Out and About:A Guide to Sustainable Local Circulation Planning

Prepared by: PlanSmart NJ February 2011Prepared for: New Jersey Office for Planning Advocacy Authors: Carlos Rodrigues PP / AICP, Jeffrey Wilkerson AICP, Noelle Reeve PP / AICP

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the many individuals who have contributed directly or indirectly to this publication. In particular we wish to thank the professionals and officials involved withdeveloping circulation plans and participated in interviews by the authors. The nine case study towns are:Bridgewater, Dennis, Frankford, Lodi, Maple Shade, Metuchen, Newton, Plumsted and Tuckerton / LittleEgg Harbor; and the staff at the Office of Smart Growth. In addition we thank Jon Carnegie PP/AICP,Executive Director of Rutgers University’s Voorhees Transportation Center for his generous assistance and comments on the rubric and drafts of the Guide.

Table of Contents

Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter One: Introduction to Transportation and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Chapter Two: Legal Considerations in Circulation Planning in New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chapter Three: Key Concepts and Contemporary Ideas in Circulation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Chapter Four: The Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Chapter Five: The Sustainable Cicrulation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Chapter Six: The Sustainable Circulation Plan Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Chapter Seven: Tools and Strategies for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Annotated Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

e all use our circulation systemto get around.

Inside buildings we use corri-dors, walkways, hallways and

other passageways to circulate,including ramps, steps, staircases and

elevators for vertical circulation.

Outside buildings we use sidewalks, trails,walkways, alleys, lanes, paths, bicycle lanes,streets, roads, drives, circles, ways, boulevards,allees, places, walks, avenues, parkways, turnpikes, expressways, thoroughfares andthroughways.

Our rich vocabulary describes the varied natureof our circulation system, with which we areconstantly in contact.

We all rely to some extent on our circulationsystems to go about with our lives. How we

navigate these systems, how much time wespend using them and the types of experienceswe have while using them can have profoundimplications in terms of our wellbeing andquality of life.

We experience it in many different ways,depending upon our means of circulation. Upclose and personal, if we are walking; at aslightly faster speed if we are rolling or bicy-cling; and at a much faster pace if we are driv-ers or passengers on a motorized vehicle. Ourexperience – and how much of our surround-ings we are able to take in -- depends heavilyon how fast we are travelling and on what typeof vehicle we are travelling in. As drivers wetake less in; as passengers we take more in.

We have all been caught in traffic jams andfrustrated at how slowly we are able to move.We have all wished we were the only travelers,unimpeded by others who slow us down. The

“others” have thought the same about us.We are constantly on the lookout for shortcuts– whether a new, shorter path between build-ings; the express train between two locations;or a back way, on secondary roads, to get towhere we want to go, faster. Our time is pre-cious, and the time we spend travelling takesaway from time available for other, more val-ued activities: family, work, sleep, leisure andcivic commitments.

The reality is that we live in a crowded place ina crowded planet. If we have circulation trou-bles we need to get smarter about how wemove around and we need to make accommo-dations. Traffic jams and traffic congestion arenot going to go away. In many ways, these aresigns of success. When many people want toaccess a particular location – whether to live,work, shop, attend a concert, participate in anathletic event, or join a political rally – thismeans that particular place and location is

1

Preamble

W

highly desirable and many people want to getthere. Rather than trying to discourage theseactivities or events, we need to figure out howto facilitate them with the least amount of dis-ruption to everyone else. It is not all that diffi-cult, but it does require some brainpower, tech-nical know-how and creativity.

That is the purpose of circulation planning.How to get people to where they want to go,and goods where they need to go – in the mostefficient, socially equitable, least disruptive toourselves and to others and environmentallybenign ways – that is the job of circulationplanning. The purpose of circulation planningis not to minimize cut-through traffic in high-income neighborhoods. It is not to facilitatehigh volume vehicular traffic in and out ofshopping malls, office parks or sports stadiums,regardless of the adverse impacts on the sur-rounding local and regional transportation sys-tem. The streets and other elements of our cir-culation system should contribute to stable or

increasing property values, not depress them.When property values are depressed as a resultof proximity to a road or some other compo-nent of the circulation system, this is an indica-tion of poor decisions in terms of both land useand transportation.

We are not going to become a houseboundsociety where everyone works at home andtrips are drastically limited. Our global econo-my requires global contacts and while electron-ic communications can handle routine contacts,humans will continue to require face-to-faceinteraction for things that really matter. We willcontinue to travel for errands, for business andfor pleasure.

However, given the overall transportation sec-tor’s heavy contributions to greenhouse gasemissions and global warming, in addition toits deleterious impacts on both air and waterquality, finding ways to reduce tail pipe emis-sions from non-stationary sources and impervi-

ous surfaces devoted to circulation should be ahigh priority for the entire community. Whilepart of the answer lies in improved technolo-gies and other factors that are beyond the abilities of local governments to influence, a big part of the solutions will depend on local decisions.

In addition, the nation faces a public health cri-sis manifested by alarming rates of childhoodobesity, which the public health community hasscientifically determined is positively correlat-ed, among other factors, with the low densityland use patterns and high levels of auto-dependency which became prevalent over the last century.

Local circulation planning can and should play a vital role in helping us meet these awesome challenges.

2

Chapter One: Introduction to Transportation and Land Use

3

Transportation and land use are inextricably linked. How the two are combined defines the physical

world we live in. Traditional ways of approaching land use and transportation emphasized transit systems and

compact development patterns. The 20th century created vast landscapes devoted to individual mobility.

We now understand that these are ultimately unsustainable. To meet current and future challenges,

the 21st century must emphasize sustainability and find new, more environmentally benign solutions.

n New Jersey today, there is anincreasing demand for walka-ble, bikeable and transit-friendly communities.

This is in part due to a growingsensitivity to the high levels of pollution to ourair, water bodies and land caused by an auto-dependent land use pattern and an auto-domi-nated transportation system, as well as the very high energy and land consumption ratesthey entail.

But there are a number of other reasons whichmake auto-dominance and auto-dependencyvery problematic public policy issues.

One is a demographic imperative: the aging ofthe Baby Boom generation, a bulging cohortthat has changed policy and the face of com-munities at every stage of their lives. From2026, when the first Boomers reach the age of80, there will be a growing number of seniorswhose driving skills may be impaired and whoin turn will increasingly become captives intheir communities, even at a stage in life whereactive living offers tangible benefits in slowingthe aging process.

Another source of demand for places that areless dependent on the automobile is comingfrom those now entering the workforce, includ-ing both younger cohorts -- who favor vibrantstreetscapes in the places where they live andwork -- and more urban-oriented immigrants,who rely more heavily on public transit and areless likely to drive a car than native-born resi-dents. Both groups want places to socialize,such as cafes and restaurants; opportunities toshop; access to cultural events, sports andentertainment venues; and active and passiverecreation within easy walking distance ofalmost any place they are likely to be.

As a result of changes in demographics,lifestyle preferences, and disposable incomethere is also a rapidly shrinking market for lowdensity, single-use development – and in partic-ular of large-lot, single-family detached hous-ing -- and a significant “overhang” (unsoldinventory) on the market looking for buyers.

And finally, another compelling reason forchange is that there is less and less land avail-able to continue constructing the type of low-density, single-use development that hasbrought about the auto-dependency in the first

place. This is especially true in New Jersey, thestate closest to build-out2. Even if we wantedto and could afford it there is simply no moreroom to continue the land use and transporta-tion practices that were prevalent in the lastcentury.

The Historical RelationshipBetween Land Use andTransportationThroughout history, land use patterns have beenshaped by the then dominant modes of trans-portation. In pre-industrial times, when NewJersey’s traditional communities were laid out,settlements emerged on the coasts and on riversand at the crossroads of cart and coach routes.The design of these settlements still reflects thefact that most people walked most everywherethey needed to go, while longer trips weretaken on horseback, in horse drawn coaches orby boat. Most streets were relatively narrowand buildings were clustered close together.Mixed-use buildings and neighborhoods werethe norm in the most densely populated centers.Larger land holdings, usually in active agricul-tural use, were located in the outskirts of these centers.

Chapter One: Introduction to Transportation and Land Use1

I

1Land use The type and pattern of urbanized versus open lands: whether it is residential, commercial, or other; whether it is in separate or mixed-use zones; its density, scale andlayout; and its relationship to transportation, parks, natural resources and open areas.2Build-out A condition where all land is either already urbanized or protected from further development by regulation, conservation measures or public ownership.

4

In the 19th century, with the advent of trainsand streetcars, the need for settlements to benear navigable waters diminished. But the pat-tern within new settlements did not changemuch, although the widespread use of the streetgrid provided much greater regularity and dis-cipline to the built form. Walking was still theprimary mode of transportation. An extensiveand now largely forgotten network of trolleysand streetcars extended the geographic reach of the population, while longer trips were takenby passenger rail and steamer. The footprint of human activities was quite compact.Agriculture was still a viable land use and consumed much of the rest of inhabited rurallandscape.

In the 20th century, however, as the automobilecame into widespread use, it greatly influencedhow land use patterns would evolve: it reducedthe need for settlements to be near water or raillines, and it reduced the need for buildings to

be close together. In fact, tightly clusteredbuildings did not suit the automobile. It need-ed wider streets and parking spaces, which tookup more land and pushed buildings and activi-ties apart. The increase in distances betweenhomes and almost any place people needed togo meant that walking as a means of gettinganywhere became difficult and increasinglyirrelevant.

In the first half of the 20th century, local landuse regulations also became widely used. Toprevent noxious factories from encroaching onresidential areas, zoning encouraged the separa-tion of uses3, and zoning, subdivision and landdevelopment regulations became increasinglypopular. To avoid the squalor of the 19th centu-ry urban tenements, and to minimize the risksto property and life from large-scale fires, zon-ing required lower densities4 to allow more airand light. Both measures increased the dis-tances between buildings, places, uses and

activities and accelerated the conversion ofopen land to suburban uses. But there wouldnever have been a widespread market for suchdevelopment without such large numbers ofhouseholds owning a car and governmentincentives for home ownership and subsidiesfor highway construction.

At the same time, we witnessed the dismantlingof what had been a vast network of publictransportation covering both larger metropoli-tan areas and smaller rural centers. Tram andtrolley companies were purchased by the

At the beginning of the 20th century, most citiesand towns in New Jersey were connected by trolleysknown as inter-urbans, such as this one run by thePennsylvania Traction Company.

3Separation of uses Residential, industrial, commercial and retail development put into separate zones, an innovation of zoning replacing the mix of uses in traditional down-towns, where homes, shops and work places were clustered in downtowns.4Low density Definitions vary considerably from place to place, but usually refer to the number of single-family homes allowed per acre (4 to the acre in some areas is consid-ered low density; in others it may be 1 house on 10 acres). In commercial zones, low-density zoning restricts both the building’s height and its footprint on the ground. A criti-cism of suburban development is that conventional low-density zoning is not low enough to conserve natural resources or farmland and not high enough to support public trans-portation or produce affordable housing.

5

emerging auto and oil industries and closeddown or replaced by buses. Transit serviceswere discontinued in all but the largest cities.In a short period of time, the private automo-bile became not a luxury, but a necessity.

After World War II, as the decades wore on, theBoomer-influenced market changed, movingfrom “starter” homes to more expensive hous-ing. Zoning and other land use regulations alsochanged, requiring increasingly lower densities,new features such as off-street parking and newenvironmental regulations, such as requiringeach project to take care of its stormwater onsite. The average building lot, house size anddistance to shops and employment all increasedconsiderably as a result. People becamedependent on the automobile for almost every trip.

It can be noted that in Europe and other placesduring this same time period, auto ownershipand driving also increased significantly, justlike in North America. But in these places, landpatterns did not suburbanize nearly as much,transit systems were not dismantled and peoplecontinued to have the option to use many dif-ferent modes of travel.

Households in Europe can choose their modeof travel depending on the type of trip – walk-

ing for small errands, biking for short com-mutes and recreation, public transportation forcommuting and longer solo trips, and automo-biles for families and groups traveling together.As a result, mode split – the percentage of tripsmade using different forms of transportation –is dramatically different. In these places, a sin-gle car is enough for most households. Zero-car households are possible because of car-sharing programs and other low cost alterna-tives and because there is still a range of viabletransportation options almost everywhere thatpeople live, work and shop.

The following table summarizes in generalterms the differences between the traditional,compact development land use / circulationpatterns found in historic communities in the

US and throughout the world, and those foundin communities largely created by single-usezoning (“sprawl communities”, for lack of abetter term) in the second half of the 20th century.

The Land Use Challenge in New JerseyResearch suggests that New Jersey may be thestate closest to reaching “build-out” in thenation. As open land disappears, the need tofind other ways to grow becomes increasinglyurgent. In fact, it leaves New Jersey with onlyone viable way to grow: redevelopment.Building permit data for the last decade of the20th century indicates a substantial increase inthe number of building permits issued in NJ’solder communities, precisely those that mightbe considered “built-out” under conventional

6

Traditional CommunitiesSmall blocks (between 200 and 400 feet)Mixed-use and mixed building typologiesInterconnected street networRelatively narrow streetsRelatively slow designLimited use of cul-de-sacsShallow building setbacks from streets

Parking in rear; on-street parkingPedestrian and transit friendly

Sprawl CommunitiesSuperblocks (often 1,000 feet or longer)Single-use and single building typologiesHierarchial street networkSignificantly wider streetsSignificantly higher design speedsHeavy use of cul-de-sacsDeep building setbacvks from streets;reverse frontagesParking infront; off-street parkingCar friendly

assumptions. In fact, a considerableshare of development growth in NJ tookplace in these communities, many ofwhich had not seen any visible develop-ment activity in decades. This can beexplained as a result of several, compli-mentary factors: shifts in market prefer-ences by households and employers;increasingly tight and expensive subur-ban markets; state and local fiscal andother incentives; an increasingly tightregulatory environment in the suburbs; amore adventurous and enlighteneddevelopment industry; greater apprecia-tion for proximity to transit; and adop-tion by the state of the rehabilitationsub-code of the construction code.

But redevelopment is often more com-plex, more difficult, and frequentlymore expensive than development on a“greenfield” site (i.e., open land).Constructing a mixed-use project,which is often the goal of many

DDeeffiinniittiioonnssRedevelopment means re-using or finding new ways touse abandoned buildings. It also means tearing downexisting buildings to build something new, from a singlenew building to an entire neighborhood.

Infill means building on vacant lots located in an oth-erwise urbanized area. Lots may be vacant becauseprevious buildings burned down, as a result of a titledispute or for various other reasons.

Revitalization means that the community being redevel-oped shows sign of distress: a poor economic base,weak markets, unsafe neighborhoods, failing schools orother problems. Revitalization often requires findingnew uses for empty or partially empty buildings andbringing new life into distressed areas.

Retrofitting is a form of redevelopment. It means thatthe community being redeveloped has land use patternsthat are inefficient or no longer desirable. Suburbanareas, which may have traditionally had a strong mar-ket but is now showing signs of decline, are often seento need retrofitting to create vibrant streetscapes in a new transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly centeror downtown.

Regeneration is also associated with redevelopment. Itis used primarily to reflect the need to restore degradednatural resources -- either in developed areas or not –but can also be applied to restoring impaired humanecologies and local economies. Regenerative interven-tions applied to natural systems include actions such as“day-lighting” streams that have been forced into culverts and paved over, restoring riverbanks and streambeds that have been channelized or degrad-ed, expanding the urban and community forest5

and using “green infrastructure”6 within and between communities. Regeneration is often made possiblethrough redevelopment.

7

5Urban and Community Forest Street trees; trees in public or private open space; trees in non-urban-ized parcels located in developed areas or connecting urbanized areas.

6Green Infrastructure Using natural resources to replace conventional engineering infrastructure: wet-lands that serve as flood control and pollution filters; street trees that reduce stormwater runoff and theurban “heat island” effect of roads and parking lots; or bio-swales (planted areas designed to channeland clean stormwater) instead gutters, etc.

The City of Trenton’s original zoningframework from 1930 is a model ofsimplicity, using only 8 zoning districts toregulate a diverse, richly textured urbanenvironment. Contemporary zoning for considerably less complex suburban communities routinely relies on 25 or 30 zoning designations.

redevelopment projects, adds even more com-plexity. Most developers today have experi-ence in only one type of development, whereasa mixed-use project requires knowledge ofcommercial, retail and housing regulations,construction, markets and financing.

In almost every type of redevelopment, the costto the developer is higher than building onclean, open land. Redevelopment oftenrequires the expensive cleanup of contamina-tion from previous users, the demolition costsof tearing down or gutting existing buildings,the cost of securing the site from surroundingbuildings and passers-by, and meeting the costof parking and landscaping requirements aswell as many state and federal regulationsdesigned for suburban conditions.

Redevelopment also adds traffic to areas thatoften already have congestion. In New Jersey,

that often means adding transportation impactfees to cover the costs of improvements toroads and intersections.

To meet these added costs, redevelopers oftenneed higher densities – and public subsidies --in order to make the project financially viable.But higher densities also increase costs, which,in weak market areas, may exceed any increas-es in revenue that can be expected. For exam-ple, steel and concrete construction costs morethan wood frame construction. Greater build-ing height requires costly elevators, fire protec-tion and possibly structured parking.Structured parking alone may cost ten timesthat of surface parking – sometimes more.When these costs exceed the revenue likely tobe generated by the rents or sale prices in thatmarket, the redeveloper may want to keep costsdown by building at lower densities, thusundermining the feasibility of some types ofpublic transportation service.

The Transportation Challenge inNew JerseyDifferent land use/transportation patterns arenot just a question of preference or aesthetics.There are profound consequences involvedwith these choices, including dramatically dif-ferent transportation, economic and environ-mental outcomes.

Low-density environments generate significant-ly higher numbers of motor vehicle trips. Theneed for multiple vehicles in every householdmeans transportation-related costs take up anincreasingly larger share of household budgets.The need to accommodate an ever-increasingnumber of private motor vehicles means a larg-er share of public budgets goes towards build-ing and maintaining the circulation system,potentially at the expense of other public needs,such as education or health. Larger roads andparking lots increase stormwater run-off,which, in turn, requires larger and larger sys-tems to convey and treat the stormwater.

But higher densities associated with redevelop-ment also impact the transportation system in anumber of ways, not always positive. Forexample, if auto-dependency remains afterredevelopment because no public transit servic-es are available in the area, it will add morecongestion. And this congestion is unlikely tobe addressed by adding more highway capacity.Only reducing car trips and increasing the num-ber of trips that people take by walking, bikingand taking public transportation will managecongestion in higher density areas.

Technology offers some mobility substitutes, inthe form of tele-commuting and on-line shop-ping. However these options can only account

8

In the early 20th century, bicycling was popularwith both men and women and there were numer-ous bicycle clubs in the major cities. This groupbelonged to a bicycle club in Newark.

for a limited number of trips and will notresolve current or future transportation challenges, which can only be accomplished by shifting a substantial number of trips tomore benign modes, such as walking, bicyclingor transit.

Shifting trips to modes of travel other than theautomobile requires smarter and more informedplanning, a better understanding of what makestransit and non-motorized modes viable, a bet-ter integration between transportation, infra-structure and land use planning and a muchbetter understanding of the realities that governhow different modes of transportation operate,and what actually motivates people when theymake decisions about which mode to use for aparticular trip.

Transit requirements, in particular, are poorlyunderstood by many in the planning field. Forexample, rail requires land use patterns that aresomewhat different from bus. Conventional busservice, with its more frequent stops and lowerspeeds, requires a relatively even distributionof density along corridors; while rail service,with less frequent stops, is best served by highdensity in stations areas, separated by a dis-tance that reflects whether it is local or express,commuter or inter-city service. Both can

co-exist and compliment each other, if land use planning can get it right. And the increas-ingly popular Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is ahybrid transit technology that seeks to offer arail equivalent transit option without the railinfrastructure.

Similarly, if we want to encourage walking as ameans of getting from A to B, it is not enoughto add basic pedestrian amenities, such as side-walks, street trees and street furniture (benches,pedestrian-scale lighting) to the existing roadnetwork, although that should be done as well.Walkers are discouraged when places seemunsafe or unfriendly, meaning that their pathscross wind swept parking lots, run adjacent toblank walls, take them through places whereother people are unlikely to be or where speed-ing traffic is only inches from their feet.

More direct connections are needed to encour-age walking. The “goat paths” worn into grassshoulders along the side of roads without side-walks or showing where people don’t followthe sidewalk in order to cut corners and reducetravel distance indicate that pedestrians have akeen interest in more direct connections.Walkers need a circulation system that workswith, but is sometimes independent of, the cir-culation system dedicated for automobiles.

Research has conclusively shown that the dis-tance people are willing to walk varies with thecharacteristics of the physical environment theyare walking through, with the quality of thepedestrian infrastructure as well as with withthe nature of (reason for) the trip. Discretionarywalking trips in particular – those that can justas easily be taken by walking or by driving –depend on complex assessments people under-take when deciding how to make the trip, andassessing trade-offs between many factors suchas quality of life, cost, time, convenience, collateral benefits such as physical exercise and so forth.

Bikers also need direct routes, and need theroad network to accommodate them safely andefficiently. In many places in Europe, bicy-clists not only have more direct paths, includ-ing dedicated bicycle-only rights-of-way, but

9

The Newark Light Rail functions as a circulatorlinking University Heights and neighborhoods tothe north with the Downtown.

have their own traffic signals coordinated withtraffic signals for motor vehicles. There is somedebate among bike advocates in the US as towhether we should invest preferentially in on-road bike lanes or off-road facilities: on the onehand the efficiencies of maintaining a sharedroadbed clear of debris and snow versus theadded safety of having a barrier between bikesand motor vehicles. Ultimately this is a falsedichotomy, because both options are acceptableand should be used where appropriate.

Changing land use and transportation planningpractices requires broader knowledge of whatmakes the “other” modes of transportationviable; re-ranking priorities; and new ways fordifferent agencies of government to coordinatetheir actions to create multi-modal transporta-tion systems that work.

The Circulation System – SomeMetricsThere are over 8.5 million lane miles of roadsin the lower 48 states -- the equivalent of17,600 square miles of pavement -- accommo-dating 8 billion vehicle miles of travel daily.Americans travel over 4.6 trillion miles annual-ly by personal motor vehicle, an average ofover 15,000 miles per person. Public trans-portation accounts for less than 4% of totalmiles traveled.

Of all the trips made annually in the US, a littleless than 90% are made by motor vehicle;almost 9% are by walking; about 1% are bybicycle; and 1.6% are made by transit. In termsof trips to work, 92% are by personal motorvehicle, 5% are by transit, 2.8% are on foot andonly 0.5% are by bicycle. In contrast, someEuropean countries have dramatically differentmode splits: in Germany, 12% of trips are bybicycle, with 28% in the Netherlands and 20%in Denmark. The portion of trips captured bytransit is also substantially higher, often over40%. Perhaps surprisingly, some New Jerseycommunities, such as Jersey City and Hoboken,have mode splits comparable to Europeancities, which suggest that individual travelbehavior is more responsive to external condi-tions than to cultural factors or idiosyncrasies.

New Jersey has 13,500 lane miles of state andfederal highways and over 65,000 miles oflocal roads (municipal and county). That is

almost 300 square miles of pavement. TheFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) ratesNJ roads and bridges as the worst in the coun-try, with 49% considered in “poor or mediocrecondition”.

New Jersey has about 5.8 million registereddrivers and 6.2 million registered motor vehi-cles. It has been estimated that there might beup to 10 parking spaces for every motor vehi-cle, which suggests that there might be close to 90 square miles dedicated to parking in New Jersey.

There is no comprehensive statewide inventoryof sidewalks. We do know that along the13,200 miles of county roads, there are only3,700 miles of sidewalks, which means thatabout ? of county roads have no sidewalks. Andwhile 90% of county road miles in HudsonCounty have sidewalks, in Sussex County only2% have sidewalks.

FatalitiesTravelling by car is not without a cost. In 2008,over 37,200 people were killed on the nation'shighways. Another 2.3 million were injured.Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause ofdeath for Americans ages 1 to 34, accountingfor one out of every four deaths in this agegroup. There are around 43,000 injuries and 700

10

This 19th century view of the AtlanticHighlands – a popular beach resort at the time -- shows the train meeting the ferry fromNew York.

deaths involving bicycles in the US every year.On New Jersey roads, around 600 motorists,pedestrians and bicyclists are killed in trafficcrashes annually. Pedestrians account for about20% of these deaths, about double the nationalaverage. About 5% are cyclists.

VMTVehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a measure ofthe total amount of travel on roads. It is a criti-cal indicator of how intensely the circulationsystem is used. It is also used to allocate largeamounts of federal transportation funding.Nationally, VMT increased consistently from1956 to 2004, but has leveled out since then. Itis estimated that NJ had 144 million VMT in1985, 208 million in 2007 and only 200 millionin 2009. NJ residents drive 13,000 miles annu-ally, on average, less than the national averageof almost 15,000 miles, a reflection of NJ’smore compact development pattern and avail-ability of public transit. Still, each New Jerseymotorist drives almost 1,800 more miles annu-ally today than in 1997, amounting to a stag-gering total of 72.5 billion miles annually.

Mode ShareIn 2010, NJ Transit provided passengers with161 million trips by bus, 80 million by com-muter rail and 22 million by light rail. About75% of New Jersey residents live within 5

miles of a NJ Transit rail station, and betweenrail, bus and ferries they increasingly rely ontransit to get around. The share of work tripstaken by transit in New Jersey – over 10% -- isone of the highest in the nation. That notwith-standing, driving continues to be the dominantmode of transportation in the state, accountingfor 95% of all passenger miles traveled.

NJ Transit buses account for 2/3 of all transitriders in the state. Riders on NJ Transit busestravel almost 1,000 million miles yearly.However, passenger miles traveled by NJTransit commuter rail is growing almost sixtimes faster than bus ridership. Commuter railcarries around 30% of transit riders, with lightrail and ferries carrying the rest. Light rail rid-ership has grown more than sevenfold since1997, as a result of the opening of several new lines.

Transit use in NJ has been increasing fasterthan driving. Per person transit miles have beengrowing three times faster than driver miles.Total annual passenger miles on transitincreased 45% between 1997 and 2007. Thenumber of passenger miles traveled on railnearly doubled to 2.3 billion. All told, in 2007,New Jersey residents travelled over 500 mileson average by transit. But travel by automobileand truck was 16 times greater.

Over 3% of New Jersey residents walk to work.As might be expected, walking to work is mostprevalent in the denser parts of the state. Butthe journey to work only comprises about 20%of all trips. Overall, it is estimated that walkingaccounts for about 11% of all trips in NJ.Bicycling accounts for about 1% of total trips.

New Jersey ranks 34th among the states interms of the percentage of people who cycle towork, and 18th in terms of those who walk towork. But New Jersey ranks 46th in terms ofper capita state transportation funding spent onbicycle and pedestrian facilities: a scant 0.6%of the state’s capital budget for transportation.This does not reflect well on NJDOT’s capitalspending priorities.

11

Energy ConsumptionNew Jersey residents consume almost 1,000trillion BTUs for transportation. The transporta-tion sector accounts for almost 40% of totalenergy consumption in the state. New Jerseyresidents consume far more energy for trans-portation than for residential, commercial orindustrial uses.

Environmental ImpactsRoads have significant environmental impacts,both during construction and later when in use.They change chemical soil conditions, waterflow and water quality, and lead to deleteriouschanges to natural habitats, increased wildlifemortality, changes in animal migration patternsand dispersal of nonnative pest species, bothplants and animals. Vehicle use causes air andwater quality degradation. Emissions fromvehicles cause local air pollution, throughincreases in VOCs, NOX, carbon dioxide, par-ticulate matter and ground-level ozone. Thenegative impacts of these pollutants on humansand other species have been well documented.Roads (and other impervious surfaces) alsochange local climate conditions, primarilythrough the “urban heat island” effect andincreased rainfall.

The transportation sector accounts for 1/3 oftotal US CO2 emissions, the single largest con-

tributor. Of that, 82% comes from cars, sportutility vehicles, freight and light trucks. CO2emissions are directly correlated with VMT. Itis estimated that the transportation sector isresponsible for 54% of New Jersey's total CO2 emissions, compared to 28% nationwide.CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. New Jerseymotorists emit close to 85 billion pounds ofCO2, slightly under 10,000 per resident per year.

In terms of GhG emissions by mode, the UStransportation sector breaks down as follows:36% passenger cars, 19% light trucks, 16%heavy trucks, 10% aircraft, 5% maritime, 2%rail, 1% bus and 11% other (US EPA 2000).

This notwithstanding, US EPA data also indi-cate a steep decline over time in air pollutantemissions from cars and trucks as a result ofchanges in the fleet towards newer, more effi-

cient cars and better emission controls. CO,NOX and VOC emissions from cars and truckshave dropped by about 1/3 since 1997, andemissions of fine particulate matter from dieselhave dropped more than 50% as a result oftighter regulations and cleaner fuel. As a result,air quality in those NJ cities that are monitoredhas improved markedly in the last 15 years.

What is a Sustainable,Multimodal Circulation Plan?Circulation affects people, goods and a varietyof vehicles, as well as the infrastructure thatmakes it possible for people, goods and vehi-cles to move around: streets and sidewalks;tunnels and overpasses; canals and water bod-ies; rails, stairs and elevators and so forth.

A circulation plan is a statement of how a juris-diction seeks to facilitate (or in some casesrestrict) circulation, mobility and access in thefuture.

A circulation plan contains a set of goals andobjectives describing what it is seeking toachieve; an inventory and description of all therelevant components of the circulation system,both public and private; a clear-headed assess-ment of what is working and what is not work-ing, or is not likely to work, in the future; a setof realistic strategies for achieving the desired

12

This view of Banhofstrasse in Zurich shows earlystreetcars circulating in streets still uncluttered byprivate motor vehicles.

goals and objectives and solving or mitigatingthe problems or shortcomings identified; acomprehensive list of projects; and a lucidstrategy to fund them.

