Complete Streets Reference Guide - media.metro.net · PDF fileexceptions specific; ... 2 Integrating Complete Streets into Local Planning Processes 3 ... • Make a critical early

Reference Guide

1

Los Angeles Long Range Transportation Plan

(2009)

Metro County-wide Sustainability Planning

Policy & Implementation Plan (2012)

Unit 1 What are Complete Streets?

“A transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Complete street concepts apply to rural, suburban, and urban areas.” - Official Caltrans Definition

“Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.” - National Complete Streets Coalition

Definition of Complete

Streets

History of Complete

Streets

Key Tenants of Local Policies

• Post WWII growth created motor vehicle dependence.• 1962: the Federal-Aid Highway Act (planning for future projects should be “comprehensive”).• Early legislation included: the Oregon “bike bill” (1971); California AB 69 (1972); and Florida

Statute 335.065 (1984).• No Federal Complete Streets Policy yet today.

California’s Complete

Streets Policies

AB 1358 – Complete Streets Act (2008)CEQA – but hasn’t always directly encouraged Complete Streets (passed 1970; new guidelines, 2010) AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)SB 375 – Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008)SB 226 – CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects (2011)SB 99 – Created the Active Transportation Program (ATP) (2013)SB 743 - LOS generally shall not be used as a significance threshold; addresses CEQA reform (2013)

Refer to the 10 Elements of Comprehensive Complete Streets Policies from the National Complete Streets Coalition. Local policy should: avoid vague, noncommittal statements; use clear language; build on existing work; and leave no room for circumnavigating requirements. The Policy should also: ID roadway users; discuss the modes covered; include a clear vision; apply to both new and retrofit projects; make any exceptions specific; and set clear procedures and performance standards.

Metro Resources

Transit Supportive Planning

Toolkit (2016) online

resource

Active Transportation Strategic Plan (2016)

Metro Complete Street Policy (2014)

2

Unit 2 Why are Complete Streets Important?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change requires

adaptation & mitigation. Gov’t

officials will control carbon emissions through cap-and-

trade, regulation, & taxation.

Aging population increasing.

After transportation infrastructure

increases, more people use it.

Leverage county, state, federal funds (e.g. Metro Call for

Projects, ATP grants, TIGER grants).

Job creation and cost benefit

analysis

Technological advances

(e.g. vehicle automation).

Rise of Transportation

Network Companies (rideshare).

Immigration from developing countries on the

rise.

Millennials & Creative Class

Lifestyle changes in household

& location preferences.

Populations suffer disproportionately from poor street design & have an

increased likelihood of illness, injury, &

death.

Complete Streets increase the sense of social connectivity & sense of community

belonging.

New Planning paradigm: emphasis

on safety.

Rising rates of obesity & health care

costs.

Disadvantaged Communities, Senate Bill 535

(2012).SB 74: Created changes to balance congestion mgmt practices with active transportation,

public health, etc.

SustainabilityShifting

DemographicsSafety & Public

Health

Travel Demand & Future Trends

Funding Opps. & Fiscal Responsibility

Sea level rise:6.7” by 2030

14.3” by 205041.1” by 2100

Current Trends

Active Transportation

has been shown to improve mental

health.

Sustainability Quality of Life Economic BenefitsSafetyHealth

Transportation accounts for greater

than 70% of oil consumption, 25% of global warming pollution, & a large proportion of local air pollution, such

as particulate matter that leads to “air quality alert” days

and increased rates of health problems.

43% of people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home

met recommended activity levels;

among individuals without safe

place to walk, just 27% were active

enough.

A recent study found that people who

live in walkable communities are more likely to be socially engaged & trusting than

residents of less walkable

neighborhoods.

Additionally, they reported being in better health & happier more

often.

Americans spent an average of 18 cents of every dollar on

transportation, with the poorest 1/5 of families spending

more than 2xs that figure. Most families spend

much more on their transportation than

on their food.

Taking public transportation saves individuals $9,581

each year.

Streets designed with sidewalks,

medians, improved bus stop placement,

traffic-calming, & treatments for disabled travelers

improve pedestrian safety, according

to the FHWA. Some features, like medians, improve safety for all users since they enable

pedestrians to cross busy roads in two stages, get rid of

left-turning vehicle crashes, & improve

bike safety.Nearly 1/3 of transit users

meet the Surgeon General’s

recommendations for minimum daily exercise through their daily travels.

