SUMMARY
Funding for Maintenance of Complete Streets

As state departments of transportation (DOTs) expand active transportation infrastructure through Complete Streets programs, new challenges have emerged in maintaining these facilities. Roadway maintenance equipment is often incompatible with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and additional funding for dedicated maintenance is limited. This synthesis gathers together various strategies used by state DOTs to address these challenges and improve maintenance and funding practices for Complete Streets infrastructure. This synthesis documents how state DOTs manage the maintenance and funding of Complete Streets projects, with a focus on

• Maintenance policies and operations for active transportation facilities;
• Cost-sharing strategies and funding models with local governments and other interested parties;
• The role of local governments and tribal entities in maintenance agreements; and
• Training, staffing, and equipment procurement for Complete Streets maintenance.

The synthesis process included

1. A literature review performed to establish the current state of the practice;
2. A survey of state DOTs that included a questionnaire distributed to DOTs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia to gather information on funding strategies, maintenance practices, and policies; and
3. Case examples that highlight diverse maintenance approaches and insights gleaned from in-depth interviews with five DOTs—California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington State.

This synthesis provides a framework for the development of maintenance strategies for active transportation infrastructure and offers actionable insights for sustainable Complete Streets management as follows:

1. Chapter 1: Overview of objectives, scope, and methodology
2. Chapter 2: Literature review of Complete Streets policies and maintenance provisions
3. Chapter 3: Summary of survey responses and current maintenance practices across state DOTs
4. Chapter 4: Case examples providing detailed and more in-depth investigation of Complete Streets maintenance practices and challenges from five state DOTs
5. Chapter 5: Summary of key findings and recommendations for future research

Chapter 2 examines and summarizes key studies and reports focused on the maintenance of active transportation facilities. Additionally, the chapter provides an overview of state DOT Complete Streets policies that address maintenance issues.

The U.S. DOT underscores the importance of an evolving maintenance program, both for routine repairs and preventive maintenance. Discrepancies remain, as routine highway maintenance is often systematically funded, but many states do not systematically maintain nonmotorized infrastructure. This reliance on local governments for maintenance creates disparities. Wealthier areas often are better equipped to maintain these amenities.

Research shows differences in the availability of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure across income levels:

• A study by Bridging the Gap found that low-income neighborhoods had fewer sidewalks, crosswalks, streetlights, and traffic-calming features than high-income neighborhoods (Gibbs et al. 2012).
• These differences are linked to increased pedestrian activity in low-income areas but higher rates of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.
• The study emphasizes that targeted infrastructure improvements in areas with lower levels of investment can increase walking and reduce health disparities.

This synthesis includes a review of state-level Complete Streets policies with maintenance provisions. State-level examples illustrate varying approaches to maintaining active transportation facilities, the parties responsible for maintenance, and various implementation efforts. The following presents a cross-section of relevant state policy:

• Georgia offers a Local Maintenance Grant Program but limits it to roads accessible by four-wheeled vehicles. This creates challenges for nonmotorized infrastructure.
• Illinois offers comprehensive funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, with maintenance responsibilities shared between the state and local jurisdictions.
• Indiana requires maintenance agreements for sidewalks and bicycle paths outside of highway rights-of-way (ROW).
• Kentucky focuses on integrating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Maintenance responsibilities, including snow removal and landscaping, are identified early, with shared agreements between state and local entities.
• Louisiana holds local jurisdictions responsible for maintaining sidewalks and bike paths outside of curbs, which are not part of the mainline or frontage roadway.
• Michigan requires context-specific Complete Streets features developed under Public Act 135 of 2010. Maintenance agreements are used to ensure upkeep of active transportation facilities outside of travel lanes.
• Minnesota requires compliance from all employees and project partners. Maintenance is shared between the DOT and local units, with agreements defining responsibilities for sidewalks and bike paths.
• Montana emphasizes collaboration among interested parties and early involvement of maintenance staff in project design.
• Nevada applies Complete Streets principles to new and reconstruction projects. Maintenance outside of highway ROW is the responsibility of local jurisdictions.
• New Jersey focuses on future-proofing facilities to accommodate walking and cycling. Local entities cover costs beyond 20 percent of project budgets for Complete Streets elements.
• Washington State incorporates Complete Streets into nearly all projects, with a focus on active transportation best practices like snow clearing, debris removal, and vegetation management.