Conventional circulation plans are heavilybiased towards vehicular travel. Many are littlemore than an inventory of local roads classifiedaccording to a functional hierarchy and a list ofproposed physical “improvements”, such asroad widenings, proposed new signalized inter-sections, proposed new dedicated turning lanesand so forth. Other forms of transportation areoften ignored or given short shrift.

The underlying assumption to the conventionalapproach to circulation planning is that vehicu-lar traffic will continue to grow and that theplanners’ job is to figure out what actions(improvements) need to be taken with respectto the circulation system to accommodate thatgrowth in vehicle travel.

This fundamental assumption is seriously ques-tioned today. We now realize that systematical-ly facilitating private motor vehicle circulationabove all other modes creates an auto-centricenvironment that both snuffs out other modesof transportation and ultimately results in infe-rior places and an overall poor quality of life.

We are trying to become smarter about how wemanage the public right-of-way and stricter indisciplining the private motor vehicle.A sustainable, multi-modal circulation plan rec-ognizes that people, goods and vehicles movearound in many different ways and have differ-ent needs, and that it is an appropriate goal ofpublic policy to encourage the maximum use oftransit and non-motorized modes of transporta-tion to the full extent possible. As such, a sus-tainable multimodal circulation plan will con-sider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transitriders and goods movements, in addition to theneeds of private motor vehicles and their driv-ers. In some, perhaps many cases, the needs ofpedestrians, bicyclists and transit users will bedeemed more important and will come first.

A multi-modal circulation plan seeks to levelthe playing field and assign an appropriate roleto each mode of transportation. It does not seekto eliminate private motor vehicle travel,although it may discourage it in some cases,and possibly restrict it, in others. But mostly, a sustainable multimodal circulation plan seeksto give non-vehicular modes of transportationtheir due, and provide an appropriate, functional and just balance between modes of transportation.

Key Players in Transportationand Circulation PlanningLand use decisions in New Jersey are largelymade at the local level. There are a variety ofstate and regional regulatory programs – suchas sewer service area determinations, threat-ened and endangered species, or proximity toprotected stream corridors, along with manyothers – that strongly influence and conditionlocal land use policies. Affordable housingrequirements, local fiscal implications andother considerations influence local land usepolicies. But ultimately, in all but a handful ofexceptional situations, local land use policies

13

are a local decision.

Transportation, on the other hand, is a differentstory. More than any other issue addressed in alocal master plan, transportation is covered bya large and powerful hierarchy of many differ-ent agencies of government. Indeed, the field ofkey players in circulation and transportationplanning is a crowded one, and can be veryconfusing for the uninitiated. In this section weprovide a brief overview of the key players. Inchapter 2 we dwell in greater detail on the legaljurisdiction of some of these entities over trans-portation assets.

The New Jersey Department ofTransportation (NJDOT) is the state agencywith jurisdiction over the state’s portion of thetransportation system, including highways,bridges, overpasses and tunnels. NJDOT regu-lates access to this transportation infrastructurethrough its access management policies.

NJDOT also has regulatory jurisdiction overcertain types of transportation decisions at thelocal level, including approval of signalizedintersections and roundabouts. NJDOT is pri-marily concerned with the performance of thestate transportation system, but may intervenein local projects if it perceives that these maybring benefits or detriments to the state system.NJDOT is also active at times in regional orsub-regional transportation planning initiatives.

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJTransit) is the state agency with jurisdictionover the state’s rail and bus transit assets. Itwas created in the late 1970’s to manage theassets of the bankrupt private passenger rail-road companies with operations in New Jersey.NJ Transit is the nation's third largest providerof bus, rail and light rail transit with a servicearea of 5,325 square miles. The agency oper-ates a fleet of over 2,000 buses, 700 trains and45 light rail vehicles servicing 236 bus routesand 11 rail lines and provides for over 220 mil-lion passenger trips each year. It also adminis-ters publicly funded programs for people withdisabilities, the elderly and rural residents withno other means of transportation, and providessupport and equipment to privately owned buscarriers.

NJ Transit is primarily interested in how localland use and circulation decisions may affectits rail and bus operations. NJ Transit’s TransitFriendly Planning Assistance program has pro-vided funding and technical assistance for over10 years for local planning activities with apotential incidence on promoting transit-orient-ed development and increasing transit rider-ship.

NJDOT and NJ Transit have a joint long-rangetransportation plan: Transportation Choices2030. The plan is both a federal and a staterequirement. The plan indicates that NJ needsto spend $8 billion over the next 10 years torepair the state’s highways and bridges; thatalleviating heavy traffic could cost an addition-al $5.5 billion; and that NJ Transit shouldspend $12 billion to repair its infrastructure andincrease capacity. NJDOT and NJ Transit alsohave capital plans, which describe the agen-cies’ intentions regarding future capital proj-ects. The capital needs identified in the long-range plan are not currently contemplated inthe state’s capital plan.

NJDOT also has a Statewide Bicycle andPedestrian Master Plan (2004). It includes aninventory of bicycle facilities, a bicycledemand model (BDM) that estimates “latentdemand” for bicycle travel for the entire state

14

The entire city of Hoboken, with only a few exceptions, was platted using a 200 by 400 foot street grid.

by census tract, and a bicycle compatibilityindex (BCI) that assesses the suitability of spe-cific roadway segments for bicycling as a func-tion of factors such as the presence of shoul-ders, the shoulder width and traffic volumes.By matching those places with the highestlatent demand with the least compatible facili-ties, the master plan identified areas of highpriority for investment in bicycle compatibleimprovements.

Similarly, the Bicycle and Pedestrian MasterPlan contains a statewide pedestrian compati-bility index (PCI) that estimates the potentialfor pedestrian trips by combining census dataon population, employment and access to pub-lic transit with roadway density and communitycharacter data. This analysis also indicatesareas where funding for pedestrian improve-ments should be prioritized.

Municipalities should be aware of the relevantcapital projects identified in these plans, to theextent they are affected by them. Municipalitiesshould also be aware of how they are rated inthe various transportation models used by thesetwo state agencies to prioritize projects andallocate project funding.

There are three federally-designatedMetropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

active in New Jersey: the North JerseyTransportation Planning Authority (NJTPA)which is based in Newark and covers Bergen,Passaic, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Morris,Union, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Somerset,Monmouth and Ocean Counties; the DelawareValley Regional Planning Commission(DVRPC), a bi-state agency based inPhiladelphia that covers the surroundingPennsylvania counties as well as Mercer,Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties inNew Jersey; and the South JerseyTransportation Planning Organization (SJTPO),which is based in Atlantic City and coversSalem, Cumberland, Cape May and Atlanticcounties.

MPOs were created by the federal governmentin the early 1970’s and given additional author-ity in 1991 through the federal IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).MPO approval is required for allocating federalfunding for highway and transit projects, as

well as compliance with federal air qualitystandards. MPOs are required as part of theircertification to develop Regional TransportationPlans providing a transportation blueprint forthe next 20 years. The MPOs conduct inde-pendent research and analysis on travel condi-tions and needs in their region and are a goodsource of data and information. In addition, theMPOs also fund regional and local transporta-tion planning initiatives through their UnifiedWork Programs.

New Jersey also has a number of special pur-pose agencies, such as the New JerseyTurnpike Authority, with jurisdiction over keyelements of the regional transportations system.There are also a number of powerful bi-stateagencies, such as the Delaware River JointToll Bridge Commission, the Delaware RiverPort Authority, the Port Authority of NewYork and New Jersey which are responsiblefor key elements of the transportation infra-structure, such as bridges, tunnels and in somecases mass transit systems, such as PATH andthe PATCO high-speed line.

New Jersey’s three regional agencies – theMeadowlands Commission, the PinelandsCommission and the Highlands Council --have focused on their primary missions andhave been relatively uninvolved with trans-

15

The Morris Canal and the Pennsylvania Railroad came together at Lake Hoptacong.

portation issues, although as regional entitiesthey are authorized to play a role. The legisla-tion that created the Fort MonmouthEconomic Redevelopment Authority, themost recent addition to this small family ofregional agencies, specifically authorizes it toutilize certain tools to fund transportationimprovements in its part of New Jersey.

New Jersey’s 21 counties also play an impor-tant role in transportation and circulation plan-ning. They are responsible for maintaining, reg-ulating and improving the county road system,which is intended to provide sub-regional con-nections linking local road networks to the stateand inter-state highway systems. Some countiesare active in sponsoring inter-municipal dia-logue and initiatives, including transportationinitiatives. Some counties have undertakenbicycle-planning initiatives; and most are active

transit providers, primarily offering services tothe elderly, people with disabilities and transit-dependent populations.

Finally, municipalities have jurisdiction overthe local transportation infrastructure, whichincludes local streets and may also includebridges, overpasses and tunnels, in addition tosidewalks, bicycle paths and so forth. A fewmunicipalities also manage and sometimes ownsmall transit systems, such as jitney servicesserving train stations, or downtown circulatortrolleys. In addition, local school districts mayown their own fleet of school buses, a special-ized form of transit that could be better utilized,given the considerable downtime to which it issubject.

The many layers of government agencies in thefield of transportation makes for a crowded andconfusing decision-making landscape where itis not always easy to determine jurisdiction.

There are also a variety of non-governmentalorganizations involved with transportation.Transportation Management Associations(TMAs) are non-profit organizations fundedthrough the NJDOT and private contributionsthat are active in providing specialized forms oftransit, as well as ride-sharing and other similarservices. Many institutions of higher education

run their own transit system to move studentsand faculty around campus and to nearby keydestinations. Similarly, many institutionalemployers, such as hospitals, operate shuttleservices for the convenience of their patronsand workforce.

How Much Does A CirculationPlan Element Cost?In times of great fiscal constraints such as thosewe currently live in, this is perhaps the firstquestion that most local officials will ask. Wecan see the benefits, but can we afford it?The answer to the question of how much itcosts is .. “it depends”. The “out-of-pocket”cost of a local circulation plan will varytremendously, depending upon the level ofcomplexity of the town in question, how ambi-tious the plan is, the level of sophistication ofthe technical tools and models employed, andhow much effort is deployed in the public par-ticipation and outreach process. Jersey City’saward-winning 2009 circulation plan cost$280,000 in consultant fees and perhaps anoth-er $50,000 in staff time. This is likely to be thegold standard in NJ for the foreseeable future.After all, Jersey City is the state’s 2nd largestcity, and faces complex circulation issues thatmost NJ municipalities can only dream of.Similarly, Newark has hired a consultant todevelop its new circulation plan. The plan will

16

The Girard Avenue streetcar in Philadelphia ispart of the contemporary streetcar renaissance inthe US. Dozens of cities across the country havereinstated or are in the process of reinstating vin-tage and contemporary streetcars.

cost $240,000. Again, Newark is New Jersey’slargest city and has a very complex set of trans-portation and land use conditions.

On the other hand, smaller and less complexjurisdictions might be looking at $20,000 to$50,000 in out of pocket consultant costs for acompetent circulation plan element, dependingupon the scope.

So, cost is certainly a factor. But for anymunicipality interested in developing a circula-tion plan element and keeping costs down, theimportant thing to keep in mind is that much ofthe legwork can be competently done by volun-teers. There are likely to be knowledgeabletransportation professionals living in the com-munity that can be recruited to volunteer theirtime and expertise; and there are many users ofthe circulation system that can be convinced tohelp out, provided they are given clear instruc-tions, discrete tasks and a clear sense of mis-sion.

In an age of GPS and interactive websites, datagathering has taken on a whole new dimension.Any motivated high school student can designa web-based user-driven system to populate atransportation questionnaire. Which are themost intimidating pedestrian crosswalks intown? Where are the most frustrating intersec-

tions? Which traffic lights are poorly timed?Where are the critical missing segments in thesidewalk (or bikeway) system? Where wouldyou like to ride your bike to, but are deterredbecause of difficult access? A concerted map-ping and survey effort, staffed by volunteersand building upon the vast amount of publicaccess data available can go a long way inkeeping down costs and providing useful infor-mation and input.

Another inexpensive option can be found in theplanning studios available at the many collegesand universities in New Jersey. These studiosare often available at no cost or for a nominalcost and can both collect useful informationand “stir the pot” in terms of creative ideas.University planning and urban design studios,either through Rutgers or NJIT, have been usedall over New Jersey, in places such asPlainfield, Pleasantville, Newark, NewBrunswick, Jersey City, Hoboken, Trenton,West Windsor and many others.

The flip side of the cost equation, for local offi-cials to consider, are the potential benefits ofhaving a state-of-the-art circulation plan. Itmay be difficult to put a number on these bene-fits and quantify them in dollars but theyshould not be ignored. If you are trying toattract a major employer to town, it is critical to

demonstrate that the town has its act together interms of strategies to mitigate current trans-portation constraints and achieve future trans-portation improvements. Similarly, if a town istrying to capture federal, state or county grantsfor transportation improvements, having acoherent plan that convinces the fundingagency that its investment fits into a smart andcoherent plan will make a huge difference.

The planning profession believes that a reason-able public investment, at the right time, incompetent circulation planning – in particularwhen coupled with supporting land use policies– will yield considerable financial benefits tothe jurisdiction involved. The public expectsour local governments to take the lead and bein charge when it comes to these issues. In the

17

In the early 20th century bicycling did notrequire a separate wardrobe.

absence of a tangible and coherent plan, thepublic trust is betrayed and leadership is unfulfilled.

Purpose of this GuideIn spite of the growing interest in New Jerseyand across the nation in limiting auto-depend-ency and promoting other, more sustainableforms of transportation, this interest has beenrunning ahead of existing practice in almostevery way, including existing federal and stateregulations, priorities in capital investment pro-grams, transportation industry standards andzoning and other local land use regulations.Most of these were adopted over the last half ofthe twentieth century to manage suburbaniza-tion and the growing use of the automobile andchanging them to reflect new priorities and cur-rent values has proven to be a frustratinglyslow and tortuous process.

Indeed, changing this complex array of govern-ment regulations and industry standards is anenormous task likely to take a while. And, likethe debate over separate or integrated bikepaths, there is considerable debate around thecountry on how to balance the entire array ofland use and transportation plans, regulationsand investments to better address all modes oftransportation; and how to shift from auto-dependency toward walking, biking and transit

service, while still accommodating the automobile for some sizeable portion of futuretrips. This debate is inextricably linked to thecontroversy over how to manage and fund sucha system.

New Jersey has the opportunity to advance thisnew thinking and lead the way for the rest ofthe nation as a result of its unique set of cir-cumstances: a lack of developable “greenfield”sites, proximity to global cities and employ-ment centers, a major statewide transit system,struggling inner cities and decaying inner andouter ring suburbs, advanced demographicshifts, a progressive and risk-taking develop-ment industry, a tradition of statewide growthmanagement planning and regional planningagencies with strict regulatory oversight.

As such, we offer this Guide to local officialswho may be interested in advancing change intheir own communities, without waiting for thewhole system to change. This Guide is writtento help local officials understand (a) the truevalue of engaging in sustainable multi-modalcirculation planning, and (b) how to develop atruly sustainable multi-modal circulation planthat is an integral part of an enlightened, 21st century forward looking community master plan.

The Guide has in it the components of a model circulation element for local officials toconsider. It also has an inventory of the kindsof actions that local officials can undertake, as well as those that they can advocate thattheir neighbors and other branches of government undertake to increase the share of trips taken without private motor vehicles in their communities.

18

Additional Reading:Stephen Goddard – Getting There: The EpicStruggle Between Road and Rail in theAmerican Century, The University ofChicago Press, 1994New Jersey Office of State Planning -Designing New Jersey, Trenton 2001Robert Fishman – Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia, BasicBooks, 1987Kenneth Jackson - Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,Oxford University Press, 1985Clay McShane – Down the Asphalt Path:The Automobile and the American City,Columbia University Press, 1995John Reps – The Making of UrbanAmerica: A History of City Planning in the United States, Princeton UniversityPress, 1965

Chapter Two: Legal Considerations in Circulation Planning in New Jersey

19

What authority do local governments have in terms of transportation and circulation planning?

What are the limits of their jurisdiction? Who makes the rules and adopts standards?

This chapter will provide an overview of the legal framework behind local circulation planning.

he Enabling Framework forCirculation PlanningIn New Jersey, circulationplanning is by and large a

local responsibility, as part ofthe municipal master planning

functions authorized under the Municipal LandUse Law (MLUL), the state’s enabling plan-ning statute. Circulation planning is also a localresponsibility under the Local Redevelopmentand Housing Law (LRHL), which authorizesand regulates local redevelopment activities.

The Municipal Land Use LawThe MLUL (NJS 40:55D et seq) is the state’senabling planning statute.

One of its purposes is to “encourage the loca-tion and design of transportation routes whichwill promote the free flow of traffic while dis-couraging location of such facilities and routeswhich result in congestion or blight” (NJS40:55D-2h). Related purposes include to “pro-mote a desirable visual environment and [..]good civic design and arrangements” (NJS40:55D-2i), and “to prevent urban sprawl”(NJS 40:55D-2j).

The implication that the “free flow of traffic” isan antidote to “congestion or blight” is dated

and reflects an earlier period when the nascentdiscipline of traffic engineering was focused onfacilitating mobility by speeding travel on road-ways. Today there is greater recognition thatstreets must be designed and operated for thebenefit of all users, and not just to promote the“free flow of traffic”. In an era of completestreets and traffic calming, achieving higherspeeds on most local streets is no longerdesired or encouraged.

It is worth noting, on the other hand, that theMLUL does not specify “vehicular traffic” inits reference to free flow; and that presumablythis purpose should equally apply to pedestrianand bicycle traffic, as well as transit.

The above purposes of the MLUL give localgovernments broad discretion to define the fea-tures of “appropriate land development”,including the circulation system, and thus con-trol physical form and community design. Thereference to “good civic design and arrange-ments” suggests that municipalities are encour-aged to integrate the planning and design ofpublic buildings, public spaces and communityfacilities with the planning and design of pri-vate development. The explicit reference to theprevention of “urban sprawl” can be interpretedas a specific authorization for municipalities to

shape physical form in a distinct direction -- topromote compact development.

The MLUL defines “circulation” as “systems,structures and physical improvements for themovement of people, goods, water, air, sewageor power by such means as streets, highways,railways, waterways, towers, airways, pipesand conduits, and the handling of people andgoods by such means as terminals, stations,warehouses, and other storage buildings ortransshipment points” (NJS 40:55D-3).

The Local Redevelopment andHousing LawRedevelopment in New Jersey is governed bythe 1992 Local Redevelopment and HousingLaw (NJS 40A:12A). The redevelopmentstatutes provide municipalities with anenhanced level of control over physical plan-ning and design, including circulation planning.

The scope and applicability of the redevelop-ment statutes in New Jersey have been broad-ened beyond the traditional dilapidated orblighted conditions commonly found in olderurban areas. In addition to these conditions, thecurrent statute permits a redevelopment desig-nation for areas with:

Chapter Two: Legal Considerations in Circulation Planning in New Jersey

T

20

• “.. faulty arrangement or design, [..] deleterious land use or obsolete layout, orany combination of these or other factorsdetrimental to the safety, health, morals orwelfare of the community” (NJS 40A:12A5d); as well as areas where

• “.. a growing lack or total lack of properutilization of areas caused by the conditionof the title, diverse ownership of the realproperty therein or other conditions resulting in a stagnant or not fully productive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to andserving the public health, safety and welfare.” (NJSA 40A:12A-5e)

This broader language can be applied to subur-ban and rural conditions, in addition to moreconventional urban conditions. For example,older suburban arterials with strip commercialdevelopment on small parcels, exhibiting poorvehicular and pedestrian circulation, inadequateparking, difficult access and generally a poorlayout can be subject to a redevelopmentprocess which assembles land, rationalizes cir-culation, creates a pedestrian realm and publicspaces, enforces access management and rede-fines building masses.

The two enabling statutes provide municipali-ties with a number of important tools to shapethe circulation system, as well as the land usepattern: the municipal master plan, zoning andland development regulations, the official mapand the design review process under theMLUL; and the redevelopment plan, under the LRHL.

Circulation Planning ToolsProvided by the Municipal LandUse LawThe MLUL authorizes municipalities to controlphysical form and explicitly engage in circula-tion planning, and provides specific tools thatcan be used for that end. However, the MLULdoes not require municipalities to take fulladvantage of this authority. Some tools, such as

the bulk standards attached to the zoning ordi-nance, are widely used by municipalities; oth-ers, namely the provisions allowing municipali-ties to design their street system and reservepublic spaces, are rarely used.

Master Plan ElementsThe master plan provides the foundation formany aspects of local planning, including cir-culation planning. The master plan’s descrip-tion of the desired character for the community,and the ways in which that character may varyfrom neighborhood to neighborhood constitutea solid foundation for the regulatory frameworkcomprising the zoning and land developmentprovisions that will in turn implement thoseintentions.

Control of physical form at a larger scale isachieved first and foremost through design ofthe street system and the location of importantpublic spaces, buildings and facilities. Thesekey objectives can be achieved through theland use plan and circulation plan elements ofthe master plan.

The land use plan element (NJS 40:55D-28)can designate the “[..] existing and proposedlocation [..] of land to be used in the future for[..] public and private purposes or combinations

21

of purposes”. Public areas are broadly definedby the MLUL to include

(1) public parks, playgrounds, trails, pathsand other recreational areas;

(2) other public open spaces;(3) scenic and historic sites; and (4) sites for schools and other public

buildings and structures.

The circulation plan element can designate the“[..] existing and proposed circulation facili-ties”, that is to say the vehicular, pedestrian andbicycle circulation networks.

Together, the land use plan and circulation planelements can define the basic physical frame-work of the community – its circulation sys-tem, including pedestrian and bicycle networks– and the location of all public buildings andpublic spaces. The land use plan element cansimilarly depict different neighborhoods, areasor districts, along with the desired physicalcharacter – intensity of development, predomi-nant land uses, building heights, and so forth --for these different parts of the community. The land use plan and circulation plan elementsof the municipal master plan are not merelyindicative. They provide one of the two avail-able vehicles -- the other being the official map

-- for municipalities to act proactively and actu-ally design their street systems and reserve spe-cific parcels for public spaces.

The provisions of the land use plan and circula-tion plan elements can be visually combined inthe form of an “illustrative site plan”, depictingthe generalized street system, location of majorpublic spaces, location of major civic buildings,generalized distribution of land uses and mix ofuses, generalized distribution of densities andintensities, private building lots and evenapproximate building footprints. An illustrativesite plan, when adopted as part of the municipalmaster plan, and if strongly supported byappropriate zoning and land development regu-lations, will provide explicit guidance to thelocal review agencies in carrying out the com-munity’s design objectives.

Official MapThe official map is a powerful tool offered tomunicipalities for the purposes of controllingtheir circulation system. Like the land use planand circulation plan elements of the masterplan, the official map gives municipalities theopportunity to reserve land for future streetalignments, as well as for public spaces, floodcontrol areas and other public areas.

The MLUL refers to the official map in the fol-lowing terms:

“The official map shall be deemed conclu-sive with respect to the location and widthof streets and public drainage ways and thelocation and extent of flood control basinsand public areas, whether or not suchstreets, ways, basins or areas are improvedor unimproved or are in actual physicalexistence”. (NJSA 40:55D-32)

The official map gives a municipality theauthority to deny permits to build on thereserved areas. The map – showing street align-ments, sites reserved for public uses, and areasreserved for stormwater and flood control --

22

An ordinance passed in Fanwood in 1897 regu-lating bicycles and tricycles required them to havea bell and a lamp, and restricted riding on side-walks or at speeds over 12 mph.

provides a very clear picture, to property own-ers, developers and to the community at large,of the municipality’s intentions with regard tophysical form.

Adoption of the official map does not precludeowners of property encumbered by it from sub-mitting alternative development plans to themunicipality, for consideration. If the propertyowner and municipality are unable to reach anagreement, the lands reserved through officialmap designation must be purchased for theintended purposes by the municipality, usingcondemnation as a last resort. Municipalitieshave one year from the date of approval of afinal plat affecting those lands to effectuatethese procedures. (NJS 40:55D-44)

Since most public right-of-way is acquired atno cost to the municipality through the privatesubdivision process, implementation of the offi-cial map without the cooperation of the privateproperty owners can be expensive. It is alwaysadvisable to include the affected property own-ers in a collaborative planning and designprocess, which can demonstrate conclusivelythe advantages of the proposed alignments, andto then use the official map as a tool to effectu-ate that plan. Of course, the municipality canalso pursue through the official map alterna-

tives to land acquisition – such as deed restric-tions, easements, purchase by a non-profit enti-ty, open space dedication or other -- that mayachieve the same objectives.

Procedurally, the MLUL requires the officialmap to be first referred to the planning board(40:55D27A), prior to adoption by the govern-ing body (40:55D-32). The intention is that theofficial map be generally consistent with therelevant provisions of the master plan. It can beinconsistent with the master plan only if it isadopted by an affirmative vote of the governingbody, with the reasons for the inconsistencyrecorded in the minutes of the meeting at whichthe action is taken by the governing body.

The official map has been upheld by the NewJersey courts, with some reservations. In a1991 case -- Nigro v. Planning Board of SaddleRiver (122 NJ 270) – the court upheld theintegrity of the official map, up to a point. Thecourt confirmed the alignment of major streetsand other facilities as shown on the officialmap, but challenged the official map’s authorityrelative to minor streets. This may have beenthe result of insufficient legwork on the part ofthe municipality in terms of the areas it wishedto reserve, which had not been subject to fieldsurvey. William Cox, in his celebrated publica-

tion New Jersey Land Use Administration(Gann Law Books, 2009 edition) recommendsthat the official map should be as exact andspecific as possible, and that properties targetedon the official map for future acquisition beaccurately surveyed.

Zoning and Land DevelopmentRegulationsWhile in NJ the master plan is by and large anadvisory document, its intentions are meant tobe carried out through zoning and land devel-opment regulations, which are regulatory docu-ments adopted as part of the municipal code.For municipalities with an interest in circula-tion planning, consistency between the munici-pal master plan’s land use and circulation ele-ments and the relevant provisions of the munic-ipal code is essential.

Subdivision ControlsSubdivision controls allow a municipality toshape the parcelization of land, or “platting” asit is often called, by setting minimum parame-ters for lot size and lot configuration. Through

23

The Hoboken waterfront. The city of Hoboken used its official map tocreate a new street alignment along itswaterfront. The road – an extension ofSinatra Drive – will cut through a numberof redevelopment parcels, and essentiallydemarcate the waterfront park and walkwayto the East from the new office and residen-tial development to the West. The officialmap has been instrumental in securing theintegrity of this important street.

subdivision controls, municipalities can requirenew streets to shape blocks of certain dimen-sions, by setting minimum and maximum dis-tances from intersection to intersection, and byestablishing general rules for block size andconfiguration. So, for example, the subdivisionordinance may require blocks to have between200 and 250 feet on the short side, and between200 and 600 feet on the long side, and to berectangular. Or, the subdivision ordinance mayrequire all platting to follow a uniform grid, ofsay 200 by 400 feet.

The subdivision controls will also establish theright-of-way widths for different types ofstreets and other elements of the circulationsystem.

Site Plan StandardsThe site plan ordinance contains many of thedesign criteria against which the planningboard will judge a given development applica-tion. Along with the subdivision controls andthe zoning, the site plan standards constitute amunicipality’s core regulatory framework forshaping development. The site plan standardswill determine whether there is a sidewalk (orbike path) along the frontage of a given lot,how wide it is, whether there is room for plant-ing of street trees and for street lights within

the public right-of-way, whether curb side park-ing is to be provided for, and so forth.

Engineering StandardsWhether embedded in the site plan standards orpresented as a separate section, most municipalcodes have a section (or sections) dealing withengineering standards, some of which are rele-vant to the circulation system: street types andcross-sections, parking requirements, parkingdimensions, sidewalk and bike path specifica-tions, curb cuts, and streetscape provisions areall relevant to the circulation system. Somemunicipalities choose not to adopt their ownstandards and prefer instead to adopt, by refer-ence, standards found in published technicalmanuals (see section on Design Standards andGuidelines for Circulation Planning, below).

Tools Provided by the LocalRedevelopment and HousingLaw -- The Redevelopment PlanA redevelopment plan is the document thatestablishes the land use and zoning parametersfor reuse of a property or properties within an

area designated as “in need of redevelopment”or “in need of rehabilitation”. Its mandatorycontents are defined in the LRHL.

The LRHL grants municipalities the power tocondemn property within a redevelopment dis-trict, and according to an adopted redevelop-ment plan, on its own behalf or on behalf of athird party, the designated redeveloper.Condemnation can be used to acquire new pub-lic (or private) rights-of- way for new streets,bike paths or other elements of a planned circu-lation system.The redevelopment plan can contain an illustra-tive site plan as mentioned previously, in whichcase it becomes a precise instrument for con-trolling physical form, including the circulationsystem. The LRHL provides local authoritieswith a powerful framework for undertaking avariety of smart growth initiatives, such asredeveloping failed shopping centers, brown-field sites or other obsolete land uses into vital,mixed-use projects; restructuring the circulationsystem to create livable streets, restoring apedestrian atmosphere, or developing missinglinks that establish a more integrated circula-tion network; or creating new formal publicspaces or sites for public buildings.

24

Public and private rights-of-wayMost local streets and other rights-of-way inNew Jersey are deeded to municipalities as partof the land subdivision process and thereforebecome public assets. The municipality isresponsible for cleaning and maintaining theserights-of-way, enforcing traffic laws, removingsnow in the winter and leaves in the fall, and so forth.