Quick Facts

3

Unit 3 How to Put Complete Streets on the Books

Goal Setting & Visioning1

Integrating Complete Streets into Local Planning Processes2

3 Street Typologies, Layered Networks & Place-Types

How to Handle Caltrans Facilities4

General Plan Development Review ChecklistsRegional Transportation Plans

Bicycle mode sharePedestrian mode shareNumber of bicyclist- or pedestrian-involved traffic fatalities

Miles of protected bike lanesMiles of sidewalksNumber of pedestrian crossings of arterial roadwaysNumber of projects at locations with an above-expected crash rate

Determine if the street has:Motor vehicle emphasisTransit emphasisBicycle emphasisPedestrian emphasis

Refer to the:Caltrans Smart Mobility FrameworkCalifornia Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Assessment Technical Assistance Program

Conduct/DevelopDevelop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP)Refer to Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Best Practices

Entitlement Processes (such as):Traffic impact studiesImpact feesMitigation fees In-lieu mitigation fees

Integrate the policy into

ACreate a layered network approach for each of the typologies listed under 3A

B

Determine ‘outcomes’ & ‘outputs’:

Outcomes Outputs

DRAFT

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-5

FIGURE 2-2 PROPOSED STREET CONTEXTS

4

Fatalities (e.g. total

number, & by mode, age,

income, gender, etc)

Access (e.g. VMT per

capita, bike trip percentages, walking trip percentages)

Opportunities (e.g. jobs,

accessible in 30-45 mins, temp

& permanentjobs created by

project)

Air quality (e.g. air

toxics nearby, Clean Air Act contaminants)

Trips (e.g. bike trips to/

from school)

Counts (e.g. number of bicyclists/

pedestrians per unit time)

Timing (e.g. travel time

by mode)

Place (e.g. LOS, multi-

modal LOS, usage percentages

by age, gender, etc.)

Value (e.g. tax yield per acre, real

estate property value, retail &

restaurant sales nearby)

Stormwater runoff

(e.g. rate and volume of runoff,

percentage of runoff that is

absorbed)

Emergencies (e.g. emergency response times)

Counts (e.g. first/last

mile connections, trees retained or

planted)

Counts (e.g. first/last

mile connections, percent of people

serviced, low stress biking &

walking)

Serious Injuries (e.g. total

number, & by mode, age,

income, gender, etc)

Safety EconomicEquity Environment Public Health Usage / Ridership Access

Make sure Complete Streets projects are working towards the right goals

• Economy

• Environment

• Place

• Safety

• Equity

• Public Health

• Apply the right performance metrics

Why Evaluate your Complete Streets?

Benchmarking (i.e. before projects are

implemented)

Goal-Setting(e.g. Vision Zero,

People St)

InnovativeStrategies

Unit 4 How to Evaluate Complete Streets

5

SOURCES & STRATEGIES• Coordinating with maintenance or capital projects• External funding and grants• Innovative strategies:

• Public-private partnerships (P3s)• Crowd-funding

• Capital improvement funds

FUNDING

OVERCOMING BARRIERS• Engage stakeholders at the right times• Identify project champions• Spend political will wisely• Pick your battles carefully• Consider the “Policy-to-Practice” Cycle• Derive performance measures from project goals• Use storytelling• Can’t always pick the low hanging fruit• Show how a plan fits into Complete Streets goals• Clarify the process• Apply a variety of performance measures for different

people with different values• Help justify your project with performance measures• Report back on performance measures

BARRIERS & OPPOSITION

FUNDING SOURCE

Metro Call for Projects Metro

TIGER Discretionary Grants US DOT

MetroProposition C

CaltransRegional Surface Transportation Program

MetroMeasure M

FHWASurface Transportation Program Local

FTAFormula Grants for Rural Areas (5311)

MetroMetro Toll Roads

Dept of Parks & Rec

Measure A

CaltransActive Transportation Program

MetroMeasure R

FHWACongestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program

CA EPACap and Trade (includes AHSC)

FTAEnhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310)

FTAUrbanized Area Formula Grant (5307)

Unit 5 Moving from Policy to Practice

Evaluate Projects

Plan Complete Streets

Set Goals & Performance

Metrics

Build Great Projects

Weigh tradeoffs & gain consent

Overcome barriers & opposition

Secure project funding

6

COMMON TRADE-OFFS HOW TO ADDRESS

Traffic & LOS

Roadway Narrowing

Business Access

Parking

Community Character & Values

• Frame the conversation around Person-Mobility for all modes.• Explain if other project benefits may outweigh effects to roadway capacity/

LOS.• Describe that congestion may be inevitable but providing travel options is a

choice.• Recognize whether a data-driven argument is necessary (or helpful) or if a

policy-driven argument is more valuable.

