Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.g. Resolution of Support for Statewide Complete Streets PolicyROSEMOL1NTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL Special City Council meeting: February 1, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of Support for Statewide AGENDA SECTION: Complete Streets Policy Consent PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, Director of Public Works /City Engineer AGENDA NO. �- ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Complete Streets Report APPROVED BY: DQJ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution expressing support of a statewide complete streets policy. BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Minnesota State Legislature directed the Commissioner of Transportation to review the costs, benefits and feasibility of a Complete Streets policy. As part of this directive, a task force of state, county and city representatives developed a draft document of background information and public comment on Complete Streets for the Commissioner of Transportation. From this effort, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared the attached Complete Streets Report to be presented to the Minnesota State Legislature. As outlined in the report, "the goal of Complete Streets should be to 1) develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) and 2) inclusion of all transportation users of all types, ages and abilities." In consideration of this goal, Council reviewed the attached resolution of support for the development of a statewide Complete Streets policy. Additional information for Complete Streets can be found on the Minnesota Department of Transportation's web page at www.dot.state.mmus/pLymin GAComplete Streets \02012010 CC Complete Streets Executive Summarydoc CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION — A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF A STATEWIDE COMPLETE STREETS POLICY WHEREAS, the "Complete Streets" concept promotes streets that are safe and convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, the October 2009 public draft of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Complete Streets Report includes the recommendation: "Mn /DOT should build on existing Context Sensitive Solution practices and develop and implement a statewide "Complete Streets policy.... "; and WHEREAS, the Rosemount City Council recognizes the importance of complete streets, as shown in its 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount encourages the Minnesota legislature, with input and guidance from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, to authorize the development of a statewide Complete Streets program, which would provide for the development of a balanced transportation system, through appropriate planning, that integrates multiple transportation modes, where appropriate, for transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. ADOPTED this 1" day of February, 2010. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk •, �• •- _.� .,� w��y _.' f -- Complete Streets Report A Report Commissioned for the Minnesota Legislature Final REPORT December 2009 Prepared by. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report Development Cost As required in Minnesota Statute 3.197, this document must contain the cost of preparing the report at the beginning of the report, including any costs incurred by another agency or another level of government. The Minnesota Department of Transportation contracted with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to write this report for a fee of $89,000. This fee included organizing, facilitating and recording all committee meetings and drafting, editing and developing this final report. The contract was amended by $9,800 to address public comments received from a formal public comment period. Mn /DOT staff costs totaled $44,900. Complete Streets Legislative Report December2009 Acknowledgements The development of this document involved a series of meetings, research, and correspondence via email among three groups: a Project Management Team, Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Panel. These committees were extremely effective in identifying key issues and concerns related to Complete Streets. Their involvement and insight provided key stakeholder input in the development and oversight of this document. Mn /DOT would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions to this report: Project Management Team John Powell, Co -Chair — City of Savage Tim Quinn, Co -Chair — Mn /DOT Merry Daher, Project Manager — Mn /DOT State Aid Rick Kjonaas, Alternate Project Manager — Mn /DOT State Aid Michael Marti — SRF Consulting Group Renae Kuehl — SRF Consulting Group Advisory Committee Lee Amundson — Willmar Area Transportation Partnership James Andrew — Metropolitan Council Dennis Berg — Anoka County Commissioner Gary Danielson — Minnesota County Engineers Association Steve Elkins — Bloomington City Council James Gittemeier — Duluth Metropolitan Planning Organization Dan Greensweig — Minnesota Association of Townships Mary McComber — Oak Park Heights Karen Nikolai — Hennepin County Community Design Liaison Shelly Pederson — Bloomington City Engineer Mike Schadauer — Mn /DOT Transit Mike Wojcik — Rochester City Council Member Complete Streets Legislative Report December2009 Technical Advisory Panel Tim Anderson — Federal Highway Administration Ron Biss — Transportation Accessibility Advisory Committee Scott Bradley — Mn /DOT Context Sensitive Solutions Marc Briese — City of Woodbury Traffic Department Brian Gage — Mn /DOT Transportation Planning Lynnette Geschwind- Mn /DOT Affirmative Action Sue Groth — Mn /DOT Traffic Michael Huber — Urban Land Institute Amr Jabr — Mn /DOT Metro Operations and Maintenance Tim Mitchell — Mn /DOT Office of Transit Matthew Pahs - Mn /DOT Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations Mike Robinson — Mn /DOT Duluth District Jim Rosenow — Mn /DOT Office of Technical Support Paul Stine — Mn /DOT State Aid Standards Mukhtar Thakur — Mn /DOT Office of Technical Support Barb Thoman — Transit for Livable Communities Irene Weis — State Non - motorized Transportation Advisory Committee We also acknowledge the contribution of additional individuals who gave presentations and technical input at committee meetings: Mitzi Baker — Olmsted- Rochester Planning Greg Coughlin — Mn /DOT Metro State Aid Beverly Farraher — Mn /DOT Metro Operations and Maintenance Lisa Freese — Scott County Maryanne Kelly - Sonnek — Mn /DOT Cooperative /Municipal Agreements John Maczko — City of Saint Paul Barbara McCann — National Complete Street Coalition Sue Thompson — Mn /DOT Office of Investment Management James Weingartz — Mn /DOT Project Development Complete Streets Legislative Report December2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Executive Summary ................................................... ..............................1 Chapter 2: Description and Goals ............................................... ..............................5 Legislative Request Complete Streets - Definition and Purpose Report Goal Study Approach Chapter 3: Balancing Safety, Mobility, Efficiency and Cost ..... ..............................9 Balanced Approach Relationship to Context Sensitive Solutions and Design Context Sensitive Design and Solutions versus Complete Streets Chapter 4: "State of the State" in Minnesota ............................. .............................11 Current Design Standards Funding Operations /Maintenance Accessibility Compliance Chapter 5: Lessons Learned from Interviews ........................... .............................17 Interview Background Summary of Interview Findings Chapter 6: Benefits, Feasibility ,Costs and Funding ............... .............................21 Benefits Feasibility Costs Funding Chapter 7: Implementation Strategies ........................................ .............................25 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations ....................... .............................27 Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A: 2008 Complete Streets Law Appendix B: Mn /DOT's Scoping Process Appendix C: Meeting Agendas and Summaries Appendix D: Summary of Follow -up Interviews Appendix E: Minnesota Transportation Design Resources Summary Appendix F: Complete Streets Resources Summary Complete Streets Legislative Report December2009 iii This page was left intentionally blank. iv Complete Streets Legislative Report December2009 Chapter 1: Executive Summary Legislative Request This report is in response to the legislative directive to the Commissioner of Transportation to study the costs, benefits and feasibility of implementing a Complete Streets policy. (See Appendix A: Laws 2008, Chapter 350, Article 1, Section 94). In doing so, this report summarizes key elements of the study, including: • Compilation and review of a list of Complete Streets resources. • Review of the state's current design practices regarding Complete Streets. • Assessment of Complete Streets impacts to maintenance and operations. • Review of other local, regional and state Complete Streets policies and best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions. • Review of the costs, benefits and feasibility of Complete Streets. • Recommendations relating to the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. Study Approach The feasibility of implementing a Complete Streets Policy in Minnesota was one of the many studies the 2008 Legislature assigned for completion for the Commissioner of Transportation. The Commissioner assigned the Mn /DOT Division of State Aid for Local Transportation (State Aid) to manage this task. State Aid formed a Project Management Team that worked with an Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Panel. These groups consisted of elected officials and other representatives from federal, state, county, city and township government as well as individuals with expertise in roads, transit, bicycling, the Americans with Disabilities Act, planning and community development, diverse populations, active living and health advocacy. Balancing Safety, Mobility, Efficiency and Cost Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads "; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to 1) develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) and 2) inclusion of all transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. "State of the State" in Minnesota Throughout the study, there were several technical presentations made by practitioners /experts on current practices and how they relate to the Complete Streets concepts; the presentations covered Mn /DOT and State Aid design standards, practices and policies, operations and maintenance, funding, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. In this report, the term "ADA" generally refers to accessibility requirements, including the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehab Act and other pertinent regulations. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 1 December 2009 Page 1 The existing design policies and manuals require updating and reconciliation to eliminate inconsistencies and integrate all modes of travel regardless of jurisdiction. The main areas of potential conflict were identified between current design practices and Complete Streets: lane width, design speed and annual daily traffic threshold, level of service and roadway classification. Lessons Learned from Interviews The American Planning Association /National Complete Streets Coalition provided interview data (which they conducted) for five agencies. Follow -up surveys were conducted to gather more detailed information on cost/benefit and implementation of Complete Streets policies. This information was synthesized to determine the following lessons learned: • Implementation of Complete Streets is easier if all levels of government are involved and the policy is developed by stakeholders. • Complete Streets is inherent to Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). • Complete Streets requires a flexible design process. • No benefit/cost data is available for Complete Streets policy. Benefit, Feasibility, Cost and Funding No specific benefit/cost data is available. However, a list of potential benefits and costs associated with Complete Streets was developed. Adopting a Complete Streets policy would complement Mn /DOT's existing Context Sensitive Design policy and would further reinforce its principles. Complete Streets are considered feasible on state, regional and local levels. Implementation Development and implementation of a Complete Streets process should follow a phased sequential approach: establish need (which has been done by this study); develop policy; reconcile differences in planning and design policies, guidelines and manuals; implement; and review /measure /refine. Recommendations Being one of the first states to adopt a policy requiring Context Sensitive Design and Solutions, Minnesota is already positioned to support a "Complete Streets" approach to transportation investment. In addition, Mn /DOT staff have been actively working on integrating ADA, CSS and bicycle /pedestrian principles within its agency. Three local agencies (Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Rochester) in Minnesota have already adopted their own resolutions for Complete Streets, indicating that Complete Streets are achievable at a local level. Mn /DOT needs to be prepared to assist local agencies in developing their local Complete Streets approach to assist with their specific project development needs. The study's Advisory Committee identified several key recommendations: Chapter I Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 2 December 2009 • Mn /DOT is committed to partner with a broad coalition including local governments to build on existing CSS practices and develop and implement a Mn /DOT Complete Streets policy using the following phased sequential approach: - Develop a Mn /DOT Complete Streets policy. - Reconcile differences in planning and design policies, guidelines and manuals. - Implement. - Review /measure /refine. • Mn /DOT should review and revise conflicting information in Minnesota's state and local design documents. • Mn /DOT should further explore the feasibility of integrating its existing planning and design manuals related to Complete Streets into one manual. • Mn /DOT should integrate Complete Streets into Mn /DOT's new Scopinq Process model (see Appendix B). • Mn /DOT should identify ways to assist local governments in developing and understanding funding sources and the constraints related to these sources. • All agencies should develop an integrated transportation plan that addresses connectivity for all modes for all users of all ages and abilities. • Mn /DOT should serve as a resource to assist local agencies in developing their own Complete Streets policies with the support of Mn /DOT's expertise in CSS, ADA, bicycle /pedestrian planning, design and funding strategies. • Mn /DOT State Aid should review the State Aid variance process and make it more accessible and transparent. If a policy is developed it is very important that all stakeholders be engaged to address the key issues listed above and within this report. