ig hway, Fa ir fax, VA 2203 1 NIA A lt a Pl a nning + Design (A lt a), 7 1 I SE Gra nd Ave, Portl a nd , O R 972 14 11. Contract or Grant No. Spr in k le Cons ulti ng, In c . (S pri nk le), 18 11 5 U.S. Hwy 4 1 orth , S uit e 600, Lu t z , FL 335 4S DTFH6 1-I !-D-00033, Task 50 15 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 . Ty pe of Report and Period Covered Office of S a fe ty, Fe de ra l Hi g hway Ad m ini st ra ti on , 1200 ew Jersey Avenue, SE, Resea rch Result and Conc lusio n Was hing to n D C 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code FHWA IH E PH-JO 15. Supplementary otes Condu cted in cooperati on w ith th e U.S . De pa rtm e nt of Tra n s po rt ation , Fe deral Hi g hway Admini strati on . T he cont rac t ma nage r for th is re port w as Tahiara Re dm on (FHWA Office of Safety). - 16. Abstract No teworthy Local Policies Th at Suppo rt Safe and Co mp lete Pedestrian and Bicycle Ne tworks prov id es loca l a nd state agenc ies with tools to develo p po li c ies th at s upp o rt th e developme nt o f safe a nd compl ete bi cyc le a nd pedestri a n net wo rk s fo r use rs of a ll ages a nd a b ilit ies. T he g uid e is acco mpa ni ed by case studies th at showcase exa mpl es fro m ac ross th e country of how poli c ies ca n support sa fe a nd com p lete street net works. 17. Key Words 18 . Distribution Statement Bicycle, pe destri an, poli cy, net work s, conn ecti v it y, safety, o restricti o ns . T hi s d ocume nt is ava il a bl e throug h t he livabi lit y ati o nal T e c hni ca l In formati o n Serv ice, S p r in gfie ld , VA 22 16 1. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No . of Pages 22. Price Unclassifi e d page) Unc lass ifi e d 106 $0 Form DOT F 1700. 7 (8 -72) R e p roduc ti o n of co mpl e ted page a uthorized iii Acknowledgements FHWA • Tamara Redmon • Christopher Douwes Technical Advisory Comm ittee • Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO (FL) • Jason Burdette, Town of Davidson (NC) • Ann Cheng, Transform (CA) • Bill Keyrouze, AMPO • Kris Krider, Arlington County (VA) • Peter Koonce , Portland (OR) • Rosa Kozub, New Mexico D epartment of Transportation (NM) • Josh Mello, City of Palo Alto (CA) • Tracy Newsome, Charlotte Department of Transportation (NC) • Dr. Davi d Ragland, University of California-Berkeley SAFETREC • Kyle Wagenschutz, PeopleforBikes • Julie Wal co ff, Ohio Department of Transportation • Sean Wiede!, Chicago Department of Transportation (IL) • Norm Steinman, Charlotte Department of Transportation (NC) • Jill Cooper, University of California-Berkeley SAFETREC iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................. 1 Audience .................................................. 3 Organization of Guidebook ..................... 3 1.2 What is a Complete Network? .......... 4 Cohesion ................................................. 5 Directness ................................................ 5 Accessibility ............................................ 5 A lt ernati ves ............................................. 6 Safety and Security .................................. 6 Co1nfort ................................................... 6 2. POLICY ELEMENTS OF CREATING A COMPLETE NETWORK .............................. 7 2.1 Define Success .................................... 8 Establi shin g Vision, Goals , Objectives, a nd Per forma nce Mea sures ..................... 9 2.2 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers .... 10 How Ca n Policies Help Improve Network Safety ? ................................................... 10 State Level Policy: Liability .................. 11 Ensure Policies and Ordinances Promote Safety ..................................................... 14 Implement Law En force ment Co untermeasures for Bicyc le and Pedestrian Safety ................................... 17 2.3 Promote Bicycle and Pedestrian Supportive Development ................. 20 v Smart Growth and Efficient Land Use Management .......................................... 20 Mixed Use Zoning ................................. 21 Design Standards and Form-Based Co des ..................................................... 22 P arkin g Quantity ................................... 23 Other D evelop m ent Standards ............... 24 2.4 Design the Network ......................... 25 Complete Streets Polici es ...................... 25 Co nnecti vity Polici es ............................. 26 Policy Tools to Support Complete Streets .................................................... 26 2.5 Make It Last .................................... 30 Funding Maintenance Activities ............ 33 2.6 Pay for It .......................................... 35 USDOT F unding Sources ...................... 35 Fix ing America's Surface Tra n sportation (FAST) Act ............................................ 35 State and Local Funding So urce s .......... 37 3. IMPLEMENTATION .......... 41 3.1 Implementation ................................ 42 Un derstanding the Strengths and Weakn esses of Ex istin g Policy ............. .42 Building a Policy Agenda ..................... .45 APPENDIX A: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN POLICY CASE STUDIES This policy guidebook provides local and state agencies with the tools to create a solid policy platform to support the creation of multimodal transportation networks for users of all ages and abilities. The accompanying case studies showcase noteworthy examples from across the country of how policies can support safe and complete street networks. Effective policy shapes long-term planning efforts, as well as more immediate decisionmaking. It informs infrastructure planning, design , construction and maintenance and shapes decisionmaking related to investments in infrastructure and capital improvements. Policy informs and shapes an agency's work in engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response, encouragement, and evaluation efforts. This multidisciplinary approach, embodied in both required Federal safety planning and best practices in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design, is important in establishing a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network. The terms bicycling, walking , bicyclist and pedestrian are used throughout this document and are intended to be inclusive of people of all ages and ability levels, including people with disabilities. 1 Assist Local and State Agencies There is a strong corre lation between robust, high functioning bicycle and pedestrian networks and strong public sector leadership from e lected officials and agency staff. Strong political will m ay be needed to redesign streets from car-exclusive thoroughfares to multimodal comp lete streets. This guidebook aims to present information about relevant policies and policy examples that agencies can use to institutionalize network-supportive policies in their own communities. Provide Evidence to Support Policy Adoption Providing case studies and evidence to support the benefits of policy adoption is critical to achieving the goal of complete and safe networks. The case studies in Appendix A were compiled based on a literature review pinpointing evidence of successful policy initiatives across the country. The literature review grounded the study by collecting examp les of how communities, professional associations, research institutions, and others collect evidence about policies' effectiveness and outcomes. Some policies selected for review have been in effect long enough that their impacts have been evalu ated and measured. Newer policies that show promise have also been reviewed, even though the ir impact has not yet been measured. 2 Audience The guidebook is intended to assist local and state governmental agencies in developing and applying policies to create safe and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian networks. These policies involve a broad range of agency departments including planning, transportation , police, public works, as well as elected officials and their staff. Advocates, grassroots/nonprofit organizations, and concerned citizens may also benefit from the guidebook's contents. Citizen advisory committees, for instance, can use the best practices discussed here to augment their experiences directing a public policy 's development. Organization of Guidebook The guide is organized into the following chapters: Chapter One: Introduction provides an overview of the guidebook and defines a complete network. Chapter Two: Policy Elements of Creating A Complete Network provides policy guidance on implementing a network's main components, such as safety, supportive land uses, and design as well as providing policy guidance on how to maintain the network and how to pay for it. Chapter Three: Implementation provides guidance on how to assess existing policy and how to create a strategy to improve policy. Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Case Studies provides case studies that are categorized according to the guidebook's main elements. Each case study represents a policy change that supports at least one of the six policy areas discussed in this guide. 3 To help evaluate the quality of a pedestrian and bicycle network, it is useful to examine how the network meets a variety of network principles. 1.2 WHAT IS A COMPLETE NETWORK? By definition, a netwo rk is an interconnected or interrelated chain, group, or syst em. A network is made up of segments and nodes, and, in the world of transportation , these are roadways, pathways, and intersections. While the overall transportation network is typically complete for vehicular traffic , there are often gaps in bicycle and pedestrian networks. A key intersection or roadway linkage for a vehicle may be a major barrier for a bicyclist or pedestrian, especially those with disabilities. A complete network is achieved through coordination and cooperation . Policy can institutionalize these processes by defining selection of projects for funding, interdepartmental coordination and review, and design of bicycle network or facility. Before updating or adopting policy, it is critical to understand what makes up a complete network. FHWA has adopted six principles (listed to the right), adapted from the Dutch CROW (Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering) manual that provide a useful method and definition for assessing how well a pedestrian and bicycle network meets its intended purpose. The remainder of this section illustrates how policies may support each of these principles. 4 PRINCIPLES OF A COMPLETE NETWORKm The FHWA defines a network as "A pedestrian and bicycle transportation network consists of a series of interconnected facilities that allow nonmotorized road users of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they need to go."'2 , Cohesion: How connected is the network in terms of its concentration of destinations and routes? Directness: Does the network provide direct and convenient access to destinations? Accessibility: How well does the network accommodate travel for all users, regardless of age or ability? Alternatives: Are there a number of different route choices available within the network? Safety and Security: Does the network provide routes that minimize risk of injury, danger, and crime? Comfort: Does the network appeal to a broad range of age and ability levels and is consideration given to user amenities? I l\'eflrork Report on Case 5;1udies in /Jclil'crinK Safi.·. Comfiirtahle and Con- nected Pedestrian and Bh:1·de .\'et11 ·rwh https://www.lhwa .d ot.godcnviron- mentlbicyc I e _pe destrian ipub l i cat ions/net work _ rcportlpage09 .c tin # lin4 ht tp://www. fh\11:a .d ot.go,· /cn ,. iro nmcnt/hicyc I e _pedestrian/pub! ic ations/net- work _re port/network _report. pd Figure 2. A cohesive network connec ts s idewalks to front walks Cohesion A connected, cohesive network provides continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities between destinations . Policies that support network cohesion , such as high level policies that explicitly state support for a connected network as well as policies that guide the design of the network, ensure that facilities will operate as a transportation system rather than standalone facilities. Policies related to design guidelines and complete streets can promote cohesion and can help prioritize filling gaps within the network and connecting facilities. When a set of projects is being evaluated and prioritized for implementation, policies should be in place to support a project that provides a linkage in a disconnected network over a stand-alone, disconnected facility. Fig ure 3. P edes trian and bicycle networks should welcom e users of all ages and abilities . 5 Directness A complete network minimizes the distance that pedestrians and bicyclists need to travel to reach destinations. Create and support policies that provides direct and convenient access to all destinations in the network . Street standards and subdivision ordinances that require through streets can help ensure directness. These policies also provide a reduction in emergency response time. Policies related to design guidelines and complete streets promote directness. Providing equitable and direct access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all parts of a municipality is an important equity policy. Accessibility A complete network accommodates travel for all users, regardless of age or ability. Policies calling for universal design and complete streets create networks that are designed for all users. Policies should also provide design guidance for facility types to ensure safe and comfortable facilities for all users. Meeting accessibility requirements is not only in a community's best interest-it is also a requirement. Transportation facilities must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Communities can strengthen their network planning effort tie-in with their ADA Transition Plan and Self-Evaluation to ensure an integrated approach. Thinking about a transportation network's ability to serve all populations from the earliest point of planning and design can ensure that it will meet the needs of all users . Figure 4. Adequa te lig hting and o th er amenities enhance feelings of safety and secur ity. Alternatives A complete network provides route choices. Alternatives provide route options to different types of users, who may be traveling for different purposes . Alternatives also make using multiple modes of travel possible. It is common for users to walk or ride a bike to and from a transit station , so focusing network improvements that increase access to transit hubs will increase the like I ihood that a person can travel long distances without using an automobile. Policies related to design guidelines can promote alternatives. Safety and Security Policies that promote safety and sec urity are important to minimize the risk of injury, danger, and crime. Pedestri a ns and bicyclists are some of the most vulnerable users of the road . Unsafe loca tions such as high speed, hi g h traffic roadways or intersections can serve as barriers in the network for pedestrians and b icyclists. Section 2.2 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers discusses safety and security issues in further detail. Policies related to design of the network are also impo1iant for safety and security, including policies that provide design gui dance for safe crossings , Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and complete streets. 6 Comfort A complete network appeals to a broad range of age and ability levels with consideration given to user amenities. Comfort is an important influence on a person 's decision to walk or bike and is thus an important design consideration. Creating more welcoming environments, for example through streetscape improvements , landscaping and amenities such as bike parking, benches , water and seating, can improve the overall comfort of a route. Promoting human scale development and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes can transform a network so that users aren't required to traverse large parking lots to reach the front door, as discussed in more detail in Section 2.3 Promote Bicycle and Pedestrian Supportive Development. Design guides that tie bicycle facility types to user types can also help improve comfort. HOW THE SIX POLICY ELEMENTS ADDRESS THE PRINCIPLES OF A COMPLETE NETWORK >... ..... <fl <fl (!) c <fl > 0 (!) ..0 ·.;::::; "[jj c <fl C\S ..... <fl E (!) u (!) ..c (!) u (!) 0 :... u ..... u Cl <e: <e: 2.1 Define Success • • • • 2 .2 Protect Non- motorized Travelers 2.3 Promote Support-• • • ive Development 2.4 Design the • • • • Network =-----------=· =· = 2.5 Make it Last • -~------=---- 2.6 Pay for It • • • • >... ..... ·;:::: ::s u (!) VJ "O c C\S t c.2 >... J1 E 0 C\S VJ u • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 2 lays out the following six key elements of a successful policy framework for a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network: • Defining success. • Protecting nonmotorized travelers . • Promoting bicycle and pedestrian supportive development. • Designing networks . • Maintaining the network. • Paying for new investments and ongoing maintenance. 7 Although the definition of success will differ from agency to agency, defining success is a critical first step to making policy decisions. 2.1 DEFINE SUCCESS In creating a policy framework, success must be defined in order to measure the extent to which certain policy goals and objectives are accomplished over time. Connected networks provide access to destinations and provide additional transportati on options that can enable people to be more productive, save money, and be healthier. These larger economic, equity, community and environmental goals and outcomes provide a broad fr amework of societal benefits that motivate investment in bicycle and pedestrian networks and changes to policies , which is the focus of this guidebook. This section mainly focuses on defining visions, goals, and perfonnance measures related to successfully implementing policies. Agencies typically develop a policy framework that includes a vision that captures the direction they want to go, goals that describe the elements of that vision, and objectives tha t define the specific outcomes that the agency expects to achieve over time. These elements are defined not only in transportation plans, but also through general or comprehensive plans , and in other supporting planning efforts. There are two le ve ls of success to define when discussing performance measures and project outcomes. First of all , practitioners can define the outcomes of successfully implementing a given policy framework. Second , p rac titioners can define the shorter term steps of 8 Defining Vision, Goal, Objectives, and Performance Measures The FHWA Pe1:for111ance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook (PBPP) recommends clearly defining the terms: vision, goal, and performance measure, in order to foster stakeholders' and public agencies' understanding of success, particularly related to a performance based planning initiative. Vision. A concise expression of what the plan is expected to accomplish. A policy or planning project's vision helps establish the initiative's strategic direction. This vision often encompasses broad community factors such as quality of life, economic vitality, and environmental quality." (FHWA Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook) Goal. "A broad statement that describes a desired end state .... stemming from a state or region's vision, goals address key desired outcomes." (FHWA PBPP guidebook) Objectives. "Supporting objectives (specific, measurable statements that support achievement of goals) play a key role in shaping planning priorities." (FHWA PBPP guidebook) Performance Measures. "Performance measures support objectives and serve as a basis for comparing alternative improvement strategies (investment and policy approaches) and for tracking performance over time." (FHWA PBPP guidebook) successfully implementing their jurisdiction's pedestrian and bicycle network. As discussed throughout this guidebook, the latter is partially a result of sound policy decisions. MAP-21 and the FAST Act have set a new direction towards performance management that includes requirements for states and MPOs to set targets for a set of national performance measures. Targets setting provides clear definition of agency priorities , highlighting the important of understanding community or state vision , goals, and objectives. Establishing Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Creating a vision for a safe and complete bicycle and pedestrian network supplemented by goals, objectives, and performance measures is important to shape a policy platform. After defining the vision upfront, a community can lay out a logical process for achieving that vision over time, including those required for key policy reforms to ensure success. In establishin g an overa ll vision and the policy platfonn to support that vision, it is critical to collaborate with stakeholders , city staff, and elected officials . Early and continuous collaboration and communication among city staff, elected officia ls, and relevant city departments are critical to ensure long- term support, particularly when it comes to long tenn, ongoing implementation actions such as maintenance or enforcement. Additionally, as performance measures and actionab le objectives are written , it will be key to have the responsible parties involved from the beginning. 9 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Inclusion of Equity The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan <3 > (2014) establishes the plan's equity related initiatives by analyzing and prioritizing the bicycle network for an equitable distribution of bicycle facilities throughout the city. Relating these goals to other initiatives creates a strong policy foundation for institutionalizing these goals and objectives throughout the City's work. 3 Seal/le Bil:rde Master Plan . h!lp ://www.seall le.go v/transpo rt al ion i docs/hmp /a prl4/Sl3 M P _21 Ma rch _F INA LJ ull %20d oc .pd f Several of the case studies associated with this guidebook offer examples of effective objectives and perfonnance measures. When carefu ll y worded and subsequently enacted, performance measures help keep projects on track. They can also help create measurable outcomes when the time comes to evaluate a given policy. The following , ongoing activities from the FHWA PBPP guidebook support an iterative approach to evaluating performance measures: • • • Monitoring : Gathering information on actual conditions. Evaluation : Conducting analys is to understand to what extent implemented strategies have been effective. Reporting: Communicating information about system performance and the effectiveness of plans and programs to policymakers, stakeholders , and the public . Enforcing all roadway users' rights and responsibilities can help improve a network's comfort and overall performance. 2.2 PROTECT NONMOTORIZED TRAVE Li ERS Policies support safer networks b y defining rights and responsibilities for all users and ensuring those rights and res ponsibilities are enforced. This can improve a network's overall comfort and perfo rmance . Safe and comfortable nonmotori zed networks encourage residents and visitors to use active transportation. There are many ways to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrian and bike networks, such as ensuring the network seamlessly connects, improving the design and location of facilities, and establishing and enforcing laws and policies to encourage safe behavior and to prevent risky behavior. How Can Policies Help Improve Network Safety? Safety laws and enforcement policies help improve network safety by rewarding safer roadway behaviors and d isco uraging risky behaviors . When peop le driving , walking, and bicycling follow these laws , and when they are enforced through pos it ive interactions with the public, network safety increases. Governmental agencies throughout the country-from the United States Department of Transp011at ion to individual state and local jurisdictions-support mandates to reduce traffic-related injuries and deaths. Federal initiatives such as Vision Zero, Smart City Challenge, Road to Zero, 10 and Safer People, Safer Streets call upon local leaders to enact countermeasures to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. Law enforcement officers play an important role in creating and maintaining safe and complete networks for people bicycling and walking. Strong relationships between law enforcement officers, policy makers , and the pub l ic can result in successful programs that create safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle networks. Sample Criteria for Determining if Laws and Ordinances are Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly • Is the policy likely to reduce risk or harm to bicyclists and pedestrians? • Does the policy improve efforts to promote bicycling and walking? • Does the policy make it easier to obtain or operate a nonmotorized vehicle or to walk? • Does the policy follow current engineering, planning, and design terminology? • Does the policy encourage innovation and evolution? • Is the policy especially arduous or time consuming to enforce? This section discusses opportunities for community members, decision makers, and law enforcement agencies to create policies that work to achieve safer active transportation networks, including: • Ensuring that policies and ordinances promote safety. • Establishing collaborative relationships between law enforcement, policy makers, and community members. • Supporting policy and infrastructure efforts with appropriate law enforcement. • Designing and implementing effective law enforcement training and education. • Defining rights and responsibilities of all users. State Level Policy: Liability One of the most basic ways that states shape safety through policy is by defining liability in traffic crashes. States approach liability, including for people traveling by foot or bicycle, in different ways. In some cases, liability provisions apply to bicycle users as motor vehicle drivers. In others , presumptions of fault are applied to motor vehicle drivers when crashes with vulnerable road users occur. Active Transportation-Focused Ordinance The City of Chicago updated the Chicago Municipal Code to include a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Ordinance. Among other changes, opening a motor vehicle door into the path of a person bicycling now carries a mandatory $300 fine. Dooring that results in a collision would now result in a mandatory $1,000 fine. While punitive, the fine serves to draw attention to behavior that is high risk for injury crashes. 