Issuu on Google+

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 Dr. Susan Charles Meagan Masson-Minock Julie Stieff

Introduction …………………………………………......1 Vision, Goals, and Objectives………………………....2

Paul Coseo

Background……………………………………………..3

John Crumm

Definition and Benefits………………………………...6

Bob Hoepfner Timothy Kniga Norman Cox

Design Guidelines………….…………………………..8 Preliminary Plans……………………………..……….15

Eli Cooper

Implementation Tools..………………………………..25

Luke Forrest

Conclusion………………………………………….....34

Suzanne Schluz

Page i

Executive Summary…………………………………… .i

Appendix

Case Studies..............................................A - 1

Interviews...................................................B - 1

Traffic Statistics.........................................C - 1

Implementation Tools................................D - 1

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

assure equitable access to all community members, regardless of economic status, age, or physical capacity. To take advantage of these ser-

trash bins •

vices, in June 2009 the State of Michigan initiated the process of drafting state-wide Complete Streets policy. In addition to the efforts of state

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Pedestrian crossing facilities: signage, signaling, midblock crossings, and pedestrian islands

Michigan legislature passed Public Act 134 and 135 into law. Public Act 134 amends the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, allowing municipalities

Transit rider facilities: shelters, stop signage, maps, trash bins, and benches

lawmakers, this development was empowered by the support of advocacy groups like the League of Michigan Bicyclists. In August of 2010 the

Sidewalk design: width, lighting, seating, vegetation, and

Streetscape structure: building setback, building height, and façade design

Cyclist facilities: bike lanes, bike parking, and recreational

Page ii


Executive Summary bike paths When applying Complete Streets design standards, it is not essential to apply each and every parameter. In many cases, in fact, issues like

existing corridor regulations. The recommendations for each study area are as follows: •

heavy traffic or narrow road widths make the application of some stan-

Van Dyke Avenue ◦◦

dards problematic or unsafe. As a consequence, it is helpful to concep-

Phase 1 ▪▪

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

▪▪

be executed, this report contains site analyses and design recommen-

◦◦

dations for two study areas within Macomb County: Van Dyke Avenue

▪▪

A 7’ on-street parking lane and a 5’ bicycle 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 alternative transportation. In both areas, however, conditions like infre-

Additional transit shelters

Phase 2

between 8 Mile Road and 10 Mile Road, Garfield Road between 17 Mile

areas provide the basic assortment of land uses needed to incentivize

Midblock crossings with pedestrian islands

transit stops •

Garfield Road ◦◦

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 made without interfering with existing patterns of automobile traffic or

der at transit stops ◦◦

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 community transportation needs and facilitating public education. For many communities, Complete Street workshops are the easiest way to address both of these needs. When the time and resources permit, conducting 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. Common direct funding mechanisms include use taxes, sales taxes, and taxincrement 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 transitfocused 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 nonmotorized 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: To be completed by 2011: 1. Identify four case study sites with similar physical environments and political infrastructures. 2. Draft a template Complete Streets policy for local governmental officials. 3. Create a Complete Streets policy timeline. 4. Create a physical amenity and design timeline.

Objectives: To be completed by 2011: 1. Create a matrix of associated state and federal funding sources. 2. Produce an annotated map of governmental Complete Streets programs in Michigan. 3. Create a list of policy and financing alternatives complimentary to the Complete Streets mission. Ongoing:

Ongoing: 5. Conduct an annual review of best practices.

4. Conduct an annual review of available

Objectives: To be completed by 2011: 1. Create a presentation for county officials to take to local planning offices. 2. Generate preliminary plans on Van Dyke Avenue between 8 and 10 Mile Road and on Garfield Road between 17 Mile and Hall Road to illustrate the integration of Complete Streets within Macomb County. To be completed by 2015: 3. Conduct workshops for all municipal planning entities within Macomb County.

resources and programmatic needs.

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

Streets at local levels of government, the legislature included Complete

efficient movement of people and goods by motor vehicles, pedestrians, 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

Page 3

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Background Complete Streets and non-motorized bills, Michigan has strived to make streets as accessible, safe, and active as possible. Currently, thirtyfive Michigan municipalities – from the Upper Peninsula to Ann Arbor

State-wide locations of Complete Streets Laws, Policies, 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 Michigan. Source:Google Maps and Complete Streets Coalition

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 4


Background SE Michigan locations of Complete Streets Laws, Policies, Resolutions, and Plans

Legend Statewide Complete Streets Law Complete Streets Ordinances Non-motorized Plan

REFERENCES:

1.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2009, June 22). House Transportation 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 ยง 125). 10.State Trunk Line Highway System. 2010 PA 135. (MCL ยง 247). 11.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 12.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 13.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 14.Ibid. 2010 PA 135. 15.League of Michigan Bicyclists. (2011, April 4). Union Township Passes Complete Streets Resolution. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org.

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

Page 5

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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 practical or recreational purposes.

their home, 43% met recommended activity levels.3 •

Over the past seventy years, towns, cities, and counties interpreted transportation planning as trying to get one person from point A to

Using public transit reduces the amount of congestion and can save individuals $9,581 each year.4

point B as fast as possible. The car created a culture where people expected to drive everywhere instead of relying on other methods of

For residents with safe places to walk within ten minutes of

Reducing one car trip each month cuts, 3,764 tons of CO2 each year.5

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

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 6


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/completestreets-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’s Source:At Detroit

Page 7

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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

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

guidelines is a sampling of some of the basic and crucial elements for a complete street.

Avenues: roads with speeds of 25 to 35 mph, not exceeding

Streets: roadways with speeds of 25 mph or less typically with two lanes of traffic.1

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.

This chapter uses road type definitions from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ book, “Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach”. The authors recommend practices on three basic roadway types: Boulevards, Avenues, and Streets.

Residential Commercial

Suburban

General Urban

Urban Core

20 feet 5 feet

15 feet 0 feet

10 feet 0 feet

Streetside Elements: The streetside encompasses all of the potential elements from the sidewalk to the curb, including sidewalks, landscaping between the sidewalk and curb, lighting, transit stops, and street furniture amenities (See Table 2-4).3

Boulevards: long corridors with travel speeds of 35 miles per

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 8


Design Guidelines Table 2:Recommended sidewalk widths - Suburban Areas Boulevard Avenue Street

Residential

Commercial

6 feet 6 feet 6 feet

6 feet 6 feet 6 feet

Table 3:Recommended sidewalk widths - General Urban Areas Boulevard Avenue Street

Residential 10 feet 9 feet 6 feet

Commercial 10 feet 9 feet 6 feet

Table 4:Recommended sidewalk widths - Urban Core Areas Boulevard Avenue Street

Residential 10 feet 9 feet 6 feet

Commercial 10 feet 9 feet 6 feet

Figure 4. Example of a shared-use sidewalk with a dedicated bike lane on the left and pedestrian lane on the right. Source:Burbank Bus

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


Design Guidelines Table 6: Widths of pedestrian buffers - General Urban Areas Boulevard Avenue Street

Residential 8 feet 8 feet 6 feet

Commercial 7 feet 6 feet 6 feet

Table 7: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Urban Core Areas Boulevard Avenue Street

Residential 7 feet 6 feet 6 feet

Commercial 7 feet 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

buffer, located between the curb and the pedestrian throughway (See

Pedestrian Buffers: Pedestrian buffers, usually landscaped strips, separate sidewalk users from traffic (See Figure 5). There should be at least 1.5 feet of space between the buffer and the curb, to allow for vehicle overhangs and opening doors (See Table 5-7).5,6

Boulevard Avenue Street

Figure 6). Utilities should be underground where possible to avoid clutter and potential conflict with trees. The placement and frequency of streetside furnishing varies depending on the context of the street. Some features

Table 5: Widths of pedestrian buffers - Suburban Areas Residential 8 feet 6 to 8 feet 5 feet

and landscaping, should go in a designated area of the pedestrian

Commercial 7 feet 6 feet 6 feet

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

can even have multiple uses; for example, a raised planter can also 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.

•

Major buildings.

Page 10


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.

• Figure 6. Example of streetside furnishing elements. Source:Oregon Live

Bus Stop Locations and Form:

Highly-visible signs detailing route number(s), bus company contact information, and no-parking zones.

Shelters present at high-volume stops capable of serving the expected number of users (See Figure 7).8

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:

Page 11

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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.

Figure 7. Example of a transit shelter. Source:GenenTech Headquarters, San Francisco

On-Street Bicycle Lane Options:

The bike lane itself should be 5 feet wide.

Do not place bike lanes between parking and the curb.

