Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: Conduct of Research Report (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.

APPENDIX B: AGENCY PEER EXCHANGE MEETING NOTES BLENDED AGENCY PEER EXCHANGE MINUTES Agency Participants Paul Benton, City of Charlotte DeWayne Carver, Florida DOT Dongho Chang, City of Seattle Megan Johnson, City of Sacramento Sergio Ruiz, Caltrans Dean Samuelson, Caltrans Fay Simer, Minnesota DOT Carl Sundstrom, New York City Project Team Participants NCHRP Project Panel • Dianne Schwager, Senior Program Officer • Al Beatty, DVRPC • Antonette Clark, Caltrans • Peter Ohlms, VDOT • Jeremy Fletcher, FDOT Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Project lead) • Conor Semler, Principal Investigator • Mary Raulerson • Meredyth Sanders Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University (ITRE) • Steve Bert Structured Introductions Participants briefly introduced themselves, their agency, and their role within their agency. • Paul Benton serves as an engineering project manager for the City of Charlotte. He is one of three engineers who lead bicycle and pedestrian projects. • DeWayne Carver serves as the State Complete Streets Program Manager in the Central Roadway Design Office for Florida DOT. • Dongho Chang is the City Traffic Engineer for the City of Seattle. He is accountable for all changes to roadway cross sections within the city. • Megan Johnson serves as a Senior Engineer in the Public Works department for the City of Sacramento. She works with planners to transform their visions into something implementable and engineerable. She is also the go-to for City road diet projects. • Sergio Ruiz works within Caltrans’ Bay Area District as a Complete Streets Coordinator. He is the de facto point of contact for road diet projects. • Dean Samuelson is a Traffic Safety Engineer for Caltrans. • Fay Simer works in the Minnesota DOT Metro District, serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul region. She is a key liaison between MnDOT and its City, County, and Community partners, specifically for 130 

four highways located in St. Paul. Her role involves bringing agency and community needs forward to MnDOT and serving as project manager for projects on those highways. • Carl Sundstrom serves as an Engineer in the Street Improvement Programs Group for New York City DOT. His group oversees the bicycle, pedestrian, and public space programs as well as the implementation of all other street improvement projects. These include projects done with temporary materials (e.g., road diets, school safety projects). Part 1: Street Decision Making Questions 1. Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation? Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Who/which departments typically lead this? Which departments are required to approve roadway reallocations? 2. When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation opportunities identified? 3. How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? For example, what cross-sectional reallocation guidance or policies are consulted to inform decisions? 4. How do decision-making processes consider equity? How do you include communities of color and low-income people in the decision-making process? 5. What barriers or obstacles have you experienced that limit or prevent cross-sectional reallocation? 6. From what peer agencies do you learn or seek advice for cross-sectional reallocation best practices or examples? Responses Paul Benton: The City of Charlotte has conducted 40 street conversions since 2005. They have traditionally focused on low-hanging fruit and are starting to be more proactive about identifying opportunities for reallocation through both resurfacing and capital improvements. Resurfacing occurs on a 1-5-year horizon, and opportunities for capital improvements have historically been limited. This is changing, since the bicycle and pedestrian program is starting to receive dedicated funding that will allow City staff to be more proactive about expanding the city’s bicycle network. The City uses FHWA thresholds (e.g., AADT thresholds) and network-based analyses to identify candidate locations for street conversions. Paul’s group is increasing consideration of equity by working more closely with the City’s transit agency to understand where the City’s transit-dependent populations live. The program is also open to reconversion opportunities on streets where past street conversions are due for new resurfacing. An example of a reconversion opportunity involves implementing transit lanes in place of door zone bike lanes. The City looks to peer agencies, such as Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, DC for insights on cross-sectional reallocation. DeWayne Carver: FDOT actively considers roadway reallocation. The agency process for lane repurposing is addressed in the agency design manual in a chapter on lane repurposing. FDOT generally relies on local government coming forward with reallocation ideas that they want to implement. In the rare cases where FDOT recommends a reallocation, it is usually for safety reasons. Operations, design, and planning departments at both the District and Central Office level must approve reallocations. Then, the Chief 131 

Engineer has to sign off on the project. FDOT tracks cross-sectional reallocations because they directly affect lane miles in the statewide roadway network. FDOT prefers to identify reallocation opportunities during the planning stage of projects. FDOT has a 3-year window for resurfacing projects and prefers to plan for reallocation as part of resurfacing beforehand. Decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities are made by identifying where reallocation opportunities are feasible and conferring with local agencies to see if and how they would like to repurpose the space. FDOT does not have existing guidance about considering equity as part of decision-making processes. There may be planners incorporating equity into decisions at the District level. DeWayne explained that most cross-sectional reallocation projects that he sees are well supported and achievable by the time they make it to his office. Some barriers can include local opposition to an FDOT- sponsored project and internal opposition by FDOT staff in different District offices. FDOT looks to research from FHWA and NCHRP research out of TRB for insights on cross-sectional reallocation. They also look to peer partner agencies within AASHTO. Dongho Chang: City staff consider roadway reallocation on every project. Reallocation efforts are scoped by the Project Development Division, and scoping recommendations must be approved by the Transportation Operations Division. Reallocation projects also incorporate input from Maintenance and Fire to make sure that critical safety issues are identified up front. A Project Definition Steering Committee helps shape the project to 10% design. The City thinks of scoped projects as fluid/changeable to ensure that they are implementable. For example, if the City finds that the scope needs to be revised based on site-specific conditions, the City process is flexible enough to allow for that change. City staff use Seattle’s modal plans (i.e., bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and freight) to set priorities. If the different modal plans have conflicting priorities, City staff look to the Complete Streets Steering Committee to provide direction on resolving modal conflicts. The City’s approach to equity is reflected in how staff structure the modal plans and in staff approaches to prioritization for City programs. For example, the City’s school safety projects include a racial equity analysis to identify and prioritize areas with the highest need. Common barriers to reallocation include modal priorities (e.g., transit, bike, curbside) competing for limited space, limiting guidelines, and public and political opposition. City staff look to NACTO cities, like Vancouver, British Columbia; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and New York, New York for insights on cross-sectional reallocation. Megan Johnson: City of Sacramento staff include cross-sectional reallocation as one of the primary countermeasures that is considered for corridors with safety and mobility concerns. The Transportation Planning Division prioritizes safety and mobility projects through data and community input. The Planning Division identifies the priority corridors and approved countermeasures. Where possible, the Planning Division partners with the Maintenance Division to identify and get ahead of planned resurfacing projects. The Engineering/Traffic group has to approve the traffic analysis for any road diet project. Maintenance provides input on project elements that they can and cannot maintain while the Solid Waste Division provides input on how any project will influence trash/recycling pick-up. 132 

Most reallocation projects are identified during the planning and project initiation phase, with the occasional reallocation project identified during design. City staff use established guidance and policies to make decisions about cross-sectional reallocation. Staff try to avoid a one-size-fits-all solution and instead focus on the unique uses of each street and the adjacent network. They seek to understand the different modes that use or need to use each street, whether those modes are accommodated on adjacent facilities, and the demographic characteristics of people using each street. City staff reference NACTO guidebooks, Caltrans standards, and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide to inform decisions. City staff start incorporating equity into the decision-making process during the planning process and continue to incorporate equity throughout project development. Staff focus on context-appropriate outreach for each community. They hire consultants who are experienced in each community to identify resources and partners and to conduct outreach at key community destinations so that people can feel more comfortable sharing their voice. City staff conduct language-specific outreach and try to host family- friendly outreach events (e.g., provide food, childcare, children’s activities). Barriers to cross-sectional reallocation include available funding and balancing multimodal priorities with managing traffic congestion. Reallocation projects have been easier to implement in the urban core of Sacramento where there is a supporting grid system for traffic to shift to. They become more challenging in suburban areas where arterials are located at 1-mile spacing. Reallocating space from on-street parking to another mode can result in community pushback. The lack of strong Federal or State guidance about minimum travel lane widths makes City traffic engineers uncomfortable about approving reallocation projects that rely on narrowing travel lane widths to accommodate other modes. Streets that include railway crossings are also challenging for the City to redesign. City staff look to regional partner cities, like San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland for insights on cross- sectional reallocation. Sergio Ruiz: Caltrans districts do not have a programmatic or formal approach to cross-sectional reallocation. Successful reallocation projects require a champion, either within the Caltrans district or within a local partner agency. Cross-sectional reallocation projects on state roads need to be approved by a project development team made of Highway Operations, Traffic Safety, and Geometric Design staff. Ideally, reallocation projects are identified project at project initiation or during the scoping phase. Reallocation projects become more challenging to implement midway through a project. Caltrans districts identify local priorities through modal plans and local planning documents to identify local priorities. District staff rely on Caltrans and FHWA guidance to inform decisions. Caltrans does not have a formalized process for considering equity in decision-making processes. District staff rely on local agencies and community partner groups to help make connections with disadvantaged communities during projects. Barriers to cross-sectional reallocation include limited flexibility or knowledge about roadway design and operations within the department as well as politics. District staff look to local partners who have led successful cross-sectional reallocation projects for lessons learned and insights on cross-sectional reallocation. 133 

Fay Simer: Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) staff generally start planning projects 6 years in advance. Ideally, reallocation projects would come up during the scoping phase, but they are typically raised by locals. This is challenging, because it is tough to get locals excited about a project 6 years in advance. Successful reallocation projects need local support and a champion within MnDOT. Barriers to reallocation include agency processes and an overall lack of funding. MnDOT prioritizes the National Highway System (NHS), so non-NHS routes begin with a funding disadvantage. These routes are also the locations where reallocation is likely to be helpful. The State program is primarily driven by pavement preservation, so for now, agency staff uses repaving as an opportunity to implement reallocation projects. Carl Sundstrom: Virtually all of NYCDOT projects are reallocation projects. Reallocation opportunities are identified through different City plans (e.g., bike plan, bus plan). Other corridors are prioritized as Vision Zero Safety corridors based on historical safety and crash data. Reallocation projects typically require more detailed analysis prior to implementation. They are generally identified during the scoping process and take approximately 2 years to achieve. City staff within Planning Units lead planning for reallocation projects with support from the Traffic Analysis Group. After planning, Geometric Design and Traffic Signals Units finalize the design with input from FDNY and the Parking and Freight Group. Decision-making processes do consider equity, but COVID has highlighted historical inequities and shown that City staff can improve the ways that they consider equity. Currently, the City relies on a strong street ambassador team that helps staff understand community concerns in underserved neighborhoods. A key barrier involves prioritizing different users, particularly transit riders and bicyclists. City staff are working on a more cohesive vision for planning bicycle and transit networks in the city. They have gone through a process of mapping pedestrian generators to understand baseline requirements for different street types in regard to pedestrian accommodations. Auto-oriented metrics (e.g., level-of-service) often have greater weight in the decision-making process to the detriment of other modes. City staff have to closely consider the effects of reallocation on corridors with close intersection spacing to avoid intersection blockage. It would be helpful to have more accurate traffic modeling and improved quantitative models to estimate the after-condition of a street following cross-sectional reallocation. NYCDOT staff, particularly those in more cautious departments (e.g., traffic operations and signals), rely on insights from NACTO and FHWA for guidance on reallocation projects. Discussion Mary asked participants to share how they address competing transit and bicycle needs within their roadway networks. Dongho Chang: Seattle DOT staff prioritize transit first, then pedestrians, then bicyclists. City staff have prioritized transit because transit corridors typically serve more people, and it is City policy to encourage mode shift to transit from single occupancy vehicles. Carl Sundstrom: NYC DOT has the advantage of wider street cross-sections, which enable City staff to accommodate all modes (e.g., bus lane on one side of the street, bike lane on the other side of the street). On streets where curbside access is important, peak hour bus lanes have been implemented to allow private or commercial vehicles to access the curb during off-peak hours. City staff are also 134 

experimenting with busways – streets where private automobiles are not allowed. The busways approach frees up space to provide more bicycle facilities. Conor asked participants to share the “line in the sand” that can prohibit agency staff from moving forward on a potential reallocation project. Paul Benton: Paul explained that projected queueing and traffic impacts to upstream intersections typically prevent reallocation projects from moving forward. The City does not have a strict metric or policy that dictates staff decisions one way or another. The key factors in most decisions around reallocation include impacts to traffic operations and political will. DeWayne Carver: Political will is a key factor in decisions around cross-sectional reallocation. Megan Johnson: Political will and impacts to traffic operations both influence decisions around reallocation. While City staff and leadership have a high tolerance for high LOS intersections, they closely examine how changes to one intersection can affect the broader corridor and surrounding network. Part 2: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Successes and Challenges Questions Each person answered the following questions as they shared their experience on two projects—one that was built/successful and one that was not completed. Participants were asked to answer all questions for the first example project, then answer all questions for the second example project. 1. What street uses were considered? 2. Did the project benefit or would it have benefited underserved communities? 3. What performance measures were/are being used? Did you have goals associated with performance measures? 4. What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? 5. What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 7. What do you think was the key to success or reason that the project did not succeed? Responses Paul Benton: Paul presented the Plaza and Parkwood Street conversions as examples of reallocation projects with different outcomes. Both street conversion projects sought to reallocate travel lanes to separated bicycle lanes. The impetus for both projects was related to reducing automobile speeds, not adding to the bicycle network. Specifically, a community-led petition signed by over 500 citizens asked the City to investigate road diets to slow down traffic. Part of the Plaza Street conversion project moved forward, and all of the Parkwood Street conversion project moved forward. The City looked at AADT and used SYNCHRO and VISSIM analyses to assess travel time changes associated with the potential conversions. For Plaza Street, the operational analysis showed significant queuing along all segments of a key intersection so that section of Plaza Street was not converted. The City has not been able to conduct a thorough after study due to COVID impacts to travel patterns but has observed increases in bicycle travel along both corridors. 135 

DeWayne Carver: DeWayne presented the SR A1A reallocation project in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, as a successful example of cross-sectional reallocation project. The project reallocated travel lanes to a landscaped median and wide sidewalks. Hurricane Sandy catalyzed the project by wiping out large portions of the roadway and created an opportunity to completely rebuild the road. The City of Ft. Lauderdale expressed a strong preference to rebuild SR A1A via a road diet. The rebuilt road maintained two travel lanes, on-street parking in some places, and a striped bike lane. It added a wide sidewalk that also serves as a popular path for tourists on bikes and a landscaped median with trees. Although the project did not meet design criteria (e.g., narrow travel lanes, narrow median), FDOT engineers were willing to allow some variations to achieve the finished product. Dongho Chang: Dongho presented the Rainier Avenue reallocation project in Seattle, Washington, as a successful example of a reallocation project. The corridor connects suburban neighborhoods with the City Center, is the main street for a range of different land uses and generators, and is served by trolley buses. High concentrations of communities of color and zero car households are located along the corridor. The impetus for the project involved community concerns related to frequent crashes on the corridor. These concerns were amplified when a run-off-the-road crash resulted in a vehicle entering into a corridor business. City staff reviewed historic crash data along the corridor and compared it to similar arterials in the city. The data showed that crashes had increased year after year. City staff also engaged the community and found that more affluent people were concerned that a road diet would increase cut- through traffic in their neighborhoods, while less affluent people supported a road diet to improve access to transit and safe walking along and across the corridor. City staff also conducted SYNCHRO and VISSIM analyses to understand how travel times could improve along the corridor for both transit riders and motorists. Transit ridership and AADT data showed more people taking the bus than commuting on the corridor via single occupancy vehicles. The analysis resulted in an overnight conversion of the corridor to a TWLTL configuration with a lowered speed limit and tactical curb bulbouts. An after analysis showed reductions in speed and collisions, improvements in transit travel times, and positive community feedback. Corridor businesses also responded by implementing streeteries and parklets in spaces created by the bulbouts. Dongho also presented a reallocation on 35th Avenue NE as an unsuccessful example of a reallocation project. This project originally proposed replacing on-street parking with bicycle lanes and was rejected by community members. Megan Johnson: Megan shared the Downtown Bikeways project in Sacramento, California, as a successful example of a reallocation project. The project reallocated travel lanes to protected and parking-protected bikeways along three corridors in the city core. The project was catalyzed by community concerns about bicyclist discomfort on the downtown grid of streets. It reallocated a full vehicle travel lane on three-lane, one-way streets to accommodate parking-protected bike lanes. City staff conducted traffic analyses to understand how the lane reduction would influence traffic congestion downtown and considered transit, sweeping, loading, and on-street parking in the decision-making process. An after analysis showed an increase in biking (Uber reported that bike share in Sacramento eclipsed car share), and City staff received positive community feedback from people who feel more comfortable biking downtown. City staff are currently working with local businesses to evaluate the economic impacts of the bikeways. The success of the project has led City staff to explore expanding bikeways within the Central City. The new expansion will extend into more residential areas, which can lead to unique implementation challenges (e.g., frequent curbside garbage pick-ups, driveways, etc.). 136 

