Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide (2023)

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.

6-1   C H A P T E R 6 Redistributing street space among different users and uses can involve difficult tradeoffs. This chapter presents common challenges that practitioners face when reallocating street space and suggests strategies to use to achieve desired safety outcomes. Agencies redesign urban and suburban streets by (1) widening or (2) reallocating space within existing street cross sections. Regardless of the approach, practitioners may need to address situ- ations that can obstruct the provision of a safe design for all roadway users. Barriers include tangible geometric constraints as well as intangible political and financial limitations. This chapter focuses first on how practitioners can overcome physical constraints using performance-based design, then discusses how effective communication can be used to address stakeholder and user concerns, and finally concludes with an exploration of how long- term planning can surmount limited resources. Geometric/Physical Constraints The geometry involved can result in different considerations. When space is limited, approaches to consider are reducing speeds, reducing motor vehicle volumes, and identifying network oppor- tunities. When there is excess space, practitioners should consider options according to road classification (i.e., access streets and distributor streets). These topics are discussed in detail in the following sections. Limited Space A street’s safety is determined by the interaction of street type, vehicle speed, and vehicle volume. In some cases, the needed cross-section elements and their associated widths exceed available space. Practitioners usually encounter this challenge when reallocating space within the existing curb-to-curb width of a roadway, although practitioners can also contend with space limitations when moving curbs to widen streets (Figure 6-1). Table 6-1 presents examples of physical constraints that can pose barriers to safe roadway design. When physical constraints like curbs cannot be moved, practitioners can still provide safe facilities for all road users in one of three ways: 1. Reduce design speeds to match the road type and land-use context. Reducing design speeds subsequently reduces the space needed to achieve a safe redesign. 2. Based on the land-use context, reallocate space to high-capacity modes (like transit) to move more people along constrained streets (i.e., reduce motor vehicle volumes). 3. Consider the street’s role in the broader transportation network to identify network opportu- nities to reduce needed space. These three approaches are discussed in detail in the following sections. Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design

6-2 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Reduce Speeds As detailed in Chapters 5 and 7, roadway speeds (both posted and operating) directly influ- ence the space needed to ensure safe travel for all street users. Safe, high-speed street designs must physically separate vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, from motor vehicles. As road speeds increase, the physical space or buffers needed between vulnerable users and motor vehicles necessarily increases. Conversely, safe, low-speed road designs reduce the physical space needed between vulnerable users and motor vehicles. Low-speed road designs can also enable bicyclists and micromobility users to travel in the same space as motor vehicles (i.e., in mixed traffic). Figure 6-2 illustrates the relationship between speed and space needed to achieve a safe road design. Practitioners should consider the relationship between current street speeds, street type, and land-use context to identify opportunities to reduce speed. Figure 6-1. Limited space in the real world. Project Type Includes Pedestrian Realm? Can You Move Curbs? Example Physical Constraints Widening existing street cross section Yes Yes • Right-of-way and buildings • Trees, waterways, steep slopes • Utilities1 • Stormwater management2 Reallocating space within the existing street cross section Yes Yes • Utilities1 • Stormwater management2 Reallocating space within the existing street cross section No Yes • Utilities1 Stormwater management2 • • Sidewalk3 Reallocating space within the existing street cross section No No • Curb and gutter • Concrete or landscaped median and gutter • Sidewalk3 • Utilities4 1 Utility conflicts may be located behind the sidewalk or between the sidewalk and the back of the curb. 2 Permeable surfaces that provide stormwater management may be located between the sidewalk and the back of the curb or in landscaped medians. Projects that replace permeable surfaces with impervious pavement may need to provide for additional stormwater best management practices. 3 For this project type, the sidewalk cannot be widened to meet minimum safe width requirements. 4 Utilities can be located overhead (e.g., catenary system). Table 6-1. Physical constraints that limit safe street design.

