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.

49 CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES project is proposed at their doorstep. Chapters two and three discuss a number of strategies employed by implementing agencies. Most of these strategies focus on some form of community outreach. In the cases of Boston’s Complete Streets Guidelines and Burlington’s Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Enhancement Program, the practice requires the expressed support of the community or the strategy will not be employed. In both cases, the implementing agency found that a community champion could be invaluable in building support among neighbors. Opposition from developers was a commonly cited chal- lenge. In Miami, where developers and real estate attorneys mounted opposition to the implementation of Miami 21, the Planning Department formed strategic partnerships with neighborhoods groups and homeowners’ associations. When Salisbury, North Carolina, began requiring sidewalks for all development, developer opposition threatened to derail the initiative. By compromising with the implementation of an In Lieu Fee program that allows for discounts, the city was able to get the necessary buy-in from developers, and the practice has been a success. Interjurisdictional and partnering entities also present external challenges. The complex nature of the pedestrian environment often necessitates cooperation and collabo- ration among agencies of various functions. Additionally, local communities are often heavily reliant on funding and bound to the standards of other levels of government. Barri- ers arise when the necessary bodies do not all share the same vision for the pedestrian environment or the role of walk- ing in the transportation system. Several approaches have demonstrated success. In Boston, the strong support of the mayor brought the partnering agencies to the table to assist in developing the Complete Streets Guidelines. Minneapolis is actively engaged in discussion with the state in pursuit of greater flexibility in state-applied roadway standards. Partnering agencies may lack precedent for active col- laboration in the necessary ways. Again, political support has been key in urging agencies to cooperate. In Los Ange- les, various agencies were brought together by a mutual understanding that each participating agency would “get something” out of the process in developing the Downtown Design Guide. This proved a successful approach. This chapter explores the recurring themes and issues uncov- ered in conducting this research. It draws from available lit- erature and refers specifically to the practices discussed in chapters two and three. It explores critical barriers to the implementation of successful practices and potential strate- gies for addressing those barriers. Recognizing that various practices may have greater suc- cess or applicability under various contextual settings, this chapter includes a discussion of how different practices have been used in various developmental settings, including new and infill development as well as street reconstruction and retrofitting. It also discusses variation of practices based on place type, and how large and small communities adapt these practices to match their differing needs. CHALLENGES The challenges and barriers to implementation of practices that support safe pedestrian environments are many and diverse. A substantial portion of the transportation profes- sionals interviewed for this research consistently raised sev- eral issues. For the purposes of this discussion, those issues are grouped here into three broad categories: (1) external challenges, (2) internal challenges, and (3) logistical or prac- tical challenges. External Challenges The success of many of the practices included in this report is predicated on buy-in or acceptance of the practice from multiple players, especially the general public and elected officials. Elected officials typically have the ability to apply pressure on municipal staff to change practices they do not support. The general public can to do the same by applying pressure on elected officials. It is therefore important to that these practices garner public support. Often opposition from the general public is not seen on the policy level but rather in response to specific projects. This can occasionally occur because of the public’s lack of understanding regarding the physical manifestation of a safety policy or because many members of the public do not pay close attention to municipal planning processes until a