11 Two common approaches to liability include: • Comparative negligence allows injured parties to recover damages proportionately to their fault in the collision. This approach is used in most states. • Contributory negligence prohibits a person involved in a collision from recovering damages if they are partially at fault (even 1 percent). North Carolina follows this approach. Some states also have provisions which establish the ability for bicyclists to collect compensation for property damage as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Michigan 's No Fault automobile law provides for property protection insurance, requiring motor vehicle owners to compensate bicyclists whose property (bicycle) is damaged as a result of a collision with that motor vehicle , regardless of fault (MCL 500.3121(1) and MCL 500.3125). In addition, some states allow municipalities to establish liability provisions . In Washington, for example, the Seattle Municipal Code contains several provisions outlining rights of way and responsibilities for motorists , bicyclists, and pedestrians. While none currently establish strict liability in any cases , the delineations can assist with establishing duties of care for all road users. Some European countries have national policies providing legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians. Article 185 of the Road Law in the Netherlands assigns "strict liability" to motor vehicle drivers in crashes with bicyclists . Article 185 recognizes the vulnerable position of bicyclists in crashes with motor vehicles and provides protections for bicyclists from financial damage as a result of motor vehicle crashes , unless motor vehicle driver can prove that the cause of the collision was out of his or her control. Article 185 provides that State Liability Law Examples Implementation of liability policy occurs through a variety of laws that establish requirements for how different types of users must yield to others in varying contexts. The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), created by the nonprofit National Committee on Unifonn Traffic Laws, provides a framework that many states use, in whole or in part, to standardize traffic laws throughout the United States. While many states have adopted most provisions of the UVC, the areas relevant to bicycling are adopted with far less regularity. Accordingly, the laws applicable to bicyclists as road users are far from uniform. Examples of relevant laws from the UVC and other state specific laws are provided below. Law Traffic laws apply to people on bicycles and other human powered vehicles Additional penalties for moving violations which cause injury to vulnerable road users (including bicyclists and pedestrians) Ride as far to the right as practicable except: when passing, preparing for a left turn, avoiding hazards, if the lane is too narrow to share, or if approaching a place where a right turn is authorized On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than traffic must use the bike lane except when (CA) making a left turn, passing, avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn is authorized (NY) turning left or when reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Although pedestrians have the right-of-way, they also must abide by the rules of the road. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. 12 State Examples Uniform Vehicle Code §11-1202, adopted in all states but Kentucky and South Dakota. California Vehicle Code§ 42001 North Carolina General Statute §5.5.(c) 20-154 Uniform Vehicle Code §11-1205, adopted in 43 states California Vehicle Code§ 21008 New York Vehicle & Traffic Law Article 34 Section 1234 California Vehicle Code §21950 North Carolina General Statute§ 20-173 North Carolina General Statute§ 20-174 the motor vehicle driver is responsible for 50 percent of monetary damages even if the bicyclist is at fault in the collision. Changing policy around liability is a significant undertaking and many states have begun to enact Jaws that shape the rules of the road as applied to different types of users. Even if changing the basis of liability is not possible , refining the ways in which bicyclists and pedestrians are considered within state law (or local law, where permitted) can provide protection for vulnerable road users and help in efforts to educate all road users about appropriately sharing the road. Establishing laws to redefine or clarify rules of the road is important, but it is equally important to provide education and enforcement of these laws to ensure awareness of appropriate behavior by motorists, bicyclists , and pedestrians. 13 Ensure Policies and Ordinances Promote Safety The FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycl e Information Center<6l states , "For many communities, the first step for building an enforcement program lies in re v iewing and modifying laws and policies affecting pedestrians and bicyclists ." Existing policies and laws should be reviewed and modified to ensure a communities' existing policies and regulations are working to protect the rights and responsibilities of all road users. Elements of ordinances needed to ensure network safety include the following: • Reduce conflicts: Promote access management policies and regu lations to prevent conflicts between motor vehicles exiting a driveway and passing bicyclists and pedestrians. Driveway spacing requirements help accomplish this goal. • Provide appropriate space for each mode: Space for each mode includes policies that promote nonmotorized modes in infrastructure projects , such as Complete Streets ordinances , as well as laws that require safe passing distances for motor vehicles when overtaking bicyclists. Slow motor vehicles: Imp lement policies and laws that enable traffic calming techniques and speed limit reduction on roadways where the posted speed limit is not sensitive to the surroundin g land use context. • Improve real and perceived personal safety: Implement policies and laws that utilize CPTEDC7l and promote the design of environments that encourage "eyes on the street." 6 htt p://www.pedb ikeinfo.org/programs/enfo rcement.cfin 7 htt p://www.c pt ed .net/ 14 Vision Zero Policy Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has been implemented across much of Europe and is gaining momentum in several major American cities. The Vision Zero philosophy says that keeping people alive and healthy ought to be the number one priority in how city roadways are designed, outranking concerns about vehicle speeds, convenience and other objectives. Vision Zero policies set a timeline and a commitment and bring stakeholders together to ensure a basic right of safety for all people as they move about their communities. Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways: • Vision Zero acknowledges that traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable and sets the goal of eliminating both in a set time frame with clear, measurable strategies. • Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem, acknowledging that there are many factors that contribute to safe mobility, including roadway design, speeds, enforcement, behaviors, technology, and policies. US Cities that have adopted Vision Zero Policies include: Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Austin, San Mateo, Portland, Seattle, San Jose, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Washington, D.C., and Fort Lauderdale. 9 Components of a Strong Vision Zero Commitment Based on the exper iences of early-adopter cities in the U11i ted States, these nine compo11ents have proven to be a11 effective high-level framework for com1111111ities conside ri ng a Vision Zero commitment. While these are not the only factors to cons id er, they are critical aspects to e11sure a strong and lasting com mitment to Vision Zero. POLITICAL COMMITMENT The highest-ranki ng local officials (Mayor, C ity Council , C ity Manager) make an official and public commitment to a Vision Zero goa l to achieve zero traffi c fatalities an d severe injuri es among all road use rs (including peo ple walking, biking, usin g tran sit , and driving) within a se t time fram e. Thi s should includ e passage of a local policy laying out goals, timeline, stakeholders, and a commitment to community engagement, transparency, & equitable outcomes. ACTION PLAN EQUITY MULTI-DISCIPLINARY LEADERSHIP An offic ial city Vision Zero Taskforce (or Leadership Committee) is created and charged with lea d ing the planning effort for Vis ion Zero. The Taskforce should include, at a minimum , hi gh -ranking represe ntative s from the Office of the Mayor, Police, Tran sportation (or eq ui va lent), and Public He alth . Other departments to involve include Planning, Fire, Emergency Services, Public Works, District Attorney, Office of Senior Services, Disability, an d the Sc ho o l District. Vision Zero Act ion Plan (or Strategy) is created within 1 year of initi al commitment and is imple mented with cle ar ft strategies, owners of each ~ strategy, interim targets, City stakehold ers co mmit to both an equitable approach to Vision Zero by establi shing inclusive and representative processes, as we ll as equitable outcomes by ensurin g measurab le benchmarks to provide ~meli ~ & performance ~mm=•· SYSTEMS-BASED APPROACH City leaders commit to an d prioritize a sys tem s-ba se d approach to Vision Zero -focusing on the built environment, systems, and poli cie s that influen ce behavior -as we ll as adopting m essag ing that emphasizes that th ese t ra ffi c lo sses are preve ntable. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Opportuniti es are created to invite meaningful com munity engagement, s uch as select community represe nt ation on the Tas kforce, broad er co mmunity safe transportation options for all road users in all parts of the city. framework for multiple stake holde rs to set sha red goals and focus on coordination and accountability. DATA-DRIVEN C ity stakehold ers commit to ga th er, analyze, utilize, and share reliable data to und erstand traffic safety iss ues and prioritize resources based on evide nce of the g reatest nee d s and impact. TRANSPARENCY The city's process is transparent to city st ake ho ld e rs A input through public m eetin gs or • • wo rkshops, o nlin e s urveys, and other fee dback opportuniti es. ~ and the com munity, including reg ul ar updates on the progress o n the Action Plan and performance measures, and a yea rl y report (at minimum ) to th e loca l governing board (e.g., City Coun cil ). For more visit the Vision Zero Network at visionzeronetwork.org. Questions or ideas? Contact leah@visionzerone twork.org. VISIO,.~ =I ~I•~ETWORK Figure 6. Th e Visio n Zero Network has published nine comp on ents of a strong Vision Zero commitm en t (source: Vision Zero N etwork). 15 Establish Collaborative Relationships Between Law Enforcement, Policy Makers, and Community Members Collaboration between civic leaders, public sector agency staff, residents, and law enforcement agencies can help improve communication and understanding of key active transportation issues between the parties and can set the stage for long- term relationships and champions. These types of collaborations can foster programs such as pedestrian crosswalk enforcement operations (or details), Safe Routes to School programming (walk and roll to school programs, school zone speed enforcement, and others), and police department involvement in bicycle and pedestrian planning committees. Co ll aboration can also involve discussions of enforcement protocol and activities such as photo enforcement and fines in specia l interest areas with high volumes of schoo l children or older adults . Champions within the law enforcement community, particularly high-ranking decision makers, are needed to support all programming to improve the network. Sustaining law enforcement programs requires setting compliance targets, measuring effectiveness, and comparing before/after outcomes. Police Office r Involvement in Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Planning Involving officers in pedestr ian and bicycle network plann ing gives a platform for them to provide feedback about specific areas and behaviors of concern and to share their insight of how people use the roads and what countermeasures are most effective to decrease the livelihood of crashes between motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples of Law Enforcement Education Opportunities The following states, cities, and counties are examples of agencies who have engaged local police departments in educational programs about bicycle and pedestrian enforcement. 16 Louisiana Department of Transportation hosted a two-day workshop to review laws, common crash types, and enforcement methods. Training materials were developed and included a "Train the Trainer" module . North Carolina Department of Transportation created a police education program and a public-facing media campaign called Watch for Me NC. The course was also open to university police officers. Albany, NY, utilized a self-paced computer-based training originally produced by the NHTSA . Washington Area Bicyclists Association provided a webinar series to explain bicycling issues, laws, and crash reporting to police officers. The educational module started from an investigation into crash reports and misguided citations . San Francisco Police Department and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition partnered on a video to educate law enforcement officers about bicycles in traffic. Wichita, KS, launched the Street Safety Education Initiative, which analyzed existing pedestrian and bicycle ordinances and suggested elements for a public-facing media campaign. The project included League Cycling Instruction training for Wichita citizens and City staff, including Police Department representatives. The State of New York is launching a pedestrian safety campaign focused on twenty areas in the state with the greatest problems. Officers at these locations will receive in- person training on NY pedestrian and bicycle laws and enforcement crosswalk operations. Harassme nt of Bic ycl ists Harassment of bicyclists is a real problem and can discourage people from bicycling more. It can be difficult for law enforcement officials to target bicyclist harassment without a specific law defining harassment of bicyclists. Even though offenders can be charged under a variety of existing laws, it is difficult to get convictions, and, in many cases, the penalties and burden of proof make law enforcement officers reluctant to pursue convictions. Columbia, MO, passed an ordinance designed to specifically address bicyclist harassment and later expanded it to include pedestrians and wheelchair users. The language of the ordinance reads: Sec. I 6-145. -Harassment of a bicyclist, pedestrian or person in a wheel cha ii: (a) A person commits the offense of harassment of a bicyclist, pedestrian or person in a wheelchair if the person: (I) Knowingly throws an object at or in the direction of any person riding a Implement Law Enforcement Countermeasures for Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Law enforcement countermeasures can help educate motorists, bicyclists , and pedestrians about safety issues. Several examples of enforcement practices are described on the following page, including progressive ticketing , community collaboration with law enforcement, and police officer training. The success of these enforcement practices depends on local government policies that provide for staff resources and allocate appropriate funding. 17 bicycle, wa lking, running or operating a wheelchair/or the purpose of frightening, disturbing or injuring that person; or (2) Threatens any person riding a bicycle, walking, running or operating a wheelchair for the purpose of frightening or disturbing that person; or (3) Sounds a horn. shouts or otherwise directs sound toward any person riding a bicycle, wa lking, running or operating a wheelchair for the purpose of frightening or disturbing that person; or (4) Knowingly places a person riding a bicycle, walking, running or operating a wheelchair in apprehension of immediate physical injury: or (5) Knowingly engages in conduct that creates a risk of death or serious physical injury to a person riding a bicycle, walking, running or operating a whee/cha ii: The harassment is a Class A misdemeanor punishab le by a fine of as much as $1,000 and/or up to a year imprisonment. Progressive Ticketing Progressive ticketing uses a three-step method to issue citations for traffic infractions.<8l Step One, Educate: Officers pull over the offenders and educate them about the infraction , sometimes using tools such as "palm card " flyers with tips and basic information about desired safe traffic safety behaviors between all road users , i.e., motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Education also means positive interactions with the public. Creating policies to support and fund programs such as bicycle light distribution to nighttime riders can educate members of the public about roadway safety while encouraging positive interactions between law enforcement officers and citizens. 8 http ://www.p edbikeinfo.org/programs/enforcement_ enforcelaws.cfm Step Two, Warn: Officers issue offenders warnings . Step Three, Ticket: Officers issue offenders a written citation. Progressive ticketing can reach up to twenty times as many noncompliant motorists , bicyclists , and pedestrians as ticketing alone. Note that progressive ticketing is typically done in waves, such that first time offenders in the "ticket" phase will still receive a ticket, even if it is a first offense. Law enforcement agencies' prioritization of and ticketin g of behaviors that are most likely to lea d to severe crashes can help protect the rights and respon s ibilities of vulnerable roadway users . Design and Implement Law Enforcement Officer Training and Education Structured training for law enforcement officers is designed to increase knowledge Bicycle Friendly Community Program and Law Enforcement The League of American Bicyclists' Bicycle Friend ly Communities (BFC) program, an optional certification program for communities, provides a roadmap to improve conditions for cyclists at the state and loca l level. The BFC program uses the following questions to evaluate communities re lated to enforcement: • Do law enforcement officers receive training on the rights and respons ibi lities of a ll road users? • Does your community have law enforcement or other public safety officers on bikes? • Do loca l ordinances treat bicyclists equitably? 18 of k ey issues and relevant countermeasures to help improve the network. Training can take a variety of forms: • Web-Based Training: Online training provides interactive capabilities for officers to learn about common cause of crashes and associated law s from a national perspective. • Bulletins: Bulletins are used by some jurisdictions as a training resource to provide a quick reference to officers about pedestrian and bicycle related laws. • Roll Call Videos: Videos offer short format instruction during officer roll call , which is normally scheduled within the workday. These can be 5 to 15 minutes in length . An example video from NHTSA can be found at: http ://www.nhtsa.gov/ Driving-Safety/Bicycles/Enhancing- Bicycle-Safety:-Law-Enforcement's-Role YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO ~I c; r FOR A PEDESTRIAN IN A MARKED CROSSWALK The l•wit clear fseereverMsideJ. Motorists in New Jersey MUST st o p tor ped111tri•n• in• m.,ke d c ros swelk. Fe ilure t o otis.erve the lew may subjeei you t o one or more of the follow ing: • 2 POINTS • $200 FINE [pl.,.councona) • 15 DAYS COMMUNITY SERVICE • INSURANCE SURCHARGES SN~RED RESPONSIBlllTY YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO USE DUE CARE AS A PEDESTRIAN The lew It clear. pedestri1ns must obey pedutrien signals e nd u se c roHwalkt et signetized internctions . Both c1rry 1 $54.00 fine for l1ilur1 to o b serve the lew. (C.39:4-32endl3) NEW JERSEY STATU TE 39 4-36 Driver to s top for pe destrian : exce ption s , violations, pe nalties. A. The driver of 11 ve hicle m uSI stop and slay stopped !Of a pedestrian c1ossing the 1oadway within any ma1ked crosswalk, bul shall yield the right-Ol·way to a pedeslfilltl crossing the roadway withm an unmarked c rosswalk 111 an intersection, e xcept at c1osswal ks when 1he movement of t11flic is being 1egulated by police officers or t11ffic con11ol signals, or where 01herwise prohibited by municipal, county, or Slate reguLauon, and excep1 where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedest1i en crossing hBS been p10vided, but no pedestrilln shall suddenly leeve 11 curb or olher pl&ee of safety and walk or run into lhe pa1h of e vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the drive1 to stop 01 yield. No1hing con1eined herein shall relieve 11 pedestrian ffom using duecare lorhissafely. Wheneve1 any vehicle is stopped 10 pe1m1t a pedes1r111n 10 c1oss the roadway, the drive! of any olher vehicle eppro&ehing ff om the rear shalt not overtake end pass such stopped vehicle. Every pedestrian upon e roadway at any poinl othe1 lh.en within a marked crosswalk 01 wilhin an unmarked crosswalk 111 an in1e1section shall yield the right·of-way to all vehicles upon lhe roadway. B. A person violating this sec11on shell, upon conviction thereof, pay a tine to be imposed by the court in the amount ol $200. The court may also impose e ter m of community &e1V1Ce 001 to eJ1ceed 15 da'f5. C. OI each line imposed end collected pursuant to subsection 8. o l the seclion, $100 shell be forwarded to the State Treas · u•er who shall annually deposit the moneys into the "Pedes11ian Safety Enforcement and Educ111ion Fund" created by section 1 of Pl 2005, c 84 (C.J!N-36.2) Figure 7. New J er sey police officers di stribut e th ese small flyers (palm cards) lo drivers who f ail lo s top f or p ed estrian s in marked cro sswalks. Th ese palm cards also p rovide relevant cita tion information /or officers . (Im age source: New J ersey Departm ent of Transportation) • Classroom-Based Training: Classroom training is best done as a officer-to- officer training, including discussion about nuances and interpretations of state and jurisdictional laws associated with pedestrian and bicycle safety targeting behaviors of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Classroom-based training for pedestrian safety should include discussion and ideally hands on-learning of setting up for a pedestrian operation. Classroorn- based training for bicycle safety can include on-bicycle training to give officers a perspective and appreciation of the challenges faced with bicycling in traffic and law enforcement needs. 19 A F;;t.;:; w-- FHWA•SA•OS-12 lleviHd M•rch :zooe Effective land use policies, zoning, and other development standards can help create complete pedestrian and bike networks. 2.3 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SUPPOR "F l \ft E DEVELOPMENT Land use policies, zoning regulations, and developer requirements set the stage for developing complete bicycle and pedestrian networks by establishing principles for walkable and bikeable communities , ensuring the built environment supports the network, and by creating requirements and incentives for building infrastructure . Land use policies and regulations can create bicycle and pedestrian supportive development. This section is intended to inform policy makers about the following too l s that ensure private development supports larger goals for active transportation : • Smart growth and efficient land use management. • Mixed use zoning. • Design standards and form -based code. • Parking requirements . • Other development standard s . Smart Growth FHWA defines smart growth as "a set of policies an d programs design to protect, preserve, and econom ically develop estab li she d communities and valuable natura l an d c u ltura l resources. "1121 12 https://www.lhwa.dot.go\·/planning/glossary / 20 Smart Growth and Efficient Land Use Management Smart growth policies assist in the creation of complete networks by establishing development patterns designed to sh orten trip distances and encourage active transportation. There are numerous existing resources available to help communities implement smart growth policies, including the following: • Smart Growth America : Smart Growth America is a national coalition of practitioners working to use smart growth to develop neighborhoods as vita l, economicall y r ich p laces . It provides research and guidance on implementing smart growth in varying contexts . • Smaii Growth Online : The Smart Growth Online C learinghouse is a project of the Maryland Department of Planning and is fun d ed by the U.S . EPA Office of Sustainab le Communities. The office gathers resources and information about funding sources and awards from across the United States. • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Growth Program : In addition to webinars , v ideos, and podcasts , the EPA hosts resources for grants and funding , compi les a "Newsroom " with recent pub li cations , describes the agency 's technica l assistance program , and more . • National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education is a nonpartisan center for research and leadership training on smart growth and related land use issues. Many states host their own websites with local resources for accomplishing smart growth goa ls. Mixed Use Zoning Mixed use zoning promotes walkable and bikeable comm uniti es by creating communities that are vibrant places to live, work, and play both day and night. Mixed use zones generally allow for a higher density development and a mix of uses, making active transportation options more doable for more trips. Mixed use zoning may be applied at all levels of planning from comprehensive Unified Development Ordinances to individual zoning changes on a site-b y-site basis. Resources for mixed use zoning include: • New Designs for Growth offers a Genera l Best Practices Guide for implementing mixed-use zoning through smart growth. The website separates resources according to best practice examp les for a variety of code types . • Municipal Research and Services Center provides numerous resources on mixed use and transit supportive development. 