COMPLETE STREETS    TOOLBOXSource: Cascade Bicycle Club                                   Prepared for:                   ...
Acknowledgements                                                     Table of Contents            Thank you:             J...
Executive SummarySince the first National City Planning Conference in May 1909, the au-          to add non-motorized, Com...
Executive Summary           bike paths                                                        existing corridor regulation...
Executive SummaryStreets implementation tools can be broken down into three categories:public outreach, financial mechanis...
Introduction	       In transportation planning, a design framework known as CompleteStreets is a popular system for concep...
Vision, Goals, and Objectives                                                                         Vision:          To ...
Background	      Michigan’s effort to create a state-wide Complete Streets               Streets, and traffic-calming lang...
BackgroundComplete Streets and non-motorized bills, Michigan has strived to makestreets as accessible, safe, and active as...
Background                                                                                   REFERENCES:         SE Michig...
Definition and BenefitsComplete Streets attempts to better integrate all users of the street –             crashes and oth...
Definition and Benefits                                                               REFERENCES:                         ...
Design GuidelinesThe main concept of Complete Streets seems simple at first: make                           hour (mph) or ...
Design GuidelinesTable 2:Recommended sidewalk widths - Suburban Areas                           Residential           Comm...
Design Guidelines                                                                                 Table 6: Widths of pedes...
Design Guidelines         •	   Main streets.                                                   •	   Proximity to major des...
Design Guidelines                                                                                  •	   Shoulders should b...
Design Guidelines                                                                                       crossing opportuni...
Design GuidelinesMidblock Crossing Form:                                                                  REFERENCES:     ...
Preliminary PlansPurpose:                                                                                              fou...
Preliminary PlansAccording to SEMCOG’s latest 24-hour traffic counts (6/29/2010), thetwo-mile Van Dyke study area carries ...
Preliminary Plans       •	   Increasing the availability of safe street crossings,             Phase 1 also recommends inc...
Preliminary Plansintersections and in the middle of large blocks to assure transit riders donot need to step off the curb ...
Preliminary Plans                                                       Figure 12. Phase 1 of Van Dyke                    ...
Preliminary PlansGarfield Road: 17 Mile Rd. to Hall Mile Rd.Existing Conidtions:Garfield Road is a principal arterial that...
Preliminary Plans                                                                           development, and reduced setba...
Preliminary Plans                                                                           pedestrian activity, but exist...
Preliminary Plans                                                       Figure 16. Phase 1 of Garfield                    ...
Preliminary PlansREFERENCES:1.Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2010, June 29). VolumeCount Report: Van...
Implementation ToolsThough design improvements to the roadway are a key element to Com-           who have varying work sc...
Implementation Toolsing derived from the Michigan transportation fund must be used for                        •	   $10 Mil...
Implementation Tools       •	   51% first-floor commercial.                                     by local businesses.14 The...
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Complete Streets Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Complete Streets Report

1,556 views

Published on

A manual for community and professional education on the concept, design and implementation of complete streets. Developed for Macomb County MI as part of the planning professional practice course at the University of Michigan.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,556
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
33
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Complete Streets Report

  1. 1. COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOXSource: Cascade Bicycle Club Prepared for: Macomb County, MI by William Tardy, Diana Flora, Jonathan Moore, and Isaac Gilman University of Michigan, Taubman College April, 2011
  2. 2. Acknowledgements Table of Contents Thank you: John Paul Rea Executive Summary…………………………………… .i Dr. Susan Charles Introduction …………………………………………......1 Meagan Masson-Minock Vision, Goals, and Objectives………………………....2 Julie Stieff Paul Coseo Background……………………………………………..3 John Crumm Definition and Benefits………………………………...6 Bob Hoepfner Design Guidelines………….…………………………..8 Timothy Kniga Preliminary Plans……………………………..……….15 Norman Cox Eli Cooper Implementation Tools..………………………………..25 Luke Forrest Conclusion………………………………………….....34 Suzanne Schluz Appendix Case Studies..............................................A - 1 Interviews...................................................B - 1 Traffic Statistics.........................................C - 1 Implementation Tools................................D - 1Page i MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  3. 3. Executive SummarySince the first National City Planning Conference in May 1909, the au- to add non-motorized, Complete Streets, and traffic-calming language.tomobile has been the centerpiece of American transportation planning. Public Act 135 amended Public Act 51 of 1951, the Michigan Transporta-Supported by low energy costs and abundant open space for develop- tion Fund Act, by requiring that all entities receiving funding from statement, this emphasis helped to tie the United States together and facili- trunkline highway systems allocate 1% of that funding to non-motorizedtate economic growth. In the future, however, reduced natural resource infrastructure.availability and increased population density threaten the efficiency of In response to these policy changes, thirty-five Michigan municipalitiesautomobile-focused transportation systems. To compensate for these have adopted Complete Streets resolutions (more than any state in thechanges, planners, engineers, and policy makers must experiment with country). In the hopes of deepening their commitment to the Completea more diverse portfolio of transportation services. As a holistic frame- Streets agenda, six localities have built upon their resolutions by pro-work that illustrates how public transit, pedestrian, and cyclist infrastruc- ducing Complete Street ordinances. Despite this strong environment ofture can be integrated into new and existing infrastructure, the Complete progress throughout the state, Macomb County lacks its own organizedStreets system can assist towns, cities, and counties in engaging this effort.task. In order to integrate the Complete Streets systems into Macomb CountyWith regard to the physical parameters of transportation planning, Com- or any region, it is important to consider the types of design standardsplete Streets is a set of design templates which can be used to create available. Although the strict nature of these standards change to ac-safe, convenient multi-modal (automobile, pedestrian, public transit, and commodate the context of the site, their subjects are consistent; theycyclist) transportation infrastructure. With respect to the social nature include:of transportation planning, Complete Streets also serves as a means to • Sidewalk design: width, lighting, seating, vegetation, andassure equitable access to all community members, regardless of eco- trash binsnomic status, age, or physical capacity. To take advantage of these ser- • Transit rider facilities: shelters, stop signage, maps, trashvices, in June 2009 the State of Michigan initiated the process of drafting bins, and benchesstate-wide Complete Streets policy. In addition to the efforts of state • Pedestrian crossing facilities: signage, signaling, midblocklawmakers, this development was empowered by the support of advoca- crossings, and pedestrian islandscy groups like the League of Michigan Bicyclists. In August of 2010 the • Streetscape structure: building setback, building height, andMichigan legislature passed Public Act 134 and 135 into law. Public Act façade design134 amends the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, allowing municipalities • Cyclist facilities: bike lanes, bike parking, and recreational MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page ii
