A Complete Streets Approach

to Getting from Place to Place

Transportation Education Series – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Mary Taylor Raulerson
May 20, 2010
What are Complete 
Streets?
practical green streets
design bicyclists
network
pedestrians
transit mobility
Multi-modal
Context sensitive
sustainable
boulevards access
Economic development
What are complete streets?

Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe

access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists,
transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely
move along and across a complete street.

Source: Complete Streets Coalition website; Dan Burden - photograph

Where do they stop?
 How do they differ along the transect?

T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

Drawings by James Wassell

What is the role of the 
street?
 More
Pavement
More Lanes
Conventional Approach

More Roads
More Cars

System
Management

ITS
More
Efficiency
 A Balanced Transportation Approach

More Roads
More Lanes

Management
Transit

System
Bicycling

ITS
Walking
HOV/HOT Lanes

More User View and Comfort

More
Pavement Efficiency Context-Sensitive Design

el
Traffic Calming

av
Tr
Personal Security
rs

of
Ca

lity
ua
Intensify land use densities
ot

Q
,N

Promote Mixed Use Development

e
ov
ple
Conventional Approach

iles
More Cars

Pedestrian Oriented Design

pr
eo

M
Im

er Demand Management – Pricing,

Few
eP

, e-commerce, telecommuting, etc…

le
eop
v
Mo

P
Less
ve
Mo
Manage, Not “Solve” Lane Limits
Change Standards
Lateral Approach
Great Streets

Developed by Steve Price

in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles

Developed by Steve Price

in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles

Developed by Steve Price

in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City Tennessee
Transportation Principles

Developed by Steve Price

in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners
& Glatting Jackson
for Johnson City Tennessee
The Transportation
World is Changing
“Sustainability must be reflected in
all our infrastructure investments…

… it implies a commitment to the

principles of livability...

The era of one-size-fits-all

transportation projects must give
way to one where preserving and
enhancing unique community
characteristics, be they rural or
urban, is a primary mission of our
work rather than an afterthought.”

Secretary Ray LaHood, US DOT

January 21, 2009
Partnership on Livability
• Enhance integrated planning and
investment. integrate housing,
transportation, water infrastructure, and land
use planning and investment.

• Redefine housing affordability. Develop

housing affordability measures that include
housing and transportation costs.

• Redevelop underutilized sites. Target

development to locations with infrastructure
and transportation choices.

• Develop livability measures and tools.

• Align HUD, DOT, and EPA programs.

Source: EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/dced/2009-0616-epahuddot.htm)

EPA, HUD, and DOT Partnership on Livability

1. Provide more transportation choices

2. Promote equitable, affordable housing
3. Enhance economic competitiveness
4. Support existing communities
5. Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment
6. Value communities and neighborhoods

Source: EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/dced/2009-0616-epahuddot.htm)

What is Livability?
 Choices healthy living
infrastructure
family diversity
Jobs community
Opportunities
resource efficiency
sustainability
parks education
Economic development
Mobility options for all.
Housing choice.
Access to jobs.
Healthy and active living.
Strong neighborhoods.
Great gathering places.
Vibrant Town Centers.
Thriving Rural Villages.
Access to local food.
Environmental Stewardship.
Free-range learning.
Free-range learning.
Working ports.
Well-maintained infrastructure.
So…. what is Livability?
 More
Pavement
More Lanes
Conventional Approach

More Roads
More Cars

System
Management

ITS
More
Efficiency
. . . we were asked to move more cars.
 A Balanced Transportation Approach

More Roads
More Lanes

Management
Transit

System
Bicycling

ITS
Walking
HOV/HOT Lanes

More User View and Comfort

More
Pavement Efficiency Context-Sensitive Design

el
Traffic Calming

av
Tr
Personal Security
rs

of
Ca

lity
ua
Intensify land use densities
ot

Q
,N

Promote Mixed Use Development

e
ov
ple
Conventional Approach

iles
More Cars

Pedestrian Oriented Design

pr
eo

M
Im

er Demand Management – Pricing,

Few
eP

, e-commerce, telecommuting, etc…

le
eop
v
Mo

P
Less
ve
Mo
Manage, Not “Solve” Lane Limits
Change Standards
Lateral Approach
Challenges to implementing livable transportation projects

