Complete Streets Chicago

Department of Transportation
Design Guidelines
2013 Edition
1
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2013 Edition
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................2
COMMISSIONERS STATEMENT.................................................4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................13
1.1 Purpose and Need..........................................................
13
1.2 Pedestrian Fir
st...............................................................14
1.3 Key Them
es....................................................................15
1.4 Compliance &
Oversight...................................................16
1.5 Coordination with Other Efforts and Agencies...................18
1.6 L e g a l
Resources..............................................................20
CHAPTER TWO: TYPOLOGY.......................................................27
2.1 Typology Sets................................................................2
8
2.2 T y p o l o g y
Tables..............................................................30
2.3 Typology Protocols........................................................65
CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN GUIDANCE.......................................79
3.1 M o d a l
Hierarchy............................................................79
3.2 Design Tre
es..................................................................82
3.3 C r o s s - S e c t i o n
Elements....................................................89
3.4 Intersections.................................................................96
3.5 Geometric and Operational Policies.................................110
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION........................................121
4.1 Project Delivery
Process..................................................121
4.2 M e a s u r i n g
Success.......................................................130
4.3 Arterial Resurfacing
Program..........................................131
4.4 Pilot Projects...............................................................132
MOVING FORWARD..............................................................133
APPENDIX.............................................................................134
1
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2013 Edition
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................2
COMMISSIONERS STATEMENT.................................................4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................13
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED..........................................................13
1.2 PEDESTRIAN FIRST...............................................................14
1.3 KEY THEMES....................................................................15
1.4 COMPLIANCE & OVERSIGHT...................................................16
1.5 COORDINATION WITH OTHER EFFORTS AND AGENCIES...................18
1.6 LEGAL RESOURCES..............................................................20
CHAPTER TWO: TYPOLOGY.......................................................27
2.1 TYPOLOGY SETS................................................................28
2.2 TYPOLOGY TABLES..............................................................30
2.3 TYPOLOGY PROTOCOLS........................................................65
CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN GUIDANCE.......................................79
3.1 MODAL HIERARCHY............................................................79
3.2 DESIGN TREES..................................................................82
3.3 CROSS-SECTION ELEMENTS....................................................89
3.4 INTERSECTIONS.................................................................96
3.5 GEOMETRIC AND OPERATIONAL POLICIES.................................110
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION........................................121
4.1 PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS..................................................121
4.2 MEASURING SUCCESS.......................................................130
4.3 ARTERIAL RESURFACING PROGRAM..........................................131
4.4 PILOT PROJECTS...............................................................132
MOVING FORWARD..............................................................133
APPENDIX.............................................................................134
2
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 DRIVING ON CHICAGOS STREETS HAS FALLEN IN THE PAST 15 YEARS........................................................................................13
FIGURE 2 PEDESTRIAN FIRST MODAL HIERARCHY........................................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 3 FOUR KEY COMPLETE STREETS THEMES.......................................................................................................................................15
FIGURE 4 COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE...........................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 5 DIAGRAM OF VARIOUS RELATED EFFORTS....................................................................................................................................19
FIGURE 6 CONVERSION CHART FOR CDOT STREET TYPOLOGY AND FHWA FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM....................................30
FIGURE 7 BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION..............................................................................................................................................31
FIGURE 8 ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION............................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 9 INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS.............................................................................................................................................44
FIGURE 10 OVERLAYS...............................................................................................................................................................................51
FIGURE 11 SAMPLE CITYWIDE TYPOLOGY MAPS........................................................................................................................................63
FIGURE 12 TYPOLOGY MAPPING FLOW CHART.........................................................................................................................................65
FIGURE 13 NORTH MILWAUKEE AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS, OVERLAYS AND TYPOLOGIES MAPS........................................................68
FIGURE 14 NORTH MILWAUKEE AVENUE CRASH MAPS..............................................................................................................................70
FIGURE 15 WEST 26TH STREET AND SOUTH CENTRAL PARK AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS, OVERLAYS AND TYPOLOGIES MAPS...............72
FIGURE 16 WEST 26TH STREET AND SOUTH CENTRAL PARK AVENUE CRASH MAPS.....................................................................................74
FIGURE 17 ILLUSTRATIVE VOLUME DIAGRAMS.............................................................................................................................................77
FIGURE 18 VOLUME AND SPEED DIAGRAMS..............................................................................................................................................77
FIGURE 19 DESIGN TREE FOR MIXED-USE...................................................................................................................................................83
FIGURE 20.1 ASSEMBLAGE TABLE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET.................................................................................................................85
FIGURE 20.2 ASSEMBLAGE TABLE FOR MAIN STREET...................................................................................................................................86
FIGURE 20.3 ASSEMBLAGE TABLE FOR CONNECTOR..................................................................................................................................87
FIGURE 20.4 ASSEMBLAGE TABLE FOR THOROUGHFARE.............................................................................................................................88
3
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
FIGURE 21 CROSS-SECTION ELEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................89
FIGURE 22 VARIOUS PEDESTRIAN REALM AND INTERSTITIAL AREA ARRANGEMENTS....................................................................................91
FIGURE 23 DIAGRAM OF THE CURB AREA.................................................................................................................................................92
FIGURE 24 CROSSWALK AND TURN LANE AT MEDIAN..............................................................................................................................95
FIGURE 25 COMPACT AND COMPLEX INTERSECTIONS...............................................................................................................................96
FIGURE 26 CONVERTING AN X - INTERSECTION INTO TWO TS; SQUARING OFF A Y - JUNCTION..............................................................97
FIGURE 27 NETWORK MITIGATION SCENARIO..........................................................................................................................................98
FIGURE 28 OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE PAVEMENT AT INTERSECTIONS......................................................................................99
FIGURE 29 TURNING SPEED AND RADIUS REFERENCE CHART....................................................................................................................101
FIGURE 30 CORNER DESIGN CONCEPTS.................................................................................................................................................103
FIGURE 31 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY SELECTION METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................104
FIGURE 32 CROSSWALK SELECTION CRITERIA..........................................................................................................................................105
FIGURE 33 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND CONCEPTS................................................................................................................................107
FIGURE 34 SAMPLE TRACKING SURVEY....................................................................................................................................................108
FIGURE 35 DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONCEPTS..............................................................................................................................................109
FIGURE 36 TURNS ON RED RESTRICTIONS...............................................................................................................................................114
FIGURE 37 DL-23 PROFILE AND TURNING TEMPLATE.................................................................................................................................115
FIGURE 38 SPEED CONCEPTS..................................................................................................................................................................118
FIGURE 39 COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS OVERVIEW....................................................................................................123
FIGURE 40 COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS, STAGES 1 - 6................................................................................................124
FIGURE 41 HUMBOLDT BOULEVARD ROAD DIET PILOT PROJECT.................................................................................................................132
LIST OF FIGURES
4
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
COMMISSIONERS STATEMENT
Chicagoans experience city life through its
streets in our daily commutes, street fairs and
block parties, and even the view from our front
porches. Public activity and neighborhood
vitality often reect the nature of surrounding
streets. We must build and maintain our
roads for healthy business districts, vibrant
neighborhoods, and high quality of life and
move away from the narrow perspectives of
the past. We must measure success on safety,
choices, and livability.
Chicago residents need places to gather,
conduct business, and recreate. We need
systems that support choices to walk, bike, and
connect to transit. Our street design should be
reective of our city; the historic boulevards,
the elevated trains, the lakefront trail. Today,
we are building a new Chicago for the next
100 years. When we say complete streets,
we mean designing streets for people. We
mean designing for all users and all modes.
We mean looking past the project level, to the
surrounding community and economic systems.
We mean protecting our most vulnerable
users and eliminating pedestrian and bicyclist
deaths.
Complete Streets Chicago builds upon
Chicagos 2006 complete streets policy. That
policy inuenced our Bikeway Design Guide
and Bike 2015 Plan and began creating
complete streets. The Chicago Department of
Transportation (CDOT) has now launched its
Streets for Cycling 2020 plan and Chicago
Pedestrian Plan. This new policy and design
guide will bridge these and similar planning
efforts. It denes our processes, standards,
and expected outcomes.
Complete Streets Chicago is the result of an
integrated and inclusive process. CDOTs
divisions were asked to look at methods for
project delivery, measurement, and standards
to identify areas for improvement. We went
outside the agency to improve upon state-
level project coordination. I applaud CDOT
staff for contributions to this guide and their
commitment to building complete streets.
CDOTs mission is to keep the citys surface
transportation networks and public way safe
for users, environmentally sustainable, in a
state of good repair and attractive, so that
its diverse residents, businesses and guests
all enjoy a variety of quality transportation
options, regardless of ability or destination.
We all want better, safer streets. This effort will
bring the City closer to this goal.
Gabe Klein
Commissioner, Department of Transportation
5
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PEDESTRIAN
TRANSIT
BICYCLE
AUTO
1
2
3
4
The Chicago Department of Transportation
(CDOT) works to ensure that our streets are
safe and designed for all users. The City of
Chicagos Complete Streets policy states:
The safety and convenience of all users of the
transportation system including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, freight, and motor
vehicle drivers shall be accommodated and
balanced in all types of transportation and
development projects and through all phases
of a project so that even the most vulnerable
children, elderly, and persons with disabilities
can travel safely within the public right-of-
way.
CDOT issues Complete Streets Chicago:
Design Guidelines to implement this policy.
To create complete streets, CDOT has
adopted a pedestrian-rst modal hierarchy.
All transportation projects and programs,
from scoping to maintenance, will favor
pedestrians rst, then transit riders, cyclists,
and automobiles.
This paradigm will balance Chicagos streets
and make them more complete. In addition,
street design will be conducted in a manner
that supports context and modal priorities and
is not limited by rigid engineering standards.
This will allow staff to develop innovative
solutions that meet the over-arching goal of a
complete street.

6
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Including modal hierarchy, Complete Streets
Chicago has four key themes.

Typology
Typology classies streets by roadway function
and surrounding context, including right-of-
way width, building type, and land use. It
will serve as a methodology to ensure that the
design and use of a street will complement the
surrounding area, and vice versa.
Design Values
Design values provide exible guidance for
accommodating and balancing when making
decisions. Design trees provide guidance
towards the range of street design options.
They can be used top down (given modal
hierarchy and typology) or bottom up (given
available right-of-way). They are intended to
provide a simple and effective means to weigh
street design options, given a various range of
conditions.
Streets cannot be complete without proper
intersections and crossings. The policies
and procedures focus on creating compact
and safe junctions. They provide pragmatic
guidance such as planning the width of a
pedestrian refuge island to protect a person
pushing a stroller, and directing designers to
slow drivers from highway speeds before they
arrive at the city street intersection.
T
y
p
o
l
o
g
y












D
e
s
i
g
n

V
a
l
u
e
s
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s






M
o
d
a
l

H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
Key
Complete Streets
Themes
PEDESTRIAN
REALM
PEDESTRIAN
REALM
INTERSTITIAL
AREA
INTERSTITIAL
AREA VEHICLE
REALM
MEDIAN
Stoop Area
Door Zone
Yards
Building Setbacks
Walkways
Trees
Sidewalk Furniture
Driveways
Stoop Area
Door Zone
Yards
Building Setbacks
Walkways
Trees
Sidewalk Furniture
Driveways
Curbs
Bicycle Lanes
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Parking
Turn Lanes
Curbs
Bicycle Lanes
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Parking
Turn Lanes
Bus Lanes
Travel Lanes
Bicycle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Travel Lanes
Bicycle Lanes
Landscaping
Pedestrian Refuges
Bus-rapid Transit
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Turn Lanes
VEHICLE
REALM
7
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Mode
Hierarchy
Building Form
and Function
Roadway Form
and Function
Cross
Sections
COMPLETE STREET DESIGN TREES - Pedestrian, Mixed-Use.
p.m.pw
p.m.th
p.m.cn
p.m.ms
p.m.ns
p.m.sw
Target Speed
Volume - ADT
ROW Width
P > T > B > A
Parks Residential Mixed-Use Commercial
Center
Downtown Institutional/
Campus
Industrial
P R M C D IC IN
PEDESTRIAN
T > P > B > A B > P > A > T A > P > T > B
TRANSIT BICYCLE AUTO
5 to 10 mph 10 to 20 mph 20 to 30 mph 15 to 25 mph
Service Way
SW
Varies
Varies
Neighborhood
Street
NS
< 5,000 Vehicles
Varies
Main Street
MS
Connector
CN
Thoroughfare
TH
< 10,000 Vehicles
66 feet
< 25,000 Vehicles
80 feet
> 20,000 Vehicles
> 100 feet
Pedestrian Way
PW
Varies
25 to 30 mph
Label Code =
mode.building.roadway
8
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
RAMP WIDTH = CROSSWALK WIDTH = CUT IN MEDIAN
6
6
CDOTs geometric and operational policies
are established to support the modal
hierarchy. The agency will begin using more
performance-based guidance including
designing streets for target speeds, which will
be at or below the speed limit. Level of service
for motor vehicles will be consistent with modal
hierarchy. A new design vehicle, based on a
delivery truck, will ensure that neighborhood
streets remain neighborhood streets.

Procedures
CDOTs project delivery process is dened in
six steps - project selection, scoping, design,
construction, measurement, and maintenance -
with feedback loops, stakeholder involvement,
and approval processes. The process can be
scaled to t the size of the individual project,
from repaving to reconstruction. A complete
streets notebook claries important tasks within
each step.
Chicago Forward: Department of
Transportation Action Agenda calls for
reducing total crashes and injuries in the
city by 10% every year, a 50% reduction in
bicycle and pedestrian injuries by 2017, and
the elimination of trafc fatalities by 2022.
In addition, Chicago Forward has called for
an increase in the share of all trips under
ve miles made by cycling to at least 5%. It
is through these policies and procedures that
CDOT intends to achieve these goals.
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,200,000
8,000,000
7,800,000
7,600,000
7,400,000
7,200,000
7,000,000
6,800,000
6,600,000
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
Chicago Non-Interstate AVMT (Thousands)
22.60
3.15 12.96
O2
Width
Track
Lock to Lock time
Steering Angle
feet
: 7.12
: 7.12
: 6.0
: 42.0
9
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1
2
3
4
5
6
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
GOAL: Identify and promote projects that advance Complete Streets
GOAL: Address all modes - consider land use and roadway context
GOAL: Address objectives defined during scoping stage
GOAL: Ensure project is built as designed for Complete Streets
GOAL: Measure the effectiveness of the Complete Street
GOAL: Ensure all users are accommodated through the projects lifespan
ENGAGE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS
ENGAGE AGENCIES & DEPARTMENTS
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

l
o
o
p
external:
alderman requests
311
developments
internal:
pavement condition
strategic planning
safety
moving forward:
needs analysis
performance
easy wins
cross section:
develop alternatives
address all modes
community needs
intersection design:
geometric layout
signal timing
modal conflict points
trade-offs:
exceptions process
modal hierarchy
allow for feedback
issues and conflicts:
refer to project manager
address problems
do not sacrifice modal components
opportunities:
communicate priorities to contractors
allow for design improvements
reward efficiency
safety:
no exceptions
decrease severity
normalize measures
modeshare:
measure people
establish targets
favor bike and walk
others:
health and economic impacts
transit consistency and travel times
process streamlining, coordination, and feedback
coordinate:
include maintenance staff in scoping (2)
include maintenance staff in design (3)
funding:
program funds for maintenance
maintenance should not limit complete designs
find key opportunities to interface
with community groups, residents,
and business owners - allow
projects to be influenced by lessons
learned through outreach efforts
coordinate CDOT projects and measure-
ment with external agencies and other
city departments to assure the best use
of resources and meet multiple objectives
through complete design processes
*
+
+
*
+
+
project needs:
existing conditions
modal deficiencies
plans and funding
exceptions:
prohibited modes
cost vs. benefit
no foreseen use
desired outcomes:
community needs
system opportunities
modal hierarchy
*
Step 5: Prepare Final Design
Step 4: Obtain Feedback
Step 3: Evaluate Impact
Step 2: Develop Design
Step 1: Draft Alternatives
Step 6: Revisit Objectives
Step 5: Set Mode Hierarchy
Step 4: Assemble Data
Step 3: Conduct Site Visits
Step 2: Perform Research
Step 1: Establish Objectives
Scoping:
Design:
stage
stage
stage
stage
stage
stage
+
10
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SPEEDER WANTS ALL STREET: Motorist Complains to Judge Because Pedestrian Gets in Way. COURT FINES...
Chicago Daily Tribune (1872-1922); May 6, 1913;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: ChicagoTribune(1849-1988)
pg. 5
Chicago Tribune, May 6, 1913.
CDOT will launch pilot projects to win support
for complete streets while enabling staff to ne
tune for better overall solutions. The arterial
resurfacing program will be steered towards
prioritizing streets that need improved walking,
cycling and transit facilities.
A Complete Streets Compliance Committee
will be charged with implementing, updating
and enforcing this guide. Staff-led working
groups will clarify the policies and procedures
in this document and work with other agencies
to facilitate a common understanding and
approach. This includes working with the
Department of Housing and Economic
Development, the Chicago Transit Authority,
and the Illinois Department of Transportation.
With this guide, the City begins implementing
Chicago Forward Action Agenda and the
Chicago Pedestrian Plan goals. These policies
will benet the physical and mental health and
economic vitality of the entire city.
At the dawn of the automobile age a local
judge stated that the streets of Chicago
belong to the city, not to the automobilists.
Nearly a century later, Complete Streets seeks
to make it true.
11
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
South Chicago Avenue Road Diet
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
13
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Almost all trips begin and end with walking.
Reecting that, the pedestrian will be the
beginning and end of CDOTs new design and
implementation process.
These policies and procedures provide the
tools and strategies to design the Citys streets
and transportation infrastructure for all users
and modes, and to maximize their social and
environmental benets.
1.1 Purpose and Need
To create complete, safe and
sustainable streets in the City
of Chicago.
To provide simple, on-
point design guidance that
empowers CDOT staff.
To provide a clear process
and direction.
Following Mayor Richard M. Daleys public
release of the Chicago Complete Streets
Policy in 2006, CDOT issued a brief internal
memo that outlined a few design strategies to
implement the policy in CDOT projects. CDOT
has successfully incorporated complete design
elements into many of its projects, but the
department lacked a comprehensive strategy
for policy implementation.
In 2010 CDOT issued the Complete Streets
Policy Implementation report, which assessed
the departments efforts to address the 2006
policy. The report recommended developing
a design guide, establishing a Compliance
Committee, and creating a dedicated staff
position to manage the implementation of
complete streets. Complete Streets Chicago is
the design guide recommended in that report.
The report also recognized that in the latter
half of the 20th century roadways were
built to optimize motor vehicle trafc while
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit were often
neglected. Recent evidence suggests that
people are driving less on Chicagos streets.
Annual vehicle miles traveled attened out
between 1997 and 2004 around 8.2 billion,
and has been falling steady every year since
to just over 7.2 billion in 2011 (Figure 1). This
parallels national data showing annual vehicle
miles traveled peaked in 2005
2
and has been
steadily declining since.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Chicagos Complete
Streets Policy
The safety and convenience of all users
of the transportation system including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users,
freight, and motor vehicle drivers shall be
accommodated and balanced in all types
of transportation and development projects
and through all phases of a project so that
even the most vulnerable children, elderly,
and persons with disabilities can travel
safely within the public right-of-way
1
.
1
Mayoral Executive Order, October 10, 2006
2
Urban Vehicle Miles Travelled (per lane mile). As referenced in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Table 1-36:
Roadway VMT and VMT per Lane-Mile by Functional Class
FIGURE 1
8,600,000
8,400,000
8,200,000
8,000,000
7,800,000
7,600,000
7,400,000
7,200,000
7,000,000
6,800,000
6,600,000
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
Chicago Non-Interstate AVMT (Thousands)
Driving on Chicagos streets has fallen in
the past 15 years
3
3
Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
AVMT
14
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
These policies and procedures can help
Chicago adjust to these trends. Reversing
the effect of over 50 years of auto-focused
development requires a new paradigm, but
it should not require another 50 years. The
pedestrian-rst modal hierarchy resets CDOTs
default premise.
Complete Streets Chicago will inuence all
decisions and actions within CDOT, from
the big picture (project prioritization, level
of service analysis) to design details such
as cross-section selection, geometric design
and signal timing. Decisions made everyday
within CDOT at all levels will lead toward
more complete streets: streets that add value to
residents, commerce and visitors at the street,
neighborhood and citywide levels.
1.2 Pedestrian First
To further implementation of complete streets
in Chicago, CDOT will begin operating under
a pedestrian-rst policy, see Figure 2. The
walking public will be given primacy in the
design and operation of all CDOT projects
and programs, from capital to maintenance.
Transit will come second in this new order,
followed by Bicycle then Automobiles
(private motor vehicles). This inversion of the
dominant, auto-based paradigm will allow
the citys transportation network to grow
safely, sustainably and equitably into the 21st
Century.
PEDESTRIAN
TRANSIT
BICYCLE
AUTO
1
2
3
4
FIGURE 2
Pedestrian First Modal Hierarchy
15
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.3 Key Themes
To effect this change, these policies and
procedures address four key themes, see
Figure 3:
modal hierarchy - the design and
operation of CDOT facilities will prioritize
modes in this order: pedestrians >
transit > bicycle > automobiles. In some
circumstances, the hierarchy may be
adjusted somewhat, such as transit along
a BRT corridor or bikes along a protected
bike lane corridor. Modal hierarchy
will inuence cross-sections, intersection
design, signal timing, maintenance
scheduling, and other agency operations.
See Chapter 3.
typology - departing from the
traditional, highway-based
functional classication system,
CDOT projects will be seen through
the lens of roadway and building
typology. This system is built on a
more holistic consideration of a streets
component parts, from roadway width
and sidewalk use to building form and
function. See Chapter 2.
design values - this document establishes
policies to support complete streets, see
Chapter 3.
procedures - the project delivery process
is key to delivering complete streets. Long
after this document has been published,
committed CDOT staff will need to
continue to work together to advance the
change envisioned. See Chapter 4.