21 • The American Planning Association developed model Smart Growth Codes to guide land use decisions and cover a variety of land uses including a model Mixed Use Zoning District Ordinance. •BULL'S EYE " CONCEPT Design Standards and Form-Based Codes A building's siting and design has a significant impact on the pedestrian and b icycle network. Site design elements such as the location of building entrances, the locatio n of parking, setbacks, walkways, and presence of bike parking all contribute to creating a connected network. Building design elements, such as window locations and transparency, can also create a more pedestria n oriented environment by encouraging "eyes on the street" and providing mo re engaging spaces for pedestrians and bicycli sts. Site Design for Walkability Bringing buildings to the street, rather than separating them from the street with large setbacks or parking, helps improve bicycle and pedestrian connections. An accessible building entrance facing the street provides a seamless connection to the building for nonmotorized travelers. If on site parking is needed, placing parking in the back or sides of the development helps link new development with the street fabric. Pedestrians and bicycli sts experience fewer hazards associated with curb cuts and m oto r vehicle ingress and egress. Creating pedestrian oriented setback and parking loca tio n standards can result in placemaking and safety benefits. Form-Based Code Going beyond site design requirements , fonn-based code can provide additional design guidance to create a de sirab le pedestrian and bicycle network, such as transparency req u irements or the ra t io between the he ig ht of the buil din gs and the width of the street. Form-based codes can respond to different street types, creating development standards that support the -------' ----l ---------------- 22 A form-based code is a "regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high- quality public realm by using physical form (rather than the separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code."<14 > 14 fonnba sedcodcs.org bicycle and pedestrian network. Resources for developing form-based codes include: • Form -Based Codes Institute : The Form-Based Codes Institute maintains a library of examples form-based codes and other resources. • Form-b ased Codes : A Step-by-step Guide for Communities acts as a workbook to support communities' FBC efforts, which includes policies to influence site design. • Planners Web : The blog discusses typical elements of a form-based code and the difference between FBC and conventional zoning code. Table 17 0).p 70 A The Cmcmnat1 Tra nsect S ummary Table (continued) Less Urban More Urban ~·············································································~ ::a~ ' ~I~: :1 I 9 ,1 :~::: ·~~~ .. , ----- 23 Codes th at Support Smart Growth Development EPA : This website provides examples of several types of municipal codes, design guidelines, and street design standards. • Form-Based Codes I Planetizen: Planetizen 's searchable archives contain a multitude of posts related to form-based code examples from around the country. Parking Quantity Parking management is integral to successfully creating robust pedestrian and bicycle networks . Smart growth and mixed use developments typically demand fewer parking spaces than lower-density, single- use developments . Reducing or eliminating parking minimums and providing parking maximums across certain zoning districts or across a municipality helps support the overall pedestrian and bicycle networks. Dedicating less area for parking cars allows New York City Bicycle Parking The City of New York has implemented ordinances to mandate bicycle parking in licensed parking lots and in commercial buildings. The City's Bikes in Buildings law<16> was created to provide a process for tenants of commercial office buildings with a freight elevator to request bicycle access to their workspaces. Three indoor bicycle parking lots are provided for free for all City employees. New York City Administrative Code section 20-327.1 has created over 16,000 secure bike parking spaces since 2011. 16 http ://www .nyc.g ov/htm l/dot/htm l/bicycl ists /bikes inbui !dings. shtml for higher density, more cohesive districts, creating a more connected pedestrian and bicycle network with fewer conflicts with driveways and surface parking lots. It can also reduce construction costs and remove barriers for redevelopment or new development. Resources for reducing parking include: • "Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements" by Christopher V. Forinash, et al., describes various tactics for managing parking besides minimum parking requirements . • "Reduced Parking Footprint," Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design- Neighborhood Development (LEED- ND): One point is available toward LEED-ND accreditation for sites that reduce vehicular parking footprints. 24 Other Development Standards There are many ways municipalities and developers work together to create complete network improvements such as sidewalks, pedestrian amenities , bike lanes , bicycle parking, signage, and wayfinding. Developer requirements can be included as part of design standards in zoning or other city codes, part of design guidelines and incorporated into a design review process, or part of a negotiated development agreement. Whatever the mechanism , it is important to establish the expectations for developers and design criteria early to effectively guide the process. The following resources help municipalities establish requirements and guidance for private developers . Due to legal differences between jurisdictions, individual states, counties, and municipalities should check best practice recommendations against their own legislative setting. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances : The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) reviewed practices , policies, and ordinances from communities across the country. • Using Local Land Use Laws to Facilitate Physical Activity is a policy brief from the Bridging the Gap Program at the University oflllinois at Chicago. • ChangeLab Solutions report "Move This Way: Making Neighborhoods More Walkable and Bikeable" identifies common local codes that can be adjusted to promote active transportation. Developing a network of connected facilities occurs primarily through the application of the six principles of a complete network throughout the planning and design process. Using available analysis tools and public engagement, planners can help evaluate available bicycling and walking routes and identify and prioritize investments. This section focuses on how policies shape and guide the planning and design process. Before reviewing relevant policies and tools, key questions to consider include: • What existing policies and plans are in place that impact the design of the pedestrian and bicycle network? • When was the last time these policies or plans were updated? • How well have these policies and plans been implemented and evaluated over time? Once the policy context is understood it can be updated and changed to advance safety, comfort, and convenience for nonmotorized travelers. Complete Streets Policies A municipality can adopt complete streets policies to formalize and institutionalize their intent to plan, design , implement and maintain streets that are safe for users of all ages and abilities. All users are 25 considered, including pedestrians, bicyclists , transportation users, and motorists. The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified critical elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy. It provides workshops and best-of examples to aid municipalities in the creation of their own policies. As of October 2016, thirty-two state governments or agencies , 76 regional organizations, and 663 individual municipalities had adopted complete streets policies recognized by the National Complete Streets Coalition. The Reading, Pennsylvania, complete streets policy was considered the nation 's best in 2015. The city received funding from a local foundation to hold a complete streets workshop for a cross-section of the community. The outcome of the workshop was the city adopting what would become an award-winning policy. Like Reading, many cities start their complete streets policy development with a visioning process or workshop during which community members express a shared desire to serve all types of users. Sometimes these facilities are referred to as 8-80 , meaning they will work well for users aged 8 to 80 years old. This can be fomrnlized thorough an 8-80 or complete streets policy. Network Design Network design happens through planning. The following steps provide a structured process for applying the principles of a connected network: Evaluate the existing network for opportunities and constraints . Where are current facilities? How are they used? Determine primary origins and destinations. Where can people get by biking and walking? What are the key points of interest that might attract them? Establish a reasonably spaced network. The definition of "reasonable" spacing may vary from place to place, but it generally means making nonmotorized routes efficient and straightforward through strategies such as providing frequent and varied opportunities to safely cross major streets, rather than forcing pedestrians and bicyclists to use a handful of widely spaced intersections. Connectivity Policies Policies are not only focused on the type of facilities on the roadway network, connectivity is also important. New Urbanism development practices and complete street policies also emphasize a high degree of street connectivity as important. Connectivity standards and goals can set a maximum distance between intersections for different roadway types and determine whether cul-de-sacs or street stubs are allowed and how long they can be. Connectivity standards should al so consider the quality of crossings as those are critical locations where bicyclists and pedestrians must interact with automobiles. A connected network does not disappear at the areas of greatest potential conflict between modes . The Portland Regional 26 Define facility types. Defining bicycle facility types and linking them to roadway types can ensure they work for all users. Many agencies set policies to help determine the appropriate facility type. Evaluate and Prioritize Improvements. Understanding the benefits of new bicycle and pedestrian investments is critical to help ensure that they meet user needs. Connectivity is one of several criteria, along with safety and others, that may inform investment decisions. Implementation. Implementing new networks requires funding, but many projects can be implemented by integrating bicycle and pedestrian facilities into routine roadway resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction activities . Because many of these investments rely on signage and striping, policies to encourage this integration can help achieve network improvements at minimal additional cost. Transportation Plan includes specific policies to increase roadway connectivity in new developments, as well as various strategies to improve the connectivity of nonmotorized networks in existing urbanized areas. Policy Tools to Support Complete Streets Roadway Typologies Roadway typologies define the purpose and intended use of different types of roads under an agency 's jurisdiction. As a matter of policy, roadway typologies help determine who the primary users are. The Federal functional classification system is among the most commonly used roadway typology, providing a basic standard for roadway design and expectations , but many cities have gone further to define how the street network Figure 10. A rendering of roadway types as th ey differ from an Urban Core to Rural is used by bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, and what the preferred priority for those users is in different parts of the City. The Great Streets and Corridors Plan and Policy for the City of El Paso, Texas, provides roadway typologies and design standards with a focus towards multimodal streets. The Pennsylvania and New Jersey Departments of Transportation partnered on a Smart Transportation guidebook and one of their concepts promoted is that a roadway typology shou ld not be based solely on functional classification, but a lso take land use and place into account. This allows for flexibility and the ability to plan for alternative transportation modes. Design Guidelines Design guide lin es are one of the most important tools that cities and states use to determ in e ho w streets, roads, trails, and other faci liti es are used. Design guid elines identify the s hape and function of the network for various users. The AASHTO Green Book defines standard design guidelines for the National Highway System (NHS). States may develop their own standards for the design of non-NHS projects. There are severa l state design manuals as well. Typically municipalities also set their own design guide lin es for their local roads to fit their local needs. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) provide design guides for cities looking for examp les and precedents from cities on emerging facility design. The City of San Francisco adopted a policy called "Better Streets" that highlights the need for balancing the needs for all street F igure 9. A before and after rendering of a proposed road diet and bike lan e in s talla tion in Lombard, IL. 27 users, with a particular focus on pedestrian and public spaces. The policy was followed with a plan that provides a unified set of standards, guidelines and imp le mentation strategies, which was followed with a one- stop website that resulted form several city agencies collaborating to simplify the process for street improvements. The City of Chicago took a similar pedestrian focused approach to its design guidelines. Planning Checklists A city can create a checklist to help determine whether and how bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be addressed in proposed projects. Checklists can be a simple tools, but can effectively ensure that pedestrian and bicycle needs are conservatively addressed in planning for streets and roads. They may consider elements like roadway speeds , volumes and facility types. They may be simple checks on the process: were bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups included in the planning process? Or they may be more sophisticated tools that consider how existing and proposed roadway infrastructure may impact pedestrians and bicyclists. Level of Service Thresholds One of the most basic policy tools that states and cities have used to determine how roadways function is through Level of Service (LOS). LOS has evolved over Pennsylvania DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist The Pennsylvania DOT provides a Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist divided into three sections for each stage of the development process: planning, scoping, and design. It also breaks the checklist into evaluating several aspects of roadway design including: pedestrian and bicycle facilities, planning and programming and right-of-way design. 28 City of Chicago Complete Streets Design Guidelines The Chicago Complete Streets Design Guidelines reframed the city's transportation planning, design, and engineering focus by prioritizing pedestrian needs. New projects developed since the guidelines' publication must abide by a modal hierarchy that focuses on pedestrians. many years, but at its most basic, LOS provides a simple letter grade that measures the user experience of the roads, typically from a motor vehicle driver 's perspective. More recently, the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) has moved in the direction of establishing Multimodal Level of Service, providing grades for all types of facilities, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian. For bicyclists and pedestrians, the standards or thresholds that cities set for LOS can significantly impact how the road space is used. By setting a threshold for automobile delay, cities may unintentionally limit what types of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can be provided. This can be especially challenging at intersections, where tum lanes and through traffic lanes often squeeze out or merge with bicycle lanes, creating potential safety risks. Some states and cities are beginning to reevaluate the use of LOS as a guiding metric for street design, based on metrics other than vehicular throughput. The City of Charlotte developed a methodology to evaluate how signalized intersections meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists and use that methodology to determine if a project should be expanded to improve bicycle or pedestrian facilities or if a roadway project will make travel worse for cyclists and pedestrians. While they utilize the term LOS, in this case, it is one that evaluates a ll modes.<17J Project Prioritization Bicycle network projects and programs must compete with oth er capital improvements and municipal services, as well as with one anoth er, for limited budget. In order to maximize investment and provide the greatest benefit, a lo gica l and systematic approach should be used to prioritize infrastructure investments for impl ementation. Criteria for prioritization should reflect the goals and objectives established for the approach to the network and incorporate any input from community 17 http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/160228.aspx -1tgt_.u..ldl1ilflc\9eso .... ~ .. ,,,...,... ~ ..... ~..\ • U ' l . N Figure 11 . A level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis map for a group of western Chicago suburbs. Thi s and other analy ses assist with network design and imp lementation prioritization. 29 City of Charlotte LOS In 2007, the City of Charlotte developed a methodology to evaluate how signalized intersections meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. The results of the methodology inform the preferred design and operation features that can help achieve desired levels of service for pedestrians and bicyclists. A multi modal Level of Service approach was intended to reflect the goals inherent in Charlotte's Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG), specifically the desire to increase transportation choices by making travel by pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users safer and more convenient. California Switch from LOS For many years, Level of Service (LOS) has been the standard metric used to measure transportation impacts from developments and road changes through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LOS measures how many vehicles can pass through an intersection in a given time. If a project going through CEQA review reduced a road or intersection's LOS, it was considered a negative environmental impact. Defining LOS as an environmental impact limited how the state and its cities could address other competing needs, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, or promoting infill development. In September 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 7 43, which removed the requirement to use LOS in CEQA review. The state is expected to establish Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita as a replacement metric. VMT measures a project's overall impact on travel, not just the delay caused to cars at key intersections. After planning, design, and construction of facilities, now what? Maintenance will make the project last. 2.5 MAKE IT LAST Maintenance is the final piece in creating successful bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Maintenance programs make facilities la st and allow for continued usage over time. Because ongoing maintenance is often not included in funding of the initial project, strategic planning is required to determine future maintenance needs and to identify effective policies , programs , and budgets to address these needs . This section identities the role of policy in defining future maintenance needs and how to fund those needs . Maintenance Needs Internal policies and procedures must support the maintenance needs of the active transportation network. Interdepartmental coordination and communication are needed to provide maintenance to new or updated elements of the netwo rk , especially if new equipment is needed or a new approach is required . Setting the policies and priorities for m a intenance at the beginning of a planning or implementation project will help ensure success over time. Below is a list of maintenance needs for both bicycles and pedestrians and policy recommendations to help jurisdictions reach their maintenance goals. 30 Accessibility and Sidewalk Inspection Communities should develop and adopt sidewalk maintenance and inspection criteria. This criteria ensures that programs not only following ADA guidelines but also respond to accessibility issues when they arise. The goal of ADA is to create an accessible path of travel and this applies to sidewalks , curbs , and crosswalks. The FHWA Guide for Maintaining P edestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety describes this minimum criteria to consider, including "displacements (heaving, faults, changes in level), changes in grade, cross-slopes (including cross slopes at driveways), vertical clearances, sidewalk displacements , grade Figure I 2. Th e buffered bike lane pictured ab ove wou ld benefit Ji-o m street sweeping. Op erations and maintenance policies should specify th at crews sweep s treets fro m curb to curb, including bike lanes. Spec ial equipm ent may be need ed to adequately maintain barrier separated bike lan es. changes , cross-slopes , vertical clearances, maximum running grades , minimum clear width and the distance protruding objects extend into the pedestrian path." Sweeping , Li tt e r Collection, Mowing , and Tr i mming Many local governments set policies and procedures for street sweeping, litter collection, and other maintenance tasks. Trails , on-street bikeways , and sidewalks require regular maintenance. Facilities accumulate glass, leaves, sand , and trash that must be removed in order to keep them safe. Glass is a major issue for bicycles because it is a flat tire hazard. Bicyclists often avoid routes that are not maintained regularly. Bikeways on arterial roads require special attention because of the additional traffic, increased potential for litter, and the importance of preserving key connections . Along with sweeping, consistent trash removal makes facilities more safe and aesthetically pleasing . Accessible trash receptacles and regularly scheduled trash Figure J 3. Wint er bicycling dep ends on hig h-qu ality maintenance prog rams . 31 pick-up can reduce the impact of litter. When building new facilities , consider costs per mile associated with trash receptacles and regular pick-up activities to ensure future maintenance needs are met. Debris from automobile crashes should be removed as soon as possible so it does not impact bike facilities. If the collision requires a towing company, the towing company is often responsible for site cleanup. If a tow truck is not involved , the municipality may need a 311 system or a similarly responsive program to ensure quick and thorough cleanup of noted roadway hazards . Because sidewalks and trails often abut natural and landscaped areas, mowing and tree trimming are important maintenance practices that keep grass and weeds off the trail and prevent taller vegetation from creating obstructions and visibility issues. More harmful weeds are also kept from pollinating and reproducing through regular mowing making it a preventative practice as well. While keeping a sidewalk and trail clear and safe is imperative , vegetation plays a substantial role in an City of Minneapolis Maintenance Gu idelines The City of Minneapolis uses a comprehensive Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines document which includes a chapter on Bicycle Facility Design . This chapter has a section devoted specifically to maintenance of bicycle facilities. The maintenance guidelines are used by the City's Public Works staff as a best practices document for their maintenance activities. Providing a thorough outline of maintenance needs in one document also helps the City better understand its maintenance needs and how to budget for them. area's character and appearance as well as natural systems so thought should be given to the uniqueness of each area when developing a maintenance program. Restriping, Signage and Graffiti Removal Use, the proposed weather and maintenance activities (such as sweeping or snow removal) can degrade the surface of the facilities and signage over time. To keep pedestrian and bicycle facilities legible and safe , regular restriping and signage upkeep is needed. It is common for trails to be restriped approximately every 5 years and for signage to be replaced approximately every 10 years. On-street markings for bicycle facilities and pedestrian crosswalks are typically painted on an annual basis. Municipalities also set standards for the removal of graffiti on public and private property, including walls, fences, and signs. Graffiti on walls and fences can be unappealing aesthetically and decrease user comfort while graffiti on signage can also threaten the safe operation of the facility. Municipalities should assess the costs of graffiti removal and create a program to successfully res po nd to graffiti. Code enforcement efforts can help address graffiti on private property. Plowing and Ice Removal in Winter Denver, CO, provides information on where and when snow plowing will occur and works to include all bike lanes in this plowing.!18 ) Denver also ha s policies related to plowing separated bike lanes (with special small plow vehicle) and trail plowing. The City provides tip s on winter biking , how to avoid certain conditions, and points citi zens to it s 3 I I system when plowing has not succeeded for bic y clists. 