Complete Streets Report

COMPLETE STREETS
TOOLBOX

Source: 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

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 - 1

Page i MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Executive Summary
Since 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 state
ment, this emphasis helped to tie the United States together and facili- trunkline highway systems allocate 1% of that funding to non-motorized
tate 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 municipalities
automobile-focused transportation systems. To compensate for these have adopted Complete Streets resolutions (more than any state in the
changes, planners, engineers, and policy makers must experiment with country). In the hopes of deepening their commitment to the Complete
a 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 of
ture can be integrated into new and existing infrastructure, the Complete progress throughout the state, Macomb County lacks its own organized
Streets system can assist towns, cities, and counties in engaging this effort.
task.
In order to integrate the Complete Streets systems into Macomb County
With regard to the physical parameters of transportation planning, Com- or any region, it is important to consider the types of design standards
plete 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; they
cyclist) 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, and
assure equitable access to all community members, regardless of eco- trash bins
nomic status, age, or physical capacity. To take advantage of these ser- • Transit rider facilities: shelters, stop signage, maps, trash
vices, in June 2009 the State of Michigan initiated the process of drafting bins, and benches
state-wide Complete Streets policy. In addition to the efforts of state • Pedestrian crossing facilities: signage, signaling, midblock
lawmakers, this development was empowered by the support of advoca- crossings, and pedestrian islands
cy groups like the League of Michigan Bicyclists. In August of 2010 the • Streetscape structure: building setback, building height, and
Michigan legislature passed Public Act 134 and 135 into law. Public Act façade design
134 amends the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, allowing municipalities • Cyclist facilities: bike lanes, bike parking, and recreational

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page ii

Executive Summary
bike paths existing corridor regulations. The recommendations for each study area
When 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 Avenue
heavy traffic or narrow road widths make the application of some stan- ◦◦ Phase 1
dards problematic or unsafe. As a consequence, it is helpful to concep- ▪▪ Midblock crossings with pedestrian islands
tualize Complete Streets as both an analytic process as well as a set near high foot traffic locations
of design standards. To help illustrate how this process of analysis can ▪▪ Additional transit shelters
be executed, this report contains site analyses and design recommen- ◦◦ Phase 2
dations for two study areas within Macomb County: Van Dyke Avenue ▪▪ A 7’ on-street parking lane and a 5’ bicycle
between 8 Mile Road and 10 Mile Road, Garfield Road between 17 Mile lane in place of the outer two lanes
Road and Hall Road. ▪▪ Sidewalk bike parking
▪▪ Sidewalk extensions across parking lane at
In both study areas, a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential transit stops
areas provide the basic assortment of land uses needed to incentivize • Garfield Road
alternative transportation. In both areas, however, conditions like infre- ◦◦ Phase 1
quent pedestrian crossings and transit shelters represent aspects that ▪▪ Pedestrian lighting and street trees
could be strengthened and improved. To address these issues in a politi- ▪▪ Sidewalk bike parking
cally and fiscally responsible fashion, this report grouped preliminary ▪▪ Additional transit shelters
improvements 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 stops
made without interfering with existing patterns of automobile traffic or ◦◦ Phase 2
altering standing engineering standards. Phase 2 of this timeline focuses ▪▪ Recreational bike path along existing sidewalk
on improvements which can accommodate and facilitate maximum ▪▪ Midblock crossing with pedestrian island
mode shift from automobiles to alternative transportation systems. As In addition to physical amenities and structures, it is also important to
a 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 strategies
support for alternative transportation, and often requires deviations from in place, physical modifications cannot be made. Generally, Complete

Page iii MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Executive Summary
Streets 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 many
communities, 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. A
special workshop for business owners highlighting the specific economic
benefits of Complete Streets is a highly recommended way to generate
community buy-in.

Financing tools for Complete Streets can be generally classified as
either 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 federal
and state grants, sidewalk improvement ordinances, and private sector
“adopt a bikeway” campaigns.

Finally, municipalities and Macomb County can enact Complete Streets
resolutions, policies, and ordinances that illustrate the importance of
non-motorized transportation. An implementation timeline serves as a
useful tool from the county perspective on how to engage municipal and
community leaders. The process includes the key players – the county,
the municipality, and the community, including advocacy groups and
constituents. This process is flexible, and there are many ways to reach
a Complete Streets policy.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page iv

Introduction
In transportation planning, a design framework known as Complete
Streets is a popular system for conceptualizing non-motorized and transit-
focused infrastructure. In addition to serving as a design framework, the
Complete Streets system is also a social framework, integrating all users of the
street – pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers. In this way, all ages and
abilities can utilize the street in a safe manner, whether traveling for practical or
recreational purposes.