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-3   Figure 6-2. Reducing street speed to achieve a safe street design. Additional Guidance on Aligning Road Speed with Land-Use Context • NCHRP Web-Only Document 320: Aligning Geometric Design with Roadway Context • NCHRP Synthesis 535: Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management • FHWA Self-Enforcing Roadways: A Guidance Report • FHWA Noteworthy Speed Management Practices • FDOT Design Manual, Section 200, Context Based Design, and Section 202, Speed Management • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Blueprint for Urban Design • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual Division 11—Practical Design, Chapter 1103 Design Control Selection

6-4 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Example candidates for speed reduction include urban access streets with speeds above 20 mph or suburban gray roads with a high frequency of driveways and activity centers and operating speeds above 35 mph (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of street types, including gray roads). In addition to collaborating with agencies to reduce the street speed limit, practitioners should consider a holistic speed management program to achieve the appropriate road speed, including signs and markings, road design and operational changes, automated speed enforcement, and education programs. Reduce Motor Vehicle Volumes Higher motor vehicle volumes increase the degree of separation needed between motor vehi- cles and bicyclists on access and distributor streets. Practitioners can simultaneously reduce motor vehicle volumes and speeds on access streets through effective traffic-calming. How- ever, distributor roads are fundamentally intended to connect many people to diverse local and regional destinations. In such situations, practitioners can integrate more people into the avail- able space by reallocating distributor road space to dedicated transit facilities. In addition to integrating more users into the network, providing dedicated transit facilities can help increase the speed and reliability of transit service. Together with other improvements, including acces- sible, comfortable stops and robust transportation demand management, dedicated transit can encourage a mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles and toward public transit, enabling practitioners to design safe cross sections in limited space (Figure 6-3). Identify Network Opportunities In some cases, street speeds or volumes cannot be reduced to achieve safe facilities for all users. Practitioners should consider the broader transportation network to identify safe, paral- lel facilities for motorists or bicyclists. Such opportunities, discussed further below, include the following: • Two-way to one-way street conversion, • Safe parallel bicycle facilities, and • Bicycle facility design options. Two-Way To One-Way Street Conversion. In some cases, it may make sense to consider converting a two-way street to a one-way street for vehicular traffic. Street networks character- ized by a dense network of short, connected blocks present an opportunity for practitioners to convert parallel, two-way distributor roads to one-way pairs (Figure 6-4). Practitioners should carefully consider potential direct and indirect transportation outcomes associated with converting two-way distributor roads to one-way pairs. One-way streets can allow for safer designs for walking and biking (e.g., more room for bicycle facilities and reduced pedestrian exposure), but they can also encourage people to drive faster (FHWA n.d.). If a two- way to one-way conversion is selected as an approach to provide safe facilities for all users, the subsequent redesign should carefully consider the design for both streets in the one-way pair and include speed management strategies to maintain safe street speeds. Safe, Parallel Bicycle Facilities. Research indicates that bicyclists will deviate from a direct route for a perceived better route if the detour is not more than 25% longer than the direct route (Winters et al. 2010). In addition to the out-of-direction travel that bicyclists will tolerate, safe parallel routes should have a similar or improved amount of elevation change compared to the original route. If practitioners can provide safe, parallel bicycle facilities, then the subsequent street rede- sign can provide safe travel for pedestrians and motorists. The street redesign should include (1) a wayfinding plan to direct bicyclists to safe connections between the parallel route and the

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-5   Figure 6-3. Reducing motor vehicle volumes to achieve a safe street design. original route and (2) a long-term design to create space along the original road that safely inte- grates all street users. In suburban contexts, an alternate bicycle facility could be provided by an off-road shared-use path (Figure 6-5). In urban contexts, an alternate bicycle facility could be provided on a parallel street. Bicycle Facility Design Options. In circumstances where achieving a safe street design comes down to a difference of a few feet, a two-way bicycle facility can eke out the needed space. Two-way bicycle facilities allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road (Figure 6-6). Two-way bicycle facilities can reduce out-of-direction travel on one-way streets by provid- ing contraflow movement. They can also increase out-of-direction travel on two-way streets by requiring bicyclists to cross the road and double back to access destinations on the side of the

6-6 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide road opposite the two-way facility. Effective two-way bicycle facility designs include frequent opportunities to cross to enable access to destinations across the street. One-way bicycle facilities are preferred on access roads and gray roads where bicyclists should be able to safely reach destinations on both sides of the street. Two-way bicycle facilities are more appropriate on distributor roads, where bicyclists are focused on traveling between distant points. Excess Space Although practitioners frequently contend with limited space as a barrier to safe street design, overbuilt roads present unique challenges to achieving safety. Figure 6-4. Two-way to one-way conversion to achieve a safe road design.

