Complete Streets
Designing Roads for Diverse Modes, Users and Activities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 6 September 2019
This chapter describes the concept of Complete Streets, which refers to roads designed to accommodate diverse modes, users and activities.
Complete Streets refers to roadway design and operating practices intended to safely accommodate diverse users and activities including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, plus adjacent businesses and residents. Complete Streets planning recognizes that roadways often serve diverse functions including through travel, recreational walking, socializing, vending, and nearby living, which must be considered and balanced in roadway design and management.
Complete Streets planning is an effective way to implement more multi-modal planning and encourage more compact development. It is supported by many professional organizations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the American Planning Association.
Complete Streets implementation usually includes a policy statement, various changes to planning practices, plus professional development programs that support more multi-modal roadway design (NJDOT 2012; Porter, et al. 2016). It often involves selecting and applying an appropriate street design manual, which defines specific roadway design details (ITDP 2011; NACTO 2012; UDUPC 2009). It may require shifting funding from roadway expansion to more multi-modal roadway projects.
|
Ideal Complete Streets Policy (www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/changing-policy/policy-elements)
|
Travel impacts vary widely depending on design and conditions. Simply adding Sidewalks or Bike Lanes on a few roads may have little impact on overall travel activity, but a comprehensive Complete Streets program that includes Bus Lanes, Traffic Calming and New Urbanist development can significantly reduce per capita vehicle ownership and use. An integrated Complete Streets program may have synergistic effects (total travel impacts are greater than the sum of their individual impacts).
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Integrated programs can have large imapcts. |
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
1 |
" |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
Encourages walking, cycling and transit use. |
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
1 |
|
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
Can encourage transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
Can encourage cycling. |
|
Increased walking. |
0 |
Can encourage walking. |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Complete Streets programs can significantly improve walking and cycling conditions, and public transit service quality, which improves mobility options for non-drivers and reduces total vehicle traffic and associate costs including downstream congestion, parking problems, and pollution emissions (Litman 2013). They tend to increase travel safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Public transit priority measures, such as bus lanes and signal prioritization, improve transit service efficiency. By reducing traffic speeds it can reduce driver stress, crash risk and noise. By creating more walkable and attractive roadways, Complete Streets tend to support local economic development and community livability.
Costs often include additional planning and construction costs, reduced vehicle traffic speeds, and sometimes, reduced traffic capacity, leading to more local congestion (NCSC 2011).
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
0 |
Reduces automobile travel, improves alternative modes, but may reduce total automobile traffic capacity. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel, improves alternative modes. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel, increases affordable travel options. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Improves alternative modes and creates more compact communities |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Improves walking and cycling conditions, reduces vehicle traffic speeds, and reduces total vehicle travel. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Supports more compact development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Helps create more multi-modal transport systems and more attractive communities. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Complete Streets programs increase equity by improving mobility for non-drivers, and by improving affordable travel modes (walking, cycling and public transit). It tends to reduce external costs (barrier effect, accident risk, noise and air pollution) that motorists impose on pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. Although most urban street projects are financed by general taxes, some Complete Streets projects are partly financed by vehicle user taxes, so they are sometimes criticized as a subsidy from motorists to non-drivers.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
3 |
Directly benefits all road users. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
2 |
Reduces external costs that motorist impose on non-drivers, but sometimes involves subsidies from vehicle user fees that benefit non-drivers. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
3 |
Significantly improves affordable modes and benefits poor people. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
3 |
Significantly improves mobility for non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Significantly improves mobility for non-drivers. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Compete Streets principles can be applied under many conditions, but are particularly appropriate in urban areas where there is significant demand for walking, cycling and public transit travel.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
2 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
3 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
3 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
2 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
Transit centers |
3 |
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Travel Choice
Complete Streets programs support and are supported by Streetscaping, Traffic Calming, Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, Universal Design, Road Space Reallocation, and by urban redevelopment strategies, including New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Transit-Oriented Development, Context Sensitive Design, and Parking Management.