T
y
p
o
l
o
g
y












D
e
s
i
g
n

V
a
l
u
e
s


P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s






M
o
d
a
l

H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
Key
Complete Streets
Themes
FIGURE 3
Four Key Complete
Street Themes
16
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.4 Compliance &
Oversight
A Complete Streets Compliance Committee
will be charged with implementing, updating
and enforcing this guide. Staff-led working
groups will clarify the policies and procedures
in this document and work with other agencies
to facilitate a common understanding and
approach. This includes working with the
Department of Housing and Economic
Development, the Chicago Transit Authority,
and the Illinois Department of Transportation.
The committee will be comprised of ve
members representing Managing Deputy
Commissioner (de facto chair), Engineering
Division, Project Development Division,
Department of Housing and Economic
Development, Complete Streets Manager,
see Figure 4. The compliance committee
should meet monthly and develop a work plan
annually to guide implementation.

Complete
Streets
Compliance
Committee
Engineering
Division
Project
Development
Division
Department
of Housing and
Economic
Development
Complete
Streets
Manager
Managing
Deputy
Commissioner
(de facto
chair)
FIGURE 4
Complete Streets Compliance Committee
17
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.4.1 Exceptions
These policies and procedures apply to all
City-owned, controlled, and/or operated
streets and intersections. A primary role of the
Compliance Committee will be to evaluate the
instances where it is prudent to deviate from
the requirements herein, for example:
A limited access roadway (from which
pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited)
or a pedestrian only street need not
accommodate the prohibited modes.
The cost of establishing facilities for a
particular mode would be excessively
disproportionate to the need or probable
future use.
There is an indisputable lack of need for
a particular mode at present and in the
future.
A particular location requires a design
value exception.
Project managers should broach these
questions during scoping. The committee will
review the issue and make a recommendation
to the CDOT commissioner, who will determine
whether to grant exceptions. The committee
will also decide on alternate approaches.
1.4.2 Working Groups
The Compliance Committee will establish
working groups. These groups will be charged
with vetting the complete streets processes and
recommendations, determining procedures,
and providing feedback for future policy
revisions.
1. Compliance Committee - clarify
composition and protocols.
2. Typology - further develop the
typologies in Chapter 2 with
the Department of Housing and
Economic Development (DHED), and
incorporate it into a transportation
master plan and the zoning code.
3. Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) - determine protocols
for better incorporating GIS
mapping, see Chapter 2.
4. Operations - nalize the Level
of Service (LOS), Trafc Control
Devices (TCD) and Right Turn on
Red (RTOR) policies described in
Chapter 3, including the possibility
that LOS would not be used at all.
5. Project Development Process - nalize
the process described in Chapter 4.
6. Performance Measures - nalize the
measures described in Chapter 4.
7. Arterial Resurfacing - steer this
program towards prioritizing
streets that need improved walking,
cycling and transit facilities or
those that could benet from a
road diet, see Chapter 4.
8. Illinois DOT (IDOT) Coordination
- continue to work with IDOT
in applying these policies and
procedures to joint projects.
9. Maintenance of Trafc, Utilities -
ensure streets remain usable by all
modes during roadwork, utility work
and other construction projects.
18
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.5 Coordination
with Other Efforts and
Agencies
This project complements other efforts within
CDOT, the City of Chicago, Cook County
and IDOT. Recent parallel initiatives include
the Chicago Forward Action Agenda, the
Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020, the
Chicago Pedestrian Plan, the Sustainable
Urban Infrastructure Guidelines and Policies,
and the Make Way for Play project. Many
prior projects like the Streetscape Guidelines,
the Street and Site Plan Design Guide, and
the Bikeway Design Guide informed and
complemented this effort. Figure 5 illustrates
how these policies and procedures t within
other efforts.
This document is designed to work with the
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Guidelines
and Policies. These two guidelines propose
the same process of project development
and design decision-making. Together they
work to create a safe, convenient, and
sustainable transportation system that supports
pedestrians, transit, bicyclists, automobiles,
freight, and the environment.
1.5.1 Coordination with Illinois
DOT
The application of these policies and
procedures to joint IDOT-CDOT projects within
the city is the subject of ongoing discussions.
As noted above, a working group has been
established to collaborate between the
agencies. CDOTs policy is to work toward
completing all of Chicagos streets, regardless
of jurisdiction.

19
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
P
O
L
I
C
I
E
S
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
/
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
M
O
D
E
S
Chicago Climate
Action Plan
GOTO 2040
City of Chicago:
Adding Green to
Urban Design
Chicago Forward:
DOT Action Agenda
Streets for
Cycling Plan
Pedestrian
Plan
Chicago Trails
Plan
Complete
Streets
Streetscape
Guidelines
Street and Site
Plan Design
Guidelines
PBC Site
Development
Guidelines
Regulations for
Sewer construction
and Stormwater
Management
Sustainable
Urban Infrastructure
Guidelines and
Policies
Landscape
Ordinance
Stormwater
Ordinance
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Regulations for
Openings, Construc-
tion and Repair in
the Public Way
Complete Streets
Policy
FIGURE 5
Diagram of Various Related Efforts
20
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.6 Legal Resources
Local jurisdictions generally follow some
established standards for designing streets.
Much confusion exists as to what they must
follow, what is merely guidance, when they
can adopt their own standards, and when
they can use designs that differ from existing
standards. The text below untangles the myriad
of accepted design documents. It is critical
for cities and counties to understand how
adopting a complete streets design manual
meshes with other standards and guides. The
most important of those standards and guides
are the following:
The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Ofcials
(AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets (the Green
Book)
Illinois DOTs Bureau of Design and
Environment Manual (BDE)
Ilinois DOTs Bureau of Local Roads and
Streets Manual (BLR)
Other local manuals or street design
standards
The Manual on Uniform Trafc Control
Devices (MUTCD)
The Illinois Fire Code
Illinois Vehicle Code
A discussion of the federal-aid roadway
classication system helps to frame the
requirements of each of these documents. Local
governments that wish to use certain federal
funds must use a functional classication
system based on arterials, collectors, and
local streets. These funds are for streets and
roads that are on the federal-aid system.
Only arterials and certain collector streets
are on this system. The federal aid system
encourages cities to designate more of these
larger streets, and to concentrate modications
along these larger streets. Complete streets
design often recommends using a system of
street typologies to supplement the functional
classication system. To maintain access to
these federal funds, local jurisdictions can use
both systems.
Lawrence Ave Road Diet - Existing Conditions
21
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.6.1 AASHTO Green Book
The Green Book provides guidance for
designing geometric alignment, street width,
lane width, shoulder width, medians, and
other street features. The Green Book applies
only to streets and roads that are part of
the National Highway System (NHS). These
are Interstate Freeways, principal routes
connecting to them, and roads important to
strategic defense. These streets and roads
comprise about 4% of all roadway miles
4
.
Although the Green Books application is
limited to these streets, some cities apply its
recommendations to all streets.
Further, the Green Book provides guidance
that cities often unnecessarily treat as
standards. The Green Book encourages
exibility in design within certain parameters,
as evidenced by the AASHTO publication,
A Guide to Achieving Flexibility in Highway
Design. For example, 10-foot lanes, which
cities often shun out of concerns of deviating
from standards, are well within AASHTO
guidelines.
1.6.2 Bureau of Design and
Environment Manual
Illinois Department of Transportations
Bureau of Design and Environment Manual
(BDE) applies only to State Highways. If
cities deviate from the minimum widths
and geometric criteria they are advised to
follow the variance process or experimental
process as applicable. Chapter 17 of the
BDE outlines standards for pedestrian and
bicyclist accommodations. Chapter 17 defers
to the AASHTO guide for bikeway design.
The BDE does not establish legal standards for
designing local streets.
1.6.3 Bureau of Local Roads and
Streets Manual
Illinois Department of Transportations Bureau
of Local Roads and Streets Manual (BLR) is
used by IDOT to review local and county
projects that receive state funding, motor fuel
tax or others. It plays mostly a procedural role
in IDOTs review of projects. Locals may adopt
the BLR; however, they may also adopt local
standards. Units of government without locally
adopted standards may use BLR for projects
that do not receive state funding to provide
additional liability protection.
4
Urgo, J., Wilensky, M., and Weissman, S., Moving Beyond Prevailing Street Design Standards, The Center for
Law, Energy, and the Environment at the Berkeley Law School, 2010.
Lawrence Ave Road Diet - Proposed Conditions
22
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.6.4 Local Street Manuals
Local jurisdictions follow the Green Book,
the BDE, the BLR, or design guidance
from organizations such as the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) out of liability
concerns. Neither federal nor state law
mandates adoption or adherence to these
guides. However, municipalities often adopt
them to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Further, many dont have the resources to
develop their own standards and practices, so
they adopt those in the Green Book, the BDE,
or another previously adopted manual, or
those of other cities.
A question often posed by plaintiffs attorneys
in trafc-related crashes is, Were established
or prevailing designs, standards, and
guidance, followed? If the attorneys can
prove that the local jurisdictions deviated
from established practices, they enhance
their chances of winning a judgment against
the jurisdiction. Therefore, agencies can get
increased protection by adopting guidelines
that reect their design preferences.
Cities are authorized to adopt or modify their
own practices, standards, and guidelines
that may reect differences from the Green
Book, the BLR, and the BDE. If these changes
generally fall within the range of acceptable
practice allowed by nationally recognized
design standards, the adopting agencies are
protected from liability to the same extent they
would be if they applied the Green Book,
the BLR, or the BDE. The content of Complete
Streets Chicago falls within this range of
acceptable practices.
Working within previously established regional
guidelines generally should result in a design
that is protected from liability. However, the
Green Book, the BLR, and the BDE are silent
on many design features, and do not consider
the needs within unique urban contexts. In
these cases, it is common practice for agencies
to develop their own guidelines and standards
that incorporate international equivalents
or practices from other cities. In developing
unique City standards, the City demonstrates
due diligence and reasonable action in their
roadway development process.
When agencies elect to utilize designs that fall
outside the guidelines of nationally recognized
documents, they need to use additional care
to ensure they do not expose themselves to
liability. In these cases, to minimize liability,
local jurisdictions either need to adopt their
own standards (which should be based on
rationale or evidence of reasonableness),
or they can conduct a pilot project. When
conducting an experimental pilot project,
agencies need to show that they are using the
best information that is reasonably available
to them at the time, document why they are
doing what they are doing, use a logical
process, and monitor the results and modify
accordingly. This is because the agency may
be required in the future to show that its design
is reasonable, and the agency may not be
able to cite a nationally published guideline or
recommendation to support its local action.
23
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Often, pilot projects are conducted because
the design engineer has reason to believe
that the new or evolved design will be safer
or otherwise more effective for some purpose
than if a prevailing standard and guideline
is used. The reasons or rationales for pilot
projects are based on engineering judgment
and should be documented to further minimize
exposure to liability. Unless otherwise noted,
everything in Complete Streets Chicago can
readily be adopted and incorporated without
fear of increased liability.
In some cases, AASHTO design guidelines
may not provide information on innovative or
experimental treatments that have shown great
promise in early experiments and applications.
Since AASHTO is a design guide, agencies
have some exibility to use designs that fall
outside the boundaries of the AASHTO guide.
Deviation from the range of designs provided
in the AASHTO guide requires agencies to use
greater care and diligence to document their
justication, precautions, and determination
to deviate from the guidelines. These include
consideration/analysis and approval by a
registered engineer qualied to sign the plans,
and could include certication by a reviewing
body clearly indicating the agencys intent.
This process documents the engineering
judgment that went into the design.
Many cities today use various trafc calming
measures to slow trafc and to improve
neighborhood livability. Trafc calming
measures are not trafc control devices and
therefore the state exercises no jurisdiction
over them.
Local agencies may currently use many
other reports and documents to guide their
roadway design and transportation planning.
Other documents provide valuable procedure
and reference data, but they do not set
standards. They can be referred to and
dened as standards by local agencies, but
the local authority often has the exibility to
selectively endorse, modify, or dene how
these informational documents can be used or
incorporated into its engineering and planning
processes. Also, newer versions of these
documents have additional information that
can conict with the local historical approach.
The expected results of the design approaches
presented in Complete Streets Chicago are
intended to improve safety and/or livability.
As a result, implementation of these features
should generally reduce liability and lawsuits.
There is no way to prevent all collisions or
lawsuits, but adopting policies, guidelines,
and standards, and doing pilot projects
with reasonable precautions is a defensible
approach.
24
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.6.5 Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD)
The MUTCD provides standards and guidance
for the design and application of all allowed
trafc control devices including roadway
markings, trafc signs, and signals. The
Federal Highway Administration oversees
application of the MUTCD. Illinois cities must
also follow the Illinois Supplement to the
MUTCD, which has some additional standards
for Illinois not included in the federal MUTCD.
The rules and requirements for the use of trafc
control devices are different than for street
design criteria. Local agencies have limited
exibility to deviate from the provisions of the
MUTCD in the use of trafc control devices
due to the relationship between the MUTCD
and state law. The MUTCD does provide
exibility within its general provisions for
items such as application of standard trafc
control devices, use of custom sign legends for
unique situations, trafc sign sizes, and sign
placement specics.
In contrast, agencies do not generally have the
exibility to develop signs that are similar in
purpose to signs within the manual while using
different colors, shapes, or symbols. Agencies
are also not authorized to establish trafc
regulations that are not specically allowed or
are in conict with state law. The provisions of
the MUTCD and related state laws thus make
it difcult to deploy new trafc control devices
in Illinois. This can result in complications,
especially in the areas of speed management,
pedestrian crossings, and bikeway treatments.
The federal MUTCD and Illinois Supplement to
the MUTCD establish warrants for the use of
some trafc control devices. For example, stop
signs, trafc signals, and ashing beacons
are expected to meet minimum thresholds
before application. These thresholds include
such criteria as number of vehicles, number
of pedestrians or other uses, distance to
other devices, crash history, and more. These
warrants often prevent local engineers from
applying devices that, in their opinion, may
improve safety. For example, trail and/or
pedestrian crossings of busy, high-speed,
wide arterial streets may need signals for user
safety, but they may not meet the warrants.
As with street design guidelines, cities may
establish their own warrants or modify those
suggested by the MUTCD to suit their context
in order to use some trafc control devices. In
special circumstances that deviate from their
own warrants, cities need to document their
reasons for the exception. For example, they
may say trail crossings or school crossings
qualify for certain trafc control devices.
25
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1.6.6 Illinois Fire Code
The Illinois Fire Code and the City of Chicago
Fire Prevention Code can impede street
design in limited circumstances. Both use the
National Fire Code as a basis. The National
Fire Code is written by a private agency and
has no ofcial legal standing unless states
or municipalities adopt its guidelines, as is
the case in Illinois and the City of Chicago.
The primary barrier caused by this adoption
is the requirement for a minimum of 20
feet of unobstructed clear path on streets.
This prevents municipalities from designing
skinny and yield streets to slow cars and
to make the streets safer, less land consumptive
and more hospitable to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
There are ways around this requirement. If
the local jurisdiction takes measures such as
installing sprinklers and adding extra re
hydrants, or the adjacent buildings are built
with re retardant materials, it may be able to
get the local re department to agree to the
exception.
Alternatively, the state legislature could
repeal its adoption of the 20-foot clear path
requirement due to:
The arbitrary and un-researched nature of
the provision;
The safety problems associated with the
resulting excessively wide streets;
The contradiction that this provision
causes with properly researched
guidelines and standards by ITE, CNU,
AASHTO, and others for streets under 34
feet wide; and,
The potential liability that the 20-foot
clear provision creates for designers who
maintain, modify, or design streets that do
not provide 20-foot clear paths.
It is likely that the state legislature and the City
were unaware of these issues when adopting
their existing re codes.
1.6.7 Illinois Vehicle Code
The Illinois Vehicle Code includes laws that
must be followed in street design. These
are embodied in the MUTCD and Illinois
Supplement to the MUTCD. Changes to the
Illinois Vehicle Code may cause the MUTCD
and Illinois Supplement to the MUTCD to
change.
CHAPTER TWO:
TYPOLOGY
27
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology, the study of types, is used by
transportation professionals to categorize
streets and their contexts by type, or similar
characteristics. They help in the selection of
treatments which best reect the surrounding
environment, best accommodate all modes,
best reect regulatory strictures, and best affect
desired outcomes: complete streets. Historical,
existing, proposed and desired conditions may
be considered when establishing typologies.
These policies and procedures will utilize four
sets of typologies:
1. Building Form & Function describes
the character of the surrounding
land uses, structures, regulatory
framework, environmental, and
economic characteristics.
2. Roadway Form & Function describes
the character of the roadway and its
uses and function within the modal
systems. Characteristics include right-
of-way, design/target speeds, number
of lanes, parking demand, trafc
operations, and modal volumes.
3. Intersections & Crossings
categorizes how streets meet.
4. Overlays describes the various
statutory, operational, and planning
categories such as snow routes, truck
route, modal plans, and jurisdictions
which impact design decisions.
Complete Zoning
Typologies can be used to establish a
citywide street classication system, similar
to the zoning and land use process. A
citywide street classication system would
require a master planning process and
may need to involve more structured
collaboration with other city agencies,
IDOT, and Cook County. Such a process
should look beyond existing conditions to
articulate a plan for future conditions.
CHAPTER TWO: TYPOLOGY
28
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
2.1 Typology Sets
2.1.1 Building Form and Function
The important relationship between land use
and transportation is well-established but often
ignored. Understanding the context within
which a street exists is an important rst step.
The seven types for building form and function
are specic to Chicago. They are inuenced
by the Citys Zoning Ordinance as well as the
Transect, an urban development theory. They
simplify land use and zoning and apply them
to street design; in effect serving as a code
between roadway standards and zoning. See
Figure 7 for a fuller description.
R residential
M mixed-use
C commercial center
D downtown
IC institutional or campus
IN industrial
P parks
Transect
The Building Form and Function types
described above are modeled on the
Transect. Transect is an urban development
theory created by the Congress for New
Urbanism which describes the progression
of development from the center city to rural
and natural areas. It can bridge land use
regulation and roadway design. Transect
promotes observing development patterns
- population, housing, and parcel density;
building setbacks; building types; roadway
grid characteristics; land use; transit service -
to classify streets and context.
Chicago can be categorized into two
Transect zones:
Urban Urban areas are intense,
and compact; with high transportation
demand for all modes. Mass transit
and mixed-use development are
commonplace. The transportation
network is highly connected. Most of
the City of Chicago is within urban
areas of the transect, including
the downtown core, the center/
corridor transitional areas, and the
neighborhood areas. Examples include
Wicker Park, Hyde Park, Pilsen,
Lakeview, Edgewater, Chinatown,
Logan Square, and Ukrainian Village.
Suburban Suburban areas are less
intense. Suburban areas typically are
designed to support separated land
uses and promote residential character.
Suburban regions have some transit
service and areas of mixed use, often
coinciding with historic development
along thoroughfares. The transportation
network is less connected; trafc is
frequently routed to large arterials
and freeways. Examples include
Edison Park, Beverly, Peterson Park,
Sauganash, Norwood Park, Hegwisch,
and Morgan Park.
29
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
2.1.2 Roadway Form and Function
Historical focus on roadway characteristics
such as trafc volume, speed and functional
classication does not always yield complete
streets. Using typologies inverts this approach:
design decisions are informed by roadway
context and by a hierarchy of mode
prioritization, switching the burden of proof
for design from trafc measurements and
functional classication to placemaking and
community preferences.
The six types for roadway form and function
describe the physical layout of the roadway.
5