18 http:/1,,.,,w.dcnvcrsnowplan.com/hicycling-wintcr 32 FHWA's Gui de for Maint aining Pe destrian Facil it ies for Enha nced Safety FHWA provides guidance!19 > for maintaining pedestrian facilitie s to improve safety and mobility. The Guide covers pedestrian facility maintenance needs including: common maintenance issues; inspection , accessibility, and compliance; maintenance measurers; funding; and construction techniques to reduce future maintenance. The guide includes examples from jurisdictions of varying sizes and geographies to address many maintenance contexts." The guide includes a funding chapter that discusses opportunities for cities to fund sidewalk repair and maintenance instead of charging individual property owners for repairs. Corvallis , OR, includes a sidewalk maintenance fee as part of a monthly sewer and water bill. The fee was determined by taking the average monthly cost to repair defective sidewalks divided by the number of utility customers. I 9 http://sa fely.fhwa.dot.gov /pcd _hike/too ls_ solvc/lhwasa I 303 71 Plowing and Ice Treatment In areas that receive regular snowfall, plowing is critical, routine maintenance to ensure safe year-round bicycling and walking . Programs should provide on-street bikeways with the same level of winter maintenance as the rest of the street surface and also have smaller vehicles available for plowing separated cycle tracks and trails soon after snowfall. Ice, even the smallest patches , poses a greater hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians and sometimes typical plowing and maintenance methods do not sufficiently remove ice. Programs that identify and address problem-areas prone to be icier due to poor drainage, shading, or other circumstances can improve safety. Policies must also be in place to ensure private property is plowed and free of ice. Property owners need to be informed and diligent about their maintenance obligations. Sidewalks, walkways , and bike rack areas should be accessible and clear of snow and ice in the winter months to guarantee use and minimize safety concerns. Preventive Maintenance Routine maintenance prolongs the life of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure while also making it more safe and comfortable. On-street repairs like crack sealing, pothole patching, and others can reduce asphalt wear without having to replace all of the infrastructure. Entire roadway surfaces are milled and overlaid on a regular basis to ensure a smooth surface while the existing base stays intact. As for pedestrians , there are numerous best practices for the maintenance of sidewalks. The most frequent type of sidewalk maintenance activity is to repair uneven slabs caused by tree roots lifting a concrete slab Fig ure 14. Ann ArbOJ; Ml us es a vot er-approved sidewalk mileage ta x for sidewalk repair and replacement. Voters viewed th e meas ure as more equitable and effective th an th e code requirements that made adjacent property owners respons ible for s idewa lk maintenance (so urce: http://www.a2gov.o rg/departm ents/engineering/ pages/street-and-sidewalk-millage.aspx) 33 or the settling of earth causing a slab to sink. Other issues besides slab displacement include cracks , holes and surface deterioration . Each municipality should have a program in place to address these types of common problems that impair pedestrian safety and accessibility. Funding Maintenance Activities Policies are needed across departments that prioritize maintenance activities to support safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle networks. Municipal General Fund Most communities treat bicycle and pedestrian facilities as community assets for which maintenance is funded through a municipality's general fund or transportation fund. Revenues for these types of programs typically come from local property and sales taxes. Sidewalk, trail , and street maintenance of non motorized routes programs are often managed separately, sometimes by different departments, requiring funds to be allocated separately to each program. A best practice is to lump together sidewalk, trail , and street maintenance into one capital improvement program to ensure that one program 's budget is not a lower priority than others. Piggyback Funding Piggyback funding refers to policies that requires that pedestrian and bicycle facilities within a certain distance of other public right-of-way improvements also receive maintenance as needed. Thus , the small costs of pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance can be wrapped into larger projects. Many communities have found piggyback funding programs to be successful and popular. Property Owner Assessmen t for Maintenance Regarding sidewalks specifically, some municipalities require the adjacent property owner to pay for all or a portion of sidewalk maintenance costs. While an assessed cost to repair a sidewalk allows property owners to see direct benefit from payment, there are political and equity concerns in using this method for maintaining public facilities with private monies from individual households. A more equitable approach treats sidewalks as public facilities, simi lar to roadways. This approach distributes the financial burden among all property owners and facilitates more comprehensive , systematic maintenance. Special Distri c ts and Homeowners Association s Special districts play a key role in maintenance, especially in regards to sidewalks and crosswalks. Communities commonly set up an improvement district (such as Downtown Associations , B usiness Improvement Districts, Community Improvement Districts, Transportation Policy Areas) to assume some or all maintenance responsibility for pedestrian faci lities and sometimes bicycle facilities. Bicycle Parking Guidelines In addition to facilities like bicycle lanes and sidewalks, end of trip facilities are an important component of any active transportation network. The Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals has published several resources on bicycle parking including a set of guidelines updated in 20 I Q<20 l and a more recent short summary titled "Essentials of Bicycle Parking" that provide guidance on bicycle parking siting and design. ~O http ://v1:w w.a ph p.o rg/rcso urcc /rcsmgr/B icyc le _ Park ing/Essc nt ia lso f- B i kc l'ark i ng_ FI N A .pd f 34 Homeowner associations are formal legal entities that play a key role in maintaining common areas , which often include sidewalks and paths. The amount of services provided by homeowners associations generally depends on the fees assessed to property owners in a given association but pedestrian facilities are nearly always covered through these fees . Spec i al Com m unitywide Assessmen ts, Taxes, and Bon ds Special communitywide assessments like term-limited voter-approved levies or special property tax assessments can also fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities and their maintenance. Sales tax often indirectly funds facility maintenance because it goes towards the general fund but in many places, municipalities raise sales tax rates for specific purposes like bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance. Bonds allow municipalities to fund large capital expenditures by leveraging existing revenues. In doing so , they can quickly address funding gaps for a variety of capital improvements including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and their maintenance. Like assessments and sales tax increases , bonds are generally approved by residents through a referendum. Utility Fees , Vehicle Licenses , Parking Fees , and Fines Utility fees can be a small but consistent funding source that communities can use to fund maintenance pedestrian facilities especially. While not common , funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance can also come from vehicle license fees , parking fees , and revenue received from red light enforcement cameras. Funding programs to establish safe and complete bicycle and pedestrian networks require a diverse and creative approach. While federally funded grants are critical for implementing big capital projects, local agencies should remain flexible and creativ e to capitalize on partnerships, in-kind matches , and other non-traditional opportunities to implement their respective visions , goals , and objectives . The following sections of this chapter provide an overview of potential funding sources enabling local , regional , and state projects for nonmotorized transportation. USDOT Funding Sources States and MPOs are using creative approaches to apply Federal sources to bicycle and pedestrian projects , including using Transportation Alternatives funds , as well as flexible funding from other programs, as described below. The Federal government has numerous programs and funding mechanisms to support bicycle and pedestrian projects , most of which are administered by th e U.S. Department of Transportation in cooperation with state and regional entities . The following Federal programs are made available to local communities through state and regional entities , including Depaiiments of Transportation (DOTs), local parks and wildlife departments , and regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). 35 Fixing America's Sur face Tr ansportat ion (FA ST) Act Congress passed a five year transportation bill in 2015 called the Fixing America 's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The FAST Act provides funding for eligible bicycle projects through multiple funding programs already in existence in prior Federal transportation bills. Surf ace Transpor tatio n Block Grant Program The FAST Act replaced the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding established in previous legislation with a set-aside of funds under the Surface Tran sportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The FHWA will refer to these funds as the TA Set-Aside .<2'l 2 1 http ://www.fh wa.dot.gov/environment/b icy cle_pedestrian/fundi ng/fun d- ing_ opportuni tie s .cfm Figure 15. Pennsy lvania Avenu e bike lan es in Was hing ton D.C. (Ph oto by E lve rt Barn es ji-0111 p edbikeimag es .org) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) CMAQ fund s transportation proj ects to reduce ozone and carbon monoxide pollution and meet nati onal ambient area a ir quality standards in Clean Air Act non-attainment areas. The construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities u s ing CMAQ funding mu st explicitly prov id e a transportation function . Nonconstruction projects such as printed materials related to safe bicy clin g are also eligible for CMAQ funds . These projects mu st be geared toward s transportation rather than recreation and must be included in a plan deve loped by the State and each MPO. USDOT Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Federal Hi ghway Safety Improve m ent Program (HSIP) is intended to achieve s ignificant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by funding projects, strategies and activities consistent with a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The HSIP requires a data-dri ven , strategic approach to improving hi ghway safety on all public roads that focuses on performanc e. The specific prov isio n s pertainin g to th e HSIP are defi n ed in Section 1112 ofMAP-21 , w hich amended Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 USC 148). NHTSA Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Federal Section 402 fund s can be used to d eve lop education , enforcement and research progra ms d es ig n ed to r educ e traffic crashes, death s, severity of crashes, and prop erty damage. Examples of bicycle and ped estrian safety program s fund ed by Section 402 are comprehensive school- base d p ede strian and bike safety education program s, helm et di stribution programs , 36 p edestrian safety programs for older adults , and community information and awareness programs. N HTSA Section 405 National Priority Safety Programs NHTSA Section 405 National Priority Safety Program provides funding related to law s to enhance the safety of bicyclists and pedestrian s. Funding may be u se d to train law enforcement on associated laws ' enforce ment of bi cyc le and pedestrian safety laws , or public education of the se laws. These funds are available to states where bicycle and p edestrian fatalities exceed 15 percent of tra ffic fatalities based on the final Fatality Analysis Reportin g System numbers, for each of the fi ve years under the FAST Act. USDOT TIGER Discretionary Grants Program The US DOT 's Transportation In ves tment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Di sc retionary Grants Program was created as part of th e American Reco very and Rein ves tment Act of 2009 with the purpo se of funding road, rail , transit and port projects that achieve critical national objectives, includin g li va bility, economic competitiveness, environmental su sta inability, an d safety. More than $500 million was mad e available in FY 2014. Seventy-two applications were funded, man y of which focused or incorporated active transportation e lements. One grant recipi ent was the Razorback Regional Greenway in North west Arkansas. This project is a 36-mile, primaril y off-road , sh are d-u se trail that ex t end s throu gh severa l jurisdiction s and links do zen s of popular community dest inations. While th e majority of fund s ca me from a TIGER gra nt and the Walton Fami ly Foundation , local municipalities also de dicated s ignifica nt resources to the project. Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) creates and maintains high quality recreation resources through the acquisition and development of pub lic outdoor recreation areas and facilities . The program operates on a reimbursing basis. The local sponsor matches 50 percent of the project cost prior to app lying for the grant. After the project is approved, the sponsoring park and recreation board receives a reimbursement of 50 percent of the actual project costs. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) While not traditionally viewed as a source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, the CDBG program provides money for streetscape revitalization and other improvements that can enhance walking and bicycling . U.S. Department of Defense Office (DoD) of Economic Adjustment Community Investment The DoD Office of Economic Adjustment has a Community Investment program that provides funding for programs and projects that support public schools on military bases and the roads surrounding them. State and Local Funding Sources Although funding sources vary locally, this section highlights common funding sources at the state and local level. State and Federal funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs continue to be in short supply and high demand. Local funds can often be easier to obtain for small projects and is often required as a match for externa l funding sources. 37 Parks and Recreation Grants Most states have grant programs specifically for parks and recreation. Aside from parks, these grants can also fund trails, a key element in planning for active and connected communities. State Constitutional Amendments States constitutions typically outline the types of projects to which specific funding sources can go towards. Some states have passed constitutional amendments that allow for highways funds to be spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects . It is most common for states to pass amendments that set a certain percentage of state transportation funds that are to be spend on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Other options include adding bicycle and pedestrian projects to the list of projects that existing sources of funding can go towards . Seattle's Bridging the Gap Tax Levy In 2006, Seattle voters approved Bridging the Gap (BTG), a proposition creating a nine-year, $365 million tax levy in order to address twenty years of def erred street and infrastructure maintenance. BTG authorized regular property taxes higher than legislated limits, allowing collection of up to $36,650,000 in additional taxes in 2007 and up to $365,000,000 over nine years. When voters approved the tax levy in 2006, they also stipulated the percentages that should be spent on selected project categories: • Maintenance would receive no less than 67 percent of tax levy spending • Pedestrian /Bike Safety would receive no less than I 8 percent of tax levy spending • Transit and Major Projects would receive no more than 15 percent of tax levy spending Vehicle Tolls and Fuel Taxe s State's revenues from roadway tolls and vehicle fuel taxes can also fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This type of funding is typically based on pol icy that allocates a percentage of rev enues toward active transportation projects. Special District s State legislation may allow counties and municipalities to levy and collect special assessments in order to finance public infrastructure to promote economic growth and development. Seattle's approv ed Bridging the Gap propos ition is an example of a tax levy to fund transportation improvements including bicycle and pedestrian projects. A Public Improvement District can be established for the construction of street and sidewalk improv ements; park, recreation and cultural improvements; the creation of pedestrian malls ; public safety and security; landscaping and aesthetic improvements ; and a host of other capital projects. Additionally a city can create special districts called Municipal Management Districts , Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones, Parking Benefit Districts and Transportation Reinvestment Zone. Each of these districts can serve as a financing tool to support improvements through bonds , taxes, assessments , impact fees or other funds. Another example of a special district would be the restriction on the number of s ingle occupancy vehicle (SOY) trips that can be made to certain areas in Silicon Valley, notably in Mountain View 's North Bayshore Precise Plan area. These SOY trip caps require new development to provid e green transportation alternative in order to not exceed this cap. In doing so , these special districts promote greater private investments in transit, pedestrian , and bicycle facilities. 38 Tallahassee , FL Significant Benefits Developer Program The Significant Benefits Program gathers funds from Tallahassee developers who "pay their proportionate fair share" to discourage the creation of new single occupancy motor vehicle trips and sprawl creation. Money is eventually spent within the Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) of Tallahassee, where I 00 percent of funds will be spent on projects to improve transit, walking, and bicycling . http ://www.walkfri c ndly.org/commun itics/comm unity .clin ?ID = 196 http ://www.pcdbikeinfo.org/planning/fundin g .cfin I m pa ct Fee s Local governments in certain states may adopt local ordinances imposing an impact fee on new development within their jurisdictions to fund infrastructure improvements that support development and the community at large . Although requirements vary according to state, these may include bicycle and pedestrian facilities , as well as other transportation and infrastructure needs like parks , recreational facilities , and others. Fo un dation s Foundations supporting health , wellbeing , or quality of life issues are important sources of funding , especially for smaller programmatic funding which a can be harder to obtain through traditional grant funding mechanisms. Over 80 ,000 foundations exist throughout the United States. Foundations and nonprofit organization s that prov ide support for bicycle and pedestrian networks , including planning and implem e ntation include: • Surdna Foundation • Kresge Foundation • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation W.K. Kellogg Foundation • People for Bikes Adv ocacy Adv ance Local community foundations can fund active transportation programs and projects . Examples include the California Endowment, the James Irvine Foundation , and the Walton Family Foundation . Fig ure 16. Th e Ra zorba ck R eg iona l Greenway in north we s t Arka nsas was fu nded throug h TI GER gra nts, th e Wa lt on Fa mily F ounda tion, a nd loca l munic ipalities. 39 Detroit Greenways Initiative The Detroit Greenwa s organization raised $10 million from Kresge Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation , General Motors and the City of Detroit and leveraged $70 million in State and Federal funding for greenway development. The organization is responsible for the construction , operations, maintenance, programming and security of these popular public spaces. Atlanta Regional Commission's Livability Initiative Awards The Atlanta Regional Commission's Livability Centers lnitiative<22 > awards competitive planning grants to local governments and nonprofits to prepare and implement plans that enhance existing centers and corridors consistent with regional development policies. This approach can be useful to help focus available resources from multiple sources into a concerted planning effort that address bicycle, pedestrian, and placemaking issues. 22 http://www.atlantarcgional .com /land-use/I i vable-centers-i nit iat i ve I All agencies have existing policies that shape how people use the transportation system. From laws and ordinances to standard operating procedures, the policies described in the prior chapter can help improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. To determine where and how to begin implementing policy reform , evaluating the strengths , weaknesses , opportunities , and threats of an agency's existing policy framework will help prioritize implementation steps. This chapter outlines an analysis method to evaluate the policy and implementation environment of a department or whole agency and identifies considerations to better understand how a policy platfonn can be strengthened. 41 Evaluating a policy's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats will help prioritize the policy's implementation steps. 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION Understanding the Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Policy Before investing time or resources into implementation, communities should first understand the strengths, weaknesses , opportunities , and threats (SWOT) of their existing policy platforms to support safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle networks. Below are some questionsthat can help communities to assess issues and develop ideas for strengthening their policy platforms. Education and Tr aining It is important to assess the level to which stakeholders are informed about the essential elements of creating , maintaining, and promoting safe and complete nonmotorized networks. • Are policy, planning, and engineering staff trained and well-informed about active transportation? What about staff in other departments or agencies that are involved in implementation? Fig ure 17. Th e chapter header image on this p age and th e photo ab ove s how proj ects s hortly after implem enta tion in Wi chita, KS Th e chapter header image shows a new bike lane and bike box on Market S tree t. Th e im age abo ve s hows a d i verter on Woodc huck Boulevard bicycle bo ulevard to allow fo r bicycle access. Th e n ew p ed es tr ia n hy brid beaco ns help people on f oot cross a busy arteria l s treet. 42 • Are elected officials well informed about key issues related to safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle networks? • How well informed is the public about active transportation best practices? Is a lack of understanding among stakeholders about key issues holding back policy goals? Is a well -informed constituency helping to advance policy goa ls? Coalition Building and Collaboration It is important to have strong working relationships both internally and externally to help move the policy platform forward . Strong, supportive coalitions can help ensure the longevity and sustainability of policy goals. • • Does the department or agency have good relationships with outside organizations , stakeho ld ers, or community members that support this work? Will these stakeho ld ers advocate for the policy goals? Does the department or agency collaborate closely with other departments or agencies that have influence over the policy goa ls (political officials, City Manager, Capital Improvement Department, Economic Development, Information Technology, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Engineering, Police, Public Health , and Streets and Maintenance Departments)? Political Will/Leadership At the end of the day, support of elected officials and key community leaders is critical to the success of achieving a safe and connected network. Are the elected officials well infonned and supportive of the network? Is there a champion on Council or in the Administration? 