Complete Streets

Policy and Partnership Analysis

Cristina Arias, Jeffrey Connor, Justin Kuenne, Annegret Nautsch

Motivation

The objective of this report is to address the questions from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) relating
to complete streets: How did cities change the culture of urban mobility to include non-auto transit? How did they train
cyclists/drivers/pedestrians to use the new infrastructure? How can we move the incremental street design forward?
How do we design an effective program to bring people along? How do cities manage the balance of power? What
worked, what didnt?

In the Seattle region cars are currently one of the dominant modes of transportation with a modal share of 82% for single
occupancy vehicles1. There are many influencing factors that have led to the region being car-centric, some of which
include:

car dominant development patterns and land use

car focused engineering design standards and practices
limited collaboration between land use and transportation planners
a culture of car supremacy

All factors must be addressed in order to progress towards a more sustainable and livable city. In order to study complete
streets, a term not used in Europe, our group defined a complete street as follows:

A multi-modal environment built to facilitate travel, leisure, and utility that is connected intelligently with the road
infrastructure and neighborhood.

Approach

In an effort to better understand how complete streets are successfully implemented and integrated into a city, policies
and partnerships were examined in three countries. Specifically, multi-modal street policies and partnerships within
United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark were explored.

Two overarching frameworks were identified as strong land use and transit policies, which along with general and local
policies, contribute to the successful implementation of multi-modal streets in their respective nations. Both of these
policies create clear designations for transit use on city infrastructure and provide a platform that can easily convey a
municipalitys vision.

In addition, case studies that exemplified multi-modal streets were examined. An analysis of the policies and
circumstances surrounding the multi-modal networks observed was completed. Commonalities and trends from findings
were then determined. Finally, practices with a high potential for transferability to the Seattle context were identified.

1
http://www.psrc.org/assets/12548/RegionalTravelSurveysComparison.pdf
1
Findings

Land Use and Transportation Policies

Link and Place Framework - United Kingdom

The Link and Place Framework is a roadway
classification system that was developed by professor
Peter Jones and Dr. Stephen Marshall, University College
of London. In 2007, Link and Place was adopted into
the UKs national guidelines. London formally adopted
the methodology in 2014 and has since identified every
street according to this method2. The adoption of this
policy displays the commitment that London has for
creating a network of balanced infrastructure.
The system classifies streets under two variables,
movement (link), which identifies how the street
facilitates movement of all users including pedestrians,
cars, buses, etc.; and place, which looks at different
functions of the street such as cultural, social, and
economical roles. The classification system provides
a framework to identify a streets purpose or desired
function. Identifying the current and future purpose of
a street allows for directed long term planning.

ABC Policy - the Netherlands

The Netherlands adopted the ABC Land Use Policy in the early 1990s
and has been refining it since. This national policy sorts all land into
three categories with an emphasis on placing each land use in the
appropriate location to maximize local resources. Along with the land
use designation the policy addresses parking regulations and local
road design3. The three mobility environments are A: City Center, B:
Balance of Modes, and C: Extended. This ABC policy is recognized as a
guideline for zoning. See Appendix B for details of each zone.

By separating all land use into three categories the local street
network is adjusted as well. The objective of this policy is to preserve
the quality of life in dense city centers by giving the pedestrian
and cyclist priority. This policy has contributed to decreased car
ownership and usage. The distribution of households without cars
in the three environments in the Netherlands is as follows; 51% in A
environments, 39% in B environments, and 10% in C environments.
This shows the successful distribution of car needs to the appropriate
and land-allowing places. The policy provides a common language
and simple framework when considering the current and future land
use of an area.

2
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/street-types?cid=street-types
3
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/24/23345.htm and Bas lecture in Utrecht and https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779572236303/abc.pdf 2
Collaboration

The cities we observed in Europe evaluated what they had first, then created comprehensive plans to unify their
network. For example, the city of Rotterdam created a city-wide comprehensive vision and is now using this to secure
funding and to engage stakeholders. This approach is a reversal of the typical US based approach.
Case Studies
ABC Land Use Policy

This is an A street. Cyclists are given priority, as evidenced

by the street markings and the width of the street. The
street is just barely wide enough for two cars to pass which
encourages and maintains slow speeds. One side of the
road includes has a lane alternating with car parking, bike
parking, and loading zones.

This is a B street in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The

pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers are all grade separated.
A median in the center allows for pedestrians to pause
while crossing opposing lanes of traffic. The cyclist lanes are
physically separated with a curb near the intersection and
with a uniform paint and material color down the street.
This provides a balanced way to protect the cyclists with an
economical design.

This is an example of a C street. The highway is separated

from cycle path by a median. There is a cycletrack and
sidewalk on one side of the road.

Danish Bicycle Lane Design Standards

Consistent street design was recognized in all cities in

Denmark. The evidence was in the well-incorporated
multi-modal street networks shown in Figure X: Four design
methods for bicycle incorporation4.

Standardizing a limited number of designs creates a

navigable and universally understandable street network.
This has contributed to Denmarks success in achieving
a well-balanced modal split, which is one of the implicit
intentions of complete streets. In terms of cultural
shift strategies, Denmark offers no official training in
the use of bike lanes, and they have achieved much
of their modal split through intuitive street design.
4
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/04/the-copenhagenize-bicycle-planning-guide.html
3
Oxford Road, Manchester, UK
Manchester is a post-industrial working class
city in the United Kingdom with a population of
525,000. The city has an extensive local bus and
tram network, and is undergoing a transformation
in public transport by upgrading the tram network
throughout the city center. Consequently, the city
has also dedicated 54 million to improve bus
speed and reliability over 25 miles of streets.

