PCSR INFO 05-10-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

American Planning Association 19 ~e'v state and local policies require tllat virtually m roads be built to serve all types of users. Good examples: From left, a Boulder arterial that was built as a multimodal corridor fOr auto, pedestrian, biC)JC!e, and tmnsit use; a commercial street filled with actil!iry in Santtl Rosa, .ijOrnia; Water Street in VancoulJer, British Columbia. A new name For advocates of bicycling and walking, this state of affairs demanded a whole new para- digm-and a name to go with it. The term "complete streets" was coined in early 2003 by bicycle advocates as a way to describe- and sell-what had until then been referred to as routine accommodation. For years, advocates of this approach had lobbied to get a provision inserted in federal law that would require roads built using fed- eral highway funds to accommodate people on foot and bicycle. While the Transporta- tion Equity Act of 1998 (TEA-21) included language asking states to consider bicycle and pedestrian travel, it is still not a requirement. Creating complete streets is a key goal of America Bikes, a group formed by eight national bicycling organizations to lobby for bicycle- .ndly provisions in the next federal transpor- .on bill. "We saw how the name Safe Routes to School opened doors for bicycle and pedes- trian safery for children," says Martha Roskowski, former campaign manager for America Bikes. "Finally we have a name that describes the current vision of a network that is complete for everyone using the roads." Today's poIieies More than two dozen jurisdictions have adopted laws or policies requiring that all roads be rou- tinely built and reconstructed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, including disabled travelers, according to a recent national survey conducted for the Thunderhead Alliance, a coa- lition of state and local advocacy groups. These policies differ from typical bicycle and pedestrian plans in that they are not limited to roads that are part of designated bicycle or pedestrian networks, but cover all roads, or at least all major roads, in the system. The idea is that multimodal corridors would become the default mode-and justification must be given when they are not. Most of these poliCies have been put in place since 2001, when the U.S. Department of Transportation issued design guidance in response to the new language in TEA- 21. The guidance document, "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel," states that "bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless excep- tional circumstances exist." Exceptions include roads where bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law; where the costs are excessive (more than 20 percent of project costs); and where there is clearly no need. The document also calls for paved shoul- ders on rural roads and designs that are acces- sible for disabled people. Some states, including South Carolina, T en- nessee, California, Kentucky, and Virginia, have adopted resolutions or directives enact- ing some variation of the federal policy. At the urging of bicycle advocates, Caltrans, California's transportation agency, adopted Deputy Directive 64 in 2001, calling for full consideration of the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. The directive has been criticized for its vague wording, but the policy has spurred training programs in bicycle and pedestrian planning for both planners and engIneers. In March 2004, Virginia Transportation Secretary Whitt Clement announced "a broader