In 2010, the Michigan state legislature passed Public Acts 134 and
135, which incorporate Complete Streets design components into existing
transportation legislation. More importantly, the new legislation requires that all
municipalities allocate 1% of their annual transportation budget toward non-
motorized transportation.

This document is intended to educate Macomb County officials and
decision makers on Complete Streets philosophies and best practices. To reach
this goal, the document includes a series of chapters, reviewing the following
concepts:
• 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

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 available
5. Conduct an annual review of
resources and programmatic needs.
best practices.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX Page 2

Background
Michigan’s effort to create a state-wide Complete Streets Streets, and traffic-calming language.5 In June 2010, the House
policy began in June of 2009 when Complete Streets language was Transportation Committee unanimously passed both bills, and by the
first introduced into a transportation bill.1 Although state lawmakers end of the month, the Michigan House of Representatives passed the
contributed to this development, a central motivating factor was pressure legislation with an overwhelming majority.6
from advocacy groups to create safer and more accessible streets for
pedestrians and cyclists. The League of Michigan Bicyclists (LMB) in On July 21, 2010, the Senate Transportation Committee unanimously
particular advocated for Complete Streets policies in order to promote voted to pass the Complete Streets legislation for a formal vote in
walkability and an active lifestyle. The LMB’s stance developed after the Senate.7 Seven days later, the Senate approved the Complete
a 2009 national report by the Trust for America’s Health, which found Streets legislation, passing both bills into Michigan law.8 Public Act 134
Michigan 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.”9
Streets 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 the
shall provide assistance to and coordinate with local road agencies expenditures of state transportation funding.10 First, the bill classified
and metropolitan planning organizations in developing Complete Street “all public roads, streets and highways” in Michigan.11 Next, the bill set
policies, including the development of model complete street policies.”3 up a transportation fund for Michigan to draw money from a specific tax
Although this policy did not result in a legislative requirement, it created on automobile fuel.12 From this transportation fund, 1% of resources
a 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 Complete
By May 2010, the State House voted on the Complete Streets legislation Streets and arranged for the Michigan Transportation Commission to set
in the form of two separate transportation bills.4 One bill (Public Act up a Complete Streets policy within two years of the bills’ adoption. This
135) focused on MDOT’s financial appropriations for Complete Streets policy would promote best practices and philosophies when building new
policies, and the other bill (Public Act 134) focused on reforming the infrastructure.14
Michigan Planning Enabling Act to add non-motorized, Complete
Since the passage of the first Complete Streets ordinance and the major


Background
Complete Streets and non-motorized bills, Michigan has strived to make
streets 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 in
America.15 In addition, six localities have produced Complete Street
ordinances since Lansing passed its ordinance in 2009.

Although the state of Michigan continues with its fantastic success
promoting Complete Streets policies, Macomb County lacks its own
organized effort as of 2011 (See Figure 2). Despite overall population
decline in Southeast Michigan, Macomb County’s population is projected
to grow in the coming decades. To assure adequate transportation
services for this new constituent base, developing non-motorized and
public 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


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 Resolutions

Figure 2. Locations of Complete Streets Resolutions, Policies and Laws in South-
east Michigan. Source:Google Maps and Complete Streets Coalition


Definition and Benefits
Complete Streets attempts to better integrate all users of the street – crashes and other injuries caused by poorly-maintained
pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers - so that all ages and infrastructure.2
abilities are able to utilize the street in a safe manner, whether traveling • For residents with safe places to walk within ten minutes of
for practical or recreational purposes. their home, 43% met recommended activity levels.3
• Using public transit reduces the amount of congestion and
Over the past seventy years, towns, cities, and counties interpreted can save individuals $9,581 each year.4
transportation planning as trying to get one person from point A to • Reducing one car trip each month cuts, 3,764 tons of CO2
point B as fast as possible. The car created a culture where people each year.5
expected 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 by
planners and engineers. When congestion became a problem, more reducing the need to widen roads for additional traffic.6
roads were built or current roads were widened. Today, with limited
space and resources, auto-centric planning is becoming more difficult.

