This document summarizes discussions from a Complete Streets summit regarding rural transportation infrastructure. Key points include: there was general support for Complete Streets where appropriate but not on all rural roads; priorities included connecting gaps in sidewalk networks and linking low-income areas to services; bike routes should stay off-road where possible; and initial costs were a major concern along with maintenance responsibilities. A street typology plan was developed through public input to guide context-sensitive design. Recommendations included traffic calming on lake streets, improving trail connections, and prioritizing "destination streets". Specific projects were discussed, such as improving crosswalks along busy routes, building sidewalks to connect destinations, and enhancing safety at trail crossings.

1. Complete Streets Summit
October 21, 2013

2. Stakeholder Meetings
Key Findings
• There is a general support for consideration of complete streets “where
appropriate.” Not all streets need sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes to
accommodate complete streets in a rural context.
• Priority should be given to completing “missing links” in the sidewalk infrastructure.
Connecting low-income and/or low mobility populations to shopping, schools and
other services should also be prioritized.
• Bike accommodations should be strategically placed to link parks, trails and other
recreational facilities and stay “off-road” wherever practicable.
• Safer trail crossings, and better linkages between recreational areas and nearby
businesses is important to tourism.
• Initial and life-cycle cost was a major concern related to complete streets
infrastructure. In addition, the responsible party for general maintenance (snow
shoveling and weeding) of sidewalks caused apprehension.
• Communities should weigh the long term cost of not providing safe
pedestrian/bicycle accommodation against initial capital cost (e.g. bussing
students that could otherwise walk if safe accommodations were present).
• Complete Streets is a key component to the healthier communities initiative, critical
for tourism, and important to retaining and attracting young residents.

3. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
• Street Typology Plan
• Developed using public input from June 17
community meeting.
• Roadway types and design features reflect
local desires and priorities.
• Roadway functions were articulated and
desired operating speeds identified.
• Local examples identified.

4. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
Street Typology Draft – Sussex County Typology Workshop

5. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
Street Overlay Draft – Sussex County Typology Workshop

6. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
Street Types Identified & Function
• Rural Highway A – long distance travel.
• Rural Highway B – thru traffic/land access.
• Rural Highway C – urban edge development.
• Main Street – mixed use, walking-oriented.
• Residential (Traditional) – grid development.
• Residential (Subdivision) – low/moderate density.
• County Connector – connects state highways.
• Trails & Greenways.

7. Typology: Rural Highway C
urban edge development
Route 23, Franklin Borough

8. Typology: Main Street
mixed use, walking-oriented.
Spring Street

9. Typology: County Connector
Limecrest Road

10. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
Special Overlay Zones
• Destination Streets.
• Village and Hamlet.
• School Zone/Trail Connector.
• Lake Street/Family-friendly.
• Scenic/Historical Highway.
• Natural Preservation Zone.
• Transit Stop.

11. Overlay: Lake Street

12. Transect-Based Implementation Planning
Initial policy and design
recommendations
– All of the planning in this effort emphasizes specific
contexts. There are no Madisons in Sussex County nor is
it Monmouth.
– Lake streets were identified as a priority for traffic
calming.
– Creating better connections to and between
recreational trails was identified as a priority.
– Destination streets were identified as points of civic
pride (Spring Street, Newton).

13. Route 206 - Main St. and Spring St.
Strengths
• Traditional town main street
designed for both pedestrians and
motorists
• Proximity to destinations and
employment
• Pedestrian signals and signage
Challenges
• Fast, left-turning traffic
• No third crosswalk
• Deteriorated physical condition of
crosswalks
Town of Newton

14. Route 206 and Spring St.
Low Investment Strategies
1. Paint crosswalk on third leg of
intersection.
2. Provide pedestrians a
dedicated walk signal at this
third crosswalk.
3. Install signage with wording
similar to “Town of Newton is
a Pedestrian- Friendly City” to
stress to motorists the
presence of pedestrians on
Spring St.
Town of Newton

15. Route 206 and Spring St.
Medium Investment Strategies
1. Color unit pavers or
tinted concrete
crosswalks.
2. Textured roadway
surfaces approaching
crosswalks for visual,
audible, and vibratory
alerts to motorists.
Town of Newton

16. Route 519 from Water Street/
Route 206 to North Park Drive
Strengths
• Several generators of pedestrian activity
• Flat terrain and space in right-of-way for
sidewalks
• Existing transit service
Challenges
Inconsistent pedestrian facilities
Lack of sidewalks in northern half
Gaps in sidewalks in southern half
Obstacles on east side of Route 519
where sidewalk could be built
• Multiple, wide driveways
•
•
•
•
Town of Newton

17. Route 519 – from Water Street/
Route 206 to North Park Drive
Medium Investment Strategy
• Build a consistent sidewalk from Swartswood Road
to Project Self Sufficiency.
Town of Newton

18. Example for Park Drive:
Build sidewalks around the obstacles

19. Route 607/Hopatchung Rd/River
Styx Rd from North River Styx Rd to
Brooklyn Stanhope Rd
Strengths
• Commercial destinations along the
road
• Scenic road in spots, with lake
destinations
Challenges
• Tight rights-of-way and no shoulders in
some areas
• Limited sight distances
• Inconsistent sidewalks
• Seasonal higher traffic volumes
Hopatcong Borough

20. Lake Context:
River Styx Road - North Segment
Low Investment Strategy
• Alternatives to full sidewalk
installation that keep a semirural feel
• Create safe pedestrian
spaces next to the road
Replace with new photo with
crosswalks
Bucks County, PA
Rolled curb
Portland, OR
Rock separation between
path and road

21. Route 669/Limecrest Road from
Skytop Road to Long Pond School
Strengths
• Adjacent to natural
preservation area
• Close to a residential area
Challenges
• No sidewalks or paths
• Tight right-of-way with narrow
shoulders
• Short sight distances
Andover Township

22. Route 669/Limecrest Road from
Skytop Road to Long Pond School
Andover Township

23. Route 669/Limecrest Road from
Skytop Road to Long Pond School
Medium Investment Strategy
• Use Township of Andover land easement on
Limecrest Road across from Broadview Drive
to provide off- road trail link to the school.
Andover Township

24. Trail Crossing Improvements
1. Sussex Branch Trail
2. Paulinskill Valley Trail
3. L&NE Trail
Challenges
• Trails cross several major roads
Sid Taylor Road and Route 206
• Low visibility of trail crossings
from vehicles
• Fast-moving traffic
• No warnings of upcoming trail
crossings for motorists in some
instances
Route 94 W of Route 15

25. Trail Crossings
Strategies
• Painted crosswalks
• Pedestrian refuge medians
• Pedestrian-activated
overhead signal
• Signs in advance of the
crossing
Give motorists warnings!

26. Trail Crossings: Strategies
Mid-block pedestrian refuge
Pedestrian activated signals

27. Thank You!