Local Policies and Practices That Support Safe Pedestrian Environments (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 CHAPTER TWO STATE OF PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY to pursue one because those principles were already cap- tured by existing policies. Many of the practices described in this synthesis are aligned with the Complete Streets phi- losophy in that they aim to place pedestrians on equal foot- ing with other modes and bolster safety through thoughtful accommodation. POLICIES AND PRACTICES Communities across the country have undertaken practices to promote the creation of safe pedestrian environments. To assist in the documentation of these practices, the following section provides a sample of the ways in which communities have developed strategies for improving the safety, conve- nience, and comfort of the pedestrian environment. Table 1 includes information on each of the practices documented in this research. The rightmost column indi- cates where in this synthesis further documentation can be found. Each of these practices is included in the supplemen- tary table in Appendix A, which provides population and demographic information about the implementing commu- nity and is intended to shed light on the techniques that have demonstrated success in various contexts. A subset of these practices is presented later in implementation narratives that describe the development and implementation of each. In recognition of the complex relationship among the many elements that define the pedestrian environment, this synthesis categorizes the practices it describes in five cat- egories: (1) public right-of-way engineering and geometric design guidelines, (2) architectural and urban design guide- lines, (3) planning and land development regulations, (4) financing mechanisms, and (5) operations, maintenance, and enforcement measures. Many of the practices could be classified in multiple categories (e.g., categories 1 and 5), but each practice has been classified in only one category in order to highlight a particular aspect of the practice. IMPLEMENTATION Communities at the municipal level are the central players involved in the implementation of these practices. Many state and federal programs support these activities, as well PEDESTRIAN PRACTICE General Trends Starting in the 1990s, a sense grew within transporta- tion agencies and communities at large that the dominant approaches to development and street design that had pre- vailed for the second half of the 20th century were creating an environment that restricted transportation choices and reduced safety for vulnerable road users such as pedestri- ans. Various schools of thought have emerged to address this issue under loosely defined headings such as livability and walkability, or as approaches to planning and design such as context-sensitive solutions (CSS), a collaborative approach to planning that involves stakeholders in determining appro- priate safety, mobility, and infrastructure countermeasures. Experimentation with and acceptance of these principles have helped to elevate awareness of pedestrian issues. The U.S.DOT secretary, Ray LaHood, has identified livability (defined as provision of more transportation choices, expan- sion of housing choices, improved economic competitiveness of neighborhoods, and emphasis on existing communities) as a key priority for transportation (Federal Highway Admin- istration 2011). The emergence of livability priorities has helped further pedestrian-oriented practices by highlighting available funding and programs and by elevating the status of pedestrian issues in the national conversation. In the past decade, as pedestrian-friendly philosophies have built momentum and transformed into mainstream approaches, they have largely coalesced around the Com- plete Streets movement. The Complete Streets philosophy requires planners and engineers to “routinely design and operate the entire right-of-way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation” (National Complete Streets Coalition 2011). The Complete Streets approach recognizes that design strategies can be self-enforcing—proactive and thoughtful design can induce cars to drive at slower speeds, or prevent dangerous conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and motorized vehicles. A significant portion of the agencies that were researched and interviewed for this synthesis had adopted a Complete Streets policy, were in the process of drafting such a pol- icy, were considering one, or had deliberately decided not

6 TABLE 1 PEDESTRIAN POLICIES AND PRACTICES CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT Policies and Practices Category Found on Page Public Right-of- Way Engineering and Geometric Design Guidelines Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines Planning and Land Development Regulations Financing Mechanism Operations, Mainte- nance and Enforce- ment Measures Berkeley, CA—Pedes- trian Master Plan x Appendix A Boston, MA—Com- plete Street Design Guidelines x 13 Charlotte, NC—Urban Street Design Guidelines x 61 Minneapolis, MN— Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks x 72 New York, NY— Street Design Manual x 50 Portland, OR—Creat- ing Livable Streets x Appendix A St. Petersburg, FL— City Trails Master Plan x x Appendix A Santa Barbara, CA— Pedestrian Master Plan x x Appendix A Spokane, WA—Street Development Standards x Appendix A Amarillo, TX—Down- town Amarillo Urban Design Standards x 16 Austin, TX—Urban Design Guidelines x Appendix A Big Lake, MN— Downtown Design Standards x Appendix A DeKalb County, GA— Clifton Corridor Design Guidelines x 18 Iowa—Statewide Urban Design and Specifications x x Appendix A Los Angeles, CA— Downtown Design Guide x x 20 New York, NY— Active Design Guidelines x 52 Amherst, NY— Amherst Traditional Neighborhood Zoning Project x Appendix A Arlington County, VA—Columbia Pike Form Based Code x 23 Boise City, ID—Sub- division Ordinance x 25 Denver, CO—Strate- gic Parking Plan x Appendix A

7 Policies and Practices Category Found on Page Public Right-of- Way Engineering and Geometric Design Guidelines Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines Planning and Land Development Regulations Financing Mechanism Operations, Mainte- nance and Enforce- ment Measures Minneapolis, MN—Down- town Action Plan x 69 Minneapolis, MN—Pedes- trian Master Plan x 74 Miami, FL—Miami 21 x 27 Palo Alto, CA—Pedestrian Overlay Zone x Appendix A Salem, NH—Depot Village Overlay District x Appendix A Ann Arbor, MI—Local Resolution for Dedicated Non-Motorized Transporta- tion Funding x 30 Oklahoma City, OK—Proj- ect 180 x 32 Olympia, WA—Parks and Sidewalks Funding Measure x 77 Olympia, WA—Transpor- tation Impact Fees x 80 Oregon—Dedication of State Highway Funds for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements x Appendix A Sacramento, CA—Local Sales Tax for Transporta- tion Projects x Appendix A Salisbury, NC—Sidewalk Program x x x 34 San Diego, CA—TransNet Tax Extension x 36 Burlington, VT—Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Enhancement Program x x 38 Charlotte, NC—Sidewalk Retrofit Policy x x 64 Charlotte, NC—Transporta- tion Action Plan x x 62 Chicago, IL—Safe Streets for Chicago x 40 Hoboken, NJ—Hoboken Daylighting x 43 Milwaukee, WI—Street Share Program x Appendix A New York, NY—Pedes- trian Safety Study and Action Plan x x 57 New York, NY—NYC Plaza Program x 54 Olympia, WA—Transpor- tation Mobility Strategy x 82 Seattle, WA—Prioritization of Pedestrian Projects x Appendix A

8 as properties within municipalities under the control of other bodies, but local governments are often responsible for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of pedestrian environments. The nature of these overlapping jurisdictions underscores the need for cooperation and col- laboration among state, county, and local authorities. Numerous and diverse players are developing and imple- menting practices that support the creation of safe pedestrian environments. Depending on the size of the community, a single agency or department may be responsible for the pedestrian realm or a vast network of agencies with highly specialized functions and responsibilities. Indeed, in five states (Alaska, Delaware, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) the state department of transportation (DOT) owns and operates both the primary and secondary highway sys- tem, making it the de facto highway department for counties and small towns (Kastenhofer 2010). Similarly, the role of elected officials may vary widely depending on the communi- ty’s form of government, size, and degree of political activity. To provide greater clarity on the development and implementation of the example practices listed earlier and described in Appendix A, the following section delivers narrative descriptions of a selected subset of those prac- tices. These narratives are intended to offer descriptions of the players involved, the challenges faced, and the keys to implementation. These practices were selected to provide diversity in location, context, and development conditions. Please note: All population, demographic, and journey- to-work figures, unless otherwise specified, are U.S. Census figures. For further notes on census data, see the data source information in Appendix A. These narratives were largely informed through inter- views with key staff involved in the development and implementation of these practices. Unless otherwise noted, information regarding the institutional and political context, and the development and implementation of these practices, was derived from these interviews. Public Right-of-Way Engineering and Geometric Design Guidelines Public right-of-way engineering and geometric design guidelines are the guiding documents that provide engineers, planners, and other transportation professionals with specifi- cations for planning and designing streets. They frequently include recommendations or requirements for allocations of street space (e.g., lane widths), and other geometric features such as turning radii, as well as construction materials, and accessibility features. The practices that support the creation of safe pedestrian environments through right-of- way guidelines aim to do so by making pedestrians more visible, more protected, and more comfortable. They aim to calm vehicular traffic, pro- vide respite from the elements, and carve out greater space for active uses such as walking, bicycling, and congregat- ing. These practices include broad goals such as “Design for Safety” (New York City Department of Transportation 2009) and “streets should serve multiple functions and encourage non-motorized uses”(Boston Transportation Department 2011). They often include objectives to make the pedestrian environment more comfortable and inviting and provide guidance on a broad range of pedestrian accommodations. These accommodations range from sidewalks and medians to curb extensions, and occasionally nontraditional concepts such as shared streets—where all modes share the right-of- way without delineation—as well as guidance on vegetation, furniture, and lighting. Often, the street design–focused prac- tices explored in this synthesis call for a reevaluation of how streets are classified. Rather than focus on traffic volumes, these practices call for a more comprehensive approach that classifies streets based on contextual factors such as sur- rounding land uses. These guiding documents frequently supplement rather than replace dominant guidelines such as those in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Right-of-way and engineering and geometric design guidelines typically have application for the full gamut of development conditions, including new development and street reconstruction as well as retrofit applications. Boston, Massachusetts—Boston Complete Streets Guidelines Boston, Massachusetts, known for its historic, compact urban form, is commonly thought of as a walking city (Bos- ton Transportation Department 2011). The city is composed of 48 square miles of land and is home to roughly 600,000 residents. The Greater Boston area includes close-in cities and towns such as Cambridge, Somerville, and Quincy and has a population of roughly 4.5 million. Boston proper is composed of densely packed neighborhoods. The topogra- phy is generally flat and low-lying—the city is flanked by Boston Harbor and the Charles River to the east and north, respectively. The climate is defined as humid continental with maritime influences, meaning it experiences hot, rainy summers and cold, snowy winters (Peel 2011). In an interview, Boston Transportation Department staff explained that since approximately 2006, Boston has been incorporating a multimodal approach to street reconstruc- tion projects. This approach included consideration of pedes- trians, bicycles, and transit, in addition to automobiles, as the city undertook these projects and began experimenting with ways to accommodate all users and improve safety. The transportation department staff found that the Com- plete Streets ideals captured what the city was trying to accomplish with its multimodal approach to street redesign;