Complete Streets offers an alternative to auto-centric planning and
allows for better transportation options for a variety of users. According
to Eli Cooper, the Transportation Manager of the City of Ann Arbor
Planning Department, “‘We must go back to good old-fashioned
planning.”1 Before the automobile culture took hold in American cities,
planners accounted for pedestrians, trolleys, cars, and cyclists. All of
those factors led to the busy street life seen in historic photographs of
New 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


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/

Figure 3. Picture of Detroit’s Woodward Street, Circa 1930’s
Source:At Detroit


Design Guidelines
The main concept of Complete Streets seems simple at first: make hour (mph) or less, typically with four or more lanes of traffic

streets accessible to all types of users. There are, however, many • Avenues: roads with speeds of 25 to 35 mph, not exceeding

elements 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 typically

guidelines is a sampling of some of the basic and crucial elements for a with two lanes of traffic.1

complete street. SIDEWALK SETBACKS:
Sidewalk setbacks regulate the distance between the start of the

These guidelines are presented in their ideal form. Transportation building and the sidewalk (. Recommended building setback distances

planning seldom occurs in an ideal world with no physical or fiscal vary according to density and land use, but are uniform across the

constraints. Therefore, these guidelines are not an exhaustive list of all Boulevard, Avenue, and Street roadway types (See Table 1).2

the possible improvements. They are a flexible starter kit for designing Table 1: Recommened setback width for different areas
Complete Streets in a community. Suburban General Urban Urban Core
Residential 20 feet 15 feet 10 feet
Commercial 5 feet 0 feet 0 feet
This 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 Table
practices on three basic roadway types: Boulevards, Avenues, and
2-4).3
Streets.

• Boulevards: long corridors with travel speeds of 35 miles per


Design Guidelines
Table 2:Recommended sidewalk widths - Suburban Areas
Residential Commercial
Boulevard 6 feet 6 feet
Avenue 6 feet 6 feet
Street 6 feet 6 feet

Table 3:Recommended sidewalk widths - General Urban Areas

Table 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.
Boulevard 10 feet 10 feet Source:Burbank Bus

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


Design Guidelines

Table 6: Widths of pedestrian buffers - General Urban Areas

Table 7: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Urban Core Areas

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 (See
Pedestrian Buffers: Figure 6).
Pedestrian buffers, usually landscaped strips, separate sidewalk users
from traffic (See Figure 5). There should be at least 1.5 feet of space Utilities should be underground where possible to avoid clutter and
between the buffer and the curb, to allow for vehicle overhangs and potential conflict with trees. The placement and frequency of streetside
opening 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 also
Table 5: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Suburban Areas provide a place to sit. Street furniture like trash receptacles and benches
should be placed in high-priority locations, such as:
• High-use bus stops.
Avenue 6 to 8 feet 6 feet
Street 5 feet 6 feet • Major buildings.


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).8
Bus 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 general
principles dealing with location and form ensure that bus stops help
make transit accessible and useful to the most users possible.

Location principles:


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 edge
Ideally, cyclists should be off the sidewalk for safety reasons. The of the bike lane should be at least 4 feet; 5 feet is the optimal
following 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 separating
Paved 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.


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 crossing

Figure 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 for
In areas with long blocks and great distances between crossings, roads wider than 60 feet or with more than four lanes of
midblock 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 the
Figure 9). average pedestrian is likely to walk slower than 3.5 feet per
second (e.g., areas with a lot of schoolchildren, elderly or
Place 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


Design Guidelines
Midblock 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.


Preliminary Plans
Purpose: foundation for future incremental change within
In 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 that
be applied in a strict, literal fashion. Given resource and financial significantly improve the resources available for alternative
restrictions, however, the redevelopment of existing infrastructure is transportation and in some cases significantly change current
likely 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 established
elements that can be implemented based on the needs of the project in Phase I and integrate all major transportation
area. 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 through
Road, and Garfield Road between 17 Mile Road and Hall Road. Both
Macomb County from Lynch Road to 27 Mile Road. For the portion
hypothetical plans begin with a short review of current use patterns,
included in the study area, Van Dyke Avenue consists of three
existing roadway design, and surrounding patterns of land use. Based
northbound lanes, three southbound lanes, and one middle turning lane
on these issues, each plan then progresses to two alternative designs
(approximately 77.5 feet). Either side of Van Dyke Avenue is bordered
that represent two phases on a Complete Streets development timeline.
by 10 feet of sidewalk, creating a total right-of-way width of about 110
These plans follow the recommended guidelines when possible,
feet (See figure 10).
illustrating how Complete Streets elements can adapt to the existing site
characteristics.
• 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


Preliminary Plans
According to SEMCOG’s latest 24-hour traffic counts (6/29/2010), the
two-mile Van Dyke study area carries approximately 30,000 vehicles
per day.1 Over the course of the day, traffic is heaviest from 11am to 12
am (approx. 1740 vehicles/hour), and from 3 pm to 6 pm (approx. 2136
vehicles/hour).2 The distribution of traffic between travel directions is
very even with only a slight advantage of northbound over southbound
in the later morning.3 The posted speed limit within the Van Dyke study
area is 35 mph. To see more information on current traffic statistics
Legend
within the Van Dyke study area, please see Appendix: Traffic Statistics.
Deciduous Woodlands