• Transportation agencies and/or their partners do not

have a clear or unified vision of what they want
(Visioning)

• Established project development processes and

organizational structures may limit transportation
projects from achieving today’s livability goals (Planning
and Process)

• Transportation policies may not support livability goals

and objectives (Policy)

• Difficult decisions and livable projects require long-term

and trusting partnerships (Partnership)

• Delivering livability at the project level requires new

design approaches (Design)
Overcoming challenges - Visioning

• Transportation agencies and/or their partners do not

have a clear or unified vision of what they want
(Visioning)

Albany Visions Plan

Route 1 Vision
Albany Visions Plan

• Regional-level visioning

• Attract growth by leveraging investments

• Aligned LRTP with a broad set of community-responsive

project types

• Emphasized a broad range of modes and community

needs in project definition and programming
Albany Visions Plan
• Developed 25 guiding principles that:
• Plan and build for all modes of transportation
• Preserve and manage the existing investments
• Develop the region’s potential to grow into a “uniquely
attractive, vibrant and diverse metropolitan area”
• Link land use and transportation planning

• Linkage forum – mandatory regional roundtable of municipal

planners to address regional planning issues at the local level
(state has no oversight or approval functions for local plans)

• Match project choice processes to vision

Route 1 Vision
• Project-level visioning

• 110 mile corridor – experiencing significant growth and

traffic congestion

• Aligned multiple, interconnected livability issues into a

cohesive development and investment strategy

• Supported by state and localities through MOU and

policies
Route 1 Vision
• Project-level visioning

• 110 mile corridor with 21 towns

• Experiencing significant growth and traffic congestion

• Aligned multiple, interconnected livability issues into a

cohesive development and investment strategy

• Supported by state and localities through MOU and

policies
Route 1 Vision
• Lessons learned
• Building a vision requires agreement on problems,
solutions and follow-through
• Visioning is inspirational and educational, and
requires trust
• Visioning is more effective when it incorporates land
use and transportation

• Even in a home rule state, a collaborative visioning

process ca be the basis for successfully implementing
integrated land use and transportation policies
Overcoming challenges – Planning and Process

• Established project development processes and

organizational structures may limit transportation
projects from achieving today’s livability goals (Planning
and Process)

Charlotte Centers and

Corridors Plan

Route 1 Plan

Washington DOT Community

Design Assistance Office
Charlotte Centers and Corridors Plan

• Began with comprehensive regional vision, followed by

aggressive policy and infrastructure response and
organizational structure of city departments

• Integrated Plan and Vision galvanized community

support for sustainable growth and transit investments

• Passed sales tax referendum for $1 billion for transit

Charlotte Centers and Corridors Plan

• Began with comprehensive regional vision, followed by

aggressive policy and infrastructure response and
organizational structure of city departments

• Integrated Plan and Vision galvanized community

support for sustainable growth and transit investments

• Passed sales tax referendum for $1 billion for transit

Centers & Corridors Vision
 Station Area Planning

Foster an Integrated
Approach
 Station Area Planning

Invest Strategically
 Station Area Planning

CATS

Ensure Stewardship
 Station Area Planning

Scaleybark Road Station

WashDOT Community Design Assistance

• Multi-disciplinary teams within Central Office

• Includes planners, engineers, facilitators, and conflict

resolution professionals

• Help communities communicate with DOT

• Increases trust, decreases cost

Challenges to implementing livable transportation projects

• Transportation policies may not support livability goals

and objectives (Policy)

• Difficult decisions and livable projects require long-term

and trusting partnerships (Partnership)

• Delivering livability at the project level requires new

design approaches (Design)
Policy, design and partnerships

1. Money counts
2. Leverage and preserve existing investments
3. Choose projects with high value/price ratio
4. Safety always and maybe safety only
5. Look beyond level-of-service
6. Accommodate all modes of travel
7. Enhance local network
8. Build towns not sprawl
9. Understand the context; plan and design within the context
10. Develop local governments as strong land use partners
 Land Use Context