• Describe the political will that exists and link to project goals.• Make a critical early project decision: attempt to stay within existing ROW,

or allow to go beyond existing ROW?

• Communicate directly with property and business owners (aren’t always the same).

• Understand property “needs” vs. “nice-to-haves.”• Let crash data influence safety-based arguments.

• Perform occupancy study that accounts for time-of-day, special users, off-street parking supply (both business and residential).

• View on-street parking as a shared, public resource.

• Engage stakeholders at the right time.• Develop projects that reflect the community’s values (not yours).• Communicate early on and effectively.• Describe that Complete Streets can help calm traffic on residential streets,

create walkable neighborhoods, and increase community interaction.

7

• Caltrans Highway Design Manual• American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials’ (AASHTO)• Local manuals or street design standards• The California Fire Code• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(California MUTCD)• Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH)

Caltrans Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan 2.0

Main Street, California

Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual (LA Mobility Plan)

Model Design Manual for Living Streets, LA County

Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook

Street Design: Part 1—Complete Streets (FHWA)

Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO)

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: a Context Sensitive Approach (ITE)

ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010)

Proposed Guidelines for Accessible Rights-of-Way (PROWAG)

• DIB 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (SeparatedBikeways/Cycle Tracks)

• DIB 82-05: Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines forHighway Projects

• DIB 81-01: Capital Preventative Maintenance(CAPM) Guidelines

STANDARDS & GUIDANCE MODIFYING DESIGN STANDARDS

References

Unit 6 Complete Streets on the Ground

1

functions as an extension of the bldg

residential: 5-7’widecommercial areas:

8-12’ wide

section between buffer and

through zone

space next to sidewalk

Frontage ZonePedestrian

Through ZoneFurniture/Curb

Zone Buffer Zone

Pedestrian Facilities Road Diets

Bicycle Infrastructure*

Road DietsSidewalk Zones

Class I: Bike Path

Class II: Bike Lane

Class III: Bike Route

Class IV: Separated Bike Lane

2’ 10’ 2’

min 6’> 40mph

Posted Vehicle Speeds over 40mph

*source: Highway Design Manual

min 5’ 8’

Adjacent to On-Street Parking

on-street parking

Highway Scenario

min 3’highway 2’

gutt

er

min 5’preferred 7’

3’

8’

on-street parking

Buffered Bike Lane

18”-3’

Striped bike lane adjacent to vehicle travel lane.

Fully separated path for exclusive use by bicyclists. Shared lane for bicyclists and motorists.

On street bicycle lane separated by a physical barrier. May include grade separation, posts, barriers, or on-street parking.

Sidewalk zones improve safety and convenience for all users.

A road diet involves converting a wide road into a narrow configuration. See example below.

Narrower lanes reduce speeds and increase safety Road diets reduce pedestrian crash risk Typical travel lane width: 10 - 12 feet

Before

After



Unit 7 Deep Dive into Roadway Design Concepts

2


Best Practice Treatments

Appropriate for low volume streets Keep existing traffic control

Appropriate for low volume streets Require yield on entry Feature splitter islands

Mid-block crossing(as alternative) Advanced yield lines Warning signs Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) High-visibility markings Curb extensions Raised pedestrian refuge or medians Pedestrian hybrid beacon

Best Practice Treatments Intersection signalization Overhead flashing beacons High-visibility markings Curb extensions Raised pedestrian refuge or medians Pedestrian hybrid beacon

Slow Vehicles Crash Reduction Delay Reduction

Typically feasible at signalized intersections and all-way stops Splitter island reduces speeds Minimizes ped-auto & auto-auto conflict Bicyclists and vehicles do not need to stop Pedestrians cross single traffic stream

Uncontrolled Crossings

Roundabouts

Traffic Circle

Mini-Roundabouts

Unsignalized Intersection

On-Street ParkingParking Layout Types

Parking along Complete Streets provides a buffer

between pedestrians and traffic, and visually narrows the street for

motorists.

