Complete Streets & Your Local MPO IL APA Conference September 23, 2010 John A. Chambers Senior Planner Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

Complete Streets & Your Local MPO MPO Basics The MPO and Complete Streets Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Policy Results Strategies to Use in Your Community

MPO Basics MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization Sets Transportation Policy Local Government & Transportation Representatives Required in urban areas > 50,000 pop.

MPO Basics Manages the 3-C planning process ◦Comprehensive ◦Cooperative ◦Continuing Creates Planning Documents ◦Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) ◦Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ◦Unified Planning Work Program (UWP) Programs Federal Transportation $ (in part)

The MPO and Complete Streets The MPO sets Transportation Policy Policy Directs Expenditures & Infrastructure Bicycling/Walking Infrastructure is a policy-level issue

The MPO and Complete Streets IF YOU WANT BIKE/PED FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE… YOU MUST FIRST HAVE BIKE/PED FRIENDLY POLICY!

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Bike/Ped-Friendly Planning Activity (UWP) ◦Trail Planning ◦Bike-to-Work-Week ◦Clean Air Action Regional Transportation Plan (LRTP) ◦Integrate Bike/Ped Plans with Roadway Plans ◦Complete Streets for all, ESPECIALLY State Routes! Quality Control (TIP) ◦In Progress!

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STU) ◦Policy Pre-2006:  Qualitative Criteria – “Does your project provide access to cyclists and pedestrians?” ◦Policy Post-2006:  Quantitative Criteria – “HOW does your project provide access to cyclists and pedestrians?” ◦ Rankings advisory, not binding  Three Categories: Roadway, New RoadwayNon- Roadway

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Existing Roadway Project Scoring: 1.Regional Significance – 30 points 2.Local Priority – 15 points 3.Safety – 23 points 4.Existing Conditions – 17 points 5.Multi-Modal – 15 points (10 Bike/Ped) 100 points total – 10% for Bike/Ped

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO New-Roadway Project Scoring: 1.Regional Significance – 60 points 2.Local Priority –15 points 3.Planning/Environment – 10 points 4.Multi-Modal – 15 points (10 bike/ped) 100 points total – 10% for Bike/Ped

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Non-Roadway Project Scoring: 1.Regional Significance – 30 points 2.Local Priority – 15 points 3.LRTP Conformity – 5 points 4.Project Merit – 50 points Project Merit points determined by Sub- Committee of the MPO ◦Utilize IDOT’s Enhancement Program criteria

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Multi-Modal: Pedestrians (6 maximum) ImprovementPoints Received Sidewalk on both Sides 4 Sidewalk on one Side 2 Right of Way Preservation w/ Flattened groundwork 1 No access 0 Ped-Activated Signals and Crosswalks + 1 Median and Corner refuge islands + 1 (A multi-use 10’ separated sidepath counts as a sidewalk)

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Improvement Points Received 10-foot wide multi-use separated sidepath on at least one side 5 Minimum of 5-feet wide on-road, marked bicycle lanes on both sides Paved shoulders on both sides w/minimum of 3 feet clear of rumble strips 14’ wide curb lanes 3 Right-of-Way preservation w/flattened ground work 1 No access 0 Multi-Modal: Bicyclist (5 maximum)

Case Study: The Peoria-Pekin MPO Multi-Modal: Mass Transit (4 maximum) Receive 1 point for each criteria fulfilled Criteria An existing transit route An existing transit stop A transit turnout is included in project Scope A proposed route is part of a formally-adopted transit plan

Policy Results General Results of the New STP-U Policy: ◦Hard rankings = fewer politics (but not zero politics!) ◦Rankings weed out the weakest projects

Policy Results Specific Bike/Ped Results : 2005 Funded Projects ◦Last round Pre-Policy update ◦Total roadway applications – 11  Excellent or good access – 0  Marginal access (sidewalk only) – 1  Minimal access (2’ earthen shoulders)– 2  No Access – 8 !!!

Policy Results 2007 Funding Round ◦Several “revised” applications ◦Total Roadway Applications – 7  Excellent or good access – 5 (3 funded)  Minimal access (earthen shoulder) – 2 (2 funded)  No Access – 0 ◦Non-Roadway Applications – 1  Public Trailhead Facility – funded!

Policy Results 2010 Funding Round ◦Total Roadway Applications – 7  Excellent or good access – 6 (4 funded) ◦ Multi-use path – 4 (All funded) ◦ Bike lanes & Sidewalks – 1 ◦ Pedestrian bridge w/sidewalk – 1  No access – 1

Strategies to Use in Your Community Biking & Walking is Transportation, not simply an Amenity Policy Not Working? Change the Policy! Engage Your MPO!

Strategies to Use in Your Community Go Beyond Your MPO – Local Streets Integrate Plans are not enough – Regular Coordination with Public Works/Engineering Put Complete Streets into development ordinances

Complete Streets & Your Local MPO Thank you! John A. Chambers