See Figure 8 for a fuller description.
TH Thoroughfare
CN Connector
MS Main Street
NS Neighborhood Street
SW Service Way
PW Pedestrian Way
5
A street may be classied differently along its length. For example, Madison Street is a Thoroughfare to the west and
a Connector within the Loop.
30
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typologies and Functional Class
Functional classication is required by the
Federal Highway Administration for projects
that use federal funds. This system is largely
auto-centric and its utility is limited in urban
contexts; the street typology system presented
in these policies and procedures is an
alternative. To ensure that such a system does
not preclude the city from applying for and
receiving federal money, Figure 6 converts
terminology.
2.1.3 Intersections and Crossings
The typologies above focus primarily on street
segments. The seven types below describe
intersections and crossings in the city. Their
design is particularly important due to the
potential for modal conicts and thus crashes.
See Figure 9 for a fuller description.
SIG signal
RBT roundabout, trafc circle
AWS all-way stop
STY stop, yield
UNC uncontrolled
MID midblock pedestrian crossing
DW driveway
2.1.4 Overlays
The last set of types consists of overlays -
jurisdiction, special use - that have an impact
on design. For example, the design of a street
overlaid with a state route will have to be
coordinated with IDOT. A transit-priority street
is one set to receive bus rapid transit. See
Figure 10 for a fuller description.
SRT State Route
CTY County Route
TRK Truck Route
SNW Snow Route
SRA Strategic Regional Arterials
MOB Mobility Priority Street
PED Pedestrian Priority Street
BIK Bicycle Priority Street
BRT Transit Priority Street
HBS Historic Boulevard System
TOD Transit-Oriented District
HZ Home Zone
2.2 Typology Tables
The following tables describe the typical
characteristics of each typology along with
examples and photos.
Thoroughfare Connector Main Street Neighborhood
Street, Service
Way,
Pedestrian Way
Primary Arterial
Secondary Arterial
Collector
Local
FIGURE 6
Conversion Chart for CDOT Street Typology and FHWA Functional Classification System
31
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code R
Typology Name Residential
Characteristics single-family houses
low-density multi-family
buildings
non-residential uses
such as schools and
churches
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
RS, RT
Typical Buildings Height is 1-3 stories with
a front yard setback of 15
feet. Properties may have a
gated front yard in addition
to a sidewalk and parkway.
Examples Ravenswood
Beverly
Belmont west of
Western
Ashland north of
Belmont
South Shore Drive south
of 71st Street
Residential (R)
Linden Place
Washington Boulevard
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7
32
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code M
Typology Name Mixed-Use
Characteristics buildings with service
and commercial uses
on the ground oor
that serve surrounding
neighborhoods
residential or ofce uses
above the ground oor
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
RM, B1, B2
Typical Buildings Height is 2 or more stories
and buildings typically abut
the sidewalk
Examples 103rd (Longwood to
Wood)
Damen Avenue
Armitage Avenue
Halsted Street
Mixed-Use (M)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
33
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code C
Typology Name Commercial Center
Characteristics concentration of commercial
uses that draw from a large
area
may be stand-alone
commercial buildings
may be part of mixed-use
buildings
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
RM, B2, B3, C1, C2
Typical Buildings Height varies considerably
from one-story commercial
buildings to high-rise mixed-use,
residential and ofce buildings.
Buildings abut the sidewalk.
Surface parking lots and parking
structures are common
Examples Ashland Avenue
Sheridan Road
Madison Street
Broadway Avenue
Milwaukee Avenue
North Avenue
Roosevelt Road
North Avenue
Commercial Center (C)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
34
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code D
Typology Name Downtown
Characteristics high-rise mixed-use,
residential or ofce
buildings centrally
located within the city.
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
DR, DS, DC, DX
Typical Buildings Buildings are tall and dense.
Sidewalks are wide and
buildings abut the sidewalk
Examples Loop
River North
Dearborn Street
Randolph Street
Downtown (D)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
35
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code IC
Typology Name Institutional or Campus
Characteristics large-scale development
(2+ acres) under unied
control and organized
like a campus typically
surrounded by gates and
controlled access
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
PD
Typical Buildings Various building types mostly
facing inward to a courtyard;
not the street
Examples St. Joseph Hospital
University of Illinois-
Chicago
DePaul University: Fullerton Avenue
Illinois Medical District: Taylor Street
Institutional or Campus (IC)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
36
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code IN
Typology Name Industrial
Characteristics manufacturing,
wholesale and industrial
uses
may be organized into
a campus or industrial
corridor
requires
accommodation for
large trucks
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
C3, M2, M3, PMD
Typical Buildings Height is 1-4 stories.
Buildings may abut the
sidewalk but entrances are
oriented away from streets,
to internal access
Examples Blue Island Avenue
Kinzie Street from
Kedzie Avenue to
Halsted Street
Goose Island
Kinzie Industrial Corridor
Hubbard Street
Industrial (IN)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
37
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code P
Typology Name Parks
Characteristics intentional open spaces such
as parks, forest preserves,
and bodies of water
street entirely within or
bordering a park
park-like medians
Typical Zoning
Districts
6
POS
Typical Buildings These areas are not dened by
their buildings (which are internal)
but do have discernible edges
7
.
Examples Millennium Park
Washington Park
Chicago River
Museum of Science and
Industry
Munoz Marin in Humboldt
Park
Lincoln Park West
Stony Island
Cannon Drive
South Shore Drive
Lincoln Park
Ping Tom Park
Parks (P)
BUILDING FORM AND FUNCTION
7
More information can be found in CDOTs Make Way for Play.
6
Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
FIGURE 7 (CONT)
38
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code TH
Typology Name Thoroughfare
Definition widest right-of-way
raised medians
may have side medians, green
space, large sidewalks
serves through and local
functions
not generally commercial
Characteristics Lanes 4+
Speed
8
25-30 mph
Blocks 660-1320 ft
ADT 20k and higher
Flow 2 way
Examples Logan Boulevard
Gareld Boulevard
Stony Island
Western Avenue
Fullerton Avenue
Ogden Avenue
Cicero Avenue
Logan Boulevard
Western Avenue
Thoroughfare (TH)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
FIGURE 8
39
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code CN
Typology Name Connector
Definition main roads
may have median
connects between urban
centers
may be commercial
Characteristics Lanes 2 to 4
Speed
8
20-30 mph
Blocks 300-660 ft
ADT 5-25k
Flow 1 or 2 way
Examples North Avenue
Harlem Avenue
Ashland Avenue
Milwaukee Avenue
Most of the streets in the
Loop
Indiana Avenue
Ashland Avenue
Connector (CN)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
FIGURE 8 (CONT)
40
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code MS
Typology Name Main Street
Definition serves mostly local trafc
connects neighborhoods
and commercial areas
may be commercial
Characteristics Lanes 1 to 3
Speed
8
15-20 mph
Blocks 150-300 ft
ADT 3-15k
Flow 1 or 2 way
Examples Grace Street
35th Street
South Hyde Park Boulevard
Peoria Street
Wentworth Avenue
Main Street (MS)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
Figure 8 (CONT)
41
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code NS
Typology Name Neighborhood Street
Definition almost all local trafc
serve residential areas
no centerline or lane
striping required
Characteristics Lanes 1
Speed
8
10-20 mph
Blocks <300 ft
ADT <6k
Flow 1 or 2 way
Examples Albany Street in Logan
Square
South Ingleside Avenue at
University of Chicago
Concord Place
Wolcott Avenue
Neighborhood Street (NS)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
FIGURE 8 (CONT)
42
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code SW
Typology Name Service Way
Definition narrow roadway
no sidewalks
provides a short service
link between two streets
Characteristics Lanes 1
Speed
8
5-10 mph
Blocks NA
ADT NA
Flow 1 or 2 way
Examples Court Place
WOOGMS Alley
Commercial alley abutting Dearborn Street
Residential alley abutting Honore Street
Service Way (SW)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
FIGURE 8 (CONT)
43
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code PW
Typology Name Pedestrian Way
Definition pedestrian passageway or
walkway
not necessarily along a
typical roadway
pedestrian access between
buildings
Characteristics Lanes NA
Speed
8
NA
Blocks NA
ADT NA
Flow NA
Examples Millennium Park
Riverwalk
Chicago Pedway
Riverwalk
Museum Campus
Pedestrian Way (PW)
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
8
Speed refers to Target Speed, see Section 3.5.5.
FIGURE 8 (CONT)
44
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code SIG
Typology Name Signal (including 6-way
intersections)
Definition Intersections controlled by a
trafc signal
Characteristics Complete signals address
all modes and are ADA-
compliant
Examples North Avenue-
Milwaukee Avenue-
Damen Avenue
Clark Street and Division
Street
103rd Street
Damen/Milwaukee/North
Signal (SIG)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
FIGURE 9
45
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code RBT
Typology Name Roundabout (trafc
calming circle, mini-
roundabout)
Definition Circular island within
the intersection. May
have splitter islands.
Not signalized
Characteristics Roundabouts should
be consistent with
the modal hierarchy,
should accommodate
all modes, and must
be ADA-compliant
Examples Altgeld Street &
St. Louis Avenue
Catalpa Avenue &
Wayne Avenue
Belden Avenue
Catalpa Avenue
Roundabout (RBT)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
Figure 9 (CONT)
46
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code AWS
Typology Name All-way Stop
Definition Intersections where all
legs of the intersection are
controlled by stop signs
Characteristics In that stop and yield signs
are typically installed
to manage auto trafc,
the locations need to be
analyzed to ensure that other
modes are accommodated
Examples Oakley Street & Polk
Street
Howard Street-Rogers
Avenue-Greenview
Avenue
Winchester Street
Oakley Street
All-way Stop (AWS)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
FIGURE 9 (CONT)
47
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code STY
Typology Name Stop, yield (1-way or 2-way)
Definition Intersections where the major
street is uncontrolled, but the
minor street is controlled by a
stop or yield sign
Characteristics These locations need to
be analyzed to ensure
that non-motorized modes
are accommodated, see
Pedestrian Crossings,
Sections 3.4.3, and CDOTs
Bicycle Section
Examples Kinzie Street & Clinton
Street
Jackson Boulevard &
Albany Avenue
Commercial Avenue
Westhaven Park
Stop, Yield (STY)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
Figure 9 (CONT)
48
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code UNC
Typology Name Uncontrolled
Definition Intersections that have no
trafc control device (stop
sign, signal)
Discussion Typically these occur at low
vehicle volume locations;
nevertheless they need to
be analyzed for pedestrian
and bicycle access,
especially crossings
Examples California Blue Line
Stop
Dickens Street &
Honore Street
Dickens Street
California Avenue
Uncontrolled (UNC)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
FIGURE 9 (CONT)
49
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code MID
Typology Name Mid-block pedestrian
crossing
Definition Street crossing between
formal intersections. May
or may not have designated
crossing faciities or trafc
control devices
Characteristics See Pedestrian Crossings,
Section 3.4.3
Examples City Hall
Humboldt Park
Clark Street
Monroe Street
Mid-block Crossing (MID)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
Figure 9 (CONT)
50
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code DW
Typology Name Driveway (curb cuts)
Definition Access to private property.
Considered an intersection
as auto trafc intersects the
sidewalk
Characteristics See Driveways, Section
3.4.4
Examples Residential driveways
Commercial parking lots
Exchange Avenue
Driveway (Curb Cuts) (DW)
INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS
Honore Street
FIGURE 9 (CONT)
51
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code SRT
Typology Name State Route
Source IDOT
Discussion Approximately 37% of
Chicagos major roadways
are under state jurisdiction.
This limits the citys ability to
control and maintain its street
network. An inter-agency
directive provides guidance
on when and how to use
jurisdictional transfer for such
streets.
North Avenue
Irving Park Road
State Route (SRT)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10
52
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code CTY
Typology Name County Route
Source Cook County
Discussion Most county highways
within the city fall into one
of two categories: 1) county
jurisdiction but maintained
by the city, and 2) municipal
extensions of county
highways that are under
city jurisdiction. CDOT
effectively controls these
streets; coordination with the
County is often a formality.
Lincoln Avenue
County Route (CTY)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
Ashland Avenue
53
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code TRK
Typology Name Truck Route
Source CDOT
Discussion CDOT maintains a GIS layer
of truck routes.
8
In addition
to being designated as a
truck route, there should be
at least 5% multiple-unit truck
trafc.
North Avenue
Halsted Street
Truck Route (TRK)
OVERLAYS
8
A task order to update the Citys truck routes is forthcoming
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
54
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code SNW
Typology Name Snow Route
Source CDOT
Discussion There are two types of
snow routes in Chicago: 1)
where parking is restricted
from Dec 1 to April 1,
and 2) where parking is
restricted when 2 or more
of snow accumulates. Snow
plowing is planned for and
accommodated on these
routes.
Snow Route Signage
Snow Truck
Snow Route (SNW)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
55
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code SRA
Typology Name Strategic Regional Arterial
Source CMAP, IDOT
Discussion Streets designated to carry
higher volumes and speeds
as a complement to the
expressway system. Parking
and trafc signals are
restricted.
Roosevelt Road
Halsted Street
Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
56
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code MOB
Typology Name Mobility Priority Streets
Source CZO
Discussion Connect commuter rail
stations with the downtown
employment core. Section
17-4-0600 of the Chicago
Zoning Ordinance
designates Mobility Streets
and requires 14 sidewalks
to accommodate special
pedestrian movement needs.
Monroe Street
Randolph Street
Mobility Priority Street (MOB)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
57
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code PED
Typology Name Pedestrian Priority Street
(P-street)
Source CZO
Discussion Sections 17-3-0500 and
17-4-0500 of the Chicago
Zoning Ordinance designate
Pedestrian Streets for
Chicagos best examples of
pedestrian-oriented shopping
streets. Curb cuts are not
allowed and other building
design standards (setbacks,
window transparency) are
also required.
Lincoln Avenue
Wentworth Avenue
Pedestrian Priority Street (P Street) (PED)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
58
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code BIK
Typology Name Bicycle Priority Street (bicycle
spoke route, signal timing for
bikes)
Source CDOT (proposed)
Discussion CDOT will identify select
corridors where cycling will
be prioritized ahead of other
modes, which will inuence
the modal hierarchy and
subsequent design.
Kinzie Street
Elston Avenue
Bicycle Priority Street (BIK)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
59
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code BRT
Typology Name Transit Priority Street
Source CDOT/CTA (proposed)
Discussion CDOT & CTA will identify
select corridors where transit
will be prioritized ahead
of other modes, which will
inuence the modal hierarchy
and subsequent design.
Madison Street
Milwaukee Avenue
Transit Priority Street (BRT)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
60
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code HBS
Typology Name Historic Boulevard System
Source DHED
Discussion Chicagos historic boulevards
are listed on the National
Register for Historic Places
and a dening characteristic
of the citys street network.
Logan Boulevard
Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.
Historic Boulevard System (HBS)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
61
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code TOD
Typology Name Transit-Oriented District (El
stops)
Source CDOT/CTA/DHED
(proposed)
Discussion These areas require special
consideration for riders who
arrive on foot, by bicycle,
bus or taxi. The City has a
working group to formally
zone these areas.
Damen Avenue
Sheridan Road
Transit-Oriented District (TOD)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
62
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Typology Code HZ
Typology Name Home Zone (shared street)
Source CDOT (proposed)
Discussion Home Zone is a new type
of street to be developed
by CDOT. It is a residential
street, maybe with some
commercial, that uses
physical trafc calming
techniques to slow vehicles
to walking speed. Typically
it is a shared space with no
separation between modes.
Harding Street
Albany Street
Home Zone (HZ)
OVERLAYS
FIGURE 10 (CONT)
63
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Using Typology Maps
as a First Step to a
Transportation Master
Plan
The maps in Figure 11 demonstrate
how this typology system would inform
a master planning process. The map
on the left shows the building form and
function, as extrapolated from land use
and zoning data. It clearly illustrates the
pattern of development in the city - along
the waterfront, along transit lines, and in
neighborhood nodes. The map on the right
shows the street network, coded by the
typologies above. Technical documentation
can be found in Appendix A.
Park
Residential
Mixed-Use
Commercial Center
Downtown
Institutional or Campus
Industrial
CTA Rail Lines
Expressways
I -
5
7
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
E
X
P
W
Y
D
A
N
R
Y
A
N
E
X
P
W
Y
C
H
IC
A
G
O
S
K
Y
W
A
Y
STEVENSON EXPW
Y
I-290/EISENHOWER XWY
B
I
S
H
O
P
F
O
R
D
E
X
P
W
Y
R
e
d
L
i n
e
O
rang
e Line
Brown Line
Blue Line
G
r
e
e
n
L
i n
e
R
e
d
L
in
e
Green Line
Pink Line
B
lue Line
Green Line
CDOT
Building Form
and Function Typologies
0 2 4 1
Miles
Prepared by Active Transportation Alliance, December 2012
Data Sources: Active Transportation Alliance, CDOT, and IDOT
N
FIGURE 11
Sample Citywide Typology Maps
64
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Irving Park Rd
Foster Ave
Pratt Blvd
Peterson Ave
Devon Ave
Diversey Ave
L
a
k
e

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
North Ave
Fullerton Ave
Chicago Ave
Augusta Blvd
D
a
m
e
n
A
v
e
A
s
h
l a
n
d
A
v
e
A
u
s
t
i n
A
v
e
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
A
v
e
H
a
r
le
m
A
v
e
C
a
ld
w
e
ll A
v
e
O
g
d
e
n
A
v
e
35th St
Roosevelt Rd
31st St
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Cermak Rd
Washington Blvd
Pershing Rd
Garfield Blvd
P
u
l a
s
k
i
R
d
C
o
t
t
a
g
e

G
r
o
v
e
A
v
e
A
rc
h
e
r A
v
e
C
i c
e
r
o
A
v
e
63rd St
95th St
L
o
o
m
i s

B
l v
d
V
in
c
e
n
n
e
s
A
v
e
Y
a
t
e
s

B
l v
d
Marquette Rd
103rd St
79th St
130th St T
o
r
r
e
n
c
e
A
v
e
A
v
e

O
H
a
l s
t
e
d

S
t
CDOT
Roadway Form
and Function Typologies
0 2 4 1
Miles
Neighborhood Street
Main Street
Connector
Thoroughfare
Limited Access Roadway
Prepared by Active Transportation Alliance, December, 2012
Data Sources: Active Transportation Alliance, CDOT, and IDOT
N
65
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Determine
Boundaries
Collect Base
Data
Inventory
Existing Conditions
-Transit Routes
-Transit Stations and Stops
-Curb Cuts
-One-way Streets
-On-street Parking
-Loading Zones
-Railroads
-Intersection Treatments
-Pedestrian and Bike Facilities
Create
Draft Map
Review Draft Map
Correct Missing or
Inaccurate
Information
Final Map
When a project is selected, both the
project boundaries and the context
boundaries should be determined
-GIS maps
-Aerial Images
-Existing Plans and Studies
-Existing Zoning
-Input existing conditions,
combining base map data, research
and site visit data
-Determine Complete Street Classifca-
tions and add to map
-Create Transit Oriented Districts
surrounding every train station (1/4
mile radius)
-Compare observed features and
conditions with base data and aerial
imagery for accuracy
-Using Complete Streets reference
materials, ensure that map
symbology is correct
-Correct any errors/red lines from
Draft Map
Classify
Typologies
-Building Form & Function
-Roadway Form & Function
-Intersections & Crossings
-Classifcations &
Considerations
FIGURE 12
Typology Mapping Flow Chart
2.3 Typology Protocols
As described above, classifying streets by
type will ensure recognition of all users and
contexts. This section establishes protocols
for mapping the four typology sets and other
typical project information, see Figure 12. The
information will be assembled and mapped in
the scoping phase by project managers with
assistance from various city GIS resources.
The GIS working group will review which
data can be collected and mapped on a
citywide basis, and which is to be collected for
individual projects.
Chapter 4 includes a project list and
information as to which CDOT projects will
require a typology application, which projects
will have the option of typology application,
and which projects will not require the use of
typology. Typology mapping will also be used
for operations (signal timing) and maintenance
work (resurfacing).