50 Internal Opposition Many of the practices included in this report represent sig- nificant policy shifts for the lead agency or community or are simply innovative methods. In the broader field, many plan- ners and engineers were trained in an era when automobile- oriented policies were dominant, and many agencies have been guided by automobile-oriented policies for decades. Accommodation of multimodal approaches requires not only new skills, but also the ability to approach the profes- sion with a new worldview. Implementing these practices requires adaptive staff. Internal adoption, or institutionaliza- tion of new practices, was described as a common challenge. Often, this challenge was due to staff being acculturated to working a certain way. As seen in Ann Arbor, strong politi- cal and agency leadership helped to bring staff on board. Internal adoption was further supported there when staff saw that the new methods were successful. Other agencies, including New York City DOT with its Street Design Manual, Minneapolis Department of Public Works with its Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks, and San Diego’s SANDAG with its revision of TransNet pedestrian project evaluation criteria have implemented procedural processes that require staff to demonstrate that they have consulted and or adhered to the new practice. This requirement assisted in institutionalizing the new practice. Institutionalization of pedestrian-friendly practices was also seen in locations where overwhelming support from the top helped to change the culture of the agency, as seen in Bos- ton’s Transportation Department and in Ann Arbor. Logistical Difficulties A number of recurring challenges are not unique to pedes- trian safety practices but are representative of general logistic or practical issues. For instance, in several cases, high-level participation among partnering agencies was cited as a key to success. However, in many of these cases, it was also noted that high-level participation made scheduling meetings exceedingly difficult and in some cases slowed the development of the practice. The fact that many of the practices described here are innovative posed a challenge, in that there was no road map for success. Many of those who undertook these initiatives had to chart the path forward and navigate new or previously unexplored bureaucracies and procedures. New York City DOT’s Plaza Program has forged a slow and deliberate pro- cess that is ultimately successful but required considerable thought about procedures at every step of implementation. Robust data on pedestrians, pedestrian behavior, the pedestrian environment, and pedestrian crashes are incon- sistently collected and maintained, and that has posed a challenge for pedestrian safety practices. In downtown Los Angeles, prior to the development of the Downtown Design Guide, the city lacked comprehensive data on the city’s right- of-way. Without that information, the guide would have been of little value, so the consultant recruited university students and collected the data. Local police departments most commonly record pedes- trian crash data. There is great variation in the quality and consistency of those data. State DOTs often serve as ware- houses for the pedestrian crash data, but again, there is wide variation in how the data are kept and made available. The Chicago DOT has taken an active approach to collaborat- ing with the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois Department of Transportation to improve the quality and consistency of pedestrian crash data. For New York City’s Pedestrian Safety Study, the DOT stitched together a patch- work of data sources to fill gaps in what was available from state and local sources. Similarly, there is a general lack of tracking of performance measures prior to and following pedestrian improvements. The examples of New York City and Chicago as well as Los Angeles, Hoboken, and others underscore the tremendous value of good data and demon- strate how quality information can be used to establish effec- tive policies and practices. KEYS TO SUCCESS Many of the keys to success that professionals have cited involved in the implementation of these practices are, in fact, the solutions to the challenges described above. Common elements included high-level support or guidance from poli- ticians or agency leaders, and from the general public. This support and guidance takes many forms, discussed below. Another class of successful elements can be described as an overall pragmatic or practical approach. Designing and planning safe pedestrian environments is frequently a small subset of activities undertaken by an agency or a small part of what several agencies do collectively. Combined with the fact that many of these pedestrian safety practices are rela- tively new and represent a shift in policy, the development of these practices often benefits from a practical assessment of and adaptation to the existing framework or context. This approach manifests itself in creative funding schemes, unique collaborations, and other examples of professionals devising solutions within their parameters. Support from the Top and Policy Guidance Often, the practices included in this report were enabled by significant support of high-ranking leadership. In sev- eral cases, this support came from the mayor or a coun- cil member. In other cases, it came from agency leaders. In many cases, the development of these practices was directed by broad policy guidance endorsed by these polit- ical and civil leaders.

