1. Complete Streets
The Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization Example
Raymond Hess
Road School March 9, 2011

2. What are Complete Streets?
“Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street.”
-Complete Streets Coalition
Successful Complete Streets Policies
Specify all users
Encourage connectivity of network
Are applicable to all roads
Apply to new and retrofit projects
Provide for exceptions
Encourage best design standards
Complement community context
Establish performance standards
Identify steps for implementation

3. What are Complete Streets?
“Since each complete street is unique, it is impossible to give a single description. But ingredients that may be found on a complete street include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and more. A complete street in a rural area will look quite different from a complete street in a highly urban area. But both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road.”
-Complete Streets Coalition 

4. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy
Citizen discord over several projects
Idea originated from APA webinar 02/2007
Looked at numerous existing policies
CAC developed draft policy w/staff
Coordinated with TAC
Policy adopted by Policy Committee 01/2009

5. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy Overview
Applicability
New construction or reconstruction
Local roadway projects
Programmed by BMCMPO (federal funds)
Any phase of a project
‘Grandfather’ provision
Users = peds, bikes, users of mass transit, people with disabilities, elderly, motorists, freight pirates, emergency responders, and adjacent land users. 5

6. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy Overview
Requirements
Accommodate all users
Make use of latest and best design standards. LPA retains design authority
Solutions fit with context of community
Performance standards
Public participation and open communication
Successful Complete Streets Policies
Specify all users
Encourage connectivity of network
Are applicable to all roads
Apply to new and retrofit projects
Provide for exceptions
Encourage best design standards
Complement community context
Establish performance standards
Identify steps for implementation 6

7. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy Overview
Process
Annual Call for Projects for TIP
LPA defined
Review by CAC & TAC
Policy Committee adopts projects as Complete Streets compliant by resolution
Regular reporting/project updates
Significant changes may warrant exception/recertification
Policies looked at: Seattle, Chicago, Cleveland, Las Cruces, Charlotte, draft Federal legislation, Thunderhead Alliance
Complete Streets Timeline
2/14/2007 CD-ROM Complete Streets staff level training – subsequent discussions about developing a policy and compiling research/information
9/26/2007 CAC packet includes information packet on Complete Streets and is on the agenda as new business for discussion
10/12/2007 TAC agenda item with information packet
10/22/2007 CAC packet includes a supplemental information packet on Complete Streets
11/9/2007 PC/TAC – mention about webinar?
11/28/2007 CAC agenda item for continued discussion. Staff presents an abbreviated presentation of the APA CD-ROM presentation
1/23/2008 CAC (not included in the packet) presents a first draft of a Complete Streets Policy (version 1) to further facilitate the discussion
1/25/2008 TAC agenda item with positive discussion and knowledge of CAC’s policy work
1/30/2008 Planning Department hosts a APA Webinar on Complete Streets (encore presentation) and invites staff as well as MPO committee members
2/22/2008 TAC draft policy (version 1) included in packet with concerns over design review
2/27/2008 CAC packet includes a draft of the Complete Streets Policy (version 1), but no discussion ensued because of other action items on the agenda
3/7/2008 PC agenda item under staff report and discussion on INDOT, potential cost increases and more information from other cities
3/26/2008 CAC continued discussion and made a few suggestions to the draft, but again there were other action items on the agenda
3/28/2008 TAC agenda item
4/23/2008 CAC continued discussion and made a few suggestions to the draft
5/23/2008 TAC agenda item under staff report
5/28/2008 CAC packet included a revised draft of the Complete Streets Policy (version 2) and a good discussion transpired
6/13/2008 PC agenda item under CAC report
6/25/2008 CAC reached consensus with revisions and preliminarily adopted the policy up to section II and subsequently developed version 3 of the Complete Streets Policy
7/22/2008 CAC chair and vice chair met with staff to review version 3 to the draft policy
8/22/2008 TAC agenda item under staff report
8/27/2008 CAC packet includes draft Complete Streets Policy (version 3) and staff presents supplemental/revised draft material from the 7/22/2008 meeting; which includes a new section on process where the CAC reached consensus and preliminarily adopted up to the implementation (excluding the exemption) section and continued discussion on the remaining sections (staff suggest the CAC preliminarily adopt the exemption section at the next meeting)
9/12/2008 PC agenda item under staff report and staff subsequently sent out the most current version 4 with out the new sections on implementation and evaluation because the CAC had yet to review
9/24/2008 CAC packet includes draft Complete Streets Policy (version 4) with new material in the implementation and evaluation sections the CAC adopts the whole policy for consideration by the TAC and PC
9/26/2008 TAC packet includes CAC adopted Complete Streets Policy (version 4)

8. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy Overview
Exemptions
Ordinary maintenance
Users are prohibited
Extreme constraints
20yr projections < 1000 ADT
No demonstrated need or equivalent already exists
Reconstructions – does not apply to resurfacing projects that do not alter the current geometry of the road
Local roadway projects = no State projects, trail projects, transit projects exempted
Any phase = PE, ROW, CON
Grandfather provision = any project already in the TIP and past 30% complete on design

9. BMCMPO Complete Streets Policy Case Study
Monroe County’s Matthews Drive Bridge replacement
Users = peds, bikes, users of mass transit, people with disabilities, elderly, motorists, freight pirates, emergency responders, and adjacent land users.

10. Thank You!
Raymond Hess
Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization
401 N. Morton St. Ste. 160
PO Box 100
Bloomington, IN 47402
ph: (812)
web:
Call for projects = detailed project description, intent to CS compliant, performance standards, performance standards, phases, funding requested, dates, public participation process, stakeholder list