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 1 December 2009 Page 3 This page was left intentionally blank. Chapter 1 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 4 December 2009 Chapter 2: Description and Goals Legislative Request This report is in response to the legislative directive to the Commissioner of Transportation to study the costs, benefits and feasibility of implementing a Complete Streets policy. Laws 2008, Chapter 350, Article 1, Section 94 COMPLETE STREETS The commissioner of transportation, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council and representatives of counties, statutory and home rule charter cities, and towns, shall study the benefits, feasibility, and cost of adopting a complete streets policy applicable to plans to construct, reconstruct, and relocate streets and roads that includes the following elements: (1) safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders; (2) bicycle and pedestrian ways in urbanized areas except where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law, where costs would be excessively disproportionate, and where there is no need for bicycle and pedestrian ways; (3) paved shoulders on rural roads; (4) safe pedestrian travel, including for people with disabilities, on sidewalks and street crossings; (5) utilization of the latest and best design standards; and (6) consistency of complete streets plan with community context. The commissioner shall report findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the senate Transportation Budget and Policy Division and the house of representatives Transportation Finance Division and Transportation and Transit Policy Subcommittee by December 5, 2009. This directive follows national legislation that would add a provision to Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to ensure that future transportation investments made by state Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations create appropriate and safe transportation facilities for all those using the road — motorists, transit vehicles and riders, bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. • H.R. 1443 Complete Streets Act of 2009 • 'S. 584: Complete Streets Act of 2009 Complete Streets — Definition and Purpose Definition: Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street. (Taken from the National Complete Streets Coalition web site). Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 2 December 2009 Page 5 Complete Streets policies encourage agencies to ensure that road projects are designed to meet local needs, be sensitive to context and emphasize that all modes of transportation and all users are considered in the planning and project development processes. Complete Streets policies are intended to provide a transportation network that promotes physical activity, accessibility, environmental quality, safety and mobility. This is best accomplished in planning. Examples of Complete Streets goals and principles (not listed in any particular order of importance) include: • Reduce crash rates and severity of crashes. • Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA. • Encourage mode shift to non - motorized transportation and transit. • Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts. • Increase transportation network connectivity. • Maximize the efficient use of existing facilities. • Strive for tax supported investments to provide maximum benefits to the community and all user groups. • Safely integrate intermodal connections across the transportation network. • Promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders) and people of all abilities as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers. Chapter 2 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 6 December 2009 Report Goal This report summarizes key elements of the study including: • Compilation and review of a list of Complete Streets resources. • Review of the state's current design practices regarding Complete Streets. • Assessment of Complete Streets impacts to maintenance and operations. • Review of other local, regional and state Complete Streets policies and best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions. • Review of benefits, feasibility and costs of Complete Streets. • Recommendations relating to the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. Study Approach The feasibility of implementing a Complete Streets Policy in Minnesota was one of the many studies that the 2008 Legislature assigned for completion to the Commissioner of Transportation. The Commissioner assigned the Mn /DOT Division of State Aid for Local Transportation to manage this task. State Aid formed a Project Management Team that worked with an Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Panel. These groups consisted of elected officials and other representatives from federal, state, county, city and town government as well as individuals with expertise in roads, transit, bicycling, ADA, planning and community development, diverse populations, active living and health advocacy. Throughout the study, the team reviewed, discussed and synthesized the information listed above at a series of meetings (see Appendix C - Schedule of Meetings). An integral part of these meetings included presentations from leading practitioners on key topics, which included: • National perspective on Complete Streets, including information on benefits and cost • Design standards - Geometric Standards and Context Sensitive Design - State Aid Standards (local government) - Bicycle /Pedestrian Policy and Practices • Funding - Cost Share Policy (motorized and non - motorized facilities) - Special Cooperative Projects - Local Perspectives (city and county) • Operations and Maintenance • ADA regulations and compliance Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 2 December 2009 Page 7 During another phase of the study, the team reviewed Complete Streets policies of other local, regional, and state agencies. The initial plan was to conduct phone surveys of several agencies that had implemented Complete Streets policies and summarize the findings. However, the American Planning Association (APA) is working with the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC) in completing a similar task. Rather than duplicate this effort, the APA/NCSC shared their interview findings with this legislative study with the agreement that any additional follow -up surveys conducted by the Minnesota study would be shared with APA/NCSC. One key area that the earlier surveys did not focus on was the policy development and implementation phase. Therefore follow -up surveys were conducted by the study consultant with several agencies selected by the advisory committee based on agency jurisdiction, climate similarity, where they are in their Complete Streets policy development and the substance of their policies. Chapter 2 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 8 December 2009 Chapter 3: Balancing Safety, Mobility, Efficiency and Cost Balanced Approach The purpose and effectiveness of a transportation system is relative to the user: transit rider, freight carrier, motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian regardless of age and ability. The growing emphasis on balancing community values in the development of transportation projects was formalized with the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Congress intended that the effective implementation of NEPA results in a balancing of safety, mobility, economic and environmental considerations. In the late 1990s, a new set of principles was developed that placed transportation, community and environmental goals on equal footing and produced an approach to make it happen: Context Sensitive Solutions. In Section 6008 of SAFETEA -LU, Congress endorsed these principles as an important element of projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, as part of TEA -21, a planning process establishing Area Transportation Partnerships was implemented, which allows local partners to be involved in project selection. Relationship to Context Sensitive Design and Solutions (References to Context Sensitive Design and Solutions and Context Sensitive Solutions refer to the same philosophy and body of principles, CSS has become the national term.) Initially, Context Sensitive Solutions was project specific; however, as it evolved, CSS has gone beyond the project phases of transportation program delivery and into a wider understanding and implementation of community and environmentally sensitive planning and design. As part of an education and outreach effort, Mn /DOT co- hosted the Midwest Context Sensitive Design and Solutions Workshop in 2005, which included an "Integrating CSS into Systems Planning" module. CSS is a multi - disciplinary, collaborative approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSS principles include the employment of early, continuous and meaningful involvement of the public and all stakeholders throughout the project development process. In the fall of 2009, Mn /DOT assigned a director to lead CSS within the agency. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 3 December 2009 Page 9 Mn /DOT's approach to CSS emphasizes six key principles: • Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in all projects. • Involve the public and affected agencies early and continuously. • Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs. • Address all modes of travel. • Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. • Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. Context Sensitive Solutions versus Complete Streets HR 1443/S 584 The Federal Complete Streets Act of 2009 defines Complete Streets as: "A roadway that accommodates all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with mobility, sensory, neurological, or hidden disabilities), and motorists, to enable all travelers to use the roadway safely and efficiently." Some references differentiate CSS and Complete Streets as "project' oriented versus "process" oriented. The consensus is that Complete Streets must begin within the "planning" process (versus design). To address this, the APA is preparing a Best Practices Manual on Complete Streets, which is scheduled to be available in January of 2010. Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads "; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to 1) develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) and 2) include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. One of the focuses of integrated modal planning would be to designate routes or corridors that would provide mobility for that mode throughout the network. A long -term goal of Complete Streets focuses on road users and is about making multi -modal inclusion routine, so that multi -modal design does not require retrofits and the transportation system safely and conveniently serves all modes and all users of all abilities. Mn /DOT's 2006 op lice requiring CSS and Design on all Trunk Highways was a catalyst to having this design approach become the "standard." Most projects designed in the last few years have used CSS principles including strong public participation; this includes State Aid and local government projects. With a typical roadway /project life cycle of 30 to 50 years, depending on the network size and agency budget, it could feasibly take an average agency more than 50 years to fully rebuild their network to CSS standards. Chapter 3 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 10 December 2009 Chapter 4: "State of the State" in Minnesota Current Design Standards At the May 11, 2009, Advisory Committee meeting, a panel of experts from Mn /DOT and State Aid gave a presentation on Mn /DOT and local design standards, practices and policies. A full meeting summary is presented in Appendix C. Key items discussed were standards, design resources available and inconsistencies between them. Transportation Design Resources There are many design resources used in Minnesota that describe rules, guidelines, procedures, specifications and references for corridor design. There is no strict hierarchy among them, as each resource has a unique role and is intended to complement the others while offering unique information. In Appendix E, a table listing detailed descriptions and websites of all resources used in Minnesota is presented. The following are a few key design resources currently used in Minnesota: • The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) published A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), which is a national policy that was developed through AASHTO and includes pooled knowledge of standard practices. This AASHTO policy is intended as a guideline and NOT as design standards; however, certain criteria have been adopted by the FHWA as standards for the National Highway System (NHS). Additionally, this policy is often used by states as the basis for their individual policies. This does not have enforceability on designs on MN transportation facilities. • The Mn /DOT Road Design Manual was developed using many practices established in the Green Book; however, it has criteria and value ranges that differ from AASHTO criteria. The Mn /DOT Road Design Manual can be considered the "hub" of transportation design in Minnesota - the starting point for a Trunk Highway design project. It establishes uniform design practices statewide but also provides enough flexibility to encourage independent design. It is primarily intended for design of the Trunk Highway system, and governs thirteen critical design criteria on trunk highways but it can also be used for local roads. • Mn /DOT's Bikeway Facility Design Manual, Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Bridge Design Manual are examples of specialized manuals that are typically used in tandem with the Mn /DOT Road Design Manual. These specialized manuals complement the information provided in the Mn /DOT Road Design Manual, while offering more specific design guidance. • Mn /DOT's State Aid Manual is a stand -alone resource that is required when designing for State Aid roads using State Aid funds. While most of the important design practices in this manual are the same as those in the Mn /DOT Road Design Manual, it identifies some criteria and value ranges developed by a statutory committee of city and county engineers for the specific needs of their State Aid roads which require formal variances for deviations. Mn /DOT's State Aid Manual is Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 4 December 2009 Page 11 not nearly as detailed or comprehensive and requires the use of other resources for additional guidance. Local non -State Aid roads do not need to adhere to these standards; however, local agencies tend to default to State Aid standards, even on non -State Aid routes, to provide consistency within their jurisdictions. Integration of the existing Minnesota design manuals into one manual has been suggested; however, the feasibility of this needs to be further explored. Design Manuals /Guides Highlights The following is a list of key points as well as inconsistencies related to design manuals /guides currently used in Minnesota: • Tables 4 -1 and 4 -2: Bikeway design selection for urban and rural cross sections from Mn /DOT's Bikeway Facility Design Manual are the most highly used tables in the manual. • Bikeway design guidance on bicycle lane width in the State Aid design chart 8820.9936 conflicts with data in tables 4 -1 and 4 -2 in the Bikeway Facility Design Manual listed above. These need to be reconciled. • Minnesota is unique in that State Aid design standards are defined via State Aid Rules as law. • There is a perception that State Aid rules yield inflexible design favoring motorized traffic; however, approximately 90 percent of all variances to State Aid rules have been approved. Information about the variance process is available in Section VII of Chapter 1 of the 2007 State Aid