Sidewalks are an exception, in that in mostmunicipalities, although the sidewalk is gener-ally located within the public right-of-way, andthe municipality caries the legal liability forany accidents that may occur on the sidewalk,the adjacent property owners are deemed financially responsible for paying , in whole or in part, for sidewalk maintenance andreplacement.

Some municipalities, in an effort to minimizetheir portion of the costs of maintenance andupkeep, have encouraged private streets in newdevelopments governed by a homeowners asso-ciation or similar entity. In those cases thehomeowners association may be responsible forsnow clearing, leaf removal and other mainte-nance and upkeep tasks. However, New Jerseylaw requires municipalities to reimburse the

homeowners association for the reasonablecosts of providing these services privately (NJS40:67-23). If they are provided publicly, thehomeowners association must pay for an insur-ance rider covering the municipal vehicles usedif the road does not comply with the adoptedmunicipal engineering standards.

Design Guidelines andStandards for the CirculationSystemWhile local governments in New Jersey havethe authority and a variety of tools to engageproactively in transportation and circulationplanning, the technical guidelines, standardsand specifications to which the various compo-nents of the transportation and circulation sys-tem must conform are largely determined byother entities and often stipulated by law. Localgovernments are by and large not authorized toestablish their own engineering standards whenit comes to specifying the design aspects (otherthan the alignment) and construction details ofpublic rights-of-way. In part this reflects con-cerns over the assumption of liability if a pub-lic right-of-way is not built to accepted nationalstandards. As such the geometric profile andoverall character of a street or other right-of-way – how wide it is, whether it has street trees

or whether it has a planted median -- may notnecessarily be established locally.

In particular, the question of the minimumpavement widths required to safely provideaccess to fire protection and other emergencyvehicles has been controversial and divisive.The emergency service providers would likeunrestricted access and generous pavementwidths to allow their vehicles to circulate unim-peded and reach their destinations as quickly aspossible; while the environmental community,new urbanists, smart growth advocates andmany others have argued in favor of narrowerpavement widths and against designing theentire system for the occasional needs of ahighly specialized, albeit important user. Whilethis discussion is not necessarily over, thereseems to be a greater convergence and willing-ness to compromise among the participants,

25

A barrier-free pedestrian infrastructure is essen-tial for people with physical disabilities to circu-late unassisted and with dignity.

which suggests that we may see consensus inthe future on this issue.

National GuidanceAll entities engaged in circulation planning orotherwise involved in other aspects of the cir-culation system refer to engineering guidelinescreated by national and international profes-sional organizations, sanctioned by the federalgovernment and adopted by each state.

The American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is per-haps the most influential in setting the engi-neering design of streets and highways.AASHTO’s “A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets”, also known as the“green book”, now in its 5th edition is anindustry standard. This publication has evolvedfrom dealing exclusively with motor vehicles to

include guidance on the design of both pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Other major players include the Institute forTransportation Engineering (ITE), an interna-tional membership organization based inWashington, DC that has been extremely influ-ential in developing guidelines for trip genera-tion, parking and many other technical aspectsof the transportation and circulation system.ITE’s “Trip Generation” now in its 8th editionis an industry standard, as are the “Urban StreetGeometric Design Handbook”, the “TrafficEngineering Handbook” and “ParkingGeneration”.

The “Manual on Uniform Traffic ControlDevices” (MUTCD), jointly developed by ITEand others on behalf of the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) sets the nationalguidelines for all traffic control devices, includ-ing traffic signs, pavement markings, signalsand other devices used to regulate, warn, orguide traffic. These guidelines apply to publicfacilities, as well as to privately built and oper-ated rights-of-way open to public travel. The2009 Edition of the MUTCD became effectiveas of January 15, 2010. Federal statute (23

CFR) gives states two years to adopt theMUTCD, or adopt a state manual that substan-tially conforms with the national model. NewJersey statutes dealing with streets and otherrights-of-way refer frequently to the MUTCD.

In New Jersey, NJDOT has an adopted“Roadway Design Manual” with guidelinespertaining to the state highway system. This isa modified version of AASHTO’s “greenbook”. NJDOT expects the geometric design ofstreets and highways not part of the state sys-tem to substantially conform to the AASHTOmanual.

In 1996, NJDOT adopted “Bicycle CompatibleRoadways and Bikeways: Planning and DesignGuidelines” and “Pedestrian CompatiblePlanning and Design Guidelines” to guide theplanning, design and construction of bicycleand pedestrian facilities in the state.

County engineering departments also adoptengineering guidance for the design of countyroads and other county rights-of-way. These aregenerally slightly modified versions of thenational standard.

26

Smart cars occupy a considerably smaller footprint andconsequently require much smaller parking spaces.

Residential Site ImprovementStandardsThe New Jersey Residential Site ImprovementStandards (NJAC 5:21) adopted pursuant to theUniform Site Improvement Act (NJS 40:55D-40.1 et seq) imposed state mandated designstandards applicable to certain aspects of resi-dential development anywhere in the state.Subchapter 4 of the Residential SiteImprovement Standards (RSIS) preemptedlocal authority to establish street design stan-dards. A limited template of 23 street types wasimposed, with the intent of creating uniformity

throughout the state. The RSIS has reducedmunicipal standards calling for excessive streetwidth and other over-engineered requirements

in many suburban and rural municipalities. Onthe other hand, the RSIS has also curbed indi-vidual expression in street design, in that itrequires compliance with a limited range ofstandardized, generic street cross-sections witha distinct suburban orientation. Subchapter 4also mandates minimum residential parkingratios, as a function of housing type, regardlessof the physical context where the housing islocated.

The RSIS contemplate local deviations undercertain conditions, through the adoption of“special area standards” for historic districts,infill projects in urban areas, redevelopmentareas, scenic corridors and many others.Municipalities have been availing themselvesof the special area provisions and reclaimingtheir right to define unique street design stan-dards to establish a distinct identity for theirdowntowns and neighborhoods and to requirereduced parking ratios to better match localrealities and objectives.

Pedestrian SafetyIn New Jersey drivers are now subject to a$200 fine, 15 days of community service andfour points on their license if they do not stopand remain stopped at a crosswalk to allowpedestrians to safely pass (NJS 39-4). Drivers

may not pass a vehicle that is stopped to allowa pedestrian to cross at a cross-walk, and mustalso yield to pedestrians at unmarked cross-walks or at intersections lacking pedestrian sig-nals (NJS 39:4-36). Pedestrians also face penal-ties – a $54 fine and community service -- ifthey do not exercise due caution and fail toyield the right of way to motorists anywhereother than at a crosswalk.

Access Management: State,County and LocalNew Jersey adopted the State Highway AccessManagement Act (NJS 27:7-91 et seq) in 1989.As the name indicates, the act seeks, amongothers things, to regulate and manage accessfrom adjacent properties to state highways,including existing streets that provide access tostate highways.

According to AASHTO’s A Policy onGeometric Design of Highways and Streets,there are three basic forms of access control:

• Full Control Access. Preference is given to through traffic by providing access connetions only at selected public roads andby prohibiting private driveway connections.

27

• Partial Control of Access. Preference isgiven to through traffic with some privatedriveway connections allowed.

• Driveway and Approach Regulations. Each abutting property is allowed access tothe street or highway, with location, number, and design of access points governed by regulations.

The NJ Highway Access Management Actdirected the Commissioner of NJDOT to devel-op and adopt an Access Management Code(NJAC 16:47). The code establishes six levelsof access – from fully controlled access oninterstate highways, toll roads and others toopen access, limited only by visibility and safe-ty considerations. The code also establishesother provisions, including minimum and desir-able standards for the spacing of driveways andintersections. It further allows counties andmunicipalities to adopt an access managementcode for roads under local jurisdiction (NJS27:16-1 and NJS 40:67-1, respectively).

Counties and municipalities have not taken advan-tage of these provisions in large numbers due tocost considerations and the complexity of the tech-nical work required. There may also be misgivingson the part of local governments with respect tothe benefits that might accrue as a result of imple-

menting an access management plan.Access management may offer the greatestbenefits to municipalities when applied to pre-viously developed areas. In newly developingareas, vehicular access to major roads can bemanaged through other mechanisms, such asthe land development regulations. In designat-ed redevelopment areas, access can be managedthrough an adopted redevelopment plan. But inpreviously developed areas, in the absence of adesignated redevelopment plan, access can onlybe controlled through an adopted access man-agement plan.

Who has jurisdiction over thetransportation and circulationsystems?It should be apparent from the previous discus-sion that the transportation and circulation sys-tems present a complex legal and jurisdictionallandscape. In New Jersey, many seeminglylocal decisions – such as when it is justified toinstall a signalized intersection, a stop sign or atraffic calming device – have been closelyguarded by NJDOT. Recently, the NJLegislature has taken small steps to transfersome of these responsibilities down to localgovernments. However many important deci-sions regarding local circulation still requireNJDOT approval.

Local governments are currently authorized totake the following actions with respect tostreets under their jurisdiction, consistent withthe MUTCD:

1. prohibit or restrict general parking, and designate restricted parking and time limit parking;

2. install parking meters;3. designate loading and unloading zones;4. approve street closings for periods up to

48 continuous hours;5. establish angle parking;6. reinstate or add parking on any street;7. install or place an in-street pedestrian

crossing right-of-way sign at a marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection;

8. designate stops, stations, or stands forbuses, taxis and trolleys.

9. alter speed limits;10. limit the use of streets to certain class

of vehicles;11. designate one-way streets;12. regulate the stopping or starting of

street cars at special places;28

13. regulate the passage or stopping of trafficat certain congested street corners;

14. designate streets or roads with a grade in excess of 5% where buses and trucks over four tons may be required to use a lower gear when descending;

15. install STOP signs at intersections located within 500 feet of a school, playground or youth recreational facility if the street iscontiguous to those activities.

In New Jersey, traffic calming devices – suchas speed humps, speed tables, bulb outs andothers – are regulated (NJS 39:4-8.10). Localgovernments are only authorized to constructspeed humps on (a) two-lane residential streetsand on one-way residential streets with a post-ed speed limit of 30 mph or less than 3,000vehicles per day; and (b) where appropriate onstreets within 500 feet of a school or a schoolfacility when that street is rebuilt or repaired(NJS 39:4-8.10b). Speed humps may also beconstructed on private roads (NJS 39:5A-1).The design and construction of speed humpsmust conform to NJDOT’s technical standardsand signage must conform to the MUTCD.

Municipalities are also authorized to establish,by ordinance, a system of truck routes andexclude trucks weighing over four tons (vehi-

cle plus load) from streets other than those des-ignated as a truck route (NJS 40-67-16.1).Local deliveries and public utility trucks areexceptions. Municipalities may not excludetrucks from state or county highways within themunicipality without NJDOT permission.

AAddddiittiioonnaall RReeaaddiinngg::William Cox and Donald Ross – New JerseyZoning and Land Use Administration, GannLaw Books, 2010.

American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials - A Policy on GeometricDesign of Highways and Streets.

NJDOT -- Bicycle Compatible Roadways andBikeways: Planning and Design Guidelines,1996.

NJDOT -- Pedestrian Compatible Planning andDesign Guidelines, 1996.

29

Chapter Three: Key Concepts and Contemporary Ideas in Circulation Planning

30

Transportation and circulation planning is a rapidly evolving field and one that attracts growing attention.

This is attested by the increasing number of professional organizations, academic programs,

conferences and professional and academic publications dedicated to the topic. In this section,

we try to summarize both basic concepts and relevant contemporary ideas in this dynamic field.

hings We Knew andForgotAs previously discussed, inthe late 19th and early 20th

century most communities inthe US were layed out primarily

using the grid. Many variations on the gridexist, in terms of block size, block dimensions,right-of-way widths and so forth, but the under-lying framework was similar. The grid is sim-ple to apply and easily understandable, but itcan also be repetitive and monotonous. Andbecause it offers almost unlimited access inevery direction, it does not by itself providemuch protection from traffic in more sensitiveareas, such as lower density residential neighborhoods.

In an effort to remedy some of the perceivedshortcomings of the standard grid, planners anddesigners began to experiment with a variety ofdifferent ways of laying out the street system.The planned community of Radburn in FairLawn (Bergen County) which was built in the1930s, represents the first large scale applica-tion of a radical alternative to the grid. It wasthe first systematic application of the cul-de-sacmodel to a residential neighborhood, as a wayto improve privacy. The cul-de-sac permittedthe creation of “superblocks”, by allowing

access to, but not through, these residentialclusters. All the traffic that would otherwisehave dispersed through the grid was directed inRadburn to larger collector streets along theperiphery of the superblocks and ultimately toarterial roads.

Coupled with the increasingly widespread useof single-use zoning, the Radburn circulationframework, with its strict functional hierarchyof streets and systematic reliance on cul-de-sacs created a template, which would beapplied, albeit with many variations, to mostsuburban development in the US for the next50 years. The resulting circulation system issometimes called a “sparse” network, in recog-nition of the dramatically lower number ofintersections, ie opportunities to change direc-tion, as opposed to the highly interconnectedtraditional grid.

The sparse network accommodated the growingreliance on private vehicles as the dominantmode of transportation far better than the con-ventional street grid ever could. As such, thesparse network became the new paradigm ofchoice in building new communities (andrebuilding older ones) in the US. It was given alevel of authority and legitimacy by the emerg-ing discipline of traffic engineering and became

the accepted model driving local land use andtransportation decisions.

While many recognized the shortcomings of anincreasingly auto-dependent development pat-tern, it was not until the end of the 20th centurythat the planning and design professions beganto seriously challenge this modern street para-digm and to develop alternatives. Today, a con-siderable amount of empirical evidence existsthat allows us to objectively question theassumptions and implications and dispassion-ately compare the performance and impacts ofdifferent land development patterns and of dif-ferent approaches to transportation and circula-tion planning. The shortcomings of the sparsenetwork model are recognized.

This does not however mean a wholesale returnto the 19th century grid model. New “hybrid”models that combine the advantages of the gridwith more contemporary considerations havebeen developed and are being used. The modi-fied grid represents the synthesis of two tradi-tional North American approaches to landdevelopment: the traditional, nineteenth-centu-ry grid plan, and the curvilinear pattern of curv-ing streets and cul-de-sacs of 20th century sub-urbia. The modified grid, when designed cor-rectly provides efficient vehicular traffic, with-

Chapter Three: Key Concepts and Contemporary Ideas in Circulation Planning

T

31

out sacrificing safety and convenience forpedestrians. At the neighborhood scale it cantreat pedestrians preferentially by making theirroutes more direct than vehicular ones. It alsoprovides new opportunities for bicycle routeson lower volume streets.

Circulation Planning and Public HealthPublic health practitioners have becomeincreasingly involved in community designissues, and have demonstrated a particularinterest in the interface between land use, trans-portation and public health. There is a growingbody of research and technical studies probingthe relationships between community design,land use planning, transportation and circula-tion planning and public health outcomes.

It is not difficult to understand the public healthprofession’s interest in these issues: the nationfaces an unprecedented obesity epidemic for bothadult and child populations. Obesity is an excessaccumulation of body fat and a well-established riskfactor for numerous chronic diseases, including dia-betes, heart disease, high blood pressure, gall blad-der disease, arthritis, breathing problems, and someforms of cancer. The numbers are alarming. In1991, not a single state had an obesity rate over20%; in 2010, more than 38 states have obesityrates over 25%.

Obesity in New Jersey has consistentlyincreased over the last 20 years. A 2003 studyconducted by New Jersey’s Departments ofHealth and Education found that 20% of 6thgraders were obese and another 18% wereoverweight. The Behavioral Risk FactorSurveillance System indicates that in 2005,37% of New Jersey residents were overweightand 22% were obese. And the 2005 NJ StudentHealth Survey found that 12% of students ingrades 9-12 were overweight and another 15%percent were at risk of becoming overweight.In NJ in 2010, 25% of high school studentswere overweight, including 10% who wereobese. Boys were more likely to be obese thangirls and blacks more than other races and eth-nicities: in 2010, 36% of blacks were obese,compared to 25% Latino and 23% white.

Almost one quarter of New Jersey residents age45-54, and almost one-third age 55-64, are obese.

All told, more than half of New Jersey resi-dents risk serious health problems as a result ofbeing overweight. Nationally, nearly 80 percentof diabetes patients are obese; 70 percent ofdiagnosed cases of heart disease are related toobesity; 26 percent of obese people suffer fromhypertension; and almost half of breast cancercases are diagnosed among obese women.

Research has conclusively linked the increasein obesity rates with two major factors: a poordiet combined with the absence of physicalactivity. This latter factor is linked with physi-cal environments that foster (or require) anauto-dependent lifestyle, where children nolonger walk to school and adults no longerwalk anywhere. Childhood obesity rates areparticularly alarming in less affluent andminority communities.

Nationally, over 40% of children walked orbiked to school in 1969. Today, according to arecent study by the National Center for SafeRoutes to School, 55% of public school stu-dents are driven to school by a family member,30% take a school bus and only 13% walk orbike. Less than half of children living close toschool will walk or bike to classes. For childrenliving in low-density areas, the leading reasonsgiven by parents for not letting their childrenwalk to school are distance and absence of ade-quate pedestrian infrastructure. For children

32

Neighborhood traffic circles slow traffic speeds, reduceaccidents and create opportunities for neighborhoodlandscaping projects.

living in higher density areas, the leading rea-sons are traffic and crime.

All of the nation’s leading public health institu-tions, including the Center for Disease Controland the American Academy of Pediatrics, havetargeted the need to create communities withbetter walking and biking environments as acritical component in fighting both adult andchildhood obesity.

In addition, as our population ages andbecomes more mobility-challenged, there is ahuge concern among the public health commu-nity regarding elderly populations which, nolonger able to drive or cope with hostile circu-lation systems, will be at a high risk of becom-ing home-bound.

For every age cohort, the benefits of walking30 to 60 minutes a day are well recognized.Greater physical activity reduces the risk ofcancer, type II diabetes, heart disease, highblood pressure, bad cholesterol, anxiety anddepression, and increases bone health and over-all life expectancy. Frequent walking has alsobeen linked with delays in the onset ofAlzheimer’s.

Circulation planning can contribute significant-ly to public health outcomes by facilitating the

type of incidental physical exercise that resultsfrom a land use pattern and circulation systemthat makes walking and biking viable modes oftransportation for a variety of trips: school,shopping, socializing, work, entertainment,worship and others. The more types of activi-ties and destinations are reasonably accessibleby walking and biking, the greater the likeli-hood that people will use these modes and con-sequently engage in incidental physical activity.

In addition, the public health benefits of transit-rich locations – where people drive significant-ly less, take more transit, and make more tripsby walking or bicycling -- have also been wellestablished. The shift away from private vehic-

ular trips reduces air and water pollution, andincreases physical fitness and mental acuity.Research suggests that improving the quality ofpublic transit may be one of most cost-effectiveways to improve public health outcomes.

Mobility and AccessibilityThe concept of accessibility refers to people’sability to reach goods, services and activities -- the ultimate goal of most trans-portation – in the most efficient, environmen-tally-conscious, cost-effective and budget-appropriate ways.

It contrasts with the concept of mobility, whichis neutral with respect to social equity or envi-ronmental concerns, and assumes that the abili-ty to move around unimpeded should be anover-riding public policy objective on its own.Mobility is only concerned with physicalmovement – number of trips, distance covered,average speed – and does not adequately cap-ture those potentially more benign, yet fre-quently ignored transportation alternatives.

Accessibility consequently seeks different andsmarter ways to measure success: simply mov-ing more vehicles in a shorter period of time isnot viewed as an appropriate measure of suc-cess when, in fact, it is questionable whetherthose added trips are ultimately justifiable.

33

Discontinuities in the sidewalk network present seri-ous mobility challenges to anyone with a disability.

Transportation statistics and transportation sys-tem performance measures are seen as biasedsince they mostly measure speed and distanceand view growth in these indicators as a meas-ure of success, instead of measuring actual out-comes. Conventional measures of transporta-tion activity are seen as flawed and favoringmotorized modes at the expense of other formsof transportation.

Many factors affect accessibility: the qualityand affordability of the available transportationoptions, the level of connectivity in the trans-portation system, feasible alternatives to physi-cal movement and prevailing land use patterns.Levels of accessibility can be evaluated withrespect to particular demographic groups,mode, location or activity. Conventional trans-portation planning often overlooks and/orundervalues these factors and perspectives. Yetsmarter approaches to accessibility planningcan help expand horizons and find better solu-tions to transportation problems.

Green TransportationSustainable (green) transportation refers to anymeans of transportation with low impact onenergy and the environment, and includeswalking and cycling, transit, electric vehicles,hybrid vehicles, car sharing and other trans-portation systems that are fuel-efficient, spacesaving and promote healthy lifestyles. Differenttypes of mobility options need to be weighedagainst the environmental, social and economiccosts that transportation systems pose, in orderto make critical and strategic decisions thatprovide cost efficiency based on the impacts onenergy and the environment.

As previously mentioned, the transportationsector has significant impacts on the environ-ment, accounting for up to 40% of NJ energy

consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.Greenhouse gas emissions from transportationare increasing at a faster rate than any otherenergy-using sector. Vehicle emissions are also a major contributor to local air pollutionand smog.

The social costs of transportation include crash-es, air pollution, strain on household budgets,physical inactivity, time taken away from thefamily and vulnerability to fuel price increases.Many of these negative impacts fall dispropor-tionately on those social groups that can leastafford them and are least likely to own anddrive cars. Traffic congestion imposes econom-ic costs by wasting people's time and by slow-ing the delivery of goods and services.

Traditional transportation planning aims toimprove mobility, especially for vehicles, butfails to adequately consider the wider impacts.The real purpose of transportation should beaccess -- to work, education, goods and services,friends and family -- while simultaneouslyreducing environmental and social impacts.Communities that are successfully improving thesustainability of their transportation networks aredoing so as part of a wider agenda to createmore vibrant, livable and equitable places.

The green transportation hierarchy favors thosemodes that demonstrate greater efficiency in

34

Hoboken has one of the most creative public parkingpolicies in New Jersey. The city offers residents a variety of incentives to not own cars.

terms of environmental impacts, space, energyand other costs.

Permeability and ConnectivityPermeability and connectivity are terms used todescribe the extent to which the circulation systemallows (or restricts) the movement of people and/orvehicles in different directions. The terms are oftenused interchangeably, although there is a subtle dif-ference in meaning. "Connectivity" refers solely tothe number of connections to and from a particularplace; whereas "permeability" refers also to thecapacity of those connections to carry people orvehicles. In other words, connectivity measures thenumber of links a circulation system offers. Thegreater the connectivity, the greater the number ofoptions (routes) for circulating within the system.Cul-de-sacs, dead-ends, no left turns, medians, one-way streets and other physical or regulatory fea-tures reduce connectivity. Permeability adds ameasure of capacity to this analysis.Connectivity is also used to describe the level ofintegration between different modes or types oftransportation, such as in a multi-modal transithub.

The benefits of circulation systems with higherlevels of street connectivity and permeability arewell established and supported by nationalresearch. Permeability and connectivity permitease of movement and avoid isolating neighbor-

hoods. Neighborhoods that lack permeability,e.g. those severed by arterial roads, or with manycul-de-sac, discourage movement on foot andgenerate more car trips. However, a formulaicapproach to street connectivity is not recom-mended, as there are also conditions, circum-stances and cost considerations that reasonablyjustify or indeed require imposing limits. A bal-anced approach to establishing the appropriatelevel of connectivity is therefore recommended. • Unfiltered permeability is associated with the tra-

ditional street grid where pedestrians, cyclists andmotor vehicles follow the same routes.

• Filtered permeability is an approach that sug-gests walking and bicycling networks shouldbe more permeable than the street network formotor vehicles. An additional overlay of bicy-cle and pedestrian only connections, over andbeyond those offered by the shared street net-work, encourage walking and cycling by pro-viding an attractive environment free from traf-fic and perhaps a time and convenience advan-tage over driving. Filtered permeability offersfacilities, in some locations, where cyclists,pedestrians (and sometimes transit) have sepa-rate rights-of-way from motor vehicles, inaddition to the shared rights-of-way elsewhere.

The “connectivity index” is a quantitative tool tomeasure how well a street network connects des-tinations. This is accomplished by computing the

Green Transportation HierarchyThe green transportation hierarchyreflects the costs and benefits associatedwith the different modes of transportation.Walking is at the top of the hierarchybecause it costs nothing and does notimpact the environment. Bicycling comessecond because of the cost of the bicycleand the environmental impacts associatedwith manufacturing the bicycle and itscomponents. Public transportation inlarge measure still relies on fossil fuels,but with appropriate ridership levels theper capita environmental costs are lowerthan if each transit rider were travellingin individual motor vehicles. Service andfreight vehicles are necessary to keep oureconomy running, carry heavy and oftencomplex equipment and get necessarywork done. Taxis frequently carry multi-ple passengers as do, by definition, multi-ple occupancy vehicles, such as car poolsand van pools. At the bottom of the hier-archy, the single occupant vehicle –regardless of whether it is a zero-emis-sions vehicle -- is the most inefficientmode of transportation in terms ofresource allocation, both with respect tothe vehicle itself as well as to the infra-structure it relies on.

1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Public Transportation 4. Service and Freight Vehicles 5. Taxis 6. Multiple Occupant Vehicles 7. Single Occupant Vehicles

35

ratio of segments of streets to intersec-tions or dead-ends. A higher score indi-cates more travel choices in itinerary, andtherefore greater permeability. More cul-de-sacs and dead ends, and longer blockdimensions result in lower scores. Theindex can be calculated separately forvehicles, pedestrians and bicycles if thereare separate routes.

Street Networks and HowThey Perform: Sparse vs.Inter-Connected SystemsStreets define blocks -- their size andconfigurations. Blocks constitute thebasic building block of communitiesfrom a community design perspective.Block size can vary considerably, andthere is no formula for achieving the per-fect block size. The Portland (OR) blockis 200 by 200 feet; the Hoboken block is200 by 400; and the Newark block is 400x 150. In Manhattan, blocks vary from200 by 600 feet to 200 by 1,100 feet;those longer cross-town blocks are con-sidered excessive by many. Many othertemplates exist, but it is generally accept-ed that blocks should be between 200and 300 feet in one dimension and 200and 500 feet in the other. Block sizesshould obviously be tailored to accom-

modate the spatial needs of the types ofuses anticipated.

Depending upon the average block size, this system will yield a variable numberof intersections.

The average street lane can carry in therange of 1,700 – 2,000 vehicles an hour.For two-lane streets, 3,200 passengervehicles per hour is the stipulated capaci-ty. Lane capacity does not increase as alinear function when additional lanes areadded. This means that the same numberof lane miles have a higher capacity astwo lane streets rather than multi-lanearterials. Lane widths can vary between8 feet (for a very low volume neighbor-hood street) and 14 feet ( for highways) inwidth, and usually average between 10and 12 feet in width.

Traditional grids were layed out using amile square template for major arterials.This model still works quite well. Thesquare mile grid means that the outeredge of every neighborhood is no furtherthan 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) from anarterial, where transit service can be pro-vided and more intensive commercialuses might be located. Lower order arteri-

Measuring ConnectivityThere are a number of ways to measure connectivity.

Indicators of connectivity include:

• Links and nodes: Number of street links divided by thenumber of nodes (intersections). Ranges from 1.00 (poor-est level; all cul-de-sacs) to 2.50 (fully interconnected).The lowest score for a walkable community is 1.4 to 1.6.

• Intersection ratio: The ratio of intersections divided byintersections and dead ends, expressed on a scale from 0to 1. A score greater than 0.75 is desirable.

• Average intersection spacing: For walkability, a maxi-mum distance of 660 feet; desirable spacing is less than400 feet.

• Intersection density: The number of street intersectionswithin a given area, such as a square mile. The moreintersections, the greater the degree of connectivity.

• Blocks per square mile: For walkability this index shouldbe at least 100.

• Directness: Actual travel distance divided by direct trav-el distance. Ideal score is 1.0. For walkability, scoreshould be 1.5 or less.

Source: Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: AContext Sensitive Approach. ITE/CNU 2010

We should point out that while these quantitative toolscan be helpful in clarifying the factual basis, they shouldalways be used judiciously and with intelligence. No setof metrics can substitute for intelligence and human orsocietal discretion.

36

als occur every 1/4 mile and constitute appropriatelocations for neighborhood shopping and otheractivities with a more localized or specialized mar-ket or costomer base. In denser urban environ-ments, arterial spacing may need to be 1/2 mile oreven 1/4 mile, depending upon the number oflanes available for the arterials. If no 6-lane arteri-als are desired, the spacing should be less than 1/2mile. Travel demand forecasting models willinform that determination.

A 21st century enhancement of this model requiresinclusion of a network of bicycle facilities withparallel routes, establishing direct connections tomajor trip generators such as schools, libraries,mixed-use areas and parks. These bicycle facilitiesmay include one or more of the following: on-street bike lanes, dedicated bike paths, or sharedlanes on low volume traffic-calmed streets.

An interconnected street network reduces trafficon arterial streets because vehicle trips are dis-persed throughout the system, rather than concen-trated. This increases the performance of the arte-rial streets and minimizes the opportunities forcut-through traffic. If seeking to optimize flow onthe arterials, then the block pattern should be layedout with the long sides of the blocks facing thearterial. That will reduce the number of intersec-tions and therefore the amount of friction in thesystem. Intersections will occur only every 400 to

600 feet. On the other hand, this maximizes thearterial frontage, which is exposed to greater noiseand traffic. So there are trade-offs, and it may beadvisable to preferentially locate less noise sensi-tive uses (office, retail) along the arterials and shiftmore noise-sensitive uses (residential, educational)to the side streets.