66
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
2.3.1 Information Sets
Project Managers will create a comprehensive
project assessment, using data sets, on
which to base scoping, planning and design
decisions. Currently the following GIS layers
are available.
Street Network GIS Layers
CDOT_MIDL: All streets, ROW width,
other attributes - CDOT Internal Data Set
Major_streets: Major streets and freeways
only (no speed limits or volumes) CDOT
Internal Data Set
Chicago_streets_intersect: Most Chicago
streets (no speed limits, volumes, or
jurisdictional information) CDOT Internal
Data Set
Bike_Routes: All major bicycle facilities
(planned and existing) CDOT Internal
Data Set
Curbs: curblines (some out of date)
CDOT Internal Data Set
Jurisdiction: jurisdiction of most streets,
between IDOT, CDOT, IDOT owned/
CDOT maintained. Doesnt cover all
streets, but presumably covers all IDOT
streets CDOT Internal Data Set
Pedway_Routes: Designates the downtown
Pedway system CDOT Internal Data Set
Transit GIS Layers
CTA_Line: CTA Rail Lines CTA Data
Portal
CurrentBus: CTA Bus Lines (with Route
Name) - CTA Data Portal
CTA_Stations: CTA Rail Stations CTA
Data Portal
Other GIS Layers
Chicago_City_Limits polygon of the city
limits City of Chicago Data Portal
Chicago_Parcels parcels (does not
appear to be up to date) City of
Chicago Data Portal
Cook_County_Parcels parcels (does
not appear to be up to date) City of
Chicago Data Portal
Buildings (does not appear to be up to
date) City of Chicago Data Portal
(Facilities) various shapeles for
landmarks (hospitals, schools, libraries,
parks, community centers) City of
Chicago Data Portal
To complement the existing GIS layers, other
GIS layers and information sets will need to be
created either systematically or on a project-
by-project basis. This includes data to map
the four typologies and other data typically
collected for a project. For the four typologies,
refer to the tables above, consulting with
other departments and agencies as necessary.
For example a particular corridor might be
slated for bus rapid transit by CDOT and the
CTA which would give it the BRT designation
in Figure 11. Determining the Building
Form and Function will require a qualitative
assessment using Figure 7 as a guide in
consultation with DHED. Other data (number
of lanes, intersection control, volumes) can
be assembled from existing reports and eld
visits.
Creating project maps
with typologies and multi-
modal information is an
important step in creating
complete streets. This
will move the agency
away from decisions
based solely on vehicle
level of service.
67
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
2.3.2 Sample Maps
The following maps apply typology mapping
to two locations. Figure 13 is North
Milwaukee Avenue between West Kinzie Street
and West Chicago Avenue. North Milwaukee
Avenue is a major street that connects
downtown Chicago to the northwestern
suburbs. The area is approximately eight
blocks in length with a diversity of land uses
and multiple modes of transportation.
Figure 15 is the area centered around the
intersection of West 26th Street and South
Central Park Avenue. This is a largely
residential area with a commercial strip. The
study area boundaries are West 24th Street,
South Homan Avenue, West 28th Street, and
South Hamlin Avenue. The rst map shows the
existing conditions and overlays. The second
lists the typologies. Depending on the amount
of information, it may be helpful to create
more maps and/or different scales to better
show information. Since most CDOT projects
are corridor-based, the typical map should
include the length of the corridor and two
blocks on either side.
Crash Maps
Mapping crashes is an important step in
project selection and development. To be
meaningful, crash maps should convey the
following:
Five years of crash data
Crash mode (automobile, ped, bike,
transit) and injury severity to show relative
degree of problem
A sense of exposure using factors such as
volume or population
Field observations of near-misses to
complement crash data
Figures 14 and 16 show crashes at the sample
locations. Each of the maps paints a different
picture. The All Crashes map becomes too
cluttered to make an informed decision. The
severity map begins to show groupings and
suggests on which intersections to focus. The
pedestrian crash map shows that Milwaukee
Avenue may not be problematic, yet West
26th Street might be. The bicycle crash map
shows that Milwaukee is the scene of many
crashes; however, it also has high ridership,
demonstrating a need to control and normalize
crash data.
68
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
N
Transit Lines
CTA Station Exit
CTA Bus Stop
Curb Cut
One-Way Street
On-Street Parking
Loading Zone
Railroad
SRT- State Route
CTY- County Route
TRK- Truck Route
SNW- Snow Route
SRA- Strategic Regional Arterial
MOB- Mobility Street
PED- Pedestrian Priority Street
BIK- Bicycle Priority Street
BRT- Transit Priority Street
HBS- Historic Boulevard System
TOD- Transit-oriented District
HZ- Home Zone
Existing Conditions
Overlays
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
l
s
t
e
d
Kinzie
Grand
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
North Milwaukee Avenue: Existing Conditions, Overlays on the left, Typologies on the right
FIGURE 13
N
Transit Lines
CTA Station Exit
CTA Bus Stop
Curb Cut
One-Way Street
On-Street Parking
Loading Zone
Railroad
SRT- State Route
CTY- County Route
TRK- Truck Route
SNW- Snow Route
SRA- Strategic Regional Arterial
MOB- Mobility Street
PED- Pedestrian Priority Street
BIK- Bicycle Priority Street
BRT- Transit Priority Street
HBS- Historic Boulevard System
TOD- Transit-oriented District
HZ- Home Zone
Existing Conditions
Overlays
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
l
s
t
e
d
Kinzie
Grand
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
69
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
North Milwaukee Avenue: Existing Conditions, Overlays on the left, Typologies on the right
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
AWS- All Way Stop
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Building Form& Function Roadway Form& Function Intersections & Crossings
N
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
ls
t
e
d
Kinzie
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
Grand
Huron
Complete Street Typologies
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
AWS- All Way Stop
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Building Form& Function Roadway Form& Function Intersections & Crossings
N
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
l
s
t
e
d
Kinzie
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
Grand
Huron
Complete Street Typologies
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
AWS- All Way Stop
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Building Form & Function Roadway Form & Function Intersections & Crossings
N
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
l
s
t
e
d
Kinzie
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
Grand
Huron
Complete Street Typologies
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
AWS- All Way Stop
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Building Form & Function Roadway Form & Function Intersections & Crossings
N
Chicago
M
ilw
a
u
k
e
e
H
a
l
s
t
e
d
Kinzie
Ohio
W Hubbard
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
O
g
d
e
n
M
o
r
g
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
S
a
n
g
a
m
o
n
Grand
Huron
Complete Street Typologies
FIGURE 13
70
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
North Milwaukee Avenue Crash Maps
FIGURE 14
H
a
l s
t e
d
Grand
Chicago
Ohio
M
ilw
aukee
Kinzie
R
a
c
i n
e
M
o
r g
a
n
Kennedy
O
g
d
e
n
I-9
0
5
0
B
W KINZIE ST
N
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W GRAND AVE
W CHICAGO AVE
W HUBBARD ST
N
M
IL
W
A
U
K
E
E
A
V
E
W ERIE ST
W FRY ST
W OHIO ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
N
O
G
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
D
E
S
P
L
A
I N
E
S
S
T
W FULTON MARKET
W HURON ST
N
L
A
R
R
A
B
E
E
S
T
W FULTON ST
N
R
A
C
I N
E
A
V
E
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
W CARROLL AVE
W SUPERIOR ST
W WAYMAN ST
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
W ANCONA ST
N
U
N
I O
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
E
L
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W CHESTNUT ST
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
N
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
5
1
B
I-
9
0
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
L
N
N
L
E
S
S
IN
G
S
T
W WALNUT ST
W CHESTNUT ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
W HURON ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W WAYMAN ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
50B
I-9
0
W ERIE ST
N
U
N
IO
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
W OHIO ST
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W
E RIE ST
N
P
E
O
R
IA
S
T
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Existing Conditions, All Crashes, 2006 - 2010*
Crash
Note: Data excludes crashes with less than $500 of damage
for years 2006 though 2009 and data exludes crashes with less
than $1500 of property damage for year 2010. For total crash
numbers request CDOT crash report for the study area
Excludes crashes on limited access roadways.
NORTH
" )
" ) # * " )
" )
# *
! (
# *
" ) " )
# *
# *
# *
" )
# *
" )
! (
# *
" )
" )
! (
# *
# *
" )
# *
" ) # *
" )
" )
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
" )
" )
" )
" )
" )
" )
# *
" )
# *
# *
# *
! (
" )
# *
" )
" )
" )
" )
" )
# *
# *
" )
" )
# *
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
" )
# *
# *
" )
" )
# *
" )
" )
" ) # *
# *
# *
" )
" )
" )
" )
" ) " )
! (
! (
" )
" )
" )
# *
" )
! (
! (
" ) # * " )
" )
" )
" )
# *
" )
# *
" )
" )
" )
" )
# *
# *
# *
# *
# * " ) " )
" )
" )
" ) # *
" )
# *
" )
! (
" )
" )
! (
" )
# *
# *
" )
# *
# *
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
" )
# *
" )
" )
" )
! (
# *
" ) " )
! (
" )
# *
# *
! ( " )
# *
! (
" )
" )
! (
! (
" )
! (
" )
# *
! ( ! (
! (
" )
" )
" )
" )
# * " )
! (
" )
" )
! (
" )
# * ! ( ! (
! (
" )
! (
! (
" )" )
! (
" ) " )
! (
! (
! (
" )
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
" )
! (
" )
# *
" )
# *
" )
# *
" )
" )
! (
" )
" )
# *
# *
# *
# *
" ) # *
# *
" )
! (
" )
" )
" )
" )
" )
# *
# *
" )
" )
# *
" )
" )
# *
" )
" ) " )
" )
" )
" )
# *
# *
# *
" )
# *
# *
# *
" )
" )
" )
# *
" )
# * " ) " )
# *
# *
# *
" )
" )
# *
! (
" )
" )
" )
" )
# *
# *
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H
a
l s
t e
d
Grand
Chicago
Ohio
M
ilw
aukee
Kinzie
R
a
c
i n
e
M
o
r g
a
n
Kennedy
O
g
d
e
n
I-9
0
5
0
B
W KINZIE ST
N
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W GRAND AVE
W CHICAGO AVE
W HUBBARD ST
N
M
IL
W
A
U
K
E
E
A
V
E
W ERIE ST
W FRY ST
W OHIO ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
N
O
G
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
D
E
S
P
L
A
I N
E
S
S
T
W FULTON MARKET
W HURON ST
N
L
A
R
R
A
B
E
E
S
T
W FULTON ST
N
R
A
C
I N
E
A
V
E
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
W CARROLL AVE
W SUPERIOR ST
W WAYMAN ST
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
W ANCONA ST
N
U
N
I O
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
E
L
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W CHESTNUT ST
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
N
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
5
1
B
I-
9
0
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
L
N
N
L
E
S
S
IN
G
S
T
W WALNUT ST
W CHESTNUT ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
W HURON ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W WAYMAN ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
50B
I-9
0
W ERIE ST
N
U
N
IO
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
W OHIO ST
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W
E RIE ST
N
P
E
O
R
IA
S
T
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Existing Conditions, All Crashes that Resulted in Injuries with Severity, 2006 - 2010
Crash
Injury Severity
NORTH
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
!
!
!
*
Excludes crashes on limited access roadways.
*
*
*
Existing Conditions, All Crashes, 2006-2010*
Existing Conditions, All Crashes that Resulted in Injuries with
Severity, 2006-2010
71
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
)
)
) )
)
)
) )
) )
)
! ! ( (
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
H
a
l s
t e
d
Grand
Chicago
Ohio
M
ilw
aukee
Kinzie
R
a
c
in
e
M
o
r g
a
n
Kennedy
O
g
d
e
n
I-9
0
5
0
B
W KINZIE ST
N
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W GRAND AVE
W CHICAGO AVE
W HUBBARD ST
N
M
IL
W
A
U
K
E
E
A
V
E
W ERIE ST
W FRY ST
W OHIO ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
N
O
G
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
D
E
S
P
L
A
I N
E
S
S
T
W FULTON MARKET
W HURON ST
N
L
A
R
R
A
B
E
E
S
T
W FULTON ST
N
R
A
C
I N
E
A
V
E
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
W CARROLL AVE
W SUPERIOR ST
W WAYMAN ST
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
W ANCONA ST
N
U
N
IO
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
E
L
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W CHESTNUT ST
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
N
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
5
1
B
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
I-9
0
W HURON ST
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
W ERIE ST
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W OHIO ST
W CHESTNUT ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
W WAYMAN ST
50B
W
E RIE ST
N
P
E
O
R
IA
S
T
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Existing Conditions, Bicycle Crashes with Severity, 2006 - 2010
Bicycle
Injury Severity
NORTH
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
!
!
!
*
Excludes crashes on limited access roadways.
# #
#
#
#
#
#
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*"
"
"
"
"
"
""
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
! (
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
*
*
H
a
l s
t e
d
Grand
Chicago
Ohio
M
ilw
aukee
Kinzie
R
a
c
in
e
M
o
r g
a
n
Kennedy
O
g
d
e
n
I-
9
0
5
0
B
W KINZIE ST
N
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
N
M
A
Y
S
T
W GRAND AVE
W CHICAGO AVE
W HUBBARD ST
N
M
IL
W
A
U
K
E
E
A
V
E
W ERIE ST
W FRY ST
W OHIO ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
N
D
E
S
P
L
A
I N
E
S
S
T
W FULTON MARKET
W HURON ST
N
L
A
R
R
A
B
E
E
S
T
W FULTON ST
N
R
A
C
I N
E
A
V
E
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
W CARROLL AVE
W SUPERIOR ST
W WAYMAN ST
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
W ANCONA ST
N
U
N
IO
N
A
V
E
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
N
E
L
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
W CHESTNUT ST
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
I-
9
0
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
L
N
N
L
E
S
S
IN
G
S
T
W WALNUT ST W WALNUT ST
N
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
N
A
B
E
R
D
E
E
N
S
T
W HURON ST
W CHESTNUT ST
N
M
A
Y
S
T
I-9
0
W ERIE ST
N
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
S
T
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T W OHIO ST
N
P
E
O
R
I A
S
T
N
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
N
S
A
N
G
A
M
O
N
S
T
50B
W
E RIE ST
N
P
E
O
R
IA
S
T
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Existing Conditions, Pedestian Crashes with Severity, 2006 - 2010
Pedestrian
Injury Severity
NORTH
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
!
!
!
*
Excludes crashes on limited access roadways.
FIGURE 14
Existing Conditions, Pedestrian Crashes with Severity, 2006-2010 Existing Conditions, Bicycle Crashes wth Severity, 2006-2010
72
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
W 24th St
W 25th St
W 26th St
W 27th St
W 28th St
S

H
a
m
l
i
n

A
v
e
S

H
o
m
a
n

A
v
e
S

R
i
d
g
e
w
a
y

A
v
e
S

L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e

A
v
e
S

M
i
l
l
a
r
d

A
v
e
S

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

P
a
r
k

A
v
e
S

D
r
a
k
e

A
v
e
S

S
t
.

L
o
u
i
s

A
v
e
S

T
r
u
m
b
u
l
l

A
v
e
Transit Lines
CTA Station Exit
CTA Bus Stop
Curb Cut
One-Way Street
On-Street Parking
Loading Zone
Railroad
Existing Conditions
Overlays
SRT- State Route
CTY- County Route
TRK- Truck Route
SNW- Snow Route
SRA- Strategic Regional Arterial
MOB- Mobility Street
PED- Pedestrian Priority Street
BIK- Bicycle Priority Street
BRT- Transit Priority Street
HBS- Historic Boulevard System
TOD- Transit-oriented District
West 26th Street and South Central Park Avenue- Existing Conditions, Overlays on the left
W 24th St
W 25th St
W 26th St
W 27th St
W 28th St
S

H
a
m
l
i
n

A
v
e
S

H
o
m
a
n

A
v
e
S

R
i
d
g
e
w
a
y

A
v
e
S

L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e

A
v
e
S

M
i
l
l
a
r
d

A
v
e
S

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

P
a
r
k

A
v
e
S

D
r
a
k
e

A
v
e
S

S
t
.

L
o
u
i
s

A
v
e
S

T
r
u
m
b
u
l
l

A
v
e
Transit Lines
CTA Station Exit
CTA Bus Stop
Curb Cut
One-Way Street
On-Street Parking
Loading Zone
Railroad
Existing Conditions
Overlays
SRT- State Route
CTY- County Route
TRK- Truck Route
SNW- Snow Route
SRA- Strategic Regional Arterial
MOB- Mobility Street
PED- Pedestrian Priority Street
BIK- Bicycle Priority Street
BRT- Transit Priority Street
HBS- Historic Boulevard System
TOD- Transit-oriented District
FIGURE 15
73
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
West 26th Street and South Central Park Avenue- Existing Conditions, Overlays on the left
W 24th St
W 25th St
W 26th St
W 27th St
W 28th St
S

H
a
m
l
i
n

A
v
e
S

H
o
m
a
n

A
v
e
S

R
i
d
g
e
w
a
y

A
v
e
S

L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e

A
v
e
S

M
i
l
l
a
r
d

A
v
e
S

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

P
a
r
k

A
v
e
S

D
r
a
k
e

A
v
e
S

S
t
.

L
o
u
i
s

A
v
e
S

T
r
u
m
b
u
l
l

A
v
e
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
Built Form & Function
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
Roadway Form & Function
AWS- All Way Stop
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Intersections & Crossings
W 24th St
W 25th St
W 26th St
W 27th St
W 28th St
S

H
a
m
l
i
n

A
v
e
S

H
o
m
a
n

A
v
e
S

R
i
d
g
e
w
a
y

A
v
e
S

L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e

A
v
e
S

M
i
l
l
a
r
d

A
v
e
S

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

P
a
r
k

A
v
e
S

D
r
a
k
e

A
v
e
S

S
t
.

