Committee asks staff to review Complete Streets results and standalone bike projects

Committee members asked the planning team to review how the City of Lawrence’s Complete Streets policy has performed in practice and to present recent project results at a future meeting. Planner (city staff) said Complete Streets is applied when a roadway project is identified for reconstruction or major maintenance and an engineer completes the city’s Complete Streets checklist during project design. Why it matters: Complete Streets is one of the principal pathways the city uses to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities without separate standalone bike funding; understanding whether the policy is delivering the desired bikeway outcomes will shape recommended actions. Committee members emphasized two constraints that limit Complete Streets outcomes: project scope and budget. A committee member described a scenario where a complete-streets-design segment ends abruptly at a gap where the next project has not been funded, leaving cyclists without a continuous low-stress route. Planner (city staff) agreed and said filling high-value gaps often requires standalone capital projects or grant funding because routine maintenance projects are constrained by the existing project scope and budget. The group discussed specific projects used as examples during the meeting. Planner (city staff) highlighted a recent corridor reconstruction that applied the Complete Streets checklist and created bikeway and pedestrian improvements, and the group discussed the larger “standalone” project the team called the Mass/20–3 (Massachusetts/20th/Third Street) improvement as a higher-profile example where standalone funding and grant leverage allowed a more comprehensive bikeway design. Committee members said such standalone projects sometimes become the impetus for broader community investment and additional safety improvements. Ending: staff agreed to assemble a Complete Streets project review that lists projects completed since the policy and checklist were adopted, shows resulting bicycle/pedestrian facilities and flags gaps where funding or design choices limited outcomes. The committee requested staff return that analysis at a future meeting.