43 Policy Context • • What is the larger policy context the department or agency is operating in? How does state policy influence the work? Are there other agencies that have jurisdiction within the network that stren gthen or weaken the work? Are there appropriate plans and policies in place? Can they be strengthened or better utilized? Are they being appropriately implem ented? Existing Assessment Tools When performing a SWOT analysis , existing assessment tools and checklists can assess a community, particularly related to its existing policy platform . Walk Friendly Communities Community Assessment Tool: This tool serves to both recognize existing walkable communities and to provide a framework for communities seeking to improve their walkability. It recognizes communities that have achieved high levels of walking and low rates of pedestrian crashes while also recognizing communities that are making progress in achieving these two goals through policies, projects and programs . Recognizing that there are many ways to achieve these outcomes, the range of questions in the tool attempts to capture the variety of factors that affect walkability. Bicycle Friendly Community Assessment Tool: The Bicycle Friendly America program provides an assessment for local governments, provides customized feedback, and provides technical assistance. This quick assessment to see where a community stands, and the full application process can be completed in the spring or in the fall. Safety. Are there appropriate policies in place to support enforcement? Support ive development. Are there recommended land use and design policies, guidelines, and standards in place? Design. Are there policies in place that facilitate the design of a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network? Maintenance. Are there policies in place that ensure appropriate maintenance of the network over time? Funding. Are there policies that enable sustainable funding for the network? Evaluation • How does the department or agency evaluate success? How is this evaluation communicated? Example SWOT Analysis Each department or agency that performs a SWOT analysis of its policy framework will have different results and will therefore have a unique policy agenda. Below is an example of a fictional agency with strong policies in place, but not a lot of support from other departments or elected officials. Strengths W e akness e s . Department staff is well informed . Other departments are not as well and trained on active transportation informed about active transportation . Department staff works well with bike . Have never worked collaboratively and pedestrian advocacy groups with the police department . Have bike and pedestrian plan, . Do not have policies to support enforcement supportive development policies, Lacking key funding to implement plans and maintenance policies . Opportunities Threats . Bike advocacy group leads . Elected officials are not well-informed trainings and workshops and have not received training . Community stakeholders are . Do not have elected official champion eager to be engaged This sample department's hypothetical policy agenda might focus on: • • • Create a coalition of advocacy groups, community stakeholders, and department representatives to improve education and collaboration Work with elected officials, provide educational and training opportunities, and use coalition to foster political will to better support funding needs. Try to get an elected official champion, Improve collaboration with the police department and provide trainings to improve enforcement 44 Building a Policy Agenda Once a department understands its context and issues, it can create a policy agenda to advance its priorities. The agenda should build on strengths, take advantage of opportunities , and address weaknesses and threats. To begin the agenda, the agency should understand: • What is a logical sequencing of activities to ensure success? • What is controlled within the department or agency, and what support/buy-in from others is needed in order to achieve? • Who are the key stakeholders and policy makers that need to be engaged in creating and implementing this policy agenda? • What funding or other resources exist currently to immediately initiate certain policy items? What needs additional funding support? The policy agenda may be an internal document that is used to guide internal goals to support safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle networks , perhaps created with a stakeholder group to guide the work, or it might be a public document that informs the community about the agency 's priorities for the coming years. While the content of the policy agenda will depend on its goals , each policy agenda should include: • Workflow with a logical sequencing of activities with key milestones and objectives, including timeline, responsible parties , and identified funding sources ; • Approach for engaging key stakeholders, departments , agencies on ongoing implementation ; and 45 • Communication plan for how the policy agenda will be communicated internally and/ or externally. Each policy maker, department head, or community leader faces a unique set of strengths , weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to active transportation policies. Creating a tailored policy agenda will help ensure success. Atlanta Regional Commission The Atlanta Regional Commission used a SWOT Assessment to guide and inform the development of recommendations and strategies for the Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan (TOM). A similar process could be followed used for active transportation. The key objectives of the SWOT assessment are: • Document existing conditions as they relate to strengths and weaknesses in the region's TOM programs, services and policies. • Document future and external factors that may influence threats and opportunities to the region's TOM programs, services and policies. • Assess and evaluate the needs and gaps to improve the program and the existing strengths to leverage for success. • Inform the development of recommendations for TOM programs. www.atlantaregional.com The guidebook showcases opportunities to make street networks more complete, more livable, and safer for all users. In addition to providing guidance to create network-supportive policies , the guidebook includes these case studies, which were compiled based on a literature review and provide evidence of successful policy initiatives across the country. The intended use of the guidebook is to provide policy ideas and contacts for policy makers to utilize as precedent and best practice examples. Sections within each case study describe the policy of note along with characteristics of the municipality in which it was enacted and examples of similar case studies if they exist. The case studies are organized based on the guidebook 's six themes of effective policies: Define Success, Protect Nonmotorized Travelers , Promote Supportive Development, Design the Network, Make It Last, and Pay for It. The table on the following pages identifies how the guidebook's case studies relate to each section of the guidebook document. Use this guide to pinpoint examples of policy work that speak to certain themes or topics of interest. A-1 Plan , Seattle, WA A-4 2 Des ig n Standard s Ordinance and Hea lth y A-6 Eatin g and Active Li vi ng, Hernando, MS Lon g-Range Tran s po rtati on Plan 3 Pe rformance Meas ures , C hampai g n A-8 County, IL 4 Multi modal Leve l of Service, A -10 Jack sonv ille, FL 5 Senate Bill o. 743 , E nv ironmenta l A-12 Quality, Ca liforni a 6 Adult Bicycle Safety Program , A-14 Huntin g ton Beach , CA 7 Crosswa lk Safety Po li cies, Boulde r, CO A-16 8 "Sto p and Stay Stopped" Crosswa lk Law, A-1 8 State of New Jersey 9 Bi cyc le and Pede st ri an Safet y Ordinan ce, A-20 C hicago , IL 10 Bicyc le Park in g in Garages a nd Parkin g A-22 Lots, ew York , NY II D owntown Desi g n St a nd ard s and A -24 Guidelines, Boi se , ID 12 E limin atin g Parkin g Minimums in A-26 Tran s it-Friendly Areas, Seattle , WA 13 Form-Based Co d e , C in cin nati , OH A-28 14 Form-Based Code, Miami , FL A-30 Red boxes represent the primary g u idebook e lement for the case study; grey boxes indicate another relevant gu idebook e lement. A-2 15 of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to A-32 Transportation Facilities, State of Maryland 16 Multimodal Development and Pa rkin g A-34 Minimum E limin at ion, Fargo, ND 17 Transit-Oriented Development, A-36 Arlington, VA 18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Check li st , A-38 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 19 Complete Streets Design Guidelines, A-40 Chicago, IL 20 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, A-42 Boulder, CO 21 Healthy Design Ordinance, Los Angeles , A-44 CA 22 Pedestrian an d Bicycle LOS , Charlotte, A-46 NC 23 Memphis Sidewalk Ordinances, A-48 Memphis, TN 24 Bicycle Faci lit y Maintenance Guidelines , A-50 Minneapolis, MN 25 Bridging the Gap, Seatt le , WA A-52 26 Precise Plan Caps on S in g le Occupant A-54 Vehicle (SOY) Trips , Mountain View, CA A-3 ·+ Legend Equity Score High Low c:once'ltrauonol lndiotO<d.....,.,_ ..,...,,ed - -~ -~- ./" Define Success Protect onmotorized Travelers Promote Supportive Development T he map shows areas with hi g h concentrations of eq ui ty indicator demographi cs and lo w bicycle servi ce. THE IMAGE SOURCE : SEATTLE.GOV Design th e Network Make It Last Project Partners City Comm issions and Advi sory Boards (i.e., the Freight Advisory Board , the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, the Pedestrian Advisory Board, Planning Commission, Design Commission, and the Bridging the Gap Oversi ght Committee). Pay for It Key Elements The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (20 14) defines "equity" as follows: "Provide equal bicycling access for all; through public e ngagement, program delivery, and capital investment." The plan helps deci s ion makers situate the document within a larger governmental equity initiati ve and provides policy analysis too ls to s upport analysis of equity concerns . The Racial Equity Toolkit to Assess Policies , Initiatives , Program s, and Budget Issues is part of the interagency Race and Social Justice Initiative, w hich a im s to end individual , institutional , and structural rac ism. The Initiative 's toolkit "lays out a process and a set of questions to guide the de ve lopment, imp lementation and evaluation of po licies , initiati ves, programs, and budget issues to address the impacts on racial equity" (Racial E quity Toolk it, I ). Seattle makes the case for inve stin g in bicyc le infrastructure by statin g, "Policies that increase the number of peop le wa lkin g and biking appear to be an effective route to impro v in g the safety of all roadway users. Greater safety for a ll road users may result fro m reachin g a threshold of bicyclist vo lum es that compels motorists to drive more carefully." B y carefully investigating the distribution of infrastructure option s across the city, the C ity's policies further support the safety of all roadway u sers. The bicycle master plan 's policy chapter estab lis hes the plan 's relation to policy initiati ves from previousl y published reports. Accompanying documents conceived after the citywide plan 's 2014 publication , including the Seattle Bike Master Plan: 2016-2020 Implem entation Plan fall within the same policy context as Seattle's Vi s ion Zero initiative and the tax levy, Move Seattle . The C ity 's Equity Analys is identified service gaps within the city's existing bicyc le network. The maps identified the avai lability of bicyc le facil iti es per Census tract as well as the percentage of h ouseholds without a private car avai lab le for dail y u se. The map s also show concentrations of indicator demographics related to racial equity. The map included above shows a composite of the indicator demographics analyzed and highli g hts areas with low bicycle service. A-4 Key Elements (continued) The plan 's inclusion of geographic equity goals follows the City's and King County's pilot policies , programs , and strategic plans to foster racial equity and soc ial justice. The plan shows the confluence of policy initiatives , evidence- based research, strong political leadership , and infrastructure planning, design , and implementation. Additionally, the Seattle Bike Plan emphasizes stakeholder and public engagement to accomplish equity-based objectives. Data I-L~catio_n __ _ Seattle , WA . Population 608,660 (2010 Census) i Area 83.87 sq mi Similar Case Studies More information The Seattle Bike Master Plan equity analysis was featured in the Advocacy Advance report, Active Transportation Equity: A Scan of Existing Master Plans (2015). The report researched a variety of master plans to understand current definitions , analyses , and policy/planning initiatives related to geographic and/or racial equity. Practitioners can use the report a s a touchstone when understandin g tools, outreach efforts, performance measure creation , and other elements to incorporate within master planning and policy creation or amendment initiatives. 7 ,969 residents/sq mi Western U.S . Temperate marine Transportation Seattle Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/aprl 4/ SBMP 21 March FINAL fu ll %20doc.pdf 2015 Bicycle Master Plan Progress Report: http://www.seattle .gov /transportation / docs /201 5BMPProgressReport.pdf Active Transportation Equity: A Scan of Existing Master Plans: http://www.advocacyadvance.org/ docs/ ActiveTransportati onEgu i tyScan .pdf King County: Building Equity and Opportunity: http://www.k i ngcounty.gov/elected/executive/~/ media/B 102A4C8AAE440F 1A79BCE76986E80F5.ashx?la=en A-5 THEIMAGESOURCE:HOTTYTODDYCOM Project Partners Mayor of Hernando Hernando City Parks Department Key Elements When Hernando , Mississippi Mayor Chip Johnson took office in 2005, he sought to create a city that could defy Mississippi's status as the State with the highest obesity rate in the nation . Mayor Johnson led a multi-pronged policy approach to create healthy environments for the city 's residents . The City of Hernando 's health initiatives included a smoking ban ordinance, a youth helmet ordinance, a new fanners market, a community garden, and city employee wellness program. Complementing these activities , the City placed a strong emphasis on developing policies to help people include physical activity into everyday routines. Under the umbrella of the City's health initiative, policies to promote more walking and bicycling (e.g., Complete Streets) became more appealing to the community. To increase the number of people walking , the City amended its design standards to require sidewalks with all new development and redevelopment projects. As the City focused its public dollars on repairing downtown sidewalks that were in poor condition, the new design stan dards facilitated the development of miles of new sidewalks in suburban developments that were prev io usl y disconnected from their surroundings . Today, Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Pay for It City staff collaborate with the local Community Foundation to train local planning and elected officials in healthy eating and active living policy development. In 2006 , the Mayor helped create a new City Parks Department to refurbish existing city parks and to encourage more residents of all ages to play outside. In 20 I 0 , the City passed their first Complete Streets policy, which requires the City to consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians on roadway projects. The Complete Streets Policy has led to miles of new bike lanes, sidewalks and trails. The Complete Streets Policy was marketed to appeal to the City 's businesses and residents. Aldennen concerned with economic development played a key role in promoting the policy by explaining its potential to help the City attract new residents and businesses by creating a safer and more pleasant street environment. The City has received more than $800,000 in funding to promote activity and healthy eating and in 2010, Hernando was name the "Healthiest Hometown in Mississippi" by the Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi Foundation for its ongoing health and wellness efforts . A-6 Data i Location Population Area ----- - --- Hernando , MS 14 ,090 (2010 Census) 25.8 sq mi Similar Case Studies More information ~I 548 residents/sq mi Geography Southern U.S. Climate Humid subtropical http ://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/Hernando %20Miss %2 02.pdf http ://cityofhernando .org/wp-content/uploads/2011 /06/Healthy-hometown-flyer. pdf http://cityofhernando.org/wp-content/upl oads/2013 /0 5/Des ign-S tandards-Ordinance. pdf http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/2010/04/ 14/m issis sippi-on-the-map/ A-7 CASE STUDY 3 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES Champaign County, IL Performance Measure Safety and Security 2015 Rating ---~------------- Trend ~ Define Success 1 --- Tota l fatal ities Total Fatalities Protect Nonmotorized Travelers :~ Promote Supportive Development 20 10 20 11 20 12 2013 20 14 Urbanized Area : • Tot.a l Fatal itM!:s IMAGE SOURCE: LRTP.CUUATS.ORG / Design the Network Project Partners Make It Last Champaign County Regional Planning Commission Champaign County Economic Deve lopm ent Corporation Champaign Park District Pay for It Village of Rantoul Key Elements The Champaign-Urbana Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) Long Range Transportation Plan included specific performance measures "to help CUUATS staff track the progres s of each objective during the five year period between LRTP updates according to relevant and obtainable data " (2040 LRTP, page 5). CUUATS tracks the plan 's progress through annua l reports in which each Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) is scored with a good, neutral or negative rating. This process helps staff to consider specific concerns associated with each MOE, as well as overall "strengths , weaknesses, and difficulties in achieving LRTP goa ls and plannin g for the futu re" (2). MOEs within the Multimodal Connectivity "planning pillar" include the following: Miles of existi ng non-ADA compl iant s idewalks Miles of trail infrastructure Mi les of bike infrastructure A-8 Urbanized area contained inside the Metropolitan Transportation Di strict (MTD) serv ice area Percent increa se in enplanements at Willard Airport Number of new rural tran sit connections and number of rural transit trips Number of new partn ers identified umber of public events with materials avai lab le The public can easily access each of the plan's perfomrnnce mea sures via the Sustainable Choices 2040: Long R ange Transportation Plan R eport Card website (www.reportcard.cuuats.org). Each MOE's respecti ve web page contains detail ed information about what the MOE is designed to measure. Each page also include s information about the agency 's work over time to assess hi storical trends . Data --------------- 1 Location i Population I Area ------------ Champaign County, IL 204,897 (2013 Census) 998 sq mi Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Design Standards Ordinance and Hernando , MS Hea lthy E ating and Active Living, 2005 to 2010 Complete Streets Design Chicago, IL Guideline s, 2013 Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS, 2007 Charlotte, c More information I Density i 202 residents/sq mi 1 Geography Midwestern U.S. 1 Climate Humid continental ------------ Agency City of Hernando , MS Chicago Department of Tran sportation City of Charlotte CUUATS online report card: http://reportcard .cuuats.org/summary/ CUUATS LRTP Full Document: http ://lrtp.cuuats.org/documents/ CUUATS LRTP Chapter 9 : http ://lrtp.cuuats.org/lrtp-main_Ol 1615_reduced_9-goals-etc/ A-9 Page A-6 A-40 A-46 .. 1 IMAGE SOURCE: METROJACKSONVILLE.COM /CITY OF JACKSONVILLE Project Partners r Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers Promote Supportive Development Make It Last City of Jacksonville Plannin g and Development Department Key Elements The City of Jacksonville first used multi modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis during the City 's 2030 Mobility Plan development. The local project evolved from the Florida Department of Transportation 's (FDOT) 2009 MMLOS tool , which was developed to support transportation planning, cost estimation, project design , and engineering. FDOT developed the MMLOS evaluation method based on the 2000 Hig hway Capa city Manual (HCM), Transit Capa city and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM), and the 1997 Landis Bicycle and Pedestrian level of service (LOS) models. FDOT's MMLOS calculations are designed to function in a variety of land use settings, from rural to urban environments . MMLOS standards are used to review regionall y s ignificant FDOT projects . Therefore, the City of Jacksonville may be distinguishing itself from Pay for It peer cities by incorporating MMLOS analyses in local projects. Jacksonville 's Mobility Plan used pedestrian and bicycling LOS ratings to prioritize recommended walking and bicycling improvements. The plan shows pedestrian and bicycle networks before and after the plan 's proposed improvements. MMLOS produces LOS scores for each mode based, primaril y, on the available s pace for that mode relative to its use. Like Auto LOS , bicycle and pedestrian LOS consider elements like bicycle lane presence, sidewalk width , and other factors to determine the quality of the network. One general challenge with the MMLOS analysis is the comparability of LOS grades by mode. While these are generall y intended to convey the same concept, the uniqueness of each mode makes a one-to-one relationship challenging to implement. A-10 Data -------- Location Jacksonville, FL Population Area 821,784 (2010 Census) 885 sq mi Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Pedestrian and Bicyc le LOS, 2007 Charlotte, Senate Bill No. 743 , E nvironmental California Quality, 2013 More Information c ------------- Density f-- 1 Geography i. Climat~-_____ _ Agency 928.6 residents/sq mi Southeastern U.S. Humid subtropical City of Charlotte California State Legislature Page A-46 A-12 2030 Mobility Plan: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/transportation- planning/mobility-plan 2030 Mobility Plan Presentation: http ://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/ community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-presentation-4-15-1 O.aspx Fehr and Peers Multimodal Level of Service Toolkit: Florida DOT MMLOS: http://asap. fehrandpeers.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05 /MMLOS-Tool-Florida-DOT-MMLOS .pdf Multi modal Level of Service Goes Mainstream: Chickens can Finally Cross Roads: http://www. planetizen.com /node /46112 A-11 IMAGE SOURCE: ALTA PLANNING+ DESIGN Project Partners Californi a Governor's Office ---------~------- -------r Define Success ------ Protect Nonmotorized Travelers Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Make It Last Ca liforni a Office of Plannin g and R esearch (OPR) Pay for It Key Elements Level of Service (LOS) was the stan dard metric used to measure transportation impacts from developments and road changes through the California En vironmental Quality Act (CEQA). LOS measures how many vehicles can pass through an intersection in a given time. If a project going through CEQA review reduced a road or intersection 's LOS , it was considered a negative impact. This measu rement favored automobile travel over other modes of travel and conflicted with other state goa ls-such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation , and promoting infill development. In September 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (S B743), which removed the LOS element from CEQA review and required the Governor's Office of Plannin g and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines with an alternative method for eva lu ating transportation impacts. Particu larly within areas served by transit, SB743 called for alternati ve criteria that would "promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emiss ion s , the development of mu ltimodal transportation networks , and a divers ity of land uses ." (New Public Resources Code Section 21099(b )(I).) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is one of the alternative metrics supported. VMT measures a project 's overall impact on travel demand, rather than congestion measures su ch as intersection delay. Projects that offer the potential to decrease VMT by providing access to transit or by altering networks and land uses in ways that decrease trip distances will automatica ll y be considered to have a "less than significant" impact under CEQA. Projects that have the potential to increase VMT score less favorabl y, but the negative effect can be offset by mitigation strategies such as improving pedestrian and bike fac iliti es, funding transit service, or improving overall access to multimodal transportation options. All of these mitigation options help to support other state environmental and public health goals. In highly urbanized areas, new development is less likely to impact transportation , which could result in the loss of potential impact fees . Local governments ca n compensate for this loss by revising the purpose and applicat ion of transportation impact fees, including fundin g multimodal improve ments. Local governments wi ll have to update severa l types of plans and A-12 Key Elements (continued) policies in order to apply VMT to CEQA analyses, including general plans, climate action plans , VMT thresholds , and transportation plans . The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a draft proposal for implementing SB 743 on January 20, 2016 , with the intention Data State of California 37.25 million (2010 Census) 163,696 sq mi Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Charlotte, NC Service (LOS), 2007 Multimodal Level of Service Jack so nv ill e, FL (MMLOS), 2009 More information of publishing a final rule by early 2017. In the meantime, a few local governments have begun to move forward with applying the new metrics to their plans and projects. For example, San Francisco began using the VMT threshold for all CEQA environmental detenninations as of March 2016. ,--~--- -------- ! Density 251.30 residents/sq mi I Geography Western U.S. Climate Mediterranean , continental , and semi-arid Agency Page City of Charlotte A-46 City of Jacksonville , Florida A-10 Department of Transportation (FDOT) California Legislative lnfonnation . Full -text of Senate Bill No. 743: http://leginfo .legislature.ca.gov/ faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id =201320140SB743 "Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA": https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised VMT CEOA Guidelines Proposal January 20 2016.pdf SB 743 Implementation: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files /pc-mobility-workshop-part2. J2ill' "California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric 'Level of Service '," Streetsblog LA: http:// la .streetsblog.org/2014/08 /07 I cal iforn i a-has-officially-di tched-car-centric-1 eve I-of-service/ A-13 IMAGE SOURCE : LA.STREETSBLOG .ORG Project Partners Huntington Beach Police D epartment Define Success Promote Supportive Development Desi gn th e Network Make It Last The Superior Court of California: County of Orange Pay for It Key Elements On May 20, 2011, a n Adult Bicycle Safety Program was in sti tuted in Huntington Beach to provide a traffi c school alternati ve for bicyclists caught breaking traffic rules rather than having offenders go to court or pay hi g h fines. B ecau se sta te law treats dri ver s and bicycli sts the sa me when they break the law, each could both receive a $233 fine for not stopping at a stop s ign . U nder the new program , the offending bi cyclist could opt to enroll in th e two hour long Adult Bicycle Safety Program for $5 0 (to cover costs of th e class) instead . This program was created after a study conducted in Huntington Beach between 2008 and 2010 showed bicycli sts to be at fault in two-thirds of traffic crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Rather th a n s imply fining people, th e program prov id es a way of e ducati n g bicyc li sts to increase safety. The Huntington Beach Police Department ha s praised th e program as providing a solution that is more like ly to chan ge bicycli st behaviors than ticketing alone . Since the 1970s , Huntington Beac h Police Department had been usin g an educational di ver s ion program for minors caught breaking traffic laws. Parents of the chi ldren had to attend thes e meetings, so it was not difficult for th e City to extend services to adults as well. Facilities and e ducators were already in place. The City poste d messages on the city website and on Facebook to educate the city a bout the change. Cooperation between the police department and the court system is an important factor in s uccessful implementation of a di ver sion program . In Huntington Beach 's case , officers would sti ll issue r egular citations to offending bicyclists and so it would b e up to the courts to ensure those cited are infom1 e d of the di version program option rather than pay. Whi le th e Huntington Beach program was imm e diately popular among poli ce a nd r es idents , it did not initi a ll y conform to Ca li fo rnia State Vehicle Code. The Huntin g ton B each program h a d to be shut due to re striction s on divers ion A-14 Key Elements (continued) programs in the code. A state amendment to address the vehicle code issue was passed on September 21, 2015, to allow Adult Bicycle Safety Programs to be used as diversion programs by any jurisdiction in California who choose to institute them. Data , Location I Huntington Beach , CA ~ 189 ,992 (2010 Census) A~e~ _ I 31.90 sq mi Similar Case Studies "Stop and Stay Stopped" Crosswalk Law, 2010 More information Huntington Beach res umed its original program in early 2016. Th ere is not yet data available regarding the impact of the program , but both residents and the Police Department support the program. i Density - I 6,000 residents/sq mi i Geography I Western U.S. l~I Semi-arid, Mediterranean New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety "City Debuts Traffic School for Bike Violations ," Los Angeles Times : http://www.latimes.com/tn- hbi-0602-biking-201l060 I -story.html "Huntington Beach Offers Traffic School for Bicycle Lawbreakers," Los Angeles Times: http:// articles.Jatirnes.com/2011 /jun/03 /local/Ja-me-0603-bike-etiquette-20110603 "California Assembly: Bill Would Allow "Traffic School for Bicycle Violations," Streetsblog Chicago: http://la.streetsblog.org/2015 /03 /30/bill-would-allow-traffic-school-for-bicycle-violations/ Huntington Beach Ticket Diversion Program : http ://gohumansocal.org/Documents/Tools/CaseStudy HuntingtonBeach .pdf A-15 IMAGE SOURCE: NACTO.ORG Project Partners City of Boulder Tra n sportation Division C it y of Boulder Police Department U ni versity of Co lorado Boulder Key Elements In 2012, Boulder passed three new traffic ordinances aimed at pedestrian safety. These laws were passed in response to a comprehensive 3-year traffic collision study (2012 Safe Streets Boulder Report) comp leted by the City of Boulder Transportation Division. Based on the collision data , the City detennined that intersections were the most dangerous areas for automo bil es, w hil e crosswalks were the most dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. To better protect nonmotorized trave lers, the City enacted three new laws: • Stop at crosswalk requi re d : When one vehicle stops fo r a person in a crosswa lk , another vehicle can not overtake and pass that vehicle ($125 fine for v io lation). • 8 mph speed limit: Speed limit est ab li shed for bicyclists during the immediate approach, entry and traversal of any crosswa lk ($50 fine for vio lat ion). • Pedestrian s obey traffic signals: A person ente rin g a flashing crosswalk must activate the warning signa l ($50 fine fo r v iolation ). Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It The Ci ty of Boulder compl emented the policy changes with education and enforcement campaigns, including a well-publicized , planned week during which police wou ld ramp up efforts to ticket vio lators. During this week, officers focused on the fifteen most dangerous intersections identified in the Safe Streets R eport. The report is now updated regularly, followed by repeated enforcement ca mpai gns during which law enforcement rolls out patrols specifi ca ll y targeting th e city's most dan gerous intersections for pedestrian/motorist interaction . Recently, th e City of Boulder approved a Vision Zero program that empha s izes education and enfo rce ment to support these relatively new laws. Jn 2015 , the C it y created a cam paign ca ll ed H eads Up Boulder that sponsors co llaborati ve events s uc h as week-lon g programs during which officers and vo lunt eers hand out education material , coupons , and small gifts to reinforce the campaign's safety messages. During the three years fo llo wing the program 's 20 12 o nset, crashes involving bicycles declined A-16 Key Elements (continued) slightly while crashes involving pedestrians remained about the same. Over those same three years, there was only one fatality involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, compared to an average of two fatalities per year previously. Consistently evaluating traffic data over many years is an important tool for cities to use to create Data ... Boulder, CO ... 97 ,385 (2010 Census) Area 24.7 sq mi --------~ Similar Case Studies Bicycle and Pede strian Safety Ordinance , 2013 More Information safety programs and eventually demonstrate their su ccesses. A majority of pedestrian and bicycle cras hes occur at crosswa lks so cities shou ld focus on those areas for improving safety. At the same time , automobile only crashes make up the vast majority of crashes , so enforcement of laws directed at pedestrian and bicyclist safety takes additional effort and funding prioritization. Density Geography Climate -------- 3 ,943 residents/sq mi Western U.S . Semi -arid • City of Boulder, Safe Streets Boulder: https ://bouldercolorado.gov/transportation/safe-streets-boulder "Boulder study sheds light on bicycle , pedestrian accidents ," Heath Urie , Boulder Dail y Camera, February 4, 2012 : http ://www.dailycamera.com /ci l 9895363?source=pkg "Bou ld er steps up crosswalk enforcement to ensure awareness of new laws ," Jennifer Kleinman , Boulder Dail y Camera, April 6 , 2012: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci 20343982/boulder-steps-up- crosswalk-enforcement-ensure-awareness-new A-17 YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO USE DUE CARE AS A PEDESTRIAN IMAGE SOURCE: NJSAFEROADS.COM Project Partners New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority Key Elements New Jersey's "Stop and Stay Stopped" law (April 1, 2010) requires that "the driver of a vehicle must stop and stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection ... " Prior to thi s le gis lative change, motorists were simply requ ired to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Motorists who violate the law are subject to a $200 fine, court costs, two points on their driver 's license, 15 days of community service, and insurance surcharges. Pedestrians are required by the law to obey pedestrian signals and use crosswalks at signalized intersections and to yield to traffic if they are not crossing within a crosswalk or at an intersection . Pedestrians who violate the law are s ubject to a $54 fine , plus court costs. Half of the motorist fine ($100) goes into the Pedestrian Safety, Enforcement and Education Fund, a revolving fund administered by the Office of Highway Traffic Safety. Municipalities and counties may apply for grants for pedestrian safety initiatives . Define Success I : ,. Protect Nonmotorized 1 V Travelers Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It To educate motorists about the law change, the Division of Traffic Safety developed an oversized palm card, similar in size to a traffic ticket that outlines the law and penalties for failing to comply. The card was distributed to all police departments in the state, and made available to high school driver education teachers and defensive driving program providers . A pedestrian deco y safety program called "Cops in Crosswalks" was implemented in thirteen municipalities . Law enforcement officers in plainclothes walked in crosswalks and observe d behavior of dri vers, pedestrian s, and bicyclists at selected locations. Observing officers noted violations and called ahead to waiting officers who would stop and warn or ticket all offenders, regardless of mode . Because the intent of the program was to educate and improve behavior, initiall y, enforcement officers provi ded the education palm card to educate drivers and pedestrians about the changes to the crosswalk law and issued citations only when another violation also occurred. However, they bega n to enforce the law more strictly over time. A-18 Key Elements (continued) Cops in Crosswalks was also part of Street Smart NJ , a public education , awareness , and behavioral change campaign that piloted in 2013 in four cities (Newark, Hackettstown, Jersey City, Woodbridge). Street Smart NJ is managed by the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, and funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Pedestrian Safety Education and Enforcement Fund. Five pilot locations were chosen for the first year of the campaign. Locations represented a mix of varying roadway characteristics and pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic volumes . The pilot locations also represented varying land uses: Woodridge (suburban), Jersey City and Newark (urban), Hackettstown (rural), and Long Beach Island (shore). Data State of New Jersey 8,791 ,894 (2010 Census) 8,722 .58 sq mi Similar Case Studies Adult Bicycle Safety Prog ram , 2011 More information During the first year of the program , New Jersey saw a 19 percent decrease in pedestrian fatalities between 2009 and 2010, exceeding the state goal of 1 percent. A 2013 pre-and post- program evaluation of Street Smart NJ shows that overall, the campaign was successful in changing pedestrian and motorist behaviors and raising awareness of pedestrian safety messages . Observational analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of pedestrians walking outside of a marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk (intersection) and crossing against the pedestrian signal in two of the five pilot areas: Woodbridge (26 percent decrease) and Jersey City (8 percent decrease). Statewide, pre-and post-program surveys showed an 18 percent increase in awareness of the campaign and/or pedestrian safety, and a 10 percent increase in awareness of educational and enforcement initiatives . 1,210.1 residents/sq mi Eastern U.S. Humid subtropical and humid continental Huntington Beach Police Department State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Division of Highway Traffic Safety : Pedestrian safety laws modified April 2010 : http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts /pedestrian.html Pedestrian and Bicycle Infonnation Center: 'Cops in Crosswalks ': Pedestrian Decoy Enforcement in New Jersey : http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/library/details .cfm?id=4649 "Motorists Must Stop-and Stay Stopped-for Pedestrian s in Crosswalks ," State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Division of Highway Traffic Safety: http ://www.nj.gov/oag/ newsreleases I O/pr2010033 la.html Street Smart NJ Report and Campaign Results : http ://www.njtpa.org/getmedia/2dc3 J a68-d l ce-43f2- bfbf-88ee096ca5a3 /Final-Street-Smart-NJ-Report.pdf.aspx A-19 IMAGE SOURCE: ALTA PLANNING+ DESIGN Project Partners Chicago Department of Transportation Define Success Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Make It Last Streets for Cycling Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) Mayor 's Bicy cle Advisory Council (MBAC) Pay for It Key Elements In 2013 , the City of Chicago updated its Municipal Code to include a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Ordinance. The Ordinance updates the traffic code to comply with state laws , increases reckless driving fines , and helps to prevent "dooring" crashes that occur when bicyclists cannot safely avoid a door opening from a parked car. Among other changes, updated elements include : Dooring that interferes with a bicycle carries a mandatory fine of $300 , caus ing a collision would result in a mandatory fine of $1 ,000. Previous ly, the ordinance included lower fines. Language was added to clarify t he rules about driving, standing, or parking in bike lanes , and to define rights of way between buses and bicyclists. Fines are increased for bicycli sts who violate the Chicago Municipal Code. Language related to bicycle riding on sidewalks is updated. Bicycle lane placement and yielding right- of-way language is updated to elaborate the meaning of riding as "near as is practicable AND safe to the right side" as a bicycle user. Chicago joined the Vision Zero Network in 2016 , which may lead to additional policy items regarding active transportation promotion and safety. Although bicycle crash data exists s ince 2013 , the short time frame and lack of exposure data limits an immediate assessment of the ordinance changes' impacts. However, the State oflllinois maintains a cra sh data file. Chicagocrashes. org, routinely publishes crash data to the public via an online, interactive map as it becomes available . The City continues to collect bicycle and pedestrian data to understand roadway users' exposure data over time. A-20 Data ... Chicago, IL Density Geography 11 ,952.60 residents/sq mi ... Central U .S . 2.72 million (20 14 Census) 227.80 sq mi -Area Climate Humid continental ~---- -----~- Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Agency Equit y Ana lys is within a Bicycle Seattle, WA Seattle Depa rtment of Master Plan, 2014 Tran sportation (SDOT) Healthy Design Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles County, CA Los Angele s Co unt y De partm ent of Public Health More information Chicago Complete Streets: http://chicagocornpletestreets.org/ Page A-4 A-44 Chicago Complete Streets: Enforcement: http://chicagocompletestreets.org/your-safety/enforcement- laws/ A-21 IMAGE SOURCE: NY DOT , MAP DATA (C) 2016 GOOGLE Project Partners NYC Department of Transportation New York City Council Key Elements With an increasing rate of bicycle commuting, investments in bicycle facilities throughout the city, adverse weather conditions , and issues with bicycle theft, secure indoor bicyc le parking spaces are needed to maintain bicycling as viable transportation alternative for New Yorkers. The Bicycle Access to Garages Law and the Bicycle Access to Buildings Law are two policy examples that address these potential barriers . Local Law 51 (2009), Bicycle Access to Garages , requires all licensed parking lots or garages with capacity for 51 or more vehicles to create and maintain parking spaces for bicycles . For every ten vehicle parking spaces, at least one bicycle parking space is required, up to 200 motor vehicle parking spaces. After this mark, one bicycle parking space is required for every additional 100 automobile parking spaces. The law requires bicycle storage units to accommodate a volume of at least 2 by 3 by 6 feet in volume for each bicycle. Parking garages that permit car owners to access their vehicles must also provide such access to bicyc le owners. Local Law 51 requires operators to provide secure and locked parking for all bicycles , unless the spaces \ SOUTH OZONtPAI Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers I" Promote Supportive V Development -------- -- - - Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It are located in an area not accessible to the public. The law has created over 16 ,000 secure parking spaces as of 2011. New York has since amended the law to increase flexibility in how the spaces are designed and provided. There is no regulation on the amount parking garage operators can charge for bicycle parking . With some parking garages charging prices nearly equal amounts for bicycle and vehicle parking spaces, the benefits and incentives for bicycling may be diminished . The City's Bikes in Buildings law was created to provide a process for tenants of commercial office buildings with a freight elevator to request bicycle access to their work spaces. Additionally, access to three indoor bicyc le parking lots is provided for free to all City employees. Five months after the law took effect, 176 buildings across Manhattan and Brooklyn had created bicycle access plans. An additional 300 tenants filed requests within this period. During the same time frame, the City Council estimated that over 1,7 00 bicycle commuters gained end-of-trip storage for the work commute. A-22 Data --:L.~~at~-;; --New York, NY Density 28,052.50 residents/sq mi : Population Area ~ ------- ------ 8.17 million (2010 Census) 304.80 sq mi Similar Case Studies I I Geography Eastern U.S. : Climate Warm temperate ----------- Name and Year Location Agency Page Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Acces s to Transportation Facilities, 20 14 More information Maryland Maryland Department of Transportation New York City Bicycle Parking Information : http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/ bicycleparking.shtml#indoor A-32 "For a Reasonable Price on Bike Parking, Try Brooklyn ," Streetsblog NYC: http://www.streetsb lo g. org/2010/07 /01 /for-a-reasonable-price-on-bike-parking-try-brooklyn/ Five Months On , Bike Access to Buildings Law Showing Results ," Streets blog YC : http://www. streets blog. org/2 0 I 0/05 /20/fi ve-mon ths-on-bike-access-to-bui I dings-I aw-showing-results/ A-23 Description/Intent : The Commercial/M ixed.u se designation ~rves areas !ha t acco mmodate a mixture of ground floor uses and allo~ a diverr.ily of development fron1ages provided they cont ribute to the vis ual ch aracter of the street and enhance !he pedestrian environment. Vi sion: STOREFRONT -or-LANDSCAPED FRONTAGE Define Success -ather pn1tKtlon: En1rr: .at!.•stS'-qe~pth lat.in&Jlrtt! .ion1~cl~ fac"'&i.outhor-st !or~est11Ji;shed historicPHttrnl :;1~;> I .-:!L ,..,,.._, ....._, tt11M1H••ncv: .atle1st15"of Hon-ftsidential .. ..._, lf11~~ncy: 2S 104Q!li.of cround~ lk ... ~t~1'to5' ftoml>dewa!klevel (l"nCOUra~d) WutherprotKtlori over en1..i.-s: Entry: fuin1mtt1 ....... Protect Nonmotorized Travelers --------- ,. Promote Supportive 1 V Development 1 ------------- IMAGE SOURCE: BOISE DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Design the Network Project Partners City of Boise Capital City Development Corporation Key Elements The City of Boise created design standards and guidelines for its downtown that encourage high-quality urban design and promote compact, walkable development patterns . Site design standards are provided that promote a pedestrian- oriented environment, including standards for nonmotorized circulation and connections. A detailed Downtown Streetscape Standards and Specifications Manual lays out the streetscape improvement re q uirements for new development. Specific requirements include specifications for sidewalk width and material , landsca ping, green stormwater infrastructure, street lighting, and pedestrian furniture including bike racks , bike corrals , benches , and litter receptacles . All new nonresi de ntial and mu ltifamily development proposals, building additions, and remodels in the Downtown Planning Area must comply with the design standards and guidelines related to building location and orientation, internal circulation , site design elements , and building design. Projects must also comply with the streetscape standards and specifications. The downtown design standards followed Make It Last Pay for It the completion of Blueprint Boise , the city's comprehensive plan in coordination with a citywide land use code update. Features include : Integration of fonn-based code elements , including block frontage standards and maps covering downtown Downtown provisions including distinct building character, materials , details, and massing standards and guidelines to enhance the skyline, identity, and downtown livability Design approach for infill in historic areas A design review approach that emphasizes design objectives , clear minimum standards , a toolbox of options, and departure provisions that allow for flexibility The streetscape standards are being implemented gradually, as the City relies upon on private property owners to update piece of the street network during redevelopment projects. The City has streamlined the streetscape review and approval processes , but costs to property owners are still a deterrent to a faster, more comprehensive implementation of the overall vision . A-24 Data Downtown Boise, ID 205,671; downtown: 6 ,364 (2010 Census) 80.5 sq mi Similar Case Studies ! ----~-:-~ --- !Density Geography Climate 3 ,978 residents/sq mi Western U.S. Temperate Name and Year Location Agency Page Multimodal Development and Parkin g Minimum E limin ation , 1999 Des ign Stand ard s Ordinance and Health y Ea tin g and Act iv e Livin g, 2006 to 20JO Complete Streets Des ign Guid e lines , 2013 More information Fargo, ND Hernando , MS Chicago, IL City ofFargo A-34 Cit y of Hernando A-6 Chicago Department of A-40 Tran sportation (CDOT) Boise Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines: http://pds .cityofboise.org/media/215767 I downtown-design-guidelines-revised-6-23-16 .pdf A-25 Parlci-g!pilCJ!S per ct.Yeling,indeYelopnentlMider!Mw, mid-:xl12 to Feb. ""5 80 ~---- 52 g, so ~ 37 D e fin e Su ccess -~ •O / I ""'· • 0.55 space I t perdwelHrw j : 1,.9----L-.:..___~~1,,:_-=--=-= ~ ,. d,.1,. ti" ,. ,, ~-,: ~ :;r· u--~--~~ Protect Non.motori zed Trav elers ----------------r Promote Supportive V Development 0 0-.1 .1·.2 .2·.3 ~.4 .4-..5 ..5-.6 .6-.7 .7-.8 .8-.9 .9-1 1 to kl 10 to >U 1.1 1.2 1.3 1A ---.. ------- Ratk> of partdng Sp.KH provided /dwelling unit IMAGE SOURCE : SEATTLE .GOV/DPD Project Partners Seattl e D ep artment of Plannin g and Deve lopment Seatt le D ep artm ent of Tran sp ortation Key Elements In earl y 2 012 , th e C ity of Seattl e 's D epartm ent o f Planning and D evelopment (DPD) e liminated motor vehicl e parkin g requirements fo r all n ew d eve lopm ent w ithin a 1/4 mil e o f fre qu ent tran s it serv ice includin g S eattl e's urb an centers, li g ht rail sta tion areas, and most of it s U rb an Vil lages. F requ ent tran s it service is d efi ned as at least 15-minute s erv ice fo r at least 12 hours p er day and at least 30-minute servic e 18 hou rs p er da y. DPD det ennined th at requirin g developers to prov id e p arkin g in pl ac es that are we ll-served b y tran s it is in con s istent with s in g le -occupant vehi c le (SOY) trip redu cti on g oal s set by th e C ity. Th e poli cy enabl ed d eve lop e rs to s p end less mon ey on con stru ctin g p a rkin g spa ces (sav in g $10 ,000 to as mu ch a s $5 0 ,0 00 p er s pace), and p rov id ed opportuniti es for them to add elem en ts th at m ad e th e ir s it es more access ibl e to tran s it , bi cyclin g , and wa lkin g opt ion s. A DPD assessm ent of d eve lop me nt proj ec ts ove r th e three years p r ior to 2 01 5 ind ica t ed nea rl y 25 p ercent of res id enti a l d evelopm ent s were built w ith no off-str eet p a rk in g , w hil e nin e p e rcent provid ed m ore th an on e sp ace p er unit. D es ign th e Netw ork Make It L as t P ay fo r It To ta l average s p aces prov id e d for res id enti a l de ve lopments durin g thi s three-year p e riod was 0 .5 5 spa ces p er unit, w hich w a s less th an th e leve ls reporte d in previou s years. After a prog ram rev iew conducted by DPD in 2 015 , th e pol ic y was found to b e s u ccessful and th at th e e limin ati on o f p arkin g minimum s w ou ld remain . DPD u sed severa l g uidin g principl es wh en con siderin g w heth e r to recomm end th e prog ram 's continuation. Th ese prin c ipl es are co n s istent w ith o th er C it y poli c ies. Guidin g principl es r elate d to th e program 's su ccess a re para ph rase d from th e DPD re p ort as fo llo ws: enco urag in g r es id enti a l and e mpl oy m ent growth w ithin U rban Cent ers and Vill ages , re ta inin g a nd enhancin g Seattle ne ighborhood s ' w alkabl e a nd li va ble urban qu a liti es , prioriti z in g hou s in g affo rd a bili ty, e ns urin g th e con s id era tion of rac ia l and socio-econ omi c equity, en s urin g int eg rate d and access ibl e tran s p ortation opti o ns , m anag in g o n-and o ff-street pa rkin g more effic ientl y, achi ev in g bette r q ua lity bi cycle storage fa c iliti es , a idin g ava il a bility of bi cyclin g op t ions , achi ev in g local a nd region a l en v iro nm e nt a l o bj ecti ves . A-26 Key Elements (continued) To increase the policy 's effectiveness, the DPD study recommended that developers provide transportation demand management measures to lessen the potential impact on parking demand. Programs could include providing transit passes to residents and providing other mobility options such as on site car share services. Data 1 Location Population Area ------------- Seattle, WA 608,660 (2010 Census) 142 .5 sq mi Similar Case Studies Parkin g Minimum Elimin at ion , 1999 More information In addition, the DPD proposed updating the City's parking codes to allow more flexibility with shared parking spaces. B y cutting the red tape involved in code compliance, Seattle could increase the influence of the parking reduction program. ! Density 8,161 residents/sq mi : Geography Western U.S. l_~li~~ Temperate marine City of Seattle Parking Review: Report to Council plus Committee: http://www.seattle .gov/dpd / cityplanning/20 l 5parkingreport.pdf "Seattle to Buildings : Give Tenants Transit Pas ses, Not Parking Spots," City Lab from the Atlantic: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/20 l 5/05 /seattle-to-buildings-give-tenants-transit-passes-not- parking-spots/392756/ "The Flexibility at the Local Level ," Seattle Met: http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2012/2/29 /the- flexibil ity-a t-the-1oca1-1 eve) A-27 Tabl e : 1703-2.30.A The Cincinnati Transect: Summary Table (continued) More Urban ···············································································~ Define Success Protect onmotorized Travelers ---- ,. Promote Supportive , V Development ~ ----- TS N eighborhood Large Setback IMAGE SOURCE: CINCINNATI FORM BASED CODE Project Partners Cincinnati City Planning Department Consultant: Opticos Design , Inc . Key Elements The City of Cincinnati adopted a form-based code in 2013 based on the vision laid out in Plan Cincinnati, its 2012 comprehensive plan. Form-based codes set requirements based on the physical form of buildings ra ther than usage. The fom1-based code works to reinforce a pattern of walkable urban neighborhoods by supporting existing walkable neighborhoods and providing a tool to retrofit those that are not walkable or have been compromised. The code also provides context-sensitive design guidance for thoroughfares that connect walkable urban neighborhoods . One of the major contributions of the code is the walkable neighborhood standards that span a spectrum of transects (geographical cross sections of distinct natural and built environments) and that specify allocation of transect zones , pedestrian sheds , neighborhood centers , thoroughfare connectivity, open space, and civic space standards. In parallel , the City developed a Complete Stree ts Manual that takes a context driven approach to designing and planning thoroughfares . The Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It Manual designates places as a starting point for thoroughfare design. It uses the rural-to-urban transect zones as the organizing principal that further define how the intensity and character of the built environment influences decisions related to street design. The Complete Streets Manual is intended to help revitalize fonnerly walkable areas that have been compromised by automobile-centric thoroughfare design. Developing high quality, multimodal thoroughfares will help improve the quality, character, and economic viability of these neighborhoods , and in particular their main streets . The fom1-based code allowed neighborhoods to opt in through a neighborhood planning process . This allows for a community-informed approach to designing the code, but has also slowed implementation . The process of customizing the code for each neighborhood has also been hampered by changes in City staff and leadership that reduced the resources available to complete the required nei g hborhood planning efforts. As of 2016 , only four neighborhoods in Cincinnati had adopted the new code. A-28 Data Cincinnati, OH 296,943 (2010 Census) 79.54 sq mi Similar Case Studies More information - -- I Density 3 ,8 I 0 residents/sq mi ------- Geography Midwestern U .S . -------1 Climate Temperate City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department City of Cincinnati Form-based Code: http ://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/assets/File/CFBC%20 Ful1%20Document%20Amended%202-I 0-I 4.pdf A-29 IMAGE SOURCE: PLUSURBIA.COM Project Partners City of Miami Planning Advisory Board City of Miami Planning Commission Miami 21, the City of Miami 's form-based code (FBC), went into effect in May 2010, making Miami the nation 's first large city to adopt this type of zo nin g policy. Form-based codes set requirements based on the physical form of buildings rather than usage. The City of Miami received the American Planning Association 2011 National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice. During the ten years prior to adopting Miami 21 , the city had experienced rapid growth . City leaders were concerned about issues su ch as spraw l, auto mobil e-d epend ency, and a lack of compact, mixed-use communities. The new zoning code foc used on context-sen sitive development, walkable streets , and susta in able building practices. Miami 2 I created a holistic tool for the City of Miami to manage zoning, economic development, transportation, historic preservation , parks, and open space. Miami 's form -based code is buil t upon dividing th e city into transects , a tem1 used in environmental sciences to descri be geographical cross sections that have distinct natural environment s . Various features are regulated Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers ..(' Promote Supportive Development Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It with in each transect zone, including : • • • • Function and intensity : the level to which variou s types of uses are permitted throughout the area and withi n the buildings of each district. Parking standards: Required minimum or maximum parking spaces per unit. Integration of private and public realm s: sta nd ards regarding elements su ch as pedestrian orientation, landscape standards, parking lin ers , and building frontages. Succession: design treatments that ensure seque nti a l, smooth transitions between each transect zone. Ca ll e Ocho, a major commercial corr id or in Miami , provides an example of the form -b ased code in act ion . Miami 2 1 req uires active grou nd floor uses with regularly spaced doors and windows in order to activate streets and create interesting places to walk . The fom1er code lacked design criteria , which resulted in blank walls along many of Miami 's main corridors . The picture at the top of this page shows the transit, pedestrian , and bicycle potential of a Call e Ocho redesign . A-30 Key Elements (continued) Unlike other cities , such as Cincinnati and Nashville, that have adopted form-based codes neighborhood by neighborhood , Miami's new zoning code applies to the entire city. The two main reasons for this decision were the city 's status as a regional municipality and to avoid the lengthy amount oftime that would have been required to approve individual neighborhood codes. Data Miami , FL I Location Population I 399,457 (2010 Census) 1 Area 35 .68 sq mi ---------- Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Form-Based Code, 2013 Cincinnati , OH Th ough the development of Miami 21 involved extensive p lanning and stakeholder and public engagement, the final adoption was stalled in 2009 during the transition to a new mayor and two new ly elected commissioners , all of whom opposed the new code. Despite this opposition , additiona l public and elected officia l input led to the new code being adopted in May 2010 . One key to achieving adoption was to build an understanding that Miami 21 is a living document that will be updated over time. The most recent amendment came in May 2015. I Density 1 11 ,135 .90 residents/sq mi 'Geography Southeastern U.S . I Climate Humid subtropical ------ -- Agency Page City of Cincinnati A-28 Healthy Desig n Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles C ounty, CA Los Angeles County A-44 More information City of Miami project website : http://www.miami2l.org/ Fann-based Code: Miami 21 Case Study by Duany-Plater-Zyberk & Co .: http:// montgomeryplanningboard .org/planning board live /excellence series/khoury.pdf "Miami 21 Implementation Delayed ," South Florida Business Journa l:http://www.miami2l.org/ Media Headlines/BizJournal 121809.pdf "Miami 21: The Blueprint for Miami 's Future," F lorida Chapter of the American Planning Association: http://www.miami21.org/Media Headlines/FloridaPlanning-Jan201 O.pdf A-31 CASE STUDY 15 MODEL ORDINANCES FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES State of Maryland IMAGE SOURCE: BALTIMOREMAGAZINE.NET Project Partners Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers r Promote Supportive I I Development --·-------~ -- Design the Network Make It Last Various State departments contributing to land use management powers Pay for It Maryland communities Key Elements In 2002, MDOT developed a technica l memorandum of model ordinances that requ ire or encourage local development of bi cycle and pedestrian facilities . The memo did not provide an exhaustive list of design treatments, but rather illustrated ways in which local land use regulations can encourage development proposa ls to include bicycle and pedestrian access in site design. The land use regulations cited within the model ordinances are based around Mary land 's smart growth program , which is focused on developing mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled environments. The model ordinance guide presents a bulleted list of broad guidelines to help municipalities to revise and update regulations that prov ide for more robust bicycle-and pedestrian-supportive developments. Key g uidelines include: "Provide for hi g her density residential development and mixed-use zones to create new village centers and foster neighborhoods" "Discourage gated access and perimeter walls around subdivisions" "Require that sidewalks and bicycle lanes or paths be incorporated into new residential and commercial subdivisions." Zoning guidelines make up the majority of the examples in the document. MDOT encourages localities to cross-reference bicycle and pedestrian plans and policies as well as other planning or community development documents, in order to ensure consistency among community policies and programs. The guide includes an "Other Considerations and Issues" section with planning and regulatory considerations. Several of the challenges relate to conditions such as the separation of existing land uses and the different demand for bicycle facilities in rural , suburban, and urban areas. A-32 MODEL ORDINANCES FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONTINUED Data I ------- Location I • 1 Density State of Maryland 465.35 residents/sq mi 1 Population 5,773,552 (2010 Census) 'Geography Eastern U.S. i_ Area ______ _ 12 ,407 sq mi i~----Humid subtropical Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Agency Page Multi modal Devel opment and Fargo, D City ofFargo A-34 Parking Minimum Eli mination , 1999 Bicyc le Pa rkin g in Garages and ew York, NY New York C ity A-22 Parking Lots, 2009 More information Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transportation Facilities: http ://www.rem I inedigital .com/M 5 l 44%20MDOT%20B icycle%20and %20Pedestrian %20 M as ter%20Plan/links/Model %200rdinance%20Report.pdf A-33 IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN Project Partners Fargo Renaissance Zone Author ity City of Fargo Planning Department City of Moorhead, Minnesota Define Success Make It Last Pay for It North Dakota Division of Community Services (DCS) North Dakota State Un iversity (NDSU) Metro Area Transit (MATbus) Key Elements After the City of Fargo eliminated parking minimums from the city's downtown district, the region thrived with new development and multimodal investments . Fargo realized that parking requirements were discouraging developers from building downtown. Parking minimums were eliminated in a new zoning district for the downtown area, known as the Renaissance Zone. The City 's Legislative Assembly approved the Renaissance Zone Development Plan in 1999. Updates were completed in 2001 and 2003. Since the chan ge, North Dakota State University (NDSU), home to over 4 ,000 students and faculty, moved downtown . Former surface parking lots were repurposed as housing, including new, mixed-use building, with I 04 housing units . New deve lopment allowed Fargo's local bus service, Metro Area Transit (MATbus) to increase service along a circulator route between downtown Fargo and NDSU. Between 2004 and 2013, MATbus ridership increased from 700,000 riders to two million riders, with over 50 percent of riders in college. Other supporting elements included : Classifying a section of Broadway, a downtown street, as a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Zone and prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian investment in that corridor Developing a hierarchy downtown streetscape elements to "define pedestrian-friendly linkages among all districts , parks, landmarks , and neighborhoods" through the Downtown Fargo Redeve lopment Framework Plan (2002). Launching a bike share program in March 2015 . In 1993 , the assessed value within the Renaissance Zone was $190 million. Twenty years after the change to the parking code, a 2014 study quantified the value of new development at 600 million. The American Planning Association recognized the area as one of" 10 Neighborhoods for 2009." A-34 Key Elements (continued) Successful elements of the policy changes include: Substantial increases in bus ridership has reduced the need for the City and University to mitigate increased traffic to and from the NDSU residential facility . Partnerships within the City of Fargo government, including the police department and maintenance district. The Renaissance Zone program was established through a Memorandum of Understanding with the North Dakota Division of Community Services and City of Fargo . Consideration of historic buildings, including the creation of a historic district. The district includes opportunities to use a variety of state and Federal funding sources for rehabilitation of certified historic structures, allowing the City to reuse existing buildings that conform to walkability guidelines instead of relying Data --------- ~ Fargo, ND 1 Population 31 ,771 (2014 Census) 1 Area 14.44 sq mi Similar Case Studies Tran s it-Oriented Development, 1960 s to present More information entirely on developers to construct new structures . A Storefront Rehabilitation program that has worked with 46 business owners and has totaled $1.2 million , with 50 percent matching grants originating from federal funding through the Community Development Block Grant program. Constructin g a sidewalk-grade, shared-use path for bicy clists and pedestrians required changing a City ordinance that prohibited bicyclists from riding on sidewalks. State legislators later removed the ordinance from statewide legislation. New ordinances were added to the municipal code to enable outdoor dining and v arious uses for sidewalks including street performance space and sidewalk marketing. 1,789 .9 residents/sq mi Northern U .S . Humid continental http ://files.cityoffargo .com/content/b0fa4675ebc5ab l 9e7ef75e86 l c9446 l 5843edea/FJNAL%20 2014 %20RZ%20Plan _Approved %2012 .8 . l 4.pdf http ://www.strongtown s .org/joumal/201 5/1 1 /1 8/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parkin g -minimum s http://www.strongtown s.org/joumal/20 I 5111 /23 /robust-growth-and-development-without-mandating- parking https://www.fhwa.dot.gov /livability/case_studies/guidebook/appendix/app08 .cfrn https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhood s/2009/downtownfargo.htm A-35 IMAGE SOURCE: ARLINGTON, VA Project Partners "BULL'S EYE " CONCEPT National Capital Tra n sportation Agency Washington , Metropo lit an Transit Authority Key Elements Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a development approach that focuses lan d and densities around a transit station or within a transit corridor. Featuring a mix of uses , higher density development, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, and reduced parking standards , a TOD can decrease driving trips, and increase walking and biking trips. When the Washington , D.C ., metropolitan area was building a new regional rail system in the 1960s, Arlin gton County officials created the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) to focus development around the five new transit stations. They called this the "bulls-eye approach " with the center target as the densest p art of the station area and Je ss dense development on the outskirts. Each station had an Indi vid ua l Sector Plan that guided streetscape standards , open space guidel in es , and zoning. The corridor has thrived and has become known as the Ro ss ly n -Ballston Corridor. Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers Make It Last Pay for It The Metro line was originall y planned to run above ground along the median of Interstate 66. County officials and planners recognized that highway stations would be less appealing to users , and pushed for the Metro stations to be located in more attractive locations . The early investment paid off. Today, the corridor has 26 million square feet of retail and office space, 32,000 housing units , and 3, 700 hotel rooms.1 Forty-four percent of Arlington County's growth from 1990-2010 was within a quarter-mile radius of the Rosslyn- Ballston metro stations. Ninety percent of new development in the Co unty has been located near a Metro station. As a resu lt , 41 percent of residents within the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor commute to work by public transit,2 and most (77 percent) of the r id ers on the five sta tions in the corridor access the station by walking.3 I Arlin gt o n County, C PHD, Planning Divi s io n, Center for Urb an Des ign and Research 2 American Communi ty S urvey 2006-20 I 0 Ta bulated by the Arl in g - ton Co unty D e partment of Community Planning 3 WMATA May 2005 weekd ay Metrorail ridership an d access data A-36 Key Elements (continued) The County's chief motivation for developing the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor was to stimulate economic growth. As such, the increase in wa lking and biking generated by the TOD design was an additional benefit but not necessarily a planned one. After the initial phases of development, the TOD plans were successful from a development perspective but not always from a "place making" Data 1 ---.----- 1 Location Arlington , VA 1 Population 207 ,627 (20 I 0 Census) ~ 26 sq mi Similar Case Studies perspective of creating walkable, pedestrian scaled communities. To improve this element, the County then focused efforts on updating sector plans and urban design guidelines to improve the pedestrian environment of the station areas. The sector plan updates focused more on the built form than on density, yielding more attractive and functional pedestrian environments. I . Geography Climate 8,048 residents/sq mi Southeastern U.S. Humid subtropical llfo.¥.!.11$1.....,5.1£1!!.1.~J.jij@~ r one More information http ://projects.arlingtonva.us/plannin g/smart-growth/rosslyn-ball ston-corridor/ http ://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dp z/tysonscomer/nofind/arlingdoc .pdf http://planitmetro .c om /wp-content/upload s/2010/12/Metrorail -Bicyc le-Pedestrian-Access- Improvements-Study -_Final .pdf http ://ww2 .cityofpasadena .ne t/councilagendas/2007%20agendas/Feb _ 26 _ 07 I Appendix_ A_ Case%20 Studies%20 I 2-I -2006%20DRAFT.PDF http ://ccap.org/assets/CCAP-Booklet_ USArlington.pdf http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov /mason/seven _comers _special _ working_group/arlington _ countys _ 40 _ years_ of_ smart _growth _presentation.pdf A-37 IMAGE SOURCE : BIC YCLECOALITION .ORG Project Partners Define Success Promote Supportive Development - -------------r Design the Network ~--- Make It Last PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering PennDOT Bureau of Design Pay for Jt Key Elements As part of its Smart Transportation policy, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) developed a Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist to ensure bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are considered from the beginning stages of a project. In 2007 , PennDOT mandated the evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle access and mobility for every highwa y and bridge project. The Checklist was created as an official part of PennDOT's project development process . In the Planning and Programming phase, the checklist is divided into three sections for each stage of the development process : the planning, scoping, and design . In the Planning and Programming phase , the checklist is used to ensure consistency with existing bicycle and pedestrian planning documents , to evaluate current and future usage by bicyclists and pedestrians, to consider safety needs , and to take into account community development and land-use pattern s as well as the availability of tran s it. PennDOT s uggests that the District Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and the District Planning and Programming Manager complete this section of the checklist collaboratively. In the Scoping phase, the checklist provides design specifications to determine what pedestrian and bicycle features will be necessary based on Planning and Programming findings and guides field-checking to note any site constraints. PennDOT suggests that the Project Manager complete this section , in coordination with the District Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, the MPO/RPO , the project sponsor, and other agencies or organizations who participate in the field view. In the Final Design phase , the checklist provides a "cookbook-style" matrix of various bicycle and pedestrian design elements to assist in creating project plans. This section applies throughout the Preliminary Engineering and the Final Design Engineering phases of a project. The Project Manager is respon s ible for the completion of thi s section. A-38 Key Elements (continued) Mandatory use of the checklist has had a positive impact. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodation needs are now identified early in the development process, and design solutions can be engineered from the beginning of a project. The checklist also enables PennDOT to include local communities and transportation users in the process, which helps the agency to build relationships and to better understand their needs. That said , the effectiveness of the Checklist can vary depending upon the relevant skills, knowledge, and interest of the DOT project managers responsible for applying it. Limited agency resources and oversight mean the thoroughness of the Checklist can go unchecked. The checklist acts as a data-gathering tool, helping staff to pull together all of the necessary information early in the planning process so that proper design treatments can be applied to ensure Data Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 12,702,379 (2010 Census) 46 ,055 sq mi Similar Case Studies the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When multimodal needs are considered early in the process, the costs are incorporated into PennDOT's project budget from the beginning and are not as much of an obstacle. However, if bicycle and pedestrian improvements are added to a project already in progress, the local municipality may be asked to contribute funding , which may present challenges. Sidewalks can be another challenge. In Pennsylvania, responsibility for sidewalk maintenance is delegated to municipalities, so while PennDOT will build sidewalks if they are incorporated into the project design early in the process, the municipality must sign a maintenance agreement. Local political will and support for complete streets improvements may vary by municipality. 284 residents/sq mi Eastern U.S. Humid continental 1!61 .. 111.1.141•11•~HM'·1.~J·li·'!~ I None More information PennDOT Design Manual Part 1 OX: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/ PUB%201O/Pub1 OX Cover.pdf Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices: http ://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/ documents/cs/resources/cs-bestpractices-chapter5.pdf A-39 ©TRANSIT ©BICYCLE IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN Project Partners Chicago Department ofTransp01tation Key Elements The Chicago Complete Streets Design Guidelines reframed the City's transportation planning, design , and engineering focus by prioritizing pedestrian needs . The document provides four policy tools to help develop connected bicycle and pedestrian networks: Modal Hierarchy : "Transportation projects and program s will favor pedestri a ns first , then transit riders , cyclists, and automobiles" (figure above). Typology: Streets are classified by function and land use context. Intersections and crossings are included within these typologies , as are overlays such as the existing Historic Boulevard System. Design Values: The guide's de s ig n trees help City staff weigh street design options, street typology, and available right-of-way. Procedures : Internal project delivery processes identify the polic ies and procedures the department will use to reduce bicyc le and - - ---r Define Success . ------------ Protect onmotorized Travelers Promote Supportive Development -~----~---------- '..('Design the Network Make It Last Pay for It pedestrian injuries by 50 percent by 2017 and to eliminate all traffic fatalities by 2022. The recommendations are grounded in assessments of crashes, existing traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, intersection survey, community engagement, and direct observation. The Chicago Complete Streets D esign Guidelines are part of a suite of documents intended to implement the City's bicycle and pedestrian planning initiatives . Other documents within the series include P eople Spots D esign Guidelines and Sustainable Urban Infrastru cture: Policies and Guidelines (Volume 1). Data collection and analysis have proven important aspects of the agency 's policy implementation. The agency began collecting quarterl y pedestrian counts in high-crash locations after the legislation 's adoption. The quarterly counts help estimate travel volumes near key intersections and help with prioritization of elements. The guidelines call for the following perfonnance measures to evaluate success over time: A-40 Key Elements (continued) Eliminate all pedestrian, bicycle, and overall traffic crash fatalities within 10 years. Reduce pedestrian and bicycle crash injuries , each by 50 percent within 5 years. Reduce total roadway crashes and injuries from all roadway crashes , each by 10 percent every year. Increase the share of people bicycling, walking, and taking transit to work and working from home to 50 percent by 2040. Increase the share of all trips under five miles made by cycling to at least 5 percent. Data I L~c~ti~n ------I Chicago , IL ~ Population 2 ,722 ,407 (2014 Census) Area I 227.8 sq mi Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Ped es trian and Bicycle LOS , 200 7 Charlotte, NC Bicycl e and Pede strian Checkli st , Pennsy lvania 2007 Downtown Urban Design Boulder, CO Guidelines , 2016 More information The City is discussing how to better incorporate equity goals and strategies within the department 's work . The Complete Streets D esig n Guidelin es discuss the following in relation to the document 's "pedestrian-first" policy: "This inversion of the dominant, auto-based paradigm will allow the city 's transportation network to grow safely, sustainab ly, and equitab ly into the 21st Century." The City's advocacy groups , including Slow Roll Chicago, which focuses on the city 's underserved neighborhoods and neighborhoods whose residents are predominatel y people of co lor, have helped expand this dialogue. --------- 1 Density 11 ,952 .6 residents/sq mi 'Geography Climate I _I Agency Midwestern U .S . Humid continental City of Charlotte Penn syl v ania Department of Tran sportation City and County of Bou ld er Page A-46 A-38 A-42 http://www.cityofchicago .org/conten t/dam/city/depts/cdot/Complete%20Streets/ CompleteStreetsGuidelines.pdf http ://www. city lab. com/ comm ute /20 13/04 / chicago-comm it s-put-pedestria ns-first-transportation- p lann ing/ 5256/ http:! /chi .s treetsb log.org/2013 /04/ 11 /cdots-new-complete-streets-guidelines-put-p eople-first-not- cars/ A-41 IMAGE SOURCE: CITY OF BOULDER Project Partners City of Boulder Define Success ,. Protect Non motorized 1 "f Travelers · ---~--~------- Promote Supportive Development - ---- --------~---r Design the Network l Make It Last Pay for It Boulder Planning Board , Des ign Advisory Boards, Landmarks Board Downtown Management Commission Key Elements The City of Boulder updated its Downtown D esign Guidelines in 2016 afte r a year-long outreach process. The City worked with members of the city 's Planning Board, Design Advisory Board , Landmarks Board, Downtown Management Commission, and the community to produce a document that is easy to use but deta iled enough to generate desired outcomes. There are three section s of the g uide lines : Th e Hi storic District, The on-Hi s toric & Interface Areas , and The Publi c Realm . The first two sections focus on how private d evelopment shapes the look and feel of the city. It also pa ys special attention to preserv in g the historic character that is important to m any co mmunity m e mb ers. M a ny communities have adopted g uidelines r e lated to buildin gs a nd historic character, but relatively few have a lso d efined their goa ls for th e publi c rea lm of streets and civic space. Boulder 's Public Realm gu id e lin es stress th e importance of d es igning do w ntow n corridors for p edestrian s rather than just for a utomobiles . The street hierarchy in the guid e lines doe s ca ll for two m ajo r thorou ghfares to be more oriented to moving automobiles, but the other streets in th e guideline area are considered "Pedestrian Connectors" or "General Pedestrian Oriented Streets." Alleyways and walkways are also shown in the street hierarch y as potential pedestrian connections . The Public Realm sect ion of th e g uidelines is also unique in that it clearly identifies pedestrian zones for both sidewalks and comer/intersection areas. The desi gn gui delines feature two graphics that denote the various zones to consider when de s ignin g a good public realm . For s idewalks , one mu st consider the frontage zone, the pedestrian zon e , and the curb zone . Intersection s include comer zo nes , corner amenity areas, crosswa lk s , int ersection squares , pedestrian zo n es, and curb zo nes. The detail ed definition of th ese areas g ives plann ers , stakeholders, and the ge neral public a bette r understandin g of what makes a great publi c rea lm and ho w a stre et s hould function for p e destrians . Prov idin g agency staff and pri va te d eve lopers with clear g uidance for creating a safe , comfortabl e, engaging pedestrian ex perience is essential to creating a successful downtown . A-42 Data Location Population Area j --~--- -------- Boulder, CO 97,385 (2010 Census) 24.7 sq. mi Similar Case Studies More Information -------- Density Geography Climate - - ---- - -- 3,943 residents/sq mi Western U.S. Semi-arid City of Boulder Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Update Process : https ://bouldercolorado .gov/ planning/downtown-urban-design-guidelines-update City of Boulder Downtown Urban Design Guidelines: https://www-static .boulderco lorado.gov/ docs /2016 Downtown Design Guidelines Book 26May2016-l-201606061634.pdf A-43 IMAGE SOURCE : ALTA PLANNING+ DESIGN Project Partners Renew Los Angeles County Define Success Promote Supportive Development ---------~~------r Design the Network Make It Last Department of Health and Human Serv ices through the Los Ange les County Department of Pub li c Health Pay for It Los Ange les County Department of Regional Planning Key Elements T h e Los Angeles H ealthy D es ign Ordinance (HOO) was adopted February 5, 2013. The goa l of th e ordin ance is to , "improve public health through ch anges in the built environment." Los Ange les amend ed sections of the County Code to fo llow the Health y Design Principles of "Safety, Convenience, and Pleasantnes s," while providing better wa lkin g environm ents, encouraging more bicycling, improving access to health y foods, and en hanci ng project review requirements . Severa l po li cy revi sions aim to accomp li sh HOO goa ls by creati ng safer a nd more complete multimodal networks throughout the cou nty . Specific pedestrian and bicycle revi s ions included : • Increase minimum public sidewa lk wi dth from 4 to 5 feet. When app li cab le, require shade trees in new development projects. Require fro nt yard trees next to the sidewalk and at more regular interval s. • Allow an exemption from more stringent drought-tolerant land scaping requirements to provide better shade trees in areas with people wa lking an d bi cycling. • A dd pedestrian paths to cu l-d e-sacs that conn ect residential areas to destinations . • Require bicycle parking (short-and long- term) in easily-accessi bl e lo cations. • A llo w an automatic 5 percent car parking reduction to development projects that include bike parking and are located near public transit or a long a County bike master plan route. • Require detailed street sections on tentative plans in order to depict h ea lth y design features s uch as landscap in g, li ghtin g, street furni ture, and bike parking spots. A-44 Key Elements (continued) • Require higher justification when s id ewalk and bicycle faci liti es are proposed to be reduced or waived. • Create standardized block designs and maximum perimeter lengths, including small blocks, streets at more frequent intervals , rear alleys for vehicle access to urban block designs, minimal curb cuts on street. • Use traffic calming devices where appropriate. The Los Angeles County Healthy Design Workgroup (HOW) was formed as a result of the HOO . The group works to implement the HOO by Data f-L~cation - --Los Angeles , CA Population Area 10 .02 million (2010 Census) 4 ,057 .88 sq mi Sim ilar Case Studies Name and Year Location Senate Bi ll No . 