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-7   Misuse of Excess Road Space While any element of the street cross section could be widened to free excess space, practitioners should avoid widening vehicle travel lanes and shoulders beyond minimum safe widths. Unlike other cross-section elements, wider vehicle facilities encourage speeding and increase exposure for vulnerable users. Figure 6-5. Parallel bicycle facilities that facilitate safe travel with minimal route deviation can reduce the cross-sectional width needed to provide safe travel for all roadway users. Wide roads and shoulders encourage motorist speeding, thereby increasing the risk of severe and fatal crashes for all users, while broader street cross sections increase crossing distances and exposure for vulnerable users. Approaches to safely reallocate excess space vary based on road function. The following sections outline different strategies for achieving safety along access and distributor streets. Access Streets Access streets connect users to activity centers and should have lower speeds and volumes than those of distributor streets. After practitioners allocate appropriate space to each street user based on desired roadway speed and volume, excess space can then be allocated to the curb zone. Although curbside space has traditionally been used as vehicle storage, curbside uses can range from parklets/streateries to floating bus stops to pickup/dropoff zones for transportation network companies (Figure 6-7). A diverse, vibrant curbside can encourage economic develop- ment, support transit, calm traffic, and expand the public realm. As with distributor streets, excess space on access streets can also be used to widen buffer space between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Distributor Streets Distributor streets are primarily intended to connect road users to access streets and desti- nations. Using target roadway speed and volume as a basis, practitioners should first allocate

6-8 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Figure 6-6. Using two-way bicycle facilities to achieve a safe roadway design. appropriate space to vehicle travel lanes, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Practi- tioners can then use excess space to support the function of the distributor street and other community goals. For example, practitioners can allocate excess space to raised medians, which can be used to manage access. Wide raised medians can serve as crossing refuges for vulnerable users. Such medians can also incorporate landscaping to provide stormwater management, beautification, and economic development benefits. Excess space on distributor streets can also be allocated as buffer space between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists (Figure 6-8). Wider buffers between nonmotorized and motorized users provide additional safety benefits by reducing crossing exposure and by visually narrow- ing the roadway. When practitioners have the resources to construct and maintain landscaped

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-9   Figure 6-7. Different curbside uses support a wide range of economic, social, and environmental planning goals (adapted from NACTO). buffers, such buffers provide additional safety benefits (by visually narrowing the roadway) as well as stormwater management, beautification, and economic development benefits. Where additional space exceeds 22 feet, practitioners can consider implementing dedicated transit facilities to support mode shift, economic development, equity, and environmental goals. Stakeholder and User Concerns In addition to considering geometric barriers and opportunities for safe road design, prac- titioners must consider the role of all stakeholders and users in developing a safe street design. Stakeholders and users include a broad group of people and perspectives, ranging from elected decisionmakers to government staff to the community members who live and work in the proj- ect area. In many cases, transportation professionals have an easier time developing a safe street design than achieving stakeholder and user buy-in on the design. Chapter 4 of this report makes the case for consistent, equitable community engagement throughout the roadway reallocation process. This chapter (1) presents some common com- peting stakeholder and user concerns that can disrupt a safe street redesign and (2) outlines specific tools and approaches to addressing competing stakeholder goals for street redesign projects. Practitioners serve all roadway users and must address their unique concerns during the street- design process. In most cases, a street redesign cannot satisfy all user concerns. However, the process of understanding and acknowledging common concerns, such as safe access to what- ever facilities are needed or concerns about reliable travel times, can help users and stakeholders support the redesign. User and stakeholder concerns vary by mode, by relationship to the street,

6-10 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Figure 6-8. Increasing buffers to reallocate excess space in the cross section. and by relationship to other stakeholders and users. For this Guide, the research team has grouped stakeholders and users as follows: • Users (by mode): pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, transit operators, motorists, and freight operators; and • Stakeholders: residents, business operators, elected decisionmakers, and the staff of depart- ments of transportation and public works and related governmental operations. The concerns of each subgroup are explored in more detail in the following paragraphs. Pedestrians (with concerns like those of bicyclists and transit users) want to know if they will • have access to a safe, comfortable, uninterrupted sidewalk and • be able to cross the street safely at regular intervals in space and time. Pedestrians also want to have access to shade, shelter, and seating. In addition, pedestrians with disability needs will need to be able to travel safely along and across the street.