Open Space, Developed
The pedestrian facilities within the Van Dyke study area consist of
Developed, Low Intensity
signalized crossings at stoplights, abundant pedestrian lighting, small
Developed, Med Intensity
commercial setbacks, and trash bins. Available amenities for transit
Developed, High Intensity
riders 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 Tardy
Land use along the Van Dyke study area is predominately light
Source: 2006 USGS NLDC Land Cover Survey
commercial, backed by residential land uses (see Figure 11). Typical
businesses 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, and
areas are predominately single-family homes. The nearest industrial
continuous sidewalks, the Van Dyke study area has many of the
land 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 increasing
High School.
the number of amenities for users of non-motorized and public
transportation. Key issues to be addressed by these amenities include:


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 1

As a complete system of built space and lifestyles, the current design of
Pros Cons
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Van Dyke represents huge investments of financial and social capital.
As a result, initiatives that threaten these investments would likely be Minimal Impact Minimal Service
politically imprudent and fiscally wasteful. Therefore, the introduction of of Existing Traffic Provision for
these amenities should be incremental and thoroughly vetted through Present Patterns Cyclists
Facilitates midblock
public meetings.
crossing in high
traffic area
Implementation:
Phase 1: The first step proposed within the Van Dyke study area is OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
the installation of pedestrian islands within the middle turning lane. To
Creates a base Generates
facilitate safe and convenient street crossings, these islands should Future
for incremental additional
be located at block midpoints. To assure that these structures draw investment maintenance costs
in pedestrians and alert drivers, islands should be accompanied by
signage 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 planning
of Van Dyke, existing driveway locations will make the installation of recommendations
pedestrian islands problematic. In these cases, because there are a
limited number of viable businesses, planners should place midblock
Phase 2: To complete the conversion of the Van Dyke study area into
crossings to accommodate established business interests. In locations
a Complete Streets corridor, Phase 2 proposes the conversion of both
of 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-foot
however, priority should be granted to the placement of pedestrian
bicycle lane. Since this change in vehicular traffic pushes buses away
crossing amenities (see the Proposed Plan Maps section in the
from the curb, this phase also includes 7-foot sidewalk extensions at
appendix for more details). To incentivize the use of public transit,


Preliminary Plans
intersections and in the middle of large blocks to assure transit riders do
not need to step off the curb to board (see Figure 13).
Table 9. SWOT Analysis for Van Dyke Phase 2
The goal of Phase 2 is to maximize and accommodate the shift of users Pros Cons
from automobile traffic to alternate transportation means. However, STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
planners and engineers will drastically redefine the structure of the
corridor and likely encounter negative public response. To accommodate
Maximizes the Requires significant
likelihood of changes in traffic
and perhaps prevent these concerns from arising, establishing public Present
mode shift patterns
support 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


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

3


Preliminary Plans
Garfield Road: 17 Mile Rd. to Hall Mile Rd.
Existing Conidtions:
Garfield Road is a principal arterial that runs north through Macomb
County from 14 Mile Road to 22 Mile Road. The portion of roadway
included in the study area (17 Mile to Hall Road) consists of two
northbound 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 Tardy
of 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 consist
latest 24-hour traffic counts (3/25/2009), this three-mile segment of of signalized crossing at stoplights and non-continuous sidewalks.
4
road 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 2576
vehicles/hour).5 The distribution of traffic between travel directions is Land use within the Garfield study area is predominately commercial
generally heavier in the northbound lanes. In the section of Garfield
6
and institutional, with residential land uses behind (see Fig 15). Typical
between19 Mile Road and Hall Road, however, northbound traffic was commercial land uses include small banks, restaurants, department
one-quarter of the daily southbound traffic (presumably because of stores, and strip mall developments. The institutional land uses on
people exiting Garfield for Macomb Community College).7 The posted Garfield include the extensive campus of Macomb County Community
speed limit within the Garfield study area is 45 MPH. To see more College (MCCC), Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, and Wyandot Middle
information on current traffic statistics within the Van Dyke study area, School. Residential areas within the study area are predominately
please 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.