9 specifically, improving “the quality of life in Boston by cre- ating streets that are both great public spaces and sustainable transportation networks” (Boston Transportation Depart- ment 2011). The city set out to formalize its approach with the creation of Complete Streets Guidelines that would put pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users on equal ground with drivers. The Complete Streets Guidelines would also incorporate green elements to create a more sustainable but also more pleasant public environment, and promote smart technology such as intelligent signals to create a more efficient network (Boston Transportation Department 2011). Staff with knowledge of the guidelines’ development explained that from early on, the Boston Transportation Department, which led the effort, recognized that for the guidelines to be meaningful, interagency cooperation would be essential. With the support of the mayor, Thomas Menino, a City of Boston Interagency Group was formed that included high-level participation (heads of departments and commissioners) from a wide array of city agencies, includ- ing the Public Works Department, the Environment Depart- ment, the Boston Public Health Commission, Commission on the Affairs of the Elderly, and the Office of Budget Man- agement. In all, about 14 agencies have participated in the interagency group from the inception of the undertaking. Mayor Menino also appointed a Complete Streets Advisory Committee composed of local professionals, neighborhood residents, advocates, and academics to assist in the review process (Boston Transportation Department 2011). Because the guidelines include multidisciplinary approaches and involve actions and physical spaces that are outside the Transportation Department’s purview, agency staff felt that the cooperation of these agencies and the local experts on the advisory committee was essential to the suc- cess of the guidelines. For instance, the guidelines include specific recommendations for tree plantings. As explained in an interview with department staff, the Transportation Department has little internal experience or knowledge of tree plantings and relied heavily on the Parks & Recreation Department to compose those sections of the guidelines. The participation of these agencies and stakeholders was essential to producing a document that included actionable concepts. As a Transportation Department staff member explained, getting these agencies on board with the project and work- ing collectively was not without its challenges. Various agencies were not accustomed to working collectively or did not immediately agree with the goals and objectives of the guidelines. However, the strong support and leadership of the mayor helped bring these agencies to the table, and once the project was under way, the benefits of the Complete Streets approach and the opportunities of the undertaking convinced these agencies to stay engaged. The general public also presented some opposition. This opposition was not significantly voiced during the process of creating the guidelines, but rather it arises in response to spe- cific projects that incorporate elements from the guidelines. The street reconstruction projects that incorporate the Complete Streets principles are subject to public review and approval in the context of a Community Forum. When the general com- munity does not call for or support these improvements, the projects do not move forward. In this regard, a Transporta- tion Department staff member explained that educating local residents on the benefits of the Complete Streets approach has been a valuable component of the city’s approach. The staff has found that it alone has difficulty convincing a local com- munity. Rather, the presence of a core group of residents who favor and advocate for complete streets is important. Those residents then educate and convince their neighbors with assis- tance from the Transportation Department. Boston Transportation Department staff said that the Bos- ton Public Health Commission has recognized that safe pedes- trian environments not only lower injury and mortality from accidents but, by creating a more inviting and pleasant pedes- trian environment, encourage physical activity that can fight obesity and other fitness-related ailments. As such, the com- mission provides small grants in the range of $10,000–$20,000 to nonprofit community groups looking to make streetscape improvements in their neighborhoods. The Transportation Department then capitalizes on these community groups as self-identified Complete Streets Champions and seeks their assistance in making the case to the local community. The Transportation Department has found that where communities disagree about the Complete Streets approach, the one unifying topic on which all residents can agree is the issue of safety. Department staff explained that, when Complete Streets improvements are presented in terms of the safety benefits—safety for pedestrians, for cyclists, and for drivers—there is often broad support for the measures. The Transportation Department views the guidelines as a living document that will be iteratively updated as the city’s experience informs it. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory for every street project. Projects that incor- porate the guidelines require the support of the local com- munity. Despite being in a draft state, the guidelines are being included in contractual language as street reconstruc- tion projects are let through the city’s procurement process. Many of these changes, such as narrower lane widths, have been incorporated into these contracts for several years. Transportation Department staff explained that the department and its interagency partners have found great value in learning from other cities that are undertaking simi- lar initiatives. They suggest that the creation of Complete Streets Guidelines can provide a real opportunity to rethink public spaces and push the envelope in how the city and its

10 transportation system function in terms of safety, sustain- ability, and efficiency. For more information on Boston’s Complete Streets Guidelines, visit the initiative’s website at http://www.bos- toncompletestreets.org/index.php. Charlotte, North Carolina—Urban Street Design Guidelines Rather than repeat the elements relative to public right-of- way engineering and geometric design guidelines here, see the complete Charlotte, North Carolina, case study in chap- ter three. Minneapolis, Minnesota—Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks Rather than repeat the elements relative to public right-of- way engineering and geometric design guidelines here, the complete Minneapolis, Minnesota, case study is available in chapter three. Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines Architectural and urban design guidelines provide guid- ance or prescriptive requirements regarding the appearance, arrangement, and functionality of the built environment. They can be mandatory or elective and are typically driven by a vision to shape the built environment to achieve goals that affect the pedestrian environment both directly and indirectly. These guidelines often also include goals to sup- port economic activity and housing choices. Architectural and urban design guidelines often address the pedestrian environment through the inclusion of guid- ance on factors that affect the convenience of walking (e.g., building massing and orientation) as well as the visual appeal of those environments through guidance on building heights, setbacks, and fenestration. There is frequent emphasis on the “human-scaled” environment. The guidelines included in this synthesis incorporate goals to create sustainable, liv- able, and walkable environments through sensitive site and neighborhood designs. They appear to reflect an emerging trend of supporting active design, or design principles that encourage human active use of the built environment, by making physical activity more convenient, more appealing, and more natural. Architectural and urban design guidelines have applicability for new development and reconstruction, infill development, and retrofitting of the built environment. Amarillo, Texas—Downtown Amarillo Urban Design Standards Amarillo is the largest city in the Texas panhandle, with a population of close to 200,000 people. Located near the junc- ture of two interstate highways (I-40 and I-27), it serves as a regional economic hub (Carlson 2006). The arid, windy cli- mate is balanced with plenty of sunshine. While the region contains some hilly terrain, the city itself is relatively flat. (Carlson 2006). Amarillo experienced significant growth in the first half of the 20th century, much of which is reflected in its stock of historic architecture from this era (American Dreams Inc. 2011; Texas Almanac 2011). Amarillo City Planning Department staff explained that by early 2006, the once vibrant downtown Amarillo was tee- tering on the edge of decline. During the previous decade, investment in Amarillo had been focused along the interstate highway and in the suburban areas (City of Amarillo 2008). The Planning Department found that downtown remained an employment destination, but few people lived or spent lei- sure time there. The area’s key pedestrian corridors—Polk and 6th Streets—were not attracting shoppers or diners as they used to, and stakeholders were concerned that if some- thing were not done, the downtown area would soon become a “ghost town.” As a Planning Department staff member recalled in an interview, a small group of community leaders from the pri- vate sector partnered with several city agencies and a local nonprofit group, Center City, to form the Downtown Revi- talization Committee. The committee initiated a study to identify feasible solutions for revitalizing downtown based on existing conditions, local market analyses, and case stud- ies from other cities. The study was a catalyst for the development of a Stra- tegic Action Plan for downtown Amarillo. Beginning in September 2006, the Downtown Development Committee engaged citizens to establish a common vision for down- town’s future. The feedback gathered during large public meetings and individual stakeholder meetings served as the foundation for the Strategic Action Plan. The plan estab- lished 12 development goals—key among them was the adoption of urban design standards to facilitate the creation of a walkable, vibrant downtown. The Strategic Action Plan also called for a full-time staff person dedicated to down- town revitalization (City of Amarillo 2008). Amarillo’s local American Institute of Architects’ chapter developed the first draft of the Downtown Amarillo Urban Design Standards as a community project. The draft was then brought before a Downtown Revitalization Subcommit- tee for editing, led by the dedicated downtown revitalization staff person. The subcommittee comprised property own- ers, Center City representatives, Planning Department staff, and other stakeholders. In August 2010, the city commission adopted the design standards as a new part of the zoning code for projects in the downtown area (Downtown Ama- rillo Inc. 2011). The design standards apply to public and private development within the boundaries of the Downtown

