Illinois American Planning Association State Conference

1. Illinois American Planning Association State Conference Complete Streets and Beyond Todd Hill, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Illinois Department of Transportation

2. What is Complete Streets? • Planning and design process for roadways and related infrastructure that provides safe and efficient travel for all users.

3. Illinois Department of TransportationComplete Streets • On June 1, 2010, IDOT published its revised bicycles and pedestrian policies to incorporate Complete Streets. • Contained in Bureau of Design and Environment’s Manual Chapters 5 and 17 • http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/bdemems.html

4. Illinois Department of TransportationComplete Streets • In developing a Complete Streets policy we needed to incorporate the intent of the legislation provided in Public Act 95-0665 which became law on October 17, 2007.

5. Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/4-220 new) States: 1) Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into State plans and programs.

6. Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/4-220 new) 2) In or within one mile of an urban area, bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any State transportation facility except:

7. Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/4-220 new) Exceptions to Accommodation a) in pavement resurfacing projects that do not widen the existing traveled way or do not provide stabilized shoulders; or b) where approved by the Secretary of Transportation based upon documented safety issues, excessive cost or absence of need.

8. Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/4-220 new) 3)Bicycle and pedestrian ways may be included in pavement resurfacing projects when local support is evident or bicycling and walking accommodations can be added within the overall scope of the original roadwork. 4) The Department shall establish design and construction standards for bicycle and pedestrian ways.

9. Interpretation of the Law The Illinois General Assembly didn’t define: • Urban area—Where does the law apply? In or within 50,000 population • Documented Safety Issues—What documented safety issues? Looking at safety issues on a project-by-project basis

10. Interpretation of the Law • Excessive Cost—How much is too much? Review costs on a project-by project basis but consider FHWA’s threshold of 20% of overall cost • Absence of Need—How much need is necessary? Need is determined by warrants

11. One Policy or Two? • A Tale of Two Policies Does IDOT develop two policies, one for urban areas and one for non-urban areas? • Or a Grand Unification Policy A single policy regardless of location

12. Merging Law and Policy • Regardless of the location, a need is a need. Difficult to fund a project in an urban area and not in a non-urban area if need is determined in both locations.

13. Exemptions to Accommodations • Tier One Exemption-All access controlled highways (interstates) or resurfacing projects. • Tier Two Exemption-Preliminary engineering studies determined lack of need or safety concerns. • Tier Three Exemption-Need determined but cost is excessive. Our policy process will generally minimize total omissions.

14. Need Defined Through Warrants The Department shall provide adequate bicycle accommodations when any of the following situations exist: • The highway or street is designated as a bikeway in a regionally or locally adopted bike plan or is published in a regionally or locally adopted map as a recommended bike route.

15. Need Defined Through Warrants • The projected two-way bicycle traffic volume is at least 25 users per day five years after completion of the project. • The route provides primary access to a park, recreational area, school, or other significant destination.

16. Need Defined Through Warrants • All bridge projects. For projects that meet no other warrants, a minimum shoulder width of four feet shall satisfy this warrant. For projects that meet this and other warrants, use guidance provided in the Facility Selection Table.

17. Pedestrians Warrants Pedestrian accommodations are needed if they are not already available and any of the following conditions exist: • There is current evidence of frequent pedestrian activity such as worn trails •  There is a history of pedestrian-related crashes

18. Pedestrians Warrants • The roadway improvement will create a safety impediment to existing or anticipated pedestrian travel (e.g., adding lanes so that the improvement itself acts as a barrier to pedestrian traffic)   • There is urban or suburban development that would attract pedestrian travel along the route to be improved 

19. Pedestrians Warrants • Pedestrian-attracting development is expected along the route within five years of project completion, either as documented in a local plan or anticipated as a factor of similar development history •  The roadway provides primary access to a park, recreation area or other significant destination, or across a natural or man-made barrier.

20. Pedestrian Accommodation • Generally speaking our IDOT District offices aren’t quite so formal…..usually they just ask the local agency whether they would like sidewalks installed.

21. Good to Go! • At this point in the presentation we have considered exemptions and warrants or in simpler terms, reasons why we would or would not make an accommodation for bicycles and pedestrians. • Let us now consider how a viable project will work through our policy process.