  4. 4. Executive Summary bike paths existing corridor regulations. The recommendations for each study areaWhen applying Complete Streets design standards, it is not essential are as follows:to apply each and every parameter. In many cases, in fact, issues like • Van Dyke Avenueheavy traffic or narrow road widths make the application of some stan- ◦◦ Phase 1dards problematic or unsafe. As a consequence, it is helpful to concep- ▪▪ Midblock crossings with pedestrian islandstualize Complete Streets as both an analytic process as well as a set near high foot traffic locationsof design standards. To help illustrate how this process of analysis can ▪▪ Additional transit sheltersbe executed, this report contains site analyses and design recommen- ◦◦ Phase 2dations for two study areas within Macomb County: Van Dyke Avenue ▪▪ A 7’ on-street parking lane and a 5’ bicyclebetween 8 Mile Road and 10 Mile Road, Garfield Road between 17 Mile lane in place of the outer two lanesRoad and Hall Road. ▪▪ Sidewalk bike parking ▪▪ Sidewalk extensions across parking lane atIn both study areas, a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential transit stopsareas provide the basic assortment of land uses needed to incentivize • Garfield Roadalternative transportation. In both areas, however, conditions like infre- ◦◦ Phase 1quent pedestrian crossings and transit shelters represent aspects that ▪▪ Pedestrian lighting and street treescould be strengthened and improved. To address these issues in a politi- ▪▪ Sidewalk bike parkingcally and fiscally responsible fashion, this report grouped preliminary ▪▪ Additional transit sheltersimprovements into two phases along a Complete Streets development ▪▪ Sidewalk extensions across the grassy shoul-timeline. Phase 1 of this timeline includes improvements which can be der at transit stopsmade without interfering with existing patterns of automobile traffic or ◦◦ Phase 2altering standing engineering standards. Phase 2 of this timeline focuses ▪▪ Recreational bike path along existing sidewalkon improvements which can accommodate and facilitate maximum ▪▪ Midblock crossing with pedestrian islandmode shift from automobiles to alternative transportation systems. As In addition to physical amenities and structures, it is also important toa result, Phase 2 is conceptualized as a set of initiatives to be applied conceptualize the Complete Streets system as a set of policy and fi-when changes in automobile use or political sentiment demands greater nancial implementation tools. Indeed, without implementation strategiessupport for alternative transportation, and often requires deviations from in place, physical modifications cannot be made. Generally, Complete Page iii MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  5. 5. Executive SummaryStreets implementation tools can be broken down into three categories:public outreach, financial mechanisms, and policy initiatives.Public outreach tools for Complete Streets focus on investigating com-munity transportation needs and facilitating public education. For manycommunities, Complete Street workshops are the easiest way to ad-dress both of these needs. When the time and resources permit, con-ducting walking tours and field visits can be another great option. Aspecial workshop for business owners highlighting the specific economicbenefits of Complete Streets is a highly recommended way to generatecommunity buy-in.Financing tools for Complete Streets can be generally classified aseither direct funding mechanisms or indirect funding mechanisms. Com-mon direct funding mechanisms include use taxes, sales taxes, and tax-increment financing. Indirect funding mechanisms are typically federaland state grants, sidewalk improvement ordinances, and private sector“adopt a bikeway” campaigns.Finally, municipalities and Macomb County can enact Complete Streetsresolutions, policies, and ordinances that illustrate the importance ofnon-motorized transportation. An implementation timeline serves as auseful tool from the county perspective on how to engage municipal andcommunity leaders. The process includes the key players – the county,the municipality, and the community, including advocacy groups andconstituents. This process is flexible, and there are many ways to reacha Complete Streets policy. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page iv
  6. 6. Introduction In transportation planning, a design framework known as CompleteStreets is a popular system for conceptualizing non-motorized and transit-focused infrastructure. In addition to serving as a design framework, theComplete Streets system is also a social framework, integrating all users of thestreet – pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers. In this way, all ages andabilities can utilize the street in a safe manner, whether traveling for practical orrecreational purposes. In 2010, the Michigan state legislature passed Public Acts 134 and135, which incorporate Complete Streets design components into existingtransportation legislation. More importantly, the new legislation requires that allmunicipalities allocate 1% of their annual transportation budget toward non-motorized transportation. This document is intended to educate Macomb County officials anddecision makers on Complete Streets philosophies and best practices. To reachthis goal, the document includes a series of chapters, reviewing the followingconcepts: • Vision, goals, and objectives for county-wide Complete Streets. • Summaries and assessments of relevant Complete Street case studies. • Collection of Complete Streets design standards and planning policies. • Model of preliminary Complete Streets plans on Van Dyke Avenue (8 to 10 Mile) and Garfield Road (17 Mile to Hall Road). • Analyses of current Complete Streets policies, practices, and procedures. Page 1 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  7. 7. Vision, Goals, and Objectives Vision: To equip Macomb County planners and policy makers with the information and tools necessary to plan and design Complete Streets. Goal: Goal:Identify current Complete Streets policy and design standards. Conduct government employee workshops. Goal: Identify pertinent local, state, and federal resources.Objectives: Objectives: Objectives:To be completed by 2011: To be completed by 2011: To be completed by 2011:1. Identify four case study sites with similar 1. Create a matrix of associated state 1. Create a presentation for county officials physical environments and political infra- and federal funding sources. to take to local planning offices. structures. 2. Generate preliminary plans on Van Dyke 2. Produce an annotated map of gov-2. Draft a template Complete Streets policy Avenue between 8 and 10 Mile Road and ernmental Complete Streets programs for local governmental officials. on Garfield Road between 17 Mile and in Michigan.3. Create a Complete Streets policy time- Hall Road to illustrate the integration of 3. Create a list of policy and financing al- line. Complete Streets within Macomb County. ternatives complimentary to the Com-4. Create a physical amenity and design To be completed by 2015: plete Streets mission. timeline. 3. Conduct workshops for all municipal Ongoing:Ongoing: planning entities within Macomb County. 4. Conduct an annual review of available5. Conduct an annual review of resources and programmatic needs. best practices. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 2