11 For more information about the Downtown Amarillo Urban Design Standards, visit http://www.downtowna- marillo.com/development. DeKalb County, Georgia—Clifton Corridor Urban Design Guidelines The Clifton Corridor Community is an assemblage of sub- urban neighborhoods surrounding Emory University in DeKalb County, part of the core Atlanta metropolitan area (Clifton Community Partnership 2008). The suburban neighborhoods that define the corridor include Druid Hills, a historic neighborhood planned by the office of Frederick Law Olmstead in the “City Beautiful” mode around the turn of the 20th century (Clifton Community Partnership 2008). The topography of the area is moderate to hilly and streets are commonly curvilinear (Druid Hills Civic Association 2011). The climate is characterized by hot, humid summers and mild, occasionally cold winters. DeKalb is a rapidly growing county that includes a portion of the city of Atlanta and is home to approximately 700,000 residents. Emory University is a significant institution in the area in terms of the physical presence of the campus and asso- ciated facilities, and as an economic driver—staff and faculty number roughly 24,000 and the university is one of the largest employers in the metro Atlanta area (Emory University 2010). A representative from the Clifton Community Partnership (CCP) explained that the university formed the CCP, a com- munity-oriented initiative, to take a proactive role in foster- ing a healthy and collaborative relationship with the residents, businesses, and civic leaders in the surrounding communities. The framework provided by the CCP helped to create a need for a document that could address four core community desires: “1) transportation choices that offer legitimate alter- natives to single-occupancy vehicles; 2) housing that enables employees to live closer to their places of work; 3) more vibrant public activity centers; and 4) pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and outdoor spaces” (Clifton Community Part- nership 2008). A CCP representative explained that in late 2006, the CCP initiated an effort to produce urban design guidelines that would meet each of those objectives. The CCP held an iterative series of large public meetings, design charrettes, and individual meetings with key stakeholders to develop the guidelines (Clifton Community Partnership 2008). The resulting product, the Clifton Corridor Urban Design Guide- lines, provides context-sensitive guidelines that improve the built environment, with particular emphasis on the pedes- trian environment. The guidelines cover a range of public and private spaces, including properties owned by Emory University and oth- ers. The guidelines identify 10 districts within the corridor Urban Design District. In this zone, the Downtown Amarillo Design Standards prevail over the City of Amarillo Zoning Ordinance (City of Amarillo 2010). The standards are based on six principles, including promotion of a pedestrian-oriented urban form; maximiza- tion of connectivity and access; and support of downtown businesses. The standards outline specific requirements for walkway corridors, building edges, signs, the street grid, and parking. The standards reinforce the community goal of walkability by requiring wide sidewalks, pedestrian light- ing, street trees in the furnishing zone, and building practices that enhance street activity. Standardized street furnishings and bulb-outs are heavily encouraged where appropriate. The Downtown Urban Design District includes residential neighborhoods, which are important historic assets to the downtown area. The standards allow for variations within this special area to ensure appropriate preservation within the neighborhoods (City of Amarillo 2010). A Planning Department staff member explained that while downtown revitalization was overwhelmingly pop- ular in Amarillo, arriving at a consensus on mandatory design standards for the area was not an easy task. His- torically, land use regulations have focused heavily on property owner rights, making the form and language of the new design standards quite unfamiliar to stakeholders. Sustaining public participation also proved to be challeng- ing. Public participation for the Downtown Strategic Action Plan was impressive, but fewer people remained involved through the public hearing process for the Downtown Design Standards. In May 2011, a group of downtown homeowners moved to repeal the standards. Through a citywide petition effort, they succeeded in securing a bid on the local ballot. Seeing that the new standards faced a major threat, a separate group of residents mobilized in support of the standards under the name Keep Amarillo Strong. Both groups brought their positions before the city commission and campaigned heav- ily in the time leading up to the vote (Welch 2011). The battle centered on the issue of property owner rights. In the end, 70% of voters opposed the repeal (Vieth 2011). The results of the vote energized the downtown revitalization effort, but they also illustrate the need for community buy-in early in the process, across multiple stakeholder groups. A Planning Department staff member indicated that recent projects adherent to the Downtown Design Standards suggest positive outcomes and have been well received. Developers of several major projects in the downtown area recognized the market value of the design standards and voluntarily complied with the standards before they were finalized as part of the zoning code. The downtown built environment has already improved with the new streetlights, trees, and bulb-outs that were included in these projects.

12 New York City, New York—Active Design Guidelines Rather than repeat the elements relative to architectural and urban design guidelines here, see the complete New York City, New York, case study in chapter three. Los Angeles, California—Downtown Design Guide Los Angeles is the second most populous city in the United States, with 3.8 million residents. The city boundaries include 465 square miles and extend over ocean beaches, mountain ranges, and rolling hills. Downtown Los Ange- les is mostly flat. The city experiences a subtropical climate characterized by frequent sunny weather and an average of only 35 days of measurable precipitation (Weatherbase, Canty and Associates 2011). The city’s Department of Transportation formed a Pedes- trian Advisory Committee made up of public representatives (residents, property owners, or other interested parties) from each city council district, a staff member from each council district office, and a representative from each of the pub- lic agencies in the city involved in some facet of pedestrian activity (Los Angeles Department of Transportation 2011). The Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s mission is to promote a safe pedestrian environment and to encourage walking as a mode choice in Los Angeles (Los Angeles Department of Transportation 2011). That committee created a Walkability Checklist to provide nonbinding guidance to the develop- ment community on desirable pedestrian elements. In 1999, the city passed an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance for downtown Los Angeles, providing an expedited project approval process and exemptions for older and historic build- ings from zoning and building code restrictions applied to new construction (Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources 2011). A Department of City Planning staff member explained that the ordinance ushered in a period of rapid development in downtown Los Angeles. It enabled the conversion of older buildings into residential and boutique hotels. The staff mem- ber went on to explain that these developments created a sig- nificant increase in the number of people living downtown, a neighborhood that did not traditionally have a significant resi- dent population. Additionally, downtown benefited through- out the 2000s from a series of transportation improvements, including a new subway line, new light rail connections, and new regional commuter train connections. The staff member further explained that the city rec- ognized that this new activity in downtown demanded increased attention to the pedestrian environment. Automo- biles had previously been given priority in downtown. The city saw an opportunity to codify the walkability checklist by implementing design guidelines that mandated certain design elements that would foster walkability and improve the overall pedestrian environment. and, for each, describes development opportunities and design guidelines for both the public and private realms. The guidelines consistently emphasize the enhancement of the pedestrian environment through the prescription of more and wider sidewalks, raised and colored crosswalks, bulb- outs and other pedestrian-oriented infrastructure elements, traffic-calming measures, and a focus on building massing and orientation to bring the built environment closer to the street (Clifton Community Partnership 2008). The completed design guidelines are intended to provide guidance to residents, neighborhood organizations, devel- opers, and property owners in a voluntary capacity (Clif- ton Community Partnership 2008). A representative from the CCP and Emory University explained that the univer- sity will use the guidelines as it plans and designs for new developments, changes in existing buildings, as well as streetscape and other landscape initiatives. DeKalb County was an active participant in developing the guidelines. A planner with the DeKalb County Planning and Sustainabil- ity Department explained that although the county has not formally adopted the guidelines as an urban design overlay district, it does consider them as a policy document in the administrative review process. As described by the CCP representative, insofar as the final document has widespread approval and support from key stakeholders, it also provides elected officials with a road map of the kinds of improve- ments that the local community would like to see. A CCP representative involved in the development of the guidelines explained that initially, some participants, par- ticularly neighborhood groups, approached the process with skepticism, having witnessed other planning and design pro- cesses (that were not undertaken by CCP or Emory Univer- sity) pit neighbor against neighbor. However, the skepticism was ameliorated by the inclusive meeting schedule. During these public meetings, participants repeatedly got to voice their desires and concerns and then see how the guidelines incorporated those desires and concerns. A CCP representative identified several key factors in the development of the guidelines. First, he noted that the uni- versity’s involvement was essential to the guidelines’ success. Emory funded the project, and the guidelines would not likely have been developed otherwise. Second, the choice of con- sultants was instrumental. In the case of the Clifton Corridor Urban Design Guidelines, the CCP chose a consultant who was based outside of the region. This was beneficial as the consultant was able to sidestep and negotiate potentially dif- ficult relationships among several key stakeholders. The con- sultant was able to bring a fresh view to the table and avoid the perception that the CCP was beholden to various interests. For more information, view the Clifton Corridor Urban Design Guidelines at http://cliftoncommunitypartnership. org/learn/urban_design_guidelines.html.

13 The local consultant hired to assist in the preparation of the guide found that the existing conditions were not well understood. The consultant sought assistance from local college and university students and undertook an unprece- dented data-gathering effort to document widths from build- ing edge to curb edge, curb to curb, and travel lanes for every block in downtown and every block segment where widths changed within the block. Understanding these dimensions was critical for determining what designs would be possible and appropriate. A staff member explained that downtown streets had been classified for major or secondary highway standards. When the design guideline team reviewed the existing conditions, they found that many of the street classifications did not make sense, as they were discontinuous or were constrained by historic buildings or tunnels. On a block-by-block basis, the team reclassified all of the downtown streets and created new standards that included new minimum sidewalk widths that range from 15 in. to 24 in. The development of the Downtown Design Guide was conducted under the review of agencies and stakeholders. A city planning staff member involved in the process explained that it was essential to the success of the project that each of the agencies that participated—the Department of City Planning, the Department of Transportation, the Commu- nity Redevelopment Agency, and Department of Public Works (bureaus of engineering, street services, and street lighting), and had high-level representatives with decision- making abilities. The process was conducted through an ad hoc Downtown Street Standards Committee. The staff member went on to explain that participation was encouraged in part by the fact that each of the play- ers knew that they would receive a useful product for their agency from this process. The Department of Transporta- tion received a complete network plan with striping sections for all of downtown; the Bureau of Engineering received workable street standards without the many inconsistencies on existing standards, and the Community Redevelopment Agency received clear guidance on what is required to build a development. All of these products were also uploaded to a website (www.navigateLA.com) and are available to the public and the development community so that a developer can look at a specific street segment and know exactly what is required to develop an adjacent site. While the design guidelines were in a draft state, the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Department of City Planning began applying the guidelines. This period allowed for testing or piloting of the guide so that the new standards could be adapted and refined prior to their formal adoption. This helped to produce a strong, workable docu- ment that accomplished its intended goals and minimized unintended difficulties. Overall, the Downtown Design Guide has been well received. The most significant pushback has come from developers on a single issue. The design guide prevents new curb cuts and recommends driveway egress either on side streets or in alleyways. The Department of City Planning has held firm on this requirement despite complaints from devel- opers. The guide has also been well received by elected offi- cials, the general public, and other departments and agencies and is being implemented successfully. More information on the Downtown Design Guide can be viewed at http://www. urbandesignla.com/downtown_guidelines.htm. Planning and Land Development Regulations Practices that aim to create safe pedestrian environments through planning and land development regulations do so by encouraging land development factors that make walking more convenient and accessible while restricting those that do not. Frequently, these regulations address issues such as land use mixes, density, and street or pedestrian facility con- nectivity. These regulations manifest in myriad forms with varying goals. They can restrict the form and style of new development or regulate infill growth and redevelopment. Planning and land development regulations are typically oriented to the neighborhood scale or higher and seek to pro- vide an underlying order to the greater built environment. It should be noted that land development regulations and land use plans change over time. Therefore, these regulations and plans may not reflect existing on-the-ground conditions. Arlington County, Virginia—Columbia Pike Form Based Code Arlington is a 26-square-mile urban county located across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. It is home to more than 200,000 residents and is relatively densely populated, with 7,323 persons per square mile. Climate varies season- ally, with relatively cold winters and hot, humid summers (The Weather Channel 2011a). A Planner with Arlington’s Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (DCPHD) explained that the county has experienced significant development in the past three decades. Although most areas of the county modernized during this period, the auto-friendly Columbia Pike corridor remained largely unchanged. Until recently, the area was characterized by older apartment buildings and single-story commercial centers set back from the road by parking lots. In an interview, the DCPHD planner explained that dur- ing the late 1990s and early 2000s, residents began pressur- ing elected officials to revitalize “the Pike.” Through public design charrettes and planning exercises, the community arrived at a vision for the Columbia Pike corridor. One key objective of that vision was to transform the Pike into an

