Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Complete Streets Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Complete Streets Report

1,151
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 …

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
1,151
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  • 33. Implementation Toolsformal ordinances. Below are examples of policy changes that prioritize Ann Arbor, MI: Non-Motorized PlanComplete Streets. The City of Ann Arbor Non-motorized Plan 2007 contains much of the reasoning and guidelines behind making the roads safe for pedestriansColumbus, OH: Subdivision Ordinance and cyclists, a critical part of a complete street. The plan’s vision state-Until 1999, Columbus, Ohio lacked a comprehensive sidewalk law. New- ment describes the envisioned community as one that is safe and acces-ly elected City Councilmember Maryellen O’Shaughnessy advocated sible to pedestrians and cyclists as well as one that promotes a culturethat the City Council address this issue by first updating the subdivision where people choose alternative transportation over cars.21 To that end,ordinance to require sidewalks for private development.18 The current it describes objectives, strategies, and design tools:subdivision law states that private developers must build sidewalks and • Educating the Ann Arbor community at various levels on thebikeways in accordance with the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan.19 The or- benefits of non-motorized transit, the existing options avail-dinance also “authorizes an in-lieu fee program modeled after the city’s able and the safety concerns of this kind of travel (Pg. 7).parkland dedication fund. If a particular development cannot provide • Site design checklists for bicycle parking, pedestrian andsite-adjacent bicycle or pedestrian improvements due to site constraints, transit facilities, etc. (Pg. 92-94).the developer can pay a fee, and the improvements will be built offsite • Cross-sections and guidelines for different road types and 20but within the same community planning area at a later date.” bike and pedestrian facilities (Ch. 2)This ordinance reduces the burden of municipalities to construct side- A non-motorized plan like Ann Arbor’s can help to further prioritize Com-walks, and it creates incentives for private developers to contribute to plete Streets, while giving advocacy groups a political tool.the Complete Streets philosophy. Having such an ordinance could be afirst step for municipalities that are looking for innovative cost-sharing Lansing, MI and Columbus, OH: Complete Streets Resolutions andimplementation tools, as well as methods for generating stakeholder Ordinancesbuy-in. In 2008, the Columbus City Council approved a resolution that illus- trated the city’s commitment to Complete Streets.23 The resolution was a result of many different stakeholders coming together, including the city attorney, police, biking and health advocates, and legislative ana- lysts. More than anything, city officials cited the resolution as a psycho- logical change. On March 2, 2009, the City Council adopted an official MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 28
  • 34. Implementation ToolsComplete Streets ordinance that amended the city code. The ordinance officials immediately began drafting a resolution. The local governmentauthorized both a Sidewalk Improvement Fund and a Bikeway Improve- passed the Hennepin Complete Streets Resolution in February 2009.ment Fund, while ensuring that other relevant laws included pedestrian The resolution aimed to create a Complete Streets policy. It stated:and cyclist infrastructure along with road infrastructure. • Hennepin County will adopt a Complete Streets philosophy for all transportation decisions to maintain a safe, efficient,In August of 2009, Lansing became the first city to pass a Complete and environmentally friendly transportation system.26Streets ordinance.23 The ordinance mandated that Lansing create a • The Complete Streets policy allows Hennepin County to sup-Non-Motorized Network Plan to be updated every five years and al- port “Active Living,” which they define as physical activity inlow for changes of existing right-of-ways. 24 In addition, the ordinance daily routines such as walking and biking.27maintained that Lansing must create more accessible sidewalks and • Transparency will be crucial in the successful adoption andbike lanes by adding better signage, pathways, curb ramps, and curb implementation of Complete Streets policy.28cut-outs.25 • Hennepin County encourages local, county, and state gov- ernments to work together to make Complete Streets a real-A legal mandate, specifically one that creates a dedicated funding ity.29source, is the most secure way to further Complete Streets in a munici-pality. The ordinance guarantees that there is political buy-in to the Com- After the resolution passed, Hennepin County passed its Completeplete Streets philosophy, as well as enforcement. A sample Complete Streets policy in July 2009. The policy lays out six methods HennepinStreets resolution and ordinance is included in the Appendix. County will use to enforce and adopt its Complete Street policy: • Incorporate Complete Streets “principles and practices intoHennepin County, MN: Complete Streets Resolution and Policy transportation development projects.”30Hennepin County, home to the City of Minneapolis, adopted a Complete • Assess and record existing corridors.31Streets resolution and policy in 2009. Hennepin County serves as a • Create a Complete Streets implementation procedure.32good example for Macomb County, because Minnesota law allows cities • Generate a Complete Streets evaluation method.33to operate under home rule. • Re-evaluate Hennepin County’s roadside enhancement part- nership program.34In December 2008, public officials from Hennepin County attended a • Integrate Complete Streets in the Transportation SystemsComplete Streets workshop presented by national experts. Afterward, Plan and other appropriate documents.35 Page 29 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 35. Implementation Tools The county should play an active role in educating these municipal lead-By implementing these measures, Hennepin County believes Complete ers on the planning and implementation of Complete Streets. In this way,Streets will bring a better quality of life to its residents. In addition to the leaders across the county have a base understanding of what Completeresolution and policy, Hennepin County organized a Complete Streets Streets is and what it should look like.Task Force to oversee the implementation of the 2009 policy. More in-formation about Minnesota and Hennepin County’s policies can be found 3.Change Rhetoricin the Appendix. On both the county and municipal level, leaders should speak about Complete Streets using an inclusive language that incorporates all us-Implementation Timeline: (See Figure 18) ers of the street. This can serve as a psychological change for both theThe timeline provided illustrates a sample process for implementing municipal leaders themselves and their constituency.Complete Streets policy, assuming that a municipality has not madesignificant efforts. The process includes the key players– the county, the 4.Create Sidewalk Improvement Programmunicipality, and the community, including advocacy groups and con- A sidewalk improvement program that is closely associated with schoolsstituents. This process is flexible, and there are many ways to reach a or with private investment may be the most politically viable first step inComplete Streets policy. A municipality may adopt an ordinance before changing policy. This policy, which can take shape in either ordinancesthe county has entered the process, or a municipality may never adopt or programming, can introduce the idea of Complete Streets to the pub-a policy and still practice Complete Streets. This timeline simply serves lic and generate community buy-in.as a useful tool from the county perspective on how to engage municipaland community leaders. 5.Create Non-Motorized Plan A non-motorized plan is an excellent way to incorporate advocacy1.Identify Key Municipal Leaders groups and the larger public into the discussion, using the public partici-In order for the county to engage municipalities in this process, the pation techniques as discussed in this report.first step is to identify leaders who are strong candidates as CompleteStreets advocates. Ideally, a candidate would be a member of the mu- 6.Propose Complete Streets Resolutionnicipality’s legislative body or even the mayor. While the other elements of this process continue, leaders can propose a Complete Streets resolution within the municipal legislative body.2.Educate Key Municipal Leaders Though this does not specifically amend legislation, a resolution can MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 30
  • 36. Implementation Toolsserve as a philosophical starting point.7.Pass Complete Streets PolicyA Complete Streets resolution can lead to a Complete Streets policy,which introduces or amends current legislation. An ordinance ensuresthere is both a requirement to implement Complete Streets and enforce-ment.8.Create Direct Funding StreamThe ultimate goal is to create a direct funding stream that can financeroadway improvement. This can be through a Complete Streets policy orprogramming, such as a CIA or TIF. Page 31 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 37. Implementation ToolsImplementation TimelineFigure 18. Pilot Complete Streets Implementation Timeline. Created byDiana Flora MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 32
  • 38. Implementation ToolsREFERENCES: Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association.1.Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. (2010, August). Complete Streets: Lo- p. 70.cal toolkit. In Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. P. 5. Retrieved 3/11/2011, 17.Ibid. p. 70.from http://www.mncompletestreets.org/gfx/MnCSLocalGovtToolkit.pdf. 18.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best2.Lawrie, Judson J. et al. (2006, January-February). Bikeways to Prosperity. TR Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association.News. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/34336430/Assess- p. 19.ing-Economic-Impact-of-Bicycle-Facilities. 19.Columbus City Code. Title 31, § 3123.17.3.Lusher, Lindsey, et al. (2008, August). Streets to Live By: How livable street 20.Columbus City Code. Title 43. Chapter 4307.design can bring economic, health and quality-of-life benefits to New York City. 21.The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. (2006, December 6). City of Ann Ar-In Transportation Alternatives. . Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://transalt.org/ bor Non-motorized Transportation Plan 2007. In Projects. pg 5. Retrievedfiles/newsroom/reports/streets_to_live_by.pdf 3/11/2011, from http://www.greenwaycollab.com/AANoMo.htm.4.Michigan Planning Enabling Act. 2010 PA 134. (MCL § 125). 22.Columbus City Council. (2008, July 29). Resolution 0151X-2008.5.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best 23.Neuner, Rory. (2009, Aug. 19). Lansing passes Michigan’s first Com-Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. plete Streets Ordinance. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrievedp. 72. 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org.6.Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus, 24.Ibid. Lansing passes Michigan’s first Complete Streets Ordinance.Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 7-5 - 7-6. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from 25.Ibid. Lansing passes Michigan’s first Complete Streets Ordinance.http://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/. 26.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, February). Com-7.Corridor Improvement Authority Act, 2005 PA 280. (MCL § 125). plete Streets Resolution 09-0058. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://8.Michigan Economic Development Authority. (2008). Corridor Improvement board.co.hennepin.mn.us/sirepub/cache/246/4gw0k4fkl51hov45oa5x4jAuthority. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= vb/6140003122011081954117.PDF.web&cd=4&ved=0CCkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganadvantage. 27.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058.org%2Fcm%2FFiles%2FFact-Sheets%2FCorridorImprovementAuthorityPA280. 28.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058.pdf&ei=2_mGTbPUHc7SgQevnMDeCA&usg=AFQjCNFP1pe7n1H7KDHZZZH5 29.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058.H9mqDCCyCQ&sig2=nWJ7JPuWkj6JoB8G0M9TkA. 30.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, July). Complete Streets9.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. Policy. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/10.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. policy/cs-mn-hennepincounty-policy.pdf.11.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. 31.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.12.City of Colorado Springs. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA 32.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.Sales And Use Tax Information And Guidelines. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http:// 33.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.www.springsgov.com/units/salestax/special%20messages/PPRTA%20Bro- 34.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.chure.pdf. 35.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.13.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use TaxInformation And Guidelines.14.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use TaxInformation And Guidelines.15.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use TaxInformation And Guidelines.16.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best Page 33 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 39. ConclusionIn the coming decades, counties and communities across the United cate community members about the benefits of Complete Streets plan-States are facing changes in resource availability, energy costs, and ning, as well as gauge their perspective on key transportation planning 1urban population density. As a result of these changes, the current em- issues like non-motorized user safety, promoting active lifestyles, andphasis on automobiles as the primary mode of personal transportation accessible streets for all users. will become increasingly difficult. To prepare Macomb County for thesechanges, local planners can utilize Complete Streets design standards While the primary focus of Complete Streets is to provide equitable ac-and policy strategies to incentivize the use of alternative transportation. cess to transportation infrastructure, Complete Streets policy does more than incentivize transportation mode shift. As a result of transportation’sIn older, denser portions of Macomb County, applying Complete Streets central role in the process of daily life, Complete Streets is also a meanswill mean returning to more transportation planning practices from the to recreate a community’s identity.3 By turning under used spaces likeearly twentieth century, which focused on non-motorized transportation.2 the sidewalks along Van Dyke Avenue into valuable public areas, Com-In newer, more suburban portions, however, supporting alternative trans- plete Streets can increase the livability of the neighborhood and its over-portation will require planners to adapt Complete Streets practices to all social value. In areas in need of social investment and stewardship,meet public demands. Although this may seem to be counter-productive like Macomb County, this additional benefit makes Complete Streetsto the governing mission, incremental change is to be embraced. Unlike policy more of a guiding principal of restorative urban planning, ratherEuclidean planning techniques, Compete Streets emphasizes adapta- than simply a new spin on modeling transportation infrastructure.tion to site conditions and local restrictions. In Macomb County, makingthese gradual changes will likely lead to investments that initially createminimal interference with automobile traffic. The installation of recre- ational bike facilities, additional transit shelters, and improved pedestrianfacilities are important examples in this regard.To provide the financial resources needed to institute Complete Streetsstrategies, local administrators and policy makers will need to investigatenovel implementation strategies. Examples of these tools include salestaxes, Corridor Improvement Authorities, and tax-increment financing.Local leaders will also need to employ public outreach strategies to edu- MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 34
  • 40. ConclusionREFERENCES:1.Van Ginkel, Hans. (30 October 2008). Urban Future. Nature, 456, 32-33.2.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, TransportationProject Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, MI.3.Greenberg, Ellen. (2008, May). Sustainable Streets: An Emerging Practice.Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 78( 5), 29-39. Page 35 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 41. Appendix A: Case Studies Hennepin County, MN A-2These case study briefs were made to summarize findings on four Columbus, OH A-6cities used in the background research for this report. The cit-ies were selected based on similarity to Macomb County’s con-text and stated goals, or the exemplary nature of their Complete Grand Rapids, MI A - 10Streets programs. Ann Arbor, MI A - 14 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A-1
  • 42. Hennepin County, MNIntroduction the Midwest Context Sensitive Design and Solutions workshop to assistThis memo reviews Minnesota and Hennepin County’s planning process its State’s stakeholders in implementing CSS goals at the state, county,for implementing Complete Streets. To begin, Hennepin County and and local levels.4 Furthermore in 2008, Minnesota wanted to keepMinnesota’s historical infrastructure designs and standards proved to be improving its infrastructure, mandating Mn/DOT to “study the benefits,a natural building block for implementing Complete Streets. In addition, feasibility, and cost of adopting a Complete Streets policy.” 5Hennepin County and Minnesota serve as a great example of a Midwestcounty and state that systematically provide all levels of government with Complete Streets Componentsthe resources and abilities to improve their existing infrastructure. Start-ing with Minnesota’s Complete Streets Report, Hennepin County’s Com- Minnesota 2009 Complete Streets Final Reportplete Streets Resolution and Policy, followed by Minnesota’s Complete The Complete Streets Report was compiled by the Commissioner ofStreets Law, Hennepin County has the tools to successfully build Com- Transportation and the Mn/DOT Division of State Aid for Local Transpor-plete Streets on existing and future infrastructure. Macomb County can tation in response to the legislative directive. The goal of the report wasrefer to Hennepin County as a successful example of transparent and not to create policy, but to ensure that Minnesota could effectively imple-progressive planning, which allows Complete Streets to be implemented. ment Complete Streets at every level of government. The report sum- marized six key elements to assess the feasibility of Complete Streets:Background • Hennepin County encourages local, county, and state gov-Briefly, Hennepin County is located on the eastern portion of the Min- ernments to work together to make Complete Streets a real-neapolis region. It is home to the City of Minneapolis. Hennepin County ity.6has the largest population, budget, and estimated market value of all • Gather and assess a list for complete street resources.Minnesota counties.1 Its estimated 2009 population was 1,156,212.2 • Evaluate the State’s current design practices for CompleteOver the past decades, Hennepin County worked hard to maintain ac- Streets.7cess to safe and diverse modes of transportation. Beginning in the late • Asses the maintenance and operations impacts of Complete1990’s the Federal Highway Administration developed a new set of prin- Streets.8ciples, called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), to encourage states • Analyze other state, county, and local Complete Streets poli-to treat transportation, community, and environmental goals equally.3 In cies and best practices.92005 the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) co-hosted • Review the costs, benefits, and feasibility of Complete Streets. 10 A-2 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 43. Hennepin County, MN • Hennepin County will adopt a Complete Streets philosophy to • Advocate implementation of Complete Streets policy.11 all transportation decisions to maintain a safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly transportation system.16First, the report stated funding resources are scarce, but may be ob- • Complete Streets allow Hennepin County to support Activetained through various agencies and partnerships. Although funding Living, which permits physical activity in daily routines suchis difficult to obtain, Minnesota has strong infrastructure resources for as walking and biking.17Complete Streets implementation due to its previous CSS objectives. • Transparency will be crucial in the successful adoption andNext, the report stated that the design standards needed to be revised to implementation of Complete Streets policy.18eliminate inconsistencies and integrate all modes transportation.12 In ad- • Hennepin County encourages local, county, and state gov-dition, the new design standards involved operations and maintenance ernments to work together to make Complete Streets a real-staff to minimize long-term maintenance costs.13 Furthermore, the report ity.19noted that no quantifiable benefit/cost analysis was available, but othercase studies suggested Complete Streets benefits outweigh their costs 2009 Hennepin County Complete Streets Policystating, “Complete Streets are considered feasible on the state, regional After the resolution passed, Hennepin County passed its Completeand local levels.”14 Finally, the report explains that a Complete Streets Streets Policy in July 2009. The policy lays out six methods Hennepinpolicy must stress the importance of improving safety for all users of the County will use to enforce and adopt its Complete Street Policy:street.15 • Incorporate Complete Streets “principles and practices into transportation development projects.” 202009 Hennepin County Complete Streets Resolution • Assess and record existing corridors.21As Mn/DOT was preparing its Complete Streets Report, Hennepin Coun- • Create a Complete Streets implementation procedure. 22ty created a Complete Streets Resolution. In December 2008, public • Generate a Complete Streets evaluation method.23officials from Hennepin County attended a Complete Streets workshop • Re-evaluate Hennepin County’s roadside enhancement part-presented by national experts. Afterward, officials immediately be- nership program.24gan drafting a resolution. The Hennepin Complete Streets Resolution • Integrate Complete Streets in the Transportation Systemspassed by the local government in February 2009. The resolution aimed Plan and other appropriate documents.25to create a Complete Streets policy. It stated: MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A-3
  • 44. Hennepin County, MNBy implementing these measures, Hennepin County believes Complete County as it attempts to implement complete street policies. HennepinStreets will bring a better quality of life to its residents. In addition to the County and Minnesota continually emphasize transparency throughoutresolution and policy, Hennepin County organized a Complete Streets all of their processes. If Macomb wants to successfully implement Com-Task Force to oversee the implementation of the 2009 policy. plete Streets polices, it must stress transparency. The County will waste less time and resources by allowing all units of governments to see what2010 Minnesota Complete Streets Law is going on trying to bring polices and implementation strategies to Ma-Minnesota passed a Complete Streets Law in May 2010. The law comb County and its municipalities.frames five objectives for successful integration of Complete Streets inMinnesota: Furthermore, the political system in Hennepin County and Minnesota • Creates a Complete Streets implementation policy after con- is similar to Macomb County and Michigan. Both are home rule states, sulting with stakeholders, agencies, authorities, and govern- which allow their municipalities to have powerful governments. Although ments. 26 they are similar, Minnesota and Hennepin County successfully integrate • Requests a Complete Streets implementation report in the all levels of politics to focus on carrying out complete street polices. agency’s biennial budget submission. 27 Macomb County must strive to work with all levels of government to find • Encourages, but does not require, local road authorities to agreement on how Complete Streets will benefit their area. Macomb adopt and implement Complete Streets policies. 28 County has a rich auto-centric culture and will face substantial opposi- • Gives the commissioner control over variances from engi- tion to a drastic change in the transportation culture. Moreover, Michi- neering standards. 29 gan does not have the historical building blocks for an easy transition to Complete Streets, like Minnesota and Hennepin County. MacombThe law also stipulates that the commissioner of transportation shall will struggle to find most existing infrastructure already set up to handlesubmit reports to the members of the House and Senate summarizing Complete Streets planning. Therefore, Macomb may have to worksteps taken to improve the transparency of the Complete Streets imple- harder to achieve the same results as Hennepin, but certainly shouldmentation process. 30 not discourage any attempts to retrofit infrastructure to Complete Streets standards.AnalysisHennepin County and Minnesota serve as a great reference for Macomb Finally, Hennepin County and Minnesota accomplished their Complete A-4 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 45. Hennepin County, MNStreets policies through a stage-by-stage implementation process. This 12.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. 13.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.progressive planning process will be necessary for the future of Com- 14.