Increased connectivity in the street networkcalls for finding a balance between reducingtraffic on arterial streets without encouragingexcessive increases in traffic on side streets andresidential neighborhoods. To contain excessivetraffic on local residential streets, traffic calm-ing and other strategies should be employed.

When compared with low-connectivity subur-ban-style street networks, interconnected streetsystems have been shown to decrease vehiclemiles traveled (VMT), trip lengths and traveltime, and to facilitate walking, bicycling andtransit use as a result of the shorter travel dis-tances to various destinations and to passenger

rail and bus service. But the interconnectedstreet network must be coupled with a land usepattern that reinforces these outcomes and pro-vides both an attractive walking and bicyclingenvironment and relevant destinations.

Greater connectivity improves the delivery ofemergency services, mail and package deliveries,and the operations of garbage and recycling serv-ices, police and other municipal service workers,because it increases access and dramaticallyreduces cul-de-sacs. It may be appropriate to des-ignate certain streets as emergency service routesand limit traffic calming or similar interventionsto facilitate emergency service vehicles.

Greater connectivity also provides a superiorenvironment for transit operators, by creatingshorter and more direct routes and placingpotential riders closer to transit service. Thesparse networks with multiple cul-de-sacs andwinding streets found throughout suburbia werenot designed with transit in mind and indeedmake it considerably more difficult to providetransit service. The superblock layout and limit-ed number of access points makes access bytransit vehicles difficult and inefficient, and thewinding street alignments increase bus traveldistance, thereby increasing trip travel time anddecreasing passenger convenience.Interconnected street networks offer transit

37

planners greater flexibility in terms of service design, and theability to better customize service to reach specialized markets.Interconnected street networks also offer more flexibility forbuses to deviate from a fixed route to pick up or drop off pas-sengers at locations off the scheduled route. This occurs mostlyin lower density environments and caters to the elderly or dis-abled who have difficulty reaching a bus stop.

Functional ClassificationFHWA, state DOTs and county engineering departments classifyroads according to their function, and establish standards for design,access and others according to this classification. The conventionalclassification starts with freeway/expressway at the top, followed byprincipal arterial, collector (minor arterial), sub-collector and resi-dential access street. This classification is entirely motor vehicleoriented and focused on moving vehicles. It is therefore of limitedinterest to local circulation planners, because it does not adequatelyaddress the land use context in which different types of streets arelocated, and which to a large extent determine how they operate,nor does it capture the complexities and nuances in design andfunction of the local street network. Alternative classifications havebeen proposed which attempt to better handle these aspects. Oneexample can be found in the functional classification described inthe Transect.

Level of Service (LOS)Traffic engineering uses the concept of “level of service” todefine functional conditions along a particular stretch of streetor intersection. Levels of service were originally linked to theroads in the functional classification system, but they can alsobe applied to other modes as well, such as pedestrian and bicy-cle facilities, and transit services.

Vehicles and DimensionsThere are a wide variety of motor vehicles on the roads in the US, with very dif-ferent dimensions and characteristics. Limousines might be 20 feet long, aLamborghini is 6 ? feet wide, a Dodge Ram pick-up truck is 8 feet wide and aHummer weighs around 7,500 lbs, while a Daihatsu weighs only 1,600 lbs.

Indeed the dimensions of the average motor vehicle have changed considerablyover time and continue to change today. We now have both smaller and largervehicles than previously.

In general small cars measure around 5.75 feet by 15 feet, while large carsmeasure 6.25 feet by 16.75 feet. Vans, on average, measure 6.75 feet by 18.25feet; trucks measure 6.75 feet by 18.9 feet; and sport utility vehicles 6.75 feet by17 feet.

Different classes of vehicles also have different maneuverability requirements. Inaddition to travel lane width, turning radius is a critical dimension that willdetermine whether larger vehicles are able to negotiate corners without mount-ing curbs or encroaching into on-coming traffic. A curb radius of 10 or 15 feet isappropriate for local, neighborhood streets, but will present challenges for largervehicles. Emergency service vehicles (fire and first aid), moving and deliverytrucks, utility trucks, buses and others have different requirements from themajority of light passenger vehicles, and may require larger curb radii. Farmvehicles and military vehicles pose their own sets of challenges.

Clearly we cannot design our circulation systems for either the largest, widestand heaviest users, or for the smallest and lightest vehicles. Similarly, it is nei-ther cost-effective nor desirable to design for the occasional, albeit importantuser. Many communities struggle to find the appropriate compromise. The plan-ning, traffic engineering and emergency response professions have looked atthese issues carefully and there is now expert guidance on these issues, whichshould make these decisions easier in the future.

38

There are 6 LOS, like grades in school: from A(best) to F (worst). For roads, the LOS reflectsthe average speed at which vehicles are able totravel; and for intersections, it reflects theamount of time (number of cycles) it takes toget through the intersection. For example, asignalized intersection is currently consideredto have an LOS A if there is a delay of 10 sec-onds or less and an LOS F if there is a delay of80 seconds or more. (In 1985, A was 5 secondsand F was 60 seconds, which suggest the trafficengineering profession has become moreaccepting of delays.)

While the LOS is useful as a standardizedmeasure of performance (of a particular facilityat a particular time of day), which thereforeallows for objective comparisons between dif-ferent facilities, it is critical to keep in mindthat it should not lead to pre-determined solu-tions (ie, intersection widening if the LOS is F)nor should it even necessarily imply that thereis a problem. The community must determinewhether the condition measured is in fact aproblem; whether it is a high-priority problemthat deserves immediate attention andresources; and what type of solution might bestaddress the problem.

Early efforts to apply the LOS concept topedestrian facilities illustrates some of the difficulties. It was originally conceived toreflect the density (number of people) on agiven section of sidewalk, and consequentlygave higher ratings to un-crowded areas, wheremost people do not want to be. In fact, thepedestrian rating system might have workedbetter if it were inverted.

There are many ways to address “deficient” LOS rat-ings – redirecting traffic, travel demand managementsolutions, mode shifts, interventions in other parts ofthe circulation system, etc -- that may not require aphysical intervention at that particular location. Theappropriate local response to a bad LOS rating at aparticular location should be informed, smart andreflect the community’s sense of priorities.The whole concept of LOS is currently being re-examined by the transportation establishment.

Trip Generation and Mode SplitTrip generation refers to the number of tripsoriginating or ending at a particular location.The Institute of Transportation Engineers TripGeneration is the industry standard for calculat-ing trips generated by different land use classi-fications. It is based on a comprehensivenational database of (mostly suburban) case

studies. Trip generation rates are correlated toparticular land uses, and distinguish betweendaily totals, peak periods and day of week.

Unfortunately, this source presents an over-sim-plified picture of reality: it is focused on pri-vate motor vehicle trips, and excludes all othermodes of transportation; it does not distinguishbetween different land use patterns, densitiesand transportation conditions; and it does nottake into account the availability of transit. In short, it suffers from the same shortcomingsas the ITE parking generation manual (seeparking section).

These shortcomings have been recognized bythe professional community, and studies areunderway to provide a more nuanced and real-istic set of multipliers, that can take intoaccount not only the surrounding land use con-text, but also household characteristics, demo-graphics, transit availability and propensity touse non-motorized modes.

Most NJ municipalities have not incorporatedtrip generation rates into their land develop-ment regulations. As a result, discussions oftrip generation take place on a case-by-casebasis between the planning board and its pro-fessionals, and the developers and their profes-

39

sionals. Vehicular trip generation rates are rele-vant to determine traffic volumes entering andleaving the site, calculate potential off-siteimprovements needed and evaluate impacts onthe surrounding community. These discussionsare often contentious and sometimes poorlygrounded empirically, given the costs of con-ducting the base studies tailored to each individ-ual project. Trip generation is not a science.

What Are Complete Streets?“Complete Streets” is a growing national move-ment that seeks to provide all users with safe andequitable access to the transportation and circula-tion systems, regardless of age or ability. It rec-ognizes that our circulation infrastructure in thelast 50 years has been built primarily to accom-modate motor vehicles, to the disadvantage of allother modes of transportation. Complete Streetsseek to reverse this, by instead creating integrat-ed, multi-modal networks that work equally forall modes of transportation.

Complete Streets is a policy that provides direc-tion for transportation engineers and planners toalways carefully consider the needs and abilitiesof all users and modes of transportation duringthe design of a transportation network and tobalance their safety and convenience. It is not aprescription to apply sidewalks and bicycle lanes

to every road, but rather to direct planning deci-sions to consider all users.

Complete streets are intended to:• Reduce auto-dependency, VMT and GhG

emissions.• Improve safety conditions for the transporta-

tion system users at greatest risk: pedestrians,bicyclists, children, the elderly, people withdisabilities and transit users.

• Improve bicycling and walking connectionsbetween and among major trip generators suchas employment centers, schools, residentialneighborhoods, recreation, retail centers andpublic facilities.

• Increase incidental physical activity and facilitate a more healthy lifestyle.

• Improve quality of life.

NJDOT has adopted a Complete Streets Policyfor all projects built on public rights-of-way thatreceive federal or state funding and encourageslocal jurisdictions to adopt a similar policy appli-cable to projects with other sources of funding.

In New Jersey, some local governments, such asMontclair have similarly adopted CompleteStreets policies.

Trip Generation RatesITE provides trip generation rates forevery major category of land use, and formany minor ones as well -- the 7th andlatest edition lists over 1,000 land use anduse combinations. So, for example, a sin-gle-family detached dwelling is estimatedto generate about 10 trips per averageweek-day, but a high-rise apartment mightgenerate only 4 and a retirement community only 3.

Research in traditional, mixed-use com-pact communities indicates that thosehouseholds make on average the samenumber of trips, but significantly less tripsby car, less external trips and involvingconsiderably less VMT even in the absenceof competitive transit service.

Recent research also shows that trip gen-eration rates in higher-density, mixed-useenvironments are notably less than rates for lower-density, single-use environments.(Similar findings apply to parking needs –see parking section). Research indicatesthat trip generation rates for projectslocated in urban transit-oriented develop-ments (TODs) may be less than 1/2 therates calculated elsewhere, and 25% lessin suburban TODs.

40

Pedestrian Friendly PlanningWalking is the oldest form of transportation, andstill the most pervasive. Every trip for someonewho is mobile starts and ends by walking.Humans start walking, on average, at 11 monthsand will continue to walk until very late in life.

The average walking speed is 3 to 4 mph inadults. Younger people may walk 10 to 20%faster, and the elderly 20 to 30% slower. Thesubtleties of walking speeds are particularlyimportant when setting pedestrian crossing timesat cross walks and in similar situations.

Planners often use the 5-minute walk, ie 1,320 feetas a convenient template to measure easy accessi-bility, because research has shown that most peoplewill not think twice about walking such a short dis-tance. In fact, most people are prepared to walkmuch further, a finding that is substantiated byempirical research with average costumer at shop-ping malls. Research has also shown that peoplewill walk further to take a train (15 minutes ormore) than a bus (10 minutes).

Of course, how much and how far people walk isa function of many things, not just distance: phys-

ical ability, the visual quality of the surroundingenvironment, the presence or absence of pedestri-an infrastructure (sidewalks, crosswalks), thepresence of other pedestrians, a sense of safety,the amount of traffic, and other factors.

Appropriately signalized and conveniently locat-ed crosswalks are critical for pedestrians. It isimportant to keep in mind that the wider thestreet, the more dangerous it is for pedestrians.The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration indicates that most pedestrians arekilled on arterial roads, which are wider, havehigher capacities and are designed for highervehicular speed; only 1/3 of pedestrian deathsoccur on smaller collector and local roads.

Design Guidelines for PedestrianFacilitiesSidewalk widths should be commensurate withthe anticipated level of pedestrian traffic, andalways wide enough to accommodate two babystrollers crossing in opposite direction. In lowerdensity developments a 4-foot width may suf-fice, and that is the minimum sidewalk widthstipulated by the RSIS for residential areas. (TheRSIS indicates the types of residential streets forwhich sidewalks are required, on one or bothsides). However, 5 to 6 feet is preferred, in par-ticular considering that utility poles, pole mount-ed street signs and other vertical appurtenancescreate obstacles that reduce sidewalk width.

41

Measuring WalkabilityThere are a number of tools available tomeasure and rank “walkability”, that is,how pedestrian-friendly a place is.

Some of these tools are internet-basedalgorithms that rely on public domain GISdata. One such example is Walk Score,which scores a place on a scale from 0 to100, ie from “car-dependent” (0 –24 points: almost all errands requirea car) to “walkers paradise” (90 – 100points: daily errands do not require acar). The Walk Score algorithm takes aparticular address as the starting point,measures distances to a variety of ameni-ties (shopping, etc) and attributes a scoreto that address based on the number ofpoints computed. Nearby amenities (with-in ? mile) score higher than those furtheraway. Anything over 1 mile is not consid-ered. Unfortunately, Walk Score does nothave sufficient data to take into account anumber of key factors: whether there ispedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks,paths), major barriers (cul-de-sacs, heavytraffic arterials, and others. As such, itcan provide a first approximation to walk-ability, but not an accurate representationon the actual conditions on the ground.(continued)

NJDOT has designated seven ScenicByways:

• Bayshore Heritage Byway• Delaware River Scenic Byway • Millstone Valley Byway • Palisades Interstate Parkway

Scenic Byway • Pine Barrens Byway • Route 57 Byway • Upper Freehold Historic

Farmland Byway

Indeed 6 feet is required for two wheelchairs tocross. In commercial or mixed-use areas, side-walks should have 8 to 10 feet in width, and indowntown or Main Street conditions they shouldbe wider and capable of reasonably accommodat-ing outdoor merchandise displays, sandwich boardsigns, outdoor cafes, street furniture, street trees,parking meters, landscaped beds and all the otheritems that take up sidewalk space.

In existing built places, where conditions are tootight to allow for these dimensions, considerationshould be given to expanding sidewalk widths atthe expense of the cartway (the paved area of thestreet, from curb to curb, or from edge of pave-ment), since these are often over-engineered.Where cartways are already at a minimum (7-footwide travel lanes) consideration should be given tocreating a shared space condition by removing thecurb, replacing the blacktop with pavers and elimi-nating any distinction between cartway and side-walk.

At a minimum, a vertical clear space of 8 feetshould be maintained above any sidewalk. Plantingstrips along the curb are optional and will varydepending upon the type of place, but should alwaysbe wide enough to sustain the type of plantings andstreet trees chosen.

Sidewalks are a critical element in the local circula-tion system and as such need to be maintained toremain functional. New Jersey municipalities shoulddevelop and adopt a sidewalk maintenance plan con-sistent with the applicable legislation and regula-tions: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) , ADAGuidelines for Buildings and Facilities, the USAccess Board’s 2005 Draft Public Rights-of-WayAccessibility Guidelines and the NJDOT

Sidewalks should be constructed and maintained toavoid vertical changes in excess of 1/4 inch or sur-face gaps over 1/2 inch. A 5% (1:20) longitudinalslope is often considered the maximum, along witha 2% (1:50) cross-slope.

It is also important to remember that although aplace may have all the pedestrian infrastructuredescribed above, people will not walk unless thereis a reason to do so. Pedestrian trips – other thantrips made for recreational purposes or purely forphysical exercise – have a purpose and a destina-tion. If there are no destinations within walkingdistance, people will not walk. So providing rele-vant destinations is key to stimulating walking.Similarly, the quality of the walking trip has beendetermined to play a role. People are more likelyto walk if there is something to look at – interest-ing architecture, a beautiful park, display windowswith retail merchandise, other people. Blank walls,

42

A more sophisticated, place-basedapplication has been developed forKing County (Washington State) bySustainable Seattle. Called theWalkability Index it considers resi-dential density, the number of streetconnections, and the mix of homes,stores, parks, and schools in a neigh-borhood. For each King CountyCensus block group, a “walkability”index was derived as a function of netresidential density, retail floor arearatio, land use mix, and intersectiondensity. The measures were computedfrom parcel-based land use data,street centerline files and censusdata. Retail floor area was also usedbecause access to retail uses hasbeen found to stimulate pedestrianactivity. The following algorithm wasused:Walkability = [(2 x z-intersectiondensity) + (z-net residential density)+ (z-retail floor area ratio) + (z-landuse mix)]Other tools to measure walkabilityare readily available. Municipalitiesare encouraged to use one of them,or devise their own, as a tool toassess their local conditions.

surface parking lots or boarded-up buildings do not constitute stimulat-ing walking environments for the average person.

Bicycle Friendly PlanningBicycles were enormously popular in the US until the turn of the 20thcentury. There were many bicycle clubs that organized outings forbicyclists (“wheelmen”) of both sexes. Bicycles were used both forrecreation and for mobility. After the introduction of the automobile,the popularity of bicycles plummeted. And until recently, bicycles inthe US were generally viewed as vehicles kids rode until they were oldenough to get their drivers licenses, and some adults rode on week-ends or on vacation for recreation. Serious bikers rode long distance onweek-ends. In suburbia, recent emigrants could be found precariouslyriding bicycles along the narrow shoulders of fast moving arterials.And in some larger cities, daredevil courier bikers took their lives intheir hands and shot in and out of traffic.

This paradigm is changing rapidly. Today, we have Wall Street brokers,physicians and power attorneys commuting to work by bike. A grow-ing number of people ride their bike to work or for errands. In somecommunities, bikes have become fashionable and chic, and well-dressed women can be seen peddling around town, perhaps with a petin their bicycle basket. Bike clubs have begun to sprout again and biketourism is on the rise.

Worldwide, it is estimated that there are 1 billion bicycles, about twiceas many as cars. It is the primary means of transportation for shorttrips in many parts of the world. About 19 million bicycles are pur-chased every year in the US.

43

Pedestrian AuditThis questionnaire from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking isone of the tools communities can use to assess pedestrian conditions.

• Are sidewalks continuous along the entire route? if not, where are the gaps?

• Are the sidewalks in good repair, or are there broken sections that would impede travel when

using a wheelchair, walker or baby stroller?• Are there marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help people

cross busy streets and intersections?• Can slow-moving pedestrians get across the street in the time allotted

by the signal?• Do drivers yield to pedestrians at driveways and crosswalks?• Are there utility poles, signs, vending machines, dumpsters, shrubbery,

or overhead obstacles blocking the sidewalk?• Are there trees along the street to provide shade and separation

from traffic?• Do the street, adjacent buildings, and landscaping provide a pleasant

visual environment?• Are there frequent benches or other places to sit and rest?• Are storefronts attractive and inviting? Are the windows lit at night?• Are there other people walking along the way?• Was the walk enjoyable? Why or why not? • Are there areas where you were concerned for your personal safety?

Why? (This might capture concerns about street lighting if the audit isdone a night.)

• Would you repeat this walking trip again? Why or why not?

Bicycles are a very energy-efficient means of trans-portation. A cyclist riding at the average speed ofbetween 10 and 15 mph uses the same amount ofenergy they would need if walking. At averagespeed, a cyclist can travel 2 to 2.5 miles in 10 min-utes, and 2.5 to 3.75 miles in 15 minutes. That is 3to 4 times faster than walking. For planning pur-poses, this extends the reach of non-motorizedaccess to a particular destination by a factor ofbetween 3 and 4.

While the number of bike trips is still a tiny per-centage of all non-recreational trips, there is both agrowing interest in bicycle friendly places and agrowing constituency to advocate for them.Communities such as Boulder, Colorado; Portland,Oregon; and Santa Cruz and Berkeley, Californiahave invested significantly in bicycle infrastructureand can point to tangible gains in the number oftrips taken by bike. Many communities have creat-ed pedestrian and bicycle committees to act in anadvisory capacity to local government, includingplanning boards.

Of course, bicycles will not be appropriate for shorttrips in all circumstances: bad weather, heavyloads, night time conditions and many other factorsmay discourage bicycle trips from occurring.

Like pedestrians, bikes do not require a completelyseparate circulation infrastructure in order to

become more widely used and accepted. Yes, it isnice when separate facilities can be provided; butin most cases, it is enough to create a better bal-ance between motor vehicles, bikes and pedestri-ans, where bikes feel they belong, not just tolerat-ed. In other words, a Complete Street approach.

Bicycle lanes are a portion of the roadway desig-nated for preferential or exclusive bicycle use byway of striping, signage or pavement markings. Bikeway is a gener-ic term that indicates that a street, road or path hasbeen designated for bicycle travel, whether exclu-sively or shared with other vehicles and users.Shared-use paths are physically separated frommotor vehicle traffic and can support walking, jog-ging, wheelchair users and in-line skating, in addi-tion to bicycling. They typically have a 10-footwide hard surface (asphalt, concrete or packedaggregate). Some shared use paths have resultedfrom “rails-to-trails” projects, that is the conversionof abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Shared-usepaths can play an important role in better connect-ing origins and destinations, complementing theconventional circulation system that is shared withmotor vehicles.

The RSIS stipulates that for residential neighbor-hoods separate bicycle paths and lanes shall berequired only if they are specified in the adoptedmunicipal master plan and/or official map.

Biking in PortlandPortland, Oregon is perhaps the UScity with the most aggressive andambitious public effort to promotebicycling as a viable, everyday formof transportation. Bike trips havemore than tripled since 1991, whenthe city began to focus publicresources in support of bicycling.The current estimate is that 7% ofall trips in the city are made by bike,which is unparalleled in NorthAmerica. To achieve this, Portland,among other things, built 300 milesof bike paths, reportedly at a costequal to 1 mile of urban freeway.But Portland’s goal is to reach 25%of all trips by bike by 2030. Forthat, it plans to build another 600miles of bike paths over the next 20years.

44

Design Guidelines for Bicycle FacilitiesStandard bike lanes are 4 to 6 feet wide. That is also thestandard width for bicycle-compatible paved shoulders.Bike paths are usually 10 feet wide, although in high trafficareas they may need to be wider. The NJDOT BicycleCompatible Planning and Design Guidelines recommend 11to 14 feet in width, depending upon the Average AnnualDaily Traffic (AADT) for shoulders with a bicycle lane andparking; and 4.5 foot wide free-standing bicycle lanes.

Bicycle-safe drainage grates at stormwater inlets areabsolutely essential.

Bicycle AuditThis questionnaire from the National Center for Bicyclingand Walking is one of many tools that can be used to collectinformation on bicycle conditions. • Are you able to find a comfortable route to your destina-

tion?• Is secure bicycle parking available at your destination?• Is there sufficient operating width along the route? (refer

to standards on page 15.)• Are alternate, quieter routes to your destination available?• Is the roadway surface in good repair?• Do traffic signals detect your presence?• Are drivers friendly and tolerant toward bicyclists?• Is there a place to clean up and change clothes at work or

school?• Did you enjoy your bicycling experience?

Why or why not?

45

Biking in New JerseyA recent survey of NJ bicyclists conducted by the Voorhees Transportation Center forthe NJDOT provides insights into who bikes – and who doesn’t – in the Garden State.Some highlights include:

• Nearly 80% of NJ residents age 18 and over have access to a bicycle for their use.• More than 1/3 of respondents reported bicycling in the last 6 months.• More men (46%) than women (27%) bike.• Younger people are more likely to bike than older (65+) people.• Whites are much more likely (41%) to bike than African Americans (24%)• More affluent households bike much more than lower income households.

In fact, the lower the income, the lower the likelihood of biking.• More educated households bike more than less educated ones.• Single-family housing dwellers bike are almost two times more likely to bike

than apartment dwellers.• Only 3% of school age children were reported biking to school.

The results of this survey are consistent with findings from Portland and elsewherethat suggest that the minority, inner-city populations that would benefit the most –both economically and in terms of public health -- from increased biking are the onesthat are the least likely to engage in it. More affluent and more educated householdsare clearly more receptive to biking. Improving the quality of the bicycle-friendlyinfrastructure will increase the share of this population that bikes. But providing betterbicycle-friendly facilities in minority neighborhoods will not by itself substantiallyincrease bicycling. Making biking a socially-acceptable and desirable activity in theseneighborhoods is a challenge that will require significant local leadership.

A second challenge this survey points to is the need to dramatically increase the levelsof bicycling to school, which will require educating local elected officials, SchoolBoards, parents and local police departments.

• Would you repeat this bicycle trip again?Why or why not?

Berkeley’s Bicycle BoulevardsBicycle boulevards are a concept that is gainingsome traction. The city of Berkeley (California)has perhaps the most ambitious bicycle boule-vard plan. The bicycle boulevard does notrequire creating new, dedicated rights-of-way,but rather modifying existing streets to givebicycles priority and to enhance the safety ofconvenience of bicyclists.

The 1999 Berkeley bicycle boulevard planseeks to:• Achieve low traffic volumes (or bike lanes

where traffic volumes are medium);• discourage non-local motor vehicle traffic;• achieve free-flow travel for bikes by assign-

ing the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevardat intersections wherever possible;

• control traffic to help bicycles cross majorstreets; and

• create a distinctive, easily recognizable lookthat conveys to cyclists that they are on abike boulevard and signals to motorists thatthe street is a priority route for bicyclists.

The plan identified Berkeley’s seven bicycleboulevards, using the following criteria: • Local street or low-volume collector.

• Not a transit or truck route.• Very little commercial frontage.• Within ? mile of a major street or a high-traf-

fic collector street.• Spaced between ? and 1? miles from another

bicycle boulevard, (approximately the tradi-tional spacing of major streets).

• Reasonably continuous and extending acrossover half of the City.

• Few jogs with main segments at least 0.5mile long.

• Traffic signals at major intersections, orwhere traffic signals are potentially feasible.

• Access to major destinations.• Connections to routes in neighboring cities.

TransitThere are a wide variety of transit modes oper-ating around the world, travelling by air (air-planes and aerial trams), on water (ferries), onroads (buses, jitneys), and on rail (heavy rail,light rail, trolleys and subways).

In New Jersey, buses carry the most transit rid-ers, followed by heavy rail and light rail. (Thedistinction between heavy rail and light rail isregulatory and does not reflect, as the namewould suggest, a significant difference inweight). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) -- a faster,more efficient type of bus transit – has recently

started service on an experimental basis. Thetransit community views BRT as a step up fromconventional bus and a promising, cheaperalternative to light rail.

Transit systems everywhere in the world receivepublic subsidies. Fare-box recovery – the rev-enues from ticket sales to riders – constitute afraction of total capital and operating expenseseven for the best managed and most heavilypatronized transit systems. The funding mecha-nisms used to subsidize transit vary widelywithin the US and around the world. Most suc-cessful transit systems have dedicated sourcesof funding. Many have also capitalized on thehigher real estate values that result from prox-imity to high volume transit stations, and cap-ture a portion of this added value to supplementother sources of revenue. NJT is the nation’slargest transit system without a dedicated sourceof funding. NJT receives funding from the fed-eral government, the State’s TransportationTrust Fund and general fund appropriations.To be viable, even with public subsidies, transitsystems require some level of fare-box recov-ery, which in turn requires certain ridership lev-els. Ridership increases with average density.As a rule of thumb, bus requires a minimum of6 – 8 dwelling units/acre and light rail a mini-mum of 15 – 20 dwelling units/acre. New

46

heavy rail systems require considerably higherdensities.

Transit-Friendly PlanningTransit-friendly planning seeks to marry theland use system with transit options such thatthey are mutually reinforcing – providingincreased levels of ridership for transit andincreased value and convenience for the resi-dents and employers located therein.

The transit-friendly planning literature some-times distinguishes between transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) and transit-supportivedevelopment (TSD).• TOD is the type of higher density, mixed-use

development that measurably increases transitridership. It is transit-oriented by design, andthe planners need to carefully understand thetypes of real estate markets and consumers(residential and others) that will be attractedby the proximity to the types of serviceoffered by that particular transit provider atthat particular location. This is critical,because not every transit opportunity is iden-tical. In general, TOD consists of housing,with other supportive uses such as retail andservices, and employment centers that reach acertain critical mass, including institutionssuch as hospitals, colleges and universities.

• TSD, on the other hand, is the type of devel-opment that may support transit, but is notnecessarily functionally and physically relat-ed to it. For this type of development, transitmay be an incidental amenity, but not astrategic one with respect to their location.There are many documented examples ofuses located in or very near station areas thathave little synergy with the transit facility.Nevertheless, these uses do not preclude tran-sit riders, and so should be distinguishedfrom transit-negating uses, which not only donot contribute riders to the transit system, but– as a result of their location and physicalattributes -- actively prevent potential ridersfrom boarding. The Princeton Junction railstation on NJT’s Northeast Corridor line pro-vides a perfect example: a WestWindsor/Plainsboro school bus depot, anelectrical sub-station and a leaf compostingfacility all occupy considerable land withinclose walking distance to the 3d highest pas-senger train station in NJ. Clearly these usesare not only not contributing riders, they are

by their very location discouraging riders.The land use decisions that resulted in thisparticular land use pattern do not reflect arecognition of the value added by the proxim-ity to high capacity transit.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)Transit-oriented development (TOD) generallyrefers to mixed-use, higher-density, pedestrianfriendly areas that are functionally and physi-cally oriented to public transportation. TODsemulate the 19th and early 20th century trolleyand rail communities, some of which were builtby the transit provider as speculative real estateinvestments. (Examples of historic TOD’s inNew Jersey include Dunellen and Fanwood, onNJT’s Raritan Valley line).

Most documented TOD activity in the US hascentered around rail facilities, whether heavy railor light rail. However, there is growing interestin Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-oriented TODs.

There are many benefits associated with TODincluding social, economic, and environmentalones. TODs reduce local reliance on automobilesby providing alternative options for trips: transit,walking and biking. This reduces pollution, andcan also help alleviate traffic and congestionproblems by reducing the amount of automo-biles on the road.

47

Rain gardens, bio-swales, pervious pavements andother green technologies improve water quality outcomesin surface parking lots and create nicer places.

