Last week SCAG offered a full day of training on implementing Complete Streets, courtesy of its Compass Blueprint Toolbox Tuesdays program. Here are a few of the key lessons and resources from the training. You can download copies of the training materials here.
1. Adopt a general Complete Streets policy
2. Identify a project/coordination team that can implement new regulations
3. Develop pilot programs to create and refine detailed Complete Streets design criteria
4. Review criteria and amend based on results of pilot programs
Complete streets should accommodate all roadway users, including vehicles, transit, bikes, and pedestrians, paying particular attention to those with reduced mobility (e.g. people in wheelchairs) and vulnerable users (bikes and peds). Complete streets should also incorporate stormwater best management practices like bioswales where possible.
Dallas Complete Streets Manual
San Ysidro Community Plan Update
Allison Avenue Streetscape Plan (La Mesa, CA)
Ocean Park Boulevard (Santa Monica, CA)
Mission Avenue (Oceanside, CA)
The new trend in street design is to develop a set of street typologies based on function. Some examples might include a include Downtown/Main Streets, Commercial Corridors, or Bike Boulevards. Each street is designed to achieve a particular set of objectives that does not always prioritize moving vehicles over other goals (e.g. promoting economic growth, encouraging alternative transportation use, ensuring pedestrian safety).
New street design standards should also “work both ways;” historically street design standards were always implemented by widening roadways, but sometimes bringing a street up to today’s standards means narrowing it instead.
Examples:
Model Design Manual for Living Streets
Downtown Los Angeles Street Standards
Find champions within each agency, especially at the higher levels, who can help move the project along and greenlight innovative strategies.
Incorporate all users into street designs
AB 1358 (the California Complete Streets Act) requires
jurisdictions to incorporate complete streets into the Circulation Element of
their General Plans as they are updated, but does not provide specifics as to
how this should be accomplished. The training identified four steps to
implementing Complete Streets: 1. Adopt a general Complete Streets policy
2. Identify a project/coordination team that can implement new regulations
3. Develop pilot programs to create and refine detailed Complete Streets design criteria
4. Review criteria and amend based on results of pilot programs
Complete streets should accommodate all roadway users, including vehicles, transit, bikes, and pedestrians, paying particular attention to those with reduced mobility (e.g. people in wheelchairs) and vulnerable users (bikes and peds). Complete streets should also incorporate stormwater best management practices like bioswales where possible.
Complete streets generally do cost more to plan, and require
more coordination between local agencies (planning, engineering/public works,
fire) and the public. For example, a project like the Allision Avenue Streetscape
Plan would cost as much as $150,000 to design and another $1.3 million to
construct for about 3,000 ft of roadway.
Examples:Dallas Complete Streets Manual
San Ysidro Community Plan Update
Allison Avenue Streetscape Plan (La Mesa, CA)
Ocean Park Boulevard (Santa Monica, CA)
Mission Avenue (Oceanside, CA)
Design streets based on function, not “classification
In the past streets have been constructed according to a one-size-fits-all
hierarchy (e.g. major arterials, collector streets, local streets) using
generic street design standards that were applied to all roadways regardless of
purpose. These standard designs, which remain in place in many jurisdictions,
lead to over-engineered streets with wide travel lanes and inadequate
facilities for non-motorized users. They also fail to take into consideration
the purpose and neighborhood context of a particular roadway, ignoring the fact
that some roads are, to use a term from the training, “destination roadways,”
and not roads intended to move as many people as rapidly as possible. The new trend in street design is to develop a set of street typologies based on function. Some examples might include a include Downtown/Main Streets, Commercial Corridors, or Bike Boulevards. Each street is designed to achieve a particular set of objectives that does not always prioritize moving vehicles over other goals (e.g. promoting economic growth, encouraging alternative transportation use, ensuring pedestrian safety).
New street design standards should also “work both ways;” historically street design standards were always implemented by widening roadways, but sometimes bringing a street up to today’s standards means narrowing it instead.
Examples:
Model Design Manual for Living Streets
Downtown Los Angeles Street Standards
Work with all stakeholders during the street design
process
Coordinate with public works/traffic engineering, public
health, fire department, and other relevant agencies. Meet regularly with Fire
Departments in order to understand their concerns in implementing complete
streets concepts. For example, if they insist on wider street design, ask them
why they need the width and try using design tools (e.g. Auto turn) to
demonstrate how complete streets can accommodate larger emergency vehicles. Find champions within each agency, especially at the higher levels, who can help move the project along and greenlight innovative strategies.
Involve the community, being sure to frame requests for
input realistically. For example, if there is a limited budget or narrow
right-of-way for streetscape improvements, be clear about the tradeoffs that
must be made based on those constraints (e.g. more street trees vs. trash cans,
wider sidewalks vs. diagonal parking). Also make sure to emphasize that although
streetscape improvements can be expensive, there is also a real cost associated
with doing “nothing” (i.e. maintaining the status quo) in terms of public
safety, health, economic, and environmental impacts.
Incorporate multiple travel modes into traffic analysis
There are a variety of new tools available for evaluating multi-modal Level of Service (LOS). Some
are more generic (PEQI, HCM 2010, LOS+), while others are location-specific
(Fort Collins pedestrian LOS). A challenge with incorporating many of the more
generic tools into traditional CEQA analysis is that they are not particularly
sensitive to improvements that might make a big difference in the pedestrian or
cyclist experience. For example, a combination of significant changes like adding
a 10-foot sidewalk, planting street trees, reducing traffic speeds to 30 mph,
and removing a travel lane makes little difference in overall pedestrian LOS using
the HCM 2010 methodology. While this doesn’t mean that using the HCM 2010
methodology to evaluate pedestrian LOS is wrong, it’s important to be aware of
its lack of sensitivity to pedestrian improvements, particularly when
conducting CEQA analysis.
Other methods of evaluating pedestrian LOS, like the one
used in Fort Collins, are more qualitative and may more accurately reflect the
impact of changes to the pedestrian environment. See the Fehr and PeersMulti-modal LOS Toolkit for a good summary of several LOS methodologies.
Plan for funding
Plan for funding
Streetscape plans and design manuals don’t achieve much if
they’re never implemented. Potential funding sources should be considered early
in the process, before street design plans are finalized. Designs should be targeted towards specific
funding sources where possible. For example, a streetscape plan for a roadway
near a school site should anticipate Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grants as a
potential funding source, and incorporate design elements into the streetscape
plans that would fit the criteria for receiving SRTS grant.
No comments:
Post a Comment