Megan also presented a challenge related to implementing reallocations with limited funding. The City is working with a disadvantaged community to implement a lane reduction and add bikeways. Additionally, the community has expressed a strong desire for increased landscaping and trees. The City cannot afford both the lane reduction and landscaping and has made the decision to prioritize the lane reduction. Because of budget limitations, the project may not be viewed positively by the community. Sergio Ruiz: Sergio presented both unsuccessful and successful examples of reallocation projects. Caltrans initially pursued the unsuccessful project (SR 12 within the City of Sonoma) because it had been identified in a Caltrans planning document. The project did not have a local champion within the City, so the project did not receive the community support to move forward. Sergio shared a reallocation project on SR 61 in the City of Alameda, California, as a successful example of a reallocation project. The project was catalyzed in part by pre-existing City planning efforts and an upcoming Caltrans repaving project on the corridor. The project involved repurposing a travel lane to accommodate bike lanes. Caltrans staff considered safety, vehicle queueing, vehicle delay, and other operational impacts as key metrics when evaluating the potential reallocation. Staff also considered multimodal access and connectivity as transportation outcomes when evaluating the potential reallocation. The project was implemented through the repaving process and was successful due to synergy and collaboration between the Caltrans and City staff. It has contributed to the political will to extend the original repurposing farther along the corridor. Fay Simer: Fay presented a lane reallocation on the St. Paul High Bridge as a successful example of reallocation. The project was catalyzed by an upcoming repaving project. MnDOT staff initiated a conversation with the St. Paul community to identify and prioritize reallocation opportunities. MnDOT staff used a hands-on cross section design activity with community members to allow them to design their ideal bridge. The hands-on activity helped community members understand the trade-offs and constraints associated with reallocating limited space (e.g., bridge space) to different modes. The exercise highlighted a community desire for wider walking facilities. The ultimate project reallocated shoulder space to wider sidewalks while striping standard bike lanes and maintaining existing travel lanes. Carl Sundstrom: Carl presented the City staff’s work developing a network of crosstown protected bicycle lanes as an example of success achieved through many failures. The impetus for the project involved providing safe east-west bicycle connections for people traveling in Manhattan. A key challenge included maintaining adequate space for cars to pull over to make room for emergency vehicles. After analysis showed increases in bike ridership and mode shift between people traveling by bike and car (particularly on corridors that included a conversion from vehicle lane to protected bike lane). After analysis also showed no significant changes in vehicle travel times (gleaned from City taxi data). City staff also conducted a double-parking video analysis to understand the effects of the crosstown reallocations on freight, TNC, and emergency vehicles. Part 3: Emerging Topic: Equity Discussion Questions 1. Does your agency currently use any processes or decision-making tools to connect individual projects to a larger transportation vision related to increasing transportation equity or redressing past harms? If so, please describe. 137 

2. If not, is your agency working on/developing processes or decision-making tools to use individual projects in this holistic/reparative way? What types of resources would be helpful for you/your agency to make progress in this area? Responses Megan Johnson: The City of Sacramento’s Bike Master Plan and upcoming planning studies are going to address equity. City staff go through a rigorous public process in addition to an in-depth equity analysis on projects. The equity analysis looks at poverty levels, environmental issues, auto ownership, collision data, and existing bike infrastructure to identify regions in the city that have been left behind. These regions are then prioritized for bike investments. The City is currently developing a Transportation Master Plan that will make recommendations based on a similar process. Dongho Chang: Staff at the City of Seattle are continually learning that some of the tools they have used in the past to accomplish community engagement and address racial equity may actually further inequity. For example, the pivot to creating open streets during COVID ended up serving more affluent residents of the city instead of the essential workers who still needed to take transit or drive through those areas. City staff are learning the importance of gathering community feedback in addition to using the equity toolkit from the City bike plan. Listening to the community throughout the project life is critical. REGIONAL AND SUBURBAN AGENCY PEER EXCHANGE MINUTES Agency Participants David Anspacher, Montgomery County, MD Wesley Edwards, Massachusetts Bay Area Transportation Authority George Fallat, Mercer County, NJ Matthew Lawson, Mercer County, NJ Jay Monty, City of Everett, MA Sarah Moran, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Jason Pieper, Hennepin County, MN Project Team Participants NCHRP Project Panel • Celeste Gilman, WSDOT • Jeremy Fletcher, FDOT Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Project lead) • Conor Semler, Principal Investigator • Mary Raulerson • Meredyth Sanders Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University (ITRE) • Sarah Searcy Structured Introductions Participants briefly introduced themselves, their agency, and their role within their agency. • David Anspacher supervises the Multimodal Transportation Planning Group for Montgomery County, Maryland. 138 

• Wesley Edwards serves as the Assistant General Manager of Service Development for MBTA. He oversees the planning side of the house, focusing on transit service and operations. Wesley’s work includes external engagement with cities, municipalities, and the State to determine how to improve transit service along key streets. It also includes discussion and analysis related to curbside, streets, and signals, which all affect MBTA bus operations. • George Fallat is the County Engineer for Mercer County, New Jersey. He works closely with Matthew Lawson. • Matthew Lawson is the main Transportation Planner for Mercer County, New Jersey. • Jay Monty oversees all transit improvements, bike improvements, and pedestrian improvements in the City of Everett, Massachusetts. • Sarah Moran oversees the Office of Corridor Planning for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. • Jason Pieper works in the Transportation Planning Group for Hennepin County, Minnesota. He is involved in the development of capital improvement program projects and with typing biking, walking, and ADA plans to upcoming projects. Part 1: Street Decision Making Questions 1. Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation? Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Who/which departments typically lead this? Which departments are required to approve roadway reallocations? 2. When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation opportunities identified? 3. How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? For example, what cross-sectional reallocation guidance or policies are consulted to inform decisions? 4. How do decision-making processes consider equity? How do you include communities of color and low-income people in the decision-making process? 5. What barriers or obstacles have you experienced that limit or prevent cross-sectional reallocation? 6. From what peer agencies do you learn or seek advice for cross-sectional reallocation best practices or examples? Responses David Anspacher: The Planning Department is responsible for developing master plans and reviewing and/approving development projects. Department staff have identified reallocation opportunities through different County Master Plans that are approved by the County Council, setting broad policy and expectations for what projects the Montgomery County DOT will implement. They are beginning to be implemented now. Different reallocations considered in the Master Plan include reallocating traffic lanes for bus rapid transit and reallocating space for bikeways. Reallocation of roadway space along any roads controlled by the State Highway Administration must be reviewed and approved by State officials. Wesley Edwards: MBTA’s Service Development group has identified opportunities for reallocation through coordination CTPS (local MPO) to assess and identify existing MBTA routes with high ridership and delays. These priority locations are used to understand where bus priority measures will have the most benefit. The regional analysis to identify priority locations is used to catalyze conversations with cities and municipalities about the existing allocation of roadway space, modes that use that limited space, and how to rethink design in incorporating bus priority measures. MBTA has funding to implement bus priority treatments through a general engineering contract, ranging from implementing bus lanes to 139 

signal priority to queue jumps. MBTA relies on local expertise and supports local reallocation with funding and consultants. MBTA explores and implements reallocation projects across 60 jurisdictions and 7 core cities. The project development process differs by jurisdiction. In some communities, “the pilot is the process,” while other communities require a much more thorough public process up front before implementing the facility. Matthew Lawson and George Fallat: Mercer County staff take an opportunistic approach to roadway reallocation, which has ramped up over the past few years. Reallocation is usually accomplished through repaving, particularly through four- to three-lane road diets. The County also has a Complete Streets Policy stating that any resurfacing projects must seek to incorporate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit where feasible. The County Engineering Department is the ultimate decision maker with regard to changing County roadways. The County is starting to pursue larger and more difficult reallocation projects and has developed a new Bicycle Master Plan that is informing programming future projects for multimodal reallocation. Jay Monty: The City of Everett regularly considers reallocation. City staff use pilot projects to implement and finalize reallocation projects that convert travel and parking lanes to peak hour bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian facilities. Some examples include implementing a raised cycle track on one of the City’s busiest corridors, reallocating a portion of a State Highway for a two-way bike facility, and retrofitting a rotary to accommodate transit priority. Everett is a small city, so Jay tries to run an integrated policy, planning, and engineering shop where he can oversee a project from policy to concept to engineering. Jay can directly request approval from the mayor before implementing reallocation. Staff use the pilot approach to quickly gauge project successes and challenges. The pilot approach is also preferred due to limited resources/funding since it allows City staff to deliver benefits more quickly to more people. Multimodal reallocation opportunities are identified at different points in the project development process. Reallocation projects have been spurred by conversations with MBTA, following MassDOT funded studies, as part of the approval process for private development and even through site walks down community streets. Sarah Moran: As a regional entity, DVRPC is not involved in implementation but does consider reallocation on both a project and program basis. Member counties can ask DVRPC staff to look at specific areas and come up with multimodal concepts or plans that consider reallocation. DVRPC staff also look for opportunities to implement bike facility improvements as part of the resurfacing program. The final decision about whether to proceed with a reallocation is made by whoever owns the roadway (e.g., City of Philadelphia, Mercer County). Jason Pieper: County staff primarily identify reallocation opportunities through asset management and resurfacing. Reallocation projects occur as part of 20%-25% of all resurfacing projects. The most common reallocation involves converting a four-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane roadway. Staff consider reallocation as part of all capital projects. The County uses its complete streets policy to promote choices in transportation and increase safety for all users. Planning Group staff work with partners in the Traffic Operations and Design Groups to guide and influence the reallocation process. 140 

Part 2: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Successes and Challenges Questions Each person answered the following questions as they shared their experience on two projects—one that was built/successful and one that was not completed. Participants were asked to answer all questions for the first example project, then answer all questions for the second example project. 1. What street uses were considered? 2. Did the project benefit or would it have benefited underserved communities? 3. What performance measures were/are being used? Did you have goals associated with performance measures? 4. What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? 5. What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 7. What do you think was the key to success or reason that the project did not succeed? Responses David Anspacher: David presented a successful example of reallocation in Downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, near the Silver Spring Metro Station and Bus Station. The impetus for the project involved increasing transit access and priority through the implementation of bus only lanes. The County recently reallocated space along two corridors with three lanes and wide medians to separated bike lanes and a bus only lane with floating bus stops. Transportation outcomes measured by the County include level of service and non-motorized safety and comfort. County staff and leadership were willing to accept reduced level of service for motor vehicles in exchange for improved safety and comfort for bicyclists. The visually impaired community would say that their comfort has decreased because they have to cross a bike lane. The County has not yet measured non-transportation outcomes. Wesley Edwards: Wesley presented a successful example of a reallocation on Brighton Avenue in Boston, Massachusetts. Brighton Avenue is located along an all day, high frequency transit route that serves colleges and universities connecting to Kenmore Station. The project was catalyzed by the City of Boston’s desire to further prioritize transit along the corridor. The reallocation involved converting “super” sharrows and vehicle travel lanes to shared bus/bike lanes. The travel lane was removed instead of on- street parking due to push-back from local businesses. The lane conversion was projected to reduce level of service while increasing the number of people moving along the corridor, and City staff accepted the tradeoff. The bus/bike lane was implemented without supporting queue jumps or changes to signal timing, which made the change easier to analyze and design. After analysis shows that traffic on the corridor has been reduced by 12% -15%, but the analysis could not clearly identify if the traffic had shifted to different times of day or a different mode. The after analysis is also investigating the increased percentage of people moving via transit, passenger hours saved via bike priority, and changes in bike activity on the corridor. A survey of bus riders and cyclists revealed overwhelming support from cyclists. Matthew Lawson: Matthew explained how the County’s Complete Streets Design Guide is used to catalyze successful reallocation projects in the county. The Complete Streets Design Guide gives municipalities guidance about what types of bike facilities are appropriate on a given road based on its speed and volume. County staff are also beginning to implement recommendations of its Bicycle Master Plan, which identified streets that would be appropriate for bike improvements. The plan has played a key role in informing decisions about what projects to pursue. It includes a comprehensive map of the county 141 

street network, showing where different reallocation projects are appropriate, what types of facilities could be implemented through a reallocation project, and how much each project would cost. The map was informed by a GIS-based network analysis and the bike facility design table from the Complete Streets Design Guide. Matthew also presented a successful example of a reallocation project on Ewingville Road. The reallocation was identified in the Bicycle Plan and achieved through a restriping to reduce lanes and add a bikeable shoulder. An intersection on the corridor, Ewingville Road and Eggert Crossing Road, was redesigned as part of a repaving program. The project connects to the County’s first major bike route and will increase access between disadvantaged populations living in Trenton, New Jersey, and more pleasantly bikeable suburban locations. Jay Monty: Jay presented a pilot project on Broadway and School Street in Everett, Massachusetts, as a successful example of reallocation. The project was identified following a MassDOT study that showed 50% mode share for buses during the AM peak period. The corridor serves an Environmental Justice Community, with lots of community members using local bus service to commute into Boston or Cambridge. City staff reallocated a travel lane and parking lane to an AM peak hour bus/bike lane as part of a pilot project. The pilot was made permanent after performing successfully for several months. Transportation outcomes included few impacts on parking (underutilized during the AM peak), improved traffic flow (no conflicts related to buses turning into and out of the travel lane), a 30% reduction in motor vehicle travel, a 5% increase in transit ridership, and increased biking in the shared bus/bike lane. Jay emphasized that temporal reallocations, like peak hour bus only lanes, can be more expensive because they require enforcement (e.g., dedicated staff to drive the corridor). Sarah Moran: Sarah explained that since DVRPC has no ownership of roads, most reallocation projects conducted by the agency are planning stage projects that are then transferred to localities. She presented a successful example of a reallocation plan that is moving towards implementation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. City staff asked DVRPC to look into options to make Race Street in central Philadelphia more multimodal and people oriented. Race Street is a four-lane, one-way street with parking on both sides of the road. It connects Chinatown and the Central City. DVRPC tested a range of reallocation options and suggested replacing a travel lane with a parking-protected bike lane and adding curb bump outs to shorten pedestrian crossings and calm traffic. A capacity and delay analysis found that the reallocation would have a negligible effect on traffic performance, even during peak hours. Jason Pieper: Jason shared a reallocation project on Washington Avenue in Downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, as a successful example of reallocation. The project was catalyzed by a County desire to repurpose space for automobile convenience features (e.g., channelized right-turn islands) for people walking and biking. County staff used a hands-on public engagement process to encourage residents to create their own cross sections of the street to understand trade-offs. The project ultimately reduced the six-lane cross section to a four-lane cross section with a protected bikeway. While successful, the County learned key lessons about intersection design through the project, which included a complex intersection that needed to accommodate motorists, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The intersection features dual left-turn lanes, and large vehicles are unable to stay within the inside left-turn lane while turning onto Washington Avenue. County staff also experimented with new signal timing technology while implementing a leading bike interval and may have overengineered the signal design. County staff conducted a before/after study and developed an illustrative final report to communicate the multimodal benefits of the reallocation project to decision makers and the public. The project resulted in some traffic diversion, reduced crashes, reduced speeds, reduced travel times, and increased bike and pedestrian 142 

safety and comfort. Vehicle delay stayed about the same, and some traffic diversion was documented following the project. Discussion Mary asked the peer exchange participants what common barriers or obstacles they had experienced to limit or prevent cross-sectional reallocation. David Anspacher explained that road ownership presents a common barrier. County staff are limited in what they can accomplish on state-owned roads within the county because the State Highway Administration is less progressive than the County when it comes to reallocation. Traffic operations can be a barrier to advancing reallocation projects. Costs and limitations related to relocating utilities and trees present a big barrier to County staff. They do not want to tear down trees in the county, but tree placement can prohibit certain projects from moving forward. Wesley Edwards refuted the idea that having more right-of-way makes reallocation easier. Narrower cross sections typically have a higher percent transit mode share, which is a strong argument for reallocating travel or parking lanes to bus only lanes. Wesley suggested that bike-focused reallocations are easier to justify on wider roadways, while transit-focused reallocations are easier to justify on narrower roadways. Jason Pieper noted that non-transportation elements (e.g., landscaping) of cross-sectional reallocation can be difficult for transportation engineers and planners to successfully implement. Matthew Lawson and George Fallat noted that local jurisdictions can either create or eliminate barriers to cross-sectional reallocation. Politics in different towns can be the strongest factor in the success or failure of a proposed reallocation project. Similarly, some communities do not have the resources or tax revenue to make changes on their streets. County staff must be careful and thoughtful about how they distribute resources for reallocation projects within their different towns and communities. Collaboration between state, regional, and local entities is essential for successful cross-sectional reallocation. Part 3: Emerging Topic: Equity Discussion Questions 1. Does your agency currently use any processes or decision-making tools to connect individual projects to a larger transportation vision related to increasing transportation equity or redressing past harms? If so, please describe. 2. If not, is your agency working on/developing processes or decision-making tools to use individual projects in this holistic/reparative way? What types of resources would be helpful for you/your agency to make progress in this area? Responses David Anspacher: Montgomery recently passed a law stipulating that County staff must include equity considerations when developing master plans. County staff developed a bike level of traffic stress analysis and pedestrian comfort analysis for the County, which they compare to census data to see how well low- income and minority areas are served by low-stress biking and comfortable walking in relation to the rest of the county. They have also begun incorporating equity data into TDM model outputs. 143 

