Complete Streets: From Policy to Implementation (Completely) AICP CM 2 2 HOUR SESSION How can you make your complete streets policy a success? How do you translate complete streets into real benefits for the people who are walking, biking and taking public transportation? How do you promote accessibility and connectivity for all -- including people with disabilities -- through design and planning? Hear regional, city and international perspectives from policy to implementation during this complete complete streets workshop. Moderator: Richard Weaver, AICP, Director of Planning, Policy and Sustainability, American Public Transportation Association; Chair, National Complete Streets Coalition, Washington, DC Joseph Iacobucci, Sam Schwartz Engineering, DPC, Chicago, Illinois Stefanie Seskin, Deputy Director, National Complete Streets Coalition, Smart Growth America, Washington, DC Dan Gallagher, AICP, Transportation Planning Manager, Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, North Carolina James Cromar, Director of Planning, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Tony Hull, Independent Transportation Consultant, Minneapolis, Minnesota Gregory Thompson, Chair, Light Rail Transit Committee of TRB, Tallahassee, Florida Roxana Ene, Project Manager, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

1. COMPLETE
STREETS:
FROM
POLICY
TO
IMPLEMENTATION
How
the
French
Blend
Light
Rail
and
Complete
Streets
for
Total
Accessibility
Greg
Thompson
.
Tom
Larwin
.
Tom
Parkinson
Transportation
Research
Board
Subcommittee
on
International
Light
Rail
Development

2. Total
accessibility

3. Implementing
Green
Transit/
Complete
Streets
on
an
Unprecedented
Scale

4. Defining
the
French
Approach:
the
Macro
View
§ MACRO
Design
Principle
1:
Develop
a
a
concept
of
how
public
transport
should
tie
the
urban
agglomeration
together:
a
small
number
of
light
rail
(nouveau
tram)
lines
is
key
§ MACRO
Design
Principle
2:
High-­‐performance
and
-­‐capacity
vehicles
designed
to
blend
with
the
urban
fabric
and
facilitate
accessibility
between
lines
and
modes
§ MACRO
Design
Principle
3:
Fully
accessible
stops
widely
spaced
§ MACRO
Design
Principle
4:
Stops
adjacent
to
,and
integrated
with
major
destinations;
including
in
suburbs
§ MACRO
Design
Principle
5:
Bus
lines
reconfigured
around
nouveau
tram
stations

5. The
Micro
Design
Side
of
the
French
Approach:
the
Art
of
Insertion
§ Almost
100%
use
of
public
rights-­‐of-­‐way
ú At
the
expense
of
the
auto,
which
are
kept
off
tracks
ú Examples:
Roads,
alleys,
plazas,
university
campuses,
hospital
campuses
§ All
rights-­‐of-­‐way
rebuilt
from
building
façade
to
building
façade
to
facilitate
transit
performance,
pedestrian
and
bicycle
flow,
safety,
aesthetics
§ The
Art
of
Insertion
is
a
political
process
wherein
stakeholder
groups
figure
out
how
to
design
high
performance
transit
that
is
compatible
with
their
lifestyles

6. MACRO
Design
Principle
1:
A
Regional
Core
of
Light
Rail
Lines
Big
box
district
Mall
University
Center
City
High
rise
offices
Industrial
district
Malls
and
big
box
stores
University
hospital
complex
Intercity
rail
Medical
complex

7. Macro
Design
Principle
2:
Long
vehicles
with
lots
of
doors
and
a
fare
system
that
allows
passengers
to
use
all
doors,
bright,
cheery,
airy

8. Macro
Design
Principle
3:
Fully
accessible
stops
spaced
widely
to
enable
faster
service

9. Macro
Design
Principle
4:
Stops
adjacent
to
major
destinations;
many
in
suburbs

10. Macro
Design
Principle
5:
Bus
system
reconfigured
around
light
rail
stops

11. Center
City
insertion
where
two
lines
cross

12. Insertion
into
an
alley

13. Insertion
of
station
into
alley

14. Center
city
insertion

15. Insertion:
Edge
of
center
city

16. Insertion:
Edge
of
historic
center

17. Insertion:
Stop
shoe-­‐horned
into
tight
spot
12
Oct
2012
-­‐
GLT
17

18. Insertion:
Stopping
trains
delay
autos;
not
vice
versa
12
Oct
2012
-­‐
GLT
18

19. Insertion:
Inner
suburb

20. Insertion:
Outer
suburb
of
single
family
homes

21. Insertion:
Suburban
university
campus
(Nantes)

22. Insertion:
Suburban
university
campus
(Orleans)

23. Insertion
in
Plaza:
1

24. Insertion
in
Plaza:
2

25. Insertion
in
Plaza:
3

26. Insertion
of
high
quality
transit
into
urban
and
suburban
fabric:
an
art
combining:
• Transit
planning
and
engineering
• Traffic
engineering
• Safety
analysis
• Aesthetics
and
urban
design
• Politics
• To
achieve
the
results
you
have
seen
26
Summary:
Macro
concepts
of
quality
transit
combined
with
The
Art
of
Insertion
result
in
complete
streets
that
truly
change
travel
behavior

