Complete Streets Design and Separation of Users

Complete Streets Design and Separation of Users for Safety and SustainabilityCARLY QUEEN

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (CEE 6603)

APRIL 22, 2015

Agenda

Background

Safety

Sustainability

Complete Streets

Findings and Discussion

Safety of Complete Streets

Complete Streets for Sustainable Development

Best Practices for Safe and Sustainable Streets

Recommended Guidelines for Accommodating User Groups

Case Studies

xAtsukexs

Safety

National priority

MAP-21 priority

Critical issue in transportation

Safest modes

Transit modes

Aviation

Most commonly used modes in the US

Automobiles

Passenger vehicle-re-

lated; 78.9%

Motorcyclists; 13.4%

Water transporta-tion; 2.4%

Large-truck occupants; 1.9% Aviation; 1.4%Railroad-related; 1.4%

Heavy rail transit (subway); 0.2%

Bus occupants (school, in-tercity, transit); 0.2%

Light rail transit; 0.1%

2011 Percent of Total Transportation Fatalities

National Transportation Statistics (NTS) by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Safety

In the US there is a fundamental mismatch between transit mode choice and safety.

Automobile dependence

Sprawling development patterns

Limited pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure

Lack of viable transit options in many places

Air travel only for long distances


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

U.S. Fatality Rates per 100 Million Passenger Miles by Mode 2000-2012

Air Highway Transit

Transit Highway

Safety

Roadway fatalities impact automobile users and non-users

Pedestrians and cyclists are at risk

High vulnerability

Low risk to others

Safer vehicles and road infrastructure

Policies

Passenger Car Occupants

36.6%

Motorcyclists14.8%

Truck Oc-cupants,

light28.0%

Truck Oc-cupants,

large2.1%

Bus Occupants0.1%

Pedestrians14.1%

Pedalcyclists2.2%

Other Highway Deaths 2.2%

2012 U.S. Highway Fatalities by Impacted Group


Sustainability

World Commission on Environment and Development

Our Common Future (1986)

Sustainable development

“Development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Closed Loop Systems

Triple Bottom Line vs. Russian Dolls Approach

Economic

Social

Environmental

Sustainability

Environmental

SocialEconomic

Ecological Systems

Social Systems

Economic Systems

Sustainability

Environmental

Emissions

Runoff

Wildlife

Social

Safety

Accessibility

Community

Health

Economic

Costs

Affordability

Job creation

Complete Streets

Complete Streets in the United States, LaPlante and McCann, 2011

“A complete street is a road that is designed to be safe for drivers, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

Complete streets movement goes beyond individual corridors

Changing the way that transportation decisions are made

Policy and institutional change

“Too many urban arterials still feature a well engineered place for cars to travel, next to a ‘home-made’ pedestrian facility… with a bus stop that is no more than a pole in the ground uncomfortably close to high-speed traffic.”

Complete Streets


Context Sensitive Solutions

“Complete streets will look different in different places. They must be appropriate to their context and to the modes expected on that corridor.”

Busy urban street: buses, bicycles, pedestrians, cars

Rural area: cars and paved shoulder

Low-traffic streets: few treatmentsVirginia DOT

Complete Streets


Redefine agency policies and procedures to serve all modes

Adapt design guidelines accordingly

Train staff in serving all modes and implementing complete streets policies

Collect base data on all users and modes for before-and-after studies

Complete Streets

Shared Streets

Few, if any, markings or dividers

Pedestrian-oriented

Low-speed (≤ 20 mph)

Separated Streets

Different space for different purposes

Clear division

Dedicated lanes with markings

Sidewalks

Higher speed differentials

DeFacto

Atlanta BeltLine


Safety

Speed

Risk

Vulnerability

Higher speeds greater degree of separation

Protect most vulnerable users

Selection of design speed


Speed control measures:

Narrower travel lanes

10 feet for posted speeds of 45 mph or less

Road diets

4-lane to 3-lane for ADTs up to 20,000

Improves left turning safety

Raised medians

Landscaping

Curb parking

Bulb-outs

Bike Arlington


Pedestrian crossings:

Narrower travel lanes

Road diets

Raised medians

Landscaping

Curb bulb-outs

Crosswalk signs and markings

Countdown clocks

Full signalization

3.5 feet per second for Flashing Don’t Walk

3.0 feet per second for total Walk / Flashing Don’t Walk timeBike Arlington

Ian Smith for the Technique


Choice of Modes

Social

Quality of life

Health benefits from increased activity

Safety benefits from increased transit ridership

Community benefits

Economic

Affordable access

Low barriers to entry

Environmental

Viable alternatives to the automobile

More distributed, possibly fewer emissions Ryan Gravel

Matthew Blackett


Signal priority and coordination

Priority users:

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Transit riders

Benefits:

Lower emissions and fuel consumption

Gaps for pedestrian crossings

Fewer stops for cyclists and transit users

MTC

CBS News

Best Practices for Safe and Sustainable Streets

Access for all ages, abilities, and appropriate modes

Context sensitive, street as place

Design for desired (not observed) speeds

Shared approach works best in low-speed (≤ 20 mph) situations

Separation of users in high-speed situations, especially when large differences in user speeds are present

Dedicated right-of-way as needed

Separate corridors may be used for different user groups

Complete networks for each user group

Signal coordination and priority for active modes and transit (as appropriate)

Comprehensive approach to managing stormwater runoff, emissions, and wildlife

Trees for shade and separation, places to linger and rest

Guidelines for Accommodating Pedestrians

Pedestrians as the first priority

Emergency accommodations as needed

Larger pedestrian volumes lower vehicular speeds

Narrow lane widths and shorter crossing distances

Reduced turning radii and clearly marked crosswalks

Dedicated right-of-way for corridors with speeds above 20 mph

Appropriately sized ADA compliant facilities and accessible pedestrian signals

Crossings along pedestrian desire lines, elevated or subterranean as needed

Transparent store fronts along the street, lighting, public art, landscaping

Street trees, benches, way-finding, places to engage with community or stop and rest

NCDOT

Guidelines for Accommodating Cyclists

Cycling is often the most efficient, least polluting form of transportation

Accommodations for cyclists of many different levels

Connected bicycle facilities forming a complete network

Well-maintained networks for confident and inexperienced cyclists

Way-finding signs and pavement markings

Minimize exposure to conflicts

Less: elevation change, at-grade crossings, stops, potholes, debris

More: bicycle signals, direct routes across complex intersections, connections

Dedicated on-street facility for speeds over 20 mph

Off-street bicycle facilities for speeds over 30 mph and less confident cyclists

Fletcher6

Guidelines for Accommodating Transit Users

Provide context-sensitive transit mode(s) appropriate for land-use, density, and demand

Comfortable, safe, ADA compliant stops / stations with adequate shelter

Good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and infrastructure

Dedicated ROW in congested, high-traffic corridors

Transit service and route information, way-finding

Frequent headways and/or real-time information

Signal priority and/or queue jump lanes

Pre-boarding fare collection if appropriate

Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz

Guidelines for Accommodating Automobile Passengers

Efficiency of this mode varies widely

Design roads to encourage appropriate vehicle speeds for the context

Longer sight lines and visibility, especially at higher speeds

Clear warning signs and pavement markings, especially at crossings

Good lighting, pavement quality and way-finding signage

Phase-separated turning movements and turn lanes where needed

Coordinated signal timing for minimal conflict and delay

Responsive, vehicle-actuated signals

New York Times

Guidelines for Accommodating Freight / Industrial Passengers

Greatest degree of separation from vulnerable users

Interstates, truck routes, freight rail corridors, waterways

Larger, heavier, noisier vehicles

Higher clearances, larger turning radii

Often traveling longer distances, but still need access to urban industrial and commercial areas

Avoid residential and environmentally sensitive areas, as well as major pedestrian and bicycle corridors

Minimize at-grade rail crossings, provide separated facilities for active modes

Plan for emergency situations

Police, pedestrians, and stopped vehicles on the shoulder

Fstop222

Case Studies

North-South Arterials on Atlanta’s Westside

Joseph E. Lowery Boulevard

Minor Arterial (FC-4)

Posted speed of 30 mph

No bus service north of Ashby Station

Northside Drive

Principal Arterial (FC-3)

Regional Thoroughfare

Posted speed of 35 mph

No N-S transit service

Case Study – Joseph E. Lowery Blvd.