Matthew Lawson: Staff are attentive to equity, and they are supported by DVRPC staff that have worked to include equity in the Transportation Improvement Program and the scoring of projects. Mercer County staff are attentive to those needs, the geography of the county, and where they are making investments. George Fallat added that Mercer County’s Complete Streets Program requires the consideration of equity. He explained that it would be helpful to have access to research that quantifies the non- transportation outcomes of cross-sectional reallocation. Jay Monty noted that the City’s goal to improve transit, bicycling, and pedestrian access addresses equity by benefiting community members that do not have access to a motor vehicle. Jay also sits on the board of the Boston Region MPO, which applies an equity lens to regional projects. The MPO is continually looking for opportunities to increase equity in the region. They have a new focus on understanding if and how projects will actually benefit environmental justice communities, not just whether projects will be located within environmental justice communities. Sarah Moran: DVRPC maps indicators of potential disadvantage to help score projects for inclusion in the regions TIP. DVRPC also uses a low-stress connectivity analysis to understand if and how PennDOT resurfacing projects could connect environmental justice communities by implementing bike facilities. Jason Pieper: Hennepin County staff have a priority goal to reduce disparities within their communities. They incorporate this consideration of equity in the project selection process. A data-driven approach is used to compare roadway condition, safety data, and disparities data to identify and prioritize projects for resurfacing and reallocation. County staff remain mindful of disparities during the public engagement process and focus on being more creative in how they engage with communities (e.g., smaller, tailored meetings at key community destinations instead of larger open houses). CITIES AND TOWNS AGENCY PEER EXCHANGE MINUTES Agency Participants Mike Amsden, Milwaukee, WI Joseph Barr, Cambridge, MA Stephen Benson, Tampa, FL Tim Fremaux, Los Angeles, CA Mike Goodno, Washington, DC Jason Patton, Oakland, CA Project Team Participants NCHRP Project Panel • Al Beatty, DVRPC • April Eke, Walter P. Moore • Celeste Gilman, WSDOT • Jeremy Fletcher, FDOT Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Project lead) 144 

• Conor Semler, Principal Investigator • Mary Raulerson • Meredyth Sanders Mobycon • Mary Elbech Structured Introductions Participants briefly introduced themselves, their agency, and their role within their agency. • Mike Amsden is the Multimodal Transportation Manager for the Milwaukee Department of Public Works. Milwaukee DPW is responsible for project development for all street projects, including shared mobility, bike, pedestrian, design, and planning. Department staff report directly to the City Commissioner and are in the early stages of a reorganization. • Joe Barr is the Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Transportation responsibilities are divided into community development, planning, and operations (pavement marking signs). The Department of Public Works is responsible for roadway construction and repaving. (It is a complex division of labor, but the departments have a good working relationship.) • Stephen Benson works for the City of Tampa’s Mobility Department with transportation planning and safety. He also has past experience working for FDOT District 7, with a focus on safety projects and local government programs. • Tim Fremaux is a Senor Transportation Engineer for the City of Los Angeles DOT. • Mike Goodno is a Planner for the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). He works in the Active Transportation branch, which focuses on improving biking and walking conditions, Safe Routes to School, bikeshare, and the TDM program. • Jason Patton Jason supervises the Pedestrian/Bicycle Section in the Oakland Department of Transportation as a Senior Transportation Planner at the Bureau of Great Streets. He has worked in a similar section and served a similar role since 2001. Part 1: Street Decision Making Questions 1. Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation? Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Who/which departments typically lead this? Which departments are required to approve roadway reallocations? 2. When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation opportunities identified? 3. How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? For example, what cross-sectional reallocation guidance or policies are consulted to inform decisions? 4. How do decision-making processes consider equity? How do you include communities of color and low-income people in the decision-making process? 5. What barriers or obstacles have you experienced that limit or prevent cross-sectional reallocation? 6. From what peer agencies do you learn or seek advice for cross-sectional reallocation best practices or examples? Responses Mike Amsden: Department staff consider reallocation but have not developed a systemic approach to it. This is because the City has many overbuilt streets with very little or decreasing traffic volumes and because the City is in the midst of a serious reckless driving epidemic. There has been a lot of community 145 

and political demand to modify streets to reduce speeding, and Department staff have been focused on responding to these requests. Department staff are currently conducting many reconstruction projects to move curbs and calm streets. Previously, street space was reallocated with any network-based analysis. Staff are working on including more thoughtful decision making in scoping meetings and as they prepare funding requests to the State DOT (for CMAC and HSIP funds). Staff have achieved road diet projects through pavement projects, local funding, and grant funding. The current approach to reallocation is opportunistic, not systemic. Department staff are developing pedestrian and bicycle plans and policies that could help identify multimodal reallocation opportunities. The City also has a Reckless Driving Task Force that makes recommendations for reallocation. Department staff are also focused on working with the community to get input on which users or modes should be better accommodated as part of reallocation projects as well as what reclaimed space should look like (e.g., placemaking, green infrastructure). Joe Barr: Transportation responsibilities in the City are divided among the Community Planning Division, Parking and Transportation Division, and Department of Public Works. The Parking and Transportation Division focuses on operations, pavement markings, and signage while, the Department of Public Works is responsible for roadway construction and repaving. The different departments collaborate closely to implement reallocation and other projects on City streets. City staff take a systemic approach to reallocation projects. Projects are planned for in the Five-Year Capital Program. Projects are traditionally prioritized by roadway condition, accessibility, safety, and underground infrastructure. The City finished the Boston Harbor Clean-up Program, which was driving the capital program for a long time, opening capacity for adopting new approaches, like quick-build implementations. Over the last few years, City staff have adopted a quick-build approach for streets where the main project focus involves restriping and reallocating space without moving the curb. To some extent, decision making about these projects is based on the priorities laid out in the City Bike and Transit plans. The Parking and Transportation Division makes the call on whether to pursue reallocation projects through restriping, although division staff incorporate input from other divisions and stakeholders. Multimodal reallocation opportunities are identified at the outset of the design process. Quick-build projects are driven by the need to reallocate street elements through striping, while capital projects are driven by the need to reallocate street elements through moving the curb. Capital projects can also be catalyzed by safety and design needs, as was the case with the Inman Square project. Stephen Benson: The City of Tampa does consider roadway reallocation. City staff seek to implement reallocation through repaving projects. The budget is around $15 million. City projects are funded by a mix of local funds (from the gas tax) and grants. Neighborhood and corridor repaving projects – about 50% of the budget – are typically funded with local funds, and cycle tracks and more involved road diets (i.e., more than restriping) are funded with grants issued by state programs and the surface transportation program (federal). Any projects that are not triggered by maintenance needs are triggered by safety needs. For the last 10-15 years, City staff have focused on addressing high crash corridors that are under City jurisdiction. These reallocations tend to involve a four-lane to three-lane road diet with bicycle lanes, which are the easiest and most effective to implement. Many regional State Roads come to and through the City of Tampa, which presents City staff with a unique challenge and opportunity to collaborate with DOT staff to address safety through reallocation projects. The City does not have a core transportation planning function, so city staff plans transportation improvements through the five-year Capital Improvement Program. A limited budget prevents additional proactive planning and scoping for projects. Efforts are grounded in good principles but are not data 146 

driven or as thoughtful/thorough as they could be. Should additional funding or resources become available, the City has the opportunity to be more prescriptive, thoughtful, and data-driven in identifying reallocation opportunities. Tim Fremaux: Los Angeles has been conducting reallocations for many years, with the frequency of reallocation projects increasing around 2010. Early reallocation projects involved traditional road diets. The City has three programs that use reallocation as a primary tool: the Vision Zero Program, Bicycle Infrastructure Network, and Bus Only Lane Program. 1. Vision Zero Program: Vision Zero has been a policy in Los Angeles since 2015, and construction first started on those projects in 2017. LADOT staff are the key decision makers in reallocation projects but defer to council officers (15 council districts) and the mayor on reallocation decisions. Some council officers are pro-reallocation, but some are resistant. City staff focus efforts on neighborhoods where they feel they will have political support for reallocation. The Public Works Department also collaborates with LADOT on reallocation projects that involve roadway resurfacing. Legally, they have to consider lawsuits as a result of bicycle incidents due to bad paving. There is a lot of pressure to ensure the roadway is in good condition. 2. Bicycle Infrastructure Network: City staff use the City Mobility Plan as a roadmap for expanding bicycle- and transit-enhanced corridors. Recently, the CARES act has allowed the Public Works Department to rapidly complete resurfacing projects. Advocates have been pressuring City staff to use the funding to advance the Mobility plan. Some reallocation projects are feasible in a short time frame, but others require more time for community outreach. 3. Bus-only Lanes: The Mayor’s Office has also mandated increased emphasis on improving transit speed and transit-only lanes, so the Transit Agency is working on reimagining the bus system. Agency staff are identifying new bus priority corridors and collaborating with LADOT staff to reallocate space for transit lanes. Sometimes there are co-existing bike facilities, and in some cases, bikes and busses share the lane. Mike Goodno: DDOT staff consider reallocations, but successful reallocations need a champion to work with decision makers and citizenry. Reallocations are accomplished as part of the planning process and implementation of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Master Plans. Reallocation projects can also be identified in corridor and neighborhood studies or accomplished through safety projects requested by City Council members or citizens. Reallocation is a specific tool in the project toolkit for addressing high crash and vision zero corridors. Reallocation projects require additional community engagement and design, so DDOT’s engineering department does not actively pursue reallocation opportunities unless asked. DDOT staff from the Traffic Safety Division and Planning Team must approve all proposed reallocations. The Traffic Signals Division is also responsible for reviewing signal timing and hardware changes. Reallocation opportunities are identified during the project planning phase, sometimes as a capital improvement project. DDOT staff are trying to get better at taking advantage of resurfacing opportunities. Challenges associated with reallocating roadways through the resurfacing improvement include the lack of lead time and amount of community engagement required prior to moving forward with a reallocation. For now, many reallocation projects are catalyzed by citizen or council member request. This may change, since the City Council is currently debating legislation that would require DDOT staff to implement master plan recommendations as part of all future resurfacing projects. 147 

Jason Patton: City staff have actively, comprehensively considered reallocation projects since conducting early bicycle planning in the 90s and 2000s. This early planning has enabled staff to develop an inventory of road diet candidates throughout the city. Staff have implemented 75 reallocation projects since 1995 (over 44 miles of roadway) and identified 87 additional reallocation projects (over 48 miles of additional roadway). The additional reallocation projects may be included in a planning document, or they are streets with existing traffic volumes that do not warrant the number of existing vehicle lanes. City staff primarily implement reallocation through repaving. Staff recognized early that repaving was the most cost-effective and painless way to quickly deliver a comprehensive bicycle network, which has grown into a more multimodal network. Using road diets as a tool to expand the City’s bicycle network increased staff interest in the diverse benefits offered by road diets. While most reallocation efforts have taken place through repaving, City staff have accomplished some reallocation projects through reconstruction. Reallocation efforts are typically identified early in bicycle plans or multi-year paving plans. This gives staff time to complete the necessary planning and engagement prior to design and construction. Part 2: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Successes and Challenges Questions Each person answered the following questions as they shared their experience on two projects—one that was built/successful and one that was not completed. Participants were asked to answer all questions for the first example project, then answer all questions for the second example project. 1. What street uses were considered? 2. Did the project benefit or would it have benefited underserved communities? 3. What performance measures were/are being used? Did you have goals associated with performance measures? 4. What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? 5. What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 4. What do you think was the key to success or reason that the project did not succeed? Responses Mike Amsden: Mike presented a successful example of a reallocation on the N. Hawley Road Bridge, which connects dense residential neighborhoods on both sides of the Miller Valley. Despite an auto- centric design (e.g., cloverleaf on- and off-ramps), many people walk and bike across the bridge. The next closest valley crossing is 1.5 miles away, so N. Hawley Road is the only option for many community members. The impetus for the project involved community concerns about high speed traffic. The average speed on the bridge was 38-39 mph, with high end speeds ranging from 50-60 mph. The bridge previously featured four lanes—two lanes in each direction—with curbs/viaducts directly adjacent to moving traffic, making it uncomfortable for pedestrians. The nearby resource center for visually impaired individuals was afraid to use the sidewalk because traffic was too loud/fast to distinguish the correct walking space. City staff worked closely with the Community Alderman to get him on board as a champion for the project. They emphasized that the main goals of the reallocation included improving safety for all users as well as access for non-auto users of the bridge over motor vehicle capacity. By establishing these main goals up front, decision makers and community members were comfortable with some added delay for motor vehicles during a single peak period. Site walks (3 walks, including one with over 60 people, and a bike ride) helped decision makers experience firsthand how uncomfortable it was 148 