27. Thank
you
—
Merci!
Waiting
for
the
tram,
Strasbourg
2011
TP
27
of
14

28. Growth
of
French
Tramways—kilometres
of
route
Prior
French
practice
was
rubber-­‐tired
metro
for
large
cities:
Paris,
Lyon,
Marseille.
Rubber-­‐tired
light
metro
(Siemens
VAL)
for
medium
cities:
Lille,
Rennes,
Toulouse.
Then
the
lower
cost
tramway
appeared.
Base
chart
from
The
Transport
Politic,
Yonah
Freemark
2012
Remarkable
growth,
particularly
from
2000;
there
is
no
distinction
1990
1995
between
2000
tramways
2005
(streetcars)
2010
and
2015
light
rail
in
France,
more
a
combination
of
features.
Tram-­‐trains
are
not
covered
here
but
are
gaining
ground
with
dual-­‐system
vehicles
capable
of
over
100km/h—
750
volts
plus
1.5V
DC
or
25kV
AC
or
diesel
28
of
14

29. Despite
the
economies
of
scale
from
city
to
city:
joint
orders
for
vehicles,
use
of
public
land
and
easements,
and
minimising
line
poles
(25%
of
spans
in
Brest
are
attached
to
buildings),
French
tramways
are
comparable
or
slightly
more
expensive
than
other
European
systems—
although
allowance
should
be
made
for
the
15-­‐25%
of
project
costs
that
are
spent
on
the
urban
environment—and
any
APS.
The
average
of
eleven
recent
French
systems
is
US$
29m/km,
range
$20.4–
$51.2
The
average
of
seven
recent
US
systems
is
US$
35m/km,
range
$28.6–
$43.5
Excludes
systems,
such
as
Seattle,
with
tunnels
or
other
high
infrastructure
costs;
29
of
14
€=US$1.3
Bordeaux
with
APS
Capital
Costs

30. Some
results
Nice
Bordeaux
Montpellier
Grenoble
Strasbourg
Average
Rouen
Le Mans
.
30
of
14
Rides per day per kilometre of route
FTA 2010 data—probable underestimate due to double count of some route miles
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
St-Etienne
Angers
Reims
Orléans
Valenciennes
US average
Buses
and
trams
are
closely
integrated
with
free
transfers.
Ridership
increase
is
typically
30–60%.
Montpellier
went
from
28.8m/year
on
the
all
bus
system
in1999,
to
62.2m
in
2010
with
5
routes,
an
150%
increase.

31. LRT
Farebox
Recovery
as
percent
of
Direct
Operating
costs
Strasbourg
St.Etienne
Lille
Lyon
Grenoble
Average
Toulouse
Orleans
Marseille
Paris
Nantes
Despite
moderate
fares
and
frequent
service
with
union
(syndicat)
drivers,
average
farebox
recovery
at
48%
is
good,
particularly
given
that
on
some
systems
heavily
discounted
students
make
up
over
half
the
riders.
Alignments
may
often
seem
convoluted
but
ensure
that
universities,
schools
and
other
major
generators—hospitals
and
railway
stations—are
well
connected.
31
of
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
US Average

32. US
light
rail
vs
bus
performance
2011

33. Circulator
Streetcar
vs
bus
performance
2011

34. France
like
U.S.
in
auto
ownership
and
big
box
retailing
34
.
The
following
table
is
copied
from
David
W.
Jones,
Table
1.1
Mass
Motorization
+
Mass
Transit ,
Indiana
University
Press,
2008,
p.
4.
Intensity
of
motorization
in
G-­‐7
nations
in
2000
Motor
vehicles
per
1000
population
(a)
Motor
vehicles
per
worker
(b)
Vehicle
km.
per
capita
(
c
)
Motor
vehicle
CO2
per
capita
(d)
United
States 784 1.58 15,618 5,202
Canada 676 1.43 10,831 3,741
Japan 651 1.30 5,976 1,762
Italy 626 1.73 6,274 1,917
Germany 576 1.29 7,126 2,067
France 574 1.44 8,778 2,153
United
Kingdom 511 1.10 7,662 1,933
G-­‐7
average 625 1.41 8,895 2,682
Source:
(a)
Vehicle
registrations:
Ward's
Motor
Vehicles
Facts
and
Figures,
2002;
population
data
for
all
series:
Maddison,
World
Economy:
Historical
Statistics;
(b)
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States,
2002,
"Comparative
Labor
Force
Statistics,
Ten
Countries,
1959-­‐2001";
(c)
Highway
Statistics
2002,
table
IN-­‐4,
"Vehicle
Travel
for
Selected
Countries";
(d)
International
Energy
Agency,
CO2
Emissions
from
Fuel
Combustion,
1971-­‐2000,
country
tables,
II.143ff.