51 As discussed in chapter three, policy guidance can play a significant role in the development of pedestrian safety-ori- ented practices. In New York City, PlaNYC 2030 provided the impetus for several of the significant successes described there. The Transportation Action Plan and Access Minne- apolis served similar roles in Charlotte and Minneapolis, as did Olympia’s Transportation Mobility Strategy. Support from political leadership can also come in the form of explicit expressed endorsement of pedestrian- friendly practices. Boston’s Mayor Thomas Menino publicly adopted Complete Streets principles as one of his signature issues. This support has been instrumental in enabling inter- agency cooperation and facilitating the pedestrian-oriented practices in that city. Similarly, Miami 21, which required significant cooperation and collaboration among city agen- cies, was facilitated by the strong support of then Mayor Manny Diaz. The mayor had made the initiative a key agenda item and helped push the process forward. In other cases, bold agency leadership played a vital role. This can be seen in New York City, where the DOT commissioner, in service to the mayor and under the direc- tion of PlaNYC 2030, has directed a significant shift in policy that has given much greater emphasis to pedestri- ans. This is also evident in Ann Arbor, which created a new transportation program manager position with the sole responsibility of overseeing nonmotorized transportation activities. In Hoboken, the Transportation and Parking director has undertaken several pedestrian-oriented pro- grams and activities that have demonstrated great creativ- ity and innovation. Community Support Community support can play an important role in the suc- cess of practices that support the creation of safe pedestrian environments. In several of the communities included in this report, the “spirit of the community” was cited as not just a key to success but also a driving force behind these practices. In Ann Arbor, the community places great value on walkability and demands that the government provide transportation options. In Olympia, the measure for funding sidewalks and parks was a bottom-up, grassroots commu- nity-driven initiative. In communities where residents are not overwhelm- ingly in favor of these practices, several professionals cited community champions as the key to implementation. In Boston, where the implementation of the Complete Streets Guidelines requires the support of the local community, the Transportation Department has found that residents might be skeptical or distrustful when the department explains the benefits of the Complete Streets approach, but when the same arguments are made by a fellow community member, they are more persuasive. Burlington built its Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Enhancement Program around the concept of community- driven sponsorship. A community champion, who in turn takes responsibility for gaining or establishing the support of their neighbors, must spearhead requests for improvements through this program. This approach is also seen in Charlotte’s Sidewalk Retrofit Policy and New York City’s Plaza Program. Pragmatism and Practical Approaches The success of the practices included in this report has largely been driven by the ability of those involved in the development and implementation of the practices to make accurate and clear assessment of the institutional, political, or financial framework at play and adopt a practical approach that fits within that framework. In a variety of practices, getting the right players around the table was noted as a significant element of success. Often, this meant forging new relationships, new avenues of com- munication, and new kinds of collaboration between agen- cies. For right-of-way engineering and geometric design guidelines and architectural and urban design guidelines, collaboration between various agencies with expertise in different fields was described as critical for almost every practice. That collaboration was enabled through the persua- sion of political or agency leaders, or in some cases because the leaders at relevant partnering agencies shared philoso- phies and the desire to collaborate. In Los Angeles, collabo- ration on the Downtown Urban Design Guide was partially encouraged by creating the right incentives. Each of the par- ticipating agencies knew that it was going to receive a useful product out of the process. Often, agency collaboration benefited from high-level participation. The development of practices such as New York City’s Active Design Guidelines and Street Design Manual represented significant changes in thinking for the agencies involved, and high-level participation indicated to agency staff that these shifts had the full backing of agency leadership. However, also in New York City, the collabora- tion between the Police Department and DOT was deemed most appropriate at the operations level, as it makes the collaboration more nimble, easier to coordinate, and more direct (i.e., the individuals at each agency with firsthand knowledge are able to converse). In several instances, product testing and refinement through the implementation of draft guidelines was cited as a strength of the overall implementation process. In Boston, the Transportation Department’s adoption of the Complete Streets Guidelines helped the agency refine the guidelines but also helped to introduce Complete Streets concepts to contractors and other stakeholders. Similarly, implementation of draft elements of Los Angeles’s Down- town Design Guide was cited as essential to creating a