  8. 8. Background Michigan’s effort to create a state-wide Complete Streets Streets, and traffic-calming language.5 In June 2010, the Housepolicy began in June of 2009 when Complete Streets language was Transportation Committee unanimously passed both bills, and by thefirst introduced into a transportation bill.1 Although state lawmakers end of the month, the Michigan House of Representatives passed thecontributed to this development, a central motivating factor was pressure legislation with an overwhelming majority.6from advocacy groups to create safer and more accessible streets forpedestrians and cyclists. The League of Michigan Bicyclists (LMB) in On July 21, 2010, the Senate Transportation Committee unanimouslyparticular advocated for Complete Streets policies in order to promote voted to pass the Complete Streets legislation for a formal vote inwalkability and an active lifestyle. The LMB’s stance developed after the Senate.7 Seven days later, the Senate approved the Completea 2009 national report by the Trust for America’s Health, which found Streets legislation, passing both bills into Michigan law.8 Public Act 134Michigan to be the ninth most obese state.2 enables municipalities to create master plans that support “a system of transportation to lessen congestion on streets and provide for safe and Because state officials began to see the success of Complete efficient movement of people and goods by motor vehicles, pedestrians,Streets at local levels of government, the legislature included Complete and other legal users.”9Streets language into its 2010 transportation budget. The bill stated,“the department [the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)] Subsequently, Public Act 135 amended Public Act 51, which governs theshall provide assistance to and coordinate with local road agencies expenditures of state transportation funding.10 First, the bill classifiedand metropolitan planning organizations in developing Complete Street “all public roads, streets and highways” in Michigan.11 Next, the bill setpolicies, including the development of model complete street policies.”3 up a transportation fund for Michigan to draw money from a specific taxAlthough this policy did not result in a legislative requirement, it created on automobile fuel.12 From this transportation fund, 1% of resourcesa foundation for continued Complete Streets efforts. “shall be expended for construction or improvement of non-motorized transportation services and facilities.”13 Finally, the bill defined CompleteBy May 2010, the State House voted on the Complete Streets legislation Streets and arranged for the Michigan Transportation Commission to setin the form of two separate transportation bills.4 One bill (Public Act up a Complete Streets policy within two years of the bills’ adoption. This135) focused on MDOT’s financial appropriations for Complete Streets policy would promote best practices and philosophies when building newpolicies, and the other bill (Public Act 134) focused on reforming the infrastructure.14Michigan Planning Enabling Act to add non-motorized, Complete Since the passage of the first Complete Streets ordinance and the major Page 3 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  9. 9. BackgroundComplete Streets and non-motorized bills, Michigan has strived to makestreets as accessible, safe, and active as possible. Currently, thirty- State-wide locations of Complete Streets Laws, Policies,five Michigan municipalities – from the Upper Peninsula to Ann Arbor Resolutions, and Plans– adopted Complete Streets resolutions, more than any other state inAmerica.15 In addition, six localities have produced Complete Streetordinances since Lansing passed its ordinance in 2009.Although the state of Michigan continues with its fantastic successpromoting Complete Streets policies, Macomb County lacks its ownorganized effort as of 2011 (See Figure 2). Despite overall populationdecline in Southeast Michigan, Macomb County’s population is projectedto grow in the coming decades. To assure adequate transportationservices for this new constituent base, developing non-motorized andpublic transportation services is necessary. Legend Statewide Complete Streets Law Complete Streets Ordinances Non-motorized Plan Complete Streets Resolutions Figure 1. Locations of Complete Streets Resolutions, Policies and Laws in Michi- gan. Source:Google Maps and Complete Streets Coalition MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 4
  10. 10. Background REFERENCES: SE Michigan locations of Complete Streets Laws, 1.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2009, June 22). House Transportation Policies, Resolutions, and Plans Appropriations Subcommittee Passes Complete Streets in Funding Bill. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www. micompletestreets.org. 2.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2009, July 9). F as in Fat 2009. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www. micompletestreets.org. 3.League of Michigan Bicyclists (2009, Nov. 4).Transportation Budget Includes Complete Streets. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 4.League of Michigan Bicyclists, (2010, May 7). Complete Streets Legislation Introduced in Michigan House. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 5.Ibid. Complete Streets Legislation Introduced in Michigan House. 6.Rappj2. (2010, June 24).Complete Streets Success! In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets. org.; Emily, Theresa. (2010, June 29). On to the Senate! In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 7.Emily, Theresa. (2010, July 21). Onto the Senate Floor! In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 8.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2010, July 28). Senate Approves Complete Streets Legislation. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 9.Michigan Planning Enabling Act. 2010 PA 134. (MCL § 125). Legend 10.State Trunk Line Highway System. 2010 PA 135. (MCL § 247). 11.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 12.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. Statewide Complete Streets Law 13.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 14.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. Complete Streets Ordinances 15.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2011, April 4). Union Township Passes Complete Streets Resolution. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Non-motorized Plan Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. Complete Streets ResolutionsFigure 2. Locations of Complete Streets Resolutions, Policies and Laws in South-east Michigan. Source:Google Maps and Complete Streets Coalition Page 5 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  11. 