Land Use Context + Roadway

Type
 Land Use Contexts

RURAL

• Land use context – SUBURBAN

land area CORRIDOR

comprising unique SUBURBAN

CENTER
combination of land SUBURBAN
uses, density, NEIGHBORHOOD

building form TOWN / VILLAGE

CENTER
• Common place
TOWN / VILLAGE
types found in NEIGHBORHOOD

every PennDOT URBAN

district CORE
 Defining the Land Use Contexts

RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN

Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Town/Village Town Center Urban Core

Neighborhoo Corridor Center Neighborhoo
d d
DENSITY 1 DU/ac - 1 DU/ac – 4 – 30 8 – 50
2 – 30 DU/ac 3 – 20 DU/ac 16 – 75 DU/ac
UNITS 8DU/ac 8DU/ac DU/ac DU/ac
BUILDING
COVERAG NA <20% 20% - 35% 35% - 45% 35% - 50% 50% - 70% 70% - 100%
E
LOT
5,000 – 20,000 - 25,000 – 2,000 – 2,000 – 25,000 –
SIZE/ARE 20 acres
80,000 sf 200,000 sf 100,000 sf 12,000 sf 20,000 sf 100,000 sf
A
LOT
50 to 200 100 to 500 100 to 300 25 to 200 100 to 300
FRONTAG NA 18 to 50 feet
feet feet feet feet feet
E
BLOCK
400 wide x 200 wide x 300 wide x 200 by 400 200 by 400 200 by 400
DIMENSIO NA
varies varies varies feet feet feet
NS retail-1 story;
MAX. 1 to 3 1.5 to 3 2 to 5 1 to 3 3 to 60
office 3-5 2 to 5 stories
HEIGHT stories stories stories stories stories
stories
MIN./MAX.
Varies 20 to 80 feet 20 to 80 feet 20 to 80 feet 10 to 20 feet 0 to 20 feet 0 to 20 feet
SETBACK
 Transportation Context

Land Use Context + Roadway Type

Roadways in Context
 Design Using the Principles

• Know the land use context

• Know the role of the roadway within the
network
• Know the roadway type
• Set the desired operating speed
• Refer to the Matrix for the starting design
values
Regional Arterial
Community Arterial
Community Arterial
 Desired Operating Speed
Also Known as “Design To” or “Target Speed”

Definition: The speed of traffic that, in the expert

judgments of the highway engineer and community
planner, best reflects the function of the roadway
and the surrounding land use context.

Simple Definition: The speed at which we would

like vehicles to travel.
 Why Desired Operating Speed?

• Forge a stronger relationship between posted

speed limit, design speed and operating speed
• Relate roadway type to land use context
• Use roadway and roadside design elements to
encourage compliance with the posted speed
 Transportation +  Land Use

Involved in task Partially involved in task Additional Involvement New partial involvement

1. Increasing Partnership Efforts

• Sharing Smart
Transportation message

• Strategic discussions
with partner agencies
and organizations and
local municipalities

• Outreach activities and

interactive workshops
with local officials and
professionals
Pennsylvania Community Transportation Initiative

• Applications received:
403 requesting $600
million
• Applications selected:
50 granting $59.3
million

# of  % of Total  Total Funding  for  % of Total 

Type of Project Selections Selections Selected Projects Funding
Bicycle/Pedestrian 9 18% $                   9,230,405 16%
Roads/Intersections/Local Network 6 12% $                   9,937,000 17%
Intermodal/Transit‐oriented Development 13 26% $                 14,007,200 24%
Land Use & Transportation 
13 26% $                   7,666,500 13%
Planning/Redevelopment
Streetscape/Traffic Calming 8 16% $                 18,158,887 31%
Regional Planning 1 2% $                       285,000 0%
TOTAL 50 100% $           59,284,992 100%
 Hot Topics – What needs to change for better livability?

• Land use is a local decision, transportation is a state or regional

responsibility; but community building should be everyone’s
responsibility

• Limited “community planning” skills and expertise in

transportation agencies

• Silos created by how transportation and land uses entities are

organized

• Mission and Goals of Agencies are very different; partnerships are

critical to success

• Limitations are set by Federal Funding Requirements

 What are complete 
streets in your 
community?  What is 
livability 
to you?