Angled Parking

Sight limitations create bicycle and vehicle conflicts

Back-in Angled Parking

Improves motorist sight distance Eliminates door zone Easier loading/unloading Directs emissions

towards sidewalks

Can lead to “dooring” incidents with bicyclists Address with wider bike

lane or buffer

Parallel Parking

Traffic Calming

Speed Control Volume Control Speed humps Speed tables Raised crosswalks Raised intersections Traffic circles Roundabouts Chicanes Median narrowing Curb extensions Lower speed limit

Raised median barriers Diagonal diverters Half closures Full closures Road diet Reduced travel lane widths Parking Raised median islands Roundabouts Curb Extensions

3


12

3

456

Pedestrian Signals

Protected Intersections

Bicycle Signals

Protected intersections avoid mixing zones between all users, improve sight lines, and create low stress left turns for bicyclists.

1 Corner Refuge Island

2 Forward Bicycle Queuing Area

3 Motorist Yield Zone

4 Pedestrian Crossing Island

5 Pedestrian Crossing of Separated Bike Lane

6 Pedestrian Curb Ramp

Limit line detection Typical push button Video detection

Activation

Safety Design Enhancements Permanent recall Fixed time

Typical push button Extended time Accessible/audible

Activation

Safety Design Enhancements Leading pedestrian interval Short cycle lengths Pedestrian scramble No right turn on red Pedestrian recall

Transit FacilitiesFactors That Affect Transit Ridership

Reliability Destination Accessibility

Frequency

Design Considerations

Platform geometry8-10’ width

bike lane

Curb height6”-9” or more depending on vehicle type

Bus zone/Platform80’-160’ Length

Bus Stop Locations

Far side stop: after intersection

Minimizes conflict with right turning vehicles Minimizes sight distance problems Encourages pedestrians to cross behind the bus

Allows pedestrians to access buses closest to crosswalk Eliminates potential of double stopping Provides driver opportunity to look for oncoming traffic

Near side stop: before intersection

Bike/Bus interface common design

Green Streets Design Canopy trees Vegetated swales Infiltration planters Previous pavers Infiltration trenches Stormwater curb extensions

4

Unit 8 Experimental and Demonstration Projects

Types of Experimental and Demonstration Projects

Quick input as a part of a larger planning process.

Should be an ‘event’ to encourage participation.

Hours

Useful as a part of a campaign to educate and solicit feedback.

Can be combined with an online forum to collect input over time.

Days

Pilot testing for a more permanent treatment. Creates gentle transition between installation & permanent improvement.

Responses to installation should be monitored periodically.

Months

Interim condition while funds are secured for permanent installation.

Creates built-in user group to help champion permanent changes.

Years

5

Unit 9 How To Build and Maintain Complete Streets

Typical Unit Costs

Process

Costs & Funding

Recommended Timeline

Sidewalk & Frontage Improvements Simple retrofit/maintenance - $3m per mile Add or relocate curb/gutter, landscape & lighting - $8m per mile

Bikeway Improvements Re-striping with slurry seal - $350,000 per mile Protected bikeways - $1-2m per mile

Intersection & Crossing Improvements Protected intersection - $2m each Traffic signal - $500,000 each Pedestrian hybrid beacon - $250,000 each Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon - $30,000 each

ConstructionEngineering

Design

Within 3 Years

Review & Evaluation

Service Period

Project Initiation and Planning

Immediately

ConceptDesign

1-2 years

Initial Maintenance Plan

Review Current City Goals & Objectives-Evaluate Initial Complete Streets Projects-Review & Revise Complete Streets Policy, Implementation Plan, & Metrics

Assemble Existing Supportive Policies

Develop Complete Streets Policy

-Develop Implementation Work Plan-Establish City Design Standards & Guidance-Develop Evaluation Metrics & Baseline-Apply for Grants & Secure Funding-Construct Initial Complete Streets Projects

Ongoing Maintenance

Update Maintenance Plan

1

Complete Streets: Recommended Reading List

City of LA Mobility Plan 2035 (2016) https://losangeles2b.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mobilityplan_web_jan_2016v61.pdf

SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016)

http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf

Los Angeles County Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 Update (2015)

http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_final-general-plan.pdf

LA Dept of City Planning

Complete Streets Design Guide (2014) https://losangeles2b.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/complete-street-design-guide-nov-20144.pdf