These policies reflect a shared commitment to safety, accessibility, and multimodal travel. They emphasize collaboration between state and local governments to ensure effective design, construction, and maintenance. Maintenance agreements and funding considerations play a crucial role in the sustainability of Complete Streets infrastructure across jurisdictions.

The State of Practice Survey assesses the funding, maintenance, and implementation practices of Complete Streets policies by U.S. state DOTs. The web-based survey gathered responses from 43 DOTs, representing an 83 percent response rate from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. Key findings include

• Complete Streets policies adoption and key elements
  • 70 percent (30 DOTs) have adopted a Complete Streets Policy;
  • 28 percent (12 DOTs) do not have a policy, and 2 percent (1 DOT) are unsure (Alaskaʼs Policy is in development);
  • Policies typically require pedestrian or bicycle accommodations when projects intersect with planned or existing routes;
  • Of the 30 DOTs with a Complete Streets Policy, 67 percent (20 DOTs) provide clear criteria for exceptions in their policies; and
  • 53 percent (16 DOTs) address the long-term maintenance of facilities, but 37 percent (11 DOTs) report gaps in doing so.
• Policy effectiveness in maintenance and key elements
  • Of the 43 responding DOTs, 81 percent (35 DOTs) face challenges in maintaining active transportation facilities, often due to limited funding and staffing;
  • Of the 14 responding DOTs that provided ratings of their policyʼs effectiveness, few rated their policies as “excellent” or “very good” in areas such as adequate personnel (14 percent, 2 DOTs) and funding (7 percent, 1 DOT); and
  • Of the 43 responding DOTs, 7 percent (3 DOTs) provide training programs specific to maintaining Complete Streets projects.
• Public engagement and complaint tracking
  • Of the 43 responding DOTs, 56 percent (24 DOTs) have a complaint tracking system for maintenance needs, with 96 percent (23 DOTs) of these systems allowing citizens to identify active transportation issues; and
  • The primary method for receiving complaints is through online portals (79 percent, 19 of 24 DOTs), followed by phone hotlines (63 percent, 15 of 24 DOTs).
• Specialized equipment for maintenance
  • Of the 43 responding DOTs, 33 percent (14 DOTs) use pavement painting stencils;
  • 30 percent (13 DOTs) use replacement bollards; and
  • 12 percent (5 DOTs) use specialized street sweepers, although bollard placement often limits their use in constrained areas.

The survey highlights both progress and challenges in the adoption and maintenance of Complete Streets programs. While many DOTs have embraced policies to enhance multimodal transportation, gaps remain in areas such as training, funding, and interdepartmental coordination. These findings underscore the need for better alignment across agencies, enhanced training efforts, and more sustainable funding models to ensure the long-term success of Complete Streets projects.

Case example interviews were conducted in May and June 2024 to explore maintenance practices for Complete Streets facilities across five distinctly different DOTs: California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington State. The semi-structured interviews focused on each agencyʼs maintenance experiences, policy successes and challenges, and collaboration with local entities.

Californiaʼs Complete Streets Policy emphasizes widespread access for a range of users and mandates the inclusion of active transportation facilities in all projects, supported by substantial funding from Senate Bill 1. The Complete Streets Action Plan (CSAP) outlines actionable tasks in areas such as policy, funding, and maintenance while fostering collaboration across departments. This integrated approach, alongside ongoing evaluations and

the engagement of other interested parties, aims to enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of Complete Streets initiatives statewide. The data, recommendations, and overall framework that the CSAP provides for maintenance of active transportation facilities can be considered a valuable resource for the California Department of Transportation and other DOTs.