Dedicated Bike Lanes: •

of the bike lane should be at least 4 feet; 5 feet is the optimal

Ideally, cyclists should be off the sidewalk for safety reasons. The following elements are options for accommodating bicycle travel in the roadway.

width (See Figure 8). •

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 minimum width from curb or guardrail to the striping edge

In rural areas or areas without a sidewalk, paving the road

the on-street parking from the bike lane. •

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


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 Source:SFGate

Mid-Block Crossings: In areas with long blocks and great distances between crossings,

to give pedestrians a safe place to stop halfway if necessary. •

ADT. •

Figure 9).

traffic. •

When signalized intersections are greater than 400 feet apart.

Place pedestrian islands in midblock crossings where the 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: •

Pedestrian refuge islands should also be considered for roads wider than 60 feet or with more than four lanes of

midblock crossings allow pedestrians to cross the street safely. Without midblock crossings, pedestrians often walk farther than necessary (See

Place a refuge island on roadways with 12,000 to 15,000

When midblock crossings will decrease distance between

Page 13

disabled people). •

Pedestrian islands should have a minimum width of 6 feet and a minimum length of 20 feet.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Design Guidelines Midblock Crossing Form: •

Conform to guidelines for the disabled.

Use ramps or channels to and from sidewalk (and refuge island if applicable).

Use overhead safety lighting on approach sides of both ends of the crossing.

Use high-visibility crossing markings and consider adding yield markers.

Use a “Z” crossing configuration with crossings at medians to encourage pedestrians to look for oncoming traffic.10

REFERENCES:

1.Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Pg. 52. 2.Ibid. Pg. 70-71. 3.Ibid. 4.City of Ann Arbor Planning and Development Services 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/ government/communityservices/planninganddevelopment/planning/Documents/Master%20Plans /AANoMo_MasterPlan_2007.pdf.> 5.Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: 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 Transportation 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


Preliminary Plans Purpose:

foundation for future incremental change within the project area.

In areas where large amounts of new development are occurring, the 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 programs can be applied within Macomb County. The study areas used in this illustration are Van Dyke Avenue between 8 Mile Road to 10 Mile Road, and Garfield Road between 17 Mile Road and Hall Road. Both hypothetical plans begin with a short review of current use patterns, existing roadway design, and surrounding patterns of land use. Based on these issues, each plan then progresses to two alternative designs that represent two phases on a Complete Streets development timeline. These plans follow the recommended guidelines when possible, illustrating how Complete Streets elements can adapt to the existing site

Van Dyke Avenue: 8 Mile Rd. to 10 Mile Rd. Existing Conidtions: Van Dyke Avenue is a major surface road that runs north through Macomb County from Lynch Road to 27 Mile Road. For the portion included in the study area, Van Dyke Avenue consists of three northbound lanes, three southbound lanes, and one middle turning lane (approximately 77.5 feet). Either side of Van Dyke Avenue is bordered by 10 feet of sidewalk, creating a total right-of-way width of about 110 feet (See figure 10).

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. ◦◦

Page 15

Goal: To establish a physical and social

12’

11’

11’ 9’6”

11’

11’

12’

Figure 10. Cross Section of Van Dyke Avenue Created by Will Tardy

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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 within the Van Dyke study area, please see Appendix: Traffic Statistics. The pedestrian facilities within the Van Dyke study area consist of signalized crossings at stoplights, abundant pedestrian lighting, small commercial setbacks, and trash bins. Available amenities for transit riders include signed bus stops and a transit shelter at the 9 Mile Road-

Legend Deciduous Woodlands Open Space, Developed Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Med Intensity Developed, High Intensity

Van Dyke stop. Currently no facilities exist for cyclists. Land use along the Van Dyke study area is predominately light commercial, backed by residential land uses (see Figure 11). Typical businesses include automobile service stations, used car dealers, fastfood restaurants, and small retail shops. The neighboring residential areas are predominately single-family homes. The nearest industrial land uses are located a mile west on Mound Road. The public land uses within a mile of the Van Dyke study area include three parks and Lincoln High School.

Figure 11. Land Use Map of Van Dyke Corridor Created by Will Tardy Source: 2006 USGS NLDC Land Cover Survey

Analysis: With a wide variety of land uses, small commercial setbacks, and continuous sidewalks, the Van Dyke study area has many of the underlying infrastructural components of Complete Streets design. Planners and engineers can build on this foundation by increasing 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


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 Van Dyke represents huge investments of financial and social capital. As a result, initiatives that threaten these investments would likely be politically imprudent and fiscally wasteful. Therefore, the introduction of these amenities should be incremental and thoroughly vetted through

Present

Pros STRENGTHS

Cons WEAKNESSES

Minimal Impact of Existing Traffic Patterns

Minimal Service Provision for Cyclists Facilitates midblock crossing in high traffic area

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

Creates a base for incremental investment

Generates additional maintenance costs

public meetings. Implementation: Phase 1: The first step proposed within the Van Dyke study area is the installation of pedestrian islands within the middle turning lane. To facilitate safe and convenient street crossings, these islands should be located at block midpoints. To assure that these structures draw in pedestrians and alert drivers, islands should be accompanied by signage and crosswalk striping (see Figure 12). On some segments of Van Dyke, existing driveway locations will make the installation of

Future

Note: SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats) analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendations

pedestrian islands problematic. In these cases, because there are a limited number of viable businesses, planners should place midblock crossings to accommodate established business interests. In locations of close proximity (1 mile) to schools, parks, and other public spaces, however, priority should be granted to the placement of pedestrian crossing amenities (see the Proposed Plan Maps section in the appendix for more details). To incentivize the use of public transit,

Page 17

Phase 2: To complete the conversion of the Van Dyke study area into a Complete Streets corridor, Phase 2 proposes the conversion of both outer two driving lanes into a curbside 7-foot parking lane and a 5-foot bicycle lane. Since this change in vehicular traffic pushes buses away from the curb, this phase also includes 7-foot sidewalk extensions at

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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). The goal of Phase 2 is to maximize and accommodate the shift of users

Table 9. SWOT Analysis for Van Dyke Phase 2

from automobile traffic to alternate transportation means. However, planners and engineers will drastically redefine the structure of the corridor and likely encounter negative public response. To accommodate and perhaps prevent these concerns from arising, establishing public

Present

support through education and design charrettes is essential.

Future

Pros STRENGTHS

Cons WEAKNESSES

Maximizes the likelihood of mode shift

Requires significant changes in traffic patterns Likely to generate public protest

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

Creates the opportunity to radically redefine the character and perception of the neighborhood

Requires similar and concurrent efforts in neighboring areas to reach full potential

Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendations

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 18


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

Page 19

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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 (approx. 55.5 feet). Either side of Garfield Road is bordered by 25 feet

6’

25’

12’

11’ 9’6” 11’ 12’

25’

6’

Figure 14. Cross Section of Garfield Rd. Created by Will Tardy

of grassy shoulder and 10 feet of sidewalk, creating a total right-ofway width of about 120 feet (see Figure 14). According to SEMCOG’s latest 24-hour traffic counts (3/25/2009), this three-mile segment of road carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. The concentration 4

of traffic within the Garfield study area peaks between 11am and 12 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 generally heavier in the northbound lanes. In the section of Garfield 6

between19 Mile Road and Hall Road, however, northbound traffic was one-quarter of the daily southbound traffic (presumably because of people exiting Garfield for Macomb Community College).7 The posted speed limit within the Garfield study area is 45 MPH. To see more information on current traffic statistics within the Van Dyke study area, please see Appendix # : Traffic Statistics.

The existing pedestrian facilities within the Garfield study area consist of signalized crossing at stoplights and non-continuous sidewalks. For transit riders, the available amenities consist of signed bus stops. Currently no facilities exist for cyclists. Land use within the Garfield study area is predominately commercial and institutional, with residential land uses behind (see Fig 15). Typical commercial land uses include small banks, restaurants, department stores, and strip mall developments. The institutional land uses on Garfield include the extensive campus of Macomb County Community College (MCCC), Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, and Wyandot Middle School. Residential areas within the study area are predominately 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


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

Figure 15. Land Use Map of Garfield Corridor. Created by Will Tardy Source: 2006 USGS NLDC Land Cover Survey

Analysis: With a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential areas, the Garfield study area has the right mix of land uses to attract pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Due to its suburban character, however, the land use density is not high enough to make regular non-motorized and public transportation convenient. In the long term, local planners could use zoning regulations that incentivize increased density, mixed use

Page 21

infrastructure investment is extending the sidewalks through the grassy shoulder at transit stops. For able-bodied transit riders, the existing 25-foot grassy buffer between the sidewalk and the curb poses only a small inconvenience. For the elderly and handicapped, however, uneven terrain can create a major impediment to boarding the bus. To make the use of public transportation more comfortable and safe, the third initiative integrated into Phase 1 is the installation of more transit shelters. To create an inviting pedestrian environment, the final recommendation of Phase 1 is to plant street trees along the existing sidewalk.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Preliminary Plans pedestrian activity, but existing crossing systems are inconvenient. The Table 10. SWOT Analysis for Garfield Phase 1