Complete Streets policies are generally implemented by local governments and transportation agencies. Neighborhood associations, business associations and developers are also important stakeholders with regard to many Complete Streets policies and programs. Transportation planners and engineers are involved in Complete Streets planning and design.
Existing roadway funding and design practices often impede Complete Streets implementation. There is sometimes local resistance to specific street changes such as Traffic Calming, Road Space Reallocation and Bus Lanes.
McCann and Rynne (2010), NJDOT (2012) and Seskin and Gordon-Koven (2013) provide general guidance for applying complete streets programs. Below are specific best practices:
Complete Streets case studies and examples are available in CATSIP (http://catsip.berkeley.edu/node/308), McCann and Rynne (2010), Schlossberg, et al (2014), and Seskin and Gordon-Koven (2013).
The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Curbside Management Practitioner's Guide provides practical guidance on how best to manage curb space among various conflicting uses, as summarized in the following table. Curbside management involves determining the use priorities for each stretch of curb, and using physical design, regulations, pricing and signage to apply them.
Table 6 Curbside Management Functions
|
Function |
Definition |
Uses |
|
Mobility |
Moves people and goods |
Sidewalks Bus or streetcar lanes Bike lanes General purpose travel lanes - includes freight Right-or left-turn only lanes |
|
Access for People |
People arrive at their destination, or transfer between different ways of getting around |
Bus or rail stops Bike parking Curb bulbs Passenger load zones Short-term parking Taxi zones |
|
Access for Commerce |
Goods and services reach their customers and markets |
Commercial vehicle load zone Truck load zone |
|
Activation |
Offers vibrant social spaces |
Food trucks Parklets and streateries Public art Seating Street festivals |
|
Greening |
Enhances aesthetics and environmental health |
Plantings • Boulevards • Street trees • Planter boxes Rain gardens and bio-swales |
|
Storage |
Provides storage for vehicles or equipment |
Bus layover Long-term parking Reserved spaces (e.g. for Police or other government use) Construction |
The Arlington County Board adopted two innovative street design standards: a new pedestrian priority street type — a car-free street that provides pedestrians access to adjacent buildings — and “shared streets” — for pedestrians, bicyclists and low speed vehicular traffic.
In the Rosslyn area, a nine block-length pedestrian priority street segments is planned to replace the remaining skywalk segments, break up north-south blocks and enhance access to the Rosslyn Metro Station. In the Courthouse Square area, street segments will be prioritized as low-speed ”shared streets,” emphasizing needs of both pedestrians and bicyclists through use of distinctive paving materials and level travel areas. These streets will be primarily intended for pedestrians, but open to slow-speed vehicle traffic.
Arlington County Board Chair Libby Garvey said, “These street variations are very exciting and an important step in improving access and safety for the many residents, visitors and commuters that walk and bike around Arlington each and every day.”
Obesity is a growing public health problem. In Baldwin Park, California, 39% of children are overweight. Currently, the city’s sidewalks along major arterials and corridors lack a healthy street design that would provide safe access to pedestrians, cyclists and residents of all ages and abilities. The city is located at the crossroads of two major interstates, and its main arterial roads are used for quick access and travel to and from these interstates, which has led to traffic collisions and decreased walkability. These conditions discourage residents from engaging in physical activity and using the public street for convenient access to parks, schools, corner stores, and downtown. Through widespread community engagement, the City concluded increased traffic capacity would increase the danger for all other users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, and in turn worsen the obesity rate – unless mitigated by a Complete Streets policy.
Baldwin Park was able to take advantage of a number of resources offered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Endowment, and Kaiser Permanente to help them shift their transportation planning and projects to a Complete Streets approach. Between 2004 and 2010, the California Endowment, with support from the Kaiser Permanente Community Health Program, funded an initiative in six communities across California called Healthy Eating Active Communities (HEAC). This program funded communities such as Baldwin Park to encourage healthier lifestyles and reduce childhood obesity in low-income communities by helping change the local environment. Through a separate initiative, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health provided support for built environment changes via RENEW (Renew Environments for Nutrition, Exercise, and Wellness) starting in March 2010.