Manual. httr): / /www. dot. state. mn. us /stateaid /manual /samO7 /chapterl /1- 7.html • Local agencies tend to default to State Aid standards. • Mn /DOT's Road Design Manual, Bike Facility Design Manual and Technical Memorandum on Context Sensitive Design and Solutions all stress the importance of integrating pedestrian and bicycle elements into all projects. • Mn /DOT's Road Design Manual: - Considers pedestrian and bicycle elements as "other design criteria" rather than a fundamental design criteria. - Lacks direction on how to design sidewalks and bicycle lanes. - Contains multiple instances where text is used to describe pedestrian and bicycle features, but no graphic exists to depict it. - Provides graphics for pedestrian integration that does not always depict ADA compliance. - Directs the provision of pedestrian /bicycle facilities when warranted; however, without existing facilities, it is difficult to gauge the demand. Chapter 4 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 12 December 2009 • A Complete Streets policy would need to: - Review /revise conflicting design documents regarding: • Lane width • Design speed • ADT threshold • Level of Service • Roadway classification - Update the Road Design Manual to provide more prevalent and clear direction on the design and integration of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with roadways and include up -to -date accessibility standards. Funding At the June 24, 2009, Technical Advisory Panel meeting, representatives from Mn /DOT, a county (Scott) and a city (Saint Paul) gave presentations on funding resources and coordination for roadway projects. The goal was to better understand the funding that exists (i.e., how to creatively use multiple funds on one project to facilitate Complete Streets and clarify if funding sources limit modes or specifically if they funded one mode but were not flexible to fund another). A meeting summary is presented in Appendix C. Key items discussed included: • State of Minnesota transportation funding sources are obtained through the collection of state and federal revenues (i.e., fuel, tire, truck/trailer sales and heavy vehicle use sales taxes). Special cooperative projects are an option to include multiple agencies, funds and project needs. • There is not one central resource that agencies can use to get information about all funding sources available. • Identifying funding can be difficult if the project needs do not align with the specific funding source constraints. In addition, if an agency would like to use multiple funding sources on one project, the timeframe that the funding is available from each source may not align. A Complete Streets policy would benefit from a complete list of funding sources available and the constraints related to these sources. Mn /DOT's 2006 op IicY requiring CSS on all Trunk Highways was a catalyst to having this design approach become the "standard." Most projects designed in the last few years have used CSS principles including strong public participation; this includes State Aid and local government projects. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 4 December 2009 Page 13 The State of Minnesota transportation funding sources funded through the collection of state and federal revenues including fuel, tire, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle registration, truck/trailer sales and heavy vehicle use taxes are distributed through the Highway Users Tax Distribution Fund, which is set by constitution as follow: • 62 percent goes to the Trunk Highway Fund • 29 percent goes to County State Aid Highway Fund • 9 percent goes to the Municipal State Aid Fund (cities with populations greater than 5,000) Various funding sources may be available to assist with funding Complete Streets. A general list of potential funding sources (although not complete) is provided below. • Federal Aid - Earmarks, high priority, special programs (e.g., Safe Routes to School) - Metropolitan Planning Organization facilitated programs - Congestion Management and Air Quality - Surface Transportation Program - Transportation Enhancements - Recreational Trails Program - National Scenic Trails - Transit and Federal Transit Administration • State Trunk Highway program - Partnering is available on Trunk Highway projects for sidewalks /trails. • State Aid - Rules /standards allow for funding /match (of federal funds) for trails /sidewalks /lane widening • City /County funds (e.g., individual park and recreation departments) • Other agencies (e.g., Department of Natural Resources) • Private donations (Public /Private Partnerships) • Livable Communities Grant • Capital Improvement Bonds • Street Improvement Bonds • Park dedication fees • Stormwater funding Chapter 4 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 14 December 2009 Operations /Maintenance At the July 29, 2009, Technical Advisory Panel meeting, a representative from Mn /DOT's Maintenance Department gave a presentation on maintenance and operations practices. A meeting summary is presented in Appendix C. Key items discussed included: • It is important for designers to work with maintenance staff among others during the design process to ensure that maintenance and functionality are balanced. • Because of limited budgets /fixed finances, any additional infrastructure will require a reprioritization of maintenance and operations practices. • The level of maintenance needed differs by mode (e.g., sweeping practices are different for a motor vehicle than a bicycle). • The Mn /DOT Metro District recently adopted a snow removal policy, indicating snow removal priorities of roadways first, followed by trails. This prioritization was based on use. • A Complete Streets policy should outline implementation steps that include the consideration of maintenance and operations practices. including: - Developing design standards for Complete Streets that involve operations/ maintenance staff in the development. - Developing a design exception process that involves operations/ maintenance staff in the design. - Identifying funding and roles for operations /maintenance of the built facility. - Defining and assigning snow removal priorities on sidewalks and ramps to improve accessibility. Accessibility Compliance At the July 29, 2009, Technical Advisory Panel meeting, a representative from Mn /DOT's Affirmative Action Section gave a presentation on accessibility requirements including the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehab Act and other pertinent regulations. A meeting summary is presented in Appendix C. Key items discussed included: • By law, new projects are required to be designed and maintained to be compliant with the ADA. • All projects will be evaluated for accessibility needs. • Title II of the ADA (1990) is the transportation - related section and requires all agencies to develop a transition plan to indicate how they intend to update their facilities to meet the ADA standards. • Mn /DOT is currently developing a transition plan as required by the ADA. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 4 December 2009 Page 15 • All responsible staff needs to be educated on accessibility and fully understand their role in all phases of service delivery. In addition, as a part of the development of Mn /DOT's Transition Plan, the agency elected to adopt the US Access Board's Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) as its primary guidance for public facility design (with the exception of round -a- bouts). Chapter 4 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 16 December 2009 Chapter 5: Lessons Learned from Interviews Interview Background As part of this study, a review of other local, regional and state Complete Streets policies was completed. The initial plan was to conduct phone surveys of several agencies that had implemented Complete Streets policies and summarize the findings. However the American Planning Association (APA) is working with the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC) in completing a similar task. This information is being complied into a Best Practices Manual on Complete Streets report, which is being developed by the APA/NCSC and highlights more than 20 agencies with Complete Streets and is scheduled to be available on the APA website in January of 2010. Rather than duplicate this effort, the APA/NCSC shared their interview findings from five agencies with the Minnesota study with the agreement that any additional follow -up surveys conducted by Minnesota would be shared with APA/NCSC. One key area that the earlier surveys did not focus on was the policy development and implementation phase. Therefore, follow -up surveys were conducted by the study consultant with several agencies selected by the advisory committee based on agency jurisdiction, climate similarity, where they are in their Complete Streets policy development and the substance of their policies: a summary of these surveys is included in Appendix D. The five agency interviews summarized for this report include: • City of Charlotte, NC — Policy statement included in the design guidelines: Transportation Action Plan (adopted in May 2006) and Urban Streets Design Guide (adopted October 2007). • Louisville, KY Metro Government — Ordinance (passed in 2008), design guidelines and a policy statement added as an addendum to the city's comprehensive plan. • Massachusetts Highway - Statute (instituted in 1996) and a policy statement included in the design guidelines (completed in 2006). • Oregon State — Statewide statute (Occurred 38 years ago) • Seattle, WA — Ordinance including policy statement (Passed in 2007) Summary of Interview Findings The following is a summary of findings from the five interviews: • Complete Streets are easier to implement if all levels of government within a state are concurrently applying Complete Streets principles. This minimizes differing design standards being applied by the various agencies with jurisdiction over roadways (e.g., city, county and state). • Implementation of Complete Streets is easier when there is support for the policy by elected officials and /or upper agency management. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 5 December 2009 Page 17 • All stakeholders should be actively involved in developing a Complete Streets design guide, as this will result in wider acceptance of the final design guide by the stakeholders. When implementing Complete Streets, clarity should be established about how Complete Streets principles will be applied. All interviewed agencies are applying Complete Streets procedures to new and reconstruction projects already in the pipeline. Having a policy does not trigger a redirection of funds to retrofit projects aimed specifically at policy compliance. Complete Streets implementation calls for a comprehensive, clear and transparent planning and design processes that: - Requires planners and designers to shift perspective and consider all transportation modes and all abilities at the beginning of a project. - Engages all project stakeholders early in the design process. - Assembles teams with members who have a working knowledge of needs and guidelines for each of the transportation modes. - Analyzes how to reasonably integrate various transportation modes and considers design trade -offs to best meet multiple transportation objectives. - Are sensitive and responsive to the project's context. - Uses flexible design standards. • "One size fits all" design or design based on functional roadway classification does not work for Complete Streets. Complete Streets design needs to be based on context and need. • In certain circumstances (e.g., low volume, rural roadways or low speed residential streets), having automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians share the vehicle travel lane was considered a reasonable integration of their needs. • It is beneficial to establish a formalized Complete Streets process, as it provides a framework that helps initiate implementation of Complete Streets projects. Complete Streets implementation will evolve after the agency gains some experience with initial projects. • Most agencies saw Complete Streets as an integral component of active living and smart growth planning efforts. • Several agencies had established a stakeholder committee to review and make decisions regarding design exceptions, which they found to be beneficial. • After implementing some initial Complete Streets projects, designing for Complete Streets is now considered standard practice by the agencies implementing them. • The Complete Streets design process has resulted in improved coordination and communication between the various project stakeholders. • Application of flexible design standards may be perceived as risky by agency attorneys and engineers, as they see the process opening the agency up to lawsuits or putting their professional licenses at risk. Chapter S Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 18 December 2009 • The interviewed agencies were not able to provide any benefit -cost data, but the interviews did highlight the following generalized findings: - A comprehensive planning and design process that integrates Complete Streets principles into roadway improvement projects is more cost - effective than later retrofitting Complete Streets components into roadways. One exception to this was restriping roadways. - For urban projects with spatial constraints, the primary issue is not cost, but allocation of available space between various transportation modes and functions. - There will likely be additional costs associated with implementing Complete Streets, but interviewed agencies felt the end product provided a better long -term value. - While cost is always a consideration, it is not an excuse to not implement Complete Streets. Project planners and designers must balance and safely integrate the needs of the various modes within the space available in a cost - efficient manner. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter S December 2009 Page 19 This page was left intentionally blank. Chapter S Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 20 December 2009 Chapter 6: Benefits, Feasibility, Costs and Funding Several Advisory Committee members as well as practitioners who presented to the committee expressed concern with the cost of implementing Complete Streets and uncertainty of the value placed on Complete Streets by the public. As part of this study, benefit and cost data on Complete Streets practices was requested of several agencies nationwide that currently have policies as well as from the National Complete Streets Coalition. Although all of these agencies responded that no benefit/cost analysis was available, several informal cost - benefit calculations have been made by these jurisdictions, and they have found the benefits to outweigh the costs. A potential list of benefits and costs associated with Complete Streets was developed by the Advisory Committee and technical Advisory Panel. Benefits Benefits may be discussed in qualitative terms if they are difficult to quantify and may be both short- and long -term benefits, such as the following: • Safety — reduction of conflict and encouragement of more predictable interaction among motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. • Environmental — less air and noise pollution. • Maintenance — less use of roads by automobiles if significant mode shifts occur. • Congestion — integration of transit and non - motorized modes can reduce local congestion if a mode shift occurs. • Health — increased physical activity, potentially reduced pollution and reduction in healthcare costs. • Accessibility — approximately one -third of the population cannot or does not drive a car; increased compliance with the ADA policy will provide better access for people of all ages and abilities. • External costs — reductions correlated with less costly modal choices. • Economic activity and property values • Social interactions related to quality of life In June 2009, the Center for Disease Control released a report titled Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, which recommends the adoption of Complete Streets policy as a strategy for obesity prevention. The Minnesota Obesity Plan (pg 46) endorses Complete Streets. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 6 December 2009 Page 21 Feasibility In theory, Complete Streets is not revolutionary; it is essentially practicing coordinated, thorough and timely planning and design. In 2006, Mn /DOT adopted a policy to use CSS on all projects to create excellence in transportation project development. One of the six key principles of Mn /DOT's approach is to "address all modes of travel." Adopting a Complete Streets policy would complement Mn /DOT's existing CSS policy and further reinforce its principles. In addition, Mn /DOT staff have been actively working on integrating the ADA, CSS and flexibility in design and bicycle /pedestrian principles within the agency. As noted earlier, although there are some incremental additional costs associated with Complete Streets (right -of -way, bicycle lanes, etc.), they are often offset by the benefits (providing for all modes and users, health and environment). Based on these findings, Complete Streets in Minnesota is considered feasible on state, regional and local levels. Complete Streets cannot be looked upon as a prescriptive design or outcome; it is a process based on guiding principles. Planners, designers and local community representatives will need to coordinate in order to better understand the needs of different users of a corridor. Looking beyond the site and understanding existing and planned destinations in the area will be necessary to determine design details needed to comply with a Complete Streets Policy. Three Minnesota agencies (Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Rochester) have recently adopted Complete Streets resolutions, indicating that Complete Streets are feasible in Minnesota on a local level. Hennepin County Hennepin County's op Ijcy was approved unanimously on July 14, 2009, and the county is developing a methodology to conduct an inventory and assessment of its facilities. City of Rochester Though Rochester has had long- standing policies requiring the integration of pedestrian facilities into the transportation system, they have already experienced early success with their Complete Streets Policy. Rochester anticipates that their Complete Streets Policy will have a stronger impact on repaving, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects than on new construction. So far, these agencies have reported minimal change in their design approach, as evaluating user needs in the design phase of a project has always been standard practice. While this is true for new construction, it should be noted that reconstruction and road projects related to other road authorities have resulted in significantly increased efforts to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians and transit. There are currently several additional agencies going through the policy development process. Costs Potential additional costs could include: Chapter 6 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 22 December 2009 • Purchase of additional right -of -way • Increased travel time for motor vehicles • Shifting of traffic to other routes in network • Additional infrastructure to maintain and operate Costs for Complete Streets may be reduced by minor changes in the planning and design processes, including: • Shift in the planning and design approach — a Complete Streets approach would integrate the needs of all user modes early on in the project development/ planning process, rather than trying to "fit them in to" the design later on in the process. • Be opportunistic — for example, if a resurfacing or utility project is scheduled, seek out opportunities to include Complete Streets elements within the project. • Keep the network vision in mind — review a project in relation to building an interconnected network of facilities for all modes; work to eliminate barriers within the networks whenever reasonable. • Design to minimize operations and maintenance costs for all corridor features. • Establish a clear process for prioritizing operations efforts that is understood by decision makers, users and maintenance staff. • Design incrementally — implement Complete Streets as projects arise and a network will develop over time. • Retrofitting is costly and should be avoided or addressed as part of a strategic capital program (however, in some cases, the benefits of a retrofit may outweigh the costs). • Use multiple funding sources for one project. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 6 December 2009 Page 23 This page was intentionally left blank Chapter 6 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 24 December 2009 Chapter 7: Implementation Strategies As of the publication of this report, 101 agencies in the nation have implemented some form of a Complete Streets policy, including 16 states. Lessons learned from agency interviews and information provided by the National Complete Street Coalition indicates that the best process to successfully implement a Complete Streets program is a sequential, phased approach: • Establish the need for a Complete Streets policy (which this study has done). • Develop a policy. • Revise planning and design policies and manuals to complement a Complete Streets policy. • Implement in daily practice. • Refine as necessary. The systematic provision of Complete Streets can be advanced using different types of policies, including resolutions, legislation /ordinances, tax ordinance, executive order, internal policy, plan and manuals /standards. The policy developed may differ based on the type and size of the agency implementing it, but general elements of a good policy include: • Emphasize safety for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. • Emphasize an interconnected network of facilities for all modes. • Provide practical and flexible design standards. - Including guidance and support for deviating from standards when appropriate • Provide broad direction that is general (not prescriptive and minimizes specifics). • Address multiple jurisdictions (State, MPO, local). A balanced Complete Streets policy can result when its development includes input and final support from a broad spectrum of transportation stakeholders, including: • Experts from all modes • Elected officials • Professional planners and designers • All levels of government Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 7 December 2009 Page 25 Agencies that have been successful in developing and implementing a Complete Streets program have found that the process can take several years, but results in an end product that is useful and requires minimal modifications. An example is the State of Massachusetts, which is a recognized leader in the development of its Complete Streets program. A state law was enacted in the 1990s followed by the development of a new state design manual which includes a multi -modal Level of Service for intersections, along with many other enhancements. Chapter 7 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 26 December 2009 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The meetings, discussions, presentations, interviews, research and synthesis included as part of this study lead to the identification of