Metro Metro Complete Streets Policy (2014) https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/policy_complet-estreets_2014-10.pdf

SCAG/Metro First Mile Last Mile Strategic Plan (2014) http://media.metro.net/docs/First_Last_Mile_Strategic_Plan.pdf

SCAG LA County TOD Access Study (2013) http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/tod_Access-Study.pdf

LA County Public Works

County of LA Bicycle Master Plan (2012) https://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/bike/docs/bmp/FINAL%20Bicycle%20Master%20Plan.pdf

Metro Metro Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy & Implementation Plan (2012)

http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/countywide_sus-tainability_planning_policy.pdf

LA County Dept Public Health

Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011) http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.covm/

LA Dept of City Planning

2010 Bicycle Plan: City of LA (2011) http://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/transelt/NewBikePlan/Txt/LA%20CITY%20BICYCLE%20PLAN.pdf

Metro Health and Active Transportation Agenda (2011) http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2011/11_novem-ber/20111116AHSItem10.pdf

City of LA Downtown Street Standards: City of Los Angeles (2009)

http://www.urbandesignla.com/resourc-es/DowntownStreetStandards.php

Metro Los Angeles Long Range Transportation Plan (2009)

https://www.metro.net/projects/reports/

Agency Title Link

LOC

AL &

REG

ION

AL

POLI

CIE

S, P

LAN

S,

& P

RO

GR

AM

S

2

Caltrans California Transportation Plan 2040 (2016) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/california-transportationplan2040/Final%20CTP/FINALCTP2040-Report-WebReady.pdf

Caltrans State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (2016)

http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/stip.htm

Caltrans Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan 2.0 (2014)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/docs/CSIAP2_rpt.pdf

Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R2): Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System (2014)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/docs/dd_64_r2.pdf

Caltrans PL-11CTP Complete Streets Overview (2014) https://www.planning.org/events/events-ingle/3028521/

Office of Planning & Research

Alternative Transportation Metrics (SB 743) (2013) http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743

ChangeLab Solutions

Model General Plan Language on Complete Streets (2012)

http://www.changelabsolutions.org/publications/CA-complete-streets-policies

Caltrans Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan (2010)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets_files/Complet-eStreets_IP03-10-10.pdf

State of CA Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element (2010)

https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Update_GP_Guidelines_Complete_Streets.pdf

CA EPA Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) (2008)

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm

State of CA California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) (2008) ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf

CA EPA California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) (2006)

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) (2006) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/sur-vey/SHSP/SHSP-Booklet-version2_%20PRINT.pdf

Caltrans Director’s Policy 22 (DP-22): Context Sensitive Solutions (2001)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/te/dp-22.pdf

Caltrans Corridor System Management Plan http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/depart-ments/planning/CorridorSystemMan-agementPlans.htm

State of CA California Streets and Highways Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/shc_ta-ble_of_contents.html

Complete Streets: Recommended Reading List (Continued)

Agency Title Link

STAT

E PO

LIC

IES,

PLA

NS,

& P

RO

GR

AM

S

3

DES

IGN

& O

PER

ATIO

NA

L G

UID

AN

CE

Caltrans California Highway Design Manual 6th Edition (2016)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/HDM_Complete_15Jul2016.pdf

FHWA Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (2016)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfac-ing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf

FHWA Strategic Agenda for Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation (2016)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/strate-gic_agenda/fhwahep16086.pdf

FHWA Transportation Alternatives Program Performance Management Guidebook (2016)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ-ment/transportation_alternatives/performance_management/guidebook/tap_pm_guidebook.pdf

ITE Recommended Practices on Accommodating Pedestrians and Bicyclists at Interchanges (2016)

http://ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDe-tail?iProductCode=RP-039

ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook, 7th Edition (2016) http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Wi-leyTitle/productCd-1118762304.html

NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/

AARP/SGA Evaluating Complete Streets Projects: A Guide for Practitioners (2015)

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/evaluating-com-plete-streets-projects.pdf

Caltrans DIB 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks) (2015)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dib89.pdf

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separat-ed_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf

AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (2014)

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=2215

Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/CAMUTCD2014_rev1.pdf

Caltrans Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design (2014) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/design/2014-4-2-Flexibility-in-Design.pdf

FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide (2014) http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bike-way-design-guide/

NCHRP Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics (2014)