Pros STRENGTHS Present

Future

Cons WEAKNESSES

Supports alternative transportation without impeding existing traffic

Does not provide infrastructure for cyclists

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

Creates a base for incremental investment

Generates additional maintenance costs

Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendations Phase 2: To complete the conversion of the Garfield Road study area into a Complete Streets corridor, a portion of the grassy shoulder can be converted into a bicycle path (See Figure 17). Located adjacent to the existing sidewalk, this improvement creates a safe and comfortable riding environment without creating conflicts with automobiles. In

area around Wyandot Middle School is a prime example of this sort of condition (see Appendix: Proposed Plan Maps for more details). Table 11. SWOT Analysis for Garfield Phase 2

Present

Future

Pros STRENGTHS

Cons WEAKNESSES

Supports alternative transportation without impeding existing traffic

Does not address land use issues

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

Facilitates public awareness of alternative transportation options and associated benefits

Generates additional maintenance costs Reduced population density

Note: SWOT analysis is used to provide a holistic and transparent review of planning recommendations

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

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 22


Preliminary Plans

3

Figure 16. Phase 1 of Garfield Rd. Created by Jonathan Moore.

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

1

Page 23

2

2.Midblock Crossing with Road Striping

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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. 6.Ibid. Volume Count Report: Garfield Road. 7.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. Journal 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.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 24


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 modifications 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 Tools:

egy.

“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-

supported.” – Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition

bile traffic away from their stores. A special workshop for business own-

1

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-

Page 25

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Implementation Tools 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:

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 26


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.17

Finally, a participating municipality must allow for an expedited permitting 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 regional 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

Page 27

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Implementation Tools 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-adjacent bicycle or pedestrian improvements due to site constraints, the developer can pay a fee, and the improvements will be built offsite but within the same community planning area at a later date.”

20

Site design checklists for bicycle parking, pedestrian and transit facilities, etc. (Pg. 92-94).

Cross-sections and guidelines for different road types and 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 illustrated 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 analysts. More than anything, city officials cited the resolution as a psychological change. On March 2, 2009, the City Council adopted an official

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 28


Implementation Tools Complete Streets ordinance that amended the city code. The ordinance

officials immediately began drafting a resolution. The local government

authorized 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 Streets ordinance.23 The ordinance mandated that Lansing create a

and environmentally friendly transportation system.26 •

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 in

low for changes of existing right-of-ways.

daily routines such as walking and biking.27

24

In addition, the ordinance

maintained that Lansing must create more accessible sidewalks and

bike lanes by adding better signage, pathways, curb ramps, and curb cut-outs.25

Transparency will be crucial in the successful adoption and implementation of Complete Streets policy.28

Hennepin County encourages local, county, and state governments to work together to make Complete Streets a real-

A legal mandate, specifically one that creates a dedicated funding

ity.29

source, is the most secure way to further Complete Streets in a municipality. The ordinance guarantees that there is political buy-in to the Com-

After the resolution passed, Hennepin County passed its Complete

plete Streets philosophy, as well as enforcement. A sample Complete

Streets policy in July 2009. The policy lays out six methods Hennepin

Streets 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 into transportation development projects.”30

Hennepin County, MN: Complete Streets Resolution and Policy Hennepin County, home to the City of Minneapolis, adopted a Complete

Assess and record existing corridors.31

Streets resolution and policy in 2009. Hennepin County serves as a

Create a Complete Streets implementation procedure.32

good example for Macomb County, because Minnesota law allows cities

Generate a Complete Streets evaluation method.33

to operate under home rule.

Re-evaluate Hennepin County’s roadside enhancement partnership program.34

In December 2008, public officials from Hennepin County attended a Complete Streets workshop presented by national experts. Afterward,

Page 29

Integrate Complete Streets in the Transportation Systems Plan and other appropriate documents.35

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Implementation Tools The county should play an active role in educating these municipal leadBy 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 Complete

resolution 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 information about Minnesota and Hennepin County’s policies can be found

3.Change Rhetoric

in 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 the

The timeline provided illustrates a sample process for implementing

municipal leaders themselves and their constituency.

Complete Streets policy, assuming that a municipality has not made significant efforts. The process includes the key players– the county, the

4.Create Sidewalk Improvement Program

municipality, and the community, including advocacy groups and con-

A sidewalk improvement program that is closely associated with schools

stituents. This process is flexible, and there are many ways to reach a

or with private investment may be the most politically viable first step in

Complete Streets policy. A municipality may adopt an ordinance before

changing policy. This policy, which can take shape in either ordinances

the 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 municipal and community leaders.

5.Create Non-Motorized Plan A non-motorized plan is an excellent way to incorporate advocacy

1.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 Complete Streets advocates. Ideally, a candidate would be a member of the mu-

6.Propose Complete Streets Resolution

nicipality’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

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Though this does not specifically amend legislation, a resolution can

Page 30


Implementation Tools serve as a philosophical starting point. 7.Pass Complete Streets Policy A Complete Streets resolution can lead to a Complete Streets policy, which introduces or amends current legislation. An ordinance ensures there is both a requirement to implement Complete Streets and enforcement. 8.Create Direct Funding Stream The ultimate goal is to create a direct funding stream that can finance roadway improvement. This can be through a Complete Streets policy or programming, such as a CIA or TIF.

Page 31

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Implementation Tools Implementation Timeline

Figure 18. Pilot Complete Streets Implementation Timeline. Created by Diana Flora

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Page 32


Implementation Tools REFERENCES:

1.Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. (2010, August). Complete Streets: Local toolkit. In Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. P. 5. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.mncompletestreets.org/gfx/MnCSLocalGovtToolkit.pdf. 2.Lawrie, Judson J. et al. (2006, January-February). Bikeways to Prosperity. TR News. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/34336430/Assessing-Economic-Impact-of-Bicycle-Facilities. 3.Lusher, Lindsey, et al. (2008, August). Streets to Live By: How livable street design can bring economic, health and quality-of-life benefits to New York City. In Transportation Alternatives. . Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://transalt.org/ files/newsroom/reports/streets_to_live_by.pdf 4.Michigan Planning Enabling Act. 2010 PA 134. (MCL § 125). 5.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 72. 6.Alta. (2008, March). Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan. In Columbus, Ohio Bicentennial Bikeway Master Plan. p. 7-5 - 7-6. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.altaprojects.net/columbus/. 7.Corridor Improvement Authority Act, 2005 PA 280. (MCL § 125). 8.Michigan Economic Development Authority. (2008). Corridor Improvement Authority. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= web&cd=4&ved=0CCkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganadvantage. org%2Fcm%2FFiles%2FFact-Sheets%2FCorridorImprovementAuthorityPA280. pdf&ei=2_mGTbPUHc7SgQevnMDeCA&usg=AFQjCNFP1pe7n1H7KDHZZZH5 H9mqDCCyCQ&sig2=nWJ7JPuWkj6JoB8G0M9TkA. 9.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. 10.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. 11.Ibid. Corridor Improvement Authority. 12.City of Colorado Springs. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use Tax Information And Guidelines. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http:// www.springsgov.com/units/salestax/special%20messages/PPRTA%20Brochure.pdf. 13.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use Tax Information And Guidelines. 14.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use Tax Information And Guidelines. 15.Ibid. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority PPRTA Sales And Use Tax Information And Guidelines. 16.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best

Page 33

Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 70. 17.Ibid. p. 70. 18.McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds.( 2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19. 19.Columbus City Code. Title 31, § 3123.17. 20.Columbus City Code. Title 43. Chapter 4307. 21.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. 22.Columbus City Council. (2008, July 29). Resolution 0151X-2008. 23.Neuner, Rory. (2009, Aug. 19). Lansing passes Michigan’s first Complete Streets Ordinance. In Michigan Complete Streets Coalition. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.micompletestreets.org. 24.Ibid. Lansing passes Michigan’s first Complete Streets Ordinance. 25.Ibid. Lansing passes Michigan’s first Complete Streets Ordinance. 26.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, February). Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http:// board.co.hennepin.mn.us/sirepub/cache/246/4gw0k4fkl51hov45oa5x4j vb/6140003122011081954117.PDF. 27.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 28.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 29.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 30.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, July). Complete Streets Policy. Retrieved 4/15/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/ policy/cs-mn-hennepincounty-policy.pdf. 31.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 32.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 33.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 34.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 35.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Conclusion In 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

urban population density. As a result of these changes, the current em-

issues like non-motorized user safety, promoting active lifestyles, and

phasis on automobiles as the primary mode of personal transportation

accessible streets for all users.

