How realistic is a DOT policy when “excessive cost” gives local staff an excuse to ignore complete street principles?
If there is a cost exception in a complete streets policy, it must be carefully defined for the correct project scope. Though federal guidance suggests a 20% cost increase is “excessive,” some communities have found any set percentage to be too arbitrary. The true measure of “excessive” cost should be relative to the scope and context of the project. In a downtown area where pedestrian traffic is high, many municipalities invest significantly in pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. In a more rural location, installing wide, paved shoulders rather than purchasing additional right-of-way for a separate bike path is a lower cost solution that invests proportionally relative to the context and expected use. The policy must also include a clear procedure for justifying this and any other exception. This procedure should require high-level approval from a senior manager, so that simply ignoring the complete streets principle is not an option.
Related Questions
- Basic management structure (numbers of expatriate/local staff). How are local staff treated with respect to their contractual arrangements and benefits?
- How realistic is DOT policy when "excessive cost" gives local staff an excuse to ignore complete street principles?
- What is the policy for "tipping" the guides and hotel staff?