Complete Streets is mandated under the Maryland Annotated Code. In 2012, a Complete Streets Policy that applied to the Maryland Aviation Administration, Maryland Transit Administration, and State Highway Administration (SHA) was adopted. In 2023, The Secretaryʼs Office began to update the policy and added all Maryland DOT modal agencies. The new Complete Streets Policy (MDOT 2024) was published in June 2024, with the references to maintenance as follows:

Maryland DOT uses a system for collecting citizen complaints and suggestions; the system allows for the identification of issues on bike and pedestrian facilities. They also post telephone numbers for the maintenance shops (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/Index.aspx?PageId=505). The new Complete Streets Policy includes recommendations for training and certifications for maintenance personnel. An implementation plan for the policy was in development at the time of this writing. Regarding funding, like other DOTs, the Maryland DOT policy has only allowed for the maintenance of immediately adjacent roadways. Maryland DOT SHA requires that local partners share the cost of developing and maintaining Complete Street features and facilities.

In May 2010, Minnesota codified Complete Streets into law through the Omnibus Transportation Policy Bill. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) adopted its Complete Streets Policy in November 2013, with revisions made in 2016, 2022, and 2023, emphasizing a holistic approach to transportation planning that aligns with the stateʼs environmental and economic goals. MnDOT utilizes the Complete Streets Project Hierarchy Tool to identify user needs and prioritize the most vulnerable groups during project planning. While the policy encourages comprehensive maintenance planning, challenges persist regarding funding, equipment resources, and coordination with local agencies for upkeep, particularly for active transportation facilities. MnDOT collaborated with academic researchers and local municipalities and committed to the maintenance of active transportation facilities that will yield data and lessons for consideration by other state DOTs.

Case example interviews were conducted to gain deeper insights into the maintenance practices of active transportation facilities across various states, focusing on those with advanced policy implementation and potentially transferable lessons. The selected states of California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington demonstrate a commitment to addressing Complete Streets maintenance as they advance their implementation efforts. Four of these five states have established Complete Streets policies that include maintenance considerations. However, despite being among the highest performers in this area, none currently have training programs specifically for active transportation facility maintenance, although three are in the process of developing such programs. Additionally, three states have implemented a complaint system that enables users to report maintenance needs for active transportation facilities.

The report highlights the evolving landscape of Complete Streets initiatives within state DOTs, emphasizing the critical role of maintenance and funding in ensuring the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of active transportation infrastructure. As state DOTs expand their commitment to multimodal transportation, they face new challenges, particularly regarding the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This synthesis of strategies and practices reveals a shared understanding among DOTs of the importance of proactive maintenance policies and funding frameworks focused on fair allocation of resources.

State DOTs have made significant strides in adopting Complete Streets policies; however, the survey findings indicate that many face persistent challenges related to adequate staffing, funding, and interdepartmental coordination. While 70 percent (30 of 43 responding DOTs) have adopted Complete Streets policies, only a few of these agencies rated their maintenance policies as effective. This indicates a pressing need for improved training and resources dedicated to maintaining active transportation facilities; many DOTs currently rely on local governments to shoulder maintenance responsibilities. The challenges that arise from this reliance can exacerbate disparities in access to safe and accessible transportation options, particularly for communities that have not received sufficient resources in the past.

The case examples of California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington State illustrate various approaches to integrating maintenance considerations into Complete Streets policies. These states demonstrate the importance of cross-departmental collaboration and the engagement of local interested parties in achieving outcomes that benefit a wide range of communities. Each state has developed unique strategies that prioritize not only the construction of Complete Streets infrastructure but also its ongoing maintenance. This highlights the necessity of clear maintenance agreements and cost-sharing mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of these projects.

Some DOTs described in this report call for a comprehensive approach to maintenance that includes defining clear responsibilities, securing diversified funding sources, and establishing robust training programs for maintenance staff. By prioritizing maintenance practices and promoting collaboration among state and local entities, DOTs can significantly enhance the effectiveness of Complete Streets initiatives, ensuring that communities have safe, reliable access to active transportation options.

As the transportation landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial for state DOTs to prioritize the development of innovative funding models and maintenance frameworks. This will not only facilitate the successful implementation of Complete Streets initiatives but also align with broader goals of sustainability within the transportation sector. Ultimately, by investing in maintenance practices for active transportation and reinforcing and applying those resources, state DOTs can create safer transportation networks that serve members of the community effectively.