Results: Creating and Adopting Policies and Manuals that Encourage Healthier Lifestyle Options Baldwin Park partnered with the Local Government Commission and HEAC in 2009 and received a Caltrans Environmental Justice Planning grant to create a plan for converting five major city corridors into more ‘complete’ streets. Additionally, agency officials took part in a RENEW-sponsored Complete Streets workshop to help the city change its transportation planning process to routinely provide for the needs of non-motorized users. This workshop laid the groundwork for Baldwin Park to develop one of the most comprehensive Complete Streets policies in the country, adopted by City Council in July, 2011. With their Complete Streets policy, the city aims to “create a safe and efficient transportation system that promotes the health and mobility of all Baldwin Park citizens and visitors.”
The adoption of the Complete Streets policy has provided the community an opportunity to enhance the quality of life of its residents by providing and improving pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity. The policy was instrumental in helping the city obtain Safe Routes to School and other grant funding totaling $1.2 million for built environment changes that will improve mobility and accommodate multiple modes of transportation. Maine Avenue, one of the major corridors in the city, will undergo major public right-of-way improvements in the form of a road conversion to improve pedestrian and bicycle conditions while still facilitating traffic flow and the needs of neighborhood commercial centers. Proposed improvements include curb extensions at key intersections with highly visible crosswalk markings, sidewalk upgrades, on-street parking with tree wells, reduction of vehicle travel lanes from four lanes to two (with reduced lane widths and a center turn lane), and bicycle lanes in both directions.
Meanwhile, the RENEW project helped communities take the next step towards Complete Streets by providing funding for national experts to develop and release the Model Design Manual for Living Streets in 2011. The manual is based on principles of Complete Streets and offers a way to design streets that result in more livable and environmentally sustainable neighborhoods with features that support active transportation. It is a template for local jurisdictions to begin updating existing street design manuals and a guide to designing streets on the project level. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is currently working with cities, including Baldwin Park and Lancaster, to customize the Design Manual and adopt as their own.
The initial efforts Los Angeles County took to connect public health with the Complete Streets movement have proven effective and powerful. The strength of the relationship will no doubt grow, as communities in the Los Angeles region continue to recognize the ability of Complete Streets to help encourage healthier, more active lifestyles.
The report, Evaluating the Impact of Complete Streets Initiatives describes a framework for evaluating various outputs (e.g., miles of on-street bicycle routes, number of crosswalk enhancements, installed curb ramps) and outcomes (e.g., level of service, crash and injury data, mode share, perceived safety, citizen satisfaction) resulting from complete streets projects. Starting with a universe of more than 800 indicators, the study consolidated them into seven major categories of impact: citizen input; economic; environmental; health; safety; multi-modal level of service; and bicycle/pedestrian. Each of the seven categories is described in a section that includes: (a) a definition of the category and its importance; (b) common measurement approaches for that category; (c) novel and innovative measurement tools; and (d) strategies for measurement. The measurement tools were selected based on their potential importance, frequency of use, availability, and cost.
Mill Avenue serves as the heart of Tempe and the interface between the city’s downtown and nearby Arizona State University. In the early 1990’s, commuters used the street as a way to get through town quickly. The City widened the sidewalks in 1987, and in 2004, removed an auto lane in each direction and added street parking. It also redesigned the sidewalk to encourage street life. As a result, traffic noise dropped and pedestrian activity increased. Light rail service began in 2008 and serves about 1,200 passenger trips per weekday.
In addition to the new street design, the City and the Downtown Tempe Community (DTC), supports various events and celebrations on Mill Avenue, and supports business development. An annual Fantasy of Lights event typically draws over 50,000 attendees and a boat parade attracts 40,000. Twice a year the street closes to traffic for the Festivals of the Arts in the Spring and Fall, which have been taking place since 1968. Attendance for these festivals is now around 225,000.