743 , Environmental California Qu a lit y, 2013 Desig n Standard s Ordinance and Hernando, MS Healthy E atin g and Active Livin g, 2005 to 2010 More Information bringing together high-level representatives from County departments to improve interdepartmental coordination. Since 2013 , the HOW has received fourteen grants worth a total of $16.4 million to support their initiatives. In 2015, the HOW Grants Committee was recognized with LA County 's highest award for departmental productivity and quality improvement. HOO implementation achievements include the publication of new documents , including "Bicycle Parking Guidelines for County Facilities ,'' "Soil and Water Testing Considerations for Home and Community Gardens ,'' and the inclusion of healthy design elements within the Community Development Commission's Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for affordable multi-family housing. --- Density Geography Climate --------~-- Agency 2,506.31 residents/sq mi Western U.S. Mediterranean , subtropical Page State of Ca lifornia A-1 2 City of Hernando, MS A-6 Los Angele s County Department of Regional Planning: http://planning.lacounty.gov/hdo HOO: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl /data/ord healthy-design guidelines.pdf HOO Summary: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data /hdo two-minute-summary20111121. Jillf "Zoning a Hea lthier Los Angeles?,'' Mark Va lli anatos , Streets blog LA, February 22 , 2013: http:// la . streetsb log. org/2013 /02 /22/zon ing-a-hea lthier-1 os-ange Jes / Mode l Street Design Manual : http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com/ A-45 H igi. 'P"d , ht• \•i•i bility !i.n d tu.rn.r i r Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers (A ) Standard chann e l isla nd (B ) Modifie d sl ip lane de s i gn Promote Supportive Development CH..\. '\?li"IL ISLA!\'l> in lioa or s taadard radius MAGE SOURCE: CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO Project Partners City of Charlotte Key Elements In 2007 , as part of the City's Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG), Charlotte developed a methodology to evaluate how signalized intersections meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists . The results of the evaluation inform the preferred design and operation features of proposed intersection investments. A multimodal Level of Service (LOS) approach was intended to reflect the goals of the USDG , specifically the desire to increase transportation choices by making travel by walking, bicycling, and transit safer and more convenient. The methodology evaluates key features of intersections according to their influence on the comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyc lists . A major difference from the previous LOS method is that thresholds for auto volume to capacity Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS Features Pedestrian LOS Crossing distance Signal phasing and timing Corner radius Right turns on red Crosswalk treatment Adjustment for one-way street crossings Make It Last Pay for It (V /C) ratios are higher and are measured for two hours , rather than the peak hour, which could result in overestimation of needed capacity. This approach makes it less likely that intersections will need improvements for automobile travel , which could create opportunities to improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians . The LOS methodology can also be used to improve the design for bicyc lists and pedestrians when capacity for motorists needs to be improved. LOS for pedestrians and bicyclists is calculated based on a point system established in Charlotte's USDG and assesses the intersection features shown in the table below. The LOS is detem1ined by the sum of points accumulated for each mode. The relative expectations for each mode's LOS varies Bicycle LOS Width of bicycle trave l way Speed of adjacent traffic Signal features (left turn phasing, stop bar location) Right turn traffic conflict Right turns on red Crossing distance A-46 j Key Elements (continued) according to the planned function and context of each intersection . LOS thresho lds and the point system are described in the appendices of the USDG. The City calculates bicycle and pedestrian LOS for interse ction s where auto improvements have been identified, focused on arterials and collectors , not local or main street corridors, where it is reasonab le for users to share space. If two or more nearby intersections are identified for possible changes , the scope of the analysis is broadened to include the appropriate corridor or area . The LOS assessment method has some limitations recognized by local staff, including: The multimoda l assessment does not address transit LOS. Data Charlotte, NC 731,424 (20 10 Censu s) 297.7 sq mi Similar Case Studies Name and Year Location Multimodal Level of Service Jacksonville, FL Toolkit, 2009 Crosswalk Safety Policies, 2012 Boulder, CO More information • The process only considers travel at intersections, not along roadways. • The methodology focuses on the functiona lity, not the quality of the environment. E lements that make an area more inviting and attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists , such as visual stimuli, convenience, security and noise are not considered. • The process does not consider other features that affect the comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, including: sight lines , street lighting, pavement condition , signing, pedestrian and bike detection, curb extensions, and ADA features . Density 1 2,720.7 residents/sq mi • t I •I Southeastern U.S. Humid subtropical Agency Page Florida Department of A-JO Transportation Boulder Transportation A-16 Divi sion http :! /asap. fehrandpeers.com /wp -content/up 1oads /2014/08 /MMLOS-Too I-Charlotte . pdf http://channeck.org/city/charlotte/Transportation/PlansProjects/Documents/ ALOSStandardsAppendixApril05.pdf http ://channeck.org/city/charlotte/Transportation/PlansProjects/Documents/ RevUSDGChapter5KH023 .pdf A-47 IMAGE SOURCE: MEMPHISFLY ER .COM Project Partners City of Memphis, Division of Engineering Property Owners Define Success --------- - ----- I" Protect Nonmotorized ·· 1 'I Travelers · Promote Supportive Development Design the Network -------------- - - ---r Make It Last 1 Pay for It Memphis Pedestrian and School Safety Action Plan Technical Advisory Committee Key Elements The Memphis Side w alk Ordinances (2013) represent a proactive approach to sidewalk maintenance. A 1967 city law makes property owners , including businesses and homeowners, responsible for maintenance and repair of sidewalks adjacent to their property. Many of the city's sidewalks are in poor condition after 50 to 60 years of wear and tear, creating unsafe conditions for those who use them. The City determined that nearly all of the sidewalks in its 3 ,400 mile network require repair, with one third of the system demanding immediate attention. The City also found that an additional 13 percent of sidewalks , or 446 miles , are less than the standard width allowed for proper wheelchair access . The City estimates that it would cost $19 million per year to properly maintain sidewalks. At that rate, it would take over 24 years to fix j ust the 30 percent of sidewalks in need of urgent repair. Based on the research and planning process, the City has applied a number of strategies to implement the Safety Action plan , as shown in the table on the next page. The staff conducted a review of sidewalk maintenance practices in peer cities (Atlanta , Austin , Charlotte, Nashville, and New Orleans), and identified the following creative strategies for improving sidewalks with limited public resources: Multiple models exist for increasing public investment in , and responsibility for, sidewalk maintenance. There is precedent for a complete shift to public responsibility of walkways in the public right-of-way, but cost-sharing models and strategic public investments in the sidewalk network allow for property owners and local government agencies to share maintenance costs . Packaging flexible funds for new sidewalk construction in conjunction with other infrastructure investments , such as sewer construction , can lead to significant cost savings. Clayton, MO, for instance, has developed a program with dedicated flexible funding. A-48 Key Elements (continued) Equitabl e policies to assist low-incom e property owners with sidewalk maintenance may be politically challenging to implement if some residents fee l that others are receiving preferential treatment. Recommendations The first three recommendations are currently being implemented, while the final recommendation is under consid eration . Develop a sidewalk maintenance program to ensure that the City 's efforts to enhance the sidewa lk network do not place an unfair burden on disadvantaged property owners. Develop a property owner's guide to sidewalk maintenance that explains property owner respons ibiliti es in simple language and informs property owners of special programs availab le to ass ist with fulfilling their obligations, such as cost sharing incentives and financial hardship programs. Provide financial incentives to encoura ge property owners to repair adjacent sidewa lk s in disrepair. These incentives commonly include providing low-or no-interest loans , or an offer by the city to match property owner funds put toward sidewa lk repair and replacement. Develop a Fast Fix Sidewalk Repair program . This is a proposed (not implemented) program that would provide property owners with a li st of insured , City-approved contractors that provide prompt, low-cost sidewa lk repair services. After the repair is comp leted , the City inspects the work and a one-year warranty is issued by the contractor if the repair passes the inspection. Contractor are pre-approved and receive training on Memphis 's sidewalk standards , e limin ating the need for a building permit. This recommendation is large ly based on the Dallas , TX, Fast Fix Program. Data ,-Lo-~atk>~ ------! Memphis, TN I . 2,000 residents/sq mi ~' 646,889 (2010 Census) Geography Southeastern U .S. ~ 315.10 sq mi Humid subtropical Similar Case Studies ll@iulj!.!.k$1.....,3.ijli!.! . ..._J.G.!f~ I None More information City of Memphis Sidewalks page within the Engineering Division: http://www.memphistn.gov/ Govemment/EngineeringDivision/Sidewalks .aspx Memphi s Pedestrian and School Safety Action Plan: https ://bikepedmemphis.files.wordpress. com/2015/06/mpss action plan final optimized.pdf "Can the Bid for Walkability Make More Cities Take Responsibility for S id ewalks?," Next City : https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/walkability-cities-sidewalk-upkeep-homeowner-responsibility "Sidewa lk Struggle," Memphis Flyer: http ://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/sidewalk-struggle/ Content?oid=3685284 "Property Owner's Guide to Sidewa lk Maintenance and Repair," City of Memphis http://memphistn. gov/Portals/0 /pdf fom1s/SidewalkRepairGuide.pdf A-49 IMAGE SOURCE: STARTRIBUNE .COM Project Partners C ity of Minnea p o li s Publi c Works D ep artm ent Key Elements In May, 2 010 , th e C ity o f Minneap o li s publi sh ed a Bi cy cl e Facility Manu a l, whi ch was sub sequ entl y inc o rp orated into th e C ity's Street and S id ewalk D es ign G uid e lin es. C hapter 8 of th e B ic yc le Facility D es ign sectio n c onta in s d esign g uid e lin es fo r bi cycle fa c ili ty m a intenan ce . Whil e m a n y c iti es h ave bi cycle pl a n and design g uid elin es , M inn ea poli s is un iqu e in th at it g ives sp ec ific di recti o n on the m a intenance of bi cyc le fac il iti es. T hese gui d elin es ar e co mpreh en s ive a nd di scu ss bas ic levels o f se rv ice th at s ho uld be prov id ed th ro ug h routin e m a inte nan ce as well a s a dditi o n a l leve ls of serv ices th at ca n b e adde d a s n eed ed . T h e g u id e lin es outlin e a number of m a int e na nce p racti ces, in c ludin g: Mow in g and vegetation Pl ow in g P reve nt ati ve m a in te n an ce (i .e ., pat c hin g a nd sea lin g) Sig nage a nd stripin g Sweepin g , graffit i, and tra sh re m ova l Snow and ice re m ova l D e fin e Su ccess -r Protect Nonmotorized I 1 Travelers · Prom o te S upporti ve D ev e lopment D es ig n th e Netw ork r Make It Last I --------------------~- P ay fo r It T h e Min neap olis Bicy cle Fac il ity Design Gui delin es mainten an ce chapte r co nta in s r eco mm e nd ed p rac ti ces and precise po li c ies. Exampl e poli c ies in c lude: B ik eways n eed to be plowed once by th e end of th e n ext bu s in ess day after a sn ow fa ll. On stree t fac iliti es r ece ive th e sa m e level of w inte r m a in te nan ce as th e res t of th e str eet surface. Tra il s w ill b e m owed r egul arl y to m a inta in a c lea r z on e, w ith m ow in g takin g p lace at least tw ice a year. B ecau se th e g uid e lines set levels of serv ice, th ey ca n h elp th e C ity to eva luate th e costs of each m a in te na nc e p rogram a nd set pri orit ies as need ed . Ma in te n a nce p rograms targete d at bi cycle a nd p ed estri an fac iliti es req uire coo rdin atio n am o ng c ity s t aff (publi c works, tran s p ortat io n , and p arks/ rec) and w ith a variety of stakehold er s in cludin g community grou ps and advocacy orga ni z ati on s . Maintenance issues ca n be uniqu e to each c ity, as well as each fac ility, s o an id ea l ma inte nance A-50 Key Elements (continued) program is one that is tailored to each setting. Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian faci li ty maintenance can require specific vehicles for Data -~-~-------- 'Location ' Minneapolis , MN ~I I ' Area , I I 53.97 sq mi 382,599 (2010 Census) Similar Case Studies various activities (i.e. trail and bike lane sweeping or plowing). -------------~ Density 7 ,088 .3 0 residents/sq mi I Geography , Midwestern U.S. ~ Humid continental 1m .. If!.!.ii¥1.....,Mlil·1·~@.W~ I None More information City of Minneapolis Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/ publicworks/transplan /comp/public-works trans-plan designguidelines City of Minneapolis Public Works Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines: http://www.minneapolismn. gov /www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert 261656.pdf City of Minneapolis Bicy cle Master Plan: http ://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@ publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert 275983.pdf A-51 Define Success Resurfllce or replace 200 -.nlles of -.181 Slteels 2251-.mlles completed Rehabilitate or rep lace 5 bridges and seismically 6 bridges rehabllltated, 7 bridges retrofitted Protect Nonmotorized Travelers retrofit 5 additional bridges Replace <NW 50,000 small , laded Slnlet and regulatory 90,230 signs rej>laced signs Rehabilitate 40 stalrways Prune 25,000 Slnlet trees to ~safely and security halard• 40 sta irways completed 26,226 trees pruned Replace stteet name signs at all 12,300 arterial ll,ll37 Intersections have new street name signs Promote Supportive Development Intersections ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Create •sate routes to schools" ,_, 30 elementary 48 Safe Routes Projects tomf>leled Design the Network IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN Make It Last Project Partners Seattle Department of Tran sportation (SOOT) {" Pay for It i Bridging the Gap (BTG) Oversight Committee (appointed) Key Elements Bridging the Gap (BTG) was a nine-year, $365 million levy from 2006 to 20 15 that addressed twenty years of deferred street and infrastructure maintenance. The proposition that was passed in 2006, authorized regular property taxes higher than legislated lim its, allowing collection of up to $36,650,000 in additional taxes in 2007 and up to $365,000,000 over nine years . The 2007 total regular tax limit would be $3.69/$1,000 assessed value, including approximatel y $0.36 additiona l taxes generated b y the levy. When voters appro ve d the tax levy in 2006, they also stipulated the percentages SOOT should spend on se lected project categories: Maintenance wou ld receive no less than 67 percent of tax levy spending Pedestrian and bicycle safety would receive no less than 18 percent of ta x levy spending Transit and major projects would receive no more than 15 percent of tax le vy spending The tax levy supported safe bicyc le and pedestrian networks by financing a variety of physical infrastructure projects . SOOT developed an annual Work Plan with a li st of projects to complete over the coming year. The bicycle and pedestrian projects were pulled from the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan . An annual End of Year Accomplishments list was created to track the proposed projects , quarterly spending and year- end results. The 2006 tax levy was the largest in the City's history and the importance of accountability was paramount. Throughout the length of the tax levy period , an Oversight Committee composed of citizens and transportation professionals met quarterly to monitor spending and project progress. The Oversight Committee also reviewed SDOT's work plan and made recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council regarding levy expenditures. The Oversight Committee was made up of 15 individual s, who were appointed by the following authorities: A-52 Key Elements (continued) Five appointed by Mayor Five appointed by City Council One Bicycle Advisory Board Representative One Pedestrian Advisory Board Representative One Freight Mobility Advisory Board Representative One City Council member The City Budget Director Data 1 Location Seatt le, WA I 1 Population 608 ,660 (20 I 0 Census) Area 83.87 sq mi ----~-- Similar Case Studies Compl ete Streets Design Guideline s, 201 3 More information In May, 2015, the Oversight Committee drafted a Jetter to the Mayor of Seattle and the Seattle City Council President stating that, in their opinion , the City of Seattle met the Bridging the Gap legislation's requirements for success through , "project implementation ; ability to manage and control costs ; and the abi li ty to identify alternative revenue sources and leverage levy funds ." The image above illustrates program goals and the status as of2014. A new tax levy, Move Seattle, was passed in 2015. ~I 7 ,969 residents/sq mi I Geography Western U.S . . Climate Temperate marine ' ----------- Transportation http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/btg_ accomp Ii shments.htm http ://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ docs/btg/BTGAnn ua1Report2014. pdf http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/docLib/Pishue-Bridging-the-Gap-Levy-failed-to-reduce- city-street-backlog.pdf A-53 ,.......,. __ _ """""""boood...., .. _......,._, ' =--:/t&O.-', . ', ~ -C...Di...._ MDlnc.t /l&D-froowd .,,.51oor-~-,,_... lf""<•kw .... --.......... ..,~ £.l.t•Oiilritt ~-"':'9-~=-­::-....z-....::1:- IMAGE SOURCE: MOUNTAINVIEW.GOV Project Partners Mountain View, CA ',, .l ... "fl -·, 1t•i.ui ' ' '~IPf ...... kiiiiS ClrfHtl'lllCl""'"""''""I) _,._ .. .....__ -c.-i..----ft_._,._ ...,. __ llqdlC..C.. , ..... ,,._" __ --------- Define Success Protect Nonmotorized Travelers ----- - -- - --r Promote Supportive . 1 V Development Design the Network Similar programs in several cities in the San Francisco Bay Area Private emp lo yers Key Elements In 2014, the City of Mountain View adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan to create the pote ntial for additional office and housing growth in Mountain View's North Baysh ore area (c urrentl y hom e to technol ogy comp anie s including Google and Linkedin). Given the current automobil e congestion and limited infra structure capac ity available, it was detem1ined th at any growth in this a rea would have to be controlled in so m e way. While th ere are urban d esign guide lin es that regulate floor area ratios , the Plan does not set growth limits. Instead , it set s a cap on the number of n ew net si ng le-occupa ncy ve hi cle (SOY) trips a development can generate w ith a maximum of 45 percent, and m ay be as low as 30 percent for more d ense employm ent development. Emp lo yers could face a $100 ,000 fine for each I percent over the cap . Because o nl y three roads acces s the North Bayshore area, the C ity dev ised a system of trip co untin g to enforce a m axi mum number of SOY trips that enter th e Pl an area each d ay. Ca pita l impro vements to increase the network 's capacity to serve SOY trip s b eyo nd the capped amou nt would be provided so lel y b y North Bays hore pri vate developers . In lieu of funding ex pande d infrastru cture, every new d eve lopm ent propo sa l would h ave to provide a transportation d em and management (TDM) program that d eta il s how it wi ll meet th e trip cap. A fter the pl an was approved , over 7 million square feet of d eve lopment permits were filed with the C ity. North Bayshore compani es have made s ignifi cant in vestm ents in active transportation programs , bus transport, and other T DM m easures to m eet the Plan 's targets . SOY trip plan s are not new to Silicon Valley. In I 989 , Santa C lara Co unty issued a permit to Stan for d University a llowin g th e campu s to grow by 2 million sq uare feet with a condit ion th at the expa nsio n would not ge nerate a n et increase in autom o bil e commute trip s . Stan ford bolstered a lt ern at ive tran s portation options whi le m ak in g driving a lon e les s conveni e nt by chargi n g parking fees . T he fees co ll ected from parkin g went directly into green com mute program s. Stanford currentl y has a SOY co mmute rate of 48 percent and calc ulate s that $10 7 million dollars h ave been saved b y n ot building additional parking structures . A-54 Key Elements (cont inued) Other communities across Silicon Valley have incorporated trip caps into specific plans to minimize the impact of new development in congested job centers, including: Sunnyvale's Central and Wolfe Transportation Demand Management (TDM) area has a trip cap of 50 percent SOY, which represents a 25 percent reduction from the existing rates at the time of program commencement. Menlo Park 's East of 101 Plan (the location of Facebook) has a trip cap of 56 percent SOY, which, like Sunnyvale, also represents a 25 percent reduction. Penalties under this plan are a $50 fine per additional trip per day. Cupertino approved a new campus development for Apple with a trip cap of 66 percent SOY, down from the current cap of 72 percent. Data i-C~~ati~~---­ ~ Area Mountain View, CA 74,066 (2010 Census) 12.30 sq mi Similar Case Studies More information Silicon Valley trip caps require businesses to either pay large fines or invest in alternative transportation modes. Most companies have chosen the route of investing in green commuting options (including active transportation, shuttles , ferries, and others). Investments in TDM programs alone are not always enough to meet the trip cap threshold, potentially requiring new infrastructure; sometimes infrastructure must also be expanded. Determining who pays for what adds complexity to the development process . Mountain View's North Bayshore Plan's regional trip cap means that companies like Google and Linkedln must work together to reduce SOY commuting. If the cap is exceeded, they have to agree on who funds infrastructure improvements . Trip caps may be easier to implement for specific new developments than they are at the regional level. ,------~--------I i Density 6 ,000 residents/sq mi ! Geography I Western U.S. i Climate Mediterranean I ___ ------------ North Bayshore Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Guidelines: http ://www. mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD = 15164 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Public Comment, Cities2 I: http://www.cities2 l .org/ ems/PA Transp Elem C2 I .pdf "Going Nowhere Fast: Traffic Issues Could Stall Tech Growth ," Silicon Valley Business Journal: http://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2015/11 /13 /going-nowhere-fast-traffic-issues- could-stal 1-tech .htm I A-55