1

will become increasingly difficult. To prepare Macomb County for these changes, 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’s

In older, denser portions of Macomb County, applying Complete Streets

central role in the process of daily life, Complete Streets is also a means

will mean returning to more transportation planning practices from the

to recreate a community’s identity.3 By turning under used spaces like

early 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 Streets

to the governing mission, incremental change is to be embraced. Unlike

policy more of a guiding principal of restorative urban planning, rather

Euclidean 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, making these gradual changes will likely lead to investments that initially create minimal interference with automobile traffic. The installation of recre-

ational bike facilities, additional transit shelters, and improved pedestrian facilities are important examples in this regard. To provide the financial resources needed to institute Complete Streets strategies, local administrators and policy makers will need to investigate novel implementation strategies. Examples of these tools include sales taxes, 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


Conclusion REFERENCES:

1.Van Ginkel, Hans. (30 October 2008). Urban Future. Nature, 456, 32-33. 2.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, Transportation Project 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


Appendix A: Case Studies

These case study briefs were made to summarize findings on four cities used in the background research for this report. The cities were selected based on similarity to Macomb County’s context and stated goals, or the exemplary nature of their Complete Streets programs.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Hennepin County, MN

A-2

Columbus, OH

A-6

Grand Rapids, MI

A - 10

Ann Arbor, MI

A - 14

A-1


Hennepin County, MN Introduction

the Midwest Context Sensitive Design and Solutions workshop to assist

This 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 keep

Minnesota’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.” 5

Hennepin County and Minnesota serve as a great example of a Midwest county and state that systematically provide all levels of government with

Complete Streets Components

the resources and abilities to improve their existing infrastructure. Starting with Minnesota’s Complete Streets Report, Hennepin County’s Com-

Minnesota 2009 Complete Streets Final Report

plete Streets Resolution and Policy, followed by Minnesota’s Complete

The Complete Streets Report was compiled by the Commissioner of

Streets 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 was

refer 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 summarized 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.6

has 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 Complete Streets.7

Over the past decades, Hennepin County worked hard to maintain access to safe and diverse modes of transportation. Beginning in the late

Streets.8

1990’s the Federal Highway Administration developed a new set of principles, called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), to encourage states

Analyze other state, county, and local Complete Streets policies and best practices.9

to treat transportation, community, and environmental goals equally.3 In 2005 the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) co-hosted

Asses the maintenance and operations impacts of Complete

Review the costs, benefits, and feasibility of Complete Streets. 10

A-2

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Hennepin County, MN •

Advocate implementation of Complete Streets policy.11

First, the report stated funding resources are scarce, but may be obtained through various agencies and partnerships. Although funding

all transportation decisions to maintain a safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly transportation system.16 •

Next, the report stated that the design standards needed to be revised to eliminate inconsistencies and integrate all modes transportation.12 In addition, the new design standards involved operations and maintenance

as walking and biking.17 • •

and local levels.”14 Finally, the report explains that a Complete Streets policy must stress the importance of improving safety for all users of the street.15

ity.19 2009 Hennepin County Complete Streets Policy After the resolution passed, Hennepin County passed its Complete Streets Policy in July 2009. The policy lays out six methods Hennepin County will use to enforce and adopt its Complete Street Policy: •

2009 Hennepin County Complete Streets Resolution As Mn/DOT was preparing its Complete Streets Report, Hennepin County created a Complete Streets Resolution. In December 2008, public officials from Hennepin County attended a Complete Streets workshop presented by national experts. Afterward, officials immediately began drafting a resolution. The Hennepin Complete Streets Resolution passed by the local government in February 2009. The resolution aimed to create a Complete Streets policy. It stated:

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Hennepin County encourages local, county, and state governments to work together to make Complete Streets a real-

noted that no quantifiable benefit/cost analysis was available, but other stating, “Complete Streets are considered feasible on the state, regional

Transparency will be crucial in the successful adoption and implementation of Complete Streets policy.18

staff to minimize long-term maintenance costs.13 Furthermore, the report case studies suggested Complete Streets benefits outweigh their costs

Complete Streets allow Hennepin County to support Active Living, which permits physical activity in daily routines such

is difficult to obtain, Minnesota has strong infrastructure resources for Complete Streets implementation due to its previous CSS objectives.

Hennepin County will adopt a Complete Streets philosophy to

Incorporate Complete Streets “principles and practices into transportation development projects.” 20

Assess and record existing corridors.21

Create a Complete Streets implementation procedure. 22

Generate a Complete Streets evaluation method.23

Re-evaluate Hennepin County’s roadside enhancement partnership program.24

Integrate Complete Streets in the Transportation Systems Plan and other appropriate documents.25

A-3


Hennepin County, MN By implementing these measures, Hennepin County believes Complete

County as it attempts to implement complete street policies. Hennepin

Streets will bring a better quality of life to its residents. In addition to the

County and Minnesota continually emphasize transparency throughout

resolution 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 what

2010 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 in Minnesota: •

• • •

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. Macomb

The law also stipulates that the commissioner of transportation shall

will struggle to find most existing infrastructure already set up to handle

submit reports to the members of the House and Senate summarizing

Complete Streets planning. Therefore, Macomb may have to work

steps taken to improve the transparency of the Complete Streets imple-

harder to achieve the same results as Hennepin, but certainly should

mentation process.

not discourage any attempts to retrofit infrastructure to Complete Streets

30

standards.

Analysis Hennepin County and Minnesota serve as a great reference for Macomb

A-4

Finally, Hennepin County and Minnesota accomplished their Complete

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Hennepin County, MN Streets policies through a stage-by-stage implementation process. This progressive planning process will be necessary for the future of Complete Streets in Macomb County. Michigan has made progress by writing into law that 1% of all transportation funds be allocated to non-motorized infrastructure improvements. This is not enough. Macomb County must reach out to all of its municipalities and state government, to make others aware of the benefits that can come from progressive Complete Streets policies.

REFERENCES:

1.Hennepin County, MN. (2011). Fast Facts About Hennepin. In Hennepin County, Minnesota. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://hennepin.us/portal/site/HennepinUS/menuitem.b1ab75471750e40fa01dfb47ccf06498/?vgnextoid=9888822 a9fe23210VgnVCM10000049114689RCRD. 2.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, November 4). Hennepin, Minnesota. In State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/27/27053.html 3.Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2009, December). Complete Streets Report. In Complete Streets. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.dot. 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. In Minnesota 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). Complete Streets 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

12.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. 13.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. 14.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. 15.Ibid. Complete Streets Report. 16.Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. (2009, February). Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http:// board.co.hennepin.mn.us/sirepub/cache/246/4gw0k4fkl51hov45oa5x4j vb/6140003122011081954117.PDF. 17.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 18.Ibid. Complete Streets Resolution 09-0058. 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. 23.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 24.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 25.Ibid. Complete Streets Policy. 26.Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition. (2010). MN Complete Streets Law: Chapter 351 Sec 52 &72. Retrieved 3/11/11, from http://www.mncompletestreets.org/gfx/MNCompleteStreetsLaw.pdf. 27.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72. 28.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72. 29.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72. 30.Ibid. Chap 351 Sec 52 &72.

A-5


Columbus, OH Introduction The 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 safe

County. 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 on

Macomb County due to the type of development in both regions. To

the four “Es”: enforcement, engagement, education, and engineering.4

compare the two, I will provide a brief background of the policies lead-

The Division not only works to improve infrastructure, it also offers a

ing 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 to

ordinance. Finally, I will conclude by relating these strategies to Macomb

incorporate Complete Streets in site-plan review, while training workers

County.

in public utilities to understand the city’s expectations when reconstructing roads.5

Background At 220 square miles, Columbus is the largest city in Ohio in both size

Complete Streets Components

and population.1 Though the city practiced suburban development before 1990, Columbus is unique, because it is home to a university popula-

Subdivision Ordinance

tion that advocates for walkable, bikeable communities. While residents

Until 1999, Columbus lacked a comprehensive sidewalk law. Once

played a large role in demanding Complete Streets, city officials who

elected, O’Shaughnessy urged the City Council to address this issue by

pushed for relevant policies were essential to this movement. City

first updating the subdivision ordinance to require sidewalks for private

Councilmember 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 within

who became mayor, she led the city in creating policies that improved

Columbus, the City Council finally amended the subdivision ordinance to

infrastructure 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


Columbus, OH bikeways in accordance with the Bicentennial Bikeways Plan (described

Plan.16

below).9 The ordinance also “authorizes an in-lieu fee program modeled after the city’s parkland dedication fund. If a particular development