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.plete Streets in Macomb County. Michigan has made progress by writ- 15.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.ing into law that 1% of all transportation funds be allocated to non-motor- 16.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, February). Com- plete Streets Resolution 09-0058. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://ized infrastructure improvements. This is not enough. Macomb County board.co.hennepin.mn.us/sirepub/cache/246/4gw0k4fkl51hov45oa5x4jmust reach out to all of its municipalities and state government, to make vb/6140003122011081954117.PDF. 17.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058.others aware of the benefits that can come from progressive Complete 18.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058.Streets policies. 19.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 20.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, July). Complete Streets Policy. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/policy/ cs-mn-hennepincounty-policy.pdf 21.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 22.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.REFERENCES: 23.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.1.Hennepin County, MN. (2011). Fast Facts About Hennepin. In Hennepin 24.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.County, Minnesota. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://hennepin.us/portal/site/Hen- 25.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.nepinUS/menuitem.b1ab75471750e40fa01dfb47ccf06498/?vgnextoid=9888822 26.Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. (2010). MN Complete Streets Law:a9fe23210VgnVCM10000049114689RCRD. Chapter 351 Sec 52 &72. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.mncompletes-2.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, November 4). Hennepin, Minnesota. In State & treets.org/gfx/MNCompleteStreetsLaw.pdf.County QuickFacts. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ 27.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72.states/27/27053.html 28.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72.3.Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2009, December). Complete 29.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72.Streets Report. In Complete Streets. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.dot. 30.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72.state.mn.us/planning/completestreets/legislation.html.4.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.5.Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. (2008). Chapter 350 Sec 94. InMinnesota Session Laws. Retrieved 3/11/11, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=350&doctype=chapter&year=2008&type=0.6.Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2009, December). CompleteStreets Report. In Complete Streets. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/completestreets/legislation.html.7.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.8.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.9.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.10.Ibid. Complete Streets Report.11.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A-5
  • 46. Columbus, OHIntroductionThe purpose of this memo is to present my findings regarding Colum- As mayor, Coleman created several programs that improved sidewalks,bus, Ohio’s Complete Streets policies and their applicability to Macomb including a construction program that spent $1 million on improving safeCounty. Though Columbus is the largest city in Ohio, the city developed routes to school, as well as a Capital Improvement Program that com-a pattern of suburban development that favored the driver over any mitted $55 million over five years for sidewalk improvement and $10 mil-other user of the street. Over the past decade, however, elected officials lion for cyclist infrastructure.3 To ensure public support of these projects,made Complete Streets a priority. Columbus is an apt comparison with Coleman developed the Division of Mobility Options, which focuses onMacomb County due to the type of development in both regions. To the four “Es”: enforcement, engagement, education, and engineering.4compare the two, I will provide a brief background of the policies lead- The Division not only works to improve infrastructure, it also offers aing up to the Complete Streets movement within Columbus, including a training program for city workers to understand Complete Streets policy.subdivision ordinance, a non-motorized plan, and a Complete Streets For example, the Division created a training for zoning staff on how toordinance. Finally, I will conclude by relating these strategies to Macomb incorporate Complete Streets in site-plan review, while training workersCounty. in public utilities to understand the city’s expectations when reconstruct- ing roads.5BackgroundAt 220 square miles, Columbus is the largest city in Ohio in both size Complete Streets Componentsand population.1 Though the city practiced suburban development before1990, Columbus is unique, because it is home to a university popula- Subdivision Ordinancetion that advocates for walkable, bikeable communities. While residents Until 1999, Columbus lacked a comprehensive sidewalk law. Onceplayed a large role in demanding Complete Streets, city officials who elected, O’Shaughnessy urged the City Council to address this issue bypushed for relevant policies were essential to this movement. City first updating the subdivision ordinance to require sidewalks for privateCouncilmember Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, elected in 1997, was the development.6 Though the ordinance passed successfully, certain ambi-first city official to advocate for alternative transportation and Complete guities within the ordinance allowed developers to avoid building side-Streets.2 Along with Michael B. Coleman, a former city councilmember walks.7 As the Complete Streets movement gained momentum withinwho became mayor, she led the city in creating policies that improved Columbus, the City Council finally amended the subdivision ordinance toinfrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. reflect its current form, though it took a decade to complete.8 The current subdivision law states that private developers must build sidewalks and A-6 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 47. Columbus, OHbikeways in accordance with the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan (described Plan.16below).9 The ordinance also “authorizes an in-lieu fee program mod-eled after the city’s parkland dedication fund. If a particular development Complete Streets Ordinancecannot provide site-adjacent bicycle or pedestrian improvements due to In 2008, the City Council approved a resolution that illustrated the city’ssite constraints, the developer can pay a fee, and the improvements will commitment to Complete Streets.17 The resolution was a result of manybe built offsite but within the same community planning area at a later different stakeholders coming together, including the city attorney, 10date.” This ordinance reduces the burden of municipalities to construct police, biking and health advocates, and legislative analysts. More thansidewalks, and it creates incentives for private developers to contribute anything, city officials cited the resolution as a psychological changeto the Complete Streets plan. amongst City Council members, residents, and developers, all working toward the same aim.18Bicentennial Bikeways PlanWhile the subdivision ordinance invoked the Complete Streets philoso- On March 2, 2009, the City Council adopted an official Complete Streetsphy, the Bikeways Plan was the first step towards creating a Complete ordinance that amended the city code. The ordinance authorized both aStreets ordinance in Columbus. The Plan situated itself in a history of Sidewalk Improvement Fund and a Bikeway Improvement Fund, while 11bicycle planning within Columbus, including efforts by Ohio State. ensuring that other relevant laws included pedestrian and cyclist infra-It suggested further planning by connecting major activity centers by structure along with road infrastructure.19bikeways, constructing cyclist infrastructure when improvements weremade to arterial roadways, and developing way-finding signage specifi- Analysis 12cally for cyclists. The Plan also highlighted the importance of buildingadequate bike parking and maintaining bikeways with street sweepers.13 Though conditions in Columbus vary slightly from those in MacombThe Plan, in line with the Complete Streets movement, formed a goal to County, Columbus is an excellent example of how political will canincrease the number of people for bicycling for transportation and recre- drastically change the built environment. Within ten years, city officials 14ation. To ensure that a Complete Streets policy was created, the Plan like Mayor Coleman and Councilmember O’Shaughnessy significantlyoffered a model Complete Streets ordinance and recommended that the changed the way residents, city workers, and developers thought about 15Columbus City Council implement a similar policy. The City Council of- physical infrastructure.ficially adopted the Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan in 2008, andvoters later authorized a bond package that would help to execute the MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A-7
  • 48. Columbus, OHBecause of Columbus’ history of suburban development, the types of shelters. Macomb County could look to Columbus on how to integratelandscapes in Columbus are very similar to Macomb County. Many of street design with shelter and street furniture design to best address thethe improvements to cyclist infrastructure, for example, came from sub- needs of transit riders.urban arterial conversions like “road diets,” which can reduce four-lanehighways to three-lane roads with bike lanes on both sides. The pictures Traffic signals are important when considering pedestrian safety onbelow illustrate two similar conversions. suburban highways, and Columbus has a history of being proactive in this area. Almost a decade before the Columbus City Council passed theTools like road diets could easily be used in Macomb County if there is Complete Streets policy, the city implemented a program to assess traf-the political will and the funding available. Another relevant tool to im- fic signals and signage for pedestrians, while setting up a prioritizationprove cyclist infrastructure is a “sharrow,” or a road sticker that indicates schedule.23that cyclists and drivers use the same space on the road. This is par-ticularly useful on roadways that do not necessarily have the space for Furthermore, the city conducts consistent speed studies and engages inadditional bikelanes but do experience bike traffic. The sticker may also a speed awareness campaign to ensure drivers acknowledge other us-be more affordable for municipalities who would like to see bike infra- ers of the street. Because speed can be an issue in suburban arterials,structure but need to explore cost- saving measures. Macomb County could look at this model of traffic management. Overall, Columbus offers an exceptional example for Macomb CountyAs for pedestrian infrastructure, Columbus is an excellent example when when considering the conversion of suburban arterials to best accommo-utilizing midblock crossings. Many of the principal arterials in Columbus date all users of the street, including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, andare three or more lanes, very similar to the arterials seen in Macomb transit riders.County. Columbus resolves this issue by constructing pedestrian islandsor refuges for those crossing a wide right-of-way. Mid-block crossingsalso are a more affordable alternative to landscaped medians, whichachieve a similar purpose.To account for transit riders in the Complete Streets model, the Depart-ment of Transportation in Columbus ensures there are adequate transit A-8 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 49. Columbus, OHREFERENCES: www.altaprojects.net/columbus/.1. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best 16. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets:Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning As-p. 19. sociation. p. 20.2. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best 17. Columbus City Council. July 29, 2008. Resolution 0151X-2008.Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. 18. Columbus City Code. 2009. Title 21, 31, 33, and 41 and 45.p. 19. 19. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets:3. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning As-Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. sociation. p. 20.p. 20. 20. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) Complete4. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Streets. Issue 1.Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. 21. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) Completep. 19. Streets. Issue 1.5. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best 22. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) CompletePolicy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. Streets. Issue 1.p. 20. 23. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets:6. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning As-Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. sociation. p. 19.p. 19.7. Columbus City Code. Title 31, § 3123.17.8. Columbus City Code. Title 43. Chapter 4307.9. Columbus City Code. Title 43. Chapter 4307.10. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: BestPolicy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association.p. 19.11. Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus,Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 1-1. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/.12. Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus,Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 1-4. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/.13. Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus,Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 1-5. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/.14. Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus,Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 2-12. Retrieved 3/11/2011, fromhttp://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/.15. Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus,Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 8-9. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http:// MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A-9