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-11   Bicyclists (with concerns like those of pedestrians and transit users) want to know if they will • have access to a safe, comfortable, uninterrupted bicycle facility and that the bicycle facility will provide a direct, logical connection between key destinations and • be able to cross the street safely at regular intervals in space and time. Bicyclists also want to have access to bicycle parking upon reaching a destination Transit users (with concerns like those of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists) want to know if they will • have access to a safe, accessible, comfortable, sheltered place to wait for transit (and that there is an accessible boarding and alighting space connected to the sidewalk), • be able to cross the street safely to access bus stops, and • reliable, reasonable travel times between key destinations. In addition, transit users want to know that transit will consistently arrive on time. Transit operators (with concerns like those of transit users, motorists, and freight operators) want to know if they will have • space to maneuver vehicles along the street safely (and in and out of transit stops safely), • limited delay at traffic signals, and • reliable, reasonable travel times between key destinations. Motorists (with concerns like those of transit users, transit operators, and freight operators) want to know if they will have • space to maneuver vehicles along the street safely, • limited delay at traffic signals, and • reliable, reasonable travel times between key destinations. In addition, motorists want a convenient location to park vehicles at destinations. Freight operators (with concerns like those of transit users, transit operators, and motorists) want to know if they will have • space to maneuver vehicles along the street safely, • limited delay at traffic signals, and • reliable, reasonable travel times between key destinations. Freight operators, like motorists, want a convenient location to park (as well as to load or unload vehicles at destinations) Residents may share the concerns of all the travel mode groups; however, neighbors will not necessarily share all the same concerns. Concerns specific to residents include being able to park in front of residences and the safety of children playing in front of residences or walking or bicycling to school. Business owners may share the concerns of all the travel mode groups; however, neighboring businesses will not necessarily share all the same concerns. Concerns specific to business owners include being able to operate profitably and ease of access to the business by customers and suppliers. Elected decisionmakers will be interested in the concerns of the users of all travel modes along with those of residents and business owners. Elected decisionmakers may have concerns about how the redesigned street will affect their constituents’ assessment of the decisionmakers’ efficacy and the likelihood of such constituents voicing complaints about the redesign. Staff at departments of transportation and public works and related governmental opera- tions will be concerned with the views of all stakeholders and users—all users by mode, residents,

6-12 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide business owners, and elected decisionmakers. In addition, such staff may have specific concerns such as the following: • The maintenance department’s ability to maintain the street safely and effectively, • The ability to provide effective stormwater management via the redesigned street, • The ability of emergency responders to access community buildings in times of emergency, • The ability of residents who are disabled and/or elderly to navigate the system safely and comfortably, and • Whether or not decisions are helping to redress past inequities in the transportation system. Identifying stakeholder and user concerns early in the process can enable practitioners to address such concerns before they become insurmountable obstacles. The following sections present useful approaches and tools for addressing stakeholder and user concerns. Early, Frequent, and Comprehensive Communication As outlined in Chapter 4, successful street redesign projects depend on a robust, equitable com- munity engagement process. Ideally, practitioners will work closely with all relevant community groups, stakeholders, and decisionmakers to identify a need, develop a plan, and design and imple- ment a street redesign. Community outreach must include a focus on community groups that face barriers to contributing to decision-making processes. Practitioners should initiate communication during the planning stages of the project and maintain frequent communication through each sub- sequent stage. With this approach to engagement, redesign projects benefit from established community aware- ness and support before practitioners dive into design details. Other benefits of early communication with decisionmakers, stakeholders, and community members include fostering informal project champions and illuminating unique community concerns. A project champion is a member of a decision-making, stakeholder, or community group who is supportive of the redesign process and holds a position of trust within the group. A champion can help practitioners increase and maintain awareness about the project, connect practitioners to other community groups, and raise political support or funding for project implementation. Communicating About Curbside Reallocation The rise of ride-hailing apps, e-commerce deliveries, and micromobility services has changed the transportation landscape at the curbside. Despite these rapid changes, road redesign projects that reallocate curb space from parking to other uses can meet stiff resistance from residents, business owners, and decisionmakers. Historically, people have used open curb space as storage space for personal and commercial vehicles. The loss of convenient and (often) free or heav- ily subsidized parking predictably triggers a strong negative response from groups that have benefited from on-street parking access. Practitioners can use a growing collection of tools to communicate the direct and indirect transportation outcomes of a street reallocation project that reduces or removes on-street parking. FHWA’s Curbside Inventory Report provides technical guidance for understanding spatial and temporal curbside activity, managing and reallocating curb space, and conducting performance measurements (Abel et al. 2021). ITE’s Curbside Management Practitioners Guide (and its asso- ciated tool) provides practitioners with guidance to prioritize the demand for and allocation of the curb. In addition to national guidance, localities have built custom curbside management tools and implemented curbside reallocation programs or pilots. Arlington County, Virginia, acquired grant funding to develop a curb space allocation tool that helps the County understand the

