Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2017-11-15 A EP TOWN OF ESTES PA I Transportation Advisory Board Agenda November 15,2017 Current Members: Belle Morris(03/31/20) 12:00 PM—2:00 PM Stan Black(03/31/20) Gordon Slack(03/31/18) Room 202&203 Kimberly Campbell(03/31/18) Tom Street(03/31/19) Estes Park Town Hall Ann Finley (03/31/20) Ken Zornes(03/31/19) 170 MacGregor Ave Amy Hamrick(03/31/19) Claudine Perrault(3/31/18) Public Comment Introduction of Engineering Manager,David Hook Director, Greg Muhonen Approval of October Meeting Minutes Chair, Kimberly Campbell Shuttle Updates Sandy Osterman Project Updates Director, Greg Muhonen Parking Strategy Task Force Update Chair, Kimberly Campbell Director, Greg Muhonen Other Business Chair, Kimberly Campbell Complete Streets Policy Chair, Kimberly Campbell Adjourn The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Trustees and the Public Works staff on Local and Regional Comprehensive Transportation Planning Policies; Maintenance, Operation and Expansion Programs; and Transportation Capital Projects. Bob Holcomb, Town Board Trustee Liaison Greg Muhonen, Estes Park Public Works Staff Liaison RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 18, 2017 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 18th day of October, 2017. Present: Kimberly Campbell Gordon Slack Ken Zornes Tom Street Ann Finley Amy Hamrick Belle Morris Also Present:Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Larry Gamble, RMNP Lochen Wood, RMNP Absent: Stan Black Claudine Perrault Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) to approve the September minutes and all were in favor. SHUTTLE UPDATE No Shuttle Committee representation was in attendance. Director Muhonen stated that the Town applied for a LONO Grant to purchase an electronic shuttle and was informed this grant is only eligible for year-round transit services. As a result, the Town was not the grant recipient. Transit Program Manager, Brian Wells has submitted a second grant application with different requirements. An update will be provided once a determination of award is made. Lochen Wood of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is working on their Visitor Use Access Strategy. Wood feels it would be positive to integrate RMNP's shuttle service with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transportation Advisory Board — October 18, 2017 — Page 2 the Town's service. Director Muhonen will be the Town staff advocate and will work with John Hannon on this initiative. The integration work was suggested to take place after Downtown Loop is in place since it will be easier to predict traffic flows. Wood suggested the TAB be used as a focus group for RMNP solutions and provide opportunity for collaboration related to the RMNP day-use access issue. An Environmental Assessment will coming out regarding RMNP Fall River Entrance upgrades. PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure: Director Muhonen indicated that the new parking structure has been at capacity 3 times since opening. Continued comments are being received about the sign saying `Visitor Center'. There are individuals that believe this is only for visitors or that you need to be going to the Visitor Center in order to park there. The Town anticipates the Digital Message Signs (DMS)will help the situation going forward. Wayfinding is still an issue once visitors walk out of the parking structure. Supervisor Berg is handling the assessment and ultimate signage creation. The thought is to create whimsical signage comparable to that in back of the library. An additional `Visitor Center' sign is to be installed on the south side of the Visitor Center facing the new structure. Digital Message Signs: The Town is collaborating with the low bidder on project scope reduction and defining the scope to be completed by Town employees in order to bring the cost into a manageable range. Further discussions will be delegated to the new Town of Estes Park Engineering Manager starting on October 30, 2017. Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement: The project got off to a rocky start, although it was not bad during the partial closure. Since the full closure began there has been much discussion regarding signage changes and the confusion created as a result of mid-day traffic control layout. Currently, the sanitation district is performing utility work with new pipe installation connecting to the Weist line allowing emergency or maintenance service to take place on the back side of the area businesses rather than having to perform service at the front along Elkhorn. Member Slack suggested posting a map/graphics rather than using text to convey detour routes providing ease of understanding. Discussed future changes to detours and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transportation Advisory Board — October 18, 2017 — Page 3 whether or not the changes justify further press releases. It is anticipated to be 2 weeks before the contractor begins removing the bridge. MacGregor Avenue Improvement: Improvements are substantially complete with minimal corrective work remaining and ADA compliance issues needing addressed. The rapid flash button accessibility needs corrected for further compliance. Member Slack questioned whether or not there is an audible sound when the lights are flashing. Director Muhonen will confirm and if not already available, will see if audio can be retrofitted to provide this capability. Fish Creek: Chair Campbell asked if it is alright to drive on Fish Creek at this time which was confirmed by Director Muhonen. There is currently work being performed on the top mat paving and the tie-ins to the adjoining streets remain to be done. It is anticipated that all will be done by the end of the month. Fall River Trail Extension — The Town has hired a consultant to apply for 2 additional grants. Both applications are due November 1, 2017. One grant funder is Colorado Parks and Wildlife for $200,000 and the other is the Land Water Conservation Fund for $400,000. Larry Gamble of RMNP offered the Town a letter of support. OTHER BUSINESS Member Hamrick expressed concern about the back-ups that occur into the Hwy 34/Hwy 36 intersection. This causes those drivers waiting at the cross lights to sit through green lights because they're unable to get through the intersection. Hamrick suggested that CSOs be assigned to that intersection later in the year during the very busy weekends, comprised mainly of day-trippers, especially in September and October. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1 :47 p.m. . , . I: . iA il i _ Y IV di . I ot_worAl. / III • t '..:,' , '•-el 1 ' . 4.11,1 —4— el 6 - - ---- ••••,./ '. --- J.. r-: , 't ' lig 41 1 . • I hkdIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I billagraiw..' . • • 1 111\111111 u �� Smart Growth America National Complete -�1 /` �/ Improving Ines by improving communities Streets Coalition 7 1 1-- o di The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2016 . s ir • Y June 2017 •�' ' 1 . • . ...... • r .. / r% • •• "410 Acknowledgments The National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart Growth America, is a non-profit, non-partisan alliance of public interest organizations and transportation professionals committed to the development and implementation of Complete Streets policies and practices. A nationwide movement launched by the Coalition in 2004, Complete Streets is the integration of people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. Smart Growth America is the only national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for, and leading coalitions to bring better development to more communities nationwide. From providing more sidewalks to ensuring more homes are built near public transportation or that productive farms remain a part of our communities, smart growth helps make sure people across the nation can live in great neighborhoods. For additional information, visit www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets. Project team: Emiko Atherton, Director, National Complete Streets Coalition Alex Dodds, Communications Director, Smart Growth America Mary Eveleigh, Program Associate, National Complete Streets Coalition Heather Zaccaro, Health Program Associate, National Complete Streets Coalition Research assistants: Yuri Chang, Communications Associate, Smart Growth America Cornelius Fletcher, Communications Intern, LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors Brian Lutenegger, Research and Policy Intern, Smart Growth America Michael Rodriguez, Director of Research, Smart Growth America Geri Rosenberg, Program Associate, Smart Growth America Stephen Skilton, Economic Analyst, Smart Growth America Sam Sklar, Program Associate, Smart Growth America Additional thanks to the National Complete Streets Coalition Steering Committee: Debra Alvarez,AARP Jeff Lindley, Institute of Transportation Engineers Adam Goldberg, AARP Jeff Riegner, Institute of Transportation Coralette Hannon,AARP Engineers/Whitman, Requardt&Associates Ignacio Bunster-Ossa,AECOM Nathan Polanski, MIG 1 SvR Design Company Heidi Simon, America Walks Tom Von Schrader, MIG I SvR Design Company Katherine Robb,American Public Health Association Linda Bailey, National Association of City Arthur Guzzetti,American Public Transportation Transportation Officials Association Corinne Kisner, National Association of City Richard Weaver,American Public Transportation Transportation Officials Association Adriann Murawski, National Association of Roxanne Blackwell, American Society of Landscape REALTORS® Architects Hugh Morris, National Association of REALTORS® Tom Bertulis,Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Drusilla van Hengel, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Professionals Associates Inc. Melanie Bowzer,Association of Pedestrian and Geoff Anderson, Smart Growth America Bicycle Professionals Randy Neufeld, SRAM Byron Rushing,Association of Pedestrian and Mike Rutkowski, Stantec Bicycle Professionals Tim Vaske,Voices for Healthy Kids Kate Whitfield,Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Mike Jelen, VHB Professionals Roger Millar, Washington State DOT Steve Lavrenz, Institute of Transportation Engineers 1 Table of contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 An overview of policies and how we evaluate them 5 National trends in Complete Streets 6 Focusing on implementation 9 Centering equity 9 The best Complete Streets policies of 2016 11 Conclusion 12 Appendix A: Methodology and ideal policy language 13 Elements of a Complete Streets policy 13 A note on plans and design guidance 24 Appendix B: All policy scores 26 Endnotes 27 1 Executive Summary As of the end of 2016, more than 1,000 jurisdictions in the United States have made formal commitments to streets that are safe and convenient for everyone—no matter their age, income, race, ethnicity, physical ability, or how they choose to travel—by passing a Complete Streets policy. More communities passed these policies in 2016 than ever before. Communities adopted a total of 222 new Complete Streets policies that year. Nationwide, a total of 1,232 policies are now in place, in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, including 33 state governments, 77 regional planning organizations, and 955 individual municipalities. These policies are the strongest ever passed. When the National Complete Streets Coalition first evaluated Complete Streets policies in 2006, the median score was 34 and by 2015 the median score had risen to 68.4. In 2016, the median score leapt to 80.8. Before 2012, no policy had scored higher than 90. And it wasn't until 2015 that any policy scored a perfect 100. In 2016, 51 policies scored a 90 or higher, including 3 policies that scored a perfect 100. These gains are a testament to communities' commitment to passing strong, impactful policies. Specifically, thirteen communities led the nation in creating and adopting comprehensive Complete Streets policies in 2016: Rank Jurisdiction Policy score 1 Brockton, MA 100.0 1 Missoula, MT 100.0 1 Wenatchee, WA 100.0 2 Hull, MA 98.4 2 Mansfield, MA 98.4 2 Sherborn, MA 98.4 3 Bridgewater, MA 96.8 3 Brookline, MA 96.8 4 Chester, MA 96.0 4 Muskogee, OK 96.0 5 Ayer, MA 95.2 5 Wales, MA 95.2 5 Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study, NY 95.2 2 By passing strong Complete Streets policies these communities are making a clear commitment to streets that are safe and convenient for everyone. And they do so at a time when our country desperately needs safer options for biking and walking. As a nation we face an epidemic of obesity and its related illnesses. The U.S. Surgeon General has recommended making biking and walking a routine part of daily life to help address this health crisis, yet in too many communities streets are not built to safely accommodate these activities. Our recent report Dangerous by Design 2016 outlined the enduring problem of pedestrian fatalities in the United States, and highlighted the 46,149 people who were struck and killed by cars while walking between 2005 and 2014. Over that period Americans were seven times as likely to be killed as a pedestrian than by a natural disaster. During the same period, more than 7,000 people were killed while biking. Dangerous by Design 2016 also showed that people of color and older adults are overrepresented among pedestrian deaths, and that pedestrian risk is correlated with median household income as well as rates of uninsured individuals. That means people of color most likely face disproportionately unsafe conditions for walking, and low-income metro areas are predictably more dangerous than higher-income ones. Because of this context, for the first time this year we looked at the income and racial demographics of the communities included in our analysis. The data showed that 2016 communities passing or updating a Complete Streets policy in 2016 were, on average, slightly more white and more wealthy than the United States as a whole. The average racial makeup of these communities was 76.3 percent white, 10.3 percent Black or African American, 0.8 percent American Indian, 5.3 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander, 4.1 percent Other, and 3.1 percent two or more races. In all, 77 percent of localities that passed policies in 2016 had white populations greater than the national average of 73.6 percent. The median household income of communities who passed or updated a policy in 2016 was $59,347, about 10 percent above the national average of$53,889. Taken together, it is clear that communities are consistently passing stronger and more effective Complete Streets policies. This is an outstanding accomplishment, and one that we could not be more proud and honored to celebrate. It is also clear that our challenge now is to help communities of all income levels and ethnicities benefit from this progress equitably. Toward that goal, the Coalition is in the process of updating our policy scoring rubric to give more weight to equity considerations as well as implementation. We will make the new standards public later this year, and will begin using the updated rubric to analyze policies moving forward. Congratulations to all the jurisdictions that passed Complete Streets policies in 2016, particularly those receiving the highest scores in the Coalition's analysis. You are setting an example for communities everywhere to follow, and we look forward to working with other communities on passing new policies and putting them in to practice in the year to come. 3 Introduction Complete Streets is more than a checklist. It's a frame of mind. A Complete Streets approach integrates the needs of people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. Complete Streets redefines what a transportation network looks like, which goals a transportation agency is going to meet, and how a community prioritizes its transportation spending. It breaks down the traditional separation in planning for different modes of travel, and emphasizes context-sensitive, multimodal project planning, design, and implementation. In doing so, a Complete Streets approach can make streets safer and more convenient for everyone, no matter their age, race, ethnicity, income, physical ability, or how they choose to travel. More and more communities are using a Complete Streets approach. In 2016, jurisdictions in the United States passed 222 new Complete Streets policies. And nationally 1,232 policies are now in place in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. This growing interest in Complete Streets comes at a unique national moment. In the United States today, demand for real estate in walkable neighborhoods with diverse transportation choices is at a new high. San Francisco and New York are the most commonly cited examples, but it is a trend playing out in smaller cities, suburbs, and towns across the country. For perhaps the first time in 60 years, walkable urban places are gaining market share over their drivable suburban competition—and commanding significant price premiums in real estate.' Walkable neighborhoods' price divide is creating a subsequent health divide. As real estate values in walkable neighborhoods climb, lower-income residents are being forced out to areas without these active transportation options. People's health is suffering as a result: research has shown that people living in dense cities are thinner and have healthier hearts than people in sprawling subdivisions.2 These health impacts are now an epidemic. More than two-thirds of Americans today are considered overweight or obese.3 Yet fewer than half of adults meet recommended guidelines for aerobic physical activity.4 The U.S. Surgeon General has recommended more biking and walking as ways to address America's obesity crisis, but in many communities streets are simply not safe enough for these activities. Over the 10 years between 2005 and 2014, 46,149 people were struck and killed by cars while walking in the United States.' During this same time period, more than 7,000 people were killed while biking.6 And while pedestrian fatalities occur in communities of all sizes, some populations are affected more severely than others. People of color and older adults are overrepresented among pedestrian deaths. And our Pedestrian Danger Index—the likelihood of someone to be struck and killed by a car while walking in a given place—is correlated with both income and rates of uninsured individuals, meaning that people in low income communities or in communities with lower rates of health insurance are more likely to be struck and killed by a car while walking.' For all these reasons and more, communities want to make it safer and easier for people to bike, walk, wheelchair roll, and take transit as well as drive to where they need to go. A Complete Streets policy is one of the most important ways communities to do this. The good news is that hundreds of communities are using this approach. This report looks at some of the best. 4 An overview of policies and how we evaluate them Complete Streets policies are a jurisdiction's formal commitment to fund, plan for, construct, operate, and maintain their streets with all users in mind. The Coalition recognizes several types of statements in our definition of a Complete Streets policy, including legislation, resolutions, executive orders, internal policies, policies adopted by an elected board, tax ordinances, comprehensive or master plans, and design guidance. Complete Streets legislation includes bills that require the needs of all users to be addressed in transportation projects by changing city, county, or state codes or statutes. Resolutions are non- binding official statements from a jurisdiction's legislative branch and executive orders are high- level directives issued by a mayor or governor. Internal policies are adopted by the leadership of a jurisdiction's transportation agency, office, or department without action from an elected body. Policies adopted by an elected board are statements, usually developed by a group of stakeholders, and are approved by an elected governing body via an adopting resolution or ordinance. Tax ordinances are a legislative or voter-approved ordinance to fund Complete Streets projects. This report analyzes all the above types of policy documents. In addition, some communities incorporate Complete Streets language into comprehensive or transportation master plans, or through updates to street design guidance and standards. These documents are not eligible for our analysis. This report evaluates the language of eligible Complete Streets policies based on a comprehensive policy model that includes ten ideal elements: • Vision: The policy establishes a motivating vision for why the community wants Complete Streets: to improve safety, promote better health, make overall travel more efficient, improve the convenience of choices, or for other reasons. • All users and modes: The policy specifies that "all modes" includes walking, bicycling, riding public transportation, driving trucks, buses and automobiles and "all users" includes people of all ages and abilities. • All projects and phases: All types of transportation projects are subject to the policy, including design, planning, construction, maintenance, and operations of new and existing streets and facilities. • Clear, accountable exceptions: Any exceptions to the policy are specified and approved by a high-level official. • Network: The policy recognizes the need to create a comprehensive, integrated and connected network for all modes and encourages street connectivity. • Jurisdiction: All other agencies that govern transportation activities can clearly understand the policy's application and may be involved in the process as appropriate. • Design: The policy recommends use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines, while recognizing the need for design flexibility to balance user needs in context. • Context sensitivity: The current and planned context—buildings, land use, transportation, and community needs—is considered in when planning and designing transportation solutions. • Performance measures: The policy includes performance standards with measurable outcomes. • Implementation steps: Specific next steps for implementing the policy are described. 5 Members of the Coalition's Steering Committee along with our workshop instructors developed the ten ideal policy elements. Based on decades of collective experience in transportation planning and design, the ten elements are a national model of best practice that can be employed in nearly all types of Complete Streets policies at all levels of governance. Our analysis examines how jurisdictions have incorporated the best practices into their policies. More information about our ideal elements—and ideas for how your community can pass an outstanding policy of its own—is included in Appendix A on page 13. National trends in Complete Streets In 2016, communities adopted a total of 222 new Complete Streets policies—nearly double the 114 policies adopted in 2015. Nationwide, a total of 1,232 policies are now in place (see Figure 1 below) in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. FIGURE 1 Complete Streets policies adopted, over time 1400 1200 /1232 1000 1011 897 800 784 600 642 400 427 200 246 147 0I 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 These policies are in place at nearly all levels of government. Thirty-three state governments, 77 regional and metropolitan planning organizations, and 955 individual municipalities now have Complete Streets policies in place. Of the 955 municipalities that have policies in place, large cities have passed 50, mid-sized cities have passed 55, small cities have passed 131, large suburbs have passed 44, mid-sized suburbs have passed 109, small suburbs have passed 290, towns have passed 241, rural cities have passed 2, and rural places have passed 33 (see Figure 2 on page 7). In addition, 14 of the 15 most populous cities in the United States also have a Complete Streets polices in place.8 6 FIGURE 2 Municipalities with Complete Streets policies, by size 50 55 •Large city 2 241 ■Midsize city 131 •Rural city Small city 33 •Rural •Large suburb 44 •Midsize suburb 290 109 ■Small suburb •Town The types of policies jurisdictions adopted were equally diverse. Of the 222 policies passed or updated in 2016, 98 were policies from an elected board, 49 were non-binding resolutions, 58 were legislation, 9 were plans, 4 were design guidelines, 3 were executive orders, and 1 was an internal policy. Of the 1,232 policies in place nationwide, 542 are resolutions, 299 are policies, 208 are legislation, 85 are plans, 42 are internal policies, 14 are executive orders, 3 are tax ordinances, and 39 are included in design standards (see Figure 3, below). FIGURE 3 All Complete Streets policies, by type 14 3 39 42 85 •Resolution •Policy •Legislation 208 542 •Plan •Internal policy •Executive order •Tax ordinances Design standard 299 7 Communities in Massachusetts adopted the most policies in 2016-86 in total. Washington State followed, passing 46 that year. Both Massachusetts and Washington State have incentive programs that encourage localities to pass policies. Following these two states, Illinois passed 13 policies in 2016 and New York passed 12. New Jersey continues to have the most policies in place overall, with 145. Massachusetts, by adding 86 policies in 2016 alone, leapt up the list of state policy totals and now has 119 in place. California is not far behind with 107, Michigan has 103, Washington State has 91, and New York 75. Nationwide, there are now 30 states with 10 or more policies at the local, regional, or state level. The quality of Complete Streets policies also made a monumental leap forward this year, thanks in large part to the large number of outstanding policies passed in Massachusetts. When the Coalition first analyzed Complete Streets polices in 2006, the median score was 34. By 2015, that number had risen to 68.4. In 2016, the median score leapt to 80.8 (see Figure 4 below). Before 2012, no policy had ever scored higher than 90. And it wasn't until 2015 that any policy scored a perfect 100. In 2016, 51 policies scored a 90 or higher, including 3 policies that scored a perfect 100. These gains are a testament to communities' commitment to passing strong, impactful policies. FIGURE 4 Median policy score, over time 90 80 80.8 70 68.4 60 1 6 4.4 50 8.8 40 • 38 30 30 20 10 p 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 The rise in scores in 2016 was a direct result of an increase in policies that address users of all abilities, more modes of transportation, the importance of building transportation networks, context sensitivity, and design guidance. 8 • 94.6 percent of policies scored from 2016 covered "all abilities", in contrast to 87.9 percent of all scored policies over time. • 94.6 percent of policies scored from 2016 covered "all ages", in contrast to 79.5 percent of all scored policies over time. • 96.1 percent of policies scored from 2016 covered additional transportation modes beyond bike/pedestrian/transit, in contrast with 85.8 percent of all scored policies over time. • 88.3 percent of policies scored from 2016 mentioned the importance of a connected, integrated street network, in contrast to 59.6 percent of all scored policies over time. • 75.1 percent of policies scored from 2016 mentioned sensitivity to context, in contrast to 57.6 percent of all scored policies over time. • 79.0 percent of policies scored from 2016 mentioned design guidance, in contrast to 49.5 percent of all scored policies over time. Focusing on implementation Complete Streets policies cannot achieve their ambitious goals unless they are thoughtfully and thoroughly implemented. To do this, departments of transportation must change the way they operate, including changing their project development process, design guidelines, and performance measures. This is most successfully done through training, education, and strong leadership and as you can imagine, it is often daunting. Jurisdictions can help with this by including language about implementation in their Complete Streets policy. Because implementation is so important, we give it considerable weight in our scoring. The good news is that the vast majority of policies passed in 2016 contained language about implementation: • 89.8 percent of policies scored from 2016 mentioned at least two implementation steps, in contrast to 64.5 percent of all scored policies over time. • 69.8 percent of policies scored from 2016 established a reporting requirement or committee, in contrast to 33.4 percent of all scored policies over time. This year's policies' inclusion of implementation means more and more practitioners are thinking about all the steps needed to make a Complete Streets approach a reality. Centering equity This year for the first time we analyzed the income and racial demographics of the 205 jurisdictions eligible for our 2016 scoring. Of those 205, an additional 3 were excluded from our demographics analysis since they encompassed multiple jurisdictions. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2015 five-year estimates we looked at the median income of communities that passed policies in 2016 as well as their racial demographics. We found that these communities were more white and more wealthy than the U.S. as a whole. The data showed that 77 percent of localities that passed policies in 2016 had white populations greater than the national average of 73.6 percent. The average racial makeup of communities that passed or updated a Complete Streets policy in 2016 was 76.3 percent white, 10.3 percent Black or African American, 0.8 percent American Indian, 5.3 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander, 4.1 percent Other, and 3.1 percent two or more races. 9 It is important to note that of the 202 policies included in our equity analysis, 132 (or 65 percent) were passed in Massachusetts or Washington State. Both of these states are more white than the national average, and they both have incentive programs that encourage Complete Streets policy development. If these two states are excluded, 56 percent of localities that passed policies in 2016 had white populations greater than average. The data also showed that 2016 communities were more wealthy than the U.S. as a whole. The median income of communities that passed or updated a policy in 2016 was $59,347, about 10 percent above the national average of$53,889.9 When excluding Massachusetts and Washington, the median income of communities that passed or updated a policy in 2016 dropped to $52,936. These trends mean that many low-income communities and communities of color are not accessing the economic and safety benefits of a Complete Streets approach at the same rate as other communities. Compounding this is the fact that these communities are overrepresented among pedestrian fatalities, and perhaps in most dire need of safer streets for people biking and walking. Our Dangerous by Design 2016 report showed that non-white individuals account for 34.9 percent of the national population but make up 46.1 percent of pedestrian deaths.10 Even after controlling for the relative amounts of walking among these populations, risks continue to be higher for some people of color and older adults—indicating that these people most likely face disproportionately unsafe conditions for walking." That report's Pedestrian Danger Index, or PDI, was also correlated with median household income and rates of uninsured individuals. Low-income metro areas were predictably more dangerous than higher-income ones: as median household incomes drop, PDI rises. Similar trends bear out with rates of uninsured individuals: as rates of uninsured individuals rise, so do PDIs, meaning that the people who can least afford to be injured often live in the most dangerous places. Complete Streets aim to provide safe, affordable, convenient, and reliable transportation networks for all users of all abilities, but especially the most vulnerable. As median policy scores continue to rise year over year and communities across the country reliably pass strong policies, the Coalition is dedicated to helping more vulnerable communities realize the benefits of a Complete Streets approach. To that end, the Coalition will begin using a new scoring rubric that more heavily accounts for equity and diversity as well as implementation. This is in line with the Coalition's five-year strategic goals and values. We will unveil the new rubric later this year, and use it to analyze Complete Streets policies passed in 2017. We look forward to supporting communities as they make equity and implementation a more prominent focus of Complete Streets policies in the years to come. 10 The best Complete Streets policies of 2016 Each year the National Complete Streets Coalition analyzes new Complete Streets policies to understand trends, understand what local communities are choosing to prioritize, and to model outstanding policy language for other communities. Of the 222 policies passed in 2016, 205 were eligible for our analysis. Each of these policies was evaluated based on the established elements of an ideal Complete Streets policy (outlined on page 5 and discussed in more detail in Appendix A, starting on page 13). The Coalition awarded up to five points for how well policies met each of the ten elements of an ideal policy. Scores were weighted to emphasize more important elements. Based on these scores, we are proud to announce the following communities have the best Complete Streets policies of 2016: TABLE 1 The best Complete Streets policies of 2016 Rank Jurisdiction Policy score 1. Brockton, MA 100.0 1. Missoula, MT 100.0 1. Wenatchee, WA 100.0 2. Hull, MA 98.4 2. Mansfield, MA 98.4 2. Sherborn, MA 98.4 3. Bridgewater, MA 96.8 3. Brookline, MA 96.8 4. Chester, MA 96.0 4. Muskogee, OK 96.0 5. Ayer, MA 95.2 5. Wales, MA 95.2 5. Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study, NY 95.2 11 These are the policies with the top scores of 2016. The full list of scores for all communities that have ever passed a Complete Streets policy, including all other policies from 2016, is available in Appendix B starting on page 28. Conclusion More communities passed Complete Streets policies in 2016 than any previous year, and the policies passed in 2016 were also the strongest of all time. Both these facts are a testament to communities' dedication to making streets safer and more convenient for everyone, no matter their age, income, race, ethnicity, physical ability, or how they choose to travel. Our work now will be to help communities of all income levels and ethnicities make their streets safer for everyone. We'll approach this work in a number of ways. We are inviting new partner organizations to join the Coalition's work, and we are asking for their input about how our work can better serve. In addition, and most relevant to this report, we plan to change the way we evaluate policy language next year. We are in the process of updating the scoring rubric we use to evaluate policies, to give more weight to equity factors. This is in line with the Coalition's five-year strategic goals and values. We will unveil the new rubric later this year, and use it to analyze Complete Streets policies moving forward. This shift is possible because communities are consistently passing strong Complete Streets policies. For the second year in a row, the highest policy score this year was a perfect 100—and not one but three 2016 policies achieved it. This and other signs of outstanding quality policies means it is time for Coalition to move our goalposts and bring a Complete Streets approach to communities with the highest need. Congratulations to this year's best policies, and to every community that expressed their commitment to streets that are safer and work for everyone by passing a Complete Streets policy last year. We are excited to work with communities everywhere on these new horizons, and to help create the next best Complete Streets policies of years to come. 12 Appendix A: Methodology and ideal policy language The National Complete Streets Coalition has established an objective set of ten ideal policy elements to help communities under the best practices needed to implement Complete Streets. The Coalition's Steering Committee and its workshop instructors developed the elements based on years of experience and research. The following section provides more information about these ideals, and highlights of these ideals in this year's policies. More information about writing Complete Streets policies is available in our Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook. Download your copy at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/complete- streets-local-pol icy-workbook/. Elements of a Complete Streets policy 1 . Vision and intent A strong vision inspires a community to follow through on its Complete Streets policy. Just as no two policies are alike, visions are not one-size-fits-all either. Visions cannot be empirically compared across policies, so this element compares the strength and clarity of each policy's commitment to Complete Streets. Clarity of intent and writing makes it easy for those tasked with implementation to understand the new goals and determine what changes need to be made to fulfill the policy's intent. • 5 points: The strongest policies are those that are clear in intent, stating unequivocally that facilities meeting the needs of people traveling on foot or bicycle "shall" or "must" be included in transportation projects. Full points also are awarded to policies in which the absolute intent of the policy is obvious and direct, even if they do not use the words "shall" or "must," because there is a complete lack of other equivocating language. • 3 points: Many policies are clear in their intent—defining what a community expects from the policy—but use equivocating language that waters down the directive. For example, an average policy says that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists "will be considered" or "may be included" as part of the process. • 1 point: Some policies are indirect: they refer to implementation of certain principles, features, or elements defined elsewhere; refer to general "Complete Streets" application with no clear directive; or instruct the development of a more thorough policy document. Examples of indirect language include phrases such as "consider the installation of 'Complete Streets' transportation elements," "Complete Streets principles," or "supports the adoption and implementation of 'Complete Streets' policies and practices to create a transportation network that accommodates all users." Using this language perpetuates the separation of modes and the perception that a road for cars is fundamentally different from a road for other users, that only some roads should be "complete streets," and even that these roads require special, separately funded "amenities." 13 EXAMPLE POLICY: VISION AND INTENT Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study, NY "The BMTS Complete Streets Policy builds upon these efforts and promotes a multimodal transportation system. Its main objective is to design, build, and maintain roads (including multi-use trails) that safely and comfortably accommodate all users of roadways, including motorists, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and school bus riders, delivery and service personnel, freight haulers, and emergency responders. It includes people of all ages and abilities. The development of multi-use trail facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists is integral in creating a multimodal transportation system by supplementing roadway facilities. Thus, this Complete Streets Policy supports multi-use trail development, in particular the implementation of the Two Rivers Greenway. Building Complete Streets provides many benefits to residents, business owners, developers, and the community as a whole. First and foremost, embracing the complete streets concept will create balanced transportation systems by providing accessible, safe, and efficient connections between destinations. Additionally, complete streets will encourage economic growth, increase property values, reduce crashes through safety improvements, improve public health and fitness, reduce harmful emissions, and reduce the overall demand on our roadways by allowing people to replace motor vehicle trips with active transportation options. Finally, integrating sidewalks, bike facilities, transit amenities, or safe crossings into the initial design of a project spares the expense and complications of retrofits later. The desired outcome of the Complete Streets Policy is to create an equitable, balanced, and effective transportation system where every roadway user can travel safely and comfortably, and where sustainable transportation options are available to everyone. The goals of this Complete Streets policy are: • To create a comprehensive, integrated, and connected transportation network that supports compact, sustainable development and provides livable communities. • To ensure safety, ease of use, and ease of transfer between modes for all users of the transportation system. • To provide context sensitive design flexibility for different types of streets, areas, and users." 2. All users and modes No policy is a Complete Streets policy without a clear statement affirming that people who travel by foot or on bicycle are legitimate users of the transportation system and equally deserving of safe facilities to accommodate their travel. It is therefore a requirement to include both modes—walking 14 and bicycling—in the policy before it can be further analyzed. Beyond the type of user is a more nuanced understanding that not all people who move by a certain mode are the same. • 3 points: Policy includes two more modes, in addition to walking, bicycling, and public transportation. Such modes include cars, freight traffic, emergency response vehicles, or equestrians. • 2 points: Policy includes one more mode, in addition to walking, bicycling, and public transportation. • 1 point: Policy includes public transportation, in addition to walking and bicycling. • Required/0 points: Policy includes walking and bicycling. The needs of people—young, old, with disabilities, without disabilities—are integral to great Complete Streets policies. Two additional points are available, awarded independently of each other and above points for modes. • 1 point: A policy references the needs of people young and old. • 1 point: A policy includes the needs of people of all abilities. EXAMPLE POLICY: ALL USERS AND MODES Sherborn, MA "The purpose of the Town of Sherborn Complete Streets Policy is to provide safe, convenient transportation routes for users of our roadways, pathways and sidewalks, for the benefit of people of all ages and all abilities. This will include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, commercial vehicles, transit vehicles, emergency vehicles, and users of wheelchairs and other power-driven mobility devices. Furthermore, the Complete Streets Policy is to accommodate all road users by creating a road network that meets the needs of individuals utilizing a variety of transportation modes. The policy directs decision makers to consistently plan, design, and construct streets to accommodate all anticipated users including, but not limited to, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, emergency vehicles, and commercial vehicles." 3. All projects and phases The ideal result of a Complete Streets policy is that all transportation improvements are viewed as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all users. • 3 points: Policy applies to reconstruction and new construction projects. • 0 points: Policy does not apply to projects beyond newly constructed roads, or is not clear regarding its application. 15 • 2 additional points available: Policy clearly includes maintenance, operations, resurfacing, repaving, or other types of changes to the transportation system. EXAMPLE POLICY: ALL PROJECTS AND PHASES Hull, MA "The Town of Hull's Complete Streets policy will focus on developing a connected, integrated network that serves all road users. Complete Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail destinations by improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout the Town. In Hull, Complete Streets will be integrated into policies, planning, and design of all types of public and private projects, including new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance of transportation facilities on streets and redevelopment projects. The Town of Hull recognizes that "Complete Streets" may be achieved through single elements incorporated into a particular project or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time." 4. Clear, accountable exceptions Making a policy work in the real world requires a process for exceptions to providing for all modes in each project. The Coalition believes the following exceptions are appropriate with limited potential to weaken the policy. They follow the Federal Highway Administration's guidance on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel and identified best practices frequently used in existing Complete Streets policies. 1. Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific users are prohibited, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian malls. 2. Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. The Coalition does not recommend attaching a percentage to define "excessive," as the context for many projects will require different portions of the overall project budget to be spent on the modes and users expected. Additionally, in many instances the costs may be difficult to quantify. A percentage cap may be appropriate in unusual circumstances, such as where natural features (e.g. steep hillsides, shorelines) make it very costly or impossible to accommodate all modes. The Coalition does not believe a cap lower than 20 percent is appropriate, and any cap should always be used in an advisory rather than absolute sense. 3. A documented absence of current and future need. Many communities have included other exceptions that the Coalition, in consultation with transportation planning and engineering experts, also feels are unlikely to create loopholes: 16 • Transit accommodations are not required where there is no existing or planned transit service. • Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair. • Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor is already programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand. In addition to defining exceptions through good policy language, there must be a clear process for granting them, preferably with approval from senior management. Establishing this within a policy provides clarity to staff charged with implementing the policy and improves transparency and accountability to other agencies and residents. • 5 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and no others—and stating who is responsible for approving exceptions. • 4 points: Policy includes any other exceptions, including those that weaken the intent of the Complete Streets policy, and stating who is responsible for approval. • 3 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and no others—but does not assign responsibility for approval. • 1 point: Policy includes any other exceptions, including those that weaken the intent of the policy, but does not assign responsibility for approval. • 0 points: Policy lists no exceptions. EXAMPLE POLICY: CLEAR, ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPTIONS Brockton, MA "A. Exceptions to the City of Brockton Complete Streets Ordinance include: 1. Facilities where specific users are prohibited by law, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian malls. An effort will be made, in these cases for accommodations elsewhere. 2. Where cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. 3. Documentation of an absence of current and future need. B. Exceptions Approval Process: 1 . Formal exemption review panel should be established, made of representatives from the City's Planning Department, Brockton Traffic Commission, a City Council Member, the Old Colony Planning Council and a member(s) from the pedestrian and bicycle advocacy community, to hear Complete Street exemption proposals. 2. Formal documentation must be filed indicating why facility or project should be exempt from the City of Brockton's Compete Streets Ordinance. 3. If facility is not an interstate freeway or pedestrian mall, clear reasoning must be presented in the formal exemption request as to why said facility or project should 17 be exempt. 4. Public hearing should be held to hear opposing views against facility or project exemption. These hearing should be held jointly at planning board meetings or city council meetings to reduce hearing cost and to be sensitive to community time constraints. 5. Mitigation must be identified in the formal request on how the city or developer will accommodate users who will be restricted. No exemption can be proposed without mitigation. 6. Vote must be taken at review hearing by the exemption review panel or City Council to allow project or facility to be exempt from Brockton's Complete Street Ordinance." 5. Network An ideal Complete Streets policy recognizes the need for a connected, integrated network that provides transportation options to a resident's many potential destinations. Approaching transportation projects as part of the overall network—and not as single segments—is vital for ensuring safe access to destinations. Successful Complete Streets processes recognize that all modes do not receive the same type of accommodation and space on every street, but that everyone can safely and conveniently travel across the network. The Coalition encourages additional discussion of connectivity, including block size and intersection density. • 5 points: Policy simply acknowledges the importance of a network approach. • 0 points: Policy does not reference networks or connectivity. EXAMPLE POLICY: NETWORK Mansfield, MA "The Town of Mansfield Complete Streets policy will focus on developing a connected, integrated network that serves all users. Complete Streets will be integrated into policies, planning and design of all types of public and private projects, including new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair and maintenance of transportation facilities on streets and redevelopment projects. Where sidewalk connections and links are not viable, the Town will seek to expand its trail and walking path network to link neighborhoods. This walking network will be integrated into Mansfield's Complete Streets policy." 6. Jurisdiction Creating Complete Streets networks is difficult because many different agencies control our streets. They are built and maintained by state, county, and local agencies, and private developers often build new roads. Individual jurisdictions do have an opportunity to influence the actions of 18 others, through funding or development review, and through an effort to work with their partner agencies on Complete Streets. These two types of activities are awarded points independently. • 3 points: A state or Metropolitan Planning Organization's policy clearly notes that projects receiving money passing through the agency are expected to follow a Complete Streets approach. County and municipal policy applies to private development. • 2 points: Policy, at any level, articulates the need to work with others in achieving the Complete Streets vision. • 0 points: Policy does not recognize the ways an agency can work with other organizations and developers to achieve Complete Streets. EXAMPLE POLICY: JURISDICTION Brookline, MA "The Town should approach every relevant program, as well as every transportation, public utilities, infrastructure, and public and private development project, as an opportunity to improve the public way and the transportation network for all users. Complete Streets work shall be performed by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and its Transportation Division, and by the Planning and Community Development Department in cooperation with other departments, agencies and jurisdictions as needed. For a project inside the town's boundaries but outside its jurisdiction, the Town shall advocate that the project comply with the Complete Streets Policy. All transportation infrastructure and street design projects in Brookline receiving federal, state, municipal, or private funding or requiring approval by the Town should adhere to the Complete Streets Policy. For development projects that require review specified by the Zoning By-law, or development projects affecting the public way, compliance with the Complete Streets Policy will be encouraged, to the extent not prohibited by the Zoning By- law or other relevant laws and regulations. The Department of Planning and Community Development will encourage Town land use boards to consider compliance with the Policy in their deliberations. Private land to be incorporated into the public way by the Town should comply with the Complete Streets Policy. If a representative of the Town participates in meetings involving the design and planning of programs, transportation projects, or private development projects not under the Town's jurisdiction, the representative shall advocate that the project be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Complete Streets Policy." 7. Design Complete Streets implementation relies on using the best and latest design standards to maximize design flexibility. Design solutions are needed to balance modal and user needs. Points are 19 awarded independently for these concepts. • 3 points: Policy clearly names specific recent design guidance or references using the best available. • 0 points: Policy does not address design guidance, balancing of user needs, or design flexibility. • 2 additional points available: Policy addresses the need for a balanced or flexible design approach. EXAMPLE POLICY: DESIGN Wenatchee, WA "The City of Wenatchee strives to use the best and latest design guidelines, standards and recommendations available when considering methods or providing development flexibility within safe design parameters and balanced design solutions between the user and modal needs. A balanced approach considers aspects such as street design and width, desired operating speed, hierarchy of streets, connectivity, wayfinding signs and signal variation from a human scale for the needs and comforts of All Users. The City will generally follow accepted or adopted design standards when implementing improvements intended to fulfill this Complete Streets policy and will consider innovative or non-traditional design options where a comparable level of safety for users is present. Design criteria shall be based on the thoughtful application of engineering, architectural and urban design principles in addition to prescriptive guidelines. Best practices in policies, design criteria, standards and guidelines related to street design, construction and operations can be found in, but are not limited to, the following: • Guidelines provided by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) • Guidelines provided by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide • Guidelines provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) • Guidelines provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • Guidelines provided in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design • Guidelines provided by the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board" 8. Context sensitivity An effective Complete Streets policy must be sensitive to the surrounding community, its current and planned buildings, as well as its current and expected transportation needs. Given the range of policy types and their varying ability to address this issue, a policy at minimum should mention context sensitivity in making decisions. The Coalition encourages more detailed discussion of adapting roads to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood and development. 20 • 5 points: Policy mentions community context as a factor in decision-making. • 0 points: Policy does not mention context. EXAMPLE POLICY: CONTEXT SENSITIVITY Chester, MA "Complete Streets principles include the development and implementation of projects in a context-sensitive manner where project implementation is sensitive to the community's physical, economic, and social setting. The context-sensitive approach to process and design includes a range of goals by giving significant consideration to stakeholder and community values. It includes goals related to livability with greater participation of those affected in order to gain consensus. The overall goal of this approach is to preserve and enhance scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources while improving or maintaining safety, mobility and infrastructure condition." 9. Performance measures Communities with Complete Streets policies can measure success a number of different ways, from miles of bike lanes to percentage of the sidewalk network completed to the number of people who choose to ride public transportation. • 5 points: Policy includes at least one performance measure. A direction to create measures without naming any is credited in the next element, "Implementation steps." • 0 points: Policy does not include any performance measures. EXAMPLE POLICY: PERFORMANCE MEASURES Muskogee, OK "Performance Measures The City of Muskogee shall measure the success of this Complete Streets policy on an annual basis using, but not limited to, the following performance measures: • Linear feet of new and repaired sidewalk and other pedestrian accommodations (paths, trails, etc.) • Total miles of new bike lanes (designated and shared-use) • Number of new and repaired curb ramps installed on streets and parking lots • Number and type of crosswalk and intersection improvements • Number of new transit stops and routes • Percentage of transit stops accessible by sidewalks and/or curb ramps • Rates of crashes, injuries and fatalities by mode, as available • Rates of children walking or bicycling to school • Exceptions to this policy granted 21 Within six month of policy adoption, the city shall obtain and record baseline data for each of these performance measures. This information shall be submitted by the Public Works Director for review and acceptance by the Complete Streets Subcommittee (AIM Infrastructure Subcommittee), the Street Improvement Advisory Commission, Public Works Committee and City Council. Thereafter, an annual report listing locations and totals for each performance measure shall be submitted by the Public Works Director for review and acceptable by the same committees named immediately above." 10. Implementation steps A formal commitment to the Complete Streets approach is only the beginning. The Coalition has identified four key steps to take for successful implementation of a policy: 1. Restructure or revise related procedures, plans, regulations, and other processes to accommodate all users on every project. 2. Develop new design policies and guides or revise existing to reflect the current state of best practices in transportation design. Communities may also elect to adopt national or state- level recognized design guidance. 3. Offer workshops and other training opportunities to transportation staff, community leaders, and the general public so that everyone understands the importance of the Complete Streets vision. 4. Develop and institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users. Assigning oversight of implementation or requiring progress reports is a critical accountability measure, ensuring the policy becomes practice. Policies can also influence the funding prioritization system to award those projects improving the multimodal network. Points for either type of activity are awarded independently. • 3 points: Policy specifies the need to take action on at least two of the four steps identified above. • 1 point: Policy includes at least one of the above four implementation steps. • 0 points: Policy does not include any implementation or accountability measures. • 1 additional point available: Policy identifies a specific person or advisory board to oversee and help drive implementation, or establishes a reporting requirement. • 1 additional point available: Policy changes the way transportation projects are prioritized. 22 EXAMPLE POLICY: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Missoula, MT "The City of Missoula shall view Complete Streets as integral to everyday transportation decision-making practices and processes. To this end, the policy shall be implemented through the following directives: • Development Services, the Department of Public Works, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, Parks & Recreation, Missoula Urban Transportation District, and other relevant departments, agencies, and committees will incorporate Complete Streets principles into all existing plans, manuals, checklists, decision- trees, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate • Development Services, the Department of Public Works, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, Parks & Recreation, Missoula Urban Transportation District, and other relevant departments, agencies, and committees will review current design standards, including subdivision regulations, which apply to new roadway construction, to ensure that they reflect the best available design standards and guidelines, and effectively implement Complete Streets, where feasible • When available, the City shall encourage staff professional development and training on non-motorized transportation issues through attending conferences, classes, seminars, and workshops • City staff shall identify all current and potential future sources of funding for street improvements and recommend improvements to the project selection criteria to support Complete Streets projects • The City shall promote inter-departmental project coordination among City departments with an interest in the activities that occur within the public right-of-way in order to better use fiscal resources • The City shall develop and institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users • Every Complete Streets project shall include an educational component to ensure that all users of the transportation system understand and can safely utilize Complete Streets project elements • The City shall educate on and enforce proper road use behavior by all users and all modes, and adopt additional laws and regulations as necessary to ensure people are protected to the greatest extent possible." Within performance measurements section: "A report will be made to the City Council every two years showing progress made in implementing this policy." 23 Within vision, users, and modes section: "When there are conflicting needs among users and modes, the following prioritization will apply: (1) above all, safety is paramount, followed by mobility; (2) among modes, pedestrians shall come first citywide, followed by the next most vulnerable types of users; and finally, (3) seek balance among all modes involved. It is recognized that all modes cannot receive the same type of accommodation and space on every street, but the overall goal is that everyone—young, old, and of varying ability—can safely, comfortably, and conveniently travel across the network." Additional elements While Complete Streets policies are based on the principle of connecting people and place in transportation projects, many communities add language regarding environmental best practices or directives relating to placemaking. While the Coalition does not score these additional elements, we encourage agencies to consider cross-referencing related initiatives. EXAMPLE POLICY: ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS Missoula, MT "A. Storm Water: In addition to providing safe and accessible streets in the City of Missoula, care shall be given to incorporate best management practices for addressing storm water runoff. Wherever possible, innovative and educational storm water infrastructure shall be integrated into the construction/reconstruction or retrofit of a street. B. Attention to Livability: Complete Streets are beautiful, interesting, vibrant, and comfortable places for people. As part of Missoula's public realm, streets shall be held to a higher standard for urban design at a human scale. Multi-modal accommodations and all City projects in the right-of-way shall be approached as opportunities to enhance the aesthetic qualities of Missoula and its public realm through the thoughtful creation of place. Wherever feasible, streetscapes shall protect and include street trees and native plants, incorporate landscape architecture, public art, street furniture, pedestrian amenities and wayfinding signage, sidewalk cafes and street-facing retail, places of respite, and/or other elements." A note on plans and design guidance The Coalition recognizes that there are inherent differences among policy types. What can be accomplished through a legislative act is different than what might be included in a comprehensive plan, for example. This report's authors acknowledge that some elements of an ideal policy are unlikely to appear in some policy types and encourage comparison within a policy type, rather than across all types. For this reason, policies are grouped by policy type in Appendix B. 24 While the Coalition recognizes and counts Complete Streets policies included in community transportation master plans, comprehensive plans, general plans, and design guidance, these policies are not subjected to the numerical analysis used in this document. The scoring tool does not work as well for comprehensive plans, where a finer analysis is needed to accurately determine strength and reach of the Complete Streets element within the overall framework of a large and complex plan. The tool is also inappropriate for design standards and guidance. Though some design manuals have a more extensive discussion of policy, their place within the transportation process makes the inclusion of some elements of an ideal Complete Streets policy inappropriate. Design guidance is rarely the first Complete Streets policy adopted in a community; it is more often the realization of some earlier policy effort and part of the overall implementation process. 25 Appendix B: All policy scores 26 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score Statewide policies State legislation State of California CA The Complete Streets Act(AB 1358) 2008 137,253,956 5' 6.00 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 211 3 20 2 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 44.80 Stale legislation State of Colorado CO Colorado Statutes 43-1-120(FIB 1147) 2010 5,029,196 5 6.00 0; 0.