11. Definition and BenefitsComplete Streets attempts to better integrate all users of the street – crashes and other injuries caused by poorly-maintainedpedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers - so that all ages and infrastructure.2abilities are able to utilize the street in a safe manner, whether traveling • For residents with safe places to walk within ten minutes offor practical or recreational purposes. their home, 43% met recommended activity levels.3 • Using public transit reduces the amount of congestion andOver the past seventy years, towns, cities, and counties interpreted can save individuals $9,581 each year.4transportation planning as trying to get one person from point A to • Reducing one car trip each month cuts, 3,764 tons of CO2point B as fast as possible. The car created a culture where people each year.5expected to drive everywhere instead of relying on other methods of • By shifting traffic from automobiles to alternative modes,transportation. Roads became the focal point for all transportation Complete Streets road projects can diminish costs byplanners and engineers. When congestion became a problem, more reducing the need to widen roads for additional traffic.6roads were built or current roads were widened. Today, with limitedspace and resources, auto-centric planning is becoming more difficult.Complete Streets offers an alternative to auto-centric planning andallows for better transportation options for a variety of users. Accordingto Eli Cooper, the Transportation Manager of the City of Ann ArborPlanning Department, “‘We must go back to good old-fashionedplanning.”1 Before the automobile culture took hold in American cities,planners accounted for pedestrians, trolleys, cars, and cyclists. All ofthose factors led to the busy street life seen in historic photographs ofNew York City, Chicago, and Detroit (See Figure 3).The Complete Streets approach also offers economic, social,environmental, and health benefits. • A well-integrated street can improve safety by reducing pedestrian risk by up to 28%, including pedestrian-vehicle MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 6
  12. 12. Definition and Benefits REFERENCES: 1.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, Transportation Project Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, MI. 2.Benefits. In National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ factsheets/#benefits. 3.Complete Streets FAQ. In National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ complete-streets-faq/ 4.Benefits. In National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete- streets-faq/ 5.Benefits. In National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ factsheets/#benefits. 6.Benefits. In National Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ factsheets/#benefits.Figure 3. Picture of Detroit’s Woodward Street, Circa 1930’sSource:At Detroit Page 7 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  13. 13. Design GuidelinesThe main concept of Complete Streets seems simple at first: make hour (mph) or less, typically with four or more lanes of trafficstreets accessible to all types of users. There are, however, many • Avenues: roads with speeds of 25 to 35 mph, not exceedingelements that go into Complete Streets design. The physical expression four lanes of traffic.of the Complete Streets concept is different for each street. This set of • Streets: roadways with speeds of 25 mph or less typicallyguidelines is a sampling of some of the basic and crucial elements for a with two lanes of traffic.1complete street. SIDEWALK SETBACKS: Sidewalk setbacks regulate the distance between the start of theThese guidelines are presented in their ideal form. Transportation building and the sidewalk (. Recommended building setback distancesplanning seldom occurs in an ideal world with no physical or fiscal vary according to density and land use, but are uniform across theconstraints. Therefore, these guidelines are not an exhaustive list of all Boulevard, Avenue, and Street roadway types (See Table 1).2the possible improvements. They are a flexible starter kit for designing Table 1: Recommened setback width for different areasComplete Streets in a community. Suburban General Urban Urban Core Residential 20 feet 15 feet 10 feet Commercial 5 feet 0 feet 0 feetThis chapter uses road type definitions from the Institute of Streetside Elements:Transportation Engineers’ book, “Designing Walkable Urban The streetside encompasses all of the potential elements from the side-Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach”. The authors recommend walk to the curb, including sidewalks, landscaping between the sidewalk and curb, lighting, transit stops, and street furniture amenities (See Tablepractices on three basic roadway types: Boulevards, Avenues, and 2-4).3Streets. • Boulevards: long corridors with travel speeds of 35 miles per MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 8
  14. 14. Design GuidelinesTable 2:Recommended sidewalk widths - Suburban Areas Residential Commercial Boulevard 6 feet 6 feet Avenue 6 feet 6 feet Street 6 feet 6 feetTable 3:Recommended sidewalk widths - General Urban Areas Residential Commercial Boulevard 10 feet 10 feet Avenue 9 feet 9 feet Street 6 feet 6 feetTable 4:Recommended sidewalk widths - Urban Core Areas Figure 4. Example of a shared-use sidewalk with a dedicated bike lane on the left and pedestrian lane on the right. Residential Commercial Boulevard 10 feet 10 feet Source:Burbank Bus Avenue 9 feet 9 feet Street 6 feet 6 feet Shared-Use Sidewalk: A shared-use sidewalk allows for a bicycle lane alongside the pedestrian sidewalk (See Figure 4). An on-street bicycle lane is preferred, because shared-use sidewalks can lead to more bike/car conflict at intersections as well as bike/pedestrian conflict on the sidewalk. However, this option gives cyclists separate space from pedestrians and traffics in places with significantly larger setbacks or in places where alterations to the roadway are less desirable. The recommended width of the bicycle lane is 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet.4 Page 9 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  15. 15. Design Guidelines Table 6: Widths of pedestrian buffers - General Urban Areas Residential Commercial Boulevard 8 feet 7 feet Avenue 8 feet 6 feet Street 6 feet 6 feet Table 7: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Urban Core Areas Residential Commercial Boulevard 7 feet 7 feet Avenue 6 feet 6 feet Street 6 feet 6 feet Streetside Furnishings: Streetside furnishing, such as benches, lighting, transit shelters, utilities, Figure 5. Example of a sidewalk and setback section. Source: Planetizen and landscaping, should go in a designated area of the pedestrian buffer, located between the curb and the pedestrian throughway (SeePedestrian Buffers: Figure 6).Pedestrian buffers, usually landscaped strips, separate sidewalk usersfrom traffic (See Figure 5). There should be at least 1.5 feet of space Utilities should be underground where possible to avoid clutter andbetween the buffer and the curb, to allow for vehicle overhangs and potential conflict with trees. The placement and frequency of streetsideopening doors (See Table 5-7).5,6 furnishing varies depending on the context of the street. Some features can even have multiple uses; for example, a raised planter can alsoTable 5: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Suburban Areas provide a place to sit. Street furniture like trash receptacles and benches Residential Commercial should be placed in high-priority locations, such as:Boulevard 8 feet 7 feet • High-use bus stops.Avenue 6 to 8 feet 6 feetStreet 5 feet 6 feet • Major buildings. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 10
