The Benefits of Complete Streets

Regional Examples:

Costs Associated with Complete Streets:

A common concern about implementing Complete Streets is the additional costs required to accommodate all modes of travel. The price of routinely accommodating all road users, however, is comparatively small on a project by project basis. Incorporating elements of Complete Streets during roadway construction projects or routine maintenance is also cheaper than retrofitting a facility later. For example, striping bicycle lanes while resurfacing a street would add little additional cost to a project, whereas returning to the same roadway afterwards solely to create a bikeway would be more expensive. It makes financial sense to routinely consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders during the process of designing and constructing roadways, rather than separately. Adopting a Complete Streets policy does not force a municipality or county to provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure when it is financially impractical either. A key element of most Complete Streets policies is to specify exemptions for circumstances when the cost of providing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations is excessively disproportionate to the cost of the entire project. Many communities set a threshold for how much they are willing to spend to accommodate modes other than the automobile (i.e. 20% of total project costs). Implementing Complete Streets supports economic development and tourism and adds value to a community, as safe, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly communities are desirable places to live and work. Communities that adopt a Complete Streets policy also have a competitive edge on Local Aid grant applications, providing them the opportunity to attract even more funding assistance. Building Complete Streets provides long-term financial and environmental benefits, which far outweigh the relatively small upfront costs.

Liability and Complete Streets:

Liability is another concern about implementing Complete Streets. Building Complete Streets, however, does not create greater liability risks than any other roadway projects. The underlying presumption of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (N.J.S.A 59) is that public entities are immune from liability. This immunity attaches to any roadway planning and design project that is approved by an official body and conforms to previously approved standards. (i.e. AASHTO, MUTCD). Further, the Tort Claims Act is mode-neutral, meaning that the process of designing, planning, and constructing roadways for bicyclists and pedestrians is subject to the same legal standards as any other roadway project. Thus, if the design and construction of a bicycle or pedestrian facility follows the usual legal procedures and standards like any other roadway project, immunity will attach. While there are exceptional circumstances in which liability may attach, they are no different than what public entities are already subject to with any transportation project. Accommodating all road users does not expose communities to any greater liability risks – it is actually better than doing nothing. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) even states, “highway and recreational facilities that fail to fully incorporate the needs of all users increase the likelihood of potential court settlements in favor of those who are excluded.”