L
o
u
i
s

A
v
e
S

T
r
u
m
b
u
l
l

A
v
e
R- Residential
M- Mixed-use
C- Commercial Center
D- Downtown
IC- Institutional or Campus
IN - Industrial
P- Parks
Built Form & Function
TH- Thoroughfare
CN- Connector
MS- Main Street
NS- Neighborhood Street
SW- Service Way
PW- Pedestrian Way
Roadway Form & Function
AWS- All Way Stop
SIG- Signal
RBT- Roundabout
STY- Stop, Yield
UNC- Uncontrolled
MID- Mid-block Crossing
DW- Driveway
Intersections & Crossings
Typologies on the right
FIGURE 15
74
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
FIGURE 16
W 28TH ST
W 26TH ST
W 27TH ST
W 25TH ST
W 24TH ST
S
D
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
S
H
O
M
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
A
M
L
I N
A
V
E
S
S
T
L
O
U
I S
A
V
E
S
M
I L
L
A
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
ID
G
E
W
A
Y
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
M
B
U
L
L
A
V
E
S
L
A
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 170 340 510 680
Feet
Existing Conditions, All Crashes, 2006 - 2010*
Crash
Note: Data excludes crashes with less than $500 of damage
for years 2006 though 2009 and data exludes crashes with less
than $1500 of property damage for year 2010. For total crash
numbers request CDOT crash report for the study area.
NORTH
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! (
" )
" )
! (
# * ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
" )
! (
# *
" )
! (
! (
! (
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
^_
! (
# *
# *
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
W 28TH ST
W 26TH ST
W 27TH ST
W 25TH ST
W 24TH ST
S
D
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
S
H
O
M
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
A
M
L
I N
A
V
E
S
S
T
L
O
U
I S
A
V
E
S
M
I L
L
A
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
ID
G
E
W
A
Y
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
M
B
U
L
L
A
V
E
S
L
A
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 170 340 510 680
Feet
Crash
Injury Severity
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
NORTH
!
!
!
*
Existing Conditions, All Crashes that Resulted in Injuries with Severity, 2006 - 2010
!
West 26th Street and South Central Park Avenue Crash Maps
Existing Conditions, All Crashes, 2006-2010*
Existing Conditions, All Crashes that Resulted in Injuries with
Severity, 2006-2010
W 28TH ST
W 26TH ST
W 27TH ST
W 25TH ST
W 24TH ST
S
D
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
S
H
O
M
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
A
M
L
I N
A
V
E
S
S
T
L
O
U
I
S
A
V
E
S
M
I
L
L
A
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
ID
G
E
W
A
Y
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
M
B
U
L
L
A
V
E
S
L
A
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 170 340 510 680
Feet
Existing Conditions, All Crashes, 2006 - 2010*
Crash
Note: Data excludes crashes with less than $500 of damage
for years 2006 though 2009 and data exludes crashes with less
than $1500 of property damage for year 2010. For total crash
numbers request CDOT crash report for the study area.
NORTH
75
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
W 28TH ST
W 26TH ST
W 27TH ST
W 25TH ST
W 24TH ST
S
D
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
S
H
O
M
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
A
M
L
I N
A
V
E
S
S
T
L
O
U
I S
A
V
E
S
M
I L
L
A
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
ID
G
E
W
A
Y
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
M
B
U
L
L
A
V
E
S
L
A
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 170 340 510 680
Feet
Existing Conditions, Bicycle Crashes with Severity, 2006 - 2010
Bicycle
Injury Severity
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
NORTH
!
!
!
*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
W 28TH ST
W 26TH ST
W 27TH ST
W 25TH ST
W 24TH ST
S
D
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
S
H
O
M
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
A
M
L
I N
A
V
E
S
S
T
L
O
U
I S
A
V
E
S
M
I L
L
A
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
ID
G
E
W
A
Y
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
M
B
U
L
L
A
V
E
S
L
A
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
Prepared By: Active Transportation Alliance
5/11/2012
Data Source: Active Transportation Alliance,
IDOT & Navteq
0 170 340 510 680
Feet
Existing Conditions, Pedestrian Crashes with Severity, 2006 - 2010
Pedestrian
Injury Severity
A:
Possible
B: Non-Incapacitating
C:
Incapacitating
K: Fatal
NORTH
!
!
!
*
FIGURE 16
Existing Conditions, Pedestrian Crashes with Severity, 2006-2010 Existing Conditions, Bicycle Crashes wth Severity, 2006-2010
76
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Volume and Speed Diagrams
Diagramming volumes of all modes and
vehicle speeds helps to tell the story and lead
to more insightful solutions. It is not required
for all projects but is an important tool for
project managers.
To be meaningful, volume maps should convey
the following:
all four modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
auto) and any others (freight) relevant to
the location
temporal uctuations such as AM peak,
PM peak, Noon, Weekend, and Night
volumes wherever they occur, such as mid-
block, not just at prescribed locations
cross-ows, especially on corridor-specic
projects
Figure 17 illustrates the above principles
and reects a typical AM peak hour with
higher ows on the north-south streets. Note
also the pedestrian cross-ows. In the PM the
ows become more concentrated east-west,
especially transit. During the lunch hour the
volume is mostly pedestrian, with many mid-
block crossings. Over the weekend, ows are
more balanced, but with more cycling. The
nal image combines the four time periods to
give an aggregate. This methodology is useful
in dening problems and ensuring a balanced
solution.
Figure 18 shows a comparison of volume and
speed maps. The top set shows measured
vehicle volumes along a corridor. The bottom
shows speeds. Note how the speeds increase
as volumes decrease. This information is
helpful to identify issues and opportunities,
and make the case for design decisions such
as using signals or other treatments to slow
speeds.
77
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Volumes: Morning Volumes: Evening Volumes: Noon Volumes: Weekend Volumes: Aggregate
PEDESTRIAN
BIKE
TRANSIT
AUTO
FIGURE 17
LOCATION 1
42 MPH 36 MPH 29 MPH 25 MPH
12,000 15,000 21,000 26,000
LOCATION 2 LOCATION 3 LOCATION 4
FIGURE 18
Volume and Speed Diagrams
Volumes: Morning Volumes: Evening Volumes: Noon Volumes: Weekend Volumes: Aggregate
PEDESTRIAN
BIKE
TRANSIT
AUTO
Illustrative Volume Diagrams
CHAPTER THREE:
DESIGN
GUIDANCE
79
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Direction, Observation,
Iteration
Complete streets design requires direction,
observation, and iteration. 1) Direction
requires both leadership and support:
leadership to establish CDOT policies
and priorities, and support of the resulting
projects and staff who implement them. 2)
Street design is not simply a technical or
quantitative exercise that should remain
xed for generations. Rather, street design
requires observation of how people use
the space, from drivers to people sitting
on stoops. It is with these observations that
we can craft the best design. 3) Unlike
highway design, street design is iterative.
At freeway speeds, one needs uniformity
and consistency. As speeds slow, options
expand. With more possibility comes the
need to experiment and adjust based on
how users react. The design of a street can
always be improved.
CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN GUIDANCE
The previous section focused on assembling
and applying planning-level information at the
beginning of a project. This chapter provides
design guidance for creating complete streets.
This section describes design trees, which
serve as a starting point for the street cross
section. It then provides ow charts of best
practices for decision making, specically
what to prioritize in design. Lastly, geometric
and operational policies are described that are
supportive of complete street principles.
3.1 Modal Hierarchy
CDOT will use modal hierarchies to inform
design and operation decisions. The default
hierarchy is: Pedestrian > Transit > Bicycle
> Automobile. Project-specic alternative
hierarchies may be submitted for Compliance
Committee approval. Some possible
hierarchies include:
Transit > Pedestrian > Bicycle >
Automobile - along a major transit
corridor
Bicycle > Pedestrian > Transit >
Automobile - along a bicycle priority street
with bikeways or a bicycle boulevard
Automobile > Pedestrian > Bicycle >
Transit - in an industrial corridor or along
a parkway with no bus service
PEDESTRIAN
TRANSIT
BICYCLE
AUTO
1
2
3
4
Pedestrian First Modal Hierarchy
80
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.1.1 Modes
Pedestrians
Pedestrians are the lifeblood of cities.
Downtowns, commercial districts, and
entertainment areas attract high volumes of
pedestrian activity and demand a high quality
walking environment. Even when pedestrians
are not the dominant roadway user, vibrant
street design must provide for people walking,
shopping, strolling or simply sitting. People
walking are extremely vulnerable to injury and
death when hit by vehicles and the design
and operations of streets and intersections
must protect them. Sidewalks, crosswalks,
pedestrian signals, and other pedestrian
facilities must accommodate pedestrians of all
abilities and comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). As stated previously,
most trips begin and end on foot; urban streets
that do not embrace this are not complete.
Transit
Buses and trains extend the range of activity
for Chicagos citizenry. They provide access to
essential services, jobs, housing and recreation
and reduce the demand for automobile
trips. Buses are a critical element of street
design given their size and operational
characteristics. The consequences for street
design include lane width, intersection design
(corner radius or width of channelization lane),
transit-priority lanes (and queue jump lanes),
signal timing (often adjusted to give transit an
advantage, transit-signal priority), pedestrian
access (street crossings at bus stops), sidewalk
design (making room for bus shelters), and bus
stop placement and design (farside/nearside
at intersections, bus pullouts, or bulb outs).
Access and volumes at train stations and stops
also affects street design, especially where
there are large volumes of pedestrians.
The Prudent Driver
Pivoting to a pedestrian-rst modal
hierarchy may frustrate people who drive.
Nevertheless, the transportation profession
is coming to understand that more roads,
more lanes, and longer signal cycles only
induces more trafc. Complete streets favors
the prudent driver: people who drive slowly,
safely, and respectfully. In urban settings,
the pedestrian-rst hierarchy adheres to the
performance standard of optimizing the
movement of people, and not simply the
movement of vehicles, which has been the
traditional priority in transportation.
81
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Bicycles
For a street to be complete, it needs to
accommodate cyclists. Like pedestrians,
bicyclists are vulnerable users who benet
from reduced trafc speed and dedicated
facilities. However, bicyclists are signicantly
different from pedestrians. They travel faster
than pedestrians but more slowly and less
visibly than automobiles. Their skill level
varies greatly, resulting in a wide range of
speeds and behaviors. Also, bicycling is a
social activity, and people often ride side-
by-side or in groups. Bicycles can efciently
delivery goods and serve a critical link in the
Citys freight network. Bicycle facility selection
requires an understanding of the street
condition; bicycle usage, volumes, speeds and
routes; and automobile volumes and speeds (if
present). Refer to CDOTs Bicycle Program for
specic criteria.
Automobiles
Private automobiles are an integral part of
Chicagos circulation system. Even though they
have been placed fourth in the default modal
hierarchy, they still must be accommodated,
within the constraints of lower speeds and
more prudent driving. Commercial vehicles
will be given more leeway, as the efcient
delivery of goods and services is paramount
to supporting a healthy economy and meeting
needs of local businesses.
Freight
Freight and goods delivery is an important
part of Chicagos streets. It is not included
as a specic mode because it is cross-
modal - trucks (auto), bike trailer (bicycle),
and delivery person (pedestrian).
Additionally, much freight is delivered
by rail, a tremendous factor in Chicagos
history. In setting the mode priority of
a particular street, especially one in an
industrial area, consideration should be
given to trucks, which would suggest a
more auto-oriented hierarchy.
82
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.2 Design Trees
After the street typology and modal hierarchy
have been established, design trees will
guide cross-section selection, see Figure 19.
The design trees contain the following three
parameters:
Modal Hierarchy from 3.1 above.
Building Typology from 2.1.1 above.
Roadway Typology from 2.1.2 above.
This contains general parameters on speed,
volume and width.
Additional design trees are contained in
Appendix B.
Dimensions are not listed in the design trees,
as they are meant to provide general direction
and guidance during project scoping.
Dimensions are provided in Cross section
Assemblage below (see 3.2.1). Sample cross
sections are provided in Appendix C.
Community Engagement
Design trees are intended to help engage
the community through the process of street
selection and design.
Volume and Speed are
Outputs
Traditional street design process begins
with automobile volume and speed as main
inputs. This process inverts that approach
by looking rst at the building and roadway
typology. Following the design trees,
automobile volume and speed become
outputs.
Ecological Design
Regardless of spatial allocation for different
uses through the design tree process, CDOT
can achieve better ecological performance
from its streets, above and below grade.
As noted, the goal is to minimize the paved
area.
83
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Mode
Hierarchy
Building Form
and Function
Roadway Form
and Function
Cross
Sections
COMPLETE STREET DESIGN TREES - Pedestrian, Mixed-Use.
p.m.pw
p.m.th
p.m.cn
p.m.ms
p.m.ns
p.m.sw
Target Speed
Volume - ADT
ROW Width
P > T > B > A
Parks Residential Mixed-Use Commercial
Center
Downtown Institutional/
Campus
Industrial
P R M C D IC IN
PEDESTRIAN
T > P > B > A B > P > A > T A > P > T > B
TRANSIT BICYCLE AUTO
5 to 10 mph 10 to 20 mph 20 to 30 mph 15 to 25 mph
Service Way
SW
Varies
Varies
Neighborhood
Street
NS
< 5,000 Vehicles
Varies
Main Street
MS
Connector
CN
Thoroughfare
TH
< 10,000 Vehicles
66 feet
< 25,000 Vehicles
80 feet
> 20,000 Vehicles
> 100 feet
Pedestrian Way
PW
Varies
25 to 30 mph
Label Code =
mode.building.roadway
FIGURE 19
Design Tree for Mixed-Use
Select mode hierarchy with
Compliance Committee
approval
Categorize streets
as per typologies in
Chapter 2
Refer to tables &
text in Chapter 3 for
dimensions
84
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.2.1 Cross Section Assemblage
With the rough cross-section in hand, the next
step is to add dimensions and assemble
the street. These policies do not dictate
dimensions, as street design requires making
tradeoffs within limited rights-of-way. Project
managers are charged with developing
cross-sections which respect the hierarchy and
typology.
Figures 20.1 to 20.4 list target, maximum
and constrained cross-section dimensions.
They are presented as assemblages, as widths
will vary based on adjacency (bike lanes
can be narrower if next to a curb, but need
to be wider if next to parked cars). They are
ordered left to right as in a typical street, but
the elements may be reordered. All elements
will not be used on all streets. Also see Section
3.5.6.
Notes for Figures 20.1 - 20.4
One travel lane on truck or bus route is to
be 11 feet wide.
The target auto/bike shared lane is 14
feet.
The combination of travel and parking
lane next to one another should be no
less than 18 feet (11-foot travel and
7-foot parking or 10-foot travel and 8-foot
parking).
Bikeway dimensions do not include
buffers.
Parking lanes are typically 7 feet wide
in residential areas and 8 feet wide on
commercial streets.
A curb extension is the width of the
parking lane minus 1-2 feet.
A frontage lane is the side travel lane of a
multiway thoroughfare.
Dimensions are not listed for travel,
parking and bike lanes on a
Neighborhood Street because these are
typically not marked.
85
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
NS
Neighborhood Street
Pedestrian Realm Interstitial Area Vehicle Realm
Frontage
Pedestrian
Zone
Furniture
Zone
Curb
Zone
Parking
Area (n/a)
Bikeway
(n/a)
Travel
Lane (n/a)
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
P Parks
Target 0 6 6 1 -- -- --
Maximum 2 8 10 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 5 0 -- -- --
R Residential
Target 0 5 5 1 -- -- --
Maximum 1 6 8 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 0 0 -- -- --
M Mixed Use
Target 1 6 5 1 -- -- --
Maximum 2 8 8 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 4 0 -- -- --
C Commercial Center
Target 1 6 5 1 -- -- --
Maximum 2 8 8 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 4 0 -- -- --
D Downtown
Target 1 6 5 1 -- -- --
Maximum 2 8 10 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 4 0 -- -- --
IC Institutional Campus
Target 0 6 5 1 -- -- --
Maximum 4 8 6 2 -- -- --
Constrained 0 5 4 0 -- -- --
IN Industrial
Target
N/A Maximum
Constrained
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
FIGURE 20.1
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET
Assemblage Table for Neighborhood Street
86
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
MS
Main Street
Pedestrian Realm Interstitial Area Vehicle Realm
Frontage
Pedestrian
Zone
Furniture
Zone
Curb
Zone
Parking
Area
Bikeway Travel Lane
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
P Parks
Target 0 6 8 1 7 6 10
Maximum 2 8 12 2 8 10 11
Constrained 0 5 6 0 7 5 9
R Residential
Target 0 6 6 1 7 5 10
Maximum 1 8 10 2 8 6 11
Constrained 0 5 0 0 7 4 9
M Mixed Use
Target 4 6 5 1 8 4 10
Maximum 5 12 8 2 8 6 11
Constrained 1 5 4 0 7 4 9
C Commercial Center
Target 1 7 5 1 8 6 10
Maximum 5 10 8 2 8 8 11
Constrained 1 5 4 0 7 4 9
D Downtown
Target 4 8 6 1 8 6 10
Maximum 5 10 10 2 8 6 11
Constrained 1 6 4 0 7 4 9
IC Institutional Campus
Target 0 7 6 1 8 6 10
Maximum 4 9 8 2 8 7 11
Constrained 0 5 4 0 7 4 9
IN Industrial
Target 1 5 5 1 9 6 10
Maximum 3 9 5 2 10 8 14
Constrained 1 5 0 0 8 4 10
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
FIGURE 20.2
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET
Assemblage Table for Main Street
87
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
CN
Connector
Pedestrian Realm Interstitial Area
Vehicle
Realm
Median
Frontage
Pedestrian
Zone
Furniture
Zone
Curb
Zone
Bikeway
Parking
Area
Travel
Lane
Center
Median
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
P Parks
Target 0 8 10 1 8 7 10 8
Maximum 2 10 -- 2 10 8 11 16
Constrained 0 5 6 0 5 7 9 6
R Residential
Target 0 8 8 1 5 7 10 6
Maximum 1 10 12 2 6 8 11 16
Constrained 0 5 0 0 5 7 9 6
M Mixed Use
Target 4 6 6 1 6 8 10 8
Maximum 5 12 -- 2 7 8 11 16
Constrained 1 6 5 0 5 7 9 6
C Commercial Center
Target 1 8 6 1 6 8 10 10
Maximum 5 12 10 2 8 8 11 18
Constrained 1 8 5 0 5 7 9 6
D Downtown
Target 5 10 6 1 6 8 10 10
Maximum 5 -- 10 2 7 8 11 18
Constrained 1 8 5 0 5 7 9 6
IC Institutional Campus
Target 0 8 6 1 6 8 10 8
Maximum 4 10 10 2 7 8 11 16
Constrained 1 6 5 0 5 7 9 6
IN Industrial
Target 1 6 6 1 6 10 10 6
Maximum 3 9 5 2 8 10 14 18
Constrained 1 5 0 0 5 8 10 6
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
FIGURE 20.3
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET
Assemblage Table for Connector
88
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
TH
Thoroughfare
Pedestrian Realm Interstitial Area
Vehicle
Realm
Median
Frontage
Pedestrian
Zone
Furniture
Zone
Curb
Zone
Parking
Area
Frontage
Lane
Bikeway
Side
Median
Travel
Lane
Center
Median
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
P Parks
Target 0 10 10 1 7 9 8 8 10 10
Maximum 2 12 -- 2 8 10 12 -- 11 --
Constrained 0 5 6 0 7 8 6 6 10 6
R Residential
Target 0 6 8 1 7 9 6 6 10 6
Maximum 1 10 12 2 8 10 8 10 11 16
Constrained 0 5 5 0 7 8 5 4 10 4
M Mixed Use
Target 4 6 6 1 8 9 6 6 10 8
Maximum 5 12 -- 2 8 10 8 10 11 18
Constrained 1 6 5 0 7 9 5 6 10 6
C Commercial Center
Target 1 10 6 1 8 10 7 8 10 10
Maximum 5 -- 10 2 9 10 8 10 11 20
Constrained 1 8 5 0 7 9 6 6 10 6
D Downtown
Target 5 12 8 1 8 10 6 10 10 10
Maximum 8 -- 10 2 9 10 8 12 11 20
Constrained 1 10 5 0 7 9 5 6 10 8
IC Institutional Campus
Target 0 9 6 1 8 9 6 8 10 8
Maximum 4 12 10 2 9 10 7 10 11 18
Constrained 0 6 5 0 7 8 5 6 10 6
IN Industrial
Target 1 6 5 1 10 10 6 6 10 6
Maximum 3 9 5 2 10 10 8 10 14 18
Constrained 1 5 0 0 8 9 5 6 10 6
ROADWAY FORM AND FUNCTION
FIGURE 20.4
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET
Assemblage Table for Thoroughfare
89
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.3 Cross-Section
Elements
This section describes, in limited detail, the
elements that make up a cross-section. Please
refer to the publications listed in Section 1.1
for more information.
These policies and procedures divide streets
into four component parts: pedestrian realm,
interstitial area, vehicle realm and median, see
Figure 21. These are not strict segregations,
but a useful tool to understand how a street
is assembled. The pedestrian realm contains
items typically found on the sidewalk:
walkway, sidewalk furniture, trees and
stoops. The vehicle realm is where through
vehicles operate (bike, transit, automobiles).
In between, the elements that relate to both:
curb and gutter, dedicated bicycle facilities,
parking areas, bus stops, etc. The complete
street design process manages these interstitial
elements.
It is important to consider ecological
performance and placemaking in close
conjunction with complete street design
principles when developing a projects
cross-section. Opportunities for ecological
performance exist throughout all parts of the
cross-section, pedestrian, interstitial, roadway
and median, and are not limited to the ground
plane only but, very importantly, include the
space above and beneath the surfaces of the
roadway.
The pedestrian realm and interstitial
zone often have the greatest potential to
address ecological performance as well as
placemaking, and to maximize environmental
comfort, economic development, culture, and
beauty. For implementation strategies, refer to
the Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Guidelines
and Policies.

PEDESTRIAN
REALM
PEDESTRIAN
REALM
INTERSTITIAL
AREA
INTERSTITIAL
AREA VEHICLE
REALM
MEDIAN
Stoop Area
Door Zone
Yards
Building Setbacks
Walkways
Trees
Sidewalk Furniture
Driveways
Stoop Area
Door Zone
Yards
Building Setbacks
Walkways
Trees
Sidewalk Furniture
Driveways
Curbs
Bicycle Lanes
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Parking
Turn Lanes
Curbs
Bicycle Lanes
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Parking
Turn Lanes
Bus Lanes
Travel Lanes
Bicycle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Travel Lanes
Bicycle Lanes
Landscaping
Pedestrian Refuges
Bus-rapid Transit
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Turn Lanes
VEHICLE
REALM
FIGURE 21
Cross-Section Elements
90
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.3.1 Pedestrian Realm
The pedestrian realm is commonly referred
to as the sidewalk. It is divided it into
three zones, much like the segmentation
of a roadway. Figure 22 illustrates various
arrangements of the zones, which are highly
contextual and location specic. There are
numerous permutations for high-quality
pedestrian realm design. Refer to CDOTs
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Guidelines
and Policies and Streetscape Guidelines for
specic criteria.
Frontage Zone
The frontage zone is the area between
the walkway and building, fence or yard.
Typically this is the edge of the right of way. It
may be nothing more than the shy distances
adjacent to a building (the place where people
stand to window shop, where the utility meters
are, and where the door mat is). Or it may
contain a stoop, outdoor caf, landscaping,
benches, and bike parking. Where there is a
front lawn with no fence, the frontage zone
width is zero.
Walking Zone
The walking zone is the area dedicated to
walking. Just like any travel lane, it should
provide a logical path of travel. It must be
ADA-compliant and clear of all obstructions.
It should be straight and continuous. Attempts
to create meandering sidewalks usually fail
because people want to walk in the most direct
route possible. It should be sized to provide
sufcient space for the expected pedestrian
volumes, but not overly wide as to appear
barren.
Sidewalk Furniture Zone
The sidewalk furniture zone is located
between the curb and walking zones, and
contains items such as street trees, planters,
bus shelters, parking meters, utility poles
and boxes, lamp posts, signs, bike racks,
news racks, benches, waste receptacles,
and drinking fountains. Placing these items
in this zone keeps the walking zone free of
obstructions. This zone is often landscaped in
residential neighborhoods and provides some
level of separation between children playing
on the sidewalk and moving trafc.
91
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
PLANTER
BENCH
CAFE
BIKE PARKING
STOOP
VENDING
WALKWAY WALKWAY
WALKWAY
TREE
FIGURE 22
Various Pedestrian Realm and Interstitial Area Arrangements
BIKE
PARKING
CURB ON-STREET
PARKING
CURB
ON-STREET
PARKING
CURB
AUTO
PARKING BAY
PROTECTED
BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE
92
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.3.2 Interstitial Area
The interstitial area is between the walkway
and roadway. This is a highly exible area
which contains elements used by all modes.
On larger roads it is the primary place
for cycling. Figure 22 illustrates various
arrangements of the areas four zones. Refer
to CDOTs Sustainable Urban Infrastructure
Guidelines and Policies, and Streetscape
Guidelines for specic criteria.
Curbs
The curb zone serves primarily to prevent
water and cars from encroaching on the
sidewalk, see Figure 23. People using assistive
devices must traverse the curb to get from the
street to the sidewalk, so its design is critical to
accessibility. Curbs may be designed as rain
gardens. They may be at a level-plane with the
roadway (not vertical or raised) in a shared
space or home zone environment. Refer to
the Sustainable Design Guidelines for more
information.

Bicycle Facilities
Locating and designing bicycle facilities is
often a difcult challenge in street design
because cyclists can operate like both
pedestrians and automobiles. A high quality
facility will separate cyclists from both
automobiles and pedestrians. It will provide
a direct connection for faster cyclists and
a leisurely ride for everyone else. This may
require duplicate facilities on a single street
such as a marked shared lane, a protected
bike lane, or a double wide protected bike
lane. Refer to CDOTs Bicycle Program for
specic criteria.
Diagram of the Curb Area
SIDEWALK FURNITURE
ZONE
FIGURE 23
93
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
On-street Parking
On-street parking can be positive or negative
for complete streets. On the one hand, on-
street parking supports storefront retail, slows
moving trafc, and protects people from errant
drivers and fast moving trafc. On the other
hand, each parking space is valuable real
estate that can be used for curb extensions,
bus shelters, bicycle parking, trees, rain
gardens, bus lanes and more. Parking is
problematic for cycling due to the increase
chance of being doored or cars idling in
the travel lane waiting for a parking space to
become available.
On-street parking does not make a street
more or less complete, therefore these
policies and procedures offer no opinion on
its inclusion. If used, on-street parking should
be clearly designed as separate from the
travel lanes (described below). This can be
accomplished by including curb extensions
(so the roadway remains visually narrower
when there is no parking), and paving the
parking area differently than the roadway
(concrete or pavers, not asphalt). In addition,
project managers are encouraged to explore
opportunities to organize parking with street
trees, bus stops, and other elements in the
interstitial area.
Frontage Lanes on Multi-way Boulevards
Frontage lanes on multi-way boulevards should
be reserved for slower trafc, turning trafc,
and to serve adjacent properties. They are
placed in the interstitial area because they are
not considered part of the through roadway.
Right Turn Lanes
Right turn lanes that align with a parking lane
are considered to be in the interstitial area.
Turn lanes adjacent to the walkway can be
problematic when the buffer between the two
is just the curb.
94
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.3.3 Vehicle Realm
The vehicle realm refers to the area primarily
reserved for through vehicles (buses,
automobiles, trucks). On smaller roads this will
be the primary location for cycling.
Bus Lanes
Bus lanes are travel lanes designated for
exclusive use by buses. They come in many
forms and fashions, from rush-hour only lanes
to physically separated transitways. When
added to an existing street, a bus lane should
be converted from an automobile travel lane,
as opposed to widening the roadway or
removing parking. Bus lanes can be shared
with cyclists, especially if there are low buses
or bike volumes. However, bus-bike lanes
require some special accommodation to
reduce potential conicts at bus stops. On
streets without dedicated bicycle facilities
and where the bus lane is the right-most lane,
cyclists by default should be allowed to share
the bus lane, as there is no other practical
place for cyclists to ride. See Section 3.5.6 for
information on lane width.
Travel Lanes
Travel lanes are typically used by automobiles,
bikes and transit. The number of lanes should
be kept to a minimum. See Section 3.5.6 for
information on lane width.
3.3.4 Median
A median is the center portion of a roadway,
but not part of the roadway. To serve its
purpose, it may be striped, protected with
bollards, raised, or simply elevated with a
drivable surface. Only Thoroughfares and
some Connectors have medians. Medians can
serve many functions including maintaining
separation between opposing directions of
trafc and providing refuge for pedestrians
crossing the street (see below).
Landscaping
Landscaping medians offers an opportunity
to replace a non-functional paved area with
green infrastructure. Landscaping increases
stormwater retention and CO
2
absorption,
mitigates trafc noise, and makes Chicagos
streets more attractive. The Sustainable
Urban Infrastructure Guidelines and Policies
contains detailed guidance and design
recommendations for this space.
Pedestrian Refuges
Medians allow pedestrians to cross the street
more easily. They reduce crossing distance,
allow one to cross one direction of trafc at a
time, and provide a refuge to wait. A median
specically located and designed for use by
pedestrians is known as a pedestrian refuge
island. See Section 3.4.3 for details.
95
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT systems are typically located in the
median, but can be designed to operate on
a variety of streets and locations. When in
the median, access to the station is critically
important. For further information, see the
Institute for Transportation and Development
Policys Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide
(2007).
Protected Bike Lane
Protected bike lanes can be located in the
median, especially in coordination with a BRT
system.
Left Turn Lanes
Left turn lanes can be placed within the
median proper; however this must not be at
the expense of pedestrian crossing facilities.
A key element of median
design is the nose - the
portion that extends past
the crosswalk. The nose
protects people waiting
on the median and slows
turning drivers.
Figure 24 illustrates a solution where a turn
lane is needed at a median with a crosswalk.
By striping a shoulder along the median, the
width of the median increases so that both
the turn lane and pedestrian refuge can be
included. Note also the nose of the median,
which extends past the crosswalk.