This study evaluated 37 U.S. Complete Streets projects for which before-and-after transportation and economic data were available. The analysis found that Complete Streets projects tended to improve safety for everyone, increased biking and walking, and showed a mix of increases and decreases in automobile traffic, depending in part on the project goal.
The data showed that streets were usually safer after Complete Streets improvements than before. In the majority of cases collision and injury rates declined after Complete Streets projects were implemented. The analysis estimates that these provide $18.1 million in total annual collision and injury cost savings.
The data also showed that Complete Streets projects encouraged more multimodal travel. Trips by foot, bicycle, and transit almost always increased after the Complete Streets projects. Taken along with the safer conditions mentioned above, this support for active transportation options adds to an already impressive case for the health benefits of a Complete Streets approach. In about half the projects, automobile volume increased or remained unchanged after the redesigns.
The data also showed that Complete Streets projects were remarkably affordable. The projects surveyed include a wide range of costs, from projects with limited scopes that cost just a few thousand dollars to extensive corridor redesigns that cost several million. For the most part, these projects cost significantly less than conventional transportation projects, yet can still deliver benefits like better safety performance and more people using the facility.
This project also examined how Complete Streets projects related to economic goals. Before-and-after data in this area are scarce for all kinds of transportation investments and Complete Streets projects are no exception. Of the 37 projects included in the survey, the researchers were able to examine changes in employment in 11 places, and changes in business impacts, property values, and/or total private investment in 14 places. It indicates that employment levels rose after Complete Streets projects—in some cases, significantly. Communities reported increased net new businesses after Complete Streets improvements, suggesting that Complete Streets projects made the street more desirable for businesses. In eight of the ten communities with available data, property values increased after the Complete Streets improvements. And eight communities reported their Complete Streets projects at least partly responsible for increased investment from the private sector. These data support the economic outcomes reported anecdotally by many communities but more data are needed here (and for other transportation projects) to conclusively connect Complete Streets with economic success.
The town of Lancaster, California experienced a big drop in crashes after it transformed Lancaster Boulevard. It had been an unpleasant and dangerous high-speed roadway that had detracted from the appeal of downtown. The new design, installed in 2010, removed six traffic signals and created a central “rambla” patterned after the design of a street in Barcelona, Spain, which provides parking spaces, pedestrian facilities, and a place for community events. The $10 million investment in new lighting, landscaping, and trees spurred $125 million in investment in the downtown area, with 40 new businesses opening and 800 new jobs. Sales tax revenue grew by 26%. The project is so popular with residents that the road is now affectionately referred to as “the BLVD.”
Many communities have major highways or arterials that also serve as main streets (major commercial streets). This requires streetscaping that balances the needs of local users (pedestrians, shoppers, employees, business owners, and residents) with the needs of through traffic (both auto and freight) to move safely and efficiently over longer distances.
The report, Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality the by California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS 2014) provides specific planning and design guidance so that main streets function efficiently as multimodal transport facilities and as important civic spaces that support vibrant community life and ecological health. It explains, “Arriving at a shared vision for main streets requires a commitment to collaborative negotiation and shared responsibility. This document will assist transportation officials, designers, planners and stakeholders in making transportation decisions that are appropriate for the local context and that serve the greater traveling public.”
Similarly, the State of Oregon’s, Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It (DEA & Associates 1999), which offers guidance for communities to address these issues. It describes the many tools available to identify the problems and develop effective solutions for main streets that also serve as highways. As a complement to the Oregon Highway Design Manual, this handbook seeks to bring peaceful coexistence to the dual personas of downtown and highway. It proposes ways to design our main streets that make use of our natural inclination to drive as quickly or slowly as the roadway itself suggests. Its goal is to make main street a place that is attractive and that works from many points of view: pedestrian safety and activity, smooth traffic flow,economic vigor, and high quality of life.
The New York City Department of Transportation’s guidebook, Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets identifies various performance indicators (metrics) that can be used for complete streets evaluation, as summarized in Table 7. This is an example of more comprehensive and multi-modal planning.