to cross the bridge on foot and showed the Alderman that he had support from the community. The reallocation ultimately removed a travel lane in each direction to slow speeds and added buffered bike lanes to the bridge. The bridge ultimately reduced high-end speeds and increased non-motorized access. Joe Barr: Joe presented a successful example of a reallocation on Cambridge Street. The ‘before’ cross section featured one travel lane in each direction, with parking on both sides of the street. Reallocation involved converting on-street parking on one side of the street to a separated bicycle lane. A key challenge of the project involved convincing community members to trade one limited resource (e.g., on- street parking) for another (e.g., separated bicycle facility). The impetus for the project involved a series of cycling fatalities in the city at large, which led to a huge community and political push to increase quick-build projects to implement the separated bike lane network. After data showed a meaningful reduction in the number of injury crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians. Injury crashes were converted to PDO crashes (e.g., motorists losing side-view mirrors). This is one of the few instances where they went into the public process with the approach that it was not a question of whether or not a separated bike lane would be implemented, but rather “What else do we need to do to make this better?” Normally, that would not have worked, but the support of the community and decision makers made it possible. Stephen Benson: Stephen presented a reallocation project that experienced challenges and, ultimately, was not successful. It is also interesting in that it highlights the need for interagency coordination. The project was planned for Bay to Bay Boulevard, which connects both sides of the Tampa Bay peninsula. Although the road is in the City of Tampa, it is owned by Hillsborough County. The impetus for the project involved a planned repaving of the four-lane undivided cross-section. City staff asked the County to consider a four-lane to three-lane road diet as part of the repaving project. City staff engaged some, but not all, residential neighborhoods along the corridor, and the neighborhoods that they did engage were supportive of the project. Two barriers ultimately led to the project not moving forward. First, County staff were hesitant to spend additional County funds on a street in the City of Tampa. Second, a neighborhood at one end of the corridor that was not very engaged came out against the reallocation. The neighborhood was more affluent and connected and was able to convince the County Commissioner and Mayor’s Office to end the project. City staff learned a couple of key lessons from this effort. The project needed a clear vision and justification for City staff to communicate to all community members along the corridor. City staff knew that the reallocation project could support the corridor from an economic development and community development perspective, but the project and its likely outcomes were not codified in City planning documents. Conducting early planning to get ahead of the planned repaving could have led to a more successful outcome. Tim Fremaux: Tim explained that LADOT has many examples of successful reallocation projects and shared one that was not successful. The unsuccessful reallocation was planned for a network of three interlinking arterial roads that run through a small beachside community, Playa Del Rey, near LAX. The impetus for the reallocation projects came from the Neighborhood Council Office. A councilman encouraged LADOT to advance the reallocations to improve safety for people crossing the road and to minimize the attractiveness of the corridors as an alternative to nearby freeways by taking out lanes and putting in angled parking on somewhat congested corridors. The reallocation projects were implemented and received strong pushback from other Beachside cities. The pushback included an effort to recall the councilman. LADOT ultimately restored the corridors back to their original condition. Tim explained that while it is important for reallocation projects to have a political champion, it is equally important for reallocation projects to have a clear vision and goals, supportive data, and community support. The unsuccessful project served as a reminder that LADOT staff should be ready to notify enthusiastic decision 149 

makers when they are moving “too fast, too soon” on reallocation efforts. They also inspired LADOT staff to develop a series of formal guidelines defining when the agency should consider reallocation projects. Mike Goodno: Mike presented the Irving/Kenyon Street NW Protected Bike Lanes as a successful example of cross-sectional reallocation. The east-west, six-lane suburban corridor connects the neighborhoods of Columbia Heights and Shaw with Brookland. The corridor has two uncontrolled pedestrian crossings where pedestrians had to cross three lanes of traffic. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, but motor vehicles have been observed traveling at higher speeds. Corridor volumes reach about 20,000 per day. The only bike accommodation has been sharing the 6-foot sidewalk with pedestrians. The reallocation effort was identified as an opportunity to fill a key gap in the city bicycle network, increase the diversity of bicyclists using the corridor, reduce high vehicle speeds and associated safety concerns, and improve safety for all modes. City staff repurposed one travel lane into a two-way, center-running protected bike lane. Staff chose a center-running bike lane so that cyclists would not have to contend with on- and off- exit ramps at the interchange of North Capitol Street NW and Irving Street NW. Staff also installed traffic signals at previously unsignalized crossings to improve both pedestrian and bicycle safety. The long-term vision for the corridor includes removing the cloverleaf interchange and converting the center-running protected bike lanes to side-running protected bike lanes. The project is under construction now. Jason Patton: Jason presented a successful example of a reallocation project on Adeline Street in West Oakland, constructed in 2017. Adeline Street runs through a late 19th Century neighborhood between downtown and San Francisco. It also runs through a historically Black neighborhood that has seen increasing gentrification pressure. Adeline Street was identified as a reallocation opportunity in the City Bike Plan. The impetus for the project involved the discrepancy between the wide corridor cross-section (60 feet curb to curb) and low volumes (5,000 vehicles per day). In addition to identifying the corridor in the Bike Plan, City transportation staff coordinated with the City Planning Department to conduct community outreach and gain community approval of the project through a West Oakland-specific plan. The reallocation was accomplished through the repaving program. It reduced the four-lane cross-section to a two-lane cross-section with a painted median and buffered bike lanes. Staff made the decision to drop from four to two lanes after observing people using the center turn lanes as passing lanes. While there was only funding for striping, the design was successful in its aim to break up the cross section into smaller lanes and sections as much as possible. Discussion Mary asked the group to clarify what information or data would be helpful for their agencies to have productive discussions about trade-offs related to reallocation. Joe Barr: Joe noted that it would be helpful to have predictive tools or research with enough data power to predict how a reallocation effort will make a road safer. Residents often ask about reductions in fatalities, but we do not need information for that conversation specifically, since the aim is zero crashes. We do, however, need to be able to talk more knowledgably about other safety outcomes. For example, if we exchange this cross-sectional element for this cross-sectional element, we expect that PDO and injury crashes will change in this direction by this amount. Joe added that it would be helpful to have ready data about the parking impacts of different reallocation changes. Parking studies can be some of the most intensive and costly data collection elements related to a reallocation and project. Tim Fremaux: Tim explained that LADOT has used the FHWA Road Diet Guide in the past to provide high level messaging and justification for different reallocation efforts. He noted that the guide is a little older and could be updated to consider different types of reallocations and newer case studies. He also 150 

explained that the guide uses an AADT limit of 20,000 vehicles per day as the threshold for considering streets for road diets. Different agency and community groups use this limit to push back on reallocation projects on streets with higher volumes, but LADOT has successfully implemented reallocation projects on streets with much higher volumes. Tim noted that a hard threshold, like the 20,000 ADT threshold, can be counterproductive. He suggested that the AADT threshold should be researched in greater depth and in the context of other transportation and non-transportation impacts of reallocation projects. Mike Amsden: Mike agreed that it is critical to gather data about the curbside and how it is used throughout the day when planning a reallocation (e.g., passenger vehicles, commercial loading/unloading, TNC or Taxi pick-up/drop-off). He added that it would be helpful to have a true understanding of how the different travel lanes in a cross section function. For instance, the inner- and outer-lanes of a roadway could be used differently on two corridors based on the surrounding land use context. Jason Patton: Jason added that it would be helpful to have data to help balance capacity concerns with the safety benefits of reallocation. Our industry has a long history of quantifying capacity instead of safety data. It would be helpful to continue building on studies about the safety benefits/disbenefits associated with different cross-sectional elements. Jason also noted that bike lanes have become difficult to include in certain reallocation projects. If a larger reallocation project includes the addition of bike lanes, some communities focus solely on the bike lanes and not the other benefits of the reallocation. These include communities of color, lower income communities, communities with older residents, and communities experiencing gentrification pressures. Jason reminded the research team that it would be helpful to compile data and resources that will help jurisdictions be efficient with simple projects. All communities have resource constraints and would benefit from help identifying where the “low hanging fruit” for reallocation projects exist in their transportation networks. Mike Goodno: Mike noted that further research and data around the connections between reallocation projects, travel times, and vehicle speed would be useful to prove the operational and safety benefits of different reallocation projects (e.g., link speed reduction with reduction in severity of crashes). He reminded the research team that “big data” sources, like INRIX and Streetlight data, can help provide insights into corridor travel times. Stephen Benson: Stephen explained that community members frequently ask City staff, “Where will the traffic go following a reallocation project?” It is difficult for City staff to identify and communicate how traffic will be dispersed—either to other streets in the network or to different modes—which leads the recipient to assume that the traffic will be displaced to their street. Stephen also noted that it would be helpful to understand the trade-offs associated with implementing bike lanes instead of on-street parking lanes, or vice versa, and to be able to have a rule of thumb for decision making. Cyclists do not necessarily need separated lanes on low speed, low volume streets, and properly designed on-street parking can calm traffic. 151 

Part 3: Emerging Topic: Equity Discussion Questions 1. Does your agency currently use any processes or decision-making tools to connect individual projects to a larger transportation vision related to increasing transportation equity or redressing past harms? If so, please describe. 2. If not, is your agency working on/developing processes or decision-making tools to use individual projects in this holistic/reparative way? What types of resources would be helpful for you/your agency to make progress in this area? Responses Mike Amsden: The City Council has passed resolutions to address racial wrongs. City staff have identified high crash corridors and confirmed that they correspond directly with communities of color and low- income communities. Staff are following up by focusing project resources on those corridors. As part of the City’s Complete Streets Annual Reporting, City staff review citywide data and focus on neighborhood revitalization areas to ensure that work is targeting those communities. The City also has funding to develop a transportation plan. City staff are in the process of scoping the plan to make sure it is based in equity, transportation, and health. Joe Barr: Joe acknowledged that decision-making tools are currently limited and that they are trying to move beyond traditional environmental equity issues. The City treats accessibility as an equity/civil rights issue, which has added a helpful lens to decision making around projects that improve access. City staff are also interested in identifying better equity metrics to use in project development processes. A key challenge that City staff face is engaging communities that may not have the resources or energy to engage with public engagement transportation projects because they have more fundamental needs (e.g., paying rent). Stephen Benson: Stephen explained that incorporating equity into project work goes beyond tracking where dollars are spent. The foundation of incorporating equity into projects involves clear communication to build trust and develop projects that truly address the varied issues that different communities face. They need communication tools that better equip them to do that. Jason Patton: City staff have been grappling with how to effectively incorporate equity into planning and decision-making processes for a long time. Jason acknowledged that staff have made some insights but have a long way to go. The City has a geographical equity tool that uses census data on race, income, disability, and age to help the City allocate resources geographically. The neighborhoods with higher scores compared to the City average typically receive more resources. Jason acknowledged that, in addition to identifying where resources should be spent, the City still needs to understand what people living in different neighborhoods actually need. Jason believes that taking a programmatic approach to transportation as opposed to a project-based approach is one way to help answer those questions. A project-based approach includes limited outreach, implementation, and perhaps a before/after analysis. A programmatic approach allows the agency to build relationships with community-based organizations. If the agency succeeds in building those relationships, project ideas should bubble up organically from the community-based organizations and their constituents. If the communities that are being served do not come up with the project ideas or identify their community issues and opportunities, it will be hard to implement successful projects. 152 

STATE DOT AGENCY PEER EXCHANGES Agency Participants Mike Amsden, Milwaukee, WI Andy Paul, Massachusetts DOT George Rogerson, Virginia DOT Joe Hummer, North Carolina DOT John Bolecek, Virginia DOT Rick Keniston, Washington State DOT Steven Buck, Florida DOT Project Team Participants NCHRP Project Panel • Jonathan McCormick, Panel Chair • Antoinette Clark, Caltrans • Jeremy Fletcher, FDOT Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Project lead) • Conor Semler, Principal Investigator • Mary Raulerson • Meredyth Sanders Safe Streets Research • Rebecca Sanders, Ph.D. Structured Introductions Participants briefly introduced themselves, their agency, and their role within their agency. • Andy Paul is a MassDOT Highway Design Engineer. He also manages all accessibility and complete streets standards and guidance development. • George Rogerson is the VDOT Section Manager in the Policy & Procedures Section in the Location and Design Division. • John Bolecek is VDOT’s statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner in the Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. • Joe Hummer is a State Traffic Management Engineer in Headquarters’ Mobility & Safety division for NCDOT. • Rick Keniston is a WashDOT engineer who leads traffic signal design work for WashDOT’s Southwest Region. • Steven Buck is a Roadway Design engineer for FDOT. He serves as the Engineer of Record on many local projects and also works with FDOT Central Office. Part 1: Street Decision Making Questions 1. Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation? Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Who/which departments typically lead this? Which departments are required to approve roadway reallocations? 2. When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation opportunities identified? 153 

3. How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? For example, what cross-sectional reallocation guidance or policies are consulted to inform decisions? 4. How do decision-making processes consider equity? How do you include communities of color and low-income people in the decision-making process? 5. What barriers or obstacles have you experienced that limit or prevent cross-sectional reallocation? 6. From what peer agencies do you learn or seek advice for cross-sectional reallocation best practices or examples? Responses Andy Paul: Yes, Massachusetts actively considers roadway reallocation. They are starting to do it program-wide through the project initiation process, but they are also somewhat reactive to fatalities or crashes that occur. This can occur at different times, including the midpoint of the process or project initiation. It is a collaborative departmental decision through highway design and traffic safety but also through project scoping. They have started to preemptively ask questions about whether road diet was considered at the project initiation stage. When are multimodal reallocation opportunities considered? Ideally, at initiation, but given the long timeframe, some older projects have been identifying multimodal opportunities mid-project. They are developing a statewide screening tool and looking at the number of lanes on roads, speed limits, adjacent side path and sidewalk presence, and on-street bike lane presence. Then they are using that info aligned with statewide bike and pedestrian plans to identify gaps. George Rogerson: VDOT does actively consider roadway reallocations. This is only really done for certain types of projects that meet criteria aligned with the pavement schedule. It is a collaborative effort between location and design, traffic engineering, and planning divisions. John Bolecek: The state office has more of a promotional role, whereas district offices actually implement. VDOT looks at safety issues and roadway reallocations that can be a treatment for those, but those are more capital projects. More of the reallocations actually happen through the resurfacing program, and those requests tend to come from localities that align their plans with resurfacing plans. Therefore, project development process and timing vary. Joe Hummer: NCDOT does consider roadway reallocation projects, but not program wide. Instead, those requests bubble up from the bottom, reflecting the program prioritization process. Cities generate projects, submit through SPOT, then, if funded, NCDOT takes it on. The system centers on a project team. If the project is funded, a team is put together to make the decision. The project is “owned” by an engineer from one of the 14 divisions. They do not do resurfacing like VDOT but have had a number of reallocation projects that have come out of the safety division and statewide crash analysis. Ideally, opportunities are identified early by the city or MPO/RPO that submits the idea. Ideas that come in later in the process can cause problems. Rick Keniston: WashDOT does consider roadway reallocation. They are trying to do it programmatically and are encouraged to think about and discuss with communities where highways are present. Reallocation is achieved through maintenance requests, resurfacing, and other approaches. They are active when communities have grants that apply to local state highways. Their focus is on context- sensitive solutions, in design manual for all contexts. Baseline: purpose and need, secondary: equity, community needs. Do corridor studies on which they try to identify what they want the corridor to look like over time. Consider state highways to be local roads. Prioritize safety, but also trying to consider that 154 

some communities may want their corridors to be centered around peds and bikes. This is new. Want to make sure things are safe. Lots of departments involved: planning, operations, maintenance, and project development. Multimodal opportunities are identified all over the place. Several current corridor studies w/ localities to identify how the corridor will look like in the future. Highway system plan, local roadway maintenance plans. Also work w/ local agencies who have received grants. Funding is important: low-cost enhancements, other WashDOT money, other local money. Steven Buck: FDOT definitely considers roadway reallocation, an entire chapter about it in the state design manual. Typical for certain types of projects. Can request as certain type of project, but many are initiated through local requests. A few are initiated through FDOT. If it originates through FDOT, need to get local sign-off, then must go through planning, environment, modal, design @ district level, then up to state office for final review. Pretty good methodology with regard to traffic analysis to justify reallocation. Identification is ideally in the planning phase, all the way up to 15% plans. Hopefully happens during planning & scoping, but still possible at up to 15%. Part 2: Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation Successes and Challenges Questions Each person answered the following questions as they shared their experience on two projects—one that was built/successful and one that was not completed. Participants were asked to answer all questions for the first example project, then answer all questions for the second example project. 1. What street uses were considered? 2. Did the project benefit or would it have benefited underserved communities? 3. What performance measures were/are being used? Did you have goals associated with performance measures? 4. What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? 5. What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 7. What do you think was the key to success or reason that the project did not succeed? Responses Andy Paul: Day Blvd in South Boston. Runs along waterfront just south of the city. Road diet started at K circle, extended out to Castle Island. Was a 4-lane road between parkland & beach, continuing 2 miles adjacent to neighborhood and beach front. Unique context: 4- to 2-lane road diet. Able to restrict left turns due to beach. Considered walkers, bikers, and drivers. Multiple public housing developments adjacent to parkland, so provided safer access to waterfront area. Performance measures: bike/ped/vehicle counts along corridor, speeds monitored through speed feedback signs, Inrix. Goals: lower speeds. Top-end speeds in excess of 70mph! Even average speeds were 40-50 mph – not fitting the context. This was really bisecting the neighborhood from the beach. Speed also impacts safety. Outcomes: travel time equal in after, but no other notable operational differences. Speed tests showed reductions in max speeds ranging from 5 mph to 20 mph. Ongoing discussion about closing the roadway due to the need for environmental resilience. One month after a large public meeting, a 3-yr old was killed on L street (leading to beach) – this led to implementation in a matter of weeks. (Note: Unclear if there was public opposition prior to.) 155 