MEDIAN
NOSE
1 SHOULDER
FIGURE 24
Crosswalk and Turn Lane at Median
96
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.4 Intersections
After the basic cross-section has been set, how
streets intersect needs to be established. This
is often the most difcult task of street design,
and clearly important as most pedestrian
crashes in Chicago occur within 125 feet of
an intersection.
10

Intersections should be as
compact as possible.
3.4.1 Layout
Compact or Complex
Intersections range from compact to complex,
see Figure 25. The former has three or
four legs and right angles. Most of the
neighborhood junctions in Chicago t this
denition. The latter has multiple legs, trafc
islands, skewed angles, and/or turn lanes.
Chicagos six-point intersections, single point
urban interchanges, and diverging diamond
interchanges fall into this category.
Intersections should be as compact as
possible. People walking and cycling can
easily navigate them, and vehicle speed is
kept to a minimum by trafc calming devices
such as trafc circles, curb extensions, and
raised intersections. They may be signalized,
but this runs the risk of too much speed when
drivers see multiple green lights along a
corridor. The general idea is that all users
approach the intersection with caution, and
yield to others. Shared streets function in this
manner.
If an intersection cannot be made to be
compact, then it is preferred to separate
trafc ows with islands and trafc control
devices. The key is to make the intersection
self-evident to all modes, and give each mode
an opportunity to pass through the intersection
with the fewest conicts.

10
City of Chicago 2011 Pedestrian Crash Analysis.
Compact and Complex Intersections
FIGURE 25
COMPACT INTERSECTION
X INTERSECTION
COMPLEX INTERSECTION
TWO T INTERSECTION REALIGN TO A SQUARE
INTERSECTION
COMPACT INTERSECTION
X INTERSECTION
COMPLEX INTERSECTION
TWO T INTERSECTION REALIGN TO A SQUARE
INTERSECTION
97
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Not all complex intersections need remain
so. Some can be recongured as a series
of compact ones, such as converting an
X-intersection into two T-intersections or
squaring off Y-junctions. See Figure 26.
This will lower turning speeds, increase
visibility, and reduce crosswalk distances. It is
important that the resulting intersections can
be effectively operated with one or multiple
signals, and that desire lines are not severed.
More compact intersections
are preferable to fewer,
complex ones.
Converting an X-intersection into two Ts; Squaring off a Y-junction
COMPACT INTERSECTION
X INTERSECTION
COMPLEX INTERSECTION
TWO T INTERSECTION REALIGN TO A SQUARE
INTERSECTION
FIGURE 26
98
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Connectivity
Some complex intersections are a result of
poor street connectivity. Figure 27 illustrates
this point. The intersection in the center has
a high number of right turns (east to north).
An origin-destination survey might reveal that
drivers would rather turn a block before or
after, but cannot. Or perhaps another street
does not go through. The network should be
reviewed for mitigation possibilities before the
subject intersection is enlarged.

EXISTING CONDITION:
INTERSECTION WITH
TOO MANY RIGHT TURNS
Turn after?
Turn before?
Turn into
neighborhood?
Is left turn
restricted?
FIGURE 27
Network Mitigation Scenario
99
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Excessive Pavement
In almost every intersection there are
opportunities to minimize excessive pavement
and impermeable surfaces, resulting in a
benet of reduced crossing distances and
increased ecological functionality. The most
common is with on-street parking, where curb
extensions that include green infrastructure
elements can almost always be added. Where
there are turn lanes, often the opposite side
can have a median, especially for turns onto
one-way streets, see Figure 28. The Sustainable
Urban Infrastructure Guidelines and Policies
contains extensive references and design
recommendations for these areas.

Possible
Median
Possible
Curb Extension
FIGURE 28
Opportunities to Reduce Excessive Pavement at Intersections
100
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Key Principles
The following principles will lead to complete,
accessible, functional, sustainable and safe
intersections.
1. Design intersection to be
self-evident to all users
2. Make the intersection as
small as possible
3. Align lanes so that number
of approach and departure
lanes are equal
4. Square off skewed intersections
5. Manage driver speed,
especially turning speed
6. Limit opportunities for drivers
to make sudden movements
7. Minimize crossing distances
8. Locate crossings along desire lines
9. Locate crossings and waiting
areas within sight triangles
10. Organize bus stops to
minimize transfer distances
11. Merge cyclists with slow speeds
and low volumes, separate cyclists
from fast speeds and high volumes
12. Prioritize cyclists over turning drivers
13. Ensure sufcient queue
space for cyclists
14. Utilize predictable/
natural signal phasing
15. Minimize delay for all modes
16. Prioritize signals for pedestrians,
cyclists and transit
17. Ensure that signal timing works for
both commuters and slower walkers
18. Convert non-driving or cycling
space to sidewalk or island
19. Landscape or use sustainable
materials for all spaces not used
for walking, cycling or driving
101
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.4.2 Corner Design
Corner design is critical to complete streets.
Issues include turning and corner radius,
crossing length and conicts, pedestrian queue
space and sight lines. The following protocols
will assist the designer in accommodating
users safely and efciently.
Turning speed
Vehicle turning speed should be held to 15
mph or less for passenger vehicles. This is
accomplished by restricting the effective
turning radii with smaller corner radii, curb
extensions and medians. Figure 29 presents
the relationship between turning radius and
speed. The formula for calculating turning
speed is R = V
2
/15(.01 E + F)
11
where:
R is centerline turning radius (effective)
V is speed in miles per hour (mph)
E is super-elevation. This is assumed to be
zero in urban conditions.
F is side friction factor
12
V (mph) E F R (ft)
10 0 0.38 18
13
15 0 0.32 47
20 0 0.27 99
Effective Radius and All Lanes
The effective radius calculates the path of large
vehicles traversing the intersection, and the
speed at which passenger vehicles can turn.
The effective radius is typically not the same as
the corner radius, especially where there are
parking and bike lanes. Many drivers will turn
to the centermost lane to minimize centrifugal
force. Similarly, truck drivers will swing wide
in the receiving lanes of the turn in order to
avoid running over the curb. At signalized
intersections there is little incentive to turn into
the nearest lane.
CDOT will minimize intersection size with
smaller corner radii, set back stop lines, and
other techniques; see Figure 30. Drivers of
large vehicles will be expected to make the
tightest turn possible at the lowest speed
14
.
A large corner radius should
not be used to facilitate a
truck turning from the right
lane into the right lane.
Right/Left Turn on Red
If accommodating a turn on red adversely
impacts the design (larger corner radius,
additional lane) the turn on red should be
prohibited. See Section 3.5.5.
Design & Control Vehicles
It is preferable to have a smaller design
vehicle, rather than a larger intersection. See
Section 3.5.4.
Turning Speed and Radius Reference
Chart
FIGURE 29
11
AASHTO Green Book 2011, Formula 3-8.
12
Based on values assumed for low speed design from AASHTO Green Book 2011, Figure 3-6.
13
The minimum centerline turn for a Passendger Car (P) is 21 feet, as per AASHTO Green Book 2011, Table 2-2b and
Figure 2-1.
14
The Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-801) directs drivers to turn as close to the curb as possible. For large
vehicles including trucks and buses, swinging wide into multiple lanes IS as close to the curb as physically possible
without running over the curb. Thus is it resonable for large vehicles to use multiple lanes to make turns at tight
corners. The AASHTO Green Book 2011 discusses this on page 9-80.
102
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Turn Lanes
In general dedicated right turn lanes are to be
avoided because they widen the roadway and
facilitate higher turning speeds. Before one is
installed a trafc network analysis should be
performed to determine if the turns may be
accommodated elsewhere or spread through
the network, see Figure 27.
Slip Lanes
Slip lanes (pork chop islands) are mitigation
measures for overly wide and angled
intersections. Their use is not encouraged,
however, a well-designed slip lane is superior
to an expanse of asphalt.
Protocols for slip lane selection are as follows:
First, minimize intersection size as
discussed above.
Second, analyze the trafc network
to determine if the turn can be made
elsewhere and/or if the turns can be
redistributed throughout the network. For
example, it is usually possible to turn
before or after a diagonal street. Also,
turns for large vehicles can be restricted.
If a slip lane is used, stop control and a
raised crosswalk are preferred.
See Figure 30 for slip lane dimensions
15
.
Slip lanes require
Compliance Committee
approval.
Highway Ramps
Corner design protocols apply where highway
and other ramps meet the city street. This may
require longer ramps and deceleration lanes.
Intersections adjacent to highway ramps are
not meant to process high automobile speeds
at the expense of other users.
It is preferable to slow drivers from highway
to street speeds before they arrive to the
intersection.
Figure 30 illustrates corner design concepts.
The left shows the difference between the
actual corner radius and the effective turning
radius. Note how the parking and bike lanes
allow a larger turning radius. The addition
of a curb extension and median reduces the
turning radius and will limit turning vehicle
speed. The center image demonstrates how
a truck driver makes a turn into a smaller
street with curb extensions by crossing over
the center line. If this is a routine movement,
such as along a bus route, then it is prudent to
move the stop line back. On the right is a slip
lane. Note the raised crosswalk and position
of the crosswalk that enhances visibility for
pedestrians entering from either side.

15
For more information on slip lanes see the 2011 AASHTO Green Book, Section 9.6.5; FHWAs Selecting Pedestrian
Safety Improvements Countermeasure Matrix on Well-designed Right-turn Slip Lanes; 2003 Oregon DOT Highway
Design Manual, pg 9-27.
103
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
20-40
RADIUS
20
150-275
30-40
DEGREE
ANGLE
12
-14

Corner Design Concepts

CURB EXTENSIONS
OR MEDIAN
CORNER
RADIUS
TURNING
RADIUS
TURNING RADIUS
WITH CURB
EXTENSION AND
MEDIAN
STOP BAR
RELOCATION
FIGURE 30
104
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.4.3 Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrians cross the street at a variety of
locations: at the intersection of two streets,
at the intersection of a street and a path,
midblock, when they exit a parked car, when
there is a gap in trafc. Shared streets, home
zones and other locations where people
routinely walk in the street need no pedestrian
crossings, per se. Complete streets recognize
and accommodate this activity.
Within the City of Chicago, pedestrians have
the right-of-way at crosswalks unless directed
otherwise by trafc-control devices, police
ofcers or trafc control aides.
16
A crosswalk
is the extension of the sidewalk or walking
area across the road. It does not necessarily
have to be painted or otherwise marked.
17

Drivers shall stop and yield to pedestrians in
crosswalks on their half of the road.
18

Figure 31 presents a three-step process for
locating and designing pedestrian crossing
facilities. First, locate the crossing according
to the pedestrian network. Second, determine
the crossing treatment (signal, refuge island,
marked crosswalk). Last, design the crossing
and its operation.
Location
Selecting a pedestrian crossing location is
based on two simple rules: it should be located
where pedestrians want to cross, and where
drivers can reasonably expect pedestrians to
cross.
People generally cross where its most
convenient, expedient, efcient, and in
as direct a line to their destination as
possible. This is known as the desire line.
Locate crossings according to the walking
network, not the driving network. For
example, people walk through the alleys
and plazas downtown, so there should
be crossing opportunities where these
meet streets. There should be some way
to cross the street at every bus stop. An
analysis might determine that no formal
crossing (marked or signalized crosswalk)
is needed, or that pedestrians should be
redirected; nevertheless, it is incumbent on
CDOT to assess the situation.
Pedestrians Had to be
Trained
...streets used to be different than they
are today. Modern improvements were
not universally embraced when they were
rst put in placein the 1920s and 1930s
pedestrians had to be trained to cross at
intersections and wait at trafc signals.
19
Desire Line
Walking Network
Site Design/Context
LOCATION

1
TREATMENT
2
DESIGN &
OPERATION
3
Vehicle Speed
Vehicle Volume
Roadway Conguration

Geometry
Destinations
Median

FIGURE 31
Pedestrian Crossing Facility Selection Methodology
16
City of Chicago Municipal Code 9-24-050.
17
State of Illinois Vehicle Code 5-1-113.
18
State of Illinois Vehicle Code 5-11-1002.
19
Clay McShane, Down the Asphalt Path: The Automobile and the American City, 1994
105
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
There is no hard and fast rule for
crossing spacing, such as every 150 feet.
Crossings should be provided where an
analysis shows a concentration of origins
and destinations directly across from each
other.
The organization of buildings, doors,
paths, fences, and gates greatly inuences
the location of street crossings. Site design
and landscaping can orient people to
preferred crossings, and street design can
respond to the site. A successful complete
street network treats the two in harmony.
No amount of design can
make up for a crossing in
the wrong location.
Treatment
Once the location has been established, the
crossing treatment can be determined, see
Figure 32. The crossing treatment is largely
a function of automobile speed, automobile
volume, and roadway conguration. People
informally cross narrow streets with low
automobile volume and speed. Refuge
islands, curb extensions, raised crossings,
and overhead lighting can enhance these
crossings. Multi-lane, high-speed, and high-
volume roads require more aggressive
treatments such as lane narrowings, medians,
overhead signs, and advance stop lines.
Fundamentally altering a street, for example
through a road diet, accomplishes much of
this simultaneously. Trafc control devices
such as crosswalk striping, yield signs, and
signals may be warranted. At locations with
a documented crash history, trafc should
be calmed or controlled more aggressively.
Crosswalks shall not be eliminated based on
the notion that not marking a crosswalk is
safer. Instead they should be enhanced, for
further guidance, see the CDOT Pedestrian
Plan.


FIGURE 32
Crosswalk Selection Criteria
19
19
CDOT Pedestrian Plan
106
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Design & Operation
After setting the location and type, the crossing
can be designed. While many designs may
be standard, each should be altered as per
context. For example, the crossing should
be located so that people getting off the
bus cross behind the bus (far-side bus stop).
Combination pedestrian-bicycle crossings must
cater to both users needs. People crossing at
corners need protection from turning drivers
via leading pedestrian intervals or turn on red
restrictions. In general the width of a crosswalk
should be equal to or greater than the width
of the sidewalk. This will accommodate
the two platoons of pedestrians that meet
in the crosswalk from opposite sides of the
intersection. Pedestrian ramps should be equal
to the size of the crosswalk so that all may
benet from a ush transition. Bollards may be
necessary to restrict driver access.
Marked crosswalks should
not be longer than three
lanes.
Lighting
Unsignalized marked crosswalks shall be
lit as brightly as a signalized intersection in
compliance with the lighting requirements in
the Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Guidelines
and Policy.
Refuge Islands (Medians)
It is easier to cross a street with a median than
without. A median or refuge island allows
a person to cross one direction of trafc at
a time, making it much easier to nd and
correctly identify acceptable gaps. Designers
should seek opportunities to install medians
or refuge islands on two-way streets and
anywhere else (turn lanes) where they would
assist a crossing. Figure 33 presents key
design concepts.
The preferred width of a pedestrian refuge
is eight to 10 feet, with additional area
to accommodate the expected number
of people. The minimum protected width
is six feet, based on the length of a
bicycle or a person pushing a stroller.
Where a six-foot median width cannot be
attained, a narrower raised median will
still improve crossing safety. The refuge is
ideally 40 feet long.
Medians and refuge islands should
include curbs, bollards or other features to
protect people waiting.
Vertical elements such as trees,
landscaping, and overhead signage
identify the island to drivers. Where
landscaping is not possible, alternate
treatments should be installed to increase
conspicuity.
The cut-through or ramp width should
equal the width of the crosswalk.
107
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
RAMP WIDTH = CROSSWALK WIDTH = CUT IN MEDIAN
6
6
RAMP WIDTH = CROSSWALK WIDTH = CUT IN MEDIAN
6
6
FIGURE 33
Pedestrian Refuge Island Concepts
RAMP WIDTH = CROSSWALK WIDTH = CUT IN MEDIAN
6
6
108
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Tracking Surveys
A tracking survey documents exactly where
and how people cross a street, complex
intersection, or plaza. This information is
useful in locating crosswalks and refuge
islands, redesigning intersections, and
understanding the interface between streets
and the surrounding buildings and spaces.
The best time to perform this type of survey
is a weekday between 3 and 6 PM, when
there is an overlap of school, rush hour, and
evening trafc. This is also the time period
when most vehicle-pedestrian crashes occur
21
.
Typically 20 minutes is required to establish
a pattern, more or less depending on the
volumes. Additional surveys can be done at
different times of the day to highlight temporal
uctuations.
22

Figure 34 envisions a tracking survey
at the complex intersection of Clybourn-
Division-Orleans-Sedgwick.
23
The diagram
identies 14 likely pedestrian destinations
and funnel points: bus stops, park gates,
building entrances, parking lot entrances, and
sidewalks. These are shown as blue dots. A
surveyor would stand at each of these points
and track every person that passed and
crossed the street. The lines track where a
person would cross the street, irrespective
of crosswalk. One line is shown for each
person. Thicker lines indicate more people
crossing at the same location.
S
E
D
G
W
I
C
K
H
U
D
S
O
N
O
R
L
E
A
N
S
DIVISION
DIVISION
C
L
Y
B
O
U
R
N
BUS STOP
PEDESTRIAN PATH
SURVEY POINT
N
FIGURE 34
Sample Tracking Survey
21
Chicago Forward: DOT Action Agenda.
22
For more information, refer to Best Practices for Pedestrian Counts, CDOT, 2012.
23
This drawing is speculative; no actual survey was conducted.
109
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
FIGURE 35
Driveway Design Concepts
3.4.4 Driveways
24

The fundamental principle in driveway
design is that a driveway is subservient to
the sidewalk. Drivers turning into and exiting
a driveway must yield. The principal way
to accomplish this is to ramp the driveway
up to meet the sidewalk, and carry the
sidewalk grade and surface material across
the driveway. This will visually reinforce the
continuity of the sidewalk, see Figure 35.
Other techniques to reinforce this include:
Keep the driveway as small as possible,
including width and corner radii.
Design for 10 mph.
Orient the driveway 90 degrees to the
street.
Include stop/yield signs for exiting trafc
where sight distance is limited.
The number of driveways should also be
minimized, as this will reduce conict potential
for all modes on the street or sidewalk. During
project scoping, driveways should be surveyed
and efforts made to consolidate or eliminate
as many as possible. Utilizing an alley instead
of a driveway for access is a recommended
practice. Locating the buildings along the street
and parking along the alley accomplishes this.
Compliance Committee
approval is required if the
driveway does not ramp up
to meet the sidewalk.

90
RAMP UP
MINIMAL
RADIUS
CONSOLIDATE
DRIVEWAYS
CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK
24
Even though driveways are typically discussed as
a sidewalk element, they are placed here because of
the cross-trafc conicts, which have more to do with
intersection design.
110
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5 Geometric and
Operational Policies
This nal section outlines key CDOT geometric
and operational policies.
3.5.1 Level of Service Level of Service
25