  16. 16. Design Guidelines • Main streets. • Proximity to major destinations and pedestrian areas. • Areas with a mix of uses like retail and dining.7 • Presence of street crossing options. • Proximity to major route transfer points. • Average of 400 to 500 feet between stops. • Up to 2,000 feet for rapid transit and express lines. Form principles: • Elements in furnishing zone that do not block sight lines to and from buses. • Adequate space for deployment of wheelchair lifts and other boarding aids. • All-weather surface at all stops for boarding/exiting. • Close proximity to street lighting or own source of illumination. • An 80-foot no-parking zone around bus stops in areas where on-street parking is present. • Highly-visible signs detailing route number(s), bus company contact information, and no-parking zones.Figure 6. Example of streetside furnishing elements.Source:Oregon Live • Shelters present at high-volume stops capable of serving the expected number of users (See Figure 7).8Bus Stop Locations and Form:Many factors go into deciding where to place bus stops and shelters,such as ridership patterns and local budgets. The following generalprinciples dealing with location and form ensure that bus stops helpmake transit accessible and useful to the most users possible. Location principles: Page 11 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  17. 17. Design Guidelines • Shoulders should be at least 4 feet wide for cyclists and up to 5 feet wide in areas with traffic speeds of 50 mph or greater. Wide Curb Lanes: • Curb-side lanes that are at least 14 feet wide can accommodate cyclists. Under these conditions, motorists do not have to change lanes to pass cyclists. • Shared-roadway street markings (“sharrow”) can make drivers more aware of cyclists sharing the roadways. Bike Lane and On-Street Parking: • The combined width of a bike lane with on-street parking should be at least 12 feet, due to the dangers present of parked and moving cars. • The bike lane itself should be 5 feet wide. • Do not place bike lanes between parking and the curb.Figure 7. Example of a transit shelter.Source:GenenTech Headquarters, San Francisco Dedicated Bike Lanes:On-Street Bicycle Lane Options: • The minimum width from curb or guardrail to the striping edgeIdeally, cyclists should be off the sidewalk for safety reasons. The of the bike lane should be at least 4 feet; 5 feet is the optimalfollowing elements are options for accommodating bicycle travel in the width (See Figure 8).roadway. • A 6 to 8 inch white line should separate the bike lane from the traffic lane. An additional 4-inch line is useful for separatingPaved Shoulders: the on-street parking from the bike lane. • In rural areas or areas without a sidewalk, paving the road • Bike lanes should usually stop at signalized crossings.9 shoulder provides a place for cyclists out of traffic. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 12
  18. 18. Design Guidelines crossing opportunities to 200 to 300 feet. • Near major pedestrian destinations, such as schools, retail centers and parks. • 100 feet from nearest driveway or side street, if possible. • On roadways with 12,000 or less average daily traffic volume (ADT), if possible. • Where pedestrian and driver sightlines allow ample time to make an appropriate decisions. • Signalize crossings in areas where pedestrians wait more than 60 seconds for a gap in traffic. Pedestrian Refuge Island: Pedestrian refuge islands are placed in the center of a midblock crossingFigure 8. Example of a bike lane with on-street parking to give pedestrians a safe place to stop halfway if necessary.Source:SFGate • Place a refuge island on roadways with 12,000 to 15,000 ADT.Mid-Block Crossings: • Pedestrian refuge islands should also be considered forIn areas with long blocks and great distances between crossings, roads wider than 60 feet or with more than four lanes ofmidblock crossings allow pedestrians to cross the street safely. Without traffic.midblock crossings, pedestrians often walk farther than necessary (See • Place pedestrian islands in midblock crossings where theFigure 9). average pedestrian is likely to walk slower than 3.5 feet per second (e.g., areas with a lot of schoolchildren, elderly orPlace midblock crossings at the following locations: disabled people). • When signalized intersections are greater than 400 feet • Pedestrian islands should have a minimum width of 6 feet apart. and a minimum length of 20 feet. • When midblock crossings will decrease distance between Page 13 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  19. 19. Design GuidelinesMidblock Crossing Form: REFERENCES: • Conform to guidelines for the disabled. 1.Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thorough- fares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation • Use ramps or channels to and from sidewalk (and refuge Engineers. Pg. 52. island if applicable). 2.Ibid. Pg. 70-71. 3.Ibid. • Use overhead safety lighting on approach sides of both ends 4.City of Ann Arbor Planning and Development Services of the crossing. and the Alternative Transportation Program. (2007). Ann Arbor Non-motorized Transportation Plan 2007. Pg. 24-28. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.a2gov.org/ • Use high-visibility crossing markings and consider adding government/communityservices/planninganddevelopment/planning/Documents/Mas- yield markers. ter%20Plans /AANoMo_MasterPlan_2007.pdf.> • Use a “Z” crossing configuration with crossings at medians to 5.Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thorough- encourage pedestrians to look for oncoming traffic.10 fares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Pg. 124. 6.Ibid. Pg. 70-71. 7.Ibid. Pg. 126. 8.Ibid. Pg. 162-165. 9.AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design. (1990). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Highway and Transporta- tion Officials. Pg. 16-26. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Pg 124.Figure 9. Example of a midblock crossing with pedestrian island and “z” configuration.Source:Southwest Neighborhoods Inc. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 14
  20. 20. Preliminary PlansPurpose: foundation for future incremental change withinIn areas where large amounts of new development are occurring, the the project area.Complete Streets design standards from the previous chapter could • Phase 2 includes a set of design recommendations thatbe applied in a strict, literal fashion. Given resource and financial significantly improve the resources available for alternativerestrictions, however, the redevelopment of existing infrastructure is transportation and in some cases significantly change currentlikely to overshadow new development. To be applied in these common patterns of automobile traffic.scenarios, Complete Streets tenets must be broken into individual ◦◦ Goal: To build upon the momentum establishedelements that can be implemented based on the needs of the project in Phase I and integrate all major transportationarea. groups.To help illustrate this process, this chapter shows how Complete Streets Van Dyke Avenue: 8 Mile Rd. to 10 Mile Rd.programs can be applied within Macomb County. The study areas used Existing Conidtions:in this illustration are Van Dyke Avenue between 8 Mile Road to 10 Mile Van Dyke Avenue is a major surface road that runs north throughRoad, and Garfield Road between 17 Mile Road and Hall Road. Both Macomb County from Lynch Road to 27 Mile Road. For the portionhypothetical plans begin with a short review of current use patterns, included in the study area, Van Dyke Avenue consists of threeexisting roadway design, and surrounding patterns of land use. Based northbound lanes, three southbound lanes, and one middle turning laneon these issues, each plan then progresses to two alternative designs (approximately 77.5 feet). Either side of Van Dyke Avenue is borderedthat represent two phases on a Complete Streets development timeline. by 10 feet of sidewalk, creating a total right-of-way width of about 110These plans follow the recommended guidelines when possible, feet (See figure 10).illustrating how Complete Streets elements can adapt to the existing sitecharacteristics. • Phase 1 of this timeline emphasizes design changes that can be implemented with few changes to the existing patterns of automobile use and no alterations to current traffic engineering guidelines. 12’ 11’ 11’ 9’6” 11’ 11’ 12’ ◦◦ Goal: To establish a physical and social Figure 10. Cross Section of Van Dyke Avenue Created by Will Tardy Page 15 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  21. 21. Preliminary PlansAccording to SEMCOG’s latest 24-hour traffic counts (6/29/2010), thetwo-mile Van Dyke study area carries approximately 30,000 vehiclesper day.1 Over the course of the day, traffic is heaviest from 11am to 12am (approx. 1740 vehicles/hour), and from 3 pm to 6 pm (approx. 