  • 50. Grand Rapids, MIIntroduction nant form of personal transportation, the push to provide pedestrians,In order to provide context for the creation of Macomb County’s Com- cyclists, and transit riders infrastructure re-emerged in the 1996 Grandplete Street policy framework, investigating the development of Com- Valley Metropolitan Council Long Range Transportation Plan. Includingplete Streets policy within similar communities is essential. One of the elements on bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit riders, this documentscommunities best situated to provide this reference is Grand Rapids, MI. set two important precedents:In the 1990’s, Grand Rapids preempted many similar cities by formaliz- • Cycling, walking, and public transit are legitimate forms ofing a non-motorized transportation policy. Derived from the 1996 Grand transportationValley Metropolitan Council Long Range Plan, this early effort bound the • Planning agencies within the Grand Rapids area must serveGrand Rapids metro area together under a single philosophical ratio- all legitimate forms of transportationnale. From 1997 to 2009, local planning agencies built upon this founda-tion by producing a series of increasingly refined planning documents. Since the 1996 Long Range Plan was endorsed, the Grand Rapids com-Individually, each of these documents articulates an important aspect munity has produced three master plans with multimodal transportationof the Complete Streets framework. Viewed as different steps in an components. These plans include the 2002 City of Grand Rapids Masterongoing process, these documents also illustrate how multimodal trans- Plan, the 2009 City of Grand Rapids Green Grand Rapids Draft Bicycleportation policies can be integrated into a traditional planning culture. Plan, and the 2009 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Draft Non-Motor-By referencing these documents and the personnel who created them, ized Plan.Macomb County planners can create a policy guide to avoid makingcommon mistakes and anticipated development barriers. COMPLETE STREETS COMPONENTSBACKGROUND 2002 Grand Rapids Master PlanAccording to the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan, the history of multi- The 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan represents the city’s most recentmodal transportation planning Grand Rapids began with the 1923 Mas- and comprehensive planning document. Within this document, multi-ter Plan.1 In this document, planning for all street users was introduced modal transportation planning is primarily addressed as a policy goal.2by the integration of streetcars into roadway design. Despite this early To support this adoption, the 2002 Master Plan draws attention to a listemphasis, multimodal transportation planning quickly declined thereafter of potential benefits derived from multi-modal transportation. These ben-as the popularity of the car grew. Although the car remains the domi- efits include, but were not limited to: A - 10 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 51. Grand Rapids, MI • The importance of human-centric planning 3 schedule is additionally provided. 12 • The public health benefits of non-motorized transit 4 Despite an interest in facilitating infrastructure expansion, this document • The positive relationship between business activity and pe- does not contain any design standards. The only project implementation destrian infrastructure 5 tool included in this document is a project evaluation tool used to isolate • The public safety gains associated with traffic calming 6 the most desirable projects.13 The criteria used to facilitate this isolation are organized into three tiers (see Fig 19.)Despite the social significance of these issues, no implementation goalsor plans are included within this document. Moreover, the only refer- 2009 Green Grand Rapids Draft Bicycle Planences used to illustrate the implementation of multi-modal transportation As part of the Green Grand Rapids community planning initiative, ininfrastructure came in the form of references to national best practices. 2009 the City of Grand Rapids produced a draft bicycle plan. Like the 2002 Master Plan, this document explored many of the social benefits2009 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Draft Non-Motorized Plan of non-motorized transportation. Unlike the 2002 Master Plan, however,Like the previous plans, this document is an important policy resource this plan includes specific infrastructure design criteria. The setting forbecause it addresses many of the precepts associated with Complete these designs is not specific to named corridors or intersections, butStreets. Of those referenced in this plan, the expansion of non-motorized instead illustrates the integration of bicycle facilities on different types oftransportation infrastructure is the most predominant. To facilitate this roads and intersections.14 These types include various arrangements ofexpansion, this document provides information on: four and two lane surface roads. Expected speed limits or traffic volumes • Roadway safety 7 are not given for these classes. • Funding options 8 In addition to rationales and design standards, this document also • Municipal liability 9 includes an extensive list of roadways eligible for bike infrastructure ex- • Cross jurisdictional cooperation 10 pansion.15 Eligibility of these roadways is based the following criteria:In addition to these topics, this plan also provides a full inventory of • CONNECTIVITY: Does the proposed route connect importantexisting local non-motorized transportation infrastructure. 11 To repre- service areas?sent the content of the infrastructure inventory, a map is provided which • DIRECTNESS: Is the proposed route direct?shows the location and extent for every existing feature. For the most • CONTINUITY: Does the proposed route build upon existingrecently constructed pieces of infrastructure a short description and cost infrastructure? MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A - 11
  • 52. Grand Rapids, MI Michigan specific opportunities. With regards to the financial resources, Figure 19. Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Nonmotorized Project Ranking these opportunities are organized in a matrix based on the eligible ap- Tiers and Criteria. plications. 17 Source: 2009 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Draft Nonmotorized Plan Analysis • CONFLICT: Is the In order to solidify Complete Streets as a part of Macomb County’s proposed route likely to transportation planning framework, planners and policy makers will need generate user conflicts? to find ways to manage conflict between auto-centric cultures and com- • IMPLEMENTATION: munity groups that utilize alternative forms of transportation. In some Does the route rely cases, the idiosyncrasies of the area will shape this conflict into highly on easy to implement specialized forms. In other cases, however, the expression of transporta- tactics? tion planning conflicts will be indicative of more general, regional trends. For each of these criteria, the route Based on shared characteristics like auto-centric design, northern cli- is given a score from 1 (poor) to mate, and Midwestern cultural attitudes; it is likely that Macomb County 5 (excellent). The higher a route’s and Grand Rapids experience these regional trends in a similar fashion. score, the higher it sits on the pri- Regardless of Grand Rapids’ level of policy sophistication, this similar- ority ranking. ity suggests the opportunity for Macomb County to extend its resource base. Given the findings of this case study, however, there opportunities In the final section of this docu- for Macomb are in fact more abundant. Over the past 15 years, however, ment, the authors provide a review Grand Rapids has developed a substantial knowledge base around of program resources. Although multimodal transportation. By accessing this knowledge base through many different resource types are written materials and planning personnel, Macomb County’s transporta- discussed in this section, the most tion policy makers can not only identify practices successful in Southern prominent are financial resources Michigan, but also preemptively identify development obstacles. and associated initiative resources. 16 Based on the findings of this case study, the best practices that Macomb For both of these pools, sub- County can utilize include project ranking methodologies, the utilization stantial time is spent reviewingA - 12 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 53. Grand Rapids, MIof subject specific funding sources, and incremental system modifica- REFERENCES:tion. The potential obstacles outlines by this case study, however, are 1.City of Grand Rapids Department of Planning. (2002). The City of Grand Rap- ids 2002 Master Plan. P. 77. Retrieved 3/10/2011, from http://www.grand-rapids.not as explicit. In all of the reviewed documents, very few references mi.us.to unforeseen difficulties are made. By looking at the evolution of plan 2.Ibid P. 75-88 3.Ibid P. 80-81content, however, an implicit obstacle can be derived. Specifically, as 4.Ibid P. 80-81the plans developed the articulation of specific implementation goals 5.Ibid P. 80-81 6.Ibid P. 80-81, 84-85became more and more finite. Since design standards for multimodal 7.Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. (2009). 2009 Draft Non-Motorized Plan.transportation networks were still developing, it is reasonable to attribute Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.gvmc.org/transportation/documents/non- motorized/gvmc_draft_nmplan_withmaps_web.pdf.this development to changes in national Complete Streets methodolo- 8.Ibid P. 55-68gies. Considering the relative simplicity of pedestrian and cyclist infra- 9.Ibid P. 20 10.Ibid P. 15structure, however, I proposed an alternative explanation. Instead of 11.Ibid P.21-29being deterred by an unavailability of information, multimodal transpor- 12.Ibid P.56-57 13.Ibid P.45-47.tation developed slowly in Grand Rapids due to a disinterest in cultural 14.City of Grand Rapids Department of Planning. (2009). 2009 Draft Bicyclechange. As Macomb County planners develop their own program, I Plan. Green Grand Rapid Initiative. Retrieved 3/10/2011, from http://www. grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/greengr_Bike%20believe that this cultural tension will be one of the most important issues ped%20plan.pdf. PP. 15-16, 28-33. 15.Ibid P.23-28, 35-37 16.Ibid P.52-55 17.Ibid P.56 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A - 13