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/22350/rec-ommended-bicycle-lane-widths-for-vari-ous-roadway-characteristics

Caltrans DIB 82-05: Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (2013)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dib82-05.pdf


Agency Title Link

4

Caltrans Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality (2013)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/mainstreet/main_street_3rd_edition.pdf

Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02: Intersection Control Evaluation (2013)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/poli-cy/13-02.pdf

FHWA Signalized Intersections: An Informational Guide (2013)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/fhwasa13027/fhwasa13027.pdf

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=1943

Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 12-03: Crosswalk Enhancement (2012)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/poli-cy/12-03.pdf

FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf

NCHRP Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility (2012)

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/166924.aspx

National Complete Streets Coalition

Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook (2012) https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/complete-streets-local-poli-cy-workbook/

AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011)

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/geometric_design_highways_and_streets_aashto.pdf

AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2011) https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=105

Caltrans DIB 81-01: Capital Preventative Maintenance (CAPM) Guidelines (2011)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dib81-01.pdf

ITE Planning Urban Roadway Systems: an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (2011)

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/samdahl-planning-urban-roadway-sys-tems.pdf

Transportation Research Board / Schroeder et al.

Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities (2011)


U.S. Access Board Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) (2011)

https://www.access-board.gov/attach-ments/article/743/nprm.pdf

America Walks Signalized Intersection Enhancements that Benefit Pedestrians (2010)

http://americawalks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/America-Walks-Sig-nalized-Intersection-Enhancements-Re-port-Updated-1.30.2012.pdf

DES

IGN

& O

PER

ATIO

NA

L G

UID

AN

CE

(CO

NTI

NU

ED)


Agency Title Link

5

Caltrans Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2010)

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/complete_in-tersections_caltrans.pdf

Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework 2010 (2010) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/documents/smf_files/SMF_hand-book_062210.pdf

Department of Justice

ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010) https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010A-DAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm

FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (2nd Edition) (2010)


FHWA Street Design: Part 1—Complete Streets (2010) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/10julaug/03.cfm

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: a Context Sensitive Approach (2010)

http://library.ite.org/pub/e1cff43c-2354-d714-51d9-d82b39d4dbad

National Complete Streets Coalition/APA

Complete Streets (PAS 559): Best Policy and Implementation Practices (2010)

https://www.planning.org/research/streets/

TRB Highway Capacity Manual (2010) http://hcm.trb.org/?qr=1

TRB NCHRP Multimodal LOS Analysis for Urban Streets (2010)


AARP Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America (2009)

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/2009-12-streets.pdf

APA U.S. Traffic Calming Manual (2009) https://www.planning.org/publications/book/9026718/

FHWA Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds: A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness (2009)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/eng_count.pdf

EPA Green Streets: Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure (2008)

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/gi_munichand-book_green_streets_0.pdf

UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation

A Technical Guide for Conducting Pedestrian Safety Assessments (2008)

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/file_uploads/psa_guidebook_2013_0.pdf

Caltrans Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): A Handbook for Partners (2007)

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/BRT2006/Caltrans%20BRT%20book%200307%20-%20Size%20Re-duced.pdf

DES

IGN

& O

PER

ATIO

NA

L G

UID

AN

CE

(CO

NTI

NU

ED)


Agency Title Link

6

FHWA Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds (2007)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publi-cations/07232816/lc07232816.cfm

FHWA Mini-Roundabouts: Technical Summary (2007) http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/fhwasa10007/fhwasa10007.pdf

AASHTO A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design (2004)

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=103

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)


National Complete Streets Coalition

Costs of Complete Streets http://completestreets.org/webdocs/fact-sheets/cs-costs-2.pdf

U.S. Access Board Pedestrian Access to Modern Roundabouts: Design and Operational Issues for Pedestrians Who Are Blind

https://www.access-board.gov/guide-lines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/guidance-and-re-search/pedestrian-access-to-mod-ern-roundabouts

FHWA Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures (2016)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/perfor-mance_measures_guidebook/pm_guide-book.pdf

Subcommittee on Highways & Transit

H.R.2071: Safe Streets Act of 2015 (2015) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con-gress/house-bill/2071

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, First Edition Supplement (2014)


Lusk et al. American Journal of Public Health

Bicycle Guidelines and Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States (2013)

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301043

Teschke et al. American Journal of Public Health

Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study (2012)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti-cles/PMC3519333/

AAA Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death (2011)