22. Policy Process Example • Through our Preliminary Engineering Studies we know: • Roadway to be widened from 2 lanes to four lanes is 4 miles long and in an urban area. Schools and parks are present. • Design Year ADT – 12,500 • Posted Speed – 30 mph

23. Policy Process ExampleReviewing Warrants • From Bureau of Census: bicycles mode split is 0.5% 12,500 ADT X 0.005 = 63 cyclists/day • Primary route for schools and parks • Two warrants have been met…..need established

24. Facility Selection Table Based on this table, the appropriate bicycle accommodation is a 6 foot bicycle lane or a side path. Based on the proximity to parks and schools, sidewalks will also be added.

25. Costs • Now that we now what type of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation is necessary we have to discuss costs. • Generally, IDOT will be requesting a 20% local match for bicycle and sidewalk projects. This has been reduced from the 50% match prior to these policy revisions. Shoulders, wide outside lanes and bridges are 100% state funded.

26. Example Cost Sharing • For the 6 foot bike lanes and sidewalk we would ask for a 20% match. • What if the local agency says, “NO” or the cost is excessive? • Our policy process calls for the “Highest and Best” accommodation possible given all the project variables.

27. Highest and Best • Highest and Best is an iterative process that evaluates the next highest and best accommodation that can achieve the highest safety for the user and best meets the project’s cost, local support and ROW considerations. These are considered exceptions and require the consultation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator.

28. Highest and Best Applied • In the case of our example, perhaps the local agency would be willing to provide more limited funding so we could rescope what could be constructed. • If no match is available, we would evaluate state-only funded options which might be wide outside lanes or ROW acquisition for a future bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.

29. No Local Participation • IDOT will request that the local government agency pass a resolution of non-participation • This resolution will be documented in the PE I design report

30. Suggested Resolution Language • Proposed Resolution Language for Non-Participating Local Agencies • WHEREAS, The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has the power to approve and determine the final plans, specifications and estimates for all State highways; and • WHEREAS, IDOT’s projects must adequately meet the State’s transportation needs, exist in harmony with their surroundings, and add lasting value to the communities they serve; and • WHEREAS, IDOT must embrace principles of context sensitive design and context sensitive solutions in its policies and procedures for the planning, design, construction, and operation of its projects for new construction, reconstruction, or major expansion of existing transportation facilities by engaging in early and ongoing collaboration with affected citizens, elected officials, interest groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that the values and needs of the affected communities are identified and carefully considered in the development of transportation projects; and • WHEREAS, Bicycle and pedestrian ways must be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into State plans and programs; and • WHEREAS, The State’s complete streets law requires bicycle and pedestrian ways to be established in or within one mile of an urban area in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any State transportation facility, except in pavement resurfacing projects that do not widen the existing traveled way or do not provide stabilized shoulders, or where approved by the Secretary of Transportation based upon documented safety issues, excessive cost or absence of need; and • WHEREAS, During the development of highway projects throughout the State, IDOT gives consideration to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians on a need-basis; and • WHEREAS, IDOT has presented the (local authority), for its consideration, a bicycle and/or pedestrian improvement with funding to be split 80% State, 20% local with maintenance to be provided by (IDOT/unit of local government); therefore, be it • RESOLVED, That the (local authority) hereby rejects IDOT’s proposed bicycle and/or pedestrian improvement and acknowledges that such rejection will result in a cancellation of the proposed improvement; and be it further • RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution be presented to the Project Engineer associated with the proposal, or his or her equivalent, within IDOT.

31. Policy Conclusions • IDOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian policies expand beyond urban areas as discussed in the Complete Streets Law. • Bicycle and pedestrians are legitimate users of the state’s transportation system. Their needs are considered as motorists are in the beginning as the project is scoped.

32. Policy Conclusions • IDOT has defined what the most appropriate type of bicycle accommodation is in the Facility Selection Table, and if not possible use the next “Highest and Best” process. • Match requirements have reduced the local share significantly, from 50% in many cases to 20% now.

33. Policy Conclusions • As seen in the example, the local match is also vital in meeting the needs of your non-motorized users. No local match and the project may be severely downgraded. This often happens in unincorporated areas in the middle of an accommodation.

34. What Does This Mean for Planners? • Does your community have a bicycle plan? • Will the reduction in match requirement induce local governments to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities? • Would you be willing to work with other local governments to help secure their match for a complete accommodation?

35. Questions??? Todd Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Illinois Department of Transportation