Complete Streets Ordinance

cannot provide site-adjacent bicycle or pedestrian improvements due to

In 2008, the City Council approved a resolution that illustrated the city’s

site constraints, the developer can pay a fee, and the improvements will

commitment to Complete Streets.17 The resolution was a result of many

be built offsite but within the same community planning area at a later

different stakeholders coming together, including the city attorney,

date.” This ordinance reduces the burden of municipalities to construct

police, biking and health advocates, and legislative analysts. More than

sidewalks, and it creates incentives for private developers to contribute

anything, city officials cited the resolution as a psychological change

to the Complete Streets plan.

amongst City Council members, residents, and developers, all working

10

toward the same aim.18 Bicentennial Bikeways Plan While the subdivision ordinance invoked the Complete Streets philoso-

On March 2, 2009, the City Council adopted an official Complete Streets

phy, the Bikeways Plan was the first step towards creating a Complete

ordinance that amended the city code. The ordinance authorized both a

Streets ordinance in Columbus. The Plan situated itself in a history of

Sidewalk Improvement Fund and a Bikeway Improvement Fund, while

bicycle 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.19

11

bikeways, constructing cyclist infrastructure when improvements were made to arterial roadways, and developing way-finding signage specifi-

Analysis

cally for cyclists. The Plan also highlighted the importance of building 12

adequate bike parking and maintaining bikeways with street sweepers.13

Though conditions in Columbus vary slightly from those in Macomb

The Plan, in line with the Complete Streets movement, formed a goal to

County, Columbus is an excellent example of how political will can

increase the number of people for bicycling for transportation and recre-

drastically change the built environment. Within ten years, city officials

ation. To ensure that a Complete Streets policy was created, the Plan

like Mayor Coleman and Councilmember O’Shaughnessy significantly

offered a model Complete Streets ordinance and recommended that the

changed the way residents, city workers, and developers thought about

Columbus City Council implement a similar policy. The City Council of-

physical infrastructure.

14

15

ficially adopted the Columbus Bicentennial Bikeways Plan in 2008, and voters later authorized a bond package that would help to execute the

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

A-7


Columbus, OH Because of Columbus’ history of suburban development, the types of

shelters. Macomb County could look to Columbus on how to integrate

landscapes in Columbus are very similar to Macomb County. Many of

street design with shelter and street furniture design to best address the

the improvements to cyclist infrastructure, for example, came from sub-

needs of transit riders.

urban arterial conversions like “road diets,” which can reduce four-lane highways to three-lane roads with bike lanes on both sides. The pictures

Traffic signals are important when considering pedestrian safety on

below 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 the

Tools 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 prioritization

prove cyclist infrastructure is a “sharrow,” or a road sticker that indicates

schedule.23

that cyclists and drivers use the same space on the road. This is particularly useful on roadways that do not necessarily have the space for

Furthermore, the city conducts consistent speed studies and engages in

additional 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 County

As 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, and

are three or more lanes, very similar to the arterials seen in Macomb

transit riders.

County. Columbus resolves this issue by constructing pedestrian islands or refuges for those crossing a wide right-of-way. Mid-block crossings also are a more affordable alternative to landscaped medians, which achieve a similar purpose. To account for transit riders in the Complete Streets model, the Department of Transportation in Columbus ensures there are adequate transit

A-8

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Columbus, OH REFERENCES:

1. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19. 2. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19. 3. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 20. 4. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19. 5. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 20. 6. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19. 7. Columbus City Code. Title 31, ยง 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: Best Policy 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, from http://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

www.altaprojects.net/columbus/. 16. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 20. 17. Columbus City Council. July 29, 2008. Resolution 0151X-2008. 18. Columbus City Code. 2009. Title 21, 31, 33, and 41 and 45. 19. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 20. 20. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) Complete Streets. Issue 1. 21. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) Complete Streets. Issue 1. 22. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. (2010 Summer/Fall) Complete Streets. Issue 1. 23. McCann, Barbara and Suzanne Rynne, eds. (2010). Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 19.

A-9


Grand Rapids, MI Introduction

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 Grand

plete Street policy framework, investigating the development of Com-

Valley Metropolitan Council Long Range Transportation Plan. Including

plete Streets policy within similar communities is essential. One of the

elements on bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit riders, this documents

communities 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-

transportation

ing a non-motorized transportation policy. Derived from the 1996 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Long Range Plan, this early effort bound the

Cycling, walking, and public transit are legitimate forms of

Planning agencies within the Grand Rapids area must serve all legitimate forms of transportation

Grand Rapids metro area together under a single philosophical rationale. From 1997 to 2009, local planning agencies built upon this foundation 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 transportation

of the Complete Streets framework. Viewed as different steps in an

components. These plans include the 2002 City of Grand Rapids Master

ongoing process, these documents also illustrate how multimodal trans-

Plan, the 2009 City of Grand Rapids Green Grand Rapids Draft Bicycle

portation 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 making common mistakes and anticipated development barriers.

COMPLETE STREETS COMPONENTS

BACKGROUND

2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan

According to the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan, the history of multi-

The 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan represents the city’s most recent

modal 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.2

by the integration of streetcars into roadway design. Despite this early

To support this adoption, the 2002 Master Plan draws attention to a list

emphasis, 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


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 goals or plans are included within this document. Moreover, the only refer-

2009 Green Grand Rapids Draft Bicycle Plan

ences used to illustrate the implementation of multi-modal transportation

As part of the Green Grand Rapids community planning initiative, in

infrastructure 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 benefits

2009 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 for

because it addresses many of the precepts associated with Complete

these designs is not specific to named corridors or intersections, but

Streets. Of those referenced in this plan, the expansion of non-motorized

instead illustrates the integration of bicycle facilities on different types of

transportation infrastructure is the most predominant. To facilitate this

roads and intersections.14 These types include various arrangements of

expansion, 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

In addition to rationales and design standards, this document also

Municipal liability 9

Cross jurisdictional cooperation

8

includes an extensive list of roadways eligible for bike infrastructure ex10

In addition to these topics, this plan also provides a full inventory of

pansion.15 Eligibility of these roadways is based the following criteria: •

existing local non-motorized transportation infrastructure. 11 To repre-

CONNECTIVITY: Does the proposed route connect important 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 existing

recently constructed pieces of infrastructure a short description and cost

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

infrastructure?

A - 11


Grand Rapids, MI Figure 19. Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Nonmotorized Project Ranking Tiers and Criteria. Source: 2009 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Draft Nonmotorized Plan

CONFLICT: Is the proposed route likely to generate user conflicts?

IMPLEMENTATION: Does the route rely on easy to implement tactics?

For each of these criteria, the route is given a score from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The higher a route’s score, the higher it sits on the priority ranking. In the final section of this document, the authors provide a review of program resources. Although many different resource types are discussed in this section, the most prominent are financial resources and associated initiative resources. 16

For both of these pools, sub-

stantial time is spent reviewing

A - 12

Michigan specific opportunities. With regards to the financial resources, these opportunities are organized in a matrix based on the eligible applications. 17

Analysis In order to solidify Complete Streets as a part of Macomb County’s transportation planning framework, planners and policy makers will need to find ways to manage conflict between auto-centric cultures and community groups that utilize alternative forms of transportation. In some cases, the idiosyncrasies of the area will shape this conflict into highly specialized forms. In other cases, however, the expression of transportation planning conflicts will be indicative of more general, regional trends. Based on shared characteristics like auto-centric design, northern climate, and Midwestern cultural attitudes; it is likely that Macomb County and Grand Rapids experience these regional trends in a similar fashion. Regardless of Grand Rapids’ level of policy sophistication, this similarity suggests the opportunity for Macomb County to extend its resource base. Given the findings of this case study, however, there opportunities for Macomb are in fact more abundant. Over the past 15 years, however, Grand Rapids has developed a substantial knowledge base around multimodal transportation. By accessing this knowledge base through written materials and planning personnel, Macomb County’s transportation policy makers can not only identify practices successful in Southern Michigan, but also preemptively identify development obstacles. Based on the findings of this case study, the best practices that Macomb County can utilize include project ranking methodologies, the utilization

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Grand Rapids, MI of subject specific funding sources, and incremental system modification. The potential obstacles outlines by this case study, however, are not as explicit. In all of the reviewed documents, very few references to unforeseen difficulties are made. By looking at the evolution of plan content, however, an implicit obstacle can be derived. Specifically, as the plans developed the articulation of specific implementation goals became more and more finite. Since design standards for multimodal transportation networks were still developing, it is reasonable to attribute this development to changes in national Complete Streets methodologies. Considering the relative simplicity of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, however, I proposed an alternative explanation. Instead of being deterred by an unavailability of information, multimodal transportation developed slowly in Grand Rapids due to a disinterest in cultural change. As Macomb County planners develop their own program, I believe that this cultural tension will be one of the most important issues