52 strong, workable document that had buy-in from necessary agencies and stakeholders. For several practices, notably the Clifton Corridor Urban Design Guidelines and Miami 21, the selection of a consul- tant played a vital role. The Clifton Corridor consultant, who was not from the area, was able to negotiate difficult stake- holder relationships where a local player might not have had the same success. For Miami 21, the lead consultant brought “star power” and fostered media and public attention that helped the process move forward with increased energy. These pragmatic and practical approaches can be seen throughout the practices in this report: in Olympia’s creative use of impact fee funding for pedestrian projects, in Chica- go’s approach to improving pedestrian crash data, and in New York City DOT’s experimentation with new Master Conces- sion Agreements for its NYC Plaza Program. The success of these pedestrian safety-related practices hinges on the ability of those involved to adapt to their given framework. CONTEXTUAL VARIATION Virtually all of the practices discussed in this report required adaptation and pragmatic structuring to meet the needs of the local context. Many of these practices have application in varying contexts, but the particular details and aspects of the practices must be adjusted to suit the setting. Exploring these practices in terms of particular development contexts sheds light on the specific approaches that have been successful in these settings. New Development For the purposes of this report, new development is defined as any greenfield development that includes new roads, infra- structure, or transportation facilities. The term also applies to significant redevelopment projects that might benefit from a “clean slate” environment. Communities have perhaps the greatest ability to create safe pedestrian environments by adopting policies and practices that support these environ- ments before land is developed. Both population density and density of land uses are correlated to increased pedestrian activity, and pedestrian safety practices targeted for new development often do well to focus on those aspects. Land development regulation is the most powerful tool regarding new development. Several communities, includ- ing Charlotte and Olympia, have demonstrated the significant challenge of trying to improve the pedestrian environment in sparse, poorly connected environments. In both communities, which are representative of a great many communities across the country, significant efforts have resulted in modest gains. Land development and land use regulation upfront can help communities avoid costly and difficult solutions in the future. Boise illustrates how a community can include connec- tivity and pedestrian accommodation requirements in its subdivision and/or zoning requirements, thus ensuring a well-connected built form that enables pedestrian access. Infill Development “Infill development” in this report refers to development or street construction projects that are undertaken in built-up contexts wherein the new project is bound by existing infra- structure or development. Infill development offers a com- munity several opportunities for improving the pedestrian realm. By increasing density, infill developments can natu- rally improve the convenience and accessibility of walking. Greater densities also enable pedestrian-supportive services such as transit. Additionally, as seen in this report, commu- nities can implement practices that further capitalize on that development and induce specific pedestrian improvements. Arlington, Virginia’s form-based code for Columbia Pike has incentivized infill development, resulting in the con- struction of more than 1,000 new housing units and office and retail development, all while requiring various pedes- trian-supportive elements. However, this large-scale infill development effort has required considerable coordination, as property lines and right-of-way measurements vary on a lot-by-lot basis. In the case of Salisbury, North Carolina, any infill devel- opment on a parcel that does not currently feature a sidewalk must include a sidewalk on that lot frontage or pay an In Lieu Fee that is deposited in the city’s sidewalk fund. The city’s pedestrian realm benefits on several fronts: It gains sidewalk segments that are then factored into the city’s Sidewalk Pri- ority Index when evaluating where to invest in sidewalks, or it gains funding for priority sidewalk projects, and it benefits from infill development, which can contribute to a more con- venient walking environment. During the implementation of Project 180, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, found that construction contractors had little experience with infill development because the vast majority of development in the area occurs on the outer fringes of the city. Both street construction crews and build- ing development contractors needed special training by the city to prepare them for safety and logistical practices such as closing sidewalks when construction is occurring above and traffic management plans. Street Reconstruction This report defines “street reconstruction” as reconstruc- tion of existing streets on a scale that could or does include new designs or plans. Street reconstruction does not include street maintenance or resurfacing. Street reconstruction projects offer significant opportunity for communities to