14 A planner with DCPHD explained that interagency coordination was also an issue early in the process. When redevelopment efforts began, Columbia Pike was a state- controlled road, subject to state-level project approval proce- dures. Coordinating a local redevelopment effort through the state approval process proved challenging, and the county successfully petitioned to obtain control over the road. Several key elements contributed to the successful imple- mentation of the Columbia Pike Form Based Code. The first was a foundation of community and political support for the change. In the absence of a mandatory code, the DCPHD considered meaningful development incentives, such as lower fees and faster approval processes for code-compli- ant buildings, essential. A review checklist that matches proposed projects against key elements of the code and the community values it represents has been a useful aid in accelerating project approvals. The DCPHD did not have the opportunity to apply the code to test projects before it was fully approved, but planners involved in the process thought that it would have been helpful to do so. In lieu of such test- ing, the DCPHD has committed to maintaining an ongoing list of modifications to consider and has made technical tweaks and clarifications as necessary. Some community members have expressed frustration with the amendment process; opponents sometimes point to the need for amend- ments as evidence that the code is not working. The Columbia Pike Form Based Code and the corridor revitalization effort it supports are part of a larger county- wide commitment to consider multiple modes of transpor- tation in all planning efforts. The county has implemented a highly visible pedestrian program called WALKArling- ton, and was recently awarded Gold Level status as a Walk Friendly Community by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Infor- mation Center. The FHWA sponsors this national recogni- tion initiative. Arlington was recognized for its exceptional pedestrian advocacy efforts, transit-oriented planning, and well-conceived pedestrian plan (Arlington County 2011; Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 2011). For more information about the Columbia Pike Form Based Code, or to view the Code, visit http://www.arlingtonva.us/depart- ments/CPHD/forums/columbia/CPHDForumsColumbia- ColumbiaPikeInitiativeMain.aspx. Boise, Idaho—Subdivision Ordinance Boise, the capital of Idaho and the Ada County seat, is the third largest city in the Pacific Northwest, with a population around 200,000 and a metropolitan area population roughly three times that. The city is approximately 64 square miles with a population density of 2,913 people per square mile. It is characterized by relatively flat topography that descends slightly to the west. The city is oriented along the Boise River and is bound on the northeast by rapidly rising foot- hills. Boise has a semiarid climate and experiences four dis- attractive “Main Street” with mixed-use buildings and Com- plete Street features. The DCPHD felt that the Columbia Pike Form Based Code was an essential tool in transforming the corridor. As described by a DCPHD planner familiar with the development of the code, it is intended to foster a pedestrian- friendly infill development pattern according to New Urban- ism principles. While the code is not mandatory, it does provide a number of significant development incentives. Developers who choose to use the Form Based Code can expect expedited project approvals and lower development fees. The code also allows for the construction of mixed-use buildings in commercially zoned areas. The Form Based Code was generally supported through- out the community. Residents were the first to call for change, and they actively supported the political figures who shared their vision for a vibrant, walkable corridor. The DCPHD worked with an experienced consultant team to create and implement the code. At the same time, other county departments moved forward with projects that sup- ported the values of the code and facilitated redevelopment in the corridor. The Arlington County Department of Trans- portation undertook major bus service improvements along the corridor, while county-funded capital projects included burying overhead utility lines, planting street trees, upgrad- ing bus shelters, and adding street lights. Efforts have also been made to narrow travel lanes, implement countdown crosswalk signals, and increase driver awareness of pedes- trian safety issues countywide. A DCPHD planner felt that the successful coordination of these efforts ensured that the Columbia Pike Form Based Code remained an effective and timely tool for spurring pedestrian-friendly development along the corridor. The code has been in place since 2003, and general percep- tions have been positive. The code appears to be a success- ful tool for attracting and incentivizing infill development. According to a DCPHD planner, eight large private projects have been initiated in the corridor since the code was adopted, including more than 1,000 new housing units, several offices, and numerous retail projects. These projects incorporate building placement at the sidewalk line, street trees, and other New Urbanism principles fostering pedestrian-friendly envi- ronments. The DCPHD feels that because members of the public were heavily involved in developing the code early on, the approval process for code compliant projects has proven to be relatively easy for developers as well. Despite the strong base of community support, the DCPHD has experienced a number of challenges in imple- menting the code. The Pike has been developed for more than 200 years and right-of-way lines and property owner- ship often vary between lots, increasing the logistical chal- lenges of redevelopment.

15 are not explicitly forbidden and have been built. However, the city has used its ordinance to compel subdivision developers to create micro-paths on easements to create pedestrian con- nections for otherwise inaccessible cul-de-sacs. The subdivision review analyst interviewed for this research believes that these micro-path requirements have been well received by local communities. He explained that the requirements have been in place for so long that they are simply a fact of life in Boise and are rarely if ever the subject of protest from neighbors, schools, or other property own- ers that abut these paths. The development community does occasionally voice frustration that the micro-paths increase the costs of development, but the city council has not bowed to opposition. Some developers recognize that the micro- paths offer an amenity that local residents value and use. There is a vibrant pedestrian and cyclist culture in Boise, and these paths are generally well used. Additional opposition to the micro-paths has come from the Boise Police Department with the notion that these pathways create opportunities for violent and petty crime because they are not accessible to vehicles and may have limited visibility. However, these concerns have not been borne out. The subdivision ordinance does stipulate that these micro-paths must be well lit and not overly curvilinear so that pedestrians have an unobstructed view from one end of the path to the other. The paths must also be flanked by “see-through” fencing such as chain link or wrought iron, or by short solid fencing (City of Boise 2011). The concerns of the police have been ameliorated through regular formal and informal relationships between the Police Department and the Planning Department and City Council. The city is currently rewriting its comprehensive plan, which will feature a unified code that includes both the zon- ing and subdivision ordinances in a single document. In this comprehensive plan rewrite, the city is considering including new regulations and performance measures to track whether the subdivision ordinance is having the desired impact. Some of the measures up for consideration include a connec- tivity index, tracking and requiring shorter block lengths, increased mixed-use zoning, and encouraging alleyways. Boise’s pedestrian culture is reflected in the City Council. The council has been a proponent of smart growth principles and has generally favored pro-pedestrian policies, includ- ing sponsorship of a robust Safe Routes to School Program. Boise’s Subdivision Ordinance can be viewed at http://www. cityofboise.org/Departments/City_Clerk/PDF/CityCode/ Title9/0920.pdf. Miami, Florida—Miami 21 Miami is one of the largest cities in the southeastern United States. It boasts a tropical climate with an average annual tinct seasons: mild springs and falls, cold winters with little snowfall, and hot, dry summers. The Idaho Land Use Act of 1975, which is the state’s zon- ing enabling act, required that all cities and counties develop and adopt a comprehensive plan intended to guide land use regulation. Two required components of the comprehensive plan are a zoning ordinance and a subdivision ordinance to regulate the size, use, density, and other characteristics of development projects. A subdivision review analyst with the city of Boise explained that around this same time, the sepa- rate Street Departments of all the cities and towns in Ada County were consolidated into the Ada County Highway District. The Highway District maintains jurisdiction over all existing and proposed rights of way. Its purview includes review of design and construction requirements that over- lap with Boise’s subdivision regulations. This means that any proposed development that includes new right-of-way or construction of new sidewalks must be reviewed and approved by the highway district as well as the city of Boise. From early in the development of the subdivision ordi- nance, the city included pedestrian-friendly elements. This early lead on pedestrian issues has encouraged the use of Boise’s Subdivision Ordinance as a model ordinance for pedestrian land use regulations elsewhere in the coun- try (Central Savannah River Area Regional Development Center n.d.). The ordinance includes connectivity require- ments—and the city does not view cul-de-sacs favorably (City of Boise 2011). Any new street that ends with a stub or dead end must be clearly signed to notify homeowners that if and when the adjoining parcel is developed, the stub street will continue through and connect to that development (City of Boise 2011). In terms of connectivity, the ordinance places pedestrians on equal footing with motor vehicles. It requires that “street patterns in residential neighborhoods shall be designed for the needs of the bicyclist, pedestrian, and motor vehicle alike” (City of Boise 2011). In addition to requirements of sidewalks on both sides of any new street, it requires that a circulation plan be designed to “incorporate and tie into existing or proposed pathways….” (City of Boise 2011). The ordinance includes substantial requirements for pedes- trian connectivity through what it terms “micro-paths,” or short pedestrian paths used to connect other pedestrian facili- ties or generators. It requires the creation and maintenance of micro-paths to provide access to adjacent schools, parks, substantial pedestrian or multiuse pathways, neighborhoods, shopping areas, public lands, transportation or other com- munity facilities, public and private vacant parcels that could provide future connections to other sites, and “where streets do not provide convenient means of access for circulation within an area” (City of Boise 2011). Though the city prefers not to approve subdivision plans that include cul-de-sacs, they