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

REFERENCES:

1.City of Grand Rapids Department of Planning. (2002). The City of Grand Rapids 2002 Master Plan. P. 77. Retrieved 3/10/2011, from http://www.grand-rapids. mi.us. 2.Ibid P. 75-88 3.Ibid P. 80-81 4.Ibid P. 80-81 5.Ibid P. 80-81 6.Ibid P. 80-81, 84-85 7.Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. (2009). 2009 Draft Non-Motorized Plan. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.gvmc.org/transportation/documents/nonmotorized/gvmc_draft_nmplan_withmaps_web.pdf. 8.Ibid P. 55-68 9.Ibid P. 20 10.Ibid P. 15 11.Ibid P.21-29 12.Ibid P.56-57 13.Ibid P.45-47. 14.City of Grand Rapids Department of Planning. (2009). 2009 Draft Bicycle Plan. Green Grand Rapid Initiative. Retrieved 3/10/2011, from http://www. grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/greengr_Bike%20 ped%20plan.pdf. PP. 15-16, 28-33. 15.Ibid P.23-28, 35-37 16.Ibid P.52-55 17.Ibid P.56

A - 13


Ann Arbor, MI Introduction This 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 was

commitment 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 to

portation 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 thing

Ann Arbor are applicable. Ann Arbor’s non-motorized and transportation

about complete streets in Ann Arbor is that practice has preceded an

plans include strategies and design tools that communities in Macomb

explicit official resolution. Only as of March 7th, 2011 did the city council

County can draw on for their own plans. Construction of complete street

pass a resolution supporting complete streets. However, the resolution

elements has taken place on different roads in Ann Arbor, giving built-out

points out that the philosophies behind the Complete Streets concept

examples from which Macomb County planners can get inspiration. In

appear in recent planning documents and completed projects.5

particular, the work done on West Stadium Boulevard and Platt Road is applicable to our suburban arterial study areas on Van Dyke and Gar-

Complete Streets Components

field because of how Ann Arbor managed to transform large and busy arterials into more complete streets.

Policies and Resolutions The City of Ann Arbor Non-motorized Plan 2007 contains much of the

Background

reasoning and guidelines behind making the roads safe for pedestrians

Ann 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 and

pus, as well as several other private collegiate institutions, the city has

accessible to pedestrians and cyclists as well as one which promotes

earned 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 the

they 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 •

A - 14

Site design checklists for bicycle parking, pedestrian and

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Ann Arbor, MI Fig. 20 West Stadium Before Improvement. Notice the lack of bike lanes, the poor condition of the sidewalks and the lack of crossing options. Source: City of Ann Arbor

transit facilities, etc.8 •

Cross-sections and guidelines for different road types and bike and pedestrian facilities.9

In 2009, Ann Arbor released an update to its 1990 transportation master 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 transportation 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

Fig. 21 West Stadium After Improvement. New bike lanes added, the improved sidewalks and a new pedestrian island for crossing. Source: City of Ann Arbor

County. One such element would be the examples of corridor prioritization, with those corridors deemed most important to future transportation and as key gateways receiving high-priority status.12

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


Ann Arbor, MI Complete Street Element Example: West Stadium Before alterations, West Stadium had five lanes with no bike facilities, few crossing opportunities and poor sidewalk lighting. Recently it was

Fig. 22 Platt Road Before Improvement. Notice the lack of bike lanes and crossing options Source: City of Ann Arbor

converted to include a bike lane, pedestrian islands and improved streetscaping (see Figs 20 and 21). 13 This design appears to greatly improve access for cyclists and pedestrians while minimally impeding the flow of traffic. Such designs are very important to consider when looking at roads like Van Dyke where reducing traffic speeds is probably no feasible. The design also appears to use the existing road space very efficiently, another important consideration for Van Dyke since most businesses are close to sidewalk and road. Complete Street Element Example: Platt Road The alterations to Platt Road serve as a good inspiration for improvements to Garfield. Platt was not as wide as West Stadium and is in a less dense area, just as Garfield is relative to Van Dyke. Before altera-

Fig. 23 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 Arbor

tions, Platt was four lanes wide, with no facilities and no signal crossing. Improvements to Platt included reducing the lanes to two travel lanes with a center turning lane and adding bike lanes, pedestrian islands and better bus stops (see Figs 22 and 23). Lane reduction on Garfield is still improbable, but more of a possibility than on Van Dyke. Pedestrian islands are also a more viable option of non-signalized crossing on Garfield, since the people would have to cross fewer lanes of traffic. There is also more room on Garfield for

A - 16

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Ann Arbor, MI improved bus stops. The two examples of West Stadium and Platt do no correlate perfectly with Van Dyke and Garfield, but they do serve as a physical inspiration for what Macomb County can do. The local context of Ann Arbor and the communities in Macomb County will differ to varying degrees depending on the site. With imagination and a flexible mindset it is possible to derive valuable Complete Street policy and practice lessons from Ann Arbor that are applicable to Macomb County. Despite their differences, Ann Arbor’s success makes it a potential positive local resource and inspiration for Macomb County.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

REFERENCES:

1.Jaimonr. (2006, October 24). The War Hits Home. In The Making of Ann Arbor. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http://moaa.aadl.org/moaa/pictorial_history/19401974pg1. 2.Ann Arbor Fact Sheet. (2000). In U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http://factfinder.census.gov. 3.University of Michigan Office of Development. (2010) 2010 Profile. Pg. 6. Retrieved 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 Arbor Non-motorized Transportation Plan 2007. In Projects. Retrieved 3/11/2011, from http://www.greenwaycollab.com/AANoMo.htm. 5.Ann Arbor City Council (2011, March 7). Resolution Proclaiming the City of Ann Arbor’s Commitment to Complete Streets. Retrieved 3/8/2011, from http:// a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=842913&GUID=A47F14F8-E27C4679-9D40-68DD7590CF74&Options=&Search=. 6.The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. (2006, December 6). City of Ann Arbor Nonmotorized 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/systems_planning/Transportation/Documents/2009_A2_Transportation_Plan_Update_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.

A - 17


Appendix B: Interviews

Eli Cooper These interview briefs were made to enrich the information gathered during the case study process, and provide insight from planning proffesionals. The individuals included in the interview process were selected based on their organization’s leadership in the regional development of Complete Streets designs and policy

B-1

Transportation Program Manager Systems Planning Unit

B-2

City of Ann Arbor

Suzanne Schulz Director Department of Planning City of Grand Rapids

B-6

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Eli Cooper Introduction This memo reviews my interview with Eli Cooper from the Ann Arbor

transportation planning and consistently works with Ann Arbor to create safer and better practices for multimodal transportation.

Planning Department. Ann Arbor plays a crucial role in battling tradition-

Questions and Answers

al auto-centric neighborhoods to implement Complete Streets. Ann Arbor

I began my interview by asking, what is your definition of Complete

successfully implemented Complete Streets because they stick to good

Streets?

old fashion planning. Good old fashion planning refers back to when cities 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, “They

and local policies. In addition, Ann Arbor provides their residents, plan-

[Complete Streets] are designed and operated to enable safe access for

ners, and policy maker’s with information and education on multimodal

all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages

transportation policies and practices. Mr. Cooper’s views shed light on

and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete

successful ways Complete Streets can be implemented. This interview

street” are fundamental for Complete Streets.1

provides many similar patterns that Macomb County can implement and use in their tool box to progress towards Complete Streets philosophies

Eli clarified that Complete Streets is just a key word for good old fashion

such as thinking less about the automobile and focusing equally on all

planning. Good old fashion planning refers to before and during the early

modes 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

Eli Cooper is the Transportation Program Manager in the Ann Arbor

planning. Cooper argued, until recently, pedestrians were the main

Planning Division. Mr. Cooper joined the Ann Arbor Planning Depart-

target of planners. Recently, the main target of planners/engineers were

ment in 2005. Before Ann Arbor, Eli worked as the Transportation

drivers. Driver became the focus of planners and engineers because

Planning Director at the Puget Sound Regional Council in the Seattle

the national policies of the federal highway administrations, coupled with

Metropolitan Area. Mr. Cooper has a strong background in multimodal

cheap oil, led to a boom in the automobile industry and America’s fasci-

Detroit. He added that Complete Streets are the same as multimodal

nation of driving everywhere. Eli illustrated that older sections of cities

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

B-2


Eli Cooper and towns have narrow streets, and the proximity of buildings to one

to transparency are all important policy elements that assist Ann Arbor in

another 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 post

ning began when Ann Arbor was built. Ann Arbor focused on creating

their meetings, agendas, polices, and many other documents/recordings

their 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 of

got 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 in unison. He also stated biking advocacy and policy links date back to

Similarly, Ann Arbor created an alternative transportation committee to

the 60’s and 70’s at the same time Ann Arbor Transportation Authority

educate other planners about multimodal transportation. In addition, Ann

began.