  • 54. Ann Arbor, MIIntroductionThis memo summarizes my findings regarding the case of complete While Ann Arbor is relatively friendly to other modes of transportation be-streets in the city of Ann Arbor, one of the places in Michigan where a sides the automobile, its own planners admit that most development wascommitment to street accessibility for all users is a vital part in trans- designed with the private car in mind.4 While this memo cannot speak toportation planning. While Ann Arbor appears very different at a glance the kinds of development springing up along Ann Arbor’s roads, accessi-from Macomb County in terms of both scale and make-up, lessons from bility to these roads by other users is improving. One very striking thingAnn Arbor are applicable. Ann Arbor’s non-motorized and transportation about complete streets in Ann Arbor is that practice has preceded anplans include strategies and design tools that communities in Macomb explicit official resolution. Only as of March 7th, 2011 did the city councilCounty can draw on for their own plans. Construction of complete street pass a resolution supporting complete streets. However, the resolutionelements has taken place on different roads in Ann Arbor, giving built-out points out that the philosophies behind the Complete Streets conceptexamples from which Macomb County planners can get inspiration. In appear in recent planning documents and completed projects.5particular, the work done on West Stadium Boulevard and Platt Road isapplicable to our suburban arterial study areas on Van Dyke and Gar- Complete Streets Componentsfield because of how Ann Arbor managed to transform large and busyarterials into more complete streets. Policies and Resolutions The City of Ann Arbor Non-motorized Plan 2007 contains much of theBackground reasoning and guidelines behind making the roads safe for pedestriansAnn Arbor is a bustling college town in southeast Michigan, just 30 min- and cyclists, a critical part of a complete street. The plan’s vision state-utes west of Detroit. Home to the University of Michigan flagship cam- ment describes the envisioned community as one which is safe andpus, as well as several other private collegiate institutions, the city has accessible to pedestrians and cyclists as well as one which promotesearned a reputation as a center for higher education and progressive a culture where people want to pick alternative transportation to cars,ideals. As recently as the 1940s, it was still a small town with a popula- including non-motorized means and public transit. 6 To that end it de-tion of 30,000 residents and 12,000 students.1 Following WWII, the city, scribes objectives, strategies and design tools:like many parts of the nation, experienced a post-war boom. Today • Educating the Ann Arbor community at various levels on thethey city is home to over 110,000 2 residents and over 45,000 students benefits of non-motorized transit, the existing options avail-enrolled in the University of Michigan alone.3 able and the safety concerns of this kind of travel. 7 • Site design checklists for bicycle parking, pedestrian and A - 14 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 55. Ann Arbor, MI transit facilities, etc.8 Fig. 20 West Stadium Before Improvement. Notice the lack of • Cross-sections and guidelines for different road types and bike lanes, the poor condition bike and pedestrian facilities.9 of the sidewalks and the lack of crossing options. Source: City of Ann Arbor In 2009, Ann Arbor released an update to its 1990 transportation mas- ter plan. The 2009 Transportation Master Plan Update recognizes that “the automobile is not the most preferred option to accommodate future demand”10 and is supported by the non-motorized plan. The plan states that its vision is “an integrated multi-modal system.”11 The integration of multiple modes for improved, safe and environmentally friendly trans- portation is essentially the goal of a complete street. This plan involves a lot of detail pertaining mostly to Ann Arbor-specific projects, but it also contains some elements which could be useful to planners in Macomb County. One such element would be the examples of corridor prioritiza- Fig. 21 West Stadium After Improvement. New bike lanes tion, with those corridors deemed most important to future transportation added, the improved sidewalks and as key gateways receiving high-priority status.12 and a new pedestrian island for crossing. Source: City of Ann Arbor Analysis To say that conditions in Ann Arbor sync perfectly with those of cities in Macomb County would be very false. Despite the differences between the two areas, the wide-range of work done in Ann Arbor provides some physical evidence of what can be done in many situations. Particularly helpful to our study areas on Garfield and Van Dyke could be the work done on West Stadium Boulevard and Platt Road.MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A - 15
  • 56. Ann Arbor, MIComplete Street Element Example: West Stadium Fig. 22 Platt Road Before Improvement. Notice the lack ofBefore alterations, West Stadium had five lanes with no bike facilities, bike lanes and crossing options Source: City of Ann Arborfew crossing opportunities and poor sidewalk lighting. Recently it wasconverted to include a bike lane, pedestrian islands and improved street-scaping (see Figs 20 and 21). 13This design appears to greatly improve access for cyclists and pedes-trians while minimally impeding the flow of traffic. Such designs arevery important to consider when looking at roads like Van Dyke wherereducing traffic speeds is probably no feasible. The design also appearsto use the existing road space very efficiently, another important consid-eration for Van Dyke since most businesses are close to sidewalk androad.Complete Street Element Example: Platt Road Fig. 23 Platt Road Before Improvement. Notice theThe alterations to Platt Road serve as a good inspiration for improve- new crossing options and thements to Garfield. Platt was not as wide as West Stadium and is in a conversion of traffic lanes into a turning lane and bicycle lane.less dense area, just as Garfield is relative to Van Dyke. Before altera- Source: City of Ann Arbortions, Platt was four lanes wide, with no facilities and no signal crossing.Improvements to Platt included reducing the lanes to two travel laneswith a center turning lane and adding bike lanes, pedestrian islands andbetter bus stops (see Figs 22 and 23).Lane reduction on Garfield is still improbable, but more of a possibil-ity than on Van Dyke. Pedestrian islands are also a more viable optionof non-signalized crossing on Garfield, since the people would haveto cross fewer lanes of traffic. There is also more room on Garfield for A - 16 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 57. Ann Arbor, MIimproved bus stops. REFERENCES: 1.Jaimonr. (2006, October 24). The War Hits Home. In The Making of Ann Ar- bor. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http://moaa.aadl.org/moaa/pictorial_history/1940-The two examples of West Stadium and Platt do no correlate perfectly 1974pg1.with Van Dyke and Garfield, but they do serve as a physical inspiration 2.Ann Arbor Fact Sheet. (2000). In U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http://factfinder.census.gov.for what Macomb County can do. The local context of Ann Arbor and the 3.University of Michigan Office of Development. (2010) 2010 Profile. Pg. 6. Re-communities in Macomb County will differ to varying degrees depend- trieved 3/8/2011, from http://mmd.umich.edu/forum/docs/2010_UM_profile.pdf. 4.The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. (2006, December 6). City of Ann Arboring on the site. With imagination and a flexible mindset it is possible to Non-motorized Transportation Plan 2007. In Projects. Retrieved 3/11/2011, fromderive valuable Complete Street policy and practice lessons from Ann http://www.greenwaycollab.com/AANoMo.htm. 5.Ann Arbor City Council (2011, March 7). Resolution Proclaiming the City ofArbor that are applicable to Macomb County. Despite their differences, Ann Arbor’s Commitment to Complete Streets. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http://Ann Arbor’s success makes it a potential positive local resource and a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=842913&GUID=A47F14F8-E27C- 4679-9D40-68DD7590CF74&Options=&Search=.inspiration for Macomb County. 6.The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. (2006, December 6). City of Ann Arbor Non- motorized Transportation Plan 2007. In Projects. pg 5. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.greenwaycollab.com/AANoMo.htm. 7. Ibid.Pg 7. 8. Ibid.Pg 92-94. 9. Ibid. Ch 2. 10.City of Ann Arbor. (2009). Transportation Master Plan Update 2009. Pg. 1. Retrieved 3/6/2011, from http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/sys- tems_planning/Transportation/Documents/2009_A2_Transportation_Plan_Up- date_Report.pdf. 11.Ibid. Pg 2. 12. Ibid. Ch 3. 13. Images from: Cooper, Eli. (2010, December 8). City of Ann Arbor Complete Streets: A local perspective. Retrieved 3/7/2011, from http://www.planningmi. org/downloads/eli.pdf. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX A - 17
  • 58. Appendix B: Interviews Eli Cooper B-2 Transportation Program ManagerThese interview briefs were made to enrich the information gath- Systems Planning Unitered during the case study process, and provide insight from City of Ann Arborplanning proffesionals. The individuals included in the interviewprocess were selected based on their organization’s leadership in Suzanne Schulz B-6the regional development of Complete Streets designs and policy Director Department of Planning City of Grand Rapids B-1 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 59. Eli CooperIntroduction transportation planning and consistently works with Ann Arbor to create safer and better practices for multimodal transportation.This memo reviews my interview with Eli Cooper from the Ann ArborPlanning Department. Ann Arbor plays a crucial role in battling tradition- Questions and Answersal auto-centric neighborhoods to implement Complete Streets. Ann Arbor I began my interview by asking, what is your definition of Completesuccessfully implemented Complete Streets because they stick to good Streets?old fashion planning. Good old fashion planning refers back to whencities encouraged and thrived with pedestrians, cyclists, trolley cars and Cooper explained that there are many definitions for Complete Streets,automobiles on the streets. Furthermore, Ann Arbor collaborates with but believed Ann Arbor’s resolution’s definition for multimodal transpor-other national and local organizations in order to create and follow state tation and the National Coalition for Complete Streets definition, “Theyand local policies. In addition, Ann Arbor provides their residents, plan- [Complete Streets] are designed and operated to enable safe access forners, and policy maker’s with information and education on multimodal all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all agestransportation policies and practices. Mr. Cooper’s views shed light on and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a completesuccessful ways Complete Streets can be implemented. This interview street” are fundamental for Complete Streets.1provides many similar patterns that Macomb County can implement anduse in their tool box to progress towards Complete Streets philosophies Eli clarified that Complete Streets is just a key word for good old fashionsuch as thinking less about the automobile and focusing equally on all planning. Good old fashion planning refers to before and during the earlymodes of transportation. automobile culture; cities planned for pedestrians, trolleys, cars, and cyclists. All of those factors led to the busy street life that kids, students,Background and adults see in historic photographs of New York City, Chicago, and Detroit. He added that Complete Streets are the same as multimodalEli Cooper is the Transportation Program Manager in the Ann Arbor planning. Cooper argued, until recently, pedestrians were the mainPlanning Division. Mr. Cooper joined the Ann Arbor Planning Depart- target of planners. Recently, the main target of planners/engineers werement in 2005. Before Ann Arbor, Eli worked as the Transportation drivers. Driver became the focus of planners and engineers becausePlanning Director at the Puget Sound Regional Council in the Seattle the national policies of the federal highway administrations, coupled withMetropolitan Area. Mr. Cooper has a strong background in multimodal cheap oil, led to a boom in the automobile industry and America’s fasci- nation of driving everywhere. Eli illustrated that older sections of cities MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX B-2