several key conclusions: Study Content • The purpose of this study was not to develop a policy, but to identify the benefits, feasibility and cost of implementing a Complete Streets policy in Minnesota and provide recommendations relating to the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. • Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads "; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to 1) develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via integrated modal planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian), and 2) inclusion of all transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. Implementation • More than 100 agencies have implemented Complete Streets policies in the United States, including 16 states. • Complete Streets must start at the planning stage. Better and mutually supportive integration of transportation and land use planning across all jurisdictions is recognized as extremely important toward enabling and supporting complete streets. • Implementation of a Complete Streets process typically focuses on new construction /reconstruction. However, opportunities exist to implement Complete Streets on existing facilities (e.g. re- striping). • APA/NCSC is in the process of completing report on the best practices of Complete Streets, which will be available in January 2010. • Conventional transportation planning has often focused mobility of motor vehicles, using auto -based measures. A recent study at the University of MN Center for Transportation Studies (Report #9 in the series Access to Destinations Study), has demonstrated a method for transportation planning that includes pedestrian and bicycle accessibility that could assist in prioritizing projects to achieve true Complete Streets. Design • There is an 'outcome' lag. Many of the Complete Streets concerns arose from past design practices that have been improved over the years. As projects are developed, CSS and Complete Streets principles are being driven by SAFETEA -LU and ADA. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 8 December 2009 Page 27 • There is not a simple "one size fits all" design. Each project needs to be designed based on user needs and contextual factors. The policy should not be prescriptive and should allow flexibility in design. • Minnesota's existing transportation planning and design guidelines require revisions to eliminate inconsistencies and integrate all modes of travel. A Complete Streets approach needs to recognize the difference between urban and rural settings. The main areas of potential conflict between current design practices and Complete Streets are lane width, speed, average daily traffic, level of service and roadway classification. • The Complete Streets design process does not focus on functional class. Consistent with CSS, the design process must consider all modes and community context, including development and land use plans. • Developing a design exception review process is a recommended component of the Complete Streets process. Operations and Maintenance • Involve maintenance and operations staff in the design process to minimize long- term maintenance costs. • Define snow removal priorities on sidewalks and ramps to improve accessibility. Costs, Benefits and Feasibility • Quantifiable benefit/cost analyses have not been performed for Complete Streets implementation. The general consensus is that the benefits of Complete Streets balance the incremental costs. • Although there are potentially some incremental additional costs associated with Complete Streets, they are often offset by the benefits. Therefore, Complete Streets are considered feasible on the state, regional and local levels. Funding • There is not one central resource that agencies can use to get information about all funding sources available. • Finding funding can be difficult if the project needs do not align with funding requirements. In addition, if an agency would like to use multiple funding sources on one project, the timeframe the funding is available from each source may not align. • Public /Private Partnerships are another possible source of funding. Chapter 8 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 28 December 2009 Policy Elements Any Complete Streets Policy must strive to improve safety. According to the NCSC, an ideal policy has the following elements: • A vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets. • Specifies that 'all users' includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities as well as trucks, buses and automobiles. • Street connectivity to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes. • Adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. • Applications for both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations for the entire right of way. • A clear procedure that requires high -level approval of exceptions. • Best design standards while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs. • Solutions will complement the context of the community. • Performance standards with measurable outcomes. • Specific next steps for implementation of the policy. Additional elements identified by the study committees may include: • Adaptive lighting and maintenance impacts management (primarily snow, landscaping and lighting). Recommendations Being one of the first DOTs to adopt a policy requiring Context CSS and with its new Strategic Vision, Mn /DOT is already well positioned to support Minnesota in a Complete Streets approach to transportation investment. In addition, Mn /DOT staff have been actively working on integrating the ADA, CSS and bicycle /pedestrian principles within the agency. Three local agencies (Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Rochester) in Minnesota have already adopted their own resolutions for Complete Streets, indicating that Complete Streets are achievable at a local level. Mn /DOT needs to be prepared to assist local agencies in developing their local Complete Streets approach to assist their specific project development needs. The study committee has identified several key recommendations: • Mn /DOT is committed to partner with a broad coalition including local governments to build on existing CSS practices and develop and implement a Mn /DOT Complete Streets policy using the following phased sequential approach: - Develop a Mn /DOT Complete Streets policy. Complete Streets Legislative Report Chapter 8 December 2009 Page 29 - Reconcile differences in planning and design policies, guidelines and manuals. - Implement. - Review /measure /refine. • Mn /DOT should review and revise conflicting information in Minnesota's state and local design documents. • Mn /DOT should further explore the feasibility of integrating it's existing planning and design manuals related to Complete Streets into one manual. • Mn /DOT should integrate Complete Streets into Mn /DOT's new Scoping Process model (see Appendix B). • Mn /DOT should identify ways to assist local governments in developing and understanding funding sources and the constraints related to these sources. • All agencies should develop an integrated transportation plan that addresses connectivity for all modes for all users of all ages and abilities. • Mn /DOT should serve as a resource to assist local agencies in developing their own Complete Streets Policies with the support of Mn /DOT's expertise in CSS, ADA, bicycle /pedestrian planning, design and funding strategies. • Mn /DOT State Aid should review the State Aid variance process and make it more accessible and transparent. If a policy is developed it is very important that all stakeholders be engaged to address the key issues listed above and within this report. Additional resources on Complete Streets are available in Appendix F. Chapter 8 Complete Streets Legislative Report Page 30 December 2009