Table 7 Complete Street Evaluation (NYCDOT 2012)
|
Goals |
Strategies |
Metrics |
|
· Safety · Serve all users. · Create great public spaces. |
· Design safer streets. · Provide safe and attractive options for all street users. · Build great public spaces for economic value and neighborhood vitality. · Improve bus service. · Reduce delay and speed to allow for faster and safer travel. · More efficient parking and loading to improve access to businesses and neighborhoods. |
· Pedestrians, cyclists and motorist crash rates. · Vehicles, bus passengers, bicycle riders, and other street user volumes. · Optimal traffic speeds. · Economic vitality, including retail activity growth. · User satisfaction. · Environmental and public health impacts. |
Complete streets evaluation requires comprehensive and multi-modal performance indicators.
The report, Rethinking Streets: An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete Street Transformations (www.rethinkingstreets.com) includes detailed information on a diverse variety of successful Complete Streets projects, as summarized in Table 8.
Table 8 Complete Street Project Summary
|
|
Right of Way |
Speed After |
ADT Before |
ADT After |
|
Road Diet |
||||
|
25th Avenue, San Francisco, CA |
70’ |
25 |
13,000 |
11,500 |
|
Stone Way N., Seattle, WA |
90’ |
30 |
13,000 |
12,000 |
|
Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, FL |
50’-64’ |
35 |
17,900 |
14,600 |
|
Ocean Blvd, Myrtle Beach, SC |
58’ |
25 |
15,000 |
13,000 |
|
East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC |
60’-100’ |
35 |
20,600 |
18,900 |
|
Arterial Rehabilitation |
||||
|
E. Washington Ave., Madison, WI |
132’ |
35 |
53,000 |
53,000 |
|
28th Street, Boulder, CO |
90’ |
35 |
50,000 |
44,000 |
|
Aurora Avenue N., Shoreline, WA |
90’ |
40 |
38,000 |
35,000 |
|
Urban Mixed Use |
||||
|
Second Street, Long Beach, CA |
76’-80’ |
25 |
29,800 |
29,300 |
|
Pine & Spruce Streets, Philadelphia, PA |
50’ |
20 |
6,000 |
6,000 |
|
S. Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans, LA |
108’ |
35 |
17,400 |
28,600 |
|
Mill Avenue, Tempe, AZ |
98’-100’30 |
30 |
19,000 |
16,000 |
|
Barracks Row, Washington, D.C. |
98’ |
25 |
11,500 |
11,500 |
|
Main Street |
||||
|
Route 62/Main Street, Hamburg, NY |
66’ |
30 |
12,100 |
15,000 |
|
Courthouse Square, Sulphur Springs, TX |
104’ |
30 |
4,000 |
7,500 |
|
Bike Street |
||||
|
N. Williams Avenue, Portland, OR |
54’ |
30 |
8,000 |
7,700 |
|
8th and 9th Avenues, New York City, NY |
100’ |
30 |
30,000 |
30,000 |
|
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. |
146’ |
25 |
33,000 |
32,800 |
|
Higgins Avenue, Missoula, MT |
95’-96’ |
25 |
7,400 |
7,600 |
|
Transit Street |
||||
|
Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH |
88’ |
25 |
22,000 |
20,000 |
Complete Streets programs have been implemented successfully in many types of roads and communities.
AARP (2009), Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America, American Association for Retired Persons Public Policy Institute (www.aarp.org/ppi); at www.aarp.org/research/housing-mobility/transportation/2009_02_streets.html.
AARP (2015), Evaluating Complete Streets Projects: A Guide for Practitioners, National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at http://bit.ly/1D7vQvK.
ADUPC (2009), Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at http://bit.ly/1R0fBfW.
ADUPC (2013), Abu Dhabi Public Realm Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at www.upc.gov.ae/prdm/index.asp.