  • 60. Eli Cooperand towns have narrow streets, and the proximity of buildings to one to transparency are all important policy elements that assist Ann Arbor inanother is very close to accommodate pedestrians. continuing their effort for multimodal transportation.Next, I asked how long has Ann Arbor been involved with Complete I then asked, what tools do Ann Arbor use to educate local planners, pol-Streets and what organizations do Ann Arbor work with? icy makers, and the public concerning the virtues of Complete Streets?Eli clarified that Complete Streets and multimodal transportation plan- He explained Ann Arbor tries to be as transparent as possible. They postning began when Ann Arbor was built. Ann Arbor focused on creating their meetings, agendas, polices, and many other documents/recordingstheir city with a focus on the making sure everybody- no matter how they online for everyone to follow the process.They also produce a number ofgot to Ann Arbor- could access the city and its amenities. Ann Arbor has brochures, pamphlets, and major traffic safety messages around town.a rich history of making sure the pedestrian and the automobile work inunison. He also stated biking advocacy and policy links date back to Similarly, Ann Arbor created an alternative transportation committee tothe 60’s and 70’s at the same time Ann Arbor Transportation Authority educate other planners about multimodal transportation. In addition, Annbegan. Arbor presented its philosophies and attended the Michigan Association of Planning Transportation Bonanza, which assisted other agencies andIn addition, Mr. Cooper added Ann Arbor currently works with several organizations to learn more about Complete Streets.organizations, Greenways Collaborative, National Rails to Trails, SEM-COG, and the Roads Commission, to help apply multimodal transporta- Subsequently I asked what sort of public responses are received con-tion polices to the streets of Ann Arbor. cerning Complete Streets?Furthermore, when asked what are some major policy elements regard- Mr. Cooper noted that there is a strong dichotomy between opponentsing Complete Streets in Ann Arbor and nationally, he stated: and proponents of multimodal transportation. On the one side, oppo- nents believed that Complete Streets is just another word for “road diet-Ann Arbor’s upcoming Complete Streets resolution, Michigan Act 51 ing,” where the roads shrink to create slower traffic. Opponents believe(state gas tax revenue is given to localities strictly for transportation this causes more traffic and an extra burden to travelers.planning), Ann Arbor’s non-motorized plan, and Ann Arbor’s dedication B-3 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 61. Eli CooperMr. Cooper stated that he was called a “menace to motorists” becauseof his multimodal approach to transportation planning.2 On the flip side, Analysisthere is a staunch group of supporters, especially among local bicycleadvocates, who believe Complete Streets are necessary for safer travel. Ann Arbor tries to plan for everyone. Mr. Cooper reiterated that good oldAlthough strong bike advocates urge Ann Arbor and other localities for fashion planning is the same as Complete Streets, just without a catchymore multimodal transportation planning, Cooper notes that most citi- name. This was interesting to hear because Eli noted that over the pastzens prefer the slower pace of the sidewalk and just want to feel safe fifty years, America moved away from basic planning principles, and iswhile walking along the street. now coming back. Macomb County has a similar fortune. Macomb is a young county with younger municipalities relative to Ann Arbor or Detroit.Eli also believes that Complete Streets are receiving positive feedback The strips of Van Dyke Avenue and Garfield Road that our group is look-from planning professionals and policy makers. ing at, signifies exactly what Cooper is discussing. Both strips were built up at different times, but both developed within the last fifty years. TheCooper stated that all planners and decision makers in Ann Arbor un- planners, who are not necessarily to blame, planned the development ofderstand the importance of incorporating all users of street. He referred these roads on philosophies that were nationally recognized as the bestback to his earlier comments about how multimodal planning is rehash- practices. This is no longer the case. Now planners and townships musting original transportation philosophies. revert back to, as Mr. Cooper best says, good old fashion planning, to incorporate all the users of the street to create a more vibrant and suc-Eli explained how road signs and other educating material made citi- cessful street.zens more aware of the different modes of transportation. He presentedan anecdote, where Ann Arbor had a “stop for pedestrian crosswalk Additionally, Macomb County can create or work better with other orga-campaign”. In the past motorists would ignore most pedestrians, but nizations to facilitate their localities to create best practice policies. Annthis campaign produced signage all over town. Cooper enthusiastically Arbor, as Cooper explained, as well as Macomb County, works with astated over the past six months cars are stopping for pedestrians and slew of local, state, and national organizations. Macomb, unlike Annthe signs and information are clearly making a difference. Arbor, is less efficient in their process. In doing so, Macomb needs to create or help link the organizations they are working with, whether it be the roads commission or SEMCOG, to make sure they are focusing MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX B-4
  • 62. Eli Cooperon the best philosophies to create the best future for Macomb County’s REFERENCES:municipalities. If they are unable to organize or are focused on their own 1.Complete Streets FAQ. In National Coalition for Complete Streets. 2011 Web. Retrieved 3/21/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-prerogatives, Complete Streets polices will lag behind. It is crucial for fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/.all outside organizations to work well together in order for Macomb to 2.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, Transportation Project Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, MI.produce the best products for its residents, planners, and policy makers. 3.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, Transportation Project Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, MI.Finally, as Mr. Cooper stated and successfully observed residents,planners, and policy makers must be educated and informed aboutwhat multimodal transportation is and how Complete Streets will ben-efit everyone. Obviously, not everyone will agree, but as Mr. Cooper’sanecdote about pedestrian cross walks explains, signs, information,and education do work. People begin to get the message if they seeit a lot and understand why these messages are working. Additionally,by becoming more transparent in all facets of multimodal transportationplanning, more residents can educate themselves. In Macomb, plan-ners should understand that repetition is good for their residents to beginto understand why Complete Streets are beneficial. Associated withthis, Macomb County can become more transparent. Even Ann Arbor,which is a great example of a transparent government, can do better.Transparency creates trust in the community and informs citizens of theeveryday doings associated with multimodal transportation. B-5 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 63. Suzanne SchulzIntroduction Planning Department. Since that time, she and her office has launched Green Grand Rapids, a city government wide planning initiative. TheOn the 17th of March, I interviewed Suzan Schulz, the Director of Plan- major components of this initiative include: 1) Improved public participa-ning in Grand Rapids. The interview itself consisted of 12 questions, tion in policy making; 2) the acquisition of new parklands , open areas,and lasted approximately 1 hr. The subject matter of the survey ques- and conservation sites; and 3) increased availability of non-motorizedtions included Ms. Schulz’s personal vision of Complete Streets policy, transportation infrastructure.the history of Complete Streets policy in Grand Rapids, and the strate-gies used by Grand Rapids’ planners to educate policy makers and the Question and Answerspublic. Individually, Ms. Schulz’s responses to these questions generally The first question in the interview asked Ms. Schulz to define a “Com-fall within the common definitions of best practices. Collectively, how- plete” street.ever, Ms. Schulz’s responses depict the Grand Rapids’ Complete Streetsprogram as a uniquely centrally organized municipal effort. As Macomb To this question Ms. Schulz replied that a “Complete” street was “A seg-County continues to develop its own Complete Streets program, follow- ment of a larger transportation service network through which all modesing Grand Rapids’ movement to unify all city departments around the of uses are served…The exact structure of a complete street is highlyComplete Streets agenda will greatly expedite the completion of project dependent on the character of the surrounding land use”.goals. To help facilitate this unification C.S.C. should highlight public out-reach mechanisms and form-based streets ordinances within its “Com- In response to the second question, “How long has your organizationplete Streets Toolbox”. been involved with planning Complete Streets and/or multimodal trans- portation systems?”, Ms. Schulz stated that although the City of GrandBackground Rapids has a long history of serving pedestrian interests in the city core, formal multi-modal transportation planning efforts did not begin until theSusan Schulz is the current Director of the City of Grand Rapids Plan- mid-1990’sning Department. She was first hired as a planner by the City in 1997.Shortly thereafter, Ms. Schulz became involved in the creation of the In the third and fourth question, Ms. Schulz was asked to identify theGrand Rapid’s first master plan in 40 years. Three years after the com- issue(s) she felt best described the National and Statewide Completepletion of the 2002 master plan, Ms. Schulz was made Director of the Street Movement. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX B-6
  • 64. Suzanne SchulzIn response, Ms. Schulz focused on how the base metric of transporta- The eight question of the interview asked Ms. Schulz to share her recol-tion planning is shifting from volumes of cars moved per unit time to lections of the public response to Complete Streets projects.volumes of people moved per unit time. In response, Ms. Schulz stated that although objectors appeared forThe fifth interview question asked Ms. Schulz to explain how Complete every project, large and wide spread public support overshadowed anyStreets planning is conceptualized in her community. protests.In response, Ms. Schulz stated that the Grand Rapids Complete Street In question 9, Ms. Schulz was asked to identify public relations toolsinitiative is a holistic model that incorporates policy goals, social justice used in Grand Rapids to promote support for Complete Streets projects.issues, and implementable design objectives. How have planners andpolicy makers in your area responded to Complete Streets projects? In response, however, Ms. Schulz stated that this particular issue was a weakness in the department’s efforts. As a consequence, she was un-In question 6, Ms. Schulz was asked to recount the reaction of the local able to share any tools or techniques.planning and policy community to the Complete Streets policy. The tenth question of the interview asked Ms. Schulz if the Grand Rap-In response, Ms. Schulz stated that uniformly planners supported Com- ids Planning Department partnered with any outside agencies to forwardplete Streets projects. With regards to local policy makers, Ms. Schulz Complete Streets projects.indicated a similar level of support, but argued that this support was In response, Ms. Schulz indicated that they did indeed partner with out-largely the result of organized public support and vocalized interest. side agencies; these agencies include: Greater Grand Rapids Bicycle Coalition,In response to question 7, “What sort of tools has your organization used the RAPIDto educate local planners about the merits of Complete Streets?”, Ms. Disability Advocates of Kent CountySchulz stated that the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan was the primary Western Michigan Environmental Action Councilmeans used to educate local planners. Civic functions, Ribbon-cuttings, Friends at Grand Rapids Parksand other public events were identified as secondary means. MDOT B-7 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 65. Suzanne SchulzIn the final two questions of the interview Ms. Schulz was asked to share mendations. In addition to creating funding opportunities for Completeher organization’s biggest successes and challenges with regards to Street’s projects, Ms. Schulz indicated that this pressure created newComplete Streets planning. city-wide performance goals centered on Complete Streets policy. Ms. Schulz suggested that this pressure to “get with the program” lead toWith regards to Grand Rapid’s successes, Ms. Schulz highlighted the increased cooperation between departments and project streamlining.incorporation of Complete Streets policy into the new zoning and street The repercussions of these advancements are felt both in the recentordinances, and the strong inter-department unification of city govern- passing of a very progressive zoning ordinance, as well as in pendingment. agreements with MDOT to reclassify state roads to meet Grand Rapids’ planning requirements.With regards to the challenges Grand Rapids faces, Ms. Schulz focusedon the need to motivate buy in from the local engineering community In the development of the Macomb County Complete Streets toolbox,and the constraints of a tight departmental budget. two important lessons should be taken away from Ms. Schulz com- ments. First, never under estimate the ability of well written, meaning-Analysis ful planning documents to garner public support. As a non-home-rule planning entity, Macomb County is hampered by its inability to strictlyIn the City of Grand Rapids Complete Streets planning continues to de- enforce recommendations. To overcome this obstacle, it is essentialvelop and mature faster than in most other Michigan communities. The that Macomb County planners inspire public interest, and create politicalsource of this advantage is the deep integration of Complete Streets pressure indirectly. In the Complete Streets toolbox, C.S.C. can aid inpolicy into all major branches of local government administration. Ac- this goal by identifying public outreach models and partner organizationscording to Ms. Schulz, the foundation for this integration is the 2002 that might help Macomb County planners maximize the social relevancyMaster Plan. of their policies. The second lesson is that building partnerships within government is as important as building them with outside entities. WithinWhen creating the 2002 Master Plan, Grand Rapids’ planning staff used the planning process it is easy to become fixated on public opinion.latent public interest in maintaining neighborhood structure and walk- However, without good coordination between governmental offices, evenability to create a Complete Streets policy that the public wanted to see the best public feedback can be lost in red tape. To help Macomb over-applied. To ensure this application, the Grand Rapids citizenry placed come this issue, C.S.C. should first provide good public outreach tools toheightened pressure on elected officials to follow master plan recom- generate unifying public pressure. Secondly, C.S.C. should provide turn- MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX B-8