16 temperature of 75.9°F (Climate Zone 2011). Miami is quite flat—most neighborhoods in the city have elevations close to sea level—and it is also densely populated, with roughly 400,000 people within its 35 square miles of land area. Most Miami residents travel by car—79.8% of employed residents report traveling to work in a car, truck, or van. While the city boasts historic architecture in some neighborhoods, it has also experienced a major development boom and significant urban sprawl in the past 10 years. After five years of planning and development, the city of Miami officially implemented a new, form-based zoning code in May 2010 (City of Miami 2011b). The code, called Miami 21, is guided by the principles of New Urbanism and Smart Growth (City of Miami 2011a). As a staff member with the city’s Planning Department explained, it is meant to represent the community’s vision for the “Miami of the 21st Century”—a city with well-balanced development, a high quality of life, and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Miami 21 represents a marked break with the city’s for- mer code. It calls for mixed-use development, concealed parking, and ground-level activity. The plan’s guiding prin- ciples favor infill growth, with new development at transit nodes to avoid sprawling, corridor-focused development. Thoroughfares are to be designed with pedestrian-friendly sidewalk widths, tree plantings, and street furniture place- ments. Miami 21 also carefully addresses the treatment of car entrances, pedestrian entrances, and parking lots to pro- mote human-scale development and walkable environments (City of Miami 2011c). Miami’s previous ordinance, created in the 1980s dur- ing a development lull, included significant development incentives. Subsequently, Miami experienced a develop- ment boom in the 1990s and early 2000s, and the impacts of the code became apparent. Large as-of-right developments were built across the city with limited planning review or public notice and little regard for neighborhood context, traffic, or walkability. The city’s Planning Department staff felt frustrated by the fact that the code lacked the planning review requirements that would allow the agency to address these issues. It was clear to Planning Department staff that a revised code that better protected quality of life and bal- anced development needs with those of other stakeholders would be beneficial. Miami 21 emerged as a way to com- pletely reexamine the city’s development priorities. A Planning Department staff member who was involved in the development of code described how the creation of Miami 21 required significant cooperation among stakeholders and government agencies. The new code was a key piece of for- mer Mayor Manny Diaz’s agenda, and the mayor served as a vital political champion for the project. Miami’s Planning Department worked closely with the Zoning Department and the Building Department, continuing an established and strong working relationship. The consultant team, led by the firm Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, brought a strong background in smart code principles to the table, and a local land use attorney provided strategic legal advice. The well- balanced skill set of these key players was an essential part of the Miami 21 planning and development process. However, there were several significant challenges in developing and implementing the radical changes to the Miami 21 zoning code. The largest hurdle was overcoming general resistance to change from stakeholder groups, includ- ing land use attorneys, developers, and property owners. To surmount this challenge, the Planning Department undertook a comprehensive public involvement campaign to educate Miami residents about the goals of Miami 21 and communi- cate the benefits of the proposed changes. The effort included direct mailings to property owners and more than 500 meet- ings over the 5-year planning process. The department lever- aged social media tools, bus shelter ads, street banners, flyers, and advertisements. Strategic partnerships with neighbor- hood groups and a coalition of homeowners’ associations strengthened the effort. Information was also disseminated through Miami’s 13 Neighborhood Enhancement Teams— a network of municipal service centers throughout the city. The code was developed in an iterative fashion that included amendments based on stakeholder feedback. These outreach and education efforts were largely effective in garnering sup- port for Miami 21 from a wide array of stakeholders, includ- ing many who originally presented opposition. Legal obstacles posed another challenge. Under Florida’s Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act, prop- erty owners who can demonstrate that a government action “inordinately burdens” their property are entitled to some form of compensation (Florida Senate 2011). The Planning Department sought legal counsel to ensure that the code did not place inordinate burdens on property owners in the city. The final significant hurdle related to nonconformities. Because Miami 21 was so different from the previous zon- ing code, planners in the Planning Department saw that its implementation would leave many existing structures non- conformant. The Planning Department emphasized noncon- formity issues to ensure a smooth transition to the new code. From the Planning Department’s perspective, Miami 21’s pedestrian environment enhancements were not contentious. There was widespread acceptance of the benefits of walkable neighborhoods and more pleasant pedestrian spaces. Proj- ects in midtown and on Biscayne Boulevard incorporated these pedestrian enhancements and were initiated before Miami 21 was formally adopted, as developers recognized the demand for these kinds of improvements. The lessons learned from the Miami 21 planning and implementation processes are likely applicable to commu-

17 nities of all sizes. The support of a political champion was vital. A clear public outreach plan with multiple communi- cations platforms also proved a valuable tool for garnering community support. Securing early buy-in from key profes- sional groups, such as the American Institute of Architects, also would have helped immensely. Internally, the agency found it essential to have an implementation-focused proj- ect team member—someone who could continually exam- ine the real-world application of all code elements. Seeking departmental staff feedback early in the planning process can also greatly improve the code development process and strengthen internal support. Miami 21 is relatively new, and the full impact of the code remains to be seen. Most projects submitted for design review conform to the code and include pedestrian-friendly elements. The Planning Department staff has also found that developers’ general perception is that Miami 21 is simpler than the previous code and that it incorporates good design principles. The planning community widely regards the code as a success, and Miami 21 received the 2011 American Planning Association’s National Planning Award of Excel- lence for Best Practice (City of Miami 2011b). Nonetheless, the Planning Department considers Miami 21 to be a living document. As implementation progresses, necessary amend- ments will continue to be made to accommodate input from developers, architects, and members of the public. For more information on Miami 21 and to view the code, visit www. miami21.org. Financing Mechanisms The primary goal of financing mechanisms that support the creation of safe pedestrian environments is to fund pedestrian-related projects. These mechanisms aim to either generate funding sources or carve out portions of exist- ing funding streams for pedestrian programs and projects. Municipalities have developed a wide array of strategies to fund pedestrian improvements, including dedicated funds from local, state, and federal sources; developer contribu- tions and impact fees; and tax increment financing. Some of the successful practices discussed in this report involve the creative adaptation of pedestrian programs to enable the use of funds not specifically directed toward pedestrian uses. Ann Arbor, Michigan—Dedication of State Funds for Nonmotorized Projects Ann Arbor, roughly 35 miles west of Detroit in southern Michigan, is home to the University of Michigan and has a population around 114,000. Hills and valleys define Ann Arbor’s topography, with the most significant elevation changes occurring close to the Huron River, which flows southeast through the city. The city boasts significant tree populations in its parks and on its streets (City of Ann Arbor 2010). The climate, like much of the upper Midwest, is humid continental with influence from the Great Lakes. The winters are cold with moderate to heavy snowfall; summers are warm and humid, while springs and falls are short and mild. In the state of Michigan, Public Act 51 of 1951, referred to as “Act 51,” governs state appropriations for transportation programs. The act generates funds through motor fuel and vehicle registration taxes and designates that revenue primar- ily to three recipients: the State Trunkline Fund for construc- tion and maintenance of the state trunkline roads and bridges; the Comprehensive Transportation Fund, for capital and oper- ating assistance to public transportation programs; and local road agencies. In fiscal year 2006–2007, state transportation revenue was around $2.25 billion (close to 65% of the state’s transportation budget, with the vast majority of the remainder coming from federal funds), about half of which was gener- ated by the state’s 19-cent per gallon gasoline tax (Hamilton 2007). Act 51’s distribution formula distributes roughly 60% of state funds to county road commissions, cities, and vil- lages for the construction and maintenance of roads under their jurisdiction (Hamilton 2007). Section 10k of Act 51 stipulates that not less than 1% of the funds distributed to the local road agencies will be spent on nonmotorized transporta- tion services or facilities. This source is the primary funding stream for pedestrian and bicycle projects and services across the state (Hamilton 2007). As a senior staff member of the city’s Systems Planning Department explained, the population of Ann Arbor histori- cally has favored progressive policies. The city began under- taking bicycle and pedestrian planning in the late 1960s. This tradition carried through the 1980s, as the city rejected prin- ciples of constant roadway expansion and instead embraced Transportation Systems Management principles and sought to manage its existing assets by undertaking projects such as traffic signal modernization. In the early 2000s, advocates and the general community began to push the City Council to increase efforts to build on its assets and improve the environment for all nonmotorized users. Building on this public support, the mayor, John Hief- tje, introduced resolution R-216-5-04 to the City Council and argued that since the city was not building new roads, those funds could be reallocated to nonmotorized projects. There was widespread public support, and the City Council passed the resolution handily. The resolution goes above the state- mandated 1% minimum requirement and dedicates 5% of Act 51 funds received by the city annually for nonmotorized trans- portation uses. As of 2011, Ann Arbor is the only municipality in Michigan that is formally committed to spending more than the state minimum on nonmotorized transportation initiatives. This push from the public also manifested itself in other resolutions aimed at improving the nonmotorized environ- ment. Another resolution requires the city to accommodate nonmotorized users in any street reconstruction project at the

18 expense of the project or the city’s general fund, as appropri- ate. The city also created a transportation program manager position responsible for overseeing nonmotorized transporta- tion projects. These projects have included amenity improve- ments such as sidewalk furniture and wayfinding signage, sidewalk construction (the city currently boasts sidewalks on both sides of the street on 98% of its arterials and 82% of nonarterials), and crossing improvements (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 2011). These crossing improve- ments include in-road stop/yield signs, midblock crossings, creation of a crossing location prioritization scheme, and regular maintenance of existing crosswalks. The city has also undertaken an array of traffic-calming initiatives through a neighborhood-based program that has resulted in the installa- tion of speed humps, traffic circles, raised intersections, and road diets (City of Ann Arbor 2009). The senior staff member interviewed credited the pas- sage and success of resolution R-216-5-04 to the strong sup- port and leadership of the mayor and City Council, and to the “spirit of the community,” which has a long tradition of grassroots support for pro-walking policies. This support can be seen at public meetings and through community out- reach processes undertaken for different initiatives, as well as through e-mails and phone calls received by city officials. Opposition to pedestrian improvements does occur occa- sionally, but primarily on the project level, where a neighbor may have issues with a particular aspect of an improvement. From a policy perspective, there has not been any significant opposition to the emphasis placed on nonmotorized projects. As Ann Arbor increased its funding and emphasis on non- motorized transportation projects, there was some reluctance on the part of some of the city’s staff who had previously focused on conventional traffic engineering projects and solu- tions. The new transportation program manager, with a newly adopted Nonmotorized Plan and a high level of public policy and political support, was able to achieve institutional buy-in within the city departments. After several progressive pedes- trian projects had been implemented, all staff was able see the benefits of the program in the data—that safety improved and congestion did not worsen. National pedestrian advocacy and information resources such as the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center were also helpful in sharing information about what has worked elsewhere around the country and advocating for nonmotorized funding on the national level. For more information on R-216-5-04, nonmotorized transpor- tation funding, and planning in Ann Arbor, see Ann Arbor’s Nonmotorized Transportation Plan at http://www.a2gov.org/ government/publicservices/systems_planning/Transporta- tion/Documents/Non-MotorizedPlan_Jan2007.pdf. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—Project 180 Oklahoma City is the capital of Oklahoma and lies roughly 200 miles north of the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area. Oklahoma City has a relatively large land area of roughly 620 square miles. This area is composed of 244 square miles of urbanized areas and an additional 377 square miles of rural areas. The city has a population density of 833 people per square mile, with a population around 575,000. The climate is notably hot and humid in the summer, cold through the win- ter, and prone to frequent weather changes on a daily basis. From midspring through late summer, the city experiences a severe weather season that can include frequent tornadoes. In 2008, a study by Prevention Magazine and the Ameri- can Podiatric Medical Association listed Oklahoma City dead last on a list of 500 cities in terms of walkability (Over- all 2008). At the time, downtown streets were primarily mul- tilane one-ways, featuring excessively long turning lanes. The road conditions enabled or even encouraged drivers to travel at near-highway speeds. The pedestrian environment left a great deal to be desired. Street trees were few, blocks were long, and little street furniture existed (Speck 2011). The city has since responded with an effort to improve the pedestrian environment in the downtown area with several large-scale public projects and infrastructure upgrades that have collectively become known as Project 180. In an interview for this report, a former city engineer familiar with the development and implementation of Project 180 described how the city had been working on a Streetscape Master Plan that included downtown design guidelines aimed at making the downtown a more pedes- trian-friendly, Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant, walkable environment. The existing conditions not only caused an inconvenience for those who wished to walk but also served as a barrier to those with restricted mobility. The city staff truly considered the existing conditions to be a plight in need of remedy. In addition to the Streetscape Master Planning efforts, the mayor, Mick Cornett, also com- missioned a walkability study that resulted in recommenda- tions for converting streets to two-way flow, reducing travel lane widths, increasing angle parking and bike lanes to absorb the extra capacity, as well as planting trees along streets. Independent of those efforts, the state of Oklahoma initi- ated a project to remove an elevated portion of Interstate 40 that runs through downtown and reconstruct it five blocks away on the periphery of the central business district. That project would create the opportunity for an urban boulevard in place of the highway and open an additional seven blocks to development that had previously been cut off from the central business district (Oklahoma City 2011). Although this project is not directly part of the Project 180 effort, the new space created by this project brought with it an opportu- nity for change and development. Simultaneously, Devon Energy Corporation, which is headquartered in Oklahoma City, decided to pursue the con-