Arbor presented its philosophies and attended the Michigan Association of Planning Transportation Bonanza, which assisted other agencies and

In addition, Mr. Cooper added Ann Arbor currently works with several

organizations to learn more about Complete Streets.

organizations, Greenways Collaborative, National Rails to Trails, SEMCOG, 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 opponents

ing Complete Streets in Ann Arbor and nationally, he stated:

and proponents of multimodal transportation. On the one side, opponents 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


Eli Cooper Mr. Cooper stated that he was called a “menace to motorists” because of his multimodal approach to transportation planning.2 On the flip side,

Analysis

there is a staunch group of supporters, especially among local bicycle advocates, who believe Complete Streets are necessary for safer travel.

Ann Arbor tries to plan for everyone. Mr. Cooper reiterated that good old

Although strong bike advocates urge Ann Arbor and other localities for

fashion planning is the same as Complete Streets, just without a catchy

more multimodal transportation planning, Cooper notes that most citi-

name. This was interesting to hear because Eli noted that over the past

zens prefer the slower pace of the sidewalk and just want to feel safe

fifty years, America moved away from basic planning principles, and is

while 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. The

Cooper stated that all planners and decision makers in Ann Arbor un-

planners, who are not necessarily to blame, planned the development of

derstand the importance of incorporating all users of street. He referred

these roads on philosophies that were nationally recognized as the best

back to his earlier comments about how multimodal planning is rehash-

practices. This is no longer the case. Now planners and townships must

ing 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 presented an 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. Ann

this campaign produced signage all over town. Cooper enthusiastically

Arbor, as Cooper explained, as well as Macomb County, works with a

stated over the past six months cars are stopping for pedestrians and

slew of local, state, and national organizations. Macomb, unlike Ann

the 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


Eli Cooper on the best philosophies to create the best future for Macomb County’s municipalities. If they are unable to organize or are focused on their own prerogatives, Complete Streets polices will lag behind. It is crucial for all outside organizations to work well together in order for Macomb to produce the best products for its residents, planners, and policy makers.

REFERENCES:

1.Complete Streets FAQ. In National Coalition for Complete Streets. 2011 Web. Retrieved 3/21/2011, from http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streetsfundamentals/complete-streets-faq/. 2.Gilman, Isaac. (2011, March 14). Interview with E. Cooper, Transportation Project Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, MI. 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 about what multimodal transportation is and how Complete Streets will benefit everyone. Obviously, not everyone will agree, but as Mr. Cooper’s anecdote about pedestrian cross walks explains, signs, information, and education do work. People begin to get the message if they see it a lot and understand why these messages are working. Additionally, by becoming more transparent in all facets of multimodal transportation planning, more residents can educate themselves. In Macomb, planners should understand that repetition is good for their residents to begin to understand why Complete Streets are beneficial. Associated with this, 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 the everyday doings associated with multimodal transportation.

B-5

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Suzanne Schulz Introduction

Planning Department. Since that time, she and her office has launched

On 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-motorized

tions included Ms. Schulz’s personal vision of Complete Streets policy,

transportation infrastructure.

the history of Complete Streets policy in Grand Rapids, and the strate-

Green Grand Rapids, a city government wide planning initiative. The

gies used by Grand Rapids’ planners to educate policy makers and the

Question and Answers

public. 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 Streets program 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 modes

ing Grand Rapids’ movement to unify all city departments around the

of uses are served…The exact structure of a complete street is highly

Complete 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 outreach mechanisms and form-based streets ordinances within its “Com-

In response to the second question, “How long has your organization

plete Streets Toolbox”.

been involved with planning Complete Streets and/or multimodal transportation systems?”, Ms. Schulz stated that although the City of Grand

Background

Rapids has a long history of serving pedestrian interests in the city core,

Susan Schulz is the current Director of the City of Grand Rapids Plan-

mid-1990’s

formal multi-modal transportation planning efforts did not begin until the

ning 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 the

Grand Rapid’s first master plan in 40 years. Three years after the com-

issue(s) she felt best described the National and Statewide Complete

pletion of the 2002 master plan, Ms. Schulz was made Director of the

Street Movement.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

B-6


Suzanne Schulz In 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 for The fifth interview question asked Ms. Schulz to explain how Complete

every project, large and wide spread public support overshadowed any

Streets 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 tools

initiative 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 and policy 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 RapIn response, Ms. Schulz stated that uniformly planners supported Com-

ids Planning Department partnered with any outside agencies to forward

plete 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 RAPID

to educate local planners about the merits of Complete Streets?”, Ms.

Disability Advocates of Kent County

Schulz stated that the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan was the primary

Western Michigan Environmental Action Council

means used to educate local planners. Civic functions, Ribbon-cuttings,

Friends at Grand Rapids Parks

and other public events were identified as secondary means.

MDOT

B-7

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Suzanne Schulz In the final two questions of the interview Ms. Schulz was asked to share

mendations. In addition to creating funding opportunities for Complete

her organization’s biggest successes and challenges with regards to

Street’s projects, Ms. Schulz indicated that this pressure created new

Complete Streets planning.

city-wide performance goals centered on Complete Streets policy. Ms. Schulz suggested that this pressure to “get with the program” lead to

With 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 recent

ordinances, and the strong inter-department unification of city govern-

passing of a very progressive zoning ordinance, as well as in pending

ment.

agreements with MDOT to reclassify state roads to meet Grand Rapids’ planning requirements.

With regards to the challenges Grand Rapids faces, Ms. Schulz focused on 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 comments. 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 strictly

In the City of Grand Rapids Complete Streets planning continues to de-

enforce recommendations. To overcome this obstacle, it is essential

velop and mature faster than in most other Michigan communities. The

that Macomb County planners inspire public interest, and create political

source of this advantage is the deep integration of Complete Streets

pressure indirectly. In the Complete Streets toolbox, C.S.C. can aid in

policy into all major branches of local government administration. Ac-

this goal by identifying public outreach models and partner organizations

cording to Ms. Schulz, the foundation for this integration is the 2002

that might help Macomb County planners maximize the social relevancy

Master Plan.

of their policies. The second lesson is that building partnerships within government is as important as building them with outside entities. Within

When 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, even

ability 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 to

heightened 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


Suzanne Schulz key presentation materials that Macomb’s planners can use to persuade outside departments to support and organize around the Complete Streets agenda.

B-9

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix C: Traffic Statistics

The following graphs were included to provide more in depth information on the volume and hourly distribution of vehicular traffic within the two study areas. In all cases, the graphs represent the most recent 24 hour traffic counts available through SEMCOG’s online database.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

Van Dyke Study Area

C-2

Garfield Study Area

C-3

C-1


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 on

C-2

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


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 Arbor

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

C-3


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 4/21/2011

C-4

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools

The following documents provide further explanation on imlpementation tools to generate funding and support for Complete Streets. This list sheds light on tools used by similar municipalities relative to Macomb County’s situation.

Public Outreach and Stakeholder Identification Implementation Tool D - 1 Complete Streets Policy Elements D - 4 Examples of Complete Streets 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


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Introduction

longer sessions after the workday or on the weekends.

“A more engaged and collaborative approach that includes as many stakeholders and implementers as possible tends to be more broadly

Physical and Virtual Tours

supported.�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 into

many planning projects, it is especially so for Complete Streets since

the field can be a great learning tool. If possible, participants should see

the concept requires a fundamental change in thinking about roadway

examples of both incomplete and complete streets. Virtual tours may

design. 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 time

comb County. It outlines potential activities to educate key stakeholders

constraints.

in the public about Complete Streets as well as methods to identify those stakeholders. The proposed activities are Complete Streets luncheons,

Complete Streets Business Sessions

street tours and Complete Streets business meetings. These activities

Business owners might initially be wary of a change that could take

and identification methods are appropriate for the Macomb County Com-

some automobile traffic away from their stores. A special workshop for

plete 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 stakeholders in Complete Streets. Studies show that having more transit and

Public Education Activities

non-motorized options can lead to longer stays in the area and to more

Complete Streets Luncheons

sales.2,3 These sessions should emphasize how the Complete Streets

A 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. These group. Complete Streets luncheons ideally target local workers and pro-

Determining Appropriateness for Macomb Communities

fessionals willing to engage over a lunch break. This may attract people

The number and type of targeted stakeholders, as well as the type of

interested in Complete Streets who are not willing or unable to attend

education activities, will shift depending on the community, project and

luncheons could take place at local eateries and could run like a focus

the time and funds allocated to the local planners. To make sure all the

D-2

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools necessary 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.

proaches as seen in the Portland Public Participation Manual. •

4

The “Bull’s Eye” method places the most important stakeholders 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 participation. Whichever activities they pick, it is crucial to identify the most important stakeholders in order to use their resources most effectively. Combining the right education with the right people will help facilitate strong support for Complete Streets in Macomb County. While feasibility was kept in mind when recommending these tools, checking with the Macomb County Department of Planning and Economic Development

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

D-3


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Complete Streets Policy Elements (Taken from “Policy Elements” page of the National Complete Streets Coalition

context of the community. •

comes.

website - http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/)

• Regardless of a policy’s form, the National Complete Streets Coalition

Establishes performance standards with measurable outIncludes specific next steps for implementation of the policy.

has identified ten elements of a comprehensive complete streets policy,

Sets a vision

as 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


Appendix D: Implementation Tools All projects

experience.