53 update their modal priorities and elevate the role of pedestri- ans in street design. To accomplish this, several of the com- munities in this report produced innovative engineering and design manuals. In both Minneapolis and Charlotte, new design manuals not only offer new designs but also entirely new approaches and processes for undertaking street design and construction. These communities have found great success in approaches that require designers and engineers to think broadly about the role of streets, as opposed to thinking primarily of vehi- cle throughput. In Boston, the Complete Streets Guidelines demonstrate how new guidelines need not necessarily rely on formal adoption to foster successful change. The Boston Transpor- tation Department began implementing elements of those guidelines as they were being developed to see on-the- ground results and fine-tune the developed product. As the implementing agency, the department had the authority to simply include language in its contracts that required the inclusion of pedestrian-friendly elements in street recon- struction projects. This experimentation not only resulted in a strong product, but also enabled the department to point to these successes as it pursued Complete Streets designs in communities that were unaccustomed to such designs. Retrofit Practices In this report, “retrofit practices” refers to policies or prac- tices that aim to improve existing infrastructure while work- ing within existing conditions. Retrofit practices can include the building new sidewalks on existing roads, restriping road surfaces to create narrower lanes and new bicycle facilities, and other projects. Some communities have used retrofit practices as temporary stopgaps to provide short-term relief while long-term permanent solutions are planned or until funding becomes available. As much of the built environment in communities across the country was designed and built without pedestrians in mind, retrofit practices are essential for converting these environments into ones that can support and sustain safe pedestrian activity. Many of the practices in this report have retrofit applications, and several are specifically targeted for that purpose. New York City’s Plaza Program offers a model of the sig- nificant reimagining and repurposing of public streets that is possible. The program converts unsafe or underutilized spaces dominated by cars into public spaces actively used by people. The program also demonstrates that these immense retrofit changes can be accomplished for relatively little money. In this case, the retrofit can be a quick, temporary solution while more long-term permanent plans are devel- oped and funding is secured. Hoboken Daylighting offers another fine example of a retrofit that can be accomplished quickly and cheaply, while making safety gains and improving the comfort of pedestri- ans. By using inexpensive vertical delineators to keep the areas close to crosswalks clear, the city not only opens sight- lines and improves safety but also makes a statement about the relative importance of pedestrian safety and the needs of parkers, and demonstrates how creative and pragmatic approaches can produce significant results. Burlington, Vermont’s Traffic Calming and Neighbor- hood Enhancement Program provides an example of a city’s willingness and ability to listen to residents and adapt the built environment for the benefit of pedestrian safety. Through its community-driven approach, the city is able to learn from its citizens, provide education on potential solu- tions, and implement retrofit applications that suit the com- munity’s needs. The Charlotte DOT’s Sidewalk Retrofit Policy pro- vides a framework for fairly and equitably filling gaps in the pedestrian network. By utilizing an objective priori- tization scheme, the agency is able to defend its priorities and continue improving pedestrian safety. By providing an avenue for communities to request and support additional sidewalks, the city avoids spending its resources in locations where sidewalks are not wanted and are of low priority. Place Types The practices discussed in this report generally have applica- tions in multiple settings. However, each must be tailored to match the specific implementation context. Communities of varying sizes face different needs and different challenges. In large communities, additional challenges may be intro- duced through the logistical difficulties of large bureaucra- cies. For example, some of the challenges described above under logistical challenges, such as coordinating schedules between high-level agency staff, were particularly prevalent in large communities where agencies may have offices scat- tered throughout a city and include thousands of employees. In several of the smaller communities interviewed for this research, professionals described being able to walk down the hall and engage staff at in a partnering department. Similarly, the needs of less dense communities dif- fer. Whereas Hoboken is a relatively small city, its density prompts the need for Hoboken Daylighting. Such a practice may not have role in a larger but less dense community. However, several types of practices were cited as hav- ing almost universal benefit. Pedestrian-friendly engineer- ing and design guidelines were cited as having great value in every context. Similarly architectural and urban design guidelines were thought to be of high value in many settings.