George Rogerson and John Bolecek: VDOT has over 30 reallocation examples. Example: Ocean View Ave in Norfolk, VA. Not a VDOT project. 35 mph road similar to Boston example. One of the worst ped safety areas in city of Norfolk. Was on higher end of ADT – highest ADT road diet in the state. Ave 18k weekday ADT, 19k weekend ADT. Typical 4-3 road diet, added buffered bike lanes and ped refuges. A little extra delay, but a huge safety benefit. Safety issues were so severe that this was publicly palatable. Not sure that it would have happened had safety not been a huge issue. Joe Hummer: Sharing one that did not go well. Merrimon Ave in Asheville. Two projects funded to fix two intersections, but because they were so close together, they were turned into a one-mile corridor project. 4-lane undivided cross-section. This is also US25 that serves several bedroom communities and is the main route into downtown. ADT is 22k, threshold for road diet is 18k. Joe noted that if NCDOT attempts a 4-3 conversion on a road with ADT over 18k, then the legislature will step in. This was well over that. Funded for capacity & safety improvements at intersections, but the city wanted to turn it into a road diet and it didn’t go well. Particularly because capacity goes down. Joe referred to it as “hijacked”. Project dropped and now no one has benefited. Joe tried to sell folks on a conversion that would be 2-lanes in one direction, CLT, one-lane in other direction. PM would have been worse, but AM peak would have been better, Ped/Bike people not happy. Not successful. 18k is based on best general guess about when you start to lose capacity in 4-3 conversion. Rick Keniston: Rural area, SH 4, Columbia River on the way out to the Pacific. Cathlamet, east of Vancouver several miles. State highway 409 heads to it, but state highway 4 goes to ocean. 50mph 2-lane highway. 2 mile-long passing lane starts right at edge of city. Community asked them to slow traffic, as they were going 60-70 mph and there were schools. WashDOT converted a passing lane to CLT. Narrowed the lanes to 11 feet each, which widened shoulders. Wanted to add crossing opportunities. Took away one mile of the climbing lane. Chip seal in 2021 will add bike lanes and ped crossings. City got $600k in a ped/bike grant. Did discuss roundabouts, but community not ready for that. Reduced speed from 50 to 45, will further reduce to 35 when ped crossings are installed. Very collaborative project. Steven Buck: Oakridge Blvd, about to start construction. Three-lane, one-way facility ending at beach in Daytona Beach. Posted for 40mph, but people regularly exceed 50 mph. No bike facilities, narrow (5-feet) sidewalks on either side. Were originally going to reallocate pavement, but crash analysis showed a lot of sideswipes. ADT only 6k, so way overbuilt. Challenge: find a way to do project without increasing costs. Tried to reallocate without resurfacing. Asphalt extremely expensive, even more than rebuilding curb and putting in sod. Added a lot of curb islands to help manage speed. LOS did not change, and V/C barely budged. Will do post speed studies. Got some pushback from locals about queuing during high-tourist season. City very much liked the additional landscaping that contributes to beachy feel. Think this will be attractive to local cyclists. Biggest obstacle was cost. Double curb really helped avoid extra cost, did not have to worry about relocating any utilities. Other pair is two-lane. No one knows why it was designed this way. Discussion Mary asked the participants what data would be helpful for them and/or decision makers understand whether a place is the right one for a reallocation? Joe Hummer: how do you chase away 6-8k cars a day? Traffic assignment question, make cars take another route to make a project successful. Andy Paul: Shared Longfellow Bridge as an example of diversion related to a road diet. Longfellow Bridge was originally two lanes in each direction, median was a subway line, were able to do a 4-2 conversion. 156 

Took a long time to reconstruct and saw a huge change in biking in that time. The ten years saw a decline in traffic. Not sure where the traffic went. Rick Keniston: had a TWLTL corridor with serious bike/ped crashes and were able to get a road diet with bike lanes. Crash data helped decision makers get behind the reallocation. Mary asked about prediction of bike/ped crashes but sounds like there was not a systematic effort. John Bolecek: would be really helpful to have lane width and total roadway width data system-wide to understand potential system-wide. Joe Hummer: interested in learning more about the efficacy of quasi-couplets. Andy Paul: Using streetlight data to better understand how construction impacts network roads, how traffic disperses. Opposition from the community is centered on public safety – police and fire, with main concern that if traffic is redistributed onto local roads, especially in a community where there are not sidewalks, people may get hurt. Or people may get frustrated and drive dangerously on local roads. Rick Keniston: downtown areas resist reallocation due to parking. John Bolecek: Fairfax County doing a lot of roadway reallocation, adding lots of bike lanes. They have a local DOT that allows them to do much more than the rest of the state. ~30 miles of bikes lanes added a year for the past 5 years, all done through paving. Not a shoulder bike lane. Standard 4-ft ridable surface + gutter pan (about 6 feet total). Most lanes narrowed to 11 feet, stress lowering speed. Overlay bike master plan on repaving schedule, add crosswalk work to that, as well. While FCDOT has the technical capacity to get ahead of the repaving schedule and work with VDOT to incorporate reallocation in to repaving projects, many other Virginia localities do not. Part 3: Emerging Topic: Equity Discussion Questions 1. Does your agency currently use any processes or decision-making tools to connect individual projects to a larger transportation vision related to increasing transportation equity or redressing past harms? If so, please describe. 2. If not, is your agency working on/developing processes or decision-making tools to use individual projects in this holistic/reparative way? What types of resources would be helpful for you/your agency to make progress in this area? Responses Andy Paul: MassDOT is using statewide plans that are based on equity, safety, and accessibility (statewide bike and ped) and those inform project prioritization. As part of a project initiation process, consider if project is in EJ community, senior center, or transit route. Also consider how transit is affected. Still fall short on grant programs statewide; better-funded communities are often better able to submit applications. Trying to actively engage communities that may not submit applications. John Bolecek: have funding processes and safety and congestion needs are considered. Only communities can request. PBSAP update is using a health index to decide where improvements are made. Cannot force an area to apply. STEP program and safety action plan working together. Thinking about incorporating 157 

roadway reallocations into stand-alone projects (not just resurfacing) where there are higher speeds, ped/bike crashes, and no bike facilities (not over 18k threshold). Joe Hummer: Use Census data to understand equity as related to projects. Merriman Ave was actually a bit of a reverse equity problem, with rich community benefiting from the work, but commuting workers penalized. Rick Keniston: Secretary of Transportation has prioritized equity for 3 years. Inclusion prioritized. Focus project outreach on data for each community and have been doing a lot more to reach out. Used example of work that ended up cutting off part of the community with the promise that WashDOT would bridge the barrier but have not yet fulfilled that promise. Joe Hummer: Talk to Mike Brown of MetroAnalytics, idea of right-sizing the investment. Rick Keniston: 18 highway funding sources. Each has a separate way of funding, so it can be very challenging to pull things together to comprehensively fund a project. Reduce that to 5 pots to create more flexibility in funding that would allow progress to be made more quickly and efficiently. Andy Paul: Charles River Dam Road 6-5 conversion, over 37k ADT. Then went from 5-3 in a separate project, which also added bus only lanes. https://www.mass.gov/doc/charles-river-dam-road-craigie-bridge-presentation-05012019/download INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – BERN, SWITZERLAND Introductions City of Bern – head of Office for pedestrian and cycling traffic Stephanie Stotz Simsons, and Michael Liebi head of transport division. Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Department of Traffic Planning for City of Bern. 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Usually sidewalks. In suburban context, sometimes shared used paths. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Mostly bicycle lanes. Suburban and rural areas have shared use paths of city shared use. 158 

4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Mixed traffic bus routes, some lanes that are open for bicycle use as well. Most transit routes are combined mixed with car traffic. This means that we have more space on the street for cyclists and pedestrians. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other More than 10 projects. (scale of projects differ, mainly small and medium sized short-term projects) 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Standalone – these are usually the smaller projects that we can initiate and led by our own department. They are usually about markings and signalization. Being part of larger projects is tougher because they are far longer term and often have stricter processes due to the Swiss democratic process, often taking longer to get approval. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Two subsections of the office. The unit that we work for, has separate funding so that we can focus on these modes exclusively. Things are ‘approved’ by multiple departments along the way. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other 1 or two years. Larger scale projects require a far longer process, 10+ years which can be very challenging. “Objections” have a legal consequence to the timeline. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Unique Swiss democratic process, but all of these elements (a through d) are possibilities/tools our department uses. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Yes, it’s program wide. 159 

b. Who/which departments typically lead this? We have the lead in this, but it’s also supported by the city’s overall vision. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? No. Bern is still quite small, and we don’t yet have this spatial segregation that other larger cities have. However, giving a variety of people a voice in the project is an inherent part of the democratic process, but does not focusing explicitly on race. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? This is the inherent purpose of our department! • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Our goals are based upon the vision of City council. The City development Concept and Bicycle Infrastructure Master Plan plays a large role in how decisions are made. The funding depends on the democratic process. Any project that exceeds 7 million CHf to build goes to ‘the people’ to decide through referenda. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Political barriers – extensive democratic process which allows for stakeholders to easily object to the project. Jurisdiction/Road Ownership - Some part of street network is not ours and are owned by State Leadership who sometimes have different political goals than we do. Legal barriers – Some things, such as making a Dutch protected intersection are not part of the Swiss legal regulations and therefore limit the ability to make infrastructural changes. Mindset – People and planners continue to believe that capacity of motorized traffic is number one priority. People’s fear removal or displacement of car parking. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? North-South Bern route that connects to suburbs. Mostly widening and remarking cycle lanes. Widened to 2.5m (formerly 1.5m). This also including closing some streets to cars, using them for only buses and bikes. As well as establishing 30km/h zones. Lorrainebrücke space reallocation, now temporary separation, soon to be cycle tracks. • What street uses are considered? Connection to suburbs. Cycling, cars, buses, pedestrians. Removing parking to create cycling lane. • What performance measures are used? Cycle traffic has increased overall within the city, especially on this N-S route. That is, percentage of cyclist modal share increase. Wait times - Greenwave for cyclists with only slight increase (20sec) in car wait times. 160 

• What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Public satisfaction of cycle traffic, cycling numbers. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? We do not have analysis on this but the city assumes that an increase in cycling can only do good for the city as a whole. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? In combination of our more recent implementation of a public bike sharing system: young people love to use it, especially young women of migrant backgrounds. • What do you think was the key to success? We did a lot of markings and simple measures and that’s why we could achieve it in such a small timespan. By keeping the measures small and low-financial investment it was easier to carry it out. The strong vision of our political leader has helped this with their vision. We’ve had a left/green council for a longtime, but the most recent Mayor really focused explicitly on cycling. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? Wabern, suburb of Bern. Successful redesign of cross section give more space to public transport, greenery for pedestrians. Both of use, and economically which helps the local economy. Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Velohauptroute Länggasstrasse. There is lots of space for cyclist infrastructure. We wanted to take away one row of parked vehicles and reallocate the extra space to cycle lanes of 1.9m. But this has been blocked by legal means, because a party has some sort of objection to the development that needs to pass through the courts/legal process. By the time you’re done the legal process, you have to start from scratch. • What street uses are considered? Parking, motorized, and cycling. • What performance measures are used? N/A because project not completed. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? N/A there have not been any outcomes yet. 161 

• What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? N/A • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? Not particularly since this area of town is mostly students. • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Legal limitations brought on by those who object to the project. Project must run through legal process and by the time that’s completed, we will have to start from scratch again. 162 

INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – CALGARY, CANADA Introductions 1. Name: Abdul Samad 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): City of Calgary, Department of Transportation 3. Role: Capital Projects Coordinator, Liveable Streets Division Complete Streets Program Lead Transportation Planning, The City of Calgary Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Central office/transportation planning Three business units under transportation department: transportation (roads); transit and planning (planning, design and engagement); business/project management 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Mostly sidewalks. Updated design standard in 2014 to fully align with complete streets policy. Anything after 2014 has wider sidewalks on both sides. 2 m wide sidewalks on collector and arterial streets. Multi-use pathways within road ROW. Regional pathways managed by parks department, more recreational. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Mostly protected cycle tracks in downtown. Concrete parking barriers with flexible posts on top. Started as temporary and turned permanent. Currently in process of extending cycle track network. Outside of downtown, mostly unprotected (bike lane, buffered lane) based on traffic volume threshold. Some raised bike paths (call it raised pathway) becoming more common. Seeing them in greenfield developments and retrofits. 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Mostly mixed traffic bus lanes. Some key corridors with bus lanes only when high traffic volumes. Some areas with transit lane during peak hours and mixed traffic otherwise. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other 6-10 projects when counting 2020. 163 

6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Community Mobility Improvements Program. Criteria for prioritizing corridors. Many done as part of maintenance or resurfacing. Complete repair is a key criterion for a project. Water services department works as well. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Livable Streets division lead from planning, engagement perspective. Detailed design led by transportation infrastructure business unit. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Typically takes 2 years. Planning, engagement, and design in one year, construction the next. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Complete Streets Policy. Community Mobility Improvements Program (4-year budget cycle). Calgary Transportation Plan. Municipal Development Plan. Design Guidelines for Subdivision Servicing Standards. Pathway and Bikeway Plan. 5A Principles (Always Available for All Ages and Abilities). Cycling Strategy. Pedestrian Strategy. Route Ahead for Transit. In the process of updating design standards. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Yes. We initiate the project and work with other departments (water services, parks department, TI). b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Work collaboratively with other departments. Look at traffic volumes, parking requirements and utilization. Look at existing conflicts (utilities, street trees). • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? 164 

Race for sure. For equity, we look at whether the design is balanced and who has the priority. Look for balanced design (connectivity, do we really need a 4-lane cross-section?). Ask for council to rescind policy and replace with guideline to allow us to make decisions without going to council. Increase volume threshold for each street type. Fewer roadways in new developments which allows for shorter blocks and environments more conducive to walking and cycling. Goal is context-sensitive design when considering land uses to ensure those without access to cars have good public realm and public facilities (wide sidewalks, street trees, benches). • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? Early in the planning process. Follow up. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Complete Streets Policy. Community Mobility Improvements Program (4-year budget cycle). Calgary Transportation Plan. Municipal Development Plan. Design Guidelines for Subdivision Servicing Standards. Pathway and Bikeway Plan. 5A Principles (Always Available for All Ages and Abilities). Cycling Strategy. Pedestrian Strategy. Route Ahead for Transit. In the process of updating design standards. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Different business units, different priorities (LOS for vehicles for example). Parks department wants to see buffer from trees and hard surface (how are you going to accommodate wider sidewalks, bike lanes?). Everyone must make trade-offs to create a balanced design. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? 2nd Street Southwest Corridor. Part of initial phase of centre city cycle track. Extending cycle track to 19th Street and 10th and 12th Avenue. 1.35 km long, 12 intersections, most not signalized. Started that project late 2018 engaging the community. High traffic volume meant street was used more for commuting as opposed to recreational riding. Road surface was in terrible condition. Delayed resurfacing to engage the community on bike lanes. Community wanted protected facility, so we considered a 2-way cycle track on a one-way road. Community didn’t want that. In centre city, there are many one-way streets with bidirectional cycle tracks on one side. We now have a unidirectional cycle track along the 165 