By improving access to transit and enhancedmobility to its users, TODs increase the rider-ship and the revenues associated with them.People within a 1/4 mile of a transit station are twice as likely not to own a car, comparedto the average US household; they are 5-6 times(and in some places, up to 11 times) more likelyto commute by transit than those who are fur-ther away; and they generate 50% less vehiculartrips. Ready access to transit gives residents theoption to not own a car, making the housingoptions they provide more affordable.

Increased pedestrian traffic attracts more activi-ty for local businesses, improving the localeconomy and tax revenue for municipalities.With a mix-of-uses that generates activitythroughout the day and evening, these neigh-borhoods feel safer and more secure.Developers and investors recognize the benefitsand value of TODs and as a result bring invest-ment to an area and revitalize old neighbor-hoods making them more livable and a greaterasset to the community as a whole.The higher densities, mixed-use and transit richenvironments provided by TODs are not foreveryone. TOD residents are self-selected,meaning they deliberately chose to be there.Typical TOD residents include both youngerand older households, and tend to be smaller

and have fewer school-age children than theaverage household. TOD residents also havefewer cars, drive less and use far more transitthan the average household.

TODs also increasingly attract employers, par-ticularly in the more, creative, dynamic andinnovative sectors of the economy. A recentsurvey indicates that access to transit is veryimportant to 70% of new economy companies.

While TODs perform better than non-TODswith respect to a wide range of transportationindicators (VMT, rates of auto ownership,affordability, etc), they do not all performequally. Understanding how a TOD performs ishelpful in establishing appropriate policies forthe future. The Center for Transit OrientedDevelopment has developed a TOD typologyusing household VMT and land use mix (resi-dential / employment). The TOD typology dis-tinguishes 15 TOD types. The typology buildson a predictive model developed by the Centerfor Neighborhood Technology that simulateshousehold travel behavior and estimates VMTfor households living in different TOD stationarea types. The model uses neighborhood level(Census block group) data to explore the rela-tionship between three dependent variables(auto ownership, auto use and transit use) and

nine independent variables (household income,household size, commuters per household, jour-ney to work time, household density, blocksize, transit access and job access.

Traffic CalmingTraffic calming is an approach to the geometricdesign of the circulation system that recognizesthat higher motor vehicle speed is not alwaysdesirable and, indeed, is inappropriate in manycircumstances. Conventional school trafficengineering supersized street pavement widthsand used inappropriately high design speedseven in local neighborhoods, thereby encourag-ing drivers to circulate at higher speeds. Trafficcalming seeks to accomplish the reverse --encourage drivers to slow down and use greatercaution -- by providing them with visualqueues and physical constraints. Traffic calm-ing has been largely accepted by the trafficengineering community, including the FHWAand all the mainstream professional organiza-tions and has become part of the standard traffic engineering toolbox.

The standard traffic calming toolbox includesthe following devices:• Speed hump – a raised portion of the road-

way with a parabolic cross-section. • Speed table – a raised horizontal section of

48

the street, often treated with a textured pavement and/or a differentcolor, usually located at intersections or areas with heavy pedestriantraffic.

• Raised crosswalk – similar to a street table but limited to the pedestri-an crosswalk.

• Bulbout – a portion of the sidewalk that widens towards the cartway,often equivalent to the width of a parking lane and usually located atintersections. Bulbouts are often used in association with raised cross-walks.

• Neckdown – a portion of the cartway that has been deliberately nar-rowed, often located along a Main Street or at the approach to a busypedestrian intersection. It is often used with a bulbout.

• Median strip – a planted, often curbed section separating two lanes ofvehicular traffic and used to narrow an existing cartway.

• Roundabout – a circular or elliptical intersection control device wherethe vehicles moving in the roundabout have the right-of-way overapproaching vehicles.

Traffic calming is not appropriate everywhere and should not be usedfor the wrong reasons. It should not be used to try to replicate the cul-de-sac system in an integrated street network, by closing down certainstreets just because the residents would like less traffic. Everyonewould like less traffic in their neighborhood, but the key is dispersion,not limiting travel options. Traffic calming is also not appropriate inareas with high volumes of traffic and higher speeds. The intention isnot to create driver frustration but to re-establish a better balancebetween motor vehicles and other modes. NJDOT is not likely to con-sider traffic calming features for streets with a posted speed limit of 40MPH or above.

49

TODs in New JerseyRail transit in NJ has attracted a number of widely publicized TOD rede-velopment projects in communities such as South Orange, Morristown,Rahway and Metuchen. In all of these cases, traditional downtowns wererevitalized with new redevelopment projects that replaced obsolete useswith new, transit-oriented ones.

In NJ, the catalytic effects of new transit service on land use are bestobserved along the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line (HBLRT), which hassparked considerable TOD redevelopment around station areas. A recentstudy by the Voorhees Transportation Center indicates that between theyear 2000, when it opened, and 2008 over 10,000 housing units, with anestimated sales value in excess of $5 billion, had been built or wereunder construction. This redevelopment activity reflects both the proximi-ty to the powerful Manhattan market and the willingness of local commu-nities to capitalize on transit by permitting higher density development.

NJT’s RiverLine, which runs between Camden and Trenton, whileexceeding ridership expectations, has so far had only a modest impact onredevelopment activity, in large measure because the municipalitiesalong the line have not created appropriately supportive land use frame-works and have not rezoned station areas for higher densities and appro-priate uses.

There are also a number of well-publicized examples in NJ of privatelyproposed TODs that have failed to obtain entitlement, due to local resist-ance to new development. There is skepticism at the local level regardingthe demographic impacts these projects will have, in particular withrespect to the number of public school-age children. Although the empiri-cal studies are conclusive they have so far not been persuasive to localofficials focused on burgeoning public school budgets.

“Skinny streets” is a related concept that hasbecome increasingly popular in the PacificNorthwest. The skinny streets movement advo-cates street “diets” wherever appropriate, that isto say a reduction in cartway width. In somecases, cartways are just wide enough for twovehicles moving in the opposite direction tocross at slow speed. In other cases, it is notwide enough for two vehicles to cross, therebyrequiring one to pull into an available parkingspace or on to the shoulder to let the othervehicle by. Skinny streets are mostly applied inresidential neighborhoods with relatively lowvolumes of traffic (less than 5,000 AADT) andresidential densities below 15 units/acre.

Shared spaceThe concept of “shared space” is a differentway of viewing and managing the public right-of-way. It is gaining popularity in Europe andelsewhere, although it has so far met with limit-ed success in the US. It has similarities with thecomplete streets concept described previously.Shared space proposes that pedestrians, bicy-cles and motor vehicles can co-exist and sharea right-of-way and that this type of arrange-ment is actually safer than creating dedicatedrights-of-way for different modes as we mostlydo today, with sidewalks for pedestrians, bikepaths for bicycles and curbed streets for motor

vehicles. The basic idea is that motor vehicleswill move more slowly and generally behavewith greater respect towards vulnerable pedes-trians and others if they do not have a dedicat-ed right-of-way. Shared space advocates alsoquestion the need for, and efficacy of, the com-plex array of visual cues favored by conven-tional traffic engineering, in the form of pave-ment striping, dedicated infrastructure and mul-tiple vertical signs that, in their opinion, unnec-essarily clutter the streetscape, disfigure placesand overburden motorists, pedestrians andother users with needless information and over-ly prescriptive rules. Pilot projects and experi-mental shared space interventions in the UKand in several European countries have shownpromising results.

Green StreetsGreen streets represent a relatively newapproach to street design that combine trafficcalming and skinny street features with sustain-able landscape and stormwater managementpractices. In a green street, the paved cartwayis reduced to a minimum in order to both calmtraffic and reduce impervious surface. Excesspavement is removed and converted to plantingareas. The pedestrian realm is designed toinclude landscaped beds planted with hardynative species that capture stormwater, replen-

ish the water table and reduce stormwaterrunoff. Porous pavement is used in areas withlow volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.Green streets provide an enhanced pedestrianexperience, increase property values, reducestormwater run-off and function as small-scalebut potentially pervasive urban carbon sinks.

Both New York City and Portland, Oregonhave highly competitive and acclaimed GreenStreets programs. Neighborhoods have toactively compete for public funds to removeblacktop and create rain gardens.

Motor Vehicle ParkingParking can be one of the most contentiousaspects of circulation planning and indeed of anytype of local planning. Dramatically insufficientparking can be detrimental to a community’s econ-omy and quality of life, but so can excess parking.Striking the appropriate balance is not easy, andmay require constant course adjustments as peo-ple’s driving habits change or changes in the eco-nomic cycle influence people’s driving behavior.

In many parts of NJ parking is ample and pro-vided free of charge, and the cost of building($5,000 per surface space) and maintaining it($400 per space/year) are either borne by thedeveloper, the property owner, the tenant or the

50

municipality. These costs are not negligible andare passed on to the users and consumers in theform of higher taxes and higher rents. The truecosts of the environmental impacts of parking –such as urban heat island effect, increasedstormwater run-off, water quality degradationand others – are also borne by the community.These externalities are rarely quantified but arecertainly not insignificant.

The prevailing system of requiring each indi-vidual use to provide its own parking isextraordinarily inefficient and extravagantlyexpensive. It creates a parking infrastructurethat is poorly utilized and highly redundant.Parking is a supportive use, yet it consumesvast amounts of land. Structured parking,which is far more efficient in terms of landconsumption, is very expensive ($20,000 to$25,000 a space) and not financially justifiablein many situations. Underground parking iseven more expensive, and not always feasible.

If a community views parking as public infra-structure, than it should assume a leadershiprole in providing it, similar to water and sewer.This approach is especially suited for down-town and mixed-use center conditions. Thecommunity should develop a centralized park-ing strategy and provide parking in large blocks

shared by multiple users. The parking can bepublic or private. The important thing is that itis shared. Developers of individual sites can beassessed a reasonable contribution in lieu ofproviding their required parking on site. Thesecontributions can then be used to build, manageand operate the centralized parking facilities.

Parking StandardsA parking space may vary between 8.5 x 16 feetfor compact cars to 10 x 20 feet for a genericvehicle. Most practitioners use a 9 x 18 footmodule for surface parking, and a slightly small-er module for parking decks. Standard curb-sideparking is 7 feet wide. Each parking space in atypical lot consumes 270 square feet, includingits portion of the aisle.

Parking needs are typically calculated based onthe anticipated demand generated by each indi-vidual land uses. National studies (conducted forthe Institute of Transportation Engineers andpublished in Parking Generation) compiledinformation from large samples and quantifiedaverage parking requirements for different typesof land use, ie 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feetof gross floor area for generic office space inbuildings under 25,000 square feet.

Clearly, parking demand factors based onnational samples that do not distinguish between

different land use conditions or the availabilityof transit are problematic and may vastly over-estimate (and in some cases, under-estimate) theactual need for parking. Parking professionalsquickly recognized the need to adjust thesegeneric parking rates to better match local condi-tions. The industry-recommended parking ratioshave also changed over time, reflecting changesin the economy, life-style and other changes.

Unfortunately, most local parking ordinances inNJ are still based on ITE’s deeply flawed nation-al numbers, leaving developers to comply or askfor variances and often resulting in wastedinvestment and over supply. Many municipalofficials seem deeply skeptical of new data andprefer to rely on the national studies. Few NJmunicipalities take the trouble to adjust localparking requirements to actual conditions, or tokeep them up-to-date with industry norms.

There are however reliable, empirically-basedparking studies – both nationally, and for NJ --developed for specific land use conditions, suchas estimating actual parking demand in transit-oriented development. These studies indicatedramatically lower parking demand – up to 50%less than if calculated using ITE parking genera-tion numbers, which simply mirrors the fact thatthese households have dramatically lower auto-ownership rates. NJ municipalities looking to

51

enact enlightened parking policies are encour-aged to draw from this body of knowledge andapply it locally.

Shared ParkingParking specialists agree that shared parking isby far the most efficient way to provide a serv-ice that should be viewed as part of a commu-nity’s infrastructure. Because different landuses have different demand cycles and sched-ules for when parking is needed, a shared park-ing approach maximizes the parking investmentby more efficiently using the number of avail-able spaces. Shared parking approaches werefirst developed for shopping centers and havenow been extended to mixed-use projects andmany downtown locations. While they maypresent certain management challenges in dis-tinguishing between dedicated private parking(for example, for the residential component)and public parking (for retail or entertainment)in a single parking facility, these managementissues are well understood and can be compe-tently addressed.Conventional parking calculations are cumula-tive. Each use generates a given demand, basedon a multiplier. Total parking demand is seen asthe sum of the demand from the individualuses. Shared parking approaches then applyreduction factors, based on the different peakdemand times for the different uses. For exam-

ple, peak demand for housing is at night, butfor offices it is during the week-day. Otheruses, like churches, have peak demands onweek-ends. By calibrating different peakdemands, shared parking makes each parkingspace serve multiple uses and work much moreefficiently.

Depending upon the actual circumstances, thereduction factor may reach 1/3.

If a community views parking as public infra-structure, then it should assume a leadershiprole in providing it, similar to water and sewer.This approach is especially suited for down-town and mixed-use center conditions. Thecommunity should develop a centralized park-ing strategy and provide parking in large blocsshared by multiple users. The parking can bepublic or private. The important thing is that itis shared. Developers of individual sites can beassessed a reasonable contribution in lieu ofproviding their required parking on site. Thesecontributions can then be used to build, manageand operate the centralized parking facilities.

Parking Strategies in New JerseySome NJ municipalities have become leaders inparking, with sophisticated and innovativeparking strategies. In addition to providing cen-tralized parking, some communities have

implemented car-sharing and other programsdesigned to reduce the need to own a car andtherefore reduce the need for parking.• Jersey City has arguably the lowest parking

requirements in the state. Existing buildingsthat are rehabbed have no parking require-ments and most uses in the downtown areashave parking requirements which are only asmall fraction (75% less) of the comparablesuburban requirement. This allows JerseyCity to achieve considerable density on smallfootprints, have a lively street life and fullyexploit its transit infrastructure.

• The City of Hoboken similarly has muchlower than average parking requirements, anda provision allowing parking to be providedoff-site, in municipal or private parkingdecks. It has also pioneered an innovativeparking permit cash-out program, coupledwith a bold car-sharing initiative (“cornercars”) and a community shuttle (“the Hop”).Hoboken residents that surrender their curb-side parking permits receive a package offinancial incentives and products, including afree bicycle helmet, discounts on the cornercar program and others valued at over $500.Corner cars are rentals parked in reserved on-street spaces conveniently located around thecity. Members reserve a car on-line or overthe phone for 1 hour or a whole week. The

52

local shuttle bus (the Hop) circulates within 2blocks of every resident. The combination ofscarce and expensive parking, convenienttransit and easy car rental is a very sophisti-cated policy designed to encourage Hobokenresidents to shift to other modes of trans-portation.

• The Montclair Parking Authority has devel-oped an aggressive downtown and commuterparking policy. The Authority manages a sub-stantial number of parking spaces in parkingdecks and on-street.

• Metuchen allows developers in the downtownarea to lease parking permits from theMetuchen Parking Authority, in lieu of pro-viding them on-site.

• Other municipalities have adopted similarpolicies, whereby new development isexempt from providing on-site parking if itcan demonstrate that parking can be providedwithin a reasonable walking distance fromthe site.

In general, cities with parking authorities, park-ing commissions or parking utilities have moresophisticated parking policies, with an empha-sis on the downtown areas. The NJ ParkingInstitute is the industry group that representsthese organizations.

Green Parking Strategies“Green” parking refers to a set of strategies thatseek to mitigate and improve the environmentalperformance of both surface parking lots andstructured parking, by minimizing the amountof impervious surfaces, mitigating heat islands,including water quality measures, increasingvegetation, and encouraging green transporta-tion and renewable energy sources. Manycities, including Philadelphia, have adoptedgreen parking strategies.

Bicycle ParkingWhile every municipality in NJ has compre-hensive parking requirements for motor vehi-cles, few have bicycle parking requirements.By default, and in the absence of adequatebicycle parking facilities, bicyclists must resortto chaining their bikes to trees, lamp posts,benches, railings or other appurtenances.Adequate and appropriate bicycle parking is animportant pre-requisite to further encouragingwidespread bicycle use. And while the litera-ture on bicycle parking is not nearly as exten-sive as that for vehicular parking, there is agrowing set of examples and models fromaround the country that interested NJ communi-ties can draw from.

Bicycle parking standards are considerablysimpler than those for cars. For example,

Cambridge, Massachusetts requires 0.5 bicycleparking spaces or lockers for every multi-family dwelling unit. For all other uses therequirement is 1 bicycle space for every 10automobile parking spaces. It is important tonote however there is a danger in definingbicycle parking as a ratio of car parking, sincein higher density areas car parking may bedeliberately restricted.

Communities considering a bicycle parkingordinance must carefully consider the types of users likely to need the bicycle parking andadjust their standards accordingly. Uses such as libraries, educational institutions and othercivic buildings that are likely to attract largenumbers of bicycle patrons should have a more generous supply of bicycle parking.Indeed, providing ample bicycle parking butscant car parking is a public statement of priorities and a clear indication to patrons ofthe institution’s values.

Cambridge also requires that each bicycle park-ing space dedicate a 6 feet by two feet foot-print, and consist of a stable frame permanentlyanchored to a foundation so the bicycle can besecured and will not tip over. If car parking isprovided in a parking deck, bicycle parkingmust also be included. And bicycle parking

53

must be located near the entrance of the build-ing and be secure.

Like car parking, there are a number of consid-erations affecting bicycle parking. Key is theamount of time the bike is expected to stayparked. At locations such as transit stations,employment centers and housing, where bikesmay remain parked all day, overnight or forlonger periods of time, covered storage areas orbike lockers are preferable. Bike parking atrestaurants, libraries or stores is likely to bemore short term and should be located in closeproximity to the building entrance.

The bicycle parking ordinance proposed inMontclair distinguishes between “class 1” bicy-cle parking (lockers) and “class 2” (stands andracks) and would require both: 10 to 20% inlockers, and the rest in stands, depending uponthe specific land use. All land use types, withthe exception of single-family or two-familyresidential, would have a bicycle parking obli-gation. The number of parking spaces isdefined as a base (ie 2 spaces) plus a given per-centage (ie 35%) of that use’s vehicular parkingrequirement.

Scenic Roads and BywaysThe NJDOT Scenic Roads and Byways pro-gram recognizes segments of the state highwaysystem, and the corridors they run through, thatare considered outstanding in terms of theirscenic, natural, recreational, cultural, historic orarchaeological character. The corridors must bedeemed to have a unifying theme, as opposedto a series of perhaps interesting, but disparate,features.

NJDOT requires a sponsor – a local, state orfederal government agency, or a private party --to apply for designation under this program.The sponsor must convene all the interestedparties and submit an application. If approved,they then have five years to prepare a ScenicByways Corridor Management Plan.

Designation does not provide direct access tofunding. Instead, NJDOT offers special signs,recognition, planning and marketing, and tech-nical assistance. A state-designated scenicbyway may apply for funding under the federalscenic byways program.

Maintenance and Upkeep –Strategies and Best ManagementPracticesMunicipalities are responsible for maintainingstreets and other public rights-of-way in a stateof good repair. Municipal engineering depart-ments develop a long range maintenance andupkeep plan for local roads, and execute a por-tion of it every year according to funding avail-ability and local priorities.

Some streets may require minor surface repairs;other may require complete repaving; whileothers still may require reconstruction, inwhich the bituminous surface is removed and anew foundation is rebuilt. If a street is recon-structed, it is standard good practice to com-bine these more structural interventions withother necessary maintenance activities, such assidewalk reconstruction; water, stormwater orsanitary sewer replacement; street tree plant-ings, and so forth. There is no better time to fix

54

Examples of green parking strategiesinclude:• Porous pavements on cartways and

parking areas• Solar arrays above parking areas• Bio-retention in surface parking areas

and green roofs on parking structures• Premium parking for car sharing

programs• Bicycle parking•Electric car charging stations

drainage issues or replace aging infrastructure than when astreet is being rebuilt.

Municipalities are also responsible for caring for and main-taining the urban forest (street trees) planted in the publicright-of-way, as well as other landscaping. A strategy adoptedby some municipalities is to seek a patron or patrons to“adopt” a portion of a road and, either through direct contri-butions or in-kind services, assume responsibility for themaintenance, upkeep and beautification of the area. In down-town or mixed-use areas, this role might be assumed by aBusiness Improvement District, local employer or the localChamber of Commerce. This strategy can also be applied toneighborhoods, where individual homeowners, civic groupsor homeowner associations take responsibility for cleaning,planting and maintaining local landscaped areas, sometimeswith the assistance of the public works department. This is agood way to reduce the public costs of maintenance and togive residents and users a direct stake in improving and look-ing after these facilities.

55

Additional Reading:Dan Burden – Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars. Local GovernmentCommission, 2000.Cambridge Systematics, Inc. – Moving Cooler: An Analysis of TransportationStrategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Urban Land Institute, 2009.Center for Neighborhood Technology – Penny Wise Pound Foolish: New Measures ofHousing + Transportation Affordability. 2010.Chicago Department of Transportation – The Chicago Green Alley Handbook. 2010.Joe Cortright – Measuring Urban Transportation Performance: A Critique ofMobility Measures and a Synthesis. CEOs for Cities. 2010.Eric Dumbaugh and Robert Rae – Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the RelationshipBetween Community Design and Traffic Safety. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75: 3, 309-329. 2010.Reid Ewing et al – Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development andClimate Change. Urban Land Institute, 2008.Douglas Farr – Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. John Wiley,2008.Institute of Transportation Engineers – Context Sensitive Solutions in DesigningMajor Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities. 2005.Todd Litman – Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria TransportPolicy Institute, 2010.Todd Litman – Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning. VictoriaTransport Policy Institute, 2010.Barbara McCann and Suzanne Rynne, eds – Complete Streets: Best Plocy andImplementation Practice. APA Planning Advisory Service, 2010.Donald Schoup – The High Cost of Free Parking. APA Planners Press, 2005.Transportation Research Board, Special Report 298 – Driving and the BuiltEnvironment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, EnergyUse, and CO2 Emissions. 2009.Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 93 – Travel Matters: MitigatingClimate Change with Sustainable Surface Transportation. 2003.Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 128 – Effects of TOD on Housing,Parking, and Travel. 2008.Transportation Research Board – NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of ServiceAnalysis for Urban Streets. 2008.Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 100 – Transit Capacity and Quality ofService Manual. 2003.

Chapter Four: The Regional Context

56

Working Within Regional Transportation Systems

Transportation is both local and regional in nature. Rail lines, expressways and major arterials,

regional bus lines and ferry services run through multiple municipalities and at times across state or

national boundaries. For these public investments to function best, common approaches and

strategies are often required, such that local land use policies and regional investments in transportation

infrastructure are mutually reinforcing.

ocal conditions – whether per-taining to the economy, trans-portation, transit, infrastruc-ture, travel demand or natural

systems – are always part oflarger patterns of sub-regional

and regional systems. Decisions made locally,if not individually then certainly cumulatively,will influence how regional systems perform.These impacts on larger systems need to betaken into consideration when making responsi-ble local land use and transportation policydecisions. In order to make positive impacts ona regional transportation system, one approachis to define the regional system in question,identify and mobilize the affected counties andmunicipalities, and coalesce these local govern-ments around a set of regional goals, objectivesand targets to enhance and optimize the region-al system. Land use and transportation policydecisions should be made accordingly andplanning should always keep regional networksin mind.

An easy to grasp application of this approachinvolves regional rail. For the considerablepublic investment (capital and operating) dedi-cated to a regional rail line, it is critical to max-imize ridership. Perhaps the best way to achieve greater ridership is to support transit-

oriented development in appropriate locations.Yet many municipalities resist higher densitiesaround train stations, for fear of additionalschool age children or other parochial consider-ations. As a result, increased ridership and thebenefits of the public investment are not appro-priately maximized. While some municipalitiesalong that rail line might be supportive andwilling to put the appropriate zoning in place,they may not benefit from increased levels ofservice which may only be feasible if allmunicipalities cooperate and coordinate.

New Jersey’s transportation agencies havesought to educate local officials on the ration-ale behind certain transportation proposalsinvolving their communities, and to engagethem in the decision-making process. Thisapproach has had limited success.

Access to regional transportation systems, par-ticularly high capacity roads, can be a double-edge sword: it provides the local populationwith easy access to the regional network, but italso provides easy access for others into themunicipality, which can mean significantamounts of outside traffic. This is a necessarycost for communities hosting regional shoppingcenters, large concentrations of office parks,regional hospitals, regional entertainment facil-

ities and others that seek to locate in placeswith high levels of regional accessibility.Regional transit facilities do not create thesetypes of issues.

Regional TransportationFacilities and Local CirculationPlanningAny municipality that either hosts a regionaltransportation facility, is traversed by one or isnear one should consider its impacts whendeveloping a local circulation plan.

Proximity to large volume expressways, limitedaccess highways or even state highways haslong been reflected in local planning, whichrecognizes that increased accessibility trans-lates into increased real estate value. Localplans typically zone land around highway inter-changes (in the case of limited access high-ways) or along the highway frontage for a vari-ety of commercial uses, such as warehouse anddistribution centers along NJ Turnpike exits,regional shopping malls, large employmentcenters and so forth. Sadly, the same principlehas not systematically been applied at the locallevel to areas around rail stations or alongexpress bus corridors.

Chapter Four: The Regional Context

L

57

Both the local circulation plan element, and theland use plan element should acknowledge andrecognize the presence of these facilities,understand how they work, identify any prob-lems or un-realized potentials and developstrategies to make them work better. It is rec-ommended that this be done in partnership withthe entities with jurisdiction over these facili-ties, such as NJDOT, NJ Transit, the NJTurnpike Authority, or others, including coun-ties with respect to county highways.

Understanding how these facilities functionlocally involves data collection and analysis.The entities that manage these regional trans-portation facilities usually have relatively gooddata on traffic volumes, ridership numbers,travel patterns, etc. It is critical that the localcirculation plan contain an analysis of howthese facilities function, what the local impactsare and what can be done to mitigate possibleshortcomings and improve their performance.

For example, local circulation can have a sig-nificant impact on access to a regional facility,whether it is a rail station or a highway inter-change. Regional transportation facilities attractusers from throughout the region, not just localusers. As a result, there are always trade-offsbetween unfettered access to it and local

58

Transit CorridorsThe Center for Transit Oriented Development has developed a typology of transit corridors thatmay help municipalities better understand their current, and potentially future role, within aregional transit system. The Center distinguishes between three types of transit corridors:

• Destination Corridor – A corridor with multiple, diversified activity centers, where transit provides opportunities for short haul commuting between major and minor hubs. Ridership ismore level throught the day and peak loads less extreme.

• Commuter Corridor – A corridor with one major activity center and numerous predominantlyresidential areas. These corridors tend to have heavy peak flows and lower ridership duringoff-peak times.

• District Circulator – A transit system that facilitates movement within a downtown or a commercial, medical or educational center and provides access to one or both of the other corridor types.

In practice, corridors may assume more than one function and therefore include aspects of morethan one of these three prototypes. The Northeast Corridor in New Jersey exhibits some featuresof a destination corridor with Trenton, New Brunswick and Newark constituting intermediate des-tinations, primarily (although not exclusively) as employment centers; and some features of thecommuter corridor, with Manhattan as the prime destination. The Newark subway is perhaps apossible candidate for the role of district circulator.

Understanding the role which a particular municipality or station area plays in terms of thesecorridors, and their function as part of the larger regional transit system, can be helpful tostrategic thinking about enhanced roles that may be available and viable in the future. This canhelp clarify the most appropriate set of local land use strategies – defining, for example, the pre-ferred types of uses and their mix -- that can best leverage the transit advantage and benefit boththe local community and the region.]

concerns about traffic, congestion, parking andso forth. These issues should be worked outwith the regional transportation entities, theusers and the local community, and should beaddressed in the local circulation plan.

While regional transportation facilities have aregional, and therefore greater-than-localimportance, their interests should not beallowed to completely over-ride local concerns.Communities that host regional transportationfacilities frequently complain that they mustdeal with the negative externalities (added traf-fic, air pollution, etc) generated by these facili-ties, with little to show in terms of benefits.These frustrations are not without a basis, andthere are unfortunately many examples wherebad decisions have been made in the name ofthe regional facility and at the expense of thelocal community. The local circulation planningprocess should seek to find smart and effectivesolutions to mitigate existing problems and tocapture the un-realized potential of these facili-ties. This may involve land use changes,changes to the local circulation system,changes in parking management strategies, orothers, depending upon the circumstances.Local communities also sometimes try to restrictaccess to these facilities, particularly transit, usu-ally by limiting access to parking. The idea is to

discourage out-of-town users from using thesefacilities, and thereby minimize local traffic andgive local residents a competitive advantage.This undermines the overall performance of theregional system, and therefore ultimately is notin the best interest of the local community.Regional transit needs all the riders it can get, sorestricting access to potential out-of-town ridersis ultimately self-defeating, as it will prevent thetransit agency from improving service. Betterways to address the externalities associated without-of-town users that do not involve restrictingaccess can be found.

Through Traffic and Local TrafficOne important aspect in assessing the localimpacts of regional highways and major arteri-als lies in determining the distribution betweenlocal traffic and regional (or through) traffic,that is, the extent to which the traffic generatedby these facilities is local or regional. There isoften considerable confusion surrounding thisissue, with local communities convinced thatmuch of the traffic is not local.