2136vehicles/hour).2 The distribution of traffic between travel directions isvery even with only a slight advantage of northbound over southboundin the later morning.3 The posted speed limit within the Van Dyke studyarea is 35 mph. To see more information on current traffic statistics Legendwithin the Van Dyke study area, please see Appendix: Traffic Statistics. Deciduous Woodlands Open Space, DevelopedThe pedestrian facilities within the Van Dyke study area consist of Developed, Low Intensitysignalized crossings at stoplights, abundant pedestrian lighting, small Developed, Med Intensitycommercial setbacks, and trash bins. Available amenities for transit Developed, High Intensityriders include signed bus stops and a transit shelter at the 9 Mile Road-Van Dyke stop. Currently no facilities exist for cyclists. Figure 11. Land Use Map of Van Dyke Corridor Created by Will TardyLand use along the Van Dyke study area is predominately light Source: 2006 USGS NLDC Land Cover Surveycommercial, backed by residential land uses (see Figure 11). Typicalbusinesses include automobile service stations, used car dealers, fast- Analysis:food restaurants, and small retail shops. The neighboring residential With a wide variety of land uses, small commercial setbacks, andareas are predominately single-family homes. The nearest industrial continuous sidewalks, the Van Dyke study area has many of theland uses are located a mile west on Mound Road. The public land uses underlying infrastructural components of Complete Streets design.within a mile of the Van Dyke study area include three parks and Lincoln Planners and engineers can build on this foundation by increasingHigh School. the number of amenities for users of non-motorized and public transportation. Key issues to be addressed by these amenities include: MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 16
  22. 22. Preliminary Plans • Increasing the availability of safe street crossings, Phase 1 also recommends increasing the number of transit shelters • Incentivizing the use of public transit, and available. To educate riders on the availability of buses, schedules • Creating spaces where the community residents, particularly should be posted within each shelter. the area’s school-aged youth, feel comfortable cycling. Table 8. SWOT Analysis for Van Dyke Phase 1As a complete system of built space and lifestyles, the current design of Pros Cons STRENGTHS WEAKNESSESVan Dyke represents huge investments of financial and social capital.As a result, initiatives that threaten these investments would likely be Minimal Impact Minimal Servicepolitically imprudent and fiscally wasteful. Therefore, the introduction of of Existing Traffic Provision forthese amenities should be incremental and thoroughly vetted through Present Patterns Cyclists Facilitates midblockpublic meetings. crossing in high traffic areaImplementation:Phase 1: The first step proposed within the Van Dyke study area is OPPORTUNITIES THREATSthe installation of pedestrian islands within the middle turning lane. To Creates a base Generatesfacilitate safe and convenient street crossings, these islands should Future for incremental additionalbe located at block midpoints. To assure that these structures draw investment maintenance costsin pedestrians and alert drivers, islands should be accompanied bysignage and crosswalk striping (see Figure 12). On some segments Note: SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats) analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planningof Van Dyke, existing driveway locations will make the installation of recommendationspedestrian islands problematic. In these cases, because there are alimited number of viable businesses, planners should place midblock Phase 2: To complete the conversion of the Van Dyke study area intocrossings to accommodate established business interests. In locations a Complete Streets corridor, Phase 2 proposes the conversion of bothof close proximity (1 mile) to schools, parks, and other public spaces, outer two driving lanes into a curbside 7-foot parking lane and a 5-foothowever, priority should be granted to the placement of pedestrian bicycle lane. Since this change in vehicular traffic pushes buses awaycrossing amenities (see the Proposed Plan Maps section in the from the curb, this phase also includes 7-foot sidewalk extensions atappendix for more details). To incentivize the use of public transit, Page 17 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  23. 23. Preliminary Plansintersections and in the middle of large blocks to assure transit riders donot need to step off the curb to board (see Figure 13). Table 9. SWOT Analysis for Van Dyke Phase 2The goal of Phase 2 is to maximize and accommodate the shift of users Pros Consfrom automobile traffic to alternate transportation means. However, STRENGTHS WEAKNESSESplanners and engineers will drastically redefine the structure of thecorridor and likely encounter negative public response. To accommodate Maximizes the Requires significant likelihood of changes in trafficand perhaps prevent these concerns from arising, establishing public Present mode shift patternssupport through education and design charrettes is essential. Likely to generate public protest OPPORTUNITIES THREATS Creates the Requires similar and opportunity to concurrent efforts in Future radically redefine neighboring areas to the character and reach full potential perception of the neighborhood Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendations MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 18
  24. 24. Preliminary Plans Figure 12. Phase 1 of Van Dyke Ave. Created by Jonathan Moore 1.Mid-Block Crossing with Road Striping 2.Transit Shelters 2 Figure 13. Phase 2 of Van Dyke Ave. Created by Jonathan Moore 1.On Street Parking with Bicycle Lane 1 2.Bike Parking 3.Sidewalk Extensions 3Page 19 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  25. 25. Preliminary PlansGarfield Road: 17 Mile Rd. to Hall Mile Rd.Existing Conidtions:Garfield Road is a principal arterial that runs north through MacombCounty from 14 Mile Road to 22 Mile Road. The portion of roadwayincluded in the study area (17 Mile to Hall Road) consists of twonorthbound lanes, two southbound lanes, and one middle turning lane 6’ 25’ 12’ 11’ 9’6” 11’ 12’ 25’ 6’(approx. 55.5 feet). Either side of Garfield Road is bordered by 25 feet Figure 14. Cross Section of Garfield Rd. Created by Will Tardyof grassy shoulder and 10 feet of sidewalk, creating a total right-of-way width of about 120 feet (see Figure 14). According to SEMCOG’s The existing pedestrian facilities within the Garfield study area consistlatest 24-hour traffic counts (3/25/2009), this three-mile segment of of signalized crossing at stoplights and non-continuous sidewalks. 4road carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. The concentration For transit riders, the available amenities consist of signed bus stops.of traffic within the Garfield study area peaks between 11am and 12 Currently no facilities exist for cyclists.am (approx. 2600 vehicles/hour) and from 2 pm to 5 pm (approx 2576vehicles/hour).5 The distribution of traffic between travel directions is Land use within the Garfield study area is predominately commercialgenerally heavier in the northbound lanes. In the section of Garfield 6 and institutional, with residential land uses behind (see Fig 15). Typicalbetween19 Mile Road and Hall Road, however, northbound traffic was commercial land uses include small banks, restaurants, departmentone-quarter of the daily southbound traffic (presumably because of stores, and strip mall developments. The institutional land uses onpeople exiting Garfield for Macomb Community College).7 The posted Garfield include the extensive campus of Macomb County Communityspeed limit within the Garfield study area is 45 MPH. To see more College (MCCC), Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, and Wyandot Middleinformation on current traffic statistics within the Van Dyke study area, School. Residential areas within the study area are predominatelyplease see Appendix # : Traffic Statistics. single-family homes. Along Garfield there are a few multi-unit residential developments, particularly near MCCC. Within a half-mile radius of the Garfield study area, there are no parks or public land uses other than Wyandot Middle School. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 20