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-13   demand for various curb uses and the relative value of various curb allocations at the block level. In Massachusetts, MassDOT’s Shared Streets and Spaces Program has funded a range of curb- side reallocation pilots and their relevant before-and-after analyses in communities across the Commonwealth. Practitioners can use findings from these studies and tools to facilitate data-driven conversa- tions about curb allocation with decisionmakers, stakeholders, and community groups. Communicating About Travel Lane Removal Street reallocation projects that involve travel lane removal can raise questions and concerns about delays at intersections. Commonly used screening-level tools that enable performance evaluation for street cross sections typically fail to address community concerns, offering instead a binary evaluation: either a given cross section and its existing street volume combination falls within “acceptable” bounds, or it does not. Evaluation tools also typically provide an average delay or travel time for the peak hour of the day (or peak 15 minutes). This provides a narrow view of corridor performance throughout the day. This can be especially problematic considering the concept of reduced demand, where this approach would tend to overestimate the likely traffic impacts. What About Traffic Diversion? Traffic diversion is a common concern when removing travel lanes in a street reallo- cation project. Neighbors worry drivers will reroute onto their local streets. The reality is, however, that these concerns rarely bear out. Time after time, when cities remove vehicle lanes, they find that traffic volumes shrink to the available capacity (Cairns, et al. 2002; European Commission 2004). This concept is known as reduced demand or traffic evaporation. Just as widening roads attracts more traffic (induced demand) narrowing roads reduces it. Although we do not yet have the tools to predict exactly how vehicle trips will be reduced, case studies have shown people will change their behavior to avoid overcrowding the narrower street. Some will travel by a different mode or at a different time or eliminate the trip. People will not divert en masse to parallel streets in the roadway network. All the case studies presented in Chapter 8 offer the latest examples. More research is needed on reduced demand to help us better predict it, but engineers and planners should understand the opportunities it presents to rethink streets more creatively. An effective performance-based approach requires a holistic accounting of the all-day nature of operations and mobility in relation to geometric design. Acquiring an all-day perspective on corridor delay and travel time will enable practitioners to communicate tradeoffs to decision- makers, stakeholders, and community groups accurately. The Decision-Making Framework introduces a new method for understanding the relationship between cross-section changes and vehicle capacity. The framework adapts existing operational

6-14 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide screening tools and introduces a performance method (“all-day operations”) to account for the time-of-day effects of travel lane removal. This new method moves beyond the benchmark of whether a project “works” operationally outside the peak period. It builds on the planning-level daily service volume tables available in Section G of NCHRP Report 825: Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the Highway Capacity Manual (Dowling et al. 2016). The all-day operations evaluation creates a demand profile and calculates four performance measures based on hourly directional roadway volumes, number of lanes, and traffic control at the corridor’s critical downstream intersection (Figure 6-9): 1. Hourly demand-to-capacity (d/c) ratio allows practitioners to assess whether demand exceeds capacity (d/c > 1) at any time during the day and, if so, for how long. 2. A 16-hour efficiency metric calculates what percentage of the hours between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. the street will exceed its capacity. An intersection is deemed to operate “efficiently” if it shows a d/c ratio greater than 0.8 for a given hour of the day. An intersection that falls below 60% of capacity is deemed inefficient for that hour. This metric excludes the remaining 8 hours of the day, during which a roadway would be unlikely to approach or exceed capacity. An efficiency score of 100% indicates that the street is at over 60% capacity for every hour in the analysis range; 75% shows the street is operating about the efficiency threshold for 12 of 16 hours; and so forth. 3. A 16-hour excess capacity metric that indicates the capacity provided but unused during that 16-hour period. The units are measured in lane hours of capacity. A value of 16 indi- cates that the equivalent of one lane of capacity is completely empty during each hour of the 16-hour period (i.e., there are 16 full hours of excess lane capacity). A value of 8 indicates that a full lane of capacity is unused for 8 hours each day, 0 indicates that the roadway is at or above capacity for the entire day, etc. Note that this value can exceed 16 for multilane facilities. 4. Total hours below capacity refers to the number of hours (out of 24) during which the street is operating below capacity (d/c < 1). These four performance measures can be computed across different intersection control and cross-section configuration alternatives to help practitioners weigh tradeoffs and more closely evaluate scenarios at or below operational screening thresholds. Figure 6-9. Communicating all-day impacts of cross-sectional reallocation at intersections.