19 struction of a new consolidated corporate headquarters tower in the central business district. Devon’s CEO, Larry Nichols, an Oklahoma City native and hometown booster, was deter- mined to use this development as a tool to enable streetscape and walkability improvements, and raise the image and mar- ketability of downtown Oklahoma City (Speck 2011). Devon entered a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement with the city that made available $95 million in TIF funding for downtown public works improvements, thus enabling Proj- ect 180. The TIF agreement included the unusual proviso that Devon would be the sole holder of the TIF bonds. In effect, Devon is lending the city the upfront cash necessary to make the streetscape improvements, while that loan will be repaid through annual ad valorum taxes that would come due once the new headquarters is built (Speck 2011). Oklahoma City complemented the funds available through the TIF agreement with additional General Obli- gation Bond funds that had been designated for downtown improvements, and funds available through the Utility and Water Trust, to produce a massive infusion of cash that has enabled the implementation of Project 180 more quickly than is often feasible with similar initiatives. This is one of the greatest successes of the project—its rapid implementation. The project was conceived in 2008. Three years later, sub- stantial portions of the 180-acre project are complete and additional work continues. The project and its aggressive implementation schedule are possible only because of the massive upfront funding. In terms of financing, the city faced few difficulties. The city has experience with TIF agreements; the Devon tower is the eighth TIF district in Oklahoma City. The Devon agree- ment did not require rewriting of any code or amending of the TIF enabling legislation. The TIF required an agreement between Devon and the city, as all TIFs in the city do. The unique size and details of the TIF agreement were negotiated between city and Devon in a conventional fashion. The project has been extremely well received by the gen- eral public and garnered positive media coverage (Lack- meyer et al. 2009). Initially, there was some opposition from residents who lived in other sections of the sprawling city. However, the city made it clear that the funds for this proj- ect were not being spent at the expense of these other areas. These funds would not have been available if they were not spent on Project 180. Project 180 demonstrates how a large cash supply can rapidly improve the pedestrian environment. However, not every town and city has a committed benefactor with equally deep pockets. Absent that, the city could have undertaken these improvements through a more modest phased approach with smaller, more conventional TIFs. For more information on Project 180, visit the project’s website at http://www.okc. gov/project180/. Olympia, Washington—Parks and Sidewalks Funding Measure Rather than repeat the elements relative to financing mech- anisms here, see the Olympia, Washington, case study in chapter three. Salisbury, North Carolina—Sidewalk Program Salisbury is a small city in rural Rowan County. The town features a historic downtown surrounded by residential development. Much of the town’s street network is gridded into approximately 450’ squares. This grid is neither pre- cise nor completely regular. The topography of the town is gentle, varying from flat to mild rolling slopes. The climate is defined as humid subtropical, with mild winters and warm and humid summers. Spring and fall are long and mild. The population of the city is a little over 30,000. The city of Salisbury has adopted a Land Development Ordinance (LDO) that requires developers to construct side- walks along both sides of any new street, and along any street frontage on existing streets that lack a sidewalk, including infill developments. The requirement applies to any pro- posed subdivision or new development. The LDO includes a Sidewalk Payment In Lieu Program wherein developers can opt to pay a fee toward construction of sidewalks else- where in the city rather than construct the sidewalk along the new development. A Sidewalk Priority Index is used to identify priority sidewalk projects for In Lieu Fee alloca- tion and offer developers a discount on the In Lieu Fee if the proposed development occurs on a low- or medium-priority street segment (City of Salisbury 2007). The Sidewalk Priority Index is calculated for all street segments in the city and is tabulated by adding points based on the street’s proximity to various trip generators and other characteristics, including other nearby sidewalk segments. If a development is to occur on a low-priority segment, the developer has the option of building the sidewalk or paying the In Lieu Fee with a 75% discount. On medium-priority street segments, the discount is 50%. On high-priority street segments, no discount is offered. The In Lieu Fee is updated yearly and is based on actual construction costs, including design fees, labor, and concrete costs. A senior planner with the city interviewed for this research explained that the cur- rent fee is $22 per linear foot. The senior planner, familiar with the LDO, explained that in the mid-2000s the city began an incremental process toward developing the existing sidewalk ordinance. Origi- nally, the requirement was applied only to construction on new streets. The city’s Long-Range Plan, Salisbury Vision 2020, was approved in 2008 and encourages walkability and the creation of a seamless network of sidewalks throughout the city (City of Salisbury 2011). In drafting an LDO that cod-

20 ified the vision contained in the city’s comprehensive plan, the Planning Board recognized that the vision of a continuous, seamless network of sidewalks could not be achieved with new construction alone and sought to require the construction of sidewalks for all developments in all locations. This proposition was immediately met with opposition from the development community. Developers complained to the City Council that the requirement was unfair and would produce undesirable impacts. They argued that the additional cost would discourage economic development and force the construction of sidewalks in locations where they felt pedestrian activity should be discouraged, such as industrial parks (Wineka 2009). The City Council directed the Planning Board to address these concerns. Rather than create a system of variances for the requirement, the Planning Board remained committed to the vision and policies delineated in the comprehensive plan, and sought a compromise through the LDO Committee (LDOC), an advisory committee formed to provide input on the formation of the LDO. The LDOC included participation from the Planning Board, City Council, and the develop- ment community, as well as property owners and neighbor- hood advocates. The LDOC was formed at the onset of the LDO drafting process and provided review and comments on each chapter of the LDO. This process contributed to a lengthy drafting process—approximately 4 years—but resulted in a strong LDO that had significant support from key stakeholders. The development community has largely been support- ive of the sidewalk program. However, there has been some pushback from owners of individual properties who feel that the burden placed on them is unfair. These landowners explain that for an individual, the cost can be quite signifi- cant, especially if theirs is a corner lot with two street front- ages. Otherwise, the program has been well received, and the local community is supportive of the new sidewalks. Although the city of Salisbury does track the linear foot- age of new sidewalks built each year, it does not specifically break out the footage that was funded through the side- walk program. A key benefit of the program is that even in instances where developers do not opt to build sidewalks, the sidewalk construction fund grows. The Planning Depart- ment considers the program a success on both counts—more sidewalks are being built and the city has more funds to direct toward priority sidewalk projects. Another added ben- efit of the Sidewalk Priority Index is that the city has used its scoring scheme to demonstrate a need in response to a call for federally funded pedestrian projects. A senior planner with the city’s Planning Department has cited several keys to the success of the program. In the case of the LDO, the process of reviewing LDO chapters with the LDOC, though time-consuming, was worth the effort because it produced an ordinance that had strong support from key stakeholders—politicians, the planning depart- ment, residents, and the development community. However, the success of the process also relied on political consis- tency. Though the LDO drafting process spanned three election cycles, the City Council members involved in the LDO process remained the same throughout. The In Lieu Fee discount was also essential to the success of the ordi- nance. Without this “release valve,” the ordinance would have been unacceptable to the development community and thus unpassable. For more information on Salisbury’s Land Development Ordinance and Sidewalk Program, visit http:// www.ci.salisbury.nc.us. San Diego County, California—TransNet San Diego County encompasses 19 jurisdictions at the southwestern tip of California. Jurisdictions on the coast of the county are known for their beaches. Those on the eastern side tend to have hilly terrain. The population of San Diego County is just over three million people, with a population density of almost 700 people per square mile. The major- ity of residents (86.9%) travel to work by car, truck, or van. Just over 3% walk to work, and just over 3% rely on public transportation. For several decades, San Diego’s regional transportation network has benefited from a half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects called TransNet. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the regional trans- portation planning agency for San Diego County, adminis- ters the TransNet program (SANDAG 2011). Voters approved the first version of TransNet in 1988 with a simple majority vote. The measure distributed funds in equal thirds for highway, transit, and local road proj- ects. One million dollars was allocated annually to bicycle paths and facilities (SANDAG, 2006). Although the origi- nal TransNet measure funded a number of Walkable Com- munity Demonstration Projects, an associate planner with SANDAG explained that it lacked any dedicated funds for pedestrian improvements. The original 20-year TransNet program was set to expire in 2008. Because of changes in the California legislative pro- cess, any extension of TransNet would require a two-thirds majority vote. Hoping that high voter turnout would increase the chances of securing the two-thirds approval, SANDAG initiated an effort to put the extension measure before voters in November 2004. As a first step, SANDAG developed a plan for the TransNet extension measure that again evenly divided the majority of TransNet revenue among transit, highways, and local roads. Advocates from two local organizations, WALKSanDiego