2nd Street Southwest Corridor. Not able to do two-way on two-way. On 2nd Street, 60% of parking on one side was retained. Some school zones have wide roads and parents, students have trouble crossing street without signals. Installed curb extensions and signalized pedestrian crossing lights. Along with cycle track, we call this a complete street. Option for off-street bike path. Lanes are now narrower with protected cycle track. Installed curb extensions and better crossing markings. Will continue monitoring its function, especially in winter and major snow events. First time doing a cycle track just outside of downtown but connecting to the downtown network. Will conduct a survey with residents. • What street uses are considered? Cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, transit riders. • What performance measures are used? Operational safety, comfort, and operational cost are key measures. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? No response. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? No response. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? No minority communities along the corridor of the project. In general, lots of brown and Asian communities in Calgary but these are more car- oriented communities. Not a lot of ask in terms of active modes in these communities. • What do you think was the key to success? Early engagement is a key to success, but the public is not technical. You must also look at technical challenges and consult with other key departments. When you show people renderings and explain the rationale, people get it. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? City of Red Deer. City of Lethbridge. City of Edmonton (just did complete streets policy). Finalizing Alberta Bikeway Design Guide. 166 

INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – AARHUS, DENMARK Introductions 1. Name: Pablo Celis 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): (formerly) City of Aarhus, (currently) Celis consult 3. Role: (formerly) cycling manager, (currently) independent consultant Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Central technical department. – For his own company- headquarters 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Including urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Results is that 50% of all kids walking or cycling to school. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Urban: Mostly separated bicycle facilities, but within the last 5 years they’ve started to create bicycle streets in the Dutch manner with the beautiful side effect of people gathering on sidewalk terraces. Rural/suburban: mixed between cycletracks and shared use paths 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Both urban and suburban. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other For City of Aarhus, 20-25. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other The Planning office also gets them approved. 167 

8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Fastest would be 6 months, but the average is about 1 year. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Political guidelines come from politicians and we transfer that to specific projects. Reducing car parking, cycling. We have a cycling guidebook that acts as a bit of design guidelines. Funding required a lot of lobbying of politicians. Public engagement – We have a special model for citizen and stakeholder involvement. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Yes! This is program wide. b. Who/which departments typically lead this? This is done through the planning department. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Not at all, except for perhaps at point point changing the bicycle symbols on the street to women bicycle instead of men bicycles. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? In the planning process. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) This is politically prioritized. We’ve gone from planning traffic, to planning mobility. We think more about how many people we can transport in an area. How do we move as much people as possible in any given corridor? That means that cars often lose out since they’re not so space efficient. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Parking is the main problem. That’s quite a politically sensitive problem. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? 168 

(2012) Cycling street (Mejlgade street), specific street that has about 10,000 cyclists per day. Before it was a lot of parked cars, and narrow sidewalks, and it was total chaos. The driving space was narrowed by 4m and widened the sidewalks. The latter has given space for bars and restaurants which are now thriving with terraces on along the street. It’s now quite a popular street. • What street uses are considered? Pedestrian, cyclists, cars. No buses, but delivery trucks still allowed because restaurants and bars need delivery. • What performance measures are used? Nothing other than what we can see on the street, which was far livelier and bustling. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? There were quite a few accidents on the street prior to its implementation, but now we haven’t had any accidents. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 40% decrease in car traffic. In the last 8 years bike traffic increased in 25%. This is a large part car users shifting to bike. The e-bike is also a factor here in. Busier businesses etc. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? No • What do you think was the key to success? We actually didn’t have any legislation for this type of road, but I just did it anyways. It worked so well that legislators created a ‘bicycle street’ sign, so now it’s official. The upside was that I didn’t talk with citizens before doing it, but after. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? One route we created in a suburban area, through natural areas, planted with strawberry plants and apple trees. It’s created with the hope that people will take a slightly longer route because it’s nicer, rather than the most direct. 3 supercycle highways created Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Trip-chaining with multiple uses. Park and ride facility at the end of P+R where you can keep your (privately owned) bike locked up all the time. But to this day, 5 years later, it’s barely used, primarily because it requires a lot of communication for people to actually make use of them. • What street uses are considered? 169 

Multi-modal, car, cycle, bus. • What performance measures are used? No, and purposely so because it was not a success! • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Under used. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? The idea has similarly been implemented in other areas, but instead of bike lock-up sites, offering rental bikes, and it’s been more successful. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? No • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Their cars and bikes were left alone in an isolated spot. INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA Introductions 1. Name: Oscar Diaz 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): DZE Global – Consulting Firm, Formerly with the City of Bogotá 3. Role: Urban Transportation Consultant, Former special advisor to the mayor of Bogotá Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Special advisor to the mayor of Bogota from Jan 2016 to Dec 2019 (4-year term) (central office). Coordinated agencies (BRT, urban design, public works). Mobility was main focus. Currently an urban transportation consultant with DZE Global. 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Just urban areas. Shared use paths connecting south with north (21 km long). Greenway along a canal (35 km) connecting rich and poor. Was originally planned to be a highway. Took cars off the sidewalk (culture of parking on sidewalk in front of businesses). 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) 170 

a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Just urban areas. Built ped- and bike-only infrastructure connecting south with north (21 km long). Today have 550 km of bicycle paths. Can send chart of how bike infra grew through administrations. Greenway along a canal (35 km) connecting rich and poor. Was originally planned to be a highway. 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Today have 120 km of BRT that replaced car space. First take space from cars for sidewalks and bike lanes, then BRT. Every BRT corridor design included bike paths and sidewalks. Required a lot of land acquisition. Not about length, it’s about the impact. 11th Avenue used to have 4 lanes in one direction (N-S) (22 or 2.8 km?). Changed to a two-way street (2 lanes each direction) but served the rich. Lots of pressure to change back to 4-lane one-way. Changed it to 3 lanes one-way with a bike lane. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other 2-5 projects? Maybe 6-10 because of studies done by previous administration. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Design of street has to comply with regulations written by Department of Planning (ex. BRT must include a bicycle path). 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Mayor presents plan to city council. Decisions are made by the Department of Planning. The term of the mayor starts on January 1, every 4 years. Within the first 6 months after the inauguration the mayor should present a development plan to the city council for the 4-year term. That process is led by the planning department. The planning department is in charge of writing the policy and writing manuals (mandatory) for infrastructure, width of roads, bicycle paths, characteristics, public space, etc. The head implementation depends, the department of mobility can do signaling, and the public works is contracted by the IDU (urban development institute). 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Forever! First administration got a lot done in 3 years. Changes in national and local laws make the process much longer. Can take 4-5 years to get from scratch to complete (community consultation, expropriating land). Cannot start construction until you close 171 

contract for design, cannot start design until finish feasibility study (cannot overlap). A lot of approvals delay things. Difficult to get things done in one term. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Decisions made by Department of Planning. Policies stating that a road that is X metres wide comes with a bicycle path. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Mayor’s decision based on his vision. See Part 1, Q7 for more details about the process/decision-making. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Absolutely. Many underserved areas. Consider how to connect bicycle paths to the poorest neighbourhoods (south)? Wanted bike infrastructure from at least the border of the city to a BRT station. Not only about access but improving quality of life with infrastructure. Cable car built in poorest neighbourhood. At bottom of cable car people can access “happiness centres” (community centres with high quality infrastructure like pools and gyms). Not only about hardware, but also software (programs training people to cook, make crafts, etc.). • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? From the beginning. Mayor involved in design meetings. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Partnership with Bloomberg and NACTO. They are consulted with to inform decisions. Train engineers and other relevant professionals. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Politics, short terms for mayor and new change of government can stop progress. Also, wealthier people opposing projects (such as the BRT example below). Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? First metro line. 70% of money comes from national gov, other 30% from city. With X amount of money, got an elevated metro and 3 BRT corridors. 2 of them under 172 

construction. BRT level with metro on top and also a bike path next to BRT. One car lane for service vehicles. Construction to be finished in 2023-2024. • What street uses are considered? Transit users, pedestrians, cyclists, service vehicles. • What performance measures are used? Speed of public transit system (reduction in travel time), congestion, road safety (deaths). • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Metro stations will have 5,000 parking spaces for bikes. By the year 2030, 80% of population will be <1 km from metro station. Today, they have 1.2 million trips per day by bike. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? Implementation is ongoing now. Some pipes have been relocated and property acquisition has been made. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the key to success? 70% of money from national government. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? None in Colombia Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? 7th Avenue houses some of the richest people in the country. BRT Master Plan included this corridor (2007). In 2008 a new mayor came along and didn’t want to do BRT. Wanted to do LRT because it’s nicer. Today, nothing has happened in this corridor. New designs were needed which delayed the process and resulted in 7 legal challenges. Still 1 unresolved. Current mayor does not want BRT, claims increased pollution. LRT does not have capacity there. • What street uses are considered? Transit users • What performance measures are used? N/A 173 

• What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? More injuries and deaths for peds and cyclists. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? More pollution from cars, segregation of rich and poor. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? New mayor wanted LRT instead of BRT. New designs were needed which delayed the process and resulted in 7 legal challenges. Still 1 unresolved. Current mayor does not want BRT but LRT does not have capacity there. INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – NACTO GLOBAL Introductions 1. Name: Abhimanyu Prakash 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): NACTO Global - India, Ethiopia, Asia. 3. Role: Urban designer and architect by training Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other NACTO, senior programme manager, leading road safety programme, under global road safety in areas of Africa and Asia. Four focus areas: 1 technical review guidance 2. Assisting cities in identifying impediments within current guidelines, 3. Getting projects off the ground (implementation). 4. Grounding knowledge in the city itself rather having cities being dependent on them (governance). 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Sidewalks are there, but are often blocked, incoherent/inconsistent, or of insufficient quality. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other 174 

Their work focuses on urban roads, not suburban rural. Sidewalks that exist are there only to exist, but are encroached upon, blocked, etc. Bike facilities simply don’t exist but are indeed on the agendas of the countries they deal with – Asian, African nations, Ethiopia, Uganda. These cities often have (ex Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) 90% pedestrian mode share 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Dedicated bus lane, but because lack of enforcement. But Addis Ababa doing study for bus rapid transit corridor. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other Addis Ababa +10, Mumbai 2-5. More than 10 in each of the other cities NACTO involved in. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Shared facilities are tough sell, but they (laneways) technically already exist but in a more traditional sense. Since congestion is the primary issue in these cities, if it can be proved to relieve congestion, that’s already a big step. It’s a mix, but in South America has used it to expand and repeat them. They’re start up projects and NACTO’s focus is often to scale-up these projects. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other At city departments, Mumbai – planning and execution department. Addis Ababa – tug of war between traffic mgmt agency (more progressive) and roads and construction agency (more conservative). They don’t really have a planning agency. Fortaleza, most power at mayoral level. Bogota, Secretary of mobility. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other 2-5 years, but sometimes very short term. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other We don’t help them with funding sources, it’s primarily design review and consulting. We can only offer support for cities to invest the money they already have in a smarter way. We do support public engagement in many cities, but it’s often not even part of their processes in Mumbai for instance, but in South America it is far more participatory. Any community engagement – often called ‘community input sessions’ – are one-off events instead of involving public in entire process. 175 

Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Addis Ababa transport master plan it was part of city-wide approach. Road allocation not always the goal in itself, but length of cycle tracks for instance. b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Addis Ababa, body that led the project was a temporary agency. Sao Paulo, mobility agency. Mumbai, collaboration between transit agency and city corporation. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Bogota, slow zone projects, they made us pick a high-income neighbourhood and NACTO convinced engineers to move it to low-income neighbourhood. Addis Ababa – original focus on CBD, but they convinced them to switch focus to origin- destination between manufacturing hub and middle/low-income neighbourhoods. Gender is quite important of community of important of community consultation. When we have opportunity to select where we work, public consultation begins from the get-go. Community input is ideally gathered both before and after the project but might be repeated over several weeks or months. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? N/A because that is the entire purpose of NACTO, however when NACTO is involved near the end of the project, tagging on before the final decisions are made. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Two-part answer 1. Identify what guidance already exists in the city and whether it’s up to date. But also encourage the use of our existing Global NACTO Street Design guide manual 2. We often use mode share of the city has a baseline for prioritizing roadspace reallocation. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Political will: They think we’re going to help them solve congestion, and sometimes when we reallocate space, congestions sometimes gets worse the first few days. Communication: Car drivers have the loudest voices. We try and struggle to showcase voices around other uses. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Addis Ababa, historic access to the city and is the heart of current city. 176 

Started informally in first capacity workshop in 2016. Took people out to intersection with chalk, and pylons (4 hour trial), and agencies saw it and loved it. They asked NACTO to develop proposal further. Then they wanted a 6-month trial with extremely colourful project attracting plenty of positive attention. But battle with traffic police, until we did capacity building with traffic police commissioner who was more or less convinced. • What street uses are considered? Pedestrian, car. It’s a multi-modal hub. Regional rail station, light rail/rapid transit. • What performance measures are used? Congestion issues have been addressed (better traffic flow/higher throughput). • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Less congestion, safety. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? City has made resurfacing projects beyond this intersection and has grew into capital projects elsewhere in the city. It became the poster child of street design for the city. City has also later committed 100M to sidewalk improvements. No measurement done to analyse economic impacts. But is being mapped with cycling since cost of getting to work. Not much in environmental impact in Addis Ababa and Mumbai. Bogota however, noise levels decreased, and there is a plan to measures air quality. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? Many places near schools and universities, young people as future of the nation need to be protected. Projects in peripheral areas area often poorer areas. • What do you think was the key to success? Covered by media, police got trained, engineers got trained. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? N/A Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? CSMT (Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus), intersection in Mumbai. Time Square of India. 100,000 pp/hour. Multimodal choices. High Profile, city governments, UNESCO world heritage sites. Just the consultation took 3 years. Government officials resisted any public involvement. Once it got on the ground, public who lived nearby were completely disappointed and highly opposed since it was causing congestion and traffic delays. Because they had to put the project pause it a bunch of times, uses were incoherent and unclear (i.e., confusing) and police didn’t support NCDOT 177 

or municipality. Police were undoing what they had done. It was never ultimately completed. • What street uses are considered? Reallocating for pedestrians and making it safer from them. Intermobility mode transfer from one mode to another – pedestrian, train, car. “Selfie island” – island of traffic circle with no pedestrian crosswalk. Transit offloading and onloading needed space. Kiss and Ride. • What performance measures are used? Ours was safety, but the performance measures of traffic police are to maximize throughflow and get as many cars through the intersection at a time. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? No coordination between agencies, police, and public, and it became an ego issue about building/construction. In short, interagency coordination and lack of community consultation. INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM Introductions 1. Name: Gordon Webster 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): Transport for London 3. Role: Transport Strategy and Strategy Team Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Policy through to design. Covers 33 London boroughs to reach a coordinated view. Mayor’s transport strategy, that is our main policy document that how we want to see transport in London over the 20 – 25 years or so. 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other 178 

Because we manage the main road network, we’re dealing with large roads with large traffic movements. We tend to minimize use of shared use paths due to concern of disability groups. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Varied network in quality. The aspiration is to provide separated facilities, and within our responsibility they are mostly separated facilities, though not necessarily raised, however the majority of our roads don’t have bicycle facilities. Sharrows/Bus lanes to exist but differ per roadway and is not the preferred option. 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Where there is space, we have bus-only lanes. We’ve categorized the network by service frequency, ridership etc. Though much of it is also mixed traffic bus routes. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other Over the past three years definitely more than 10, where separation of bike facilities is the priority. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other TFL led schemes are standalone projects. We have a dedicated funding scheme. Though it’s worth noting that the boroughs might make use of developer contributions as well. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Cycling sponsorship follows it to include cycling priorities and highlight where there is most potential for cycling, then handing it over to the planning group. Approvals exist at different stages the multimodal sponsorship team will lead the approval process and work with city hall and the mayor’s office to confirm route priority, as well as work with the London boroughs. The actual design gets signed off by the design team. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Typically, we work with the mayor cycle of 4 years, but they may have already been in the pipeline for years longer. In the current climate, there has been an exceptionally fast turnout for new design schemes. There it’s often less than 6 months, but that’s mostly due to the current crisis conditions. 179 