Geoff Anderson, et al. (2015), “Safer Streets, Stronger Economies Complete Streets Project Outcomes From Across The United States,” ITE Journal, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 29-36; also see http://bit.ly/1bqGAOW.
Arlington (2016), Board Acts for Pedestrian, Bicycle Access and Safety with More Street Types, City of Arlington (https://arlingtonva.us); at https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/board-acts-for-pedestrian-bicycle-access-and-safety-with-more-street-types.
Dan Burden and Todd Litman (2011), “America Needs Complete Streets,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 81, No. 4, April, pp. 36-43; at www.vtpi.org/ITE_comp_st.pdf.
CALTRANS (2014), Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov); at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/mainstreet/main_street_3rd_edition.pdf.
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org).
Complete Streets for Canada (http://completestreetsforcanada.ca/backgrounders)
DEA & Associates (1999), Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/publications.shtml); at http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/publications.shtml.
Dowling Associates (2010), CompleteStreetsLOS: Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Toolkit, Dowling Associates (www.dowlinginc.com/completestreetslos.php).
Eric Dumbaugh (2005), “Safe Streets, Livable Streets,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 283-300; at www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/TransSafety_JAPA.pdf.
GIZ (2011), Changing Course in Urban Transport- An Illustrated Guide, Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org) Asia and GIZ; at www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2825.
ITDP (2011), Better Street, Better Cities: A Guide to Street Design in Urban India, Institute for Transport and Development Policy and Environmental Planning Collective (www.itdp.org/betterstreets).
ITF (2012), Pedestrian Safety, Urban Space and Health, International Transport Forum for the OECD (www.oecdbookshop.org); at http://www.oecd.org/bookshop?9789282103654.
ITE (2010), Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/css.
ITE (2018), Curbside Management Practitioner's Guide, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/complete-streets/ite-curbside-management-practitioner-s-resource.
Peter Lagerwey, et al. (2015), Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook, NCHRP Report 803, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf.
John LaPlante and Barbara McCann (2008), “Complete Streets: We Can Get There From Here,” ITE Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5 (www.ite.org), pp. 24-28; at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/resources/cs-ite-may08.pdf.
Todd Litman (2012), Toward More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comp_evaluation.pdf.
Todd Litman (2015), Comprehensive Evaluation of Completes Streets Policies: The Value of Designing Roads for Diverse Modes, Users and Activities, presented at the Threadbo 14 Conference (www.thredbo-conference-series.org), August 2015, Santiago, Chile; at www.vtpi.org/compstr.pdf.
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Renia Ehrefeucht (2010), “Vibrant Sidewalks in the United States: Re-integrating Walking and a Quintessential Social Realm,” Access 36 (www.uctc.net/access); Spring 2010, pp. 22-29; at www.uctc.net/access/36/access-36vibrantsidewalks.pdf.
Wesley E. Marshall and Norman W. Garrick (2011), “Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users,” Environmental Practice, Vol 13/1, March; at http://files.meetup.com/1468133/Evidence%20on%20Why%20Bike-Friendly.pdf.
Barbara McCann (2013), Completing Our Streets: The Transition to Safe and Inclusive Transportation Networks, Island Press (www.islandpress.org); at http://islandpress.org/ip/books/book/islandpress/C/bo9115674.html.
Barbara McCann and Suzanne Rynne (2010), Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 559, American Planning Association (www.planning.org); at www.planning.org/pas/brochure/pdf/report.pdf.
Zaki Mustafa and Michelle Birdsall (2014), “The Great Streets Movement: Identifying How to Make Our Streets Great,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), March, pp. 27-32; at http://tinyurl.com/n3hjzqo.
NACTO (2011), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide.
NACTO (2012), The Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/urbanstreetdesignguide-overview.
NACTO (2016), Global Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/2016/10/13/nacto-global-designing-cities-initiative-release-global-street-design-guide.
National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org) promotes adoption of policies to ensure communities effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives in all transportation projects.
NCSC (2010), Complete Streets Fact Sheets, National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org); at http://bit.ly/1R0iH3v.