21 leaders, including the opposing county supervisors (Marks 2004b). However, TransNet received strong support from several key environmental groups, active transportation advocates, and mayors from jurisdictions throughout the county (Marks 2004b; Ristine 2004; research interview). Supporters organized a formal yes-on-A campaign under the name San Diegans for Congestion Relief and campaigned hard in support of the measure (Ristine 2004). In Novem- ber, just over 67% of San Diego County voters approved the 40-year extension of TransNet (SANDAG 2006). In 2008, SANDAG expanded TransNet’s impact on the pedestrian environment by adopting a routine accommo- dation policy mandating the appropriate consideration of bicycles and pedestrians in all new roadway projects funded by TransNet. While the reliability of a dedicated funding source and a routine accommodation policy have facilitated improve- ments to the pedestrian environment in San Diego County, some implementation challenges remain. Pedestrian plan- ning is a relatively new concept to many local jurisdictions in the region. SANDAG has employed a number of strategies to ensure that TransNet funds are directed to high-quality projects that align with the region’s active transportation goals. One major step was revising the TransNet pedestrian project evaluation criteria to measure a project’s compliance with SANDAG’s Planning and Designing for Pedestrians guidebook. SANDAG has initiated educational workshops and technical assistance opportunities for local planners and engineers and provides an implementation assistance tool in the form of a matrix titled “Appropriate Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Measures.” This matrix pro- vides design and implementation guidance for transporta- tion facilities and land use contexts. A comprehensive approach that combines various tools has been essential to SANDAG’s success in leveraging the TransNet program to enhance the pedestrian environment. For example, TransNet’s Bike, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program works as a direct complement to the Smart Growth Incentive Program; these funding programs share many overarching goals related to walkability, and funds from both programs have contributed to pedestrian improve- ment projects. SANDAG has found that this holistic view allows for greater flexibility and productivity. The agency is currently engaged in an effort to evaluate the impact of the various tools at work in pedestrian planning and project implementation, particularly the routine accommodations policy for pedestrians and cyclists. For more information about the TransNet program, visit http://www.sandag.org/. Operations, Maintenance, and Enforcement Practices that promote safe pedestrian environments through operations, maintenance, and enforcement measures vary and the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, joined in the planning process, recognizing the TransNet extension effort as an opportunity to secure additional resources for active transportation (Conaughton 2004). The advocates called for more funding for alternative modes of transportation and broader funding guidelines, including provisions for pedes- trian projects, planning activities, and traffic-calming mea- sures (Conaughton 2004). An associate planner with SANDAG explained that while SANDAG’s plan for the TransNet extension measure maintained funding ratios similar to the original version of TransNet, it also included several new elements. Active transportation advocates succeeded in securing a 2% allo- cation of funds for bicycle paths and facilities, pedestrian improvements, and neighborhood safety projects through the TransNet Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program (SANDAG 2006). This dedicated allotment put the TransNet extension measure on track to increase funding for active transportation to nearly $5 million per year. Another 2% of the funds was dedicated to a new Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP). The goal of the SGIP was to strengthen the link between land use and transportation by funding projects and planning activities that focused on compact, mixed-use development and increased transporta- tion choices. Finally, the extension created the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee to monitor the spending of TransNet funds (SANDAG 2006). Leading up to the extension vote, regional leaders and planners debated the future of TransNet. Balancing the immediate needs of automobile users with the long-term regional comprehensive plan goals of multimodal planning and smart growth proved to be a significant challenge. During the spring of 2004, a debate arose regarding SAN- DAG’s plan for funding allocations for transit, roads, and highways. Three of the five members of San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors voted to oppose SANDAG’s version of the proposed extension measure, stating that it devoted too much funding to mass transit (Conaughton 2004). SANDAG officials maintained that their proposal was well balanced, and stated that shifting money away from transit would alienate the large portion of county residents who support public transportation, threatening TransNet’s success in November (Marks 2004a). The chairman of SANDAG’s Board of Directors met several times with the supervisor most vocally opposed to the plan, but a compromise could not be reached before the deadline to make changes to the measure arrived (Marks 2004a). By late summer 2004, the campaign began to educate vot- ers and win approval for the TransNet extension measure, also known as Proposition A. Opponents of the measure included environmental groups that felt the measure did not go far enough to support public transit and several political

22 significantly in their goals and objectives. These practices include signal-timing projects, sidewalk repair programs, enforcement of speeding and crosswalk protection laws, and many other initiatives. These practices present targeted approaches and solutions to specific unsafe locations or conditions. Burlington, Vermont—Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Enhancement Program Burlington, with a population around 42,500, is the largest city in Vermont. The city is on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain and experiences warm, humid summers, mild transitional springs and falls, and cold, snowy winters. Downtown Burlington is built on a relatively flat plane, but the city rises to the east and gives way to rolling and occasionally steep hills to the south and east. The city’s founding predates U.S. independence; however, much of the downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods were developed in the 19th century, when Burlington was a center of trade. During the creation of the 1991 Burlington Municipal Development Plan, cut-through traffic in residential neigh- borhoods was identified as a primary concern of local resi- dents (City of Burlington 2003). That plan included the recommendation that “all efforts should be made to keep through traffic off local streets…traffic calming techniques will help keep [that] traffic off local residential streets…the city can enhance both the safety and quality of residential life on these streets” (City of Burlington 1991). Following this recommendation, the city began a pilot study in 1992 that reviewed practices in other comparable locations and initiated a neighborhood outreach process. That pilot study led to the creation in 1996 of a Traffic Calming and Neigh- borhood Enhancement program that established policy and processes for addressing neighborhood concerns about growing traffic in the community (City of Burlington 2003). The objectives of the program are to (1) contribute to roadway safety, especially for children, by influencing con- flict points, vehicle speeds, and vehicle volumes; (2) improve the physical environment by lowering vehicle-generated noise, pollution, and disruption; (3) create a green and invit- ing streetscape; (4) promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents on neighbor- hood streets; and (5) encourage citizen involvement in all phases of neighborhood traffic-calming activities (City of Burlington 2003). The program has created a framework for neighborhood- driven safety improvements. The process is initiated with a neighborhood petition. The petition provides a description of the perceived problem and must be signed by two-thirds of the residents in the neighborhood—which can consist of a single block or larger area. Once the city’s Department of Public Works (DPW) has received the petition and veri- fied that the application requirements are fulfilled, a small, largely informal public meeting is held with the neighbor- hood residents (City of Burlington 2003). As described in an interview with a DPW planner, this meeting provides a forum for the neighborhood to describe the problem that it would like to have addressed in greater detail. At this meet- ing, the city also provides a detailed explanation of the pro- cess and examples of potential solutions. Following this meeting, the city conducts a small-scale study of the problem described by the community. Frequently, the perceptions of the neighborhood do not exactly match the study findings. For example, speeding is frequently cited as a significant problem. However, after the city conducts a speed study, it is often found that there are few speeding vehicles. The city makes it clear that when this is the case, there are still measures that can be taken—it does not use the data to balk at taking action. The study also develops a measure for determining the project’s impact on adjacent streets and establishes baselines to track those impacts. DPW will then develop an enhancement proposal to meet the community’s needs and address any issues identified in the study. Potential improvements include engineering fixes and other enhancements such as colored pavement, traffic circles, narrow travel lanes, bike lanes, reduced turning radii, and midblock pedestrian crossings (City of Burlington 2003). This proposal is then presented at another neighbor- hood meeting and must receive the support of 60% of the affected residents. If 60% do not approve, DPW will submit a revised proposal within 90 days. If the proposal is still not supported, implementation will not be pursued. If support is expressed, DPW will set an implementation schedule. Instal- lations will remain in place for a minimum of 2 years, at which point the community may request the removal of the enhancement (City of Burlington 2003). The Burlington Police Department employs a traffic safety officer who works with DPW upon request. When speeding is cited as the primary concern submitted by neighborhood enhancement program applicants, DPW will initially reach out to the traffic safety officer, who will then increase attention on the requested area through greater enforcement or other measures. The program is a line item of the city’s Street Capital Budget. Funding for the program has remained stable, and it is relatively inexpensive to administer. The program bud- get covers outreach, studies, and improvements. Often the proposed solutions are inexpensive and relatively small in scope. Most of the initiatives undertaken through the pro- gram cost less than $20,000. Residents often submit requests for traffic calming or neighborhood enhancements on nearby streets. DPW has