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27.60 ( 1 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 _0 0.00 51 8 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 8.00 62.80 State legislation State of Connecticut (CT Public Act 09-154 SB 735) 2009 3,574,097 5 fi.00 4, Fonda Statute 335.065(Bicycle& - " "-- - - -�- Stale legislation State of Florida FL Pedestrian Ways) 1984 18,801,310 , 5, 6.00 0�', 0.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.20 2007 12,830,632y 3 3.60 01 0.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1600 32.40 State legislation IState of Hawat HI Act 054(SB 718) 2009 1,369,301 1 1 20 411 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3 20 0 000 5 800 0 000 4 Stale legislation State of Illinois IL Pubic Act 095-065(SB0314) 4.00 32.40 - - Bicycle-Pedestrian Access Law(Chapter 1 -- - - --- -' State legislation State of Massachusetts IMA 906)) 1 1996 6,547,629 3 3.60 01 0 00 5 _ 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 0__ 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 28.40 Maryland Trans.Code Ann.Title 2 Stale legislation State of Maryland IMD subtitle 602 I 2010 I 5,773,552 3 3.60 01 0.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40' 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 28.00 State legislation State of Michigan 'MI Public Act 135 of 2010(HB6151) 2010 9,883,640 1 1.20 5i 20.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 5 2.00 3 4 80 0 0 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 2 8.00 54.40 Sec.52.Minnesota Statutes 2008, -- State legislation State of Minnesota MN section 174.75 ' 2010 5,303,925 ' 1 1.20 51 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 64.40 State legislation State of New York NY Highway Law Section 331(Bill S 5411) 2011 19,378,102 3 3.60 41 16.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 3 4 80 0 0 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 46.80 State legislation State of Oregon OR ORS 366.514 1971 3,831,074 5 6.00 11 4.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25.20 Rhode Island General Laws Title 31 L 2010 3,725,789 1 1.20 4 16.0 1 5 12.001 2 6.40 0 0 00 0 000 0 000 4 1600 54.80 State legislation Commonwealth of Puerto Rico PR Senate Bill 1857 0 0.00 2 3 201 Chapter 31-18:Pedestrians ' Stale legislation State of Rhode Island RI Section 31-18-21 • 2005 1,052,567 3 3.60 0 0.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 State legislation State of Rhode Island IRI Chapter 24-16:Safe Access to Public 2012 1,052,567 1'� 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 8.00 46.80 � - _ State legislation State of Vermont 'VT Act 0-34(H.198) 2011 625,741 3', 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00, 4 12.800 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.40 State legislation State of Washington WA Chapter 257,2011 Laws 2011 6,724,540 1' 1.20 2 800 3 7.201, 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 320 3 240 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 30.00 ___ _- " State legislation State of West Vvginia WV Complete Streets Act(58158) 2013 1,852,994 3-7 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00, 4 16.00 84.80 South Carolina Department of ( State resolution State of Missouri MO House Concurrent ResolWon 23 2011 5,988,927 1T 1.20 5 20.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 26.00 Stale resolution Transportation SC Commission Resolution ' 2003 4,625,364 3 3.60 0 0.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 _ - - - - -_ - State executive order State of Delaware DE Executive Order No 6 • 2009 897,934 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00'1 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0 00 5 4 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 39.20 State internal policy California Department of Transportation CA Deputy Directive 64-R1 2008 37,253,956 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 71.20 - -_ - - _ - _ -_ -- State Internal policy Colorado Department of Transportation CO Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy2009 5,029,196 5 6.00 0 0 00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2'1 3 20 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 3 12 00 61.20 Washington,DC De ___ __ , . __ State,nternal policy Connecticut Department of Transporation CT Policy No.Ex.-31 2014 3,574,097 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 311 4.80,1 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 62.40 gl Department of Departmental Order 06-2010(DDOT State internal policy Transportation DC Complete Streets Policy) 2010 601,723 5 6.00 5 20.00' 5 12.00 4 12.801 5 2.00 0 0 OO, 2 1 60ii 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 66.40 Deleware De 8.00 0 0.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 "1 0 O.00j 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 35.60 State internal policy pertinent of Transportation DE Complete Streets Policy • 2009 897,934 3 3.60 21 State internal policy Georgia Department of Transportation GA Complete Streets Design Policy 2012 9,687,653 5' 6.00 41 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3 20 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 62.40 Stale internal olio Indiana Department of Transportation IN Complete Streets Policy ( } ) policy P P 2014 1 6,483,802 5, 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00i 3 12.00 74.40 Louisiana Department of Transportation State internal policy and Development LA Complete Streets Policy 2010 4,533,372 3 3.60 41 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8 00 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 72.00 Massachusetts Department of 1 State internal policy Transportation MA Healthy Transportation Policy Directive 2013 6,547,629 5 6.001 2 8.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.001 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 80.80 Maryland Department of Transportation I State internal policy State Highway Administration' MD SHA Complete Streets Policy ' 2012 5,773,552 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 3 9.80 51 2.00 2 3 20 3 2 40 0 0 00 5 4 00 1 4.00 49.60 State internal policy Maine Department of Transportation ME Complete Streets Policy 2014 1,328,361 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 51 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 4 16.00 74.40 State Transportation Commission Policy -- -' - State internal policy Michigan Department of Transportation MI on Complete Streets 2012 9,883,640 1 1.20 5 20.001 5 12.00 _ 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8 00 0 000 5 800 0 000 4 16 00 67.20 State Transportation Commission Policy Stale internal policy Michigan Department of Transportation MI on Complete Streets 2012 9,883,640 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 51.20 MnDOT Policy OP004 and Technical State Internal policy Minnesota Department of Transportation MN Memorandum No 13-17-TS-06 2013 5,303,925 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 2 3 201 5 4 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 3 12 00 67.20 State internal policy Minnesota Department of Transportation MN MnDOT Policy OP004 2016 5,303,925 54, 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 1 3.20 51 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 69.60 Miss Carolina De D p Department ro Bicycle y State Internal policyMississippi De t of Transportation MS Bi le and Pedestrian Policy 2010 2,967,297 1', 1.20, 1 4 00 5 12.00 2 6.40 0 0.00 01 0 00 0 0 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 31.60 fi _................. State internal policy Transportation NC Complete Streets Policy 2009 9,535,483 3' 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 70.40 State internal policy New Jersey Department of Transportation NJ Policy No 703 2009 8,791,894 3 3.60 5 20.0011 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 B 00 3 2 40 5 8 001 0 0 00 3 12 00, 80.80 Pennsylvania Department of •PennDOT Design Manual 1A(Appendix State internal policy Transportation PA Bicycle andPedestrian ec Ist 2007 12,702,379 3.20 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 56.80 State internal policy Trapsennessee Department of Transportation TN Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy 2010 6,346,105 5 6.00 1, 2.00 2 400 3 7.20 1 3.20 5{ 3 20 31 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 36.00 State internal policy '1Tennessee Department of Transportation TN Mullimodal Access Policy TCA 4-3-2303 2015 1 6,346,105 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 61.60 T Guidelines Emphasizing Bcycle and State internal policy Texas Department of Transportation TX Pedestrian Accommodations 2011 25,145,561 3 3.60 2' 8 00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 3, 2 40 0 0 001 0 0 00 0 0.00 21.20 Policy for Integrating Bicycle and , T -T State internal policy Virginia Department of Transportation VA PedestnanAccommodations 2004 8,001,024 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 50.80 State policy adopted an p Inclusion of Active Transportation,UDOT 0 by elected boar Florida Department of Transportation FL Complete Streets Policy 2014 18,801,310 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3 20 0 0 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 45.60 State policy adopted by an elected boar Utah Deportment of Transportation UT 07-117 2013 2,763,885 3 3.60 0 0.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 51 2.00, 3, 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 26.40 Metropolitan planning organization(MPO)policies11111111111111.1 Regional Planning Commission of Greater 1 MPO Resolution Birmingham AL Resolution 2011 212,237 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 51 16.00 5 2.00 2 320 5 400 5 800 0 000 2 8.00 79.20 MPO Resolution Pima Association of Governments AZ Complete Streets Resolution 2015 Na 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.2011 011 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 39.60 Hillsborough County Metropolitan T T MPO Resolution Planning Organization(Tampa,FL,area) FL Resolution 2012-1 2012 n/a 5 6.00 41 16.00 •5T 12.00'1 11 3.201 5 2.00 5 8 00 2 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 0011 5 20 00 76.80 Lee County Metropolitan Planning -1 , MPO Resolution Organization(Ft.Myers,FL area) (FL Resolution 09-05 ( 2009 iSa 3 3.60 21 8.00 5 12.001 011 0.00( 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0_ 0.00 0 0.0011 1 L 4.00 34.40 Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning - T -' MPO Resolution Commission IN Resolution 10-05 2010 r✓a 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 17.20 Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan ' MPO Resolution Planning Organization KS Resolution 2011 iSa 1 1.20 1 4.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 34.00 Frankfort City/Frankfort Elberta Area T Complete Streets and Safe Routes to MPO Resolution Schools 'IMI School Joint Resolution 2011 ale 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0.00 2 320 0 000 000 0001, 0 0.00 32.40 MPO Resolution Region 2 Planning Commission IMI Resolution 2006 iSa 3 3.60 41 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.401 0 0.001 0 0.00, 0 0.00 34.00 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score Traverse City Area Transportation and MPO Resolution Land Use Study MI Resolution No.13-1 2013 Na 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 32.40 Organization MPO Resolution St.Cloud Area PlanningO arnzation MN Resolution 2011-09 2011 Na 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Columbia Area Transportation Study 1 MPO Resolution Organization 'MO Policy Resolution 2014 Na 1 1.20 4 16.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0011 0 0.00 0 0.00 0, 0.00 17.20 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning ' ' MPO Resolution Organization NM Resolution 08-10 2008 Na 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 2 6.4OI 0 O.0OI 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 50.80 Mid-Region Council of Governments Of MPO Resolution New Mexico NM R-11-09 2011 Na 1 1.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 11 4.00 13.20 Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning ---- ---- -I MPO Resolution Organization NM Resolution 2007-1 2007 n/a 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 38.80 Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Resolution Supporting a Complete 1 MPO Resolution Organization TX Streets Policy 2009 Na 4. 1 1. 5 5 1 .00 0 0.00 5 3.2O,_ _ _ 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 50.40 Brownsville Metropolitan Planning MPO Resolution Suporting a"Complete { MPO Resolution Organization TX Streets'policy 2013 Na 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.004 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 50.40 La Crosse Area Planning Committee(La 0 0.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 44.401,MPO Resolution Crosse,WI area),WI WI Resolution 7-2011 2011 Na 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.001 11, 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 Morgantown Monongalla Metropolitan ' ' Planning Organization(Morgantown,WV MPO Resolution area),WV WV Resolution No.2008-02 2008 n/a 1 1.20 2 800 5' 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 480 0 000 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 34.00 TN -- - 1 4.00 50.00 MPO executive order Metropolitan tar Government of Nashville and��� Executive Order No.40 2010 Na 3 3.60 4 16.00 --5 12.00 2 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 p MPO executive order Davidson County,TN TN Executive Order#031 2016 n/a 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 320 3 240 5 800 0 0001 4 1600 82.40 Wilmington Area Planning Council Regional Transportation Plan 2030 ' ' MPO internal policy (Wilmington,DE area) DE_ Update 1 2007 n/a 5 6.00 2 8.00 5 12.O01I 1I 3.2011 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.0011 3 12.00 60.00 r Quad Cities Area Complete Streets " i MPO internal policy Bi-State Regional Commission,IA IA Policy '' 2008 t n/a 3 3.60 4 16.00 5i 12.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 480 2 160 5 8001 0 00011 0 0.00 46.00 Johnson County Council of Governments " -- --' " "-- -- -- - MPO internal policy (Iowa City,IA area) IA Complete Streets Policy 2006 n/a 5 6.00 0 0.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.80 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.001, 0 0.00 19.60 Community Planning Association of MPO internal policy Southwest Idaho(Boise,ID aroa) ID Complete Streets Policy 2009 n/a 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 2 160 5 800 0 0001 0 0.00 34.00 Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan '- Planning Organization(Bloomington,IN MPO internal policy area),IN IN Complete Streets Policy 2009 n/a 5 6.00 51 20.00 3 7.20 5 16.00, 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 Madison County Council of Governments MPO internal policy (Anderson,IN area),IN IN Complete Streets Policy 2010 n/a 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 5 16.00 5 2.00 3 480 5 400 5 8 001 0 000 0 0.00 68.00 Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning MPO internal policy Commission(Portage,IN area) IN Complete Streets Guidelines 2010 n/a 1 1.201 3 12.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 48.80 Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of MPO internal policy Govemments,ND ND Complete Streets Policy Statement 2010 n/a 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00' 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8 00 5 4 00 5 8 001 0 0 00 1 4.00 64.80 Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission -I MPO internal policy (Columbus,OH area),OH OH Complete Streets Policy 2010 n/a 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 77.60 Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Regional Transportation Investment MPO internal policy Agency ICleve an area) OH Policy 2003 Na 5 6.00 21 800 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 3 480 3 2 4O 5 B 00 0 000 0 0.00 42.80 Fairbanks Metropolitan Area MPO policy adopted by elected board Transportation System(MPO),AK AK Policy No.9 Complete Streets 2015 n/a 1 1.20 5 20.00 2 4.80 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 0, 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 58.40 Los Angeles County Metropolitan -- r -- - --r- MPO policy adopted by elected board Transportation Authority CA Complete Streets Policy 1l 2014 9,818,605 3 3.60 5' 20.00 5 12.00 4' 12.80 5 2.00 5 8 00 5 4 O0 5 B 00 0 000 4 18 00 86.40 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Policy for the Accommodation 1 ' MPO policy adopted by elected board (San Francisco Bay area) CA of Non-Motonzed Travelers 2006 Na 3 3.60 1 4.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.80 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 35.60 San Diego Association of Governments MPO policy adopted by elected board (San Diego,CA area) CA Complete Streets Policy 2014 n/a 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 411 12.80 5 2.00 5 800 5 400 5 BOO 5 400 4 1600 85.60 San Diego Association of Governments, ' MPO policy adopted by elected board CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2014 n/a 1 1.20 5 1280 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 5.0O 5 4.001,20.00 3 7.20 4� 4 16.00 78.40 MPO policy adopted by elected board Governments(Washington,DC area) DC Complete Streets Policy 2012 n/a 1 1.20 5 20.001 2 4.801 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 320 2 1 60 5 800 0 000 2 8.00 50.00 Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning ' ' MPO policy adopted by elected board Organization,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2016 n/a 5 6.00 41 16.00 0 0.00, 1 3.20 0.00 5 8.00 01 0.001, 0 0.00, 5 4.00 2 8.00 45.20 Space Coast Transportation Planning 1 ' ' ' MPO policy adopted by elected board Organization(Viera,FL area) FL Resolution 11-12 2011 n/a 3 3.60 2 800 5 12.00 1 3.201 5 2.00 5 800 3 240 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 47.20 Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study(Champaign,IL, MPO policy adopted by elected board area) IL Complete Streets Policy 2012 n/a 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00'1 41 12.8O, 0 0.00 2 3 20 3 2 40 5 8 001 0 0 00 1 L 4.00 63.60 Evansville Metropolitan Planning -' MPO policy adopted by elected board Organization(Evansville,IN area) IN Complete Streets Policy 2012 n/a 3 3.60 1 4.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 63.20 Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning MPO policy adopted by elected board Organization(Indianapolis,IN area) IN Complete Streets Policy 2014 2014 03.05 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 800 5 400 5 8 00 5 400 1 4.00 78.40 Twin Cities Area Transportation Study MPO policy adopted by elected board (Benton Harbor/St.Joseph area,M) ''MI Complete Streets Policy 2012 n/a 5 6.00 5 20.00' 5 12.00' 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 69.60 Rochester-Olmsted Council of MPO policy adopted by elected board Governments(Rochester,MN area) MN Resolution No.11-1 2011 n/a 5 6.00 51 20.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 800 5 400 5 8 00 0 000 0 0.00 58.40 -_ -- ' - __ Mid America Regional Council(Kansas MPO policy adopted by elected board City,MO area) MO Complete Streets Policy 2012 Na 3 3.60 51 20.00 2 4.80 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 34 4 .20 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00, 3 12.00 72.80 MPO policy adopted by elected board Mississippi Gulf Coast MPO,MS MS Complete Streets Policy 2015 Na 3 3.60 11 400 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 3 480 0 000 0 000 0 000 3 1200 34.80 MPO policy adopted by elected board Greensboro Urban Area MPO,NC NC Complete Streets Policy 2015 Na 3 3.60 31 12.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5' 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 59.20 -- - - _ -_4 Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization(Winston-Salem, MPO policy adopted by elected board NC area),NC NC Complete Streets Policy 20131 n/a 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3 20 0 0001 0 000 0 000 4 1603 62.40 Carson City Regional Transportation 111 , MPO policy adopted by elected board Commission,NV NV Complete Streets Policy 2014 n/a 5 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.0011 2 6.40� 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 -5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 70.40 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada(Las Vegas,NV area), ' MPO policy adopted by elected board NV NV Policy for Complete Streets 2012 n/a 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.40 Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation T r r MPO policy adopted by elected board Study(Broome and Toga County MPO) NY Complete Streets Policy 2016 n/a 5 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 41 12.801 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.0011 5 20.00 95.20 Miami Valley Regional Planning ( -" MPO policy adopted by elected board Commission(Dayton,OH area) OH Regional Complete Streets Policy 2011 n/a 1 1.20 51 20.00 5 12.00 41 12.8011 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.0011 4 16.00 88.00 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted• Type Agency State Policy name Year population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of MPO policy adopted by elected board Governments(Toledo,OH area),OH OH Complete Streets Policy 2014 Na 3 3.60 51 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.001 4 16.00 88.80 policy pby9p 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 38.80 MPO Ilc adopted elected board Coordinating Committee,PA PA Elements of a Complete Streets 2014 Na 3 3.60 211 8.00 5 12.00 Wasatch Front Regional Council(Salt Lake Complete Streets Vision,Mission,and MPO policy adopted by elected board City,UT,area) UT Principles 2013 Na I 3' 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 42.40 Spokane Regional Transportation Council, j MPO policy adopted by elected board �',WA WA Policy for Safe and Complete Streets 2012 Na 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 31 9.60 5] 2.00 3 4.801 01, 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 64.80 County policies - I m - County legislation Honolulu County,HI 'HI Bill No.26(2012) 2012 953,207 1 1.20 4 16.00: 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 21 320 5 400 5 800 5 400 4 1600 77.20 ty station Cook ,IL , IL Ordinance 2011 5,194,675 3 3.60 4 16.00', " " t legislation 1 5 12.00 4 12 80 5 2.00 21 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.001 4 16.00 77.60 County Code Chapter 49,Streets and :County legislation Montgomery e MD I,MD Roads 2014 971,777 5 6.00 5+ 20.00 3 7.20 411 12.80'1 5 2.00 3 480 5 400 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 64.80 Complete and Green Streets Policy County legislation Prince George's County,MD MD (County Code Sec.23-615) 2013 863,420 5 6.00 3' 12,00 3 7.20 11, 3.20 0 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 45.20 -_. _ - -- -- -- - - _T- County legislation St Louis County,MO MO Bill No.238,2013 2014 998,954 1 1.20 5 20.00 5', 12.001 Or 0.00 5 2.00 21 3 20 2 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 00 2" 8.00 56.00 County legislation Bernalillo County,NM NM Complete Streets Ordinance 2015 662,564 1 28.40 1.20 4 16.00 5', 12.00' 4 12.80 5 2.00 0- 0.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.00 - - - - - _ - y gComplete Streets Program Goals and -- T 0.00 Count legislation Westchester County, NY Act 2013-170 2013 949,113 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 County legislation ,Richland County,SC `SC Objectives 2010 : 384,504 3 3.60 4 16.001 3 7.26 01 0.001 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.001 3 12.00 50.80 Complete Streets Program Goals and County legislation Richland County,SC SC Objectives&Ordinance No 017-11 HR 2011 384,504 3 3.60 4 16.00' 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8 00 0 000 0 000 5 400 4 1600 54.80 County legislation Salt Lake County,UT UT Ordinance No.1672 2010 1,029,655 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 0 0.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 64.40 Complete Streets Ordinance(Ord#2014- " County legislation Pierce County,WA WA 44) 2014 1 795,225 1 1.20 4 16.00 3, 7.201 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3 20 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 01 0.00 30.80 County resolution Napa County,CA CA Resolution No.2013-01 2013 136,484 3 3.60 5 20.00 51 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4r 16.00 77.60 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 011 0.00 29.20 County resolution La Plata County,CO CO Resolution No 2007-33 2007 51,334 1 1.20 4 14 00 6' " -� - -�- County resolution Lee County,FL FL Resolution No.09-11-13 2009 618,754 5 6.00 1' 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4F 16.00 66.00 County resolution Manatee County,FL :FL Resoluton R-16-036 2016 1 322,833 1 1.20 51 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 OF 0.00 21.20 County resolution Miami-Dade County,FL [FL Resolution R-995-14 2014 1 2,496,435 5 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 L 4.00 55.20 ' Transportation Plan Appendix B: County resolution DeKalb County,GA GA Complete Streets Policy 2014 691,893 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 2 3 20 3 2 40 5 8 00 5 4 00 0 0.00 50.80 County resolution Rockdale County,GA GA R-2015-07 2015 85,215 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4, 12.80 51�, 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0.00 4 16.00 81.60 -_ �- _ - --� - - _T- ,- County resolution Kauai,HI HI Resolution No.2010-48 Draft 1 2010 67,091 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1'; 01 3.20 0.00 2 3 20 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 8.00 48.40 County resolution Maui County,HI HI Resolution 2012 1 154,834 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 County resolution DUPage County,IL IL Healthy Roads Initiative 2004 11 916,924 1 1.20 0 0 00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 2 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 00 Or 0.00 18.00 County resolution Johnson County,KS I,KS Resolution No.041-11 2011 544,179 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.40 Genesee County Parks&Recreation r , County resolution Commission,MI MI Complete Streets Reslution 11009-10 1, 2010 425,790 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0.00 23.20 Grand Traver.County Road " 1- - - - T-- --" "-- - - ---- County resolution Commmission,MI MI Resolution 13-08-03 ' 2013 89,986 1 1.20 41 16.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 24.40 County gCounty0.00 0.00 2 3 20 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0.00 27.60 Coun resolution Ingham Road Commission,MI MI Resolution#085-10 2010 280,885 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 OIi County resolution Jackson County,MI MI Resolution 2006 160,248 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.00 County,County resolution Clay _, - -_ 3.60 51 20.00 5 12.002 1 3.20 5 2.001 3 20 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 60.00 County resolution Hennepin County,MN MN Resolution No 09 005891 2009 1,152,425 1' 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0' -- �- - - 1 20 5', 0.001, 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 41.20 r -- - _ -- - - - County resolution Wtlkin County,MN MN Resolution 2011 6,576 3 3.60 51 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 0 000 5 400 5 800 0 000 3 1200 74.40 County resolution Jackson County,MO MO Resolution 417963 2012 t 674,158 5 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 47.20 County resolution Camden County,NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy 2013 513,657 3 3.60 31 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0 00 3 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 46.80 County resolution Essex County,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 783,969 3 3.60 31 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0, 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 46.80 County resolution Hudson County,NJ NJ Resolution 278-5-2012 2012 634,266 3 3.60 11 4 00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00�,1 0 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 44.40 County resolution Mercer County,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 366,513 3 3.60 31 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.001 0 0.00 3" 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.80 County resolution Middlesex County,NJ NJ Resolution 12-1316-R 2012 809,858 1 1.20 41, 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.001, 01 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 01 0.00 29.20 County resolution Monmouth County,NJ NJ Resolution 2010 630,380 3 3.60 31 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2i 3.20 31 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1' 4.00 52.00 County resolution Passaic County,NJ NJ Resolution 201410106 2014 501,226 3 3.60 11 4 00 5 12.00 0 0.00 51 2.00 31 4 80 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 40.80 County resolution Somerset County,NJ NJ Resolution 16-743 2016 323,444 3 3.60 3" 12.00 0 0.00 4 12.80 01 0.00 21 3.20 3" 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1, 4.00 38.00 _ - ._ 1- ti- _T- ti- County resolution Dona Ana County,NM NM Resolution 09-114 2009 209,233 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 51, 2.001, 01, 0 00 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 3 121b 64.80 County resolution Allegany County Planning Board,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2010 48,946 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5�, 2.00� 8�, 4.80 Or 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.00 _- _-- -- OI County resolution resolution Cattaraugus County Planning Boats,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2009 80,317 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0,1 0.00 01 0.00 3' 4 80 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 22.00 • County resolution Chautauqua County,NY NY Resolution 122-15 2015 134,905 1 1.20 3 12.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 3.20 0, 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 Count resolution Dutchess County NY NY Resolution NO 2016244 2016 297,488 5 6.00 4i 16.00 2 4.80 5 16.00 51 2.00 6 y reso y8 00 5 4 00 5 800 5 400 4 1600 84.80 County resolution Erie County,NY NY Resolution 2008 919,040 3 3.60 41, 16.00 3 7.20 11 3.20 01 0.00 211 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.60 County resolution Nassau County,NY NY Resoluton 2013 1,339,532 3 3.60 3 12.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 Or 000 2 160 0 000 0 000 0 0.00 20.40 County resolution Suffolk County,NY NY Resolution 2012 1,493,350 3 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.80 County resolution Ulster County,NY NY Resolution No.229-09 2009 182,493 5 6.00 0 0 00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 0' 0 00 3 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 28.80 County resolution Richland County,SC SC Complete Streets Policy 1 2009 384,504 3 3.60 21 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01I 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 37.20 County resolution Spartanburg County,SC SC Resolution No.07-30 l 2007 284,307 3, 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 01�1 0.00 0 0.00 0�, 000 3 240 0 000 0 000 0 0.00 30.00 _ _ T ___0.00 0 0.00, 31-County tax ordinance Sacramento County,CA CA Ordinance No.STA 04-01 2004 1,418,788 3, 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 01 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 28.40 County tax ordinance San Diego County,CA CA Trans net Tax Extension(Proposition A) 2004 3,095,313 5 6.00 2 800 3� _ 7.20 51,__ 0 0.00 52.40 Best Practice Directive for Inclusion of - " " 3_-- - 1 fi.00 0 0.00� 480 3 240 _5 800 _ 0 000 Multi-Modal Elements into Improvement County Intemal policy Mann County,CA CA Projects 2007 252,409 3 3.60: 2 8.00 5 12.00 2 6.401 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30.00 County intemal policy j j Cobb County,GA GA Complete Streets Policy 2009 688,078 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 001 3 2 40 0 0 001 0 0 00 0 0.00 34.00 County Internal pol cy Cook County IL IL Complete Streets Policy '� 2009 5,194,675 3* 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 39.60 County policy adopted by elected board Alameda County,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 1,510,271 1, 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 3: 9.60 5 2.00 2 3 20 5 4 W 5 8 00 0 0 W 0 0.00 60.00 County policy adopted by elected board Polk County,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 602,095 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 IL County policy adopted by elected board Lake County,IL y Non-motonzed Travel Investments 2010 703,462 3 3.60 3 12.00 County tic adopted bylooted board Ada County Highway District,ID ID Resolution No.895 2009 392,365 5 6 00 5 20.00 5 12 Policy on Infrastructure Guidelines for .00 .1.: 12.80 5 2.00 0 0 00 _2 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 62.40 L 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00, 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 68.40 � - -_ - - - County policy adoptad bye lected board Baltimore County,MD MD Resolution 126-13 2013 805,029 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 4', 1280 5 2.00 5 8 00 5 400 5 800 5 400 4 1600 86.40 adopted by e P Y 1 � County policy adopted by elected board Macomb County,MI MI Resolution R14-137 I 2014 840,978 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4'� 1280 5 2.00 0 0.00 O 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.00 County policydo tedelected board Hennepin County,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 1, 2009 1,152,425 3 3.60 51, 20.00: 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 320, 5 400 5 800 0 0001, 41 1600 81.80 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points Points Points Points Points points Points Points Points points Points Points Total score County policy adopted by elected board Dawson County,MT MT Resolution No.2014-28 2014 8,966 5 6.00 5, 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 B.