is a qualitative assessment used to describe
the perceived service a street provides to the
people who use it. Motor Vehicle Level of
Service (MVLOS) assesses delay for motorists
along a roadway section or at a signalized
intersection, using a letter grade system that
assigns an A for minimal delay and an F for
greatest delay. MVLOS evaluation is not well
suited for complete streets outcomes as it does
not take into consideration other modes or
goals such as safety and convenience. In fact,
increases in MVLOS often come at the expense
of other modes and goals. In Chicagos
downtown core, congestion is often more of
an issue than MVLOS.
Relying primarily on MVLOS
produces two outcomes
inconsistent with complete
streets:
1. streets are routinely
upgraded for higher
traffic volumes at the
expense of other users
2. streets designed for rush
hour volumes end up with
excess speed and width off-
peak and at night
Three Tenets of Street
Design
1. Vehicle speed is a signicant
determinant of crash severity,
especially between modes. The
operating speed along a street
must reect not on the roadway
but also the context. Reducing
vehicle speeds opens up a range
of design options that allows a
street to resemble less a speedway
and more a neighborhood street.
2. Minimizing exposure risk, the
time that users are exposed to
conicting movements, creates
safer streets. Narrower streets,
smaller intersections, leading
pedestrian intervals, protected
bicycle facilities all achieve this.
3. Being able to predict what others
will do, where they will go and
when makes a street safer. Streets
with consistent speed proles,
intersections with predictable
signal operations, and low-
speed streets where drivers
make eye contact with each
other, cyclists and pedestrians
are generally safer streets.
25
LOS is typically assumed to refer to motor vehicles. In
this document LOS refers to level of service generically.
MVLOS refers to LOS for motor vehicles.
111
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Level of Service Policy
1. LOS should be consistent with
modal hierarchy. In a typical
project, pedestrians will enjoy the
highest LOS, while drivers will have
the lowest. In essence, all LOS is
relative by mode. LOS should not
purposely be lowered; a street where
all modes rate A is acceptable.
2. There shall be no minimum MVLOS for
any project. Within the Loop and River
North,
26
the default maximum MVLOS
for CDOT-initiated projects shall be
E. This is not to say that the MVLOS
must purposely be lowered, but efforts
should not be made to increase
it above E. Developer-initiated
projects may not negatively impact
the MVLOS, unless corresponding
increases are made in pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit level of service,
consistent with the modal hierarchy.
3. LOS evaluations shall consider
cross ows (especially pedestrian)
as well as corridor ows.
4. Delay for pedestrians at signals shall
not exceed 60 seconds.
27
Along
streets with typology NM, C, D or
IC, the minimum peak-hour sidewalk
pedestrian LOS should be B.
5. A working group will best decide
how to evaluate LOS, whether
using traditional methods or more
recent multi-modal level of service
methodologies.
28
Project managers
are encouraged to utilize multi-hour
evaluations instead of peak-hour-
only calculations, see Figure 17.
6. LOS evaluation is only required
for projects identied in the Project
Delivery Process (see 4.1). It should
be calculated when required
by funding sources, but may be
balanced with other factors.
26
As bounded by and inclusive of Roosevelt Road, Halsted Street, Chicago Avenue, and Lake Michigan.
The operations working group should review the area encompassing Northwestern, Prentice Womens,
and Lurie Childrens Hospital.
27
Average pedestrian delay, as described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
28
For more information on multi-modal LOS, refer to the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual; NCHRP 3-70,
Multimodal Level of Sesrvice for UrbanStreets; and NCHRP 3-79, Measuring and Predicting Performance
of Automobile Trafc on Urban Streets. Note the science on bicycle level of service is in its infancy.
112
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Considerations
Typically LOS is concerned only with through
movement, whether driving or walking. The
following list presents other considerations,
which either affect LOS or are affected by it.
For example, driveways and frequency of use
affect pedestrian LOS but are not included in
typical calculations. Project managers and
the Compliance Committee should consider
these items when applying LOS to a particular
project.
Pedestrian facilities
edge - building, setback, fence, open
space
walkway - window shopping, seating,
vending, cross-ows at corners and
building entrances
sidewalk furniture - caf seating, trees,
plantings, bicycle racks, bus stops
corner - queuing, accessibility
interference - driveways, alleys, parking,
deliveries
Transit facilities
headways
stops - amenities, spacing
interference - turns, deliveries, parking
bicycle facilities
separation, from pedestrian realm and
roadway
guidance and prioritization, especially at
conict points
interference - turns, deliveries, parking
Automobile facilities
volume uctuation - peak hour and off-
peak, weekday and weekend, seasonal
loading and parking - coordinated with
volume uctuation
peak-hour operational issues -
transportation demand management,
signal synchronization
interference - pedestrian crossings, bicycle
operations
It may be in the best
interest of CDOT to
move away from the LOS
paradigm.
113
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5.2 Traffic Control Devices
Trafc control devices (TCD) (signals, stop
and yield signs) are important tools for
implementing complete streets. Signals can
be synchronized to manage automobile
speeds, and facilitate bicycle travel. Yet,
a well designed intersection can be made
unusable by many if the signal is optimized
for automobile ow. Too many stop signs can
make a roadway seem like a driving gauntlet.
And, the lack of trafc control, especially at
minor intersections, may make it impossible
for people who wish to cross the street. Many
streets can be made more complete simply
through signal timing and other minor changes
in trafc management.
All traffic control devices
shall support the complete
streets modal hierarchy.
Policy
The following list is not meant to be an
exhaustive review of TCDs, rather it is intended
to tie their use to complete streets. TCDs will
continue to meet MUTCD warrants; however
CDOT will seek exception to warrants that
are at odds with this policy, see Section 1.6.5
MUTCD.
29
Exceptions to these policies must
be reviewed by the Compliance Committee.
1. Synchronized signals are preferred
and shall be set at or below the
target speeds listed in Section
3.5.5 as projects are completed.
2. Signal timing shall be adjusted
during off peak hours to
manage automobile speeds.
3. Fixed time signals are the preferred
option. When actuated signals
are replaced or upgraded, they
should become xed time and
include countdown signals.
4. Left turns should occur after the
through movement (lagging).
5. All legs of all signalized intersections
shall have marked crosswalks unless
pedestrians are prohibited from the
roadway or section thereof, or there
is physically no pedestrian access
on either corner and no likelihood
that access can be provided.
6. NO PEDESTRIANS signs shall not
be used unless they are accompanied
by a physical barrier and positive
information about where pedestrians
are to walk and/or cross the street.
7. Leading pedestrian intervals
will be installed as per
Chicago Pedestrian Plan.
8. Signals on transit-priority roadways
should be timed to prioritize
transit, see Section 2.1.4.
9. Signals on bicycle-priority roadways
should be timed for bicycle commute
speeds (15 mph), see Section 2.1.4.
Chicagos First Signals
An anecdote about the rst use of signals in
Chicago is telling. Chicago trafc ofcials
found pedestrians would not conform to the
system. Because signal timings in coordinated
systems were based on vehicle speeds,
they helped to redene streets as motor
thoroughfares where pedestrians did not
belong.
30
Re-timing trafc signals to facilitate
travel by pedestrians, cyclists and transit will
ensure more complete streets.
29
Specically, CDOT nds that the warrant limiting pedestrian signals to a spacing of 300 feet and subjugating them to
auto ow (MUTCD 2009, Section 4C.05, Paragraph 04) is contrary to the mode hierarchy described in this document.
30
Fighting Trafc by Peter Norton, MIT Press 2011, p138.
114
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5.3 Turns on Red
Right or Left Turns on Red (RTOR, LTOR) is a
common practice across the United States.
RTOR allows a driver to turn right when
the signal is red, after a complete stop and
yielding to any oncoming trafc or pedestrians
in the crosswalk. LTOR occurs at the junction
of two one-way streets. Turns on red were
implemented in the 1970s in a (questionable)
effort to save fuel.
31

Turns on red adversely impact pedestrian
comfort and safety. The classic example occurs
as the driver looks to the left for oncoming
trafc and fails to see the pedestrian in the
crosswalk to the right. As they wait for a gap
in trafc, drivers also tend to advance and
block the crosswalk - the one with the WALK
signal. Turns on red also negatively impact
walking conditions for those with limited
vision.
Pedestrian safety at transit stops is
compromised when drivers turn while people
are crossing the street after getting off the
bus. Right turns on red also restrict bicycle
travel. It is safer for cyclists to queue ahead of
automobiles stopped at a signal, either in a
bike box or in the bike lane. With right turns
on red, drivers are more likely to inhabit this
space.
The Chicago Pedestrian Plan calls for the
development of an implementation plan to
restrict right turns on red. The operations
working group will assist in the development
of this plan, which will include guidance
on signage, enforcement, and allowing
exceptions.
Time Period Location
All Times In Child Safety Zones
From 6 am until
Midnight
Within the Loop and River North
32
Along designated Pedestrian (P) Streets
Along designated Bicycle Priority Streets, see Section 2.1.4
Within 300 feet of libraries, senior centers, transit station entrances
(CTA and Metra)
At any crosswalk where the MUCTD pedestrian volume and/or
school crossing warrant is met
33
Policy
While turns on red are legal in the City of
Chicago, they are a privilege, not a right.
Designing or operating an intersection to
accommodate or favor turns on red is not a
preferred practice. If accommodating turns
on red adversely impacts the design, the turn
will be prohibited. Figure 36 lists conditions
where restrictions to turns on red should be
considered.
FIGURE 36
Turns on Red Restrictions
31
ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
January 2002, p32.
32
As bounded by and inclusive of Roosevelt Road, Halsted
Street, Chicago Avenue, and Lake Michigan.
33
MUTCD 2009, Section 4C, Warrants 4 and 5.
115
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5.4 Design & Control Vehicles
The design vehicle inuences several
geometric design features including lane
width, corner radii, median nose design, and
slip lane design. It is critical not to use a larger
design vehicle than necessary, due to negative
impacts such as turning speed, yielding
behavior and crossing distances. Likewise,
using a design vehicle that is too small may
result in frequent instances of trucks driving
over curbs on street corners, endangering
pedestrians. Nevertheless, it is best to err on
the side of too small than too large in an urban
setting.
Delivery Van
These policies and procedures introduce a
new design vehicle: Delivery Van (DL-23). It is
based on the mail or package truck commonly
used in Chicago. For design purposes, it is 23
feet long, 8.5 feet wide (10 feet with mirrors),
and 10 feet high. Its turning radii is 29 feet
outside, 23.3 feet centerline, and 22.5 feet
inside
34
, see Figure 37.
Using a design vehicle
greater than a WB-50
requires approval from the
Compliance Committee.
Policy
Design vehicle selection is to be made as per
the roadway typology of the receiving street at
an intersection.
Thoroughfare: WB-50
Connector: BUS-40
35
Main Street: SU-30
36

Neighborhood Street: DL-23
Service Way: DL-23
A larger vehicle may be used if a vehicle
classication study identies that a particular
vehicle making a specic turning movement is
larger than the vehicle specied above.
Control Vehicle
To ensure that access for Emergency Medical
Service (EMS) vehicles, re engines,
moving trucks, and sanitation vehicles is not
precluded, CDOT will use control vehicles.
A control vehicle utilizes all traversable parts
of an intersection, including driving over
curbs and across centerlines. In addition, re
engines typically drive over break-a-way signs
and other obstacles. The design and control
vehicles work in tandem: the design vehicle
keeps an intersection compact for everyday
use, the control vehicle allows access by
necessary vehicles.
FIGURE 37
DL-23 Profile and Turning Template
22.60
3.15 12.96
O2
Width
Track
Lock to Lock time
Steering Angle
feet
: 7.12
: 7.12
: 6.0
: 42.0
34
These dimensions were taken from a United Parcel Service P-80 truck. The turning radii
was calculated using AutoTurn.
35
If there is no scheduled bus route making this turn, then use SU-30.
36
If a scheduled bus route makes this turn, then use BUS-40.
116
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5.5 Design & Target Speed
Motor vehicle speeds have a signicant effect
on whether a street is complete. A low-speed
street looks and feels vastly different than a
high-speed street, whether traveling along,
crossing, living or doing business on it. With
lower speeds, design options increase as the
need to protect all users from the unintended
consequences of higher speeds lessens.
While faster speeds can reduce travel time for
motorists and transit users, the vulnerability of
other users and uses is increased.
Complete streets speed treatment is
philosophically different from conventional
transportation practices. Conventionally,
a design speed is set as high as practical,
usually over the speed limit. This has roots
in the calculation of design loads in the
building industry; for example a roof should
be designed to withstand the weight of the
heaviest predicted snowfall. Unfortunately,
drivers react to a design speed that exceeds
the speed limit by driving faster. In contrast,
complete streets utilize target speeds, where
the design and operation of a street is set to
induce drivers to drive at or below the speed
limit.
Policy
CDOT will use target rather than design
speed. The target speed of each street will be
equal to or less than the speed limit, as per
roadway type.
Thoroughfare: 25-30 mph
Connector: 20-30 mph
Main Street: 15-25 mph
Neighborhood Street: 10-20 mph
Service Way: 5-10 mph
The prima facie speed limit in the City of
Chicago is 30 mph. The use of target speeds
may require lowering the speed limit, or
posting speed advisory signs. The target speed
should account for specic geometric elements
such as curves and trafc calming devices.
The Chicago Pedestrian Plan proposes a
20 mph target speed for residential streets.
These will generallly be on Main Streets and
Neighborhood Streets.
Target speeds higher than
30 mph require approval of
the Compliance Committee.
Speeding and Fatalities
Speeding is a contributing factor in almost
one-third of all fatal crashes in the United
States.
37
37
2010 Trafc Safety Facts - Speeding. National Highway Trafc Safety
Administration
117
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Speed Control Elements
Speed control elements are often necessary to
maintain target speeds. Simply posting a lower
speed limit is usually not effective. A variety
of operational and geometric elements can be
used to control speeds, such as:
Signals synchronized to target speed
Narrower lanes, especially on Main
Streets, Neighborhood Streets and
Service Ways
Roadway physically narrowed through
bicycle facilities, on-street parking, raised
medians/islands, curb extensions
Trafc calming devices - speed humps,
mini-roundabouts, chicanes
Limited sight distance such as buildings on
the corner
Terminating vistas, such as at a
T-intersection or at a trafc circle. When
drivers cannot see to the horizon, they
tend to driver slower.
Rhythms created with trees, poles,
landscaping, and crosswalks
Three Primary Speed
Concepts
As speeds increase, there is more
kinetic energy, which means more
energy to be dissipated in the event
of a crash. This is most noticeable for
pedestrians, who have an 85% chance
of being killed by a vehicle traveling
at 40 mph, but only a 5% chance of
being killed at 20 mph.
38

As speeds increase, the distance
traveled by a vehicle during the
drivers reaction time and braking
increases exponentially.
39

As speeds increase, our brains process
less of what is seen in our peripheral
vision. This is most problematic on
wider streets with activity (parking,
cycling, children chasing balls in the
street) on the side of the roadway.
40

38
2012 Chicago Forward Action Agenda.
39
Ibid.
40
Muller, Alexandra S and Lana Trick. Driving in Fog: The effects of driving
experience and visibility on speed compensation and hazard avoidance.
Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2012
.
118
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
10-15 MPH 20-30 MPH 30-40 MPH 45+ MPH
FIGURE 38
Tunnel Vision: as speed increases, peripheral vision decreases.
Chance a person would survive if hit by a
car travelling at this speed
Speed Concepts
119
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
3.5.6 Lane Width
The width of a travel lane affects the
completeness of a street in subtle ways. The
difference between a 10 and 12 foot lane is
but 24 inches. Yet on a six lane roadway, this
equals another lane, two bike lanes, a wider
sidewalk, on-street parking, or a median.
Similarly the crossing distance becomes
longer, which impacts signal timing. It has also
been shown that wider lanes lead to higher
travel speeds and are no safer than 10-foot
lanes.
41

Policy
The standard width for automobile travel
lanes, including turning lanes, shall be 10 feet.
One lane per direction on scheduled Chicago
Transit Authority (CTA) bus routes and/or on
a mapped truck route may be 11 feet wide.
Lanes widths are measured from the face of
curb, where present. Lane widths are further
articulated in section 3.2.1 above. In general,
they will be as follows:
Thoroughfare: 10-11
Connector: 9-11
Main Street: 9-10
Neighborhood Street: n/a
Lanes wider than 11 feet
require Compliance
Committee approval.
41
Macdonald, Sanders and Supawanich. 2008. The Effects of Transportation Corridors Roadside
Design Features on User Behavior and Safety, and Their Contributions to Health, Environmental
Quality, and Community Economic Vitality: a Literature Review. UCTC Research Paper No. 878.
CHAPTER FOUR:
IMPLEMENTATION
121
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of these policies and
procedures is to begin immediately. Projects
already initiated should be allowed to
proceed; however, they should include as
many complete streets practices as possible.
4.1 Project Delivery
Process
As stated previously, many existing conict
points on Chicagos streets can be traced to
the existing project delivery process. These
policies and procedures contain a six stage
process to ensure that future projects will be
more complete. A working group will continue
to evaluate the process and update the
document accordingly.
Stage 1: Selection: Identify and promote
projects that advance complete streets
Stage 2: Scoping: Address all modes -
consider land use and roadway context
Step 1: Establish Project Objectives
Step 2: Perform Project Research
Step 3: Conduct Site Visits
Step 4: Assemble Data, Maps and Analysis
Step 5: Set Modal Hierarchy
Step 6: Revisit Objectives
Stage 3: Design: Address objectives dened
during scoping stage
Step 1: Draft Alternatives
Step 2: Develop Design
Step 3: Evaluate Impacts
Step 4: Obtain Feedback & Approvals
Step 5: Prepare Final Design
Stage 4: Construction: Ensure project is built as
designed for complete streets
Stage 5: Measurement: Measure the
effectiveness of complete streets
Stage 6: Maintenance: Ensure all users are
accommodated through the projects lifespan
The project delivery process chart illustrates
the six stages, with goals and elements of
each, see Figure 39. The process is inclusive,
allowing for opportunities for public input,
stakeholder and interagency outreach, and
iterative design. The process puts project
managers in control of the design process
but also formalizes Compliance Committee
involvement.
122
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
CDOT conducts a wide range of projects,
from ADA curb cut retrots, to major highway
reconstructions. All projects need to address
all users, but not all projects require the same
types of analysis. The project matrix illustrates
suggested and optional analyses for each
project stage by project type, see Figure
40. Similarly, the Sustainable Infrastructure
Guidelines and Policies use the complete
streets project matrix as a base for establishing
sustainability goals as they relate to project
types, under the premise that different
projects will need to address sustainability at
varying degrees, based on scope and project
size. Refer to The Sustainable Infrastructure
Guidelines and Policies as well as the
Complete Streets Notebook, which includes
guidance to provide organizational assistance
for this process.
Appendix D, the Complete Streets Notebook,
is a tool to help organize the complete streets
project delivery process. It can be used
by project managers, consultants, working
groups, and the Compliance Committee to
take notes on each stage and help track
decisions and data related to assuring all
modes and users are considered in each
phase. It also includes places to dene
modal hierarchy, assign typology, write
project objectives, and consider sustainability
measures. The notebook will help track many
of the activities CDOT already does and
help communicate CDOTs Project Delivery
Process to outside agencies, partners, and new
employees.
Finally, a presumed benet of an established
formal project delivery process is that it will
communicate the steps taken for project
delivery in the City of Chicago to contractors,
consultants, elected ofcials, and residents.
Establishing a complete streets project delivery
process will create transparency and efciency
for the department. Initially, there may be
a learning curve, but as CDOT staff and
consultants become familiar with procedures,
cost savings should be realized.

123
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
1
2
3
4
5
6
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
GOAL: Identify and promote projects that advance Complete Streets
GOAL: Address all modes - consider land use and roadway context
GOAL: Address objectives defined during scoping stage
GOAL: Ensure project is built as designed for Complete Streets
GOAL: Measure the effectiveness of the Complete Street
GOAL: Ensure all users are accommodated through the projects lifespan
ENGAGE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS
ENGAGE AGENCIES & DEPARTMENTS
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

l
o
o
p
external:
alderman requests
311
developments
internal:
pavement condition
strategic planning
safety
moving forward:
needs analysis
performance
easy wins
cross section:
develop alternatives
address all modes
community needs
intersection design:
geometric layout
signal timing
modal conflict points
trade-offs:
exceptions process
modal hierarchy
allow for feedback
issues and conflicts:
refer to project manager
address problems
do not sacrifice modal components
opportunities:
communicate priorities to contractors
allow for design improvements
reward efficiency
safety:
no exceptions
decrease severity
normalize measures
modeshare:
measure people
establish targets
favor bike and walk
others:
health and economic impacts
transit consistency and travel times
process streamlining, coordination, and feedback
coordinate:
include maintenance staff in scoping (2)
include maintenance staff in design (3)
funding:
program funds for maintenance
maintenance should not limit complete designs
find key opportunities to interface
with community groups, residents,
and business owners - allow
projects to be influenced by lessons
learned through outreach efforts
coordinate CDOT projects and measure-
ment with external agencies and other
city departments to assure the best use
of resources and meet multiple objectives
through complete design processes
*
+
+
*
+
+
project needs:
existing conditions
modal deficiencies
plans and funding
exceptions:
prohibited modes
cost vs. benefit
no foreseen use
desired outcomes:
community needs
system opportunities
modal hierarchy
*
Step 5: Prepare Final Design
Step 4: Obtain Feedback
Step 3: Evaluate Impact
Step 2: Develop Design
Step 1: Draft Alternatives
Step 6: Revisit Objectives
Step 5: Set Mode Hierarchy
Step 4: Assemble Data
Step 3: Conduct Site Visits
Step 2: Perform Research
Step 1: Establish Objectives
Scoping:
Design:
stage
stage
stage
stage
stage
stage
+
Complete Streets Project Delivery Process
FIGURE 39
124
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 1: Project
Selection
Stage 2: Scoping
Goal: Identify and
Promote projects
that will advance
Complete Streets
Goal: Address all needs identified during scoping
Steps 1.1 to 1.5 Steps 2.1 to 2.3 (Substeps formatted 2.X.X)
CDOT Project Types M
a
y
o
r
a
l

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
A
l
d
e
r
m
a
n
i
c

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
3
1
1

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
S
a
f
e
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
n
d

M
o
d
a
l

P
l
a
n
s
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g


S
y
s
t
e
m
O
t
h
e
r
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

C
r
a
s
h

R
e
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
n
d

M
o
d
a
l

P
l
a
n
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

P
l
a
n
n
e
d
/
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
o
t
a
b
l
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

W
i
t
h
i
n

o
r

N
e
a
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

A
r
e
a
R
e
v
i
e
w

P
r
i
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
i
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
i
t
e

V
i
s
i
t
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f

c

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
R
o
a
d
w
a
y

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
3
1
.
4
1
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
7
2
.
1
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
1
2
.
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
3
2
.
2
.
4
2
.
2
.
5
2
.
2
.
6
2
.
3
2
.
3
.
1
2
.
3
.
2
2
.
3
.
3
2
.
3
.
4
2
.
3
.
5
2
.
3
.
6
ADA ramp improvements o x x
Alley improvements x x x x o o o o o
Arterial resurfacing x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x x x x
Bike facility projects x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Bike Stations x x x o o o x x
Bridge repair x x x x x x
Child Safety Zones x x x x o x x o o o o o
City funded capital projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
CREATE/rail projects o x x x o o o x o o
Development-funded public way improvements x x x x x x x x x x
Landscaped median improvements x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Lighting projects x x x o x x x
Major Roadway Realignment Project (New &
Reconstruction)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
DELIVERY PROCESS:
STAGES 1 THROUGH 3
FIGURE 40
PROJECT STEPS KEY: X = SUGGESTED O = OPTIONAL BLANK = NOT SUGGESTED
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
125
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 2: Scoping Stage 3: Design
Goal: Address all needs identified
during scoping
Goal: Address all objectives defined during scoping
Steps 2.4 to 2.6 (Substeps formatted 2.X.X) Steps 3.1 to 3.5 (Substeps formatted 3.X.X)
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e

D
a
t
a
,

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

T
y
p
o
l
o
g
y

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

V
o
l
u
m
e

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

C
r
a
s
h

M
a
p
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g

S
u
r
v
e
y
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
t

M
o
d
a
l

H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
R
e
v
i
s
i
t

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

a
n
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
D
r
a
f
t

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
R
a
n
k

a
n
d

S
e
l
e
c
t

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
a
s
h

M
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

M
o
d
a
l

C
o
n

i
c
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

L
a
y
o
u
t
E
n
g
a
g
e

P
u
b
l
i
c

S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
s
i
g
n

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
i
g
n
a
l

T
i
m
i
n
g

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

T
r
a
f

c

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

M
M
L
O
S
O
b
t
a
i
n

F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

a
n
d

A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
P
r
e
p
a
r
e

F
i
n
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n
2
.
4
2
.
4
.
1
2
.
4
.
2
2
.
4
.
3
2
.
4
.
4
2
.
4
.
5
2
.
4
.
6
2
.
4
.
7
2
.
5
2
.
6
3
.
1
3
.
1
.
1
3
.
1
.
2
3
.
1
.
3
3
.
1
.
4
3
.
2
3
.
2
.
1
3
.
2
.
2
3
.
2
.
3
3
.
2
.
4
3
.
2
.
5
3
.
3
3
.
3
.
1
3
.
3
.
2
3
.
3
.
3
3
.
3
.
4
3
.
4
3
.
4
.
1
3
.
4
.
2
3
.
5
x o x x x
o x x
o o o o o x x x x x x o o x x x o x o o o x
o o o x o x x x x x x o o x x x o x o o o x
o x o o x o o x
x x
o o x x o x o o o o o x x o o o o x
o o x x o o x x x x x x x o o x x x x x x o x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x
x o x x o o x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x
x o x x o o x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x
o o o x x o x x
x o o x o o x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x o x x x
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
126
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 1: Project
Selection
Stage 2: Scoping
Goal: Identify and
Promote projects
that will advance
Complete Streets
Goal: Address all needs identified during scoping
Steps 1.1 to 1.5 Steps 2.1 to 2.3 (Substeps formatted 2.X.X)
CDOT Project Types M
a
y
o
r
a
l