The reality is that much of the traffic onregional highway or major arterials is oftenlocal, because these facilities provide conven-ient connections and may offer a higher levelof convenience and service than local streets,

even for relatively short, local trips. If toomany local trips find their way onto the region-al network, they create congestion and under-mine the level of service for longer trips.The appropriate solution – rather than seekingto widen the regional highway or major arterial– may be to provide more direct local connect-ing streets, that will provide viable alternativesfor local trips. As discussed in the previouschapter, a greater connectivity in local streetnetworks can make local collector streets

59

This map highlights the highway and major arterial circulation system for a 5-town section of Warren County traversed by Route 22. Thelimited number of major arterials, the absence of local connectors and the dispersed land usepattern concentrates traffic in a few failing intersections.

attractive alternatives to regional highways or major arterials for medium-distance trips,thereby reducing the pressure on the regional facilities.

When these questions come up, a simple ori-gin-destination (O/D) survey, conducted by theentity with jurisdiction over the highway, willclarify who exactly is using the road and forwhat purpose. This information will theninform any subsequent decision-making on thesubject. An analysis of the local circulation net-work will identify missing links or deficientlinks that may be causing drivers to use theregional network for local trips.

The Transit Score – a Tool forEvaluating the Impacts onTransit of Local Land UseDecisionsThe “Transit Score” is a tool developed by NJTransit that allows county and municipal plan-ners to do an “order-of-magnitude” screeningof the viability of different transit serviceoptions.

Areas with a higher Transit Score can potential-ly support a greater range of transit services,

from commuter rail to various types of busservices. Conversely, areas with a lower TransitScore are likely to find it difficult to justify fre-quent transit service.

It is important to point out that the TransitScore measures the potential for various typesof transit service in a given area. It assesses thecharacteristics of a place to see if they are like-ly to encourage transit usage. It is not a meas-ure of whether or not transit service wil be pro-vided.

The Transit Score is a numerical index basedon the composite average of three factors thatinfluence the potential for transit ridership,

both existing and projected. A Transit Score isestimated for each of the 1,950 Census Tractsin New Jersey. This provides a commonstatewide unit of geography to estimate andcompare the Transit Score. Transit Scores arebased on the most recent Census data, forecastsbased on MPO projections, and future zoningyields to calculate the “planned” score for eachof three factors:

1. Population Density2. Employment Density3. Zero Car Household Density

The Transit Score equation is asfollows:Transit score = [0.41*(Population/acre)] +[0.09*(Jobs/acre)] + [0.74*(Zero car house-holds/acre)]

There are three types of Transit Scores: (1)based on existing conditions; (2) based onregional population and employment projec-tions; and (3) based on a municipality’s futureland use plan and the residential and employ-ment densities it permits. This last one is calledthe “planned” Transit Score. If a community ismaking land use decisions that will increase

60

This map of a section of the North EastCorridor illustrates the transit scores of thecommunities in the corridor. Higher densityareas score higher while communities withless density score lower.

densities in appropriate locations and increasesupport for multimodal circulation, and thusenhance the viability of transit, the transit scorewill increase. If a community is not makingthese decisions the transit score will remainunchanged or go down.

All transit scores are classified into one of fivecategories. These five categories representranges based on observed land use characteris-tics and actual transit service patterns.

• Low (0 to 0.6) – Represents 15% of NewJersey’s population and 15% of the state’semployment base on 72% of the state’s land area.

• Marginal (0.6 to 1.0) – Represents 6.5 % ofthe population and 9.5% of the employment on 7% of the land area.

• Medium (1.0 to 2.5) – Represents 24% of thepopulation and 29% of the employment on12.5% of the land area.

• Medium-High (2.5 to 7.5) – Represents 31%of the population and 29.5% of the employment on 7% of the land area.

• High >7.5 – Represents 23.5% of the population and 17% of the employment on1.5% of the land area.

The Transit Score indicates the relative likeli-hood and potential for different types of transitusage in a given geographic area. Higher scoreareas can accommodate a greater range of types(modes) of transit service. The Transit Score isused to identify where the following three dif-ferent types of transit investments may beappropriate, subject to available resources, pro-vided certain criteria and conditions are met:

• Fixed Guideway Transit (rail and light rail) -New transit lines, extensions of existinglines, and the potential reactivation of historic stations along existing lines whereservice plans allow. Fixed guideway transitrequires significant capital investment, andmust meet certain minimum criteria, primarily related to having at least part ofthe line/service in an area with a "HIGH"Transit Score and a minimum number ofjobs in a dense, mixed-use center.

• Bus Service Potential – Types of bus service, with a range of minimum span ofservice throughout the day and average dailyfrequency of bus service.

• Intermodal/Access to Transit - Transit services providing access to other forms oftransit and facilitating intermodal or multimodal service. Based on the Transit Score,peak period ridership, and other factors,minimum guidelines are outlined for parkrides, shuttle buses and other intermodalfacilities such as parking structures and terminals.

61

This map for the same 5-town section of WarrenCounty highlights the number of dead-ends -- dis-continuities in the local circulation system: cul-de-sacs (blue dots) and physical barriers, such as rail-roads or canals (red dots). This is an indicator of acirculation system with severe lack of connectivity.

Municipalities should examine nearby andadjacent towns to understand the existing tran-sit network (see above). Part of the use of theTransit Score is to examine how a municipalitycan better leverage or integrate with the exist-ing rail, light rail and bus system.

Because the Transit Score connects land useinformation to transit service feasibility, it isuseful for scenario planning exercises. For thisreason, the Office of Smart Growth has includ-ed the Transit Score as one of the tools thatmunicipalities should consider using when theyseek Plan Endorsement from the State PlanningCommission.

Additional Reading

A Guide to the Transit Score – PlanSmart NJ, 2011

Creating a Regional Transit Score Protocol – DVRPC, 2007

Transit Corridors and TODs: Connectingthe Dots – Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2010

Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines –ITE 2003

Smart Transportation Guidebook – NJDOT /PennDot 2008

62

Chapter Five: The Sustainable Circulation Planning Process

63

This chapter describes the steps in the process leading to development and adoption of a

comprehensive, multi-modal, sustainable circulation plan element for a municipal master plan.

The circulation plan element isa local transportation plan thatbecomes a part – an element –of the local master plan. In

current planning practice, theterm “circulation” is used

because of the conventional focus on the circu-lation of motor vehicles on a network of roads.Non-motorized vehicles can also be said to cir-culate along streets or bike paths; pedestriansalong sidewalks and trails; and passenger railtransit on tracks.

The term “element” reflects that the document,which could be considered a plan in itself, is asub-section of the overall master plan.Municipalities are not required by law to havea circulation plan element. But many munici-palities would benefit from having one,because it gives them a place to specify howland development and redevelopment should becoordinated with the transportation and circula-tion systems needed to support it.

It has always been the intent of the MLUL thatthe various elements of the master plan be inte-grated with the land use element, however thishas not often been the case. And only recentlyhave other modes of travel – walking, bikingand transit – been given serious consideration

in circulation elements. Because the vastmajority of trips in New Jersey are made byprivate motor vehicle, circulation elementshave been traditionally focused on the automo-bile and the road network. The neglect of othermodes of travel has made it harder for them topick up a larger portion of trips. In New Jersey,only in places like Hoboken or Jersey City dopedestrian and transit trips reach mode sharescomparable to those found in European cities.

But even as planners stop neglecting othermodes and begin to integrate more effectivelyboth transportation and land use planning, it isunlikely that any other mode will surpass theprivate motor vehicle in its dominance of thetransportation system any time soon.

The circulation element needs to consider safety,mobility, access, and inter-modal connectivity.For roads, this means setting standards for thedesign of the road network, standards foraccess and parking, ways to accommodatetrucks, bicycles, pedestrians and managestormwater, ice, leaf and snow removal.

The circulation element should contain cross-sections and design standards for differenttypes of streets and other rights-of-ways -- suchas the width, number of lanes, space between

driveways and other access points, and whetheror not sidewalks or street trees are expected –consistent with NJ state regulations (RSIS) orsome local adaptation thereof. Different stan-dards should reflect the character and type ofthe community, whether it is primarily urban,suburban or rural. Standards may also differdepending on the functional classification ofthe street, such as major arterial, collector orlocal access street. This is a practice drawnfrom federal and state transportation planningwhich, as previously mentioned, is reflected inthe MLUL, but needs to be very carefully eval-uated at the local level, since it is entirelymotor vehicle driven and does not adequatelyreflect the land use context. It is recommendedthat municipalities develop their own functionalclassification, by adapting one of the off-the-shelf classifications readily available.

The circulation plan element is intended to beresponsive to the objectives of the Master Plan,while at the same time addressing existingproblems. As such, the circulation plan elementneeds to go well beyond the private motorvehicle and road network. It must describe theexisting conditions in both land use and allmodes of transportation, identify issues and setstandards for future performance. The gapbetween present conditions and the desired

Chapter Five: The Sustainable Circulation Planning Process

T

64

future can only be bridged by the actions andstrategies outlined in the circulation element.

The cumulative impact of many municipalities’separate land use and transportation decisionswithin a corridor or commutershed affects theoverall performance of the region’s transporta-tion system. In order to make positive changesover time, local governments must work withina framework provided by a shared vision forthe future of the region and coordinate theiractions with those of other decision-makers inthe region.

The Local Circulation PlanningProcessThe local circulation planning process shouldinclude the following steps:

1. Define desired scope of local circulation plan element.

2. Identify key stakeholders.3. Define public engagement and participation

process.4. Identify the community’s role in the region.5. Inventory and survey background conditions.6. Identify major trip generators and attractors.7. Identify and characterize major conflicts.8. Identify underserved populations and places.

9. Define goals and objectives based on community aspirations and technical assessment.

10.Develop strategies for addressing majorconflicts and reaching underserved populations and places.

11. Develop implementation strategies.12. Identify funding sources.13. Develop project priorities and phasing plan.14. Adopt circulation plan element and amend

other relevant local planning and regulatorydocuments.

15. Incorporate recommendations of local circulation plan element into the capitalimprovement plan, as needed.

Each of these steps is discussedin greater detail below.Define ScopeWhether the circulation plan element is beingdeveloped by the local planning board on a vol-unteer basis, or with the assistance of a team ofprofessionals, it is important to start by defin-ing the scope of work. This may be a functionof the budget available, if there is a budget, orof the amount of pro-bono work which it is rea-

sonable to expect volunteers to do.Defining the scope will involve making choic-es, as it is often not possible to tackle allaspects of local circulation at once. Shouldparking be included? Should goods movementand commercial deliveries be included?Different communities have different needs andhot spots, so scoping the most urgent needs andmatching this with either a budget for consult-ants or a workload for volunteers is critical.

It is also usually a good idea to have informalconversations with a few key stakeholders tofind out some preliminary concerns and unmetneeds, as they will help define the scope.

If a community is using professionals to develop its circulation plan, it can use theirexpertise, once selected, to more fully definethe actual scope of work.

Identify Key StakeholdersOne of the first tasks in developing a local cir-culation plan is identifying the key stakeholders-- those in the community that have the most atstake and that need to be involved in theprocess and convinced to provide their support.

There are many interested parties in local circu-lation planning, including residents who move

65

around the community doing their daily chores,businesses receiving deliveries, employers thatrely on their labor force to show up on time,children on their way to and from school andmany others. Everyone benefits from a smoothand efficient circulation system that minimizesdelays and disruptions and reduces travel times.Yet different stakeholders may have conflictingpriorities and different ideas about how the cir-culation system should be used. Identifying thekey stakeholders, understanding their interestsand concerns and engaging them in the circula-tion planning process is an important ingredientfor achieving a successful circulation plan.

In addition to the general population, all of theuses and activities that constitute the major tripgenerators in a community are key stakeholders(see below).

It is important to understand how the differentstakeholders interact and use the circulationsystem throughout the day and throughout theyear. Different activities have different sched-ules during the day, the week and the year andtherefore place loads on the circulation systemthat vary accordingly.

Public Engagement And ParticipationProcessThe process leading to development of a localcirculation plan element should not rely exclu-sively on the public hearings required by theMLUL. Instead, it is recommended that themunicipality engage in a robust public partici-pation process that uses a range of public par-ticipation options and formats available, includ-ing a steering committee that includes the keystakeholders; one-on-one interviews; focusgroups; surveys; and facilitated workshops.

The public participation process should becomplemented by a media strategy that uses avariety of means to get the word out and collectinput, including the local print, radio and localaccess cable TV media; a dedicated website orportion of a website where presentations andother project information can be posted andwhere interested parties can communicate withthe project team; and potentially focused out-reach efforts targeted at specific audiences,such as school children and their parents, largeemployers and their employees, downtownbusinesses and shoppers, transit riders, frequentwalkers and bicyclists, and others.

Like any other planning effort, circulation plan-ning will rely on public support to be accepted

and endure. It is not simply a technical exercisethat follows an engineering recipe. It involvestrade-offs, choices and priorities. As such,working with the appropriate constituenciesand developing strong public support are key toa successful effort.

Identify The Community’s Role In The RegionCommunities are part of larger regional andsub-regional systems and play different rolesdepending upon their characteristics. Some arefeeder communities, with a predominantly resi-dential base. Others are employment centers,with a daytime population many times largerthan the nighttime population.

The State Development and RedevelopmentPlan’s hierarchy of centers – urban centers,regional centers, towns, villages and hamlets –

66

Welcoming, high quality public spaces are an eco-nomic and social asset to the community, in addi-tion to encouraging pedestrian and bicycleactivity and a more healthy lifestyle.

offers one typology that seeks to capture this.NJ Transit’s typology of rail station types pro-vides a framework based on transit service.

One indicator relevant to this analysis is thejobs/housing ratio, that is the ratio between thenumber of jobs and the number of housingunits in the community. Communities with ajobs/housing ratio lower than 1.0 export laborto other places; communities with a ratio largerthan 1.0 import labor. Some communities inNew Jersey have jobs/housing ratios greaterthan 10, which means they are important

regional centers. Clearly we do not expecteveryone who lives in a community to alsowork there. But highly unbalanced jobs/hous-ing ratios make that possibility more remote.

Understanding the community’s role in theregion is critical to understanding how it func-tions in many ways, including in terms of cir-culation and transportation. It may also holdimportant clues for under-explored but poten-tially valuable ways in which the communitymay evolve towards a more sustainable future.

For example, a community that functions as alarge employment center and consequently suf-fers large traffic flows in the morning andevening peak hours might consider a land usestrategy that seeks to increase the amount ofhousing appropriate and affordable for its jobmarket. A workforce housing strategy – whilenot technically what one might expect to findin a circulation plan – might nevertheless bethe appropriate response for certain circulationissues. In this case, the circulation planningprocess might seek a solution through changesin the local land use planning framework.

Inventory And Survey BackgroundConditionsThis is the data gathering portion of the circula-

tion plan. It involves compiling all the avail-able information on transportation and circula-tion in and around the community, an inventoryof physical facilities, and an assessment of howthey are used and for what purpose.

The inventory and survey of existing conditionsprovides the factual basis for the circulationplanning work. Some municipalities may havethe transportation infrastructure already com-piled as GIS layers; others may need to do this.Information on physical facilities, traffic countson major roads, transit ridership and other mayexist at the county engineering department,NJDOT, NJ Transit, relevant MPO or in otherlocations.

There is usually a considerable amount ofinformation in the local planning departmentgenerated by development applications whichfrequently include traffic studies and othertransportation information. This informationshould be compiled and analyzed.

Major employers often have detailed informa-tion on where their employees live, how theyget to work and at what times. Major institu-tions (hospitals, universities, colleges, etc) sim-ilarly monitor the flow of patrons, staff, visitorsand deliveries. The transportation coordinator

67

Temporary street closures allow for parades, concerts and many other special communityevents.

for the local schools can provide informationon how many kids arrive by bus, are droppedoff by their parents or walk/bike. A local survey(on-line, by direct mail or print media) is oftenan inexpensive way to reach the population andsupplement the more institutional sources ofinformation.

While a full-scale origin/destination (O/D)study may be too costly for most small andmedium municipalities, it should be possible to cobble together enough information fromoutside sources, Census data and directinquiries – along with direct observations -- to allow the circulation planners to gain a fairlyaccurate and complete picture of how circula-tion works in the community. If there are glaring and potentially critical gaps in the data, these can be remedied through limitedand targeted field work.

Identify Major Trip GeneratorsMajor trip generators and attractors are landuses and activities located in the communitythat generate the highest number of trips,whether by car, on foot or otherwise. Thiswould include large industrial and commercialemployers; large institutional uses, such as colleges and universities, public and privateschools, and hospitals; major passenger trans-

portation facilities, such as rail stations, majorbus depots or airports; large freight distributionfacilities; postal distribution centers; sports andentertainment facilities; and libraries, perform-ing arts centers and cultural arts centers toname a few. Large housing developments,downtowns and major shopping centers areexamples of other types of uses or places thatgenerate significant numbers of trips.

Major trip generators should be mapped andthe flows between them, and between them and the outside world should be mapped andcharacterized.

Identify and Characterize Major Conflictsand InsufficienciesThe major conflicts and defficiencies shouldflow from a detailed analysis of the major tripgenerators and of the profile of the existingtransportation infrastructure, as well as fromintelligence gathered in the field and fromstakeholder interviews and community input.

Are there critical missing links in the sidewalksystem linking residential neighborhoods toschools or to the downtown? Are there gaps intransit service that prevent it from being a prac-tical transportation option for certain popula-tions or for certain destinations? Is a particularintersection so overwhelmed that it negativelyimpacts the vehicular flow through the entiredowntown? Is there a speeding problem onlocal neighborhood streets? Is there untappedpotential in the local transit system?

These are the types of questions that the circu-lation planning process should answer. Oncethe issue has been flagged and documented,and is deemed appropriate for the circulationplan to address, then the planners can be cre-ative and look for appropriate solutions. Thismay mean looking at past precedents and bestpractices, from the community or elsewhere;looking at case studies; conferring with the

68

Outdoor display of retail merchandise is often frowned upon in local ordinances. But ifthe sidewalks are wide enough, high quality outdoor displays make the streetscape more lively,lush and humane.

transportation agencies; and conferring with thestakeholders.

Identify Underserved Populations and PlacesThe local circulation planning process shouldidentify local populations that are underservedfrom a transportation perspective. This mightinclude low income communities with lowrates of vehicular ownership and poor access totransit, middle and high school students withpoor access to bicycle facilities and transit,older adults with poor access to transit and others.

The circulation planning process should alsoidentify underserved places, that is places thatare hard to get to on foot, by bicycle, by transitand occasionally by car.

The purpose of this analysis will be to deter-mine what kinds of opportunities and destina-tions are not available, or poorly available fortransportation-deprived populations: potentialjob markets for minority communities, poten-tial learning or recreational sites for students, orpotential volunteer activities, health care serv-ices or other destinations for the elderly andmobility impaired, to name a few examples.

Once these gaps in the opportunities offered bythe current circulation and transportation sys-

tems are identified, documented and quantified,the plan can begin to develop strategies toaddress them.

Define Goals And Objectives Based OnCommunity Aspirations And TechnicalAssessmentDefining goals and objectives is a critical stepin the planning process, since it establishes thebar which the community wishes to reach. Thisprocess should be informed by a technicalassessment that brings a measure of fiscal reali-ty and practical considerations to bear, suchthat the goals and objectives are achievable andrealistic and expectations are not set too high.

Goals and objective are essentially politicaldecisions informed by technical considerations.As such, they should emerge from the publicprocess and represent the community’s visionand consensus regarding both what it considersdesirable and achievable.

Define Strategies To Address MajorConflicts and Reach UnderservedPopulations And PlacesThis is the guts of the circulation planningprocess and the step where the communitymust grapple with the really hard issues. Thereare no formulas or templates for how to tackle

this. The community, through the publicprocess, must identify its core values and aspi-rations and translate these into operational poli-cies. It must determine how far it is willing togo to push for those things it sees as mostimportant. The professionals can offer adviceand technical solutions but ultimately thechoices have to be made locally and the com-munity has to be comfortable with what itchooses, because the community will have tolive with it. Overly ambitious proposals riskloosing momentum and public confidence,while un-ambitious proposals will not capturepeople’s imaginations and get them fired up.

Develop Implementation StrategiesImplementation is where the rubber hits theroad. Without appropriate implementationstrategies no plan will reach fruition, no matterhow smart or compelling its proposals.

69

Shared right-of-ways routinely accommodatemotor vehicles, street cars, pedestrians, bicyclesand other forms of transportation.

Implementation requires change, and change isfrequently difficult. Implementation alsorequires leadership and perseverance. And itmay require public education, and changingpeople’s perceptions or expectations.

A simple way to make the implementationprocess more clear and transparent is to createan itemized list of actions that need to occurand assign them to the appropriate people orentities required to carry them out. So, forexample, the planning board takes the lead inamending the master plan by adopting the newcirculation plan, but the governing body willneed to take the lead with respect to any need-ed changes to the official map, local regulationsor capital improvement plan to make these con-sistent with the circulation plan. The engineer-ing staff might be required to pursue certainactions with NJDOT. And the communitydevelopment staff might need to work on grantapplications.

This matrix of tasks and responsible partiesmakes it clear who is responsible for doingwhat in terms of implementation. It shouldhave a rough timetable attached to it, so peopleknow what is expected from them and howsoon. And there needs to be a project managerwho keeps track of all the moving parts, man-

ages the schedule and identifies the need forcourse corrections, should that occur.

Identify Funding SourcesIdentifying funding sources is obviously a keystep towards implementation. A discussion ofpotential funding sources appears earlier in thishandbook.

It is not necessary (or perhaps even possible)for the circulation plan element to provide adetailed analysis of all possible fundingsources, and which source might fund whichproject. Given the vagaries of public sectorgrant funding, it is hard to reliably plan withrespect to outside funding. Perhaps the bestapproach is to identify the most likely sourcesof funding for the different projects and projectcategories. The municipality then needs toassign to someone the responsibility of pursu-ing this funding, as it becomes available. Thisrequires awareness of the different grant pro-grams, grant cycles, special opportunities andso forth. This work can be done either by aknowledgeable staff person, a very dedicatedvolunteer or an outside grant writer.

Define Project Priorities and Phasing PlanThe circulation plan’s proposals should beitemized, prioritized and staged. Some propos-

als can be implemented at the same time, othersmust be implemented sequentially.Distinguishing between the two and assigningpriorities is the purpose of this section. Short-term actions can be expedited, while medium-and long-term actions are expected to takelonger. Setting priorities should be part of thepublic process, and it should recognize theopportunistic nature of many grant programs,which may mean that funding for some lowerpriority projects may become available soonerthan for higher priority projects.

Adopt Plan and Amend Other RelevantDocumentsLocal adoption by the Planning Board of thecirculation plan element needs to follow therequirements of the MLUL regarding masterplan amendments NJS 40:55D -13. The adop-tion takes place at a duly noticed public meet-ing. The draft document needs to be filed withthe planning board secretary at least 10 daysbefore the public hearing and available for pub-lic consultation. It must also be filed with thecounty. To the extent that it contains provisionsor recommendations that might be of interest toadjacent communities, it is good form to noticethose as well. And making it available on themunicipal website is an easy way to make itmore widely accessible.

70

It is appropriate for the planning board and/orits consultants to provide, at the public hearing,an overview of the planning process, majorfindings and major proposals. The boardshould entertain questions from the public andshould not hurry the process. Like any othermaster plan element, it is better to provide asmuch time as necessary to answer all the ques-tions and discuss all the issues.

The planning board should also entertainamendments to other master elements as maybe deemed necessary for consistency with thecirculation plan element. These would follow aprocess similar to the one outlined above.

Potential amendments to the land developmentregulations, zoning, official map or othermunicipal regulatory documents, for consisten-cy with the circulation plan element, should bereferred to the governing body for action.

Amend Capital Improvement PlanPhysical improvements proposed in the circula-tion plan element should be included in themunicipal capital improvement plan and coor-dinated with other compatible projects. Forexample, sidewalk reconstruction or new side-walk construction would occur ideally as partof a larger street resurfacing or reconstruction

project; and new trails in a park might occur as part of a broader park enhancement project.Wherever possible, the municipality shouldlook for efficiencies and economies of scale inimplementing the projects contained in the circulation plan.

71

Additional Reading:Patrick Condon – Design Charrettes for Sustainable Communities. Island Press 2008

Bill Lennertz and Aarin Lutzenhiser – The Charrette Handbook: The EssentialGuide

Accelerated, Collaborative CommunityPlanning. American Planning Association, 2006

Preston Schiller, Eric Brun and JeffreyKenworthy – An Introduction to SustainableTransportation: Policy, Planning andImplementation. Earthscan, 2010

Chapter Six: The Sustainable Circulation Plan Element

72

In this section we describe the contents of a sustainable circulation plan element.

Not all sections will be applicable everywhere, given the great diversity among New Jersey municipalities

and the very different conditions found on the ground. Municipalities will need to tailor their circulation

plan elements to their own set of conditions and circumstances, values and priorities.

he CirculationElement -- Statementof PurposeThe Statement of Purpose of

the circulation plan elementidentifies the current transportation

issues (as perceived locally), circulation con-cerns/barriers, and land-use related issues,while at the same time highlighting the desiredfuture, so as to be able to adequately handleboth current issues and those that might beanticipated as a result of population andemployment growth, changes in life-styles andpreferences, changes in transportation technolo-gies and changes in land use. The differencebetween these two scenarios is described as the“gap”. The gap represents the disparitiesbetween existing conditions and the desiredfuture. Once the gap is defined, it allows themunicipality to be strategic and optimize trans-portation and land use decisions to move fromcurrent conditions to the desired future, and tomake those decisions operational. The gap willbe the guiding principle throughout the circula-tion planning effort to maintain focus on thedesired future.

Travel Trends And RegionalAssessmentThis section will generally describe the munici-pality, current population and employmentcharacteristics, land use and travel patterns.This section will also describe and take intoaccount the regional system and what stake andpossible obligation the municipality has withinits region. For example, if the municipality is aregional hub, what reasonable obligationshould it incur (relative to its neighbors) to provide the appropriate planning and land useordinances needed to achieve local greenhousegas (GhG) reduction targets?

The following are suggested components to the Travel Trends and Regional Assessmentsection:• Demographic Trends – U.S. Census• Vehicle Ownership – U.S. Census• Work locations for employed residents – U.S.

Census, local survey• Residential locations of employees – U.S.

Census, local employers• Commute related travel trends by travel

mode – U.S. Census• Trends in travel time to work – U.S. Census• Commute related travel mode and other data

in comparison to state-wide data – U.S. Census

• Community survey of current conditions andfuture needs – local survey

• Regional and local origins and destinations –composite

• Regional road network – NJDOT, countyengineering, MPO

• Regional transit system – NJ Transit, countytransit, TMA

• Local Transit Score Map – NJ Transit• Needs Assessment – identify system deficien-

cies, gaps in service and problem areas for allmodes of travel

Land Use Patterns to OptimizeMultimodal CirculationAdopting center-based land-use practices canfocus new growth and development aroundactivity centers and yield a variety of benefits.The following are ways to achieve center-baseddevelopment.

Infill and Compact DevelopmentInfill and compact development are two land-use practices that can be utilized to realize thefull potential of centers. Infill development isthe practice of developing those lots and vacantspaces that have been bypassed and underuti-lized in areas that are otherwise developed,such as brownfields, greyfields, and abandonedindustrial sites. Infill development can be an

Chapter Six: The Sustainable Circulation Plan Element

T

73

important element of redevelopment and revitalization. Compact development, as thename suggests, is a land use pattern wherebuildings are located more closely together for increased density. Both aim at deriving the maximum potential from the land byincreasing density and locating more peoplenear existing services.

Infill development is most appropriate in theurban and suburban settings where there arelots that are currently underutilized, yet to bedeveloped, or sites that are abandoned. Currentand potential infill development areas shouldbe identified with an infill development pro-gram. Setting up an infill development programthat identifies potential areas for infill develop-ment is a good first step in encouraging infilldevelopment.

An effective infill development program willcreate an inventory of all infill parcels. Theselots include those that have vacant and aban-doned buildings, are underutilized as deter-mined by comparing existing use with nearbyproperties, and those properties that are poorlymaintained or whose public facilities might bedeteriorated. Examples include brownfields,underutilized surface parking lots, and under-performing shopping centers and strip malls.

These parcels should be compiled into a list ofpotential infill development sites within themunicipality. Community input should besolicited and visioning sessions should be con-ducted to determine what types of infill devel-opment is preferred and desirable.

Areas that will support transit service are thosesites in TOD areas, near transit hubs, or withinclose proximity to transit. Deteriorating shop-ping malls and strip malls are ideal for infilldevelopment, and a change from single-use tocompact, mixed-use can transform them intovibrant town centers. Development of infillsites located near a commercial corridor ordowntown have the greatest potential for opti-mizing these centers.

Highest densities and intensities of uses shouldbe located closest to transit centers, town cen-ters, commercial corridors, and communityfacilities. These tactics will optimize both thetransit centers and town centers by focusinggrowth on these already established serviceswhile also providing more people with theoption of traveling without the use or need ofan automobile. Another potential location forcompact development for towns that lack infillsites are in their high growth areas. Utilizingcompact development in suburban areas and

integrating mixed-use can be an effectivemethod of supporting small town centers.

Policy Suggestions and Best PracticesSetting guidelines and regulations, developingincentives, and marketing infill sites are keystrategies for a successful infill program.Creating overlay zones to identify differentareas and types of infill development is anothereffective strategy. Municipalities should incor-porate infill into their master plan in order tomake it a priority. Guidelines for these differentareas should be established to guarantee a townachieves its goals and objectives. Guidelinesand standards should regulate the design, scaleand density of infill projects while providingflexibility for developers. Municipalities shouldalso make sure that current regulations allowfor higher densities within certain areas so as tocapitalize on compact development. Allowingfor mixed-use development in order to locate

74

Special accommodations for bicycles on trainsallow riders tor each places that are served bytransit but not within walking distance ofthe transit stop.

housing near jobs and other services will alsohelp create more diverse, successful neighbor-hoods through infill and compact development.