  26. 26. Preliminary Plans development, and reduced setbacks to resolve this issue.8,9 In the immediate future, however, public support for low-density development reduces the political effectiveness of zoning initiatives.10 As an alternative, planners and engineers can support Complete Streets by focusing on improving pedestrian, cyclist, and transit rider amenities. In the non-motorized section of its Long Range Plan, the Macomb County Road Commission creates a convenient base for this initiative by showcasing the regional recreational bike-pedestrian paths developing Legend within the county.11 Deciduous Woodlands Open Space, Developed Phase 1: The first step proposed for the Garfield study area is the Developed, Low Intensity installation of four key pedestrian and transit rider amenities (See Figure Developed, Med Intensity 16). The most critical of these amenities is pedestrian lighting. With Developed, High Intensity Wyandot Middle School located directly on Garfield, this investment will not only increase safety for the general public, but also support the ability of students to walk to school. The second most critical infrastructure investment is extending the sidewalks through the grassyFigure 15. Land Use Map of Garfield Corridor. Created by Will Tardy shoulder at transit stops. For able-bodied transit riders, the existingSource: 2006 USGS NLDC Land Cover Survey 25-foot grassy buffer between the sidewalk and the curb poses only a small inconvenience. For the elderly and handicapped, however,Analysis: uneven terrain can create a major impediment to boarding the bus.With a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential areas, the To make the use of public transportation more comfortable and safe,Garfield study area has the right mix of land uses to attract pedestrian the third initiative integrated into Phase 1 is the installation of moreand cyclist traffic. Due to its suburban character, however, the land transit shelters. To create an inviting pedestrian environment, the finaluse density is not high enough to make regular non-motorized and recommendation of Phase 1 is to plant street trees along the existingpublic transportation convenient. In the long term, local planners could sidewalk.use zoning regulations that incentivize increased density, mixed use Page 21 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  27. 27. Preliminary Plans pedestrian activity, but existing crossing systems are inconvenient. TheTable 10. SWOT Analysis for Garfield Phase 1 area around Wyandot Middle School is a prime example of this sort of Pros Cons condition (see Appendix: Proposed Plan Maps for more details). STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES Table 11. SWOT Analysis for Garfield Phase 2 Supports alternative Does not provide Pros Cons Present transportation infrastructure for STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES without impeding cyclists existing traffic Supports alternative Does not address Present transportation land use issues OPPORTUNITIES THREATS without impeding existing traffic Creates a base Generates Future for incremental additional OPPORTUNITIES THREATS investment maintenance costs Facilitates public GeneratesNote: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent awareness additionalreview of planning recommendations Future of alternative maintenance costs transportationPhase 2: To complete the conversion of the Garfield Road study area options and Reduced populationinto a Complete Streets corridor, a portion of the grassy shoulder can associated benefits densitybe converted into a bicycle path (See Figure 17). Located adjacent tothe existing sidewalk, this improvement creates a safe and comfortable Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendationsriding environment without creating conflicts with automobiles. Inaddition, additional trash bins and benches should be installed tocomplement the recreational path.To support safe and convenient pedestrian crossings, Phase 2recommends the installation of midblock crossings. To be most effective,the crossings should be placed where a mix of land uses support MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 22
  28. 28. Preliminary Plans Figure 16. Phase 1 of Garfield Rd. Created by Jonathan Moore. 3 4 1. Pedestrain Lighting & Street Trees, 2.Bike Parking 1 3.Transit Shelters 4.Sidewalk Extensions 2 Figure 17. Phase 2 of Garfield Rd. Created by Jonathan Moore 1. Recreational Bike Path 2 1 2.Midblock Crossing with Road StripingPage 23 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  29. 29. Preliminary PlansREFERENCES:1.Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2010, June 29). VolumeCount Report: Van Dyke Avenue. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from the SEMCOG’s TrafficCount Database, from http://www.semcog.org/data/Apps/trafficcounts.cfm.2.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Van Dyke Avenue.3.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Van Dyke Avenue.4.Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2009, March 25).VolumeCount Report: Garfield Road. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from the SEMCOG’s Traffic CountDatabase, from http://www.semcog.org/data/Apps/trafficcounts.cfm.5.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Garfield Road.6.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Garfield Road.7.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Garfield Road.8.Marwedel, James. (1998, November). Opting for Performance: An Alternative toConventional Zoning for Land Use Regulation. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(2),220-231.9.Shoup, Donald. (2008). Graduated Density Zoning. Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 28, 161-179.10.Talen, Emily. (2001, Spring). Traditional Urbanism Meets Residential Affluence. Jour-nal of the American Planning Association, 67(2), 199-216.11.Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan, Inc. (2005, April). Road Commission of MacombCounty Long Range Master Plan 2004 – 2030 Final Report. P. 46-48. Retrieved 4/2/2011,from www.rcmcweb.org. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 24
  30. 30. Implementation ToolsThough design improvements to the roadway are a key element to Com- who have varying work schedules.plete Streets, without implementation strategies in place, these modifica-tions cannot be made. Some of the most important of these strategies Physical and Virtual Tours:include public outreach models, financing mechanisms, and policy initia- For those who learn visually, seeing something firsthand may have atives. In accordance with this document’s goal of identifying local, state, powerful impact. When the time and resources permit, taking people intoand federal resources, the following section highlights some of the most the field can be a great learning tool. If possible, participants should seesuccessful implementation strategies from around the country. examples of both incomplete and complete streets. For audiences on tight time constraints, virtual tours may also be a viable outreach strat-Public Outreach and Stakeholder Identification egy.Tools:“A more engaged and collaborative approach that includes as many Complete Streets Business Sessions:stakeholders and implementers as possible tends to be more broadly Business owners might initially be wary of a change that takes automo- 1supported.” – Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition bile traffic away from their stores. A special workshop for business own- ers highlighting the specific economic benefits