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 88.80 County policy adopted by elected boardEssex County,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2012 39,370 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 51 2.00 2 3.20 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 48.00 County policy adopted by elected board La Crosse County,WI WI Resolution No.11-4/11 2011 114,638 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 B.00 0 0.00, 2 8.00 57.20 City policies ---- -�- • City legislation Conway,AR IAR Ordinance No.0-09-56 2009 58,905 5 6.00 41 16.001 3 7.201 11 3.20 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 32.40 Ordinance 5-41094 8 Ordinance G- -- 4 -- ,- _ 4 City legislation Little Rock,AR IIAR Ordnance 2015 T 193,524 5 6.00 51 20.00' 5 12.00' 5I 16.00 5 2.001 2 3 20 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 001 r 16 00 85.80 City legislation Phoenix,AZ 'IAZ 5937 2014 1,445,632 5 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 54.00 .-_ - _ _T- City legislation Oakland,CA 'LCA Ordinance N.13153 2013 390,724 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4 80 0� 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 Oh 0.00 40.40 City legislation Rancho Cucamonga,CA ICA Ordinance No.857 2012 165,269 1 1.20 51 20.001 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00, 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 74.00 City legislation San Francisco,CA CA Transit First Policy 1 1995 805,235 3 3.60 2 8 001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 O.00 0 0 00 2 1 60 0 0 00 0 0 001 1 4.00 17.20 Public Works Code 2.4.13(Ordinance - -- ' - - - 209-05) 2005 Citylegislation Middletown,CT 1CT Ordinance No.05-16 2016 47,648 3'1 3.60 4i 1600 5 12.00 3.20 0 0.00�C2 8.00 0 0.00 0 000 0 000 2 8.00 37.20 City legislation San Francisco,CA CA N.I- 4_805 235 5, 600 2, 8.00 gis 5 12.00 1 1 3.20 0 0.00 5 800 0 000 2 8.00 50.80 City legislation Stamford,CT ICT Chapter 231,Article XII 2015 , 122,643 1 1.20 5 20.00 5, 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 34.80 4.80 60.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 58.00 City legislation Milledgeville,GA IGA Ordinance No.0-1305-007 2013 29,808 1 1.20 51 20.00 3I 7.20 1 3.20 51 2.00 2 320 5 400 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 48.80 Article 33 of Chapter 14 of the Revised -T- -T ' r City legislation Honolulu,HI HI Ordinances of Honolulu 2012 337,256 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 5 20.00 85.60 City legislation Haley,ID ID Ordinance No 1116 2012 7,960 1 5' 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 3 4 80 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0, 0.00 63.80 City legislation Bensenville,IL IIL Ordinance No.9-2016 2016 18,352 5 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 211' 8.00 68.80 City legislation Berwyn,IL IL Ordinance No.11-40 2011 11 56,657 3 3.60 51 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 01 0.00 3 320 3 240 0 000 0 000 4 1600 73.20 City legislation Bloomington,IL IL Ordinance No.2016-87 2016 76,610 3 3.60 51, 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 11,4 4.00 68.40 City legislation Blue Island,IL IL Ordinance 2011 - __ - _ 4.00 76.00 ▪ 23,706 I - City legislation Calumet Park,IL IL Ordinance No.16-1145 2016�7,835 3'� 3.60 5 20.00 2 4.80 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 41 16.00 81.60 City legislation Oak Park,IL IL Complete Streets Policy 2012 1 51,878 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 0 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 5 4 00 3 12 00 80.00 City legislation Peoria,IL IL Ordinance 17,260 2015 115,007 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5' 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City legislation Richton Park,IL 'IL Ordnance NO 1616 2016 �'L 13,646 3 3.60 0, 000 5 12.00 5, 16.00 5 2.00 2 320 5 400 5 800 5 400 4 1600 68.80 Y- --_ - City legislation Woodstock,IL IL Ordinance No.14-0-40 2014 24,770 5 6.00 31 12.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 44.40 Y 9 Indianapolis, p - �- --_ - - - -- _�-_ T- - - City legislation Indian oils,IN IN Chapter 431,Article Vlll 2012 I 620,445 5 fi.00 51 20.00 5 1200 41, 1280 5 2.00 5 800 5 400 5 800 5 400 4 1600 92.80 T- --- - -_ City legislation La Porte,IN IN Ordinance 13-2015 2015 I 22,053 3 3.60 5'1 20.00 5, 12.00 0; 0.00 5, 2.001 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 65.60 Cit '' . 4 . . 0.00 5 2.001 0 000 5 400 5 800 0 000 3, 1200 81.60 City legislation Vincennes,N IN CComplete Streets O dia se 31-2015 2015 1 18,423 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 6' -F y legislation -- 16.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 5, 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 41 16.00 88.00 City legislation Raceland,KY ICY Ordinance 2012-3 2012 1 2,424 3 3.60 41 16.00 3 7.20 4'i 12.80 5 2.00 3 4 80 3I 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 0I 0.00 48.80 City legislation South Shore,KY 'KV Ordinance 316-2012 2012 1,122 1 1.20 411 16.00 0 0.00 011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 011 0.00 17.20 ,-_ _-_ - _ _ 2,- _T- City legislation New Orleans,LA LA Ordinance No.24706 2011 1▪ 343,829 3 3.60 21 8 00 5 12.00 51 16.00 0 0.00 3 20 514 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 41, . 16 00 70.80 Ordinances 1825-10-16,1826-10-16, ' City legislation St.Bernard Parish,LA LA 1828-10-16 2016 35,897 5 6.00 21 8.001 2 4.80 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40, 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 40.80 Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 Streets Mayor's Memorandum Establishing a _ _51T 16.00ii 5 20 00 100.00 of the City _________ ___ and Sidewalks of the Revised Ordinance City legislation Brockton,MA MA ty of Brockton 2016 93810 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 2.00 5 8 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 5 4 001 Cry legislation Gloucester,MA MA Safe and Accessible Streets Policy 2016 28,789 5 6.00 51 20.00 0 0.001 5 16.00 5, 2.00 51 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 78.40 City legislation Holyoke,MA MA Section 78-58--Compete Streets 2014 39,880 3, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4 12.80 51 2.00 2 320 5 400 0 000 0 000 1 4.00 81.80 City legislation Lawrence,MA MA City Charter 4.9 Notice 2015 '1 76377 5T 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 51 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 81.60 City legislation Longmeadow,MA MA Comlpete Streets Bylaw 2015 90,329 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 Sj 2.00 5 8 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 5 4 00 5 20 00 92.80 __- . City . __ City legislation Northampton,MA MA Ordinance 2015 28,549 5' 6.00 1 4.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 or 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 32.00 City legislation Somerville,MA MA Chapter 12,Article Vll 2014 75,754 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3 20 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 3 12 00 64.80 City legislation West Springfield,MA MA Ordinance 2016 28,391 5" 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 411 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 City legislation Alpena,Ml MI Ordinance 11-414 2011 10,483 1. 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 511 16.00 5 2.00 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 1 4.00 46.40 . City legislation Delhi Township,MI MI Ordnance 123 2012 25,877 3,� 3.60• 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5" 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 62.40 City legislation Dexter,MI MI Ordinance No.2010-05 2010 4,067 3' 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 1280 0 0.00 0 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 51.60 City legislation East Lansing,MI MI Ordinance No.1277 2012 48,579 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 58.00 City legislation Ferndale,MI MI Ordinance No.1101 2010 19,900 1'� 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 5 16.00 5 2.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 46.40 __- _r_ City legislation Gladstone,MI MI Ordinance No.586 2012 4,973 3', 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 41, 1280 0, 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51.60 1 -_ - - _ - - -_ - City legislation Houghton,Ml MI Ordinance 2010 7,708 33.60 4 16.00 3 7.20i 4' 1280 0 0.00 0 000 5 400 5 800 0 000 0 0.00 51.60 City legislation Ironwood,MI MI Ordinance No.490 2011 I 5,387 31 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51.60 City legislation Lansing Township,Ml MI Ordnance 2011 I 8,126 1', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 5 800 0 000 0 000 0 000 2 8.00 58.00 City legislation Lansing,MI MI Ordinance No.1145 2009 1 114,297 111 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.2D 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 30.40 City legislation Lathrop Village,MI MI Ordinance No.421-11 ' 2011 1 4,075 3 'g g 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4'L 1280 0 0.00 0 0 00 3 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 46.80 City legislation Leslie,MI MI Ordinance No.202 2012 1,851 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 76.80 City legislation Meridian Charter Township,Ml MI Ordinance2012-06 2012 39,688 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 800 0 000 0 000 5 400 3 1200 72.00 City legislation Mount Pleasant,MI MI Ordinance No.996 2015 26,016 J 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 411 16.00 69.60 • City legislation Norway,MI MI Ordinance#402 2012 2,845 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 60.00 City legislation Pittsfield Township MI 34,663 i 3. 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 011 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 41.60 y gi p, MI 'Ordinance No.294 2011 City legislation Saline,Ml MI Ordinance No.731 2010 8,810 3: 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 41 12.80 0 0.00 0 000 5 400 5 800 0 000 01 0.00 51.80 __- y - ' . _y City legislation St.Ignace,MI MI Ordinance No.627 2011 2,452 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 41, 1280 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51.60 City legislation Taylor,MI MI Ordinance No. 2010 63,131 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 4' 1280 0 0.00 0 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 51.80 City legislation Willlamston,MI MI Ordinance No.325 2011 3,854 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.201 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 47.60 i - _ City legislation Ypsilanti,Ml MI Ordinance 2011 19,435 3' 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 800 3 240 0 000 0 000 0 0.00 52.80 Subdivison Ordinance Section 129(t) ' City legislation Abed Lea,MN MN (Ordnance No.124,44) 2009 18,016 1 1.20 1 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13.60 City legislation Clayton,MO MO Bill No.6294 2012 15,939 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8 00 0 000 5 800 0 000 4 1600 79.20 City legislation Columbia, MO Ordinance 2004 108,500 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 44.00 9 ____. 2�' 1200 83.20 City legislation Crystal City,MO MO Ordinance 2010 4,855 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 1fi.00 Si 2.00 5 8 00 1 60 5 8 00 0 0 00 31 Bill No.45-08(Amending Municipal - - Cry legSation DeSoto,MO MO Code Section 410.020) 2008 6,400 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 0 0.00 3 4.801 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.20 Bill Amending Article 1 of Chapter 40 of ' - - City legislation Ferguson,MO 'MO the Municipal Code 2008 1,677 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.201 5 2.00 2 3 20 011 0 00 5 B 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 52.00 --- (City legislation Flornsant,MO IMO Bill No.9162 2016 52,158 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5, 16.004 5 2.0011 5 8.00 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 82.40 31 [City legislation 'Herculaneum,MO �MO Ordinance No.33-2010 2010 3,468 3 3.60 5 20.001 5 12.00, 11 3.201 5 2.001 5 8 00 21 1 60 5 B 00 0 0 00 4 16 00 74.40 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score City legislation Pagedale,MO MO Bill No,2015-13 2015 3,304 1 1.20 4, 16.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 5 2.00 2, 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 35.20 City legislation Pevely,MO MO Ordinance No.1238 2010 5,484 1 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 21 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 64.00 City legislation Pineville,MO MO Ordinance 16-11,Livable Streets 2016 791 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 88.80 Citylegislation St.Louis,MO MO Board Bill No.7 2010 319,294 i 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00] -_ - _ 0 0.00 1 4.00 49.60 City legislation St.Louis,MO MO Board Bill No.198 CSAA 2015 319,294 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00, 0 0,00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 gi2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00, gis 0 0.00 5 20.00 69.20 __ _ ___ City legislation Warsaw,MO MO Bill No.2016-22,Ordinance No.240 2016 2,127 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4' 12.80 5 2.0011 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.00 City legislation Hattiesburg,MS MS Ordinance 3068 2011 16,087 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 11 3.20 5 2.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.40 , City legislation Concord,NC NC Ordinance No.12-89 2012 I 79,066 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 66.40 City legislation Bellevue,NE NE Ordinance 2011 50,137 5 6.00 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 320 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 36.40 Revised General Ordinances Ch.)0/ ' City 1 { City legislation Hopewell Township(Mercer),NJ 'NJ Sec.6 2014 17,304 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00'� 0 0.00 0 8.00 52.40 City legislation Point Pleasant,NJ NJ Ordinance 2011 18,392 3 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 52.00 C y legislation Albuquerque,NM NM 0-14-27 2015 545,852 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 41 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 52.40 _ 0 - -_ - -_ - City legislation Albany,NY NY Ordinance 2013 i 97,856 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 11L 320 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 40.40 City legislation Buffalo,NV NY Complete Streets Policy 2008 261,310 5 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 49.20 City legislation Dunkirk,NY NY Local Law#2-2014 2014 12,563 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 31.80 City legislation Jamestown,NV NY Ordinance 2012 31,146 1 1.20 1 4.00 3 7.20 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 38.00 City legislation Ogdensburg,NY NY Ordinance#3 of 2014 2014 11,344 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City legislation Rochester,NV NY Ordinance 2011 210,565 5' 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 11 3.20 5 2.00 01� 0.00 3' 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 53.60 City legislation Troy,NY NY Streets 2014 50,129 5 6.00 54 20.00 5 12.00 4,1 12.801 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00, 4 16.00 91.20 Ordinance Adopting a Complete Streets Policy to be Added as Section 2-31 City legislation Utica,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2016 'i 62,235 5 6.00 4 16.00 5' 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 51 8 00 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 61.60 City legislation Warrensburg,NY NY Subdivision Regulations,Sec 178-20 2013 4,094 1 1.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 5 2.00 311 4,80 2 1,60 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9.60 An Ordinance Creating a New Article XVI Entitled Complete Streets Policy of Chapter 103 of the Code of the City of 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8,00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.80 City legislation Cleveland,OH OH Ordinance No.798-11 2011 396,815 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4T 93.20 5r 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 53.20 City legislation Yonkers, NY Yonkers Entitled treats andSidewalks s 2016 195,976 5 6 00 00 5 12 0 1280 5 Toledo Municipal Code,Chapter 901 ' t 3j City legislation Columbus,OH OH Ordinance No.1987-2008 1 2008 787,033 5 6.00 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0' 4.80 3( 2.40 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0.00 15.20 12.80 0' 0.001 21 '�1 � 0.00 5 2.001LL City legislation Toledo,OH 'OH (Ordinance 656-10) 2012 287,208 3 3.60 2 8.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.0011 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 L _ - -_ - - _ - - -- City legislation Pryor Creek,OK OK Ordinance No,2016-01 2016 9,539 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00'1 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 76.00 City legislation Philadelphia,PA PA Bill Na 12053201 1 2012 1,526,006 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00' 0 0.00 51 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 46.40 Unified Development Ordinance,Article T City legislation Conway,SC SC 7-Streets and Circulation 2011 17,103 5 6.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.4011 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 43.20 y g y 3 9.60 5 2.00 3 4.80 5' 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 50.40 9 Chattanooga, City legislation North Myrtle Beach,SC SC Ordinance 2009 13,752 5�, 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 City legislation Chattanoo TN TN City Code II Ch.32,Art.XIV 2014 167,674 5I 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 83.20 Citylegislation Knoxville,TN TN Ordnance No.0-204-2014 2014 178,874 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00'le g4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 88.80 City legislation Austin,TX TX Complete Streets Ordinance 2014 790,390 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 88.80 City legislation San Marcos,TX TX Chapter 74,Sec.74.002 2013 44,894 54t 6.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 39.60 ylegislation +_ 16.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 44.00 City leg slat on at Lake ity, UT Ordinance o. -10 � 2010 186,440 5 6.00 4.0 5 5, -_ 1 t--- 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 City legislation � Norfolk,VA VA Ordinance No.46,207 2016 242,803 5� 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 41 City legislation Aberdeen,WA WA Ordinance NO.6591 2016 16,896 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 11 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 75.20 City legislation Auway Heights,WA WA Ordinance C-720 2010 6,114 1': 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 41, 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 55.20 _ -_ -- T-_ - -_ - - -_ - -_ -- City legislation Algona,WA WA Ordinance NO.1129-16 2016 3,014 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4T 1280 51 2.00 2 3.20 5, 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.00 City legislation Anacortes,WA WA Ordnance NO.2880 2012 15,788 54 6.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0' 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 43.20 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 63.20 City legislation Bellevue,WA WA Ordinance NO. 2016 , 12P 363 55 6.00 5 20.00 2 14.80,, 4,, 12.80 5 2.00' legislation _ y g 01 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 64.00 City legislation Bellingham,WA WA Ordinance NO.2016-09-032 2016 80,885 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.201 11 3.20 5 2.00 0r 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 36.00 City legislation Bingen,WA WA Ordinance NO.2013-07-617 2013 712 3', 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 34.00 _ -- - - -_ - - -0 01 - - - -_ City legislation Bremerton,WA WA Ordinance 2012 37,729 5I 6.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0', 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 34.80 City legislation Buren,WA WA Ordinance No.599 2011 33,313 54 6.00 3 12.00 3 7.20 14 3.20 5 2.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 _ 0 0.00 30.40 City legislation Buries,WA WA Ordinance No.599 _ 2011 33,313 5'l 6.00 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3,20 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 y legislation g T 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 44.00 City le lation Burlington, WA Ordnance 2013 8,388 ', 1 City legislation Carnation,WA WA Ordinance NO.877 2016 1,786 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 44 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 81.60 City legislation Cle Elum,WA WA Ordinance NO.1455 2016 1,872 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 11 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 68.80 City legislation Colfax,WA WA Ordinance No.16-18 2016 2,805 1 1.20 5 20.00 2 4.60 41 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 42.80 Cry legislation Coulee City,WA WA Ordnance NO.683 1 2016 562 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1t 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 40.40 City legislation Darrington,WA WA Ordinance NO.717 2016 1,347 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 41.i 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 80.80 City legislation Davenport,WA WA Ordnance 1072 2013 1,734 5l 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 g ____ __. �___ - -_ -_ -_ - -_ 0.00 46.80 City legislation Deer Park,WA WA Ordinance N0.2012-915 2012 3,652 5 6.00 5 20.00 0 0.00 4 1280 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0, City legislation Duvall,WA WA Ordinance NO.1200 I 2016 6,695 i 1 - 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00, 2 3.220 2, 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.80 City legislation Des Moines,WA WA Ordinance NO.1533 2012 29,673 3 3 60 3 12.00 0 0.00 g 414.00 56.80 City legislation Edmonds,WA WA Ordinance No.3842 2011 39,709 5'E 6.00 2,, 8.00 0 0.00' 1 3.20 0 0.001 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City legislation Electric City,WA WA Ordinance NO.500-2015 2015 1 968 5I 6.00 51 20.00 5 12,00 4 12,80 0 0.00 0r 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.80 City legislation Ellensburg,WA WA Ordinance NO.4744 2016 18,174 5 6.00 5' 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 21 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.00 City legislation Elmer City,WA 4 WA Ordinance NO.354 2016 238 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 1200 4 1280 5 2.00' 3 4.80 3' 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 City legislation Ephrata,WA WA Ordinance N0.16-12 2016 7,664 5 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00, 1 3.20 5' 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 32.00 City legislation Everett,WA WA Ordinance N0.3510.16 2016 L 103,019 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 61.60 City legislation Federal Way,WA WA Ordinance No.12-718 2012 89,306 5, 6.00 5, 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 48.00 City legislation Fircrest,WA WA Ordinance NO.1575 _ 2016 6,497 5: 6.00 41 16.00 3 7.20 1 320 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 43.20 City legislation Grandview,WA WA Ordinance NO.2014-11 2014 <" 10,862 5 6.00 11 4.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13.20 City legislation Issaquah,WA WA Ordinance NO.2514 2008 30,434 3 3.60 0' 0.00 3 7.201 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 City legislation Kenmore,WA WA Ordinance NO.16-0427 2016 20,460 5* 6.00 5f 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City legislation Kent,WA WA Ordinance NO.4207 , 2016 92,411 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00y g41 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.00 City legislation Kirkland,WA WA Ordinance No.4061 2006 48,787 54 6.00 0 0.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 16.40 City legislation Lake Forest Park,WA WA Ordinance NO.1139 2016 12,598 5 6.00 5 10.00 2 2.00 1 3.20,y20.00 5 14.80 1 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 38.40 City legislation Kirkland,WA WA Ordinance 0-4539 2016 48,787 5 6 00 4, _-_ 3 20 51 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00, 77.60 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score City legislation Lakewood,WA WA Ordinance NO.645 2016 58,163 3 3.60 5, 20.00 5 12.00, 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 71.20 City legislation Langley,WA WA Ordinance NO.970 2012 1,035 5' 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 01, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 ---_ - -_ - - - g 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.80 City legislation Mabton,WA WA Ordinance No.2015-1 2015 2,286 5 6.00 5 0.00 5 12.001 3.20 5 2.00 City legislation Marysville,WA WA Ordinance N0.3031 2016 60,020 5� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 52.80 City legislation Moses Lake,WA WA Ordinance 2644 2012 ' 20,366 5: __ 6.00 1 4.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.0011 0 0.00 011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 City legislation Mountlake Terrace,WA WA Ordinance No.2597 I 2012 I 19,909 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.2011 4 12.80 0 0.0011 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 33.20 City legislation Moxee,WA WA Ordinance No.764 1 2016 3,308 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.001 5 8.00 5, 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 72.80 Y g' 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 51 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 68.00 nance 00 5 City legislation Ocean Shores,WA WA WA Ordinance No.916 1069 2012 5 569 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00�� 0 2.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 65.00 legislation WA y g, 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00, 0 0.00 3 12.00 84.80 City legislation Olympia,WA WA Ordinance No.7037 i 2016 46,478 1i 1.20 5 20.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 30.00 r � City legislation Pomeroy,WA WA Ordinance 885 2016 1,425 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 58.40 City legislation Port Townsend,WA [WA Ordinance No.3155 2016 9,113 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.004 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 74.80 Redmond Municipal Code Chapter -� City legislation Redmond,WA IWA 12.06:Complete the Streets 2007 54,144 3 3.60 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.00 City legislation Renton,WA WA •Ordinance No.5517 2009 90,927 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 54.80 City legislation Republic,WA WA Ordinance 42016-04 2016 ' 1,073 5 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27.20 City legislation Ruston,WA WA Ordinance No.1487 2016 749 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 88.00 City legislation Seattle,WA WA Ordinance No.122386 2007 608,660 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00�, 1° 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.80 City legislation Sedro-Woolley,WA WA Ordinance 2010 10,540 5. 6.00 0 0.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 16.40 City legislation Spokane,WA WA Ordinance 2011 208,916 3, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00, 0 0.00 2 8.00 62.40 City legislation Sunnyside,WA WA Complete Streets Ordinance 2015 15,858 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.80 City legislation Teton,WA -- WA Ordinance No.716 2016 1 1,191 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 76.00 City legislation _ Toppenish,WA WA Ordnance No.2015-14 I 2015 j 8,949 5'� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.80 - City legislation Tukwila,WA WA Ordinance No.2222___ 2009 19,107 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1? 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.00 _ - - -_ - -_ -_ - City legislation Twisp,WA WA Ordinance No.709 2016 919 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 44 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00+ 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 City legislation Union Gap,WA WA Ordinance No.2876 2015 6,047 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 41 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.80 City legislation Watsburg WA WA Ordnance NO.2016-1037 2016 1,217 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 67.20 y g 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.60 x T�...-_ - - _ - City legislation on Wapato,WA WA Ordinance N0.1306 2015 4,997 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 City leg slaYon Wenatchee,WA WA Ordnance NO.2016-24 2016 31,925 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.001 5 4.00 5 20.00 100.00 City legislation West Richland,WA WA Ordinance NO.15-16 2016 ' 11,811 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.0011 11 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 68.80 -- -_ - -_ - -_ - -_ - City legislation While Salmon,WA WA Ordinance No.2013-03-913 2013 2,224 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00; 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.20 City legislation Wilbur,WA WA Ordinance 573 2016 884 5'i 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 29.20 City legislation Winthrop,WA WA Ordinance NO.683 2016 I 394 5', 6.00 • 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 Sj 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 City legislation Yakima,WA WA Ordinance No.2016-013 2016 1 91,067 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 67.20 City legislation La Crosse,WI WI Ordinance No.4627 2011 i 51,320 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 51 2.00 3 4.80 2 1.60 0 0.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 60.80 City legislation La Crosse,WI WI Green Streets Ordinance,Sec.40-14 2016 T 51,320 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 72.80 --_ ---- - 0 - -_ - -_ - City legislation Cairo,WV VW •Ordinance 2011 l 281 1i 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 50.00 1 City legislation Elizabeth,WV VW Ordinance 2011 823 1, 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 50.00 - 0 - -_ - City legislation Ellenboro,WV VW Ordinance i 2011 363 1i 1.20 2ii0�8.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2, 8.00 50.00 , City y resolution Fairbanks,AK AK Resolution No.4704 1 2015 97,581 3', 3.60 11 4.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1' 4.00 11.60 City resolution North Pole,AK AK Resolution 15-23 2015 2,117 3': 3.60 1 4.00 11.80 � � 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 City resolution Anniston,AL AL Resolution No.12-R-181 2012 1 23,106 3 3.60 01 0.00 2 4.80i 0 0.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 15.20 City resolution Bessemer,AL AL Resolution 2012 I 27,456 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 _..._ �...._ _................ City resolution Chickasaw,AL 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 31.60 City resolution Daphne,AL AL Resolution No.2009-111 2009 21,570 3 y r AL Complete Streets Resolution 2009 6,106 3� 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.80 City resolution Farhope,AL AL Resolution No.1570-09 2009 15,326 3: 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0! 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 City resolution Homewood,AL AL Resolution No.12-51 2012 25,167 1', 1.20 3 12.00 5 12001 0 0.00 51 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 City resolution Midfield,AL AL Resolution No 2012-2 2012 5,365 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 40.80 - - - -_ - -_ - - - - - -_ - -_ City resolution Mobile,AL AL Resolution 2011 195,111 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 28.40 City resolution Montevallo,AL AL Resolution 04222013-400 2013 6,823 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 76.00 City resolution Montgomery,AL AL Resolution 257-2013 2013205,764 1 I 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.0011 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.20 City resolution Orange Beach,AL AL Resolution No.10-097 2010 I 5,441 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 00 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.00 City resolution Pleasant Grove,AL AL Resolution 80612G 2011 10,110 1T, 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 City resolution Prattville,AL AL Resolution 2010 1 33,960 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 City resolution Sylvan Springs,__AL _ AL Resolution No.11-111 2012 I 1,542 1': 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.0011 Ch 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 _ Cityr resolution Antioch,CA CA Resolution No.2012/57 2012 102,372 3',r 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00i 4 1280 5' 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 61.60 City resolution Atherton,CA CA Resolution 2012 6,914 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 65.80 Crty resolution Belmont,CA CA Resolution 2013 1 25,835 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00, 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 ...............City resolution Belvedere, CA Resolution No.2015-332015 2,068 5', 6.00 1 4.00 5 12.00. 