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVs-Speed.pdf

Lusk et al. Injury Prevention

Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks versus in the Street (2011)

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/con-tent/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full

FHWA Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas (2010)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/medians_trifold/

DES

IGN

& O

PER

ATIO

NA

L G

UID

AN

CE

(CO

NTI

NU

ED)

SAFE

TY S

TUD

IES,

PO

LIC

IES,

& R

EPO

RTS


Agency Title Link

7

FHWA Roundabouts: A Proven Safety Solution that Reduces the Number and Severity of Intersection Crashes (2010)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other_topics/fhwasa09027/resources/Intersection%20Safety%20Issue%20Brief%2014.pdf

FHWA Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes (2010)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/

FHWA / Fitzpatrick & Park

Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment (2010)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10042/10042.pdf

FHWA / Fitzpatrick et al.

Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study (2010) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10067/10067.pdf

US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations (2010)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/policy_ac-com.cfm

FHWA & ITE Issue Brief 9: Pedestrian Safety at Intersections (2009)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other_topics/fhwasa10005/docs/brief_9.pdf

FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes (2008)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/ped_tctpepc/ped_tctpepc.pdf

Potts et al. / TRB Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials (2007)

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/lane-width-safety.pdf

Markowitz et al. ITE Journal

Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an Extensive Pilot Installation (2006)

http://www.bikewalk.org/2006confer-ence/vconference/presentations/Pedestri-anandBicycleTrafficSignalIssuesandDi-rections2.pdf

TRB / Fitzpatrick et al.

TCRP Report 112/ NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006)

http://nacto.org/wp-content/up-loads/2010/08/NCHRP-562-Improv-ing-Pedestrian-Safety-at-Unsignal-ized-Crossings.pdf

FHWA / Zegeer et al.

Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2005)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf

Oregon DOT / Johnson

Pedestrian Safety Impacts of Curb Extensions: A Case Study (2005)

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/PedestrainSafety-CurbExt.pdf?ga=t

Van Houten & Malenfant

Efficacy of Rectangular-shaped Rapid Flash LED Beacons (2001)

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/stpetersburgrpt.pdf

SAFE

TY S

TUD

IES,

PO

LIC

IES,

& R

EPO

RTS

(C

ON

TIN

UED

)Complete Streets: Recommended Reading List (Continued)

Agency Title Link

8

Metro Propositions A Local Return http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/local_return/images/lr_guide.pdf

Metro Propositions C Local Return http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/local_return/images/lr_guide.pdf

Metro Proposition C 25% https://www.metro.net/about/finance-budget/taxes/

Metro Measure R Local Return http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/local_return/images/measure-r-Lo-cal-Return-Guidelines.pdf

Metro Measure M Local Return http://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/report_prgm_mgmt_2016_11.pdf

Metro Transportation Development Act Article 3 https://www.metro.net/projects/tda/

Metro Transportation Development Act Article 8 http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2013/06_june/20130619f&bitem13.pdf

Metro ExpressLanes Net Toll Revenue https://www.metro.net/projects/ex-presslanes/projectsprograms/

N/A Developer Mitigation Fees N/A

N/A Gas Tax https://media.metro.net/about_us/committees/sfs/images/sfs_presenta-tion_2015_0416_gastax.pdf

CA EPA Cap and Trade https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

California Sustainable Growth Council

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program

http://www.sgc.ca.gov/Grant-Programs/AHSC-Program.html

Caltrans Active Transportation Program http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPro-grams/atp/

Caltrans Regional Surface Transportation Program http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/federal/rstp/regional_surface_transpor-tation_program-MAP21_090115_1.pdf

FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/

FHWA Surface Transportation Program Local https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/fact-sheets/stp.cfm

FTA Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310)

https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/enhanced-mobility-seniors-indi-viduals-disabilities-section-5310

FTA Formula Grants for Rural Areas (5311) https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/formu-la-grants-rural-areas-5311

FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grant (5307) https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/urbanized-area-formu-la-grants-5307

POTE

NTI

AL

LOC

AL

FUN

DIN

G S

OU

RC

ES F

OR

CO

MPL

ETE

STR

EETS

IN L

A C

OU

NTY

POTE

NTI

AL

STAT

E &

NAT

ION

AL

FUN

DIN

G

SOU

RC

ES F

OR

CO

MPL

ETE

STR

EETS


Agency Title Link