23 struggled in these cases over whether these requests should be combined into a broader neighborhood-wide strategy or addressed individually through the defined process. Thus far, the city has decided to treat each street individually. DPW is reevaluating this approach and considering how the program could be amended to best accommodate neighborhood-wide concerns. For more information on Burlington’s Traffic Calm- ing and Neighborhood Enhancement Program, visit http:// www.dpw.ci.burlington.vt.us/transportation/neighborhoods/. Chicago, Illinois—Safe Streets for Chicago Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million people, making it the third largest city in the United States. Located at the southern end of Lake Michigan, the city has cold winters and hot summers. The summer months bring the highest levels of precipitation. Chicago residents enjoy a strong public transit system; approximately 26% of residents use public transit for their daily commute. About 7% of residents bike or walk to work, and nearly 62% commute by car, truck, or van. Chica- go’s topography is quite flat. The city boasts numerous parks, summertime street festivals, and public art installations. A staff member with the Chicago Department of Trans- portation (CDOT) explained in an interview that pedestrian safety is a major concern in Chicago. Based on the city’s high rates of pedestrian fatalities, it was designated as a Focus City within a Focus State by the FHWA safety office. The FHWA safety office directs extra resources to these focus areas to help state and local officials address pedestrian safety issues (Federal Highway Administration 2011). Chi- cago experienced a string of high-profile pedestrian crashes in 2006, further prompting city officials across numerous departments to act to improve the pedestrian environment. During that year, CDOT approached the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to explore ways for the two agencies to collaborate to make Chicago’s streets safer for all users. Initially, establishing a workable framework for collabo- ration between CDOT and CPD was difficult due to limited resources. However, the agencies were able to identify speed control as an area of common focus within their available resource framework. CDOT had identified speeding as a threat to pedestrian safety. At the same time, CPD was in the process of increasing its focus on speed limit enforcement. As part of this effort, CPD had established a Targeted Traffic Team and obtained new speed reduction tools such as light detecting and ranging speed guns. The pragmatic approach of focusing on a common issue was key to the partnership between the two agencies and the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications, which in turn helped build the enforcement component of the Safe Streets for Chicago campaign. The enforcement component of Safe Streets for Chicago marked a new era of collaboration between CDOT and CPD; it began a constructive dialogue between the two agencies about the role of enforcement in pedestrian safety. Together, they agreed that tougher enforcement of speed limits, yield- ing laws, and intersection turn regulations could go a long way in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities. CDOT and CPD then worked together to secure funding for police over- time for pedestrian safety enforcement through Section 402 Highway Safety Program grants. To ensure the success of these enforcement efforts, both agencies began to meet regularly with the newly formed Mayor’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The meetings strengthened the collaboration between CDOT and CPD and gave both agencies the opportunity to work with other city agencies, community groups, and stakeholders. Feedback and input from Mayor’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee helped determine the location of enforcement efforts within the city. Safe Streets for Chicago also benefited from unprec- edented cooperation among CDOT, CPD, and the Illinois Department of Transportation on efforts to improve the qual- ity of crash data. CDOT was able to secure funding from the Illinois Department of Transportation to integrate its crash data reporting systems, allowing CDOT to access high-qual- ity, geocoded data much faster than before. The data will give CDOT a new understanding of road conditions, demo- graphics, and driver behaviors in pedestrian crashes. At the municipal level CDOT and CPD have worked together to improve police crash-reporting practices through an extensive officer education effort. Accurate and consistent crash reports have made local data much more reliable. Both of these data improvement initiatives allow CDOT to better target its enforcement and community education efforts. Safe Streets for Chicago has been well received. Residents are grateful that action is being taken to improve pedes- trian safety, and officers report being personally thanked by pedestrians during crosswalk and speed enforcement duty. CPD has increased citations for driver behaviors that threaten pedestrian safety, and driver behavior appears to be changing. With a recently secured grant, CDOT has begun collecting more comprehensive data to measure changes in driver behavior in response to enforcement efforts through- out the city. Effective communication was described as a key element in the success of the Safe Streets for Chicago enforcement efforts. All of the agencies involved worked to secure staff buy-in for new pedestrian safety–related initiatives. Educat- ing traffic enforcement officers about the goals of Safe Streets for Chicago to ensure that they were effective ambassadors in the community was another key element. In the public realm, the mayor’s office provided political support to increase Safe Streets for Chicago’s visibility among residents. This public-

24 ity, coupled with the officers’ adoption of the ambassador role, increased public awareness of the issue of pedestrian safety and improved the results of CPD enforcement efforts. The overall positive community feedback for the program has led to the steady institutionalization of successful Safe Streets for Chicago efforts and processes. There were several significant challenges in implement- ing Safe Streets for Chicago. In some cases, limited resources hampered CDOT and CPD’s collaboration efforts. Grant funding has alleviated some these difficulties, but CPD must continually balance the need for improved pedestrian safety with high-priority crime-fighting efforts. Making pedes- trian safety a higher priority issue proved difficult early in the campaign, and securing staff buy-in for changes required some effort. Public support for Safe Streets for Chicago helped overcome this hurdle, as did CDOT’s commitment to comprehensive officer education. For more information about Safe Streets for Chicago, visit http://www.safestreets- forchicago.org/index.html. Hoboken, New Jersey—Hoboken Daylighting Hoboken is a small, dense, urban city located on the western shore of the Hudson River, across from the island of Man- hattan. The city is approximately 1.3 square miles and has a population of around 50,000. The city’s built environment is conducive to pedestrian activity, with its dense urban form and highly accessible transit system. Most of the city is within walking distance of a bus or train stop. Hoboken is relatively flat, although the level terrain gives way to a steep climb on its western border. The city experiences four distinct seasons, defined by cold winters and hot summers. Hoboken has undertaken multiple projects to improve the pedestrian environment and increase pedestrian safety: a car-share program that maintains cars in highly visible and convenient on-street parking spaces, thus reducing demand for parking; a citizens’ Traffic Calming Toolkit; a revised Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that readjusted fund- ing priorities; a “20 is Plenty” communications campaign intended to encourage drivers to drive 20 mph, rather than the posted 25 mph; and a “Surrender Your Permit” program whereby residents surrender their residential parking per- mits in exchange for benefits that include car-share credits and discounted or free walking and biking accessories (City of Hoboken 2011). Each of the initiatives described above has been imple- mented since 2009, when Mayor Dawn Zimmer came to office and, with a new transportation and parking director, ushered in an era of increased attention to pedestrian issues in Hoboken (City of Hoboken 2011). The transportation and parking director explained in an interview that City Hall repeatedly fielded complaints from residents who described feeling threatened by cars in intersections. In these com- plaints, citizens described conditions where drivers would not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, as required by law. New Jersey state law requires drivers to come to a complete stop and stay stopped while pedestrians are in the crosswalk. State law also prohibits parking within 25 ft of a crosswalk to keep sight lines clear and to enable drivers and walkers to see one another in intersections. However, in Hoboken, where on-street parking is in low supply and high demand, parkers routinely encroach on the 25-ft area, thus making it more difficult to see pedestrians approaching crosswalks. The city considered several approaches to improving the pedestrian environment in crosswalks. It was decided that passive enforcement through design would be advantageous. Although the installation of concrete curb extensions was considered, these plans were quickly scuttled because of cost and design considerations. In Hoboken, as elsewhere, drain- age basins have frequently been installed at intersections, and the location of these basins prevents the construction of curb extensions or makes them extremely costly. As an alternative strategy, the traffic and parking depart- ment developed the practice of “Hoboken Daylighting,” referring to the practice of “daylighting” intersections by clearing the approaches to intersections to improve sight- lines. The city began installing vertical delineators in the 25-ft crosswalk zone. The first delineator is installed 10 ft from the crosswalk and 4 ft from the curb, and a second delineator is installed 20 ft from the crosswalk and 4 ft from the curb. These vertical delineators create a physical barrier that prevents cars from encroaching on the 25-ft zone, thus creating clearer sight lines and improving crosswalk safety. This treatment is inexpensive (approximately $40 of materi- als per installation) and is quick and easy to install. It does not require any special review or amending of any statutes or codes, and it is highly effective. There have been incidents of would-be parkers driving over the delineators, but those occurrences are infrequent. The vertical delineators must be maintained, as snowplows and street cleaners can destroy them. However, placement of the delineators and education of street cleaners and plow operators can help minimize these losses, and the delineators are relatively inexpensive and easy to replace. The low cost of the delineators allows the city to fund the daylight treatments through its opera- tions budget, adding to the nimble nature of the practice. Local residents immediately embraced Hoboken Day- lighting, and the city began receiving requests for additional locations for the treatment as soon as the first locations were installed. Though several residents have voiced frustration at parking spaces being removed, these complaints are quickly neutralized as residents are reminded that these are not legal parking spaces. There has also been limited opposition from some local businesses that have found that the removal of these spaces prevents customers from being able to idle in these spaces as they quickly patronize the businesses. Some

25 business owners have gone so far as to remove the delinea- tors. Other complaints have focused on the aesthetic quality of the delineators. The city has chosen construction-orange delineators with reflective tape bands. The city is consider- ing testing white columns to address these concerns. The city now uses a two-pronged approach for selecting intersections to receive the Hoboken Daylighting treatment. First, the city accepts requests from the public. These can be submitted by phone or e-mail, or in person at City Hall. Sec- ond, the city has been reviewing crash data available through a state-funded, geographic information system (GIS)-based crash data management tool called Plan4Safety. The tool allows users to explore historical crashes by different crite- ria, including whether a pedestrian was involved, and review the police-generated crash report. The city has used this tool to identify the most dangerous intersections for pedestrians. Though the city and the general public consider Hoboken Daylighting to be a success, there are too few pedestrian crashes to be able to perform any meaningful evaluation of whether safety has improved at any given intersection. For more information on Hoboken Daylighting, visit http:// www.hobokennj.org/departments/transportation-parking/. New York City, New York—Enforcement Component of the Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan Rather than repeat the elements relative to operations, main- tenance, and enforcement here, see the New York City, New York, case study in chapter three. EFFICACY In discussing the effectiveness of the practice types described earlier, it must be noted that these practices are highly con- textual. They were developed to match specific institutional, legal, and environmental frameworks. All of the practices above have been described as successful by those involved in the practices and other sources. However, the approach taken in one location may not be effective in another. Evaluating the objective effectiveness of these practices is hampered by several significant factors. First, the avail- ability of data presents a challenge. The U.S. Census Journey to Work data offer the most reliable information regarding how people travel to work. However, these data only cap- ture work trips, meaning that they do not capture nonwork activity or individuals outside the labor market, including youth and the aging. Additionally, data regarding pedestrian crashes are inconsistently kept and maintained and for many locations, difficult to access. Second, a great many of the practices included above have been implemented within the past decade. Many of these practices are also reliant on development to affect their desired impact. For example, for any architectural design guideline or developer impact fee to be effective, buildings must be built. There has been a precipitous decline in the amount of development activity nationwide leading up to, throughout, and following the economic recession of 2007– 2009. In some of the practices discussed here, actual change in the pedestrian environment has been slow to come. How- ever, in these cases, those involved in the implementation of the practice believe that a framework is in place that will result in an improved pedestrian environment once develop- ment activity returns. That said, several recurring and commonsense themes relating to the effectiveness of practices have emerged. Architectural and urban design guidelines can be particu- larly effective if formally adopted as mandatory require- ments or if the lead agency policy requires the incorporation of the guidelines into its designs or contracting language. This rule applies for right-of-way guidelines as well, with the caveat that they are subject to greater scrutiny and dis- cretionary authority at higher levels of government. This factor can require more deliberate or negotiated implemen- tation of local right-of-way engineering and design guide- lines. Planning and land development regulations can be effective when accompanied by substantial support from the local community, expressed either by the community itself or through elected local officials. A wide range of financ- ing mechanisms can successfully fund pedestrian projects, and many of the practices described above benefited from creative implementation of available mechanisms. Opera- tions, maintenance, and enforcement measures have dem- onstrated success with ample community outreach and collaboration between relevant agencies, including engi- neering and police departments.