4 12.80 5 5 8.00 0.00 5 B.00, 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.80 City resolution-- Brentwood,CA CA Resolution 2012 -I 51,481 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.001, ....._0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 - 0 - -_ + -_ -- City resolution Burlingame,CA CA Resolution No.77-2012 2012 28,806 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 B.00Ii 0 0.00 2 8.00 67.20 City resolution Calistoga,CA CA Resolution No.2013-003 2013 5,155 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 41 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00' 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.00 -_ - City resolution Campbell,CA CA Resolution 2013 39,349 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 41 16.00 80.00 City resolution Clayton,CA CA Resolution No.02-2013 2013 I 10,897 37 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 City resolution Caere,l CA CA Resolution No.2012-41 I 2012 1 1,792 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 2 3.20 0'� 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.80 -__ . City . resolution Concord,CA CA Resolution No.12-89 2012 122,067 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.0011 2 3.20 011 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 City resolution Cotati,CA CA Resolution 2013-05 2013 1 �1 7,265 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5� 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.001 2 3.20 01 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 81.80 City resolution Daly City,CA CA Resolution 2012 101,123 37 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5' 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 72.80 City resolution Danville,CA CA Resolution No.5-2013 1 2013 42,039 3i 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 Crty resolution East Palo Alto,CA CA Resolution No.4359 ' 2012 28,155 17 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.20 City resolution Fairfax,CA CA Resolution No.2527 2008 7,441 1 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 City resolution Foster City,CA CA Resolution 2012-63 2012 30,567 ' 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 City resolution Fremont,CA CA Resolution No.2013-32 2013 214,089 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 City resolution Gilroy,CA CA Resolution 2012- 2012 48,821 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 41 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.80 1 Cit - -_5 + 4 - 0 - -_ + 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.20 esolution Half Moon City resolution HealdsbureCACA CA Resolution No.128 CA Resolution No. 2012 2012 11,254 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 1000 0 1000 5 2.00 2 3.201 0, 0.00 0 0.00'y r g0 0.00 4 16.00 42.40 City resolution Hercules,CA CA Resolution No.13-008 2013 24,060 3 3.60, 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.001 21 3.20L 01 4.00 54.40 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 11 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score City resolution Hillsborough, CA 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 67.20 ty resolution Los Altos,CA CA City resolution Marin Martinez, C CA CA Resolution No.1 23 2013 35,824 3 3.60 5 12.00 5 12.00 4 19.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 14.00 77.60 g ty resolution A CA on No. 2 2012 35,824 3, 0 3 Resolution o1 - 5 12.00 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.20 City resolution Mill Valley,CA CA Resolution 2013 : 13,903 1: 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51, 2.00 5' - - - -- - -- -- City resolution Millbrae,CA CA Resolution 2013 21,532 3'� 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 2� 3.20 0 0..00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 C y r 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 City resolution Monte Sereno,CA CA Resolution No.3497 2012 1, 3,341 3, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 21 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 I City resolution Morena,CA CA Resolution No.93-2015 2015 16,016 3, 3.60• 3 12.00 5 12.00, 4, 12.80 51 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 78.40 City resolution Novato,CA CA Resolution 2007 51,904 1: 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City -_ - I T 5 4.00 1 4.00 62.40 t - -_ - - -_ -- - Crt resolution Oakley,CA CA Resolution No.XX-13 2013 35,432 5 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 City resolution Ontario,CA CA Resolution NO.2016-095 2016 163,924 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.20 City resolution Oande,CA 2012 17,643 3, 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40 __ CA Resolution No.67-12 City resolution Petaluma,CA CA Resolution No.2016-004 N.C.S. 2016 I 57,941 5' 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 3.00 75.20 City resolution Pittsburg,CA CA Resolution No.13-11920 2013 11 63,284 3. 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.60 City resolution Rio Vista,CA CA Resolution No.2012-092 2012 1 7,360 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 74.40 City resolution Rohnert Park,CA CA Resolution No.2012-111 2012 1 40,971 3 3.60 1 4.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 57.60 -_ - - 0- -- -_ - -- -_ City resolution Ross,CA CA Resolution No.1718 2010 2,415 1 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 Bicycle Master Plan Appendix B: City resolution San Anselmo,CA CA Complete Streets Resolution 2008 12,336 1 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 20.40 City resolution San Anselmo,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2013 t 12,336 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 70.40 City resolution San Bruno,CA CA Resolution No.2012- 2012 41,114 3', 3.60• 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.80 -- -_ - 0 - -_ - -_ - City resolution San Carlos,CA CA Resolution No.2012- 2012 28,406 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 74.40 City resolution Santa Clara,CA CA Resolution No.Bos 2012-436 1 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 73.60 City resolution Santa Rosa,CA CA Resolution No.28727 2015 167,815G 3'i 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00�1 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 73.60 -_ _ City resolution Saratoga,CA CA Resolution 2012 29,926 3�, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.0011 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.80 --- _ - - 0 - -_ + -_ - City resolution Sebastopol,CA CA Resolution No.5891 2012 7,379 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 City resolution Sonoma,CA CA Resolution NO.43-201510,648 33.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 77.60 2015 - 0 - -_ -_ - City resolution South San Francisco,CA CA Resolution 2012 63,632 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.60 City resolution St.Helena,CA CA Resolution No.2012- 2012 5,814 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00, 4, 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0.00 3 12.00 76.00 - 0 - -_ City resolution Suisun City,CA CA Resolution 2012 28,111 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 3 12.00 80.80 City resolution Vallejo,CA CA Resolution No.12-155 N.C. 2012 115,942 5'i 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5' 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 60.80 City resolution Windsor CA CA Resolution NO.2976-13 2013 26,801 1', 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 9.20 City resolution Yountolle,CA CA Resolution Number 3062-12 2012 2,933 5'i 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0.00 1 4.00 60.80 _ -- - -_ - -_ -_ City resolution Golden,CO CO Resolution No.2059 2010 18,867 5, 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 y r 1 0 0.00 00.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 46.80 Crt resolution New Haven,CT CT Complete Streets Order 2008 129,585 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 Resolution Adoptinga Complete Streets City resolution West Hartford,CT CT Policy 2015 63,268 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 94.40 City resolution Bente Spnngs,FL FL Resolution 2014 43,914 37 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 52.06 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 65.60 - -_ - -_ - -_ - -_ - -_ 0 City resolution Cape Canaveral,FL FL Resolution No.2011-09 2011 9,912 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.40 City resolution Cape Coral,FL FL Resolution 124-15 2015 154,305 61 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 68.80 11,231 5� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 63.20 City resolution asselberry, FL Resolution 16-2902 2016 26241 5 6.00 5 0.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 City resolution Cocoa Beach,FL FL Resolution No.2011-24 2011 0 0.00 1 4.00 63.20 Cocoa,FL ---_ 2011 17,140 5' 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 ty Clity resolution Longwood,FL FL Resolution 15-1376 O60 2015 '' 13,657 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 12.007. 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0 0.00+ 0 0.00 0 0.00 69.60 y resolution Myers, ___ g0 0.00 1 4.00 36.40 ----5---- 4.00 5 20.00 69.60 City resolution Miami,FL FL Resolution No.09-00274 1 2009 399,457 1' 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 24.40 - -_ - -_ - -_ - City resolution Naples,FL FL Resolution 15-13719 2015 19,537 5: 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.001 01 0.00 5 2.001 2 3.20 3, 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 69.60 City resolution Orange City,FL FL Resolution 643-11 2011 10,599 37 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00' 2 3.20 2' 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 47.60 City resolution Punta Gorda,FL FL Resolution 3047-13 1 2013 1 16,641 I 3., 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 01 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 68.40 � -" _ Cityresolution Rockledge,FL FL Resolution 2011 24,926 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 21" 3.20 21 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 44.40 _ City resolution Satellite Beach,FL FL Resolution NO 948 2014 10,109 5 6.00 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 211 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0.00 1 4.00 57.60 City resolution St.Petersburg,FL FL Resolution 2015-40 2015 244,769 3', 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 63.60 y3 _1 -- City resolution Tampa,FL FL Resolution No.2814 2012 335,709 1'� 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00' 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.60 City resolution Titusville,FL FL Resolution No.15-2011 2011 43,761 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00, 01 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.80 City resolution Winter Park,FL FL Resolution No 2083-11 2011 27,852 3 3.60 4, 16.00 5 12.00' 4 12.80 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 69.20 Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets } 1 City resolution Americus,GA GA Policy 1 2016 17,041 1 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.201 0 0.00 0 0.001 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 27.60 - . -_ - -_ City resolution Carrollton,GA GA Resolution 08-2015 2015 24,388 5 6.00 5 20.00 0 0.00 0" 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0 0.00 26.00 1 City resolution Clarkston,GA GA Resolution 2011 7,554 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001, 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 City resolution Columbus,GA 1GA Resolution 92-14 2014 189,885 5 6.00 2 8.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City resolution Macon,GA 'GA Resolution 1 2012 91,351 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 28.40 - A resolution to adopt a Complete 1 City resolution Norcross,GA GA Streets Policy 2011 9,116 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 3 9.60 5 2.001 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 2 8.00 62.40 City resolution Algona,IA 1IA Resolution no.13-99 2013 5,560 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 -�-_ - - - -_ - - -_ --- -4 City resolution Burlington,IA IA Resolution 2015-510 2015 25,663 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4' 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 City resolution Carlisle,IA IA Resolution 20140428 2014 3,876 61 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 3 9.60 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 34.80 ...- -_ - _--- -_ -_ -_ City resolution Cedar Falls,A IA Resolution 18,703 2013 39,260 5 6.00 5 0.00 7. 4 12.80 5, 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 2.00 70.40 City resolution Cedar Rapids,IA IA Resolution 1004-07-14 2014 126,326 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.001, 0 0.00 3 12.00 70.40 City resolution Dubuque,IA IA Resolution No.124-11 2011 57,637 3 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 3 9.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3, 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 31.60 City resolution Fa,rt,elds,IA IA Resolution 2014 9,464 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.401� 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 82.40 Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets 1 Policy for the City of Iowa City,A and 1 City resolution Iowa City,IA ',IA Repealing Resolution No.07-109 2007 1 67,862 5 6,00 21 8.00 3 7.20' 2' 6.40 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27.60 City resolution Johnston,A IA Resolution No.16-92 2016 L 17,278 1 1.20 4i 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 21 320 3L 240 5 800 0 000 3 1200 63.20 City resolution Marion,IA IA Resolution No.24505 2015 ' 34,768 5 6,00 511 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 31 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 44.80 City resolution Mason City,A IA Resolution NO 13-119 2013 28,079 5 fi.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 52.00 51 8 00 5 4 00 5 B 00 5 4 00 4 16 00 92.80 - - - - -_ 5 �- 8.00 64.00 City resolution A on Moville, IA Resolution No.2016-18 2016 1,616 3 3,60 51 20.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 2.00 5' 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 21 City resolution Oskaloosa,A IA___Resolution No.15-01-04 'L 2015 11,463 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5' 2.00,, 5 800 5 400 5 800 5 400 4' 1600 92.80 ' Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score yesolution _ Pleasant ----4y 8.00 3 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 8.00 60.80 CitCity resolution Sergeant Bluff,IA IA Resolution 16-08 2016 4,227 3 3.60 5 y r51� 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 73.60 City resolution Sprint Lake,IA IA Resolution No.2014-51 2014 4,840 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 13.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 2.40 0 0.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 48.80 City resolution4.80 Sioux IA Resolution ion o.2014-0518 2014 82,684 � 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 3 12.00 75.20 City resolution Windsor Heights,IA IA Resolution 15-0749 2015 4,860 1T, 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.001 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 4.00 4 16.00 82.40 City resolution McCall,ID ID Resolution 11-20 2011 2,991 37 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 1I 3.20 51 2.001 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 50.40 City resolution Brookfield,IL IL Resolution 2016-1038 2016 18,978 5 6.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 41 12.80 51 2.001 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 72.80 City resolution Carbondale,IL 'IL Resolution No.2015-R-12 2015 25,902 3', 3.60 2 8.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 44.80 _ - - -_ - - -_ - -_ -City resolution Forest Park,IL IL Resolution 2011 14,167 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 57.20 City resolution Glen Carbon,IL IL Resolution No.2015-3 2015 12,934 17 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0.00 3 12.00 34.40 City resolution Hoffman Estates,IL IL Resolution 2011 51,895 1' 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 B• ,, 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.40 __ r_ City resolution Lakemoor,IL IL Resolution No.14-R-11 2014 6,017 5, 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 City resolution Lemont,IL IL Resolution 2011 16,000 1: 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00i 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 70.40 Crty resolution Park Forest,IL IL Resolution 2015 21,975 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 41 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City resolution Riverdale,IL IL Resolution 2012 13,549 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.40 City resolution Skokie,IL IL 16-3-R-1320 2016 64,784 01 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5, 2.00 .....5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.001 � 0.00 2 8.00 76.00 City resolution South Chicago Heights,IL IL Resolution NO.2016-R-2 2016 4,139 5', 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00, 5 16.00 Sj 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00+ 5 4.00 4 16.00 83.20 City resolution Steger,IL IL Resolution No.1096 2016 9,570 5' 6.00 3 12.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 46.80 City resolution Willow Springs,IL 'IL ,Resolution No.2016-R-01 2016 5,524 5', 6.00 3 12.00 5, 12.00 _ 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4�I 16.00 82.40 City resolution Fort Wayne,IN IN Resolution#103-11-2-16-2 2016 253,691 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00,, 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 72.40 4 City resolution South Bend,IN IN Resolution 69-2015 2015 I 101,168 55 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 8.00 0 4.00 1 6.00 92.80 City resolution Kansas City,KS KS Resolution No.22-11 2011 145,786 1 1.20 4, 16.00 5 12.00' 3' 9.60 0 0.00 IN IN Resolution 12-07 2012 ------ 12.80 5 2.00 --------- - City resolutionFrankfort, , 0.00 0 0.00 5� 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 41 16.00 92.80 Cityresolution Leawood,KS KS Resolution No.3592 2011 31,867 3', 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 1 8.00 01', 0.00 5 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 50.80 yr City resolution Overland Park,KS KS Resolution No.3919 2012 173,372 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 1 21 3.20 0' 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 50.80 3.20 0 0.00 5 - -- - -- - -- � 5' I, 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 47.60 City resolution Roeland Park,KS KS Resolution No.611 2011 6,731 17 1.20 27 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 13.20 City resolution Topeka,KS KS Resolution 2009__. � _ 127,473 1' 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 _ Crty resolution Wichita,KS KS Resolution No.14-341 2014 382,368 37 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.001 0.00 1 4.00 31.60 City resolution Corinth,KY KY Resolution No.002-2014 2014 232 1+ 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 80.00 Crty resolution Dry Ridge,KY icy Resolution No.2015-01 2015 2,191 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.00 City resolution Williamstown,KY KY Municipal Order No.2013-13 2013 1 3,925 1', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 2, 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 56.00 City resolution St.Bernard Pansh,LA LA Resolution SBPC#1572-04-16 2016 35,897 51 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 31- 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 62.40 City resolution Agawam,MA MA Resolution 2016-12 2016 1 28,438 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4y 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5' 4.00 5 8.00+ 0.00 5 20.00 90.40 City resolution Everett,MA MA Resolution 2014 41,667 1: 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 69.60 -_ - City resolution Maynard,MA MA Complete Streets Resolution 2013 10,106 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 71.20 City resolution Anne Arundel,MD MD Resolution No.6-14 r 2014 537,656 1� 1.20 3 12.00 0 0.00 0._ 0.00 5, 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 23.20 City resolution Baltimore,MD MD Council Bill 09-0433 I 2010 620,961 5: 6.00 3 12.00 3 7.20, 4 12.80 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 58.00 � . , , ' + .__-_ ___ City resolution Fredenck,MD MD Resolution NO.16-11 2016 65,239 3� 3.60 5 20.00 2 4.80I1 1I1 3.20 5 2.00' 0 0.00 3I 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.00 City resolution Salisbury,MD MD Resolution No.2431 2014 30,343 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00'1 2', 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 71.20 Portland,City resolution 1 Resolution 2011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 25.20 City resolution Acme Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 66,194 3 54 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 01 - - -- - -- 0..00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Allegan,MI MI Resolution 10.42 2010 4,998 t 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00' 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Allen Park,MI MI Resolution 10-1214-294 i 2010 ' 28,210 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 41.20 City resolution Alma.MI MI Resolution 2013 r 9,383 1-7 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.007 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Ann Arbor,MI MI Resolution R-11-088 2011 113,934 3: 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 28.80 Cityresolution Atlas Township,MI r p, MI Resolution No.11-02 2011 7,993 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 41.20 City resolution Berkley,MI MI Resolution 48-10 I 2010 14,970 1', 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Bernen Springs,MI MI Resolution 2011 1,800 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City resolution Birmingham,MI MI Resolution 2011 20,103 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Burt Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 522 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 A Resolution Supporting a"Complete City resolution Clawson,MI MI Streets'Policy for the City of Clawson 2010 11,825 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Dearborn,MI MI Resolution 3-133-12 2012 98,153 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.001 0.00 1 4.00 25.20 tr City resolution Escanaba,MI MI Resolution 2011 12,616 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 y r p, 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 - - -_ - - -_ - City resolution Fenton Charter Township, MI Resolution o.2011-252011 15,552 I City resolution Flint,MI MI Resolution No. 2009 102,434 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 O.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.20 __ r r y r 0 0.00 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Garfield Charter Township(Grand Traverse City resolution Fremont, MI Resolution - - 2011 4,081 I City resolution County),MI MI Resolution 2013-01-T 2013 a 13,840 1- 1.20 4 16.00I 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 24.40 City resolution Genesse Charter Township,MI MI Resolution#11-13 2011 21,581 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0 0.00 23.20 City resolution Gibraltar,MI MI Resolution No.011-001 2011 4,656 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 41.20 � . . y rp, 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 23.20 p ! 10,412 1 1.20 4 City resolution ran Blanc Charter Township, MI 'Complete [mats Resolution 2012 37,508 City resolution Grand Haven,MI MI Complete Streets Resolution 2011 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 O.00I 0 0.00 0 0.00 O.00j 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Grand Rapids,MI MI Resolution 2011 188,040 1 1.20 1 4.00 0 0.000 0.00 00 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 9.20 City resolution Hamburg Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 21,165 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Hamtramck,MI MI Resolution 2010-120 2010 22,423 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 _ 0.00 17.20 City resolution Holland,MI MI Resolution 2011 33,051 1 1.20 44 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00- 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 City resolution Jackson,MI MI Resolution 2006 33,534 3 3.60 41 16.00 5 12.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.00 Resolution Supporting the Development 1 City resolution Kalamazoo,MI MI of Complete Streets Policies 2016 74,262 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Kingsley,MI MI Resolution 01-2013 2013 1,480 1 1.20 4, 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 24.40 City resolution Kinross Township,MI MI Resolution 2011-11 2011 7,561 1 1.20 4116.00 Oy 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Lake Isabella,MI MI Resolution 2011 1,681 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Linden,MI MI Resolution 2010 3,991 1, 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Long Lake Township,MI MI Resolution 2013 8,662 1 1.20 4i 16.00 2 4.80' 0 0.00 0 0.00�, 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 29.20 City resolution Ludington,MI MI Resolution 2011 8,076 1 1.20 44 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 , _ City resolution Mackinaw City,MI MI Resolution 2010 806 1': 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 Oi 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Manistlque,MI MI Resolution 2010 3,097 11 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00, 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 111 4.00 21.20 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year 'Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score City resolution Marquette Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 603 1 1.20 4, 16.00 0 0.00, 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 -_- - ----- 1 -_ --5 -_ 211 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 68.00 City resolution Milford Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 9,561 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00, 1 3.20 0 0.00 City resolution Middleville,MI MI Resolution 15-11 2015 3,319 5 6 00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.00 Crty resolution Mundy Charter Township,MI MI Resolution No.10-13 2010 15,082 1 1.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.20 City resolution Munising,MI MI Resolution 2011 2,355 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Crty resolution Newberry,MI MI Resolution 2011 1,519 1 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0011 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution North Muskegon,MI MI Resolution 2013-137 2013 3,786 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0, 0.00 21.20 City resolution Northville,MI MI Complete Streets Resolution 2011 5,970 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1' 4.00 25.20 City resolution Norton Shores,MI MI Resolution 2013 23,994 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 24.40 City resolution Novi,MI MI Resolution 2010 55,224 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1, 4.00 21.20 - - -o -_ _ - - -_ City resolution Oakland Charter Township,MI MI Resolution No.11-04 2011 16,779 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 4.00 25.20 Crty resolution_ Otsego,MI MI --Resolution No.2011-18 2011 3,956 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Owosso,MI MI Resolution 1- 15,194 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 0.00 - - + Crty resolution Oxford,MI MI Resolution 2011 3,436 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 _ 0 _ - City resolution Ballston, e Marquette,MI MI Resolution 2011 2,366 1 1.20 4, 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Crty resolution Per I 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Resolution of the Portage City Council in City resolution Portage,MI MI Support of the Complete Streets Policy 2015 46,292 3 3.60 5 20.001 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.001 5 8.00, 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 4! 16.00 84.80 City resolution Roosevelt Park,MI IMI Resolution 13-006 2013 3,831 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 00 0.00 0 0 001 01 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Sault Ste.Marie,MI HMI Resolution 2010 i 14,144 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.40 City resolution Sterling Heights,MI LMI Resolution 2012 ' 129,699 _ 1 1.20 4, 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.00 17.20 Resolution Supporting the Mlohlgan I Department of Transportation Complete Streets Initiative as Outlined in Public Act l ' Crty resolution Sul-Ions Bay,MI MI 134,and Public Act 135,of 2010 2011 618 1: 1.20 4 16.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00� 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Traverse City,MI MI Resolution 2011 14,674 1: 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 .- City resolution Union Charter Township,MI MI Resolution 2011 12,927 1', 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Walker,MI MI Resolution N13-281 2013 23,537 51 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0.00 0 0.00 30.00 Crty resolution Warren,MI MI Resolution 2012 I 134,056 17 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Wayland,MI MI Resolution No.2011-10 2011 1 4,079 1' 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 Crty resolution Woodhaven,MI MI Resolution 2011 0 12,875 147 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution Battle Lake,MN MN Resolution No.06-14-2011 2011 875 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 Crty resolution Breckenridge,MN MN Resolution No.12092-42/2011 2011 3,386 3, 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.204 4 12.80 54 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3, 12.00 69.60 -- -_ - - -_ - -2 - - - -_ City resolution Byron,MN MN Resolution I 2010 4,914 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 66.40 Crty resolution Dilworth,MN MN Resolution 11-09 2011 4,024 344 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.0011 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.80 resolution g _ -- - -_ - - - - -_ -_- City resolution Duluth,MN MN Resolution No.10-0218 2010 86,265 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 20 8.00 28.40 ccc Crty lution Fer us Falls, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00'MN MN Resolution No.141-2012 2012 13,138 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 62.40 City resolution Frazee,MN MN Resolution 0813-12A 2012 1,350 3, 3.60 5, 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5; 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 62.40 Crty resolution Golden Valley,MN MN Resolution 11-8 2011 20,371 41 3 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.60 City resolution Hawley,MN MN Resolution 16-66 2016 474 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.60 yr , 20.00 5 17.20'I , ___ 0 0.00 5 2.00I 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 37.20 Crt resolution Independence,MN MN Resolution No.10-0413-03 2010 3,504 1'� 1.20 51I 20.00 3 7.20' 0 0 00 0 0.00' City resolution New Hope,MN MN Resolution 2011 20,339 1 1.20 5, 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 43.20 Crty resolution Northfield,MN MN Resolution 2012-017 2012 20,007 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.000 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 50 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 83.20 City resolution Ottertail,MN MN Resolution 2013-02 2013 572 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 66.40 y resolution __ � 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 66.40 Crt lution ar ers mine, MN esou Ion - 2013 1,011 City resolution Plpestone,MN MN Resolution 2011 4,317 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 Crty resolution Red Wing,MN MN Resolution No.6196 2011 16,459 17 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 69.20 City resolution t t St.Cloud,MN MN Resolution 2011-11-164 2011 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 Crty resolutionccc St.Paul,MN MN Resolution No.09-213 2009 285 68 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0�1 0.00 0 0.00��1 0 0.00 1 4.00 32.40 City resolution Stewartville,MN MN Resolution 2010-32 2010 5,916 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 66.40 Crty resolution ccc Worthington,MN MN Streets Policy 2013 12,764 34 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 66.40 City resolution Belton,MO MO Resolution R2012-03_ 2012 23,116 1 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 21 1.60 5 8.001 0 0.00 1 4.00 59.00 Crty resolution Blue Springs,MO MO Resolution 2011 52,575 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 214 1.60 5 8.001 0 0.00 1 4.00 62.00 City resolution Elsberry,MO MO Resolution 2010-002 2010 1,934 14 1.20 5, 20.00 3 7.20_ 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.40 Crty resolution Grandview,MO MO Resolution 2011-24 2011 24,475 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.40 Independence,MO MO Resolution 5672 2011 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00�, 2 3.20 116,830 1', 3 2 1.60 5 8.00--- 0 0.00 - --City resolution T 7.20, 1 4.00 41.20 Crty resolution Kansas City.MO MO Resolution No.110069 2011 I 459,787 � 1.20 21 8.00 0 0.001, OII 0.00 0 O.00II 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9.20 City resolution University City,MO MO Resolution 2014-42 2014 35,371 1: 1.20 5� 20.00 5 12.001 0� 0.00 5 2.00�, 5 8.00 01 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 63.20 Crty resolution Columbus,MS MS Resolution 2010 23,640 5, 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00' 0 0.00 21 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.80 City resolution Greenwood,MS MS Resolution 2012 16,087 51 6.00 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.20 Crty resolution Hernando,MS MS Resolution 2010 14,090 6 6.00 40 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,, 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.80 City resolution Oxford,MS MS Resolution 2011 18,916 5'1 6.