Currently 3 to 5 lane road

Relatively heavy bicycle and pedestrian presence

Divides English Avenue and Vine City from Washington Park and Bankhead

Runs along western edge of AUC

Connects disadvantaged communities with shopping, entertainment, education, and job opportunities

MARTA Ashby Station

N-S between Northside Drive and BeltLine

Case Study – Joseph E. Lowery Blvd.

Pedestrian

Wider sidewalks with trees, landscaping, benches, and transit stops

Signals and crossings

Bicycle

Two-way cycle track


Transit

Continuous, frequent bus service with pullouts, signal priority, and queue jump lanes where feasible

Aerial gondola in the case of higher demand

Automobile

Two-lane road with turn lanes as needed

Freight / Industrial

Limited or no access

Case Study – Northside Drive

Currently 4 to 7 lane road

Game day traffic at the Georgia Dome

Divides English Avenue and Vine City from Castleberry Hill and Downtown

Connects AUC and Georgia Tech with West Midtown and Atlantic Station

Mobility corridor with large distances between destinations

Major barrier to pedestrians and cyclists

MARTA Vine City Station

N-S between Joseph E. Lowery Blvd. and Downtown Connector (I-75/85) Saporta Report

Case Study – Northside Drive

Pedestrian

Wider sidewalks with trees, landscaping, benches, and transit stops

Signals and crossings, possibly an ADA accessible bike/pedestrian bridge

Bicycle

Bus and bike lanes


Transit

Bus Rapid Transit

Automobile

One fewer general purpose lane in each direction where possible

Freight / Industrial

Allowed, but this is not a major freight or industrial corridor

Conclusion

Complete streets can improve the safety and sustainability of our communities if properly implemented

Accommodating all appropriate modes will increase mobility, accessibility, and quality of life

Complete networks should be established for each user group with direct, convenient, and well-maintained routes connecting activity centers and other destinations

Shared space is best implemented where major differences between the size and speed of users are not desired

Minimize the risk and exposure of most vulnerable users for safety

Viable mode choices, including active and transit modes where appropriate, improve the sustainability of our communities in many ways

References

Auttapone (Aut) Karndacharuk, Douglas J. Wilson, and Roger C. M. Dunn. 2013. "Analysis of Pedestrian Performance in Shared-Space Environments." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies) (2393): 1-11.

Boston Transportation Department. 2013. "Multimodal Intersections." In Boston Complete Streets Guidelines, by Boston Transportation Department, 141-147. Boston, MA: Boston Transportation Department.

Cornelius Nuworsoo and Erin Cooper. 2013. "Considerations for Integrating Bicycling and Walking Facilities into Urban Infrastructure." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies) (2393): 125-133.

Emma Barnes and Marc Schlossberg. 2013. "Improving Cyclist and Pedestrian Environment While Maintaining Vehicle Throughput: Before- and After-Construction Analysis." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies) (2393): 85-94.

Ioannis Kaparias, Michael G. H. Bell, Weili Dong, Aditya Sastrawinata, Amritpal Singh, Xuxi Wang, and Bill Mount. 2013. "Analysis of Pedestrian-Vehicle Traffic Conflicts in Street Designs with Elements of Shared Space." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies) (2393): 21-30.

John N. LaPlante and Barbara McCann. 2011. "Complete Streets in the United States." TRB Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 1-11.

Kristine M. Williams and Herbert Levinson. 2011. "The Role of Access Management in Sustainable Development." Transportation and Development Institute Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1026-1035.

Thank you!

Any questions?

Contact:

Carly Queen

MS-CE / MCRP Candidate

[email protected]

Documents

Complete Streets Design and Separation of Users