NCSC (2011), Costs of Complete Streets: What We Are Learning from State and Local Governments, National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org); at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/factsheets/cs-costs-2.pdf.
NCSC (2012), It’s a Safe Decision: Complete Streets in California, National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org); at http://lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/guides/cs-in-california.pdf.
Tracy Newsome and Danny Pleasant (2014), “Transit and Complete Streets Helping to Create the Next Charlotte,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), February, pp. 23-25; at www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2014/JB14BA22.pdf.
NJDOT (2012), A Guide to Creating a Complete Streets Implementation Plan, New Jersey Department of Transportation (www.state.nj.us); at http://bit.ly/1GLvFYP.
NJDOT (2012), Making Complete Streets a Reality: A Guide to Policy Development, New Jersey Department Of Transportation (www.state.nj.us); at http://bit.ly/1LyFMpl.
NYCDOT (2009), New York City Street Design Manual, New York City Department of Transportation (www.nyc.gov/html/dot) at www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/streetdesignmanual.shtml.
NYCDOT (2012), Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets, New York City Department of Transportation (www.nyc.gov/html/dot); at www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf.
Michael K. Park (2013), “Livable Streets: Lee’s Summit (Part I and II),” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), November and December; at www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2014/JB14BA22.pdf and www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2013/JB13LA44.pdf.
Chris Porter, et al. (2016), Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts, FHWA-HEP-16-055, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian); at https://bit.ly/2cj27h7.
PPS (2008), Streets as Places: Using Streets to Rebuild Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Using_Streets_to_Rebuild_Communities.pdf.
PPS (2008), The Quiet Revolution in Transportation Planning: How Great Corridors Make Great Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Great_Corridors_Great_Communities.pdf.
Molly E. Ranahan, James A. Lenker and Jordana L. Maisel (2014), Evaluating the Impact of Complete Streets Initiatives, Center for Inclusive Design & Environmental Access, University at Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning (www.idea.ap.buffalo.edu); at http://udeworld.com/documents/pdfs/IDeACenter_GoBike_CompleteStreets_web.pdf.
Marc Schlossberg, John Rowell, Dave Amos and Kelly Sanford (2013), Rethinking Streets: An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete Street Transformations, University of Oregon's Sustainable Cities Initiative (http://sci.uoregon.edu); at www.rethinkingstreets.com.
Brett Sears (2014), “Incorporating Complete Streets into Transportation Master Plans,” ITE Journal, Vo. 84, No. 4, April, pp. 32-36 (www.ite.org).
Stefanie Seskin and Lily Gordon-Koven (2013), Best Complete Streets Policies of 2012, National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org) and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at http://bit.ly/1JtzOXp.
SGA (2015), Safer Streets, Stronger Economies, Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at http://bit.ly/1PeGDM9.
Nikiforos Stamatiadis, et al. (2017), An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets, Research Report 855, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Record (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/176004.aspx.
Rodney Tolley (2011), Good For Busine$$ - The Benefits Of Making Streets More Walking And Cycling Friendly, Heart Foundation South Australia (www.heartfoundation.org.au); at www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/GoodforBusinessFINAL_Nov.pdf.
UTTIPEC (2009), Pedestrian Design Guidelines: Don’t Drive…Walk, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (www.uttipec.nic.in); at http://uttipec.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkfile/File215.pdf.
David Vega-Barachowitz, Peter Koonce and Michael Flynn (2013), “The Changing DNA of City Streets: NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide and the New York City Street Design Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), December, pp. 36-40; at http://bit.ly/1GLwXTH.
Hans-Joachim Vollpracht (2010), “They Call Them Coffin Roads,” Routes-Roads, N° 347, World Road Association (www.piarc.org); at www.vtpi.org/Vollpracht.pdf.
WSDOT (2011), Washington’s Complete Streets and Main Street Highways: Case Study Resource, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Planning) at http://tinyurl.com/ks6cqw6.
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone 250-360-1560
#133