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13.20 Crty resolutionccc 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 83.20 Pascagoula, {___ y____ Cityresolution enatob0,MSS MS Resolution 2012 8,165 5, 6.00 2 18.00 5 12.00 5 13,00 54 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.80 y resolution 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 City resolution Tupelo,MS MS Resolution 2010 34,546 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1, 3.20 01 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.80 Crty resolution Belgrade,MT MT Resolution No.2014-17 2014 7,389 54 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 51 16.00 04 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.60 City resolution Billings,MT MT Resolution No.16-10550 2016 104,170 3', 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 01 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 52.00 Crty resolution Bozeman,MT MT Resolution No.4244 2010 37,280 5'� 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 70.40 City resolution Helena,MT MT Resolution No.19799 2010 28,190 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 Oy 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 54.40 Resolution No.7473,Providing fora - -- - Cry resolution Missoula,MT I,MT Complete Streets Policy 2009 66,788 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.60 City resolution Missoula,MT 1MT Resolution 2016 66,788 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 100.00 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.00 Cry resolutionShelby, T 0 MT MT Resolution 1877 2014 3,376 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 City resolution Sidney,MT MT Resolution No.3650 2014 5,191 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.00 Cry resolution Black Mountain,NC NC Resolution R-14-02 2014 7,848 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 67.20 ChapelCity resolution 60 I 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 57.20 ,Cry resolution WesJefferson,NC NC Resolution 2011 1,293 1 .20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4�, 12.80��I 0 0.00 3 12.00 57.20 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score NE 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 78.00 Crt resolution Keene,NH y r Ke NE Resolution 50,137 NH R-2011-28 2011 23,409 i 1 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 0.00 5 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 70.80 City resolution Keene,NH NH Resolution 2015-40 2015 23,409 1 6.40 0 0.00 3.20 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 5, 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 70.80 Crty resolution Asbury Park,NJ NJ Resolution 2015-358 2015 16,116 3 3.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3rr- 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 32.80 City resolution Atlantic City,NJ NJ Resolution No.917 ' 2012 39,558 3 3.60 31 12.00 3 7.201 41 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 51.60 City resolution Bay City resolution Bedminstert[Townshi NJ NJ Resolution 2012 09727 2012 g 165 1 3.200 31 12.00 3 7.201 NJ 1 3.20 0 0.001 2 3.20 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 p, 12.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 CryCrty resolution Bergenfield,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 13-278 2013 26,764 1 120 2� 3 7.20' 1, 3.20 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.60 2011 Resolution-Establishing a 47,315 1 1.20 3 12.00 - - - - - - CrtCity resolution esolution Broef Bloomfield,NJ Townshi NJ NJ ReNJ solute tion Streets Policyoo-24 20141 47.315 3, 3.20 3 12.001 3 7.20 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.20 ____ y y r p. 3 7.20 1 3.20 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 26.00 City resolution Bound Brook,NJ NJ Resolution 15-102 2015 I 10,402 3', 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.80 _.... ........._ ____ City resolution Bngantine,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-120 2013 1 9,450 5� 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.805 80 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 1 4.00 58.00 City resolution Buena Borough,NJ NJ Resolution No.148-14 I 2014 4,603 1', 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 20.80 Crty resolution Burlington,NJ NJ Resolution No.248-2016 2016 9,920 5: 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 411 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.40 City resolution Caldwell,NJ NJ Resolution 4-100 2014 7,822 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 51 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 73.60 Crty resolution Califon,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 1,076 1'' 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 51.60 City resolution Camden,NJ NJ Resolution 2013 77,344 1: 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 City resolution Cape May,NJ NJ Resolution No.189-08-2012 2012 3,607 3'7 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 58.80 City resolution Chatham Borough,NJ NJ Resolution No.12-195 2012 8,962 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 70.40 City resolution Chester Township,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-58 2013 7,838 1', 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 City resolution Cranford Township,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-293 2013 22,625 1: 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 60.00 Crty resolution Denville,NJ NJ Resolution 10-239 2010 16,635 17 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 25.20 City resolution Dover,NJ NJ Resolution 092-2012 2012 18,157 1i 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 11 4.00 52.00 City resolution Dow.Township NJ NJ Resolution R-97-2013 2013 1,585 5: 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0' __ 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 1 47.00 58.00 1 j City resolution East Amwell,NJ NJ Resolution 52-15 2015 4,013 5 6.00 8.00 7.201, 3.20 5 3.20 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 4.00 33.60 City resolution East Orange,NJ NJ Resolution 1199 1 2013 64,270 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00�1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 4'1 16.00 55.20 + -_ - 0 - -_ -_ - City resolution East Windsor NJ NJ Resolution R2014-088 I 2014 27,190 1+ 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.80 Crty resolution Egg Harbor Pry,NJ NJ Resolution No.177-2012 2012 4,243 3* 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 30.00 -_ - City resolution Emerson,NJ NJ Resolution 2010 7,401 1', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.001 3 9.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00+ 0 0.00 0 0.00 38.80 Crty resolution Ewing Township,NJ NJ Resolution 14R-170 2014 35,790 1' 120 5 20.00 3 7.201� 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 12.00 - - - 2 City resolution Fair Haven,NJ NJ Resolution No.2012-140 2012 6,121 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.80 City -- y resolution Fanwood,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 14-03-63 2014 7,318 5': 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 72.40 - -_ - _ -- - 0 - -_ - -_ - City resolution Far Hills,NJ NJ Resolution No.14-139 2014 919 1: 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30.40 City resolution Flemington,NJ NJ --Resolution 2013-181 2013 4,581 17 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 50.80 City resolution Fort Lee,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution CN-6 2012 35,345 1 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 Crty resolution Franklin,NJ NJ Resolution 2014-61 2014 16,820 3', 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0.00 0.00 2 8.00 38.40 City resolution Freehold Burough,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 12,052 1i 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 46.00 City resolution Frenchtown,NJ NJ Resolution 2011-36 2011 1,373 17 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.60 City resolution Garfield,NJ NJ Resolution 14-330 2014 30,487 5: 6.00 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 44.40 City resolution Gibbsboro,NJ NJ Resolution 2016-5-81 1 2016 2,274 3' 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00, 4 12.80 5' 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.00 City resolution Glassboro Borough,NJ NJ Resolution 146-12 2012 18,579 3: 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00} 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0.00 0.00 1 4.00 48.80 Cry resolution Glen Ridge,NJ NJ Resolution No.132-12 2012 7,527 1y 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.60 City resolution Gloucester Township,NJ NJ Resolution R-12:07-155 2012 64,634 1', 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.201 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 Crty resolution Hackensack,NJ NJ Resolution No.226-12 2012 43,010 11- 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.60 City resolution Hackettstown,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 9,724 5', 6.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 14.00 City resolution Haddon Heights,NJ NJ --Resolution 2014.193 2014 7,473 3': 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.001 11 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 51.60 -_ _ -_ - -- City resolution Hamiliton,NJ NJ Resolution 15-024 2015 26,503 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 O.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 26.80 City resolution Hammonton,NJ NJ --Resolution 138-2013 2013 14,791 1' 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0, 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 2 8.00 44.40 City resolution Harvey Cedars,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 337 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.80 Crty resolution Highland Park,NJ NJ Resolution 8-13-248 2013 13,982 1 E 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 52.40 City resolution Hightstown,NJ NJ Resolution 2014-129 2014 , 5,494 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.20 _ . y City resolution Hoboken,NJ NJ Resolution 2010 50,005 3,�_ 3.60• 5 20.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.00 City resolution Hopatcong,NJ NJ Resolution 2012-151 2012 15,147 3: 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.80 City __y resolution Hopewell Borough,NJ NJ Resolution No.2012-38 2012 1,922 17 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.20 City resolution Irvington,NJ NJ Resolution No.DPW 12-0911-10 2012 53,926 1: 1.20 3 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0.00' 0.00 2 8.00 28.00 Crty resolution Jersey Pry,NJ NJ Resolution No.11-317 2011 247,597 1-7 1.2020 4 16.00 3 7.20 0T, 0.00 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 City resolution Lacey,NJ NJ Resolution No.2012-223 j 2012 27,644 5 6.00 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 01 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.00 Crty resolution Lakewood,Township of,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-0360 1 2013 92,843 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0j 0.00 51 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 50.40 City resolution r r r r Lambertville,NJ NJ Resolution 91-2012 ' 2012 3,906 3', 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 51 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 44.00 City resolution Lawrence Township NJ NJ Resolution No.336-10 2010 33,472 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 5i 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.20 City resolution Linden,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-375 2013 40,499 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 1Crty resolution Livingston,Townshipof,NJ NJ R 14 190 2014 29,366 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 City resolution Long Hill Township,NJ NJ Resolution 12-205 2012 'y 8,702 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27.60 City resolution Madison,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 161-2012 2012 15,845 5 6.00 2 8.00 3 7.20 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City resolution Mantua Township,NJ NJ R 12.00 3 7.20 Resolution R-167-2012 2012 T15,217 5 6.00 3� 4' 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 40.40 Crt resolution Manville,NJ NJ Resolution#2014-153 2014 10,344 3 3.60 4 16.00 3 7 20�� � ----_---- ----y r 4 1280 0.0011 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 City resolution Maplewood,NJ NJ Resolution 51-12 2012 23,867 1 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00�1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 __ y City resolution Margate City,NJ _ NJ Resolution 184-2013 2013 I 6,354 3, 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 51.60 -- -_ . - 0 - -- City resolution Maywootl,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 9,555 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.60 Crty resolution Medford,NJ NJ Resolution 132-2012 ' 2012 23,033 ' 3 3.60 2 8.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.00 City resolution _ Middle Township,NJ NJ Resolution 509-12 2012 18,911 5_T_ 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 47.80 Millburn,NJ NJ Resolution 12-1 2014 20,149 '_ 3, � 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 Crty resolution 66 8.00 1 4.00 23.20 -_ 3.60 2 0 0.001 1 3.20 5; City resolution r r Monroe,NJ NJ Resolution 167-2015 2015 36,129 3! 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 4-+ 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.00 City resolution Montclair,NJ NJ Resolution No.233-09 2009 37,669 3 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 28.00 City resolution Montgomery Township,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 22,258 5 6.00 1 4.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 &co 0 0.00 0 0.00 30.00 __. __...... 20_.__________ _................._ ___ ........_........_ City resolution Montvale,NJ NJ Resolution No.44-2013 2013 7,844 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 01 0.00 01 0.00, 3 4.801 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0, 0.00 34.00 Cit y resolufion Moorestown,NJ NJ Resolution 99-2015 2015 20,726 1 1.20 Sl 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.001 2 3.20i 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 21- 8.00 49.80 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Pointe points Total score City resolution Netcong,NJ NJ Resolution 2010-96 2010 3,232 1 1.20 5, 20.00 5 12.00, 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 60.00 City resolution New Milford,NJ NJ Resolution 2014.152 2014 16,341 1: 1.20 0 0.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13.20 City resolution New Providence,NJ NJ Resolution 2013 12,171 1', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.00 Crty resolution Newark,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 277,140 1' 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 4y 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 45.60 City resolution North Wildwood,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 4,041 11 1.20 2' 8.00 3 7.20 1 T 320 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.80 Crty resolution Northfield,NJ NJ Resolution 182-2015 2015 8,624 1 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.001 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 38.00 City resolution Northvale,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-17 2013 4,640 5. 6.00 4 16.00 0 0.00�1 0 0.00 0 0.00�,1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.00 City resolution Ocean Clty,NJ INJ Resolution 2011 11,701 37 3.60 3, 12.00 0 0.00' 4 1280 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 44.80 -- - - -_ - City resolution Orange Township,NJ NJ Resolution 204-2011 2011 30,134 1' 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.40 Complete Streets Resolution No.## Crty resolution Pemberton Township,NJ NJ 2016 2016 27,912 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001, 0 0.00 3 12.00 55.20 -_ - - Pennington,City resolution g 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.20 Crty resolution Perth Amboy,NJ u o' �'NJ R-575'12/13 2014 1 2013 50,814 11" 1.20 3 12.00 0 0.00' 0� 0 00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 25.20 -- -- - - -_ - City resolution Plainsboro Township,NJ NJ Resolution 13-223 _ 2013 22,999 1', 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.80 City resolution Pleasantville,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 20,249 1' 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 35.60 -_ - - -_ - -_ - -_ - City resolution Point Pleasant Beach,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-0730/1A 2013 4,665 1', 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 2 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.80 City resolution Princeton,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 28,572 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 37.20 -_ -- - _ - - -_ - City resolution Randolph Township,NJ NJ Resolution No.157-12 I 2012 � 25,734 1', 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 1 320 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 31.60 y r g NJ Resolution 2011 1 6,881 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 4111 12.80 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Cry resolution Ranlan,Borough of,NJ 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 City resolution Raritan,Township of,NJ NJ Resolution 13-30 2013 22,185 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 11 3.20 51 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 48.80 Cry resolution Red Bank,NJ NJ Resolution No.10-195 2010 12,206 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 41 12.80 5, 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.00 -- - - - -_ - City resolution Ridgewood,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 24,958 1', 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 21 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 15.80 City resolution River Edge,NJ NJ Resolution 12-241 2012 11,340 1', 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 _ 0 - -_ - City resolution Robbinsville,NJ NJ Resolution 2014-145 2014 13,642 1'� 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30.40 Cry resolution Roselle,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-232 2013 21,085 5', 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0' 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 34.00 - -_ -_ - City resolution Rutherford,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 1 18,061 1: 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 28.40 Cry resolution Sea Bnght,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 208-2013 2013 1,412 3 3.60 3 12.00 0 0.00, 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 36.80 -_ +...._ -_ - -_ - City resolution Seacaucus NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy 2013 16,264 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00' 0 0.00 3 12.00 47.20 City resolution Somers Pont,NJ NJ Resolution No.171 of 2012 2012 10,795 1 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30.80 _ 0 - -_ - City resolution Somerville,NJ NJ Resolution 15-0908-316 2015 ' 12,098 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 City resolution South Brunswick,NJ NJ Resolution 2014-189 2014 43,417 1 1.20 5 20.00 3 7.20 11 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 31.60 -_ - -_ -- - - -_ _ -- City resolution Tenafly,NJ NJ Resolution R14-143 2014 14,488 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.00 Cry resolution Tom's River,NJ NJ Resolution 2012 91,239 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 37.20 City resolution Trenton,NJ [NJ Resolution No.12-121 2012 84,913 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20 5T 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 14.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 78.40 Resolution Establishing a Complete �- ___ Cry resolution Union City,NJ INJ Streets Policy 2013 66,455 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 32.40 City resolution Vineland,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 60,724 1 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 25.60 Cry resolution Voorhees Township NJ NJ Resolution No.90-16 2016 29,131 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4T 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.00 City resolution West Orange Township,NJ NJ Resolution 13-02 2013 46,207 1 1.20 2 8.00 3 7.20 11 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 31.20 Cry resolution West Windsor,NJ NJ Resolution 2010-R175 -- 7.20 j 6.40 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.20 City resolution 2010 30.316 1 - 3.20 4 16.00 3--- 1 - -_ - -_ J NJ Resolution 314 of 3 2013 6 0 Cry resolution Westhalmptton,NJ NJ Resolution No.101--1112 2012 8,813 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.001 4 2.80 0 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.80 t 12.80 5, 2.00 0 0.00 -.....3 2.40 0.00 0.00 1 4.00 48.80 -- - 12.00 - -_ - -_ - - CCry ity resolution Woodbine,NJ NJ Resolution 10161282 12 2016 29472 3 3.60 2 28 00 5, 17 00 43.20 5j 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.00 tt 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00�, 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.00 r . 320 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.80 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 36.40 Cryresolution Woodbury,NJ NJ Resolution 12-200 2012 10,174 1'� 1.20 1 4.00 5 12.00�, City resolution Woodstown,NJ NJ Resolution 2016-44 2016 3,505 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.001 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 52.00 City resolution Woolwich,NJ NJ Resolution R-2013-148 2013 10,200 1-7 1.20 1 4.00 3 7.201 11 3.20 0 0.00' 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 15.60 City resolution Mesilla,NM NM Resolution 2008-25 2008 1 2,196 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.001 21 6.40 0 0.00 2ff 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 48.40 Cry resolution Altona,NY NY Resolution#83 2016 1 2,887 3, 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 21 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 City resolution Angelica,NY NY Resolution 2012 869 5: 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 01 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 Cry resolution Auburn,NV NY Resolution 98 2015 27,687 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00, 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 64.40 City resolution Bethlehem,NY NY Resolution No.30 2009 33,656 3: 3.60 1 4.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 41.20 Cry resolution Binghamton,NV _ NY Resolution 2011 47,376 3-7_ 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 37.20 City resolution Brookhaven,NY NY Resolution 2010-993 2010 3,451 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 Cry resolution Clinton,NY NY Resolution 53-2016 2016 737 3', 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 -- - -_ - -_ - -_ City resolution Cuba,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2010 1,575 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.200 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 City resolution Dannemora,NY NY Resolution 2016-157 2016 4,898 31" 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.80 City resolution Dobbs Ferry,NY NY Resolution No.14-2012 2012 10,875 3 3.60 3 12.00 5, 12.001 4 12.80 5 tt 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 71.20 Cry resolution Dolgeville,NY NY --Resolution#121-2014 2014 2,206 1': 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 31.20 -- - _ - T-_ City resolution East Hampton,NY NY Resolution 2011 1,083 5', 6.00 1 4.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00T 0 0.00 4 16.00 38.00 Cry resolution Elizabethtown,NY NY Resolution 2010 754 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 36.40 City resolution Ellenville,NY NY Complete Streets Policy M112414-7 2014 4,135 51 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0.00, 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 B.00fl 0.00 4 16.00 75.60 Cry resolution Fishklll,NY NY Resolution No.2013-196 2013 + 2,171 F 6.00 31 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.001 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 64.00 City resolution Fort Edward,NY NY Resolution No.26 of 2012 2012 1 6,371 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 Cry resolution Gowanda,NV NY Complete Streets Policy 2010 2,709 S 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 City resolution Hempstead,NY NY Resolution 2012 53,891 3': 3.60 4' 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00' 0 0.00 0 0..00 0 0.00- -- - -- 0 0.00 0 0.00 26.80 Cry resolution Herkimer Village,NY NY Resolution#14-37 Complete Streets 2014 T 7,743 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5' 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 _ 4.00 35.20 City resolution Holland Patent,NV NY Complete Streets Resolution 2016 458 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 31.20 __. Cry resolution Ilion,NV NY Resolution 2011 8,053 1r', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 -- - - -_ - - -_ - - - - City resolution Islip,NY NY Resolution 2010 18,689 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 Cry resolution Johnsburg,NY NY Resolution No.124 2012 2,370 3 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 41.60 - -_ - - 0 - -_ - - City resolution Kingston,NY NY Resolution 2010 23,893 1', 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 18.00 40.40 Cry resolution Lake George,NY NY Resolution No.208 � 2012 906 11" 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 -- __ 16.00 . -_ -_ _ 2 + City resolution Lake Luzerne,NY NY Resolution No.48 of 2012 2012 1,227 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 320 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 41.80 City esolution LttlesF lls,NY NY Resolution No.59 2014 1,587 1 1.20 3 18.00 5 10.00'y r 10.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 32.40 y resolution 1 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 13.20 Clty resolution Malone,NY NY Resolution No.73-2012 2012 14,545 1 1.20 21 8.00 0 0.001, 4 12.80 0 0.00 2' 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00, 39.60 I Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score City resolution New Rochelle,NY NY Resolution 2012 77,062 1 1.20 4, 16.00 5 12.00, 3, 9.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 49.20 Cry resolution Rye,City of,NY NY Resolution 2013 15,720 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 011 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 68.00 - -_ - -_ -r-_ - -_ - -_ - - City resolution Saugerties,NV NY Resolution No.19/2014 2014 3,971 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0.00 4 16.00 75.60 Dry resolution Sleepy Hollow,NY NY Resolution 2016 9,870 3' 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00,1 0 0.00 0 0.00 40.40 City resolution Sodus Point,NY NY Complete Streets Policy Resolution 2015 900 1 __ 1.20 3 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13.20 Dry resolution Ticonderoga,NV NY Resolution 4158-2016 2016 I 5,042 1T' 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City resolution Troy,NY NY Resolution No.4 2013 50,129 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 Crty resolutionValley Stream,NY NY Resolution 151-13 2013 � 37,511 1,� 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18.80 City resolution Village of Fort Edward,NY NY Resolution No.45 2012 3,375 1: 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 Crty resolution Wawars,ng,NV NY Resolution 463 2014 13,157 5', 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.21 4 12.80 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00, 0.00 4 16.00 75.60 - _ - - -_ - -_ '_ City resolution __ While Plains,NY NY Resolution 2013 56,853 5: 6.00 5 20.00 0 O.00Ii 1 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 37.20 _ , Crty resolution_ ___ Bowling Green,OH __OH Resolution No.3594 2015 30,028 1',r 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00,1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0.00 0.00 01 0.00 22.80 City resolution Columbus,OH OH Resolution 2008 787,033 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 Crty resolution Hilliard,OH OH Resolution 12-R-14 2012 I 28,435 0 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.80 38,771 1 1.00 0 0.00 5 12.00 - - + . r 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0 00 0' 0.00 68.80 Orb.resolution Newark,OH OH Resolution 11-3A 2011 t City resolution Lima, OH Resolution 05-1 2016 38,771 5 6 00 5 0.00 5 1 . 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 26.00 City resolution Upper Adin _ +gton,OH OH Complete Streets Policy 2014 33,771 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20y, 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.20 Cry resolution Westerville,OH OH Resolution No.2012-12 2012 36,120 1': 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.80 - - T-_ - -_ - - -_ - -_ _ - City resolution Collinsville,OK OK Resolution 2012 5,606 3, 3.60 4 16.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 B.00j 0 0.00 3 12.00 46.80 Cry resolution Edmond,OK OK Resolution No.11-10 2010 81,405 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 T- - -_ - -_ - -_ - -_ - City resolution Guthrie,OK OK Resolution 2011-02 2011 10,191 3', 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 27.60 Cry resolution Lawton,OK OK Resolution 2011 96,867 33 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.201 5 16.00 0 0.00�1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 50.80 City resolution Owasso,OK OK Resolution No.2015-03 2015 28,915 3: 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.0011 0 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.60 Dry resolution Pryor Creek,OK OK Resolution No.2014-2 2014 9,539 3, 3.60• 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 01 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 56.00 City resolution Sand Springs,OK OK Resolution 2012 18,906 3: 3.60 4 16.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 Oli 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 3 12.00 46.80 Crty resolution Tulsa,OK OK Resolution 2012 391,906 37 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 53.20 T - - -_ - -_ - -_ - -_ 0 3.20 0 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 51.20 y r20.00 3 7 20 0 0 00 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 51.20 City20.00 0 0.00 resolution Lncasto,PA OR AsolutiResolutionAdoptB the City of 2010 { 9,32 1' 1.20 5 16.00 5 12.00' Crt resolution Franklin,PA PA Resolution No.18 of 2010 2010 6,545 3, 3.60 5 11 3 20 5 2.00 City resolution Lancaster, PA Resolution 2014 59,322 1'� 1.20 410 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 33.20 _- Cry resolution Pittsburgh,PA 1PA Pittsburgh Complete Streets Policy 2016 305,704 5 6.00 511 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 - 0 - - City resolution Middletown,RI RI Resolution 2011 16,150 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00' OT 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Crty resolution Newport,RI RI Resolution No.2010-130 2010 24,672 1' 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 32.40 -- - 1 - -_ - - 0 - - - -_ - City resolution North Smhhfield,RI RI Resolution 2012 11,967 11 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Crty resolution Pawtucket,RI RI Resolution 2011 71,148 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution Portsmouth,RI RI Resolution No.2011-04-11A 2011 17,389 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17.20 Crty resolution Providence,RI RI Resolution 2012 178,042 1 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City resolution South Kingstown,RI I,RI Resolution 2011 30,639 1 1.20 4 16.0011 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Oat 0 0.00 17.20 Cry resolution Woonsocket,RI RI Resolution 2011 41,186 1 1.201 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00_ 17.20 Resolution to Endorse and Support a 1 City resolution Camden,Anderson,C SC CoComplete plete Streets Policy2009 - --26,686 6 386 3 3.60 5 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00, 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 37.20 SC 1SC p t -._ ......._.... y r2 8.003 7.20� 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 36.40 City resolution Columbia,SC SC Resolution No.R2010-054 I 2010 129,272 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 27.80 Crty resolution Greenville,SC SC Resolution 2008-49 2008 58,409 j 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 27.60 City resolution Greenwood,SC SC Resolution 2012 23,222 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 O.00T 0 0.00 1 4.00 27.80 y r 9 ---------_ -_ 5 8.00 5 4.00, 4 16.00_ 65.60 Crt resolution Myrtle Beach,SC SC CompleR2015-te Street5 ls Policy ution Adopting a 2015 27,109 1 t20 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00, _ City resolution Ninety-Six,SC SC Resolution 2012 1,998 1 1.20 2 8.00' 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20.40 Crty resolution Spartanburg,SC SC Resolution 2006 37,013 1', 1.20 0 0.