Oxford Road is a major north/south arterial into

the city and is being upgraded to improve bus
reliability, have wider sidewalks, and separated
bike lanes. This will result in Oxford Road being
closed to general traffic from 6 am to 9 pm, daily.
Additionally, nearby Princess Street is being
converted into a two way street to accommodate
the diverted traffic. Public outreach on the project
resulted in changing the street from bus only 24/7
to bus only from 6 am - 9 pm, when it will make
the most impact. It was also decided to only shut
down Oxford Road when work on other streets is
complete5.

Festival Street
Festival Streets is a placemaking tool used by
London to activate public space and encourage
retail activity. For example, a section of Regent
Street is closed to traffic every Sunday in July.
Each Sunday festival provides themed events that
draw in people to activate the public space. This
initiative began as part of the mayors air quality
improvement campaign and was inspired by the
Summer Streets program in New York City. Festival
Streets is the result of partnerships between The
Crown Estate, the Mayor of London, Westminster
City Council and the Regent Street Association6.

5
http://www.tfgm.com/buspriority/Pages/website/routes-oxford-road.html
6
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news-and-media/news/2014/summer-streets-returns-to-regent-street-in-july/ 4
Recommendations

It was found that all of the cities visited were unaware of the term complete streets, nor were there any examples of
streets that fulfilled all of the aspects of complete streets as defined by SDOT. Acknowledging this, recommendations
were created that would directly address the four common barriers to multi-modality currently seen in the Seattle
context.

Development Patterns and Land Use

Each city focussed on a complete network rather than making all streets incorporate all characteristics of complete
streets. The term complete streets can lead to segments being over-designed beyond their needs. This lowers the
potential usability of the street by complicating the navigation for each user.

Seattle needs to create a multi-modal network plan that is consistent with the regions vision. The purpose of a street,
in regards to both its value as a link and a place, should be considered across the plan in order to create a well-balanced
network.

Having a comprehensive plan allows phasing improvements in a logical and economical order, rather than overhauling
an entire segment with all the design elements. This phasing could include temporary, guerilla-style installations or road
closures to pilot design features and road changes. Not only does this introduce people to a new streetscape, but it can
also be inexpensive.

Engineering Design Standards and Practices

Consistent designs throughout each country were observed, increasing usability and navigability. The use of visual cues,
effective signage and striping, surface changes, grade changes, and connectivity allows all users to easily navigate the
network. Conflict zones such as intersections are addressed through design to minimize conflicts; bus islands separate
cyclists and pedestrian queueing zones, recessed pedestrian crossings shorten crossing length and improve the car/
pedestrian angled approach, and queuing areas such as bike boxes provide designated queueing space to increase
visibility. Many urban areas studied also displayed forgiving infrastructure design for both pedestrians and cyclists. This
includes sloped curbs, surface treatments, and buffer zones to increase safety. The design practices are consistent and
understandable by all users.

Limited Collaboration Between Land Use and Transportation Planners

Nearly every municipality studied embraced an integrated approach for transportation planning. The collaborations
described involved transit planners asking other departments for their needs regarding mobility rather than prescribing a
framework. This approach unified different parties, created a shared vision, and then directed the transit planning.

A Culture of Car Supremacy

Most of the cities visited prioritized transit and discouraged car usage in their networks. Parking is limited, often
concentrated in garages, highly charged, and mostly removed from city centers. Other strategies applied are transit
prioritization at intersections, transit only streets, and designated transit lanes. Additionally, many streetscape designs
allowed for, but did not encourage vehicular access. Furthermore, municipalities identified themselves as mobility
planners rather than transportation planners, de-emphasizing vehicular movement. Pedestrians are upheld as the
primary form of mobility, putting all other modes secondary.

Altogether, we found unique policies, practices, and methods which could benefit Seattle. Although not all practices are
directly transferable to Seattle, many of them can be altered to fit within the Seattle context.

5
Appendix A

The definition of a complete street varies depending on the source. SDOT has defined complete streets as follows:

A Complete Street has a range of possible attributes and Seattle does not use a rigid template for projects.
Complete Streets will often provide improved crossings, good lighting and sidewalks for pedestrians; bicycle
lanes, sharrows or wide outside lanes for bicyclists; adequate lane width for freight and transit operation;
convenient transit stops for transit riders; and street trees, landscaping and other features such as improved
lighting that make streets good for community life. Seattle recognizes that implementing Complete Streets
requires that we make careful design decisions that are based on data, informed by adjacent land use and
community experience, and anticipate future needs7.

Appendix B
ABC Policy Details8

A: City Center
These localities are recommended for offices with a large number of employees and many visitors. Limited car traffic is
allowed in the area and cycling is heavily promoted. Car parking is limited and often only available for a fee in garages. As
a result, there are few traffic lights. It should be highly connected with rail, tram, or bus within 400-600 meters.

B: Balance of Modes
Car, bus, cycling and pedestrians share the space in the road. These locations are characteristically chosen for offices
and institutions with a large number of employees which depend partly on car journeys for professional reasons. The
surrounding roads generally have no more than 15,000 vehicles a day and provide a balance of space for walking and
biking in addition to driving. The land should be within 400 meters of a tram or bus stop, a 5 minute ride to national rail,
and within 400 meters of an arterial road that leads to a highway.

C: Extended
C localities are places with limited public transport and excellent car accessibility. All modes are allowed in this
environment but are provided protected and separate lanes. Such sites are recommended for car-dependent companies.
Characteristically, they are within 1,000 meters of a direct connection to a highway.

7
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/compSt_what.htm
8
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/24/23345.htm