of Complete Streets helpAs the quote suggests, public participation is critical to the success of to secure the support of these key stakeholders. Studies show that hav-any Complete Streets initiative, because the concept requires a funda- ing more transit and non-motorized options can lead to visitors stayingmental change in thinking about roadway design. Useful participation- an extra three or four hours in the area, which can lead to an increasebased programming for Complete Streets includes workshops, street in sales.2,3 These sessions should emphasize how the Complete Streetstours, and Complete Streets business meetings. approach creates a lively and successful commercial environment.Complete Streets Workshops: The activities outlined above represent only a small sample of theIn order to garner support from local stakeholders, many municipali- unique ways planners can adapt public participation to the needs ofties have implemented Complete Streets workshops. These workshops Complete Streets. The Portland Public Participation Manual, can beserve as visionary sessions that not only define Complete Streets, seen at their website (http://www.pdc.us/public-participation/default.asp).but also provide advocacy tools for local leaders to bring back to theirconstituencies. While workshops typically occur during the evening, a Financing Tools:Complete Streets afternoon session may be more appropriate for those Currently, state legislation requires that one percent of municipal fund- Page 25 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  31. 31. Implementation Toolsing derived from the Michigan transportation fund must be used for • $10 Million Parks and Recreation Funding: capitalized onnon-motorized transportation.4 However, because municipal funding is Metro Parks, which at the time planned to spend approxi-limited, Macomb County must think creatively to make Complete Streets mately $2,500,000 in 2008 for land acquisition, design, anda priority. Below is a list of tools utilized by other municipalities in similar construction in Central Ohio.6financial constraints. • $15 Million Funding from Other State and Other Local Sources: utilized other public and private resources, includ-Columbus, OH: Federal, State, and Local Combination ing allocations set aside for land conservation, public transit,In 2008, the Columbus City Council adopted the Bicentennial Bikeways utilities, environmental mitigation, health and physical activity,Plan, which acted as a thorough, step-by-step strategy for expanding and education.bike infrastructure in Columbus. Like many municipalities, Columbus did A more detailed list of funding resources for the Bicentennial Bikewaysnot have a dedicated funding stream for such improvements. Further- Plan can be found in the Appendix.more, Columbus was at the mercy of the federal funding structure, whichoften requires municipalities to seek many federal resources to fund Macomb County could try to duplicate Columbus’s example. Columbusone project.5 The plan acknowledged the variety of resources that the benefited from an extensive search into resources that promoted publiccity would have to target for funding, including federal, state, and local health, environmental sustainability, conservation, and transit. Further-resources. Below is a brief list of the primary recommendations: more, due to the nature of the Columbus bikeways plan, the city could tap into federal parks and recreation funding. A potential challenge is the • Bicentennial Bikeways Bonds (“B3” Bonds): called for the city amount of staff energy it takes to search and apply for resources. to include the Bikeways Plan improvements in the 2008 bond package. Michigan: Corridor Improvement Authorities • $25 Million Federal Transportation ‘Green Tea’ Demonstration The Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA), or Public Act 280, was ap- Project Funding: used a significant amount of money coming proved on the state level in 2005.7 CIAs assist municipalities in provid- from the federal SAFETEA transportation legislation. ing funding improvements outside of downtowns or normal business • $10 Million Private Sector ‘Adopt a Bikeway’ Endowment corridors.8 Very similar to a Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Campaign: created a campaign where key private sector and a CIA can hire a director, establish a tax-increment financing plan, and philanthropic partners would engage in a fundraising effort to levy special taxes or issue bonds.9 The only regulations imposed by the adopt a mile of the bikeway system. legislation require that a participating corridor must be: MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 26
  32. 32. Implementation Tools • 51% first-floor commercial. by local businesses.14 The PPRTA use tax complements the sales tax • In existence for more than 30 years. and “is due on the use, storage, or consumption of any tangible personal • Adjacent to a road classified as an arterial or collector ac- property or tax- able service, purchased at retail, upon which no sales cording to the Federal Highway Administration. tax was paid.”15 Furthermore, the PPRTA received funding from a $4 • At least five contiguous acres. excise tax since 1998 that was levied on new bicycles purchased in the • Zoned to allow for mixed-use and high-density residential.10 city.16 Records show that in 2006, this excise tax generated more than $111,000 from over 31,000 bikes purchased.17Finally, a participating municipality must allow for an expedited permit-ting and licensing process for developments along the corridor and must This financing tool, which is also used in other areas, including Sanmake non-motorized transportation a priority.11 Several municipalities in Diego, would be the most difficult to implement in Macomb County. AtMichigan have taken advantage of CIAs, including East Lansing, Grand the same time, it would mean lasting change. Because regional transitRapids, Waterford Township, and St. Clair Shores. Van Dyke Avenue authorities that levy taxes are not legal on the state level in Michigan,and Garfield Road are excellent opportunities for CIAs, meeting all of pursuing an authority similar to the PPRTA requires lobbying for leg-the regulations. Though businesses may not be open to additional taxes, islative change. Further challenges with the sales and use tax includethey may be enticed with an expedited navigation through the permit- potential pushback from businesses, arguing that their customers mightting process. Furthermore, funds from tax-increment financing, although spend less with an additional tax. Finally, putting such a proposal beforelimited in tough economic times, could be used to leverage other federal the voters in Macomb County is risky. Voters might not approve the taxand state funds for Complete Streets conversions. or the regional authority. However, this option creates a direct funding source for roadway improvement. It would demonstrate the county’sColorado Springs, CO: Sales and Use Tax commitment to Complete Streets, and it would indicate that residentsIn 2004, voters in the Colorado Springs area approved the creation of also believe in the principles set by the county.the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA), which is a re-gional authority that provides capital improvements and maintenance for Policy Recommendations:both auto-oriented and non-motorized transportation projects.12 Shortly Though Michigan recently passed Complete Streets legislation that illus-after the creation of the PPRTA, voters also approved a 1% sales and trates the importance of non-motorized transportation on a state level, ause tax that would help fund the work of the authority.13 The sales tax municipality and a county can enact certain policy measures on a moreis collected similarly to the State of Colorado sales tax and is remitted local level. These include non-motorized plans, resolutions, and more Page 27 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

×