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6.00 City resolution SDResolution loux Falls, io.5-15 2015 153,868 5: 6.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 44.80 Crt 5 y resolution East Ridge,TN ITN Resolution No.2456 2015 20,979 1, 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 O.00y 0 0.00 1 4.00 44.80 City resolution Kingsport,TN TN Resolution 2011 48,205 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00I Oli 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25.20 Crty resolution Knoxv,lle,TN TN Resolution No.287-09 2009 178,874 1', 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 34.80 -_ - City resolution Austin,TX TX Resolution No.020418-40 I 2002 790,390 5', 6.00 0 0.00 3 7.20 5 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 Crty resolution Brownsville,TX TX Resolution No.2012-056 2012 175,023 0 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 48.80 City resolution Dallas,TX TX Resolution 16-0173 2016 2,368,139 5', 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 0 0.00 5 8.00 2 1.60 5 8.00+ 5 4.00 4 16.00 81.20 Crty resolution Charlottesville,VA VA Resolution 2010 43,475 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 Oj 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 T City resolution _ Battle Ground,WA WA Resolution No.15-04 2015 17,571 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 Sj 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 B.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.00 Crty resolution Bothell,WA WA Resolution NO.1352 2016 33,505 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00,E 4 12.80 51 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 3 12.00 80.00 City resolution Everett,WA Wq Resolution 2008 103,019 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 Oi 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20 r Resolution 2016-3,Complete Streets 1 Crty resolution lone,WA WA Policy 2016 447 3 3.60 0 0.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8.40 City resolution Leavenworth,WA ___ WA Resolution NO.12-2016 2016 1,965 3 3.60 4 16.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.00 __ Crt _ y resolution Mesa,WA WA Resolution NO.2016-15 2016 489 5" 6.00 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 64.00 City resolution Pasco,WA WA Resolution No.3725 2016 59,781 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.001 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 65.60 Crt resolution R,d field,WA WA Resolution No.495 }y r ge 2015 4,763 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 51 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.0[) 91.20 City resolution Rosalla,WA WA Resolution No.16-06 2016 550 1', 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 Cry resolution Spokane,WA WA Resolution No.2010-0018 t 2010 208,916 11- 1.20 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 21.20 City resolution Tacoma,WA WA Resolution No.37916 2009 198,397 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 49.20 Cry resolution Walla Walla,WA WA Resolution NO.2016-127 2016 31,731 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00�� 0 0.00 5 20.00 88.00 -_ -- -_ T-_ - -_ - - -_ - -_ - - City resolution Franklin,WI WI Resolution 1 2013 35,481 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 0 0.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 50.00 Dry resolution Madison,WI WI Resolution No.09-997 2009 233,209 1' 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 24.40 T- - -_ - - 0 - -_ - - City resolution Manitowoc,WI WI Resolution NO.084 2012 33,736 3', 3.60 0 0.00 0 0.001 01 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5.60 Crty resolution Onalaska,WI WI Resolution No.25-2012 2012 ' 17,736 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5" 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 71.20 City resolution West Salem,WI WI Resolution No.2.11 1 20114,799 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 1200 2 6.40 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 1 4.00 54.40Resolution Proddingfor Complete 3 12.00 000 0 0.00 Resolution Prodding for Complete Crty resolution Belmont,WV WV Streets 2011 1 903 1 1.201 0 0.00 0 0.00�I 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 P City resolution Grantsville,WV WV Streets 2011 y 561 1 1.201 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.201 0 0.001 5, 8.00 OI,L 0.O0y 0 0.00 2 8.00 40.40 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score Cit0,__ 0.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 29.20 City executive order Hartford, CT KY CT Streets and Side al s- f the H3 2015 5 1.00 4 10.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 51� 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 56.80 City tax odmance Seattle,g WA WA Bridging the Gap 2006 608,660 5t 6 00 4 al er 2 y Morgantown, Resolution 7 ,660 16.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 -r-� - -� -� y1 3.20 5 2.00 City executive order Hartford,CT CT Streets and Sidewalks-Of the Hartford 2016 124,755 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00'' 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 91.20 City executive de Taylor Mill,KY Kr' Municipal Oder No.63 2015 6,604 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2 00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.00 o Executive Order,Complete Streets T - _ - - - - -- orderp i 4 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 18.00 76.00 City executive order Fitchburg,MA MA Policy 2016 40318 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 12.80 5, 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 88.00 City executive order Lincoln,NE NE Executive Oder 086476 2013 258,379 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 01 0.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 43.60 C 1.6O 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 33.20City executive order Philadelphia,PA PA Executive Or der Na.No.5-09 2009 1,526,006 3� 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 01 0.00 0 0.00 2 --- +-- City executive order Reading,PA PA Executive Oder 2-2015 2015 88,082 5 6.00 51i An Order Establishing a Complete 20.00, 5 12.O01 5i1 16.00 5' 2.00 51 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 100.00 City executive order Memphis,TN TN Streets Policy for the City of Memphis 2013 646,889 3 3.60 5 20.00, 5 12.00, 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 57.60 City executive order Houston,l7( TX Executive Oder No.1-15 2013 I 2,099,451 1 1.20 51 20.00' 3 7.201 0, 0.00 0 0.00 21 3.20 01 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 51.60 City executive order Salt Lake City,UT UT Executive Order on Complete Streets 2007 186,440 5'T 6.00 1 4.00 3 7.201 51 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35.60 policy P 1' + 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 52.40 City internal li Denver,CO CO Complete Streets Policy2011 600,158 1� 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00' Crty internal policy Canton,IL IL Complete Streets Proclamation 2013 14,704 11 1.20 5 20.00 0 0.00' OI O1 0.00 O.o 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 21.20 City internal policy Chicago,IL IL Safe Streets for Chicago 2006 2,695,598 5. 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.O0ii 01I 0.00 0 O.00�i1 0 0.00 2 1.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 City internal policyNorth Chicago,IL IL Streets Policy Guide 2014 32,374 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12,00 _ 12.00 58.40 Access Unlimited:A Compact Complete y i g y1 3.20 5, 2.00, 2 3.20 3 2.40, 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 City internal policy Midland,MI IMI Complete Streets Policy Complete Streets and Traffic Calming 2010 I 41,863 3 3.60 1 4.00 3 7.20' 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00' 01 0.00 24.40 City internal policy New Beach VA VADirective 2 14 4 7 4 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12,00 1 320 51 0.001 rt infernal Doer,NH NH Guidelines 2014 29,987 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12,80 0 0.0011 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 77.20 City internal p lMy Brunswick,NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy2012 55,181 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12130 5' 2.O0I 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 3r 12.00 57.60 City mte al policy Virg 0 3,992.00,E 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 62.40 City policyadopted byelected board Hot Springs,AR AR Complete Streets Policy2015 35,193 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5'a p 9 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 81.60 City policy adopted by elected board North Little Rock,AR AR Resolution No.74-25 2009 62,304 3'� 3.60 4 16.00 5 12,00 1 3.20 01 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 38.80 City policy adopted by elected board Mesa,AZ AZ Complete Streets Policy 2014 439,041 5 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.20, 2 6.40 51 2.00, 31- 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 31 12.00 70.40 Citypolicy adopted b elected board Alameda,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2013 73,812 6', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 po y p y 9.60 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 69.60 City policy adopted by elected board Albany,CA CA Complete Streets Policy � 2013 18,536 11 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.00 City policy adopted by elected board American Canyon,CA CA Resolution 2012-72 2012 19,454 5T 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 21 8.00 75.20 City policy adopted by elected board Azusa,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2011 , 43,361 11 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 41 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00' 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.80 City policy adopted by elected board Baldwin Park,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2011 75,390 5E 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00' 4 12,80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 City policy adopted by elected board Berkeley,CA CA Resolution 65,978-N.S. 2012 112,580 1+ 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 79.20 City policy adopted by elected board Dublin,CA CA Resolution No.199-12 2012 46,036 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12,80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 City policy adopted by elected board Emeryville,CA CA Resolution No.13-03 2013 10,080 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 76.00 City policy adopted by elected board Hayward,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2013 144,186 11 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 80.80 City policy adopted by elected board Hermosa Beach,CA CA Living Streets Policy 2012 19,596 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.001 41 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 City policy adopted by elected board Huntington Park,CA CA Resolution No.2012-18 2012 58,114 51 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.80 -_ - -_ -- City policy adopted by elected board Larkspur,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 11,926 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 71.20 City policy adopted by elected board Livermore,CA CA Resolution 2013-007 2013 80,966 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 80.80 City policy adopted by elected board Los Altos Hills,CA CA 13) r 2013 I 7,922 5�, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 60.80 City policy adopted by elected board Newark,CA CA Resolution 10074 2013 42,573 F 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00, 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.00 City policy adopted by elected board Oakland,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2013 390,724 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.O01 3 9.60 5 2,00I1 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 81.60 City policy adopted by elected board Opt CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 ,461 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 60.80 City policy adopted by elected board Pacifica,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 1 37,234 1l 1.20 3 12.00 3 7.20' 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 67.20 City policy adopted by elected board Piedmont,CA CA Resolution No.106-12 2012 T 10,667 37 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 69.60 Pleasant Hit,CA Complete Streets Policy 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 88.00 City policy adopted by elected board CA p Y 2013 33,152 City policy adopted by elected board Pleasanton,CA CA Complete Stmets Policy 2012 70,285 -1 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.00 City policy adopted by elected board Redding,CA CA Council Policy No.1303 2012 { 89,861 1 1.20 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 70.00 City policy adopted by elected board San Leadro,CA CA Resolution 2013-018 ' 2013 1 84,950 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 64.00 City policy adopted by elected board Union City,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 1 69,516 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 84.00 _... .............. _...... City policy adopted by elected board Vacaville,CA CA Complete Streets Policy 2012 92,428 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 5 2.00 3 4.80 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 57.60 City policy adopted by elected board Enfield,CT CT _Complete Streets Policy 2015 144,654 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Portland,CT CT Complete Streets Policy 2016 '�, 8,732 5'�-- 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 70.40 City policy adopted by elected boardSouth Windsor,CT 1CT Complete Streets Policy �'2016 25,709 3,T 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 48.80 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted b elected board Auburndale,FL FL Complete Streets Polic 2012 13,507 1�, 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 YPo Y p Y Y City policyadopted byelected board Bartow,FL FL Complete Streets Policy2012 17,298 11 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 01 0.00 5 2.00, 0 0.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Davenport,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 2,888 17 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.001 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Delray Beach,FL FL Complete Streets Policy,GA-50,REVS 2016 60,522 5. 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.001 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Dundee,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 1 3,717 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 01 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3, 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Eagle Lake,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 2,255 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Fort Lauderdale,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2013 165,521 5': 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 85.60 City policy adopted by elected board Fort Meade,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 5,626 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 B.00,i 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 - City policy adopted by elected board Frostproof,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 2,992 1r 7 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Grant-Valkaria,FL FL Resolution No.07-2011 2011 3,850 3: 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00, 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 61.60 City policy adopted by elected board Hanes City,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 20,535 11- 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City City policy adopted by elected board HillcrestdHeights,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 2544 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.01 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 policy p ye g _ � I 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Lake Alfred,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 5,015 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Lake Hamilton,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 L 1,231 1' 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Lake Wales,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 14,225 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5, 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 B.00j 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Lakeland,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 97,422 17 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00, 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Mulberry,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 3,817 1 1.20 5, 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 51 2.001 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 City policy adopted by elected board Palm Bay,FL FL Resolution No.2011-22 2011 1 103,190 3-7 3.60 4 16.00 3 7201 0 0.00 O1I 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 38.00 City policy adopted by elected board Polk City,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 1,562 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.O0�1 0 0.00 5�1 2.00 011 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45.60 Y policy pby 9, -- y City lic adopted elected board St.Petersburg,FL FL Administrative Policy#020400 2015 244,769 1', 1.20 5, 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 80.00 City policy adopted by elected board Athens-Clarke County,GA GA Complete Streets Policy r 2012 115,425 5 6.00 5{ 20.00, 5 12.00 4 12.80 5� 2 00 O�1 1 0 0.00 1 0.00 68.80 elected board Winter Haven,FL FL Complete Streets Policy 2012 33,874 11 1.20 2.00 0, 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 y policy p y tY0.001 5 4.00 5 8.00, 0 0.00 1 4.00 68.80 Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation '', Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted 7 Agency State Policy name Year population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points Points Points points Points Points Points points Points Points Total score Type cY P Points Points Cit y,GA GA Complete Streets Policy 2011 _ 0 0.00 1 4.00 46.40 City policy adopted byelected board Gaineslected board ville,GA GA Complete Streets Policy 2015 4 Na 7 3t3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 46.40 City policy adopted b elected board Roswell,GA -- GA Resolution 2009-03-10 2009 88,346 3' 3.60 5 20.00 3 12.007.20 2 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00' City policyadopted byelected board Gainesville,GA GA Complete Streets Policy ' 2015 33,804 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 21 3.20 2 0.00 1 4.00 45.60 ya p ye City y p3.20 3� 2.40 5 8.00 adopted by e --- p -_ - --_ -- y 1.60 5 8.00, ____0 0.00 1 4.00 58.40 T 0.00 0 0.00T Y Po Y p Y City policydo tad elected board Savannah,GA GA Complete Streets Policy2015 136,286 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 0', 0 0.00 4 16.00 57.60 City policy adopted by elected board Suwanee,GA GA Ordinance No.2009-005 2009 15,355 5'� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 01 0.00 5' 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 55.20 City policy adopted by elected board Woodstock,GA GA Complete Streets Policy,No.700-0005 2015 23,896 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 1 4.00 59.20 Y p Y __ y IL -_ - -- - --_ - -_ - 0.00 35.60 City policy adopted b elected board Cascade,IA IA City of Cascade Polic Statement 2006 2,159 5 6.00 1 4.00 3 7.20, 5, 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 City policy adopted by elected board Dec Moines,IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2008 203,433 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 7.20I 21 6.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39.60 City policy adopted by elected board Harlan,IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2014 5,106 3', 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.207 4 12.80 51 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3' 12.00 78.40 Pbye - �- - -_ - -_ ._ -_ -- City policy adopted elected board Iowa City IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2015 67,862 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.001, 5 4.00 1 4.00 80.80 __ r City policy adopted by elected board Mason City,IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2014 28,079 3, 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.201 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1, 4.00 73.60 City policy adopted by elected board Muscatine,IA IA Resolution 92610-1113 2013 22,886 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1' 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 79.20 City policy adopted by elected board Spencer,IA IA Resolution No.5116 2013 11,233 1: 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19.20 City policy adopted by elected board Urbandale,IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2016 { 39,463 1', 1.20 0 0.00 3 7.201 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 25.20 City policy adopted by elected board Waterloo,IA IA Resolution 2013-474 2013 68,406 5* 6.00 5 20.00 3 7.201 4, 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 2 8.00 80.00 City policy adopted by elected board West Des Moines,IA IA Complete Streets Policy 2015 I 56,609 1, 1.20 0 0.00 3 7.20' 1 3.20 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 21.20 City policy adopted by elected board Coeur d'Alene,ID ID Resolution 09-021 '' 2009-1 44,137 3' 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00�1 0 0.00 0 0.00 51.20 -_ - - -_ - -_ - -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Sandpoint,ID ID Resolution 2010 7,365 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 54.40 City policy adopted by elected board Algonquin,IL IL Resolution No.2014-R-28 2014 30,046 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 68.80 - -_ - -_ - -_ - y adopted by e g g p 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 68.60 City ChicagoHeights, Complete --t'---- 0.00 51I 2.00 2 3.20 ---------- City polic do tad lected board r n on e s, IL om e e me s o icy 2013 75,101 y policy atlopted by electetl board IL IL Resolution No.2013-43 2013 30,276 3� 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00' OBI 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 60.80 City policyCity adopted ted by elected board lected board DesDe Plaines,IL IL IL Resolution 6 Streets t4Policy 20142011 58,384 5'� 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 16.40 55 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 City polic adopted by elected board DeKalb,IL _ IL 02-01 2016 43,862 5' 6 00 5 20.00 3 7201 6 40 5� 2.00 2 3.20', IL City policy adopted byelected board Midlothian,IL IL Complete Streets Policy 2016 14,819 5, 6.00 2 8.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 3 000 5 4.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 4 12.00 74.40 2.00 5 8.00 - 0 - -_ 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 60.80 � --_5___--4.00 5 8.00 5---- 4.00 3 12.00 72.00 YPo Y pI -_ - - - 4 - -_ - -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Normal,IL IL Complete Streets Policy 2016 I 52,497 3', 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 73.80 City policy adopted by elected board Oak Lawn,IL IL Resolution No.14-13-25 2014 1 56,690 6" 3.60 5 20.00 0 0.00', 0, 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 52.00 - 2 - -_ - -_ -_ City policy adopted by elected board Plainfield,IL IL Complete Streets Policy 2015 I 39,561 3', 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 88.00 City policy adopted by elected board Tinley Park,IL ''IL Complete Streets Policy 2012 56,703 3 3.60 5 20.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 1 4.00 60.80 - -_ - -_ - -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Village of Lombard,IL IL Village Board Policy B.J. 2014 43,165 1 1.20 4 16.00 3 7.20 3 9.60 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 62.40 Y policy p Y � _. City tic adopted b elected board Peru,IN IN Ordinance 31,2013 2013 11,417 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00�, 51 16.00 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City y a P ye 2013 T - -_ - 0 0.00 0 0.00 42.40 City y p y elected board Hutchinson,KS KS Complete Streets Policy _ 2012 42,080 1 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 City policy adopted b elected board Whrtestown,IN IN Complete Streets Policy 2014 2,867 3'7 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.001 5 4.00 0 0.00 48.00 policy adoptedby e p 0 0.00 4 16.00 70.40 City policy adopted by elected board Iola,KS KS Complete Streets Policy 2016 5,704 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0.00 4 16.00 69.60 City policy adopted by elected board Lawrence,KS KS Complete Streets Policy 2012 87,643 1: 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00, 5 4.00 1 4.00 60.80 City policy adopted by elected board Grant County,KY KY Complete Streets Policy 2015 24,662 17 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 4 16.00 66.40 City policy adopted by elected board Baton Rouge,LA LA Resolution No 51196 i, 2014 229,423 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 18.00 77.60 City policy adopted by elected board Acton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2014 21,929 i 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Adams,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 l 8,485 1 SI 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 4 16.00 88.80 }policy adopted y eComplete1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 81.60 City policyadopted byelected board Arlington, MA Complete Streets Policy an5*." C ty treets Clity policyado adopted byelected board Barre, MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 174273 5, 6.00 5 20.00 2 12.00. � 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 87.205 cy 2015 Y Py � - - 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.001 5 4.00 5 20.00 95.20 y policy adopted by elected board Bedford,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 13,320 5': 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80�1 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.00 City Y p by CompleteY � 2.00 � a pe City 0 0.00 4 16.00 80.00 City policy adopted by elected board Beverly,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 39,502 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 1200' 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 83.20 City policy adopted by elected board Bridgewater MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 26563 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5i 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 96.80 City policyadopted byelected board Brockton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy2014_93,810 1, 1.20 5 20.00 5 12,00 2 6.40 5 a Pe _ T ___ _ 2.00 5 8.00 3' 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.00 City policy adopted by elected board Brookline,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 58,732 5'� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 57 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 96.80 City policy adopted by elected board Buckland,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 '� 1902 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 12.80 51 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 85.60 City policy adopted by elected board Cambridge,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 1 2016 105,162 3, 3.60 4 16.00 3 7.20 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00, 0 0.00 4 16.00 76.00 City policy adopted by elected board Charlton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy ', 2016 12981 5: 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 18.00 81.80 City policy adopted by elected board Chesire,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 3,235 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5r 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Chester,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1337 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 98.00 City policy adopted by elected board Clarksburg,MA MA Complete Streets Policy ' 2016 r 1,702 1 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Clinton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 13606 1 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 84.00 Cityolio adopted byelected board Colrain,MA MA Complete Streets Polio 1 policy pP Y 2016 1671 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 85.60 1_ , City policy adopted by elected board Dalton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 6,756 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 82.80 City policy adopted by elected board Dartmouth,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 ' 34032 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Dighton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 7086 5', 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 58.40 City policy adopted by elected board Dunstable,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 3179 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 Complete Streets Adminstrative Policy City policy adopted by elected board Easthampton,MA MA for the City of Easthampton 2016 16053 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Easton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 23112 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 74.40 City policy adopted by elected board Egremont,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1,225 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 1200 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 82.80 City policy adopted by elected board Framingham,MA MA Policy on Complete Streets 2015 68,318 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 84.80 Y a Pby e omp ___ _r_ 1 0.00 5 20.00 81.60 City polio do ted elected board Gardner,MA MA C late Streets Policy 2016 20228 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 5, 16.