Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
9-1  Conclusions Street design and roadway allocation are powerful tools that directly and indirectly affect community safety, mode use, the environment, public health, the economy, and equity in multi- faceted ways. Because of the power of design, cross sections must be intentionally aligned with community goals and needs reflected in plans and policies. Sustained equitable engagement is key to repairing past harms associated with the transportation sector and ensuring that future investments help heal communities. This Guide explicitly prioritizes safety, beginning with the least-protected users, as directed by the USDOTâs 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy. All practitioners are urged to work toward these goals. Practitioners may face physical constraints, competing stakeholder and user concerns, and limited resources when reallocating street space. When there is not enough space for all street users, provide safe access for everyone in three ways: ⢠Reduce street speeds ⢠Reduce motor vehicle volumes ⢠Identify network opportunities When there is too much space, reduce vehicle speeds and exposure for vulnerable road users with cross-section elements like raised medians, wider buffers, and dynamic curbside uses. Cross-section reallocation projects benefit from a robust public engagement that understands and acknowledges common user concerns. Tools such as the Decision-Making Framework can help paint a clear picture of potential street redesign outcomes. The quick-build approach allows practitioners to achieve effective reallocation projects with limited funding. What cross-section elements are included and how they are designed dictates who can use a street and how it can be used. The presence or absence of elements supporting each of the different modes affects outcomes in various ways. The dimensional requirements for each element vary depending on surrounding land uses and traffic speed and volume. Deciding how limited roadway space will be shared will always involve tough tradeoffs; how- ever, the tools and information in this report will help practitioners make decisions from a safety- first approach that focuses on a communityâs priorities, no matter what these priorities are. Just as vehicles are understood to need a minimum lane width for safe travel, people walking and biking need facilities that are minimally safe in their contexts. By raising the floor for safe design, this Guide aims to revolutionize roadway reallocation projects. The result will be roads that prioritize safety for all users and a decision-making process that lets communities and decisionmakers build a transportation network that addresses their many priorities. The Decision-Making Framework and the spreadsheet tool provided on the NAP website and accessible by searching for NCHRP Research Report 1036 will help practitioners through the planning and design process and enable transparent, honest conversations with all stakeholders about the effects of different design decisions on all roadway users. C H A P T E R 9