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Design 6-15   Like other performance outcomes of cross-section reallocation, operational benefits and costs vary throughout the day. This all-day evaluation can aid practitioners in showing community groups the operational effects of cross-section reallocation beyond peak periods. In the example provided in Figure 6-9, the all-day intersection assessment tool shows that a particular street diet results in 1 hour of delay at the corridor’s critical downstream intersection. When presented with the all-day safety, environmental, and economic benefits of the proposed reallocation, decisionmakers are more likely to accept the tradeoff of 1 hour of delay. Communicating Holistic Outcomes of Cross-Sectional Reallocation Different stakeholders and users view prospective street redesigns considering their own expe- riences, preferences, and needs. When practitioners paint a complete picture of the outcomes of a potential street redesign, they help stakeholders and users comprehend other perspectives. A holistic synopsis of the potential transportation and indirect transportation outcomes of a reallocation project can also reassure decisionmakers should a project face opposition from members of their constituencies. Practitioners can address competing stakeholder and user con- cerns by presenting all outcomes of a cross-section reallocation project and highlighting out- comes that will benefit all stakeholders and users. The Decision-Making Framework and accompanying spreadsheet tool provided by NCHRP Research Report 1036 outlines a process for making decisions about reallocating space within the cross section. Readers are encouraged to consult Chapter 2 for additional information. A key component of the process involves summarizing and communicating the transportation and non- transportation outcomes resulting from specific changes to street cross sections. The decision-making spreadsheet tool provides effects and considerations of any transporta- tion (safety, mobility) and indirect transportation (health, economic, social, and environmental) goals that would require an alteration to cross-section elements on a corridor. Practitioners can use the decision-making spreadsheet tool to summarize and communicate the comprehensive effects of adding, removing, widening, or narrowing different cross-section elements. Limited Resources Achieving a safe cross-section reallocation project always requires funding and time. Agencies that lack one or the other of these resources can struggle to implement safe redesign projects. However, the resources in this Guide, coupled with the use of temporary materials, can help practitioners achieve safe streets through a quick-build approach. The following sections explain how to overcome limited resources as a barrier to safe street design. Limited Time Quick-build projects can be used to achieve time-limited objectives. An agency may need to reallocate cross-section space quickly in response to pressing decisionmaker, stakeholder, or community demands. Quick-build projects can be designed and rapidly implemented to meet urgent community needs. Limited Funding Street projects, particularly corridor-focused street projects, can require substantial fund- ing to design, build, and maintain. The planning, design, and public engagement processes for projects that involve significant curb work require investments in staff time. Redesign projects

6-16 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide involve costs for construction materials and contractors to build the reallocation project. Every completed project includes maintenance costs. These combined costs can restrict agencies’ abili- ties to implement safe street redesigns where they are most needed. Agencies have achieved effective reallocation projects with limited funding through a quick- build approach, which uses less expensive pilot and temporary materials (e.g., paint, posts, planters, and signs) to reallocate space within a street cross section. Quick-build reallocation projects have been shown to create new and safer walking connections, expand safe cycling networks, calm traffic, improve transit travel time reliability, and increase local business revenue (Barr Foundation 2021). The City of Somerville implemented a cross-section reallocation along Broadway with paint, posts, and signal timing adjustments. The project converted a four-lane cross section with on-street parking to a two-lane cross section with exclusive shared bus/bike lanes, a separated bike lane, and some on-street parking. The corridor has since experienced decreased crashes, decreased transit travel times, and no substantial increases in congestion on parallel corridors in Somerville’s street network. Summary 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.