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 City policy adopted by elected board Granville,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1566 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Greenfield,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 17,456 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 84.00 Citypolicyadopted byelected board Groton,MA MA Policy#16-02 Complete Streets pcY p 2016 1 10646 6 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Groveland,MA MA Complete Streets Policy I 2016 1 6459 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 70.40 Citypolicyadopted byelected board Hanson,MA MA Complete Streets Policy f pP Y 2016 1 10209 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 City policy adopted b elected board Hubbardston,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1 4382 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 20.00 87.20 City policyadopted byelected board Hinsdale,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016_ 2,032 5 6 00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 y --_i 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 6 5 5, 20.00 81.80 City policy adopted by elected board Hull,MA MA Complete Street Policy 2016 10293 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.007 1 3.20 5, 2.00 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 5 20.00 98.40 City polio adopted byelected board Hudson,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 19063 5� 6 00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00� 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 _ Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Paints points Total score City policy adopted by elected board Lancaster,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 8055 5 6.00 Si 20.00 5 12.00i 4, 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Lenox,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 5,025 51- 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 51� 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 Ya Pbye p - -_ - - - - -_ - City policy adopted elected board Leominster,MA MA Complete Streets Policy2016 40759 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 51 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Lexington,MA -- MA Complete Streets 2016 31394 5'� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Littleton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2013 1 8,924 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 90.40 City policy adopted by elected board Lowell,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 I 106,519 37 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.001 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0.00 3 12.00 54.40 City policy adopted by elected board Lynn,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 1 2015 15,784 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.001 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.80 City policy adopted by elected board Malden,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 59,450 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.001 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 Establishing a Safe and Accessible City policy adopted by elected board City policy adopted by elected board Mansfield, y-the-Sea,MA 1 4.00 5 8.00 5 0.00 5 20.00 98.40 MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 23184 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00�1 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 98.40 City policyadopted byelected board Marlborough,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 38,499 3 3.60 2 8.00 5 12.001 a P9 P 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 5 20.00 78.40 City policy adopted by elected board Maynard,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 10106 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 90.40 adopted by electedP 0 0.00 4 16.00 88.80 City policydo tad board Medford, MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 56,173 5 6.00 5 0.00 5 1 4 1280 5 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 B.00I City policy adopted by elected board Melrose,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 26983 5': 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 - - - -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Mentlory MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 5839 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 18.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Merrimac,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 6338 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 _ - - -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Middleton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2014 8,987 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 y policy p y P y 2016 3190 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 City Iic adopted b elected board Mlllville,MA MA Complete Streets Policy City policy adopted by elected board Nantucket,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 10172 5. 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 84.80 City policy adopted by elected board Natick,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 30,510 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board New Bedford,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 95072 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 88.80 City policy adopted by elected board Newton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 85,416 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board North Adams,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 Ii 13,708 3'� 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 90.40 r_ City policy adopted by elected board North Reading,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 14892 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.001 0 0.00 5 20.00 81.60 City policy adopted by elected board Norwell,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 9,279 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00i 41 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 Crt policyadopted byelected board Oran MA MA Complete Streets Policy y p Orange, py 2016 7839 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 90.40 City policy adopted by elected board Oxford,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 13709 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Palmer,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 12140 57 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Peabody,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 l 51251 _. 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00* 0 0.00 41 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Plymouth,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2013 ' 56,468 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 78.40 City policy adopted by elected board Plymouth,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 56468 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 City policy adopted by elected board Reading,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2014 24,747 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Rockland,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 17489 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Rutland,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 7973 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 85.80 I City policy adopted by elected board Salem,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2014 1 41,340 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4, 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 ___y City policy adopted by elected board Salisbury MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 I 8283 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Sandisfield,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 915 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 I City policy adopted by elected board Scituate,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 18133 ' 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00, 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Sherborn,MA MA Complete Streets Policy ii 2016 4119 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 98.40 City policy adopted by elected board Shirley,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 I 7211 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00, 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 82.40 --- - - -_ - -_ -_ - City policy adopted by elected board Shrewsbury,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 j 35,608 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80' 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 85.80 City policy adopted by elected board Somerset,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 18165 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 adopted by electedComplete Streets Administrative Policy City policydo tad board South Hadley,MA MA for the town of South Hadley 2016 1 17514 5 6.00 5 20.00I 5 12.00, 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board Spencer,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 11688 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001i 41i 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 84.80 City policyadopted byelected board Springfield,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 153060 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.007 4 a p 9 p 8.00 SI 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 City policyadopted byelected board Stow,MA MA Complete Streets Policy2016 6590 5� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5�1 2.00 5 City policyadopted byelected board Stoughton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2014 26,962 5� 6 00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16 00 611 2.001 1 31 -----_---- ----y p 51 8.00 3l 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 86.40 a p T 5� 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 __ y � � , City policy adopted by elected board Sunderland,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 3684 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00, 4 1280 5 2.00 51 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Swampscott,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 13,767 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5Ii 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 __ - City policy adopted by elected board Taunton,MA MA Policy on Complete Streets 2016 55874 5', 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 51 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 80.00 City policy adopted by elected board Topsfield,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 6085 5' 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00' 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Townsend,MA-- MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 8926 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Tyngsborough,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 11292 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 81.60 City policy adopted by elected board Upton,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 7542 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 4 16.00 81.60 City policy adopted by elected board Wales,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1838 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 20.00 95.20 City policy adopted by elected board West Boylston,MA MA Policy on Complete Streets 2016 7669 51 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 City policy adopted by elected board West Stockbridge,MA MA •Complete Streets Policy 2016 1,306 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Westford,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 21,951 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.0011 4' 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.0011 0 0.00 4 16.00 84.80 City policy adopted by elected board Westwood,MA MA Policy on Complete Streets 2015 14618 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00' 2 6.40 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 B.00T 0 0.00 5 20.00 86.40 City policy adopted by elected board Weymouth,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2015 53,743 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.00 City policy adopted by elected board Whately,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 1496 5', 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 3 2.40 0.00T 0 0.00 5 20.00 76.00 City policy adopted by elected board Williamstown,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 7,754 5: 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.001 41 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 31 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 87.20 City policy adopted by elected board Winchendon,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 10300 5. 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 51 16.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 3� 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 94.40 ___ __ _-_ y _ City policy adopted by elected board Winchester,MA MA Complete Streets Policy 2016 21374 5,� 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5 2.00 5 8.00 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 92.80 City policy adopted by elected board Rockville,MD MD Complete Streets Policy 2009 61,209 5 6.00 4 16.00 3 720 3 9.60 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.80 City policy adopted by elected board Auburn,ME ME Complete Streets Policy 2013 23,055 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 51 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.00 City policy adopted by elected board Fort Kent ME ME Complete Streets Policy 2015 4,097 11 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.00' 4 12.80 51 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 4 16.00 79.20 City policy adopted by elected board Lewiston,ME ME Complete Streets Policy 2013 36,592 5', 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 51 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 88.00 adopted by electedp _ _ - ---- . ------- - _ _ - - -_ - City y 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 84.00 City policyadopted elected board Ishpeming,MI MI Resolution 2011 6,470 3', 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 2.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 56.80 City policydo tad board Portland,ME ME _Complete e Streets Policy 2012 66,194 y policy adopted by elected board Windham,ME ME Complete Streets Policy 2014 17,001 3 3 60 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5{ a p y e 9. 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 54.80 City policy adopted by elected board Jonesville,MI MI Complete Streets Program Policy 2010 2,258 37- 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.001 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0.00 0 0.00 41.20 City policy adopted by elected board Marquette,MI MI Complete Streets Guiding Principles 2011 ' 21,355 3', 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00' 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 44.00 City policy adopted by elected board Muskegon,MI MI Complete Streets Policy 2014 1 172,188 1 1: 1.20 4 16.00 0 0.00 1 3.20 51 2.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00I1 0 0.00 1 4.00 40.00 City policy adopted by elected board Zeeland,MI MI Complete Streets Policy 2013 5,504 1 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4, 1280 01 0.00 2, 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00' 0 0.00 1 4.00 68.40 City policy adopted by elected board Austin,MN II MN Complete Streets Policy 2012 24,718 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 01 0.00 5 2.0011 01 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 47.20 I Intent Users and modes Projects Exceptions Connectivity Jurisdiction Flexibility Context Metrics Implementation Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted• Type Agency State Policy name Year Population Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Points points Total score policyCit adopted y e 9Resolution 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 76.00 City policyadopted byelected board Brooklyn Center,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2013 30,104 3 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00' 51 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 4.00 0 0.00 72.808 City hc adopted b eletetl board eloomin ton,MN MN Complete Streets Pohc 2012 82,893 5 6.00 5 Y policy a p 9 es�ion y 20.00 5 12.00t 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 5, 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 78.40 �, 4 1280 5 2.00 Crty policy adopted by elected board Falcon Heights,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2011 5,321 3'1 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 2 3.20 51 4.00 5 8.00� 0 0.00 0 0.00 56.00 City policyadopted byelected board Hopkins,MN MN Legislative Policy 8-I 2013 17,591 3T 3.60 Si 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 5� 2.00 2 3.20 51 4.00 5 8.00 a P 9 Y 0 0.00 3 12.00 77.60 Crty policy adopted by elected board Hutchinson,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2015 1,220 3T 3.60 51 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 5 8.00 5i 4.00 5 8.00 0.00 3 12.00 72.80 City policy adopted by elected board Independence,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2011 3,504 3, 3.60 2�,1 8.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 51 2.001 21 3.20 51 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 52.00 Crty policy adopted by elected board Maple Plain,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2013 � 1,768 17 1.20 2 8.00 5 12.00, 4, 12.80 51 2.00 2 3.20 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 48.80 City policy adopted by elated board Maplewood,MN MN Living Streets Policy 2013 �, 38,018 1: 1.20 0 0.00 3 7.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 27.60 Crty policy adopted by eletetl board Minneapolis,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2016 382,578 5 6.00 5 20.00 2 4.80 4 12.80 5 2.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 85.60 City policy adopted by elected board New Hope,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2011 '____ 20,339 5, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 3 12.00 84.00 _ - Crty policy adopted by elected board New Ulm,MN MN Complete Streets Polley 3r cy 2016 13,522 3.60 4 16.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 5 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 40.00 City policy adopted by elected board Rochester,MN MN Complete Streets Policy 2009 106,769 3: 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00i 4 12.80 5 2.00 0 0.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 74.40 Crty policy adopted by elected board Anderson,MO MO Livable Streets Policy 2016 1,961 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00i 0 0.00 5 2.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 61.60 City policy adopted by elected board Festus,MO MO Resolution No.3924 1/2 2010 11,602 1', 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 2 6.40 5 2.00 5 8.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 4 16.00 75.20 Crty policy adopted by eletetl board Lee's Summrt,MO MO Resolution No.10-17 � 2010 91,364 11- 1.20 5 20.00 5 12.001 5 16.00 5, 2.00 5 8.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 72.80 City policy adopted by elated board Springfield,MO MO Complete Streets Policy 2014 159,498 3, 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 Si 2.00 0 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00' 0 0.00 4 16.00 88.80 Crty policy adopted by eletetl board Billings,MT MT Resolution 2011 104,170 1' 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 0 0.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 52.40 T-_ - -_ - - -_ - -_ City policy adopted by elected board Glendinve,MT MT Safe and Accessible Streets Policy 2015 'i 4,935 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.0E 0 0.00 0 0.00 65.60 Crty policy adopted by elected board Hamilton,MT MT Resolution No.1256 2014 4,348 5' 6.00 3 12.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 46.00 City policyadopted byelected board Poison,MT MT Safe and Accessible Streets Policy 2015 4,488 3T 3.60 3 12.00 3 7.20_ 4 12.80 0 0.00�, 0.00 40.40 a p y 3 4.80 Ol 0.00 0 O.00T 0 0.00 0, Crty policy adopted by elected board Asheville,NC NC Complete Streets Policy 2012 83,393 5'� 6.00 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.00 31 4.80 0' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 51.60 City policy adopted by elected board Raleigh,NC NC Complete Streets Policy 2015 403,892 31 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 56.80 y � - - - y - - y pohc adopted b eletetl board Omaha,NE NE Complete Streets Polcy2015 408,958 5 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 5, 20.00 88.80 City policy adopted by elected board Concord,NH NH Comprehensive Transponation Policy 2010 42,695 5 6.00 1 4.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 5 2.00 2 3.20 0 Crt - . 27 Y p yp y 0 0.00 0 0.00 78.40 y policy adopted by elected board Hinsdale,NH NH Complete Streets Pohc 2016 4,046 5�, 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 0.00 0 0.00 Crt � 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 5 20.00 78.40 City policy adopted by elected board Portsmouth,NH NH Policy 2013-01 2013 21,233 51 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.001 3 4.80 3 2.40 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 82.00 Crty policy adopted by elected board Swaney,NH NH Complete Streets Policy 2015 7,230 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1 3.20 5 2.00 2 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.001 0 0.00 3 12.00 66.00 5 6.00 4 16.00 2 4.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.20 3 2.40 0 0.00 City policy adopted by elected board Troy,NH NH Complete Streets Policy 2016 2,145 0 0.00 2 8.00 40.40 Crty policy adopted by elected board Cherry Hill Township,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-03-09 2014 71,045 1 3, 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3 4.80, 3 2.40 0 0.001 0 0.00 2 8.00 65.60 Resolution of the Municipal Council of ' the City of Elizabeth to Establish a ' City policy adopted by elected board 'Elizabeth,NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy 2014 124,969 1 1.20 41 16.00 5 12.001 11 3.20: 5 2.001 0 0.00, 3 2.40I 0 0.00 0 0.001 3 12.00 48.80 y y adopted y e g p y 1.20 41 16.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 0 0.00 0 0 00' 3 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 43.60 City policy tlo tad b elected board Hillsborough,NJ NJ 'Complete Streets Poky. the 2014 38,303 1 City policy adopted by elected board Linwood,NJ NJ Resolution No.42 2011 T 7,092 5, 6.00 2 8.00 3 7.20 4 12.80 00 0.00 0, 0.00 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 36.40 i-_ - - -- 80 City policy adopted by elected board Metuchen,Borough of,NJ NJ Resolution 2013-210 2013 13,574 5: 6.00 51 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5, 2.00 51 8 00 5 4 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2,, 8.00 72.City policy adopted by elected board Morristown,NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy 2012 18,411 31 3.60 3 12.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5 2.00 3�,1 4.80 3 2.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 53.60 City policy adopted by elected board South Orange,NJ NJ Resolution 2012-224 2012 1 16,198 17 1.20 3 1200 3' 7.20 4 1280 5 2.00 01 0 00 3 2 40 0 0 00 0 0 00 31 12 00 49.80 City policy adopted by elected board Summit,NJ NJ Complete Streets Policy 2014 1 21,457 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 0 0.001 21 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 11 4.00 66.00 City policy adopted by elected board Woodbridge,NJ NJ Resolution 2011 1 99,585 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 1200 4 1280 5 2.001 01 0 00 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 1 4.00 63.20 City policy adopted by elected board Las Cruces,NM NM Resolution 09-301 2009 97,618 3 3.60 4 16.00 5 12.00 2 6.40 5 2.00 0' 0.00 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 62.40 r 20.00 5 12.00 2,-- 6.40 5 2.00 2 - - 1- 0.00 5 2.00 2--- 3 20 31 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 3 12 00 72.00 City licy adopted by elected board Great Neck Plaza,NY NY Complete Streets Policy Guide 2012 I 6,707 3 3.60 51 20.00 3 7.20 11� City policy adopted b elected board Babylon, NYComplete Streets 0 2010 12,166 __ 1 20.00 5 12.00 0 3.20 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 64.80 City policyadoptedb elected board Lewisboro,NY NY Poll 2011 112,411 3 3.60 51, 3.20 5 2.00 31 480 5 400 5 800 0 000 1 4.00 56.80 City policy adopted by elected board North Hempstead,NY NY Complete Streets Policy Guide 2011 1 226,322 12.00 4 0.00 5 2.00 3-r 8.00 5 4.00 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 72.00 City policy adopted by elected board Saratoga Springs,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2012 26,586 5 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 01, 0.00 5 2.001, 5t 8 00 5 4 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 4 16 00 64.00 City policy adopted by elected board Silver Creek,NY NY Complete Streets Policy 2014 2,656 3 3.60 5 20.00 5 12.00 1" 3.20 5 2.0011 3.20 3 2.40 5 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 66.40 City policy adopted by elected board Dayton,OH OH Dyable Streets Policy 2010 1 141,527 5 6.00 5 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 5 2.00 01, 0 00 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 111 4.00 72.00 -- T_ -_51 _r- City policy adopted by elected board Liberty Township,OH OH Complete Streets Policy 2014 21,982 1 1.20 4, 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 2.00 21 3.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 11r 4.00 51.20 Y policy Pby P CompletePolicy r �- --- 2.00 0 4.80 3 4 00 5 8.00 0 0.00 1�F 1600 82.40 City policy adopted by elected board Riverside,OH OH Resolution No.14-R-1918 2014 25,201 3 3.60 5 City tic adopted elected board Pi ua,OH OH Streets 2013 1, 20,522 5 6.00 5+ 20.00 5 12.00 3 9.60 51, 2.00 3' 4 80 5 4 00 5 8 00 0 0 00 4' 20.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 5�, 4.00 64.80 City policy adopted by elected board Elizabethtown,PA PA Resolution No.2014-12 2014 11,545 3 3.60 51 Citypolicy adopted byelected board Muskogee,OK OK Policy10-5 Complete Streets Policy2016 1 39,223 5 fi 00 5' 20.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 51 2.00 51 8 00 5 400 5 800 5 400 41 1600 96.00 Citypolicy adopted byelected board Fort Worth,TX TX Complete Streets Policy2016 741,206 5 6.00 Si 20.00 5 12.00 4 1280 6, 2.00 5, 8 00 3 2 40 5 8 00 0 0 00 5 16.00 91.20 20 00 5 12 00 4 12 80 51� 2.00 31� Ya Pe P '_ 2000 91.20 City policy adopted by elected board San Antonio,TX TX Complete Streets Policy 2011 1 1,327,407 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 0 0.00 51, 2.00 0'1 0.00 2 1.60 5 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 40.80 _ _- -_ _r- _ City policy adopted by elected board Charlottesville,VA VA Complete Streets Policy 2014 43,475 1 ,- 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.8051 2.00 01 0 00 0, 0 00 5 8 00 5 4 00 3 12 00 68.00 City policy adopted by elected board Richmond,VA VA Resolution No.2014-R172-170 2014 204,214 1 1.20 4 16.00 5 12.00 5 16.00 51 2.00 21r 3.20 5' 4.00 5 8.00 5 4.00 4 16.00 82.40 City policy adopted by elected board Roanoke,VA VA Complete Streets Policy 2008 97,032 5', 6.00 4 16.00 5 12.00 4 12.80 51 2.000 0 00 5 400 5 800 5 400 3 1200 76.80 Endnotes 1 Leinberger, C. and Rodriguez, M. (2016,June).Foot Traffic Ahead 2016. The George Washington University School of Business.Available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/foot-traffic-ahead-2016/. 2 Hamblin, J. (2014,August 13). "Do We Look Fat in These Suburbs?"The Atlantic.Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/blame-the-city/375888/. 3 National Institute of Health. "Overweight&Obesity Statistics."Available at https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health- information/health-statistics/overweig ht-obesity. 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016,June). "National Center for Health Statistics: Exercise or Physical Activity."Available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/exercise.htm. 5 Smart Growth America. (2017, January).Dangerous by Design 2016. Available at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design. 6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016). "Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia." Retrieved on April 21, 2017 from https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 7 Smart Growth America. (2017, January).Dangerous by Design 2016.Available at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design. 8 New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston,TX, Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix,AZ, San Antonio,TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas,TX,Austin,TX,Jacksonville, FL, San Francisco, CA, Indianapolis, IN, Columbus, OH all have Complete Streets policies. 9 U.S. Census Bureau. "2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates." Retrieved June 7, 2017 from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/comm unity_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk. 10 Smart Growth America. (2017, January).Dangerous by Design 2016. Available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/. 11 Smart Growth America. (2017, January).Dangerous by Design 2016. Available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/. 27 RESOLUTION NUMBER 7473 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE USABILITY OF ALL STREETS FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL FOR CITIZENS OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES IN MISSOULA. WHEREAS, The City of Missoula wishes to ensure that all users of our transportation system are able to travel safely and conveniently on all streets and roadways within the public right-of-way in Missoula; and WHEREAS, a complete street is defined as one which provides a safe, convenient, and context-sensitive facility for all modes of travel, for users of all ages and all abilities; and WHEREAS, complete streets better serve the needs of those who use transit by providing access to transit systems; and WHEREAS, complete streets have public health benefits, such as encouraging physical activity and improving air quality, by providing the opportunity for more people to bike and walk safely; and WHEREAS, complete streets improve access and safety for those who cannot or choose not to drive motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, complete streets are essential in providing safe routes to school for children; and WHEREAS, complete streets policies have been adopted legislatively by at least five states, and by at least 36 localities—of which 13 are by local law(resolutions or ordinances); and WHEREAS, the City of Missoula currently has a limited complete streets policy applying particularly to streets developed in new subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the City of Missoula Public Works Department has a Master Sidewalk Plan and other programs to improve the ability of Missoula's streets to meet the travel needs of all users; and WHEREAS, the concept and principles of complete streets are entirely compatible with the direction and plans embodied in the 2008 Missoula Urban Area Transportation Plan update; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Missoula to formalize a commitment to the principles of complete streets for all of our streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that the City of Missoula commits to a Complete Streets Policy which has the following elements: 1. Any roadway in the city of Missoula which is to be newly constructed or completely reconstructed must be designed and constructed to A. provide for the safety and convenience of all users of all ages and of all abilities: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists; and B. address the needs of all users both along roadway corridors and crossing the corridors. 2. Any project in which an existing roadway surface is to be restored or rehabilitated, and any remediation of deficient or non-existent sidewalks, shall be reviewed for the potential of making the roadway a complete street. Consideration shall particularly include proportionality: is the scope of work needed to make a complete street reasonable in relation to the scope of the proposed roadway maintenance or improvement? 3. Any exception to applying this Complete Streets Policy to a specific roadway project must be approved by the City Council, with documentation of the reason for the exception. 4. An annual report will be made to the City Council by the City Administration showing progress made in implementing this policy. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that this Complete Streets Policy will apply to the scoping, design, and construction of projects. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that the Public Works Department will review current design standards, including the design standards embodied in the most recent version of the subdivision regulations (currently Article 3-2 and 3- 3)which apply to new roadway construction, to assure that they reflect the best available design standards and guidelines, and effectively implement the Complete Streets Policy above stated. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that these design standards also serve as guidance for all existing roadway rehabilitation, reconstruction, or resurfacing, to the extent that the work required is reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed rehabilitation, reconstruction, or resurfacing. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that application of design standards will be flexible to permit context-sensitive design, fitting the roadway design within the context of the neighborhood, recognizing that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that exceptions may be made when • The project involves a roadway on which non-motorized use is prohibited by law. In this case, an effort shall be made to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists elsewhere. • There is documentation that there is an absence of use by all except motorized users now and would be in the future even if the street were a complete street. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that staff in the Public Works Department be directed to develop ordinances, resolutions, programs, and recommendations for funding to implement the Complete Streets Policy, for consideration by the City Council; and that these shall identify the complete streets needs and recommend a plan to meet those needs, including for sidewalks, throughout the city. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SAID CITY OF MISSOULA, MONTANA, that the City Council commits to including Complete Streets Policy and principles in all future City plans. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August, 2009. ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Martha L. Rehbein /s/John Engen Martha L. Rehbein, John Engen, City Clerk Mayor (SEAL)