Developers need to be made aware of infilldevelopment opportunities. Maintaining an up-to-date list of infill sites and making it publiclyaccessible is a good way to convey this infor-mation to interested developers. Providingincentives to developers for infill developmentcan also be essential. Incentives can include astreamlined application process for infill devel-opment, reduced parking requirements, densitybonuses, subsidized infrastructure upgrades,lowered impact fees and property tax abate-ments.

Land-Use Mix to Optimize Non-Vehicular And Transit Modes ForShort TripsMixed-use development is characterized bymore than one use in a single building, devel-opment or neighborhood. An example is a five-story building with shops and stores on the first floor, offices on the second floor andapartments on the fourth and fifth floor.Another example is a residential block with adeli on one corner and a doctor's office on theother corner.

The objective of mixed-use development is toincrease housing opportunities within walkingdistance of shops, jobs, offices, restaurants,entertainment and cultural centers. By increas-ing opportunities for pedestrian activity, munic-ipalities reduce reliance on automobiles, reducetraffic congestion and pollution, boost the localeconomy and improve safety and security.

Current And Potential Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)AreasEncouraging TOD has benefits for nearly everymunicipality, yet it is important to identifywhere it is most likely to succeed before pursu-ing it. Ideally, TOD areas are located near atransit hub, where there is a mass transit accesspoint to either rail or bus. As mentioned earlier,they should also be high-density, compact,mixed-use, and walkable. These are all impor-tant factors that must be considered in identify-ing TOD areas.

Appropriate candidates for TOD possess all ofthe aforementioned characteristics such as agood mixture of residential, office, retail andcivic uses as well as an adequate network fornon-vehicular transportation. Most importantly,however, these areas should be located within a1/4 - 1/2 mile of a current transit hub, or about

a 5 to 15 minute walk. The density and intensi-ty of use should be greatest near the transit huband gradually decline as it moves away from it.

The following describes areas in differentregional settings that are appropriate for TODzoning.

• Urban, high density centers at the heart ofindustry, commerce and culture. They possessa large portion of a region’s jobs but alsohave retail and cultural facilities, housingwithin walking distance, and a reliable, effi-cient public transportation system nearby.

• Regional centers with jobs, hotels, and serv-ices in addition to housing densities that sup-port bus services and an environment thatencourages walking and biking. It is impor-tant to consider the regional context so as notto compete with, and potentially undermineothers nearby. These centers should also benear rail stations and major highway intersec-tions to help improve their accessibility andconvenience.

• Small towns with compact centers that pro-vide retail, recreation, a variety of housingoptions, and community facilities. Thesetowns serve nearby neighborhoods and thus

75

walking and biking should be viable. Theyshould have a bus transfer as well.

Potential TOD areas are those that are able andmost likely to include all of the characteristicsof a TOD as mentioned earlier. Since TODareas need a transit hub to succeed, only thoseareas that surround current or potential transithubs should be considered. However, not alltransit hubs are suitable for TOD. Only areassurrounding current or potential transit hubsthat either have those features previously dis-cussed (compact, high-density, mixed-use,walkability) or have the prospect of realizingthem should be considered.

Higher densities and compact form are pre-req-uisites in the areas surrounding transit hubs.These are vital for the success of a TOD and toensure an adequate number of potential riders.Once these areas are identified, policies andregulations that help foster TOD should beimplemented.

Local communities should revise codes andordinances to promote infill and direct newdevelopment towards appropriate locations andat suitable densities to support transit. TODOverlay Districts should be designated near tran-sit hubs and residential and commercial centers.

Resolve Local Zoning ConflictsWith TODFor TODs to be possible and to work effective-ly, local zoning will need to support this type ofdevelopment and allow the appropriate densi-ties, accessibility and mix of uses.

Key TOD Factors• Regional Assessment – take into account the

regional need and the ability to help satisfythat need.

• Promote density that supports the regional need.

• Adopt land use policies that support development.

• Compact development patterns.• Mixed-uses.• Make it a “Great Place”.• Pedestrian-scale design.• Easy pedestrian connections.• Parking management.• State and local policies and incentives to

support TOD.

Possible Incentives:• Expedited development applications.• Reduced total parking requirements.• More lenient roadway –congestion standards.• Permitting higher densities and land coverage

ratios – density bonuses.

• Centralized parking strategy.• Adaptable reuse of historic buildings and rail

stations into multimodal centers.• Successful demonstration projects.• Live Where You Work program.

People should be able to easily and convenient-ly walk or bike, particularly to the transit sta-tion. This means providing safe street condi-tions and adequate amenities, such as side-walks, bike lanes, and places to lock bikes atthe station; a mix of pedestrian friendly usesand activities within walking distance of thetransit station; high density walk-ability and agood mix of uses.

Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian andRoadway NetworksMultimodal Circulation Elements consider theregional attributes and impacts of transportationalternatives and choices on air quality and otherfactors affecting quality of life. Many circula-tion plans address key smart growth character-istics such as connectivity, accessibility, mobili-ty and multi-modal travel options. ACirculation Plan is most flexible and best meetssmart growth objectives when it includes multi-ple modes of travel serving major trip genera-tors. Transferability between or among modesshould also be provided.

76

Transit - Identify Current AndPotential Transit HubsTransit hubs provide people in the surroundingarea with alternative transportation options toregional and community destinations, reducingVMT while providing direct access to activitycenters. Transit hubs also promote economicactivity. As a result, they provide favorableattributes for center-based development inwhich supporting compact, mixed-use develop-ment will foster growth in both jobs and eco-nomic activity.

Current Transit Hubs• Transit hubs are places such as regional train

stations, areas that provide access to transitservice and facilitate intermodal or multi-modal service such as bus/rail transfer cen-ters, shuttle bus to light rail, and park-and-ride areas. These hubs are able to handle ahigh volume of traffic and have regular serv-ice that offers access to regional destinations.Identifying existing and potential transit hubsis vital to developing a program that encour-ages sustainable development patterns thatpromote mode-shift to other forms of trans-portation than the automobile.

Potential Transit Hubs• Potential transit hubs need both accessibility

and ridership levels in order to be successful.Areas with good walkability / bikability andhigher densities are good candidates forpotential transit hubs. High densities, and to alesser extent, high intensities, ensure that atransit hub has an adequate number of poten-tial users while walkability and bikabilityallow those potential riders to access the tran-sit hub.

• Types of transit and the level of service thatis supported by a given density can vary witha wide range of factors. In general however,as density increases, the number of house-holds owning a car declines while the numberof trips traveled by walking and bikingincreases. A summary of various findings that predict type of transit and level of serviceby density is summarized in the table on next page.

In general, when population density exceeds10,000 people per square mile there is a dra-matic increase in transit use. Fifteen (15) ormore dwelling units per acre support a highlevel of transit service, as can 20 million squarefeet or more of commercial space. One study

found that a population density of about 250people (either living or employed) per acre wasneeded for rapid transit while about 620 peopleper acre was needed for a transit modal split of50/50.

A detailed analysis is necessary for each town.The feasibility and success of transit hubs isdetermined by a multitude of variables. Oneparticular tool that can help a municipalityassess the potential level of transit service of anarea is the Transit Score mentioned earlier,which can calculate existing, projected, orplanned transit scores given population density,employment density, and zero-car householddensity. Therefore, accurate prediction of eachof these is fundamental to determining possibletransit hubs.

77

This bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Route 1reconnected two segments of the Delaware &Raritan Canal towpath, therefore re-establishingthe integrity of this regional bicycle and pedestrian facility in this area.

Furthermore, these densities are a function ofthe type of land use, as is the land-use intensity.As a result, the amount of trips that a certaintype of land-use produces must be consideredas well, keeping in mind that places such asregional shopping centers, hospitals, colleges,universities, and business complexes will gen-erate more trips than townhouses. Ultimately,areas with the former uses, a mix of services,and high density residential would be moresuited for a transit hub as a wide variety ofservices in close range attracts many peopleand is conducive to walking.

Lastly, the importance of community visioningcannot be overstated. Though GIS maps can beanalyzed and projections extrapolated, withoutcitizen buy-in the project will not be a success.Community visioning sessions will give themunicipality an opportunity to participate indecisions over how and how much their townwill change, and bring to light issues or con-cerns. Integrating the community into theprocess from the beginning will dramaticallyincrease the chances of success.

Transit Providers and FacilitiesIdentify current and potential mode-shift loca-tions, including appropriate “Park and Ride”locations. These locations should be mappedand appropriate physical improvements shouldbe executed to promote easily comprehensibleand safe transfers.

Develop strategies to better align transit routes,ensuring ease of transfers for two- or more seatrides. By better connecting intra- and inter-agency routes safely and efficiently, riders willbe more willing and better able to make transitconnections.

Identify areas where the transit agency or agen-cies should consider new service. Highlightcommunities underserved by transit and meetwith potential agencies to explore providingnew transit service that resolves the insufficientaccess to transit.

Provide safe and convenient access from transitstations or major stops to major employment andresidential locations. Avoid physical barriers.

Provide direct routes to transit stops and stationsfrom homes, retail and major employment centers.

Related Policies• Ensure efficient transit circulation, include

transit agency to resolve current and potentialconflicts.

• Encourage ridership on public transit systemsthrough marketing and promotional efforts.Provide information to residents and employ-ees on transit services available for both localand regional trips.

• Require new development to provide transitimprovements where appropriate and feasi-ble, including direct pedestrian access to tran-sit stops, bus turnouts and shelters, and localstreets with adequate width to accommodatebuses.

• Require community care facilities and seniorhousing projects with more than 25 units toprovide accessible transportation services forthe convenience of residents.

• Provide railroad crossing protection devices• Planned improvements - This should indicate

areas where improvements are needed to pro-78

GuideNJ Transit

Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines

NJDOT

Transit ServcieSupports Rail or other high capacity serviceSupports local bus serviceSupports cars, carpools, vanpoolsBus Minimum ServiceService (1 bus/hour)

Intermediate Service(1 bus/30 mins.)

Urban Rail-5 mins. peak headwayBus Service Frequent-120per Intermediate-40direction Minimum-20per day

Population/mi2

10,0005,0003,000-4,000

Dwelling Units/Acre15-24+

7+1-6+

4-6+

7-8+915.07.04-5.0

Employee/Acre150+

40+2+

Non-Residential Floor Space in million ft2

5-8

8-2015-2020105

mote efficient and continuous circulation• Map transit services, mode-shift locations,

“Park and Ride” locations, areas of neededtransit service and planned improvements.

Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities Prioritize Planning for New ROWs forNon-Vehicular Transportation ModesProviding paths and methods for pedestriansand bikes to access local activity centers,regional destinations, and transit stations andstops is essential to not only optimizing circula-tion but also the harmony between supportingland-uses. In the past, Right-of-Ways (ROWs)for these non-vehicular modes of transportationhave been overlooked. As a result, extraemphasis should be placed on ROWs for non-vehicular transportation and should be a plan-ning priority that is no longer ignored. TheseROWs must be adequately developed to beaccessible, direct and convenient, in addition tosafe and attractive in order to assure that theyare optimized. The best and most effective wayto achieve these goals is to implement aPedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan thatassesses current conditions, creates a plan thatoutlines improvements based on those assess-ments, and designs methods of implementingthe proposed changes.

Develop a Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation PlanDeveloping and implementing a Pedestrian andBicycle Circulation Plan helps promote anenvironment that is safe, convenient, andattractive for citizens to walk and bike helpingreduce auto-dependency in addition to promot-ing community. A Pedestrian/BicycleCirculation Plan identifies routes for such useand outlines improvements in the bicycle andpedestrian infrastructure. Routes that areincluded are streets, walkways, and trails thatconnect neighborhoods, transit stops and sta-tions, community centers, recreational areas,and commercial and business districts. A goodplan will incorporate a proposed network ofroutes, design guidelines for these routes, pro-pose general policies to improve biking andwalking conditions throughout town, and rec-ommendations for enforcement and education.

Assess Current ConditionsThe first step in creating a Pedestrian andBicycle Circulation Plan is an assessment ofcurrent conditions. This is vital to the processbecause it helps create a comprehensive pictureof pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety inyour municipality. Assessing the current condi-tions is a multidimensional process focused onthe pedestrian and bicyclist.

Developing standards and guidelines for “walk-ability” and “bike-ability” is an important pre-requisite. Relevant criteria include accessibility,safety, length and aesthetics. These standardscan also be referred to by other planning docu-ments. Turn these standards and guidelines intoa checklist and solicit volunteers to conductsurveys on the existing street conditions.

Engage citizens in an outreach process in orderto determine areas of concern amongst thecommunity as well as other stakeholdersincluding special interest groups such as sen-iors, those with disabilities, and businesses.Collect data on pedestrian/bicycle vehicle con-flicts, walking and biking rates, and the numberof connections to transit and where they are.After the assessment, develop a summary ofconstraints and opportunities as a guide for therest of the planning process.

Create Pedestrian/Bicycle Route NetworkAfter the initial assessment, surveys and datashould be analyzed in order to create aPedestrian/Bicycle Route Network. This will be a long-term vision of a network thatincludes both on- and off-street routes thatextend throughout the municipality and identi-fies those routes most in need of improvement

79

and routes whose improvements will have thelargest impact.

Routes to be included in the Pedestrian/BicycleRoute Network should be selected with inputfrom the community and local officials.Generally, they should be routes that providedirect and convenient access to where residentswhat to go like: activity centers, employmentcenters, neighborhoods, schools,municipal/community centers, naturepaths/parks and transit centers. Routes shouldbe selected using the following techniques andcriteria:• in areas of high pedestrian and/or bicycle

activity• those that reinforce TOD, compact

development, and mixed-use• in areas with a history of pedestrian/bicycle

and vehicle conflicts• proximity to transit hubs, stations, and stops• areas that complement existing and proposed

pedestrian/bicycle pathways, lanes• those that facilitate connections to bus stops

and routes• those that highlight natural features such as

creeks, shorelines, and ridgeways (this alsohelps promote preservation and restoration ofthese areas)

• those that overcome barriers that separate

neighborhoods such as freeways, rivers, andrailroads

• fill in gaps in pedestrian/bicycle corridors• extend paths from cul-de-sacs to adjacent

neighborhoods• connections between adjacent blocks that

lack street connections• provide continuous capacity along

pedestrian/bicycle paths• those that facilitate direct and convenient

access to transit stops from offices and com-mercial uses

• provides direct connection between activitycenters

• connect parking lots, greenways, residentialdevelopments, and business and retail dis-tricts/developments

Also included in this Pedestrian/Bicycle RouteNetwork should be a “Safe Routes to School”and “Safe Routes to Transit” section that identi-fies common walking routes to schools andtransit. The goal of the street improvements for these areas will be to improvepedestrian/bicycle safety and access for children to and from school and to promotetransportation alternatives.

Lastly, to ensure safety and attractiveness forpedestrians/bicycles, it is vital to enact design

guidelines that require standards for these pathways. The standards and guidelines addressnewly developed pedestrian/bicycle paths inaddition to improvements on existing ones. Theanalysis of pedestrian/bicycle vehicle conflictscan help develop street standards to assuremaximum safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.These standards might also be contingent uponadjacent land use as opposed to street classifi-cation which would allow for more flexibilityin design. Elements likely to be included in thissection include streetscape improvements,pedestrian/bicycle amenities, curb radii, bump-outs, traffic-calming techniques, and signage.

Other Suggested Policies and GuidelinesIn addition to a Pedestrian/Bicycle CirculationPlan there are numerous other policies andplanning techniques that should be consideredto optimize planning right-of-ways (ROWs) fornon-vehicular transportation. The land use ele-ment of the Master Plan should encouragecompact, mixed-use development in order tosupport the Pedestrian/Bicycle CirculationPlan. This can include zoning and designguidelines for pedestrian and bicycle orienteddevelopment. These guidelines might includethings such as requirements for reduced set-backs and lot sizes, higher frequency of cross-ings, and more direct connections. If a com-

80

plete modification of zoning and design guide-lines is not feasible or desirable, this can bedone by identifying specific zones and corri-dors with an overlay map, such as a downtownor a TOD area, and focus on creating a pedes-trian- and bicycle-based center. By definingparticular pedestrian or bicycle zones in theland use element, a Circulation Element maythen establish specific standards in these areas.

Other policies and guidelines that communitiesshould utilize to develop a pedestrian/bike net-work and optimize their use are as follows:

• Where rail lines (including siding and spurs)are to be abandoned, first considerationshould be given to acquiring the line fortransportation and recreational uses, such asbikeways, footpaths, or public transit.

• Identify streets with underused travel lanesfor potential traffic calming projects includ-ing restriping, lane reduction, and sidewalkwidening.

• Take advantage of existing transportationinfrastructure and capacity that is underuti-lized. For example, where possible and desirable, convert underused travel lanes tobicycle or pedestrian paths or amenities.

• Identify goals for investment in the infrastructure for pedestrians and bicycles.

• Require developers to submit an internal circulation plan as part of their site designincluding pedestrian/bicycle connections topublic ROWs such as sidewalks as well as tonearby neighborhoods and centers.

Utilize building design standards and zoningordinances to:• Encourage mixed-use.• Group building entrances to improve access.• Connect entrances and exits to sidewalks.• Promote street level activity.• Develop small blocks.• Include public walkways or trails in private

developments.

Potential Policies• Implement a system of signs that clearly

mark and identify bicycle and pedestrianroutes including trails.

• Provide local maps and directional signs attransit stations and stops to aid in pedestrianwayfinding.

• Encourage the development of pocket parksand plazas especially along the pedestrianand bicycle network.

• Implementing “pedestrian only” areas wherethere are large pedestrian volumes.

• To the maximum extent possible, make walkways accessible to people with physicaldisabilities.

• Integrate pedestrian and bicycle impact eval-uation into traffic impact analysis including:

• An inventory of existing bike/ped accommodations.

• Existing and future levels of service.• Visibility triangles for pedestrians and

bicyclists at corners.• Site circulation plans for pedestrians

including to and from parking facilities.• Compatibility with existing plans and

design guidelines.

Develop a pedestrian/bicycle route network thatfunctions as well, or better than the street net-work for motorists.

Bicycle NetworkBikeway Classifications• Class I (Bike Path) – Provides a completely

separated right of way for the exclusive useof bicycles and pedestrians with cross flowminimized.

• Class II (Bike Lane) – Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street orhighway.

• Class III (Bike Route) – Provides for shareduse with pedestrian or motor vehicle trafficand is identified only with signage.

81

Safety• Ensure safe movements with design

strategies.• Identify HOT SPOTS (high accident-prone

sites) to mitigate.• Implement a Bicycle Master Plan as a com-

prehensive method for implementing bicyclecirculation, safety, and facilities development.

Related Policies• Adopt bicycle parking requirements for

current and future commercial, housing complexes and mixed use buildings.

• Ensure commonly used routes to destinationsinclude bicycle lanes or parallel paths.

• Ensure bicycle parking facilities at strategicdestinations and transit.

Planned improvementsIndicate areas where improvements are neededto promote efficient and continuous circulation.Map bicycle network with planned improvements.

Pedestrian NetworkWalkway Classifications• Primary walkways – those segments that link

major generators of pedestrian activity andcarry the highest volume of pedestrian traffic.

• Secondary walkways – those segments that linksecondary generators of pedestrian activity andcarry moderate volumes of pedestrian traffic.

• Tertiary walkways – those segments that pro-vide physical and visual continuity within thepedestrian network but carry a low volume oftraffic. They are also used as recreationalpaths such as jogging trails or fitness courses.

Safety• Ensure safe movements with design

strategies.• Provide for the needs of all ages and abilities

in the planning, design and operation.• Consider roadway width and roadway design

features such as islands, pedestrian refuges,pedestrian count-down signals, and othersuch mechanisms.

• Incorporate a “safe routes to school” programthat aims to provide a network of safe, con-venient, and comfortable pedestrian routesfrom residential areas to schools.

Related Polices• Foster walkable routes through streetscape

improvements, continuous sidewalks on bothsides of roads (where justified – at densitiesin excess of 2 dwelling units/acre), andencouraging pedestrian access wherever fea-sible.

• Ensure commonly used routes to destinationsinclude sidewalks.

• Reduce barriers between transit stops andland uses to provide direct paths for pedestrians.

Planned ImprovementsIndicate areas where improvements are needed to promote efficient and continuous circulation. Map pedestrian network withplanned improvements.

Street NetworkStreet Types / ClassificationsEstablish the appropriate street typology withinthe Circulation Element. Typical street classifi-cations consist of Regional Arterials,Community Arterials, Community Collectors,Neighborhood Collectors and Local Streets.• Arterials carry traffic between communities

and connect communities to major intrastateand interstate highways.

• Collectors convey traffic between arterialsand from lower-order streets to arterials.

82

Parking structures need not be oppressively ugly. A small investment in public art and landscaping, combined with appropriate façadetreatments, can effectively mask what is otherwisea dead building.

They are the primary routes within residentialand commercial areas.

• Local streets are of two types. Sub-collectorsprovide frontage for individual lots and carrysmall amounts of through-traffic between col-lectors of from access streets to collectors.Access Streets provide frontage for individuallots and carry only traffic with an origin ordestination on the streets themselves.

Other street typologies exist and may be moreappropriate for the community.

Characterize And Evaluate The CurrentStreet NetworkIs the network a traditional grid, a modifiedgrid, a conventional suburban street network, ora combination of several of these patterns?

Evaluate the network to measure internal connectivity, external connectivity and routedirectness.

• Internal Connectivity. Can be measured usingBeta Index which is the number of street linksdivided by the number of nodes or link ends.The higher the ratio the better connectivity.Interconnected networks usually rate above1.4 intersections per square mile.

• External Connectivity. All neighborhoods inthe system are connected to the larger street

system at least every quarter mile.• Route Directness. The ratio of the distance a

pedestrian would walk between two pointsand the distance of a straight line between thesame two points. A reasonably connectednetwork falls within the 1.2 to 1.5 range.(Criterion Planners Engineers, October 2001,INDEX PlanBuilder Users Guide, Portland,OR)

For less efficient networks, map a road frame-work for further development of the network.Provide concept plans in the circulation ele-ment that prescribe future street locations thatcreate an interconnected network or retrofit.

Align Zoning With Appropriate AccessManagement Provisions• Access control measures offer great potential

to mitigate conflict and congestion, and formaintaining acceptable and safe traffic oper-ating conditions along corridors. The loca-tion and design of access points along a roadalso has a significant impact on the safety andefficiency of pedestrian movements.

• Roads serve three basic purposes: to provideflow of traffic into and out of the community,to provide links among activities within thecommunity, and to provide access for individ-ual properties to the road network.

• Access can be controlled through the zoningordinance. In establishing the use standardsfor the community, target large, intense usesthat generate high traffic volumes to high-capacity roads. Similarly, land uses produc-ing less traffic can be directed to smallerroads through zoning.

• The primary responsibility in control ofaccess is to try to balance the rights of prop-erty owners for access with the need to pro-tect community safety by eliminating oravoiding traffic hazards.

• The use of access management techniquescan help preserve capacity.

• The State Highway Access ManagementCode (N.J.A.C. Title 16, Chapter 47) pro-vides for the comprehensive regulation ofaccess on New Jersey state roadways. TheCode regulates the spacing between un-sig-nalized access points and between traffic sig-nals, as well as the type of access.

• The Access Management Code also offers theability to prepare an access management planfor an entire stretch of state highway. Theparticipants in creating a plan are the hostmunicipality; the county, if a county roadwayintersects the high segment; and NJDOT.

• Because NJDOT has complete authority overthe design of driveways on state highways,New Jersey municipalities have little abilityto influence access on these roads. However,

83

through the subdivision and site planapproval process, municipalities can encour-age developers of properties on state high-ways to investigate the use of frontage roads,cross access drives, and shared driveways.Incentives can be offered to developers thatuse the desired access management tech-niques. The zoning ordinance must respectthe access management goals of NJDOT andthe County.

Related Policies• Strive to maintain community- and

context-appropriate Level of Service (LOS) standards.

• Give full consideration to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the planning anddevelopment of transportation facilities.

• Ensure all travel modes on high activity roadswhile limiting conflicts.

• Mitigate “Hot Spots”.• Incorporate a Trip Reduction program.• Design streets in new developments in con-

figurations that generally match and extendthe grid pattern/network of existing streets.

• Adopt design standards for streets that ensuresafety and mobility for pedestrian and non-motorized modes of transport.

• Maintain and update as needed roadwaydesign standards to manage vehicle speedsand traffic volumes.

• Limit street right-of-way dimensions wherenecessary to maintain desired neighborhoodcharacter.

• Implement traffic calming measures to slowtraffic on local and collector residentialstreets and prioritize these measures overcongestion management.

• Promote ridesharing and cooperate withregional travel demand management programs to reduce peak-hour traffic congestion and help reduce regional vehiclemiles traveled.

• Accommodate bus service and pedestriansseeking access to transit stops through the subdivision, site plan and capitalimprovement plan processes.

Planned improvementsIndicate areas where improvements are neededto promote efficient and continuous circulation. Map the roadway network, functional classifi-cation, “Hot Spots” and planned improvements.

Parking• Provide short-term parking in high activity

areas.• Identify shared parking opportunities.• Reduce parking requirements around transit

hubs, in town centers and for mixed-use projects.

• Allow on-street parking to count towardsmeeting required parking obligations.

• Encourage use of parking fees, cash-outs, or“in lieu” of transit for employers near transit.

Goods MovementDescribe current goods movement network --freight rail and truck services.

• Identify freight terminals and intermodalfacilities convenient to major transportationroutes of all freight modes. Identify which arewithin activity centers and should be re-locat-ed away from areas likely to be congested tominimize the addition of excess truck traffic.Truck terminals should be convenient to thearea being served. Intermodal facilities

84

Multipurpose trails are popular recreation facilities, but when they connect residential neighborhoods and employment centers they alsobecome popular with commuters.

should be located as close as possible tomajor highways, roads, airports, railroads andports so they are easily accessible by allfreight modes.

• Designate priority truck routes in corridorswhere high-volume truck traffic exist or isanticipated.

• Designate truck stop areas to accommodatethe region’s need.

Related Policies• Provide priority truck access to major freight

terminals and critical points in the freighttransportation network.

• Separate commercial and passenger trans-portation in high activity/commercial centers.

• Institute traffic calming measures for trucks,as needed.

• Time-of-day. This designates the times ofday that trucks may enter an area to makedeliveries; select times that will minimizeconflict with highest volumes of vehicularand pedestrian activity.

• Length-of-dwell-time. Limit the amount oftime trucks may remain at the delivery site.Short dwell times keep loading docks acces-sible and reduce congestion in and arounddelivery areas.

• Require off-street loading docks for all com-mercial, industrial and institutional buildings

over a certain size to reduce conflict.• Require time-managed deliveries.• Provide appropriate design standards for

roads used primarily for freight movement.

Planned ImprovementsIndicate areas where improvements are neededto promote efficient and continuous circulation. Map high-volume truck routes, freight termi-nals and critical points within the freight trans-portation network with planned improvements.

Guiding Policies• Plan, develop, and maintain a comprehensive,

coordinated transportation system to ensurethe safe, efficient, and convenient movementof people and goods.

• Maintain and update road standards that pro-vide for the design, construction, operation,and maintenance of roads based on a “com-plete streets” concept that enables safe, com-fortable, and attractive access for pedestrians,bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of allages and abilities, in a form that is compati-ble with and complementary to adjacent landuses.

• Develop neighborhood streets that encouragewalking, biking, and outdoor activity throughsound engineering and urban design princi-ples that limit potential speeding.

• Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian,bicycle, and transit circulation.

• Ensure the adequate provision of both on-street and off-street parking, taking intoaccount the effect of parking managementtechniques on urban design, economic vitali-ty, and walk-ability.

• Improve railroad crossings to minimize safetyhazards and allow for additional capacityimprovements.

• Explore instituting “Quiet Zones” in down-town or neighborhood areas.

• Provide efficient and direct circulation forlocal truck traffic, with minimal disruption toresidential neighborhoods.

• Encourage reduction in vehicle miles traveledas part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gasemissions.

Implementing Policies• Ensure the zoning and land development reg-

ulations are consistent with the Master Plan’sland use and circulation plan element.

• Develop regional collaborations with bothneighboring municipalities and the county.

• Coordinate closely with the relevant MPO.• Review new development proposals for con-

sistency with the Circulation Element.• Ensure consistency between the timing of

new development and the provision of trans-

85

portation infrastructure needed toserve that development.

• Regularly monitor traffic volumeson local streets and, prior toissuance of building permits, ensurethat there is a funded plan for thedeveloper to provide all necessarytransportation improvements at theappropriate phase of development soas to minimize transportationimpacts.

86

Additional ReadingJersey City Master Plan - Circulation Plan. 2009

Seven American TODs: Goodpractices for urban design inTransit-Oriented Developmentprojects- Journal of Transportand Land Use. 2008

Urban Design to ReduceAutomobile Dependence,Opolis: An InternationalJournal of Suburban andMetropolitan Studies. 2006

Pedestrian Information Center.2009

Transportation Research BoardReport 33: Transit-FriendlyStreets: Design and TrafficManagement Strategies toSupport Livable Communities.

Case StudiesConcurrent with the grant to develop this guide to local circulation planning, the Office of Smart Growthawarded several towns with grants to develop their own circulation plan elements: Bridgewater, Dennis,Lodi, Newton, Metuchen and Plumsted (New Egypt). The scope of work and deliverable formats differedconsiderably, yet these present a snapshot of the state of local circulation planning in New Jersey today. Thecase studies are available as references to other municipalities interested in developing their own circulationplan elements.

All of the case study towns generally did a good job of documenting existing conditions as they affect allmodes of transportation, including transit and goods movement. Various public engagement techniqueswere employed, such as workshops and on-line surveys. These techniques were used to supplement thetechnical data gathering.

