1. Complete Streets Design
and Separation of Users for
Safety and Sustainability
CARLY QUEEN
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (CEE 6603)
APRIL 22, 2015

2. 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

3. 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-
related, 78.9%
Motorcyclists,
13.4%
Water
transportation,
2.4%
Large-truck
occupants,
1.9%
Aviation,
1.4%
Railroad-
related,
1.4%
Heavy rail
transit
(subway), 0.2% Bus occupants
(school,
intercity,
transit), 0.2%
Light rail transit,
0.1%
Pipeline-
related, 0.0%
Automated
guideway, 0.0%
2011 Percent of Total Transportation Fatalities
National Transportation Statistics (NTS) by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

4. 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
National Transportation Statistics (NTS) by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
U.S. Fatality Rates per 100 Million Passenger Miles
by Mode 2000-2012
Air Highway Transit
Transit Highway

5. 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%
Motorcyclists
14.8%
Truck
Occupants,
light
28.0%
Truck
Occupants,
large
2.1%
Bus
Occupants
0.1%
Pedestrians
14.1%
Pedalcyclists
2.2%
Other
Highway
Deaths
2.2%
2012 U.S. Highway Fatalities by Impacted Group
National Transportation Statistics (NTS) by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

6. 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

7. Sustainability
Environmental
SocialEconomic
Ecological
Systems
Social Systems
Economic
Systems

8. Sustainability
Environmental
Emissions
Runoff
Wildlife
Social
Safety
Accessibility
Community
Health
Economic
Costs
Affordability
Job
creation

9. 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.”

10. Complete Streets
 Complete Streets in the United States, LaPlante and McCann, 2011
 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 treatments
Virginia DOT

11. Complete Streets
Complete Streets in the United States, LaPlante and McCann, 2011
 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

12. 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

13. Safety of Complete Streets
Safety
Speed
Risk
Vulnerability
 Higher speeds  greater degree of separation
 Protect most vulnerable users
 Selection of design speed

14. Safety of Complete Streets
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

15. Safety of Complete Streets
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 time
Bike Arlington
Ian Smith for the Technique

16. Complete Streets for Sustainable
Development
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

17. Complete Streets for Sustainable
Development
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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Case Study – Joseph E. Lowery Blvd.
 Pedestrian
 Wider sidewalks with trees, landscaping, benches, and
transit stops
 Signals and crossings
 Bicycle
 Two-way cycle track
 Signals and crossings
 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

27. 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

28. 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
 Signals and crossings
 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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. Thank you!
 Any questions?
 Contact:
 Carly Queen
 MS-CE / MCRP Candidate
 carlyqueen@gatech.edu