Creates a network

For many years, multi-modal streets have been treated as ’special projects’ requiring extra planning, funding, and effort. The complete streets

Complete streets policies should result in the creation of a complete

approach is different. Its intent is to view all transportation improvements

transportation 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 make

streets that emphasize different modes and provide quality accessibility

meaningful improvements. In repaving projects, for example, an edge

for everyone. This can mean creating bicycle boulevards to speed along

stripe can be shifted to create more room for cyclists. In routine work on

bicycle 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 will

overflowing with people on foot. It is important to provide basic safe ac-

integrate complete streets planning into all types of projects, including

cess 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.

All agencies and all roads

Exceptions Making a policy work in the real world requires developing a process to

Creating 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 and

local agencies, and private developers often build new roads. Typical

pedestrian travel named three exceptions that have become commonly

complete streets policies cover only one jurisdiction’s roadways, which

used in complete streets policies: 1) accommodation is not necessary

can cause network problems: a bike lane on one side of a bridge dis-

on corridors where non-motorized use is prohibited, such as interstate

appears on the other because the road is no longer controlled by the

freeways; 2) cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to

agency that built the lane. Another common issue to resolve is inclusion

the need or probable use; 3) a documented absence of current or future

of complete streets elements in sub-division regulations, which govern

need. Many communities have included their own exceptions, such as

how 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


Appendix D: Implementation Tools ment 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 standard

Design criteria

that better measures the quality of travel experience. The fifth edition of

Communities adopting a complete streets policy should review their

Highway Capacity Manual, due out in 2010, will include this new way of

design policies to ensure their ability to accommodate all modes of

measuring LOS. Cities like San Francisco and Charlotte have already

travel, 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 their design manual. Others will refer to existing design guides, such as those

Implementation

issued 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 successful

An effective complete streets policy must be sensitive to the community

implementation: 1) Restructure procedures to accommodate all users

context. Being clear about this in the initial policy statement can al-

on every project; 2) Develop new design policies and guides; 3) Offer

lay 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 on

statement 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 measures The traditional performance measure for transportation planning has been vehicular Level of Service (LOS) – a measure of automobile congestion. Complete streets planning requires taking a broader look at how the system is serving all users. Communities with complete streets policies can measure success through a number of ways: the miles of on-street bicycle routes created; new linear feet of pedestrian accom-

D-6

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Examples of Complete Streets Policies and Guides (Taken from “Policy Elements” page of the National Complete Streets Coalition website - http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/)

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

D-7


Appendix D: Implementation Tools PROPOSED LANSING COMPLETE STREETS ORDINANCE (APRIL 2009)

1020.13. WALKABLE-BIKEABLE COMPLETE STREETS.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, TO ADD

TRIANS, BICYCLISTS, MOTORISTS, AND TRANSIT RIDERS OF ALL

SECTION 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 COMPLETE

NETWORK 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

ABILITIES.

PLAN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT, IN CON-

(a) “COMPLETE STREETS” IS DEFINED AS A DESIGN PRINICIPLE TO PROMOTE A SAFE NETWORK OF ACCESS FOR PEDES-

(1)

THERE SHALL BE A NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK

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

of all ages and abilities; and

CLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY,

(2)

THE NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK PLAN SHALL IN-

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 AND

increases 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, FUTURE

implement the Complete Streets guiding principle;

CONSTRUCTION OR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF CITY RIGHTS-OFWAY OR ANY PARTS THEREOF SHALL BE IN CONFORMITY WITH

NOW, 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 NETWORK PLAN, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE TARGETING AT LEAST FIVE

D-8

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools PERCENT OF STATE ACT 51 FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY ANNUALLY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN’S IMPLEMENTATION.

(5)

THE NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK PLAN SHALL BE

UPDATED, AT A MINIMUM, EVERY 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS 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 are hereby repealed.

Section 3. Should any section, clause or phrase of this ordi-

nance be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid.

Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day after

enactment, unless given immediate effect by City Council.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

D-9


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Colombus, OH: Bicycle Funding Sources 2008-2018 Total Available Source Funding Agency 2008-2013 MORPC Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) (Non SOV Modes) $10 M Mid-Ohio Region

2008-2018

Total Possible Funding for Cyclists in Columbus 2008-2013 2008-2018

~$20 M

$165,000

~$330,000

$8.5 M Ohio

N/A

$1.1 M

N/A

$31.2 M Ohio

$62.5 M Ohio

$2 M

$4 M

25% On street 75% Off street Recreational Trails Program

100% off street Clean Ohio Trails Fund

D - 10

Methodology

Bicycle facility funding is estimated at 5% of the minimum apportionment. 23 *2008-2018 funding estimate assumes a continuation of MORPC funding. The State of Ohio was apportioned $1.7 M for the 2007 FY. 24 Funding is available until 2009. Assumes funding will be reauthorized in 2008 at $6.25 million per year, with Columbus receiving approximately $400,000 per year.

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Safe Routes to School Program

$5.3 M Ohio

30% On-street 60% Off-street 10% Programs Transportation, $122.5 M Community and System Preservation Program

50% On-street 50% Off-street NatureWorks Grants $10 M Ohio

$10.6 M Ohio (estimated)

$168,000

$336,550

The Ohio apportionment totaled $5.3 M for FY 2008. Funding is available until 2009.2,25

$122.5 M

~$393,000

~$786,000

$122.5 M is available through nationwide discretionary grants until 2009. The average 2007 funding award was $7.9 M. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.

$20 M

~$91,555

~$183,110

Awards equal $2 M per year. The average grant award is $18,311, which is used to estimate the possible funding available for Columbus.

$122.5 M Nationwide Nationwide

50% On-Street 50% Off-Street

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

D - 11


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Transportation Improvement Program

50% On-street 50% Off-street Transportation Enhancements

$2.5 B Statewide

~$5 B

$15.9 M

$31.8 M

Statewide funding total is $1.5 B for FY 2008-2011.2 Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.

$7.4 M Mid-Ohio Region

$14 M Mid-Ohio Region (estimated)

$370,000

$700,000

MORCP total available funding until 2013 is $7.4 M. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.

~$66 M

~$1.65 M

~$3.3 M

Housing related grants in Columbus totaled $6.6 M for FY 2007. Grants are available for sustainable development, of which bicycle facilities could be apart of. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.

33% On-street 33% Off-street 33% Programs Community Develop- ~$33 M Ohio ment Block Grants (Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Investment)

D - 12

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Urban Infrastructure Recovery Funds (UIRF)

50% On-Street 50% Off-Street Bicentennial Bikeways Bond Federal transportation 'Green Tea' demonstration project funding

$5 M Columbus

$10 M

$250,000

$500,000

An estimated $1 M per year is estimated given that the previous funding round (2005-2007) had $3 M available for parks, lighting, and roadway. Funding is available for individuals, corporations, developers, and investors. Funding for bicycle facilities is estimated at 5% of total funds.

$10 M Columbus

n/a

$10M

n/a

$25 M

$25 M

$25 M

$25 M

Proposed Bond Package to fund bicycle projects in Columbus. Assumes that Columbus will receive $25 Million in federal transportation funding with the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU.

Assumes 10% can be used for programs. MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX

D - 13


Appendix D: Implementation Tools Private Sector “Adopt a Bikeway”

Assumes 10% for programs. MORPC 2030 Transportation Plan Complete Streets Projects

$5 M

$10M

$5M

$10M

Assumes this plan’s recommendation to establish an “adopta-bikeway” or other philanthropic organization is met.

$302 M Region

$605M Region

$7.5M

$15 M

$10M

$5M

$10M

Estimates that 2% of cost of regional transportation projects identified in MORPC’s 2030 Transportation Plan will be used to provide bicycle facilities ($1,815M in new projects through 2030). Estimates based on past Metro Parks trails funding.

Metro Parks Funding $5 M

D - 14

MACOMB COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TOOLBOX


Complete Street Toolkit