All towns developed pedestrian and bicycle plans to address existing deficiencies. Bridgewater emphasizedpedestrian and bicycle access to the local public schools. Lodi recommends adoption of a Complete Streetspolicy and trip reduction strategies. Several identified locations for traffic calming and way finding initia-tives. Shared parking strategies are emphasized as well as the need to revisit obsolete parking requirements.

The importance of the circulation network is increasingly recognized, as is the need to fix missing links.Newton’s plan advocates adoption of a connectivity requirement.

Transit is still generally neglected, in part because it plays little or no role in many of the case study towns.Bridgewater has a train station on the NJ Transit Raritan Valley line, yet its circulation plan has little to sayabout how to take advantage of this underutilized asset. Lodi’s plan, on the other hand, advocates for a fea-sibility study of future rail passenger service on a local freight line, as well as a possible jitney service.

The links between land use and transportation are also generally under-explored. The Dennis circulationplan was linked to a broader zoning effort, and it goes further in establishing this link: it contains street reg-ulating plans and proposed land use classifications. The Lodi plan offers some conceptual redevelopmentschemes for targeted areas. And the Newton plan documents the town’s efforts with redevelopment, andfolds these into the circulation planning framework. But generally, these plans illustrate the profound dividethat still exists between land use and transportation. Much more needs to be done to truly bring the two intoalignment.

At least one case study points to inconsistencies in the state’s regulatory framework. The Dennis plan –which calls for a Main Street treatment to Route 9 – runs afoul of the NJDOT Access Management Codeprescriptions for this state highway. This issue is the subject of further study, but still un-resolved.

Chapter Seven: Tools and Strategies for Implementation

87

In this section we look at the various tools and mechanisms which local governments in

New Jersey have at their disposal to implement their circulation plans. Implementation is likely to require a

variety of actions: some are legislative and regulatory, and can be accomplished internally by the

municipality, provided there is consensus to carry them forward. Project specific implementation,

on the other hand, requires funding for capital improvements, and obtaining the funding becomes a primary concern.

egislative, Regulatory andAdministrative ActionsOnce adopted by the munici-pal planning board, the circu-

lation plan element becomes anofficial part of the municipal

master plan and, as such, the municipality’sofficial policy with respect to transportationand circulation issues. Any proposed masterplan roads or other rights-of-way, such as aproposed bikeway will go into effect, as previ-ously described (see chapter 2).

If the circulation plan element calls for pro-posed new rights-of-way, it is prudent to followit up with adoption of an official map, as previ-ously discussed.

It is also imperative to back up those recom-mendations from the circulation plan elementthat are implemented through the subdivisionand site plan review process with appropriateamendments to the municipality’s land devel-opment regulations. The Planning Board andthe Zoning Board cannot rely exclusively onthe master plan’s circulation element andenforce its recommendations in the absence ofappropriate legislative provisions enactedthrough the land development regulations. So,for example, if the circulation plan element

calls for sidewalks with a minimum of 6 feet inwidth in a particular area, this standard must bereflected in the municipality’s engineering stan-dards and applicable land development regula-tions in order to be enforceable, and either beconsistent with the RSIS in purely residentialneighborhoods or have a special area standarddesignation from the Site ImprovementAdvisory Board.

Similarly, the land use part of the equationmust be aligned with the circulation plan ele-ment recommendations. It is futile for the cir-culation plan element to express support fortransit-oriented development, for example, ifthe land use plan element and the zoning do not back that up with appropriate zoning andappropriate densities in the appropriate loca-tions. In the same vein, if the land developmentregulations do not establish bicycle parkingrequirements at appropriate locations, it ispointless for the circulation plan element to promote bicycling as a viable form of transportation.

One strategy for focusing attention on circula-tion issues is to create either a circulation sub-committee of the planning board, or a circula-tion advisory committee with volunteer mem-bers of the public.

• The circulation sub-committee of the plan-ning board can dive in and tackle circulationissues in greater detail and devote the timeneeded to think these through, which may bedifficult to do with the full board, due to itsmany other responsibilities and commitments.The circulation sub-committee can hold itsown meetings, do the leg work, take testimo-ny from the public and from interested stake-holders and then present recommendations, asneeded, to the full board, for formal action.

• The circulation advisory committee, on theother hand, does not need to rely on appoint-ed officials and can be entirely drawn frominterested community members, and hopeful-ly include transportation professionals wholive in the community and are willing todonate their time and expertise for the benefitof the community at large. The circulationadvisory committee will report back to theplanning board and governing body, as need-ed. Some municipalities have also establishedmore specialized advisory committees to dealwith specific areas, such as bicycle andpedestrian issues, for example.

Leadership and coordination within and acrossmunicipal agencies is absolutely essential. Ifthe community has a parking commission or

Chapter Seven: Tools and Strategies for Implementation

L

88

authority, it is critical that the parking-relatedpolicies of the circulation plan element bereflected in the policies and practices of theparking commission or authority. Similarly, ifthe community has a recreation committee, anopen space advisory committee, an environ-mental commission, or a farmland preservationcommittee, it is essential that these bodies beinformed and up-to-date with respect to theintentions and strategies of the circulation plan,in particular any proposed new trails on exist-ing preserved open space, or on land proposedfor conservation, either through acquisition ordeed restriction. Circulation initiatives involv-ing the school age population or Board ofEducation properties will require the buy-in ofthe School Board, and perhaps the parents andschool children as well. The local policedepartment, fire and other emergency units,traffic and safety officers and all relevant unitsof local government need to be informed about

the circulation plan’s proposals and engaged intheir implementation.

Funding Local TransportationInitiativesWhile some of the proposals contained in thecirculation plan will come about as a result ofprivate sector actions, for example as a result ofdeveloper contributions or transportationimprovements required as part of site planapproval, many will require active public sectorintervention in order to be implemented. Thereare a bewildering number of grant programsavailable for transportation projects throughboth federal and state agencies, as well as avariety of other sources. Since most municipal-ities do not have in-house capabilities to track,prepare and submit what are often complexgrant applications, they must often rely on theirengineering consultants or on professionalgrant writers to flag these opportunities andsubmit proposals.

Municipal planning boards are authorizedunder the MLUL to create a local capitalimprovement program (NJS 40:55D-29) at therequest of the governing body. This program isfor a minimum of six years and may includeprojects already underway as well as futureprojects, regardless of the sources of funding. It

should prioritize projects and provide a time-line for completion.

The capital improvement plan can be a compre-hensive wish list of projects -- including trans-portation improvements -- for which the munic-ipality does not necessarily have funding. It is auseful tool for the purposes of planning publicand private investments, and it demonstrates tothe outside world that the municipality has aplan of action that is consistent with its otherplanning documents. The plan can be fundedthrough local appropriations or local bonding,as well as through third party contributions andgrants.

Capital improvement plans are particularlyvaluable when pursuing grants or private sectorcontributions because they provide the donorwith a clear picture of how the project forwhich the grant is sought fits coherently intothe bigger picture, as opposed to an ad-hocrequest.

One way for municipalities to capitalize andfund their capital improvement plan is throughdeveloper contributions. The MLUL allowsmunicipalities to require developers, as a con-dition of site plan approval, to fund those on-site improvements, including transportation

89

The absence of adequate pedestrian facilities on manyof our major arterials discourage many from walkingand put in harm's way those that do.

improvements, considered necessary to ade-quately address the proposed project impacts.

Municipalities can also establish, by ordinance,regulations requiring developers, as part of siteplan approval, to make financial contributionsto pay for off-tract transportation and otherinfrastructure improvements (NJS 40:55D-42).This mechanism is critical in dealing withimprovements that may not be fully justified byan individual development, but will be justifiedin light of the cumulative impacts of severaldevelopments. Based on its circulation plan andcapital improvement program, the municipalitymust establish an equitable mechanism to cal-culate each developer’s pro-rated share of eachtransportation project’s cost. Instead of makingthe developer responsible for building the off-tract improvement, the municipality collects afee, which is deposited in a trust fund. The feeis used to fund the improvement when it is jus-tified.

Municipalities may also solicit from developersvoluntary contributions to municipal escrowaccounts dedicated to specific types of invest-ments, including transportation improvements,if there is a rational nexus with the proposedproject. Municipalities must be extremely cau-tious in the types of contributions they solicit,

and must be careful to document the rationalnexus between the proposed development proj-ect and the desired improvement.

In New Jersey local governments in rapidlygrowing areas can raise funding from privatedevelopers for transportation improvements byestablishing Transportation ImprovementDistricts, either regionally or locally.

The Transportation Development District Actof 1989 (NJS 27:1c et seq) authorizes countiesand municipalities to create TransportationImprovement Districts (TIDs) and levy impactfees on developers of projects within the desig-nated TID for the purposes of funding off-tracttransportation improvements. The impact fee isassessed on individual real estate developmentprojects on a pro-rated basis and collected inaccordance with an adopted plan. The leadagency is presumed to be the county, to reflect

a more regional scope. However, both theNJDOT and individual municipalities can alsotake the lead in the absence of a county lead.TIDs are not intended to raise funding to solveexisting transportation shortcomings, only newtransportation problems that would result fromadditional development; and they are intendedto supplement, but not replace public invest-ment in the transportation infrastructure.

TIDs have had limited acceptance at the locallevel because (a) New Jersey, with a fewexceptions, is no longer a high growth state; (b)NJDOT rule requirements for TIDs place ahigh burden on local governments in terms ofpaperwork and due diligence; and (c) the front-end investment in assembling the traffic modelrequired to equitably allocate the pro-ratedshare to individual projects can be quite expen-sive. Consequently, most municipalities preferto let each individual developer shoulder theburden of the traffic studies for their particularproject and tackle the impacts in a piece mealfashion, on a project by project basis.

Local Funding EntitiesMunicipalities are able to fund all manner oftransportation improvements through their gen-eral capital fund. However, in tight economictimes it may be difficult for elected officials to

90

Speed tables and cross walks at intersections extend thepedestrian realm into the cartway and signal motoriststo slow down.

justify spending scarce public dollars on trans-portation improvements.

Local park departments often take the lead,either individually or in partnership with a not-for-profit organization, when it comes to build-ing trails, paths and bike paths through pre-served open space. These investments can befunded through the general budget, through pri-vate donations or both.

New Jersey also allows for the funding oftransportation improvements through a varietyof local entities, such as parking authorities,business improvement districts and urban enter-prise zones. Obviously not every communityhas created these entities, even when eligible todo so, and it would not necessarily make senseto do so just for the purpose of funding trans-portation improvements. However, where theseentities do exist, they can provide existingvehicles for infrastructure investments.

• Parking Authorities are authorized under NJS40:11A-22. Their mission, as their name sug-gest, is to develop and manage the supply ofmunicipal parking. However, parking authori-ties are authorized to undertake a broad rangeof activities related to parking, includingbuilding new streets and other circulation

infrastructure. Parking authorities generatetheir own revenue and, as such, can fundprojects that are not part of the municipalbudget.

• Business Improvement Districts are down-town management entities authorized underNJS 40:56-83. Their mission is to promoteeconomic development within their designat-ed district. Most BIDs have traditionallyfocused on creating and supporting a vibrantdowntown retail environment. However,BIDs can also tackle other downtown issues,

such as façade renovation programs, parkingand local circulation. While most BIDs donot have the budget to handle capital projects,they can underwrite the soft costs of projectdevelopment and apply for grants to fundcapital projects.

• The Urban Enterprise Zone program is aneconomic development program created bythe state in 1983. There are currently 32zones in 37 municipalities. Sales tax revenuesgenerated by businesses located in the desig-nated UEZs are dedicated for use within thezones for economic development projects,which can include investments in infrastruc-ture, such as roads and parking, as well asother circulation and transportation relatedcapital investments. According to theNJDCA, where the program currently resides,more than 2,281 such projects have beenapproved at a value of $774 million.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) –The three MPOs active in New Jersey act as aconduit for federal funding for both transporta-tion planning projects and capital projects. TheMPOs are required by federal law to develop20-year Regional Transportation Plans, andupdate them on a regular basis (every threeyears). These plans are intended to provide the

91

Providing adequate bicycle parking at key locations is a powerful sign ofcommitment to encouraging greateruse of this neglected mode of transportation.

basis and justification for all federally fundedprojects in the region. In order to qualify forthis funding, a municipality must get its projectapproved and incorporated into the plan. Theplan is fiscally-constrained and this process ishighly competitive, so it can take years foreven the most worthy projects to get funded.The plan is intended as a strategic document, soprojects of regional significance are supposedto receive priority over projects of just localsignificance.

The technical assistance and transportationplanning activities available through the MPOsis detailed in their Unified Planning WorkPrograms (UPWP). Municipalities seekingtechnical assistance or grant funding from theMPO for transportation planning must havetheir projects accepted and integrated into therespective UPWP, which is updated yearly.

Projects undertaken by the MPOs follow asequential three-step process, known as theProject Development Work Program (PDWP):concept development (project scoping, publicengagement), feasibility assessment (alterna-tives analysis and selection of preferred alterna-tive), and preliminary design (preliminary engi-neering and environmental review).

Once a municipal transportation project hasbeen accepted by the MPO, in order for it toget actually funded it must be included in theMPO’s Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). At that point the project goes to finaldesign and then out to bid for construction andexecution.

Because northern New Jersey is a “non-attain-ment” area in terms of air quality, as defined bythe USEPA, all projects included in the TIPmust demonstrate a net positive impact on airquality and conform to the goals adopted in theState Implementation Plan, the state’s air quali-ty mitigation policy.

State Funding – There are a variety of sourcesfor local grants and aid for municipally-spon-sored transportation projects, however these varyover time, depending upon the state’s fiscal capa-bilities. At present, many of these sources aredepleted and programs sometimes change inemphasis, or are de-funded, so it is best to stayup to date and closely monitor state fundingsources. Many of the funding programs – such asLocal Aid, Local Aid to Centers, TransportationEnhancements, Transit Villages, CongestionMitigation and Air Quality -- are administeredthrough NJDOT. All are discretionary, but proj-ects must satisfy eligibility requirements.

Funding for certain local transportation projectscan also be available through other state agen-cies – such as NJDCA (Small Cities,Community Development Block Grants) or theCasino Redevelopment Authority (CRDA).

Congressional Appropriations – In the past,some New Jersey municipalities have benefit-ted from direct Congressional appropriationsfor local transportation projects, also known as“earmarks”. This regime is currently underrenewed scrutiny and it is unclear what thefuture will bring.

ConclusionsFinding funding for local transportation proj-ects can be a very frustrating and time-consum-ing endeavor, particularly for the uninitiated. Itrequires perseverance, tenacity and a “don’ttake no for an answer” approach. But most of

92

Adequate bicycle parking at train stations extends thenon-motorized catchment area for transit and reducesthe need for car parking.

all it requires leadership and total commitment,which is often hard to achieve for over-workedand under-staffed local officials.

In the absence of municipal professionals withexperience in securing funding for transporta-tion projects, local officials have neverthelessseveral options they can rely on. One is to findand mobilize knowledgeable residents whomay be persuaded to do pro-bono work onbehalf of the community. A second option is toengage a competent grant writer. While theseprofessionals do not work for free, they can beextremely knowledgeable about the fundingprograms and the probability of receiving fund-ing. They can help the municipality navigatethe bewildering universe of public and privategrant funding available, and provide strategicdirection with respect to which programs topursue.

In these trying fiscal times it is easy to get dis-couraged, because funding may seem so out ofreach. But a compelling project that is part of awell thought out plan will have the support ofthose who stand to benefit and will appeal tothose who are seeking to move forward a smartand sustainable planning agenda. Good projectsare worth pursuing even in the most difficulttimes. Perhaps they need to be implemented in

phases, one step at a time. Maybe they movemore slowly than we would like. But if we donot start the journey, we will never reach ourdestination.

93

Additional ReadingFunding programs, funding levels and project selection criteria change frequently.As such, any source that seeks to compilethis information will be quickly out of date.To gain the most up-to-date informationregarding funding opportunities we recommend speaking with knowledgeableprofessionals and checking the publicagency websites.

Alta Planning + Design (2005) Caltrans Pedestrianand Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: ATechnical Reference and Technology TransferSynthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers,California Department of Transportation.(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestri-an/TR_MAY0405.pdf)

This large manual was designed to help CalTrans staffimplement measures to promote pedestrian and bicy-cle movement. Policies, planning approaches andspecific techniques (such as Pedestrian CrossingMedians and Refuges, Mid-Block Crosswalks,Skewed Intersections, Bicycle Pavement Markings“Sharrows”, and Bicycle Boulevards) are covered bythe manual.

American Society of Civil Engineers and NationalAssociation of Home Builders (1990) ResidentialStreets (Washington DC). A guide for traffic engineers on the design of residen-tial streets to control traffic, including many trafficcalming strategies.

Bailey, Linda (2004) Aging Americans: Stranded with-out Options Surface Transportation Policy Project.With one in five Americans over 65 unable to drive,this report calls for the federal government to take acomplete streets approach to transportation planning.

Bracale, William, Abram Van Elswyk and RodgerGutierrez (2004) Broadway Integration Plan.file://localhost/(http/::web.pdx.edu:~bertini:courses:454:Projects:2004:Montgomery.doc.)This monograph discusses alternatives to improve“cross-connectivity”. Proposes a blending of theHighway Capacity Manual pedestrian walkway level

of service and Calthorpe’s suggested density for a“lively pedestrian environment”.

Burden, Dan (2005) “Ten Keys to Walkable/LivableCommunities”, Center for Livable Communities,Local Government Commission.(http://www.lgc.org/freepub/community_design/arti-cles/ten_keys/index.html)This brief article provides some criteria for designingpedestrian friendly environments e.g., pedestriansrarely have to walk more than 150 feet from theirdirect lines-of-travel to reach crossings and rarelywait more than 30 seconds to start their crossings.

Burden, Dan and Peter Lagerway (1999) Road DietsFixing the Big Roads, Walkable Communities.(http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/roaddi-ets.pdf)Discusses traffic calming projects on arterials withexamples from many states.

Burden, Dan (2001) “Building Communities WithTransportation”, Distinguished Lecture Presentation,January 8, 2001, Transportation Research Board,Washington, D. C.(http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/trbpa-per.pdf)Focuses on the early steps of returning towns andpeople to smart growth, sustainable, people-focusedtransportation and land use practices. Illustrates road-way conditions that affect walking, bicycling, trafficcalming, transit access and street crossing.

Calthorpe, Peter (2002) “The Urban Network: ARadical Proposal,” Planning, American PlanningAssociation.

This article proposes new street designs to createpedestrian friendly corridors.

CMHC (2008) Taming the Flow — Better Traffic andSafer Neighbourhoods, Ottawa, Canadian Mortgageand Housing Corporation. (https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000143&productID=00000001430000000030)This study looks at street layouts and plans needed tofacilitate both walkability and the smooth flow ofvehicular traffic. It highlights the Fused Grid modelof street connectivity.

Complete Streets (2009). (www.completestreets.org)This website supports a campaign to promote road-way designs that accommodate all users and supportlocal planning objectives. The website has examplesof designs for complete streets and ordinances forsupporting them.

Congress for the New Urbanism (2009).(www.cnu.org)This website provides a number of presentations oncontext sensitive transportation and the transect aspart of their transportation summits. Also, the CNUNarrow Streets Database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/nar-row.htm) lists more flexible zoning codes for streetdesign from a variety of communities.

DEA & Associates (1999) Main Street…When aHighway Runs Through It, Transportation and GrowthManagement Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. ofEnvironmental Quality.(http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/publications.shtml)This comprehensive manual provides information onidentifying problems; possible solutions through

Annotated Literature Review: Traffic Calming, Transit Oriented Development,Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans

94

changes to Street Systems, Roadway Area Design,and Sidewalk Area Design; local revenue sourcesincluding grants and loans; as well as examples ofsuccessful projects.

DKS Associates (2002) Vancouver TrafficManagement Plan: Street Design to Serve BothPedestrians and Drivers, City of Vancouver,Washington. (www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/transporta-tion/ntmp/seindex.html)The guidelines included in this manual focus onmaintaining a safe and appealing pedestrian and traf-fic environment in a neighborhood street systemusing four strategies: street anatomy; traffic environ-ment; neighborhood street design, and tools forimproving the pedestrian environment.

Dowling, Richard, et al (2008) Multimodal Level OfService Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP Report616, Transportation Research Board.(http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf)This very technical methodology provides for theestimation of a separate mean level of service foreach of four modes of travel on the urban street: autodriver, bus passenger, bicyclist, and pedestrian.

Ewing, Reid (1999) Traffic Calming; State of thePractice, Federal Highway Administration andInstitute of Traffic Engineers.(www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop)This monograph contains a toolbox of traffic calmingmeasures, a discussion of legal authority and liability,and emergency response and other agency concernsand how to address them.

Ewing, Reid, Steven Brown and Aaron Hoyt (2005)“Traffic Calming Practice Revisited,” ITE Journal, Vol.75, No. 11 November 2005, pp. 22-28.(http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/JB05KA22.pdf)An update on the 1999 report on traffic calming withresults based on a survey of practices in twenty onejurisdictions.

FHWA (2009) Traffic Calming Website.(www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/index.htm)This Federal Highways Administration site provides avariety of examples of traffic calming planning.

Florida Department of Transportation (2001)Multimodal Transportation Districts and AreawideQuality of Service Handbook.(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf)Describes connectivity indices and other measures toassess the potential for areas likely to succeed asmulti-modal districts.

Freedman, Michael (2005) “Restructuring the Strip”Places 17.2.(http://www.ftscities.com/files/Restructuring_the_Strip_Places1702_0.pdf)Describes alternatives to strip design such as PeterCalthorpe’s design that splits the arterial thoroughfarearound the retail center using a one-way couplet.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (2006) ContextSensitive Solutions in Designing Major UrbanThoroughfares for Walkable Communities WahsingtonDC.This manual is the gold standard for road design toaccommodate bicycles, pedestrians, transit with crosssections and specifications for measures such aspedestrian refuges, medians, bike lanes, channelizedturn lanes, etc.

Jacobson, Justin and Ann Forsyth (2008) “SevenAmerican TODs: Good practices for urban design inTransit-Oriented Development projects” Journal ofTransport and Land Use 1:2 (Fall) pp. 51–88.(https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/viewPDFInterstitial/67/34)This paper provides an in depth analysis of sevenAmerican TOD projects in terms of urban design andconcludes with a discussion of “good practices” forfuture TOD projects focusing on developmentprocesses, place-making, and facilities.

Kueper, Daniel A. (2007) “Road Diet Treatment inOcean City, NJ, USA,” ITE Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2,February 2007, pp. 18–22. (http://www.ite.org/meet-con/2007AM/Session_01_Daniel%20Kueper.pdf)Powerpoint presentation of changes made to streetsin Ocean City, New Jersey and the results of thosechanges on traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

Langdon, Philip (2003) “How Traffic Calming AndContext-Sensitive Design Can Improve Small TownsBisected By State Routes” Planning, AmericanPlanning Association.Describes techniques for reclaiming a main streetfunction for state highways through small towns inNew Hampshire.

Litman, Todd (1999) Traffic Calming Costs, Benefitsand Equity Impacts, Victoria Transportation PolicyInstitute (www.vtpi.org/calming.pdf). This report details various costs and benefits of trafficcalming.

Local Government Commission (2009) (www.lgc.org)This website contains a variety of useful resources forneighborhood planning and traffic calming, including“Designing Safe Streets and Neighborhoods”, “TheEconomic Benefits of Walkable Communities" and“Why People Don't Walk and What City PlannersCan Do About It” fact sheets.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2006)Routine Accommodation of Pedestrians and Bicyclistsin the Bay Area.Describes why accommodations are routinely includ-ed and why they are not as well as case studies ofsuccessful projects.

Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders (2000)Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines An OregonGuide for Reducing Street Widths. (http://egov.ore-gon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/neighstreet.pdf)A how to guidebook for municipalities to reducestreet widths with chapters on including public par-ticipation in the process and very easy to read streetcross section designs.

95

Newman, Peter and Jeffrey Kenworthy (2006)“Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence”,Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban andMetropolitan Studies: Vol. 2: No. 1, Article 3. (http://repositories.cdlib.org/cssd/opolis/vol2/iss1/art3)Based on research in Australia, this article describes a“PedShed” with densities designed to replace a per-centage of automobile dependence with pedestrianmovement.

City of Ottawa (2004) Area Traffic ManagementGuidelines (Draft); Appendices, Department ofPublic Works and Services City of Ottawa.(http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2004/10-20/ACS2004-TUP-TRF-0012%20Appendix%20A-H.pdf)Lays out four approaches to managing traffic toincrease multi-modal movement: physical design,engineering, social design and environmental design.

Pedestrian Information Center (2009) (www.walking-info.org) This website provides a wealth of technical informa-tion on pedestrian and bike planning (includingwalkability audits) with numerous links to bike andpedestrian masterplans as well as many visuals show-ing traffic calming initiatives.

City of Portland (2009)(www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/traf-ficcalming)Provides information and materials on TrafficCalming and pedestrian planning. The TrafficCalming Devices section provides design details.(www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/TrafficCalming/devices/devices.htm)

Public Technology Institute (1998) Slow Down You’reGoing Too Fast, The Community Guide to TrafficCalming. (www.pti.org/index.php/ptiee1/inside/190)Provides an unintimidating introduction to trafficcalming.

Ronkin, Michael (2007) “Road Diets: DesigningStreets for Pedestrians and Bicycles”, New Partners

for Smart Growth, Los Angeles.Detailed Powerpoint presentation with cross sectionsand visuals of how to restripe roads to make themmore multi-modal without losing automobile capacity.

Rosales, Jennifer (2006) Road Diet Handbook:Setting Trends for Livable Streets, William BarclayParsons Fellowship Monograph 20, ParsonsBrinckerhoff.(www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf)Provides guidelines for evaluating potential candi-dates for road diets, and includes road designs andcase studies.

Sacramento Transportation and Air QualityCollaborative (2005) Best Practices for CompleteStreets.Suggests standards for local collector and arterialstreets for width, block length, connectivity, etc. aswell as describing planning for transit and re-devel-opment in constrained right-of-ways.

San Francisco Department of Public Health (2006)Neighborhood Physical Assessment Project.(http://www.sfphes.org/publications/Transportation_pubs/Tr_Neighborhood_Physical_Assessment_Survey.pdf)This article describes the design of an observationalsurvey that identifies barriers and opportunities forwalking in the physical environment. Three featuresare assessed: dimensions (e.g., sidewalk width vsnumber of roadway lanes), functionality (purpose ofthe feature), and aesthetics (e.g, presence of signage).

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (2000)Community Design and Transportation Best Practices.This comprehensive document identifies design,transportation and regulatory standards that supportand hinder best practices (e.g., rigid LOS standardsthat preclude higher density even if there is hightransit use).

Schaller Consulting (2006) Curbing Cars: Shopping,Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo, TransportationAlternatives. (www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaim-

ing/soho_curbing_cars.pdf)New York City ped/bike advocates website with var-ied campaigns including minimizing parking to allowfor multi-modal use.

City of Seattle (1996) Making Streets that Work, Cityof Seattle. (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm).Guidebook for residents on how to request variousstreet improvements, including traffic calming.

Stillings, Timothy and Ian Lockwood (2001) WestPalm Beach Traffic Calming: The Second Generation,Transportation Research Board Circular E-C019:Urban Street Symposium. (www.nas.edu/trb/publica-tions/ec019/ec019_i5.pdf)This article describes how traffic calming in WestPalm Beach accomplished more than a reduction inspeeds; it also promoted revitalization of downtownstreets, hence the transition to a “second generation”of traffic calming.

Stout, Thomas B., et al (2006) “Safety Impacts of‘Road Diets’ in Iowa,” ITE Journal, vo. 76, No. 12December 2006, pp. 24–27. (www.ite.org)Discusses findings in Iowa of greater safety that dif-fered from previous studies in California.

TAC (1999) Canadian Guide To Traffic Calming,Transportation Association of Canada. (www.tac-atc.ca)A comprehensive and technical guide to traffic calm-ing for both transportation planners and engineers.

Traffic Calming Website (2009) (http://mn-traffic-calming.org)Prepared by the Minnesota Local Road ResearchBoard, the website provides information on trafficcalming planning and evaluation.

Transportation for Livable Communities (2009)(www.tlcnetwork.org)This website provides transportation and land useplanning resources to create more livable communi-ties.

96

Transportation Research Board Report 33: Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic ManagementStrategies to Support Livable Communities.(http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_33.pdf)This monograph describes design and traffic manage-ment strategies for transit-friendly streets using fivestrategies: provide adequately sized sidewalks; pro-vide amenities for pedestrians and transit riders; cre-ate priority lanes for transit vehicles; initiate traffic-calming measures for automobiles; and redesignintersections and modify signalization.

Walkable Communities (2009) (www.walkable.org)This website helps create people-oriented rather thancar-oriented environments.

Welch, Thomas (2001) The Conversion of Four-LaneUndivided Urban Roadways to Three-Lane Facilities,Transportation Research Board Circular E-C019:Urban Street Symposium. (www.trb.org)This monograph provides technical guidelines forreducing street widths and outlines financial benefits.

Zegeer, Charles, et al (2002) Pedestrian FacilitiesUser Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility,Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center HighwaySafety Research Center, Federal HighwayAdministration, Publication FHWA-RD-01-102.(http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/peduserguide/peduserguide.pdf)This guidebook describes designs for safe streets forpedestrian use.

Zykofsky, Paul (1999) “Why Build Near Transit?”,Center for Livable Communities, Local GovernmentCommission. (http://www.lgc.org/freepub/communi-ty_design/articles/why_build_near_transit/index.html)This brief article describes the economic and socialbenefits of transit-oriented development.

97