  • 66. Suzanne Schulzkey presentation materials that Macomb’s planners can use to persuadeoutside departments to support and organize around the CompleteStreets agenda. B-9 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 67. Appendix C: Traffic Statistics Van Dyke Study Area C-2The following graphs were included to provide more in depth in-formation on the volume and hourly distribution of vehicular trafficwithin the two study areas. In all cases, the graphs represent themost recent 24 hour traffic counts available through SEMCOG’s Garfield Study Area C-3online database. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX C-1
  • 68. Van Dyke 24 Hour Traffic Counts Fig. 24. 24 HrTraffic Count: Van Dyke Ave (8 Mile Rd to 9 Mile Rd) Source: SEMCOG Intersection and Road Database, Van Dyke Avenue, PR # 799108, 2009 Traffic Counts (6/29/2009), retrieved from http://www.semcog. org/Data/Apps/network.cfm?mcd=3999&ftype=1 on 4/21/2011 Fig. 25. 24 Hr Traffic Count: Van Dyke Ave, (Stephen Rd to 10 Mile Rd.) Source: SEMCOG Intersection and Road Database, Van Dyke Avenue, PR # 799108, 2009 Traffic Counts (6/29/2009), retrieved from http://www.semcog. org/Data/Apps/network.cfm?mcd=3999&ftype=1 onC-2 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 69. Garfield 24 Hour Traffic Counts Fig. 26. 24 HrTraffic Count: Garfield Rd (17 Mile Rd to 18 Mile Rd) Source: SEMCOG Intersection and Road Database, Garfield Rd, PR # 798703, 2008 Traffic Counts (7/29/2008), retrieved from http://www.semcog.org/Data/ Apps/network.cfm?mcd=3999&ftype=1 on 4/21/2011 Fig. 27. Platt Road Before Improvement. Notice the new crossing options and the conversion of traffic lanes into a turning lane and bicycle lane. Source: City of Ann ArborMACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX C-3
  • 70. Garfield 24 Hour Traffic Counts Fig. 28 24 Hr Traffic Count: Garfield Rd (Canal Rd to 19 Mile Rd) Source: SEMCOG Intersection and Road Database, Garfield Rd, PR # 798703, 2009 Traffic Counts (2/24/2009), retrieved from http://www.semcog.org/Data/ Apps/network.cfm?mcd=3999&ftype=1 on 4/21/2011 Fig. 29 24 Traffic Count: Garfield Rd (19 Mile Rd to Hall Rd) Source: SEMCOG Intersection and Road Database, Garfield Rd, PR # 798703, 2009 Traffic Counts (3/26/2009), retrieved from http://www.semcog.org/Data/ Apps/network.cfm?mcd=3999&ftype=1 on 4/21/2011C-4 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 71. Appendix D: Implementation Tools Public Outreach and Stakeholder Identification Implementation Tool D - 1 The following documents provide further explanation on Complete Streets Policy Elements D - 4 imlpementation tools to generate funding and support forComplete Streets. This list sheds light on tools used by similar Examples of Complete Streetsmunicipalities relative to Macomb County’s situation. Policies and Guides D-7 Proposed Lansing Complete Streets Ordinance (April 2009) D-8 Colombus, OH: Bicycle Funding Sources 2008-2018 D - 10 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D-1
  • 72. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsIntroduction longer sessions after the workday or on the weekends.“A more engaged and collaborative approach that includes as manystakeholders and implementers as possible tends to be more broadly Physical and Virtual Tourssupported.”1 As the quote suggests, public participation is critical to the Seeing something firsthand almost always has a more powerful impact.success of any Complete Streets initiative. While this is perhaps true for When the time and funds of the planning team permit, taking people intomany planning projects, it is especially so for Complete Streets since the field can be a great learning tool. If possible, participants should seethe concept requires a fundamental change in thinking about roadway examples of both incomplete and complete streets. Virtual tours maydesign. This memo focuses on Complete Streets specific public educa- have less of an impact, but presenters can tailor them to the type of tar-tion programs as an implementation tool for Complete-Streets in Ma- get audience expected to see the presentation and allow for tighter timecomb County. It outlines potential activities to educate key stakeholders constraints.in the public about Complete Streets as well as methods to identify thosestakeholders. The proposed activities are Complete Streets luncheons, Complete Streets Business Sessionsstreet tours and Complete Streets business meetings. These activities Business owners might initially be wary of a change that could takeand identification methods are appropriate for the Macomb County Com- some automobile traffic away from their stores. A special workshop forplete Streets toolkit, because they allow planners to select their audi- business owners, highlighting the specific economic benefits for them,ence and allocate outreach resources effectively while would go a long way toward securing the support of these key stake- holders in Complete Streets. Studies show that having more transit andPublic Education Activities non-motorized options can lead to longer stays in the area and to moreComplete Streets Luncheons sales.2,3 These sessions should emphasize how the Complete StreetsA Complete Streets luncheon is an informal event where planning approach does not hurt business, but actually creates a lively and suc-officials meet with community members over a meal to discuss the cessful commercial environment.Complete Streets concept or a more specific plan in the area. Theseluncheons could take place at local eateries and could run like a focus Determining Appropriateness for Macombgroup. Complete Streets luncheons ideally target local workers and pro- Communitiesfessionals willing to engage over a lunch break. This may attract people The number and type of targeted stakeholders, as well as the type ofinterested in Complete Streets who are not willing or unable to attend education activities, will shift depending on the community, project and the time and funds allocated to the local planners. To make sure all the D-2 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 73. Appendix D: Implementation Toolsnecessary stakeholders are involved, one should use resources like the during our next conversation with the client is necessary to ensure that“Bull’s Eye”, “Community Landscape” and “Stakeholder Inventory” ap- they are on the right track. 4proaches as seen in the Portland Public Participation Manual. • The “Bull’s Eye” method places the most important stakehold- ers at the center of a target of concentric circles. The further REFERENCES: out on the circles the stakeholder is, the less central they are 1.Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. (2010, August). Complete Streets: Lo- to the issue. cal toolkit. In Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. P. 5. Retrieved 3/11/2011, • The “Community Landscape” method puts stakeholders into from http://www.mncompletestreets.org/gfx/MnCSLocalGovtToolkit.pdf. four tiers: Key Stakeholders, Stakeholder Groups, Interested 2.Lawrie, Judson J. et al. (2006, January-February). Bikeways to Prosperity. TR Parties and the Media and Public at Large. News. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/34336430/Assess- • The “Stakeholder Inventory” method is a thorough checklist ing-Economic-Impact-of-Bicycle-Facilities. of steps to follow in identifying stakeholders. It includes creat- 3.Lusher, Lindsey, et al. (2008, August). Streets to Live By: How livable street ing a demographic profile of the project area and interviewing design can bring economic, health and quality-of-life benefits to New York City members of the community to see who they see as important In Transportation Alternatives. . Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://transalt.org/ to the project. files/newsroom/reports/streets_to_live_by.pdf 4.Portland Development Commission Public Affairs Deparment. (2007). Port-The activities outlined above represent only a small sample of the land Public Participation Manual. pg 18-20. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://unique ways planners can adapt public participation to the needs of www.pdc.us/pdf/public-participation/public-participation-plans/public-participa-Complete Streets. Hopefully these ideas will help inspire creative think- tion-manual.pdf.ing in the public participation realm on the local level in Macomb County.These ideas are also supplemental to traditional methods of public par-ticipation. Whichever activities they pick, it is crucial to identify the mostimportant stakeholders in order to use their resources most effectively.Combining the right education with the right people will help facilitatestrong support for Complete Streets in Macomb County. While feasibil-ity was kept in mind when recommending these tools, checking with theMacomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D-3
  • 74. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsComplete Streets Policy Elements context of the community.(Taken from “Policy Elements” page of the National Complete Streets Coalition • Establishes performance standards with measurable out-website - http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/) comes. • Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy.Regardless of a policy’s form, the National Complete Streets Coalitionhas identified ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy, Sets a visionas discussed below. A strong vision can inspire a community to follow through on its complete streets policy. Just as no two policies are alike, visions are not one-size-An ideal complete streets policy: fits-all either. In the small town of Decatur, GA, the Community Trans- • Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to portation Plan defines their vision as promoting health through physical complete its streets. activity and active transportation. In the City of Chicago, the Department • Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and of Transportation focuses on creating streets safe for travel by even the transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, most vulnerable - children, older adults, and those with disabilities. buses and automobiles. • Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a compre- Specifies all users hensive, integrated, connected network for all modes. A true complete streets policy must apply to everyone traveling along • Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. the road. A sidewalk without curb ramps is useless to someone using a • Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, wheelchair. A street with an awkwardly placed public transportation stop planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of without safe crossings is dangerous for riders. A fast-moving road with way. no safe space for cyclists will discourage those who depend on bicycles • Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure for transportation. A road with heavy freight traffic must be planned with that requires high-level approval of exceptions. those vehicles in mind. Older adults and children face particular chal- • Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and lenges as they are more likely to be seriously injured or killed along a guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balanc- roadway. Automobiles are an important part of a complete street as well, ing user needs. as any change made to better accommodate other modes will have an • Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the effect on personal vehicles too. In some cases, like the installation of curb bulb-outs, these changes can improve traffic flow and the driving D-4 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 75. Appendix D: Implementation Toolsexperience. All projects For many years, multi-modal streets have been treated as ’special proj-Creates a network ects’ requiring extra planning, funding, and effort. The complete streetsComplete streets policies should result in the creation of a complete approach is different. Its intent is to view all transportation improvementstransportation network for all modes of travel. A network approach helps as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all users,to balance the needs of all users. Instead of trying to make each street including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation passengers.perfect for every traveler, communities