9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Inevitably all are relevant however policy is the primary guide. Funding is increasingly driven my central government which varies dependent on priorities. There is indeed a mayoral commitment and the mayor transport strategy. We also have our own London street design standards guide this as well. We are also working on a new ‘street space’ program that will replace public transport trips in the short term but also avoid a return to car-based transport. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. Certain types of projects include it, but not all of them. But there are also transformational schemes. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? This is in particular project usually, not all. b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Many departments are involved in this process. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Equality is certainly an important aspect in all of our projects, using strategic data to identify areas where we know that there are certain issues. Some are identified in the London Plan (the main planning and development document for the whole city). These are considered in a broader holistic approach to development. In terms of our cycle route process, this is mainly focused on areas where people are making short car trips to encourage modal shift. Equality impact, not only race but disability awareness is also embedded in the design process. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? We have a plan for each project, an ‘outcome plan’ which is at the early stages of the project. That project looks at variety of data sources to determine strategic modes, as well as the areas we’ve highlighted as wanting to make improvements to walking and cycling. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) There are a number of documents that guide these priorities: Mayor’s transport strategy, London Cycling action plan, Walking action plan, Streetspace plan (about temporary infra priorities, but we are looking at making some of these more permanent), London Streetscape Guidance, London Complete street design manual. These are documents that support new policies and decision making. 180 

• What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Working with a variety of local authorities is challenging when understanding each other’s priorities. Often in line. Some authorities are more in favor of walking and cycling than others. The technical side – traffic impacts, need for emergency access and servicing, as well as ensuring consistent traffic flow. Also making sure that bus still has access to locations. The variety of things one must prioritize also makes it tough to keep walking and cycling as a priority. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? “Cycle super highways”, which are now being rebranded and “cycle highways”. North- South, or cycle super highway #6. It was largely TFL road focus, so it helped in achieving a coherent design approach. • What street uses are considered? Cycling, bus, pedestrian crossings. Removing some traffic lanes to accommodate cyclists. • What performance measures are used? (no concrete performance measures, simply to their operational outcomes) • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Better signal phasing for cyclists. Pedestrian wait times are reduced. Don’t have data at hand. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? 3% of journeys made by cycling. Economical aspect not explicitly analyzed. Traffic reduction has been noticed (env impacts) • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? This route goes through quite diverse areas of London whom can certainly benefit from it. • What do you think was the key to success? Strong political commitment. The effect on wider traffic was a concern but with political support it could be driven possible. Looking at international practice and the knowledge for change in policy. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? Cycleway 6 – it was agreed at a political level where this route would start and end, but now we use a more data-led approach. Now our approach is mostly about understanding where there is most potential for cycling. We have good data to understand where people are making short journeys by car, this is key in suburban areas. Connecting these to public 181 

transport (metro and bus) has been key, but now with COVID19, we’re also trying to get people to use alternative active modes to relieve pressure on the public transport system. Though policy on this topic is not only about movement, but also about place: creating low traffic neighbourhoods using an area-based approach rather than corridors. Our suburban approach is largely an area-based way of thinking. The “Mini-holland” neighbourhood is a good example of this. Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Stalled/delayed project often because a lack of specifying priorities. The challenge from the outset is how we’re going to deliver active modes all the while encouraging people to use public transport. It’s all about choosing the right projects in the right place. “Quiet” cycle routes (calm streets) – some routes we delivered weren’t as quiet as we may have wanted them to be. • What street uses are considered? Primarily active modes, but their interaction with other modes were also considered. • What performance measures are used? n/a because not actually implemented. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? n/a because not actually implemented. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? n/a because not actually implemented. Things stayed the same. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? Since nothing changed, the impact would stay the same. • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Lack of specifying priorities, local political buy-in which usually involves a careful consultation form the beginning. Complexity of the roads and the many numbered stakeholders involved. 182 

INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – MONTREAL, CANADA Introductions 1. Name: Bartek Komorowski 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): Safety and Sustainable Design Division, Mobility Department, run Vision Zero program, City of Montreal 3. Role: Planning Advisor, Road Safety and Human Behaviour Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Central, covers urban and suburban areas 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Sidewalks, though suburban streets are lacking sidewalks 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other 968 km total i. 286 km of paint only bike lanes ii. 273 km of sharrows iii. 196 km of off-street bike paths (exclusive for bikes with parallel footpaths) iv. 96 km of cycle track v. 92 km of multi-use path vi. 15 km of sidewalk level paths (some are like shared sidewalks; some are actually a bike lane at sidewalk level) vii. 7.4 km of shared bike/bus lane (curb lanes where parking is prohibited during peak hours) viii. 2.5 km of bicycle boulevards (like a fietsstraat or shared street) 40 km of regular bike network planned for this year and also developing an express bike network (REV) (close to 20 km under construction right now, 2.5-3 m wide) 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Peak hour bus lane network (with queue-jump, things like that). BRT under construction on one street. 183 

5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other Well over 10. Pretty much used up most opportunities to use residual space. Majority of projects have some sort of reallocation. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Many through maintenance/resurfacing/reconstruction but also many light surface treatments (such as COVID bike lanes with paint and posts). Lots of street maintenance that is resulting in expanding sidewalks. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Urban planning and mobility are now one department but are separate branches. Mobility leads the projects in the central jurisdiction. Permanent facilities are fully designed by the mobility department. Boroughs are responsible for some streets and smaller projects (converting parking lanes to bike lanes, for example). Typical public engagement process includes the Consultation Department that organizes formal consultations with websites, feedback and commenting. Smaller projects don’t go through this department and are typically more Borough-driven. There is not really a statutory requirement to consult the public. It is mainly compelled by politicians wanting to be re- elected so it’s in their interest to consult with the public. Network Integration Department decides on functional allocation of streets. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other At least 2 years. The express network took over 2 years. Reconstructions can be a bit longer. Pandemic lanes came in in 2 months. Doing counts to measure their use. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other More of a practice right now than a policy. We generally rethink space allocation when reconstruction projects come up. It is pretty much just an accepted practice right now. Montreal's 2008 Transportation Plan committed the City to expanding the cycling network from 400 km to 850 km. The plan was recently updated and now envisions a 1250 km network. The City is currently engaged in a functional planning process for the arterial street network. The process establishes the desired allocation of street cross-sections to different uses, including pedestrian space, furniture and planting zones, and cycling facilities. In general, the resulting plans are calling for a reallocation of space from traffic lanes and parking to other uses. Our Pedestrian and Shared Streets Implementation Program (Program 184 

d'implantation des rues piétonnes et partagées) has been funding borough pedestrianization initiatives since 2015. Up to five new projects are accepted into the program every year. To date, the program has supported 21 projects and four more for 2021 will be announced soon. Funding is provided for up to three years. During the first year, the project is implemented from mid-spring to mid-autumn using mostly street furniture and paint. Renewal of funding for the second and third years is contingent on an evaluation of this temporary project phase. The 2nd and 3rd year funding is intended to make the project permanent, allowing the borough to acquire more durable furniture and make adaptations to make the project permanent (year-round or seasonal). My department provides borough staff with technical assistance with street design, signage and traffic management issues. This document provides extensive information about the program (in French). Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Yes. Don’t really have the choice because of limited residual road space. Every project pretty much needs some reallocation. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? No. A weak spot they have. Don’t have the stark geographic and economic disparities as in some US cities. Might be a blind spot for the city. Neighbourhoods that are cut off by highways/railways are considered but there is no policy or systematic way of considering these. Councilors will push for investment in their areas but no systematic policy. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? Used to be decided on a project-by-project basis. Now have the Network Integration Department that works on wide area plans. They look at major arterials and collectors and decide up-front on their designated function and what the street allocation should be. When the reconstruction comes up it should already be established what the allocation should be. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) This is where the new Street Design Guide will come in. There is currently a lack of guidance. We have been relying on other guides, such as NACTO. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Big one is parking. But the current administration is quite bold at going through anyway. Another is emergency services, the fire department in particular with respect to the width of lanes and intersection design (curb radii). 185 

Sometimes it’s the public transit agency that want a certain width of lane. Wanting to add more trees and greening can become a barrier/constraint. A new one that has come up recently is on-street terraces for shop owners that have converted their parking spots in front of their shop. They can get a permit to do this under a program that has been going on since well before the pandemic. Additionally, the parklet program lets shop owners create these parklet spaces for free if they are open to the general public, as opposed to just customers. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Have a lot of street reallocations that are seasonal (May to end of September/October) due to harsh winters. Typically, pedestrianization projects and play streets (144 Rue Roy East is one example Bartek showed on Google Streetview, Pierre de Coubertin Avenue? 5755 Rue de Bullion?). There are dozens of these going in, especially with the pandemic. See this map: https://ville.montreal.qc.ca/ruespietonnes/carte Note that the pins on the map are clickable. A pop up gives you a link with a description and photos of each project • What street uses are considered? Pedestrians, cyclists, children • What performance measures are used? Various criteria and evaluation methods are used. Key measures include user perceptions (Comfort, safety, quality of the experience, etc.), merchant perceptions (delivery access, impact on sales, etc.), universal accessibility. Our methods and tools are detailed in Appendix 7 of this document • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? None described. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? None described. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? None described. • What do you think was the key to success? 186 

There are extensive consultations with the public and local businesses which contributes to their success. People are asking for it on their streets. Also usually implemented on a trial/pilot basis at first which helps gain acceptance. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? In suburban areas there tend to be smaller projects that only cover a block or two. Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Temporary sidewalk widenings done for the pandemic with barriers. In some places it just didn’t seem justified, and some have been taken out already. • What street uses are considered? Pedestrians • What performance measures are used? None described. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? None described. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? None described. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? None described. • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Merchants complained about the loss of parking/customers. Permanent projects are rarely done in a hasty manner and there is usually lots of consultation with the public, so they are usually well-received. The pandemic response, however, was sometimes not as well-received because the usual process had not been followed. 187 

INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – NEW ZEALAND Introductions 1. Name: Kathryn King 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): Currently at New Zealand Transport Agency, formerly at Auckland Transport 3. Role: Developing Regions portfolio manager working on walking and cycling network and development within smaller towns and cities across New Zealand. Formerly a program manager. Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Headquarters in a national context 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Sidewalks in most of country (urban and rural), crossing facilities, current push for more raised zebra crossings, lots of places have courtesy crossings (no priority over drivers), few signalized crossings outside of cities 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Urban and suburban: painted lanes with no physical protection, some cities getting protected cycleways but minimal number Rural: investment in trails over the past couple years, more tourism focused 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Buses are main public transport system. Most cities have bus lanes with bus priority but not to extent of BRT. Bus-only and T2 or T3 lanes for carpooling with buses. One line of BRT in the whole country. A few parts of the country have minimal train service. Extensive ferry system in some cities. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other Generally, not a re-allocation of road space but using space that could otherwise be another lane on the motorway. About 20 km of reallocation of road space. NZ Transport Agency works on more regional projects. Auckland Transport are more local, connected networks. 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? 188 

a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Over 90% are standalone projects aiming for an outcome for safety or access. Missed opportunities in maintenance projects though. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Transport planning function would be sponsor of projects for scope/management. Delivery team comes in for development and construction. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Good project = 5 years, a lot take longer than that, 7 years or so. Community pushback has caused projects to take longer. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Policy (gov. policy statement prioritizing safety, environment). Road to Zero strategy and standard safety interventions mostly aimed at pedestrians. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Yes (Auckland Transport). Auckland has constrained geography and arterial/main streets generally have everything on the same street so reallocating road space is quite difficult. Don’t have a grid system where parallel routes can be identified. Roadway reallocation decisions start at planning stage. As networks get planned, decisions about modes get made and funnels down to car parking and other traffic movement. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Yes, at several levels. Treaty with Indigenous community defines required partnership with peoples. Engagement with local Maori tribe considers their design principles (such as water sensitive design), finding opportunities to tell history. But there is a gap at higher levels, when selecting projects, they do not always get considered. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? At multiple levels. At the network planning level, they try and include everything. At the project level, the hard decisions are made, and stakeholder consultation takes place (the public like parking, traffic engineers like traffic flow). 189 

• How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Roads and Streets Framework helps understand place function, design guidance to determine appropriate sidewalk widths, cycleway standards. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Services are built under sidewalks so a change in curb system can be costly as services need to be re-located. Electricity poles/power lines can cause challenges, as can street trees and traffic flow. People worried about removing (hatched) flush medians which could be used for other things. Parking. Regular driveways which disrupt bicycle flow. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Quay Street in Auckland city centre. Lots of work happening there as they are currently building a new part of the rail network (City Rail). Project was done before the rail network with temporary planters. It was designed and delivered in one year and became one of the most prominent and popular cycleways in Auckland. This project ensured safe passage for cyclists for when the new construction started. There will be a new permanent cycleway when the current project is completed. • What street uses are considered? Cars, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, little bit of parking but that will be mostly removed. Bidirectional cycleway on one side, parking on the other side. • What performance measures are used? Looked at who was cycling before, how comfortable they were. Traffic metrics (collisions, speed, congestion, delays). How comfortable people walking were, overall numbers of different mode shares. https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/quay-street-cycleway-extension/#history • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Will be in report. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? Didn’t really look at non-transportation outcomes. There are few businesses along the waterfront side of this stretch so did not look at economics. Will start to see business on the other side of the street but this was not a result of the cycleway. Project being built now has cultural elements built in, native planting to reflect values of Indigenous peoples. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the key to success? 190 

Getting it done quickly before other construction started (timing). Also evaluating usage levels as a metric to show its importance as a connection. Massive increase in cycling investment in Auckland in 2015. That was one of the first projects that really started this. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? Auckland government covers regional area with urban, suburban, and rural. Puketāpapa Greenway system across wider suburban area with some street tree reallocation. Involved multiple agencies. Cycle routes alongside motorway (highway), through parks, along waterways, and a bit of the street network. It has now been constructed. Have evaluated parts of it as it was delivered in stages. But it wasn’t evaluated as thoroughly as Quay Street. Metrics focused on usage levels as opposed to traffic or parking. https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/mount-roskill-safe-routes/ https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/rides/te-auaunga-oakley-creek-mt-roskill-2/ https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council- works/local-boards/all-local-boards/puketapapa-local- board/docsgreenwaysplan/puketapapa-greenways-plan-3-vision.pdf Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Greenway network was a combination of parks and streets, urban and inner suburban (15 min bike from city centre, wealthy area). First stage, the park network, went well and has had significant use. Next stage was through a town centre. That was done as part of a maintenance project and required street reallocation and car parking. Consultation response was 50/50 on the design. Started to build it and people got upset when realizing it removed car parking. Got halfway built and then they just stopped. Did some more engagement but now no money to build it. Three routes. One got built, two didn’t. Search West Lynn Shops on Richmond Road. Aspiration was 50 km of cycling per year, but this project set them back. https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/grey-lynn-arch-hill-westmere- improvements/routes-1-2-surrey-crescent-to-garnet-road-richmond-road/ • What street uses are considered? Wide street, used to have a tram, probably 20-25 metres wide. Had angled parking through the town centre. Tried to reallocate angled parking to parallel with minimal parking loss. Design included parking-protected cycleways, but people didn’t like that. Two-lane road between parking. • What performance measures are used? None yet. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? None yet. 191 