35. SUMMARY
OF
FRENCH
TRAMWAYS Lines
in
service/under
construction–
all
modes¹ Tom
Parkinson
Dec
2013,
modif
STRMTG-­‐Certu
Jan
2014
City/Region
Urban
area
Population
Open Km Miles Cars
Tram
Pax/Day*
Metro VAL
Tram-­‐
way
Tram-­‐
Train
Tram
w/
Tires
Trolley-­‐
bus BRT NOTES
Angers
216,000 2011 12.3 7.4 17
35,000 1²/1 Line
B
opens
2020
Aubagne
100,000 2014 9.0 5.4 8 new -­‐/2 Line
1
opens
2014,
line
2
in
2019
Avignon
180,000 2016 12.6 7.6 24 new -­‐/2 line
opens
2016
Besancon
140,000 2015 14.5 8.7 19 new -­‐/1
lowest
capital
cost/km
Bordeaux
835,000 2003 43.4 26.0 74
192,000 3²/1
0/1 extensions
and
tram/train
planned
Brest
201,000 2012 14.3 8.6 20
33,000 1-­‐Jan Cross
city
line
with
two
branches
Caen
198,000 2002 15.7 9.4 24
45,000
0/3
2 Converting
to
steel
wheel
tramway
+
a
new
line
Clermont-­‐Ferrand
260,000 2006 16.3 9.8 26
48,000 1 Translohr
system
Dijon
250,000 2012 20.0 12.0 33
70,000 2
Grenoble
530,000 1987 36.4 36.4 89
210,000 4/1
Le
Havre
244,000 2012 13.0 7.8 22 new 2
Le
Mans
208,000 2007 15.4 9.2 26
48,000 1/1 2nd
line
opens
in
2015
Lille
1,100,000 1909 22.4 13.4 24
34,000
2 2 Retains
original
metre
gauge
Limoges
139,000 1942 32.5 19.5 40 n/a 5
Lyon
1,760,000 2000 72.1 43.3 103
250,000 4 4 2 8 TT
=
Rhônexpress
tram-­‐train
to
airport
+
rapid
tram
(on
same
tracks)
Marseille
1,530,000 2007 11.5 6.9 26
50,000 2 2 project
:
extension,
not
a
new
line
Montpellier
384,000 2000 54.4 32.6 83
282,000 4/1
Mulhouse
250,000 2006 19.0 11.4 39
60,000 3 1 41km
with
TT
Nancy
105,000 2001 11.4 6.8 25 n/a 1 Bombardier
GLT
with
double
wire
overhead
Nantes
585,000 1985 42.1 25.3 91
274,000 3 '0/1
1 TT
opens
2014
Nice
350,000 2007 8.7 5.2 28
90,000 1²/1 2nd
line
to
open
in
2016
Nîmes 2012 6.0 3.6
7,000 0/1 1 line
tramway
opens
2018
Orléans
269,000 2000 29.2 17.5 43
67,000 2²
Paris
(region)
11,800,000 1992 71.0 42.6 205
450,000 14 1 5/1
1/1 41640 2 Lines
3a
and
3b
counted
separately³
Reims
210,000 2011 11.2 6.7 18
45,000 2 Cross
city
line
with
two
branches
Rennes
220,000 2002 9.4 5.6 38 n/a 1/1
Rouen
530,000 1994 15.1 9.1 28
65,000 2 3 optically
guided
busway
TEOR,
69
cars,
55,3
km
St.
Etienne
370,000 1981 18.9 11.3 35
82,000 3 1 Retains
original
metre
gauge
Strasbourg
450,000 1994 57.2 34.3 94
243,000 6
Toulouse
1,100,000 2010 10.9 6.5 24
20,000 2 1/1 Tram
now
feeder
to
VAL-­‐-­‐will
extend
to
CBD
Tours
300,000 2013 15.3 9.2 21 new 1
Valenciennes
334,000 2006 18.3 11.0 21
28,000 1/1
33
cities;
29
tramway
systems;
57
tramway
lines
Totals 20 1/6 29/57 5/2 41644 14 7
¹
Many
lines
cross
through
the
city
centre
and
could
be
categorised
as
two
lines
²Has
section(s)
without
overhead
using
APS
3rd
rail
alimentation
par
le
sol
(batteries
in
Nice)
³11.2
km
Line
T7
(Villejuif-­‐Loius
Aragon)
opened
Nov
16,
2013;
not
included
in
totals
*Patronage
figures
do
not
reflect
line
openings
after
2011
Population
and
line
length
data
from
various
sources
is
not
always
consistent
Main
reference-­‐-­‐Les
tramways
francais
en
2012,
Connaissance
du
rail