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
A
l
d
e
r
m
a
n
i
c

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
3
1
1

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
S
a
f
e
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
n
d

M
o
d
a
l

P
l
a
n
s
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g


S
y
s
t
e
m
O
t
h
e
r
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

C
r
a
s
h

R
e
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
n
d

M
o
d
a
l

P
l
a
n
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

P
l
a
n
n
e
d
/
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
o
t
a
b
l
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

W
i
t
h
i
n

o
r

N
e
a
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

A
r
e
a
R
e
v
i
e
w

P
r
i
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
i
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
i
t
e

V
i
s
i
t
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f

c

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
R
o
a
d
w
a
y

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
3
1
.
4
1
.
5
1
.
6
1
.
7
2
.
1
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
1
2
.
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
3
2
.
2
.
4
2
.
2
.
5
2
.
2
.
6
2
.
3
2
.
3
.
1
2
.
3
.
2
2
.
3
.
3
2
.
3
.
4
2
.
3
.
5
2
.
3
.
6
Major Roadway Reconstruction Projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
New Bridge Replacement x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Ped safety infrastructure improvements x x x x o x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Placemaking Activities x x x o o
Red light running cameras/Speed Cameras x x x x x x x x
Riverwalk Projects x x x o o x
Sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete projects x x x x o x o x x
Signage & pavement marking improvements x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x
Signal modernizations, new signals, signal
interconnects
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Streetscaping projects x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Trafc Calming x x x x o o x x x x x x x x x
Transit projects o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Tree planting x x x o x o x
WPA/industrial streets x x x o x x x x x x x x x
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
DELIVERY PROCESS:
STAGES 1 THROUGH 3 (CONT.)
FIGURE 40 (CONT)
PROJECT STEPS KEY: X = SUGGESTED O = OPTIONAL BLANK = NOT SUGGESTED
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
127
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 2: Scoping Stage 3: Design
Goal: Address all needs identified
during scoping
Goal: Address all objectives defined during scoping
Steps 2.4 to 2.6 (Substeps formatted 2.X.X) Steps 3.1 to 3.5 (Substeps formatted 3.X.X)
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e

D
a
t
a
,

M
a
p
s

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

T
y
p
o
l
o
g
y

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

V
o
l
u
m
e

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

C
r
a
s
h

M
a
p
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g

S
u
r
v
e
y
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
t

M
o
d
a
l

H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
R
e
v
i
s
i
t

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

a
n
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
D
r
a
f
t

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
R
a
n
k

a
n
d

S
e
l
e
c
t

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
a
s
h

M
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

M
o
d
a
l

C
o
n

i
c
t

P
o
i
n
t
s
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

L
a
y
o
u
t
E
n
g
a
g
e

P
u
b
l
i
c

S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
s
i
g
n

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
i
g
n
a
l

T
i
m
i
n
g

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

T
r
a
f

c

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

M
M
L
O
S
O
b
t
a
i
n

F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

a
n
d

A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
P
r
e
p
a
r
e

F
i
n
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n
2
.
4
2
.
4
.
1
2
.
4
.
2
2
.
4
.
3
2
.
4
.
4
2
.
4
.
5
2
.
4
.
6
2
.
4
.
7
2
.
5
2
.
6
3
.
1
3
.
1
.
1
3
.
1
.
2
3
.
1
.
3
3
.
1
.
4
3
.
2
3
.
2
.
1
3
.
2
.
2
3
.
2
.
3
3
.
2
.
4
3
.
2
.
5
3
.
3
3
.
3
.
1
3
.
3
.
2
3
.
3
.
3
3
.
3
.
4
3
.
4
3
.
4
.
1
3
.
4
.
2
3
.
5
x o x x o o x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x o x x x
x o x x o o x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x o x x x
x o x x o o x x x x o o x o x x o x x o x x x
x o x o o o o o o o o o
x x x x
x x
o o o x x x o x x x x x
o x x x x x x x o o x x x o o x x x
x x x o o x x o o x x x x x o x
x o x x o o x x x x x x x o o x x x x x o x x x
x o x x x x x x o o x x x x x
x o o o o x x x x x x x o x x x x x x o x x x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
128
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 4: Construc-
tion
Stage 5: Measurement Stage 6: Maintenance
Goal: Ensure project
is built as designed
for Complete Streets
Goal: Measure the effective-
ness of the Complete Street
Goal: Ensure all users are
accommodated though
the lifespan of the pro-
cess
Steps 4.1 to 4.5 Steps 5.1 to 5.7 Steps 6.1 to 6.5
CDOT Project Types C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
f
f

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
c
e
s

&

h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
y

M
O
T

I
s
s
u
e
s
P
u
b
l
i
c

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
a
f
e
t
y
M
o
d
e

S
h
a
r
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t

C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

N
e
e
d
s
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

C
y
c
l
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

f
o
r

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

C
S

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

D
u
r
i
n
g

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
*
B
e
s
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

f
o
r

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
4
.
1
4
.
2
4
.
3
4
.
4
4
.
5
5
.
1
5
.
2
5
.
3
5
.
4
5
.
5
5
.
6
5
.
7
6
.
1
6
.
2
6
.
3
6
.
4
6
.
5
ADA ramp improvements x o x o x
Alley improvements x x x x x x o x
Arterial resurfacing x x o x x x x x o
Bike facility projects x x x x x x x o
Bike Stations o x x o x o x o x
Bridge repair x x o x x x x x x x o
Child Safety Zones x x x o
City funded capital projects x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x o
CREATE/rail projects x o x x x x x x x x o
Development-funded public way improvements x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
Landscaped median improvements o x x x x x x x o
Lighting projects o x x x x x x x x o
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
DELIVERY PROCESS:
STAGES 4 THROUGH 6
FIGURE 40 (CONT)
*Note - this step would involve asking maintenance staff look to out for potential Complete Streets improvements during maintenance activities. If this is a feasible
step, appropriate project types should be identied and a worksheet can be developed.
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
129
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Stage 4: Construc-
tion
Stage 5: Measurement Stage 6: Maintenance
Goal: Ensure project
is built as designed
for Complete Streets
Goal: Measure the effec-
tiveness of the Complete
Street
Goal: Ensure all users are
accommodated though the
lifespan of the process
Steps 4.1 to 4.5 Steps 5.1 to 5.7 Steps 6.1 to 6.5
CDOT Project Types C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
f
f

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
c
e
s

&

h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
y

M
O
T

I
s
s
u
e
s
P
u
b
l
i
c

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
a
f
e
t
y
M
o
d
e

S
h
a
r
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

E
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t

C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

N
e
e
d
s
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

C
y
c
l
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

f
o
r

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

C
S

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

D
u
r
i
n
g

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
*
B
e
s
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

f
o
r

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
4
.
1
4
.
2
4
.
3
4
.
4
4
.
5
5
.
1
5
.
2
5
.
3
5
.
4
5
.
5
5
.
6
5
.
7
6
.
1
6
.
2
6
.
3
6
.
4
6
.
5
Major Roadway Reconstruction Projects x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
New Bridge Replacement x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
Ped safety infrastructure improvements x o x x x x x x x x
Placemaking Activities x x x x
Red light running cameras/Speed Cameras x x x
Riverwalk Projects o x x x
Sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete projects x o x x x x x x
Signage & pavement marking improvements o x x x
Signal modernizations, new signals, signal
interconnects
x o x x x x x x
Streetscaping projects x x x x x x x x x
Trafc Calming x o x x o
Transit projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Tree planting x x x o
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
DELIVERY PROCESS:
STAGES 4 THROUGH 6 (CONT.)
FIGURE 40 (CONT)
U
s
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

-

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

2
0
1
4
,

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
130
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
4.2 Measuring Success
In implementing these policies and procedures,
CDOT will use safety and mode share
performance measures to evaluate success
over time.
Safety Goals
Eliminate all pedestrian, bicycle, and
overall trafc crash fatalities within 10
years.
Reduce pedestrian and bicycle crash
injuries, each by 50 percent within 5
years.
Reduce total roadway crashes and injuries
from all roadway crashes, each by 10
percent every year.
Mode Share Goals
Increase the share of people bicycling,
walking, and taking transit to work and
working from home to 50 percent by
2040
42
.
Increase the share of all trips under
ve miles made by cycling to at least 5
percent.

These measures are tied to the Chicago
Forward: DOT Action Agenda (2012) and
have been reviewed by CDOTs performance
measure working group. The working group
will also investigate partnering with other
departments, agencies, or organizations to
identify measurement data on:
1. Process efciency - streamlined
project implementation, improved
coordination with utilities
and other city projects
2. Stakeholder satisfaction -
resident and user feedback
3. Health and street life - activity
levels on public way (including
both sidewalks and crosswalks),
more use of parks and plazas
4. Economic prosperity - increase
in sales tax revenue and
equalized assessed value
5. Security - decrease in crime rates
6. Sustainability
43
a. Trees - increase number, net
circumference, and diversity of
species of trees
b. Stormwater increase stormwater
diverted from sewer shed.
In addition to establishing goals, the working
group will establish performance measures
with specic metrics. Items to consider include:
When measures will apply to specic
projects and programs, across CDOT, or
citywide
Identifying partners to lead evaluation
efforts
Education and outreach program
evaluation protocols
Data collection protocols, baselines, and
methodologies for all modes and projects
How to rate project managers and the
department on the success at meeting
CDOT goals
Finally, the working group will develop a
training regimen to help staff understand
and successfully incorporate performance
measures.
42
The 2008-2010 Chicago non-driving commute mode share was 38 percent (US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2008-2010). The Cook
County Complete Streets Ordinance has a goal of 50 percent walking, bicycling, and transit mode share by 2030.
43
Please see Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines and Policies for more on sustainability performance measures and commissioning metrics.
131
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
4.3 Arterial Resurfacing
Program
The arterial resurfacing program currently
uses a condition-based pavement assessment
system to allot resurfacing equally among
geographical zones and wards. This
program is an excellent means for CDOT to
make more streets complete. Following
are initial descriptions of measures to add to
the assessment system, to be nalized by a
working group.
1. Decits
a. Prioritize streets with crash
records in the top 25th percentile.
Require 25 percent of resources to
projects so selected.
b. Prioritize streets that lack basic
non-motorized and/or transit
facilities such as:
i. Sidewalks
ii. Crossing opportunities (see
3.4.5)
iii. Bicycle routes identied in
Streets for Cycling 2020 Plan
iv. Transit shelters or crossings at
every bus stop
2. Opportunities
a. Prioritize streets identied in a
CTA or City plan as a bicycle,
pedestrian, or transit-priority;
urban heat island hot spot; or
sewer sensitivity zone.
b. Prioritize streets with four or
more lanes and less than 30,000
average daily trafc for their
potential for lane narrowing and
road diets.
c. Prioritize streets with vehicle
lanes that exceed 10 feet in
width. They will be targeted
for lane narrowing, additional
bicycle facilities and/or sidewalk
expansions.
d. Capitalize on opportunities to
include high visibility crosswalks,
bike lanes, narrower lanes,
curb extensions, pilot projects,
and so on. In other words, do
not simply restripe the existing
conditions. This likely will
require programming funds
and allowing time in the project
schedule for more extensive
design engineering services,
possibly including efforts to secure
Categorical Exclusion Group 2
(CE-2) environmental processing
for federally-funded arterial
resurfacing.
132
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
Humboldt Boulevard Road
Diet Pilot Project
FIGURE 41
Photo Credits: CDOT
4.4 Pilot Projects
In implementing these policies and procedures,
CDOT encourages the use of pilot projects to
evaluate street design and trafc operation
changes. To facilitate design innovations, the
Compliance Committee may determine that
pilot projects are exempt from the project
delivery process when the projects are intended
to advance the departments understanding
of complete streets and inform future projects.
Pilot projects offer the advantage of real
world simulation, which is especially useful for
assessing trafc diversion, bus, truck and EMS
operations, and pedestrian walking patterns.
In some cases pilot projects may be better
indicators than Trafc Impact Studies and
Intersection Design Studies, which are costly
and may not account for the latest innovations
in street designs.
133
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
MOVING
FORWARD
Complete Streets Chicago provides the tools
and strategies to design the Citys streets and
transportation infrastructure for all users and
modes, and to maximize their social and
environmental benets. It is the culmination
of a year-long effort by CDOT to nd the
best route to complete streets. The release of
this document is yet another milestone in the
agencys efforts to rethink how streets are
designed and delivered in Chicago. However,
the work is ongoing. Cognizant of the fact
that complete streets will require the best
efforts of all throughout the agency, Complete
Streets Chicago establishes working groups to
further implement the policies and procedures
contained herein.
It is expected that the work will begin
immediately and that their contributions will
further these policies and procedures by the
end of 2012. Leading the effort will be the
Complete Streets Compliance Committee.
In addition, CDOTs Sustainable Urban
Infrastructure Guidelines and Policies are
expected to be released in 2013, which
has been developed in conjunction with
this document. It is expected that these new
standards will ensure that every project CDOT
undertakes delivers the best possible product
to the residents and visitors of Chicago.
134
COMPLETE STREETS CHICAGO
APPENDIX
AVAILABLE BY REQUEST:
A. CITYWIDE TYPOLOGY STUDY
B. DESIGN TREES
C. CROSS SECTIONS
D. COMPLETE STREETS NOTEBOOK
APPENDIX
This material was supported by Healthy Places, an initiative of Healthy Chicago. Healthy Places is a collaborative effort between the Chicago Department of Public
Health and the Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Childrens Hospital of Chicago funded by the Centers for Disease Control
and Preventions Communities Putting Prevention to Work initiative, Cooperative Agreement Number 1U58DP002376-01. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors/organizers and do not necessarily represent the ofcial views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This document was the result of more than a year-long collaborative process from August 2011 through 2012. It involved four design and process workshops, numerous
stakeholder interviews, and coordination with concurrent efforts. The authors wish to thank CLOCC and CDOT for the opportunity to work on such an innovative and
progressive project.
Chicago Department of Transportation:
Commissioner Gabe Klein
Deputy Commissioner Luann Hamilton
Complete Streets Director Janet Attarian
Chris Wuellner (Project Director)
Suzanne Carlson
Kiersten Grove
Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children:
Michael Alvino (Project Manager)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates:
Michael King (Consultant Manager, Primary Author)
Rick Chellman
Michael Moule
Karina Ricks
Jason Schrieber
Paul Supawanich
Active Transportation Alliance:
Paul Lippens (Secondary Author)
Marissa Dolin
Patrick Knapp
Dan Persky
Amanda Woodall
Lu Gan (Intern)
Eric Hanss (Intern)
Brandon Whyte (Intern)
Farr Associates:
Courtney Kashima (Lead Graphics)
Doug Farr
Leslie Oberholtzer
Brianna Ceglia (Intern)
Designing Streets for People:
Michael Ronkin
Rahm Emanuel, Mayor
FIGURE 40 - COMPLETE STREETS AND SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT DELIVERY: Steps by Project Type, Updated 2014
CDOT PROJECT TYPES
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

B
u
d
g
e
t
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

G
o
a
l
s

&

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

C
r
a
s
h

R
e
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

R
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

P
l
a
n
n
e
d
/
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

a
n
d

M
o
d
a
l

P
l
a
n
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

N
o
t
a
b
l
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

I
n

o
r

N
e
a
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

A
r
e
R
e
v
i
e
w

P
r
i
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

&

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
E
x
a
m
i
n
e

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
a
t
a

S
e
t
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
i
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e

B
u
d
g
e
t
S
i
t
e

V
i
s
i
t
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

c
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
R
o
a
d
w
a
y

F
o
r
m

a
n
d

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
M
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

T
y
p
o
l
o
g
y

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

V
o
l
u
m
e

M
a
p
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

A
n
a
l
y
z
e

C
r
a
s
h

M
a
p
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
C
r
e
a
t
e

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

P
l
a
n
M
o
d
a
l

D
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s

&

H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
R
e
v
i
s
i
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

G
o
a
l
s

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
;

F
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
C
r
e
a
t
e

D
e
s
i
g
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
c
o
p
i
n
g
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
c

E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
c
h
e
m
a
t
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n
A
n
a
l
y
z
e

C
r
a
s
h
e
s

a
n
d

D
e
s
i
g
n

f
o
r

S
a
f
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
A
p
p
l
y

S
t
r
e
e
t

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
s
i
g
n
s

a
n
d

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
(select one)
1
.
1
1
.
2
2
.
1
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
1
2
.
2
.
2
2
.
2
.
3
2
.
2
.
4
2
.
2
.
5
2
.
2
.
6
2
.
2
.
7
2
.
2
.
8
2
.
3
2
.
3
.
1
2
.
3
.
2
2
.
3
.
3
2
.
3
.
4
2
.
3
.
5
2
.
3
.
6
2
.
4
2
.
4
.
1
2
.
4
.
2
2
.
4
.
3
2
.
4
.
4
2
.
4
.
5
2
.
4
.
6
2
.
5
2
.
6
3
.
1
3
.
1
.
1
3
.
1
.
2
3
.
1
.
3
3
.
1
.
4
3
.
1
.
5
3
.
2
3
.
2
.
1
3
.
2
.
2
ADA ramp improvements x x x x x x x x x o x
Alley improvements x x x x o o x x x x o x x x x x x
Arterial resurfacing x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x o o o x x x x x x x x x x x
Bike facility projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o o x x x x x x x x x x x x
Goal: Address all objectives identified
during scoping
Goal: Identify/
promote Complete
Streets in projects
Stage 1: Project Stage 2: Scoping Stage 3: Design
Goal: Address all needs identified during scoping
Bike Stations x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x o x x x
Bridge repair x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Bridge Replacement/New x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Child Safety Zones x x x x x o x x x x x o o o x o x x x x x o o x x x x x
CREATE/rail projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Landscaped median imprvs x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Lighting projects x x x x x x x o o o x x x o
Major Roadway Reconstruction/
Realignment Project
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o x x x x x x x x x x x x
Ped safety infrastructure
improvements
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x o x x o x x
Placemaking Activities x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o x x o x
Red light/Speed cameras x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Riverwalk Projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Sidewalk and miscellaneous
concrete projects
x x x x x x o x x x x x x
Signage & pavement marking
improvements
x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x o x
Signal modernizations, new
signals, signal interconnects
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o
Streetscaping projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x o x
Traffic Calming x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o x x x x x x x x x x o x
Transit projects x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o o x x x x x o x x x x
Tree planting and landscape x x x x x x x x
WPA/industrial streets x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
KEY: x =required, o =optional, blank =not required
FIGURE 40 - COMPLETE STREETS AND SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT DELIVERY: Steps by Project Type, Updated 2014
CDOT PROJECT TYPES
(select one)
ADA ramp improvements
Alley improvements
Arterial resurfacing
Bike facility projects
C
r
e
a
t
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

L
a
y
o
u
t
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
i
g
n
a
l

T
i
m
i
n
g

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
R
e
v
i
e
w

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
s
i
g
n
V
e
r
i
f
y

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
O
b
t
a
i
n

F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

a
n
d

A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
E
n
g
a
g
e

P
u
b
l
i
c

S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
D
e
s
i
g
n

I
m
p
a
c
t

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

M
M
L
O
S
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
p
a
r
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
R
e
c
o
r
d

D
e
s
i
g
n

O
u
t
p
u
t
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
f
f

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

&

h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
y

M
O
T

I
s
s
u
e
s
P
u
b
l
i
c

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

V
o
l
u
m
e

I
I
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
a
f
e
t
y
M
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
H
e
a
l
t
h
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

p
r
o
s
p
e
r
i
t
y
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
E
n
s
u
r
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
g

&

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

p
l
a
n

i
s

b
e
i
n
g

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

N
e
e
d
s
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

C
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

f
o
r

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

C
S

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

D
u
r
i
n
g

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
*
3
.
2
.
3
3
.
2
.
4
3
.
2
.
5
3
.
2
.
6
3
.
2
.
7
3
.
3
3
.
3
.
1
3
.
3
.
2
3
.
3
.
3
3
.
4
3
.
4
.
1
3
.
4
.
2
3
.
4
.
3
3
.
5
3
.
6
44
.
1
4
.
2
4
.
3
4
.
4
4
.
5
55
.
1
5
.
2
5
.
3
5
.
4
5
.
5
5
.
6
5
.
7
66
.
1
6
.
2
6
.
3
6
.
4
x x x x x x o x o x x
x x x x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x o x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
Goal: Ensure all users are
accommodated for lifespan
Stage 6: Maintenance Stage 5: Measurement
Goal: Measure the effectiveness of the
Complete Street
Stage 4: Construction
Goal: Ensure project is built as
designed for Complete Streets
Bike Stations
Bridge repair
Bridge Replacement/New
Child Safety Zones
CREATE/rail projects
Landscaped median imprvs
Lighting projects
Major Roadway Reconstruction/
Realignment Project
Ped safety infrastructure
improvements
Placemaking Activities
Red light/Speed cameras
Riverwalk Projects
Sidewalk and miscellaneous
concrete projects
Signage & pavement marking
improvements
Signal modernizations, new
signals, signal interconnects
Streetscaping projects
Traffic Calming
Transit projects
Tree planting and landscape
WPA/industrial streets
x x x x x x x x o x x o x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
x o x o o x o x x x x x x o x
x x x x x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x o
x x x x x x o o x x x x o x x x x x x x x
x o x o o o o x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x o x x x
x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x
x x o x x x o x x o x x x x
x x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x o x x x o
x x x x x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x o
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x o
KEY: x =required, o =optional, blank =not required