• What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? None yet. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Moved bus stops without people realizing. Did engagement but didn’t clearly wrap it up and let people know the final decisions/design. Issues with sidewalk slopes/ponding. Done as a maintenance project but people thought it should have been improved more. Group of organized protestors really challenging to work with. First real experience with that. Protestors from surrounding wealthy community. INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS Introductions 1. Name: Marijn Kik 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): Municipality of Utrecht 3. Role: Strategic Mobility Advisor Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Active modes, mobility in general 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Rural: investment in trails over the past couple years, more tourism focused 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other (tram) 192 

5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance – SUMP, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? b. Who/which departments typically lead this? Yes Program wide Project organisations • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Not really but we try to make space for as many groups as possible, equity is always a factor, but no neighbourhoods are particularly targeted. Though we are trying to invest more in a particular neighbourhood for traffic safety – not based on race or equity, but because it’s not safe. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? Part of the policy making prior to project development. But still discussion on the neighbourhood/street level, needed us to adjust our plans. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Policy driven. • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Traffic models. We often have to convince politicians that we cannot depend entirely/exclusively on traffic models for decision making. Residents’ resistance. Our own income comes from parking also, for instance, so we have to be careful with how we (re)allocate it. 193 

Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Redevelopment of Catharijnsingel in Utrecht. In the 1970s a canal was removed and redeveloped into a highway going through the city centre. That highway was redeveloped to reestablish the canal and break down the division in the middle of the city caused by the highway. • What street uses are considered? Active modes and use for boats • What performance measures are used? Connection between station area, historic city center and university area. More attractive for users. Also quantitatively increase in numbers of cyclists, shoppers, and pedestrians because public space is much more attractive than before. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Slower driving speeds, and therefore increased safety and comfort for more vulnerable users. E.g., wider bicycle lanes and sidewalks, and more public transportation capacity. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? Physically attractive, more economically active (bars, shops, restaurants) since it’s redevelopment. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? Improved bus services because of better connection, and opportunities to walk, but because it’s gotten so busy, less able-bodied groups might have trouble navigating the space. But that’s a downside of the area’s success. • What do you think was the key to success? Many parties were open to invest. City council had the courage to make big changes, changing 12 traffic lanes to 2, and it’s going quite well. In short, political will. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? Leidserijn - Daffersschippersbrug – makes journey shorter for cyclist commuters from residential areas. Part of a development right at the other side of the river from the bridge Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? 8-10 yrs ago we built a hwy bridge connected main ring road to our city centre. That attracts a lot of cars to the city and main station area. Traffic was conflicting with tram lines, and bridge passed over it. Also, it was strategic. • What street uses are considered? 194 

Safe traffic time for car journeys. • What performance measures are used? It did not lower congestion, wait times for car traffic. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? It was supposed to leave congestion but it did not. Cyclists don’t like to be there since it attracted car traffic and made it more difficult for cyclists to get around. More capacity and comfort for cars, but less for cyclists. Also creates new traffic problems within the city ring. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? “Not that I know of” • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? This project made the existing division between communities even worse, though they were not specifically communities of color. • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? N/A INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA Introductions 1. Name: Fiona Campbell 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): City of Sydney 3. Role: Manager Cycling Strategy Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other Fiona Campbell, City of Sydney Planning division, City access and transport unit, walking and cycling team – role of transport unit is to lobby state government. State government governs all roads and can veto decisions. City council has no control over speed limits, or street layout. Council focused on walking cycling – building cycleways difficult because state government has to give approval. City of Sydney, however it does not like a Dutch municipality. It is one body among many local government areas in a larger metropolitan area. She is in charge of primarily the central business district and surrounding inner areas that cover 26km2. 200,000 residents, 4,000 jobs, 1mil people per day in the area. 195 

Local government doesn’t actually exist in Australian constitution, so they have no rights nor power. National government makes the decisions. Thinking is that city of Sydney council is ‘a problem’ from suburbs Often a battle between Provincial body of Transport for New South Wales, who are completely movement focused, whereas planning division of City is place focused. City of Sydney: City Operations Department – traffic operations – they’re the ones who design new curb ramps etc. (do smaller things). City of Sydney Projects – Cycle ways, lobby national government to be put on agenda of State 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Footpaths on almost all streets within city. +60km of shared paths which share between cycling and pedestrians. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Separated bidirectional cycleways – 20km to come. Bicycle boulevards Bicycle lanes Total of about 40km 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other Plenty of bus lanes on main roads. Bus only lanes used for buses to get through to priority signals. Can also be used by motorbikes, bikes, taxis. Some bus lanes are peak period only. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other Transport for New South Wales with city lobbying and design work. 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other 196 

9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other Every Local council has community strategic plan. Sustainable city 2030, which sets out strategic direction for council. Directions (2 of 10): Integrated transport and city for walking and cycling. Cycling strategy and action plan 2018-2030. Design Criteria: “Streetscode” – public domain guidelines for developers Funding sources: city has budget for bike related works but increasingly using state grants. Public engagement: Due to COVID-19, it has included 7 day notice letter instead of extensive engagement. Normally, each cycle way involves 4 weeks consultation period including door knocking, letters, social media, the results of which are put into the consultation report that is brought to council. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? Because there are few new roads being built, not really, usually on certain types of projects. b. Who/which departments typically lead this? City of Sydney “City Projects Department” typically lead this. • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? Not as big an issue here. City has Social Sustainability Policy that includes, Gender, Age, Race etc. The idea is that the city should foster informal meetings of diverse groups to build resilient community. How that gets translated into our work is less clear. The main cycleways are purposely serving public housing areas. Originally planned to stop once entering a gentrified area stops, we pushed for it to be extended into housing estate/public housing area. But it’s not particularly deliberate. City of Sydney – Reconciliation plan, elder who is consulted by city as a whole, but is not actively involved in Fiona’s work. Her department has reached out to Indigenous training program to get people involved in cycling, but that’s still in the works. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? Because we have the guiding documents, it’s already in incorporated in our GIS software, so if anyone is going to develop something new, they can see whether the network is adjacent or part of that area. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Guidance primarily set by state-specific “Streetscode” 197 

• What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? State prioritizes movement, whereas the City prioritizes place – that doesn’t often conflict. While they claim to have the same interest, they also put conditions in place that harm pedestrian accessibility. i.e., There is a Policy-action gap. No one has translated policy into action, and when they do, engineers often turn down any chance for change because their calculations say otherwise. City spends more time lobbying for things than actually implementation. Community opposition / “bikelash”. In a community survey, 70% supported more cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, but when asked whether they’d continue that support if it comes at the cost of parking or driving space, they no longer supported it. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Bourke street cycleway, March 2011. It’s offered as an example in the NACTO global street design guide. Sydney harbor in North almost to Airport. 3km long. Had MASSIVE opposition both from media and public. • What street uses are considered? Most streets 12.8 m wide, 3.2m lane, 2 parking lanes and 2 for vehicle travel. Idea was to reallocate space to build a cycleway. • What performance measures are used? No data on eventual use. Not evaluation not required. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Cycling use up 400%, primary school children riding to school. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? Property values increased, letter from resident “street so much friendlier”, some trees removed for headspace for cyclists, but sometimes moved cycling path around tree. Also installed: Rain gardens, street lighting, zebra crossings, street furniture. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the key to success? Political will despite strong opposition • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? N/A 198 

Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? College street cycleway, in city centre that skirts Hyde park. They dug it up 4 years after installing it with the promise that another path parallel to it on another street would be established, but too much opposition. • What street uses are considered? Cycle way, taking away parking spaces • What performance measures are used? No evaluation required, that is done only at state level. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? No evaluation required, that is done only at state level. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? No evaluation required, that is done only at state level. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? N/A • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? Roads minister drove to work every day along college street, getting stuck in traffic sometimes seeing cyclists going past you. He couldn’t bear it, so he formed a large part of the opposition to it. INTERNATIONAL PEER EXCHANGE – OTTAWA, CANADA Introductions 1. Name: Kornel Mucsi 2. Agency name and type (State; City; Regional Department of Transportation; Transit; Metropolitan Planning Organization; Other): City of Ottawa 3. Role: Program Manager - Transportation Part 1: Introductory Questions – Understanding the Local Context 1. Which section or office within your agency do you represent? a. Central; b. Policy; c. Headquarters; d. District Office; e. Other City of Ottawa Transportation Services Department, Transportation Planning 2. What types of pedestrian facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) 199 

a. Sidewalks; b. Shared use paths; c. Trails; d. Other Many urban and suburban roads have sidewalks or multi-use pathways, otherwise pedestrians walk on the road. Most rural roads have paved shoulders or gravel shoulders, and some have multi-use pathways, otherwise pedestrians walk on the road. 3. What types of bicycle facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Bicycle lanes; b. Buffered bicycle lanes; c. Raised, Separated bicycle facilities; c. Shared use paths; e. Other Many urban and suburban roads have designated cycling facilities (bike lanes, cycle tracks, multi-use pathways), otherwise most provide shared use lanes (cyclists share with motorists). Rural roads typically have paved shoulders, gravel shoulders, or shared use lanes. Detailed information on the City’s cycling network is available at https://ottawa.ca/en/residents/transportation-and-parking/cycling/cycling-network- information. 4. What types of transit facilities exist on the majority of your agency’s roadways (can be subdivided into Urban, Suburban, and Rural contexts as needed) a. Mixed traffic bus routes; b. Business Access & Transit lanes; c. Bus-only lanes; d. Other The City’s public transit network includes exclusive/dedicated rights-of-way for rail-based transit (O-Train) and bus rapid transit (Transitway); bus-only lanes; transit priority measures; and mixed traffic bus routes. 5. In the past 3 years, approximately how many projects has your agency successfully used to reallocate cross sectional space to non-automobile modes? a. None; b. 1 project; c. 2-5 projects; d. 6-10 projects; e. More than 10 projects; f. Other More than 10 6. How are these cross-sectional reallocations achieved? a. As standalone or individual projects; b. As part of maintenance or resurfacing programs; c. Other Improvements are delivered as standalone projects, as part of resurfacing/rehabilitation projects, and as part of integrated road reconstruction projects. 7. Who/which departments within your organization lead these projects? Which departments approve these projects? a. Multimodal office; b. Planning office; c. Design office; d. Other The planning is typically led by Transportation Planning (Transportation Services Department); design and construction is led by Infrastructure Services (Planning, Infrastructure, and Economic Development Department). 8. What is the average timeframe from planning through implementation? a. 2 years; b. 3-5 years; c. 6-10 years; d. Other Timeframes vary depending on the project, but the typical timeframe from project planning through to completion of implementation is 3 to 5 years. 9. What agency practices and processes are in place to systematically reallocate space to bicyclists, pedestrians and transit? 200 

a. Policies/guidance; b. Design criteria; c. Funding sources; d. Public engagement; e. Other All of the above: A – TMP, Cycling and Pedestrian Plans, MMLOS. B – TAC Geometric Design Guide, OTM Books (15, 18), City design guidelines. C – Pedestrian Facilities Program, Cycling Facilities Program, Transit Priority Program, other annual capital funding. D – Public engagement on master plans and on specific projects. Part 2: Street Design Decisions • Does your agency actively consider roadway reallocation as part of the project development process? Yes, this is one of the main goals of our unit. This was our primary goal. The city’s development vision is a larger guide. Yes a. Is this done program-wide or for certain types of projects? All projects, albeit to different degrees, depending on flexibility within timelines, budget, curb relocation. b. Who/which departments typically lead this? The City’s Complete Streets Implementation Framework directs all City staff to integrate the complete streets approach into routine processes, guidelines and standards for the planning, design, operation and maintenance of streets, and the reallocation of roadway space is one potential outcome of that. The Framework applies to all road projects, which are typically led by Infrastructure Services (Planning, Infrastructure, and Economic Development Department). • Are race and equity incorporated in the project selection or reallocation decision-making process? If so, at what point and how does it factor into those decisions? The City’s Equity and Inclusion Lens is an important tool that supports the work of City staff in the planning and delivery of City programs and services. The application of the lens helps the City: generate better solutions by incorporating diverse perspectives; take positive steps to remove systemic barriers and promote inclusion; create a more positive and respectful work environment; and achieve improved client satisfaction. The equity and inclusion lens are applied through the planning/design process in terms of age groups and accessibility, as well a geographic context. It is recognized that some groups (seniors, youth, lower income) may have less access to a private vehicle and tend to reply upon walking, cycling or transit to move about the City. For project selection the “Building Better, Revitalized Neighbourhoods (BBRN)” project worked to identify projects in less privileged areas of the City. For re-allocation, as far as I am aware, not formally. However, at an informal level, yes. • When in the project development process are multimodal reallocation priorities established? 201 

The City’s Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Guidelines provide guidance to practitioners (City staff, consultants, etc.) on how to assess the various levels of service for the different modes of transportation and what the specific target service levels for each mode should be given the location and context the transportation project. The allocation or reallocation of space within the roadway is directly related to the MMLOS. The MMLOS is intended to be applied across a variety of projects that require detailed analysis of transportation impacts. In other words, whenever a project or study requires the completion of level of service analysis, MMLOS should be applied. Scenarios that require MMLOS evaluation may include transportation environmental assessments, corridor studies, neighbourhood traffic management studies, or development projects. • How are decisions about multimodal reallocation priorities made? (For example, what cross- sectional reallocation guidance is consulted to inform decisions?) Complete Streets Policy / MMLOS methodology • What barriers or obstacles prevent cross-sectional reallocation? Need to maintain vehicle LOS, need to minimize negative impact to transit, utilities, general traffic impacts, parking impacts, transit travel time impacts, safety considerations, winter maintenance minimums, and emergency service minimums. Part 3: Successes and Failures in Cross-section Reallocation Successful example: • Can you give a brief project description? Successful projects include Montreal Road and Main Street. For these projects, the ultimate vision for the corridor was to construct a vibrant and welcoming main street with a well- balanced transportation network that will allow residents and businesses to thrive. To achieve this vision, the project proposed the following aboveground and underground improvements are proposed: i. Construct a three-lane cross section that includes two westbound lanes, one eastbound lane and cycling tracks/lanes in both directions. ii. Bury overhead Hydro lines. iii. Implement streetscaping features, including but not limited to new street furniture, streetlights, trees, concrete sidewalks and paver stones. iv. Review and improve bus stop and bus shelter locations. v. Replace watermain, sanitary and storm sewers. • What street uses are considered? Transit, on-street parking, cycling in transit-only lane during peak periods, cycling, pedestrians, motor vehicles, truck routes, retail front. 202 

• What performance measures are used? The City reviews various performance measures including transit travel time and delay, MMLoS, driving time, enhancement to bus stops, impact on pedestrian travel. • What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Goals for projects vary and often include the improvement of safety, comfort, capacity and increased timing for transit services. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? No comments. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? This particular project serves a community which has a large black and brown community. • What do you think was the key to success? For this project, the support from the Business Improvement Area and ward Councilor helped to engage the community. The BIA and Councilor organized a bike ride in the area to hear from the community on the project in particular to understand how to better accommodate cycling and pedestrians in the corridor. • We are very interested in suburban contexts. If your successful project example is not suburban, do you have an example, case study, or additional contact you could direct us toward? N/A Unsuccessful example: • Can you give a brief project description? In any project there are opportunities to learn from challenges and bring forward lessons to mitigate future issues. • What street uses are considered? Transit, on-street parking, cycling, pedestrians, motor vehicles, truck routes, retail front. • What performance measures are used? The City reviews various performance measures including LOS for vehicles, transit travel time and delay, MMLoS, driving time, enhancement to bus stops, impact on pedestrian travel. 203 

• What have been the operational outcomes of implementation (including safety, comfort, and capacity)? Even if the main intended outcomes are not achieved, there may be indirect outcomes that still provide benefits. For example, a transit improvement project may be scaled back from its original scope but still include improvements such as new bus shelters and relocated bus stops. • What have been the non-transportation outcomes of implementation (including social, economic, and environmental impacts)? No comments. • Do you know what impacts this project had on black and brown communities? What might have led to those outcomes? No comments • What do you think was the reason that the project did not succeed? There are many reasons a project can be challenging including timing, communications with internal and external stakeholders. 204