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 grassy
Figure 15. Land Use Map of Garfield Corridor. Created by Will Tardy
shoulder at transit stops. For able-bodied transit riders, the existing
Source: 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 more
and cyclist traffic. Due to its suburban character, however, the land
transit shelters. To create an inviting pedestrian environment, the final
use density is not high enough to make regular non-motorized and
recommendation of Phase 1 is to plant street trees along the existing
public transportation convenient. In the long term, local planners could
sidewalk.
use zoning regulations that incentivize increased density, mixed use


Preliminary Plans
pedestrian activity, but existing crossing systems are inconvenient. The
Table 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).
Table 11. SWOT Analysis for Garfield Phase 2
Supports alternative Does not provide Pros Cons
Present transportation infrastructure for
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 Generates
Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent
awareness additional
Future of alternative maintenance costs
transportation
Phase 2: To complete the conversion of the Garfield Road study area
options and Reduced population
into a Complete Streets corridor, a portion of the grassy shoulder can associated benefits density
be converted into a bicycle path (See Figure 17). Located adjacent to
the existing sidewalk, this improvement creates a safe and comfortable Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent
riding environment without creating conflicts with automobiles. In
addition, additional trash bins and benches should be installed to
complement the recreational path.

To support safe and convenient pedestrian crossings, Phase 2
recommends the installation of midblock crossings. To be most effective,
the crossings should be placed where a mix of land uses support


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
Striping


Preliminary Plans

REFERENCES:
1.Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2010, June 29). Volume
Count Report: Van Dyke Avenue. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from the SEMCOG’s Traffic
Count 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).Volume
Count Report: Garfield Road. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from the SEMCOG’s Traffic Count
Database, from http://www.semcog.org/data/Apps/trafficcounts.cfm.
5.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Garfield Road.
8.Marwedel, James. (1998, November). Opting for Performance: An Alternative to
Conventional Zoning for Land Use Regulation. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(2),
220-231.
9.Shoup, Donald. (2008). Graduated Density Zoning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 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 Macomb
County Long Range Master Plan 2004 – 2030 Final Report. P. 46-48. Retrieved 4/2/2011,
from www.rcmcweb.org.


Implementation Tools
Though 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 a
tives. In accordance with this document’s goal of identifying local, state, powerful impact. When the time and resources permit, taking people into
and federal resources, the following section highlights some of the most the field can be a great learning tool. If possible, participants should see
successful 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-
1
supported.” – 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 help
As 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 staying
mental change in thinking about roadway design. Useful participation- an extra three or four hours in the area, which can lead to an increase
based programming for Complete Streets includes workshops, street in sales.2,3 These sessions should emphasize how the Complete Streets
tours, 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 the
In order to garner support from local stakeholders, many municipali- unique ways planners can adapt public participation to the needs of
ties have implemented Complete Streets workshops. These workshops Complete Streets. The Portland Public Participation Manual, can be
serve 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 their
constituencies. 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-


ing derived from the Michigan transportation fund must be used for • $10 Million Parks and Recreation Funding: capitalized on
non-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, and
a priority. Below is a list of tools utilized by other municipalities in similar construction in Central Ohio.6
financial 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 Bikeways
not 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, which
often requires municipalities to seek many federal resources to fund Macomb County could try to duplicate Columbus’s example. Columbus
one project.5 The plan acknowledged the variety of resources that the benefited from an extensive search into resources that promoted public
city 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:


• 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.17
Finally, 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 San
make non-motorized transportation a priority.11 Several municipalities in Diego, would be the most difficult to implement in Macomb County. At
Michigan have taken advantage of CIAs, including East Lansing, Grand the same time, it would mean lasting change. Because regional transit
Rapids, 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 include
they may be enticed with an expedited navigation through the permit- potential pushback from businesses, arguing that their customers might
ting process. Furthermore, funds from tax-increment financing, although spend less with an additional tax. Finally, putting such a proposal before
limited in tough economic times, could be used to leverage other federal the voters in Macomb County is risky. Voters might not approve the tax
and 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’s
Colorado Springs, CO: Sales and Use Tax commitment to Complete Streets, and it would indicate that residents
In 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, a
use 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 more
is collected similarly to the State of Colorado sales tax and is remitted local level. These include non-motorized plans, resolutions, and more


formal ordinances. Below are examples of policy changes that prioritize Ann Arbor, MI: Non-Motorized Plan
Complete Streets. The City of Ann Arbor Non-motorized Plan 2007 contains much of the
reasoning and guidelines behind making the roads safe for pedestrians
Columbus, 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 culture
that 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 the
bikeways 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 and
site-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
20
but 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 a
first step for municipalities that are looking for innovative cost-sharing Lansing, MI and Columbus, OH: Complete Streets Resolutions and
implementation tools, as well as methods for generating stakeholder Ordinances
buy-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


Complete Streets Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Complete Streets Report

Similar to Complete Streets Report (20)

More from jadamsm

More from jadamsm (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Complete Streets Report