Lessons from SCAG's Complete Streets Training

Tweet

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.

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.

It's National Walking Day

Tweet

photo courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune

The American Heart Association has declared today National Walking Day, and is encouraging everyone who's able to walk to work. Since I think my 90-mile commute would be a little challenging on foot, I'm planning a daytime walk around my office. You can read about one intrepid San Diego walker's efforts to make it to and from her job in one piece here.

Leaving No Stone Unturned: Tips and Tricks for Funding Your SRTS Program

Tweet

Another great webinar from SRTS and America Walks:
Tuesday, April 24 10:00 AM PDT

One of the greatest challenges that Safe Routes to School organizers face is obtaining funding for their programs. Whether it is for small incentives for the students, healthy snacks for walk or bike to school days, flyers and advertisements for events, or eventually hiring a staff member, finding funding is an important part growing your program. Unfortunately, it can often seem like a daunting task.

In this sixty minute webinar, we will help make fundraising for your SRTS program less intimidating by providing tips and tricks on where to find funding an how to go about obtaining it. First, Scott Bricker, Executive Director of America Walks will provide an overview of the issues surrounding fundraising and advice on how to hash out your goals and objectives. Next, Ian Thomas, Executive Director of the PedNet Coalition, will go into an in-depth discussion of what type of budget your program may need, potential sources of funds, and tips for successfully raising money from those sources. Finally, Kathy Smith, a Program Officer from the Partners for Health Foundation, will provide a Foundation's perspective on grant applicants and provide tips on how you can "look" ready for funding.

Register here.

Pedestrians: Not Quite Equal in the Eyes of the Law

Tweet

During a recent crosswalk sting here in the San Fernando Valley, police issued over a dozen tickets to pedestrians for violations that included starting to cross a street when a red hand was flashing. As one officer on the scene explained it, "The red hand works for two reasons: to basically safeguard the pedestrian and allow the traffic to start moving."

That got me wondering why (at least here in California) we allow drivers to speed through yellow lights, but refuse to extend the same privilege to pedestrians. Here's language in the CA Vehicle Code:

"A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter."

However, when the flashing "Don't Walk" or red hand signal is shown, "No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal."

Notice that while a yellow light is just a warning to drivers, and doesn't prohibit them from entering an intersection, a flashing red hand means a pedestrian can't even start to cross--even a really speedy one, who knows they can make it across the intersection in plenty of time.

While some might argue that this is to protect pedestrians, I have to suspect (particularly given the statement of the police officer above) that the law is written this way to make sure those pesky pedestrians don't interfere too much with drivers who want to make right turns on red. If we really care about promoting alternative transportation modes at the same level of driving, we're going to have to examine laws like these that subtly bias the transportation system against pedestrians.

DOT Driver Distraction Guidelines

Tweet

Photo courtesy of USDOT

A little over a month ago the DOT released its draft guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. The guidelines, which are voluntary for now, include several key recommendations:

1. Prohibit certain tasks while driving, including displaying images or video not related to driving; displaying automatically scrolling text; requiring manual text entry of more than six button or key presses during a single task; or requiring reading more than 30 characters of text (not counting punctuation marks).

2. Design devices so that tasks can be completed by the driver while driving with glances away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less and a cumulative time spent glancing away from the roadway of 12 seconds or less.

3. Design devices so that functions designed to be performed by the driver through visual-manual means should require no more than one of the driver’s hands to operate.

4. Locate devices as close as practicable to the driver’s forward line of sight and include a specific recommendation for the maximum downward viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.

Is this enough to keep us safe on the roads? Given that a key problem with in-vehicle devices is cognitive distaction, not visual distraction, these guidelines might not go far enough. Personally, I've given up many in-vehicle distractions (like talking on my cell phone--even hands free), regardless of what the law tells me I can or can't do.

Tell the DOT what you think of their proposed rules by following the instructions here.