can create an interwoven array of Under this approach, even small projects can be an opportunity to makestreets that emphasize different modes and provide quality accessibility meaningful improvements. In repaving projects, for example, an edgefor everyone. This can mean creating bicycle boulevards to speed along stripe can be shifted to create more room for cyclists. In routine work onbicycle travel on certain low-traffic routes; dedicating more travel lanes traffic lights, the timing can be changed to better accommodate pedes-to bus travel only; or pedestrianizing segments of routes that are already trians walking at a slower speed. A strong complete streets policy willoverflowing with people on foot. It is important to provide basic safe ac- integrate complete streets planning into all types of projects, includingcess for all users regardless of design strategy and networks should not new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance.require some users to take long detours. ExceptionsAll agencies and all roads Making a policy work in the real world requires developing a process toCreating complete streets networks is difficult because many agencies handle exceptions to providing for all modes in each project. The Fed-control our streets. They are built and maintained by state, county, and eral Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating bicycle andlocal agencies, and private developers often build new roads. Typical pedestrian travel named three exceptions that have become commonlycomplete streets policies cover only one jurisdiction’s roadways, which used in complete streets policies: 1) accommodation is not necessarycan cause network problems: a bike lane on one side of a bridge dis- on corridors where non-motorized use is prohibited, such as interstateappears on the other because the road is no longer controlled by the freeways; 2) cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate toagency that built the lane. Another common issue to resolve is inclusion the need or probable use; 3) a documented absence of current or futureof complete streets elements in sub-division regulations, which govern need. Many communities have included their own exceptions, such ashow private developers build their new streets. severe topological constraints. In addition to defining exceptions, there must be a clear process for granting them, where a senior-level depart- MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D-5
  • 76. Appendix D: Implementation Toolsment head must approve them. Any exceptions should be kept on record modation; changes in the number of people using public transportation,and publicly-available. bicycling, or walking (mode shift); number of new street trees; and/or the creation or adoption of a new multi-modal Level of Service standardDesign criteria that better measures the quality of travel experience. The fifth edition ofCommunities adopting a complete streets policy should review their Highway Capacity Manual, due out in 2010, will include this new way ofdesign policies to ensure their ability to accommodate all modes of measuring LOS. Cities like San Francisco and Charlotte have alreadytravel, while still providing flexibility to allow designers to tailor the proj- begun to develop their own.ect to unique circumstances. Some communities will opt to re-write theirdesign manual. Others will refer to existing design guides, such as those Implementationissued by AASHTO, state design standards, and the Americans with Dis- Taking a complete streets policy from paper into practice is not easy,abilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. but providing some momentum with specific implementation steps can help. Some policies establish a task force or commission to work to-Context-sensitive ward policy implementation. There are four key steps for successfulAn effective complete streets policy must be sensitive to the community implementation: 1) Restructure procedures to accommodate all userscontext. Being clear about this in the initial policy statement can al- on every project; 2) Develop new design policies and guides; 3) Offerlay fears that the policy will require inappropriately wide roads in quiet workshops and other training opportunities to planners and engineers;neighborhoods or miles of little-used sidewalks in rural areas. A strong and 4) Institute better ways to measure performance and collect data onstatement about context can help align transportation and land use plan- how well the streets are serving all users.ning goals, creating livable, strong neighborhoods.Performance measuresThe traditional performance measure for transportation planning hasbeen vehicular Level of Service (LOS) – a measure of automobile con-gestion. Complete streets planning requires taking a broader look athow the system is serving all users. Communities with complete streetspolicies can measure success through a number of ways: the miles ofon-street bicycle routes created; new linear feet of pedestrian accom- D-6 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 77. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsExamples of Complete Streets Policies and Guides(Taken from “Policy Elements” page of the National Complete Streets Coalitionwebsite - http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/) MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D-7
  • 78. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsPROPOSED LANSING COMPLETE STREETS 1020.13. WALKABLE-BIKEABLE COMPLETE STREETS.ORDINANCE (APRIL 2009) (a) “COMPLETE STREETS” IS DEFINED AS A DESIGN PRINI- CIPLE TO PROMOTE A SAFE NETWORK OF ACCESS FOR PEDES-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, TO ADD TRIANS, BICYCLISTS, MOTORISTS, AND TRANSIT RIDERS OF ALLSECTION 1020.13 OF THE LANSING CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO AGES AND ABILITIES.ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NON-MOTORIZED (b) IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO ENCOURAGE COMPLETENETWORK PLAN TO PROVIDE WALKABLE-BIKEABLE COMPLETE STREETS, AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT POLICY:STREETS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSENGERS, AND USERS OF ALL (1) THERE SHALL BE A NON-MOTORIZED NETWORKABILITIES. PLAN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT, IN CON- SULTATION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION.WHEREAS, the Complete Streets guiding principle is to promote a safe network of access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders (2) THE NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK PLAN SHALL IN-of all ages and abilities; and CLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY, SIDEWALKS, CURB RAMPS AND CUTS, TRAILS AND PATHWAYS,WHEREAS, the promotion of capital improvements that are planned, de- SIGNAGE, AND BIKE LANES, AND SHALL INCORPORATE PRIN-signed, and constructed to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use CIPLES OF COMPLETE STREETS AND MAXIMIZE WALKABLE ANDincreases the general safety and welfare for all of Lansing’s citizens; and BIKEABLE STREETS WITHIN THE CITY. WHEREAS, as a matter of policy, City Officers should integrate and (3) TO THE EXTENT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, FUTUREimplement the Complete Streets guiding principle; CONSTRUCTION OR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF CITY RIGHTS-OF- WAY OR ANY PARTS THEREOF SHALL BE IN CONFORMITY WITHNOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF LANSING ORDAINS: THE NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK PLAN. Section 1. That Chapter 1020, Section 13, of the Codified Ordi- nances of the City of Lansing, Michigan, be and is hereby added to read (4) IT SHALL BE A GOAL OF THE CITY TO FUND ADE-as follows: QUATELY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-MOTORIZED NET- WORK PLAN, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE TARGETING AT LEAST FIVE D-8 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 79. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsPERCENT OF STATE ACT 51 FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY AN-NUALLY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN’S IMPLEMENTATION. (5) THE NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK PLAN SHALL BEUPDATED, AT A MINIMUM, EVERY 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OFITS INITIAL ADOPTION BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT. Section 2. All ordinances, resolutions or rules, parts of ordi-nances, resolutions or rules inconsistent with the provisions hereof arehereby repealed. Section 3. Should any section, clause or phrase of this ordi-nance be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validityof the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part sodeclared to be invalid. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day afterenactment, unless given immediate effect by City Council. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D-9
  • 80. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsColombus, OH: Bicycle Funding Sources 2008-2018 Total Possible Funding for Cyclists in Co- Total Available Source Funding lumbus Agency 2008-2013 2008-2018 2008-2013 2008-2018 MethodologyMORPC CongestionMitigation and AirQuality (CMAQ)(Non SOV Modes) $10 M Mid-Ohio ~$20 M $165,000 ~$330,000 Bicycle facility fund- Region ing is estimated at 5% of the minimum apportionment. 2325% On street 75% *2008-2018 fundingOff street estimate assumes a continuation of MORPC funding.Recreational Trails $8.5 M Ohio N/A $1.1 M N/A The State of OhioProgram was apportioned $1.7 M for the 2007 FY. 24 Funding is available until 2009.100% off streetClean Ohio Trails $31.2 M Ohio $62.5 M Ohio $2 M $4 M Assumes funding willFund be reauthorized in 2008 at $6.25 mil- lion per year, with Columbus receiv- ing approximately $400,000 per year. D - 10 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 81. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsSafe Routes to $5.3 M Ohio $10.6 M Ohio (esti- $168,000 $336,550 The Ohio apportion-School Program mated) ment totaled $5.3 M for FY 2008. Fund- ing is available until 2009.2,2530% On-street 60% $122.5 M Nation-Off-street 10% Pro- wide NationwidegramsTransportation, $122.5 M $122.5 M ~$393,000 ~$786,000 $122.5 M is avail-Community and able through nation-System Preservation wide discretionaryProgram grants until 2009. The average 2007 funding award was $7.9 M. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.50% On-street 50%Off-streetNatureWorks Grants $10 M Ohio $20 M ~$91,555 ~$183,110 Awards equal $2 M per year. The aver- age grant award is $18,311, which is used to estimate the possible funding available for Colum- bus.50% On-Street 50%Off-Street MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D - 11
  • 82. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsTransportation Im- $2.5 B Statewide ~$5 B $15.9 M $31.8 M Statewide fundingprovement Program total is $1.5 B for FY 2008-2011.2 Fund- ing for bicycle facili- ties is estimated at 5% of total funds.50% On-street 50%Off-streetTransportation En- $7.4 M Mid-Ohio $14 M Mid-Ohio Re- $370,000 $700,000 MORCP total avail-hancements Region gion (estimated) able funding until 2013 is $7.4 M. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.33% On-street 33%Off-street 33% Pro-gramsCommunity Develop- ~$33 M Ohio ~$66 M ~$1.65 M ~$3.3 M Housing relatedment Block Grants grants in Columbus(Neighborhood Com- totaled $6.6 M formercial Revitaliza- FY 2007. Grants aretion Investment) available for sustain- able development, of which bicycle facilities could be apart of. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds. D - 12 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX
  • 83. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsUrban Infrastructure $5 M Columbus $10 M $250,000 $500,000 An estimated $1 MRecovery Funds per year is estimated(UIRF) given that the previ- ous funding round (2005-2007) had $3 M available for parks, lighting, and roadway. Funding is available for individ- uals, corporations, developers, and investors. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.50% On-Street 50%Off-StreetBicentennial Bike- $10 M Columbus n/a $10M n/a Proposed Bondways Bond Package to fund bicycle projects in Columbus.Federal transpor- $25 M $25 M $25 M $25 M Assumes that Co-tation Green Tea lumbus will receivedemonstration proj- $25 Million in fed-ect funding eral transportation funding with the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU.Assumes 10% canbe used for pro-grams. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX D - 13
  • 84. Appendix D: Implementation ToolsPrivate Sector $5 M $10M $5M $10M Assumes this plan’s“Adopt a Bikeway” recommendation to establish an “adopt- a-bikeway” or other philanthropic organi- zation is met.Assumes 10% forprograms.MORPC 2030 $302 M Region $605M Region $7.5M $15 M Estimates that 2%Transportation Plan of cost of regionalComplete Streets transportation proj-Projects ects identified in MORPC’s 2030 Transportation Plan will be used to pro- vide bicycle facilities ($1,815M in new projects through 2030).Metro Parks Funding $5 M $10M $5M $10M Estimates based on past Metro Parks trails funding. D - 14 MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX